>>4391933
this isn't engagement bait >:(

Chelsea, a Sony shooter, was only 18 when she married Tony, who was 40 at the time. Does that make her trad?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2832
Image Height	2832
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:01:20 12:14:54
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/9.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/9.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	82.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2832
Image Height	2832
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Is using a 55mm f1.8 for portraits a dumb idea?

I'm looking into buying a zeiss as it's pretty light and small enough so it doesn't cast a shadow with smaller flashes. But most 85mm offerings are double the size and almost double the weight.

Main issue with 35mm etc is the distortion right? But I was told that's a non issue at 50mm, so why is 85 the "portrait focal length"?

>>4391958
Is that true? She was cute ~decade ago. Sad to see the WALLED.

>>4391961
Kinda depending on the bone structure of your models. I think 70-135mm is the sweet spot but YMMV

>>4391958
>>4391964
Based tony achieving the dream all the chuddies here have and bagging his cute bikini model.

>>4391964
>Is that true?
Yep. She's 38, Tony is 50. They have a 20 year-old daughter.

>>4391961
Do not buy a sigma 90mm f2.8 and if you do sell it for very cheap so i can have it

>>4391969
>>4391976
There is hope bros

>>4391987
ngmi

>>4391961
There is no singular portrait focal length, there is no single focal length for any type of photography. You don't have to shoot landscapes at 14mm, sports at 200mm, macro at 100mm, and so on. Portraits are perhaps one of the types of photography that has the widest acceptable focal length range other than landscapes (you could include birding and wildlife but adding 300mm to 300mm only halves your field of view, going from 24mm to 135mm is less than one fifth).

85mm is perhaps preferred for headshots because it's going to result in a blurrier background with the same depth of field (where as going with a faster 50mm means a shallower depth of field and thus you might not get the whole head in focus), which can not only "look better" but also means you don't have to worry quite as much about having the ideal background.

That said I have the 55mm and I really like it. The backgrounds aren't pleasingly creamy but I like the look that it does give. I don't do portraits but if I did I wouldn't mind using it, I'd maybe prefer my 135mm but I'd also have to be a lot further away and that's awkward.

>>4391961
depends on the type of portraits you want to take, headshots are different from upper body or full body or environmental, etc
if you do a headshot with 35mm it will look wonky, because you are so close up, an 85 forces you far enough away that it is not an issue, same thing happens with our eyes
the distortion comes from distance, not focal length, so think of lenses as simply giving you a wider or narrower framing for a given distance
so you stand far enough away to minimize that perspective distortion, and then it just becomes how much of the subject / environment you want to show
i like 28/35 horizontal for environmental portraits, 50 vertical for full body shots, 85 for upper body, and 135 for headshots

>>4391933
Wanna shoot some WEC and F1. I have a Nikon D5100, but it's pure shit.

I want to buy myself a Sony A7. Will the III be enough, or should I get the IV?

>>4392020
Bear in mind that if you go full frame you're going to need lenses 1.5x as long as well, costing you even more money. I'm assuming you're going to be fairly far away from the cars and that reach will be a priority.

>>4392021
So a 6700 would be better?

thinking about getting a Kodak EasyShare Z981 just for shit and giggles, it's probably not good but it has raw, AA batteries, a viewfinder and 26x zoom, can't be that bad.

I know it's not going to be immediate profit, but do I just hire models for glamour/artistic nudes and post photos on instagram until people want to buy prints or dm for a booking? I already have a 2257 compliant contract.

>>4392029
Not him but buy a cheap canon/Sony crop and put a big zoom lens on it

6700 has top tier autofocus but older a6xxx will work too, look more into lens reviews suitable for crop than camera reviews

>>4392029
No. He’a shitting you. FF and DX lenses of the same quality cost the same. The size is negligible and usually more related to aperture.

Going travelling soon, what are some good "set and forget" settings for my 'ra?
>shots on a moving train
>moving coasters
>general fast pace

>>4392122
SET your expectations low
&
FORGET any hope you had of taking a good photo

>>4392140
;-;
But my kino vision...

>>4392122
Black n white film
Wide angle
F8
1/30
Flash
Get in peoples faces

Its seriously limiting but its set and forget.

Alternatively shoot program mode with auto iso, wont miss any shots with that

>>4392093
I never considered buying DX lenses; they don't seem future-proof. It surprises me, however, that some still recommend APS-C bodies instead of Full Frames. I get the crop advantage, but aren't FF bodies more universal?

>>4392093
I'm not talking about buying crop lenses, I'm saying you would get more reach from the same lens. If a zoom that goes to 300mm is good on a crop body then you now need something that goes to 500mm if you get a full frame body, or 200mm now becomes 300mm, 400mm becomes 600mm, etc.

>>4392156
>aren't FF bodies more universal?
Other way around desu. FF bodies need FF suitable lenses otherwise you get mad vignetting or in the case of some third party Canon lenses, they can obstruct the mirror and jam shit. I don't think it's a problem with Nikon though.

>>4392162
You'll get vignetting, yeah, but other than that FF is more versatile, picture-wise.

I understand your point, but my problem is whether to mix a FF lens with a APS-C camera.

I'm leaning towards the A7 III (good price in my country) at the moment.

>>4392163
There's no real disadvantage to using FF lenses on a crop body besides them being somewhat larger, heavier and sometimes more expensive than would be necessary.

>>4392166
>no real disadvantage to using FF lenses on a crop body

Since the APS-C sensor is covered by less than 60% of the glass, you're actually getting better sharpness at the edges of the frame.

However, in my personal experience, FF lenses still perform much better on FF bodies. I used to use Canon EF zoom lenses with the EOS M mount and the auto-focus struggled to lock on at longer focal lengths.

>>4392163
Using FF lenses on crop has no real downsides other than you're *technically* using a bigger, heavier lens than you could be, and the focal lengths might not make perfect sense, for instance:
>EF 50mm is $150
>EF 35mm is more like $400 (to roughly match the FoV of a 50mm on a crop sensor)
>Worse so on RF where I spent $600 to get a 50mm equivalent FoV by buying the RF35mm
You don't gain much either, you're more or less just future proofing yourself if you ever jump to FF and don't want to rebuild your lens selection.
I used crop lenses for a bit there because the FLs made sense and they were cheap, but I've since gone foolframe and the only thing I need to change is my expectations for FoV. PLUS you can still crop a FF picture to mimic the FoV you'd have on a crop sensor as a last resort.

whats the different between the two? The f2 aperture, the fact that it's new, and the 4mm difference between the two. I don't see why I should get the f2 one when I can probably just be satisfied with the f/2.8 GM II Lens instead.

I guess im just looking for a more detailed explanation.

How would you best upgrade pic related in terms of lenses?

>>4392183
Then get the 2.8

>>4392183
at least this question is in the right thread

>>4392184
Depends on what you're working with currently. Pic related is an absolute must for that mount.

Personally, I'd sell the M50 it and get a lower end full frame body, you can get a really good deal on the R8 right now. If you can't afford that, there are some good second hand options out there, like the RP.

>>4392188
nice dubs
yeah I made sure it ask it here since it's a very ignorant question. But i'm also relatively new when it comes to photography.

>>4392183
>a lens is only the focal length and aperture
Brother I'm gonna need you to do a bit of your own research, but lenses are more complicated than that.

>>4392208
I'll do more research. As far as the key features go, they seem relatively similar aside from the weight, f2 to f22, and mm difference.

>>4392209
Going from 2.8 to 2 is a pretty big deal, for those that need it

>>4392209
f2/f2.8 and 24mm/28mm alone make them very different, you act like those are not big deals at all
any subtle difference in IQ is going to take a back seat to those

>>4392217
Im just new to photography and asked it in the right thread. Even if it's a very stupid question.

>>4392224
Ah, see, if you're actually new and want to learn then some of us here aren't total pricks.
Judging off the spec sheet alone, the differences aren't major, but they're there. There are also things that the spec sheet wont tell you such as distortions, coma, abberations, sharpness, colour rendering etc. etc.
But purely looking at the specs:
>24mm/28mm is a whopping 4mm of focal length difference (so, fuck all really, despite what >>4392217 says). The Field of View (FoV) difference of those focal lengths is only going to bother :a) professionals who need consistency and already prefer one or the other, or b) turbo retards
>f/2 vs f/2.8
Is not a big number difference, but at such low f/stops this is actually a full stop of extra light. That's kind of a big deal especially when we're talking about a zoom lens. Zooms tend to have narrower max apertures versus primes, so an f/4 zoom is "good" but nothing special. an f/2.8 zoom is pretty decent and often the choice from pros, and an f/2 zoom is actually fantastic.
That extra stop of light from a wider aperture means you could either shorten your shutter speed (valuable for reducing subject/motion blur), or reduce your ISO (which keeps images cleaner with less noise) while keeping the exposure the same.
>Example
ISO 800, SS 1/125th, f/2.8 would have the same total light and exposure as
ISO 400, SS 1/125th, f/2
or
ISO 800, SS 1/250th, f/2

>>4392227
>if you're actually new and want to learn then some of us here aren't total pricks.
Exactly, I've got to start somewhere.

I appreciate the answer, thank you. I'll learn more with experience.

Does anyone use a small flash light for focus assist in low light situations? And does anyone have any recommendations on one with a tight focus?

>>4392228
When it comes to the numbers part of photography it can get rather confusing, especially for new people that don't get what's going on. Part of it is because for most things the numbers increase at a quicker rate the larger they get, for the same difference in exposure. For example going from f/2 to f/2.8 is the same as f/11 to f/16, one stop. Likewise going from ISO 200 to 400 is the same as 6400 to 12800, and shutter speed follows the same doubling/halving pattern. For focal lengths going from 14mm to 24mm is a massive difference but 200mm to 210mm is hardly noticeable.

Is it possible to bind AF-ON on recent Canon mirrorless cameras to zoom in to the focus point when using a manual focus lens and to engage autofocus when using an autofocus lens, without having to rebind the button every time?
Does any recent camera support this at all?

>>4392259
Do you mean a manual focus only lens, or an AF lens set to manual focus? With Sonys there's a setting to automatically zoom in when you turn the focus ring so perhaps there's a similar setting on Canons, although it of course requires a focus by wire lens. What happens currently if you press the button in mf, nothing? Do you not have a spare button you can dedicate to zooming in? Could be handy to be able to do it even when in af.

>>4392266
Not automatic zoom (sounds awful tbqh), but just to have the behavior of AF-ON be different depending on what lens is attached:
>Autofocus lens set to autofocus
activate autofocus.
>Manual focus lens, no lens (for dumb-adapted old glass), or autofocus lens set to manual focus
toggle punch-in zoom.
Maybe it's possible with user modes. Then I would just switch between e.g U1 with one mapping and U2 with the other mapping myself according to the lens situation.
>What happens currently if you press the button in mf, nothing?
Yes, nothing - setting punch-in zoom to the multifunction button is the standard option but it's not ideal, as it requires me to take my finger off the shutter button, while keeping the AF-ON button useless with MF lenses. Seems like user modes are the way to go barring a native way of dynamically mapping buttons.

>>4392269
What body do you have, and does it really not have an extra button on the rear you can use? From what I could see it looks like most of the newer (2020+) bodies have an extra magnifying glass button you could hit with your thumb. Are you also already utilising both of the buttons on the top right, the asterisk and box (metering mode by default I think) buttons?

>>4392259
I used to back button focus with DSLRs, but went back to shutter release af with mirrorless and never looked back
Are you that BBF dependent?

