Post your questions here that don't fit anywhere else or are too short to deserve a separate thread. Dumb. Smart. Snooypy. We got'em all.1. Generally, don't be a fuckwit to someone asking a question unless it's deserved.2. Gear topics are fine so long as it's a question3. Read the /p/ Sticky[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:09:21 12:45:36White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/10.0Lens Aperturef/9.9Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length55.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width6000Image Height4000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandard
After shooting 35mm for a few years I want to try medium format.I got my eye on some affordable stuff like a Mamiya RB67 ProSD or a 645 super.Any honest feedback from real user? Ive been on youtube but the reviews are kinda fake and gay.What other gear would be a contender for this budget?
>>4379677I HATE the ergonomics of those cameras for handheld shooting. Get a tlr instead.
if phones are at the same level of point and shoots cameras how come those point and shoot are sometimes more expensive than a phone ? is it just a dead market
>>4379687They're not.
>>4379685I was thinking of mainly using a tripod to shoot with it. Keeping the smaller 35mm for travels etc. The medium format would be for portraits, landscapes etcWhat tlr would you recommend?
>>4379687A 1" sensor p&s will still beat a phone, doubly so with actual controls and software. Phones also can't do proper telephoto which is where they fall apart. But yes, it is a dead market. Buy a pixel for $600; there's your p&s
>>4379677Unless you need to do macro shots or want LONG lenses, find a a Mamiya 6 or Mamiya 7.
i have sometimes picrel problem, i think it could be that i use a normal micro sd (w the sd adapter included ofc) instead of a camera specific memory card, would a camera specific memory make this never happen ? been thinking of getting a V30 card[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2024:04:07 15:35:47White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/18.0Lens Aperturef/18.2Exposure Bias0 EVFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width6000Image Height4000RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4379845Look up the manual for your camera to determine the minimum SD card speed requirements. SD cards get a bit fucky since there's like 4 other relevant ratings like your U-Speed Class and A level etc. Generally, I can't imagine the SD card is underperforming unless it's 10+ years old and writes at 20MB/s. Card might also be defective which is a whopping $10 to figure out.
>>4379842Why would they be mainly for macro shots? Also the 7 is so much more expensive than the RB67 or the 645 ones
>>4379687The phones that are on par with point and shoots cost as much or more as said point and shoots
any point in getting a nice flash if my cameras maximum sync speed is 1/60 kek? Wanted to do fill flash but I feel like I'd have to use low iso film to not overexpose everything at 1/60 anyway
Is panasonic that bad?
>>4379965No. Check the reviews from multiple sources online.
>>4380006>Sponsored reviews
What focal length do these look like?And why don't a lot of IG photographers post their specs or lens[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width720Image Height1342Image OrientationUnknownImage Created2024:10:31 13:33:17Time (UTC)13:33:17Date (UTC)2024:10:31
>>438002316-20
>>4380023Nobody cares about EXIF there, and it's probably one of the few good things about this website.
Flash bouncing off a ceiling can be nice but I've noticed the color of the ceiling heavily impacts the lighting (which I guess is the obvious outcome after all) but say I wanted to remedy this, are there any paints/brushes or ways to paint a room to give it the most color neutral, nicely diffused flash bounces? current ceiling is off-white and bounces back quite warm and it's also textured (brush swirls) which I assume loses a fair bit of the light
>>4380063Learn color theory and gel your flash.If this is a static setup use a bounce panel until you can buy a bigger flash and a softbox.
>>4380017yes?
>>4380084Yeah I know about that stuff, but I'm looking for alternatives.I'll be repainting everything some time in the future regardless and just want to get whatever would be most neutral.Apparently there are flat/matte white base paints people use to paint studios with, I'll probably do my home in that next time it's time to paint things. Nice white everywhere is the goal.
How much noise is acceptable in an image you plan to print at least 12x8? I shot some aurora photos at 2500 ISO but unsure where to draw the line with noise reduction versus star detail. I have an old pirated version of Lightroom and am too cheap to buy denoising AI stuff
Can anyone tell what kind of Canon camera that is? Pretty sure it’s a DSLR model?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution216 dpiVertical Resolution216 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1290Image Height1543
>>4380185It is. I'm leaning towards either a 5D III or 7D II. Can you link the account so I can perhaps see it in higher quality?
