Photography General - Sperging about taking pictures and shit

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Responding to Null's request for camera advice. I was a professional photographer for 14 years and currently still enjoy it as a hobby and a art form.

  • Stay away from any of the smaller or boutique brands. So basically if you cannot get it at a Best Buy or a Circuit City Walmart, stay away. This narrows your options a whole bunch.
  • Don't let anyone try to sell you a full-frame camera system. This is beyond your need and skill level and exceptionally expensive. If you get there someday, send me a message and I'll get you set up with some good kit.
  • Megapixels are largely a sales point anymore. Most cameras and phones come in at a number of megapixels greater than ten. That's fine. If you get more than ten megapixels, you're good. Don't stress on this point. It also means you have a lot more options because you can look into older models from years past.
  • Decide now if you want a DSLR, a compact camera or a phone.
    • DSLRs are going to be with you for years to come and have a deep potential for you to learn and expand your horizons as a photographer. Out of the box you'll be able to take pictures at common distances and lighting conditions, but can easily expand your kit to give you the ability to take picture from virtually any distance, near or far, dark or light. The cost will be high and the knowledge requirements equally so. You're going to have to learn how this stuff works. Fortunately for you, you've got a forum and plenty of people to help. Actually be dedicated if you go this route.
      • DSLR brands to consider: Canon (real glass, excellent quality, expensive), Nikon (real glass, excellent quality, expensive), Sony (composite glass, great quality, very high shutter speeds at a lower price)
    • Compact cameras or point and shoot cameras are going to offer a streamlined feature set compared to a DSLR, but they'll take good pictures for most common scenarios. You're going to find your practical zoom to be lackluster, but modern AI enhancements in better models of these cameras allow for a very impressive digital zoom feature. Low to moderate cost, including some very high end options for enthusiasts. If you find yourself as casual photographer and/or not wanting to pick this up as a hobby, one of these cameras may be ideal. But you will run into limitations eventually.
      • Compact brands to consider: Sony has a lot of options in this style of camera that range from very inexpensive and effective to exceptionally expensive and complex. Panasonic has always had solid offerings in this range. And I also have had good experience with Nikon's middle and higher-tier point and shoots.
      • A note on mirrorless technology! Several brands offer a "mirrorless" camera setup and they could even be a fourth option; they are very expensive and have a greater range of features than most point and shoot cameras. They have no moving parts and can provide extremely fast burst shooting modes, in addition to a wide range of lenses that are generally smaller in size, but higher in cost.
    • Camera phones have become quite good in recent years. You're getting a multipurpose device, so expect concessions. With that said, photo quality for landscapes and portraits will be stunning. Low light situations may cause your camera to stumble, but the suite of AI enhancements with phone cameras are a lot wider and can cover up SOME of this. Expect very little in terms of focal length or zoom; digital zoom will be impressive but it is still a digital zoom solution and not a replacement for proper optics. Costs are going to be pretty high with some of these; but even mid-range phones nowadays offer great cameras.
      • Camera brands to consider: Samsung are excellent. Huawei are excellent and offer a staggering range of features, filters and options. Apple are great.
  • Once you've decided on your type of camera, get one and start using it. Share your photos and engage with this thread and the community and we can all learn from one another and share our work. Photography is really great!
    • Remember, for every decent picture there are a hundred and fifty rejects. So take a bunch! You're not constrained by film cannisters anymore so go go go!!
I enjoy talking about this stuff and have tried to stay in the loop. So feel free to bounce any questions off of me. I've still got most of my lesson plans from when I taught photography so if you want a run-through of the basics once you've gotten your setup, I'll be around.

