Alternate Thread Title: /SQT/ - Because I have a question on my mind but don't want to start a new thread for just it so I'll wait for some other posters to ask their questions then post edition.
Anonymous
why am i so good at photo?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
how to get p gf?
Anonymous
>decide to do a 365 photo project for 2018 >already ran out of ideas
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3214376 Take pictures with no idea behind them.
Embrace the zen. Go for a walk and shoot whatever catches your eye. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking every photo has to be masterpiece. With a 365, you’re gonna have some shitty photos. When you look back, the early ones are going to be particularly shitty even if you do have some fantastic plan for each of them.
Just shoot and have fun and don’t worry about it.
Anonymous
How cold is too cold for a DSLR? I have a D750 I got a little over a month ago. I see that they are rated for 0°C/32°F but would it be fine if I went way below that? I used it on a day that was 15°F and it was fine, but now where I live all week is going to be in the low negatives. would it fine or is it better just to wait for it to warm up outside.
Anonymous
I heard 50mm lens are good for street photos, but that was about full frame. If I want to get same fov on asp-c I want to get 30/35mm lens right? And is it the same for native lenses, i.e. I want to get 35mm fuji lens for fuji mirrorless, or are they readjusted?
Anonymous
>>3214409 Yeah they don’t change the listed focal length for their lenses. You want the 35
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3214376 you dont even have 1 idea?
Anonymous
>>3214405 I think the battery will be the first to have issues. Take it out of the camera and put it in your pocket before you shoot. This will help a lot, it won't cool down all that fast in the camera.
Anonymous
>>3214432 ok, but other than that it should work just fine?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3214409 >If I want to get same fov on asp-c I want to get 30/35mm lens right? Correct.
>And is it the same for native lenses, i.e. I want to get 35mm fuji lens for fuji mirrorless, or are they readjusted? All lenses for interchangeable-lens camera systems are labeled with their actual focal length, not 35mm-equivalents. To do otherwise would be far more confusing than any benefit it might have. So 30/35 or so millimeters on Fuji, too, even though Fuji doesn’t have any full frame bodies.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3214339 Is Logical Cameras still a good resource, or is it too outdated to be useful?
Anonymous
I want to carry my camera around but having it out in plain view ha always bother me.
Anonymous
is the fujifilm x20 worth it :c
Anonymous
Why do DSLRs exist?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3214376 Embrace your OCD.
When you look somewhere and it looks interesting for no particular reason you can put your finger on, don't think you're just being stupid, photograph it.
Anonymous
Is there such a thing as tricolor 35mm cameras?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3214578 >Until the 90s, film was always a son of a bitch to use; of course you needed SLRs. Digital cameras, however, are reliable and easy to use. Why would you need gorillions of different lenses to get the right digital photo? This question suggests that either you're trolling or that you're a super duper beginner at photography. Since I remember asking very similar things when I first started out over a decade ago, I'll take it at face value and assume you're not a troll.
First, different lenses do different things. Telephoto lenses give you a different perspective from normal lenses and from wide lenses and from ultrawide lenses. A fast prime lens that's good in low light won't have the versatility of a normal zoom lens. Special effect lenses like tilt/shifts or petzvals or lensbabies give you entirely different looks than you can get from other lenses. There's no way to make one lens that will cover all of the bases for you if you're a serious photographer. So that answers the "why do you need gorillions of different lenses to get the right digital photo" question.
Second, the fact that you think "being able to use different lenses" is the only reason for using a digital SLR indicates that you don't understand the other big difference between DSLRs and digital point & shoot cameras (and cellphones, etc). I.e., digital SLRs have a muuuuch bigger sensor. Pic related--most compact digital cameras are down at the 1/2.3" size (or 1/2.5"). Cellphones are more like 1/3.2". DSLRs are up at the APS-C or 35mm full frame size. The larger sensor gives you much better low light performance, lets you use focus creatively, gives you more dynamic range, and really just generally gives you much better pictures. Plus, it lets you get close to the same field of view with the old film lenses that you got on film.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3214578 >>3214590 (ctd)
So if you wanted to use your old film lenses on a digital camera--which every photographer with old film lenses did--you'd need to have a digital camera with a sensor of similar size to 35mm film and a compatible lens mount.
Now, if you're asking why they still used the flippy mirror with optical viewfinder instead of just showing what's on the sensor on the LCD, the reasons are historical/technical:
In the relatively-early days of digital cameras, big sensors required way too much power and ran way too hot to run them all the time to get a live view of what's on the sensor in the same way that little compact digitals did. The first DSLRs started coming out around 1999, and they didn't start getting live view until around 2007. Even then, live view destroyed your battery life, and using a rear LCD for a viewfinder most of the time is not ideal from a usability perspective. It wasn't until relatively recently that technology advanced to the point where we can make a usable camera that has its big sensor running all the time, and electronic viewfinders advanced to the point that they're as good as optical viewfinders (and some say they still aren't).
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3214585 >Why are webcams diarrhea when they have an entire computer to take advantage of? Because people don't want to spend real-camera money on a camera that has to stay tethered to their computer.
The reason webcams look like shit is that they have tiny, shitty imaging sensors (see the image I just posted with
>>3214590 ; webcam sensors are so small they don't appear on that chart) and shitty lenses which is how they can hit an under-$100 price point. The sensor in a good digital camera is usually the most expensive single part of it, so a webcam with a good sensor would end up costing as much as a good digital camera. I.e., more like $500+.
Also, even if the processing power of a camera were a significant reason for its image quality (which it isn't, it's almost all about sensor size), webcams can't really make use of the host computer's processing power to improve the image quality. They pretty much just spray a video stream out over USB already processed.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3214540 >is the fujifilm x20 worth it :c Yeah, it's a nice little camera.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3214405 If you happen to magically get hold of an FM2 as a backup, they should reliably operate on exterme temps. (-40C to 50C)
Anonymous
Shot pictures for a local club on New Years and they all turned out great - however the Club highly recommends I put a watermark on my images since they are unwilling to go through all 200+ of them and tag me in (which is what I usually do).
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3214405 >>3214446 Friend of mine and I hiked across lake Baikal in Siberia last winter, temperatures hit -25°C or lower. Neither his D750 nor my Canon 6D experienced problems. We didn't even bother keeping the batteries warm - even though I'd still recommend doing that.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3214800 Watermark. Every decent photographer watermarks their photos when sharing on social media.