>>4392284
Good point about the magnifying glass, I'll try it out.
>>4392285
Yes, I use BBF center point focus and recompose since I'm used to shooting that way on film SLR. Feels natural. But your method is probably better for more demanding situations.
Anyway, thanks all, my question has been answered.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	801
Image Height	728
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	56 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	56 dpcm
Image Created	2024:10:02 19:39:48
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	801
Image Height	728

>>4392183
That f2 looks very nice with specs but I know it's going to be annoying to hold after a few hours

What happened to Sony making compact lenses? Sigma shit is like 20% lighter and smaller

>>4392357
>What happened to Sony making compact lenses? Sigma shit is like 20% lighter and smaller
I wasn't aware Sigma made a 28-70mm f/2. The Sony is significantly smaller and lighter than Canon's version, if it's still not enough for you then get the f/2.8.

For cleaning the sensor, are swabs or the blower best? I keep seeing varying shit on forums about blowers introducing more dust, but manufacturers seem to always recommend the blower and tilting the camera upside down.

It makes more sense to me to avoid physical contact with the sensor and the blower seems safest.

>>4392404
You will get autismo replies saying that you need this $80 (brandname) blower that has level 5 biolab spec air filtration on the intake side but yes they're generally good enough but so is removing them in post for the most part. If it's serious, look into one of those cleaning kits on ebay and watch videos on how it's done before you attempt it.

>>4392404
Blower, I got a little $10 thing from my local store
Camera stores can clean it for you too

>>4392410
>Camera stores can clean it for you too
I looked at that but the local stores were going to charge $60 for it. Instead I was trying to decide on a blower or a swab kit, so I'll probably get the blower since even meme tier high quality ones are less than $50.

>>4392404
They do different things. Blower to remove free floating dust, swab to remove stickier debris.
I've done the blower camera upside down method for a decade and had no issues from it. If you're paying more than $20 for a blower, absolute chump.

>>4392424
> If you're paying more than $20 for a blower, absolute chump.
I got one for exactly $18, so I did pretty good imo.

>>4392412
Just buy some cheap Zeiss lens cleaning wipes, blower, and if your sensor somehow has spots you can buy a sensor cleaning kit for $20.

Most shops refused to sell it (lol) because they want to charge you $80 for swabbing a sensor a few times. I refused that and just went to a more ghetto camera shop and some little Chinese lady was more than happy to teach me how to do it and sold me a kit.

>>4392370
I was referring to the Sony f2.8

I wouldn't be surprised to see some third party f2's on a few years though. Iirc the tamron 2.8 was effectively f2 but artificially limited to f2.8 as it wasn't up to scratch.

>>4392404
I have an air blower with filter from German company Eyelead. Seems to work better than my basic one (+higher quality) and was only $15 equivalent before VAT.
>captcha: 0Y0Y0

What's the math in order to calculate the effective focal length and aperture rolling a crop? I.E if I do a 100% crop on a FF shot at 85mm F1.8, what would the result be?

>>4392453
following*

>>4392453
Depends on the resolution of the taken image and that of the screen you're viewing it on or the print you make

How do I get my panasonic s5 to show a preview of what my image will actually look like? like when i take a pic it usally ends up really dark.

>>4392460
First of all, if you're shooting in manual then don't. There's very few situations where it's actually necessary, just use aperture or shutter priority with auto ISO. Secondly you'll be wanting to look for a setting called "constant preview", other brands typically call it exposure preview.

Why use ND filter instead of higher shutter speed?

>>4392468
Because eventually your shutter speed tops out. Most consumer-grade cameras top out at 1/4000th or 1/8000th.
There are many instances of wanting a wide aperture to purposefully limit your DoF (so you can't close that up to shut out light), and/or you want a long exposure for a reason to generate light trails/subject blur etc.

NDs are also very useful in videography where you can't really vary the shutter speed either without making things look wonky, so for a standard 30fps video, your shutter speed is likely locked down at 1/60th (which is many stops more light than your max shutter speed)

>>4392453
100% crop = different depending on the resolution, so impossible to know without that
>>4392460
Read your manual
>>4392468
ND reduce the amount of light getting to the camera, and sometimes you are limited on your shutter speed. Good for long exposures, essential for video, good for shooting wide open with lots of light (flash or sun).

>>4392464
i normally shoot manual yes, may i ask why to use the others? i guess aperture prio since i like shallow dof (im trying to do more portrait style stuff)

>>4392477
So that your photos don't end up really dark. Do you not know what exposure is?

>>4392468

I use an ND filter so I can shoot wide open at F1.4 without having to use high speed sync (personal preference)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.0.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:16 23:19:37
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/1.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4392477
P mode is a meme (just use a phone at that point)
Tv mode is only useful if you're trying to use a specific shutter speed (kinda useless)
Av mode is legitimately useful for taking photos with minimal time to adjust settings
M mode is more useful if you have sufficent time to dial in the right settings.

>>4392481
wow I like the way this looks, how'd you do it0

>>4392477
Usually A in summer/bright daytime
More S during winter, because I hate motion blur
I also tend to use different glass for different seasons. From spring through summer I mostly just stick to 24-120mm f4, because it does everything I need and allows me to compose freely on the fly.
During winter I mostly stick to 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8, just to get enough light. Occasinally, I'll whip out the 14-24mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8, but they are heavy and clunky, so I only use them if I have a specific shoot in mind.
(I live in Norway, so it gets retardedly dark here in the winter)

>>4392484
8 stop ND filter and offhand flash (AD200 at max power through a SMDV softbox).

I had raised the softbox as high as I could and had it angled down on the coser.

>>4392232
do SD cards have a lifespan (time, or write/format cycles) after which they are not to be considered reliable anymore?

>>4392489
oop misclick, didn't mean to reply to that one

>>4392489
>The mean failure rate of an SD card, depending on the brand and quality, is typically considered to be around 0.01% per write cycle which translates to a lifespan where a card can endure around 100,000 write operations to a single memory location before potential failure, though this can vary significantly based on usage conditions and environmental factors
Sorta ig

>>4392489
Yes, TBW, which says how many TB of data can on average be written to them before failure. There are some industrial (mostly micro) SD cards with emphasis on higher TBW and endurance in general.

>>4392481
That's one assbackwards way to get a shot out of focus.
You should have just stopped down to about f2.8 in A mode and let the shutter speed go as high as it likes.

>>4392503
He doesn't want to use HSS. You should not be giving advice lol.

>>4392504
Well, why on earth not?

>>4392506
loss of flash power

>>4392507
Huh?
The whole point of the ND filter in this case seems to be to remove flash power?

>>4392508
not to remove flash power, but to remove overall light from the scene. Notice how everything but the subject is dark.

>>4392509
So the problem is just that his flash is too weak?
Why not get a better one? Even the SB-910 is just about 100 bucks used. An SB-600 can probably be had for 40 USD.

>>4392510
>outside during day flash with hss
>use an sb-600
Lmfao

>>4392510
The flash he used is 2-3x the power of an SB910. Why would you recommend him less powerful flashes?

>>4392512
That close to the subject an sb-600 should be more than powerful enough for HSS (without an ND filter).

>>4392514
How do you know what flash he used?

How do I get good at using manual flash?

I set my shit to manual and reduce iso but then my EVF is pitch fucking black. If I increase iso it's going to be over exposed

>>4392515
>anon uses AD200
>get recommended far weaker and cheaper flash to use instead
I hate zoomers/retards like you wouldn't believe
>>4392515
Learn to read before posting
He clearly said an AD200

>>4392515
You should try shooting an sb-600 in a softbox with HSS during the day instead of just spouting the stupidest shit on the Internet

>>4392526
You should try that too

>>4392526
The sb600 is a 50 watt flash with a fresnel head
Not even close especially not for art photography apertures like f11 and f16

>>4392541
Exactly, but that retard somehow believes that a sb600 is "more than powerful enough" and is an upgrade to a AD200 lmao

>>4392526
Lets use our brains with the example above.
>f1.4, ISO 100, 1/200
>8 stop ND filter, AD200 at max power
Say we pick up an SB600 and switch to HSS. We crank our SS to 1/8000 and kill that background, getting us an equivalent to ~5 stops, now we only need a ~3 stop ND.
Say we stop down like suggested from f1.4 to f2.8 (changing the look), now we still only need a ~1 stop ND. You could stop down further, and change the look more. You could get rid of or move the softbox, but that would change the look too. You could let the background be brighter, changing the look.
Or you could just make use of ND's for something they're made for, and pick the look you want.

Also, this is assuming an SB600 (or SB910) in HSS is the same output of an AD200 on full, which is not true at all. If you want a completely different looking picture, an SB600 will do fine.

>>4392560
You wouldn't have missed focus on the shitty con snapshit, though

>>4392519
>EVF
Haha, oh no no

>>4392519
you use it in exposure balance mode like a normal person

>>4392519
Every mirrorless has the option to preview exposure or not, and some even change automatically when a flash is detected.
Read your camera's manual, and you can learn the settings of your camera.
>>4392567
You're right, I wouldn't have. You know it's possible to have correct focus at f1.4? You know it's possible to still miss focus when stopped down?

>>4392526
I assure you, that an sb-600, even in a softbox, will more than blow the fuck out of any face you jam your 50mm into, while still allowing for a high enough shutter speed, providing a darkened background, and a large enough aperture for some background bokeh, while also providing enough DOF to actually get the face in focus, despite missing the eye.

>>4392567
Ironically enough, an 8 stop ND might honestly be dark enough to interfere with a 5DIV's AF system, even in broad daylight, it's like using an f22 lens
>>4392572
Can you explain this with actual numbers like >>4392560

>>4392560
>Also, this is assuming an SB600 (or SB910) in HSS is the same output of an AD200 on full, which is not true at all. If you want a completely different looking picture, an SB600 will do fine.
>lets use our brains
???

>>4392575
>this is assuming an SB600 (or SB910) in HSS is the same output of an AD200 on full
For ease in the example above, I assumed power output was the same.
An SB600 is more realistically like 1/4-1/3 the output of an AD200 on full, and even less during HSS.
So if you do the above (HSS with SS to 1/8000, to f2.8) to keep the background just as dark, your SB600 subject would be darker by a few stops than the example, so that's another difference you'd have to make up for.

>If you want a completely different looking picture, an SB600 will do fine
Different picture as in moving or removing softbox (and changing lighting entirely) like >>4392572, or you don't need background as dark relative to the subject, etc. If you don't want that exact look you might be able to settle for less with an SB600. HSS is still not a perfect substitute for ND though.

>>4391933
I have a bunch of photos and art that I need to rescale to post here. What is your method to downsize images without messing up quality or the photo/art itself.

>>4392029
Yes. If you want the 200-600mm sony for FF, it's another $2k to budget.

>>4392156
APSC are good for birding and needing reach.

>>4392628
You do not need reach, especially not a 200-600, for good wildlife photography

Only for the boring fucking bird-standing and bird-flying detail shits every trail clogging fucking z8/r3 boomer takes to try and get their snapshit featured on the local news. For actual good wildlife photography even 400mm is overkill most of the time unless you are being watched by nature karens that WILL start screaming about "the plannut" if you step on a plant or have a dog near you (despite showing up in a crossover/truck and wearing 100% imported clothes)

>>4392624
When you export, just keep it under like 3000 pixels on the widest size and it should come under 5mb. Disregard the sticky, if you go under 1000 it will look like it's drawn in ms paint.

Where do you guys go for inspiration?

