Time to upgrade EditionPrevious: >>4480513
Keep the anti-snoy /gear/ theme going anons
I want to learn to shoot film and found one of these laying around the house. Does anyone know what lenses are compatible with it? I only have an 80-200mm lens.
>>4482008fuji colors... home
>>4482008Why are all of these disingenuous shill vids made by thirdies?Why cant you find ones made by civilized people who don’t have a propensity for lying, misrepresentation, and taking bribes?
>>4482032the most remarkable thing is they look identical to the shill vids made for the a7cii and a7cr, also by thirdies from shitholes like indonesiaall of these thirdies pull random photos from the same source and just pose with a camera. its a social media engagement scam to make money and get free cameras from brands. also see: all the lying thirdie shills from norway and iceland, the economic dead zones of europe
>>4482032>Nigger can't slap on a LR preset/profile to match the colours with a better camera
DEALS ALERThttps://www.ebay.com/itm/297751640600https://www.ebay.com/itm/406273226103These are smoking hot for anyone who wants an actual good camera with character and soul instead of a repackaged snoy mirrorless or crop "medium format" that's just a slightly fatter a7rv.>>4482076That's because they're all taken on sony sensors with modern lenses. All sony sensors do the same awkward skin tones (always too-something), the same blue or yellow greens, the same yellow or green blues, the same dull yellows, the same lifeless reds. Sony sensor is sony camera. All modern lenses have the same boring neutral color rendition. Modern lens is modern camera. >UHH IS THE CFA DIFFERENT?Sony manufacturers every single sensor. The CFAs are the same to make production as cheap as possible. They aren't mailing nikon CFA-less sensors and saying "alright set your clean room up and put your own CFA on, sucker" or putting on special CFAs for the nikon look. It's the same chips.The brand names are just icc profiles and proprietary raw cooking (+hardware noise reduction and raw compression) in deep shadows to make the dxo scores different. There are youtube tutorials all over called "the secret to fixing sony colors" and it's just selecting another brands icc profile in capture one. Only videocucks get fucked out of doing this so they're forced to brandfag. 2/3 non-canon cameras have been the exact same sony since 2013. Them, and pixel peepers who zoom in on charts, stars, and +6 stop shadows looking for justifications to buy their favorite brand name.Serious photographers just don't buy a sony - any sony - unless fully realizing that it's just a generic SNOY and interchangeable with every other SNOY. Not even the ones that are pretending they aren't a sony (nikon, fujifilm, newer panasonic, newer olympus, non-foveon sigma, leica m11, chinablad fake medium format, pentax except the 645D... all are SNOY!)
>>4482097>doghair tries trolling and ends up just stating facts
>>4482013Thank you for helping fund my contest earnings anon :)
>>4482081>nigga has to manually edit every photo he takes in front of a boomer computer with a $100 adobe subscription because his camera sucks
Should I buy a Ulanzi TreeRoot tripod off the AliEx 11.11 sale?
>>4482127>you CAN NOT FUCKING HAVE NICE COLORS WITHOUT BUYING THE RIGHT BRAND YOU FUCKING CANT BOOMER WASTE OF TIME COMPOOTER HOURS REEEEEEEEE YOU HAVE TO BUY THE RIGHT BRAND CRIIIIIINGE IIIIIINCEEEEELLLL ARRGH! UNC!Ok but my pirated copy of capture one on a $250 laptop lets even the cheapest $100 DSLR do everything your $2000 fuji does. With better weather sealing, better build quality, no worms, and working autofocus. Meanwhile I own a home and you rent a one room apartment. Funny how what you can show the internet you bought isn’t worth a thing at the end of the day.
>>4482127>how dare you have things without renting the permission to have themCapture one perpetual and a sony a7iii takes the same photos as an xt5 for half as much money
Is the Canon r8 a good gear for short movies on a budget?
>>4482127based in the moment enjoyer making boomers seethe
>>4482097Dalsachads win again.
>>4482138In the moment, not a cringe boomer:ensure the camera is using the correct white balanceensure the camera is using the correct exposure settings and the photo is not to bright or too darkselect dr200, dr400, or dr800 if you cant see whats in the shadowsselect the film sim from what fuji graciously permits you to use without upgradingtake the photoplug the camera into the computer or pair it to the phonetransfer the photocringe boomer spending HOURS on a computer (zoomers are literally too stupid to use computers):raw, exposure comp -1, awb (never change these settings), take phototransfer, select preset, click two magic wand buttons and then export
Friendly reminder jpeg shooters think newer cameras take sharper pictured because manufacturers keep tweaking the on camera converter to make the pictures look sharper, so they feel compelled to buy an old camera and a new camera for each "look"fucking lol
>jpeg: judaism+pegging>raw: sex without a condom+rolling fat jointswhich way white man
>>4482127>Nigger is too much of a pussy so he writes "nigga">Nigger can't batch edit photos with a preset, literally two clicks>Nigger prefers buying an overpriced camera and using a crippled xtranny sensor to have access to 7 (SEVEN) film simulations that could be replicated for freeUnironic consoomer goycattle mindset.
