Small ones with aperture rings - sony G/smaller Gms, sigma iseries. Using the front dial is possible but kind of uncomfortable without a very large grip, it's just there for the older lenses and lower end/tamron lenses that still lack an aperture ring because it beats using the rear selector dial.

I have the 16-35 f4 pz, 40mm f2.5, and sigma 90mm f2.8 for mine. The sony 20mm f1.8g , 24mm f2.8 g, sigma 65mm f2 and 45mm f2.8, are also really good.

>>4401956 (OP)
'/p/ approved' certainly will be dogshit, overpriced crutch garbage. Just get some cheapo manual focus primes with adapters and have fun with it. EVF's make manual focus better than it has ever been, even better than split prisms. This also the only way to correctly use an a7c, if you're using huge lenses on a camera that small, you bought the wrong camera. Zuiko 50mm f1.4 is nice, helios 44-2 is always a good pick but wait until you find a good deal on them because prices have been creeping up there's billions of them out there.

File: Color_Science.jpg (883 KB, 1955x1095)

883 KB JPG

>>4401956 (OP)
>falling for the snoy meme
Get a proper camera brand or shoot film.

>>4401959
>Here comes the holier than thou crap gear shill to brag about how awesome he is for turning a ring himself
Yeah, don't listen to this fag. He's just grasping at a sense of usefulness due to well, lacking any real usefulness like a real man. Imagine worrying about "crutches" in camera use - sounds like cope shit for someone that can't change a tire or get his penis inside of a (human womans) vagina.

The helios here is a neat special effect lens for swirly bokeh. Zuiko lenses are absolute garbage. Using any lens without a focus distance encoder cuts IBIS down to 1-2 stops or none on mirrorless cameras but knowing goblins like this faggot, he'd say IBIS is a crutch and he is very skilled for raising his shutter speed or carrying a tripod. It's not like he ever takes his camera out with friends or is ever part of the action he's photographing anyways. He's autistic and spends his entire life standing alone with his face buried in one screen or another. And if he did have friends, they'd start to dislike him pretty quick for always having his neck bent into a hasselblad.

>>4401960
reminder no one else had this problem, it only exists for one shill video involving a free lumix s9, and the green tint was most likely manually added in camera settings
also reminder /p/ has actual paid panasonic shills which is why you dont see non stop oh no no posting about lumix g9iis random port failures or the s5iis battery drain bug

everyone else has a problem with the a7cii adding too much magenta tint in awb instead (canon does this too, it's fucking annoying, only new nikons with the natural light auto white balance setting dont)

no matter what you do never buy a panasonic
only sony, canon, or nikon

>>4401959
Yeah dont listen to this autist lmao

>>4401960
Fake news, a7c/a7cii skin is disgustingly faithful to skin tones so it usually has too much red and zits etc stand out. It needs a little bump towards orange in post to make people look less ugly than they are.

>>4401961
>>4401965
Samefag snoy shills trying to get you to waste money on vignette masters btw. I'm right and they know it, that's why the feel the name to persecute me. If you read what they're saying, it's mostly words, fluff, babble no actually content or point. Kind of like how a jew or a woman speaks.

>>4401965
>Fake news, a7c/a7cii skin is disgustingly faithful to skin tones so it usually has too much red and zits etc stand out. It needs a little bump towards orange in post to make people look less ugly than they are
This has to be a bad-faith false flag. I shoot sony and even I would never say this. It's also way too obviously wrong and laughably poorly put together to be a paid shill. Indian maybe? Really feels like someone trying hurt Sony's good name by pretending to be retarded.

>>4401968
Yeah definitely dont listen to this autist lmao

>>4401969
I returned my a9ii over the disturbingly realistic skin. Canon cant shoot an accurate ferrari without editinf but at least the camera can stay out after people have had a few drinks. Way less editing work. I take 1 car or flower picture for every 50000 drunk person pictures.

>>4401983
I'm going to ask you to post a photo, not because I want to critique you or anything, I just wanna see the metadata to see if you even shoot sony. I bet this is a false flag, no one is this autistic.

>>4401987
Tell me how to edit exif and i will post proof of snoy colors

>>4401988
Lol basado

If you're just going to shoot street and portraits you could shoot everything you want on the 28-60mm kit lens ($100) and the sony 85mm 1.8 ($300). Both are sharp and provide good results.