>>4392660
>Where do you guys go for inspiration?
/p/ I'm trans btw

How am I supposed to shoot low light if I want more of the image in focus? Like that would call for a higher f stop but then im losing light and getting more noise

Also I was told to always shoot like 0.7-2.0 under exposed to preserve highlights, is that legit?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7C
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:17 13:13:20
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	-1.3 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4392685
Heh the cats have balls. Obvious answer is increase shutter but much slower than your example and you'd want to be using a tripod. I don't think you really needed more in focus there however.

>>4391966
>shooting portraits @ 300mm
based

>>4392677
>I'm trans btw
me too!

>>4392448
Incredibly based

>>4392624
Manually in gimp, there’s no batch method that always looks good because scaled images also need sharpened and sharpening settings depend on the content and original size. You can batch resize and apply unsharp mask with imagemagick but half the images will end up blurry or oversharpened.

I got so sick of doing this i basically stopped posting. The reason 80% of photos here are /dst/ and /fgt/ is because digishits and lab scans produce photos so low quality it doesnt matter.

What is this little sliding switch for?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	800
Image Height	600
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:17 21:41:15
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	600

>>4392624

convert image.jpg -colorspace RGB -size 1000x1000 -filter Mitchell -resize 1000x1000 -colorspace sRGB -sampling-factor 2x2 -strip -quality 80 image_for_4chan.jpg

>>4392744
>>4392773
What's the "correct" algorithm for downscaling, and why?

>>4392774

no such thing

personally i prefer looks of Lagrange or Box while scaling down or -scale instead of -resize while enlarging

How in the fuck do you carry your gear when hiking or backpacking?
I've tried many things.
>camera loosely packed at the top of the rucksack, have to take off ruck to get it out and shoot
>camera packed in separate crossbody that is worn in combination with the regular gear pack, generally by putting on the big ruck first and then the crossbody
>camera is just on neck the entire time
>camera strap is hooked onto the top end of external frame and kept from swinging by just nestling it in the arm, looks goofy but avoids neck strain while keeping constant easy access
>just carrying a Ricoh GR in the pocket
Is there even a solution to this? Maybe something like a chestrig or kangaroo pouch with the usual camera bag style of padded insert? Wearing the rucksack top on the chest if the design supports it? Attaching the camera to the rucksack strap via quick release mount?
>captcha: VV4GR (win 4 GR?)

>>4392832
maybe something like this?
seen similar rigs from other brands, this is the first that came up with google

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	800
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4392773
>size 1000x1000
>quality 80
PLEASE do not do this. It is a visible difference. It DOES detract from the photo.

>>4392832
I only own one full frame sony camera and one full frame sony lens
Camera does not get packed because then it cant take pictures, it’s under a coat at the most protected after leaving an em1ii+12-40 pro out while it rained caused its death (IP rating is for 20 minutes not two hours)
I put extra batteries, cards, and the flash in a freezer bag and throw it in near the top of the pack

Gearfags mogged
Lmaoing @ lens bag fags

>>4392836
I also see that Osprey makes a dedicated camera chest rig. My concern with this would be excessive sweating and/or chafing due to the neoprene padding at the back.
>>4392840
>under a coat
Yes but how? I am also talking about single camera here (previously a 5DIV + 24-105 or small Pentax SLR) although being able to shoot mirrorless+film would be the grail. Carrying the camera on neck is ass no matter how light it is (swinging around) and wearing the strap crossbody will be interfered with by the ruck straps.

>>4392854
Put the camera on first
And don’t go blobbing

What camera is this at the beginning? Looks like maybe a Nikon.

https://files.catbox.moe/gks9f7.mp4

>>4392891
I don't know but context for vid?

>>4392891

look like two sony cams not sure

>>4392891
It's probably one of the Canon 5D / 7D series. The longer top LCD narrows it down quite a bit, and the shutter release looks like that of those as well.

>>4392891
I think it may be a Sony RX10, there's a few frame where it looks like it says Sony and not Canon, the strap lugs are the typical Sony metal triangle ones, and the viewfinder hump isn't as prominent as it would be on a DSLR. The lens hood shape also looks right. It could also be one of their SLT bodies (A77, A77 II, A68, A99 II).

>>4392922
best guess

>>4392481
waow yuyuko had too much izakaya
>>4392832
>>4392854
I do all my hiking with a Lowepro TLZ 70, it didn't come with the chest straps but I had some left over from another lowepro bag. I don't know if I'd shell out for an osprey camera bag, but I do like their backpacks. The TLZ 70 fits my D850 and either the 24-70 VR, 105 Macro or the 300 PF which are the only lenses I have but the bag can expand to supposedly accommodate a 70-200.
>My concern with this would be excessive sweating and/or chafing due to the neoprene padding at the back.
If you're doing any serious hiking, you're gonna sweat no matter what, but for what it's worth the lowepro has a smaller back profile. I've never had any back chafing issues with any kind of bag or backpack and I sweat buckets hiking in the summer.
>>4392836
These make me nervous, a lot of the trails in new england are extremely steep and any kind of slip leaves absolutely no padding or protection for the camera.

>>4392832
I have the 30L CEO killer bag with the QD plate on the strap

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

What's the best way to get someone into photography?

My sister uses an old coolpix and I want her to graduate to a half-decent camera with manual controls, because "muh one you have with you" isn't cutting it for her anymore. My dad recently got her an iPhone 16 Pro because she said she wanted a better camera, even after I've lent her my DSLR, SLR, TLR, and foldie. But she's still stuck on her old XR.

Also need to get her a camera for one of her university modules.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	500
Image Height	500
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4393020
Your little sister is a based anti-gearfag. Many females naturally are anti-gearfags and grasp that art is different from technical perfection intuitively. You should let her be. The only hitch is
>university module
Get an old DSLR with affordable lenses. She'll prefer her coolpix but at least she can learn without breaking the bank on her boomer camera.

>>4393020
Anything big is not gonna work, some people are just unwilling to lug anything much bigger than a phone with them.
RX100Va or G5X II is the is the safest choice, being the biggest (sensor-wise) pocketable 24-70 with EVF, it should still be an improvement over whatever sub-1" camera she has (unless it's the Coolpix A, which is APS-C, but I doubt that).
Or the EVF-less ZV-1 or G7X.
Or you could try one of the jacket pocketable MILCs w/ EVF (gx80, gx9, a6000 series, a7c) or w/o (plenty mft choices, a5000, S9)

>>4393020
How about a compact? Like G9X II or whatever is similar Nikon.

>>4393020
Get her one of those white a6xxx second hand with a compact zoom

>>4392832
I just use a cheap milsurp bag and my single camera and lens go around my neck, so I can take pictures not in a bag.

That's what neck strap is for anon, put it on first and it won't swing around.

>>4393020
Women just want yo click the shutter and get results. They fon't want to know how the camera actually works, much less manually adjust settings.
Just leave her with her phone and point-n-shoot.

>>4391961
This comparison isn't quite what you think it is:
>>4391966
Notice how the subject is at different distances from the camera in all these.
A 50mm is excellent for portrait photos where you stand a bit further back. It will allow you to get more of the background in the shot, and will still compact the face properly (if you are far enough away).
I often do portrait photography with my 14-24mm, if I am at a good location and want to embed the subject in a larger scene. The trick is just to not jam the camera into a face. And have enough resolution, so you can crop a bit when needed.

Sorry for fucking off and forgetting about the replies.

>>4393023
Yea canonically based if she wasn't such a petulant woman-child. I'll be getting a Voigtlander 40mm f/2 for my 6D soon, I could loan her that for her modules. Maybe an OM-1 if the lecturer allows it.

>>4393030
I was thinking of the GR IIIX. The RX100 and X-E series looks interesting as well.

>>4393031
Not enough control dials for anything other than auto, which kinda defeats the purpose with her current CoolPix.

>>4393033
Really good idea. Perhaps with a pancake.

>>4393036
She already takes great photos, she just needs a decent camera.

>>4393023
And yet 50% of the population is not even 5% of the good photography

>>4393082
Think of all the truly skilled people who aren't vain enough to post their work of social media

>>4392627
That lens is fucking massive, I shit you not.

What are the actual resolution limits for this board? I'm trying to post a panorama that is under 5mb but it says it's too large. The sticky is fucking retarded, you wouldn't be able to tell what it is at under 1000 pixels on the widest side

Ordered a Leica Q-P in "good" condition for 2300€ at mbp. One year waranty, 14 days return policy. That's a good deal isn't it? Thats the price of the normal Q there.

>>4393211
There was a pano thread not long ago and people were effortlessly posting 12000 on the longest side. Res isn't the problem you compressionlet; literally just slap some JPEG-80 compression and you'll cut the filesize into quarters

What photo library management tool do you use? Ideally one with face detection included.

Why are fast lenses maximum aperture usually tied to the same numbers like f/1.4 or f/2.8?
Why not make an f/1.6 or f/2.4 lens for example?

>>4393338
next in the row standard aperture opening value will give 2 times as much light to sensor/film, just as doubling the exposure time with shutter speed. these numbers allow for easier exposure mental maths. there exist lenses with max aperture not "even" but it's redarded and why would you do that

Did I miss ef-m sales or something? Do lenses ever get cheaper?

>>4393338
They do. But they use standard labels to avoid bothering people.

Most f1.4s are f1.3-f1.5 and the transmission stop is usually much slower wide open (ie: the canon rf 50mm f1.2 l is a t1.5, the sony 50mm f1.4 is a t1.6)

Is a Sony a6000 with the lens it comes with worth it at $550 Canadian? for Americans that's $381 freedom dollars, this would be my first ever camera that's not connected to a cellphone since maybe 2008-ish.

Thanks to anyone who can help!

>>4393389
not really, but the market is gay for resale these days. that kit has been "around 600" for the last decade. other electronics don't hold value like this because they aren't retarded, this should be a 200 dollar kit at most. but that's the way it ggoes.

>>4393390
everything's gay these days, would you recommend just going for a new camera instead?

>>4393389
it's a 10 year old camera, that was replaced 5 years ago
they went for $450-500 US new from '17 to '21
cut your pricing in half and you got a good deal

>decided to clean sensor on my camera since it had a little dust
>i wasnt used to IBIS yet, so forgot about it
>cleaned it with just a rocket blower but didnt use swab kit
>realized later i didnt lock the IBIS before using the blower on it
Is there any potential I damaged the IBIS? I imagine if the IBIS can survive the shock of riding in my car and moving around in my bag when I walk, then I'm probably over thinking it, but still.

On the plus side, the big specks of dust are completely gone, so at least I didn't go full retard and use the swab first.

>>4393389
If you want mirrorless and sony that's about right. The a6000 I see go for $300 all the time so another $80 for a lens is okay.

You can also get DSLR cheaper if you want that and don't mind the tech.

>>4393441
IBIS systems are designed to survive jolts from regular movement. If you imparted less force than you would by just picking it up really fast (you did), then there's no risk of damage. It's still good practice to lock it, but it's not going to magically kill itself from a burst of air.

X-T5 vs a7iii?

I looked on reddit and everyone there said they liked the fuji better.

>>4393461
Always do the opposite fo what Reddit says
>t. Snoy hater consneeds

>>4393349
>but it's redarded and why would you do that
cost, other manufacturing concerns
a lot of classic nifty fifties were 1.7 or 1.8

>>4393470
iirc Nikon's 50mm was f/2 for the longest time so Canon was like fuck you I can make the FD 50mm f/1.8 NIGGA. Other manu's followed suit because it wasn't that much of a leap in terms of tooling and development, but going bigger generally started to necessitate better technology, materials, etc.

