>>4369665
Snoy bros...we got too cocky..

Points mean nothing if the area it's losing points doesn't matter to you. The Sony loses points in video, well guess what it's a stills focussed body. If you want to do video then I'm sure they have one that's more suitable. And it's not as good at sports where you'll want to rattle off 20 photos per second, but you don't buy a 60mp body for that either. If that's what you're doing then get an A9 II or something. But for general use photography, what most of us on here actually shoot, the Sony would score much higher.

>>4369665
non of you own any of these cameras

>>4369704
It would score significantly lower once general ux is taken into account

>>4369742
It actually wouldn't, that model has a significantly improved menu compared to older ones. Not that it really matters beyond initial setup because once you have everything customised you rarely have to go into the main menu.

>>4369665
arthritic old man paid to shill

all of these cameras suck

canom r5ii: hideous oversized boomer blob for money wasting 40yo fucktards birdwatching hobby. buggiest camera ever released. reddit is full of posts about how it is literally unusable. has less real dr and bakes in noise reduction to cope. just shoot apsc if you like noisy cameras so much lmao. lolnolenses, unless you’re such a blob and bazooka addicted boomer you think giant long dslr shit is what you bought a $4500 mirrorless for.
z8: also a boomer blob. apsc dynamic range. lol no lenses, biggest and heaviest glass in mirrorless, garish colors, huge body, huger pricetag, and for what? muh fps?
sony a7rv: buggy firmware bricking POS with a noisy as fuck sensor. eats stars, writes rainbows to raw files if shading correction is on, snoy colors.

be a normal non gearfaggot and buy an older camera that has its shit together and isnt $5k, like a first gen canon r5 or a sony a7riii

>>4369761
This. Holy fuck. When did cameras get so bad? Every company is having more quality issues (r5ii firmware unusable, sony a7rv firmware bricked, z8 released with recalls) and stills DR keeps getting worse while bodies get bigger, and we're told that paying FF prices for APS-C quality with a big sensor is the bomb (at least u have ur bokeh), the opposite of what mirrorless promised. Even snoy is almost as big as nikon now. Why aren't they being held to standards? At least warranties longer than 1 fucking year? Why can't we expect the new hotness to work out of the box without immediately going back for repair or sitting on a shelf waiting for FW2.0? Why do we have to treat firmware updates like apple, microsoft, or some linux losers released them (may explode on impact)?

Is it because the only people actually buying new cameras that are higher end than an xt50 are news agencies buying in bulk and letting the corporate tech support program take care of the issues (free replacements)? No way are artists, hobbyists, and normal people happy with this.

File: file.png (1.33 MB, 1153x1178)

1.33 MB PNG

>>4369665
He means canon gave him the fattest check or the best perks this time

The canon r5ii has *forced noise reduction at every ISO*. Why does canon feel the need to lie by 2/3-1 stop and game their DXO scores and other gearfag marketing metrics? Who honestly looks at that and says "this camera outperforms"? No, it's a sensor with APS-C dynamic range. You are paying five grand for that.
>BUT EET DOESNT AFFECT LE DETAIL I SWEAR ITS JUST THE AA FILTER
It does mean you have less exposure latitude than you think.

If 1 stop of NR doesnt affect detail and having one less stop of actual exposure lattitude doesnt matte rto you why aren't you just shooting aps-c instead of paying five grand to shoot APS-C

At least the nikon Z8 doesnt have to LIE about its dynamic range issues.

>every camera has the same DR as a G9II now
LMAO.

File: file.png (1.33 MB, 1146x1158)

1.33 MB PNG

>>4369773
Sensor technology is getting worse.

You are thanking them for it because they enabled raw video or something else stupid and useless if you dont work a real cinema job and use a real cinema camera. FFS a canon EOS M can be hacked to enable raw video. You are not buying a camera. You are buying a really shitty camcorder.

