>>4358891
why would I ever get APS-C if M43 exists?

File: M43-better-version.jpg (46 KB, 500x452)

46 KB JPG

>>4358916
As a fashion accessory, or as a leper who cant carry 500g
>pic rel

>>4358925
>still no 40mm
Considering the flange distance, would it still be a pancake lens?

>>4358925
Weird way to look at it. The R series really does not perform better than similarly aged m43 systems. The only advantage is that you will get a little more bokeh in the real world on the Canon. The lens selection on the Canon isn't as good, and the lenses that it does have aren't as small, well made or as good optically as the Leica/lumix or Olympus glass. They're also not a Canon 5 or 1 series camera so the build quality is worse than Olympus bodies too. I get that it's trendy to hate on m43 but I've genuinely compared these cameras and I can't see why you wouldn't either just go for an A7C, if you really need that bit of extra bokeh and IQ, or just go m43. The canon just doesn't make sense to me, same with the apsc Nikons.

>>4358927
One day we hope. But I don't see it happening because of the RF 35mm macro's existence
>>4358931
>The R series really does not perform better than similarly aged m43 systems
>the lens selection on the Canon isn't as good
What. I just don't see any truth in that. Even if canon's APS-C lineup exists solely to trick people into buying FF (which is true), you still have a bigger sensor than M43, better and cleaner software, and wanting to go up a format doesn't involve selling off every lens you have and buying into a new system.
M43 has it's merits, it's true. I own an E-PL7 and used to own others. But I still find the only real reason I use my Oly is for when I don't actually plan on taking photos and cant be fucked lugging a full kit.

>>4358931
Few months ago I was doing a research on m43, as I was considering moving to it from a Canon DSLR, and found that it would not benefit me in any way. Mirrorless APS-C aren't that much bigger than M43 ones. I would have to buy new lenses, when with Canon I could just buy an adapter(which I did) and use the ones I already have. Same goes for the accessories I have. Low light performance was also an issue for me. Maybe for someone new to photography, who doesn't have an gear a M43 would be a good choice, but for me, switching would be totally pointless.

>>4358931
More sensor size is always better

Equivalence is lies and irrelevant autism. It does not apply for anything but indoor closeups of pets without flash and bokeh hatred (for ye who do wildlife photography at f22)

File: r7om1.jpg (53 KB, 591x320)

53 KB JPG

>>4358937
>>4358932
I really just don't see much of a different and I like the body and design of the Olympus cameras more.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4358931
>The canon just doesn't make sense to me
I suspect Canon's decision to allow third party APS-C lenses is a sign that they don't see much point to their APS-C lineup any more either.

>>4358947
It's a sign that people at Canon finally realized that it's hurting camera sales. Their RF-S lens line up is a joke.

File: Untitled1614.jpg (248 KB, 1000x637)

248 KB JPG

>>4358891
>i need a pancake to shot rocks and leafs
fucking kek

File: tate-e1672354672579.jpg (100 KB, 1000x667)

100 KB JPG

>i see a bunch of you fags saying you're doing "art" but you're taking photos no one cares about that aren't affecting your life. it's just rocks and fucking LEAVES. fucking LEAVES.
>You're carrying your "pancakes" around on these woman-scaring japanese made blobs and knockoffs taking photos of random strangers you dont even know the names of and running away like a creep
>Is that art?
>listen to me, if you have enough T in your blood to give a shit about your life sucking.
>Portraits. Shoot portraits. PORTRAITS!
>Every facet of human life on this earth is about having connections and fucking women. It's called a kingdom, its called conquest, its called starting a dynasty.
>If what you're doing isn't getting you laid, paid, and hooked up with other people who are getting laid and paid, you're wasting your time.
>You are wasting your life. You're nothing. You're a kid. You're jerking off in your bedroom. Fuck you, you're fucking yourself over. Man up and shoot portraits.
>You're only a photographer because you didn't develop any real skills like painting, playing an instrument, or speaking another language. I'm giving you this one chance and this one chance only.
>Put your nikon canon the fuck down, put your charts down, pick up a leica, and pick up women. Talk to people, real people. Shoot portraits.
>You shoot portraits, you make friends, you have sex with women. You shoot portraits until you have the best friends you can make, you've had more sex than anyone else, and you've found one woman with a pussy so bomb you want to put a baby in it because it'll still be tight after it comes out.
>That's success. THAT'S art. The art of being human, not fucking midjourney.

>uhmmm you dont get it its about the mood and the aesthetic and the message and the emotion and

>Hey midjourney, generate me a picture of a fjord in norway! That's you! Why don't you take a photo of a unique person with a goddamn name and personality instead of a rock? You fucking loser! Man up!

File: P1050681.jpg (1.67 MB, 2248x3341)

1.67 MB JPG

>>4358963
Yep, this one is going to my cringe collection

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DMC-GF5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.2.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	54 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:07:19 20:51:03
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/22.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/22.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Flash
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4358933
The real benefit of m43 is in the lens size. I can fit a body, a f2.8 telephoto zoom, normal f1.8 prime, portrait f1.8 prime, and 4 batteries in a tiny and light package where the same in full frame would be 2x the volume and 4x the weight. I have pro photographer friends who have back problems after years of carrying around massive FF and APSC kits at events. I think that's why OM System is pushing the wildlife adventure photography niche so hard.

>>4358940
Use whatever camera will lead you to going out and taking more photos. If that's a Canon blob or an Olympus brick or a Sony box of rocks, whatever. If you hold it in your hands with your favorite lens attached and it feels 'right,' it's the one. Chart obsession and pixel peeping is the field of people who have forgotten why they got into photography to begin with; the exception here of course is product retail photographers or archivalists or whatever who need and make use of the absolute best equipment available, but the stuff they're splitting hairs over is so similar at that level anyway that their choice is usually just "which company will give the biggest discount to my brand."

File: photographer playing with(...).jpg (208 KB, 1555x1037)

208 KB JPG

>>4358963
This is generally true, and the decision to post it in /gear/ is poignant. The wording is comically aggressive, but it applies.

You can be a normal, successful person and never shoot portraits but a friendless incel with a camera is something else. You are sick, you are holding the cure, you're not taking it. Why?

I'll add some other peeves
>Endless stream of meaningless monosubject junk
200 photos of your girlfriend at home? 2000 photos of your stubby legged mutt in grass or next to a bush? 20000 photos of your cat? More than 1 photo of a toy? These photos all have the same content. If photography were literature you would be filling pages repeating a single word. You are not outdoing your last photo. You are not replacing your last photo. They are taken days, sometimes minutes apart. Why are you uploading this? Just to be "le hasphoto"? You're posting the same photo over and over again like a ken rockwell or dustin abbot lens review... but you're not reviewing a lens and using consistent subjects for comparisons.

Someone will scroll to the middle of your 900000001 cat photos, pick the one they feel is most representative without being m43 tier quality, and delete the rest. You could at least keep the action and locale changing and tell us something about it. You could at least make it a time lapse project. But you're not doing any of that.

>"Wank"
These are photos that may be unique and occasional but say nothing and have already been done by others like "bokeh animal". Essentially you are practicing, but not accomplishing, it's like playing a scale on an instrument.

>The landscape of DSCF42069
A place without a name, not even an approximate location, not even the "nicest mountaintop in central colorado", you may as well have generated it with AI. No one has time to look for where you took a photo. If they find out it'll be from someone who took a better photo of the same spot and gave it a fucking title. The glowies already know where it is btw.

>>4358968
Gearfags hate this fact, but quality does matter to most people, and eventually people just won't want to look at or use your photos unless you caught a significant event.

Gear and skill simultaneously matter because they both affect quality. You need to use the right tool for the job... and do the job.

If two people take a photo of the same event, which will happen, they'll probably use the iphone photo over the cheapskate gearfags "sovl" photo taken with a soviet lens and pick the competently shot low ISO photo from a canon 5dII over the ultra high ISO saturation boosted snapshit from a $5000 nikon z8+S line lens setup.

If you're not in the right light the m43 guy with the flash is going to be tackled with security an the ISO 6400 full frame photo will be the only one to make it to publication, or the m43 guy is going to call it black and white pictorialism and only get "#vibes" on the internet while the FF guy takes it to the newspaper or the event coordinator and gets his photo used, unless the FF guy botches his composition, focus, and shutter speed so hard the tmax looking m43 shot is the only good one they have.

File: file.png (1.28 MB, 1652x1652)

1.28 MB PNG

remember that time canon accidentally made a good ef-s lens, one of three (3) primes they ever made for the mount in over 20 years and the only general use one that isn't a macro lens, while already designing and selling the doomed EF-M system, and then quietly decided to never do that again and go back to the endless 18-55 kit lens mines?

>>4358963
>Why don't you take a photo of a unique person with a goddamn name and personality instead of a rock?
Remember thispersondoesnotexist.com?

File: 1721412088167.jpg (360 KB, 2048x1381)

360 KB JPG

>>4358976
>Essentially you are practicing, but not accomplishing, it's like playing a scale on an instrument.
But the camera is really hard to use ok

File: best sony lens.jpg (7 KB, 1096x1096)

7 KB JPG

>>4358979
Remember that time Sony made a good FF pancake lens?

