Previous: >>4455714
>>4457896kek that one malding schizo in the other thread is going to cry about the thread pic anon, how dare you say snoy bad
I hate these types of people/videos
>>4457900They are literally paid shills2 months later>FULL FRAME IS BETTER? GOODBYE FUJI, HELLO NIKON>I TRIED CANON AND YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED>WHY LUMIX SPECS DONT MATTER AS MUCH AS YOU THINKIt depends on which manufacturer is sending then more free shit at the momentYou shouldn't take advice from a "photographer" whose main source of income is making advertisements on youtube.>>4457899More like, why the fuck has /p/ been taken over by some insane sony hater who is here literally 24/7? Ever since all that drama with "clive pancakes" it's been non fucking stop. There's also some really strange behavior surrounding it. Step one: Anti-sony schizo posts his forced memes and bait screenshotsStep two: High IQ sony chads post facts and logicStep three: "Someone else" posts proof they bought a sony, having been convincedThis sequence of events repeats multiple times, oftentimes with the exact same text, the exact same discussion. It is highly inorganic.Consider how unlikely step three is on a board where 75% of people are probably on welfare. Every time this happens someone has their a7cr to post, or an a7cii receipt, or a receipt for an a7c...I think OP *IS* literally a fucking sony shill, and the people responding are ALSO shills. Shilling has evolved. They are no longer normal ad men who wander around recommending and defending products. Sony sent a whole fucking performing troupe of indians to /p/ to argue about sony and make it look like sony haters are retarded meme-brains, sony users are smart and educated, and more people are switching to sony than ever before.
>>445790375% of /p/ is on welfare or exclusively shoots film is more like itthe only gearfags here wealthy enough to casually drop $2k on a camera are husky rapist (nikon fanboy), sugar (nikon fanboy), leica tards (definitely not buying sony), corgearfag (fuji fanboy), doghair (mfdb/sheet film fanboy), doll fucker (big film chad), and burt (nikon fanboy)there is an almost 0% chance of multiple native /p/ users not only buying new sony cameras, but being present for "clive"s arguments about sony that never seem to have any good points and always seem to get steamrolled by the pro-sony bronies
Look at this. Do you think someone here actually owns this? No, this is a sony employee. Sony has these cameras laying around for product research.Look at OP, the past few OPs. Why is someone stalking /p/ at 8 in the morning to make sure the gear thread is about sony?>Uhm GM SAAR! It's about hating snoy, you cant be against that you're pro-snoy!My point is the snoy hate is forced, repetitive, and seems to be scripted.This happens again and againSony is literally paying some pajeet to make sure sony remains the central point of discussing by being retarded, belligerent, and obsessed, hoping to get some free shilling out of any organic reactions it gets.Sony is simultaneously paying other pajeets to act as a foil to pajeet #1 and strongly recommend sony with more factual, well reasoned arguments.Pajeet #1 or #2, or maybe even a third pajeet or god forbid an actual sony employee, then posts fabricated proof "a normal 4chan user" has been fully convinced and is switching to sony "after sony haters got btfo"it happens again and againliterally every thread is about sonyliterally every thread is low iq "snoy bad" takes, followed by high iq "snoy good" facts, followed by "i have been convinced, sirs! i switch to sony!'its a /v/tards strawman comic in real fucking lifeWAKE UP SHEEPLE
Reposting purely to bait replies
>>4457910>hello my fellow 4channers>trannies and wojaks, amirite?dear fucking lord>>4457907you're right. both sides are shills. all they want is for all gear discussion on /p/ to be about sony. it is blatantly forced.
>>4457903>>4457907You're typing out essays bitching about cameras other people are using my guy. Who cares, genuinely.
>>4457903It is so obviously inorganic its unreal. Sony marketing definitely knows there’s no such thing as bad attention.
>tfw I bought a Pentax K200D for $80 off ebay only to find out it has 131k shutter countaaaaaaaaaaaaat least everything works k200d is rare in the pentax world desu they only sold them for one year in 2008 before it got succeeded by the k20 and other cmos shit i was trying to buy a japanese one but they always went to $100+ so i figured i could save buying one here
>>4457913>attempt at a thought terminating clichewhats wrong shillie, nervous? he wasnt complaining about the cameras other people are usinghave you not noticed that there seems to be a small handful of people on /p/ who inevitably force every gear discussion to be this>Snoy bad! Snoy color bad! No one use snoy! Youtube say lumix better!>Sony good. Facts and logic. >ARRRRRGH SNOY PANCAAAKE>Friendly sony gear recommendation to solve your dilemma>I HAVE NO ARGUMENT!>Wow, not any of those guys but I just bought a sony. Thanks /p/!>Ha, wow. Sony haters sure are dumb. I love my Sony camera. why does this keep happening? why is every gear thread forced to be about sony?
>>4457913They’re bitching about the extremely inorganic and repetitive sony arguments that seem to be scripted to end in sony’s favor with a paid actor pretending to buy one at the endDo you think people really buy sony cameras because of the anti-sony shill being retarded and a perfect foil for better educated pro-sony posters? Do you really think this happened multiple times? Does the scenario not sound like a shitty commercial to you?
>>4457903Sony aside, I got to kinda enjoy omnishills like Petapixel. I think there's value in covering all kinds of products in positive light, as long as those don't have glaring issues.
>>4457913>my guythis is an indianismother indianisms>boys>bros>excuse me but
>>4457915Shutter counts are a meme, the wear they experience is so minimal. Generally when they fail it's because they've heated up and warped from extended periods of continuous shooting, or get dust in them. They don't really just "wear through" eventually. You gotta remember when they rate these things, they have the cameras firing on continuous mode. Certain cameras also have "bad batch" shutters like the a7iii and the APS-H canons. Shutter failures on most models are exceedingly rare, most people don't shoot that much and it's not even a high chance to fail if they do. Far more common are drops, water damage, corrosion or moisture/condensation buildup. Don't let it scare you away from taking some great photos, after all it was only eighty bucks.>t. my 5d2 rated for 150k currently at 500k, which I use on continuous all the time
>>4457916>>4457919You're seeing demons that aren't there, friend. Relax, there's no need to get so emotional.
>>4457920The new dust cover feature canon and sony added causes premature shutter failure, specifically from sensor-bound dust gumming up the shutter instead. Excessive sensor cleaning can also cause corrosion in the shutter mechanism.
>>4457922DSLR's have had that for some time :)
>>4457921>my friend, there is no shill. just forget about the extremely repetitive, inorganic non-stop sony arguments that suddenly halted when this was pointed out. nothing has happen, my sir. it is just bros being a little shitposting ok guys?shills caught
>>4457924Is the shill in the room with us right now anon?
>>4457923DSLRs had a mirror catching most of the dust and preventing turbo retards from accidentally touching the shutterThe worst part is its not necessary. Modern sensors repel dust and are tougher than the shutter. I havent had dust on a sensor since using a pentax k1ii and sony a7ii combo. Their sensors had a static charge or something like that.
>>4457926Not sure how it works on other cameras but on the canon DSLRs, the 5d2 and later anyway, they have some kind of ultrasonic motor that does and incredible job of keeping the sensor clean. It must vibrate it or something, not sure exactly how it works.
>>4457925>my sir, you are crazy. there are no shills here. sony has not paid any of us indians to head bob and chatter about sony to drown out discussion of other brands and create excuses to recommend sony cameras and address sony questions. please stop talking about the sony shills and how the same few people make every thread about sony. it never happened. you is go crazy my sar. please calm downwards.
>>4457928Can you tell me why you think that? Please read over it before posting to ensure that you don't sound like a lunatic, I don't wanna read another one of those.
>>4457929>there is no sony shilling here saar you are insane. no one would possibly post low effort sony h8 b8 and then reply to themselves to shill sony. people here simply see these organic arguments that repeat word for word and then buy sony cameras.
>>4457920I want you to click the menu item that says not to>>44579221/2 mech shutter truly is the winning option Canon sneededNo but really what am I missing out on if I bought a camera with EFCS only
>>4457932EFCS slices bokeh balls in halfhttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4319604
>>4457935Looks like the problem is primarily at high shutter speeds wide open.
Anons, talk me out of it or into, or just share your experience.I've been shooting wildlife and some occasional scenery for several years now. I go for long multi hour walks several time a week around the city (it's very green so lots of critters to shoot) as well as an occasional hike.Don't like backpacks, tripods. I like travelling light.My camera is a nikon z7ii with a 300f4 lens. Which works well enough however sometimes I feel the lack of the versatility of a zoom.Discussed this with a friend and his advice was to try m43. Om-1.2 with a 100-400 or any of the zooms really.Unfortunately it's hard to find a rental that carries them.Is a move from a full frame to m43 something that could be worthwile if portabilty and simplicity are the important factors?
>>4457947keep your full frame for everything but zooming in on birdstreat fool turds as one ff telephoto instead of a whole new camera. ff is even better for macro (size doesnt matter under bazooka blob levels)
>>4457920Yeah honestly this thing looks like its in great shape so it was either used by some autismo or entirely indoors. Only thing I had to do was add a few drops of oil to the flash mechanism catch hook (it wouldn't shut the flash after it popped open). K200D = K10D but in a istD body (uses AAs, slightly updated jpeg engine that has NR at higher ISOs) so they're decently built cameras It didn't come with the 35mm f2.4 was body only. >>4457927Pentaxes including this one all have pixel mapping and ultrasonic cleaning. My KF does the same. >>4457947Why not do a $500 EM5iii instead of immediately jumping to a $2000 M43 flagshipI'm still considering that setup because I wanna try the lightness meme next + Olympus glass is really nice. Pentax K200D is probably my last vintage camera unless I find a nice Konica Minolta a7 digital to match my KM 5D so it would be nice to get back into something made in the last 10 years.
>>4457956Main concern is autofocus on moving targets. Hence the flagship.I will look into the em5iii
>>4457956To add, I really don't think there's gonna be that much of a dramatic jump between a OM-1.2 and a Olympus EM5iii. You're still limited by the sensor size though the newer cameras have probably retarded good AF and computational photography ability. doghair has the Z7II + EM5iii combo and did a good test between the two in the other gear thread here, I don't think the results would've been dramatically difference if he used a OM1.2 instead. >>4455121
>>4457958The OM 1.2 is gonna be nearly the size of your Z7II so you might only really be getting smaller lens sizes. M43 Flagships are kinda chunky vs <5 y/o mirrorless FFs. That's the other reason I suggested the EM5, its probably the most compact for the features. The new cameras have nice features though. Olympus really went into the software side of things to make up for the lack of hardware. Plus I heard their jpeg engine (after Truepic 8 aka EM1 Mk2 and EM5 Mk3) is pretty damn good for SOOC jpegs. https://learnandsupport.getolympus.com/learn-center/photography-tips/landscapes-nature/does-not-compute-oh-yes-it-does-using-computational
>>4457959> Underexposes the image> It comes out underexposedBased exposure triangle tester.
>>4457961>>4457959Definitely will look into cheaper models then.Another thing I don't really enjoy is lightroom and generally working on photos for too long. So shooting jpeg is somewhat attractive.What about fuji? they all seem small but lenses are on the expensive side.
>>4457962The z7ii is brighter with the same exposure and he says a z5ii would be even betterTiny pixels gather less light
>>4457961>Olympus really went into the software side of thingsI really wish they updated their raw editor (OM Workspace or whatever it's called), because they haven't since 2022, and the thing is just excruciatingly slow (I suspect, part of the issue is being raped by Microsoft antivirus, but still).
>>4457968There's almost two stops between f/4 and f/8.
>>4457907> Do you think someone here actually owns this?Sony employee here, working OT on a Saturday. Lol. Lmao even.
>>4457968>>4457976Unless I'm a retard and didn't understand at what aperture he shot things.
