>>4363019
Nikon D800 for 3-400 USD, if you don't care much about video

>>4363021
I dont care about video. I just want professional grade pictures

>>4363021
By the way are you proposing that it take better pics than canon R50.?

>>4363021
Seems like its discontinued...

>>4363023
Then go with the D800, or D810 if you luck out and find it cheap.

>>4363024
It will. The R50 is a budget entry-level APS-C camera. The D800 is (was) a professional full frame with weather sealing. Your skill will most likely be the determining factor, though, not the specs.

>>4363027
Yes. You buy it used.
Look for one with a relatively low shutter count (anything under 50k is great, over 150k is sonewhat risky)

>>4363030
Sweet. I will look into it. Found 2 offers but they list as 75k-100k clicks

>>4363019
if you aren't shooting models in a studio or professional wedding photographer you don't really need r5, save your money and buy gym membership

>>4363032
Dont tell me how to live my life

>>4363023
ff dslr will give that "fuck you im so good" professional look, don't waste money on mirrorless

>>4363033
but you don't you fat dumb fuck, if you only posting on Instagram all of that extra megapixels will go to waste

>>4363034
Its a possibility. My goal is professional grade pictures, if possible under 2000 euros, but is that possible?

Dont give me your bullshit about "best camera is the one you bring with you" or "the man behind the camera". I reject your delusions and I care only about technical facts

>>4363035
No stupid mother fucker, I do not intend to publish on social media. Its just for my personal picture albums and I havr very high standards

>>4363031
That's still acceptable. The D800 is rated for 200k by Nikon, but most will probably last much longer.
Remember that you also need glass, though.
A good and cheap starting point will be the AF-S 50mm f1.8, which will give you a focal length which feels somewhat familiar compared to the phone cameras you are used to. Can be had for under 100 usd. The f1.4 is the slightly better version, and the AF-D is the older version which uses the internal camera motor for autofocusing (slightly slower and a lot louder).
Otherwise I'd recommend a zoom. 24-70mm is an okay starting range. 24-120mm is very good, but often a lot more expensive.

>>4363036
>My goal is professional grade pictures, if possible under 2000 euros, but is that possible?
Absolutely.
Nikon recently gave up on the F-mount, and now only push their new mirrorless Z-mount glass, which means that a lot of people are selling off their professional grade F-mount stuff for pennies.

>>4363038
Is the D800 basically an old version of the top tier canons of 5k+€ which I posted? With comparable image quality?

>>4363039
Thats good to know. I am definitely open to used equipment if it is tier1 over entry tier new stuff

>>4363036
brother if you seek "that" professional look you either go nikon D780 1750$ or Canon 5d Mkiv 1900$, both are still in production and both are good ff cameras, both of them have nice primes and zooms and they produce that professional look like you see in 2010 fashion magazines.
But be aware that they big and heavy-ish, if you plan doing studio shots they are perfect
https://mywed.com/en/analytics/camera-list/
take a look at this site, make combos of different cameras and lenses and choose what suits the look you are seeking.

>>4363040
It's comparable to Canon 5D Mark III

Can you buy used cameras with a b2b invoice? Like from a reselling company that ideally makes sure the camera is not fucked and or stolen or uses to photograph crimes.

>>4363019
aps-c is smartphone level

>>4363037
the only pics you have are rocks and leaves form your backyard.

>>4363047
Not your business pal

>>4363042
Why would you go for a D780 instead of a used D800?
There is very little difference between them, apart from the ridiculous pricetag on a new D780.

>>4363042
Great thanks for advices anon. Checking out this stuff. Im scared to buy used and get framed with cp. Like buying a used gun. Shit scares me

>>4363052
>Im scared to buy used and get framed with cp.
Lol, fuck off troll

But I guess if I can get an official invoice from a refurbished uses one, the time stamps on any crimes tied to the camera and the date on the invoice should proof of not having the camera that time

>>4363050
you can't buy new d800, all those for sale on ebay are old and busted and has cum and ants inside them

>>4363053
Not trolling. Very paranoid but its less likely than lightning striking twice

>>4363056
Yes, remember to consoom

File: Screenshot_20240922_16484(...).jpg (73 KB, 519x995)

73 KB JPG

>>4363056
Pretty steep. Let me first investigate d800 used options

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android TP1A.220624.014.A226BXXS9DXD1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	519
Image Height	995

>>4363061
A friend of mine just bought a 24-120mm f4 for 180 usd. He got extremely lucky, though.

Found a nikkon 800d with 33k clicks under 600 euros in normal condition


Tempting

>>4363064
Its wih 12 month warranty too from refurbisher/reseller

Fucking sweet i am probably doing it

How much did nikkon D800 cost new? Over 3k?

>>4363058
yes consoom preconsoomed shit that will brake after 5 days.

>>4363064
>>4363066
at least go see it in person before consooming

>>4363071
Seems like its not possible with business invoice so fuck it i will buy new

>>4363046
lmao

>>4363042
>that professional look like you see in 2010 fashion magazines.

What do you mean with 2010?

>>4363019
Define better.
>>4363032
Even if you are doing those, chances are you don't need one either (except to impress clueless customers)
>>4363037
If only you demanded half as much from your technique as you do from your gear you'd maybe get where you're trying to. Until you git gud, not even the most expensive uber professional camera will save your photos from your incompetence. Even worse, perhaps a low tier consumer one will give you better results because it has the green (full retard) mode.

I ask for mirrorless
Everyone proposes dslr

Why? Is it better or u trolling

>>4363085
You are special.

>>4363087
It is better unless you want to do video and use the on-camera viewfinder while doing that.

>>4363089
Ok thanks. I just want pics

>>4363090
In that case DSLR is better, saves you from some pattern noise caused by AF pixels on the mirrorless cameras. That noise usually gets corrected by the image processor but it's doing guesswork.

>>4363042
>Canon 5d Mkiv

I will buy this

>>4363021
D800/810 if you want to be in F mount, Canon 5Ds/sR if you want to be in EF mount. Nice advantage of EF is that almost all lenses adapt perfectly to RF. Just a few old 3rd party lenses have trouble. A lot of F mount shit will never work on Z mount. Canon's color is also better ooc, but Nikon's is good with a little work in post.

>>4363094
5DIV is also a great option.

File: Screenshot_20240922_17395(...).jpg (127 KB, 1080x687)

127 KB JPG

Is this a good deal? They make it look like a steal with the lense for 1 euro. It makes me suspicious that it may be a bad deal

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android TP1A.220624.014.A226BXXS9DXD1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	687

>>4363019
What are you going to photograph? If you're shooting people, and especially if you're shooting selfies, mirrorless is vastly superior.

Canon RP is like $600 new. Otherwise a Sony A5100 is $200. Get some Sigma primes with it.

>>4363097
People at parties, children playing, family outings, etc

>>4363097
>If you're shooting people, and especially if you're shooting selfies, mirrorless is vastly superior.*

*Citation needed

>>4363097
>If you're shooting people...mirrorless is vastly superior.
No. It's a little easier with face detect. But it's also easy to master a DSLR's AF system and get the same results.

>>4363096
Lol no. Don't buy a DSLR. The people here are tricking you. For that amount of money you can get a Sony A7RV or Nikon Z8 at Greentoe.

>>4363101
I don't need a citation. I'm speaking from experience. You want good autofocus with Eye AF and you don't get that with DSLRs. You also have to manually correct the focus on every individual DSLR lens since none of them are perfectly calibrated to your camera. With mirrorless none of this has to be considered.

>>4363096
Hahahaha no, do not do this to yourself man.

The 5div was a problematic camera from day one with lots of sensor QC issues. I doubt canon fixes them for free anymore, so if you have the banding issue (pic related) in low light pics you are fucked, return and try again.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4187907
You are paying for full frame to get more dynamic range in one shot than a phone can get stacking multiple exposures into a big smear... and a canon DSLR can't get you that. +3, +5 exposure pushes are very normal to control highlights because on GOOD full frame sensors they reveal only negligible shadow noise that, once reduced in ligtroom, capture one, or topaz, and exported as a final sized jpeg or printed, is totally gone. You might as well buy an aps-c sony, fuji, etc if you're going to buy an old full frame canon. Same dynamic range.

Canon DSLRs in general were never actually comparable to Nikons quality. It's why Nikon won over so many rabid fanboys. Great lenses, but if you want build quality and competent sensor tech on a DSLR, you only have two options
Nikon
Pentax (does not have quality autofocus, however)

Canon's advantage in the market was their tech support program (Canon Pro Services) and adopting a fully electronic lens standard which enabled higher FPS and faster autofocus decades before nikon, so those pros who switched were stuck with a decade of expensive professional lenses.

>>4363087
They ARE trolling. It's a 4chan misery cult.

A bunch of autists hate life so they all band together around some stupid thing that's inconvenient, difficult, and unenjoyable so they can be miserable together.

"Buy a full frame DSLR" is to /p/ as "install gentoo on a thinkpad" is to /g/

kek you phoneposting faggot i remember you from /g/

>>4363099
are you stupid? you wanna professional dslr with zoom lens for casual family pictures?
is this a troll thread?

>>4363070
>D800
>break
That thing is a fucking tank. Heavy as one too.

