The perfect lens DOES exist editionPrevious: >>4463859
>>4465149>not bigger than the Tamron 28-200HOLY. Please be at least as good as the Tamron when it comes to image quality, and it's a buy. Though I suspect it won't stay f3.5 as long as the Tamron stays f2.8, but I can live with it for travels.
>>4465150Im just impressed it isnt like f/5-8.
>>4465149>the perfect lense does EXISTbut you didn't post it?
>>4465149I've been very content with this guy
Yo, I want a nice travel tripod. Budget <$250. Whole point to be minimal on weight and small enough to go in my backpack. I have a larger tripod already that compacts down to 42cm long and would like it to be smaller than that in storage mode.>inb4 buy a used [whatever italian brand or some shit]ebay here is retarded and I don't want to have to comb listings until some retarded boomer lists his beroni not for 80% of the new price with heavy wear.Sirui seems alright; was going to buy their tiny AF desktop tripod but it only extends to 43cm which is pathetic.
>>4465164Depends on how compact and low weight you want it. The reference for fairly priced carbon tripods would be the Ulanzi Zero Y, and the equivalents and more recent Neewer LT38, LT35, LT32 that are basically copies. Upon my searches, the Ulanzi Zero Y is still slightly better even after the releases of the copies (plastic clamps on the LT35 but better ballhead and cheaper, and so on, it's always a compromise). Price will be in favor of the Neewer offering.But for my mountain hiking sessions, even if they're among the lightest tripods ever, I can't justify taking yet another 1.3kg on my backpack when i already have my tent, sleeping gear, cooking gear, food and water, for multiple days.This I went with an half tripod that's 70, or rather 75cm with the ballhead, the AOKA CMP163CL. Bought it for cheap on ChinkExpress, it does the job, folds up to 30cm so perfect for transportation, and weights less than 600g with the ballhead. Also has an extension tube to go higher over 1m, at the cost of stability, which is okay as long as you don't go full retard and you're not in a storm. Also I have light camera and lenses (A7cII and primes), so that helps.For the size and weight, and going higher than a simple tabletop tripod, it's perfect for me. For my use, I don't need a tripod going up to my own height honestly.
>>4465167I actually like this rec. Fits the bill of being bigger than a desk tripod but reasonably smaller than your average 60" tripod. A 2.5Kg max rating is a bit fucky but realistically I'd swap out the head for something else. I'm probably plopping a 1kg+ setup on it so I might go about finding a review or two to see what's what. Cheers.
>>4465191This and the Sirui 5C are on the shortlist. See how we go.
>>4465157Do elaborate please. Eyeing this chonker too.
Got a $323 offer for my $380 Pentax KF + 18-55 DA-L WR kit lens on eBay right now, decided to shop around for trade in values. $323 - 13.25% sellers fees = $280 and I still have to pay $10 to ship it. Even the $380 becomes $330 after sellers fees.Adorama: won't even take it, they said FUCK PENTAXB&H: $288 for the KF, $35 for the lens, $70 for the 18-135mm I'm also selling (listed at $100 on eBay).MPB: $280 for the KF, $13 for the lens, $50 for the 18-135mm I'm also sellingKEH: $126, $5, and $57. Guess I'm gonna go to B&H this week if it doesn't sell by end of the week.
>>4465202where are you? if you want a /p/al to make an offer on it would help to know if you're in NYC metro or London
>>4465209NYC Id unironically sell it for cheaper if it went to someone here I'm kinda just blogging about itIf you're interested in it unironically it's in the local classifieds here (CL and FB
>>4465214
>>4465200It's exactly what I wanted. A relatively compact do-everything lens, that I could also use well for video. Replaced all the primes I used in that range, and it without hood is about the same size as the primes were with hood. Very impressed with the performance wide open on the wide end.Only real complaints in practice, is that it could be better sharper wide open at 40mm, and the distortion correction on the wide end is very apparent in video when zooming in/out.From the rpt>>4463469>>4463470
>>4465200and the other rpt>>4459210>>4459296
Drunk purchased a x100 what am I in for?
>>4465273Hella dudes are going to be hitting on you if you take it outside.
>>4465273A poorly made camera that doesn't fit in your pocketLoud grinding noises from the lensFrustrated ebay searches for a deal on a Ricoh GRIIIXTrying to figure out if you can flip it or not
My AF-P 70-300 FX no longer focuses unless it's fully extended. And even then, some times I need to reseat it to get it to do that much. I've already had to send it in twice prior for repairs during the warranty, but that's now expired. Is it even worth to have it repaired for likely $100+ if it's this prone to issues?
>>4465273Well at least you didnt buy a snoy
>>4465273Too bad you didn't buy a Sony
>>4465332Would you recommend upgrading from an A6000 to the A7C?Also looking at A7CII and A6700. Primarily use for photography and shoot travel, family/portrait, street, landscape. I was planning to upgrade to full frame eventually, but reading good things about the A6700. Only interested in the small body cameras.
>>4465348Yes. The a6700 is more of a video camera and the a7cii has build quality, battery life, and heat issues.
I got a Z5IIWhat do I think of it
>>4465351nikon a7iii
Hold me brosthe Nikon Zf in silver is available. They also add grain effect in a future firmware. This sounds all too good. I'm just worried of the low megapixel count and the shitty lens options. There is really only the 40mmf2se and that 28mm that match the camera. And of course voigtländer but they are manual. hmmmmmmmmmmm
>>4465332>140 billion dollarinos worth company>can't manage to hire a good industrial designer to design a beautiful camera body
>>4465366>sounds too goodConsidering the price I'd say it sounds normally good.>there's only the 40f/2 and the 28 that matchNothing prevents you from using a different and more versatile lens, even if it doesn't exactly match the aesthetic.If you like the feel of the cameras of old you should go for it, nothing better's coming out in that niche in the next 5 to 10 years.
>>4465332>ugly soulless body>f/2.8 chinkshitlol. lmao even.
>>4465366ZF user here, buy it. To me the blacked out edition is the only good looking one but whatever. 40mm is a great lens for how cheap you can get it used but i haven't tried the 28. It seems weird to me that you want a vintage styled camera but don't want to use a manual lens. 99% of my photo's were taken with f mount AIS lenses.
>>4465366aren't these things heavy as heck?
What's good entry-level gear for absolute beginners? I've been looking around for cameras (preferably a DSLR), and Nikon D40, D90, D3300 and D7200 are being recommended a lot. I've found a D3300 for pretty cheap online, should I pull the trigger and buy it? It comes with two lenses (an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm). Do I need any other lenses besides these two as an amateur?
>>4465283Yo for real why the fuck is the focus motor so loud? I've had much older cameras that were more quiet. Is this part of the retro experience?
So since the GRIV is out, is it the time to wait for a price drop in used GRIII/X ?
>>4465401
>>4465396What do you plan on shooting?>streetGet a small prime instead>portraitsA 35 and a 85mm.>wildlife or sportsPrepare to spend more money. The 300mm pf is pretty cheap these days and would be decent on a crop body, and you'll have a lot of fun using it. Otherwise save up for a 200-500 and a monopod. You'll want a body that can keep up too, the ones you listed won't cut it. D4 or D500 are good.>LandscapeKit zoom is useful. Some landscape photogs prefer a wide zoom like a 14-28.>idk yetKit zoom should keep you going for awhile, you don't need the 55-200 but it wouldn't hurt either.Except for wildlife, any body is going to be fine.
>>4465403I don't expect new to drop anytime soon. Thus why I mentioned used.
>>4465396Yes you need a 35mm f1.8 dx
>>4465366Good thing Zf has the best MF functionality Zf has really become my favorite modern camera, and the 40/28 combo is a nice little kit
>>4465393Heavier than small mirrorless, but in the same ballpark of other mirrorless, it's lighter than an a7RVThe weight distribution isn't great, which I think adds to the weighty feeling
>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.Any of these worth looking at? I bought a 70-200L off the guy and mentioned he had other stuff. None are as good of a deal as the L series but I was thinking of the 24mm so I can have a pancake for closer up shots instead of using a 50mm and having to back up 6 times to get something fully in frame.
>>4465407>What do you plan on shooting?I really don't have a clue (yet) what my interests are, but I think I'll like street photography, portraits, and landscapes. So if I'd add a 35mm lens, will I be set for a while?>>4465425Thanks! But why do I specifically need a 35mm? Does it have any other purpose besides portraits? [spoiler]It probably does, so excuse me for my newbie questions...[/spoiler]
>>4465390Main drawback is no weather sealing. Which vintage lenses do you like with the zf?
>>4465366>Low megapixel countAs a z7 and eventually a7rv user, trust me, this is a good thing. The 24mp sensors have much better colors and less distracting grain at high ISO if you process competently (ie: not in lightroom). The high mp sensors are sharper but worse looking above iso 1600.>Shitty lens optionsThe lens options are great. The 40mm, 28mm, 24-70 and 24-50 kit lenses are all better than most of F mount and sony's third party options. You can also buy an etz21pro and use all of those nice L mount ports nikon won't let sigma release for Z mount (nikon has sued sigma for stealing their patents before)
>>4465464The 40mm is weather sealed. Are you the retard who took his lens off and got water on the mount? Even weather sealed lenses do that. Plastic is hydrophobic, metal is hydrophillic. When you remove the lens water wicks onto the mount.
>>4465467I'm saying that using vintage f mount glass doesn't have weather sealing, so that's a reason to avoid it. But I still want to try it. What f mount manual glass would you recommend?
