>>4331668
no one cares

>>4331668
I care, OP <3

>>4331668
>He boughted into r8 meme
Sell it and buy yourself a REAL camera

>>4331684
How do I tell if a camera is real?

>>4331685
You can touch it, smell it, taste it

>>4331685
He probably means it's very low end ff canon camera, many would just choose r6ii or r5ii

>>4331668
Wasn't SNOY
you did well op

>>4331698
Sony is actally the best camera brand, all the other are pure copium

>>4331701
why does no one use them?

>>4331702
I do

File: canon-eos-rp-rf-24-105mm-(...).jpg (146 KB, 1000x1000)

146 KB JPG

I was gonna get the R8, but then I stumbled on a used RP for next to nothing and got that instead. Never regretted it, just the opposite.

>>4331706
>>4331668
Bases r enjoyers

>>4331668
>I'm brand new to photography and just
>*swaps battery*
>bought the R8 with a 35mm f1.8 based on /p/'s recommendation and its so
>*swaps battery*
>comfy bros. Can't wait to
>*swaps battery*
>shit!

>>4331717
I shoot Sigma.
Don't even start with this please.
I don't have time to explain more, gotta go switch out a dozen batteries on their chargers before I take my 45 minute shooting session tonight.

>>4331701
I admit, they have the most advanced cameras and the best camera technology.
Which is why they're the #1 camera of Reddit and other autists.
No one cares about your incredibly sharp photos of wind turbines, and no one cares that you perfectly nailed focus on a flying bird with objectively low noise.

Now learn some composition, develop an artistic vision, and get a soul to recognize compelling moments as they occur, and you'll be able to take photos that actually get people interested in your photography, even though you took the picture on a point-and-shoot from 2004, rather than being known as the creepy guy that brings his camera everywhere.

>>4331722
i have never seen people who say these things turn out to be good photographers, ever
formulaic street snappers at best

all the great photographers were already wanking over 8x10 film and modern emulsions before you were even born. you think realism has to die because you can't afford it. artists are glad to have it around for when they're in the mood. your views are primarily motivated by your place in internet arguments as the guy who couldn't afford it. artists views are primarily motivated by what they want their pictures to look like
>autist to artist: you soulless fucking autist nobody fucking cares about grain fuck you fuck you FUCK YOU ART IS NOT ABOUT QUALITY QUALITY DOESNT MATTER LEARN TO TAKE A FUCKING PHOTO AND TELL A STORY THATS COMPELLING
>steven shore: i'm glad you like my dye transfer print made from 8x10 sheet film? i already did that bro lets see yours

>>4331724
There's nothing wrong with using newer and better technologies. You're right, real artists like to use newer technologies to make their lives easier to do what they want to do.
The difference is, they don't need it. Any of those renowned photographers can take a budget camera and beat our asses with it in creating compelling photographs. Steven Shore didn't switch to 8x10 because he couldn't take good photos on 35mm, he switched because it was easier to make larger prints with 8x10.
Most photographers that focus on art that I've interacted with don't use Sony. They use mostly Canon, Nikon, and Leica. This really has nothing to do with Sony not being suitable for their work, but mostly reasons of legacy (e.g. they started back when Nikon and Canon were the biggest names, or they switched to Leica at some point because their own favorite photographers used Leica).
I mean, especially with Leica, their tech tends to be 5 or even more years behind Sony. They only just recently released a camera with phase detect AF lol. Yet they're one of the most renowned brands for photographers pursuing the artistic side of photography.

The fact remains, the vast majority of Sony users are either 1) primarily interested in video, 2) people who are not pro, 3) commercial photography, weddings, etc. or 4) autistic people on Reddit.

Best not to pay attention to Sony dominating the spec sheets, and just get a camera at a good price that does what you need and inspires you. That might be Sony. Probably isn't.

(Aside on that last sentence: my first camera was a Sony after reddit recommendations. I hardly ever picked that camera up. Second camera I swung the opposite direction and went Fujifilm and my photography really took off. I've since hopped brands a few times, and desu these days I mostly shoot on my GRII with a Lumix G9 for when I want to "be more serious". My girlfriend's eyes glazed over when I tried giving my old Sony to her, but it was my Leica X that inspired her).

