>>4390019
Mirroless means that there is no pentaprism, ergo its smaller.

You sound like the kind of person that unironically would benefit of something like a OM-5. Cheap, small overall and good quality with normal photos and even more with the High Res mode that you can take handheld.

Be aware that there are going to be retards coming to this thread to suggest you to carry some ancient fucking pile of shit or some really expensive meme cameras (sony)

>>4390021
I'm not particular to brand, if I can find excellent quality with a less familiar name that would be fine. I would like to have a modern camera that can use usb-c and ideally an oled screen but that's not strictly necessary. It's more about having a lens with decent zoom that packs up somewhat compactly as well. Maybe you just get used to holding a heavier camera.
>OM-5
geez that's huge
I guess I should mention I don't really want a separate body and lens, I'm not gonna bother switching out lenses, I just want one lens that zooms in and out.
I'd like to get a bit more serious about my photography.

File: landscape.jpg (1.89 MB, 1800x995)

1.89 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	48 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Exposure Time	1/124 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	50
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Brightness	5.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	6.76 mm
Image Width	1800
Image Height	995
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto

>>4390023
>I guess I should mention I don't really want a separate body and lens, I'm not gonna bother switching out lenses, I just want one lens that zooms in and out.
>I'd like to get a bit more serious about my photography.
A detachable lens camera system is pretty much the default for "getting more serious." If you're envisioning something like your old Coolpix but with better IQ than your phone then you're probably going to be disappointed in your options. You could also always get into film but that's probably not where you're looking to be either.

>>4390019
hello /out/ friend i was in that thread recommended the sx79 and 740 welcome to /p/

>>4390026
70*

>>4390026
hello hi
>>4390025
but like there's no way im going to switch out lenses on a cliff with winter gloves on
its gotta be better than craphone even like the compact point and shoots i bet
>You could also always get into film
lol

>>4390023
Honestly man, if you think than an OM5 would be too big my only other suggestion would be a Panasonic LX100. Smaller than that and you are into 2006 point and shoot territory without a viewfinder and not exactly great image quality, but probably for your usecase it would be enough.

>>4390028
Well in terms of quality a digital p&s is pretty much going to be on par with your phone since the sensor size is basically the same. some digital p&s cameras even use the same cmos sensors that phones use so it's literally the same capture quality on that end. If I was looking for a compact camera to shoot landscapes and I needed it to fit in my pocket I'd unironically pick a film p&s over a digital one.

>>4390033
>since the sensor size is basically the same
what
the lens is way fucking bigger on the point and shoots ive been looking at
I guarantee you iphone is cheaping out on the sensor too, and there's no way a 2 mm camera can capture depth of field like a real zoom lens can

>>4390019
Geniunly, if you want something reeeeealy compact and better than your iPhone 15, just get an iPhone 16. Maybe use a pro-mode or an app.

Point n shoot category is pretty much dead. There were RX100. LX100 and Canon G, but the last models are like 5 years old. There are smallish cameras such as Ricoh GR, X100, RX1 and Leica Q3. All of them gonna be way better than a phone. But no zoom though.

Something like sx70 is a really strange category. Picture quility gonna be actually worse than the main flagship phone camera. You'll get a lot more reach in terms of zoom and that's it.

>>4390038
>Picture quility gonna be actually worse than the main flagship phone camera.
that can't be true at all
the lens is physically much larger
iphone can't capture detail

>>4390039
it's depends on the sensor.
t. /out/ anon that recommended it.

from what i researched when i considered getting it it takes decent quality images but like this anon >>4390038
says and like what i said in the out thread p&s is on the way out

>>4390039
a physically bigger lens doesn't necessarily mean improved IQ. a zoom lens will always be bigger than an equivalent fl prime lens because of the need for the internals to make the zoom happen.

>>4390043
not 100% sure what that all means
anyways
so it looks like there's something called 1 inch sensors and you need a pretty bulky camera to have that and I guess the canon sx70 does NOT have a 1 inch sensor, but a smaller one?

>>4390039
>the lens is physically much larger
Lens design is a really complecated topic. In simple terms sx70 lens is big because there is a lot of zoom and because it's deigned to resembel a DSLR. Behind the lens is the same tiny smartphone sensor.

>iphone can't capture detail
Well you can try too look at examples at flickr. Phone cameras nowdays use a lot of trickery like combining several shots into one to capture more dynamic range and have more details. A camera can't do it. But it's if we're talking about the main camera. Ultra-wide and a telephoto are usually pretty bad on phones still.

If you still want a point n shoot I would suggest dropping the idea of 65X zoom in sx70. Look into something like Sony ZV-1 or RX100 VII. It's still pretty dated cameras, but at least it has bigger than a phone sensor.

Something contemoporary now is Ricoh GR III and Fuji X100Vi but there is no zoom on both of them.

>>4390039
The lenses on these PNS cameras COULD capture more detail, but they’re collapsing zooms made of plastic. They don’t.

The ricoh gr and sony rx1 are some cameras with better lenses
The fuji x100 series have relatively bad optics
The sony rx100 zooms vary with focal length but are pretty mid and closer to a phone at times

What you avoid is AI NR and detail inpainting, and most impactful, a lack of fake HDR.

>>4390046
Phone HDR is horrendously fake and looks like shit. The detail from a 48mp iphone resembles a 24mp real camera with an oil painting filter applied and a significant amount of AI inpainting. It just looks bad.

>>4390019
Im gonna be real

The IQ on a say, ricoh GRiiiX is a few hairs better than a phone and the photos will look a lot more natural and less processed. The longer FOV of the X version helps differentiate it too, its not a selfie machine.
But its not in wow-ok-this-rules territory until you get a larger interchangeable lens camera like a sony a7c series body and more than one lens. A sharper faster 35mm-50mm prime and a good zoom (28-60, 20-70, 14-24/24-50, etc) or portrait lens (90mm, 85mm, 75mm…) for example. The tonality and detail resolution comes closer to film due to the better sensor but its the variety of optics that adds most of the value.

It’s equally uncomfortable to carry either since none of these things truly fit in a pants pocket. They can all weigh down one side of your coat. Maybe a GR can fit in some fatter guys pants but only without a case so pocket lint eventually gets into the camera body.

>>4390055
The sony a6### are solid desu

i see basically nothing but sony a6s irl kek

>>4390046
the SX70 appears to have a 1/2.3" CMOS sensor which is roughly the same size as the 1/2.6" and 1/3" CMOS samsung and apple use on their phones.

as for zoom vs prime: prime lenses are fixed length and field of view, and so are more compact and generally higher image quality than a zoom lens which can alter its field of view. a zoom lens has to have more stuff in it to be able to correctly focus the image at all its different lengths, introducing potential distortions/vignetting.

the sad truth is that phones killed the pocketable digital. if you want improved quality over a phone but small size you're basically choosing between m43 systems, outdated digishits that are only "better" because of the points >>4390052 makes about AI/fake HDR, or you're going to have to bite the bullet for film and get a glorified disposable p&s which will at least have more potential quality due to the medium

>>4390057
>m43
Same price and size as apsc but twice as noisy with worse everything except panasonics autistic video codecs
Why even mention it outside of /vid/
>inb4 muh zoom thats twice as slow is 2 inches shorter

>>4390058
sure apsc is fine too, i'm just telling anon that if he's looking for an increase in sensor size and image quality over his phone that similarly small sensors like a 1/2.3" aren't the ticket, and he'll need to jump up to the next bracket which is m43/apsc/whatever other decent crop format sensors they're making nowadays

>>4390057
best answer whole thread honestly
OP is gonna have to make a compromise

>>4390059
The problem is m43 development in the compact space stalled extremely hard in 2013 and the compact lenses for m43 largely eschew its potential benefits, while the really good ones are the same size as FF sony

Like an a6500, xt4, xt40 or 50, are huge steps up from the sorry state of compact m43 while large m43 is gimmicky zombie shit (OM system) and video centric (lumix)

>>4390062
>olympus incompetence
>panasonic switched to ff so hard they started putting 4/3 sensors in FF bodies
RIP micro four thirds we barely knew ye - same quality as apsc canon (lol 1.6x crop and shite sensors) and no one cared because olympus and panasonic couldnt hack it

>>4390068
Dude this is a dead market segment, if you dont at least get an a6500-a6700 or little fujifilm with IBIS (xt50, xs20) you’re way too close to your phone

Photography is reverting to the 50s when most cameras were serious business, and it was so unusual to take a lot of “good cameea” pictures that people like garry winogrand would seem impressive and skilled. The PNS is now used for photos that are texted and immediately forgotten.

