phones are just as good editionprevious: >>4465149
Hahahahaha
>>4466576I think people who compare cameras to phones and do so in bright daylight, with a wide angle lens, are being disengenuous90% of photography happens outside of bright daylight and with a 35mm+ lens, and video skews it even harder because half the point of a camera is shutter speed control and syncing with flash.
https://nikonrumors.com/2025/09/08/first-leaked-pictures-of-the-upcoming-nikon-zr-camera.aspx/
>>4466579>leftShallow DoF giving the naive impression the camera can't render clear or sharp imagesShadow gradation and colours look natural, and edges have definition>rightHuge DoF putting everything in focus. Even everything in perfect focus looks smudgy (look at that gravel kek)Shadows and highlights are pushed togetherNo definition on shapes. No hair detail, tattoo looks painted on.Let's not pretend the iPhone isn't more conveinent, but keklmao it's not even close.
>>4466576iphone unironically looks better. How embarrassing.
>>4466576>>4466600This, how is it not only more colour accurate but sharper too?
>>4466603>The idiot-proof iphone vs the dedicated tool with many ways to fuck it up if you don't know how
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DXoST1pMM8wait the new Sigma 20-200 has a 1:2 macro capability?shit I might have to get one even if it's a little bit too dark wish it was just a little bit bigger and heavier but 2.8-5.6 instead(or at least wasn't 6.3 at 100mm already)
>>4466607also the new Sigma 135/1.4 is only $1549that sucks I hoped it would be more expensive so I couldn't justify buying one but at that price I actually can afford it
>>4466607>20-200mm>covers FF>540g>1:2 macro>'only' $999>decent IQWhat the FUCK?? Im unironically going to get one.
Would you pick a Fuji 16-55 F2,8 ii or Sigma 17-40 F1,8 Art for a Fuji XT-5 as you "do it all" lens?There are pros and cons to both. The Fuji is lighter, smaller, less warping on the wide end, longer range, better weather sealing, but it's more expensive and only f2,8 (f4 equivalent)The Sigma is slightly bigger, but it's internal zoom, has more warp on the wide end, less weather sealing (not fully, just dust and splash resistant), but it's f1,8 which makes a huge difference and it's cheaper.The f1,8 REALLY makes me want to get that, and even though it's larger and heavier than the fuji, it's still half the weight of my old Canon 24-70 2,8 and my 5dmkii that I've been using for years and years and want to downsize from.I'd ideally have a bag full of various prime lenses for the XT-5, but I'd prefer having one good zoom from a practical standpoint. And I shoot video and photos around 35-50mm full frame equivalent 90% of the time.What would you pick?
>>4466607>>4466610>A CHALLENGER APPEARSOoooooooooooohhhhhhhhhh
>>4466643nice timing lmaoWhile 20mm is cool 24mm is wide enough for me usually so I can probably live with 25mm.And it also has 1:2 macro(shit, 1:1.9 even apparently as if that made a difference) Anyone know at what focal length did the original 28-200 Tamron drop to F5.6?
>>4466643>>4466607lmao what a fucking day. God I love competition.Now I'm not sure what to do, the Sigma is very decent and starting at 20mm is fucking amazing, BUT I can definitely live with starting at 25mm, and if the new Tamron has the aperture staying around f4 for quite a bit like on the 28-200, I'll lean to the new Tamron. Near-macro capabilities of the Sigma are excellent though.As a quick reminder for the old Tamron 28-200:28-30mm = f/2.831-42mm = f/3.243-53mm = f/3.554-77mm = f/4.078-112mm = f/4.5113-146mm = f/5.0147-200mm = f/5.6
>>4466610>decent IQ
>>4466648wait for reviews of the Tamron, Sigma is 6.3 at 100mm already so the Tamron might be a lot betterTamron is also supposed to have great macro but maybe at different focal lengths(Sigma I saw tested at 85mm for 1:2, new Tamron is advertised as 1:1.9 at 25mm)
>>4466649For a superzoom, yeah. I have my primes if I need absolute IQ (which isnt always).
>>4466650I think the Tamron won't come until some time, they clearly dropped this announcement right now out of nowhere in a "wait until you get the Sigma, we have something in the works for you!" fashion. But I can wait anyway.Also on such lenses I prefer the zoom ring to be near the glass, and the focusing ring to be near the mount, so the Tamron it is.
I much prefer the Tamron aesthetics and build in general, but the 20mm is just too good to ignore.
>>4466653Tamron is confirmed to be coming this autumn, so not far away at all.
why are cameras so expensive you have to spend 1000 dollars to beat a 1000 dollar phone which can do a lot more since its a phone and camera
>>4466659Cameras actually peaked in the 2010s. Camera manufacturers now just re-release the same thing every year and up the price and foolframers continue to mindlessly consume it. >muh expensive dedicated tool that can only do one thing so its better because it just is okay!!
>>4466659Pure math. You can pay 600-800 dollars/Euro for an entry level camera that will make you feel happier about your hobby than any phone ever could.> Look mom I'm just like a real photographer!Then you pay 200-400 for a phone good enough to go on /p and seethe in gear threads.
>>4466675I’m gonna buy a 200 dollars camera
>>4466611100% the 17-40, no brainer
>>4466677Rude.
>>4466659>why are cameras so expensiveIsn't glass the more important/expensive bit? a phone or a 50mm kit lens is never going to give me the ability to take the sort of photos I want.
>>4466680Correct. You buy enough gear until (You) are the limitation.Then you're allowed to git gud.
>>4466575I don't really use mine, it was $35 though, 18-135 has been much more useful. Only prime I'm getting is the 24mm for my crop sensor as a second lens so I can use my telephoto's that have 55mm or 70mm at the lowest and swap it out quickly to actually get closer pictures without having to back up 15 feet to get something large in frame or stand 4 feet back to get a close up shot on a data plate or something due to MFD.>>4466543Just buy a 10 year old canon crop sensor DSLR and like a 55-250 STM. If you mean nature as in birds anything gets expensive since they are so small and you need really long focal lengths.
>>4466592>I just swapped from a capture clip to a cotton carrier skout. Never looking back.Seems legit. Pair it with one of those lumbar packs and maybe a light backpack and you have a decent, short day hike setup if the weather isn't too hot.
>>4466678Honestly, the only thing that still makes me hesitate is the weather sealing. Not being "fully" weather sealed and just dust/splash resistant would always make me worry when I'd be outside. I also like taking photos with rainy weather. My old 5dmkii and 24-70 has been rock solid in every situation I've had it go through.But the f1,8 in particular and internal zoom are really pulling me in that direction. I'd like it to be as close to my 5d setup as possible, just way lighter and more compact.
>>4466686You're completely underestimating the concept of "dust and splash resistant". There's no difference between "fully weather sealed" and "dust and splash resistant" besides the latter being more honestly worded. Neither lens will take being dipped in seawater. Both lenses will be okay in the rain. Stop worrying about meaningless non-distinctions.
>>4466688I didn't write "Obviously none of them will survive getting dunked in a pool or the ocean" because it's obvious that "weather sealing" doesn't mean "drowning safe" and didn't want to write a longer reply than I already had. But every time I leave something obvious out, somebody immediately jumps on the obvious point even though it's obvious.Anyway, I'm more worried about how well the resistance handles rain when it only says it's splash resistant. I just read a lot of different opinions and experiences with that sort of sealing. Would be great if it's on par with my old 24-70. I had that through heavy rain, snow, high heat, freezing temperatures and it just kept on going for so many years. I'm just fucking tired of lugging it around everywhere and want to come out of the stone age with some new shit.
>>4466686You're just splitting hairs over marketing terms. Both will be fine, mines already been in some downpours. Being internal zoom is far more relevant to any talk about weather sealing.
>>4466690Yeah, reckon the internal zoom is a good feature to have
>>4466689>how well the resistance handles rain when it only says it's splash resistantTake your xanax dude. Splash resistant means it's fine in the rain. Rain is splash. What the fuck even is this level of overthinking.
>>4466699"splash" to me is a lot less than rain, that's why I have concerns
is full frame worth it? saw this video this morning https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btdqSN7x7Sg
>>4466705Yes. Full frame is worth it. The color and detail retention in the dark is superior even at "equivalence" and all of your lenses get sharper (because the larger pixel pitch can't resolve the aberrations) so you can use less clinical/overcorrected designs and get aps-c prime performance out of CHEAP FF zooms, to say nothing of the expensive ones.Also, the cameras are generally better made.