>>4457968>>4457983Well, yes I am in fact a retard. He went two stops up in aperture, two stops down in iso (which should be the equivalent iso), and the mft shot is still darker.
>both R5 & R6 look plastic as fuck>both have those stupid rubbery-rubbish I/O port covers which last approx. 10 open/close cycles before falling offSo, how good is A9mkII's AF wth EF lenses?
>>4457947you could keep your current kit and add a compact for close distance shots. ricoh griii would be the standard recommendation. keep it in a pocket or on a separate strapor zoom on a smaller format system like m43 or apsc could be worth looking into as well
>>4457903>>4457907>its just 1 person conspiracy >>4457321>admits to it being half the board>absolutely mindbroken by some based tripfags
>be me>first time on /p/>hmm this looks like a good thread to ask about recs for product photography >it's 2 pajeets arguingGrim
>>4457963Well, if fugji is a option I personally would take it over m43 any day, here is a pick of x-t50 with cheapass shitass tamron 24-300 in jpeg only mode
>>4458056I asked a question about gear for outdoor portraiture and got zero repliesthis thread is for the same six shit-flinging gearfags
>>4457994>both R5 & R6 look plastic as fuckI've used an R6II and it's not nearly as bad as it looks. Idk why you'd be so concerned about such a thing anyway, but if it's such a big issue then yeah don't go with Canon; all their bodies look and feel roughly the same these days.>>4458056There's a few of us that are actually sane, don't be put off by the thirdies brandfagging.
>>4458062>>4458056Yeah don't be put off by the top of the line stuff, feel free to ask your m43 questions here
>>4457918Yeah, the truth is that most modern cameras are great if you use them right. People on here get way too fucking uptight about the relative luxuries of one system over another.
>>4458062Yeah, it's not a complete dealbreaker but I'm just pissed off when dropping a relative big bucks into a camera gives me worse physical quality and same design flaws than a 20-year-old 30D has.
>>4458067Based take. The only real differences are lens availability, weather sealing, and ergonomics/design. The other stuff is just minor differences.
How likely is it that we will get a GRIV Monochrome?Some Anon said the K3 III Monochrome sold very well and it's also APSC so they have the sensors.Is there someone thinking about replacing their GRIII/x with the IV?Seems to have slightly faster autofocus.
>>4458079I won't replace my IIIx with a phone focal length camera. Will wait until IVx.Regarding Mono, was the K3 III M same sensor as non-M, just skipping bayer?
Couple of months ago /gear/ described muh dugutal camera's 12-megapixel resolution "cripplingly low". Has digital imaging science gone too far?
>>4458060What was the question?
>>4458069It's not worse though
Talk me out of it.
Is the SL1 drastically smaller than a T6I? Reading specs doesn't really compare to handling it so idk.I would like a smaller camera for the novelty but I don't want to buy a mirrorless.
>>4458142It's smaller, but not in any way that would change how you carry it or whateverJust think of it as a women + children model for small handsMirrorless can go much smaller
My current dilemma is I want to get an RF wide lens to accompany my more used 70-200mm and 100-400mm. I had the EFS 10-18mm which was the only choice for crop that made sense but I've recently gone foolframe.I'm down to three optons and I've read all the reviews and charts I need, but I still can't make my mind up. Any anons please weigh in. I do landscape, and sometimes do musuems and exhibitions that a UWA/Wide come in real handy for.>RF 28mm f/2.8 STMCheap new, tiny, light, relatively wide aperture. No IS, no clicked control ring. No zoom, which I'm a little worried about.Optically excellent except for the relatively strong barrel distortion. Tempting, especially considering it's native.>EF 16-35 F/4 IS USM20% more expensive, used. Much heavier and longer + adapter. Decent IS, decent aperture brightness, seperate clicked control ring (via adapter). Nice zoom range from UWA to 35mm which is wholly useful.Optically great but still falls behind the RF 28mm.Also tempting, mostly because I much prefer zooms for their versatility.>RF 15-30 f/4.5-6.3 IS STMAbout the same price as the EF 16-35mm, new. Half the weight of the EF 16-35mm, 3x the weight of the RF 28mm. Size in between both. Great IS, but real shitty aperture brightness. No clicked ring. Nice zoom range but shifted more towards wide.Optically meh, but a zoom that's still small and native. I feel like this is the weakest choice that simply fits the middleground.>>44581372600Eu for a 700mm f/5.6 isn't bad. I don't know how often you'll need it but value-wise it's a good deal. Probably great for air shows and birding but fuck that's going to be a lot to haul around especially on top of a 1kg DSLR
>>4458143Is there any old point and shoot's worth looking at or cheap mirrorless?I know the obvious answer will be just use a phone but I don't want to do that. I have a 5g ace and it says its 48mp, obviously they must cook the numbers.
>>4458150> I have a 5g ace and it says its 48mpMP isn't everything. Sensor size and lens pupil entrance matter quite a lot when it comes to taking clean, detailed photos.Phones use something called quad bayer which means your real resolution is something more like 1/4 of that (12MP). Phones also have tiny sensors.Most older P&Ss have 1/2.3" sensors or smaller which is realistically not any better than a phone, but at least some come with actual optical zoom (instead of fake digital zoom which is actually just cropping (i.e. bad)).More modern cameras like the Ricoh GR and Snoy RX100 exist that give you a large-ish sensor in a compact size, but they're priced accordingly.
>>4458145>RF 28mm f/2.8 STMNot wide enough for a universal out and about landscape lens.The EF zoom is an L lens, if the weight doesn't bother you, get that.Have you considered the EF 17-40? I don't know too much about it, except that the price ain't bad.
>>4458062>>4458066Thank you anons my friendsIf you had around $500 to put towards a setup strictly for product photography for small goods, what would you do?
>>4458178Nikon z5ii105mm f2.8 mc
So how about those speed boosters?
>>4458178Om-d em-10 iv with a 1.7
>>4458178A fullframe DSLR with an 85mm 1.8
>>4458067by "modern" I assume you're implying "mirrorless"because you're retarded if you use Pentax in 2025
It is just clickbaity content creators trying to compete in an increasingly competitive environment. It is just more of the over-saturation of everything.. a race to the bottom.
Is the STM version of the 55–250mm f/4–5.6 worth the premium over the previous version?
>>4458246>worth the premium over the previous versionThe extra like... $20 used?Yes, by a fair margin
>>4458178Canon 5DIIEF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro (not the IS version)
>>4458199More like sneed boosters.>>4458228Same thing with gearfags on /p/
Help me decide my EDC camera plsRicoh GR3>1000€>tiny and pocketable>no extra bag needed>sharp lensorLeica Q1>used 1500€>full frame>build quality>one of the sharpest 28mm lenses>not as pocketable, need extra bag>many years old
>>4458398gr iiix
>>4458398A leica is never worth the money and they’re notoriously unreliable. leica does this on purpose because if you cant afford the newest model with the warranty you dont deserve a leica and they dont want you tarnishing their name with your poverty unless you suffer for it. also see: hasselblad 907x connection errors. not a problem for the worthy!
>>4458398Two completely different cameras with pleb focal lengths. Why have you shortlisted these two?
Anyone tried a modern bridge/superzoom camera?I'm hoping to shake up my phptography after using 35 to 75mm primes. Especially for travel, I feel a superzoom could be great (until night time...).
>>4458430For the money they get the piss beaten out of them by mft. Only one is weather sealed and you're better suited with the larger sensor and ILC capabilities at the same price point as an Olympus of yesteryear. They're aren't small at all. Also after 800mm the FL advantage becomes pointless due to haze, camera shake etc. You want an E-M1iii and a 75-300, 100-300 or 100-400mm lens.
When is L mount getting a decent, semi-lightweight camera that doesn't have the Leica tax? I'm dying for an S5III that has capable autofocus for the few times a year I want to go birding.
>>4458432L mount isnt allowed to outcompete leica. Its the cost of using their shitty SL lenses. When they cut extremely basic features from the s9 and bf it was clear leica spun the wording of the contract to be an implicit non compete clause. Get out of L mount. The video codicks are all it offers and they dont even matter.
>>4458435I'm not in L mount, I'm not even in a mirrorless mount yet, but some of the L mount lenses are appealing (that new 300-600 in particular). Maybe after we get an SL4 the 3 won't be so much used.
>>4458431I still need the wider angles though. Are there other recommended M43 lenses with a range from like 28-300mm equiv?
>>4458439Yes, the Oly 14-150 is cheap and sealed. The 12-200 as well, less cheap though. Neither are great lenses, the 12-100 is actually good and has IS. I think Panny has a 14-140 or something too. I'd just get a 20 f/1.7 or something to keep in my pocket when I want to go wide but it's up to you. Modern FF systems also have plenty of superzooms.
>>4458440>40 equiv>wide
Got the a7C II and 24-105, my first FF after years of being bullied on 4chan because i used fuji. Dear god what an awful, stale, non-organic and shitty experience shooting a Sony is, it's unbelievable. I will never ever take any advice seriously on this fucked up board full of snoy nerds.
>>4458447lol I did the same thinking I was missing something. Sony is such a boring experience I returned it and I've gone back to Fuji. Never again.
>>4458447Went from a7II to X-T2 back in the day for the same reasonsStill prefer Fuji's ergos, menu, and qol features to most brands
>>4458447Lol snoy. Conversely I just got my hands on an R8 and I've never been more excited to go out and shoot.Going from crop to FF is awesome. The step up in control and ergos from my R50 is exceedingly useful. It isn't overheating and idgaf about a small battery or EFCS only. The build seems decent even if it's plastic and rubber. It's raining non-stop and there's no racing events or musuem stuff going on that I care about for the time being, so feelsbadman.
>>4458449>>4458447>bro its non organic, its so stale... im a real creative, i need a camera with soulI bet your photography looks like this.Meanwhile, real creatives:https://alphauniverse.com/stories/capturing-excellence-see-these-award-winning-images-taken-by-sony-shooters/People who find photography exciting are excited by *photography*, and want "gear" to get out of their way. Leave that shit to the engineers. People who just want to "be a photographer" for others to see don't actually like photography, and would rather play with fake analog dials and talk about "exposure triangle" and "manual focus zones" in order to maximize the time spent looking like a photographer and minimize the time spent actually being one.its ok, maybe you will never make it. maybe you will always be a javascript engineer. maybe you will always work at starbucks. and for that, fujifilm is fine. for unimportant people providing their internet attention-givers with a steady stream of non-offensive, palatable "content", in order to claim to be a photographer, fujifilm may actually be the second best.but the best camera for such a life would actually be an iphone 16 pro.
>>4458454I don't understand why anons like you get so defensive over their favourite console company.Call Canon shit, idgaf. Idk why you give a fuck about others calling snoy shit.
>>4458455>someone switches from sony to nikon because they like the rendering and ergos better: no reaction>someone switches from sony to fuji because "bro, im an artist... i need a camera with soul...">they get made fun of with hilarity and accuracyhow could this happencould it be people generally dislike fujifilm fags?they're not leica owners they're not even rich and they are notorious for just copying trends, pretending to be artists, and status signaling with futility>average fujislug interaction:>look what i put on my mastercard balance: the new fuji!>wow girl you are WITH ITreal art hos shoot olympus
>>4458454>>4458454None of us on this board are pros. It's about fun. It's a hobby.
>>4458456real real art hos (the one I know has herpes, of course) shoot movies on film cameras rented from panavision's artschool depot
>>4458457He has a point lol. Your hobby is pretending to be a photographer? Fujifails are overpriced, low quality cameras that shoot like a nikon dslr with a lightroom preset. they were cool when no good mirrorless existed except for olympus but now they’re cameras for dumb pretenders and its way realer to use a canon r50 than that wormy crap for wannabes lol
>>4458460>>4458460No my hobby is taking photos. Fuji makes this more enjoyable. My MADE IN JAPAN X-T2 was £350. >cameras that shoot like a nikon dslr with a lightroom presetYep, that's exactly what I'm looking for. Fuck editing.
