>>4313024
>Are there any digishits out there with prime lenses that ARENT the original GR Digital? It has meme tax
Sony FD5

>>4313024
The old sigma foveons!

>>4313026
Hardly what could be called "digishit".

File: s.png (798 KB, 992x702)

798 KB PNG

>>4313026
forgot pic rel

>>4313028
fe2fucker included Ricoh GR in his usage of term digishit so stfu

>>4313031
>Comparing a cuck format Bayer to an APS-C Foveon

File: 26708.jpg (8 KB, 280x280)

8 KB JPG

>>4313031
Ok wait wait wait, i meant the OG gr, the one with a phone sized sensor but YES how could I forget the small sigmas.

>>4313026
Im stupid, I forgot I have a mavica, however its not the form factor I imagined in the OP. I'm more thinking of cams in the shape of a bar of soap.

>>4313025
>>4313035
Fucked up the quote.

>>4313035
>>4313036
>I'm more thinking of cams in the shape of a bar of soap
Canon PowerShot 600, 350 and A5

>>4313036
>>4313037
The 350 might not be "soapy" enough for you though.

>>4313028
They are digishits

So are DSLRs now. Are you one of those kiddos who thinks digishit means ugly sooc jpegs? Then snoys are all digishits now just use jpeg small with nr and sharpening off

>>4313029
>sigma foveons

Give me a QRD, and redpill me on this camera.

I have a GR III, and I love the form factor. Having a foveon in my pocket would be a treat.

File: 2b62f1e532257555dd5a90494(...).gif (579 KB, 141x107)

579 KB GIF

Thinking about selling my fuji x gear and going balls deep into Pentax.
How stooopid of an idea is it?

>>4313366
Theyre both enthusiast oriented so i think you'll feel at home

>>4313366
not very stupid at all
you are going from one sovlful camera manufacturer to another so you'll probably enjoy the quirks and features unique to Pentax

>>4313366
You’d be going from a manufacturer that pretends to have soul but never has to one that settled for keeping its soul after going broke. Its cope all around.

Save up for a leica instead.

>>4313024
Whats the common price for a GR Digital?

>>4313366
I am in the process of switching from Sigma SA for Pentax K and so far I have no regrets.

I think what's important about switching mounts is identifying a problem you have and then finding a mount that solves that problem. Of course it's always best to solve it intra-mount if possible. But as long as you have a clear idea of why you're switching it can't ever be stupid. You may regret it, but that's not the same thing.

>>4313421
>I am in the process of switching from Sigma SA
What lenses do you have?

File: 71vRduCe5aL.jpg (234 KB, 1993x1500)

234 KB JPG

What's the best poorfag lens you've ever used? I got a lot of mileage out of a secondhand Nikon DX 70-300mm when I was starting out and I still prefer the feel of cheap telephoto zooms over the bulky expensive ones.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: IMG_6019-2 - Copy.jpg (766 KB, 768x1024)

766 KB JPG

I have collected too many cameras and cannot decide what to shoot with.

Whenever I go to leave somewhere I just stand in front of this cabinet frozen with indecision.

What should I shoot with next, what should I purge from my collection?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:13 16:46:18
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4313460
Keep 5d, mamiya, and an EOS film SLR. Get a 40mm pancake for the 5d, of course.

Sell the rest to clueless hipsters

>>4313430
I have quite a few, is there one you're interested in knowing about? I'm thinking of keeping some of it for film scanning.

Think new D850s are ever gonna get cheaper than this? Looks appetizing
>to get a second one

>>4313446
Define "poorfag".

>>4313469
No, Nikon's liquidating their stock.
After it's gone, all you'll be left with for NIB are Jap sellers claiming that it's a collector's item.

is the sony 200-600 worth $500 more than the sigma 150-600

>>4313465
>is there one you're interested in knowing about?
Sigma's probably made more models and variants of photographic lenses than any other manufacturer.
What do you have with reasonably sharp optics?

>>4313473
fuck. Time for a poor financial decision.

>>4313024
>digishits
define "digishit". my answer to your question is the "sony RX1". is that "digishit" enough for you?
>>4313460
>what should I purge from my collection?
the fujifilm. or everything but the mamiya.

are you guys ever greedy bitches and keep lenses you don't need, or do you keep the collection to things you need? like having a 14-24 and a 16-35.

>>4313485
I keep it all mf. Except my old crop sensor lenses. Zero point.

>>4313446
canon ef 40mm pancake is almost as sharp as my v5 summicron 50

>>4313495
The ef 40 has the same sharpness and rendering as other cheapies like the nikkor 50mm f1.8 g mate

what are some mid-tier filter brands
I'm just looking to get some to have on hand to fuck around with but also avoid complete chinkshit
thinking circular polarized, linear polarized, 3-stop ND each in 72mm & 82mm

File: IMGP0438.jpg (992 KB, 4000x3000)

992 KB JPG

>>4313366
since were in broke gear general i think youd appreciate the pentax q.
its been really fun to use and i kind of feel like getting a pentax k to go along with it.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX Q
Camera Software	PENTAX Q Ver 1.14
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	87 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Left-Hand, Bottom
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:28 21:36:36
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	15.60 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4313475
>What do you have with reasonably sharp optics?
Ironically sharpness is not something I usually pay a lot of attention to. I like foveons because of the character, the sharp lenses I have are pretty boring; the 24-70 Art, the 70mm macro art and the 30mm art. I will say that the amount of detail you can get with the macro lens on the merrill is insane. It's almost uncomfortable to look at. I really wish I could get extension tubes for it.

>>4313514
Honestly you should invest into a filter system. It's pretty expensive upfront, but it will save you so much in the long run.

t. has like 12 different BPM filters

The thing is there aren't really any mid-tier filter brands, probably Tiffen is the closest, everything is either very cheap or very expensive.

>>4313523
oh so that's why I felt like I couldn't find anything
noted

Every time I think about buying $3k of camera shit I just don't do it

>>4313539
probably the wiser choice

>>4313542
my camera is not that good. I'll get it eventually. Maybe after I have 10k shots on this one

>>4313539
Why not? What else are you going to spend it on? You're never going to be able to afford to retire or own a home or have a family. Might as well yeet all your disposable income on camera shit

>>4313539
you're holding back, most likely you dont even need a $3k one.

>>4313521
Oh, are you the guy looking to sell his SD1 after getting a Quattro?

>I like foveons because of the character
I've already get plenty of cameras with character.
If I'm going through the trouble of using a Foveon, I want to make full use of the sensor.

How much are you looking to sell the 24-70mm and the 30mm "Art" for?
I saw a good deal on a 105mm OS Macro, but I couldn't grab it because I had to pay property taxes.

>I really wish I could get extension tubes for it
You can't?

>>4313485
>are you guys ever greedy bitches and keep lenses you don't need
yes because I'm a yid. I'll even buy your unused lenses at 20% market value, goy.

>>4313553
It would be nice to have something modern with good low light performance
>>4313549
I can already afford a house now

>>4313613
Right now I'm not exactly sure what I'm planning on selling. At the moment I'm thinking I may sell the Quattro because the image quality compromises were a trade off for it being easier to live with, but now that I have something else that's even easier to live it, so I'm not sure what function it fulfills but I have too much gear and some of it has to go.

>If I'm going through the trouble of using a Foveon, I want to make full use of the sensor.
I don't think it's nearly as much of a pain as people online would lead you to believe. I've used them as my sole camera for the past several years and never felt like it's been a handicap

>You can't?
Not that I can find. If they did exist, they'd need electrical contacts as the 70mm is focus by wire and most DSLR era Sigma lenses don't have aperture rings.

>>4313714
>I don't think it's nearly as much of a pain as people online would lead you to believe
Yeah, it's relatively easy.
Sigma's software works well.
It's just another step and I already have better lenses and bodies in the EF mount.
So if I'm going to use the less ergonomic and objectively worse SD10, I'm certainly going to want to make the most of its image quality.

And I'm sorry that I didn't get you a blue photograph from the SD10.
I was expecting to get that 105mm and use it.

>the 70mm is focus by wire
It uses a stepper motor?

>>4313446
I finally picked up the STM version of the Canon nifty fifty the other day. I'm surprised at how clean and sharp it is, even compared to my more expensive primes. It definitely punches above it's weight class.

>>4313756
It and the 40mm STM would have been perfect if they made them internally focusing.

>>4313759
It is annoying to have the front pop out, which can mess with your filters (especially polarizers). I'm debating if I should track down one of the original plastic mounts just for shits.

>>4313788
Plastic mounts?

>>4313788
The filter thread doesn't rotate when focussing, don't see why there would be any issue with using filters

File: D3S_1549-1200.jpg (189 KB, 1200x1200)

189 KB JPG

>>4313800
I just went back and tested it. Fuck, I'm an idiot.
>>4313797
The second release before the STM version had a mount made of plastic. Crazy shit. It also had 5 straight aperture blades VS the 7 curved blades of the STM.

>>4313855
Oh, the Chinky model.
I thought the f/1.8 II also had an extending inner barrel.

>>4313870 #
They all do, even the RF version. I guess they didn't fell the need to change it.

between RF and Z mount lenses, which has the best IQ?

>>4313879
It pains me greatly.

File: HRS_8684.jpg (2.58 MB, 3000x2000)

2.58 MB JPG

breaking in brightin star 28/f2.8 on m mount. very pleased with how it looks so far.
the flare matched the color of these flowers

Cop or not? I'd pair it with an E-M5 Mark III

File: olympus_m.zuiko_12-200mm_f3.jpg (115 KB, 600x450)

115 KB JPG

>>4313993
Forgot pic

File: file.png (74 KB, 1119x493)

74 KB PNG

What len range am I missing? which ones should I ditch?

