Should I get rid of this old gear?It's a Canon 5D mark II.What other camera or brand should I be looking for?Is Sony A7IV any good?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakesamsungCamera ModelSCG07Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0Sensing MethodNot DefinedFocal Length (35mm Equiv)25 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2024:09:30 23:06:33Exposure Time1/30 secF-Numberf/2.0Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.0Brightness-1.0 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceD65FlashNo FlashFocal Length4.60 mmColor Space InformationsRGBExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4383507Depends what you're shooting. I find the 5D mark 2 to be fairly good, but it has its limitations, mainly pulling detail from shadows. If you're not shooting moving stuff at night then I would just use it. The 17-40mm is good, the other two lenses are just fine. Pretty good IQ but nothing special. Could probably swap them out for some primes that are more suited to whatever it is you shoot. If you really need zooms go for the f/2.8 ones.
>>4383508Well, I currently shoot as a hobbyist, but I aim to eventually become a professional.IQ is not a necessity right now, but as you've stated, my current gear struggles with pulling details from low-light shots and shadows.AF also feels kinda unreliable sometimes, when I attempt some panning or try wildlife, or even just people walking.I've tried a bunch o mirrorless cameras, and the flexibility in post, plus the quality in the pixels was much higher!
I have a 5dmkii with the 24-70 2,8 lens too I was looking at selling recently, but when I saw what they go for I decided to just keep it. Not worth the hassle of selling it for how little it's worth now. I know it's old, but it's still weird to me seeing that price when I know how much it cost way back when I bought it.It still takes great images though. So maybe just keep your favourite lens and sell the other two off if you want to sell some of it. You're not going to get much for the camera itself.
Is this thread an ad?
Wait to buy an a7iv. The a7v comes out early next year.
>>4383529Is this post an ad?
>>4383536No. I’m telling you to buy snoyboys barely used kit. Not to buy the a7v and actually give sony money.
>>4383529Or just get the A7iii when the a7v comes. Not losing much in terms of image quality.
>>4383507Buy a 1V
>>4383547>implying the a7iii will get cheaper
>>4383560Fair point. I'd recommend the Panny S5 original, but since it's lacking the phase detect AF it might suck to adapt DSLR lenses on that. Maybe A7ii would be good enough for OP?
>>4383562Neither. Z6II or pick up a ZF since used prices are heading towards $1500 and below. Better AF, color, and lenses vs panasonic. Better build, color, and ergos vs sony. The lenses vs sony are better and bigger in the midrange, as bad but cheaper in the bottom tier, and there is no prosumer tier like the f1.4 GMs, its just straight to pro. But, you get a mediocre pancake!On the other hand canon goes from consumer grade junk, i mean sovl, to ultrasharp flawless RF L(uxury) lenses with no intermediate so
>>4383567>Better AFYou sure about that? Panasonic phase detect AF has gotten really good.Otherwise I'd agree with you, on the value proposition. If OP has 1,5k$ to spend I can't think of a much better camera than Z6II (or the ZF, but ergo).
>>4383571Panasonic PDAF is on par with the first z6. There is no excuse for panasonics oversized, bad ergos, underperforming, and notoriously unreliable junk outside of the ultra low budget prosumer videography sphere. Nikon on the other hand makes cameras for photographers.
>>4383575trve. if panasnoy is up for consideration just get a cheap z5 so you can invest in nikon’s superior lenses. what does L mount have, sigma? lol. Z mount can also adapt leica M with focus confirmation (ZF) and no corner color shifts or sharpness loss (like what happens on sony’s overly thick IR filter). L mount ironically can’t.
>>4383575>>4383577Samefagging much?
>>4383581anything to beat down panasonic’s paid marketers here. anyways, /p/eopleplease do yourselves a favor, buy used nikon gear. Panasonics marketing team is here 24/7 saying please buy s5 new on amazon, please do g9ii tradein deal, s5ii bundle is on sale at b&h, but unless you are broke as fuck and NEED certain codecs and FF video they are simply bad cameras compared to better made, more capable, more ergonomic Nikon kit.
>>4383584>anyways /p/eopleew. cringe.I agreed with you on the Z6ii as the better value camera at that price point, and pointed out you're wrong about panasonic AF. As a very sane, and proper response, you start sperging and samefagging.
>>4383589No one should even give panasonic a chance. Imagine getting burned with a broken camera 2 years later or an s5 that drains its battery while off. Not worth it. Even sony is more reliable.
What happened /p/? It has been almost a decade, and it seems like higher iso apsc sensor tech froze. Has it plateaued?
>>4384717Sony let fuji and nikon borrow the nice DX sensors (xh2s, d7200) but didnt want to make their crop cameras better and lose full frame hobbyfags
>>4384717Yes. A decade later and all we have are good ibis, better video, and nice af
It would be helpful to know what you shoot. I’m using a 5D iii (very similar to you only a tad better auto focus) for all my studio work it has over 200k shot on it and it just keeps going. It’s been tethered to the same iMac for almost 10 years and is used almost daily. If you’re doing events, weddings, landscapes you probably want better AF and DR but for lots of paid work the 5D is still a great tool for the job.
>>4384722>good ibisgimmick feature, not useful to photography>better videouseless>nice afaf has been good enough since 2013
Is the time now to get whatever gear we can, whether new or used before the china tariffs go though and prices skyrocket to unpurchasable levels?
Leave panasonic system NOW
>>4384735No? Most camera shit I've ever seen is made in Japan, Vietnam or the Philippines
>>4384725I'm currently a hobbyist, but I'm looking for a better camera to eventually use professionally. The 5Dii is amazing, but sometimes you need that clean image or better AF. Like, sometimes I do wildlife and night photography and the old sensor makes it difficult to edit on LR. The resulting photos are usually noisy and unsharp.
>>4384757>night photography and the old sensor makes it difficult to edit on LR. The resulting photos are usually noisy and unsharp.use a tripod. I just saved you thousands of dollars. You're welcome.
>>4384737>leave panasonicI bought the s9 new cause I wanted a good "does everything good enough." It's served me well enough this far
>>4384760>"does everything good enough.">s9choose one
>>4384758Yeah, but I do street photography a lot and a tripod isn't very practical.There's something special about night photography without flash, so I don't want to limit myself to daytime.I used to have an EOS R, which was fine but ended up selling it because the tracking AF was unreliable. Then I tried an R6ii and the difference is huge.
>>4384757With this mindset you won’t ever go pro your the issue not the gear I can get super clear images a night with a 5D lol. The 5D ii has about the same noise as a Fuji XPRO2 and that’s a famous street photography camera lol
>>4384763Bro, I never said I can't take night photos but the difference is there and you know it. Gear is relevant for some situations and types of photography, such as wildlife.
>>4384765Idk you could get something newer, but I honestly don't think it's going to help that much for night photography. Maybe a stop or two at most. All your lenses are f/4, trying grabbing one of the f/2.8 lenses first or even getting a fast prime. But honestly it sounds like you just want something new just because you want something new and if so that's fine, you don't need to justify it. Just as long as you're not going broke buying stuff. It's okay to experiment and try new cameras out just because it's fun.
>>4384767I've got a few primes, which I use at night, such as the EF 40 f/2.8, EF 50 f/1.8 and EF 100 f/2.8L. It does the job, but perhaps I'm pixel peeping my photos too much...I think you're right, I was looking for a new camera for the psychological effect of having no limitations gear wise.
>>4384738My shitter Fuji is made in Indonesia. It now has a bleeding LCD screen and has erratic dials.
>>4384763Yeah if you underexpose at night, outdoors, and basically take photos of the lights. That doesn’t work indoors or in places without lights and flash is stupid.
>>4384855Even the 5D classic is decent in low light it’s a skill issue https://youtu.be/qQU5l5D5wLE?si=1kPUksDi0CiQqgrJ
>>4384860>”low light”>low ISOs in brightly lit bug streets, blurry pedestriansThis is low light by film standards. Is the skill issue refusing to travel to some overly bright asian slop market and living somewhere decent, being a decent person, instead of a street photographer?I don’t think you know what low light actually means for people who aren’t imitating 20th century leica owners 24/7. Low light is exclusive of good, purposeful photography. Low light is snapshits at ISO 25,600 1/250 because you’re doing dumb skateboard tricks with your friends at 9pm in a public park and phones keep fucking up the pictures>uh kevin can you stand still right under a light please - i need you to do this because going over iso 3200 is a skill issue. i can show you some chinatown creep photography videos for reference if it helps.