>>4465466>The 24mp sensors have much better colors and less distracting grain at high ISO if you process competently (ie: not in lightroom). The high mp sensors are sharper but worse looking above iso 1600.Partly why fooji 40MP looks like ass. Other reasons exist, but this principle contributes
>>4465479Yeah, pixels are magic. There are always gaps between them and the smaller they get the less accurate they are because of all sorts of electronics and physics bullshit. If you pack too many pixels on you're basically using a smaller sensor.
>>4465456both canon pancakes are greatdon't bother with the AR and FD mount lenses unless you have a mirrorless. adapting them to EF requires a glass element in the adapter.
>>446546335mm is wide angle on FF. Portrait photographers like primes because the wide aperture allows for background separation. 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm let you take environmental portraits as well as headshots and take advantage or some background compression.For your needs something like a kit zoom and a 50mm equivalent (that's the 35mm f/1.8 DX for example) will do great. If you find yourself wanting more isolation with your portraits you can add an 85, 105 or 135 later. Look up focal length comparisons for examples. The big thing isn't how big your subject is (you can change your position to change this), it's how large the background is in proportion to your subject.
>>4465456Avoid basically everything except either the EF-S 24mm or the EF 40mm. Get one or the other depending on if you've got crop or FF. They're very good optically and convienent as fuck to bring with you especially as a backup to a telephoto main. The 40mm, and the 70-200L is a well rounded and competent kit.
>>4465396NOT D40 or D90. They are trash.D3300 and D7200 are basically the same APS-C camera (I think they actually use the same sensor), but D7200 had more buttons and dials and is weather proof.
>>4465407A D7200 will be better than a D4 or D500.I have no idea why D500 is still so expensive. It is thoroughly outdated.
>>4465488>>4465499Yeah I figured as much, I know about the compatibility issues but I was just listing everything without deleting. If the 400mm was on a K or something else I'd get it to mess with since he was going to give one of the cheap ones as an extra for buying one of the expensive ones.It's usually more than what I spend but I really have no low focal length lenses that are """"small""" besides 18-55 kit lenses. I like the 18-135 but the telephoto is generally too short for what I do most of the time so I'd end up with that and 55-250/75-300 or 70-200 which is less than ideal.
>>4465502>A D7200 will be better than a D4 or D500Only if you don't actually take photos
Anyone despise touch screens? I already hate the back screen enough that I basically have it never out because of risk of damage, but even when I do I get annoyed because my nose hits it and starts changing with the settings.I got a T2i I need to move but have been trying it out a bit and I liked the fixed, non touch screen.
>>4465502Youtubers making le hidden gem videos and cattle shopping for a way to think they stand out, so DSLRs end up being more expensive than mirrorlessNPCs gonna NPC. More cheap MILCs for me.
>>4465513They're good if the buttons go to shit like on my lx100
>>4465513Touch screens are based for mirrorless and awkward for DSLRs.
Looking for a good dad cam for family, travel and a little bit of nature. Money is no issue. Not too bulky if possible. It's good if I can have it over my shoulder/neck for a whole day without dying. Should look kinda cool and fit to my midlife-crysis Porsche. And most important: Lots of fun and a great user experience. Not complex menus or such. I was thinking of a Leica M11 but I'm worried of only manual focusing. Must be fun but on the other hand I imagine it as constantly being busy focusing the camera using both hands, looking through the evf and missing all the nice moments with my kids. Then there is the Q with autofocus but I can't change lenses.Really love the look of that Fuji X-E5 and the small lenses. Image quality seems fine from what I saw on the internet. Even though it's not full frame. This >>4465366looks also cool and retro, though I prefer that rangefinder style of Fuji/Leica. But compared to Fuji this has a full frame sensor so might be a good alternative. Any others to check out? Lumix S9? Sigma?
>>4465366S O U L>>4465332soulless
>>4465548Sony a7c
>>4465548>Looking for a good dad cam for family, travel and a little bit of nature. Money is no issue. Not too bulky if possible. It's good if I can have it over my shoulder/neck for a whole day without dying. Should look kinda cool and fit to my midlife-crysis Porsche. And most important: Lots of fun and a great user experience. Not complex menus or such. I was thinking of a Leica M11 but I'm worried of only manual focusing. Must be fun but on the other hand I imagine it as constantly being busy focusing the camera using both hands, looking through the evf and missing all the nice moments with my kids. Then there is the Q with autofocus but I can't change lenses.I can't believe people like you exist. It fully explains why Leica can somehow stay in business.
>>4465557>I can't believe people like you exist.Yes, not everyone is poor
>>4465548Go with the Fuji X-E5. If FF is an absolute must then either Pana S9 or Nikon ZF.
>>4465559>poor*financially responsibleim here with a six figure income and a $100 watch looking down on you
>>4465560The sony a7c is a much better photo camera than the scamasonic s9
>>4465254>>4465256What f is this? Bokeh looks absolute shit for 1 grand worth of glass..
>>4465562
>>4465564Sony does make much better cameras than fuji and panasonicAnd I'd rather use an a7c than a zf despite all the tech gimmicks. It's more honest about itself.
>>4465202Update: What the fuck is the point of eBay I could've just traded it in. The fucking transaction fees are like 14.8% and the trade-in was $323 @ B&H Photo or $293 @ MPB (Adorama/KEH don't want it). The next cheapest KF is $450 body only (there's a listing for a used one from some random shop for $360 too but I'm gonna ignore that) and the average is $500 used/$600 new. I guess I sold it too cheap? I guess I get the satisfaction of knowing I got what I paid for it after putting 2500 shots through it. I paid $920 for my K1ii so the seller must've gotten $750 for it back after fees and shipping and the trade in for one is like $580-635 at MPB/Adorama/B&H...brutal. KEH has the worst pricing for trade-ins btw
>>4465548Fuji makes fake leicas. Fake vintage looks with fake vintage heritage.But also, the m11 is just a glorified a7cr.Go hunt down an m9 with a fixed sensor so at least it's unique. Lots of people make soulless CMOS 61mp digitals. No one makes large sensor CCD cameras anymore.
>>4465563I love how I only ever get complaints when I mention certain gear is used, just like the old rpt thread. Could you elaborate about what parts look like absolute shit?>>4465548X-M5t. resident Zf, Leica M, & Fuji owner
>>4465572Bokeh looks complete ass, a6000 with kit lens can do the same.
>>4465572With no exif, we assume you have a canon rebel or something. When it turns out you have $2500 of aps-c junk, well, time to nitpick.This is really bad rendering for something so new and expensive. And it's only the 4mp version. Looks like a kit zoom. Legit. I've seen smoother bokeh out of nikon's f4 kit lenses.You use all that pricey shit? Maybe you should be nitpicked more
>>4465579This is the most distracting part. Swirly cats eye bokeh is cool but stretchy gumdrop bokeh... nah. It just looks weird. Especially on my vertical monitor.
>>4465559>Doesn’t want to fiddle around with focusing>Considers an M11>Wants something that can autofocus>Considers a Q3It has nothing to do with your bank account, you’re just a fucking retard. But go ahead and buy that $10k M11 so we can all continue to laugh at you.
>huscuck is using the shitty 40mm>corguck is using the shitty sigma zoom>doghair is using blurry portrait lensesI want to go back to when the dogfags used better gearShit gear works OK! If you're a good photograper who doesn't rely on bokeh and can light and stage a scene.Good gear can really carry a snapshit. Sorry. It is how it is.
>>4465582>8x10 is bad gear, especially if you use it with a professional strobe set up! >:[WRONG! The cooke soft focus lens makes pixelpeepers seethe while producing stunningly beautiful portraits(that youll never get to see, sorry) :D It is considered one of the greatest portrait lenses ever made for good reason! Oh yeah.. I have some 8x10 e100vs snapshits Im getting developed soon that you'll get to seethe about as well hah. Mostly taken with the unmatched 300mm sinaron se f5.6.Look here, a lovely horse portrait with the cooke lens on its softest setting. Imagine this as an 8x10 contact print using azo paper developed in amidol. Higher dmax than anything else with ultra smooth tonal transitions, and a nice gloss. Beautiful! I may do another amidol print run soon, so pay attention for it in fgt. :)
>>4465580Why do cameras fuck up foliage so often? Or is it our monke brain demanding sharp foliage because it is looking for leopards in it?
>>4465366Hopefully it's better than my Df where the rubber grips last for 6 months and all the silvering rubs off after a year of using it.My Df was more weathered at 50k shutter actuations than all of my ancient film cameras. It was a very good camera and I still use it from time to time.
>>4465577lol, nope>>4465579Or with no exif, no one cares, whenever I mention Sigma or Fuji, suddenly people find problems>You use all that pricey shit?You must be very, very new here>>4465582>more dishonestyStill do use plenty of nice gear, this included
>>4465580Is this distracting too?
>>4465598It's harsh
f5.6 on 8x10 is the equivalent dof of f.75 on full frame.
>>4465598Not those other anons but they are right. This looks like something out of a kit lens.
>>4465599>>4465601Hmmm, what about this?
>>4465596$920 for THAT?>>4465598Yeah, this is kit lens/"oft-ignored vintage prime" bokeh rendering too. It's clearly a different lens or the same lens changing its character with zoom level and aperture and the center field is marginally less harsh but it's still pretty bad. I hope it wasn't expensive.
>>4465602Nasty. God damn who would want this in their photo unless it was just an off the cuff snapshit at the best available, easiest to arrive at settings>>4465600>f0.753D POOOOOP
>>44656000.7 achshually, and 3.5 is 0,5 and 1.1 is 0,1 eq;https://dofsimulator.net/en/
>>4465602My m43 takes snaps like this at f/22.