>>4466611Sigma/tamron simply make less well made lenses than everyone else. The glass itself is inferior, so highlights can do weird things and images can look flat in strong light.
Wanted to pick up a Godox TT685II flash for my Nikon Z5II but I'm not seeing any firmware updates for it on Godox's site?
>>4466705Yes. Hands down yes.I was once a crop coper slapping good lenses on it and being assured it would be all I ever sneed. And truth be told if I was shooting in perfect light and wasn't being too clinical about the total quality, it wouldn't matter.The first week of full frame was eye-opening.The cheapest FF zoom will btfo any clinically sharp prime on APS-C. The only exception is if you go hi-res full frame like an R5 or Z7, then you should be springing for good lenses.But yeah mang, skip the cope and go straight to full frame.
>>4466707Do you have any examples of some A/B testing? I'd be interested in checking out those specific criticisms
>>4466711I only have my personal experience where brightly lit things flared and lost detail on tamron zooms that I sent back on amazons dime, and a friends sigma 24-70 that had a built in shadow lift
>>4466711I have the 17-40 f1.8, could do a/b with about a dozen primes in the range, but it's my only zoom anymoreThe-digital-picture has mouse over a/b comparisons of it and hundreds of lensesLenstip reviews have examples of CA, coma, bokeh, etc that you can compare with other reviews
>>4466716that corgi renders flat tho
>>4466712That does sound pretty bad.>>4466716Thanks, I'll check it out.What has been your experience with it so far? What camera are you using it on?I'm just in general mostly interested in retaining as much of the full frame benefits my 5d still has, but it's so old now that I figured that even having better high iso performance on affordable cameras would compensate for low light performance. Stuff like that.It still takes good photos, but pretty much everything else about it feels clunky and outdated compared to new cameras. It's time for an upgrade.
>>4466659>1000 dollars to beat a 1000 dollar phonean old 3mp digishit trounces any phone, phones dont resolve more than 2mp at all, 1080p video frames from a dslr are comparable to phone pics
>>4466576I think the short film shot on iphone by Takashi Miike was quite impressive. But I guess it's 90% talent and lightning equipment and the rest is the phone. But in my opinion it doesn't matter on what digital sensor you film.. be it an ARRI or smartphone. Nothing comes close to the analog 35mm film
I drunk purchased a xe5 now what?
>>4466788Refund, take another sip and order the Leica M11-P
>>4466788> Yet another Fuji shooter is an alcoholic.
>>4466788
>>4466779I saw this thread and decided to put it to the test Left: Motorola Thinkphone, f1.9 1/3450 ISO 100 5.56mm focal length (probably bullshit)Right: Fuji Finepix F70EXR (10mp CCD Digishit from 2009), f/11 1/160 ISO 100 34mm focal length Both unedited jpegs straight out of the camera. I was approx. 150ft from the subject +/-20 feet. Was being obnoxious after I saw that crash in my review mirror and hopped out to take pics at a lightThis phone is so fucking bad at photos it made me pick up a whole hobby of photography https://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_thinkphone-review-2538p5.php>>4466788stop drinking it was a x100vi before
>>4466785Vistavision shits all over 35mm, if you ever get to see a live print. That being said, film stock now is better than it used to be. And I think IMAX is largely a wasteful gimmick, especially how Nolan uses it.
I regret not getting a 100-USD ultra-light-weight full-night-vision 360-degree 10B-pixels SPAD-senser camera with 100T SSD5.0 in 2050 it's over
>>4466779>t.ancient boomer that hasnt used a phone in 2 decades
>>4466792And some editing of 2 photos I took of the accident in LR (jpeg, the Fuji doesn't shoot raw)Even this $50 digishit has actual glass that a phone isn't gonna have.
A7C IIIA7C R IINOW
>>4466816
>>4466816A7CIII with the fully articulated screen of the A7RV, that's all I need to upgrade from, the current iteration, but I already said as much in a previous thread.I think I might grab one of these Sigma or Tamron supermemezoom discussed earlier, they don't see too big and would work well for my travels. Then I can get by with just a standard fast 35 or 40mm prime for the night.
>>4466820>dead ecosystem
>"science"
>>4466820> buy my presets btw
>>4466816i use too many vintage lenses, can't risk degradation. if you're in the sony system I'm sure it's fine, I've seen many A73 under 800€ so prices are good now
did I miss anything?
>>4466768On mostly X-H2s, it's been great. Functionally replaced about 5 of my primes
>>4466834kek I love how the same shit exists for real estate.
>>4466838>I love how the same shit exists for real estate.You can steal properties at a music festival?
>>4466848Yes. If you marry the ho instead of paying her to leave.
>>4466834eBay fees are fucking rape too I sold a hazed over Pentax-F 100mm Macro for $50 (paid $50 for it off Yahoo Auctions Japan, Japanese seller said "There is only slight optical mold and haze), made $33. I was very clear it was hazed over and included pic related, it was in the middle element and you could see a rainbow stain on the outside. I'm still waiting for a eBay refund on a UPS shipping label I didn't use too, I'm on day 5.
>>4466788Return it and buy a good camera like a sony a7cii
>>4466821I can always spot a sony photo because there's more color separation in greens and blues, while nikon blends all its greens together and canon thinks every blue is some kind of teal and it's almost impossible to fix the separation issuesInstead sony gets confused between beige and pinker beige sometimes and flattens out skin tones
>>4466856No thanks Ranjeet
>>4466856
>>4466875>>4466881every accusation is a confession
>>4466885False, cunt. My country is only 70% indians and I'm not one of them
>>4466885>Indian obsessed with Indiagmsar
>>4466885>>4466856Sony cameras are dogshit and I curse vishnu. Can you say the same, jeet?
>4.0" Screen 3.07M dots (1280 x 800 px) 1000 nitsNikon chads just keep on winning!
>>4466895>no EVFKek nice ZV10
>>4466890>>4466892>>4466893Thanks for the (you)s samefag
>>4466816A7RVI now so A7RV prices drop and I can buy one.
>>4466897WRONG AGAIN NIGGER
Can someone for the love of god tell Samyang that aperture rings exist?
>>4466909the Samyang lens I use the most has an aperture ring though?
>>4466897take your meds snoy jeeta
>>4466716I had a look at the comparisons from the-digital-picture (handy site, thanks for sharing it) between the Sigma and my old Canon. I know it's hard to really compare since they're for different format cameras.But from what I could tell, the Sigma is actually sharper than the Canon, and pretty close on everything except distortion. The Sigma has crazy barrel and pincushion distortion. It looked like the lens was completely useless to me with that amount of distortion, but I guess people have some sort of in body or post production correction to make up for the distortion. I'm just a dinosaur on every level who doesn't do or know about that or something.Still, I would very much like to avoid having to go through every single photo to make correct distortion before I even have the photo's actual "base level".And I highly doubt Fuji would have any in body correction for a competitors lens.>>4466835That sounds sick. Since you're using it on a X-H2s, I assume you mostly use it for video?How are you working around the barrel and pincushion distortion? It seems like it's very extreme, so I'm curious what you do to mitigate that. I would very much love to not have an extra step to go through. One of my reasons to downsize to something like the XT-5 was to overall simplify everything for me.
Any good QRD or redpill to drop about the somehwat recentTamron 18-300 for Fuji? Currently using a Canon 70-300 (IS, non-L,got it for free) for zoom thingies, would the Tamron have even better IS?
>>4466605>The idiot-proof iphone vs the dedicated tool with many ways to fuck it up if you don't know howI agree it's very humbling for me to constantly fail to produce even correctly-exposed images let alone images with pleasing contrast, saturation and colour when an iPhone does it all automatically, reliably and it fits in my pocket. using a DSLR is an ego thing for me at this point.
>>4466959A dedicated camera can also do it almost as well (because it doesn't have as much computational power) if you just stick it in auto mode. If you're constantly failing to get an exposure then I'm going to assume you're using manual mode for no reason other than you think that's what you have to do to be a real photographer. Aperture and shutter priority exist for a reason, let the camera do the math and meter chasing for you.
>>4466923I use mine like 50/50 for stills and videoCorrections for distortion like that are done automatically, it's not something you ever have to correct for or fix in postIt's a complete non-issue for stills, unless possibly you were using it on a much older and unsupported bodyFor video, it only ever presents itself if I go from tele to the widest end, where it shows the distorted view for a split second before correctingIt's totally fine if I stay at a focal length, or when zooming outMany modern lenses have a lot of distortion that just gets corrected automatically, not sure why you think you need to do an extra step to fix it
>>4466977I'm just several generations behind in terms of tech. I didn't know it would auto correct the distortion. I just saw how warped it was and immediately thought "what the fuck??".So you don't have to go to some menu and enable "lens correction" or something on your Fuji?
