>>4463859
Ree. That is all.

File: 1679532838800.png (440 KB, 1374x875)

440 KB PNG

lukewarm take:
/\mbush, sugar, doghair, pant5uit, burtgummer, huskyfag, corgifag, and sugar are the only people actually qualified to give out any advice whatsoever.

everyone else can and should be ignored including me. if anyone else tells you to buy a camera or do something kindly pass until you can get a second opinion from one of these people.

you can and should absolutely ignore everything cANON and cinefag in particular say as well

>>4463861
wrong
only take advice from people whose photography you respect

File: leni_riefenstahl_behind_t(...).jpg (41 KB, 432x324)

41 KB JPG

>>4463861
>yep, that's a butthurt

>>4463861
Sugar tried to pass 35mm effective focal length as unadulterated 28mm recently. Who spotted it? Cinefag. You should weigh the value of the argument itself, not fall into the genetic fallacies. Have you even read Locke?

>>4463861
Thanks, but I think you should just try and understand who is giving the advice. It's easier with known photographers because you know their strengths and weaknesses already. The bunch is fairly well rounded for most types of photography, so you may be able to get some nuggets from them if you ask nicely.

File: 1756027707657592.jpg (30 KB, 395x578)

30 KB JPG

>>4463871

True, was done on a 28/1.8, and 35mm was the effective FL I was going for because I knew the water would magnify the shot because of how light travels through water, and it got the job done at 28mm, only no-photo gearfags who jerk off to DxO scores all day and pop into gear threads only to say

>ACKSHUALLY

would have spotted that.

>>4463861

>Mentioned twice
>mfw

>>4463871
sugar actually takes photos which is why he has no time to care. he also fucks tomboys.

cinefag is a dunning-kruger nophoto, notphotog gearfag who had to google that factoid. he also fucks dogs.

sugar's usual gear advice: buy a nikon dslr cunt
cinefag's usual gear advice: *rambling bullshit about hating everything popular and photography not being art*

>>4463861
>take advice from huskyfag
>get recommended a camera he will eventually decide sucks
>take advice from corgifag
>get recommended a camera he will eventually decide sucks
>these two are fucking around with their z7iis after telling /p/ to buy anything but
>take advice from doghair
>it's just "use whatever big film format i'm using" and then he goes to the next biggest one just as he's almost good enough with it to take a decent photo (is 16x20 coming? of course.)
>take advice from sugar, burt, or ambush
>"buy a nikon, that's it lol"
>take advice from pant5uit
>"have you tried aiming the camera at a man made right angle? when you master that, you can move on to the obtuse ones"
:|

File: 1732388615673583.png (2.04 MB, 1200x1600)

2.04 MB PNG

I'm traveling in 2 weeks, was planning on getting a refurb Z30 and forgot the fucking tariffs. Now what was $400 is now $600. Fuck that.

Is this a good deal? I know it's not nirvana, just is the price decent.

D5500
AF-P DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR
AF-P DX 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED
AF-S 50mm 1:1.8 G
$349, says barely used and no visible damage in pics.

Could I sell this afterwards for the same price? Thanks.

>>4463891
What camera should I buy is such a freaking boring question. Get 4x5 or 8x10 view camera and spend the year+ it takes to get decent at it. Have the most fun taking pics youve ever had if it meshes with your shooting style. Go make prints. Better IQ than all digital, challenging to use. That's called fun. Problem solved. Youll get a strong back from carrying 30lbs of gear as an added benefit.
I've settled on 8x10, but I do have some lenses that will do 11x14 and one that will do 20x24. Unfortunately the DoF on these larger formats makes it nearly impossible for me to take a 1:1 portrait of my dog. I may try building a big camera out of boredom one day, but Im not that bored yet.

If you want good advice on the technical aspects of using a view camera, shooting/developing film, darkroom shenanigans, or alternative processes I know a lot about that stuff. Maybe even more than most people on /p/.

Did you see my latest horse pic on fgt? That cooke lens is really something special.

>>4463895
The 70-300 non-VR version that came with some US kits is pretty much unusable without cranking the ISO to barely acceptable levels. Otherwise fine. I'm partial to 35mm on Nikon's DX format instead of the 50mm

I am stuck on my gear journey
>started with little compact rx100vii
>liked its size but the image quality especially in low light was lacking
>sell it and buy a k1-ii
>was a disaster, too heavy, baked in NR, never took it anywhere
>sold it bought em1-iii
>enjoy it but wonder if a larger sensor will actually make a difference
>scared to take it out in public because it's larger than a compact
>but also want it to be durable and tough so I don't have to baby it
So what the hell do I do?

>>4463901
>what the hell do I do?
grasp the wind, anon

>>4463902
what did he mean by this

>>4463895
Kit without the 50 recently sold for $480 on eBay so yeah.

>>4463901
R5.

I have a sony a7 iii. I use it a lot for posting on other boards but when I do I often inevitably get a
>sony
And I see that a lot here too. I haven't invested too much in glass but I want to buy a 200-600mm lens that's going to be almost 2 times what I paid for the camera. If I was to buy a new camera it would be with a maximum budget of $1500. Is having a sony really that bad? I'm fine shooting in raw and using lightroom.

>>4463909
Change all your exif data to phase one. Problem solved.

>>4463900
Yeah, that's honestly the only thing giving me pause, I don't know who would want the shaky 300. Maybe for tripod nature shots?? I'd probably have to rebundle it whole to get rid of it.

>>4463905
Hmm, could you share the link for that? I'm seeing some others
https://www.ebay.com/itm/116201579841
https://www.ebay.com/itm/277306348018

>>4463911
>D5500
my apolocheese for link cancer
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=D5500&_sacat=0&_from=R40&rt=nc&LH_Sold=1&LH_Complete=1

>>4463909
>>4463569
this anon implied Zeiss glass with T* coatings make Sony cameras worth a damn

>>4463912
Oh I see, I'd filtered out all the Japan stuff. Well that's the 55-300, but that's probably about the same value now. Thanks!

File: 1753009121232894.png (611 KB, 1271x1364)

611 KB PNG

WTF, there's actually people buying the non VR 70-300 by the boatload. lolwut?

>>4463914
they don't seem to make anything like the 200-600mm or 400-800mm lenses I'm looking to get

>>4463859
Looking to buy a MILC again after almost ten years away from purpose-built cameras. Which performs better than the rest with regards to JPG decay? I don't and won't shoot RAW but I want archival quality if I can get it.

>>4463907
>5000 dollsrydoos

>>4463916
The VR version goes for about $250. So to those people it's a steal. Maybe they're all tripod shooters, who knows?

But they're probably retards.

>>4463920
Mk1 goes for $2k used.

>>4463921
>But they're probably retards.
Boomers who can't be bothered researching.

File: hq720.jpg (47 KB, 686x386)

47 KB JPG

Best compact full frame camera with great colors, cool design, 4k video for b-rolls? I feel like each camera has some drawbacks that stops me from buying:

Sony A7CII
>shit build quality, bad evf, clunky UI, ugly design

Nikon Zf
>not compact, too bulky

Lumix S9
>only electronic shutter, shit build quality

Sigma
>only electronic shutter, no ibis

Fuji-x
>only apsc

Leica Q3
>bad autofocus, software bugs, meh EVF

Lumix were so close with their S9. If they made it tiny bit larger but with mechanical shutter and EVF and good build quality it would be one of the most popular cameras for sure. But instead.. it's like they hate their costumers and don't want to sell anything

File: Screenshot From 2025-08-2(...).png (913 KB, 1219x1037)

913 KB PNG

So I own a X2D and watched X2D II reviews for the last few hours and...

I think it gives people a false impression of what 100MP is.

If you know what a 24MP or 30MP picture looks. And you ever took a portrait that goes down to hip or belly button height to take in a little environment you probably know the eye will look 30 pixels high. The 100MP medium format does not change that. Going from 24MP to 100MP is just quadrupeling every pixel. Sure, it looks sharper and higher res then - but not by that much.

>>4463861
There is no meaningful difference between any of these people anon. Sugar has already been outed as the most hated retard on p.

>>4463909
Yes, Sony is a meme. Change systems if you still can.

>>4463886
I shoot Kodak Water & Sport from time to time, enough to know it's good underwater but winograndian shit outside of it.

File: IMG_2558.jpg (52 KB, 1080x718)

52 KB JPG

>>4463901
This is your life on "but /p/ would make fun of me for buying an a7c"

>>4463928
a7cii and stop listening to forum trolls

>>4463909
4chan is /v/.

/v/ hates sony. It’s that simple. 4chan = /v/ extended universe.

>>4463943
I really doubt anyone on /v/ hates Sony. They introduced optical discs to gaming consoles when everything else before used cartridges.

>>4463929
I'm still on the fence about the camera but the 35-100 lens I will for sure not get. The 90V just seems superior. 35 (27 equivalent) is just a useless length for me

>>4463941
>>4463942
>>4463943
gm saars!

>>4463942
Would pick any of the listed cameras before getting the A7CII

>>4463895

When I shot Moab last year every single tourist that wasn't on a Sony mirrorless or a FF DSLR had one of these or something like it. They're not bad, it's basically a D7xxx without the ability to drive AF-D lenses.

I'd find a VR telelphoto lens though if you can. If you're just daytime snapshitting that 70-300 will be fine. Most of my best work was shot on non-VR lenses that are older than most of the teenage bedwetters who post on this board.

>>4463943
4chan hates sony, women, cats, dogs, meat, vegetables, success, and failure. Then you step outside and everyone has a sony mirrorless or a canon r50.

>>4463954
Stop crying Timmy

>>4463901
>buying a camera that cinefag and cANON recommend
Ya dun fucked up. Should have listened to doggie bro and got a nikon h3d-39 or been a normie and shot sony

Z7ii is down to 1700 bong units lads, should I do it? The only thing that bothers me is the relatively low res evf, because I'm coming from a DSLR and ovfs are bright and good.