>>4390068
Ricoh GR is the smallest camera you can get away with and its a bit shit desu

Swapping lenses is a useful feature for cleaning the sensor and exchanging broken parts if nothing else. Also if you up the budget you can get weather sealing, albeit with larger lenses

>>4390074
>>4390061(me)
>>4390026(me)

you're gonna have to settle for something unless you wanna get a phone specifically for photography.
I think earlier this year there was a thread for phone photography. i dont remember but some anons do have an extra phone for photography specifically

>>4390074
I swap lenses before leaving or in the car/tent. Carrying lenses is for snobs, retards, and weddingfags.

You WILL regret settling for a fixed lens. It sounds simpler but it isn’t. Nothing could be more complex. Its the apple approach remember that - built in everything.
>50 step camera surgery to remove dust
>lens break from a drop? New camera.
>vs
>press button and twist

>>4390077
arent most landscape shots like 35-50mm anyway?

>>4390078
It would work. Why would you want the most commonly broken and dirtied part to be integrated? A lot of people have a small ILC and just one lens.

>>4390074
>I don't think you fully get my use case of being deep in shitty terrain in the wilderness. Swapping lenses in the wild is a non-starter.
Dude, abbility to change lenses doesn't mean you need to do it. Hell a lot of people only own one lens and that's okay.

>>4390079
No, the dirt gets inside the camera and you get black fuzzy spots all over photos until you take it apart

If you have an ILC you press button, twist, and blow. Maybe a swab if its really stuck. The ones with IBIS have auto dust off besides your phone also having that feature (you never noticed it as your phone blasted away with slow exposures like 1/15, but if you buy a non stabilized camera you will miss it)

>>4390081
>>4390077
this anon has an extremely good point
if you could get a small camera with deatchable lense you'd have an excellent set up especially if you're going mostly landscape stuff

>>4390086
Tiny cracks. Dust is small. It happens.

If I were you i’d save up $1200-1300 and get an a7c+28-60 for the weather sealing

>>4390086
>huh the whole point is i want to have different zoom lengths at the ready and get more zoom than an iphone

has anyone spoken about zoom lenses yet or no?
They're notoriously big though which goes against what you're looking for

>>4390086
>huh the whole point is i want to have different zoom lengths at the ready and get more zoom than an iphone
You don't need to change lenses to change zoom. There are zoom lenses. The most cameras have a kit that include the camera itself and a zoom lens.

>>4390095
>someone reported him and got v&

this is just stupid

>>4390090
>>4390091
anon I know we live in an impressive era of technology and you're not a photographer but a 10x zoom that doesn't look like shit is a big ask for something that would fit in your pocket attached to a camera body that provides more detail than a phone.

>>4390096
a p&s you're potentially opening up to take out the battery to charge and pull the sd card out, and the lens itself has more moving parts and potential areas of entry if its telescoping in and out using an optical zoom, compared with your phone camera that barely moves and is usually sealed internally to the body. even if the dust doesn't get on the sensor in a p&s it can easily start to effect the lens mechanisms or other mechanical parts. and as others have said if you happen to bonk your lens into a tree or drop the camera into some mud you may still have a perfectly functional sensor/electronics backend but still need to get a new camera because the lens is broken.

>>4390098
actual decent thread with excellent analytical posts and good gear discussion and it gets destroyed because someones feels got hurt

>>4390098
You can’t spell janny without tranny

>>4390095
Yeah but you can't change how far its zoomed in its just one focal length no?
Like there's no sort of optical zoom possible if there's changeable lenses.
Again, I just don't want that it's tedious. The whole point is to just have one unit, its already a hassle to carry.
Sorry, I don't really understand all of this.

>>4390107
no, optical zoom is definitely possible with interchangeable lens systems. I have a 28-210mm zoom lens which at max extension is just over a 3x zoom factor I think. a zoom lens in photography means any lens that has a changeable focal length, as compared with a prime or single focal length lens.

>>4390107
Lmao what? No, a zoom is a zoom. Its just that focal length is focal length, so a zoom for a small sensor can cover more length with less size. But also lower quality and less aperture.
Small zooms for large sensors like the sony 28-60 and nikon 24-50 are short ranging but still useful.

>>4390117
so you like manually rotate the lens to get different zoom? This just seems like WAY too much work innawoods. Sorry if my questions are dumb. I haven't used a digital camera in a long time.

File: photo_2024-12-05_23-19-53.jpg (114 KB, 1280x735)

114 KB JPG

>>4390107
>Yeah but you can't change how far its zoomed in its just one focal length no?
>Like there's no sort of optical zoom possible if there's changeable lenses.
No, that's not true. If you get a camera with a zoom lens you can zoom just like with point n shoot.
Here is comparation of a few bodies with around 10 times zoom lenses and a canon sx70. 10X is considered pretty big range, so the lenses aren't that tiny.

Pretty good choice is an APC-S size sensor. You'll get way better dynamic range than a phone and point n shoots.

Some deccent choices are:
Sony a6400 with a 18-135 lens. You will be able to upgrade this setup later. Like buy a new improved camera and marry it with the lens you have.

Canon M50 II with a 18-150. It's gonna be the most budget option since the whole system is discontinued.

And also I trow in Sony A7C with 28-200. It's gonna be the best in a dynamic range but bigger.

>>4390120
Does the body control the zooming in and out?
What if I want wide angle shots AND zoomed in tho without changing lenses?

>>4390121
>Does the body control the zooming in and out?
Your body control the zooming via twisting the lens barrel by hand.

>>4390119
>so you like manually rotate the lens to get different zoom?
As opposed to what? Manually turning a knob? Are you arthritic?
>Sorry if my questions are dumb.
You should be.

>>4390122
There must be a way around this.
There must be a way to have a fixed lens without dust.
Also I assume that even then, a zoom lens is a zoom lens and I can't get wide angle shots with it.

>>4390119
>>4390121
if manually rotating the lens to get the composition you want is too much work for you to take a picture then perhaps sticking with your phone is the best option anon. I'm sure that sounds rude but you're basically asking "why doesn't the camera do all of the work for me, and why don't the laws of optics allow for what I want?" if you want to take more than a phone quality picture you have to put in a bit more work, and that means at a bare minimum raising a camera to your eyeball and maybe adjusting the focal length of your lens with your hand. you might even want to wait on taking the picture and use your brain to think about what you're trying to capture and what you want the end result to look like before you push the button.

but yes, if you have something like a 28-70 or an even bigger 28-200 or something you can get a nice wide angle shot and then immediately zoom to focus on a particular subject.

>>4390123
>As opposed to what? Manually turning a knob? Are you arthritic?
like a dial on the top of the camera you twist to zoom in and out and then it motorized-controls the in and out of the zoom

>>4390126
Oh, yeah, Nikon just released a 28-135mm f/4 PZ which does that. You should get that and Nikon Z7 and you'll be golden.

>>4390124
There is no way. Light has to obey the laws of physics. Humanity had been building optics to try and look at fucking space for centuries and we have learned that cameras are not magic in the process.

Like if you want a smaller lens on a large sensor you need a larger lens mount which makes the camera larger as well

>>4390124
zoom just means variable. a telephoto lens is a lens designed for distance shooting. so you could have a telephoto zoom that goes from 100-300 and that wouldn't have a wide angle ability. but most cameras come with lenses that are 28-50 or 28-70, the bounds of which are basically a bit wider than a human field of view to about the same or a bit narrower

>>4390127
Lol nikons autofocus is terrible. It actually confirms focus on out of focus photos.
>inb4 skill issue i only need manual focus for rocks and leaves
Sad.