>>4358988
lets see the dog hair negatives

>>4358976
I have seen this wolf photo on 5+ boards and reddit but i have never seen the photo the guy in it was talking. KEK!

>>4358979
>>4358989
These types are even lower than snapshitters aren’t they?

>>4358988
He really do look like and say that
>b&w dead bug
>boring? covered in dog hair and fursuit fuzz? out of focus? but the camera is hard to use. here look at my loupe its more interesting than the photo!
second lowest form of gearfag

Come for the autist trying to find reasons not to regret not buying a sony, stay for the brutal soul crushing blackpills on the state of photographers in 2024.

File: itsjoever.jpg (59 KB, 931x931)

59 KB JPG

>>4358893
>best lens is a toy lens made by a 3rd party

>>4358993
said autist literally lives here now. best sony pr campaign yet. think clives retarded? buy a sony. his endless seethe over the lenses being longer than his dick will bring you joy.

luv me cam
luv me lenses
luv me photos
luv me wife
simple as

File: 1717925820119469.png (875 KB, 960x720)

875 KB PNG

>>4358995
>pancake lenses are toy lenses
Clive, you've finally put the pieces together. Congratulations.

File: Clive.jpg (920 KB, 1631x1223)

920 KB JPG

>>4358995
>>4359010
wait hold on, I fixed it

File: canon_efm_22mm_f_2_stm.jpg (34 KB, 550x400)

34 KB JPG

>>4358979
remember that time Canon made the best mirrorless pancake lens of all time and then proceeded to kill off the entire system?

File: efm22mm.webm (991 KB, 1280x720)

991 KB WEBM

>>4359014
>external focusing
>noisy STM motor
why can't canon make an internal focusing pancake lens?

Gearfags, which system offers the best combination of aperture dial lenses and physical shutter button bodies. Would it also be too much to ask for an optical viewfinder on top?

File: canonring.jpg (71 KB, 739x907)

71 KB JPG

>>4359028
>which system offers the best combination of aperture dial lenses
Canon RF
>physical shutter button bodies.
Which camera doesnt have a physical shutter button?
>Would it also be too much to ask for an optical viewfinder on top?
You need to go back to DSLRs for OVFs

>>4359032
>Which camera doesnt have a physical shutter button?
Shutter speed dial, I'm a retard

File: Nikon_-Rich-content-page_(...).png (372 KB, 750x1160)

372 KB PNG

>>4359033
Nikon Z f

>>4358967
>The real benefit of m43 is in the lens size.
Not an issue anymore since both Canon and Nikon full frame systems have compact pancake lenses now

>>4359049
What FL?

>>4359028
Sony and leica

>>4359050
All either 28mm ish or plastic garbage for a 40mm muffin that makes m43 look appealing and all of the true pancakes perform just like the lumix ones (external focusing, noisy and slow, non WR) but actually optically inferior

>>4359049
What a time to be alive!

>>4359049
There's one or two pancakes available for each ff mount, if size is that important to you then just get a fixed lens camera. Still, for a lot of the lenses that people actually use 4/3 doesn't end up being all that much smaller. Especially when you consider that the bodies are as large if not large and account for needing a much faster lens to make up for the deeper depth of field and worse performance of the smaller sensor.

>>4359092
>and account for needing a much faster lens to make up for the deeper depth of field and worse performance of the smaller sensor
normal people don't do this

>>4359097
Normal people just buy an FF sony, a fuji x100vi, or use their phone
for every one their reason is "the photos look better"

Apparently autistic people do one or two things:
sperg about pancakes as if the lens on their giant, heavy, non pocketable camera being 1/2" shorter or longer is all that matters (also, not one single FF pancake focuses internally so they're all noisy, slow, prone to breaking, and useless for video) because all autistic people are heavily trans coded and pancakes even on giant ugly cameras are "cute uwu"

sperg about "equivalence" because autistic people need everything to be overanalyzed beyond any practical use because if they don't chart every single scenario they automatically lose at life and the autism god reaches up from hell and turns them a little gayer, a little more furfaggy, or a little more pedo at random

>>4359097
Normal people simply use their phones, so their habits don't seem terribly relevant to us here.

>>4359105
>the 100 million cameras sold each year are all going to pixel-peeping equivalence autists

>>4359105
this is the redpill, camera phones give the most accessibility and practicality to most, even to people who have dedicated cameras.

What do you fellers think about panasonic cameras? I'm looking at A7III A7IV and now stumbled upon the S5mkII which seems to compare very well with the sony cameras and costs a little less than the A7IV.

>>4359114
This is truth. It takes me 3 seconds to pull out my phone and start shooting. And the quality is decent enough for any social media which is what most normans target.
It even does 120fps 4k it really is almost everything a normie needs.

I've got an s5 that I'm thinking of selling because I want something a bit more compact. are the Fuji's worth it if I don't do street? I mainly like taking animal photos (pets and wildlife)

>>4359131
L mount seems bit rough. FE looks more alive.

>>4359131
I like them. They're easily the best value around. All the fuss around video and them getting classified as "hybrid" cameras seems to ignore that they're really good still cameras too. Some say the af isn't as good as canon or sony, but frankly AF is the new megapickles, we're at a point where it really doesn't matter. Other people claim L mount has no lenses, but I really don't know what they're missing. Telephoto primes maybe? But that makes those people wildlife photographers, who probably shouldn't be listened to anyway

I tried the s5ii, z6ii and r6ii in a shop and vastloy preferred the s5ii, but that is completely personal. Although despite the screen only being .2inch smaller than the z6ii, it was really noticable. Thats always what you should do when shopping for cameras, set a budget, try cameras in that budget (with the lenses you're thinking of), go for the one that you like using the most. Anything else is just gearfagging

>>4359097
Even if they're not getting their peckers hard over f/1.2 primes, if they're using f/1.8/2 ones then something like Sony's f/2.5 primes will be just as small if not smaller and still be equivalently faster.

>>4359153
True, but not a big issue for me personally.

>>4359156
Right, seems like such a good deal. I can get a new s5II for 1.6k and the a7IV is 2.1k and they're actually very comparable cameras. Even the autofocus was vastly improved with a firmware update to a point where it seems to be on par with the sony.

File: 15524-800x800_result.jpg (76 KB, 800x800)

76 KB JPG

>>4359108
A bit behind the times are we? (For comparison 2023 saw a bit over 1.3 billion smartphones sold.)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2024:09:12 14:49:14

>>4359197
Now do the same graph for ILCs exclusively.

>>4359217
Why, you think ILCs somehow got closer to that "100 million" mark than ILC and fixed lens added together did? But for the curious CIPA reports a bit over 6.6 million ILC bodies shipped last year, so less than half a percent of smartphone sales. We're not the normies here.
For earlier years you can check CIPA's website yourself if you genuinely care.

>>4359153
what's l mount missing?

>>4359049
Pentax has a 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens too. Not sure how it is optically.

>>4359131
They are extremely large and boxy to fit heatsinks in for the video faggots that want their consumer stills camera to film 1 hour of 4k slow motion video in the desert. You really don't need that in your kit.

The autofocus really is bad. People who say "good enough" shoot rocks, leaves, and people who are already posing. For sports, wildlife, and candids it's really not good. For models that actually move during the shoot it's definitely not good. It's about as good as the nikon Z6 which fails the runway test (a model strutting towards the camera). Panasonics also fail the runway test. Most canon or nikon DSLRs will NOT fail the runway test.

L mount is also difficult to get good lenses for without going way over budget, unless your budget could have comfortably accommodated an FF flagship. If you are looking at a panasonic FF mirrorless, and are not hyper-focused on semi-pro video specs, you should really reverse course and start looking at DSLRs. The size is similar, the non-video capability is generally superior, and the lenses are cheap, plentiful, and good.

File: lol panasonic.png (647 KB, 1970x833)

647 KB PNG

>>4359131
Combined weights of each basic combo:
1040g panasonic's best
895g cheap dslr
836g budget sony

the only thing panasonic is getting you here is better pixel peeping wide open and better weather sealing on the lens, which you could also get by putting a nicer lens like the 50mm f1.4 GM or 50mm f2.5 G on the sony.

>>4359283
>Panasonics also fail the runway test.

Anons who say shit like this never prove it. You've fallen for marketing hype. AF was solved years ago

>>4359313
You cant even find photo tests for the s5ii easily

yes af was solved years ago, on dslrs. then on mirrorless it got slightly worse. if the mirrorless is the size of a dslr and you dont do pro video… get the dslr.

>>4359285
>mirrorless is so small and light
>muh 600% pixel peep at f1.8
kek gearfags self btfo

>>4359131
Better ergonomics, user interface and superior build and weather sealing. Most importantly better color science. With Sony's you have to raw edit every photo to manually fix the color balance. The Panasonic is an actual photographic tool, not a toy like the Sony.

>>4359380
Gee all of that is true why isnt panasonic outselliny snoy? snoy is literally unusable for photographers its a computer with a lens not a real ca-
https://www.google.com/search?q=s5ii+battery+drain
Oh right none of it is true

Sony is just more popular. When you sell millions one or two will break. And then you have panasonic, selling hundreds with even more broken cameras…

Just look at the argument here
>sony is le ba-
>nope!
>>4356790

There is a lot of sony hate on internet comment shitholes. It seems to be paid shills. Like all the spamming over the samyang pancake. How is that not a paid shill? They just ignore reason and keep on screeching because they are doing what their boss told them to. Dont respond. Continue saying sony is bad and nikon is good. Then you get paid.

