>>4477478
Based

How are you people buying anything with these tariffs in place? the prices are outrageous for everything that is shipped into the country.

Not just camera gear but everything. I was going to order some coffee from overseas and the tariffs would add $60 to the cost.

>>4477482
The only new camera things I have ever bought were batteries and the cheapest amazon accessories.

>>4477480
Maybe you can use that knowledge to one day take pictures

>>4477482
I moved to Japan because I’m not a poorfag
>sent from aizu

>>4477478
Gemini, make a graph like this for the OM-1 Mark II but but put a chudjak face on the tweety bird

>>4477478
Looking to get back into photography again. Thinking of selling my old Sony a7. What new system should I get instead? Canon, Nikon or Panasonic?

>>4477487
Sir, this is a Wendy's.

>>4477505
Leica SL3

>>4477505
>Canon RF
Expensive, cripplehammered, blobmera. Some gem lenses some turds. I bought into this and dont regret it.

looking into mf lenses to adapt onto mirrorless: summicron r 90/2, c/y zeiss planar t* 85/1.4, nikkor 105/2.5 ai-s
I have a 50/1.2 ai-s already but it's still too wide, need something tighter

File: Megapixels&Cameras.png (1.23 MB, 2500x2200)

1.23 MB PNG

>>4477478
>>4477480
Postin' the more useful chart, resized because no way I'm posting a 500MP image here

>>4477586
Gonna do the same and download the full size pic to shut up the "you're only magnifying the aberrations" and "sensor reach isn't real" idiots.

>>4477587
>to shut up the "you're only magnifying the aberrations" [anons]
I mean you still are, it's just that it's not as big of a deal as getting more pixels per duck when it comes to wildlife. Pixels per duck is THE most important thing for birds so APS-C is still king of the birbers. R7 has a notoriously demanding sensor for the lenses at hand but fuck me that and a RF 100-400 or 800mm f/11 is literally only $2200~ and will seriously btfo practically any other setup save for the bazooka beeg whites that go for $10,000+

>>4477595
25mp mft is even better (and possibly cheaper)

>>4477599
MFT is not better than anything. Overcorrected lenses and shit sensors that strain the balls out of the optics. It's a P&S format without the convenient form factor.
MFT is more *sensible* if carrying more than four pounds is too much for someone's dainty athritic wrists and they want to go birding.

>>4477595
I'm not denying that the aberrations also get more pixels, my problem is they deny that more pixels per unit of area are more useful at all
>>4477599
I agree if we're talking vs R7. But 90D is superior to both, you get only as much reach as the R7 but the output can be trusted because it has an OVF.
>>4477602
Ignorant nonsense. The only two ILC systems with more reach than MFT are Pentax Q and Nikon 1, both discontinued. Pentax Q is the one that's basically a P&S, 2/3" sensor.

>>4477605
>The only two ILC systems with more reach than MFT are Pentax Q and Nikon 1, both discontinued. Pentax Q is the one that's basically a P&S, 2/3" sensor.
Talking about digital here obviously, of course you can get even more reach with film. But the Pentax gets pretty close, at that density you'd have about 350MP in a full frame sensor. Film can get up to 500MP in that area.

File: Megapixels&Caemeras cropped q.jpg (4.63 MB, 6095x7427)

4.63 MB JPG

I was hoping to get more of the original pic but this will have to do with the 4MB limit

>>4477605
They were discontinued because the pics looked like shit but you’re a soulless autistic and only scan reality so all you care about is counting pixels

>>4477629
Now post an actual photo you took

inb4 you don’t

File: the bane of the gearfag.jpg (2 MB, 1000x2001)

2 MB JPG

>>4477632
Crop or full frame? All me btw

>>4477633
Soulless autistic garbage. Once again confirming you’re not an artist. You just compare gear. That’s it.

They all look like shit.

>>4477636
>I can't tell which is which
I accept your concession

>>4477637
No one cares about your contrived ewaste tests at 0.5mp if you cant take a decent photo.

Too bad you spent all that time and money taking the same shitty photo with 3 cameras instead of using one camera to take 3 good photos. Gearfag.

>>4477641
It's two cameras, my dood.

>>4477643
Cool. Sell the one you use the least and try taking a decent photo instead of a fucking gear test. Gearfag.

>>4477644
Already sold the crop lel, it was a quick flip and I took the chance to test.

>>4477644
Also the test was only done to post it here because I KNEW you fucks wouldn't be able to tell crop from full frame despite all the dumb talk.

>>4477647
>it was a flip!
Common cope.

When do you start posting photos instead of gearfaggotry?

>>4477648
All of them look like shit and everyone knows full frame normally looks better. Just because you can select settings that confuse the general rule doesn’t mean fuji isnt nicer than m43 and leica isnt nicer than fuji.

>*iso 12800* full fraem looks like micro foor turds! hyuck
Gearfags. lol.

>>4477653
ISO 12800 FF downsized to not have it fucking 8192x5464 and appropriately NR/sharpened would still mog m43 at base iso.

>>4477650
>full frame normally looks better
If you use a larger amount of light. Full frame's advantage comes with fast lenses that are outside of what you could shoot equivalently with a smaller format. It's also why it can look better than digital 127 aka so-called "medium format".
>Just because you can select settings that confuse the general rule
Same lens on both, same focal length.
There's a full frame with 2x TC, a crop camera with a 2x TC and a crop camera without the TC.
>Full frame+400mm lens+2x TC (f/16, f/8 on the lens)
>Crop+400mm lens+2x TC (f/16, f/8 on the lens)
>Crop+400mm lens (f/8)
You fucks couldn't even answer if it was digital or film.

>>4477671
>scientifically ur not taking the same photo. u must shoot ur ff at f16 and keep the shutter speed high. equivalence! and then follow eggy’s dumb 1mp rule!
Ok but no one does this. People "cheat" the "rules of equivalence" because photography is about making the photo you want to make and leveraging the tools you have to make it better, not taking the photo an internet gear queer says you have to take for it to be a fair comparison.

You know a lot about specs but not a lot about using cameras

You are on a crusade because you know you’re wrong and incongruent with real life photography so you spam all day to cope. Just autism things.

>>4477698
cANON’s autistic "but if you-" personality is something that only digislugging can allow

On film everyone knew cameras were only good in the hands of photographers, and so called fair comparisons were as strictly unrealistic as comparing 180gr .357 and .44 magnum. of course then people like him took photos of brick walls and no one ever had to interact with the gear freaks…

>>4477671
>You fucks couldn't even answer if it was digital or film.
and you don't own a camera or take pictures

>>4477715
His awful digitized film scans look a lot like poorly edited 12mp digishit shots aka the same as his actual camera to be fair

The reason he doesnt post is because he is bad and his aspergers doesnt let him change and improve.

It’s funny that cANON could truly btfo /p/ and make them seethe by going out and taking pictures with his SLR ewaste and say "ITS GUD ENUF, SEETHE"

But instead of doing photography and saying its about having fun and making art instead of matching camera settings and scientific tests no one cares about, he copes about equivalent settings and megapixels

>>4477698
Shutter on FF was 1/5s, on APS-C it was 1/125 and 1/250s. It's f/16 because the TC doubles the f-number as well as the focal length. ISO was 100 on APS-C and 200 on FF.
>Ok but no one does this. People "cheat" the "rules of equivalence" because photography is about making the photo you want to make and leveraging the tools you have to make it better, not taking the photo an internet gear queer says you have to take for it to be a fair comparison.
Actually the fair comparison thing is so that I can compare the performance of different pieces of gear at the same situation.
>You know a lot about specs but not a lot about using cameras
>You are on a crusade because you know you’re wrong and incongruent with real life photography so you spam all day to cope. Just autism things.
And yet, you still can't tell which is which. Sad.

