File: 1689778191768450.png (53 KB, 155x202)

53 KB PNG

>>4401886 (OP)
>Post All Your Gear Edition
Doesn't fit all in one picture, would have to get it all out of dry boxes too. I have posted a spreadsheet with it all listed before.

>You ever feel like you have too much gear?
Sometimes, but then I remember if I don't buy up every single cheap camera or lens someone else might get some

File: a7-iv-broken-shutter.jpg (1.03 MB, 4032x3024)

1.03 MB JPG

>>4401886 (OP)

I just bought a GFX 50r from a non photographer friend who never used it.

My plan for it is to digitize film, but I've taken it on a photoshoot and rather like the results. I might take it with me to the mountains next week to do some wide panos.

Would never recommend a to anyone as a first camera but from the two I've handled the gfx series is great fun.

File: Screenshot_20250127-10001(...).png (1010 KB, 1080x2400)

1010 KB PNG

I ordered a chinkshit camera bag so I can EDC my camera. I'll probably regret it because it's too ugly and get a Pgytech Solo v2 4L instead.

File: Screenshot_20250127-10030(...).png (972 KB, 1080x2400)

972 KB PNG

I also ordered the Viltrox 56mm f1.7 lens to fuck around with for $100 usd.

I wish Chinese lens makers would make compact constant aperture zooms.

Considering selling my vintage glass collection because I always come across new crap anyway and it is not like I use it. Perhaps downsize and buy more expensive glass instead.

>>4401905
This is the way. You are experiencing "Degearfagging", where anons finish their "experimentation" phase and start shedding off the less used gear they have accumulated, in order to consolidate into a select few lenses and body(ies) that suit their style and weight/bulk limitations. Quality > quantity. You ether end up with two or three zooms or primes (any combination of) and a body that will last you 5+ years.
>>4401902
>$10 bag
I mean... surely you could have sprung for like a... $30 bag? My local camera stores sell actual branded small camera bags on sale for that much. This chinkshit is going to sandpaper your ass with its' coarse linen in a matter of weeks.

>>4401907
Imaging springing for any bag. purses suck. the redpill is carrying your camera on a strap and keeping accessories and spare lenses in a little case in a backpack or normal messenger bag if you hate your spine.

>Degearfagging
It's not truly degearfagging until you stop having focal length FOMO.

>>4401902
A bag is not the way to EDC a camera.
You need a pocketable camera or just wear it around your neck whenever you go outside.

File: Screenshot_20250127-11294(...).png (1.01 MB, 1080x2400)

1.01 MB PNG

>>4401907
It's pretty similar to this $22 one on Amazon with 4.7 rating so maybe it won't be too bad.
https://www.amazon.com/Besnfoto-Mirrorless-Messenger-Waterproof-Compatible/dp/B07SG271TT/

If it's shit, I'm only out $9 and I can remove the strap and use it as a camera cube and then look for a new cross body sling bag.

I have a boatload of camera bags I have no idea what to do with. When buying used cameras online you often get these things as freebies. Usually just generic crap from the retail store, but if you don't care about being fashionable out on the go it is rather easy to get them for free if you are being thrifty.

>>4401911
Based normal ass backpack user
>buy compact camera sling bag off amazon for $10
>use it to carry 2 lenses+flash+batteries
>throw away the strap and put it in my backpack
Slings are for prime lens autists shooting events. Aka retards.

File: TTArtisan27mmf28-1536x1025.jpg (133 KB, 1536x1025)

133 KB JPG

>>4401912
>>4401916
I already wear a sling bag and keep my wallet, phone and keys in it. (Not having to fish things out when switching jacket / pants is great.)

I just want something slightly bigger and slightly more padded to fit my compact camera too.

>>4401907
>>4401911
>"yap yap yap you have to this this and this to be a REAL photograpaher because I said so"
Lol hang yourself I'm going hoard gear

Isn't it funny how every hobby has "AIN'T NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT" people

File: bagz.jpg (865 KB, 2000x1500)

865 KB JPG

I like bags
From last time I was re-organizing, forgot to include 3 more backpacks (2x actual backpacking/hiking, 1x for snow sports)
>>4401920
Bellroy makes my favorite of the compact sling options, the straps really cinch down the bag to fit whatever's inside

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.12 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:27 10:13:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1500

>>4401920
>I wear a purse
Thank you for economically enriching the local impoverished people.

>>4401922
Because there is no replacement for displacement. Physics are physics But if it were not for the copers I don't think anyone would care, it's only when cope appears that discourse gets more size queeny because the copers are irritatingly stupid and invite bullying with their pathetic nerd nature. This only happens on the internet because in real life the copers are either staring at the ground and stewing in resentment, or back down quick after the typically more masculine non-copers tell them to fuck off (including people who could have been their fellows in less-nice-stuff-having had they not been obnoxious retards about it).

Also because the really expensive cope that comes with the worst copers (like $2000 full frame sized micro four thirds gear) is rarely enjoyed IRL, it only sells to a minority of internet geeks who appear more numerous by congregating on one forum to be obnoxious and delusional as a crowd. In real life no one cares about your sensor size if you stay quiet, and in real life you will never run into a g9ii user who pretends its anything but a massive video over stills compromise.

File: cams fall 2024.jpg (684 KB, 3200x1800)

684 KB JPG

here are my bodies rn. i have about ten lenses besides, plus a tripod and two flashes

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	G8441
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:31 14:39:45
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Focal Length	4.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3200
Image Height	1800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4401924
That's an unfathomable amount of words to say "I can only take good pictures with an expensive crutch camera"

>>4401927
what's the most I can spend on a camera without it being a crutch?

>>4401928
It's only a crutch if you take the same photo with your phone and it would suck.

>>4401927
The only good crop sensor shots I have ever seen on /p/ or elsewhere came from people who also use better cameras. It's because they aren't copers.

You're just the impoverished loser version of the trust fund kid that thinks buying a ferrari makes him a good driver.

>>4401930
anti-gear gearfags are always faux-poors with irresponsible spending habits in my experience, they actually are the trust fund kid but after the expensive car, large house, and collections of apple junk and video games they start running dry as they get into real hobbies, so

1: they are so used to living check to check they see owning nicer hobby items sacrifices and feel threatened and confused.
2: they are bitter that their life is so fucked up and are too much of an NPC to stop being an aimless consoomer
3: they actually see a person who lives within their means but owns a nicer hobby item as pathetic, because surely everyone must want to have a bigger house and a more expensive car first (note: a nicer camera is $1k, a nicer car is a $80k depreciating asset that continuously sucks increasing amounts of money out of your wallet)

>>4401930
You guys should have a photo battle.

>>4401930
You interpreted my words almost exactly to the opposite of what they say. American?

>>4401932
>money money money
Jewish?

>>4401926
I hope your wife boyfriend gift you an instax next :)

>>4401926
snappiness tier fujibald

>>4401934
being a tech aescetic instead of a financial coper is a sure sign of being a porn addicted virgin. most tech minimalists are fetish addled freaks - furfags, lolicons, and hentai addicts. at least financially unhealthy people have a decent excuse, like not being good at math and being bullied by their peers for not having other new shinies.

gotta cop some virtue to make up for how often you whack it to weird shit amirite? but to a REAL aescetic, you're a soulless subhuman for owning a camera instead of drawing with charcoal you made yourself.

>>4401938
What did he mean by this?

File: 1737062577968184.jpg (392 KB, 1999x1334)

392 KB JPG

>>4401938
>muh snoy

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

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

>>4401945
>anti-gear gearfag browses enough chinese tranny porn to have this picture
kind of proving him right ngl

>>4401938
tech minimalism is an ideological contradiction. technology is a replacement for ability by definition. worse technology is just slower and makes a lot of noise while it works. it has never mattered how pretty the screen on a calculator is, how long its battery lasts, or how nice its buttons feel, that's just a luxury - it's still for people that can't do math. it makes no sense to claim that people with nice cameras aren't skilled enough to take nice photos on shitty cameras. it's like claiming that people with retina displays can't type out good novels for refusing to use a pixellated winblows machine from 2005. maybe they just don't like looking at excessively lo-fi digital looking crap, and both of you have awful handwriting.