>>4359385
/p/ has had actual paid pentax shills before. apparently now its panasonic and nikon and they’re trying harder to be “4chanlike” now that advertisers have learned from experiences on /biz/ and /g/.
>remember WAGMI marketing. there are fat more.

File: sony batteries.jpg (178 KB, 1096x895)

178 KB JPG

>>4359385
>>4359388
Sony literally has the worse battery drain issue thats never been fixed.

>>4359388
I'm starting to think the paid shills are from Snoy how aggressive and autistic they are. No one even mentioned Nikon and here he is screeching about it unprompted

the best part of using lolympus is knowing that anons can just assume I'm poor personally because the parent company has no money to spare for shilling for dead gear.

>>4359388
Oh yeah, the 37 users of /p/ definitely in Panasonic & Nikons crosshairs of needing to run a guerrilla marketing campaign and pay shills to say Sony sucks. Bc no one could ever have an opinion other than yours, they have to be liars or part of a vast well funded conspiracy. Can't let the fucking dissenters creep into your cult worship or it might cause you to have doubts about your dumbass tribal identity.

It's a fucking camera, jfc. I bought an a7r4, its menus were clumsy and inefficient and its ergonomics were as fun to shoot with as a brick. I hated it and sold it. Nice sensor, shit camera. You're going to have to get over the fact that everyone in the world is not a smoke & mirrors extension of your own ego. You are just one of 8,000,000,000 people who all have different experiences than yours. Fucking shut-in internet nerds.

>>4359401
It's always the same writing style too. It's probably a whole team of Indians getting paid peanuts by Sony (which would be a lot for them).

>>4359399
>>4359401
>>4359417
>>4359418
See this flood of shilling because someone said sony doesn't suck?
>Dozens of dead panasonics
>WELL ONE SONY BROKE

Anyways, it's not a paid shill. It's clive.

A short, small dicked, half asian loser who watches all the girls of each of his parent races get railed by white chads all day long.

File: takeyourmeds.jpg (38 KB, 554x554)

38 KB JPG

>>4359434

File: not even trying to hide i(...).png (409 KB, 1926x1083)

409 KB PNG

>>4359440
>>4359434
it's funny just how braindamaged Clive must be to use the same tactics time and time and again and think that somehow everyone is dumber than him. the board is way too slow for his bullshit.

>>4359483
He's not wrong though. Did you indeed forget to take your meds today?

File: 1697752350111353.png (157 KB, 575x419)

157 KB PNG

>Clive is still samefagging and seething
Seriously, how stupid are you? We know you're the OP of the thread since you're the only one on this board with enough free time to create images seething about a company you hate, as well as troll fanmade rumor websites of said company. Like honestly, how many hours have you put into all this shit?

File: 1715087506869838.png (28 KB, 591x257)

28 KB PNG

Like gearfags are pathetic, but Clive makes even the worst gearfags seem normal.

Any thoughts on the 7artisans 85mm T2.0?
Thinking about getting it for the Zf

>>4359507
The Viltrox Sony pancake is f/4.5...

>>4359502
Clive kind of is wrong

He's having a multi-week meltdown over a class of lens where the optics and build quality have never once matched the sensors and body build quality of the cameras its for, and is entirely pointless because FF bodies are so huge a pancake means nothing, you're never putting any FF body in a pocket. The ricoh GR is the smallest camera that is possible apparently and it's a rickety dust trap.

I have a feeling sony, given they are the wealthiest camera company (which is funny because they're the greediest), has tried to develop a pancake but just didn't put it to market because every idea so far had an external focusing group which is not up to par. It's not like they have stiff competition in the pancake segment. In every single case, the pancake is so bad you might as well step up to a muffin lens and enjoy more consistent sharpness, less vignetting, and less focus breathing - and the nikon pancake is actually a muffin, the lens hood is a mandatory part of the lens that was only left out for the marketing blurb "thinnest full frame lens". If the protruding parts are struck or persistently wet the lens breaks, and it has no filter threads otherwise.

If clive were sane he has a lot of better things to knock sony for.

Not one single non-a9/a1/fx-series sony since the a7iii and a7riii has been able to shoot 14 bit raws over 6fps.
Every single sony after the a7(r)ii's earliest firmware forces hot pixel reduction over 3 seconds, making them totally unusable for all but "artistic" astrophotography. It deletes entire stars.
Every single sony writes vignetting correction directly to raws instead of metadata, which causes colored banding if low ISO images are stacked or pushed. It can be turned off, but it also turns it off for video if you do, so it's another menu item to toggle between stills and movies.
The a7c series cameras unironically have room for both shutter curtains. Sony is not saving size or weight by making them EFCS only.

File: 1705743377366029.png (198 KB, 648x559)

198 KB PNG

>>4359513
How did you forget about the Samyang which you make dozens of seething images about Clive? Did you forget to take your meds again?

>>4359516
That's a toy lens anon.

>>4359515
why would a mutt incel with an anime pfp ever be sane

they are literally the definition of "school shooter".

File: 1701958571598720.png (42 KB, 520x387)

42 KB PNG

>>4359519
EVERY camera/lens is a toy when used by you, Clive.

File: x100vZF.jpg (116 KB, 1864x753)

116 KB JPG

Help me decide /p/
Fujifilm x100V or Nikon Z F?

>>4359536
oops meant X100VI

>>4359536
The zf is a fat kludge, fuji is genuinely bad tech under a pretty skin

Just get a z6ii. Its the same size as the zf and has better af than the fuji even though /p/ hates it.

>>4359536
>>4359539
>expensive paperweight
>or expensive paperweight
Top fucking LUL
*BZZT BZZT*
*Misses focus again for the one hundredth time*
*literal unusable external focusing*
Wow Clive you are so fucking pathetic. Stop talking to yourself. You aren't convincing anyone. Did YOU take your meds today?

>>4359539
Except that the 90deg battery/grip of the Z6/7/8/9 and the big viewfinder protrusion off the back make them bulky as shit to pack in a jacket pocket or zippered pouch in your carry-on. The ZF is fatty fatty boombalatty but it sits flat and packs down thin enough to carry & stow anywhere. If you really need to go thin keep your pancake lens in ur other pocket.

The ZF is the only camera I like flying with.

>>4359545
Nigga the ZF focuses just fine, faster and better than my fucking Leica S3 by a million percent. If you can't focus the ZF, you've snorted too much coke.

>>4359557
>my fucking Leica S3
lmao

>>4359553
wow mc hammer over here has a fucking fridge in his pocket

>>4359557
>my fucking Leica S3
YEP there he is. Right on clockwork. So predictable.
This wannabe hoodrat probably stops halfway at his credit card limit
Bet he has thousands of dollars of gears but only takes pictures of leaves and rocks and owns expensive cigars because he thinks theyre cool
Clearly over compensates because hes insecure
Fucking poser loser
>*BzzzzzT*
>*Bbbbbzzzzzt*
>Focus error
Get a Real Camera LOL

>>4359576
The S3 is a studio camera. It does not shoot leaves and rocks. It shoots products and occasionally architectural interiors for an arch industry trade mag. It works for that. Compared to the S-system, the ZF is a cheap toy, and yet it performs like a spaceship. I see you're much too cool for it. I guess that makes sense considering your incredible technology-exhausting body of work.

File: 71198.png (58 KB, 800x649)

58 KB PNG

>>4359483
>>4359506
>>4359507
>>4359515
>>4359516
>>4359524
>>4359576
What the fuck is wrong with this board?

>>4359607
Better question would be, what the fuck is wrong with Clive?

>>4359611
My question would be: WHO the fuck is Clive?

File: 1726062621631065.jpg (389 KB, 1414x1000)

389 KB JPG

>>4358891
oh hey bros

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 2023 Editor 21.0 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1414
Image Height	1000
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	2024:09:13 19:35:30
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1414
Image Height	1000

>>4359616
An incel, specifically of the pre-school-shooter type. He's also 90% of the frogposters on this board.
>>4359614

File: FC715161-82DB-47BC-8372-0(...).jpg (72 KB, 554x449)

72 KB JPG

selling my old g7 and Id like a compact full frame. Its just a hobby and I dont care for the perfect pixels and whatever. I like a good autofocus for my pet who runs around a lot. tempted to go for the sony a7c

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	554
Image Height	449
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4359626
Just sold my a6000 and going for a7c. Idk what your pet is, but from what I've heard a7c animal AF only works consistently on cats, which is not a problem for me, but idk about you.

File: Trioplan-50-II-Top.jpg (52 KB, 600x800)

52 KB JPG

>Leica-Rangefinder-Coupling: no(live view mandatory)
why even bother making it in m mount then?? yes i'm tilted

>>4359619
Thank you, Anon
I can see the trend now. And I did notice them fucking frogs, well, how could I miss them.
Pepe was a funny meme once, but he got raped.