>>4477723
Art is too good to waste on a cadre of street snappers.

>>4477723
BTW, Ambush is right about not posting one's best stuff online too.

>>4477633
The palm tree in your image is likely from Palmestranden in Frederikshavn, Denmark. This unique beach is renowned for its collection of real palm trees, which are the only ones of their kind in Denmark. Each year, approximately 100 palm trees are planted on the beach during the summer months. When winter approaches, they are carefully stored in large greenhouses to protect them from the cold.
Palmestranden is located on the northeastern coast of the Jutland Peninsula, offering visitors a distinctive and almost exotic atmosphere with its white sand, gentle waves, and swaying palm trees. The beach is also equipped with amenities like volleyball courts, a playground, and a barbecue area, making it a family-friendly destination.

>>4477629
Full frame sisters our response?

I wanna capture some bees and other small shit, what do you think is a suitable focal length for this type of macro stuff? My camera is APS-C.

>>4477739
photography is about art not zooming in on tiny birds. its that simple. photography is art. reality scanning is another thing. photography is about atmosphere and having flexible equipment. reality scanning is about identifying objects. photography makes use of staging to create. reality scanning is sportsmanlike and abhors a staged scene as it abhors all forms of creativity.

cameras for wildlife biologists and birdwatchers… who cares
i shoot canon eos m. full frame is better and no one gives a fuck about reach.

>>4477727
>>4477728
ok notphotog nophoto. why not talk about something you actually do like gardening?

>>4477743
Put them in the fridge before photographing. You can get much closer with any lens.

>>4477746
This is the ugly truth behind a lot of macro photographs.

>>4477738
Fuck off, stalker. So AI is where you got your alleged location the first time huh? Can't say I'm surprised, what's funny is that it's so insistent that it's Denmark of all places.
>>4477745
>reach has no artistic uses because someone used a bird figure to do a test
Says more about your "artistry" than anything, lol. Reach lets you achieve massively compressed perspectives, it's another creative tool.
Full frame can look better or APS-C can look better, it's how you use it that counts. But full frame can do things APS-C can't and vice versa.
>ok notphotog nophoto.
I'm the one who posted a photo here, you're the one who tried to guess my location while posting no photos of your own. Fuck off.

>>4477756
All you care about is megapixels and you dont take photos. You act like an autistic child that never shuts up about how big t rex was.

Fuck off

>>4477759
No, I care about correcting gearfags that are wrong.
>dude you totally need the FF camera with a gold charger cable and the Rockwood V6 hot shoe attachment to get the best quality!
The same idiots once they're done lecturing people on the noise advantage of full frame (1 whole stop, woah) sensors then slap a slow (often 2 stops slower), compromised, pancake lens that negates any advantage the larger sensor could have.
Maybe try to stop being wrong and I'll shut up.

>>4477766
> The same idiots once they're done lecturing people on the noise advantage of full frame (1 whole stop, woah) sensors then slap a slow (often 2 stops slower), compromised, pancake lens that negates any advantage the larger sensor could have.
Actual photographers have told you why this doesn’t make sense. Multiple times. You are an autistic child. You don’t take photos. You never leave the house. You have been continuously posting on 4chan for over four hours today.

>>4477770
he’s a "beauty in math" type autist

that in real life 90% of photos are f8 iso 100 does not register. he pops a dopamine surge at the thought of a slower lens raising the ISO. little bars go up and down and gears turn in his head while bells ding and a steam vent whistles. thats what autists are like.

All you need is an a7c and 35mm f2.8.

>>4477770
>Actual photographers have told you why this doesn’t make sense.
Those "actual photographers" couldn't tell my full frame pictures from the crop ones. They're just trying to feel better about their spent money. Audiophile delusion basically.
>You have been continuously posting on 4chan for over four hours today.
>continuously
Wrong. I did it when taking breaks from writing a lab report.
>4477775
>that in real life 90% of photos are f8 iso 100 does not register. he pops a dopamine surge at the thought of a slower lens raising the ISO. little bars go up and down and gears turn in his head while bells ding and a steam vent whistles. thats what autists are like.
Precisely because of most pictures being f/8 the advantage of full frame is lost most of the time. You can simply shoot f/5.6 on APS-C or f/4 on MFT and get the same performance. MFT blows because of the 4:3 ratio but that's another question.

>>4477778
Uh, no. You clearly have never actually used a camera. Maybe for flatly lit bird photos or trying to look at some gay shit in the sky. But not actual photography. There are a million technical reasons why but there’s no way you should have to know them unless your screen is 800x640px.

Lets just say there’s a reason you’re killing /p/ with your gearfaggotry crusade and IRL everyone is doing the opposite of what you say is best.

>>4477778
>how could photographers possibly prefer ISO 100 and a simple prime stopped down to f8? dont they know a
Panalumix noctitrans f4 is the same?
yeah you dont have an artistic bone in your body. to you aesthetics are an accident. the real goal is snr log2n ev/i^c and apodized lpmms per the wave modulation function being within mathematically defined confines of heidelberg’s fused vertebrae viewing scenario.

>>4477777
Even a micro four thirds camera would be better than that (and you wouldnt get green pics)

>>4477777
What a waste.
>Spend $1600 to get less than $600 image quality
D5300+Nikon 24/1.4 mogs you all day.

>>4477780
>ISO 100
In the same vein as f/8, most pictures are taken at ISO 400 and above.
>Panalumix noctitrans f4 is the same?
It is.
>yeah you dont have an artistic bone in your body. to you aesthetics are an accident
Wrong, kek. That's why I'm published and you're not.

>>4477782
There are technical reasons why you are wrong and others have gone over them with you (leading to you failing to refute them, stomping your feet, and repeating yourself the next day as if nothing happened… mein kampf has a line about that tendency) but it’s of no use because you’ve largely killed the board and it might be better to let you rot, let you misinform, and let people find out how stupid 4chan is sooner or later so they leave and don’t come back.

That’s the thing about truth. It doesn’t have to fight lies to win in the end. Just to save people from disappointment short term.

>>4477783
You are published in two tweets by an effectively dead alt right magazine.

Your most hated fuji GFX system is in more, and more significant publications. Says a lot.

>>4477786
>You are published in two tweets by an effectively dead alt right magazine.
Cope
>Your most hated fuji GFX system
Wrong. At least GFX has no worms even if the build quality is equally shit.
X-tranny and baby mount are the two worst systems in the market, in that order.
>Your most hated fuji GFX system is in more, and more significant publications. Says a lot.
You mean like Ken Wheeler's channel? kek

>>4477785
>There are technical reasons why you are wrong
Their poor experimental design? I called the procedural errors out and they ignored it.

Mirrorless cameras are objectively an improvement to DSLRs.

>>4477791
For the elites, sure. They've wanted to eliminate the reflex camera for a while now.

File: How to make the Ultimate (...).png (4.54 MB, 1920x1080)

4.54 MB PNG

>>4477788
>worms

>>4477791
Correct.

>>4477792
Schizo shit spewed upon defeat, like blood.

>>4477809
A mirrorless camera is basically a DSLR stuck in live view mode with worse AF. They're superior at nothing except at being cheaper to produce.

>>4477791
>>4477809
Good goyims!