>>4313995
eh
from what i remember it's pretty weak at both the near and far end, for the price you could probably get the 12-40 f/2.8 pro or 12-45 f/4 pro and a telephoto of choice
if you have enormous balls/working feet and don't actually need 24-400 eq on your camera all the time you could get the el cheapo plastic fantastic 40-150, a short prime like the 17 1.8 or panny leica 25, and pocket the rest. also keep in mind the em5s are small cameras and it's easy to make them front-heavy or just weirdly shaped and bulky with some of the bigger lenses more meant for EM1s

>>4313997
Thanks anon. I already own the Olympus 12-45mm f4, 17mm f1.8, 25mm f1.8, 45mm f1. 8 and the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I was thinking about getting a super zoom for practicality but at this point I might as well get a "standard" tele like the 40-150mm you've mentioned or maybe even the Panasonic 100-300. The Panasonic Leica 50-200mm would probably be the best choice but it's pretty expensive

>>4314001
there's also the oly 75-300, but it's slower than the pana 100-300 and lacks in-lens IS (can't use it *with* IBIS on an olympus body, but i'd still trust it more than the camera's own at that kind of length), as well as the non-leica lumix 45-200; that said i don't own either of them so can't make a definitive recommendation without secondhand wanking over pixel charts, haha
>The Panasonic Leica 50-200mm would probably be the best choice but it's pretty expensive
yeah, some of the pana leicas are good quality and the 25mm shorty is a great deal but i can only guess it slipped through the management cracks somehow given how off the wall the leica zoom prices are. how's the olympus 25, by the way? i really like my little 17 and the 25 looks to be even better as a less wide brother to it, and the lack of the fun manual focus clutch of the 17 seems minor since you can still just use S-AF+MF and spin the floating dial anyway (i'm on an E-M5.2 so no phase detect AF, CAF is pretty much useless)

>>4313024
Canon EOS M with the 22mm f/2. I could never understand the obsession with fixed lens bodies when that combo exists.

>>4314005
Thanks again, i totally forgot about the 75-300mm. Do you own any telephoto lenses?
>how's the olympus 25, by the way?
It's a nice lens, I'd say the iq is on par with the 17mm f1.8, if you find one for 150/180€, go for it. Sometimes i find the 50mm equivalent focal length still a bit too wide, hence the purchase of the Sigma, but I'll admit that's just me being overly picky

>>4314009
right now i've only got the oly 40-150 non pro, sorry. still figuring out what's good in the system myself. great lens image quality wise when you get a good one- especially for something that goes $100 used- but there's a LOT of copy variation (vietnam made ones are supposedly better than china ones, none are made in Japan like some of the primes/pros are) and the built quality is... less than hopeful, given the size of the void in the back with the non fixed rear element and electric cables just kind of floating in there. no dust or weather sealing either and things WILL get dusty in there unfortunately. mine is a little tight to zoom past about 130mm but not noticeably decentered so worth keeping, and a good standard telephoto that works for my amateur snapshittery but not something you'd want at an air show or bird watching or whatever unless you plan on heavily cropping everything

>>4314015
*also there's multiple versions of the lens itself, the old non-micro Four Thirds version, the early silver ring M43 one, the later MSC, and the 40-150 R (which might be the same as the late MSC? it's what I've got and honestly both olympus and panasonic tend to drop the ball on differentiating lens versions or cheaper variants that came as pack ins)

I've got a Rebel T2i I was gifted a few years ago that I mainly use for aviation and rocket photography. It's been fun to use, but recently I've been looking for something with a little more storage for burst shots and a less noisy sensor at higher ISO.
Currently I'm running a 55-250mm and 24mm pancake lens that covers most of my needs, but I'm looking into getting a 500-600mm telephoto lens sometime soon.
Is it worth sticking with the EF-S mount and picking up something like a Rebel T8i to get cheaper used lenses, or should I switch to mirrorless with something like an R50? Is a full-frame something I should be considering instead?

>>4314141
As someone who's been using the same combo for years (550D, 55-250 and the 24 pancake) and who's thought about upgrading, it mostly depends on cost. If you go to anything other than Canon crop, you're gonna have to re-buy everything, and I love that little 24mm so much it pains me that it's locked to EF-S (there's a similar 40mm pancake for EF, though). You could probably get a good deal on a new or gently used newer Rebel, or even the two-digit line one step up from the Rabals, eg 80D or 90D, which are still a crop sensor so your current lenses will fit but a bit more feature packed. Just remember that Canon intends for you to 'get hooked' with the crop sensors and work your way up to getting a second mortgage for a 5Dmk4 and those sweet, sweet red-ringed L lenses, so your EF-S selection is always gonna be kind of scarce and/or supplemented by third party lensmakers. Still decently cheap though especially since people are selling off DSLR stuff still.

>>4314218
If I end up getting something full-frame or mirrorless, I wonder if it's just better to get something like a Nikon or a Sony instead.

>>4314141
>Is a full-frame something I should be considering instead?
Are you dissatisfied with the results from APS-C or do you want to use EF/RF lenses at their designed FOV?

>tryina do autistic things
>keep failing
>blaming my gear
>pretty sure it fucking is and I'm a retard for buying bad stuff
How much do I need to spend on a tripod that won't move after I try to lock in my adjusted positions?
Current tripod with plastic quickrelease plate literally sags from weight of lens, and when I rotate it 90 degrees for portrait it sags the other way too

>adjust things until they're aligned
>take hands off camera, no longer supporting it
>camera sags a few degrees throwing alignment off
>only way to get proper "sitting" after adjustments is to lock in my knobs and shit with it expecting sag
do I need a $300 tripod setup to prevent this shit?
sure I can just fix it in post but I'd rather level my camera not fight camera sag bullshit if that's even possible

>>4314242
I paid $100 total for a used sirui tripod (metal) and a chinese fluid head/pano head thing (cheap ball heads sag)

The head might get less fluid years down the line but i dont care. Boomers can enjoy their $300 ball heads.

>>4314242
I have a SIRUI AM124, it's only $180 and It's been great the legs have never moved out of position once I lock them. So I'd recommend it.

My ball-head does sag and it's very annoying, I need to buy a nicer one. But I did buy one of those chinese geared heads, it's the Leofoto G2 and it has no sag whatsoever. So that with my tripod everything is rock solid and if you want really precise compositions that's what I'd buy. The downside is that geared heads you don't have nearly the same range of motion, so you need to fiddle with the tripod legs more

>>4314248
boomers use geared heads, gimbal mounts, and shit like the arca cube lol, you retards can't even get your insults right. the "expensive" ballheads are snapshitter "advanced amateur" larper tier aka all of /pee/

>>4314141
Remember that Canon EF lenses work perfectly on RF bodies. So do most 3rd party EF lenses. Some older ones do not, but those are typically really old consumer zooms (think 1990s).

Mirrorless has benefits but there's so much used on the DSLR market. 90D, 80D, 7D2, etc. 80D or 90D would probably be your best bet on lower high ISO noise while sticking with crop, unless you decide to jump to mirrorless of course. They're obviously not FF, but they are at least current tech.

FF is ~1ev better at high ISO for current tech. If you jumped straight to FF you would see more of an improvement because you're on an older sensor, at least 2ev. FF is also sharper out of camera, which doesn't matter much at low ISO (you can sharpen in post) but does at high ISO (sharpening emphasizes noise). And high resolution FF gives you resolution/detail you can't get on crop without stitching.

Some FF bodies are also insane at high ISO. Canon R6 can shoot 4k24 under a bright moon. It's not that it looks many stops better at, say, ISO 3200, but it keeps going longer before "falling off a cliff" with digital noise. ISO 204k isn't usable, but ISO 102k can be.

What's best for you just depends on your budget and needs.

File: ken rockwell looking vibr(...).jpg (232 KB, 1280x720)

232 KB JPG

>>4314305
>You can sharpen in post
>t.

>>4314248
>>4314268
I hadn't really known you can swap heads I guess I should look into that instead, since the legs ain't my issue just the top bit.

>>4314273
>arca cube
had to google it
that looks amazing
but is way too expensive for my blood

Geared heads seem ideal I'd rather be autistic and gradually crank a dial than manhandle some plastic joints of a ball and then have it sag.
Any recommendations for geared heads for a poorfag who thinks $300 for a tripod is "a lot" ?
I realize it might be a BIFL thing and probably worth it but I'm not ready to spend more than that unless something is actually like completely awesome
that cube i'd buy if it were $500 probably

>>4314311
>I hadn't really known you can swap heads I guess I should look into that instead
On really cheap tripods you may not be able too, but yeah it should probably come off and you can replace it.

>Any recommendations for geared heads for a poorfag who thinks $300 for a tripod is "a lot" ?
Like I mentioned in my previous post the Leofoto G2 is a geared head like the arca cube, but it's only like ~$160. Afaik there are no official retailers in the US, so I had to buy mine off ebay from china and when I looked there were some shady sellers. Other than that though I don't know of another cheap geared head

>>4314311
Kept getting heaps of requests for additional video work in addition to my still stuff so I finally pulled the trigger and bought a continuous light kit. I already had a Godox 150 and 300 so decided to invest in some Aputure 600D Pros. Expensive as fuck but my god are they bright as fuck. Haven't had a chance to shoot with them yet just living room tests. Really looking forward to seeing the difference between flash and continuous. I still have my flash kit for addition lights for stills or additional lights if I want more than 4. Anyone else switch?

>>4314240
Not entirely? I do notice my pictures come out a little soft, but I'm not sure if that's from using a budget lens, the sensor being a little old, or just user error.
For rocket launches in particular, I'm often shooting at a distance of 8-12 miles depending on location. I'm not sure if having to crop down an image from a FF sensor would produce similar results sharpness-wise to just using an APS-C body.

>>4314305
Thanks for the input. I think I'm leaning towards getting a nice used DSLR for a cheaper price I am planning to spend $1500ish on a decent telephoto sometime soon. I figure something similarly priced or less for a body might be a good idea.