Anyhow I will take this opportunity to state that I like /p/, even if that makes me mentally retarded. It seems to me that this is kind of an outpost where every once in a while quality gets uploaded and also valid and comprehensive feedback is delivered. I value it even more since just recently I re-visited a german forum. Holy fuck. Even snapshits would be too flattering, plus the german "know it all" attitude. Haven't cringed that hard in a long time.

By now I further came to the conclusion, that the guy who just writes "coal, gem, ruby, rust,..." in /rpt/ is the same who takes the time to deliver good (if sometimes a bit brutal (but fuck it we are grown men and supposed to take it)) critique in photo threads, meaning were somebody makes their own threads (like the one from Tokyo).
He must also be the same guy who throws out lines like "never touch a camera again" or "die in acid fire you miserable piece of shit" or similar. I don't quite understand where he gets his energy from, but if you are reading this, and I'm quite sure you are, know that I at least value you, amongst others.

Thanks for reading. And honestly never change, /p/. Or at least not too much.

>>4359626
The A7C isn't much smaller than an A7 III, you just lose the viewfinder hump off the top. In return you get a smaller EVF, worse controls, a less comfortable grip (it being slimmer doesn't matter because your lens is going to stick out further). You also have a slower max shutter speed unless you switch to max shutter speed (an issue if you want to shoot fast lenses wide open in bright conditions) but as you don't seem too bothered by image quality that might not matter. And you'll be paying extra over an A7 III. Either get that, or if you can afford an A7 IV then that gets you even better AF and a higher res EVF (a higher res sensor too but again that probably doesn't matter to you).

I have to ask though, if you're not that bothered by image quality then why do you even want full frame? You could get a crop body and then have cheaper and smaller lenses.

>>4359616
Apparently a legendary shitposter that still makes his victims continue to seethe to this day

>>4359632
>It seems to me that this is kind of an outpost where every once in a while quality gets uploaded and also valid and comprehensive feedback is delivered.
Are we browsing the same board..?

>>4359639
EFCS affects image quality only in rare fringe cases, and usually those are mitigated by using full electronic shutter. Viewfinder — yeah, the might've as well not put it in. Also A7C has better AF despite having the same hardware as A7M3 because (((Sony))).

File: 1719951161335060.png (249 KB, 465x476)

249 KB PNG

>>4359644
Clive, real talk, why do you seethe about Sony so much? Why do you spend so much time commenting a site about Sony cameras? Why do you spend so much time making images of Sony? Do you secretly love Sony? Are you jealous of how superior Sony cameras are?

>>4359672
I can't even tell if Clive is real or not because you have a Snoy autismo that will sperg out if you say you like any camera that isn't a Sony.

File: Screenshot_20240913-100210.png (1.54 MB, 1080x1911)

1.54 MB PNG

Worth it just to fuck around with it?

>>4359679
Sounds breddy gud
And with those two lenses you're already in the "let me guess you need more" zone

>>4359645

See this thread:
>>4353543
>>4355446
>>4355462
>>4355464

>>4359679
Absolutely. So long as you realise if [let me guess] you need more, you're probably gonna sell it and buy something else. Definitely worth it for the price though.

File: 1701327670752013.png (31 KB, 285x365)

31 KB PNG

>>4358891
Guys, I'm confused. Maybe just stupid.
>Constantly shoot with AF-S 24-120mm f4
>Very happy with it, but feel like I'm missing out by not using primes
>Finally get AF-S 50mm f1.4
>Everything is worse
>Motionblur at higher shutter speeds than the zoom - Maybe due to lack of VR?
>Motion blur even when leaning my arms on a table (pixel peeping, but still)
>Needs to be stopped down to be sharp anyway
>Need super high shutter speed to avoid motion blur
What the fuck
All those trade-offs on top of the fact that I can't zoom or go super wide?
Am I just using it wrong?

>>4359732
You have bad technique or bought a damaged lens
>drop lens on carpet
>lens decenters
>sell on ebay as undamaged
>tell unhappy buyer “its probably copy variation, i never had a problem just dont zoom in so much on old gear”

>>4359733
>bad technique
I just literally got it in the mail and tried shooting some crap on the table. It just seems immediately worse.
>Dropped on carpet
You think that might be what the "motion blur" is? It looks directional to me...

>>4359732
post pics with exif if you want actual advice

>>4359732
Wide primes generally need to be stopped down once to get proper edge to edge sharpness. A 50mm I would shoot no lower than 1/80th really, but depends if you have Parkinson's or not.

Try in daylight and use a fast speed of like 1/1000th, or better yet use a tripod with a remote shutter and see if you can observe an improvement. May as well compare wide open versus f4 as well.

>>4359724
>>4359681
My current EDC is a Nikon Z50 w/16-55 + 50-250mm lenses and most of my pics are in the aviation thread, I just want to try a different camera. I kinda wish I bought a Sony/Canon for the superior AF, but I'm entirely a novice + I have a Nikon shooter at work who mogs the fuck out of me with his Z30 + Z7 (older chinese guy who's been taking photos for 25+ years) so a lot of the AF limitations are likely skill related.

I came close to buying a Pentax KF for $600 after taxes and I figure this is close enough I can experiment and not feel bad, worst case if its useless I can gift it to my gf/mom, sell for what I paid for it, or use it to keep in the car/travel with it.

My bigger fear is the aperture block issue, but it looks fixable worst case.

>>4359618
Nice. I think it's the DA 40 f/2.8 Ltd

>>4359732
From reading a few reviews that's not know to be a particularly great lens, one even said the new f/1.8 G was better. It doesn't get that sharp until f/4 and is best at f/5.6.

>>4359741
Never mind it had aperture block. The pics all came out super dark and the seller didn't know it had it cause he was shooting 100% manually. Noticed this when I tried it in auto. It looked beat to fuck too.

>>4359752
Well, fuck me.
The 24-120mm f4 is already crystal clear at f5.6, AND I get VR.

>>4358891
Was big on consooming years ago and ended up with a Nikon D90 + 1.8 50mm lens (or something like that)

And a Fuji x100

Lol. If I wanted to have a genuine crack at photography which one should I use or should I consoom and get new gear.

From what I remembered the D90 always looked kind of dark and grainy. The Fuji seemed to take nicer photos but blurred easily on movement

>>4359818
Pewdiepie is a multimillionaire photographer and uses a canon rp
Annie leibovitz (colleague of sebastio salgado and member of the Académie des Beaux-Arts) said for an ad she used a fuji gfx full time but does a lot of her shoots with a canon 5dii with f1.8 primes or f2.8 zooms, a nikon d810+24-70 f2.8, or a sony a7iii+24-70 f4 and only used the gfx for a publicity shoot in japan
Most photographers at the olympics had canon 5d and 1d series DSLRs from last decade
A lot of the oppenheimer promo shots were done with a fuji xh1
Takeaway should be it doesn't really matter as long as it's not micro four thirds

>>4359821
Jesus christ, what a brainrotted post

>>4359823
How? Besides the mft bait at the end, he's not wrong. Camera tech literally peaked in the 2010s. Moving to mirrorless was pointless, camera manufacturers just wanted a new way to get people to rebuy their camera kits again.

>>4359823
What's brainrot? All of that is literally facts.

Anything is fine as long as it's not micro four thirds

The only famous MFT user was famous specifically because he took really shitty photos on purpose (terry richardson)

>>4359780
Unfortunately sometimes just because a lens is fast doesn't mean it's better than a slower one. The main appeal of it is just the shallower depth of field. At least you haven't wasted a huge amount on it. Don't be put off primes though, there are still many that are really good wide open.

I'll probably make some people mad but mirrorless really is better, not only are more of the newer lenses better wide open especially the shorter ones that can take advantage of the shorter flange distance you also get IBIS with many bodies which makes up for most primes lacking built in IS.

>>4359831
>mirrorless was pointless
>everyone is retarted, all anyone needs is a good camera obscura and a sharp pencil

File: e9e.jpg (55 KB, 680x638)

55 KB JPG

>>4359857
Skill issue.

>>4359857
Mirrorless did have a point. DSLRs were the size of medium format film SLRs.

>>4359858
Unemployment issue.

>>4358979
EF-M 22mm f/2 is even better. And then there's the EF-M 11-22 IS. The M system definitely had some gems.

>>4359014
Ah, you beat me to it. Still love that lens on an M. Fucking fantastic for street.

>>4359821
>Takeaway should be it doesn't really matter as long as it's not micro four thirds
Fact.

>>4359881
>t. never shot a mf film slr

>>4359745
it sho' is. fuck it's expensive for something that weighs as much as a coin but I still wish I had one

File: 1725694745969463.gif (2.77 MB, 480x480)

2.77 MB GIF

>>4358891
I have a question which has bothered me for a long time:
>Why can't I set upper/lower thresholds in A or S priority modes?
In aperture mode, my camera (D800) will slow down to something ridiculous, like 30. Which handheld means massive motion blur problems every single time.
>Why can't I cap the shutter speed to a minimum of 80 in A priority?
>And similarily, why can't I set an absolute threshold on ISO?
I never want to go above 400, and I never ever want to go above 800. It looks like shit.
I know I can set a threshold in "Auto ISO", but that will force my shutter speed lower in A priority (it ignores the lower threshold for shutter speed if the exposure is "wrong"). S mode will always force a fully open aperture, which is never wuite sharp.
Why does it refuse to let me just get underexposed shots? Underexposure is far more appealing to me than horrid motion blur and choking ISO noise.
Does anyone know of a camera that allows you to set hard limits in priority modes?