Sony has PZ lenses too but power zoom is a premium feature on large cameras. Its meant for cinematography really. Forget this autism and just get a kit zoom on apsc.

>>4390130
sssh

>>4390131
Nikon is only just now adding good autofocus to the z50ii. Kind of an expensive brand.

If i were this autist i would buy an a6500 to a6700 and a sony e PZ 16-55.

>>4390132
Or the newer 16-50 oss ii but there goes the homo’s lawn mowing money

>>4390129
Ok but almost every landscape I shoot i want both wide angle and telephoto shots so that would require me to have 2 separate lenses and change them out.

>>4390125
I have fine motor skills issues and my hands tire quickly.

>>4390132
Just let him buy something as retarded as he is and shortly dump it on ebay for peanuts. It's bound to happen anyway.

>>4390135
Sony apsc and 16-5X PZ OSS lens k bye

>>4390124
>Also I assume that even then, a zoom lens is a zoom lens and I can't get wide angle shots with it.
Travel zooms like 18-135 get wide to around main phone camera and zoom way past phone telephoto lens.

>>4390139
Yeah but I really value the .5x on my phone for shooting wide canyons and panoramas too

>>4390135
there are plenty of zoom lenses that go from wide to telephoto which should be enough zoom to get highlight some more distant objects but is also plenty wide. as far as motor control, I'm sorry that's your situation; generally the rotation of the lens is pretty easy and some brands indeed have motors not just for the autofocusing but also the focal length/zoom.

>>4390140
Yeah, you can forgot about it with any camera be it a point n shoot, dslr or anything really

>>4390140
Doing panoramas to the standards of real camera image quality without distortion or misalignment is a bit involved and typically involves over 200mb of data, vs the lower real resolution and wobbly AI generated detail of phones

You’re basically asking for a mid engine TT V8 racecar that works like a prius with autopilot

>>4390144
I think they should sell wagons with NA-v6 and mild hybrid systems instead of sports cars just cuz the form factor is more practical.

>>4390145
I think you should leave sportscars alone and stay in your lane.

>has to be JUST one lens, cover 14mm to 500mm, have power zoom, fit in my pocket, and blow the newest $1500 phone away, for $800
consumers are fucking retards why not ask for a nuclear reactor while you’re at it

>>4390147
i think OP is just coming to terms with having to make a serious compromise

>>4390140
Look into Sony ZV-1 Mark II it covers everything your phone does in a zoom range.

>>4390148
like phone photos arent bad for a reason kek, and the camera is doubtlessly the most expensive component now

>>4390149
It says that comes with a wide angle lens and I'd have to buy a separate telephoto lens, I don't see how that's any different.

>>4390152
Welcome to cameras. There is a reason phones are using AI to draw in the missing image quality.

What you want can not be very compact because light is physical. It needs a large physical hole to pass through and if its too small it blurs everything instead.

>>4390147
a PC sync port too

>>4390152
Dear fucking lord just buy the sony a6-something and sony e pz 16-5something OSS lens
24-70 equiv is more than enough for landscapes and it will be very compact

If you want better it gets big, expensive, or both because of the laws of physics governing light and the fact that photography is just photon capture. Higher quality is achieved by capturing more photons more accurately.

>>4390152
every real camera, down to m43, can not pack an UWA and a telephoto into one good lens. iphones use multiple fixed lenses on a camera turret like an ancient video camera and they still suck at it.

what you want in full frame terms is a 14-135mm lens. the best you can do in a reasonably compact kit is a $3500 setup - sony a7cr and 14-24 with lots of cropping.

or instead of expecting your gear to do all the work, get a more standard zoom that covers 24-70 or 24-105 in full frame lengths. when you want to do panoramas, set the lens to a setting that doesnt distort any details, lock the camera on all manual settings, take a row of photos while turning your body in place, and stitch the set at home using microsoft ICE or photoshop or something.

>>4390164
too much jargon
i get the basic point that I would need two lenses to do what I do now with one phone camera, seems pretty annoying
I don't care that much specifically about panoramas, I mean more wide angle shots

>>4390172
You could always just buy a secojd phone without a dataplan specifically for photos

File: DSCF4445.jpg (1.54 MB, 4000x3000)

1.54 MB JPG

>>4390152
>>4390172
when i go out to take nature pics (or event pictures too for that matter), i take two camera bodies with different focal lengths and never bother with changing lenses nor zooming
there's some wiggle room to 'better quality' so you may hve to specify what you mean here. but most likely, the camera you are asking for doesn't exist and you're better off just figuring out how to shoot RAW with your phone, or sucking it up and taking a regular-size camera

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	GFX 50R
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.36
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:01:06 01:51:13
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	7.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4000
Image Height	3000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	OK
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Manual Exposure
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

>>4390175
>just bring two cameras
this is only getting worse

>>4390172
Your phone has 3 lenses on it, and a tiny sensor, and AI to cope, so it can do a lot but poorly.

You at least need 2 lenses for ultra wide and zoomed in. Realistically you will realize ultra wide looks gay and just use a 24-70mm equivalent like an apsc camera with a 16-50 and never touch the UWA again.

>>4390178
>and just use a 24-70mm equivalent like an apsc camera with a 16-50
why can't this shit be in inches I don't follow
I assume there's just some numbers meaning "zoomed in" and some meaning "wide shot"

File: DSC_1903.jpg (451 KB, 1200x800)

451 KB JPG

>>4390177
yes, cameras are a fun little sub-hobby within photography so i enjoy any chance to use them. anyways, read again. my advice was to stick to the phone.
or i guess you could see if you can borrow a camera just to try and see if the practical toll of hiking with a normal camera is as high as you imagine it to be
>>4390179
look up photography focal lenghts

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Sony
Camera Model	G8441
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:19 03:16:11
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.0
ISO Speed Rating	50
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4390179
smaller number = wider shot
bigger number = zoomed in

>>4390185
yeah that's what i figured but is there any rough way to translate the numbers to what I would expect with "1x" vs .5x vs 3x on my iphone?

>>4390188
if you check the exif data of these two pics (assuming you are OP) you can see that >>4390019 is 77mm equivalent and >>4390024 is 48mm equivalent. so however zoomed or unzoomed that is on your phone should give you some idea

>>4390190
I'm gonna guess 77mm is 3x and 48mm is 2x but maybe that's wrong. I guess that might be found on iphone specs page too. A lot to think about!

I guess the issue is I really like being able to have photos that capture most of a 180 degree view but also want to capture details of hills and rivers.

>>4390179
>why cant this shit be in inches
Why cant your country’s education system use real units

>>4390194
Apple calls 28mm 1x but in real photography it is more like an 0.5x
Apple calls 13mm 0.5x but in real photography that is a horrible and tasteless lens that takes photos for dentists offices

So after sensor size maffs a 16-50 on a sony a6### would be like a 0.8-2.5x.

You can take arbitrarily wide shots by stitching photos taken around 1x (50mm FF, 35mm APS-C) after using an editor to remove vignetting. You do not need a lens unless you also want more vertical FOV as well which is very hard to do with combined shots

>>4390195
*in apple terms

Sensor size maffs:
Full frame is the standard, 1x FOV multiplier
Medium format has an 0.79x multiplier
APS-C has a 1.5x multiplier

50mm lens on FF is 1x, but 2x apple lingo
On APS-C it’s the same as a full frame 75mm lens and is even more zoomed in
A 16mm on APS-C is the same as a 24mm on full frame and a little wider than “1x” on a phone

>>4390035
Phone cameras have sensors commonly 1/2.3" to 1/1.7" in size. P&S category cameras have practically the same sensor sizes except you'll also find 1" models. Nothing bigger than that.
What sets P&S cameras apart from phones is the ability to use optical zoom instead of digital zoom, the controls and egros, and the fact that a P&S isn't going to be doing any strange fucky automatic post-processing on every photo you take.
>>4390179
50mm equiv. to a Fullframe or 35mm film camera is "normal" 100mm would be 2x, 400mm would be 8x etc. We don't really say it like that and just go off of focal lengths.
>>4390126
That is what power-zoom is. Olympus had a kit lens like that which wasn't total ass, but you're probably more familiar with Bridge Cameras, which are a type of P&S hybrid that specialise is getting ultimate zoom for least monies. That's what the SX70 ITT. is.
>>4390121
Your phone is likely 28mm in "real" terms. Most standard zoom lenses are 24-100mm~ give or take so there's one lens and you get some decent telephoto ability as well.
>>4390119
You have described literally the easiest part of actually taking a photo. Zoom lenses involve twisting a thingy a little bit to frame your photo properly in an instant. Real cameras generally don't rely on digital zoom, which is all your phone can do. So if you don't twist the zoom lens, your only alternative is to walk closer or futher away just like if you only had your regular phone camera lens and no zoom function.