Hopefully you find something you like and decide to pick up this hobby, whether you're Josh or just some random forumgoer. Once again, photography is the best!
 
don't think you can go wrong with a Fujifilm
The X100 cameras were all made in Japan up until the recent VI which is being made in China. They were unable to keep production up with demand for the x100V so they moved production to China and figured they could ride the hype and charge even more for a newer camera. It's obscene they went from 26mp in the V to 40mp in the VI.
1729385380202.png
if you cannot get it at a Best Buy or a Circuit City Walmart, stay away. This narrows your options a whole bunch.
You're not going to find anything other than entry level consumer junk at a BestBuy. I linked a few sites earlier in the thread for him to look through. There are better places to go to than to giant corporate stores that try and push the newest most recent stuff you probably don't need.
Considering they just did a rerelease of the ricoh III with a built in softness filter in March
The Ricoh GR iii HDF is the exact same camera as the GR iii which released in 2019. With the exception of swapping the internal ND filter with a Highlight Diffusion Filter, a different colored shutter button, and editing a function button to toggle the hdf filter. I and many people online thought the March announcement was a GR iv. The GR is a very niche camera and a lot of people online who were unable to get the x100VI all jumped in and bought up GR iii so i'm sure Ricoh figured they could use that to sell out old stock laying around. Cameras aren't like phones where there is a new one coming out every year. The x100v to vi was a unique situation.
 
You're not going to find anything other than entry level consumer junk at a BestBuy.
That is not an accurate assessment of the retail environment with regards to cameras; but your larger point is well-taken and I do not doubt that you've provided Null with good information.
 
I am not a photographer, but I do have a dumbass opinion just like everyone else on this god forsaken earth.

Do not buy a phone thinking you can replace a real camera with it.

When I decided to buy a new phone a couple years back I chose the sony xperia 1 mark IV because on top of being one of the only phones left with a headphone jack and expandable storage, it was advertised that it had good cameras, and I took the bait because I knew the iphones used sony sensors, and iphones generally take pretty decent photos, therefore getting the cameras from the source should yield pretty decent photos. This was incorrect.
1. Sony Xperia series (Xperia 1 V and Pro) - I hear they're good for those who want a phone with a microSD card, headphone jack, and technical camera. It's got one of the more technical cameras on it; imo they're good for taking technical photos/videos, but not the best for simple point and click.
The hardware may be good, but the photos it takes have a 50% chance of coming out like ass. Very blurry and grainy if you start looking too close at details. If you know how to use the advanced settings like setting the iso and shutter speed and all that, fantastic, but I as an idiot who paid over $1000 for this piece of shit, should be able to whip it out of my pocket and take an immaculate photo in a half depress, then a full depress, Consistently.

I have had two other cameras kicking around: a nikon L820 which is a bigger point and shoot camera from a decade ago. It doesn't take great photos, but they are consistently better than the phone. The other camera is a canon 300D which is a 20 year old entry level dslr. from what I remember, it takes better pictures than the nikon, but it takes compact flash cards, and I accidentally broke it because I wasn't paying attention and tried to put the card in backwards and it bent the pins on it.

all of this to sort of say "you get what you pay for" in cameras (new). yeah, sure, the phone is expensive, but they only put so much of the money into the camera portion of the device. The nikon point and shoot cost between 200 and 300 a decade ago, and takes better pictures than the phone. the canon dslr cost just under $1000 20 years ago and took the best pictures of the bunch. You can look up photography samples from each camera online.

I would say look to see what camera you can find for the cheapest that cost the most new. canon 300d's are selling for nothing on ebay right now. I wouldn't suggest buying one of those becuse of the storage media and I don't think the image quality its the greatest by modern standards, but whatever is the newest and most cost effective and produces the most pleasing images to you. I would familiarize myself with the model hierarchy of the brands you like and check out pawn shops and the like as there is a chance you could get a deal locally.
 
Some more pictures!

I was recently inspired by Null's beautiful autumn photo story, but I'm pretty inexperienced in landscapes.
I followed (I can't find the post... deleted?!)'s advice on playing with highlights and lowlights for it but I think I set up the original photo wrong.
Some exceptionally beautiful colors this year
fall.png

Also recently the moon was very very bright, so I was able to get a very nice photo of it:
moon.png


At the same time I saw a particularly bright looking star, and zoomed in real hard on it. I really don't know what I got, can any austronomy bros help me out? I wonder if I managed to get a nebula of some kind, but I'm unsure if that'd be possible with a normal camera even with long exposure.
Both the moon and this were taken at the same zoom, so comparing the uncropped photos the apparent size is about 5.33x less than the moon's.
spot.png

macro photography
i love those bees
 
At the same time I saw a particularly bright looking star, and zoomed in real hard on it. I really don't know what I got, can any austronomy bros help me out? I wonder if I managed to get a nebula of some kind, but I'm unsure if that'd be possible with a normal camera even with long exposure.
Both the moon and this were taken at the same zoom, so comparing the uncropped photos the apparent size is about 5.33x less than the moon's.
View attachment 6543729
Is it Venus or maybe Uranus (sincere question about Uranus, I'm not making a lame "your anus" joke)?

