File: Sarracenia purpurea.jpg (346 KB, 1080x667)

346 KB JPG

Most people prefer sony and fuji jpeg colors to nikon and canon
https://fstoppers.com/gear/canon-fuji-nikon-and-sony-go-head-head-color-science-battle-304099
https://www.dpreview.com/videos/9193994762/blind-portrait-shootout-sony-a9-vs-canon-1dx-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d5
In fact, canon is consistently ranked dead last.

Sony and fuji are consistently rated #1 and #2.

So why do pixel peeper gearfags always say the opposite while zooming in 600% on their ISO 6400 snapshits of ugly goblinas?

Canon is easy to explain. They have contracts with the NFL, NBA, etc so normie NPCs think canon = professional and are programmed to prefer it as long as they know it's a canon. But why the sony hate? Is it just internet nerds that bought into wii/xbox/pc gayming?

Any reasons why I should NOT buy an x-pro 2 in late 2025? except its absurd price but it's ever gonna go down thanks to tiktok fuji shills (unless x-pro 4 drops)(which might be never)
>get snoy a7something
I don't want to

>>4480528
it's not* ever gonna down
I should fucking read before I post

>>4480528
If you’re posting on 4chan you are far from successful enough to spend used car money on a poorly made full frame sized crop sensor camera that shits out blurry, wormy pictures and has worse autofocus than a canon rebel t2i. Film sims dont even look like film.

If you’re not just an idiot and you can afford this, buy a real film camera. Leica m4s and minolta CLEs are not that much.

Should I buy xt3 body only (used but in good condition) ?

>>4480530
lmao what kind of a 900 dollar shitbox do you drive. yeah I'm for the most part a ngmi but it's not an expense that will dramatically affect my life, I just want to have a camera I will enjoy shooting with.
Other remarks are valid, thanks

>>4480526
>fuji #1 or #2
those ranking by blind people or niggers who love corpse skin colors?

>>4480528
it's a fuji. hat 2015 camera is technologically a 2005 camera when it comes to AF and image quality.
there's no fuji camera right now that makes sense for the price it can be had

>>4480533
$900 is xpro1 territory you mongoloid. not even that. I dont think you can get a xpro1 for $900

File: Screenshot 2025-11-04 at (...).png (3.34 MB, 1878x1506)

3.34 MB PNG

>>4480513
>2025
>not shooting leica
poorfags are pathetic

>>4480530
>fuji worms
its not 2015 bro

>>4480537
Pro 2 is like right around 1k on eBay with a TTart lens
X-pro 1 is like $500

Prices are insane, but still

>>4480526
Thank you but I don't shoot jpeg.

>>4480513
I'll enter the Nikon AF debate with my experience:
I recently got a Nikon Z6 (I), and I was surprised to find that it doesn't actually have autofocus tracking AT ALL.
Like, you literally cannot stick a tracker on a subject and make it follow that person or object.
For the most part, I can get whatever I want with AF-S, but AF-C is completely useless, since it cannot actually track across the screen plane.
Sure, there is an AI automated mode, which just follows faces or whatever, but you can't actually control it.
I thought the problem with Nikon's mirrorless AF was just that it stopped down to f5.6 and didn't have automatic eye targeting, but it also lacks a basic 3D tracker that my D800 from 2012 has.
Am I missing something here? This seems like a huge oversight.

That said, the modern ISO capabilities more than makes up for it, and the EVF is surprisingly great, so I'm still maining the Z6 over the D800 now.
Though it's also worse for street/snapshitting, since you have to "pre-fire" to get the EVF running before you can actually take a shot. You always end up losing a second and a half. The D800 is just on and ready as long as it is turned on.

File: 1760962718695929.jpg (77 KB, 777x1111)

77 KB JPG

>>4480526
>snoyboys still crying that nobody likes their favourite consoomer brand

>>4480526
>https://www.dpreview.com/videos/9193994762/blind-portrait-shootout-sony-a9-vs-canon-1dx-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d5
This is retarded. It's VERY easy to tell them from each other, because neither the exposure nor the whitebalance is the same. The D5 is particularly obvious, being much darker and more yellow.

>>4480547
>Am I missing something here?
Realistic expectations of first gen mirrorless, which is 7 years old now

File: hq720 (1).jpg (41 KB, 686x386)

41 KB JPG

What are some z-mount lenses with SOUL? Talking prime especially. I have the 40mmF2 and it's alright. I like the focal length, compact, kind of good IQ. Looking for something similar or better. Are the Voigtlander any good? Those apo lenses 35 and 50 seems pretty compact, yet metal body and aperture ring. Only manual focus which worries me the most though, especially because I like to take pics of family and my son. I didn't like the 40mm f1.2 when I tested it because how soft it was when open.

There is also that TTartisan 75mm f2 lens for just around 200€. Interesting focal length because 85mm is always a bit too narrow for me. 75mm might still be a sweet spot. But it's Chinese and the IQ may suffer from that.

Also eying the Z 50mm1.8s because cheap, very sharp, better than the 40mm. But probably not as fun. Hmm.

>>4480553
My D800, as I mentioned, is twice as old.

>>4480528
I’m in the same boat but debating between the original and xpro 2

I’d be making the switch from my 7D, I take mostly snapshits anyway and the size and bulk of the 7D + lenses definitely make me less inclined to bring it everywhere. I figure the smaller size of an Xpro will convince me to stop using my phone as much, plus an xpro with a Zeiss 32mm is way less intimidating to hand to my gf than the 7D with a 28-80mm hanging off the front

>>4480557
Alternatively did canon ever make an EF mount DSLR, or mirrorless camera with retro aesthetics and an OVF that’s also small? Anything that’s not an ergo blob

>>4480538
>Four Leicas
>Can only afford a Streamliner Gretsch and not a proper one
I'm the opposite, I have a proper Gretsch White Falcon, but the only Leica I could afford was the Fuji X100VI...

>>4480557
>Zeiss 32mm
very cool. I've been thinking about some chinkshit metal build 25mm for everyday snapshits and a kit/tamron/sigma zoom for versatility in travel and such. If I get into fuji at all that is. xt4 would probably be a more reasonable choice but only the x-pro tickles me desu

Anybody got any idea who made Raynox film era lenses? Just got a 135mm f2.8 in a lot today and can't seem to find much information about it online.
It looks like a generic lens, but it performs better.

Think I may have solved it. Looks almost identical to a Sears (Cosina).

>>4480567
The OVF is what does it for me, I’ve only ever shot DSLR’s and I haven’t found an EVF that I’ve liked the same yet

File: Gp4pISSXkAAUZHv.jpg (119 KB, 682x1023)

119 KB JPG

Got a Panagor 90mm F2.8 macro at goodwill today. Rear of the lens was so dirty two alcohol wipes looked like black powder fouling.

>>4480556
And not a 1st generation Nikon mirrorless

>>4480547
>>4480556
There is tracking function if you look it up, though don't hold out too much hope for it.
Had a Z6 and now ZF. Nikon's entrance to the mirrorless race was pretty half assed, the old processor/software just isn't up to the task of doing any decent detect or tracking and one of the main reason they fall behind in sales for long.
All the cameras with the new gen expeed 7(9/8/6III/5II/50II/f) are pretty close to competitors.(Sony is still king but doesn't make all that much difference in avg use cases) Also the stopped down to 5.6 not a thing now either.

>>4480578
It is satisfying to clean old camera equipment that has been sitting for decades.

I am angry, angry at compact camera prices
Some are quite cheap, some inferior ones triple the price, some as expensive as their newer counterparts, nothing can be put in your pants' pockets with an aperture lower than f2, zoom lens and for less than 300, regardless of sensor size.

>>4480586
Olympus XZ-1 and 2.

File: suck-it-trebek.jpg (1.54 MB, 4080x3072)

1.54 MB JPG

>>4480528
you could just get a canon and move on with you're life, completely ignoring these threads, dismissing these questions as beneath you, and instead get to taking some cool photos...

File: 1762232837741052.jpg (615 KB, 1500x1000)

615 KB JPG

>>4480513
So my 500N arrived and I've got it loaded with some Kentmere 400. I'm keen to go out and shoot but before I do, I want to make sure this isn't a dud.
The viewfinder is blurry despite my lenses being fine and the AF system working properly. Even going MF I can never quite get a sharp picture. The camera doesn't look damaged (or even used, really) so I'm guessing it's the lack of diopter?

I wear glasses and my DSLR has a built in diopter that I basically always have cranked to -1. If I set the DSLR to 0 it's blurry.
Obviously this means I just need to buy a -1 diopter attatchment right? Like, what are the odds the mirror box is out of whack or whatever?
I only ask since I used to have another EOS SLR years ago (that I never really used and sold) but it didn't have a diopter lens and no internal adjustment but was perfectly sharp to look through.

It looks like if I peer through the edge of the viewfinder instead of the center the image gets sharper.

