Mirrorless is dead editionPrevious: >>4477478
>>4478535Is 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?
>>4478535This is a paid ad and all photos are doctored and idealized. Just my guess by the third world currency. Thirdie units means someone is lying. My sister bought the newest iphone and even when I try the photos look like absolute shit compared to a 24mp aps-c dslr. I doubt a slightly under 1" sensor actually delivers. Or maybe it does at 0.25mp 40% quality jpegs? Idk I’m not as, jewbro says, cattle so unlike raj I own a 4k screen and have enough brain cells to notice fine detail and renderingAnd maybe raj (rp means rupee? ruble of putin?) is just lying
>>4478544>Why do people say Nikon is better for wildlife?They're wrong. Canon has 1.6x crop ratio so for the same MP it has more reach. It also has better AF.But Nikon has better sensor (noise wise and color wise), better ergonomics, more intuitive design, the 1.5x crop ratio is more versatile, and is overall better thought out. Shame about the lens adaptability though. If not for the mount and ML I'd still be shooting Nikon. They truly embody the joy of reflex™.
>>4478535>a phone has better color science than sonyohnononono
>>4478552Indonesians lie more than anyone else. Their entire national identity is based on muhammad not being gay and singapore not being their military superior. I’m leaning towards purposeful fuckups and giving the phone more light than the camera.
>>4478544Not for body reasons.There's probably some Nikon lenses with special sauce that lack Canon counterparts (and vice-versa).
>>4478552>Comparing an iPhone to a Vivo unironically"Guys I shot a photo with a Canon PowerShot A460 and it looks nothing like the photos from this guy's R6 II, wtf?"
>>4478560Every time I remember SEA exists I am terrified.
>>4478535All the snoy photos are overexposed or underexposed and his wb settings are off. The "ai" autosmudge bokeh is particularly obvious on the portraits of the dude and the sky looks worse without a sky filter, no shit.I don't get it. your straight outta camton jpgs on most mirrorless will be beaten by modern smartphones with autoedits but have ever you tried taking your iphag photos into lightroom?
>>4478592AI bokeh you are kidding right?
>>4478535>new tech renders your expensive camera brick collection uselessheh nothing personal boomers
I ended up buying that viltrox lens No self control
>>4478596You telling me the smartphone with the 1.5' sand plastic lens is producing that level of background blur through optics and physical light diffraction?
>>4478535Mirrorless cameras are basically obese and worse performing phone cameras.
>>4478592>yall absolutely need to be real photographers and spend five figures on overpriced outdated camera gear with tech that peaked 6 years ago and spend hours sitting infront of a boomer pc editing every photo to fix the soft edges and colors with your yearly premium adobe Lightroom subscription because you just have to okay!!!
>>4478607You are NOT a real photographer unless you do that.
>>4478607Yeah
eventually planning on upgrading to a nikon zf (or xpro3) from a canon t2i, any lenses i should look for?
>>4478552>24mp aps-c dslrBest bang per buck camera purchase you can make right now IMO.I find models such as the D3200 rather consistently for $100 locally and for that it is rather crazy what you get for the money..
>>4478614yeah probably z-mount
>>447861426/2.8 or 40/2
>>4478554seconding, because most zooms for aps-cope are like 18-55mm or start at 18mm, nikon dx gives an extra 3º of fov at 18mm, still to match the 24mm ff equivalent fov you need 15mm for aps-canon and 16mm for 1.5x crop
>>4478535Is the Z7II a decent upgrade from the A7II? I’m not really tied into Sony, I only have one lens. Just wanna get a camera body that’s gonna be good for idk twenty years or more so I can focus on getting interesting lenses.
>>4478619It's an upgrade but make sure it handles whatever need your A7II isn't meeting now. Z-mount is technically super versatile in that it can adapt pretty much anything else but the e-mount selection is pretty huge. What interesting lenses are you thinking of?
>>4478619It will be a signficant upgrade. Better ergonomics, UI and lens selection.
>>4478554>calls himself cANON>shits on Canon all the time unless he's comparing a Canon DSLR to some mirrorless>shills Nikon and Pentax every second postWhat did he mean by this?
>>4478624lol who cares, the only good trip NatureGuy left a while ago so if you see a trip post, it's garbage
>>4478625You mean Ambush? He still posts sometimes
>>4478622I mean the only things my a7ii absolutely can’t do for me are pretty minor. I’d like a better EVF but the a7ii has one that’s good enough; it can’t see in the dark but handheld night-time shots are good enough and could only be better if I cared to carry around a tripod; I’m indifferent to more megapixels; I’m indifferent to better autofocus; I would like a bigger grip than the one on the a7ii but it’s good enough; I don’t care about video, tilty screens or what jacks and ports it has. My main desire to upgrade from the a7ii is to get a higher-resolution, faster-refreshing and brighter EVF and more capable IBIS for handheld still photography. I really like Sigma lenses so idek why I’d jump to Nikon, they haven’t allowed sigma to play on the Z-mount yet. What interesting lenses am I after? Apart from standard primes, maybe a nice macro lens? I think I meant to say “high-quality” lenses, not interesting.I’ve never adapted lenses before. Does it come with any loss in image quality or maximum aperture?I really think I’m just hyper-fixated on buying something since when I consider it rationally the a7ii is good enough for all my needs and I can simply buy a spare battery or a battery grip and a tripod. My brain just won’t stop demanding shiny new things.
