File: face-with-tears-of-joy-em(...).jpg (49 KB, 820x820)

49 KB JPG

>Leica batteries cost $348

>>4472265
never seen anything like this happen to a nikon or a sony a7c/ii/r

Why can't the mods ban the shizos having a personal vendetta against fucking camera brands?
The same kind of shizos on /g/ that fight for either Nvidia or AMD and ruin the PC building generals.

File: snoysane.jpg (266 KB, 1000x961)

266 KB JPG

>>4472279

>>4472284
What brand even has FF pancakes? Meanwhile Pentax has a TINY pancake and it's for a DSLR with heaps of that pesky "flange distance". Mirrorless is a joke.

>Anti-sony schizos: Stop shooting raw that's cheating! Don't use the creative styles or picture profiles it has to have film sims on a dial or it doesn't count! If you shoot raw you have to use lightroom, AND NO PRESETS, that's cheating! Color science is real if you don't cheat! One time 8 years ago there was a bad batch of a7iiis! Stop pixel peeping and saying sony is better! Now pixel peep the corners of this uncorrected raw file shot with a 90 year old adapted lens and acknowledge that sony is worse! What about the weather sealing on this 11 year old compact model? If you have to use a plastic bag your 11 year old compact camera is shit and you are a fucking cuck!
>Anti-canon schizos: The camera is broken. The lens has snapped in half. You paid $5000 for APS-C dynamic range on a full frame camera. And no third party lenses because the first lens samyang made for RF was sharper than every single canon equivalent. Lol.
>Anti-fuji schizos: Press the AF-ON button. And look, still not in focus. Now zoom in after you get it in focus. Still so blurry. Worth $1699? Fuji has 7% market share, but as many broken cameras as sony who has 50% full frame market share. Amazing. What do you mean my argument falls apart when not applied to the flagship gearfag models?
>Anti-leica schizos: Google "leica broken" and laugh. Look how much this battery costs. HA!
>Anti-panasonic schizos: You paid how much for that autofocus? Oh look time to replace your rear dial for the 6th time. At least your 4k120 is uncropped. Too bad no one cares.
>Anti-olympus schizos: *mountains of proof micro four thirds is more expensive and heavier than full frame because a cropped z8 is sharper and less noisy than an om-1ii*
>Anti-pentax schizos: *crickets*
>Anti-nikon schizos: Uhhhhhh it's big and expensive? N-nikon has to be bad guys its uh.... big and expensive!
>Actual photographers: *pulls a6000 out of pocket* *snap* my cringe collection... is complete.
/thread

>>4472285
Nikon has an FF pancake. The autofocus and focus breathing are very bad, and the outer third of the frame never gets sharp.
Canon has an FF pancake. It's like nikon's, but slightly sharper.
Panasonic has an FF pancake. It's fixed at f8 and manual focus only.

Overall, it doesn't matter, because the cameras are too big, and panasonic's only compact was severely crippled by a legal agreement they made with leica not to compete directly with the Q series. Panasonic fanboys are so hurt by this they've been taking the S9's flaw (severe rolling shutter in stills) and lying and saying the a7cii has it instead.

>>4472267
wtf really. That's fucking insane

>>4472287
lol the sony schizo is so afraid they have to imagine enemies

>>4472287
>essay schizo anon forgot to take his meds again

>>4472279
Honestly if they did that it would probably fix this cursed board. I don't care if it's most of the traffic. It's actually useless and has made it impossible to make good threads on this board without people gearfagging out and derailing the discussion.

>>4472285
>What brand even has FF pancakes?
Literally every mirrorless system except for Sony FF for some reason

>>4472285
The RF 28mm is GENUINELY optically excellent and the only drawback is fuckwit-tier barrel focusing.
>>4472288
>Overall, it doesn't matter, because the cameras are too big
My R8 (yes the cripplehammered, aps-c battery, blobmera) is literaly half the size and weight of my old 70D and fits in my man-purse with ease. I don't yet own the pancake but boi is it tempting.

>>4472284
If the anti-anti-snoy schizos would just shut the fuck up and stop feeding the trolls, the problem would fix itself. Until that day happens, it's fun to say snoy and it's fun to watch the little faggots squirm whenever their favourite walkman company is besmirched en masse.

>>4472279
What makes you think the schizos aren't mods/jannies baiting for engagement?

>>4472290
it's actually more like $240, but with the charger, it comes out to like $455, pre-tax

>>4472288
>>4472295
>>4472297
The MFT Panny 20mm and that old Leica 50mm are actual pancakes to me. The Nikon is just a small lens, not a pancake. Maybe a souflee pancake lol. The Canon I admittedly hadn't seen before, it looks pretty pancakey. Panasonic L mount has that 18-40 but it's too large to really be a pancake.

File: IMG_8875.jpg (583 KB, 1536x2048)

583 KB JPG

Just bought this for $20, did I overpay? It's from the 60s I think

File: IMG_8436.jpg (626 KB, 6000x4000)

626 KB JPG

>>4472305
The 28mm is 1 mm thinner than Panasonic 20mm. Canon EF-S 24mm and EF 40mm (my favourite) are even thinner.

Sony has the best colors and I’m glad they don’t use a jpeg preset that takes advantage of how accurate their sensors are because it makes plebs panic and sell me their sony gear for cheap

File: Nikon_Z30_selfie_tripod.jpg (1.01 MB, 3840x2560)

1.01 MB JPG

the nikon z30

is it kino?

File: 1200px-Pentax_Q_01n2000.jpg (225 KB, 1200x800)

225 KB JPG

Thinking of getting one of these just to fuck around with. Is it fun or too old?

>>4472328
>APS-C
Promising...
>Not a DSLR
Damn. If only it were mft, the other redeemable digital format.

>>4472329
It was cellphone tier when it was new anon but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fun to use. I had a nikon v1 that was a cow compared to the q and i loved that lil nigga

Nikon DSLR with 160'000 actuations and not a single issue over here

>>4472265
More like legendary liability, LOL.
The sorrow of mirrorless, always ready to die when the push comes to shove. The R5 would likely implode like a Fuji in the cold winter as the 6D keeps going and going.

>>4472344
The joy of reflex.
>>4472284
To be fair, pancakes are all compromise lenses.

>>4472365
The more you post your godawful opinions the more I want to buy a sony

I don't know anything about cameras and just bought a used Ricoh GR (the first generation of the large sensor ones). How bad did I do?

>>4472368
To be fair, the a900 seems decent on paper.

>>4472380
>how bad did I do
Depends entirely on how much you paid.

as time passes i begin to hate myself for owning a so-called nice camera

$2300 for digital "pictures"
fucking bullshit

client work? waste of time. who needs the fucking money. build a fence. mow 15 lawns. same shit. same pay. works if you don't live in a shitty. no crying women. it's a fence. who asks for it but 6ft wide and complains that you dont have a canon? its a fucking fence. cut the boards and nail them to the posts.
digital cameras are ass.
they make you unhappy
they make you buy to be less unhappy
look at you. this camera is bad, this camera is good, no you have it backwards. no there are no bad cameras. but i dont own that camera you said is bad. but i do. no i do and i like it. no i did and it's bad.
talking about shopping

people even complain about other people complaining about shitty digital cameras to try and detach from it
but it was never a problem before either way. ever film camera works fuckign fine or it's already broken.

the only happy people on this board, in this hobby, shoot film

your snoyshit nikonsht canoshit fujishit, waste of fucking time.

dsrls suck. because of the D part.
milcs are dishonest. because they only imply the digital part and pretend it's just how cameras are. OVFs dont fucking matter your camera is digital or it is not. if you think you like OVFs you don't. if a film camera magically had an EVF you'd like it again. you're longing to not be tied to digishit.

the only happy people here shoot film. everyone else is fucking miserable. digital photography makes you unhappy the longer you do it unless you refuse to see no one gives a shit.

i cant even post pictures from this shithole
fuck it

t. jetlagged anfd fucking pissed

>the only happy people here shoot film. everyone else is fucking miserable. digital photography makes you unhappy the longer you do it unless you refuse to see no one gives a shit.
Another one achieved nirvana

>>4472398
>if a film camera magically had an EVF you'd like it again. you're longing to not be tied to digishit.
Nah m8, I enjoy my DSLR for what it is and my film SLR for what it is as well. I don't hate being a part-time digislug, because it makes up for the shortcomings of film. Believe me or not, I would despise an EVF even in a film camera.
I liked the stream-of-consciousness nature of your post.

>>4472392
650

>>4472408
Yeah you got fucking rinsed holy shit. Great camera for a hundred bucks maybe, but 600? 12 years old and all that comes with that. Ouch. And I’m a gr fan I own both the iii and iiix, but damn. Used market is insane now.

>>4472367
>To be fair, pancakes are all compromise lenses.
ALL lenses are compromises.

File: 1907-1882-720.jpg (44 KB, 720x338)

44 KB JPG

>>4472305
>The Nikon is just a small lens, not a pancake. Maybe a souflee pancake lol. The Canon I admittedly hadn't seen before, it looks pretty pancakey
Insane snoyboy cope

>>4472408
Ouch, that's steep. Is the used GR market price that bad?

>>4472419
Yeah, quick look at EBay, looks like the US prices are similar to what I found in my europoor shithole. You can get the old GRD's for 200-300, but the GR's are all 600+, and add another hundred or two for every generation up.
The one I'm getting apparently wasn't used much (6k photos, so around 500 a year).

>>4472418
We know all this pancake autism traces back to clive sending sony a mockup of his ideal pancake and getting a "fuck off and buy the 35mm its close enough" response

>>4472422
I also checked, it's messed up. Apparently, the XF10 I bought 5 yrs ago has also increased in price to >$650 in the used market.

>>4472423
Who the fuck is Clive?

>>4472425
Cussler

File: avatar200.jpg (11 KB, 200x200)

11 KB JPG

>>4472425
>being so new you missed the clive saga
A notorious retard got banned from every photography forum and comments section for shitposting how sony made the worst cameras, and then came here to shitpost non-stop about sony pancake lenses. Eventually it was revealed that he made a mock-up of a sony pancake and had submitted it to both sonyalpharumors and sony, and most of it was him throwing a fit when he was laughed at for faking it, and getting a generic response from a sony sales rep. He's probably still here because he's still getting banned from everywhere, and he's known for being terminally online.