>>4363121
>nolifer doesn't realize that shooting toddlers/kids in average home light conditions is more demanding than animal butthole photography
incel

>>4363087
Mirrorless is so ewhat better in some aspects. Mainly IBIS (which not all mirrorless cameras have), but you get extremely much more for your money if you go for a DSLR.
The mirrorless APS-C bodies you can afford will be much worse than the FF DSLR you can afford.

>>4363121
Kek here's one of those people
>Are you stupid? You want a car with more than 50 horsepower to drive to work?
>You need more than an motorola droid 3 to text and make phone calls?
>You want a computer from this year to check facebook and watch netflix? You actually play VIDEO *retches* GAMES!?
>And now you want a FULL FRAME camera to take photos, when you are not even being paid to do it so it's just an expense and you aren't sigma-maxxing your shekels and putting them all into things that yield returns so you can achieve financial freedom and btfo the wageoids?
>If you put all that money into $DOGWEARINGRAINBOWSOCKS you could be a fucking billlionaire but no, you have to CONSOOOOOM. CONSOOOOM! *bald_hebrew_man.jpeg* THIS IS YOU! *arab_bodybuilder.jpg* THIS IS ME!
>muh heckin soi bois consoomer cattle goy slaves keep feeding the great satan of the international jewish conspiracy cuck! REEEEE!
>^4chan

>normal person: you use nothing but rickety e-waste so you can gamble more money on cryptocurrency scams?

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>^4chan

>>4363096
Dear lord, no.
Why don't you listen and look at the D800, which is 400 usd used?

>>4363096
If you're going to spend that kind of money, you are better off buying the D850, which is literally the best DSLR ever made (and it's still being sold new, if that was important to you).

File: sidebyside-680x510.jpg (80 KB, 680x510)

80 KB JPG

>>4363096
You'll never take a blob this size out of the house. They are absolutely hideous and the size of a childs head.

For that money, just troll the /p/ autists and buy a camera everyone outside of 4chan loves like a sony a7iii. Our resident panasonic shills and seething finance bros will hate it, but you'll love it.

>>4363019
OP listen to me, and ONLY me. I can tell you're not a fucking basement dwelling loser like the rest of the fags here.

Here's the truth:

Yes, that R50 is SIGNIFICANTLY better than a smartphone. It also has some cool jpeg processing, where it can shoot multiple exposures and combine them into one image, all done in camera. This is similar to what smartphones do. So it can cut down on your post processing a lot. If you're just shooting casually, R50 is a great camera. Get a Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 with it. And once Sigma releases their primes, pick up the 56mm f1.4 for those portraits shots with creamy backgrounds.

You literally don't need anything more.

The autofocus on this R50 is better than Nikon's top end models.

If you rather get a full frame camera, the Canon R8 or a Nikon ZF would be good choices, or Sony A7CII if you want a more pocketable camera. Panasonic S5II could be an option as well since it's often heavily discounted (like camera + 2 lenses for $1500 kind of thing).

But start with that R50. It will serve you well. Just get Sigma optics and don't get the Canon RF-S lenses (they're crap).

>>4363141
Behold, gearfag brainrot.

You know someone only shoots cats and charts when they recommend a behemoth like the s5ii to someone who does not intend on using it as the core unit of a video rig.

>>4363140
Behold, a sensible person.
>compact
>but not crippled
>very good autofocus and dynamic range
>reasonably popular, replacements and repairs widely available

>>4363143
>You know someone only shoots cats and charts when they recommend a behemoth like the s5ii
It's up to him to decide how big of a camera he wants to carry. It's not like it's much bigger than a Sony A7III. It's still way smaller than a DSLR. Main reason to consider it is because it's cheap when on discount. For $1500 he could have a complete set up with a 20-60 zoom and a 50 or 85mm f1.8 prime. This camera also has great IBIS.

But like I said, the Canon R50 is likely enough.

>>4363140
>>4363143

t. /r/SonyAlpha seething when anyone recommends something that isn't a Snoy because IT JUST HECKIN WORKS

A R50 is also $5-600 compared to the $2000 you'll drop on a A7. someone getting into the hobby is almost always never gonna drop $2000 off the get go when they're upgrading from a phone camera, you niggers are brain dead shills

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

124 KB JPG

>>4363019
>Posted 2 hours ago
>60 replies
Hey OP. I own an R50 and it was my jump from an older 70D. It's small, light as FUCK, and gives you everything you need to take WAY better photos than a phone ever could. Has features out the ass. Things like excellent AF, focus stacking in camera, USB-C charging, focus peaking, 4k 30fps video, etc etc. Your lens ecosystem matters a lot if you end up buying more lenses and getting serious, and canon RF / EF lenses are generally excellent. Yes, a Full Frame sensor is going to be better for pure noise and dynamic range advantages, but that doesn't mean the R50 is a slouch. In fact it's probably the perfect intoduction to actual camera technology for a complete noob that can afford it.

The ONE thing I hate about this fucking thing is the fact canon took away the universal hot shoe mounts, so you cant use external flashes. That's it. There are other minor points like not having a fully mechanical shutter, but it's not the end of the world. If you go up to the R10 those last two points disappear at the cost of $200 more, another 100g~ and it being slighty bigger.

Use the kit lens, it's gr8. Buy the RF 50mm if you want portraits for $250, or a 'fast' lens in general. Buy an EF/RF adapter for $50 and buy older EF lenses if you want to experiment with cheap used lenses.

Ignore the fags and just buy what you want. You could literally buy any camera and give it a go and I'd be happy someone else is getting into the hobby. Yes, even if it's a Snoy.

[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

File: Panasonic-S5-Mark-II-vs-S(...).jpg (31 KB, 720x316)

31 KB JPG

>>4363145
It is much bigger front to back, a bit bigger top to bottom, about half a pound (so a lens' worth) heavier, and it has a much worse selection of cheap, good, and compact lenses (the 50 and 85 you recommended are huge). If all you care about is MTF charts then I guess the lenses you recommended are fine, but they're also all huge and expensive (except the kit lens, which is reasonable).

Panasonics FFs are absolutely superior for semi-pro video. Panasonic knows what amateur "serious" cinematographers want and include every codec and mode they ask for. Compared to panasonic, sony bends videographers over and fucks them in the ass with a cactus. But for a photographer, these panasonic things are pointless bordering on hampering. Photography is about the lenses - not just the lenses - but the lenses working with good autofocus, while cinema is mostly shot with manual focus. Sony has more AF lenses and more AF adapters that simply don't exist on L mount.

The photographer's S5 is the Nikon Z5. The autofocus perf and price are similar, the video specs are not, but its a hair more compact/ergonomic and Z mount has a better selection of photography lenses especially due to its available autofocus adapters. Z mount can adopt sony FE lenses with full electronics support.

Sony mirrorless and therefore nikon Z with a $250 adapter has a massive amount of good compact lenses. L mount, and RF, do not come close to what a photographer can get on FE and Z.

>>4363147
>$2000 on an a7
A7IIIs and a7cs are sub-1k, you'd be 5 good primes deep into lens collecting to hit $2k

>>4363148
>>4363141
OP said he wants THE professional look, r50 can't give you that, it will give you the iPhone look

>>4363148
Well said.

>>4363152
Again, if he wants a small camera he should get either a cheap APS-C like the R50 or a full frame Sony A7C/A7CII. A Sony A6400 is not a bad choice either.

It doesn't seem like OP wants to buy a used camera. And the A7III has the old shitty Sony colors with a green tint that makes skin tones look awful (can't be removed in post). The S5II is supposed to have very good/neutral colors.

The Nikon Z5 takes amazing images with the best colors in any mirrorless camera and it has a lot of features. I own one myself. But I can't recommend it for OPs purposes. The autofocus just isn't good enough for people photography. It's a great camera to shoot architecture or astro with however. The S5IIs autofocus should be significantly better (although not quite as good as modern Sonys and Canons).

Up to OP to decide how much money he wants to spend and how big of a camera he wants to carry around.

> Canon R50 ($600)
> Canon R8 ($1100)
> Sony A6400 ($1400)
> Lumix S5II + 2 lenses ($1500)
> Sony A7C ($1600)
> Nikon ZF ($2000)
> Sony A7CII ($2100)

These are his options, imo.

> Sony mirrorless and therefore nikon Z with a $250 adapter
Agreed but OP only needs two or three lenses and everything he needs is available on L mount. He has all the Sigma lenses and Lumix now has several very good lenses as well. Also he can easily adapt Canon EF lenses (they work very well on Panasonic cameras).

>>4363096
If you have that kind of budget, you're much better off buying a cheaper body and getting very good glass.
I'd say go with the D800 you were recommended early on, and get a full set of fast primes, and maybe an all-purpose zoom to top it off.
That's more camera than you'll probably ever need.

>>4363157
If you want creme-da-la-creme then you may as well go medium format or the best FF. As OP initally said that is "mad expensive", I'm going to guess they'd rather spend less than that setup would cost. Sorry mang, we're not all rich like you. Besides, OP said he wants something significantly better than a phone, which *technically* M43 can achieve, but APS-C mogs the shit out of M43 for basically the same cost. FF starts costing way more and doubly so when considering lenses. You can still get wicked DoF with a moderately fast lens on APS-C, and as long as you're not shooting in shit light the noise difference wont matter. If you are shooting in shit light, get a flash. Oh wait, the goys from canon FUCKED the R50 in the ass with the hotshoe.

