Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
superior choices only
yoshotography
yosotography
yostography
yosography
yosgraphy
yosraphy
View Results
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


i have lots of cameras. primarily i use a sony a7iii, but i don't have nearly as many lenses available and it's a bummer

i also have a bunch of MFT cameras and lenses, although i guess you can't really count other lens systems + adapters. most recently i got the panasonic g100 because, well, look how goddamn adorable it is. other than that i mostly use a panasonic g85, have for years and would buy again 5+, but i also have an olympus (rip) om-d em-10 and a couple other older panasonic models that are medicore.

at even smaller than the g100 i have a pentax q7 + wharever lenses from the q system i've been able to find over the years. i love this thing and don't give a poo poo if the sensor is the size of my fingernail. it owns and i will not see it besmirched

let's see what samples i can find quick,

sony (oh come on we all know what these look like):




panafonics:

g85





g100 + macro tubes



i dont really feel like digging for the others rn i will later i guess

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


pentax q7





om-d em-10






Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 02:59 on May 7, 2022

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

mate lol there is so much excellent stuff there. havenít seen you around for a while hope youíre doing ok dude

yo!!! i'm doing alright man, just popping in after one hell of a week for us all. how's by you and the missus? doing ok in the kiwi fortress?

also thanks everyone you're too generous i do sometimes get paid for this

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


wife dragged me all the way to montauk after watching "the lighthouse" (which loving owns btw, highly recommended. even if you think robert pattinson sucks it has willem dafoe

ok let's go (g85, various manual lenses)











Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?



nice, fog is fun to shoot






Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

sunrise this morning



lol what is happening here

anyway macro tubes are fun, i got these little keychain olympus things when i met with a rep at a gallery and told them i used a lovely om-d em-10 instead of their higher end kit.





Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

never used a tube, but I was shooting with a 100mm macro lens and man that thing was so nice for such a wide range of applications, and did my first real-person shoot with it and got so many great shots and so holds a very special place in my heartbeat

yeah i don't own any legit macro lenses because that's not really my wheelhouse and they're super expensive for something to just gently caress around with

tubes were a good solution because i have at least 30 MFT lenses lol

it owns when you can just pick up some vintage lens or some cheap chinese thing and attach it to a decent cam

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


for example a c-mount security camera lens makes for some interesting optical effects:





they usually stop real high too which is cool

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


can confirm sonys are amazing in low light/high iso situations. it's basically the only use case for not using my MFT kit most of the time because the sony is literally twice as big/heavy.

e: you also don't particularly need 85mm for a portrait, something like 50mm is serviceable and if you're shooting other poo poo also, you don't need to be like a mile away. if you're bringing multiple lenses it makes sense though

Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 11:34 on May 16, 2022

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


i mean, i own everything from 12mm to 400mm and i've never particularly had a problem shooting portraits with even 25mm. it depends on the lens and what kind of look you're going for: most of my shorter lenses stop up to f/1.1 with a 25mm f/0.8 being the shallowest. if you're okay with getting all up in someone's face with it, it's fine.

25mm example:



35mm:

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

I know that itís possible because other people do it and even get good results

itís just that I canít.

maybe itís because I will be shooting 135mm at the same time so when I compare the photos later, the shorter ones always look awful and awkward, but perhaps thatís because theyíre back to back with longer lens shots of the same model/situation

I hired a 35mm to try to force myself to get good with a shorter lens for portrait but just never liked the photos

*maybe* if I went out with only a short lens I could make it work if I didnít have that comparison.. but .. idk why I would, I love the shots from the 135 so much lol. maybe if I was indoors


I really wanted to do something different here and make it feel like it was cold in this shoot, which I think I did, but this is so distinctly a longer lens and as I said to my photographer friend, my style is literally ďlong lens and scared of flashĒ 😂



that's actually pretty good man

i think you just need to experiment more. honestly when i was just starting out longer lenses were sort of a crutch; these days i usually use primes that are mostly in the 12-50mm range. then again i kinda pivoted to doing architecture instead of portraits, but still

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


here's some poo poo from testing out a $40 chinese 50mm prime i picked up on amazon



Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


here have another bonus 35mm portrait

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


MrQueasy posted:

Looks good!

my problem with the last cheap lens I picked up was severe Chromatic Aberration at the edges of bright-white, and then I got my cheap Canon f1.8 50mm lens and never took it off.

yeah, true (thanks also). that's why i basically exclusively tested it on lights lol

it's for MFT but i think they make models for other mirrorless too. the brand is "kamlan". it's a surprisingly heavy, good lens

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

hmmm

yeah lol I know it's possible

but again.. I love the long lens so much. I think a lot of it goes back to the kinds of images I like to see others shoot and enjoy an etc,

maybe one day I'll start to feel like this longer lens is a crutch but for now it just gives me so much joy lol

yeah man, to each their own, you know? some people like certain looks, others hate it. if you're doing pro work it's just part of the job. it's just that every time i see a photo blog or something saying "you must use 85mm for portraits", i'm like :hmmno:

85mm content to make echi happy (lol):

(yeah i should have used a diffuser but i like it)
(color is natural! sunset.)

