>who uses bridge cameras?
Tourists. I think your shots will be good though with it since you’re not a cringe tourist. I saw your work OP and it’s pretty good. I think you can do a lot with that zoom, it opens up a lot for good framing and keeps it crisp

uuuuu which cam do i bring to the classic car meet tomorrow

Fe2 with 28
F801s with 28-80
Both with foma 100
M8 with 35
D700 with 28-80 and the biggest flashgun i've got

Its gonna be during midday and with a clear sky

>>4362223
The one you happen to have with you.

>>4362215
Which of my photos is your favourite?

>>4362223
Bring them all and wear them all around your neck.

>>4362226
Frick!!
>>4362231
Double frick!!!!!!

>>4362211
If I’m not mistaken, that’s just an fz1000 rebadge. Which is a decent kit. I own one, it’s nice to take on vacation, but it’s definitely not a camera i pick up regularly if I’m being honest.

>>4362239
You don't want to larp as sugar?

>>4362247
no :(

>>4362211
>Who uses bridge cameras?
Men who want compression for cheap and not having to carry expensive gear with them all the time.

>>4362243
The leica has an extra wheel but apart from that they're pretty much the same

>>4362223
var då någonstans suedisötnosen?

File: translate.png (24 KB, 1323x262)

24 KB PNG

>>4362274
What?

>>4362278
varför låtsas du som att du inte kan svenska?
har redan listat ut var förresten, kommer krypskjuta dig från en buske med min enorma EF L(arge) BBC

>>4362282
varför skrev du som du använde ai?
lämna mig ifred mannen

>>4362243
It’s actually a rebadge of the FZ1000 mark 2 if that makes a difference. I can’t see myself keeping it for long desu as I want something lighter but I should be able to flip it for at least double what I paid for it.

>>4362289
>varför skrev du som du använde ai?
syftar du på "suedisötnosen"? det är ett kreativt blattesvenskt påhitt, tvivlar på att ai är kapabel till sådant
>lämna mig ifred mannen
nu är det ju så att du är en ökänd namnbög. är inte sjävla syftet med det just att få uppmärksamhet?
ta dina piller för övrigt, det var ett skitbrev

>>4362355
Mannen blev kränkt för jag ville inte vara bästisar

File: file.png (705 KB, 875x875)

705 KB PNG

Looking for some advice/reccs for lenses. What would be some pretty good 35mm and 50mm lenses under $1000 that are for Sony E-mount? I was looking at some Tamrons but I've heard the autofocus on some is pretty slow, so all I've come up with is the Sony FE 50mm F2.5 G for now (though 1.8f would be preferable, it's the best I've found).

>>4362372
aa lite

>>4362387
I like my Zeiss 55mm. The G is probably better wide open than mine stopped down to f/2.5 but it was like half the price and it's nice to have the extra light or shallow depth of field if I want.

You just know it's euro hours when you get a bög bög language general

>>4362564
Ze esatek?

>>4362565
KOONTAH KEENTAY MUH KNEEGAHR

what are some good tripods in the $300-$400 range? I'm 6'2 and want something super stable

>>4362569
Anything from Manfrotto is pretty good in my experience.

>>4362564
Duktig liten sissyclitty som förtjänar att få sin dagliga dos av gubbsperma~ Grindrböghorslynan! J-ja det är du ^~^ BBC väntar i orten du måste dit! D-du ska få betalt! E-eller gör d-du det gratis :3 Duktig sissy! Bögdeatmatch i en bur, knulla flera dygn utan mat och vatten och leva på bajs sen dö :3 Sissyclittygrindrböghormissfoster! ^^ Ta bbc och ba runka runka suga suga och bli pippad~ >//< Sissyclittydittyn måste ha sitt :3 Gubbkuk hela dan :3 gullig animemusik!!!! vakna klockan 14 en vardag efter edgy sissy hypno clitty porno streak hela natten ^^ äta lite mammas mat gogogaga~ mamma varför gråååter du ;3 vill du ha en kramis av din lilla flickis (kille) gagooo o--o-okej dags att sööööööööötbreva>< h-h-h-hej k-killar jag är en söööt tjejboy;3 mmm horny time dags att runka till bbc hypno clitty sissyporno~ å kolla på daddys med håriga gubbpungar ;333333333 gogogaga det läcker sperma i min lilla sissyprinsessäsng ;33 mammmaaaa hihi det kom sperma med kisset och bajset~ Du är söt >< och horny ^^ Har du en thingy för dirty diaper diarrhea daddy dick elrrrt:33 Knulla med daddies i blöja idag?~ :3 Stackars sissy blir mobbad i tråden ^^ blir sur och vresig! Sissy inte glad >< sissy stampar i golvet inte vill ha på sig blöja!!! Daddy sur när sissy kissar och kommer på hans golv och hans hundar slickar i sig sissyjuicen^^ blir horny Doggy och knullar böghorslynan i asshole ;3 Du på bilden eller boywhore!! Kille men ser ut som tjej!!’ Feminin och slutty för stora negerkukar och bajs ^^ trashy toilet tranny ^_^ :3 Snart rider du horny diaper daddies på sauna club gangbang hög på Acid >\\< Golden shower i duschen dricka pozzat gubbkiss vädra ut sissypruttarna :3 prinsessbajsdoften ^^ Sissyclittan! :3 Det är ju dags för dig att föda snart! Glöm inte att du måste åka till sjukhuset för din boybirth så du kan prutta bajs över hela sjukhuset. Kommer dirty diaper daddy med? :333

>>4362387
>I was looking at some Tamrons but I've heard the autofocus on some is pretty slow
By what standard? Most people don't really need that much AF speed on a 35mm lens, so long as it can do AF-C. Unless you have a specific reason why you need fast AF on a wide angle, you shouldn't worry about it too much.

I don't know where else to say this but fucking hell the youtube camera channels are fucking insufferable to watch.
I'm a casual camera hobbyist and I've been looking at getting a small rangefinder type camera. So I came across the Fuji x100vi. Looks pretty cool in terms of features/function/price, so I look it up on youtube but fucking hell all the videos I find are fucking horrible.
It's always somebody talking way too fucking long. Lo fi hip hop beats or insanely hyperbolic "cinematic" music playing non stop in every fucking video. WAY too hard colour grading on everything. Almost everybody shows every video or photo in that horrible green/yellow tint with low contrast blacks. Everybody doing long monologues with the camera right up in their face and an insanely blurred out background.
It's like they all fucking do the same thing. I just want some hard data and comparisons. I don't want to fucking hear your life story and jokes. Just fucking show me how the gear I'm interested in works!
Fuck I hate youtube / social media personas and begging.

>>4362598
>I just want some hard data and comparisons
why on earth would you think youtube is the place for that?

>>4362606
It's a fast way to look at some video footage, I just want to avoid all the youtube persona shit. It's all insanely derivative.

>>4362598
Make your own youtube channel. :)

>>4362572
>Unless you have a specific reason why you need fast AF on a wide angle
This is an excellent point.

>>4362387
If you've got some very specific use case then you need to tell us. Otherwise, why would wide angle AF speed be significant?

>>4362689
That's not the point

File: Screenshot.png (919 KB, 1608x955)

919 KB PNG

LOL???

>>4362732
brother that's a steal

>>4362732
I fucking hate brown people, literally every other Facebook Marketplace ad for a camera is some third worlder who copy pasted eBay pics trying to bait someone to give them a "deposit" to ship their camera or some other ridiculous bullshit because the $100 they get even once is a weeks worth of pay in Indonesia or Ghana.

Connecting the third world to the internet is the greatest sin committed only now normies are slowly waking up to this truth nuke

>>4362572
>>4362701
Good point. I suppose it doesn't matter too much for 35mm, but it will matter for the 50mm since there will likely be moving portraits of people.

With that in mind, I'm open to suggestion about any 35mm's then that don't have fast autofocus, just as long as they're sharp.

>>4362282
>>4362289
Tjena.

File: file.png (1.9 MB, 1788x873)

1.9 MB PNG

found picrel on a crate, are these good enough to carry me from novice to intermediate? any tips?

>>4363139
Your mindset is holding you back. No camera will save you unless you know you need the added functionality.

File: 1691682567628281.png (43 KB, 1116x936)

43 KB PNG

>>4363139
A nicer camera will make your snapshits look nicer (and that's a good thing)

>>4363153
wtf why do you have to project, I'm literally just asking if this are good cameras to learn

>>4363155
he's right though, becoming a better photographer has nothing to do with getting a better camera. at all. that's gearfag mentality 101

>>4363156
Ok, but are those cameras good for what I asked? please, that's the only thing I want to know, I didn't mention ANYTHING else nor expressed being trying to decide between these o any other camera.