>repost just because

>>4480586
RX100

File: IMG_8898~2.jpg (26 KB, 382x390)

26 KB JPG

>$35 to develop a single roll of 35mm bw film with scans no prints

>>4480598

That’s a rip off, but you would need to spend about 400-500 for home scanner and film developing setup so unless you shoot a decent amount of bnw they have you right where they want you and you’ll have to pay 35

>>4480598
>rodinal is literally like ten bucks a bottle that will last longer than your life
>b/w dev is literally retard proof
>too cucked to develop it yourself
you get what you deserve tbqhwy.

>>4480597
III is pretty good, f1.8 to 2.8 and a viewfinder, but costs 400 for one in working conditions. I and II are too dark after 35mm, bordering the 300 for a functioning one.
>>4480590
Have the XZ1, pretty good but the sensor lets the lens down at low-light.

>>4480605
Nah see that's the thing, I'm currently doing the math to see if I should just setup a home dev system. Initial equipment buy-in seems to be about $100-150 and I've got stuff to scan with (might need a flatbed). Just wanted to know if the shop was cost-effective for infrequent rolls.
>>4480601
>you would need to spend about 400-500 for home scanner and film developing setup
Fuckin wot. I've been combing over equipment and it's nowhere near that. Granted I have a macro lens to scan with that was $300 already.

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

944 KB JPG

>>4480526

>>4480621
>Initial equipment buy-in seems to be about $100-150
It’s a no-brainer innit?
>>4480586
>ebay
>search “digital camera”
>condition: used
>sort by lowest price + postage
please enjoy your browsing experience

>>4480650
>please enjoy your browsing experience
Thank you sir
First usable non-scam example of a RX100 mk.III: 499 dollars with a 40 dollar shipping cost
First one for a LX10: 732 dollars with a 276 dollar shipping cost
First one for a G7X mk.II: 600 dollars with a 193 dollar shipping cost
Thank you for your attention.

>>4480644
It's funny how there is only one image ever posted and no other examples, almost as if it was just one dumbass YouTube that messed it up.

Saw a vintage lens for sale from a Japanese seller on ebay yesterday. Listed as mint condition minus, it had fungus or something worse on the rear element. The Japanese being considered fair and just goes out the window when they sell lenses online. Interestingly in this part of the world I rarely encounter that bad of a condition when buying from random people who does not specialize and if something has such a flaw it is considered worthless. Excellent condition for instance is even worse with flaws on several elements with unidentified stains from I don't know what. It really is strange that they have made such a system for judging the quality of a lens.

>>4480661
>It really is strange
Mint means for them functional. -, normal, + or ++/+++ just means extra bullshit.

>>4480594
>is it blurry because it's broken or is it just my eyes
how the fuck should we know? have you, idk, tried to look through it with your glasses on? it's not physically impossible you know
conduct a 5 second IRL experiment instead of asking people on the internet first (impossible?!)

>>4480581
>There is tracking function if you look it up
No, there isn't. Even if you "look it up".
What a retarded thing to say.
The only form of tracking is the AI shit I mentioned already.

File: IMG_9609.jpg (423 KB, 1536x2048)

423 KB JPG

>>4479544
your loss

>>4480673
>>durr it can ONLY be your eyes moron.
You massive fucking retard, of course I tried that. I asked to narrow down what could be at play instead of just buying a dipoter attatchment first and hoping it was that. I've only ever used cameras with built-in diopters before, so I was wondering if something else could be at play. Nigger.

>>4480661
>TOP MINT
Great condition
>MINT
Good condition, might have a scratch on the paint or a bit of noticable dust
>NEAR MINT
>Noticable wear, probably looks like shit but works fine
>EXCELLENT
Probably fucked in way one or another, generally good to avoid. Is in fact, not excellent and is the last tier before
>PARTS ONLY
We still expect you to pay 80% of the price of a good one

It's the SSSSR tier system from gacha games. Anything below SSR is basically unusable garbage.

>>4480682
then explain to me what is the physical difference of you having a minus diopter lens in your glasses vs having it in your camera? if you tried the former and it didn't work how is installing the latter gonna help? duh something is wrong with your camera think for one second before sperging out a two hundred word essay and expecting other people to solve your problems you helpless negro

File: 1654307042019.jpg (91 KB, 488x516)

91 KB JPG

>>4480690
You isolent fuck, maybe if you read it you'd understand the predicament. It's a community site where we're all supposed to congregate and conversate.
>Oh no, someone used up a few sentences on muh bandwidth-capped 3rd world plan! I better bitch about it instead of being helpful.

>what is the physical difference of you having a minus diopter lens in your glasses vs having it in your camera
I have -4 eyes. The world looks sharp. My DSLR has a diopter of -2 to +4. The OVF does not look sharp unless it's set to -1. I have only ever used a camera with a built in diopter. Diopter attachments are like $40 here, so FUCK ME for wondering if there was something I could test or rule out by vitue of other people otb having experienced shit like this before.

What the fuck do you even do on this board, nay the fucking GEAR/SHILL thread other than ask for help and discuss gear? You're a cunt and not even a funny one.

How much did I ruin the resale value of a camera (with a touchscreen) by replacing its scratched antiglare coating with a chinese tempered glass protector that covers the same area but doesn't have a SONY logo at the bottom (there's just a black frame)?
I mean everything works fine, the screen is fine, it's just I decided to "delaminate" this fucker. It's not any less visible outside without the coating (not that the screen was really all that bright to begin with).

>>4480704
Depends on the camera. If it is one of the older mirrorless aps-c cameras then probably nothing.

File: a6500 screen protector.png (1.19 MB, 1625x995)

1.19 MB PNG

>>4480708
Yeah I don't think it will be too much of a big deal. It's just these protectors fit perfectly and the screen is just nice and clear.

What's a good cheap lighting setup for a small studio?

File: hq720 (1) (4).jpg (56 KB, 686x386)

56 KB JPG

>>4480513
Is this the future?

>>4480723
The future of soulless NPCs that produce useless "content" for maintaining other NPCs "engagement" with data brokers

More late stage capitalism garbage producing nothing of worth and doing net harm to humanity. Worry not this will all stop sooner than you think. Rare earths are finite.

Do you think I can shoot an event with an f4 24-1XX zoom? It's a corporate thing at a hotel resort, daytime, conference rooms and meeting halls, a bit of outdoors. I guess since I'm getting paid I should just eat it and rent the 2.8 lenses. I accepted a low rate because I am trying to get experience, so I'm trying to be a cheap ass.

>>4480732
you can. as long as you don't hand them dogshit massively underexposed photos of people blinking no one will care. If the event has 100 people maybe 5 will know what the apperture even is

>>4480732
Canucks have been doing this with 24-105 f4s for literal ages. Going back to film. The last wedding i went to had two photographers randomly bouncing flash. They charged $7500 and have steady work.

>>4480735
>>4480732
Imagine ruining a beautiful wedding with a disgustingly large blobmera and ar15 style lens.

>>4480736
Tell that to the two canon rp+24-105 slinging fucks who couldnt aim their flashes and still got $3500 each, and keep doing this again and again and again and have been doing this for years

Your gear perfection does not matter.

>>4480547
>Am I missing something here?
yes, you're two generations of AF behind. get an expeed 7 camera and AF is not an issue anymore.
the expeed 6 mirrorless bodies from nikons are DSLRs with an EVF when it comes to AF. you use them the same way - focus + recompose and it works. the tracking on my D780 was better than that on my Z6II

>>4480554
smear spit/vaseline on a 50 1.8s and you got your soul. nikon glass is optically superior. you have to add """soul""" in post later

>>4480677
there is tracking. go to the "All" AF area and press OK. but it's bad and pretty useless.

>>4480704
>How much did I ruin the resale value of a camera (with a touchscreen) by replacing its scratched antiglare coating with a chinese tempered glass protector that covers the same area but doesn't have a SONY logo at the bottom (there's just a black frame)?
You actually increased the value by covering up the Sony logo

>>4480732
it's soulless corpo shit. just crank up the ISO and later let AI denoise rape the images. no one will care. they will even love you because their skin will look younger/better
vapid corpo scum loves AI skin softening artifacts

>>4480749
Are you fucking retarded or what?

>>4480747
>focus + recompose and it works
Yeah, okay, but you don't have to do that on D800 (or D780 for that matter). Why are you claiming that's a DSLR thing?

File: Meet-the-EOS-R6-Mark-III-(...).jpg (650 KB, 1704x958)

650 KB JPG

>f/1.2
>actually compact
>$470
Canon won.

>>4480755
It's interesting that they went 45mm and not 55 or 50. You don't see that often.

>>4480755
TTartisan dropped a new lens?

>>4480748
Average niggor

>>4480554
Adapted F mount ones. Modern coatings have sterile color rendition and modern lenses render harsh contrast.

File: sony-fe-40mm-f2-5-g-hero-4.jpg (1.09 MB, 3566x2675)

1.09 MB JPG

>>4480755
>f/2.5
>$800
what went wrong sony bros?