>>4401945
Oh no no no

I wish I'd learned to use the focus/distance scale on manual lenses earlier, but now I am also disappointed at how often that scale is vague at best and wrong at worst.

File: IMG_20241226_224512146.jpg (776 KB, 4624x1982)

776 KB JPG

>>4401886 (OP)
>Post All Your Gear Edition
I don't think I'll ever move on from F-mount

File: IMG_20241226_225008788.jpg (655 KB, 4624x1982)

655 KB JPG

>>4401973
Also have these, and a couple of speedlights, tripods and fluff.
Still lacking a big tele

File: GV0fRFua0AAftwr.jpg (201 KB, 2048x1366)

201 KB JPG

>>4401946
snoy and proud

>>4401975
You jerk off to this mayne? Looks like it.
>The perils of being #1: Everyone, even bad people, are in the same club. No self esteem or identity? Better find something more obscure

File: Ren-Kockwell-Growing-His-(...).jpg (2 KB, 97x124)

2 KB JPG

My god, the Time To Shitflinging in this thread was not bad this time around. Made it onto the leaderboard somewhere down the bottom 50, but still fast nonetheless.

Gearfagging is buying shit and spending money either because:
>You think spending money makes you a better photog
>or You think owning expensive things is impressive
When the real problem is both ways since:
>Refusing to spend money on decent products can and will land you in a shitty spot in terms of gear
>and Complaining that others are better because they have access to higher-end gear is a rope-tier cope
The reality is, both parties are insufferable faggots, and you really should find the level of financial investment that satisfies your needs.

>come to /p/ for advice for phone photography
>anon tells me to buy a dinosaur dslr
>other anon suggests an rx100
>I pick up an $800 rx100 and get interested in photography, despite its limitations because I didn't want bulky gear
>start gearfagging and buy a full frame mirrorless because frustrated at the noise and softness of the rx100
>realize I enjoy holding a big chunky camera in my hands, it also gets more people interested in my camera and it = more photos
>rx100 collecting dust despite costing $800

Many such cases ! At least I listened to /p/ and didn't buy a shitty crop camera

>>4402004
You have the ideal setup:
>Beeg bulki profeshhonal blob for maximum IQ
>Teeny tiny 1" compact for EDC

>>4402004
>dinosaur dslr
dslrosaur

>>4402004
Let me guess, you bought an A7?

>>4402004
>realize I enjoy holding a big chunky camera in my hands
there is a point after which technical limitations were not inflating camera size, but anatomy of human hand. flagship mirrorless are becoming just as big as flagship dslrs because you need something to grab on to

File: saar3.jpg (1 KB, 84x40)

1 KB JPG

>>4402017
I have slightly smol hands and prefer the smaller bodies just werk for me. It tracks though since I travel with it and don't really want a bunch of bulk. I am however, a massive faggot and not indicitive of the regular anon.

>>4402017
The X-T2 is ideal for me. Small and light enough but substantial enough to hold.

>>4401922
>>4401924
>>4401930
My micro four thirds is based because I can put it in my pocket with the 20mm lens
>muh bigger
I can get good DoF/subject separation with the 75mm f/1.8. you have to be a gay no photos retard to think 150mm f/3.5 wont give shallow dof and if I for some reason want more I have a 35mm film SLR and a 645 film SLR, both of which are better than digishit

>>4402016
nah I got an a7c for about the same price as the rx100

Mirrorless FF bodies are so cheap now idk why point and shoots and fuji crop are so high in price

File: IMG_3750.jpg (2.04 MB, 3988x2171)

2.04 MB JPG

>>4402038
Fujis are expensive but I prefer them for general useability. I had the A7C but did not like the EVF or general feeling of it. Image quality was great but the 35mm 1.4 on the Fuji is perfect for me and compact (roughly equiv to 50mm 1.8 but smaller).

Pic unrelated.

>>4402038
>a7c
>big chunky
Literally fits in a pocket with the 35mm f2.8 senior.

>>4402054
>-in focus images, good controls, worm free pictures, color detail, dynamic range
>+moderately nicer evf
Fuggifilm :DDDDD

File: frisbee dog.jpg (105 KB, 800x812)

105 KB JPG

>had a cheap magnus tripod that sucked and was never worth using
>got a new tripod for christmas that's actually sturdy and stable
>tripod + camera weighs 13 lbs now

File: AE7B3CB7-C642-4B48-A157-A(...).jpg (188 KB, 1086x724)

188 KB JPG

>>4402056
The EVF is night and day compared with the A7C. The A7 EVF is good though.
Focus is completely fine with my X-T4.
The other shit isn't really important to me. I like my results.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T4
Camera Software	Digital Camera X-T4 Ver2.12
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	41 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:14 21:36:06
Exposure Time	1/85 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Brightness	-3/100 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1086
Image Height	724
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: bdlub0.jpg (4.5 MB, 4000x3000)

4.5 MB JPG

>>4402054
>I had the A7C but did not like the EVF

yea I think I saw you post before

Like I said I picked it up for like $800 used. It was this or some ex-beater a7iii that cost 1k, but I read their weather sealing is pretty shit. Fuji crop bodies are at least 1.6k where im at, so double the price for crop.

Whats your middle camera? an xpro?

>>4402055
nah a7c is still big, and the sony compact primes are overpriced for what they are.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-A326BR
Camera Software	MediaTek Camera Application
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	25 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Image Created	2025:01:14 12:03:30
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4000
GPS Processing Method	902
Time (UTC)
Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Height	3000
Brightness	9 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	1667/100000 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/1.8
Image Width	4000
ISO Speed Rating	160
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	4.60 mm
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Other

File: 1311-1636-720.jpg (63 KB, 720x608)

63 KB JPG

>>4402068
>Autofocus is fine
>underexposed af-s creepshot from behind
many such cases

>>4402081
big compared to what, , a camera that can't shoot over 1/500 or focus accurately?

>overpriced
sony compact primes are in the same price range as fuji glass, despite being superior. people just ignore the actual cheap compact primes (noletter sony lenses, samyang, tamron) because they're not all fancy and weather sealed. but fujifilm isn't weather sealed either so it should be fine for everyone here rite?

the 85mm f1.8 is deffo not a compact prime either (and its not weather sealed btw)

>>4402084
I never said fuji glass was cheap, they're both expensive.

File: 54097602048_7ace97a9ee_o.jpg (1.33 MB, 2761x4451)

1.33 MB JPG

>anon's hate for fujislugs is so strong he's having to argue with anons that already own sony cameras to why they should never buy fuji (they never mentioned buying a fuji)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	DSC-RX100M7
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.4 (Windows)
Equipment Make	SONY
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	150 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:10:27 23:11:15
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
ISO Speed Rating	160
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
Sharpness	Hard
Focal Length	54.62 mm
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Saturation	Normal
Light Source	Unknown
Contrast	Normal
Metering Mode	Pattern
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Bias	0 EV
White Balance	Manual
Brightness	7.3 EV
Exposure Mode	Auto
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal

>>4402089
>Compact first party sony lenses are the same price as fuji lenses
>are the same price as nikon lenses
>are the same price as panasonic lenses
>"overpriced"
Are you one of those people who thinks everything is overpriced because "omg guise the materials only wuz $100"? None of the brands are overpricing their lenses. Their bodies are another story (fuji is definitely overcharging vs the a6700 and EOS R7 since they aren't even made in japan anymore).

You do realize that facilities, labor, training, healthcare, sick leave, settlement payments, R&D, logistics, etc cost a lot of money? The lenses are not overpriced. They are actually underpriced. Japanese companies are more popular and have the economy of scale going for them - they sell their products with tighter margins because the amount they sell results in a large amount of profit.