The only indications he's still an individual are reused images otherwise he's turned into an n/p/c, indistinguishable from all the other gearfags here that are exactly like him.

any other ausfags know if black friday deals are worth a damn here, I'm was gonna buy a new lens but I don't mind holding out if it's worth it.

At what point should I consider getting a tripod?
I feel like lens to cover a variety of focal lengths are a higher priority

>>4472449
when you will need one soon. long exposures, self portraits, multiple portraits it one spot, product photography, high precision multi-row panorama stitching, etc.

buy what you need when you need it, not to complete a kit of theoretical importance. if you dont want to do something that doesn’t need a tripod, you do not need a tripod.

>>4472452
or a new lens just in case

>>4472449
>At what point should I consider getting a tripod?
They come in small, pocket sizes to long, sturdy ones.
- when the gear is quite heavy for hours of straight usage
- long exposures
- timelapse
- filming, vlogging, streaming
- nobody is around to take photos of you or group photos (using timer or remote)
- don't want to be in the spot as not to be intrusive (while using a camera remote, timer)
- as external flash stand (master/slave setup)
- as handle for reflector
- as stabilization (while turning camera or lens stabilization off)
- as light camera bag holder when the surface is wet
- as a pole for defending against street dogs

>>4472455
Street dogs are always nice to me. Maybe they can tell you’re a homosexual.

How much should I invest into a tripod? the $50 one I got off of amazon has already diddled itself, but I don't feel like spending $500+ on a tripod, not including the head of course.

>>4472438
He sounds based and you sound butthurt

>>4472462
You basically can either choose a reputable and reliable brand and pay a lot or pay $50 with the expectation it'll die in a similar or lesser amount of time. On the bright side, a good tripod will probably last you the rest of your life.

Why am I getting so many fucking ads about the oreo lens

>>4472449
If you're doing 'studio work' taking portraits or product photography indoors, scanning film, macro or serious landscapes.
>>4472462
I think the only ones that do break are the sub-100 eurobucks tripods. I've used an 80 € aluminum manfrotto and a 150 € carbon fiber Sirui and they still work like new. Paying more allows you to put more weight on the tripod if you're doing birds or sports, but in that case I might consider a monopod.

>>4472288
>Canon has an FF pancake. It's like nikon's, but slightly sharper
*Massively sharper. That thing also performs even better on the extremely demanding R7 sensor.

File: pancakechads.jpg (171 KB, 1378x871)

171 KB JPG

>>4472305
>>4472418

>>4472287
The a6000 sucks if you go above ISO 1600 though.
The RAWs are so god damn fucking ugly it's insane.
Sold mine for a Fuji x-t20 which was a huge upgrade in my book.
Now use an a7rii and a ricoh GRiii x and feel at home.

>>4472284
I agree with all of these points except for "nice pancake lenses".
There is no such thing as a nice pancake lens. Use your iPhone or go for the nicest f1.4 or f1.2 lens available. Pancake lenses belong in the trash.

>>4472490
>never used a pancake lens because it cant be done on your system
>reeeeee all pancake lenses are bad!

720€ for an a6500 and a ligma 30mm 1.4
I can probably negotiate a slightly lower price, should I?

>>4472493
>>never used a pancake lens because it cant be done on your system
>>reeeeee all pancake lenses are bad!
I have no stake in your fanboy fight. I'm a neutral and objective 3rd person. I'm happy with my Hassy and would never buy a P-series lens. You shouldn't either no matter if Snoy or Cannot or whatever you use. Only flagships or iPhon. Never anything inbetween. Never.

Do they make left-handed cameras?

File: left-handy.png (69 KB, 686x353)

69 KB PNG

>>4472506
Of course they do mate. Just read up on the prototype that Ken Rockwell was given by Nikon back in the day

>>4472461
Yeah, because you smell like one.

>>4472504
>Only flagships or iPhon. Never anything inbetween. Never
Low IQ take

>>4472519
Slightly retarded take but the concept is fair. I'm more of a Foolframe + P&S/Phone guy but w/e.

>>4472511
What a faggot. I'm going to print out some of his photos for personal use without paying him $5.

Should I just wait 3 years before buying another camera? These tariffs raise prices to even more insane levels

File: Screenshot 2025-10-04 at (...).png (757 KB, 1162x670)

757 KB PNG

>>4472287
Pentaxians know our cameras fucking suck

File: Shoot-It-With-Film-Hassel(...).jpg (86 KB, 1080x1620)

86 KB JPG

>>4472438
>otherwise he's turned into an n/p/c, indistinguishable from all the other gearfags here that are exactly like him.
It's funny
Every digislug gearfag is EXACTLY the same person. Other than the generic pro-brand A anti-brand B opinions being switched around they are all identical.
Same personality.
Same interests.
Same hangups.
Same kind of "photography" (super boring shit, ie: every single one takes a photo of a foggy tree)
Everyone likes and hates things for the exact same reasons as 100 other people.
None of them can agree.
None of them make any sense and sound like pretentious shitheads with no talent to someone who is not a gearfag.
All of them are in same places (/p/, mu-43, fredmiranda, youtube)

Digital "photography" is a "hobby" for NPCs.

>>4472398
>the only happy people here shoot film. everyone else is fucking miserable. digital photography makes you unhappy the longer you do it unless you refuse to see no one gives a shit.
Most correct sentences ever written on this bitch of a board but if I might add
>[high end] digital photography makes you unhappy...
Digital photos are worth nothing so a digital camera of negligible value is fine.

A medium format sized and priced FF digital, even a nikon Z7 with a 26mm pancake, for all its dynamic ranges and ISOs and pixels, takes photos that are just as worthless as the ones from an iphone
A fake film camera, like a $10,000 leica or $2000 fujifilm, despite its looks, still takes photos that are just as worthless as the ones from an iphone

Just avoid micro four thirds so they don't look exactly like an iphone. APS-C DSLRs and cheap aps-c sony mirrorless are everywhere. D200, K10D, etc - $100 cameras.

File: IMG_0530.jpg (954 KB, 2068x2028)

954 KB JPG

>>4472265
do Panasonic "Leica" MFT lenses actually have anything in common with actual Leica lenses optically?

>>4472527
For me its having an interchangeable lens camera and having different lenses for different situations instead of just having 1 lens permanently glued on to it.

>>4472551
this post is peak schizo rambling

>>4472554
no its just an excuse to raise the price

>>4472557
sounds like he touched a nerve, digislug.
>every gearfag on every forym does tests shots of their dog/cat and basically nothing but
>every gearfag takes photos of trees, signs, and cars
>every gearfag eventually says some super expensive camera isn't enough for them because it's missing some dumb thing that doesn't make a real difference but is a hot topic in the internet argument
>"buti'm a wedding photographer!" - every digislug gearfag's excuse for having four to five figures of photography gear and nothi ng but iphone tier snapshits
digislug gearfags are real life NPCs

>>4472560
Stop arguing with imaginary people in your head

>>4472557
>>4472563
>n-no this cant be happening, its definitely le schizos
oh shut the fuck up. spending big on digital photography has always been for wankers, autistic retards, and soulless professional shit like newspaper snaps, linkedin profile pics and zillow listings

film keeps getting more popular for a reason

>>4472551
> Me on the other hand, I'm a PC and a serious photographer
Kek. If you were, you wouldn't spend time writing essays on /p.

>>4472551
You really hurt >>4472565 ‘s feelings :(

His digital gear has some really impressive charts you know!

>>4472551
>>4472560
If you don't like photography, why are you here shitting up the board? Even us filmfags hate you. There are loads of contrarians on /mu/, maybe you'd like it there.

>>4472567
>expensive digital gearfaggotry, brand wars = photography
Self own

>>4472567
Uh anon only the first guy said all digital was gay. The other two said only expensive cameras were because no one cares about your megapixels. Which is true.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=I4K-fHGDJOE

>>4472551
All of those people are still better than nophoto whiners like you

>>4472575
imagine getting mad at a post calling brandfags and overspending specsfags NPCs

is canofuji vs sonikon some kind of holy war to you? lol

Forgive my retardation
How important is shutter count?
Let's say you find 2 used cameras, one with low shutter count but looks rough as shit, and another one that's been taken care of a bit more properly, but the shutter count is about 4 to 5 times higher in comparison. Which one would you take?

>>4472579
Being right and best about how I chose to go into credit card debt is really all I have in life.

>>4472545
>man ricoh will repair my camera for free under warranty but they won't even suck me off too
>guess I gotta start looking at other brands…

>>4472294
agreed. Its a fucking tool first and foremost. Its all in how you use it.

>>4472579
>yes I am a nophoto whiner

>>4472594
shutters have count rating, so obviously you should look to the manufacturers recommendations and see how far it is from their specs. it’s probably in the hundreds of thousands though.

>>4472633
the mode dial failing is a common issue on k1s actually when you consider how little were sold, happens more often when you lock the dial. surprised ricoh even fixed it, their customer service is horrible outside of japan

either that or the hotshoe/pentaprism cover breaking if it takes any impact

File: 7194920.jpg (17 KB, 442x424)

17 KB JPG

>people here still think dropping a few g's on a hobby is excessive
I knew you were all poor third worlders

File: A1_t00_9-merged-175965153(...).webm (3.84 MB, 720x480)

3.84 MB WEBM

ID on the camera, lenses, and lens hoods?

File: LeicaQ3back1_1000x1000.jpg (88 KB, 1000x1000)

88 KB JPG

>>4472685
Took me awhile and im not familiar with Leicas, but I think its a Leica Q3.

>>4472704
I assume it's not interchangeable lens?
What do you think appears at the 1:20 mark? I don't know of a lens hood in that shape

>>4472685
>>4472709
why do you want the exact camera? Issa Leica. What do you like about it?

File: comparison(1).jpg (78 KB, 1131x693)

78 KB JPG

>>4472709
>I assume it's not interchangeable lens?
Yeah the Q3 is a fixed digicam.
>What do you think appears at the 1:20 mark? I don't know of a lens hood in that shape
It actually looks like an entirely different camera/lens. Look how big the lens barrel is and he wraps his whole hand around it. It would be way smaller if it was the Q3.

does anyone on this board actually take pictures or just argue incessantly abouhd8gjt their preferred kit?

