color science editionprevious: >>4466576
>sony/canon/fuji then cuts to 1/2/3 numbering>heh sony is 1; it looks the best>PSYCHE IT'S ACTUALLY FUJI>also #2 is actually Nikon, not Canon (???)devilish
>>4468046What is this schizoposting
>Bro I paid $2000 to shoot 8 bit 90% quality jpegs in auto white balance without changing a single settingPeople are right. You just don't know how to use a camera and you give off entitled boomer vibes.
>>4468046>and they all look like shit1, 2, and 3 are overexposed1 is too pink2 is too green3 is too yellowlessons learned:dont shoot jpeg without changing your settings for the photo first, or just shoot raw like a sane personanyone who thinks "color science" exists beyond jpeg presets doesn't know how to use a camera
bought a used Nikon Z7 and took it for a spin shooting landscapes, blown away by the quality. Also I thought 40+ megapixels was a meme for non-studio/pro use but now I don't want to go back to 20-24mp.
>>4468034Please respond
>>4468058boomers give print/viewing distance/mp guidelines based on a person with bad eyesight who cant move their head, in a curated gallery, and a retouched portrait or car/building photo where missing or mangled fine detail isnt even noticedbayer cameras dont have their stated resolution in real world photography, only on monochrome test charts. a 20-24mp camera is more like 14-16mp. 45mp is more like 31mp. some things like foliage confuse them so badly they perform like they have half the resolution in that spot.film does not have this problem.people who like posting 100% size digishit pics to /p/ could benefit from scaling them down to 75% to hide bayer issues. also because most web browsers emulate the dogshittiest monitor spec on earth - 72dpi. on most screens each individual pixel is actually being scaled to fit multiple pixels and this magnifies bayer issues on top of looking kind of shitty on its own. there's a few websites that are modernized but 4chan is not one of them.>>4468059keep it and just buy an even longer lens
>>4468061>keep it and just buy an even longer lensBut I already have the XF 50-200mm and XF 35mm f1.4
>>4468062keep it and buy a 16-80 instead
>>44680451 (Fuji) > 2 (Nikon) > 3 (Sony)
>>4468064>samefagging after you got btfo on fundamental terms
>>4468067Who are you arguing with?
>>4468045Fell for the pocketable everyday camera meme. But won't fall for 1 inch sensors (my phone is literally better). Every new m43/APS-C option is 1000 bucks or more. Every 15 year old camera is 600 or more. What are my options if I don't want to shell out 1000 bucks for the gr3x... My main is an xt3 but I rarely take it out anymore because it's too big for everyday use...
>>4468045Huh.. okay >#1 looks like magenta rainbow ass, and what the fuck is wrong with the bokeh having cat eyes center frame>#2 looks pretty clear and accurate. No big swings either side of M/G. Clean. Prefered.>#3 looks a bit scuffed. Somehow the white table looks green, but the wooden desk in the background looks both too magenta and too green>#2 is NikonYeah that makes sense>>4468055>2 is too greenEvery time I see comments like this I have to remind myself I have regular aviation-grade medical reports saying that I'm completely not colour blind lmao.
>>4468074essentially give up. i've given up on compact, cheap EDC cams I can throw into my car or backpack. everything is so fucking expensive. even used. it's just not worth the money.
>>4468058let me guess. you're a croptard too incompetent to get the composition right in camera and then you crop like the retard you are?