Anonymous
Should i get nikon fe or pentax k1000? Help me :(
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3214517 I carry it on with a neck strap and the camera rests on my chest, then I zip a hoodie or a jacket over the camera.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3214411 >>3214452 That makes sense, thanks
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3214988 My snap judgment would be Nikon. Especially since that model Nikon can use both AI and Pre-AI lenses, which means you can get the really old lenses that are super cheap because they can fuck up modern digitals.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Not a question, butt I just wanted to tell you guys that the battery in my Minolta x700 froze last night, but my rapid omega did fine because there are no batteries
Anonymous
Any good 2018 photography challenges?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3215211 Take a picture of your dick on the train every day in 2018
Anonymous
What are the benefits of pancake lenses? What do they excel at and what do they struggle with? Is it worth getting one, and if so, which would be the best for a poor-fag with a canon?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3214339 Canon loses yet again
Anonymous
>>3215324 I guess portability is the main draw. Is portability a concern for you?
Anonymous
>>3215327 Truthfully, no. I don't have a huge amount of equipment and the stuff I do have easily fits into a small bag. I was just curious due to how much I've seen concerning pancake's lately.
Though, I do admit, having a bit less weight when I'm out walking would be nice, I don't suppose it would be worth it considering how much they seem to go for?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3215331 The main/only reason to get a pancake lens is lower size/weight.
> I don't suppose it would be worth it considering how much they seem to go for? That being said, Canon's EF 40/2.8 STM and EF-S 24/2.8 STM are among their cheapest lenses.
Anonymous
>>3215137 I dont know much about fe, is it still working even without the battery? Like k1000
Anonymous
What camera is this? Has some camera nut compiled a list of cameras that appear in films?
Anonymous
Did I make this too blue, I've been staring at it so long it just looks normal
Anonymous
Quoted By:
what is the focal length of our eyes?
Anonymous
>>3215474 It's a little unrealistic but it does look nice.
Anonymous
>>3215487 Cool thanks, I was trying to go for some typical movie in 90s neon tokyo type feel. I don't usually alter my photos aside from noise reduction or making them black and white, but decided to fuck around a bit tonight and can't tell if I have a shit eye for this or not.
Anonymous
>>3215512 >>3215474 These don't look that good. It looks like you fucked around with white balance they don't look natural what so ever
Anonymous
>>3215518 >not that good Just give it to me straight, how shit is it, I can handle it. Like not worth the effort bad? Or on the right track but needs work bad.
>white balance Yeah basically. Like I said I don't really do stuff like this ever, if I don't like a photo I'll either reshoot it until I do or let it gather dust waiting for the day I am better at editing(probably never), which inevitably will be when I'm better at shooting and think its trash.
What specifically doesn't look natural, and what other tools/techniques should I be using to make it so? I don't live anywhere with many fluorescent lights so they look harsh and unnatural to me no matter what.
Anonymous
>>3214339 I am new to this whole post processing thing and suck at it.
Does anyone know of a tutorial that ISN’T a shitty video, but goes through each lightroom slider and explains what they do and how they work?
Have found tons of tutorials, but most of them are to make shitty instagram style photos or other gimmicky effects, I want one that explains lightroom in full.
Anonymous
>>3215527 Did you desaturate this picture? There is almost no color in it. That would explain (to some extent) why the "neon" version looks so washed out and unnatural.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3215421 >I dont know much about fe, is it still working even without the battery? Like k1000 Kinda, but not really. There's one speed on the mode dial that works mechanically as a backup if your battery dies, but it's mostly electronically-controlled shutter.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3215548 Nope, it is unedited apart from the size and some noise, was striking as fuck to me considering it is outside it was nighttime.
In the neon one I was reducing the contrast, some sharpening, and noise reduction at max with the detail at min since I thought it looked softer and flatter. Almost comic booky but not quite. I was intending it to look exaggerated/atmospheric if that is what you meant by unnatural.
I think I only denoised the subway though.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3215536 Lynda.com or KelbyOne. They have dozens of videos that explain Lightroom and how to use it "properly".
Anonymous
Reposting unanswered post from older thread: Is post processing resource intensive? I have an oldish CPU ( 6yo dual core) and edits take forever. My RAM is enough (8gb)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3215669 old quad core and 6gb ram here, some things like loading a bunch of pictures into a stack and autoblending them or using shake reduction are pretty slow, but most things aren't too bad
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3215805 Increase saturation. Crush blacks.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3215669 Post-processing/video rendering is fairly CPU-intensive, so you might want to consider an upgrade if it's a big thing for you. For still photos a 6 year old rig should be no problem.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3215857 because she shoots canon
Anonymous
>>3215857 >>3215896 is this a meme or something?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3215966 look up the post you quoted first
Anonymous
how do i get over taking pictures of people in public? I was taking photos in a laundromat and this old African woman threaten to put a curse on me, been traumatized ever since.
Anonymous
>>3216132 >how do i get over taking pictures of people in public? You don't.
Anonymous
>>3216135 how do you deal with confrontation? tough skin?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3216132 A curse would be pretty cool, I don't see the problem
>>3216140 Yes
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3216140 >how do you deal with confrontation? I don't.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3216132 there was this violin performer who once asked how did he overome stage fright, he answered "i never did. if i eventually do, thats the day is stop performing".
roger waters also said once, when asked about his lyrics writing process "if im not at least a bit embarrassed to show some lyrics i did, i assume theyre bad. there should always be this fear of exposing too much of yourself when you create"
tl;dr art is pain
Anonymous
Quoted By:
why don't cameras save data from the gyroscope for leveling inside them? I feel like this can be really helpful for leveling in post if you need to. like the camera knows that you are off from level by a few degrees, you just put it into post and instantly correct it without any guessing.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3216132 Try to start shooting somewhere where people might expect to be photographed. Political protests/rallies, food and wine festivals, parades, tourist hotspots. Get yourself used to the idea of shooting strangers. Alternate between taking candids and actually approaching people and asking them to pose for you. I'm autistic as fuck and have an intense fear of social interaction of any form. I can't even answer the pizza delivery guy without spilling my spaghetti and stuttering like a retard. But I still manage to go to these events and work up the courage to shoot. The fear never really completely goes away, you just kinda push it to the side and shoot despite of that fear.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3216132 plz be a shitpost
Anonymous
Reposting from the gear thread in case it belongs here instead:
Anonymous
>>3216364 >brings the lens further from the focal point for better broken for people at events assuming you mean bokeh, but that's not what makes bokeh, shooting at a wide aperture does. distance of the lens from the focal plane (focal length) determines the zoom level
Anonymous
>>3216364 You can get the 1.8G used for $400 and under. The 1.8D is not much cheaper and might be slower to AF. You won't need the 1.4.
85mm is one of the great prime lengths for portraits, but
>>3216377 .