Literally that's it, the kit lens is lighter and more compact than some of the primes itt and the 85mm will provide great portraits and fill in for the weaknesses of the kit lens (minimal bokeh, compression and lack of reach). I decided to buy the tamron 28-75 as an "upgrade " of the kit lens and it performs well with nice colors, just it's a bit bulky.

I would say avoid falling down the "compact" prime rabbit hole, the >>4401958 lenses are nice but then you just fall into gear faggotry and owning 6+ lenses.

>>4401997
You don’t need every single focal length
1 or 2 zooms
1 or 2 primes

Most people have 2-3 lenses, and not 100% focal range coverage

>>4401988

exiftool
raw file download link would be nice

>>4401998
Yea I don't disagree

Imagine samefagging agreeing with yourself to defend some tech brand for free lmao

>>4401997
Who said you have to buy every compact prime? You only need like, two

>>4402193
I would say just buy 1

>>4401956 (OP)
G lenses are really good, and so are Tamrons. There's a Tamron 28-75mm zoom lens that has has a constant f2.8 minimum and I've heard really good things about it.

>>4401997
>If you're just going to shoot street and portraits you could shoot everything you want on the 28-60mm kit lens ($100)
This too, as far as kit lenses go, it's pretty small and is really sharp. It'd be a good daily lens that you can just keep in your bag at all times.

>>4401956 (OP)

I have a A7CII and I mainly shoot with a Tamron 35-150mm f 2.0-2.2 lol.

Of all these lenses which ones are good for nighttime shooting?

>>4403501
the best night lenses are never going to be super compact, but are still pretty small compared to their canikon equivalents

the 20mm f1.8 is beloved but vignettes heavily wide open ($500-600 used)
the 24mm f1.4 GM is surprisingly affordable for its sheer quality (~$700-$800 used)
so is the (manual focus) zeiss loxia 35mm f2 biogon (~$350-500 used), also the smallest fastest 35 on sony that isn't dogshit, if you dont like DA POP for some reason get a voigtlander 40mm f1.2 or 35mm f2 apo

>>4403501
Get any f1.4 GM lense
>really not that big, same size as the 24-50 f2.8, 16-35 f4
>$1k and under on ebay
>stupidly high quality, exceeds nikon f1. 8 S lines, also exceeds the new canon f1.4s

>>4403501
20mm f1.8. It has… 3d pop.

>>4401956 (OP)
Do NOT buy a "zeiss" (cosina) loxia or cosina voigtlander lens. Their aperture encoders are poorly designed and develop slop over time and newer sony bodies are more sensitive to the added signal noise (but when the wear gets really bad, it also affects older bodies and other brands) because the camera thinks you are rapidly changing the aperture all the time. This was made more noticeable on newer bodies because of sony’s improved support for a continuously variable declicked aperture in G and GM lenses, which also have a more robust aperture encoder than the one cosina used and don’t send 1/6th stop or less aperture signals if the declick switch is off.

>>4401960
This woman has more foundation than a New York skyscraper, how do we even know if she has human-looking skin in the first place?

>>4403680
She changed the white balance to have a heavy green tint in the camera menu. It’s an ad. the a7cii would normally add a magenta tint in that scene.

>>4403517
Fucking stupid guy you idiots post your lens photo not a real photo called yourself a photographer what a fucking joke

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

1 KB JPG

>>4403842
Seeth rajeshi, seethe

>>4403842
Good morning sar

>>4403683
nah, snoy cameras just have terrible color science

>>4403962
Sony has the best color
>inb4 seething about the a7iii auto white balance, but obfuscated by being posted in screenshot form

>>4403962
Sony has the best color for an art photographer.

Canon and Nikon have great "commercial color science". They're inaccurate and intended to make people look better than they do. Skin gets brighter and more rosy when the real people look unhealthy, blotchy, and borderline gray skinned IRL. Shooting with a nikon in particular is fucking jarring. Everything that comes out of the camera looks more artificially vibrant than iphone pictures. You can shoot a flatly lit, boring, half dead tree on nikon and it comes out looking a lot more alive and this is impossible to fix without multiple selective color edits after 5 minutes of fucking with levels. Canon tones it down a little but there are a lot of obvious color shifts intended to make everyone rosy and a little tan even if they're pallid and gross as fuck. Their color science hides zits. Yes, it lessens the appearance of zits. 100% tuned for artificially even skin.