>>4465604Exactly. My horse pic itt was taken at f5.6 with a roughly 400mm lens. It's part of the goodness of 8x10, but also the difficulty.
>>4465605Even better and even worse! It can be a major struggle tocget everything in focus and not be at f64 all the time.There's a cooke portrait lens that opens up to f3.5, but I think it only has projection for 5x7 at most.
>>4465603>>4465604How about this corner?
>>4465464i'm the original anon. So I really like Canon's FL line because it creates a great vibe and a few of them are pretty sharp. For a more sharp and less "vintage" look, the Nikkor Ai or Ais era lenses.
>>4465609Not as bad as the original sigma shit.Why do you have so many photos with shitty bokeh? You're not one of those people who shoots literally everything at f5.6 are you? Or is this just an APS-C thing because sensor magnification changes DOF character regardless of "equivalence"?
>>4465611Oh these aren't my photos, I just spent a few minutes finding similar-ish examples from FE, RF, Z 24-70 f2.8's on FFSounds like all the midrange zooms have shitty bokeh from what people are saying
>>4465612Yes, they do. They're basically big kit lenses. Optical complexity is bad for OOF rendering because OOF areas include literal reflections of the lens elements.The sigma's is by far the ugliest and I assumed that maybe it cleaned up slightly at the end of the range. This is not a redaction. All of this has been said.>#1: really bad, assumed to be aps-c kit zoom>#2: marginally better>#3: nasty (but geometric, not gumdrop, not as bad)>#4: not as bad
>>4465614You nophotos are so silly lol
>>4465614What's a modern lens with good bokeh?
>>4465618An uncommon phenomenon because astrofags and eyebrow definition addicts ruined lenses by demanding 100% spherical aberration correction wide open, and very few manufacturers can polish every last weird element to perfection for every lens. Zooms are almost always the worst (the sigma still looks the shittiest).i defer to the aspherical polishing pros
>>4465632Which I think is actually a more particular issue of manufactuers wanting to sell a much smaller line of lenses that cater to the largest groups all together instead of comitting any R&D or tooling construction to actually making lenses good at specific things.I'd love a cheap first party prime that's got fuck all coma but might have the worst bokeh and shitty overall sharpness, but that won't happen because literally anyone else who wants a 16mm prime is going to say it's terrible and avoid it. Modern GP zooms are the worst offenders because the first layer of people escaping the smartphone category are pretty much only going to use either a kit zoom or an "upgrade" of the same thing, and they'll want sharpness, compactness, and low price. So now overuse of lens corrections instead of better optical formulas are used because it makes the bigger market happy.
>>4465494>obligatory focal length example
The sigma lens has really bad bokeh for a $920 fast lens meant for the bokeh.
>>4465633I don't understand standard "fast" zoom people unless they literally can't afford a mid prime pair/triplet or are a paid journo in the act of being a paid journo. It's an inherently autistic lens choice that doesn't make sense except for professional event coverage. It's just bad at everything except alternating between different kinds of group portraits (weddings) and keeping the ISO low. Basically everyone else would be better served by a wider ranging/smaller slow zoom (and maybe a tiny f1.8 thing in the lunchbox) or a pair of mid primes.The vast majority of good photography was done with primes. I think they lack any real advantages outside of meeting other peoples demands for specific photos when time is money.
Will someone explain this retard shit?I know the less numbers the higher end the camera is yeah yeah but the rest of it seems retarded>T3 and T3i come out same year>SL1 used instead of a T designation, why is the SL1 special enough to get a new designation?>T6i, T6s released 2015, T6 released 2016?I heard "i" meant improved, so how are they improving a design when the either launch the time or after with the T6? What does the S mean?
>>4465640>Basically everyone else would be better served by a wider ranging/smaller slow zoomO'contrare friend. I actually think a moderate aperture but a limited zoom range is maximum sense. Primes are alright until you miss a shot thanks to having a 35mm on instead of an 85mm, which for some kinds of photography is either inconsequential or salvagable. But then I agree that these broad-range zooms are garbage, and huge constant aperture GP zooms are just as bad.<rant>I'd love to see more 28-70s or 50-100s that have a moderate aperture but are smaller and cheaper than the "pro" f/4 lineup literally everyone makes. I'd love to see a 200-400 that shaves 20% of the bulk and weight off of a 100-400. These days I'm using an 16-35 f/4 and a 70-200 f/4 but it's not because I need f/4, it's because the alternatives in those areas are optically trash or don't exist. The RF 16mm f/2.8 is complete garbage otherwise the UWA zoom would fuck off as well.</rant>
>>4465643Fucking no one wants an f5.6 zoom on FF. Nikon's f4 zooms were a small miracle and it's never getting better than that.
I have a Z8 and the 70-200, 24-120, 85 1.8, and the 40mm. should I get the FTZ adapter and start copping some f-mount stuff?
>>4465647Agreed. Maybe the specifics of my wishes weren't clear. I'd give my left nut for a 35-70mm f/2.8 that's small and maybe even foregoes IS to keep it that way. Or perhaps a 24-40mm f/2. Limited zoom ranges that allow some flexibility without having 20 elements and a reliance on digital corrections.>inb4 a 35mm prime would be betterIf a limited zoom range is the alternative to a prime + cropping in post to get closer to the shot I really wanted, that's what I'd like. Cropping is a cope. High res sensors lack the colour accuracy and light gathering I'd rather have. In a retarded way, the small RF consumer zooms kind of went the direction I wanted with their focus on smaller lenses, but they kept their broad zoom range and the IQ is trash as a result. I fucking hate that the most convenient lens I own is a 24-105 with f/7.1 being the widest at tele, and 24mm having such terrible optical performance it has mechanical vignetting.Finally they came out with the 24-50mm which I THOUGHT might have been a godsend, but fucking f/4.5-6.3. Really?
>>4465647Don't knock the 200-500/5.6, that's actually a very good lens.
Why shouldn't I get the Sigma BF?>compact LF-Mount with those sweet i-series sigma lenses>asthetic>very compact>230gb internal storage>native full frame 6k video>all for just 2k€I don't mind the missing EVF as I prefer a screen anyway. A bit spooked by electronic shutter only, but is that really much of a problem?
>>4465661>Non-replaceable storageDROPPED
I bought this for $288 incl tax. Both lenses are VR II and comes with a 64gb card. Did I do well? Please tell me I did well.For context I'm missed out on the Z30 refurb and then the D5500 kit I posted here. I'm flying in a week so this was my last option that didn't feel like a rip off.If nobody tells me I did well, it'll make me very sad and I'll start crying to Allah on the plane.
I love the iseries 90mm f2.8Sigma-san, please make more compact long range primes with non-meme f1.8 or f1.4 stupid ass apertures. F2.8 is fine. I just want a compact 135mm f2.8 or even a bit higher if it keeps it smoll.
>>4465677It s a decent camera, but you overpaid a bit.But nevermind that. Go out and take some pictures!
>>4465632>no, I can't answer simple questions>>4465640It's nice not to have to change lenses frequently, this has effectively replaced all the primes I was using in that focal rangeEasy to understand, there's a reason they're so common>>4465651Only for the now cheap exotics and maybe like the 300mm f4
>>4465681...Whaaat?!? This was the cheapest option with 2 lenses that wasn't busted. What's it actually worth then?
>>4465494Thank you for clearing that up! So it's better to add a fixed-focal-length (aka prime) lens like a 35mm, since it has a bigger aperture than the kit lens allowing you to blur the background (that blurry effect is called the bokeh effect if I'm not mistaken)? Since the 35mm has a wider aperture, it should also have a better low light ability, right?>>4465634That makes a lot clearer! I'm saving that .gif!>>4465500Thanks! I don't think I need all those buttons, so I think I'm going to start with a D3300.
>>446567710 years ago, that kit was $600 brand new with warrantyIt's probably a "fair" price (there's kind of a lower limit around $200 that's hard to pass), but I wouldn't dump $300 on a decade old lowest beginner tier model18-55 + 55-200 can also just be done by a single $100-150 lens that would mean you don't have to change lenses
>>4465686>That makes a lot clearer! I'm saving that .gif!To be clear, the reason the face changes is not because of the focal length
>>4465686>focal length gif>That makes a lot clearer! I'm saving that .gif!Now to be Perfectly Clear, different focal ranges on the lens you're using don't magically make people look different (or anything else for that matter), it's the distance you are away from the subject. The reason people conflate it with focal length and not distance, is that to fill a frame with your subject at 16mm requires you to be very very close, and to fill it at 200mm requires you to be decently far away.Look into background compression, because it's a useful tool and key to balancing your subject against your background.didn't see this >>4465688 response until I typed it all out but fuck it, i'm posting this anyway.
>>4465687>>4465681I dunno, I checked the sold listings and unless his is broken somehow, $250+tax looks right on the money for that kit. Only saw a few lower, even saw some going for $320 which is pretty wild.>>4465677You did fine, but I wouldn't plan on sticking with that kit afterwards, all the F mount range is becoming really affordable. But ironically you probably won't lose money on it...the tariffs have thrown camera prices out of whack. Just make the most of it, learn what you can and move up the ladder when able. Cheers.
>>4465688>>4465690So if I understand it correctly, the longer your focal length (35mm, 85mm, 200mm ...), the narrower your angle of view? That makes sense! That means if you want to take a picture of a subject at a great distance, you'll need a lens with a longer focal length.I think I need to get the basics down first before I'm actually going to buy a camera. I'm currently watching Chris Bray Photography's course on YouTube.