Last generation of dslr lenses are hard to beat. The new lenses are shorter, and that's the major improvement. They did not make the motors faster or af better, what we got was more segmentation.
RF 50mm 1.8 has a larger sharp area than EF, so it's a little better, but RF 35mm IS is worse than the EF.

What's mostly happened is many lenses are like this
https://youtu.be/TZlIy8QZASc?t=301

>>4480766
They work faster on mirrorless though. Many of the Canon L-series lenses made from 2010-ish are still top of the line in terms of image quality. With some the only gain to be made going mirrorless is weight savings. Digital corrections doesn't matter when the end result is a better image. Compare that RF 24 1.4 with the EF 24 1.4 and you'll see just how bad the EF is. It is not without reason that it is so cheap on the used market. It is way softer wide open, flares like no other modern lens I have in my possession etc. It would be better to compare the L-series telephotos, especially the faster ones to their RF counterparts.

File: Screenshot 2025-11-05 155823.jpg (119 KB, 1049x432)

119 KB JPG

>>4480754
>but you don't have to do that on D800
I mean you do anytime you have anything outside the center of the frame lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSUF2GutUwg
d800 3d tracking looks so bad when you look at which AF points it actually choses
also, just update your Z6 firmware
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9KFtf_xHYo

>>4480656
have you considered a PowerShot G1-G6? <$150 incl. postage for an interesting and capable retro digicam

>>4480780
did you read that before you posted? its nonsene

>>4480656
I don’t know about Sony or Panasonic but for Canon’s premium compacts there isn’t any manufacturing happening right now since they shut down the factory where they made those cameras, according to what I heard on the PetaPixel podcast. The episode was from the beginning of this year. Scarcity and demand are a formidable combo.

>>4480780
no it's not

>>4480787
>nonsene

It's all fake, don't buy new shit

>>4480790
impressing comeback, you got more?

HE GAVE UP

WE WON

>>4480792
Take your own advice and read before you post.

>>4480764
>what went wrong
lens engineering incompetence

>>4480513
Recommendations for a tripod to support a 1600g DSLR setup? The lens is quite heavy and the tripod head tends to droop even when fully tight. I’m also open to hearing recommendations for a tripod mount that locates around the mounting plate on the camera for better balance, but I would not want to put undue pressure on such an important area.

>>4480795
why? you suck, you're just another a little shit I'll crush

>>4480801
The cheapest solution I can think of is a macro focusing rail which the cheap ones are basically just a long arca mount you can loosen the base clamp and move freely back and forth. They're like $15 off amazon and you could use it to position more of the weight in line with the tripod. 1600g isn't that bad, most tripods that aren't travel tripods or cheap chinkshink would be able to handle it, it's more the head that's going to struggle. One of the bigger KF concept ballheads would set you straight for like $50.

Lads, resist the GAS. Just gave into it and bought an eos 1n on eBay listed as tested and working and with video even. But suspicion #1 I should have noted was without lens. Suspicion #2 was broken English even though the listing was from Canada which has been reputable to me until now. Suspicion #3 was the store seems like a general ewaste flipper and not a camera seller or an individual. Camera arrives, turns on, even fires, but won’t focus any lenses, and trying to shoot with a lens on gives the classic intermittent bc error. But with no lens it seems like the camera is fine. My guess is the reseller just stuck batteries in and fired off a few shots and figured ok great. Now I’m getting “return it for a refund” but they won’t refund shipping, and I don’t want to nuke my eBay account reputation over this stupid thing, ugh. 30 bucks shipping I’m never getting back. Don’t do it, don’t buy that “good deal”, it’s not worth!

>>4480690
Here you go you useless nigger. Found on a two year old obscure reddit post:
>"The Rebel G is the EOS 500N[my current SLR], the Rebel G II is the EOS 3000N[same model as my first SLR] ... the G II has a -1 viewfinder diopter (the G has no diopter) [built in]."
Boy with the amount of /fgt/s otb it would be INSANE to think someone might know that, and could have quelled my fears. It's alright fren you can go back to shitposting snoy memes now.

>>4480807
Personally I've stopped buying anything from north america. Not sure what's going on over there but every time I order something the parcel tracking shows the package moving back and fourth across the country aimlessly, visiting multiple landlocked states not in any clear path. Packages take a minimum of a month to arrive from there, so unless its something very very special I will not buy from america.

>>4480786
>have you considered a PowerShot G1-G6?
Yeah, found a G3 without the battery for a bit less than 20 dollars, i've seen good sample pics from it but it's a fucking brick and the lens isn't bright enough (near constant f2.8 to f3)
Doesn't really fit my question but it is a nice camera for that price, need another battery because the one i used was a loaner.
My problem is not a good retro digicam, it's something i can fit in my pants with a lens capable enough for nighttime, surprisingly hard to find for some reason but the XZ2 anon mentioned i wasn't aware of the new sensor, still i would prefer the f1.4 of the LX line.

>>4480788
>Scarcity and demand are a formidable combo
Demand being fucking hipster faggots hyping it on Jewtube and Dick Cock, at least the intention to make people know they can make good stuff with small cameras is nice but the prices are insane, you can land a damn 1DX for less than a beat-up Lumix.

File: canon45mm.jpg (76 KB, 900x1245)

76 KB JPG

>changes the game
heh, nothing personal kiddo

Will there ever be a usable micro four thirds body?
The noise in micro four thirds images is unacceptable. All I want is full frame quality, per pixel, but at lower resolution.
Why can't we have that? Just a trimmed down section from current full frame sensor tech, even if it's 6MP. What we have now is just trash.

Smartphones with the right apps are getting good (shooting RAW with no post-processing) and I hope one day we see cameras start innovating again because if not, cameras are going to go extinct.

>>4480838
Cameras already are extinct.

>>4480837
What's the catch?

>>4480843
Not yet known. Likely:
- Strong digital corrections
- Soft as fuck corners until f/2 or f/2.8
- Slow AF (a la the 85mm f/2, too much glass for the gear-type STM)
- Strong focus breathing
- Front element focusing
Maybe not all of them but if it were the case I would not be surprised.
Still 100% going to order one.

>>4480560
>not an ergo blob
no. not really. the EOS R and RP are slightly more squared off than the rest of the lineup. There was a gunmetal-ish colored RP, and the M6 II came in a silver that looked kinda retro sorta like an old canonet. that's about the most they did.
>retro style DSLR or MILC
also no.

I'm waiting for them to bring out a retro competitor to the ZF based on the R6 III. That would be just peachy. Nothing confirmed just wishful thinking, though there has been some speculation since the 50th anniversary of the AE-1 is coming soon.

https://www.amazon.com/Canon-420-800mm-Telephoto-Backpack-Professional/dp/B0C7Y8NKV2/ref=pd_ci_mcx_mh_mcx_views_0_image?pd_rd_w=YtUUZ&content-id=amzn1.sym.679481c3-2bf4-4843-80c0-ffb319282e84%3Aamzn1.symc.c3d5766d-b606-46b8-ab07-1d9d1da0638a&pf_rd_p=679481c3-2bf4-4843-80c0-ffb319282e84&pf_rd_r=YD8CN6ZHR3JVT7F00JMR&pd_rd_wg=kA4wz&pd_rd_r=ab83d3ca-dea8-4d39-8bd0-9bb42d7790c8&pd_rd_i=B0C7Y8NKV2

do you think this is a good set for a 16 years old that wants to get the hang of photography ?

File: Canon_eos_2000D.jpg (530 KB, 2336x2056)

530 KB JPG

Hello when I decided to get into photography I bought what I heard was the cheapest DSLR on the market, the Canon eos 2000D. Bought it for 300bucks used, has a bit of dust that is easily removed in post, but I was wondering what I'm missing out on by using the cheapest gear, what's the big difference with lets say 700/1K gear ?

>>4480856
As someone who borrowed one of those, then got interested enough to buy my own camera (an a6500) mostly you're losing on things like avoiding shutter lag, better low light performance as you can increase ISO higher without it being that much of a problem, a touchscreen, an articulated screen, the EVF not needing a button to work, in body image stabilization, there's a bunch of stuff there. You can still take great pics with that one, I got more praise for my older 2000D photos than some I took on this sony.

>>4480513
Thoughts on the TTArtisan 500mm f/6.3?

>>4480855
Trim the trackers off your urls bruh. (everything after and including the first "?" in the top level of the uri)

Anyway. No. Don't buy these kits they're slapped together by chinamen and will give you lots of low quality shit that you'd wish you had a better version of. The big alarm bell here is that 420-800mm "lens" that's actually a chinesium telescope with an EF mount that goes on ebay for $80. Avoid.
Please just scrub ebay or something for used DSLRs and buy a body/lens kit combo off some boomer that used it twice, or a body then hunt for a better lens you know you'll use.
The non camera stuff like bags and tripods I suggest you do a small amount of research and find suitable components. Cheapshit filters will fuck your IQ. Cheapshit tripod and head combo will result in a light wind yeeting your camera into a rock. Cheapshit camera bags WILL infuriate you.