>>4458457I'm one of the few pros here and do shoot Fuji, but I also use other brands tooWould take Nikon over Canony
>>4458462>wasting time pretending to shoot film is taking photosThats like saying your hobby is cooking but first you need a fake brick oven because a normal stove isnt "fun". Its a woman brained way to think. Internalized vanity.
>>4458465I guess the best analogy is watches and why people enjoy automatic watches even though they're more delicate and less accurate. Or people who prefer older cars with manual transmission. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
>>4458465Imagine not caring about aesthetics when having a hobby based entirely about aesthetics
>>4458468funny you named the two hobbies that started out as being for technology obsessed high T autists that did deep dives into how things worked and DIY shit, and later got flooded with vain bitch boys and subpar asian products to meet their psychological need for continuous product consumption (watches being the worst death because bitch boys will buy 10 watches with the exact same movement without knowing or caring as long as its trendy)photography must be one of those hobbies nowhow it started: ansel adams nerding out over chemistry and dynamic range, helmut newton playing with color theory through black and white, trichromes, novel printing technologyhow its going: im not having fun because theres no labeled shutter speed dial thats like retro and stuff :’(
>>4458464Wait, no. Your simple rejection of my favourite brand has instilled a fervent rage within me that can only be solved by typing paragraphs of schizo nonsense.I really don't understand the anons with massive hardons over any brand.
>>4458471hi isi!being vain and trendy doesnt make you an artist. if you were taking being a pretender seriously artists are notorious for having a rough personal aesthetic that oozes a lack of self care. alas that must come naturally. everyone can tell when it doesnt. a shiny new fujileica says nothing more than "credit card". what says artist? a pentax held together with tape, probably.
>>4458473or maybe fujislugs are cringe and symbolic of a hobby’s transformation from something masculine, creative, intellectual, and original into something feminine, imitative, intuitive, and trend based?
>>4458474How poor are you that you think Fujis are expensive lol
>>4458476nothing says daddys girl quite like desperately pretending $1000+ isnt a lot of money ~to you~$1000 is a lot of money to bill gates. $1000 is less abstracted value than is left for a factory laborer after a week. like any other pampered western woman (or feminized male) you conflate irresponsibility and sin (greed, sloth, avarice) with success. ironically while desperately grasping at the aesthetic of your superior forebears. this is the laissez faire life. with no good king to balance want and need mankind spirals into eternal overgrown childhood. first the women, then the men, and then there are no actual children to replace them. fujifilm is what you could call a late stage capitalism brand if you wanted to insist this were a consequence of private property, but i call it a late stage democracy brand.
>>4458480>how it started: fuji gay>how its going: we need monarchy to reign in consumerism’s destruction of the arts
>>4458475Doghair, dollsperg, a7r scanning autist, and sugar confirmed for only real photographers on /p/
>>4458480The A7C I bought was way more than the X-T4 I had. The 40mm lens were also more expensive. I think you need professional help.
Have camera brands ever really mattered? The person using the camera is 99% of what makes a good photo.
>>4458485you think im the sony fag? no im a fan of digital being ultra cheap. sony fags are low tier people unless they’re turbospergs with full spectrum 61mp mono cameras trying to find the limits of how crazy digital can get.
>>4458486Before digital, no. Film stock and film size mattered immensely and no one cared that it did. Cameras were generic and interchangeable, and if they broke they were either easy to fix or replace. After digital, yes. Brand matters a lot. Then factor in BITCH BOYS…>plastic bags arent chic i need le weather sealing and to buy a new camera every 2 years with significant improvements
>>4458485Both are gay. Buy the cheapest piece of shit that fits in your pocket and shoot film and self dev for real photography. Digital cameras are a cope for not having access to a darkroom and the further they get from truth (what film records) the more worthless they are unless they are maximally cheap
>>4458480> Fujifilm releases a $1000 camera and a $2000 cameraSin, woman, very expensive, reeee.> OM Private Equity releases a $1000 and a $2000 camera> Sony releases a $2000 and a $5000 cameraUhm, very reasonable.
>>4458494>still thinks im the snoy cuckfuji releases $1000 and $2000 cameras that cant outdo a used $500 camera at anything but playing pretend and "user experience" (a term coined by applefags for the applefag consumerist age) and get turbo mogged by a $50 minolta SLR and a $6 roll of gold 200. get real.
>>4458473Most people have limited practical experience using a few models from 1-2 brandsEasier to nitpick than focus on actually making good images, which happens regardless of brandAll they have is dishonesty, like >>4458496
>>4458504explain whats dishonestfujis actual hardware is so far behind literal $250 dslrs provide an artist with more to work with and better tech crutches, and literal film SLRs are more elegant and direct. all they do is slap on a fake film camera shell and some curated lightroom presets but in the end its still a shitty digital camera with a tiny TV for a virewfinder being sold for 4x more than its worth to people who think that they are somehow being more artistic by choosing the corporations "artist" character skin.
>>4458506>tiny TV for a virewfinderweird point to make about the only company making mirrorless cameras with an optical viewfinder besides leica m which lacks af and is prohibitively expensive for mostalso, how can something regularly sell for more than it's worth? an item is worth what people are willing to pay for it>>4458475sounds like a fedoralord whining wehn girls started playing video games
>>4458447Same with A7CII but I couldn't get used to apsc anymore after licking that fine fullframe IQ. So had to sacrifice any compactness and go full in with GFX which I also regret now due to heavy setup and slow AF. I think all cameras are shit. I may try the Nikon Zf next to get disappointed once more.
>>4458511>weird pointthe point is all EVFs suck. >how can something sell for more than its worth?the free market does not work long term or anywhere but a homogenous scholar society that does not exist. corporations conspire. regulation inevitably hampers competition after enough attempts to stop fraud without controlling the market. consumers are idiots, with 50% inevitably having double digit IQs. if the free market works, just dump a bunch of drugs on the streets and see where freedom gets you and how much the opinion of the consumer is really worth. the government should have enforced the continued dominance of film. but they didnt and now we have funkotography instead of photography. bringing up watches was really smart because the watch market and camera market are both composed of stuff like this: the same core part with a different cheap asian shell from bottom to top, and wildly varying price points clearly meant to justify the omission or inclusion of simple features. some things made for pros but not really, some things made for playing pretend more blatantly. feminine, imitative, intuitive, trend based. closer to the handbag market than the brush, canvas, and paint market. funkotography.
>>4458511Isnt the consensus now that the nerds were right and girls were in fact bad for video games, but not as bad as the people that laid the groundwork for them - feminized consumerist males (especially herbivore-man neets in japan)?
My favorite camera is the Konica Minolta aSweet Digital or Dynaxx/Maxxum 5D, especially in silver
>>4458447kek imagine falling for /p/ b8 with your actual money
>>4458449Based
>>4458454lol what a loser. The real important creatives are using film, a GFX, an ancient DSLR, or a whatever they are payed to by a sponsor. Your just coping for the fact that having a better paying job doesn't make you inherently better or more important. You would be equally as miserable as a dishwasher or a billionaire.
>>4458454That photo is good though. What do you shoot?
>>4458472There is actual things happening beyond the youtube fuji larp. Digicams have come back because it's interesting take a modern looking picture with old looking optics. There is a lot of nerding out about older lenses like petzvals and helios to get high resolution soft rendering images previously relegated to niches like medium and large formats. Frankly I would argue the whole liminal photo trend is kind of a synthesis of old world pre 9/11 aesthetics and new world digital capabilities. The best liminal photos I have taken were because I coould shoot something incredibly sharp in low light due to IBIS. That would not have been possible before without a tripod and a a lot of liminal places are difficult or impossible to use a tripod.
>>4458527The real creatives are shooting MF/LF film, and always will be. Between art cinema and art photography film will never die. The faux creative pros (inc leibovitz) are renting sony, canon, and phase one bodies per client demands. Nikon and down are basically just aspirational hobbyist scams and copes for people who cant afford or run film.
>>4458514>more dishonest schizo ramblingThis is why it's pointless to answer you honestly>The real creativesWho are examples of real creatives to you?
>>4457896Guys I need your help.I was passed an old Pentax K10D with the shitty kit zoom by a relative. I am very tempted to just sell it, but since I heard about the CCD meme, weather sealing, and some of Pentax's "legendary" lenses, I wanted to use it as a dedicated portrait camera for sunny/cloudy outside conditions.Are there any K-mount exclusive lenses that truly deliver something unique for portraiture (>50mm)?I don't care if they are new or old, just give me if there's anything worthwhile (bonus points for cheaper gems) in that category. Otherwise this brick is going straight to ebay
>>4458533Mostly true yeah. A lot of the real creatives use GFX for paid jobs is what I was meaning. Most of them are using medium format or 35mm for their own pursuits. Nikon is being used by a lot of middle class creatives since it's the best compromise for someone who actually has a day job. Canon is exclusively shot by gullible walmart/best buy shoppers and people who have canon's professional service. Either way it's not real creatives. A lot of the creatives have started messing around with old digicams too.
>>4458541It's almost like people just have different preferences and use a wide variety of different camera
>>4458538Corgicuck, just an FYI calling everything you can't mount a response to "dishonest" only works in soviet political discourse.He is right, for the most part. Late stage capitalism is not a meme, and neither is it being more connected to democracy than capitalism itself. And its effects on photography have been undeniable.1: Never before has more money been wasted *before* a single photo is taken.The pricing and market stratification practices of the jap-kraut (axis!) camera industry are abominable and pathetically greedy. Absolutely inexcusable. All cameras are worth less than 1/4th their MSRPs and R&D has stagnated severely. If they are spending money there, they are incompetent beyond belief - but actually, they are being very calculating in how they fuck over the users and encourage them to continuously upgrade. Magic lantern firmware hacks proved this was the case as far back as a decade ago. And the willingness of "photographers" (most people buying todays digicams are anything but) to bend over for it is in fact even more pathetic. There is absolutely no competition nor will there ever be due to how secular democratic governments have corrupted patent law, and on the private front the caution of investors tends towards the easiest source of money - consumerist mania - and away from trying to actually be good at things. Fujifilm is easily one of the brands that exemplifies shitshow this the best, alongside leica and the modern state of hasselblad. Non-improvements and meaningless fluff sold as a lifestyle and personality you can buy, just give them enough money for a car or a major surgery. Consumers are cattle in grandin's best slaughterhouse.2: "Real photography" (the core hobby/art form) has not changed despite "the market"Film is maintaining a steady presence in galleries while every digital camera is treated the same. There IS an inherent lack of value in digital photography and this will never change. Ever. AI's hammering it home.
>>4458447>>4458449>he fell for the Sony meme
>>4458539>Are there any K-mount exclusive lenses that truly deliver something unique for portraiture (>50mm)?Depends on your definition of truly unique. But the older 50mm 1.4 is a good lens. Also K-mount readily takes m42 lenses with a cheap adapter that was actually always meant for the purpose unlike most other brands and from there the Helios 44 (58mm f2) could be called somewhat unique portrait lens. Also note that 50mm on a K-10 is going to look more like 75-80mm on full frame (35mm film sized sensor) which is usually considered ideal for portraits.
