>>4314707
Save up for a D850, if you go F mount.
>buying a dead mount as your "one and done"
You'll be back

>>4314721
whats wrong with F mount
>inb4 go mirrorless

>>4314707
get the 850

File: file.png (38 KB, 586x374)

38 KB PNG

>850

>>4314727
>focus by wire lenses

>>4314721
>>4314725
let me rephrase my original question. as mirroless seems to be the future, i'm just looking for an affordable full frame to hold me over. "one and done" means I dont intend to own mulitple camera bodies/mounts at the same time as i just do hobby shooting. but at this point I have more FX lenses than DX, and would like a little more resolution than 16mp that I have now with the 7000.

>>4314727
The D850 is not $2800 used, not by a long shot. More like $1200. Yes it's a great deal, and yes it's the last best DSLR ever made, like the F6 ended the film era, the D850 ends the DSLR era.

>>4314727
imagine being this wrong
t. D850-owner

>>4314727
based and true

File: df_nifty.jpg (33 KB, 640x480)

33 KB JPG

>>4314707

D810 has new features, might be that they do not even list in dpreview specification compare

>>4314727
>they hated him, for he posted the truth
I'd rather get a cheapo used z7 and settle for having to bring around a couple chinesium spare batteries

Imagine using canonikon garbage

>>4314781
I think the Z7 is the better camera overall because it can adapt virtually any lens, and takes the superior Z lenses. But that said, if what your heart desires is an F mount DSLR, who am I to stop you? It has better AF in low light, you can say that for it at least.

>>4314727
I bought a DSLR in 2024. Fight me.

>>4314735
>More like $1200
yeah, for a beat to shit one with 250k on the shutter. any 850 that's in decent to good condition is closer to 2000.

>>4314727
You guys ever notice that there is no arguments in favor of mirrorless cameras? It's just
>It's the future!
Implying that it's inevitable due to market forces, not that it's actually good or even better. Because in reality where they are better, it's purely a technical victory, in practice of actually doing photography they are meaningless. In fact in practice of doing photography SLRs are superior, the problem is that in order to figure that out you'd need to stop looking at specs, mft charts and reviews and actually take some photos.

>>4314707
I looked into this probably about a year ago, so I may be misremembering but iirc, the d810 has a lower base ISO and no AA filter being the big differences. I remember deciding that the d810 was worth it, but honestly if there is a big price difference than get the d800, they're going to be mostly incidental.

>>4314799
Euro prices alert

>>4314803
The lenses are actually sharp without being 2lb
The body is not larger than a medium format SLR

These two obvious points are not the only ones, but they alone are enough to matter. Cue the usual horde of scrawny five foot nine chinless prematurely balding ectomorph faggots screeching SKIHLH ISHOO if you go this far or any further because they are such pathetic effeminate faggots that they think being more dedicated to being a technology nerd is a substitute for putting your dick into a fucking pussy.

DSLRs are specialized low light action photography tools that suck shit for general use. Also, they repel bitches who are not fat lesbian troons.

>>4314808
nope. MPB has them for $1400 with 200-250k on the shutter, KEH has them for $1400 in bargain condition, ebay has them for ~$1600 for good condition with ones graded POOR going for $1000.

>>4314815
What the fuck is wrong with the boomer d850 cult?

>>4314808
>The lenses are actually sharp without being 2lb
See my point about staring at specs and mtf charts. Lens sharpness has been more than good enough for 98% of photographers since the 60s.

>The body is not larger than a medium format SLR
This is a positive, the larger bodies are far more ergonomic. Better grips, more dedicated buttons. It's just a way nicer experience. The only situation where a small body is better is if you're trying to be "discrete" aka creepshot the back of someone's head on a train or a profile shot of someone walking through a crosswalk (aka not real photography)

>>4314823
>Why would people seek out and pay exorbitant prices for the absolute peak in digital photography?
ftfy. Developments in digital photography have never progressed beyond the d850. Things are actually getting worse as time progresses, not better. I suspect we will not see it matched again.