>>4390019
OP: You need to make a comprimise. Laws of physics mean that whatever you buy that isn't a phone is going to be somewhat big or weighty. I genuinely recommend the canon R50, or the M50 (which is a discontinued mount). The R50 weighs all of 350g without a lens, and the kit lens is only another 125g. You're at sub 500g and everything packs down nicely. The cost is also reasonably low so fucking it up isn't a wallet death sentence.

>>4390231
>muh canonikon blob
>the fps bro
>worth the blob
Please dont meme newbies into blobbing

>>4390019
>my iphone 15 pro
Curious if you used the telephoto lens in the OP?

>>4390235
Idgaf actually what brand he buys, but the weight and size of the R50 means it's not a completely garbage pick

Come on this thread is clearly b8

>>4390257
yes I did, and its great to have it, but nothing like what I imagine a real camera would be like

>>4390270
>use phone camera for years
>photos are decent but grainy
>YoU MUST BE MEMEING

>>4390270
it's not.
He's from /out/

>>4390263
Its blob lol, also
Lmao no IBIS
>inb4 well bro if u updoot to the aps-c dynamic range full frame DSLR sized eos r pro for $2000 you get 5 stop ibis and 3 stop OIS!
Get sony a6500/fuji xt5
no one sane has a cannot r6iiiii, niggon z1488, or snoy a1 in their future

>>4390304
>>4390304
what is a blob. 4chanizing your language makes you sounds like a fucking retard btw

>>4390304
>I just SNEED IBIS to take good photos. Yes I'm completely ignoring that the vast majority of RF lenses have very effective IS
>You can't buy that camera, it LOOKS like something I don't like
>Snoy snoy snoy!
Holy fuck, like clockwork the snoygoy just starts brandfagging on a dime. Do me a favor and go shit up one of the other 17 gear threads

>>4390317
>what is a blob
A camera shaped like a blob. Inconvenient to travel with and embarrassing to be seen with due to the awkward shape. Nigga is citing weights in grams but the camera is shaped like it jumped out of the ocean.

>>4390319
>bro the rf lense has 2.3 stop OIS
>if you only use the giant zooms
>i hate sony because i do (tl: because 5/6 press agencies left canon for sony)
Lmao blobbers. You cant even use non canon lenses without blobmaxxing with adapted DSLR gear.

Fuji xt50 has 7 stop IBIS. That means with any lens, even a third party one without OIS, if you have a 35mm (50mm FOV) you can take a hand held photo with a shutter speed of 2 seconds. Ideal for landscape photography because a tripod is not needed ever.

All canon has is "muh framerate" for people who cant press the button at the right time and the same image quality as a cheaper, smaller, less virgin looking olympus om-d em5iii (8 stop IBIS so 4 seconds handheld with a normal lens)

>>4390323
>embarrassing to be seen with due to the awkward shape.
kek, take your meds

>>4390323
Lmao you guys are so cute sometimes. if you knew how embarrasing your existence was, you'd probably put a gun in your mouth.

what am I fucking 12 trying to gain cool points by the aesthetics of the camera in public?? THAT's embarrassing. OP is asking for something utilitarian and this motherfucker is over here talking about the shape of the camera being cringe.

I can't imagine being so insecure and autistic that you think about shit like the SHAPE of the camera you're using to take cool pics

>>4390328
Yeah the fuji x100vi is not sold out because the canon r50 is such a great value /s

Yes canons are embarrassing to be seen with. They are ugly cameras strongly associated with voyeurs and pedophiles. Also the photos kind of suck. Sony and fuji are generally recognized as having inherently better colors than canon and nikon.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=EMfCDujQywY

>>4390323
it's okay anon, just admit you're a griplet and we can move on.
>>4390325
>makes up false specs to attack with
>strawmans to defend himself
I have no issue with snoys, I have issue with snoytards such as yourself blindly fagging on the moment Canon or Nikon get mentioned. If I rec'd an R50 it was because I know most about Canon.
I don't actually give a single fuck if OP buys an olympus, or a nikon, or a hasselblyat, but (You) care so much you simply must shit up the thread with:
>Blob blob blob btfo
>snoy snoy snoy you must buy a snoy!
Impartiality and non-biased input could save you from being a celebrity-grade faggot, but alas

>>4390331
>art is about aesthetics
>artists care about their personal aesthetics
:o

Do you also wear sweatpants, a trenchcoat, and a fedora while playing your nintendo switch on the bus because a real man doesnt care how he looks? And then you see a cute japanese girl and take a picture of her on your canon blobmera amirite

>>4390334
>cannot pos r fanboy continue raging at sony for stealing 5/6 of canons professional journalism contracts
>meanwhile im over here reccing fuji xt50s and olympus em5iiis
Lmao the state of blobbers. Mindbroken by snoy.

OP does landscape photography. The superior IBIS on fuji and olympus is what he needs not the NFL certified autofocus of a terminally uncool canon blobmera

>>4390335
>And then you see a cute japanese girl and take a picture of her on your canon blobmera amirite

i take her photo and then i scream built for bbc

>>4390337
big
blobby
canon

>>4390335
thanks for telling us about your personal nightmare anon but once you're out of your hormonal teen year you'll start to realize its just your own insecurities causing you to act like this

>>4390342
>im a secure adult so i dont care how i look
post fedora

>>4390343
can i include cock in it?

>>4390335
No i manage a factory in the midwest and do normal shit and have hobbies. i have enough self worth and understanding of art that my outfit while i'm producing art has nothing to do with the quality of art that is returned.

someday maybe you'll understand that too. but first you'll have to be a man and stop being preoccupied with how others perceive you

>>4390346
>midwestern cereal box production line foreman stereotypically has no fashion sense

>>4390347
>autistic 4chan user of undisclosed background and character gets uncomfortable about being seen in public with a camera he doesn't think is le aesthetic

bro you ain't surviving the apocalypse lmao

>>4390348
>surely the world will end and then i will finally be respected for my blobmera
Actually people will think you’re a poor bandit that stole it looting a best buy

>>4390336
>Unironically recommends mfturd
It appears we've been arguing with a sentient sea sponge, lads

>>4390349
if the apocalypse happens last thing im looting is a camera, trannygaynon-sama

File: IMG_0894.jpg (331 KB, 750x366)

331 KB JPG

>>4390351
Micro four thirds has the essentially the same image quality as canon aps-c with slightly fewer megapixels.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	366

>>4390348
Bro your blobmera isnt surviving the apocalypse. Brand new r5 mark twos cant handle nice weather in alaska and nothing without an L badge and $2k FF sensor is weather sealed with canon shit
Olympus on the other hand… same ass image quality as a cheap canon, yes, but the gear is unkillable.

>Thread about helping dude not to make a mistake of purchasing stupid PNS
>People arguing which more or less the same cameras are better

>>4390359
>>4390349
Here's the kicker you dumb faggots. I don't own a blob, I was asking what it is. I own a rangefinder but have no gripe about using a DSLR and just think it's hilarious that there's a community of people who are shallow enough to worry about how their being perceived with the type of camera they're using.

