I like the crop factor because it essentially makes your optics better for free. Since it will only use the center of the lens, which is its best part. From your experience, does a speed booster actually have a large impact on optical quality, since you are adding an additional glass element?
Firstly, the Nikon cameras just use one mount, the so-called Nikon F mount. You can mount any sort of lens to a DX camera. I usually buy lenses from eBay, so that’s where I checked. I cannot talk about weather-proofing because I have no experience with it. I keep my stuff out of the rain. Maybe think about Buying a cloak in olive green or something that blends in with the natural environment to throw over yourself because it will cloak you and protect the camera and the lens from rain.
I think one of those three should meet your criteria.
Well, I wouldn’t say that one market is inherently stronger than the other. You can also buy a mirrorless camera for the price of one Pentax K70. Again, it just depends what’s better for your use case. If you only do wildlife photography and nothing else, a DSLR is the better choice because you get better autofocus for cheaper. But instead of a Pentax K70, I’d actually recommend the Nikon D7100. It was basically Nikon’s semi-professional offering, and the camera is great to this day. Also, Nikon’s product line for wildlife photography is just way better. An additional plus being that the Nikon Bayonet is the most supported bayonet for adapting. Since even with lenses that do not have an aperture ring, you can control the aperture on the adapter if you wish to adapt it to a mirrorless camera, for example. The D7100 also supports Nikon’s slightly older AF-D lenses. This just means the autofocus motor is inside the camera. That just means you sacrifice focus speed for cheaper wildlife lenses. Beyond the lookout for some AF-D Nikon glass. If you’re deterred because it’s older, look at few comments down. I had a conversation with a guy that basically recapitulates both perspectives.
While I agree with you that my claim was exaggerated, my claim remains true. While the differences you have outlined are correct, the differences for the photographer are basically negligible because it means essentially three things:
Well, before computers, all lenses were calculated using geometric optics, and these lessons are still true. The computer just makes it faster.
And on the topic of coatings, yes, we have gained fluoride element lenses, but what about thorium oxide doted lenses? Yes, you can’t use them on digital cameras because the radiation dosage will kill the sensor eventually, but if you have ever seen the image output of a thorium oxide lens, you know what I’m talking about.
Also additionally on the topic of them being bad, alright I’m getting the rare stuff out.
And there are many more where that came from. Old stuff is useful. I’d genuinely like to see a modern post-2000 lens that has optical performance anywhere close to the outlined 3 lenses. Resolution isn’t everything, there are more qualities to a photographic lens. We are artists, not computers, needing the highest resolution lens for machine vision tasks. And I do enjoy more organic lenses, like three-element lenses. Yes, the resolution is rubbish, but everything else is great. The colour reproduction is insanely good, as is the micro-contrast, together with its brilliant, out-of-focus rendering. These are just qualities that you cannot get with an 11 element prime lens where every small bit of spherical aberration or transverse chromatic aberration has been tuned out because in the end you add more elements and kill some of the signal. That’s the natural trade-off and computers cannot fix the fundamental issue of absorption. You cannot buy physics, more elements mean more absorption. This will always remain the same, no matter if it’s 100 years ago, or in 1000 years, the laws of physics stay the same.
Tldr: If you only take away one thing, then just give old lenses a try. There’s no harm in trying the cheaper ones.
Edit: And also, yes, lightweight plastics means the lens will be lighter, but you pay the price in durability. And I will always prefer durability. Also, apochromatic lenses aren’t only possible because of computers. There are apochromatic lenses long before computers were a thing. Mostly today’s preferences have changed. Today means resolution at the cost of everything because that’s what sells products. But lenses are more than just resolution. They have many more qualities that are important as well for aesthetic photography. Again, we’re taking images for aesthetic effect, not for computers that need something for machine vision tasks.
My, my, you are asking a big question herehere are some to start out.
All of these lenses should be readily available on eBay. I excluded the rare stuff.
Edit: And there’s much more. I still have a very limited experience with that. I have some more than I outlined. But believe me, there’s some great stuff out there waiting to be discovered. I also fixed a spelling mistake
Spend as much as you can on the lens. The camera is negligable. Listen to someone who made the horrible mistake of inverting that philosophy once.
Adapting with lens/camera communication usually does not work. There are some bayonets which can do it, but they are very, very limited.
Forget adapting anything to a DSLR. In all honesty, you really should buy mirrorless cameras. Reason being mirrorless cameras have adapters to basically every bayonet ever created. DSLRs do not. With DSLRs you are locked into the manufacturer of your DSLR for your lens choice, which may be very limiting.
Also, try to adapt manual focus lenses to your camera. Many of mankind’s greatest glass is manual focus only. Bonus is you can get a manual focus lens for dirt cheap, one that has quality that will blow your socks off. People think that old optics are inherently worse, which is false. Optics haven’t had any development since a hundred years, with a few minor exceptions.
Most of all, since I switched to GNU/Linux, I didn’t need to reinstall my system every single year to keep it performant, so after the first year it already felt stale!
My Personal Workflow
You’re not seeing the edits you do in Darktable in Digicam because Digicam is a library application. You take a finished JPEG there and it will sort it by tags or things it sees in the image through machine vision, etc. Digicam cannot read the instructions Darktable gives in its sidecar “.xmp” files. Export from Darktable to JPEGs and put it into your Digicam folder. Then it will work out.
Edit: Fixed typo.
Uh, I always thought it was ambiguous who did it in the end, because it doesn’t matter for Fallout.
I definitely wouldn’t say master, but I’m competent at lighting.
But we have Lemmy, the Fediverse, qBitTorrent, Tor, I2P, GrapheneOS and the Armada of GNU/Linux distros. Look at Android, as long as something is FOSS, someone will take the rubbish out and make something usable, not only GrapheneOS, but CalyxOS, DivestOS, eOS and whatnot. The internet is pretty good, if you know what to look for and where to ask.
We don’t talk about the lizard episode. And Tuvix.
If you mean that’s how machine learning image generation works, well, it’s worse. The companies creating these programmes know exactly where they’re taking it from. They deliberately ignore licensing, example: the GPL. Then they basically create an elaborate spreadsheet and tell the media it’s alive or some nonsense. And in comes the capital.
Nice grade man.
“Супер сус”. Channel name is in Cyrillic.
I’ll keep that in mind next time, thanks.
I like it way more than the original. Yes, the background’s darker, but the heron is the correct exposure. And only the heron, so you have a point where the eye is drawn to. I think with one of the presets in the article it would be even better.
Well, Darktable by default gives you a proper looking input without having to do anything. It will look boring, but right. So there’s nothing you need to do to make it look like a normal picture. Also, if you want, there are manufacturer-specific presets directly built in, which make it look a bit nicer.
Also you can use 3D LUTs files. They are essentially like program agnostic styles. Be sure to set the colour space properly to the colour space of the LUT when you use them, however.
Here’s an article with a download link that gives you a few very high quality ones. They’re all strictly scene-referred, not display-referred like the other programmes, so they are consistent across pictures.
https://onecameraonelens.com/2022/10/13/a-selection-of-darktable-styles/
Also, if you want to do white balance with Darktable, do not do it with the white balance module, but with the color calibration module. The white balance module does something very different in a scene referred process.
Lastly, I highly recommend you also do your own ones because it’s fun and it will make your pictures look unique, since it will be your own unique creative colour grade.
If you have any questions, DM me.
Edit: Fixed typo.
Communities thrive on fresh content. I’m doing my part! Do your part too, citizen! Would you like to know more?
Send this to Jensen every time he claims that frame generation is real performance.
Edit: typo