>>4472398
EVFs are why you're afraid of shooting film, your crutch never allowed you to judge exposure or focus by yourself. Mirrorless is basically chimping on the fly. Focus peaking, zebras, exposure preview, all gay crutches.

>>4472728
Nobody owns a camera and nobody takes photos here. We all just stare at brick walls and test charts.

>>4472728
you'd know if you didn't just terminally lurk gear threads

>>4472728
Only Nikon, Canon, Leica and Fujifilm shooters do.

>>4472380
Dude finally packaged and sent it. Should be here Tuesday-Wednesday probably. Let's see if my sudden interest in /p/ee wavers off by then, kek.

>>4472731
no you goyim ass retard. it's because of the philosophical impurity of taking pictures of pictures so more than 10 people can see a photo and the complete and utter death of the color darkroom.

you wouldn't get it though you're obsessed with gear and trying to be a better gearfag than the next gearfag. you don't belong in any artistic hobby. you have the shrunken mind and personality of a car guy. your entire brain runs on this principle
>well, i daily stick, so i'm a realer car guy than the other car guy.
no one cares takumi. this is photography. it's about what you make, not how much extra effort you put into driving to work.

>>4472766
Based and doghairpilled

Make prints or use your phone

>>4472766
>you don't belong in any artistic hobby.
photography: artistic hobby
gearfaggotry: autistic hobby

>>4472328
imagine this thing with a smaller grip and a corner EVF. it would sell like hotpancakes

>>4472337
I recently found Nikon V1 photos from 2012 or so in my collection. I was really surprised at how good the image quality was.

>>4472766
If cameras are cars then one with an EVF is a Tesla 3 cuckpod with self driving.

which nikon cameras have that manual focus tracking feature? some guy post about it a lot

I have a T6i, 24mm, 18-135mm, and a first series 70-200mm. I have other stuff too, but it's either spares, for sale, manual focus lenses or like accessories but all in I am in like $270.
Realistically am I at the point of diminishing returns and any further is effectively needlessly dumping money?
Low level mirrorless are no higher resolution, different lens system, any size advantage negated by using adapters. Would be nice to have focus peaking and easier adapting manual lenses but no actual real benefit.
EVF would be nice in theory due to seeing what the photo would actually look like, but I have a feeling I wouldn't actually like using it as much as an optical one.
Only crop sensor Canon DSLR with a higher resolution sensor I know of is like the 90D, and naturally no where near as common or cheap.

One might say the clear option is to go full frame, but what will that really net me? Let say it was like a 5D Mark II since its a 22mp sensor so somewhat similar.
I already want a 100-400L since the 70-200 is inadequate for longer telephoto stuff, and I'd lose the APSC crop factor, effectively making it worse (ignoring that two lenses are EFS and wouldn't even fit). Do the pictures actually look better on full frame with a similar resolution sensor, is the low light that much better?

I was tempted for a while to go into some M43 stuff, but the people shitting on it convinced me to lose most interest. If I found a 16MP body with a viewfinder for like $100, I'd probably do it for times I don't want 4 pounds on my neck and still get some telephoto shots, but the cost of early EM-5 and EM-10 bodies is like $250 and it seems like a frivolous endeavor.

>>4472861
Former T6I user who has had multiple Sony camera's and now shoots with a Nikon ZF. Switching to Full Frame let alone mirrorless has multiple advantages and if this is your primary hobby i'd say it's worth it. Are you able to get similar outcomes to what i'm able to shoot with my more expensive camera? Yes. Is it as easy or feature as many options to get that outcome? No. If you are to the point where you're either not feeling inspired or feeling limited upgrade to an older mirrorless body. These days you can get Full frame for under $500 if you snipe on ebay.

You'll get 1. better low light 2. better IS 3.better aftermarket and lense support. 4. Focus peaking as you mentioned.

No matter what you do DON'T BUY M43. This is and every reply after mine is all anecdotal. Yes the specs of modern cameras are better, but this is an art form. What feels right is right. If upgrading enables you to grow then so be it. If i felt happy with a cheaper apsc camera lord knows i'd sell what i have and save a shitload of money BUT my current camera gives me the feeling of accomplishment when i create something with it and even when i'm feeling down about my ability as a photographer it still inspires me to go out and try to be better.

>>4472861
There's indeed very little for you to gain from going full frame if you're telephoto a focused. In fact without much longer lenses you'll lose reach. 90D is pretty much endgame when it comes to long distance photography. The much-hyped low light performance of full frame comes from shooting at faster equivalent apertures. I was disappointed in it when I bought my first full frame.
What full frame realistically gives you is access to a variety of film era lenses that you can use now already but cropped. It also gets you decent wide angle lenses without breaking the bank. The rest is mostly gimmicks. An APS-C with stabilized lens will outperform a full frame with no stabilization in low light, it's just how it is. The other thing you get with full frame is a more premium feel than your entry level Rebel and more dedicated buttons. No need to reassign any button for back button focus for example. You do get that sort of thing with the double and single digit APS-C models too.

How do I just be happy with what I have and go and take photos, instead of caring so much about if I bought the right thing, if I wasted money, if I could've done better etc?

>>4472886
Stop reading /gear/
Only post in /rpt/

>>4472265
Anyone here actually make a living off photo/video production?

Also rate my gear:
>Canon R8
>70-200 2.8
>28-70 2.8
>24-105 f4-f6.8 (rarely used anymore)
>nifty fifty
>24mm 1.8
I have like 10,000 worth of gear in my kit but I have not made even 4500 bucks through photo/video shoots lol

>>4472886
When you leave the house and start shooting you forget about gear

>>4472866
None of it was to say I wouldn't go on to get any of those things if I found favorable used deals and could break up and sell things like I did to get to get everything as low as I did. Just was trying to get a realistic assessment so I don't waste my time pretending that oh no THIS next thing will be the difference.
I wouldn't buy M43 as replacement to anything, just as a supplement and only if it was very cheap. But the supply isn't there for anything locally to be like that.
DSLR+70-200 is heavy, so there are times I just don't take something out since it's a deliberate action instead of something enjoyable. Could I take a lighter lens, sure, but the 55-250 isn't that much lighter,maybe on paper it might but either isn't light. I wasn't too impressed with the quality (II not STM) either, so it's worth more to me sold if I get a decent price.
I really just want an intermediary between a full size camera and a phone that's still somewhat decent, but the crux is telephoto.

>>4472886
Just go out and shoot them all. All of them.

>>4472899
There's about to be a mass shooting
(With my camera)

>>4472886
Ignore anyone who shills canon/nikon blobs
>BRO THE SPECS
>THE COLOR SCIENCE
Just use a sony a7c/a6xxx or canon r50/r10
Or buy a dslr
Ignore canikon ff mirrorless. Ignore full sized snoy ff. Ignore fujifilm. Ignore panasonic. Ignore micro four thirds.

Just do this and you will never be compelled to cope.

>>4472869
>le equivalence
Already disproven and VERY nonfunctional when comparing canon sensors to anything normal.

You have had equivalence debunked to your face many, many times.

>>4472826
Why would a decade change anything? 1" sensors are still good and used in plenty of phones today. And yes that means even m43 is good.
Sad that /p/ schizos are so obsessed with gearfaggotry and consumerism they automatically think new = better!!

>>4472912
New is better. Sorry!
>but le virtue… ur a consoomer goy
virtue is what pseuds have when they cant have success

>>4472912
>1" sensors are still good and used in plenty of phones today. And yes that means even m43 is good.
There is more wrong with M43 than just sensor size. You could give M43 an APS-C sensor but the rest of the issues would still relegate it to worse than 10 year old snoy.

>>4472914
>New is better. Sorry!
Good goyim!

>>4472919
What is inherently wrong with it beside the sensor size?

>>4472890
Been there done that. My photos are shit and I blame gear.

>>4472886
Realize that what you have is what you have and do your best to make the most of it. Read the manual, for starters. Too many people leave behind cameras with the features they wanted in some upgrade because they were too uninformed to find them.

>>4472943
Quite probably a skill or lens speed issue.

>>4472951
>skill
Sure, but there's no way to fix that.

>>4472957
Unironically agree. Some people can “practice guitar” for years and just never get good. I hate it but I’m a snapshitter for life. Give me all the copes and crutches you can throw at me.

File: Canon_EF_400_2.8.jpg (798 KB, 2048x1365)

798 KB JPG

>>4472951
he needs a fast tele

>>4472886
The easy answer is rent what you think is good and then see how big the difference actually is
Go look at flickr pools of the same model, and see everyone posting better stuff than you despite the same gear
>>4472889
I do mostly weddings + engagements
That's a fine hobbyist setup
>>4472857
Zf, Z5II, Z6III, and Z8 all offer the subject detection in MF, and then if you get a chipped adapter, and lens is chipped and also gets you green box focus confirmation and trapping

>>4472826
I've posted some V1 shots boudoir shots a while back, was a neat little camera. You can shoot with the 30fps/60fps modes and effectively get +4k RAW video from it

>>4472970
>straps a $13.000 lens to a $300 20D
wut. Unless this photo is a product of its time ofc...

>>4472826
The V1 had some great capabilities for its time. At release I think it had the fastest AF in an ILC and could handle a pretty good range of lighting to focus. But even for the “prosumer” model Nikon still gimped the controls and image quality was good but not great for such a pricey camera. It almost feels like Nikon needed to get something out quick so the press would stop saying they fucked up not getting into mirrorless but eh.

>>4472983
>he still thinks the body matters
Gearfags just will never understand, will they?

>>4472988
>Puts $50 eco tyres on his McLaren F1
>"Shuhh, yea bruh don't be such a materialistic fag"

What's a cool not crazy expensive filter to fuck around with

>>4472991
Mist filters for softer looks, star filters, CPL (legit useful), ND100000/1000000 for ultra long exposures.
Amazon-tier neweer and kf concept are good starts, just avoid the absolute cheapest lines

>>4472920
>>4472912
New IS NORMALLY better and whenever someone says otherwise a lot of shitty pictures of dogs, benches, building corners, and trees are to follow

Only someone that actually uses their camera for photography can appreciate an upgrade

If you're a retard like huskyfagot or doghair, or most of the snapshitters in /m43/ you 0% benefit from anything newer than a nikon d700. If you are actually a photographer (a REAL one, not a larping pseud shooting building corners and backs of heads) even a modest upgrade like d750->Z6II is huge and getting rid of a canon DSLR or old PNS for something nicer like a fujifilm is a massive quality of life improvement. There is a reason leicas were dominant for so long and it's because of the size advantage. DSLRs fucking suck. Sorry. But they do. For a real photographer, a DSLR doesn't belong outside a studio. They are absolute soulless, ugly, dolphin styled 2000s plastic garbage designed like shit and were a mistake. Now FF mirrorless is here and we can all have the leica advantage without the leica price and leica unreliability.

