Previous thread: >>4473842
Old (pre-fujislug) /p/>/diy/>Late /p/That is a sad fact of life
>>4475763>Spend a lot of time working on that before considering a new camera.>Why not both?Because if you can't get anything decent with what you already have, having to learn the quirks and features™ of some new model isn't going to help you get anything decent any sooner, in fact it will make you stagnate for longer.A painting workshop would be money better spent. Not to become a painter, but because if you learn what you need to do painting, you'll be able to paint with light (do photography) better.
>>4475773No one even wants to talk about photography anymore.
The constant OP pic of /gear/ shitting on snoy is a trend I can get behind. I'm going to donate $5 to wikipedia for every /gear/ thread that continues the snoymageddon.Will post proof if anyone cares.>>4475780Beginners otb get shot down because they bought the wrong thing or are dumb about something they are asking for help with. They flop around a bit on their own, then lose interest because their phones take better photos anyway. There's no intermediate learning period anymore for newcomers. They either get shit on so hard they give up, or they find alternative methods of learning and asking questions and git gud. If /p/ wasn't so vehemently hostile with critique and feedback we'd probably get more people practicing the trade.I don't even give a shit outside of /rpt/ anymore because if I make threads it's just terminally gay edgelords saying I missed focus or that they didn't like the composition. Like, WHY you fuckwits. I actually DO want to get better, but you'd rather call me shit instead of engaging properly. I want FEEDBACK and SUGGESTIONS, but I get "heh shit photo kid" instead. The board deserves its death.
>>4475784I think theres a vocal minority of photography haters(gear shills). If you prod these people into providing a more detailed critique you'll see that they are entirely braindead and know absolutely nothing. It's really funny.
>>4475784>I'm going to donate $5 to wikipedia for every /gear/ thread that continues the snoymageddon.Fuck it, I'm starting now.
>>4475784>sony is the most compact and affordable option without dogshit autofocus>best for learning photography>discouraging people from buying sony by lying about it is based and will save /p/. Everyone should buy a dslr or fujishit and then quit because their phone is smaller and can get things in focus. Sony won already your prolonged tantrum over it is what killed /p/January 2024 clive arrived and began spending 12 hours a day begging /p/ not to buy a sony and spamming fabricated proof its badMeanwhile in real lifehttps://www.photoxels.com/sony-strikes-another-5th-news-agency-win-reuters-decides-on-sony-a7s-iii-and-pxw-z280-as-their-journalists-main-shooting-kit/https://www.photoxels.com/britains-pa-media-group-selects-sony-alpha-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras-and-cinema-line-camera-fx3-as-preferred-equipment/https://www.photoxels.com/fourth-win-sony-strikes-deal-with-the-canadian-press-to-be-its-exclusive-image-products-provider/https://www.photoxels.com/gannett-usa-today-selects-sony-as-exclusive-imaging-product-provider-for-their-photographers-and-journalists/https://www.ap.org/media-center/press-releases/2020/ap-to-equip-all-visual-journalists-globally-with-sony-imaging-products/https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/sony-again-claims-the-1-spot-in-the-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-market/https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/tony-northrup-color-science-test-sony-beats-nikon-canon-and-fuji/Sony hate killed /p/. Sony love will save it.
>see youtube video>THE $100 SNOY IS THE ONLY SNOY CAMERA YOU NEED>check price>$300
>>4475788Correct. People should buy larger and more expensive cameras and quit, or smaller overpriced cameras with bad autofocus and low resolution and quit. Photography must die. Sony must not be allowed to save it. This hobby must be purged of normal people with lives and be occupied by nothing but gear fetishists and spec chasers.
>>4475790Yes.
>>4475790Non sony gear fetish - >:(Sony gear fetish -> =DCameras that make snapshitting easier do not facilitate good photography.
Bring back Minolta.
>>4475773>Old (pre-fujislug)Fuji was well liked on old /p/ lol, had some killer X-Pro1 military threads back in the day newfriend
>>4475798>Cameras that make snapshitting easier do not facilitate good photography.This makes no sense because the best photographers on earth have always used easy cameras for their day, while dog hair negatives of /p/ goes out of his way to use the hardest camera possible and is a horrible, god awful photographer who is perpetually moving sideways into different forms of bad photography.Paying more for a worse camera does not make you a better photographer. That's just a gearhead take. All gearheads care about is how their gear defines them and compares to how they use other peoples gear to define them. Manual transmission cars, linux computers, driving a truck instead of a sedan, carrying a blob DSLR to say me manly, using LF film or a shitty manual camera to say me skilled, it's how autistic or unintelligent men with no creativity try to impress others with their otherwise unimpressive life.There's a reason the stereotypical small dicked idiot drives a big truck, the stereotypical permavirgin autist drives a riced out four cylinder shitbox with a stick, and the stereotypical successful non-gearhead man with a seven figure income and a masters or PHD drives a bone stock car that's just nice to drive. This transfers perfectly to gear for any hobby or activity because it's about the basic effects of an insecure personality on personal decision making.
>>4475808So by your logic the best photographers on earth are using phone cameras right now. Got it. And all the people up until the early 90s using 8x10/LF for everything important were using the easiest possible camera.
>>4475805Those weren't fujislugs though.
photography is a hobby
>>4475818Absolutely this. Anyone writing an essay about how or why another person uses a camera to do the photography they want, how they want is simply projecting their own insecurities onto that person.
>>4475805i'm pretty sure you're refering to military anon with X-T1, not X-Pro1.
>>4475775terrible advice
>>4475823Have you tried it?