>>4314312
I can screw my head off and I see a screw, I take that as a sign I can.
How can I be sure a new head is compatible?
I found out recently that some quick release plates are interchangeable and not all are propriety so I assume the screw probably is universal but idk for sure
will probably get a head with extra plates for different cameras that's a huge convenience

>>4314457
The bolt should be a 1/4-20 which is the standard on tripods and heads. You could double check by looking up the specs on your tripod

>I found out recently that some quick release plates are interchangeable
I think you're referring to arca swiss, which is technically the name of a company, but it's also used to describe their style of dovetail mechanicsm, but it's also a really common standard. Just look for something like 'arca swiss compatible' in the description

>>4314462
https://www.magnustripods.com/product/18124/Magnus-LM_700-Tripod-with-Monopod-and-Lateral-Center-Column-Option
when I unscrew the head assembly the screw that goes to the bottom of the head seems to be identical to the screw on the quick release that goes into the camera
guess it's standard then

>think you're referring to arca swiss
yeah I have a phone adapter and it has an arca base so if I had an arca style head I could just snap my phone mount into the tripod without screwing it into a quick release plate, would be neat

there is also RRS/reallyrightstuff but I don't know how prevalent that is so maybe it's basically proprietary
the base screw seems to be only legit standard

>>4314462
>>4314457
>The bolt should be a 1/4-20 which is the standard on tripods and heads.
some are, but 3/8-16 is more common for tripod-head attachment
generally you won't find anything other than those two though
>>4314469
>seems to be identical to the screw on the quick release that goes into the camera
then it's probably 1/4-20 in this case

Going to Japan this summer, I want to take advantage of the weak yen and VAT exemption to make a photo related purchase.
So far I have an R7 with a 100-500 and a bit to shit but still repliable 28-80 L from the 90s.
Should I upgrade to FF of aim for a proper RF standard zoom ?
I mostly do landscape and birbs.
Budget is about 3k deutchmarks

>>4314662
>bit to shit but still repliable 28-80 L
What's wrong with it?

>>4314662
>Should I upgrade to FF of aim for a proper RF standard zoom ?
Yeah might as well. If you're going to abuse the exchange rate there is literally no better time to upgrade. What, are you afraid you're going to regret having full frame?

>>4314662
>Should I upgrade to FF of aim for a proper RF standard zoom ?
>I mostly do landscape and birbs.
Well for birds you'd be losing reach, to be able to crop from ff you'd need over 70mp. Unless you want to upgrade to a longer lens, 800mm at the same res or a bit shorter if you go for a higher res body. If the 28-80mm isn't wide enough for you then just get a crop ultrawide, it'll be cheaper than a new body.

>>4314664
Nothing, it just weights a ton so I often end up packing my kit lens instead for landscape, I'm quite happy with my R7 already, so I'm kind of split between upgrading to a body I don't really need or a good L zoom that is lighter and can be used a few years down the line when bodies are worth upgrading to.
Maybe I'll just save the money desu.

Just got my first DSLR, a Nikon D3200. Just to make sure, can I mount old 80s/90s MF nikon lenses straight on? I want to get a 28mm or 35mm prime.

>>4314691
You can mount just about any older f-mount lens except for the actual invasive fisheyes. D3200 will even work with non-ai. Everything will need to be manual mode though, with no meter either. AF-D lenses will meter but not autofocus, and AF-P lenses won work at all.
If you want a 35mm prime, should just get the AF-S DX f1.8 one.

>>4314697
It won't even meter for shutter speed and ISO if I set the aperture manually?

>>4314699
Correct, no meter. Easy with digital though, just take a picture and if it's too dark or light, adjust. With enough practice you ballpark meter by eyesight / rules like sunny 16, or just use your phone to meter.
If you wanted to mostly use old lenses, you should've got a different camera.

>>4314713
Thanks for the info. Seems crazy that the camera won't meter at all based on exposure. When old lenses are used on my X-T1 I set the aperture and leave the SS and ISO on auto and it works perfectly.

>>4314726
yeah DSLRs are ancient by today's standards, mirrorless has advanced leaps and bounds in the last decade

I hate buying shit. I hate thinking about spending 1000s for a camera. I'm not poor, I can afford any major brand's top line camera new, I just don't like bleeding money and would rather put it somewhere else. What body and lenses do I get that lets me forget about gear forever for as little money as possible?

>>4314699
>>4314726
>>4314783
It's because Nikon's fucking shit and decided to gimp the cameras whose users were most likely to use manual focus Nikkors.
F mount (and every other optic) metre perfectly with everything from a Rebel to the 1D series.

>>4314801
Is your preference DSLR or mirrorless?

>>4314801
what you should actually do is but the best thing for as much money as possible. Even after 10+ years you wont feel like you need new features and you won't get mogged by future cheap camera image quality. This is the correct way to buy anything becasue if you work out the cost per year you will end up spending less then constantly buying cheap shit that breaks or doesn't perform the way you want.
I say this as someone whos deferred buying a new camera for over a year and will probably continue to for a while

I don't understand rail systems on cameras. I decided to sell mine after having no use for them. Just too much space and time setting it all up.

>>4314801
Nikon z7ii + 28-400

>>4313024
dont get a grIIIx. i got one and the photo quality sucks dick. my oneplus looks the same fr

I got me a g5x ii from Canon. A compact zoom. And now I don't see why I need my x-t3 anylonger or any other camera with interchangeable lenses.

I just want to have fun and carry my cam everytime with me. Image quality is decent from the small canon and though it has some quirks I'm sure I'll get along with it.

Should I just sell the Fuji? Will I ever miss it?

>>4314945
If you weren't just coping you wouldn't need to even make this post. Just admit you don't like it and it was a waste of money.

>>4313024
Coolpix A DX

>>4314946
the Fuji? wouldn't say a waste of money. Bought it used for a very okay price. It just seems very bulky and overloaded compared to the canon. Sure it can do more, but I hardly ever need it

>>4314945
I missed having a viewfinder. I enjoy shooting with a viewfinder a lot more than a screen. Also, low depth of field is important to me for a certain aesthetic.

>>4314963
G5X II has a viewfinder that pops up.

File: GN0PvnKaEAAx7DD.jpg (271 KB, 1080x1350)

271 KB JPG

>>4313024
what is this a fucking pack film camera?

>>4314976
nevermind, its a polaroid bigshot, obscure indeed with a 220mm f/29

>>4314945
if you have to ask, XT3 was too much camera for you to begin with
surprised you don't just stick with a phone

File: 2022-10-01T21-32-07-T30N0451_1.jpg (4.9 MB, 5902x3934)

4.9 MB JPG

>>4314979
yeah I'd like to see ya g5x do this
but dont forget its all horses for courses anon, take only the gear you need to get the result you want

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T30
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	135 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	6400
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Brightness	3.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	90.00 mm
Image Width	5902
Image Height	3934
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4314976
>>4314977
Recognised that straight away with that fresnel lens up front for the flash cube. I have one in the box, probably never been used and never will be.

>>4314977
It actually produces some fun looking portraits but the film is just retardedly unusable expensive now. And impossible imposed an extra fleece on everybody with 8 shots per pack instead of 10 and retards all just accept “bwuh we don’t know how to make em thinner!” As their excuse lol. Despite using the same machines and same process. Curious, are (((they))) behind impossible?

>>4315012
Worst part is, you can load 10 sheets of the current thick film into a current model cartridge abd it'll work just fine.
Theyre straight up lying the little assholes.

>>4315012
>>4315013
The big shot doesn’t use any of the current impossible (or is it just Polaroid now?) films, but the point is well taken.

I am travelling for a year or so, I'm thinking of getting the sony nex-6 since it's lightweight and in my budget. Now for the lens, I have the same limitations, it need to be light, in my budget (100-200$), general purpose use. From what I've seen my options are pretty limited, going to 7artisans, but manual AF seems pretty shitty to use ? Otherwise a vintage lens with an adapter?
What would you recommend?

>>4315099
I would say just use vintage manual lenses and learn how to read the focus scale, it actually becomes really easy to do after some practice and very effective when stopped down.

But at that point you might as well buy a dslr that uses the same mount and skip the adapter part all together, a dslr is going to have a way longer battery life, have shorter startup times and the crop bodies are usually pretty compact. The downside being that in that price range you're going to be more limited in low light

>>4314783
DSLRs still focus a lot faster.
Snapping to and from focal points.

Those dedicated phase detect points that aren't copium put into the imaging sensor really do still work great.

>focus on hand
>focus on distant subject
>focus on hand
DSLRs just do it nearly instant, while mirrorless STILL takes forever to do this simple thing.

>>4315259
You obviously only have experience with old bodies and shitty lenses. Also it doesn't matter how fast a DSLR is when it can't track for shit

>>4314809
> gimp the cameras whose users were most likely to use manual focus Nikkors
The D3xxx series are in no way the users most likely to use manual focus Nikkors. Most D3xxx users stick with the relatively cheap AF-S lenses already available, and I'd bet 90% of owners never go beyond the 18-55/55-200 and maybe 35/50 f1.8.
People that are extremely budget constrained tend to opt for older used models, many of which are compatible.
People that actually have a genuine interest in using MF Nikkors or already have an existing collection are probably passing over the literal most entry-level barebones bodies that Nikon makes.
If they got a D3200 with a desire to use mostly older lenses, they are just being a dumb consumer. Even if the D3200 were fully compatible, it would still be a dumb choice for that purpose.

File: EME7yprWsAEjOpo.png (46 KB, 284x278)

46 KB PNG

I'd like to buy one of those chink Aliexpress "3M" decal skin to protecc my camera a bit (mostly to protecc the upper part from scratches and loss of paint). Will they leave some sticky glue or some shit once I remove them down the line?

>>4315479
No fucking shit. Don’t worry about it.

>>4315263
Incorrect, the dedicated phase detect focusing in DSLRs is faster for quick target acquisition.
Sure mirrorless can do eye detect shit but DSLRs in manual "point camera at this square and focus on stuff in this point" are still far superior, under various lighting conditions, and also in flickering lights.

It's just simply FAST. Most decent mirrorless is "fast enough" for most people.
Also mirrorless doesn't have to deal with fine tuning or calibrating viewfinder/sensor plane distances since the AF is in the sensor which is nice, but it doesn't change facts. On sensor AF is slower. Always has been, and most likely will continue to be so for many years to come.
Remember dedicated AF has had literal decades of R&D, and fancier DSLRs had more advanced AF sensors. The fact that cheap shit DSLRs you can buy with kit lenses for $500 today have decent AF (not in live-view mode) is a result of how inherently good and snappy the dedicated AF sensor design is. It just works.

