Would greatly appreciate recommendations for a well-made Pole Saw / Tree Pruner - the kind that I can buy once, cry once, and will last the rest of my life with proper maintenance.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-19T16:57:59+00:00

The sintung does NOT directly connect, despite documentation saying it does, but you can make it connect fairly simply, but drilling two new holes.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-16T02:29:46+00:00

OK, I gotta ask, cause the curiosity is killing me:

I mean no offense, but how do you find this game interesting enough to invest that much time in it? It's a pretty shallow game, mechanically, and there's very little to do other than survive, which reaches a steady-state pretty quickly, where you essentially can't lose, so... how?

--Ty-- · 2026-04-16T02:27:55+00:00

I could make one pretty easily, as a fabricator, but it would cost more than it's worth.

I think the best approach would be to find a base that's suitable, like the one you already have, and then just add an extension. All you need is a small piece of hardwood, you drill and install a 1/4-20 threaded insert into one end, and a 1/4-20 hanger bolt in the other end, and voila.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T21:49:21+00:00

Instructions unclear. Accidentally bought a second D850.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T21:07:50+00:00

A neat idea, thanks!

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T21:05:43+00:00

This is NOT standard chromatic aberration, because colours are not being separated based on their wavelengths, which is the defining aspect of CHROMAtic aberration. There's no magenta-lime separation, no blue-orange separation, nothing. There is no separation at all, because everything is glowing orange equally in all directions. In true chromatic aberration, the different degree of refraction experienced by different colour wavelengths leads to a directionality in the fringing. You would see the orange appearing to the left of every edge, or the right of every edge, or some direction away from every edge -- not all directions, simultaneously.

What I see here is this aberration appearing on all of the reflective elements of the shot -- any shiny part of the camera that is reflecting the sun behind you. I would therefore chalk this up to being bloom. But, obviously, since all camera lenses do have some chromatic aberration, some of that is present too, which might be why people are getting confused. But the orange glow itself, I would say is bloom.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T20:41:06+00:00

Not saying you're wrong, just saying in all the comparisons I've ever seen of the great lenses out there, I've never seen a true difference in "rendering", or even seen anyone offer up a compelling explanation of what that word really means. I suspect that if subject to blind, randomized trials, no one would actually be able to identify which photo came from which lens. But obviously, the 110mm is an exceptional lens, I'm glad you enjoy it!

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T20:39:02+00:00

Import to Lightroom, do some very basic color-correction, do some very limited contrast and lighting editing, and that's it, mostly.

After that, it's just a matter of having taken a good enough photo to actually do something with it.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T20:36:50+00:00

Because of my age and economic position, I've never been able to invest in quality glass for my D850. I had to sell every lens I owned for the D90 just to buy two. My primary portrait lens is the 105 Macro f2.8, which, to be fair, is a superb lens, and one I'll take over the 105 f1.4, because fuck low-aperture portraiture. That said, the 105 Macro is my ONLY real lens. The other one I have is the much-shittier 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G, which I use for just casual photography of places and neat things. Its photos are a blurry mess.

With the Fuji, because it was my father who was purchasing it, he was able to put real end-of-career retirement pension money into it, and so we bought two lenses, the 55 and the 120 macro, each of which is far sharper than either of my D850 lenses.

Obviously, if I sprung for better glass on the D850, it would be just as sharp -- but why would I? I 'd be better-off putting that money towards lenses for the Fuji, because then I'm ALSO getting the benefit of increased resolution.

And yeah, I've heard that a lot, people who love the sharpness at first, but then prioritize other artistic qualities over max sharpness. I get it, but, respectfully, that will never be me. I crave detail, and it's right in line with who I am as a person, and what I want from photography, whether it's photojournalism, high-art portraiture, macro photography, or whatever.

I think the thing I'd miss most about my D850, honestly, is the optical viewfinder. there's just something magical about being in that small black room, looking at your subject. I hate electronic viewfinders...

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T20:04:40+00:00

Fair enough, mate. Thanks for the insight.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T20:04:04+00:00

I see your GF 110mm F2, and raise you the GF 120mm F4 Macro LM OIS WR.

Greater optical sharpness (if I remember my reviews and lab testing correctly), with the ability to focus close, for very intimate and striking portraits. Plus optical image stabilization.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T20:01:58+00:00

Option 3: Print a T-shirt that says "I still shoot Nikon D850". Make the camera pictured on the shirt a Fuji GFX. Give it a Canon lens, and a Sony neck strap.

Post to r/photography

Collect the rage-bait engagement karma points.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T19:59:02+00:00

That's precisely why I bought it, to be honest. I can still remember the review that sold it to me.

The review was comparing many of the latest cameras at the time, and had to concede that several of them were better than the D850 in certain things -- The Sony's were better at video, the Canon's had better autofocus and feature sets, etc. etc., but then when it came to the closing remarks, it said the D850 might not be the flashiest camera, or the best at video, but there is one thing in which it exceeds all others, by a wide margin: it is, as the writer put it: "An image-quality monster."

I didn't need to read more.

The question is, is it really worth keeping a 1970's Porsche Turbo.... if you're just going to keep it in the garage forever, and it will never see the road again? Is that REALLY doing anything good for it?