>>4475824No because it's stupid- Cameras are universally trivial to use and not what that anon is struggling with anyway- Painting isn't going to hurt but it won't be the best way to get good, you'll be focused more on making a good strokeMy advice:- Get whatever camera you want, but save money for a small dose of shrooms and a weekend in the woods
>>4475826>you'll be focused more on making a good stroke>this is what a stoner thinks is the basis of painting
>>4475827The basis of painting is being able to make a controlled stroke, yes. I don't do drugs also wtf
>>4475829Wrong, the basis is having a vision.>I don't do drugs also wtf>dose of shroomsPick one, stoner retard.
>>4475823Yeah, buy more gear. Whatever you do NOT learn the fundamentals of good photography and how to make photographs. Continue snapshitting at full auto.
>>4475830>>4475831You unironically need shrooms and a weekend in the woods
The best thing you can do for your photography is an a6600 or a7c and a 20/2.8 or 35/2.8 AND a week out with your buds. Not drugs. FRIENDS. /p/ hates sony because its for normal people with instagram and cool snaps of their friends
>>4475833100% this and some shrooms, a week out in the woods or similar
>>4475832Post a pic from your time on shrooms in the woods plz
Buy sonyGo to woods Take shrooms????Now you are a good photographer/p/ is dead.
>>4475833Funny way to say an 80D and 18-200 and a week out with your buds
>>4475835I literally do not do drugs. It's just advice.
>>4475838>do as I say not as I dokike
>>4475838Post one of your photos. Lets see the "photographer" behind the gayest advice on /p/.
>>4475840Nice try, I would never debase myself by posting in one of these threads and I don't recommend you do either. If you think spending time outside is bad advice for a nature photographer then I understand your frustration, this conversation must be very confusing to you.
>>4475842>gives advice he doesn't follow>too scared to post photo>twists reality to cope with his own stupidity./p/ is dead.
Here's my advice. Buy a high resolution 360 camera, mount it on your back, walk anywhere. Scrub through video and choose best looking stills.There you go boys. The /p/ attitude on photography. Go become the best photographer on earth with the easiest to use camera!
>>4475843Ok big boy where's your photo then?>>4475845This would probably make some cool photos ngl
>>4475846Im not the one providing bad advice.I actually provide good advice by your own admission, so I do not need to post photo.(>>4475845) lol
>>4475848No my advice is good and yours is good too. Share a photo I'll say 3 nice things about it I promise
My advice is to buy a decade old DSLR as your first camera. That is sure to make you get more interested and engaged!
>>4475849Wrong. You're going to call it shit and terrible even though it is beautiful.
>>4475851I'm not even joking right now, this message hurt to read. You can call my advice shit but I would never do that.
>>4475853Fine, but you gotta post your pic first. Ill be 100% honest about your pic and provide a balanced critique if you want.
>>4475850This but unironically, digital cameras peaked with the 5D3, K-1 and D850
What's a good lighting setup for small product photography?
>>4475857Same as any other, a transmitter, 2 flashes, gels, and a couple stands and umbrellas. Only difference is you can probably get away with very small umbrellas/diffusers, and normal sized might be hard to position. Look up strobist lighting 101
>>4475821Super right, those helicopter shots with the 56 f1.2 were dope>>4475817This is after /p/ already sucked>>4475855>5D3>spot metering only works on center pointTruly peak technology
>>4475817>screencapping one anon talking about how happy they are with their camera choice so you can repost it years later because the you are obsessed with hating a brandPretty schizo if you asked me
>>4475875>This is after /p/ already suckedThe point is, it takes more than using a Fuji to be a fujislug. Fujislug is a mentality. The guys you used the cameras to document interesting shit, unlike the typical fujislug whose entire backlog can be summed up in two categories: poser snapshits of the camera and snapshits of nothing taken with the camera.>>4475878Someone else screencapped the post and I saved it, fujislug.
>>4475879>constantly fighting an enemy in my headyup, schizo
>>4475857Two flashes, white background/reflector, gels optional unless you do something like food photography where warming up the picture is a game changer. You could also buy a mini tent instead, those ensure optimal lighting. >t. knower
>>4475902Fujislugs are a very real phenomenon though, basically the iToddlers of photography
>>4475907I like the mini tent idea for the practical white-background shots, particularly for configuration options. I don't think it would be great for doing anything creative like a studio setup would be. Unfortunately, my product has customers that are divided into two camps: autists, and guys who are secretly into fashion but don't want people to think they're gay.
this is probably a stupid question, but are there light fixtures that can be connected to a computer and have their behaviour be automated on a timeline? i figure it would be convenient to have for doing very dynamic shoots involving effects that can't just be put on a fixed frequency for color/intensity.
>Idolizing brands like Abrahamic religionsNiggers, you dont need a camera. Just blink your eyes to take photos.
>>4475913
>>4475833You must be 18 years or older to post on 4chan
>>4475913Yes, several. The Phillips Hue series was a popular one when they came out 15years ago.
jokes on you, ebay seller, I was actually getting this lens to figure out the rear lens assembly order of another one I fucked up. But thanks for the refund for getting called out on such an egregious mischaracterization of this lens's quality.
>>4475930and just like that we're back together with two makinon 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 lenses, both of which needed fungus removed from their rear element assembly. Having only worked on primes before, let it be a lesson that zooms require very meticulous disassembly and cleaning and if you don't have a lens diagram, make one (or even if you do, take measurements to avoid confusion)
>>4475788>January 2024 clive arrived and began spending 12 hours a day begging /p/ not to buy a sony and spamming fabricated proof its badlink to the archived thread?
