Send this to Jensen every time he claims that frame generation is real performance.

Edit: typo

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.

• Nikorr Af-S 200-500mm 5.6 ED VR ( AF-S in Nikon speak means the autofocus is internal, so it will be nice and snappy.)
• Nikkor AF-S 70-200 2.8 FL ED VR ( Used it will still be over budget for you, but the quality is absolutely worth it.)
• Tamron 70-200 2.8 DI VC G2 ( Basically the above lenses little brother.)

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:

1. Better zooms
2. Better extreme wide angle optics (< 35 mm)
3. Yes, better coatings (which have a small impact on image quality, compared to optical design)

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.

• Auto Rikenon 55/1.4
• Zeiss Distagon 35/2
• Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58/2

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.

• Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50/2.8 (Soap bubble bokeh and three element goodness.)
• Auto Chinon 55/1.7 (beautiful, smooth and perfect bokeh You have never seen anything like it. They are quite rare, however.)
• Meyer Optik Görlitz Primoplan 50/1.9 (Beautiful micro contrast and very smooth gradations. Brilliant black and white lens.)
• Meyer Optik Görlitz Primotar 50/3.5 ( four element goodness. So, essentially, most of the organic qualities of the Jena Tessar, but with the more organic components toned down. Microcontrast suffers a wee bit under the additional element, but not too much.)
• Meyer Optik Görlitz Telemegor 180/5.5 (The long telephoto portrait lens. Enough said.)
• Super-Takumar 135/3.5 ( If you check online and find this lens for maybe 30 to 50 quid, you'll think you're insane and you made a mistake and you accidentally bought a way more expensive lens. The micro contrast and resolution of this lens is unreal, especially considering the price.)
• Nikkor 28-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 AF ( You can buy them dirt cheap for less than 100 quid online, and it is a good competent zoom. It even has a macro switch, so if you're just starting out and want to spend little money, this lens is your go-to.)

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

1. Offload everything from the memory card to my trueNAS into a descriptively named folder.
2. Darktable import and colour grading
3. Export and sharing
4. (Maybe if necessary VFX with GIMP)

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.

"What a great day of 1841 in Ireland."

Phytophthora infestans:

If our particular bubble of the universe has remained unmolested for 13.8 billion years, it is safe to assume it will continue to be for the next 1000 years.

This has nothing to do with the Apple ecosystem. This is just a fact of manufacturing because different screens will have different qualities. You will never have full control over this aspect because you cannot control what screens your audience will use.

But that being said, you can minimise the effect, and that is with a proper colour-managed workflow. To have a proper colour-managed workflow, there are few things to understand. Your camera, lens and the lighting conditions will all have a massive effect on your colour reproduction. This is why post-production usually is done in two parts, primary colour grading and secondary colour grading. Primary color grading refers to the process of making the output of a camera look technologically correct, while secondary color grading is usually done for creative effect. There is a right way to do primary color grading, but there is no right way to do secondary color grading. Now this in more practical terms means that in primary color grading you first of all focus on making the camera look like real life and in the second step you take that "real life" corrected image and turn it into something aesthetically pleasing.

Now to achieve this in more practical terms, you need to do a few different things. Firstly, you need a corrected monitor. That, you achieve by buying a so-called colourimeter, which is just an image sensor behind a lens, which the manufacturer has actually calibrated. When a manufacturer says it has factory calibrated a monitor, it means it has been generally colour corrected, not your monitor specifically, because there are also variances between copies of the same monitor model. So, now you need to download the software called DisplayCal, which will then show different colours on the monitor. The colorimator will take an image of the colour that your monitor has shown and calculate the difference between these two. Depending on the number of steps, it does this a few thousand times and calculates a big table with correction values, such that in the software, wrong values will be sent to the monitor And with the natural offset your monitor has, it will now show up correctly to your eye. This step takes care of your monitor.

Now, as for your camera, that is a little bit more complex. For the full details, I think you should read the darktable manual. Even if you don't use the programme, it will give you a good basic understanding of what's going on with your digital image. So, firstly, you need to understand that no digital camera actually sees colour. It just sees various intensities of the red, green and blue channels. And from there, a mathematical model is used to basically blur the image together in an elaborate way, which creates colour. Now, basically before starting out you've already lost there, furthermore your lens and the lighting conditions will have a massive influence on how colour is rendered in the final image. Therefore you need something which has known colour beforehand. This is done by using a colour chart, basically a sheet of plastic or paper which has been created with a high-end digital printing process where the colours are perfectly exact. You should use Darktable, which has the by far easiest colour workflow that I've ever worked with, to correct the colours with the so-called colour calibration module. It really is that simple: Just align the patches in the software with the patches of the actual color chart and there you go. Press a button and there's your finished colour profile. Now, there are obviously more elaborate things going on under the bonnet, but for you, the end user, it is being kept dead simple. And that's what makes it truly elegant.

To guarantee maximum compatibility for your finished images, you should always export as sRGB, because that profile has been around for so many years, and every device, no matter how bad the monitor is, supports it.

And with that, you basically have done everything you can to guarantee colour consistency between devices for your audience. To recapitulate, firstly, you should use DisplayCal with the colourimator to profile your monitor. Therefore, you know it is colour neutral. Secondly, if you're shooting under a certain light source just take a picture of your color chart under this light source or just in the room you're currently shooting and later use darktable to edit your images because it has the simplest colour management workflow that I have ever seen. Lastly, export your images in the most compatible colour format, which is sRGB. Because every device supports it, it has been around for so many years, no matter how bad the device is, it can display sRGB. This will guarantee the most colour consistency. Do not worry about HDR or any or other of these bits and bobs. Just do sRGB and JPEGs and you'll be golden.

Edit: Fixed spelling mistakes and clarified some others.

I never really used social media, since I was deterred by the contagious cancer that Instagram/TikTok/etc. because of their algos, corporations and bots are. Thanks to Lemmy being different, I thought it would be time to start understanding this.