Cosina Voigtlander can not even make an autofocus lens and prices slow all manual primes on par with sony GM/nikkor S/etc lenses. That is the actual normal price of a lens (small brand, no economy of scale, no chinese slave labor or QC cutting to cheapen it). If they made a simple autofocus 50 like the nikkor 50mm f.18 S, it would likely be $1500 just for them to turn enough of a profit to justify making one in the first place. Lenses, outside of the smaller premium makes, are underpriced!

>>4402090
See this is why I don't shoot crop sensor / small sensor cameras anymore. This just looks like a phone photo.

File: wedding.jpg (395 KB, 1125x1500)

395 KB JPG

recent kit I took for a small travel wedding / vacation
the new sirui is pretty cool, and solid weather sealing
can't sell my 35 f1.5 nokton fast enough

>>4402094
Your phone isn't sharp at 150mm

>>4402095
>base iso of 800+40mm f3.4, shit autofocus 16mp pns body from 2013
>base iso of 100+35mm f2.8+better color fidelity in low light due to bigger pixels
>base iso of 100 (fuji labels 50 as 100 but its 100 in normal camera terms anyways) + 35mm f3 also garbage autofocus and 12mp of actual resolution between wormtrans and the soft lens
These cameras are nothing alike and all of them can only fit in coat pockets

>>4402101
So? It still looks like an iphone photo

>>4402095
>actual camera
>plastic toy, will break before 5k actuations, extremely likely all the buttons will just stop working, which happens on ALL sonys
>plastic toy, if a leica was made from stamped tin foil and a disposable camera lens. somehow slower focusing than an MF rangefinder

>>4402096
>tape over the names
Why? Anyone who is going to yap at you about gear can already tell what those are, it's not going to stop anyone from stealing your shit and your photos aren't good enough that your methods must be gatekept.

>>4402103
this is your brain on gearfaggitry
>>base iso of 800
not noticeable on a screen without pixel peeping, not even noticeable in prints
> f3.4
that's only like half, maybe 2/3rds of a stop slower than f/2.8, assuming you are even shooting wide open on a 35mm/40mm anyway
>16mp pns body from 2013
20 mp, 2016, you sure are seething
>better color fidelity
snoy's colors are shit
>f3
again that's like maybe a quarter stop
>all of them can only fit in coat pockets
look at this fat fuck ham planet
>>4402101
this retardo thinks all photos need to be shot wide open all the time in all generas all photos need to be taken in the middle of the neight and cropped by 400% and then blown up into bill board sized pics

>>4402131
good post

>>4402134
You are absolutely right, makes no difference for recognition or theft, and I do post about the gear I use all the time anyways.
I simply prefer an "unbranded look" over bright white branding, wish every camera came blacked out like the S5IIx or mono. Maybe you have a better suggestion for me? I have chiseled out the white paint instead, but wasn't worth it over some tape.
Doesn't seem too crazy to have aesthetic preferences of things you own, especially things related to a hobby entirely based about how things look, but if you don't give af about it, more power to you!

File: Screenshot_20250128_13030(...).jpg (306 KB, 1080x648)

306 KB JPG

I know I'll hate using it and I don't need it but I want one of these. Someone tell me I'm retarded.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.G991USQSEGXK3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	648

>>4402139
But it's not blacked out, they're still covered in white lettering and numbers as are the lenses.

>>4402081
It's an X-E2s. Actually loved that cameras but I wanted IBIS so got a X-T4.

What is the concensus on the RX1Rii? Seems prety small for a FF but painfully expensive. The EVF is bigger than the A7C yet it's in a much smaller space.

>>4402142
I don't mind the small lettering, most of it is functional, I just don't like big white branding on bodies
The Sirui has since been covered too since pic was taken

>>4401975
>>4401945
Do Sony shooters really?

>>4401922
>>4401924
why don't >muh fullframe snoy cucks shoot medium format digital or large format film? both have objectively more res. the national park service and library of congress both require large format film because snoys just can't. a snoy camera would need to be 2 gigapixels to match 4x5

where does this 35mm has six gorillion megapixels myth come from

>>4402154
real life. you've probably never seen a real 35mm print before but they capture more pixels and dimensions than digital. digital = reductive, simplifies, 35mm = artistic, emotive, hyperreal, captures literal soul etc

>>4402154
Every frame of 35mm has billions of silver halide crystals, which are what form the image

the urge to buy weird manual chinkshit lenses is rising again, bros

>>4402153
No, they don't require large format film.

>>4402154
Pseuds scanning shit on mirrorless and thinking that if you can scan it at xx mp it's xx mp. It's about 12mp, if you use very good film with a very good camera. 4x5 is actually lower resolution because diffraction limited aperture doesn't change with crop factor. People just enlarge 4x5 less so it's less visible. Circle of confusion.

>>4402154
I said large format, not 35mm, fagola. 8x10 has so much resolution that one youtube fag needs to take 12 pics with his snoy to "scan" it. film has better dynamic range and renders colors better. its why old movies look better than the digishit trash in theaters now. 8x10 is 60 times the area of 35mm. so if 35mm is like 12mp 8x10 is like 720mp.
that's also like just regular film. they have crazy high resolution professional films that can resolve more than that, hence the national parks wanting shit shot on large format
>>4402158
gay retard
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/heritagedocumentation/upload/HDP-Guidelines-Photography_508.pdf

>>4402153
>the national park service
To the extent they do, they also require black & white, but that is only for creating archival images related to:
>Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)
>Historic American Engineering Record (HAER)
>Historic American Landscapes Survey (HALS)
Saying the NPS "requires" it is kind of misleading for the general sentiment.

>>4402157
Do it. Worst case scenario you sell it for 70% of what you paid and in the end you've spent $50 on "rental fees"

>>4402158
You're completely wrong about 4x5 being lower resolution. Go shoot some and see for yourself or 8x10 if you can handle it.

File: Screenshot 2025-01-29 114904.png (856 KB, 1484x590)

856 KB PNG

Would the olympus 300m f/4 pro pair well with the panasonic g9ii?

Im currently using g9ii + panleica 100-400mm f/4-6.3 for birds and wildlife.
right now shooting in low light rainforests is a bit hard.
i want more light and image quality, but still need good video stabilization.
i have used 300mm before and its definetly enough for me.

>>4402162
They demand film because of its authenticity factor. In terms of resolution it takes $6-12k of scanning gear to get about 60mp out of 6x7. Beyond that, you’re just enlarging blurry line pairs.

4x5 and 8x10 dont have resolution that scales because of diffraction. They just have less apparent grain.

>>4402168
Weather sealing, ois, autofocus accuracy/speed, and some dumb shit like sensor flare suppression arent cross brand compatible. Consider: a bigger sensor.

>>4402162
any kind of film draws the retards who think it has infinite megapixels. a 700mp drum scan of 8x10 is as retarded as a 50mp snoy upscaled to 700

>>4402173
People get confused because a film scan, done properly, has "true megapixels".

Bayer output without 4 shot pixel shift actually has about 75% of the claimed megapixels, if megapixels were line pairs, in real world scenes (but its dead on with line charts if your camera has no AA filter) and can be downscaled slightly. Xtrans is even worse and can be scaled down 50% on non linechart subjects.

This means a typical 60mp MF film scan will actually be noticeably sharper than a typical 60mp photo, prompting the belief it has more resolution left in it.

>>4402176
I noticed with hasselblads pickleshift that the pure resolution only increased by like 20-30%, but the file was much much cleaner in terms of noise, color, and all moire effect was gone.

>>4402176
It has a 4 shot pickleshift to be clear.

>>4402173
If the point of the exercise is to retain good reach, you're going to be spending an absurd amount of money to replace the camera with a FF model and a 600mm lens

>>4402179
No, actually. It would be about the same.

An X-T5 with a sigma 100-400 would mog the g9ii in a lot of noticeable ways. It's no snoy but snoy cripples their video features hard because snoy literally despises video. Snoy hates it. They hate anyone who wants to take it seriously. They want to fuck them as hard as possible. Snoy is, secretly, a photography brand that actually wants to make a modernized leica but isn't allowed to by the gay zoomer-filled market.

