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


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: file.png (470 KB, 1024x576)
470 KB
470 KB PNG
it's been almost 6 years since Canon lauched the EOS R series.
What's the veredict?
Has it lived up to the expectations?
>>
>>4325032
I think it's better than nikon mirrorless.

t. niggon slr shooter
>>
>>4325032
The best soulless auto everything pro tool there is. Crutches out the ass. Priced to be rented. Great tech support. Basically meant for delivering jpegs via ftp as fast as possible for the news.
Not the best camera there is.

>>4325038
Nikon went canon mode with the zf/z6iii/z8-9 so they’re equal now
>>
>>4325042
>Nikon went canon mode
not sure what you mean, canon at least still makes their high-tier shit in jewpan
>>
There's always that one anon mentioning hard-coded noise reduction in RAWs of the newer Canon models, but I can't find any info online. Is there anything at all?
>>
I bought an R6 Mark 2 after 25 years of shooting Nikon and can confirm, Canon knows what the fuck they're doing.

Nikon still produces better overall image quality, but Canon's rendering just looks.. better. Nicer greens. Nicer skintones without any of the signature Nikon orange cast.

Still probably gonna pick up a used D850 to use all of my DSLR nikkor's, but Canon makes a fucking phenomenal camera that just gets out of your way and lets you shoot.
>>
>>4325051
You're a literal child.
>>
>>4325093
ok boomer
#fujigang
>>
>>4325043
>caring about country of origin
Sigma has that MIJ quarity amirite

>>4325048
That's mostly raw developer profiles.

"Soulless auto everything pro tool" is an apt description down to their excess size and ass backwards control layout that only makes sense if you have a long lens that weighs over a pound. Their lack of decent quality middling aperture lenses on RF also telegraphs who their cameras are actually for. The news and weddings.
>>
Love my little rp like you wouldn't believe
>>
>>4325051
Did you get bullied today or something? It's alright
>>
I've had my R7 for 2 years and it is the best and most fun camera I've owned yet. It was nice to bring all me EF lenses over using the adapter and they make better than ever photos on the R7.
>>
I bought an R because I was trying to adapt some old Contax/Yashica lenses to my 5D4 and the mirror kept getting blocked by the rear elements. I like the layout (touch bar not withstanding) even though it's smaller, but after a year or so I'm still not sure that the image quality is better. I don't know if I've changed my outlook or if it's a change in the sensor.
>>
>>4325112
>RP
My man. That -touch to drag the focus point- feature has been a game changer for me.
>>
>>4325042
blatant seething sonygger
>>
>>4325097
I've been fujigang longer than you, and I still know you're a literal child. kys.

>>4325099
Nah, the control scheme's fine. It took a little getting used to coming from Nikon, but if you use it for a full day of shooting, it'll be second nature.
>>
>>4325099
>Their lack of decent quality middling aperture lenses on RF also telegraphs who their cameras are actually for. The news and weddings.

Also a weird take. News and weddings are some of the most demanding things you can use a camera for, so saying that Canon is very good at that and that's a bad thing is.. confusing, at the very least.
>>
they are also the most expensive and anti-artistic things
>>
>>4325338
I think his point wasn't that they're the best at it but rather that's mostly what they cater to
>>
>>4325354
They cater to capability and performance? Responsiveness? Ease of use? Oh no! Horrible things for a camera to have in 2024.
>>
>>4325360
and the result is an enormous $2500 blob but at least the f1.0 lens has the fastest autofocus
>>
>>4325363
Oh no, a blob! Because that's what matters when someone is looking at your photo.
>>
>>4325043
>jewpan
>>
>>4325364
Not that guy, but let's be real

They are amazing in a professional context, like compared to the piece of worthless fucking garbage shit z7ii that DID NOT WORK IN FACE DETECT FOR AN ENTIRE EVENT I JUST SHOT, but for the other 90% of your life they do suck balls to have with you unless you are an unapologetic fanny pack and cargo shorts sort of person.

Thats probably why everyone likes sony (that, and they buy new snoys often enough to avoid breakage)
>>
>>4325370
full frame is for professionals
if you expect more quality than insta needs while hobby shooting thats an autism problem not a camera problem
snr does not get likes/follows/exposure. oh wait you do have insta right?
>>
>>4325373
>insta
Lol.
No I have real friends.
>>
File: naked pepefrog.png (232 KB, 655x599)
232 KB
232 KB PNG
Should I get an instagram to post my photos if I have no one to really give them to that actually care?
>>
>>4325375
No, you should find another hobby because you seem to be doing it for external validation (there are cheaper and easier ways to validate yourself)
>>
>>4325373
Or maybe, manufacturers really fucked up with the switch to mirrorless because japanese salarymen are severely out of touch with the rest of the world. Just a guess. Maybe canon will respond to the x100vi and zf hype with a ql17 or ae1-alike and do a better job with the controls than nikon?
>>
>>4325377
Right now I do it for myself, but I also like to share my work for others to enjoy. I used to have a friend who liked looking at my trips, but they have since moved on.
>>
>>4325209
I got my wife one for her birthday with the f4 24-105. Amazingly good, the auto focus, even if it's one of the worst out of the R series is fucking amazing. I picked up a R6MKii and the f4 70 -200 and have all my EF gear on marketplace since it's all just taking up space on the shelf in the office.
>>
>>4325379
Instagram has annoying aspect ratio limitations you need to work around, but it's nice to connect with friends
>>
>>4325370
why would canon make a nice looking, small camera? they dont want pleb “artists” tarnishing their image as the pros and dads brand
>>
>>4325398
I thought canon was the milf brand?
>>
>>4325032
I have an R8 and I like it, but I might switch to sony soon since I've started getting paid for work. Compromising on IBIS, dual mem card slots, hybrid shooting AND not being able to get decent third party lenses is horseshit and canon knows it.
>>
should I get an RP, bros?
or save a bit more for the r8
>>
>>4325416
How exactly are third party lenses canon’s fault? Everything else you listed is addressed in the r6 mk2 and presumably the new r5.
>>
>>4325418
for how much?
They were selling for $600 refurb from canon not too long ago
Can't imagine paying more for one
>>
>>4325418
RP is fine for stills as long as you don't need insane dynamic range or pro level sports tracking AF. Good high ISO despite the poor base ISO DR (it's a variant sensor so e-noise drops with ISO). Good 1080p video with decent video AF. Poor cropped 4k with no AF.
>>
>>4325416
If you wanted IBIS/dual slots you should have gotten the R6 or R6ii.
>>
>>4325458
>no dual pixel af for 4k
so this is the legendary Canon gimping I've heard so much about
>>
>>4325364
We care about the photos, gearfag. Go stick your snoy in a display cabinet if you're after asthetics

>>4325416
You are absolutely correct, but looks like an R6 MkII or R5 would have suited you better. Still, the 3rd party lens situation shits me.