Feel free to disagree, but sounds like OP would not be well served with a huge full frame because he's not a shit-flinging, MTF chart-snorting /p/-tier gearfag. Yet.

File: PaulChoy_X100VI_61.jpg (185 KB, 959x1365)

185 KB JPG

>>4363019
Fujifilm x100vi
small, light and sexy
nice comfy images and recipes
even your wife will love it
>but it's autofocus can't keep up with small fast moving birds at low light
kys

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	959
Image Height	1365

>>4363163
op is trolling and you took the bait and mad for some reason, chill faggot lol

>>4363121
>you wanna professional dslr with zoom lens for casual family pictures?

Yes. Deal with it

>>4363141
>OP listen to me, and ONLY me. I can tell you're not a fucking basement dwelling loser like the rest of the fags here.

Thats right bro. I am going to print out your advices. I was gone for a few hours because these losers make me mad

>>4363132
>Why don't you listen and look at the D800, which is 400 usd used?

400 bucks used without business invoice is fiscally more expensive than 2000 used with a business invoice

>>4363157
>r50 can't give you that, it will give you the iPhone look
I have bought an iphone 11 for my wife, she raves about the pics but i think they are absote dog shit compared to professional grade pics

>>4363167
You misread me. We're all /p/ faggots. Not mad in the slightest. OP just isn't poisoned by the twice daily M43 threads and constant gear bitching.

>>4363184
Dont get me wrong. They are GREAT for phone pics. Just not anywhere near what photographers deliver

>>4363158
>And the A7III has the old shitty Sony colors with a green tint that makes skin tones look awful (can't be removed in post)
Yeah look at this awful green tint!
https://www.blog.juliatrotti.com/pictures?tag=portrait

I never understood the sony green tint meme. When I had a sony, it actually had a slight MAGENTA tint and the colors were very cool and neutral. Of course I only used minolta, newer sony and tamron lenses, maybe the zeiss lenses turn green.

And then I picked up a cheap $250 olympus m43 and a 12-40 f2.8 pro as a toss around camera I wouldnt care about breaking because its cheap junk
And now I know what a green tint really is. You can not take photos outdoors near grass without that lens requiring a +6 correcting magenta tint added in the white balance setting. The elements pick up and diffuse green light.

Why are niggers here seething about sony?
is it just broke faggots who can't afford them or why?

>>4363202
>https://www.blog.juliatrotti.com/pictures?tag=portrait
It says there that she's using a Sony A7RIV. Not an A7III.

>>4363235
It says that in some of the posts, yes, they also say a7iii and other cameras. Since you don't know how to navigate a website apparently,
https://www.blog.juliatrotti.com/?tag=sony+a7iii

i just checked the details of a picture my uncle took in 2013 and it was pretty great even when he took it in bad conditions with poor lighting, definitely significantly better than an iphone

camera: canon eos 100D

>>4363148
>The ONE thing I hate about this fucking thing is the fact canon took away the universal hot shoe mounts, so you cant use external flashes.
Just get the hot shoe adapter.

File: the power of sony colors.jpg (114 KB, 600x900)

114 KB JPG

>sony colors

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

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

>>4363152
>and RF, do not come close to what a photographer can get on FE and Z.
Absolutely retarded take given the size of the EF catalog. And unlike glitchy cross-mount adapters, the EF/RF adapter works perfectly because RF bodies natively support EF lenses, even coordinating OIS/IBIS.

>>4363245
>shot by a camera reviewer using direct flash
Skill issue

>>4363250
>noooo it's the flash that gave them the same skin color as a corpse

>>4363259
Most sony shooters don't have any problems

Judging a camera by how dpreview and petapixel fags use it is foolish. Even /p/'s lowliest cat snapper has more talent in their pinky than those crooked shills.

>>4363246
>The size of the EF catalog
That is mostly absolute fucking junk, maybe 5 good zooms, and a few "legendary" primes that are merely as good as equally priced mirrorless glass or were straight up ported to FE already (like that crazy sharp sigma 70mm).

The EF/RF adapter saves RF users money but it's not a replacement for the native mirrorless and rangefinder selection available to FE and Z users.

>>4363259
may we see a pic that have good and alive skin tones?

>>4363019
Lol, poor OP.
He got like two real recommendations before the whole schizo asylum moved in.

>>4363264
kek basically every ef shooter uses the same 12 lenses because no one laments the loss of the ef 50mm f1.2, le magic drainpipe, or 20 different kit zooms.

lets not even go into the manual lenses you can adapt to z mount

>>4363268
what were those "real recommendations"?

>>4363282
the ones the /p/ gear misery cult likes: old ass DSLRs and entry level APS-C junk
>ask "wut compooter" on /g/
>thinkpad t60 with gentoo
>thinkpad x60 with arch
>Uh no OP, this dell is act-
>Have you considered this 2 year old mac-
>NOOO!
>OP ONLY GOT TWO REAL RECOMMENDATIONS

>>4363245
Washed out shit with terrible resolution

>>4363283
Right... I remember asking /g/ what TV to buy a few years ago. Terrible idea. Just determine your budget, and compare specs of the offerings in that budget...

>>4363106
There's a reason DSLRs hold their value so well, just saying. By all means waste your money on the ewaste of tomorrow if that's what you enjoy doing though.

>>4363296
>There's a reason DSLRs hold their value so well

And the reason is?

>>4363294
Comparing specs is just silly when it comes to cameras where the most publicized ones are also the least relevant for actual shootting. Image quality has mostly plateaued since about 2012 or so, but also lenses have always mattered more than bodies. When was the last time the image quality of a D3200 was the bottleneck to a beginner's photography, for example? And it's a nearly bottom of the barrel DSLR. The dealbreakers in photography gear have long stopped having anything to do with image quality.

Leica Q3

>>4363297
The reason is boomers overpaid and so now they say “don’t lowball me I know what I’ve got”. It’s not anything technical because mirrorless gas left them in the Stone Age.

>>4363297
The reason being that mirrorless cameras are just ewaste in the making.
They became popular because they're cheaper to make so the manufacturers decided to shill them as the next frontier of photographic gear.

>>4363300
Before deciding if I should believe your advices, I want to know if you are a windows, macos, or linux user

>>4363302
>don’t lowball me I know what I’ve got
They're right though
>>4363304
I only use MacOS if I'm forced to. On my personal devices I main Windows but also use Linux sporadically. It just lacks stuff I use on a daily basis.

>>4363302
I hate boomers so fucking much

>>4363306
Can you post a screenshot of my post proving you use windows.

>>4363308
How would that prove I use Windows? I have the Windows fonts installed on Linux too for consistency.

>>4363304
Maybe you should ask him for his photos first

Dude does not even know how cameras work.

>>4363309
Well obviously a screenshot that shows your os and my post. Stop playing dumb you sneaky linux filth

>>4363312
Its a bad sign that he uses a trip code. It means he craves attention

>>4363313
>playing dumb

Maybe he just is dumb

>>4363318
>Maybe

And with maybe I mean most definitely

>>4363313
That could easily be faked as well, and I would glad to do it for your eyes only as it reeks of datamining. I could conjure up a MacOS screen easily if I so desired.

I burned out. Maybe next year

>>4363324
Just do what literally everyone else does, and what /p/ hates

Buy an A7III with the kit lens and 55mm f1.8. Going against the advice of some seething tripfag that probably lost his virginity to a barnyard animal is not going to hurt you.

>>4363327
Doing the opposite if what /g/ says has served me well. So basically do the opposite of anything 4chins says

>>4363327
I had an a7ii once, it was nice, remember wanting the iii but then the eos r came out and I already had ef lenses so just went with that instead. Don’t regret, despite the internet as a whole constantly calling the R a trash camera. It’s great, all I do is stills it’s literally perfect for that. Videofags can suck lemons

>>4363327
>Buy an A7III

Ok

>>4363327
I saw an offer with"free" 50mm lense. Is tgat lense good or not?

>>4363338
There's good and bad 50mm lenses and there's native and adapted.
It's hard to get a bad 50mm but bear in mind it's also usually the cheapest lens in the lineup, cheaper than a kit lens even. Before TTL cameras it was the default kit lens.

>>4363338
Most 50mm lenses on sony are actually good. The cheapest one has slow autofocus, but the QC is more consistent than the zeiss version and it has that "magic" or "3d pop" or "sovl" or whatever they call it among fujifags.

The cheapest 35mm f2.8 (samyang) is also pretty good

Sony A7 III + Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 G2 is just under 2000 euros

>>4363359
And it sells for the same price as Nikon Z5 + Nikkor Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR

>>4363359
>>4363366
And Nikon D800 is 350 USD and F-mount glass is significantly cheaper.

>>4363366
>Nikkor Z 24-200mm f/4-6.3 VR
At least get the 24-120mm f4 S.

>>4363372
>D800

600 euros without lense (34k shots)

But I cant expense used stuff without business invoice.

>>4363375
Still way better than Z5 and A7 III, but you can find it cheaper than that.
I recently helped a friend buy a D810 for 400 USD.

>>4363378
Its like you are retarded

>>4363378
No, a D800 is not way better than a z5 or a7iii.