>>4466974Auto mode works honestly pretty well along with any of the scene settings in even mid 2000s DSLRs. The only time they really mess up is extremes like very bright light or sunset/night and that's more because of their lack of dynamic range. That and they always set too low the shutter speed when shooting movement. Unless I'm shooting action or want bokeh/subject separation I'm almost always in auto mode or program with everything set to auto.Any camera made in the last 10 years is nearly impossible to fuck up shooting in auto mode. Especially these new cameras with retarded good autofocus meant for normies coming from cell phones wanting to make YouTube videos.
>>4466911these manual focus lenses they made a few years ago are great
>>4466987If you accept 8 out of 10 copies being decentered. But despite that, I still love my old ass 12mm f2.0. I'm not using it anymore, but I keep it as a memento, very fond memories with it.And the best part, when I set the focus ring to a certain position, it fucking keeps its position and will stay that way until the end of the day if it comes to it. Can't say the same about my other more recent manual lenses, rings not rigid enough.
>Nikon ZR
>>4466959>iphone>pleasing contrast, saturation and colour AHAHAHAHAHAI would believe this for androidApple consulted with ken rockwell
>>4466897fuck you caught me>>4466908dont pretend to be me rajesh
can this motherfucker charge nikon zf?
How silly would it be to buy this camera as a hybrid? 70% photography and 30% video. I know it is marketed more towards video obviously but this body format is what I want as my EDC. Coupled with the 40/2 and some manual voigtländer. I rarely use EVFs so a big ass screen is nice enough. The Zf is just too fat and ugly imo. Only downside I see at first glance is that it's has an electronic shutter only. How much of a problem is this really? I guess the sensor is fast enough. Probably still some rolling shutter with fast moving objects.
>>4466603The Sony camera is shooting with a far wider aperture. So the shot is softer. You can't really accurately compare the two cameras because the lens of the Nikon is always going to be 20 times bigger than the one on the phone.
the fucking niggers at mpb lost an accessory for my trade in and knocked $10 off my estimate I am so mad I'm going to scream
Why can't it be modules and cheap?
>>4467062>I rarely use EVFsyeah because you don't actually go outside to take photos
>>4467007
>>4467068they didn’t lose anything, they’re simply jewing you
I got a 400mm vivitar assuming it wouldn't work unless it was a mirrorless, but it turns out it is an exchangeable mount.Problem is there is two types, anyone know if this is a T4 or TX?
>>4467093This is a TX mount, Vivitar's answer to Tamron Adaptall. There is a second mount that attaches to it that goes to the camera body. I have one for my Beseler Topcon with the 35-105, 28/2.8 and 135/2.8.
>>4467050are you the same dude that's been asking how to charge his ZF for a week now
>>4467095>There is a second mount that attaches to it that goes to the camera body.How do you mean? This has the TX one one side and it's Minolta on the other, or do you just mean adapting it to other bodies?
>50-200mm f/2.8m43 is a sweet spot for telephoto shooting ... plenty of quality for any possible usethere is a fiction that FF is necessary for anything serious , and that strikes me as nonsense a fast 600 mm ff .. a ff frame lens with this reach and speed needs a small crane to operate and the loot from a british bank caper to buy over 13,000 dollars and 8 pounds ...ouchbut the same fov with an oly 300 mm f4 is between 2-3 lbs and is under 3 grandand the olympus 300 f4 is one of the sharpest finest teles ever made , so theres that
>>4466576I used to have a 70D but it died, now I have a tiny rebel, since for years now I have just been shooting on my iPhone 14 Pro Max. I want to get the iPhone Air, so I need a new camera. Will a 6D Mark II work with all my old aps-c lenses? Should I get a mirrorless instead? My main lenses are the sigma 18-35, muh sigma 10-14 wide angle, and the plastic 50mm. I wanted to get that sigma art sport telephoto lens later, but other than that I don’t want to buy any more lenses. I’d buy another pro max but it looks like shit so I need an iPhone Air and a new dslr with a frippy tirty screen. Let me know thanks guys
>>4467122Hey me again. Not to sound like too much of a poorfag, but can I just get my 70D repaired somewhere? I live in New Jersey near NYC.
I finally got a Camera and I love it! But I am wondering, what is a good backpack to get to carry it around? Don't want it getting all dinged up, will any old backpack do?
>>4467123camera repair really isn't a thing anymorethey're like cars now, you're supposed to consoom and buy a new one when the old one's out of warranty
>>4467123https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/s/article/ART167423I'm almost sure they had a retail desk at their headquarters in Melville Long Island that probably closed after COVID.>>4467085Their estimate dropped $50 from one estimate to the next 3 days apart, so you're probably right, I chose the oldest estimate for that reason. Still makes me mad because I know I sent it and probably gonna leave a bad review when I get paid telling everyone to take detailed photos for when they lose your shit.
>>4467118You're forgetting to take into account the difference in pixel density of the sensor as well as the performance difference at the same ISO. If we compare the highest resolution sensors in each format then the crop factor is actually more like 1.66x instead of 2x, so that 200mm would only require 330mm on FF and the 300mm would need 500mm to be comparable. There's also something like a 2 stop difference in sensor performance so f/2.8 is more like f/5.6 on FF, f/4 would be f/8. Before someone corrects me on that it's just a rough guess because I haven't compared the difference in performance in a little while, but you get the idea.
>>4467118>1kgSmaller than I thought but still too big and expensive. The PL 50-200 2.8-4 is 655g and even shorter than the Oly 40-150 f/2.8, way shorter when you put a 1.4x TC to match the reach, and the PL is stabilized too. Feels like Oly/OM make absolute hogs only these days.As an alternative to the 300/4, it seems better though. Internal zoom and 2.8 is great, and when you need the reach the 1.4x more or less matches it at less weight, that's quite nice.
>>4467123If you get a quote for the repair always keep in mind how much buying a whole (used) camera would costs.
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.
>>4467142we got a badass over here
>>4467157more like bad at composition
>>4467085>>4467128Good news they found it after I complained Nothing wrong with either I just find the form factor weird, too bulky to pocket, and at the same time not enough dials to be a effective photography tool. The lack of a viewfinder doesn't bother me nearly as much as having one single scroll wheel for everything and no PASM dial. I think I would've been happier if it was one of the $400 refurbished Nikon Z30s since it's a little bigger than the ZVE10 but with a way better lens, a PASM dial, in camera modes for sooc jpegs, and 2 scroll wheels.Easier to just stick a prime or 35-70mm on one of my APSC CCD DSLRs (Konica Minolta 5D, Pentax K200D, Sony A390) or shoot my K1ii. And if I wanna daily carry I have a digishit always in my bag that I won't feel bad about losing/breaking/throwing around ($50 vs $4-500)
>>4467167I forgot the quote fuck >>4467142I do that all the time when I get a new camera or lens and dump my 3-5 favorite pics I took with it
>>4467167I bought a ZV-E10 and ended up setting a custom buttom as PASM. The only thing i still dont like (compared to mk2) is the lack of photo/video switch
I’m unironically one of those assholes who wants to take ultra warm ‘70s “film” pictures with a digital camera. I have no proof, but I liked this before it was trendy. Problem - now it’s booming and Fuji prices are through the roof.Was gonna go Fuji a couple years ago, but a used X-pro3 costs $5-700 more than an x-t3 with the same sensor, and only a couple hundred less than a Nikon zf that’s objectively higher performing and full-frame although with the downside of needing more work in post.I fucking hate dicking around in LR, but I really enjoy the other aspects of photography. Learned on my dad’s film SLRs as a kid, and I’d go back to that if it wasn’t for the headache of needing to deal with rolls, mail them to development, etc. My buddy who shoots on Fuji has his little dialed in Kodak-lite simulation, and he can send his pics straight to a phone and then onto his and/or the models social media. It’s just wildly more convenient. He also claims that the rangefinder style body is “friendlier” and easier to work with amateur/social-media models.For documentary/travel shit I feel like the smallness of the Fuji bodies+lenses would be nicer. But the ZF is tempting for the raw numbers and performance. Either way, I’ve found the retro look really helps avoid negative attention as a tourist, big black blob camera makes people think you’re Doing Things and they start acting differently. Anyway - I’d buy a Leica but I’m not made of money and I don’t want to take pics of homeless guys, and I’d shoot Kodak Gold on real 35mm but some of what I want to do goes a lot more smoothly when I can get pics back ASAP and not worry about a big bag of film. I’d rather do the Fuji sim thing than dick around with Nikon files in LR, but I’d hate to buy high and sell low now that that style is so trendy. Retro-style body is kind of a must though, I find it significantly more comfortable in the hand, “ergonomic science” or not
>>4467239e-m5 mark iii silver and dehancer
I want the Zf but it looks so weird. I mean ugly weird. The proportions are so off. That huge evf top with the hot shoe. Overall so thiqq. The two tiny front buttons with that chrome ring. Silver shutter. The small F-stop window. It's all so random, nothing fits a long. If I pay thousands for a hobby that's mostly about the experience and joy of using the camera.. it kinda want it to be nicely designed.