>>4369665
>What did they mean by this?
That the advertisers say you need the latest and the greatest camera or else your photos will suck forever

I'll stick to my trusty old 5Dmkii

>>4369665
is this the same petapixel that said the om-1 outperformed the g9ii in low light (blatant lie) at about the same time OM system sponsored a contest and gave the staff and winners a bunch of cruise ship and plane tickets?

camera reviewing is always crooked. imaging resource somehow got the borderline-waterproof d850 wet inside as soon as an olympus body came near, and sony had a dramatically poor performance for something that normally does "ok", indicating that the poor FFs may have been submerged or sprayed extra off-camera. if canon is not above forcing NR to try and game their DXO, p2p, dpreview etc scores (as if anyone but reviewers and astronomers look at no-NR raws, photographers have always used the same amount of NR they always would by turning it down by the same amount canon turned it up) god knows what isn't below them

making sure they got one of the R5IIs without firmware/possible motherboard issues sure isn't too crooked for them.
>https://www.google.com/search?q=r5ii+bugs

I've been looking at swapping to Canon or Nikon from micro four thirds (most likely Canon)... Does Canon have a zoom that goes to 600mm? The Nikon is tempting for that but seems pricey and the lens options are a little less interesting to me. I will be shooting birds, trees, rocks and leaves.

>>4369797
Canon has a zoom that goes to fucking 800mm

Nikon basically isn't an option, their stuff is the most expensive and the least capable, and they've had 5 recalls so far.

It's a sony/canon world and sony is pricey if you want to do it correctly. Both canon and sony are deeply flawed but at least you have a considerable selection of supported lenses. Sony and canon both support their DSLR mounts with complete exif, VR, and autofocus. Nikon abandoned half of F mount. Canon doesn't allow third party but if you're boomer blobbing anyways and don't care for compactness EF equals the entire sony third party lineup.

File: sony-shutter-failure.jpg (106 KB, 1280x720)

106 KB JPG

>SNOYcels already coping

>>4369798
>Canon has a zoom that goes to fucking 800mm
>f/9 at 800mm
>2kg
I dunno, I'd just stick with MFT and put the money in the 150-400 at that point. I find I don't really need the 600-800 range and would rather the lens be faster if I'm going full frame.
Noted about Nikon, though recalls leave me feeling comforted they'll take care of issues desu. The old Nikon lenses are just MF adapted to Z also which is fine by me, I'd probably stick with native lenses anyway.
Don't want to start yet another pissing match but Sony isn't interesting to me.

File: canon r5ii sees the matrix.jpg (117 KB, 1080x810)

117 KB JPG

>>4369801
And? Every company is having problems like this. Sony and canon have real problems aside from these and imho canons are the least bad unless you demand slightly more compact kit.

And Nikon isn't even an option.

>>4369802
f9 at 800mm, yes. 2kg, oh no, weight, work out.

Vs what on mft? The 150-400 (300-900) for olympus is an EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLAR LENS that is a constant f9 equivalent, for cameras that do not have access to ISO settings with better DR than ISO 800 equivalent. It is also 2kg.

The panasonic 100-400 is a $1600 lens that is lighter and cheaper, and equivalent to a 200-800 f8-12.6. At 800mm it is an f12.6 lens. If you spend $2k on a g9ii you can get access to ISO 100 (400 equivalent) with APS-C like shadow DR.

The RF 200-800 f6.3-9 is a significantly faster lens even equivalently, faster than the $8k olympus, only $200ish more than the panasonic, and slightly heavier. It goes on aps-c bodies to make an mft beating 300-1200, and on ff bodies to make an equivalence smashing setup especially if you buy an R5 (mk1, mk2 is a buggy video cam lol)

>>4369803
The 200-800 is also a 300-1200 on an r5 as a ~19mp apsc crop, and using the r5 as a 20-24mp ff camera would result in about a half stop less noise.

>>4369805
Meanwhile all of the best bird shots on the board are with a 400 on full frame

>>4369798
>Nikon
>Expensive compared to fucking canon

Wat? With canon you have two choices for lenses, cheap plastic shit that the stingy fucks don't even ship with a lens hood, or the 2k+ L range. Canon don't allow this part precisely so that they can charge whatever the fuck they want

>>4369810
you have literally all of EF to use with a literally flawless adapter (they add control rings and drop in filters), vs nikon not having shit for decent lenses period and not supporting half of F, after you get your z8 back from nikon service

>>4369767
Sensor tech has plateaued. If you want new shiny, old shiny will have to be nerfed to accommodate for new shiny. It is a quite gay timeline for photography and tech development in that regard.

>>4369797
Nikon is the brand for birds, trees, rocks and leaves. The telephotos in Canon's lineup are either hideously overpriced or extremely slow or niche. I say that as a Canon shooter.