>>4393515
>NIGGA
Uncalled for.

Why would someone aperture blades in this shape

>>4393461
a7c > X-T5 > a7iii

a7iii lacks the flippy screen so doesn't spark joy or feel fun like the X-T5/a7c do , and the X-T5 will shit itself in autofocus and low light which will be incredibly frustrating considering one used is like double the price of an a7c.


>>4393441
don't be a pussy, sensors are pretty tough. you should be more worried about the shutter and doing something retarded like closing the shutter and changing lenses at the beach

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7C
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:17 23:02:16
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	2.0 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4393524
How is the lack of AF joystick compensated for?

>>4393535
not him but half the rear screen is an af joystick

its actually faster and more precise, and helps keep the camera more stable than using a thumb stick. you can only appreciate this feature on an a7c otherwise your nose would constantly trigger it.

>>4393536
So it's a touchscreen, right? How does it work - there's a digital equivalent of the joystick (arrows etc.) that you press?

>>4393537
You move your thumb around like a touchpad on a laptop
>>4393536
I never had my nose move the AF point with my central EVF and I'm even a left eye shooter, however I had raindrops move it about so turned it off. I hardly ever moved it anyway because I use tracking AF, but of course I have a joystick to do it if I need to.

>>4393551
That actually sounds neat.

>>4393556
It kinda is in the sense that you don't need to be as precise with your thumb placement and it's a little quicker, but it's also not as accurate. And there's the issue with it being activated unintentionally. When I upgraded from a first gen A7 I thought it would be one of the things I liked about it but I never used it and it just caused problems, I'm glad I'm not forced to use it.

>>4393559
How's the A7C, ergonomically speaking? I had one in my hands and couldn't help but think that it feels like cheap plastic crap.

>>4393562
I guess you didn't like the A7C's grip? In which case why would you buy a compact camera anyway.

you're always gonna be losing some comfort in ergonomics to make up for the camera being 100g lighter or whatever. If weight isn't an issue look into a nikon Zf, fuji crop is still going to be crop and inferior to FF. Used Sony and Canon will be the better bang for your buck

>>4393567
The grip, surprisingly, was alright. I think it was the weight that felt suspicious, now that you mention it.

>>4393562
Sorry I should have clarified, I'm not the A7C owner. I have an A7R III. However the original A7 I have has a similarly sized grip to the A7C and the A7R is a big upgrade in that department.

I got a used canon rebel ti that takes a long time for the shutter to open after hitting the button to shoot.

The window on the lens closes and then like 2 seconds later it opens again

Is it actually taking pictures or is my film going to waste also? i dont want to go and develop the roll to find out

>>4393562
It’s good but ISO control on v2 is better

>>4393598
I have noticed if I stop using it for a while this problem seems to be less significant. Maybe there are some internals that need to relubed or something

I'm editing this photo to get as a print for my mother for Christmas. I'm trying to enhance the brightness of the cats slightly using a radial mask, intersected with a luminance mask to target the midtones, and a subtractive radial mask so I don't colour the background on the left. Is this range suitable? I don't have too much experience with editing and especially with editing for subjects, I usually take photos of landscapes.

>>4393247
Okay but does anyone actually know what the limits are?

>>4393598
Sounds like two different issues if I'm reading that right. Make sure that you're not using the self timer which is either 2 or 10 seconds on those, there will be a little clock symbol on the LCD if it is set. And also make sure that your exposure settings aren't retarded. If you're trying to shoot handheld at 2 seconds, yeah you are just wasting film.

>>4391961
for wide lenses, facial distortion happens when the face fills the frame. might as well shoot center with a lot of negative space on the outer sides. then crop of needed.

How do I check the metering mode in Lightroom cloud? I see the info tab but it has the basic Iso triangle info, but not metering mode used.

I recently sold my FF mirrorless setup since it got no use over all the fujifilm stuff I own. I also recently got into shooting actual film with some old bodies got from friends and relatives. Because of that I have like $2000 to spend on anything.

I have all the lenses I have use for for fuji, and I’d rather buy film or dslr for slower stuff. The problem is I don’t know much about all that. If it helps, my current workhorse film camera is a EOS 300 and it gets the job done ok. So what should I do? It’s my hobby money, so I’d rather just reinvest it into something photography related.

>>4393800
some nice ef glass for your eos maybe? the ultrasonic prime lineup from the 90's is very nice

>>4393800
>fujifag slowly becomes honest with himself
Nikon has the widest selection of great film lenses, canon only has more modern glass

Get a nikon (fm3a or an f100)

>>4393800
Darkroom equipment. And a 6x7 or 6x9 if you have enough money left over.

>>4393803
This was my first idea as well. I used to have a 6d a while back and could possibly get that as well.

>>4393812
Yeah. Film simulations are pretty gay but I enjoy the lenses and the system too much. Haven’t had a need for FF since. I did think that I should look into nikon since their film bodies look pretty great

>>4393813
This is an idea, but I don’t currently have space for all that. Otherwise I’d go that route. Already have the means to develop and scan, but it would be nice to print as well.

>>4393853
Ps. drunk and posting from mobile so excuse my shit english

How is EF vs. Nikon F optics wise? Does it matter? I despise sigma and modern optics and the way they render things. Can’t pinpoint what the fuck is wrong with them but certainly something

>>4393854
Nikon F is vastly more diverse from vintage to modern, EF is a purely modern system
>i despise modern optics
They are sharper and dont have strong color casts, that’s it

>>4393854
You're limited by 35mm resolution either way, but there's certainly a lot of cheap, good F glass (a curse in its own way) if you don't want to go the MF way. I have a bunch, I can give some recs if you want.

>>4393855
>>4393860
Nikon sounds like a good bet. What are the best film bodies? Was it so, that the same optics fit on their DSLR’s as well?

>>4393861
The fm3a

Beware the gelded (G) lenses, they dont work without electronic aperture control boomer blobs but most of them are modern sharp

>>4393286
Pls respond.

>>4393867
Shut up

>>4393861
DO NOT listen to this retard:
>>4393862
The best nikon gilm camera is the F6, but it basically forsn't exist.
The F5 and F4 are also great, as is the F100.
You may, however, consider a much lighter, but still fully featured F80.
F65 and F75 are dirt cheap options, which lack in that their viewfinders are small and you cannot select between continuous and single point autofocus (the camera automatically decides for you, and won't let you take a shot unless it is certain it has focus). They are nonetheless great, especially for the price.
ALL the mentioned cameras support ALL modern F-mount lenses, auto-metering, autofocus and even VR.
It's basically cheating.
Some of the cameras use stupid expensive C123 batteries, but can be used with battery grips that allow you to load normal AAA batteries instead.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	motorola
Camera Model	moto g(100)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Sensing Method	Unknown
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4624
Image Height	1982
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:28 18:23:21
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	1937
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	0 EV
Exposure Bias	-1.2 EV
Metering Mode	Average
Light Source	D65
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	1.69 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4624
Image Height	1982
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1/2
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4393872
Sorry, no, not allnof them support VR.
The F4 does not.

>>4393877
skill issue

>>4393887
Hipster issue

what kind of camera is good for making videos like pic rel, simonfordman on youtube? it's exclusively static shots in a "cinematic" style (I know that's not a thing but I don't know how else to describe it). can any camera do this?

>>4393951
i skipped through one of the vids and im not seeing anything particularly outstanding about the shots. the highlights are also overblown in a lot of it and the rolling shutter during one of the panning shots was seriously bad. not really much thats cinematic about it desu.

My friend recently set up the Sony zv e10 ii camera for twitch streaming. Everything looks great except when she crops and downscales the face cam smaller during gameplay. It makes the edges very jagged. In the picture you can clearly see her fringes gets really weird. The cam is set to 1080p with 50 frames while stream is on 60 fps. Would be great if anyone can point to a solution.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android SP1A.210812.016.G975U1UEU9IXE1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2280
Image Height	1080
Image Orientation	Unknown

I tried out a Hasslyblat X2D, and read the 130ish-page manual. No customisation whatsoever. No minimum shutter speed. No auto ISO in manual mode. No usable autofocus (worse than Fuji X).

Is it just a luxury toy for retards?
Genuinely confused by the praise it gets.

>>4393862
Why is it so expensive?

>>4393872
Sure, I’ll check those out. I like the idea of using the same lenses for dslr’s and film. EF still might be a better mount for that case since if I ever wanted to adapt something to fuji since it seems like the easiest mount to adapt.

>>4393995
Wait what?

>>4393995
isnt it mainly for studio portraits

I am having issues setting up my telecentric lens. Desperate for help.

For those unaware, a telecentric lens is one that should have near-zero barrel or pincushion distortion. But I am still seeing significant distortion. (See attached photo)

I am using a Nikon D5600, Invaritar 59 LGB 450 base lens and 59 LGL 428 attachment lens.
(https://www.artisantg.com/info/MellesGriot_LGB_LGC_LGG_LGH_LGJ_LGL_Datasheet.pdf)

- I am at the correct working distance per spec sheet
- I have tried multiple aperture settings
- I have toggled the cameras shooting menu "auto geometric distortion correction" off and on

What could be going wrong here?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	quinn_000
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4394003
>>4394004
I thought the same, so it was a shock to see how limited the camera is. The GFX and the FF flagships are way ahead in usability.

Which of the following do you think would yield higher theoretical image quality:
>APS-C/MFT with top-tier glass
>FF with 2nd-tier glass
I'm asking because I recently tried the 24-105 L on my RP and was shocked at the weight difference compared to the non-L version—and that's the lightest L zoom on the lightest body in the system. I'm frail and find it hard to imagine myself carrying around much heavier than that, so I was wondering if it would be better to switch to something like Oly or Fuji where the top-tier standard zooms are lighter, or just settle for the lighter consumer-grade glass on FF.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.3.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2019:08:17 11:39:58
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/1.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1707
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4394012
Just use what is comfortable for you if that's the case. I doubt you would really notice unless you did a side by side. If all you have is a bulky zoom, you're probably not going to take it out.

>>4394012
its hard to say. in perfect conditions i would say the top tier glass wins. but as soon as theres less light, or you want shallow dof the ff will pull through

>>4393989
Kill yourself

>>4394012
Generally FF wins, but your use case matters the most. Phones are useful too.

>>4394006
>should have near-zero barrel or pincushion distortion
where did you hear this?
telecentric lenses are for orthographic projection, not distortion correction
they often are corrected because they're used for industrial or scientific measurement, but they don't have to be

why is the Panasonic gm5 so expensive?

>>4394031
why you so poor?

>>4394009
In what way is it "limited"? It sounds to me like it's the operator suffering from limitation issues.

>>4394012
Depends, many times, it wont look too different, like picrel (one top/bot half is ff, other aps-c).
FF could have greater DR at lower ISO's, and better noise handling at higher (but if you're DoF limited, that mostly goes away).
A better lens will get you better contrast, flare resistance, sharpness, less optical defects (distortion, abberations, coma, vignette), bokeh rendering, etc.
Lens gives you most of the actual "look", camera dictates how well that's achieved.

>>4394046
In what way is it "limited"?
>No customisation whatsoever.
>No minimum shutter speed.
>No auto ISO in manual mode.
>No usable autofocus
It sounds to me like you can't read

>>4394155
>No customisation whatsoever.
What are you even talking about? You need a shortcut to add dog ears effect or something?
>No minimum shutter speed.
According to specs it's 68 seconds unless you are dyslexic and actually mean maximum shutter speed (as in minimum time) in which case it is 1/4000
>No auto ISO in manual mode.
User limitation
>No usable autofocus
User limitation

>>4394164
>not having basic functionality on a camera is a user limitation
makes sense

>>4394164
I think he means that in Av it won't limit the minimum shutter speed based on focal length

>>4394182
What do you think basic functionality means?