>>4384870we dont actually use cameras as cameras here budwe only take photos of rocks, leaves, and the backs of strangers heads. sometimes the sides. its art.
>>4384870>Slop>DecencyBy your standards no one was decent before the 80's, and the fact the dude didn't get mogged is example of bugs just minding their own businesses.Also agree that wasn't low-light
>>4384877Civility only goes up as time goes on. Street markets and walking areas are pretty primitive and easily harbor hidden problems like dog meat stalls and backdoor drug and human trafficking. Online markets and drone deliveries are cleaner, safer, and more effective and allow for trivial interception of illicit goods by police.
>>4383507Upgrade to an RF body and use the EF adapter. Budget will dictate what you buy, but you don't need to replace those lenses. An R6 or R6ii will give you the same resolution (little more for R6ii) but sharper (weak AA filter) with more DR and far better high ISO. Plus all the cool new features like AF improvements and IBIS.
>>4384880>think of how much money you’ll save by buying a $2500 camera for your old junk lenses instead of selling your pile of ewaste for a fuji, a prime, and the kit lens!>and then you can buy a $2500 new RF L zoom too!Gearfags be like “let me tell you how to keep spending as much as possible”ORRRRR stop pixel peeping and stop being a gear snob. Get a lightweight normal camera, a small prime, and a generally useful zoom. Degearfag your life. You do not need more than a 35mm f2.8 and 24-70 f4 to take good photos.
>>4384879>Civility only goes up as time goes on.>The policeTouch grass home boy
>>4384882Sorry your friends daquan apartmente and tyler-joe traylor got shot or beat up for refusing to show ID or comply with basic directions because they either felt bad about doing what they were told or it they had a warrant out for selling meth lol, but yes law and order are good things. I would actually be in favor of street photography if they helped solve crimes but they usually just shoot backs of heads.
>>4384881>angry poorfag is angry
>>4384887>you’re a poorfag, he says, as he spends well within the average credit limitCanonikony blobs are not status symbols. Get a leica SL blob if you wanna pull that.
>>4384888personally i dont take “poorfag” from someone who shops like they can only have one camera system. a rich man has a hasselblad 907x for fun, a leica also for fun, a nikon flagship for work, and a collection of film SLRs. a poor man has a canon flagship because its a jack of all trades and master of none. a crew cab, short bed pickup truck for the people who cant afford a summer car, winter car, and work van. a mascot for poorly masked poverty.
>>4384884Write in english next time nigger
>>4384888>reeeee don't use your existing excellent glass>sell it all and buy an apsc or mft with one prime!This was literally you. He already has good equipment, he asked about upgrading, the only thing he might want to upgrade is the body. He would be stupid to ditch the glass.
>>4384942>he hasAncient boomer blob ewaste that doesnt hold up to a fuji xt3 with the kit zoom. Only good for gross shit like wedding photography. Wedding photographers section 179 their entire kit and get it for free so if he were one, he wouldn’t be asking. This is the perfect opportunity to leave blobby wedding cameras behind. Compacts now exceed the quality of a 5div+24-70 f2.8 L.
>>4384892why would a rich man need a "work" camera tho?
>>4384959rich people buy "work" stuff so they can work one day a year and pretend they do things other than underage hookers and drugs
>>4384959To pretend to be normal and advertise his personal brand
>the quality in the pixels was much higher!Obvious troll is obvious. Still not obvious enough for the gearfags of /p/ evidently.
>>4384947>fuji apsc kit zoom is better than full frame L glassUsually this level of delusion requires mft.
My main camera is the GFX50SII. I'm thinking now wether I should get a b-roll camera that I bring everyday for not so serious photography. I can't decide between the X100VI or the Nikon Zf with 40mm (gonna be glued on the body). The Fuji is smaller and more light but I'm afraid I won't enjoy the apsc IQ. Nikon Zf looks damn cool and I love the focal length of the 40mm lens. And sample pictures look great.
>>4385693I functionally replaced my 50R with a Zf and haven't looked backbut I also still use my other Fuji's more oftenget the Zf
>>4385693The gfx50 is just fat full frame thanks to the ancient shit sensor, you might as well sell it, or shoot nothing else and remain ignorant.
>>4385093The ancient, 1st edition 24-70 l is actually pretty soft.
>>4385711>>4385715The GFX is my favorite camera. Love the incredible detail in prints and for my taste it resolved better than my previous A7IV.
>>4385740Of course its 50mp, so it will definitely be better than 33mp and very close to 61mp if the lenses are keeping up for all cameras, but sensor performance is the same as modern full frame. It can merely resolve as well with a lower quality lens. Dont touch a zf or a z7ii if you want it to stay your favorite.
>>4383507>>4383509>>4384757Swap the 5dmk2 for a 5ds, its a massive upgrade is one of the best value professional cameras you can buy used atm (at least in the uk). Also swap the 17-40 for a 16-35 f4 L, the 16-35 is one of canons sharpest wide angle zooms on ef making it a better match for the 5ds' sensor and its cheap used as well. Your others lenses are great and theres not much point wasting money on expensive mirrorless systems when the 5ds is such a good value if you're not a professional. I've got a 5dsr that I use for wildlife photography every other day and its autofocus is great for it, just not amazing like new mirrorless bodies that are 4-6x the price. The dynamic range of the sensor is great for night too but I only do long exposure astro landscapes.
>>4384762Photography without light is retarded and you're setting yourself up for disappointment no matter what you buy. Get faster glass if anything, those lenses you have are all f/4. Even a 50/2 will be an improvement.
>>4384763>>4384767I see you had already pointed it out, my bad for stating what had already been said for not reading the whole thread before posting.
>>4384942His existing glass may be excellent for some things but it's not fast enough for low light. There's people on MFT shooting at faster equivalent apertures right now. The full frame advantage in low light comes from using faster equivalent apertures.
>>4384947>section 179 their entire kit and get it for free so if he were one, he wouldn’t be asking.Not how tax writeoffs work. You deduct the expense from your profits which are then taxed. You pay less tax, but you don't save the full price of the kit.
>>4387528>I want to do night photography but all I have is an f/5.6 zoom and no I don't want to use a tripod or having low IQ picturesMany such cases
good lightmeter that can do flash metering as well? beginner noobshit here
>>4387530> not reading the whole thread before postingYou do that a lot brainlet tripfag
>>4387581>tripfag admits he was a dummy>better double down and call him a slur just in caseNIG NOG.
Would you guys have some camera and lens recommendations for a beginner, with a body ideally both good for photo and videography?Mostly do "vlog"-like videos (I do piano/guitar covers) and I'd like to get into products and macro/wildlife/insects photography later on.My budget is ~1000€, could also go more if it's a real checkpoint, I don't really mind.I was told the Sony Alpha lineup are great for my usecase while having a solid array of lenses, any opinions on those?
>>4387588He's still a tripfag. A rapist doesn't get set free because they apologised for bumping into someone on their way to rape a woman.
>>4387588tripfag simp
>>4388633Canon R10 and RF 85mm Macro
>>4388633Forgot what the faggot above said. A7SII and don't look back
>>4388968>Recommends snoy>Calls OTHER people faggotHahahahahahahaha
>>4388633You dont need a video specific bodya6700
>>4388648>Use a tripcode>This is rape>This is the irl equivalent of rape>You are raping peopleWeird sjw mental gymnastics but ok.
>>4388633An MFT body would do great video as well as macro and wildlife photography. A Panasonic GH5 and the Panasonic 12-60mm would be a good pair for everything you want to do and is easily under $1000 used.
>>4388984Hahahahahahahaha no. IQ is awful. Autofocus basically isnt up to par. Even an a6000 is better. Only a photographer would be stupid enough to recommend a junk camera. They derive a sense of accomplishment from using junk because they can’t from taking decent photos.
>>4388984a fucking canon r50 is better than that unreliable piece of shit. Even sony doesnt have this failure rate despite having 50x the market share.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width539Image Height503
>>4388633Sony makes the best cameras but there’s a lot of cross contamination from the video game board here that causes people to reach for reasons to hate playstation, inc for making their wii look gay. Niggas have told me "dont buy a sony because this retard dropped his in the ocean". Do what you know is right. Sony is the best where it matters, which is why 5/6 news agencies went with them over canon.
>>4389000No, they just aren't that good at making cameras. I like my PS4 but would never buy a Sony camera again. Try not to take criticism of a huge extremely successful brand on a Laotian ceramics imageboard seriously, it's not good for you.
