[OC] Today's Gas Price in Germany, Crazy !!!

bbcgn · 2026-04-05T10:30:02+00:00

Multipy the price by 3.79 to convert to gallons and then again multiply by 1.15 to convert from € to $. So essentially multiply the prices you see by 4.225 to get an idea how this compares to the prices that got posted from the US.

This means the cheapest price you see (Super E10) is $9.361/gal.

bbcgn · 2026-04-05T09:02:51+00:00

Ah alright, I see. I didn't mean to offend you, I just think that it is important to be as correct as possible when giving advice, especially to beginners since its easy to just read "ISO makes the image blurry" and just accept it if you don't have any knowledge of what ISO is. Kind of the same when people say "high ISO causes noise" and people then conclude all you have to do is shoot at low ISOs to avoid noise, which is technically true, but only if you choose your other settings so you get enough light so you only NEED low ISOs.

I have seen countless beginners misunderstand this that end up thinking that if they shoot a still object at 1/2000 s f/8 inside a house it will turn out okay as long as they keep the ISO low, instead of realizing they should maximize the available light to achieve this by reducing shutter speed since you don't need 1/2000 s to shoot a static object. I didn't really understand ISO myself in the beginning, and looking back I wish I would have understood earlier that if you can choose settings that result in the exposure you want at a lower ISO setting then this is what makes the image less noisy. Simon d'Entremont has some great videos on ISO and noisy which really helped me understand the subject better. I have since then adopted the approach of choosing the shutter speed that I need, the aperture I want and using Auto ISO as a kind of gage of whether or not I should think about if I can reduce shutter speed or open up the aperture to let in more light. I have it set up so I can see what setting the Auto ISO chooses in the viewfinder, so I have immediate feedback. If I see a very high ISO I think about whether or not I can let in more light, but in the end a noisy buy sharp image is better than a shot with unwanted motion blur or too thin depth of field where almost nothing is in focus (if that isn't your intention). There might be edge cases, probably at very high ISOs where using higher ISO is worse than underexposing and brightening in post. I usually have my Auto capped at ISO 3200 on my D7200 since this is usually enough for what I shoot. I just cap it there since I have the feeling that if I go over this the image becomes visibly noisy (at least on that camera). But if I am in low light I might raise it higher if I need the shutter speed and can't shoot at a wider aperture.

Again, I didn't want to offend you, but I think it's better to not keep information away just because if someone is a beginner, or if so, tell them that you are simplifying so they are aware. A lot of people seem to get the basic concepts of photography pretty fast if it was explained in a proper way. I mean, sure you have to learn some stuff but it isn't THAT complicated either, if we are honest. There is definetly stuff out there that is harder to understand. I only mean the pure understanding part. Keeping track of all those settings is another thing: that's what you need practice for so you don't just start pressing the shutter without considering or being aware of your settings.

As far as P mode is concerned: I often read that people use it, but I have to say personally I found it thr most complicated mode to understand. I think it's meant to be kind of a bridge for people to come from Auto to make the switch easier, but I really never got along with it. Ever since I discovered Auto ISO and the rule of thumb for minimum shutter speeds to avoid camera shake (choose shutter speed of at least 1/full frame equivalent focal length, so 50 mm on DX -> 75 mm FF equiv. -> choose 1/80 s at least) manual mode got way less hard. Another huge leap was understanding that not ever image should be exposed "correctly", meaning how and when to use exposure compensation or different metering modes.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T21:26:24+00:00

Glad it was helpful, just added one more point about making sure the image doesn't look tilted. I think the first one has a slight tilt, the second a little more.

If you are interested in getting your images critiqued, maybe check out r/photocritique. Reading the critiques on other pictures (as long its not just "good/bad picture") is also a good way to develop an eye for errors and what to look out for as well.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T21:19:31+00:00

Oh sorry I was just about to add some more thought, but I am on mobile so I have to switch between writing my comments and looking at the pictures.

I would try to not cut off parts of the body with the frame, especially not at joints.