>>4315588
Its also inaccurate (lmfao focus shift) and really not that much faster than a sony. Only a nikon z user could possibly come up with this bullshit. Not worth the inferior lens selection and lack of evf at all.

t. D850 and A7RV
A7RV has better weather sealing btw, D850 is professionally retired after it shut off during a rainy wedding and the sony, doing short clip vid duty, kept working and my second shooter (videographer) had to take over all of the movie work

>>4315588
yeah thats why literally every sports photographer who needs speed or theyre fired now uses mirrorless and i see nothing but sony and canon at sports games
are you stuck with a nikon/fuji/panasonic/olympus and generalizing from there? in sorry but dslr AF is inferior to a well executed MILC.

What new mirrorless camera body would you buy for $2k? Coming from a super crappy dslr so no real overlap in lenses

>>4315588
Like I said, you haven't used a decent mirrorless body with a decent lens. They can focus plenty fast enough. As I said it doesn't matter if a DSLR can move to a certain point 5ms faster if it's not as accurate and can't track movement as well.

>>4314435
>I'm not sure if that's from using a budget lens, the sensor being a little old
It's probably the lens if it's just the zoom.
Does the 24mm STM also look soft?
Old (lower resolution) sensors should, if anything, produce sharper images.

The good thing about the RF mount is that you can use both full frame and crop lenses on it.
Even cutting the RF body's resolution in half, it won't be hard to come close to or beat the resolution of your 550D.

I'm tempted to change from L-mount to Pentax K for some reason. I need you guys to talk me out of it. I don't do video btw.

>>4315319
>The D3xxx series are in no way the users most likely to use manual focus Nikkors
Now they aren't.
At the time when DX lenses were still new, they weren't as affordable as AI(S).

>it would still be a dumb choice for that purpose
Why?
The lack of a first party split prism focusing screen?

>>4315659
Just wait for Pentax to fold and you can own both.

>>4315663
You're simply wrong, I worked camera retail during most of that time. There were relatively cheap AI-S lenses, yes, but but their primary customer was absolutely not your typical entry level user.

Yes, a small viewfinder that's not great for manual focus and poor adaptability.

>>4315665
lmao. I fear hipsters will start gobbling up old dslr's soon since they've already moved on from digishits to "much ccd". If that happens folding wont help much.

>>4315659
>for some reason.
you're just a consoomer

>>4315613
>literally every (thing)
Moron. Take a look at a sporting event other than high school sports level shit and you'll see that it's still mostly canikon dslr's and probably will be until they gimp their lineup some more so pros have to consoom into the mirrorless crap.

>>4315717
Wow mid conference college hoops shooter are ya? Shit even WCC is mostly mirrorless
t.R5,NBA/B10
Anyone using a DSLR is using a DSLR due to fleet costs and support contracts but plans to upgrade most likely to the R1. You have no idea how this shit works. Its more like office equipment than personal cameras for 9/10 journalists. It is not about staying up to date.

>>4315674
>"much ccd"
Just buy a CMOS body then.

>>4315723
No fucking shit. It's almost like you actually understood my post but had to come up with a counterpoint anyway because you're a contrarian retard. Doesn't change the fact that you're literally (literally) a massive faggot. I bet you use the word "unironically" right before you say something painfully ironic too. Fucking zoomzooms.

>>4315659
You should do it. I just picked up a k1 and it's the best decision I've made photographically in years. No regrets

>>4315650
It is unreal how much better the focus accuracy is in live view when it's using contrast detection instead of phase detection in the viewfinder. I really thought something was wrong with my camera.

>>4315613
Lmfao, sports fags rely on burst, not snappy AF.

>>4315606
Yes PDAF is inherently inaccurate vs contrast detect on the sensor.
If you've got more fractions of a second to spare, and care about "focus perfection", DSLRs and their blazing fast approximation for the focal point are not as good.
The point is, they're simply superior at fast acquisition of approximate focus which can be useful in some cases.

The mirrorless OSPDAF workaround is "fast enough" and a high continuous shooting rate combined with pre-release captures, letting you pump dozens of RAWs out from before/during/after the AF is engaging on the subject in hopes you get enough shots in focus.

DSLR dedicated AF will simply get you to the target faster, but their other aspects lag behind like FPS, fine tuning focus accuracy (contrast detect) and their live-view AF is typically crap in terms of speed. Because they use contrast detect in the live view, they can be just as accurate as mirrorless when photogrpahing still subjects but do get there slower.

>>4315650
>They can focus plenty fast enough.
Fast enough, not "as fast".
I'm not saying mirrorless is bad or anything. Just objectively a tiny bit slower.

>it doesn't matter if a DSLR can move to a certain point 5ms faster
Sometimes it does, but usually not.
>if it's not as accurate
Super snappy shots usually aren't the ones you're going to pixel peep enough to care, but if you're trying to use f/1.2 with it yeah getting there fast doesn't help when your DOF is razor thin. When stopped down, it's good enough.
>and can't track movement as well.
Mirrorless does better here without a doubt, but the whole argument is that DSLR AF in single point mode is the clear winner in terms of raw speed. If you're gonna fork over the reins and let the camera do eye/people/auto detect focus points and subject tracking then you're never going to benefit from DSLR's raw point speed, and that's okay.

Why are nikon users like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGpN3GzWRQg

>>4315885
DSLRs switch subjects faster in the viewfinder, but when you review the photos you will find they are all soft more often than not. Slightly defocused. On a DSLR, if you shoot wide open, it's soft. If you stop down, its still soft because the focus point migrated backwards. A lot of the "pixel peeping hate" is from the FF DSLR era, as DSLR users REALLY disliked it when micro four thirds, fuji, and sony users said "LOOK FAG MY BIRDS SHARPER THAN YOURS".

What good's that AF speed when it's rushing at a focus miss
The answer is it's not good

That list of 3 sound familiar to you? Yes, because MFT, fuji, and sony users STILL keep having the sharpest photos and canikon boomers hate them - their cameras being smaller is still a constant - their photos are sharper - their small cameras go more interesting places - OOF! Nikon's AF alone is worse than DSLRs. Canon lenses are mostly crap and their cameras are bloated and huge. They still can't compete except at being the best snapshit spamming gear for sports journalists and sony's encorached severely on that.

Seriously, use a REAL camera someday. A DSLR's "raw point speed" is absolutely fucking MOGGED by literally any sony body a7iii onwards. There is a reason so many boomers hate "pixel peeping sony gearfaggots". Cuz our photos are actually in focus. How dare we post larger than 1000x666 and not stand further back from our prints! Damn sony people actually getting things in focus. Even at the a7iv's meager 6fps! Burst rate reliance lmao, no bro that's canon. Sony AF works first time every time.

>>4315929
Cope

>>4315885
>I'm not saying mirrorless is bad or anything. Just objectively a tiny bit slower.
Sure, but the guy I was originally replying to >>4315259 said
>DSLRs just do it nearly instant, while mirrorless STILL takes forever to do this simple thing.

That implies that mirrorless is unusably slow and that's what I was arguing against. They can focus quick enough for anyone really (not saying all bodies with all lenses, but the best) and the slight speed advantage of a DSLR really doesn't matter to anyone, plus mirrorless will have far better tracking so anything after that first shot and/or with a moving subject has a highly likelihood of coming out well with mirrorless.

File: d850z7.jpg (173 KB, 995x344)

173 KB JPG

>>4315929
no one ever brings up frame coverage differences either

Man, being a DSLRfag is like still being a communist in 2000 fucking 24. Let that sink in for a second.

I have a Canon R10, I have the EF adapted Canon lenses the 50mm 1.8, 18-135mm STM and the 55-250mm STM but I feel like I need to get into a better lens. What are some recommendations? I really really like the 55-250mm lens as it has so much reach and find its what I use 90% of the time, I am looking at the Canon EF 24-105mm L lens. Looks to be about 450-550 CAD, do you guys think it's worth it for the price? Can I get something newer that is comprisable for a similar price?

>>4316058
Why is it you want to upgrade a lens that you use 90% of the time? Do you feel like if it was better you would use it more? I don't know what the 18-135mm is like but I can't imagine it's so bad you avoid using it, and I do know your other lenses aren't actually amazing.

While looking to see if they had anything in RF mount to replace the 55-250m I saw there's a 100-400mm, but looking on Ebay the used ones are out of your budget. If you could stretch that far you could instead get the 100-400mm L in EF mount seeing as you already have an adapter. But really if we're including EF lenses there's also a shit load of 70/75-300mm's to choose from as well as 150-500/600mm from the likes of Sigma and Tamron.

>>4316022
On every camera I've ever used I only use the center af point. It's much faster to focus and recompose than fuck around with moving your af point or hoping the camera guesses correcty

>>4316071

Well, I am just not sure if the 55-250mm is the best lens as it's kind of lacking in aperture as most of the time I am zoomed all the way in past like 200-250mm and at that range it's all the way at 5.6 and the images don't seem the sharpest a lot of the time but this could just be me and also the fact I'm all the way in at 250mm which is what like nearly 400mm equivalent so it's pretty far away and probably is impressive to even be sharpish in the first place that far away I don't know. Plus some nice bokeh would be nice, I like the 18-135mm but sometimes feel like I want some more zoom and it also has 5.6 at the farther zooms so I don't know.

I think I am just thinking buying some fancy lens will all of a sudden upgrade my photos but I do have a pretty good range of lenses and I just bought some cheap 24mm and 35mm manual primes to try out. Even when I break out the canon 50mm it's way too soft to do anything but portraits at 1.8 but even just going to 2.8~ the pictures just have more character to them then many of my pictures on the 55-250mm when it's stuck at 5.6 aperture.

>>4316074
It's not really about being able to select one of the further out points as a particular focus point, it's about being able to track a subject across the entire frame. And due to the superior tracking of mirrorless it also means you often don't need to select a focus point, you just get your subject in the centre and half press and it will be tracked whether it moves elsewhere in the frame or you recompose (recomposing after focus has locked, as you do, can result in a focus shift with a shallow depth of field).