>>4389036>seriously*personally, though also seriously
>>4389036>No, they just aren't that good at making cameras.You can keep telling yourself this lie, but please don't tell it to others. Sony cameras remain among the best. I trialed every major brand (Z6II, ZF, R5, A7IV, A7C) and found that while sony's UI is less appley and lacked rounded corners, and nerds can delight themselves into pushing sony and canon files unrealistically until they break, the actual photo taking experience on sony/canon is vastly superior. They were also the only ones that did not NEED skin tone fixes.Nikon was the best to fingerfuck with the best UI styling and has nicer screens, but for actually taking pictures, the Z6II was just bad. The ZF was a fucking tragedy that made the a7c feel fully decked out (and still didn't have the same autofocus accuracy as the a7iv and R5). I'm pretty sure nikons hybrid autofocus' contrast side is based on a lower resolution version of the image and they lack cross points because their autofocus is simply not reliably precise enough for the sensor's native resolution. They make the ONLY mirrorless cameras I have ever used where the autofocus gets more accurate in a cropped sensor mode.I hope you get this isnt about defending sony, because I also canon. Its about defending innocent /p/ users from buying garbage and buying twice . Most people should only consider 2 brands if they're spending big bucks on a camera: Canon for zooms and Sony for primes. Canon has better first party budget shit, sony has better first party premium shit. Canon for FPS, Sony for MP. Camera shopping could not be simpler.Honorable mention goes to panasonic for cramming all the good video codecs onto otherwise "meh" cameras and giving amateur filmmakers a lower priced non-autofocusing alternative to a "real cinema camera".>inb4 muh a7iii sucked, muh r6 suckedAnd early DSLRs werent even 1/3 as good as film, which didn't change the fact that they did eventually get up to 24mp, 14 bit color, and 14 stop DR later.
>>4389059Sony lacks hipster appeal. They will always be bad or not real cameras to hipsters (aka half of /p/). You cant be a famous 20th century “artist” with a brand that didnt make any cameras, lenses, or film in the 20th century. They dont even have full stop clicks! They dont even care about the shutter sound bro! 0 leicas outta 10
>someone suggests mft>paragraphs of NOOOO ITS SHIT THERES A CONSPIRACY AGAINST SONYLike clockwork.
>>4389072Mft just sucks. 4x the noise for no real benefit except ok-ish IBIS (tripod = infinite ibis). Just buy a d750 if you’re THAT poor.
>>4389076the colors and lens sharpness are pretty shit too even with a $1k panafeica noctitroonpixel shift on mft basically just shows you how bad your lens actually is lel, the lp/mm demands of the teeny tiny pixels are beyond whats needed for the gfx100s and 62mp snoys
is it worth it to spend the extra 2000 for the g master? i love portrait photography but i really dont know.
>>4389072The problem is that M43 is actually shit. Encompasses the worst parts of a P&S without the benefits, and the worst part of APS-C with a shittier sensor size, pitch, and technology. t. Olmypussy PEN owner
>>438909185 is for plebsViltrox 135mm f1.8 lab instead. Sharper than the snoy GM!
>>4389059The only Sony options in my budget are the a6400 and A7III, are these still okay or totally outdated?Everything else is closer to 2000€ where I live.
>>4389151nta but the a7v will release in 2-4 months time. keep an eye out for cyber monday deals tomorrow for the a7iv perhaps. or even the a7cii
>>4389152It's not even close here, lowest I can even find the A7IV is 1900-2000€ for the body only. Is the A7III that bad compared to the more recent options?
>>4389161damn, I can get an a7rv for 1500euros equivalent in Australia .anyway, the 4 is just better in every way. the 3 is still a good camera but old
this the gear thread? finally ordered the z 50 f1.8 s, thank you black Fridayalso ordered the new sirui 40mm af anamorphic, will be sure to post when here
Film user looking to offload a T2 for a digital point and shoot. While I like developing I have less time to do it and want something more streamlined. I used to have a film GR and have played around with the digital equivalents.In 2024 should I get a GRIII or a GRII? I see many saying the newer model looks too clinical with how sharp it is but others say you can emulate the GRII with specific recipes. What should I get?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution216 dpiVertical Resolution216 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1179Image Height776
>>4389173If you can't decide based off sample images, just get the cheaper one.
my gf asked me what I want for christmas and I've been wanting a nice tripod. I just want a really sturdy and stable arca swiss type tripod with a good ball head, but not something that's $800. what are some companies I should look at?
>>4389191Sirui
>>4389191Neewer
>>4389173this half assed japscrap will never come close to a contax t2 and ricoh doesnt have the ingenuity or basic taste to pull it off. even fuji cant, their shit is comically proportioned, plasticky, gimmicky and designed by a committee instead of pure and purposeful, and ultimately feels fake in use and the photography looks faker once finished. its the corny paint by numbers blackface act to film’s real life harlem jazz. its hard to do things the best way sometimes but thats what makes it worth it when digislugs get btfo
>>4389214>>NeewerTrash everything>>4389191Get a silver Manfrotto used on ebay or a older 190 Manfrotto
Anyone use the Flashpoint/Godox Zoom Li-on line of speed lights? I need one as a background light for gelled background looks and a kicker instead of one of my AD200s. I’m debating between Zoom III and Zoom X Pro. The Pro is nicer but $100 more and I’ve never used round flashes desu.While I’m asking, I need some new gels. The ones I got with my yongnuo are falling apart.
What would be the process to wirelessly and automatically upload files from a camera to a cellphone, which would then upload the files to a cloud backup? I'd like an agnostic solution that's not tied to any particular manufacturer's phone app.
>>4389496A flash is a flash. They work fine (and are compatible with the same transmitters and receivers as the ad200)Just pay attention to what you’re paying for (gn, recycle, shots/chg) and you will be ok
>>4389522Keep dreaming bud
>>4389522All in one step? Doesn't exist.You'd at best have to upload to your phone and/or send the files to a local server you have control over, but it wouldn't be seamless like you imagine.Forget the cloud, return to local backups.
is the EF-S 10-18mm canon lens any good? I have a t7i and I was thinking about getting it over the 24mm pancake lens, but the slow aperture is what puts me off
You may not like it, but this is what peak gear looks like>Pro body for all the prints you sell and football games you shoot>Smallest pancake lens possible for muh grams >Prime lens for maximum sovlAlternative exists but they are wrong
How are chink lenses these days?I'm looking into the yungno and meike f1.8 85mm just for something to shoot friends and the odd model for portraits, but nothing pro level for money. I like the look of gucci ziess lenses but I don't want to drop 1k+ on a lensChinese lenses like 200 dollars and they have comparable bokeh and are lightweight, still looking like they have usable AF for E mount
What do I get to make big sharp prints of nature photos? GFX or Nikon? I want the sharpest possible photos so having nice sharp ~35 and ~85 primes is important.
>>4389886Also considering an L mount camera, maybe the Sigma fp l, with the Panasonic 35mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8. They look very sharp. Has anyone used an L mount macro lens they like?
>>4383507>Is Sony A7IV any good?Please no. As a photographic community, we need to band together to fight against the Sony scourge that has taken over the industry. Please help and fight back. Buy anything; Canon, Nikon, Fuji, even Olympus. Just please do not buy anymore Sonys. I get so infuriated whenever I see a Sony camera out when shooting, and boy have the number of them been increasing.
>>4389911sony make the best cameras though. say i want megapickles, the a7rv is basically the only choice
>>4389916>say i want megapicklesthen you go for medium format
>>4389911Lol i was out with my sony yesterday and a canikon blobber scowled at me and turned around as soon as he saw me grab my camera. His gaze hit his shoes real quick and i didnt take a photo since it was just the back of his head. I need to be faster next time. Does anyone know who makes convincing logo stickers that would go on an a7c? I want a photo of THE moment a blobber gearfag realizes i have a sony and the brand fanboy seethe starts boiling underneathI’ve never had problems with fuji bros just blobbers. Mft fanboys ??? They never talk
>>4389916I've been through:Nikon D700Nikon D500Leica M240Fuji X-Pro 1Ricoh GRIIBought a cheap as fuck a6000 off a nice lady on facebook marketplace to use as a beaterFuck me, it has been the most enjoyable to use camera I have ever owned.
>>4389927>fanfiction of a snoy goyerI'll have you know most other photographers I've met are just plain fucking weird in one way or another.I still can't get over this one guy I saw handholding an EF 800mm f/5.6 and complaining his photos were coming out blurry at a popular tourist spot, when everyone else had normal sized shit. I didn't have the heart to tell him he was a retarded blobber.>stickers that would go on an a7c?You could just tape over the branding. Although that doesn't help if you're trying to larp as another brand.
