File: DSCF2953.jpg (4.92 MB, 7728x5152)

4.92 MB JPG

Reposting

Looking for Fuji x-mount lens recommendations. Gonna be shooting at least 1 wedding soon. I have the 23 & 33 primes, plus the 16-80 kit lens. Thinking of picking up the 50-140.
Any thoughts/suggestions or advice for shooting weddings? I will also have my 28mm leica q3 so I am not super concerned about wider angles.

X-T30 with a XF23mm f/2 R WR for 600 europoors? Y/N?

>>4471083
Ah fuck nevermind I read that wrong, it's 720
Still, is this a decent deal?

>>4471082
>Any thoughts/suggestions or advice for shooting weddings?
rent a real camera lmao

>>4471080
best 35mm equiv. prime ever made?

>>4471080
>Mirrorless.webm

the FUCK was she doing

>>4471082
You should be good, I'd opt for 90mm f2 over the 50-140mm f2.8 depending on the venue, maybe even 56mm f1.2
I basically went through the Fuji lineup over many years of weddings, and ended up settling to just the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 + 90mm f2 for weddings now

>>4471088
Hard to say without giving some criteria for "best"
>Voigt 35 f1.2 III is my favorite and most used, and one I'd probably re-buy or choose if I had to pick one
>Voigt 35 f2.5 PII is the lens I've kept onto the longest
>Fuji 23 f1.4 LM is the best 35mm "equivalent" I've used
>Leica 35 f2 V4 is known as the "king of bokeh"
>Z, RF, E, L all have great modern performance 35mm's

>>4471080
retards when they don't buy insurance for their gear:
>go to social media
>bitch and moan about how <manufactuer> should pay for the repairs because this is obviously their fault not yours
>conveniently leave out the part where you were hammering it and using it commercially while hoping for the best
OR
>Bought a snoy
>STILL didn't buy insurance
lmao. lmfao even. roflamo even.

>>4471097
> Snap your dog in the trailer park
> Okay
> Snap a wedding in the trailer park
> REEE COMMERCIAL USE
Why are Jap bootlickers like that?

>>4471099
Yo dickhead, OP vid fits into the second category. Just don't buy a snoy.
Or if you buy a snoy, expect it to break under moderate use. Easy.

Is the GX9 a really, really bad choice?
All I hear about m43 everywhere is that "it's basically like your phone, that bad". But come the fuck on, is it -that- bad?

>>4471108
Every M43 option is inheritly plagued by the fact that the default look at *optimum* quality is only marginally better than a phone, and easily mistaken for a phone snapshit.
In good light, under ideal lighting, with a scene that is not demanding on DR, you end up with photos that are "okay". The only difference is actual ergos and menus, and the fact that tools dedicated to a specific thing are normally easier to use than do-it-all devices like a phone.
And we're ignoring other significant issues like the thick sensor glass, the overcorrected lenses, or the green smear that fucks any photo taken with such a dogshit device.
A 10 year old APS-C Nikon will btfo even the most recent M43 camera

>>4471112
That must be why I find it cheaper everywhere.
I've been looking at compact shit and honestly I've only seen good options on Sony and Fuji

>>4471115
Niggon or Canon't just won't put IBIS on their crop bodies.

File: 00052247.jpg (62 KB, 700x525)

62 KB JPG

Is the Leica Q2 a good buy for 3000€ in mint condition? I've used my Ricoh GR3 for years until it died recently. No need of interchangable lenses, I only use the 28mm. Mostly family, my kids, travel. Reason why I don't wanna buy the Ricoh GRIV is because I want some more megapixels for crop and the samples I saw of that Leica lens are pretty amazing. Very sharp wide open. And finally an EVF. Still twice the price though

I know I would be cheaper off with the Snoy A7C and a 28mm lens but since I know I don't buy any other focal lenghts why not just get the best of the best?

>>4471108
It's okay enough for ff schizos to seethe about m43 all day. Then they post ff photos taken in ideal conditions with a somewhat better iq than m43 snaps and feel validated.

>>4471115
>>4471116
Snoy and Fuji charge a premium for ibis. Used a6700 is more expensive than a used a7c. Clown world.

