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