I mainly do landscape, and am moving from Pentax, so literally any level of dog shit af is going to blow my mind and be more than I need. I was considering the z6iii for the better evf, but it's less megapickles and more expensive. The resolution isn't a huge deal really, 24 is plenty, but having the option to crop more if there's a river or some shit in the way so you can't get closer is nice.

1700 seems pretty good and unlikely to go much lower unless it's discontinued.

Canon will jew me out consistently, and Panasonic are unironically my favourite ergonomically, but I fear they will become the new Pentax

I've even briefly considered snoy, but I just don't hate myself that much.

>>4463954
>4chan hates... cats
Fuck cats, they should legitimately all be lynched.

>>4463954

HEY, I have a Sony mirrorless and fucking love it, I did some of my best work at Speedweek this year on my A7S.

I never understood brandfagging, cameras today all take more-or-less the same picture and you just need to find the one with the control layout that fits you best. It's not like the old days of 5D vs. D700 troll threads anymore.

>>4463960
>fuck cats
Mrowr~

>>4463959
For landscape, I'd focus on megapixels.
Would consider a used z7ii, but preferably a z8 (new or used).

>>4463861
When it comes to photography and AI cANON is usually correct on the technical level, the problem is he's an asshole about it and basically a broken record, he's been saying the same things for years, using the same words. They're like mantras in his little crusades. Case in point, this thread calling Fuji "hopelessly aspirational". He's not wrong, but he's been pushing those exact words for years now. May be an ESL thing, maybe his vocabulary is limited and Belarusians don't have nuance in their language or something so it translates like this. Very strange fella.

>>4463968
lol
he says cameras can ai generate moon landing footage as long as they have evfs and somehow only dslrs cant (ziggers are still salty they couldnt land on a space rock)

>>4463967
Yeah, z8 is still over 3k, which is probably pushing it. I'd consider grey market to get that cost down a bit. If it went under 3k I'd probably jump on it, but I doubt it will

I'm also not really sure what the z8 offers over the z7ii for a primarily stills photographer, other than better AF, which while nice (I might occasionally take pictures of the birds in my garden while I drink my morning coffee) doesn't seem worth the extra cost.

>>4463961
I actually agree with sugar. I shoot Pentax most of the time, own a bunch of old vintage cameras. Even the old one get it right 80% of the time if I'm shooting in auto. The newer cameras even account for movement in auto where I don't have to up the shutter speed or set it in sports/action to get it right. It really comes down to differences and stuff like lens selection, price, and ergos. Some cameras with really bad ergonomics for some people work better than for others. Some people won't go beyond the kit lens and a prime. For others $200 isn't gonna make or break a sale to them. A lot of the mirrorless cameras on the market are using old DSLR sensors.


If you've noticed in the last 10 years most of the improvements have been in size/weight and video capabilities and none of those who matter if you mostly take photos and you're a 300lb chungus like sugar (or just get a long shoulder strap and carry it around like a purse, I'm in Montreal right now with a Pentax K1ii + Grip doing that)

>>4463971
He says you can't trust them not to generate bullshit with AI, which is technically correct if not for the technological limitations that still exist. The concern is very valid on principle especially after the moonshopping fiasco with the Samsung phones. It only makes sense that some day they'll shop the landing site on your photos even if it can't actually be seen from Earth. It's silly to not accept we DID go there, but it's not as crazy to be worried that they'll shop the (real) pictures of the landing site onto the moon pictures you can take from here and market it as "our camera is so good you can see the moon in full detail!". Call it augmented reality or whatever. I don't think his general distrust of photos-as-proof is that misguided.
But I said when it comes to photography he's generally correct, not when it comes to his conspiracy theories. Still, I think he's a bit ahead of the curve when it comes to the perils of AI compared to most anons.

>>4463973
It's a new generation of camera. You get great AF, 8k video, high fps, manual focus assist, etc. If money is a concern, look for a used z7ii. They should be going cheaply due to being last-gen. Still great, just less efficient at high-speed work.

>>4463861
>corgifag
ty
>>4463891
>get recommended a camera he will eventually decide sucks
What model are you talking about? I don't own a Z7II. I'm usually the one recommending learning over buying new gear, remember the RP thread?

>>4463977
That just sounds gearfaggy. Who needs or wants 8k video? Also, the z8 is bigger, has less DR and a less robust build.

>>4463990
it's like a third of a stop difference in DR

>>4463991
1 stop*
$2000*
1lb*
No magnesium monobody*

>>4463990
Spoken like a true spec-sheet nophoto

File: IMG_20250830_114036622~3.jpg (962 KB, 2948x2910)

962 KB JPG

>>4463974

Rate the street photography setup

(I'm probably gonna leave it all in the hotel room and take the ZVE10 if I'm gonna ride bikes)

That grip from B&H needs a split lock washer between the arca plate and the body and doesn't work on big DSLRs. Keeps working it's way loose. Blue loctite could work too.

>>4463994
>pay more for less photographically useful video camera
>nooo dr bad 8k video good
The human eye has 24 stops of DR. B&W negatives, 16. Digital cameras are honestly kind of shit.

R7 mark II FUCKING WHEN?
Stab is buggy and makes pictures slightly OoF most of the times. Sensor too noisy for 2025. Mechanical shutter is a joke

>>4463998
Sounds like standard canon quality. The r5ii say: you rike noise and bugs? more on way gaijin

>>4463996
>yes, I am a nophoto

>>4464002
oh look its that guy! using photos to argue is how you end up on the faggot list >>4463861
just a name dropped to troll people

dr matters
it limits what you can photograph
and digital is still a downgrade

>>4464006
Cool, so no one ever takes any good shots with a Z8?
I guess that's where we disagree

>>4464007
>YoU cAn StIlL tAkE gOoD pHoToS
Clown.

It’s a $3000 camcorder. Buying it primarily for photography is stupid.

>>4463996
Tripods have infinite stops of VR

>>4464009
I bought a z8 because a mate was happy with his z7ii. It's a great piece of kit.

>>4464009
>Buying it primarily for photography is stupid.
Explains why no photo professionals ever use them for photos right

File: 1749531221035156.gif (2.79 MB, 384x384)

2.79 MB GIF

>>4464009
>How DARE you spend YOUR money on something that I DONT APPROVE of, good sir
Faggot there's a difference between spending $3000 on mfturd cope gear and someone buying a Z8. I'm sorry, care to post pics of your universally approved gear so we can all shit on your choice?

>>4464012
>i spent $3000 on a camcorder because me bud had a $1500 camera
ok gearfag

my $8 roll of film has more dr and better tonality

>>4463992
>D800crackedchassis.tiff

>>4464015
>MUH TONALITY
Hahahahah look at this faggot and laugh, everybody
Pat yourself on the back anon, you're officially the biggest retard currently using bandwidth

>>4464015
Literally don't give a shit. Just wanted a decent digital camera within my budget. Fuck film scanning.

>>4464015
>ok gearfag
Says the one saying you can't take good photos on a Z8

>>4464015
Fact.

>>4464019
did i say that? no said paying $3000 for a video camera to do photography with is dumb. your photos do not look that different from those taken with an aps-c camera and it cant take abuse like the z6/z7/z9

Fact:
The z5ii and z50ii eliminated any valid reason to buy the z8 except for odd employer requirements

>>4464035
It's what you are ultimately implying
>>4464038
Do agree a Z5II is a great option for most people's needs
No need to be dishonest

>>4464044
you’re an oversensitive baby. imagine being unable to accept that most cameras on the market are not good purchases. ilc sales are on a perpetual downwards trend. japan is not good at product design.

this market is dying not for a lack of an audience but for a lack of sanity on the production and marketing side
https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/interesting-things-written.html

this hobby will be fine so long as there is a such thing as a <$100 film setup and <$25/roll buy dev and scan. purchases are of course gravitating AWAY from shit like the z8, xt5 xh2 x100vi, and a7cr and towards used cameras from last decade because modern gear is a dogshit value proposition. i think you know this which is why you cry so hard.

>>4464038
If you ask me the z5ii is unacceptable. $1700 for a nikon a7iii?

Nikon's current offerings absolutely mog Sony

>>4464080
Yes except that they miss a more compact body. Like a small full frame Zf, possibly in the rangefinder style

>>4464081

Honestly if you have tiny girly iToddler hands just use your phone

>>4463995
k1/10
personally I use a sling instead of a strap with mine but I larp as a pro with hueg fast lenses
>That grip from B&H
you mean on the zve10?
>>4463996
>The human eye has 24 stops of DR
sure
knock yourself out https://www.telescope-optics.net/eye_intensity_response.htm

>>4463995
God, silver lenses make me sad.

File: nikonzsp.jpg (118 KB, 1600x1067)

118 KB JPG

>>4464081
Soon.

File: IMG_20250830_211618455_HDR~2.jpg (960 KB, 2797x1878)

960 KB JPG

>>4464087
I'm really enjoying this K1, as my first full frame it feels like it can take pics in pitch black. The previous owner left a awesome film sim that makes almost any photo look fucking kino. He also left a mono/b&w sim I deleted being a fucking moron that I'm sad about. I feel like messaging him on eBay and seeing if he wrote down the settings.

https://a.co/d/i3dxi5u

I'm pretty sure that's the camera strap the PO bought. It's damn good, it lets me shoulder carry it easily and then swivel it arounds to take a pic.

Zve10 has this.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1507164-REG/vello_pgs_p_hand_grip_strap_with.html

It needs a lock washer and the heavy DSLRs makes the little wrist strap snap right off or the arca plate work it's way loose. With the smaller ZVE10 it lets me attach a camera strap to the arca plate and left eyelet so I have the strap on the same side of the grip. Worked great to keep my camera under my hoodie during a downpour.

I'm probably gonna pick up a Tamron or Sigma 28-75mm f2.8 as a walk-around lens or a 50mm f1.4 prime. I want to try fixed fast zooms, just not ready for a 70-200mm yet. I'm using the 50mm macro for night shots since it's the fastest lens I have (f2.8 vs f3.5-4.5 for the 35-70mm)

>>4464089
I wish I had a silver K1, it looks kino.