>>4363174
Yes and/or no. Maybe. It depends.

>>4363174
yes, the point is that any camera is going to be good to get you from novice to intermediate because the camera has nothing to do with it (getting better as a photographer), you fucking dunce.

File: DO01000007.jpg (265 KB, 1280x854)

265 KB JPG

>>4362211
OP here. This camera is so mediocre. I feel a huge disconnect when using it as the zoom has a noticeable delay and everything just seems to take longer compared with my Fuji XT4. EVF is nice though as is the jpg output. Build quality is shit and Leica should be ashamed for selling out and putting their badge on Lumix cameras.
Also the Leica Fotos app is the best I’ve ever used (out of Fuji, Lumix, Olympus).

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	LEICA CAMERA AG
Camera Model	V-Lux 5
Camera Software	Ver.2.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	84 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	180 dpi
Vertical Resolution	180 dpi
Image Created	2019:01:04 02:00:56
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/3.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	30.68 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1280
Image Height	854
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4363186
Is this the leica look that so many talk about?

>>4363188
here's the measurable leica look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ3FseC3Hx8
both lenses are literally the same except for muh coatings
All I can spot is the different flare

>>4363139
A professional could use either of those with great results for almost anything that isn't fast action, but I'd use something newer for film. Maybe an F80, they're less than the price of 4 rolls of film, have a built in flash, TTL metering and self-winding.
I don't like the way the screen swivels out in the D5000, side swivel screens are much better. Its lowish resolution will limit your printing size somewhat but I've seen life size prints done with a D80 with no issues, presumably after some Rockwellian AI upscaling.
If you won't shoot RAW, take your time to learn the white balance adjustments because there's no color temperature option on the D5xxx range, to use WB creatively in-camera you'll need to learn the way their scale works. A lot of settings are buried under fluorescent light, with the warmest being fluorescent 1 (sodium at 2700K, producing the coolest offset) and the coolest being shade at 8000K. I also recommend you research back button focus.
Learning the ins and outs of your machine is how you stand a chance to make it do what you want it to.

>>4363186
It’s also pretty light for such a big zoom lens albeit on a 1” sensor. It’s going to be absolutely useless coming into winter as at 50mm equivalent it’s limited to f3.3 so going to flip it asap.

>>4363194
Thank you very much for the thoughtful response, Anon.

>>4363195
Like I mentioned earlier, it’s really only nice if you are like travelling and need the zoom and such. And even then, the Panasonic version does everything exactly the same for a fraction of the price. Pro tip for your future Leica purchases, if it’s not an m/q body, it’s a rebranded something else and not worth your time.

>>4363208
I got it for £400 as it was mispriced in the shop. Hopefully can sell it for £800 so some idiot who wants the Leica dot.

>>4363208
The SL is also an original Leica design although ridiculously large.

>>4363195
Does a camera exist with a similar form factor but with larger sensor and aperture?

>>4363223
I'd hazard a guess at no, since a larger sensor means your lens now has to both cover a larger sensor, and have more zoom range since you miss the crop factor "zoom". So as the sensor grows, the lens' form factor will want to follow.

File: IMG_2344.jpg (87 KB, 800x763)

87 KB JPG

>>4363223
The limitations of physics make that difficult to match up the lens. One of the only ones I can think of is the old Sony R1. Larger sensor would mean a fuck huge lens if you wanted to keep it fast and large range. Limits the zoom range quite a bit. The old Sony has “5x”, the fz1000 and similar 1” boomerzoomers have like 16+. Just no interest in such a camera I guess since no one else really made one like it. Olympus may have made a similar one with a 4/3 sensor I think.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D2X
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.9
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	834
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	157 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2005:09:08 09:02:25
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/14.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Flash
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	800
Image Height	763
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4363231
>>4363229
I’d love one with a APSC or FF sensor with much reduced zoom range. 28-60mm would be great.
The Lx100 is kinda close I guess.

>>4362230
I liked the picture of the old man walking in the sidewalk with the bird flying in the background.

>>4363231
>>4363229
I’d love one with a APSC or FF sensor with much reduced zoom range. 28-60mm would be great.
The Lx100 is kinda close I guess.

>>4363280
Well, if you're not after the massive zoom range then something like that does seem like a better idea than a bridge camera if you like it small and handy, or just get an ILC and a standard zoom if the size of the bridge camera wans't an issue.

>>4363232
>>4363280
Canon G1XmIII

>>4363856
You might be into something there. APSC, pretty small and light and EVF.

Hello. I'm thinking about switching from Canon RF to Lumix system. Considering buying a Lumix S5II / S5IIX (is it worth the extra cost over S5II?). Since the switch would mean switching also from EF system to L-mount, I'm thinking about lenses. I do a lot of photojournalism and sports, and need the following lenses, the faster the better (indoor sports):
24-70 or 24-105
70-200 or similar
a long telephoto lens, the longer the better.
Money isn't really an issue, I can spend $10k on the set. My question is: is it worth to switch right now, or is buying an R6II and gradually switching to RF-L lenses a better idea? I don't really care about video.

>>4363886
Why are you switching?

>>4363886
Is there something your canon cannot actually do or are you just a gearfag bent on consooming? Answer this before anything else, it’s important.

>>4363908
Both.

>>4363886
>i can spend $10k
Sony a1 and tamron 35-150 f2-2.8.

Expense it. Buy an a7c for fun. This is a work camera.

Alright gearfags. Where do you find a case that will fit a 5D with battery grip on lens attached? Would prefer one that can fit other lenses but don't mind carrying 2 bags, already have one that's suitable but the big fucking blob won't fit in anything comfortably. Chinks on ebay list everything as being suitable for a 1dx despite the pictures showing a tight fit with the latest snoy apsc in them.

when is the rx-100viii coming out?

>>4363886
>I shoot indoor sports
>I am switching away from Canon

>>4363953
Who cares? They peaked with the V and they're not going to go back to giving it a decent lens.

Why are cameras such a meme?
You have shit like Snoy's A7S III with 12MP, and gigantic photosites vs Nikon's D850 with moderately high resolution and overall noise is about the same. A7S III has no real benefit despite in dynamic range despite its gigantic photosites and if there's no real latitude gains and noise is relatively the same...
what is the fucking point?

why don't we have 100MP full frame yet? clearly all this low megapixel shit is a lie
all it does is offer higher FPS I guess

>>4364075
Stop caring and shoot sheet film.

>>4363985
The ZV1 exists for $350-500 used all day long

>>4363886
s5iix has major advantages if you plan on doing video, nothing for photos iirc
also if you plan doing video, theres tons of people complaining on reddit about lag if u have it rigger out with a monitor, look into it
s5ii af doesn't seem enough for sports, I can't track sprinting dogs for example and I've tried every mode in every adjustment it has
also noticable rolling shutter in electronic

L-mount is a whole other can of worms
native lenses are overpriced and there is basically just sigma if you want a decent long lens

>>4364084
>less controls
>no vf
It’s got the same guts but they butchered it damn. All for “vloggers” that didn’t buy the thing anyway lol

>>4364134
Take the good with the bad. Its a RX100VII (same autofocus and everything) with the lens from a V at a 50% discount. A new RX100VII is $1300. A new ZV1 MK2 is $900 and a MK1 is $650. A used ZV1 is $300-450. I came to the conclusion it's probably the best point and shoot if you can't get a Ricoh GR3 or don't want to spend the $1000+ on one.

Enjoy point and shoots while you can, maybe the next phones will get 1in sensors

>>4364075
>despite in dynamic range
and all the other benefits that the a7s brings vs that d850, size, ibis, the a7siii kills the d850 in video. the sony is more of a video camera really

>>4364085
If he’s planning on doing video he should get a video camera and stop perpetuating this hybrid trash that’s ruining cameras.

>>4364293
the s5iix IS a video camera, the stills camera form factor is just the most convenient shape that doesn't require additional accessories to be used right away now that we no longer record video with tubes and tapes.

>>4364075
>gigantic photosites
Reminder the A7SIII doesn't have giant photosites, it's 4 of them working in tandem but without the quality of a real big one.