>>4331724
But you don't need a Sony for "realism," you need it for bird or sports snapshitting. It's not the same.

>>4331730
re-reading that I realized "2) people who are not pro, 3) commercial photography, ..." sounds contradictory.
What I meant by people who are not pro are average consumers / hobbyists that aren't too serious. The old boomer who got a camera to take pictures at his bird feeder, the high school kid who's parents gifted him a Sony. Dad who wants to take photos of the kids playing sports. That kind of stuff.

>>4331730
>They don't need it
To take good photos, but they might need it to take the photo they want in the time frame they prefer. I know of dozens of fashion photographers who have brought snoys to action shoots. Are they the best for a hobbyist? Maybe not unless you're wealthy, because they're an expensive brand, but that's it.

That's it, end. Didn't need to read the rest of your post because I saw words that flag it as larping. You really could have saved yourself a lot of time if you just said "my dad works at nikon and i hung out with him and ansel adams ghost and shittalked sony" or something

>>4331731
>need it
A sony user wants it to take a certain photo in fewer takes, with certain characteristics offered by the native lenses and available sensors

Is that a problem? That people use things you don't like? That people take photos that don't interest you? Does that interfere with your neat hierarchy that runs from based to cringe and chad to incel?

>>4331668
Ohayo op desu. I own an R8 and use both RF and adapted EF glass. I wholly recommend buying a pair of extra batteries, as they've shoved their APS-C battery in this full-frame body. RF 50mm f/1.8 is a great prime, but since you already have the 35mm, that might suit your shooting better. I also recommend the pancake 28mm but that's pretty close to what you've got. The rest of my lenses are EF and you can get a 3rd party adapter for $60, $130 if you want the adapter to have the control ring which imo, I only use occasionaly anyway.

The R8 is a great camera imo and fuck any snoyboys claiming otherwise. I think it's the best place to buy into mirrorless FF without going full pro. Lack of IBIS kind of sucks but considering you're using a wide aperture lens you won't be wanting for light. Tell us anon, what your opinon of it is once you've stretched its legs.

>>4331736
there are no excuses, canon crippled this camera to insist that people buy the r6ii like stills features that were on $500 mft olympii are pro only

i wont be giving canon my money until they stop doing this shit, simple as

>>4331734
Just about any camera at about the same price points will be just about as suitable for just about any task the others in that ballpark are suitable for.
A 0.05 second faster autofocus on Sony than a Canon that is in the same ballpark of price is not going to make a fucking difference lol.
This is why Sony is the brand of autists. They're the only people who fucking give a shit about splitting hairs on specs like that.
The average photographer doesn't give a shit about that. He buys the new Canon because he already has a collection of Canon lenses and he's impressed with the new autofocus performance on the camera 5 years newer, and when he borrowed his friend's Sony to try it out, he didn't even notice it was measurably faster at AF, but rather was just frustrated that he doesn't have muscle memory for it.

>>4331737
Oh I agree, Canon are absolute captialist niggers, who artifically section off their bodies so you're forced to pay lots more for something Pentax is nice enough to slap on their entry level shit. Hell, my 13 year old M43 gets IBIS but my R8 doesn't.

>>4331668
based

>>4331739
But not really, and this is about picking a camera to take certain photos not a businessman saving money on product migrations by factoring in compatibility with existing stock

Canon RF doesn't have access to the same lenses as sony FE
The sensors are different
The default color science is different, beyond editing, you cant edit your way into different spectral sensitivities

If someone wants a certain photo, and the best camera to take that photo is a sony, they use a sony. No brand loyalty involved really. Even tim walker's rented one here and there. The disconnect between /p/ and photography is here. Which camera you use has become a form of virtue signaling, replacement personality, etc, but outside of /p/ it's just a camera. They're all different and do different stuff.

>>4331735
>goalposts
You specifically were talking about realism. Realism in art and bokehmaxed bird snapshits are different things. Sony is good for the latter.