>>4475911You're worse for the board than any Fujislug has ever been
>>4475995Whimpering snapshitter
>>4475784>>4475787>based chad>>4475788>brand simping cuck
>>4475931Good job. I had one that I tried taking a part, but when a bazillion elements fell out if it in no particular order i decided to abandon it. These things are probably the cheapest kit zooms around.
>>4476006Every time someone makes a post like this it's samefagging btw
>>4475998nophoto
>>4476006The so called cuck is correctSony makes the best cameras for non-autists. A DSLR or canikon is the cargo shorts EDC brah AKA cringe autist shit of photography. >I’m a real man tho. U sois couldnt ha e the weight. Fashion victims. >the actual real man in the room: *whips out a6000 and 20mm pancake* welcome to the cringe collection. One day fuji will join them and they’re getting close with the autofocus on the xm5. Its at least as good as the a6100 was.
>>4476068
>>4476077I post enough to get my own nicknamecANON does not post
>>4476071>non-autistsI think you mean GWAC, euphemismfag.
>>4476079Then the term for you is "gearfag"
>>4476085>seething gwacKnowing how to use a camera is not a bad thing. Cope harder snapshitter.
>>4476090You know your spec sheets but not how to compose a photo or that to compose a good photo you must travel to somewhere interesting and well lit, not just set your dog/cat on the couch or some garbage on a table
I NEED a camera that does EVERYTHING for me! If I had to care about settings, composition, lighting, or anything really I would be sacrificing time I could be pressing the shutter button and taking a picture of everything! What if I don't photograph an ant carrying a crumb of food or the 16th tree on my hike? I would really be missing out and failing at photography so badly!
>>4476091>the only good photography is photojournalism.Embarrassing.
>>4476009
>>4476094ESL vibes
>>4476096>Gm sirs! Sony brand is number 1 in world!Why are they like this?
>>4476099Ask>>4476071The literal cucktographer
I love gear bros
>>4475788Ahem.
>>4476092>What if I don't photograph an ant carrying a crumb of food or the 16th tree on my hike? I would really be missing out and failing at photography so badly!I say and think things like this.
I consider every unnecessary lens element I take out to be a personal failure. What lenses do I buy to make sure I have as few lens elements as possible? I will not debate people who question my motives.
>2010s: Sony was one of the biggest mirrorless brands after having first mover advantage>2020s: Sony no longer innovates and every new model is the same as the last + $500 to the RRP and is now the laughing stock of the camera worldWhat went wrong?
>>4476194Indians probably. Why would you bother to innovate if you have an audience of 1 billion bugmen who worship you like a cow?
>>4476193More elements generally keep different wavelengths of light closer together, not further apart. Obviously they still have to be the right elements, but there's a reason why the lenses with lowest chromatic aberration and best edge sharpness are all huge and expensive. But if you just want lenses with few elements for whatever reason you could try something like an old 50mm f/3.5 macro. Canon's FL version of this lens has only 4 elements in 3 groups.
>>4475772I want an around 300€ camera, I like old/manual lenses what WOULD you reccomend me? In in eu.I had a Canon mark1,2,3 and a EOS M modded as fuck, world as a colourist for a while in local productions, been a couple of years out of gears, don't want to spend 20hours researching
>>4476250Get an old Nikon or Canon like a Nikon D700 and any film era lens (look for AF-D or AI for nikon lenses, the 50mm f/1.4d is a classic and is cheap). That budget might not be enough even for an old camera, the used market is shit these days.
>>4476251>>4476250What this anon says, but not D700. Get at least a D600, or even a D3400 APS-C. The resolution of the D700 is not great.Also, you might as well get the AF-S 50mm f1.4 instead of the AF-D, because the price is almost the same and it focuses a lot faster.Also, if you go for D3400 the AF-D won't autofocus on it at all, since it has no internal focusing engine.
>>4476191Why tho? Autism? As an exercise you should go out and limit yourself to something like 6-10 photos and see how much better you do.
How fast of a shutter speed is needed to completely still the motion of a shaky hand held shot? Say 300-600 FF equivalent focal length.
>>4476092Its not about that, its about living life in the world instead of behind a cameraGear fetishists are lifeless and socially awkward people who hide behind cameras to mask a lackluster, introverted, asocial personality that does not entertain or inspire others (aka autism)They are the people who can talk about what they’ve been doing but not how their day was. Basically no feelings or humanity.
>>4476250The eos m you had before or any sony a6-something would do finemanual focus on DSLRs sucks and only being able to use nikon lenses would suck even more because nikon really, really did not make great lenses (or support half their catalog on cheap cameras)
>>44763251/focal length is the classic rule of thumb, but higher resolutions are less forgiving IF comparing at 100%. VR of course also plays a role, as does weight and your fitness and technique of course. Basically with modern systems you're gonna want to just figure it out with trial and error.Not what you asked, but wildlife photography often demands higher shutter speeds btw.
>>4476334Oh and focus distance also matters, if you have something up close at 600mm you'll want a faster shutter speed. Macro basically demands flash for this reason.
>>4476326You cringe losers really need to stop projecting so hard onto others lol
>>4476335Shooting at 1:1 macro reduces the light that reaches your sensor by 2 stops as well.
>>4476334I basically am always prioritizing shutter speed within reasonable ISO limits on a 200 F4. Sometimes I wasn't sure if it was my focus being off or being shakey but given I was running it over 1/1000 then it was probably just me not using continuous auto focus on a moving object.But this one will be a manual 400 F6.3 so I won't be able to get away with that much.Obviously bringing a tripod and will be using a shutter release but still want to try some handheld shots.