Non-photographers do not need that. You don't take worthwhile photos. You don't have clients. You don't leave your country. Stick with a DSLR for your yearly family photo and worthless pet snapshits and half assed "while camping" landscapes. Maybe buy a sony a7c if how dogshit DSLRs are is embarrassing you but if you're here you're probably an ugly autistic loser so it doesn't matter you're never getting laid anyways.

>>4473009
If you typed this in sincerity I hope you get the help you need before it's too late.

>>4473009
Correct. New cameras are made mostly for professionals, especially traveling professionals who go through a lot of gear by necessity. For them lighter matters, better matters. They're shooting protests in israel and touchdowns in sanfran, not cats on the couch and dogs at the park.

Anyone who says new isnt better just doesn't deserve these devices.. You dont have the need, you cant understand the need. You're just not a real photographer like these cameras are made for.

The C in a7c stands for consumer, btw. Because everything its missing you dont need. It just has the crutches so you can take photos more easily, since phones also have the same crutches now.

>>4472992
Maybe one of those 2 in 1 KF filters?
The Nano-D is like 50 eurobucks, I guess that's one of the cheaper ones I should avoid?

You know I grow tired of comparing cameras to fucking phones. I'm using a galaxy S23 and a crappy rebel T7 and I don't think I ever took a decent picture with the fucking phone

>>4473021
Anecdotally my Nikon D40 and kit lens looks better than photos I see of the nicest phone cameras. I think tiny lenses just look bad.

>>4473014
He is right

Does phone to ff to 8x10 really matter for the 100th picture of someones dog? Maybe if they’re a zoophile but the rest of us aren’t romantic with fido

>>4473021
Good morning sir. Kindly redeem the latest iPhone 17. It's over for us photographers.

asdfdf

Nikon ZF, 40mm f2 and 24-70 is right around 2.5k used in like-new quality on MPB
X-pro 3 plus 35/1.4 and 18-55 zoom is 2.8k
x-t4 plus same lenses is like 2.2k, maybe a bit less.
x-t30ii is cheaper than the xt4, maybe 1.8k for the bundle but kinda gimped, and nobody seems to have one anyway

These Fuji prices seem bonkers retarded high, what's driving this? Admittedly, I'm considering it, so I'm part of the problem.
What's everybody's take on these options? Travel, portraits, etc, maybe branching into some event stuff or shooting for people at my gym who are trying to be influencers.
Probably should just buy a d750 and some old 90s lenses, but I know I won't go out and shoot with the 3 pound blob camera.
I know the xt30ii, xt3, xpro2, etc really aren't as capable, but idk if just saving the cash up front makes more sense, especially if I'm not super likely to turn this into a moneymaker hobby right away

>>4473046
When I was looking at Fuji and Sony APS-C, they seemed to be similarly priced.
> Somewhat below $1000 for a kit without ibis: a6100, x-m5, x-t30
> Well above 1k, but below 2k for a kit with ibis: a6700, x-t50, x-e5
I think both are just milking people who want to get APS-C gear specifically.

>>4473046
2.5k for a d750, soft prime, and kit lens in a new container is also stupid. This is your brain on /p/. Ever think that maybe the gearfaggotry here is people soothing their buyers remorse?
>actually the cheap option is UNUSABLY BAD AND FOR KEKS AND BROWN PPL

Sony a7iii/a7c - $750-800
Samyang primes and tamron zooms - $50-$500 ea

Don’t be stupid. Sony is fine. Most professionals use it. Color science isnt real and the broken cameras are cherry picked out of a massive sample. More a7iiis were sold than every single mirrorless camera combined the year it came out.

>>4473052
>Sony is fine. Most professionals use it. Color science isnt real and the broken cameras are cherry picked out of a massive sample.
Well said sir.

>>4473052
the selling point of the zf is the video and the larp

except on /p/ where it fits into "anything but a sony" autism (it exists to justify spending 2x more to fit in)

>>4473052
Fair point.
Really that’s keeping me away from Sony is the ergonomics/aesthetics of the zf body. I think it’s because I learned on my dad’s old film stuff from the ‘80s, but I just strongly prefer using the retro style bodies. Not a fan of the big molded-in grips and the Sony bodies just look like off to me. Saving 800 bucks in the body is definitely a consideration though, and I do like the corner EVF.
I’ve also heard really good things about the Nikon software and the integration with custom in-camera processing profiles.
In terms of long-term, being able to adapt vintage manual lenses very well on the zf is a selling point, but I’d rather not drop cash on that type of stuff rn.
Idk if the ZF actually has better colors for portraits and so on, or if there are just so many mediocre Sony shooters that it drowns out the skillful people.

Also fully agree that the d750 is a better buy in many ways, I just know that I’ll leave it home more frequently than I should. High quality video isn’t a top priority, but everyone is getting into it, so having that in the back pocket is nice.

MPB has a7c at $1100, but that’s still $500 off. I know at least one guy who uses mostly adapted Sony mount lenses on his zf, so the third party lens ecosystem is pretty comparable. That’s another point, maybe better to just get used zf, and skip all the Nikon lenses for third party only.
I like the “vintage rendering” that you get on the sample pics I’ve seen out of the 40, but there are probably cheap primes from china at a comparable level of compactness which also have “character”.
Not married to the 24-70 either, just nice to have some kind of basic standard zoom for hiking. Sigma/Tamron/etc is all the same, or better if the 3rd party stuff saves some grams.
I know they say the z zooms are optically amazing, but nobody is selling truly soft lenses at this point, let’s be real

Thrvke : a guy living in Amalfi will mog you with a 600 dollar camera
If you have good gear but dont live anywhere interesting its like having a big cock but no bitches
Also if you live in third world country like Brazil that has a lot of photographie potential but you risk getting mugged you're even worse off because its like the universe is mocking you

Frankly, if development wasn’t such a pain in the ass, I’d just shoot film.
Way cheaper up front and it’d save me the time and effort of trying to doink around in post to get that juicy Kodak Gold look

>>4473060
gear money is better spent on plane tickets, we've known this already

>>4473031
>He is right
Everyone who posts in a gear thread is wrong and ontologically evil.

>>4473052
Not sure where the fuck do you live but 9/10 a $750-800 A7III is a scam or beat to fuck with 100,000 shutter actuations. It's closer to $1000-1200 before you come close to either camera with the a7c being more expensive

Meanwhile you can find a d750 for $3-400 anywhere.

>>4473014

No he's just a autistic freak too deep in to the hobby forgetting most people just want to take nicer photos

>>4472279
I like that EXIF has been removed from here since it means gearfags can't shit up /rpt/, as now they can't tell shit about what camera took what photo.

AAAAA I CANT TELL MICRO FOUR THIRDS @ ISO 200 WITH A $1500 LENS FROM FULL FRAME @ ISO 1600 WITH A $250 LENS WHEN BOTH ARE 1920X1080

AND F-FUJI.... AT ISO 1600.... LOOKS AS GOOD AS A CANON 5DIII AT ISO 100! ;_;

GEARFAGGOTRY.... IS INVALID ;_;

MICRO FOUR THIRDS AND OVERPRICED CROP COPE.... WON :(

jk if you buy anything but a d750 or a 5diii (or older, ie: d700/d200/5d classic) and it's not just to milk mirrorless for compactness AND you spent more than $1500 on your gear AND its smaller than aps-c you're a fucking faggot end of. there are very few correct choices in digital photography and i have outlined all of them

anyone who owns an xt5 r5 or z7ii or gfx or g9ii or similar etc and shoots for a hobby is objectively subhuman

>>4473009
How is any of this relevant here?

>>4473086
All I do is share pictures on /p/. What is the perfect digital camera to make all the nerds seethe at my superior image quality?

>>4473052
zf has the manual focus tracking, it could be revolutionary, if it works

>>4473088
m43 = instant seethe. nothing else compares, maybe sony

>>4473096
No I want them to seethe and cope because my pictures look so good.

>>4473084
If the d750 had the retro knobs and everything I’d likely do it.
Only other major issue is the weight, it’s like 20% heavier than the zf which is already pretty chunky.
How is the autofocus on those last of the DSLRs compared to the newer mirrorless cameras?
I honestly like the rendering and look of some of the older f mount lenses, and access to those would be cool, just not sure if I want to do the big chunko DSLR thing
Really I wish that Leicas were somehow mass market enough to be about 35% of what they cost now, or that I tolerated shooting film more, but that’s another story

>>4473089
The youtube guys say it’s great, but I’m sure they’re somewhat biased by positive videos getting more attention from brands and fanboys

>>4473098
Learn to photograph and you can do that no problem with m43

>>4473084
I'll buy infinite numbers of A73s for 800 and sell them to you for 900, deal?

File: Screenshot 2025-10-06 at (...).png (3.72 MB, 2594x1504)

3.72 MB PNG

>>4473101
only if you call this guy send him the money through cashapp im sure youre gonna get a camera :)

>>4473099
honestly if youre buying something used go by whats avaialble in your market

mirrorless has better autofocus, but its difficult to adapt older lenses properly (ftz is kind of shit here).

if weight is a factor go mirrorless, just bear in mind you're going to give up something in return (usually money, mirrorless lenses are only cheap if you're buying chinkshit primes)

>>4473100
Are you implying that no one who uses m43 on p knows how to photography?

>>4473104
he’s shitting you

m43 and 1" are in the "yeah thats a cheap camera" bracket. Indistinguishable and uniquely meh.

>>4473109
Duh. Did you notice how I was reverse shitting him.

>>4473018
For price reference, if you bought kf concept I would only buy the X-series. I did a quick comparison some months ago and the cheaper lines affected clarity at moderate to higher focal lengths.

I can get X-series CPLs for like $50 AUD. The Neweer mist filters I bought were like $30, but you don't exactly care about max sharpness with mist filters.

Just avoid stuff like their K or D series or Amazon Basics $10 filters.