>>4316092
Google your lenses, you'll find tips from others like, it's actually sharpest at f7-f9 and needs hood on to not get washed out

>>4316099
Autofocus and tracking are related, but separate.
Mirrorless can do "brain" stuff better for obvious reasons like maintain acceptable focus on something moving from edge to edge in your frame but that's not really something most photographers need or want. People usually frame the important subject in the middle 1/3 or half the sensor and subject tracking shit is mostly great for video.

If you're using a camera as a webcam, mirrorless is the way to go.
If you're trying to do snapshots of things in the middle of the frame, DSLR is quicker.

>>4316074
fair, i was a center point user for a long time with DSLRs, a part of that comes from center points being functionally better than other points on DSLRs though
with mirrorless, I don't have to focus and recompose, and rarely move the focus point around, usually can just point and click, even if DSLRs are actually faster at focusing (I still disagree from my experience), it's still more time to take the photo, at leas for me
lowlight autofocus is also very different, D850 can focus (only with center point) to -4EV, where as a Zf can go down to -8.5EV with a similar lens, crazy shooting conditions at that extreme, but it also means you'll get better performance with slower lenses in more ordinary lowlight situations

>>4316267
>DSLR is quicker
To miss focus

Or only quicker than fuji, panasonic, olympus, and nikon (which miss focus slower)

>>4316283
To be fair canons are also slower once the battery drops. The last 10% aren’t real battery life. The camera basically shuts down with how laggy it gets. Only sony is definitively better than DSLRs at things other than being smaller - and they’re the best at that too.

File: gno.jpg (156 KB, 1000x669)

156 KB JPG

Is there any body [from any manufacture] that allows to set up multi-shot with any kind of settings, preferably in some kind of programmatic way?

E.g
1 shot f2 1/60 + flash
(short delay)
2 shot f/8 1s + no flash
3 shot f/8 (different focus distance)
etc.

Is this a thing? or not really

File: fujifilm-x-100vi-schwarz-(...).jpg (154 KB, 788x1050)

154 KB JPG

How much worse is APS-C compared to FF? I'm having the A7CII and while it's still kinda small, it sure feels like a brick. Recently checked out the X100VI in a store and damn it feels so good in hands. Also great EVF and 35mm equiv which I use 95% of the time. I'm so tempted to sell my Snoy gear and buy that Fuji. I don't mind low light performance or slower AF but I'm afraid I may miss the sharpness and great IQ of the FF sensor. I also do some filming and the camera coming with an inbuilt ND filter is also nice. What do you think? I know the camera is kinda overhyped right now but I'm not surprised why.

>>4316299
Quite shit unless your sole use case is social media. Quite shit at high ISOs even then compounded by a lack of fast high quality autofocus lenses. For crops and prints apsc is noticeably less sharp.

Fuji is even less sharp because xtrans is lower resolution than bayer (intended to simulate the detail loss of a strong AA filter, and ends up losing colors as well)
Add to that the x100vi has a baby butt soft lens that belongs on a point and shit
And filming is out of the question because fuji AF makes DSLRs look high tech and the focus motor makes an EXTREMELY loud noise that even external mics pick up

>>4316299
if an a7cii feels big with a 24mm f2.8 g/40mm f2.5 g on it, cameras are not for you, buy a sony rx100vii

or deal with it and enjoy having autofocus that works better than a nikon d200s.

>>4316299
X100vi sample gallery on dpreview vs any flagship quality, 1” sensor android phones sample gallery on dpreview
Pixel peep to your hearts content and dont be afraid to admit they look the same

>>4316299
shoot at 1 stop higher iso and limit yourself to f2.8 at the widest, thats your practical difference
a little bit more noise, a little less dynamic range
if an a7cii with small lens is too big for you, you probably want to be looking even smaller like ricoh gr or rx100

>>4316343
raising the iso doesnt account for sampling rate differences, noise per pixel/noise per image, resolution (more pixels on a smaller part of the image circle = resolving new aberrations not just new details)
theres a reason serious pros trend towards 24mp ff and 50mp mf - and a reason low resolution full frame still exists.

33-36mp FF is really a sweet spot for getting only the best out of a lens, not having too much noise per pixel (=color fuckups at high ISOs), and having cropping room for different aspect ratios.
40mp APS-C is absolutely overkill and only required because xtrans is objectively shit. 40mp fooj has roughly the same resolution as a 24mp bayer camera, but scaled up with slight blur.

File: Screenshot-2024-02-21-111741.png (1.48 MB, 1264x831)

1.48 MB PNG

>>4316312
>>4316313
>>4316316
>>4316343
>>4316373
Thanks y'all, checking some more sample photos I think the Fuji is sharp enough for my needs. I don't mind the 40mp and worse iso performance. But, not sure why, the apsc photos all seem a bit more flat while ff looks more "real" or "alive". Maybe that's what some mean with 3d pop. Even if I compare it with ff 35mm 2.8 pictures. That's what concerns me more than ISO or a softer lens. Oh boy too bad they never made a full frame x100v. Just look at that lumix they showed today.. tiny yet full frame.

rx100vii and the griii are both no no for me because I would miss the EVF too much.

>>4316380
“3d pop” or “realness” is what sharpness looks like zoomed out. Zoomed in you cant see sharpness except on a special chart. It just looks like one pixel being darker than the next one.

Legit just put smaller lenses on the sony. The real size difference is superficial unless you have some deep ass pockets and like walking around with weight in them.

File: 400cropzft5.png (609 KB, 2167x1482)

609 KB PNG

>>4316373
>thats your practical difference
in the real world, sometimes its okay to keep things simple
your points are more directly about different sensors too, not different sensor sizes
sampling rate, noise per pixel, resolution, all vary even among sensors of the same size so I'm not sure why you feel the need to correct me on it
your "well actually" makes it seem like making general statements are pointless because you cant account for everything, all the time, in every case and situation, so why bother?

>40mp fooj has roughly the same resolution as a 24mp bayer camera, but scaled up with slight blur.
yup, picrel of some 400% crops (26mp ff vs 40mp fuji), still absolutely fine for 99% of people and 99% of actual outputs

>>4316299
>>4316380
Supposedly, they're coming out with a fixed-lens 44x33mm camera, if you can wait for it.

>>4316387
Fine, but it costs nearly $2000, which is the price of a used a7riii and one of the smaller GM primes, and has autofocus that almost literally screams “pentax” and cripples its video abilities.

You may as well use the olde a7c and a small third party 35mm f2.8 - people here bitch about WR but old sony = all fuji there.

>>4316391
nigha that's the cost of a working car for something thats as “fine” as a cheap shit em5iii+oly 17mm.

>>4316391
its almost like different people have different wants, needs, and priorities out of a camera
op was lamenting about the size of an a7c so lets recommend him a kit considerably larger, great idea

>>4316398
It was about price/performance
If anything he should get micro four thirds so he can use a lens thats sharper under f5.6 or has some zoom

>>4316387
not sure which is which
but the bottom is nasty looking

>>4316411
On my laptop both look sharp but on my phone both look equally ass

Subpixel rendering can meme you into making false gear judgements. Screens dont tell the truth.

>>4316267
If all you're doing is shooting static subjects then fine, but with stuff that moves it can sometimes move outside the centre portion of the frame that most DSLRs cover. You might take the photo when it's in that position, but maintaining tracking means it doesn't have to reacquire it when it comes back into the centre.

File: 26ff40xtrans.jpg (1.5 MB, 3000x1496)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4316399
>It was about price/performance
op never mentioned price either

>>4316411
for sure, here was just at 100%

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3000
Image Height	4500
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:22 13:31:58
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	1496

is there any way to affordably mount various cameras (one being a phone) to a tripod in a way that allows the center of their lens to remain mostly consistent between camera swaps?

Not absolute perfection down to a sub millimeter or anything, but enough to give them the same perspective/view for doing some comparisons.
Currently I have a tripod adapter for my phone but it puts the lens so high off where the camera's lens sits and it's not even able to be centered to the screw position.. so clearly there's room for improvement.
Just not sure what can be done without spending a fortune.

>>4316540
Is it just the phone that's the issue? Most cameras have the tripod mount centred on the lens mount. You could make an offset adapter for it with just a 1/4-20 nut, bolt, and a thin strip of metal (and a drill and saw to drill and cut the metal).

If you're wanting to offset some cameras as well then you'll want a more sturdy solution, you could either swap to an arca swiss compatible head and get some long plates for the cameras allowing you to slide them left and right, or if you don't mind taking the time to adjust things then you could put them on a macro focussing rail mounted sideways.

>>4316582
The problem he is trying to solve is impossible. Even on regular cameras, the height and placement of the lens is never going to be identical. Think about the height difference between a Canon 1dx and a Sony a7c, for example. Even similar cameras are going to have differences in lens placement making identical compositions very tough without spending a bunch of time on it

Do I keep investing into mft? All I want now are a couple Oly pro lenses which are pricey. I like the results I get but sometimes I wonder if I should just sell with how OM is going.

>>4316631
>Do I keep investing into mft?
You're asking because you want me to say no. So no. Buy a real camera.

>>4316299
>>4316380
I decided to place an pre-order for the X100VI and still keep the A7CII but sell my 35mm 1.8 lens instead. Then I have the Fuji as my travel 35mm cam and the Snoy full frame with one wider lens (24mm) and a 85mm. Probably going to hate myself because then I'm forced to bring all gear at once. Fucking gas.

On the other hand both cameras won't lose much of value in the next years so I can always sell for a simliar price

>>4316671
>makes his camera larger overall by duplicating it
Fujisnoy, the ultimate consoomer

Why didnt you just buy a 40mm f2.5

>>4316680
I don't like the A7CII body, feels like a brick in hand, heavier (with lens), thick, loud and fake shutter sound, no joystick, bad EVF, ugly and has that ass vlogging fully articulated screen. Not a pleasure to use. Only reason not so sell is because I wanna test out if the apsc sensor give me a good enough IQ, if not then I keep the Sony with the two other lenses

>>4316693
You sound like a waifish homosexual who would cry and start shaking if they had to use a pentax 67

>>4316583
>The problem he is trying to solve is impossible
Hardly. There might not be anything on the market that does it, but it's still perfectly solvable with adjustable/custom cages to put each camera/phone in that you then attach to the tripod.