>>4465693Yes. You've got the concept. >I think I need to get the basics down first before I'm actually going to buy a cameraJust go buy a camera body and kit lens. Cheap APS-C sensor cameras are great to learn on especially if you're unsure if you want to take it further because you can normally resell shit for 80% of what you paid. For a lot of people that particular setup is all they need. If you think you need more you can just pay the ebay tax and try something else.>I'm currently watching Chris Bray Photography's course on YouTube.Youtube photographers are only useful for the basics. Once you get the concept of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO down, you've pretty much graduated from Youtube and should get some hands on experience.
>>4465693CorrectField of view comes from the focal length + sensor size, a 50mm lens can give very different field of view depending on the cameras it's used onLikewise a 50mm is capable of every level of "distortion" in that gif
>>4465692Goddamn, you weren't kidding. Wtf lol
>>4465692my point was less>you overpaid the market costand more the>I wouldn't $300 on a decade old lowest beginner tier model two lens kit
This is funny to read while I have a D3200 + 18-55 + 55-200 + 35 f1.8 dx that has air on my shelf unused for the last 4 years because I'm too lazy to sell it
>>4465677Has same sensor as the D5500, you're good. That glass is decent too, for APS-C. I have that 18-55 sitting in a bag with some other lenses for my infrared outfit, you did pretty good, go take some pictures with it and report back.There was a time I was dailying a D5600 carry piece, don't sleep on the Dxxxx cameras. In the right hands they can make a good photo, pic related
>>4465596Lol yes. It's shit bokeh, deal with it. If this is at 1.8-2.8 congrats you wasted one grand on an oversized kit lens lmfao
>>446570317-40 on APS-C is like what, 24-70 equivalent? And f1.8? I bet that would absolutely fuck for traveling. If you're buying an APS-C lens for bokeh you're doing it wrong, pal.
>>4465704>$999>can't beat $50 kitApex cope. Sigma 56 1.4 does vastly superior bokeh and 18-50 is vastly superior for traveling and even that does decent bokeh.
>>4465703more hideous bokeh to look atit's smoother at f2.8, everything posted has been at f2it's funny how this board never cares about bokeh when i post actual bokeh comparisons>>4465706this is much better than the 18-50 f2.8 lolif i need even more bokeh i can use my ff + f1.2
>>4465708>buyers remorse18-50 is vastly superior for traveling, 56 shits on it for bokeh. Best part: you can simply buy and take both 18-50 and 56 instead of the 17-40. Pointless lens unless you're doing video. Seems like Sigma is losing nerve because chink competition lol...
>>4465677> Giant DSLR in a giant bag to take on a tripI hope you're a fat Florida man on a mobility scooter.
>>4465709The opposite actually, let me gid rid of most my aps-c primes and killed any desire for a FF 24-70 f2.8 againI buy and sell a ton of gear, and regret on both ends does happen, but I only wish this came out earlier
>>4465693My experience is I couldn't internalize the basics without having a camera. Like, people would blab about 50mm, and it took me looking at my own snapshits to say that I like those taken at 50mm the most.
>>4465712I hate how late millennials are all g(r)eyman twinks.>skinny jeans>fitted tees>can't carry shit but a wallet and a phone>afraid of standing out>all dress sameAnd project their fashion neurosis onto everyone else>>4465713>let me gid rid of most my aps-c primes See you when you rebuy one and realize zooms are dumb>and killed any desire for a FF 24-70 f2.8 againBecause the really bad rendering made you notice that FF 24-70 f2.8s also suck, just slightly less? Welcome to the rest of the world. I see more people maining 16-35 f4s than 24-70 f2.8s.
>>4465723>See you when you rebuy one and realize zooms are dumbNah, since using it I've ended up selling more than I thought I would when I originally got itStill have the 90 f2, still have my anamorphics for video, and kept the 16f2.8, 35f2, 18f2, 35f1.4, (but those are pretty much just for the x-pros)Don't miss any of the faster 16-56mm primes I had, and this without hood is about the same size as they were with hood>Because the really bad rendering lol nope, because they are all much larger and even more expensive, and only 1 I can think of that is also internal focusingI'm the one that posts most of the rendering collages and comparisons, and most people either don't see a difference or don't give a shit. Also posted the Sigma vs Zeiss vs Leica comparisons back in the day where people couldn't identify Sigma lens rendering either. If I mention Sigma, ever, it opens the floodgates. If I don't mention it, no one ever brings up "ugly" bokeh.Do you think you could pick out 24-70 from a prime if given a blind comparison? How many pixels would you need to "see the rendering" well enough?
>>4465686>I don't think I need all those buttonsYou are wrong, but you will learn that naturally in time, so it's fine.When you start craving the ability to change ISO (and toggle auto-ISO) on the fly, or get the feel for running fully M, you will start looking at higher end bodies.
>>4465724Sounds like fujifilm just doesn't have any good lenses.>Do you think you could pick out 24-70 from a prime if given a blind comparison? How many pixels would you need to "see the rendering" well enough?I don't give a shit about your comparison collages because they are not valid. They're cope. "Uhm in a favorable situation this piece of overpriced junk could be pretty close to this good camera in a less favorable situation if and only if the image is only 400px wide" - cope.Everyone who has ever had the misfortune of handling both knows that 2/3s of the time sigma lenses simply look flatter than zeiss in the same scene because sigma's glass and coatings flatten out quickly depending on ambient light. It's just low quality, cheap for a reason. Certainly good enough to post your dog on instagram for 6 people or shoot grad portraits for clueless and tasteless normies but so is the smaller, cheaper kit lens and nifty fifty pair.
>>4465729>I don't think I need all those buttons>You are wrongAgreed. One of the primary leaps from APS-C to FF for me was the fact that APS-C bodies (or at least mine) have way less controls to easily get to.I can find myself switching shutter speed, aperture, ISO, WB, bracketing and focus modes all in about two seconds. Super useful.
>>4465729I concur because I hate iso on my camera.> No iso wheel.> No exposure compensation with auto iso.> No quick switch between manual and auto iso.Pasm was a mistake.
>>4465729nta but the best feature of my Pentax K1ii that I noticed over the KF was the green "reset" button way easier than turning it on and off when I wanted to go back a setting
>>4465733not a problem on quality nikon and sony cameras
>>4465734To add when I switch back to my ZVE10 I often have a hard enough time switching between modes (no PASM dial, just a single top scroll wheel) that I leave that on "intelligent auto"Thankfully the Sony camera software is smart enough to get it right often than not but one feels like a real camera the other like a oversized snap shitter that's lens bulges out in my pocket.Gonna sell this thing to Adorama for $470 and pick up a refurb Z30 when they go on sale again or a Oly OM5 for $5-600. I hate the lack of controls and its still awkward to pocket so I find it 9/10 times putting it around my neck if I'm not wearing a hoodie. At least the other 2 cameras have 2-3 rocker dials and a dedicated PASM dial.
>>4465730>cope and dishonesty As expected
>>4465713The 17-40 can't compete.>Sigma primesMuch smaller, cheaper, optically equal or superior. >Viltrox primes Either completely shit on the 17-40 optically or are much smaller, lighter and cheaper with still good optics (e.g. air series). I've seen enough reviews of the 17-40 and it's barely better than the 18-35 which by today's standards is an over-hyped relic of the past.
>>4465742>The 17-40 can't compete.Says p>Sigma primesWhich specifically? I looked at a few, and this still compares favorably.A big point of this also, is that I don't have to be bringing and swapping 18mm, 23mm, 35mm, and 50mm primes.>Viltrox primeslol, well at least it's shaper, https://www.lenstip.com/701.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_17-40_mm_f_1.8_DC_Image_resolution.html>Record-breaking lenses are able to go beyond 85 lpmm or even 90 lpmm and so far, our list of these record-breakers features the Viltrox AF 85 mm f/1.4 Pro (85.9 lpmm), the Meike 85 mm f/1.4 FF STM (90.2 lpmm), and the Sony FE 50 mm f/1.4 GM (90.9 lpmm).>You can say at once that the results are simply sensational. Not so long ago we changed our lists of record-breakers, adding to it the Sigma A 28-45 mm f/1.8 DG DN, mentioned by us in the introduction to this test. Soon the Viltrox AF 85 mm f/1.4 Pro managed to replace it on the podium but now we can announce that another lens of Sigma is back, with the result of 89.9 +/- 0.4 lpmm reached at 17 mm focal length and f/2.8 aperture. The fact that the podium would belong to it also with the result of 89.6 +\- 0.4 lpmm reached at 28 mm and by f/2.8 is also important.>The 40 mm focal length is officially the weakest but in fact it fares sensationally well, with a result of 85.4 +\- 0.9 lpmm, within the margin of measuring error practically the same as the result of the Viltrox AF 85 mm f/1.4 Pro that is being knocked off the podium.
>>4465740For saying dishonesty so often, you are extremely dishonest>WHICH ONE IS SONY?>Canon: 1 color edit maybe>Sony: 5+ color edits, all different for each photo, just to look almost as good as the canon if you can't look too closely>THATS RIGHT YOU CANT TELL>WHICH ARE SIGMA LENSES?>sigma: subdued light>zeiss: strongly backlit>THATS RIGHT YOU CANT TELL
>>4465744I ignore this shitty website as a rule. Their lp/mm charts have consistently failed to correlate with real world imaging performance. EVERY single lens I have bought on the advice of their shitty sharpness graph has underperformed significantly and just looked like sterile shit.It was then I learned that they are only testing mid distance focus+field curvature, and many lenses actually change their optical formula slightly enough when close focusing or focusing at infinity to look different enough to invalidate a review.
