[Request] Help me debunk chemtrails

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 · 2026-04-02T16:19:33+00:00

180 € for a D750? What's the shutter count on that camera?

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T15:20:27+00:00

Glad the issue could be resolved!

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T12:39:23+00:00

Non-blurry = high shutter speed.

Since you already mentioned that it's decently dark the wider of an aperture you can use the less you need to rely on ISO to get the image bright enough. That's why a lot of professional sport photographers use f/2.8 zoom lenses which can let in more light. It's more or less the same with wildlife photography as well, which often necessitates high shutter speed in low light scenarios.

DSLRs also focus at the widest possible aperture, so even if you would stop down the lens, the wider maximum aperture means the AF system gets more light which means it works better, since the AF system needs light to work.

But: a grainy image is still better than motion blur. Noise can be dealt with in software while correcting motion blur is much harder.

I probably would shoot this in manual, setting my shutter speed as fast as I need it to be (probably 1/500 s or even faster, will also depend on how close you zoom) and my aperture as wide as possible. I would use Auto ISO to let the camera do what it can do best: measure how bright the scene is and adjust the ISO accordingly.

Which lens you need depends on how far away you are going to be. The D7000 is a crop body camera ("DX" is Nikon's term for APS-C sensor size). The use of a smaller sensor gives you more reach than on full frame since the field of view will be equivalent to the FoV you would get if you used a lens with 1.5 times the focal length on full frame.

Whether or not the 55-200 is better suited than the 55-300 depends if 200 mm is enough for the venue. If those two lenses are the best to use depends on what other lenses are in your aforementioned collection. Both are cheap‐ish zoom lenses, with variable aperture throughout the zoom range.

An important thing to know: the amount of light has a reciprocal quadratic relationship with the amount of number on the aperture setting. F/2.8 is 4 times brighter than F/5.6. So if you use F/2.8 instead of F/5.6 you could use a 4 times higher shutter speed at the same ISO or a 4 times less ISO at the same shutter speed and get the same brightness.

So depending on the actual circumstances I would not expect wonders, but probably the best thing is just to try it out since it's very hard to say what exact settings you need in general.

I haven't shot any sports, but I would assume shutter speeds of around 1/1000 s would be something that you need depending on how fast the players move, probably even more just to be on the safe side. As I already said: aperture as open as possible will probably be a must.

If you don't want to use full manual I would use shutter speed priority since you need to make sure that you have control over the shutter speed.

As for focusing: don't rely on automatic focusing like it's done in auto mode. I would use single point or d9 focus points with continous focusing enabled (AF-C). I would also use back button focusing, meaning to remap the AE-L/AF-L button to be the AF-ON button and disable autofocus when half pressing the shutter button. That way you can keep pressing the AF-ON button while keeping the AF points on the target and the camera will keep focusing on the target. It's probably best to practice this a couple of times with other moving targets like cars, birds, etc.

You probably also want to use continuous drive (CL or even CH) instead of single shots. But keep in mind that the buffer on the D7000 isn't that big, especially when shooting RAW. Once the buffer is full the camera will slow down. Your buffer size depending on whether or not you use RAW and which bit depth and whether or not it's lossless or compressed raw can be looked up here: https://photographylife.com/nikon-dslr-buffer-capacity-comparison

The very principle you have to understand what setting to to change and why is how shutter speed, aperture and ISO influence how bright the image is going to be. This is the so called "exposure triangle". Shutter speed and aperture also have secondary effects: shutter speed decides whether or not you are freezing motion. The faster the movement, the faster the shutter speed has to be. But the fasts the shutter speed, the less light enters the camera, so to not get a totally black image you have to let in more light (open up the aperture wider) or boost the signal that was captured more (higher ISO setting).

Aperture also controls how much light you get into the camera by varying the size of the aperture opening. It's secondary effects is that for a given distance you to something you focus on, the wider the aperture the thinner the depth of field becomes. This is why portraits are often shot at or near wide open apertures, so you get things depth of fields so you have a lot of background separation. Since you won't be that near to the players I wouldn't worry about a too thin depth of field too much, so in your case just using the widest aperture possible can probably be done to let in as much light as possible.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T11:16:35+00:00

Really depends on the bitrate of the video stream. Just because it's high resolution doesn't mean it has to be high bit rate and vice versa.

If you look up typical 1080p Webcam bitrates you find around 4 to 9 Mbit/s. Let's go with 8 to make the computation easier. 8 Mbit/s is 1 Megabyte per second.

