[ home ] [ tv / art / wooo ] [ ost / lit / bane ] [ dup / oven / dunk ] [ truth ]

/art/ - Drawing, Photography, Painting

Sculpting and Designing
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1606376155465.jpg (157.77 KB, 675x380, 135:76, tele.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

 No.1408

In this thread we discuss what equipment to get for a particular application and how to make the most out of it.
Tutorials specially welcome.

 No.1411

Back button focus is one of the many useful features available on most DSLR and mirrorless cameras, but finding it can be tricky on entry-level cameras. What it does is separate the autofocus from the shutter release, allowing you to focus a moving subject and snapping several shots of it as it moves while keeping it on focus, or easy composition with the subject not being in one of the AF points. You point to the subject, focus, recompose and shoot.

FOR NIKON
We use the AE-L/AF-L button.
Go into the controls section of the menus and look for the Assign AE-L/AF-L button option.
Once there, select AF-ON.

FOR CANON
We use the button labeled with an asterisk, which is the AE lock too.
Go into Custom function settings and look for the Shutter/AE lock button option.
Once there, select AF/AF lock, no AE lock.

FOR PENTAX
We use the AF/AE-L button.
Look for Button Customization in the Rec. Mode settings.
Once there, go to AF/AE-L. There's two, one for stills mode and one for video mode. The one for video has a cinema camera icon on top of it.
Select the one you want to adjust. The default setting is Enable AF1, which lets you autofocus with both that button and pressing the shutter halfway. If you want to disable focusing with the shutter button, select Enable AF2.
Cancel AF disables AF while it's pressed, effectively locking it into whatever position it's in. This is of questionable utility to me, as it seems reduntant with Enable AF2 and an inferior form of it. Last, AE lock just locks the exposure.

 No.1412

File: 1606381129598.jpg (289.33 KB, 1600x984, 200:123, nd filters.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

ND filters are a great way to improve your photography on a budget. While it's true that cheaper ones tend to degrade your image quality a bit and maybe alter the color rendition giving it some sort of hue, they're worth checking out.
The job of this filter is to absorb some of the light coming through the lens, making your photo darker. While this may seem a bit counterintuitive, it allows you to use slower shutter speeds and/or wider apertures. This way you can capture movement blur or make your focal plane shallower for better object separation (blurring things other than the subject, be it the background or the foreground).
They come either in circular shape, that you screw to your lens on the filter ring, or rectangular, that you install on a filter holder. When using multiple filters stacked, the latter is preferable because you degrade the quality a bit less and cause less reflections between the filters.
Additionally, for the circular ones there's two kinds: fixed/solid and variable/adjustable. The adjustable kind consists of two polarized filters in tandem that when rotated produce different levels of darkening. These tend to degrade or tint the image more and cheaper ones should be avoided. With the solid ones this isn't as big of a deal but you lose the flexibility that the variable ones give you.
Generally, when using a ND filter you'll want to shoot on a tripod so that the only movement blur is the one of the objects instead of the camera.

If anyone shows interest I can talk a bit about polarizers, color filters for B&W photography, UV filters and other stuff.

 No.1413

File: 1606387217517.jpg (44.65 KB, 728x484, 182:121, photography-camera-lens-le….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Nifty Fifty is the popular nickname of the 50mm lens. It's often the second lens most photographers get, because you can get it really cheap without sacrificing much. Its focal length is sort of a sweet spot for most (D)SLR cameras, making for a simple optical design that achieves high sharpness with low distortion at a cheap price. This also allows the manufacturer to let the aperture go quite wide (f/1.7 and f/1.8 are common maximum apertures for these), affording you that sweet background blur at a bargain price. They can be had new for around 100 bucks, or used for much lower. They're not too hard to find for around 50 bucks.
On a full frame camera, they are "normal" (neither wide nor long) lenses, on a crop camera they become longer lenses that are nice for portraiture.

 No.1414

File: 1606389453785-0.jpg (125.39 KB, 1200x803, 1200:803, star_light_mens_wool_bokeh….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1606389453785-1.jpg (105.65 KB, 1280x600, 32:15, diy bokeh.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Related to the previous post, because it requires a lens that can open fairly wide: a cool effect you can do for next to no money is shaped bokeh.
Simply craft a lens cap on paperboard fitting the outer diameter of the lens, and then cut a hole with the shape you desire to see in your blurred highlights.
The second picture shows it best, in a before and after fashion.

 No.1415

Some cool DIY lens info for dreamy results. I won't write about this one because I'm not knowledgeable enough and have zero experience with it. Worth checking out.
http://www.johnnyoptic.com/printview.cgi?page=tutorial1.cgi

 No.1417

File: 1606470638659.jpg (207.17 KB, 1200x480, 5:2, IRexample.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Anyone here have any experience using cameras that had their internal IR filter removed? Seriously thinking of doing this mod but I'm hesitant.
>>1412
>The adjustable kind consists of two polarized filters in tandem that when rotated produce different levels of darkening. These tend to degrade or tint the image more and cheaper ones should be avoided.
One major benefit of a variable ND filter is when filming. Going from a dark room into bright sunshine is as easy as twisting the filter.

This thread on a /p/ board over on anon.cafe is full of great books.
https://anon.cafe/p/res/36.html

 No.1422

>>1417
I don't, but I've shot IR pics with a P&S in the past with a homemade IR pass filter. Basically it was some dark developed negative in front of the lens. I'll look for the photos, it was cool with the trees looking much brighter. I suppose you could rent an astrophotography version of your camera to see if it's worth doing.

>anon.cafe

Wow, I hadn't realized there was a /p/ on the webring. Does it get any amount of measurable traffic?

 No.1423

File: 1606597455706-0.jpg (520.18 KB, 2080x1544, 260:193, IR00001.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1606597455706-1.jpg (520.16 KB, 2080x1544, 260:193, IR00002.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1606597455706-2.jpg (534.19 KB, 2080x1544, 260:193, IR00003.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1606597455706-3.jpg (632.21 KB, 2080x1544, 260:193, IR00004.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1417
Found the old pics taken with the negative, the camera being set to burn the date on the pic is both a blessing and a curse.
As you can see the quality is nothing to write home about but it was a fun experiment.

 No.1424

File: 1606607404680.jpg (123.11 KB, 700x554, 350:277, reversing-rings-dslr-camer….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

There's one piece of equipment for macro that is incredibly cheap and is practically a must have, lens reversing rings. You can try out it out by just holding the lens on your camera backwards but they're so cheap and useful I keep one mounted on my main lens most of the time. Having to manually set the aperture before hand when taking off modern lenses is the only downside.

>>1422
Ah the reason I'd do an IR mod is mostly for tree pictures, they do look more majestic seen in that wavelength.

And the guy running /p/ over there says he's going to be taking a break of a few months but hopefully it won't die out. Imageboard addiction is a real thing.

 No.1425

>>1424
What a coincidence, I was reading about lens reversing rings just today.
Another thing that's out there are macro adapters, you attach them to the front of your lens and they reduce the minimum focusing distance.
Being optical I assume there's some degree of image degradation but doesn't seem too severe.
They come in several diopters, like prescription glasses.

Another cheap thing I recommend getting is a remote shutter release. Just ordered a wireless infrared one for my camera two days ago, six bucks.

 No.1426

>>1417
You can use an Infrared filter first before doing the sensor mod to check things out, i don't know if they are as straightforward as putting the filter in but it can be cheaper.

>>1422
>Does it get any amount of measurable traffic?
Most of the posts there are from dumps in the book thread or the famous photographer thread, so no traffic at all and reading the comments it seems there's only 3 or 4 anons, one of them the BO and another me giving thanks.
A shame, hobby boards are destined to be snail-paced because nobody is active enough doing their hobbies.

 No.1427

>>1426
The mod he wants to do is removing the IR filter that's integrated into the sensor stack. Most DSLRs have it, so it blocks out most of the IR light.
>Most of the posts there are from dumps in the book thread or the famous photographer thread, so no traffic at all and reading the comments it seems there's only 3 or 4 anons, one of them the BO and another me giving thanks.
Yeah, just took a look at that.
>A shame, hobby boards are destined to be snail-paced because nobody is active enough doing their hobbies.
And of the ones who are, a lot have their reservations about sharing their work. Some photography is easy to make anonymous, but most photography is traceable. Architecture, landscape, street all have the potential to give your location away. So if that worries you, you either have to live in the middle of nowhere, in a huge city or only upload pics you took while traveling.

 No.1428

File: 1606715263657-0.jpg (29.23 KB, 1108x602, 554:301, 61 Lw3rozeL._AC_SL1200_.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1606715263657-1.jpg (69.89 KB, 500x335, 100:67, shopped example.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1427
>The mod he wants to do is removing the IR filter that's integrated into the sensor stack.
Yes, hence why i said he can use a IR cutoff filter first if he wants to try it, now that you mention it i doubt it's the same result but it's definitely on the same ballpark of aesthetic games. They are expensive but he can resell it if he wants to do a full mod on his sensor, the difference in practice i think is that a modded sensor will be usually quick in exposures while the filter needs long-winded shutter speeds, around 15 to 30 seconds or so.
>but most photography is traceable
Yes, although i think most anons are smart enough to not give full doxx or share accounts with their real identities (or even make accounts with their real data) the work itself i don't think we have reservations to share, at least i don't.
Also to be fair reading all the comments from people here i doubt there's someone actively seeing who's who and reusing the photos for his own gain. But hey who knows, hence why i post low res versions of stuff before.

 No.1429

>>1428
For me it's low res and taken specifically for sharing on IBs so that a reverse search can't fuck me up.
>IR cutoff
You need the opposite, an IR pass filter.
>around 15 to 30 seconds
Interesting, hadn't thought of this approach. The bare sensor will probably get better quality too.

 No.1430

>>1429
>You need the opposite, an IR pass filter.
Yeah i screwed that up, still cool tho but different applications. I think buying an old camera already modded is better than killing off a camera unless he doesn't want it anymore.
Nikon D200 or even newer Canon Rebel Ts can be found for 200 or 300 bucks, but if he's living outside the US or Germany he's going to have to import them, they are tough to find unless he knows a capable/friendly official distributor repairman.

 No.1431

>>1430
>D200
I'm pretty sure it's much cheaper than that. But ideally you would get something like a D3100 or T2i at the very least. Cheap but with some modern features and most importantly the accessories needed to use them are cheap. The D200 uses CF memory (expensive) and offers no live view function. For IR photography it's almost a requirement to have live view (although it will probably be super dark anyways). The focusing distance for IR is different. On old lenses you often had a separate scale dedicated to IR.

 No.1432

File: 1606777093575.jpg (120.94 KB, 1000x667, 1000:667, backwardslens.JPG) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1430
I'm thinking of doing the mod to a 40D I found in a thrift store since I have a newer smaller and much better APS-C camera. I do like the ergonomics of it though and want a reason to use it instead of just being a backup camera.

>>1431
The 40D was a popular model for that mod as it was one of the first of that type to have live view.

Also here's a picture I took with a handheld reversed 18-55mm kit lens and a flashlight. Getting a reversing ring is one of the best purchases I made, it's like having a tiny lens hood on my 40mm pancake lens.

 No.1434

File: 1606789352421.jpg (47.24 KB, 562x454, 281:227, 207765-2670791_05.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1432
>40D
Fascinating to see how the controls looked when live view was still in its infancy. I can't even figure out how to enable it lol, is it the set button like in some of the 1D models? Not that I ever had one of those either but I've seen reviews lol

 No.1436

>>1434
>I can't even figure out how to enable it lol, is it the set button like in some of the 1D models?
I just confirmed my assumption looking at some old video demonstrating it on Dailymotion.

 No.1448

File: 1608016552126-0.jpg (54.45 KB, 480x600, 4:5, MM47148320.IMG_0476-12-800….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1608016552126-1.jpg (99.38 KB, 800x533, 800:533, MM48851937._MG_0518-40-800….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1608016552126-2.jpg (58.39 KB, 742x600, 371:300, MMxPortraitJuliaP-100-800-….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Great to see there's still some folks around who use their cameras after all, just got a brand new used one with a basic lens and i am ready to edit old crap and take some new ones out there if i see there's not many people who look like muggers.
Some already mentioned the name of the other board at anon.cafe so finally i can mention you are welcome to it anytime without looking like a shill. There's some new technical difficulties but they are aesthetics only and it's just a matter of time for the admin to address those CSS line thingies.

>>1434
Back in the day turning the live mode on was almost like a cheat code input, Nikons needed a dial turn, a full shutter press to engage it and half of another one to shoot, if you used handheld mode then it was half to focus and press to shoot again.

>>1414
Those work wonders but i think you can only use them with high f-stops like f/8 as they work with only the center of the glass.

>>1417
I was going to recommend you MaxMax camera mods, there's decent explanations there but i didn't recall their prices, they are hellishly expensive in some instances and i am even hesitant of their "mail your camera" plan because it's just tons of money. But anyways they have the fame, so for "serious" camera modding they seem to be the best bet.
But i think like mentioned here, some dude at the brand center service might do the job of removing the filter panel from the sensor for much, much cheaper, probably. No better way to make whites whiter, imaging-wise.

 No.1449

File: 1608022319300.jpg (74.58 KB, 725x518, 725:518, xLVF_LDP1.jpg.pagespeed.ic….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1448
>MaxMax camera mods
Their hyperspectral filter is interesting but not $14k worth of interesting. You could get the same results by having the several filters for each wavelength be automatically changed on the back of the lens with a custom made extension tube, you'd also have to scratch off the color filter array on the sensor which is tricky. Considering how specialized their filters are I was hoping that they'd have microlens array filters to turn a modern full frame canon into a lightfield camera.

You can make your own for a medium frame sized sensor pretty easily. Smaller than that forget it as you're better off buying a used lytro and taking the filter off of that.
http://cameramaker.se/Lightfield.htm

Also here's the tutorial I was going to follow for taking out the filter on my 40D.
https://www.lifepixel.com/tutorials/infrared-diy-tutorials/canon-40d-ir
They also do conversions but it's just as expensive as the site you mentioned.

 No.1450

>>1448
>Great to see there's still some folks around who use their cameras after all, just got a brand new used one with a basic lens and i am ready to edit old crap and take some new ones out there if i see there's not many people who look like muggers.
Based. What did you get? Hopefully some DSLR lol.

>Some already mentioned the name of the other board at anon.cafe so finally i can mention you are welcome to it anytime without looking like a shill.

The books they have are pretty interesting.

>Back in the day turning the live mode on was almost like a cheat code input, Nikons needed a dial turn, a full shutter press to engage it and half of another one to shoot, if you used handheld mode then it was half to focus and press to shoot again.

Wew, and I thought the Canons were complicated. At one point Nikon became much more user friendly than Canon, the D5100 onwards are really easy to use. I wouldn't have imagined their implementation would have been so complicated at some point.

>Those work wonders but i think you can only use them with high f-stops like f/8 as they work with only the center of the glass.

It's the other way round, you need to shoot wide open or it won't work.

>I was going to recommend you MaxMax camera mods, there's decent explanations there but i didn't recall their prices, they are hellishly expensive in some instances and i am even hesitant of their "mail your camera" plan because it's just tons of money. But anyways they have the fame, so for "serious" camera modding they seem to be the best bet.

That looks amazing.

>>1449
>$14k
Jesus Christ.

 No.1451

File: 1608048035839.jpg (738.01 KB, 1160x1500, 58:75, 2009.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1449
They play the game of selling to people who use another one's money, usually hyperspectral sensors are for industrial uses and the ones in charge of buying merely sign some checks and get the mod, the company rarely reads and confirms how much the third-party support actually costs, they just waive it off as necessary R&D resources or tax-offs. For civilian use it's insane money but they do have some "cheap" mods there, i recall they had cheap Nikon D3XXXs for 500 or so a bit more modded, which is still expensive but much more accessible and those cameras become razor sharp because the filter is configured to use all 3 bayer layers for resolution instead of RGB, along with winning in the low-light game for the same reasons of B&W.
The best way is the support technician or being crafty like that tutorial explains, honestly i'm too much of a bitch to touch the sensor in any way even with a sensor wiper so i'd rather blame someone else if the camera doesn't work.

