>>4385126
For what it's worth, I think this would be worse if the bird was in focus, I think this is great

Manual glass because zone focusing beforehand is faster than any AF

>>4385159
This thread is about AF accuracy not speed. We get it, you retro larp, you don't need to mention it in every thread.

>>4385126
What lens? My 5Dii focus is fairly average with 3rd party glass, but lighting fast with ultrasonic canon lenses. Also were you using liveview or OVF?

>>4385126
>5D2
literal skill issue

>>4385126
F8 and be there, that is it.

>casually starting 2 dead end snapshit threads instead of posting in the generals

>>4385182
It’s actually even more aids this faggot also made a thread about his 5Dii so it’s 3 threads to talk about his shit photos

>>4385189
Damn, what a queer.

>>4385126
>1/500
>everything motion blurred
>help its the camera
skill issue

so this is the kind of person who absolutely needs subject tracking af

>>4385159
how the hell do I mentally let go and just sunny 16 one setting + zone focus and bang out the entire roll when it takes 10 days and money to get my negatives back, I want to fly high and fancyfree

>>4385204
The people who shoot like this believe that 1 keeper per roll is excessive, so, just don't? Instead, buy a camera with auto exposure and a cinestill B&W developing kit.
>inb4 but the lab scans
A 10 megapixel camera, tripod, and computer screen will outdo lab scans, but please get an enlarger and make actual prints instead.

Never mind the namefag. fe2fucker is a huge larping fag who is compensating with his lifelong inability to put in the mental work to take a good set of photos by getting into leica faggotry and being a retro gear snob.

Just use back button autofocus, lol
I find decoupling focusing from shooting makes the photography experience that much better
Just kidding lol, git gud

>>4385131
>for what it's worth
Nothing, anon. Your retarded opinion is worth nothing. This is a shitty photo.

>>4385161
Teehee!
>>4385207
TEEHEE!

>>4385131
Retard

>>4385126
>5D mark II
Only the center AF point is good, and even then it's not great. Upgrade to at least a 5Diii. Or go mirrorless. An R6 will blow you away on AF, speed, buffer, high ISO, DR, and is also sharper ooc because of a weaker AA filter.

Nothing against the 5Dii, it was a great camera in its day and still produces great pics. But it was never a fast action camera.

>>4385235
an r6 will also get blown away by a comparable sony

>>4385240
Based and true. This is settled science.

>>4385240
Really? Which one? It out performs the A7iii, A9, A9ii, and is better for fast action than the A7iv, though the iv does give you more mp. Does Sony have a model I'm not familiar with? Or do you expect OP to upgrade to a $6,000 A9iii to beat a camera that can be found for $1,600 or less?

>>4385251
>20mp low dr camera beats anything
>peak fps number is jello shutter only
>eshutter only works with 12 bit raws
>canon lenses
No, its pretty terrible. The autofocus isnt even as good as the r6ii and the r6-1 was buggy and unreliable with busted IBIS. Yes, sony is more expensive, but they can get away with it because people would rather not fall for the full frame canon meme.

>>4385251
A $1750-$2k used a9ii is better than an r6ii. If you’re considering the first r6 you’re broke as fuck. This is a market segment that caters to businesses for whom the gear is a tax write off. The a7 line is high resolution and high dynamic range cameras for snobbyists.

Yes, the r6ii goes 20fps faster and has better video, but it cant shoot at 1/32k and has worse rolling shutter and a much smaller buffer. It is basically a shitty camcorder. Photographers dont benefit from 40fps over 20fps if that 40fps comes with distortion and a 75 raw buffer.

>>4385235
if you're a hobbyist, R8 is a better choice. Better sensor and AF, but no meme IBIS or dual card slot which you don't need anyway
>>4385240
lmao sure, especially a7iv with its 27ms of readout speed for fast action

File: Screenshot 2024-11-14 at (...).jpg (133 KB, 1166x614)

133 KB JPG

>>4385256
Utter retard doesn't know the line he is shilling. At 20 fps the A9ii shoots 12-bit COMPRESSED RAWs, meaning it has even worse DR than picrel. R6 is uncompressed. R6 has good readout at 12-bit, not jello. It's 14-bit that's a problem which was fixed in the R6ii, but at 14-bit in stills you're using the mech shutter making it a non issue, it's only an issue at 4k30. R6 has the faster mech shutter and better DR (picrel). Not to mention it likely has better sealing and a more durable shutter.