File: HR7A4793-2_1000x1000[1].jpg (45 KB, 1000x667)

45 KB JPG

>>4362211
How can a specific film camera 'render' an image differently than another film camera?

say they both have the same lens, same film, same settings, etc. taking the same picture... essentially, they're both just opening a shutter to the film to expose it, and the colors, how the image actually LOOKS, the composition of the image, etc is all up to the film, the lens, who you get the film developed by, and then how you decide to upload/print your photo...

the same cant be said about digital cameras, all sorts of things happen to the raw sensor data that is up to the manufacturer/behavior of the electronics that aid in how the final image looks when comparing digital cameras (broadly speaking, if you compare modern FF digital cameras today they all look the fucking same)

Im mainly concerned with how people say two different film cameras can produce different looking images to each other, when really all the body can change about the image is how long the film is exposed for.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	667

>>4364504
Some cameras keep their film flatter and have better tolerances. Film flatness is particularly problematic in 120 rolls/cameras, and you can get areas of high flatness deviation by simply leaving a partly exposed roll in the camera too long.

I suppose another example would be that some bodies have extremely good AF, which will produce a more in focus and generally sharper looking image without having to rely on higher apertures and suffer from diffraction.

>>4364504
also glass quality, even if its the same lens design the quality of the glass is important.

You see that more often with shit that has no qc (I love sovietshit but that one is the most notorious one)

If you think about it, the introduction of digital cameras was one of the most anti-consumer events ever to occur. It basically combined two things that had been entirely separate before: the imaging device and the imaging medium. Before, you could choose the device you were most comfortable with, with the medium that gave the look you wanted. People who used different brands of cameras had no quarrel — you could produce the same image either way, it was all about workflow & ergonomics. People who used different brands of film had no quarrel — all down to taste, and you could shoot something entirely different the next day for hardly any investment. With digital cameras, photographers are forced to balance (or worse, choose between) technical features and creative rendition; the financial barrier to trying something different is enormously higher. This encourages an atmosphere of brand loyalty almost tribal in nature, with the different sides tearing at each other lest a tiny crack be found in their own defenses.
>but it wouldn't be practical to have swappable sensors
That's the excuse that always gets used for these kinds of changes. "But it wouldn't be practical to design phones to be repairable" "but it wouldn't be practical for social media companies to actually review the content they take down" we only have as much freedom as we think we have; stop apologizing for multi-million/billion-dollar companies.
We lost something with digital.

>>4364518
You actually think this?

Brandfagging predates digital. Do you think "the leica glow and dept rendition" and "zeiss pop" made up schizo shit emerged with digital? No.

Your sensor means fucking nothing btw. Learn to edit.

>>4364518
people used to shit on olympus because motor drives would kill them in <500 shots
people used to schiz out over "rendering", film flatness, and incomprehensible nonsense
brick wall shooting was important because no one had digital corrections
darkroom autism was an awful rabbit hole of brand wars between developers and papers and enlargers
you have no idea how good you have it. no one can tell a sony and canon apart if you buy a cheap ass colorchecker. you have total freedom from manufacutrers. you do not have to give money directly to kodak or fuji for every photo taken. you do not have to rely on a lab's machinery or your own arms and timers.

>>4364518
>one of the most anti-consumer events ever to occur
>Digital camera
Learn some history you dumbass
>People who used different brands of cameras had no quarrel
Fuck outta here, Canon vs. Nikon has been a thing since the 60's with the 50mm Wars and the Telephoto Wars, not to mention the 90's with Canon bringing the big guns with the new EF lenses (50mm f1.0 AF) while Nikon bragged about their cameras still being able to use AI and pre-AI lenses unlike Canon and their abandoned FD, and so on with other minor legends (Nikon's Phantom Zoom, Canon using digital APS-C because sensorlets)
>People who used different brands of film had no quarrel
Wrong, Poortra was always belittled by Ektafags, slav film like Fomapan was a joke, Kodak vs. Fuji, etc.
>digital camera photographers are forced to creative rendition
Exactly, now it's more free than ever you retard, just a matter of you having to do the work or use a preset.
>the financial barrier to trying something different is enormously higher.
Editing differently is way cheaper than ever
>This encourages an atmosphere of brand loyalty
Cameras were expensive before along with changing all the lenses unless you were a T-mount Vivitar/Tamron poorfag

>We lost something with digital.
I know something we lost, your brain you faggot.
Get to shoot some photos.

>>4364509
>>4364510
film flatness and AF doesn't really change quality/output of the image though. but glass quality yes, again though that's up to the lens. not the camera body itself.

>>4364527
you may be speaking to a jpeg shooter who thinks negative film is instantly good and not basically like a raw file because hes only ever paid people to dev and scan

>>4364532
In real life they both do.

File: srt202camera[1].jpg (369 KB, 1600x1280)

369 KB JPG

>>4364518
your film didnt matter to how your image looked, im not sure if you're old enough to remember but film was such a ubiquitous thing back in the day that you can get your shit developed and printed out for like 10 bucks, and these pharmacy film development places would just auto white balance your shit and do a bunch of post processing on it to make it look normal. also, just like now, they had shitty stupid bridge cameras, they had mid level cameras, upper mid level cameras, lower mid level cameras, etc all to just fill every single market void to sell as much as possible. companies never sold shit 'out of the goodness of their heart' so these cameras were purposefully gimped so that they dont cut into their upper market products.

digital cameras have been the most liberating thing to ever happen to photography actually, now for cheaper than ever you can product professional quality photos, edit it yourself for free, grab incredible lenses for cheap used, and take hundreds of photos without ever having to spend money on film and wait for it to get developed and cherrypick all the most perfect pictures. also, you don't need to purchase anything to try it out, you can rent all this top quality stuff

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	1280

>>4364538
i get AF, but we're still comparing the same scene with the same lens here so I don't see how it'd make a difference.

how does film flatness affect the image?

>>4364543
Because the less flat the film is the less sharp the image is, and it almost entirelt dependent on the design of the camera body. You can have the greatest lens ever made, but if your film has a hump or waves in it, or isn't perfectly parallel to the focal plane it will result in a lack of sharpness. Super small amounts of unflatness can majorly reduce sharpness.
It's sort of an interesting subject to look into actually.


AF can focus more precisely than we can, so depending on the scene it is much more likely that it will be absolute dead on focused.

>>4364532
As others have said, given adequate film flatness and if focus is nailed then yeah a 3000N is going to produce an identical image as a 1V with the same lens. It's a kinda of neat thing about film photography, the "sensor" you use and everything that brings (resolution, dynamic range, "colour science", etc.) is interchangeable and entirely up to you and the body is merely a box that does the AF and shutter timing and lets you view your composition.

>>4362211
I really like my Panasonic Lumux, I forget the model but its shock proof and weathersealed to fuck, so it's my default for any day out that isn't just walking around.

I want to shoot cinematic video of rocks and leaves and the occasional interview for fun, should I get a C100 mark II for $600 and slap on a Sigma 18-35 1.8 or rig out my a6400?
>C100
+ I'd get to try a new system as I'm only familiar with Sony
+ It seems like it'd be way more ergonomic, straightforward and enjoyable to use
+ Tiny tiny filesizes and fantastic battery life
+ Access to the gorrillions of EF lenses out there
- Getting long in the tooth at a decade old
- 1080p 60 only
>rigged a6400 with cage, handle, monitor, battery, matte box, focus motor, a recorder with xlr inputs (something like a zoom h4)
+ Already familiar with the Sony interface so shouldn't be any surprises or hiccups
+ Have all the lenses (E mount and adapted SR mount) I'd want or need already
+ Modern specs
- Would have to set up the thing everytime I wanna use it
- Familiarity doesn't change the fact that I've never been a huge fan of the ergos and button placement on the thing
The Canon seems like it'll be more fun and definitely easier to just grab and go without really needing anything. I've used the Sony just thrown onto a gimbal so I kinda have an idea of what it's like to shoot video with it but a proper rig would probably give it much more flexibility. Any thoughts?

File: P9250308.jpg (862 KB, 1499x2000)

862 KB JPG

New wide boy.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-M5MarkII
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.6
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Color Filter Array Pattern	17122
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 17:07:57
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	14.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3456
Image Height	4608
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal

>>4364718
Cute.

File: Screenshot_2024-09-25-18-(...).jpg (475 KB, 959x721)

475 KB JPG

I know what I must do but I don't think I have the strength to do it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android KB2003_13.1.0.582(EX01)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	959
Image Height	721
Unique Image ID	e8a923e7-7244-464e-8707-12127af09356

File: IMG_2946.jpg (4.23 MB, 3000x2000)

4.23 MB JPG

Sigma 150-600, Sigma 60-600 or Tamron 150-600?
Entirely for wildlife on a 90D.

At the moment I’m using a Canon 70-200 f2.8 with a 2x extender.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 90D
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:01:06 11:50:40
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	200.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3000
Image Height	2000
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Unique Image ID	782040ba87994acc86214eb188fa2bea

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/refurbished-eos-r10-rf-s18-45mm-f4-5-6-3-is-stm-lens-kit

Pretty good deal on an entry level APSC camera ($600 for a R10 with 18-45mm kit lens)

If my Z50 broke I'd replace it with this asap.