File: 1702171724053056.jpg (107 KB, 1280x960)

107 KB JPG

>>4313024
Hey guys I'm looking for a camera as a beginner, just looking for recommendations it can be old or new ones I can look up their specs and info on my own. My only experience so far has been using a digital Canon PS S100 from 2012.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4316750
just keep using that until you feel justified enough to spend a ton of money on a new really good camera. You're just wasting money on intermittent upgrades

>>4316750
Spend more time at work so you can afford something that is good enough to use until its death. Don't fall for /p/oorfag specsfag memes and buy a used FF DSLR or any such shit - you'll just end up pissing yourself off and coping for an eternity like cANON.

Is there any good 28mm lens for the Sony A7? I wanna sell my GRIII because it's collecting dust (at least not yet on the sensor) but I would miss the focal length for sure. I know there are great 24mm lenses but I'm afraid that's a bit too wide for my purpose

>>4316693
You should have just got a regular A7, the C isn't small enough to justify what you give up

>>4316633
That's not really true. I'm curious about both perspectives. Selling my shit would be a pain and I doubt I'd make a return.
>real camera
I don't care about that as long as it takes photos I like.

I bought a D3100 kit, it's my first camera.

>>4316843
post a photo from it!!!

>>4316843
cool bro, just use and abuse it and learn the PASM modes.

File: lumixs9back.png (621 KB, 723x567)

621 KB PNG

is it possible to shoot the lumix s9 with the lcd folded in like this? i would put a viewfinder on the top and zone focus

>>4316945
>i would put a viewfinder on the top and zone focus
>he doesn't know

>>4316582
I have some other cameras so not just the phone, but other anon is right.
Different camera systems do have the center of their lens (due to height too) in different positions so I'd need horizontal + vertical adjustments to accomplish my goal.

The sideways macro rail idea is good but I'd need something for height, additionally I'd want to have some depth adjustment for long/pancake lenses so they're in the same ballpark for their apparent FOV

I think what I'm thinking about is too niche or too expensive to do since it's not too important to me

>>4316583
After some thought I'd say it seems impractical, but not impossible.

>>4316738
Out of curiosity do you know of any examples for doing this?
And how much such a setup would cost?

I wanna shoot some test targets then mainly do landscapes with different cameras/lenses and would like to just set the tripod up, then swap camera systems with ease but minimizing variances caused by lens position/camera pov between shots.
doesn't need to be ultra precise but I don't want them being inches off, a few mm off would be fine but would like to keep the difference under 1/2" in any direction.

>>4316973
>Out of curiosity do you know of any examples for doing this?
>And how much such a setup would cost?
No, but or an upper limit to the cost I'd say whatever a decent filament 3D printer costs, plus some reasonably strong filament for it.

>>4316802
>I never use my 28mm camera
>really going to miss 28mm
The mind of a gearfag is truly a mystifying thing.

>>4316839
>i don't care about that as long as it takes photos I like.
If this is true and not just a cope response to being called out, then it really makes your original question absolutely pointless, doesn’t it? So which is it? Do you care and need advice about sticking with mft or not, or do you not care and therefore it doesn’t matter? Can’t be both, faggot.

File: 61sumijrzgl._ac_sl1004_.jpg (74 KB, 977x717)

74 KB JPG

>>4316540
Just get a macro focusing rail like picrel, it adjusts front/back and left/right and you just use tripod for vertical, $30.
I've done a lot of A/B comparisons, and unless you're doing like pixel perfect up-close technical work, it's not even really necessary.
At normal distances, a few mm or even 1-2 inches aren't really going to have a meaningful impact.

>>4316985
Maybe I'd like photos more from a different system. I'm just asking for different perspectives. Calm down.

File: DSC_0001 scaled.jpg (728 KB, 1280x853)

728 KB JPG

>>4316849

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D3100
Camera Software	Ver.1.01
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.1
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	848
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:24 11:37:42
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Not Defined
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3072
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
ISO Speed Used	800
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	AUTO
Focus Mode	AF-A
Flash Compensation	0.0 EV
ISO Speed Requested	800
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	162111488.0 EV
Lens Type	Nikon G Series
Lens Range	18.0 - 55.0 mm; f/3.5 - f/5.6
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Timer/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	3569
Digital Vari-Program	AUTO

>>4317040
You won't really know until you get it in your hands. You can look at sample images all day long, but it will look different once you start applying your shooting style and editing methods. If you're doing photography you should be okay with the idea of losing money on gear.

I think you should buy a new system, try it out, see how you like it then decide which of them you are going to sell. You can minimize your losses by buying used and if you buy from keh or mpb you may even just be able to find out if you like it and return it within the return window for no loss.

I like to buy once, cry once (under 3k for body) What's a good all arounder for photography that will retain its value for years to come? I was thinking of getting a Nikon zf, but Ive been eyeing the xt5 and a6700 too.

>>4317107
Pentax K-1

>>4317107
Sony a7iv

>>4317107
>I like to buy once, cry once (under 3k for body) What's a good all arounder for photography that will retain its value for years to come?
Why do you care about retaining value if you're only planning on buying once?

>>4317079
Thanks those are nice tips.
>losing money
Definitely willing, just want to be smart about it. Seems like buying with a plan to sell is the way to go.

>>4317131
yeah buy something, with the intent to resell it or sell your mft stuff, but you won't actually know if you like a camera and the output until you start using it and give it a chance

>>4317130
I like being invested in something that won't lose more than half of its value in only a year or two in case I fall on hard times and need cash.

File: 1611210980973.jpg (25 KB, 274x274)

25 KB JPG

should I go with nikon or canon for a first digital camera? I'm not invested in any ecosystem yet. was wanting a z6ii since it's under 2k for a body but then I thought maybe a z7ii for the extra resolution, which turned into maybe an R6 MK2 for the better AF but now we're looking at 2k or more for just a body unless I snag a refurbished deal, + canon lenses being expensive.
>now thinking about wageslaving for a Z8

>>4317146
Sounds like you want a Sony

>>4317151
this board has pretty thoroughly turned me off of the idea of buying a snoy. I just snapshit with film and my gf's D3400 so honestly anything would probably blow my mind as far as features and AF, but I've at least used a nikon menu before

>>4317152
lumix s5ii

>>4317152
Then why not just get a cheap crop DSLR and be happy instead of spending $2k on something you don't really need or even want from the sound of it?

Also
>taking the sony hate seriously

>>4317175
I won't be happy if it's not full frame. I've thought about copping a D810 but don't wanna deal with calibrating lenses or being stuck on a dead technology or feeling like I'm leaving IQ on the table, as nice as an OVF is. as far as the sony hate it's more the snoy colors thing that turns me off, the ergos might be shit but I've never held one. with an A7R III and R6 MK2 being so close in price I'd just take the canon

>>4317146
z7ii is $1k off right now btw

>>4317146
>>4317152
>>4317177
You sound like you want to buy a camera that will make trolls on this board happy instead of buying something that will make you happy. Probably because you don't know what you want, since you haven't been shooting long enough. A D3400 is a great beginner camera that has all of the features you need to learn how to shoot, and several decades' worth of cheap used lenses for the mount that you can experiment with. If you can keep borrowing your girlfriend's camera, play around with it more until you know what you need.

>>4317177
The colours thing is a load of nonsense, the green cast can be corrected so it's only a concern if you're only posting SOOC jpegs and even then you probably wouldn't even notice if someone hadn't told you about it.

Ergonomically there's not really much to complain about with Sony either. The menus are complex and not laid out the best (it's better with newer models) so when people try them out once they shit all over them, however the people that actually own them take the time to customise the cameras how they like (a big plus for Sony) and very rarely have to dive into the main menu.

File: Screenshot 2024-05-26 232057.png (671 KB, 1530x850)

671 KB PNG

Someone should pick this up. It's an amazing camera for high dynamic range, very malleable files, and beautiful tonality. They used to cost $8500 back in early 2014 when they were announced. 10 years later, and they're a steal at this price.

>>4317609
No thanks, I'd rather an A7R III and a decent lens, or a IV if I needed the resolution

>>4317177
>Snoy colors
Total fucking myth. This mostly applies to shitty lightroom profiles for the A7R....II. If anything, "sony colors" are more cool and magenta than green (due to the color cast of their lenses, which carries over even if you adapt them to a nikon). If you use sigma/tamron lenses, the colors are more warm. 90% of color is literally JUST the lens. The lens is not perfectly clear. It is a color filter. Some light makes it through the myriad of coatings and weird pieces of glass. Some does not. Lenses do many, many more things than just make your test charts crisper. Color and contrast are mostly lens dependent and change even if you stick to one brand, and one product line, ie: Sony G or GM, Nikon S, Canon L, Zeiss Otus, the colors and contrast will still change from lens to lens. Matching them between different optical formulas is actually very difficult which is where the massive price hike for soft, manual-everything cine lens sets actually comes from.
>The ergos might be shit
The ergos are brilliant if you stick to the original design philosophy. Sony was being very forward thinking and imagining cameras getting smaller again, like the 70s, yknow, "you dont need or want a 24-70 f2.8 to take a great photo" so their starting lens lineup was all so small the largest lens was the 24-70 f4. Sony cameras are very convenient and comfortable with lenses of that size. If you are a boomer who thinks cameras ought to be used with fucking bazookas like the mid 2010s DSLRs, then sony cameras will chafe your palm and wear out your fingers.
>A7RIII and R6II being close in price
Lmfao are you buying a 6 year old sony brand new? The R6II is EXACTLY as expensive as the Nikon Z7II. That's the product tier it competes in. Video and sports with great zooms vs. high res landscape and baller, relatively compact budget primes (for their quality). R5 = Z8 product tier. The A7RIII is two gens out of date. You should be paying $1000-$1250 for it.

>>4317609
>Dynamic range, editing lattitude, and "tonality"
All of this is same as FF due to the dated sensor... DR is noise floor, latitude and tonality are bit depth. Cameras are soulless tools and there is absolutely nothing about a camera or lens that can not be assigned a number or a graph. If you think there is, it's just too hard for a retarded fuck-around-in-the-basement often-wrong gearfag (ie: the last word, photons to photos) to chart because it actually requires some knowledge.