>>4477811
Look another wrong statement

File: edc.jpg (1018 KB, 4993x3744)

1018 KB JPG

>the perfect edc doesnt exi-

Vintage glass is mostly overrated and rubbish, even extremely expensive, exotic ultra fast. Change my mind. Even most DSLR glass except some made in the 2010s are also rubbish compared to mirrorless.

>>4477826
>perfect edc
>chunky unpocketable brick
Anon…

>>4477826
>m43
>perfect

>>4477827
It really depends on what you're attempting to do.

>>4477826
Shill. I saw a tranny carrying one with a trans flag sticker on it but cant see a man with a brain paying $1000 for an a7c with the last of the shutter ripped out and the hot shoe axed. Especially with panasonics quality issues and color science being even worse than snoys.

>>4477841
Agreed. Sony seems ok when you realize how bad the other FF and DX compacts are. Canon can’t release their compact retro body soon enough.

File: images.jpg (6 KB, 259x194)

6 KB JPG

Is this the peak of APSC?
>general consumer camera so it's common enough that they are like $200 max and probably have shutter counts under 1000
>sensor resolution tied with like a dozen other APSC Canon bodies as the highest except the 90D which is probably 4 times more expensive
>EF lenses are cheap

>>4477848
I was going to say 200D but you're probably correct here. I don't think you can find another Canon with as much bang for the buck. Even ML support is there.

>>4477842
Retro cameras are the neoclassic car of cameras, truly disgusting simulacra.

File: Color_Science.jpg (944 KB, 1955x1095)

944 KB JPG

>>4477841
>and color science being even worse than snoys.

File: IMG_7228.jpg (919 KB, 3648x2736)

919 KB JPG

After today I'm tempted to get a hot shoe 1/4-20 and mount this little point and shitter on top of the main camera when I'm using the manual 400mm.

>>4477859
Speaking of people who repost after a good debunking

Bruh she fucks up the colors on both cameras throughout the video. Give it a rest. /p/‘s dying userbase isnt falling for it.

Take the L.

>>4477848
>dslr blob
no

dslrs are oversized, inaccurate - and unreliable if they arent built to a pro standard. thank god mfgs focus on semiconductors instead of mirror timing and fresnel alignment now.

>>4477859
The sad part of this image is that the lumix’s zombie skin isnt accompanied by an obvious white balance fuck up and in isolation just looks bad. Lumix skin tones are worse than fuji without the film sims.

The sony is just running the wrong white balance. AWB in video always sucks unless using a $2k+ canon setup. Nikon is just as bad imo.

>>4477859
It's not a color science thing, it's that the Sony made her gag. She's nauseating at its grotesque visage of the Sony, even her mouth shows she's holding something back and it's liquid.

>>4477841
>Snoy known for worse build and bad colors
>gaslight people into thinking it was always good
hahahaha wtf

File: 1428794627140.jpg (64 KB, 700x656)

64 KB JPG

>>4477864
They seem pretty accurate, reliable and compact enough when it comes to delivering gifts to holols sooooo...

>>4477869
>Danish russiaboo
Sad

>>4477875
I'm not Danish
>russiaboo
cope

File: IMG_20251023_230931_838.jpg (229 KB, 1024x1383)

229 KB JPG

>>4477869
Did you write "hohols" as holols?

>>4477881
Yeah, it's like "lolbergs" and other ebin maymays

>>4477882
Is this you?
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/post/471434433

5D Mark II's are the thai hookers of the used market. Everyone I see is beat to death.

File: 971ACCAB-FDE0-40A9-AC26-B(...).png (606 KB, 593x580)

606 KB PNG

>>4477886
>HE DOUBLED DOWN AND IS STILL TRYING TO PROVE THE DANISH LEAD
>THE WORD HOLOL IS HIS SMOKING GUN

>>4477886
Meds. Now.

>>4477894
hmmmm, looks familiar
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/text/holols/image/Pnjb0g_hfCBb7QyFznvEcA/
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/filename/30574E77-5B44-4C52-8EBF-6E0C8389F0A9

Cameras?

>>4477899
>https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/filename/30574E77-5B44-4C52-8EBF-6E0C8389F0A9
What did he mean by this?
>>4477897
It'd be hysterical if it weren't so sad.
jk, it's still hysterical

>>4477902
I meant you got caught, I knew you'd try to play dumb so I gave you some bait toi bite but here is the same filename from this thread.
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/filename/971ACCAB-FDE0-40A9-AC26-BA1B329355B0/

>>4477906
Ever heard of saving images with the original filename instead of the UNIX one? So what if I saved it from a post by some Danish guy? Get a life

>>4477909
was this >>4477869 an original filename? huh hoer?

>>4477906
Yep, meds. You know people can repost the same images? What do you think the purpose of an image board is? How new are you to 4chan?

File: le current year.jpg (74 KB, 852x479)

74 KB JPG

>>4477914
It was 2015, but it was probably posted with that name when I saw it.

>>4477918
Probably some redditor

Sony A7v now confirmed not to even be out til next year and it will be crippled. A7Rvi not even announced to 2027. Thanks Trump for the tariffs, really.

>>4477929
Canikon chads won.

>>4477931
I just wanted the a7r5 to be cheaper. it's over 3 years old and still nothing measures up to it for stills except for a GFX100. i dont give a fuck about video and all the stacked sensor trash has gay tier dynamic range that gets btfo by an a7iii.

>>4477933
>and still nothing measures up to it for stills except for a GFX100

Not even a Hasselblad? PhaseONE? Any film camera ?

>>4477949
Anon he’s not actually a serious photographer to know about real professional tools, he’s lusting after a Fuji after all

>>4477949
/p/ only argues about prosumer garbage. Phaseone, the non-chinese hasselblad, and large format film do not count. They are all too slow, bulky, and have bad low light performance for the mythical night time shots you see posted constantly on rpt.

File: IMG_4486.jpg (285 KB, 832x809)

285 KB JPG

>>4477950
>phaseone make real professional tools
we’re being silly today

File: file.jpg (624 KB, 4080x3072)

624 KB JPG

>>4477777
Posting just for you a7c shill

40mm for street snapshits and night walks. Lots of fun. Unfortunately I purchased a zoom for portrait work but it's only got use 3 times in the last year. Also the a7c grip is awful with big lenses.

The rx100 has awful colours sooc so I shoot black and white 95% of the time, it's only useful for 200mm.

>>4477929
sauce

>>4477954
Is this the really the best poorfag cope you have got?

What camera has been price raped the hardest by jewtubers?

>>4477956
I would rather >>4477826
>smaller
>faster
>cheaper
>better colors

>>4477949
hasselblad is DJI trash you cannot be serious. you have reading comprehension issues if you think anyone is lusting for a gfx. a7r5 is the only viable option for stills and its old

>>4477964
>no shutter, worst rolling shutter since f
>no hot shoe
>worse colors
>lumix quality makes snoy plastic brick seem premium, frequent broken parts
>dogshit autofocus
lumix only sells garbage
i would rather use the first eos m6 than a fucking lumix. or a snoy for that matter.

all snoy does is the bare minimum to be a pro or prosumers camera until the next one comes out but lumix only makes garbage. they are flat out incompetent and barely compete with older shit. it is beyond fuji levels of overpriced ewaste garbage and their 1% market share is more than they deserve. i shit you not the og m6 and most dslrs have better autofocus and more reliable parts than panasonics best camera, the s1rii. and can actually shoot jpeg.