>>4365107
>F4.5-6.3

>>4365121
You need more?

>>4365121
RF consumer lenses are slightly slower than EF counterparts but honestly if 2/3rds of a stop matters that much to you, buy a new lens. The 18-45mm is worth like $150

>>4365121
imagine shooting below f8

File: DSC05161.jpg (1.61 MB, 2000x2000)

1.61 MB JPG

>>4362211
>Who uses bridge cameras?
I used to. The only worthwhile bridge cameras were the RX10 series.

>leica m11d
>remove screen for le purity, but actually you control the whole camera with your phone
peak poseur consumerist camera

>>4365486
That'll be 9 grand, thanks!

I will be hiking the appalachian trail next year.
What camera and lenses (max 2) should i get?
Weight and size have to be taken into consideration.
My budget is around 1500$

>>4365487
does it come with a lens for the 9 grand?

File: Screenshot 2024-09-27 at (...).png (1.62 MB, 1304x1132)

1.62 MB PNG

>>4365633
base: om-5, oly 12-45 f4 pro
ext: a lens for your special needs (u makrofag? u landsgabe ultrawide fag? maybe a telephoto for animal buttholes? a fast prime for low light?)

>>4365644
That's basically a bulkier phone camera.

>>4365658
so true sister

>>4364638
Use the Sony
PP2 if you want the stills look (high contrast)
PP3 if you want some latitude in grading.

>>4364638
>C100 mark II for $600 and slap on a Sigma 18-35 1.8
Or just get a metabones converter.

>>4362211
Considering
>Sigma 150-600mm Contemporary
Or
>Tamron 150-600mm G2
Are these actually ok at 500-600mm?
Fo any of you have experience with them?
They seem ridiculously cheap considering the range, so I feel like there must be more trade-off than just speed

>>4365950
I had both, I sent the Sigma back and got the Tamron because: It is weather sealed (well, more sealed than the sigma which is completely unsealed) and it has that practical "pull back zoom ring to lock zoom" feature which is really handy while carrying.

You can keep it at the locked focal length and don't have to zoom all the way back to 150mm to lock it (like youd have on the sigma). Why this matters? because when you're carrying it the barrel is so heavy that it will "zoom itself" by gravity when you point the lens down while carrying.

optically they're pretty much the same (a little better than the nikon af-s 200-500). good enough for anyone on this board. but don't expect to get anywhere the quality of $17000 lenses ;)
IIRC Morten Hillmer used one of those two before Nikon showered him with free gifts. His images were fantastic so the lens won't be the limiting factor for you anyway.

>>4365955
Thanks for the info!
Yeah, a lens creep lock would be very helpful. My 24-120mm always droops, and it's quite annoying.

File: 61b3NYfL6BL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (40 KB, 1000x707)

40 KB JPG

I'm sick of browsing endless varieties of tripods and boomer photography forums for a tripod.
Shill me a decent tripod, budget 300 or so. For wildlife and travel and what not

>>4365080
If you need weather sealing the, the tamron, otherwise they're pretty similar.

I'd be looking into older 500mm P lenses tho, cheap right now.

>>4362211
After having used zooms my whole life, I finally bought a couple of basic primes (50mm f1.4 and 85 f1.8), but fuck me, it's hard to use these locked focal length lenses.
I never realized how much of the composing I do with the zoom for framing and depth.
And honestly, I'm not getting much out of the speed of the primes, as I tend to shoot them at f4 and above anyway.
Is it just a different mindset to using primes, or is it a learning curve? What do you guys prefer?

>>4366014
>Older 500m P lenses
What do you mean by "P lenses"?
Do you mean "PF"? Because that's FIVE GRAND new, and 2000 used, if you are lucky.
Hardly comparable to the 500 bucks you pay for a used 150-600mm...

>>4366164
Yes prime lenses... they're historically low right now and the yt idiots haven't yet gone and made videos of
>wow look at this 15k lens for only this much!

And the ebay market corrects itself. The sigma and tamrons are Ok lenses, but on the long ends they're just ...OK... in my honest opinion maxing reach is over rated unless you start stacking prime lenses, with teleconverters on crop censors.

>>4366259
What planet do you live on?
500m f4 is 3000 bucks used here.
The 500mm f5.6 pf is 2000 used.

File: Screenshot_20240929-08330(...).jpg (292 KB, 1440x1760)

292 KB JPG

>>4366267
That's a good price. Compared to its equal counter part in the Z world of back five years ago for prime F mount lenses.

You can get the 200 - 400 f4 used now for like 2000...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android SP1A.210812.016.G973WVLU9IXE1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1440
Image Height	3040
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:09:29 08:33:05
Light Source	Unknown

>>4366268
No one said it isn't a good price.
You are just being a complete fucking retard comparing it to the 150-600mm lenses, which are 500 usd used.

>>4366270
You get what you pay for.

I've used the tamron and sigma lens, they're not very good at max reach and you can barely use them at the best times to take photos. They're for boomers who take snap shits of turkey vultures and Robins at like 12 noon on a Tuesday.

If you're serious and want something that will get good results and you won't need to worry about upgrading just splash a little more and you're set.

>>4366280
>You get what you pay for
You severely lack in reading comprehenison. That, or you're just fucking retarded.

>>4366280
>I've used the tamron and sigma lens
Which ones. They both come in several multiple editions.

>they're not very good at max reach
Yeah, okay, but their max reach is 600mm.
I've heard many reviewers claim some of them (Tamron G2, Sigma Contemporary) are actually very sharp at 500mm.
Do you disagree?

>at like 12 noon on a Tuesday
There's not much difference in speed between the 500mm PF (f5.6) and the 150-600mm (f6.3).
The f4 is obviously faster, but that is a huge bazooka, which can only be worked on a tripod, and must be carried over the shoulder. Both the PF and the 150-600mm formats are very compact and light.

>just splash a little more
4-6x~ the price isn't "a little more". Stop being a disingenuous faggot.

>>4366316
I've used both the G2 and C and the sigma sport.
The only selling factor that make them better than say the Nikkor 200 - 500mm is the tamron is weather sealed, and both sigma and tamron have that 600mm reach. But once you go past the 500mm point, the quality just drops.

There's a reason why the sigma and tamrons are much cheaper, they have a unnecessary gimic attached to them.

>>4366331
Literally every review says both the Tamron and the Sigma are better than the Nikkor 200-500mm though.
Are you sure?

>>4366355
Yea because of what one aspect? What little tiny thing separates the three? And doesn't really work very well.

>>4366355
the difference is minuscule though. both in quality and focal length. 600mm vs 500mm gives you just a few degrees of a narrower pov. and the sharpness difference is minimal. only chartfags can see it.
the main selling point is that the sigma and tamron usually are cheaper than the nikkor. if I was in the market of one of those 3 lenses I would get the least expensive one.

>>4366359
>One aspect
No, several
Tamron G2
>Lighter
>Goes wider
>Goes longer
>Sharper center at 500mm(?)
>Better weather sealing(?)
>Has lens creep lock
>Better stabilization(?)
These are just some of the arguments I've heard in favour of it.
The main thing seems to be the weight and the option to go wider.
Image quality is basically the same, with Tamron doing slightly better at 500mm, at a lower price point.

>>4366423
>Has lens creep lock
That was just an argument against the Sigma, sorry.
The Nikkor also has a lock.

>>4366012
slik

i have an old ass flash that can only move up and down. i cant find any tutorial for it on youtube should i look for one of those newer ones that can swivel and shit?

>>4366579
Swivel flashes are way more useful since you can cut down on how harsh the lighting looks, and create more appealing shadows. Absolutely think the $100-200 is worth it. Most useful indoors or when you have something you can bounce the light off, but still better than a fixed flash in basically every other scenario

File: SonyRX10IVOpener.jpg (351 KB, 2000x1333)

351 KB JPG

Is pic related still good in 2024? I heard production of new cameras stopped this summer. Should I get one now while I still can?

File: Screenshot 2024-09-30 110304.png (676 KB, 1317x433)

676 KB PNG

going to Japan soon for some traveling with waifu and toddler. Should I only bring my x100vi and call it a day or also put the GFX in my bag just in case?

>>4366732
If you take both then your wife can also take some pics.

>>4366732
give the x100 to the toddler (it's a toy camera) and use the GFX (only good cam wormji makes). your wife can carry the lenses

how do you store your photos? backups?
how do you sort your photos?