If it's actually a star, any "detail" you'd see is just out-of-focus blurring because you're not actually going to see any detail on a extrasolar star through an optical lens through the atmosphere from the Earth's surface. Surface details on extrasolar objects are the sort of thing you'd really need an array of radiotelescopes such as the Atacama Large Millimeter/sub-millimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile to discern.
 
Is it Venus or maybe Uranus (sincere question about Uranus, I'm not making a lame "your anus" joke)?

If it's actually a star, any "detail" you'd see is just out-of-focus blurring because you're not actually going to see any detail on a extrasolar star through an optical lens through the atmosphere from the Earth's surface. Surface details on extrasolar objects are the sort of thing you'd really need an array of radiotelescopes such as the Atacama Large Millimeter/sub-millimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile to discern.
Far too blue to be venus, and was pretty long after sunset. also probably way too bright and large to be uranus. Probably a blue star that got flared out. I figured any nebulas or something would be way too small and dim to be seen by anything but telescopes. This is just a standard handheld camera with a long exposure.
Thanks for the help! And thanks for showing me the ALMA.
 
@Null
With the Samsung you'll save yourself a ridiculous amount bullshit, but potentially sacrifice control if that's relevant to you. There's a number of third party camera apps that will get most of it back. Motioncam Pro, Opencamera, mcpro24fps, and Librecam to name a few.

Quite possibly biggest sacrifice with any phone camera is that there's no aperture control, due to the size of the sensors. But that will only really be an issue to you if you want to do shots with a really shallow depth of field(that thing with blur in background/things too close to your camera)

If you're prioritizing landscape shots/touristy/documenting type photos I'd get the samsung. If you want to get artsy and experimental with it get a dedicated unit. If you get a dedicated unit, its worth getting them used.
 
Last edited:
The Ricoh GR III and Samsung S24 Ultra have a similar price point, with considerations that the S24 is a phone and you will never forget to bring it. Genuinely, how different exactly are the two are producing images? That's my main thing about buying a camera that's not a super fancy camera.
Others have already delved deep into it, but a dedicated camera has levels of technical control that phones are largely incapable of adopting on account of their form factor. They generally use software/algorithm solutions to mitigate these shortcomings, which results images being 'hijacked' in the way you were complaining about. That said, I still like keeping my phone on hand (pixel 6)since it tends to do particularly well for night photos.

For travel I've recently started using a Lumix ZS100 (TZ100 in Europe for whatever reason), after deciding that lugging a DLSR around for several weeks at a time was just too much of a PITA. On my Japan trip last year I used it in a ton of use cases - nighttime festival shots, sunsets/sunrises, action shots/videos at a bullfight tournament, carrying it around during a multiday bike trip. It has 4k video and a lot of controllability to play around with shutter/aperture/dof settings (and can replicate SLR type narrow-depth of field shots with a special multishot mode), but its auto feature is solid and it's priced very attractively for shots that are perfectly suitable for casual street type photography. IMO it's an extremely solid bang-for-buck option, I think a Sony or a Ricoh are going to be way too expensive if you're not interested in advanced technicals.

There's also a 200 version with a longer zoom, however this results in a 'slower' camera that won't be as sharp for high motion shots, and is priced significantly higher. Don't assume more zoom inherently = better, personally I think a faster/brighter camera is more practical and you're almost always better served by just getting closer to your subject rather than leaning on zoom. Also the 100 is very slippery, some guy on Etsy makes 3D printed stick-on grips for it and they make the ergonomics 50x better.