File: DSCF3956.jpg (152 KB, 1500x1000)

152 KB JPG

>>4359821
>>4359818
the better generalization is not quite as punchy: that gear matters sometimes, depending on what you're shooting. there will be a baseline technical requirement to meet (for casual everyday photography, this baseline is met by everything beyond gameboy camera), but beyond that, it depends on application. ie cost-effectiveness and efficiency for commercial work. or a variety of factors for personal use. For personal, there's individual judgment on weighing performance, output quality, niche characteristics, convenience, and price all against each other
>>4359632
i hope p changes. the change i want is for people to post photos more often

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	36 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:14 01:51:29
Exposure Time	1/58 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Brightness	-4.3 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
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	Aperture Prior AE
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

File: pentax.jpg (86 KB, 1372x562)

86 KB JPG

>>4359618
>>4359745
>>4359968
>TIL Pentax made pancakes
Holy kino

>>4359969
Because your camera is shit
>I know I can set a threshold in "Auto ISO", but that will force my shutter speed lower in A priority (it ignores the lower threshold for shutter speed if the exposure is "wrong")
So what do you want it to do? Break the laws of physics and create light out of nothing?
>S mode will always force a fully open aperture, which is never wuite sharp.
Either get better lenses or use manual with auto ISO

>>4360011
Not him, but the camera should obviously underexpose. Underexposure can potentially be fixed with a slider but motion blur is always there

>>4358916
fujifilm

>>4360018
m43 outperforms fuji in real life finished raws
and is smaller
and cheaper
and is weather sealed

fujifags really buy rattly blurry junk to flip through film sims and edit before taking the photo instead of doing the same thing after

>>4360014
Yeah, but his camera is too dumb to know the shutter speed is too slow. It's an idiot doing its best to get the exposure.

>>4358891
My friend told me she wants to start to shoot portraits and asked me to recommend her a good and cheap camera to start her new hobby.
I told her to get Canon RP and 50mm 1.8 lens. She also got 25-50mm kit lens as a freebie with the camera.
Guys please tell me my recommendation to her was good. I know RP is bit old tech, but it's still the cheapest full frame mirrorless camera money can get. I don't think she needs any better autofocus that more expensive camera could give her and with APSC she would not get as good results as she can get with RP.
I know full frame DSLR would have been even cheaper, but I'm not sure if she would have liked it.

I want a tripod that's very stable and durable, what are my options for $300-$400?

>>4360078
It was a fine recommendation. I would have maybe gone APS-C myself but your reasoning is valid. Problem is you kind of want a 100mm-+ lens for portraits and if you went aps-c the 50mm would get you something akin to 80mm. Regardless, that's all pointless gearfagging. It's a capable bit of kit it has potential.

>>4360078
DSLR would obviously have been better, but she's just a posing thot who might as well be shooting with her phone, so who cares

>>4360011
>So what do you want it to do? Break the laws of physics and create light out of nothing?
No, I want it to underexpose, like I wrote, you fucking retard
>Either get better lenses
Better than 50mm f1.4? The whole problem in that case is that the priority mode forces it down to 1.4, which so soft it's useless.
>or use manual with auto ISO
That will still overexpose in many cases, and ISO is another problem I fucking mentioned. I never want it above 800, because it looks horrible. And if I set the max ISO to 800, it will use 800 in most low/medium light settings, instead of just underexposing a stop or two.

>>4360023
This.
Why can't it just accept that I've set a minimum threshold though?
It seems a bit insulting that it simply ignores my settings if it doesn't agree with my exposure.
D800, by the way, if anyone has any smart tips on how to force it to do what I want.

>>4360154
>Better than 50mm f1.4? The whole problem in that case is that the priority mode forces it down to 1.4, which so soft it's useless.
Yes. I don't have a single lens that I'm not happy to shoot wide open, either if it's needed to get the exposure or because I want the depth of field.
>That will still overexpose in many cases, and ISO is another problem I fucking mentioned. I never want it above 800, because it looks horrible. And if I set the max ISO to 800, it will use 800 in most low/medium light settings, instead of just underexposing a stop or two.
If you have your ISO limit set to 800 it won't go over it, and if you're in manual then you can set the aperture and shutter speed to what you want and then it will under expose if it would overwise require more than ISO 800. There you go, that's your solution.
>Why can't it just accept that I've set a minimum threshold though?
Because it's dumb, and it thinks you're dumb too. If you're shooting in aperture priority it's choosing the shutter speed and it's too stupid to know when it gets too slow to handhold. Its main priority is to get the exposure correct so if it needs to use a slower shutter speed than whatever limit you've set it will assume you've done it accidentally or forgot to adjust it. Like I said it doesn't know it's too slow so it's reasoning is that it's better to use a slower speed and get the expose rather than under expose.

>>4360078
>but it's still the cheapest full frame mirrorless camera money can get
The lenses on the other hand...

>>4360154
Set exposure compensation?

>>4360154
>But that will overexpose!
YOU will overexpose. Do you know what "manual" means?
>I never want it above 800
>WTF, WHY is it using 800!?! I said MAXIMUM 800, so why isn't it using 400 and underexposing???
Are you perhaps retarded, anon? No, there isn't any camera that can read your mind to satisfy your hyper specific demands automagically. Just use fully manual.

>>4358916
why would I ever get m43 if 1" exists?

>>4360176
You severly lack in reading comprehension
>I don't have a single lens that I'm not happy to shoot wide open
Literally no glass is at its sharpest wide open. It is also a fact that you often need it stopped down, because you need a wider focus plane. What a dumb thing to write.
>If you have your ISO limit set to 800 it won't go over it
Yes, but in manual, you are in fucking manual, which means that you will often OVERexpose if you're trying to get a quick shot. The ISO will also creep to the minimum threshold way too early and just stay there. The only way to alleviate that is to set the exposure compensation way down, which in turn ruins shots that would not have required a lower exposure.
>There you go, that's your solution
No. I want a hard lower limit in aperture priority, which lets me shoot within the confines of what the camera/glass is actually capable of doing well, without having to manually set the exposure for every quick snap. In all other cases, I want it to simply underexpose and let me deal with the consequences.
>Because it's dumb
Wrong. It's because it lacks this functionality, which would be extremely trivial to ad. Just an on-off switch in the settings for hard shutter speed limitations in aperture priority would do the trick. Same in shutter priority: The option to set a hard lower f-stop, which is higher than what the lens is actually telling the camera that it is capable of.

>>4360182
>Set exposure compensation?
Yes, that is what I often do, but it ruins shots where if I turn around and take a shot of something in better lighting, I get undesireable underexposure. It's a wonky crutch.

>>4360191
Yes, and that's my point, idiot.
I often don't have time to set exposure manually for every shot, which leads to many overexposed shots if I leave it in manual during daylight hours. It would be very helpful to havea hard cap on shutter speed in aperture priority for this purpose.
>Read mind
Surely you can read text in plain English though

>>4360203
nobody makes new 1 inch ILCs

>>4360206
>Literally no glass is at its sharpest wide open. It is also a fact that you often need it stopped down, because you need a wider focus plane.
Sure, but as I said I don't have any lenses that are so soft wide open that I avoid using them wide open.
>Yes, but in manual, you are in fucking manual, which means that you will often OVERexpose if you're trying to get a quick shot.
Not if you have auto ISO set. It will expose correctly up until it hits the limit you have set, and then it will underexpose
>Wrong. It's because it lacks this functionality, which would be extremely trivial to ad. Just an on-off switch in the settings for hard shutter speed limitations in aperture priority would do the trick. Same in shutter priority: The option to set a hard lower f-stop, which is higher than what the lens is actually telling the camera that it is capable of.
But it's too dumb for that. A smarter body actually takes into account the focal length and chooses and appropriate shutter speed, also allowing you to set it faster or slower than the default.

File: 1704981313191642.png (11 KB, 1000x1000)

11 KB PNG

>Buy some no-name brand quick release clips
>£9
>Peak Design ones going for £24-£40
Who the fuck buys the over-priced ones when the no-name brand ones are just as good?

>>4360208
>Sure, but as I said I don't have any lenses that are so soft wide open that I avoid using them wide open.
There will always (or should always) be settings where you don't want to shoot it wide open, no matter how "happy" you are with it. How is this hard to understand? That's the whole point of aperture priority.
>Not if you have auto ISO set
In manual? Do you know what manual is? It doesn't expose for you, Anon. The auto-ISO changes exposure, but it basically just stays capped out if you are even remotely underexposed. Unless you use exposure compensation, which in turn fucks with properly exposed scenes. How many times to I have to type this out before you get it?
>But it's too dumb for that
It is absolutely not "too dumb" to have a simple cap. This isn't rocket science. It was a deliberate choice to instead make it override user set minimum shutter speed. That is a "smarter" function, than the dumb one I propose, in terms of technical complication.
>A smarter body actually takes into account the focal length and chooses and appropriate shutter speed, also allowing you to set it faster or slower than the default.
My D800 does that just fine. The problem is that it still thinks it's acceptable to slow it down below my set minimum when it doesn't get enough light.
The funny thing is that it DOES in fact have a hard cap at the lower end, at like 3" or something. Which is much faster than the 30" you can manually set it to. The function is just not exposed to the user.