>>4458544If people were honest in their comments, I wouldn't say dishonest. Simple.Maybe I'm just bias because I came from the supply side of things, working in labs and managing camera shops for a decade, watching the slow transition from film to digital, and dlsr to mirrorrless, but that's an interesting view of the last 20 years of the industry you have. I would love to engage more about it, if you were more reasonable in the statements you make.>more shizo dishonest rambling
My phone supports burst capture.It's really cool, like really fucking cool.>capture ISO 100 1/8000 -5>capture ISO 100 1/4000 -4>capture ISO 100 1/2000 -3>capture ISO 100 1/1000 -2>capture ISO 100 1/500 -1>capture ISO 100 1/250 - base exposure>capture ISO 100 1/125 +1>capture ISO 100 1/60 +2>capture ISO 100 1/30 +3>capture ISO 100 1/15 +4>capture ISO 100 1/8 +5This all happens nearly instantly. Like in under 1/2 a second.I get individual RAWs (actual RAWs before demosaicing) not fake/processed shit) for each exposure. Clearly, this is the power of SOCs. They can do this because they can dump the unprocessed RAW sensor data into RAM before writing the real "files" slowly (it's burst, remember?) to the card/onboard storage later but why can't cameras do this?>buy some fuckhuge foolframe camera>can only read out sensor at like 1/20th of a second>this doesn't mean it can even capture 10 exposures a second>it can't do even a 3-shot -1, 0, +1 bracket at 1/4000, 1/2000, 1/1000 shutterspeeds (e-shutter even) in under 1 second because it has to pause and process/compress and write shit to cards instead of doing a fast burst capture to write later.Will this shit ever improve?I'm not looking for superfast uninterrupted unbuffered shots but just accelerated exposure bracketing would be nice and should be feasible. Just capture and process after the capture, not process files between every damn shot. It makes no sense. Faster bracketing with less delays between exposures means you have to worry less about things moving or stuff moving into the scene.Will cameras ever get good or will phone manufacturers just start making interchangeable lens cameras with bigger sensors and fix everything and put fujcaniksnoypan out of business?Full frame with a snapdragon chip when?Also for fucks sake why do cameras still write files named IMG_1234.JPG?How are we still in this hell?
>>4458539give it to me if you’re convinced it’s so worthless
>>4458550Sounds neat, you should post some examples you've been able to create with this feature!
>>4458548Not an argument at all>That's dishonest>Because it is>Simple>I worked at a camera store and developed film for teenagers trust me>Im a PRO i shot 4 weddings and an anime con (only needed 14k shots per wedding to get something good)Thats just attempts at flexing clout. You might be one of the people they're talking about.>>4458550Photographers don't need or want it is why. It's a shitty hack for ultra low DR sensors that makes capturing motion inherently smeary. Everything that moves slowly enough for bracketing bursts is already within the range of typical 1/30 readouts and 10fps bursts. Sony released a global shutter camera with low DR and still no one wants to bother bracketing.And yes cameras already buffer that's not new tech. The framerate is being limited by the time to dump and ready a huge fucking sensor. See sony's global shutter. Which still didn't bring on a bracketing revolution because no one fucking wants it if they already get at least 10 stops of DR SOOC.>Also for fucks sake why do cameras still write files named IMG_1234.JPG/RAWBecause it's easier for a human to remember and easier for computer systems to support than 5EFA9031ACA0402EFA0203849A.HEIC.
>>4458557This is what I mean about dishonesty, lying by omission and ignoring context or additional statements I've made at the timeDishonesty about my camera related work historyDishonesty about my years of pro photo workDishonesty about how much I shoot at a weddingDishonesty bout going to an anime con (never even been to one lol)
Are there cameras that use micro sd cards.
>>4458564>how dare you not remember the exact chronicle of my life>its all here under the post history of anonymous>why are you people only vaguely recalling my stand out momentsyou are what you bring to the table at any given momentyou are everything you sent weighted by shock valueand you are what everyone said you wereso writing literally nothing and having nothing new and photographically good is self injuryat least other people have arguments that can be attacked on their own independent of the person posting them
>>4458565Zf has a MicroSD slot
>>4458565niggon zambian fool mofucka
>>4458550What camera are you using that has that behaviour? I've never actually used bracketing but decided to test it with my A7R III, it does all 9 images in under a second (limited by the burst rate of 10fps, so a faster body would do it quicker) and then it writes them to the card.
>>4458566>how dare you not remember the exact chronicle of my lifeIt's not about remembering specifics, it's about being honest in your description. I don't have to remember every line in a movie to be able to give a good (or bad) description of that movie. If you genuinely don't feel like you know enough of the details, the honest thing would be to acknowledge that and not bring (wrong) shit up as a gotcha, or simply ask if you want to know more. I share a ton here.I also try not to bring shit up I don't personally have hands-on experience with. You'll notice there's many threads which I never visit, because I am honest in acknowledging my limitations. I still even learn new shit every now and then.>you are what everyone said you wereYes, a hasphoto photo poster.>other people have argumentsThere's no point in arguing with people who aren't being honest. I'm happy to argue about any topic you want, provided you are honest.
>>4458550My Oly camera can do 5 exposures. I'd appreciate if someone explained me what to do with them, because I have no idea.
>>4458570lol noone cares about you beyond whats here nownoone even remembers your reddit account (saucy!)people have been doxed and it has never been the 4channers that did shit (or remembered a month later). it was people irl they already knew or just met googling them. you are anonymous, a vague nonentity that everyone can be, defined solely by memes and half remembered funny facts if you try really hard to make a name, but wont go as far as name##trip. no one cares if you say you used to work in a camera store. we all did if it would be a convenient lie. welcome to 4chan bitch.
>>4458570>i has photo>does not post a photoTHIS WOMAN (MALE) IS LYING TO US, SISTERS (MEN)!
>>4458569Nikon Z6II and Z7IIMaybe if I pop in a fast CF card or disable lossless RAW compression on Z7 it will perform nicer but then I'd be wasting storage with bloated RAWs I think, and I don't know. Just using SD for now.Maybe your Sony does burst captures with some kind of internal caching properly like phones do? If so, that's good.>>4458572You can merge them in astrophoto software or something like Darktable to create an HDR RAW.https://ranous.wordpress.com/2016/03/22/how-to-create-an-hdr-in-darktable-sans-bs/Oly might even have a raw editor with the ability to combine for HDR too but I don't know. Some might even let you do it in camera as well.>>4458557Nah people want bracketing. Even fool framers need to bracket for high dynamic range stuff, burst capture acceleration would just mean less of a window for movement getting in the way with that.Stuff like sunrises/sunsets or car photos which are usually shiny and might be reflecting sun are good examples of where fast bracketing can be beneficial. Clip fewer highlights, worry about them later. Snap now cherry pick later. If there's lots of movement, pick the best exposure of the bunch and don't bother merging.I think what the phones do is start reading the top row before the bottom one even even finished reading out so the shit is super fast. I've done 11 bracket bursts in like 1/10th of a second on my phone and that's quicker than a single top-to-bottom sensor readout on my fool frame in 14-bit mode at least.Of course the real camera is better and usually doesn't need bracketing for most scenes, but for the ones that do benefit from it it just feels awfully slow for no good reason.
>>4458586>people want bracketingthe overall trend is people are running the fuck back to cameras just to escape forced bracketing. people would rather use canon ixus cameras than be forced to use bracketed shots.>even FULL FRAME GODS need to bracketno, they don'tbracketing is shit and inevitably makes for very unnatural looking photos. like dentists office landscape photography. it is neglected for a good reason. adding forced bracketing to phones caused a resurgence in the PNS market. seriously. no one likes HDR bracketing.except for those nikon boomers that exclusively use a 14-24mm f2.8. fuck those guys.
>>4458573>whats here nowObviously not the case given what people bring up, like even with your comment hereIf you don't care about honesty, that's fine, you should just be honest about it
>>4458586>Z7II but I only use SD cardYou're making a problem where there isn't one
>>4458586>Maybe your Sony does burst captures with some kind of internal caching properly like phones do? If so, that's good.Cameras have been doing that since forever, they have an internal buffer that will hold a certain amount of shots depending on whether it's raw, jpeg, or both. I remember DPReview used to test this thoroughly, not sure if they still do. I would imagine those cameras would have larger enough buffers to hold at least 10 shots.
>>4458590ok nophoto>>4458587for over 100 years of photography bracketing meant you werent sure which settings to use and would only keep one frame. as soon as digicam bracket bursts and hdr merges were invented everyone instantly recognized the superiority of film (because it didnt let people do that shit)
>>4458539you can get some nice pics out of a k10d, i took this with my k200d earlier. otherwise going rate for a good k10d is like $80 bucks.i personally like the 35mm f2.4, 50mm f1.8, and any of the longer zooms (70-200mm/70-210mm takumar-fs, 80-320mm). the limiteds are hard to justify unless you're okay with spending $300-500 a lens for a $80 body from 2006-07. 35/50mm primes are $40-70 usually. imo pentax's strength is in the zooms...18-135mm is a great walk around lens for example but those start at $100
>>4458610i like how this pic ended up too, this is the k200 i posted earlier + 70-200mm f4-5.6 takumar-f i bought for $30. $120 setup alltogether.
>>4458572If you set up a static shot on a tripod and be really fucking careful not to nudge it when you take the photos (or use a remote), you can AHDR stack them in any photoshop-type software using an averaging-merge method.The idea is that because noise is "random" but your scene isn't moving, you take fractions of the exposure for each shot and combine them to get a final result with the correct exposure. The noise on the other hand, because it's never really in the same place, gets cut away bit by bit because you're only using fractions of the noise data and each frame doesn't reinforce the others. I've only ever seen this as useful in landscape shots and even then there's lots of caveats, but it IS effective.It's as easy as takling four frames, stacking them on top of each other, and changing opacity to 50/33/25/20% from top layer to bottom. You can do more frames but it's just more of the same.My shiny new R8 can do it as well, as can basically anything that isn't majorly Canon crippled>pic rel is a yuge crop of a nothingburger test shot, but shows the result. This is a RAW/TIFF without any NR.
>>4458634What advantage if any does that technique have over just a longer exposure at a lower iso? I can think of one advantage of the latter and that flying birds and shit like that will just disappear instead of having to spot remove multiple ghost birds from different parts of the frame on different layers.
Smartest australian
>>4458642It justifies stacking in astronomy when your longest exposure needs a higher ISO and your camera as a non-negligible shadow improvement curve...Or if you have a shit camera like micro four thirds.
>>4458586Oooooh im brackooting
>>4458642You've touched on a good example, and yes, longer exposures at lower ISO is normally the way to do it instead. AHDR is decent for static scenes where there are moving parts you want to avoid. Think of people in a city moving around when you're trying to get a shot of a building, or trying to time an LED sign that's flashing off and on. Astro also applies since that's really just the classic stacking everyone mentions, and you really don't want to be using ISOs above your invariance curve (if you have one).You can also go lower than base ISO with AHDR, as each stack of a certain number of frames (I forget the math) lowers your practical ISO by one stop, so if your camera's base ISO is still garbage (M43, P&S, phone), you can get cleaner images than you'd normally be able to pull off.Again, this all relies on static subjects and no movement of the camera, so it's not practical for a lot of situations
>>4458169>Have you considered the EF 17-40? I don't know too much about it, except that the price ain't bad.It is the absolute worst L-series EF zoom lens. It is cheap for a reason. The corners remain soft no matter what.
>>4458669>>4458169The 17-40 is stupidly shit, back from a time when every UWA lens was garbage and there was no alternative.The 17-35 f/2.8 I and II are both pretty bad for softness as well but not AS bad, but lack any IS. The f/2.8 III version is better than the 17-35 f/4 but is also 2-3x the price and still no IS. I'm gonna think about what to get for a bit. The 28mm pancake wouldn't be too bad just as a cheap light backup lens for when I'm using a 70-200 or 100-400, but I'm probably going to go with the 17-35 f/4 and just deal with the bulk. It's a shame because I'd like a new astro lens as well but I can't find anything that is AF, IS, wide aperture, and not thousands of dollars.
>>4458594>ok nophotomore dishonesty
>>4458709>no photo
Brand new Lumix S9 and a 20-60mm lens for £850. Don't mind if I do.