>>4402180
>An X-T5 with a sigma 100-400
Maybe he doesn't want xtrans worms or his pictures to look like an iphone photo. He might also use autofocus which is effectively absent from fuji models. It's also not full frame which is what we were talking about.

>>4402179
He might not necessarily need 600mm as it would be less demanding on the lens, he might not be getting the full resolution from that 4/3s sensor. If he went with one of the greater than 24mp bodies he'd also have some room for cropping if needed. Also because f/4 of 4/3s is equivalent to f/8 on ff (in terms of depth of field and taking into account sensor performance) even one of those 150/200-600mm f/6.3 zooms would be faster.

>>4402180
>>4402173
>>4402179
>>4402184
i looked at getting full frame but it would cost about 4x as much and be far less portable than my current setup
im also invested in m43 and have other lenses

400mm is not enough for what i would be doing
need at least 600mm equiv

>Also because f/4 of 4/3s is equivalent to f/8 on ff
isnt it still f/4 in terms of light performance, i know DOF and bokeh is f/8

>>4402179
>>4402180
why is the advice with m43 telephoto always "get a shit FF body and a lens 200mm less than what your using"
woudlnt the obvious solution be switching to an olympus body so the lens works instead of changing sensors completely

>>4402186
People here don't usually like to give good-faith advice. Most people will tell others to get what they have (shilling), or what they are paid to promote (paid shilling).

>>4402185
The actual ISO number on m43 would be double what it would be on full frame with the same scene and metering. This doesn't actually mean much though because different cameras have different ISO performance. You can't really compare all of one sensor size with all of another sensor size, it would make more sense to compare one camera with another.

>>4402183
Panasonic autofocus is worse than fuji and 40mp xtrans oversampled beats 25mp m43 in every single way

100-400 on fuji = 200-600

>>4402185
The light is thrown away at the sensor level.

>>4402189
>Panasonic autofocus is worse than fuji
I have a G3 that autofocuses faster than my xpro 3. Not sure where you heard this but it's wrong.

>40mp xtrans oversampled beats 25mp m43 in every single way
Is one of those ways looking exactly like an iphone 15 photo? Because it definitely wins at that.

>>4402163
doesn't change the fact they explicitly want it because the resolution is better than digishit
>>4402173
>They demand film because of its authenticity factor.
gay, illiterate retard
>The large-format negative is preferred for two reasons: longevity of the film and clarity of the
image. The material stability of cut sheet film satisfies the archival requirements for longevity
Photography Guidelines, page 2
(500 years), while the clarity of the resulting image comes from a high level of resolution not
possible in smaller film formats.
>Consider: a bigger sensor.
and there we go again with the tiny dick tiny sensor snoy fag pushing for "full frame" for everything and denying the fact he too is on a crop

>>4402185
he is being a gay retard snoy who is trying to say that base ISO on your camera is 2 stops worse than the full frame while at the same time suggesting for some retarded reason you buy a full frame and then crop. which is the same fucking thing as just using your m43 except heavier and more expensive.
an f/4 m43 lens has the same light gathering capability as f/4 full frame, with f/8 dof. Which I would assume is something you would want taking photos of birds. If you are shooting base ISO and aren't looking for muh shallow dof and aren't pixel peeping a m43 is indistinguishable from a full frame especially if you are just posting to the internet or doing small prints and if you are shooting high iso, so what, no one is going to give a shit about the noise on your cool bird photo. there are a bunch of do it for a job and get published on the cover of major magazine photographers on youtube who point out no one actually gives a fuck about noise in your image if it looks dank.
>>4402174
8x10 is significantly more resolution than digishit. the parks department in their guidelines explicitly say digital isn't capable of the resolution large format film is. you are also being a gay retard and talking about 2 different things. you are talking about the resolution of most consumer grade film and theoretical resolution of some of the professional/scientific extra high res film most people wouldn't be shooting but is a thing like Adox CMS II ISO 20

>>4402191
8x10 is the true full frame format for 8x10 prints?

>>4402190
The xt5 got a firmware update, its superior to old nikon now.

>>4402191
>>4402192
What is this schizo babble? Are you illiterate? Are the voices in your head telling you what things really mean?

4x5 is demanded for the archival readiness and original character. The clarity of the image, despite the huge sheet, is only as good as a fuji gfx100. That’s still great and shooting a hundred sheets is cheaper than buying the fuji and some T/S primes but your claims are ridiculous.

>>4402190
the xpro3 is NOT representative of the current state of fuji autofocus. you’re saying nikon cant be good because the z6 sucked basically, or sony cant be #1 now because they sucked until the a7iv.

>>4402192
>an f/4 m43 lens has the same light gathering capability as f/4 full frame, with f/8 dof.
thankyou, that it what i thought
the g9ii has pretty decent ISO performance and lightrooms AI denoise works well so its not a concern

>>4402198
No, thats not how anything works
It would only gather as much light if it had an FF image circle, and even then the sensor would only use 1/4 of that light. Thats why panasonic m43 colors are always dull and its always either super grainy or AI smears.

>>4402199
>Thats why panasonic m43 colors are always dull and its always either super grainy or AI smears.
you are so bad faith you cant even hide it

>>4402195
>and original character.
they literally don't give this as a reason you gay retard. they do mention clarity specifically as a reason.
here, peta pixel did a test and also came to the conclusion that large format still btfo's any current production digishit
https://petapixel.com/2020/03/19/8x10-film-vs-150mp-digital-can-150-megapixels-compete/
you are using a crop camera and then complaining about others using a crop because you think it makes your no pictures superior
>>4402194
you can get bigger than 8x10 too

>>4402199
>muh colors
>shoots digishit
>>4402198
again, he is doing the gay retard thing where he is trying to tell you to buy a snoy and either spend way more on full frame glass to get the same range or to get glass that is way too short and then massively crop as though a super cropped snoy image will look better than your Panasonic at the appropriate focal length

>>4402201
>uhhhmmm full frame is the real crop and adult women are still gay because they have armpit hair!
Yeah sure, schizo.

If 4x5 = 100mp 8x10 = a very inconvenient 200mp. Tracks.

>>4402200
Do you have eyes, and a calibrated 4k/8k screen that’s 100% dcip3? Or a decent printer?

>>4402202
No, paid panashit shill. I said to buy a fuji xt5/xh2 and a 100-400 for
>FF SNR when downsampled to 24mp
>NO moire
>better colors
>sameish/slightly better autofocus
>better shadow recovery
>living lens mount
Speak of bad faith, FFS. That’s you, shill.

>>4402185
>isnt it still f/4 in terms of light performance, i know DOF and bokeh is f/8
Yes, but a 4/3s sensor is around 2 stops behind a ff one in terms of stuff like noise and dynamic range. You can shoot at higher ISOs with ff and get the same performance as a smaller sensor.

>>4402192
>base ISO on your camera is 2 stops worse than the full frame while at the same time suggesting for some retarded reason you buy a full frame and then crop. which is the same fucking thing as just using your m43 except heavier and more expensive.
It's not just base ISO, for things like noise and tonal range it holds across the whole ISO range and even dynamic range for most of it. And I wasn't suggesting a 2x crop either, hence why I wasn't suggesting a 300mm. That would give him less resolution. A 1.5x crop on a 60mp body would give him the same resolution but still have much larger pixels (25mp 4/3 being the same as 100mp ff), one of the 42mp bodies would give a still very usable ~18mp and be much less demanding on the lens.

>>4402201
>tim parkin makes exaggerated resolution claims
This guy will gladly enlarge images until the finest possible line pair is blatantly upscaled looking and say the enlargement is the “mp” resolution. He’s always about 30% high for film because of his inability to understand proper resolution testing. When your finest resolution is so many lp/mm then scanning larger and revealing np additional detail does not make it resolve more detail, it just makes the finest details and the spaces between them larger on the screen.