Sony transmits the color from reality into the camera body. On sony, if you want people with vibrant, bright, rosy skin, hire a model with good skin instead of a moderately overweight burger-fed zombie.

Now, let's say you're a wedding photographer
99/100 clients are overweight and subsist entirely off diet soda and ground beef...

Sony is the best art/hobby system in general, lots of portable gear and clearly designed to fit comfortably in airline carryons first and handhold the f2.8 profag trinity all day long second.

>>4403962
Sony has the best color science of any camera system ever invented. Nothing comes close to Sony colors and never will.

File: consoomer.jpg (23 KB, 680x432)

23 KB JPG

>>4403982
>>4403996
>>4404014

>>4404116
>noooo you cant debunk me because the company i'm falsely criticizing is rich!
They are also the only company that makes good cameras for actual photographers besides leica.

It's not about sony, it's about all the people you'd drive away from photography by trolling them into buying inferior canikons and micro fool turds.

No one cares if sony gets money out of this or not. Most people here buy used and are discouraged from buying new. Most people here buy third party lenses. It's about trolls like you trying to meme people into buying awful cameras.

>>4404119
>Noooooo will someone think of the new Sony shooters!!
wtf is wrong with snoy simps

>>4404119
This. Like, holy fuck. Micro four thirds is borderline unusable fucking garbage. Canon is hideously oversized. Fuji and nikon basically don’t work.

Sony is the only sane option now for general photography instead of building corner shooting artist larping. And it’s clearly driven a few fanboys of other brands completely insane.

>>4404119
>>4404122
Agreed. No doubt Sony is the number one relevant company in the photography industry today.

All the other brands have been relegated to not first place and this makes those fanboys mad and seethe they are no longer relevant.

>>4404126
Canon is plenty relevant for professional sports photography, entry level kit, and compacts. They’re not #1 in FF ILCs specifically, since sony got so many news agencies, but they’re still all you see at any sporting event while the sony guys are just doing video.

>>4404132
>doing sports telephoto work only
>$1000 R8 is almost as good as a $4000 a1
>do literally anything else
>a1 mogs it
Canon is so good at sports its unreal

>>4401956 (OP)
do people use sonys for photograpy too?

>>4401956 (OP)

Sony GM 24 1.4 (Or Samyang 24 F1.8 if poor)
Samyang 45 1.8
Samyang 100 T2.3

...and you are set, lightweight and affordable!

>>4404136
Pretty much any FF body made in the last 5-10 years is as good as the other if you aren't doing sports or wildlife. Otherwise most of the major brands have acceptable and not acceptable models, usually, including Canon and Sony.

>snoy
none

>>4404378
>>4404136
Note to observers: "Sports and wildlife" means "high FPS" because somewhere between 10-15FPS sports only super professional DSLRs that were more than anyone needed and today, every bird and athlete on earth started moving 4x faster.

But actually, sports and wildlife photographers got significantly worse, totally lost any sense of timing, quadrupled their reaction times, and now need a 40fps camera to get a photo of a black guy dunking a ball or a bird... standing there. Sometimes flying!

I swear to fucking god, the average sports photographer is now an unpaid intern handed a camera on auto mode. There is no way there is any utility in shooting 30+ FPS and then culling hundreds of photos for just one shot besides being really fucking bad at this.

>>4404343
The samyang 45mm has autofocus issues and needs you to buy the samyang lens station just to improve the shit lens, and really wastes the autofocus quality of the a7cii.

If you can afford an a7cii you can afford good lenses, like the 16-35 f4 G PZ, 20-70 f4 G, 40mm f2.5, etc. The third party segment besides viltrox lab/sigma art is mostly for people with used older cameras.

>>4404381
I used a Minolta AF beer can lens with my APS-C sensor and I get great results. Oh course, it's automatically a shit photo because it's not full frame. And even full frame is dog shit because it's not medium format, and even medium format is dog shit because it's not large format, and so on.

>>4404381
Let's see your 200mm bird photos?

>>4404387
How much are you paying?