I got a slik sprint pro 1 new in box for $2.50. I like it aside the ball head which I fucking hate, is it possible to convert these to a normal pan head? It is attached to the shaft and I don't think it can be removed, I'm not sure if there is some standard that I could just get another top end or not.Or should I just stick a pan adapter on top of the ball head and just not use the ball head? In of it self when locked down it isn't flimsy, but the trying to track something moving is terrible.
>>4476326Gear is fun and can be inspiring.
>>4476367>This 0.69% improvement at iso 203847272929 is SO INSPIRING.
>>4476342Unless you are based and used based Nikon that actually fixes the aperture by focus distance with macro lenses. >>4476360>manual 400 F6.3What funky old tele did you pick up? If you're doing MF on an old telephoto I suggest stopping down a little.
>>4476374Wrong. Bellows compensation is simple physics and you cannot escape it unless you crop to magnify(gay).
>>4476368Did you forget to take your meds again today?
>>4476368>SPENDING MONEY BADSome of us can afford nice things without getting a payday loan anon.I spent $4000 on my current gear all together and I take medicore snapshits 98% of the time. I enjoy it. I like my possessions and keep them in good condition. I spend money in hobbies that bring me joy in life because you can't take your shekles with you when you die.
>>4476376Nikon doesn't lie about your effective aperture, that's all I'm saying. Any body will meter correctly even if it lies about your effective aperture at close focus distances. Not every reply is a competition you need to win.
>>4476383Cool. If you're doing macro at 1:1 you need an extra 2 stops of light, which is why a flash is a good idea. >>4476382That's it?>>4476381Yeah, I had my evening beer. Thanks.
>>4476383They're just doing the math for you in the camera. If you can't remember than 1:1 is two stops and 1:2 is one stop of light lost to effective aperture, then I don't know how to boost your IQ.Anyone doing macro for longer than 10 minutes will understand they need more light when doing macro distance shots.
>>4476374Vivitar 400mm f/6.3 T4. Got it thrown in with another lens since a 70-200 from him. He had it on a snoy adapter for mirrorless but had to get a m42 and strip the guts since the native Minolta mount would need a glass element to focus on an EF, then do m42 to EF. Couldn't find a T4 in Pentax K to use the existing one I have.I was taking pictures of a door and a lamp outside since it was raining and running it on a tripod with a remote release since it's a light tripod it doesn't look bad at all. But when you don't have solid backrounds the chromatic aberration is pretty bad when I looked at some branches. But its a film telephoto so this is all as expected.I plan stop down but at 6.3 it's already going to be tough to get enough light. Going to be rough with a DSLR especially on birds since they always pick the worst time to go from bright sky to dark trees and ruin the exposure. Probably will just tripod it 95 percent of the time and use the live view for exposure, at least for wildlife.
>>4476368You can just say you're a nophoto, you know?
>>4476399Anon... You could have just asked and I would have gladly posted a photo of my nutsack for you. No need to be coy about your desires next time, okay?
Fujifilm x100 or iphone 17 as an EDC?
>>4476404>>/cm/
Friendly reminder to buy Fool Frame™.>b-b-b-but muh APS-C reachUse the APS-C mode on your Fool Frame™, you'll get the same DR as a dedicated APS-C camera with more features and the ability to use Fool Frame™ when you don't need as much reach.
>>4476518Please, direct me to the nearest full frame pink camera.
>>4476518Actually wrong.This is the only thing I dislike about my FF. Yes, you can put it into DX crop mode (APS-C), but that also crops the resolution.Which means that a 24MP APS-C will have more resolution at the same rabge, than my 36MP FF in DX mode (which will only be about 16MP).
>>4476520You don't need more for your occasional "I NEED MOAR REACH!!!!" moment.
>>4476518>reachPut your hands up either side of your eyes so you cut off your peripheral vision. Do you now have more reach?
>>4476520>>4476518Never forget picklepitch sirs
>>4476527Yes. Now do the same with your cornea and you'll experience what APS-C does with Fool Frame™ lenses to "get moar reach".
>>4476531APS-C just uses the sharpest part of the lens, there is no extra reach gained from using a smaller sensor. The density of the pixels/photosites doesn't change.
Reminder.
>>4476559>aps-c uses the sharpest part of the lensand thats a bad thing
>>4476563So does FX though, it just uses more
>>4476564Yes, it also uses the soulful parts, and medium format uses the most soulful partsCrop sensors just magnify the tiny central aberrations and need sharper lenses for smaller pixels that pick up smaller issues, resulting in flat rendering.
>>4476559>APS-C just uses the sharpest part of the lensAnd it's bad, APS-C amplifies optical defects, that's why lenses perform worse on APS-C bodies.
>>4476568I don't use APS-C, I was just pointing out that the "more reach" argument here >>4476518 is invalid. You aren't getting any more reach. The optics don't change and the only possibility of getting more or less reach (with another FX or DX body, it doesn't matter) is the sensor having more or less resolution from higher or lower photosite density.
>>4475772So here’s the deal. I want a new camera. I like doing street and landscape photography at 18-35mm on APS-C and I’d like to get into macro as well. I’m currently limited by my gear for taking handheld shots in lowlight and for autofocus when it’s critical. It’s a K10D. I have an a7ii as well and, between the two, I prefer using an OVF, so a DSLR would be nice. I’m tryna sell that a7ii but I’m on the fence about keeping it because, despite having an EVF, it has much better autofocus, image quality and low-light performance. It’s also lighter.>SummaryI need a camera that, compared to the K10D, has:>better low-light performance (IBIS, noise, etc.)>better autofocuswhile retaining the things I like about the K10D, like:>ergonomics and handling>OVF>excellent battery life>no videoI’m indifferent to:>image quality (since everything new has better IQ than the K10D)>sensor size>mount typeand I will primarily use it for street and landscape photography, macro photography and some wildlife and bird photography.Thoughts?