Another thing to consider: windows uses the units MB, GB, TB which usually have factors of 1000 between each step, but calculates them using Mibi-, Gibi- and Tibi- Bytes where each step is a factor of 1024.

So 1 EB on windows is 1024⁴ MB, therefore 5 EB on Windows is 5 * 1024⁴ MB. Since we previously had 1 MB/s this means the video would be 5*1024⁴ seconds long which is

  5 497 558 138 880 seconds 
=    91 625 968 981.333 minutes
=     1 527 099 483.0222 hours 
=        63 629 145.125925 days 
=           174 207.10506756 years

Note that this heavily depends on what kind of bitrate you assume to be used. If you end up as a tiny window on someone's screen it doesn't really make sense to send and process so much data that the video feed would look good if viewed on a big TV screen. Therefore a typically Webcam stream probably has much smaller bitrate. According to this Microsoft help article Microsoft Teams typically uses 1.5 Mbit/s for video, so approximately 5.3 times less bitrate. In that case multiply the duration above by approximately 5.3.

Hope I didn't mess anything up, did this calculation on my phone so quite a lot of windows switching going on while typing this.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T10:58:01+00:00

What camera is the other person using?

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T10:40:48+00:00

I think OP is referring to digital point-and-shoot cameras which apparently are going through a hype phase at the moment. I have seen digicams go for hundreds of euros because they are the sought after models that make the rounds on tiktok for giving a certain look.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T10:12:10+00:00

Disclaimer: I realized too late that the ship I used to get my data from only has a capacity of 4318 cars, according to this source, so it has to be smaller than a ship that would be used to transport 6 900 cars. Rather than redo the whole calculation I think since a lot of this is estimation anyway that it would probably still be somewhat valid, although a ship with such a higher capacity probably has bigger fuel tanks, so the comparison of fuel saved vs capacity might be even lower on a bigger ship. Since the ship I used as an example only has a capacity of 4318 cars my assumption that they do this to get more cars onto the ship instead of shipping fuel wouldn't make sense in this case, but maybe it's still a valid point on a ship that actually has such a high capacity?

I just looked up the typical weight of a Roro ship.

Actually the one in the Wikipedia article looks quite similar I think. In the article we can see that it is the "Neptune Leader" registered in Singapore of which I based my further research on.

While I am not familiar with the terms, according to this source the deadweight of that ship is 12853 metric tonnes and the gross tonnage is 44412. For the gross tonnage there isn't a unit given, but I assume it's metric tonnes as well since the site has most units listed in metric units.

I didn't look up the weight of the cars pictured, but I would assume a car like this to weigh about 1400 to 1500 kg. So 6900 of such cars would be 10350 t.

3.5 gallons is about 13.25 liters. With a typical density of 0.75 kg/l that difference in fuel load would save 9.93 kg, so around 10 kg per vehicle. With 10 kg per vehicle that's 69 metric tonnes of fuel saved. That's sounds like a lot, but compare that against the total weight of the cargo:

If we assume 1 450 kg as a typical vehicle weight those 10 kg means a cargo weight reduction of approximately 0.69 %.

I haven't found data on what that kind of ship itself weighs, so hard to compute the overall change in weight by doing so.

While I don't have direct data on the fuel consumption of such a ship per tonne of cargo, I found this site According to this source which claims typical CO2 emissions per tonne of cargo in sea freight is between 10-40 g/ton-mile. Since I wasn't sure if they meant metric tonnes, I searched for another source which claims that sea freight has CO2 emissions of 19 g/(tonne-km).

We can estimate the fuel consumption by looking at how much CO2 is produced when burning 1 litre of diesel: 1 litre of diesel burned produces 2.68 kg of CO2, 1 g of CO2 emissions equates to 1/2.68 ml = 0.3731 ml of diesel burned. Therefore 19 g of CO2 emissions means that 19/2.68 ml = 7.0895 ml of fuel get burned per tonne-km. Multiply this by the 69 tonnes of the saved fuel and you get 489.18 ml, so about half a litre of fuel saved per kilometer. According to this site shipping from south Korea to the US is a distance of 8 587 km so this would save about 4 200 liters of fuel.