>>4477966
>snoy, fuji, panasonic
the trifecta of soulless cameras for gearfag retards that only read spec sheets

>>4477965
>muh megapixels
if you needed them you’d buy an 80mp p1 mfdb setup instead. megapixel need irl is always concurrent with needing color accuracy. always. otherwise you’re just zooming in, not working with discerning clients. for reference i have a print from a 5ds r that an a7rv wouldnt improve with its chart dr because the only people capable of noticing the SNR would also notice snoy tiny pixel ff color rendition.

>>4477956
>actually falling for the snoy meme
ohnonono

>>4477956
>making clive seethe by using one of the few worthwhile snoys
Based. Every better compact camera is more expensive and not better in any way that matters to the non-autistic.

>>4477956
I quite like the a7c, but I cannot deal with the abhorrent build quality and weather sealing, it's built no different than the a6xxx stuff and the battery compartment literally lacks a seal so you could potentially kill an a7c by spitting on the underside

If they make a more premium a7cIII I might move to Sony just for it. I like the concept of a small full-frame camera

>>4477970
Sadly the build quality only got worse with the a7cII. The a7c line only exists to milk the a7 line. Same old parts but advertised to be smaller (in reality its just the EVF bump removed and its just as bulky as an a7). Then sell for a premium. Only retarded consumers fall for it.
Still waiting for the first manufacturer to actually make a true small FF body thats actually small and without it being crippled to hell.

>>4477970
Can we see all the photos you need weather sealing for? Where a plastic bag or keeping the camera under your coat and hat wouldn’t work because of a large lens or something?

>>4477973
It’s easy to find a used one for less than a used nikon z6ii with worse autofocus and a worse selection of larger lenses except for one dogshit pancake with mo matching small body

This is literally the only excusable snoy to purchase

>>4477975
>just like, um put it in your hat

>>4477975
>It’s easy to find a used one
That's even worse

>>4477977
Beanie wearer detected

Taking photography seriously is for trucker cap people

>>4477978
Just think of all the barely used cameras idiots bought for "street" "photography" and then sold after realizing it was neither street nor photography, perfect for taking hiking/on vacation and playing with your cat like a normal person.

>just buy a camera known for its poor build quality second hand with no warranty and put it in a hat if it rains bro - /p/
lmao

>>4477975
>Honey I sneed to take the black garbage bag with me okay? I know your friends think I'm weird but trust me honey I sneed it. You don't understand, if my $4000 camera gets any rain on it Snoy won't honor the warranty

>>4477967
>for reference i have a print from a 5ds r that an a7rv wouldnt improve with its chart dr because the only people capable of noticing the SNR would also notice snoy tiny pixel ff color rendition.
So you're saying someone in the Sony eco-system of lenses would only need say a a7iii for any work at all as that is pretty much the first decent full frame from them using E mount and everything else is not needed, excluding video.

File: Screenshot 2025-10-27 113517.png (428 KB, 807x307)

428 KB PNG

Hi, I’m a complete beginner and I’d like a camera that gives better photos and videos than any smartphone. I’m choosing between:

- The Sony ZV-E10 Mk1 with the 15-60mm kit lens (this is the only local option; other lenses would require importing), or

- The Canon PowerShot V1 (point-and-shoot) with a 1.4-inch sensor.

They cost about the same where I live. I want something easy to use, portable for travel, idiotproof, not too bulky. Which would you recommend?

>>4477989
If I get a concise answer, I will share a $15 steam gift card here.

>>4477989
this is sad to say but in 2025 (almost 2026!) any midtier or high end smart phone takes better photos than these for beginners. they really have come a long way and you have to be REALLY good to create something that looks better than a phone shot on a screen. its only when printing larger sizes the phones shit the bed but almost no one does that.

>>4477989
The difference in sensor sizes here is negligible. Go for features if you're set on a compact. Canon JPEGs I think are nicer than Snoy. These are both more like vlogging cameras than true stills-focused units. But if that's what you're after then I'd still go the Canon.
If video wasn't so important I'd say go with an aps-c or full frame DSLR but that'll be bigger and heavier. For hybrid work that you can basically take with you all the time these two are probably king shit. Look at the Snoy RX100 series as well. Smaller sensor at 1" but fwiw it's smaller and lighter and still outputs decent photos and video as long as the lighting is passable. The ZV you linked will kick the shit out of it but the RX line is more PnS than the ZV.

>>4477991
>any midtier or high end smart phone takes better photos than these for beginners. they really have come a long way and you have to be REALLY good to create something that looks better than a phone shot on a screen. its only when printing larger sizes the phones shit the bed but almost no one does that.
Isn't computational photography fake and completely artificial?

>>4477950
>>4477951
This lol
>>4477965
Get real, you only considered the GFX because it's near affordable to you while the pro cameras are a pipe dream. The GFX100 is just the Hassy/P1 sensor in a cheaper body.

>>4477992
What’s universally considered the best point-and-shoot camera?

>>4477993
All digital cameras are "computational". Most phones have pro modes or apps.

>>4477994
>The GFX100 is just the Hassy/P1 sensor in a cheaper body.
lol clueless

>>4477995
If anyone tells you Ricoh GR you can safely write that person off as a moron.

>>4477997
They actually are the same shit tier A7ii sensor tech just bigger cut for 102MP. Sony really fucked them on that sensor.

>>4477995
No such thing, everything is a compromise of some sort. The best at what?

>>4477999
Pixel density is the same as a7RIV.

>>4478000
umm...at taking photos?

>>4477996
Dedicated digital cameras don't have baked in AI crap

>>4477998
I was considering the Rico GR3, but then saw its video recording performance.

>>4477989
Anything under micro four thirds = get a smartphone

You can get a Sharp Aquos R6 with a 1" sensor and Leica (designed! Not just marketing) lens for like $150 lol

No PowerShot is worth it

>>4477986
Correct. The a7R5 is the exact same old sensor from the 2019 a7R4 btw. The a7R5's improvements were in video and AF mostly. It was a big disappointment for stills shooters.

>>4477992
>>any midtier or high end smart phone takes better photos than these for beginners. they really have come a long way and you have to be REALLY good to create something that looks better than a phone shot on a screen. its only when printing larger sizes the phones shit the bed but almost no one does that.

A completely unprocessed RAW from a 2005 DSLR looks better than anything a phone could ever take in JPEG.

Be for fucking real. I am a mobile photographer and know the ins-and-outs of all the major flagships, Huawei, Vivo, Samsung, Apple, Sony, etc.

The current fucking algorithms for mobile phones are shitfaced, DJI's drone footage somehow looks sharper than anything a smartphone could do even though drones use the same sensors + worse lenses

>>4478007
Skill issue I'm afraid.

>>4477989
Go with the Canon. Snoy APS-C is garbage and the 16-50 is extra garbage.

>>4478009
>16-50 is extra garbage.
Still better than a smartphone's focal range, though, right? Again, I only need it to be better than any current top cameracentric smartphone.

>>4478010
>Still better than a smartphone's focal range, though, right?
No. Its a slow and soft 24-75mm equiv. Most phones have a fast wide along with an UWA and a tele.

>>4478011
Fuck, which phone should I buy then?

>>4478007
Hi, I'm >>4477989
You seem really knowledgeable. Could you please advise me on which camera I should choose, unless you’ve already answered? I really value your input.

>>4478013
For current phones?
Best autofocus: Sony Xperia 1 VI
Best main sensor: Huawei Pura 80 Ultra, has adjustable aperture
Best video: any iPhone, they all shoot incredible open-gate now, they've made movies with them
Best overall: Vivo X200 Ultra

These phones will give you the best RAWs when paired with an open-source photography app, I don't do JPEGs or that fancy AI shit phones do. I've shot my best work on smartphones.