>>4473085
It wasn't hard before and it's only marginally easier now.
Stripping EXIF was trivial. Replacing it was minutes at most. And you can always imitate other cameras by changing the filename.

The unfortunate fact is that exif provided useful info as well as abusable info. I constantly wish I knew which setting people used for a photo but Idgaf about it being a snoy or a hassleblyat.

File: Yugisnoy.jpg (116 KB, 720x710)

116 KB JPG

>>4473054
>>Sony is fine. Most professionals use it. Color science isnt real and the broken cameras are cherry picked out of a massive sample.
>Well said sir.

Clive is such an NPC im not sure if its him or a copycat anymore. The man with all the identity, now the man with none.

>>4473137
Someone really took the time to make that meme based of a video from a talentless youtuber who can't even set her white balance correctly

>>4473173
Yeah I did, because it's fucking funny AND it gets a rise out of the snoyggers

Dreamy creamy yummy cummy wummy mummy dummy bokeh

What is the best full frame EF mount under $300?
I mean under, not $350, also in nice conditon, not a $600 camera so damaged that it's only worth $200.
I guess it would be basically just 5D II, 6D I?

>>4473172
seething snoy schizos still butthurt over the imaginary boogeyman kek

>>4473085
Yeah, I had anons complimenting a photo and one mentally ill faggot throwing a tantrum because it was shot in jpeg, he also flamed the anons giving compliments.

>>4473116
I miss seeing the settings, I didn't give a shit about what brand made the damn thing. Not everyone quite knew how to do EXIF but I started fucking with it sometimes by changing the camera brand and lens info just to fuck with gearfags a little.

>>4473201
Gearfaggotry is the worse. I'm cool with discussing gear, but brand love/hate is gay as shit.

>>4473214
missing EXIF is fine. you can still recognize the trash that is micro four thirds by the phone like quality and high noise content

>>4473173
Yeah, but >>4473180
20 rupees is 20 rupees.

>>4473180
Yes. Also, meds.

>>4473183
5DII my a mile. 6D is prolly going to cost more than $300 unless it's thrashed, but I see 5DIIs in shit condition for like $200 and better ones for about $250-300. You're really stretching the budget for the stipulations so no wonder you're pigeon holed in.

>>4473220
Just because we can tell what a MFTurd is and isn't, doesn't mean I can tell what aperture, shutter speed and ISO was needed to pull off a blurry photo of the back of someone's head.

File: bwah.png (1.16 MB, 1200x801)

1.16 MB PNG

>>4472328
>>4472330
>>4472825

I got mine z30 with silly CONTONT creator kit what we thinking

>>4472825
yeah it would be cool if it had sony a6000 half viewfinder thing but there's that digicam trend right now so I'm enjoying LCD screen photography for the time

>>4473116
You can always just ask for info btw

>>4473227
The Canon modeling conventions make no sense to me so I was trying to see if there was another #D series I was missing. I thought the professional ones were by default full frame and the bigger number the more modern the camera but then there are the marks, skips in number and things like the 7D are crop sensors.
I saw some 6D's with a lense for what would be under $300 if I sold it and there is a 1DX for $250 an hour away.

File: beegcanon.png (1.65 MB, 1076x1093)

1.65 MB PNG

>>4473244
Canon naming is moderately retarded. Mk I/II/III/IV are simply more modern versions as you go down the line. There is no similarity in modernity between different models of the same mark.
>1D, 1DX, 1DS etc.
Newstographer/Sports models with higher readouts, bulkier ergos. Nuiances around each specific lettering but they're all about the same.
>5D series
All-purpose Pro model. Full frame, fully functioned. Normally the go-to for consumers on the used market.
>5DS & 5DSR
Same as above but the high-res version. Vaguely in line with the 5D III. The R version rips out the AA filter. Pricey.
>6D
The consumer full-frame. Smaller, cheaper, slightly fewer functions.

>7D
Top-end APS-C DSLR. Think 5D but with a smaller sensor.
>x0D (i.e. 60D, 70D)
Consumer-grade APS-C. Roughly analagous to the 6D series.
>x00 / x50 (i.e. 500D, 450D)
Walmart-tier APS-C. Good enough but definitely feeling the cripplehammer.
>x000 / xx00 (i.e. 3000D, 1100D)
Cripple-tier APS-C. Foregoes the most basic functions in the name of low cost and small size.

>>4473114
Hmmm. Tempted to buy a mist filter I ended up getting one of those neewer ones myself. I live in a city where it's fucking christmas everywhere and the sun is gone. I want to annoy some people.

File: DSCF1721.jpg (1.68 MB, 2000x1333)

1.68 MB JPG

What do you take on vacations? I've travelled with my FF kit's a few times but I think I'm getting old and the convenience of something smaller is appealing. Smaller ILC kits? Pocket cameras? Or maybe get a new phone with a decent camera just for that.

I've looked at the smaller micro four thirds models. Something like E-m5ii+2 primes wouldn't cost much.

>>4473263
I just bring my normal aps-c / FF body, usually with just the smaller lenses
Anything less than that and I'd rather just use my phone

>>4473254
Canons 3 branding problems summarized
1. The 1D/r1 and the 3D/r3 lines have merged. They need to distinguish again.
2. Everything below the 7D/r7 line isn't worth it. Use your iPhone instead
3. Cannot isn't #1 in any category. Permanent #2. Behind Fuji in resolution, behind Hassy in color science, behind Snoy in speed. It's Joever.

>>4473263
>get a new phone with a decent camera

no such thing

>>4473263
>>4473273
Sirs, do the needful and redeem the iPhone .

>>4473267
My jacket pockets are pretty big, and even they don't fit my Nikon with a pancake. As for the sensor size it doesn't really matter for travel photos that much. If you're going to shoot mostly jpeg and view them on a phone later, you'll be happy with a 1" sensor for all things considered.

>>4473273
>>4473274
I've seen some decent photos out of pro iphones. Nothing great though, and it's disgusting how they make the tele/wide sensors smaller.

Maybe I'll ask my local camera shop if I can test-fit some kits into my pockets. Looks like fujifilm x-m5 is pretty small, they'd have a couple of lenses that I could work with outside of travel stuff.

>>4473263
it's a fun system ngl, oly (weather sealed) or panny (smaller and cheaper) 20mm + oly 45mm or 75mm. i like the *-300 zooms too, even the oly you just have to use it like a 75-250 and stop down a 1/3rd of a stop or so. i prefer the e-m5iii's sensor but it's a minor difference. tiny crop ilcs are very underrated.

>>4472919
LMAO m43 is a sensor size. If you give it ASPC it's not m43 anymore. Your a silly little guy

Well I ordered a Ricoh GR iv so I could return it if I hated it. It came defective and the lens won't retract properly and I think i'm just going to return it. Any suggestions for a small ASPC point and shoot I can throw in a jacket pocket?

>>4473293
M43 is a social construct.

>>4472983
Lens>body
>>4472989
The lens is the tires, fool

>>4473299
>my cannot pos ewaste will surely be good if i use another lERR 20 *shadow banding intensifies*

>>4473294
Bros, why doesn't Canon, Nikon or Sony make an APSC pocket compact with a prime lens? GR2 size is enough. Type 1 sensors fall now under smart phones.

>>4473321
>Type 1 sensors fall now under smart phones
The lens is more important than sensor size, something like an RX100 will get you better photos than any phone

>>4473052
>2.5k for a d750, soft prime
Lmao what
The D750 is ultra cheap. D800 is even cheaper. D600 is even cheaper than that. And they all perform extremely well, weather sealing and all.
A D750 + a 50mm f1.4 "soft prime" (lol) will cost you about 500 USD.
D600 + a 50mm f1.8 can be had for 250 USD

>>4473321
Nikon should revive the Coolpix A, then put snap focus function and make it more durable than a GR or XF10. Sony also, plus with their reliable AF, on a 28mm equiv lens. Fuji's durability is questionable at this point.

Periodically I'll put a camera and a bunch of lenses in my ebay cart and fantasize about hitting purchase. The average price is variable, between $2300 and $12,000. I usually have a favorite brand or two of the week that I'll repeatedly make similar carts with, I've done Fuji GFX, Canon, Nikon DX, Nikon FX, Nikon Z, Pentax... I always clear the cart out and never buy because I don't take good enough photos to justify a real kit. Right now I've been doing Z5ii kits. The dream is I hit buy and all my gear needs are perfectly served by this kit forever. I'm not sure if this is relieving gearfagging by getting it out of my system or making it worse at this point. I feel bad admitting this. Do you do this? Thoughts?

>>4473334
There will always be something more to lust after. Whether it's a new shiny camera body, or maybe a strobe system or flash modifiers you'll always want something.

Have a goal for your photography/art, get what you need for that, and do it until you can't anymore.

>>4473334
Yeah, I used to lust after camera gear. Then started searching for the most portable, lightweight apsc body and lenses with a good price/performance ratio. I was able to buy them and have enjoyed abusing them to the point that one camera is starting to shit on me.
But now my focus just shifted to another shiny, material trinklet. Same as before, just non-camera related.

>>4473334
This is autism. Theres barely any difference between modern day cameras for the past decade now.

>>4473353
Based trinklet focuser.

>>4473356
There is

Nikon cant make a small camera
Canon cant work past the warranty period
Sony cant shoot jpeg
Fuji cant autofocus or beat the real resolution of a 20mp ff dslr
Panasonic cant autofocus
Pentax can’t

>>4473263
The full kit. 2 Bodies, 1 main one back up. Both Full Frame. Full set of f2.8 zooms. 12mm to 200mm. Fluid head tripid. Disregard any other answer. They're snapshitters that may as well be using their phones. If you want results you have to put in the hard work. End of story.

>>4473263
An a7c and a 16mm f1.8

I use it exclusively to take pictures of my penis in new and interesting places

>>4473334
This is why you buy Canon EF because the purchase price is like a ham sandwich.

>>4473272
>1. The 1D/r1 and the 3D/r3 lines have merged. They need to distinguish again.
No. There never was a 3D but there was an EOS 3 in the film era. The R3 was supposed to be the first R1 but it got renamed late in development because it wasn't competitive enough to use the flagship nameplate.

>>4473272
>2. Everything below the 7D/r7 line isn't worth it. Use your iPhone instead
That's true but it's got nothing to do with branding, it's a product issue. You could brand them as whatever you want, they still wouldn't be worthwhile.