>>4366729
no bridge camera is good in any year

>>4366771
I keep all raw files on HDDs. And from the HDD I edit the good ones in Lightroom. Then export as jpg and the jpgs are imported into the Google Photos cloud.

>>4366771
All OOC RAWs and JPGs on a 10GbE mirrored NAS sorted by Year-Month-Day-Time, with large days split into subfolders with timeslots like 10:00-12:00 etc. Good files are copied locally onto my work machines, and left there as secondary copies for if I need to re-edit or don't want to sort thorugh all the OOC files again. Finished edits are filed back onto the NAS.

Backups to a secondary server running Proxmox Backup Server on dedicated hardware of the OOC files and edits. Tertiary backup on several DVD-R of OOC files and edits with a final DVD-R of imporant things at my friend's house in case of fire/flood/dingo attack. This is a completely overkill 3-2-1 backup solution that I do with other important shit, and is probably not worth the investment purely for photos, but I'm a major data/privacy autist so local (and offsite local) storage is king.

Has anyone experienced the Canon G5X? I just got one for free. Any special features or stuff I have to look out for?

>>4366732
Shoot film :A)

Are older lenses worth getting? In the sense I probably will use manual focus with them for small scenes and landscape.

I found a Nikkor 35-70 f2.8 D for 200 dollars.

File: Voigt_SLIIN_40_eosa.jpg (17 KB, 285x273)

17 KB JPG

I have some doubts about my current 35mm/fullframe loadout and I'd like to streamline it. I shoot stills 99% of the time but like having the capability for decent video too.
Here is my existing setup for this format:
>Nikon F3 + Nikkor 50/1.8 AI-s pancake
>Canon 5D4 + 24-105/4 L + Voigtlander SL-II 40/2
I think I could have more fun with my SLR/DSLR setup with natively interchangeable lenses. I really like those discontinued F and EF mount Voigtlanders and would like to use them on both film and digital.
Here are my thoughts:
>Convert to Nikon
i.e purchase a D850 or a D780 (for its reasonable video capability without sacrificing too much on the stills front compared to the D850/5D4) with an AF zoom lens similar to the 24-105/4 L to cover that front, and some other old glass to use on both the DSLR and the F3.
>Stay with Canon
i.e purchase a 1V or other late EOS SLR to use my current EF lenses with.
>Keep my current bodies and just have two sets of lenses
The cheapest option and the least work, but it's boring and inefficient.

>>4366014
Yea I think I’ll most likely go with the Tamron because of the sealing and lock. Gonna rent it out one weekend and take it out on a hike to see how it goes.

I’ve been keeping my eye out on used lenses and once you start getting into this reach they become too expensive for me.

>>4366900
Get manual lenses for manual cameras. AF lenses lack scale focus marks.

File: peak anchor.jpg (29 KB, 679x256)

29 KB JPG

Are Peak anchors actually safe?
I see people rave about Peak Design stuff everywhere and they do have some nice looking stuff, but are those tiny strings on the anchors really safe?
They say they can hold up to 90kg each and I've seen a dude use one to suspend himself. Tons of people use them every day and they're apparently great. I just can't help get the feeling that it's weird the camera is only hanging from those really really thin strings.

I'm on a waiting list for a Fuji X100vi and I've been looking around for what strap I'd like to get for it. A Peak leash looks very practical given the small size of the Fuji, but even then I'm still worried about what's actually holding on to the camera are those tiny strings.

The only other camera I've had is a 5dmkii that I've used for years and years and it's always felt heavy and clunky around my neck. It always tilted forward too and felt very unsafe to just let it hang.
I'm looking to have the Fuji as a camera I can just put around my neck and walk around with no thought of it.

Anybody here have any experience with those Peak Design anchors?

I'm converting a Nex-5n to full-spectrum and want to use an El-Nikkor 80 mm f/5.6 lens with it (has good UV transmittance and is cheap).
Any advice on how to do this while preserving the ability to infinity focus? Can't find any specific product recommendations / setups.

>>4367311
edit: I just need help on mounting the lens.

>>4367308
>but are those tiny strings on the anchors really safe?
depends on how much of an retard you are. they're pretty safe as they indicate when they wear out (once the black lining is gone and another color shows it's time so swap them out).
if you put too much weight on it then you're the retard though

>>4367312
use super glue

>>4366771
Camera>Year>Date
And I have them all on at least 3 different drives. Always have at least two backups, as just one can lead to disaster. I learned that when I almost lost about 10 years worth of photos and got really lucky it was just something wrong with the partition table and not physically with the drive.

>>4367346
Well I'm obviously not going to hang my obese ass from it. The only weight it'll be holding is the x100vi hanging from it, so that's what 600g? They still just look flimsy to me. Just curious if anybody has had experience with them.
It would just be nice to walk with it hanging from my neck without worrying about having to keep a hand on it. Basically be invisible until I reach for it.

>>4367380
I've been using them for years. I have been carrying around full frame DSLR (D780) and now a Z7 with it. I even carried a heavy telephoto lens with them. Stop being so worried about your 500g toy camera, kid.

>>4367380
They'll hold up just fine, don't worry about it. I've been using them for over 2 years for my GX9 and my R6II and they barely show any sign of wear.
I also got the leash and one of the slim straps and am happy with both products

>>4367469
>kid
I fucking wish I was a kid again and not a middle aged obese loser. I never get why people think that works as an insult unless you had a shitty childhood yourself.
Anyway, thanks for the insight. Nice to hear some real world experience.

File: Screenshot_20241001-115413.png (1.21 MB, 1080x1658)

1.21 MB PNG

Snoy shitposting aside, I'm actually not satisfied with the AF on my Nikon Z50. I shoot a lot of moving high speed stuff and honestly Nikon colors always find me bumping up the contrast and removing shadows anyways (I'm mostly taking pics in the aviation thread). They're always underexposed or way overexposed. I usually shoot with AF-C on Wide-L (auto sucks) and keep my 50-250 Z DX lens on most of the time.

Would it be worth paying the idiot tax and trying out a ZVE10 or A6400? I can get the former really cheap, think $500 with 18-55 kit lens. Or am I just expecting too much out of a low end APSC?

I do like how the Sonys are smaller and I can just add a bigger grip (one of my complaints) with a smallrig or similar addon. Can't fix the menus though and I'm not sure about the colors...I liked Nikon colors online but mine aren't holding up to my expectations.

>>4367546
Sony aps-c is built to disappoint. They are a full frame only brand.

Then again, this is also true of everyone but canon. The R7 is the only APS-C camera that's actually well made. Everything else is artificially crippled ("pls buy dx mf/ff model")

File: 1727753544268140.jpg (2.06 MB, 5000x2500)

2.06 MB JPG

Reminder, the people giving you gear advice think right is as detailed or more detailed than left

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4367572
GFX100S vs iphone 16 pro max?

>>4367546
first
>I just got a z50, just shooting planes, i'm happy with what I have, here look at my plane photos
after 2 weeks on /p/
>I NEED A NEW CAMERA THE ONE I AM usING IS ABSOLUTELY UNUSABLE DOGSHIT NO ITS NOT A SKILL ISSUE ITS THE NIGGOR COLORS AND THE AF IF I HAD BETTER AF MY COMPOSITIONS WOULDNT BE BEGINNER LEVEL SHOULD I SPEND $DOLLARS ON SOME $CAMERA
in 2 weeks
>guys I got an OM-5 ... m43 is greatest ever ... I also stopped shooting planes, I now shoot sticks and rocks

>>4367546
>>4367579
seriously, what are you doing? I was shooting birds in flight with a z50 and a sigma 150-600. are planes somehow more erratic than birds? are you using this terrible tracking mode? have you tried back button focusing? I can't believe that huge planes on a runway are so hard to shoot

>>4367584
He probably expects autofocus to actually work. On a nikon. Lmao.

On nikon you have to be a marksman with single point... AF-S. AF-C will constantly lose the subject even if it's constantly over it, with a low re-acquisition rate, so you prefocus and snap, prefocus and snap, prefocus and snap.

>>4367569
Even the R10, $600 with a kit lens, has better autofocus than the flagship nikon Z8. All it's missing is IBIS and gimmicks, it still has the exposure triangle and drive modes.

>>4367572
left is 35mm film, right is micro four thirds?

File: IMG_20241001_124453373_HDR.jpg (2.28 MB, 3072x3072)

2.28 MB JPG

>>4367584
I'm honestly not sure. It's hard for me to get a good bird shot too. Maybe it's the heat distortions? Theyre coming in at 150+ mph and im usually shooting from 500-1000ft away.