>>4465744>which specifically The ones that everyone has been salivating over for years. >don't have to bring multiple lensesIf optics is your priority they are better.If weight/size is your priority there's small/light ones. >muh resolution That <70lpmm at f2.. what a great kit lens!
>>4465746It's imatest at close/mid distance. Totally invalid for photographic use.I would use lenstip to pick out a macro for film scanning.
I was cleaning a T2i I was going to sell, pulled out the focus lens because the view finder was dirty and it seemed easy and damaged it.Well there goes $30 on a new part..
>>4465694>>4465695>>4465714Thanks everyone! Maybe getting myself a camera already isn't such a bad idea, all the basics concepts will get much clearer when put into practice.
>>4465748>more dishonesty>>4465750>more cope
>>4465769>no rebuttal >more buyers remorse No refunds.
>>4465769>the crappiest bokeh>four figures post tax>fuckhueg>24-70 f2.8 but less range>sigma rendering (flat in bright light)>"it's sharp doe, check out the imatest results at 2meter">looks marginally worse than a $200 plastic prime
>>4465696Damn lmao. It's gotta be boomers or something. Hey bro, you can probably make a profit after you get back >>4465677
just got my first fast zoom and lens with actual LR corrections for my pentax k1iitamron 28-75mm f2.8 a09 di ld $80 + tax and shipping so $100 total :)
>>4465794Looks like you should've spent that money on better cat food instead.
>>4465797she's 16years old with ibsim at the point where im just happy she eats anything having a cat with ibs fucking sucks and you're grateful for the cat not having liquid diarrhea or constipation or losing weight (they starve themselves) even right now shes farting up a storm on my lap while purring
>>4465794looks better than that sigma frnot a high bar but stillshoot it outdoors
>>446579816 yo with ibs is my ideal girlfriend. a real barely legal brapper
>>4465803Kek
>>4465794>a 2002 TamponOof, that will be soft shit.I bought the 24-70mm f2.8 Tampon last year, and it is ridiculously crappy. I felt like I got an amazing deal at 200 bucks, but I need to resell this soon.It doesn't even matter how far you stop down. And the bokeh is extremely busy.It fucking ruined a whole wedding shoot for me.
>>4465803>tfw no mirrorless gf with IBIS
>>4465806next purchase probably gonna be a 50mm f1.4 or 35mm f/2 pentax hd prime, there's a sigma 50mm f1.4 ex dg hsm for $130 on ebay now but not sure if that's better or worse than the pentax equivalent that's half the size (also a 30mm f1.4 art for $200)im coming from a 80s kit lenses (35-70mm pentax-f + 28-90mm f3.5-5.6 quantaray) + a 50mm f2.8 macro so literally anything is better my standards are in hell
>>4465567this is why I just hoard everything for years and have 6 2012 era dslrs
>>4465677meh, it's fine. it would have been keyed to get a d600 instead but you have the novelty of having the>smallest and lightest nikon DSLRthe main problem with that camera isn't the photos it makes which are excellent its that you quickly will get annoyed with features it doesn't have and start itching for an upgrade or even a side grade to a d5500 etc
>>4465706>Caring about bokeh on APS-CrapIf you want a lens for muh wide open oversaturated and Clarity +400 dandelion photos just get a fucking Helios or that 100mm Meyer-Optik lens that seems to be popular with bokehfags right now.
>>4465693That's true, but you should also understand that you can't take a photo of something at 35, take a few steps back, and get the same result from an 85. The distance to your subject will change how it and the environment look.https://fstoppers.com/architecture/how-lens-compression-and-perspective-distortion-work-251737
>>4465366Why couldn't they release the silver zf sooner
>>4465566I don't have any skin in this game, but I am looking to get a FF mirrorless or late model DSLR for pro work and the Lumix does seem a lot more appealing than sony.
>>4465864Panasonic has great colors. Probably behind Canon but a different league than Sony to be sure. Lenses are mostly the same behind brands these days.>everything is clinical and kinda big>cheap 1.8 primes that are great>overpriced 1.2s that are negligibly better than the 1.8s at 1.8>a macro lens around 100 f/2.8>24-70/2.8, 24-100 or 120 f/4
>>4465864Lumix enables more video codecs but their autofocus borderline doesnt work in stills and they’re known for build quality issues, paying shills, and actually forcing small time youtube reviewers to lie or be cut offthey are a step below sony
>>4465814>D5500You mean D5200. There were no meaningful upgrades to the versions after it.I agree the D600 would have been a much better option at that price point, though. Hell, for 288 dollar you could have peobably gotten a D800 with some luck.
>>4465810Then the quality of a 50mm f1.4 (stopped down to f2) will probably shock you.
>>4465869This. Plenty of actually compact L-Mount lenses too like the 18-40, 20-60 and 28-200.
>>4465875>>4465869It really seems like a minefield when moving to mirrorless. I was throwing up between a used GFX, some kind of EOS mirrorless or a lumix. I don't need AF since most of my stuff I use manual focus but it feels stupid to spend thousands on a camera that effectively is manual focus only (gfx). The other issue with the gfx's ive used is that they have about the same build quality as a canon rebel, which sucks. My issue with the canons is that it seems like half of them have crazy recall worthy issues like that of the r5. Lumix seems good but yeah average build quality and the lenses are so expensive.
is the zoom effect from focus breathing technically a small change in focal length?
>>4465884The real problem with the GFX plattform is that they literally don't have a single good portrait lens. The GF80 has CA like crazy, the GF110 sharpness is mediocre.
>>4465896I was just gunna use EF lenses on it
>>4465905that's a good idea. However, it makes the AF even worse than it already is on the platform
New to this, is autofocusing supposed to make a noticeable sound? Using a Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.8
>>4465906Yeah, I used some native lenses on mates gfx and it was shocking. And I was gunna buy an older one than his, so I figure it's gunna be an MF only camera.
>>4465841Thank you! Very clear article, bookmarked it to come back to it later!
Because there are plenty of gear threads outside of the gear thread shitting up the board I decided to start doing the opposite and post pictures in the gear thread every once in a while.
>>4465910Depends on the lens, most have a small amount of noise, some loud some silent
>>4465896>no I don't actually take photos
>>4465884Buy a nikon and install capture one
>>4465929when people here say "you can still take great photos with…" these are the photos they are talking about, and they aren’t great in the least
>>4465929this nigga photographin gutter trim
>>4465953>>4465956
>>4465953Stay mad. However, a 40MP full frame and f/1.2 lens WILL make this photo even better.
>>4465525>>4465525anon, YOU are the cattle. Mirrorless are soulless sensors with a computer attached. DSLR are far better and more natural feeling to shoot. Sorry that that's not what le photo youtube guy tells you but that's just how it is.
>>4465593that's sad to hear, I just bought a used one in good condition lol
>>4465956yeah but it's a really nice photo of gutter trim
>>4465953Picture like that are harder to take than it looks, but it doesn't really do anything outside of a series. I cant really imagine anyone hanging that pic on their wall. Maybe in the office of a gutter installer or something haha.
>>4465929Untitled (Roofline in Brown), 2025Pigment print on archival paperAt once severe and understated, this work interrogates the fragile boundary between structure and sky. The angular projection of the roof thrusts defiantly into the void, a gesture at once triumphant and futile, echoing humanity’s eternal desire to impose order upon the formless.The weathered brown trim, mottled with the patina of time, becomes a meditation on entropy, each stain a subtle memento mori, whispering of the inevitability of decline. The wall, rendered in a muted beige, serves as counterpoint: a surface of quiet endurance, neither exalted nor degraded, existing in the unremarkable persistence of survival.Set against the overcast sky, an infinite, indifferent backdrop, the roofline asserts itself as both monument and metaphor. Here, architecture is no longer shelter, but philosophy: a rusting geometry suspended between the earthbound and the eternal.
>>4465525>>4466003None of the cameras mentioned are mirrorless. What is wrong with you both?
>>4466023kek, reminded me of the furniture/appliance descriptions in The Sims.
>>4465661it's got a bunch of flaws but the one that kills it for me(other than no EVF combined with a fixed screen) is no IBS
>>4465880That's stupid. He wanted a travel kit, not a full frame keeper. Traveling with full frame kit is a major pain in the ass.
>>4466003A so called soulful camera is a cope for a soulless photographerAll machines are soulless. They are all mere tools. The more of your self you cede to the device the less of a human you are.
>>4466071No not reallyA canon 6d/ii with the 40mm and a zoom in the bag is pretty nice to travel with and basically any FF mirrorless camera is plenty portable.
>>4466071I always bring my D800 and a 24-120 f4 when I travel.But then I like photography.
A moment of silence for my hot shoe cover lost at the air show, gone but not forgotten. Is there locking ones, or should I just forget using one at all? I never use the hotshoe it was a typhoon at the end, saw some gook with a big lens, maybe a 100-400 L series, not even trying to cover it up. Brought a bag but forgot it, didn't get damaged though. Thought I was going to need the spare camera I was gonna sell after all.What are some good options for being able to continue in the rain? Should I just get something like this?
>>4465700>he takes pics of other people's kids>he then posts them on 4chan
When we last time argued about "content credentials", I was sure that it was going to be a shitshow with all sorts of security vulnerabilities. Well, here you go.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/68425009Nikon camera could be tricked to sign an arbitrary image found on the SD card.