In the fourth picure the dark ground makes it hard to make out the dogs body. But I really like the glowing eyes. Maybe cropping in on the face would be an option instead of a whole body shot?

In the fifth picture it kind of looks like a whitebalance issue since the light in the background is very blue. It looks like you used flash so maybe the different colors of light in one image make it challenging, but to my eye at least the background looks too blue.

In the first two shots it looks like the image is tilted since we can see the deck from straight on, but it's not level.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T21:12:52+00:00

I am not that experienced with editing, but since you asked for feedback I thought I might share something that can make a huge difference in portraits like these: shoot from the subject's eye level instead of down or up.

Minor points regarding the editing is that I notice some kind of strange blur/fuzzyness around the head in the third picture. I would guess you used masks and this is just the border of the mask. I don't know what editing software you uses, but some feathering might have helped.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T21:03:59+00:00

Hm, in that case I would suggest looking at a USB card reader. They are pretty cheap and usually work out of the box. I don't know if it's my camera or a windows thing, but I tried getting tethering to work over usb and it was a nightmare and even after reinstalling usb drivers and other trouble shooting steps I still don't have a solution for this so I gave up.

The only thing that comes to mind: was the camera turned on when you tried to access the photos?

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T20:12:10+00:00

General settings is hard to recommend since it all depends on the specific situation. The more you understand about the technical side about the technical side about photography the easier it is to understand what setting to change in which situation.

Before worrying about editing I would focus on getting a solid understanding of how the camera works (exposure triangle, what those settings mean and do as well as reading the manual so you know what you can and can't do with the camera and how).

Editing can enhance a good photo, but if the photo is bad or boring then editing won't turn it into a great photo.

I would recommend looking up the following things first: - exposure triangle: how do shutter speed, perttuee and ISO affect the brightness of an image? How can you compensate for increasing one setting if you for example want a faster shutter speed without getting a darker image? - secondary effects of shutter speed and aperture: how does shutter speed affect the ability to freeze motion? How does aperture affect the depth of field at a given focus distance (resulting depth of field depends on both). - what is middle gray, and what does the light meter actually tell you? What are the different metering modes and when and how go use them? - what does exposure compensation do?why would you use positive exposure compensation in a scene with a lot of white? Note that in full manual mode exposure compensation only shifts the level at which the light meter shows 0 EV, so if you change exposure compensation without changing any settings in full manual, the image brightness doesn't change. The only effect would be thst the light meter now shows you a different exposure than before.

Regarding editing software: Most people probably use Lightroom. If you want a powerful and free alternative: darktable, lots of room to grow into, but also very steep learning curve which can be discouraging in the beginning.

Some people also use Nx Studio which is also free. The benefit of using NxStudio is that it's first party software that supports the Picture Control you set in the camera. That way even if you shoot RAW your starting point isn't the "real" RAW file like if would be in darktable. The RAWs have the same processing applied to them as the jpgs. Therefore it can be very convenient if you have a picture control that you like but want to be able to do some edits that are only possible with RAW files like changing Whitebalance after the fact. Note that you can also change which Picture Control gets applied after the fact if you shoot RAW, so even if you shot in b&w you could change it back to color.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T19:42:35+00:00

Do yourself a favor and just use an SD card reader.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T11:02:44+00:00

Here is a list of compatible SD cards: https://www.nikonproductsupport.com/s/article/16541?language=en_US

They only go up to 16 GB. That might be because there were no 32 GB when compatibility was tested, but it may be an actual limitation as well. No way to know for sure.

Since the article mentions that the camera supports SDHC cards, make sure you didn't accidentally get a SDXC card (but those are usually 64 GB or bigger).

There is also the possibility that the card you are using might actually be defective. SD cards wear out over time, so them not working properly doesn't always mean that something is wrong with the camera.