>>1450
>What did you get?
Nikon D700, it's been really clicked but the previous owner took good care overall, the rubber has that nasty old Nikon problem that the glue somewhat leaks and the whole thing feels a bit sticky. Just a matter of cleaning with oil and regluing everything with dry stuff and it's good as new.
It's a damn tank, i only owned entry level stuff and used borrowed contemporary DSLRs/Mirrorless so i didn't expect a pre-2010 DSLR to actually feel like a chunk of steel. Came with a grip and if i include an old thrift store superzoom lens it weights close to 2kg.
>The books they have are pretty interesting.
Should i actually upload more? i never got the motivation to organize the studio/portrait stuff because i think most of us only shoot landscape or buildings. The magazines are time intensive but i can see that one being done soon-ish because it's straight forward, i want to get rid of the ads to only leave the articles inside the PDFs but i can see some people might be curious about decade-old promotions.
>It's the other way round
Fucking photography, the more i read the less i understand sometimes. Nice tip then, at wide open it becomes very viable and who knows why it's not more used, like for example vaseline on the filter.

 No.1452

>>1451
>Nikon D700, it's been really clicked but the previous owner took good care overall
Very nice. I would have got something more entry level but newer but I don't know how much you paid.
>Came with a grip and if i include an old thrift store superzoom lens it weights close to 2kg.
Superzoom or super tele? I think the superzooms are a relatively recent thing.
>Should i actually upload more? i never got the motivation to organize the studio/portrait stuff because i think most of us only shoot landscape or buildings. The magazines are time intensive but i can see that one being done soon-ish because it's straight forward, i want to get rid of the ads to only leave the articles inside the PDFs but i can see some people might be curious about decade-old promotions.
I mean, there's plenty of stuff already, not sure it's worth dumping more unless you have completely different topics to cover.
>Fucking photography, the more i read the less i understand sometimes. Nice tip then, at wide open it becomes very viable and who knows why it's not more used, like for example vaseline on the filter.
kek, I know that feel. ISO and dynamic range are another example of super confusing topics. Turns out a bit more ISO gives you more DR in the highlights so it may make sense to shoot ISO 800 in daylight for example sometimes. I used to just set the lowest I could get away with.

 No.1453

File: 1608104985156.jpg (21.88 KB, 650x435, 130:87, e03cfcbba1ef8b009257e763dc….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1452
>I would have got something more entry level but newer but I don't know how much you paid.
350 yuros with original grip, CFExpress memory and extra original batteries. Still has 200,000 official clicks left so i think i can squeeze it out. I had a love-hate relationship with Canon due to their lack of buttons and functions so the Nikon is a Godsend, almost everything can be accessed in-body but that quirky live view is grating at times. At some point i will get the D4S or a sports Z body if it exists in the future although i will have to rob a bank to buy that.
>I think the superzooms are a relatively recent thing.
Superzoom, it's a 1983-84 manual 28-200mm, lousy corners and i brag about not caring about that but it's got to my nerves, the aberrations are also insane but it costed me 15 yuros and it does have some "character" in it (blurry vignette, soft colors). Bought another superzoom, the miracle 28-200mm Nikkor G, it's really tiny, a hair smaller than a basic kit zoom lens akin to the 18-55mm, very serviceable which is more than enough because from now on i will buy only primes (and probably a wide angle zoom). I'm surprised the old lens actually has better colors, i knew about that whole "less glass, more tonalities/colors" but i still found it to be interesting.
>Turns out a bit more ISO gives you more DR in the highlights
Yes, they never explain that bit and it's crucial in harsh light situations. ISO 800 to 3200 will give more detail in the highlights if you pinpoint expose to the 0 or maybe a bit higher (+0.5 or +1). I legit shot only at ISO100 even at dawn or night when i started out, lost easily more than a couple thousand images from motion blur for not wanting a bit more noise that could've been fairly corrected… maybe, Canon sensors are dookie even at base ISO.
>unless you have completely different topics to cover.
Kinda, yes. I still have to dump some stuff at /film/ and /loomis/ first but i'll get there eventually. I bought/got some video tutorials too so i will probably throw those in the mix, thinking about a torrent hash rather than uploading those in Mega/Anonfiles because they weight 30+GBs.

 No.1454

>>1453
>350 yuros with original grip, CFExpress memory and extra original batteries.
Pretty good deal. Do you actually use the battery grip?
>I had a love-hate relationship with Canon due to their lack of buttons and functions so the Nikon is a Godsend, almost everything can be accessed in-body but that quirky live view is grating at times. At some point i will get the D4S or a sports Z body if it exists in the future although i will have to rob a bank to buy that.
I wouldn't get a Z body, but I'm a DSLR absolutist I must admit. Also people complain about how awkwardly mirrorless cameras handle with big lenses. The D4S is awesome, but as an intermediate upgrade I suggest the D750 in case you flip the D700. You really got it at an awesome price. Also Nikon is king when it comes to ergonomics (tied with Pentax). The Canon rear dial is horrible compared to the Nikon and Pentax ones. It's a shame what they did to the D5500/5600 though, D5x00 was ergonomic perfection before the downsize. Even the rear wheel is somewhat awful now.
>Superzoom, it's a 1983-84 manual 28-200mm, lousy corners and i brag about not caring about that but it's got to my nerves, the aberrations are also insane but it costed me 15 yuros and it does have some "character" in it (blurry vignette, soft colors). Bought another superzoom, the miracle 28-200mm Nikkor G, it's really tiny, a hair smaller than a basic kit zoom lens akin to the 18-55mm, very serviceable which is more than enough because from now on i will buy only primes (and probably a wide angle zoom). I'm surprised the old lens actually has better colors, i knew about that whole "less glass, more tonalities/colors" but i still found it to be interesting.
Looks really nice, is it a Tamron? Reminds me of the adaptall designs with all that orange. Usually for old zooms you want shorter zoom ranges. Even modern superzooms compromise a lot. Does the rear element move? If it's fixed that's a great plus because those push-pull zooms can be terrible dust pumps. With film cameras it wasn't a big deal but a fixed sensor is able to build up dust.
>I legit shot only at ISO100 even at dawn or night when i started out, lost easily more than a couple thousand images from motion blur for not wanting a bit more noise that could've been fairly corrected… maybe, Canon sensors are dookie even at base ISO.
Same. Also Nikon is amazing with how high you can crank the ISO and still get an usable image.
Kinda, yes. I still have to dump some stuff at /film/ and /loomis/ first but i'll get there eventually. >I bought/got some video tutorials too so i will probably throw those in the mix, thinking about a torrent hash rather than uploading those in Mega/Anonfiles because they weight 30+GBs.
Definitely post the filmmaking stuff, very interested.

 No.1455

File: 1608130732985-0.jpg (55.55 KB, 560x439, 560:439, GRfb008a8c0041e78731b69824….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1608130732985-1.jpeg (114.32 KB, 940x625, 188:125, GRNikon_Z6_II_Z7_II_Hands….jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

>>1454
>Do you actually use the battery grip?
Yeah, but the dials in it feel a bit odd because the camera sometimes react fully to it, sometimes not. Matter of checking some videos about how to configure it, found a playlist on jewtube and today i'm supposed to check them.
>intermediate upgrade
The D750 enjoys great name but i am seduced by the digital tools provided in mirrorless bodies, focus stacking and such stops being an affair with sliders/nodal rails along with dynamic viewfinders but i do dislike their small size and sometimes build properties, most Sony Alphas for example handle like old point and shoots and like you said adding any sizeable lens makes it even more awkward due to the pressure point in the mount ring.
The only thing i can imagine that would make me upgrade is the D4S which is probably the peak DSLR body in terms of build quality and benefits, i don't mind the "pro" quirks and mechanics it has as i try to go knee deep with the functions (also shot action in rough environments sometimes) but if the Z bodies reach a point where they feel sturdy enough (they already have grip capability and shutter speeds) i think it's a tentative affair, but not being capable of driving AF-D lenses with the adapter is a gigantic letdown as i have a fetish with them. Zs are small sexy beasts have to admit.
Pentax i avoided because of the full frame AF lens availability only, i think their sensors in the K1 are among the best and the build quality is supposedly superb, costs the same as the D4S so it's still on the list in a hypothetical upgrade in 3 or 4 years (doubtful due to said D lenses) i'll wait when a decent one costs $1000 or $1200.
As a side note i also read a lot about the Nikon Df, with the chinese battery grip it was actually in my list but i cannot see myself tolerating that hard plastic grip in the body itself, the dials i can withstand and even like but the grip man… i guess i'm too used to the style of leathery squeeze-me grips of DSLRs, the image quality is supposedly even a bit better than the D4S but i cannot say for sure, the whole thing with the D700 having a processor that tries to emulate film and the D4/Df still trying but the D4S switching to some "digital look" is still a controversy to me, almost nobody official talks about it but plenty of forum comments swear by that, i only noticed an image "look" change with the D5 and the D810.
>is it a Tamron?
It does have that air of Adaptall from the early 70's but has a rubbery grip instead of kneaded metal, i think it's either a Tokina or Komine recipe but sub-contracted to some koreans under the name of Kalimar, supposedly constant f3.9 but some say it has an unmarked 5.X, the lens does have a marked spot to imply that but honestly i don't see much difference from both apertures. My eyesight is pretty bad lol, i haven't used it that much because i cannot focus manually in a reliably manner, i either miss wildly or not.
It is a dust pump, which is especially no-good in my area, it has its charisma even with all the downsides but the Nikkor G was bought to keep the Kali in the cabinet, that one is a sweet ride.
Yes, for sure i will throw those books in /film/, i might take a while tho as i haven't organized them and they are a handful, in theory it should be done before Christmas.

 No.1457

>>1455
The best thing about the Pentax cameras is that unlike Nikon you can adapt a lot more lenses (and they are designed with that in mind). Video tends to suck on them though, but on the plus side you get image stabilization for stills.
I wouldn't worry too much about image quality when it comes to cameras at the pro level.
About the emulating film thing I think it's a matter of how you process the picture, assuming you're shooting RAW.
>It does have that air of Adaptall from the early 70's but has a rubbery grip instead of kneaded metal, i think it's either a Tokina or Komine recipe but sub-contracted to some koreans under the name of Kalimar, supposedly constant f3.9 but some say it has an unmarked 5.X, the lens does have a marked spot to imply that but honestly i don't see much difference from both apertures. My eyesight is pretty bad lol, i haven't used it that much because i cannot focus manually in a reliably manner, i either miss wildly or not.
Interesting, sounds like mirrorless may be for you after all. I mean, focus peaking could help you a lot if you have trouble focusing manually. I loathe EVFs myself, lol.
>It is a dust pump, which is especially no-good in my area, it has its charisma even with all the downsides but the Nikkor G was bought to keep the Kali in the cabinet, that one is a sweet ride.
Check out 2-touch vintage zooms when you have the chance. Vivitar 75-205mm F/3.8 is a decent one and comes for F-mount. You can get it really cheap at least in the US. You talked about euros so I searched for one on the French ebay, not quite as cheap as in the US but maybe there's other places where you can get them that I'm not aware of:
Search ebay for 174474812905 (I'm not sure direct-linking would be the best idea).
Do you have a T-mount adapter? T-mount is longer than Nikon F and there's lots of interesting vintage glass for it. They're usually preset lenses, which makes them pretty easy to use compared to other adapted lenses and also gets rid of the common problem with stuck blades.
>Yes, for sure i will throw those books in /film/, i might take a while tho as i haven't organized them and they are a handful, in theory it should be done before Christmas.
Make sure to link the thread here at /art/ when you do (or even repost the books here).

 No.1458

>>1457
>T-mount is longer than Nikon F and there's lots of interesting vintage glass for it.
I worded that poorly, I mean the flange is longer so you can use simple and cheap adapters.

 No.1459

File: 1608178358042-0.jpg (349.5 KB, 1229x1600, 1229:1600, 1 6917944905_bdb22cf99e_h.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1608178358042-1.jpg (29.88 KB, 512x288, 16:9, 2 QBaMk2i3A5TGT.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1608178358042-2.jpg (29.95 KB, 512x285, 512:285, 3 tHcNQGgDcZsUB.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1608178358042-3.jpg (794.19 KB, 1500x2000, 3:4, DSC1208-C1.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1457
>I think it's a matter of how you process the picture
Yes, but there is some controversy regarding the processor and its back story: The D700 processor had an outsider imaging company do the bits and tricks with it (Renesas, which is Mitsubishi-Hitachi) apart from building the sensor and supposedly processes the RAW files to favor color rendition over dynamic range (to compete with the famous Canon 5D) the base ISO of 200 along with some sensor thingies made the camera perform actually very well in low-light but nowhere near what it could do because the focus of the processor was quality of light rather than absorption. I thought it was buyer's mumbo jumbo to justify buying the camera back then but i do have to say the files in the D700 are something else, the hearsay is somewhat true because the D4/Df have considerable better performance in low-light and DR yet have smaller photosites and still aren't backside-illuminated, still those were the last cameras made by Renesas before Nikon switched manufacturing to Sony and processor refinement to Towerjazz.
Might be a placebo thing for some but there is something there that i can see when processing, here's a test shot i did with the old zoom, those colors from the window's reflections i didn't know were there and i have used that room everyday this year; at the same hour and same angle the Canon APS-C + Full Frame i had did not catch them entirely, neither does the 20yo Olympus PnS (hilarious hardware comparisons but what can i say). I only processed this RAW with a crop, a downsize and a double decringe pass, that's how much chromatic aberration the lens has and it will not fix that ghosting in the corners either, made worse because i missed focus. I still don't get it, the Canons reproduce a bright yellow spot while this one rendered contrasting shades of yellow, green and a bit of blue.
>I loathe EVFs myself, lol.
I am wary of them because i don't think they work with sunglasses with a polarizing formula, and i am a huge faggot who likes to shoot with dark sunglasses and a cigar so it's a factor. But other than that they will present too many advantages when they mature as a technology, right now outside of /v/ memes i think 60fps/3.2 million dots is not enough for a viewfinder. Also companies stopped adding new things to cameras to sell mirrorless, the Nikon D780 and the Pentax K1 already showed they can add in-body high-res mode, focus+exposure stacking and film scanning on live view.
>You talked about euros
I buy preferably from the US but recently the D700 started getting scalped so i bought one from Europe, the lens had free shipping so i went with it for the fun.
>Do you have a T-mount adapter?
I actually bought two old Vivitars, they are actually Tokina lenses and i got ripped by one of the vendors, bought it and the dude didn't put the address well, placed a "send back if no receiver" and when it went back to him took a gone-away notice for 4 days which were the ones i had left to reclaim, they also have a 100% rating on eBay and are big vendors so i was legitimately surprised because i don't think they would do that for a 20 dollar lens. Fucking wine-chugging queers those guys at jackscamera™ are.
Anyways, got a 200mm f3.5 with 18 blades and a preset system, has some balsam problems but it seems okay, the other was a 135mm f2.8 with 15 blades and also preset rings, it isn't from the same era but it's close enough, i will buy the sister lens to the 200mm again if i see one just because i'm pissed at those cargo-wearing meatspinners jews from Indiana.
They seem to be made out of lead, heavy and the focus ring is smooth as a baby's butt; i heard good things of the "Auto" Komine versions but i was seduced by the blade count of the Tokinas rather than preset rings but they are a welcome surprise. I honestly haven't tested them because i haven't bought the T2F adapter because they came with Canon FD, tomorrow i will for sure as i am moving around to start shooting like crazy starting next year.
Also surprised there's not too many "cheap" old Nikkor lenses around, they cost 120 dollars or over, even the 28mm f3.5 stuff i would assume nobody uses. I wanted to give that famous 105mm f2.5 a try but oh well, i'd rather buy the other bladed Vivitars with the same money like the 300/400/500mm. That lens you linked is very interesting, a close focus telezoom for less than 50 coins? funny i never heard of it even when the camera wiki mentions it's one of their most famous offerings, it even had 4 variants running nearly at the same time and 10 versions overall. Def a lens i will look into, particularly that preset version 4, thanks buddy.