Fine fuck it I'm going for the X-T30, I don't care it has no IBIS I'll have to adjust to that

File: 2024-09-27_IMG71502.jpg (3.23 MB, 4608x2304)

3.23 MB JPG

>>4471108
Pic related is optimum micro four thirds image quality without spending hours in photoshop fixing pixel shifts fuckups, or spending $1500+ on panasonics best to sort of catch up with <$1k aps-c. ETTR, base ISO, huge fucking zuiko PRO lens, only missing the CPL because i forgot to bring it. It only gets worse from here, and fast. It offers very few meaningful advantages and I'd use a sony a7c or even an xt4 over any micro four thirds camera for any reason but zooming in for detail shots of tiny animals.

I have a theory that most of the sony hate and fuji hate on /p/ is probably being posted by neurotic terminally online micro four thirds fanboys. You'd think they'd shit on canon or something because sony's problems are old and fixed ages ago, and canons various reliability and IQ issues are new, but sony is the one that most people would buy over micro four thirds, and they shit on fuji like every person that buys a fuji kills a kitten, because it's another brand that outdoes the entire micro four thirds system. Between fuji and sony, there's no reason for 99% of people to ever look at micro four thirds.

This theory has more credence if you were around for when micro four thirds fanboys spammed the catalog at least once a week and were threatening to dox people for calling fourturds shit for general photography.

File: stainless-steel-kodak-str(...).jpg (19 KB, 600x600)

19 KB JPG

>>4471119
The weaker IBIS on ancient cameras like the a7iii and a6500 is fine for people who don't have parkinsons, and the cameras are so small you can just use dirt cheap telescoping mini-tripods for infinite IBIS.

>>4471127
Reason is that on the lower end m43 is cheaper and has more "features". I've been looking to upgrade from m43, but then I'd need to pay >1000 Euro for a used body with ibis and lose the small-ish 300mm equivalent zooms.

>>4471132
>pics might b kinda shit but at least i didnt have to use a $30 tripod or put in extra time at my job to save for a better camera tho
lol do europoors not get overtime and shift differential pay? can you not do what all the pakis do and do some under the table labor for quick cash? if you have time for 4chinz you have time to make money pal go grease up your elbows and work towards a real camera kiddo

>>4471134
> Just take a tripod to all outings
> Just zoom with your feet
> Just buy a camera phone
> Just crop and upscale
> Just PAY ALREADY
Shill cope is always the same when crappy value for money is mentioned. I'm wondering what the cope will be when the Jap cartel decides to remove mechanical shutter from the entry level.

>>4471127
>*hits joint* fuji wormtrans and snoy shit is better than micro four turds duuuuuude. Its an om system conspiracy
All the pot you smoke has made you schizo, fuji shill. Fuji and sony cameras fall apart if you breathe on them. Om system is actually well made.

>>4471146
>getting a job and spending more money on better things is le bad. its a shill conspiracy!
holy schizo

>>4471149
Imagine making the argument that I must slave away 8 hours a day (more like 12 in the Land of the Free) just so I can give money to the Japs. No, shill. No money is being spent.

>>4471150
>things cost money? SLAVERY
this communist attitude is why everything good costs $500 more in your country, commie

>>4471151
Enjoy your tariffs Amerifat. Look who's laughing now.

>>4471118
por que no los X100V/VI?

>>4471157
But that would be a downgrade from the GR3

>>4471160
how so?

>>4471127
>take a shitty photo of nothing (snapshit)
>SEE HOW MY PHOTO SUCKS! LOOK AT HOW BAD M43 IS!
this seems like a skill issue

>>4471169
That photo is like 12x better than everything in the dedicated m43 thread

Micro four thirds does make every photo worse. It doesnt matter if every photo isnt "deeply meaningful" jewish pseud shit it matters if it doesnt look like shit.

Thats why fuji makes the best cameras.

>>4471171
You gearfaging niggercunts should all off yourselfs

>>4471174
Most successful photographers use fuji, canon, leica, nikon, and film

Most micro four thirds pros are brand ambassadors and reviewers/shills. They don’t book clients they do "workshops".

Why do you think that is?

File: full flame.png (1.82 MB, 800x1131)

1.82 MB PNG

>>4471176
full flame all the way

How would you approach the assignment of putting together a product photography studio that can break down and store in a closet?

File: sigma.png (213 KB, 537x389)

213 KB PNG

/gear/ help me out here.
Can you identify which lens this actually is?
It's being described as a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens but it looks more like a f/2.8 to me. Am I missing something?