>>4482134Do it with a handycam instead and keep some money in your purse for lighting, tripods, props, gas money, bribes and drugs, etc.If your project has soul the low image quality won’t be a drawback.
>>4482147You can just say fujislugs here, it’s safe
>>4482145The dicking around with the camera stuff is photography though, you’re outside, in your studio, etc The editing happens on the computer, the place where you waste your life jerking off or arguing on the internet. Computer is bad, camera is good SimpleReally, I should just suck it up and start shooting film, but color developing is such a bitch
>>4482145>In the moment chad:>adjust camera settings>take pic>done>Consumer gearcel unc:>adjust camera settings>take pic>import images into $100 yearly lightroom subscription on his boomer computer >tweak settings for hours to color each photo individually days after the original moment has long passed
>>4482165>fiddling with gameboy buttons on a tiny computer is not using a computeroh yeah cameras are well known for white balance and drwhatever settingsno they are not. cameras are known for having two dials and a button. needing more is a sign you own a computer. fuji people are idiots, and fuji makes shitty overpriced cameras for idiots. even if they were fairly priced they would get curbstomped by the cheapest aps-c canon. if you own a fujifilm you are an idiot. your iq is low. you are not worth as much as a smarter person. simple as. there, i said it. fuji is trash for trash people. every artist i respect coincidentally shoots film and doesn’t see digital as real cameras. i notice this is a persistent pattern among art photographers. its because all digital cameras are computersraw minimizes computer use because the better computer is better at making adjustments quickly or automatically. it is that simple. thats all it does. it lets you pretend you own a camera for a second by absolving you of the need to play the thing like a nintendo switch. >>4482168now this is dishonest. then again, if you’re a fuji person, you’re just not smart enough to do things well. you need to pay a corporation to let you do things their way so you can pay them again laterim sure you at least lost your virginity earlier since thats the only perk of being subhumanus actual people have to wait until 16 or 18. shit sucks. sometimes you talking animals get a W ngl.
Shooting jpeg is the doordashRaw is cookingStupid people would die without doordash and think cooking is extremely hard, time consuming, and more expensive because they are stupid and that’s what their master told them to think.
>>4482168>$100 is expensive>a real computer that lets you do what you want is "boomer" and "takes hours to use"Gayest and least white generation is also the dumbestNo wonder trump won
>>4482170>>4482171>>4482172>essay unc having a melty
>>4482173your generation will never own homes or know what its like to have guns without daily mass shootingsat least you spent $2000 on a camera to avoid pirating photoshop and clicking auto
man, some of you fags take consooooomer brand wars far too seriously on a mongolian basket weaving forum>yeah sooc jpegs are fine>you fucking piece of shit will never own anything reeeeeenigga wtf you doing with your life to get to this point?
>>4482170>every artist i respect coincidentally shoots film and doesn’t see digital as real camerasWho are some of your favorites?
Do lenses really meaningfully change the look of pictures at all?I have been buying more old manual lenses and aside from being less sharp or having shitty chromatic aeration most things look the same. I feel like it's vastly over exaggerated. I'm not a bokehfag so that probably has something to do with it too.
>>4482029? The one you have you retarded fuck. You've never shot it and already feel the need to gearfag
>>4482188Nope, the color science of the sensor in the body does that.
>>4482188Bokeh can be quite different, look at the logs in the top right of picrel. The top lens is actually pretty well regarded, but has awful bokeh wide open, and is very contrasty, I ended up selling mine because of that.If you pixel peep for sharpness, there can be a huge difference. Other stuff like coma, optical vignetting, etc are worth considering too. Some of my lenses can get me sunstars at f2, where others need to stop down much more.Most lenses look close enough once stopped down a bit.
>>4482191Lenses also affect color (and contrast)Picrel is same camera, settings and lighting, just a variety of lenses
I recently bought a Olympus OM-2n and a 50mm 3.5 Macro lens. After realizing the aperture limitations for lower light shooting I also bought a 50mm 1.8. One of the guys at the camera shop said he has a few lenses he may end up selling. The ones I'm most interested in are the 28mm and 24mm wide angles. Would one of these be particularly better than the other? From what I've seen (and what the guy told me) the 28 seems like a normal wide, but the 24 is almost like a fisheye and kinda bends the corners a bit. I am trying not to become a gear queer, I only started shooting film this year. But all the lenses are like $50ish so picking them up when they're available is tempting.