Have a generic youtube demo until you can find your checkbook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfU12KEAX3g [Embed]
All you need to photograph birds is a tarp and a tree branch

>>4404384
No, anon. Everything is good except for micro four thirds. Even 1" and phones are better than micro four thirds. Pentax Q > G9II, simple as.

>>4404391
Thanks for clarifying. What about film? I regrettably had to sell my old Sony a6000 and now have only three 35mm film cameras. But they all work flawlessly with no light leaks.

>>4404391
>refuses to provide evidence
>insists on getting money to prove he's not a moron
>links a youtube faggot to prove his (incorrect) point
>thinks anyone normal and under the age of 55 is going to camp out with a ghillie suit in order to get a photo of a bird
Also
>Telephotos good for air shows, the man made bird
Can't really catch one of those with a tree branch

File: P453.jpg (2.14 MB, 8000x6000)

2.14 MB JPG

>>4404396

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX100S
Camera Software	NX Studio 1.7 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	63 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2025:02:07 13:06:59
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	6.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	80.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	8000
Image Height	6000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>4404396
It is true you dont need more than a 70-200 for birds. Longer focal lengths are for bird WATCHERS, not bird PHOTOGRAPHERS. A photographer creates an image by arranging the world to make it come into being in front of the lens. A bird watcher just catalogues and IDs every bird they see. Also see: the gearfag wankfest that is birds in flight. A bunch of artistically bankrupt old men buying the most expensive gear they can to wank about their reach and autofocus. Not one single good photo ever came out of it. Just ID pictures for encyclopedias.

If you’re just a field biologist, what are you doing with a $1700 sony? Might as well use an rx10 24-600

File: P5534.jpg (1.62 MB, 8000x6000)

1.62 MB JPG

>>4404416

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX100S
Camera Software	NX Studio 1.7 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2025:02:07 13:35:17
Exposure Time	1/680 sec
F-Number	f/6.4
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/6.5
Brightness	10.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	30.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	8000
Image Height	6000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>4404416
>UM YOU AREN'T MAKING ART
they don't give a shit what you think and they're happier than you lol

>>4404413
>fuji
>processed with nx studio
???
also lol at the whiskers and peach fuzz on that person

>>4404427
On this episode of pawn stars...

>>4401956 (OP)
I'd just go with the kit zoom and a small prime from 35 to 50. for birds, I'll just crop, kek. a7c seems to be marketed as a 'compact' version, so I'll take advantage of it.

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

2 KB JPG

>>4404427
>Just edit: Saturation +6
And wallah, Ren Kockwell tier.

>>4401956 (OP)
I'd just get the Fuji XT-5, sexiest camera there is

File: S79a5817a0ed149ba96230338(...).jpg (1.99 MB, 2081x1920)

1.99 MB JPG

>>4401956 (OP)
for me it's disposable camera lens
>makes the entire set weigh literally nothing
>cool ass pictures
>no fucking around with focus - just point, shoot and the entire image will be as sharp as it can be (which isn't sharp at all desu)
>incredibly cheap, even cheaper if you aren't a lazy bum like myself and DIY the lens using one of many youtube tutorials
if someone made a version with weather sealing I'd pay top dollar for this shit

>>4408212
Wanted to get that oreo for my R50 for a bit. If nothing else just for the novelty of it. If they could make a version at f/8 (so my cope sensor can avoid diffraction), I'd pay twice as much.

File: cookie.jpg (286 KB, 1572x721)

286 KB JPG

>>4408213
this one claims to be f/10

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4408213
check out your local stores that offer photo developing and ask for used disposable cameras
some of the lenses in there are f/8
then just drill a hole in a body cap, glue the lens on and you get your lens

File: A7C.png (1.03 MB, 696x924)

1.03 MB PNG

All you need is a Canon FL 50 1.4

>>4408632
Using manual lenses without focus distance encoders drops IBIS on sony bodies down to 1 stop.

Sony has never fixed this and never will. They actually broke compatibility with 3rd party manual lenses with focus distance encoders (basically all cosina) to better support their own declickable aperture implementation.

>>4408665
>Using manual lenses without focus distance encoders drops IBIS on sony bodies down to 1 stop.
Holy shit is this true? Sony shooters just cant catch a break!