 No.1460

>>1459
>those colors from the window's reflections i didn't know were there and i have used that room everyday this year
Very interesting, you may be up to something. I think in the 5D's case it's mostly placebo though.
>I am a huge faggot who likes to shoot with dark sunglasses and a cigar so it's a factor.
Holy based.
>right now outside of /v/ memes i think 60fps/3.2 million dots is not enough for a viewfinder
Yeah it's bullshit. I want to see stuff at the speed of light not have some processing before I can see it lol.
>Also companies stopped adding new things to cameras to sell mirrorless
That's an absolute disgrace.
>I buy preferably from the US but recently the D700 started getting scalped so i bought one from Europe, the lens had free shipping so i went with it for the fun.
Oh if the US is an option I can look for stuff to suggest.
>I actually bought two old Vivitars, they are actually Tokina lenses and i got ripped by one of the vendors, bought it and the dude didn't put the address well, placed a "send back if no receiver" and when it went back to him took a gone-away notice for 4 days which were the ones i had left to reclaim, they also have a 100% rating on eBay and are big vendors so i was legitimately surprised because i don't think they would do that for a 20 dollar lens. Fucking wine-chugging queers those guys at jackscamera™ are.
Wow. Thanks for the heads up, I'll avoid them
>Also surprised there's not too many "cheap" old Nikkor lenses around, they cost 120 dollars or over, even the 28mm f3.5 stuff i would assume nobody uses. I wanted to give that famous 105mm f2.5 a try but oh well, i'd rather buy the other bladed Vivitars with the same money like the 300/400/500mm. That lens you linked is very interesting, a close focus telezoom for less than 50 coins? funny i never heard of it even when the camera wiki mentions it's one of their most famous offerings, it even had 4 variants running nearly at the same time and 10 versions overall. Def a lens i will look into, particularly that preset version 4, thanks buddy.
No problem. I just noticed I wrote the length wrong looking at the ad you posted. Supposedly the close focusing versions aren't as good, according to Pentaxforums. Also you want to avoid the bright band and earlier versions, they use a plastic piece in the helicoid that breaks.
Watch out for clueless sellers, sometimes they don't even know what mount it's for so they have it published cheaper than they could. Like 233794231385, published as "Canon FD" although it's a Nikon mount and the ears give it away. 10 bucks, 22 with shipping.
382407962520 seems like a good sample too.
154086423967 looks really good.
Sometimes you can find them with a really cool hard case and with a lever for the zoom ring.
264979268848 is an auction on an F-mount with case, at the current price it's 30 with shipping. You may get lucky if you bid late.
I think the optimal version is the non-close focusing with green numbers.
Also, sex sells and clearly the Vivitar marketers knew that, kek.

 No.1461

File: 1608445668748-0.jpg (87.6 KB, 500x660, 25:33, F6J.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1608445668748-1.jpg (91.72 KB, 500x660, 25:33, K3.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1460
I went into an accessory spending spree but i may have some left, really thought about getting that Vivitar but something stuck me, i mean i'm not getting zoom greedy but i wanted to ask you about the Auto vs. Preset version of the 85-205mm, should i wait for a preset one to appear?, and also inquiring about that 75-260mm Vivitar lens, i mean it sure is longer and darker but it may ironically be better, from what i read there's not much info and the pictures seem to have the 85 as a league superior over it but i wanted to make sure as the current-day portrait lenses are similar in recipe but ranging from 70 to full 300. The non-TX mount (the normal T2/T4) has green numbers and the classical chrome font in the front which is the supposed tell-tale sign of retro Tokina goodness.
>I think in the 5D's case it's mostly placebo though
It does have some charisma with its saturated colors in the RAW files, the counter point is that it sucks at stuff in 1600ISO and above which is still comfortable territory for the D700. Either way if there's something i learned is that modern post-processing tools are overpowered enough to turn almost anything into a perfectly usable web image even without taking into consideration the gimmick Auto AI shit being peddled at amateurs, so i'm just taking the piss here and i am already married to Nikon
>382407962520
I was taking a fancy at the other publication but this one has a filter, if nothing goes awry or the 75-260mm does not take on me then i think i might nip that one, thanks a lot bud, you have quite helped me. Due to some technical shenanigans my country does not offer the customs-free shipping with bidding items so i usually avoid those, the one exception was my camera and i had to run papers and a couple of phone calls because the feds wanted to steal it, still i honest to God appreciate your help.
>Sex sells
It always keeps being taken as a meme but it does sell, now as a grown man i can clearly see that while ironically as a pubescent dude i thought otherwise. Same with photogs too, everyone popular or praised are portraitists who only shoot banging chicks or lads who register their international travels with the same old shots from the same places and brag implicitly about banging people in their journeys.
The guy shooting his town with every picture having a planned composition and baking the RAW without overdoing it is usually just a freak who only a handful of people know, but at least in the long-run that's the most fulfilling way.

Also while searching for my 1.2X eyecup augmentation (which got up in price recently) i found this about custom focusing screens, some fellows buy certain mirror plates from film cameras like the Nikon F6 and make custom versions for digital ones.
>https://www.focusingscreen.com/privacy.php?currency=USD
That along with some magnification would make my manual focus become a non-problem, torn between the F6-J or the K-3.

As another sidenote i also learned something about the latter Series 1 lenses by Vivitar, i thought they were gimmick AF plastic but that 90mm f2.5 by Tokina and the 200mm f3 by Komina seem to be stupid good in their specialties, but quite expensive for non-coated off-brand stuff.

 No.1462

>>1461
>I went into an accessory spending spree but i may have some left, really thought about getting that Vivitar but something stuck me, i mean i'm not getting zoom greedy but i wanted to ask you about the Auto vs. Preset version of the 85-205mm, should i wait for a preset one to appear?, and also inquiring about that 75-260mm Vivitar lens, i mean it sure is longer and darker but it may ironically be better, from what i read there's not much info and the pictures seem to have the 85 as a league superior over it but i wanted to make sure as the current-day portrait lenses are similar in recipe but ranging from 70 to full 300. The non-TX mount (the normal T2/T4) has green numbers and the classical chrome font in the front which is the supposed tell-tale sign of retro Tokina goodness.
If there's no T-mount available and the F-mount ones are still cheap I would buy the F-mount instead of the preset.
I'm really ignorant about TX mount and the 75-260mm but Pentaxforums might have some good info.
Also portraits with a 300? That sounds crazy to me lol.
>It does have some charisma with its saturated colors in the RAW files, the counter point is that it sucks at stuff in 1600ISO and above which is still comfortable territory for the D700.
Is it the RAW files or the default way they're processed when imported though?
>Due to some technical shenanigans my country does not offer the customs-free shipping with bidding items so i usually avoid those, the one exception was my camera and i had to run papers and a couple of phone calls because the feds wanted to steal it
Wow, that's disgusting. I'm glad you could get it.
>still i honest to God appreciate your help.
My pleasure.
>The guy shooting his town with every picture having a planned composition and baking the RAW without overdoing it is usually just a freak who only a handful of people know, but at least in the long-run that's the most fulfilling way.
Absolutely lol
>That along with some magnification would make my manual focus become a non-problem, torn between the F6-J or the K-3.
There's one caveat: those screens are usually much darker. If shooting with a lens that opens wide enough it isn't a problem, but with darker lenses the S-type is preferable. I know a guy who used to shoot a lot with mirror lenses and he swears by them.
Also a replacement focusing screen may require some shimming to not miss focus. The split prism disc with microprism ring (the one on the right of your pic) is usually easier to use. You align the images in the center first and then fine tune using the microprisms around. The one on the left seems like a nightmare to me.

 No.1475

File: 1609088203031.jpg (165.41 KB, 1100x731, 1100:731, s-l1600.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1462
>I'm really ignorant about TX mount
It's similar to the screw T mount but with some overcomplicated mechanism for aperture via camera, i usually avoid these because the adapters are phony.
>Also portraits with a 300?
If i could shoot them at 800mm i would but i don't know how to pick the teleconverters for the old T mount lenses. Realistically speaking anything above 200mm makes little difference in a face, above 400mm is just wanting the background to be a single color blur.
>Is it the RAW files
Yep, analog-to-digital photosite conversion that compiles the RAW data sometimes has some tricks pulled there, or the wafer itself is overclocked to prioritize something over another. It's highly technical shit i don't really comprehend but some who do say the early FF digital cameras played tricks there to distinguish themselves above other brands rather than being neutral. Nowadays supposedly the sensors try to be neutral but prioritize dynamic range above contrast or color which is why many claim images now have excellent latitude (visible range of lighting) but look flat, i tend to agree, high-count elements do not help either if marvelous at correcting aberrations.
>those screens are usually much darker
Goddamn, but at least they make life easier in terms of focusing. Thanks for the tips, it is a coin toss but i'm leaning towards buying one, i rather see clearly in the dark than blurry in the daylight.

Also i'm going to wait for the 85-205mm in all-black preset version, and while doing so finally a preset 400mm f5.6 appeared yet i haven't pulled the trigger because the seller said it seemed unused but this pic from the front element looks sketchy as hell: A flower figure near the center, it's either a chipped glass piece, the nastiest balsam separation i've seen or fungus. I might give it a shot to learn how to clean old lenses but at the same time i don't want to clean the entire steel tube, once fungus appears shit hits the fan quickly, especially when this lens has tons of blades that might be a bitch to clean.
The shipping costs are robbery too but it is rare to see that lens at 35 bucks anyways.

 No.1477

File: 1609133044814.png (6.95 MB, 2384x2384, 1:1, photo.png) ImgOps iqdb

While at my old folks I didn't have my DSLR but there were some old binocs and a compact camera (Olympus TG-3) so I decided to give digiscoping a shot. Pleasantly surprised with the results, they arguably beat what I get from my camera. Hard as hell to aim though (and seems slightly out of focus or at least soft, but the binocs were really nasty).
Before trying this I was really struggling to get a decent moon shot with both exposure and focus as there's no manual mode on these things, digiscoping proved fun. Pic related. Only had to remove the chromatic aberration, ended up not even changing the exposure.
>>1475
>high-count elements do not help either if marvelous at correcting aberrations.
>high-count elements do not help either if marvelous at correcting aberrations.
Completely agree.
>Also i'm going to wait for the 85-205mm in all-black preset version
Nice. Wouldn't the Nikon version be easier for you to use though?
>and while doing so finally a preset 400mm f5.6 appeared yet i haven't pulled the trigger because the seller said it seemed unused but this pic from the front element looks sketchy as hell: A flower figure near the center, it's either a chipped glass piece, the nastiest balsam separation i've seen or fungus. I might give it a shot to learn how to clean old lenses but at the same time i don't want to clean the entire steel tube, once fungus appears shit hits the fan quickly, especially when this lens has tons of blades that might be a bitch to clean.
Yeah, I'd avoid it.

 No.1478

File: 1609265994563-0.jpg (292.4 KB, 1050x800, 21:16, A Stylus34 Ad.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609265994563-1.jpg (845.62 KB, 900x1200, 3:4, B P1010015-Ps-LmrF-Ps.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609265994563-2.jpg (251.02 KB, 900x1200, 3:4, C S300 P1010016 Ds.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609265994563-3.jpg (208 KB, 900x1200, 3:4, D S400 P1010004 Ds.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609265994563-4.jpg (469.36 KB, 2190x1080, 73:36, E tommylittle.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

I bought an underwater case for a PnS Olympus i had for cheap and the seller packed in his old camera, which is the "high MP" version of the one i had, so i decided to do a quick test for quality.
I originally bought that camera, a μ/Stylus 300, because i wanted an old CCD to see the meme behind the colors (after seeing it "somewhere") in this case "color science" is an actual thing because there's no RAW output, all is in the mercy of the company's code and i have to say Olympus colors are just like what they say: Cold but vibrant.

It tends to flare quite a bit but it can output well enough, i can see uploading stuff from this camera downsized and few will notice its age (circa 2003). The film version of this line has become a giant meme in the last years on the hipster area, i wanted the leather case for this and it goes for absurd prices thanks to them, and i find it to be a must because the only bad thing i've seen from these cams is the finicky power on/off mechanism: It's the slider that guards the lens, you have to move it all the way to the right and there's no substantial lock, if you dare to move it 3mm (i measured) it will turn off, so you have to manually lock the slider with the middle finger curled at all times… or just avoid touching it, problem is sliding it is also easy so turning it on can be normal in your pockets.
The film versions go for 100 dollars, in good conditions in reaches 200 sometimes, the prime lens version goes for a bit more; these digital versions go for 10 dollars, 20 if it includes the box, manuals and memory card with a carrying case and pouch. The lens is not nearly the same but the high f-stop in the film ones void most advantages with DoF, the tiny sensor practically makes most images "sharp" so the sharpness war is also on the same level unless you print out.

"S300" and "S400" pics are the comparisons between the 300 and the 400 but i made a mistake as the 300 version was only in HQ while the latter in Super HQ, the framing was very near the sun spot so contrast and color went down a bit, second image is one with the 300 and the sun somewhat away. I find interesting that the 300 did considerably better although i can suppose Olympus tried to push things a bit far with the "High MP" version, a marketing thing i guess. The lenses are clean and white balance set to Auto.
The white bordered duopic is some dude i caught in cuckchan while i shamefully lurked to see if i could find someone from the old 8chan place i did spot one who posted years ago but didn't reply to my secret sign of the initiated. This dude seems to be a typical negro enabling bredditor considering some of his BLM photo topics (like most of them down there) but i have to admit he has a good & proven eye and knack for gnarly colors without overdoing them. He used the Stylus 300 for a bunch of stuff and because one was selling near me i jumped the wagon, somewhat ashamed to admit it so i hope i can prove myself with it sometime next year, i still haven't got out of my crib and i already bought tons of shit i don't use.

>>1477
>Yeah, I'd avoid it.
I am a big sucker, didn't buy it but playing around with the zooms i have yesterday i realize my dick needs super telephoto, after i buy my precious wide angle lenses i will not be responsible for the money i spent, either on a Sigma/Tamron telezoom or the P1000 which got a massive price cut (600 dollars refurbished).
>Wouldn't the Nikon version be easier for you to use though?
Both work i guess but i do enjoy the preset aperture thingy, haven't tried my damn Vivitars yet due to the adapter not arriving but toying around the preset thing does feel very smooth, if i venture into a hypothetical camera with good video those will be worth the time, i saw very cool footage using them so i feel confident.
>old binocs and a compact camera (Olympus TG-3)
Olympus gang represent, the Tough series are probably their best selling camera product, they possess a very curious lens mechanism and for their sensor size they produce good stuff. My ultimate PnS will be an Olympus Stylus 1 unless too much time has passed that the Sony RX100 VII comes out as cheap.

 No.1479

>>1478
Those colors are super neat. I love the way Olympus JPEGs look, arguably one of the best brands out there for that use even today. I hope JIP doesn't ruin it. Glorious colors.
>free camera with the case
Sweet.
>preset for video
How about declicking an F-mount instead?
>$600 P1000
Go for it if you can afford it. The only thing that beats that is an early Pentax Q series model and very slightly, with a much more cumbersome setup.
>white borders
Ugh, I can imagine the type. You're not alone in shamefully lurking there. I mean, look at this thread, we're literally two guys lol. I won't touch reddit but imageboards, forums, Flickr and even 500px with its chronic HDR boomerism are all fair game to me. I love reading stuff on Pentax Forums, arguably the best hub for vintage glass information. I guess it helps that M42 was literally the Pentax screw mount.
>Olympus Stylus 1
Interesting. If I were to buy a P&S I'd probably get something like a G1X Mk3, because of the APS-C sensor. No proper viewfinder sucks though.
>comparison
Honestly I can barely tell the difference, but I'm phoneposting right now. I'll have to take a look later.