Theoretically the camera and 18-55mm lens combo in the image is a decent combo that could set you straight, but like I said go look on ebay and get one for $200.

>>4480856
The quad number canons lack a lot of conveinence features, have small buffers and low fps, might have outdated sensors for their time compared to three or two digit canons etc.
Single digit canons (except the 7D) are full frame and bring a wealth of improvements over crop sensors. The best value you could get today is a 5D Mark II and a 50mm STM lens. Get a zoom instead if you wish like the 24-105 f/4 and you'll never need another camera unless you're doing relatively insane shit. Or stay crop and get a 60D/70D and cheap EF-S lenses and you'll get some more modern features for about the same price.

>>4480859
>>4480857
ok that clears up some stuff, thx
last question: are tripods really useful ? i often find myself wishing to have one so i can take 1/60 pics without motionblur because of my unstable human arms

>>4480853
>a retro competitor to the ZF based on the R6 III. That would be just peachy. Nothing confirmed just wishful thinking, though there has been some speculation since the 50th anniversary of the AE-1 is coming soon.
if it's anywhere near Zf's build quality while also smaller like an actual old SLR I'm getting it in an instant. April 2026 you think?

Thoughts on Canon EOS R5?

>>4480858
>Manual focus, non-stabilised super telephoto with only a moderate max aperture
Recipe for frustration. I can't think of a subject that isn't a moving animal that you'd use that lens for, and manual focus alone is probably enough to drive you crazy for that.
I'd say get a used EF 400mm f/5.6 prime and you'll have basically the same thing except it'll have autofocus and weather sealing, but for an extra $100 you can get an EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS which also gives you a zoom range and image stab, although admittedly that lens is about $300 more than the ttfartisan.

>>4480864
>last question: are tripods really useful
Yes, but only for certain types of photography. Astro and long-exposure landscape requires one. Can be helpful for panning (or get a monopod alternatively). Can be helpful for portraits, studio work, and more. Useless for street unless you're using large format film, useless for anything where you're constantly walking around like events or musuems.
>i often find myself wishing to have one so i can take 1/60 pics without motionblur because of my unstable human arms
Buy a stabilised lens if you can afford that. Lets you handhold stuff way lower than 1/60th (depending on focal length). I regularly handhold my 24-105mm at 1/8th a second as long as I'm being careful there's no shake blur.
Otherwise get a monopod. Cheaper, lighter, less of a fuckaround. Only drawback is for the aforementioned photography types you still need a tripod as a monopod will only get you so far into long exposures, while a tripod can be used for hours or days (especially if you sandbag it).

File: xm5.jpg (47 KB, 686x386)

47 KB JPG

Find a flaw

File: Screenshot 2025-11-06 195834.png (1.41 MB, 1261x906)

1.41 MB PNG

Which photo do you prefer? Trying to find the best smartphone.

>>4480876
The fat cow in the upper right corner.
>>4480877
Phone cameras are generally indistinguishable outside of test charts as long as you're getting a sensor bigger than 1/2.5".
The samsung has less processing while the Xiaochingchongchinamanphonemi wants to apply as much digital softening and corrections to the portrait as it can manage so the bug people can look moderately attractive.
Unironically an iPhone is probably the best phone to buy for a phone camera.

Are circular polarizers (excluding cheap ones) all the same or are some brands better than others?

I'm a beginner.

I was recommended by a friend to go for the Sony ZVE10 as my starting camera because Sony has the best lens selection. Is he right?

File: common fuji failure.jpg (1.04 MB, 1000x1011)

1.04 MB JPG

>>4480876
>Almost a thousand fucking dollars for 16mp of effective resolution, dogshit autofocus and no IBIS
pathetic.
a canon EOS R50 fucking mogs this

should fuji, inc be fined for running an actual scam?
>inb4 they enabled some video codec almost no one uses

something everyone who lives on photo forums needs to remember is almost nobody buys fujifilm in real life. they are ONLY visible on the internet.

fujifilm is a lot like linux. no one can post on a tech forum without constantly hearing about linux and how good it is, you cant watch tech youtube without constantly hearing about linux... but in real life, 99% of people don't use and haven't heard about linux, because linux is not actually a good desktop operating system, and all those internet people are lying, non-stop, and ignoring glaring issues.

fujifilm doesn't make good cameras, and they aren't popular outside of their social media shill algo bubble. they have 7% market share and almost all of it is the x100 meme camera (which is, itself, definitely not a good camera, it just looks slightly better than phone photos). if om system had better marketing, hired a random youtube to put his lightroom presets on the camera, and added larpeture rings to lenses, i'm convinced fujifilm would all but go out of business because the shitty little om-5 somehow manages to have noticeably better IQ than 40mp xtrans.

>>4480882
The sony zve10 is a video camera. It's crippled for stills. Is your friend a vloggoid? Vlogs don't need more than an iphone on a selfie stick. They're unimportant content mostly "watched" by automated youtube accounts. So vlog people have dumb opinions.

Officially, canon has the best lens selection. Buy a canon RP or R8 and an RF-EF adapter. Sony's lens selection is a few overpriced, poorly built snoy lenses with bad color rendition, their overpriced GM shit that's somehow only as good as nikon's cheaper S lenses, and a bunch of terrible chink trash made by scamyang etc.
>but sony has IBIS!
and it's so bad, canon lens IS is more effective at stabilizing the image. sony's lens mount is too small for sensor stabilization. they claim 7.5 stops currently but they do so by gaming the way they test stabilization, on a table making small vibrations. sony IBIS can't compensate for larger movements.

>>4480883
I don't like Fuji either but what is this schizo shit about 16mp and noticeably better IQ out of a M43 toy camera.

>>4480866
one can only hope. it's all reddit rumors right now.

if it ends up existing as I described I would sell my R6 II for one.

>>4480884
finally some good fucking truth

everyone says sony has the most lens selection. technically true sure. but they're all chinesium dogshit or mediocre first party stuff. I still maintain during those arguments that Canon has by far the best glass out there, and people usually don't disagree. often I am just met with yeahbuts and cope.

/an/ x /p/
-cats = m43
-pitbulls = so.yny
-rockwell = frank de la jungla

>>4480884
You're not wrong about IBIS, I bought the a6500 thinking maybe IBIS was worth getting it instead of the a6400 and it might as well just not be there at all.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (97 KB, 1280x720)

97 KB JPG

>>4480898
DSLRs = huskies
>outdated and inferior
>doesn't follow directions precisely
>loud as fuck
>attention grabbing
>obnoxious fanboys insist they're the only "real" cameras
>delusions about them being somehow better than mirrorless/german shepherds
>part of hipsters identity

FF Mirrorless = german shepherds and malinois
>Used by most professionals
>Snappy obedience
>Extremely good and efficient at getting the job done
>Instill buyers remorse in people who just shouldn't own a dog/camera anyways
>Makes poorfags and huskyfags seethe - "muh EVF" "muh slope back" "the lenses are too good!" "no personality"
>Huskyfags/DSLRfags eventually get one anyways and then regret it because they can't handle a real camera/real dog

Medium format film SLRs = aquariums
>Actually better (as a hobby/passion)
>For real niggas
>Snapshitting plebs and corporate pros cant hang

4x5/8x10 = orangutans
>Based. That is all.

>>4480883
>bubble. they have 7% market share and almost all of it is the x100 meme camera
You aren’t incorrect but people here always forget that Fuji is the instax company and digital is all a fun side project for them. As long as instax keeps printing money, they’re just gonna keep doing meme cameras. I mean the whole gfx system is turbo meme and they keep pretending it’s a serious system.

File: doakes 2.jpg (62 KB, 680x680)

62 KB JPG

>>4480855
>a 16 years old

File: IMG_3053.jpg (888 KB, 3024x4032)

888 KB JPG

>>4480901
Huskies and DSLRs are both oversized too

File: 20250603_121141.jpg (1.78 MB, 2576x3220)

1.78 MB JPG

>>4480901
RETURN TO MONKE!

>>4480898
I love cats and I ended up buying sony instead of an m43
I bought a sony camera instead of the EM1 mk2 and sometimes I'm thinking about that

>>4480875
Skill issue, however I agree.
Buying what is by specs a 1970's telephoto for that much is insane when you can buy a 1970's telephoto for like $20. I make my m42 vivitar work even with an OVF, but you're not doing BIF with it. Birds floating on the water with a tripod or it's really bright out maybe you can pull off handheld. It's a good stop gap while waiting for a 400mm f5.6.
>>4480883
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux,” and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.

People who buy interchangeable lens cameras without viewfinders are psychopaths.

File: Lmao.jpg (99 KB, 736x981)

99 KB JPG

>>4480901
>>4480904
Huskoid blobbers btfo!

>>4480782
Subject tracking and 3D tracking are two completely separate functions, you fucking retard.
They serve different purposes.
And 3D tracking is objectively better for almost all kinds of photography where you aren't just jamming the camera into someone's face.