>>4325418
RP would be a good budget buy at this point if you'd rather save some bennys. I recommend R8 if you'd rather something with a bit more features / new.

>>4325468
We're fucking famous for it. Fuck I hate canon somtimes
>>
>>4325460
>Canon cripple hammer: buy the more expensive model if you want a basic feature that's standard on 10 year old micro four thirds
Due to equivalence, a 10 year old micro four thirds would actually perform better than a canon RP in most still life photos...

>>4325621
>We care about the photos
The blob is so oversized that you must not take many unless someone is paying you to hold that thing, or else you'd have posted one alreayd
>>
>>4325653
Did a canon user fuck your gf or something?
>>
>>4325659
My gf cums whenever someone posts photo so no they did not
>>
File: IMG_9802_v1.jpg (73 KB, 640x427)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
>>4325653
You're right. Here's a photo just for you.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS R50
Camera SoftwaredigiKam-8.3.0
Firmware VersionFirmware Version 1.1.0
Lens NameEF-S24mm f/2.8 STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width640
Image Height427
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2024:06:17 02:06:47
Exposure Time1/30 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating8000
Lens Aperturef/2.8
Exposure Bias0 EV
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length24.00 mm
Image Width640
Image Height427
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
GPS StatusUnknown
Exposure ModeManual
Focus TypeAuto
Metering ModeEvaluative
SharpnessUnknown
SaturationNormal
ContrastNormal
Shooting ModeManual
Image SizeMedium
Focus ModeUnknown
Drive ModeSingle
Flash ModeOff
Compression SettingFine
Macro ModeNormal
Subject Distance0.250 m
White BalanceAuto
Exposure Compensation3
Sensor ISO Speed364
Color Matrix33
>>
>>4325621
>We care about the photos, gearfag. Go stick your snoy in a display cabinet if you're after asthetics

That's literally my point, sub-literate.
>>
>>4325621
artists typically care about their own aesthetics. even if they say they don’t - that’s part of their personal aesthetics.

cannots go with a certain preppy black bomber jacket, audi crossover aesthetic but little else
>>
>>4325745
replied to the wrong post, reee. Apologies good sir
>>
>>4325753
No problem, homie. Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page. We are. Keep fighting the good fight against these morons.
>>
>>4325441
There were a couple of third party lenses made by Rokinon and Smegma, Canon sent them a cease and desist for using the AF system without paying for the patent.

Since then Canon has allowed some to put out some but only for the crop sensor Rs.
>>
>>4325759
Interesting. pretty scummy if true.
>>
>>4325032
the lens control ring thingy is pretty cool tbqh
>>
>>4325348
>i'm poor
>>
>>4325209
For whatever reason, the AF performance requires some initial tuning. I think it's a downside of the high-MP sensor.

>>4325653
I know this is a troll, but as a recovering m43 shooter, 99% of what M43 claims to be, the Canon R7 actually is. The 100-500 is better than the Olympus 150-400.

If you're an R7 shooter, you can replace the entire m43 'range' with two adapted EF-S lenses (10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8) and a 100-500. If you really want, you can drop the 10-22 and use the RF-S 10-18 which is pocket sized.
>>
>>4325367
kikepan
>>
>>4325044
Who knows, rumor goes RAW really hasn't been RAW for 10 years now.
>>
>>4330453
>Doesnt use expieed .exp
Ngmi
>>
>>4330444
I find M43 still has its use when I absolutely need the lightest smallest kit. Yes, I'm a cuck, but there are occasions that warrant it. I also don't own an R7, but an R10, so no IBIS.
>>
>>4330476
Tell us what this “lightest smallest” actually consists of, and not just about the theory of it. Then we can see if it’s actually the lightest and smallest.
>>
>>4330487
Are you... functionally retarded? Is the concept of small something that escapes you and your room temperature IQ?
>>
>>4330488
The Classic m4turds cope is “muh small and light” and then when they post what they’re talking about, it’s as big as apsc mirrorless lol. Judging by your response, i see this is more m4turder cope. Or say which camera and lens specifically you were referring to.
>>
>>4325032
>no weather sealing
>very expensive
>rf mount is a smoll hole
>canon wedding colors
>boring canon cameras
yeah nah thanks
>>
>>4325373
>insta is the only use case for photos
wow anon, you're an incel arent you? you have no kids? no wife? no family? not even a doggo? you don't have anyone you care enough about to take high quality photos of? or do you just not give a shit and take your kid's photos with a google pixel?
>>
>>4325375
nah print em out and hang them on your walls
>>
>>4330503
You can't look up what an average M43 camera looks like? Did daddy only whitelist 4chan so you can post him topping you on /b/? Nah, faggot here would rather bitch and moan and start an argument for no good reason.

>inb4 still haven't posted what camera
Olympus E-PL2 with a LUMIX G 14mm/F2.5
faggot
>>
>>4330510
>the smaller sensor with worse images is the ONLY way to make things smaller, CHUD.
kek, mfoolturds enthusiasts, everyone.
>>
File: file.png (448 KB, 1577x851)
448 KB
448 KB PNG
>>4330510
An average good m43 camera that doesn't provide the UX of a 2012 digishit is the size of aps-c, sometimes larger (lmfao, om1, g9ii. "but the fps bro" but the autofocus is subnikon trash, bro). Ditto for lenses, if you approach the actual equivalent speed of glass for larger sensors, the lenses paradoxically... get larger than they would be on the superior format.