>>4331752
>It's not realism
>it's just an extremely realistic portrayal of a bird in a split second in time
>how DARE they take such a worthless fucking photo I hate it
yes how dare people take photos

where's yours?

>>4331753
You don't understand. If the photo was taken easily with an expensive camera, it's not art and i hate it.

If the photo is blurry and was taken with great difficulty on a camera I can afford it's real art, it's real sovl, and it is going to be the cover of my friends vaporwave album made by slowing down the initial d soundtrack and adding random vinyl scratches.

>>4331757
Wait, so art can only be done if you're poor?

>>4331759
Yes and poor is a standard set by what i can and cant afford because i am the center of the universe. Everyone richer than me is evil.

>>4331763
Based. But take your meds.

>>4331748
OP just wanted a camera to take selfies with. He's not going pro. So he doesn't have to think about what pro-grade L/Z/GM lenses and mega zooms are available for his mount, etc.

The fact is that for selfies, there are no better camera than the R8 with either (or both) the RF 35 and RF 85 lenses, in this price class.

The other option is a Nikon Z5, but the autofocus is really bad (it can't find focus in less than ideal lighting). Or a used Sony A7III, but OP wanted to buy new. And this is an old Sony camera that has bad colors (green cast that you cant edit away, making people in the pictures look physically sick).

The R8 has a modern sensor that also does video really well, much better than even a $4000 Sony A7RV or a $2000 Lumix S5II / Sony A7IV.

>>4331768
For selfies, there are no better cameras than the iphone 15 pro max.

As for all the sony fud and video stuff, i think its funny you're all "not going pro, nice lens no matter" but then its "PRORES 422 UNCROPPED 4k60? BROOOOO!" kek

>>4331748
> not a businessman saving money on product migrations by factoring in compatibility with existing stock
Sorry kids, Daddy's got a client that wants me to spend this winter shooting a different genre than usual, so we're not going to Disneyland this year. Daddy decided he's going to shoot Sony instead now for the 0.05 second faster AF that renders my $15k Canon investment obsolete, so now I've gotta sell it for $5 and rebuy everything Sony.

Sony, Canon, Nikon, etc. all have clinical rendering lenses, and offer versatile zooms that cover pretty much any focal length you need.
Color science is subtle -- it's not meaningfully making a camera suitable for one genre or not another. People can't even reliably distinguish color science between the different brands. Fuck, Adobe offers color profiles for most common cameras that render color science differences meaningless, making it as simple as choosing Adobe Standard to color match between different brands.

Even if we're talking video, 5 years ago I would've said that Sony and Panasonic are uniquely suitable, but now all of the brands make cameras that do great video as long as you're not doing a major production (in which case, the Sony camera you're buying doesn't compare to the hybrid Sony cameras, we're looking at a completely different segment of the camera market).

In 2024, if you're trying to claim that a particular brand makes cameras that are particularly suitable for a particular genre, you're frankly full of shit.

Canon R8 has better autofocus than the Nikon Z8/Z9.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt7Z_WjyqyE

>>4331769
>For selfies, there are no better cameras than the iphone 15 pro max.
Are you saying portrait photographers should all ditch their cameras and use an iphone?

You can't even use a flash with it.

>>4331776
Oh it's a proper portrait?

Then you don't really need a selfie screen. You need easy access to lenses with a great look for portraits and a tripod

A sony a7iii is more than good enough especially with all those sweet zeiss and minolta lenses that go right on it
>but green cast
Literally a youtube meme because normies couldn't figure out how to use auto white balance

>>4331772
Seems marginal at best and to be more of a configuration issue that is hyper specific to sports snapshits (the only form of photography where it was never a question: it's not art)

>>4331777
>A sony a7iii is more than good enough especially with all those sweet zeiss and minolta lenses that go right on it
Are you talking about autofocus or manual focus lenses? Like the Sony 35mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 (I guess these are what you call the Minolta lenses) and the old Sony/Zeiss 55mm 1.8 (this one is sharp but for $1000 it has really bad bokeh)?