All you are getting is the experience, and a slightly better MTF tranny chart but with higher levels of aliasing, just like buying a fuji GFX50 but it's actually well made.

File: Screenshot-2024-05-23-at-12.png (651 KB, 1600x891)

651 KB PNG

>>4317240
>just buy an aps-c dslr and some kit lenses bro
People like you almost want people to quit photography
Or maybe, you wear cargo shorts and carry an IBM stinkpad in your murse, so you're not aware that normal people want more iphone and less IBM communicator?

Buying the original sony A7 or even a micro four thirds camera is a better decision than this. The best camera is the one you have with you. Nobody wants to carry a DSLR any more than the want to carry a 24-70 f2.8 on their FF mirrorless, and nobody wants to be seen with a DSLR either. They are genuinely ugly cameras and I hesitate to call you an artist if you care so little about aesthetics you would be seen with a plastic blob emblematic of disposable consumerist asian trash outside of a planned or studio shoot.

Oh, and M43 unironically outperforms outdated DSLRs, especially in the lens department. Your stop of noise doesnt mean shit, the lenses on m43 are way better than canonikon consumer trash aka DX lenses. So is the weather sealing, quality, and overall utility of the system.
FF MILC > M43 MILC > APS-C MILC (why do these exist?) >>>>>>>> DSLR

DSLRs are now bad enough that even leibovitz finally ditched her D810 - because she could use the same body for work and hobby shooting by only changing to the big lens (work) or the small lens (casual) on her sony.

DSLRs date from the era where having an ILC at all meant work and casual shooting involved a smaller premium PNS like a sony rx100 or a film compact (leica). Micro four thirds and fujifilm ended this era by bringing premium ILC capability to small cameras, and sony drove the last nail into the coffin. Now fun and work are separated by the presence of a big honking pro lens like an f2.8 zoom or a premium prime like 50mm f1.2.

File: file.png (1.17 MB, 3216x895)

1.17 MB PNG

Which way white man

>muh single stop of noies muh equibalence muh muhmuhmuh!! buy aps-c dslr pls!
If it matters so much,
1: your last option is on the right.
2: DSLR has no IBIS without a bloated VR lense lmoa. There goes your single stop of noise as you use crazy high shutter speeds for every photo.

Dont even bring up muh sensor format mtf chart BS, mirrorless lenses are sharper.

>>4313024
I have one of these cameras
is it bad?
I've never really used it

>>4317623
Careful when using sony, olympus, panasonic fuji...
I keep the Sony blacked out on both my A7iii bodies... just because I'm sick and tired of people coming up to me at events insisting on debating why their 5 year old CaNikon body they bought at BestBuy with Kit Lens and nifty 50 is so much better than mine. Offset is people who recognize the Sony anyhow and just want to talk about gear, while I'm trying to shoot an event, I always ask them to leave, i know you always wanted an "alpha one like that!" alright, but i am trying to work

One particularly bad smelling guy followed me around for 45 minutes harassing me about how bad mirrorless is (though he'd never used one and was packing a rebel t2i, but had "read it on a Canon forum a couple years ago") until I finally asked the event people to keep him away. Then I'm the asshole who "couldn't handle the truth". I felt like reminding him the event staff did not allow guests to bring professional cameras and making reference to his dslr, but with how many references he made to conspiracy theories I had a feeling i would just trigger a barrage of wild claims about being a CIA agent and the son of jesus...

>>4317624
Olympus easy, i have used them on professional shoots (mostly daytime weddings) when brides request a documentary style and do not want heavy background blur, but i still keep my "real camera" on standby for planned portraits that we already know will be printed larger, first kiss/ceremony (yes i simply stop down) and post-sunset. but when i am walking around fulfilling the clients stylistic request (including the photographer looking like a guest) i use an om5

no the quality is not as good as FF but i'd put it over apsc dslrs for sure

>>4317632
Based m43chad

>>4317623
>>4317632
Hey I hate to disappoint you because you clearly got worked up writing all that, but your reading comprehension isn’t great - I didn’t tell him to buy a DSLR, I told him to keep using what’s available to him because he’s obviously a beginner.

>>4317685
You told the poor faggot to buy a d3400. Shame on you. DSLRs are unusable for based sexhavers. The only acceptable large cameras are 4x5 field cameras.

>>4317620
if you're supposed to marry the glass and not the body, why wouldn't I go with nikon? from what I've gathered they've got the best lenses and their mount design gives them more options

File: _DSC8880_r.jpg (4.48 MB, 2500x3750)

4.48 MB JPG

>>4313446
The FE 28-60. Considering the JPY rate and zero tax, I grabbed it with my camera because why the fuck not, it wouldn't make much of a difference in price. My plan was to use it when I'm skiing and wouldn't want to bring more expensive glass, but it's surprisingly capable considering its size. It won't win any awards but it has no right being this decent for a small cheapo kit lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7CM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 24.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2991
Image Height	4487
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Created	2024:05:27 01:15:46
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Brightness	2.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	28.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2500
Image Height	3750
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft

>>4317622
I own a 645Z and an R5 and the 645Z files win every time. It's OK, I understand that you're a keyboard warrior on the internet with mountains of specs as your weapon. But you could stand to temper your weapon with a little bit of real-world experience. At the very least, you should stop spouting shit--just shit up.

>>4317762
Yeah the R5 kinda sucks, at base ISO it's 1-2 stops behind an A7R III and it starts to fall behind in dynamic range from as low as 6400

>>4317177
Seriously, buy any *mirrorless* full frame from Canon, Sony, or Nikon that you can afford, and you'll be happy with any of them. You can get an adapter and use older lenses for mirrored DSLRs or you can buy more modern mirrorless-specific lenses. Either way, a mirrorless body at this stage is future-proofing.

>>4317762
could you show us some examples? doesn't have to be a/b comparison, just something to show

>>4317822
There used to be a guy on here who did a hilarious bit where he posted side by side shots of his 645z to his m43 camera (I can't remember which) and pretended he couldn't tell the difference. It was a pleasure to watch him work.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (93 KB, 1280x720)

93 KB JPG

I recently went from Fuji apsc to Sony FF and planing to buy a 24mm lens. With the Fuji 16mm 1.4 being my favorite lens back then I search for something that is equally good. Therefore the 24mm 2.8 Sony lens is out because not fast enough. The GM lens would probably be best but also huge, heavy and damn expensive.
Can the Viltrox 24mm 1.8 or the Samyang 24mm 1.8 compete with the Fuji? They are cheap, yet enough sharp and also fast with their 1.8 aperture. What do you think?

>>4317849
I had the Viltrox 16mm and it was a great lens, idk about the 24mm though. I would go for it.

Also:
>The GM lens would probably be best but also huge, heavy and damn expensive.
>huge
2.97" x 3.64"
>heavy
445g
>expensive
okay yeah, it is expensive

Have you ever considered that maybe you should go back to crop? If you think that's a big lens I have bad news for you.

>>4317632
>event staff did not allow guests to bring professional cameras
never heard of this kind of bullshit
it's always either "no photography" or "photography ok"
wait why am I kidding myself you just made all that up anyways
>>4317837
lmao

>>4315738
Gave it a week and just did it. I shoot film-era manual lenses primarily so I could get the body and a lot more lenses in exchange. How's the weather sealing? Do you have to have AW-glass or do I have to tape a plastic bag to the front of the camera?

>>4317837
at least they werent a nophoto

>>4317849
if you arent going to get good glass, just go back to crop

>>4317882
>if you arent going to get good glass, just go back to crop
I guarantee you that any viltrox on FF gives you a way better IQ than the best lens on a apsc camera

>>4317769
>buy FF mirrorless canon
Now I am unhappy because the only lenses that are weather sealed are $1000+ RF L lenses that are also huge. I am unhappy because my camera is huge. I paid $2000 for all this cinema camera larping video shit almost nobody needs because 99.99999999999% of the worlds video could be viewed as 1080p without making a difference. I paid $2000 for this crazy FPS (with 12 bit raws in jello shutter, UGH) i dont need because I am not paid to get once in a lifetime photos of baseball players hitting balls at particular games. I am so damn unhappy! I'm flat broke with a non weather sealed giant camera! Forced shadow NR? No wonder my edits always looked like mush. This camera is designed to shoot 120fps jpegs for the newspaper!
>Buy FF mirrorless sony
I thought it would be amazing, but now I know the camera is crippled. Crippled! The A7III shot 10fps with full raws, and this A7IV I was told to buy so I could have a weather sealed camera (MY PHONE IS WEATHER SEALED FFS) only shoots 6fps unless you turn on micro four thirds tier 12 bit compressed raw. Buy another model? The A7RIV is slower than a DSLR. Who the fuck designs these? And why do my corners change color if I push ISO 100 images 3ev? Where did the stars in my milky way photo go? FUCK!
>Buy FF mirrorless Nikon
ITS HUGE, THE AUTOFOCUS DOESNT FUCKING WORK AND LITERALLY EVERY LENS IS HUGE EXCEPT FOR TWO PLASTIC PIECES OF SHIT AND A PANCAKE THAT HAS EVEN SHITTIER AUTOFOCUS THAN THE BODY! FFS my PHONE has better autofocus than a NIGGON.

Face it, FF mirrorless is garbled, crippled shit that only "professionals" are meant to put up with. The industry gave up on making pleasant to use cameras and now just sells to wedding photographers. There are nice camera to just use - called the olympus OM-5 and leica M11-P.
>inb4 fuji
Wormtrans has the same IQ as a phone
>inb4 nikon ZF
Nonsense controls, confusing schizoid mix of PASM and vintage, at least fuji did that part right

OM-5 Or M-11.

>>4317762
The R5 has forced shadow NR. It's not a good camera to compare. Cannot's inferior sensor tech has made it a worse photography camera, roughly aps-c tier. But it's an objective fact that normal full frame cameras measurably, provably have the same bit depth and dynamic range as those ancient MF shitters. Only a slight sharpness difference, assuming you're managing your mirror slap issues.