>>4380165Personal preference. Astro shots are cursed because you need a moderate ISO to see anything. The real trick is to use the widest lens you have since that lets you shoot a slower shutter speed instead of bumping up ISO, but I digress.2500 ISO is arbitrary without knowing your sensor size and how modern the camera is, so we don't know. NR is generally not a huge deal breaker if you're just doing shallow astro shots like stars and galaxies. I would just make a print and decide from there if it looks like ass or not. Make sure you're doing dark frames as well.
my girlfriend's brother coaches a tee ball team and he wants me to come onto the field this weekend to get photos of the kids batting so the parents can have prints. I'm just a snapshitter who's never printed anything so I have no clue what kind of exposure I should aim for or how I should edit the photos to make sure the prints come out right. what do?
>>4380017>thread name
>>4380188Unfortunately, that’s the only image I have it’s just a single upload from a celebrity on her most recent photo shoot. Very interesting that even at the highest level Canon DSLRs are still being used it’s not like it could be a budget issue the guy is literally photographing one of the biggest stars in KPOP
>>4380190>2500 ISO is arbitrary without knowing your sensor size and how modern the camera isHere's one of the photos and a 100% crop from a darker area. I plan on selling prints of this so I'm being way more anal about noise than normal. Do people often get distracted by noise like this or am I way overthinking it?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D810Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern1418Focal Length (35mm Equiv)16 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:10:31 21:20:00Exposure Time10 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating2500Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length16.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1385Image Height1000RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastSoftSaturationNormalSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>4380198I found the source image and could zoom in a little clearer, I'm like 95% certain it's a 5D III. The 7D II has the buttons under the thumb a little lower. Every other Canon that I could find that has the video/stills mode switch (to the left of the thumb) has the icons to the lower left, only the 5D III and 7D II have them above (you can just see the white camera icon for stills mode).>Very interesting that even at the highest level Canon DSLRs are still being used it’s not like it could be a budget issue20+mp is good enough for the vast majority of stuff these days, he's using strobes so noise performance is of no concern, and she's not exactly doing somersaults so he doesn't need the latest and greatest AF (although the 5D III is still pretty damn good in both those regards). Pros are actually usually pretty good with budgeting, they don't buy shit unless they need to because that just defeats the purpose of shooting for money.
>>4380194Shutter speed is the main priority to cut out motion blur. Probably in the ballpark (lol) of 1/800 to 1/1250, but you can experiment while shooting. Depending on the camera/lens combo you're using, you should be okay to shoot close to wide open. Shoot at the highest FPS you're able to without compromising file quality. You'll be more likely to get a picture where the kids' faces mid-swing don't look retarded or their eyes are closed. Speaking of faces, keep in mind that any left-handed batters will face the opposite direction on home plate. Depends on the lighting that day but I'd aim for just a touch overexposed on average to retain more shadow detail under hats and helmets. Don't get too fancy with editing, just make the pictures pop a little and ensure the faces are easily visible and nothing is too dark. If you keep the same settings throughout the day (light permitting), you can batch edit all the photos and then make final adjustments to each pretty quickly. Export the files in sRGB, and wa la, ready 2 print.
>>4380200It depends on print size and viewing distanceTry it out while messing with sharpening and NR settings
>>43801855dsr, a few others like 5d3 match, but 5dsr makes the most sense
>>4380200Left photo is passable but nothing special in terms of noise. Right photo is garbage if you're expecting anyone to pay for it. If the left hand photo was just for my own consumption, I'd be happy with it. Of course I'd rather it be cleaner but that's okay. Now, if I were buying it I would hope I wasn't spending a lot. I used to buy pro-grade prints from a print and framing shop and everything was a crisp as a cucumber. I have a few on my wall right now and I couldn't find any noise even if I had it up to my eyeball. I would strongly advise a tripod and lower shutter speed instead of any ISO above like... 800 for full frame, so long as your intent is to sell them. Also, size matters. 6x4s are easy to hide imperfections, 12x20 not so much.
>>4380212Fair enough, I'll keep at it.>>4380236>Right photo is garbage if you're expecting anyone to pay for it.Right "photo" is just a 100% crop from left photo, in case you missed that. I don't intend to be printing that large, 12x8 is the max I'll be going right now.>I would strongly advise a tripod and lower shutter speed instead of any ISO above like... 800 for full frameI adhere to this rule already. Auroras are a special case though, too slow of a shutter speed and the aurora pillars lose their definition and just turn into a green smudge.
>>4380200won't matter as much printed than it does on a screen.
>>4380244Yeah I understood it to be a crop, but still maintain it's a fair amount of noise. Wasn't trying to be a clueless asshole about it.>Auroras are a special case thoughAbsolutely. I've never actually been lucky enough to get a shot of an aurora; all my astro knowledge is basic night sky stuff. Looks like you're either going to go down the ultra-bright lens path (EF 50mm f/1, anybody?) or start shelling out the bennies for access to some heavy AI denoising.
