[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 47 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


The 4chan Vtuber Competition is over. Click here to see the winning entry!




File: 1541010030890.gif (66 KB, 718x404)
66 KB
66 KB GIF
>be me
>have 7 year old DSLR camera
>think that sensors hasn't changed muched in these last couple of years
>buy new entry level camera from same brand
>mfw this fucking image quality improvement
>>
>Be yesterday
>Out birding with my Df
>Grab 60d and 100-400 L bazooka sidearm
>Pop a bunch of shots off of two cara-caras
>Got real close to them too, lots of detail
>Open up LR
>400 ISO looks like 6400 on my Df
>Have to do a fucking noise reduction at 200 ISO

Jesus Christ
>>
>>3387371
>7 years
>last couple of years
Make up your mind
>>
>>3387371
>paying double the price for useless megapixels which means smaller photosites
>paying double the price for muh wifi and touchscreen
>paying double the price for 685341653 ISO
>paying double the price instead of buying good glass that actually determine image quality more than muh megapixels
>>
>>3387371
rip frog
janny will kill you
>>
>>3387376
Not necessarily a contradiction. He might have been aware of the advancements in the five years up to that point but not the ones in the last two, or it's possible he's saying there was a plateau where sensor tech didn't advance all that much and then it exploded.

>>3387373
I feel like if you're having to do noise reduction on an APS-C sensor at ISO 200, you're doing it wrong. Either way-underexposing or cropping like crazy. The Df should give you about two stops over a 60D, but not four.

(Or not necessarily "doing something wrong" but "doing something wrong given a Canon sensor". Underexposing and bringing up the shadows is perfectly valid on a Df but Canon sensors aren't as ISO-invariant as Sony-manufactured ones, so it doesn't work nearly as well. But I've shot much older Canons than that up to ISO 800 with no worries about noise)
>>
>>3387371
>be me
>have 58 year old camera
>it still takes great shots
>>
>>3387373
just slap a vsco preset bro
>>
>>3387371
does this mean i shouldnt waste money on a pentax k5 iis from ebay?
>>
File: DSC_5937.jpg (1.01 MB, 1920x1278)
1.01 MB
1.01 MB JPG
I'm using the D3200, and I keep seeing people selling the D5200 for okay prices. I should probably just save up for a better camera, right?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D3200
Camera Softwaredarktable 2.4.3
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.7
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern22830
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2018:10:23 22:53:58
Exposure Time1/640 sec
F-Numberf/2.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating100
Exposure Bias-1/3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1920
Image Height1278
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
ISO Speed Used100
Image QualityRAW
White BalanceAUTO
Focus ModeAF-S
Flash Compensation39.7 EV
ISO Speed Requested100
Flash Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation0.0 EV
Lens TypeNikon D Series
Lens Range35.0 mm; f/1.8
Shooting/Bracketing ModeSingle Frame/Off
Noise ReductionOFF
Camera Actuations18092
>>
>>3387379
>anonsfw sensors are now outstripping lens quality for sharpness
>>
>>3387417
No reason to go from 3k series to 5k series of the same generation. Either bump up to an 600 or higher.
>>
>>3387379
> muh wifi
Being able to copy a photo from camera to phone without an intermediary computer is a significant bonus if your goal with photography is to have photos to show people rather than to just take pictures no one but you ever sees.

I mean, nothing wrong with just doing photography for yourself. But wifi is a legitimately neat and useful feature. I've often used one of my cheaper but newer cameras instead of my main workhorse with better image quality just because the new ones have WiFi and it's quicker to get it online.

> paying double the price for 685341653 ISO
High ISO abilities are super useful for a lot of different types of photography. Depending on the time of year, up to half of the day is spent in relative darkness. Being able to keep on taking pictures during those non-daylight hours is a boon, and worth the money.

> instead of buying good glass that actually determine image quality more than muh megapixels
I'll agree that good glass gives you a better return on investment than more pixels after a certain point, but if you think in terms of "Being able to get a good shot" instead of in terms of "Having the best image quality", there are a lot of ergonomic/usability/etc aspects to upgrading your camera body that trump better glass.

Just as an example off the top of my head: the 5D3, unlike earlier Canon models, remembers which autofocus point you have selected on a per-orientation basis. So, for instance, if you're shooting a show, you can have your selected AF point at about where you want a performer's eye to go in frame for both landscape and portrait orientation. So when you want to change orientation, all you have to do is turn your camera sideways, not turn your camera sideways and then use the little joystick to move your AF point and then move it back again when you flip again. That's a much bigger deal in practice than, say, upgrading from a cheap 28-70/3.5-5.6 kit to an expensive 24-70/4
>>
>>3387373
why do you still have a 60D?
>>
>>3387417
d7100 or anything full frame
>>
>not shooting film for the infinite analog resolution

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNoritsu Koki
Camera ModelQSS
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2048
Image Height2692
>>
>>3387466
>implying film has infinite resolution
>>
File: 2018-01-02 11.01.52.jpg (1.34 MB, 2710x1844)
1.34 MB
1.34 MB JPG
>>3387371
dude i've taken pics with my nikon d80 for 9 months before i switched first to a nimon d7100 and then to a yashica fx d quartz. Now i'm using my yashica as well as my zeiss nettar

pic rel was taken with my 13y old nikon d80 and a cheap 50mm 1.8 lense

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelNIKON D80
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2018:01:02 11:01:53
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
FlashNo Flash
F-Numberf/10.0
Focal Length50.00 mm
Exposure Bias0 EV
White BalanceAuto
Image Width2710
ISO Speed Rating500
Image Height1844
Exposure Time1/200 sec
>>
File: 2018-10-30 13.20.58.jpg (825 KB, 1051x1589)
825 KB
825 KB JPG
>>3387474
and now in comparision to my nikon d80, an even older yashica Fx-d quartz film camera. Around 50y old

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelEZ Controller
Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKI
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2018:10:30 13:20:58
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Height1589
Image Width1051
>>
File: brainlet.png (32 KB, 645x729)
32 KB
32 KB PNG
>>3387373

>bruh i was comparing my 5 year old camera to this 8 year old camera so i'm totally relevant to this thread

fuck off sugar. let me know when you buy something that is a) current generation and b) not secondhand. where the fuck are all your fat trucker stacks going anyway?
>>
File: 2018-08-27 03.11.08.jpg (941 KB, 2029x1474)
941 KB
941 KB JPG
>>3387476
>>3387474
and comparing these two cameras with my nikon d7100, i definetly prefere my yashica

Long story short
>the one you have with you

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelNIKON D7100
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2018:08:27 03:11:08
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
FlashNo Flash
F-Numberf/11.0
Focal Length17.00 mm
Exposure Bias-1/3 EV
White BalanceAuto
Image Width2029
ISO Speed Rating100
Image Height1474
Exposure Time0.6 sec
>>
>>3387476
Holy Christ, what rating was that film? That grain is horrible
>>
>>3387481
the grain is blurry too so probably because he used a cheap scanner
>>
>>3387483
sadly cheap scanning is the only way of getting my pics on pc

I wish i would have the chance to use some professional scanner. Sadly this one was taken with kodak gold 200 lol

10mp scan, and resolution resized with an integrated app on my phone for quick posting
>>
>>3387481
>>3387483
well i guess this is the result of a cheap scanner / cheap scanning process. The problem is that i cannot pay 50 cent per picture (15€ +5€ developing cost)
>>
got sick my sony A230 and decided to jump into the olympus EM10 ecosystem.

>mfw LCD
>mfw wifi
>oh the convenience
>>
>>3387495
>>3387492
web images are a preview of the print you could make.

maybe find some photo shop with a good scanner and ask them. or try macro or whatever. i'm sure you can get better image quality than this
>>
>>3387417
I use a 3200 and a 750. If you want a bump in image quality you should go full frame. Tried the 7200 and it wasn't really a bump in image quality just has more "pro" features.
>>
>>3387492
have you tried scanning with your D7100 plus macro lens if you still have it?
>>
>>3387713
yes, but sadly i lack the needed macro lense, which is why theresults are even worse
(and also a proper remote flash)
but luckly enough, the local university offered me to use their scanner

also thank you guys for the tips
>>
>>3387469
Still so grainy
>>
>>3387371
As canon user yes almost no different at all, some oldie 500d or 50d have the same quality like 7DM2 or 80d...different is when taking JPEG or high iso/low light shoot 7DM2 and 80d both are so much better than 500d/50d.
>>
>>3387373
"N E G L I G I B L E !"
- Z. Arias
>>
>>3387478
>a) current generation and b) not secondhand
Many people can't afford current generation and not second hand cameras, just because you're rich, doesn't mean everyone else is too
>>
>>3387371
>tfw upgrading from a used-when-bought D5100 to a D850 after I finish paying off some other things
I'm also getting the 135mm Zeiss Sonnar with it.
>>
>>3389038
oooh good choice
>>
>>3387474
wow dont give up that d80 life. theres so few of us left.
>>
>>3387431

It's my fathers, I don't have anything really long for the Df aside from a 75-300 film-era push pull that has to be stopped down to fucking f/16 to be decent. Maybe I'll gift myself a 600/4 for Christmas, manned spaceflight is coming back to Florida and I spent a lot of time renting bazooka lenses during the Shuttle program.

>>3387478

Df was current gen when I bought it and is still better than 99% of what /p/ shoots with. It is beyond a capable camera and produces astronomical results.

All my fat trucker stacks went to the truck and various maintenance and emergency funds, I bought it outright from Prime and had a shit ton of maintenance done to it so I am a full-fledged independent owner-operator now with my own truck, not a company truck. I diverted a large share of my cash to the business accounts, tire fund and an emergency fund and I'm getting caught up on my taxes again, I blew off the IRS for two quarters to save up for the buyout.

I did buy my first ever new lens though, literally since I have been shooting with a compact Canon 15 years ago. It's a Tamon 15-30 2.8 VC and I bought it new from a camera shop too.
>>
Just sold my D90, D300s, D200, D80 and don't give a shit about not having any of them anymore. They just couldn't keep up in low light, which is pretty much all I deal with.
>>
>>3387478

>8 year old mid-range APS-C DSLR which wasn't even anything to write home about when it dropped

>vs. 5 year old flagship FF sensor

no shit
>>
>>3389391
So changing to a D850 or A7riii?
>>
>>3389399

Well yeah, no shit. That was the point of my post. Did you mean to reply to me?
>>
>>3387371
>tfw my D5100 still makes me happy
>>
>>3389464
None looks like shit no matter what lens I use, literally nothing is sharp
>>
>>3389468
In technical terms, you're fucked then.

Seriously though, are you a pentacks user?
>>
>>3387480
clean your fucking sensor dude
>>
>>3389470
No I've switched between Nikon and Canon and I feel like it's the least sharp camera I've ever used.
>>
>>3389479
>least sharp camera
Lenses are generally what make an image sharp, not the camera.

That aside you should be able to get a sharp picture with most simple consumer DSLR and kit lenses.

HCB had a great way of putting it
>Sharpness is a bourgeois concept

I like having a sharp lens as much as the next man but it isn't everything.
>>
>>3389484
It's pretty important for what I want to do. I've also tried all my lenses on other cameras and they come out fine.
>>
>>3389484
>Lenses are generally what make an image sharp, not the camera.
Wrong. Lenses are what makes an image sharp. There's no general. It's established that 90% of photographers don't know the difference between sharpness and resolution, but that's just how it is.
>>
File: 1538926700622.png (28 KB, 1027x731)
28 KB
28 KB PNG
>when you go through your old pictures that you thought were bad (blown out skies and shit) but you find out that you can slap on a monochrome filter on it and reduce highlights and it will look like a masterpiece


>>
>>3387478
Buying a new camera is almost as bad as buying a new car (The depreciation is comparable, but cameras do have actual improvements generation to generation while cars have stagnated for a while). I hope you enjoy pissing your money away though.
>>
>tfw can't decide to go for Nikon or Canon
I've heard that the 70-200 and 300mm Canon lenses are a lot better than the comparable Nikons.
>>
Why in gods name are you buying overpriced Canon trash? The camera is overpriced about 400-800 bucks depending on the country.
Let them suffer from their bad decisions.
https://www.canonrumors.com/full-frame-mirrorless-marketshare-canon-already-has-22-of-the-market-in-japan/

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1084
Image Height660
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Created2018:11:02 18:52:40
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width650
Image Height396
>>
>>3389858
>Complaining about customer decisions

I thought you Nikonfags always were defending the outsourcing of their bodies and lenses to China and Thailand with "muh free market" and "cheaper prices for the consumer."

Apparently, the free market sees through your cheap tricks.
>>
>>3389856
I own a number of cameras including several from Nikon and Canon and I've found the Canon to have much better ergonomics.
The lenses are also much better built than Nikon's.
I can't comment on the IQ of the Nikkors as I haven't bought any particularly "great" Nikon lenses since I didn't like the system, but I've never been disappointed with my Canon lenses.
>>
>>3389865
I'm a bitter Canon fag that didn't change his camera since buying the Canon 6D, were I had Canon 7D and Canon D60 (not 60D) earlier.
>>
>>3387431
I also have a 60D and it's shit. Should I buy a 6D? I can't afford anything higher than 1400 (with a new lens)
>>
>>3389882
The 6D is getting old and only benefits e.g. in high iso performance, shallow dof, slightly better sharpness. If you don't need all of these, buy second hand an EOS M5 which is ridiculously cheap or an EOS 80D if autofocus speed is important. Keep your lenses.
>>
>>3389856
Optical quality of modern midrange/high-end zooms should not be a concern. If there is a difference, it will be a tiny difference only really visible on photographs of test charts and MTF graphs, not real photographs. Much more important is things like ergonomics, controls, and handling.

That being said, having used a wide variety of cameras, I think the ergonomics, controls, and handling on Canon cameras are the best out there.
>>
>>3389882
>60D and it’s shit.
What exactly do you dislike about the 60D?

>1400 (with new lens)
You may be able to score a 5D Mark III for that much—last I checked, they were around $1500, but that was a while and an EOS R ago, so prices may have dropped since then. The 5d3 is vastly superior to the 6D. Even if you have to save up a little longer to get a lens with it, I’d recommend it.
>>
>>3389882
>>3389890
To give you more information on this. Canon has an improved sensor design that they've built in modern cameras launched since 2016 except the 6DM2. There's a prominent APS-C sized 24 MP sensor that they've put in every APS-C model from beginner to enthusiast.
The improved sensor design features better dynamic range where you can go crazy with Lightroom sliders on ISO 100 shots.
>>
>>3389898
>What exactly do you dislike about the 60D?

auto focus unusable, sd card reader broken once before i feel it will break again, anything after sunset can forget about it low light pics are impossible, image quality is bland and not all that sharp compared to better ones.
>>
>>3389898
>5D Mark III

Idk if I wanna buy another used camera desu.. just to be sure I don't want to have it be broken and pay up another 200.. I'm a student still.
>>
>>3389890
>high iso performance, shallow dof, slightly better sharpness

These are kinda why I wanna upgrade.
>>
>>3389913
>auto focus unusable
The 6D has a reliable center AF point and is a slightly more modern camera regarding the auto mode, gps/wifi, auto-iso settings, a little less noise on high iso. The 5DM3 features pro oriented af settings, has reliable af sensors across the viewfinder, is able of tracking or follow a perspective change across the sensors, has dual card slots, a joystick, an added programmable button, an added custom program, 1/8000 shutter speed instead of 1/4000, 1/200 x-sync instead of 1/180, a larger viewfinder, viewfinder lcd overlay

>>3389915
I would only buy a new camera if prices and rebates are close to used condition ones. Pick up and test when you're buying second hand.
>>
>>3389928
I forgot the burst rate, which is increased on the 5DM3 also and maybe I'm missing other things that aren't important to me.
>>
>>3389876
>D60

Fuck me those were slow pieces of shit.
It's amazing what a difference Digic 2 over Digic 1 made.
The 1D and 1Ds are nice though.

What did the 6D MkII not have that you wanted?
>>
>>3389896
Ever since Canon dropped the 100-300mm and the 28-105mm, have their been any midrange zooms?
>>
>>3389915
>Idk if I wanna buy another used camera desu
I can understand that perspective, but the 5d3 is built like a fucking tank. I bought mine brand new when it first came out, have taken pictures with it nearly every single day since 2012, almost always have it dangling from my shoulder or neck, have accidentally smacked it against more things than I can remember, and it’s still going strong.

If autofocus is a concern for you, you won’t be happy with the (original) 6D—it’s got a *worse* AF system than the 60D.