>>4476584PS: I can use a tripod with the K10D to get better low-light performance but it becomes a hassle to haul it around. I’d really like to be able to get all the photos I want handheld (ie night-time street level photos and twilight landscapes; fruit, leaves and flowers beneath shadowy canopies; telephoto wildlife and bird photos in low-light (ie I need moar stability while still keeping a handheld setup to reduce shake)).PPS: I’m indifferent to flippy and tilty screens. I don’t take selfies and I’m used to kneeling or lying down on the ground to get a look through the viewfinder.PPPS: I already have three decent K-mount lenses for APS-C, so the K-3 III seems like a natural upgrade but, since Pentax did confirm two years ago that they’re working on a new DSLR, I want to wait a few months before buying one. I’d also like to wait and see if they go on sale ever. As I mentioned, I’m also open to any sensor size (as long as it doesn’t hurt low-light performance, so anything smaller than APS-C will be a hard sell).
>>4476584Maybe try out a newer mirrorless body with a larger and higher res EVF. They really are great with many advantages over OVFs
I'm interested in Fuji gear, but god fucking damnit whoever runs fujirumors is the most obnoxious affiliate link spamming guy I've seen in a long time.The way he embeds affiliate links into every article is almost comical at this point. He'll instantly ban you if you make or like a comment that even remotely suggests it's a bit much, but you're free to get into massive political shit flinging contests totally unrelated to the gear.I just want to see some of the new fuji gear coming out, I don't want to read about how great he thinks he is or see a million fucking affiliate links in every article. I need to find a better source.
>>4476592It is, unfortunately, still the best for new Fuji rumors
https://litter.catbox.moe/587ma5xkg6trk6sq.JPGNot too bad for a lens from the early 1970's.If I want at least 400mm, what should I get for an EF mount?Anything under $500?
>>4476600That sure is rather unfortunate... We're at least still a while out from stuff like the XT6 and XH3s, so no need to pay much attention right now at least.It still annoys me how that site runs. It's just so shameless and blatant. He even uploaded stuff about the a monochrome Ricoh GR today to get some more affiliate links in. Clickbait stuff obviously meant to rile people up in the comments about shit unrelated to Fuji cameras (or cameras in general) just to increase traffic and interactions. It's just so blatant and shameless.
>>4476601This looks fantastic, love the colors. Can't Nikon F adapt to EF? You probably have lots of Ai lenses to choose from. There's a Nikon Ai-s 400mm f/5.6.
>>4476608It was hard trying to wrangle this ballhead tripod I just got, manual focus, mess with aperture and check exposure with the screen but when I was looking in the viewfinder firing continuous I knew those would be the best ones.Nikon F would work but be manual only.If it was cheap enough I'd be willing to go in on more manual telephoto's, but using the optical view finder was really rough. Was okay ish for just moving animals on the water but going from that to seeing a bird fly over I'd go from under expose to blown out in half a second. EVF would be nice for manual lenses since it shows the composition and focus peaking. But unless I find one of those $300 Canon R100 deals I don't think I'll be finding one I'd want to spend on, anything mirrorless that isn't M43 and has similar specs as a T6i is like probably $500 from what I see, so probably better off putting that into a EF lens.
>>4476601>under $500300 or go home, 400 is gonna be crap.
>>4476612I'm not actively looking to buy right now I'm just trying to see what the options are. I expect closer to $1000 than not but I'm curious if there is anything closer to $500.As far as I've heard so far online while not really looking specifically.>100-400 Mark 1>400 f/5.6>Sigma 150-600 ContemperaryI heard the 100-400 is softer than the 70-200 and that the 400 5.6 is very sharp.I have a 70-200 F4 I could put a 1.4x on to get a bit more out of something that is modern, someone nearby has one for $100, which isn't a great deal but seems about market. Though I'm not really sure how much 80mm is going to do. I'd stick a 2x on it but the AF won't work which is kinda the whole point.
>LEICA's are simply jewelry for men. They are well-made and expensive trinkets mostly for people passionate about nice cameras rather than those who care about making great pictures.
>>4476620Did cockwell really say that?
>>4476620Basically.>hand sanded the case for hoursTotal meme. Throw that shit in a tumbler with some 3000 grit and you'll get the same result. Buying a Leica is like buying an entry-level Grand Seiko or Rolex. I'd never shit on someone for doing it and like the idea of keeping certain crafts alive. As far as practicality goes though, a $5 quartz watch will keep far better time than a $50K mechanical.
>>4476616>buying glass instead of a fancy new bodyRespect. Get the 400mm 5.6, that's the one. Might need to save up $600 from the looks of it.
>>4476629I would like to buy a body but nothing is favorable enough to bother. I don't know why everything has topped out at 24MP for most shit, but since it has most consumer options would be the same resolution so I don't really see the point of spending money to do it. Mirrorless features would be nice for manual lenses but unless it was very cheap it would be a detriment on non manual lenses since I'd be using EF mount glass on it anyway. The R100 actually sounds appealing from Rockwell's review of it being the lightest and smallest mirrorless interchangeable camera with a viewfinder, basically what m43 temps me with once a week. If it was $299 like old slick deals listings show I'd get one as a walk around body.Then the old pro options are lower resolution like the 7D or full frame being a detriment for getting more focal length. Every listing for a pro body is expensive,bad shutter, bad condition or some combination. From what I hear I wouldn't mind trying a 5D or 5D II as a second body for doing non telephoto, but for what I'd be willing to pay like most every listing I see mentions shutter issues so I assume most that aren't high priced low shutter closet queens are aging out. I was going to look at a 5D IV that had enough in lenses that I could probably zero it out and get it for free if I sold them, but it was the typical online listing shit of it's been up for 9 weeks with no buyers and as soon as I ask more than one question it sells and it was very far away.Like with lenses I just check most days on the off chance I find something favorably priced or I can part out and make money while keeping the one thing I want. I wouldn't mind branching out into other brands or systems to try out but 90% of everything is Canon consumer DSLR's with kit lenses so after the initial rush of getting my initial lenses it's been pretty boring.