>x-t5: 40mp, 24-120 f5.6 equiv
>om-5: 20mp, 24-120 f5.6-8 equiv

Some soi will say "but the GRAMS, bro" but in what fucking case does 100g, 200g matter, if you're strapped to the limit why even bring some m43 shitter when 1" pns are lighter still and provide similar image quality

A fuji x-t5 is just better, period, than everything micro four thirds related. If it's a money issue for you, I dont know what to tell you, put in a few extra shifts and buy yourself something nice for once, or don't be underage, or a welfare leech.
>>
>>4330510
Wow a 28mm f5 equivalent on a thumbnail sized sensor huh. Those must be some amazing photos that dont look like a phones at all.
>>
>>4330519
>Uses dead mounting system on a failed canon product line to win argument
When the fuck did I say everyone needs to buy M43 because it's small? I spoke of my use case, and my equipment. I said M43s are small. They generally are. I don't own a Canon-M. I own a D850, an R10 and an E-PL2. R10 is pretty small, but my lenses for it aren't. If you want to be really specific, I don't really want to take my expensive shit places it could get damaged or lost unncessesarily. I don't need to lug my D850 and telescopics around for going to the movies, and the Olympus is such a metal brick and inexpensive that I'm not concerned about dropping or losing it at this point.

>Durrrr just buy smaller lenses for the R10 then retard
No. The PL2 I've had for close to a decade, and have all the equipment for it. And if you deign to make that argument, you're not only a faggot, you're a gearfaggot.

>smaller sensor with worse images
Ah, so you must own a medium format huh, since pure IQ is the single thing you care about? Spent $20,000 on your setup to go shoot photos of people in the park from across the street?
>>
>>4330534
>No, that doesn't count because the mount is dead!
So is m43. The only lenses to come out for it lately are rebranded FF telescopes and other overpriced, oversized trash that defeats the point. The point has been defeated for quite a long time now hence m43 is just budget camcorders and retarded/retired arthritic birdwatchers buying shitty cameras and shittier lenses to see who can take the most wikipedia ID photo of all time.

>Ah, so you must own a medium format huh, since pure IQ is the single thing you care about? Spent $20,000 on your setup to go shoot photos of people in the park from across the street?
m43 is shit but no you cant have a better camera because your camera is never better enuff see now we're both dumb poorfags heheheheh
>>
>>4330523
>argues sensor size is important
>says m43 and 1/2.5" sensors are the same

nigga what. at least be consistent
>>
>>4330536
>now we're both dumb poorfags

Alright, you know what, something we can agree on. Now we move foward like rational adults kek
>>
>>4330534
>gearfag bad
garry winogrand, the greatest photographer of all time, was not above bluntly telling people that their camera sucked and to buy a leica. objectively speaking the majority of good photographers were gearfags. just have a gander at the list of gear any of them have used, if you like reading lists of dozens of high end cameras. gear does influence aesthetics in photography. even people who seemed not to care like daido moriyama cared a lot and wouldn't pack a dslr when a gr digital took the photo they actually wanted.

they weren't above admitting that they didnt have a good camera either, lots of great photographers have tried one thing and switched to another. why wouldn't a photographer care about using a better camera?

so, let's see the amazing output of the epl2 and 28mm f5. surely you must be a mini moriyama to use something so low quality and digishitty, when a canon eos m is technically better and smaller.
>>
>>4330541
No. That was a joke. In literal terms, you are being an actual idiot. Meme fool turds is in the same size and price range as better cameras. Unless you are specifically pursuing a specific brand of awful image quality, they are pointless. "BUY MEDIUM FORMAT THEN" is not a response to how shit fool turds is. What's next, you're not poor, because the millionaire pointing it out isn't a billionaire? No, you're below the poverty line. That's a fact.
>>
>>4330476
>>4330487
>>4330488
>>4330503
>>4330510
>>4330519
>>4330521
>>4330523
>>4330534
>>4330536
>>4330537
>>4330541
>>4330542
>>4330544
You're all just as retarded as each other. Maybe slightly less the ones arguing that FF or APS-C can still be small & light and provide better IQ.

Different strokes for different blokes. If anon bought a shitty M43 ten years ago and it still works for what he wants, why do the rest of you need to tell him to consoooom? He literally said he has a D850 which is objectively the best camera ever made and no you can't tell me I'm wrong because I won't revist this thread
>>
>>4330549
The d850 is the most geearfag camera of all time
>i need gps and voice memos and i cant use a z7 because uhhh pdaf does something in theory maybe that will be $1700 for one with 150k on the shutter i know what i got no tire kickers
>>
>>4330542
so what I'm hearing is that you're also a garry winogrand jr. yeah? Otherwise why even bother owning a camera?
>Defending canon in any way, shape or form
gonna have to stop you there friend. everyone here has leicas and shoots exclusively film
>>
>>4325038
I like my R8. Kind of wish I just shelled out for an R5, but fuck me I guess. Had lots of EF glass around so I just picked up the adapter that gives you a control ring as well and hey fuckin' presto I actually think I made a wise choice for once in my life. I'm not a huge fan of the lack of physical AF/MF or IS switches on the RF lenses (iirc the L tier have them?), and honestly I think it was a good choice to pivot in this direction if only for the move to mirrorless bodies. Compared to my older 5D mkII it's a similar feeling but from what I can tell nothing but improvements. Actually fuck that, the battery life could be better because ofc canon gave the R8 the same battery as the R10/50/100 which lasts for what feels like 100 shots, and you can't buy a battery grip. As I said, fuck me for not just buying the R5. In fact, fuck canon for artifically restricting what should be mid-tier features to their most expensive models. Why exactly is a second SD card slot going to cost me another $1500?
>>
>>4330563
if R8 was the spec level you were aiming for, you coulda just got an RP or the OG R and been just as well off desu. and saved money. I bought my R when they first launched here and i don't find myself wanting with its image quality. Probably gonna ride it out til it dies. I don't do video so the new cameras all don't really appeal to me much, since much of the improvement over the past few years seems to really be video/hybrid centric. nothing that improves what i do.
>>
>>4330567
Idk, I think I just wanted what came out that year. Didn't really get the itch until then, and yeah, again, fuck me.