>>4464092
grok is this real

>>4464092
bet it would be 2x the size of the film version

>>4464092
>posting clive mockups unironically

>>4464200
>rent free

what is the best camera for a millennial unc

>>4464235
>unc
You mean eunuch? Some Fuji or Sony no doubt

>>4464235

Probably some 35mm SLR, we're all reliving our childhoods since we have no future

>>4464240
Here I was thinking it was a misspelling of a misspelling (unc for unic for eunuch) and it was probably shorthand for uncle.
>>4464235
D5200/5300+70-300VR. Millenial uncles and birding with DSLRs go hand in hand.

>>4463968
It's not because I'm ESL, it's memetics. So mantras isn't too far off.
>>4463971
You couldn't either, fag. The EVF is a prerequisite of on-the-fly alteration. We have already seen they bake in shadow lifts to compensate for the baby mount. There was also the star eater. In other words, the pictures out of a mirrorless camera are inherently untrustworthy. There's an undermining of the implicit integrity of the image when you don't have an OVF. The pinnacle of this is the SLR, the only design where you look through the lens that's projecting the picture on your recording medium.
>>4463975
>It's silly to not accept we DID go there, but it's not as crazy to be worried that they'll shop the (real) pictures of the landing site onto the moon pictures you can take from here and market it as "our camera is so good you can see the moon in full detail!".
The real photos of the "landing site" were directed together with the footage by Stanley Kubrick in New Mexico, anon. You're so close to getting it but your refusal to question that key part is what prevents you from doing so. Still, respect for actually considering my arguments and not some absurd bastardization of them.

>>4464251
You remind me of Zizek and Dugin when they shitpost. Like that time Dugin praised how Twin Peaks depicts "American pragmatism" and he was talking about David Duchovny crossdressing in it.

File: Screenshot_20250831_110014.png (218 KB, 147x1549)

218 KB PNG

Is it worth it to try and sell camera shit through online marketplaces?
Literally as typing this a negro with a skimask profile picture asked if it was available, it's so tiresome.

>>4464251
>The EVF is a prerequisite of on-the-fly alteration
Oh no, imagine if we just used the same OVF technique we used before to make sure the photo came out the way we wanted it to
><photograph>
><set>Set exposure triangle</set>
><shoot>take shot</shoot>
><look>chimp it for a second to review</look>
><think>if good then move on</think>
><fag>else take it again, faggot</fag>
></photograph>

File: HDR_0487.jpg (2.6 MB, 5568x3712)

2.6 MB JPG

You seem like a swarthy bunch with lots of opinions.

The local birdheads insisted that for my first camera, anything less than a D500 would be a waste of my time, and that if I didn't get a telephoto that went to 500-600mm, I'd be back buying lenses the next day.

I'm pretty happy with the D7500 and a cheap 70-300 lens for big, slow moving birds, but those big prime lenses look pretty cool.

If I wanted to move up to a bigger lens, is a 200-500 the way to go?

>>4464257
He’s an actual idiot. Don’t bother.
>Telescopes dont exist!
>DSLRs cant shoop pics!
And its literally impossible for human optics tech to see lunar details that small without leaving the atmosphere

>>4464261
Skilled photographers do wildlife photography with a 70-200 f2.8

The more expensive it is the bigger a bitch the intended customer

File: DSC_2475.jpg (875 KB, 2000x1019)

875 KB JPG

>>4464261

200-500 VR is the correct answer, I have one and it made this on a D4 on a bike doing about 100mph

>>4464267

This is not the correct answer.

>>4464253
>You remind me of Zizek and Dugin when they shitpost.
Kek, is this supposed to be a compliment or an insult?)
>Like that time Dugin praised how Twin Peaks depicts "American pragmatism" and he was talking about David Duchovny crossdressing in it.
kek, I'll look that up)))
>>4464257
The OVF lets you see through the lens, the EVF shows you whatever the mainboard wants to show you. You literally can't tell if the camera is bullshitting you unless you trick it into bullshitting with some known target so you can catch it red-handed like the people did with the Samsung.
>>4464261
You could try a 2x teleconverter first but can't really go wrong with a longer lens. Like one of the 150-600 variants from Sigma. Or the 200-500 Sugar said.

>>4464261

Also you can find that 200-500 VR for the same price I paid for my 70-200 2.8 VRII if you're lucky.

It's a great lens with a bad ass image stabilizer, I was on the fence like you for a while until I bought one, it is my go-to main lens for Bonneville and other things too far away for my D4, plus you can put a tele on it.

>>4464267
>Skilled photographers do wildlife photography with a 70-200 f2.8
Yes, the boomers who dress in ghillie suits and sit prone in mud for three straight days waiting to ambush a Bee Hummingbird like jihad joe ambushes the marines
Sane wildlife photogs do not use 70-200s for the sheer fact that 200mm is barely overkill for portaits of people, and wildlife are generally not as social as the hooker you paid to take candids of, and are going to keep their distance. Hell, 400mm isn't really enough for a lot of animals.

>>4464278
There's a caveat there, low pixel pitch lets you get away with using a 200 in situations you'd rather use something longer. But low pixel pitch with a longer lens is even better.

>>4464269
Can you get in focus shots with that lens or nah?

Just bought another four AE1's

File: x700.jpg (680 KB, 2048x1367)

680 KB JPG

This was $400 from a local boomer/gen X looking to get rid of some old photo stuff.
Everything is basically brand new with the exception of the 50mm filter ring being dented, but that's an easy fix. The strap comes with a sewn-on bag for your coke that they market as a 'battery pouch'
Also came with three 24 exposure rolls of way expired Kodak Max 400

>>4464270
An EVF can show you how your photo will actually turn out, an OVF just gives you an approximation

>>4464328
An OVF shows you the scene itself, an EVF shows some sloppy fifths mangled manipulation after the sensor and several electronic devices have had their way with the image. It's basically cuckoldry in camera form. And no, it doesn't even show how the end result will look because it lacks the DR to do so. Basically, an EVF makes sure you don't have the ability to know what you're missing. It's approved by the matrix.

lmao did you guys know there was a big kerfuffle on the leica subreddit a few months ago? apparently the mod is a die hard maga and started banning people left and right the second tariffs were announced because they wanted to talk about the impact of the tariffs on leica

>>4464338
>reddit

File: 1729812118488991.jpg (219 KB, 2000x1509)

219 KB JPG

:drool:

>>4464338
Wtf i love leica now

>>4464338
>hay did u guise see on reddit-
Shut up retard no one likes you

>>4464328
>>4464332
Yeah EVF's are better for non Canon cameras. An OVF can't show you how putrid and oversaturated your photo will look if ur shooting on Nikon. On Canon, images are lifelike and will look exactly the same as you see them through the finder.

>>4464332
An OVF doesn't even give you exact framing, never mind focus, depth of field, exposure, and it's dim as fuck. Fuck knows what you're trying to say with the rest of you post. An EVF can show all of the above while being brighter and can also magnify, show all sorts of additional information like histograms and focus peaking, can be used to review images while having a higher dynamic range than the rear screen on a OVF camera and not being susceptible to surrounding light sources. Not to mention the increase durability and less shake from not having a mirror flapping about. The only benefit OVFs have is they don't use any power.

File: file.png (3.02 MB, 1888x2316)

3.02 MB PNG

>>4464350
>depth of field

>>4464350
EVF's also keep your sensor illuminated the whole time it's in use. This makes it more vulnerable to sensor damaging phenomena, which while rare are becoming more common, like LIDAR. More importantly though, it means even in stills mode you're heating up all the cameras internals all the time, and making you more vulnerable to condensation. Even though this is a fairly niche difference, it's important if you live somewhere that ever gets cold. Worse though is that if we're being honest :D then EVF really is just a shitty cost cutting measure being sold to suckers as an "upgrade". While focus peaking and a couple other features EVFs offer are fun little toys, they're not of any use to a professional photographer :D. The prism and matte screen are precise optical elements are just better :D but they're hard to make, so there's an obvious incentive to retcon idiot consumers (you :D) into thinking consumer camcorder screens are somehow better than pro level OVFs.

>>4464338
This is true, I was one of those banned
It was a hilarious few days of shitposting by all those involved, he was the only mod and couldn't be moderating 24/7, board would get full then purged over and over
Same guy that enforces the "photos of Leica" not "photos from a Leica" rule

File: Picture-Control-options.jpg (125 KB, 994x746)

125 KB JPG

>>4464347
>how putrid and oversaturated your photo will look if ur shooting on Nikon
skill issue

>>4464332
>all this over a digital camera viewfinder
Its like how a closet homosexuals sees homosex everywhere

The BDSM cuck thinks everything is slavery and cuckoldry

>>4464357
Doesn't matter, you should be shooting RAW and even the RAW's look shit. Sorry but it's the objective truth.

>>4464354
>Worse though is that if we're being honest :D then EVF really is just a shitty cost cutting measure being sold to suckers as an "upgrade".
>The prism and matte screen are precise optical elements are just better :D but they're hard to make, so there's an obvious incentive to retcon idiot consumers (you :D) into thinking consumer camcorder screens are somehow better than pro level OVFs.
I've been saying this for years, they're scameras.

>>4464359
Again skill issue, also the EVF displays a JPEG preview not the RAW.

>>4464359
Brand color science is a myth. Raws do not contain color information. It's just default jpeg settings and corporate-approved profiles in editing programs.

LENS color transmission and CFA metameric error are NOT myths but people are glad to be ignorant of them and how either work and what the implications actually are. Some "expert gearfags" actually praise the so called "color science" of brands that have actually have a super heavy green cast and extreme metameric errors like olympus, canon, and fujifilm simply because the default profiles are nicer.

>>4464360
EVFs are pretty expensive, actually. Those tiny panels are basically nanotech and the sensor upgrades and SBC improvements required to get a reliable live feed took a LONG time to make it to large sensors.

>>4464361
I'm not saying you should use an EVF.
I'm saying you should ditch all cameras that aren't Canon DSLRs.

>>4464363
Doghair ass opinion

>>4464364
WRONG. I think mirrorless + OVF is the best type of camera. In all honesty some people should ditch all their gear for a mirrorless OVF camera. Remember quality over quantity.