>>4476621Yes.>>4476622Based $5 Sanda and Skmei
>>4476622Muh hand xyz buzzword. Just like hand fitting, if you're operation is so fancy and high end you should have machines and operators running them so finely they don't need more than basic human interaction but that doesn't sound good to whoever buys absurdly expensive luxury items.
Sony bros, our response?
>>4476601https://files.catbox.moe/41u9vq.JPGboth boxes keep shitting the bed idk why
>>4476640>CoLor ScIenCe IsNt ReAl!!!!!!!!
>>4476640>crutchfieldWell I will contend that Sony makes one of the least awful (riced) single DIN units nowadays, even from an ergonomics and menus point of view. Seriously the 5300 is one of the best options if you're one of those "I NEED TO BUY BRAND NEW" consoomer. It's a low bar though. Connoisseurs prefer the classics in the current market. Touchscreens ruined everything. Now it's either that garbage or 7 segment displays, literally pick your poison. >inb4 ludditeSwitching to inferior and actually older technology isn't progress. Reminder that the DSLR came AFTER the MILC. The Canon L1, interchangeable lens mirrorless camera, came in March 1991. The first DSLR, Kodak DCS-100 came out in May that year. It's just like electric cars which actually predate ICEs. And the first OLEDs came out in 1987. Touchscreens come from the 60s. Electroluminescent 7 segments are from the 60s too. For over a decade we've been increasingly sold inferior tech at premium prices. Same with the stupid electric cars, they were blown the fuck out by internal combustion ones as soon as they came out. Yet now they want us to go back to that garbage. Fuck the system, drive a youngtimer. They look better too.
>>4476640He doesn't sound like someone worth listening to. Good photographers don't concern themselves with this. What would he say if a more experienced artist told him how to fix his issues?>Ohhhh hold it by the lens? But uhmmm the ergonomics if you one hand the 100-400... sometimes when i'm playing with my dog i only have one hand.>use another raw profile? uh, you cant use other raw profiles because the professional engineers and stuff... i don't have time to EDIT, okay. what do you mean the other profile was already made? god i paid for it it needs to WORK like i expect it to okay? i am the fucking customer here. COPE. this brand is shit and everyone who buys it is a cuck!Kind of like when ken rockwell threw a little baby tantrum because his Z8 in auto-everything autofocus mode wouldn't lock focus on some clouds and promptly switched to canon. Yes, really. That's the kind of guy that cares about this nonsense.They just shouldn't have professional cameras. The kind of person who believes in this stuff can't tell a hobbyist compact from a pro camera without pixel peeping anyways.
>>4476642Color science isn't real. If you know what you're doing, even CCD and CMOS look identical.https://www.cobalt-image.com/tutorials/ccd-vs-cmos/It's from the idiot's websitehttps://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htmIf ken rockwell agrees with you, you probably don't have a future as a photographer.
>>4476647CCD vs CMOS is a red herring. CFAs make the difference. Look up metamerism and stop embarrassing yourself.
>>4476647>Best Serious Cameras (DSLRs) >DSLRs, Digital Single-Lens-Reflex cameras, are the best camera for shooting action and motion. For news, sports and action, it's always an SLR.Based Ken, mirrorlesscucks btfo.
>>4476647Also reading the article he used a D700, a camera well known for its good colors just like the also CMOS 5D classic. Those cameras aren't capable of very high ISOs because of how strong their CFAs are, but in return the colors are much richer.
>>4476620Accurate.
>>4476646>He doesn't sound like someone worth listening toNeither is cANON
>>4476654>clueless forum/youtube gear queer nonsense>>4476650there it is cANON hung himselfhttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/389266084,79,Nikon D20083,83,Nikon D700notice how many legendary cameras score poorly loleverything you think matters doesnt lolyour opinions run totally counter to everything knowledgeable professional photographers knowthe closest thing you have to a photographic role model is a third rate camera reviewer who is joked about for his bad photography and little entitlement tantrum over the z8, and making an r5 and iphone look equally badlollmaothe state of /p/ gearfags>GEAR MATTERS! COLOR SCIENCE! I THINK THE CFA IS DIFFERENT I MEAN THE SAME! METAMERISM… MEANS SOMETHING! lmaoin sorry guys but sony canon and nikon are identical. you have to make up special unrealistic rules to make them different. if you were skilled photographers and knew what you were doing you wouldnt care. str8 fax.
>>4476660>notice how many legendary cameras score poorly lolYeah, it helps if you read your links>Also, this measure does not tell us what colors are good or poor, nor does it measure anything outside of a very limited dataset. This metric tells us nothing about pleasing colors versus accurate colors.
>>4476662yeahit doesnt matter geniusdid i say it didor did i point out how it had no correlation even with jpeg fags preferencesand yet cANON the typical clueless forum gear queer has added a vague idea of a meaningless real measurement to his objective prove hisbrand>yourbrandthese people really have no future in art. anon is right. you people just lack the personality to create. the way you think is at odds with it.