>>4482189>baby's first lens should be a retro telephotoAre you okay anon. Read the post he doesn't have the 50mm pictured. I wouldn't recommend anyone's first lens/body be a telephoto especially not some smushy smeary turdy 50 year old 80-200 design
Should i get the Viltrox 85/2 evo for $150 new on sale? I dont really take many portraits though.
>>4481903>>4481904>>4481910Alright then. Sounds like the OM-5 is a bad idea after all.What other brands can offer a weather-sealed camera + weather-sealed lens combo at a price comparable to an OM-5 kit? I did say I was looking for something relatively cheap, after all.You guys seem to be experts when it comes to this sort of thing, so I'm eager to hear your recommendations. Thank you in advance for your responses!
>>4482195I understood the post you mongoloid, just go shoot your kit lens, if the subject is too big do a step back until it's not.
I should just get a Canon R6 Mark III and call it a day, shouldn’t I.
Ah yes, posting bait OPs has surely increased the board quality overall... take that snoycels
>pentax should have recalled a run of lenses with AF motors that jammed>pentax should have recalled literally every k50/k70 for failing aperture actuators>pentax should have recalled k1s with mode dials that fell apart>canon should have recalled a bad batch of 5divs with miscalibrated sensors that put big green lines through night shots>canon should have recalled EOS R and EOS R6 bodies with defective motherboards>canon should have recalled the EOS R5s with unusually poor build quality, often described as "falling apart", they had to have used shitty plastic for a batch or something>olympus should have recalled em1s and em5iis with defective power switches>olympus should have fixed the weak plastic tripod socket of the em5iii on the om5 but didn't>nikon fucked the z8 and z9 so hard prospective used/NOS buyers have to run the serials with nikon before ordering otherwise attaching a lens or strap may destroy the camera>sony didn't recall a7s and a7rs with LIGHT LEAKS>sony should have recalled the early a7iiis for failing shutters>sony should have recalled the first batch of a7crs for crumbling SD slot seals>panasonic should have recalled literally every camera they sold as having functional autofocus or reliable build quality because no panasonic ever made has delivered either of those (the $3000 S1RII has a 75% miss rate in AF-C). enumerating every camera's issues would take an entire post.>fuji should have revised their "weather resistant" marketing to note it does not actually protect the camera from rain and pulled the non-functional x100 series seal kit from the market because the rest of the camera is NOT sealed>sony should have done the same until the a7iv came out (first weather sealed snoy) - -c models still not sealed btw>get started on leica? fucking please it would take 3 more posts>scores of hasselblad 907x bodies rapidly develop connection issues if carried on a strap and become impossible to shoot withWHAT IS QUALITY CONTROL DOING?
>>4482211Just be normal. buy an a7c and a 35mm f2.8 and don’t get it wetCameras didnt need weather sealing for over 100 years. Just put your coat on other the camera and hold your hand over it when shooting lol. (The weather sealing is fine even if its not allowed to say so on /p/ btw)
>>4482188Lenses can change the look, but whether it’s meaningful is a subtle aesthetic preference, I fine. Things like more flare, more aberrations, differences in the out of focus areas, things like that. Don’t listen to the schizos who talk about micro contrast and 3d pop and all that nonsense though, that’s just basically physical equivalent of pixel peeping that doesn’t actually matter for anything.
>>4482206If you’re just doing photography, 15 years ago, it was solved. Get whatever.
>>4482223actually cameras got worsea lot have good spec sheets for subjext tracking and video but are less reliable and effective than DSLRs at things like actually getting the photo in focus, not running out of battery in 2 hours, not somehow having worse image quality than a dslr, worse color rendition without manual/professional profiling than a dslr, there have been way more "bad" cameras made in full frame today than there ever were with DSLRs. mirrorless came along with the entire industry giving up on quality and making zero effort to maintain their prior standard (make mew battery packs for our cameras that are four times less power efficient? nah use the old ones meant for less retarded cameras)
>>4482216
>>4482225sorry for the typis i was at a friends, lost at street fighter and had to eat a giant weeed cookiefucking huuugenweee
>>4482226>get an a7c>posts a7crRajesh…. Dude…..
>>4482226Exactly! Notice how you can only post about a gasket, instead of posting about actual a7CR's that ripped from the weather as a resultSony must be extra good if their cameras still work despite that seal failing, good point!
>>4482232The door without the gasket is as sealed as anything on a fuji. (non weather sealed fujis have a better track record in rain than sealed ones lol)Its actually hard to kill a camera without going out of your way to be stupid and pose as le miserable outdoorsy military man who treats his stuff like shit for likes. Weather sealing was never thought necessary for a century and people still took photos in bad weather. Afaik the first camera with sealing was intended for use in space because on earth, a functioning brain and a plastic bag go a long way.
>>4482008I'd get a Fuji if the build quality wasn't so horrendous. Excellent color but I hear terrible things about the X100 and X-T30.>>4482097>it's real and Sony does make just about every camera sensor, including FujiWhat the fuck?