>>4468080>editing to crop: >=(>editing to fix bad color science: =DDD
Should I?This also good for video? 4:2:0 is probably not the golden standrad but hopefully good enough
>>4468086cropping changes the composition. adjusting colors just changes how data is interpreted by the display device. it's two different things entirely, idiot
>>4468102>videono one cares, idiot
>>4468086Unironically, yes. You buy a high res camera to print large and deliver large files to picky clients.Cleaning up the edge of a shot by a few pixels is whatever, but yeah if you're relying on significant crops to make a photo work, that just means you fucked up in the field and now have to butcher total IQ to save it. Bonus points: you need hi-res because your crops are so big you can't salvage even a FHD res shot after cropping.Resizing down is valid because bayer bullshit ruins colour accuracy, and results in artefacts and chrominance issues.
q(t)7
>>4468113cropping fucks your signal:noise ratio so you could just go out and shoot micro four thirds. congrats anon you turned your 60mpx leica into a micro four thirds toy camera
>>4468143https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4iQmjONCb8
Anybody ever look at fujirumors.com for new gear?I did for a while because I've been interested in buying a Fuji camera, but that site is just so obnoxiously pushing affiliate links it's crazy.I go between being completely disgusted by how unhinged the guy who runs it is and also find it funny that he's so blatant about it.But any comment making even so much as a slight mention of his tactics gets deleted almost instantly.And he of course uses lots of AI images, which I find pretty ironic coming from a photography site.Do I really have to resort to shitty facebook groups and this place if I want to keep an eye on new gear? Everything is just so fucking insufferable.Would be great to find an alternative to fujirumors that isn't 100% about affiliate links
https://www.colorfidelity.com/Are custom camera-specific color profiles worth buying for light room? Its only $25 and I'm thinking the Adobe ones for my Pentax K1ii aren't the best.
>>4468045
>>4468163Won't usual shills like Petapixel cover all new Fuji gear anyway? Not that you are going to actually miss any new $2000 camera release. Otherwise I find dpreview forums bearable, even though that place is even more toxic than /p.
>>4468164I saw them being shilled for Olympus cameras as well, but it really doesn't help that the website offers zero information on what's exactly being sold (a dcp profile I guess?) and why it is worth the money.
>>4468163>I go between being completely disgusted by how unhinged the guy who runs it is and also find it funny that he's so blatant about it.I think he's a snoy schizo, which would explain a lot.
>>4468061It's the other way around. Film hss that problem to a higher degree than digital. If you can read 80 lp/mm off a film and that's the limit, it's fuzzy, soft, very low contrast and barely visible. If you can get 80 lp/mm off a digital sensor then it is way clearer and easily visible. The film shot with the same level of visibility is more akin to 50 lp/mm. I know because I tested a lot of films years back. Even if you read them off a microscope and an Imacon 949 it's like that. Film gets super fuzzy and soft and low contrast at its limits with a couple of exceptions like CMS20. Those fuzzy barely readable limits are typically far below what datasheets state are the limits.
>>4468166dpreview forums is full of self important boomer gear collectors
>>4468186>ask for gear advice on dpreview forum>get detailed huge text block analysing the gear and explaining why I should / should not buy it>ask on /p/>get this reply: >>4468110
>>4468198That's because /p/ save for some threads is for seeking validation, heckling and baselessly accusing people of sexually molesting different beings, forums are for actual photography related discussion. Even if it's about the equipment. Ever notice how technique and subject suggestions get shot down while consumption and snapshittery get praise?
i've got zero knowledge on mounts and stuffare there glass/suction mounts for a full-size camera and lens, preferably with vibration dampening, that i can mount on my rear windshield and get le ebin tooj clips?>why not goprobecause i have a full size camera and lens and no gopro, and also, too wide
>>4468166All those youtube guys will post a billion videos when stuff releases, but I'd like to avoid the whole youtube shit.I'll check out dpreview. Photography is just a hobby for me, so I'm not really aware of photo forums.>>4468186So it's basically the gear page, but for cameras? I can live with that.>>4468198>>4468205That's why I want to find other places than here too. You get one or two genuine replies every 1000.
>>4468198dpreview is gearfag central. of course they're going to repeat all the marketing talking points to you. here you get the honest truth: no one fucking cares about video.
>>4468208>but I'd like to avoid the whole youtube shit.>I'll check out dpreview.so you just want to read the summary of youtube shits filtered through some boomer's lackluster understanding of technology?