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3216534 Right, I was referencing the focal length because it is more difficult to achieve very shallow focus even with the aperture wide open with smaller focal lengths.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3215536 Antony Lombardi on yt, though he talks slowly
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I have a question related to lighting. Today in a stairwell I witnessed some beautiful light that came from direct sun breaking through clouds coming through a single window. It was very soft despite being direct sunlight so I looked closer and it cast a very defined shadow as expected but inside of that shadow there was a deeper, soft shadow. I'm thinking this either came from the larger clouds acting as a far away soft box or could it have been caused from the window? There was also a lot of bounced light from it being a tight indoor space with bright walls. Anyways I'm going to try experimenting with a strobe setup when I have the chance but does it make sense to use a mid distance softbox from the same direction as a further away point light source?
Anonymous
What is the second metal knob on here for? My gfs tripod has a quick release plate that has one of those knobs but all it does is push up one side of her camera and make everything tilted.
Warren !!JDYDmjbSK8K
>>3217464 It's a locating pin. Some cameras (usually video cameras) have a second, non-threaded hole for this pin. It's to prevent rotation. These pins can usually be screwed out and removed.
Anonymous
My grandfather passed down a bunch of film cameras to me that i'm just now getting around to using (Canon A1, AE-1, Olympus, Minoltas, etc.). I'm trying to use the AE-1 with 400ISO film and no matter what, unless i seem to point the lens directly at a fucking light bulb, the light meter says its at risk of underexposure at every shutter speed.
Anonymous
>>3217465 Thanks. Sadly from what I can tell this one can't be removed, it has a spring underneath it but the spring is strong enough to tilt the camera.
Anonymous
>>3217477 take a dremel to it
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3217501 On holiday at the moment so have limited access to tools. Might try pulling it out with some pliers if I can find some.
Anonymous
If I;m going to Tokyo in a few months, would I be better off buying a new canon lens over there or will I not save much?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
guys, what is a mirrorless/DSLR camera that can record video the longest?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
i recently just got my hands on a japan made x700 thats pretty old and dusty and the lens also has a bit of fungus. how can i clean this without damaging anything? i've just been using soft cloth for the outside but i dont know if its safe to use for the mirror or the lens.
Anonymous
I got an XT2, my current version of lightroom doesn't support the raw files. Is it worth upgrading to 6? Did they fix the weird issues lightroom was having with fuji raw files or should I just use something else?
Anonymous
>>3217472 What are you aperture and shutter speed set to?
Anonymous
Alright guys, I'm looking to finally upgrade from the kit Nikon lens.
Anonymous
Where can I buy cheap as fuck 35mm film in the UK?
Anonymous
How can you tell a fisheye lens from a normal wide angle lens? I always assumed that all than lens with curved/orb shaped glass were fisheyes.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3218281 Usually a fisheye will say “fisheye” somewhere on the lens. Alternately, mount it on the camera and see if it looks like a fisheye. The shape of the front element is not a reliable indicator.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218213 Fuji C200 in my tropical country shithole is 4 USD equiv.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218039 Latest version of lightroom still has shit support.
Convert them with iridient then import them into lightroom.
The extra step sucks, but until Fuji puts normal sensors into their cameras we are stuck with it.
Anonymous
Okay guys I'm taking a photography course because I needed to fill an elective and I have to do a photographic narrative, let's just say I fucked up and I have two days to get 10 photos that tell a story. Can I get some ideas of things that would be easy enough to shoot in the allotted time and form some sort of narrative, thanks.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218467 mon-sun
sweepers working at dawn
office workers commuting to work
laborers sweating away
shop clerks dealing with customers
lunch time at cafes
kids getting off school
pensioners drooling away on benches
religious nuts going to church
city going to sleep at night
what's the 10th photo?
do your own fucking homework
Anonymous
Is there any way to know how many stops of light each flash output setting adds? Like if I have a properly exposed photo and add a flash at 1/64 power, will I always have to underexpose the shot by x amount of stops to compensate for the flash at this power output setting? Or will I have to shoot multiple times to figure out the right setting?
Anonymous
I currently only upload to Instagram, but for obvious reasons it’s complete shit for displaying images. I didn’t buy a full frame camera to display badly compressed images on a phone screen.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218560 Are you using a light meter? I don't understand your question.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218467 Recreate any kids story. Goldilocks or something.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218625 That’s what I thought about. Can’t believe I’ll be getting a Yahoo account in this decade. I thought that died over ten years ago.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218091 it happens even at f2.8 and 1/10
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3217472 1. Do you have the ISO set properly on the camera? The AE-1 is too old to automatically set its ISO from the film cartridge.
2. Are you doing this at night indoors? f/2.8, 1/10th, ISO 400 is still going to be under exposed inside without daylight coming in. Does it still read underexposed if you're outside in the daylight?
Anonymous
How do you pirate your Lightrooms fäms? I want something faster than Rawtherapee but I haven't enough shekels to buy
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3218732 shit noise reduction
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
does it make me a pleb if i use an 18-140 lens most of the time and im fine with the results?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218213 Was going to write Poundland but a quick search showed the agfa is now discontinued. Tesco and Asda say no loger available on their websites but my local shops still have it (£8 for 3 Fujifilm 24 exp rolls, not cheap as fuck but still inexpensive).
Your best bet would be visit all the crappy discount stores in your area, the independant ones. They may still have some on the shelves and maybe some boxes in the storeroom. If it's expired ask to see the manager and make him an offer. Be cheeky, he wants rid of it, it's just taking up space. He isn't going to be arsed trying to sell it on ebay, just like that big box of loom bands he still has.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218776 No, but it's probably the Nikon f3.5-5.6 one or some other slow shit so you don't get to have fun and impress normies with your shallow DoF
Anonymous
I'm thinking about getting a panoramic point and shoot, even though I already have a regular point and shoot. Is it worth it, or is this just blind American consumerism?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3218938 >I'm thinking about getting a panoramic point and shoot, even though I already have a regular point and shoot. Is it worth it, or is this just blind American consumerism? "Panoramic" point & shoot cameras literally just crop the edges. Just imagine that the top and bottom of your frame are cropped and shoot with your regular point & shoot.
(On the other hand, your local thrift store should have four or five point & shoots with the panorama "feature" for under five bucks, so might as well pick one up if you see one. Just don't bother spending real money on one)
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3218776 >does it make me a pleb if i use an 18-140 lens most of the time and im fine with the results? If you're fine with the results, don't let /p/ poison your mind about it being bad.
Anonymous
>>3218960 Oh lame, I was hoping it would use more of the film. Thanks for letting me know.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218984 one way of doing real panorama is by shooting 35mm on a medium format camera, with a 6x7 you can get very close to memeblad xpan size.
Anonymous
Can I do a 30 min exposure to eliminate human presence in a busy scene?
Anonymous
>>3219057 They'll all just blur together and if anyone stays still for any appreciable amount of time you'll see them in the shot.