Yo nignogs, I bought a canon T50 with a couple of FD lenses for the whopping price of $40 AUD. All things considered it looks pretty decent, but two things:1) The viewfinder is smeary as fuck, even after an inital clean of the mirror.2) The lenses have some haze or dotty marks on some internal elements.I've never stripped a camera or lens before but am generally pretty decent with fixing mechanical shit (ty carbied yamaha you cunt of a thing).I don't really give a damn if I fuck something up because I don't intend on really using any of it, but it would nice to adapt the 50mm to my DSLR if it comes out nice.How complicated and likey of a process is it to disassemble and clean? The bigger lens is a zoom which intimidates me more but I'm less concerned about that and might just fuck it off on eBay for $20. Looking up a guide as we speak.
Viewfinders are complicated to clean internally on most SLR cameras. Lenses can be complicated to clean and FD is not know for being easy lenses to work with, but if the problematic area is on the front elements it should be straight forward with a japan hobby tool kit and similar, at least on the prime that is. I assume that zoom is a sigma.. it may be a difficult process, not familiar with that particular lens, but zooms in general are more problematic for amateurs, you may have to remove the rubber and access screws, make marks to properly re-attach the helicoid in order to properly focus after reassembly etc.. not worth the hassle for budget zooms that are a dime a dozen.
>>4476667The zoom doesn't look like the Sigma's listed online so nfi. I'm not going to fuck with it in that case anyway. It's going on eBay.If the viewfinder is also a pain in the ass is there a way to simply blow the dust out, or is that basically the same process as a full clean? It's fine, it's mostly going to be a display piece but I was wondering how good I could clean everything up on my own.The 50mm lens is the only exception where if I could potentially get it reasonably clear I'd like to adapt it, and that would mean I got a decent lens for like $10 all up. It does in fact look like the problematic element is the second one from the objective element. Am I assuming then that getting to that particular element might be simpler than a full tear down?
>>4476669Quick update because I basically said fuck it:I disassembled the front element group with relative ease and gave things a clean down with optical solution. Unfortunately it appears the speckled haze is on the interior of a welded(?) element to which I can't for the life of me get to without probably dremeling through. Oh well, I'm glad I gave it a shot. How the fuck do problems form on such a place? There's no porous material or gaps where moisture or dust can get to. Maybe it was stored in shitty humid conditions and the coating just seppku'd itself?
should I get the Z50f1.8s or the Z85f1.8s as a second lens to my 24-120f4S?Feels say 85mm, but indoor practicality says 50mm.
>>4476721all you need is a sony a7c and a 35mm f2.8
sony a7r5 or a7iv for primarily stills shoot? the r5 is over 3 years old now. im not holding my breath for the a7v anymore and it sounds like its just going to be a little better than the iv anyway.
>>4476663Can see see some of the photos you've posted here?
>>4476725All you need is a sony a7c and a 35mm f2.8
>>447672150 for generally good for everything, 85 if you want to use it mostly for portraits
>>4476663They hated jesus for he told them the truth"Brand wars are for bad photographers, specs dont matter, and color science isn’t real. Professionals use all japanese brands interchangeably.""Shut up snoycuck you fujislug canonblobbing DOUBLE NIKKOR"
>Buy a used Tamron SP 35mm f/1.4>Very sharp at 1.4>Sharp as fuck at 2.0I should've tried used prime lenses a long time ago
>>4476729i dont like the C. i like good ergo and i want a nice EVF. C's evf looks like its worse than a a7iii
>>4476735>nooo i need a 4k digital ovf and ergo grip, 24-120 f1.8, and 100w flash to take photoswhiner. all you need is an a7c and 35mm f2.8.
>>4476519It's over
>>4476730>50 for generally good for everythingNoticeable perspective distortion for anything tighter than full-length portraits.
Recently picked up photography, this is my current gear:- Nikon Z8- Nikon 14-30 F4 S- Nikon 24-120 F4 S- Nikon 50 1.8 S- Nikon 105 2.8 S MacroWhat lenses should I look at next? I mainly photograph nature, but I'm thinking about either going for more long-range animal photography with perhaps the 180-600, or going for a more portraiture-oriented lens, maybe the 135 1.8 S Plena?
>>4476742Well good thing if OP wants to do mostly portraits, I suggested another lens and OP never even mentioned portraits to begin withPerspective distortion also comes from distance, not the lens btw
>>4476743>Recently picked up photography>Have a modern and highly capable, well varied kit suited for practically any kind of photographyLucky bastard. Probably want some kind of super telephoto like a 100-400 for wildlife, birding, racing etc. If you don't do any of that then don't buy that get a 70-200 instead,Really though you're pretty set for most stuff, I wouldn't even bother buying the 70-200 unless you were finding the 24-120 to be too short for something you're shooting routinely.
>A box of lenses, filters, and cameras- as seen. Have a Nikon bag to throw in, plus some other old cameras if you wanted to add to the bundle. Can send additional pictures/video if interested.>$750 obo retails for more than $800I hope they aren't giving too much of a deal.
third party mirrorless lenses after nikon z mounts lawyers sent out angry emails be like>32-73mm f2.5>45mm f2>27mm f1.6>19-40mm f3Good job with the non compete clause you non-innovating tasteless yakuza NIGGORS
>>4476743Do you enjoy the experience of using the viewfinder on the Z8? Are there any downsides you come up against often?
>>4476788No downsides really, this is my first mirrorless and I think the viewfinder experience is pretty good!Maybe eye ergonomics could be a bit better, I might buy a custom eye-cup or something so that I don't have to shove my nose into the body, besides that the viewfinder is sharp and responsive for me.