Avoid Samsung like the plague, Xiaomi isn't not worth it vs. competitors

>>4478014
Is not worth it*
also if you're curious I daily run a Sony Xperia 1III for photography

>>4478014
>Vivo X200 Ultra
Sad that there is no global version. I need intune on my phone, but my company blocked all non-western roms.

>>4478014
Also, thanks for the detailed response, but I was referring to compact cameras.

>>4478014
Xiaomi Ultra wrecks all these, including the iPhone for video. It's lenses are developed by Leica as well.

>>4478021
snoy apsc sisters.. it's over

>>4478017
Get the Xiaomi. The Vivo is only better at extreme digital zoom where it's chip is using AI to draw in guessed details. Most people use the main camera and the 3X lensor, where the Xiaomi is easily better. https://adamlobo.tv/xiaomi-15-ultra-vs-vivo-x200-pro/

>>4478023
Xiaomis are lackluster on the software side and their battery life is really poor

So, a bigger sensor doesn't always mean better?

>>4478024
>he uses chinese software
Just install GAPPS tard.

TLRs=glorified Brownies with manual focus
Prove me wrong
>protip: you can't

>>4478018
oh mb
For compact cameras look at anything microfourthirds if you want it absolutely decimate a phone in every way possible
A lot of the older Lumixes are tiny as fuck


>>4478020
It's really not, the main wide sensor gets shat on by the Huawei in every metric and the colour-science and autofocus is plain inferior to Sony's

>>4477811
>mirrorless
>worse AF
cANON moment.

>>4478035
>Leica colors
>worse than snoy
>anything
>worse than snoy
buy an ad

>>4478039
Sony has Zeiss colours, what the fuck do you have to add to that?
Also Xiaomi doesn't match any Leica camera in RAW, and idc about JPEG quality

>>4477982
Sony is better made than fuji and panasonic. It definitely has better weather sealing than the x100vi or literally any lumix m43 lmao. Really shows how world ending it is.

>>4477985
You dont need the garbage bag if you’re not using a big autist incel lens. The a7c fits under a raincoat. If you’re going to use incel lenses buy the professional version or a canon, or better yet a DSLR so everyone can tell you’re a creep shotting pedo.

>>4477991
No they fucking dont

Are you the idiot who said the newesr fagphone was better than a z6 because you could pixel peep more AI squiggles?

>>4478009
>go with the worse camera because i own an xbox

>>4478021
What fake looking chinese propaganda. Reality check!

https://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/

/p/ is the ONLY place on the internet that hates sony because a terminally online forum troll named clive that hates sony got banned from everywhere else

The real world hates panasonic

>>4478035
>AF
>on a phone
lol which phone on earth has AF issues

>>4478045
cope. 80% of audiences are phone only now btw and won't tell your medium format shot on velvia from an iphone 17 pro snap

>>4477991
This. Phone cameras today have completely decimated the camera market, (despite what the boomers on /p/ think). Doesnt matter how big your sensor is when you're using shitty kit lenses on it.

>>4478053
You'd be surprised, Xiaomi & Sharp had some AF problems when the move to 1" sensors happened.

But, well, you're also partially right, very rare for phones to have AF problems.

But Sony's Xperia AF is fucking magic, its better than their APS-C cameras, you can reasonably do sport photography on an Xperia, the first 3 gens had iTOF AF and the ones after are 500+ zone CDAF+PDAF, it's unbelievable how fast it is

>>4478037
Enjoy your background focusing and focus hunting
>"sport" mirrorless scameras

Leica > Nikon > iphones > android phones > Canon > Fujifilm > Panasonic > Sony > m43 > DSLRs > Pentax

>>4477963
Epson rd-1 probably. They cost almost as much as a used m8 nowadays which is insane.

>>4478057
Sharp hardware is beautiful it just had the worse jap crap camera app every designed which ruined the point of the 1" Sony RX100 sensor. Xiaomi's version blew it away.

>>4478004
This is a photography board chud, who cares about video

>>4478062
I really like my Xiaomi 14 Ultra, it's been over a year and it's still running perfectly with no issues at all. That being said I'd like to try something from this company when the time comes to upgrade:
https://intl.nubia.com/pages/nubia-z70-ultra

Native 35mm, aperture control and the entire system looks a bit different to what other brands are putting out.

>>4478064
Nubia has a lot of weird issues and doesn't use the best sensors, Huawei has aperture control so I'd reckon that is better

I do love the 35mm lens though, that I agree with
I also like how the phone looks.

>>4478062
I absolutely agree, but they both had AF issues, I think it was the sensor specifically, that Sony 1" 47.1MP has some serious problems

>>4477989
Easily the Canon. Superior lens, ergonomics, UI and colors. No contest.

>>4478068
it's fixed lens though

>>4478054
80% of audiences are cattle. Moo. Stupid people dont notice or complain. When their car has DLC heated seats and a remote shutoff they struggle with accepting that it wasn’t always like this. You think they can notice aesthetics or care about veracity? Have you seen their society lately? Aesthetics are for the wealthy and intelligent now. Cattle are basically another species. A dumb one that could be talked into committing suicide to stay ahead of the joneses.

>>4478072
its funny that compact camera sales are only alive in asia… due to their higher IQ scores… and most photography in the west is ashkenazi… due to…

>>4478069
you’re talking to a snoygoy. all they know is brand one bad brand two good. no rational thought. just being mad at snoy.

>>4478072
I consider myself an average white person. I am not special, but I think I do alright. It fucking BAFFLES me that the reality is I'm doing better than 75%+ of people because of how fucking mindless and retarded the actual "average" person is. The average person is a fucking moron from some shithole in Bangladesh or Ghanzou that sucks up dribbled AI turds like its caviar.
It feels like the bottom 40% of the world's population has turned into this minimum-IQ, content-zombie that brings the average score down for humanity. Another probably 20-30% aren't as bad but still feed into this issue.

This entire cohort of retarded fodder doesn't shit a fuck about image or video quality. CCTV feeds running at 240i make up for a significant portion of ""content"", and even the coolest 8k120 footage with hyper quality lighting and artistic control gets little more than a "huh, that's pretty cool" before being scrolled past to the next short-fromat video.

The only way to get past this fact is to primarily shoot for yourself, or get paid for it.

Photo forums are negative about pana, fuji, sony, nikon z, canon rf. They say many of their cameras and even entire brands are ripoffs, declining in quality, and losing their purpose.

Most real life high flying pros are still using older gear in apparent agreement

Big youtubers say all of them are great and are the best cameras ever, affirming every consoomers pre-existing gear lust and brand loyalty. Why?

Here’s why
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jO2aUbOUleI

>>4477970
Rx100 feels way worse than the a7c, the buttons feel like cheap chinkshit so I can't see how people were ok buying it for 1k+ USD on release. Zero weather sealing and the lens is soft at higher focal lengths.

I did use a fuji X-5 at the store before I purchased my A7C, a customer let me play around with and it felt higher quality in comparison, very nice viewfinder and grip but... I feel it doesn't matter. A7C viewfinder is about on the line of "good enough" especially with focus peaking so a gucci EVF isnt a dealbreaker for me.