Is this kinda what you're going for minus the doofus?
Anonymous
>>3219064 No. I'm aiming for a completely empty street. Figured such a long enough exposure would blur people enough to the point of transparency.
Is a composite my only option then?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219069 lol just wait for the street to get empty
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218776 it's fine as long as it does the job you want to achieve.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219069 just go to the street very early am or on a non-busy weekend.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3214339 what's the best material for pic related?
how long to estimate it if I took e.g. food stock photos?
How to make it endless/infinity in limited room space?
>not slippery >matte >hardy >easy too clean >not cracked >soft reflected light Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218776 Depending on the design 18-140 is more than good enough IQ for 99% if uses.
You can pretty much ignore anyone who complains about you not using a prime.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Why /p/ is now full of instagramers posting such shit cliches all the time?
Anonymous
>>3219302 Because you're jaded
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219323 it make sense... Maybe I was used to /p/ cliches, and now I just realized other kind of cliches in here that I wasn't used to see
well, at least the board has more photos now
Anonymous
How do you get your photos 'out there' to the general public today? Try to get published by magazines/newspaper? Put out a photobook? Try to get your work exhibited in a local gallery? Surely you can't take thousands of photos and just let them sit there collecting dust in your hard drive. So how do you get your stuff out there for people to see? Is using social media sites like instagram a viable alternative for the old way of doing things?
Anonymous
>>3219437 send them to your aunts on facebook
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219437 >Try to get published by magazines/newspaper? Nobody reads print anymore. So internet for sure only place
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219437 >>3219482 This gets at the deeper questions. Who is your audience? Who are you taking photos for?
Anonymous
Anonymous
WHat camera does pewdiepie use? Canon C300?
https://youtu.be/T5lStQJ5Fr8 Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3219064 No, but you can take multiple images and blend them together to remove all but the architecture/nature.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219597 >>3219600 nope, that's some canon camcorder without a lens mount
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Any anons from berlin? I'm going to visit soon and was wondering if there's any interesting vintage camera shops or flea markets?
Anonymous
I've come to enjoy my manual more than my automatic lens (not that I own that many). I feel stupid to ask but.
Anonymous
Asked in /fgt/ first but got no response: Is a Praktica Super TL1000 a good starter camera?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219821 wrong quote.
>>3219069 you can take several photos and blend them together in post. this is by far the most simple solution
Anonymous
18-55 VR and an 18-105 VR used for a bit less than 100 bucks.
Anonymous
>>3219876 if I'm going to have just one low cost everyday prime lens, I would probably get the 35mm instead of the 50mm. 50 on a dx is kind of hard to use for tight indoor spaces desu.
Anonymous
>>3219867 A digital camera is a good starter camera
Anonymous
>>3219894 Is it really that bad on aps-c? I wanted a 50mm since I figured I'd get something decent to use once I got a FF.
Guess I can always sell the lens later on though, or just keep it on the crop camera. I dunno.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3219903 >Is [50mm] really that bad on aps-c? It’s not ideal, but it’s definitely usable as your main lens. Just don’t expect to be doing any big group shots of your friends or even full-body portraits indoors unless it’s a big room. If you’re outdoors, it’s fine.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3219867 >Is a Praktica Super TL1000 a good starter camera? It’s not the worst, if you’re getting it for free or extremely cheap. It uses m42 lenses, which are a pain, but which are nice if you want to use a mirrorless or Canon later and want to bring your old lenses with you since they’re easy to adapt. You have to do stop-down metering, which is annoying, but which will make you appreciate any other camera you switch to later more.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3219834 >Is taking pictures of moving objects a skill to learn when using manual? Yes.
>Or am I just going to miss a lot of moments (as I do today) Yes.
Like anything, you do it enough and you’ll get better at it. People used to shoot sports and fast moving action in the days of 4x5 press cameras and TLRs, though, so it’s definitely possible to hone the skill if you’re willing to put in the work. But you’re gonna miss a lot of shots while trying to get the that point. If you enjoy it more, though, do it.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3219437 >Surely you can't take thousands of photos and just let them sit there collecting dust in your hard drive. Not with that attitude.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Does anyone know what the "angle of view" is on a D3400? I don't mean when a lens is attached. I mean what is the angle from the corners of the sensor to the edge of the flange mount? I'm trying to calculate a recessed pinhole cap, to increase the angle of view for the photos, but knowing that angle of view between sensor and flange will help me decide how close the pinhole should be to the sensor. Right now, I have the distance that's perfect for the diagonal coverage of the D3400's APS-C sensor; so there's no cutoff (pic). However, at 15mm focal length that means a 76.2° angle of view. If that exceeds the angle of view from the sensor to the mounting flange then there will be vignetting from seeing the flange.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219834 Close the apperture of your 28mm and you some need to bother with focusing :)
Anonymous
got a coupon for 10 free 4x6 prints, don't really care much about having prints that size so i was thinking about doing a 3x3 grid so i'd just have one 12x18 print in 9 pieces and 1 spare 4x6 to do whatever with.
Anonymous
>>3220237 Photoshop has an old tool for this, something to do with the "Save for web feature", can't remember its name though sorry
Anonymous
>>3220237 Try downloading an image joiner or combiner app if you just want to stitch them on your phone. Just save as PNG or JPG at 100% with the same DPI to at least prevent loss in quality.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219896 My bad, I meant for film. I've been shooting digitally for years and wanted to try film.
>>3219915 Thank you for the advice, it's honestly quite cheap and the one I'm looking at in particular has two lenses with it so I'm not too worried about lenses for now. Thank you for the advice.
Anonymous
Why does no one (including phone manufacturers) make a 4-6MP camera that just dominates in low light with a still very usable resolution?
Anonymous
>>3220425 Why would you want one? Why would you deliberately choose fewer megapixels?
Anonymous
>>3220441 Well, if they keep the same size sensor and use 15% of the pixels, we (in theory) get a 4 x bigger pixel size. So you'd likely have hugely better ISO performance, as is my understanding.
Anonymous
>>3220454 Makes sense
Hey have you seen those monochrome digital cameras? They're supposed to have crazy iso performance too
Anonymous
>>3220454 This should have been 25%.
>>3220460 I've seen them but never knew that about ISO. I wonder if it's just because each pixel only needs to pick a shade of back, rather than a specific colour.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3220425 >Why does no one (including phone manufacturers) make a 4-6MP camera that just dominates in low light with a still very usable resolution? There are limits to the “bigger photo sites -> lower noise” rule of thumb. After a certain point, you get diminishing returns. And in a lot of cases, downsampling the higher-res shot gives you about the same noise performance as if the sensor wasn’t just that lower resolution.