As always, you shoot off your mouth without knowing and without evidence. By now I would think that you would get tired of being wrong.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	1166
Image Height	614

>>4385269
+6ev
Can we see your photos where you needed to do this

Are cannot POS R shills the new panasois?
>muh most irrelevant spec is 10% better

>>4385269
This is just forced NR vs no forced NR

I guess the AP and basically every press photographer is using sony for a reason, and its because they shoot IRL where they need less rolling shutter and not more 6 stop shadow pushes and full buffers after 1.7s.

File: Screenshot 2024-11-14 at (...).jpg (314 KB, 1158x1154)

314 KB JPG

>>4385256
>>4385257
Now let's look at high ISO...whoops. A9ii gets its ass kicked just like in DR.

>but muh AF!!!
Better on the R6 and even better still on the R6ii. Reminder that the A9ii is a $4,500 camera still, today, a total rip off for what it is. It gets clobbered at roughly half the price or less. Sony had to go global shutter on the A9iii because it gave them something to offset being behind on DR, AF, and ISO while forcing users to 12-bit compressed to shoot fast.

R6ii traded some high ISO for readout, but on the other end improved DR. It also reduced the buffer size because the R6 line was always intended to compete mid tier. The R1 and R3 are for pro sports. But Canon filled the R6 with RAM for a pro buffer because of the A9/A9ii and the R1/3 being off in the future.

>>4385268
>you don't need ibis or dual card slots
Oh holy nophoto.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	1158
Image Height	1154

File: IMG_0765.jpg (289 KB, 969x635)

289 KB JPG

>>4385268
>you dont need IBIS
>CANON CLAIMS 8 STOP IBIS SNOY BTFO
The duality of cannot POS R and their overpriced lenses that don’t cover full frame
>how’s this for baby mount? rf 24mm f1.4 l

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R5m2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.4 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:29 11:49:31
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	970
Image Height	647
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4385271
>snoyshill abandons tests and specs having been proven wrong
I honestly don't need to +6ev, but the R6 is better starting at +4ev (no visible difference below this), and I have had to +4ev shots before. I also do make use of very high ISOs where, again, it's better.

Does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Can you get great shots with an A9ii? Yes, of course you can, as long as your shutter hasn't exploded.

Is the A9ii worth $4,500 against the competition? Hard no. Against Canon it is beat by mid tier models.

>>4385275
>but at the setting where both cameras are unusable!
Canon yet again proves they are clueless by delivering a literally useless spec. Slightly better unusable ISO settings, where AI noise reduction would fix both in post.

Also worse rolling shutter, worse lenses, and lol no buffer.

>>4385277
No, it doesnt matter, because you have a crippled blob trying to best the a7 and a9 at once and achieving nothing more than losing more of the FF market to more useful sony bodies.

The definition of a spec sheet camera. All the specs no one needs. Missing the ones that matter. Who called cannot a crew cab short bed pickup camera? Because that’s what we’re seeing here.

>>4385276
>hurr the a9ii is better on the specs
>NOOO WHY WOULD YOU EVER NEED YOUR PROVEN BETTER CANON SPECS?
The only duality here is you. You don't even know the cameras you shill, which is why you now have egg on your face.

>anon takes snapshit
>/p/ argues about gear

>>4385281
>proven
Worse rolling shutter? Smaller buffer? Worse lenses? Worse bodies all around? At least it has a bicycle horn.

>>4385277
>a small amount of a7iiis ship with defective shutters
>this somehow affects all sony cameras
Well then, the r5ii was literally unusable so all canon cameras are.

>>4385276
oh no no cannot pos r sisters…

>>4385278
Here comes the cope...

>>but at the setting where both cameras are unusable!
25600 is perfectly usable on the R6, kinda iffy on the A9ii.
>just smear it with heavy ai nr
From the same guy who cries about "muh forced NR!"

>Also worse rolling shutter
At 4k24 it's 23.2ms for the A9ii, 16.9ms for the R6ii. How can you be wrong this often? A9ii forces a 1.2x crop for 4k30 and can't even do 4k60. R6/R6ii at 4k60 are ~15ms (at 12-bit they're nearly identical).
>worse lenses
Am I supposed to believe you when you can't even get basic body specs right?

>"i need more than 110 uncompressed RAWs because my first 110 photos suck"
Kind of interesting that the A9ii can only buffer 361 jpgs while both the R6 and R6ii can buffer over a thousand. The R6 buffer is just as large in RAW, the R6ii roughly half at 110. But is it a fair comparison? Or is it because the A9ii buffer compresses its RAWs?