To be fair I don't shoot as much as I did before so maybe I could do fine with a lower tier camera, or even an R7, but I can't justify buying any more shit for a while. I'll use what I've got and bitch about it like any other healthy, rational adult here on 4chan would
>>
Not relevant to the thread but since a bunch of you were chimping about it anyway, is m43 actually that shit? Honest question. I can see the appeal as a "middle ground" between a phone and a FF.

Figured I'd buy one as a fuck around / to use manual lenses on, but seeing as we have some experts in the thread, anyone care to convince me?

>M43 is outclassed by canon m
Yeah I guess so. Still gotta be some points in favor of m43 no?
>>
>>4330614
m43 is an anachronism from a time in digital camera technology when it lead in some features we now consider standard and the majority of aps-c, full frame, and medium format cameras were DSLRs. cheap used top tier gear was not a thing and if you were just posting on the internet you'd be targeting VGA sizes not 4k.

it made perfect sense when it was new but it's just not that anymore except for a minority of people who care a lot about video codecs and compare 300% crops of their footage after # generations and zoom in looking for all-i vs. longgop difference, not because of an inherent trait of m43 but because panasonic is just like that
>>
>>4330614
>Still gotta be some points in favor of m43 no?
An em5ii+30mm macro is the single cheapest high res, high speed film digitization setup
>>
>>4330614
MFT is great or rather was great
Seems like in recent years the prices of bodies have gone up to Full Frame levels
The bodies themselves have grown to full frame size as well

Meanwhile Panasonic has discontinued fun affordable models like the gx85/gx9

OM 5 / EM10mkiv seem to hit the sweet spot in terms of price/performance for new MFT cameras atm
>>
>>4330623
a7c and a6 series already mogged those unless you would rather have pixel shift for film scanning than 2x-4x less noise at every ISO. they were a great idea when larger sensors just meant DSLRs.
>>
>>4330620
This is pretty much it. In the late 2010's, it had unique advantage because Canikon were still DSLR centric, and Sony was expensive and the A7III isn't very tough. Sony's corrected the latter issue, Canikon have good MILCs at cheaper prices, and most systems are fleshed out with a lot more lens variety.

Still miss it though.
>>
Review of the new 35mm f1.4L:
https://youtu.be/_a0A1R_xikU

Tldr: It's horrible trash.
>>
File: OIrMNue.jpg (39 KB, 460x480)
39 KB
39 KB JPG
>>4330725
Imagine carrying a kilogram of glass with you not even being happy with the results.

On that note, I just bought the 28mm f2.8 pancake
>>
>>4330816
>I just bought the 28mm f2.8 pancake
Now thats a great lens. Maybe even the GOAT, to be honest.

While Ive sold all my Canon cameras, I still have this and a few other RF lenses. In case Canon ever comes out with a small full frame camera (M50 style) with IBIS, I will buy one and use it with the 28.
>>
>>4330831
It's a meme lens
>>
>>4330831
I adapt my older EF 24mm 2.8, and honestly, please sell me on the RF 28. Give me hope that theres a reason to upgrade.
>>
>>4330850
It's super sharp even into the very edges of the frame and it also has really nice bokeh and rendering. Really good for the size and price.

https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-28mm-f-2-8-stm/#MTF_resolution_at_45_megapixels
>>
>>4325032
I've used Sony, Fuji, Nikon Z mount but avoided the RP as its "the worst camera ever".
Got a RP and its fucking great.
No nonsense. Great images. Cheap to replace. Decent affordable lens selection.
Its my go to camera for general shooting.
>>
>>4330577
Why don't you just buy some spare batteries?
>>
>>4331077
If I'm taking a full kit, I have spares. As I said I don't shoot as much lately, and when I take my gear out it's normally fuck all. Don't always remember / care to bring extras and would honestly have just rathered Canon just put their bigger battery in a $1500 camera
>>
>>4331070
>affordable lens selection
Uhhh, what. Cheapest RF lens is $250 for a prime, and their decent zooms are double at at minimum. Don't get me wrong, they're great optically, but cheap isn't one of their dot points.
>>
>>4331231
>crying about 2-500 dollars
Damn anon maybe this is the wrong hobby for you, sorry.
>>
>>4331287
There are cheaper options is all I think anon was trying to highlight, like F mount (lel). Stop being a nigger.
>>
>>4331231
What other lenses are comparable to the rf100-400mm IQ wise, AF speed, and with IS for under 600 hundo?
Canon glass is usually pricier, but good IQ and features in general.
Hell the sigma 100-400 DG is softer with more vignetting while being more expensive even though it's a faster lens. Even worse if we're comparing top tier stuff, the Sony 100-400 GM is a worse buy than the RF100-500mm even if it's 200-300 bucks cheaper.
To be honest that lens at 550-600 is an excellent value buy(I love mine), while being small and light.
Only upgrade I want is probably the rf200-800mm next year for dat dere reach telephoto wise.
>will say though my rf50mm 1.8f is soft as hell till 2.8f but for how cheap it is, I can't really complain
I do hope sigma can start dropping the RF FF lenses next year, would love a 24mm DG Art 1.4f for astro/landscape stuff.
>>
>>4332224
>What other lenses are comparable to the rf100-400mm IQ wise
bottom of a beer bottle(green)
>>
>>4325032
Coming from an outsider lurking on /p/ without any experience with camera's besides an old Canon AE-1, Canon's current cameras all look like homosexual men's sex toys. Too afraid of bold edges, everything is kinda melty like an anal plug.
>>
>>4332246
>immediately brings up gay shit
Your mind is rotted boyo
>bold edges
Yeah totally want an uncomfortable grip on a camera simply because >muh aesthetics
Sony might be up your alley then, they felt like crap in the hand testing the a7 III/IV in store, and I don't have particularly big hands so I ultimately ended up with canon. They do look good though.
>>4332245
>can't list alternatives
I'm being serious, what else is in that price bracket and compares? I don't know shit about sony/nikon/etc so don't really know.
What do the other ecosystems have in that range that's worth purchasing? Will say for primes they're better at comparable costs(at least from what my buddy with a A7RIII tells me).
>>
>>4332258
>Your mind is rotted boyo
I hate gay people. That's all.
>Yeah totally want an uncomfortable grip on a camera simply because >muh aesthetics
Take a look at the viewfinder, are you seriously running around and holding your camera by the viewfinder?
>I don't have particularly big hands
I do
>Sony might be up your alley then
Not in the market for a camera, just got bored of my home board and started lurking here. But yes, the Snoy cameras look very pleasing.
>>
>>4332258
>"uncomfortable grip"
Here's why a lot of people, artistics specifically, hate canon