There actually is at least one camera line that does that though: the Sony A7s line. 12 megapickels instead of the 24 of the regular A7 for crazy low-light ability. Except if you downsample the 24MP to 12MP, noise is about the same. Like, I think the A7s has a slight advantage, but not enough of one to really justify losing half of your resolution in all of the situations where you’re not shooting at iso 25600+.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3220476 >[high ISO performance in dedicated monochrome sensors] >I wonder if it's just because each pixel only needs to pick a shade of back, rather than a specific colour. Yep. In regular sensors, each photosite has either a red, a green, or a blue filter over it to block out the rest of the colors of light. No color filter array means each photosite is getting potentially three times as much light.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220549 >Except if you downsample the 24MP to 12MP, noise is about the same. Like, I think the A7s has a slight advantage, but not enough of one to really justify losing half of your resolution in all of the situations where you’re not shooting at iso 25600+. Not quite true. The a7sii beats the shit out of the a7ii.
The a7rii down sampled, however, is a different story. But that is mainly due to the more advanced sensor in the a7rii.
Anonymous
>>3217754 defiently go to tokyo to get it! The giant shopping center next to akihabara station has an entire floor for cameras!!! I've never seen more camera gear in my life. No Aus tax in japan :D
Also you can claim the GST back at the airport when you leave! even cheaper.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218182 When I upgraded I went for a 18-250 lens, it wasnt exactly sharp but it really helped me find my niche in photography. Since then i've upgraded to a really nice lens.
If you don't know what you wanna shoot in the future why not give it a try?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218039 You can also try Darktable, its a free LR ripoff that supports fujis better than LR
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3218718 Theres a guide somewhere on torrent subreddit
Anonymous
>>3220276 >>3220285 thanks for suggestions, but i was talking about the actual physical prints. like what would be the best way to stick them all together so they're not just sitting next to each other sliding around in the frame. or is that generally not a problem if you get a decent frame that applies enough pressure for that not to be an issue?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
i suck dicks that really makes me gay?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3220882 Just stick a little bit of scotch tape on the back
Anonymous
if i use a big lens will girls think i have a small dong?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220903 if you have to ask then yes, everyone thinks your penis is small
Anonymous
Do you agree with the following statement by Lord Rockwell?>For serious macro shooting, you need a much longer lens, at least 100mm and preferably 200mm, so that you can make close-up photos from at least a foot or two away. With any 40mm to 60mm macro lens, by the time you get close enough for serious macro work, you're so close that you block your own light, annoy the subject, and the picture looks funny because of the unnatural perspective from being too darn close. >For instance, the Nikon 55mm f/2.8 (both auto and manual focus versions) is arguably the sharpest lens in photography, but it's a poor choice serious macro use because it's too short and you have to get uncomfortably close.
Anonymous
>>3220948 >Lord Rockwell Seems perfectly reasonable.
>And do do i buy a vintage 55mm F3.5 Nikkor If you don't mind the subject being approximately 110mm from the centre of the lens housing (not the front element) then yes.
The rule of thumb for optics is that the focal length stated is the lens focused at infinity. For 1:1 macro the distance between the object and focal plane is equal, this is x2 the focal length. When the distance to the object becomes smaller than x2 and the distance to the focal plane becomes greater then this is microscopy.
All depends on what you're shooting really.
Anonymous
>>3220961 >All depends on what you're shooting really. I'm a pretty flowers guy desu
Anonymous
Why do prints from digital photos look...weird? There's something about the color I can't quite put my finger on that I don't like, and I used to operate equipment for that.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3220997 Probably just in your head.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220997 They are not light up with bright light from within like they are on any screen.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220997 Tiny dicked color space and tonal density, they look the same as printing a video game capture, dont they?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220963 >flowers
Get some extension tubes desu.
My friend had some jasmin blooms and I nearly fucked them up by touching them. The scent was amazing though.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I'm going to begin producing softcore fetish adult content soon, and am drafting a 2257-compliant model release form.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220961 >microscopy Normal is 1:11 and up.
Close-up is 1:10 to 1:2
Macro is 1:1 to 24:1
Micro is 25:1 and down.
Scanning electron is like 500k:1
You can use a Close-up macro lens on your lens's filter threads to get 1:1. Or just use an extension tube or bellows.
>>3220948 It really depends on what you are shooting and how you are lighting it. I use my 70-300mm with macro tubes so I can get photos of stuff that gets scared off normally. I use my 18-55mm for close-up and macro. I use both of those lenses together for micro. I have to get really close with the 18-55mm and use tons of extra light with longer exposures. A ring light is great for that, but I can actually get so close to the subject that is inside the ring light.
There are tons of vintage lenses around 200mm macro, zoom, and macro-zoom you can get for really cheap and use them well for macro. You can add tubes, reverse rings, coupler rings, bellows, and stuff to them all you want for all manner of subjects and lighting.
Anonymous
how do I get this medium format tonality in my digital images. I know these are from an RZ67 with Ektachrome and there's no blown whites. Whenever I try to expose for the highlights with digital to prevent any clipping the shadows lose the tonality/punch that these have. I can't find a way to describe how it rolls from the midtones into the shadows, like especially the girl's hair in the top right and the shadow in the face on the bottom left.
Anonymous
>>3221128 Colour negative film has superior dynamic range to digital. Shoot it.
Anonymous
>>3221130 You didn't read the text or don't know what you're talking about. It's Ektachrome
Anonymous
>>3221132 even velvia has more dynamic range than digital. shoot film fagshit.
Anonymous
>>3221137 I do shoot Provia and Portra 6x6 you giant cuck, doesn't mean I don't want my digital shots to have the same look
Anonymous
>>3221142 >digislug fantasies then you should already know the differences between digital and film are insurmountable, digishit.
Anonymous
>>3221144 >giving up this quickly Just because you are incapable/incompetent doesn't mean it's impossible for someone else :^)
PS shooting film doesn't make you a special snowflake, and don't forget to tag #filmisnotdead
Anonymous
>>3221146 >its another digislugg talks about digital emulations of film but doesnt post any evidence typical lol. and REAL communism hasnt been tried yet, right?
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221149 Great post my friend!
Anonymous
>>3221148 >its another film faggot talks about the pure uniqueness of digitized film but doesnt post any evidence typical lol, once you're able to fit that RB67 up your ass try stepping up to the GX680
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221128 >>3221137 its not really a dynamic range thing it looks like the blacks are crushed and the contrast in the highlights is lowered a lot
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220549 >And in a lot of cases, downsampling the higher-res shot gives you about the same noise performance as if the sensor wasn’t just that lower resolution That makes a lot of sense. I suppose if you resize to 50% on each side, you change 4 pixels into one and get the average which basically cancels out the noise.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220577 Thanks for the tip. on both the shopping center and the GST. That's awesome!