>>4363376
Well looks like you're buying a brand new fujifilm x-t5!

>>4363384
>Well looks like you're buying a brand new fujifilm x-t5!
Maybe. Need good pics for my website to look professional after all

>>4363384
>Well looks like you're buying a brand new fujifilm x-t5

Why did it take 136 bullshit replies before I got the real answer by the way?

>>4363392
Because that's a troll answer too
AHAHAHAHAHA

A new a7iii is still somewhat cheaper

>>4363396
>new a7iii is still somewhat cheaper
Yeah but with less pixels etc


Fucking shit i am getting tired. Maybe I just need to call my brother inlaw and ask what his photographer uses. That guy always delivers the dogs bollocks

>>4363396
But it has a lot of excellent reviews by the camera press.

>>4363396
Ah i found its apsc so it is total dog shit

Do not want even not if you pay me to take it

>>4363384
>No, a D800 is not way better than a z5 or a7iii.
Price-wise, you numbskull.
The A7III is about 2000 usd, and while the Z5 is "only" 1400 usd, the Z mount glass is about 5~6x that of the F-mount glass counterparts.
An AF-S 50mm f1.4 can be had for about 100 usd, while the Z 50mm f1.4 is 600 usd(!).

But there are technical metrics by which the D800 wins too.
>D800 has better and faster autofocus than the Z5
>Better build and weather-sealing than both the others
>Much better ergonomics than the A7
>Much better resolution than both
>Much better battery life than both
>No chance of over heating
As a tool for just taking great photos, the D800 beats the two others in several categories, despite the wildly different price.
You don't get the convenience of IBIS in low-light conditions, and you don't have fancy AI tracking or focus peeking, but you still have an amazingly high end tool for photography, at a fraction of the price.

>>4363408
>Price-wise,
How many fucking times do you need me to tell you that the difference is imaterial if the used one cant be expensed

>>4363410
Didn't you say the one for 600 could be?

>>4363408
This is a load of linux user tier horseshit lmao. how many imageboard shills did you have to fall for to arrive at this ass backwards "a used thinkpad t60 running gentoo is better than the newest macbook pro" tier conclusion?

>>4363397
Fujifilm pixels aren't the same as normal pixels

40 fuji megapixels = 24 sony megapixels

R50 with 18-45 kit lens is $560 on the Canon Refurb Site, and R10 is $800 with the same lens. 18-135mm R10 Lens Kit is $1020.

Just do the 18-135mm R10 Lens Kit OP.

>>4363244
Had one on order since June. Out of stock everywhere. Emailed Canon and they're like "yep, sure am" with no further context

>>4363396
Why does everyone love the a7iii?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIyESatjPY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFd-bD0hstU

Probably the most used and abused mirrorless of all time

>>4363455
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFd-bD0hstU
>"street photography"
>sony
>red and cyan
>holds camera with one hand spamming photos
this is the power of a handheld gaming console with a sensor

File: the joy of refrex.jpg (108 KB, 640x640)

108 KB JPG

this thread made me realize why sony still sells new shit that was released 7 years ago

all the corpo tards expensing them. sony gets the money regardless.

>>4363456
>uhm, you're meant to hold it with both hands, spam photos in continuous high instead of single, do this pose, and make it orange and blue saturation +20 t. dslrnosaur salty that he cant afford to be an MILChad

>>4363384
Drop both from one meter high, then let me know
>>4363410
You don't write the new one off your tax, you write it off your profits. It won't be a huge rebate.

>>4363454
I'll give you that. Ever since the pandemic Canon has had major stock issues. But I believe there are 3rd party ones out there.

>>4363462
Link one if you know any, if you don't mind. I don't shit a fuck if it's 5x the cost.

>>4363264
>decades of L lenses, legendary white teles, Sigma ART primes, and kick ass Tamron SP glass used by professionals all over the world on the #1 mount by marketshare
>"That is mostly absolute fucking junk"
You've out done yourself. This is now the most retarded statement in the thread, possibly on the entire board at the moment, and also makes me think you're nothing more than a dumb paid shill.

>The EF/RF adapter saves RF users money but it's not a replacement for the native mirrorless and rangefinder selection available to FE and Z users.
It absolutely is and even increases the number of unique lenses available to RF users which are not, and in some cases never will be, on FE.

>>4363458
taking photos of cars that are 20 metres away isnt street, idiot

>>4363271
Suspected samefagging.

>kek basically every ef shooter uses the same 12 lenses
Really? Care to list those lenses?

>because no one laments the loss of the ef 50mm f1.2
Is that why it's a $750-$1,000 lens used? Because no one wants it?

>lets not even go into the manual lenses you can adapt to z mount
Manual lenses can be adapted to any mirrorless. Hell, many manual lenses can even be adapted to EF. Stop shilling. Do you even own a camera?

>>4363292
Yes, it was shot with Sony.

>>4363466
seething beanie boy

>>4363465
>brooo all those bazooka lenses that were really good in 2004! SIGMA lenses! TAMRON lenses! brooooo it's used by gettyimages!

>Angry cannot shill has entered the thread
Yawn
6x7 = 80mp

That should give us a break

>>4363384
>No, a D800 is not way better than a z5 or a7iii.
It has significantly better IQ and focus tracking that is equal or better. You don't get the butthole subject tracking AF of mirrorless cameras, but you don't actually need that to nail shots. It just sometimes makes life a bit easier (and sometimes fucks up).

And as far as mirrorless subject tracking, the Z5 and A7iii are definitely not the best there is in that regard. If your primary goal is magic mirrorless subject tracking, there are better options. Same for video. If you just want high IQ stills, then yes, the D800 is arguably better. Absolutely better for large prints of subjects with lots of fine detail.

>>4363408
>But there are technical metrics by which the D800 wins too.
>>D800 has better and faster autofocus than the Z5
>>Better build and weather-sealing than both the others
>>Much better ergonomics than the A7
>>Much better resolution than both
>>Much better battery life than both
>>No chance of over heating
>As a tool for just taking great photos, the D800 beats the two others in several categories, despite the wildly different price.
>You don't get the convenience of IBIS in low-light conditions, and you don't have fancy AI tracking or focus peeking, but you still have an amazingly high end tool for photography, at a fraction of the price.
This anon actually shoots pictures and doesn't just shill on a forum. If you just want high quality stills, not magic subject tracking or 4k video, then the best value right now in F mount is a D800/800E/810. Best value in EF mount is a 5Ds/5DsR. High resolution FF kicks ass and all 5 are serious tools made for professionals, not mid-tier tools made for prosumers. All 5 are built like tanks. And will put huge, detailed prints on your wall, or let you crop in 2x making your telephotos that much more valuable. Lenses are top notch and cheaper, stretching your dollars further.

Only advantage the Canon bodies have here...aside from a few more MP...is EF/RF compatibility. But if you stick to the latest F lenses those work great on Z as well.

>>4363428
>40 fuji megapixels = 24 sony megapixels
True, but X-T5 color >>>>>>>> A7iii color. And you also get high spec video thrown in, if that's your thing. I think I would rather have an X-T5 than an A7iii, and I love FF.

>>4363469
I can post resolution chart samples from TDP all day long, but you'll just shit post in reply.

OP, ignore the Z5/A7iii shill. It's not that those are bad cameras, but he has a hate boner for "old stuff" and specifically for Canon. He's not a photographer, just an irrational shill.

>>4363470
Oh it's you! No wonder you're being a dumb ass, it's your nature.
>muh a7iii
>muh manual adapters (that are available for every mirrorless, even EF-M)
>MUH SNOY COLORS!!!
OP, this guy doesn't even own a camera. He is a nocamera/nophoto. Take the advice of people who actually, you know, shoot pictures.

>>4363464
Well crap...now that I'm looking, I may have been wrong on that. What I thought was a MF/hot shoe adapter was something else.

Canon has been blowing it on flashes lately, and it all started with that multifunction shoe crap. Idk why the fuck they didn't just add some pins to a standard hot shoe so everything could keep working.

>>4363478
>Idk why the fuck they didn't just add some pins to a standard hot shoe so everything could keep working.
because then how would they sell their new flashes?

>>4363329
R is a fine camera. The first gen DPAF isn't as good as what Snoy had at the time, and the 4k video was cropped (but still good thanks to bitrate). But the sensor is great, color is great, ergonomics are better than anything Snoy had at the time or probably even now.

>>4363480
>because then how would they sell their new flashes?
That's the problem, they don't have any new flashes to sell! The most boomer tier middle management fuck up Canon has ever made.

>>4363476
>everyone is one guy
No, but you sure are. 100-400 L shill, angry about film and 5ds rs guy, canon ff low light video sperg, very recognizable. It's like being able to spot ken rockwell through his gear opinions.

Anyways, did you know you can't really adapt leica wide angles to sony or canon mirrorless? Only nikon has a sufficiently thin sensor stack to deal with their incidence angle. So it's true, that nikon can adapt manual lenses that other mirrorless can't.