>>4468211I don't know I've never had a look at dpreview. But this is also something that annoys me. One anon says: "maybe check out x place""Ok, I'll have a look""You're going to check that place out? What are you a fucking moron?"It's just so fucking tiring constantly getting that.
>>44682174chan is full of low IQ contrarians that think they know it all. Always has been. Don't take anything here seriously.
>>4468045Picked up a canon s100 for $3.Noticed people seem to be selling them for a few hundred dollars online.Is this some sort of hidden gem? What so specially about it when it's like a decade+ old? Is it worth messing around with and learning some photography on, or taking with me on my walks to take pics of stuff (I'm not a photographer at all btw)
>>4468198Just read the spec sheet then.It's just numbers that mean nothing.It's all about the feel of the camera, guarantee you a D750 takes better feeling pictures than that costcutting slop with no soul and maximum post processing where the sensor is gimped to have the camera output as fast as possible for crippled 4k video or whatever the fuck they are crippling sensors for these days.
>>4468221Youtuber talked about it so the price went up I guess.Anyway it's sorta the golden age of Canon before they became retarded, has the great looking colors of older Canon cameras without the post processing garbage, is modern enough to not be outclassed by newer cameras (without pixel peeping for "noise").It's also really small, so people use it as an alternative for their phone.
>>4468221Probably that psyop telling people to buy CCD cameras.
>>4468086There is no such thing as color science. Change your settings. Raws contain no color info >>4468164Cobalt image but it works better in capture one. Lightroon is bad at color. >>4468052>>4468055/thread
>>4468169Imacon scanners are garbage and 6x7 produces a very good 80mp
I did do an impulse buy today at my local auction. Bought 3 panasonic lumix dc fz83s for £130. Just seemed cheap. What am I in for?Planning to practice with them. I've got 3 Gemini GM500s and am trying to teach myself product photography for my antiques business. I'll eventually get a decent DSLR but what will these Lumix do shooting from tripod with remote trigger and good light?I can sell them for more than I paid so just for playing around/practice really. Getting used to how everything works. I'm a complete novice.
>>4468086>editing to cropNormal part of photography going back to eriwtt and adams>editing to fix bad color scienceHow can you fix something that isn't real? Color science is a term made up by fat, lifeless brand warriors (illustrated) because as camera brands got closer and closer in capability they started running out of things to argue about, and settled on arguing about default jpeg settings and lightroom defaults.Among "color science" types, simply using capture one can be called "cheating" and a "cope" because that is what color science actually means. "Lightroom defaults, <2 click edit" and "jpegs, no settings changed other than main profile". In fact a tripfag here (it was probably cinefag) has actually called capture one "cheating for snoys and fujislugs" because if that one shitty raw converter doesn't support a brand well that brand is supposed to be bad, or the brand war loses even more of its point and it finally becomes clearThe only thing left to brand war about is the autofocus to price ratio, and the only loser on that front is panasonic which is a completely irrelevant brand
I'm a poorfag. Should I buy a used DSLR (looking at 750D's and 5500's) or save my pennies for a bit longer until I can afford a used/refurbed mirrorless like the R10? Whatever I get will have to last me for 5 years if not longer, so I don't want to fuck up this decision. Is DSLR a waste of my time and money?
>>4468245>There is no such thing as color science. Change your settings. Raws contain no color infoThis is the cope of a Sony shooter for sure.Get a Canon 5D, shoot a raw side by side with your Sony and see if you can see any color difference at all.
>>4468250>looking at 750D's and 5500'sDo you mean Nikon D750? Cus Canon 750D is not it.If you want a used Canon get a 5D Mark III.If you want a used Nikon get a D750.Modern cameras are souless costcutting slop with smartphone tier postprocessing (even on raws).