>>4466083>proven right once againWhere's the C2PA mirrorlesscucks now? )))
Nikon people will literally just say anything.
>>4466083Content credentials aren’t being used for what /p/ wants them used for>>4466085DSLRs photos are lower quality and easier to AI generate
>>4466097>fed copehaxxors won and you didn't even get to exploit it like you did with heartbleed for years
I am tempted to get into some micro four thirds as a second camera because of the size and the EM10 bodies are cool. I am used to EF mount lenses so cheap to M43 probably isn't the same as what I'm used to. I'd want at least 320mm FF equivalent of telephoto, but as much more as I can without going into unreasonably expensive or it being shitty glass. Any telephoto's that are particularly good/cheap I should look into to see if I should go into it?
>>4466102I mean the 40-150 gets you at 300mm pretty cheap/easy but a lot of people love the 100-300mm Panasonic teles. Personally I would go for a least a EM5/OM5, it's a tiny bit bigger like 1mm bigger but gives you PDAF and actual weather sealing. M43 stuff is pretty inexpensive when you're comparing it to any other current mirrorless mount, it's cheaper than even the Sony E/FE. Look at the prices for Sony E/Nikon Z DX APSC lenses if you really want to feel pain
>>4466103Wouldn't have to be exactly greater than 320, 150mm would be okay. But if I could leverage the smaller sensor to get some more range out of it it would be nice since I am at the point on the EF mount that I have a 70-200 F4 and if I want anything with good glass with greater reach (100-400) I'll be at like $700+ and two times the weight.The one concern I have is the older m43 bodies are like 16mp, so I'm not sure how it would look like shit compared to my 24mp crop sensor.
>>4466106The reach you get depends on the pixel pitch. What's your main body, 22MP FF Canon? I actually considered buying a Four Thirds camera a while ago to adapt my longer lenses to it and take advantage not only of sensor but viewfinder reach (E-5 has amazing magnification) but in the end I went with another route because the extra reach was less than I could get with a teleconverter while equivalence wrecked any advantage the FT setup could have. The best is getting a 90D but it's probably out of your budget.
>>4466110T6i. I would be curious if I knew someone with something like that to take the same pictures with the same lenses but on a higher mp body or a full frame and just adjust the 70-200 to the equivalent focal length on a FF. I would be curious on how much it is the body or lens affecting quality compared to being a novice.I'm also looking at the stuff on a 4k 40+ inch tv so I can't really tell if my pictures or bad or if I'm just blowing them up so large even before zooming in that I'm attributing the inherent issues with how I'm viewing them with the quality of the camera/lens/ability. I know a videography guy, idk what he uses but it was probably high end mirrorless snoy stuff I might ask him to send me his best picture so I can see how it compares for sharpness.I part want the M43 since it does have advantages for things like reach, weight, trying mirrorless etc but I also just get into things and want to start branching out immediately because what you don't have is more interesting and in this case more so the Olympus bodies are cool. I am also spiritually jewish so I trend towards the cheapest stuff since I spin a lot of plates.
>>4466117You can download full res raws online
>>4466117It's hard to get more reach than you already have, 16MP will only give you a tighter crop with no increase in reach (in fact you'll get a slight, barely measurable decrease).To get more reach than what you have without a longer lens you need a 30MP APS-C Canon (90D), a 20MP MFT or a 18+ MP Nikon CX (1V1, 1J4, 1J5). You could also shoot high resolution film :^)Realistically though you're at the upper end of the reach already and the real gains could only come from a 30MP Canon APS-C (1.12x compared to what you have), a 25MP MFT (1.24x) or a 18+ MP Nikon CX (1.47x) the 1J5 being by far the most dramatic at 1.57x.Honestly I'd suggest either get a longer lens or a teleconverter.
>>4466121So if I had a 16mp MFT, and the 24mp crop sensor canon, any increase in the telephoto I would get due to the smaller sensor on a MFT would mostly be mitigated if I just cropped the lower focal length, higher MP images from my current crop sensor and have roughly a similar result as the uncropped low MP MFT?That does put it in a new perspective. If one fell in my lap I'd still get one, but it would make more sense to get a teleconverter on the off chance the extra zoom is useful, still have the regular 70-200 and just bid my time for the off chance a favorable priced 100-400 L series shows up. Higher f stop wouldn't be great, but either way with such a long focal length if it already isn't bright enough to run it at super fast shutter speeds like I was today I wouldn't get anything decent with a F4 at 200 handheld either.
>>4466128Yeah, the pixels on a 16MP MFT and a 24MP Canon APS-C are roughly the same size, with the Canon ones being slightly smaller so cropping a picture from the Canon to MFT size actually gets you more resolution than a 16MP MFT picture has.You could also get a cheap 100-400 to play with, or even a mirror lens (catadioptric). Vintage Tamrons are decent, but the best by far is the Soviet MTO lens. Good luck getting one on your side of the world though)
>>4466081>projecting nonce
In what applications is the scallops on a lens hood necessary? Is it only if you are running a very wide angle on like a full frame? Just curious since I've seen both scalloped ones and full cones.
>>4466143Yea
>>4466143They're for when you've got a wide and narrow angle lens in one, so usually general purpose zooms or wide zooms. It's just because the sensor is rectangular you can afford to have more covering from the top and bottom than the sides.
>>4466072> I shoot snoy ergo by definition I have an artistic soulKYS. Mirrorless is a fucking smartphone taped to the back of the latest snoy sensor. Half of them don't even have a fucking shutter. They are literal ewaste
>>4466102I had an EM10 for a while and I ended up getting rid of it simply because it literally is too tiny. It's hard to grip and hold, even with a small lens attached, nevermind a bigger zoom
The more I agree that gear "matters" (as in you need a certain level of specs or capability to do X/Y/Z), the more I realise that gear doesn't fucking matter one but (as in you should just go take photos to the best of your ability). Including the fact that every sperg on /p/ wants to fag on about brands of gear — you all sound like blinded retards flailing around in shit. The retards commenting "nophoto" are just as bad but at least there's a shred of a point in there, in that aimlessly talking about gear is fruitless if you don't actually practice what you preach.>durr mirrorless is soulless>hurr DLSRnosaur am I RITE>Snoy! (actually funny to say sometimes)Like fuck me, can we actually ban all talk of gear outside of a stickied general at this point?
>>4466191Photography is a gearcentric hobby. It's basically racing for people who can't drive competitively. Getting to the finish becomes getting the shit, and you need a fast camera for that.
>>4466194>the shitThe shot, kekerino
>>4466194Man I get your point, but fuck. There isn't even anywhere better to go to talk about this stuff because every other site is full of people huffing their own assholes. At least you can filter cANON here.>Getting to the finish becomes getting the [shot]Yeah but some people have a finish line way shorter than the rest, and aren't trying to pull off rare pink diamond encrusted McCaw shots with a 1200mm. Almost how I find the best people to talk about cars with are the ones driving riced out volvos and doing a CBR300 swap into a Grom; the people just throwing money at camera gear are the insufferable cunts, and the ones doing the best with what they've got are actually kinofied.Also fuck me for just complaining. I wish there was something productive I could do to fix the board.
>>4466191I see too many awful photos with good gear, and great photos with "bad" gearGear is nice, and can matter, but other things matter moreHere, gear is just the excuse to explain away any negativesIt's never a skill or technique issue, never a processing or editing issue, always gear that is the problem
>>4466191Banning won't solve much.>>4466194For the most part that's not photography, at best it's journalism and at worst it's street. "You don't take a photograph, you make it".>>4466200Funny how you get mad at me and then praise the people who do the best they can with what they have, something I repeatedly try to get anons here to do only to be shut down by unpaid shills (hyped søyboys) wanting people to buy things that certainly WON'T fix their problem.>>4466205Case in point the guy shooting the portal and the bright mountains and acting like it would be alright if his camera had 1 stop more DR, encouraged by the many anon posters who want people to spend money for no real improvement and are deeply offended even by the mere suggestion that maybe one should adjust one's technique.
Why does the EF-S not work on full frame, but other brands had interchangeability between their full and crop sensor lenses? Obviously it sticks out further, but why not just make it like an EF mount and not do that? There is the vignetting, but why wouldn't other ones have it, why not just make the image circle bigger? Was it just to keep people from using usually cheaper lenses no FF cameras?
>>4466205All better gear does is improve your keeper rates. Meaning that the improved autofocus or improved dynamic range becomes the difference between a shot being blurry or sharp, or highlights getting blown out/colors being wonky or true. I encourage everyone to buy $50-120 shitter DSLRs from the early 2000s. Stuff like Canon 5D Classics, Nikon D200s and D40-90, Olympus Evolts (with the old 4/3rds sensors), Sony A-Series DSLRs, Pentaxes, etc. Anything with 6-10mp maybe 14-16mp (and this is pushing it). It really makes you appreciate newer cameras that actually have better dynamic range (where on a 4/3rds Olympus you have to manually bump up the ISO to take a pic of a cloudy day, my Pentax KF can take pics at night on auto), better autofocus, sharper lenses, etc.It was a fucking eureka moment when I started in this hobby posting on /p/ at every step and I realized my Nikon Z50's pictures looked better with a Canon 5D Mark II color preset in NX Studio. Then I thought "why don't I try a old camera and see if its me or the camera? These old cameras have different colors anyways so it might look better".Ergonomics are also important imo, that's the main reason I fanboy Pentax personally, ever since I went to a B&H and held every camera in hand they felt right while the Sonys feel awkward to hold (despite being great cameras in their own respect). My hands aren't even that big, I'm a small for most gloves. You're still holding it and if it doesn't feel right shooting you won't like using it.