Yeah they're not bad but they're arguably not quite as good as the Canon versions, while also being twice as expensive.

>>4331777
>Literally a youtube meme because normies couldn't figure out how to use auto white balance

>be me
>shoot sony
>push towards magenta to fix skin tones
>now all my other colors are fucked up

Thank god for Adobe's color profiles that brings all of the different color sciences from different brands to a set standard and takes the hard work out of it for me.

But fuck Sony for even requiring that, instead of having pleasing color science from the get go. I actually do like to pull a lot of my photos SOOC, as 90% of my photos don't generate revenue directly.

>>4331786
User error

>>4331784
Sounds like you're quantifying aesthetics. Fail.

>>4331717
Just put the camera on airplane mode and enjoy the longer battery life.

File: what-age-can-german-sheph(...).jpg (80 KB, 1024x683)

80 KB JPG

Hold on, do people here actually like, keep gear? Long term?

Every camera and lens i've ever had was essentially a rental. I buy it if I think i'll like it, and if I get tired of for some reason it I sell it for maybe break even, maybe profit, maybe ~$100 loss, like, the cost of 3 rolls of 35mm. On the surface it feels like frivolous gearfaggotry but at the end of the day the impact is pretty minimal compared to other employed adut hobbies like modding honda civics because every decision is highly liquid and depreciates slowly.

Sony cameras are enjoyable to use for a lot of things and the colors/sharpness work well with some people, some subjects, some lenses, maybe not others, and then it's on to the next thing. It doesn't hurt to try one out. What's the worst that will happen? Your hot #2 brand item will take a whole month to sell for a ripoff price?

File: Untitled1619.jpg (998 KB, 1330x868)

998 KB JPG

>>4331668
I'm calling it right now
all OP is gonna shoot is the classic Rocks and Leaves, maybe a flower and 2 street signs.

>>4331832
What you expected
>getting #metoo’d by a transwomyn because you posted her portrait on nazichan
What you got
>kino shots of the fatherlands beauty taken while on vacation with your wife and children

>>4331832
Holy fuck you are so obsessed you have actually saved this shit on your computer ahahahah

>>4331770
i disagree, visit https://mywed.com/en/analytics/
set your camera / lens combo on Canon dslr and compare it with any Sony mirrorless, you are full of shit if you don't see the epicness of canon dslr camera, every pic is legendary, i'm not a canon fanboy, i hate canon but you must give credit where it's due.
I'm wagecucking rn to buy a canon 5dmkiv and 24-70 2.8 l, i know it's old and slow and big and heavy and ugly and have 0 video features and i know a sony a7iv + 24-70 gmii is a better investment but Sony's picture lack magic that old cameras from canon and nikon have.

>>4331772
at what time he says r8 has a better autofocus? or you making shit up?

>>4331832
That's a man.

>>4331833
i feel i've already seen this reply

File: 722.jpg (179 KB, 1080x1080)

179 KB JPG

>>4331849
>>4331833
schizo

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1080

>>4331851
>posts the same image on another thread
>calls schizos people replying with the same reply as the other thread
Uncreative nigger kys

>>4331851
Seethe faggot, seethe.

>>4331814
I like the idea of owning things long term in general. Gearfaggotry is more about hopping over to the next years bullshit because muh MP. See: my 2011 M43 that still gets use and is a memory all on its own. By today's standards it's shit, but that isn't the point.

I could sell it today for maybe $200 and get back 1/2 of what I paid for it 13 years ago, which is honestly not bad, but why get rid of something that has more value and history than the money is worth?

>>4331668
Congratz, have fun. That one has the best ergo and form factor of any Canon camera. Too bad gearfags escaped their containment thread.

>>4331687
Its only real flaw is no IBIS, which is a shame since Canon has the best IBIS by far. That and it
>changes battery
has a shorter battery life.

It's still a great camera.

>>4331748
>If someone wants a certain photo, and the best camera to take that photo is a sony, they use a sony.
So they never use a Sony?

>>4331847
I don't remember the timestamp but I remember he says it. Maybe it wasn't in this video but in one of his podcast episodes.