But let's be serious, and follow the logic. The premise that as an ~artist~ your ~personal aesthetric~ in the process of producing art is as important the result . . . Where in your scheme of what an artist is supposed to be is inner integrity? The humility one must lack to silently judge others for the shape or brand of camera they use is surely draining your social reach and ability to put yourself in situations where you can make truly captivating work. But yea, you can keep dwelling on the technical aspects of processing film and what your fucking gear looks like. I'm sure that will take you SO FAR as an ~artist~

>>4390363
Go back to the cucking thread on /gif/

File: blob.png (78 KB, 349x280)

78 KB PNG

>>4390362
Blob is aesthetically pleasing

>>4390362
Blobs are ugly spec sheet first plastic consumerist electronics with no soul and worst of all, their spec sheets only win in categories that dont fucking matter and they fall short everywhere else resulting in 40 micro four thirds per second SD card rape, on sale now just $4499

The entire premise of the name "canon" is "we have big white lenses on blobs and people hold these up to their eye for the entire course of a football game"

>>4390372
the supposed specs that dont matter actually do matter if you’re a non photographer intern being told to hold this camera and point it at the guy with 7 on his shirt or if you’re a redditor trying to get into weddings to "succeed" and dont know what the fuck you’re doing re: anything.

but if you actually have experience yeah they really dont, the whole spec sheet game quickly looks like irrelevant number soup again
>iq 80: wtf is this 40fps eshutter 12bit 422 10bit alli wut?
>iq 100: BRO THIS NEW CANON SHOOTS…
>iq 180: I shoot my stills on a pentax 645d and my video on a rigged out bmpcc 4k. i make $370k a year and work with vogue. oh the phase one? they gave me that for free and rolex paid me to take a picture of a watch. i never use it. all those numbers on the spec sheet basically dont matter.

>>4390374
>iq 200: every photo is a snapshot but mine

>>4390019
iphone pro max

>>4390374
>pentax 645d
Why not Z?

>>4390386
nta but
>glorious filmic ccd vs sterile digital cmos

>>4390354
yet, ya could downsample to mfturd image size and get a cleaner image

>>4390397
so the consensus seems to be fuji and olympus are better for outdoors, and if i buy a bridge camera it will get dusty, but I don't know if that's totally true, but the one olympus that was recommended here the reviews said the software was outdated (cuz its not the flagship product), and its still stuck on micro usb or something I think
honestly I've looked at so many different cameras in the past week they all blend together and its really technical too

>>4390280
Did you take OP in raw before exporting to jpg? I want to try iPhones again but if the quality is that terrible then I'll pass. Not your fault.

>>4390397
>25mp to 20mp
Not enough to matter

File: DSC_1232.jpg (468 KB, 2005x1336)

468 KB JPG

>>4390023
>I guess I should mention I don't really want a separate body and lens, I'm not gonna bother switching out lenses, I just want one lens that zooms in and out.
>I'd like to get a bit more serious about my photography.
If you aren't ready to take the plunge into an ILC, I think your best option is to stick to your phone and really focus on framing and subjects. Phones have all sorts of tricks to make the images look better like automatic exposure bracketing and noise reduction but an app like Open Camera can give you more creative control over what computational modes are used.
>>4390028
>but like there's no way im going to switch out lenses on a cliff with winter gloves on
Having a camera which swaps lenses is really more about future-proofing yourself. When I'm doing a strenuous backcountry hike, I only bring 1 lens, usually a 24-70 or a prime but if I'm doing an afternoon walk through the woods you can be sure I'm bringing a small telephoto and a macro setup as well.

I use a Lowepro TLZ chest bag to hold my camera while I'm hiking, it strikes a good balance of keeping it safe and secure with ease of access.

An olympus would probably serve your use case well. It has great stabilization, it's weather resistant and still fairly compact. You could probably get pretty far with the 12-24 or whatever their midrange zoom is, or even the 20mm prime. The 60mm macro is also a great lens that weighs next to nothing.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D850
Camera Software	Capture One 12.0.4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	70 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/1600 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	64
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	6.67 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Image Width	2005
Image Height	1336
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4390019
>>4390024
good luck anon. Don't skimp on cameras, but you also don't need to break the bank. Those are some great frames/photos but you can tell the camera is severely lacking. Good luck on your journey.

File: DSC_4652.jpg (1.98 MB, 2012x3024)

1.98 MB JPG

>>4390019
OM-5
or really any other camera made after 2013. there's literally 0 bad cameras and all the feature shit is just marketing jews trying to make you spend money on shit you not gonna need
just get anything and leave this fucking board as soon as possible

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6_2
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/3.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Image Width	2012
Image Height	3024
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4390172
You don't need a 2 lenses. You just need a zoom of at least 24mm-28mm to 70 or 75mm. This covers the normal 1x to optical zoom range of a phone but much better quality. If you don't need to zoom FAR out, get a zoom that covers a smaller focal length range like 18mm-35mm. This will be your ultrawide to normal range.

Anything less than 24mm is not for landscape, it's more for urban environments where you're in tight spaces. Distance objects will look tiny.

Having a viewfinder adds to the cost. For me it would be the LX100. It has a fixed zoom with a MFT sensor so it is a step up from many digital cameras. It is also very ergonomic and you should be able to handle it with gloves. Just be careful when buying because they are prone to sucking in dust in the lens.

File: Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-LX100.jpg (104 KB, 800x533)

104 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Zoran Rodic
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>4390628
Does a camera being mirrorless preclude having an optical viewfinder (not just a screen)?

>>4390644
yes, bc there is no pentaprism. they have EVH though.

>>4390646
EVF*

electronic view finder, which some prefer since what you see is what you get on it.

>>4390438
good god I don't know how I didn't notice that awful vignetting. It was pretty cold and I think I probably took this one with my mittens on, I wonder if I didn't have the lens hood lined up properly.

>>4390188
The "x" numbers as I understand are the focal length divided by the minimum focal length. So on a 24-70 lens at 70mm is 2.9x. But a 35-70 at that same 70mm is 2x, which is why this is a retarded metric that serious cameras don't use.
>>4390644
There are cameras that have optical viewfinders and no mirror like fuji x100, but the lack of mirror means the image through the viewfinder will be slightly offset from the actual image (which is usually no big deal but sometimes is).
>>4390126
Nobody likes power zoom. Maybe you might think you want power zoom if you have never used manual zoom, but once you have used manual where you just turn the knob to where you want you will never want to go back.

>>4390692
And you can't get the normal optical viewfinder that isn't offset without a big bulky DSLR?

>>4390335
Fallicy #1: Photography is not art. Even it COULD be art, (You) cannot make art, period.
A camera is a tool. It takes photos, and the end result is entire factors of magnitude more important than if your tool looks """"blob""""-like. Nobody gives a horse shit about if their can opener has racing stripes or looks like a hummingbird.

>>4390710
OVFs (optical viewfinder) must be centered with the lens because that's how they work. Well, I guess they dont have to be, but the extra mirrors and therefor weight & size are not practical.
EVFs are just electrical connections so theoretically they can be anywhere and still work with minimal weight and bits inside. Offset EVFs are a feature of some manufacturers but not others. Snoy comes to mind, but Canon/Nikon are mostly centered EVFs afaik.

Kind of like the idea of an offset EVF desu, but I'm sure people that actually use them have some problems, because if it was objectively superior everyone would be doing it.

>>4390713
The centered EVF is just "hump in the middle makes it look professional" cargo cult design. Not having to jam your nose into the LCD is objectively superior. Though I guess if you're left eye dominant you just get screwed either way.

So I was out taking photos of waterfalls the other day and I thought of how it would be different with a real camera.
Do you use your camera even with gloves on?
Do you use your camera in steep, wet environments where sometimes you need 4 points of contact in the ground?
I also noticed I often do wide angle AND zoomed in shots from the same point, and that would involve changing lenses with a real camera, though admittedly for most non-panorama/vista/gorge shots the .5x on my phone is a bit too wide and distorted from the fish eye.

Does anyone here actually take photos out on trails in winters and can tell me what thats like lugging a real camera? At least the phone is light and easy to pop out but admittedly I can't really use the phone with gloves on cuz i can't adjust the zoom with gloves.