*snaps another 1000MP dog portrait*

>>4464362
Olympus and Canon are not known for greens, that's Sony and older Nikons, not sure where you hear that but it's wrong. Metameric error has literally nothing to do with this and just because the colour data is not sensor level, does not mean "all brands are le same" on RAW. You would only have to have shot RAW with two different camera brands for this to be obvious. There is a lot of information contained in makernotes that tell software how to handle the demosaicing process.

>>4463909
4chan hates anything that might be considered popular or expensive, so /g/ will rage about Apple, /o/ will rage about every German car brand and /p/ will rage about Sony and Leica. The best advice is just buy what works for you and don't care about what faggots on this basket weaving forum think.

The sperging in /rpt/ has also gone silent since the exif info tool got removed from the board, so nobody can just bitch about the camera rather than the photo itself. I miss being able to see what settings someone used but I'm more grateful that I don't have to see bitching about Sony and Nikon taking up entire threads anymore.

>>4464375
>4chan hates anything that might be considered popular or expensive, so /g/ will rage about Apple, /o/ will rage about every German car brand and /p/ will rage about Sony and Leica
If you replace '4chan' with poor people and idiot yes this makes sense, except for the part about Sony. Sony cameras are actually extremely affordable, they're usually cheaper than Nikon and about the same as Canon. No one hates sony because they can't afford it, you can get a used a7iii for like 450 bucks.

>>4464376
Note that I said "popular" as well. Same with German cars or Apple stuff, not all of it is expensive, but a lot of it is very popular.

>>4464377
Oh you're right I missed that, my bad. I still don't think it changes the fact that while those things are expensive or popular, they're not hated because they're expensive or popular.

German cars don't deserve the hate except for Audis (upmarketed VW garbage)

>>4464380
That's near entirely the case for /o/ and is mostly the case on /g/, so I don't expect /p/ to be any different. I'm sure there are other autistic reasons that go beyond popularity, but that's just how brandfagging can be (which I suspect is to the extreme end on /p/ as photography attracts autism).

I've worked as pro photographer for a few years now and so many photographers are stuck to one single brand and won't consider any other. One guy ran a portrait studio and didn't allow anything but Canon, he'd just get pissed off about any other brand and wouldn't even engage to discuss a photo if it wasn't taken with a Canon. It was easier to just lie to him and say whatever photo you're showing was taken with a Canon just to avoid him being a pouty bitch about it. I only lasted 3 months at that place before I went elsewhere.

Like I said before, I'm just glad the exif thing has been removed so I don't have to see it as much here too. The photo is all that matters.

>>4464381
Based and accurate. Audi has always been really weird, I never see any pre-2000s Audis anymore but I used to back in the late 2000s, so maybe they all rotted away. I still see plenty of 80s and 90s Mercedes everywhere in comparison.

>>4464382
W140 is arguably the best car ever made.

>>4464384
Good choice. I'd have one of those and an E39 or E38. The 90s were the peak full size luxury sedan era.

>>4464371
>Olympus and Canon are not known for greens
Every olympus and canon I have used required a strong magenta bias in post
>Metameric error has literally nothing to do with this
It's the only thing that has anything to do with this.

It's understood by those in the know that the sony a7riii, a7iii, and a7c are peak and it's just the default camera settings and adobe profiles that have problems. This is why nikon has released the a7iii 5 times.
>z5
>z6
>z6ii
>z5ii
>zf
The loss of the a7riii (a9ii) sensor was a fucking travesty. It had incredibly aesthetic noise characteristics and good color capture if you knew what the fuck you were doing and could remake the shit defaults properly.

The a7iv onwards are a bit nasty but redditors and youtubers like them because the defaults are "cinematic" (dull and cold).

>>4464382
Never had that experience except for at a place where continuity was especially important and they would only use the exact same model of camera, as they didn't want anything to affect time-progressed results. The place I currently work at uses at least three different brands of camera on any given shoot, closer to six if you include the brands of the lenses. I think to explain away everyone else's critiques of the brands as "they dont like it cus its popular or expensive" is pretty juvenile. Apple is hated by some because of perceived inflexibility in their operating systems, and that they cater to a lowest common denominator demographic. German cars are hated because they often include innovative features that are not yet standardised and can be tricky to understand or fix. I could list off every major critique of every major brand, but I'm sure you know them as well as I do.

>>4464391
>Every olympus and canon I have used required a strong magenta bias in post
You should figure out how to set your white balance before you go rushing to misinterpret terminology.

>>4464381
You can't explain why you believe this. If you have a problem with Volkswagen and Audi, you also have a problem with Porsche, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Skoda and so on, which makes you retarded.

>>4464393
Fair, I was just trying to be general and not go into the really detail of it all. My base point is that brandfaggotry exists and isn't always grounded in logic.

>Never had that experience except for at a place where continuity was especially important and they would only use the exact same model of camera
It's mixed I guess. The current place I'm at has preferences, but are happy for me to use whatever I'm comfortable using since getting the work done at the end is all that truly matters. Meanwhile with that previous place, even in the interview he was a bit off put about me having experience with other cameras and no true preference.

>>4464397
Not him obviously but Audi just shares way too much with VW and dumps a large price tag on top. Even the Audi TT for a long time was just a VW Beetle underneath, complete with all the cheap and annoying problems that came with having a Beetle. Then a lot of the mid size Audis are basically just Passats with some tinsel on them, except you either get lucky with parts being cheap VW ones that are cost effective or you get hit with an extremely priced part because it's Audi specific for that one model.

These days even Skoda is better quality and built with more thought than Audis are.

>>4464375
Thanks, I thought that was the case but I thought I might check

>>4464382
>many photographers are stuck to one single brand and won't consider any other
It might not excuse hurling vitriol at other brands while bending over and spreading for your own, but the sunk cost seems to hit pretty hard with photography hence my asking the question.

>>4464398
>Audi just shares way too much with VW
What do you mean by this? Using readily available, tested parts is a good thing. Making everything in-house increases costs for consumers and makes it less serviceable. And the VW parts a very good, for the most part.

>Even the Audi TT for a long time was just a VW Beetle underneath, complete with all the cheap and annoying problems that came with having a Beetle.
This is not really true, not sure where you heard it. The original Audi TT is built on the Golf IV's PQ34 platform, but uses a completely ground-up body, one of the first to feature integrated bumpers. I find this to be an especially ridiculous example because the TT also has a completely unique interior, it has its own unique buttons, its own seats, its own centre console, its own dash, its own chassis stiffening and much more. It also only shares one engine, with new beetle; the 180ps turbo 4 in the base model front wheel drive TT. The beetle was also built on this platform but even that was a far cry from the golf, and the problems with the beetle were mostly packaging issues that made the engines difficult to work on. I cant speak for every engine the beetle came with but the 20V turbo (AEB) may genuinely be the best four cylinder engine ever made. The AEB engine in its final form lasted from like 1993 to 2010, but its history goes back waaay longer than that. I know there are also issues with that DSG, but it is the first DSG ever sold in a production car and also you deserve issues if you purchase an automatic.

>>4464402
>the sunk cost seems to hit pretty hard with photography
You can always sell the stuff you don't use. I still keep my old cameras and gear since they make for good secondary cameras or have lenses I don't want use often enough to buy on my latest camera, or they're just good to loan to family or friends if they want a nice camera (so I just set it up on Aperture Priority with auto ISO and tell them how Fstops work).

>>4464398
>These days even Skoda is better quality and built with more thought than Audis are.
This has to be bait

>audi defenders
the meme really is true about /p/ isnt it

>>4464408
Yes. The average IQ of a professional photographer is 93, so pseuds like you will just believe shit and not even think about it.

>>4464395
>NOO ITS JUST WHITE BALANCE CAMERA IS FINE
The cameras have a green bias

It's why olympus colors are so dull

>>4464414
>NOOO IT JUST HAS MORE GREEN PHOTOSITES
Sorry if I made it sound like it's the fault of the white balance that's not what I meant. I meant its your fault for using the camera wrong.

>>4464418
Every camera has more green photosites but olympus has a strong green cast regardless. It might be the sensor is too small so the less sensitive red and blue sites are disadvantaged.

>>4464420
Skill issue. No one else has this issue. The problem with olympus cameras is not a green cast, thats snoy.

>>4464414
>>4464420
>t.snoy owner

>>4464421
Most people prefer sony colors. The green thing is just gearfags using a shitty lightroom profile because they’re better at shopping than they are at photography.

>>4464425
>the RAW files only become bad once you open them

File: Screenshot 2025-08-31 at (...).png (2.65 MB, 2328x786)

2.65 MB PNG

>>4464354
>heating up all the cameras internals all the time, and making you more vulnerable to condensation
wouldn't that do that opposite though
>>4464395
>>4464418
>>4464421
>>4464423
do you guys not use an editor that lets you roll back all the default adjustments or something?

>>4464433
>wouldn't that do that opposite though
No, condensation usually appears when hot, humid air comes into contact with something cold. So, if there's any moisture in the air and your camera heats that up, any cold part of your camera can get condensation. It can also happen in the reverse but this is the most common way. The best way to avoid condensation is to avoid humidity and avoid temperature differences, which is why many people say you should acclimate your camera by leaving it in the bag when going from cold outdoors to warm indoors.

File: BBA_6990.jpg (168 KB, 1400x932)

168 KB JPG

>>4464381

Jaaaaaaaaaggg X306 supremacy.

If you're going to drive a 25 year old luxobarge that breaks down constantly at least get one that has cheap parts and makes supercharger noises from the factory.

>>4464408
>>4464406
VWfags legitimately believe their cars aren't that bad like >>4464404 while everyone else believes they are that bad. It's weird because vwfags are either expert mechanics or somehow get their cars all built like fucking Toyotas (maybe they were built on a Wednesday?) and have exactly zero issues.

>>4464376
Seriously where are you seeing these $500 a7iiis?