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

extremely excellent poo poo my friend


I suppose if you ran an experiment, and during the same shot both long and short, and then afterward while going thru everything, if you consistently preferred one over the other, what would be the takeaway?


anyway I have taken a photo with a 50mm that I like:



but lol I think itís because I literally couldnít stand above her and take that photo with a longer lens. every other shot from that shoot with the 50mm was awkward, and then rest I took with a 100mm macro and came out great

135mm goodness :



I actually really like a lot of the shots I take, well, I mean the shots that I like I really like. you donít get much validation though these days, thereís so many good photographers out there, and I struggle a bit to generate my own self confidence. itís easy to think that youíre too close to the trees to tell that your forest sucks or not, and so doubt yourself unless you get external validation. I try to get over that

another (amateur) model is on board with wanting to do a shoot. iím sure my city isnít unique in this way, but it amazes me how many people are keen to get involved. especially if I can kinda carve out a bit of a reputation for being not too poo poo



as always appreciate your input beefreind

those are seriously great dude, good work. i feel like you could get the same result with a shorter lens, though. to answer your other question:

same scene, 35mm

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


also re: not getting validation

yeah, it sucks when nobody is like "hey that's great!" but if you keep getting work, there it is, lol. i was seriously sweating bullets the first time my poo poo popped up in a gallery but the response was overwhelmingly positive. now i get to say i've been featured in galleries internationally lol

i still have a confidence problem though, i think pretty much everyone that's not a narcissist does. if you just throw up your hands and not give much of a poo poo what other people think (as illogical as that sounds when displaying your work), it fades away.

keep at it man, you're doing great work.

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


and to fully answer your question, lol, i carry a variety of lenses with me all the time; a normal shoot for me nets about 1,500 photos on average. i already posted this but,

85mm:



50mm:



here's another,

85mm:



25mm:



it really, really depends on what you're going for. don't be afraid to experiment! if you're just shooting models, then yeah, that's tough. but you could always shoot, idk, nature:

(25mm)

and don't be afraid to post things. don't worry, i'll tell you if it's bad and how to improve :shobon:

Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 21:41 on May 18, 2022

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


MrQueasy posted:

Guys, I've been loving around on the Lensrental site and I just can't decide on anything.

it's pretty difficult, yeah. what body are you going with?

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


AnimeIsTrash posted:

Do you all have a recommendation for an "entry" level camera? I was looking to shoot some nature and probably pets. Will any cheapo DSLR do?

go with something mirrorless for sure, they're technically not DSLRs though (there's no mirror to single reflex). if you read the previous pages you'd see i'm a huge fan of micro four thirds (MFT), and the cameras are cheap as poo poo because it's basically a dead format at this point; olympus doesn't make cameras anymore and panasonic has moved on to a different mount with a larger sensor.

however: that also means there are an absolute fuckton of lenses and some really great bodies available on the cheap. that said, there's other options out there, or course.

i've never used them, but the fuji XT series seems great; i've got a full-frame sony, but the a6xxx series is also fantastic, it just has a sensor that's aps-c sized, as most other mirrorless systems do.

canon and nikon were pretty late to the mirrorless game, and i've never used their newer kit (jusr DSLRs), so i can't really give a fair assessment. probably someone else can pop in here

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


MrQueasy posted:

I think I've narrowed it down to these three choices:

Canon 5D Mark IV, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II, Canon 135mm f/2L
Fuji X-T3, Fuji XF 16-55 f2.8 R LM WR, Fuji XF 56mm f/1.2 R
Sony Alpha a7 III, Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM, Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art

The 5D is closest to what I'm familiar with... I can use my 1.8 cheapo 50mm on it...
The Fuji is closest to what I'd probably buy if I was going to buy something and I actually wanted to use my camera more often...
The Sony intrigues me, but also scares me, which is probably good for personal growth.

go with the sony. i've got the a7iii too, and while it's a bit bulky, it's not hard to use if you've used an advanced camera before. you can bump it up to like iso 25000 without much noise. good lens picks also, but i'd throw in a shorter prime there too; maybe 50mm?

Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 22:11 on May 18, 2022

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

yeah lol I shot about 1200 last shoot
a lot of people think itís bad practice but welp


but, thankyou so much for the positive encouragement though. it really means a lot. I need to remember that there are a number of people who have been very encouraging, and to keep what theyíve said in mind. idk why itís so easy to doubt but it is. seriously appreciate it though

lol, gently caress that noise. i say if you have a 512 GB sd card/cfast/whatever, who the gently caress cares? it's not like you're wasting film

and no prob man. you're legit doing good work and it's great that you're trying to improve and seeking feedback. don't doubt yourself, and don't be afraid to just gently caress around for hours

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

oh yeah I donít care about taking lots. I think some people go on about being more intentional with your shots but thereís no reason to think Iím being less intentional


and thanks again. yeah Iím thinking about posting on insta and seeing if someone wants to come model for me while I gently caress around with my flash and see if I can take anything worthwhile. keep up that practice and continue to grow etc. thanks dude. iím glad youíre back

i mean yeah, i get it, but most of the time i'm not using a tripod, you know? i've obviously got pretty steady hands but they're invariably going to shake a bit, especially if it's really loving cold. i also mostly use manual lenses, so something might not be at the focus i want. does that make the shot less intentional? maybe, but the following corrected ones certainly were intentional. it's kind of illogical to me, idk

again, no prob dude and thanks, it's good to be back :unsmith:

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

Iíve come to my own conclusion that the rule of thumb where you double your length and thatís your shutter speed isnít sufficient for modern cameras and lenses. I shoot my 135mm at 1/500 because I wasted too many shots on my old camera that I blamed on poor focus but was probably just too slow, shooting 50mm on a crop at 1/100 was just not enough.