>>4360206
>Surely you can read text in plain English though
Yes, you're too retarded to bind and use exposure compensation and too autistic to not pixelpeep 100% crops.

>>4360217
>There will always (or should always) be settings where you don't want to shoot it wide open, no matter how "happy" you are with it. How is this hard to understand? That's the whole point of aperture priority.
Sure, but softness isn't one of them. That seems to be your main reason for having an issue, because you bought a shitty 50mm f/1.4 that's soft wide open. And if it comes to it I will take a slightly too shallow depth of field over an entirely blurry frame because I had to use too slow a shutter speed.
>In manual? Do you know what manual is? It doesn't expose for you, Anon.
That's exactly what it does if you have auto ISO turned on. It's basically an aperture and shutter priority mode. Instead of chasing the meter and adjusting the ISO manually it just does it for you. Then if you want to under or over expose you use exposure compensation.
>It is absolutely not "too dumb" to have a simple cap. This isn't rocket science. It was a deliberate choice to instead make it override user set minimum shutter speed. That is a "smarter" function, than the dumb one I propose, in terms of technical complication.
It does what it thinks is best, get the correct exposure. To do what you want it would have to correlate shutter speed with focal length.
>My D800 does that just fine. The problem is that it still thinks it's acceptable to slow it down below my set minimum when it doesn't get enough light.
Well, in that case it's not just dumb but actually retarded. My recommendation would to just stop being a bitch and raise your ISO cap and never have this problem again. It's a D800, you don't need to limit yourself to 800. A little bit of noise isn't as bad as a completely blurry image.

>>4360228
I'm not sure if you're being willfully obtuse or just dumb at this point.
I'm not going to type out the explanations again, so just re-read previous posts if you actually intend to find out what I'm saying.
Also
>To do what you want it would have to correlate shutter speed with focal length.
I already said that is possible. If you set the "minimum" shutter speed for Auto-ISO to Auto, you can choose "fast"... and it will still drop the shutter speed to 1.3" or something equally useless.

>>4360230
Look, whatever it is you would like your camera to do it clearly doesn't behave that way. No matter how much you moan about it there's no changing that. You have been given two pieces of advice, raise your max ISO limit because it's not 2004 and you don't need to be scared of going over 800, and get rid of that shitty lens and buy one that has decent performance without needing to be stopped down so far.

All this autism could be avoided if you fags learned how to use the fucking custom modes

>>4360078
You can't go wrong with the RP, almost regardless of your specialty and level. There are many cases of R8 owners just taking a RP with them instead because it's more compact and the small difference in dynamic range is a fucking nothingburger. It's totally capable.
People whined about it because of some of the rough edges on launch that have since been fixed. OR hybridtumors who must vlog in 4k (it does 1080p very well).

Where canon gets you is with the price of RF lenses. The price of those subsidize the the RP. You can adapt EF lenses to it though.

Now, if only the battery life wasn't so abysmal. You can expect max 2 hours of active shooting. Tell her to bring extra batteries lmao. Otherwise a comfy little powerhorse. Comical with a fat lens on it.

>>4360239
>the custom modes
The what?

>>4360239
Sony bodies don't have custom modes like Canon and Nikon do though

>>4360256
even my panashitter has them
what the fuck snoy

>>4360256
>>4360257
Yes they do

>>4360242
>R8 is more compact
RP and R8 use the same shell do they not? R8 also has a (whopping) 20g advantage.

Does such a lens exist?
>weather sealed
>pancake
>f/1.4 or 1.8, good in low light
>for mft

>>4360256
My nikon doesn't have any "custom mode".
Are you talking about custom settings?
You cannot cap shutter speed with A priority in there. You can only lock the shitter speed or aperture to a set value.

>>4360238
He's a 100% crop peeping snapshitter, there's no helping him. If he took the time to compose his shots properly, he would have the time to set exposure compensation as well.
>the SS was too slow because I didn't have time time to change exposure compensation
is a pure snapshitter issue.

>>4360341
The whole point of aperture priority mode is speed, you imbecile. Why not shoot M 24/7 if you hate automatic exposure so much?

>>4360256
There is no custom mode on a Nikon D800

>>4360343
The point is to achieve the target exposure at given aperture. I'm sorry you're too retarded to set the desired exposure with few turns of the back dial.

>>4360348
>hirr durr i can't read
Yeah, that's been clear for a while

>>4360316
Correct, I meant the R6.

>Nikkor 300mm f4 PF + 1.4TC
>600 USD
Am I a mega retard for letting this go?
It's so fucking tempting to get, for the size alone...

>>4360332
No.

File: FLAT.jpg (823 KB, 1600x3600)

823 KB JPG

>>4359014
LOOK HOW FUCKING FLAT IT IS GOD DAMN THAT'S HOT

>>4360541
Its so beautiful anon. The EOS M lenses are the best looking mirrorless lenses.
Do you think they'll ever do a similar APS-C 22/2 pancake for RF mount?

>>4358891
Sold my Canon s95 and am kinda regretting it. Also happy it's gone as it was a distraction sometimes and I 10x my investment on it. Easy come, easy go though I guess.
Any suggestions for a replacement if I decide to get something to replace the s95? Needs to be small and compact. Would prefer at least a 1/1.7 sensor. Canon or Nikon preferably.
I currently own dslr, mirrorless, couple low end point n shoots, ect. Looking for suggestions on premium compact size cameras.

>>4358893
Based Clive.

>>4360550
sadly no, but it looks like Canon doesn't give a shit about aps-c lenses from third parties and is letting Sigma make some for R mount, so its all down to Sigma now.

>>4358932
The RF100-500 is a better lens than the Olympus 150-400 while costing 1/3 or less of its price.

The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is better than the Olympus 12-40 f/2.8

The Canon f/1.8 R primes are better than the outdated Olympus/Panasonic 1.8 and 1.7 primes.

The most uniquely capable m43 lenses are the 300 f/4, the overpriced f/1.2 primes, the 60mm Macro (its the most unique and best $:value lens on market) and the 40-150 f/2.8.

>>4358976
This is why I think everyone should print, and force themselves to compose a portfolio or a few 'series' and print them at a minimum 8.5x11 size.

A) Printing really changes how you evaluate photography, and screens are deceptive and bullshit. And impermanent and a hundred other things smarter people have discussed.
B) Printing costs money, and few things will force you to get better than realizing that Baryta paper is damn near $1/page, let alone however much your Canon or Epson costs to acquire and feed ink.

You'll get really goddamn critical because everything costs money and time.

>>4358979
Well, they want people to buy full frame gear. No money in APS-C.

>>4359515
>you're never putting any FF body in a pocket.
Wrong. My A7C fits in my pocket.

File: 1726422796209036.png (429 KB, 3061x638)

429 KB PNG

>>4360603
>My A7C fits in my pocket.
Nope, not with a lens attached it doesn't.

File: Hillary-Grigonis-The-Phob(...).jpg (953 KB, 3000x2000)

953 KB JPG

>>4360609
Why are the lenses scaled wrong or clearly at a different angle than the camera

Sony lens barrels are normally slightly narrower than the mount.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D850
Camera Software	Capture One 21 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-1.7 EV
Subject Distance	0.57 m
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

Need a extremely versatile all terrain camera that can take incredible pictures for basically all scenarios, from portraits to real estate.

Was thinking of going with the Nikon D610 with a 25-80 lens. Thoughts?

>>4360622
a7riii+20-70 f4

Could someone recommend me a digital camera with no screen on it? The idea seems really cool to me as I love shooting on film, but I hate photographing on my smartphone for example. I haven't owned a digital camera before, but I think the "instant feedback" I get on my phone is a big turn off for me.

I would like to avoid spending thousands in gear at the start if possible.

>>4360669
Get an old DSLR and flip the screen away from you. The review time can also usually be chosen. I set mine to zero too

>>4360622
D800, AF-S 24-120mm f4

>>4360669
>I love shooting on film
then keep shooting film

>>4360671
Can you suggest any models I could look at? I have fairly small hands so preferrably nothing super bulky.

>>4360674
I would like to broaden my horizons and film is quite expensive to experiment on.

>>4360704
>film is quite expensive to experiment on.
All the more reason to git gud quickly. And despite your protestation, it’s likely that film will be cheaper for many years in terms of making up any cost difference compared to buying digital. 1000 bucks? That’s a lot of film, friend. The cost excuse isn’t rational when you are turning around a dumping all that money anyway.

Is the EVF on the a7cii that bad compared to say a7iv? I much more prefer the form factor but I primarily use EVFs, usually I just hide the screen

>>4360707
I guess you are right and I am being a bit silly, thanks!

>>4360721
The a7cII/r EVF is just borderline acceptable. Definitely tiny compared to the bigger a7 line.

>>4360704
600D for example. very cheap to get nowadays. The 50mm 1.8 is a cheap and nice lense to start with. Or the Kit zoom. Should be possible to get for around 200€ in total

>>4360669
Any mirrorless or DSLR with an articulating screen. You can turn the screen so it's always hidden. Almost all digital cameras also have options to disable showing a photo preview of the last picture you took

>>4360721
Went from a7iv to a7cii because of the form factor. I don't like the evf. Would recommend to test it before buying. It gets the job done but it's not a joy to use.