>>4390712
Blobber cope

And yet the vast majority of influential photography was and still is done on actual good cameras and blobbing tends to be soulless crap like tim flach
Sure at some point some people HAD to blob, due to the tyranny of one country abusing unpaid overtime to take over the camera market
But even those greedy elves eventually stopped blobbing (well, sony and fuji did)

>>4390712
the rise of blobbing killed the camera market and drove people who arent thinkpad user tier autists to point and shoots and later phones

you wear a camera. it is not just a screwdriver that sits in a box until your outlet cover gets loose. and yet you will not use a pink dildo handled screwdriver… curious.
>durrr photography isnt art
durrr drawing isnt art pencil to paper is for note taking nothing more its just a doodle fuck u durrrr. urs truly, bucke t. crab.

>>4391829
Its quite sad. Mirrorless revived the hobby because without it, no one wanted to wear a hideous DSLR necklace. Before mirrorless cameras hobby photography meant film.

>>4391822
>Do you use your camera even with gloves on?
yes

>Do you use your camera in steep, wet environments where sometimes you need 4 points of contact in the ground?
yes, most cameras are weather resistant/sealed. Sounds like you're doing tripod work

>I also noticed I often do wide angle AND zoomed in shots from the same point, and that would involve changing lenses with a real camera, though admittedly for most non-panorama/vista/gorge shots the .5x on my phone is a bit too wide and distorted from the fish eye.
No, you can either get a zoom with a 24mm or 28mm on the wide end to do this so you don't change lenses. You can also pano stitch pictures together.

>Does anyone here actually take photos out on trails in winters and can tell me what thats like lugging a real camera? At least the phone is light and easy to pop out but admittedly I can't really use the phone with gloves on cuz i can't adjust the zoom with gloves.
Mirrorless cameras are light and fit into a bag easy. Even easier zooming with gloves on because you just turn the zoom lens to zoom.

Checked

File: Long-Exposure-Waterfall-P(...).jpg (102 KB, 1440x1084)

102 KB JPG

Also you can do stuff like long exposure with waterfalls

File: angles (1).jpg (379 KB, 1800x814)

379 KB JPG

>>4391822
>Do you use your camera even with gloves on?
Yeah, constantly in the winter months. Slim gloves are better for it.
>Do you use your camera in steep, wet environments where sometimes you need 4 points of contact in the ground?
Why not? It's entirely depends how you carry your camera.
>I also noticed I often do wide angle AND zoomed in shots from the same point, and that would involve changing lenses with a real camera, though admittedly for most non-panorama/vista/gorge shots the .5x on my phone is a bit too wide and distorted from the fish eye.
Basically you'll have a choice of carrying the ultrawide to wide (~15-28mm) or wide to telephoto (~24-200mm at most).
You'll learn that's it's fine that you can't make every possible composition at one spot.

>>4391847
>You'll learn that's it's fine that you can't make every possible composition at one spot.
but i can with a phone...
just seems like a huge hassle to have to worry about keeping the sensor clean and keeping the outside of 2 lenses clean

also, i think long exposure waterfall pictures look tacky
you are only going to really capture it in a video anyways

>>4391864
>but i can with a phone...
>just seems like a huge hassle to have to worry about keeping the sensor clean and keeping the outside of 2 lenses clean
Well, you'll still have a phone with you to shoot ultra wide shots.
The truth is there's won't be any real solution to that.
In your case I feel that it's easier to just try a camera. Just buy something sorta deccent second hand. You can always sell it if that's not for you.

Is buying a tripod for an iphone a waste of time? Assuming I mostly want photos and not long-form videos.

>>4390364
yeah what the fuck is up with /gif/ these days, it's so bad

>>4392088
Not a bad purchase. Modern phone cameras at base ISO are serviceable, especially if you can disable some of the auto-processing that usually shits up most phone cameras and/or shoot RAW. So using a tripod to basically guarantee base ISO is a healthy move. Even a cheap amazon one for $30 would be good enough for a phone I reckon.
KF Concept are a step up from the shitty no-brands, and Sirui is another step from there, but now we're gettng into $200 territory.
>>4391864
You've summed up the reason phone cameras are so ubiquitous: they are small, light, and convenient.
But, so long as you use a phone, you will always be getting lower IQ, more AI slop, more fake HDR bullshit than just using a purpose-built camera. Even MFTurds is an improvement in regards to that.

>microfourCHADS causing seethe by actually using their camera

>>4392088
Get one of those mini tripods with flexible legs. I have one and it comes in handy for smol cameras.

>>4392222
that sounds like its really short, i mean for like stabilizing shots of vistas and waterfalls that I can stand up and use

>>4392138
tell me the right mirrorless camera to get
I want good image stabilization cuz im often taking shots in motion walking around or in cars
i want modern tech (usb-c), decent battery life, compact size, don't care about fitting in my pocket but not too blobby (i guess is how they say it here), and good enough to withstand outdoors
and i guess I would need two lenses one for up close and regular (with a decent range of zoom) and one for wide shots

>>4392282
I'd say the EM1-III, I had similar use cases and that's the one I ended up with. Don't need a tripod, can withstand tons of shit, good in low light, good battery life, nice and compact.

>>4390023
>I guess I should mention I don't really want a separate body and lens
Just keep using your phone, you will spend a lot of money replacing it if you want a compact camera that takes better photos. And even then, they will only be very slightly better.

>>4392283
>>4392290
I don't know who to believe!

>>4392293
>listen to the person who gives you actual advice
>or the shitposter that says a phone is the same as a camera
A true mystery

>>4392294
>micro fore turds
>phone ai painting
What he clearly needs is a 4x5 camera and 60+ year old tripod

File: bellows.jpg (6 KB, 242x208)

6 KB JPG

He needs one of these bad boys

>>4392294
>hurr I can't read
I didnt say that. I said if you go for a non ILC camera, you're going to spend heaps of money before you get one as good as your phone, and even then, it will only be slightly better.
>>4392294
>actual advice
>em1 mark III
Retard, same size as an a7 with with worse IQ. OP wanted a non ILC camera, so it doesn't even fulfil that requirement. Why don't you learn to read?

>>4392298
LOL

File: f5a77807703af953218b6119c(...).jpg (34 KB, 960x875)

34 KB JPG

OP wants small, OP gets small

>>4392300
sony shooters look like THIS?

>ITT.
>Multiple anons fail to understand that better photos require bigger sensors that require bigger cameras
>OP fails to understand that photography is about compromise, and he has to give up the ultra portability of phones to get a cleaner, higher IQ photo

>>4392303
i get that its a compromise, and i get that you need to have interchangeable lenses, but nobody can really redpill me on which exact camera to buy and a lot of the choices seem kinda like a couple years old, but maybe that just means they are better found used

>>4392310
Like I said, the EM1-III, but if you don't want to commit, then literally walk into a camera place with your criteria and feel the actual camera in your hands.
Remember, the best camera is the one that you like that will make you want to go out and shoot

>>4392311
olympus feels like an off brand and i was looking and the usb port is like usb micro and the battery life is shit I think

>>4392313
Then go into a camera store like I said and stop being an obtuse faggot

>>4392314
do they even have those anymore? I hadn't thought of that, but I should probably buy used. Maybe I should just buy what amazon tells me to. I guess its really just between fuji, snoy, and olympus cuz nikon and canon don't do compact mirrorless or are twice the price?

>>4392315
Yes lil zoomie, you just have to go outside
You'd have a camera by now if you just went into a store instead of asking us

>>4392316
im a millenial
i dont get the money for another month or two

>>4392310
Ok here's your redpill
>Compact camera
Canon G7x, any generation, though it seems like you want something newer so I'd say mark III. Not sure if they still sell these new in stores, but I would recommend buying used if money is a constraint at all.