>>4402204
400mm is not at all comparable to 600mm?
why dont you use a 15mm lens for low light and just sneak up to the bird

File: nicuck.jpg (155 KB, 1179x1165)

155 KB JPG

>>4401886 (OP)
>Why do you shoot Sony?
w-well because actshully sony is taking more and more of Canon's market share each year and also vignette and colours aren't even that bad and muh compact full frame!!
>Why do you shoot Nikon?
y-you know Nikon was the original pro brand! Nikon used to sell way more cameras than canon and also pros only used nikon! The green cast is just a myth, who told you that?!
>Why do you shoot Canon?
Because it's the best.

>>4402208
A 400mm on fuji has the same FOV as a 300mm on anusonic. It’s actually slightly slower than the f4 prime, but is a zoom, and once you turn your 40mp xtrans files into 25mp jpegs you get a free stop of ISO performance in addition to being essentially immune to aliasing and having less chroma noise at every ISO due to xtrans’ luma bias. 40mp xtrans apsc is just blatantly superior to 25mp m43. The only thing panasonic has is a few video codecs, as usual.

>>4402209
>Why do you shoot sony
Because its the best
>NO NO NO NO! BABY MOUNT VIGNETTE!!!!
Vignettes less than canon, imperceptibly more than nikon. Good enough for the AP good enough for me.
>COLORS BAD! SNOY BAD! BAD!
Most people prefer sony colors in a blind test
>GREEEEEN
Sorry you messed up the white balance on an older camera
>A7III BAD REASONS
What year is it? Why dont i hear daily bitching about eos r and r6m1 err 20s and board failures, or panasonics general QC fails, why does /p/ acknowledge that nikon improved but not sony? Hmm.
>BUY ANYTHING BUT SNOY SNOY SNOY TRANNY I HATE SNOY SNOY SNOOOOOOY! I HATE SNOY!
Looks like you have some mental health issues to work through. Good enough for the AP good enough for me. Tootles.

>>4402211
>yap yap yap
Literally proving his point, so much cope lmfao

>>4402212
Sony is the best. Cope.

the guy unlisted the oly f4 300mm pro so you cant stop arguing its redudant now

>>4402214
Take the fujipill.

Tamron makes a 150-500 for fuji that is actually insanely sharp and in the same price bracket as the panusonic-feica 100-400. The game changer train has no brakes. Crop sensor shooters everywhere are flocking to Fuji.

>>4402095
PLEASE DELETE THIS RIGHT NOW

>>4402217
Take the Cyanidepill.

>>4402207
>>4402203
mega seethe from the tiny formatlet. worse colors, worse resolution

>>4402204
>>4402206
>>4402218
>no only my specific format is good and should be used, sell all your gear and by a snoy or a fuji. never mind they are gay and retarded and overpriced and don't do anything to help you get your lightweight and affordable bird picture setup which literally will look exactly the fucking same on whatever format you are sharing it on as a full frame will because you aren't fucking cropping and putting it on a giant fucking billboard

>>4402222
Sorry dude that big 4x5 sheet is just 100mp and some dog hair

>>4402223
Fuji will look a lot better and has a lens mount that’s still yknow, alive. Plus no more having to shoot raw and AI denoise.

I still think its funny that having an on lens aperture control and a numbered on camera shutter speed dial are considered premium features and cost significantly more when anyone who isn't a retard just shoots AV mode anyway

>>4402225
Manual+auto iso is the way. A mode is only not a hinderance with landscape photography.

>>4402224
large format btfo's digishit in terms of resolution. film blows out digishit in terms of color. when shot at base ISO, especially if its shown on screen or social media fucking no one can tell the difference between m43, fuji and snoy. m43 is based for things like birding or landscape due to the crop factor making the dof work for you and the lighter, cheaper lenses and weather sealing

>>4402226
how often do you need an exact shutter speed and not just a minimum shutter speed?

>>4402201
Photographic paper has quite high lp/mm potebtial and combined with contact printing produces the best looking prints you can have. That's why I say 8x10 for 8x10. I've heard around 10lp/mm you can't discern any difference, but I think that's BS similar to 1080p chuds saying you need a 30+ inch monitor to notice a difference with 4k.

File: snoy2.png (37 KB, 307x230)

37 KB PNG

I'm just going to say Snoy, because snoy makes the snoyggers angry, and snoy sounds funny to say. Snoy. Hahahaha.

>>4402227
Wow this is some schizophrenic cope
>nooo apsc doesnt look better because muh instagram (it looks better on anything but a phone screen, but who cares about (((social media)))?)
>nooo film has to be better even on a phone screen
Pick a side schizo. 24mp digital camera >>> 35mm film btw.

>>4402228
nooo you don't get it, you need manual when shooting landscapes, who cares about the ISO when you're on a tripod, you need to be shooting still landscapes at 1/4000th of a second!!

>>4402238
I prefer setting up strobes for my landscapes.

>>4402230
I'm shooting with a Sony and call my camera Snoy lmao

>>4402247
>Most Based Snoy Owner.

>post all your gear edition
>eight posts of gear and over a hundred text posts of unfunny b8
even when it's a thread on gear, the one thing you freaks seem to be able to engage with, you can't post a picture or have meaningful discussion. i wish the mods would nuke every non-photo thread

>>4402257
>Complains about thing
>Does exact same thing

>>4402264
i've posted all my gear and 0 b8. here's your (You)

>>4402228
When shooting multiple things at events where ISO never matters anyways

>>4402238
Fucking idiiot

File: R50-and-Fam.jpg (887 KB, 4080x3072)

887 KB JPG

>>4402271
Oh fuck yes, a (You).
Alright I'll do the thing. Mainstays are the 24mm f/1.8 for astro, landscape, and general purpose since it's such a fuckin fine lens, and the 100mm macro as my portrait / macro lens, which is also just a superb bit of kit.
>RF 18-45mm
Never gets touched and will be ebay'd shortly.
>EFS 55-250mm
Handy sometimes, but it's not long enough for what I use it for and it will be replaced by the RF 100-400mm soon.
>EFS 10-18mm
I picked up literally today from a local pickup ebay buy for fuck all money in new condition. I'm curious to see how useful it will be, but I can see it being a boon in tight indoors locations and for some ultrawide landscape shots.


I know crop sensors are a cope but I thoroughly enjoy the R50; the ergos, build, weight, and small bulk are great.

>>4402230
you are one seething snoy fagola
>>4402232
film looks better on anything due to the colors and dynamic range. for most application, especially when shot at base ISO, people can't tell sensors apart

>>4402238
landscapes can be complicated lighting and aren't moving so I can see shooting it with full manual, though IDK why you would auto iso a landscape shot unless you wanted a specific effect due to the wind or water speed
>>4402273
what things at events need an exact shutter speed and not a minimum shutter speed?

>/p/ has never actually taken photos
Imagine being confused by using manual auto ISO for events (rapid variation between environmental shots, group portraits, single portraits, and candids) and fixed ISO variable shutter speed for landscapes (perfectly still, lots of shadow recovery, main controls are aperture and exposure compensation).

Manual with auto ISO is just shutter priority with the least important setting on indirect control. Every canon using professional lived on shutter priority for 20 years but back then ISO was a little more important and letting it float too high could be a disaster. Today it only matters if it's close-ish to the jump between gain stage one and gain stage two and you intend to protect highlights and recover shadows. Otherwise ISO is irrelevant up to ISO 6400. Least important setting goes on auto. The other two need to be varied quick and purposefully.

Minimum shutter speed settings in A+auto ISO are a snoyfag meme that make you have to open up a menu to change your shutter speed. If you're automating 2 settings instead of one, you might as well shoot in P mode and oversharpen your insufficient DOF and motion blur like a ken rockwell or a phonefag.

>>4402290
Most event work should be done in M or with heavy use of AE locking. Anyone doing events with auto is just doing snapshots.