And yeah I've tried auto + back button focusing (using the ok button to track the subject)

>>4367579
I'm already at 1100+ shots using it nearly daily since I bought it 6-7 weeks ago, and exclusively shoot in raw. The jpegs I'm never really satisfied with them, literally 1/100 photos I don't edit the jpeg.

Maybe I'm just used to phones and having to edit every photo you take is normal.

File: parrots_mos.jpg (42 KB, 768x512)

42 KB JPG

>>4367593
Camera jpegs will never look that good no matter what you buy unless you spent all that money on a XXmp camera to use 1500x1000 jpegs, the better the computer processing the data the better the photo will look. The actual photos digital cameras take look like this. Each pixel is a 16 bit number that counts photons underneath a piece of colored glass, that's it. Then there's non-configurable aspects of the camera jpeg like fine chroma/luma NR adjustments, fine sharpening adjustments, and moire reduction algorithms, which are interactive controls on real computers raw editors because they significantly affect fine detail and tonal transitions.

>And yeah I've tried auto + back button focusing (using the ok button to track the subject)
Nikon's 3d tracking on mirrorless sucks balls. Use single point like a DSLR, and REEE because a DSLR loses focus less often, then buy another camera and find out everything that's not a canon or newer sony is equally bad.

>>4367593
if it's shit try another cam. if you don't like editing try creating your own jpg style.
https://nikonpc.com/
maybe you'll find something that spares you from editing images.
but desu. it sounds more like a skill issue (with long lenses) than the equipment being shit. another cam won't make you really happier. especially not sony aps-c. if you really need to try something else, try canon

>>4367589
>On nikon you have to be a marksman with single point..
yes, the early gen Z AF is more like DSLR AF. tracking is dogshit and I would never use it.
but for planes that are coming in a linear predictable path you don't really need bird butthole AI tracking. single point AF will work perfectly fine.

>>4367613
The equipment is definitely shit. The autofocus is a direct downgrade from the comparable nikon DX DSLR. All it's actually improved is focus shift with closeups/very fast lenses, because it always focuses stopped down (much to the chagrin of anyone shooting f/11 with off camera flash and expecting af to work - for some reason sony and canon always handled this properly, and nikon needed a more sensitive AF system ala ZF)

>especially not sony aps-c. if you really need to try something else, try canon
The R10 is unironically better than a z50, but the a6700 is alright, and better in low light. It just costs as much as a real camera.

>>4367613
I actually really like that site, I'll try to use some of the profiles when I get home. Its the editing of photos that's getting to me hence the colors complaint. I often use NX Studio to edit.

But I'm starting to blame the equipment when I'll take 5-10 shots and keep 2-3 out of those. Often they're on the fly type shots and while I appreciate the fast startup I don't appreciate how long it can take to focus on something or worse finding out it looks out of focus/not sharp enough when I'm editing at home.

And I thought Sonys after the A6000 had the best AF of all the cameras other than a recent Canon, surprised you guys don't like the AF on their APSC cameras. Iirc the ZVE10 and the A6400/A6700 relatives were supposed to have the best AF of all their APSC stuff since they're meant for streaming.

>>4367631
The AF on their APS-C cameras is good, the rest of the camera before the a6700 really is not good.

>>4367633
this. it's a too obvious "pls buy full frame" attempt at upselling.

File: 8vkosjg1hpzc1.png (2.33 MB, 1200x1600)

2.33 MB PNG

>>4367648
To be fair, the only gimmicks missing from the a6700 now are semi-pro video niceties that literally do not matter unless you're not allowed to bring an a6700 on set anyways, and an aps-c only lens lineup that's actually good. But FF lenses work, and it's not like canon is doing better, or anyone is doing better without shittier AF than nikon and xtrans blurriness.

>>4367589
My d500 and 7500 auto focus perfectly fine... must be a mirrorless thing.

>>4367665
it is a mirrorless thing

they went from a tight array of dual cross point pdaf sensors to a more spread out array of one way pdaf sensors combined with contrast detect af. only sony, canon, and the om-1 actually do autofocus as well as DSLRs did.

File: IMG_20241001_150746015_HDR~2.jpg (912 KB, 2373x1367)

912 KB JPG

>>4367613
Fucking stupid but >>4367631 here, I tried that and I'm having the same exact issue as the guy in this thread. I'm on 2.51 FW (latest). It automatically deletes it when I put the card into the camera or it doesn't detect it.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4575900?page=3

File: IMG_20241001_150743242_HDR~2.jpg (784 KB, 2342x1417)

784 KB JPG

>>4367695
Picture I actually wanted to add but this comes up after I click copy to camera on the downloaded picture control files I want

>>4367697
get a sony and throw away that nikon trash

>>4367698
Nah he shud get a fuji if he wants in camera presets

>>4366900
Yes, there's plenty of good old lenses. Beware that many AF lenses don't have properly damped focus ring (or worse, they're focus by wire, but that doesn't apply to older lenses). It doesn't compare to proper MF lenses, but some are still quite good (180 2.8, Tokina 100 2.8, Tokina 17 3.5, from the ones I have), and other are still perfectly usable. But e.g. the 50 1.8D is just bad. Although these differences largely don't matter to me, I only use MF on the 100 (for macro).
>>4367272
I don't know what you're talking about, all of my primes have them.

>>4367728
Let me guess. F11 and F16?

>>4367308
frankly i've never had a reason to take the strap off a camera. if it isn't around your neck, just wrap it around your arm. you can use it as a stability strap when doing longer hand held exposures, leaning against stuff, bunch the strap up and prop it under the camera while it's sitting on something. straps are great, removable straps sure don't seem $70-worth.
>it's always felt heavy and clunky around my neck. It always tilted forward too and felt very unsafe to just let it hang.
run the strap over your shoulder and have the camera hang at the opposite hip (right hip for a longer strap, left hip if you prefer 'cross draw'). around-the-neck camera positions will always flop around unless you're a 400 pound 1980s tourist with a light SLR sitting on your man tits.

Could a mirrorless camera purpose-built to use a SLR mount, be smaller than the size of a regular mirrorless plus the adapter?
Like, a mirrorless camera that was natively f-mount, could you make it smaller than a nikon z body with the ftz adapter attached?

>>4367843
The size difference would be negligible.

>>4367843
If the sensor was as far back as possible, probably at the cost of heat dissipation abilities and a tilting screen.

File: Sinar-m-modular-system-in-p.gif (154 KB, 792x534)

154 KB GIF

>>4367843
Flange distance would limit the size.

The Sinar M system has a mirror module that accepts nikon f mount lenses.

>>4367728
>But e.g. the 50 1.8D is just bad.
You might be the first person I've ever seen that does not like this lens.

>>4367845
None of that reduces the flange distance, retard

File: pentax k-01 mirrorless K mount.jpg (286 KB, 1917x1493)

286 KB JPG

>>4367843
proly not

Shut up x-trans abuser

>>4367860
I have one of these and it's surprisingly good for how much people shit talk it.

>>4367909
Prove it.

File: IMGP4436-2.jpg (3.5 MB, 3264x4928)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4367911
I mean it's not amazing. It's AF is slow and misses in low light. I don't like composing off a screen, but the sensor is really nice. It's colors are quite good and dynamic range is great. It's very compact and people don't get weird around it. Very discrete.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-01
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.5.1 (Windows)
Photographer	EDERN FULUP
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	87 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	141 dpcm
Vertical Resolution	141 dpcm
Image Created	2024:10:02 00:08:54
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	58.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Distant View

>>4367922
The lens passes the pancake test with flying colors, and I'm sure you could get by with reasonably okay looking 8x10 prints. I declare that you have PROVEN your claims sufficiently.

>>4367927
I didn't claim anything. I just jumped in and said I had one, that also isn't the 40mm, but I do have that lens and it is nice.

>>4367850
I'm talking only about the focus ring. It's short throw, has zero damping and is not smooth at all (jumpy). But as I said, these differences largely don't matter to me.

>>4367754
Depends on the lens. The longer ones have too narrow dof relative to the focus throw, but you're not going to zone focus on a fucking telephoto. The 17 3.5 goes all the way down.

>>4367928
Oh I thought you were the guy who deleted his image, and made claims. Looks like you may have made a friend tonight.

>>4367931
Nope. I just happen to have a K-01 and I think it's pretty good. I think they are excellent cameras for capturing candid moments and as an EDC camera. It's very small and compact and Pentax has quite a few small, autofocus primes and film era lenses, I like it a lot.

Why aren't SLR cameras called mirrorful cameras?

>>4367948
good morning slr please do the mirrorful

>>4367948
Because no indian ever invented anything

>>4367930
Show me, I don't believe you.