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221151 >once you're able to fit that RB67 up your ass try stepping up to the GX680 Hey, don't bring graphics cards into this.
Anonymous
How come Polaroid pictures never reached the quality of 35mm film or large format film the size of Polaroid pictures? I think they were around long enough.
Anonymous
im going to Detroit sometime soon. i've done urbex in the past, but its been a while.
Anonymous
are mirrorless cameras still a meme i really like how much they look compared to bulky DSLR plus I'm autistic and a big DSLR will just draw more attention when all I want to do is take snapshits
Anonymous
Why is there no 3-5" camera monitors that run on USB power? Think about how convenient that would be. Small, cheap, ultra-portable, and can be powered with a power pack that most of us would otherwise be carrying anyway.
Technically Correct !c4MrSq6dfA
Quoted By:
>>3221990 >How come Polaroid pictures never reached the quality of 35mm film Mostly just because they were almost universally shot with shitty cameras. If you look at Polaroid shots from the few decent cameras that were made (or polaroids shot in a large format camera), they’re pretty good. But polaroids shot with a regular old 600-series point & shoot with on-camera flash look like photos from a point & shoot with on-camera flash.
The older peel-apart pack film polaroids with high quality glass lenses produced some great pictures. Not as good as regular film of equal size, but easily as good as 35mm blown up to the size of a Polaroid.
Technically Correct !c4MrSq6dfA
>>3222079 >are mirrorless cameras still a meme Nope. They’re cameras. You can use them to take pictures.
Anonymous
>>3222079 Yeah I bet a dslr would be too big for your feminine hands to handle. Better yet, stick to m43 you bumboy.
Anonymous
Can you walk me through scanning? My grandma has like 2000 slides she wants scanned, and I have some 35mm and 120 negatives.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222163 I think some cameras actually charge from the USB port. I don't know if they can run off that exclusively or what. I've always longed for more devices that can charge and run off a normal USB port.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3221991 >>>/out/ often times has urbex threads. You may want to try there. Anonymous
>>3222220 >What should I buy to make this easier? A flatbed scanner. You can fill it to the brim with negatives and slides then scan all of them in one go. Otherwise, just do what is being don in that image, only make a cutout using cardstock to help flatten negatives and align things for faster flow.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222231 Do you have a preferred flatbed scanner?
Technically Correct !c4MrSq6dfA
>>3222231 >You can fill it to the brim with negatives and slides then scan all of them in one go. What flatbeds do this? The ones I’ve worked with only scan film in a small strip down the middle and you need to use a plastic negative holder to keep them in place so you’re limited to about 6 or so photos at a time.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222172 but /p/ told me they don't
>>3222204 they're very large I'll have you know
Anonymous
Stupid af question, but does anybody know what the 10 inside a cirlce made by arrows means on the nikon 50mm 1.8D? I saw that the one on ken's site didn't have it.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3222511 Yeah that's the one. I have no idea what it means.
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>3222494 >>3222511 >>3222512 >>3222514 It means the lens has 10 lives. Throw it as hard as you can against some concrete and you will see the lens is fine but the number now says 9
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222515 How can Canonboys even compete.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3222494 >>3222511 >>3222512 >>3222514 It's a recycling symbol. It specifies the type of plastic used in the lens so that, if it one day ends up getting recycled, it can go in the bin with other type-10 plastics.
Anonymous
>>3222517 Please fuck my Nikon while I film it with a Sony.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222511 >>3222494 >>3222512 >>3222514 >>3222515 >>3222517 I found out what it means
>Environment Friendly Use Period (EFUP) is the period of time before any of theRoHSsubstances are likely to leak out, causing possible harm to health and theenvironment. Each product is labelled with a circle composed of two arrows containing a number that gives the EFUP in years; for example, a circled 10 indicates an EFUP of 10 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_RoHS Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3222520 >Please fuck my Nikon while I film it with a Sony. F-mount flange diameter is too narrow.
Anonymous
There's nothing wrong with buying used digital cameras right? I never liked buying anything used but I'm poor and really want a Ricoh GR II
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3222609 I buy almost all of my camera gear used. Every once in a while you run into a problem, but every once in a while I run into problems when I buy new gear, too. Buy from somewhere that has a decent return policy and you should be fine.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222609 Most of my shit is used, exceptions being stuff that's so cheap new I'd save a grand total of 1 cent buying used.
Up till now it's been working out great.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222252 Every cheap as shit one I've ever used can do it. You don't get things as individual images, you have to chop it up in whatever image editor you want to use.
Anonymous
For the guys that use IG, I just need your opinion on my feed.
Do you think I should keep doing this gimmick on my page? Pic related, also my ig:
https://www.instagram.com/vincetarrosa/ That is, one in every 3 photos is a tall 9:16 photo. Many times, I force this aspect ratio on images that I honestly think aren't really the best for it, or sometimes I upload photos that work as 9:16, but they aren't especially good photos.
Now I'm thinking about going back to uploading photos that are within the normal IG aspect ratios, simply because they're easier to deal with.
But what do you think? Should I keep doing it? Do you think my tall photos are any good? Thanks, /QTDDTOT/.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3222940 Me personally, think it's quite a neat little thing you have ther, but hneslty I don't think most people care.
Anonymous
I recently found out that the Leica M2 has no ISO setting. It can take perfectly fine pictures afaic.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3223176 Leica M2 has no meter, so it doesn’t really need one. Occasionally meterless cameras have one just so the photographer can remember what iso film they have loaded.
Anonymous
>>3214339 >NIKE ON >LAKE UH Why do people do this?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3223188 >NIKE ON This is correct pronunciation in the US.
Anonymous
>>3223190 Who the fuck approved that?
Is KNEE KON so hard to say?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3223192 The company gives absolutely zero shits as to how it’s pronounced as long as it gets your money. That’s the pronunciation that’s obvious if you grew up speaking English with an American accent, so that’s the pronunciation they use here.
Anonymous
>>3223192 never heard anyone say that, i've only heard nye-con and nick-on
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223200 ny con is how ive always said it
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Been taking some shots with my new OM-1 recently. Shooting a roll of fomapan 400 rn and I don't think the film is advancing properly. It was for the first few shots I've taken on this roll but now the rewind crank doesn't rotate very much when I advance the shutter. Worked fine with the fujifilm superia and a kodak roll I shot yesterday, did I load it wrong or is it an issue with foma?
Anonymous
I've noticed that when shooting directly into bright light sources like street lamps or light bulbs, the further I stop down the more the light bleeds and flares. Shutter speeds adjusted for the same exposure value of course.
Anonymous
>>3223437 Here's an example.