>>4482168the editing process of digital photos is like the darkroom step in analogue photography, it is a crucial step in the creative process of making a photograph.you're ignoring it because you are lazy and just want to snapshit with your chique camera, don't delude yourself
>>4482168Doing it all "in camera" is (i.e using the preset looks that come with it) is the same as using a phone with an instagram filter.
>>4482097yup. This is why I've been only shooting Canon since the 5Dmkii. Their in house made sensors are the best in the world, easily.
>>4482245>the editing process of digital photos is like the darkroom step in analogue photography, it is a crucial step in the creative process of making a photograph.
>>4482248Canon are a good workhorse camera but are pretty boring in their colors. I use a few Canons that were provided by my workplace and they feel pretty bland, and always require additional editing to bring some life into the photos.We're also too busy to do the editing ourselves and have an entire time that we outsource editing to. Doing photography for a living kinda ruins the fun of photography as it turns out.
>>4482197I've ordered it because of how tiny it is compared to other 85mm lens. Also small filter thread so I can throw on my nd filter without buying new one. From the few reviews I found it is sharp enough and bokeh still kinda pleasing. I mean what can go wrong at 150 dollarinos.. I payed 230€ unfortunately
>>4482259if you disagree then sorry you don't know anything about photography, it's more than pressing a button. You are a GWAC as that trip schizo used to say.the call RAW files digital negatives for a reason
>>4482170Put your fucking trip back on, cANON. You may drop the trip but the insufferability stays.
>>4482168"In the moment chad" uses his iphone and posts on instagram seconds later, instead of buying a handful of $1500 fujiworms "film presets", that he then has to transfer on his laptop or his iphone to finally upload on instagram.>Consumer gearcel uncWhat are you doing here exactly then? RAW files give you unlimited creativity. You can generate as many variations of your picture as you want. Whereas with jpegs, you're stuck with whatever final result the camera gives you with the presets it comes with.So instead of using a processing software (not all come with a subscription), you're paying $1500 for seven locked presets. How is that not "consumer gearcel"?Fuji caters to posers who lack creativity to take interesting pictures. Instead they provide you with VINTAGE-style cameras and VINTAGE-style presets so you can impress gullible retards in the street. Fuji APS-C cameras are fashion items, not photography cameras. They're designed that way and advertised as such.
>>4482181>at least you spent $2000 on a camera to avoid pirating photoshop and clicking auto
I look for my camera model everywhere in social media and all I see is pajeets I can see now why people here hate this brand
>>4482241>as sealed as anything on a fujiWhich is good enough for rain like this
>>4482189>>4482204>noooooo don't ask about gear in the gear thread!The lens doesn't have a cover so it's pretty scratched up. I mainly just want to get a 50mm for it.
>>4482326Ignore those fucking nerds. They're just communist retards who don't understand how much of a meme zooming with your feet is.Can't go wrong with the nifty fifty (until you do) but I personally think something wider like a 28mm or 80mm is more interesting choice.Sorry. I don't know Minolta cameras that well but all film cameras are basically the same outside of lens selection and body features.
>>4482317x-pro 4 when
>>4482170Severely based.
>>4481108>"pls no bully"-chan is posting on /p/you're really everywhere
Can someone explain to me why tripods don't have measurement symbols on them to make sure the legs are relatively even?
>>4482173>essay>it's two linesYour attention span is beyond cooked if that's a lot to you kek.
>>4482413More expensive ones have spirit levels and bubble levels if that’s what you mean by “even”. Why that’s some kind of upsell feature is anyone’s guess, for such a cheap simple addition
>>4482241>Weather sealing was never thought necessary for a century and people still took photos in bad weatherBecause they were film cameras with one moving part, not a box full of sensitive electronic components.
>>4482226wtf is this real?
>>4482226>happens to be where your thumbnail would scrape to get the card outMost likely this tard just jammed his nail into the gasket constantly when removing the card.
>>4482423Most have little bubble levels on them nowadays, I mean like etched measurements or something on the legs so you can pull them all put at the exact same length and then go from there.
>>4482413>>4482434There's not really any need to. Usually you extend a leg section all the way (so if you have two section legs you have three different heights, including the legs completely collapsed) and then do the fine adjustment by raising the centre column. If your tripod doesn't have a centre column then you just eyeball the leg extension and that's typically good enough, if you're panning then you use a levelling base. Even if the legs had markings or you extend them all the way you'll need a levelling base in a lot of scenarios if you want the head to be perfectly level because a lot of surfaces aren't perfect.
Just want to say the little Godox IT30 Pro flash is fucking great. I bought a Fuji x100vi and bunch of accessories two weeks ago, and the IT30 flash is basically my favourite bit of kit from all that stuff.I want to get another one so I have two so I have one I can use off camera in my left hand. I don't need anything bigger for what I shoot.What a great little flash. Highly highly recommend it.
