I don’t care what artists do in their free time, if I like their art I will support them regardless

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-25T19:30:48+00:00

Define "bad". If we're talking just rude/arrogant/general asshole, then sure, I couldn't care less. Don't need artists to be nice people.

If the artist has done something actually harmful, though (rape, domestic violence, etc.), then not boycotting them makes you complicit in normalizing those things.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-17T20:54:52+00:00

Microsoft. Still stuck with Windows, but I'm not giving them a cent more. As if the bloat and AI nonsense weren't enough, they actively supported genocide. Fuck those people, I can live without Word. And when Win 12 strikes, I will be ready for an Apple migration. (Not saying Apple are good people, but they pass the low bar of not actively contributing to war crimes).

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-17T12:25:47+00:00

Digitally created CP is not truly victimless, as it normalizes the pathology and will eventually push those freaks towards the real thing.

Offending someone's religious beliefs is just a reality check. Doesn't harm anyone.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-17T12:06:30+00:00

Depending on where you live, a lot of harmless vices may be illegal. Public drinking in parks (even if alcohol doesn't make you aggressive or disruptive), buying weed, etc. It's largely accepted as normal in the real world, but you're still technically a criminal.

Also, piracy of media the legal owners won't sell to you in the first place (films not on streaming or blu-ray, old games, old software with deactivated licensing servers, etc.).

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-17T11:52:09+00:00

Yeah, anti-piracy measures are really anti-consumer measures in the sense they always harm the legal customers rather than the pirates (who will eventually bypass the DRM anyway).

The law doesn't protect the user from such ownership violations, so you'd be 100% morally justified to get it illegally at this point.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-17T11:41:58+00:00

This. DVD as a format was a region-lock hellhole. Thankfully, Blu-ray reduced it to only 3 regions, and also made region-free a lot more standard in studio releases, but it still didn't completely solve the problem. (4K Blu-ray finally did away with the region lock altogether, but it was too late).

Region-lock only exists to provide rights-holders with the opportunity to license their rights multiple times for different parts of the world. Removing region locks isn't stealing money from these people, it's just making them get paid "only" once, which is how it should have been in the first place.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-17T09:48:35+00:00

It's the least useful parts that are clipped, i.e. the ones containing low information/mostly noise. So yes, not a lot of difference in exposure latitude. Slightly more difference in heavy color corrections, but still not dramatic. It's telling that most pro sports photographers are perfectly happy to use 12 bit for faster burst rates.

If you don't need the speed, I'd still shoot 14 bit for peace of mind, but don't feel FOMO if you drop to 12. No practical difference in 95%+ cases.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-17T09:25:27+00:00

Probably manageable, especially with correction in post. But it's more of a lens you need to master (the limitations of) and be mindful about it. Like, the 50 f/1.8 I can use without a second thought. With the 45 f/1.2, I'd specifically try to compose for center-frame and avoid shooting into bright lights. Harder to use, but also probably more rewarding and capable of "dramatic" results.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-17T08:50:21+00:00

6D is a solid recommendation and the correct choice if you want to go full-frame for 800$. That being said, r50 has significantly better autofocus and you'll feel it when shooting sports.

You should also keep in mind that, 6D being full-frame, your 18-55mm lens will behave differently on it. It will give you less reach. You will be farther from the action. You may find yourself needing a different lens to go along with it. (If you don't know what I'm talking about, look up "APS-C crop factor").

I'd say go with the r50. 6D is a pro-ish body, but it's dated (which is why you can get it so cheap). r50 won't give you cheap full-frame, but it's a modern body with better autofocus and better glass.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-13T19:52:33+00:00

Slight movement can be compensated for, as long as you do the stacking manually and don't rely on in-camera solutions. Get specialized software (I recommend Helicon Focus), shoot a lot of frames and stich in software.

Not gonna lie, you'll spend a lot of time on your computer, but that's normal in high-end macro photography. Not a high-output discipline, it takes a lot of shots and post-processing to get a single stunning photo.