They are designed from the ground up for people who use large lenses. Artistic photographers typically use smaller lenses. A canon with a small lens makes 0 design sense. It's less portable, ugly as fuck, for no ergonomic benefit unless you have legit grip strength issues and the increase in friction is needed to compensate for your lack of strength for holding a 1lb object.
>>
>>4332260
>Take a look at the viewfinder, are you seriously running around and holding your camera by the viewfinder?
I do walking/hiking photography of nature and wildlife, so yah I'm constantly moving and holding the camera by the grip, no idea what point you're trying to make about the viewfinder as I didn't even mention that kek. The sonys had a shallow grip, shorter height wise where my pinky would hang off which then was pressed against the sharper corners, overall it was less comfortable to hold and at least in store.
You're the one that brought up looks my guy, dunno why you'd care more about the aesthetics of the camera rather than use and functionality.
To be honest I don't give a shit about brand, just what works well and feels the most comfortable to use. If sonys/nikons/etc felt better in the hands I would have went that route instead as they generally have better features for the price.
>>4332264
Not a gripstrength issue, just easier to stabilize in general as you have more of a purchase along the entire finger from a deeper grip(I'm also primarily using telephotos so that makes sense), will say yes canon's are uglier but that's not why I bought it. I don't give a fuck what people think of what my camera looks like lmao, that's a woman's mindset.
>my camera is a fashion statement
do artfags really?
>>
File: 852.jpg (70 KB, 570x508)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
>>4332269
It kind of is a grip strength issue. There are two ways to hold on to something better. One is to just be stronger. The other is to increase the grip area, add a little cushion, and make it conform to the closed hand.

>I don't give a fuck what people think of what my camera looks like lmao, that's a woman's mindset.
>>my camera is a fashion statement
>do artfags really?
Pic related mindset.

It's also practical. Camera's gotta go in a bag with other shit (like more primes). Camera's gotta be held with a tripod plate sometimes. Camera bag's gotta go in a proper backpack because camera backpacks are gay, and a larger camera needs a larger camera bag. A larger camera just helps it all add up faster and if you're not using large lenses there's no benefit unless you're legit a griplet.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width570
Image Height508
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>
>>4332264
I have giant hands (and dick) so I enjoy the big grip on Canons.
>>
>>4332293
i have giant hands and i prefer leica
>dont have to grip camera
>just rest it in your hands
>lol
>>
>>4332276
I dress well, just don't care what people think of a camera lmfao, even if you have a aesthetic leica you'll still look like a geek on the street, and innawoods who gives a fuck lmao. That's like caring about appearances when buying a high end phone. There's a difference in personal presentation and buying something for online autists to fawn over. But that's how it works on /k/ as well.
Not sure about the bag statement, it's not much different size wise, picrel.
But compared to like a R50 or 6400, totally valid.
>and if you're not using large lenses there's no benefit unless you're legit a griplet.
Completely valid, and can understand that entirely.
>>
>>4332305
>even if you have a aesthetic leica you'll still look like a geek on the street
Nah bitches love my 70s retro shitbox

Must suck to be married and have to not care lol
>>
File: kek4.jpg (6 KB, 200x200)
6 KB
6 KB JPG
>>4332309
Kek, hey man if it works for yah God speed,keep pulling that photography poontang lmfao.
I wish this board spent even half the amount of time they spend bitching on brandwars and arguing over minute details on actually going out and having fun with what they have. Same with /k/ to be honest, bet 80% of that board is nogunz at this point.
>>
>>4332313
/k/ has been a dead, commie infested shithole for like a decade anon where you been?
>>
File: the-notch-TM.jpg (69 KB, 1024x648)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
>>4332315
Been going there for too long, pre syria era. /g/ died in 2012 and /fit/ went to shit early post zyzz and rich pianoman.
They don't even remember
>nothxjeff
Or that reviewbrah started on misc.
Hell, only one person on /k/ remembered the Notch TM in the past couple years I posted it.
Only got worse with the /pol/ infestation and turdies. Still pissed they undid the india rangeban.
We're a dying breed mang.
>>
>>4325032
isn't lowlight worse than everyone else?
>>
>>4332258
Nothing is really comparable and that’s the trick. The R7/R10 is what M43 advertises itself as, and you get the upside of FF compatibility, and access to cheap, great FF bodies. Canon’s not flashy, it just fucking works. Yes, SOOC JPG is not very artistic (Fuji owns this, and Panasonic has great mono profiles), but it is accurate, good looking and easy to work with.
>>
File: compactness.jpg (225 KB, 1200x800)
225 KB
225 KB JPG
>>4325032
its electronic junk