>>4471148
>pothead
I've posted >>4471096 and that's it so far

>>4471182
>does not mention m43 having good lenses
>recommends snoy
good morning saar

>>4471127
nature in india is so pootiful!

remember m43bros, dont fall for the shills. dont spend your money on oversized sensors. by iso 400 they lose!

Micro four thirds is:
Smaller
Lighter
Faster
Cheaper
The same IQ as APS-C @ ISO 400
Sharper than fuji xtrans
Better at color than snoy

Just a better camera. If you dont like it, its because you only tale shitty photos of rocks and leaves, fat americans weddings, and your stinky retarded dog.

>>4471185
>Smaller
>Lighter
Where?

>>4471186
Reality where a foolji wormtrans xt5 weighs 147g more than an om5ii and had worse image quality, worse ibis, worse pixel shift, and worse weather sealing, shill bro.

File: wut.png (1.15 MB, 1990x1110)

1.15 MB PNG

>>4471185

>>4471184
The only m43 35mm I've used was the OG 17mm f2.8 (on an E-P1), which m43 35mm equivalent would you recommend as the "best"?
I also recommended several other brands, but I know you're dishonest

>>4471189
Now add equivalent lenses furniggor.

>>4471190
Olympus 17mm f1.2 pro
panaLEICA 15mm f1.7
Sigma 16mm f1.4
Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95

All smaller, lighter, sharper, than nikon oversized telescope lenses, and less green and vignettey than snoy, and less wormy and overpriced than fuji.

Fool framers could never have an equivalent lens as good as the panaLEICA 50-200 f2.8-4.
>inb4 muh bokeh

>>4471185
Trvth nvke

>>4471185
But i have to pixel peep my dog and shoot a million comparison photos because i have the autism. Only expensive cameras are good enough for me and my boring photos of rocks, leaves, dogs, and fat americans weddings.

>>4471191
It's just Nikon being American-sized (and taking over mirrorless market for that reason). Once you start comparing OM-5 to Fuji and Snoy APS-C, (X-T50, a6700), the size and weight seem close, until you get into longer lenses.

>>4471185
>>4471187
Is there any side by side comparison of the new Fuji sensor to the OM-5 sensor out there? You'd think just a larger sensor and more pixels on subject would give Fuji an advantage.

>>4471208
>Once you start comparing OM-5 to Fuji and Snoy APS-C, (X-T50, a6700), the size and weight seem close, until you get into longer lenses.
In such case, why wouldn't one go with APS-C? MFT seems like it has no future, no R&D bar superficial for the bodies or lenses.

>>4471191
coping retard still copes, despite being btfo. more at 11.

Are DSLRs still good cameras to buy?

>>4471099
>Jap bootlickers
>Japanese companies control over 98% of the camera market and are as far as I can tell the only ones making camera sensors for digital cameras, all others seeming to focus on mobile or industrial applications.
do you just not like cameras?

>>4471209
Because micro four thirds is better. Better IBIS, less weight, better lens compatibility, no xtrans worms, doesnt fall apart like fujishit, real weather sealing. Fuji is junk. Micro four thirds IS better.

Canikons oversized professionals only blobs need not apply. Those are cameras for professionals, not /p/, and professionals dont use them for fun. They use micro four thirds.

>>4471213
Definitely better than snoy.

>Find a good deal at last
>It's from a vlogger that replaced his equipment with a fucking iPhone
>Shows a picture of the camera with a 30mm lens
>Describes it as 35mm
Good lord I'm getting a bit frustrated with this shit,

>>4471221
even an iphone is too much gear for vlogslop

File: m43 and fool frame.jpg (55 KB, 1126x648)

55 KB JPG

>>4471185
/thread

>>4471214
> Actual Jap bootlicker replies
Have you earned the right to have windows yet?

>>4471180
Its the second version of Sigmas old discontinued APS-C 30mm f/2.8 (first one was matte and second one was shiny, i think that was the only difference). They make a 30mm f/1.4 which is still current, but thats much larger. They definitely have it wrong.

>>4471127
Yes. Problem? Snoy is shit and fuji is shit and m43 would dominate witnout snoy shills and fuji viral marketing and the snoy allied yakuza bleeding olympus dry. The olympus pen F is still objectively superior to every fuji POS ever made. Even the autofocus is better.

>>4471224
Its soo good that they've decided to discontinue manufacturing them.

