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
>>4482695I'm assuming they're all about the same and I should go with whatever's cheapest. Unless old OM lenses mount on a modern Olympus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLPjMU-8d1E&t=417sI cannot justify bringing a dedicated camera with me anymore. Unless you're a pixel peeping autist, the latest iPhone's photos look indistinguishable from a mirrorless camera.
>>4482762I'd stick to Nikon or Canon for better options with lenses>>4482763This has long been the case for normies like you
>>4482763The truth is this has been true since Instagram launched anon, you were just too thick headed to realize it.
>>4482769>>4482765>normiesIf being a normie means not worrying about irrelevant autistic shit and getting more pussy, then I'll be a normie.
>>4482763>Phone photos look great when I look at them exclusively on a phone!Yes. This is moderately true. Just don't zoom in on anything otherwise you'll notice the halos and oversharpening.Dedicated cameras are for non-phone consumption of photos; either prints or large-digital viewing like on a PC monitor or TV. Nobody made a wallpaper with a 12MP phone camera, but your vacation snapshits and """street""" "'"""""photography""""""" is servicable with a phone and way more convenient.
>>4482777>Phone photos look great when I look at them exclusively on a phone!I watched the video on my Samsung neo G7, retard. It's a 4k display with SRGB coverage
>>4482784>videoOh so you're safe to ignore, gotcha.
>>4482785He literally posted the JPEGs under his video description, retardinho
>>4482008can someone tell me what camera is that
Damn, you really need a 3 year course to figure out which beginner camera you want to buy...All I wanted to do was shoot pictures of my anime figs and the local hiking trails
>>4482243I bought the x100vi two or three weeks ago and it feels great to me so far. I haven't had a chance to put it through its paces yet like my old Canon stuff (that never let me down), but it feels solid to me so far. That tiny camera packs a lot of punch.
>>4482763We have been telling people for ages that xtrans is shit. Bayer is a 1.5x resolution cut vs a monochrome/foveon sensor. Xtrans is a 1.5x resolution cut from bayer and introduces "worms" also known as "smears". Fuji’s on camera jpeg engine is also super shit for recovering fine detail. On top of it all, most fujifilm lenses are really quite shit, fuji autofocus is triple shit , and fuji image stabilization is straight off a 7 year old sony so there is a lot going against any fuji fag that wants sharp pictures. Something you’ll notice is that experienced fuji people are by far the most autistic because it takes serious autism to extract value from those shitty cameras. Compare sony/canon, even if you’re clueless you’ll get great shit. >uhm pixel peeping is autistic and badPixel peeping means taking test shots of tilted piers and paper charts wide open to zoom in 600% on. AKA an unrealistic application. No one shoots tilted landscapes wide open. Pixel peeping is not daring to zoom in on a photo at all. People have been zooming in on and cropping photos since the invention of the photo and aren’t going to stop because stopping would make your shit camera suddenly better.
No matter how much youtubers praise phone cameras (they say the same thing every release. its a paid ad.) they will always be fake AI altered pics that are used to train the AI even more and the US/chinese government has 100% 24/7 access to your device for monitoring, censorship, and framing purposes.
>>4482763Problem solved: Dont use fujis overpriced trash. The xm5 barely has the same image quality as the ancient nikon d5200 in real use. Only genuinely pixel peeping dpreviews fake-raw test chart looks any different because adobe camera raw treats the raw formats differently by default (like forcing higher levels of color noise reduction for fuji). After both cameras raws go through capture one the photos look the same (lightroom or sooc jpeg would make the fuji photo look worse!)Also consider the benefit of having real photos instead of AI enhanced photos. It is the same benefit as having sex with women instead of woman shaped robots.
>>4482798I think the d5200 with a better than average lens for f mount (many f mount lens are soft) would actually do better. the ancient $250-350 eos m6/m5 with almosy any ef-m prime will easily achieve better iq than the xm5 and the m6ii would blatantly mog it, especially shooting raw instead of kneecapping iq and control by shooting jpeg
>>4482774>irrelevant autistic shitIf knowing how to use a camera is autistic to you, photography might not be the hobby for you
>>4482784Great, so you hard the part where the guy said the phone was only better if you plan to shoot full auto everything, but you otherwise the camera was better
>>4482796>dishonest schizo rambling FDSGotta be honest, 2026 might be the year I finally leave /p/ for good
>>448219785mm isn't just for portraits
>>4482807>if i co-opt a trump meme you are wrong!40mp fuji resolves the same detail as 24mp bayer24mp fuji is getting into 16mp digishit territory. Just crank color NR and moire reduction for the xtrans look!
>>4482809>40mp fuji resolves the same detail as 24mp bayerDid you forget yo attach your example or are we just rambling more?
>>4482807Markey share dont lie. Fuji is an internet meme, but in real life the cameras are not good. Xtrans is blurry, the autofocus is worse than Nikon, the weather sealing is fake, the ibis sucks (people keep bragging about their x100vi managing crazy 1/6s exposures), and the prices are insane. IRL fuji makes bad, unpopular cameras.
