/p/

213KiB, 407x343, Captura de pantalla 2025-06-23 173024.png

photography

Anonymous Mon 23 Jun 2025 20:31:39 No.4439107 View View Reply Last 50 Original Report

Quoted By:

Hey anons,
I got a Canon R50 (mirrorless, interchangeable 18-45mm lens) and I’m wondering what you’d recommend adding to make the setup more versatile. Also, if you have any useful settings tips or tricks to get the most out of it, I’d really appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.

59 posts and 5 images omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 21:30:46 No.4440447 Report

Quoted By: >>4440448

>>4439177
If you "need a zoom" you're doing it wrong. I'd agree more with "Need zooms."
If you "need a zoom" you're probably talking about a 24-70-ish equivalent, which is the most fucking useless zoom out there.
Not wide enough for proper perspective distortion, not long enough for proper compression. Almost anything you can do with a 24-70 you can do with a 35mm or 50mm.
Real set-up isn't a 24-70mm, it's a 14-24, a 35 or 50, and a 70-200. And I personally replace the 14-24 with just a 20mm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 21:40:47 No.4440448 Report

Quoted By: >>4440459 >>4440465

>>4440447
Nah, everyone needs a zoom. Not a "pro zoom" (not that i'd ever call a wedding photographer a real professional). A small standard zoom like the kit lens. Sometimes you just want to live life first, and "be a photographer" (larp with primes and tripods) second, take photos to make memories instead of to "focus on the art" (it's not art and it will only start being art when you stop pretending it is).

cANON

cANON Thu 26 Jun 2025 22:19:45 No.4440459 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440448
>(larp with primes and tripods)
A fast prime means you don't have to play with tripods.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 22:39:18 No.4440465 Report

Quoted By: >>4440467

>>4440448
Even the 24-70 is shitty for a casual zoom.
Compact super zooms are much better for that. A super zoom is a nice lens for a photographer to have for exactly the reasons you said. The 24-70 doesn't qualify here because even for "living first" the 50mm does just as well, if not better because it's often smaller/lighter, and it's going to work better in poorly lit environments.
I'm on Pentax these days, so my typical casual outing where I care about photography (e.g. travel), I bring my APS-C KP or KF, 18-135mm, with 15mm, and 31mm in the bag. I wish Pentax made a small, lightweight 12-13mm-ish prime in their limited series which I'd rather bring instead of the 15mm.
If I bring my FF K1ii, 18-135mm or 28-105mm, my 21mm and my 43mm. Perfect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 22:51:00 No.4440467 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440465
In relevance to OP, the Sigma 16-300mm or Canon 18-150mm would be good (only native) choices in the super zoom category.
One of those + a 30mm lens and the 10-18mm would cover OP"s bases quite well.

1MiB, 1500x1000, _MG_6939.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

/rpt/ - Recent Photo Thread

Anonymous Sat 21 Jun 2025 09:16:10 No.4438315 View View Reply Last 50 Original Report

Quoted By:

Nightcrawler Rockwell edition

201 posts and 150 images omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 09:58:32 No.4440289 Report

Quoted By: >>4440395 >>4440410

>>4438648
God dammit I wish I'd spent the past 3 months working out. Going on a summer holiday soon and I am way outta shape.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 17:07:30 No.4440382 Report

Quoted By: >>4440385

>>4440258
Are there good and bad CPLs such that I should do a bunch of homework before buying one for my lenses?

Clueless Faggot !LUYtbm.JAw

Clueless Faggot !LUYtbm.JAw Thu 26 Jun 2025 17:24:26 No.4440385 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440382
Cheap shit CPLs will make a smeary mess of basically any lens that isn't a wide angle (and even then it won't be the best). Don't buy the $5 amazon CPL for instance. I find the X-series (not the K-series) K&F filters are practically free of any IQ robbing bullshit and they're like $30-40 USD. Colour casts are inevitable, and different brands have stronger or weaker effects, but generally anything within $40-150 should perform rather similarly. There are also versions that claim higher transmittance that'll cost you extra but that's not super necessary.

