Let me guess, you need more?
>>4370324i need ibis, full frame, and an f2.8 zoom to not get mogged by an iphone 16
>>4370324Let me guess, you need more?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
My newest camera turned 11 today.
>>4370324RIP you sweet bastar- oh wait the R50 exists and is basically a straight copy with a real lens mount.>>4370326Skill issue.
>>4370334PANT PANT
>>4370326This but unironically.
>>4370324yea i need a z7ii with a 24-120 f/4, so that's what i got
>>4370324I dont[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareGoogleImage-Specific Properties:
>>4370324I've been temped many times but the lack of full frame really stops me. It's not even an image quality thing. It's an 'I have lenses I really like and won't give them up' -thing
>>4370324this is the "cheap" camera we have in my office for doing field work. I fucking HATE it. piss poor indoor performance, mediocre outside in daylight, flimsy feeling, shit battery life, very unsatisfying shutter sound, stupidly easy to fuck with the screen when handling due to poor ergos. what a mess. much prefer our Z6, or the 90D if i'm absolutely forced to, but fuck the M6
>>4370324Why the fuck would I buy that giant ass body just to mount a pancake lens?
>>4377471Doth I detect a rustling of thine jimmies?>>4375109based[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasaImage-Specific Properties:
>>4375109>took picture with phoneyou literally proved yourself wrong
You need more?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareCapture One MacintoshImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Width2560Image Height1707
>>4377588Yeah I need way fucking more. More competent build quality. More weather sealing. More well designed ergonomics. More sanely designed sensor. More quality to the lens. More photography, less larping as the film camera it will never be.That's why I chose the best camera: The Sony A7C with the 40mm f2.5 G. It's been with me for years, 150k shutter actuations, and tons of rainstorms. It held up when fujis hid in coats.xtrans = tranny camera. You will never be a real rangefinder. You have no celluloid base. You have no dye layers. You have no silver halides. You are a crude twisting of an electronic photon counter and when you take a 3ft drop and break in two it will be glaringly obvious, here lies a digital camera.
>>4377588x100v/i photos are so low quality without 20 minutes of special rawtherapee processing they look like an iphones, so if anything i need less.
>>4377589Shit evf>>4377589But muh recipes
I like my oly :)
>>4377471EOS M50 is toy camera levels of small and that's coming from someone with an APSC camera.
>>4375109Nice, when I started shooting I was stuck between this or a Fooj with the 27mm but went with the latter. Probably the good choice overal but I can't get over the fact yours is f2 while mine is f2.8
Friend has the M50 mk2, it's really fun to use, but even the lowest end full frame sensor paired with a mediocre lens will produce better looking photos, that's just a fact.
i have an rp so yes
>>4377698>Friend has the M50 mk2, it's really fun to use, but even the lowest end full frame sensor paired with a mediocre lens will produce better looking photos, that's just a fact.FF will do better in really low light, and high res FF will do better on really large prints. In most conditions that people shoot in, apsc does fine and will produce 16x20's that are indistinguishable from FF with just a little sharpening in post. And I say that as someone who fucking loves and exploits both high res FF and the extreme low light performance of FF.As for lenses: you can very quickly lose the FF sharpness advantage with a mediocre lens. As well as the low light advantage with a slow lens. The EF-M 22mm f/2 and 11-22 IS are literally worth owning a M body just to have them.
>>4377589>More weather sealing....and tons of rainstormsSuper neat, can we see some shots of yours from that? People always bring up weather sealing like it's a major deal, but no one ever posts photos in inclement weather, looking forward to seeing some of yours!
>>4377555I also own a 3ds XL I could have taken the picture with.
>>4377456Thats not a Canon M6 its an M50 MK1 or MK2 you numbskull.
>>4377724literally even worse. who's side are you on?
>>4377736Whose, not who's.
>>4377739
>>4377741>every interaction i have is with the same personYou even dug out your hyper-specific meme, this must happen a lot.
>>4377747I literally copy pasted that for google for this purpose. Have you maybe considered that you're an insufferable and pedantic?
>>4377749If someone corrected my grammar I'd just thank them and move on with my life.
>>4377750you'd thank someone for correcting your grammar? autist diagnosed, root of conflict understood.
>>4377707The said m50 produced usable low light photos at 1/100, iso 3200, f/1.8.Shitty dinamic range means you can't really underexpose and these limitations are what they are. This said, I used to shoot street with the aps-c and from a full-frame user's perspective it's fucking hell.But people who overpaid for a fucking Fuj because a used ff dslr is beneath them will need validation, I guess.
>>4377764oh yes, I'm sure dynamic range is the limiting factor to your photography
>>4377764>The said m50 produced usable low light photos at 1/100, iso 3200, f/1.8.ISO 3200 should be solid regardless of shutter/aperture as long as your exposure produces a good histogram. The original M could handle 3200, and 3200 (6400 in a pinch with post NR) covers a lot of situations, including some urban night scenes. Are there situations which benefit from FF? Absolutely, that's why I shoot FF. But most people most of the time don't fully explore the limits of apsc. >This said, I used to shoot street with the aps-c and from a full-frame user's perspective it's fucking hell.I don't know why, I love street on the M because of its size. I still grab it for street. Dimly lit night urban scenes call for FF, but bright city streets are fine on apsc, especially with IS. From experience I can say the M works fantastic on the Vegas strip (for example), and I've gotten casino shots on the M where a DSLR or FF MILC would have gotten my butt kicked out.
>>4377772Go shoot crop after sun sets, at f/3.5, 1/500 or faster and post results.