>>4482810Oh but pothead corgi anon that always says dishonest, you made the definitive example yourself! Befor
>>4482812-before that, it was just mathWhich is still proofXtrans resolution tanks on color pairs and only works for luminance differences.
>>4482811>Markey share dont lieMarket share is always worth considering, but it's a lot more complex than "Fuji bad", unless you're retarded I guess>more dishonest rambling
>>4482812>you made the definitive example yourselfThis is like when people read one paragraph of a science paper, and come to their own conclusion while ignoring the paper authors>>4482813You should show us the math then
>>448281493% of the ILC market passed over fuji. That is worth considering. And now their latest $1000 meme cant keep up with a phone… or a canon m6 from 2016. At least it has le 4k videoh.
>>4482816>. That is worth considering.Not reallyt. worked in camera shops for like a decade
>>4482818>camera salesman knows how to ignore and distort reality to talk up shitty gearAnd?
>>4482819What am I ignoring or distorting? Tamron has #1 market share for lenses, does that mean they make the best too?FWIW Sony pays the most commission to sell their products, and Fuji pays out less than Canikon too
Buying used is not interesting, the only thing I can find in a radius of 100 miles around me are shitty 10 years old starter cameras
>>4482820Most people buy online. Tamron DOES make exceptional lenses btw. But does someone being in dead last mean more? Yes. Especially in combination with documented issues and no tangible benefits. Just vibes. Its like asking if no one buying panasonic means anything… their last major releases were a $3200 camera with a 2/3 miss rate in af-c burst shooting and a $1000 compact with no shutter or hot shoe and the 1/30s sync speed sensor from the old ass a7iii. Yes people dont buy panasonic for a reason. For selling so few cameras they also have a lot of complaints about broken gear.
>>4482822>Most people buy online.And?>But does someone being in dead last mean more?If you were honest, you'd know that could mean a lot of things. Pretty sure they're not dead last either.>more rambling
>>4482818>fuji sells relatively few ILCs>fuji ILCs have very low image quality, not just for their price, because xtrans reduces resolution>fuji is notorious for unreliable autofocus>fuji’s IBIS is not very good>fuji weather sealing so bad there are blog essays about how their non-weather sealed cameras do better>fuji’s latest L was the $1000 xm5 (24mp stated and on b&w test charts, 16mp on most real world subjects) getting stomped by a phonehow could these things ever be connected? after all like 50 shills on youtube said fuji was good
>>4482823They’re only ahead of a brand that is known for releasing unreliable cameras with missing functionality and brands that effectively dont exist. That is as dead last as it gets without being as out of business as pentax.
>>4482824>dishonestyGood try>>4482825>it's dead last if I say it isGood try
>>4482826>i cant refute that but its dishonest because i am a brand fanboyXm5 rook rike iphone
Also, they were #1 for growth in sales last year, which is arguably more important than simply market share
>>4482827>repeat Fuji badGood try
>>4482824>there are blog essays about how their non-weather sealed cameras do betterWhat a great opportunity to provide a link to the blog post, did you forget?
only valid camera choice>>4482828>canon sells almost 3 times nikondamn I didnt know it was that bad
>>4482828>the tiny penis grows the most>it is still tinyAnd now they’re being mogged by phones… oh well. Canon stays winning. The ancient EOS M cameras STILL outdo the newest fooljis. Kek!
>>4482832in the recent years phones have pseudo increased their iq by using lots of aislop upscaling, tons of severe retards buying 1k-1´5k phones to take fake ai moon pics to flex on other phonephagshttps://www.samsung.com/uk/support/mobile-devices/how-galaxy-cameras-combine-super-resolution-technologies-with-ai-to-produce-high-quality-images-of-the-moon/
>>4482763>the latest iPhone's photos look indistinguishable from a mirrorless camera.Trvke nvkeOnly dying boomers reject reality
I have the sigma 24-70 and I'm wondering how to compliment it. Sigma 10-18 and Tamron 17-28 are cheap. Or should I just get the sigma 16-28?
>>4482886What does it not do that you want to do? Don't worry about having a complete kit, just buy gear when you actually have a plan for it.
Can someone explain why Fujifilm’s “film simulations” are such a huge selling point that everyone seems to rave about? Aren’t they basically just fancy contrast or color profiles no different from what any smartphone camera app offers? Please enlighten a normie like me...
Is there like any point in owning a digital point-and-shoot camera anymore when phones offer almost the same image quality?I’ve been thinking about getting the Canon ixus 285 hs because I’ve heard it has a nice zoom lens, but for almost the same price I could get an iPhone, which also has both wide-angle and telephoto lenses. The image quality must be pretty similar, right?Having a separate device for photography and phone calls kinda feels like a smart idea on road trips and other travels, since I wouldn’t have to worry about draining my phones battery and it would still be available in case of an emergency.
>>4482811>unpopular cameras>go to B&H and its always normies finger fucking the fujis >go on vacation and if its not a 10 year old nikon/canon dslr or 5 year old sony its usually a fuji (especially chinks and foids) i dont think theyre shit i just think people like the aesthetics and jpegs you can get out of them without too much effort. the latter is harder to quantify on test figures.