How it started:
>sony specs are superior!
How it's going:
>you don't need superior specs

Reminds me of:
>digital is only good on line charts
>FILM IS BETTER IF YOU LOOK AT THIS LINE CHART
Just take the L, dummy.

>>4385287
Just like your lenses don’t cover full frame your post doesnt cover anything worth (re)acknowledging
>be me
>turn on tv
>what’s in front of king trump?
>sony cameras

>>4385291
>i'll put my head in the sand since i was proven wrong on everything, again
Good, tired of your BS.

>>4385287
>he thinks rolling shutter is only a video spec
lmao doing video on hybrids is for vloggers

>>4385294
You simply failed to refute the point and talked about irrelevant wank. Canon excels where no one cares. 40fps - 75 shot buffer. Better high ISO - once its too high to be used. Sharper 4k - but the intended customer has a second running a fx3 for that. Better rolling shutter, in video where its not noticed. Worse in stills where it is. Better at pushing shadows than an a9, worse than an a7r or a1 in fms. Bigger mount, more vignetting, bigger lenses. Canon is a joke.

>>4385296
2fps mechanical shutters tho. brutal mogging! 2 fps!

>>4385295
Initially couldn't find the rolling shutter spec for 12-bit A9ii. Did find it and it is better than R6/R6ii if you can tolerate lower DR, worse high ISO, and compressed RAWs. I don't seem to encounter rolling shutter issues with 20 fps stills, so I'll stick with DR, ISO, and proper RAWs.

Also confirmed that the A9ii RAW buffer rating is only for 12-bit lossy compressed. Imagine charging $4,500 for a "pro" camera and bragging about the buffer depth, and it's only for lossy compressed RAWs.

>>4385296
>You simply failed to refute the point
Is that why you're now lecturing us on which features really matter and suggesting Sony users buy multiple cameras to try and get a feature set to match one Canon?

>Canon excels where no one cares. 40fps - 75 shot buffer.
Sony A9ii excels where no one cares. 12-bit lossy compressed low DR noisy high ISO RAWs.

>once its too high to be used
25600 is perfectly usable on the R6, but I agree that on the A9ii your max ISO is probably 12800.

>Sharper 4k - but the intended customer has a second running a fx3 for that
Sony: just buy another camera bro.

>Better at pushing shadows than an a9, worse than an a7r
So now you are comparing across tiers in a pathetic attempt to make Sony look better? What if you need the DR while shooting sports? I guess then the Sony guy can just buy a Canon and have three cameras? Or maybe just buy Canon to begin with. Just take the L and admit that the A9ii is an overpriced "pro" sports camera beat by Canon mid tier.

>>4385303
>coping consoomer doesnt understand that specs aren’t always relevant and sees them as a dick measuring contest
Yes, professionals use separate bodies for stills and video. Surprise. Canon excels where no one cares. There’s a reason sony has the majority of the professional market and canon is hiring shills and handing out free cameras.

I can BTFO any of you with a Kodak brownie, you are just bad at this.

Try knitting maybe?

>>4385305
rocks, leaves, or backs of heads? in japan or new york?

>>4385304
How it started:
>a9ii is better on specs!
How it's going:
>specs don't matter bro

>professionals use separate bodies for stills and video
On Sony since they have to. Oh hell, if Sony didn't cripple hammer their cameras their marketshare would be even lower! That 26% is based on body sales, but they're selling 2-3 bodies to each Sony user. One for stills, one for video, one backup for when the shutter explodes. I guess Sony is probably closer to 8-10% of customers.

>>4385308
The specs you think matter don’t. The A9II wins where it matters. Canon is good for measuring spec sheets and absurd dpreview tests, but not in real use, which is why sony is dominant.

>>4385126
Buy a medium format film camera
>manual focus is as good as your skills
>200mp per frame
>takes actual photos not digital interpretations

>>4385308
Anyone buying two sony bodies would have to buy two canons as well.

>>4385318
His professional experience culminated with taking an out of focus photo of a map. He doesnt know no one actually cares about the video codecs on a stills camera except for measurebating vloggers. My a1 does “good” video, supposedly, but i’ve never used it because then I need to put the whole rig together around it or else it would be exactly as bad as a bare canon, just hobbyist grade footage with better specs that aren’t really needed.