>>4389932>fanfictionNo it was some big pro body eos r guy with a 70-200/2.8 or something at the park
>>4389932Its mostly canikon digital pro camera people that are weird. 5ds, z8 on a touristy photowalk guys are always the crazy ones.The serious wildlife photographers that use them are alright, but you never meet them when they’re using that big ass camera. They probably have a PNS in public.
I'm kind of a photography normie and would like to get something relatively alright to shoot shit while I'm hiking, I have a Nikon D3000 with stock lens, should I buy a better lens or would it make more sense to buy a new, maybe more streamlined camera? I was thinking about Canon R100 with 18-45 and 55-210 lenses.
>>4390388Go for a mirrorles, you get smaller options. F mount tends to be big, even dx. The bulk is more annoying than the weight. I like my mft gear while hiking. I have a FF kit I bring out to easy hikes or walks but if I'm climbing anything over 3k ft that day I want a small kit. Look for other people's recs online maybe?
>>4390388R100 is barebones when it comes to features (the same level as your D3000 or Canon 1000D, really), I'd advice strongly against it.Hiking is a tough hobby for camera gear. I'd probably get Sony RX100 or Olympus EM5 mk II with 12-40 f2.8 pro used depending whether you need weather sealing or not... If you want to go Canon, get 200D or 250D. RF mount is not the mount to be right now.
>>4390388if you’re canon r100 levels of poor dont torment yourself, save up until you can get a fuji xt4 and the kit zoomcheap canon is actually worse than micro four thirds>>4390583dont torture him with the em5ii. that camera is awful.
>>4390587Yeah, I was thinking what would be the cheapest weather sealed kit. My main gripe with em5 is the 16 mpx sensor, but it is small and rugged. Fuji prices are awful, but probably worth the extra.
>>4390590NTA but I got a em5.ii after loving my OM-5 thinking I could sell the latter and the former would be good enough, but the OM-5 makes way more sense for hiking/backpacking. The extra MPs are nice, but it also has better ibis, live nd, starry sky af, handheld high res, wb is better, and on and on. If only they'd put it in a metal body.
>>4389918>4k30lol, lmao evenfuji x has the best lens selection too. NOT!
Will I be happier and more emotionally fulfilled with my photos if I buy a FF camera and make large prints with it? I have only ever used crops and gotten small prints. t. rock and leaf shooter
>>4390669i switched from mft to ff and even though the mp increase was only like 16 to 24, ive made some nice 12*18 prints with shallow dof to hang around my house. so yes is my answer, but my next camera is gonna be a sony a7rvi when it releseased so i can print even bigger
>>4390669Yea it's worth it, best set up imo is a FF as your main camera and some decent pas you can put in your pocket I went from 1 inch pas to FF and the gap feels pretty substantial being able to play around with different lenses and shallow depth of field[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7CCamera SoftwareILCE-7C v1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationLeft-Hand, BottomHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2024:12:07 15:48:13Exposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating500Brightness4.7 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length75.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1616Image Height1080RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4390669Megapickles are ancillary to the seccy af DoF, DR, and low as fuck SNR. Basically, everything will look just that bit more profesh'. Is FF necessary for most people taking photos? Fuck no, but if you have the means and beans to buy one because you enjoy that shit, then do it. IIRC 24MP is sufficent for like 20" wide prints with sufficent DPI, and you can go even biggur with the 72DPI mindset (wdym bro just stand further back kekekek). I print 12x8 at max (because frames and shit get expensive)
>>4389161The a7iii is a great camera. The only complaint I had was color science for people if you use Lightroom, but after I fixed that it takes better pics than my Nikon's.
>>4390556>>4390583>>4390587Thanks guys, I ordered a better (used) lens for my Nikon just to see the difference and will look more into the options if it turns out I still want to get a new camera
What is the cheapest non-shit digital camera (EX: non point and shoot) I can get that won't lock me out of compatibility with other stuff I might want down the line?I've used canon rebel 6's and 7's before and I am mostly pretty satisfied with the image quality I got from those, and what complaints I did have was just I think moreso my own limitations of having a stady hand and taking photos in low light conditions that forced me to use a shallower DOF Are there anything comparable in quality to those I could get more for like $100-$200 rather then $400-$500? (i'm including a basic lens in the cost, but maybe I shouldn't, since a nonstandard lens might suit my needs more?)Lastly, it seems like Mirrorless cameras are just generally all around better then DLSR's now (vs when I did research like 6 years ago) with autofocus and stablization that's not bad anymore preview screens that refresh fast enough to not be an issue and with a high resolution? are there cheap entry level mirrorless cameras within that rebel price range that have those advantages? Are there anything that DLSRs still do better?
>>4391754>>4391754To add, my use case would be photographing stuff in museums, mostly. So taking photos of static objects at relatively short distances of less then a meter to a few meters away, but indoors, and not-infrequently in dim lighting and where I can't use a tripod or flash.Potentially also using a tripod aimed at a desk from above to take photos of illustrations in books and magazines as an alternative to using a scanner so I don't have to deal with the screentone/print dots that would show
>>4391754>Are there anything that DLSRs still do better?They turn on and are ready to shoot pretty much instantly and the batteries last a lot longer. That's pretty well it besides actually having an optical viewfinder.
>>4391759I would suggest going ff if you're shooting in museums, but also a polarising filter and fast lens are going to be must buys
>>4391760Is having an optical viewfinder an advantage anymore? most articles I saw today looking into it again for the first time in like 6 years make it out like there's not one anymoreDo most mirrorless camera preview screens have the same resolution as the images they output?>>4391762I tried a polarizing filter once and it didn't seem to make any difference with glass glare, but that could have just been a shitty one>fast lenswhy?
>>4391764better sharpness when stopped downand ff over apsc or mft is obvsdid you have a cpl? if it doesnt work thats ok, sometimes the light direction is hard to work with
>>4391764>Is having an optical viewfinder an advantage anymore?An advantage over what? Are you entering some kind of competitive viewfinder looking through competition as if it fucking matters?
>>4391764oh also no way does the screen match the resolution of the images. you realise 24mp is 6k resolution, letalone something like 61mp
35mm, m mount, <€800hit a nigga up
>>4391760>They turn on and are ready to shoot pretty much instantlyThey are quicker, but even my 7 year old body is on by the time I get my eye to the viewfinder>>4391764An EVF is better in low light conditions, shows you the actual depth of field you will get, shows you exactly how focused your image is, allows you to zoom in for manual focusing, gives you a preview of the exposure, and allows you to have more information in the viewfinder such as things like a histogram. An optical finder doesn't use any power and that's about it.
I want to buy into a full frame system/camera after owning my X100F for several years. Sadly the Fuji GFX setup is too big and slowish. Nikon Zf looks beautiful but I tested it in the store and it's really heavy and huge. Though this may still be my favorite because I love the retro style. Are there any other good looking (retro or not) cameras with full frame sensors? As good as Sonys and Canons must be I can't justify holding an ugly brick like that in my hands. The only other option is Leica?
>>4392440s9
>>4392440Pick up a black Sony a7c, buy some bayonet lens hoods for their 40mm, 50mm f2.5 primes and you can larp you have muh Leica look It will also have the benefit of being lighter than the Leica you're fapping over. A7 series is just fucking ugly though
>>4392442A7C feels like plastic crap.
>>4383507the 70-300 is good, never liked my 24-105 so got a 24-70 f2.8 MK IIUsing a Canon 6D mkII>>4387999Purple berry photo
>>4393238The a7c is a soulful machine that refuses to pretend to be the film camera it isn’t.
>>4393238they look better that Leicas[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSIGMACamera ModelSIGMA DP3 MerrillCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.4 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)75 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2020:10:07 12:33:19Exposure Time1/13 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID303036303438383556ACFF4E34443034
Anyone have experience with the lumix s 85mm?
What's a good compact I can get that would fit in a messenger bag and has a fixed lens? Thinking I could use it when I don't take my main camera or get one for my parents (since they miss holding compact cameras and taking photos like in the 90s).I was considering the ZV-E10 maybe but the price and focus on video puts me off.
>>4392440Kill yourself
>>4395115not a ricoh gr iii? thats the usual go to.
>>4395117>ricoh gr iiiA little too pricey for my folks, I was thinking more like half that price. It doesn't need to be amazing, just better than a phone and hopefully capable of RAW.