>>4468250save and buy a used Nikon Z5. Yes there are some downsides to it (autofocus speed isn't as good as the most recent bodies) but it gets you into mirrorless at a good price. and there is a perfect lens available for cheap (Nikon Z 24-70mm F4) that together with that body will keep you going for a while.
>>4468166fujirumors pretty reliably has rumors out before other outlets from my experience, im sure he's a bit more cavalier with publishing leaked info moreso than a larger org like Petapixelit is an awful add-ridden site though and owner comes off narcissistic
>>4468249>Normal part of photography going back to eriwtt and adamssome examples herehttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56318241
>>4468250D800/D810 is better and cheaper than D750.
>>4468263holy boomer cope
>>4468272Cropping was never seen as bad until crop cope digital and shitty low res bayer sensors6x7 color film is *AT LEAST* 80mp - with old scanning tech. In B&W that's 100mp of cropping room. The GFX100S can produce good looking 400mp scans of 35mm.And then out came aps-c and m43 and <36mp FF sensors now cropping is bad and a cope because of the eternal digicopers defensiveness and insecurity:>"Anything that makes my camera look like a bad purchase is actually bad activity">-digislugs
>>4468276>>"Anything that makes my camera look like a bad purchase is actually bad activity"aka>DONT LOOK>STOP NOTICING THINGS
>>4468266Wtf, since when is a D810 cheaper than D750? (It's not)Also D750 is better than D800, especially in the eye test.
Has anyone used one of these chink shit USB cameras?I want to use one or two as cameras for a fire watch tower. It's important that they work as USB webcam for the software it uses, but beyond that I was also going to use them for long exposure night timelapses since the view is pretty good there.I guess some people use something similar for astrophotography but maybe with different sensors
>>4468281>chink shit>Firewatch tower.You trying to burn it down?
>>4468279It is here in Norway. Always has been.D800 and D810 are virtually identical, so your statement is retarded.
>>4468074Z30 was $400 refurb from Nikon a month ago, bookmark the link and wait for it to come back up again. Otherwise you can find a ZVE10/a6100 for $4-500. a6400 is still closer to $7-800.
>>4468285Why do you think that is retard?It's because the D750 is more desirable, the pictures look better.Also the D810 came out 2 years after the D800 and has slightly better dynamic range, color depth, ISO and processor.The problem with both the D800 and D810 is they are landscape photo cameras ONLY, they have a too high MP for the sensor so the images are kinda washed out and noisy because the pixel area is too small to gather enough light to give pleasing image.Exactly the same as with the Canon R5, looks like shit.
>>4468299Not an issue under iso 3400ish (2800 for true iso 50 cameras)High res low speed goes back to iso 50 film. It’s a physics problem.
>>4468281I had something similar and it got quite hot, I reckon they have terrible longevity and probably crap for noise
>>4468045>give nikon the most expensive lens>give fuji a mid lens>give sony a $100 dogshit lens with major bokeh fringing that turns oof areas wide open magenta in front and green in back>shoot wide open>awb unchanged jpeg settings which no actual photographer does>fuji STILL looks the worstWhen even a crooked test is not enough to make fuji look like its fairly priced for what it puts out
>>4468245>There is no such thing as color science. Change your settings. Raws contain no color infolol lmao even
>>4468300That's not how that works.The 1D X Mark III has 20mp for a good reason.
i listed this digishit for $100 + $10 shipping on ebay, fair? i figure every other listing was $120-140 and located in japan (tariffs)its pretty nice as far as digishits go but im pairing down my collection it was intended to be le gfs but she never used it
>>4468341>fair?I look at the sold prices on the same items in the same condition and slap the same number on mine. Just sold my Canon IXUS 170 for $220AU because I saw they were selling for around $180-$200. Demand for compacts is going up so you could inflate the numbers a little, and you should inflate the numbers anyway because eBay take 13.4% of the final sale price. If you want $100, sell it for $115, maybe even $118 to account for the cost of packaging.