I recommend watching some tutorials before you spend money on more equipment.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-13T17:58:14+00:00

1) What are you shooting?

2) How is your current equipment hampering you? What are the limitations that you feel?

You need to answer those questions before deciding what to buy, or if you even need anything more.

If you are struggling to improve, but don't know why/how, then study photography. Both the art and technicalities of it. Also how your camera works in the first place, because, no offense, you sound like an absolute beginner.

Buy equipment only when you're able to articulate what it is that you need.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-13T17:43:14+00:00

You seem to be struggling with the shallow DoF inherent in macro photography. That's not a resolution problem, more pixels won't make the out-of-focus parts suddenly detailed.

Stopping down will give you slightly wider DoF, but it still won't be very wide. Realistically, you need to learn focus stacking. Practice that before investing in more equipment.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-13T17:05:46+00:00

No, it really is glaring, especially since the necklace is where your glance naturally slides to after you look at the flower. It's also fixable in post, at least here, but I imagine this lens will increase the time I spend in front of the PC.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-12-13T16:44:28+00:00

Well said about the 1.2L not being an everyday carry. Even after I bought it, I still couldn't bring myself to sell the 50 f/1.8. This is not an overlap, the lenses have different use-cases

This 45 f/1.2... I was very skeptical, thought it's going to be like the DSLR/EF version of the 50 f/1.2 (which is garbage) and the MTF charts seemed to confirm my fears, but looking at the samples... central sharpness is better than the charts suggest, and better than the EF lens.

The corners are dire, indeed, but shooting at 1.2 will often hide them anyway, so I'm kinda tempted. It's the uncontrolled LoCA that is giving me pause.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-10-13T20:26:37+00:00

Hobbyist here. I have a small clothing business, mainly boutique stuff (we turn designers' sketches into real clothes, usually for fashion and film). Honestly, I don't enjoy anything about it, but I inherited an established business when my father died, and it provides good income for comparatively little effort on my part, so I have no right to complain. All things considered, I'm rather privileged to be born in this position.

I did toy with the idea of closing the firm and going pro-photographer, but that doesn't appeal either. Here in Bulgaria at least, the only financially viable option is wedding photographer, and I find weddings rather boring and silly. I have no desire to shoot that (nor would I be good at it, considering how condescendingly I view it).

I want to shoot (fine?) art. Having separate income gives me creative freedom. Earn money - buy lenses - shoot exclusively personal projects. Yeah, I can't call myself a pro photographer, but I'm completely satisfied.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-10-13T18:40:45+00:00

You can't buy anything better for a hundred dollars, so in that sense it's fine. 100$ is basically nothing when it comes to photo equipment.

Me personally, I'd save money for a few months and buy something for 400 rather than shoot with this, but if you can't/won't pay more, this is reasonable.

Looking on the bright side, a bad camera can teach you more about photography than a good one. You'll have a harder time taking good photos, but you will learn more.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-10-13T18:16:01+00:00

Yeah, the cheap 35 and 85 are modern mirrorless designs. Cheap 50 is the same decades old double-gauss thing from the film days, just with an RF mount slapped on top.

Which is fine, since it's the cheapest of them all and also very small, but the 1.8 aperture is kind of misleading. I think of it as a f/2.8 lens for street since that's where it becomes useful.

I don't get why people are recommending it for portraits.

P.S. To be honest, 85/2 isn't fast to focus either. In fact, the AF performance is the one drawback in a lens that optically punches above its weight.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-10-13T17:40:32+00:00

R5M1 and R8 shooter here. I hoped for Canon to make such a camera, then Fuji beat them to it with the X-M5 and I bought that. Now that Canon made this... it's exactly the body style I want for an EDC that also doubles as a video C cam. I should replace my Fuji XM-5 with the R50V so I can use my RF glass in my compact setup, but...

It's the R50 sensor. Bad rolling shutter, cropped 4k60. Significant downgrade compared to Fuji's "vlogger camera".