>>4473272
>3. Cannot isn't #1 in any category. Permanent #2. Behind Fuji in resolution, behind Hassy in color science, behind Snoy in speed. It's Joever.
Canon doesn't even compete with GFX or hassie, they're totally different cameras aimed at different markets. If you want a fast camera for new/journalism Canon is still the only way to go. Even if sony were faster, it wouldn't matter because their image are not up to a professional standard. Bad colour, nasty vignette, awful skintones. You can't publish sony photos, clients don't want them.

>>4473326
If Nikon had any reputation for creating a durable product since the Nikonos, I would totally agree with you.

>>4473376
True. I've been shooting professionally with a 18 year old Canon DSLR for a couple years now and I honestly couldn't be bothered to upgrade, there's just no need. Even though I could get it basically for free by claiming it on tax, I just have no need. The only thing it's missing is a tilting screen but even then who cares really.

>>4473378
>saar their image are not up to a professional standard. Bad colour, nasty vignette, awful skintones. You can't publish sony photos, clients don't want them.
Please shit in the toilet instead of on /p/, raj.

>>4473381
I mean I can't help you if you don't want help to shoot like a pro such as myself. All I can do I is remind you of the objective fact that sony cameras are pretty much unacceptable in 2025 in the professional space for anything other than video, and that I curse sony and vishnu. Of course you cannot say the same.

File: EF-RF-Moneyshot.png (805 KB, 958x637)

805 KB PNG

>>4473378
>>4473380
Unironically since I've bought mirrorless FF I kind of want to go back and buy either a 5D OG or the Mk II just for the shits and giggs.
The Classic sounds like a more fun fuck around camera versus the Mk II having nicer features, higher res etc., but I've read the Classic doesn't have AF micro adjustment. Is that going to be a huge deal as long as I buy something that isn't already fucking dropped and abused?

It's only going to be so I can slap on my pro EF lenses and fuck around with; I have the mirrorless for my actual photography. It would also be nice to give to my GF to use when I don't want to risk her dropping $3000 worth of equipment.

>>4473323
I think that was his joke, he was comparing buying a Zf to buying a d750 that happens to cost 1800 bucks body only
Been considering the Zf, I prefer the retro ergonomics, and mirrorless has a lot of benefits, but the absolute cheapness of a d750 and some old AF lenses is very tempting, even with the weight and bulk

>>4473389
>Classic doesn't have AF micro adjustment
Correct, it does not.

> Is that going to be a huge deal as long as I buy something that isn't already fucking dropped and abused?
Personally I've had two of them. One had been improperly serviced and had the focus adjustment fucked up by the person who serviced it, so the main point is a little off. My other 5D is perfectly fine. As for my 5D2, ive never even needed to use the focus adjustment except on one occasion that I used the lens adjustment to calibrated a shitty chipped adapter.

Overall, just test or ask the seller to test before you buy it if its a big deal to you. 99% percent of classics focus fine, its just the ones that have been tampered with that don't. Other than that you wanna get one with a serial number after they fixed the mirror falling off, I can't remember exactly which numbers those are just google it. I would also only buy it if you get a good deal, they produce really beautiful images SOOC, better than any other digital camera I've used but the 5D2 can usually be found for even cheaper than the classic. If you just drop the shadows a bit in post the images look similar to the classic, but with slightly more realistic colours. In contrast the classics colour look a bit more like Kodak Gold 200, which makes sense as Canon's whole digital line was basically groomed by Kodak.

>>4473389
>>4473397
part 2
The big difference between the two is that the classic was the very last of the digital cameras that produced images that were not made to be edited, while the mark II was the first of the digital cameras that focused more on capturing the maximum amount of data, making it a given that you would edit them later. Back in the film era, a photographer knowing how to edit photos was not a given. In fact, it was pretty uncommon. As a result, the earliest digital cameras (even pro ones) subscribed to that school of thought. The 5D classic was pretty much the last nail in the coffin for film. Once it came out, there wasn't much reason for professionals to stick with film, as it made the 35mm format way more affordable in digital. The cameras the came before it like the 1Ds were also like the classic in this regard. There's basically no detail in the shadows, which was both a limitation of the technology and a feature. Having pre-contrasted SOOC images means your tone curve is basically ready to publish straight out of the camera, even in RAW. The 5Dii and pretty much all professional ILC cameras that came after it were not like this. The mark II does actually retain some (albeit fairly poor by todays standards) shadow detail. You can tell straight away by the flatter, low contrast, washed out looking RAW files that we're used to today. When exposed properly, they have to be edited.

>>4473399
At risk of sounding like a lazy fuck, I wish they’d go back to this school of thought.
I don’t want to spend equal or greater time doinking around in lightroom, I want to shoot.
Preference exacerbated by the fact that my dad was a curmudgeon/hipster who was still shooting full-manual 35mm into the 2010s, and that’s what I learned on. To me, photography was about nailing the look in-camera, sending it in, and hoping the lab didn’t fuck it up.

At this point, it seems like my options are Fuji, seeing if Nikons custom control jpg profiles can deliver a great sooc look, or paying $20 a roll for dev haha.

Or, apparently, just buying an ancient canon dslr.

>>4473401
ymmv but my favorite nikon setting was for the canon 5d mark 2's colors

if i wasnt already with a collection of ancient junk dslrs i would've bought a 5dc/5dm2 to fuck around with

>>4473379
Yeah, my FM2 fell from the top drawer during an earthquake. And also fell again when it slipped from my bag. Both on concrete. Just small dents but no issues.

>>4473401
You don't *have* to go Canon if you want a camera that old, it's just that Canon are the only ones you can find on the used market for an OK price. The Kodak DCS Pro 14 kinda does the same thing the 5Dii does but worse, it also tried to gather more data and ended up with flat files if unedited. I think the 1Ds II is pretty underrated, I got one for $50 bucks and I really like it. It has the same AF and most of the same body as the EOS 1v, it sounds great, produced pleasing (albeit not very detailed) images. It's fast, focuses fast, and feels great in the hand. Other than that you could try a 5Dii or newer and use jpeg profiles. Im sure you could edit the contrast or shadows or something in the settings to get it to have that same effect, but personally I haven't touched jpegs in about 20 years, so you'd have to research it. If you'd like I could try and take some benchmarks with a few of the cameras I have.

>>4473381
Hes right though. Its 2025 and nobody shoots Sony. Especially since Nikon, Canon and Panasonic have surpassed them now.

File: brave_screenshot_www.goog(...).png (53 KB, 1910x743)

53 KB PNG

>Even if sony were faster, it wouldn't matter because their image are not up to a professional standard. Bad colour, nasty vignette, awful skintones. You can't publish sony photos, clients don't want them.
>Hes right though. Its 2025 and nobody shoots Sony. Especially since Nikon, Canon and Panasonic have surpassed them now.
reminder folks, when 4chan went down, the corresponding traffic increase on all altchans and social media platforms accounted for less than 20% of 4chans terminally online traffic. when 4chan came back up, posting resumed instantaneously.

the vast majority of posters are paid to post on 4chan, and a lot of them are chatGPT bots. even on small boards like /p/ where its harder to get away with being a bot, i think at least 1/4 of the users here are shills and bots which is why brand wars and gear recs are 90% of discussion and new product releases from certain brands get threads ASAP without fail while others are intermittently ignored.

>>4473411
Did you fail to reply because you can't curse vishnu like I can? We all know sony is the top selling camera in india :D
This is so embarrassing ahahaha

>>4473411
Did you just see someone else post the time in india and copy it without understanding the joke? You're supposed to post it from 5-9pm, why would someone be posting in the middle of the day? Did you forget that most of the world is employed?

> i think at least 1/4 of the users here are shills and bots which
No you don't. If you actually believed this you wouldn't be here.

File: DSCF6697.jpg (636 KB, 2400x1600)

636 KB JPG

>>4473334
>Do you do this
no, i saved ebay searches for cameras and lenses and simply bought the ones i was interested in once a good price on a solid copy showed up. nothing can replace actual hands-on use for working out where you want to be with your gear. i bought maybe ten cameras and almost as many lenses in the past two years. i had a good time trying and comparing different systems and sold all but my favorites. now i'm comfy where i'm at and the last pieces of gear i've bought were a film scanning rig in july and a c-stand a little before that. i know what qualms i have with my current setups and what systems and pieces i'm potentially interested in switching to, but i have some sweet kits and no switch is worth the trouble at the moment.

File: SnoySkinner.jpg (121 KB, 777x1111)

121 KB JPG

>>4473411

File: inglourious-basterds-3.jpg (563 KB, 1920x1080)

563 KB JPG

>>4473389
>5D OG or the Mk II j

File: Nhatseeballs.mp4 (2.76 MB, 398x170)

2.76 MB MP4

>>4473417
Nah I want something retro

>>4473406
If you want to, that’d be cool.
Tbh, I might just end up going mirrorless anyway for the versatility of having access to video and so on.
That said, I’m getting kinda burned out on the internet. The idea of trying make a paying hobby out of photography, something where you have to be so all-in on social media self-promotion isn’t seeming as fun as it did a while ago.

If I’m gonna just do it all for a zero money hobby, I could just as well shoot film, the up-front costs being almost nothing almost makes up for how stupid expensive development is

>>4473394
The Zf has horrid ergonomics and just as much weight and bulk as a D750

>>4473380
What kind of professional images do you take? Can you share some?

>>4473401
Pick any brand and just find a preset you like if you want to be lazy about photography

It's fucking sad when CeX of all places has lower prices on lenses than the average dumbfuck

>>4473412
>indians pretending cursing vishnu is impossible for an indian
You're probably part of one of the other 100 demons cults. Nice try. Not falling for it. Vishnu brahma shiva ganesh and rama are all false gods, literally demons from hell. And even saying this is not sufficient to curse the entirety of the rape-religions pantheon.

How about this one, because it's actually illegal to say this in india
"Jesus is lord, Christ is king. I encourage all my fellows to abandon false gods, know only the Lord God, seek truth in the gospels, let Christ into their heart, and get baptized. I denounce the synagogue of satan and all false faiths."

>>4473413
>why would someone be posting in the middle of the day
Because posting on western social media is their employment, and if its not, knowing jeets, they are on their phone 24/7 even if they're meant to be working.