File: catmouflage.jpg (204 KB, 1080x1350)

204 KB JPG

What harddrives do u guys buy to store ur fotos and where do you keep printed fotos?fotobooks?plastic sleeves?

>>4480874
Great bang per buck if buying used at the moment. If you are mainly into photography and not video it's a no-brainer.

>>4480755
Can I now put my ef-m 32 mm to rest?

>>4480782
>>4480754
Nevermind, I saw the video and take it back.
This kind of lock-on tracking is what I've been missing. It works if you turn OFF the face detection features.
But it does add yet another delay between seeing a subject and actually taking a shot, which was already slow, thanks to the startup time of the EVF.

>>4480901
>Snappy obedience
>Extremely good and efficient at getting the job done
Objectively wrong. DSLRs are much faster. No startup time. Can be trusted to just do what it's told with no secondary opinions of its own.

>>4480925
DSLRs miss focus all the time. Maybe use a real mirrorless like a sony or a canon..

DSLR AF in anything but single point like a husky off leash is useless

>>4480925
>DSLR metering: spot (hold the leash and a bag of treats) or random results
>mirrorless: always get exactly what you expect
No DSLRs are definitely husky tier

>>4480920
2 redundant copys in portable m.2 enclosures. Thought about Nas, maybe further down the line.
Prints just stored in a box.

The RF 45 1.2 is such an interesting lens even though optically it seems to be mid. What is most interesting is how the pricing will affect the market for fast lenses moving forward and how other manufacturers will respond. If we get to the point that you can get a decent first party 50ish 1.2 from all the main manufacturers used for $300 then RIP to a large segment of the vintage, manual 50 1.2 market. The RF 45 is probably one of the most disruptive lenses ever made. Most people who purchase vintage fast glass do so because they are on a budget and the only thing available has traditionally been extremely expensive if going the modern route.

>>4480877
Xiaomi. My Xiaomi has completely replaced my mirrorless for casual shooting every since I got it.

>>4480946
Canon finally realized that the sigma art favoring reviewers never actually knew what REAL photographers wanted

A camera reviewers favorite camera always ends up being a m43 with a $1000 sterile f2.8 equiv prime because their real hobby is analyzing the price to pixel peeping ratio while shooting fences, shittyscapes and trees, and FF soulful rendering (without even pixel shift or ibis!) is bad to them.

>>4480948
maybe its not that mirrorless lacks soul, its that it doesnt allow the illusion of it so how soulless the photographer is can shine through

>>4480924
Get in the habit of half press shutter while you bring the camera up to your face, it'll cut down the delay if not eliminates it.
You can also map the tracking on/off to custom button to get to it faster.

>>4480946
This is just for the beginner low budget market
Nikon already has their 35/50 f1.4's which are much better for not much more

>>4480960
>the corners are shit at f1.2… star field test failed at every aperture under f8… mtf chart at f1.4 still looks like a roller coaster… and is that CA on the edges? how am i supposed to not shoot equivalently if i have to stop down? pfft this is just a beginner lens. save your money. nikon has better mtf charts and SNR graphs. might as well shoot m43.
gearfags actually say and believe this^ and question why photography is dying in the same breath

ai generated phone photos might be more your thing!

>>4480901
What’s the equivalent of a Yellow Lab?
>friendly
>relible
>best for most people who don’t have enthusiast priorities

Not sure what Leica would be

>>4480969
Instax/polaroid or maybe a 35mm p&s camera

>enjoy my phone camera
>/p/ autists seething
Feels good man

File: ge x5.jpg (361 KB, 1200x1418)

361 KB JPG

this might be the ugliest camera ive ever seen
for 25 bucks i kinda want it

>>4480974
Personally, I am happy you're enjoying photography. Our views may differ, but we both enjoy the same hobby.

>>4480967
Notice how I said nothing of it's optical qualities or performance, who is the gearfag again?

>>4480990
Everyone knows you meant one of two things
>pixel peeping faggot
>price snob gigafaggot
And knowing your enemy is not being your enemy. Is quoting the talmud now enough to become magically circumcised?

Sneething about "Pixel peeping" is just cope that you have a shitty low MP sensor. I have never took a picture and said to myself yeah I wish this was like 1/4 the current resolution.

>>4480995
Take your meds unc

File: 20251106-DSCF1917.jpg (1.06 MB, 3943x2017)

1.06 MB JPG

>>4481002
So, I finally bought the Hasselblad 907X / CFV 100C.

Yeah, YouTube was right. It's great. It and the Leica M11 are really all you need.

>>4481006
Now post photos so we can say you don't deserve those cameras! The crabs must COPE.

File: Hasselblad_907X.jpg (3.02 MB, 7512x4198)

3.02 MB JPG

>>4481007
Almost all of my photos are tripod stable still lifes. The Hasselblad 907X / CFV 100C is designed for that.

File: Leica_M11.jpg (2.91 MB, 7295x4043)

2.91 MB JPG

>>4481008
BUT, Leica making lenses that go as low as f/0.95 can lead to some really interesting shots, too.

>>4481008
That’s a pretty good camera
shame someone who can’t gamma correct is using it

>>4481009
>>4481008
Based. You should try to incorporate some eggs into your still lifes.

>>4480736
you have no idea. i see friends and acquaintances and coworkers posting "professional' wedding photos all the time. /rpt/ /dst/ tier garbage 90% of the time. momtographer tier. but they're out there getting paid while i sit at home giving into GAS, not taking photos, and jerking off to tranny porn, so whos actually winning?

>>4480812
joke's on me for not remembering that canada is all poos and changs now and both cultures are highly scammy.

>>4480877
the difference in your photos is basically "real scene capture but unflattering" vs "flattering but computationally falsified" essentially. not saying either is right or wrong but you gotta decide what you want more, looks good or looks accurate.

>>4480995
>Is quoting the talmud now enough to become magically circumcised?
holy turbobased

>>4481008
>that ink collection
my brother can i become your wife? no gay shit but like damn

>>4481012
them and you’re green with envy
if you’re so much better than them go photograph a wedding and get paid

File: New name 6.jpg (184 KB, 1242x1118)

184 KB JPG

>202X
>people scream cumming about a $2800 camera with like 33 megapixels
>5DS is 50mp and like $1000 for a like new one
Am I missing something?

>>4480844
>Strong digital corrections
Was pre-overcorrected EF really the height of camera glass?

>>4480877
left looks more natural, I prefer left.

>>4480883
The last couple of generations of x100 really suffered from the hype around them. What I mean by that is fuji knew these cameras were going to be big sellers before they even started working on them, so with lest risk of scepticism from the market it gave them more room perform more and more egregious cost cutting methods, such as the plastic shaft the SS dial is mounted on. Why make it better when a mediocre product will sell immensely?

Imagine a world without videotards neutering cameras with useless garbage.

>>4481028
5D mark 2 with majik lantern is as 'video ready' as any stills camera needs to be

>>4481028
Hybridization was a meme until it wasn't.
>wdym bruh you don't want 8k180fps for slow motion video? That's all the wildlife noggers care about anymore
>just pick frames from the video feed if you want a "still" duh
>yes we crippled this camera's SNR and DR to increase the readout speed by 4.3ms, how could you tell?
>NO we will will NOT release a camera that is NOT 4K ready in this day and age 2025 of our lord and snoyviour

>>4481037
What even is half of this stuff? I hear about 8k whatever how many bit. Weren't was at like 4k being the highest a while ago?

>>4481038
8k is a legit meme (for now), and 180fps is common for 6x slow motion video which IS on current cameras
frame grabbing out of video feeds is a feature on basically all cameras now
Compare R5II to R5 specs on photons to photos and you'll see the concessions they made to make it more of a video camera
Every photo camera needing 4k to sell is bad enough. I just want a camera that's a camera and not a camcorder.

>>4481042
>I just want a camera that's a camera and not a camcorder.
Then get a film camera, retard

File: lenscamera.jpg (255 KB, 1080x1142)

255 KB JPG

How bad does this look? Shopping for used canon ef 24-70 lenses on ebay and saw this, but just wanted to ask if this is worth it for around 800$?

>>4481048
Front element damage isn't that big of a deal compared to rear element damage. Crazy those are still worth 800

>>4481042
Cameras I know of with no video functions:
>Pentax K10D
>Sigma SD1 Merrill
These may not be the best cameras nor ones suitable to your needs but there may be more like them out there. To this day I would say Pentax only care about photography.

>>4481050
Managed to pick up a 24-70 F4 L for $75 with a massive scratch in the periphery on the front element. Even when stopping down to obscene levels and pointing it towards the sky I could still barely see anything coming up in the photos. One of the better purchases I've made.

>>4481052
Phase one and sinar still care, but they're not in the realm of prosumer gear that /p/ fixates on.

>>4481052
Pentax does not give a shit about fuck. They aren't dedicated to anything. They tried and failed to keep pace with the market and now re-release shit and run on minimum effort.