>>4395118im wondering if you could buy a mft second hand with a nice prime on it. i like using my em10 mk 2 as a fun little camera and it was only $300 or so brand new a couple of years ago, so you can probably get something even better for your budget. still very compact
>>4395118Unfortunately >>4395121 is probably correct. An older MFT Olympus or Panasonic looks like the camera for you. Slap a compact prime like the 17mm on and you've got pocket cheap and all manually controllable with RAW output. Now the fuckin' issue with that setup is twofold: Older tech like less effective IS and sensor shittery. And, the JPEGs coming out of MFT cameras of that time are gay as spaceaids; you'll probably want to tune RAWs a lot more than being happy with OOC performance.Honestly I suggest just saving up more money for the dust-sucking Ricoh
>>4395121I used to have an E-P1 + 17mm + OVF, and it was a great little setup.
How much should I pay for a A7III? A7C? A7IV?I'm looking at all 3, I can actually find A7iiis for $600-800, A7Cs for $900-1200, and A7IV and A7Riiis for $1400-1800
>>4395204You pay what you have to, prices vary by location and supply and demand. I paid the equivalent of about $1k for my A7R III but an A7 III is only about $50 less, A7C about $50 more, and an A7 IV is like $1800 and up. So for you an A7 III for 600 would be a bargain, so would a IV for 1400.
>>4395205The $560 A7III with 24-70 Kit Lens might be a scam since they won't be available until Sunday. But this looks like it might be real. I was originally planning on waiting until the new A7V gets released for people to sell off their cameras. The lowest he'll go is $850.
>>4395317If you don't end up getting stabbed when you go to meet him then that's a cracking deal, don't know how good the Sigma 24-70mm is but it's essentially free at that price. There wouldn't be much reason to go for the C or III over the R III unless needed the better AF, although the R III is still really good so I don't know how much better they are (they have more points but they're from the same generation, the IV for sure will have better tracking).
>>4395340The a7c on has significantly improved color science. Yes, it affects raw. Every camera has different CFA and IR cut filter specs and every camera processes its raws differently.
>>4395340Its fake, he sent me a address 2 hours away and then offered to ship when I told him i'll wait for him to be back in the area. How would a A7III/A7RIII compare to a similar era Nikon DSLR like a D750 or D810 or Canon 5DMK4? I heard the older Sonys aren't as good when it comes to tracking and autofocus, and that Sony wasn't really "good" re: AF performance until the a7c/a7iv where they took a gigaleap for full-frame performance vs Nikon and Canon. I'm not doing any video if its a factor, but I do prioritize autofocus, image quality, and dynamic range in that order. AF in particular because I hate missing a shot or taking 2-3 shots and they're all no good.
>>4395389Pretty much any mirrorless will focus more accurately than a DSLR because the AF sensors and image sensor are on the same plane. You also have much wider coverage and tracking is a lot better. I don't know who told you they're no good until the IV but that's bollocks, you won't be disappointed.
>>4395389the a7iii is still better at autofocus than any nikon mirrorless that costs less than $1700 but lol no weather sealing lol gross colors lol 2 stop ibisat least get an a7c, cope with a cripple hammered canon r8 with no good lenses, or get a DSLR. IQ hasnt changed since the d750-810-850.
>>4395391Referencing nikon is cheating. The XT5 has better autofocus than the z6ii.
>>4395391Yeah I'm actually fine with a DSLR, I like the clack they make when I hit the shutter button. I guess I'll just keep shopping for a A7C or maybe settle for a R8 or R6 Mk1R8 w/24-50mm Lens Kit is $1170 Canon refurb which isn't bad. But I could probably find a A7c w/kit lens used for $1200-1300 on eBay>>4395390I see, I read a review here where it claimed the a7riii had worse AF tracking than the D850https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4000816220/nikon-d850-vs-sony-a7r-iii-which-is-best?slide=5XT5s are out of budget and don't seem like they have good lens option desu.
>>4395395The r6mk1 was a buggy pos with a lot of reliability issues, just google r6 issues r6 failed etc and behold, its basically an a7mk1The r6ii was solid
Should I go with Fuji or Sony if the main thing I care about is colors? I'm torn between the X-T4 or a7iv. I like to think I'm pretty good at color grading so it's really just about whichever one gives me the best starting point to go off. I looked at the Sony subreddit and everything looked really gross but I'm not sure if that's the camera or just the people over there having bad taste
>>4395439Sony 3.5/4th gen on has the best colors, close to nikon and less flat than canon, but you MUST avoid lightroom unless you are a pro coloristFuji only has good colors if scaled to 2mp for instagram, otherwise you can clearly see how xtrans turns lips, teethe, and eyes beige even at a paltry laptop screen filling 8mp
>>4395439If you can grade, it doesn't matter and should be very low on your decision priorities
>>4395442>, but you MUST avoid lightroom?
>>4395462lightroom sony profiles are awful lolthat dull look with sharpened grainy noise you associate with sony, thats lightroom. the jpegs are more vibrant and a bit smeared, not dull and sharp, and better raw processors make them look basically as good as any other ff bayer sensors raws (but nothing can save the a7ii, so green…)
>>4395390>Pretty much any mirrorless will focus more accurately than a DSLRLmaoSeveral mirrorless cameras are notorious for having worse AF than DSLRs. Particularly the early Nikons, like the Z6.
>>4395485>Selected mirrorless designs that have had a bad reputation already like niggons first few MILCs are inferior to le DSLRnosaur where you have to fucking calibrate your focus depending on what lens you're using and what the ambient temperature is. Oh and If I want to shoot at anything above f/5.6 I can't autofocus at all, but that totally BTFOs any mirrorless that can show an accurately focused shot with the resulting DoF on the fly.Really nigga.
>>4395486>you have to fucking calibrate your focus depending on what lens you're using and what the ambient temperature isLmao
>>4395486What good is no focus shift or motor offset when the shitty af algorithm misses focus in single point AF-S? You can fix 1 and 2, a serious hacker would be needed to decompile camera firmware and fix nikon z6/z6ii autofocus. Even the $4000 z8 has less accurate focus and worse tracking than a $1000 canon r8 and really doesnt even best an old a7c except in subject detect modes. DSLRs really only have focus issues with non stacked macro photography and certain so-so ultrafast primes, not much elseBetter the beast with a leash than the one that can’t be tamed. A mirrorless with bad AF is no good, not even in MF unless its a fuji with split preview.
>>4395592Sounds more like skill issue. Can you post an example of a shot that you feel a Z8 would be unable to achieve?Mirrorless have always been more accurate, just too slow until more recent generations to maintain that for quicker moving subjects. AF-S has always been better on mirrorless.No longer having to AF-fine tune has been one of the greatest joys of mirrorless.
>>4395602I’m referencing jared polins own tests. He found the $4000 z8 could not track athletes as effectively as a camera costing 1/4th as much. And our local z8 users resorting to shooting in crop mode because using the whole sensor somehow reduces AF accuracy (god knows they’re running AF on the live view feed)Nikon is headed to #4 for a god damn reason and their majority oversized lenses are not even half of it. Even fuji is pulling ahead.
>>4395611>I’m referencing jared polins own testslol, okay nophoto
saw this and thought it said "oh Snoy" for a minute I'm fucking losing it boys
>>4395616Why do I need to be a top tier sports shooter like fro to say that nikon charges $4k for worse AF than a cheap R8? He’s not the only one to find nikons best lacking either. Even ken fucking rockwell dumped his z8 because AF-S of all things was missing despite the confirmation box and it struggled with his kids and dogs while his r5 did not. I don’t need to be personally invested in action photography to say nikon is dogshit. Their declining market share and fleeing high profile users are enough. It’s like "show me a crash you’ve been in where the ford pinto would have killed you" - how about you take precautions based on existing evidence and dont buy a ford pinto you capitalist corporate ass licker? Shit corporations deserve poor reputations. Not ITSGUDENUFFERYU cope.
>>4395620Kek
>>4395622whatever you say nophoto
I received a low-tier camera for Christmas and it would hurt my mother to think it's not good. What's a better tiny camera I can play off as my shiny new Agfaphoto DC5200 but without photos looking like they were taken on a bad feature phone camera?
>>4395592>>4395611>>4395622Just because one mirrorless camera, or even one whole brand of mirrorless, has shitty AF doesn't mean all mirrorless are shit. The original point was mirrorless has the inherent possibility to have much better and accurate AF than a DSLR and there are bodies that do. Splitting off a portion of your light to a separate array of AF sensors is a flawed design.
>>4395632Just use your phone, you'd need to have something pretty old and crappy to not be better than that.