>>4314825
People who say “lenses are sharp enough” are invariably boomers who shoot everything at f8-f16 and believe sharpening in post is a good idea. These are invariably the same people who say an iphone is close to a FF DSLR. I WONDER WHY?

>muh ergonomic
Sure is telling that you think the only use for a camera that isnt a hideous bugmam designed brick of single purpose buttons is creepshots. I take it “ergonomic” mostly applies to the hideously large lenses you must use to not have blurry shit photos before applying iphone levels of sharpening, and the even larger ones you use for eggy-esque creepshots?

>>4314828
The z7ii already surpassed it, significantly, and its not even that great of a camera. The a7riii and a7riv BTFO it hard before that. The R5 BTFO it hard.

The issue is it has a captive market of tasteless ken rockwells who know what the sellers got and worship this camera.

Before mirrorless:
“The leica look is the best thing ever” (short flange distance allows sharper normal sized lenses)

After mirrorless:
LENSES HAVE BEEN SHARP ENOUGH SINCE 1930 *leaves capture one sharpening settings at their default values*

>>4314707
Just go buy used z6

>>4314831
>LENSES HAVE BEEN SHARP ENOUGH SINCE 1930 *leaves capture one sharpening settings at their default values*
Hey, that's what I say and do

>>4314836
Z6III is coming up and might actually be better than an a7iii in ways other than weather sealing gimmicks

>>4314788
t. seething snoy

>>4314707
One and done doesnt really exist on Nikon. They are hopelessly out of date. Even their top shelf Z9 and Z8 have LESS DYNAMIC RANGE than other full frame cameras (to be fair, so does the R3, but canon doesnt pretend its anything but a specialist camera for journalists like nikon and the z8, and NR is forced in raws to make processing easier)

Your one and dones as of 2024 are:
Sony A7RV
Sony A1
Sony A9II (not counting the a9iii because of its DR issues)
Canon R6II
Canon R5
If you can't afford any of these you are going to be compromising, the only "better" cameras are specialist cameras that are only better at one thing but worse at some others.

These cameras are more or less flawless for what they are. Some compromises are inherent to humanity's current level of technological achievement but cameras are not expected to get much better at things other than FPS without even worse compromises for decades.

Everything else is fatally flawed, like the Z6ii/z7ii having shit autofocus and no pixel shift, crop sensors being a budget cope, xtrans being defective by design, medium format having lol no lenses and making the a7rv look lightning fast, etc etc etc.

The closest it gets to good on any other brand is the Nikon ZF. However Nikon has a fatal flaw - GOOD SMALL CAMERA, NO GOOD SMALL LENSES. 28mm f2.8 - no WR. 40mm f2 - soft, no WR. 26mm f2.8 - noisy slow autofocus. If you like what Nikon offers and MIGHT offer you have to wait and hope for the z6iii/z7iii.

>>4314859
Very true. I doubt any d850 or z7ii user would turn down a r5 or a1.

File: HazyBridge.jpg (380 KB, 1519x1139)

380 KB JPG

>>4314870
I wouldn’t trade a d850 for nothin but that’s because I’m not a gear fag who pays attention to that shit
And because I don’t have one I shoot a d610

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D610
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 6.4 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2023:06:18 15:30:06
Exposure Time	4 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/14.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Comment	452942
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1519
Image Height	1139
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Landscape
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4314731

Op you are making a huge mistake, you do not want a 45Mp camera.
It just makes shit take longer to load, take up more space and gives zero advantage unless you are so bad at photography you need to crop away 90% of your original framed photo.

In b4 it’s free zoom, it’s not on a dslr because your viewfinder is going to show the zoomed out full photo so you won’t be able to frame your shot for shit because you will be trying to only look at the middle 10% of your view finder.

Hire one first, my d800 sits unused in the cupboard, I prefer 24mp it’s more than enough, faster to edit and view images, takes up less hd plus I way prefer framing as close to the final image in the viewfinder, it’s a truely awful experience reviewing 500 photos when they are not framed right in the thumbnails.