 
Last edited:
Others have already delved deep into it, but a dedicated camera has levels of technical control that phones are largely incapable of adopting on account of their form factor. They generally use software/algorithm solutions to mitigate these shortcomings, which results images being 'hijacked' in the way you were complaining about.
@Null this is a correct answer to your question. Figured I would back this guy up.

The simple answer is that a good lens takes up space. Your phone is narrow and slim, so all of that glass and any small motors or servos will not fit. Therefore your small camera (with a high megapixel sensor) is severely limited; the lens on a big camera gives you control over light amounts, zoom levels and depth of field, which your small camera will struggle to do once ideal lighting conditions are lost.

I am sure others have said this, but simply having the better technology will only do so much. If you spend 700 bucks on a camera and only use it in automatic mode (with no desire to learn manual control) you probably should have gotten that Samsung phone instead.
 
I have a pixel and I notice when I take the photo, it looks fine. When I go to save it or share it, the image is desaturated. I have tried fucking with every single option and literally I get better photos screenshotting the preview.
The way I fixed it on my phone was going to Photos, clicking on settings, clicking on more settings, clicking on Advanced, turning on Rich Colors. I have a Pixel 8. Hope you can find a solution 🙏
 
A lot of people never consider the space constraints within cell phones as the primary reason why they fail. It is a good segue to explain some detail around the question @Null had about megapixels and image quality.

To what extent do megapixels matter and where is the overall "quality" of an image coming from with a digital camera? Megapixels do in fact matter up to a point, but they represent a measure of quality that can easily be subsumed by marketing jargon. Your camera has a charge-coupled device (CCD) which is commonly known as the camera's sensor. This sensor is what has taken the place of film in a digital camera and it even sits in the exact same spot at the rear-center of the camera body behind the lens. In the old days a ratcheting mechanism would advance strips of film across the lens opening and expose things that way; nowadays your CCD sits in that spot and eats up all the light you throw at it to create an image.

With digital cameras, you will find three general CCD sizes that matter and I will briefly outline what they are and where you find them. You will find small CCDs in most point-and-shoot cameras and that chip is going to be about the size of your pinky fingernail. It is small, but it can capture a lot of detail. Moving up the scale to a DSLR, these cameras usually have a CCD that is roughly half the size of a single frame of a 35mm film negative. You can capture significant detail with these cameras and produce excellent prints. Lastly you will encounter full-frame cameras or "professional" DSLRs; these contain a CCD that is the size of a single frame of 35mm film and the amount of detail these can capture is extreme. Even though the physical sizes of these CCDs are not that different relatively speaking, the difference in both quality and overall cost from a small CCD to a large CCD is significant. This is what makes up the bulk of the price tag when you walk through the store and start looking around.

The size of the CCD is relative to the overall megapixel count; however, some manufacturers can squeeze higher megapixel counts out of smaller CCDS to give you a better result, though your mileage will vary here and many of these solutions end up being filtered or otherwise digitally manipulated within the camera itself. You'll see it later, but nothing is free. If you want something in photography you need to sacrifice something else. The most apparent benefit of higher megapixel images is that you can zoom in further before the image begins to degrade or otherwise artifact due to low resolution. High megapixel images from space allow you to zoom right in on license plates.

But what about the actual features of these cameras for you and me? They all offer a suite of attractive automatic features, inline filtering systems, AI assistance and quality-of-life perks... how do they actually work? What is a camera and what is it doing when I start adjusting the various knobs?

Moving beyond simple automatic camera control is a daunting task. But it does not have to be exceptionally difficult. Your two keys to the kingdom are aperture and shutter speed. In the old days you had to worry about film "speed" or ISO/ASA as well as other contributing factors involving the chemical makeup of the emulsions on the specific films you were using. But nowadays all of this is condensed into a single menu in your camera options and most people never deal with it. In fact, most people that advance beyond full-auto will learn the basics of aperture and shutter speed and be done with it... and they'll be a more competent photographer than most of the population. This puts you in the category of that aunt or uncle you had that always took family pictures (and saved you all a ton of money) at events and would mail you cute little albums or packets of pictures. And if you have any experience with this, you know how valuable that person was and the amount of memories they were able to capture in vivid detail.