>>4468343I listed it locally for $80. The 14% sales price thing is true. I actually paid next to nothing for it ($45 from yahoo auctions jp as "junk" but ended up being like-new...don't worry I got burned on 2 lenses that were actually hazed to shit and a F70EXR that came with lens fungus so really I'm breaking even)
>>4468334Sorry you dont know how cameras workMetameric error and lens color cast is all they have and its all over the place with no brand trends aside from the cooke looke, zeiss t* and leica colors
>>4468341Dude, who fucking cares. You've already done it so it means absolutely fucking nothing what we think. You just want validation for wasting your money on e-waste and then selling it in for a mediocre profit.
>>4468348You don't think different sensors render colors differently? are you retarded?
>>4468353its not wasting your money if you have a mediocre profit retard
>>4468367it's hours of work, a job would give you x10 for the same time
>>4468369i already work a 9-5 that makes me $150k usd a yearthis took me 30 minutes of my time (take photos, pack, list, if it sells slap a label on it and go) and i got some cool photos out of it you know how many hours people itt sink on videogames
>>4468139wait WHATplease tell me that's like an extra-large can or photoshopped or somethingthat's hilarious
>>4468287Z30 is not really pocketable though. The grip is too large. I don't necessarily want just a small camera. I want one that fits in my pocket at all times. But I'll probably just use my phones. The prices aren't worth it.
>>4468287>>4468377But ZVE 10 is a decent suggestion. I'll look into it. Maybe I can pair the viltrox pancake with it and make it pocketable.
>>4468355>You don't think different sensors render colors differently? are you retarded?You are retarded if you think this.
What are some cool little functional and useful gizmos for photography? like light meters, etc
>>4468307What I don’t get is why the Fuji looks so overexposed compared to the other two. Also can’t understand how/why the Nikon 50/1.2 is the size of fucking football. I get that everybody wants to ooh and ahh over muh edge to edge sharpness, but the reality is that for actual pictures of irl scenarios, lenses with “character” look better. And they’re smaller + lighter. Or look at Leica. Side by side, it just looks nicer, in part because the lenses aren’t so pristinely perfect and “digital looking”I wish I could tolerate how chunky old FF Nikon DSLRs are, I’d be more than happy to shoot with the old AF-D lenses from the ‘90s. Maybe I really should just buy a Df, although I’m sure it does lag behind mirrorless in some of the performance areas that actually matter - autofocus, size/weight, metering and WB accuracy, ISO performance, etc. And the flexible picture controls on the new Nikon cameras would be really nice to have as an option. I just can’t justify the ridiculous size and bulk of the Z mount system. Honestly thinking of going Fuji just to have something that’s a comparable size to the film cameras I learned on as a little kid. Too bad Leica costs $5k+ for a body and has no AF, I’ve really been loving the pics I see out of those, as long as they aren’t just of homeless guys lmao
Any options other than Fuji for actually halfway reasonable sized cameras? I’m not sure how to feel about micro 4/3, I get the idea, but aps-c is already pushing the limits of a tiny sensor. And is there much of any lens selection for fast portrait lenses, walk-around zooms that aren’t some f6.3 plastic crap, etc?I love the look of the new ZF, but the lenses are ridiculously huge, maybe the Chinese stuff like 7/TTartisan is a little more reasonable size but I haven’t looked. Even the mount is fucking dumb large though. So my options seem to be Fuji, m4/3, or sell someone’s kidney and buy Leica. Or suck up the bulk of the body and buy an old DSLR and old FF lenses that are somehow 20-50% smaller than the new stuff.