>>4377589I actually fell for this meme. Returned it within a week. The EVF is laughable and there's no way to switch between manual and auto aperture with the aperture ring. Back to my X-T4 I went.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiCommentScreenshotColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2492Image Height1660Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>43777821/500 and f/3.5 even on FF isn't going to be ideal. Appropriately NR'd, resized, and resharpened crop at ISO 3200 is perfectly servicable for that kind of photography. No 20x16 prints, but yeah go buy FF for that.Funny, since Canon's Multi-Shot NR is actaully bullshittingly good, but only useful for static subjects. Or just shoot B&W and embrace the luminance noise
>>4377793>f2.5when snoy re-labels m43 as fool frame
>>4377850>*OM SYSTEM GOY MEETING*>guys we aren't selling any 17mm f/1.2 lenses>Ok let's just sell them to the next most retarded camera company for them to rebrand
>>4377793Funny, I returned an x-t5 because a silly EVF is worth not having a premium priced camera that manages to be worse than a low budget APS-C DSLR (but it has... le video codecs and jpeg presets!).The "bad" EVF gives it vintage charm. Its only real flaw is the whole thing is a fucking dust magnet. If you take the lens off once you're fucked.For staying clean, having fast and accurate autofocus even in low light and on non-detectable subjects, and using manual focus glass and large lenses DSLRs reign supreme. Mirrorless has its niche as a hyper convenient high speed low drag full frame snapshit machine and expecting more of it is a fun way to end up wasting $4000+.
>>4377871>>4377850Seething but the 40mm is smaller, lighter, and sharper than any 35mm or 40mm on m43 and "equivalence" flat out does not apply to real photography. Daylight and flash provide ample light for 90% of photos and the base ISO on every micro four thirds camera except for the $2000, FF sized G9II is 200.Color quality is also inferior due to the small pixels. Full frame cameras get much better color gradation.
>>4377873I swear if you take a RAW out of MFT and edit it on actual software you get like... okay results? It's almost like the OOC software is self-aware and wants your photos to turn out in an easily distinguishable turd-like fashion. I reckon you could take an MFT snapshit RAW, strip the exif, give it a rodgering in LR/DT and pass it off as a broken Nikon in terms of colour and microcontrast
>>4377873So true, can we see some examples shots of yours with it?
>>4377875>he doesnt know olympus has the same green tint as the a7ii
>>4377880under artificial lighting olympiss skin colors compete with fuji skin colors for who can look more like a monkey pox infested corpse
>>4377879I'll take it out tomorrow for snapshits and see what I can do if you're actually asking instead of being a fag
>>4377879Maybe you could, but I closed my laptop to get a coffee and give someone their book back, which gave me a new IP, and a new long ass wait, so I totally lost interest and sat down at a lecture to restart the long ass wait AGAIN, and then took notes about proton decay instead of finding a photo to resize from 6k, compress, and resharpen to fit 4chan's archaic file limits without posting a 50% quality 6000x4000 jaypeg.At least I didn't wait too long and have to wait again.I don't see the point of posting photos on this shitty website. Just one snapshit of my a7c was an ordeal compared to how simple it is to post on better websites like flickr, 8khan, and reddit. It's glaringly obvious to me why no one here posts photos except the people with 6mp film scans and digishit/phone cameras. Just fucking posting is bad enough. Doctoring images to be uploadable is worse.This was my first time on /p/ because if you're a student or have some sort of life, arguably 4chan is only good for calling people niggers via your phone. That's all I do besides these 3 posts. I browse /v/ and randomly call people niggers.
>>4377890>I browse /v/ and randomly call people niggers.as god intended
>>43778904chan has an account system with the longest log in process on earth lmao>captcha>verify>log in to email>click verification linkVs>log in to 4chanall so people on nicer white man grade proxies/VPNs can still ban evade (i mean not be tracked) while stopping jeets with cheap rapidly rotating IPs from posting
>>4377890okay nophoto
>>4377956look in the mirror. look at your own lack of photo. he has a point. most cameras produce files that need edited specifically for 4chan but are ready to go right on imgur or flickr. /p/ is dead for a reason.>cant be doxable or else you’ll get harassed and accused of raping animals if you dared insult fuji four thirds (it is funny tho)>needs opened in gimped and massaged to fit good quality in 4mbLmao. i can text a full fucking 36mp photo to anyone with an iphone and they can zoom and crop as much as they want. no worries either because its real life instead of a stinky incel den that wants to murder anyone who voted democrat.
>>4377959if someone talks about gear, it's nice if they add a relevant photoit's takes less effort than writing out whole essays about how and why it's too hard to post a photo on a photo boardthere's also a lot of people with very strong opinions about gear they've never even used, so it's nice to confirm the perspective is coming from actual hands on experienceanytime i talk about specific gear, i do include photoif asked for relevant photo, i also post, what kind of photo would you like me to post? ive posted hundreds here and could just link to a few in other threads right now toocontinue with the excuses
>>4377996tldr nophoto
>>4377997i literally asked you for what kind of photo to post, so here you go with a random onea few more >>4369310 >>4375746 >>4375747
>>4377999gj hasphoto but you kinda suck. study garry winogrand and vivian maier for tips.
>>4377996I dont blame anyone for ragequitting a post over this new captcha. A 15 minute wait or making a throwaway just for 1 post is absurd unless you are literally here all day and never clear cookies because you only visit 4chan. This new system favors phoneposting unironically
>>4378000good advice nophoto