Itís mega satisfying zooming to 1:1 and seeing itís totally in focus

sorry just a wee rant about shooting with hand

I hardly use a tripod except for capturing the odd video which I never know what to do with lol

protip: don't bother with a shutter speed, let the camera decide. 99% of the time i just use aperture priority mode, which with a manual lens works fantastically. with the auto ones, meh, since you have to set it in-camera it's actually a little more inconvenient imo. but either way it's better than just sticking with a set speed, because you're definitely gonna be getting a lot of wasted shots that way

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

thatís interesting. I might be bold enough to say Iím
good, and the skill and knowledge required to get here also letís me see clearly the difference between myself and someone else.

well, in fact that was until I visited a much more professional photographer and after spending some time listening to him talk about the decisions he made behind some photos, I did not realise the huge chasm between someone like myself and him. it was almost like, without him pointing out a few things, I wouldnít be able to say what really separates this great photo he took vs the likely only ok photo that I would have taken in the same situation.

thereís a lot of knowledge and learning to do to get to the next level. iíd be tempted to just fiddle along like I have done with blender, but if someone elseís time is involved, I donít want to waste their time and and actually give them the best I can

imo, this is exactly the reason why i basically said "gently caress around and find out". someone else's workflow isn't necessarily going to work for you and it's folly to think "well, they're good because they do it this way, not like that"

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


honestly dude i think you're smart enough to figure out what works for you personally and what doesn't, a la blender. loving around on your own without models also helps, if not just to expand what you might think you're good at or capable of.

basically: free yourself from the shackles of the bourgeoisie oppressive workflow regime

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


honestly if i had to choose a non-MFT entry level mirrorless i'd probably go with fuji, not despite but because of

EIDE Van Hagar posted:

the sensor is non-bayer weirdness so you may have trouble handling raw photos, but you can find stuff to do that too, even though i have only bothered once.

this.

it actually provides better color reproduction. since i've been trying to move away from adobe entirely, most of the actually-good alternatives are on linux, believe it or not. darkroom is a great lightroom alternative and rawtherapee kicks adobe camera raw's rear end by a mile. both also use dcraw so they have great support for just about any raw format you can imagine

i'm still partial to MFT though, and if it's just something you want as a hobby the sensor size is absolutely not a problem; most of the pics on the previous page i posted are from various MFT kit. the bodies are also very affordable, and there's a ton of available lenses and new ones are still being introduced. maybe it's just me but the value proposition is pretty compelling

because it's mirrorless you can use an adapter for other lens systems too, but the same holds true for just about every other mirrorless system

one word of caution about the sony a6xxx series: they're great, but sony doesn't seem to give much of a poo poo about them and the line isn't updated often. there's a ton of cheapish E-mount lenses though (really wish they were FE :argh:)

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

is that a frog or something

i think it might be, here's another frog

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


goddamn jerk frogs!

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


ahhhh god they're growing

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


lol after actually going through my library i have concluded those are actually really bad frog photos! please accept these other frogs, which i converted straight from raw because i never actually bothered going through them all (so yes, there's a lot of green/magenta chromatic aberration)







e: i can post more if you guys want. while joking about frogs, the ones in my previous posts really are actually pretty bad, imo.

Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 20:34 on May 19, 2022

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


imgur hosed up so this isn't all of them (i'll redo if someone wants), but here's part of Beeftweeter Goes to the Zoo, in no particular order










(not a particularly great pic but drat that bird weird)

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


also yeah those are also unprocessed, so there's also fringing and the contrast is a bit weird. enjoy nonetheless

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


fun fact: some of those were literally taken with a lens cap, https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009C74508

try to guess which :smuggo:

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


pointy dogs own

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


my other pal

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


Agile Vector posted:

:stwoon: i love a dog with eyebrows. and little black and tan dogs are so cute

i know, right? he was my first adoptee, but unfortunately my parents basically dognapped him so he lives in florida now :smith:


Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


two more because i miss my little handsome model


Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


echinopsis posted:

drat youíre right youíve got the fuckin zoolander of dogs right there: that first one is primo

lmao, when i would walk him around nyc people would call him "mr. president" or "the dog mayor"

cute doggies everyone though :shobon:

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005


holy shit this os has cinepak?!?!?


NoneMoreNegative posted:

One of the very few times I had a camera (mine) and a doge (my folks) handy at the same time



Going back a few years and no metadata handy, guessing this will have been my 5D3 with the 24-70 on.

good composure, nailed the focus, even got lead lines. a+ op

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply