>>4299018
The ricoh GR is what fuji promises and fails to deliver

Actually using a fuji is like using the crippled bastard child of a sony and a nikon df

>>4299025
I have a feeling I'm going to miss the viewfinder a lot. I've loved Fuji for years after using lots of brands.
I am thinking of getting a backup DSLR for more serious shooting. Maybe a Pentax.

>>4299031
I had a Fuji xt10 way back in 2016. Nice starter camera, decent glass but it still didn't have that dynamic portability of a gr. I'm seriously thinking of pulling the trigger on one, Ricoh do however come across as clowns however.

>>4299018
Makes a nice secondary camera complementing your primary camera. Don't sell it unless you need the money.

File: 20240207_200921.jpg (2.24 MB, 4000x3000)

2.24 MB JPG

>>4299082
Will see hiw I get on. That's why I'm thinking of getting a 6D and a nifty fifty as well to scratch the viewfinder and shallow DoF itch I sometimes get.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	Galaxy S23 Ultra
Camera Software	S918BXXS3BWL3
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	23 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:02:07 20:09:22
Exposure Time	1/17 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	6.30 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.8
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	EK0XLPE00VM

>>4299084
Get the 6dii instead, its much better, basically a modern mirrorless in terms of tech and IQ but with more SOVL over chart-friendly sterility.

Dont forget to get at least one of the 2 best lenses ever made, the tamron 35mm f1.4 di usd and the ef l 16-35 f4 l is usm.

If I'm interested in the Sigma 70mm macro art lens, would it be smart to buy it in EF format and adapt it to a mirrorless or should I just go straight mirrorless mount?

My idea is I know some people with canon bodies so it would be nice to not have one restricted solely to my mirrorless mount, and EF can be adapted. Seeing as they're the same lens with a different mount I assume quality would be identical?
What would I stand to lose with going with an adapted versatile setup? Other than the obvious, which would be a slight size increase.

>>4299025
This is just the most repeated lie on this board. The lens is sharper, so what. It's got no viewfinder, no flash, no dials. People buy the X100V because it's fun to use and it looks cool. The GR fails on both.

>>4299221
idk, I think the x100 series is pretty ugly as far as rangefinders go. Like a cheap knockoff of something beautiful like a Leica. I’m not even a Fujifilm hater. Love their lenses and retro dial interchangeable bodies.

>>4299221
All of the things you've mentioned are of no use if you can't fit the camera in your pocket and leave it at home.

>>4299227
Moot point. You want to wear it around your neck because it looks cool.

>>4299221
Agreed. The GR looks like a point & shoot from the 2000s. And unlike Fuji, Ricoh never bothered to improve it significantly.

>>4299232
Tbf, the GR's look makes it quite unintimidating for street. Not sure any small camera looks that nice and I'm not LARPing as a film shooter.

>>4299174
From what I could find the only limitation to using EF lenses adapted to an RF body is a reduction in continuous burst rate, although this was only mentioned for one particular body so may not apply to all of them.

Regarding the size difference, the native lens and the EF lens + adapter should actually be about the same size. However, if you ended up going with some more EF lenses you would actually have a slight advantage because you'd leave the adapter on the body and then just have shorter lenses to store. This is assuming you were using lenses that had identical RF mount versions, there are of course smaller mirrorless only lenses.

Also you've got the additional cost of getting the adapter, potentially offset by having more and cheaper used EF lenses to choose from.

>>4299245
Yeah I guess the EF lens minus the adapter (left on body) would be smaller than storing a mirrorless equivalent, if they're a multi-mount lens. That's a good point.
In reality I'll probably be looking at a max of 3 lenses though and space probably won't matter too much to me. I intend to use a macro for more clinical shots (copy stand, etc) and use a zoomer for casual/everyday use, maybe a third being a quality prime at a focal length I like if it's compact but I also might use my macro for that if I find the focal length workable.

I'm willing to eat the cost of the adapter and not even think about it, so long as I don't lose functionality.
Losing some burst potential doesn't seem to bother me but I'll have to see if third party lenses would have issues before I commit to buying anything.

It's such a weird time to be buying camera stuff now that DSLRs are abandoned platforms, and it's only made worse due to the fact that the big camera manufacturers didn't settle on a standard lens mount like micro four thirds did.. that would have been truly amazing if the mirrorless full frame future didn't have proprietary mounts.

>>4299442
From what I could find the EF to RF adapter is simply a passive rerouting of the contacts, there's no circuitry doing computational magic, so third party lenses should behave just as they would if they were on an EF body. The only difference and I believe how the body would tell it's an adapted lens and not a native RF one is that RF lenses have extra contacts which allows them to have stuff like the customisable control ring.

It truly is a shame that there's not a full frame 4/3 equivalent mount, but also to be expected when it's Canon, Nikon, and Sony that are leading the game. The good thing with Sony (what I went for) is that it can use all of the modern AF DSLR mounts with pretty much full functionality (some limits to burst speed and the more complex AF tracking in some cases). I know Nikon Z bodies can use F mount lenses and of course Canon RF can use EF but I haven't looked into whether they can use other brand mounts (with full electrical functionality). Also theoretically Nikon Z should be able to use Sony FE lenses because it's larger in diameter and shorter in flange distance but I don't know if that's actually a thing.

>>4299443
Etz21 pro exists
Also fringer ef-z and 3 m-z af adapters

>>4299445
>Etz21 pro
Neat. Kinda sucks that you need to turn off the body to switch lenses and there is somehow power draw when the adapter is mounted but the body turned off. I've got a monster adapter arriving soon for my LA-EA4 for which they advise to unmount the adapter before changing the lens, but fortunately I only have one lens I'm using with it.

>3 m-z af adapters
What mount is that? The only M mount I know of is Leica, unless you mean EF-M but no one cares about that shit especially not enough to make 3 adapters for it.

>>4299456
>he doesnt know about the autofocus leica M adapters

>>4299461
I know of the ones that are essentially variable extension tubes/ mini bellows that move the whole lens backwards and forwards, although I've only seen them for FE I think. That's not really the same thing though, it's essentially just functioning as a third party AF lens, not controlling the AF and aperture of a lens from an entirely different mount that has circuitry inside.

File: 03d2ef586b705435a94deb8fb(...).jpg (28 KB, 680x383)

28 KB JPG

>miny micro ILC
>originally advertised with 4/3 sensor, now uses Sony IMX117, 10 year old model used in GoPro
>$240 minimum (that's $40 for a crappy selfie tripod stick)
>Manual focus only
Do want

>>4299554
Wish it was mft for the lenses. 5.8x crop factor is rough... It's cute though. Maybe acceptable for video?

>>4299174
>I know some people with canon bodies
How is this relevant?

>>4299584
Yeah that might sound totally irrelevant to a stranger.
I guess I wasn't clear.

What I meant to say was that I have some friends/family who own Canon DSLRs. The idea is that I'd be able to lend a friend a lens if we shared lens mounts. This could add a little extra value to the purchase compared to getting one only compatible with a different mount.

>>4299221
>It's got no viewfinder, no flash, no dials
It is a homosexual's camera, twisted by corporatism and marketing into a crude mockery of photography’s perfection.

>>4299588
What mirrorless mount were you considering getting it in?

>>4299594
can someone with less of a life get on irc and tell the mods cANON is ban evading im too busy working extra shifts at best buy so i can buy a haselblyat

>>4299595
Nikon Z, if it ever became available before I buy.
Possibly Sony E instead if I find a body I like. Not locked into Nikon yet so still have options, but from what I read it seems like Nikon has the best lens mount for quality glass out of the three big brands. Sony's mount is apparently an open standard or something though so maybe that's the system to buy into if I wanna use 3rd party lenses.

>>4299604
It's worth noting that Sony has like 10 years worth of full frame mirrorless lenses (first and third party), not only does that mean you have a lot of different options (DPReview isn't 100% accurate but they list 135 for FE and 56 for Z) but also a much bigger second hand market. You also have like another 150 A mount lenses if you're fine with some of them being slower screw drive.

Of course each mount has specific unique lenses that can sway you in their direction too. For example Nikon has the newly announced 28-400, the Noct, and I think some fairly small and light teles. Canon also has some really compact and light teles (primes and zooms), super teles costing tens of thousands.

>>4299613
Once global e-shutters become normalized/better, do you ever think we'll see manufacturers create new mounts/systems for mirrorless+shutterless bodies or is the current crop expected to last Forever™?

I saw a vid with Nikon saying they could make an f0.95 lens but didn't know they already made it, that seems cool but is way too expensive for me same with the 10K+ canons.

>>4299604
>it seems like Nikon has the best lens mount for quality glass
Are you talking about existing lenses or the geometry of the Z mount itself?

>>4299618
>we'll see manufacturers create new mounts/systems for mirrorless+shutterless bodies
Why?

>>4299618
I don't see why being shutterless would warrant a new mount. It would take a pretty big innovation to require a change, maybe some new type of stabilisation or gimbal system. Or actually decent lightfield tech, wouldn't exactly require a new mount but they'd want one to ensure that people don't go using the wrong lenses. And of course there could be a format size change, like if Canon/Nikon/Sony decided to try medium format.

>>4299595
Whats the least homosecual pocketable camera? I need to attract women.

>>4299619
The lens mount dimensions, I'm not sure what to think of the current affordable lenses for Z.
The 24-200mm zoom seems a bit unimpressive but then again maybe my expectations were too high.

I downloaded some RAWs from a review on it and found lots of chromatic abberation/fringing near the edges at the widest and longest focal length that aren't fully correctable with the lens profile. It does seem good in the middle lengths but is far from perfect.
https://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/z-24-200mm-f4-6.3-vr-nikkor/review/

>>4299620
Supposedly the flange back distance could be even shorter if they were able to commit to having no mech shutter, part of Z mount was making thinner shutters than F but I don't know how much they matter in total. I just assumed this might be one of the last tricks up their sleeves to re-re-remodel their lens mount/system and make everyone buy new glass over in the future or something.

I was thinking, if they changes a few things, with no shutter inbetween what'd actually stop them from something much shorter like a 1-5mm FBD? I don't know enough but the thought of NOTHING left being mechanical in between the lens and the sensor would really free things up for further shrinking. If giving up the mirror was huge, wouldn't going further also have gains?

>>4299622
It by itself wouldn't, but in 10-20 years or 15 maybe they (big camera trio, not just Nikon) might convince people that another swap and giving up mech shutters is worth another change. Whenever this shit changes people inevitably buy new lenses and stuff so there's some incentive for them to string people along on an endless mount swap cycle. At least to some extent, it's obviously not something they'd wanna do too often.

>>4299623
Sigma DP3 Merrill

>>4299624
>The lens mount dimensions
Mount geometry shouldn't factor into your decision.

>Supposedly the flange back distance could be even shorter if they were able to commit to having no mech shutter
It could, but it'd only be a difference of a couple millimetres.

>wouldn't going further also have gains?
No, they can stick the rear elements as far into the mount as they want to.
The reason the reflex mirror was a design obstacle was that, no matter the focal length, the rear element had to provide over an inch of clearance, necessitating retro-focal optical formulas for every normal and wide angle lens.

>there's some incentive for them to string people along
The only company that's "stringing people along" is Nikon due to the lack of autofocus for AF and AF-D lenses.
Everyone else provides fully functional adapters.

>>4299644
Nobody important uses af-d lenses

Just poor eastern yuro hobbyists

>>4299669
Even fewer people used screw driven A mount lenses, but Sony still supported them.

>>4299674
The FD mount abandonment was the worst. All they had to do was make EF bigger and shorter. Or just add electronics to FD.

while I'll never use a camera made for woman hands, no viewfinder argument is silly. Do you guys not have phones?

>>4299677
>All they had to do was make EF bigger and shorter
And what?
Fuck around with stop down metering?

>>4299678
Screens suck in bright light

How do I stop consooming vintage gear?

I find myself constantly on e-bay looking at lenses I don't really need.

>>4299688
Tell your mom to stop giving you pocket money.

>>4299688
Why stop it?

If you enjoy consuming cool items as a hobby that's fine. At least until you run out of space for them.

File: FE8373BE-860D-4E5E-B79E-0(...).jpg (68 KB, 1080x565)

68 KB JPG

>mid 2010s or later DSLR/mirrorless
>f/2.8 normal zoom
>telezoom with IS
>fast 50 mm
>tripod
>flash
>ND-8
>ND-1000
>polarised filter
>spare batteries
>camera backpack
Do you actualy need more?

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

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

>>4299742

Yeah, space is being the issue, I'm an eastern euro that lives west in employment agency housing, don't wanna have a whole ass suitcase of lenses when I inevitably move, but on the other hand... I would love to build a contax zeiss f1.4 set.

File: E58AFC26-1AF3-4473-991B-2(...).jpg (4.67 MB, 5897x3317)

4.67 MB JPG

Really liking the GRiiiX. It's nice not to have a kilogram weight around your neck and it's very pocketable in a jacket. Don't think I'd ever put it into a jeans pocket though as it's too thick.
Lens is sharp and I like the colours. The menus are pretty shit though and I don't really understand the saving of custom modes yet...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	RICOH GR IIIx
Camera Software	RICOH GR IIIx Ver. 1.31
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:31 11:41:33
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	26.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4299777
Why would you carrry your camera in a backpack? You get it out every time you want to take a shot?

>>4299793
Is the 40mm not too tight and niche?

File: 3693B946-DD73-435D-A80A-B(...).jpg (2.87 MB, 3526x4408)

2.87 MB JPG

>>4299798
Works for me as I'm mainly used to 40mm and 50mm and generaly don't like any wider than 35mm.
I do have to be quite careful with framing which isn't great with a screen instead of a VF but I'm already getting better.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	RICOH GR IIIx
Camera Software	RICOH GR IIIx Ver. 1.31
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:31 11:38:48
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	26.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

Is full frame actually worth it if I am an IQ faggot, not a bokeh faggot?
I ask because outside of meme wide angles or bokeh, it seems like lenses always perform much better in their center and APS-C seems to focus on that, and surprisingly APS-C cameras tend to have higher pixel densities than full frame bodies. For example 18MP APS-C is way more photosites per mm than 24MP full frame, so, outside of low light performance and noise, is APS-C technically the right choice for someone simply interested in sharp images?
Like I said, I may be a faggot, but I'm not an "art" fag.
The more "sterile" or "clinical" my photos the better, it's all that I want.
I don't "sharpen" my images so I want them sharp as can be without editing.

I'm shooting a friend's informal wedding and I have a 6D and a 50mm. What would be a good zoom (~28-70mm or similar) that has IS? Something cheap please.

>>4299798
It's like your asshole, just wide enough to have broad appeal.

File: Screenshot 2024-01-19 at (...).jpg (694 KB, 3012x1368)

694 KB JPG

>>4299801
No. Go APSC if the reduced size will benefit you.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3012
Image Height	1368
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4299803
Yeah, your mother's tongue fits quite well come to think of it. Send that rimming whore my kind regards.

>>4299804
So if I were to use the same lens for film scanning, 24MP full frame (using entire image) would look better than 24MP APS-C (using crop, framed with camera further back to get equivalent framing for crop)?

>>4299624
>The 24-200mm zoom seems a bit unimpressive but then again maybe my expectations were too high.
I'm doing my best to be polite here: do you know of any other lens capable of such a range of focal lenghts for full frame sensors? Crop sensors don't apply here

>>4299806
I'd say the lens is more important in this case and I don't know what's ideal for film scanning. >>4299804 shows the S5ii with the Pana 50mm 1.8 on the left and right is Fuji X-T4 with the 35mm 1.4.

>>4299805
Your hole's too loose for a woman's tongue.

>>4299804
I didn't know what camera took the right image, but the pixels are raped compared to the left one. The latter's got just molested.
And wouldn't you know the shittier one came from the X-troon camera!

>>4299807
Nope.
I realize it's a super versatile zoom and offers a lot, but with people raving about Z glass quality in videos/reviews idk I just expected a bit better performance.

Viewing it raw uncorrected, applying corrections, and seeing the results (outside of some overbaked Adobe preset shit) has made me reconsider getting it. I saw it and thought it would be a dream but that's what I guess it was. A dream. 24-200 in one small lens is still pretty damn tempting for the convenience alone but I think I'd be happier swapping lenses and getting higher quality than relying on the convenience. It's not a very expensive lens (or big) though so I guess it's as good as it gets for now. I see the 24-120mm and 70-200mm are both considerably more expensive so when I was viewing it originally I guess I didn't really pay attention to the fact that it was a more "low budget" lens.
I probably expected too much from a zoom in general, let alone such a versatile one.

>>4299804
Smol size would be cool but still quality is my focus, if bigger heavier gear is "worth its weight" I'd be happy to carry it.
>>4299809
>I'd say the lens is more important in this case and I don't know what's ideal for film scanning.
Yeah I guess lens would matter, but in theory it sounds like with a perfect lens that APS-C could actually have an advantage and not just be cheap sensorlet copium. Maybe diffraction takes a toll and that's what makes FF better but idk enough.
>shows the S5ii with the Pana 50mm 1.8 on the left and right is Fuji X-T4 with the 35mm 1.4.
These are both really ugly looking and processed so differently, are these SOOC JPEGs or something?
They actually look upscaled too. Idk what happened here but maybe it's a result of how you put them side-by-side.

>>4299816
>>4299820
They are both jpegs and possibly more than 100% crop. Not very scientific but I was just comparing.

>>4299818
> 24-200 in one small lens is still pretty damn tempting for the convenience alone but I think I'd be happier swapping lenses and getting higher quality than relying on the convenience. It's not a very expensive lens (or big) though so I guess it's as good as it gets for now. I see the 24-120mm and 70-200mm are both considerably more expensive so when I was viewing it originally I guess I didn't really pay attention to the fact that it was a more "low budget" lens.
>I probably expected too much from a zoom in general, let alone such a versatile one.
Yeah, you can't have zoom + compact + correct optics at the entire range of the lens + be affordable at the safe. Anyone preaching such a thing is either a baffoon or intentionally lying (influencer shittubers twisting the truth for money are everywhere)

>>4299821
useless comparison then. we all know x-troon is shit but that is casting it a worse light than needed

>>4299801
A higher pixel density isn't a good thing, it requires a better lens to resolve that detail. Or sometimes stopping down will give you enough sharpness, in which case you're then having to raise your ISO to compensate and even further increasing the noise compared to using FF. Even a 42mp FF sensor is only equivalent in density to like an 18mp APS-C sensor, 60mp is the same as about 27mp, and there are APS-C bodies above 30mp now. That's asking a lot from a lens.

>>4299825
x-troon sensors are objectively trash
but, if they have enough megapixels, the issues go away - COMPLETELY
with an x-troon 6000x4000 image you just tell the tranny it will never be high megapixel and downsize it in a 3x3 grid, then all the issues with the 3x3 color filter arrangement vanish
you lose sensor res
but it does whatever it can do with its copium to avoid moire.. and then you sample it down to remove ITS OWN artifact/patterns from your images and everything's fine

doing the same to bayer only requires downsizing by 2x2 since it's a 2x2 pattern though but let's not act like bayer is perfect either, it just is less of a problem than fuji's trannies nobody asked for
if fuji actually did something legit like a 3x3 with raw luminance and multiple different color filters for better color and optionally UV/IR that would be fucking EPIC and worth the tradeoff but going to a 3x3.. and still just being basic bitch RGB.. with no real advantages was honestly fucking retarded
you lose more with tranny than you ever did with bayer+lowpass
and now cameras are high res enough that lowpass is not even used on many bayers and aliasing isn't a problem
so fuji tranny is like a dingleberry that hasn't been dealt with

fuji
if you're reading this
please go back to bayer or do something actually good
stop fucking around

>>4299802
Rockwell's favourite:
https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/28-135mm.htm

>>4299828
I read two lines of your post and it reads like smartphone sensor cope. Congratulations, or sorry that it happened idk

>>4299794
Gotta get it to wherever I want to take pics, plus the additional gear beyond body + mounted lens

File: 240331143.jpg (1.19 MB, 2000x3000)

1.19 MB JPG

>>4299801
Lens, shooting technique, and processing all matter more than sensor size alone imo. FF just has most of the best options for lenses. You're right that the center of lenses tend to better, but that increase in pixel density also demands more of a lens, and one could argue that makes FF better as it's "less demanding" on the center of a lens. Either way, it still boils down to the lens itself. I've posted a few a/b tests here between aps-c/ff/gfx in the past, and still really came down to the lenses.

Foveon, monochrome, or pixel-shift if you want the best pixel level detail, but they all have their own limitations. Picrel has a 200% crop, all sharpening to 0. Honestly, AI sharpening/enlarging is worth looking into too.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1500
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:31 07:58:41
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	3000

>>4299842
NTA but 'AI <anything>' turns your image into a slurry of shit, simply. 'AI' as an acronys purely means 'consumer goyslop', even when the underlying technology, neural networks, isn't inherently bad, and can yield great results when used by an expert that is aware of its limitations.
For example, Photoshop's AI denoise is as flawed as non-local means denoising, if not more. Nothing will get that non-existent detail in your 1024000ISO picture back and AI will only make shit up by its own asscrafted interpretation from its trained data. You'll only going to make it smudged and unpleasant to everything but Instagram-sized posts. Learn to take photographs properly, mitigate the need for convoluted post-processing whenever possible, and embrace the uncorrectable artifacts when they do happen instead of thowing everything into the pixel blending machine.

>>4299842
I used AI sharpening and NR
Once

Never again. On dog pictures it's super shit like deep frying it ken rockwell style, on person pictures you better do it after frequency separation to clean up the skin, that you probably wouldn't have to do if you werent going to use AIslop

Minimally processed is best, ideally no processing. FF foveon when?

File: topaz.jpg (2.14 MB, 2747x982)

2.14 MB JPG

>>4299875
>>4299867
To each their own, I've found it pretty good for my needs.

File: 100percentcrop.jpg (228 KB, 1079x721)

228 KB JPG

>>4299883
and for people

>>4299883
>meant to increase definition while pixel peeping slightly
>actually looks like a severely autistic man took a month out of his life went over it with the 1px line tool in MS paint
not worth the cpu time desu
>it even has worms
in the future people will doubt that sharp noiseless photos are real. gon buy me a 5diii for that day. eeyup.

actually i might just buy a 5diii for everything, image quality is a perpetual disappointment

>>4299887
what camera do you use now?

>>4299895
z8
>the low dr-
a7rv and z7ii iq is also a disappointment and a d850 was never enough either

everything between a 5diii and 53.4x30 mf is in the scam zone

>>4299899
that's neat, can we see some examples of how bad the ai sharpening with it was?

>>4299905
I deleted the tests and uninstalled dxo instead of keeping a cringe shrine, sorry bud. But it looked as bad and fake as yours.

>>4299884
Soul vs soulless

>>4299884
>>4299907
>Soul vs soulless
left looks like a moody print ad
right looks like wedding photography

File: vince.png (587 KB, 889x749)

587 KB PNG

What are the best Z lenses available?
I have the 85mm f1.8 S because people have said it is Nikons most sharp lens, and I also have the 40mm f2 as a light weight walking around prime.
What other primes punch above their weight class? I'd hate to buy a 50 to find out it's not better than my 40, or buy the 20 when it turns out the 24 is better in every way.
Does anyone have opinions on their 28mm f2?

>>4299907
how about some z8 photos that show off how sharp and unnecessary ai is?

>>4299910
>right looks like wedding photography
Yeah. Clinical. Corporate.
>but the-the-the sharpness

>>4299908
Don't even worry about it, sharpness is a meme

>>4299018
Got one from a sale as well. Hoping it's better than whatever canons I have laying around. Then again the canon sensors are something like 1/2.5". Whatever goes as long as its actually pocketable (fujifags could never)

hey guys i ordered something online What Am I In For lol should i post a thread

File: optio.jpg (310 KB, 1600x1200)

310 KB JPG

my little pentax digicam is falling apart and the battery seems to be leaking. i love how light and tiny it is (3.25x2") and i like that it has an ovf. what i didn't like is that it's 35mm equiv on the wide end and i'd really prefer 28mm. in fact my ideal pocket camera would be 28mm equivalent prime in this form factor, with the bonus features like ovf and flash intact. anyone know of anything like that in this size class? ccd and raw would be awesome too but not necessary. it seems like most super compact cameras of comparable size were 35mm equiv on the wide end. i'm thinking about just defaulting to the tried and true canon s95, tho it is a good bit larger and has a slower flash, no ovf, etc. i could also make the leap to an rx100, but at that point i lose the carefree deployment of being able to wear it around my neck anywhere, put it in literally any pocket, and toss it into the bottom of my bag

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.36
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	51 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:01 02:01:21
Exposure Time	1 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-5.9 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	65.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1200
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	Blur Warning
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Manual
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

I'm gonna do it bros, I'm gonna pull the trigger on the griii.

>Tfw the dust must flow

>>4300091
look into gr digital series maybe, they made 4 versions of them. Not the gr, the gr digital.

>>4299875
Agree.
The workflow for processing a RAW should be as follows.
Disable transgender shit like "RAW Denoise", "RAW Sharpen", "Sharpen", "Local Contrast", "___ Curve", "Clarity", "Dehaze", "Saturation", "Vibrance", or anything else that's standard kit for an Adobe troon.

If your photo doesn't look good processed in Darktable with nothing more than the following modules and settings used, your photo was boring.


>input color profile
Standard/embedded color matrix
>exposure
Adjust EV value to get image brightness to desired level, ETTR in post, basically.
>orientation
Rotate 90/180/270
>rotate and perspective
If you fucked up and have an uneven horizon, you can fix it with this but it isn't lossless. Don't rotate unless necessary.
>lens correction
If your lens has offensive levels of distortion or problems in other areas that detract from the visual appeal of the image, enable these. These are lossy but worth it for big flaws.
>demosaic
for B&W, use passthrough
for color, PPG or AMaZE work but demosaicing is a cope so don't pay too much attention. If Moire is showing up, MOIRE IS CREATED BY DEMOSAICING, so switch the options until it is minimized (depends on scene, no one size fits all here)
>highlight reconstruction
This actually isn't a copium editfag thing like some might think, the raw photosite exposure values hold information regarding highlight details that get clipped as part of amplifying color channels as part of white balance. For this, "Reconstruct in lch" or "clip highlights" is the most accurate non-post-process fag option, but sometimes "inpaint opposed" can look decent
>white balance
This one is self explanatory.

If you have ANYTHING else enabled you're post-processing your shit, and entering Rockwell territory.
>"but without curve edits m-m-muh M-MUH IMAGE LOOKS FLAT!!"
That's a (You) problem, not all scenes have contrasty highlights vs shadows, change your lighting (adjust scene or wait for sun/weather/cloud coverage to change) to fix this.

>>4300101
can we see some images you've done with this technique?

File: trailmixed.jpg (809 KB, 2250x750)

809 KB JPG

>>4300136
You can view this comparison of the pass-through demosaic with non-WB'd B&W, an AMaZE demosaic with white balancing, and a default camera JPEG.
The default JPEG might catch your eye but it's not a contrasty scene, so the flat appearance is expected. The actual color of the candies and everything in real life is nowhere near as saturated as the camera JPEG on the right but that is what people (and normal presets) are used to.

If you photograph something and print it out it should at least resemble what the thing looks like viewed side-by-side in real life to some degree. Most photographers have strayed from that concept, but that's why they keep coining new BS terms like "crunch" or "smeary" or "over sharpened" every few years as trendy post-processing meta change.
If they stopped fucking around and baking their files, they'd stop thinking digital is "too sharp" or that it somehow "emphasises pores" or something, it doesn't, that's literally all the result of highpass filters and unsharp masking highlighting such things, not anything related to the equipment or even photography. Just editing.

File: om-chad.jpg (331 KB, 1242x1394)

331 KB JPG

>>4300101
>tldr but lots of quoted words, line spaces, and all caps so probably a tranny or very ugly autistic woman
My workflow:
I shoot film it looks pretty
I open .nef in capture one and it looks pretty
Simple as
-Sent from my Nikon Z7II and 24-120 f/4 S

>>4300094
I wouldn’t say that the grd fit his requirement of being able to toss it around, they sell pretty pricey for what they are due to the gr “reputation”

>>4300158
so is this the type of image you print out? i meant more like actual pictures that you processed
why even compare to a default camera jpg? i meant more like default raw vs processed raw

>>4299018
>>4299018
That would be a stupid mive. The GR is a fucking Sensor-dust magnet, that you can't simply clean. Makes images unusable at f11-f16 where you would use it most for street photography. The XT4 is a great camera. Get a 23/D2 WR and you are good to go.

>>4300219
i wouldnt touch fuji with a 10 foot pole. the om-5 is everything fuji promised and never delivered. same image quality too.

Can anyone recommend a flash for indoor photography that can aim up? It's to be used on my 6D and I've never owned a flash before.
I just want it as cheap as possible.

>>4300514
Godox tt350

Can anyone recommend a simple and light tripod/monopod for use while hiking?

Don't need anything fancy, just has to be light and hard to break, at the minute I brace the camera against my backpack or use my hiking poles as a bipod but its not a great solution

>>4300515
Seems cheap enough. Thanks.

>>4300519
Why do you need a tripod?

>>4300531
Trying to hold a telephoto on small birds in high winds is hard free hand

>>4300536
Ah shit sorry, I assumed you were doing landscapes.
Sorry I know very little about tripods.

>>4300515
>>4300521
That's what I went with. It's small and light. It's nice that it uses just two batteries so you don't need to find four charged ones, just bear in mind that you'll be swapping them out twice as often compared to a bigger flash.

File: IMG_20240403_123948.jpg (1.07 MB, 1880x1880)

1.07 MB JPG

Trying to attach an eye piece to my cameras viewfinder so it frees up the hot shoe slot.

How do i attach silicone to rubber without leaving permanent residue?
Don't want to leave marks or residue on camera for resale value.
The eye piece also gets knocked around a lot and is quite flexible so needs to be a firm hold.

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

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

>>4300710
find one which replaces the eye cup like
https://it.aliexpress.com/item/1005004862432345.html?gatewayAdapt=glo2ita

>>4300713
none exist for the panasonic g85
believe me i searched long and hard, this was the only one i could find

>>4300715
then you're fucked, because it is silicone you cant glue it to anything. silicone is incredibly difficult to adhere things to, to the point where glue brushes are made out of it. you can try to buy a spare eye cup, cut that plastic ring off your shitty eye cup and epoxy it to the replacement, and then put the silicone cup on the epoxied ring

>>4300716
yeah i cut the plastic ring off from the hotshoe and just super glued it to the viewfinder
hopefully it works

File: IMG_20240402_232350908.jpg (815 KB, 2922x2922)

815 KB JPG

I don't give a fuck about vignetting. I also don't know if I could stomach a wider focal length.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	moto g power (2021)
Equipment Make	motorola
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	27 mm
Sensing Method	Not Defined
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	2922
Image Height	2922
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:04:02 23:23:54
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Height	3000
Brightness	2.5 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	83/5000 sec
Flash	Flash
F-Number	f/1.7
Image Width	4000
ISO Speed Rating	105
Focal Length	4.71 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	D65

File: IMG_20240403_172135.jpg (980 KB, 3024x4032)

980 KB JPG

>>4300716
it didn't work...

>>4299801
It depends:
>sharpness
Yes, lenses are sharper in the center than at the edge.
However a lower pixel density means that you need fewer lp/mm (lens sharpness) for the same image sharpness.
However:
>vignetting
>distortion
>chromatic abberations
They become more pronounced at the edges, and that might work against your desire to have "sterile" and "clinical" images.
However there often are corrections available to remove these flaws in post.
However there is another issue:
>depth of field
If your desire is to have everything sharp, full frame might not be what you're looking for.
To get the same depth of field as APS-C or M43 you'll need to stop the lens down further, about one stop further than APS-C and two than M43.
And stopping your lens down beyond f/8 starts affercting your sharpness due to diffraction.
So you're losing all advantages FF had.

If your goal is to archive the sharpest possible image, save the money a FF body costs and get an APS-C mirrorless with DPAF and buy a set of good prime lenses.
Primes are generaly sharper, less distorted and have less chromatic abberation than equivalent zoom lenses.
Stop them down to f/5.6 or f/8, use a tripod, use the timer so you get no shake from pressing the shutter and keep the ISO down to avoid noise (and the loss of sharpness from de-noising)

>>4300849
> If your goal is to archive the sharpest possible image, save the money a FF body costs and get an APS-C mirrorless with DPAF and buy a set of good prime lenses.
Right thats why every landscape and fashion photographer clamors for apsc and wont touch a larger sensor because you are totally right and not a babbling retard who has never actually used a camera except for the 50mm on his praktica and has never actually focused on anything further than 3m away

Please look up the hyperfocal distances of a 35mm lens at every aperture

>>4300849
>And stopping your lens down beyond f/8 starts affercting your sharpness due to diffraction
The diffraction limit is determined by pixel size, so a smaller sensor at the same resolution becomes limited sooner. So no you can't just say APS-C is going to have a larger depth of field because it has a larger depth of field at whatever aperture you decide is the maximum. For example a 24mp APS-C body is good to about f/8, f/11 for a 24mp full frame body.

>>4300850
Glass > Body
The best FF-body isn't going to be of any use with a shitty kit lens.
A good modern prime lens however is about the sharpest kind of lens you can get.
The big weakness of APS-C used to be the need for retrofocal lenses for anything shorter than about 50 mm as their lenses had to work with the flange distance of an SLR.
Since mirrorless became a thing, that's no longer the case, meaning APS-C can now use non-retrofocal lenses for normal and wide angle, wich results in better image quality.
>hyperfocal distance
There is no way to precisely determine it as it varies based on your tolerance of unsharpness and where you tolerate it more.

>>4300868
>For example a 24mp APS-C body is good to about f/8, f/11 for a 24mp full frame body.
Yes, and to archive the same depth of field, the FF needs to stop down to f/11 where as the APS-C only needs to stop down to F/8.
50 mm f/11 1/100 second ISO 400 on FF
and
32 mm f/7,1 1/100 second ISO 160 on APS-C
Are both identical.
The aperture in mm as well as the FOV as well as the SNR are all identical.
Diffraction is affecting both of them at the exact same rate due to the aperture having the exact same diameter.
And stopped down that much, both lenses become diffraction limited, resulting in the exact same sharpness.

File: smc_Pentax-DA_18-_55_3_5-(...).jpg (88 KB, 560x659)

88 KB JPG

If you could have one lens custom-made for you with the specs of your choice (within physical limits of course), what would it be like?
Mine would be an improved version of the 18-55 kit lens, but with constant f/4, better manufacturing quality control (fewer decentered copies) and with the same weight

how do i get my modern mft camera to look like my old nikon d80 in post? what defines the look of these cameras? i'm very nostalgic for that look when i used that body in high school but not so good at editing

>>4300869
Full frame, with it's larger pixels at the same resolution, is less demanding on the lens. So yeah a shitty kit lens can get you better results than a shitty kit lens on an APS-C or smaller body. Same goes for using older lenses designed for film, not only do you get the intended field of view you also won't be as disappointed in their sharpness.

>>4300874
Exactly, they're pretty much the same if you're trying to maximise depth of field. In that case there isn't an advantage to full frame (meaning just in terms of depth of field, there are other advantages) but it's no worse either.
>If your desire is to have everything sharp, full frame might not be what you're looking for.
That's what I'm arguing against

I want a copy stand but plan to use it for some bigger subjects, none of the ones I'm looking at seem to have "tube or line" lights that span the whole length of the plate.. isn't this bad design?
Won't smaller rectangles (like a 6x9") cause hotspots in the center on a 20" long original?
How can a 9" light source properly illuminate 20"? Can it even? Am I right to assume this is going to be a problem?

>>4300885
My point is essentialy that:
Instead of paying a higher price for a FF sensor, to spend that extra money on sharper lenses.
And primes tend to be sharper than zooms, so spending that money on a set of primes instead of the premium you'd spend on a FF body would result in sharper images.

>>4300884
Yes and no, the best sensor in the world can't make a bad lens look good.
And kit-lenses are almost universaly not the sharpest, they are meant to be cheap multi-purpose lenses.

>Crop babbies actually think this
What is pixel aperture size and diffraction? Because smaller sensors have smaller pixels this stupid crop factor DOF vs diffraction issue is a total wash. Unless you're using an FF with crop sensor pixel density (A7RIV) or ultra low density crop cameras from 2008, the crop sensor will just diffract one stop earlier to match how it reaches the same DOF one stop earlier.

The FF can also shoot at base ISO because in real life there's enough light and wiggle room with the shutter speed and even aperture (if you can control your foreground worth a fuck) to do so. For shooting birds in flight, maybe not, that's why wildlife photographers typically use APS-C/four thirds, it would be noisy as fuck either way.

Also, due to the mirror being out of the way, most kit lenses and cope zooms are sharper than your average japanese made prime lens for DSLRs (see nikkor z 24-50, 24-70 and 24-120 f4, fuji kit lens, sony 20-70 f4 and 24-50 f2.8) and only fall behind premium mirrorless and rangefinder primes typically made by zeiss. Primefagging/lens schizoing is now a total waste of time unless you shoot flat high contrast targets and nothing else. The only major difference you can see IN PRINTS is field curvature.

File: 20240403_200441.jpg (3.54 MB, 4000x3000)

3.54 MB JPG

Which to take on a week to France lads? Got a 50mm 1.8 and a 28-135mm coming for the Canon.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	Galaxy S23 Ultra
Camera Software	S918BXXU3CXCF
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	Not Defined
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	23 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:03 20:04:42
Exposure Time	2497831/62500000 sec
F-Number	f/1.7
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Brightness	-2.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	6.30 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	EK0XLPE00VM

>>4300926
Are you bringing a tripod too?

>>4300893
Crop really isn't that much cheaper than full frame these days. Say you went for an A6000 over an A7 II you save about £380, that's not a lot and spending that much more on lenses isn't going to make up for the advantage of full frame.

>>4300926
france? go with the gr if you don't want the refugees to rob and rape you carrying a fat canon

File: S52vsZ62_65.png (1.22 MB, 1117x626)

1.22 MB PNG

I'm torn between these two
which is more likely, panasonic getting better at stills or nikon getting better at video?

>>4300976
Nikon is a stills company, never video.
Just like Canon.
These two niggers of companies refuse to give their products the ability to record longer than 30 mins and Nikon is lucky to allow 2hr5min which is a meme.

If video is of any concern to you beyond casual use and if you ever need an extended recording don't bet on Nikon improving. It was never a technical issue, they gimped video deliberately. Will likely continue to do so. For literally forever, who knows.

Yes
Even the Nikon Z9 can only do 2hr5min
https://www.recordinglimits.com/
It's a total meme.
Meanwhile, most Panasonics don't have this issue.

Keep in mind this is all in an era where smartphones haven't had video recording limits for a long long time. There's no excuse to limit video length, it's all on purpose.

>>4300976
>nikon getting better at video?
they did just buy out RED

>>4300978
>Nikon is a stills company, never video.
you're retarded

>>4300978
It's usually a heat issue. Stills bodies are fairly well sealed and passively cooled. Notice how the video focussed ones from Canon and Sony have holes in and fans for active cooling, as does pretty much any professional video only body.

Other than that I see very little need to record for more than 2 hours constantly, even 30 minutes is going to be enough for the majority of people. Yes it may partly be an artificial limitation but to actually bitch about it is a bit pathetic.

>>4300976
Well nikon bought red

On the other hand “video people”s complaints have FUCK ALL to do with reality and mostly have to do with meaningless spec sheet crap that favors panasonic. Even hollywood doesnt do 2hr+ takes and these fucking retards bitch about dumb shit like that and
>BUT IS THE 4K DCI 4K!?
>LINE SKIPPED OR OVERSAMPLED I MUST KNOW
>NOOOOO THE 60FPS ADDS A 1.15x CROP THIS CAMERA IS UNUSABLE
And so on until theyre using a g9ii and their footage is noisy soft shit that only looks ok on youtube which is the only place they publish despite complaining like they’re shooting shit for imax. Nothing status: accomplished.

>>4300984
I am aware of them purchasing RED not long ago, which is why I am hopeful
I am not rich so I wouldn't be upgrading for 5-6 years, hopefully some of that RED magic trickles down to the affordable models by then
Right now I want to get the pest still performance for my money with limited video
Is the Z system more promising than the L?

>>4300980
>they did just buy out RED
Kek.
That doesn't mean they're going to somehow put video capable firmware in their cameras.
>you're retarded
That would be you, if you're waiting on Nikon to release Nikon, not RED branded, ILC's with video capabilities.

As I've said.
These limitations are all INTENTIONAL.

>>4300981
It's precisely 30 minutes because of Hollywood and legal bullshit.
If it can record over 30 minutes, it's taxed for that in Europe. To dodge the tax/added fees they just cap video length. To cut down on model spam (variants for every jurisdiction) they don't bother un-capping videos for countries where this 30 minute tax shit doesn't exist.
2hr5min on some newer higher end bodies certainly isn't due to thermals.

>>4300988
Who fucking cares no one shoots takes over 30 minutes

>>4300986
L mount is full of garbage thus far. Even RF is better, and the EF adapter being passthrough should matter to you. Panasonic bodies are a joke
>but codecs
If it mattered you would already shoot a rented sony like everyone else.

>>4300984
Hollywood is massively post-processed and scripted shit.
The average normie retard buying a camera should be able to set their camera up on a tripod and record a family gathering or something, but that's not always the case.

The tryhard fags who have all the tricks can set a timer to end the recording 29m59s in and start a new one 1000ms later and append them later in editing but boomers trying to record "events" cannot do so with such cameras, but their phones (or other brand cameras) can.

>>4300989
>Who fucking cares no one shoots takes over 30 minutes
They would if they could.
Lots of people get cucked by recordings ending, because the limit isn't really advertised.

>>4300990
Its not “they would if they could” its actually “no one does this”. Especially because this is the digital era and no one has the time OR THE BANDWIDTH to share even a 20 minute clip anymore.

Well, one type of person does this.
People attempting to create bootlegs of theatre showings and concerts.

For those, and the odd boomer who actually wants the VHS camcorder experience, there are… camcorders. As for my camera I would pay extra to keep video cancer off it.

I cant remember the last time i saw cameras rolling for over an hour when it wasnt an event that was paying people who rented real cinecams with wires flying out of every available port instead of janky hybrids with shitty sigma/panasonic beer can autofocus lenses

Like I have seen hybrids used - momentarily, not even for 3 minutes, at sports games, in equal proportion with… phones.

>>4300988
>It's precisely 30 minutes because of Hollywood and legal bullshit.
It was because of tax reasons, I'm aware of that. I was referring to the limits over that.

>2hr5min on some newer higher end bodies certainly isn't due to thermals.
And how do you know? Did you work on the engineering team that designed the body?

>>4300101
>white balance
incorrect, you should hardly ever use white balance
if you shot under tungsten you shot under tungsten, simple as
anything else is "post-processing"
>curve edits are for increasing contrast
you're doing it wrong, they're for tweaking the tonemapping curve to fit in more detail
e.g. pull down highlights or pull up shadows
speaking of tonemapping, you don't even mention filmic vs. sigmoid, which is even more important than your choice of demosaic algorithm

>>4301005
>Did you work on the engineering team that designed the body?
Absolute kek.
Sure, the Z 30 and Z8/Z9 both happen to have the same exact precise thermal limits at an odd time of 125minutes.
Yeah totally an engineer's decision.

>>4299025
my XF10 is a crippled version of the GR3, but at least the former has a built-in fill flash. but there are still similarities, like sticky dials and crippling depression.

Bought a GR III yesterday. What am I in for?

>inb4 dust

>>4301170
dust

>>4301014
White balance isnt real. Its a parameter for AI generated color. Color isnt real tbf.

>>4301108
The question is does anyone really care except for pirates and people who should be renting real production gear and making the client foot the bill? Is it really worth the godawful selection on L mount and how awful panasonics fat ass bricks are to use for anything else.

and the mandatory color grading. sure is weird how people nitpick “SNOY COLORS” when they just missed white balance or used a lens with a cold color cast or FUJI ZOMBIE SKIN when they just used adobe which applies more chroma smoothing than xtrans needs, but nobody ever mentions how genuinely fucking awful panasonics colors are. maybe the fuji and sony haters were panasonic shills. or maybe nobody uses panasonic for things other than shooting log gamma video enough to complain.

Bottom 3 for pleasing color are pentax, panasonic, and olympus. Top 3 are fuji, nikon, and canon.

>>4301187
given infinite time and effort and 14 bit raws at base iso you can do anything but if you shot the same scene with 3 cameras and one lens, still raws would all be radically different with the same profiling attempts and video is even worse. bayer makes up color but cfa specs, ADCs, and firmware modify the data you start with.

niggas are using sony cameras with canon lenses for films for a reason

>>4301187
Stop with this retarded argument, people want to do extended recordings all the time.
Things like floods/disasters and other shit are interesting to record and set+forget is better than returning every 30 mins to start a new recording.
People want it.
Camera manufacturers don't deliver.

If you want video, don't buy Nikon/Canon or any camera with such limitations. If you're video focused, don't even buy into a lens mount from a cam company with most of their devices with such limits. If video is important to you, pick a brand that has unlimited recording on most of their shit.

Expecting brands who have been artificially limiting camera recording length for years to suddenly change is retarded. Don't be retarded. That is all.

Lexus is owned by Toyota, that doesn't mean your Toyota is a Lexus. Nikon buying RED won't make their consumer cameras video production cameras.

>>4301228
Yeah, people aren't leaving thousands of dollars worth of cameras and lenses unattended recording for hours on end during natural disasters. That's what shit like Gopros are for. Outside of recording in adverse/dangerous conditions anything that goes on for longer than a few hours is usually a multi-day event and is probably going to end up being a timelapse that's compressed down to seconds or minutes.

>>4301236
People record blizzards all the time, from inside their home.
They can't stay up at night to keep re-recording but they can leave outdoor lights on while their camera records while they sleep.

Not being able to do this with a $1000+ DSLR is a meme.
People resort to using phones. Shouldn't have to be this way, but it do.

>>4301237
you realize HDMI recorders are common as fuck. Hook it up to your camera and record for however long the disk is in it.

>>4300926
You did it!

Pick the Ricoh. Good opportunity to learn to deal with its advantages and disadvantages.

>>4301237
Like I said, timelapse. There is no reason to record snowfall constantly.

File: imq1687.jpg (752 KB, 1500x1200)

752 KB JPG

>>4300736
Is this the life of a gearfag? To buy lenses and then take photos of their cats? I know I did it just to send as feedback for the eBay seller, but still, it happened once and it will happen again.

>>4301247
>I know I did it just to send as feedback for the eBay seller
What do you mean by this?

>>4301248
I like to snap quick photos to send to the seller after their lenses arrive.

>>4301249
But why? If it works why would you care what the seller thinks? This is such a bizarre thing to do.

>>4301250
I'm not doing it for their feedback, it's part of my feedback to them.

>>4301249
>>4301252
Is it like some weird autistic form of thanks? No seller gives a shit how your photos look. If the lens works as it should, as described, then it's all good. You don't need to provide photographic evidence to the person who sold it to you. Do you also send photos of your dinner you made to the checkout girl who served you at the store?

File: 20240404-DSCF1795.jpg (2.86 MB, 4883x2971)

2.86 MB JPG

My brand new Leica MA arrived. Here it is next to my Leica M11.

I like how Leica will sell film and digital cameras, in the same body, brand new.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:04 11:22:15
Exposure Time	13 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Brightness	-0.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	23.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4301238
Not all cameras offer clean HDMI out, or even high res / decent quality HDMI out.
Again, these are limitations. Limitations placed on cameras that don't actually NEED to be there, but are. Market segmentation takes its toll on the consumer.

Say what you want about phones, but they've been liberating for the masses.
Only problem is if you set a phone on a tripod to record something you're putting your communication device on hold.. so, ironically, even though phones are great and good for such things they're also not great for it if you actually use it for communicating with people.

For phones to be useful for these things you have to stop using them as a phone. If you keep old smartphones, they're great for this.

>>4301245
Another ridiculous thing cameras often suck at is artificial limits placed on things like timelapses or even interval based shooting.
With a smartphone, there are almost no practical limits on these with a good camera app.

Camera manufacturers have been depriving their customers of features since the dawn of time. It's not gonna change, there's a reason why camera sales are DOWN and while phones are a large part of it, the limitations placed on cameras is the other half of the problem.
Do you know how many cameras can't even do focus shift shooting?

I know, I know.
You're probably going to say "but you can buy an intervalometer!", but dongles shouldn't be required.

Dslr for dogs?

>>4301262
Maybe it's an unnecessary gesture then.

I want a seriously long lens for wildlife

I've been using a nex-5n with the 18-55mm kit lens and a SEL55210 for about a year and like both but find myself wanting more reach, mostly for water fowl and deer, stuff I can't get close to.

I'm considering buying a Tamron SP 500mm mirror lens as a poorfag supertelephoto. Its cheap and from what I've read it's a decent lens, I've never used a manual only lens before but am willing to learn.

Are there any better options for me to look at? As far as I can tell the only longer aspc lens available for e mount is the e 70-350mm, which costs 5x what the Tamron will and 2x what my current kit cost in total, and then its onto the fe 2-600mm, which is twice as expensive as the 350mm.

I was also thinking about getting a teleconverter to use with the 55-210mm but I'm not sure how well it'd work

>>4301266
>Market segmentation so bad
>>>>it only affects professional video shit (ie: actually being paid to shoot an event live) where you can just rent whatever the fuck your boss wants and charge the customer for it
ok i dont care no one really does. like other people when i see videographers they are using clearly rented nearly top shelf gear, and i know for a fact that cost is passed on to the customer, they do not share the concerns of a hobbyist who needs to dream of his one single camera purchase opening up career opportunities... the career opportunity is a full time job, on call, with other peoples equipment. freelancing with your own stuff is a fetishistic fantasy.
>cameras are down and phones are up.. cuz timelapse!?
protip, only a small subset of autists, maybe a few hundred people in the US, care about very long time lapses.
it's because cameras do not fit in pockets and are a second purchase while smartphone ownership is essentially mandatory and comes with a sufficient camera for really tasteless 4x6 prints (and facebook posts). nobody really gives a single fuck about hdmi out prores log gamma recording limits. having to buy an extra $20 remote to do a time lapse is the last thing on anyones mind. what people care about is
>can i afford $2k for nicer pictures than the ones my mandatory iphone already takes?
>oh no im two mortgages deep and leasing a bmw and trying to feed 2 kids.
>-normies

this protracted rant you've been on sounds like the people who are mad at nikon not supporting AF-D lenses. you do realize how tiny of a minority you are in right? and they blame that for the lost market share, not going mirrorless when sony was already 3 gens in and closing support centers. THAT is what pros care about, they will shoot 20mp/1080p cameras if it comes with more tech support. canon and sony have larger support programs, so they have the market share. ezpz.

your ('re) totally clueless, and yet VERY opinionated.

>>4301268
canon 90d.

>>4301284
Don't bother with mirror lenses. They're kinda fun to fuck about with but you won't actually get good photos, especially not of anything moving.

Don't forget that there are third party lenses too. From a quick look around Tamron's 70-300mm is a little cheaper than the Sony 70-350mm, although you do give up a little bit of reach. I would also suggest considering getting a new body, An A6000 is fairly cheap and gets you a fair bit more resolution (so you can crop to get more reach if the lens is sharp enough) as well as much better AF which really helps with shooting moving subjects with a long lens. Also with a newer body you could get lucky with a cheap A mount lens on Ebay and one of the Sony lens adapters (I personally have a Sigma 150-500mm).

>>4301187
>Bottom 3 for pleasing color are pentax, panasonic, and olympus. Top 3 are fuji, nikon, and canon.
ok sure, post some examples then

>>4301294
I'll have a look at the sigma lens thanks
I've been thinking about replacing the body but if I'm going to do that I'd rather wait and try and get a good deal on a 6400 or 6600 for the weather sealing. I quite like the photos the nex produces desu, even if the AF is pretty poor and not having a viewfinder sucks

Finally got a nice portable a6400! I've wanted a more compact option than my FF Nikon for a while, so I'm very excited to return to APS-C. Any recommendations for compact e-mount lenses? I'll probably be picking up the Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS, since shooting 35mm on APS-C is one of my favorite mediums - I thought about picking up the Sigma 30mm or the TTartistans 35mm, but the size and focusing distance, respectively, pushed me towards the Sony offering. Beyond that, the 11mm f1.8, and the kit lens I got (18-135), I haven't looked too closely at what my options are. Would love to hear about what your favorite little prime is!

>>4301400
Sony FE 600mm f/4 GM OSS

File: 1712339137087.jpg (545 KB, 4592x3448)

545 KB JPG

>>4301400
I recently got the TTartisan 50/2 (for m43) and so far, I'm enjoying it. Good reach and aperture for the small size.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-GX80
Camera Software	Ver.1.3
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4592
Image Height	3448
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Normal

>>4301400
You could try the full frame 2.5 primes if you value compactness over a lower aperture. The sigma 56 is good and small too if you want that focal length.

If sonic the hedgehog were a lens, what would his aperture be?

>>4301447
0.95 in front of a MFT speed booster

File: DSC06862.jpg (76 KB, 640x460)

76 KB JPG

>>4301400
The sigma 18-50 f2.8 is well regarded and small. I have the 18-135 and it’s pretty good all around. A little slow but sharp when stopped down and the range is really useful. 18-135 +Rokinon 12mm f2 makes a good hiking/backpacking kit if you’re into that.

I have an a6400 as well and the 35mm f1.8 was my first prime lens. It’s fine…but I’d probably get the sigma 30 instead. The Sony isn’t really sharp until around f2.8-4, has some color fringing wide open. It’s decent but not a good value new. It is compact and sharp stopped down and the OSS is handy, especially for video.

One of my favorites right now is the Tamron 24mm f2.8. It’s a full frame lens that’s pretty sharp wide open, close focusing and 1:2 macro. It’s not too big either. It’s somewhat slow and loud when focusing and unstabilized. But it’s really a good value. They make a 35mm as well if you’re really set on 50mm-ish field of view.

I like my a6400 pretty well. I just wish it had a more comfortable grip (I have big hands) and maybe a few more megapixels.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6400
Camera Software	ILCE-6400 v2.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2023:09:23 19:58:25
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Brightness	0.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	460
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4299221
>The lens is sharper, so what
The lens is the most important part of a camera.

Talk me out of buying an Aputure LS 600D Pro.

Professionally I am getting more and more requests for video work to accompany my photographic practice. I already have a full flash kit and bowens mount modifiers.

The only continuous lights I have are a Godox 300 and Godox 150. Would the Aputure allow me to overpower the sun? Are there any other alternatives in the same price bracket worth looking at before I buy?

Would prefer something weather sealed like the Aputure.

>>4299642
Based. I have dp2 merrill and it's still going strong.

All the kvetching about mft and ff got me thinking. Pretty much all arguments for mft or ff apply to ff or larger format as well. I realized that there aren't any extremely expensive large format lenses because it's generally not necessary. You can get cheap, virtually perfect lenses easily. To get an equivalent looking lens on ff costs fuckloads of money in comparison. IQ is just trivially naturally better with large format. If you want a good performing medium format camera for sports and wildlife you need to pay tons of money however. Likewise mft does very well at sports and wildlife on the cheap. It's funny how similar the arguments are.

>>4299221
owned both, kept the gr. only fags dismiss a camera based on looks. great results out of a compact form and goes in the pocket. no I don't care if it sucks in dust every camera will eventually.

File: DSC01612.jpg (1.19 MB, 1000x1500)

1.19 MB JPG

>>4301487
I had one of the smallrig cages with a grip for my a6400 specifically for comfort. It worked alright but then the shutter button felt a little too far back, I think it's worth a try and if you don't like it you can return it.

Ultimately though I ended up just upgrading to an a6700 and have absolutely zero regrets, it's fantastic and fixed literally all the issues I had with the a6400, mainly comfort and usability. Never knew how much I needed a third dial but I can't go back to just two now lol.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6700
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	84 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	4000
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	-1.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	56.00 mm
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: Nikon-D800E-vs-Nikon-D610(...).jpg (41 KB, 720x402)

41 KB JPG

Should I get a Nikon D610 or D800e?

>>4301640
Unless you really wanted the smaller body (not that big a difference really, once you've got a big lens on there, and you'll have a smaller grip), those extra 2fps were a deal breaker, or the D610 was significantly cheaper I'd go for the D800.

>>4301640
the more affordable one that doesn't have multiple complaints about shutter shock and mirror vibration softening photos

File: sony-a6000-20mm-28-pancak(...).jpg (96 KB, 1200x801)

96 KB JPG

Can someone bait me into getting a a6700? For reference I bought a 5Dmkii way back when it first came out so all my lenses are EF. I don't really see the point in getting a big boi camera again since I now work in TVC land so that's all URSAs or "pocket" bois. What I'm mainly looking for is a technology upgrade so I have some new shit to play with to force me to go outside on the weekend and take photos. I plan to use a metabones to use my existing lenses but also get a couple of modern native e-mount lenses to take advantage of the AF, probably a 35mm pancake and a do-it-all stabilized zoom for strolling around.

I haven't really been able to find something similar from other manufactures (decent EVF, AI, AF fancy shit) in a package that's small and doesn't cost the world, but I'm not dead set on sony and canon seems to fuck you in the ass every chance they get the moment you step down from their flagship line.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Photos 3.0
Photographer	Jeff Geerling
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	Unknown
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72
Vertical Resolution	72
Image Created	2018:08:31 20:41:15
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Return Detected
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	801
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: _DSC6997.jpg (1.18 MB, 1575x1050)

1.18 MB JPG

>>4301962
Try to get your hands on one in person to see if it's even comfortable. I've never liked any canon's ergonomics that I've gotten my hands on and played around with in stores and you might feel the same way about sony.

That being said, these things have so much tech packed into them it's astounding. You have to actively try to fuck up missing focus on people and animals. Even with the revamped and "simpler" menus it can be a little daunting with just how much shit you can change and customize but if you're willing to take a couple hours to set your menus and controls to your liking then you'll have a great user experience.

You'll probably want the zeiss 35mm 2.8 or sony 40mm 2.5 for your compact prime. Those are about as small as you'll get, the only "true" pancake lenses are the 16mm which I've heard is shit and the 20mm which is considerably wider than the 35mm you want. The only decent stabilized standard zoom is the tamron 17-70mm which is kinda bulky and doesn't sound like what you want for a compact system. The ibis is good enough that you don't really need stabilization in the lens and you should probably get the sigma 18-50 instead.

If the fancy tech and good af is what you're after the r7 might also be worth considering since you already have ef glass. It's a bit bigger but the a6700 isn't exactly a "small" camera either. Smaller than your 5d but it's no xv100 or griii.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6700
Camera Software	Capture One Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	393 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1000
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Brightness	5.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Other
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	262.00 mm
Image Width	1575
Image Height	1050
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4301978
Thanks. For the zoom I don't really care if its big, I basically want a stand in for my beat to shit 24-105, so if I'm going for a walk in the forest its just the one lens on the camera. That zeiss looks perfect though, good for around people as it makes the whole setup look like a cheap piece of shit. Do you know if all of the e-mount lenses play well with the new AF/AI stuff? I remember there was a cut off point with canon where you had to upgrade to the mark 2 versions of all their L series shit to get that to work properly.

>>4301996
>Do you know if all of the e-mount lenses play well with the new AF/AI stuff?
It doesn't care which lens it is, it just depends on the speed and accuracy of the lens as to how well it does. You'll even get the majority of AF features with adapted lenses, like eye AF and subject tracking.

File: pepe-tech-support-10-14-20-1.jpg (42 KB, 640x360)

42 KB JPG

>>4301997
fug, guess I'm going sony then

>>4302009
Good choice. As the other anon spoke about, don't just try and use the camera for half an hour and then get pissed at the complexity and return it. Actually take the time to set it up so it works for you and bear in mind that it will get even easier over time as you learn what stuff you use the most and want easy access to. Pretty much every button can be customised to adjust almost any setting or turn a feature on and off. Also don't forget the customisable quick menu that you access by pressing the fn button, you've got 12 slots to stick your most adjusted settings to save you having to dive into the main menu.

>>4302009
You’ll regret this

>>4301457
What do the bokeh balls look like in such a setup?

What setup do I get to make sure no one on 4chan reading exif data makes fun of me? I currently use mft for no particular reason and it's getting hard. I'm thinking a D850 or D4 and maybe the 400mm f/2.8. The bulkier the better, but I've heard people call out any reach beyond 400mm. Will I be made fun of for using a prime? Help!

>>4302093
>most mft users: posting without anyone caring
>retarded mft users: *shoots a flower at 1/8000 f1.8 ISO 3200 on a bright sunny day* fool frame has 4x less dr because only olympus ibis works and only olympus weather sealing is real everything else is snoy lies. fool frame can not compete especially for telephoto this 150-400 is the sharpe- HEY DONT MAKE FUN OF MY EXIF SHIT FUCK

>>4301263
go back to /fa/, bullychan

>>4301263
I can smell the cheap Chinese cigarettes and sesame oil through this post.

>>4302104
If you don't know the answer you could have just said so. Ignore the mft schizo, what is the most badass inconvenient setup I can use for wildlife photography?

>>4302153
Leica M10 + APO-Telyt-M 135 f/3.4

got my Voigtlander 65mm F2 off Japanese ebay
>$250 less than cheapest local used copy even after getting hit with tax
>$500 cheaper than a new one
>condition is great
>love the 1/2 macro capability
>love the bokeh
>love the little bit of extra reach over a fifty
>love the build quality
>weighs a bit but it's manageable
Very happy with it at the price I paid.
Now I need to get a standard zoom and I'm basically good with lenses, maybe I'll pick up a 2 times macro so I don't have to bother with tubes.

>>4302266
yeah the yen has completely gone to shit and the japs take care of their items while they own them.
I'm big into fishing and have bought JDM reels that shit all over USDM reels for similar or cheaper prices.

>>4302048
Golden rings.

generally speaking
for mid range ($500 body mirrorless/dslrs or so) cameras

do built-in/pop up flashes usually have good spectral properties or are they shit like cheapshit 70CRI LEDs?

>>4301284
I ended up buying a p1000

File: 93B1BBFC-F6CE-4A9B-94CE-6(...).jpg (75 KB, 1000x845)

75 KB JPG

>>4302368
Same. I get all my camera & fishing gear from there. Got an Abu Morrum reel from them, but unlike pic mine showed up NIB. Fucking thing is a work of art. I just about jizz looking at it. In fact i think i will…

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	845
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: Screenshot 2024-04-09 115616.png (255 KB, 752x752)

255 KB PNG

I want to buy a sling. I have two specific requirements: one is it needs to be at least ~32cm wide while being otherwise as compact as possible(17-18cm tall is all I need and would probably fit in 15 cm if it's not too rigid). Second is it shouldn't scream "camera bag".
Some candidates:
>Wandrd rogue sling 9l
Closest to my ideal sling but expensive, has the laptop sleeve gimmick I don't need, and I read some bad stuff about how water resistant it is. Easily available in Europe where I am. Lots of colors other than camera bag black.
>Hex Ranger DSLR Sling v2
Also great size, comes with a rain fly, less expensive in theory. I'd have bought this one but I can't find it in stock in Europe at regular price, and they don't ship internationally.
>Moment Rugged Camera Sling 10l
Just run across this one, looks bulkier somehow but the size is still good, not sure about general availability in Europe but there's a guy locally selling a new one second hand at a good price. I like the bright interior.

Any experience with any of these or any other slings you can recommend?

>>4301284
Fuck it I want an upgrade
Is the A6400 the logical upgrade from a Nex5 or go with something else?

Mostly do landscape and babbys first wildlife pics, also do some general photography, touristy stuff, old buildings.

Find the lack of a viewfinder and the poor autofocus on the nex kinda frustrating, software is a little clunky too.

A6400 is on sale for £700 new, uses the batteries and lens I already have, is nice and compact. That leaves me about £350 left to look at another lens with or spend on going somewhere

Curious if there any other good options I'm overlooking though, I did use a D700 last year on a trip and liked using it, didn't find weight a problem but the bulk was a little annoying while hiking and I like having the articulating screen on the next, a FF DSLR + good lens is going to be way more than upgrading my current body too

A6700 is twice as much as the a6400 currently and uses different batteries so that's probably out

>>4302667
Used A7III. No idea about UK market, but they start around £700 in my country so a bigger market like UK should be even cheaper.

>>4302667
a7riii, if money is an problem just make more of it duh. Dont live off scraps. Hunt and kill your reward. Fight life. Work overtime. Do an odd job. Be the poorfag who could.

>>4302667
Buy used. What lens(es) do you have currently? If it's nothing special or not crop only you may consider going full frame, although not so good if you're wildlife stuff is long distance. Don't worry about batteries, they're cheap and don't last forever and the newer ones are higher capacity.

>>4302667
The answer is always full frame Nikon

>Buying a new sony
Isn't that nearly half as much used

>>4302668
Starts at about £900-1000 used or I guess I could wait and try sniping eBay auctions, isn't there some infamous meme problem with the A7?