>>4314884
it's free zoom on a dslr in liveview mode

In my opinion, having a crop sensor is just having a wider lens. It the same, going to 65mm film or using a hasselblad. Anamorphic lenses just appear to be a wider lens.

>>4314808
>lesbian troons
What did xir mean by this?

>>4314859
Stop with the shilling. Snoy and Cannot have more fatal flaws than fucking Fuji - the former having effectively no WR and turning your camera into a brick with a firmware update, the latter still having shit DR and cooking raws.

>>4314884
>It just makes shit take longer to load, take up more space
Buy a processor from this decade you broke ass bitch. A 4tb harddrive is like $80.

File: fc137b1534d9f16acd85edf40(...).jpg (19 KB, 428x368)

19 KB JPG

the nikon shilling on this board is getting out of hand

I got a D800.
Is there any reason to upgrade if I am fine with just taking photos? I'm mostly into astrophotography so I don't need video or great autofocus eiher.

The only thing I am drawn to are the great 14mm lenses on Sony E-mount

>>4314884
45mp sized to 24mp looks better than native 24mp because digital cameras are shit

>>4314902
Sony had shit wr on the a7iii and now everyones like NOOOO DONT BUY THE BEST CAMERA WHAT IF U NEED TO SWITCH TO AN A7III AND SHOOT IN THE RAIN WITHOUT A PLASTIC BAG the new ones are fine retard. Did you get sony mixed up with fuji, the brand whose WR got worse?

>>4314884
any less than 45mp limits your print sizes significantly. remember you can not print under 300dpi without coping. its only “the same” to blind boomers who throw phone tier large radius sharpening on every photo

>>4314707
heres some actual advice, ignore all the gearfagging here;
alright so, if youre just doing photography for the fuck of it or to earn some money, like 99% of the people that get into photography (weddings, events, portraits, insta thots and e whores, bla bla bla) then you can literally use whatever the fuck you want, it literally doesnt matter whatsoever but if you are shooting to be high up and earn the big bucks (which i doubt anyone in here EVER will) then youll need to start gearfagging (but only up to a certain point) because you will be competing against actual artists and creative geniuses that not only use cameras and lenses worth more than your apartment or car but also have daddies and mommies friends or family or someone they know, while you do not... to combat that shit, if youre a poorfag and dont have money for a hass or p1, just drop a grand or two on a used D810, D850, 1DX2 and D5 who are still the kings of image quality in 2024 and are being used by some of the best photographers in the world because they almost mimic IQ of some of the best sensors from hasselblad and phaseone

>>4315018
Peak gearfag delusion. Probably calls sigma lenses “flat”.

>>4315018
this poster suffers from a money obsession and believes patently untrue things to avoid breaking their own delusion (its zeiss schizo, again, hes never been able to prove any of his bullshit or even link someone else doing it, he just says “RICH GUY USED EXPENSIVE LENS WHILE SHOOTING AD FOR GAY FASHION BRAND THE LENS MUST BE MAGIC NO WAY WAS THE PHOTOGRAPHER JUST MARKING UP HIS OWN NAME”)

>>4314707
Also understand that if you're chasing after megapixels, you'll also need the top of the line lenses designed for that kind of resolving power or else you'll never be satisfied.
So if you're fine with the massively increased storage for the photos, then also consider you'll need to dish out even more $$$ for the best lenses.

File: otus__64101.jpg (85 KB, 1280x1280)

85 KB JPG

>>4315027
Hey ken, I know you've been saying this for 20 years and worked at a newspaper once, but most mid range first party mirrorless lenses are sharper than a zeiss otus now, storage is dirt cheap, and capture one displays raw previews as fast as the normal mac image viewer loads jpegs. The sheer amount of sharpness you can get out of a relatively cheap nikon S prime, sony f1.4 GM, sony f1.8 to 2.8 "G", f4 zoom, etc is unbelievable. Standard lenses on mirrorless are above leica tier, they are borderline flawless. The nikkor Z 24-120 f4 is sharper than every F mount prime except for some super telephoto options, and it's the Z6II kit lens. You need to lower yourself to sub-$300 plastic/chinky primes like the 40mm f2 and viltrox, samyang shit to return to DSLR IQ and then you end up with a much smaller camera that does the same thing as a d850 with a typical F mount nikkor G prime.