>>4363486
Christ, look at that butt hurt. Here are your problems...
>obvious shilling
>obvious samefagging
>seethes when contrary evidence is provided
>you can't concede a single point, ever, no matter how much evidence is provided
>you can't defend your arguments at all
>you can't accept defeat even when it's obvious, nor change your mind about anything
>what you think is best is always best for everyone no matter what, there are no viable choices other than the ones you suggest

And worst of all...
>you frequently resort to straight up lying and exaggeration to try and "win"
Example:
>did you know you can't really adapt leica wide angles to sony or canon mirrorless?
>Only nikon has a sufficiently thin sensor stack to deal with their incidence angle.
>So it's true, that nikon can adapt manual lenses that other mirrorless can't.
I'll be sure to tell my millionaire friend who mounts his wide angle Leica glass on Sony bodies that only Nikon can do that because some nophoto on a forum said so. I'm sure he'll get a good laugh out of that.

Actually, this is worst of all:
>nocamera
>nophoto

>>4363498
>bro my millionaire friend
>tldr angry essay
>unhinged ranting thinks everyone hes argued with is the same guy
post photo schizo

>>4363500
>post photo schizo
I have in other threads where you're being a dumb ass. Now it's your turn.

>>4363500
>its heckin g9ii dog hair on medium format negatives guy who shills mft and hates mft because he always shills sony! The pattern is the pattern! They’re being paid by panasonic! Olympus bought them cruise tickets! It’s mk ultra level shilling i dont know what they’re trying to make me do and im afraid i wont know im being controlled when i do it how do i escape these glowies and russian bots i am going insane
average /p/ schizo moment

>>4363502
>i have photos but they go to another thread
nophoto schizo moment
>inb4 the glowies will gangstalk me if i post photo now

>>4363504
>nooooo i'm not the same fag being a fag in other threads, i'm totally someone different! what photos are you talking about???
Your turn to post a photo.

>>4363506
you first nophoto schizo

File: IMG_5462.jpg (557 KB, 1920x2400)

557 KB JPG

>>4363267
Here you go.

>>4363507
Your turn, nophoto.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 7D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3456
Image Height	4320
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:09:22 22:09:33
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	2400
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 273A9653 Close Up.jpg (625 KB, 2400x1920)

625 KB JPG

>>4363507
Oh, and in case you want a 5Ds sample.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5DS
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.2
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3424
Image Height	2739
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:09:22 22:22:26
Exposure Time	1/3200 sec
F-Number	f/5.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/5.0
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	255.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	1920
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_3684.jpg (415 KB, 2400x1600)

415 KB JPG

>>4363517
Note that this shot is a 2x crop. I was at 255mm trying one shot, and when I looked at the RAW liked a close up better.

>>4363507
In case you want an R6 sample. Note that this is from the JPEG with no processing, I wanted to send it to someone fast. I haven't processed the RAW yet (sharper/cleaner/more detail with well processed RAWs).

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2400
Image Height	1600
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	2024:09:22 22:25:12
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	12800
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	1600
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

D800 owner here, it’s sat unused in my cupboard since I got a d750.
D800 hits its buffer really easily if you shoot ppl or moving things. It’s also massive and heavy and a pain to take everywhere.
It’s cheap for a reason vs other options.
36mp is also a colossal waste of time unless you shoot wildlife and need to crop 80% and are too cheap to buy a proper zoom.

>>4363524

Forgot to mention it had huge autofocus issues at release. Mine had to go back and be serviced. I would not touch one secondhand without proof it got an autofocus service. Google is full of info about this.

File: IMG_0002_v1B.jpg (159 KB, 1188x1188)

159 KB JPG

>>4363478
Yeeeeeaaah. It's fucked. Canon being basedgoys seems typical lately though. Too bad because I bought a mini Godox since I didn't want a full sized, and Canon's own flashes are 3x the cost. Should be selling the R50 for an R7 soon anyway, so w/e.
>>4363482
Yeah aren't their current offerings just old models with the multifunction pins slapped on? Pretty sure I haven't seen a *new* canon flash appear in years.
>>4363511
Well done, Mr. yesphoto. One more confirmed non-larper in /p/. Your contributions are appreciated
>>4363521
R6 MkI right? Was heavily considering one for a while there. Seems the consensus is the MkII is basically the king of mirrorless atm.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R50
Camera Software	digiKam-8.4.0
Lens Size	55.00 - 250.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.0
Lens Name	EF-S55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS STM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1188
Image Height	1188
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:17 14:13:41
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	250.00 mm
Image Width	1188
Image Height	1188
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Evaluative
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	High
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Large
Focus Mode	One-Shot
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
Subject Distance	1.390 m
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	160
Color Matrix	34

>>4363526
>basedgoys
NO. Canon is not BASED, auto4chanrewording bullshit. Desu desu desu, I wish Canon weren't a complete messu.

File: Screen Shot 2024-09-22 at(...).jpg (644 KB, 2686x1498)

644 KB JPG

>>4363526
Nice shot.

>Yeah aren't their current offerings just old models with the multifunction pins slapped on? Pretty sure I haven't seen a *new* canon flash appear in years.
I believe the EL-5 is actually a new design. The claimed reason for the new shoe was video, i.e. stuff like digital mics. You're probably right that it was a boomer move to sell flashes which is retarded. I like Canon, but they are not perfect by any means (no company is) and this shoe shit has put them in a bind with their manufacturing problems.

>R6 MkI right? Was heavily considering one for a while there. Seems the consensus is the MkII is basically the king of mirrorless atm.
Yep, the MkI. The MkII definitely has improvements and tempted me. It has much better 4k thermal management and faster readout for 4k24 and 4k30 (it's actually the same for 4k60), plus AF tweaks and higher fps. It's arguably the best mid tier FF mirrorless right now, though if you want resolution the A7IV does give you some more. And in fairness to Panasonic it has a few more video features.

But the original is just a bit cleaner at extreme ISOs (51k and 102k). My main reason for adding it was night 4k24. This is just a screenshot of a test video made while visiting a friend, so it's nothing special other than being made under moonlight. I wanted a camera I could potentially record night hikes and mtb rides with when the moon is out. I can tolerate some noise for the ability to shoot at night, but you're obviously pushing the limits so I went ahead and got the MkI.

In fairness to the R6ii, R8, Z6 series, A7sIII, and S5...they're damn close on extreme ISO performance. We're talking maybe 0.5-0.66ev.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	2686
Image Height	1498

>>4363530

Eyes are so much more powerful than cameras at night it’s not even funny. My eyes easily do iso 1 million.
I love the sea at night, pity it’s impossible to photograph as anything other than a long exposure smear.

>>4363283
Last week I asked G for advice on a prebuilt desktop. I am still traumatized

>>4363461
>You don't write the new one off your tax, you write it off your profits. It won't be a huge rebate.

Yeah and the cocksuckers could refuse it as being a reasonable expense if you are not a professional photographer

Why is everything a huge rabbithole? (Keyboards, keycaps, computers, watches, cars,...) Fucking shit

>>4363538
When I was younger, whenever I needed anything, I decided in a few minutes and was always happy with my choices. Wtf is this shit

>>4363538
You don't pay attention to the things that aren't, specifically because they aren't.

>>4363541
Nearly everything seems to be a rabbithole. Even rugs, sofas, chairs

>>4363540
I think it is multi faceted. You get older so you lose your youth and happiness and want to make up for it with "stuff". And this inevitably leads to disappointments, so you ever keep raising the bar until you become happy ( you wont)

I quoted samfegt myself here bcs i knew none of you would have the amszers

>>4363542
I sit on my chair because it supports my ass and has a back rest. End of story. It's only as much of a rabbithole as you choose to care about. Life can be as simple and cheap as you want.

>>4363543
And also you lose people along the way which subconsciously makes you try to compensate for with more stuff especially stuff that can capture images for memories of life that is fleeting.

>>4363544
Yes. I sold my bmw 7 series which I obsessed over and replaced with a beat up bucket of rust and I feel I never needed it

>>4363538
Lots of hobbies get milked by online personalities since they were previously untapped or largely ignored. The hype builds up, and so does the product line and production, but with that so too does the cost. I've built some keyboards at reasonable prices, and enjoy the fact I know my way around custom keebs, but you absolutely can fuck yourself with costs and what is basically gearfagging if you don't check yourself since the market figured out there are retards that'll pay $500 for some moulded plastic because it THUNKS.

>>4363562
I got sucked into muhergonomikz and ended up buying an expensive desk, chair, and keyboard. They are comfortable but I feel ashamed.

>>4363562
Good analysis, never thought of it that way but you make a good point. Loneliness makes you more vulnerable to it

>>4363562
I've been on a Realforce 87uw 55g uniform since 2016 and never looked back. Keyboard fuckery is the lowest form of hobby one can have. Even photography is better.

>>4363562
>Keeboards
That just proves you are a fucking retard.
Cameras are actual tools and vary greatly in what they are capable of capturing.

>>4363693
>random shitflinging about specs or some shit
Do you read the comments you reply to or do you just argue for the sake to call someone a retard? Hobbies absolutely get railroaded, and sorry to break it to you faggot, but photography is a hobby unless you do it as a job. What, you think nobody has ever overpaid for a camera just because they like the look or the spec-sheet? Never upgraded just because Niggcanon released a new model that goes 3fps faster?