>>4369761
>reddit is full of posts about how it is literally unusable
>buy an older camera like a first gen canon r5
Stepped on your own toes there, go back to breddit limpwristed faggot

>>4369864
>oh no, you saw reddit results on google so canon never fucked their customers over
the r5 is gud nuf
the r5ii literally doesnt work

>>4369839
This is what I've found as well. Kinda weird as Canon seems to have a better grasp on that niche than Nikon, though that might be changing. The Nikon's 100-400 and (especially) the 180-600 are excellent and affordable. Doesn't Canon have the Sigma 150-600 though?

>>4369915
>Doesn't Canon have the Sigma 150-600 though?
Only for EF. Adapting it to RF is problematic from what I understand.

>>4369665
>Sony makes the best lenses and camera-ACK!

>>4370082
They did for a short bit, but they're getting worse. But so is everyone else.

Literally every FF mirrorless out right now is a disappointment in some way. Just spec sheets and broken promises about 35mm cameras being 35mm camera sized again.

Everything is obviously better than what it was a couple of generations ago, but latest gen is not really exciting at all, at least not for me. Everything from Snoy's global shutter with terrible dynamic range to Canon R5MK2 that can't shoot non-lineskipped 40k60 which also has lower dynamic range than its predecessor. It can of shoot 14bit raw electronic which is nice though, but as an upgrade it seems hardly worth it.
Haven't studied other brands that much, but I have the impression that it is the same story. Something new gets added at the cost of something else. Seems like everything is bottle-necked.

File: 2024-09-16T13-19-56-Z8N_0(...).jpg (338 KB, 1920x1080)

338 KB JPG

>>4369761
its obviously because consumers and professionals cough up for SPEED - if you need max DR you go shoot a GFX... and with the 100 II Fooj realised that increasingly consumers actually do want to push medium format into sport and wildlife too

this is not a particularly good photo, but it illustrates the point that these modern flagships can hit focus in a 5% window on fast moving dragonflies over water... can't we just acknowledge that is impressive, while noting it come at the cost of noise, DR, and maybe banding?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 8
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	600 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:16 18:17:49
Exposure Time	1/4000 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	4500
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	17.78 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	600.00 mm
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: Screenshot 2024-10-07 at (...).jpg (279 KB, 1150x1166)

279 KB JPG

>>4369665
>What did they mean by this?
a7r iv and v have worse noise than a 2015 canon, so they feel like they're 10 years old already. in fact, the a7 iv isn't looking too hot either.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1150
Image Height	1166

>>4370246
Because the current gen of cameras are grasping for actual stills improvement. So we see goofy shit like hybridisation or globohomo shutters being promoted when in reality, all we really want is some backside illuminated, or stacked sensors that dont cost thousands more.

More MP & fps is a meme. Video shit should stay on video cameras. And baked in NR is a Jew psyop cope to distract you.

>>4370416
now do shadow recovery and laugh
5ds vs a7iv vs a7rv vs.. g9ii

>>4369767
>Even snoy is almost as big as nikon now
That's because so many boomers complained about Snoy cameras being too small.

>>4369773
They only force NR at lower ISOs (below 800 I believe). Just like the Z6III.

>>4370431
No lol the r5ii forces it at every iso. The sensor probably loses by almost a whole stop at every setting. Its the r5 and r6ii that only force nr at low isos.
>inb4 detail cope
Match iso 200 to 100 with good NR, detail looks the same, just less shadow dr

>>4370416
>this kills the snoy

>>4370419
The A7R IV and V do have better shadow recovery because the 5DsR's sensor is not invariant, but that doesn't change the fact that they lose at high ISO against a 10 year old Canon sensor. Sony has been sacrificing high ISO performance across their entire line.

A7s II > A7s III
A7 III > A7 IV
A7R III > A7R IV/V
apsc > A9 III

At this point Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic are all better at high ISO.

>>4370441
>The sensor probably loses by almost a whole stop at every setting.
If there was 1ev of NR then it would smudge detail. Go ahead and compare the 5DsR, R5, and R5ii and show where the R5ii is losing detail.

Truth is the signal has to be processed after the ADCs, and everyone is likely applying some signal cleanup/NR before writing the RAW file. But for some reason Canon's algorithm is triggering PtP. As long as it doesn't affect detail, it's irrelevant.

>>4370467
cannot cope

>>4370465
>source: dpreview brightness normalized acr samples
the a7iv is fine outside of dpreview

>>4370467
>no, there is no NR!
R5ii sensor has apsc dynamic range