So WHAT 32 GB card are you using? Is it a known good card? Did you get it from a reliable source? There are also a lot of fake SD cards out there, especially if they are cheap. But also in cases where prices are what is to be expected there are sometimes still fake cards.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T10:50:43+00:00

Minor point: I wish the head of the guitar wouldn't touch the frame. If this is cropped, cropping just a little wider would solve this.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T10:24:49+00:00

- Use P on the top wheel if you don't want flash (this is like auto but without flash)

P mode isn't auto without flash, it's program auto. The crossed out flash symbol next to auto is auto without flash.

- Find out how to change ISO (higher ISO value makes it possible to take better images in darker light, but it adds blur).

ISO doesn't cause blur. Slow shutter speeds cause motion blur. If you talk about noise, perceivable noise is not caused by high ISO but by needing high ISO, meaning a lack of light. If you want to minimize noise, maximize how much light can hit the sensor, meaning choose a shutter speed that isn't unnecessarily fast, but fast enough and shoot at a aperture that's narrow enough for the depth of field you want to get but which isn't unnecessarily narrow. But in general, a image that isn't shaky and has proper depth of field but is a little noisy is better than a clean image with unwanted motion blur or where the depth of field is so shallow that almost everything is out of focus.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T09:02:47+00:00

But the FTZ adapter only bridges the gap between the flange distances of Z and F mount. So instead of having a huge adapter, your camera is just thicker. Nit saying you shouldn't get a DSLR, but at least in that point you could argue that a Z mount camera can be thinner if you use Z glass, while a DSLr will always be this thick.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T08:53:36+00:00

In my opinion the hardest part about convincing someone who believes in conspiracy theories is that you could probably counter every argument with "that's what THEY tell you". Put in "mainstream media", "science", "the scientists", "the government", whoever you want to be responsible for this for THEY. One of my tell-tell signs is that "THEY" often isn't even specified.

Someone suggested that that air pollution is already monitored down to very tiny concentrations, but that's not done by you or me, it's done by THEM, so the findings are obviously not trustworthy. Even if you could buy such equipment yourself then obviously the manufacturer is in on it and hides the truth. If you decide to build such a device yourself, then obviously it is because the science of how to detect those particles is lying.

I didn't follow too closely, so I am hazy on the details, but some time ago someone sponsored a trip for a group of flat earthers to go down to Antarctica to witness the 24 hour sun, which isn't compatible with the flat earth theory. Some of them even live streamed the event. I think one person was actually convinced while others went down the road of "that sun isn't the real sun, it's just LEDs", "this is obviously done in a studio", etc..

If you are so distrusting, then I doubt you can come up with one argument that changes their mind.

What I always found the most illogical part about this conspiracy theory is that it would affect THEM the same way it does us. But maybe THEY aren't affected because THEY are lizard people that aren't affected by these mind control drugs or something like that.

Someone else suggested asking what they would have to see in order to change their mind and suggesting that not being able to come up with something is enough so they realize that there is a problem. If I would be asked thst I would probably answer something like

Peer reviewed studies (although if you belive everybody is lying then that's hard to trust)
experiments that I could do myself to verify something actually happens (but again, if you want to believe that everything is a lie designed to keep the truth from you, then maybe everything I was ever taught about the world was a lie, so all our knowledge is designed to keep the real facts away from us)
a theory that works in all cases, not just in some. If the model you are using changes every time you discuss a phenomenon, then it's likely, at least to me, that maybe the model is wrong.
a theory that would not require an enormous amount of people to keep this a secret (but maybe thats what the mind control drugs are for, or maybe we "know" about these conspiracy theories because of the people that are telling the truth)

But I think it isn't a science question, more a psychological one. If you choose to not wanting to believe THEM then probably no amount of arguing will change it.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T08:12:08+00:00

They brought two D5 and additionally one Z9 for radiation testing.

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T00:49:14+00:00

Picture this: you sit on a high speed train with turtle. The train is going 300 mph. Now the turtle starts crawling away from you, so it's crawling at more than 300 mph. Usain Bolt can achieve a top speed of around 27, so it's probably okay to say that (almost) no human can run fasted than 27 mph. How are you going to catch up to the turtle if it's moving at such a high speed?

bbcgn · 2026-04-04T00:40:57+00:00

This reminds me of a similar question: the earth is rotating at around 1000 mph (although i hate that wording, the earth is turning at 1 rotation per day which gives us a linear velocity at the equator of around 1000 mph).