 No.1480

File: 1609333013509-0.jpg (171.88 KB, 913x735, 913:735, A compocket.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609333013509-1.jpg (834.49 KB, 2908x1014, 1454:507, B stylus1.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609333013509-2.jpg (653.95 KB, 2668x976, 667:244, C G1X3.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609333013509-3.jpg (909.88 KB, 2964x1026, 26:9, D Oly2.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609333013509-4.jpg (881.74 KB, 2976x1024, 93:32, E Oly3.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1479
>How about declicking
Didn't think about that for some reason although the presets can be used in both settings if a bit cumbersome when clicking.
>shamefully lurking there
Yes, never thought to see that day but in fair game it was just a quick venture months ago to see how an "old" /p/ was supposed to run and i realized it's a shitfest full of vitriol with some rare posters trying to put effort in while being ignored, right now i'm mainly doing some long-winded writing and uploading to dump in some boards around the 'ring. Those fags there do have that PPH game but it's a mirage, your posts only have been more nourishing than a month down there, they live to kick themselves and while they do shoot more than me it seems the majority of them do not discuss it, they just dump IG links and wait for the likes, then there's the gearfagging and then the poor sods who do try to post on thematic threads but get blasted for pro-tier technical-only issues in their obvious enthusiast creative-only efforts.
I certainly don't miss the place but it is scary to see that in terms of quality content they are in the same drought as us if not worse because they have to lurk in a sewer to find something interesting.
>we're literally two guys lol
I thought we were 4? but yeah last 2 fellers haven't posted in 2-4 weeks now.
>500px with its chronic HDR boomerism
I thought that was Flickr, 500px for me was the "B&W candid street photo of a salaryman having a bad day" site but i can see them being interchangeable. I've been jonesing to do a faceless profile there and in IG just to network with local people or seduce other faceless people to the dark IB side but i need to finish my boomer watermark logo, it's campy to put one but the fact some pajeets and bugmen take hobby in appropriating obscure sub-100 follower stuff means one can never be sure and anything to make their lives harder the better. Still the logo's not that invasive due to no text and serves as a dog whistle for my folk and some open-minded radicals mainly because it's a swastika and as a card holding injun they will have a hard day trying to tag it down, that or buddhist profiles have a special kind of visual immunity.
>Pentax Forums
Recently i've found tons of info there, good site, same with Camera Wiki and AllPhotoLenses (also that ruskie Arkady who auto-translates his blog to english, Radojuva) but in terms of writing about photo to other people i guess i'm marooned here with this thread and /p/, i thought it was because nobody takes photos but in reality it seems everyone is either partying or having a mental recess, even the lads at /loomis/ have not posted for a while and they were decently active.
>comparison
The 300 has a somewhat strong blue color cast but achieves clarity while the 400 has something going on in its white balance or optics that detail and contrast plummets compared to the former yet is better corrected.
>G1X Mk3
That's a pretty good one, i picked the Stylus 1 as my pocket candidate mainly because of the zoom and price, it's a small 1.7 sensor but throws a 28-300mm equivalent at constant f2.8, costs around 250 bucks or at least it should. But now comparing them i'm appalled to see the Canon is actually a hair smaller too, i didn't expect that, nor the price difference, the mark III has devalued dramatically even when it's newer and better on paper. Thank you for that suggestion, i dislike Canon but that is a deal i cannot ignore at all, their sensors are often trashy at times but a 1.7 against an APS-C should be a no-contest in almost any situation.
Still a 1.7 is not phone-tier, some stuff can be made, i did some testing back then and i found the RAW files to be decent enough because the JPG were a bit too corrected. I downloaded a sample and found that nailing white balance makes colors flourish a lot, also the camera oversharpens a lot so i went softer and even blurred the sky because it is noisy yet it almost looks like grain at times. Visually it's a good machine but come on, a APS-C is miles ahead.
Fuck it, i went ahead and tried to squeeze out of the RAW files instead of being conservative and came up with this, doesn't help the Olympus always met with a cloudy british smog day in every sample from big sites but it's something, at least one hungarian did it right. I felt i could push the Canon image a bit more without noise coming in while the Oly had noise from the get-go, in terms of pushing the shadows up i think the 1.7 performs insanely for what it is but the APS-C could go on until it all looks like a HDR nightmare. Above all there's the fact the Canon has that "look" while the Oly looks like a digital point and shoot, a very good one but still clearly a small sensor.
Probably i skipped past the GX for being Canon and retailing at 1200 ameribugs but at 600 it sounds more decent.

 No.1481

File: 1609333445731-0.jpg (388.1 KB, 1015x1601, 1015:1601, BakedCanonIn300mm.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609333445731-1.jpg (532.38 KB, 1200x1600, 3:4, BakedOlyIn300mm.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1480
Now the small detail is the zoom, cropping the 72mm equivalent APS-C is always an option but it does suffer compared to the optical 300mm equivalent from the Oly, especially when the latter is also f2.8.
In a very questionable test i did it seems a four-times crop (roughly 288mm) lands a 1600x1060 image compared to the native Stylus 4000x3000, in terms of noise the Oly obviously fares a lotta worse but not four-times bad, more around two or two and a half as bad. Sharpness is the biggest hit and post-processing that in such a scale can be done but some years ago it would've been laughable.
We live in decent days, camera tech-wise, it's either cheap or too advanced to find a reasonable flaw.

 No.1482

File: 1609362734096-0.jpg (1.78 MB, 1600x1065, 320:213, 135mm f2.8 A.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609362734096-1.jpg (1.48 MB, 1600x1065, 320:213, 135mm f2.8 B - Corrected.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609362734096-2.jpg (1.84 MB, 1600x1065, 320:213, 200mm f3.5.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Also just got my T-mount adapter so i went with my obligatory palm test shot and got these, direct RAW conversions with only CA tweaking.
Weird how the 135mm got a strong greenish-sepia cast, either the camera went crazy with the WB coincidentally every time i used it or it is a different glass recipe. Both are Tokina made but this lens is the subsequent version so not really the twin brother "Tele Vivitar" of the 200mm, fuck Jack's.
I bow to buy the lost twin one but so far so good anyways, can be tweaked with a simple white balance via mid-gray. Very surprised with the 200mm, the colors are something else but shame i missed focus by a bit in every image, def worth 20 coins. The 135mm is not too shabby either when corrected, those greens are shiny.

 No.1483

>>1480
>>1481
I was under the impression that the G1X III had no viewfinder, maybe that was the G1X II. I didn't know they were that cheap nowadays. For longer shots the Olympus is definitely better, also beware of banding on Canon sensors in low light, at least mine suffers from it. Maybe newer ones are better.
>We live in decent days, camera tech-wise, it's either cheap or too advanced to find a reasonable flaw.
Indeed, It's hard to go wrong with a camera nowadays.
>4 guys
God I hope so. I think there were 4 of us on /tv/ back when I helped the Rebel anon enable back button focus. Maybe we should do more outreach on /tv/ and /dunk/. I'm the guy who memed about Rear Window (my OP kinda gives it away lol) and the Q10 lol. I assume you're the guy who posted the Peep1000 webm and who was afraid to open the P1000 YouTube video I posted lol.
>500px
I tend to associate it with overcooked landscape sunset pics.
>>1482
Very nice, the uncorrected one gives some Miami Vice vibes to me.

 No.1488

File: 1609704480801-0.jpg (201.12 KB, 1600x681, 1600:681, 1D7H1356-C1A.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609704480801-1.jpg (751.5 KB, 1600x681, 1600:681, 2D7H1311-C1A.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1609704480801-2.jpg (1.32 MB, 1600x1065, 320:213, 3D7H1311-C1D.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1483
>beware of banding on Canon sensors in low light
Suffered that with the Rebel for a couple years, after overcoming my Base ISO Syndrome i delved into 1600/3200 and the camera just wanted to die, i borrowed a Rebel TXi and same story, was given the chance to toy with a 5DS (non-R) and there he goes again, in that one it was even worse because it had tons of megapickels and noise hit the fan quickly.
This D700 does suffer from some banding too but you need to be in a extreme contrast situation with strong artificial light like xenon, i found it the hard way but i guess it comes with the age, at least it doesn't appear out of nowhere in broad daylight like the Canon.
>I think there were 4 of us on /tv/ back when I helped the Rebel anon enable back button focus
Yep that was me, i still feel ashamed to never realize i could do it after years owning it and honestly it kinda fixed the shitty autofocus motor i thought was broken somehow, i didn't focus everytime i shot and it started going way faster than before. A shame i already scaled the price down but at least i'm getting decent money for it, my D700 ended up costing only 150 euros then.
I assumed you were the Q10+Sigma man, yeah that was a nice chat, i think we were more than 4 there but here i think 4 is/was the number.
>we should do more outreach on /tv/ and /dunk/
I plan on making the old /film/ movie screencap thread again with my old stuff but i do wonder if i should do it there or on /p/, probably the latter but first i will dump those books, already found all of the scattered PDFs and threw them on a single folder and i'm separating them by general topic, they are a ton hence why i keep stalling.

Just to post something here's some late stroll shots straight out of camera i did with the old 700, first one is a 1/8000 sec shutter slap that i still find novel taking into account all my other cameras only did 4000 and somewhat blurry, here too because the sensor goes insane if placed on direct sunlight for more than 10 seconds and i think it didn't AF well. Crazy to think some modern shit can shoot at 1/20,000 and 90FPS in bursts of 5 images.
The second is just some pretentious angle i did to test my probable all-day lens, the 28-200mm Nikkor G, it has some really lousy pincushion distortion but nothing that can't be fixed as it seems to be of a linear/predictable nature. The camera comes with the settings of the previous owner and that guy tuned the saturation really high, i don't mind as these are tests but the RAW image (3rd pic, direct conversion) still retains some very golden tones and good amounts of saturation. This camera's overall image quality is spouted often to the point of being a meme but it really does deliver, i didn't expect it to be this usable even when i only pretend to use it as an enthusiast.
Cropped in Cinemascope proportions just because.

 No.1497

>>1488 (Heil'd)
Nice GET!
So you were the Rebel guy, didn't expect that for some reason kek.
D700 is quite the upgrade. Didn't expect the 5Ds to have that problem too, that's disappointing to hear.
>Just to post something here's some late stroll shots straight out of camera i did with the old 700, first one is a 1/8000 sec shutter slap that i still find novel taking into account all my other cameras only did 4000 and somewhat blurry, here too because the sensor goes insane if placed on direct sunlight for more than 10 seconds and i think it didn't AF well. Crazy to think some modern shit can shoot at 1/20,000 and 90FPS in bursts of 5 images.
Wow, I thought it was the moon. Pretty otherwordly aesthetic.
>second vs third pic
I prefer the third one honestly, richer color in my opinion.

 No.1498

>>1408
Hey buddy, fuck you! go to hell and fuck oyurself oyu figlthy fucking turk spiece of shit. I am typing this at a hundred and fucking FORTY f ucking words per min ute, I am the worlds' best typist and there's nothing you can do and there's noth ing you can do about htat, nigger boy!

I am the fastest typist in the FUKCING WORLD you stupid hom o. I am the god of typi ngt and you can't get anyw here near me youfucking jewish nigger.

I just got a new keyboard and am tresting it out and wanting ot make usre everything is workign fine here. I am the fucking god doft yping and youare my gu fking goddess of typing and like a goddess and a god do to tether y ou will be getting fucked in your fucking pussy by my ten mile long cock until you beg for more you fucking BITHC

 No.1499

>>1498
I wish I got the 1488 meme number postk lololol

I am still the typing god though , there's nothing my typing goddess *(you) cna say to f uck ing change that you fucking nigger jewish heeb nigger faggot jew

FU CK YOU fuck you you are worst turk you are worst turk remove kebab bremove kekbab remove bekaba REMOVE kEebay

REMOVE KEBAB YREMYOVE KEBABGA

 No.1527

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>1488
>first pic

 No.1536

Recently got a vintage Vivitar 85-205mm f/3.8 zoom. It's the longest lens I have and it's been hilarious to use. I can't share my rear window antics for obvious reasons here but I've discovered that at max aperture, focused to infinity or near infinity and zoomed all the way in, you can see through the little holes in the roller shutter of my window almost as if they were solid if the lens is close enough. You effectively become an invisible observer. So far everything I've seen is boring and I don't really plan on keeping with these activities but it's been really fun to try it. Thanks to some bizarre property of light you can see as if you were on the other side of the shutter. Even in the night. I can only imagine what it must be like to have one of those 200-400mm f/4 bad boys. Sounds really fun.

 No.1537

File: 1612223091887-0.jpg (171.57 KB, 640x950, 64:95, 50vs100-500plus2X.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1612223091887-1.jpg (380.05 KB, 1776x1776, 1:1, 100-500burd.JPG) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1612223091887-2.jpg (288.95 KB, 1300x975, 4:3, 100-500cat.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1612223091887-3.jpg (149.44 KB, 600x800, 3:4, comparison.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1612223091887-4.jpg (33.75 KB, 676x279, 676:279, Cosina100-500.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1536
Oh so you bought it? glad to hear that, i still got that lens on my backlist but some new year's denbts had to be paid and i'm waiting for some money to come down.
I was checking the 75-205mm f/3.8 but the 85 seems to be more classy in its rendering of backgrounds, def will pick that rec over the 70 but i also stumbled upon a cheap lens loophole: The 100-500mm push tubes.
Because i'm becoming frustrated in my voyeur antics and i still don't want to pay for a P950/P1000 i was checking old super-telephotos and realized there were zooms that reach 500mm either in f/7 or f/8. They are heavy and really long but seem sharp enough and can be equipped with a cheap teleconverter for 1000mm on full frame around f/16, the limits to diffraction. For some reason when i looked into eBay and such i never saw them listed, it seems the search engines can't figure a number next to another with a "-" (100-500, 100-400)
The lenses vary in price but they can be seen for around 70 to 100 dollars, sometimes lower, and a cheap 2x teleconverter can be had for 20 so it's a pretty serviceable kit for a possible 100 bill. Here's some samples, the cheapo alternatives to this costs at least 200 and the modern ones go for a minimum of 400 to 500, brand new it's 800 and up.

Another topic i was reading was the whole shebang and fame about the Vivitar "Beer Can", the 70-210mm at constant f/3.5, the 85-205mm's successor. Because i kept seeing it in hipsters' videos and being talked about a lot in vintage lens articles i thought it had a hefty meme tax but honestly checking the prices it's not expensive, 30-40 coins, so i read a bit more about and it seems it was known as one of the "secret" Vivitar lenses because of its performance, supposedly it's considerably sharp apart from being faster than its predecessors… it had one major "flaw" back in the day tho, its backgrounds swirl, something sought after nowadays but back then not desired at all by pros.
It has a lot of hype and i saw another article, which i don't know where i left it, from an author who used all the Vivitar catalogue and mentioned the most "obscure" (back then) but effective lenses he saw and this was there solely because of it being that good, not because of being cheap and marketed hard. The others were fairly obscure as mentioned, a dentist macro zoom lens that was very poorly marketed, deemed a failure soon and discontinued but which was absurdly sharp and not that big, the other i don't recall the details.
Because i'm dead certain on the 85-205mm i was puzzled with the hype, i was wondering if you read about it? they seem too similar to be a considerable difference but the price is also similar. Also reading a bit about mounting AI and non-AI lenses in a Nikon body i am now with the problem that the 85-205 needs a mechanical conversion for it to be mounted on a D700 while the rare preset ones go into the market very once in a while.

Just found the site too:
http://web.archive.org/web/20061118181648/http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html#vivitar
http://web.archive.org/web/20061118181648/http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html#steve
One thing for sure is that these lenses are nowhere near unusable as some fags in modern photography suggest, it's just a matter of focusing them very tightly but that's something which is considerably hard in modern DSLRs.