>>4467106ZF is a beauty what are you on about.
>>4467239Buy the ZF. If you ever decide to change your color tones on the spot you can set a button to switch through them on the fly and completely change the scene.>>4467254Theres been an anon in the last few gear threads who can't figure out how to charge his ZF that's all i'm saying. I agree the ZF is beautiful it's one of my favorite purchases i've ever made.
>>4467253Zf is my favorite modern mirrorless of them all
>>4467253Photography isn't about using the camera. That's gearfaggotry.Photography is about making photographs.Snapshots are about getting decent photos of things.Nikon has always been something of a photographer's brand. Photographers buy nikon, phase one, hasselblad, and fuji gfx because of all the editing latitude and how well they tolerate a wide range of lighting conditions. The cameras are expensive and ugly, but they don't care. Their real work is done before and after pressing the button. More serious photographers jump straight to larger film formats.Gearfags like to use cameras, so they usually go for fuji if they're a leather jacket and revolver kind of person or sony if they're a north face coat and glock kind of person because these brands make slightly smaller and more stylish devices. A lot of gearfags prefer 35mm film because they don't take that many photos anyways and it's more about having a cool camera.Snapshooters usually buy the second cheapest aps-c canon from walmart or a pocket sized camera like a ricoh gr. Professional snapshooters like wedding photographers buy canons. In between gearfags and snapshooters you find sony aps-c and micro four thirds, which offer snapshooters sufficient quality but lots of gear features and edgy/retro styling.
>>4467267So you’re saying I should save up the extra $800 and just get the Nikon zf over any of the Fuji options? I’ll own up to never being much for post-processing, it’s not even that I’m bad at it, it’s just like bouncing my head into a wall. I’m willing to do some farting around to get the shot right in-camera, but the adobe experience is no more fun than the old darkroom experience of as. Lmao at leather jacket and revolver guy, got me there. I feel like Leica must sit in a weird place on the scale, I’ve always heard they’re good quality images and lenses, but the whole vibe is kinda twee. Honest question, since “professional snapshitter” is sadly close to my whole deal. Why Canon? Is there something specific about their stuff? Only other Fuji selling point is that a couple of my buddies claim that the rangefinder style raises less attention and feels less like a “scary blob camera” when you’re working with people who aren’t pro models. Cute girls like cute cameras, or so they say
>>4467267>Photography isn't about using the camera.Yes it is. Because if the camera is hindering your work, it's a problem. Be it the autofocus, shitty sensor, clunky design, awful button layout, etc. So everyone serious into photography is required to do some gearfagotory to find his perfect tool. Same as a Musician needs experience and time to find their perfect instrument and amplification. Either way, photography lost its value as everyone has a phone in his pocket. What matters more is the experience of shooting photos. That's why anyone with money ends up with a Leica, not looking back. Because it offers the best experience.
>>4467287>Cute girls like cute cameras, or so they sayThat's right. If you wanna land a pussy you better bring a Fuji rangefinder style camera or even better a Leica. Once you have a huge ass classic DSLR styled Canon around your neck you immediatelly look like a retired granpa or like a teen that got a new camera for christmas to shoot in fully auto.The Zf is somehow inbetween. It has some nice retro characteristics but overall it's still a huge ass camera without the rangefinder aesthetics. Lenses are ugly too if you don't go Voigtländer.
>>4467267You're not wrong and you summed up GAS pretty well here. I will say that I had shot on Sony cameras for several years until I picked up the Nikon ZF and decided it was time to shake things up. I think my ZF is so pretty that I leave it on my desk in my office and take it out several times a week with me, whereas my sony's stayed in a cabinet with my other gears and only came out on weekends whenever I had a trip planned. The camera being good looking and scratching that itch in my brain makes me go out more and create more.
Is the lack of IBIS that big of a deal? I don't have parkinson's or muscular dystrophy (yet), so I can hold the camera still for more than a few seconds without issue.
>>4467309that is a meme camera - that is the big deal
>>4467306What Zf color do you have? I'm torn between the all black or black-stonegrey. The new silver colors seem nice at first but I believe I would get tired of it rather quick and regret not getting black
>>4467313Black on Black. Heres the current setup with the sigma 35mm f2 dgdn adapted with the viltrox etoz
>>4467317>>4467313>Buy the single modern camera sold these days that comes in a wide variety of fun colours>Gets it in black
>>4467311We live in a meme world. The quality of the images it produces look fine to me.
>>4467309It's nice to have and can help you nail some edge case shots you wouldn't otherwise getLots of time though, it effectively does nothingAny kind of shake is much more noticable on 100mp too
>>4467311>>4467322
>>4467309>I can hold the camera still for more than a few seconds >few secondsyes, please anon, take a handheld photo with no IBIS and even 1 second exposure and show us how your unshakable hands perform
>>4467318Colors are for fags. Simple as.
The fuck is that noise
>>4467297This is false, anon. Cute girls don't give a SHIT about your camera.You're either a sexually attractive man, another girl, or a creep. If you are #1 or #2 any camera you use looks good on you. If you are #3, every camera is intimidating. People naturally distrust ugly people. Men under 5'10". Chinlets. Shoulderlets. Baldies. They are naturally threatening and repulsive. Nothing you do to hide it or make up for it works.The world is much larger and mankind can now show their animal side and simply refuse to deal with ugly people. If you are not at least a 7/10 you are a genetically inferior subhuman and have no place on this earth. You are objectively worse than other people. No muscle and no IQ score can make up for it. You fail at the number one task for a human being, which is interacting with other people without making them want to lose their lunch.But go ahead and CONSOOM a fuji, and then a leica, and then a film camera, and keep wondering why people avoid you and hire more attractive and charismatic people from 50 miles away via the internet.I am decently attractive and have do some things women find attractive (like traveling to foreign lands, and NOT BEING A RACIST RIGHT WING PIECE OF SHIT) so I can use the ugliest fucking olympus om-d e-m1 superzoom plus tumorous flash combo on earth and still jive with my clients. You on the other hand, with your flat affect, clear disdain for women of color, and the cold dead eyes of a capitalitist, genocide supporting jew would make women hurl even if you gave them a choice between a leica and a hasselblad.
>>4467333The part about being attractive is true, but the women worth a damn WANT a fellow race realist and are repulsed by niggers, kikes, yellows, mutts and ethnomasochist whites.
>>4467334I forgot, they hate optics cucks too. And they tend to be former newgrounds star creators.
>>4467333I'm 5 9 ugly half Asian half black mutt and a cute girl complemented my m43 camera. Eat my ass you gay little man.
>>4467333I thought /r9k/ had been closed
>>4467327Fuckin hell, what a cringey emo-tier highschooler aura you give off
>>4467337You're proving his point you dumbass mutt.Most people don't care about your choice in cameras unless they're a autistic /p/ shitter who's probably unfuckable anyways. Anything with a big lens = professional. She probably thought you were cute and used it as a opener to make a conversation.
>>4467342Imagine complaining that people didn't buy the orange or blue camera over the black. You will never be a woman.
>>4467333>>4467337FF schizo boomer and brown m43 third worlder. The absolute state of /p.
>>4467365Meanwhile apsc and 1inch sensor users are gigachads
>>4467309>>4467311GFX and RX1 are meme cameras. Get the x100.
>>4467385I want the x6million
nobody recommended a backpack, so I picked up a $5 bag at the thrift store, hopefully it will be okay, and if not, it was not a big sacrifice.
Are there any manufacturers that make lenses that are actually designed to last more than a few years?
>>4467402Both of those lenses are no doubt working perfectly fine.
Mobile phone sensors will never have the same resolving power of a far larger camera sensor. Nor will they have the freedom to change between lenses with such variety. Therefore I'm not too worried about competing with a mobile phone camera.