>>4395633Mirrorless is not necessarily better and there are beam splitting systems that are more accurate than hybrid ospdaf systems. Also no grid artifacts.
>>4395634The problem is she needs to see me taking pics with the new camera. I can't make a phone look like a camera or pull some sleight of hand where I sneak a pic with my phone every time I use the camera. A half-decent camera that looks close enough should circumvent that.
>>4395635spoken like a true nophoto>Mirrorless is not necessarily betterbetter enough that most people have moved on to mirrorlesswho are some of your examples of people refusing to move on from DSLR's because of autofocus specifically?
>>4395640Really just the Nikon D750/780/800/810/850s and that's only because the sensors are so good and Nikon mirrorless autofocus + Z lens selection is that bad
>>4395646who are some of your examples of people refusing to move on from DSLR's because of autofocus specifically?
>>4395646>>4395647All these people moved on to sony already, ages ago. Nikon and olympus userbases flocked to snoy a long time ago. Hence sony made their color science kind of a midpoint between em1iii and d850. So did any r5 and r3 users that expected an actual upgrade.
>>4395650who are some of your examples of people refusing to move on from DSLR's because of autofocus specifically? no photographers you can think of at all?doesn't seem like much an issue
>>4395653>who are some of your examples of people refusing to move on from DSLR's because of autofocus specifically?Me.
>>4395654cool, so can you post an example of a shot that you feel a Z8 would be unable to achieve? like I asked earlier?
>>4395635>there are beam splitting systems that are more accurate than hybrid ospdaf systemsLiterally not possible, you can't get more accurate than having the focus sensors on the same plane as the image sensor. At the very best a DSLR can be as accurate as mirrorless, if it's manufactured well and in ideal conditions. Should the mirror not land in the exact right spot or its reflective properties change then what's in focus at the AF sensors will not be the same as what's in focus at the image sensor.
>>4395636Well in that case just humour her, she's not always going to be around when you're taking photos. Snap a few with her gift, then if you really want to get some that are decent quality get out the phone and make up some excuse like the camera battery died, the memory card is full, you want them on your phone to send to someone/upload somewhere, etc.
>>4395656Why do you feel the need to defend a $4000 camera with this?>IF IT DIDNT AFFECT YOU ITS FINEOk, but its a $4000 fucking camera. Why do you lick corporate cock? If you paid $4000 planning on a birding trip next year and then jared polin does a video showing its hit rate is less than a canon r8s… sell that piece of overpriced garbage and recommend that no one waste their money on it. FUCK corporations.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Zt7Z_WjyqyElol nikan’t beat a $1000 canonand now all their cameras have the same low dr as canons, but without the class leading raw noise reduction to cover it upthere is zero reason to pick nikon over anything
>>4395661>who are some of your examples of people refusing to move on from DSLR's because of autofocus specifically?>Me.>cool, so can you post an example of a shot that you feel a mirrorless would be unable to achieve? like I asked earlier?>nodo you see the problem
>>4395684you think everyone is the same guydo you think this query is going to get people btw? a view camera can shoot a bird in flight, after a while, it would be impractical. these people are speaking of keeper rates and time wasted culling bursts to cope with AF software when they wanted one shot focus hits out of their $2000 machinesuch is life when you refuse to buy a sony
>>4395656>so can you post an example of a shot that you feel a Z8 would be unable to achieve? No>like I asked earlier?I'm not him, I just also think that you're a retarded gearfag.
>>4395685>you think everyone is the same guyi just want someone to post some real life examples, idc whobut everyone is just a literal nophoto
>>4395686okay nophoto
>>4395688>nophotonophoto
>>4395692well no one asked me for a photo yet, what did you want to see? when people ask me for photos, i provideand am not really the one making the gear claimi just want to see an image from one of those people that they wouldn't feel confident a z8 could capturenot too hard of an ask if the z8 is that terrible
>>4395693NTA, but can I have a photo of your feet?
>>4395695i havent exfoliated them or used a footmask in a while tho ><
>>4395693The z8 can capture anything with enough tries, but so can a lower end camera or ancient d850. If you try for a while you can shoot very fast action on a manual telephoto lens. Other $4000 cameras can capture anything in one try, and real life moments don’t happen twice. Might as well spend less if you don’t care and are fine with the performance of older and lower end cameras.
I'm new to thisis there a remote shutter for canon rebel cameras that also has buttons for navigating the menus and such so I can change the settings on the camera without physically touching it?
>>4395713does the app have these features? im pretty sure both my pana and oly cameras can do this
>>4395713To clarify I have the rebel t7 which does not have built in wireless functionality, so it has to be something that plugs into the camera with a wire, or a reciever that plugs into it that can then transmit to the wireless remote>>4395714see above, an app wouldn't work unless there's a dongle I can plug into the camera that would do it
>>4395713>To clarify I have the rebel t7 which does not have built in wireless functionalityI'm stupid and realized my clarfification needs a clarification: by this I meant the submodel of t7 I have doesn't support wireless remote function directly, there is another t7 model which does, that's just not the one I haveI bought a random remote shutter off of amazon and it works fine (it has a reciever you plug into the camera, then a wireless remote which transmits to the reciever) to actually take photos, there's just not a way for me to use the remote to change the shutter speed, aperture, etc unless i'm missing it
>>4383508The 70-300 is great for landscapesThe 24-70 f4 is pretty nice, very compact and still has IS so it's fine if you don't need shallow DoF
>>4395716Unfortunately not. The best you can do is get an intervalometer (most are wired but I imagine there's probably a wireless one out there somewhere) which will allow you to put the camera in bulb mode and then set a shutter speed on the remote, however you might be limited on how fast it will go and it won't be as accurate at faster speeds as they're designed for multiple second exposures.
>>4395730>telezoom with a 70mm low end is great for landscapelmao what
>>4395738I like the compressed perspective
>>4395741this looks oddly sterile
>>4395741Bad example and bad photo
>>4395702did you forget to attach your photo example?
>>4395766there are countless examples of d850s capturing everything a z8 can on flickr you can look at them any time> My Z6 III still has autofocus that too often doesn't find the correct subject, gets lost or won't focus. It usually works fine, but as a seasoned user I'm sensitive to the fact that it just doesn't work as well as often as Sony's and Canon's AF systems do. I've found Nikon's practical AF performance to be third-rate because it misses maybe 3% of the time in real-world use, versus maybe 0.08% with the other brands> Still essentially the same as 2018's Z6, which makes this camera already obsolete and way behind Canon's brand-new and far superior EOS R6 Mk II. I suggest doing what I did for mirrorless and upgrade directly to Canon rather than throw more money at the number-three camera brand (Nikon).-Ken Rockwell, Z6III review> Nikon's mirrorless autofocus has always been a distant third behind Sony and Canon, and the Z8 still doesn't focus well - if at all - in the dark. Good news is that Auto AF-Area selection works better than in earlier models. Good luck!> The Z8 usually can't autofocus on clouds in the sky either, something Canon (even their DSLRs) have always done well.- Ken Rockwell, Z8 review
>>4395802>there are countless examples of d850s capturing everything a z8 can on flickr you can look at them any timehow great, so many options to pick from, hopefully you don't forget to attach your photo example this next time
Is the IBIS in the A7C that much of a factor I should buy one over a Canon R8 if I'm gonna be using this thing for photos 90% of the time My choices come down to used A7C vs Refurb (practically new) R8 with 24-50 kit lens.
>>4395822the ibis is super useful and 1-2 stops better than lens IS depending on focal lengthso is the superior battery life and compact, non blobby design. i wouldnt touch canon unless i did nothing but youtube, birds and sports.
>>4395822IBIS is for photos, it's not that good for video. If you're only ever going to use stabilised lenses then it's not a big deal but it is handy for cheaper/smaller non-stabilised ones and many primes. You'll find that there's actually more non-stabilised zooms coming out these days as most bodies have IBIS. Bringing out a body in 2023 without IBIS is hard to jsutify.
>>4395832Most high end and even midrange primes arent stabilized anymore. It adds complexity and unreliability and doesnt benefit lenses under 135mm vs IBIS.