I feel talkative today (aka I've had a beer) so let's give a basic rundown of how a camera works. If this explanation seems logical and sensible to you, you'll probably be able to wrangle the advanced features of your camera; if you are confused or lost or bored, stick with auto mode and remember not to get too annoyed if your pictures stop coming out well during twilight and night time.
  • Aperture: the aperture setting or "f-stop" is the measure of the amount of light that your lens allows to strike the film/CCD. You've seen apertures before if you've played video games like Portal. But for the sake of clarity I will include illustrations:
    aperture.gif Aperture Drawing.jpg
    • Aperture settings are measures on a scale. A "wide" aperture or "fast" aperture are going to reside at the lower end of the spectrum and these allow large amounts of light to pass through the lens. The major benefit of wide apertures are that they allow you to play with depth of field to extreme degrees. Being able to throw the background out of focus is one of those very simple things that will make your pictures appear "professional" to the majority of people. I'm not joking. It really is that simple. But consider that because most camera phones and consumer-tier point-and-shoot cameras are smaller and/or lack significant optics, most people are locked out of this degree of control and can never utilize what is ostensibly a Photography 101-level technique.
      • The automatic modes on all cameras, point-and-shoot, DSLR and film will default to an aperture or f-stop of f/5.6 (with a shutter speed of 1/60, more on this later). Any photography course will teach novices the fundamental technique of working your way out from f/5.6 because it is simple and effective. You are in the middle of the scale and have plenty of options in both directions based upon your lighting conditions and the relative speed of your subject.
      • Not to neglect the other end of the scale, smaller apertures will let in much less light, but you will be give a much higher degree of focus including "unlimited" focus which will put the entire image in focus up to the point that sheer distance and natural phenomena begin to impede your view.
      • Also be aware that the scales included in this image are not the entire scale. There are lenses which will offer you much lower and much higher numbers; however, these lenses and aperture ranges are considered less-common and have specialized uses for low-light or high speed situations, as well as extreme close-up (macro) photography and will also have a requisite increase in price.
    • Portrait photographers will use low aperture settings combined with a knowledge of lighting setups (a proper portrait/studio setup will include a minimum of a back light, a hair light and two foreground lights) which can draw out striking detail and contour, as well as rich color data that the human eye may overlook during the motion of life.
  • Shutter Speed: a camera's shutter speed is the measure of the duration within which light is allowed to strike the film/CCD. Here are some illustrations:
    Shutter Speed 2.gif Shutter Speed.gif
    • I hope these make sense to you; shutter speed has always been the hardest thing for me to explain to people. Be aware that these illustrations represent SLOW MOTION RECREATIONS of the exposure process. When you press the button and hear the camera make that "click" or that "camera sound", what you are hearing (or were back in the old days) was the shutter of the camera cycling. We are talking fractions of a second here, and that is how the scale works.
      • In terms of shutters speeds, 1/60th of a second (or simply 1/60) is considered default. Point-and-shoot cameras and camera phones will natively use 1/60 as their normal setting and adjust outward from there. And with good reason, because working out from 1/60 is a fundamental skill all photographers are taught early on in their education. When in doubt, set your speed to 1/60 (with a f-stop of 5.6) and begin to work your way out.
      • I want to draw extra attention to the second image of the Minolta camera firing. You can see the shutter action as well as the mirror action. These are where your classic "camera" sound come from, generally speaking. In my last post I mentioned "mirrorless" technology; cameras with mirrorless construction are built without the need for a mirror mechanism that retracts out of the way (that mirror is there because it is attached to the viewfinder which your eye looks through; when you fire the camera, the mirror slides aside to allow the CCD/film directly behind it to become visible) and light floods your shooting medium of choice at your desired settings.
        • The reason I draw your attention to this is because in my previous post I included an aside about mirrorless cameras. This brief explanation outlines in generalities the basic form and function of these cameras. Because they have no mirror mechanism which as you can see takes significant time to move when we're talking about fractions of a second, a mirrorless camera can rapid-shoot as fast as the shutter mechanism can flicker... which can be quite fast. What ever benefits you lose from having an optical viewfinder (as opposed to a digital viewfinder or offset viewfinder) will have to be weighed against being able to shoot at three, five or even ten frames per second.
  • Bring it together: Okay, so you've got aperture which determines amounts of light and shutter which determines the duration of time within which that amount of light is allowed to strike the shooting medium. The Golden Rule with anything photography related is as follows: You will never get anything for free; to gain something in one area will cause a deficiency in another area. In ideal conditions, which would be late afternoon or early evening or the late-morning when the sun is at a lower angle and shadows have some length to them, you can work from a f/5.6 at 1/60 and come to a reasonable result without a ton of adjustment needed; a camera flash would almost certainly not be needed and a flash brings a whole other set of considerations into play vis-a-vis shutter speed which are better left for an intermediate course.