Buy a semi-decent one in a single size that'll fit your largest diameter lens, then buy cheap step-down rings for any other lenses you'd want to use it on. I chose 67mm and it's painless and inexpensive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 17:56:21 No.4440395 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440289
I hope I inspired you so you can find your own big booty latina gf

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 18:23:27 No.4440410 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440289
Never too late to start, I'm only 5 weeks back in the gym but much better already

36KiB, 400x290, file.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 10:35:39 No.4440298 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4440312 >>4440313

Is the true final endgame of gear just buying a second hand premium camera from 5-10 years ago?
Seems to be the best of everything
You get the function, power, resolution etc of modern tech, but the price is low

4 posts omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 11:37:37 No.4440312 Report

Quoted By: >>4440317 >>4440333

>>4440298
>>4440302
>>4440305
>>4440310
I somewhat agree but doing this with Nikon is just stupid. The autofocus on all of these cameras are dogshit, and the colours very wildly from model to model. If you like shooting film and weird unrealistic colours don't bother you, and you're OK with using manual focus then sure go ahead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 11:40:53 No.4440313 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440298
pic unrelated

Jesus

Jesus Thu 26 Jun 2025 11:52:44 No.4440317 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440312

Nearly all of my lenses are manual focus. But I don't have any issues with the autofocus performance of my D2x and D300s.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 12:23:23 No.4440333 Report

Quoted By: >>4440342

>>4440312
Nikon DSLR AF is excellent for a DSLR. The only thing better is a equivalent Canon.

>>4440302
D500s are expensive as fuck for what you get desu, nearly the same price as a refurb Canon R50.

Now if you were talking about Pentax, early Canon/Nikon mirrorless, or Fuji I'd agree.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 13:15:25 No.4440342 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440333
Literally no one mentioned D500

652KiB, 1000x982, FCotFscWUAgQF4r.png

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 08:22:00 No.4440271 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4440321

all my sisters teenage friends are buying old digital cameras to imitate the 2000s aesthetic in their photos

9 posts omitted

Jesus

Jesus Thu 26 Jun 2025 11:56:23 No.4440318 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440316

You have things (and me) all wrong here.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 12:09:12 No.4440320 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440277
>spending on film
hey esl, we're talking about digital cameras here

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 12:12:15 No.4440321 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440271

Blame modern camera makers, they are the ones failing to market to the younger generation of which none are going to want giant bulky pain in the arse to use $3000 bricks that take 100 megabyte photos which can’t even be used without running into Lightroom and spending 10 minutes fucking around and then having to save to a file size of 1mb to actually put online.
It’s no surprise they want a tiny $100 camera that takes good enough instantly usable photos and actually does fit in your pocket and is decently strong it won’t break if you drop it.
Actually thinking of picking one up myself to be honest, functional aesthetic cheap does the job.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 12:15:31 No.4440325 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440316
Only women and homosexuals shoot film for that reason. I hold no silly notions about film being better or anything like that, I just like collecting and using mechanical cameras. And they only use film, therefore. Luv me griii, luv me rf mount, luv me film, simple as.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 13:11:03 No.4440341 Report

Quoted By:

invite them to dehli i welcome them my friend

258KiB, 1626x1017, 2q2wge0bih8f1.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 22 Jun 2025 18:04:29 No.4438612 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4440243 >>4440337 >>4440339

Why is modern photography soulless?

17 posts omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 06:01:03 No.4440243 Report

Quoted By:

>>4438612
Full highlight recovery, medium contrast, perfect histogram spread, it is the result of mathematically defined distribution of lights, darks, & saturations set in post (even in cam it’s still in post) based on what a single team of programmers decided your shit should look like. Film was engineered too, but depended so much on so many environmental variables it was much more unpredictable, so you get a lot less consistency in film, and in that inconsistency come divergences from realism, and when your eye sees those differences your brain uses it’s imagination to consider different ways to fill in the rest of the information it wants to see, thus engaging the viewer in a more intellectually stimulating and subjective way. The “coldness” (or flatness) of digital imaging is due to its higher accuracy and consistency. The human mind finds mystery compelling, and digital leaves little to no room for mystery. And it’s not just imaging…

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 08:20:32 No.4440270 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440226
>old photos feel like memories
this was my first thought. left photo looks like a moment captured in time, right photo looks like something i could see if i looked outside.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 12:34:26 No.4440335 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440226
I like your explanation the most.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 12:40:00 No.4440337 Report

Quoted By:

>>4438612
Good question

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 12:58:08 No.4440339 Report

Quoted By:

>>4438612
right one looks gay. moms a fox tho

31KiB, 630x420, images(91).jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 04:35:48 No.4440203 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

I want to get an upgrade to my MFT, but I'm torn
On the one hand I love shooting low light so I need a full frame or maybe even APSC, but on the other I hear full frame is only for professionals and amateur hobbyists are fine with any camera
Then I think I shouldn't spend so much on a camera, then another part of me says I work hard and can afford it so why not
How do you solve this quandary bros?