>>4481055
And you can't afford either because these are professional cameras that are mostly sold to forensics labs/museums/scientists/luxury brands product photographers rather than artists. Artists often find them sterile and in the "if i wanted that PITA i'd shoot film" category along with fuji GFX and digital hasselblad.

I know this might hurt you because of the /p/ brand wars, pixel peeping obsessions, "i have X and you dont, you stupid money wasting scammed cuck" specs fights, pancake lens shit aka more "i have ___ as an option and you dont cuck" consumerist slapfights, "bbbbut THE NEW PRICE AT BEST BUY" consumerist brand vs brand shitposts....
but sony, leica, and fuji are the only brands that have shown a consistent dedication to producing stills first cameras other than nikon, which did the Z7(II) which was pretty nice (no sports or video capability on that thing) but might not be followed up with anything good. Like how canon made the R5II even worse for stills. Because nikon has got on the pro work meta, and ALL actual pro work in photography that actually fucking pays is 50-90% videography even (especially) in journalism.

The fact that sonyfujileica are not technically perfect, not built like tanks, not the best value for the money, and have crappy jpeg engines in one way (color) or another (fine detail and demosaicing) should tell you something about most stills photographers.

They all shoot raw, buy used or buy rarely, and don't treat their gear like shit like a journalist would.

Oh and if sony didnt run the cinema line product stratification shit they wouldn't even have the a7r/rx1/a7c shit.

>>4481058
/p/ is not most stills photographers

/p/ is basically a car meat, i mean, meet. lots of talking about who has the most horsepower and what mods they could do if they wanted to, and how people with less are suckers unless their cars are classics and have "soul".

it is literally a car meet with cameras.

>>4481058
>took it personally
>cope essay

Lol. Cope

>>4481059
/p/ is a few people that enjoy arguing endlessly about whether toyota is better than honda, and then a handful of people that enjoy driving their car around a track and talking about the lines they took to improve their own times with other people.

File: 3427215528.jpg (658 KB, 1920x1461)

658 KB JPG

Is this really sterile looking?

File: iq3tri_002.jpg (230 KB, 675x900)

230 KB JPG

Or this?

>>4481063
>>4481062
These are sterile d850 hdr bracketing tier shit and buying a p1 trichromatic wont make your dog pictures based sorry

Putting your husky on a diet would be a better use of your time

>>4481065
Can you show me examples? I think you're coping, but I may be wrong.

>>4481065
Wait wait. Post examples of non-sterile images.

>please you must do more to alleviate my aimless status seeking GAS you… prosumer junk buyer!

Sterility - :D
Tonality - >:[

Never change /p/, except for the cancerous nophotos. That could change and be a net positive.

Phaseone = sterile
Fujifilm = tonale

>>4481058
Its true most really artsy photographers shoot sony because the technical imperfection adds a more organic and filmlike character

>>4481072
Is that what the worms are for also?

lens anon here >>4481048, I ended up buying it since it was the best deal I could find.
Planning on using this for outdoor portraits and landscapes, but does anyone know what's a good brand of fixed nd filters? It's hard to tell the difference between each one and the price varies so much, so I don't want to end up overpaying

>>4481045
I did, I'm working through a roll of HP5. But digital is far more convenient and accessible, not to mention fuck developing color at home.
>>4481052
And yet pentax practically only make APS-C. Yes yes the K1 exists and nobody bought one. Sad because I enjoy their approach to cameras but not enough to switch systems.
>>4481077
Fixed ND? Buhhhhhhh.... sheeeit. K&F X series are prolly good enough.

>>4481025
If you count it was from the same era of Nikkor F glass then maybe, yeah
But Zeiss and Voigtlander (Cosina overall) in the mid-00's also released excellent stuff.

>>4481080
>nobody bought one
Many did actually, they just don't make much portfolios with it, they use it for graphs and therapy hours.

>>4480807
>>4480812
America is getting shafted with parcels from China and dealings of thrift scalpers, which were always a thing with mexicans but indians nowadays are doing absurd amounts i have never seen, their MO being spot-on from what one of you said "just stuck batteries in and fired off a few shots".
Because you don't need to sign to make some steps work a lot of shit gets lost/stolen or never arrives in the first place, it first started a couple of years ago with all the soviet stuff like the Helios, the Jupiters and some zebra Jena lenses, because the shippings were from Ukraine/Russia. There's no honor anymore in US mail services, back then they just read your mail, nowadays they just steal it.

Guys, I just need a discrete camera to take photos of hookers in Pattaya. Please recommend me one. No smartphones nor 1inch sensor point n shoots please.

>>4481055
Scameras
>>4481080
I did a Gemini pull and you are basically limited to any DSLR pre-2009, the Leica M9 or Hasselblad for purely still photography cameras, oh and the Nikon Df.

>>4480882
I got a ZV-E10 as my starter camera for dirt cheap. Avoid the kit lens, you have a wide range of available lenses, they are good, great even. Don't listen to that snobby faggot, you won't have any problem with your stills and shouldn't worry about IBIS if you know nothing about cameras, you're not a professional, and that other faggot either. You should get another camera if you want an EVF, tho.

>>4480959
That's what I meant with "pre-firing". I basically have to constantly tap the shutter release to be ready to react to something.
I also have the tracker set to fn1, but still find it utterly insane that it has to be turned on at all. Why the fucking delay?

>>4481093
If not for the kit lens, what's the best travel friendly lens for it?

>>4481091
>shills chinese garbage

Lol

>>4481008
>>4481009
It's very rare that I enjoy looking at still lifes. Pretty nice images anon and good composition

>>4480834
Samsung EX2F is another option. A somewhat obscure compact camera that has avoided zoomer attention because it is a cellphone brand that is not apple.

File: 20251021-L1001434.jpg (3.13 MB, 8911x4319)

3.13 MB JPG

>>4481101
>>4481018
Thanks :)
It was part of a whole desk project!

(This one was taken on a Fujifilm X100F, which is TikTok's favorite camera. I think everything in the FujiFilm X-series is great. That's always my budget recommendation for still lifes.)

>>4481105
>Samsung EX2F
That's a surprisingly excellent suggestion, there's only one option on sale but i will keep my eye on it, thanks.
Had a Samsung compact once and it was good for what it was, autofocus was not very good but image quality was great despite being a superzoom.

>>4481095
I did say Nikon's mirrorless entrance is half assed.
Both issue are more or less fixed with the expeed7 processor/software. That 1 sec blackout delay from back screen to Evf is gone, even from standby. New 3d tracking actually track and focus correctly for the most part, and you can map 3d tracking+AF-On as a combo button now, or just stay on 3d tracking from the start. I find moving focus point via touchscreen screen while using evf way faster than d-pad aswell. Basicly much needed full AF system overhaul.

>>4481108
>fuji drops to xiaomi phone iq
>homosexual with satan cards still likes it
sasuga

>>4481111
Yes it actually works but it still works worse than a used a7iii/a7c off ebay despite being priced comparable to the vastly superior r6ii (which is smaller and lighter than the z6iii, the same size as the z5ii). Even the zf is wider than the r6, and has no grip which even fuji wasnt stupid enough to do on a 1.5x scale mtf transmera (modern to film)

There’s basically no reason to buy a nikon unless you’re dumb enough to buy an mtf transmera while still being smart enough to know fuji is pretty shit for the same amount of money and often more… except z mount only has 3 small lenses because of nikon’s licensing enmity with sigma and engineering incompetence, and two are 28mm ("26mm" but only at infinity focus plus missing filter threads, and actual 28mm)
Scratch that there’s just no reason to buy a nikon

The japanese sure love the brand name, as they do for olympus and americans do for fords travesties, thats it

>>4481122
> Scratch that there’s just no reason to buy a nikon
Irrationally hating sony and canon
Being colorblind enough to think greenikon has good colors
Being a boomer consoomer and only consider new prices, never used or refurb
Pixel peeping to price ratios of the super sterile, soulless, harsh S lenses

>>4481122
>>4481125
Who is the irrational one? Not a single word of Sony or Canon was said yet here you are, the same copy pasta every time Nikon is typed out.
Not everyone have the same preferences, and for the average use case, the reality is all 3 perform not that far from each other these days. Having options and competing products is a good thing.
Sure, I do think Sony have the more mature product, but at the end of the day, this is a hobby and I have more fun with Zf and a handful manual primes. I'll happily switch brand if something better came along.

>>4481122
>why no, I don't own a camera or take pictures
There's no reason for your comments either

Do I regret buying a mirrorless sony camera?

>>4481168
Its no use you cant afford a canon anyways

>>4481142
>mtf transmera
lol

Is this RF 45mm f/1.2 really that big of a deal? No IS so theoretically the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS is very close to it and dare I say better for anything holdign still right? RF lenses have crazy good IS so I imagine you could handhold the 35mm down to half a second and be fine, whereas the 45mm you'll probs only get as low as 1/50th safely. Two plus stops of IS in exchange for a stop of aperture doesn't seem that inticing considering f/1.8 is already quite bright.