    • But what about conditions when lighting is not ideal? That is to say: what about most of the day? Mid-afternoon, early-morning, evening and night are not considered ideal times to shoot. During these hours you will see your cellphone cameras and point-and-shoot cameras fail. If you only use your DSLR on automatic mode, you will begin to see your camera fail to get the shot. Automatic modes have come a long way, I will not deny that. You'll get a lot of great night shots and modern auto modes can really handle camera flash well and take the work out of getting it right.
    • Changing your aperture requires a change in your shutter speed, which will impact the way light strikes the shooting medium and considerations about ambient light levels. During the day or in a high-light situation, when you run your aperture wide open because you want to get that awesome effect from the depth-of-field, you need to shoot at a higher shutter speed. Think about it:the aperture is wide open, letting in the maximum amount of light; therefore, you want your shutter speed to be on the faster side of 1/60 to limit the amount of light getting through so you can avoid an overexposure which will lead to your whites being washed out and bright highlights of pure white space.
      • Conversely, in the dark or a low-light situation during which you want to take the same picture, you'll want to pair your wide aperture with a slower shutter speed to actually let all of that light soak into the shooting medium and deliver the detail you seek. All well and good... EXCEPT! At shutter speeds below 1/60 such as 1/30 or 1/4 you need to have a tripod or some sort of stability assistance. Why? Because 1/60 is your magic number in terms of natural focus; shooting slower than 1/60 of a second means your camera will now begin to pick up your body movements, interference from the movement of camera mechanisms and most importantly the movement of your subject matter. Maybe you want your subject to be blurry but everything else in-focus? To do that you need a tripod to stabilize the camera to its environment while the subject moves through it.
    • These are just basic examples but you should be able to extrapolate out several of the ways in which these two powerful functions of your camera enable a knowledgeable photographer to capture pictures in most situations.
      • Camera flash is a whole other category of discussion because you can piggyback off of the speed of light (aka the camera flash) to enhance your effective shutter speed and capture pretty much anything in a perfect frozen moment; but this is a highly-technical aspect of photography that involves a great deal of understanding over light, light conditions and spatial reckoning.
      • The ISO/ASA or "film speed" are lesser considerations for most photographers nowadays and processes like "push photography" are slowly becoming a lost art form. But your digital camera (even a point-and-shoot) will give you control over ISO and you can use this to create some interesting effects or to widen your effective shooting range in odd lighting situations. This stuff is pretty advanced. I'm telling you that it exists but you're going to have to seek me out or pursue it on your own if you want a proper lesson on it. ISO is well beyond the scope of a basic photography lesson and should not ever come into play during your purchasing decisions.
  • Lenses??: Lenses are going to be another world of consideration if you go the DSLR or mirrorless route. Be aware that many kits are "body only" and include no lenses; but these should be obvious to discern. Most kits will give you a "kit lens" which is a average lens offering a typical range of f-stops and range of zoom. Telephoto lenses or "zoom" lenses are rarely packed-in, though you can find some nice bundles out there. A well-rounded set of lenses for a beginner would include your kit lens, some sort of telephoto lens with a maximum focal length of ~200mm and a portrait lens. With these three lenses you can take just about any picture you want. Further consideration may be taken for macro lenses to take extreme close-up pictures of small objects. You may also find an interest in a nice set of polarizing filters to screw onto the ends of your other lenses, as most lenses are threaded at the end to allow for filters and those filters also have threads.
    • A quick note on filters: I like to keep a crystal clear filter on the end of my lenses just as an extra layer of protection. Better to accidentally scratch it on my sweater than the lens itself when I forget to use a lens cleaner. Otherwise the most common filter people use is a polarizer, which is a filter that looks like a blue-tinted piece of glass. They are generally inexpensive and during normal lighting conditions will draw out deep blues in the sky and striking greens in the grass and trees. Sometimes you want to take this thing off though. And don't use it at night. Beyond that there are lots of types of filters from any color you can think of to patterns to fractal overlays that shatter your image like a kaleidoscope. You can screw multiple filters onto the end of a lens but you should be wary of this. Remember that anything you put between your film medium and your subject is ultimately just another obstruction.
That's enough for now. I can give dissertations on printers and paper and film but that's beyond the scope of where you are at right now. Please be sure to let us know when you get a camera. I will post a few outlines of basic techniques that will enhance your pictures and give you a head start on getting the results you desire.