File: get real.png (257 KB, 1640x763)

257 KB PNG

>>4471224
it's nice that micro four thirds can be sort of pocketable sometimes by making a lot of sacrifices and it would have been nice if olympusonic recognized that and focused more on the large sensor ultra-compact segment, and built more "lifestyle" oriented cameras. maybe panasonic could have read the market and focused more on cramming decent video onto a gm5 sized camera.

however, they did not, and full frame is small enough for normal photography. it doesn't really matter except
>a select few body/lens combos (mostly a bit shit, slow af-s auto mode cameras)
>wildlife photographers who dgaf image quality because they're facebook boomers who ONLY send 1920x1080px 75% jpeg quality photos to other facebook boomers
for real, that is 99% of wildlife photography, so for that, it is totally fine. its consumers do not have high standards. it's not really treated like fine art. it's held to the standards of a magazine cover at best. it is totally unlike landscapes, portraiture, and fine art photography where there's consumers of it that want larger prints, and texture/color rendition are "like, part of the vibe man" instead of "good enough".

there is a small minority of extremely good and well funded wildlife photographers who are rich enough to offer something of interest to a more cultured market. unless you are a globe trotting climate activist, it doesn't matter what camera you use for wildlife photography, because no one who can tell m43 from 4x5 film or care exists among most people who enjoy it.

for everyone who isn't a wildlife photographer, even if you're just shooting your own family portraits and vacation albums it pays off to get something noticeably nicer. and micro four thirds just can not deliver in that segment (which is 99% of real world photography). in the real world, in the same situations micro four thirds just gets mogged by full frame even when it's just as big and expensive as full frame.

>>4471096
>Hard to say without giving some criteria for "best.”
Pls forgive, I was being a lazy s*** when I asked. Best 35mm equiv. lens in terms of least amount of optical aberrations/flaring/ghosting/haze/fringing etc.? also best in terms of, idek what I’m asking, but like “light transmittance?” so everything that’s bright irl stays bright on the image so there is maximum and true contrast.

>>4471224
>4x the size and weight
>slower
>poor qc znoy lens
>snoy colors
oh n-

>>4471256
it's funny when you think the om5 and the a7cr are the same size. and once you equivalent out the aperture the m43 lenses are bigger than full frame equivalents.
what is this dumb system even for? as you said I'd take it as a "large sensor compact/pns" but that's it

File: Screenshot 2025-09-29 at (...).png (2.22 MB, 2096x1284)

2.22 MB PNG

>>4471256
>that is 99% of wildlife photography, so for that, it is totally fine.
kek even there m43 doesn't win. picrelated wildlife photog did a comparision between nikon z8 and om1.2 ... he even went so far to fake m43 on full frame by cropping in 2x and turns out the full frame image cropped in to 2x is still better quality than the m43 at its native crop
and if you're willing to play that crop game all weight and price differences disappear. well the full frame kit actually is less expensive and weighs less lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcK5e_9_mZY

>>4471256
>even if you're just shooting your own family portraits and vacation albums it pays off to get something noticeably nicer.
one reason why I got rid off my m43 stuff and kept my full frame: the photos of my kid looked 1000x better in full frame than on that shitty baby sensor. so I decided to only take nice looking photos because those photos are actually important to me and my family

File: 1665927526593253.jpg (51 KB, 600x758)

51 KB JPG

>>4471270
>Equivelance is bullshit
>M43 gear is heavier and more expensive when aiming for equivelance, due to the extra elements and corrections needed
>Aperture size is the important factor, not ratio. The fact f/2.8 is painted on the lens means fuck all for M43.

THIS SIMPLE FACT OF LIFE ESCAPES ALL TURD WORLDERS. WHAT THEY DO NEXT WILL SHOCK YOU.
MORE AT 9.

>>4471185
M43 and (DSLR) APS-C are the only systems worth considering anymore.

>>4471285
Lol. Lmao even.

>>4471286
Hasselblad maybe, if you have the money for it at least. FF is basically the compromise format.

Thinking of getting a 6D with a 50mm 1.4 as my first full frame. Any thoughts on that setup?

>>4471285
A 4 inch by 5 inch sheet of film is better than all digital cameras currently on the market. A 60 thousand dollar digital camera gets close.

Oh, you care about anything more than image quality? Sounds like a major skill issue. Sad! Now git gud, kid.