>>4395832>IBIS is for photos, it's not that good for videoCongrats you got it backwards
>>4395836Oh look a retardYes, the tripod use reducer that originated with minolta and pentax DSLRs (not video machines) is for photosIn video it causes corner wobble and jitters unless you limit your camera selection by video IBIS algorithm quality and limit yourself to FOVs 28mm+, which also limits you to some really fucking awful cameras, mostly panasonics with excessively small sensors, and totally excludes every good video specific camera ever made. Hmm, ibis must be for video!Conside, rather, nikon and canon were too stupid to develop IBIS and thought all their customers shot at the flash sync speed or higher anyways
Selling my canon 6d, got it new now 70k snaps, what should I get? r50 looks yummy, have full set of ef lenses
>>4395857>nooo I need to use my ultrawides with ONE specific camera company or else wobbly corners, I can't use regular focal lengths Yes ibis is for video you stupid fucker, tripods are for photographyIf you weren't a zoomer baby maybe you'd understand there are more types of handheld video than selfie walkabouts
>>4395890You sound desperate to deny the usefulness of IBIS. I use that shit all the time instead of carrying a tripod around just to shoot at 1/4 ISO 100.
>>4395891>deny usefulness of IBISOh you can't read so sad (retard).
>>4383507Don't judge your camera without owning an excellent tripod, and and a 3 flash with stands and umbrellas setup.
>>4384717The 6700 has ibis, which will let you use a better iso.
>>4395891Tripods let you work faster. You use them with an off camera trigger, obviously. You can also use your tripod to get high or low shots. Tripods are basic gear. With a tripod you can put your camera in the exact corner of a room and take the photo while you are literally in another room (using the remote).>>4395900forgot to mention the offcamera trigger.
>>4395891ibis is for video, what kind of pictures do you take? sure it can be useful for low light photo but it actually makes handheld video viewable, getting rid of the micro shakes is revolutionary
>>4395902>yeah sure ofc I'm coming to this family gathering, jut let me grab my tripod and slider and gimbal and I'm good to go
>>4395891Same. It's not as game-changing as a tripod, but tripods aren't always an option. Being able to eek out an extra few stops for relatively static lowlight scenes, is awesome.Even if that only comes up for 2% of shooting, it's nice to have as a bonus.
>>4395905ibis has saved expnentia ly more material than tripods, it's not even debatable, imagine phones without ibis, tiktok would not even exist, all shaken away
>>4395909>ibis>phones>tiktokgreat so we're agreed, it's for video
>>4395911yes, all of my posts have said this>>4395903 (You)>>4395904 (You)>>4395909 (You)that's why gh5 is the best camera for the money, if you're not not exclusively into photography
>>4395911and stillsunless you think being able to handhold a lower shutter speed is a useless stills feature
>>4395911Its far more significant for stills. For 99% of people, IBIS complete replaces a tripod for anything outdoors and is absolutely superior to carrying and setting up equipment. For video, on an ILC? This is ALWAYS a niche professional application most people benefit from exactly never, you will use a gimbal, crane, steadycam, or other actual camera holder or get off the fucking set and use your phone. Even if you limit yourself to shitty panasonic crash cams it does jump, and it does wobble. And then you’re still stuck with a shitty panasonic crash cam.
>>4395938>photos = amateur use case>video = professional use caseRetarded redditor is retarded
If I literally never shoot video what camera should I go for? A7RV? everything seems to be hybrid and video focused now
>>4395939Photos can be printed and displayed arbitrarily large, zoomed in on to check out the stuff in them, and stared at for a whileVideo is watched and what can be seen is limited by the playback device. If someone is watching your shit on a proper tv, do it right, don’t use IBIS. There is a reason it is not a feature on any real video camera and making camera buying decisions based on video IBIS sticks you with garbage like panasonic. Almost as if no one else cares… no one who knows what they’re doing. If you are going to use IBIS for a serious video you might as well use your phone. It has always been a stills feature because carrying lots of kit just to take a picture has always been despised but rigging is MANDATORY for any video worthy of an ILC.
>>4395945truevideo specs are the new giving a fuck about megapixels when no one has access to a display that can show more than 2mp. meaning consumers wont stop being idiots. we have 8mp and 32mp screens now and its cheap to get larger printers, yes. future proofing for this would have been financially retarded. you can now get 24-50mp cameras for way under $1k instead of $3k. >>4395942the first a7c or any nikon, all total crap for video and unencumbered by video compromises
Are these cabintets necessary if I live in normal weather (ie not the tropics)
>>4396413I live in the tropics and so far I've had no mold or fungus issues in 6 months of having lenses out in a draw (even drying clothes in the same room)I do have a big room dehumidifier on 50% 24/7 though
>>4384734you have not tried R8 autofocus have you?
>>4396419R8 has great AF, but AF has still been good enough for most people for a decade
>>4383507Which long lens for Sony A7 IV?70-200100-400200-600
>>4396453For your dickpicks?Try a 600mm macro lens with a 2x speedboster on an mft body.
>>4396453For what purpose? Seriously, are you stupid? How are we supposed to know if you don't tell us anything.
>>4396413If you're concerned about it get a ziplock bag and desiccant
>>4396430Nah, most cameras AF is dogshit, theres a reason most people switched to focus free phones. Its like saying non IBIS DSLRs were good enough got most people… most people thought they were only good for flash and tripod work. >>4396453The 100-400 for a photographer having fun, the 70-200 for a wedding snapshitter, the 200-600 for a noskill attempting wildlife photography from his car who should probably just switch to micro four thirds before he goes broke
>>4396453Shit, forgot to add - sports photography.
>>4396454kys>>4396455see >>4396459
>>4396459It depends on the sport. NFL fags have been spotted using 800mm primes.
>>4396470Motorsports, most of the time.
>>4396457>most cameras AF is dogshitNah, the standard just went from>use center point for all stills>okay now you can track a bit and use zones>wooh subject detection + eye AF>point camera and what you want is magically in focus 100% of the timeAF wasn't dogshit, it just wasn't as brainless as cameras are today. I'm sorry to hear that you are incapable of using a camera's AF system and can only use something that requires 0 thought or experience. Should be self evident from the facto people still use older camera and still get great results.Can you share examples of shots you take where models prior to an R8 would not have cut it?>>4396453If you have to ask, none. Those are all very different, for different purposes.
>>4396482>laughs in af fine adjust and focus shiftAlso, thought and experience re: technology operation detract from photography. While you fucking geeks were toggling af modes and playing with a joystick and frantically focusing and recomposing, any photographer who actually knew what they were doing decided that autofocus was insufficient and stuck to manually zone focusing their lenses. While you fucking geeks were playing with white balance and histograms and measuring raw files, anyone who knew their shit just ignored digital because film has nearly infinite exposure latitude and f11 1/250 on any good day will result in a usable image. Digital photography is a PC and you are a nerd rambling about registry tweaks and overclocksFilm in a leica is a mac. It just works, for people who work with computers, not for people who work on computers. Creative people abhor operating switches and levers. You will not find many artists driving tractors, but you will find some guy with a DSLR!
>>4396484TRVTH NVKE>the virgin uhm you need to -0.43 af adjust and use the apodized dual cross points that align with the rule of thirds if your field curvatures astigmatism is an mtf shart. skill issue. i had no problems learning to use my canonikon military grade blobs 28 different buttons and i take amazing photos of birds flying. git gud. >the chad just press the button when you see a good picture
>>4396484>af fine adjust and focus shiftNever having to AF fine tune has been one of the greatest joys of mirrorless.>any photographer who actually knew what they were doing Anyone who knows what they are doing isn't bumbling around frantically changing AF settings. This is exactly what I mean, people are no longer expected to "learn" their camera, just point & shoot.>Digital photography is a PC and you are a nerd rambling about registry tweaks and overclocks... Creative people abhor operating switches and leversYou haven't met many film shooters if you don't think they are just as bad with thatAll you're really saying is "digital photography is too complicated for me", which is fine, but just admit that instead of trying to make into something else
>>4396492>geek tries to act tough because he wastes his time messing with a computerAll autistic "people" are the same. Anyone who doesnt want to waste time playing with their toys must be unable to, or so the autists ego demands.Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da VinciAll camera settings are an obstacle to creativity. Just press the button when you see a nice picture. All wheel turnings and dial clickings are soulless for needs that lack abstract thought.
>>4396497>geek tries to act tough because he wastes his time messing with a computerThat's the case for literally everyone here, including yourself, right now. You just want to say wacky shit with no pushback from anyone.>Simplicity is the ultimate sophisticationI agree! So I use cameras that can get me the shots that I want in the most efficient manner.What kinds of cameras do you use, and can we see some shots from them? I have to imagine, if you've ascended beyond camera settings, your images must be fantastic. I'll post 2:1 for each you share if that works.