>>4317889
It's amazing how with all the tech japan has, their cameras are actually getting worse

Sony peaked with the A7III and A7RIII, replaced them with the twice as expensive A1 and A9II and added on the a7iv and a7riv as shitty crippled jokes.

File: _DSC8483-Panorama_r.jpg (4.02 MB, 7500x2325)

4.02 MB JPG

>>4317849
The 16mm f1.8 Viltrox is very good and a steal at that price. You can't go wrong with it, though it's probably larger than what you want. The 24mm is not as good, but considering its price, it's decent enough.
As for me, despite the large lens choice, I'm struggling finding the wide angle that would suit my needs : fully manual, will be used for milky way, ideally 18/20mm, ~f2, and 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 aperture blades for the sunstars I want.
I come from a cheapo manual Samyang 12mm f2.0 on E APS-C, and so far nothing replaced it in its price range. Laowa 15mm exists but it's hard finding a used copy with 5 aperture blades (5 and 7 version exist, it's a lottery) and it has other issues, Voiglander 21 f1.4 is too pricey, thus I went with a used 21mm Loxia f2.8, it's the closest to my needs at my already stretched budget, but I wish I could have a f2.0 18/20mm. The Loxia could have been my endgame, but I don't really like its handling, and I'm not sure about my copy but I'll test it more thoroughly.
Viltrox is so close to it, and yet still so far away. But god damn they're coming with decent glass for cheap these days. Hopefully they'll make some 18/20/21mm FE prime down the line.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7CM2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 24.6 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	21 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	11011
Image Height	3413
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	240 dpcm
Image Created	2024:05:27 18:24:02
Exposure Time	1/2000 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	9.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	21.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	7500
Image Height	2325
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Soft

>>4317862
>How's the weather sealing?
I don't know. I'm not an expert on it or anything. All I know is what I've seen mentioned in reviews.

> Do you have to have AW-glass or do I have to tape a plastic bag to the front of the camera?
Again no idea. I'm planning on picking up a WR lens for really bad weather, but it's more to protect my non weather sealed lenses than my body.

Basically I bought this camera to take the abuse when I don't feel comfortable shooting my film cameras. So I'm not terribly concerned with babying it. I trust the weather sealing and I guess we'll see what happens.

>>4317889
Spoken like a true retard who doesn't actually get out and shoot any photos. The guy just needs to buy an R8 or R6II or similar from the other companies, get some basic lenses, and get out there and shoot. Bitching about all the very minor problems a camera might have is not productive.

>>4317989
you know hes mostly right
>R8
you will get mogged by:
iphone night mode because you need a giant "IS" lens or a tripod to do "long" exposures
iphone weather sealing because only expensive and huge L lenses do that
>R6II
now that you have spent $2000 on features you really don't need you have a huge blob and need to put a huger blob lens on it to get everything you paid for including water resistance equal to... an iphone.

seriously, this shit sucks. the best camera is the one you have with you and the daily complaint you see among you gearfags is "i never take my camera with me" after you buy all this huge canon nikon stuff, or you go to the other end of the kiddy pool and buy m43 stuff and leave it at home because you realized your phone photos look 99% the same. no wonder the camera industry died outside of selling to pros.

>>4317995
>iphone is a serious camera
dude, just stop. take your real camera and go shoot some photos. you're spending too much time trolling on 4chan

>>4317995
wrong I take my mft out on every hike I go on (1-2 per week) and take beautiful photos my phone could never take. for example
- macro with focus stacking in camera
- external flash
- ilc so I can get decent quality telephoto
- if I want bokeh I have lenses for it and have never felt the need for more
- pixel shifting
- subject detect AF and precapture
- high fps shooting for birds and such
- hdr
- better ergonomics for all of this
I could go on. I can't do any of that on my phone. stop posting nophoto loser

File: 1501271764614.jpg (116 KB, 750x747)

116 KB JPG

I have a Canon 50mm 1.8, 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 and a 55-250mm 4.0-5.6. My two zooms I like them, I really love using the 55-250mm but most of the time my aperture is 5.6 and it just seems kind of shit unless you have a bright ass day just pouring light into the lens. I want some better lenses but it seems these are kind of it, I bought a couple of those Chinese manual lenses the Tartisan and Pergear 35mm and 25mm just to fuck around with for like 90 CAD each whatever. It would seem I am at a point where I need to shell out 1k basically for a decent lens which seems kind of gay, maybe I just need to git gud with primes or something and buy a cheaper one but even then a good one is still up there in price.

File: 1693432900697038.jpg (1.06 MB, 1866x900)

1.06 MB JPG

>>4318000
>"nophoto" writes a tech babby essay instead of posting these amazing photos
you and the people who totally carry their DSLR every day

micro four thirds hiking
vs
sony a7iii with sigma 100-400 at the zoo

who is a documentarian snapshitter with low quality "picture of a ____"s and who is doing real photography (art)?

just use a point and shoot lol its the same thing as micro four thirds but cheaper overall and doesnt need 100 different lenses so you can cope with your $1000 manual focus f2 equivalent "noctitron"

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Joint Photographic Experts Group
Camera Model	Jpeg File
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	1866
Image Height	900

File: muh fool turds.png (1.32 MB, 1476x1328)

1.32 MB PNG

>at least i saved a pound
getting these memes off the archive is a riot

i also found something else on the archive, real sample photos from real m43 users, before running topaz AI
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4258887/
behold the amazing quality. full photos with exif if you save them.

>>4318004
wrong again moron I take lots of photos and have fun taking my compact ultraphoto off and putting my macro lens on to get a mushroom photo. also
>zoo photos

>>4318007
me on the left but I'm only crying because of how much fun I'm having and how beautiful nature is

File: 1701227034641.jpg (4.49 MB, 2305x1732)

4.49 MB JPG

>>4318007
all of these look like someone put a cheap teleconverter on an old lens, mounted it to a sony nex-5, and turned the ISO up all the way. yikes.

literally no reason to buy m43. it was cool back when using aps-c and full frame meant using a cano-nikon dlsaar. now dlsaars are just for poorjeets and dont have anything to do with a sensor size. every sensor size is mirrorless.

>>4318010
if u took lotsa photo you would be dumping them with every post but you aren't so safe to assume they are embarrassing to show no? like this.

I think the best nature camera is a full frame/apsc with a prime lens - zooming in on birds like this is for trying to make the wikipedia info box not capture a beautiful scene. You can get better versions of this photo by googling "hummingbird". i heard the sony 40mm is very good and can focus close enough to see details, just not 1:1 macro masturbation where you can count compound eyes but nothing else is in focus even on m43.

also, carrying 5 different lenses for ur m43 is as bad as carrying a canon 1d, maybe worse because you're constantly getting dust in the camera and worrying about damaging the different lenses, the best hiking camera is just 1 lens 1 camera.

>>4318010
if you are just going to zoom way in on a bird and blur out the whole environment even with your 200-1000 f16-32 equivalent trenchcoat pocket zoom you might as well go to the zoo i see no difference. the photo says nothing about where you went and what happened. it's just a bird in front of colors.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-GX85
Camera Software	darktable 4.0.1+1~ga59e0af56
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	311 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2022:11:21 16:50:44
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	500
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2305
Image Height	1732
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto

>>4317074
based

Should I buy a forevon sensor camera for fun or is the price gouging not worth

>>4317624
e-m5 but replace the 25mm 1.8 with the panasonic leica 25 1.4

>>4318061
It is very fun. I really like the images they make. Maybe you will like them too.

How can I take time lapse photos with a film camera?

canon RP or R50 for photos and videos?
I'm open to another suggestion tho

>>4317898
Irix makes 21 1.4. But the cine version is expensive, and the stills version is only for DLSRs (and lacks aperture ring).

>>4318130
R8 instead of RP
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R8.aspx
> In appearance, the Canon EOS R8 looks like the EOS RP with a new name. However, the internals are vastly updated, making the R8 a far superior camera.

>>4318134
budget
I'm not a pro too and won't be making any money from this camera either
just for casual toy photography and making videos

>>4318108
but that woul be 36 shots of time lapse?
maybe something with like this connected to your film camera on a tripod.
https://cinemaelec.com/products/intervalometer

>>4318136
oh well >>4318137

If you had two of the exact same dslr but one had one extra stop of dynamic range how much more should it cost?

I am interested in videotaping some events I do with a group of people. I do not care much about epic video quality but I care about a fairly cheap and dependable solution to record multiple continuous hours of HD footage from multiple angles on battery power.

I was thinking about going around buying old-ish professional camcorders with SD cards, but I don't know if it's a good idea or where to start.

Any suggestions?

>>4318157
There's no "should" for prices. There's what shit actually costs, which you can just go check on your own, and then there's how much you're prepared to pay for it, which is a completely subjective thing no one else can answer for you.

>obsessively visit /p/ and watch reviews and visit forums
>finally buy camera
>now realise once you've made a purchase there's nothing these places can offer

>>4318570
Hope you bought a full frame mirrorless

Im little confused about certain lens. I wanted to buy telephoto lens for my Nikon D750 camera and Im thinking about Nikkor 70-200 2.8 G ED VR II (I know there is "next version" but even used ones are much more expensive). I see many positive reviews about it but then I also run into people at commentary sections calling this lens "completely unusable" due to "focus breathing", claiming that lens act "like 120mm instead of 200mm". But isn't it like it only happens with closest focusing distance?

I often use trusted Nikkor 24-120 F/4 with VRII for most of the time, I only require telephoto for events, concerts and the like when I can't get close enough to scene and such but still need to shoot from well beyond minimum focusing range. Would that whole "focus breathing" be an issue for me?

>>4318570
You are supposed to primarily post and discuss photos here but people alrarely give good feedback anymore. Read the sticky.

>>4318582
I'd only worry about it if you're planning on shooting video.

>>4318586
Oh, thats good. I was worried a little for a moment. And this is probably stupid question but - why these people were so negative about reduced length at closest distance (in this case, 1.5m) instead of using shorter lens?

>>4318587
I dunno, people like to complain. It's better objectively to have less focus breathing and the new Z lenses achieve that, but it really won't matter for events and concerts at all.