>>4471191
Anon, equivalent lenses are the roughly the same size. Despite what equivalence denying cucks here claim, aperture AND ISO are included in equivalence, not just focal length. An equivalent lens is one capable of collecting the same amount of light on the sensor for the same composition.
>>4471192
Not just about bokeh but SNR and implicit photographic integrity from having a real viewfinder.

>>4471289
Consider a 5DII/III/IV instead of the 6D (no like, go compare them, not that the 6D isn't good enough)
The 50mm f/1.4 is sooper dooper soft and doesn't get sharp even stopped down. Some /p/haggots would call that "character", but the 50mm f/1.8 STM is basically a far better lens for less money. >>4471293
>>4471293
>ISO [is] included in equivalence
You might have brain damage cANON.

>>4471297
I did compare the 5D models to the 6D. The 6D came along as a basically modern version of the 5D i and ii and less bulky. Modern in regard of WiFi and the Card format

What did I miss?

>>4471228
Thanks, it was just odd.
I ended up buying an a6400 with a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. No IBIS but maybe I just need to get better at this hobby (and I heard the IBIS on the a6500 is not spectacular either)

>>4471208
>You'd think just a larger sensor and more pixels on subject would give Fuji an advantage.
Not the sensor size but the bigger pupils. However, that advantage isn't enough to offset the fact it's a Fuji

>>4471297
Anon, if you shoot at equivalent apertures and focal lengths between two formats, with shutter speed equal, the only way they're both well exposed is adjusting the ISO to the f-stop used. The f/stop you use on the MFT camera in this example is two stops lower, so has to be the ISO. Otherwise you'll get a much brighter image.

>>4471325
Right, but base ISO for MFT is like ISO 400 on APS-C in terms of DR and noise.
Like, I get what you're saying, the number on the ISO setting is "equivalent" but the results are not. I'd argue ISO 200 on M43 is still worse than my current full frame @ ISO 3200 in terms of that, but I'd only need to be at 800 to match exposure, so the equivelance argument falls apart.

Any good ass smaller sized bags you can hang a tripod from?

>>4471326
You have to test equivalent apertures, it's not just ISO. Just check out the GH6 gallery on dpreview, the quality seems comparable to FF to me.

>>4471220
>Because micro four thirds is better.
Explains why they're doing so well in the market

>>4471325
Huscuck proved this wrong with actual cameras. So why do you keep spamming this theory? Imagine getting disproven by doghair’s alter ego

>>4471334
>check out dpreview
Pfahahahahahahahaha
No photo
No camera
Not photog

>>4471326
>I'd argue ISO 200 on M43 is still worse than my current full frame @ ISO 3200
You'll argue it, but won't ever share any evidence or proof

>>4471356
This argument has already been had many times and other people already proved you wrong. You’re redoing it hoping to win this time. You don’t care about being right. You care about arguing your lies until the world runs out of truth and everyone knowledgeable enough to prove you wrong fucks off.
Micro four sissies confirmed for vatnik brained. But like ziggers keep getting vaporized by a tiny country despite their simulations, huge g9iis keep losing to smaller full frame cameras despite the dpreview equivalence calculations.

File: Untitled.png (102 KB, 701x1075)

102 KB PNG

>>4471300
Have a kockwell-approved list of all noticable differences between the 6D and the 5DIII

>>4471289
Great combo for your first full frame. Main downside of 6D is autofocus - only the central focus point is good. Completely fine for static subjects and portraits. If you need fast autofocus or much tougher build quality, 5D III.

>>4471279
>Aperture size is the important factor, not ratio. The fact f/2.8 is painted on the lens means fuck all for M43.
based and truthpilled

File: s-l960.jpg (99 KB, 960x960)

99 KB JPG

just bought a z30 with the telephoto zoom lens what we thinking

File: 71HooWBrkZL._UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg (51 KB, 894x597)

51 KB JPG

>>4471405
>APS-C
Nice!
>Not a DSLR
Mistake.
Really it's not the mirror, it's the lenses.

Is the 7artisans 25mm 1.8 lens still "good enough" for manual shit on a somewhat pancake lens format or is there anything better for a similar price these days?

File: IMG_3005.jpg (68 KB, 686x386)

68 KB JPG

>>4471428
If you don’t mind the “strong character” (ie flaws galore) style of lenses, I like the Brightin star 28mm lens cap.

