• Jo Miran@lemmy.mlEnglish
    36·
    3 months ago

    Shit. My ADHD brain doesn’t need another expensive hobby to hyperfixate on.

    • SeductiveTortoise@piefed.socialEnglish
      42·
      3 months ago

      Wanna buy my setup? My hyperfixation ended.

      Edit: but for real, we should introduce a ADHD-sharing network. My old fixation could be yours and vice versa. And I could tell you everything I learned, which is a lot!

      • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        3 months ago

        That’s a great idea for a store front. And great for buying for those people that are hard to buy for, cause they have to figure out how the whole collection works lol

      • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        i agree with you. a friend found an alto sax at an auction, got it for a song. when he heard i was dusting my tenor off he just gave it to me. i will have to give it back eventually, but we’re just glad it’s being played.

        • SeductiveTortoise@piefed.socialEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          I wanted to get a guitar for a while, but then I forgot about it and now I don’t care enough anymore.

          I suck at music, my inner metronome doesn’t know timing and I’m too lazy to get up after work. I’m so glad I didn’t buy one.

      • possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        2·
        3 months ago

        Genuinely, what do you have and what would you possibly be looking to get for it if you were interested in selling it? I’ve got a EF mount Tamron 150-600 contemporary but it’s a little slow.

          • possumparty@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
            2·
            3 months ago

            That’s fair, yeah, it’s still a good bit of glass but definitely not L glass for the snappy AF and monstrous front element that just eats light for breakfast.

    • TeddE@lemmy.worldEnglish
      17·
      3 months ago

      Dont spend money on fancy new cameras, chances are the camera in your phone is already better than 90% of all cameras in history. Don’t drop a dime on equipment until you’ve hit the limits of the hardware you already have.

      The picture above isn’t a picture of what an expensive camera can do - it’s a picture of what a good photographer can do, enhanced by specialty equipment. In the hands of a novice the equipment cannot produce pictures like this.

      • desertdruid@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        11·
        3 months ago

        I get the point but there is no way my phone camera can capture the mountains reflected on the eyes of any animal even on full daylight

      • Mac@mander.xyzEnglish
        9·
        3 months ago

        Phone cameras are good, yes, but their lenses are not. Even a cheap, used camera is better.

      • FellowEnt@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        8·
        3 months ago

        Wildlife photography really is mostly about the equipment though. And waiting/being in the right place obviously. But I can tell you from experience, a novice can absolutely produce pictures like this with the right equipment.

        • shneancy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          3 months ago

          depends on your definition of novice.

          a novice that is incredibly passionate and has been absorbing knowledge and experience at a fast pace? sure

          a novice that just got a camera who’s shooting in .jpeg and has yet to hear of lightroom? (or alternative photo editing software) no

      • taiyang@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        3 months ago

        I did the math for another post and if I remember right the best telephoto lens built into a very recent phone camera has equivalency to around 120mm (anything else is just digital zoom and sometimes AI enhance).

        It’s a relatively new gimmick, and it can do wildlife photography from afar (I got some good full body shots of deer recently), but it’s not quite as good as 600mm or the 1000mm from the other post.

        • TeddE@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          3 months ago

          Yes, but there’s so much more to compositing a good shot than just focal length. I’m recommending to a new hobbyist to walk before they run. Framing, lighting, perspective - a cheap phone from 2019 off eBay is still better than what your grandparents had, and is better than cameras from 99% of human history.

            • TeddE@lemmy.worldEnglish
              4·
              3 months ago

              Well, went and did research (gasp!) and found I had been lied to! Or at least to say it’s complicated. My statement does have merit in that yes! The most popular cameras from 2019 average 25 megapixels, and that puts it neck and neck to several uses of film (frequently animated uses).

              I still think my primary argument is unchanged, but the precise details of my statement are somewhat hyperbolic. In my defence, “better than film” has been the marketing for at least a decade and there are things that digital photography shine at.

              Still, thank you for keeping me in check.

              https://www.learnfilm.photography/the-resolution-of-film-negatives/

          • shneancy@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            3 months ago

            a cheap phone today is better than a digital camera from 15-20 years ago. but neither can stand up to analogue cameras that use film. we can extract 4k video from footage shot on film in the 80’s (any film footage really, but i mention 80’s because the music video for Last Christmas available on youtube in 4k is a wonderful example)

          • taiyang@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            3 months ago

            I said equivalency, so I don’t think that’s quite literal. That said, it does stick out a bit and is sunken into the phone itself by about a cm.

            I’m not really sure how they get the rest of the way.

    • Jarix@lemmy.worldEnglish
      32·
      3 months ago

      I would assume because it’s related to educating someone about why optical lenses can give an incredible amount of detail that digital just can’t compete with. But that’s just a guess and that might not even be enough for this forum

      • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPMEnglish
        3·
        3 months ago

        Also, because posts like this drive really informative comment sections like this thread. I promise there’s a method to the madness.

  • kamen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    3 months ago

    It’s not even that much of a sacrifice. There are some modern 600s that weigh less than what a typical 70-200/2.8 does. Granted, they’re on the darker side, but if you have the light (supposedly you will during a hike), you don’t always need an f/4.

    • alekwithak@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      3 months ago

      Listen buddy, I spent a lot of money on my full frame, and a lot of muscle lugging it around, so I’d appreciate it if you could keep your superior sensor to yourself.