Left is f2.8 at 1/160
Right is f16 at 1/5
Anonymous
>>3223441 >the absolute state of m4/3 This is normal, you're hitting a point where diffraction is obvious.
Anonymous
Anybody ever use their tlr on the train? Is it a good way to get candid street shots?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Don't spose anyone has any feedback on this? I find it impossible to be objective. I legit have to wait like a year to be able to look at my photos and know which ones aren't shit. Usually the ones I don't much like at first end up being the better ones. I think I suck.
>>3223689 Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3223450 >diffraction Ah I see.
Does this affect 35/120 film too?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Reasonable chance to sell a kit lens for the a7?
cruz
Quoted By:
>>3214339 what does /p/ thinks about fuji xm-1?
I want to a small decent digital camera
if anyone got one, how would you rate it?
Anonymous
>>3223787 Use a point shoot. Don't fall for the Maier meme. You won't get candid shots because the subjects will be well aware of your monkeying on a camera from the 60s.
The only perk of using a TLR in public places I've found is getting talked to by pensioners and middle-aged housewives.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224046 >You won't get candid shots because the subjects will be well aware of your monkeying on a camera from the 60s. My experience with shooting TLR street is that most people won’t actually recognize it as a camera, and the waist level viewfinder means their primitive monkey brain defense system won’t trigger that a potential threat is looking at them, so it’s a lot more discreet.
Anonymous
>>3223787 >>3224046 >>3224052 >not using a Yashica T4 Super Anonymous
How much should I offer? It’s a Yashica 124G and the guy believes everything works.
Anonymous
>>3224058 That's a real good price as it is
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224064 He’s fine taking $100 lel I guess I dun good
Anonymous
Is there any point of having a micro 4/3 camera besides the portability?
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224092 Barely even portability. Sony APS-C camera’s are about the same size.
They’re arguably worth getting because they arguably have better handling than Sony cameras, though.
Anonymous
>>3224094 I’ve never understood the whole handling aspect of a camera, I’ve never held a camera where I’ve thought “I can’t stand holding this, I’m not going to use this,” and I’ve held a LOT of cameras lmao
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224101 “Handling” as in overall ease of taking pictures with it.
For example: with a Sony A6000, to change the active focus point, you need to press the center button and then use the four-way controller. Compare with a Fuji where you can set it up so the four way controller can be used without the extra step. Or how the A6000 won’t let you specify a minimum shutter speed with auto-ISO and aperture priority, meaning auto-iso is basically worthless for anything but still subjects our daylight operation. Or how the Fuji X-T1 insists on refocusing between pictures even if you kept the shutter button half-pressed (aside: anyone know how to make it not do that?).
There is also the physical issue of grip—my Rebel XS hurts my hand if I do a full photoshoot with it whereas my 5D3 does not—but that’s just one small aspect of what people mean when they say handling.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224104 Ohh alright gotcha, I was thinking more like something of your latter description. I agree, my Sony A6000 and a7 have pretty stupid button placement. The grips are both pretty solid though.
Anonymous
>shoot a local show >think you did a pretty good job >see another photographer posting pictures of the same show >they did a much better job than you
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3224109 >>they did a much better job than you I don’t know. It’s never happened to me because I’m so amazing.
Seriously, though, it happens. Look at what the other guy did that you liked. Try to steal their technique. Also realize that there’s probably some shittier photographer out there who’s thinking the same thing about you.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224092 Best out-of-camera jpegs
Great lens selection
IBIS for manual lenses
Cheap
Anonymous
>>3224104 >minimum shutter speed w/auto iso Actually doable on newer Sony bodies. Old stuff like the a6000 just lacks the updates.
Anonymous
I bought some sandisk sd cards that came with rescuePRO deluxe so my question is do I like rescuePRO?
Anonymous
TRUE or FALSE
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3224250 >Actually doable on newer Sony bodies. Old stuff like the a6000 just lacks the updates. As an A6000 shooter, that doesn't help me. :)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224398 > so my question is do I like rescuePRO? Oh fuck yes, you fucking LOVE rescuePRO. It's PRO and it RESCUES and it's YOUR FONDEST DESIRE. You want to FUCK rescuePRO. You want to CUT OFF YOUR DICK so you can RESCUE it. PRO.
Anonymous
uhh im completely new to this board, how do i show the exif data when posting a pic tothe /RPT/?
Anonymous
>>3224478 Time to upgrade.
Anonymous
>>3224538 Just don't delete it from the image
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224549 remove the exif senpai, /p/haggots criticize your exif more than checking out your photo.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3219064 Do you need a high stop ND filter for these long exposures? Pretty sure if it's a reasonably sunny day everything will just be white even at ISO 100
Anonymous
Quoted By:
does anyone have a recommendation for a durable tripod ball head on the cheaper side? A precision rifle will be mounted to the top of the tripod so it needs to be able to withstand some slight shock.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3224542 Eh. I got the Sony just to fuck around with. My main camera is a Canon 5D Mark III, so I don't want to spend real money on a Sony.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Coming from a film background, I want to get a digital system and am looking into an X-Pro1. Is it still a good camera? Looks like a perfect fit for someone who likes dials and old cameras like me.
Anonymous
Recommended way to charge battery?
Anonymous
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
Quoted By:
>>3224864 On my 5D3, I usually swap batteries as soon as the charge meter goes down one bar. One’s always on the charger, the other in the camera, unless I know I’m gonna be away from power long enough that I use both in the battery grip.
Haven’t had any problem with my two (genuine canon lp-e6) batteries since I got them in 2012.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224427 It is really more about composition than anything else, kid.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224864 Assuming it's a Li-ion battery: replace shortly before it dies, fully recharge and remove from charger once full.
Anonymous
Does this look like lens fungus to anyone? Or just dust? Ebay said only flaw with this lens was normal dust.
Anonymous
>>3224978 specifically the thing in the middle that looks like a single larger mass.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3224982 Can you ask the seller for another pic or two of the lens? It’s hard to tell from that shot, but I agree that you might have reason to be concerned.
Anonymous
>>3224978 Looks like fungus, those canon ltm lenses are known for falling to pieces after 60 years
desu if you want a solid ltm 50, get the voightlander 2.5 50mm
those old canon lenses handle like shit and make colour film look like trash
Anonymous
>>3222079 There are enough people carrying around cameras these days that nothing you do will stand out.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3225019 >There are enough people carrying around cameras these days that nothing you do will stand out. This is true. Next time you’re in an area of a city that’s at all busy, keep an eye out for people with cameras and recognize (1) there’s a lot of them and (2) you didn’t notice them before trying this exercise.
Anonymous
>>3225008 This is my picture, after I received it. I'll take another real quick.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225057 Backlit with a phone flash, so it doesn't look nearly this bad with the naked eye, but still... seller said NO fungus/haze, only some dust.