>>4331706
>a used RP for next to nothing
How much is that?

>>4331740
>something Pentax is nice enough to slap on their entry level shit
That's because it's all they have to offer.

>>4331847
Thanks for the view, goy.

File: liz_holding_back_lmao.webm (3.59 MB, 938x1080)

3.59 MB WEBM

>>4331701

File: liz_lmoa.webm (3.24 MB, 1920x1080)

3.24 MB WEBM

>>4333027
>since Canon has the best IBIS by far.

what is it about sony that it only ever attracts the most pajeet coded fan boys?

>>4333077
Snoyggers

>>4333060
Chad 8 stop gimbal like Canon IBIS vs beta virgin 5 stop snoy sorta-ibis.

>>4333234
>Gimbal like IBIS
mmmm, corner wobble/corner smearing
so worth the consooming
useful for creativity? limited utility. useful for marketing and brand war arguments? YES!

>>4333234
>Z6III, ZF, Z8
>8 stop IBIS with focus point VR
nobody loses this brand war except for snoy

and micro four thirds because nothing is worth using a baby sensor

>>4333236
>but muh 16mm corners!!!
That’s a problem for any high performance IBIS in video. At ultra wide angle corners can wobble or the entire image can shake. Correcting one causes the other because of extreme corner distortion/stretching.

But snoy can’t deliver silky smooth 35mm takes. Canon IBIS can. I can leave the gimbal at home for 24mm and above.

>>4333053
ywnbarw

>>4333049
$600 with the EF mount adapter included. Condition near-mint.

>>4333603
Fuckin' steal. FF, modern, not a snoy. Basically kicks the shit out of 95% of other hardware

>>4333613
Light, sturdy, shoots excellent stills. Works great with older EF lenses.

>all this gearfaggotry and brand hating
If you niggas spent half the time bitching about brands as you did taking photos, you'd actually be good photographers.
>>4331668
Take any photos yet opie?
>>4333236
>as if filming matters
>doesn't know you can turn off IBIS
>doesn't know this is an issue with ANY body with highly active IBIS

>>4331703
Do you really?

>>4333027
>Its only real flaw is no IBIS
And EFCS, and only a single card slot, and no joystick like the R7, and a smaller buffer, and a low resolution EVF, and no control dial, and still no IBIS

>>4335907
>and no joystick like the R7
Jesus
Even the R10 has a joystick

Hey OP I shoot Sony mirrorless and Nikon DSLR but I am happy for you and think you made a great choice! Not sure why everyone is mentally ill on this board with regards to camera brands. You should post some of the images you took!

>>4335995
R8 is the equivalent FF of the R50. Down to a tee. No IBIS, no joystick, EFCS only. R10 fits more in line with an R6 sort of

>>4335995
Don't you have a joystick between your legs to play with?

The touchscreen control is way better

>>4336082
>The touchscreen control is way better
It isn't at all, unless you're one of those tards who walk around with their camera a foot away their face while they take pictures with the rear screen.

>>4336082
>Don't you have a joystick between your legs to play with?
I do, but it's not joyful.
It only brings me shame.

>>4336056
>R8 is the equivalent FF of the R50. Down to a tee
I wish they would have shoved it into the same frame.

>>4336145
Yeah but you'd be missing a dial.

>>4336146
They should have given it a multi-function mode dial like the R3.

>>4333603
Absolutely based buy, nice purchase amigo

>>4336137
Dunno, my hands are somewhat big yet I find the ergonomics of using the EVF and the touch screen quite nice, can't compare it to the joystick tho

>>4336144
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>4336189
>the touch screen control is way better
>can't compare it to the joystick tho

>>4336137
I don't know how it works on the R8. But I have a Snoy A7CII and don't have a joystick. But I just point the camera at whatever I want to focus on, press the AF-ON button, and the focus locks in. I can then move the camera around recomposing, and the AF point stays put.

This was is WAY faster than using a joystick.

I haven't looked back.

>>4336508
Yeah, you can turn on servo focusing and do largely the same thing