It's not DSLRs anymore, you dont need a giant $5000 tube to have a sharp lens. The most the high end shit offers now is flawless bokeh and focus falloff which nobody really cares about except for the snobs curating moody perfume ads. To normal viewers, flawless bokeh actually just looks like midjourney.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4315029
I agree, most lenses made in the last 30 years will easily work fine on the D8xx. Especially if you're just shooting for fun/photos wind up on social media.
I got the impression OP cares more about sharpness than anything else. That's why I want him to consider that he may not be satisfied with lenses that aren't tack sharp at the corners wide open.

>>4315030
>I agree, most lenses made in the last 30 years will easily work fine on the D8xx.
Most lenses made in the last 30 years are baby butt soft compared to mirrorless glass but still cost the same because of the boomer "everything is sharp" review cult driving clueless sales towards a limited supply. A nikkor Z 50mm f1.8 S should be a $6000 lens compared to that shit.
>I got the impression OP cares more about sharpness than anything else. That's why
He should just get a mirrorless, not a DSLR. Or a rangefinder but those are overpriced because of the street nonphotography cult and lack autofocus and superior TTL viewfinding.

On FF mirrorless sharpness is just another tool in the box, anyone has easy access to it
On DSLRs (and crop sensors, LOL) it's a luxury that spurs endless cope.

Nikon Z + ETZ21PRO adapter = near infinite supply of lenses that range from near-flawless to "character", most non-zooms of those being $1500 and under, $500 more often than not, yes, even the near-flawless ones
Which is the same price range as clearly inferior but "good" (for their day) F and EF mount primes, that sell as a f1.2 but aren't nearly as sharp as a wide open MILC lens until f2.8

The only thing that has no changed as much is telephotos over 100mm.

>>4315020
i come to this board periodically to post some actual advice in gearfag threads, just in case theres someone here who actually wants to seriously get into photography, i get shit on all the time but guess what? i couldnt give less of a shit what someone like you thinks and i will always reply the same way, as long as i get to help someone. if you think following advice from a photographer who actually made it is gearfag delusion, then ok, its gearfag delusion. this is why nobody will ever hire you (provided you actually do take photos) and why you will awlays stay an artless poorfag.

>>4315023
im not a ''zeiss schizo again'' and no i wasnt refering to ''rich guys'' i every single thread i reply to i always recommend to people to go ahead and look at what either best DOPs in the world that also do photography are doing and how they do it, such as richardson, deakins, prieto or hoytema or to just look at what top1% photographers in each field are doing (because they are all doing the same thing, same as me, same as anyone who is even remotely good at their art) because treating your photography as a business and chasing money will only get you so far...

anyhow, your stupid replies aside,
if youre a poorfag (and even if youre not), investing a couple grand into a d850 or good ol 1dx2 or d5 and one or two good lenses will get you an IQ as close to hasselblad or p1 as you can get, without having to sacrifice your entire savings - at least as of now. maybe the next batch of cameras from sony nikon and canon change that but for now, d850 and 1dx2/d5 are still the closest youre gonna get, especially if you also pair them with some nice lenses

>>4315032
>i couldnt give less of a shit what someone like you thinks
>proceeds to write 3 paragraphs of text
Yes. I can see how little you care.

>>4315032
You will be nowhere close to hasselblad or p1 IQ with a 45mp full frame camera. Especially not with DSLR lenses that aren't well over $2000/ea for a relatively boring prime (that also weighs 2lbs). Sorry. But this is a fact.