>>4478544I wouldn't really mix mount systems unless you had a really good reason. If all you've got is the body and kit lens then it doesn't matter, sell the fucker and get the nikon if you want. Nikon F mount bodies have some nice colours and generally better controls and functionality than Canon EF but in return Canon is more user-friendly (imo), better AF, the lenses work better for me, and I generally just enjoy Canon more. YMMV.Canon is undoubtedly better for wildlife though just in merits of old cheap supertelephotos and fantastic AF.>>4478605I am yet to see an argument for this subject that doesn't bring up the irrelevant OVF/EVF shitflinging wars. The sensor tech is closer to DSLR sensors than phone sensors. Just because they removed the mirror box doesn't magically make it more like a phone.>>4478615If I was starting a kit out all over again, this is where I'd start. For whatever reason 1500Ds and the like (24MP APS-C) are like triple that price used.
>>4478627No I mean Natureguy who was around 10 years ago. His photos were what made me browse this board. Ambush isn't nearly as good and his post quality is poor but at least he posts photos.
>>4478602No I mean it's so absurd that bokehfags actually would do this.
>>4478628I hear ya about shiny new things. Improving quality of life with a nicer EVF and better IBIS are pretty good reasons. Sony does have those now but Nikon's offerings are really solid these days that I'm also looking into.Adapting lenses generally doesn't lose aperture or image quality if you are just using an empty tube with electrical contacts which is what adapting to Nikon Z needs. Nothing like adapting larger format lenses to smaller formats which needs speedboosters and shit. Nikon has the widest lens mount and the shortest flange distance which means it can accept pretty much any other full frame. The only things that might affect image quality are cover glass thicknesses and I don't know what Nikon's is like. For macro, Laowa has been killing it. I have the Laowa 65 in EF mount because that can be adapted to Sony or Nikon or L-mount pretty easily. For manual lenses, there's not much to think about but adapting autofocus lenses is much trickier. I know Sigma had issues with some of its earlier lenses on E-mount even though E-mount is fairly open so I'm biased toward native.
>>4478634the guy who did the shitty aluminum foil and smoke crap in aquariums?
>>4478636You aren't a real bokeh fag unless you start shooting large format film to get sub f/1 equivalent DoF.There are 8x10 lenses you can get that have equivalent DoF of f0.4.
>>4478641Yeah and he seems to have kept working on it if you check the "Artificial Landscape" section on his website reagandpufall.com. I remember his great mantis photos on /p/ but the other stuff was cool too.
>>4478641>shitty aluminum foil and smoke crap in aquariums?Was it this one?
>>4478535These videos are an IQ filter. They make a 1080p video comparing photos which take up 540x960 pixels. Yeah no shit they both look sharp. Not one of those faggots does a 100% zoom. >>4478628The Nikon camera + prime lens would set you back ~$3200.An a7 iv has better autofocus, better IBIS, same EVF resolution with 100% sensor coverage but not OLED, is lighter, has a larger grip and battery than your a7 ii, you already have a lens, the least expensive lenses and the most to choose from. All that for ~$2000 and you're already used to Sony's menus.It's a no brainer really.
>>4478607Giga trvth nvke!
>>4478648>100% sensor coverageWait, achieving full sensor coverage is still a problem with EVFs?
>>4478646>asthetically pleasing and creative photography>/p/ doesn't approveIt IS a gear board after all.>>4478653>Wait, achieving full sensor coverage is still a problem with EVFs?No. Idk what kind of retardation that anon has going for him. Unless he means viewfinder magnification but I'm honestly giving him an easy out.
I shoot jpg and no one will stop me.
>>4478662Incredibly based.
If I get a weird strobing effect under certain artificial light sources, does that mean I fucked up and I should switch back to PAL from NTSC?I thought at this point all that had to do with anything was recording framerate (50/100 vs 60/120)
>>4478709You could try taht but artificial light sources have all kinds of frequencies often not tied to mains and some cameras have settings to counter that effect. If the light is on a dimmer, try changing brightness. On my Christmas lights max fixes it.
>>4478713Yeah I ended up fucking with shutter speed to get rid of that, although I took a shot or two that looked kinda funny with that effect. If only switching between PAL/NTSC didn't throw an annoying warning about how the SD is formatted...
>>4478535Is the “film look” of real film photos due to the lack of interpolation? I guess what I want to know is how detrimental to image quality is interpolation?