>buy Minolta XD5>shows up fucked up>send back>decide i'm going to pay up and get something from a local shop>sling one last lowball on a XD5>go to local shop the next day to get a OM2N>buy camera>seller accepts lowballWelp I guess I have two of these now. I think I'm gonna send the Minolta back. It was cheaper than the Olympus but the Olympus feels so much better.
>>4482454Are Minoltas pretty good? I've got an old one my parents used to use.
>>4482456compared to the Olympus it feels cheaper but it is so that tracks. You can find the lenses online pretty easily. If I didn't already have the OM2N I would definitely be keeping it.
>>4482372>>4481108Imagine being rich as fuck and still spending every day on 4chingchong like a basementdweller.The human condition right there.Existence sure is bleak.
>>4482441I get all this. But I feel an added ruler or sorts would really help. Don't you agree? I use a tripod quite often for wildlife, and find myself fiddling with adjusting the legs, I had this thought that if there was a measuring system in place it would make it quicker.
>>4482372>>4482467>he said while projecting and being schizophrenic on 4chan
>>4482134Sure you don't want to get the r6mk2 now that the 3 is out and people are unloading them on the cheap?
>>4482469Not really no. Unless you're quite close to your subject the exact height of the camera isn't that important, except for comfort so you're not having to bend down. However it's going to be easier to just raise the centre column instead of having to extend all three legs to an exact amount that you'll have to memorise, and will vary depending on what angle you have the legs at, and only works if all three feet are on a flat surface. The solution already exists, and adjustable centre column. But if you really feel like your idea is perfect for you then simply find out what amount of extension you want and then mark a line on the legs.
>>4482454>>shows up fucked upCapacitor issue?
Sorry guys, I had no idea Sony was evil empire back then.
>The internal optics have a small amount of moisture, but this doesn't affect functionality.What does MPB mean by this and should I pay a extra $35 more for the excellent condition one
>>4482497>This thing will be full of fungus at some point but we still want 80% of its full value because it still works at the momentLike selling you an IED with a randomised timer.
>>4482500how do they even tell it has moisture inside? the pics look fine.why cant the lens just dry out on its own
>>4482476genuinely curious where you're seeing people offload r6mk2s at any appreciable discount. I've seen maybe 2 on ebay for less than $1900 after the mk3 dropped
Are we making fun of the RF 45/1.2 yet?
I got sold a shitty manual lens for market value and I had to spend too much time unfucking it.That in of itself, not too notable, but it does have me second guessing devil may care purchasing habits. On consumer stuff that's workable without taking too much of a haircut, but on old pro stuff is a whole can of worms. Not only due to the expense, but it seeming everything is beat to shit (mostly from me seeing like every single 5D/5DII in local listings mentioning shutter issues)I want a 400mm f5.6, but it's a proper film era lens, with the earliest ones being over 30 years old. I used to laugh about people talking about servicing think they were fags but they cheapest they go for is like $600, and don't have manufacturer support anymore so I'm feeling uneasy, not that I am currently going to buy one this moment. Not that even if you could get it serviced they'd probably rape you on the price. Should I look for a newer design (like 150-600mm), stick a 1.4x on my 70-200 F4 while seething and coping about not having the extra focal length or are the 400mm's a solid enough design that it doesn't really matter?
>>4482501Maybe these online places are "honest" since I can never say I dealt with them. But a good rule with sales, if they mention it as an issue, it's so bad that they can't pretend it's not one.
>>4482501Typically they'll do an inspection upon receipt to make sure it matches the seller's description and test its functionality. It could be that image compression is making it hard to see the issue, or that the photos on the site don't capture it but someone noticed it in testing. They've also been known to make mistakes in their appraisals from time to time, but either way, for 35$ you're better off not gambling on a lens that was most likely stored or used improperly. Even if it dries out, which could take a while, there's still the chance of fungus.
>>4482511Personally, I wouldn’t touch any used lenses. These are precision instruments, despite how common-place these highly-engineered sets of glass seem to us. Thirty years through multiple sets of hands leaves a high chance, perhaps even a certainty, that you will be buying equipment that’s been dropped, bumped or exposed to moisture, dust, microscopic organic matter and heat. Beware. There’s so much risk involved here. Also, like you mention, there is no manufacturer support for this stuff anymore. If it hasn’t been looked after it will be a problem you solve at your own expense. My advice? Buy something new from a manufacturer or an authorised reseller and, despite your heart’s longing and yearning, stay wise to the fact that the heart of man is endlessly fickle. Perhaps you want that 400mm f/5.6 only because you don’t have it…
>>4482507>Are we making fun of the RF 45/1.2 yet?Why? Its better than anything from the competition.
anyone have a clue how to get EOS shutter counts on windows? all the "free" suggestions I've seen so far have been trojans.