>>4380200I will say I went to an art fair once where somebody was selling astro prints with big splotchy chroma noise. It looked absolutely awful.luma noise is a lot less of a problem. Your pic with its NR is probably fine. Fine noise will tend to disappear in a print because it just turns to dithering.>900s post timerwhat the fuck is gookmoot thinking
>>4380270The beauty of chrominance noise is it just goes away if you turn down the staturation or go completely b&w; something you can absolutely do for some astro subjects. I've recently found this to be a useful fact in night photography as well
Why do so many photogs shoot shit like weddings on crop Fuji? Wouldn't the low light be awful or do they all just rely on primes
>>4380282most fuji wedding togs i know use mostly primes, and most also supplement their x-series with gfx or ffi did weddings ff, then to fuji x for a few years, and now mostly still use fuji x but also did gfx and now ff to supplementa competent photographer should be able to handle weddings in 2024 with any systemother systems can make it easier, and give even better results, but not everyone has the same idea of what's "good enough", including clients
>>4380282Because the couple won't look at a single photo and just want the photographer's camera to look stylish. That's it.Even sugar has shot weddings, with 12mp nikon DSLRs, and the client didn't give a fuck they just wanted a professional looking photographer at their big narcissistic "look at the bride" party.Wedding photography has NO standards. My sister got married last month and she got photos where it was shit like two people dancing, and only one of them was in focus, backlit people with +5 stop shadow pushes and obvious "black holes in peoples faces and a super clean blurry background" quality degradation from it so bad you can see it on a phone, group portraits with people out of focus, and she didn't care because she hung up 2 whole pics and never looked at them again. The photographer charged her...$6000.
>>4380420average wedding photographer be likesony|fuji35mm f1.485mm f1.4always shoot wide open
Whats your favourite cup?
>>4380420lolcouples that care about stuff like that hire film photogs, normal couples don't care or even know what gear is used>>4380424true, easy $
>>4380434You mean couples that put their weddings on instagram and frequently quote henri cartier bresson hire filmlarps
>>4380460couples that care what gear is used hire filmlarps, yes
>>4379677With the RB67, since its a modular camera, you dont actually need to buy the Pro SD version as a whole unit. You can get the original pro versions for much cheaper and then just get the Pro SD back, which is the only part that really makes a difference between the models as it has metal mechanical light seals rather than the shitty twine ones on the original. Oh and the very original Pro models don't have a cold-shoe, so be careful of that. Having a cold shoe is pretty useful on those as there's no metering in the camera at all, and having somewhere to mount one it helpful. Other than that, if you havent use waist level finders before, prepare for a very jarring experience.
what's a reasonable price for a powershot g11
How does one take proper photos of the exhibit? I mean I want to copy the design of the fabric for replica dolls. But the glass reflection is in the way. I'm a sperg to ask them to pose. https://www.instagram.com/p/DB5vf1pzxRI/
Ive been researching a camera for my usecase but need to check a few questions before buying anything.Im amateur, no interest in becoming a pro, just wanna shoot pics i find cool as hobby, they dont need to feel like pro, also wanna have good pics of me for IG, travelling, doing my hobbies.My cheap cellphone has a 26mm lens and i find the image quality more than enough. Ive been able to get decent results shooting things 10m away from me, fine. Problem is whenever i try to take a pic indoors or of myself, even at 2m apart from the camera, the results arent great. Everything looks to narrow. Tried playing with configs but it seems to be the focal lenght of the camera. >get even further awayIndoors this isnt possible since my house isnt that big. Also unless i buy pro lighting bright as the sun, going too far from the camera, zooming then cropping turns the image too grainy and that just bad.So in my case, where i plan to shoot outdoors and nature but also eventually take portraits and shoot people indoors, should i buy some entry level camera with lens in range 35-50mm? My cellphone works really fine for outdoors in a sunny day, but what if i eventually wanna shoot a cloudy day or unlit indoors? Then i need to play with aperture, right? My phone with its fixed aperture, makes the image too grany in a bad way with poor light.So buy some entry level camera or a more expensive phone?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerbasImage-Specific Properties:
>>4381406Canon r50 with kit lens and 35mm f1.8. Next.
>>4381416Will any cam with 35mm f.18 do? This camera is more expensive than the iphone 16 where i live.
>>4381425Nta but for your use case generally yes. Camera with aps-c camera with nifty fifty wide aperture lens will accomplish what you want.