 No.1538

File: 1612247986672-0.jpg (396.36 KB, 890x800, 89:80, 197051.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1612247986672-1.jpg (27.59 KB, 377x208, 29:16, boat.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1537
>Oh so you bought it? glad to hear that, i still got that lens on my backlist but some new year's denbts had to be paid and i'm waiting for some money to come down.
I was hoping to stay undetected but it's a fool's errand lol. Yes, I bought it. Has some minor issues with the coating in the rear element but I haven't spotted them on the pictures. Got it for $17 with shipping, I was the sole bidder of an auction that started at $5 so it stayed at that price and the rest was shipping. Really happy with it.

>Teleconverters

They tend to yield very soft images so I wouldn't recommend using one, but if you get one for cheap it can't hurt to try as long as it doesn't hit the rear element in your lens.

>P950

I wasn't aware that existed, looks interesting.

>100-500 push tubes

I'll have to check those out. Try searching for 100-500mm instead of just 100-500.

>beercan

I usually hear that term associated with the Minolta, as in this link: http://kleinoak.org/pics/vivitar%20vs%20beercan/vivitar_vs_beercan.htm
I avoided the push-pull zooms because of video but they're indeed a good choice when it comes to optics. The Series 1 is regarded as the golden era of Vivitar. I'm pretty sure they're optically superior to mine.
For me the appeal of the 85-205 had to do with it being constant aperture and 2-touch, but also the vintage look with the hood and the red numbers, reminds me of Cold War movies. Would have bought a bright band version for the aesthetics but they had the issues we talked before with the helicoid, so I went for an all-black one, pic related is just like mine but more beat up. Mine's pristine. From my research, you want to avoid the "close focusing" versions, but the ones made after mine and before those should be the best version. Something I didn't expect and was happy to find out is that it came with the zoom lever. I'm not sure how practical it is and have mostly just used the ring, but it's nice to have a complete lens and a happy surprise as the photos showed no lever so I assumed it had gone missing.

Check the Tamron Adaptall lenses when you have the chance, a few of them are really good. Another one I considered at one point before I got this lens was the Tamron 80-210mm f/3.8-4. I chose against it because I'd have to get an adapter exclusively for Tamron glass and because I wanted the constant aperture for video.

>The others were fairly obscure as mentioned, a dentist macro zoom lens that was very poorly marketed, deemed a failure soon and discontinued but which was absurdly sharp and not that big, the other i don't recall the details.

lol, at first I thought it was a joke about the price but then I got what you meant. So used to hearing the "dentist with a Leica" joke lol. What a niche application.

>One thing for sure is that these lenses are nowhere near unusable as some fags in modern photography suggest, it's just a matter of focusing them very tightly but that's something which is considerably hard in modern DSLRs.

That you can be certain of. Specially with Canon, it's not hard at all when you have focus confirmation from the AF sensors. Just a matter of spending a couple more dollars on the chips. They may be hard to use if you shoot things like sports, though. One problem I found is at far distances that aren't quite infinity, minimal adjustments to the focus ring are necessary and it's hard to nail it. When you do, you can read the license plate of a car parked at an angle at 1/8 mile away.
Pic related is a 100% crop of a boat at about 3 miles from me. I'm unsure of the lens+adapter combo reaching true infinity focus, but maybe I'm asking too much sharpness from a lens made for film on my digital body. The adapter I got doesn't allow me to record aperture or length but I know I took it @205mm. It also was a windy, cloudy day so I'd bet visibility wasn't optimal. I abused the clarity and vibrance sliders to get this picture. Also I was probably using a tripod, I shot both handheld and on a tripod that day. I put some coins between the lens and the quick release plate to support it because I don't like to have almost 2lb hanging from the mount, specially with a cheap aluminum adapter.
Besides long distance photos I used it to shoot some portraits, although the lighting was awful so the photos were mediocre, but I saw the lens is competent enough to do them.
Chromatic aberration is surprisingly subtle, although I didn't really push its limits. I want to shoot the moon to see how it fares but that will require some luck with the weather. Also it came with a vintage UV filter and I quickly found out how fast it makes it flare.
One interesting thing about it is that it doesn't change length with the zoom but with the focus. Overall I'm pleased with it, and it's been fun to use besides being a cool relic. Another aesthetic detail I didn't mention was the purple coating, I love it.

 No.1540

File: 1612250521726.png (242.24 KB, 816x942, 136:157, ClipboardImage.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>1537
Also I've been told that the Cosina 100-400mm lenses and its variations are really good for the price. The build quality is nothing like these lenses we've been discussing though, and it has been described as "feels like it's made of the same material as plastic cups".
You may want to check it out nevertheless.
I found one for Nikon F, for $89: look on eBay for 284139034303. It has some damage. I wouldn't buy it because it worries me that the front plastic damage around the input pupil may give it a light leak.
There's a mint one for $179: 114397459676. Way over the usual price, but looking at sold items I only see 4 since November. Pic related.
The one that sold for $114 was absolutely mint. I hate the silver paint found in most versions, but 400mm for that price is nothing to sneer at.

 No.1543

File: 1612504013774-0.jpg (87.56 KB, 800x567, 800:567, 37885900455_e90848572f_c.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1612504013774-1.jpg (124.43 KB, 800x568, 100:71, 38741621722_9e27d71370_c.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1538
>as long as it doesn't hit the rear element in your lens
I've seen some test shots and they look "decently" enough, they are soft but not that much compared to cropping. Perhaps a bit too soft but that micro-structure/small-detail contrast sliders in newer image processors do save a lot of trouble if you have 8GB RAM to spare and the tact not to cook them too much.
>looks interesting.
It's just a P900 with all the upgrades the P1000 had, like RAW format and the new IBIS system but still i am amazed in how much smaller it is compared to the 1000, i don't mind juggling gear but it is almost half the size.
>Try searching for 100-500mm
It ignores everything after the "-" yet the titles have it, i usually just search for brands and type 500mm. So far there's Cosina, Samyang, Phoenix, Vivitar 1 and i think a Kalimar, my bet is the Samyang as it is brighter and has my preferred diamond finish in the grip, hate the cheap plastic ones.

So you are video fella, yeah i suppose that makes choices much harder, i'm more of a cinematography guy than photography one but my budget makes me a dreamer only, especially with a photo-only camera but perhaps one day when i can afford a Z6/D780, still on the fence with mirrorless systems.
> vintage UV filter and I quickly found out how fast it makes it flare.
Yeah at night time bright spots will mirror inside and ghost the image slightly, supposedly modern filters don't but the distance between filter and first glass element will make much more of a difference than super multi-coating.
>"dentist with a Leica" joke
lol, i always saw them more of a dentist with a Nikon D8X0/Pentax 645Z, guess the dentists i see are older than the new generation. The only dude i've seen around with a Leica is a homosexual in software development, also the most nordic-looking fella around. Soy is a danger to society, the rest are just Fuji X100 users or downright lomofags who develop with pee because we don't have film shops in my town.
>it's a fool's errand lol
And that's not mentioning the fact i am almost dead certain i have been talking to you on at least two other occasions in different topic boards. The shrinking of the userbase is getting me nervous.
>Cosina 100-400mm
Yes i did check that particular lens due to the AF feature but other than the plastic grip i read time ago about the AF motors not being having good life, optically i saw great pictures but got my doubts with the motors and adapting a teleconverter on them would render it a manual only anyways unless i buy a chipped TC. Still it is in my consideration along with the Sammy Yang, although that black Tokina version looks tempting, and it's Nikon AI native. Thank God at least they are cheap enough in context to new shit, long tube lenses are good but hard to find in good conditions (and expensive to ship) and i rather kill myself than use mirror lenses creatively, the backgrounds look like maggot-infested pure AIDS.

Also about that Vivitar 135mm 2.8 i have… it just dawned me some days ago when i was trying to manually macro focus with the lens unattached, i peaked into it because i am addicted at seeing the elements and i realized: 60's era lens, particularly fast and small for its focal length, all-metal construction with heavy metal lens caps, mysterious yellow/golden tint that appears in all elements and also in images despite being crystal clear… is the lens radioactive?
I made a to-buy list time ago with all the gear i wanted and checking some options i read some popular and unconspicuous lenses still had small amounts of thorium that tint ever so slightly the glass inside, like the widely available 180mm 2.8 Nikkor D, and because even in the 70's everyone was prone to use that element i might've stumbled into a lens that nobody has bothered to check if it is or not. Almost snapped my neck at how fast i recoiled when i realized this in the middle of eye-raping the lens, the reflex effect on a big bright lens is just so novel to me.

 No.1544

File: 1612505163209.png (486.6 KB, 639x1152, 71:128, mark_transparent.png) ImgOps iqdb


 No.1548

>>1543
Try narrowing by focal length on eBay to find the stuff.

>So you are video fella, yeah i suppose that makes choices much harder, i'm more of a cinematography guy than photography one but my budget makes me a dreamer only, especially with a photo-only camera but perhaps one day when i can afford a Z6/D780, still on the fence with mirrorless systems.

I mean, I'm more or less in the same situation as you. I'm into photography trying to get into video, but I'm having some rude awakenings specially relating to the low light capability of my camera. I was all too happy to look for f/2 lenses for in-car shots and such, but after testing with an f/4 I have I came to the conclusion it won't cut it. I need H2 ISO to get something that isn't pitch black (and it still is underexposed) so I'll need f/1.4 to stand a chance. If you want to follow the 180 degree shutter rule that means 1/50s exposure at 24fps.

>supposedly modern filters don't but the distance between filter and first glass element will make much more of a difference than super multi-coating.

I suspect my filter isn't coated at all lol, it doesn't even read "coated" on it. During the era I think it may be from (around the same time as the lens) it was common to advertise the coatings on the filter itself, if multicoated "MC". The lens itself isn't coated so that aggravates things.

>i rather kill myself than use mirror lenses creatively, the backgrounds look like maggot-infested pure AIDS.

Well, it can be used creatively in an intentional way. Specially for macro, something they're surprisingly good at.

>is the lens radioactive?

Likely not, that was a thing with really high end stuff. Also the yellowing on the radioactive lenses tends to go away with exposure to UV light and also the yellowing tends to make it lose contrast. A lot of the coatings bak in the day were yellow, others purple like mine (I love the look). Multicoateds often change color as you move them around.

>I made a to-buy list time ago with all the gear i wanted and checking some options i read some popular and unconspicuous lenses still had small amounts of thorium that tint ever so slightly the glass inside, like the widely available 180mm 2.8 Nikkor D, and because even in the 70's everyone was prone to use that element i might've stumbled into a lens that nobody has bothered to check if it is or not. Almost snapped my neck at how fast i recoiled when i realized this in the middle of eye-raping the lens, the reflex effect on a big bright lens is just so novel to me.

Super Taks you have to watch out for too.
Camerapedia has a list of lenses they tested for radioactivity, it's not a comprehensive list but it gives you an idea:
https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses
The only radioactive Vivitar I see is the Series 1 28mm f1.9. Honestly it surprised me to find a radioactive Vivitar at all, I thought it was reserved for more exotic glass.

 No.1549

>>1544
wat, in what way did i sound like a cake eating kike other than trying to spend the less money possible?
>>1548
>the yellowing tends to make it lose contrast
Then this isn't the case, strange because it is a very pronounced tint when i try it in neutral backgrounds. Yeah the Takumars and the Kodaks are the ones i remember the most, excellent optics have to admit there.

 No.1550

>>1549
>excellent optics
Well, they only thoriated the best lenses. It was like the fluorite of the time. Now that you mention Kodak, there was some Aero Ektar or something like that which had a really high percentage, some really fast and heavy lens for night aerial large format photography in WW2.
Also kind of related, the other day I saw a video about using ultrafast X-ray lenses (made for photographing a fluorescent screen to do quicker radiographies and reducing the patient's exposure, not to bend the X-rays themselves which don't care about glass) and the results were pretty impressive. f/0.7 on a budget. They had to mod the camera to allow infinity focus though, the required flange was like 4mm or so. I wasn't extremely impressive with the required ISO to film with candlelight though, in the vicinity of 10k. It looked clean, but that's admittedly thanks to the ultra-sensitive camera.

 No.1551


 No.1562

File: 1612820655074.png (46.49 KB, 713x400, 713:400, auto iso.png) ImgOps iqdb

While Pentax has some incredibly clever exposure modes, Canon pulls this bullshit. I noticed that even if I covered the lens, the displayed ISO when set to A was always 400. I looked at the menus to see if I maybe ISO was capped at 400 but no cigar. Then I tried Tv (S on Nikon) mode and it started working normally, so I thought I should maybe RTFM. Absolutely retarded, why not disable auto ISO in M mode if they don't support it?

 No.1623

File: 1614986023834.jpg (55.91 KB, 298x343, 298:343, heymoon.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Managed to pull this one a few days ago with the Vivitar 85-205mm f/3.8.
205mm, ISO 400, 1/640s so I was probably stopped down a bit because there's no blown highlights.
I fucked with the clarity, contrast and defringing but other than that, no adjustments made. Sharpening is just the default value.
Not too shabby for a nearly 50 year old lens with balsam separation, huh. Also handheld with no bracing of any sort. Just standing on top of a building with the camera, that's as much credit as I'm willing to take. I won't even call it art but I'm proud of squeezing this photo out of that lens on a technical level.

 No.1638

File: 1615480295100.png (256.26 KB, 1135x322, 1135:322, Llisting.png) ImgOps iqdb

After reading that one should enlist all the gear one "needs" in order to have mental stability and not lust over every single piece of glass or silicon that comes out i've researched for months and finally finished a listing on the lens department.
20 lenses (plus a couple others not "essential", pinhole and Vivitar vintage toys not included) in which i can finally rest and not peak at anything for at the very least 10 years or so. The full kit so to say, and because my area and myself are not drowning in money i decided to make a fairly cheap Nikon F system with old Nikkor D glass and a few third-party lenses with highly-respectable fame or unique features in the field.
It came out at around 7200 to 8000 americoins depending how lucky/unlucky and how minty i want them to be. If i add the 24mm probe lens for the quirky/hard to record sequences that's 9000, if i include the camera and its varied accessories that's around 11,000. Right now i win 150 a month, a real job will land me 500 a month so i guess this is going to be a long-winded venture just for the hobby of it. An actual contemporary mirrorless system for the peace of mind would be around 20,000 for comparison.

The camera is already pocketed at least, the venerable Nikon D700 with the 12mp non-Sony sensor, and i am almost finished gearing it with accessories like the eyecups, the intervalometer, the battery grip and the batteries themselves along with the servicing. I only need the 1.2x eye glass and probably a focusing screen so the camera can be left alone as it is unless i want to buy a Nikon D4S for 1500
Then it would be time to list the other stuff like a tripod, a photo head and a video one, tons of filters and maybe a flash. I have some ideas but with the flash plus lightning i don't want to mess with, that's as expensive as the lenses and i will probably never be a studio rat apart that i like natural sources mostly.

The post-processing rig has already been build and so far around 1000 have been spend in half a year for the camera and two initial lenses, listing could've easily been cheaper but i like krinkle-finished steel lenses despite being costlier and/or inferior but due to my non-technical interests and low mp count camera i don't mind it.
Just wanted to say this is a fucking expensive hobby but at least it's not 4x4 outdoor adventuring or traveling around the world, with 12,000 dollars tops i can have a very complete play set that can last me decades and perhaps a bit of money on the side although it might take me a literal decade to have it.