>>4402296
I have an AE lock button and an exposure comp dial on my camera
>>4402295
holy shit you are a gay retard
>set auto iso and min shutter speed which takes 2 seconds
>can now shoot A mode with base ISO and shutter speed about 1/250th or 1/500s and if there isn't enough light for that shutter than the ISO goes up
the only benefit to manual mode with auto iso over A mode with auto iso is if you don't want the shutter speed to move at all, which is not really useful most of the time when minimum shutter speed is what you care about

>>4402297
That's good, you should use the AE lock often if shooting with auto settings, or just use M.

Auto ISO is dumb regardless of mode.

>>4402298
auto iso is fine. it only jacks the ISO up if the picture would be under exposed or blurry at your set ISO. better to have a higher iso pic than a blurry pic or no pic. actually what's funny is I have 5 cameras, 1 digital, 2 film slrs, and 2 film point and shoots and the only cameras without AEL are the "professional" grade SLR and one of the point and shoots. the consumer grade cameras all have AEL/AFL

>>4402295
This guy shoots, and not a snoy.

>>4402297
This guy doesn't shoot and is an obvious snoy. Snoys can all put auto ISO min SS on a custom button. Nikon and canon don't, it's a menu setting. That's how you can tell.
So this guy is basically shooting auto ISO manual and changing his shutter speed by pressing a button to open the shutter speed menu.

Back in professional camera land...
Auto ISO min SS+A mode is for sports, where you never change the min shutter speed from 1/2000 ever, and using manual auto ISO would mean the ISO not being able to go low enough with a fast tele crossing over a brightly lit patch of footy pitch. Otherwise it's totally fucking useless and ass for events. That's why nikon and canon have it in a menu item instead of on a button. Snoys are retarded so they use it for things other than sports. Maybe the horrible ergos of their cameras make changing shutter speed and aperture manually to vary ISO too hard on their tiny hands.

>>4402300
I have an olympus, not a gay snoy.

File: u1qwz2chweyb1.jpg (1.08 MB, 3024x4032)

1.08 MB JPG

>>4402303
olympus was just snoy for hipsters. now that it's dead and sony finally caught up to the nikon d200 and added weather sealing after 2 decades of failed camera design (and still needed tamron to make well sealed lenses lol), all the former olympus hipsters migrated to snoy.

>>4402299
Auto ISO has no use in professional situations, especially for event type shooting. You should be metering for the scene, not a specific image. You shouldn't be using ISO to control for exposure, it's just gain.You're better off shooting at a lower fixed ISO and adjusting gain in post.

Only 1 of the 6 cameras I use omits a dedicated AEL option (of course has AEL on half press, but I don't count that), but I always use that one in M anyways.

>>4402305
cool story bro. none of my cameras are snoy
>>4402306
>slow shooter

>>4402308
Shooting in M saves me time over A for events.
Still use A for everyday snapshots, but always M for pro work.

>>4402306
>He shoots raw
>he's a sensor tech nerdlord who shoots at his base ISOs and carefully tweaks exposure on a computer
Confirmed for not actually shooting events.

We compete on delivery time now. Raw+jpeg rapes our cards just in case camera DRO doesn't do the job. Those rare edits are done on ipads running capture one or LR mobile, and as fast as possible. As much is done in jpeg as possible and select photos are sent ASAP. Manual with auto ISO is a godsend. If a scene is too contrasty for camera DRO to fix it just pay attention to where the ISO number is for that one (you had shutter AEL enabled right? you should) and tweak the least important setting appropriately.

File: 79-795308_45759818-smug-a(...).png (425 KB, 677x624)

425 KB PNG

>not just shooting on P (Professional)

lmaoing @ ur lives

>>4402310
Would bet I shoot more events here than anyone else, but I figured events meant weddings, concerts, performances, private work events, etc.
If you mean photojournalist style churn and burn for sports, then sure, have fun with JPG.

>>4402312
What year is it? Shooting for 30y/o boomers in ohio? They don't want social media coverage? Definitely 30 y/o boomers in ohio

>>4402314
Skibidi Ohio on god?

>>4402314
For some things I do deliver night of, or at the very least, sneak peaks, but most have the patience to wait. Sorry you have to deal with such bad clients, hope you have some better ones this year.

>>4402317
>clients that accept jpegs instead of carefully massaged raws are le bad
well, they definitely wouldnt let you use a snoy or micro fool turds but why is doing less work bad?

>>4402320
I meant having clients that are so demanding as to have unedited files immediately following the event, that's annoying to deal with. If you're happy, and client is happy, that's all that really matters, more power to you for shooting JPG, I wouldn't want to deal with that.

>>4402321
>the hell of taking good photos to begin with and going home without any more work to do
yah canon is putting ai nr as a camera jpeg option for a reason. less computer time more good.

>>4402324
Honestly, having to constantly adjust white balance alone is enough for me to stick with RAW, but glad to hear it's another non-issue for you. Again, if your clients are happy, that's all that matters.

>>4402326
bro im not him. but if your camera doesnt have reliable auto white balance you need to sell it and buy a canon

>>4402328
If you think it's about AWB reliability, you are missing the point.

>>4402054
>Fujis are expensive but I prefer them for general useability
I wish Fuji X was full-frame, with GFX sensor design.
It would be the perfect system.

File: 1733608993551222.jpg (444 KB, 1000x765)

444 KB JPG

>>4401945
>>4401975
snoysissies... not like this

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 22.3 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4096
Image Height	3134
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	2021:05:19 19:10:06
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	765

File: 1413227490.spotthehyena_d(...).jpg (163 KB, 1280x719)

163 KB JPG

>>4402341
In soviet /p/, wildlife photographs you!

File: IMG_1155.jpg (111 KB, 880x542)

111 KB JPG

>>4402347
Whats with furries and canon? Even our local furry has not one but two canon cameras.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	880
Image Height	542
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 20210507 Some of my favou(...).jpg (369 KB, 2048x1381)

369 KB JPG

>>4402347
>>4402352
I see, you haven't meet the final boss of photography

>>4402273
>>4402297
>y-you're gay and w-wrong b-because you just are okay!!!
If you're an adult will a fully developed brain and this is your best attempt at articulating yourself you should genuinely, seriously hang yourself. It's not going to get any better and this is pathetic.

>>4402347
>>4402352
These are just poorfag APS-C shooters. They're still saving up for their sony or fuji.

>>4402379
you sound like an angry, gay retard

>>4402380
>furry
>poorfag
I don't buy it, if they have money for their stupid ass suit they are making bank somewhere

>>4402384
What don't you buy? You can look up the prices yourself, one of them is using a 70 dollar kit 50.

Still dissapointed in that guys tripod choice.

I love the pictures from my Ricoh GRiiix
What should I get if I want a full-frame ILC with similar color rendering? Is it gonna be just Pentax?

>>4402399
any camera + learn to edit + make your own 1-click preset

File: gear.jpg (339 KB, 1920x1080)

339 KB JPG

Sony

New photo because I've got some new stuff and not worth including some manual lenses that I never use
-A7
-A7R III
-RX100 IV
-LA-EA3 and monster adapter converted LA-EA4
-Zeiss 55mm f/1.8
-Sony 16-35mm f/4
-Samyang 135mm f/1.8
A mount lenses:
-Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro
-Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
-Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3
-Minolta 500mm f/8

Canon 5dm3
Canon 1v
Nikon F3
Contax Rts 3
Contax t3
Contax g1
Pentax k1000
Leica M4
Hasselblad 500c
Rolleiflex 2.8 planar
Rollei 6008AF
Sinar hy6
Mamiya 6
Mamiya rb67
Linhof super technika 4
Wista field 4x5
100 sinar pieces/accessories to shoot 4x5 and 8x10, mostly F2, P, and Norma

A handful of random 35mm cameras I got for like 1 dollar each one time.

All collected over the past 10ish years.