As always, feel free to ask any questions and thank you for your time. I'll come through later to do another proof-read and spell check pass.
 
Last edited:
After approximately 1000 hours of research I have decided I am going to wait until the Ricoh GR IV is released and buy that.
Both the Fuji X100 series and the Ricoh GR series can be considered "hipster" because both of them are designed around reducing options that modern technology brings to photography. Optical zoom (ie variable focal length) was a standard thing to have even on the bargain-bin, lowest quality compact cameras but since most people have gotten used to having a fixed, ultrawide lens on their phones, optical zoom is only feature that shows up on laughably expensive phones.

Regarding underproducing and Fujifilm, I'll also warn you that retro cameras are similarly autistic scene as retro PC or console hardware. Leica is at the top of that because they have almost no modern-day innovations but make bank by advertising how innovative they were 100-odd years ago. Their film cameras are a fucking cult and all of their digital cameras are rebranded hipster-ised versions of Panasonic Lumix cameras.

If you want something that's head and shoulders above what a phone can give, you can use your current ZVE on a different mode (use aperture or shutter-priority instead of auto) and tweak the jpeg settings until they match what you want from them on your monitor (or you can calibrate your camera's screen and your monitor but that'll be tedious). It already has an APS-C sensor (similar to the Ricoh GR series, but with changeable lenses) that's massive compared to phone sensors and much bigger than the 1-inch sensor on the Sony RX100 series.

Other than the Sony RX-100 and Panasonic Lumix TZ series, I'd also advice considering the Canon G7X series if you can find them in stock: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1490986-REG/canon_3638c001_powershot_g7_x_mark.html They're 1-inch sensor cameras like the Sony and Lumix but may be more intuitive to use.
If you want something that can take a beating, buy a used Olympus Tough TG-6: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...m_v110030ru000_tough_tg_7_digital_camera.html Olympus's camera division was bought out by a vampire holdings-company but they're still re-releasing their old stuff witth their branding if you want one new. It has a traditional compact camera sensor and won't give as good image quality as 1-inch or larger sensors or overprocessed phone photos but it has RAW and optical zoom and you can keep it in your pocket. Just be careful using the built-in GPS.
 
Your camera has a charge-coupled device (CCD) which is commonly known as the camera's sensor.
It would be worth noting the difference between CCD and CMOS sensors. CCD is not a catch-all term. Digital cameras today all utilize CMOS sensors. CCD sensors require more power and are more sensitive to digital noise, which is why manufacturers abandoned it for CMOS sensors. Fujifilm ditched the traditional bayer array for their x-trans sensors which differentiates them from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. It's worth noting their medium format digital cameras still use the traditional bayer array. Sigma's Foveon sensor is really interesting because it stacks 3 RGB dedicated sensors on top of each other(technically tripling resolved megapixels), the drawback is the sensor requires a lot more light in order to penetrate all three layers and reach the sensor. Cameras only survive today to fill niches that phones can't; macro, product, fashion, sports, wildlife, etc.
Olympus Tough TG-6
Ricoh/Pentax also make rugged cameras, again rather trivial when comparing specs to a new phone. I'd recommend avoiding B&H, i've given many alternatives for finding used cameras earlier in the thread.
 