>>4467402My first Nikon kit lens from 2007 still works fine. Nikon lenses in general, especially prime lenses, have a tendency to last for ages. Older sigma lenses were built like tanks too.
>>4467309that looks uncomfortable to holdnot as bad as leica’s ergonomics but it’s close
>>4466576I want a prime lensWhen I use 35mm I always wish it was tighter and when I use 55mm I usually wish it was wider, so I’m contemplating the Pentax HD 40mm f/2.8 pancake. Anyone tried it? In my opinion, anything wider than 28mm or narrower than 55mm is useless unless you have a very specific requirement. I really think 40mm might be the ultimate standard focal length.
What is the deal with used cameras being sold out of Japan being like $1k cheaper than we would find them for here in the US?Is it tariffs? sometimes I see them for $1500 cheaper, in mint condition supposedly. With ebays warranty taken into consideration, is it worth buying one from Japan?
>>4467400just use that $5 backpack you got, if you're worried about camera moving around, get a camera cube to go into the pack. Once you get to know your gear and how you like to shoot, then you might look for somthing more specific.
>>4467410>Is it tariffs?yes
>>446740943mm is my favorite focal length
>>4467413Be sure not to bring that up in /r/leica
>>4466895so if I buy this thing just to take pictures is it like a really good z30
>>4467402Canon and Nikon
>>4467402>oh no, cosmetic wear!Looks more like sony people actually use their gear, and canon and nikon people just post images of other people using their gearCanikon people are just kind of retarded and don't really do photography as much as they buy cameras to admire the specs and compare gearMeanwhile sony people just shoot. They're a rare sight on 4chan because they're too busy touching grass while 4channers are zooming in to check corner sharpness, doing cross brand test chart comparisons, and arguing with arbitrary goalposts formulated so they can "win" a cock measuring contest only they and some /v/ tier brand fanboys care about.
>>4466895>no viewfinder>no af button>no mechanical shutterNikon could have made a stills suitable camera this big but they're too fucking retarded and like to lose market share to sony The Z5II almost pushed them into the running, and then they were like "oh shit, if we have a small good camera, filthy friends and sex havers will buy our cameras! we cant have non-autistic people buying nikon! they can only use sony and fujifilm! MAKE IT FOR VIDEO PIXEL PEEPERS ONLY!"
>>4467427>green with angerOh wait thats just your camera.
>>4467429Not him but you know color science is made up right? It only applies to jpeg default settingsYou can just change the jpegshttps://www.veresdenialex.com/post/sony-film-simulations-recipes-best-sony-picture-profilesOr if you're smart enough to avoid adobe's garbage software you can go all the way and pay $80 to have a custom made set of copycat profileshttps://www.cobalt-image.com/product/fuji-digital-for-capture-one/?v=0b3b97fa6688Anyone who buys a FF camera to use the default jpegs or lightroom defaults is a fucking idiot and should stick to aps-c canon dslrs. I can't imagine jpeg defaults mattering except in, like he said, cock measuring arguments with arbitrary goalposts because apparently to people who unironically have brand loyalty, "my camera has better default jpegs" means something. What is their malfunction? Are they entitled boomers? This IS photography... the only hobby with more entitled boomers is electric blues guitar.
>>4467428If you really think about their whole line up, they're focusing on 3 main sensor with 2 camera each.Entry/Retro - Z5II/ZfHybrid/Video - Z6III/Zr Pro/semi-Pro - Z9/Z8Untill there is another worthwhile senor, there's really no reason to put out another overlaping camera, and probably why we havn't seen Z7III yet.Also with the amount of money they spend on Red, it's more prudent for them to fast track flushing out/absorbing their Nikon+Red video line.
>>4467432>Writes an essay to correct a jokeIs this the true power of the snoyboy?
>>4467432Thanks bro i had misgivings about sony but now that i know i can get any brands colors on any camera im buying an a7cspiting people like >>4467448 is a neat bonus
>>4467450Is this the true cope of the snoyboy?
>>4467429>>green with anger>Oh wait thats just your camera.
>>4467480I know it has already been said a billion times but: DISCUSSIONS ABOUT COLOR SCIENCE ARE ONLY VALID AFTER CORRECT WHITE BALANCE
>>4467484I like discussions about color science. It's an interesting topic. but the topic makes only sense if we are discussion correctly exposed pictures with corrected WB.
>>4467432Incorrect. The relative color science is already baked into the RAW. Yes, the undebayered raw sensor data contains color science.
>A7siv>1 stop improvement in low light >improved ibis>open gate recordingThat's my wishlist
>>446657624mm on APS-C size sensors is kino for street
>>4467432I was actually attempting to make copycat profiles myself for 1 profile - Camera PT from my A7iv to my A7s 1 to see, but I forgot about it desu
>>4467427>>4467432>>4467450holy cope
ordered a pentax Q(t)7 for funsies, its coming on Monday, what am I in for?>you're a retardi know and dont care
>>4467501make a thread once you’ve got some decent shotsI’m actually half-keen on getting one myself>>4466576has anyone ever made a sign to hang off their camera lens or body that says >DON’T LOOK!or>LOOK AWAY!I don’t like when people look at the camera. It’s not cinematic
>>4467484White balance is part of color science, especially when it's auto WB.
>>4467522Anyone that cares about color science is not using auto wb
>>4467524False. "Color science" is what produces the baseline image for editing, and everyone wants it to be good.
>>4467524>It's not real because the camera did the math for youWhat's the pragmatic difference in results between AWB and setting K manually, especially if the AWB is good?
>>4467525So you admit brands do not have color science because every raw editor has a different default profile, and then there are even more custom profiles anyone can apply in one click?>>4467522White balance is not written to the raw file, only to video and jpegsAll professional videographers and the few professionals that shoot jpeg use manual white balance or a customized AWB instead of the default setting.>>4467530The part where any real photographer will change the white balance later anyways while color grading.Canon adds too much magentaNikon adds too much green (they had to add a second version of AWB to the Z cameras to solve it lmao)Sony is painfully neutralAnd now you'll spam screenshots from a julia trotti video without linking it, because it everyone watched the whole video, they'd see she somehow fucked up both cameras white balance in an alternating fashion. She is so fucking bad at this holy shit.Just admit that sony makes good cameras. They outsell panasonic, fujifilm, and nikon combined for a good reason. Your attempts to find flaws have no bearing on the reality of using them unless somehow, someone with an IQ of 90 got their hands on a $2000 camera (how do people with IQs under 115 even get $2000?)
>>4467532Oops forgot to turn off wide gamut
>>4467532please understand, clive is retarded and entitledhe literally begged sony to make a wide angle pancake for him, sent them mockups, and then sent the mockups to gearfagrumors sites, because the 35mm f2.8 pancakes didnt make his 4" dick look big enoughhe cant just go into the white balance settings and change the way auto works to add more magenta and he cant shoot raw because he paid so and so, he's the customer, the customer is always right, and his camera better do exactly what he wants without button pressing AND he wants to speak to the manager
>>4467501Had the original Pentax Q and loved it. So tiny, lots of qt small lenses, very fun to use.
>>4467532>What's the pragmatic difference in results between AWB and setting K manually, especially if the AWB is good?Answered with:>The part where any real photographer will change the white balance later anyways while color grading.That's not an answer you soggy loaf of bread
Can you edit on 14"?
>>4467552Monitor accuracy far outweighs size. You can edit on a smartphone if it's got close to 100% sRGB coverage.
>>4467549awb isnt good is his pointit uncreatively makes the scene average white and all awb drifts as you point the camera in different directions even if the lighting stays the same. awb and jpeg are snapshitter modes. as seen in the lumix s9 review… either all awb is dodgy, or lumix colors are worse than sony. pick one. in the end real photographers and videographers do not use it. its more work to fix it later than it is to just set 5600k +1m in camera
>>4467555I mean I know, I shoot RAW and just tweak stuff after the fact like anyone trying to get max results would. I'm thinking that all the cameras I've ever owned have had AWB that have gotten reasonably close to what I'd want anyway, unless there was strong blue / red hues in the scene fucking it up. I feel it's just simple ego dick swinging to go "well I SET MINE MANUALLY. That makes ME more TALENTED." Like, fuck dude, classic giving more of a shit about the gear than the actual photography. >its more work to fix it later than it is to just set 5600k +1m in cameraIt takes like... 15 seconds per photo to dial in WB in post. Fractions of that if you've got similar lighting in many shots.