>>4381428Aps-c sized sensor*
alright thanks, as i said, im already happy with my cellphone image quality and only problem is distortion in close range pics. I googled and this is called barell distortion. Even my friends cellphone twice as expensive as mine do the same distortion. Found a site that tells my cellphone camera is 26mm but the same site says even iphone 15 uses a 26mm... so i suspect for my usecase, even an iphone wont be satisfactory. I will look for the cheapest camera that offers a 35 to 50 mm lens.
>>4381438You're getting yourself all mixed up. The iPhone doesn't have a 26mm lens, it has a 26mm equiv lens. In any event, this is pretty "wide" for a portrait and will distort features. What you are seeing is probably more perspective distortion than barrel distortion. If all you desire is more flattering portraits, use a longer lens or try standing further back and cropping in. Look at the S21 Ultra with a 3x or 10x zoom and use "good light" and you'll be set. Read up on "telephoto compression" in portraits. Alternatively, get yourself a second hand DSLR and the cheapo kit zooms (18-55 & 55-200). These will suck in lower light but will help you experiment with focal length.
>>4381438>only problem is distortion in close range pics.This will happen with any camera. Perspective changes as you get closer to something. The only solution to "cell phone selfie distortion" is move farther away and zoom in. Same goes for real cameras, and if you're too close with them, you'll get the same distortion.Focal length is secondary to this, the distortion comes from the distance. Focal length just gives you a particular framing / field of view at a given distance.>Barrell distortionThis is probably what you're actually experiencing. This is entirely lens dependent and would affect long distance shots as well.
>>4381440probably not*
>>4381439>10x zoomTried that with my current cellphone but i would need to stand like 3m away from it. The image resolution gets grainy imo, not the look i want. This s23, google says has the same 26mm lens, i think it will distort exactly the same as mine, only difference, maybe after zooming out the image wont be too grainy.What about the canon R100? Costs exactly the same as the s23 ultra where i live.
>>4381438This guy >>4381440 explains it almost better than I do. Ultimately, distance to the subject creates "telephoto compression" (see article). https://petapixel.com/is-lens-compression-fact-or-fiction/This stuff is hard to explain on paper but easier in practice. You don't even really need a zoom lens (tho it can make the exercise easier). You can take photographs of yourself at various distances from the camera and crop in so that your face fills the frame. You'll find the further back you get (to a limit), your features will be more "flat". A longer lens will allow you to do this without needing to crop.
>>4381443But having a 35mm lens will help me shoot from 2m away with acceptable distortion?My cellphone even at 2m away makes me look like one of these long people from clamp.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerbasImage-Specific Properties:
>>4381406Phone is good enough for snapshits, but generally is only good for wide-angle shots in good light. Because of the tiny sensors in most phone cameras, you get pretty poor performance for anything else. The only phones worth buying for their camera, if your current one has something like a 1/2" sensor or better is going to be a 1" sensor phone camera, which are generally Chinese flagships.APS-C would be a huge jump in sensor size and also give you access to interchangeable lenses. There is too much to explain here, but go learn how the exposure triangle works for starters.I also vote Canon R50 as I own one and think it's pretty much a smashing bit of kit. I own the 24mm f/1.8 but the 35mm version is very similar. You will have zero limitations because of gear if you own something like this until you become a very, very good photographer. I do understand that this costs about $1200USD all together though.>>4381425The dedicated camera is going to be significantly better for, well, being a camera and doing camera stuff. The iPhone will be a more useful piece of technology overall, but phone cameras are still phones primarily. If you want an actual gearlist state budget.
>>4381445You really shouldn't be getting perspective distortion if you're standing that far back and cropping in, even with a phone camera. Maybe your head is weirdly shaped, I can't say. But as everyone else says, just about ANY modern (<5 years) APS-C sensor camera paired with a lens in the 35 to 85mm range will provide "flattering" portraits. Depending on budget, I really think you could achieve what you're looking for on an older DSLR but it wouldn't be as new or shiny to play with but probably much cheaper.
>>4381442Unless your phone has a seperate telephoto lens, zooming on that is what we'd call 'digital zoom', where the camera basically just crops further in. Digital zoom normally looks like shit because you're simply discarding the outer portions of the picture and making your pixels and noise bigger, which looks like shit.Actual zoom is called 'optical zoom' and can only be done with a lens that changes focal length. Technically speaking if you had a lens that doesn't zoom in and out, but was a "zoomed in" field-of-view like a 100mm lens, this is also optical zoom. Optical zoom retains all the clarity and detail you desire and is the biggest advantage real cameras have over phones.>This s23, google says has the same 26mm lens26mm *equivelant* to what is called 'full-frame', which is a kind of standard everyone uses to easily judge the field-of-view a lens will produce. Your actual phone lens will be something like 5mm.>Canon R100Is a Canon R50 with no articulating screen, less buttons, and an older sensor. If you are going to buy one I highly, HIGHLY recommend you just spend the extra $100 and get the R50.I will be real with you though, either one of those and the kit lens it comes with will be leauges ahead of your phone. Don't even bother buying a new lens, just use the kit lens. If you find a limitation later because of that lens (which you might or might not), then you can consider buying other lenses, but not before you reach that point.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-PL7Camera SoftwareVersion 1.4Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2024:09:01 14:51:39Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width4608Image Height3072RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHard
I see, for my a camera will be better than any cellphoneIm not a male model but the problem isnt my head since i look closer to what i see in the mirror in my id pic, which was taken by a pro camera no further than 1m away.