>>4471361
>>4471362
If the mighty kockwell approves...
Will go for the 6D. Don't need fast AF or any points from the "lost" section. Found an offer including the Batterie grip and 50mm 1.8 for 420 euros.

>>4471288
>FF is basically the compromise format.
this
if you want proof, the brand of compromise is discontinuing their digital MF camera in favor of their FF

>>4471288
>and other things m4turds tell themselves
It would be an accurate statement if mere crop medium format could outdo the blazing fast autofocus of a 15 year old DSLR and have a flash sync speed over 1/60 without resorting to leaf shutters. Also fuji gfx and hasseblad cfv shit is extremely failure prone.

>>4471458
excuse me but the flash sync is up to a whopping 1/125s!

medium format bros we’re almost caught up with the sony a7c

>>4471462
My medium format camera has a leaf shutter, and some lenses I have go up to 1/1000

Any suggestions for ultrawide monitors with good color spaces and high refresh rates? I use my desktop for photo editing and gaming pretty much exclusively and I'd like to upgrade from this 75hz LG one with just okay color space

>>4471465
Medium format bros we’re just 2 stops behind the max ss of an a7c
>still effectively manual focus cameras
>but full frame is the compromise because full framers made fun of (btfo) some micro poor shills again

>Full frame is a compromise

The sad reality is that if money wasn't a constraint for either the manufactuer or the customer, we'd have digital sensor cameras that go up to 5x7.
The only reason APS-C digital was a thing was because of wafer sizes and manufacturing complexity. On the flip side, if it didn't matter financially to discard so many fucked wafers then we wouldn't be stuck with gimped DMF.
After about 5x7 (i'm guessing here), we kind of reach a spot where most people wouldn't be fucked carrying it around. Even at 645 sized you'd still be stuck with hassleblyat's body design.

Full frame is what the market decreed to be economically viable and convenient enough to use. It's why most normies stayed away from DSLRs that were pushing 1KG and lenses bigger than a can of coke. Now that MILCs are cutting down on size and price (sort of) we're having more people buy FF vs APS-C than ever before (thanks to a dying camera market).

>>4471470
Sounds like a skill issue. I just use iso 50 and f32 if I need those 2 extra stops haha.
I would gladly use manual focus only if that meant better image quality. I guess we are just different, which is totally fine btw! :D

>>4471476
A 5x7 digital sensor camera would be so incredibly difficult to use. They would be the most studio queen camera of all studio queen cameras to ever exist. Look up equivalent apertures/DoF between 5x7 and full frame to start off with.

>>4471458
>flash sync speed over 1/60 without resorting to leaf shutters
I mean, engineering isn't magic, at some point you're faced with physical limits
the real answer is global electronic shutter, though I'm not really sure where the state of the art sits with flash sync there
>>4471476
>Even at 645 sized you'd still be stuck with hassleblyat's body design
not if it's a MILC
there's plenty of MF rangefinder cameras that can give you an idea of what the size would be, yeah sure bigger than a FF MILC but not a cube either
>>4471479
how would it any more difficult to use than 5x7 film?
also why would you think that anon is unaware of DoF equivalency

>>4471485
>implying he has shot 5x7 film
You ever see anyone using 5x7 film handheld or for stuff other than landscape/nature outside the studio?

File: 1678148359491.png (251 KB, 800x529)

251 KB PNG

>>4471477
>n-n-no medium format isnt a compromise YOU are the problem
Medium format is a compromise. Full frame is really full frame, not "actually a crop sensor just like micro four thirds". Full frame really is the standard. Full frame really is the largest sensor size that current tech can make well. And micro four thirds really is 4x worse at rendering a pleasing image even when you go full retard and buy a gh7+penisonic-feica noctitroon.

Medium format had its day. And now it's over. China might be able to bring it back somewhat, but the hard reality of semiconductor manufacturing is cost scales logarithmically with size, and a rare earth shortage is upon us, so it will never enjoy the standard-setting position it did when everything was film ever again.

Even if you shoot medium format film, you will end up scanning it with a full frame digital camera just to make it look noticeably better than the full frame digital camera, and still get dog hair on the image.

>>4471494
All formats are a compromise in one way or another dingus. It just depends on what you want to/need to accomplish. Arguing about the best size of film or sensor is retarded gearfagging.