>>4467556White balance does not change unless lighting doesAWB doesnt know this. Just set it once. You are less likely to have to change it later and if you do change it, its the same amount of work (editors also have an auto wb setting, usually better than the cameras)The original argument was that sony had bad AWB but it was actually just trotti being trotti. She fucked up both cameras. I used an a7iv for a short while and the AWB was very good but it leaned magenta sometimes and was typcially too warm by default, so i went into the funny box graph menu and made it bluer and greener, and used that with AWB lock on a custom button, which is like setting it manually but faster
I bought a mirrorless camera and I feel like I bought a space shuttle. Have no idea what I am doing. It's fun though. None of the youtube guides are helping much as those presume you know the basics.
>>4467559literally no camera has a menu that makes sense so you have to not just google, but read an obtuse manual that was written and poorly translated by autistic japanese engineersthere’s at least 15 items on every nikon that arent self explanatory and dont even have a help menu, canon buries basic shit, and if sony could make each individual bit flip user configurable they would
>>4466576Leave it up to Snoy to make the iphone look decent.Fuck I hate shitty mirrorless garbage, soulless over sharpened flat shit.
I've recently borrowed a buddy's A7III and a 28-75 F2.8 Tamron. Honestly, lens itself is great, nothing to complain about for amateur use. But the body ergo suck so fucking much. The shutter release button is on a weird angle, the on/off switch is abrasive, EVF is meh, menus suck balls. The menu/back button is in fuck nowhere.
>>4467541I love whores so much bros. What would we do without them?
>>4467006Compared to Sony it is definitely pleasing.Compared to a 5Dc it's hot trash.
>>4467122>>4467123I think EF-S/EF fit on a 5D Mark II but you get extreme vignetting.You can usually find 5D Mark II and III's in bundles with lenses for reasonable prices these days.
>>4467583aaaaaaaaaahhh shut up about the 5dmk2 i'm going crazy. At least get the 5dmk4 these things are so cheap almost free anyways aaaaaaa
>>4467587The current meta is Mk3s and 6D/6D2s, Mk3s are like $3-500 cheap enough to make me want to pick one up to experiment with Canons. Ditto Nikon D750s.Mk4s are still $700-1100 which isn't surprising when you find out they cost $3300 new
>>4467587Mk2 and 3 can be uncrippled by the canon cripple hammer with magic lantern, mk4 cannot.5DM3 can shoot 14bit raw at 15 stops with dual iso at almost 100mb/s write speed, only thing not making it the GOAT is pretty bad rolling shutter.Good luck finding a camera you can afford that compares, even black magic 6k cameras will struggle.
>>4467525>what produces the baseline image for editingWB (as shot) doesn't matter at all for baseline image for editing>>4467530If AWB is getting you perfectly what you want 100% of time, you're just being lazy about how critical of color you areAgain, if you care about color science at all, you don't rely on AWB. You either set WB directly, or set it perfectly (and more conveniently and consistently) in post.>>4467556It's okay to be lazy about color, most AWB is "close enough" for normies, but don't pretend people that "care" about color science are relying solely on AWB
Any recommendation for a cheap digital camera that can replace a phone for simple day-to-day point-and-shoot style camera work? I would pay a bit more if I could also take photos at night.
>>4467605Depends what you mean by cheap it's relative these days.
What do you recommend for noobs? Assume I know nothing about taking pictures.
>>4467609Canon 40D + 50mm 1.8
>>4467525This "color science" you speak of, what exactly is it measured in?
>>4467611It's measured in your eyes and feels, most of them are personal preference except Sony which is green garbage.
>>4467612Hmm, that doesn't sound very reproducable and objective... almost unscientific.
>>4467611Its schizophrenia for brand fanboys who are constantly malding at sony for outselling their faves
>>4467608$100 - $300? I prefer something I can put in my pockets for easy access.
>>4467575>schizo>sony hater>furfagYep
>>4467617sony a6000 and the cheapest viltrox/ttartisan prime lens you like
Was drunk and preordered the GRIV. Now I don't know wether to cancel the order or to keep it. The thing is I also have the old Leica Q. It's light enough to bring it all day but it's also not GR compact. I could sell it but I know I would miss that incredible sharp 3d pop summicron. But it's silly to have two compact 28mm cameras. Maybe I keep the GR for snapshits all day, everywhere and the Q for more serious photography like on day trips, etc.
>>4467617EOS M mount cameras sounds like what you're looking for, M50 or M, M2, M3, M5, M6 + 22mm F2 kit lensYou can usually get a deal on these from someone whos just used it on their holiday like once.>>4467619a6000 is like 450$
>>4467618Yeah, even furfags hate Sony, everyone hates Sony except pretentious cunts who can't take pictures or video without their huge phone taking the pictures or videos for them.Unfixable sickly green tint and not the good kind like in the matrix.
>>4467532>>4467534>another essay from the coping schizoBuy an ad
>>4467605>>4467617Insta360 Ace Pro 2
>>4467612>most of them are personal preference except Sony which is green garbageUnless you do a blind comparison, and then in some cases everyone prefers Sony
>>4467626How often do you actually rely on the true 28mm output of your Q? I’ve looked through so many sample images from the GR III and GR IV, and I just don’t see how people like the 28mm focal length.
>>4467410>>4467413Coincidentally, I have a trip to Osaka Japan scheduled for the end of this year. Has anyone bought photog equipment/cameras in Japan before? what are the other downsides? I assume anything bought there would be out of warranty once it leaves Japan, but are there any other drawbacks?I’ve heard of people doing the same with luxury watches while traveling to Japan, but not sure if the same applies to cameras.
>>4467632I always thought those action cameras were only useful for video recording. Are they actually usable for photography?
>>4467646They aren't.Iphone unironically is better.
>>4467644It's my favorite focal length. You can do wide landscape shots without too much distortion and also close ups look nice.
>>4467627Thank you for the EOS M recommendation! I have a hard time finding the 22mm kit lens though, unless it is supposed to be the EF-M one that costs about $150.
>>4467653Yeah, EF-M 22mm F2.0Usually can find the cameras sold with one of the kit lenses attached, one is a prime (the 22mm) and the other is a zoom EF-M 18-55mmBoth are fine lenses I just figured you'd want it as small as possible and the 22mm is very small.
>>4467653Found this after 30 seconds of looking at EOS M50 cameras for sale, 380$. (Northern EU).
>>4466576I want to buy one of thesepros>GN60>360° horizontal rotation, 7-90° vert.>$100AUcons>requires 4 AAs>no TTL>1/128s max sync speedBuying a set of rechargeable AAs is a bother but I can live with it. Will I regret not buying a flash with TTL? or one with a higher sync speed?Also, what are some other entry-level options?
What is the point of having so many auto focus points? I get angry using more than one most of the time.
>>4467664I like being able to select the AF point
>>4467664Tracking
>>4467402That's grim. I have some 20 year old Nikon lenses that still look brand new.
>>4467552Yes, but I also plug my laptop to my 50+" TV monitor if I need to see it big. Both monitors color calibrated with an old Spyder puck via my laptop.
>>4467670Is a colorimeter worth the expense in your opinion? How much did it change the colour output on your monitors?
>>4467675My laptop is old so it needs one. It may be less of an issue with newer ones. I just do casual photography. The best way to check without a colorimeter is just by checking the post processed images on the smartphone. Usually it doesn't matter as long as the skin tones don't look way off.
>>4467552I do it pretty often so i can lay on my couch and get work done
>>4467668Because they were never really used lol>be nikon>be expensive>be treated like glass
>>4467602>If AWB is getting you perfectly what you want 100% of time, you're just being lazy about how critical of color you are>Again, if you care about color science at all, you don't rely on AWBSounds like a nerd who cares more about the gear than the photographs.>>4467612>It's measured in your eyes and feelsExcept you can't be a nerd if you're this dumb. Maybe just autistic.>>4467615>>4467616>that doesn't sound very reproducable and objective... almost unscientific>Its schizophrenia for brand fanboysThese are the working theories.How about, you take photos of things, and if you like them, you keep taking photographs of things. And if something feels off to you, you tweak settings until they look good to you again? Not accurate enough for you? Well fuck, far be it from me enjoy hobbies instead of getting assblasted about spec sheets.