As for the issue of your image quality being bland and not very sharp, I’m afraid that a camera upgrade won’t help you very much there either—those are more likely to be user error than issues with the camera. Full frame will give you a little extra sharpness, and about a stop more iso for a given noise level, but if your pictures look bland, it’s not going to help. And if your pictures don’t look sharp at an overall-frame level, you’re probably fucking something up that a better sensor won’t help.
>>
>>3389937
I actually don’t know. At one point I just sort of maxed out all of the lenses in my canon system and stopped paying attention to what’s out there. The only canon lens I’ve been really tempted by in years is the 85/1.4 IS.
>>
>>3389936
>What did the 6D MkII not have that you wanted?
If the sensor were the new generation, I'd have already switched. A better af is interesting and DualPixel liveview to some extend but not enough for me to spend another 1000 bucks. Either EOS R or A7M3 will be my next depending on earlier rebates. My 6D is already worn out with loosened dials. It's also reaching 190k images.
I didn't ever had a 1D or similar so I'm missing this experience. Looking back to the D60 I really enjoyed the times with it. I was clubbing like there's no tomorrow often as a photographer I got admission and drinks for free, always dead center of where's a lot of fun, sometimes with drinks spilled over the gear. The slow af could be worked around to some extend with an attached speedlite that I always had on the camera for it's af assist light, even when not firing. A friend got my stuff for free to do his first steps in photography and still he uses it every other occasion. The camera was really annoying and all to the good are beautified memories ;)
>>
>>3389896
I think I'd mostly be using primes in controlled settings for car editorial or portrait work. I may from time to time use a wide zoom for car shows but sharpness and detail is less important to me there. I've heard that the 14-24 Nikon is out of this world for quality across the board in terms of sharpness and dispersion so I was kind of leaning that way. Also because I've been seeing that the D850 is far and away the best DSLR out and Canon has no body that really competes. Thoughts?
>>
>>3389899
Doesn't Nikon still shit on Canon for dynamic range though?
>>
>>3387417
if you want more features get the d7x00 series, if you want better quality get a full frame. Main reason for me to upgrade to d7100 was AF fine tune. Such sharp images.
>>
>>3387371
I shoot an 11 yr old d200 every day. With proper technique and good light nobody is the wiser. Camera literally means nothing. Your eyes are what matter.
>>
>>3390018
LOL shut the fuck up
>>
>>3390018
They do and they're leading in this regard on dslr cameras. I like to keep my Canon lenses which is the reason why Nikon dslr never were options for me and why only mirrorless allow to change branfs for the camera. Extracting both image sides from the dualpixel raw files for hdr, Canon is pretty much at par with the best cameras as this gains another ev.
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R,Nikon%20Z%206,Nikon%20Z%207,Sony%20ILCE-7M3

Still Sony, Nikon, Pentax etc are ahead in iso invariance
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R,Nikon%20Z%206,Nikon%20Z%207,Sony%20ILCE-7M3
>>
>>3390137
???

>>3390152
I see, thanks for the detail.
>>
>>3389957
I wish they'd remake the 50mm f/1.4 to the build quality standards of the other USM primes.
>>
>>3390016
Get the 11-24mm f/4
>>
>>3390222
Why is that?
>>
>>3390221
Agreed. I recently broke my 50/1.4 and ended up replacing it with the 50/1.8 STM just because there wasn’t anything significantly better. What I’d really like is a 50/1.4 IS.
>>
>>3390222
That lens is dog shit though. Also, anon said he wanted to do car meets so he might need the 2.8 for night shots.
>>
>>3390016

Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC
>>
>>3390460
>lens is dogshit
Why
>>
>>3390482
Every picture looks like it's covered in a thin layer of vasoline and can't get fast enough for night shooting.
>>
Ok bros. 5DiV, 5DSR, D850. Which system do I go with. Needs to be rugged and have sharp lenses available.
>>
>>3390490
Both are rugged an have sharp lenses. Nikon has better dynamic range and ISO performance especially over 5DSR, Canon has more lenses/some more affordable quality lenses.
>>
I see, how about auto focus? I won't be able to go out and test these because no one within 500 miles sells these cameras. A friend of mine said the 5d2 was the best camera he ever owned but my old man says Nikon makes the best camera and he's had his F for longer than I can remember. So I'm really torn between their advice.
>>
>>3390488
>Every picture looks like it's covered in a thin layer of vasoline

Broofs?
>>
>>3390468
Better hope he never tries to adapt to the Z mount
>>
>>3390448
Did you knock it into something?
They made it cheap for the time when it was people's first prime/decent lens for their 35mm.
The only problem is it's not the 1990's anymore.
>>
>>3390515
>>3390491
Forgot link
>>
>>3390515
>Comparing what someone has to say about a camera released in 1959 to that of one released in 2007

Your father is right about vintage Nikon being the premier system, but that was over 30 years ago.
>>
>>3390542
So the canon is better overall?
>>
>>3390551

Unlike most /p/tards I've actually shot the flagship models from both systems and own one currently.