>>4394191
>What do you think basic functionality means?
maybe something like auto iso in manual mode
what do you think it means?

>>4394012
FF hands down anything else is just baby sensor cope. Even more so if you added MFT w/ top top tier glass to the comparison.

>>4394193
Really sounds like more like user limitation to me. The camera is more than capable.

>>4394164
I'm the poster who tested the camera. You failed to get the point.

It's extremely common to use a custom minimum shutter speed setting in conjunction with auto ISO, to prevent motion blur. All major brands support this. There's also no excuse for disabling auto ISO in manual mode.

Flash photography is a nightmare, as the X2D cannot focus when the screen is dark (ambient exposure). Other brands do not have this problem.

These are fundamental drawbacks which are neither present in GFX cameras, nor in Casnoykon flagships.

But I applaud DJI for putting a free camera in the hands of every reviewer who might otherwise complain about these shortcomings.

t. z8 shooter

>>4394201
it sure is a capable camera, but do you think a camera that is capable can't also have limitations?
not op, but one big limitation for me would be compatibility with adapted lenses
x2d can functionally only really use hassy lenses
with gfx you can use most any mf glass, and lots of ff glass too

>>4394012
do the two sensors have the same pixel density or the same resolution?

Bit of a trick question actually because if they have the same density then the FF wins on account of having higher resolution which can be downsampled for a sharper image, and if they have the same resolution the FF still wins because it doesn't need as good glass as the apsc/mft to resolve an equal or sharper image.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M8 Digital Camera
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:12 22:07:52
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	844
Image Height	1500
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	00000000000000000000000000003B2A

>>4394203
>You failed to get the point.
No I get your point completely. But that is akin to a car not having traction control or an automatic transmission. The limitation lies completely with the operator.
>>4394211
>one big limitation for me would be compatibility with adapted lenses
Well unlike what>>4394203 keeps whining about, that is an actual limitation even if it is to be somewhat expected in this particular case.

>>4394233
>if they have the same resolution the FF still wins because it doesn't need as good glass as the apsc/mft to resolve an equal or sharper image.
What's the math behind this? I always see crop sensor advocates saying the opposite, that the sharpness should be the same if a larger sensor and a smaller sensor have the same pixel pitch. That always sounded too simplistic to me since it doesn't take into account the different sizes of the lens and image circle, but I don't know enough about optics to substantiate that

>>4394245
>if they have the same resolution
>if a larger sensor and a smaller sensor have the same pixel pitch
if resolution is the same, pixel pitch will be different
lower pixel pitch is less demanding on glass

>>4394246
Sorry I got mixed up, I don't know why I said pixel pitch. I think what I meant was pixels per degree; basically the argument would go that for an equivalent FOV and equivalent sensor resolution, the pixels per degree would be the same between both sensors and therefore there shouldn't be a difference in sharpness. But again, that seems unconvincing to me because the glass and image circle sizes are still different

>>4394012
It depends on the situation. Low light the larger sensor wins. In telephoto applications FF will be a pain to use but will be better. In ample light it's hard to tell the difference. Of course bokeh is also harder to get with crop sensors.
I wouldn't consider optimizing though, instead think in terms of "good enough". Look at sample images online. If a crop is good enough go with a light crop kit. You shouldn't be cropping to 100% with any bayer sensor anyway.
You can get small FF kits these days though, consider for example a Sigma FP and some of the new Panasonic 1.8 glass, they're very sharp and as light as top tier MFT.

>>4394247
>I think what I meant was pixels per degree
Pixels per degree is just resolution applied to a specific field of view, assumes sensors are the same size, and is just a measure pixel density. Pixel pitch is what we actually care about, that's pixel density accounting for different sensor sizes and independent of a specific lens.
>for an equivalent FOV and equivalent sensor resolution
Sure, in this case, you will have a different pixel pitch since resolution is the same, and lower pixel pitch is less demanding on lenses. Across sensor sizes, you can either have the same resolution, or same pixel pitch, but not both.
> there shouldn't be a difference in sharpness
Sharpness is lens dependent. The body just determines how much of that sharpness you are capable of resolving. Some combinations of apsc+lens can have greater detail and sharpness than some combinations of ff+lens. If you want the most detail, you want the most pixels behind the sharpest lens.

why are people so focused on camera bodies but they use chinese lenses and no lighting and don't really know how to edit

>>4394254
bodies are the easiest for nophotos to argue over with numbers, notice all the discussion with only two relevant photos posted
lighting, lens choice, technique, processing, all matter more, most of the time

>>4394252
So is it basically that, for a FF and a crop sensor with the same resolution taking the exact same picture, the crop sensor lens has to resolve the same amount of detail over a smaller surface area, and therefore needs to be sharper than the FF lens to produce an equally sharp image? When I think about it that way it suddenly seems really obvious

>>4394254
>why are people so focused on camera bodies but they use chinese lenses and no lighting and don't really know how to edit
Are these Chinese lenses in the room with us right now?
>>4394257
>the crop sensor lens has to resolve the same amount of detail over a smaller surface area
True but they're always less sharp towards the edges anyway and (given the same lens) the crop sensor avoids the edges.

>>4394257
Yes. But again, you want to focus on lenses if sharpness is your goal. More demanding doesn't necessarily mean worse, you need to judge the system as a whole.
The sharper the lens and more pixels you get, the better.

>>4394254
i think a lot of people are retarded. its also harder to understand what makes a lens good, like mtf charts and the like.

>>4394259
>Vintage style lens: Ching chong
angry face
>Vintage style lens: Leica
happy face

>>4394254
As other anons have said: stupidity. Lenses matter the most.

Bodies matter especially if you have issues with time-to-first-frame, effective shots per minute, and keeper ratio.

In the end, what lens and body you need depends on your specific use case. When moving into environmental portraiture, I had to upgrade both the lens and the body, as I needed to work faster, and to capture people looking their best.

>>4394164
>photographer makes excuse for overpriced junk tech
This is why hasselblad went from landing on the moon to a chinese equity firm.

You are not more skilled for performing menial camera adjustments with more effort. You are not smarter. You are not a better photographer. In all likelihood you are worse. Good photographers that are actual artists, called directors of photography, hire people if they need that done. They call them technicians, monkeys, operators, and compare them to factory workers and construction crew over coffee. The camera operators sit in their own less luxurious break room and aren’t allowed to have creative input. That’s you. That’s your people.

>>4394322
>wall of text to cope with being an itoddler that needs machines to do absolutely everything for him
Those things are meant for studio work and to a lesser extent, landscapes. Not shooting birds in the park or the backs of people's heads on the street where you would even want floating ISO or don't have time to read the meter. Everything that you're screeching about is literally a skill issue and not a "limitation" of the camera.

>>4394324
>he thinks those are skills
Monkeys like you should stick to cars. The arts aren’t for people that love operating machines. A love of operating machines and turning knobs and switches and changing settings never co-occurs with artistic talent. Ever. Racecar drivers, gamers, programmers, server admins, these people who pride themselves on pressing buttons and moving levers and dials better never produce any art. None. The brain wiring that makes you enjoy this blue collar shit is as unable to produce art as the brain wiring that makes an animal live purely on instinct will never let them ask what is the meaning of love

>>4394329
based and true. just like at the large format autists photography. all the equipment fiddling chops and he is cropping to compose his snapshits of cows and cobwebs. technical aptitude can not coexist with creativity like, at all

>>4394324
Please stop judging other people.

People choose what features in a camera they'd like to pay for, and their preferences are none of your business.

>>4394322
Is correct. If you're doing art or business, you want to spend the minimum time possible fiddling with settings. You will have people doing it for you, and you will have adequate gear.

>>4394324
>Those things are meant for studio work and to a lesser extent, landscapes.
True, but that's not an excuse to lack features commonly found elsewhere. GFX are also meant for similar environments, but don't lack said features. I can find plenty of posts online from X2D users complaining about those issues, so it seems actual X2D users also see it as a limitation too. You're just arguing it's not important for your imagined hypothetical group of people, therefore it's not actually important for anyone (and skill issue otherwise).
>Everything that you're screeching about is literally a skill issue
Having a feature, or not, is not a skill issue, and is a literal limitation of a camera. Needing to rely on said feature may be a skill issue, but that's a separate thing and you are conflating the two.

Actually, you know what? You're right. Hassy should do away with all metering, autofocus, and priority modes. Manual focus with un-metered manual exposure for everyone. Not a limitation, just a way to weeds out the phoney X2D users, those with skill issues.

>>4394203
>Flash photography is a nightmare
What is AF assist?
>>4394190
It does though
>>4394340
>Please stop judging other people
This is /sqt/ and his only question was "is it a luxury toy for retards" quite ironically because he can't use it.
>People choose what features in a camera they'd like to pay for, and their preferences are none of your business.
I'm not trying to sell him one. They have a pretty niche use case and it is obviously not right for him.
>>4394341
>Having a feature, or not, is not a skill issue, and is a literal limitation of a camera.
It "literally" isn't, because nothing is actually limited. It just doesn't hold your hand and do everything for you. If you must call that a limitation, it is on the users end.

>>4394398
>nothing is actually limited. It just doesn't hold your hand
exactly, which is why hassy should get rid of metering, autofocus, and priority modes
not having those isn't a limitation, it's just not handholding anymore

>>4394398
>It does though
The camera does set the auto ISO minimum shutter speed, yes. The problem is there's no way for the user to set that speed. This is a basic feature on most cameras, and virtually all nicer cameras.
One workaround could be to switch to M, so you can force a certain SS, but...

>>4394398
>hasselblad fanboy adopts the mentality of a lincucks user - automation and good design are bad because doing this ditch digger work makes him very smart!
>hasselblad totally fucking dies and gets bought by dji
Lol hasselblad will be a phone brand in india before your life ends. Every product after the V system, which would have been absolutely inferior to mamiya if not for the zeiss lenses, was progressively worse than the last. The 907x doesnt even fucking work because the sandwich style body develops connection issues. X and H cameras are rattly POS plastic and sometimes get mogged by a SNOY that even snoyboys consider bad
https://fstoppers.com/originals/hasselblad-h6d-100c-comparison-review-full-frame-out-performs-medium-format-191500

All hasselblad was ever good for was mounting zeiss lenses. That’s it. Since then they have just been a degrading poorfag alternative to phase one (AKA mamiya).

>>4394240
your analogy is shit
its more like a car that only goes left
you want to go right? just do a 270 every time

>>4394240
Watch out, car related analogies result in bans here apparently

>>4394398
Strong opinions. What camera do you use?

>>4392183
I realize now that this was a very very stupid question.

I'm very satisfied with the f2.8 gm2 lens. thank you anons.

>>4394459
Pfffft should have bought the f2. Twice the light bro. 24mm is the new iphone focal length anyways.

>>4394413
>hassy should get rid of metering, autofocus, and priority modes
Keep metering but yes, I'm all for filtering retards and couldn't give a shit if the brand goes bust again kek.
>>4394452
>all (insert brand here) cameras were ever good for is mounting lenses on.
Astounding revelation.
>>4394453
Retard.
>>4394458
>implying I take photos
Anon, you know where you are right?