Those are Facebook Marketplace scams. The actual price is closer to $900 starting. Only time I've seen a a7 sell for that low is if it's a original a7 or a a7ii

>>4464445
i see a7iiis, real ones, go for under $800 all the time

sorry you got scammed by japanese ebay jews (all of whom are listing the same locally sold thing from a real camera store and are paying several hundred less than you). local sellers will gladly negotiate down to the price ebay would actually give them ($750ish) because the ebay turbojews take almost 15% of the combined sales price, tax, and shipping fee and then subtract that from the buyers payment to you.

the only good sellers on ebay are people desperate for money, fences, and legit camera stores liquidating used inventory in a hurry to fill their shelves with new shinies. all of these listings go in a hurry and won't show up until several months after you crack and buy something you didn't want originally.

>>4464427
>the raw files are not bad, adobe lightroom is bad
This is a correct take however
Adobe is the least competent software company on earth.
Like microsoft, they copped a false "industry standard" claim by offering cheaper licensing contracts to schools and low tier businesses and getting people locked in for life.

The actual standards are capture one and macs, with large scale rendering jobs typically being done on linux

>>4464445
Can you explain what exactly is the difference between le reliably toyota and a vw? Like be specific, why do you think toyotas are reliable? What makes them reliable?

>>4464447
Shit I better go tell all my industry buddies that we've been doing it wrong the whole time, they'll be fuming. Thanks, jobless redditor, for informing me.

>>4464447
>if I manually reconstruct every colour in le darktable i will be a pro
If you had ever had a job you would know that clients want results fast. Fucking around with dogshit operating systems, dogshit cameras, and dogshit software does not make you a professional, it makes you clueless.

>>4464450
Tell them they got screwed by a literal corporate conspiracy?
And now they're stuck in their ways and have huge catalogs?
And adobe is going to raise their subscription price again?
Yeah go ahead
They either know or are coping

Just because they got screwed doesn't mean anyone else should willingly get screwed going forward tho. I'd rather use affinity even.

>>4464454
>dogshit operating systems
Windows?
>Dogshit cameras
Canon?
>Dogshit software
Adobe?

>>4464456
The thing that I'm not getting is you're playing this game where you seem to think it somehow causes issues for me if you're wrong. It's actually really good for me if you continue to use this clunky obfuscated workflow that only leads to putrid results, it's one less competitor :D not that you would be anyway lol :D

>>4464445
>Seriously where are you seeing these $500 a7iiis
I've seen lots sell for about that on facebook marketplace. Like 900 AUD which im guessing is probably around 500 USD, but I didn't look it up because I don't care.

File: average nasa control room.jpg (157 KB, 590x232)

157 KB JPG

>>4464457
You're on so much cope you think I said darktable is used or should be. Large scale rendering projects are all that happens on linux in the creative jobs. Someone somewhere always knows how to batch convert video slightly faster using it.

Clunky and obfuscated with putrid results definitely describes using adobe suite too

Adobe is windows, capture one and phocus are macs. Sorry you got screwed but please don't pretend it was a good choice and anyone else should be screwed going forward.

>>4464461
You're not selling it lil bro, you should type out some more messages along the lines of
>well actshully everything you said is bad about my thing is actually bad about your thing
Professionals use Canon and Lightroom. Get over it.

>>4464462
>"Professionals"
Not any professional I'd give up a real career to be

It's a gloat in the vein of "real professionals use windows" -sent from a cubicle

>>4464406
He's not wrong, Skoda is fucking based and for some reason reliable. Czech magic.
>>4464389
I kinda hate the E39 despite it being peak BMW quality, I feel like it and the E36 were the beginning of the brand dilluting its identity.
>>4464397
It's the dishonesty that bothers me the most I guess. It presents itself as a premium product, luxury even but it's a glorified VW down to being FWD based. It's as pathetic as Mercedes' FWD models, but at least those are cheap so everyone knows they're not real Mercs.
>Porsche
Based if a bit too conservative. Carrera GT is a favorite of most motorheads.
>Bugatti
Love/hate. The Tourbillon is a masterpiece, timeless in an era where almost every car is a rolling iPad monstrosity.
>Lamborghini
Not a big fan of VAG-era Lamborghinis. It's a shame the true Lambos aren't made anymore.
>Skoda
Based, basically improved VWs with clever, innovative designs and superior reliability. VW itself I don't dislike, it's Audi that's sad.
>>4464398
This guy gets it.
>>4464404
>audicuck cope

>>4464408
I mean, we have fujislugs so it's hardly surprising. Defending the inexcusable seems like the board's pastime.
>>4464410
Instead of an A4 you could have bought something worthy of the price tag like a Giulia.
>>4464437
I love Jags as well, and assume that like me you're disgusted at the recent turn of events with the company. It has to be a humiliation ritual at this point.

>>4464465
>>4464466
You could have just said you're a layperson, would have been a lot easier than sifting through this tidal wave of uninformed slop.

>>4464466
>Defending the inexcusable
Like pentax's inability to design a competent full frame mirrorless or at least catch up to the blazing fast autofocus of the canon 5dIII with their $2000 new DSLR?

>>4464467
>more Audi cope
Love to see it, lol
Enjoy your understeer I guess.

>>4464465
>E39
>peak BMW quality
Behold the tripfag opinion on what is widely regarded as one of the most troublesome cars to ever grace the earth.

>>4464470
I'm talking build quality, not reliability. Everyone knows BMW cars are maintenance intensive. VANOS is no free lunch.

>>4464465
>This golf is more reliable because it has a skoda badge on it.
You know skodas are VW's right? They have the exact same engines.

>>4464471
>good build quality
>bits fall off tho
Retarded

>>4464471
>VANOS
aka the least reliable variable valve timing system on earth

>>4464470
it's the cutting intellect you'd expect from someone who thinks EVFs are the end of reality itself

i think he might be blind in one eye and the injury that did it also took out half his brain

>>4464465
Love how for bugatti he picks out the only bugatti model in the entire company's history to be completely unimportant to the design of the car. Literally every other model they've made has been influential in some way and that's the one you pick. Astonishing. There is so much wrong with this post its unreal. If it were posted by an anonymous it surely would be considered bait.

>>4464465
>It's a shame the true Lambos aren't made anymore.
And what makes it a 'true' lambo? Not the engine I guess? Because the one in the murcie is based on of the original Lamborghini v12s.

>>4464465
>I feel like it and the E36 were the beginning of the brand dilluting its identity.
No? Any actual enthusiast would tell you the best cars BMW ever produced are the e36 and the e46. There is no care more quintessentially 'BMW' than the e46 m3 cs

File: 1748298778097422.png (2.02 MB, 2560x1440)

2.02 MB PNG

>>4464437
The real superior Jag is the X350. Aluminium monocoque construction, bitch.

File: Untitled1776_(1).png (185 KB, 413x400)

185 KB PNG

>>4464376
>Sony cameras are actually extremely affordable, they're usually cheaper than Nikon and about the same as Canon. No one hates sony because they can't afford it, you can get a used a7iii for like 450 bucks.

>>4464480
Reminder she fucked up white balance for both cameras at different times in the video lmao

>>4464472
A car is more than a design, Skoda plants make engines too and obviously to higher standards.
>>4464473
The blondie tearing cars apart usually has the parts loosened beforehand, this applies to all cars.
>>4464474
>aka the least reliable variable valve timing system on earth
You're agreeing with my point. It's extremely sophisticated but the cost is reliability. No free lunch.
>>4464475
Too new for its influence to be measured. Also bad influence is a thing and the Veyron is disgusting.

>>4464476
That's only because it was a transition model. They ditched it for the Aventador.
Most Lambos have Audi engines and the cherry on top is the abomination known as the Urus, a bland SUV.
>inb4 Rambo Lambo
That one was a radical design and utterly based.
>>4464478
E36 is such a sad departure from the BMW identity that the LCI E46 recovered some design elements from the classic BMWs. Peak BMW was the E34.

>>4464482
>Skoda plants make engines too and obviously to higher standards.
You mean those Skoda plants in Czech? Like the ones that make the Volkswagen engines? The Volkswagen engines that are put into Volkswagen Cars? In that very same factory?

>>4464482
>Too new for its influence to be measured
Nope. Just a shitty low production model made to sell to rich cunts so it goes up in value later. Veyron held the speed record for ages, the Chiron broke 300.

>>4464483
>E36 is such a sad departure from the BMW identity that the LCI E46 recovered some design elements from the classic BMWs. Peak BMW was the E34.
Describe the BMW identity specifically. See, what the rest of us thought was something along the lines of
>Tight, responsive, nimble, two-door super saloons, based on existing consumer models, sporting inline six engines tuned up enough to keep in competition with its foreign V8 rivals

>>4464486
A tuned 80s Pontiac Trans Am was faster than the Veyron. As for the richfags, every Bugatti is like that.
>>4464484
VW has plants making engines in other countries too. Statistics show Skodas to be far more reliable than VWs.

>>4464488
>VW has plants making engines in other countries too. Statistics show Skodas to be far more reliable than VWs.
Where they use the same machines to make the same shit. You really think these cars have noticeable reliability differences based on large scale manufacturing defects? Come on man you sound like a fuckin moron. Those "statistics" are based on surveys of people who very well may be as retarded as yourself, and not based on any kind of actual numbers. Toyotas are always on top of those surveys because toyota markets themselves as "le reliable choice" and their customers are the ones who fall for it, so of course they will say to the survey man "yuep its reeal gud".

>>4464487
Sounds like reviewer (shill) bullshit to me. The identity has a lot to do with the styling and the E36 ditched most of the BMW tradition. With a different badge it could easily have passed for something else. The sporty handling I concede is a trait of BMW. Inline sixes are not exclusive to the brand but also missing from the M3 which is what you seem to allude to when you say "based on existing consumer models". They're all consumer models BTW and in fact "consumer models" are what represents a brand that's not exotic.
>>4464489
Toyota has been falling but their designs were once notoriously resistant to neglect.

planning to get Leica Q3 as a EDC
first camera, I'm a shitter IT drone with no artistic talent
mainly interested in a modern compact rugged no compromise camera I could bring on hikes, not really interested in fucking around with lenses
Q4 is not around the corner as far as I can tell, and Q3 is still being patched and supported

>>4464491
>planning to get Leica Q3 as a EDC
>first camera, I'm a shitter IT drone with no artistic talent
lol
>rugged, no compromise
>leica
leica is last in the industry for reliability and sells their substandard firmware as a good thing because "its more pure dude" "REAL art doesnt need that"

let me save you the pain
buy a ricoh GRIII or GRIIIX and since you like spending money just buy another one if it somehow breaks (it probably won't)

>>4464494
>>4464491
Advice for you. As soon as someone says the word "reliability" and does not cite any relevant source, you can stop listening. Australian tier niggerbrain.