>>4466187I repeat>A so called soulful camera is a cope for a soulless photographer>All machines are soulless. They are all mere tools. The more of your self you cede to the device the less of a human you are.>>4466194It isn't. There's some bullshit like sony, fuji and leica selling garbage cameras for large amounts of money, and some cheapish stuff that simply isn't worth patronizing like sigma art lenses, but for the most part all gear does the same thing. Those garbage cameras would be totally fine if they were significantly cheaper.Oh, and micro four thirds is NOT an alternative to full frame. It's a different thing. It can not be better or worse because it is totally different.
>>4466216canon is a printer company so they're experts at fucking over their customersthey actually have the highest failure rate of any camera brand. you just never hear it because hobbyists tend to avoid new canons (expensive) so by the time hobbyists get to canon gear, its been heavily used and survivorship bias has selected out all the failure prone copies already.you hear more complaints about sony because sony rapidly releases incremental upgrades and then hobbyists buy cheap, barely used cameras that are almost as unreliable as canon and end up the camera version of the car guy who found out 100k miles is a magic number.
>>4466216EF is one of the shallowest DSLR mounts there are, and for EF-S they took advantage of the shorter mirror to make the lens go into the mount further. Not all EF-S lenses go deep enough to hit the mirror, but Canon played it safe (and segmented the market in the process). Some third party lenses are EF mount despite having an APS-C image circle. I think there's some licensing issues with EF-S there.With Nikon you have the other extreme, longest flange.
>>4466219yeah but photography appeals strongly to the kind of person who thinks saying "it isnt a lot of money to me" for mid purchases impresses others (single childless fucks, debt slaves, incels living below their means, and gamblers) so fuji is never lowering those pricesthe biggest market for fuji and leica right now is permavirgin single earner men in china, a face saving culture and therefore the perfect target for leica and fuji's image-centric business strategy
Hello gear thread. I need a recommendation for Computer screens. What do you guys use?
>>4466217dexter's and frank west's DSLRs are from the early 2000s if you are a fan of that tv show or video game (d100 for frank, d2x for dexter)
>>4466236Last year I bought a Dell UltraSharp 38 Curved U3824DW monitor and it’s the best monitor I’ve ever used, as it suits my needs perfectly.FYI Dell price matches any major retailer if you chat with one of their reps on their site.
>>4466247Thanks for the rec. I thought about it and came to the conclusion that I want *all* the things: 4k, 32+ inches, 120hz, HDR ... but my GPU (6800XT) would not be able to push multiple of them or at least it wouldn't be fun. I think I'll wait a few years before upgrading GPU and screens with the next gen or something
>>4465149Are the fujifilm film simulations part of the RAW file?Because I know the cropping is baked into the raw in a way where I can still change it after the fact. Are the film simulations like that too?
>>4466258I don't have a Fuji camera, but I looked recently at how they deal with "color science" and my understanding is that a sim is not part of the raw, but to try different sims on a computer, you need to have your camera connected.
>>4466258>>4466280Here https://www.fujifilm-x.com/global/stories/fujifilm-x-raw-studio-features-users-guide/
>>4466258NopeWhat film sim you used is embedded, and then compatible raw processors apply their own version, which you can change freely, same as WBThe DR100-400 settings are baked in though as they change how the file is exposed at capture>>4466283This is just a PC interface for using the cameras own internal processing, that's why it has to be connectedThis is the only way to get 100% the actual Fuji sims, any other program is a slightly different version of the simulation
>>4466296>This is just a PC interface for using the cameras own internal processing, that's why it has to be connected>This is the only way to get 100% the actual Fuji simsThat's what I was pointing out. If you no longer have your Fuji camera, you can no longer apply original Fuji simulations to your raws. But we already knew that Japs are Eastern Jews.
>>4466300It's just fuji that's egregiously shit at all the things you notice only after you give them money. Simply follow this simple guide in the futureTop tier: FilmVery high tier: PhaseoneHigh tier: NikonCope tier: HasselbladWorking man tier: Sony/CanonSOVL tier: PentaxYou wouldn't get it tier: 1" and under digishitsScam tier: Fujifilm, Lumix, OM System
>>4466328Sort of based.
>>4466328>only thing above phase one is filmscan back
>>4466328Not bad.An exception should be made for the Fuji GFX models though
>>4466347thoughts on the eos R? Seems like it has a similar appeal to the 5D when it was new.
>>4466407Completely btfo'd by an R6 and not much more expensiveOnly reason you'd get the R is if you wanted 30MP instead of 20MP.
Why is the Sony A to E adapter so much more expensive than the Canon EF to RF? In fact, an adapter for EF to E that supports AF is only €120.
>>4466408Yeah I do sorta need more megapixels for my work. I've heard the build quality took a dive on the R6 compared to the R. The only thing that seems annoying is that weird twin arrow button instead of dial.
>>4466413>build qualityEvery single Canon in the last 10 years is made of the same shit on the outside where you're handling it; the only real difference is the chassis inside and if the buttons are rubber or plastic. If you're buying Canon then build quality is moot unless you're buying an R3/R1.>I do sorta need more megapickles30 vs 20MP isn't gamebreaking but might give you more cropping ability. The newer sensor of the R6 would make it a more even draw on anything except base ISO, AND iirc the R has kind of shit SNR compared to the newer lineup. An R6II is 24MP but probably 2.5x the price of an R.If total MP is your goal consider an R7. If crop isn't desirable I think you're looking at an R5 realistically; 30MP on FF isn't exactly high-res. It's an extra 700 pixels on the long side. 45MP is an extra 2200 pixels wide compared to 24MP and would be noticable.
>>4466414>30 vs 20MP isn't gamebreaking but might give you more cropping abilityIt's more just to keep clients happy. They want larger files, I currently shoot with a 21mp. To be honest, the photos that end up online seldom even make it to 720p. >If total MP is your goal consider an R7Can't go crop, I'm shooting ultrawide often.>I think you're looking at an R5 realisticallyYeah except I keep hearing about breakages on those. I'm at 650k shots on my current camera and I refuse to go backwards in terms of longevity.
>>4466415>It's more just to keep clients happy. They want larger files,What kind of clients are you providing full-sensor MP sized shots to? You give 'em the RAWs or something?>Can't go crop>I keep hearing about breakages on [the R5]Unironically sounds like Canon might not be suitable for you. The R5 Mark I was (apparently) not so bad, but I wouldn't consider a Mark II, and the higher tier models are "only" 24MP. I would even maybe suggest a Nikon Z7.Are you dead-set on mirrorless? You could get a 5DSR for about as much as a EOS R and that's 50MP.
>>4466418>You could get a 5DSRYeah been considering it actually but a tilting screen would help me immensely, so I'm kinda stuck. Was also considering getting an older GFX like the original 50s cus they take canon lenses well.
I see lots of Leica M10 for around 3000€ and wonder if that's a good buy. Especially compared to their original price of over 7000€. Then add one of those tiny voigtländer or summarit lenses and you can enjoy the M experienec for under 4k. As someone only taking photos for fun and for memories: Should I give it a go? All I read is that you should skip the Q (with autofocus) because you sell it for the M later on. Is that true? Is it really such a great experience to only shoot manual? I bet the Fuji x-pro4 gonna cost more and it's only apsc.
>>4466423>Sell BMW for $300,000>after a few years the used price is $50,000>Buy it for that much thinking surely it's an excellent deal because why else would it be so expensive to begin withPretty sure you'd have just as good of an experience with any FF DSLR and chinkshit manual lenses, but w/e.
>>4466424Thats the premium fee for buying new I guess. The used BMW for 50k is still a much better choice than buying a 50k new Volkswagen.
>Canon chads win again
>>4466433screw video
>>4466411Because they contain AF and aperture motors, and depending what one you're looking at an entire AF system with a mirror and sensors.
>>4466433Cute. Kind of expected this as the next logical step after the R5C apparently sold well, and the R50 V is already becoming popular. I know this likely doesn't have a mech shutter, but if the electronic shutter readout speed is even somewhat comparable to the R3 then this might be a legit hybrid option.I'm actually starting to wonder if we're witnessing the first pass of manufactuers eschewing the mechanical shutter; once readout speeds get advanced enough, and better anti-flicker systems are developed, what's the point any more?
>>4466438You'd think electronic "global" shutter should have completely replaced mechanical shutter, but I guess the Japanese Jew has tricked us again.
>>4466433> Canikon cannot copy Snoy mirrorless design without adding copious amounts of vlogger faggotry.
>>4466433Why are all cameras so ugly
>>4466423No other camera feels like an extension of myself vs a tool I am using as an M doesGets rid of all the extraneous settings and features, leaving basically just exposureWith enough practice, focusing just becomes muscle memoryIt's nice too as it gets rid of blaming the gear for my own lack of skill, if exposure or focus or framing is off, it's 100% from something I did wrong, not a computer messing up. Which makes nailing shots that much more rewarding, since it was all me.>I bet the Fuji x-pro4 gonna cost morelol no, I use my xpros just as much as my M tooz don't discount them for being only aps-c
>>4466433>at least 13 customizable buttonsCanon won
>>4466445My understanding is that global shutters still have some heavy penalties to SNR and high ISO performance, so they're technically shit outside of good light just like APS-C would be. That may have changed but last I checked Snoy's A9III didn't sell well.I think we still have some decent technological advancement ahead of us, or maybe, some waiting until it becomes cheaper to buy into such a sensor system before mech shutters are gone.>>4466446Canon hasn't solved their overheating issues from the R6/R5/R8 line so it stands to reason the extra heatsinks and airflow is the only way they can make it work.>>4466447Idk I kind of like how it looks. As for why most look like shit: they're tools not fashion statements. Go buy a Zfc if you're larping.