>>4467663I bought a similar one but with E-TTLII.The price difference was like $40. Unless you're never doing any direct flash, missing TTL is going to mean a lot of improperly exposed shots. Unless you use it a LOT and get good at predicting settings (which is possible). >1/128s max sync speedThat isn't what that is, that's the minimum power output you can set (-7 stops)These things support HSS which technically means you can use them for up to 1/8000th and still sync. In reality HSS is a scam and while technically posssible, it's far more trouble than it's worth. My camera has a sync speed of 1/200th, and even if I go so far as 1/500th I get inconsistent results.These flashes are great alternatives to scam-tier 1st party flashes where if you want higher than GN30 you spend $400. I use one for my macro and portrait stuff. I wholly recommend just shelling out the extra money for one with some sort of TTL integration though.
>>4467668same here, but with Pentax
>>4467691people who rely on awb defaults, jpeg, etc are the ones who care more about gearediting makes every camera the same. editing is the anti-gear. its why gear cuck sissies cry THATDOESNTCOUNTCOPE when a setting is changed or a photo is edited and start spouting hyperboles about hours and days in front of a computerbecause the 20min editing session invalidated the 60min they spent trying to argue that sony is bad on 4chan
>>4467701It also invalidates the $2500+ they spent on fujifilm>le $80 preset pack>your $300 canon dslr is now an x100vi if it had a good sensor and lense
>>4467693>scam-tier 1st party flashesto be fair, godox speedlights aren't weather sealed, but a fair number of first-party ones arefor whatever that's worthinb4 >weather sealing>>4467701>20min editing sessionjust to add to this, that isn't 20min per photoin general you shouldn't need more than 5min for any given photo (retouch or other rescue aside) once you're familiar with your software of choiceand if you have multiple similar photos you should only have to do that for one then apply the same style to the restwhat I've found takes longer is culling but also I take too many
>>4467701Nobody needs to argue anything when sony colors genuinely are bad when you can just look at any photo of a person that was taken by a Sony camera
>>4467663What do you want to use it for? On camera ceiling bounce I prefer ttl, everything else is manual power for me. They still have HSS iirc. I got some V850s's (no ttl) for under $70 on a closing down sale. They came with a lithium battery and charger. So take battery cost (+spare set) + charger into cost account.
>>4467761Nice bait
>>4467766I accept your concession
>>4467701Sony is bad though, the splotchy garbage noise reduction from the cameras and green tint that sneaks into fucking everywhere it doesn't belong is terrible.Every other manufacturer is better including Fujifilm, at least they have the courtesy of not calling their shit tier colors "natural".
>>4466675>ou can pay 600-800 dollars/Euro for an entry level camera that will make you feel happier about your hobby than any phone ever could.like which? Z50?
I want to get back into a full frame DLSR or mirrorless, specifically looking for a 24-105mm f4 lens to go with it. Trying to keep the budget around 2k, maybe 3k if feeling silly.Was thinking about getting a D780 or D850 with the FX 24-120mm, but idk if that lens is really gettting the most out of those bodies.
>>4467785Both the D780 and D850 are great and will outperform the 24-120mm f4. Don't worry about that.That said, though, just get a D800/D800e/D810 for a fraction of the price. The performance basically identical.The D750 is also an option, though also unnecessarily expensive.The D600/D610 is "only" 24MP, and has a smaller viewfinder. It uses the focusing system of the D7200, which is a bit smaller/closer to the central area. But apart from that, it is also pretty much the same, and can be had for under 200 usd. Oh, and it has programmable U1 and U2 settings, which is actually a big plus.
>>4467785Oh, and the D750 is also just 24mp.
>>4467790the mp doesn't matter that much, you're just trading pixels for noise and dynamic range the higher the MP you get after a certain point which seems to be around 20mp.Higher MP is only useful if you need to crop but you're going to have more noise and less dynamic range as previously stated.
>>4467765I really want to experiment with bouncing the flash. It seems like you're implying bounced flash works better with TTL.>V850I actually did look at the V860III. Seemed to have a few significant improvements over the TT600 like>manual or TTL switch>lithium-ion rechargeable battery with twice the capacity and faster recharge>modelling light>-7° to 120° vertical rotation>colour gels included>HSS (1/8000s)downsides being>only 330° horizontal rotation>more than three times the priceit almost seems worth it.I also want a flash I can use for portraits but those portraits are like the novel I'm gonna write "someday." I'm too old to be bashful about having dreams. I need to take a risk at some point.
>>4467791Yeah, no.I have a D800 and a D600.With sharp lenses you get a lot more leeway with the 36mp on D800. You really learn to appreciate it, both for landscapes and for cropping.
taking my Lumix GM1 to the Singapore F1 race thoughts on pairing it with a 12-60mm f/3.5-5.6 ?
>>4467800Larger pixel sizes generally improve dynamic range because bigger pixels can collect more photons before becoming saturated, leading to a wider range of tones from black to white and better detail in both shadows and highlights. This increased capacity for capturing light results in a better signal-to-noise ratio, which is the fundamental measure of dynamic range.I even stated higher MP is good for cropping but you didn't read that part did you?It's also good for when you need to blow pictures up, such as large scale printouts.You do sacrifice dynamic range and color accuracy though.This is why most professionals who take picture to blow them up use medium format cameras, they can push more megapixels without sacrificing too much of dynamic range.
>>4467804Stop spewing word salad. Everyone knows you can't blow up pixels infinitely without increasing the sensor size. 36mp still works better than 24mp on full frame, and you would know if you had seen it yourself.Also, "most professionals" don't use medium format. Medium format has its own set of considerable drawbacks, and the prices are on a completely different level.
What should I buy for my first camera if I want to dabble in the photography but I'm not yet sure if it will land for me, so investment into analog cameras is kind of pointless? Canon R10? nikon ZF C?Should I look for a used set (and what to watch ott for)?
>>4467809Then why does d800 pictures look flat and boring compared to d600 pictures which look much richer?https://explorecams.com/photos/model/nikon-d600https://explorecams.com/photos/model/nikon-d800Retard.
>>4467812>What should I buy for my first camera if I want to dabble in the photography but I'm not yet sure if it will land for meBuy a used Canon EOS 50D that comes with 1 or more lenses for dirt cheap, if you don't like taking pictures with that you won't like taking pictures with anything.
>>4467815Aight! What to be wary of when browsing through listings as total ignorant in the topic? What're telltales camera is vastly more worn-down than sellers claim and so on?
>>4467794Not that it works better perse, but that your constantly moving around, if you're shooting once off stuff like walkway or weddings then I might go for ttl for ceiling bounce. Your distance and angles change enough to give differing light amounts so need to adjust power up and down. On a light stand in a softbox, reflector, umbrella or whatever it's pretty fixed, that includes on a light stand for ceiling bounce. I've used both v850ii and v860ii and iii in a 150cm softbox so they have enough power for it and bounce applications, they're just lithium versions of the one you mentioned (faster recycle, more shots). I picked up a v860iii recently as an emergency after breaking the bulb in my ad300 pro to use outdoors. The v850 is the same without ttl, so its cheaper. Also neewer have gotten into godox's turf with the flash stuff, so might be worth checking out. They have the 300 or 400 w/s for similar price to the v860iii iirc, for camera flashes they have the z760 and z880 tooI've used both the v850/v860 in brighter conditions at full power or close to it outdoors in a 150cm softbox with HSS, the neewer 760/880 have the same power output so they'll do fine. Using ND filters to get the shutter speed down to 1/250 and get the flash out of HSS also gives some efficiency back and you gain more power (you lose more with HSS than with NS filters), so If you need/want 1/2000th and 1.8 iso 100, you need a 3 stop ND. I got the ad300 pro because I wanted more power and got a good deal, though now neewer has more powerful stuff too at half the price. Just keep in mind the godox and neewer triggers aren't cross compatible (I wish they were)
Leica SL2-S or Nikon Zf? No zoom lenses, just some smallish primes like the Sigma 50mm f2 or that Nikon 40mm kit lens. Price almost the same if buying used. What I find reading on Leica forums obviously everyone shines about the SL2-S because appearently better colors and sharper images due to no low-pass filter. On the other hand it's also heaver than the Zf and slower AF.
>>4467816Yes, try get a example picture against the sky to see if it has any issues.And also shutter count, should be available to find on these, try to get one under 25k as these are not professional cameras they shouldn't really have an extreme amount even if they are older.Some scrapes and scratches probably not a big deal, dust in nooks and crannies also not a big deal.The rubber grip where you put your hand can get worns out on these so look for a good grip and intact rubber on the left side of the camera for the I/O ports, if it's missing the cup for the viewfinder that's not a big deal, they cost like 30 cents on ali.Try to get one with a CF card and battery charger and minimum 1 lens, don't pay more than 200.They are extremely cheap but take visually pleasing pictures.
>>4467656Thanks, I indeed want a small form factor!>>4467657Thank you for your effort. I will look into it!