>ILC camera, new
Olympus OM5, or sony a6700, or maybe even the latest Olympus Pen camera. OM5 has smaller lenses, and good pancake lenses to keep it small like the Lumix 20mm f/1.7. The a6700 has better image quality, though will probably be a little bigger once you have a lens on it, even though the camera body itself is a bit smaller than the om5. The om5 is also weather sealed. Don't bother with an Em1 or om1. Its basically the same as the om5, but bigger and more expensive. >>4392311 This retard is most likely trying to sell one.

>ILC, used
Used will open you up to some even smaller cameras they dont sell anymore. There are absolutely heaps but ill mention some of what are considered the best for size:performance ratio. Olympus pen series, most notable EPL8, EPL9, EP7, EP5, Pen-F. Em5 mark II is good too. Lumix Gm1 and Gm5 are both tiny as well. Lumix GF series of cameras are okay, but can be had really cheap. Any of the other pen cameras you can probably find for really cheap too.

>Lenses
Most crop-sensor systems have pancakes for the lumix or olympus cameras you can use any of the folding zoom kit lenses, or if you want something with better low-light performance the 20mm f1.7 I mentioned earlier by lumix is good.

File: 1654307042019.jpg (91 KB, 488x516)

91 KB JPG

>>4392310
Oh alright then. Yeah going used is a fair choice, you'll only save 20-40% off the new price generally, but some people buy this shit, use it twice then shelf it. Got my current Canon R50 for like 2/3rds the price of new and the guy put a whopping 600 shutter releases through it (fuck all, really).
M43 (Olympus and Panasonic) are only mildly better than a phone, so I'd only really recommend them if that's the absolute limit of size/weight you'd be willing to carry.
A modern APS-C camera is going to be "good enough", such as the R10 or Zf. Canons get the cripplehammer, and Nikon AF is shit. No camera is perfect until you're buying an R6II and even then it's 700g and approaching DSLR bulk. An R10 or R50 with a kit zoom will be sub 500g and reasonably small.
Foolframe would get you basically the best image quality but generally the size and weight after you add a lens is probably prohibitive for you.

No matter what you buy, 20 anons here will tell you that you're a retard and not to, and instead you should buy ______. Which another 20 anons will call you a retard for buying.
>pic rel

>no one is listening to me
>the only person giving actual advice about going into a store and trying the cameras
Sigh, what a worthless thread

>>4392319
I assume whatever camera it is I am going to need two lenses. I was photographing a waterfall the other day, and I got different things out of a wide angle and a zoom. Definitely way more shots using zoom, but some wide too. I definitely only want used if that's cheaper, even by a little bit.
I was looking up and there is a real camera store here that sells used gear, so I will look into that.

>>4392323
>I assume whatever camera it is I am going to need two lenses

No. Buy a 24mm-70mm or 28mm-75mm zoom first. Even a superzoom (I have GM prime lenses for my snoy and my 28mm-200mm superzoom stays on it 85% of the time bc it's so versatile). It will be the most versatile and give you 95% coverage usage starting out most likely. From there you can branch out.

if you're trying to go smol as possible, then get 2 primes instead, like say a 35mm (or 24mm) and 85mm or 105mm.

Above assume full frame focal lengths, so you will need to convert if getting a crop sensor.

>>4392325
sorry this is stupid but what does prime mean is it another word for wide lens?
>28mm-200mm
that sounds pretty good
I kinda want like in between zoom
like the phone i have 1x or 3x and i often want somewhere in between to not have to crop the shot but get full resolution

Is there a meaningful difference between 4/3 and aps-c or its just proprietary formatting? I'm not wedded to any brand in particular.

>if you're trying to go smol as possible
no i don't need to be extreme, but I am trying to avoid excess bulk I don't need

>>4392327
Also, i really do not want to mess with an annoying non usb-c charging format if i don't have to
which mirrorless non-full frames use usb-c for charging, like how common is that?

>>4392323
>whatever camera it is I am going to need two lenses. I was photographing a waterfall the other day, and I got different things out of a wide angle and a zoom.
Two different things mang: A wide angle just means a wide focal length (generally anything between 50-16~mm), a zoom means it can change focal lengths. I'm guessing you mean telephoto (which is technically >50mm but more likely 100-400mm)

Anywho, you can get a zoom lens that does both like a 24-240mm but they are large and heavy. One lens to rule them all; at a cost.
My actual favorite thing to do? Take a telephoto zoom and a small wide prime lens. I know Canon make a good 55-250mm zoom for their crop cameras that is like $120 used and give great results. Pair that with something like their EF-S 24mm (which is tiny) and you've got all your bases covered for like $300 used tops. Or fuck that and just take the telephoto zoom.

Other manufacturers likely have similar combos you can pull off.

>>4392319
Zf is full frame, Zfc is the crop. I couldn't recommend one though just because of the absolute dogshit build quality on them

>>4392330
from what i understand "full frame" means "the camera is a huge blob guaranteed" and I think a smaller format is better for me, and from what i get its between aps-c and 4/3 depending on brand

>>4392313
>olympus feels like an off brand
zoomer grow tf up

OP is also a liar who claims he is a millennial even though it is completely obvious he isn't

>>4392333
the camera i keep getting told to buy i think uses micro-usb to charge which is ancient

im a millenial!

>>4392327
Prime lens = Focal length cannont change. I.e. a 50mm lens. No zoom functionality. Generally lighter, cheaper, smaller, bigger aperture, and better image quality than zooms.
Zoom lens = Focal length can change. i.e. 24-105mm lens. Can zoom which is convenient. Can replace many primes. Generally heavier, more cost, marginally worse image quality, slower max apertures.
Do not fall into the trap of having to cover ALL focal lengths. You do NOT need to buy a 10-18mm lens, an 18-55mm lens, a 55-250mm lens etc etc etc. If you go with primes you generally pick two or three that are different fields such as a 24mm for your wide, a 100mm for your telephoto, MAYBE a 400mm prime if you're willing to haul it for instance.
>I am trying to avoid excess bulk I don't need
Will be achieved more through lens selection than camera body selection. Lenses are tied to mount systems though, so keep in mind. A M43 camera with their big fuckoff pro zooms will be bigger than a fullframe Canon with a pancake prime slapped on.
>i really do not want to mess with an annoying non usb-c charging format
Every canon mirrorless has USB-C. I cannot speak for other brands, but I'm under the assumption their late-gen DSLRs also used USB-C.

>>4392335
>all lowercase
>refuses to listen
>refuses to go outside
Yep it's a zoomshit

>>4392336
hmmm seems like maybe id want a prime for wide shots but definitely a zoom for telephoto purposes ?
cuz I often wish the closer settings on my phone camera were more adjustable without corrupting the quality, but i rarely have that though for wide angle
tho i wish there was less distortion/fish eye effect on the ultra wide

File: M43vsCROPvsFF.png (638 KB, 1592x519)

638 KB PNG

>>4392338
Visit this site and play with combinations. You will start to get an idea of how big different combinations can be. Pic rel is a somewhat faithful comparision but these are generally wider focal lengths, except for the M43 with is a short telephoto.
https://camerasize.com/compact
I just wanted to post this photo so you can see how combining a body and lens can dramatically alter the total size, even though techically the M43 camera on the left is the smallest body, it's not really any smaller than the R50 with its kit lens, or the R8 (which is a full frame) with the 28mm prime on it. A fair warning is that the fullframe telephotos ARE much bigger than the rest. The R50 has a fairly good telephoto zoom (the 18-150mm or the 55-210mm) that really honestly aren't much bigger than what you see here.

>>4392341
I feel like its hard to know when zoom i want tho without actually taking the camera hiking and see what frame the best pictures merit.

>>4392332
>from what i understand "full frame" means "the camera is a huge blob guaranteed" and I think a smaller format is better for me, and from what i get its between aps-c and 4/3 depending on brand

Full frame, APS-C and 4/3rds are sensor sizes. Full frame is 35mm x 24mm wide, APS-C is half of that, and m43 is 18x13mm. Huge blob cameras are mostly just DSLRs.

You have to pick the camera that sparks joy anon

>>4392342
Rent a camera and lens for a weekend, figure out what you like or didn't.

>>4392346
Is that even a thing?

>>4392344
and full frame = dslr = huge blob

like there's no compact mirrorless that is also somehow full frame?