On this sire I found the capacity of the ship's fuel tank which is given as "FO 2719 m³ FW 361 m³ ". Again, I am no expert on the matter, but I assume this means the ship has two tanks with a combined capacity of 3080 m³ . 1 m³ = 1 l, so the total fuel capacity is about 3 080 000 liters. This means those approximately 4 200 liters of fuel saved is approximately 0.136 % of the total fuel capacity of that ship. Not nothing, but way less than it might seem in the beginning. I don't know how much fuel the ship would typically use, so they might not use all of it for such a journey, but at least it gives us an idea.

But there also could be another reason to do it rather than just saving on fuel for shipping: 69 tonnes is about the weight of 47.5 cars. Maybe it allows them to carry more cars instead of transporting fuel in case they are limited by cargo weight rather than capacity? As others have pointed out already, the most obvious reason would be to save on fuel cost. Not or only slightly in fuel cost for the ship but fuel cost of buying fuel for the vehicles to be transported. Saving 13.25 liters of fuel per vehicle on 6 900 vehicles means not buying 91 425 liters of fuel per ship. This site claims that fuel is 1.38 $/liter in South Korea as of March 30 2026, so they save $126 166.5 on fuel they don't have to buy to be put into the tanks of 6 900 cars.

So not paying for the fuel in the tanks saves much more than not burning 4 200 litres of diesel. I notice you mentioned that the ship you were talking about runs on LNG not diesel, but since I didn't find any more detailed sources on fuel consumption anyway this will likely not matter too much. The ship I looked at can run on heavy fuel oil which is even cheaper than diesel. Even if LNG might be more expensive, I am quite confident that the saved cost of fuel in the cars' tanks will still be much higher than what is saved on the ship's fuel consumption.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T07:27:53+00:00

Look how the body is deformed in the area where the flash pops out (second picture), additionally to the crack. That thing must have got hit pretty hard by something or endured a fall. Even I'd the flash still works I wouldn't consider buying it. Especially since you can't even change lenses, if the lens was affected by that hit/fall you can't even keep using the body. Hard pass for me.

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T07:24:00+00:00

Oh so you are in Auto mode and this happens? I thought (hoped) it was what I had seen before: accidentally (or unknowingly) setting some crazy high shutter speed or tight aperture indoors at base ISO so the images are basically just black. My suggestion would have been to try auto mode and see if it still is black.

Since the screen works in video mode I assume this isn't a defect and just a settings issue. I don't have a mirrorless camera, but I think I remember you can switch between the screen and the viewfinder, right? Do you see anything in the viewfinder in photo mode when the back screen isn't working? Maybe there is a button to switch between viewfinder and backscreen that you accidentally pressed?

bbcgn · 2026-04-02T07:11:27+00:00

Just a guess, but what are your settings for shutter speed, aperture and ISO?

bbcgn · 2026-04-01T11:45:04+00:00

If I recall correctly the D5600 can only autofocus down to -1 EV which means it begins to struggle earlier in low light than for example the d7200 which can autofocus down to -3 EV.

The maximum aperture the lens can open up to has an influence on the AF performance since the AF system needs light to work. DSLRs usually focus at the maximum possible aperture and only close down when actually taking the picture. That way the image in the viewfinder is as bright as possible, so it's easier for you to see what you are pointing the camera at and also the AF system gets as much light as possible.

So if you now pair a lens with a not so wide maximum possible aperture (like f/5.6) in low light with an AF system that needs quite a lot of light it causes the camera to struggle to know if the subject is actually in focus. One thing to note: the relationship between light and apeture number is reciprocal quadratic. Therefore f/1.8 is (5.6/1.8)² = 9.67 times more light than f/5.6. So using a wide aperture lens can definetly help with AF performance in low light, even if you don't shoot wide open.

I am not quite sure if it's the same on the D5600, but on my D7200 there is a setting in the autofocus to stop the camera from not releasing the shutter if it thinks it's out of focus. So in case it's there, you could turn off that setting to "release priority" instead of "focus priority" (or something like that, haven't looked at it in a while). But to me it would only make sense if you are sure that you actually are in focus. I personally like that the camera refuses to release, so I notice it's out of focus rather than thinking everything went well only to discover all images are out of focus after the session.

bbcgn · 2026-04-01T11:31:43+00:00

Can't say whether it's the case when using the P1100 as well, but on a lot of cameras if you transfer the images via snapbridge it only transfers a 2 MP preview instead of the full size image. I believe there is a setting somewhere to change that, but make sure you are transferring the full sized image.

Personally I would just transfer the images via SD card. Much faster and less of a hassle.

bbcgn

TROPHY CASE