File: IMG_20241002_174814775.jpg (3.21 MB, 3072x3072)

3.21 MB JPG

>>4367700
>>4367698
Update: I still can't get this stupid fucking camera to use the picture control files.

I tried using the Nikon Picture Control program on my desktop to save the .npc files onto the card instead of dragging and dropping and it didn't do anything.

Fucking gay. Maybe I can do it in post but I'd rather have the presets to have more photos I don't have to immediately edit so they're presentable to the demanding audience that's /p/

On the plus side I finally got a cheap Sony ZV1 and did not get robbed. Its nearly new with zero scratches on the lens face. I'm gonna get a silicone case and screen protector off Ali and make it my EDC. I paid $300 but had to drive a hour away.

>>4367654
Damn bro, just short circuit my shit up.

File: sony water damage.jpg (94 KB, 480x640)

94 KB JPG

>>4368308
>>4367654

>>4368310
So it takes full immersion in seawater to kill the glorious sony

Impressive sirs

File: Screenshot_20241003-113510.png (206 KB, 2400x1080)

206 KB PNG

>>4368232
>>4368232
Update: I broke this fucking camera too. Every pic I take comes out looking way over exposed unless I jack the shutter speed way the fuck up. It works fine in video mode.

It happened after I cleaned the lens..I am going to fucking kill myself. I already reformatted my SD card and reset my camera twice.

>>4368469
you fucked up the curtain or the contacts of the lens are dirty

>>4368470
The curtain inside the camera? Is there any way to repair it? The lens cover protecting the glass seems fine, it's only doing it when I try taking a photo. In video it's fine. Changing the aperture works fine and I can see the lens open/close when I do so.

>>4368474
Did you test it before this to make sure they didn't already bust the shutter

Dropping a camera in a shitty case can transfer enough force to fuck up shutters, so can a prior attempt to clean the shutter (never do this, the light oil and debris you see is normal wear)

File: DSC03725.jpg (1.65 MB, 5472x3648)

1.65 MB JPG

>>4368489
Honestly I think its the shutter. It was working well last night when I picked it up. I might've gotten a little rough cleaning the lens glass.

Its not a ILC (its a fancy point and shoot like a RX100) so I don't know if this thing has a shutter curtain or if I can access the sensor without actually opening it up 100%

I'm gonna spam the trigger until something happens, all I can think of doing. It happens more outdoors, everything comes out super overexposed/bright. I just took this pic now

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

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

>>4368493
Untold amounts of cameras have been broken from being dropped onto carpet or grass without incurring cosmetic damage.

The softness and double images on the left side of the image looks like a decentered lens, meaning this camera has been dropped. You've been had.

it's ok, I bought two craigslist olympus OM-D ILCs that ended up having problems. this is why you spend the money and buy off ebay, if it breaks you simply say item not as described and promise to ebay customer service it came like that.

That new Rollei 35AF looks pretty cool. I want one. But more than that, I want to go on some of those trips those annoying youtube people who try and sell me cameras like this go on all the time.
But the camera looks cool. It's pretty much exactly what I'd want for a camera like that.

File: DSC03754.jpg (4.81 MB, 3830x2553)

4.81 MB JPG

>>4368497
I think the bigger issue is how it spazzes out when it has any outdoor light. I reset the camera again, look at how the light hits on the right. Its a cloudy day. I resized it to fit the image limit but otherwise I'm shooting in intelligent Auto

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

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

>>4368515
That's just small sensor dynamic range

>>4367762
>never had a reason to take the strap off a camera
Maybe you don't do this so it wouldn't bother you but they do catch wind and move around a bit when you're trying to use a tripod and it is an issue with long exposures. The standard straps on most cameras take longer to remove than it takes to set up a tripod and mount the camera.

>>4363959
Holy fucking this, what a dumb consoomer move.

>>4363886
Stick with Canon. No need to even upgrade your EF glass unless you know the RF version gives you something you want (i.e. 100-500 having more reach). Canon AF is going to shit all over Panasonic for sports. Consooming is always bad but especially this time.

>>4363937
If there is a photo store near you it’s better to pick a bag in person than buy/return on Amazon. Only problem is only big city stores have a good selection.

>>4364075
Nah, A7s iii has better high iso but R6ii/R8 match it. You just have to be at extreme isos to see it.

>>4366908
EOS 3. Cheaper and lighter than the 1v but nearly as good + magic eye af pt selection.

>>4368860
Dont listen to this idiot.
Get a Sony a7IV. Best mirrorless camera and Sony make the best lenses. Sony is cutting edge and the future of photography. They have AI incorporated in their tracking and nothing compares to Sony AI. Not to mention they are the funnest camera to shoot eith and very reliable. Pros shoots Sony and they are the most popular.

>>4368862
>live in buttfuck Queensland
>no photo shops within 100km
Amazon also is only new here and I think it's a bit of a non-starter. Was hoping to find something online that I could be sure would fit but looks like I'll have keep using my backpack and separating shit with towels until I go to the city next and probably forget my camera.

>>4367590
left is 10k ppi scan of 6x9, right is 5DsR scaled to 32k pixels to match the film scan with no sharpening and the headlight was at the edge of a zoom lens. anon is butt hurt because he shot his mouth off claiming film could beat anything and canon-anon made him cry, now he won't let it go. those crops would be like 200 inch enlargements that's why they look shitty.

fun thread.

>>4368876
>6 fps
>"sports"

>>4367572
Jesus christ, left looks so much better it's unreal

>>4368881
You lie. That's clearly an iphone.

>>4362211
f4

>>4368930
this is how he was in the other thread too, samefagging and shit.

>>4368934
meant for >>4367590

>>4368934
I'm not buying your schizo shit that is clearly an iphone photo

File: DSC03866.jpg (258 KB, 1616x1080)

258 KB JPG

>>4368516
>>4368515
>>4368497

Here's another test

I think Sony iAuto is just really fucking bad for anything other than indoors and night/low light shots. And I was testing the cam at night.

This is iAuto

f/5.6 1/640 9.40mm ISO125

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ZV-1
Camera Software	ZV-1 v2.01
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:04 10:06:52
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Brightness	10.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	9.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1616
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSC03867.jpg (670 KB, 1616x1080)

670 KB JPG

>>4369087
This is pAuto but with exposure at -3.0

f/5.0 1/800 9.40mm ISO125

My theory is that Sony cameras just have really bad automatic settings that blow the fuck out of photo exposures. The camera shop I went to said there's no way I could possibly damage the curtain or sensor by pushing hard on the lens since it's all relatively fixed unlike a ILC

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ZV-1
Camera Software	ZV-1 v2.01
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:04 10:06:53
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Brightness	10.2 EV
Exposure Bias	-3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	9.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1616
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSC03863.jpg (298 KB, 1616x1080)

298 KB JPG

>>4369089
Another example of iAuto. The camera takes a few seconds to even adjust itself

f/4.0 1/250 25.70mm ISO125

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ZV-1
Camera Software	ZV-1 v2.01
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:04 10:06:47
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Brightness	10.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1616
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.6
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSC03871.jpg (679 KB, 1616x1080)

679 KB JPG

>>4369093
Now this is in pAuto

f/5.0 1/800 25.70mm ISO125

Also, to the disappointment of Snoy shitposters I'm actually really satisfied with the colors out of this thing when it's not overexposing the fuck out of the pics. Like I wouldn't even bother editing this. I'm shooting in the lowest IQ settings so I can easily repost here from my phone and this is a jpeg off the camera

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ZV-1
Camera Software	ZV-1 v2.01
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:04 10:07:03
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	125
Brightness	10.3 EV
Exposure Bias	-3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.70 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1616
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Digital Zoom Ratio	1.2
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4364789
>I know what I must do
Buy a real Leica?

>>4369087
It's not iAuto, your aperture mechanism is probably busted and I'd bet your lens is just always shooting wide open as a result.
For example, your first image would be actually shot at f1.8, but metered for f5.6, so it would be and does look overexposed. The pAuto is likely still incorrect on aperture, but the -3EV faster shutter speed is simply compensating.
Easy to test, try shooting manual at different apertures and see if it is correctly adjusts exposure. You can also look through the lens and simply see if the aperture blades close correctly at each aperture.

t. camera shop guy

File: IMG_20241004_140129626_HDR.jpg (1.88 MB, 3120x3120)

1.88 MB JPG

>>4369124
When I set it to manual aperture or even aperture priority mode I can see the diaphragm open and close. Pic related is F11. Its a pinhole.

The lens assembly is $85 on AliExpress vs $245 from Sony.

File: IMG_20241004_140106622.jpg (2.39 MB, 3120x3120)

2.39 MB JPG

>>4369181
And at F1.8 it's wide open. So I don't know.