/p/ was way different 2 years ago
All that changed was chatGPT got better and more "people" in india got internet access via cheap android phones

Now it's non-stop shilling and counter-shilling (both via lies) and these "people" won't shut the fuck about sony being the worst/best instead of mid compact cameras that are only notable because no one else is willing to make a well executed FF compact.

>>4473060
I live in a beautiful city full of women that are worth taking pictures of, and I can take exactly none

>>4473462
>/p/ was way different 2 years ago
Honestly true, we had a lot more contributors like artreprofag

>>4473462
The shilling and anti shilling kicked into high gear early 2025

Ekker instances+indians+AI

File: 506347107_734631465762756(...).jpg (109 KB, 960x720)

109 KB JPG

- Canon 5D MII Camera - $100.00
- works fine, but needs TLC.
- the small lens on the inside of the camera fell out, so the image in the viewfinder is distorted.\
Does this sound not worth the risk, the focusing screen falling out sounds pretty weird, who knows if it happened during shots and fucked with the shutter but I can't find any other cheap ones.

Got a sigma 30mm 1.4 for 180€
Pristine as fuck, but no lens hood included. Is that a big deal really? Do you think I overpaid for it?

>>4473502
>does a broken camera sound worth the risk

no

File: literal u.png (197 KB, 494x627)

197 KB PNG

/p/als, I need some advice. I could buy either of the following:
>$1000 for a Canon 5D Mark IV body and 50mm 1.8 prime lens where I also have compatible 24-105mm f4 and 70-300mm f4.5 lenses
>$1800 for a Sony A7III with a 28-70mm 2.8 lens, no other compatible lenses
I want to do the latter but the logical answer is the Canon, isn't it?

>>4473531
the logical choice is to sell the Canon equipment you have (while it's still worth something) and get the Sony A7III.

>>4473447
I do real estate. I could share some but you could reverse image search them and find out the name of my company so I'd prefer not to

>>4473444
>something where you have to be so all-in on social media self-promotion isn’t seeming as fun as it did a while ago
You don't have to post on social media. I have over 500gb of photos on my PC that I have never shared with anyone other than my family.

>If I’m gonna just do it all for a zero money hobby, I could just as well shoot film, the up-front costs being almost nothing almost makes up for how stupid expensive development is
Yeah so long as you like the look of film. I think porta and velvia look nice when exactly properly exposed, developed and scanned, and gold 200 can look ok, but too be honest as someone who grew up with film I really prefer digital. It's so much easier to clear, noiseless, lifelike images. Ill try and get some benchmarks for you but I have work today so I might be a while.

>>4473502
>- the small lens on the inside of the camera fell out, so the image in the viewfinder is distorted.\
This would be a from a pretty bad impact, i'd avoid. These don't break easily and it's not a common issue on any camera I know of let alone this one. You can find a better deal on a working one if you're patient, theres millions of them and they're not in super high demand.

>>4473534
>I am a nophoto
You can just be honest

>>4473550
Sure, if you don't want help from a professional, I am perfectly happy for you to stay unemployed. One less competitor is actually good for me :D

>>4473531
Buy the Sony and sell either the 24-70 or 24-105 depending on whether you want speed or range, then use the money you make to buy an adapter.

>>4473553
lol, don't need help from a nophoto
If you're going to claim to be pro here, at least be willing to share some photos, or just don't pretend to be a pro, pretty simple

>>4473380
>Even though I could get it basically for free by claiming it on tax
Liar, that's not how writeoffs work

File: stinky.jpg (3.14 MB, 3637x2433)

3.14 MB JPG

Hey guys I need a recommendation!

- 35mm (must have)
- cute (most important)
- compact (very important)
- film auto feeds (most important)
- flash (good to have, #2 priority)

I have a stinky old Minolta that I've been using but it's just too heavy around my dainty neck. Stink unrelated.

>>4473569
I said basically for free. The tax deductions for small businesses are crazy in my country. It also depends on how much you pay in tax.

>>4473531
Yes get the Canon. Full set at half the price and getting better pics is a no brainer.

>>4473466
Sad, because that's about when I joined the board and it's basically been downhill since. Fuck.
>>4473502
Don't do it. Spend the shekels and get something that wasn't dropped out a plane.
>>4473461
I've noticed this as well, but their returns policy is massively shit and they don't post photos of the actual products online, so you're basically forced to hunt down things at the physical locations and test them before buying.

>>4473462
>schizo essay anon obsessed with indians rent free

>>4473589
>goes from "curse vishnu!" to "uh why r u abcess w indians sir"
Hmmm. Say christ is king and encourage everyone in india to convert. Denounce the quran and talmud. Denounce polytheism. Post a picture of the "prophet" muhammad aka messenger of allah.

If you cant do this I’m buying a sony.

>>4473533
>>4473531
>google camera shutter failure
>which camera comes up 100 times
Lol, just buy the snoy saaar!!

File: snoyboy.png (437 KB, 1116x1116)

437 KB PNG

>>4473462
>>4473590
>t.

>>4473595
saved

>>4473590
What? I think you are confusing me for someone else

>>4473595
>>4473597
Also saved kek. Snoy schizo will not be happy!

File: IMG_2855.jpg (33 KB, 750x166)

33 KB JPG

Well well, look who woke up and furiously samefagged up a storm

Never has there been more definitive proof /p/ is fucked.

File: 1759348813521950.jpg (210 KB, 1024x1024)

210 KB JPG

Guys I ordered a FF camera that will arrive next week but I didnt know what bokeh/toneh is, is there a way to shoot in FF without having the background turn into an abstract painting (which apparently people think is a good thing??why?) please help, I have a huge Eurotrip next month and I'm the designated photographer, I can only imagine the dissapointment in my friend's faces when I take a picture of them in front of something cool in the Louvre and it looks like they are posing in front of puke

>>4473606
Just buy a f5.6 lens and you'll be okay

>>4473606
>is there a way to shoot in FF without having the background turn into an abstract painting
Yes. You change your aperture setting. The aperture is a measurement of theoretically how much light the lens can let in. I wont go into exact details but the basics are:

>smaller aperture numbers like f/1.8 or f/2
Wider opening that lets in more light, works better in dark conditions and increase background blur (aka decreases depth of field (aka creates shallower depth of field))

>larger apertures like f/8
Narrower opening that lets in less light. At f/8 on full frame you typically get everything in focus, though this also depends on your focal length. Less background blur, deeper depth of field. Also requires either higher ISO or a slower shutter speed.

Useful topics for you to research in order (just watch youtube videos or google)
>how the exposure triangle works
>how aperture affects your photo
>how shutter speed affects your photo
Simon D'entremaunt or however you spell his name is a good channel on youtube that covers basic topics like this in simple terms. Best of luck.

File: 20230508_124036.jpg (278 KB, 709x945)

278 KB JPG

>>4473607
>>4473608
Thanks I was worried for a minute there
I bought a FF because in my last paris trip I was dissapointed in my old ass Canon and cellphone pictures in the low light,IQ and resolution department
Look at this piece of shit, it only looks good on an applewatch resolution

>>4473608
Smaller f stops = more light, smaller aperture = less light. Please do not get it twisted.

>>4473602
Why are snoycels so obsessed with India?

>>4473612

>>smaller aperture numbers like f/1.8 or f/2
Wider opening that lets in more light

>>larger aperture number like f/8
Narrower opening that lets in less light

No this is correct. Why are you lying?

>>4473617
He's stressing the difference of the f stop number and the physical aperture.
>large aperture = wider = more light
>large aperture number = smaller fraction = narrower = less light

>>4473606
> He fell for schizo FF shilling
Don't worry, shizophrenia is contagious, soon you'll become the same.

>>4473658
Nobody has to shill FF you globohomo. When things are objectively better than your foojisnoy muh aps-c equivelance, then people gravitate to them by default.

File: 1677115563975393.jpg (62 KB, 1024x937)

62 KB JPG

>>4473660
>unironic schizoposting

>>4473660
Example of an FF liar shill btw. Shills try to shill without explicitly naming the brand, except the Snoy Pajeet who is now the laughing stock.
> If you need to sell Snoy, you say FF and APS-C are good because Snoy sells both.
> If you need to sell Canikon, you say Snoy and Fuji are bad because they sell APS-C, while Canikon APS-C is crippled trash.
If goes further than FF btw.
> If you need to sell Fuji, you say, FF is a compromise, because Fuji sells APS-C and medium format, but not FF.
> If you need to sell Olympus, you say, "it's not the camera", because Olympus is indeed not a camera.

>>4473665
I don't think you know what schizo means.
>>4473671
>Shills try to shill without explicitly naming the brand, except the Snoy Pajeet who is now the laughing stock.
Nope. I don't give a single fuck what brand of tool anyone buys. You want a milwakee get one. It's just funny to say snoy because it triggers the snoyggers.
The format of full frame btfos every single other format below it by a mile, with base ISO APS-C in good daylight able to mimic FF in certain cases.
Digital MF is a meme. Film is cool once you get to LF but it's a pain in the ass logistically. Pick your poison.

>>4473680
>Digital MF is a meme
>Film is cool once you get to LF
Oh ok you don't take photos or look at photos got it

>>4473684
Weak bait bro. Try a bit harder.

>>4473606
Make sure you have that camera strapped on your shoulder and out in the open as you're walking through London, Paris and similar cities.

Cameras need to breathe otherwise they suffocate.

What is the smallest body + lens combination that performs best in extremely low light situations?

Like, is there a low light kit film or digital combination out there that I should know about?

>>4473690
Nikon zfc + 40/2

>>4473688
Snoy A7C perhaps?

>>4473588
I got lucky with one lens, it didn't include the lens hood but it wasn't damaged.

>>4473690
For prioritizing size, a7cII/a7cR + fast prime of your choice
For prioritizing lowlight shooting Z5II / Zf + 40 f2 or fast MF prime, or adapted E mount primes

>>4473695
Sony doesn't have have any small fast lenses.

File: 526989936_762228099722177(...).jpg (117 KB, 960x767)

117 KB JPG

Can anyone identify the other lenses aside the 50? It's a 5D Mark IV for $550 for the lot. The 85 looks like a older lens but the 35 has me stumped, maybe the F/2?

