Tough choice. Nikon because their bodies are great and abundant but Pentax has that juicy retro larp with the K-P and the K-1

>>4380237
Leica M

>>4380242
don't forget the df
>>4380313
yes

>>4380315
the df is a good larp cam but pentax still wins in that department because they actually have a current flagship, the df has been cast to the wayside

>>4380321
How gearfaggy of you. The DF is still a good camera. A camera does not automatically become worse than other shit because it's older. That only happens to companies that just made bad, unreliable, buggy, generally shoddy products to begin with, ie: leica before the m11, sony before the a7c.

It's not like the K1-II is "better". In some metrics it is worse. It has some gimmicks but what if you don't need them? What if you prefer the way the lower megapixel DF renders images? What if you want nikon's superior autofocus and broader selection of well made FF autofocus lenses?

Does penTAX have a d780 equivalent? Thought so

ef

>>4380237
>a literally who mount versus the mount with the 105mm f/2.5, 13mm f/5.6, 58mm f/1.2, 180mm f/2.8, and much much more
Pent-ACKS never stood a chance

>>4380328
>>4380330
>>4380332
Nikon sounds like NIGGER and I ain't no nigger

So pentax is better

>>4380333
while the trips are impressive it would be more impressive to have a variety of stabilized lenses that work both on digital AND analog
so kill yourself pentafag

>>4380328
>does pentax make a remotely competent camera
no. so, like any incompetent brand that mostly made junk (the only other one is olympus), they leaned on the weather sealing lie. if you were smart, you would have noticed that this didn't make pentax special. canon and nikon both have the same degree of "weather sealing".

>>4380325
pentax still better in that regard in this comparison cry about it

posted from my 2002 Fujifilm FInepix S2 using Taptalk

>>4380341
>Pentax is better because...
Because what?

They have some gimmicks, ok, and megapixels
But they don't have a good selection of full frame lenses, and lenses are what actually take the photo.

>>4380345
they do have soul tho
unlike niggor

>>4380345
because of what i said (current year vintage larp bodies), not my fault u cant read

>>4380335
>to have a variety of stabilized lenses that work both on digital AND analog
I am not a retard with shaky hands and my Takumar lenses are fine ass fuck.

>>4380352
>It's current year so its better somehow
Super gearfaggy.

>>4380351
"Soul" is either a cope or you're a larping hispter who applies the word to beanies, flannels, VW bugs, and fixies in equal measures.

File: L1056054.jpg (1.15 MB, 1500x1072)

1.15 MB JPG

>>4380354
i've been called a gearfag and a luddite in 2 different threads within a 24h span now.

have a photo

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Leica Camera AG
Camera Model	M8 Digital Camera
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:01 18:38:27
Exposure Time	1/1500 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Auto
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1072
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Unique Image ID	00000000000000000000000000003A0B

>>4380360
A gearfag is someone who thinks equipment is the primary thing that affects how their photos turn out. It doesn't matter if you're a big spender, or an e-waste collector like snappiness, you're a gearfag. To be a gearfag is to think you cant catch your cat playing without a sony a1. To be a gearfag is to think your photos are flat and "slop" with "bad rendering and no soul" unless shot on a leica with a voigtlander lens. To be a gearfag is to think that being forced to slow down by dated tech is the secret to becoming a good photographer.
Gearfag = the gear is what makes my photos good. If you feel that a purchase is the thing separating you and talent, or your shutter presses and good photos, you are a gearfag. It can't be repeated often enough. Gearfags can be very happy with themselves if they buy the right shit, but they are delusional and irritating people and end up spending a lot of money no matter what price point they consoom at as their opinions change.

A gear queer is someone who wants equipment to affect their photos, but still manages (while complaining) with deeply flawed gear and may sperg out, but doesn't live their spergouts. At the end of the day they're more restrained with the purchase button and are aware that gear that doesn't meet their ideals can be made to work. This is most everyone here, sony vs canon sperging but they actually shoot with cheap nikons.

A gear queer is often very unhappy because they simultaneously hate their camera and know that buying the perfect camera won't make them a better photographer. Gear queers are prone to depressive episodes where they batter themselves into downgrading their gear.

A normal non-gearfag photographer uses basically any fucking camera that seems to be "quality" (widely used by other good photographers) and doesn't really pay attention to places like /p/, fredmiranda, dpreview, mu43, etc. They are simply not aware of any of the gearfags or gearqueers over-analysis shit.

>>4380368
im not reading all that i really dont care

>>4380373
You were cool, then you bought a leica and turned into a gearfag.

File: you.gif (443 KB, 480x238)

443 KB GIF

>>4380375

>>4380368
imagine how much of a gearfag you have to be in order to have this much to say about gearfags. Gearfag

>>4380390
>You're a gearfag if you know what a gearfag is
No, that's a pundit, you small brained gearfag.

>>4380398
I was wrong, you're worse than a gearfag. You are one of those rare gearfags who is too broke to be a gearfag. Bitter and resentful, you just obsess over those who obsess over gear as a way of coping with being stuck with whatever camera you happen to have (probably a crop-body nikon or canon). You obsess over gear in a way most gearfags could never understand. You should just stop worrying about what gear people have and how much money they spend and just take photos, you know, like someone who isn't a gearfag

>>4380402
sounds like he struck a nerve
perhaps, all the nerves

so are you a delusional gearfag who thinks buying a specific camera is the magic talent button or a whiny gear queer who is always mad about snoykonon but doesn't even have skin in the game

>>4380237
>Which is the best unified film/digital lens mount, Pentax K or Nikon F and why?
The problem is mostly that your question is wrong. If you HAVE to use the same lenses on your film bodies as your digital bodies, the obvious solution would be EF if you wanted the best quality, as you would adapt your EF lenses to an RF body for digital and shoot with an EOS 1 or something for film. As I said though, your question is wrong, the correct way to shoot film and digital is Zuiko with an OM body of your choosing (they're all the same aside from the the metering) as Zuiko is the only lenses that are endorsed by God. Then for digital shoot anything but Sony as they're the only brand that fucks your photos up so badly you cant even fix them in post. Hope this helps.

>>4380335
>variety of stabilized lenses that work both on digital AND analog
Pentax does have TWO bodies with IBIS, Nikon has none

>>4380587
>IBIS
They call it SR for Shake Reduction

>>4380353
hahahahahaha
ahahahahah
what a faggot lmao
hahahaha
>>4380587
wow they have shake reduction film body???