>>4458726>Just $850 for one of the most blatantly crippled (for everything) cameras on earth and a kit zoom"I want a camera that has no shutter, no flash connection, no viewfinder, shitty autofocus that makes fuji look like an EOS R3, snoy colors, and a 1/30 readout" - NO photographers or videographers everI guess panasonic thought the sony a7c needed more fans created through showing the world how much worse a snoy could be.Just kidding panasonic actually thought "leica will revoke our access to L mount if we make this camera good because their lawyers already explained we can't outdo the Q"Please don't buy this POS. You could get literally any other camera and it would be better, like a fuji xe5 or yes even a snoy (the colors and build quality would only be just as bad). Oh who am I kidding? You're not actually a photographer. You probably take mid streetscapes on your daily dog walks so you can post on /p/ and tell people what gear you use. It's a high level of participation in brand wars. That's the only reason you're posting the receipt, just like the snoys do.>look at me i bought an a7c/ii/r!>inb4 julia trotti fake white balance video, edited for emphasis
>>4458726the lumix s9 is panasonic trying to make it look like a bigger sensor doesn't make a camera better>see? micro four thirds is finally better than full frame. fool frame cant even have a shutter without being 10x larger. guess you should buy a g9ii heh. and no sony does NOT count is totally bad just ignore all the people that are happy with theirs and ignore that its still better than the s9 even if it's not as good as a nikon z8.
>>4458734>>4458733I'm going to use it once and put it on ebay for £250 profit, you silly geese. Saying that, I've heard the IBIS and AF are very good. Also, it's £850 with a lens. Show me another comparable camera that cheap brand new.
If I buy a ZF for 2000 bucks, can I resell it for around 1800 later on? Or does it lose much more value
>>4458739Get one second hand and you'll lose a lot less but in general cameras only drop in value significantly when the next one comes out.
>>4458736>IBISThe IBIS in stills is mid, the IBIS correction in video is at least competently programmed if you try not to shake it, like most cameras. Regardless every review video has them purposefully shaking competing cameras to make them look worse than they perform IRL (sony reviewers also do something like this - but because the a7cii's active stabilization is horrible and they have to try harder not to shake it)The autofocus is not good either, but the tracking box is accurate and turns green whether or not something is in focus. Lumix reviewers focus on the latter but ignore how often photos are actually in focus.>buying newShiggy diggy. >i'm going to profitYou are actually going to struggle to make more than £100 and will likely break even.Almost nobody wants this camera. It goes on sale constantly. It has been under 800 with the kit lens... in USD. Retailers are desperate to make space for better machines.Lumix pushes out a gorillion reviews saying each release is the best camera released thus far every time they drop their latest POS but very few people actually fall for it. They're not like nikons where they're built for the long haul and have a reputation for dial and port failures so everyone uses lumix like this>im gonna use it for a project and then sell it>oh no no one wants to buy it>pls buy my lumix only $900>only $800>$750? ;_;
>>4458739Used ZFs sell for as little as $1300 in the US market lolAlthough the weather sealing is really good the camera is ultimately cheaply made and feels somewhere between a fuji and a sony
>>4458740The 2000 one is second hand, shutter count 8000something, guy gives two SDs UHSII with it plus the smallrig grip, looks like a good deal to me but idk. Reselling in my other hobbies is pure hell, especially in europoor countries...
>>4458742Yeah, US, but I'm in Europoorland and here used ZFs tend to go between 1600eur and 1800, with not so low shutter counts either
>>4458743thats a fucking ripoff. dont pay that much for a literal repeat of the df (cheaply made meme camera that nikon periodically releases to milk impatient and unthinking consoomers).just find a cheap z6ii, use the autofocus like you would a DSLRs, and save the extra cash for the best nikon lenses>50mm f1.8>40mm f2>24-120 f4>24-70 f4>14-30 f4>105mm f2.8>180-600 f4-5.6
>>4458744>The USBut the cheapest zf sellers are usually japanese so it's more like 1200EUR+VATimport fees from japan cant be that much
>>4458741Yea looking at sold ebay prices I will likely make under £200 if I split the lens and body but I like trying new cameras and I'm intrigued by the LUT functionality. If I like it, I'll keep it.
>>4458753>consoom>try moar cameras>so many tech gimmicks and features>wow i dont have to click the mouse twice to add a LUT to this as long as i shoot heic that nothing supports>so techyou should be like mehate camerascameras are bitchescameras are cancercameras are the obstacle between us and what we wantcameras can go fuck themselvesthe only reason leica is expensive is because actually everyone hates cameras and wants to escape, but leica can only make so many (with their current ass quality) and uses high prices to keep demand from outpacing supply and creating the issue of waitlists
>>4458755Yea I have ADHD and it's literally free dopamine. Editing is a bitch, cancer and obstacle for me. I had a Leica M8, M9 and M240 and loved them but then I got a dog so need to shoot with one hand.
>>4458757Training your bicycle seat to stand still for 5 seconds >>>>>>> consooming japscrap "wow tech feature, BUT WITH A CATCH" market stratification greedy upgrade rationing garbage
>>4458758>>4458758>Training your bicycle seat to stand still for 5 secondswhat
>>4458761You heard me>Train your bicycle seat to stand still for five seconds>no longer need to consoom japanese gimmick cameras that are purposefully crippled to encourage people to buy more cameras
Is there anything that doesn't make the regular lurkers in /gear/ angry?
>>4458766using a nikon, leica (m9 or older), pentax, canon, or film camera and not being smug about it/gear/ is 100% correct about what cameras r gud
>>4458766Gay men kissing maybe.
>>4458764Imagine thinking an intelligent living being is an object that's there to obey commands.
>>4458748Lol this is terrible advice. The average person only needs like 2 of these lenses and the z6ii's AF is miles worse than either option. If you want the retro larp get a Zf and the 40mm. If you want to take good pictures and have good ergo get the z5ii and a 24-70mm f4. If you can't afford either of those get a cheap Nikon DSLR it will be as good as the z6ii while being a fraction of the price.
>>4458766Making a pinhole camera yourself lol. They would still probably find a way to be mad though.
>>4458778The z6ii does not have bad autofocus. It has bad auto-everything subject tracking.>If you can't afford either of those get a cheap Nikon DSLR it will be as good as the z6ii while being a fraction of the price.Huskyfag gave this shit advice out for months and eventually dropped the DSLR while still maintaining that he wasn't wrong (he was)
>>4458778>if you want to take good picturesz6ii40mm f224-120 f4 (also does .5x macro)24-70 is a cope range
There is a canon 70-200 f4 IS for $150, but says it's stuck at 135mm and won't zoom. Could there be an easy fix?
>>4458779> gearfag has a meltdown before any gear was mentioned
>>4458800I'm not the one who had to buy a new camera to take photos while walking the dog
So I have a 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 and the 18-55 kit lens. I want to get a 55-250 STM, so I'd have a lot of overlap between the 135 and the 250.I was thinking of selling another camera and putting the kit lens on it. Should I sell the 135 to get a smaller zoom to cover between 18-50 and be lighter than either the 135 or 250? Is there anything that would cover most of 18-50 without being more than the 135's selling price?Should I sell the 135 and just keep the kit lens for wide shots?I am heavy on using long range telephoto, less so on the wide shots, but not so much where I wouldn't want that capability at all.
>>4458781Your right it's AF is okay that's why I said it was worse than EXPEED 7 devices AF instead of saying it was useless. It's just pretty equivalent to late Nikon DSLR AF which is why there isn't. That being said they really should just get a z5ii or wait until they can afford it.>>4458782Yeah if you have the money for the 24-120. It's like double the price of a used 24-70 f4. Both are fine lenses though.
>>4458803>had toYou realize that people can enjoy spending money on gear?
>>4458810Overlap is good, more range is good. You don't want to be constantly having to switch out the 18-55mm just because it's a little too short. Also if you're only going to carry the one lens then of course the 18-135mm will be far more useful. Also I image it's probably a better performing lens as it would be intended as an upgrade from the kit 18-55mm.
>>4458803It also felt stupid to walk around with £3500 around my neck
>>4458821lol gearfag>>44588192xExpeed6 AF is good, if you use it like DSLR AF. Nobody actually needs the expeed 7 here.The 24-120 is not much more than the 24-70 and a much more useful lens since it replaces the entire prime bag, even the macro. Everyone should go for it if they can.
>>4458733>>4458734>meltdown mode: activated
>>4458848people perceive all lumix fanboys as shills and feel the need to fight them because every post could be an adits not schizophrenia. lumix cameras are so bad, and panasonics shilling so underhanded, its likely. something about a bunch of people buying s5iis and months later almost no one on /p/ using one. sony did the same thing apparently, "i just bought a snoy my fellow 4channers, snoy haters are that btfo!"
>>4458900Couldnt that also be explained by the panasonic/sony cameras being so bad in reality that those people returned or sold them and got something better?Companies definitely shill here but i think people just fell for the shilling and then realized they bought shitty cameras, and all the anger is actually because of the overpriced garbage gear they got recommended on /p/.
>>4458834You likely spend more money on junk food/tobacco/alcohol/eating out/travel/subscriptions than an average broke /p "gearfag" on gear.
You guys think we will se a new L-mount APS-C?
>>4458903bold of you to pretend /p/ gearfags do none of those things>yearly junk food$300 (this is JUST 24-30 panda bowls a year, i don't imbibe in any other junk food)>tobacco$0>alcohol$1200>eating out$500>travel$600-$1000$3000 yearly on having fun. i could go cheaper by sipping whisky instead of drinking wine.what is that, last gens FF mirrorless and a professional zoom or 2 primes?i would rather have all of that than last gens ff mirrorless and a professional zoom or 3 primes, honestly
>>4458905That's less than half of a leica M10-p, or enough for a single summilux lense. Suddenly you get a sense of perspective and see how financially irresponsible non-professionals are for buying these things unless their income is mid to high six figures and they're single white men in the midwest.
>>4458715I post all the time and poster I was replying to even brought up specific recent things I've postedLurk the board more if you think I'm a nophoto>>4458810Too much overlap is a dumb reason to be considering other lensesUse the 55-250 for farther stuff, and just keep the 18-135 for everyday stuff
>>4458810Do this:Small primeWide to normal zoomLong zoomThen do this:Realize you only need one of those and only really want another
>>4458908>I post photos all the time t. anonymous, no image attachedcurious
>>4458905Even $3000 worth of "Japanese" gear a year is substantial. If you stick with one ILC system for a while, you're going to have a high tier body and quite a few lenses to film your dog with. Why can you spend $3000 on useless shit, but do not consent to the dog filmer doing the same?
>>4458911>Lurk the board more if you think I'm a nophoto
>>4458916But Anonymous, you havent posted many photos at all
>>4458810>oh no the numbers on the lens overlapAll it means is you only need to swap for either end of the range. Each lens is suitable for the 50-135 range which is a useful range. It's not a cardinal sin to have both.Only (You) know if the 18-135 is too bulky and heavy. If the 55-250 will be what you use 80%+ of the time, just get a wider prime like the EF-S 35mm or EF-S 24mm which is good enough as a backup to your telephoto and is easy to take with you. Sure it's not as much conveinence as a zoom, but they're cheap, small and have good IQ.Otherwise the 18-135 has no real reason to be sold.
>>4458912You don't need $3000 to take pictures of your dog, zoophilea-anon. Sure, we can all admit, micro four thirds photos look bad and might as well be phone snaps. Sure, fuji quality is poor for the price. Sure, panasonic cameras are junk.But you do not need a Z8/R5 or a MFDB to take pictures of your dog. There is no point. Those cameras are for people with deadlines and checklists, people being held to a high standard of color and texture accuracy by clothing producers, people being paid to get the perfect shot in a limited span of time with no do-overs because the model's pay is enough to buy the camera twice.They are totally pointless for your dogAnd your toddlerAnd your shitty landscapesAnd pictures of your carAnd maybe even a wedding, because that shit is not demanding. People still shoot it on DSLRs.
