Tip for all the people who are considering to switching from

thanks for the tip, didn't know that

This is great.

Way back, I did this and saw with my 24-105mm, it was all 24, 35, 50, 105. Almost nothing in between them.

Same with 70-300mm. It was 70, 135, 300.

Convenient, but still "thinking in prime terms"

>>2979142
>look at software everyone on p is familiar
Kys

>965 photos

You need to shoot a hell of a lot more.

>>2979183
Use the exiftool to extract the (35mm eqivalent or crop factor and normal) focal length into a csv. With a spreadsheet you count similar entries and maybe also plot a histogramm. I did this a few years ago. I'll upload the commands later if I didn't already delete it.

>>2979221
Well, I did shoot more pics but deleted lots of them when going through then. Also, a year before I started shooting again (this May), I had a 550D which I used for quite some time, but I didn't use Lightroom back then, so no stats. Before that, I had an analog camera and shot around 35 rolls before switching to digital. Also in total like 4000 images (random guess) with the smartphones across the entire period.

But if you mean I need to shoot more with this particular lens.. Nah.

Patrician filmshooter here.
Devastating majority of my shots are 50mm, followed by 35, followed by 28.
>maybe when I get my grail 35/2 IS USM this will change

File: Capture.png (29KB, 1488x278px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 1488x278px

>using zooms

File: Capture.png (25KB, 1308x198px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 1308x198px

I don't shoot for fun any more since I have started earning decent money from photography :(

These are customer's photos. Always 13mm because underwater portraits...

>>2979323
>using crop digi

What the hell is a 4.3mm lens?

>>2980534
Look at a point and shoot. There is a 35mm comparable focal length and then an ACTUAL focal length.
for example
>G16
>Focal Length (35mm equivalent):
> 28 - 140mm
>Focal Length (actual):
> 6.1 - 30.5mm

>>2980534
Might be my smartphone

>>2979221
you need to project less

>>2979320
You're never going to get it. I'm going to destroy my 2nd one and buy a 3rd one just to reduce the stock in the world that little bit more.

Though most stuff I shoot is 50mm or eqv. The only exception being pano.

Somebody way back posted a program that could scan your whole library and then give you a visual graph of what focal lengths you use most. Sadly I have no idea what it was called.

It helped me decide to sell my 24-70 and get a 35 1.4 instead, after I saw that I pretty much only ever used it between 24 and 35 or at 70. (And I already had a 70-200 and 20mm to handle the wide and long ends.)

I've never been able to get into the 50mm focal length myself. I carried a 50 1.4 everywhere for years, and yet my current LR catalog has almost 5000 35mm shots and only 300 50mm. (To be fair, though, about 2000 of those 35 shots are since switching brands, and I didn't bother getting a 50 for my new camera. That's still 10x as many 35mm shots as 50mm shots when I DID have both, though.)

>>2980772
You were shooting all of this as furru furamu?

>>2980777
Before my switch, yes. After my switch, no, but I'm still speaking in equivalent 35mm terms for clarity. (I'm on Fuji now and when I say "35mm" I actually mean 23mm.)

>>2979182
You must be so amazing to be able to turn that zoom ring to land exactly on these numbers.

>>2980808

>>2980840
Usually within +/- 3mm if you need to be pedantic and I am sure there is some slop in the mechanism as well as the EXIF reporting of focal length.

Still, it isn't hard.