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark III
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.0 (Macintosh)
PhotographerHenington Photography
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution240 dpi
Vertical Resolution240 dpi
Image Created2019:01:08 23:29:11
Exposure Time1/25 sec
F-Numberf/3.2
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating3200
Lens Aperturef/3.2
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4332539
Lightweight R series is basically M43 without IBIS but you can magic Canon lenses and features.
>>
File: vaseline.png (730 KB, 765x977)
730 KB
730 KB PNG
>>4332545
your next post will be a schizophrenic monologue about how the dogshit EF lens has """sovl"""
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=403&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
>>
>>4332545
I miss LCD top displays like you wouldnt believe. fuck those OLED displays
>>
>>4332626
This is the dumbest thing I've read this week, congratulations.
Cameras' LCD has zero advantages over OLED.
>>
>>4332610
That RF lens is so sharp it could cut diamond
>>
>>4332610
the RF lens is like fucking 4x the size, i dont care how much "better" it may or may not be, its sure as fuck not 4x "better."
>>
File: limpwristedfaggot.png (8 KB, 699x109)
8 KB
8 KB PNG
>>4332847
DYEL bro? Not even 2x weight or volume. It sure as fuck is >2x better than the EF.
>>
>>4332887
Woah an extra 400g? Watch out he might not make it out the house with that kind of weight penalty
>>
>>4332847
holy fuck you're a weak faggot, go to the gym.
>>
>>4332545
Why are they still fucking around with where to put the power switch?
>>
>>4332626
>>4332702
Status screens should be E-Ink.
>>
>>4325099
>caring about country of origin
>Excusing the outsourcing of your "good" primes
>>
>>4333093
Fantastic idea anon, but idk what fps they update at. If it's too slow I can imagine that being slightly annoying
>>
>>4333116
>anon
retard
>>
>>4333127
"Anon" is part of the name field.

>>4333116
>If it's too slow
There are different implementations.
If none of them are fast enough, they could stack them above or beneath the LCD and only turn them on when the camera goes to sleep or is powered off.
>>
>>4333129
>If none of them are fast enough, they could stack them above or beneath the LCD and only turn them on when the camera goes to sleep or is powered off.
Then what is even the point?
>>
>>4333137
>Then what is even the point?
So you always know what your settings are without having to look several different places as is the case for bodies with physical dials (Zf, Fuji)
Physical dials also can't tell you non-setting based information (battery charge, remaining card space, card(s) present...)
>>
>>4333129
e-ink screens facinate me because they are so useful and seemingly cheaper to produce but then are looked at like some sort of premium feature so you get charged out the ass. Anywho, I like the idea, but camera manufacturers are such traditionalist pigs that they'd rather design blob 7.0 than actually experiment with features and design. As much as I love the results of my R series, it's such a soulless corporate brick.
>>
>>4333156
>they'd rather design blob 7.0
We might have some hope with the Pixii

>it's such a soulless corporate brick
I know what you mean.
I'd be perfectly content to piss off with my 1D if it had custom modes.
I thought for sure that since the 5D had it, the 1D MkIII or MkIV would.
No, it wasn't until the 1DX that the 1 series got custom modes.
So now I have to buy a much newer and more expensive camera just to get the one feature I want.
>>
>>4333166
Canon's feature-walling is high class bullshit. I'm convinced they artifically limit features to maintain eight different bodies per generation instead of what could probably be four or five. The existence of the pathetic R100 is exhibit A. R50 doesn't get a mechanical shutter. R10 Is where APS-C should start. R8 is alright but no dual SD card or IBIS and a gimped battery. Basically need to buy an R6 for all the features. They know their market and they know they've cornered anyone doing professional photography into buying $4000 bodies at minimum, and in doing so any consumer products follow suit.

I've never hated a company as much as I love what their products produce
>>
>>4333203
It's industry standard behavior
>sony: FPS artificially crippled on a7iv
>nikon: DX bodies totally crippled
>fuji: everything that isn't a GFX is crippled with xtrans
>olympus: refuses to service anything before the JIP buy+rebrand, everything under the "1" series is crippled in some awful way ie: plastic tripod mount
>panasonic: crippled by being a panasonic, and now there's the s9 joke
>sigma: pure crippling
>>
>>4333206
Also nikon
>In camera processors somehow so bad that even with 2 of them they could not add features like pixel shift that were present on super shitty micro four thirds
>But here's the new model that does it! Buy!
>>
>>4333203
>R100 is exhibit A
The 4000D must have moved some units.

>R50 doesn't get a mechanical shutter
How bad's the rolling shutter?

It upsets me that they haven't made a top level body without an integrated vertical battery grip since the 1V.
>>
>>4333206
>sigma: pure crippling
?
>>
>>4333213
I own an R50 (fuck me right) and it has EFCS which is good **enough**, but you still get weird behaviour with artifical light at very fast shutter speeds. I should have shelled out the extra $300 for the R10 at least but whatever.

The rolling shutter in electronic mode is passable but still noticable. The only time I use electronic shutter is in the camera's silent mode or when focus stacking macro stuff
>>
File: maxresdefault.jpg (53 KB, 1280x720)
53 KB
53 KB JPG
>>4333215
A modern camera with a readout speed of less than 1/200 is crippled. You can achieve that with a very fast sensor, or a fully mechanical shutter. Both are scanning slit mechanisms. Sigma includes neither.

I forgot to mention how hard sony cripples the -c models JUST so people won't buy them over the non-c models. The shitty EVF is not a design necessity. The half shutter is not a design necessity. If they uncrippled that shit, size and weight would go up by <20g and <0.5cm. They have slow sensors and absolutely require mech shutters.
>inb4 EFCS sync speed isnt that baaaaad
Here's your bokeh bro.