>>4363751
>you dont need you dont neeeeed muh heckin holy money being spent whatabout the opportunity costs ooooy...
>years later: iphone shoots 120fps, is essentially focusing free, everyone admits "yeah, that matters, i can freeze time without treating taking pictures like an olympic sport"

your opinions are 100% driven by money, nothing else

a better camera is a better camera, get over it

>>4363771
And yet keyboards and watches have never changed

People are actually buying WORSE keyboards and watches for "the feels". It's ridiculous. They feel things for an unfeeling machine. It's definitely the exact same men (and they are all men) who dream of sex robots.

>>4363771
Sometimes an allegedly better camera is worse in the things that matter.
>>4363781
Watches are jewellery, it makes more sense with them. Keyboard autism is audiophile tier bullshit, most of it is driven by hype and the placebo effect. I have some watch geek friends and while I find their discussions rather cringe and a symptom of affluenza, I can at least see what the appeal is.

>>4363789
>Sometimes an allegedly better camera is worse in the things that matter.
Then it's not a better camera "get over it" like a sony a7iv is better than a canon 5div "get over it".
>100mp
>no autofocus
That's a better camera "if".

>>4363789
>Keyboard autism is audiophile tier bullshit, most of it is driven by hype and the placebo effect.
Absolutely, but I enjoy having a mech keyboard instead of a membrane and it was a neat experience to build one. Fagging on about dampeners or foam or whatever else it cringe af though.

>>4363751
Retard

>>4363792
>a7iv better than 5div
At what? Puke green skintones? Leaking water? Burning through the battery? Be more specific.

>>4363847
An a7iv is better than a 5div at everything, just at being a camera. The snoy hater brigade that's confined to 4chan notwithstanding. It's not like their photos of dead grass are proving anything.

>>4363771
>a better camera is a better camera, get over it
And what camera is best for the man who has no camera, and must weep at night, for he has no photo?

>>4363857
>At what? Puke green skintones? Leaking water? Burning through the battery?
>"at everything"
lmfao so this is the power of snoy!

>>4363792
It's not though, just for lacking a full resolution (optical) viewfinder it's already disqualified.

>>4363993
>>4363988
Everyone outside of this shithole full of racist incels seems to like sony so im gonna buy one
>always do the opposite of what racist incels say
>succeed

>>4363052
So don't shop on Craigslist

>>4364007
mindbroken by this dumb website

touch grass

>>4364007
Based

-sent from my iPhone

>>4364007
>buying a camera
That would be a start.

OP here checking in. Still don't know what camera to get. I somehow feel that 5200 euros is not realistic but maybe I shouldnt think that way if I want top tier results.

I always look back with regret at low quality pictures of great memories (all phone pictures)

>>4364609
Don't do it. Don't buy bottom of the bargin bin but you don't need these super professional-tier cameras either. If you spend that much you're officially a hyper gearfag, unless you're doing actual paid work. The sensor in the R8 and R6MkII are the exact same as the R5 so you can achieve basically the same result with those. The differences come in your fps, dual card slots, IBIS, more controls, and better sealing.

Look, your money mang, but even if you went APS-C it wouldn't be like you *can't* take good photos. APS-C in good lighting is still fantastic. Full Frame is going to have a solid advantage, but it's not this huge leap you're thinking. Also keep in mind you're going to need to buy lenses and that's even more money, so if you're blowing all your cash on the body, I have some bad news for you.
>I always look back with regret at low quality pictures of great memories (all phone pictures)
Even an M43 camera will mog a phone as long as the user is competent. APS-C even more so. The trick is in the user.

>>4364613
Thanks. I dont need the best. I just need something much better than a phone. Are those statements contradictory? Doubtful. As I said in this post >>4363240

Similar to that woukd be good

>>4364613
>as long as the user is competent.

Is if really that hard to pay attention to lighting, distance, background, point, focus, and push a button?

>>4364613
I searched for full frame with included lense and sorted by price low to high
https://www.coolblue.be/nl/cameras/systeemcameras/full-frame-cameras/lens-meegeleverd:ja?sorteren=laagste-prijs

Which one would you recommend? Or would you recommend apsc if budget is 1-2k (lense included)?

>>4364617
You can get that out of literally anything with a big sensor and actual glass.

Just buy a Sony A7C, Nikon Z6III, or a Canon R8 and call it a day. You'll be well under $2000 with the kit lens and any telelens, the latter important since that'll take you take great closeups and distance shots a phone is incapable of getting. I'm $800 into my Nikon Z50 setup (budget APSC with a 50-250 and 16-50 lenses) and I'm taking better photos than phones (my pics are in the aviation thread). I literally switched to a camera because I could not get any distance or moving pics with my phone and honestly my camera is kinda sucky even compared to a $600 R50 (better autofocus) I just wanted to get something to snap a ton of pics with.

What's important too is that you try to finger fuck the cameras. See how it feels in hand. Play with the menus. Next is size and weight, a smaller camera is more likely to actually be carried outside of photo centric events. After it's lenses, but even that's not nearly as important. Most companies make good lenses outside of specialized stuff like pancakes and macro lenses.

>>4364623
>RP w/ RF 24-105mm
Basically a one stop shop for a great, cheap, lightweight, Full-Frame quality kit. You may never need to buy another camera or lens, and it's cheap as fuck. You may want a telephoto lens as well. The sensor is slightly dated with slightly lower DR than current Canon models.
>A7III w/ FE 28-70mm
Would fill a very similar role with a more limited focal range. You will likely want a telephoto lens at some point. I am not a huge fan of Snoy though personally.
>R8 w/ RF 24-50mm
Basically a straight upgrade on the RP with better fps, video, and controls. The 24-50mm lens is pathetic so you will absolutely want to sell that for $100 on ebay and pick up either the 24-105mm or the 24-240mm.
>Nikon Z5 w/ 24-200mm
Nikon mirrorless is allegedly kind of piss poor compared to Canon/Sony, but if you wanted a Nikon this is it. Autofocus is generally not up to scratch and DR is said to be subpar to its competetors.
>R6 MkII w/ 24-105mm
This is where I would stop. This is your creme-da-la-creme. Currently regarded as the best mirrorless camera you can buy that isn't a full professional austismo model. If you buy this you will use it for a decade. All the pro features like IBIS and dual card slots like the R5, just with a lower MP count and fps. That MP count is not as important as you think on the R5 unless you're doing wildly heavy cropping in post. Spending the extra 2300 Euros on an R5 seems autistic.

>would you recommend apsc if budget is 1-2k (lense included)?
Yes. Depending on the use-case. I am committing to an APS-C kit instead of going full frame since most of my photography is in good lighting, or macro where the extra crop factor is actually beneficial. If you are doing a lot of high-quality portraits and landscapes, I would recommend a Full Frame like the R8 or RP, but keep in mind APS-C is not suddenly dog-shit for those either. Full Frame will always cost more money, be physically bigger, and weigh much more.

Tl;dr buy RP w/ 24-105mm.

>>4364629
>>RP w/ RF 24-105mm
>Basically a one stop shop for a great, cheap, lightweight, Full-Frame quality kit. You may never need to buy another camera or lens, and it's cheap as fuck. You may want a telephoto lens as well. The sensor is slightly dated with slightly lower DR than current Canon models.

Ok im buying this. It is still within what doesnt feel wildly irresponsible, budget-wise

File: thumbsup.jpg (7 KB, 225x225)

7 KB JPG

>>4364658
My one warning to you is that the battery life is pretty not great. But that stands true for the R8 as well. Easily gotten around by buying a couple 3rd party batteries for like $25/ea
>It is still within what doesnt feel wildly irresponsible, budget-wise
You can always sell it at 80% of what you paid (or more) if you don't like it, and it's the lowest cost Full Frame solution available, so you're not exactly risking a lot of money if it turns out you don't want it anymore or don't enjoy photography.

The good thing is, you could keep the lens as its valued at like $500 new and it'll be fantastic on ANY other Canon you buy from this generation or anything Canon will make for next 20 years. So if you don't want the RP anymore, sell it as a body only for like 600-800 Euros and you'll only need to buy a body to upgrade. RF lenses in general are all very good. I may recommend you get the RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens just because it has a wide aperture you can play around with and it's cheap as fuck. That's the benefit of not overspending on your body; you can splash some cash on lenses and not feel like you just fucked yourself.\

Post some photos when you get it.

>>4363019

Any camera with interchangeable lenses, even the puny a6000, is better than the best phone in specific applications.

Phones have good sensors and powerful post, but with a camera you can do what you want and then you can edit the raw.

>>4364672
Phones just suck balls if you dont have bright daylight

>>4363019
the rb67 is less than 1k and mogs every camera mentioned in this thread for portraits and landscapes

>>4364629
>Depending on the use-case.

Use case is pictures of people and children in real life situations, not a studio setup, both indoor and outdoor

File: Screenshot_20240925_17524(...).jpg (354 KB, 1080x1357)

354 KB JPG

>>4364629
>R6 MkII w/ 24-105mm
Which one?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android TP1A.220624.014.A226BXXS9DXD1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1357

So these cameras are sold without flash?

>>4364756
If you don't shoot video and sports semi-professionally this is an absolutely retarded purchase. You will never use it outside of your office and most of its specs, which focus on high speed sports snapping and shooting video to be "color graded", are absolutely wasted on you vs a normal camera from years ago. The R6II's specialty is low light video in particular.