>>4464495
>please spend 2 hours citing all the leica owners complaining about broken cameras and dogshit customer service
>then do the math for me on how few cameras leica sells vs the number of complaints
>and compare it to how rarely nikons high end cameras break (actually leicas areless reliable than their entry level DSLRs were)
they're worse than panasonic, even

panasonic never released a camera with fuckin sensor rust

>>4464497
I could say literally anything and it would have the same bearing in truth as what you have just said. It's just complete baseless conjecture. You're allowed to have opinions that's fine, but an adult should be able to determine when something is opinion and when something is fact, which is quite worrying for you, I'm afraid.

>>4464494
>>4464497
>leica is last in the industry for reliability
this is the complete opposite to what I see in tech specs and on forums
ricoh GRIV is not rated and leica q3 is IP52
>nikons high end cameras
also not rated and "humidity: 85% or less (no condensation)"
what are the body reliability issues with Q3?
I just want a camera that I can abuse in a reasonable fashion

>>4464481
buy an ad

>>4464499
Make a titanium pinhole camera.

>>4464499
>I just want a camera that I can abuse in a reasonable fashion
Eos 1 (any, film or digital except the aps-h digitals) or if you're a real retarded blockhead and you think ur gunna break something, the nikonos V

File: article__4_1722434831.jpg (695 KB, 1500x1125)

695 KB JPG

>>4464503
>nikonos V
old and film, I want iphone compatibility
>Eos 1
eoses are all not rated as far as I can tell
I want to abuse them in the same way I abuse my smartphone: occasional drop, chucking it into a backpack
for Q3 I'm planning to get this $700 bullshit: https://www.angelo-pelle.com/product/tokyo-holster-for-leica-m for bag and around the place transport + Peak Design straps for ready to go quick access https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1372683-REG/peak_design_cp_bk_3_capture_camera_clip_black.html

>>4464504
No compact camera (or ILC), Q3 included can reliably survive a drop from waist height onto hard ground, except mayyybe a TG-7. But those don't take very nice images. I think you're just better off with a phone man.

>>4464505
this is really sad, chat
I'm still likely to DROP $8k on it just because I have more money than sense
I promise I will try to handle it carefully
is there any advantage in going to leica store in the mall to get it over ordering it on B&H?

>>4464509
Other than that you can try it out in person before you buy it, probably not. If you want an heirloom camera you're better off getting an M series leica than a Q though. A Q will lose value pretty quick, a digital M will lose value but they have a much more stable price floor, film leica M's even moreso. The film leicas are reasonably robust, they did use them in veitnam and many other conflicts.

File: Screenshot_20250901-01490(...).png (1.65 MB, 540x3086)

1.65 MB PNG

>>4464449
The parts aren't built to the lowest possible bidder and they can build simple stuff like water pumps that don't leak and timing chain tensioners that don't lose tension before 100,000 miles. The sunroofs aren't epoxied to the roof skin causing them to leak sometimes when new too. Toyota tends to be more conservative while VW is forced to push more technology which can backfire on them (early direct injection that carboned up for example).

Newer VWs aren't nearly as bad as the older ones imo, all the German car marques kinda realized their reputation for unreliablity was affecting residuals and not helping with new car sales. Worst offenders I see are Korean cars, JLR, CDJR then Mercedes. The newer MQB VWs for example are pretty damn good but I wouldn't touch something like a Arteon even with your dick.

>>4464489

Skodas use 2 generation old VW power trains at the end of their lifecycle

That's the real reason. Their parts are the latest revision and being a discount brand you're not getting the latest direct injection engine from VW or Audi that might have issues VW won't bother to fix until 2 years from the cars end of production

>>4464446
Ok, here's my local area. Those are all body only prices btw. Sony prices are pretty fucking difficult to buy second hand because thirdie scammers know how desirable they are so they all use them as bait for retards to send them money for cameras that don't exist. Even when you go by "completed sales" on eBay anything under $900 either has a issue like a broken screen or lens error or it's a seller with under 10 feedback who's probably a shitskin seamonkey in Jakarta making his months pay scamming some retard hungry for a deal on a camera

>>4464515
>The parts aren't built to the lowest possible bidder
Except this doesnt mean anything. You're just claiming their parts are better. Volkwagens have used forged internals in even economy engines for decades.

>Skodas use 2 generation old VW power trains at the end of their lifecycle
Volkswagen also uses 2 generation old power trains in some models. And they don't just re-invent the engine with every product cycle, while teething still occurs on any new platform, with each iteration this process is lessened by the knowledge accumulated in previous cycles.

>>4464353
OVFs don't show accurate depth of field even when using DoF preview, the ground glass doesn't show DoF shallower than something like f/2.8. This is a compromise they make to have a brighter view.

>>4464354
>The prism and matte screen are precise optical elements are just better
lolno, see above

>>4464516
>Forged internals

Doesn't matter on a stock car under 300hp you're not going to modify.

This is what I mean by lowest possible bidder

https://www.allaboutlean.com/volkswagen-prevent/

IMO this was the cause of the Mk4s having constant ignition coil issues (switch from Bosch to Bremi/Hitachi coils). They push too hard to cost cut with suppliers and the suppliers comply to keep the contract. Same reason VW keeps getting OE parts from China in newer cars.

iirc the timing chain is undersized vs other car brands (direct injection high compression turbo 4 cylinder with cam driving fuel pump = more likely to stretch) + the original tensioners weren't strong enough + plastic guides.

They do constant revisions though. Look at the PCV system changes for EA888 2.0Ts. You have 2015-16, 17, and 18-21 then the 22+ Mk8s...all because the PCVs kept getting clogged or backing up = increased oil consumption, increased carbonization, or blowing out seals from crankcase pressure. The revisions weren't for no reason. Some engines were complete shitters too. Early 1.4 TSi comes to mind...ditto the Mk6 EA888 2.0T (ring issues leading to oil consumption) or 3.0T V6 Audis with valvetrain problems (rockers had bad metallurgy iirc and would wear out early on the early-mid 2010s cars)

>>4464466

Yeah I am absolutely disgusted at the EV rebrand, the car doesn't even look that good it's like they took an E-Type and made it gay.

>>4464479

Yeah but they cost too much and still have the maintenance costs of my X306, and use a V8 that shares parts with Ford instead of a proper British inline six that was shared with an Aston Martin. The air suspension on them is shit, it's nice for long hauls but on city streets they ride like my track car with Bilstein coilovers which, acceptable and nice on a sports car but not acceptable on a land barge. Most people convert them to coilovers anyway.

The whole reason of owning a Jaaaaag is the uncompromised ride. I did 155 in my XJR and it felt like I was floating. You don't feel shit because the suspension was designed in the 1950s and the only change they made for my X306 was ditching the inboard rear brakes. The rear subframe is almost exactly the same as a Series II except with my XJR it has factory LSD.

The X350 is a good Jag, but not the best XJ they made. That would be the X300 V12 Vanden Plas which was only available in Europe, we got the V12 but only with the regular wheelbase like my XJR. It was the best version of the V12 because it fixed all of the problems the old V12 had and brought the ignition system into the 21st century with Magneti Marnelli wasted spark coil ignition, ditching the distributors and crappy Lucas fuel injection.

The final version of the Jaguar V12 was one of the finest V12 engines ever made, by any company, including Ferrari. Even old man Enzo liked the Jag V12 when he was alive.

>>4464518
>Doesn't matter on a stock car under 300hp you're not going to modify.
It does when you're talking about longevity and resistance to neglect. Even though normal operation is well below the load floor of regular cast parts, you cannot guarantee that conditions will always be optimal. It's stuff like this that really matters.

>>4464519
>my X306
Bahahahaha holy shit

>>4464520
What good are forged internals if it's burning a quart of oil every 2000km or you need to change the timing chain at 200,000km? Ill even forgive the leaking water pumps since it's a relatively easy job.

I get your point but these cars have consistent issues that the manufacturer only recently decided to resolve. Enshittification of the automotive industry means stuff like Hondas aren't better (L15B Turbo 1.5 in every base car and Civic Si likes to blow headgaskets and WILL blow the fuck up if you do anything beyond a exhaust and tune...tiny rods and bearings iirc nothing like the old Honda engines but was built to get 40mpg and make 200hp nothing more).

File: 480768599_243001299733936(...).jpg (301 KB, 2048x1536)

301 KB JPG

>>4464521

Don't hate, it still converts the rear tires to smoke and can be driven sideways with the gas pedal around corners.

The interior has half of an Amazon rainforest on the dashboard and doors. It is the absolute last word in uncompromised ride quality, it feels like driving a bank vault.

>>4464522
And so what? Every vehicle bar EV's has major service intervals, even then you need to replace batteries eventually.

File: file.png (341 KB, 479x720)

341 KB PNG

>>4464523
>t.
If you were going to buy an ugly old angloid money pit you could have at least gone with a silver shadow. That dash looks it came out of a 90s chinese econobox

File: 124327267_131404002560334(...).jpg (62 KB, 960x640)

62 KB JPG

>>4464526

u w0t m80

>>4464526
The gauges are the only ugly part I've seen on that car so far, idk why Sugar doesn't just ignore your sour grapes posting.
>silver shadow
Tasteless brandfag.

>/p/ - auto

>>4464544
I mean, when retard fags name the general "cum" this is only natural.