>>4466455>My understanding is that global shutters still have some heavy penalties to SNR and high ISO performanceNow that you say it like that it makes sense. In analog electronics, nothing is free.
>>4466433>video firstPass. This is /p/ PHOTOGRAPHY not /p/ - cant overheat doing a 4hr vlog in 4k120 bruh no cap
>>4466438There’s a huge point in having a flash sync over 1/200 and not paying ff prices for aps-c noise because MUH VIDEO MUH BURST RATECameras are fucking SHIT now
>>4466458by 2030 people who are not professional journalists will be required to choose between a 5-10 year old mirrorless or a medium format camera if they dont want ff sized m43 with baked in AI noise reductionprofessional journalists will use those 240fps ff(m43) global shutter cameras with AI cropping and AI autofocus
Who the fuck buys cameras without viewfinders, I have to assume they are all psychopaths.
>>4466458Oh don't mistake me. I wish more manufactuers would come out with cameras that are stills-only and aren't hyper focused on high FPS. My R8 caps out at 6fps and that seems plenty. I wish we could instead transcend the current 12 stops of DR limitation instead, but maybe the reason hybridisation is fucking up stills cameras is because those are the cost-effective advancements they can make without alienating the dwindling market with even higher prices? If Canikosnoy came out with a camera tomorrow that had no burst modes, no video ability, an EVF and 16 stops of DR for $2000 would it even sell?Normies and their phones are the largest market and they expect their phone to output 4k60 and take photos no matter the conditions. Like it or not, that's the market manufacturers are going to target.
>>4466463>12 stops of DRWhat????Modern FFs have 14 stops of DR, theoretically more. If Nikon had 16 bit raws on the Z7II it could potentially be around 15 stops.
>>4466469Christ, I guessed the number because I couldn't be bothered looking it up. Why the pedantry? The point is the same.
>>4466460By 2030 Sony will kill off m43 by no longer selling sensors and move all cameras below $1500 to 1".
>>4466475Stops are logarithmic. 12 vs 14 is a huge difference IRL, and 14 is overly sufficient. Modern FF sensors can shoot clear 8x10s by moonlight as long as you don't insist on a middle gray exposure. The GFX bodies are high resolution digital night vision>EQUIVALENCE!?WITHOUT equivalence. High res low noise breaks that farcical m43 cope theory.
Have some money to burn, what should I buy?GFX100SII with the GF55mm1.7or for around the same costs the Leica Q3 43?I want great image quality in the 40mm range, lots of dynamic range, sharpness, details. Landscapes, family portraits, travel. Obviously regarding sensor the GFX is the better choice, however I believe that Leica APO lens delivers sharper images. I tend to just buy one lens and be fine with it so there is no real advantage for an interchangeable system. The Q3 43 however is smaller and easier when traveling.
>>4466488>An actual dedicated camera primarily meant for forensics, museums, and studio professionals>Or a sony a7cr but somehow even less reliable and downgraded in every conceivable wayyou're already going full retard, so why not retardmaxx with a 'blad?
I want to mess around with some small stuff, is there any cheap little point and shot digicams with optical viewfinders and some manual controls?
>>4466494>sony a7crI doubt you can find a lens as perfect as the 43mm summicron for the e-mount
>>4466479Sony will be dead in a few years at the rate they're going.
>>4466507Good morning sir>>4466499Leica Q photos do stand out for how soulless and clinical they are. Can't deny it.
>>4466479>>4466508Buy an ad.
Nikon boomers really have no clue what depreciation is. People still asking for 1.2k for a D3.
>>4466510>n-no no one could possibly like sony!This is almost a credible accusation for panasonic but lol. They're the most popular brand except for the japanese full frame market in particular.>>4466514If you think that's nuts, look at pentax K1/II prices and the sony a9ii market.
>>4466499Looking at the data, this isn't actually unusual for modern lenses.Seems to be about the same as the voigtlander 35mm f2 and 50mm f2 aposand the q3 basically isn't an autofocus camera so no real advantage
>>4466515The viability of the K1 and the mark II are sort of ruined by low supply since they sold so few of them. It would be really competitive with a 5d mark III, at the price they're at however, you'd have be a massive pentax fan to buy one.
>>44665175D Mark IV and D810/D750/780 imo. I'm a Pentax fanboy but Nikon built the best DSLRs period. Everyone else was competing for second place or going mirrorless to stay relevant. K1 sensor mogs the fuck out of the 5DIII no competition. Especially not having a AA filter. Brand new they were very competitive when the equivalent Canon/Nikon was $1000-1500 bucks more (5DIV MSRP was $3500, D810/850 was $3200, D750 was $2200, K1/K1ii $1800). The problem is its been $1800 since 2018, Ricoh has zero interest in selling fucking cameras, and used ones go for $1000-1400. I linked a nearly new K1ii in the Pentax thread for $1000. >>4466514The pro cams are a weird anomality because they cost $5000+ new>>4466515I've actually seen a9i's go for $1000-1200 which makes them competitive against something like a a7iii. Even the a9ii isn't that bad because they're like the same price as a a7iv.
>>4466519>Nikon built the best DSLRs periodThis would absolutely be true if it weren't for the 1Ds, the 1Ds mark II the 1Ds mark III, the 1DX the 1DX mark II the 1DX mark III, the 5D, the 5D mark II, the 5D mark III, the 5D mark IV, the 6D, the 6D mark II, the A900, the A99, the A99ii, the DCS 14, and every other entry level camera that still managed to have better autofocus than flagship nikons.
>>4466519a99, not a9the problem with sony a99s is sony slt cameras were absolute ewaste garbage and there's no way any of them are worth more than $350, but people think they are collectors items (they are not)the a9 and a9ii MILCs WERE a great deal for a short period of time (sub-$1500) but now prices have gone up
>>4466521I'm pretty sure you can clean the pellicle on the a99's
>>4466521the a99s yeah are ridiculousi actually am trying to find one and the a99 goes for 5dmk3 pricing if you find them, but the a99ii is fucking $1500+. ditto the a77/a77ii. a77iis go for $500+ still at which point you can literally just buy a mirrorless sony its insane. they're not that good. half the time when you find a sony slt camera for sale too it either has a lens error or wont power on, they were unironic ewaste and built like SHITa9 (mirrorless) isnt that bad though
>>4466523yup just double checkeda77 prices are $300-500a77ii/a99 prices are $600-1200a99ii prices are $1500-2300just fucking go emount and buy the adapter at that point ffs, closest equivalent is buying a new k1/k3iii for $1800 ($1000-1400 used) and that's because ricoh absolutely positively refuses to drop prices after selling the same exact camera for 5-7 years which is why they're memeing the whole "new leica" experience on social media
>>4465149>20mm is gay>20mm f6.3 is essentially the same FOV and less light compared 180mm f5.6 in dx mode>120mm f4 is close enough to the classic 135mm f3.5>entire sigma zoom is just optically worseNikon solved lenses already. Everyone go home.The original 24-120 f4 was good, this one is great. Every focal length and aperture can go toe to toe with F mount primes that were and still are up to professional standards.
>>4466526Incredibly low IQ post
>>4466527>t. pixel peeps the corners wide open
>>4466433what a z30 ripoff
Holy shit cameras are expensive. I want something to take better nature photos. Thought I could just spend 300 dollars but even cheap ones like the canon PowerShot are 600.
>>44665434x5 starter kit is not expensive and gets you better quality than almost every modern digital camera.
>>4466544I want something that I can hang from my neck while hiking
>>4466545Linhof super technika has a neck strap.
>>4466554It looks fragile
>>4466545Look into those clips that attach to your shoulder strap. Having a camera hang from your body when hiking can be a pain in the ass. There's also the rx100 series which you can stuff in your hiking shorts pocket.
>>4466556If it's folded up it is pretty sturdy. All metal body.
>>4466557>2000 dollarsI’ll just stick with my phone camera
>>4466559Buy older, used models
>>4466560I don’t want to get robbed or scammed
>>4466543All the cool shit for normies got discontinued, and then normies realize they fucked up which jacked the prices.What you want is either a cheap sony aps-c like an a6500 or a ricoh GR III X. And simply learn to work with raw files, which automatically makes every camera on par with brand new ones jpegs.
I regret getting a 50mm prime instead of a 24-120 zoom
>>4466575>Just zoom with your feet>No, I don't understand background compression>Sorry honey, I couldn't get a nice photo of you in the moment because of this optically superior lens that can't zoom>N-n-no the photos come out better! Tonality and pop! The defences of primefags are predictable and numerous. Modern zooms have all the image quality you sneed with the conveinence of actually getting the shot instead of having to either crop or leave things out of the scene.Primes are for controlled conditions.
>>4466543A phone with a "sort of ok" camera is generally over $1000Replace the tiny sensor with a big one and all the cell radios and shit with parts for image signal processing and guess what, it's a fucking miracle you can get something like a z5ii for $1699, and a used sony mirrorless for <$1000
>>4466578Sounds like you lack skill. I have no issue shooting everything with a 40mm prime unless I SNEED le creative control for rocks and leaves wank.