According to the opinions of most gearfags on /p/ a phase one XF body with 200MP sensor is a shitty scamera because it is a big camera, has slow af and bad low light performance! The jokes write themselves.

>>4471479
>A 5x7 digital sensor camera would be so incredibly difficult to use
... compared to 5x7 film? What the are you smoking?
>Look up equivalent apertures/DoF between 5x7 and full frame to start off with
What the everliving fuck does that have to do with anything? Yes, bigger sensor smaller DoF. And?

>>4471485
>>Even at 645 sized you'd still be stuck with hassleblyat's body design
not if it's a MILC
there's plenty of MF rangefinder cameras that can give you an idea of what the size would be, yeah sure bigger than a FF MILC but not a cube either
Fair. Fair. Overlooked that. Hell, that actually makes me want it to exist even more.

>>4471493
>>4471479
So, because it's mostly used for a couple of things it's not allowed to exist? Plenty of people whine that FF DSLRs are too big but they got used anyway. So what is your logic, you cooked faggot?
You don't think that going to digital over film would slightly simplify the logistics and/or rope some new customers in? Maybe then it'll get used more?
I wouldn't personally buy a 5x7 digital camera, but if someone came out with an actual 645 sensor camera (and it had AF that works unlike dMF) I'd sell my FF gear and get that.
This is some weird gatekeeping anon.

>>4471494
all that shit no one will read, written butthurt snoy nophoto who seethes at the sight of an aps-c dslr... sad...

Should I sell my X-E3 and XF 10-24mm f4 to partially fund an X-E5 + XF 23mm kit lens + Sigma 12mm f1.4?
Part of me wants to keep the X-E3 since I don't actually need to sell it to afford a new camera body

>>4471509
Theyre in luck because no one uses dslrs except for a small number of redditors and broke thirdies so they will never see one

I dont even see fujifailm or micro four irl either irl. They basically do not exist outside of craigslist and pawn shops. Its all walmart canons and rangefinder style sony cameras.

>>4471512
this is such a weird position, who cares what other people use. were you bullied into what you wear too? your taste in music? what else?

>>4471514
You know why almost no one rides motorcycles? Because they are dangerous and incapable of doing things other than dangerously ride through traffic.

Sometimes the majority of people are right. Like how DSLRs are just worse than mirrorless and micro four thirds was obsoleted by the iphone.

>>4471515
>You know why almost no one rides motorcycles? Because they are dangerous and incapable of doing things other than dangerously ride through traffic.
lmao what shit country do you live in where people dont have motorcycles?

>pisses self after hearing mirror slap in public
>seethes later on anonymous basketweaving forum about how dangerous it is to not conform to the majority in every imaginable way
and you mentioned you use a snoy and you are a nophoto? color me surprised

>>4471508
You're just weirdly seething. I never said it shouldn't exist, zoomer. It would be freaking awesome if it did. Im mainly sahing that it would be an ultra niche camera if it did.
Is a high MP camera harder or easier to use generally? They're harder even with the same sensor size. You need to have much higher technical skill to get the full quality out of those cameras. Same goes with larger film. Go buy a 5x7 camera and post the first 10 shots you take with it.

I mention equivalent DoF because you'll be shooting at f16 or higher if you want any sort of reasonable DoF and then you'll run into issues where you don't have enough light to take a picture with anything moving in it in anything but shitty full sun light, artificial light, or you'll need to shoot at high iso, which will make your 5x7 sensor churn out images that look no better or worse than a full frame image. 250mm on 5x7 is the same FoV as 50mm on FF, btw.

>>4471521
>equivalent dof
I never understood this about large format, if you want to have usable dof you have to stop WAY into diffraction territory. You can print less enlarged than FF to cope, but then why shoot LF at all? I've seen big LF prints in person before, the diffraction is easily seen. Often they shoot at like f/40 and the print doesn't even have to be all that large to see the diffraction.

>>4471515
What? Motorcycles are fun and are used as primary transport in much of asia and europoor.
In the West they're great alternatives and can be a cheap fun hobby if you're into that.
Most people don't own jetskis either, so I guess we should just stop making them?

