Who's your lensfu, /p/?

Here’s my Voigtlander on one of my Leicas.

Attached: 9DEBEA98-CD5A-4276-A684-6AE047EC10E9.jpg (3264x2448, 1.52M)

I-is it bad if I only have a bridge camera and an old nikon (still uses film) for which I can't find batteries anywhere?

fpbp

Since iam poor boi.
Vintage: helios 44-2 58/2, Adapted to MFT projector lens po-109-1a 50/1.2
MFT: Panasonic 25/1.7

You can use pretty much any old 1.5v coin cell that'll fit probably, I've made adapters with a bit of tinfoil to fuel my old cameras.

Eventually you won't actually need a meter at all and you can just shoot without one.

How does this help against the Jews?

>dem russian lenses
Isn't Meopta making plenty of fine lenses?

My 35mm Nikon lens I got for like $40. Its nice to not worry about Arroyo g around an expensive camera. D3000 + 35mm primer is good enough for me.

the battery compartment is shaped like ass cheeks.

>give us a wide reflection of your surroundings

Attached: raf,750x1000,075,t,101010_01c5ca27c6.jpg (750x1000, 21K)

fpbp

Ah, that's a CR2A I think, you should be able to find it easy. 6v lithium I believe.

>Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6, widest full frame lens ever made

Attached: .png (887x632, 249K)

Fuck off loser get the fuck out of my industry

Yes I checked pictures online, that's the name. Thank you so much, I had no idea what to look for

Huh, haven't been 35mm lens shopping in a long time. Neat.

Jow Forums is always right user, my pleasure

>with this lens I can take a picture of my own asshole while standing up
>i'm pretty popular on grindr

only for Sony

Attached: .png (800x653, 176K)

Fuck Sony though.

And why is that?

Attached: .png (775x1261, 462K)

I inherited few vintage lenses from grandpa. And helios was one of them. And also got one good gem Zeiss sonnar 180/2,8 but i had to disaseble it since someone could not put it together right. But havent come around to put it back together yet.

For the interested folks, a Nikon or Canon body with a good 50mm 1.2-1.4 lens is a good place to start.
I like Nikon because you can sometimes find really good used lenses from the 1970s and they'll still fit.

Shit UI, shitty professional level support, I just don't like them. No soul in the images.

nice numbers... I don't care so much about the quality, every picture of a ashy kike makes me happy. I don't care if it is 200x200 pixels with bad lighting or 4k.

Attached: 1528953910827.jpg (447x720, 42K)

>No soul in the images.

Attached: .png (380x349, 77K)

If you want a nice film camera get an Olympus OM which has one of the larger finders and smallest bodies in an SLR. The lenses are all great, too.

>Another stego thread distributing child porn hidden in the reflection of the lens.
MODS

*OR the Pentax LX which has the finest meter ever put into a camera.

Unless you're doing b/w and processing your own film and prints, you'll have less trouble with a modern digital back.
The rez of digital sensors today is higher than 35mm film.

Voigtlander 40mm f/2 for Nikon F mount. Super sharp without being boring and flat, small enough that it's not a pain to bring your SLR with you. I have a Nikon F100 and I'm considering getting a F2 if I see one for a decent price.

Attached: D3S_5683-1200.jpg (1200x763, 171K)

>The rez of digital sensors today is higher than 35mm film.
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.

Attached: A6C75386-B647-4B01-8780-A3E267BB7940.jpg (1280x720, 109K)

Jews are roughly 2% of the population but they are an overwhelming portion of the top 1%

Attached: nure.jpg (1505x1080, 508K)

But I'm not.
Once got to play with an F2AS. Great camera, and if you get mugged you can beat the guy to death with it and snap a picture of his body after.

You're quite wrong actually. But believe whatever you want with your soulless digisnaps.

tiny lens in the white mans lens.

anything i see with my eyes is also recorded on video and ready to be shown in court, or shown to millions of people on youtube.

this is our tool against oppression.

Attached: button-spy-camera-audio-and-video-4gb-memory-hidden01.jpg (800x800, 90K)

based and redpilled.

Neat. So prove it to me. I don't think you can.
You may have a point about film having soul that digital can't match, but that's not what I was talking about.

Sorry user deepfakes aren't admissible in court ;^)

You made the initial claim, you provide your proof first.

welcome to Jow Forums
do you know of the jews?

please die boomer

Attached: .png (1257x786, 66K)

photo.stackexchange.com/questions/30745/what-is-the-equivalent-resolution-of-a-35mm-film
>So the 75 lines/mm becomes 150 pixels/mm, which means a full 35mm frame would have 5400 x 3600 pixels = 19.4 Mpix.
>inb4 stackoverflow lol
It's like at the top of a grooble search

Attached: .png (1212x1278, 202K)

And let's not forget all film is produced in chinese sweatshops by ant people these days.

>some random guy's unsourced image
>admits his math is off
>probably going off resolution he gets with his shitty low dmax scanner
Yeah this is hardly proof, it's a napkin calculation. I have a nice Nikon Coolscan IV and even it fails to capture the full potential of Velvia.

There's also the issue of taking 3d film grain and scanning it into squares and comparing resolution with a 2D bayer sensor. Read Ctein's book, you'll see how wrong you are.

God fucking damn my sides

>still just guesstimations based on calculation and not measurement of a film enlargement vs digital
Digital has good resolution, but it can't even beat 35mm unless you bring it into the digital domain.

>admits his math is off
you know you could look at the Mpix column instead of the (numbers are fuzzy) AIQ one?
>Digital has good resolution, but it can't even beat 35mm unless you bring it into the digital domain.
So what is the resolution of film then?

>my ass hurts from this reaming
>and these goal posts are super heavy
>how much farther do I need to move them?
Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't just slide directly over into the superiority of medium format film.
>3d film grain
People who aren't retarded understand that as a physical limitation of the medium, not a mystical benefit.

>you know you could look at the Mpix column instead of the (numbers are fuzzy) AIQ one?
The one where it's a dead heat? And even those numbers are calculated and not measured?

>So what is the resolution of film then?
Depends on the film and development process. One type of film can become sharper or softer depending on which developer you use, and the push / pull process. I have often pulled Velvia by a stop down to ISO 25 for a notable increase in sharpness.

>a bunch of back of the napkin calculations resting on unknown assumptions, not measured data, proves something
Kek, keep trying.

>Depends on the film and development process. One type of film can become sharper or softer depending on which developer you use, and the push / pull process. I have often pulled Velvia by a stop down to ISO 25 for a notable increase in sharpness.
So what the is the maximum resolution of 35mm film?

>I have often pulled Velvia by a stop down to ISO 25 for a notable increase in sharpness
jfc, the odds that you also own a tube amplifier for the "warmth" just hit 100%.

Nikon 135mm f/2 DC.

kenrockwell.com/nikon/135mm-f2-dc.htm

Attached: F83C9A24-0F3C-43FC-96CC-46C9FA46887C.jpg (460x409, 21K)

>when loaded with police film this 60 year old submini beats full frame digital
Sorry fags, try again when the process is halved again.

Attached: DF041308-218B-409B-85B0-6A8530E86A64.jpg (3264x2448, 1.56M)

No I own one because class A operation is superior to AB and you can easily tell with proper speakers or cans.