>>4381450yeah, i made my mind and will pick a cam not a new phone.>r50 vs r100I dont live in usa and here, the r100 costs 550usd, r50 costs 1040usd twice the price.
>>4381453Kill your politicians
>>4381453>R50 costs 1040 USD.What the fuck. I live in 'straya m8 and even here they only go for about 750 USD. The R100 is around $550 USD though. Something with your local market forces is a bit fucky but fair enough.Having an articulating screen alone is worth a bit to me; there are so many occasions where I'm taking photos and the viewfinder just isn't an option, but I do a lot of kinds of photography. You might be alright without it.I'll be real with you man. I'm a major Canon mirrorless shill, but if you want to experiement without spending a lot, buy a used DSLR with the kit lens. I would argue the mirrorless R100/R50 are straight upgrades, but an APS-C DSLR will still be better than your phone and cost more like $150 USD on ebay. Your money friend.
>>4381457My usecases>decent portrait indoors here and there>decent portraits outdoors while doing some hobby>tree pics outdoors>eventual wild animal or stray cat outdoors>stormy sky>some building
>>4381445If you look like that from 2m with a phone, you will look like that from 2m with a camera. Getting a different camera or lens won't change that.Look at yourself in the mirror, then bring your face closer and closer to the mirror, as you get closer, you will see the features of your face change in proportion.>>4381453If you want more resolution at longer distances, sure a camera makes sense, but it wont fix your perspective issue one bit.Going back to indoor shooting, phones lack in hardware but make up for it through lots of processing. While a real camera might be capable of better results in indoor and lowlight environments, you may still find yourself frustrated as it's going to require more than simply point and click.
>>4381462Your use cases are all over the place in terms of what gear makes the most sense, so I recommend just getting a generic kit to start then finding out what limitations you are finding. Indoors shots need bright aperture, normal to short telephoto lenses. Travel photos as a secondary to your hobby or whatever want light unobtrusive kits. Wild animals want bright aperture telephotos and super telephoto lenses. Buildings/trees/clouds will be properly served well with just a kit lens.>Budget optionAPS-C DLSR such as the 500D and kit lens (EF 18-55mm IS) $100-300 USD [used]>Better optionSemi-Pro APS-C DSLR such as the 70D with a kit lens and a 50mm fast lens (EF 50mm STM) $400-600 USD [used]>Canon Shill Most Recommended OptionCanon R50/R100 with kit lens (RF 18-45mm IS) $550-{apparently $1040 holy fuck} [new]>If your budget allows+RF 50mm f/1.8 STM $200+RF-S 55-210mm f/5-7.1 IS STM $400*EF lenses can be used in place of RF lenses with a $50 adapter and are much cheaper when bought [used].
>>4381468>Getting a different camera or lens won't change thatThen i need to gain a lot of weight because i look like a pencil in my pics.
>>4379482Nikon Z6ii or Sony A7iii?
>>4381487Sony a7c, a7iv, or a7cii, or nikon zfSony: finally fixed build quality and color scienceNikon: finally fixed… everything.
>>4380474Thats some great advice, thanks! I think I won't ever be using the RB67 without a tripod so that's not an issue
>>4381489Thanks. I've been also thinking about the A7Cii, but came across opinions that it's unnecessarily dumbed down. Would you say there's something to it?
>>4381491I have the original a7c with even fewer custom buttons and wheels and still don’t have a use for every button. I have the record button bound to spot meter AE hold and the lens button bound to focus standard and touch them maybe once a week. Jpeg and video shooters who actually use the white balance, hdr, picture profile effect etc shit and boomers who are into custom modes might want the a7iv more but the old III and II sony cameras suck balls and aren’t worth it. The Z6II is overall better than the a7iii.
>>4381495Thanks a lot.
>>4381495Isn't the A7C just a A7III with a smaller form factor and slightly better AF? Price difference between the A7c and A7III is minimal, like $300 on avg sometimes less