 No.1639

>>1638
I think the kit is both a bit excessive and lacking, contradictory as that sounds. Don't underestimate the importance of a tripod and flashes (although I just looked it up and the D700 at least has a pop-up one). Of course, that's all depending on what your project is about. But to give you an example, and I know cinematography and pure photography aren't the same, the entirety of 1917 was filmed with two focal lengths: 35mm and 40mm. I'm not saying buy a prime and call it a day, I'm just saying that if you have a vision then the amount of lenses you need is greatly reduced.
Because of the low MP I think you would be wise to look for well corrected glass in terms of distortion, as fixing that means stretching the pixels and that reduces sharpness.
Also look for sales on the tripods, I bought a big video tripod before New Year for just $150, a tripod that normally goes for $250. Keep an eye out for that sort of deal. A tripod and a remote shutter will take you places. Don't fall for the RRS meme, there's plenty of tripods under $200 that are more than sturdy enough unless you plan to do stress tests with a hydraulic press on them.
If I were you I'd go for the most versatility first, or maybe the most niche things (a cool super macro lens can show you an entirely new world previously unknown to you) but would avoid buying common primes except maybe a nifty fifty because it's extremely cheap. The 28-200mm (why not Ken's favorite the 28-300mm instead? Maybe you already have that range covered and maybe there's a steep price difference, I don't know) would be my first buy from that list if I were you. Is the 16mm a fisheye? Because if it isn't, the 18mm feels a bit redundant as you can always crop.

 No.1640

File: 1615576781366.png (248.41 KB, 1126x339, 1126:339, pecks.png) ImgOps iqdb

>>1639
>I think the kit is both a bit excessive and lacking
I tried to make the cheap-to-quality ratio with every range i could think of that i also like, hence no 40mm despite being the normal lens because 35mm is my preferred one.
It is also redundant in some places, like the mentioned 35mm but the P.C. is to make possible big print arch work (A0-A1) which i had previously done barely, the D is the regular prime which also focuses closely and the 1.2 would be just a fetish lens, the 20-35mm covers 20, 24 and 28 with the same number of elements and aperture than its respective cheap D primes and plus that 35mm final length just for the kicks, didn't pick the seemingly superior 17-35mm 2.8 because it costs twice as much and isn't full metal with krinkles that i like but it does have more significant range and focuses much closely albeit slower due to weighting more.
Other "fetish" lenses are the 58mm G, the 135mm DC, the 16mm (it is a fisheye) and perhaps the Laowa 100mm Macro (which is a 1:2 magnification).

There is a pecking order and these would be the last to get and the bulk of the money (from 3000 to 3500 for just 5), not including a Voigtlander 58mm and other stuff (the 58G is similar but build more around the blur transitions aka softer but mystical, hence my leaning towards it just too fucking expensive)

After taking pictures for a couple of years i realized i actually go around doing multiple things (except portraits due to no frens) so far i still have no style/affinity on my own but i do use telephoto landscape and plane compression so practically i require "portrait" lenses (not insane ones like the 105mm 1.4 G tho, the 2.8/3.5 are more than serviceable).
My main activity is arch so the 15mm with a small shift mechanism, the 20-35mm and the 35mm P.C. are prioritized above others due to your well explained reason: 12mp gets distorted hard with keystone but honestly i went for it with freecare because i don't plan to use prints or digital sizes above A2, which the D700 can comfortably manage or barely do if severe distortion corrections are made.
I do think of doing a photobook one day but the costs are severe in my economy so i don't think it would be bigger than a A4 inside a A3 page size, and no print run higher than 50 unless someone takes a gander at me. Not to play the hipster but i see image quality more around the idea of "rendering" uniquely (sometimes further "enhanced" with a "little" post) than technical prowess of sharpness and perfect neutral colors which i love but looks very similar when downsized for casual internet use and big print mania costs quite the funds plus almost no client or spectator asks for it as few can pay or want to visit such works.

>Don't underestimate the importance of a tripod and flashes

Of course, i focused on lenses due to the variety of them and the time it takes to check them (i downloaded samples, saw reviews, heard popular opinions) the tripods are important but i also agree they should not be that expensive, anything above 500 is almost meme tier unless it has a fixed video head or something. My suspected choice will be a 150 dollar steel Sirui but the bastards discontinued some models i found very good, i haven't researched more so perhaps they have more.
The head is my main worry, it's 500 dollars with taxes but after much reading it is ideal, it's rugged as hell and doesn't need the quirk i found with closed head mechanisms: Maintenance, usually from specialized hands, the Acratech ones are open metal works and while they haven't been that long in the market it is rare to find someone mentioning a malfunctioning one, the only case i ever saw had the guy mentioning the company sending him a new head even when his 5-year warranty had been over for a while. I find strange how everyone who used their stuff praises them yet the "Really Right/Good Stuff" (i take this was your reference?) and Manfrotto get more shilled and talked despite finding considerable negative feedback regarding some of their products or quirks (Manfrotto heads need to be mailed for fixing, and then they charge you both the shipping and services). Right now it isn't a priority as i have a cheap one serviceable enough but i do plan to get one sooner or later before jumping into the expensive lenses.

The D700 does have a flash although a bit weak and casts a shadow in long lenses, i was eyeing a SB700 or a SB900 but i am leaning towards the former, i don't know where i could use one except as an off-camera source or to bounce soft light in a ceiling for interiors hence why i haven't researched more, the studio ones are as expensive as a body so i try to avoid such readings. Umbrellas and silver origami are cheap enough so i don't worry that much plus in a stroll to the park i don't think i will use them other than maybe one of the silvery things to bounce.

 No.1641

File: 1615576824565.jpg (189.71 KB, 907x691, 907:691, 28200example.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1640
>If I were you I'd go for the most versatility first
Yes, the first one i got was the Vivitars yes, it is me old friend and the 28-200 G, that works both as my travel lens and as a test to evaluate what lengths i like the most, so far 35mm and 135mm are what i like but above them a 24mm i once used, in APS-C i liked something that in FF would be around 300 to 350mm.
Will sell the Vivitar 135mm 2.8, it is sharp enough and does have the bokeh but the yellow tint is pretty severe at times, there comes a point i cannot correct it without busting pixels in the shadows. The Nikkor pre-AI equivalent seems more vivid and just as cheap but the blur is not as soft, the ring fix is easy with a file so i don't worry much as i am used to no-electronics preset lenses already… that or will buy the earlier Vivitar version the coons at that camera store didn't mail me well.
>why not Ken's favorite the 28-300mm instead
I got the 28-200mm first, i thought a lot about the 300mm G but it costs 500 for a regular one, i got the 200mm mint for 150 and the size difference is absurd in practice, it feels like a plastic heap of white chinese gears but focuses a bit closer and has small focus breathing compared to the 300mm which becomes a 250-260mm. Lousy distortion like i said and no stabilization but it is a cute companion, as small as a 18-55mm kit lens and the coatings against the sun are admirable, i usually shoot fast shutters and in low light i have tripods so the VR thing is not that much of a worry.

>I know cinematography and pure photography aren't the same

I got your example, they are similar for sure and some even transcend the boundaries but the whole ecosystem thing i pulled out my butt is for the pleasure of waking up one day, opening a shelve and picking what you are going to use for the park ride or if one saturday you want to take pictures of a cool building in the other side of town. It's a very old man's take on the hobby but it's the most viable situation i could imagine for someone to not/never care about gear, a zen mentality to simply pick stuff and shoot.
In my opinion one can just go out and shoot as long as you have the lengths covered (15 to 500mm) with at least f/8 light (technically achieved at the same time) so in theory i am 3 lenses away with a circular polarizer and a couple of neutral filters from just going out to shoot without worrying about limitations, the rest are just specializing in needs i might stumble upon at some point. In terms of video, which i like a lot due to film hobby too, i wouldn't worry myself that much, good reels have been made with shit-tier Nikon specs and smart focusing systems of nowadays are for no-hands goons, an actual camera man fixes the focus plane or does small manual corrections anyways. Also plenty of 1080p Pro conversions are soft as hell, and it's good for it because sharp motions for a while will tire the eye.

All of these is a journey to worry about getting the things that will make me start not worrying, the difference (i cope) is that an ending goal has been set which makes me think it will be over one day unlike the poor fellas who update a camera body every 2 years.
Along the way is reading books and watching tutorials too, at least those are free :^)

 No.1642

File: 1615651108415.jpg (88.37 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Dunk.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1640
>>1641
>yes, it is me old friend
I knew it was you, lol. Not many people shooting a D700 nowadays.
I get what you mean now that you mentioned those prints, you want every bit of sharpness you can get.
>it will be over one day unlike the poor fellas who update a camera body every 2 years.
Some of those guys pass on getting a nice camera today because they fear the company that makes it may not be around tomorrow, consumerism is a sad thing. On the plus side, maybe we'll get cheaper glass and equipment as all the drones move to mirrorless and dump their DSLR gear on the market.
>I have tripods.
I don't know why I assumed you didn't, lol. You can safely disregard some of what I said about them.
>RRS
Yeah, it was Really Right Stuff. I think part of the hype comes from the fact that they're supposed to be a lifetime purchase and if you manage to break them (I know one case of one falling down a tall rocky cliff) they'll replace it no questions asked. In America, at least.
>I got the 28-200mm first, i thought a lot about the 300mm G but it costs 500 for a regular one, i got the 200mm mint for 150
Wew, I didn't realize the difference was so big. Must be Ken tax.
>smart focusing systems
Yeah, AF has no place in narrative filmmaking. Maybe justified for run-and-gun documentaries at most. It boggles me to read people criticizing the Panasonic S1H because of AF for example. Outside of vlogging I can't imagine using AF for video. Also MF with focus by wire I find awful too. Now power zoom, that's neat. For photography it makes no sense, but for video being able to smoothly zoom in and out is great.
Also glad to hear the list includes what you already have instead of being a shopping list, makes things a lot more doable.
I have a wish list of my own too, mostly vintage glass. But right now I'm hunting for a 24mm which I need for some in-car scenes. I took a point and shoot and took some pictures which I later checked for EXIF to determine the length I needed. I also did some exposure tests and apparently I'll have to get a f/1.4 lens to get the results I want. Sometimes I wonder if I did the right thing going for full frame, I'm a bit worried that focusing will be a pain despite the short focal length.
When I get what I need for my project I'll focus on the "toys" like the super telephotos.

 No.1643

File: 1615681799342-0.jpg (455.75 KB, 800x600, 4:3, A-Sty300HQ.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1615681799342-1.jpg (435.4 KB, 800x600, 4:3, B-Sty300SHQ.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Here's a quick JPG experiment i did with the D700 (Full-frame sensor, 1.7" diagonal, 8.42 µm density) compared to my Stylus 300 (1/2.5", 0.28" diagonal, 2.83 µm density) after i saw the sky unusually blue today none of the images reflect how deep blue it was deustch angle done wildly to hide suspicious object in front of me.
These first two are the Olympus, its trademark jay peg dials left intact. First image (A) is the "High-Quality" setting and the second (B) is the "Super High-Quality" one, both are same resolution but the latter seems to either dump it as it is or add a layer of sharpening in it. The pungent noise makes me think the latter.
Downsized to 800x600 because that's the average phone user resolution/casual internet lurker resolution.

>>1642
>Not many people shooting a D700 nowadays.
Especially under 30yo, i look much older holding a full-bodied DSLR.
>they fear the company that makes it may not be around tomorrow
I still don't get that idea when reading and hearing dummies on popular sites or jewtube, one might say the guarantee is bust but that's not even the case in most instances, Samsung gave it for years and Olympus still services plenty of products. Coomsumerism is indeed a sickness on the tech-addicted, because some aren't even photographers, it's just enthusiasts being fascinated with new toys and buying them for the sake of exploring technology without knowing what it's for.
Like buying a hatchet without caring how to chop a faggot.

>dump their DSLR gear on the market

Might be but "vintage" is getting expensive, for example the 18mm 2.8 D was 250 and 35mm 1.4 AI-S around 200 but who knows who the hell promoted them and they spiked really hard lately. Mirrorless gave life to old stuff and the D lenses are somewhat stuck in the middle as they are neither vintage nor contemporary, they are vast and cheap yet some obscure examples can at any moment go up if some fool goes around saying they are special. The 18mm indeed is but its main quality is the rugged as hell construction, not the fact it's a vignette hellspawn who hates straight lines.
>I know one case of one falling down a tall rocky cliff
I read they are pretty decent but overpriced, for example the Libec video stuff costs 2/3 and are practically the same thing, Sirui seem not as well polished but feature some stuff that RRS only gives in 400+ models like a monopod leg and spikes that can be pulled out instead of screwed in.

>Must be Ken tax.

That's what i found odd, the 28-200 G is a favorite of Ken too, i got it relatively cheap compared to what americans pay for it. Honestly i am not well versed in using prime lenses in day to day situation (sample RAWs are usually cherrypicked) but that lens so far pulls pretty much anything i want sans distortion, it is "rare" finding it in physical stores but even at an eBay premium i cannot see someone disliking it if he isn't taking pictures of straight line charts from corner to corner. Perhaps primes will make me more nitpicky as times go by. The 300mm one is indeed expensive even in its context, i read the latest Tamron for F mount wasn't bad at all compared to it and costs a 1/3.

>Video vs. Photography

Agreed completely, hence why i think some lenses are killing the hen for the egg but it is true that video needs are making much more money at the moment, perhaps that's the future but snob photographers will always be richer, a screwdriver lens with smooth focus ring and hyperfocal scale will always make more money than hybrid lenses but people simply cannot appreciate it, even skilled photographers don't mind the manual aspect of it and throwing into the trash the AF of any sort.
I don't quite understand the need for both extremes so i won't discuss it further due to the risk of saying something more retarded (there might be a reason for them not to do it, build-wise).

 No.1644

File: 1615682496031-0.jpg (384.55 KB, 900x600, 3:2, C-D700OutF.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1615682496031-1.jpg (364.92 KB, 900x600, 3:2, D-D700InF.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1615682496032-2.jpg (498.95 KB, 750x600, 5:4, E.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Here's the other two, made with the D700 with "Vivid" jpeg profile and D-Lightning turned high (which i think screwed the test due to dynamic range/contrast).
(C) was the last pic before the pidgey got away and it was out of focus to boot, last one (D) is with the burd on focus but without discovering my final frame (which i never got to it as it wasn't my purpose, discovered it now that i look upon them).

Despite being famous for its colors i underexposed the camera hence not saturated the sensor properties, the RAWs can "fix" this but i find it odd how the Vivid profile is not as shiny as the good old Stylus.
In fact my fav pic was the very first one done in the "HQ" quality, there's something about the shoddy quality, the general soft image and the downsized digital noise that makes it the one more similar to actual film. Not that i prefer it because of "durr film-like" but it is the one i kinda like gazing upon more.

And here's me baby in all its early-00's aesthetics, was trying some low-light with the Stylus and while it kinda can (on a tripod i guess) i am remorsefully seeing tons of hot pixels in it. It's sometimes good to take pictures of your own stuff as in photos you can see things the naked eye is used to, for instance i now know i need to clean my Nik.

>>1642
>people criticizing the Panasonic S1H because of AF for example
I have my beef with the S1 being used as Netflix/digital streaming platform, not because it is a bad camera series, long shot of them being that, but because the suits are cutthroat in forcing them due to their technical ease to manage but they play the role it's because they look good. What use is a machine like a S1 that has advanced video tools when a poorfag will rent one for 3 days and then attach the cheapest flea market hazy 80's 3.5 prime korean bootleg lens he will find to avoid renting a CineLens for just as much money if not more than the camera. I've seen plenty of projects with top-notch technical specs yet i can the corners being absolutely horrible (and i am not a corner sharpness fag at all) and then in the next frame of the same scene they changed the lens to a wider focal length but without the same corners nor the same contrast, stylistically/visually it is as notorious as the set changing all of the sudden.
I understand it's an artistic choice but the fags pretend to implement the rules for general aesthetic reasons, it's half business half convenience, why pretend it's not. They would do much better if instead of forcing camera specs they forced or recommended particular lens kits and subsidized the rent on them if the filmmaker is an associate/winner of something. Subsidizing sounds commie-tier but it's the vain of an independent/new filmmaker/studio trying to work for a big company, even the main actors charge less than a cine renting company. Rant over lol, fuck Cooke's.
>smoothly zoom in and out is great
I have yet to study/read about one of my guilty pleasures, the Shaw Bros. Zoom technique along with their lenses (heavily distorted anamorphic zoom lenses made of lead), i know that's not smooth at all but it's something.