I have the Nikon ZR with the 40mmf2 for both video and photography. I wanna add another lens with 50mm and a bit sharper than the 40. I know it's quite close in focal length but it's what I use 90% of the time. I can't decide between the Nikon 50mm 1.8 and the manual Voigtländer 50mm f2 APO. From what I read, the apo is a tiny bit sharper, smaller and looks really nice. Nikon is autofocus and half the price. Hmmm
I guess they weren't kidding about digicams being expensive. I literally cannot find a single one that isn't like a 5mp Kodak under like $100.At this rate I'm going to be forced to buy some shitty m43 with new view finder to have a small camera for low effort situations.
>>4476736The C bodies aren't meaningfully smaller, might as well have the better EVF and ergos
I bought one of those Falcam F38 kits and I am now fucked because with the thing attached to the bottom of the camera it's not stable anymore when I place it anywhere. I guess it's the weight of the lens. I cannot get away without a tripod anymore for landscape shots. What have I done
>>4476794Genuinely it’s all a fad. Keep your money and spend it on an actually good camera, if you haven’t already.
>>4476799I'm not buying it because of some jewtube fad. I want something with optical zoom that I can put in a pocket. I want something that isn't a phone camera and isn't the 5 pound lump that I hang on my neck if I want to go do something but still a camera with camera controls.
>>4476795Yep, the a7c line is the biggest scam. Shitty ergonomics, EVF and build quality.
Locally the digicam craze seems to have been cooling off, but it may be due to the season, but at least on my part the market has stagnated somewhat. With new digishitters coming to market it will probably slow down further and these things will once more be considered e-waste.
>>4476721I have a bunch of lenses, but the onrs I always end up using are>24-120mm f4 for daylight versatility>85mm f1.4 portraitsSometimes fall back to 12-24mm f2.8 for indoors shit. I have the 50mm f1.4 too, but it still gets too cramped in small indoor areas.
>>4475772Best full-frame wildlife setup? Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Canon or Pentax?
>>4476834Micro four thirds. Do it right or stay home.
>>4476620Is the main criticism of Leica that it is severely overpriced?I never see people critiquing the quality of their images
>>4476835What's better about wildlife photography with a micro four thirds setup compared to full frame?
a couple weeks ago I was doing street photography at some art event.It was a vendor market where people had tents setup. I knew there would be a lot of people so I went to take pictures of them.For street photography, I use a 35mm prime lens. I try not to be too invasive. While taking pictures, I saw a woman doing street photography. The difference? Her gear.She was literally walking around with this giant lens taking pictures of people.Also, she had two cameras, both with big lenses taking pictures of people.I thought it was so weird. You dont need all that for street photography. Just a camera and a small prime.
>>4476839More reach, lighter weight, better in low light, quieter
>>4476834>more sparrow snapshitsoh boy the board can hardly wait
>>4476841>more reachtrue>lighter weighttrue>better in low lightfalse>quieterirrelevant
>>4476837>Is the main criticism of Leica that it is severely overpriced?Essentially yes. It is like a luxury brand name where you get very little added value. Some of their products are just shameless.
>>4476852>quieter>irrelevantpost 25 of your finest wildlife photos right now, mr expert
>>4476860How FUCKING DARE YOU assume my gender!!!
Thypoch just announced their black friday sale. Anyone have the 35mm f1.4 on their ZF?
>>4476841>More reachNot necessarily but it's true the most reach a MFT (25MP) has surpasses the most reach a FF (60MP) has.16MP MFT is on par with 60MP FF when it comes to reach.
>>4476868hi limpanon
>>4476852Its not even quieter. FF mirrorless has true shutterless cameras now. A Z8+400mm is actually a better, cheaper, lighter setup than an om1ii+400mm.
>>4476868>le pixel pitchLens aberration size is a limiting factor as proven by your blurry green dot
>>4476871>greenYou're colorblind, jej.Also blurry or not it's more detailed than the FF one.
>>4476880There are a few visually illiterate anons on here with extremely strong opinions. It's comical.
>>4476793Owned both, kept the 1.8 S. The f2 APO was sometimes great, but it has qualities I didn't like either. Ugly bokeh at wider apertures, and images always felt too contrasty. Don't miss it at all.
>>4476840It doesn't matter what focal length you use. The other photographer's perspective, both visual and intent are just approached differently based on your mindset. A telephoto to compress the perspective (think of wildlife shots). Or a long zoom lens for flexibility.One can use a drone (birds eye view), telescope or an old chink dumbphone to get a street photo.
>>4476887Yeah except she was walking through a crowded street with a giant lens, it had to be at least 200mm. Its just strange, people say I'm a weirdo for liking street photography but even I cant imagine pointing a 200mm lens in someones face lol.
>>4476519Can always add pink skins to any body, but at least these you can get from the manufacturer
>>4476892Wish I was a girl. These unironically look good.
>>4476902It's never too late anon
>>4476902just have the confidence to pull it off sister
>>4476518People post this insane crap because boomers used to call the crop factor "magnification" and stuff like that. Back in 2006 this wasn't too far off because megapixels were comparable in APS-C and FF models. Things started changing with the 1Ds III, 5D II and especially Nikon D3X which were all nearly double the megapixels of APS-C models but the idea remained as a truism. Pixel pitch is the only thing that really matters on a digital sensor when it comes to reach and this was more widely understood in the days of superior film. A crop is a crop and if you want more reach you get finer stock.
>>4476518High IQ take. An a7rV is essentially an a6700 in a better body and a FF mode. You dont lose MP.
>>4476962Pixel pitch matches between those two. A K-3 III is already unreachable (jej) for the a7RV. Let alone a 90D.