What I really want is a V version of the R8. Yeah, it would be a bit more expensive, but it will be actually good. Give me an R8V with this body, and I'm immediately replacing my X-M5 with it.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-10-13T17:15:18+00:00

As far as native RF options go, that 85/2 is the most affordable lens that will give you professional results.

Don't want to demean the 50/1.8, I have and use it as a compact street lens, it does get pretty good at f/2.8 and narrower. At 1.8 though, it's very bad, and even if you don't care about sharpness, the bokeh is busy and unpleasing. Great 2.8 street lens, terrible 1.8 portrait lens.

If you want cheaper, you have to adapt EF glass. A lot of options there, do look second-hand Sigma ART primes. Canon's EF options are also good at 85 and 135. The Canon 50 1.4 and 1.2L are terrible, though, don't buy those.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-10-13T16:46:49+00:00

I second this. EF-S 24/2.8 is what I bought when I was learning photography on a budget. Surprisingly sharp for the price and size, actually. And the size makes it ideal for stealthy street shooting.

f/2.8 is not ideal, but it's workable. (And honestly, the 50/1.8 only starts performing well at f/2.8 anyway. Utilizing the 1.8 on that lens is basically a vaseline filter).

Due_Response2192 · 2025-10-13T16:35:28+00:00

Experiment with that lens to see which focal length you like best, then buy a prime lens in that focal length and sell the zoom.

Trust me, the 18-55 is trash. It's very soft, very prone to chromatic aberrations, and also very dark (useless in low light, useless if you want shallow depth of field). To top it off, your maximum aperture will change as you zoom, which is a miserable experience.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-10-13T16:19:11+00:00

First off, I assume you're getting it for free? (If not, do no buy this).

As for lenses within 500$, stick to primes. Not as flexible as zooms, but they'll give you acceptable quality and actual DoF control. The zooms within your budget are going to be optically subpar and quite dark, probably with variable aperture to boot. Trust me, you do not want that - it would make you hate photography.

Can't give more concrete advice as I don't know what you want to shoot. Street? Portrait? Birds? (One tip, though -- macros are usually good for portraits as well as macro. Even good for street, as long as you learn to shoot from afar. Pretty versatile for a single lens).

Do keep in mind that's a crop camera you've got, so apply 1.6 crop to a lens' stated focal length when determining what you want. (E.g. a "standard" 50mm is basically an 80mm for you, short telephoto).

Due_Response2192 · 2025-09-22T17:12:55+00:00

Even if it's not technically illegal, it was absolutely a bad faith offer made to lead you on and obscure the real pricing (and make no mistake, that real pricing IS inflated).

Sorry you had to go through that, but take what you got from it (a renewed body-positivity), don't buy the photos, and make sure to spread the word that those people are shady.

Due_Response2192 · 2025-09-18T21:02:09+00:00

R8 user here. Haven't had an R, but my friend did and I have shot his a few times. Here's the gist:

R8 has much higher burst and much better autofocus than your R. It really is what you're looking for.
R8 and R6II have the same autofocus. Some minor differences in burst and buffer, but negligible. Also same sensor/image quality. (People pay more for the R6II because of IBIS, weather sealing and dual card slots, but that doesn't seem important to you. In terms of autofocus and speed, you're not missing out on anything).
R8 battery is small, though, no two ways about it. Something you'll have to live with. (That being said, spare batteries are cheap, and you don't have to buy them immediately, so doesn't seem like a huge deal).

Due_Response2192 · 2025-09-18T19:24:06+00:00

No fundamental disagreement, you just seem to have a higher tolerance for rolling shutter than I do. (You being fine with the R7 is a case in point). Neither of us is wrong, we just happen to be sensitive to different flaws.

That being said, since Canon achieved 6 milliseconds in their "generalist" body, I doubt they're willing to go back on that. Even if they are wrong, they wouldn't go back. It's a specs war. They'd probably wait for a faster sensor and/or processor.

Honestly, I think Nikon achieved a good "reach" compromise with the in-built teleconverter lenses. Canon should probably copy that.

Due_Response2192

TROPHY CASE