But they have to protect a7iv and a7rv sales just like the a7iv is crippled down to shooting 6fps with 14 bit raws to protect a1 and a9ii-iii sales. It can't even outspeed the a7iii. It needs to be as bad as possible to be a stronger motivator to consoom.
>>
File: woa.png (37 KB, 126x122)
37 KB
37 KB PNG
>>4333220
EFCS exists purely to eliminate shutter shock and that's it. Any other application deserves a full shutter and any manufacturer that goes "yep EFCS good enough, don't worry about a proper mechanical shutter" are assholes.
>>
>>4333225
EFCS is also susceptible to flicker, fucks up sunstars, and can cause uneven exposure without lens specific firmware cope.
>>
>>4333227
The rest I was aware of but the uneven exposure is new to my ears. Fuckin cheap bastards.
>>
>>4333232
>cheap
it probably costs them more money to omit the whole shutter mechanism. the a7c* line needs its own special shutter assembly.

but not as much money as they make by driving people to the more expensive SLR styled models since shutter assys are probably made in china for peanuts
>>
>>4333219
>I should have shelled out the extra $300 for the R10 at least but whatever
At least you got a small camera.
>>
>>4333220
>Here's your bokeh bro
Why does it change the character of the out of focus areas?
It makes me glad I stayed from this until I learned more about it.
>>
>>4333277
Because the shutter is above the sensor and light diffracts around a single blade shutter differently than it does with a slit shutter (fully mechanical and E shutter). It only occurs over 1/1000 for some reason.

it also effects exposure but cameras hide this with firmware. Early on, they wouldn't with third party lenses, but this is mostly fixed and you'd only ever notice a fractional amount of extra noise.
>>
>>4333239
Market segmentation for profit is a global problem across all industries. You think it’s bad for cameras? It exists in healthcare for fucks sake.

Not sure how you solve it. I just know that at the end of the day capitalism ends up being as destructive as communism. It just takes longer to get there.
>>
>>4333287
>It only occurs over 1/1000 for some reason.
No it occurs at all shutter speeds, even 1/100th. It's just not very noticeable below 1/500-1/1000. But it's there.
>>
Anyone have the rf35mm 1.8f macro? Thinking of snagging it in a few months or next time it shows up refurbed as I like my rf50mm stopped down to 2.8-4f(wide open it's soft and gets noticeable chromatic ab) but want something a bit wider and able to focus closer.
Mostly would use it for pics of my dog/friends/family when a full body shot is preferred or for group photos compared to the 50mm's tighter view which I do like for half body/headshots, Might use it for astro, but primarily closeups of bugs and plants/mushrooms when not shooting people/dawg. 99% of the rest of my shooting is with my rf100-400mm for wildlife.
>>
what does the r stand for?
>>
>>4334791
Retarded in the literal sense of the word. Canon has retarded the capabilities of many of its cameras.
>>
>>4334792
i dont think its that
>>
>>4334793
miRRoRless
>>
>>4333087
>horribley balanced cameras are a good thing
you use a tripod for everything, i dont even own a tripod.
>>
>>4335091
>projecting
I only use a tripod for moon shots lmfao.
Seriously, go lift if you're complaining about 11(8 since you'd need the adapter) ounces.
It'll be good for your health and self confidence(i.e. to stop projecting), exercise my man.
>4x the size
with the ef-rf adapter it's literally a 1/4" longer with 7 more elements(almost as many as in the original ef50mm 1.2f). That's impressive in itself and I normally shit on canon lens choices because of their restrictions and no real good midrange stuff(rf100-400mm is actually pretty solid for what it is).
>>
Is it possible to have a thread on /p/ discussing cameras without Sonyggers absolutely shitting it up every time?
You would think this is /v/, they're absolutely rabid.
>>
I'm sorry if this may or may not be off topic, but I'm fairly new to photography, and I'm buying a Canon EOS 40D. I'm looking for a lens that fits that particular camera. I'm not looking into being a professional photographer or anything, but I just want to take decent pictures. What size/type of lens should I buy?
>>
>>4335361
>I'm buying a Canon EOS 40D
Me too, Anon!

>I just want to take decent pictures. What size/type of lens should I buy?
The EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM looks like a great choice and it's cheap too.
Personally, I'm very satisfied with its 40mm full frame counterpart.
>>
File: Blue Mountains_0.jpg (3.61 MB, 6000x4000)
3.61 MB
3.61 MB JPG
>>4335361
Hello anon. EFS 24mm f/2.8 STM is an excellent prime for your camera, because you end up with a slighty wide "normal" FoV. For a zoom lens, you can get something like the EFS18-55mm IS STM.

I would make sure if you get a zoom lens, you get one with Image Stabilisation. Primes like the 24mm won't have IS. It makes a world of difference when shooting handheld and is nothing but helpful. Turn it off if you shoot with a tripod though.

For a decent telephoto lens I recommend the EFS 55-250mm f/4.5-5.6 IS STM. I own it and it's about the best you'll get for the price.

There are hundreds of good EF lenses but what's best for you will depend on what you're taking photos of. If you tell us what you plan on taking photos of we can give better suggestions.

btw it's alright, this thread turned into shit flinging anyway.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeCanon
Camera ModelCanon EOS R50
Camera SoftwaredigiKam-8.3.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Compression SchemeJPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2024:05:14 14:54:06
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating320
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length45.00 mm
Image Width6000
Image Height4000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4335373
>If you tell us what you plan on taking photos of we can give better suggestions.
Oh, I plan on taking close up shots of my Dollfie doll, and also walls, floors, ground, etc. for textures for my game I'm working on. My price range is $0-$90, I'm not doing so well financially right now, so my non-essential spending limit is fairly tight.
>>
>>4334785
Good lens, but chromatic aberrations and slow focus motor.
>>
>>4335378
I should mention that I also plan on using custom apertures to get nice bokeh shapes, like hearts. I'd like to also filters like this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08QFJQ14J/ (will buy the correct size after i but the lens) or recreate how old color pictures were made using red/green/blue filters. The main purpose for the camera is for close up Dollfie pics though.
>>
>>4335378
You couldn't make it sound more like everything in that list will be covered in semen.

For less than $90 I would get the zoom lens I mentioned as they were a kit lens for a long time and people fucked them off in perfect condition for cheap. Lots floating around and it'll be the most versatile thing you can get for such a low budget.