>>4464546
would you kindly suggest a new name for the /o/ p thread

>>4464544
Photography and cars confirmed autistic hobbies

>>4464547
/speedgraphic/
/p/etrol
/aki/ - auto kino intensifies

>>4464552
Some more:
/drive/
/ron/
/vroom/
/p/ower
/motor/
/highest/
/nox/
/autoreflex/
/benzin/
/wheels/
/wagen/
/nskk/
/volk/
/kdf/
Etc etc

>>4464512
>A Q will lose value pretty quick
That's an understatement. They're now approaching the $5k mark, in basically mint/new condition (in the overseas markets). I suspect that by some time next year they'll be in the upper $4k range.

>>4464580
I think that's due to US import tariffs, not because their value in US is lower

File: 403607485_208971990136867(...).jpg (419 KB, 2048x1542)

419 KB JPG

>>4464550

Autismos typically have multiple hobbies, I do retro computers and gaming too

This is an AMD K6-2+ I did a BIOS flash on, old school with a floppy disk, had to make a boot disk with AWDFLASH, load the firmware (to support the K6-3+ in the mail) and flash it.

>>4464480
Sony is so successful even 4chan gets anti-sony propaganda

>>4464491
Get a sony a7cr. Leica just repackages sony camera but with worse build quality and optimizations for using their soft samyang tier lenses.

File: 468206066_235597329474333(...).jpg (406 KB, 1542x2048)

406 KB JPG

Athlon 64 box I built for a LAN party doing a hardware burn-in on UT2004

File: 468398655_235671589133574(...).jpg (363 KB, 2048x1542)

363 KB JPG

>>4464612

My bad, 3.4ghz P4 Prescott s478, this one has a watercooling setup awaiting install when I get back home in October.

I have an A64 in a similar case I built as well.

>>4464519
>Has X300 XJR
Confirmed manlet

>>4464628

so everyone in 1995 was a manlet then?

>>4463929
>>4463945
Anybody got an opinion if I should get the 35-100 to replace the 90V?

Really unsure. The 90V seems like the better lens overall, especially stopped down. But I want to zoom. But 35 is useless to me, I'd only use it from 50-100. I for sure won't carry around both.

>>4464634
Don't bite the b8, dood. He probably moves around in one of those rolling cuck sheds with a motor, transmission and steering he can't even engage directly with, filled with cameras everywhere.

>>4464648

fair point, I'd chop my dick off before I ever drove a rolling CIA wiretap

>>4464648
Delicious duck projection, tell us more

>>4464611
Buy an ad

File: Laughing-Girls-meme-2[1].jpg (45 KB, 449x401)

45 KB JPG

>>4464479
>mondeo with a body kit

>>4464662
>>4464681
You forgot to put bait in the hook, retards

>>4464480
>>4464481
she also thinks every portrait needs to be wide open. she really doesnt know anything about cameras kek.

>>4464550
That was the point made at the very start here >>4464375.
A full 24 hours later and that Audi tard is still going about how VW isn't shit.

>>4464701
Her work is still better than 95% of all people on here, which is not saying much at all.

>>4464704
everyone here is too obsessed with gearfagging to actually learn how to take a good photo

>>4464705
Correct.

>>4464489
This guy >>4464515 has it right. Skoda gets the parts bin treatment, but it's always slightly older tried and true parts that are on their final revision with all the issues sorted out, whereas Audi and VW always get the newest shit which is always the worst. I was also a mechanic for a few years after highschool and VWs always had some stupidly designed parts that would just break all the time or be a pain to access, it was ridiculous. I forget what model but there was one where the horns were angled in a funny way and would fill up with water and crap, so eventually they'd just stop working, or an issue on the Audi TT where water would get onto the cables under the hood and it would travel all the way to the taillights and fill the taillights with water.

The two brands I loathed working on the most were anything VAG or Land Rover. I still think Land Rover was worse overall though, there was a really late 2000s model that lived perpetually in the shop and never spent more than maybe two weeks on the road.

tl;dr Audi is pretty shitty

>>4464705
That is why fgt mogs rpt.

>>4463928
>Nikon Zf
>>not compact, too bulky

Manlet skill issue

>>4463929
what do you think about the X2D II as travel photography camera? maybe even street photography as well?

File: 192436265_146236939077040(...).jpg (71 KB, 960x720)

71 KB JPG

>>4464681

Obvious troll but fuck it I'll bite, I used that logic to get my XJR into All Ford Nationals one year (pic related) because it was 95 degrees out with 500 percent humidity and I didn't feel like walking from one end of the event to the other just to look at the swap meet, I spent the whole day chauffeuring my friends back and forth in the AC to raid the swap meet for shit and I raided the Milwaukee tool tent and spent most of my money there on batteries and shit lol

That was the X-type, and there was a wagon version, with AWD, and manual transmission. I would almost trade my XJR for one. They were one of the most reliable Jags made.

They weren't quite a Mondeo, the AJ-V6 cylinder heads were very different from the Mondeo engine. It had VVT which the Mondeo lacked, as well as DAMB tappets which gave it a significant power boost up to 240hp in the S-type RWD platform.

File: 1517955847574.jpg (199 KB, 807x463)

199 KB JPG

My dream lenses are just Loxia, but with autofocus. Is that too much to ask?

Looking to get back into photography after a ~10 year hiatus. Used to shoot with a d90. Looking at getting a mirrorless camera around the $1000 mark. Primarily for outdoors, hunting, and travel. Don't care about video. Needs are small, lightweight, weather sealed, and usb-c charging. Would the z50ii with the 16-50 kit lens be a good choice?

why are cameras so shit even in 2025
latest and greatest overpriced compact cameras have no weather rating and history of "dust ingress" destroying the camera, so I can't even chuck it into the backpack and have to have a separate gay bag for it
compare with any smartphone on the market that are at least IP54, even the cheap chinese shit

>>4464737
Will any of the subjects be moving fast? Nikon mirrorless has pretty shitty autofocus, so as long as your subject is stationary or slow, it's a good pick.

>>4464741
No quick movement, if any at all. Thanks anon.

>>4464742
Yeah that'll work then. I like my Nikon too but the AF is pure shit for anything moving at speed. You can also look at a Tamron zoom lens with stabilization in the future too, they're really good and afforable lenses.

>>4464737
>Don't care about video.
Then why are you downgrading to mirrorless? Just get a Pentax KF or something instead of a glorified camcorder. Photography is an afterthought in mirrorless cameras.

>>4464759
Retard

>>4464737
Yeah probably

>>4464741
This is flat out disinfo. z6 and z6ii adjacent models (other than the z8 and z9) had bad subject tracking, but the autofocus was better than their DSLRs if it was used like a DSLR. The expeed 7 bodies keep up with cannot POS R and snoy, only the slower sensors are slightly less accurate at tracking because they use the image readout for subject detection. It's not a big deal. If you don't buy a $2000-$3000 camera simply use an older DSLR focus area mode for birds and shit like every photographer that shot sports did for 20 years.

I can't imagine the z50ii's autofocus being problematic for anything but someone trying to take photos of their dog/cat with one hand while holding the treats with the other.

Coincidentally that describes the biggest nikon mirrorless whiner on /p/.

>>4464777
>The expeed 7 bodies keep up with cannot POS R and snoy
did you stroke out?

CANNOT POS R5 IIx as noisy
Lol!

yo folks. do i need to care about the V rating of an sdxc card if i dont give a fuck about video? like v30 uhs I good enough ? (24 mp files)

File: msup.jpg (42 KB, 968x545)

42 KB JPG

>only shoot film right now (SRT 101)
>finally lurked /p/ enough and want a camera now
>want to make videos AND take photos
>can't find a camera that's good at both
>sony zv-e1 is supposed to good for videos but sucks at photos
>a7c or a6400/6700 good for photos but suck at videos

what the hell am I supposed to buy

>>4464804
Not really, no. It will dictate how quickly photos will leave the cameras cache and get written to the card though, so maybe keep that in mind if you like to hold the button down for multiple quick shots, as it will slow down suddenly once the buffer is full.

>>4464806
Get two cameras, dumbass

>>4464809
fuck you

>>4464806
Most cameras will be more of one than the other. I hear really good things about the A7CII though, so maybe consider that one if your budget allows.

>>4464810
>Two camera timmy absolutely seething

KEK

I'm thinking it's finally time to get a standard zoom.
I was thinking what to choose between 24-70, 28-70, 28-75 but realized I don't really care.
Instead, what is a standard zoom available on Sony E that has the best macro capability? Obviously I don't mean real macro, but whatever gets me closest to 1:2.

>>4464777
Mad at the truth?

>>4464806
Z50ii or Z5ii

File: DSC07580.jpg (2.01 MB, 2000x1336)

2.01 MB JPG

>>4464850

24-120 is the way

but of those three, I am quite fond of my Zeiss 24-70/4. The stabilizer is very good on it and it's built like a brick shithouse. Image quality is outstanding, pic related.

>>4464850
Wait for Sigma 20-200

>>4464739
They aren't, you just have a shit perspective/attitude

>>4464874
anon do you have adhd
>>4464875
kinda interesting since it doesn't look too big but 6.3 at 200mm is rough
I did consider a 35-135 instead of a regular standard zoom but it's too bit big and not wide enough
>Sigma is also making a 135mm F1.4
holy shit
I hope it's expensive enough that I won't be able to afford it otherwise I might have to get one

>>4464883
I mean it's either 200mm at f/6.3 or nothing at all since nothing else has such a range. If you dont care for range and need speed just get the 28-70/2.8.

>>4464886
my platonic ideal is a 24-135mm F2.8 but that's probably physically impossible

>>4464887
Sell your snoy and get the Canon 24-105/2.8

I got a 55-250 yesterday, has anyone done metal mount conversions? All I remember is hearing there could be focus or quality issues on the mount itself but never looked too far into it.

>>4464883

autism

File: IMG_5726.jpg (1.71 MB, 2976x1984)

1.71 MB JPG

>>4464889
Yes. Converted the EF-S 10-18 to a metal mount for no real reason other than because. It adds a small but noticable amount to the total weight and weight balance of the lens, and will probably be more meaningful for balance on the 55-250. The main reason to do so is for doing video on full frame cameras because there's normally a big crop from the sensor, but really you do it because metal is nice.