>>4394463
Excellent troll.
8/10

>>4394463
>STEMbug knob turner thinks he’s filtering retards, filters all the actual artists instead
You know how ALL artists use a mac, seethe about it or not, instead of an autistic thinkpad running the command line? Camera settings are the same. Creative people have better shit to do than your midwit nerd faggotry

>>4394465
>photography
>art
Whew lad!

>>4394472
Terrible troll.
0/10

>>4394472
"Photography" as you know it isn’t art. It’s a craft. Like no one would call knitting a pair of mittens art, or creative.

But creating scenes to photograph is art.

>>4392006
>be some loser neet in 2000
>enter a Sexiest Geek Alive contest
Little did you know, the northtroops have infiltrated the venue the night before, removing every aperture mechanism off of the broadcast cameras, and locked the focus with superglue.
>When the contest begins, Toneh descends upon the stage, and stands frozen in place with his signature shit-eating grin. The only thing in focus is a thin strip of his iris, gazing, searching, victorious.

With a slow blink, he revels in the creation of his legend. The background roars, in unison, an unholy blur of confused geeks. the foreground is occupied by the onlooker gasp in horror. Toneh is king. Toneh is all.

>>4394498
FUCK I forgot to delete the foreground part

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

Is this fungus or chemical damage to the lens coating or what?

>>4394510
looks like fungus. shine a flashlight from the other end

>>4394511
Yeah you're right, looks like it. Ah well was a cheapo lens anyways.

>>4394489
Okay so you can "create a scene" but can't use a paint brush? I'm pretty sure there's a general thread on /b/ for that.

>>4394489
source: me

is the difference in bokeh THAT different on a f1.4 vs f1.8 on FF?

I just want to take some more normie friendly portraits and blow out the background

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4394517
2/3 of a stop is a noticable difference if you look at them side by side, but who cares, 1.8 in general is fine imo. Which 2 specific lenses are we talking about?

>>4394517
1.8 can already blow it right out but it is noticeable. I kind of regret getting rid of my 50mm 1.8 sometimes because of needing to step down a bit with the 1.4 to actually get something in focus and getting rough edges on my heckin bloody bokie balls.

>>4394519
I'm thinking of picking up

Sony f1.8 85mm (300USD)
Zeiss f1.8 55mm ( was a couple for 250USD used a few weeks ago in the stores here)
Sony f2.5 G 50mm (500usd, but very compact and could be a daily carry resulting in more pictures)
Goymaster f1.4 85mm (easily 900usd but im curious if its worth it)

is the difference between f1.2 and 1.4 worth investing so much extra money? i mainly shoot portaits but i like using my primes for interesting compositions too. im not much for zooms desu

>>4394517
If bokeh is your concern, you really ought to be looking at how specific lenses render the bokeh.
Here's an example of three 50mm lenses, an f1.4, f2, and f1.5.
f1.8 is plenty for bokeh, especially on more tele lenses, but faster lenses do have advantages even if you would only shoot at f1.8.
>>4394529
Useless answer, but really depends on the lens. I have one f1.2 lens, and I do use it a lot, but I would still use it just the same if it were f1.4 or even f1.8. Most of the time, I'll opt for using a slower lens for size/bulk savings.

>>4394529
faster lenses are for stopping down to f1.8 and getting a sharp image without it being an awful soulless piece of shit like that godawful nikon 50mm f1.8 s (for soulless)

if you’re buying a gay master or cannot L type lens then they are for ticking boxes on the clients list of requests, ie: moar bokeh t. karen

>>4394535
Hah, I guess that's a pretty reliable way to know that something's good

Currently use the Nikkor z 24-120 f4 for everything (automotive, environmental portraiture). Would I benefit from having one of the 1.8 S lenses (35,50,85,135 plena), or is the benefit marginal?

Low light is not really an issue at the moment.

>>4394543
If you want potentially better sharpness, option for shallower depth of field, better bokeh, smaller size, etc.

If you like what you have a meets all your needs, you have ascended from gearfaggotry.

I'd hate if all I used was a 24-120 though. Midrange zooms are the most boring lenses ever, and f4 sucks.

>>4394544
>and f4 sucks
massively

>>4394543
The S prime experience

Stage 1
>muh sharpness nikon best im gonna say microcontrast now while a leia guy vomits
Stage 2
>asking why its big
>asking why all the filter sizes are different
>oogling sony lenses with envy
Stage 3
>go back to the zooms because as a nikon user you must do this, it is in your blood, primes are for suckers, zooms are freedom, just like shooting jpeg in the vibrant profile with saturation boosted and AWB skewed towards magenta and amber is freedom, nikon for life buy an sb600 right fucking now

>>4394543
If low light is not an issue, uou will never ever need primes. I use my 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 during winter, and sometimes indoors, but only because it's way yoo fucking dark. The shallow depth of field at the wide open stops actually sucks in 90% of cases. Stopped down a bit they are great, but that kind of forces you into A mode even when what you actually want to limit is shutter speed - which means that you'll mostly be pushed into wide open when your camera thinks it's too dark. I would have loved a hard option to limit how low the f-stop goes. It's also very problematic to not be able to zoom, of course. I thought the problem would mainly be that I cannot zoom further in, but I notice that I'm a lot more annoyed with the inability to zoom out. Often you simply cannot walk back far enough to capture the scene you want at 50mm. Otherwise I stick to my 24-120mm f4, and have done so for over a decade now. It's just the perfect range for composing any shot on the fly.
I also have a 60mm macro, a 14-24mm f2.8 and a 70-200mm f2.8, but they are only used for special occasions. The ultra wide is wonderful for architecture and portraits where you want to include a lot of background, but the range gimps it hard in terms of general versatility. The 70-200mm is technically amazing, but insanely heavy and clunky to lug around. Only ever used for wildlife and sporting events.
In short, for me, primes are just a (shitty) crutch for dark times, and if I could I'd stick to 24-120mm for all eternity.

>>4394544
Thanks. Would you say a 2.8 zoom is where it's at, or should I go for a 1.8 prime?

>>4394546
Did you get raped in the ass with a nikon zoom as a kid, Anon?
It sounds like it must have been the 70-200mm by the amount of butthurt you still experience to this day.

>>4394548
Not that guy, but if I were you, the only f2.8 I'd consider is the 24-70mm. The rest are too heavy and too specialized to be very useful for general photography.
You will miss the long end of your 24-120mm at times and beat yoursel up over it, though.

>>4394550
>>4394547
Thanks for the anti-gas pill. I actually love the z 24-120, as it never fails at capturing a moment.

>>4394551
No problem, anon.
Love your 24-120mm. It's the ultimate sweet spot, in my opinion.

>>4394546
Gotta love the AI / AF lenses, small and with 52mm filters all the way to 135 f/2.8.

>>4394527
Like >>4394531 said you want to look more at how the specific lenses look, including how usable they actually are wide open. For example the Zeiss 55mm, on paper it's almost the same as the Sony 50mm for like double the price, but the bokeh has a rather different look and it's sharper wide open. How it looks isn't automatically better, there is some personal preference and some will say not to bother and just step up to 1.4, but only you can decide what you want.

Also as he hinted at going with a longer focal length can get you a blurrier looking background at the same or slower aperture so you're not sacrificing depth of field as much. Not much point getting a 50mm f/1.2 for doing portraits when you'll only have someone's eyes in focus and their nose is blurry and you could get a better photo with an 85mm or even 135mm at f/1.8.

http://howmuchblur.dekoning.nl/

>>4394548
That's up to you, I use both, but opt for primes when I can. If I didn't do photo work, I would never own even an f2.8 zoom.
If you have a clear idea what you're upgrading for, the answer will be clear. If you're still undecided, you don't need to upgrade.

i bought a Minolta XD11 on a whim and have never really been into photography before, i dont really know what to ask. any advice i guess? so far i got some film and it seems to be working fine but i dont really know what every setting and knob does right now

>>4394586
Thanks for the quality post. I actually need a portable strobe much more than I need a new lens, so I guess that settles it.

>>4394544
2.8 is more than enough bokeh for photographing people

You could just use a zoom as a collection of primes

>>4394729
Read the owner's manual. Old manuals are fun to read.
https://www.pacificrimcamera.com/rl/02497/02497.pdf

>>4394823
2.8 zooms are fucking big and bulky for how they perform though which is also something to consider.

>>4394839
Sony’s 24-70 GM II is the smallest with the most prime-like rendering

Everyone else fucked up

>>4394844
Is this engagement bait or just an ad?

>>4394870
is this shitposter spam?

I own some threaded filters and want to switch to magnetic ones, but a) the prices are terrible, and b) some of my specialty filters aren’t even available in magnetic versions.
I know that there are magnetic adapters but I had a different idea:
What if I took a cheap magnetic filter and simply swapped the glass element out with one from a threaded filter?

I've been eyeing K&F's cheapest magnetic (UV) filter for this – with a bulk discount it's about 10 Eurobucks per filter.
There's only one thing I worry about: I can't tell whether it is even possible to disassemble these filters. Threaded filters usually use a threaded inner ring to hold the glass in place. The inner ring can be removed using a lens spanner. I have yet to see a picture of the magnetic filter that suggests it can be disassembled using a lens spanner.
I think that either the whole thing is glued in place or the inner ring has to be removed using other tools.

Does any one of you own a magnetic K&F filter and would take a look?

>>4394914
>Does any one of you own a magnetic K&F filter and would take a look?
yeah i own some, what exactly do you want me to do? sorrry im not following it exactly

>>4394916
Threaded filters usually consist of an outer frame (picrel – bottom left) and inner ring (bottom right). You can disassemble them using a lens spanner if they have these two notches (blue arrows).
I wanna know if the magnetic filters are built the same way so that I can disassemble them, too. Surefire way to tell is if they have those two notches. If they don‘t, try to see if the outer frame is threaded on the inside. If they have neither, they‘re probably glued together and can‘t be disassembled. (thanks btw)

>>4394921
neither my cpl, nd's, or uv filter have these notches on them and i cant see any easy way that they would open

>took me a year to realize back-button focus is retarded for trying to take pictures of fast moving spastic things, like my toddler
I wish I would not have made this mistake. Could also be
>skill issue

>>4395049
Maybe try using servo mode or whatever continuous focusing is called on your camera.

>>4395049
BBF is a remnant of the DSLR era when people would mostly use the center point with focus and recompose
It's pretty unnecessary with a competent AF system

I have been using spot metering on my shots lately, and I think I prefer the exposures I am getting with it vs Matrix generally. Anyone else still use spot metering?

>>4395076
It's literally no different to half pressing the shutter button. Would you consider that a relic of the dark ages also? Fucking iToddlers I swear..
>>4395079
Depends entirely on what you are shooting my dear frogposter. Use spot metering if you have a subject that stands out against a significantly darker or brighter background. If not, than evaluative metering may be simpler but you can still use spot metering to check a few different spots in your composition and then settle on the average you think works.

>>4395083
BBF allowed you to separate focussing and metering, so yeah it is different to a half press of the shutter button

Is this a good lens for environmental portraits?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4395090
It allows you to set a different focusing mode, I don't know about turning metering off.

>>4395206
Using the shutter button a half press in single AF would also lock the metering, so if you're doing focus and recompose that could result in incorrect metering. Using BBF allows you to focus, then recompose and half press the shutter to lock in the metering.

>>4395208
Interesting, I never knew that but I also never used it that way. I really only use the back button to track shit in servo mode.