How much is sony selling a new a7riii for? Slap a tamron 35-135 f2-2.8 on for work and a 40mm f2.5 G on for fun, bada bing bada boom, professionals still treat that combo as an endgame setup for stills photography. if you can't take good photos with 42mp and all that reach and aperture you should buy a nikon d700 on your own dime and expense some photography classes.

>>4364756
the f4, but
>f4 zoom
>indoor fast moving people
it will not be enough to get full frames full potential out of it, you really need an f2.8 lens at least or you'll be shooting at iso 6400+ indoors to achieve decent shutter speeds and it will look like micro four thirds.

>>4364677
Indoor photography is low-light photography in most cases and a Full Frame sensor is going to be helpful over an APS-C. Lighting is arguably just as important but if you have no control over how the areas are lit, and you cant use a flash, you're going to have to make comprimises somewhere.
>>4364762
The R100/R50/R10 have flashes inbuilt. The RP/R6/R7/R8 do not and it is expected you will use a speedlite of some kind.
>>4364756
The f/4 is a straight upgrade on the other with the only penalty being to weight.
Other anons have brought up the fact that lenses are also arguably just as important if not more for low light scenarios (which I have failed to mention since you were talking about bodies only).

It would be more sensible to get say, an R8/RP and use the saved money on fast (wide aperture (lower /f number)) lenses to deal with low light situations. A full frame sensor alone is a decent tool for low light, but a fast lens is equally as important. A fast lens also means your DoF will be lower but that's the compromise you have to make. The difference between the RP/R8 and the R6 MkII is really just the "pro" features. Lovely to have, but no real need unless you're commiting hardcore. As I said before, you can always sell the body later if you want to upgrade anyway and keep all your fancy lenses.

>>4364773
the IBIS on the R6 and R5 is also legit useless for normal person photography

if you are photographing real estate or waterfalls, then IBIS can be helpful, but it's also 100% replaced and exceeded by a $35 tripod.

>>4364763
If you’re going to go with that argument he should just get a 5Ds, 5DsR, or D8x0. Even cheaper, glass is cheaper too, if Canon the lenses will work if he later goes mirrorless, same for newer F lenses on Nikon. They even have better AF than the A7r3 and ergonomics that won’t make him leave the camera in the closet. Oh, and actual weather sealing.

>>4364764
The R6 and R6ii are absolutely fine at ISO 6400. Hell, ISO 12800 is cleaner than ISO 100 35mm ever was.

>>4364774
Tripod = infinite IBIS. Bonus points for remote shutter release
>real estate
I'm lost on this one. Why would IBIS be good for that specifically?

>>4364778
Because you can work faster. Tripod is an important tool but “just use a tripod “ misses how many times IBIS replaces that tripod saving time and weight.

>>4364778
>durr just use a tripod when youre trying to hit your moving subject

just stop yourself man

>>4364658
Good choice I love mine

>>4364785
Didn't say that at all. Are you hearing voices again schizo? Also, do you think IBIS makes moving subjects magically move slower or something? You encounter the same issues using tripod or IBIS

>>4364775
Their AF is about the same as the A7RIII. In the OVF you trade accuracy from focus shift and focusing off another plane for a little extra speed.

>Oh, and actual weather sealing
besides this being a feature almost nobody on /p/ can prove they rely on ("post your wet snapshits" "uhhhh nooo but ssssssnoooooy")
I'm sure if imaging resource was paid off by olympus during a canon test they'd manage to get water in the 5ds too
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijs-VjQ-hJ0
Sure is weird how sony is suddenly as fine as any other camera as soon as it's in the hands of an independent person who is 0% paid off by another brand. But when olympus and a reviewer come near a sony, it breaks! And when OM system and a reviewer come near the g9ii, which provably, technologically, has significantly better low light performance than any OM body, they claim the g9ii has worse low light performance. I'm seeing a pattern. Isn't it weird how they also managed to get water inside a d850 in that same test? I have never, ever seen a D850 get water in it, the D850's sealing is very, very above average, better than any canon body ever sold, and it has been known to survive prolonged immersion. The answer is... olympus mailed a check or some perks, and the opposing cameras got some special treatment. Just like when petapixel got to do a contest and take their staff to some fun locations as a reward for slandering the g9ii.

Obviously, every camera model that is marketed as weather sealed, and gets popular enough with people who want to try it, will eventually have a few failures just because camera sealing is broken by use of extending lenses and using any of the controls (especially if it's gotten dusty before).
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3771548
Also sure is weird how I never hear about how fucking dogshit fuji's weather sealing STILL is. Then again fuji is in no position to make /p/'s plentiful nikon and panasonic fanboys seethe.

>>4364773
> It would be more sensible to get say, an R8/RP and use the saved money on fast (wide aperture (lower /f number)) lenses to deal with low light situations.
Or just get an EF adapter and take advantage of cheap fast primes like the 50 f/1.8 and 85 f/1.8. They will hardly add anything to the cost and will be killer with IBIS.

>>4364792
Those old EF primes are dogshit wide open. Even the RF "macros" are better.
PS: The weather sealing debate is invalidated on canon if you use anything but an L lens, very few non-L canon lenses have WR so the actual EF gear to adapt is the fuckhuge tamron 35/85 combo, the 16-35 f4 l, and the 100-400 L vII.

People always forget that even pentax and olympus leave WR off a lot of their lenses.

>>4364791
>besides this being a feature almost nobody on /p/ can prove they rely on
NTA, but for me, the simple fact that the sensor on a DLSR is recessed deep inside the mount AND has a mirror in front of it is more valuable, because I don't have to worry as much when switching lenses. I can remove the lens and leave it exposed and dangling on a shoulder strap and be confident that bird shit or dust won't get on the sensor.

>>4364791
>Their AF is about the same as the A7RIII.
No. While Sony’s 3rd generation finally had usable AF, upper tier DSLRs still beat it. And there are no accuracy issues apart from occasionally having to set AF micro adjust for a new lens (an easy one time procedure).

To be fair if you want to be in E mount, A7r3 is a good choice and deal right now. But if you’re going to decide on the body then there are other options.

>writing an entire fucking book chapter making excuses for a corporation
The weather sealing issue was well discussed in forums by people with dead bodies, that’s how it became an issue. Which makes it far more likely that your video is BS/paid.

>D850 gets water in it
>THAT CANNOT BE NIKON IS BETTER DONT ASK HOW I KNOW I JUST DO
What a retarded response. The D850 needs its flash cover. Nikon says as much. The Sony needed a diving enclosure.

>weather sealing fails and you won’t need it any way
My EOS 3 is still sealed after 25 years and multiple owners. But more importantly: if you’re so confident in the A7r3 seals, why the stacked argument? It’s like you’re afraid someone will find out it’s not sealed and you’re hoping to keep that from swaying them.

>>4364793
>Those old EF primes are dogshit wide open.
No they are not. They’re not as sharp as L primes or ART lenses wide open, but they also don’t cost or weigh as much. They are perfectly usable for most people as most people won’t be making massive prints from wide open shots. Besides, there are plenty of 3rd party sharp as fuck EF primes if you want to spend a bit more. ART, Tamron SP, etc.

>still writing weather sealing copes
The lens angle is even worse for Sony because you can only trust very recent lens designs. I wouldn’t trust anything that came out before or around the time of their 3rd gen unless it was made by Sigma or Tamron and listed as sealed by them.

>>4364790
IBIS/IS can absolutely help after a long day of holding a heavy lens. Subject motion + camera shake can fuck sharpnesses even with very fast shutter speeds, and it becomes harder to track the subject and hold still as you shoot at the end of a long day.

>>4364807
Canon shutters close during lens changes although you don’t want anything to touch the shutter.

>>4364787
Any regrets? Pics? Better than iphone?

>>4364816
Huh, I swear I typed that in, but yes you are correct. IBIS is still very helpful in reducing shake induced by fatigue, weight, wind etc. from the shooter.
>>4364820
Not all do. R100/R50/R10/R8 do not.

>>4364790
It sure as shit does make a huge difference in shooting moving subjects when you have to hand hold & move your big fuckin tele lens to track it. Be retarded some more you backward fuck.

>>4364830
>angry retard screaming
>unaware namefag admited the fact right above him
Bruh maybe read the thread instead of being the retard you are

>>4364830
Oh you mean like when I said that here >>4364822? Go bash your wife or something before you pop a blood vessel, jfc.

>>4364813
>The lens angle is even worse for Sony because you can only trust very recent lens designs.
Uh, no, not really. The third generations sealing as fine, people had tons of luck with the second. The first had legitimate problems.

If a sony lens has an ass gasket it is well sealed. The confusion comes from sony not having consistent branding to denote this. They call lenses that are not sealed "dust and moisture resistant" anyways.

You also absolutely require the hot shoe cover to be in good shape for sony WR or the smart hot shoe contacts get temporarily shorted which temporarily causes issues with the camera, but this is also true of olympus cameras with the accessory port under the hot shoe.

>>4364831
>u mad bro
>bruh
You need to be an adult to use his site. I’ll say whatever the fuck I want to someone replying directly to me, and you can keep practicing sucking on your own little pecker for a few more years where your fucking business is.