Anonymous
>>3225057 noice mini nebula desu, looks like fungus. if it is, the seller should neck himself.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225079 Thanks so much. I got a partial refund big enough to make me ignore this. They agreed it was probably fungus and that it was an oversight. I hate getting lied to (or simply getting a lazy description) so I'm glad I went through the trouble.
Anonymous
>>3225079 Can you fix a lens with fungus in it or is it just fucked?
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3225214 Usually fucked. The problem is that the fungus actually eats the lens coatings, and at that point, there's not really any coming back for that lens element. Even worse, if the fungus is still living, it could infest your other lenses.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3220425 Because it's possible, if not likely, that this doesn't scale as well as you think it does. Would you give up 75% of dem pixels just to get 1/3 stop of noise back?
Anonymous
>>3225215 >Even worse, if the fungus is still living, it could infest your other lenses This is a big time wive’s tale isn’t it? My understanding is the spores and whatnot are all over the place anyway, you’re only at risk by putting your gear in dark places with stagnant air. If there’s actually a case for special risk of one lens ‘infecting’ another I’d be glad to hear it
Anonymous
>>3225215 >>3225243 Zeiss did some research and found that to be false.
All of your lenses already have fungus in them. It is unavoidable.
You have to keep them out of environments that allow the fungus to grow.
It just seems like what he said is true, because if one of your lenses sprouts fungus, the rest will soon follow. Not because of cross infection, but because they are ALL being stored improperly.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
>>3225243 >>3225320 >fungus doesn't spread Good to know. Nevermind, then.
Anonymous
>>3225320 So combining
1. lenses with small fungus growth
and/or
2. lenses cleaned from fungus
with
3. lenses without fungus
inside the same drybox is fine?
Anonymous
>>3225243 >>3225320 >>3225379 >>3225445 Something that has flushing fungi will spread spores all over. Meaning the fresh spore count will rise. Old spores are already there and still viable with it without new spores being spread around. That's just life.
The best course of action is to reduce the favorability for spore growth. The best way to do that is by lowering the humidity. Sunlight/UVs can help or make things worse depending on too many factors to go through. Most people use UV filters to protect their lenses so it is a moot point. Thus, lowering humidity is the best thing you can do.
To lower humidity you'll need packs of silica gel. Specifically the kind that you can pop into an oven, heat, and remove the stored moisture so you can reuse them. These things are 1 time use only before they need to be "recharged." You use them in completely air-tight containers. You put your lens into the container with the recharged silica gel packs and seal it up air tight. The silica gel pack will remove the moisture from the air and prevent mold spores from growing and ruining your optics. You will need to put in enough silica gel packs to remove enough moisture in the air. So, you need to do some calculating for that. There are online calculators and methods to show you how to do all this.
Here's the kicker. The instant you pop the seal on your air-tight container you'll need to put in fresh silica gel packs, because you just let in all new moisture-containing air and your old packs are too full to take in more. So, to save money, get the kind like in this image or open up packs from other things and put them into your own perforated tin for recharging in your oven. Getting the colored kind of silica gel helps you determine if the packs need to be recharged or not; blue turns to pink/red when full.
Anonymous
>>3225502 The best solution really is to just put all your lenses in the container and never open it again. Then your lenses will be fungus free forever and you don't even have to take photos
Anonymous
>>3225539 You still need to chuck in some silica gel packs. I get your point though. Just keep a big box of the gel packs and when you are not using some lenses, put them in storage with the packs. Some of us have more than 2-3 lenses and that's the proper course of action.
Anonymous
Anyone with a Nikon D80 care to comment on it? Might get it for free soon and the specs seem pretty okay for an older camera. I have a Minolta x-700 so this would be my first DSLR
Anonymous
>>3225543 I don't think you understand what I mean. Put them in the container with the gel packs. Never take them out again.
Technically Correct !!Y42F2zb/zVh
>>3225543 >>3225547 If you’re never opening the box again, you don’t really need the gel packs. As long as you don’t collapse the probability waveform, the lenses both will and won’t be covered in fungus, and that’s probably good enough. Like schroedinger’s cat, but the cat is your image quality.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225546 I have the N80, which is good. It's ergonomics are fine and it accepts all my big boy FX lenses.
I have a D70 (Rockwell Special) and a D100. They are also okay, but compact flash cards are a hassle.
All of those cameras have only 5 autofocus points, so I assume the D80 does as well. That's the most frustrating thing about them.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3224056 >not using your phone as a wifi viewfinder and shutter Anonymous
Anonymous
How do you raise the exposure without the highlights end up being blown? Do you just increase the blacks and shadows and decrease the whites and highlights?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225572 >Do you just increase the blacks and shadows and decrease the whites and highlights? Yes, just play around with those. In Camera Raw in Photoshop you can quickly change just sections of an image like that. It can help a great deal.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3215427 looks like a kodak retinette or similar
Anonymous
>>3225502 I've been mixing my lenses cleaned from fungus and fungus-free lenses in one electric dry box with ideal humidity setting (35-45%). Now I'm thinking damn if I do, damn if I don't. Kek. What do?
Anonymous
I want to buy this lens off some dude but im not sure it will work with my sony a6000. are there any adapters that I can use?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225669 >35-45% That's fine.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225696 Sony Le-ea4/le-ea3 if you want autofocus
Anonymous
Quoted By:
NEW THREAD:
>>3225724 NEW THREAD:
>>3225724 NEW THREAD:
>>3225724 Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225696 don't buy that shit
get a minolta 28 2.8 in MD mount if you want a good lens
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>3225024 I live in a somewhat small town and most people drive. The only people walking around are homeless people and other vagabonds.
Technically Correct !!lN6LSAdx7EV
Quoted By:
>>3225723 Not MD mount. That's A-mount, the autofocus mount that Minolta used before they sold their camera business to Sony (and the mount that Sony used/uses in their SLRs and SLTs). Which, unfortunately, makes things more complicated.
Sony makes four different adapters to mount that lens on an A6000:
LA-EA1: No autofocus, won't work with a full frame body (which you don't have), but gives you auto aperture control for automatic exposure modes
LA-EA2: The above, plus autofocus
LA-EA3: The LA-EA1 but it works on a full frame camera body like the A7 or A9
LA-EA4, The LA-EA3 with autofocus
(I think the 1/3 will work with lenses that have the autofocus motor built into the lens, but that doesn't apply to the one you're looking at)
Problem is, those adapters are expensive as fuck. You'd be better off just buying a lens native to the A6000.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
What monitor should I get? I want something that can handle photo editing, pc games, some video editing. I feel like it needs to be balance between work and play.
Anonymous