>>4482543It's still shithttps://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1751&Camera=1697&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
Hiya! I’m looking to move beyond my phone camera not necessarily upgrade, but get a dedicated camera for capturing important moments in my life. I don’t want to rely on a tiny phone sensor anymore. Which of these options would you recommend for a beginner? Ideally, the camera and lens should be compact enough to fit into a small sling or banana bag (so I can bring to concerts). Also, I don't to spend as little as possible but don't want to buy used, because the used market in my country is filled to the brim with bad faith actors.a) Fuji XM-5b) Fuji XT-30 IIIC) Canon R50VD) Sony Zve10AFAIK, these are the only "small" modern mirrorless cameras on the market.Your advice would be appreciated.
>>4482560What the fuck. The center sharpness is about as expected (or a bit worse actually). Yet the mid-frame is razor clean @ f/2 while the center is still catching up? Que? The corners are also... literally dog turd smear until f/4 and not exactly good until f/8. Methinks the testing is flawed (since it's happened before) but also what the fuck you're literally better off buying the RF 50mm or 28mm unless you ABSOLUTELY SNEED the extra stop of light / DoF f/1.2 gives you.
>>4482563I'm not really in touch with modern cameras but the Sony's get pretty big with a lens on, consider a Fujifilm or a Ricoh GR of you just want a compact camera
>>4482560>people are lining up to pay $500 for those corners>plus $60 tip for the hood :^)
>>4482566I think the part we all overlooked is that the 50mm f/1.2L exists, and yes while that is a $3100 lens, you have to imagine for comparable FoV and DoF at 1/6th the price we were getting about 1/6th the optical quality
>>4482565Which Fuji + lens would be good for a beginner?
>>4482573oh no clue about the camera models. i would think any APSC sensor with a 20 to 30mm lens should be good
>>4482502Locally I've seen barely used examples for $1900. They have been on sale with cashback from Canon for not that much more new. Now consider that MPB also has to make a profit so so what do they end up getting for them when selling? $1500? Meaning you should be able to find them for somewhere in between. eBay is a terrible platform, avoid at all costs.
>>4482551The newer rf cameras requires either some iphone program or some sus windows program from China that costs about the same. I have not found any other way.
>>4482571Not to mention that it is still better than the EF 50 L which is still more costly even used.
>>4482580Huh I didn't consider that. Lighter, cheaper, faster AF, native mount.... Yeah I'm thinking based
>>4482566the PF is complimentary though
>>4482564I don't think the testing is flawed. The lens is said to be equivalent to the EF 50mm 1.2, and it is, only with less fringing.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=403&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
>>4482560Cornerslop persist at 2,8 and even 4 and 5,6.At that point just grab a normal 1,8 lens. The drawbacks aren't worth it.
>>4482564>Methinks the testing is flawedlmao canon sissies in full damage control
>>4482591Imagine the type of low iq mouth breather it takes to not instinctively realize that a lens with that stated aperture would need massive compromises to hit that price point.
>>4482591These test chart pixel peeping websites are flawed. It’s field curvature at close focusing distances fucking them up. Optics engineers dont care about these tests. Field curvature is WANTED in portrait lenses. If the subject is off center the camera will still get them in sharp focus. Photographers who are always unhappy and always buying new gear do care about these tests and believe that they have to shoot landscapes at f1.2 because equivalence or else they might as well shoot m43 (ever heard of a tripod?)One knows how cameras and lenses work and the other believes in brand name raw color science and 3d pop and is perpetually minmaxing and overanalyzing gear they have little to no meaningful experience withEngineers have more in common with artists than gearfags.