>>4395244
Yeah if you're using continuous AF then you also have continuous metering on a half press, so in that case there's not really any difference. I suppose the advantage of using BBF would be that you don't need to be as delicate by half pressing to focus, you can press the back button as hard as you like and then just full press the shutter to take the photo.

One thing I've never really understood is why there's a dedicated AF-on button on many bodies. With the default settings you'd press that to focus, but then by pressing the shutter button to take the photo you'd either end up refocussing if the camera or subject had moved or if it hadn't then you didn't really have a need to press the AF-on button, it was redundant. I could understand if it allowed focussing when a lens was set to MF but I don't remember that ever working when I had a Canon DSLR and it doesn't do that with my Sony.

>>4395250
>you'd press that to focus, but then by pressing the shutter button to take the photo you'd either end up refocussing if the camera or subject had moved
It is a bit pointless in that regard. That's why I never used it that way. It does the focus and recompose thing if you never let go of the button though.

>>4395083
>It's literally no different to half pressing the shutter button
It's an extra button to push. It used to be worth it for focus & recomposing. Now that I can rely more on AF without having to focus & recompose, it's less useful. Not hard to understand.
>>4395090
Also, some older cameras could only spot meter off the center point. Again, forcing you to focus & recompose.
>>4395079
Use whatever gets you the results you want. Metering just camera suggestions about settings, nothing more.
>>4395250
>I could understand if it allowed focussing when a lens was set to MF
That is how it works for Fuji at least

>>4395259
>It does the focus and recompose thing if you never let go of the button though.
It had been so long since I had used the AF-on button I thought it would refocus upon pressing the shutter button, but I just tried it on my Sony (I had the button remapped so set it back) and you're right. If Canon's also functioned the same that makes me wonder why there was even a custom function to set AF to the * button.

>>4395266
>That is how it works for Fuji at least
I'm envious. It would be a very useful feature for me.

>>4395274
>If Canon's also functioned the same
They do
>makes me wonder why there was even a custom function to set AF to the * button
People like to remap buttons I guess

>Error: Your image contains an embedded file.
I'm a newshitter, someone explain why the jpgs I converted from RAW apparently contain embedded files

>>4395459
Possibly location info. If clearing that doesn't work, just clear all the exif data. 9 times out of 10 you'll just have gearfags scouring your pictures for worms or a pixel that is slightly the wrong colour because you used a camera they don't like if you include it.

>take family photo
>left my auto iso too high
>picture is now noisy af
>everyone's waiting for me to send them the photos

What do? At least it's not a blurry photo. But I can just hear it now, is this the best your fancy camera can do?

>>4395698
ai denoiser?

I bought a tripod to use with a Canon Rebel T7 camera, and no matter how much I screw thread the camera into the plate on the tripod, it doesn't fully get tight and stop spinning/rotating around the thread.

I assume this is, to a degree, intentional, since it's not like it never engages the threads, you can't just plop it on and off, but it does mean that I can't lock the camera fully in places and it shifts a bit slightly when I touch the buttons on the camera.

How can I fully lock it in place?

>>4395705
So the screw is bottoming out in the thread on the camera before it gets fully tight? That's strange, tripod threads on bodies are typically around the same depth. You could grind down the screw to make it shorter, or put a washer between the plate and the body.

If i'm using a tripod and i'm photographing a still object, what is the lowest I should be going with shutter speed?

There's obviously a point where the shutter speed is so slow that it's not worth waiting around (I did a shot at 15" just now for example and I was standing around for like 30 seconds, and the image looks kinda messed up, a bit worried it let in enough light to damage the sensor?), but i'm wondering if there's also a point where even the air moving around or me shifting a bit 2-3 feet from the camera might still shake tripod/the ground enough to introduce image-clarity-impacting shaking at slow enough shutter speeds?

>>4395800
>let in enough light to damage the sensor?
I think this only happens if you're shooting into the sun due to the heat

>>4395800
Actually the longer the shutter speed the less effect a little shake, such as if something was to knock the tripod, has on the final image. A faster shutter speed only makes a difference if it's fast enough that it would freeze that shake.

>>4395705
Are you sure it doesn't have a locking nut under the base plate?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.A136BXXSADXK1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	720
Image Height	635

What archive site (if any) hosts /p/ posts?

how could I find out if/when the sun will line up with a local airport runway?

>>4396071
>go there in the morning repeatedly
>watch sun line up
>when it does take photo

Or use an app like Sun Position, Sunrise & Sunset that show an augmented reality view of wherever whenever.

How can I tell if a remote shutter allows me to navigate the camera's menus or not?

I want one that allows me to actually change the shutter speed, aperture, etc without touching the camera but it seems some (most? all?) can't do that even when they have a d-pad for menu operation, which they only use for the remote's own settings, not the camera's

>>4396079
If you're the guy with the T7 that was asking a similar question the other day then you already got your answer, it's not possible.

>>4396084
There is a way but it's probably not worth it and I suspect that he might just be asking difficult questions for the sake of it.
>>4396079
>install Canon DPP4, it comes with the camera
>plug the camera into a laptop/computer
>remote control that computer from another device
>use the remote shooting utility in DPP4

>>4396085
Of course if you need help with remote access of a computer, some Indian gentleman will be more than willing to do the needful. Alternatively, just use a long cable.

>>4396084
>>4396085
I don't understand why this would be a difficult question/thing to make, if you can make a remote that has a button that makes the camera take a picture, why would nobody make one that has buttons to navigate through the camera's settings and options?

How can this be a thing that doesn't exist? It's both super basic to make work (I imagine), and it's a super basic thing people would obviously want to be able to do?

Anyways, yes, I am the same person who asked in the other thread, and it turns out that the Rebel camera actually does have connectivity with the Canon Camera Control app, and that does allow me to change my shutter speed and aperture and shit, but I can't change the shooting mode and it completely disables both the camera's LCD screen and even blocks the optical viewfinder, forcing me to use my phone screen to preview shots, which doesn't work for me because my phone's screen is ass.

>>4396089
>if you can make a remote that has a button that makes the camera take a picture, why would nobody make one that has buttons to navigate through the camera's settings and options?
Those are completely different things and I think you know that. Nearly all cameras used to have a pretty universal shutter release cable.
>it turns out that the Rebel camera actually does have connectivity with the Canon Camera Control app
Use it then.
>and that does allow me to change my shutter speed and aperture and shit, but I can't change the shooting mode
wot?
>and it completely disables both the camera's LCD screen and even blocks the optical viewfinder
First of all, you'd have to know nothing about SLR cameras to be surprised by the viewfinder not working and secondly, why the fuck do you even want to remote control it in the first place of you still want the live view to show up on the camera?

I'm convinced that you're just asking dumb questions for the sake of it now, you've been given answers.

Another likely dumb question: I notice that when using continuous shot mode at very low shutter speeds (EX: 2"), the time between the audible shutter movement is faster then if I were to use single shot mode at the same shutter speed

If the shutter speed is set the same, it should take the same amount of time, right? So what's going on here?

>>4396092
I assure you i'm just really ignorant, not trolling

>Those are completely different things
If we were talking about fully analog or mechanical cameras i'd understand that, but everything in a DLSR is still operated by electronic components at the top level, right? the shutter and such is still mechanical but you pick which via electronic/digital menus? I don't see why telling the camera to take a picture vs opening a menu would be that different to program into a remote

>wot?
Like fully manual vs aperture priorty vs full automatic mode

>you'd have to know nothing about SLR cameras to be surprised by the viewfinder not working
Because the way they work is that the mirror lets the image through the viewfinder, and when taking a shot it moves out of the way so the light can hit the sensor, and light hitting the sensor is how it would preview the image on the LCD screen and/or on the phone? I just forgot that's how they work, I guess. This one really IS just me being stupid and forgetful

>why the fuck do you even want to remote control it...
I wanted to be able to still set the shot up using the viewfinder, but then trigger the shutter with different combinations of exposure settings without touching the camera again. I also wanted navigating the settings to be done through the camera's LCD menu since it's more intuitive then the app's menu, and to be able to still look through the gallery on the camera's LCD display (just navigating using the remote) because my phone screen is ass and it won't let me view the photos at the full resolution wheras I can zoom in on the full res image through the camera's menus

non photog here, does anyone know a proper photo restoration service? it's a ~20 year old photobooth picture that's now mostly brownish purple

>>4396285
>I assure you i'm just really ignorant, not trolling
Fair enough then.
>I wanted to be able to still set the shot up using the viewfinder, but then trigger the shutter with different combinations of exposure settings without touching the camera again
If that is the case and you don't need to be a long way from the camera to remote control it, just connect it to a laptop and use DPP4 remote shooting utility. As for changing modes between manual, av ect. you will have to switch the dial on the camera for that. The other modes have nothing that you can't achieve in manual however and you shouldn't need those as speed doesn't sound like it's an issue. I've never used the app you're talking about but I doubt it has more features than DPP4. And you can use that to zoom in on your laptop screen which is quite useful for macro and macro is really the only use I've found for remote shooting unless you're planning on self portraits or something.

>>4396285
>f we were talking about fully analog or mechanical cameras i'd understand that, but everything in a DLSR is still operated by electronic components at the top level, right? the shutter and such is still mechanical but you pick which via electronic/digital menus? I don't see why telling the camera to take a picture vs opening a menu would be that different to program into a remote
The remote shutter connection is just the same as the shutter button on the camera, it's just bridging a few different contacts. Most remotes are pretty easy to take apart if you wanted to check it out, you'll probably find that it's simply a few strips of metal that get pressed together. What you're wanting would require something like a USB connection and a remote with some processing in it.

>Like fully manual vs aperture priorty vs full automatic mode
Your camera has a physical mode dial, the camera can't move that itself with you controlling it remotely. Sure the camera could technically shoot in a different mode than what the dial is set to but then that just complicates things. There's also rarely an actual need for it, where you can't just turn the dial by hand.

>I wanted to be able to still set the shot up using the viewfinder, but then trigger the shutter with different combinations of exposure settings without touching the camera again.
So then set it up through the viewfinder before starting the app.

>>4396291
>just connect it to a laptop

Sadly, my main laptop is 17 inches and is too heavy/big to really use in a context like this, especially since I'd be doing this in a museum with potentially other people around me depending on when they schedule me to have tripod access.

Would that work with an ipad?

>>4396292
>What you're wanting would require something like a USB connection and a remote with some processing in it.

And nobody manufactures that? Is what I'm asking for (remote operation of menus and settings, not just shutter activiation) really that much of a niche feature? I have to imagine actual proffessional photographers would have a use for that, especially since a lot of them probably need truly remote setups where they don't have physical access to the camera while taking shoots, vs me just wanting to not shake the camera while taking photos

>So then set it up through the viewfinder before starting the app.

That's what I was gonna do if the viewfinder still worked, but it doesn't. So i'd need to set it up with the virefinder by hand, then connect it to the app, then disconnect, set up the next shot, then reconnect, etc. And the connection process in the app is a pain, so that's not really viable. Changing the settings the app can change is also kinda unintuitive vs the camera's menu, and, again, I can't view the full res images that way

Unless I can use DPP4 or whatever with an Ipad I'll probably just use the basic remote shutter and risk slightly changing the angle of the camera as I tweak the settings on it normally.

>>4396310
>>4396292
>>4396291
Seems like the Ipad DPP express app doesn't have remote shooting, or at least it's not mentioned on the app page (plus it's a paid app)

And the normal Windows DPP4 software requires https://www.usa.canon.com/support/eos-utilities for remote shooting, and the default Rebel t7 isn't listed as a supported model, just the T7i

Happy new year /p/

hoping some knowledgeable frens can assist with my inquiry, i just got a Sony DSLR-A100 from my blessed mother. its an older camera. pics come out pretty blurry no matter how steady i am. the booklet mentions if the super steadyshot bars are blinking then the function has failed. is this something i might be able to correct myself? anyone have experience with this ? help appreciated .