Like nah really sell me on it because yay the number is bigger woopdee fuckin doo what is anyone realistically going to be shooting at f/1.2 that can't be done at f/1.8+IS
>inb4 muh low light creamy dreamy cummy bokeh portraiture
Very niche and what exactly is there to be gained over just raising the ISO another stop and also having IS to safeguard you against shake once more.

>>4481052
Fuck, I wonder if FF foveon is being delayed because they want it to be able to video. I think Sigma's crazy enough to ignore video in the year 202x but I fear they want it to be as successful as possible and thus must support video.

>>4481173
>Is this RF 45mm f/1.2 really that big of a deal?
For beginners on a budget that want to bokehmax or are simply impressed by fast aperture numbers
It's a nice new option, but not really anything new

Is there any advantage to having a DSLR that is natively compatible with film lenses opposed to just adapting them?
Film as in 1970's-80's pre autofocus, full manual Nikon F or Pentax K lenses, so no EF mount, Nikon bodies with the screwdrive or whatever for AF wouldn't matter.
Would be a bit nicer to change lenses without messing with the shitty EF-K mount and a bit of a novelty, but I can't think of any direct advantage.
Not actually buying one, but I see this $30 Pentax with a broken screen every once in a while like 2 hours a way and think about it.

>>4481187
Some lenses are too long with an adapter on a DSLR.

>>4481171
Please, do tell. Enlighten me on how to enjoy this hobby of mine? Only use manual lens on my film camera? What's the next step after acquiring a second hand Sony A7c/Canon R6? Endless shit post about Nikon's shit color/fuck huge body/soulless lenses on this Chinese basket weaving board? Or just skip the camera and go right to shit posting?

>>4481197
NTA, But I suggest you get a canon 1v and a 4x5 camera.

>>4481188
If you tried to adapt within those systems perhaps but if it's an EF body either work.

>>4481173
Yes. It has rendering and soul. Hylics literally cant comprehend it.

>>4481197
Get a husky and a hasselblad or a german shepherd and a linhof, either or

>>4481202
The dog is an essential part of the kit.

>>4481173
>>4481183
>baby mount trannies coping and seething

>>4481213
a single millimeter of mount…

Compact ff canon that isnt cucked for eshutter/video readout when?

anyone here into astrophotography? I have a Z8 and a 70-200 as my longest lens. when does a crop sensor astro cam + a scope become better than something like a Z8 with a 500 PF or the z 180-600?

>>4481233
good astro cams have cooled sensors wich i doubt the z8 has

>>4481122
>used a7iii off ebay
You are now spouting african nonsense

Is the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 worthy?

>>4481348
Yeah. Worthy of deez nutz.

File: Canon Powershot v1.png (121 KB, 1494x844)

121 KB PNG

Hello, am I making a terrible mistake? I'm a casual

>>4481360
Yes.

>>4481365
what should I get instead

>>4481360
it has an afro ._o

>>4481370
Well the body is black

i am thinking about getting a EOS 7D Mark II and using magic lantern on it. would that be good?

>>4481173
1/50th is very easy with IBIS.

>>4481360
Depends on what you want to do with the camera.

>>4481402
Sure is. Problem is only 3 canon models have it. R5 R6 R7. Otherwise go fuck yourself I guess. I guess it basically makes an 80mm f/2 for the R7 which is neat in it's own way.

I like the form factor of the Sony 16-50mm kit lense, is there something similar to that but with better sharpness? I also have the 16-55mm but I feel that it's too heavy and bulky, the picture quality is amazing though.
Is the Sigma 18-50mm the only better alternative?

It rains all the fucking time where I live. I need a camera with weather sealing.
Is an OM-5 for 650 US dollars a decent deal? What else should I be considering for weatherproof shooting?

>>4480554

maybe add f2z and pre ai k nikkor if non-ai fits f2z
forget it to aperture 5.6
long focus throw is long

>>4481403
Shoot a sextape

>>4481435
Any weather sealed camera. Weather sealed lenses will be the hardest to find, so pick your system based on the lenses you want, not the other way around or you'll be stuck.

what's the best macro lens for canon EF under 500USD? Might also be able to do Japanese buying as I'm going there soonish, so if forex holds that's up to 75000 yen. Using EOS 7D mk2.

>>4481462
forgot to mention, goal is primarily flowers/plants and insects.

>>4481463
I found a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L for $500 on ebay just now. I'm sure it's great quality. That's all you'll ever need unless you want to get into extreme macro.

>>4481435
Weather sealing has never been backed by a warranty or scientifically tested under real conditions (using controls and zoom rings)

Just throw a plastic bag over a large camera or keep a small camera strapped under your coat instead or over it and hold an umbrella when you use it.

>>4481466
Well, from what I can tell, the OM-5 has an actual IP53 rating, meaning it's been lab-tested.
https://www.iec.ch/ip-ratings
I could understand doubting IP ratings from some no-name brand, but I don't think Olympus would put IP ratings in their marketing and documentation unless they were legit.

I don't see many (if any) other camera brands on the market with IP ratings. So it looks like Olympus is the way to go.

Will we ever get a sensor as good as the X-T4's?
Less read noise than the R5, half a stop more DR than the R7
Only the A6600's sensor comes close but even then it has a third of a stop less DR.
Too bad it's ruined by being in a fuji, the poor thing got worms and myopia.

>>4481473
IP ratings are done with static equipment. They don’t press buttons during the test.

Guess what can temporarily break seals and vacuum water into the camera?

Buttons, wheels, and zooms.

The seals also have an average 5 year lifespan.

Olympus doesn’t warranty water damage for this reason.

The 18-135 is redpilled.

>>4481492
Can you show me where 1/3rd stop of dr made the difference when taking a picture?

>>4481509
Sorry I don't talk to nophotos

>>4481515
>nophoto reply

Kek

>>4481507
I sold mine

>>4481462
EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro. Or get the IS USM L version if you want IS for other types of shooting. I got the latter and it's fantastic. I got mine for $420 USD.

>>4480513
Any anons here used the Laowa 100mm f/2.8 2:1 Macro lens? I am very interested in it as a first macro lens for myself. It seems quite good for the price, being not much more expensive than Pentax’s most recent macro lens. Manual focus is no trouble. It’s macro, and I’ll be using a DSLR anyway, although I could buy one for E-mount. That is worth considering, since I’ll be able to use punch-in focus to make sure the focus is on point. Hmm… anyway, reviews on that particular lens and advice on buying the E-mount or K-mount copy? I think rationally there is a good reason to use it on E-mount, but the heart wants what the heart wants…

>>4481062
honestly looks like AI slop. now that grok imagine can make realistic video for free this kind of shit is totally pointless.

File: Voigtlander-logo.jpg (13 KB, 541x323)

13 KB JPG

How are modern voigtländer lenses? I'm thinking of either the 50mm f2 apo or the 75mm f1.5 for my Nikon zf. The apo apparently is sharper than anything Nikon even wide open. The 75mm isn't as sharp but has lots of "dreamy character". Isn't that just the translation of bad sharpness or is there more to it? I read good things about the color rendition, etc.

I don't mind manual and I love how their lenses look like. But I'm afraid that some average Chinese lens for 300€ would give me the same exact image.

>>4480838
it's called physics

a larger sensor captures more light than a smaller sensor, simple as

>>4481457
just use your phone

>>4481587
chink lenses are great for the price but not on the same level yet

File: DSCF8768.jpg (1.25 MB, 3000x2000)

1.25 MB JPG

>>4480567
if you're thinking a mf lens on xpro2, i wouldn't recommend it. the evf is very poor, compared with the x-ts and even the xpro3. mf with the ovf i found to be cumbersome. if you're drawn to the xpros for compactness, the 27mm pancake is strong choice. light lenses are best since there's almost no grip. pic related is the xf 18mm f2
>>4480528
if you have spare money, no. xpro2 is my main digital
>>4480532
it's a good all-rounder

>>4481543
Nothing wrong with it, but I use autofocus all the time with macro photography. Macro lenses are great portrait/mid length telephotos too. If you ever want to get into focus stacking, having autofocus can make it way easier as it lets you actually use your camera's focus bracketing. I'd consider the Pentax 100mm, it's a great performer and very small and light for a macro lens. I don't think they're too pricey. Idk about Sony.

>>4481568
What a powerful cope for your own inadequacy. Embrace the AI slop, become the AI slop. (You already have)

>>4481598
well that's a shame with the MF. Luckily in past few days I've suppressed the urge to get pro2, and instead plan on waiting a bit longer and buy pro3, hopefully cheaper than it is now after we get any credible rumours about 4. I like it less, especially the lcd, but like you said it is not as technologically dated as 2

>>4481543
I have the rf version for my canon, it’s perfectly fine for image quality and macro use (I use it a lot for digitizing my 35mm film), but I would prefer to have autofocus.