>>4482594>uuuuh it's NORMAL for these focal lengthsNo it's not.https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1225&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1714&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1528&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=989&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1480&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1582&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1688&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1645&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=0&CameraComp=0&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0So much for "muh optikul niggineers"
>>4482596>stupid pixel peeping gearfuck didnt understanf a single wordYou stupid pixel peeping notphotog consumer shitThe field of sharp focus on a hyperfast character centric prime is shaped like a dome with wavy edges. The test chart is flat. If you took photos of more than charts you’d know this you stupid pixel peeping faggot. Go buy another snoy gm lens you soulless hack. How did so many photographers WHO ARE VASTLY MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN YOU use the EF 50mm f1.2L hmmm? Its soft and unusable just look at this photo of a brick wall and zoom in!All you know how to photograph is boring shit trees, starts, and walls. Fucking test chart pixel peeping gearfaggots like you are slowly but surely ruining photography. Why not complain about focus motor noise and focus breathing next? Gearfaggot videography is the same autism as pixel peeping but it had a real world application (having incompetent people with no skill operate an overpriced camcorder)
>>4482597Based and knows how cameras actually work pilled>>4482596Stupid science fan tier autist
>human face is convex>field of focus is convex>edges wave forward to line up with stuff on the same plane as the face>human face had many small flaws that look bad when rendered with high edge contrast>they are low contrast details so they disappear instead of triggering CA with a "bad" lens>BUT ON MY PERFECTLY FLAT CHART I CANT GET ALL THE CHART IN FOCUS AND WHEN I PIXEL PEEP THE SUPER TINY LINES ARE KIND OF BLURRY>I TOOK A SHITTY TILTED PHOTO OF A PIER THAT ANY REAL PHOTOGRAPHER WOULD HAVE DELETED AND ZOOMED IN 400% ON THE CORNERS AND-Stupid pixel peeping consoomer gearfaggot fucks do not know a single fucking thing about photographyGo buy a snoy g master and then spend $300 a year on a capture one subscription for the constant feed of new AI skin retouching features you suddenly need stupid pixel peeping faggotLeave canon. Go buy snoy. G master and sigma art all the way. Muh test chart I hate pixel peeping gearfaggots
>>4482592>>4482594>>4482596 ohhh ho ho hoCANON SISSIES IN TOTAL COLLAPSE AHAHAHAHA
>>4482594>>4482597>The field of sharp focus on a hyperfast character centric prime is shaped like a dome with wavy edges. The test chart is flat.Which does not explain why the quality is absolute crap throughout the entire image and why the effect is vastly, VASTLY less pronounced on higher quality lenses (ding ding ding).>Go buy another snoy gm lens you soulless hack.Not an argument.>How did so many photographers WHO ARE VASTLY MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN YOU use the EF 50mm f1.2L hmmm?Appealing to people using it is not "science". Some people eat shit, it doesn't mean it's good.>Its soft and unusable just look at this photo of a brick wall and zoom in!Strawmanning, it's only been said that the optical qualities of the lenses are poor, which they are, and absolutely no one denies it. People praise it because it adds a certain style to the image. This is subjective.>All you know how to photograph is boring shit trees, starts, and walls.Making up characters in your mind to argue with them>Fucking test chart pixel peeping gearfaggots like you are slowly but surely ruining photography. Didn't know I had that power.>Why not complain about focus motor noise and focus breathing next?I'm not shooting video, but it is a problem to people shooting video. Unless you're going to appeal to "people who've used noisy lenses successfully in the past" to deny any complaint.>Gearfaggot videography is the same autism as pixel peeping but it had a real world applicationSchizophrenia, you're bringing another topic to the discussion just to sperg about it. It's all in your head.>>4482600>Leave canon. Go buy snoy.Mentally ill brand fanboy, as I suspected. You're not here to prove a point, you're here to defend Canon at all cost and shit on Sony, which again no one talked about here, not even in the provided links. Making things up just to cry about them seem to be a leitmotiv in your posts.
cANON you fucking troon, put your trips back.
>>4482606Because you are a soulless test chart pixel peeping and too fucking stupid to understand a word I said. FIELD CURVATURE IS IDEAL FOR PORTRAITS AND BAD FOR YOUR SHITTY PHOTOS OF WALLS AND TILTED PIERS, YOU PIXEL PEEPING FREDMIRANDA FUCKTOTALPIXELPEEPERDEATH
Pixel peeping faggots will zoom in on a photo of a piece of paper at f1.0 to say "this lens is scientifically superior" because they are simple minded spergs. Literally the tiny dicked drag racing horsepower faggots of photographyTotal pixel peeper death.
>>4482606>Which does not explain why the quality is absolute crap throughout the entire imageyes pronounced field curvature does explain why the flat object 1 meter away is half out of focusyour iq is low and your bank account is lower you stupid pixel peeping retard>higher quality*overcorrected flat field lenses for document reproduction and pixel peeping charts
>>4482609>too fucking stupid to understand a word I said.Sure. Two assertions from your "explanation" :- 45mm is a portrait lens. Protip: it's not. Unless you're talking about full body portraits, except you aren't because you talked about the face being convex and perfect for this lens.- This phenomenon is inherent to portrait lenses. Again, proven to be wrong by all other examples.It's simply a very poor quality lens for people who aim for softer looks.
>>4482613>overcorrected flat field lenses for document reproduction and pixel peeping chartstl;dr: "I'm not wrong ! Other lenses are just cheating"Next post you'll be talking about that pixel peeping conspiracy.