DSLR-A100 dude here.. the bars are indeed blinking

>>4396317
set it on a table
set the 2 second timer
take picture
see if it's still blurry

>>4396319
sort of, the pic is clear as far as the steadiness goes. but like, things are rough or blurry as apposed to crisp and clean edged.
the SuperSteadyshot bars blink non stop as well still. im assuming this is a fault since its not supposed to be constant.

>>4396324
are you sure its not an issue with the focus?

>>4396325
its possible. i have it all set to auto focus. its fairly brightly lit in this room im testing it in.

>>4396311
>the default Rebel t7 isn't listed as a supported model, just the T7i
Outside of North America they're listed as the 2000D and 800D respectively and both show up as supported. I'd be surprised if it wasn't because my first DSLR, an ancient 1200D worked with it.

>>4396310
Also, there is this stupid thing called the Arsenal remote that will plug into your camera and mount on the hotshoe that allows full remote control. I've got one but I basically got it for free and I'm not sure that I'd recommend buying one at RRP though. Up to you but it's an option.

Shutter speed and ISO being equal, will a image with a higher F aperature value SOLELY have more of the image in focus as the F value increades?

Or as more of the image is in focus, does the content that was in focus to begin with also get less clear?

I previously noticed that the latter seemed to happen, but I assumed it was just because as I used higher f values, I had to up the ISO or lower the shutter speed to compensate, which reduced clarity anyways. But now after using a tripod where I can keep the shutter speed low anways to let in enough light to not up the ISO, it still seems like higher f value photos end up being less clear for the content already in focus

Woud an even slower shutter speed help compensate for that?

>>4396374
Higher f number means smaller aperture- less light. But yes it absolutely does mean more of your image will be in focus. Shutter speed and iso don't matter although slower shutter speeds can introduce shake which sometimes will make them look out of focus.

Is photography a good career or job to get into? I heard it’s hard.

>>4396381
wedding photography is easy but soul crushing from what I've heard.

>>4396382
>soul crushing
I can see that lol. I would prefer more nature photography. Sounds like a calm relaxing job

>>4396310
>And nobody manufactures that? Is what I'm asking for (remote operation of menus and settings, not just shutter activiation) really that much of a niche feature? I have to imagine actual proffessional photographers would have a use for that
It's more that the camera isn't setup for it, and professionals aren't using a T7. When pros are doing tethered shooting they'll either be doing it wirelessly with an app on a phone/tablet or wired with a laptop.

>me just wanting to not shake the camera while taking photos
Why is it you need to be able to adjust all these settings remotely? Why can't you just adjust them at the camera after you've framed your shot and then use a regular old remote? It doesn't sound like your camera is going to be somewhere out of reach.

>>4396374
There is a point where a smaller aperture (higher f/ number) will reduce image sharpness overall due to diffraction. At what point this will happen depends on the sensor size and resolution, but typically it's around f/8-11 and smaller.

>>4396389
>but typically it's around f/8-11 and smaller.

so most of the f/ scale? my camera goes from like 5.66 to 30 something, f/8 is like 25% down the list

Is there a way to minimize that diffraction?

>>4396394
nta, but better glass is the only way. its rare that you would need to shoot above f11 though

>>4396395
better glass?

>its rare that you would need to shoot above f11 though

I'm doing still photography of objects from relatively close up (no idea if that matters here) where I need as much of them to be in focus as possible for documentation, and there's absolutely portions of the objects that remain out of focus, at least a bit, at f11

>>4396401
consider looking into focus stacking

>>4396402
I actually have, but I feel like the level of stability i'd need to have the exact consistent shot across multiple focus planes is beyond what I can do, even when using a tripod?

>>4396405
not sure about your specific camera, but it should be a function. in my old pos olympus it can do focus stacking automatically up to 100 images. you just set the camera up on a tripod and then it does it automatically. i think my s5 can do it too

Why does every manufacture seem to be stuck on 24MP? I know flagships are often around 50MP, but everything else lags behind. Hoping the A7RVI will have a 100MP sensor. I'd buy it at any price if it did.

I just ordered this, what am In for?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.25.642066665
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1536
Image Height	1238
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Since it's a little late for christmas, somebody I know's birthday is at the end of the month and they tend to take a lot of pictures with their phone. So I was wondering of there were any accessories beyond a selfie stick I could get them as a gift, or recommendations for them.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4396418
not exactly the same but maybe an Instax if that's within budget. instant film is so fun and sharing pics with friends and my partner is something you can't do as easily with a phone camera

>>4396418
One of those universal phone lens kits if they don't have a 3+ camera phone so they can get wide angle/telephoto shots.

How do you guys organize your photos? I'm thinking about going for the classic date-based system but was wondering if there's a more practical way to do it (maybe using tags too)

What's a really nice, quick RAW viewer for Windows? The Photos app with the RAW extension sucks dick and I don't want to wait for a heavyweight editor to load when I just want to zoom in to a thumbnail basically.

>I have not followed photography in about a decade and have minimal familiarity with what’s going on

Is mirrorless still a meme or is it worthwhile now? Tl;dr I have an opportunity to buy a practically unused Z9 with quite a few lenses for about half off, but I’d have to sell off my dslr and lenses to take the sting out of it.

Yea or nay?

>>4396931
The standard photo viewer doesn't do it? The legacy or classic one or whatever it's called does.

>>4397021
They're superior to DSLRs in pretty much every way except battery life, but even that has got a lot better than it used to be and is unlikely to be a concern.

>>4397021
Is your current setup stopping you from taking pictures? A new camera won't make your photos better.

I couldn't find the classic viewer on my Windows 10 install, but I come across something called jpegview (supports RAW) and it does everything I wanted.

>>4397031
>>4397135
derp

Ignorant rebelanon asking another question:

I've noticed that in the past 2 days, the camera's autofocus isn't working as well, and I've had to use manual focus a lot more. This is especially in the case with the live shooting mode (where the viewfinder is blocked and the preview is shown on the LCD screen), which seems to only able to autofocus to an effective degree maybe half the time.

I thought that maybe the viewfinder/dioptric adjuistment dial was out of wack, but some cursory research suggests the way people calibrate that is by comparing the focus through the viewfinder compared to the live shooting autofocus to begin with, and apparently the live shooting autofocus is supposed to be more reliable then the viewfinder based autofocus (they apparently use different methods)

Any ideas what could be going on here?

Also, is there windows software that allows me to flip through and delete or rename both the RAWs and JPGs at once? On the actual camera's gallery it lists each photo only once, so if you delete a photo it deletes both the RAW and the JPG, but if you just insert the SD card into a card reader it obviously treats both as seperate files, which makes clearing out bad shots more of a pain when the larger screen of a computer is obviously otherwise better to compare which photos came out better or not

>>4396395
still not sure what "better glass" means here

>>4397572
Autofocussing through the viewfinder and using live view do indeed use different methods, as to use live view the mirror that diverts some light to the primary autofocus sensors if flipped up (so that light can instead go to the image sensor, to be displayed on the screen).

Through the viewfinder it uses phase detection AF which actually gives information about how far out of focus the image is and in which direction, so it can be fast to adjust as well as tracking moving subjects. However it relies on precise calibration because the AF sensors and the image sensor where the final image is captured are in separate places. In live view the camera will use contrast detection which measures the actual contrast between neighbouring pixels, with contrast increasing as the image gets sharper and more in focus. Contrast detection is very accurate but generally slow especially with low quality lenses that are lacking in contrast.

>>4397579
So why would the live view autofocus be working less well then the viewfinder AF in my case, and why would both get worse out of nowhere?

I say "worse" but I only started to use the live view the same day I noticed the AF being spotty in generl

>>4397634
What do you mean by less well? Like I said it's slower, and it can struggle in less than ideal conditions. Poor light, crappy soft lens, or even if you subject just lacks contrast say if it's all one colour. Also older and lower end cameras are worse, both because algorithms have got better and because they lack processing power.

>>4397643
I'm not sure there's a more useful way to describe it: Just half the time even after letting it go through the whole autofocus process, the final shots that come out are clearly not in focus, wheras the viewfinder AF works fine like 80% of the time (and worked 100% of the time in the days prior to that)

Also now as of today I notice a spot on the inside of the viewfinder glass, though I don't think it's related to any of this, but it wasn't there before today, so? To be clear by "inside" I don't mean "when I look through the viewfinder it obscures my view", looking through it seems normal, it's if I'm looking at the viewfinder window with the camera down in my hand there's a spot visible that's on the inside.

Anyways, bumping

>Also, is there windows software that allows me to flip through and delete or rename both the RAWs and JPGs at once? On the actual camera's gallery it lists each photo only once, so if you delete a photo it deletes both the RAW and the JPG, but if you just insert the SD card into a card reader it obviously treats both as seperate files, which makes clearing out bad shots more of a pain when the larger screen of a computer is obviously otherwise better to compare which photos came out better or not

I'm gonna try DPP4 since I figure if the OS on the camera itself can do it, canon's other software might, but if that doesn't work out other ideas welcome

>>4397647
>Just half the time even after letting it go through the whole autofocus process, the final shots that come out are clearly not in focus
Do you have it set to continuous AF? Contrast detect can be a bit fucky in that situation as to determine whether something is best focussed it has to pulse fore and aft of that point of focus, so it knows where "too far" and "not far enough" are. That's fine in single AF because it can just stop when it's done, but in continuous it has to be constantly doing it and there's a chance that you press the shutter button when it's pulsing to either of those "not ideal" positions.

On many cameras there will be an option to only allow a shutter release when the lens is focussed correctly, when the AF box is green. It's worth turning this on, you might find it annoying sometimes when the camera won't let you take a photo even though you're fully pressing the shutter button but an out of focus photo is (usually) worthless.

What's a good way to clean fungus from old film (some from 1950 to 1980)? I've inherited some 35mm slides and about half have some degree of contamination.

It looks like wispy strands and I've had success using a cotton bud and 99.9% IPA, but sometimes the IPA wicks humidity from the air and makes the emulsion soft which the cotton bud scratches if I'm not careful.

picrel is a really bad one that I can't fix.

>SOOC JPG with Vivid profile, mainly red/pink tones in skin
>RAW processed using the camera matching vivid profile, mainly yellow tones in skin
Why is this? What am I missing? The idea is to save space by only shooting RAW, but if I can't just easily export them all to look like the camera's processing, there's no point.

Why is it that only video cameras use 3-chip systems? Are there any stills cameras that do this?

>>4397647
>I'm gonna try DPP4 since I figure if the OS on the camera itself can do it, canon's other software might

Doesn't seem like it does, so looking for more suggestions here

Apparently lightroom might but i'm not soing subscription bullshit and I don't know where i'd start with trying to pirate adobe stuff these days

>>4397986
actually seems like there is a setting for this in DPP. Shame the software is so unresponsive at times though

>>4397647
>DPP
Good way to discover all your camera's hot pixels

>>4398021
>your camera's hot pixels

never heard of them?

>>4398026
because competent photo editing software
detects and removes them by default

how do I do tracking autofocus with a timer? I wanna take lewd pics in bed

How's the SIGMA S 500/5.6 DG DN OS???

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000

https://qqpost.netlify.app/home