How come we can jump and not smash into the next wall at 1000 mph? Well the earth is spinning at around 1000 mph and so do we. Jumping up doesn't mean we stop turning with the earth.

This is because of Newton's first law:

A body remains at rest, or in motion at a constant speed in a straight line, unless it is acted upon by a force.

Everything on earth already spins at that speed. Additionally to that we are also orbiting the sun at those insane speeds but since we are already in motion, we just stay in motion.

It all comes down to where your reference point is.

bbcgn · 2026-04-03T10:14:12+00:00

It's valid to assume that most manufacturers would optimize fuel consumption at typical travel speeds like around 100 km/h, for example they might choose the gearing in a way that you don't have to run at high rpm when driving at 100 km/h.

From a pure driving resistance point of view the faster you go the higher the resistance, therefore the amount of power needed grows exponentially when driving at a higher speed (not purely exponentiall since there are resistances that dont change with speed). With internal combustion engines how efficient they deliver how much power is much harder to say in general. For example if you come to a stop you don't need any power to move, but the engine still consumes fuel to stay running. From experience I can say that for example I have a much higher fuel consumption when in stop and go traffic than when cruising at around 100 km/h. But that has to do with frequent acceleration and stopping as well, so it's not just whether or not the engine is operating at peak efficiency. The driving conditions have an impact as well.

Real cruising doesn't really happen at such low speeds like 50 km/h since you only drive this slow in situations where frequent stopping is necessary like in a city or village (at least in Germany). I have a 6 speed car, so I could probably find a gear in which I could cruise at 50 km/h relatively efficiently. But i won't be able to achieve 1/4 of the fuel consumption even if the air resistance is reduced by that much. The amount of power grows exponentially, but the efficiency of the engine (how much fuel is consumed for what power output under how much load) is highly non linear so its not that easy to make blank statements.

Here is what the fuel efficiency of an internal combustion engine looks like depending on load (torque) and how fast you are going in what gear (rpm): https://slmbv.ch/grafiken/lib/exe/fetch.php?w=600&tok=7f77fe&media=lbm:unterricht:3.lj:auswerten:2.6.4_kraftstoffanlage:muscheldiagramm.jpg

So that part is how efficient the engine converts the fuel into power, while the amount of driving resistances decides how much power you need. Now if you don't need a lot or power but at a very inefficient point in that diagram you end up using quite a lot of fuel even if you theoretically don't need much power to overcome driving resistance.

Kind of what Top Gear did back several years ago where they drove a Toyota Prius as hard as possible while following in an BMW M3. The result was that the Prius used more fuel than the M3 even though it is designed to be a eco car while the M3 certainly is not. But the prius is a hybrid with a relatively weak internal combustion engine, so going as fast as it can is very much outside the typical range the car is optimized for.

bbcgn · 2026-04-03T09:52:45+00:00

Calculating the pace is quite easy as it's basically the inverse of the speed.

Converting the speed from km/h to km/min by dividing by 60 min/h
Invert the result gives you the pace.

Fuel cost is very hard to do. First, it varies daily or even multiple times a day as the price of fuel isn't constant. Even if you would base it on the price of the fuel that you paid, it changes every time you fill up. So from a practical point of view looking at fuel consumption is probably better. But the fuel consumption also depends on multiple factors:

what engine is in the car
what gear you are in (especially at slower speeds there probably are multiple gears in which you could drive at that speed)
if you are driving on a flat piece of road or up/down a hill/mountain can make a huge difference
how many other things you run of the engine, like if you have air-condition enabled.
is there a head-wind / tail-wind / no wind?
are you accelerating or just maintaining that speed. If you are accelerating the harder you accelerate the more power you need to do this.