>>4364821
Idk I don't buy apple shit

>>4364820
That's smart. Bird shit on shutter is still cheaper to fix than bird shit on sensor.

>>4364849
You can clean bird shit off the sensor yourself. Shutter bird shit would require a trip to a service center.

>>4364836
>sony a7riii fills with water
>”this is fine”
How much do you get paid?

>>4364844
Thanks for nothing

>>4364876
>shill fills a camera with water
>normal user goes 1hr in heavy rain without issues
how much do you get paid indeed

>>4364887
Normal user was using primes, not an extending zoom.

When I zoom fast on my z6ii, I can feel a lot of air flowing in and out of the battery compartment. This is what probably happened to that sony. Zoom barrel seals and battery door seals, if they are even present, are the first ones to get dirt in them which makes them useless, and zoom barrel seals are the most liable to just not work.

Pentax does not call a lens "All Weather" if any part of it extends or pumps air while zooming. Floating internal zooms only. But, DSLRs are probably less likely to pump water through the battery door because the mirror should disrupt zoom airflow and there's probably more ways to vent with the whole mirror box to work with = less pressure differential.

>>4363148
Nice camera, I just bought one too. This camera is much better than any phone, especially considering the lenses you can buy or adapt for it. It is not even close.

Pros:
>The R50 has the same sensor and image processor as the R10.
>It has slightly better dynamic range than the R7.
>As far as the dynamic range is concerned: The color and image quality is absolutely fantastic, better than you can print or display on any monitor. The image files are amazing.
>AF, tracking, metering, all are as good as the R6 Mk II we have at my job
>I dislike IBIS because I am afraid it will break, no IBIS and no rattle
>USB-C charging with any PD rated power source
>Super small, light, within EDC camera territory...but actually a capable camera unlike a lot of meme cameras popular right now
>Awesome value for money

Cons:
>OK but not great for video, if you want to make videos for YT is is fine. I use my iPhone and GoPro anyway.
>Not the best for very low light due to sensor size but quality acceptable. Bring more light, get a tripod, or shoot a faster lens.
>The hot shoe..what a money grab. That said, it has a flash and I am not putting anything on a small camera like this.
>Buffer is super small for spray and prey shooting, OK noted
>Resolution, but only if you think you are making 20x30+ inch posters
>Battery like is better than my xpro-2 but is is not amazing

I got my R50 refurbished from Canon and also got an additional discount because I got a loyalty discount. With the 18-45mm kit lens (also refurbished) it cost me $560 shipped with tax. The shit legitimately looked like new in the box, I could not tell it was ever even used once.

So far I am digging it. I am saving the money that I was going to put into an R7 or full frame mirrorless and putting the money into lenses.

>>4364909
Megapixels have more to do with bayer aliasing and blur than print size. Even 4k looks better if you make it from 100mp than if you make it from 20mp.

>>4364842
Too bad there isn't an IQ requirement. Lmao chill out gramps you're seething so hard

>>4364913
>t. has never printed

>>4364909
>>Resolution, but only if you think you are making 20x30+ inch posters
With a little post work I would rank the R50 as excellent up to 24" and very good up to 36". Especially with today's scaling algorithms. I love high res FF and even bigger prints, but most people will never push an R50 to its limits on printing.

>muh printing
it's noprint cope. no one who has ever printed will sperg out about megapixels and shit. if you know how to print (hint: use the right software - for canon it's pp&l) you can print shitty 2mpx whatsapp images on A2 and it will look good (hint: you look at the image from the proper distance - you don't pixel peep)
back in the day it was "OMG YOU ABSOLUTELY NEED 8MPX FOR PRINTING ANYTHING BIGGER THAN A2" today it's "OMG YOU NEED 80MPX FOR PRINTING ANYTHING BIGGER THAN A4"
all internet forum nonsense by chartfuckers who never used a printer

>>4365124
Are you telling me you don't print a 24x36 and look at it from three inches away?

>>4363021
where are you seeing D800s for $400? on marketplace here in chicago most are going for 7-800

>>4365124
>no one who has ever printed will sperg out about megapixels and shit.
What a retarded statement. So you think my old 6mp 10D can print just as large as my 50mp 5Ds with no difference in quality? Really?

>2mp
>16x24
And if you desaturate it you can let your child paint the pixels for you. Your own home paint by numbers!

>"proper distance"
So standing on the opposite side of a gallery?

>hurr back in the day
As someone who actually prints...
* 6-8mp was good for 8x10 and occasionally, depending on subject matter, 16x20. Portraits you could stretch, landscapes you could not. Some landscapes even struggled at 8x10 because there just wasn't sufficient resolution to resolve distant foliage.
* 18-24mp could handle landscape 16x20 easily, even with some cropping.
* High res FF (i.e. 42-61mp) will give you 40-48" landscape prints that can withstand the scrutiny of a gallery show. Where people do in fact walk up to the print. For less demanding applications, 60-80".

>>4365147
of course. I also compare it to 400% on my screen

>>4365169
>another post by a glue sniffing dot peeping idiot
are you reading with binoculars?

>>4365169
>the scrutiny of a gallery show. Where people do in fact walk up to the print
people? you mean other photographers. those are the only ones who care to look so closely at prints. those are also the only ones who care about the paper it was printed on.
if you like making images for other camera owners knock yourself out. but the general public is oblivious to your minmaxing justifications for gearfaggery.

>>4365164
In Norway

>>4365124
>Just stand back bro!
I have spent hours surrounded by blurry shit photos made by retards like you

Don't forget the "sharpening for print" (dramatic oversharpening). But alas, this is photography! For centuries artists could utilize ultra fine detail, but now cameras exist, and utlra fine detail is only accessible to people who spent their $4000 on a sony or canon instead of a fuji or a g9ii, so
>FINE DETAIL IS BAD
>STAND FURTHER BACK
>DETAIL IS EVIL CONTENT AND COLOR ONLY
^copes

>>4365211
>another post by a nophoto nocamera noprint

>>4365212
>other people don't actually matter!!!
Then why would you print? Oh that's right...you don't.

>ansel adams should have just used 35mm
>only other photographers care about 8x10
>that big print looks like shit? just back up to the opposite wall, what are you a pixel peeper?
This is literally you.

>>4365211
Are your eyes failing? Perhaps exposure to leaded gas made you a bit dim?

There is "you can't tell 256dpi from 300dpi" but i can tell 300dpi from 72dpi and 600dpi from standing difference. Now let's both go back in time and tell michelango to stop brushstroke peeping and his artwork only needs to look competent from afar.

>>4365225
In a world where all cameras were free, a retard making this post >>4365212 would not exist, they'd say "detailed prints I don't have to stand 6 feet away from, cool". Kek. It is 100% about money, jealousy, and buyers remorse.

Their opinions on ART are based on their personal inability to afford the paintbrush! Imagine saying "I don't listen to saxophone music, it's an overpriced instrument for gearfags, $100 clarinet or fucking kys gearfag"

>>4365212
>Be me
>Print photos regularly. Sometimes to frame, sometimes to put in an album
>Only people who see are friends and family, because who the fuck is showing prints to random strangers
>Most the time they either like the photo or don't comment on the ones they don't care for. Easy. The more artistic friends will comment on composition or colours or give ideas to bounce off of.
>One day I'm doing some landscape shots and get approached by another photographer
>Has a fucking EF 800mm f/5.6 handheld for landscape. Doesn't have a tripod.
>dude wtf.
>Chat for a bit, asks to see some of my work
>Have a photo album of 5x7s meant for grandma later that day in the car
>FIRST thing guy does is brings them up to his nose and starts saying saying the printer must be shit because smearing or some shit
>No comments on composition, colours, exposure, post processing, subject matter
>Proceeds to whip out his instagram in retaliation and starts zooming in 800% in order to demonstrate what "sharpness" is.
My fucking god. Worst experience with another photog I've ever had. Grandma loved the prints at least.

in the low res printers mind all that matters is galleries where you put a rope 5 feet from your print so no one can tell you used micro four thirds

in the real world the people buying the prints are not going to be standing 5 feet away unless it is also 5 feet wide

>>4365230
sounds like a larp, sure you have artistic friends lol

this is just more gearfag cope. "quality can't matter because i can't afford it"

>>4365124
Reminder, the opinions of digislop boomers like these are why people continue to believe 35mm film (24mp at low ISO, 8mp at high ISO - always without aliasing) is superior to digital. Digital photos always look plastic and blurry, grainy film somehow looks more detailed. Why? Boomer McFuck printed a 2mp crop as an 8x10.

someone who just does the sensible thing and uses a higher res FF like a 5ds/a7rii would never hold such an opinion as "35mm film has not been surpassed by digital"

>>4365231
>nobody has friends and nobody does art, it's not real
>gearfag cope
You might be mentally deficient mate. Quality matters, and higher resolution helps. At no point did I say 60ppi is good enuf.
Go back to sniffing petrol ya Abo

>>4365212
To be fair, general public would miss the most obvious issues. They might say
>oh wow, yes that looks much better
once you show them the corrected photo, but they would never be able to tell that there's something wrong otherwise. You can show them a print with hideous green or purple tint and even tell them what's wrong, and they'll still tell you that it looks fine. Although I do agree that many people are too autistic about pixel count, appeal to general public isn't something one can rely upon.