>I have a wish list of my own too, mostly vintage glass

>24mm 1.4
Might as well comment on them buddy, that kind of 24mm exists but they sure are hunks of glass, one i can think of is one of my discarded fetish lenses, the Rokinon/Samyang 24mm 1.4 F mount, i don't know if i really love the 24mm length (85 degrees?) hence why i ignored it for the moment but it's relatively cheap ($500 new, full manual no electronics tho). Astroautists do regard it well so it can't be that bad despite being korean.
Also a Voigtlander but it is 21mm 1.4 instead of 24 (90 degrees?), 1000 bucks but at least it's cheaper than the Zeiss/Leica/Sigmart counterparts.
>Sometimes I wonder if I did the right thing going for full frame
I did at the very first because of the difficulties when looking at telephotos but honestly, at least in photography, the difference in rendering tonal details, color saturation with a relatively flexible highlight-burning threshold and the available glass for wider angles with little distortion is worth it… as long as one uses them like silver B&W shooting and/or Doyle-tier visual experiments.
3 years ago it was the main dish for maximum digital image quality and nowadays Laowa and Voigtlander are making really interesting glass for Micro4/3rds (0.95 wide angles, unthinkable years ago) but i find hard to believe that format will go on being developed, it is the go-to for telephoto lovers but it gets its shit really stretched when pushed on video, low-light photo on them is not bad at all actually but on video the ISO starts sweating bullets at 800, especially if there's a light source changing, i recall heavy artifacts when some local eddy tried to push his Lumix (a G85 i think?) with a disco ball on a relatively low ISO (certainly not 3200).
With full-frame it's fucking expensive but it's possible.

 No.1645

>>1644
I'll comment on your samples later because of two reasons:
1) I'm on my phone and it's color reproduction isn't the best.
2) I'm about to pass out.
On my phone I tend to like the Nikon samples better though.

>Netflix

That's a bit misunderstood, you can film a project with any camera and try to get Netflix to pick it up. The Panasonic thing is for productions made by them.

>Samyang/Rokinon

Exactly the one I plan to buy. With some luck it can be had for under $200. Can also be found as Bower.

>MFT

The video specialist models are actually really good in low light, like the GH5S. Recently they launched a box camera with basically the same specs too.

 No.1646

>>1644
>In fact my fav pic was the very first one done in the "HQ" quality, there's something about the shoddy quality, the general soft image and the downsized digital noise that makes it the one more similar to actual film. Not that i prefer it because of "durr film-like" but it is the one i kinda like gazing upon more.
Ironic, I found the opposite. The D700 ones are very filmlike IMO (probably thanks to the extra sharpness) but with a slight yellow cast/warmer WB.
I find the Stylus to be more digital looking overall. Maybe it's the bluing of the pole on the Stylus.

 No.1649

File: 1615871891845.jpg (114.24 KB, 1024x679, 1024:679, 53960014-1024x679.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1645
>>1646
>misunderstood
Could swear it was very specific, apologies although point still stands with folk using different shitty lenses instead of a single kit of all-shit lenses
>With some luck it can be had for under $200. Can also be found as Bower.
That's way cheaper than i thought used, perhaps i will replace a lens for another if it stays there. Still won't buy it until much later.
>MFT
I will probably get one for telephoto at some point although that might happen much later when that Olympus full-bodied one costs way less.
>Ironic, I found the opposite
>D700 ones are very filmlike IMO
Well they do kinda look like Velvia, although i don't know much about stock i find that one very fine, but in my shit-assed criteria "film-like" reminds me of the very grainy and biased tone stock that my aunts used to shoot.
The cheap lenses attached to the bodies also produced some glow (halation?) hence why the Stylus looked to me like the family pictures of my 90's although for someone with more taste and/or better practice it might look like digital shenanigans from the CCD days.
>but with a slight yellow cast/warmer WB.
Yes although that day was bizarre, but in a desert i may expect sandy atmosphere turning things warm. Thanks for the comments too and good luck with those video projects, one day i will venture into them either with a D4S or a Z6/Z9

 No.1652

File: 1615999175897-0.jpg (191.69 KB, 2016x1504, 63:47, Z7 14-24 2.8 FTZ.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1615999175898-1.jpg (94.6 KB, 940x701, 940:701, A7Riii , 16-35 GM.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1615999175898-2.jpg (62.55 KB, 2016x1504, 63:47, left A7Riii , Right Z7.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1649
I was sure I had replied to this yesterday, I guess I forgot to hit "New Reply".
>although point still stands with folk using different shitty lenses instead of a single kit of all-shit lenses
Totally agree. Matching lenses is always desirable.
Sadly I will fail to do that in my own project, simply because I'll have a shoestring budget. There's ways to match footage to a certain extent though, specially if shooting RAW (for the colors).
For the vignetting, it'd be possible to use a center ND filter, but there's the issue of not having much liberty with the shutter speed already. I guess the best approach would be the reverse: giving vignette to the less vignetted footage. Or at least make sure the overall correction looks the same across the board.
>I will probably get one for telephoto at some point although that might happen much later when that Olympus full-bodied one costs way less.
I've been tempted by the Four Thirds line. Being so old, the sensors are sort of garbage at least going by the DxOMark ISO score, but that viewfinder magnification alone (the real one, not the corrected one that takes crop factor into account) makes them very attractive to me.
>Velvia
I think they're a bit too tame for that, but maybe it's that there's a lot of blue and no magenta.
>but in my shit-assed criteria "film-like" reminds me of the very grainy and biased tone stock that my aunts used to shoot.
Maybe the grain made color "bleed" into other things with consumer grade film (just a wild guess, don't quote me on that one).
>The cheap lenses attached to the bodies also produced some glow (halation?) hence why the Stylus looked to me like the family pictures of my 90's although for someone with more taste and/or better practice it might look like digital shenanigans from the CCD days.
That was probably spherical aberration (Tokina is infamous for this to the point that some call the effect "Tokina glow".
>Yes although that day was bizarre, but in a desert i may expect sandy atmosphere turning things warm. Thanks for the comments too and good luck with those video projects, one day i will venture into them either with a D4S or a Z6/Z9
Z cameras seem like a pain to use in low light though, at least compared to Sony. Pics related. Final image was the same in both.
Maybe they'll fix that eventually.
I'm quite unimpressed with mirrorless cameras myself, even though they're best for video I'd be reluctant to get one unless it was exclusively for video use and then there's better offerings from cinema camera makers.
At the price that the Z9 is expected to command (between 6K and 7K) you may as well spend 8K for a Mavo LF. Clean images at stupidly high ISOs because it has dual native ISO (5120/800), and it will likely be better from a refrigeration point of view too. Heat causes noise, and video causes heat.

 No.1655

I just bought a Cosina 100-400mm today, the price was right, the color was right and so I kicked the 24mm purchase forwards.
Search eBay for 203305837007. Tamron SP 500mm f/8 mirror lens, no bidders yet, ends in less than 2 days. $99. It's one of the best mirror lenses out there, and this one is nearly mint, with the original case (which has some flakes falling apart because of age but still is a cool artifact), color filters and hood.
Had the Cosina not showed up I'd have bought the Tamron.
Here's some reviews, amazing lens: https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-adaptall-2-sp-500mm-f-8-mirror-55bb.html

 No.1659

>>1655
The Tamron didn't sell and was relisted. Makes me want to gamble some chump change just in case providence kicks lol, buy one of those dumb lottos.

 No.1664

File: 1616474010240.jpg (543.8 KB, 1600x1067, 1600:1067, .jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1655
>Cosina 100-400mm
Hey there, that one is tempting for sure but the plastic is just not for me, i say that because i had an old lens from Canon and i molded the rubber with my hand. In my area it is not rare to shoot above 45 degrees in summer and those rubber bands really start degrading out of nowhere after some years, kinda like how a Nintendo yellows out of nowhere. Nikkor G lenses are infamous for it too.
One of the Vivitar lenses i was interested had the same thing going (the aforementioned 70-210) hence favoring an older version despite being considerably softer. It's like gray/white lenses, who the hell thought it was a good idea if we go by aesthetics but i suppose there's a real reason for it.
>the color was right
A matte black one i suppose, i will start going out soon so i will try some end-it-all comparisons between my old and "modern" 28-200s so i guess i will expect some of those sample shoots from that Cosina.
>Tamron SP 500mm f/8 mirror lens
Tempting although the reflex part is pronounced, i thought they were all practically the same but this seems razor sharp although the out-of-focus is just as tough. Thanks a lot for the tips, honestly real appreciated, but i had 5 dollars in my pocket due to some recent costs and due to my region the shipping would be a bit strong with that one.
>May not ship to your destination
At least we tried seriously, i thank you friendo also the tax limit for eBay to send me something with the GSP is 50 bucks i think (biddings not included) now you can see why i am a cheap fucker with the Vivitar/Kalimar lenses. It is actually in very good conditions there, i am surprised it hasn't been snatched.

While looking at Faceberg (made an account to sell a Canon locally) i saw a Nikkor AI-S 200mm f4 at 70 dollars equivalent, the 200mm f4 is dirt cheap but the AI-S version costs above 100. If i get monies by the end of this month and that lens is still there i might do a quick switcheroo plus sell the Vivitar 135mm f2.8 to get me 2 to 3 lenses in a single go (the 85-200 a candidate).

>>1652
>giving vignette to the less vignetted footage
Yes, i remember that technique in some short cinematography manual i read once. Reminds me that i need to upload those .pdfs one day.
>consumer grade film
Definitely the case here, aunts never shot anything with class 135, always the cheapest one in front of the counter.
>"Tokina glow"
Found some reviews from some other Tokinas due to searching this term for examples. How did they fumble the ball so hard in recent years? the cult for their lenses among old heads is on-par with Zeiss purists, can't find anything decent for cheap despite being considered the Vivitar of Japan (or should i say Vivitar is the Tokina of the West). They do kinda live their fame, my current 200mm is Tokina made and it is good for me, same glow too now that i think of it.
>Pics related
Jesus, drastic difference there.
>Maybe they'll fix that eventually.
Shows how much reviewers care lel, i didn't know that issue and some reviews for the Z6II don't mention it at all. The Z9 is just a wet dream but i will mainly focus on photo, pal of mine is planning to get the Blackmagic 4k so we are just bidding our time with his savings. I am supposed to be the guy with the lenses for the fixed shots but he's going to be fucked from here to Africa because i don't think the hat-shaped focus spots of the old Nikkor lenses are any good for the MFT sensor in that thing.

 No.1665

File: 1616521911162.jpg (20.93 KB, 640x533, 640:533, tokina 100-400mm.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1664
>Hey there, that one is tempting for sure but the plastic is just not for me, i say that because i had an old lens from Canon and i molded the rubber with my hand. In my area it is not rare to shoot above 45 degrees in summer and those rubber bands really start degrading out of nowhere after some years, kinda like how a Nintendo yellows out of nowhere. Nikkor G lenses are infamous for it too.
lol, I see what you mean.
>It's like gray/white lenses, who the hell thought it was a good idea if we go by aesthetics but i suppose there's a real reason for it.
On some lenses the white exterior keeps the lens a few degrees cooler in the sun.

>A matte black one i suppose

Sadly those are almost impossible to find, usually branded Tokina. I got a white one as it's basically white or silver and silver looks awful. The white is rarer than silver and I often see them for about $170.

>Tempting although the reflex part is pronounced, i thought they were all practically the same but this seems razor sharp although the out-of-focus is just as tough.

The secret is to embrace the donut, lol. In particular, they're really underrated for macro.
It's razor-sharp indeed. If I could afford it, I'd have bought it no doubt. There's few mirror lenses that compare, some Soviet ones among them.


>Thanks a lot for the tips, honestly real appreciated

My pleasure always.

>i had 5 dollars in my pocket due to some recent costs and due to my region the shipping would be a bit strong with that one.

I feel you lol, pretty close to my situation right now.

>Yes, i remember that technique in some short cinematography manual i read once. Reminds me that i need to upload those .pdfs one day.

Please do.

>Found some reviews from some other Tokinas due to searching this term for examples. How did they fumble the ball so hard in recent years? the cult for their lenses among old heads is on-par with Zeiss purists, can't find anything decent for cheap despite being considered the Vivitar of Japan (or should i say Vivitar is the Tokina of the West). They do kinda live their fame, my current 200mm is Tokina made and it is good for me, same glow too now that i think of it.

All lens designs are full of tradeoffs, I guess they traded spherical aberration for light transmission or something. Maybe just for the cost.

>Shows how much reviewers care lel, i didn't know that issue and some reviews for the Z6II don't mention it at all. The Z9 is just a wet dream but i will mainly focus on photo, pal of mine is planning to get the Blackmagic 4k so we are just bidding our time with his savings.

Yeah, a lot of reviewers are just shills. Forums with actual users is usually where you can find the shortcomings of the systems.

>I am supposed to be the guy with the lenses for the fixed shots but he's going to be fucked from here to Africa because i don't think the hat-shaped focus spots of the old Nikkor lenses are any good for the MFT sensor in that thing.

What do you mean hat-shaped focus spots?
With a proper speedbooster (Metabones) he should be fine. Don't waste time and money on Viltrox and similar ones though, they're cheap but they kill your contrast and flare up like crazy. Better off not reducing the focal length.

 No.1689

File: 1616856318529-0.gif (208.16 KB, 400x225, 16:9, 1.gif) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1616856318529-1.jpg (36.95 KB, 800x532, 200:133, 58mm-Testing-3521-800x532.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1616856318529-2.jpg (108.31 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 105mmf2.5.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1616856318529-3.jpg (828.6 KB, 1000x1500, 2:3, D7H1512-C1-Ps B.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1665
>the white exterior keeps the lens a few degrees cooler
Oh okay, it's a reflective measure, can't say if that's a big factor but it does theoretically work.
>I got a white one
If it ain't white it ain't right in terms of the eternal battle against the silvery lenses with their brown/golden tint after some years, much rather have the quirky holga lenses that silver.
>The secret is to embrace the donut, lol
It's hard i tell you what but i almost certain will go for one at some point.
>Forums with actual users is usually where you can find the shortcomings of the systems.
Heh, that's if they actually use the camera, plenty of Z6 shooters are just vlogwhores and Z7 middle-aged people with lots of time and money shoot cats and passing cars from their windows. But anyways at least they exist so we can reap their knowledge.

>What do you mean hat-shaped focus spots?

Some lenses, in particular from what i read the Sonnar and Biogon copies, have weak corners and then sharpness increases but suddenly there's a second vignette near the middle, and finally the dead center becomes sharp as tack. When stopped down tons of these go away but wide open the lens renders a strong center with a blurry nature, good general image and then a swirling corner finish; in lens sharpness graphs this is portrayed as a sombrero of sorts (a crater in non-jap graphs) or an down up and down again curve.
The infamously-priced 58mm 1.4, 105mm 1.4E Nikkor and the humble 105mm f2.5 use these antics to give an aura of sorts in portraits, or accentuate the so-called 3D Pop (which is merely a big jump in subjects on the DoF with consistent lighting between them). I think these properties have been exaggerated over the years but in crop modes many have claimed weak corners compared to other lenses, haven't seen tests for these (quite niche really, i read the cases of the Helios 44's which are Biogon) but i can somewhat imagine such a thing happening, especially if the MFT sensor has a considerable resolution to make the old lens suffer.
tl;dr old lenses with non-sharp non-center areas which suffer extra when mounted wide open on a high pixel density sensor.