For birding on Oly: 100-400 or 300/4 or 150-600? I want 600-800mm equiv reach. The 150-600 overshoots that by a lot and is heavy but has dual IS, and is sharper than the 100-400. The 300/4 seems like a good deal and is sharp enough that I can use my 1.4x TC... I don't think I'll mind losing zoom ability but it does come in handy now and then on my current setup (40‐150 almost always with 1.4x TC).
What's the next lens up from an 18-55 mm I should upgrade too
>>4396536Nothing. If you have to ask, you don't need to upgrade.
>>4396536Figure out the types of pictures you want to take, and see what types of lenses are used for those.You could get one wider for landscape and interior shots. You could get one more tele for far away stuff and animals. You could get one faster, for lowlight shooting or more blur for portraits. You could get a better version of the same range you have now for better optical quality.What types of pictures do you want to take, that you feel you can't get with the 18-55 currently? If you can answer that, next upgrade choice is easy.
>>4395904>gimbalvideo is for plebs
>>4396532The cheaper smaller panasonic 100-400 otherwise you might as well bail for a canon and their 200-800. >>4396536Just buy a 35mm f1.8 and never look at the internet again
>>4396806I like my Oly gear and want a sealed kit, otherwise I would go for the 100-400 Panny. The Oly 100-400 is pretty cheap used though so maybe I will go with that, but it doesn't seem that sharp and having sync IS would be nice. Anyway it's on the light side even if the Panny is lighter. I don't want to swap systems either.
>>4396809you can replace the o ring disruptions with a rubber band around the flange.
>>4396542A little bit of everything; landscapes,mountains, buildings, nature wildlife, night stuff
>>4396936due to the constraints of some physics shit only one lens could feasibly do all of these (and still with some mad skills for wildlife) - the big ass tamron 34-150 f2-2.8 on a full frame camera. otherwise welcome to lens collecting, do some research, do some thinking, ignore anyone who talks about equ*valence, pick your favorite, compromise wherever you dont care, and rent whatever you think seems suitable before committing to it
>>4396936Get one 24-120mm f4 and any tele you can afford for wildlife.
>>439693628-70 f2
>>4396936Kong Tzi Snoy say:Tell a man to buy, disappoint him in a weekTeach a man to buy, he disappoint himselfYou google lenses for thing on your camera brand and you read reviews, compare MTF charts, and look at sample images yes, this ancient chinese wisdom
>>4383507>this old gear?>It's a Canon 5D mark II.sovl>Sony A7IV any good?sovlless
>>4397028>Wildlife>At 70mmLmao
>>4397429it's called getting close
>>4397430It's called building traps and cages, then
I'm not into photography, I simply want a hobby that will give me a reason to go outside, touch grass and visit new places more often. Photography fits the bill.If I'll do this, I want my results to look good.Is there any practical reason to buy an actual camera, or iPhone can do 99% of everything a serious camera can?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300Vertical Resolution300
>>4397583Phones are really limiting, people are just used to the limitations. Virtually none of my favorite photos could be taken on a phone for some reason or another.
>>4397583No Phones take really unnatural looking photos which is why ken rockwell likes themAlso, no real shutter speed or aperture control. If they were good enough serious cameras wouldn’t exist.
>>4397583If you just want to document the places you go and things you see and maybe get a few half decent photos then sure a phone can do that. If you've got a good eye then even with crappy equipment you can get some good results. However if you want a greater quantity of decent photos and you want some variance, and if you want to get serious about it and learn the aspects and theory of photography, then an actual camera will help.
>>4397583If you don't mind always-on HDR photos and are ok with the focal lengths you get I don't see why not. The lenses have gotten better in the last generation or two. I think some of the third party photo apps are getting around the HDR thing as well too.That being said I think even a cheapo aps-c dlsr from 10 years ago btfo's any smartphone. Same with mft cameras. But depends on how you/others will view your photos. If it's just social media iPhone will definitely accomplish everything you want. If you want to make larger prints maybe look at getting an actual camera.
lumix 24-105 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 in front of s5iix for handheld video (in low light also)? 24-105 has lens stabilization, 24-70 doesn't but has larger aperture. Been pulling my hair out over this one, can't find direct comparisons.
>>439896724-70 for surestabilization isn't a substitute for more light, and you already have solid IBIS
>>4397583iPhone edits the photo for you almost immediately and has the power of a literal computer in something in your pocket so it has better autofocusBut it lacks the physical glass and sensor that even a $200 DSLR has. Pick up a Canon 5D Mark III, Sony a5100/a6000, or Nikon D800 for $3-400 and shoot it in raw, it'll give you more detailed pictures than any phone. And if you get a telelens you can get close up detailed shots from a distance your phone wishes it could.
>>4398967Stabilization and range is worth more than one stop of aperture light, imo
>>4389214please lil nigga don't ever trust these 3 year old Chinesium entities probably pulled their materials out of an industrial waterway these nonsense fake English names are a nice hint
Yo, I've got an R8 as a proper ILC for planned stuff but want a compact as an alternative for just chucking in the car. I need recs on a non retarded buy, preferably used as this isn't supposed to be a big purchase. My phone is modern with a 1/1.54" sensor and is passable, but I'm wondering if an actual compact camera could btfo it.Needs:>Bigger than a 1/2.3" sensor, as at that point I'm just going to use the phone>Optical zoom is desirable but I don't need some retarded 20x nonsense>Priority on form-factor over optical performanceWas looking at a1st gen RX100, but I want anon to do what they do best and convince me I'm a retard and offer superior suggestions from their superior minds.
>>4399036who gives a fuck its a tripod either it holds your camera up or it doesnt >>4399043honestly get a better phone with the money you'd spend on a camera otherwise a cheap snoy a6000 off facebook market
Anyone able to recc from filter pouches? I have a pretty chunk ND filter and I don't want it just rolling around in my bag.
L-mount offers little variety and rapes the wallet.... jesus fuck
>>4399417We warned you. You were warned about non-sony/fuji/olympus mirrorless. Why did you listen to blobbers?
>>4399455>look for 105/2.8 macro for L mount>decide killing myself would be less painful than buying that overpriced shiteven worse when comparing 2ndhand prices. buy lumix for video they said. it will be great they said. it's cheaper and has more features than onions&cannon&nippon they said.
>>4399461Yeaaaah bro panasonic has DCI 4K so you dont have to crop for your videos to be more CINE. Lol should have got an a7iv like literally everyone elseNumber one for a reason. Wins where it matters. Not where it doesn’t.
I asked in the Pentax Thread butIs this worth it if I wanted to try shooting film? Its a Pentax SF1. I already have a few k mount lenses (18-55 and 55-300mm SMC DA-L, Promaster/Tamron 80-210 f4.5-5.6, Quantaray/Sigma 28-90 f3.5-5.6) and the Tamron 18-200mm A14 f3.5-5.6 on it is worth like $40 and I can use it on my KF DSLR. Total is $70 for everything in the pic. If not what SLR 35mm film bodies (preferring Pentax for lenses) should I look for?
>>4399464Fuck it I don't care about that anymore. I'll just keep a 28-105 f2.8 in front of it permanently and once in a blue moon when I want to do macro I'll screw on some extension tubes and 50mm f1.8 and call it a day.
>>4399461>L mountWhy the fuck is there no 300mm F4 for L mount?? Or any serious teles at all for that matter. None. 0. Platform looks promising but some of us shoot nature & sports!! Guess we have to stay with big boy brands and not this amateur hour bullshit
>>4399461>>4399499>>4399483More lenses announced later this month. Fuckin everyone and their brother nabbed the $2k s5ii+50mm+kit bundle so they have a base to sell to.
>>4399455>>4399455What snoy FF lenses are actually good and cheaper than lumix s?
L Mount bros, what do you think about the Panny 20-60 vs Sigma 24-70 II vs Sigma 28-70? I snagged a cheap open box S5 body after a nigger stole my old S5 + 20-60, now thinking of what glass to get. Is the price and weight increase worth it over the 20-60 iq and sharpness wise? I mostly do landscape in daylight while travelling, so I feel like the extra speed of the Sigmas would be wasted on me.
Can someone recommend me the best value full frame Nikon F mount DSLR to get? Budget is 300, but I can stretch it if needed. The camera is for a course I am taking and I am a beginner, so there are no specific features I need as of now. Just looking for the best bang for my buck with the body.
>>4399743>Sigma 28-70shitty old AF system, cheaper>Sigma 24-70 IIalmost 2x the price of 28-70, new AF system, aperture ring, goes wider>Panny 20-60variable aperture zoom, ewww. costs $200 as a kit lens. 20mm is great if you need itglass good on all of them.