>>4302674
I have the money to afford this but it feels like overkill, I don't see the point buying top end kit when I'm a novice that doesn't need it, and money spent on camera bodies can't be spent on camera lenses, or holidays, or other fun stuff

>>4302708
I was only looking at new because of the aggressive deal, I don't have much in the way of lenses but I do have a 55-210mm that's pretty handy, its crop, I'd probably pick up a new better lens along with the body upgrade but I don't want to start the game of buying kit for the sake of buying it, I'd rather buy stuff I've identified a need for, rn that's better AF, a viewfinder so I can actually see what I'm doing in bright sunlight, and a somewhat longer lens

>>4302709
With the deal its actually about the same price/slightly cheaper new, only for the a6400 though

>>4302730
>I have the money to afford this but
>money spent on camera bodies can't be spent on camera lenses, or holidays, or other fun stuff
Then you don't have the money yet, simple as. Hobby purchases shouldn't worry you at all. Is your current camera broken yet? Just save up for a while longer and get something nice that you can keep for a while instead of slowly climbing the ladder of sony timer inside(tm) e-waste, forever thinking "oh boy, i wish I had ____ then i'd be able to ____ maybe i'll upgrade again next year".

On the other hand, ever since the a7iii camera technology has been stagnating except for people that take photos at sports games for a paycheck and expect to use their consumer stills camera as a shitty sub for a cinema camera, and isn't showing signs of making any significant leaps. Phone photos still look like phone photos, FF ILC photos still look like FF ILC photos.

>>4302735
a7iii to r6ii and z6ii is just better build quality for 99% of users basically

>>4302730
I didn't bother checking prices, for a new A6400 that is indeed a very good deal. I'd pay the extra £50 or so just to have something someone else hasn't had their grubby hands on and a bit of peace of mind.

If you stick with crop that gives you a few more options when it comes to longer lenses, plus the fact that being a crop sensor inherently gives you more reach. If you went full frame then you'd need 300mm at least, and for a ~70-300mm full frame zoom you'd be looking at like £500 or more.

>>4302735
Even the a6600 is an actual upgrade

At least it has fucking IBIS

>>4302730
>>4302744
>>4302756
unless you're very interested in birding specifically I'd go with full frame
otherwise you're putting yourself in the position where you'll have to upgrade AGAIN at some point in the future
just bite the bullet and buy a cheap full frame body

>>4302773
Or at least one with ibis

Not having stabilization with every lens is inexcusable boomer shit. Film tier, but without the soul of film

>>4302774
Yeah, true. I bought A7 II couple years ago as my first camera because it was the cheapest full frame mirrorless with IBIS. I still use it, the only features that it lacks for the kind of photos I take are quality of life and convenience features(well ok, I could use higher resolution) but nothing that actually stops me taking the photos I want to take. So every time I had some money I bought another lens instead of upgrading the body, and I have almost all the glass I could want.
But because I bought a modern system instead of a DSLR, and because I bought full frame lenses, I can just upgrade the body whenever and transfer all my lenses over.

File: IMG_1655.jpg (226 KB, 960x1280)

226 KB JPG

My 80-200mm F/4 L came in today for my T90! :D

>>4300879

Some sort of giga long zoom lens with a constant aperture. Like 100 to 700 or some shit. With interchangeable rings making it compatible with RF or EF mounts both.

>>4302744
Thinking about this more if I get the a6400 OK its a better body but the only real lens path I have is the E 70-300 which is a good lens, but its quite pricey for what it is and it kind of defeats the purpose of having an APSC camera, its hardly small or light.

I guess I'm getting a Full Frame, FF mirrorless or DSLR is the question now.

Okay here's an interesting one -
Instead of asking what gear I should buy next, I need advice on how to push my gear to its limits.
I have a Rebel T6i and an assortment of various entry level crop glass.
The only thing I feel I want to upgrade is my tele lens, currently a 70-300.

What exercises, activities, subjects, etc, should I try to do to really try and reach the limits of my current gear.

This may be more of a philosophical question suited for one of those threads, but does anyone ever think like this? EG you have a piece of equipment and you get curious of how you can push the boundaries of what it can do? I consider myself part of my camera kit as well.

>>4300879
1200mm 4:1 magnification fixed focus macro lens
vignetting and smol aperture fine
no chromatic aberrations or distortion

I simply MUST obtain a lens capable of projecting my cock onto a sensor in a way that makes it render a visible image.

>>4302831
Try shooting RAW, and not using Adobe garbage software.
See the actual noise you get, see your images WITHOUT sharpening, see your images distorted and uncorrected.
See what you're actually dealing with.

Then rent a premium lens in your "most used" focal length for a week and photograph some things, trees, animals, shit you have around your home.. then return the lens, and go try taking the same shots.
Now compare them side-by-side in an actual RAW editing program that doesn't secretly post-process things in the background like Adobe shit does.

Even the best lenses aren't perfectly sharp.
But kit lenses... they're usually quite hideous and full of flaws that make real degraded quality photos but sometimes they're just enough.

One of the best things you can do to push your gear to the limit is stop being retarded, if you currently are.
Do you care at all about color accuracy? Do you own a color checker?
Do you shoot outside often? Do you own a lens hood?

A color checker/lens hood will both be better investments than expensive glass as they can deliver truly noticeable improvements in your final image quality than will be visible even scaled down to 1024px or whatever social media sites limit shit to these days.

>>4302825
DSLR is depreciated. You'd be buying into a dead-end system.

>>4300879
24-135 F2.8(or 2-2.8) as long it's no larger than the currently available 35-150 lenses which I'm not sure is possible.
If we're dreaming, that, but also 1:2 macro.

>>4302825
How is the 70-300mm your only choice? You've got various 70-200mm options, 35-150mm, 50/60/100/150-500/600mm, 18-300mm, 100-400mm, 28-200mm, 24-240mm, 70-350mm, 200-600mm, and probably even more that I'm forgetting. No none of them are particularly small but just because you've got a small body doesn't mean you always need to use the smallest available lenses.

what modern mirrorless lens mount is the most adaptable for using old obscure weird lenses from the old film days?
nikon z is big but does that manifest in actually having adapters I can buy for it or is Sony better in this regard?

Basically, imagine finding some random vintage slr+lenses on craigslist. No idea what they are, just that they're an SLR, I want a body that will let me buy an adapter and most likely be able to use old optics.
DSLRs were a no-go for this because they all had differences but mirrorless seems to be free, so, idk, what's stopping them all from being able to adapt to anything? anything? legal shit? can anyone make adapters for any lens mount or can manufacturers sue/C&D them asking for royalties somehow?

I want some FREEDOM with my next camera body purchase and am not sure what to buy or if this matters, idk if they're all equally adaptable now or not

>>4302854
In practice it's e-mount. Any obscure old mount out there, you can either buy an adapter outright, or get the files to 3D print one since someone else already figured it out.
In theory I think z-mount should be better due to shorter flange distance but that hasn't really manifested.
RF mount is the worst.

>>4302863
E mount has corner distortions with film lenses because sony has poorly designed sensors. You need a thin filter mod (=$$$$). Just buy a Nikon. China already made all the weird adapters. It's only missing AF with AF-D lenses and minolta A mount lenses. Won't even count the monster KAF-FE adapter because of its limited compatibility.

>>4302863
looks like Sony also has a lot more lenses and third party lenses for it
>In theory I think z-mount should be better due to shorter flange distance but that hasn't really manifested.
kinda looks like this is the case, few third parties are even making z lenses idk what's up with that
maybe not enough time has passed or something is preventing it from happening
>RF mount is the worst.
googled it
https://petapixel.com/2024/03/06/canon-is-actively-working-to-bring-third-party-lenses-to-rf-mount/
they literally sent lawyers after third parties to stop making lenses
that's not very user friendly

has sony/nikon ever done such a thing? in recent years with the current mounts/systems?
I'd be interested in fuji, but honestly, I hate their trans sensors too much to even consider them

>>4302867
can you explain this?
don't sensors change per body, not lens mount? what cams are affected?
does this also mean dslr lenses mounted on sony e are bad too?
what happens if you pay for a mod does that affect its use with new lenses?
is a7iii affected?

>>4302871
He's chatting shit

File: DSC07691-edited-resize.jpg (129 KB, 1230x820)

129 KB JPG

>>4302825
>the only real lens path I have is the E 70-300
If you plan to go FF later sure I guess, otherwise you want the 70-350. It's smaller in diameter, lighter, cheaper and has more range. Works great with an a6400 and isn't very bulky at all, I could fit the body+lens in my 6L sling and still have room for a couple of primes.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-6400
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	525 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Shutter Priority
ISO Speed Rating	4000
Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Brightness	4.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	350.00 mm
Image Width	1230
Image Height	820
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	6dc1c3ffaa3259420000000000000000

File: 2174735.jpg (1.02 MB, 1347x1700)

1.02 MB JPG

>>4302854
Z-mount is most potentially adaptable, e-mount probably has most adapters on the market though.
For smaller lenses, you can get autofocusing M to Z adapter, and then whatever mount to M, and gain autofocus. TTArtisan 6-bit M adapter gives you eye green box confirmation. Zf gives you subject detection for MF.
Picrel is an example of midfield and corners of same lens on M10 vs stock a7 series. Mostly applicable to wider angle RF lenses, Z series fairs quite a bit better.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1349
Image Height	860
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:09 19:36:34
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1347
Image Height	1700

File: 1698653252459616.jpg (260 KB, 870x580)

260 KB JPG

I have been away for almost a decade. How are the camera wars going these days?
Is Sony finished?
Is Canon still king?
Has Nikon taken over?
Did Smartphone kill all of them?
Get me up to speed bros.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 21.2 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	870
Image Height	580
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2020:09:16 10:56:52
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	870
Image Height	580

>>4302955
Nikon won

>>4302955
Canon won

>>4302962
>>4302968
Someone won
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIAF7Waft10