>>4481587
I've owned and sold both the 50 APO and 75 f1.5
The 50 just made no sense given how excellent the 1.8 S is (with AF and sealing). For voigt 50's, the 50 f1.5 II is my favorite, absolutely tiny
The 75 was good, but I just didn't end up using it enough to warrant keeping it.

>>4481492
I would 100% take the X-T5 sensor over that one

>>4481633
Fujifilm doesnt make good cameras (transmeras)

>>4481641
No brand makes good cameras
>>4481598
Pro2 is also one my my favs, had it since launch, it's seen a lot of shit

>>4480928
>DSLRs miss focus all the time
Yeah, no.

>>4480933
>random results
Just learn to operate your camera

>>4481122
Don't jump into the conversation and pretend to be me, you gigafaggot.

>>4481655
Sorry, I'm trans. Can't help it sometimes.

>>4480755
I will buy canon instead of sony for the existence of this lens alone, WHAT is the downside of this lens??

>>4481122
They hated him because he told the truth

Fuji and Nikon have NO value proposition beyond the name on the camera. A $300 canon m5 is a better camera than a $1000 xpro3.

I'm torn between Nikon 24-120 f4 and 105mm Z MC. Wish I had moneys for both

>>4481654
But DSLRs DO have worse focus inaccuracy (and its an unavoidable mechanical fact) and all automatic scene metering makes mistakes, which is why mirrorless took over. These are just facts.

The skill issue amounts to holding the leash and a bag of treats. Like a husky, a DSLR can not be trusted to do what it should without micromanagement. Like a german shepherd, an MILC can. Yes huskies live longer than german shepherds and DSLRs use less battery. But people can just get another dog, or more batteries. Or manage their screen time/dont let the dog on furniture and stairs to prolong the battery/hips and spine.

DSLR = husky
MILC = german shepherd

File: 1762725656140.jpg (2.17 MB, 3830x2155)

2.17 MB JPG

>>4480591
The correct answer. Never felt easier to just make cool photos. I am completely over the moon with this system.

I need a dirt cheap handheld camcorder (sub-$100 used) that can record loud punk music shows at night in the dark and can handle the loud audio without it being reduced to white noise. Any suggestions? I don't need something amazing.

>>4481709
Yes the gsd is the camera equivalent of the view camera. They are the OG mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

>>4481722
Yeah, buy some junk old handycam for <$30 and spend the rest on a decent microphone, you’re gonna need it
I’m not sure what style of mic will work best though
godspeed

>>4481722
>>4481744
Don't forget to buy a dead cat for the mic if any of the shows are outside.

>>4481465
thanks for suggestion

>>4481542
what's the other kind of shooting you speak of? I have a sigma 400mm for telephoto stuff but IS sounds useful for insects since they tend to flee.

>>4481760
>what's the other kind of shooting you speak of?
My 100mm IS macro is also a fantastic solo portrait and fast low-light/night prime. I can hand hold that thing down to 1/10th a second which is nuts allowing me to get good photos that are otherwise noisy as shit. The IS is not *as* important for portraits but I normally shoot them at 1/80th or 1/125th where it's still going to raise your keeper rate.
It cost an extra few hundred over the non IS version and I think it was well worth it. Putting it on my SLR is basically cheating.

Be advised that IS is borderline useless for macro approaching 1x and beyond. Effective stabilisation drops to like a stop down from four at 1:1. BUT, that is a whole stop of light in a genre that is starved for photons and every one counts.

The non IS, USM version is (iirc) the same optics (or at least practically the same for macro) so if that's all you plan on doing you can save yourself the extra money but I knew when I bought it, it was going to get a lot of use so why not put money where it's needed.

>>4481640
Why? It's worse on all aspects but resolution.

>>4481707
Samefagging is against the rules, pal

File: Exc+++++.png (2.46 MB, 1986x1662)

2.46 MB PNG

>Exc+++++

File: Screenshot 2025-11-10 163908.png (659 KB, 1295x1025)

659 KB PNG

Looking for a nice 85mm lens. Mostly video for fun and some photos too. Do you think the Viltrox 85mm F2 Evo is worth it or should I pay a bit more and just get the Nikkor 85mm 1.8? It's still double the price on the used market.

>>4481782
Having shot extensively on both sensors, much prefer the T5's
Same DR at base ISO, it's only gets worse if shooting at higher ISO's, but you also benefit from oversampling if you actual compare for a given output, leading to less apparent noise and better apparent detail
More cropping potential too

>>4481807
Bokeh can vary a lot between lenses and is totally subjective. I'd look at how the out of focus rendetion is for those and decide based off that. Also consider AF-S.

>>4481504
It's still less likely to take damage if it gets wet while shooting.
There's no good reason for other brands to not get IP ratings.

>>4481893
>There's no good reason for other brands to not get IP ratings.
No one cares about them except autists like you
For people whom it actually matters, it's not hard to know what can handle their needs in extreme environments

>>4481893
Other than their internal testing being better than IP ratings and it being a waste of money for a low volume product that was already invested excessively in.

The reason OM and leica do it is because they didnt invest in their products otherwise and its basically their penis compensator

>>4481904
>its basically their penis compensator
True, it's just useless marketing at the end of the day, which brands already do

>>4481800
small mold in lens, not affect the image

File: afs8518.png (544 KB, 700x595)

544 KB PNG

>>4481864
I own this, don't have a Z camera but I like it even better than the 1.4.

Best focal length to photograph a bbc?

>>4481941
Ask your mother.

>>4481941
Most pornographic videographers use ultra-wide distortive lenses like fisheyes to accentuate "features". If you want to go in more of an up-market editorial look like hegreart you could try a portrait lens, like a 85mm prime. It depends on what you like, personally when photographic BBC I always bring my 85mm f1.8 FE and A7r4, as I can get clean, professional looking shots, even in hotel room lighting. It also fits on my girlfriends a6400 if she wants a turn with it.

>>4481944
Sony is indeed the white's man gear

>>4481945
What? My girlfriend and I are white but I don't see how this is relevant to the question...

File: ebay-niggers.png (21 KB, 1019x296)

21 KB PNG

These fucking eBay NIGGERS I swear to god. You get a good deal and they pull NIGGER shit like this.

>>4481950
get rekt

>>4481950
What was it? I've had people do similar, just fishing for what something is worth because they are useless, but on the other hand I have also sold something that I had to cancel because it legitimately broke as I was about to ship it. A Canon Powershot S100 I believe it was.. got the infamous stuck lens error.
On the other end of the selling things cheap and canceling if it gets sold to figure out what it is worth by incrementally upping the price are the complete retards who believe they may be in possession of gold and charge $1500 for a dusty Pentax with a 50mm F1.7 and a vivitar 70-210 only for it to pollute the classifieds section for years because they are scared that they might give someone a good deal.

>>4481950
I see on the sold listings on ebay that prices for used gear in Australia and the UK often go for way, way lower than it does in the US and in the US you are also sure to never get a good deal, everyone there is out to eff each other and everything is looked over several times for any potential value before it gets listed. In other not as Jew run countries you might actually get a good deal from the original owner.

>>4481958
Aus anon here. I can tell you we have the exact opposite problem. The average IQ of an Australian is somewhere around 85 and closer 70 for boomers. They will just list random junk, as in literal garbage, bits of chairs, pieces of plastic, cardboard boxes, anything, for stupidly high prices. Since all Australians are completely dull, they will have no idea what the true value of an item is and have no way of knowing how to find out. Their solution; just list everything for obviously waaaay more than what it's worth and hope someone buys it, which since they're in Australia, it's not a given that someone wont spend $1300 on a sofa cushion. This is because these apes thing anything else is someone pulling one over on them, taking what they have, scamming them. As a result all our marketplaces like swap meets, FB marketplace, gumtree and eBay AU are completely stocked to the brim with fuckin garbage that clogs up search results. Top gear top tip; avoid.

File: snoyboy.png (365 KB, 1116x1116)

365 KB PNG

>>4481945
>Sony is indeed the white's man gear

>>4481963
You are probably right, but from my searching on completed listings on ebay I do often see things things in Australia sell for below international averages.

>>4481956
>What was it?
Canon 5D classic auction. Got it for $140 AUD when they go for about double that normally. Dumbass set the auction timeout for 3:30am local time so it was relatively easy to snipe it at the end as I'm a shift worker.
>>4481958
Negative, what >>4481963 wrote is accurate. Boomers cant fathom the idea that their 20 year old e-waste didnt appreciate in value at the same rate as their shitty fibro house in Western Sydney. There's a follow-on effect where the local shops and gen Z-tards will also list their stuff at about the same rate thinking that's still a good deal, so when you offer or expect a more reasonable amount sellers immediately assume you're trying to rip them off.

Unfortunately since they usually use it twice and shelf it they're normally the items in best condition. I legitimately could find better deals buying from the US if there wasn't $100 in shipping tacked on. My best deals are normally through charities upcycling and at least I know my money is going to a decent cause.

>>4481598
Yes! Dogs in cars. This is what I love.