>>4458921Dogxisters i dont feel so good
How big of a discount can we expect on a nikon z8 in the coming months? I'm looking at an open box one for 3700$ and thinking if I should pull th trigger.
>>4458929in 1 year it will be under $3000in 5-10 years it will be the best <$1500 camera everyone forgot about, like those dirt cheap canon 1ds and el cheapo sony a9s. just another plasticky pro sports camera with video codecs that no longer impress gearfags. worthless in their eyes because it has less than 80mp and no global shutter.
Let me get this straight, if I don't shoot at night or care about bokeh, there's no need for full frame or even APSC sensor?I'm better off getting a 1" sensor bridge camera or something for my travel photos?
>>4458942Sort of. Bridge camera might be bullshit because lots of them use small as fuck sensors like 1/2.3" and even in daylight you're already getting phone-tier results. The only real advantage is controls, ergos, and zoom. The longer end of bridge cameras is very mushy as well.A decent 1" P&S with an actual zoom lens that you take everywhere will destroy any phone and still take reasonably good quality photos in good light. A compact APS-C camera is also a good option if you want to pay for it.
>>4458942>if I don't shoot at night or care about bokeh, there's no need for full frame or even APSC sensor?Correct. Ignore the gearfags that have spent thousands on their foolframe kits.>I'm better off getting a 1" sensor bridge camera or something for my travel photos?Even better, just use any modern day phone that usually come with UWA, normal and tele cameras.
>>4458948Nah I like to use an EVF and a physical exp comp dial.
Rate my 2023 camera collection
>>4458942The minimum acceptable quality for anything that isn't snapshit grade should be on an APS-C sensor with a quality (not a kit or zoom) lens.If you're not willing to spend $2000 or more you should probably stick with a phone.If you use a phone you MUSTUse a tripod.Use a third party app for real RAWs.Clean your phone's lens before taking photos you care about. (alcohol pad+microfiber cloth)Learn how to shield your lens from stray light. (usually putting a hand between your phone and a source of glare, like the sun or some other bright light source).Full frame being better at low light is actually a myth.Full frame is just better in general.If you're not looking to sacrifice all of your depth of field in exchange for more light, then you lose most of your advantage from full frame. The average phone has an aperture of 2-4mm at most, with a short focal length and wide aperture like f/2 and a 35mm equivalent FOV as a 28mm lens or so. To get the equivalent FOV on full frame you need a real 28mm lens and 28mm f/2 would be 14mm aperture, and way shallower DOF for the same brightness. To get a deeper DOF similar to the phone you would need to stop down to around f/11 and this puts you at a 5-stop disadvantage. If your phone needs 400 ISO for something, a full frame camera would need 12,800 or 25,600 ISO to shoot the same scene with the same DOF.It's only "better" in terms of noise IF you are willing to sacrifice DOF and blur the backgrounds. With quality glass, it will always be better optically, but phone lenses are actually not too bad.Bridge cameras have shit lenses, shit sensors, and shit JPEGs. Most don't offer RAWs.If you're considering using a phone but are more than happy to carry a second device, you should consider micro four turds because their autofocus, ergonomics, and optics will be way better than a phone. They're noticeably worse than APS-C/FF in quality but still better than phones and you can get decent used MFT for $600.
>>4458917I've posted several hundred last few years and could link about 30 on board now>>4458942Bridge cameras are only good for offering a large amount of zoom in a small size. They are the same as smaller point and shoots without the big zoom. Larger sensors do give you more options with what and how you shoot, but most people that just want to snap pictures in daylight could get by with whatever size.>>4458921Some of us like using nicer cameras, and some of us care about having nicer family / home photos
>>4458978>The minimum acceptable quality for anything that isn't snapshit grade should be on an APS-C sensor with a quality (not a kit or zoom) lens.anon literally said he was just going to be taking daylight snapshits
>>4458981I'm going to go for a superzoom bridge camera for travelling. HAving used primes for the last decade, I'm excited how having huge zoom will affect my shots.
>>4458942Nope. Incorrect. A bigger sensor improves image quality and rendering all of the time>duhhh if i dont make pesto i dont need fresh herbs?Thats what you sound likeIgnore the poorfags. Over 1/3 of 4channers abuse the welfare system. No amount of cope and skill can make m43 as good as full frame. Full frame was the standard for 100 years. Smaller sensors are a late stage capitalist/neo-feudalist scam created to split up the market and make people easier to manipulate into perpetual consooming. Before consoomerism everyone shot full frame because it is as good as cameras get without being huge. FF cameras of those days STILL take better photos than phones and m43!>>4458981You dont need a 3k flagship that makes compromises for a job you’re not doing thoe. You just need a big sensor like on a sony a7rii.
Should I get the Ricoh GR3x or the new Fujifilm X-E5? I'm leaning towards the Fuji because I can also record some 4k video footage and use more focal lenghts. But somehow checking tons of sample photos the Ricoh looks much sharper and more detailed.. almost like full frame. While basically all fuji-x photos look somehow dull and flat compared. Also much softer. But maybe I'm wrong
>>4459007They're pretty different. Do you like the 40mm FL? Can you live without a viewfinder?Is pocketability a priority?
>>4459007Normal aps-cid almost like full frame (almost)1 xtrans megapixel is equal to half a normal megapixel and fujis colors have gotten weak to try and improve the high ISO of their excessively small pixelsAPS-C peaked with the nikon d300s
>>4459012Its funny to watch fujis lense lineup populate with $$$$ aps-c snoy gay master primes to compensate for their bad sensor design
>>4458999It's almost like needs and wants are different You didn't "need" to make that comment either
>>4459007> Get a Fuji> Get a superzoom> Film my neightbour's dog> Put tons of film grain and print on 10x15cmThat's what I would personally do if I had spare cash for X-E5.
Are my cameras /gear/ approved?
>>4459036NTA. I didn't sneed foolframe but a recent upgrade from cope sensor has enlightened me to the tones.jxlI'm thoroughly convinced anyone buying anything between a P&S and FF is just poor and coping. Exceptions exist like APS-C pocket cameras, but there is no replacement for displacing the jews and buying a proper full sensor camera.
>>4459036you do not need anything but food with the minimal essential nutrients (peak physical and mental condition is not needed), just enough hydration for your activity level, and just enough shelter to prevent death from exposure.the moment you think something like "you dont NEED full frame, peasant, your photos aren't good or important enough" you are becoming a very fundamentally evil type of person whose general attitude contaminates everything and before you know it, you fully support caste systems and feudalism.you do not need a camera at all. to have a camera at all is a luxury. why then do we create subpar cameras simply so we can charge more for the normal ones, when before, everyone shot the same full frame sensors... simply so man can make his dreams of being better than others and being able to show it at a glance a reality.>those poor people dont need more.>and they cant buy more.>and that proves that they dont need more.>because if they did, they wouldn't be POOR! [fat long nosed person laughter]that is the state of american society, not just in cameras, but in everything.
>>4459055and you don't need to make comments like this, yet you do
>>445901040mm is my favorite and used to be on my ex-camera 90% of the time. No viewfinder is fine, I think I wouldn't use the one of the X-E5 anyways because it's so tiny and shit. The smaller the better but even for the ricoh I would probably bring a small bag (dust protection)>>4459012I don't know if that's scientifical correct but, like I said, it looks like what you are saying is true. I think the only time fuji pics looked sharp was when shot with the xf18mm1.4.. that seems to be a great lens. But then again, colors are always kinda meh. Part of me is still arguing that it's because most fuji plebs are using the same shitty film recipes from that one website. with white-balanced shifted to purple blue, low contrast, low saturation and classic negative.>>4459039sounds max comfy
>>4459053> Buy a Japanese camera from THIS market segment, but no other, in order to RESIST the Japanese camera cartel.> JEWS, amirite fellow anonymouses?
>>4459065X-M5 over X-E5 for compact edc>Part of me is still arguing that it's because most fuji plebs are using the same shitty film recipes from that one websiteVery true, if you look enough you can find ugly and pretty colors for every brand
>>4459070IDK if you've noticed but 4chan as a whole is against buying new. In this very thread, people are extolling the virtues of the standardized 35mm film SLR that takes the same great photos forever with the same general capability as every other 35mm film SLR and longing for an age when new products were made for new customers instead of for yearly upgrades. Most people here are against the "buy this garbage, get bored with it, then upgrade if you're still interested" ethos of modern american consumerism.Basically no one here gives money to these brands. Every recommended camera is recommended on the basis of its price on the used market. Admitting you want to buy new will get you mocked. Deservingly. Everyone bought their gear used. Everything being used on /p/ is recycled goods.It couldn't be a more anti-consumerist website if everyone taped over logos with hammer and sickle stickers. If you told 4channers that in the future high end goods would have to be made to last and passed down instead of regularly replaced by new models, they would call it "great!" instead of "the economy crashing".
>>4459072It's a false dichotomy. When you buy a used Japanese camera, you are giving its previous owner money to buy a new Japanese camera.Otherwise, imagine caring what "4chan" thinks. Although what do I expect from an armchair antisemite, who learned to hate Jews on /pol.
>>4458989Yes, and anything smaller than APS-C is bad even in daylight.Even in studio lighting micro four thirds sensor quality isn't much better than a phone's.Of course faggot youtubers will go "nah bro totally buy it <affiliate link in description> because you can use tardpaz AI to denoise and clean it up, by the way use <affiliate link in description> to get a sick deal on that!video title: is my smartphone better than the latest full frame camea?!?!?:basedface: thumbnail25 minute video[video contains paid sponsorship]<affiliate links><link to buy adobe presets><link to subscribe to adobe shit><affiliate links>conclusion: it depends!<affiliate links>LICE COMMON INSCRIBE DO NEEDFULS SAARS CLICKY THE BELL NOTIFIES<affiliate links>Meanwhile, a $300 used APS-C DSLR with a prime lens is all you need for good snapshitting.If anyone wants good photos, APS-C is the entry level. Anything else is a compromise.>phonebaseline>point & shoot / bridge camsgarbage meme zoom, worse than phone for everything else>four turdsphone quality sensor, potential for better glass, good ergonomicsbasically, imagine your phone but with a real lens and the ability to have optical zoom with a zoom lens>aps-cminimum for a real camera>full frameminimum for no longer being able to blame the gear for its shortcomings, if it's bad on full frame, (You) are to blame.
>>4459076Difference between an m43 and aps-c sensor about is one stop of light. If you get an aps-c camera without ibis (which doesn't apply to the last two cameras being discussed though), half the time you lose this one stop advantage because you cannot go lower in shutter speed.Otherwise, yeah, if I wanted to blow $2k on gear, I'd perhaps get a Snoy a6700 or something.
>>4459080>bro, nothing moves>half the time m43 is as good or betterbut things do movein fact, the vast majority of worthwhile photography is done at base ISO and suffers from either excessive shutter speed or excessively small apertures. high end cameras are built with leaf shutters specifically because of this fact.Equivalence is fake, m43 has less quantum efficiency and will always be behind in low light even with equivalence (granted you somehow find something so static not even the wind matters) and a $12 pocket tripod mogs every single IBIS system ever to death so, lol.enough cope. lesser cameras are lesser. yes, japan has fucked you over selling you a worse product simply to justify charging you more for the better one after 50 years of making "not enough money" selling everyone equally high quality equipment.>>4459075it's a very true dichotomy>bb-b-b-b-b-but if you buy a used camera someone will buy a new camerathat's their choice. if you buy a steak from the store maybe one of their employees will buy child porn! this sort of "there is no ethical consumption-" thing is a hysterical non-argument commies use to try and force people to agree that banning private property and trade is the only way forward.the actual way forward is not giving money directly to the problem and shifting to a system that better regulates the behavior of market participants. for example, ultra high tarriffs on asian goods will force them to rethink what's worth the money.