>>4392348
There sure is but if you're asking for consumer advice then you can't afford it
Not even being a dick, I'm poor as fuck too anon

>>4392349
surely there's a glut of used cameras of which i could partake for a semi-reasonable price

>>4392350
Maybe but again you'd have to actually be proactive, which you seem incapable of doing

File: cryjak.png (26 KB, 841x1068)

26 KB PNG

>>4392351
I'm not totally sure what i'm lookin for and there's an array of jargon-y technical terms surrounding the search.

>>4392353
THAT'S WHY YOU GO INTO A STORE AND LITERALLY SAY "HEY I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING BUT I'M WANTING A CAMERA THAT [INSERT CRITERIA]" YOU STUPID WOJAKFAGGOT

>>4392348
>and full frame = dslr = huge blob
Wrong

>like there's no compact mirrorless that is also somehow full frame?
There are

>>4392353
Have you tried using google when you encounter a word you don't know? Are you a new zealander or something? Why are you this retarded?

based, kiwis are fucking retarded

File: vXUfOx.gif (1.68 MB, 320x240)

1.68 MB GIF

Yeah man look, I was trying to help you earlier with the paragraphs and the images and shit, but honestly man you gotta put some initiative in. Even just looking up terms you dont know or reading a few articles would be something. Watch a few youtube videos for basic terms and whatever.

Can't handfeed you every single thing, and doubly so if you plan on using a camera outside of P mode.

>>4392356
Zoomers apparently were never taught to Google search in elementary school like millennials.

>>4392360
id rather just put it in set it and forget it mode, im relying on the big lens to get better images

is there any major difference between the sub 1000 mirrorless ones and the 1200-1400 ones? Like is there any "must have" feature in the more expensive cameras vs the base model that I would be missing out on?

>>4392361
You shouldn't have to be taught how to google

Yeah I don't get why they don't do it
I constantly just look shit up I've encountered for the first time
>don't know what dof is
>look it up
>don't know what bokeh is
>look it up

>>4392364
I sort of kind of get what the concepts mean but unless someone clearly explains the technical meaning its just sorta a mystery to me

spatially I run different than some other people
and maybe there's like a popular outdoor setup that i should try
im just getting the rough sense that like fuji and olympus are "budget" and sony is the most popular/common and nikon and canon are "upscale" but maybe that's not true

>>4392363
Boolean searches

>>4392365
THEN LOOK IT UP
LITERALLY JUST LOOK THINGS UP YOU DON'T KNOW

>>4392366
i remember they explained boolean searches at some i dunno like library class at the library i must have been real young but that one i kind got ok tho i dont remember the horseshoe symbols that are like union or something weird
just the and or stuff

>>4392362
>id rather just put it in set it and forget it mode
Ngmi pal.
>Doesn't want to do his own research
>Refuses to google even basic photography terms, brands, or techniques
>Will rely on expensive gear to achieve a good photo rather than knowing what the fuck he's doing
Yeah alright, could have just said this was a bait thread from the outset.
None of this thread matters until you realise there is some basic skill required to get a good photo out of a camera.

>>4392369
is there a mirrorless equivalent of "point and shoot"?
Let's say i'm a little slow but I still want nice photos, and better than my phone can take.

>>4392371
Think about what you're saying anon. All point and shoots are mirrorless.

>>4392372
*ilc

>>4392374
Just turn it to autofocus, there's your point and shoot.

Is the lumix s9 a bad pick? I realize that's another price class up but its full frame and compact.
And then i guess I'd have to pick two lenses to fit to it.

>>4392371
Mirrorless is just a term to refer to cameras that aren't DSLR/SLRs, since they use a mirror to do their thing.
The not-exactly-standard but we're-using-it-anyway term is MILC for semi-modern/modern cameras that are "pro grade" and aren't DSLRs

>>4392380
Yes, doesn't have a mechanical shutter, severe video length limitations, no viewfinder, and no decent pancake lenses available for the lens mount. It's bad at both photography and video lol

>>4392399
>Yes, doesn't have a mechanical shutter,
for what purpose?
>severe video length limitations
im not taking anything more than a minute
> no viewfinder,
isn't that all mirrorless ilc where you have to compose on the video screen

>and no decent pancake lenses available for the lens mount
you mean like ultra-wide?
i don't really need that

>>4392414
just get flagship cellphone and save yourself the trouble

>>4392416
ok so do i really need full frame or is aps-c/4/3 good enough for me?
if u dont like panasonic is there another compact full frame you could recommend as your finest cheapest pick?

>>4392418
ARE ZOOMIES FUCKING INCAPABLE OF INDEPENDENT THOUGHT

>>4392419
my 30s will be over soon, stop with this shameful rhetoric

>>4392421
So legitimately, were you ever tested for autism or Aspergers?
You know how a search engine works yeah?

idk man if you want a camera you can use left handed while hanging upside down a slippery mountain in a blizzard (lol) with a focal range of 25-300mm and doesn't take any space maybe you should stick to a phone

or stop pretending that you need to be snapshitting in the middle of a matterhorn climb

Bait thread and I can't believe there's anons falling for it

>>4392447
/sqt/ needs a sister /rqt/ containment thread where the retards can fester undisturbed.

it's not bait this is all just really confusing

>>4392418
APS-C is more than good enough for you. Have you tried looking at fujifilm? They have a few compact offerings like the soon to be released XM5.

>>4392573
browse flickr. input your camera or lens you're thinking about and look at sample pictures people have used. Spend about a month deciding, then come back here.

You need to decide if you want full frame or APS-C. Then go from there.

>>4392582
I just remember anon was saying that aps-c and 4/3 is basically a similar sensor size to my phone so it wouldn't really actually net me better photos.

>>4392585
That anon is a retard. Unless you have a phone with a 1" sensor there is a large difference. Phones also mostly have trash lens quality further impacting image quality. Aps-c is another jump up in quality, incomparable to phone cameras.
Maybe you want a Sony A7C - full frame and compact.

>>4392588
yeah i was looking at the sony and i think its like
1200 minimum used for the body + the cost of 2 lenses and memory cards so its a big ask if i really want that

>Phones also mostly have trash lens quality
i have iphone 15 pro, its ok

It's been 5 days since you made this thread OP, surely you've made some kind of decision and taken some photos?

>>4392595
i don't get the money for another month or two, I have time to think

>>4392602
You have time to think about what lenses you want for your a7c

>>4392602
You should just get a disposables, Kodak funsavers or whatever they're marketed as. You will enjoy them much more than a digital blob and will get cool prints to share with family and friends or to hang on your walls

>>4392602
how many times faggot
Pick the camera that sparks joy and makes you want to go out and shoot
Getting some soulless brick that technically fits the specs, but you don't want to shoot with it, is useless

>>4392637
this anon seems to either be suggesting a fuji or a sony a7c too

>>4392641
No anon, pick the camera that makes you want to shoot
It is that simple

>>4392642
not OP lol but yep that confirms it
Fuji for soul
Sony for techno-brick

>>4392643
what sort of soul do I get with Fuji? Does Fuji also have a full frame compact iLC option?

>>4392645
You get a camera that pretends to be something it can never be. A digital mirrorless with the most digital sensor type pretending yo be a film SLR.
The lenses dont even fit on any film cameras

Ironically the cameras with the most film like sensors (foveons) have the least film like body design

>>4392647
film is not gonna work for me, I want images I can display online.

>>4392648
But do you want to pretend film is for you?

File: trail.jpg (568 KB, 2232x1464)

568 KB JPG

>>4392648
have I got news for you anon

>>4392649
no i want a digital camera with better image quality than my phone that isn't a nightmare to lug around

>>4392653
Sony a7c+28-60

>>4392653
a6400 w/ 16mm f2.8 pancake lens (I just picked a random a6x00 model lol)

>>4392654
wouldn't that just be the wide lens and I would still need a separate telephoto for closer in? I feel like its one of those things where I can't figure out what lenses I need until i buy them and then its like oh this it what works for my usual nature shots.