>>4468382Light meter that automatically triggers flash, spot meter + incident combo.Shutter release cableHot shoe levelSmall tripodFlash trigger + flashes or strobes + battery pack for faster rechargeUniversal viewfinder
>>4468390Just be like the vast majority of people, and buy a sony instead of a poorly made, overpriced worm camera or a phone sensor with an f11-16 zoomzeiss 35mm f2.8sigma 90mm f2.8Simple as
>>4468387>the reality is that for actual pictures of irl scenarios, lenses with “character” look betternot to normies
>>4468387Shitty lenses don't look good to people who aren't photography geeks who want to ape 50 year old photosIf you're considering something as stupid as spending $1500+ on fuji's poorly made junk why not just shoot real film instead of ass simulated filmFuji cameras aren't actually that small either
>>4468394Then the question becomes, do you take photos for yourself or so others can approve of you?
>>4468377Here's the thing though....as someone who bought a ZVE10 locally and 2 weeks later traded in to MPB as a profit ($400 -> $480).Pros:-Sensor has awesome dynamic range and the colors are excellent. pic related.-Software is great and idiot proof, gets it right 90% of the time on intelligent auto and the other 10% you can switch to the modes (night or action) and it'll be fine-Autofocus is as good as claimed -Size works great if you're gonna keep it around your neck. Can barely feel it.-USBC charging -Power Zoom means one handed operation and the zoom can be pretty snappy. I had it set to quick zoom using the zoom ring and slow zoom with the rocker. It pops out a extra inch when you use it Cons: -Small size means you don't have enough dials/controls. Just one scroll wheel, no PASM which you notice when you have to switch modes, and easy to accidentally record video when you meant to take a photo. The bigger grip on the Z30 is nice because you have a better hold on the camera and the Nikon has a PASM dial and 2 scroll wheels for a little larger size.-Small size also makes it awkward because the lens gets caught on everything as you pull it in and out of your pockets. -Dont like the power button location, it's a little difficult to get with a case.-Lack of weatherproofing is REALLY fucking obvious. Ports on the side are wide open other than a chintzy plastic latch. You're probably gonna be fucked if you get caught out in the rain with it. I was freaking out when I got caught in a torrential downpour with it and that's with me tucking it under my hoodie. Fortunately nothing happened.-Lens is old (2012, from the original NEX line) so expect some distortions and not the sharpest quality. More importantly Sony APSC lenses are kinda shitty even compared to Nikon Z DX imo, everyone immediately uses the FF E Mount lenses I noticed (which are often 2x the size of the camera lol)-Screen is just "okay" I found the Nikon to have the better screen.
>>4468396I derive enjoyment from entertaining others with my photos
>>4468393>Just be like the vast majority of people, and buy a sony instead
I'm looking to upgrade from an APS-C DSLR from yesteryear to a modern FF mirrorless but every brand seems shitty in some way or another. Do I just get a last-gen DSLR from Nikon or Canon and forget about gear? The D780 and D850 seem kinda cool. I genuinely hate all modern brands.
>>4468394>>4468395They definitely do look good to normies, every wannabe art chick on insta-tok is oohing and ahhing over filmic vibes, Fuji x100 meme, digicam meme, etc. besides, this is a hobby and an artsy thing for girls on IG, if I was shooting real stuff for real money I’d buy a medium format digital and write it off on my taxes. Would 100% shoot real film, but it’s a pain in the ass when traveling. Digital is nice to be able to send pics to people right away, post right away, etc. Surprised at how big the xt5 is compared to zf, but zf is one of the smaller Nikons. Biggest thing is that the Fuji lens is literally half the size, and that’s basically the smallest Nikon Z lens lol Agreed that Fuji was a way tf better investment a couple years ago, missed the bus there
>>4468414There's no perfect camerablah blah blahThe one you have with you, etc & what not
>>4468416All I want is a perfect camera...
>>4468393A7c variant is definitely on the radar, didn’t know they had nice compact 3rd party lenses like that. I’d miss the retro vibe, people respond really well to it, but it is what it is.