Remember you want the IS version. I've seen them sell for as low as $40 in good condition. With your leftover budget maybe invest in an amazon quality CPL filter for another $15 and a lens hood also for another $15. That'll give your lens some protection and let you fight against bad reflections and light flaring. You may also want to buy some macro extension tubes which are super useful for close-range photography, but see how you go without them first.

Since your budget is restricting you to one lens, you can use this time to work out what focal range you shoot at the most and use that to decide if you want better lenses like a prime or a faster zoom etc.
>>
>>4335385
>You couldn't make it sound more like everything in that list will be covered in semen.
lol
>For less than $90 I would get the zoom lens I mentioned
Could you maybe give some examples? I don't like spoon feeding or being spoon fed, but I'm genuinely rarded.
>>
>>4335395
https://www.ebay.com/itm/275965142944?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D1110018%26algo%3DHOMESPLICE.COMPLISTINGS%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20210609144404%26meid%3D12774d7b455544ac8e7231fea0da8b90%26pid%3D101196%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D12%26sd%3D256302975673%26itm%3D275965142944%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2332490%26algv%3DCompVIDesktopATF2V4WithDefaultIMAFeature%26brand%3DCanon&_trksid=p2332490.c101196.m2219&itmprp=cksum%3A27596514294412774d7b455544ac8e7231fea0da8b90%7Cenc%3AAQAJAAABALUK373GZYwoSkhvUXwZwr2SLMQzpCH9tKsUlXR5IUOV%252Bm7SAr6RG3b6Z%252BxE1GpFDe77DWVq4%252BfJUomWzfbQQWmGF58i3hBTCn%252Fg%252FgN0LPccuXDbYphWIR5RcJNIYIm3wMKNf4JxNRgQNvTlx4p%252BXCfNzkfGOguDbEtzz9B5CwsSqT%252BFWVmQSW8%252B%252BFkBjqTINCTosnuAwfy2osZ36XiDWcLvryp%252BLQmwtalqPn1ws9060xdpL%252FGudySb%252BMAVBGcGv3dqPIYbPlS6KwKowl3HWYWP7F21twGxu7cZCnPW5XBMMWo1YJI7VtRJ9SS0%252B%252FSf8wySW%252B2sFRkCYWdwSo24B2Y%253D%7Campid%3APL_CLK%7Cclp%3A2332490&itmmeta=01J2ET0AC3KWTCXM3MD952HV1B

$80. Could get a cheaper one like the I version, or one in shit condition but there ya go champ. Can't really get any better for the price unless you want a fully manual lens or use the $90 to buy a gun and rob somebody
>>
>>4335396
Thank you very much. People on this board seem really nice.
>>
>>4335146
why the fuck would i get an adapter? getting a camera with good lens selection is beyond your consumerist fag cognitive abilities. theres also a 100% chance im stronger than you.
>>
>>4335379
Gotcha, used to the CA on the rf50mm, it's badddd till 4f, 2.8f is okay with removal unless in higher contrast lighting.
similar story there? Really just hope sigma gets the RF FF rights next year, or canon announces some more f1.4s on the 17th. Probably holding off either way.
>>4335441
>comes into canon thread
>talking about 2 canon lenses
>gets called out on his bullshit
Dawg you're retarded. If sony felt better in the hands I woulda went that route myself simply due to lens selection but the a7iii/iv did not feel as comfortable to hold as the r6mkii personally, but you're the one coming off as a gearfag bitching about a minor size and weight increase on a lens with almost 50% additional optical elements that's a lot sharper wide open.
>100% chance I'm stronger than you
>bitches about 11 ounces
work your reverse curls my guy, it'll help with your camera holding :^).
>>
>>4335446
shut the fuck up pajeet social media marketing fag, only gearfags fall for your shit to begin with.
its objectively worse than the 5Div. its physically larger, heavier, twice as slow, with half the battery life. its a fucking retarded camera with "pro" lenses that dont even have a distance gauge or dof scale.
>>
>>4335487
>distance gauge or DOF scale
nobody has actually used these since the 80s except for pre-focusing street snapshitters
>>
>>4335441
>YOU FUCKING CONSUMERIST
>by the way, i dedicate a lot of my thought to what is the most "moral" and "based" way to shop so i cant be a...a....aaaa SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI SOI GOY SLAVE GOY SLOP JEW SLAVE CONSOOMER SOIBOI STARWARS SOISOISOISOISOISOISOISOI *begins turning into an attack helicopter* *explodes in a shower of MAGA hats*
>>
>>4335487
Then buy a 5DIV nigga? What are you even trying to bitch about lmfao.
You sound like one of those 1:1 train diorama autists that just reee at a different opinion or what people like.
Buy what you want and what works for you, I don't give a fuck about brand, aesthetics, or 'muh soul' just what's comfortable and works for me which is the sole reason why I went with the r6mkii.
Anything more than that is retardation. You're clearly upset about something, maybe you should take it out by lifting some weights :^).
>>
>>4335500
These people are closer to computer nerds
>you mean to tell me thith “profethional” computer doethnt eeffen haff a num pad and it ithnt compatible wiff linuxth?
>>
>>4335503
kek I use linux on and off(primarily for work), but those types are fucking awful, they made /g/ turn to shit over a decade ago.
I don't even have pricey camera gear, hell my most expensive lens is the rf100-400mm lmfao, I don't know what it is with this board and actually giving a fuck about what brand they and other's use.
As long as you're having fun, getting out there and shooting, doesn't matter if it's a phone or the most top of the line shit.
It's like their camera is a fucking fashion statement and their brand represents them, when in reality normal people could not give a single fuck lmfao.
>>
>>4335373
>Turn it off if you shoot with a tripod though
Don't the more recent lenses automatically detect a stable mount and turn off the IS group?
>>
>>4335396
>>4335397
>That mile long surveillance link trailer
What are you doing, friend?
Drop everything starting with the question mark.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/275965142944
>>
>>4335577
That would be news to me, but how recent are we talking cause homie is getting an EF kit
>>
>>4335610
>how recent are we talking cause homie is getting an EF kit
At least since stepper motors were introduced, I think.



[Advertise on 4chan]

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

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

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