Yes, you are "zeiss schizo". You can not explain any of this techno babble you're trying to express because there's no real basis. You've never posted sources let alone good photos. Ever. I can search the archive for "hoytema" or any other name you drop and get every thread you've given this shite advice in. Did you come up with it after getting talent mogged by a guy with a 6d? While canon EF lenses are certainly better optical designs on average due to the mount specs being superior to nikon F, they are huge just to be sub-mirrorless and there's no real reason to cope with a DSLR unless you want low light AF and refuse to shoot anything but nikon (because nikon has lol no autofocus)

>>4315033
yup i dont care. am i not alowed to reply to defend myself now?!
and two three weeks form now when i come back ill also do the same thing while giving advice
its my honest advice, take it or leave it, nobodys pushing a gun barrel into your eye socket

i could also post my bank account statistics to make you want to take my advice but last time i did it some of you kept spamming that it was fake and then everyone else started following like sheep and hating on my advice, so im just not gonna do that

ive been around many famous photographers and DOPs, ive seen them work, i worked with them, went to their parties met some of their families even and im doing the same shit they are, copycat or not, a good tool is a good tool. i gave my advice on what to do, you take it or leave it, nobody is forcing you. this is 4chan after all.

>>4315039
>yup i dont care. am i not alowed to reply to defend myself now?!
You can defend yourself, but you can't defend yourself and also pretend you don't care. If you actually didn't care you wouldn't respond at all.

>>4315037
im actually really not the guy who youre talking about and right now to me youre the schizo
my last post on 4chan was like, 1 or 2 months ago? it was a thread about fuji cameras or something i think im not sure

>>4315039
>larper gambles on cryptocurrency, buys crappy used bmw motorcycle and rebadged vw sedan, gives bad advice
the only thing separating a d850 and z7ii is autofocus and the d850 needing 3x more money and weight to compete optically

>>4315040
i dont care what you think about my advice
i care about how you make me look, which can make someone who actually wants to get into photographer here, not want to take my advice

>>4315043
>i dont care what you think about my advice
yes you do.

>>4315042
yeah ok thats what everyone said when i posted my bank account stats
>a board about photography but some people dont believe that someone is actually making money by being a photographer
hahahah

ok well this was fun, time is up, i gotta go, see you next time

>>4315042
Honeslty i am appalled when i see nikom dslr shits that arent supertele zooms and primes. The lenses are so fucking bad! A canon 5dsr with the tamron 34/85 duo (you KNOW which ones, or you will find out soon) is a fucking hasselblad compared to nikon junk.

But also, those lenses are still huge and only the tamron 35 is any better than the nikon Z one (the sony 35 f1.4 GM is better than both)

>>4315045
Yeah because you post wild stories about tax evasion and generally give the impression of being a larping crypto/stock gambler mr used audi

You, huskyfag, shepfag, and gunfag are /p/‘s rich cunts yes but you are the only one that larps this badly while not posting much but iphone snapshits of your mid ride.

>>4315047
Dont forget the leica guy that uses $25k of cameras to take photos of his corgi and backyard golf course

Hes more based than zeiss schizo

>>4314707
Just buy Olympus

I was at a cocktail party with Annie Leibovitz and she told me to shut my fat mouth and buy a sony a1, a 35mm f1.4 GM, a 50mm f1.4 GM, and a 135mm f1.8 GM if I wanted professional looking photographs I could use to build a career. Then Hoyte van Hoytema and Nolan spoke up and said “Amen to that, SISTAH!” and chugged their $600 martinis made with single bottle batch vodka from putin’s private stock (he was the bartender btw).

Trust me I drive an audi s8

File: 2405172222.jpg (1.76 MB, 1500x2000)

1.76 MB JPG

>>4315048
thank you

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.7 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:18 11:05:15
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	2000

File: IMG_9695.jpg (68 KB, 601x832)

68 KB JPG

>>4315052
Hoytema here. That happened.