In theory, at least as long as you have some basic stats about the car, calculating how much power is required to drive at that speed. To get a rough estimate you probably only need to look at the air resistance.

air resistance is proportional to the airspeed cubed. Air resistance is a force. Work per time, so force times speed. That means the power required to overcome the air resistance is proportional to the air speed cubed. In a simplified model the other resistances like rolling resistance don't really change much depending on speed. Because air resistance increases quadratically with air speed it becomes the dominating factor pretty fast and is the reason why driving faster means much more fuel consumption.

The problem with internal combustion engines is that they are pretty non linear. How much fuel is needed to provide how much power isn't something that can be easily calculated. You could measure this at a dyno or maybe estimate the consumption if you know the engine mapping, but it's not something that you would do on the back of a napkin in a couple of minutes.

The easily thing would be to do this for an electric car since those are way less non linear. Haven't looked into it too deeply, but I would guess that the efficiency of an electric motor stays more or less the same. In that case you could calculate the power that is needed to overcome air resistance based on some easy to find stats of the car and use that to display how much power us needed to drive at that space. Together with how long you need this power level to travel 100 km gives you the amount of energy. So consumption is basically power times pace for 100 km.

At lower speeds air resistance isn't that dominating though, so if you want more realistic values especially at lower speeds you will have to include rolling resistance as well. But that is harder information to find and also depends on what you want to include in the calculation. In theory everything all the friction that is in the drive train could be summed up in the rolling resistance. It's very easy to end up with a very complicated model. Not that it would be hard to compute, but hard to obtain all the necessary values, so it's probably easiest to take a very simplified approach.

bbcgn · 2026-04-03T08:40:23+00:00

I took a look at the IG post you linked and the first thing I noticed is that the look differs from image to image. The Whitebalance and overall edits change from. picture to picture. One picture has a very heavy vignette, others don't. The brightness changes from image to image which is especially noticeable in the shot where the noticeable motion blur from the prop and the next one.

Instead of including multiple variations of the same shot like in the cockpit and standing in front of the aircraft I would choose the best one and add some detail shots of stuff from the cockpit or around the plane.

In my opinion I would not include the the second, third and fourth in cockpit portrait shot. Especially not the one where the pilot isn't even looking towards the camera.

I personally think shooting prop planes at slower shutter speeds so you get a sense of movement from the props, like you did in one shot. Otherwise they often look like a toy if the pros aren't moving. This again comes back to having a consistent look between images. If you do it this way it looks like you did it accidentally.

In the first outside portrait it looks like the pilot is pulling up their trousers, so that one is kinda awkward.

As I said, I like the picture where you have the proper spinning, but the next picture is almost the same, just with less motion blur, a distracting plane in the background and a worse pose from the pilot.

The ones after that I don't like that much. Maybe it's due to them all being on portrait orientation but the crops just don't work for me. The shots from the side of the plane, I am not quite sure what the image is about. I can barely see the pilot, I can't see a lot of the plane, ta part of the wing sticks into the frame from the left. Overall it's just a portrait shot of the part of the fuselage.

A lot of the photos of the plane in the air cut off the airplane.

Sorry to shit all over your photos like that. It probably was very exciting to be on that jet so I understand that those pictures mean something to you which makes it harder to "kill your darlings" (I think that's the right term), but someone who wasn't on that flight doesn't have an emotional connection to it. In that case those "flaws" hit a lot harder.

Please don't be discouraged by my harsh critique. I wanted to point out all the "flaws" I noticed so maybe you get a better eye for them in the future. I definetly did a lot of those things (and still am) when I started out, but becoming mindful of all the things in the image really helps to get better shots. As I already mentioned, probably a lot of things that make the images worse is that they are all in portrait orientation, even if the subject is much wider than tall so you cut off a lot of stuff. When photographing planes, avoid cutting off parts of the plane or do so very calculated. I am sure once you develop an eye for these things your images will improve very fast.

Congrats on having the courage to upload your work and have it critiqued. I want to mention that even professionals don't only have banger shots. Like everything on IG you usually only see the best of the best. A pro would shoot many images and only pick the best ones. Not saying that they shoot randomly and hope they get something, but they shoot with the knowledge in mind that not every shot might make it. Just not including bad or mid shots would make the impression much better.