>>4482614Stupid hylic>>4482616>huh? Flat field lenses have shitty bokeh, suck the life out of colors and fine shading differences, and render skin detail with too much harsh contrast all so stupid faggots can zoom in on test charts to "objectively measure lens goodness"? no lenses that arent made for pixel peepers are bad actuallyGee I wonder why cooke, schneider kreuznach and leica lenses worth more than your life fail hard at close shots of test charts… could it be pixel peepers are soulless consoomerists that dont do photography and DO competitive shopping using pixel peeping to make up for their tiny penises?No, surely, snoy GM and sigma art lenses are actually better. That’s why phaseone, schneider, and hasselblad are desperate to get the snoy gm and sigma shart lens design team to collaborate with them and show them how it’s done. REAL quality lenses have a perfectly flat field at every focus distance and no spherical aberration whatsoever for maximum test shart crispness when pixel peeping on thedigitalpictureFuck off back to fm/mu-43 pixel peeper retard.
>>4482620>they're more expensive so it's better>they're not collaborating so it's betterYawn.More about the conspiracy in about 5 to 10 minutes
>>4482622The conspiracy to… milk as much money as possible from unintelligent "camera hobbyists" who just compare test charts, dr charts, dpreview test scenes, pixel peep their dogs, etc?Its just called the free market. Like democracy, it doesn’t work because anyone who isn’t stupid has zero taste and will gladly march off a cliff and think themselves smarter for it.
>>4482475Yeah, but I'm supposed to be here. This is where people like me belong, not ultrarich and well-connected ohimesamas.
>>4482620Professionals use Sony. Posers use Leica/HasselbladSchneider makes specialized optics, I don't know what they're doing here.
>>4482566
>>4482634I love how this little lens is causing such division
>>4482634snoyggers really are mindless consoomer cattle huh
>cANON steps in>instant schizoposting
>>4482639>says the Canon RF user, with his overpriced lenses and locked mountAt least you can enjoy the soulful vaseline experience with your lens for just $469.99 (lololol funni number :DDdd)
>>4482641Dont you have a "sharp" sigma shart lens with flat rendering to put on your chintsy green machine so you can enjoy all 3 stops of its vignetting +star eater +vignetting correction being written to raw and causing banding in skies when underexposing -2? Hows that pancake lens coming along btw?
>>4482641>overpriced lens>literally 1/5th the priceWhat did Pajeet mean by this?
>>4482647Its price to pixel peeping ratio is poor. He doesnt take photos. He doesnt understand the joy of a minimally corrected lens with high field curvature that hugs the subject. He doesnt care that his nose out of focus hypersharp snapshits with ultra HD pores and peach fuzz would look bad…if he took them. The test charts look good. All snoys do is buy gear and talk about how sharp it is until a sharper, flatter lens comes out
>>4482647>1/5th the price>1/5th the optical quality of a decent canon lens>>4482643>>4482649Unfiltered copium. Still trying to convince us that 45mm lenses are only meant to photograph human faces? Still pretending that optical quality doesn't matter and that "blurry = soul"? That all lenses but this one are wrong in their design? Sounds like fuji xtranny marketing.
>>4482634what’s funny here is the objectively better lens is way more affordable
guys I pre-ordered the lens instantly when I saw the 1.2 because smaller f number better, but now that we have more information I'm regretting it, so I'm going to pretend like it's actually really good so I can cope with these feelings
>>4482664At least it has soul
>>4482667it hasn't even been released yet
>>4482668It's blurry, means it has soul, means you have to consume.
>>4482669damn you got me, guess I've gotta get one
>>4482268Obsessed
>>4482563Canon or the Sony. Fuji is fragile to say the least (or at least the XT-30 is).
Is there a better beginner DLSR than the Canon Rebel? It seems like you can consistently find them with a lens for a couple hundred dollars.
>>4482694If you’re buying used, all brands had dslr in the same tier, Nikon had the 4 digit ones, Pentax had like the k-m/k-x, if you go back far enough even Sony had the alpha cameras, just depends on how old you wanna go
Instead of this shit-flinging, what do you guys think about this new RF 45 1.2 vs Sigma's RF 56 1.4? Aside from the obvious fact that the latter is APS-C only.What would you choose for an APS-C camera?
>>4482700The 55mm is literally the old ef-m one (an obligatory buy)The 45 is only a sensible lens on low res full frame.
>>4482700>RF 45 1.2 vs Sigma's RF 56 1.4Why would you even compare two completely different lenses?
>>4482706Because of similar focal distance, aperture range, size, price, features, use cases, literally everything aside from the >the obvious fact that the latter is APS-C only
>>4482707Well it just comes down to if you prefer 70mm or 90mm. Plus its half the size and cost. Personally I would go 90mm for portraits, but its your preference.
>>4482712I'm still unsure if I want this 45mm f/1.2 or the 35mm f/1.8. On foolframe. Stabilisation seems way more important that a single stop of aperture except for when you absolutely need the highest shutter speed available. And on a 45mm lens that doesn't sound like a common scenario.
>>4482745stabilised lenses are softer because of the floating lens tech. avoid. we need more sharpness not less
>>4482747Any proof of this or is it just a trustmebro scenario