And within some days of getting some money the lens i was waiting to go unsold went out, the 35mm shift for 150 dollars, going at eBay for one fucks me 250 off minimum. Also saw an unicorn locally, the mythical 135mm f2 for 350, really busted up in body but glass looked clean, if i went for it on other occasions it would be 550 minimum.
Both out, i swear to me mum that i will never or rarely check listings before having any amount of money to go at it, this is a torture and i am not crazy enough to ask for loans. This fucking G.A.S. is poisonous, i learned my lesson knowing if i didn't see both of those ads i would not be suffering.
The only ads i will ever see without money are the ones you show me, or the cheapo 50 dollar ones i will get in one month i suppose but first i will buy some bellows (for macro antics) and an eyecup magnifier, perhaps the focusing screen because i am more and more surprised with the 28-200 and don't think i need something else while i'm still learning, it really is something else… or maybe the camera actually is:
Last test pic related, i did process it like i would do years ago but this time not a finger on the saturation or color sliders other than having to actually de-saturate and tone it down by a bunch, but 2x crop and handheld underexposed too hence the noise. These Nikon NEF files are livid as hell, perhaps due to more contrast/less DR.

>Please do.

I was supposed to upload them by this past Christmas lol, i will be going at it so i can sleep well on Holy Thursday.

 No.1693

File: 1616960560148.jpg (519.48 KB, 1024x683, 1024:683, DSC_9040b.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1689
>Oh okay, it's a reflective measure, can't say if that's a big factor but it does theoretically work.
It matters mostly when fluorite is involved I think. Nikon's formula is usually less sensitive to temperatures so they can get away with making them black and sleek.
>If it ain't white it ain't right in terms of the eternal battle against the silvery lenses with their brown/golden tint after some years, much rather have the quirky holga lenses that silver.
Absolutely lol. The white ones develop some yellowing but it's much preferable to the way the silver ones look (even when new, ew).
>It's hard i tell you what but i almost certain will go for one at some point.
Pic related, shamelessly stolen from the cuckchan archives.
>but i can somewhat imagine such a thing happening, especially if the MFT sensor has a considerable resolution to make the old lens suffer.
>tl;dr old lenses with non-sharp non-center areas which suffer extra when mounted wide open on a high pixel density sensor.
Well, with MFT you're pretty much only using the sensor, and assuming 4K, video is roughly 8MP resolution. I think it'll be fine.
Interesting analysis though, I'd have never imagined they'd purposely make them softer halfway to the corner but it makes a lot of sense when you bring up the 3D pop thing.
>Both out, i swear to me mum that i will never or rarely check listings before having any amount of money to go at it, this is a torture and i am not crazy enough to ask for loans. This fucking G.A.S. is poisonous, i learned my lesson knowing if i didn't see both of those ads i would not be suffering.
lol I know that feel. I've had plenty of deals on things I don't really need slip through my fingers and it's a terrible feeling. And I overspent recently too (ended up getting a 24mm that I actually needed, at 4x the price I was hoping to buy it).
>The only ads i will ever see without money are the ones you show me, or the cheapo 50 dollar ones i will get in one month i suppose but first i will buy some bellows (for macro antics) and an eyecup magnifier, perhaps the focusing screen because i am more and more surprised with the 28-200 and don't think i need something else while i'm still learning, it really is something else… or maybe the camera actually is
Very nice to hear.
>Last test pic related, i did process it like i would do years ago but this time not a finger on the saturation or color sliders other than having to actually de-saturate and tone it down by a bunch, but 2x crop and handheld underexposed too hence the noise. These Nikon NEF files are livid as hell, perhaps due to more contrast/less DR.
Could be the calibration profile too. Also if I recall correctly for example in Lightroom NEF files come with the presets from the camera. Like, vivid or whatever it's set to.
>I was supposed to upload them by this past Christmas lol, i will be going at it so i can sleep well on Holy Thursday.
Based.

 No.1694

File: 1616960868940.webm (2.73 MB, 640x360, 16:9, DSC_9147a.webm) ImgOps iqdb

>>1689
Also check this out lol, by changing the focus you can basically see through stuff on a mirror lens.
It can also be done with wide apertures on regular lenses to an extent but this is a whole new level lol.
Just found it in the same archived thread.

 No.1695

File: 1617019826435-0.png (180.29 KB, 760x800, 19:20, Emotional representation o….png) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1617019826435-1.jpg (307.78 KB, 600x750, 4:5, OwlBastard.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Now i am gonna tell a tale, to the readers who might stumble upon our conversation, of the folk of not-so-olde round my land: Seeing or hearing a bird near you at night time/bird bed time is usually of somewhat bad luck (varying degrees depending on how close it was) so seeing a fucking owl near your resting place is usually bad, especially when living in a town and especially when living in the middle of a damn city.
Some new age specialists say you were probably seeing a shapeshifting fucker while our folk say you were seeing an omen, but according to them both these entities fool the man but not the machine.
Enter the D700 near my window, got the mean toy while the bird was flying away and shot it with the 200mm zoomed in, shame i forgot the camera was in manual focus and didn't get it plainly, when i tried to pinpoint it with live view i saw that the bird got scared by the shutter sound even when it was a good distance away.
After further reviewing it seems i didn't "lose" time and the thing pictured was, in fact, an actual bird. My precious bodily fluids along with my butt remain untouched, but the bad news coming soon are still on the list.
Hard 4x crop on 200mm f5.6 ISO4000, 4am, NIFF Not In Fucking Focus

Also soon after that the camera noticed me i had to charge the batteries, first time i have to do that since the previous owner did so and mailed it to me (around late October).

 No.1696

File: 1617021933054-0.png (10.55 KB, 495x436, 495:436, 58mm-G-chart.PNG) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1617021933054-1.jpg (52.13 KB, 400x600, 2:3, 105mm1.4.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1617021933054-2.gif (830.5 KB, 225x183, 75:61, proofsreceived.gif) ImgOps iqdb

>>1693
>Pic related
GIF related lol
>It matters mostly when fluorite is involved I think
Didn't know that, there's always something to learn.
>I'd have never imagined they'd purposely make them softer halfway to the corner
Neither did the buyers back in the day, reading through comments the Portrait G lenses are still vilified to this day for their lack of total sharpness and few corrections worthwhile; i think they are among the best Nikkor lenses out there in terms of dreamy yet sharp enough and they are actually not that big taking into account their Sigma Art counterparts… but they were ridiculously priced, even to this day i would think twice even if the 58mm was half price brand new.
Along with the 200mm f2 ED they were the Elite Wedding Photographer's Studio lenses for quite a while, Canon had similar lenses (some say the Canon 200mm f1.8 was as good) but Nikon did seem to stuck gold accidentally promoting these in the West as they were called for other uses but the promotional photos were made by japs and they showed mostly wedding photos, practically no one has or uses them aside from them wandering party ghosts.
>ended up getting a 24mm that I actually needed, at 4x the price I was hoping to buy it
That must've stung hard buddy, but i guess it might be worthwhile if the shoot schedule is not moved.
>Could be the calibration profile too.
I might check that, Capture One does seem to work strangely sometimes.
>Also check this out
Goddamn, i think someone mentioned it earlier in some other thread but that is ridiculous, i did find that effect with my 200mm Vivitar but that mirror practically shifts view. Are archived threads on the web engines or did you played naughty going there?

 No.1698

>>1695
In other words, "the owls are not what they seem"? Gotta get this one on /truth/, maybe replacing "D700" with "fancy camera" to make it more accessible to the not photographically inclined.

>>1696
>GIF related
lmao

>Neither did the buyers back in the day, reading through comments the Portrait G lenses are still vilified to this day for their lack of total sharpness and few corrections worthwhile

Sad!

>Nikon did seem to stuck gold accidentally promoting these in the West as they were called for other uses but the promotional photos were made by japs and they showed mostly wedding photos, practically no one has or uses them aside from them wandering party ghosts.

I love photographic folklore like this lol, some stuff you had to read at the time to know what it was sometimes. Recently I came across "Underdog batteries", it's hard to find any information about them but they were insanely popular at some point. Apparently they were produced in the thousands over the span of two decades. Couldn't find out if they were lithium or not so I ended up having to avoid a bundle that had them as they've become a problem with air shipping.

>That must've stung hard buddy, but i guess it might be worthwhile if the shoot schedule is not moved.

You bet lol. There's no real shoot schedule, but it will allow to have a shoot schedule earlier lol. It wasn't even expensive for a lens (under $50) but it did send my shipment balance out of whack, as I have a hard limit per shipment from abroad and this was my last shipment this year.

>Goddamn, i think someone mentioned it earlier in some other thread but that is ridiculous, i did find that effect with my 200mm Vivitar but that mirror practically shifts view.

My 205mm does it too to some extent when wide open or nearly wide open, but we're talking really close distances. Supposedly there's a pic taken through a crowd with some mirror lens that someone posted but I haven't had luck finding it.

>Are archived threads on the web engines or did you played naughty going there?

They do show up but I also did play naughty lol. If you search the filename on google it comes up first. I often use the search feature in the archives themselves to find stuff though.

Also the Tamron got relisted again lol, it seems like it's being a hard sell for the guy despite the rarity and how complete the kit is. But I've decided I'm probably not going to bother with it at any point and just go for a Soviet 1000mm instead when I eventually get a mirror lens. Unless of course the 100-400mm turns out to be a dog and I end up selling it.

 No.1701

File: 1617215615095.jpg (166.95 KB, 1200x1288, 150:161, vivitar.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1696
You may be interested in this, there's an auction for our beloved Vivitar 85-205mm f/3.8 ending in 2 days.
Search for 114743435841.
Nikon mount, black hood, with the awesome case, $0.99 plus $12.80 shipping and there's no bidders yet.
And it has the cool red numbers just like mine.
Zoom lever seems to be missing though.
Such a beautiful piece of machinery.

 No.1711

I thought the little lever on the 85-205mm was useless and almost an affectation but today I had the chance to use the lens on a fast moving vehicle and it's amazing how much it helps, often the difference between getting a shot or not. I had a similar experience with pointing at the tennis ball when serving, it seemed like something people did to look cool. Then you try if yourself and the result amazes you. The pics on the listed item when I bought my lens didn't show it, but luckily it was there. Worth asking a seller about it. Also damn, using a manual lens is satisfying like few other things. A telephoto even more so. lots of things around you become interesting with the perspective compressed shots you can get (I know the compression actually comes from the distance to subject but in practice it's not the same to crop and to fill your viewfinder).
Wides are also fun. I think I'll never get why some people get fixated on 50mm and of normal lenses, it's so pedestrian and devoid of wonder I struggle to believe it. But tele, wide and macro effectively expand your vision, specially with a SLR.
There's one major exception to this in my view and it's normal lenses with strong aberrations of any kind, they make things dreamy.

 No.1733

File: 1617932436784.jpg (1.48 MB, 2000x1333, 2000:1333, flowers.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Some uncropped OC after all this time.
Added the info in the EXIF and all.
I think this site strips it though so here goes the important data:
Canon 5D Mark II
Vivitar 85-205mm f/3.8 (Kino Precision manufactured, serial starting in 22)
205mm, f/3.8, 1/30s, ISO 3200 under a dim CFL at night, handheld.
I think the rendition is quite beautiful, almost dreamy.

 No.1734

>>1733
Oh also no adjustments were made in post at all, but there's the baseline noise reduction from Lightroom. Viewing the RAW there were some hot pixels here and there but they were eaten somehow.

 No.1818

File: 1621707850163.jpg (173.75 KB, 638x663, 638:663, moon 400.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1623
Got the Cosina 100-400mm and managed to get this pic out of it at 400mm f/8 1/1000s @800 ISO.
I must say the Vivitar 85-205mm is no slouch, there's a bit more fine detail here but it's really close and the Vivitar would probably have managed something similar with a higher resolution sensor behind it.

 No.1823

File: 1622213639664.jpg (35.24 KB, 523x563, 523:563, Vanguard-GH-200-profession….jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

Just learnt about these special pistol grips for use on tripods, anyone here ever used them?

>>1655
I was seriously considering one of those 500mm mirror lenses for awhile but decided to spend a bit more money on a decent spotting scope that can work with a camera, most of them that have detachable eyepieces can do this. Something that doubles as a portable telescope seems like a better investment and is maybe a little over twice the price if you get a good used one.

 No.1825

File: 1622216563265.jpg (4.96 KB, 364x138, 182:69, eyepiece.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1823
The scope is a good option too, although it tends to have more field curvature. There's also eyepieces to use the mirror lenses as scopes. Pic related being used with a 50mm lens, but it works with the others too. My issue with digiscoping is that I don't find it portable enough, lol.
What is your current focal length equivalent? 2000mm or so?
>Just learnt about these special pistol grips for use on tripods, anyone here ever used them?
Never used one but it looks like it could be useful for sports photography or something of the sort.
I have a fluid tripod with the typical handle instead.

 No.1826

>>1825
I'm not sure as I haven't found the one I want yet. With a crop factor of 1.6 probably 1500-2000mm. That eyepiece for standard lenses looks ridiculous plus when combined with a 500mm mirror lens would probably be the same length or longer than a spotting scope of equivalent focal length.

And I saw that pistol grip on a site called best binoculars reviews, that guy uses it for bird watching when they're 'on the wing'. Saw a few falcons while camping last weekend and figured they might be better than a standard handle since it's closer to the tripod.

 No.1829

File: 1622697389957.jpg (65.42 KB, 852x663, 284:221, 163040396_b6ba9c574e_o.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1826
>That eyepiece for standard lenses looks ridiculous plus when combined with a 500mm mirror lens would probably be the same length or longer than a spotting scope of equivalent focal length.
Sure, but you'd carry the lens on the camera and only use the eyepiece when you find something you want to look at with no camera. The dedicated scope is usually tripod-bound.
The viewing experience is probably superior, though. With a 1000mm lens that eyepiece offers just 10 minutes of arc.
Here's with a 500mm catadioptric lens, providing 111x magnification for 20 minutes of arc. It has a red dot scope mounted above it because without it the magnification makes it almost unusable.
What I posted in >>1477 was done with some binoculars that were like 7X with a FoV of 7 degrees 6 minutes and it was hell to aim (although I didn't have a proper adapter for the camera itself so aligning the exit pupil of the binocs with the camera's entrance pupil was a bit of a challenge already).

 No.1830

File: 1622698744720.jpg (54.5 KB, 906x519, 302:173, 163040399_d038baa4e5_o.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

>>1829
Another pic from the same guy, he has a cousin of our Vivitar f/3.8s: 90-230mm f/4.5.

 No.1913

File: 1629423597989-0.jpg (564.26 KB, 1080x720, 3:2, A.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1629423597989-1.jpg (616.43 KB, 960x720, 4:3, B.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1629423597989-2.jpg (676.69 KB, 720x1080, 2:3, C.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

File: 1629423597989-3.webm (3.37 MB, 960x540, 16:9, D windshieldreflections.webm) ImgOps iqdb

File: 1629423597989-4.jpg (871.65 KB, 1280x960, 4:3, E secretsensor.jpg) ImgOps Exif iqdb

An excerpt from the other board's dump, good times with a compact.
Also i am broke again but got a brand new toy, for all intends and purposes perhaps my first video camera too. "D" WebM is my bedroom's wall and "E" pic a RAW file directly converted with the default Photoshop profile only.

>>1829
I checked for an eyepiece for my F-mount lenses but i thought they were quite cheaper, maybe someday because it looks pretty fun.

 No.2089

>>1913
Oh God, I had missed this post. I even went to the other board a couple days ago thinking there was no activity here lol.
I like the look, there's a slight amount of smearing with the colors but just the right amount of it so it looks almost like film halation.
In the meantime I ruined my 24mm with a botched adaptation I hope to fix soon.

 No.2092

Just bought $5 worth of cellophane in RGB plus magenta to color my flashes and some styrene board to make gobos, I hope it works out. If it doesn't, at least it was cheap.

 No.2093

>>2092
Getting a rich red was easy enough but the rest are tricky and magenta turns red with too many layers.

 No.2094

>>2092
Foamboard worked great after I realized I needed a big gobo and to put a snout on the flash to control spill.
Also if you're modifying the light (specially filtering colors) it's adviceable to use the fastest lens you can, to not have them firing at full power constantly. I did have to use a slower zoom at one point because my fast lens didn't fit a filter I wanted to use, but you could hear the flashes whining and taking longer to recycle.



[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home ] [ tv / art / wooo ] [ ost / lit / bane ] [ dup / oven / dunk ] [ truth ]