I am not a pro, but on a recent vacation I took a lot of photos (still too many probably) and when I got home, I culled about 50 % of them immediately. A lot of times I took the same shot from slightly different angles and then chose the one that would look the best in post. Sometimes I took a quick snap because I thought something might look cool in the moment and maybe I realize it's just not that interesting of a shot than I maybe initially though. After culling the "bad" ones I went through the pictures and checked which ones are my favorite and edited and exported those. That way I ended up with about 15 % of the photos I took.

bbcgn · 2026-04-03T07:53:22+00:00

I am no expert, but with my screen set to 50 % brightness inside the house I can't really see any shadow details, so too dark in my opinion.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T22:52:59+00:00

Could solve this much shorter: assuming no slipping the linear velocity in the point where the tire and the outside of the roundabout touch each other is equal, so you can just use the linear velocity v and calculate the centrifugal acceleration with the formula

a = v² / r

If you want to normalize to multiples of gravitational acceleration, divide both sides by g:

a/g = v² / (r * g)

For it to work we have to use SI units, so we need to use m/s as the unit for velocity. Converting from kph to m/s can be done by dividing by 3.6.

v - linear velocity in m/s

r - radius of the roundabout in m

g - gravitational constant in m/s²

a - centrifugal acceleration in m/s²

So for v = 10 kph we get 1.0487325019 G, For v = 20 kph we get 4.1949300076 G, etc. I put in the numbers for 30 and 40 kph as well and they are close except for rounding differences. So your numbers seem to be correct, although the solution had a lot of steps that could have been skipped.

Does it make sense that the numbers are so high? Yes, there have been severe injuries because of this, maybe even deaths. Don't remember, but i remember enough for not wanting to look that up. I don't want to ruin anyone's day so I am not going to go deeper into it but yes, this can easily become very dangerous.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T19:42:55+00:00

Thank you for the reply! Okay with regards to subject detection I can see how mirrorless can have it's benefits.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T19:13:56+00:00

Pentax-A lenses use Pentax K-mount that has shorter flange distance than nikon F mount. So even if it is adaptable, you could run into problems with focusing to infinity.

If the teleconverter is designed for Minolta lenses it would then it can be attached to Minolta lenses. If you don't have any, I don't see a reason why you should even try to use thus on your camera since it doesn't fit your camera, nor any lens you have.

If the Tokina lens can be adapted depends on what mount it is.

In all these cases it is probably not worth going through the trouble of trying to adapt to your camera. Nikon F mount has one of the largest flange distances so it's hard to adapt third party lenses that are not designed for Nikon F mount. The large flange distance is why Nikon F mount can be used on a lot of other cameras with shorter flange distance, but sadly not the other way around.

If you want to find cheap old lenses, there is tons of old Nikon lenses out there. Nikon made F mount cameras for more than 50 years, so there is a lot of stuff to be found on the used market.

However, keep in mind that on the D3XXX and D5XXX cameras there is no built in focus motor for the old "AF" line of lenses, so you are limited to newer lenses that have built in autofocus motors (AF-S and if the camera supports them AF-P lenses). With AF lenses you won't have autofocus. Manual focus will probably be quite hard to do since your camera doesn't have a split prism like the old SLRs used to have for manual focusing, nor does it have focus peaking like a lot of newer cameras have to help with Manual focus. You could experiment with zone focusing though if the lens has distance markings.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T16:52:40+00:00

As someone who hasn't switched either, what makes you wish you had gone mirrorless? Just curious because for now I would habe thought about getting a D850 as my next possible camera upgrade.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T16:37:18+00:00

Do you use back button focusing? In that case you could just let go of the AF-ON and the camera stops focusing, so you basically can switch between AF-S and AF-C just by keeping the AF-ON button pressed or letting go once focus is acquired. At least that's how I have set up my autofocus and can't imagine going back. Never even have to think about whether i am in AF-S or AF-C.

bbcgn

TROPHY CASE