What I wanted was a ford escort of cameras, something with cheap parts (lenses) and cheap to buy second hand. I'm tempted to get a XT-5 or Nikon Zf one day for more of a "premium" feel but it would just be gearfagging at that point. (they cost like double the price of an a7c body in my cunt)

>>4478075
I am sorry but the average normie is not stupid. They are quite capable of discerning what they like or don't like. They just have no critical thinking skills and hence no media literacy. The photography medium had a tiny, short lived era where hobbyists could get noticed on social media, without the gatekeeping of the professional art world. Information overload, AI devaluing "aesthetics", over a decade of millions of really rather good photos being shared a day online, and numerous other factors have rendered the medium completely uninteresting to most people. Now only invested hobbyists and craftsmen will appreciate it. It's gone the way of poetry, fine art paintings, and numerous other mediums that were rendered obsolete by humanity. I mean, you as a gear aficionado should have realized that by now. No new technology marvels are happening, because they don't have to. It's over.

>>4478083
>obsolete
The intelligent are still buying. Just not the subhuman. And yet /p/ is antisemitic and hates some of the few english speakers who give a shit about art.

>>4478080
The x-t5 is actually worse than an a7c. Busted autofocus, silver plastic wears out fast, and the weather sealing is even worse than snoy
https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/10sefvs/failed_xt5_weather_sealing/

>>4478083
>media literacy
Congrats, I can’t take anything you say seriously after dropping this hot meme buzzphrase

>>4478088
Yea the hot meme from the 1990's, you fucking brainlet. lmao

>>4478090
Try 60s

>>4478083
Stopped reading at "over".

>stale gear thread
>ctrl f "cANON !!o"
>40 results
Checks out

>>4478083
TRVKE

>>4478094
He literally named himself after his gear... twice. I can't even imagine this mindset. It's a level of gearfaggotry not often seen.

>>4477918
quit samefagging cumnon, he got you good. either one could be a coincidence but not both of them simultaneously. how's the weather up in Denmark this time of the year? I imagine not a lot of light to go out and take some pictures?

https://petapixel.com/2025/10/27/sigma-says-full-frame-foveon-sensor-still-in-development-but-its-not-close/
Foveon is king!

After looking around for a bit for a cheap first camera, originally looking at m43s like the Olympus e-p5, I wound up buying a Canon 6D for 300 bucks with a crappy 30 year old 28-135mm lens. How badly did I fuck up?

>>4478125
Anything is better than m43 gearfag gimmick machines

Even a first gen EOS M is better
>bbbut weather seal ibis
Aka useless gimmicks real photographers dont need

>>4478124
Foveon has no use case with the number of color accurate MFDBs in circulation only going up. Just slower than other cameras.
>le bayer bad
Downsample. They are 40-80mp. FF foveon will probably be 24mp anyways and its only 1.5x sharper than bayer on average, same as true mono sensors are.

>>4478064
>>4478066
>native 35mm
You know that phone isn't even 10mm thick, right?
There is no way in hell that lens has an element 35mm from the sensor. Fuck off.

Dropped my lens. Everything works fine, except the zoom mechanism, it sticks a bit at some focal lengths. I have to apply more pressure, as if there was a notch to overcome to extend the lens more.
What do?

>>4478069
>>4478074
The Sony kit lens is literally worse than a phone camera/m43

>>4478134
It still has that unique look that modern bayer cameras don't have.

>>4478074
>Noooooo leave my favourite consoomer brand alone!!!
You are pathethic kek

>>4478124
color film > foveon > bayer > xtrannygger

>>4477505
The only other good camera besides Sony is Canon. Nikon AF is still pretty bad and their mirrorless selection isn't good.

What do you guys think about Viltrox Air lenses?
I'm thinking of grabbing a 25mm f1.7 even though I already have a ligma 30mm

>>4478151
Chinkshit

>>4478128

Real photographers don't need gimmicks like full frame, they'd rather actually shoot with their OM-1

>>4478159
Real photograhers buy second hand cameras and put it in their hat when it rains

>>4478151
I've only got the 56mm, but I'm assuming they share a lot of the internals within the line to keep the prices low.
AF is unreliable and tends to hunt a lot, especially on close subjects. Not a problem for a pocket portrait lens like the 56, but might be an issue for a wide lens like the 25.
Optics are great, not far behind their own 75mm f1.2 lens in terms of image quality.

Someone else ITT already mentioned the tariffs, made me wonder.

Do all camera makers refuse to honor your warranty if you buy the cameras elsewhere and bring it here into the US?

>>4478167
What manufacturer even has international warranty in 2025 anymore?

>>4478169
Majority of companies for everything don't anymore either, unless you pay for extra warranty.

>>4478174
What? Of course it does. Manufacturers sell different products.

>>4478167
Yes that's called grey market and you will get btfo'd for it.
If you literally go to Europe or Argentina and buy it there yourself, you could theoretically bank on the warranty of that country but you'd have to likely
1) Have evidence you bought it from a specific physical store (or e-front) yourself
2) Go through the channels that locals would for warranty, which is going to involve mailing it to that local area's service centers
Plenty of people go to :JP: JAPAN (omg) :JP: and buy cheap gear only to realise when they get home they can't just send it in for US warranty.

>>4478144
This can't be true.

>>4478237
There is a dude on reddit r/sonyalpha who routinely mogs a7r5 shooters with his a6000 and the kit lens. So it's just a skill issue.

>snoyggers are now shilling their old shitty aps-c kit lens

>>4478242
My question is, a proper apsc camera with a kit lens should definitely destroy any cellphone camera, right?

>>4477826
nigger, it's your phone that's the ultimate EDC.

>>4478245
only if you are good. that's the issue. a modern chinese flagship or iphone is going to wreck the average consumer with a apsc camera and plastic kit lens. someone good can make good shots with any and may get a marginal improvement from a apsc camera over a phone in some circumstances.

as someone who shoots primarily film for fun and work, digital for work only, and phone for leisure, a phone cannot be beat for social media. learning manual film techniques is a hobbyist pastime like building a model sail boat or playing a musical instrument. you are not going to get something amazing in current year from it. it has to be because you enjoy doing it. if you only care about best image quality to share online, get a good phone, and learn how to use it. they can do very very good work and you'll be happier with that.

>>4478245
Nope. Especially not with one of the worst kit lens of all time.

>>4478247
>Goyim believe this shit like a dog believes turds taste ok
The shittiest APS-C camera beats a phone any day but if and only if you are not a soulless animal and do more than zoom in and count leaves.

>>4478249
But my phone has better low loght performance, I can easily fit it in my pocket, and it weighs many many grams less! Faster AF as well! It is simply a better camera in every single important way.

>>4478249
I call the lenses on my phone button lenses. No pancake lens could ever compete with button lenses. Phones win again.

>>4478249
>unc hasnt used a phone in the past 10 years

>>4478253
I returned my 15 pro and got an SE because it’s smaller and the camera is shit either way.

>>4478251
Behold a soulless animal.

>>4478253
>unc
Call me that again, I dare you.

Why does Samsung supply top of line sensors to its competitors, but don't even upgrade their own phones?

>>4478255
Don’t respond to the goyim’s babble. Like barking at a dog, the animals simply get more agitated.

>>4478251
Based. My phone camera has replaced my FF mirrorless camera almost entirely (ofc not my f/1.4 lenses but I rarely take them out anyway). These boomers are just mad they wasted all their money on overpriced outdated tech.

File: Screenshot_20251028_08481(...).png (1.15 MB, 2763x1185)

1.15 MB PNG

Is this good for a beginner?

>>4478258
Goyim hahahaha

Thank god we’re going to rule over you

>>4478258
Bro you can jiat click the bokeh button on your phone's camera app! It works just as good, and you don't have to deal with shallow dof!!! Phone's definitely won!