Ricoh/Pentax also make rugged cameras, again rather trivial when comparing specs to a new phone. I'd recommend avoiding B&H, i've given many alternatives for finding used cameras earlier in the thread.
From what I've read, the Oly Tough TG series is the only tough series compact that's worth it these days. The smaller sensors don't do well packed with so many pixels and Olympus has the sense to keep theirs at 12mp, in addition to having RAW.

EDIT: yes, B&H seems like an old-money place; might be better to get it from somewhere else.
 
I managed to borrow a DSLR from a family member. A Nikon D70s with Nikkor AF 50mm 1:18, Nikkor 80-200mm 1:4.5-5.6 D and Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f 2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical IF lenses, as well as a Speedlight SB-800.

I have, no fucking idea how to use any of it but I'm trying to figure it out. I tried taking some photos today, but not only was it too cloudy and too late to get well exposed freehand photos, I still have no idea how to adjust the settings according to scene's conditions. I've set it to take NEF RAW's as well as a basic quality JPG's so I have a point of reference and something to toy with in Darktable.

Here's one shot that I think was fairly decent. I know, basic bitch depth of field photo because I now have a camera with an actual lens, wow, but before I start figuring out composition I still need to get the hang of the basics.
Settings: 1/100, f/5,6, ISO 200
The low quality JPEG from the DSLR:
DSLR JPG
The result of me dicking around with the RAW in Darktable for a few minutes:
Darktable PNG
And another one, further stylized for a more orange vibe:
Darktable PNG 2

Here's one that I've underexposed since it got too dark and I didn't have a tripod to keep it stable for a longer exposure or anything like that.
Settings: 1/125, f/5,6, ISO 200
DSLR JPG
This is the result of me trying to salvage the RAW in Darktable. Kinda sorta, but the noise is evident. Shit photo, gotta git gud.
Darktable PNG

I still have no idea what I'm doing, and I'm afraid by the time I figure it out, all the leaves will be gone by then (November isn't called "listopad" in Polish for no reason), so I'll just have to hone my skills during winter and hope to get some proper photos next fall. Maybe even with a DSLR of my own, who knows.
 
Just to add to the debate on why you don't need the latest and greatest, here is an incredibly unfair comparison. By no means scientific and I am retarded.

Here is a photo taken with 3 cameras:
Nikon D700 made in 2007, 12.1 megapixels,
Panasonic G9 made in 2017, 20.3 megapixels,
Samsung S22+ made in 2022, had to use the ultrawide, 12 megapixels,

All the same lighting, left on auto with minimal editing (Denoise for the Nikon and Panasonic) then exported.

_DSC2148_01.jpg
View attachment 1172323_01.jpg
20241030_170710_01.jpg


Ignore the dust. The camera is dead so I left it on a shelf for years,
_DSC2148.jpg
_1172323.jpg
20241030_170710.jpg

It isn't a perfect comparison, left on auto the cameras chose different settings that'll effect the final images. But I wanted to show a 17 year old camera in the hands of someone who can only use the shutter button still looks way better than a phone camera.
also shows the fuckery Samsung does to the "RAW" images.
 
I still have no idea what I'm doing, and I'm afraid by the time I figure it out, all the leaves will be gone by then (November isn't called "listopad" in Polish for no reason), so I'll just have to hone my skills during winter and hope to get some proper photos next fall. Maybe even with a DSLR of my own, who knows.
I'm not great either but for low light I would set ISO to auto, use the Tamron or 50mm, Use aperture priority mode (A on dial). Choose an aperture: low is brighter but background will be blurry higher is opposite. Check the shutter speed is above 1/60-80 if it's handheld, and ISO isn't too going too high (>3500 personally is when I can't recover enough detail). 200 iso is usually for bright sunny days.

It's worth checking out how histograms work, easy way to tell if you are underexposing too much.
Also the bar at the bottom of the viewfinder that looks like this: <----l----> is the exposure meter, you want the moving bar to be roughly centre.
 
ISO isn't too going too high (>3500 personally is when I can't recover enough detail)
It's a D70s, I'd actually no use auto since it's not great at higher ISO compared to something newer but it doesn't much matter, it only goes to 1600.
 
Back
Top Bottom