>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sC 4q46LK70A Why does h

>f/5.6
ewww. literally a pleb with no aesthetic taste.

>not comfy f/2.8
>not educated f/11
>not over the top f/0.95
>not kino f/1.7
lots to choose from but he chose to be a plebe.

>>3105982
Maximum sharpness maybe?

its the aperture of his asshole.

5.6 is typically the sharpest aperture on lens designed for APS-C cameras, sort of how "f8 and be there" applies to 35mm, however I doubt that's the intention.
The shirt in OP pic is more cringe yet.

but neither are as cringe as
>>3105984

This is a thread for suicide now.

>>3106001
>This is a thread for suicide now.
kys when

>>3106001
Is the sharpest fstop on m43 f/4 then?

>>3106003
between 2.8 and 4 depending on the lens
disparity is larger because theres more glass over the sensor.

The bottom line is the Sunny 16 rule, if we adjust for f/5.6 it means today was really fucking cloudy and miserable out.

How do you people not get this.

File: f5-6[1].jpg (11KB, 214x300px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 214x300px

>>3106019
In the video, not the fucking shirt in the pic.

fag in the vid is basically wearing this

>>3106020
Oh...
Well shiet

>>3106019
Because real photographers know that good photographs are rarely taken in sunny 16 weather?

How do you not get why it's stupid? Are you afraid of getting your camera wet? Fucking pleb.

File: MET-ART_jb_60_0061.jpg (144KB, 1500x1024px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1500x1024px

>>3106023
that's the lamest excuse for not getting the punchline ever.

>>3106023
>autism

f/5.6 = pleb aperture

5.6 is love, 5.6 is life. Life without 5.6 is not worth living

Who here f/4?

>>3106101
>cropped face
why

>>3105982
he's on a kit lens.

>>3108517
f/4 master race.

There is no need of going lower than f/4 unless you're a BOKEH WHORE.

>>3108554
>>3108517
>>3107297
>>3107292
>>3106017
>>3106003
>>3106001
Is there any logic or physics behind any of this or is it just the generic gearfaggotry? I mean did anyone actually go an somehow measure sharpness at various apertures on various sensor sizes?

>f4 isn't coloured on AI lenses with DOF markings
>f5.6 and 11 is
All other f stops btfo

>>3108696
> I mean did anyone actually go an somehow measure sharpness at various apertures
Obviously many entities did - did you never read any lens review before you bought a lens?

File: i don't know man, did they?.png (32KB, 667x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 667x400px

>>3108696

File: .png (57KB, 514x1461px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 514x1461px

>>3108696
gee whiz, maybe gearfags are right for once?

>>3108723
I only bought one lens so far and it was based on price and specs mainly. I saw various places mentioning sharpness but on average I got the impression that at my level it hardly matters or it's barely noticeable, so I didn't look into it too much

>>3108727
Thanks, in the mean time I did some reading and yea there's quite a bit of theory behind so I'll check that out

>>3108731
http://www.photozone.de/all-tests
These usually have decent tests for each aperture. But yeah, sharpness varies a ton in relation to aperture. And then you reach diffraction where everything goes soft.