>>4478263
Thats true. The fake AI bokeh effect is unironically getting better and will soon be indistinguishable in a few years.

>>4478264
Seems like /p/'s dream camera is just a phone with really good AI. My phone has 3 seperate lenses on it at all times and I just push a single button to switch between them. Pancakes BTFO! I can also completely submerge my phone in water and will be totally fine! Haha phonechads are just so ahead of the game.

>>4478249
t. sad poorcel coper who hasn't used a good phone or explored the limits and relationships between different mediums and tools

>>4478264
>he thinks a good photo means bokeh
I can tell you don't even have one good photo in your entire "portfolio".

File: goy.png (44 KB, 343x400)

44 KB PNG

>>4478251
>But my phone has better low loght(sic) performance
Because it brackets like 5 shots and AI upscales the mess it created by still having to shoot at 1/20th. I see it do it in realtime with my phone at night; it will tell you to hold steady (because it's trying to HDR bracket) and won't release the shutter until you do. It'll then briefly show me a smeary mess unless I've been rock steady, then magically gives me "sharp" details for the end photo. The moment you zoom to 1.2x you can see all the shit it was guessing.
>>4478258
Lmao. Forced HDR dog shit.
>>4478259
Please for the love of god don't buy a $2000 fooji just because some random youtoobr shilled it.
>>4478264
Not everyone takes photos for it to be filled with fake nonsense. Some of us actually care that we did it ourselves. Unless that is, you're simply a tiktok bot which in that case you may as well just generate an image from scratch.

>>4478267
Even with my 1:1 macro lenses on full frame, I struggled to match the quality of using my phone's macro mode. the smaller sensor and large megapixels really gives a huge depth of field for macro that is hard to match on a full frame sensor even at f32.

>>4478269
>Noooooo not the hecking 5 pic combination-a-rino stackarooni! It's le FAKE!

Hahahaha it is better than your blurred mirrorless shart lol. The final image is all that matters. Sounds like phones have won again.

>>4478267
>>he thinks a good photo means bokeh
Its funny because thats the only thing mirrorless cameras with big sensors have going for them. You just admitted bokeh is a meme and phone cameras are just as good as fool frame cameras now kek

>>4478265
The only people who care about pancakes are soulless gearfag golems.

>>4478270
That would be because as literal cattle, you lack the inherent photographic skill of your asian and ashkenazi superiors. You only know charts, pixels, and what to buy (what you were told to buy). You don’t know a thing about actual photography and are as likely to figure it out as you are to figure out quantum physics (the other field my people mog you in)

We win awards with cameras, you get confused and decide your phone is better. And then your next phone and your next while I’m still on my 5dIII!
Little do you know we already knew you would and already designed the phone to extract as much profit from you and exercise as much control over your behavior as possible. The goyim of yesterday could listen to music without paying the record label "because like, its already made man, musicians shouldnt make money forever man". Not so common anymore! Subscribe to spotify. It’s easier and not that expensive :^)

Hahahahahahaha

>>4478272
>The final image is all that matters.
Spoken like a true soi-tier giganerd.
Could it be that people do things because they find it enjoyable? Idk... maybe call it a hobby or something I reckon.

>>4478272
If you had a soul, you’d know and care that we already have AI censorship, and that entire objects in phone photos are AI generated because 3/5 exposures are a blur.

But you don’t. You are cattle. You eat grass you feel full. That’s all that matters to you. You don’t have higher thoughts. This is what the world thinks of you as yearly phone upgrades are sold to you, and camera prices go up to keep them exclusive to your superiors.

>>4478275
He means the like and retweet ratio is all that matters

Eat grass feel full
Who cares if you AI generated your wedding
Got attention
Moooo

>>4478275
Lol cope enjoy pressing buttons and turning knobs. Yeah you love turning and twisting knobs dontcha, big boy? Ill just continue taking photographs with a single button and enjoying the resulting images.

Ohhhh you didnt twist your dials and turn your knobs fast enough? Wrong AF point selected? So freaking sad! I got the shot and 6 others with my phone. Here let me send you them instantly. :)

>schizo having a melty because his $10k boomer camera that doesnt even have computational photography or AI got beat by todays basic phones
Ohnononono

>>4478278
>i need to get my grass now!
You sure do, cow. Delayed gratification? Animals don’t do it. They’d forget about the reward if they tried. They don’t hold thoughts in their head, they don’t build on them, they don’t peer into themselves. They eat and fart. Dopamine uber alles. Something as simple as a camera distorts the truth after the fact, but indirectly solidifies the soul in the moment. Or lack of the soul.

Moo moo moo, with every word you prove it’s true.
Moo moo moo, every race should be ruled by jews.

/p/ constantly and unceasingly argues about grams and millimeter differences between cameras, 1% differences between noise at 6 million iso, pixel peeping edges of test shots constantly, Af speed and accuracy, what camera has the best weather sealing.

Hey, my phone is really great at all those things and I can call your mom as well!

NOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST DO THAT. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! STOP!

>>4478279
>uh, i got my grass sooner, i farted louder, and when i zoomed in, i saw just as many whiskers on my cat.
That’s why leica-slinging jews are in galleries and you’re on food stamps. Is it nepotism? Or are they just smarter than you so they make better art… or make art, at all.

>>4478280
Camera takes pictures. My camera(phone) does it better. You're lost in the mirrorless woods broski.

>>4478283
>mooo. grass makes farts. why eat steak? calorie is calorie. moooo.
Yeah, no higher thought in you. And that’s a good thing.

I’d only laugh harder if you cited jesus - no - paul!

>>4478279
>ai
>computational photgraphy

So you like fakeness?

Face it, goyim. From photography’s inception your species has been a loud minority in the art form. The camera broke you. A simple recording device left you unable to still consider things that were not so simple, for you are simple yourselves.

The more elegant and pure the means, the greater the heights achieved by ashkenazim, and the lower sinks the goy. Only with ultimate complexity can the animal mask its simplicity and become the man behind the curtain. And behold, AI! Vast data centers, drinking nations worth of resources, simply to attempt to compensate for gentile ineptitude. And fail. They mostly used it to generate furry porn and cheat at school.

>i spent $15k on my latest mark 7 foolframe mirrorless camera with the latest mark 5 version lens!!!
>What! What do you mean you dont need to spend hundreds of hours on your desktop computer with your yearly adobe subscription to fix colors!!! Why arent you spending more time and money!!!!
>Nooooo youre the dumb cattle not me noooooooooo!!!!!

>>4478287
>the gentile defaults to being envious of the wealth of his betters, with a healthy helping of nonsensical babble as he realizes he doesnt know a thing
Always

A poor jew with a $150 DSLR or his granddads beat up leica III would make more deeply meaningful and beautifully rendered photos than all the "content" you ever produced and shared with your phone. He would also beat you at the phone game, but he would be disgusted while doing so. And then you’d zoom in and say your phone has more pixels and you can see the dirt on your floors better. I’m sure ya would. Oy.

>>4478288
>pointlessly wasting money means youre wealthly
Literal NPC thinking lol

>>4478278
>continues to assert no joy is allowed in the process of anything
This isn't the W you think it is soiboi. Your life sounds miserable.
>>4478281
>>4478287
>>4478283
>>4478279
Holy shit, the classic you aren't allowed to spend money, and the you aren't allowed to enjoy anything arguments.
I don't need a homologation Dakar rally car to go the shops but I fucking love driving it. Christ you guys sound like sad communists. You guys really should try enjoying life a little, unless that is you're poor and can't afford to spend money on hobbies?