>>4458834the 24-120 is double the price of a used 24-70 and neither replace a prime unless you only shoot in sunlight. They are both have flat as fuck rendering too.
>>4459080>muh IBIS>muh stopsAnon, no.This is youtube speak.We're talking facts here, on 4chan.Four thirds with enough exposure at base ISO on a tripod is noisy and barely better than a phone.APS-C with proper exposure is often comparable to full frame, but full frame usually performs a bit better. Depends on models. It's got nothing to do with physics and cannot be calculated. There is no behavior.This is a quality thing. There are tiny cinema cameras with sensors smaller than full frame with more dynamic range than medium format stills cameras.IBIS or more exposure cannot compensate for a noisy image with perfect exposure.IBIS can help at night when you might be shooting with slower shutters but that doesn't matter in this situation. Guy's looking for daylight shots and four turds daylight shots are noisy. They shouldn't be, but they are. They're often 12-bit too, compared to 14-bit from full frame or APS-C. This is with the same photosite sizes. A 16MP four turds for example has the same size photosites as a 61MP full frame has yet it can only do ISO 200 and usually 12-bit RAWs?Yeah, because this ain't about physics.It's all caused by manufacturing quality and cost cutting on the smaller sensors that makes the real difference.You're not losing the 2 stops worth to light, you're losing it from the poor sensor quality.And yes, this is per-pixel. You can crop a FF 61MP to 16MP to match the four turds and the four turds will still lose with the same framing/lighting/exposure/ISO.Don't fall for the (((equivalence))) brospeak from youtuber shills.It's not real. Never has been, never will be, and whatever you do, never buy something after clicking one of their fucking links.
Is /p/ ready for the truth?
>>4457896Sony makes cameras for the elite and you do not understand it. None of you understand real Photography. You ridiculous little kids. Without an understanding of the E-mount, it is useless to dream of understanding the photographic worldview. None of you can understand Photography, for you are all intellectually earthworms. You can not reach the elite level of Photography, so why even you dream about it. Sony and E mount are the elite. For real photographers
>>4459084>>4459089> How to type one sentence and get two paragraphs of schizo monologue.Here's another. FF enjoyer took his tripod to dates and now he's 45 years old and single.
>>4459089lol that's a lot of words for some unconvincing cope
>>4459100This is legitimately going to make me start shooting M43
After close examination of the arguments presented by the fine participants of this thread, I have come to the reasoned conclusion that I will sell all of my full frame gear at below market rate to purchase an Olympus OM System camera and assorted lenses at the earliest convenience. Best regards.
here's my stuff atm. i use every body regularly except the nikon fa. i've been loathe to sell it because it's got my soviet lens on it and it can technically do a lot of stuff my other film cameras can't do. but those situations never seem to come up>>4459040nice. seems sensible>>4459007very nice kit for street. i have found that that fuji 18/f2 is pretty soft and doesn't look very good unless you're closer than 2m from your subject>>4458950odd choice. fill the same roles but not similar enough for true redundancy. why not just get two g7x or two gr? looks fun and mobile in any case.>>4458766unusual combo. also i'd expect the reverse setup focal length-wise. wide on the rf and normal on slr>>4458486another case where the two cameras are so similar, i don't get why you wouldn't either go for more differentiation or just commit and get two of the same kits
>>4459100In other words, full framers are more intelligent. A paragraph takes less effort for them than a sentence does for you. No wonder panasonic is bleeding to death and olympus is effectively dead.
>>4459100>post lie>get debunked by high iq ff chads>HELP! WORDS! AN UNPROVOKED ATTACK!the fool turd cries out in pain as he strikes you
>>4459111Holy fucking based.
>>4458733The image that saved cameras
>>4459111> Photo taken with a shitty phone.Based.
>>4459111>not a single snoyNow thats a real photographer
New buyee haul...accidentally ordered a bunch of duplicates I didn't want to win the auction on kek. Took this pic with the Z1000EXR ($46) that's probably gonna go to my gf as a snapshitter for selfies. Other camera is a F70EXR...F = RAW and extendo lens while Z doesn't have either (10mp Super CCD vs 16mp CMOS too both 1/2in sensors). I was trying to get the pink F70 or F80EXR for her but they were like $80-100 vs $45...sweety tax I guess. I figured if one didn't work at least I had the other but they both seem fine, the Z is nearly new. Pentax 100mm Macro has really bad haze, disappointed since this one was pricey at $45Pentax 50mm Macro is absolutely mint, nearly new, ran me $50 and came with a nice Kenko CPLPentax-F 35-135mm had some beginning mold I luckily wiped up but its a little hazed up for $10 not bad came with the Z1Pentax-F 35-70mm one has more haze than the other, I paid $10 for one and the other it came with the SF1 and 70-200mm as a combo for $20.70-200mm Takumar-F is a duplicate...I already have one I got for $30 off eBay I thought I wasn't gonna get (seller didn't ship it until 3 weeks later). Not in bad shape though. Don't really care about the film cameras (Z1 and SFX) I bought them for the -F lenses (35-70mm and 35-135mm) desu I think one might be broken (Z-1) since the mirror is up. Will be posting in /dst/ with the F70EXR
>>4459111Checking trips on the nice collection.
>>4459134You spent $250+ on garbage, congrats
>>4459139Yes I know that's the point I like experimenting with different lenses I'll probably sell the duplicates F70EXR has this haze/fungus on the lens :(
I just traded my OG A7 for a new ZV-E10, i now totally feel how slow that camera was. I liked it though. Also, any good RAW editor software for linux OSes?
>>4459144You know what that actually looks like?Flaking. Lens coating falling off in small bits.Maybe the photo shows it wrong but that'd be my guess.
> Look up a lens on MPB> Moisture moisture moisture moistureWtf is wrong with these people? How can so many lenses have "moisture"?
>>4459172>why are lenses people wanted so little they would take MPBs low valuation all fucked up?even with ebay fees you get more as long as the lens wouldn't be an easy return for a retard pretending to be illiterate
>>4459120>>4459124duh. how else can i get all the cameras in pic? sony phone btw :^)
Are cameras with like 204800 ISO actually beneficial if you can stack images over something limited to like 51200 or 25600?I know asshole photography benefits from short exposures and exposure stacking because of star movement so maybe 204800 with tons of bursts is better than longer exposures at 25600?With star alignment between shots it seems like hot pixels would be easy to remove since they would be moving around the scene while the real stars remain fixed after aligning.
>>4459398The problem with that line of thinking is that you're stacking twice as many photos per stop of ISO you increase by, and lots of good astro photos are already stacks of 20-100 but at more reasonable ISOs.At higher ISOs you're also introducing more noise and not as much signal in comparison to more sane ISOs which are generally more signal friendly, which means you need even more frames to tame the extra noise.>seems like hot pixels would be easy to remove since they would be moving around the scene while the real stars remain fixed after aligningYou still need to take a dark frame, which is very simple and would fix the hot pixels anyway.
>>4459398Cranking up your ISO reduces read noise (but usually with harshly diminishing returns, often straight up flatlining long before you're at max ISO, with more modern cameras generally being more aggressive about that), at the cost of dynamic range. And as astrophotography usually means photographing a mix of absolute darkness, brightly shining fusion flares, and extremely faintly illuminated wisps of gas that are much of your image but only half a hare's fart from absolute darkness burning up all your dynamic range by dialling up the ISO to maximum ain't gonna work very well.Also, taking a bazillion subs means you're gonna need a fuckton of storage for them, and it'll take forever to stack them all, during which you'll need significantly more storage space for various temporary files.
I have a T6i, what would an upgrade look like on a EF mount crop sensor Canon?Not actually seriously going to right now, but if I stay with crop sensors, are there any that would be better and in what ways?>buy better lensesYes yes I know but I am just curious about the bodies.
>>4459693>APS-C Canon DSLR90D. The newest of its kind and with the controls and functionality a step-up from your rebel.I have zero idea why you would buy one since they are more expensive than an R7 (closest mirrorless equivalent) despite being older, bigger, heavier, and less feature rich.>APS-C Canon DSLR but not retardedly expensive850D. Also called a Rebel T8i. Not much of an improvement over what you have, but is technically what you're asking for and is half the price of the 90D.>APS-C Canon MirrorlessYou could get an R10 for half the price of the 90D and all you would need to use EF lenses is a $100 adapter or a $200 adapter if you want to always have the nice control ring as well. Bonus points for being way smaller than traditional blobmeras.
>>4459693The much ignored eos r10 (if you Know How to Win at eBay) or buy the best camera for most people (and most camera for best people), the nikon z50ii
>>4459694Aside the 90D, all have the a 24.2 MP sensor. Does that mean they'd all be roughly similar in terms of image quality, even the mirrorless or the sensors the same MP size but better in other ways?I'm asking as I'm curious if there is bodies to keep an eye out for while looking for more lenses, but not actively looking to buy something newer or better. I don't really care about features, just if it'd be a better image. Obviously the newer features would help the end product, especially with the mirrorless viewfinder showing exposure and such, but I mostly like just using one auto focus point and I like having the optical display.Is it mostly just features sets setting a 10 year old consumer DLSR from a newer consumer mirrorless? I see them have much higher ISO's and such, but what does that actually translate to? IS 6400 ISO on a older DSLR and a newer mirrorless look the same? I look at stuff on high ISO from the rebel and it's bad, so if it's all the same, I'd question what use the much higher ISO on the R10/T8i is.
>>4459703Megapickles isn't the whole story. Phones technically have 50MP but are ass for other reasons. More is nice up to a certain point. Pixel density is what matters a bit more, but we're still ignoring sensor SNR, and lens resolving power.24MP for APS-C is basically all you need, the 32.5MP APS-C cameras are considered High Res and there's some downsides to going too large such as worse SNR and slower readout speed. Don't worry about all that shit, just know that 24MP is great for most people. A lot of full frame cameras still only have 24MP and are excellent as well.Comparing ISO between cameras is not always straightforward. There are sites like https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison that help you visualise the difference. ISO 3200 on a 20 year old full frame 5D looks worse than an APS-C R10 @3200 ISO in terms of noise (ignoring some other aspects). You basically want to ignore the highest stop or two of what a camera *can* do, because they're usually mushy shit. My R50 can hit ISO 25600 but it looks horrid. My R8 can hit ISO 102400 and looks a little less horrid than the R50 @25600 ISO, but the R8 @25600 ISO is very usable even if not the cleanest.Sensor capability also varies between manufacturers, which is minor but worth noting.Looks as like for you the best way to go forward with a body is either go full frame DSLR (or mirrorless but it'll cost a lot), or get a modern APS-C like the R10.