21 posts omitted

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 06:01:41 No.4440244 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440242
>2 dslr megapixels = 1 mirrorless megapixels.
3/10 b8 made me reply

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 06:20:28 No.4440246 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440242
Those options are way too expensive

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 06:28:04 No.4440251 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440211
My full frame struggles @ 3200 cus its old but even that's enough for me to shoot racecars at night. How high to people realistically need to go? Is this a video thing or something? For like 60 years the highest you could get on film was 1600 and even thats plenty imo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 12:13:54 No.4440323 Report

Quoted By: >>4440331

Well now I'm back to where I started, because I looked at my MFT photos and they looked fine. Good size, everything sharp. So now I'm thinking if I even need an upgrade

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 12:21:59 No.4440331 Report

Quoted By:

>>4440323
The black pill is that 90% of shooters haven’t “needed” to upgrade since like 2010. It’s all gas gas gas, the output quality is fine across brands and gear.

2MiB, 4160x3120, 20250610_182811.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 04:20:41 No.4440187 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4440301

The sun in the afternoon

1MiB, 4829x3222, IMG_3393.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Cityscapes, etc.

Anonymous Mon 23 Jun 2025 04:07:51 No.4438826 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By:

13 posts and 12 images omitted

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 04304992~2.jpg, 836KiB, 5472x3648

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 06:32:57 No.4440252 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 04224702~2.jpg, 734KiB, 3648x4310

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 06:34:58 No.4440253 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 04264986~2.jpg, 348KiB, 3364x1999

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 06:38:36 No.4440254 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 04164597.jpg, 4MiB, 5472x3648

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 06:41:01 No.4440256 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 04164582~2.jpg, 1MiB, 5472x3648

Anonymous Thu 26 Jun 2025 06:44:13 No.4440257 Report

Quoted By:

2MiB, 4096x2875, 20250625_134440.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 25 Jun 2025 18:38:10 No.4439948 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4439957 >>4440069

>(I don't actually know if post it on /diy/ or /p/, but anyways)

Here's a photo about two things I did made, a small pink pillow and a bracelet saying "cherries" (because I love cherries)

>but I don't know why when I wanted to take a photo about these two things, the photo doesn't look how I wanted it to look (better/good quality), or something like that. Can someone tell me how to take better photos with better quality?

4MiB, 1514x1514, 3833f7_9e9fc3ed88534fb0b1eae043b3d5906e~mv2.png

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Sun 22 Jun 2025 03:30:50 No.4438472 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4438592 >>4440063

hey /p/, weird question. What's up with the magazine-esque film grain on these types of photos? If I'm shooting film, how do I get this effect?
there's something distinctly "japanese" about these types of photos but I can't put my finger on it. is this just a retarded question or is there something here?

5 posts omitted

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO kot_fuji.jpg, 3MiB, 3377x2540

Anonymous Sun 22 Jun 2025 16:59:26 No.4438589 Report

Quoted By: >>4438592 >>4438598

>>4438584
Those old stocks like Pro 400H are all discontinued now, so it would be impractical to shoot with them.
The sample image you provided to me looks like digital grain. It would be similar to what I would get out of my X100VI with grain set to "Large" and "Strong". picrel

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jun 2025 17:06:01 No.4438592 Report

Quoted By: >>4438598

>>4438472
Its graded to green, but most crucially, ultra soft even lighting, fine digital grain overlay.
>>4438475
>>4438479
>>4438525
>>4438550
>>4438584
>>4438589
You fags suck

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Jun 2025 17:38:22 No.4438598 Report

Quoted By: >>4440065

>>4438589
>>4438592
thanks, so basically just make sure you have super even soft lighting and shoot at super low iso to minimize actual film grain? maybe using a tungsten film stock?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Jun 2025 22:01:33 No.4440063 Report

Quoted By:

>>4438472
the image you have posted has been used in promotion for the clockwork pi since before it existed. it is almost certainly a render, probably this graphic is produced by ray tracing a 3d model. I have seen this sort of processing/effect on a few renders, I would guess that it is a built in filter in a popular software. I have heard it described as high frequency noise

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Jun 2025 22:07:37 No.4440065 Report

Quoted By:

>>4438598
Unless you're shooting slide film the white balance of the film is irrelevant. And unless you have a bunch of colors that are going to shift when grading for green so is the film stock, really. I would just use Portra or something for the tonez.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Threads by latest replies - Page 99

On these archives

Your latest searches

photography

/rpt/ - Recent Photo Thread

/p/

Cityscapes, etc.