>>4478251
>my phone has better low loght performance
It really really doesn't though, this is an area that smartphones are notoriously bad at.

You guys really upset the boomers :(

>>4478289
>do people who are more successful than me have more money to spend? no thats impossible. BOOMERS did this.
any camera is a bad purchase for someone of your skill level but rather than admit you are objectively a failure with no future in photography you project the insecurity you have regarding your purchase onto others to maintain your ego in an anonymous environment

when you log off 4chan you will still be that guy who makes people question if cameras are worth it, and yet knows they are to people who aren’t as stupid, lifeless, and uncreative as he is

now go take another picture of your dog in your backyard and never post it. again. meanwhile trevor wisecup is mogging you from the pns to the ff leica.

did you at least enjoy arguing about specs and film megapixels while camera shopping?

>>4478293
Brvtal trvke. Better photographers are succeeding right now with fucking a7iiis and /p/ burnouts go down the "maybe this will make my photos look good" path before telling themselves phones are better (in whatever way lets them avoid admitting "for a failure like me")

>>4478293
>>4478294
Meds.

Phones are the future of photography. All /p/ argues and cares about are things phones excel at. One day all you snoycattle may come to your senses. For now? Seethe and cope.

This is the disgusting and unavoidable truth about mirrorless gearfag shills that plague this shithole.

>>4478287
BASED.

>>4478290
> My hobby is being a knob twiddler.
Have all the fun you want, mr. Knob twiddler

>>4478284
Phonechad: My phone is better at all these things you guys argue about 24/7 on the photography board. Why aren't you using your phone instead of spending 15k dollars on a giant, slow, bulky camera with little to no real world benefits compared to this tiny phone? I have just as much fun taking and sharing photos with my camera!

GWAC incel: DAAA JOOOOOOOOS!!!!!

>>4478293
This is some insane level of projecting

>>4478297
>Have all the fun you want, mr. Knob twiddler
If you truly think that's all there is to the hobby, then you're already ngmi.
Otherwise mid bait.

>>4478301
Only difference between my phone's cameras and yours, really.

>>4478274
Can tell this weirdo has never taken a good photo in his life and probably uses some ancient DSLR to take noisy photos of sign posts, shot in raw of course like his YouTube vloggers told him to, and edited in LightRoom (he just clicks auto then increases contrast).

>>4478303
>>4478306
Start a phone general so we can laugh/filter your retardation out already

>>4478309
I am already laughing at (you). So why make an effort? You clearly suck dick and are just a little gear nerd who doesn't even understand what photography is, let alone able to take a decent shot. Truth hurts I guess, so you are crying like a little bitch hehe.

Is the Zve10 with its 16-50mm kits lens really that bad? I can get it for $400 right now.

>>4478310
You're trying a little too hard to get a rise, champ.

>>4478309
never seen someone so buttfucked before LMAO

>>4478311
The 16-50 is the worst lens I've ever used and I've used kit lenses from the 1990s

>>4478315
What's the best compact carry lens for travels? Is there such a thing or should I stick to smartphones?

>>4478317
Pancake lenses, the best ones ever made imho are 1. Olympus 17mm f2.8 and 2. Canon RF 28mm f2.8 in that order, they fuck very hard

>>4478317
not even the rx100 makes sense anymore with big sensor phones on the market. compact is dead.

>>4478321
Phones are moving backward. Five years ago, many flagship models came with 1-inch sensors, but now most brands are downsizing and relying heavily on artificial processing to make up for it. The only phone on the market today with a true 1-inch sensor is the Huawei Pura Ultra (yuck)

>>4478317
Sony actually doesnt have any good compact lenses. Unironically get a smartphone instead.

File: IMG_3789.jpg (3.63 MB, 5712x4284)

3.63 MB JPG

Anyone here try the new Sony 50-150? Looking to replace three lenses for it.

>>4478311
It's not that bad if you value portability and lightness, it's just around 100 grams, the weight of a pancake lens. I went abroad and left my prime lenses, decided just to use that kit lens on my A6000, shoot in f8 in daytime and had nice shots.
Keep it for that purpose so you can have a small setup, and get another prime lens of your favorite focal length. Samyang or Viltrox also have light prime lenses.

>>4478323
zeiss 35 2.8 is ok

>>4478333
>soft
>not even f/2
>$650
grim

>>4477995
Canon Sure Shot A-1

Anything else is overcomplicated cope.

>>4478340
i really wonder what is sharp to you, if u can give an example

>>4478340
Zeiss 35mm is soft? Lol

>>4478352
>he thinks it's a real Zeiss
lol

>>4478340
>lies
>brand new price for ancient lens
Anti-sony shills always lie

>>4478355
Did you know nikon has the worst color science, the most oversized sterile lenses, and the worst autofocus? Only gearfag contrarians buy nikon. Everyone in real life either shoots canon or sony. Because they work, without the bullshit. Nikon is almost as unpopular as fujifilm.

>>4478355
>he doesn't know the 35 2.8 is an original Zeiss Tesar design
lol

I haven't used my DSLR in over a decade. Been through a variety of mirrorless bodies, but due to recent talks about DSLRs I felt inspiring to give it another go.

It's a different world. Not seeing the outcome through the ovf makes it easier to focus on the composition. It even has something calming.
But I realised I need to find a decent workflow again. Anyhow it's fun. I will continue this retro journey

>>4478378
It sounds like you just have a skill issue and dont know how to turn off screen info

>>4478325
Imagine needing all that just to get a result close to a phone camera.

>>4478378
DSLRs are nice because they're comically cheap these days. Shit like "muh OVF" or "muh battery life" just feel like cope, same kind of people who buy vintage dogshit lenses for the "film feel".

>>4478378
The OVF is one of the best parts of the dslr. Mirrorless IL cameras wish they could be phones, and not simply obese e-waste, but they are still scamming people every year before they whittle their designs down to the size and extreme performance of a phone.

>>4478384
Holy shit buy an ad

>>4478386
5d mkii was still the peak digital full frame aesthetic

>>4478393
They're just coping because they spent 10s of thousands of dollars on a glorified phone camera that can't even make calls.

>>4478386
>DSLRs are nice because they're comically cheap these days
Nigga, where? All the nice ones (Nikon D600, D610, D750, D850, Canon 5D Mark I to IV, Pentax K-1, K-1 II, Sony a99) cost kidneys for what they are

>>4478390
any camera is a bad purchase for someone of your skill level but rather than admit you are objectively a failure with no future in photography you project the insecurity you have regarding your purchase onto others to maintain your ego in an anonymous environment

when you log off 4chan you will still be that guy who makes people question if cameras are worth it, and yet knows they are to people who aren’t as stupid, lifeless, and uncreative as he is

now go take another picture of your dog in your backyard and never post it. again. meanwhile trevor wisecup is mogging you from the pns to the ff leica.

did you at least enjoy arguing about specs and film megapixels while camera shopping?

>>4478397
5d mkii are like $250 are u poor? lol

Is there any reason to get into Nikon if I am already in Canon? I saw a T6i equivalent for $100 and I was tempted but I really didn't need it. Is there anything it is better at or unique? Why do people say Nikon is better for wildlife?

>>4478402
>repeats xirself to little effect

KEK.

The next listing I see for a 5D Mark II on facebook that's BROKEN I'm going to go insane.

>>4478410
get them while u can bro. these things are going to be like gold. they nailed the PERFECT aesthetic and its a joy to use with perfect ergos

>>4478397
nigga do not buy an a99, their build quality is terrible and snoy reccomends that you send it back to them to clean the mirror LMFAO