>>4467824Thank you, appreciate it anon.
>>4467826I thought the shutter life was 75-80k on these I was wrong it's rated for 100k, try get one under 50k at least if you can't find one under 25k.
>>4467824>>4467828Why not suggest a 5D Mark III or a 7D/7D Mark II?There's some retarded deals to be had on the 7Ds in particular in today's market. $100 for the body kind of deal and its a little better built + better AF and sensor, just hard to find with low shutter counts since they were more likely to be actually used
>>4467779Like anything. I looked up Nikon, and Z30 is now on sale in Europe, 750 Euro for a new kit.
>>4467832/p/ seems to carry a certain loathing for the 5DII and III for some unknown reason. The mark I gets a pass because of muh sovl, but really the II and III are probably the best price/performance investments you can make as their price is already rock bottom and their image quality holds up against much newer and fancier cameras.A 5DII and a few nice lenses would set anyone and cost as little as like $500-1000 depending on if you got a few primes or settle for a GP zoom etc.
>>4467833Z30 is really nice as a travel camera. I kinda wish I bought one over my ZVE10. If they go back on sale for $400 on blacked friday I'll pick one up. >>4467206See what I didn't like was how annoying/how long it took to switch modes. Hitting the photo/video switch (next to record) annoyed the fuck out of me too because sometimes I'd press it by accident, try to take a snap and end up recording a video instead. The Sony software was pretty smart to give its credit and the colors from it are great out the box, like all newer cameras its difficult to get a truly bad picture out of it since they're all aimed at complete retards who aren't gonna leave auto mode. Z30 I also feel like it has a better quality kit lens and the bigger grip makes it easier to hold. /gear/ I have problems, which skin should I choose? I want to keep my K1 looking brand new for a long time. It has a tiny amount of wear on the sides from something rubbing against it and it made me realize the anodizing on this thing isnt the best. First 3 are the same (brushed steel camouflage pattern) while the A7II has the black camouflage. I was originally gonna do matte silver but then I saw a lens with another silver wrap and you could really see the black through it. Its like $75 shipped to America after the tariffs (I'm sending it to a friend of mine in UK since Latvian Post won't ship) and literally no one else makes a skin/case for the fucking thing. https://pro-skins.com/product-category/cameras/
>>4467602WB as shot (if it is good) captures the feeling of the moment as opposed to you a week later trying to remember how the moment felt.
>>4467761>>4467777You: schizo seething because sony killed micro four thirds or somethingReality:https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/sony-again-claims-the-1-spot-in-the-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-market/https://www.ap.org/media-center/press-releases/2020/ap-to-equip-all-visual-journalists-globally-with-sony-imaging-products/https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/tony-northrup-color-science-test-sony-beats-nikon-canon-and-fuji/amp/Now cope
>>4467611"Color science" in general is rooted in psychological experiments, which you should have known.
Nikon actually has the worst color. Too much contrast and vibrance. Green tints. Radioactive blue shadows. All the shades of green in landscapes look the same. Nothing fixes it except magenta poisoning and luma range/selective color edits. For colorSony a7c and newer = canon > old sony > nikon > fuji > panasonic
>>4467813>link a bunch of rando pics from 2 cameras>I like this one better, therefore it's better and I'm rightWho's the retard?>>4467823Zf for sure
>>4467838You mean AWB captures what the camera thinks at the time. If you go back to adjust it to taste, you are arguably the relying more on the feeling of the scene even more so.>>4467841Good thing no one can ever tell a difference between brands with edited photos
>>4467532>every raw editor has a different default profileEvery manufacturer gives you a way to start with a high bit depth demosaic'd image. It's just that the "raw editor" jew wants to sell you presets, sliders, filters, brushes, "AI" and all sorts of other shit to trap you inside their virtual mind prison instead of letting you go out and take better photos. Okay, the Darktable commies are strictly speaking not selling you anything. They just want you to be miserable.
>>4467832>5D Mark IIIThis is more like a 500$ camera.>7DBody is usually 200$ alone, if they can find a deal for it then yeah it's a fine camera, I do think the 50D has more pleasing colors though.>7DIIThis is like 400$ body only.He just wants a camera to see if he likes taking pictures.I will add Canon 40D to this list, which is like 40$ maybe that's the one I should have recommended in the first place.
>>4467835I have a 5D Mark III, I would have recommended it if he was looking for the best value camera.He's looking for a cheap camera to see if he likes taking pictures, that's about it.
>>4467850Oh fuck, then I was being a retard not reading the full convo, mb. It's a shame the 70D costs as much as the 5DII since the articulating screen is kind of a big deal. I also noticed I took my camera with me much more once I went mirrorless because my R8 is almost half the weight and smaller than the xxD lineup.But yeah, cheap as shit 20/30/40/50D is a good answer.
How is the gx800 compared to an m50?
>>4467812Get a D600 for about 200 bucks, and any full frame lens you can afford. A 50mm f1.8 can easily be had for less than 100 bucks and is very nice and sharp.
>>4467853It's slightly lighter, slightly smaller, no viewfinder, much worse sensor (MFT) at 16mp against the M50's 24mp APS-C sensor, much worse video performance, pictures look like over-processed smartphone pictures.Would not recommend.
>>4467860My 1in Sony ZV1 (basically a RX100V without the viewfinder and flash) could get better photos than my smartphone because it had a larger sensor and longer focal lengths from the extendable lens. M43 cannot be any worse than that.
>>4467853EOS-M cameras are unironically very useful and worth buying into even if the mount is dead. I wish they kept the system alive and just ported some of their new RF-S stuff with an EF-M mount every now and then to keep it on life support.
>>4467853EOS M3 is slightly smaller than M50, never go full micro four thirds.
>>4467853>>4467860I'm convinced Mpb pays m43 shills to pump out shill videos for 10 year old gear and then jacks up the prices.> Look up gx800> 400 body only meaning about 500 with a lensOh cmon
>>4467868>mpb pays shillsthey literally do. "this video is sponsored by mpb ... now WHY IS THIS 10 YEAR OLD BABY SENSOR CAM STILL THE BEST TO GET IN 2025 ALSO I WAS FAT BUT THANKS TO OZEMPIC I LOST 100 POUNDS"that's one of the biggest m43 youtubers for you
>>4467868It's unfortunately a common occurance once cameras are about 10-15 years old and aren't complete shit (and sometimes when they are).E-PL1s and 2s have gone up 30-40% in the last year.EM10 Mark I gone up 20%+Old Powershots going up 25%~ across the boardRX100 first gen sprung up about 30% from 6 months agoCanon M/M2 jumped 25% from 6 months ago
>>4467864That's where you're wrong... bucko..Even Snoy 1" cameras are better, add to the fact the pictures from the Lumix is processed like a Samsung 24 picture and you got the absolute worst shit you could possibly imagine.
>>4467836Alright I think I got itI'm either gonna do brushed steel camo like this:https://pro-skins.com/product/pentax-k-1-k1-full-frame-dslr-camera-body-protective-design-camera-guard-wrap-skin/or brushed steel soft triangles like this Canon R5 in the picture/link below, the lens has brushed steel camo I thinkhttps://pro-skins.com/product/canon-eos-r5-45mp-mirrorless-camera-body-protective-camera-guard-wrap-skin/what do you think looks best peei dont like the hard ridges/lines on brushed steel hard triangles and black camo and i have a feeling brushed steel camo might look a little *too* light colored vs brushed steel soft triangles
>>4467812I was in same boat, bought a 5d mk2 and a 50mm 1.8 for like 200$ all in and it takes nice photos and the menus/dials etc are really easy to pick up. I will sound retarded but I was shocked that cameras really need a lot of light so if you plan on doing any night time shooting or anything in less than good light probably get a tripod. You can push the iso a bit on the 5d2 but not hugely. I also bought a $20 1990 canon slr and can use the same lense for which is nice to try out. I would also say you can typically recoup your money on this stuff if you don’t like it, if you don’t mind dealing with eBay etc.
>>4467959triangles are much less tacky
What sort of psychopath buys a camera that doesn't have a viewfinder?
Thinking of replacing my XF 10-24mm f4 when I get my X-E5I'm probably going to get a Sigma 17-40mm for the long end plus more reach but I'm not sure what to replace the wide end withMy current thinking is either>Sigma 12mm f1.4>Sigma 10-18mm f2.8>Tamrom 11-20mm f2.8Thoughts?
>>4467501>>4467504>>4467541i got itthis things fucken hilariously puny