>>4459693Honestly if you don't feel held back by your body because of the shooting frames per second or its buffer capacity, or the lack a silent/electronic shutter mode for vibration reduction you're probably fine with that.You will likely gain more by upgrading lenses or lighting than you will with a body upgrade.Eventually you will probably want to upgrade when we see 100MP+ and higher APS-C but we're a ways off from that being a reality. I personally wouldn't recommend buying incremental upgrades. If it's not a quadrupling of megapixels you're not even getting 2x the res, so keep that in mind.T6i doesn't have the best dynamic range or color accuracy but it's budget APS-C so you probably knew that going in.A better body might come without an AA/OLPF filter for increased sharpness and nicer colors and better dynamic range (less noise) but unless you're really committed to the optical viewfinder life and reject mirrorless you probably won't want to buy into the EF lens mount anymore since it's obsolete and effectively abandoned now. Canon isn't going to release anymore DSLRs. Neither will Nikon, only Pentax does.>>4459706>phones technically have 50MPNo, they really don't.Phones are 12MP or 16MP. Everything higher is a lie because they cover the photosites in only 12MP worth of bayer filtering.48-50MP? 2x2 upscaled bayer. Real resolution? 12MP bayer108MP? 3x3 upscaled bayer. Real resolution? 12MP bayer200MP? 4x4 upscaled bayer. Real resolution? 12MP bayer
>>4459706If you care about "the look", megapixels have a very important use. More megapixels increases the sampling rate and brings the digital image closer to the original analog input of the lens image circle, ensuring finished images and prints (not printed to the max theoretical size) are free of digital artifacts. This is why fuji went to 40mp on xtrans aps-c despite it being difficult and unlikely to actually resolve detail small enough for 1 detail=1 pixel. To smooth out the blockiness and increase aliasing resistance.If all you do is "crop your cropped crop for reach" and pixel peep, megapixels are only for that and theorizing about how big you can print and they don't really matter.
>>4459703All bayer filter cameras are suited for a final output size that is 2/3s the size of their stated megapixel number. This is the minimum downscale to hide MOST errors that are digital in origin.>I see them have much higher ISO's and such, but what does that actually translate to?Less digital noise at the lower ISOs as well, so they can raise the max ISO higher. If a camera has no/almost no noise shoots in 14 bit raw format, it can record 14 stops of brightness with acceptable detail from the clipping point to the noise floor. 1 stop = 1 doubling in brightness.So if your ancient canon DSLR is noisy, it might only record 8 stops of lightBut a newer one will actually record 12 at base ISOThis is the simplest benefit to explainOther ones like read noise/DR tradeoffs are more complex and mostly irrelevant to most people
>>4459786spec checkso 750d/t6i = 12 stop DR (2 less than film)eos r7 = 13.8 stop DR (almost the same as film) but falls off with high ISOs fastnikon Z6II = 14.7 stop DRfuji gfx100sII = 15.1 stop dr (lol)
>>4459767>phones technically have 50MP>No, they really don't.>Phones are 12MP or 16MPFuck me, it's almost why I said technically. Yes, bayer fucky wucky. Woo. Irrespective of the point I was making but congrats.
>>4459788the gfx100sii used as a 50mp camera or less with 16 bit raws enabled has 16 stops of dr. 15.1 is 100% size, not normalized (shrinking images lowers the noise floor). correctly developed gfx raws have 0 perceptible noise in prints <24in up to iso 6400
>>4459794proof?
>>4459795math (pictures are made of numbers)or go to dpreview and download their raws to open in a competent processor like capture one or rawtherapee (after learning how to use it)if you are already confused do not buy a gfx. they are for professionals and serious hobbyists.
>>4459794>correctly developed gfx raws have 0 perceptible noise in prints <24in up to iso 6400Nah, it's about ISO 1600.Full frame typically ISO 400 to ISO 800.These bigger cameras aren't any more sensitive to light they can simply handle more of it. They excel in well lit scenes, they aren't better at low light photography. Of course you can use bigger lenses and get a shallower DOF to get lots of bokeh and light in low light but don't kid yourself into thinking a measly 44x33mm sensor is somehow magical compared to a 36x24mm one. You get more resolution but ISO 6400 is still a mess. That's 64x less light than what it needs for a good exposure so it's no surprise it's not that great. People need to stop pretending super high ISOs are "good" just because shitpaz noise reduction can AI their slop into a smeary mess and sharpen it with meme replacements. This is the same line of thinking that four turders live off of, swearing that their four turd ISO 800 shots are totally fine.If you buy a nice camera, get nice bright lights. It's not hard.
>>4459170its on the inside of the lens on the 2nd outermost layer. wiping it off didn't make it better or worse. kinda has a uniform star/x pattern so im guessing fungus, when i've had lens coating fail it was more random/bigger doesn't seem to affect iq too much honestly, this was in auto mode iso 100 f5.5 1/100 shutter speed 24mm focal length. i actually really like it, it has "provia" for its default color settings (only 3 film sims, provia b&w and sephia)
>>4459699Thanks Ren Kockwell! >>4459802i actually kinda like the grain i get out of it, reminds me of film. its not horrible. this was shooting in manual mode (its more of a amended manual where iso/shutter speed are fixed but aperture is either small or big..settings here were iso 400 1/1000 shutter speed f/5.3). not awful for a small sensor jpeg only (i was hoping for raw) camera with no ibis imo. i really had to bump the dehaze on it in lightroom
>>4459805iso 400 1/1000 f5.4
>>4459806fun little snapshitter im gonna try the z1000exr next i love the grain/filmic effect out of the stock jpeg though i really gotta bump the dehaze up when im in lightroom
>>4459805That is some pleasing grain anon
Does looking at pictures on a 4k tv make everything look like shit? I can't tell if I am gaslighting myself due to it or if everything just genuinely looks bad.
>>4459827What resolution are the pictures you're viewing? It would certainly make lower resolution stuff more noticible
What are some old mirrorless compact cameras that are decent for around $100-$150?My neck feels broken from having a DSLR with a telephoto on it for hours today when I really could've gotten away with like a 24mm pancake on a small camera.I'd like something with a dedicated view finder if possible, probably leaning towards micro 4/3's.
>>4459794>the gfx100sii used as a 50mp camera or less with 16 bit raws enabledJust curious, (I don't own one and can't find this in the manual) how exactly do you shoot <=50mp files with this camera? Does it have some kind of downsampling mode?
>>4459834>My neck feels broken from having a DSLR with a telephoto on it for hours todayYour neck won't be any better with a mirrorless if you're shooting telephoto. It's not the body that counts but the lens. If you want a setup that's easier to carry, shoot standard primes with fewer than 10 elements
>>4459834>>4459841Anyway to answer the second part of the question, forget about M43 and get a Ricoh GR. If the viewfinder is not negotiable, see my other post
>>4459839Do it in post. Apply NR, downsample, do not use sharpening. Only apply sharpening after resizing it. Wala. This works on any camera.
>>4459844True, I always just resize everything to ~20mp for delivery100% pixel peeping looks great when you're only actually viewing 75% now lol
>>4459843You're not finding a Ricoh GR for $100-150For $100-150 your best option is a 10+ year old small sensor (think Fuji F600EXR, Lumix DMC LX, Canon Powershot S90) or VERY VERY early M43 (think Olympus Pen EPL1 or EP1, Lumix GF1) with no lenses Again, there's a argument to be made for >$500 M43 cameras. $5-700 gets you a EM5iii or a OM5 and its a pretty damn nice camera that's half the weight/size of a similarly priced FF (Nikon D750/800, Canon 5DM3) w/300mm Telephoto and a hell of a lot more versatile. I'd even argue the M43 camera will have better AF and sharper images = better IQ despite the smaller sensor
>>4459827modern TVs generally have sharpening, contrast tweaks, and color adjustment turned on by defaultso it's probably one of those
>>4459852M43 is not beating a DSLR in the hands of a non-retard. Dont fall for this disappointment provoking gearfag meme. Just put a smaller lens on the camera you already own.
>>4459834As >>4459841 alludes to, the problem is that the neck strap was invented back when professional SLRs were smaller than a Panasonic M43 camera, and unless you're working with National Geographic, a "long lens" was a 4 element 135mm prime.This paradigm worked through the 80s and the first half of the 90s, where enthusiasts mostly had 70-210 f/4.5-5.6 style zoom lenses, and if you were serious about wildlife you might've had a 300mm f/4.Now everyone who does photography as a half-hobby is expected to eventually get a 70-200 f/2.8The neck strap paradigm is outdated and poorly suited to today's modern photography.Ditch the neck strap and get a BlackRapid style shoulder strap.
>>4459857Except when you want reach or smaller lenses. M43 is always gonna have smaller lenses and the bodies will almost always be smaller. A small prime and a long shoulder strap will solve the issue. I like this shoulder strap because it lets me tuck my DSLRs under my arm without it feeling restrictive. I've been using the strap below off ali for a few weeks and I haven't had my camera drop https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256806327264009.html
>>4459863Specifically, if you have a 50mm f/2 M43 lens, and a 50mm f/2 FF or APS-C lens, that both produce similar image quality and utilize the same design, the smaller image circle of the M43 lens means that the elements in front of the diaphragm can be much smaller (to simplify it, the front elements play a large part in "magnifying" the iris, which is not literally "focal length divided by aperture ratio" in size, there are "optical tricks" that are used). This is especially true on zoom lenses and especially especially true on non-variable zoom lenses.
>>4459873I forgot to also explain that a smaller image circle basically means that those front elements don't need to be as wide and as large in order to "fill in" the image circle behind the iris.Consider a loupe and a handheld magnifying glass that both produce 5x magnification. The loupe uses a much smaller lens, but the image circle is so small you have to put your eye right up to it.Although that's starting to change. Newer lighter weight optical glass with similar or higher refractive indexes coming down in price are allowing newer FF and APSC lenses to be smaller and lighter, and not only that, but enabling new optical formulas that allow inherently smaller and lighter designs (not just the same designs but smaller).But meanwhile M43 lenses are aging. OM System has no R&D department to speak of and new lenses are just rebadged Sigma APSC lenses, and Panasonic isn't interested in committing to m43 while they're raking in money on their FF cameras.
>>4459863It is negligiblea7c with 35mm f2.8 vs om5 with 17mm f1.8not even "equivalent" but just look lol
>>4459879
>>4459884>a soft f8-11 zoom>putting an aps-c kit lens on ff to compare to an f7-11 dogshit soft superzoomcongratulationsno one caresdead system for a reason
>>4459841>>4459860It was a telephoto in the literal technical sense but it's a mostly plastic 16 ounce lens, not some 100-400 L series. The body alone is 20 ounces, so even with a 5 ounce pancake it'd be probably 10 ounces more than a Olympus pen with a mini zoom lens on it and have more range. I also just generally want something smaller to toy around with.
>>4459889Get a fun digishit like an old gr digital not a soulless cope camera like m43
>>4459884Snoycels... I dont feel so good...
>>4459884>2 kg LENSwhat the FUCK
>>44599262.5 kg
>>4459889>>4459891Alternatively, get a vintage film camera with a pancake if you want "something smaller to toy around with".
>>4459827Generally, yes.Like don't even... what this guy is saying? >>4459827 ... it's not "wrong" but it's not the fucking problem, the modern TV is an abomination even with its ideal settings.local dimming, bad greyscale uniformity, inaccurate colors, sometimes has inversion artifacts making 4k not any better than 1080p or 720p.. (per-pixel details smeared) and other things like HDR tone mapping not displaying SDR / SRGB images properly, or, it just being shit and having shit contrast with meme cheat things that don't hold up.An HDTV from 2005 or 2010 is usually superior to a modern 4K display.It shouldn't be, but it is, because back then there were standards and people had expectations. Now TVs are bait devices to trick children into going "mommy mommy mommy! I want this one for the netflix! look at all the gizmos and gadgets, mommy, it's a SMART tv! pleeeeeeeease it even comes with 30 days free of HBO!!" and people give in and don't even think of the screen quality. We are so fucked.Now if you happen to have a good TV, with RGB subpixels, 4:4:4 chroma, good static contrast without HDR bullshit, your photos should look good. Unfortunately that isn't the case for 90% of consumer TVs today. They always fuck something up at the hardware level, then usually are out-of-box with shit settings that further degrade visual quality.Remember the target audience doesn't even know what a JPEG is. They are fucking retards. Literal fucking retards. They will see a perfect specimen of a TV on display and actually choose the one full of motion artifacts, blooming, and backlight flickering because the color saturation was turned to 200% showing some flowers in a demo video and they thought the neon green stems and RGB red roses with no texture just pure red looked STUNNING.
test