>>4402384
allegedly they are really shitty with money. like they spend it all on the suits and art and then sleep on the floor of a crackhouse and eat ramen

I just send a bunch of lenses to Keh so now I got
>Olympus digital Pen F
-Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 II
-Olympus 60mm f/2.8 macro
-Olympus 75mm f/1.8
>Pentax 645
-Pentax SMC-A 75mm f/2.8
-Pentas SMC-A 150mm f/3.5
>Canon Rebel 2000
-Canon 50mm f/2.5 compact macro
>Canon (New) sure shot/AF35M II
>ImageTech 3Dfx

one major benefit of micro43 that fags are going to seethe and shitpost about is security doesn't really see them as pro level cameras like they see slrs or full frame so you can bring m43s into venues that you can't bring a snoy into

>>4402482
The bouncer has simple rules like "if the lens comes off it's a professional camera" or "if its really big its a professional camera". They aren't going to ask you for your sensor size so to them, an a7c with the kit zoom or 40mm f2.5 might not be a pro camera unless the bouncer knows his shit, but an om-1 with a 12-40 f2.8 "PRO" will be a pro camera because to anyone it looks like a canon and says pro on it.

The only sure bet is a PNS with an integrated lens. The next tier is avoiding EVF humps, large grips, large lenses, and flashy branding calling stuff "PRO", "MASTER", or professional sounding labels like "IS L USM III".

Lens reviewers be like
>This lens is high resolution and does not render blurry, hazy, flat pictures
>BUT
>My buddy fred wouldnt use this for video because of the FOCUS BREATHING! Look at how it zooms slightly when going from near macro to all the way to the background! USELESS PIECE OF SHIT!
>The focus motors are not the manufacturers fastest out of their most expensive sports telephoto. FAIL.
>No optical stabilizer? on a 50mm marketed as more compact and affordable!? yes, it would add half a pound and $250, but my canon L IS USM III VXD DG DN ART had this in 2005 when my camera didn't have stabilization so I fucking expect it!
>I can still see SOME color aberrations when I focus super close and zoom in 200%. Bad job, lens maker. Bad job.
>3/10 there are better options available like this Snoynokon 20-85 f1.8 GM Slava Z IS XTREME VXD that's just $3000 but definitely what a REAL professional photographer needs. No one asked for this mere affordable, good 50mm lens. We need a 16-120 f1.2 with OSS next.

Professional photographers and videographers be like
>*still using the a7iii and kit lens*
>*still using the gh5 and 12-60*
>*still getting paid*

And on top that, reviewers often lie. Blatantly. I have seen bullshit as bad as a clearly edited or gamed (faked exif) om-1 vs g9ii low light test from petapixel. Shortly before olympus sponsored a giveaway through them. How are retards like this still in business?

>>4402667
>complaining about gearfagging on the gearfag thread of the gearfag board dedicated to the gearfag hobby

>>4402667
There is a species of gearfag that literally can not imagine settling for less than a manufacturer's highest end kit after upgrading from the cheapest plastic no matter what the cost, and their ultimate career goal is "professional gear reviewer". They can not comprehend how a lens between plastic sub-$500 kit and $2000 bokeh master can justify its existence.

>professional photographers be like
Annie Leibovitz was spotted using a garbo taped up a7iii and the craptastic 24-70 f4 zeiss on a five figure photoshoot and still pulls out a d810 or 5d3 just because she feels like it.

>>4402667
It's the same here, god forbid you suggest someone can get results or even "make do" with anything less than top of the line Canony

>>4402671
/p/'s most recommended cameras are outdated cheap shit and cope cameras like the a7c, r8, 6d, d750, a6600, r100, e-m5 etc and everyone uses mid tier and third party lenses.

In a world of snobbish baristas /p/ is the guy who just scoops something better than maxwell house into a french press or is content to use the cheapest keurig with a reusable pod
Sorry if they bullied you for using a walmart drip machine
Not sorry if you spent $1000s on the drip machine (lol people with top shelf m43 gear)

>>4402669
>Annie Leibovitz
fuck off with that retarded nigger nepo baby

>>4402673
You're doing the exact thing I was complaining about

>how dare i make do! you full frame snobs! how dare I not spend $30k on top of the line nikon junk, right? maybe YOU have the tiny sensors! space telescopes are bigger! dont shoot 8x10 huh? you're BTFO now!
>-memer with $5000 in fujifail gear arguing with people who use FF DSLRs from 2012
>everyone has the same blurry photos
average day on /p/.

I want to get a full frame (or larger) system for slow, high IQ nature photography. I'll use a tripod and am willing to carry several pounds and bulk (when I'm not I'll bring my mft gear). What do I get? Something with sharp, beautiful lenses and a high MP body is my primary goal. Weight, durability and ergos secondary, and fps and AF are in a somewhat distant 3rd. My lenses will be:
- One prime in the 35-50mm range
- A macro lens around 100mm
- A tele zoom that goes to 400 or longer-- a sharp prime in the vicinity of 300mm is also good
I just want very high quality photos with beautiful tonality and color.

>>4402718
Medium format digital back with a body that uses schneider or rodenstock glass. $$$$$$$ but the quality is truly awesome.

>>4402718
>>4402719
you would have to ask someone else for a nonretard answer. but if money isn't an issue digital Hasselblad back would mean you could use a legacy hasselblad body and lenses which would also be mega based because you could shoot like Ektachrome along with the digital back.
even more based/retarded would be 4x5 or 8x10.

>>4402722
>even more based/retarded would be 4x5 or 8x10
I mean at that size you could just slap a scanner on that motherfucker

>>4402719
>>4402722
Sadly out of my price range but I did look into it. The GFX system would manageable though. Is it worth it over full frame?

>>4402724
Keep an eye on ebay. You can get good non-tethered only mfdb for like 2k-4k. Hasselblad cfv-39 is pretty nice.

>>4402723
Then you can put your mfdb on a view camera lol.

>>4402724
I would go right to one of the GFX 100mp models if 4x5 wasn't an option. It's the most sensible for what you want to do.

File: IMG_1445.jpg (677 KB, 4032x3024)

677 KB JPG

>>4401926
we have similar taste

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

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

>>4402718
Gfx100s is affordable, kind of shit for true macro tho. Don’t bother with gfx50.

4x5 is nice in theory but in practice the lenses dont actually give you the resolution of the film and scans/enlargements dont actually look that much better than 120 or a 50mp digital. Dont bother with film unless you have darkroom skills and an optically excellent enlarger. Photopaper exceeds the resolution of any computer fed printer.

>>4402719
We are fully aware your new camera was $13k

>>4402936
Less than half that with 5 "pro-line" lenses. :)

>>4402729
>>4402730
Thanks, figuring out a GFX kit now. Getting anything like a 100-400 zoom probably won't be a thing, though aparently people successfully adapt the Canon 100-400 with some compromises I'm concerned about dust and such. The 500/5.6 looks great and with the 120 macro might be enough.

>>4402936
>shit for true macro
Kinda worried about that... the official extension tube is stupid expensive but would give 1:1, though I'd have to crop to get the same actual magnification as FF.

>>4402951
Looking forward to your high res snapshits. :D

>>4402951
So... how do I store a gfx 100s, three lenses and a flash while backpacking? Camera cube in a bag? I'd like it to be semi accessible at least.

>>4402958
I will take the most beautiful photos of rocks and leaves that I am capable of, God willing.

>>4403008
Fuji branded murse.

File: 69zhvg.png (546 KB, 1092x1058)

546 KB PNG

Does anyone else notice that all of sony's small, good, cheap (especially cheap used) lenses are wide angles 40mm and under? Then the 50mms and 24-70 is just good enough (very sharp, meh rendering/color) and everything after 70mm sucks or is overpriced?

What drives this? Vloggers gearfagging around? Is sony just the wide angle vlog brand?

>>4403008
Wandrd Fern-Weh is my go-to for backpacking

>>4403047
I don't think it's really something unique to Sony, other than them lacking a cheap tele zoom (70-200/300mm). I'm assuming you're talking about ff, otherwise there is the 55-210mm. I'm also assuming you're only looking at Sony lenses because the third party options will be the same if not greater than other mounts. The 85mm is also fairly cheap.