>>4468415The size comparison is a trick of perspectiveThe X-T5 is on-paper a little thicker but that's due to grip. Look how deep that grip is compared to the Zf, i.e. the main body is thinner than anon's pic looks
>>4468414You can find a D750 for $4-600, so yeah why the fuck not. I personally bought a $900 K-1 Mark II until A7IV prices drop or a FF camera I really like comes out that has adapters for both Pentax K and Minolta A comes out. If you like Nikons just shoot Nikon. D850 is still pricey imo and personally I disliked it when I used it, too complicated but I'm also retarded.
>>4468416Lol fuck off thirdie poorfag.>>4468414Every brand DOES suck in one way or another. I personally think smaller mirrorless is the way to go but a top-end DSLR will set you for many years, especially if you factor in that lenses will get cheaper with demand moving towards mirrorless.
>>4468421Good pointNgl, I wish I didn’t care this much about size/weight, I’d save a fuck load of money for stills shooting if I went with a d750 and some early AF lenses. But I want to take the thing around town, traveling, etc, and the number one reason the d90 I had back in the day missed photos was that I was never carrying it. Got spoiled learning on my dads ‘80s film SLRs, which were bafflingly light and compact. Yashica fx3 was a great little film body
>>4468378>ZVE 10 is a decent suggestion. I'll look into it. Maybe I can pair the viltrox pancake with it and make it pocketable.You will unironically get better pics with your phone
>>4468434Your phone doesn't have the glass or sensor. It's a stupid meme unless you have a $2000 1in sensor chinkphone won't apply 99% of the time. Cell phones have too many compromises to keep their form factor and get mogged to fuck if you need to zoom.
Is it worth it to go into videography? I'm a photographer for fun: family, cars, some nature, travel, my kids, .. Sometimes I regret not taking more videos because when watching them they feel more alive compared to stills. Sure with photos you start some brain processing, remembering what happened around the photo but it's not the same. With that ZR and its cheap price I was thinking of jumping to this camera and trying some video. Seems to be easy enoough to color grade and I can also do photos with it (though no mechanical shutter.. is it that much of a problem?). With the 40/2 it's quite compact to bring anytimes. I'm just worried that in the end I use it 99% for photography because I find making videos more boring than expected. Is this another world you can dive into like photography that is equally fun?
>>4468373nope, they are just that small
>>4468435>doesn't have the glass>mogged to fuck if you need to zoomlmao retard
>neck strap is bad for you and cumbersome>wrist strap has you dedicate an entire hand to the cameraSurely there's another way?
>>4468456
>>4468455Still more sensor and glass than a phone
>28-135mm/2.8well they made my(almost) perfect lenstime to start saving upI bet the day after I get it Sigma or Tamron will announce a 24-135mm/2.8
>>4468461why not a 10-1000mm f/1.4 pancake?
>>4468393No difference between a Samsung 24 and a sony A7
>>4468455>Thinks any mirrorless camera made after 2015 isn't just a glorified phone sensor.ngmi nigger
>>4468456shoulder strap
>>4468459literally any phone camera will mog your setup
>>4468478My phone camera was so bad it made me pursue photography though
>>4468299>It's because the D750 is more desirable, the pictures look betterLmao>D810 has better dynamic rangeA microscopic difference at the LOWEST end of the ISO scale. If you think your ISO 100 image looks bad, you are doing something very wrong.>better processorDoesn't translate into anything. The only significant upgrade from the D800 is the softer shutter, which is less noisy.>the D800 and D810 is they are landscape photo cameras ONLYThe dumbest shit anyone ever wrote on this mongolian basket weaving forum. Congratulations.
>>4468478So this is the power of Sony...
Gonna sell that digishit for $80 todayFigure eBay would only get me $85 after fees and still make me wait a week for the money
>>4468478> That uniform layer of haze over everythingI was editing a whole bunch of vacation photos taken on an iPhone, and I cannot stand this haze any more. Whether it's shit "glass" or postprocessing going mental, it just ruins photos.