>>4471521
>Seething
You're projecting again anon.
>Im mainly sahing (sic) that it would be an ultra niche camera if it did.
>They're harder even with the same sensor size. You need to have much higher technical skill to get the full quality out of those cameras.
Right, again, so just because it's not accessible or desired by literally everyone it shouldn't exist. Gotcha. You're retarded.
> you'll run into issues where you don't have enough light to take a picture with anything moving in it in anything but shitty full sun light, artificial light, or you'll need to shoot at high iso
Oh right I forgot that bigger sensor cameras are worse in low light. That's why everyone just uses their phone and ancient 1/2.7" p&s's for low light right and full frame is exclusively for good light?

File: Untitled (35).jpg (931 KB, 1554x1300)

931 KB JPG

>>4471522
It really depends on what you're doing and what lenses you have. Not every situation demands f64 when shooting 8x10. Generally f22 or f32 will give you very useable DoF on 8x10. DoF limitations on 4x5 are not really that bad either. 8x10 it gets kinda shitty f5.6 = f.7 lol.

Here is a crop from an 8x10 test shot @ f22 with a 300mm lens. The crop is around 1/3rd the size of a 35mm frame, so like 1/180th of the entire frame. Scanned on a shatbed.

>>4471523
Lovely cope and exquisite reading comprehension. I look forward to seeing those 5x7 shots. You should make a new thread for them. :)

>>4471526
>No actual rebuttal or argument made in defence
I accept your concession.
>You should make a new thread for them. :)
For the cameras that don't exist? You actually are a retarded Indian aren't you? Post hands.

>>4471529
You're so angry that you've lost your damned mind little zoomer! 5x7 cameras absolutely exist. The film ones! DUH!!!!

>>4471536
Fuck me. You seriously can't follow a conversation chain more than one post deep huh?
I'm talking about digital cameras.
And if you can't follow it for that long, you also can't infer from what I'm saying the more likely subject line.
So you call *me* the zoomer, lmao.

Weak bait. Accept you got btfo'd and move on.

>>4471539
Okay, zoomer. Keep writing your little no u projection essays and I will continue laughing at them lol.

>compared to 5x7 film? What the are you smoking?

Now cope more for me.

>>4471545
I don't think you understand what cope means anon
You lost the argument. If four sentences is too much for you, I understand.

>>4471556
What argument? I just said a 5x7 digital camera would be really hard to use.

>>4471556
Also thanks for the cope kek.

File: 40keks.jpg (57 KB, 742x655)

57 KB JPG

>>4471559
>still doesn't know what cope means

File: CA_132.jpg (58 KB, 1024x683)

58 KB JPG

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.

File: IMG_9708_v1_copy.jpg (1.12 MB, 2294x1529)

1.12 MB JPG

>>4471633
I shall also post photos in the gear thread because fuck the gearfags.

>>4471580
Appreciate the concession. :)

>>4471638
>Doesn't know what concession means

>>4471639
Thanks again, LOSER! :D haha.

>>4471633
UNDEREXPOSED
>>4471637
OVEREXPOSED

>>4471515
>mirrorlesscuck hates motorcycles
Keep chugging that bean milk, effete faggot.

>>4471642
Thankyou exposure fairy.
I knew you were real.

File: 551839894_142309590543286(...).jpg (77 KB, 960x720)

77 KB JPG

>Olympus E-PL1 with 2 lenses, 2 batteries and charger
M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm f/4-5.6 R Lens
Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-42mm Zoom Lens
>The 14-42mm works fine but is not as smooth as it should be the shell got knicked while using it one time.
>asking 120 for everthing
I don't know, I hate no view finders and I don't get that they mean about the 14-42 but doesn't sound good.
But I want to get into micro 4/3's and anything that isn't a Canon EF mount seems to be hens teeth used locally. But it is two lenses and a body, could probably beat it down to $100 and use as a place holder until I could find a EM-5 or EM-10. Either of those lenses decent performers?

>>4471494
>complete medioom foormat destruction
based

>>4471498
>phase one XF body with 200MP sensor is a shitty scamera because it is a big camera, has slow af and bad low light performance
correct. why would this piece of shit be considere anything but trash?

>>4471656
the 40-150 is nice but has no VR and the micro turd IBIS isn't that great for longer focal lengths. but optically the lens is way out of its league.
the other one I never tried but I guess it's just a typical kit zoom.

>>4471664
He just ignored my response. Absolute destruction.

>>4471665
Lmao. The image quality is far superior to any other digital camera and gets kind of close to 4x5 slide film. Sorry that image quality is at the very bottom of your "what makes a camera good" list.