Canon is a nice system if you want maximum lens compatibility from 1987 onward. Almost every single EOS EF mount lens ever made works. You can take the 70-210 f4 Poor Man's L from 1987, push-pull motion and impaled screeching rabbit AF and all, and mount it to whatever the most expensive and newest Canon FF offering is right now, and it will 100 percent work. A lot of those old EOS lenses have identical optics to their FD-mount counterparts from 10 years prior.

With Nikon, unless you have the Df, it's another story. Their lens compatibility is all over the place, you can use these lenses from this generation except for this one, or you can use these lenses on every camera body except for this one, which defeats the purpose of retaining the same lens mount since Khrushchev was in power.

Thing is, with modern cameras, gone are the days where the succeeding generation of camera was a significant increase over the previous one. I bet at 100 ISO you can't tell the difference between a 5D4 and a Nikon D850. Even the cheap models net good results these days.

Buy the camera that works for you, if you have the money for a D850 or something of that echelon, sensor performance between models will be negligible. Buy the camera that feels best in your hands, and works with the lenses you want. I bought a Df, because I wanted actual 1959 lens compatibility and I like old Nikkor single-coat optics. And the physical dials on top like on an old FE really did it for me, but it may not do it for you. Maybe you'll like how the Canon feels in your hands, or maybe you'll like how the Nikon menus are laid out.

Go to your local camera shop, get your hands on one and figure out what it is you want. You can jerk off to specs and MTF charts all day but if the camera isn't comfortable to use and it doesn't do what you want it to do, then you just wasted your money.
>>
>>3390559

Don't buy a camera because /p/ said it was good, buy a camera because it's what feels right in your hands. A comfortable photographer is a confident and competent photographer.

I am comfortable with old shit. It feels right in my hands and my brain just goes to where the dials are without thinking about it. I can change settings on my Df just feeling the clicks in my fingers instead of digging through menus and shit.

Get what works for you.

>>3390542

>Nikon
>Not vastly superior Minolta

Pros shot Nikon 30 years ago because they were bulletproof, literally. Minolta had far better optics. I loved my old SRT-101 and XD.
>>
File: IMG_0072.jpg (2.59 MB, 2592x1944)
2.59 MB
2.59 MB JPG
>>3390559
>You can take the 70-210 f4 Poor Man's L from 1987, push-pull motion and impaled screeching rabbit AF and all, and mount it to whatever the most expensive and newest Canon FF offering is right now, and it will 100 percent work.

Yes

>>3390562
>Not vastly superior Minolta

I don't know about their optics, but they had some shitty mechanics.
I also think every Canon lens will work with every Canon body. The only incompatibility I know of is with the MkIII extenders and the oldest 35mm bodies.

>>3390551
>So the canon is better overall?

I'd say so; but Sugarbear is right, it's what YOU like that's "best."
Canon's do have objectively better build quality though.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon PowerShot G10
Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.2
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Lens Size6.10 - 30.50 mm
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.00
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution180 dpi
Vertical Resolution180 dpi
Image Created2018:11:14 03:55:35
Exposure Time1/13 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/3.2
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length8.90 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2592
Image Height1944
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessNormal
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeUnknown
Focus ModeSingle
Drive ModeSingle
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingSuperfine
Macro ModeNormal
Subject Distance0.440 m
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed224
Image Number117-0072
>>
>>3389882
I have a 60D too and it's generally okay except for the AF which is terrible.
Is any sub-500 new camera better than the 60D? It's over 8 years old now
>>
>>3391631
I hate crop bodies because of their viewfinders.
>>
>>3387503

My dark-skinned-person. How's the EM10 treating you? I got the mk3 for 300€ when I traded in my broken D90 + 35mm f1.8

Loving it so far.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.