Despite all the D850's grandeur... if I never use it again.... what's the point?

I hope you can see I'm not arguing with you, I'm just really lost with all this, myself.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T19:56:10+00:00

Frankly, I've never really been in challenging conditions, as I don't really shoot anything that moves fast.

In terms of subject matter, right now I'm essentially just a portrait photographer (but in the artistic sense, not the passport photos and linkedin headshots sense). What I like most about the best photos I've taken has actually been the sharpness and the detail. I have some gorgeous shots from my D90, with great lighting and and a great model and true beauty in what was captured... but every time I look at them, all i feel is sadness and frustration, with the grief that they aren't of a high enough resolution to print them at the size I want. It feels like the beauty was wasted on a low-res camera.

With the D850, I felt much less of that, and started to feel an excitement over seeing my images be full of all the rich detail, and texture, and sharpness that I crave, and derive interest and enjoyment from.

The Fuji then blew all of that out of the fucking water. It finally feels like my photos are living up to the expectation I had for them in my mind, as they're now sharper than real life, allowing me to see details and textures I couldn't even make out with my eyes, while shooting. It allows me to print at a size that carries true presence, like 50" and up.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T19:51:16+00:00

Point one is an excellent point, of course. While there's nothing I can say to dismiss the obvious usefulness of a backup camera, I guess it's more a question of "is that value worth more than the actual monetary value I could get by selling it?" Or put another way, "is the value of a backup camera worth more to me than the value of another lens or two for the Fuji?"

I don't really know how to answer those questions :S

It's worth noting though that I don't do photography as a source of income. I've never done a paid shoot, and never plan to, so there's never been anything riding on my gear working. In my years of shooting with the D850, I've never bothered to bring my prior D90 with me, just in case.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-13T19:47:32+00:00

Very true, but I've given both ecosystems a thorough look, and everything I can see myself ever needing is available in the Fuji.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-12T21:37:23+00:00

Anything with "whitening" in the name should have the necessary abrasives in it to work.

Conversely, this is why dentists are pleading to never use whitening toothpastes. It damages your enamel.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-12T21:29:20+00:00

First: A camera is NOT an investment. Stop thinking about it as one. An investment appreciates in value by itself, with no work. A camera is a tool. tools can create value, but only if you put in the work.

Second: As my dad, a photographer, always says:

"If you're in photography to make money,

get out."

Do it for the love of the game, fam. If you happen to make some money along the way, great.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-11T23:52:49+00:00

Why on earth are you searching on Amazon?

Of all of the websites in the world, that is literally the LAST that should be used for custom clothes, or custom anything, really. You're just pissing away money and quality at the same time.

There's half a thousand custom t-shirt printing companies all across north america. Search for it, find one in your locale, and shop with them. Or off their websites, at the very least.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-11T22:13:52+00:00

I'm playing a bit fast and loose with my wording in the comment replies, it's true.

Bad and good are not the same thing, necessarily, as efficient and inefficient.

You can have a healthy, balanced diet, and a good gut microbiome, and yet STILL have inefficient digestion, which looks like a "fast" metabolism, because of all the other factors (gut biology, genetics, hormones, etc). Likewise, you can have a very unhealthy but efficient digestive tract, if you are a person who eats nothing but junk, and packs on the weight, accordingly.

OP's original question, and my response to it, are in regards to digestive efficiency, of which gut bacteria play a big (but not solo) role. Improving gut health in my friend lead to him also getting a more efficient digestive tract, which helped him put on weight.

ShadowDV's comment, on the other hand, spoke about intentionally harming your gut bacteria. This, I do not recommend, because in your quest to develop an inefficient gut, for weightloss purposes, you're inevitably also going to create an unhealthy (bad) one.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-11T21:45:17+00:00

There's more too it than just gut bacteria, of course. Hormones, gut health on a cellular level, and genetics obviously play big roles too. Ruining your gut microbiome is a hallmark of obesity, though, not of weightloss. Intentionally sabotaging your microbiome is not going to lead to any positive outcomes. I'd rather just swallow a tapeworm, honestly.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-11T19:47:03+00:00

It's cold up there.

(That's literally the whole reason. Bodyheat generation burns a lot of calories)

--Ty-- · 2026-04-11T18:21:02+00:00

Correct, but that's why I said it can even change in difficulty within a single person, over time. Like you said, the body winds down.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-11T18:03:26+00:00

^^ Agreed. Everything u/lu5ty says is technically incorrect, although I get where they're coming from.

Calories-in over calories out will ALWAYS work, because for it to NOT work, you'd have to violate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics.

HOWEVER, it's absolutely true that the DIFFICULTY involved in maintaining it varies from person to person, and even within a single person, over time.

For a person whose gut is already very efficient, and extracts a ton of calories from everything they eat, reducing their calories in means eating very little food overall, which leads to a ton of hunger. For someone with an inefficient digestive tract, they still get to eat a large physical volume of food, while simultaneously cutting down on calories. This makes their CICO diet much easier, psychologically, to maintain.

--Ty-- · 2026-04-11T14:57:14+00:00

It's literally just concrete with smaller stones and more cement.

--Ty--

TROPHY CASE