So if you want to do it, undo the 4 or 5 screws holding the mount onto the barrel. They are small and the heads round easily (ask me how I know). Use a jewelry phillips head / Pozidrive of 0 or 00 size, and push reasonably firm into the screw as you turn it. Once the screws are off that's really it. Just lift the plastic mount up and sit the metal one back down. Don't scratch the lens contacts. While the mount is off the PCB is exposed so also don't be a retard and damage it. It's a simple 3 minute job if you've ever taken apart anything before.

I have noticed zero issues with focusing, exif, or any other possbile functionality.

File: imgbin-frank-west-dead-ri(...).jpg (46 KB, 310x793)

46 KB JPG

I just found a 70-200 USM f/4, non IS one for, $250, should I get it? Seems low enough that even if I don't like it I could make $100 on it, but I have no L series lenses so I'd probably just end up clearing all my telephoto's out.

>>4464896
Very good lens for the price. I have that but the gen I IS and it's honestly my favorite lens despite the weight and length. The zoom ring glides around so easily it's a dream compared to some others. No creep either.
I used to rock the 200mm f/2.8 prime and I will admit it's lighter and less attention seeking, but there's something freeing about having a good zoom range and f/4 @ 200mm is still great.
The photos I take with that have a noticably better micro contrast and overall rendering save for maybe my 100mm macro.

Get it.

>>4464905
I'd like more zoom but for the price I would be happy to have at least one piece of serious glass. Would it take well to teleconverters? I remember seeing a comparison between a 70-200 and the 100-400 L series and they said it was still sharper than the 100-400, but I don't remember if it was this optics formula or like a 2.8. I think someone said the AF wouldn't work with a crop sensor earlier than like a T7i since it would be like F8, but even a 1.4 tele would be nice.

>>4464910
I have the EF 70-200 f/4 IS USM I and the RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 IS USM.
Despite the lower weight, better zoom range, lower comparative cost, native mount (R8), and having a sensor that 1-2 stops of higher ISO is negligable, the 70-200 gets used 5x as much. But ymmv for whatever you shoot.
> Would it take well to teleconverters?
Yes but I would only get the 1.4x. A 140-400mm f/8 is a bit pathetic in terms of performance against just buying a 100-400mm. There is zero chance that is sharper than an EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 gen I. The 70-200 f/2.8 has comparative performance with a 2x extender, but you're not buying one of those.
I'm on mirrorless which is cheating for AF so I can't pass judgement with your DLSR, but beware your center AF point will likely be the only one that registers if at all if you slap on a 2x.

File: file.jpg (87 KB, 700x386)

87 KB JPG

If Sigma doesn't fuck up the 20-200, I might get one for my mountain hiking trips. Please be as good as the Tamron 28-200. Seriously, that lens looks like an anomaly, it has no right being this decent for its price, range, size and weight, and with low aperture only kicking quite far in the zoom range instead of immediately.

>>4464892
I am a bit confused about the mounts. Could you take a metal mount off a EF lens and swap it on, or is it like a universal EFS to EF plate, or do you need one specific to the exact model?
I have a 75-300 I bought for $20 so if I could just swap them out for each other I'd rather do that since the factory one is probably nicer than an aftermarket.

>>4464948
1. It's giving "graphic design is my passion"
2. My G-d 20-200 sounds awesome. They should make something like it for every platform. I want one for GFX, for RF, for XCD etc.

How much should I sell my Pentax KF + Kit Lens on eBay for?

No interest locally at $350
Trade in is $280 at mpb
2 listings are body only with low shutter counts listed for $450 on eBay

Maybe $380 buy it now and $300 reserve? The 14% eBay fees are killer...

>>4464989
I'd take the $280

>>4464989
>sell for $400 on ebay
>ebay adds $50 of shipping and tax to their FVF calculation
>actual profit less than $350
>get buttfucked by a return scammer for trying to get an extra 70 bucks

>>4464712
>Audi TT where water would get onto the cables under the hood and it would travel all the way to the taillights and fill the taillights with water.
I've had the first generations tail light assemblies completely apart, so maybe you mean a newer one but the way the tail lights are set is that the cables are fully insulated and they take a sharp 90 degree upward before they get to the light assembly, so I really don't understand how that would happen on any car let alone this one. I had a google to try and find anyone else that had this and I didnt find much beyond people with rotten boot seals and water getting into the trunk through that way. As for the "new stuff bad" yeah, that's why late model year vehicles of every car ever made are more valuable than first editions. VW makes a lot of engines, and they make new engines often, probably because of EU emissions bs. A good example is that 2L TFSI, which was an absolute nightmare when it was new in the mark six, but later on with the mark seven and such it's become a favourite for tuners.
>t. mechanic

>>4464806
5D mark ii is cheap and if you install custom firmware it's decent for manual focus video. It only does 24fps 1080p on full frame, but it will do RAW video with said firmware. I think you can set it to a crop mode and shoot 4K too though.

>>4465006
I was pretty sure it was the TT but it might be a different model, all I recall is it was an Audi and it was a rare issue but happened enough that it was a known issue. I've seen some weird problems on VAG products overall and some really stupid designs that had no sympathy in mind for whoever would have to work on it.

>>4465010
I hear this a lot but mainly from people who don't work on cars, in my experience volkswagens are pretty ordinary. They don't make any wild design choices really, with a couple of exceptions. My biggest issues have been with subarus and their ridiculous open cast heads needing work that often costs more than the car, and french cars which use pretty ordinary drivetrains but absolutely nothing is where you'd expect it to be. Just packaged so weirdly. Mechanics will always find something to complain about, it's not really a good career path to be honest.

>>4465012
>I hear this a lot but mainly from people who don't work on cars, in my experience volkswagens are pretty ordinary
I was a mechanic for a while, but I stopped way back in the early 10s. I think regualr VWs on the whole aren't too bad to work on but Audi is where things become annoying, especially with things like space in the engine bay.

>My biggest issues have been with subarus
All my experience with them is something oil related. My friend had one (some kind of low wagon from the mid 2000s) and that thing could make the oil disappear within 2 days, it was nothing short of incredible.

>it's not really a good career path to be honest.
Agreed, it's not worth what it does to your knees and back either. I worked with a guy that was in his late 20s and the cartilage in his knees was already beyond ruined.

>>4464996
>MPB claims its not in the condition you stated and gives you even less

>>4465002
>No returns allowed

>>4465012
VW likes to use a lot of fasteners that Japanese marques don't like to use, torx/external torx and hex in particular.

More common reason for electrical issues imo was VW loved putting the ECUs in the rain tray so if that ever cracked or didn't seat it correctly it would let water in and you'd find out when it was full of water and the ECU was fried. Alternatively ignition coils (VWs love going through them since 1.8Ts)

>>4465014
>especially with things like space in the engine bay
Yeah VW and Audi do this, they put massive engines in economy cars for shits and giggles. They're a pain to work on but they're cool. Like the 3.2L golf, the V10 touareg etc...

>All my experience with them is something oil related.
Yes, the thing I mean by the open cast heads, I dont actually mean the heads sorry, I should say the open cast cylinders, as in you take the heads off and you look at the cylinders, they're free floating, the only thing acting as a 'lid' or 'seal' between the coolant and oil channels in the engine is the head gasket. This would be bad enough, but since they're all boxers, they also have gravity working against them, the fluids want to travel down so puts a lot of pressure on the head gasket to be a perfect seal, which typically it isn't. Thats when it starts making STI racing fluid (coolant mixed with oil)

>>4465016
>VW loved putting the ECUs in the rain tray so if that ever cracked or didn't seat it correctly
I havent come across this one personally but yeah that sound pretty shit. Old cars just hate being left in the rain in general. As for the ignition coils, ive changed them a couple of times on my golf, but only preventatively, so not sure where theyd be at if I hadn't.

11-point AF sucks ass

Fuck it, settled on:

$380 buy it now on eBay for my KF + kit lens ($350 locally)
$50 buy it now on eBay for a 100mm Pentax-F Macro w/a ton of haze ($40 locally)
$100 buy it now on eBay for a 18-135mm Pentax DA ($80 locally)

Gonna drop prices 10-20% if they dont move in 2 weeks

>>4464881
sounds like cope

Drunk purchased a x100vi
What am I in for?

>>4465032
The best compact travel EDC experience money can buy

File: unc.jpg (153 KB, 1070x1911)

153 KB JPG

40mm f/2.8 full frame STM lens. Apparently the STM means its good for video. Very sharp lens $85.
Canon EFS 24mm F 2.8 lens, $75.
Sigma 10-20mm F4-F5.6 lens, $75 (I don't know why this lens goes so cheap 2nd hand).
Canon Speedlight 580EXII, its a pro flash, $65.
Konica 24mm F2.8, this is very much what collectors are looking for, vintage flare and boca $100.
Konica 135 f/3.5 $20. Note that the two lenses above are Konica lenses, not Vivitar for Konica mount.
Canon FD 50mm f/1.8, pretty fast 50mm, $20.
The rest are all $10 each:
sigma FD 35-80 F4/F5.6 zoom
Makinon (Canon FD) 38mm F2.8
sorry, Makinon 28mm, F2.8 Canon fd mount
vivitar 200mm f3.5
Vivitar 400mm f/6.3
I also have a Canon A1 film camera if you are interested, and some light meters.

I got the 70-200 F4 L, he had some other stuff he showed me that he had not listed yet but sent me prices. Nothing really jumps out but is there anything to think about? I'd buy both the pancakes if they were cheaper but eh. I have a 50mm 1.8 II so the 40 is a bit close and slower. I shot a lot with a 55mm on the low end and I was going insane, so the 24mm pancake might be nice to have as a back up to a telephoto that's only 55 or 70mm at the shortest instead of having to bring like a kit, 18-135 or nothing spare at all.

>>4465032
One of the worst cameras on the market with a smeary lens, a bad sensor, flaky chinese build quality, grinding noises, and frustration as you realize it does not fit in your pocket and you paid $2000 for 40mp when its only good as an 8mp camera

>>4465031
the original complaint was cope

>>4465057
you didn't explain why, so I'm assuming you can't