File: Sonya7C_vs_NikonZf_compar(...).jpg (205 KB, 2048x1063)

205 KB JPG

>>4473695
Definitely a sony a7c. Don't bother with the II or R version. No one cares about megapixels. Just get an affordable small full frame camera, a couple of chink lenses and shoot.

>>4473702
Higher quality small lenses are usually f2.8, even on canon/nikon/panasonic. The real reason we no longer see small cheap fast primes is, well, actually use a small fast prime from the film days that isnt still $1000. TTartisan made a small 40mm f2 and 75mm f2 pair for sony, and the fact that they're actually better than old film lenses and on par with the sigma 45mm and 90mm is a miracle

>>4473694
Lol its huge

50% of sony/fuji hate on /p/ is some thirdie incel
The other 50% is mirrorless niggors feeling the buyers remorse after spending a month with their overpriced medium format sized spec sheet camera

>how it started:
>snoy is for chartfag pixel peeper soulless hylic gearfag shits who spend thousands of dollars to zoom in. fuck them. i just use my d750 and shoot instead of wasting 1.5x-2x more money for "better corner sharpness". gearfags are idiots. -nikon people
>how it's going:
>yeah i might have paid $1599 for a camera that is photographically identical to a $1000 a7iii and my lenses might be double the price but a-at least i can adapt a $1000 50 year old manual focus lens and have pixel peeping worthy corners and my first party lenses have better metrics on the charts. snoy poorfags btfo. ur mount is smaller so my lenses have better corner sharpness. imagine using a SNOY with a chink lens and just shooting. cucks. get a job. i can put a pancake on my giant camera so your brand is shit. im getting red raw soon and i dont even do pro video. my brand wins!!!! -nikon people

Canon can't release a small FF soon enough, just so we can watch modern nikon people go full mask off and call it shit because of the dynamic range/megapixels/vignetting/video codecs. All the OG "d750 and just shoot" folks have moved on to cheap compact mirrorless or just stopped talking gear.

>>4473719
Meant for >>4473701
obv the zfc isnt huge, its even more rattly and plasticky than the zf and lacks ibis

>>4473719
i find these gear culture reversals amusing

the a5100 used to be the thinking man’s snoy now it’s $500 because people are desperate to escape the blobbening

fujifilm is increasingly an overspending gear schizo brand while canon is turning into a sane person brand again now that their good cheap mirrorless are more prolific. fuji used to be cheap stuff for people in the know and canon used to be huge blobs for wanabes. now its a $2000 40mp sharp lens meme and even the old pns cameras are heading towards a grand for 2014 ewaste so all the people in the know are buying used canon r50s for street photography. kek.

https://www.gsmarena.com/ricoh_to_power_realme_gt_8_pros_imaging-news-69854.php

ehe

Finally I got my used a6500 and I've been wondering, what's the best way to cover up all the paint damage on it? It works perfectly, no problems with the sensor, evf is fine, screen had a screen protector, but the bottom has some rough edges. And 3 sizeable scratches, I don't know what the fuck happened there. It works perfectly otherwise and I got it for cheap, but still.

>>4473737
Black gaffers tape and a sharpie

>>4473715
That's Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM with what I assume to be a Moment brand variable ND filter and Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM

>>4473748
What is a IV body realistically worth? I can't tell if I'm just thinking it's a great deal because it has lenses with it and I got no clue what the body is worth because I never was looking for anything that modern before.
I see them for like $600+ online, but I also see another on facebook for $300 body only.
I'd already have bought it but far enough to effectively write the day as a loss to go get it (2hr each way).
The 35 seems to be worth a good chunk, if I could sell it and the 85 I could probably almost zero out the cost, maybe have $100 into the body and a newer 50mm lens. Though I've never tried to sell higher end lenses, I imagine it'll be a bitch unless its a cheap L series like the 70-200 I got.

>>4473753
I was wrong, the $300 body was a scam after checking.
The one I posted still seems extremely suspect, are old pro bodies just that undesirable right now that this listing could be up for the better part of two months despite being with the lenses probably being worth like $300-$500 more than the asking price?

>>4473719
a7c 1 has a terrible EVF and only goes to -4EV at f2
Small, but not a great pick for lowlight
Or you could get one of the best camera for actually shooting in lowlight

Zf is not huge, it's basically same size as an X-Pro and the 40 f2 is going to be as light and small as any other worthwhile lens
a7c is on the small enough to not be comfy to hold size too if handling is the concern

File: 25-02-10-DSC00015.jpg (3.55 MB, 1920x1920)

3.55 MB JPG

Take it from someone who has done both the a7c+chinalens thing, and the zf+"but the 50 is the shaarpest" "but the 40 is smaller" thing

Ignore >>4473755 . The specs do not matter. The a7c is noticeably smaller and more portable. It is also more affordable. If you know how to use a camera, ie: you already know how to shoot film and can rely on shutter speeds <1/30, they both do the exact same thing. I would rather buy a D750 and a small tripod than another ZF. It's an absolute meme (it also feels like cheap shit and the "better EVF" doesn't actually feel that much better in practice because its still an EVF)

The ZF is slightly better for pixel peeping finely detailed things because the AA filter is less aggressive and there's 10% less noise but that's about it. That doesn't really matter. You could shoot living things at 1/15 all day and no one would notice or care about the minor blur (picrel) because everyone views on hidpi phones and retina display equipped laptops instead of zooming in 300% on 4chan.

I don't even think the zf or a7c are even better than the other for jpegs/video colors. They are basically the same fucking camera with a different sales pitch. 24mp full frame is 24mp full frame stop being a fag.

File: 1755809370932780.jpg (66 KB, 700x656)

66 KB JPG

>>4473737
You rock it like a champ because it's the sign of a well-used tool.

>>4473746
Eh I'll see what I can do
Camera's on firmware 1.05, has a 1.06 update and now I'm learning that disabling the annoying NTSC message I get by being european can't be done unless I use a weird program and perform some ritual that might not work with the newer firmware. What the fuck is this

>>4473761
The consequences of allowing a demoracy to attempt to regulate the free market

>>4473759
fuck u huscuck. snoy is shit because it has no pancakes. nikon is perfect. imagine not being able to zoom in 600% to pixel peep adapted leica lenses lmfao the state of snoy

>>4473759
>lowlight AF+MF capabilities don't matter at all for someone that wants to shoot primarily in lowlight
Yes, all cameras are the same, differences in performance and spec are fake

>>4473759
Should I just go Fuji over the ZF then, if I specifically prefer the retro dials?
A7c is sitting around $1100 on mpb, only a few hundred cheaper than a Zf, and it’s more than an x-t3, about the same as x-t4
Idk how they never managed to make a DSLR full-frame under 2 pounds.
wish the x-pros weren’t so inflated, I feel like the rangefinder aesthetic puts people at ease, especially inexperienced models and people in the public.

Whip out the rangefinder+prime around friends and the party keeps going, the ergonomic-blob + zoom is a mood killer.
Zf is somewhere in the middle, too bad I they couldn’t have made it the literal size of an fm2 or in the format of one of their old rangefinders from the ‘60s

>>4473769
>Looks at excellent FF camera
>Should I go for shit ?

Fucking hell nigger, just buy zf or snoy

>>4473769
Zf is same size as an X-Pro in practice, X-Pro even looks bigger depending on the angle you're looking at
and the 40/2 + 28/2.8 is the same size practical size of the 35 f1.4
for fuji to be smaller, you'd need to go the f2/2.8 prime route
Zf (or Z5II) is best for extreme lowlight shooting, both for AF and MF lenses

>>4473768
>Yes, all cameras are the same, differences in performance and spec are fake
correct

people built careers on a leica iii and a 50mm f2. war photographers are using canon RPs. you dont need to spend $1500, you just lack skill.

>>4473772
nuh uh if ur camera doesnt have -10ev rated tracking autofocus u literally cannot take a picture in low light

>>4473772
I wonder if anyone could even point out a Canon here if they saw one. Who could tell that I started two recent /rpt/'s with EOS R shots?

File: 1751426528240698.jpg (121 KB, 1723x443)

121 KB JPG

>>4473695
>>4473702

Is the GH2 any good? I know this will cause a m4/3 meltdown, just looking for something lightweight for times I don't want to carry a big rig.

File: camcam2.png (439 KB, 1778x378)

439 KB PNG

>>4473787
How dishonest.

These cameras are in different size/price classes, and thinness doesn't really matter because none fit in pockets. The a7c with a body cap is an awkward lump that barely fits in a jacket pocket. It's just more comfortable on a strap, doesn't bump into stuff as often, and fits in carryon bags better.

Canon might release a compact FF RF camera thats worth a fuck, maybe they can even beat the a7c, but otherwise what the fuck does the 28 go on? Is there an aps-c vlogging model I forgot exists?

Nikon's pancake is notably pretty bad. Most nikon users encourage people to skip it and buy the cheaper 28mm, for better edge sharpness, faster quieter autofocus, less vignetting, and actually being the same size because the 26mm is an externally focusing lens designed like the old 50mm f1.8 G, that comes with a "lens hood" that's actually the rest of the lens barrel plus the filter threads. You could call it a pan-fake.

Neither lumix nor sony have a considerable wide angle pancake. The lumix 26 is fixed f8. Viltrox chip tier, literally a smartphone lens, ergo, you may as well portray the even thinner viltrox chip. I don't think L mount has a "real" pancake other than the s9's kit zoom. The smallest prime is probably the sigma 45mm.

The closest things sony has to "real" pancakes are the 35mm f2.8 zeiss, 40mm f2 ttartisan, and samyang 35mm f2.8.

Honestly, now that you bring it up... with no real pancakes (just a fixed f8), even fewer options than snoy other than the s9's kit lens, no shutter at all on their compact, and notoriously shit autofocus... lumix doesn't seem like a brand worth buying. Maybe someone should revise "all cameras are good now" to "all canon, sony, nikon, fujifilm pentax, and olympus cameras are good now".

>>4473789
>dslr styled blob mirrorless
It's not even that small. Get a gf/gx/gm series.

File: camcam.png (592 KB, 1780x383)

592 KB PNG

Lumix FFs are so oversized lmao holy shit

For me, it's the Fujifilm X-E series

>>4473793
The fact that you guys care about pancakes so much is evidence that you're not serious about photography. The only lenses that matter are the holy trinity of zooms.

>>4473796
>zooms
Primes and medium format are the only things that matter. Everything below this is a compromise and pure cope.