File: bessas.jpg (99 KB, 1200x1200)

99 KB JPG

>>4402930
ha cool! 35mm fl on bessa r2 is awesome. and voigt itself makes a few nice 35s. i feel like i see hte color skopar most often
i use my xpro for snappy wide angle street or diary edc type photography mostly

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:15 21:08:24
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	-3.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

>>4401886 (OP)
What's the best prime lens for photos of city architecture?

>>4403093
Don't you need a tilt shift for that?

>>4403093
A wide zoom covering 16-24mm. If you must go prime, I'd look at 18mm or 21mm (in FF) as a starting point and go from there.

>>4402951
remember medium format has a reverse crop. also can't you do like a Raynox DCR-250 clip on?

File: 8596986287_a1ddeb9b6c_k.jpg (564 KB, 2048x1670)

564 KB JPG

Looking for a camera.
Must-haves:
>Good low light performance and DR
>Size: trying to downscale from my 5D but will take a camera up to its size/weight if necessary
>Good built-in picture profiles (not for shooting jpeg but for applying in post)
>Works well with adapted glass of all kinds
>Must be robust and highly reliable long-term
>Use case: travel, hiking, portrait
Nice to haves:
>Decent eye AF
>Enough resolution to scan medium format negatives
Don't care about burst shooting or access to long (>135mm) lenses.
Recent GFX seems to tick the most boxes. But I know adapting full-frame glass is a bit of a compromise when you need to crop most of the time. Otherwise I have been considering Z6II/Zf, R6 Mark II, A7IV, A7RV. But not sure if I trust Sony ergonomics and reliability yet.
In terms of digital I already own a GR and a 5D Mark 4, so ultimately I'm trying to replace the 5D.

>>4403147
Sony is reliable now
Their ergos are fine unless you try one handing a 100-400

The problem is the noise. Sony sensors have gotten so noisy. Why? No one knows. The SNR is technically still 1 stop better and colors arent taking a dump like they would on crop but the a7iv and a7rv just have really noticeable, huge, chunky grain.

>>4403154
Sony still have abysmal color science that need to be fixed.

File: original_pouch__strap_for(...).jpg (182 KB, 1080x1080)

182 KB JPG

Do you guys know of any case with a belt loop that can fit a digital pen f? its just slightly too big for the fake? leather case I have for my film point and shoot. I'd prefer something I can loop through my belt

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1080

Upgraded from an ancient rebel to R7 (body only).
I have:
>18-55 III EF-S
>50 1.8 EF
>55-250 STM EF-S
Second and third I'm happy with.
So I'm thinking I should get a 24mm.
What would offer me a clear optical improvement over the 18-55?
Would the new sigma 23 1.4 be a good choice? 600 bux is about as much as I'm willing to spend.
Or maybe I should adapt something from the EF mount?

>>4402718
>>4403008
>backpacking
>already have m43
Don't get memed into larger formats by 4chan. You're considering a very slow to use, high IQ medium format camera. Consider your use cases:
>macro
You already have best in class. Even FF macro is stupid big and usually for less magnification. For macro you virtually always are stopping down to the diffraction limit so smaller formats are fine. Your MF gear would require cropping.
>landscape and "slow photography"
You'd think MF would win handily here, but here's what you do instead:
- panos :get a very sharp standard or short tele, then take a bunch of shots and stitch in post. Stitching software is extremely powerful these days and can automatically stitch handheld panos no problem. With four shorts in a square and you're at FF, a few more and you're beyond GF.
- HDR or averaged HDR: high base ISO cameras can be compensated for in this way. You don't need to do the HDR look, that's a completely separate thing; a shot with a normal tone curve from an HDR stack will have superior tonality and DR
- pixel shifting: This is your laziest and worse performing move, but works in a pinch.
You may say this is a ton of work compared to just showing up with a larger format and shooting. The thing is, you'll be shooting REALLY slowly using a GFX camera as is. A m43 body like the OM-1 with a heavy ass pro lens will be lighter than your GFX body alone, and can be comfortably out all the time. You have options with m43.
>occasional wildlife or action
is actually possible with m43, unlike MF. The newest and best focusing GFX camera is still way worse than a PDAF m43 body, and telephoto options are nonexistent. You mentioned wanting a 100-400; this does not exist in GFX.

My recommendation is use your current gear and treat it like you'd treat a slower cam. Shoot panos or HDR stack or whatever. If you're still unhappy, rent before you buy. Ask yourself if the $5,000+ investment is actually worth it or if it's just GAS.

>>4403188
>Micro fool turd begs people not to leave the cult
Smaller formats are worse for everything.

No SNR equivalence chart nonsense can get around the fact that a larger sensor with more, and preferably larger pixels has better image quality in every situation by every visible metric.

/p/ talked me into using meme fag garbage and I regret it all. Now I have a fuji and my photos dont look like flat dull garbage with absolutely 0 effort. I have never seen a good micro fool garbage photo that wasn't a black and white street photography meme. Otherwise they are just ugly, no amount of photographer skill can make them anything but trashy like you cant skill your way into film looking like a high end digital camera. Maybe I should have taken that as a hint.

>>4403196
reminder, this snoy troon admits xe wears a purse

>>4403188
>dont get memed by 4chan!
>memes people into using junk
It’s just like /mu/!
>Saars do not redeem the gibson fender, brazil’s finest condor guitar is good enough. Skill issue my saars.
Literally anything even an a7c is a huge upgrade here lel

>>4403205
There are a lot of NEETs here that get genuinely angry if someone doesnt use cheap garbage. It hurts them. Watching people do things faster and better because they have jobs. Its like watching chad fuck stacy.

A lot of the anger they get back exists on the basis of them being NEETs aka worthless leeches

>>4403205
thank you again for informing us on camera fashion in your home nation of india
>>4403206
lol samefagging snoy is seething hard even though snoy has no photos

>>4403196
>>4403205
I don't even own a m43 body or care about it, I just know GAS when I see it. I would have said the same if they had any crop or even FF. There are options with what you already have if you actually care about quality and are willing to slow way down to get it.

>>4403212
Stacking isnt a replacement for a larger sensor. It does not look the same or achieve the same things. You may as well call sheet film a gfx replacement.

Its all just gearfag cope. A lot of technical surface level knowledge with none of the knowledge of how it goes over IRL and the results.

>>4403214
Panos literally are and they're easy. For what that anon wanted they'd be an option. I'd probably be able to rail off a 6 image handheld pano faster than they could take their backpack off, get their huge MF camera out and focused.
Stacking is a replacement for low ISOs. Both improve image quality in different ways.

>>4403223
>oops a branch moved
Lol!
And these will make smeary diffracted m43 detail, flat rendering, and shitty color science better too? Nope.

Seems like you’re actually arguing for leaving the GFX100II on a strap

>>4403224
Nor will any of that improve bayers flaws, never in a single shot

Oversampling will
36-50mp FF has stuck around for low ISO shooters. Micro four thirds essentially died. Wonder why.

File: hatedhimforhe.jpg (124 KB, 748x761)

124 KB JPG

Why the fuck is this the most prevalent argument in /p/? Four threads at a time have MFTurds and Foolframers bitching back and forth like their sex life depended on it. It's sheer fucking physics that bigger sensor = more light = more detail. Oversampling works. Bayer is bullshit garbage. And, no amount of tricks will ever overcome the advantage given to you by having a properly sized sensor. WHY does this argument happen every three days, when the only people retarded enough to defend MFT are the copiums who spent $4k on their shitty OM1 and ""PRO""" birding lenses?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	298 dpi
Vertical Resolution	298 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:26 17:01:07
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4403224
>>4403225
>can't handle shooting a pano so I'm gonna spend 1000s for a new system
Shooting a pano instead of a single wide shot will correct bayer flaws btw. It even works on FF or MF, you should try it sometime!
>shitty color science
Post processing skill issue. Gearfags will go to insane lengths instead of learning basic techniques.

>>4403227
Cope

>>4403226
Because poorfags need to cope.