If you cant afford a leica m11-p get a sony, for sure. Also vape weed. It makes you smarter.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	601
Image Height	832
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4315042
> only thing separating a d850 and z7ii is autofocus
Lol autofocus on modern cameras are one of the main selling points of cameras. The D850 will literally do better anything a z7ii can do. There’s also F mount lenses that compete with Z mount lenses if you’re a MTF whore lusting after clinical sharpness.

This switch to mirrorless is an evolution, not a revolution.

File: D780-beauty-03-3860684498.jpg (688 KB, 2000x1333)

688 KB JPG

Any opinions on the D780?
It has a similar features as the 850, but with lower megapickles and autofocus points.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 80D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2020:02:13 17:35:48
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	100.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4316879
>will do anything
>but video
>and weigh 2lbs less said and done
>and be mirrorless with competent live view AF (the only usable AF, because the OVF suffers from focus shift so every other photo is out of focus)
>here's your competitive lenses bro (entire camera setup is twice as large)
The only reason it's still relevant is because nikon is incompetent and can't make AF work as well as sony. It takes the hulking Z8 to perform as well as...an A7III.

>>4315052
Ironically, annie leibovitz actually did switch from nikon DSLRs to sony mirrorless basically as soon as the A7RIII came out.

>>4317908
It is a Z6 mark one shoved in a crappier body with a shittier viewfinder (not a superior EVF), and a worse lens mount. Shadow banding problems of that sensor included. And its overpriced because low stock/low demand. Just buy a used A7III for $1000 instead of dealing with nikon, the pentax of the 2020s.

Anyone else notice nikon and canon files are mushy at high ISOs compared to how sharp sony files are? Even on mirrorless. I think they're doing some hidden noise reduction and just have less accurate autofocus.

The Z7II and D850 are the mush kings. Every user of those bodies on /p/ posts some really squishy shit. Makes fuji look sharp.

>>4314727
t. can't handle an aperture ring

>>4317941
>mush kings
user error, can't shoot 45 mp the same as 24 and expect to get away with sloppy work

Just get a d6 or are you poor?

>>4318045
no i have a sex life. gonna get an xt6 when fuji releases it.

>>4314859
>>4314830
Just admit all you care about is gear fagging and not photography

>>4314830
>The z7ii already surpassed it, significantly
>why?
>because I said so

>>4318987
you can care about both, you know, to avoid falling into money wasting delusions like d850 consoomption and nikon mirrorless fanboyism
if your iq is above average it takes 0 cognitive effort to memorize and compare specs and you can probably do it while taking a shit
but you know what's more finite? money, and the labor that generates it.

gearfag on the pot because it's a more pleasant thought than the turds squeezing through your asshole, figure out the specs and price/performance differences, and then:
save a buck for a plane ticket. it will improve your photography. a d850 will not. a d850 will just make you angrier when you finally stop sperging and realize how much better a canon r5 is. same for nikon mirrorless. you're just taking funds from what actually makes good photos (travel) to gearfag but that gearfagging isn't getting results because it is specs wise, a shit camera that gets buttblasted by an a7iii with electrical tape around the tripod plate to fix the "weather sealing" retardation (dont get your camera wet in the first place unless you want to buy a new one in 10 years)

>>4314859
>Canon R6II

I picked up an R6 II a few weeks ago after my D800 was stolen and can confirm, it's a marvelous fucking camera that makes shooting reliable and fun again. Canon doesn't have the best image quality, but goddamn if they haven't figured out every other important aspect of using a camera and perfected it.

I'll probably pick up a used D850 at some point so I can use all of my F-mount lenses that I had amassed over the last 25 years of shooting strictly Nikon, but if you have two or three grand burning a hole in your pocket, get an R6 II.

If you want to spend a little more, I would wait out for an R5 refresh sometime in the next few months (before the olympics, basically), but if you want a modern, viable camera today? Get an R6 II.

File: B94A2254.jpg (1.38 MB, 2819x1879)

1.38 MB JPG

>>4319116
And here's an example pic from me just taking a short test walk. Didn't even look at the camera. Just held it up in the general direction of the roadrunner, aimed, shot, done.