I mean is this normal for a Sony Camera? If it's the Lens assembly I might buy one and try to swap it out. I'm pretty experienced fixing things, mostly cars but if there's no soldering involved it can't be too bad.

>>4369182
>>4369124
https://www.aliexpress.com/i/2251801843490958.html?gatewayAdapt=4itemAdapt

I forgot to mention, the exposure didn't really change too much with the different apertures. I'll check again later.

>>4369182
It's good that it's changing, but you should still test with actual pictures. Don't do auto ISO or SS either, you need to see the exposure changes accurately. Definitely seems mechanical, maybe internal ND related? Only other option would be like mechanical shutter timings off, but that's far less likely. Still leaning aperture or internal ND issue.
The exposure settings for >>4369089 >>4369087 are the same EV of 14 which is accurate for a scene that bright, however the camera is recording it as a brightness of 10.3EV.
The overexposure in >>4369087 is consistent as if metered for f5, but actually captured with f1.8, and same goes for >>4369093 going from f4 to f2.8

what would be easier/more profitable to sell?

>nikon D3500 + 18-55mm VR Lens AND a tamron Adapt-A-Matic 200-500mm
or
>damaged lumix g85

>>4369232
So I'm a dumb dumb and I'm having trouble understanding what you want me to check:

Set the camera in manual mode, and take a photo with the same shutter speed, same ISO, same exposure compensation, same focal length and different apertures to check if its the aperture?

The Internal ND filter does move and go on/off when you set it manually, I can visually see it move. It has a auto ND filter setting.

On that note, what's gonna be the best way of fixing it? I'm tempted to just be a nigger and buy the same camera on Amazon as refurb/used, checking with that one if its good, and returning the bad one. Alternatively spend the $100 on a lens mechanism assembly from AliExpress >>4369189 here and swap it, but if its a mechanical shutter issue its not gonna do shit. Its just such a weird issue I can't find anyone online having it.

When I record in intelligent Auto Video it shows correct exposure with zero changes on my part.

I'm looking for a quick release camera strap, and the Peak Design dongles don't exactly spark with joy. The Lucky Strap variant gets around that, but I'm not sure if I'm entirely sold on the straps themselves there, though leather's nice. Their prices certainly seem luckier for them than for me. Any other off-the-shelf options for quick release straps that don't leave crap hanging off the camera I've missed?

>>4369590
go QD (same QD system as used in the firearms industry)
usually it'll take the form of a socket integrated into an arca plate for your camera, then a swivel mounted to a sling or whatever you want
it's what I use, then again I'm not exactly going for classy with a blackrapid sling and QD L-bracket

Any advice or recommendations against using electronic shutter? Been wondering if it might be worth while for something that's not moving and is outdoors, as I know it can be an issue with moving objects or artificial lighting.

>>4369593
Could be an idea. Though it leaves the QD mount on the camera to get in the way of a tripod plate, unless I find one that's also a tripod plate, though at that point perhaps I could also find a tripod plate that'll take other straps, though then...
Well, I'll wallow in indecision for a while longer I think, but you've provided some good food for thought.

>>4370092
>unless I find one that's also a tripod plate
like I said, from what I've seen usually it's a QD socket in an arca plate

Is it worth it to buy Canon EF lenses? I'm just a hobbyist, but I've always wanted a Canon EF 50mm F/1,2 L. I have a 5dmkii with the 24-70mm F/2,8 L that I've been using as my only camera the last 14 years or so.
I was considering upgrading to the R5 at some point, but never really paid attention to them because I was happy with my 5d.
I was even more inclined not to upgrade after seeing how big the RF 50mm is. It's fucking huge!
The small size of the EF 50mm is one of the main reasons I want it. It's so small. I've borrowed it from a friend a few times and it's fucking amazing not lugging my big 24-70mm around all day. And I shoot in 50mm most of the time anyway.

My question is though, I know I'm insanely late to the party, but why the fuck is the RF 50mm so huge compared to the EF? And given everybody moving over to mirrorless, isn't it a waste of money buying the EF lens?
I know the 5dmkii is a dinosaur at this point, but I still love the images it takes and will continue to use it until it dies. Already had the shutter swapped once after years of heavy use.

>>4370128
>why the fuck is the RF 50mm so huge compared to the EF
I dunno shit about RF/EF lenses but the generic answer to "why is new lens bigger than the one it replaces" is usualy that the newer lens is aimed at a higher end of market than the old one, so they take fewer compromises with sharpness, distortion, etc., to save size and weight. They figure if you think their lenses are too big you'll just use your phone.
The only exception are the dedicated "pancake" lenses where they want to brag about how small it is. But there's only 1-2 of those per camera maker.

>>4370128
>Is it worth it to buy Canon EF lenses?
Yes, because Canon did EF/RF adaptation right. RF bodies speak EF protocol natively and even cooperate IBIS/IS for better shake reduction. RF's main advantage is tighter IBIS/IS coordination and storing lens corrections in the lens itself to be downloaded and used by the body.

tl;dr - any Canon EF lenses you buy, and most 3rd party EF lenses, will continue to work perfectly on RF.

>>4370132
The correct answer.

>>4370132
>>4370140
Thanks for the answers. I didn't know you could get EF/RF adapters (like I said, I'm just a hobbyist with one camera). I assume using an adapter will diminish the quality to some degree, but it's nice to know the EF lenses won't be totally obsolete.
So the RF 50mm is just packed with more stuff in it? To me that kinda goes against the point of having a fixed 50mm bloating the size so much. It weighs 400g more than the EF one too.
Wasn't the EF 50mm already the "high end" option too?
I can probably find it at a pretty good price second hand these days. It just has a magical look too it and I love how small and light weight it is. It honestly changes the camera for me compared to my 24-70. I love the versatility of the 24-70, but I've just gotten so fucking tired of lugging it around.
But I'm looking to get something like the Fuji x100vi too so I have both options. Done a lot of research and it's exactly what I want next to my 5d.

>>4370151
>I assume using an adapter will diminish the quality to some degree
not really, since the adapter has no lens elements and mainly serves to adjust the focal length to account for lack of a mirror box

>>4370151
>Wasn't the EF 50mm already the "high end" option too?
no, 50mm was the kit lens that used to come with the camera back in the 1970s and 80s, before they started making zooms cheap and nasty enough to take this job over

>>4370170
according to Canon, the EF 50mm f/1.2 L was introduced in 2007 for 185k JPY

>sacrifice a shitton of image quality, lens quality, and general camera usefulness to get something to fit in a pocket
>put it in my pocket
>already carrying a p365+407k, spare mag because jay inslee is a brainless subhuman leech who set out to make his unconstitutional disarmament laws seem more useful by ruining the state for good measure
>also phone, wallet, keys, knife, and flashlight because i'm always out past sunset (aka 6pm)
>it's bulky, uncomfortable due to huge weight imbalance, keeps knocking against tables, and makes people ask me which gun I have in my pocket
>could try a ricoh gr and pants pocket but it would be an even worse camera and displace phone or wallet
>never take any good photos with it
>sell it
waste of a 12% ebay fee

I got bored of fujifilm, suggest other stuff. I don't care about brand or format. Soul over features.

File: ricecel.png (281 KB, 715x1208)

281 KB PNG

>>4368310

>>4370196
Try out a wooden 4x5 or 8x10 camera with an old brass barrel lens. Cooke portrait is considered one of the best for portraits but they are expensive. Petzval is a good brand that isn't as expensive.

Ultimate soul.

File: file.png (109 KB, 1167x586)

109 KB PNG

>>4370196
>nebulous buzzwords like "soul"
aka how shopping addicts try and shield their behavioral issue from logical criticism. seek help anon.
https://blackbearrehab.com/mental-health/behavioral-process-addictions/compulsive-buying-disorder/
https://blocksite.co/blog/digital-mindfulness/stop-shopping-addiction
your fujifilm is not doing anything worse than any other camera except sharply resolving red and blue colored details at 200% zoom.

just use your camera before you end up like this >>4370179

>>4370200
image source btw
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4598507
>I have many friends experienced this water damages to their Sony gears, I still have one just returned from Sony and still sitting on my table, a 7R IV got killed by sea water, a friend of mine was shouting at the beach and one sneaky wave hit and she feel down.
I would totally trust an ESL shilling against a camera company on the internet.

>>4370204
I haven't shot film before, so that's actually a pretty good idea.

>>4370206
I'm not planning on getting rid of my fuji stuff, I'm looking to add something different. I get that to some people photography is about specs, but I'm just looking for stuff that inspires to shoot more pictures. You get bored of the same stuff eventually.