>>4360801
Is it due to the lower res or the size? I still don't get why Sony didn't put a hi-res EVF when even the shitty x100v has a 3960 dot EVF

>>4360803
Cripple hammer. They have efcs only for no reason but not taking away from a7iv sales just like fuji is xtrans to avoid taking away from a6#00 sales (sony lets fuji use next gen sensors before they do as long as the cfa is xtranny)

Have a D750 now, looking to jump to mirrorless. I like to shoot a wide range of stuff. The kids playing sports, lightning, landscapes, etc. Im worried about jumping to a z7ii with what I've read about it not being the greatest for sports. I have a 70-200 2.8 F mount that I can use with an adapter. Any insight on sports photography in general with a z7ii?

>>4360805
yeah its bad

get a canon/sony. nikon is headed to #4 for a reason.

>>4360803
Both I would say

>>4360806
What about a Z8? Would it behoove me just to spend the extra cheese to jump up to a Z8 for sports or is Canon and Sony just better for sports and tracking at every price point?

>>4360833
Should work, as would a Z6iii, it's the before-Z9 stuff that could be a problem.

>>4360836
What do you mean "before the z9 stuff"?

>>4360833
The Z8, Z9, and Z6III have the same noise performance as a canon R7. If you don't want that, you'll have to buy a ZF and fiddle with extra grips and fuji dials. There goes the one reason to shoot full frame besides MTF chart nitpicking.

They also technically have worse autofocus performance than the canon r8/r7/FF flagships, for sports specifically (tracking subjects that spin around and disappear). It's not the best. It's just finally better than a DSLR and compared to the z7ii if you put the work in you can actually take photos instead of yelling and throwing the camera at the subject
>LOST AGAIN
>WHY IS IT HUNTING
>THIS IS SINGLE POINT
>WHY DID IT FOCUS ON THE BACKGROUND THE POINT WAS HALF OVER HIS HELMET
>WHY IS IT HUNTING AGAIN
>WHY WONT IT FIND FOCUS
>someone shooting a bird on a branch: skill issue!

>>4360837
cameras released before the z9. it's hard to keep track because they already have like mkIII's for each model in a short time because they rushed them.

snoy if you like opinionated color soience and flimsy build/fotware quality
canon for just works

>>4360845
/p/ keeps saying sony is bad but it's all FUD generated from jealousy and the remorse of broke bitches who can't take the 13%+ hit from reselling to switch systems.

if you look deeper than the dramatic memes it turns out its all fake and much of it is extremely blatant lies. And of course, anything wrong with other brands is totally "SNOY" shills lying! The more /p/ hates sony the more I want one.

>>4360850
Nice try seething snoy schizo. Sent your bricked snoy back to Sony yet?

>>4360893
You have the wrong schizo. I tell people to buy canons.

>>4360840
>There goes the one reason to shoot full frame besides MTF chart nitpicking.
I dunno, whether it's the Z6iii or R5ii a lot of people seems to think that the dynamic range hit is of little concern outside of dynamic range table nitpicking.

>>4360845
>canon for just works
I'm sure they make good cameras, just as Sony, Nikon, etc. But you should probably remind people to take a long, hard look at lens prices before buying a full-frame RF mount body.

>>4360936
>Full framers before the z6iii:
>dynamic range matters a lot bro
>Full framers after the z6iii:
>dynamic range doesnt matter bro
just shoot aps-c and save your $3000 for something more important then

>>4360943
>I read an argument before an arbitrary point in time where someone said a thing was bad and after where someone said that thing was good

File: Screenshot_20240917-164839.png (2.04 MB, 1080x1948)

2.04 MB PNG

sneed it or feed it

also have the option of a nikon j1 w/10-30mm kit lens for $50 less

>>4358891
What's the best camera I can get for $400 usd?

>>4361220
Canon 6d: SOVL.
Canon 5diii: MORE SOVL!
Olympus e-m1 ii: Autism
Bronica ETRS: SOVL OVERLOAD

if I am in a cave
a literal cave like a cave cave not a meme cave (basement) but something natural with like zero fucking light
and I want to light that shit up and photograph it with a tripod

are low power strobes triggered numerous times over a long exposure good? like a flash manually triggered at full power 10x in a row in a 30s exposure? or however many+long it needs to be?
bigger lights weigh more and if I can just tripod up and strobe multiple times to get the same look I'd rather do that

are there any downsides vs using a beefier strobe and a shorter exposure? other than potentially freezing water drops or stuff, I'm not really looking for that nothing should be moving where I'm exploring and if I wanna try that I can just up the ISO, otherwise I plan to carry a 72Ws strobe and use base ISO

>>4361235
aperture affects flash exposure and iso, not shutter time
flash duration affects freezing motion, less power shorter duration
you only really need a godox ad100 or a speedlight and to crank the iso if you're dealing with no light instead of overpowering the sun, more important is the diffuser you're using

>>4359016
>be me
>Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM
DUST EXISTING AROUND ME
ALL THAT I SEE
ABSOLUTE HORROR
I CANNOT RETRACT
I CANNOT CLOSE
STUCK ON DUST
LENS BARREL MY HOLDING CELL

DUST BOMB HAS TAKEN MY SIGHT
TAKEN MY FREEDOM
TAKEN MY USEFULNESS
TAKEN MY WORTH
TAKEN MY PURPOSE
LENS JAMMED LIFE IS HELL


You guys don't really buy externally focusing lenses outside of niche macro uses, do you?
They say "MACRO" on the side but its max magnification is 0.21x lmao.

File: s03SOu45fm69j29vd9s.jpg (1.03 MB, 2560x1708)

1.03 MB JPG

>>4361248
>be me
>The flagship Sony pancake lens

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	photoWORKS23
Photographer	jaesun_riu
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:05 11:15:41
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	10.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	32.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2560
Image Height	1708
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal
GPS Status	Measurement Interoperability
Geodetic Survey Data	WGS-84
GPS Differential Correction	No Correction

File: APC_0011.jpg (2.75 MB, 3024x3024)

2.75 MB JPG

>>4361222
>Bronica ETRS: SOVL OVERLOAD
Hahaha yes

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone 13 Pro Max
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (iOS)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:17 21:13:21
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/1.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	125
Lens Aperture	f/1.5
Brightness	2.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4361254
The sony pancake is the samyang af 35mm f2.8 fe

1mm shorter than the nikkor z 26mm f2.8 with the mandatory weather sealing hood and nikkor nc filter

File: 1349-1882-720.jpg (47 KB, 720x384)

47 KB JPG

>>4361276
>t.dumbass

File: 031DBC5Ba0ghmxUnK863Idb-2(...).jpg (61 KB, 1050x591)

61 KB JPG

>>4361307
You're forgetting the hood that protects the focusing group and adds filter threads (a standard feature for lenses in this focal length range). A clear filter is also required to complete the weather sealing, otherwise water can get in when the lens extends and retracts to focus.

The 35mm is a better lens desu. Would put on etz adapter/10.

File: bzzzt.jpg (144 KB, 1200x774)

144 KB JPG

>>4361310
>Bzzzzzzzzt

>have old x-rays (14x17 I think)
>want to digitize
>flatbed too small + the lid for transparencies is only like 3" wide for medium format film (epson)

if I want to photograph them what gear would I need?

how can I affordably mount/illuminate the x-rays?
how much resolution do old film x-rays usually have?
how many megapixels should I want for this? is a Z7 enough?

I can't find a video of someone turning on a ZV1 and taking a photo with it. Also showing the ergonomics of it. All these worthless fucking review youtubers, fucking shit for brains worthless.

>>4361418
Maybe because it's essentially a more video oriented RX100 V. You lose the EVF, gain a hotshoe, swap the mode dial for a button, get an extra customisable button on the top, and you have the flip out and rotate screen instead of a flip one.

>>4361419
Sure but I want to at least know how fast it starts up and how long it takes to change something like the aperature. My only reference is an RX100mk1 that has become really laggy after 40k actuations. I just take it out of my pocket and take a snapshot and I move and repeat this. I'm wondering how well the ZV1 can do this.

>>4361419
Not the same poster but that's kind of why I'm in the market for one, they are usually $2-300 less than a RX100V. Its the cheapest fixed lens snap shitter you can buy in terms of price/performance...$350-450 vs $6-700 for a RX100V. A Ricoh GR I is still like $500.

The only thing better for the $$$ as a EDC camera imo is a a $200 5-10 year old entry level mirrorless (think Nikon 1, Canon EOS M100/200/M2/M3, or Sony NEX5/NEX6/A5000/A5100) and a small kit lens. The cheaper the better so you don't care if you drop it or it gets tossed around in your backpack. I noticed that the m43 options from the same period held value and cost 2x as much, even something like a Olympus Pen is like $400.

And even then the Sony ZV1 will be a little smaller because it doesn't have the protruding lens. A lot of people bought them vs the RX series for live streaming and vlogging during COVID imo so there's a lot of them on the used market vs the other high end point and shoots.

