Legendary reliability editionhttps://fstoppers.com/reviews/hey-canon-why-are-your-cameras-falling-apart-636447Last >>4471080
>Leica batteries cost $348
>>4472265never 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.
>>4472279
>>4472284What 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
>>4472285Nikon 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.
>>4472267wtf really. That's fucking insane
>>4472287lol the sony schizo is so afraid they have to imagine enemies
>>4472287>essay schizo anon forgot to take his meds again
>>4472279Honestly 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
>>4472285The 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 bigMy 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.>>4472284If 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.
>>4472279What makes you think the schizos aren't mods/jannies baiting for engagement?
>>4472290it's actually more like $240, but with the charger, it comes out to like $455, pre-tax
>>4472288>>4472295>>4472297The 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.
Just bought this for $20, did I overpay? It's from the 60s I think
>>4472305The 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
the nikon z30is it kino?
Thinking of getting one of these just to fuck around with. Is it fun or too old?
>>4472328>APS-CPromising...>Not a DSLRDamn. If only it were mft, the other redeemable digital format.
>>4472329It 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
>>4472265More 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.
>>4472344The joy of reflex.>>4472284To be fair, pancakes are all compromise lenses.
>>4472365The 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?
>>4472368To be fair, the a900 seems decent on paper.
>>4472380>how bad did I doDepends 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 bullshitclient 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 unhappythey make you buy to be less unhappylook 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 shoppingpeople even complain about other people complaining about shitty digital cameras to try and detach from itbut 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 filmyour 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 shitholefuck itt. 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.
>>4472392650
>>4472408Yeah 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.
>>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 pancakeyInsane snoyboy cope
>>4472408Ouch, that's steep. Is the used GR market price that bad?
>>4472419Yeah, 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).
>>4472418We 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
>>4472422I 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.
>>4472423Who the fuck is Clive?
>>4472425Cussler
>>4472425>being so new you missed the clive sagaA 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
>>4472449when 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.
>>4472452or 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
>>4472455Street 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.
>>4472438He sounds based and you sound butthurt
>>4472462You 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
>>4472449If you're doing 'studio work' taking portraits or product photography indoors, scanning film, macro or serious landscapes. >>4472462I 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.
>>4472305>>4472418
>>4472287The 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.
>>4472284I 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?
>>4472506Of course they do mate. Just read up on the prototype that Ken Rockwell was given by Nikon back in the day
>>4472461Yeah, because you smell like one.
>>4472504>Only flagships or iPhon. Never anything inbetween. NeverLow IQ take
>>4472519Slightly retarded take but the concept is fair. I'm more of a Foolframe + P&S/Phone guy but w/e.
>>4472511What 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
>>4472287Pentaxians know our cameras fucking suck
>>4472438>otherwise he's turned into an n/p/c, indistinguishable from all the other gearfags here that are exactly like him.It's funnyEvery 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 iphoneA 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 iphoneJust 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.
>>4472265do Panasonic "Leica" MFT lenses actually have anything in common with actual Leica lenses optically?
>>4472527For 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.
>>4472551this post is peak schizo rambling
>>4472554no its just an excuse to raise the price>>4472557sounds 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 snapshitsdigislug gearfags are real life NPCs
>>4472560Stop arguing with imaginary people in your head
>>4472557>>4472563>n-no this cant be happening, its definitely le schizosoh 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 listingsfilm keeps getting more popular for a reason
>>4472551> Me on the other hand, I'm a PC and a serious photographerKek. If you were, you wouldn't spend time writing essays on /p.
>>4472551You really hurt >>4472565 ‘s feelings :(His digital gear has some really impressive charts you know!
>>4472551>>4472560If 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 = photographySelf own
>>4472567Uh 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
>>4472551All of those people are still better than nophoto whiners like you
>>4472575imagine getting mad at a post calling brandfags and overspending specsfags NPCsis canofuji vs sonikon some kind of holy war to you? lol
Forgive my retardationHow 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?
>>4472579Being 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…
>>4472294agreed. Its a fucking tool first and foremost. Its all in how you use it.
>>4472579>yes I am a nophoto whiner
>>4472594shutters 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.
>>4472633the 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 japaneither that or the hotshoe/pentaprism cover breaking if it takes any impact
>people here still think dropping a few g's on a hobby is excessiveI knew you were all poor third worlders
ID on the camera, lenses, and lens hoods?
>>4472685Took me awhile and im not familiar with Leicas, but I think its a Leica Q3.
>>4472704I 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>>4472709why do you want the exact camera? Issa Leica. What do you like about it?
>>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 shapeIt 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?
>>4472398EVFs 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.
>>4472728Nobody owns a camera and nobody takes photos here. We all just stare at brick walls and test charts.
>>4472728you'd know if you didn't just terminally lurk gear threads
>>4472728Only Nikon, Canon, Leica and Fujifilm shooters do.
>>4472380Dude 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.
>>4472731no 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.
>>4472766Based and doghairpilledMake prints or use your phone
>>4472766>you don't belong in any artistic hobby.photography: artistic hobbygearfaggotry: autistic hobby
>>4472328imagine this thing with a smaller grip and a corner EVF. it would sell like hotpancakes
>>4472337I recently found Nikon V1 photos from 2012 or so in my collection. I was really surprised at how good the image quality was.
>>4472766If 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.
>>4472861Former 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.