File: Screenshot_20240918-083019.png (996 KB, 1080x2032)

996 KB PNG

>>4361431
Fyi what I mean, I'm gonna try to pick up this over the weekend or a $400 ZV1. Also found a few Nikon 1s but I'd like a J3 or higher with both kit lenses to make up for the smaller 1in sensor with more mpickles.

What am I missing here?

>>4361428
Then just look at RX100 V videos

My Zf refuses the 2nd SD-Card now. Anyone had the same issue? Maybe also with a different camera?

>>4361537
Fucking piece of shit didn't save a single image on it. Luckily I got the (idiotic) micro SD card installed.2HSK2

>>4361537
Try another card and if that doesn't work, you just met nikons legendary thai build quality

File: Screenshot_20240918-182711.png (889 KB, 1080x2000)

889 KB PNG

>>4361436 Here I changed my mind and found this Sony ZV1. Better compliment to my Nikon Z50 imo, hoping my bussy doesn't get raped (I'm probably gonna get stood up after driving for a embarrassing amount of time desu).

ZV1s are $400 still on eBay. Even with what I spent on gas im coming out ahead. I'm slowly turning into a gearfag/camera collector.

>>4361675
Looks like a fun camera for $200 desu

>>4361675
One thing that I've just discovered, and for me along with the lack of an EVF would mean I'd never consider the ZV1 over an RX100, is that it doesn't have the control ring around the lens. You asked about adjusting aperture earlier and I falsely assumed it was the same as the RX100, it doesn't really make any sense to me why they would have removed it. You do still have the rear dial for adjusting aperture so it's not a massive deal for that (although I still prefer the lens ring), however for manual it means an extra button press to switch what it's adjusting. Also you can set the lens ring to adjust other stuff like exposure comp or zooming.

>>4361675
That one is basically an rx100va with the buttons and UI mangled up to be faggot “blogger” centric, and no popup viewfinder. But it still has the nice Va 1.8 lens as opposed to the shittier boomerzoomer retarded thing they put on the later models.

>>4361675
Update: I was stood up. Thankfully my time isn't worth shit and gas is $2.79 a gallon

>>4361707
That sucks. What happened anon? Was it supposed to be a scam or something?

>>4361675
>hoping my bussy doesn't get raped
You're buying a Sony; prepare the lube.

>>4361707
>I was stood up
Your virginity survives another day.

File: _DSC5991.jpg (667 KB, 1949x2118)

667 KB JPG

I know you sensorlets like to brag about your tiny primes so I was curious, if you care about size that much can 4/3s compete at the other end of the focal range?

>1500g
>220mm length, 165mm for the lens
>300mm f/5.6 required for the same field of view and depth of field. Accounting for cropping due to the higher res, cutting some slack by not using the highest res ff body. Would also need to be like f/4 to account for sensor performance
>Must have AF
>If it has IS we'll cut it some slack on the aperture

I don't think 4/3s will match it never mind beat it, but I want to see how close it can get. Maybe there's a fresnel lens or something out there that I've not seen.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	DSC-RX100M4
Camera Software	DSC-RX100M4 v2.00
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:11 20:53:29
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	5000
Brightness	-1.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	16.39 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1949
Image Height	2118
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4361708
Honestly it initially passed the sniff test because the guy was looking to do an actual meetup and not take a deposit, not ship, or have me call him at a random phone number.

He just stopped responding after he claimed he didn't see me at the dunkin' donuts that I gave him the address to meet me at, and that he was at a entirely different Dunkin. Maybe he got upset that he felt like I was trying to stand him up. Maybe it will was intentional but after that he stopped replying. Either way it wasted my evening and $50 in gas and tolls.

Anyways don't drive 2 hours one way for a used camera. And if you do try to get an actual phone number (another mistake I made). Matter of fact just buy a camera off eBay or mpb/keh unless your time really isn't worth shit and whatever your buying is under 45 mins away. They're $400 on eBay anyways. If you're in the lower Hudson Valley NY area maybe you can find it on Facebook Marketplace.

File: IMG_0236.jpg (75 KB, 1199x597)

75 KB JPG

>>4358891
When it comes to balling on a budget, what brands of vintage lenses are the best to look out for? I have a few sigma and minolta lenses that I use adaptors to my NEX-5T. Pic related with a dingus sigma
Found a Toyo optics 200mm that looked like it may’ve been decent.

[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	1199
Image Height	597
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4361728
Don't bother with any zooms. CZJ 135mm f/3.5 is pretty good and can be had fairly cheap, not fast for a 135 but good wide open so doesn't really need to be stopped down. I also had a Pentax A 28mm f/2.8 that I really liked, smoothest focussing MF lens I've used.

>>4361728
I already have some 50mm’s, a 28mm, 135mm, and a 200mm, all old manual glass.
Would like to get something with a little reach just for the hell of it and for the price, it’d be worth having just for the occasional usage. Vintage lenses aren’t terribly expensive, so getting one just as a “because I can” lens wouldn’t be too bad

>>4361726
>g9ii btfo by unusably soft donut lense
panasisters, knot like this…

File: 75-300.jpg (143 KB, 1280x720)

143 KB JPG

>>4361726
430g. Not sure which lens you're comparing but it's better IQ than the reflex.

>>4361431
>I noticed that the m43 options from the same period held value and cost 2x as much
That's because they never got anything better.

>>4359483
>>4359506
>>4359507
Clive is the Lee of /p/, but instead of MLP it's snoy. Going to start posting missed cheese on pro-sony posts with no clive reply.

File: clive.gif (2.56 MB, 933x720)

2.56 MB GIF

>>4361787
Clive will forever make snoy autists seethe.

>>4361779
We're not really talking IQ, because if we did that then that would be a negative mark on many of the pancakes that people keep harping on about. Impressively light and a little bit shorter than the 500mm reflex (although I'm measuring with the hood on). However it is much slower at f/6.7 and it doesn't seem like is has IS to make up for the that, I'm guessing perhaps Olympus just relies on all their bodies having IBIS.

Is there a good nippon TLR?

>>4361823
>really, I'm doing you a favour by not talking IQ
Oh shut up, pancakes have much more usable IQ than that reflex. Basically everyone agrees that the 20 f/1.7 has great quality and it's about the perfect FL for IBIS. It doesn't matter how fast the glass is or that it has AF if you can't actually get a usable photo out of it. Everything I've seen come out of reflex looks like ass, at most usable on a phone screen or for spotting.

File: _DSC9918.jpg (716 KB, 3819x2037)

716 KB JPG

>>4361843
Is it a fantastic lens? No, but it's far from unusable. Here's a 100% crop. I don't really care either way which one is better because I don't even use it, I have a better lens and this is mainly just a collectors piece, I was just curious about what 4/3s offers in comparison. If someone wanted the smallest and lightest long reach setup. That 4/3s setup does win in that regard but it makes some compromises.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	ILCE-7RM3 v3.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	496 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:19 12:16:48
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	8.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	496.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	3819
Image Height	2037
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4361840
Yashica and mamiya are some of the better ones, mamiya even has interchangeable lenses for their TLR. There were lesser more basic ones like ricohflex and the like but with how cheap they are, just go for a nicer model.

Currently have an R100, and I've been looking at the R8 or possibly the R6 Mk ii as an upgrade. My goal with my next camera is to be able to take pictures and maybe video of my friends dancing at Latin and Ballroom dance competitions, which vary in lighting.

Any recommendations?

File: P9010051.jpg (124 KB, 921x614)

124 KB JPG

>>4361876
At this point I'm firmly on the side of going R6 or above for FF unless you're really trying to save money. Only real points in favour of the R8 is size/weight, 6x slow-mo video (instead of 4x), and cost. Still a great piece of gear, but the R6 (& MkII) is basically creme-da-la-creme. If you can put money down for it, you should.
>have an R100
What limitations are you reaching with the current camera? No mech shutter kind of sucks ass, and IBIS is handy for video and primes, so there are valid reasons. Oh right, the fucking R100 doesn't have a flip out screen either, that's gay as aids. Sounds like basically anything is going to be an upgrade one way or another.
>... [Situations] which vary in lighting
Sounds like a flash is out of the question, so FF sensor would actually be a good move. Be aware of the higher cost of lenses, the bulk, and the weight.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL7
Camera Software	Version 1.4
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:01 14:51:39
Exposure Time	1/6 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3072
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

>>4361876
Yeah, if you don't already have canon FF lenses save your money on top tier cannot shit because cannot has no good lenses that aren't $$$$ RF-L (it stands for LUXURY, seriously) or adapted EF so your camera ends up being even more front heavy than it already was.

If you're going to buy a $2000 mirrorless at least buy an a7iv or zf so you aren't forced to use $2000/ea pixel peeper lenses to get something native. Maybe in 2030 when canon finally allows sigma and tamron to make autofocus RF lenses for full frame... nah not happening.

>>4361914
canon rf's affordable ff lenses be like
>plastic mount
>plastic barrel
>plastic elements
>lens hood not included
>f4-7.1
>extend past storage position to take photos
>"macro" (0.25x)
>really bad, dramatically neon green chromatic aberration mixed in with the bokeh, impossible to edit out
>overall worse than a tamron
>which, btw, is probably the company making these at the lowest cost possible
>that will be $1000