Why does B&H have off days so often?
Any brands that implement a quasi RAID 1, where the camera spreads the images over two cards to improve saving speed?
>>4482900Basically, but it's more like throwing a Lightroom preset on a RAW file. It's better, but still entirely pointless for anyone who isn't retarded.
>>4483003Isnt it more retarded to waste your time editing a photo in lightroom to do the very same thing?
>>4483006>isn't it more retarded to take your time and refine your product to get a better end result?
>>4482920The main point of using two cards is redundancy because cards are fairly prone to failure, you don't want to double that risk
>>4483011Yes I understand that but it doesn't have to be the only point, for example from what I understand some cameras will let you record video to one card and photos to the other, which offers zero redundancy. I personally don't give two shits about redundancy, I have just the one SD card in my R5 kek.
How come camera sensors in phones are becoming smaller and smaller? Back in 2014, we used to have phones with 1inch sensors
>>4483021Are you really finding it a limitation or are you just curious if it's technically possible? Because the R5's buffer can hold 80-180 raw images (depending on which card format you're using) so that's 6 to 15 seconds of holding the shutter down. Even if it were possible, ignoring the risk of one card dying, you'd need to have two identical cards, have to swap out both once they're full for two more identical cards instead of being able to swap just one while you offload the other, you'd limit yourself to only being able to read the files by plugging in the camera, and probably more issues I'm not thinking of.
>>4483026With quasi RAID 1 I meant actually writing full images to one card, but alternating the cards. Combined with a buffer this still provides 2x write speed. Only reason I ask is because I think it's a good idea. And some photographers (sports, wildlife etc) rattle off dozens of images with one press, where succeeding images are almost identical. So if you lost one card you would still be basically safe.
Would you recommend the Canon Powershot V1 to an amateur? I've looked everywhere and I haven't found any point and shoots that can rival it
>>4483025And nobody bought them because there's more to camera tech than jamming the largest sensor possible into a phone (which is still a massive pain in the ass and normally cripples battery life and therms).Nobody who gives a reasonable shit about photography is tolerating the ergos of a phone*. You could put a full frame sensor in an iPhone and the battery would last 50 shots and would have horrible noise due to the heat generated going nowhere. Not to mention it would still be a miserable experience because every phone is basically using green auto A+ mode but permanently.*Adapters exist to improve ergos. Heatsinks exist. Custom water cooling loops exist (for gamers but who cares you can use it). RAW photo apps can be used. All of these are copes and if you're going this far you should just buy a Ricoh hoover GR.
>>4482920This is a solution in search of a problemIf saving speed is your priority, the easy answer is faster cards and faster writing to the cards, both of which continue to improveYou want a more complicated solution
>>4483027>but alternating the cardsIs there any evidence that writing to both at once is actually any slower? Everything I can see only just points to cameras using the slower of the two cards, but I've seen comments that the output buffer isn't any slower writing to two cards than it is to just oneHaving every other shot be on a different card seems like an actual nightmare too
>>4483035Well it works for my UNRAID server. BTW with what I'm proposing you are actually writing to both cards at the same time, but just not the same image.
>>4483038>you are actually writing to both cards at the same time, but just not the same image.Yes, having every other shot be on a different card seems like an actual nightmareAgain, if you just want more speed, the answer is much simpler
>>4483038If you don't care about redundancy, why would>one shot to one card + next shot to other cardBe any faster than>one shot to one card + next shot to same card
>>4483042because fast cameras shoot faster than they can write.
>>4482918theyre ran by orthodox jews >>4483007>take your timefuji owners dont give about that nonsense i think if you really press them on it the cameras objectively suck but they like using them and the pics they can get out of them i just shot 1000+ photos from my vacation and dread having to possibly edit them from raw
>>4483044Which is why they have buffers that can hold many seconds worth of burst shooting
>>4483044Splitting it across two cards doesn't help with that thoughSounds like you want faster card + better card slots + better buffer, which is already what cameras have improved onFor years now there are cameras with an unlimited RAW buffer at higher fps, one of mine is unlimited but "only" at 8 fps
>>4483048No matter what you believe, writing to a raid 1 type setup will always be faster than a single disc or card in this case. The fastest drive in the world is always bested by two of them.>>4483047no shit
Quick rundown on the R10? Is it worth it over the R50 considering the price tag?
>>4483050First question anyone is going to have is what are you going to do with your camera? What do you value in a camera? No go and ask yourself these questions.
>>4483051Photography almost mainly, no video stuffI value good range of options to use and dont care about automatic modesI know the R10 is better but considering if its worth the price hike, considering the fact that I'll mostly do landscapes etc
Is there a bigger waste of money in the camerasphere than noctilux?>Dogpoop wide open>Flares like crazy>Chromatic aberration taken to the next level>Coma? Yes, more than enoughI'm not even sure it is any better than Canon's RF 45 1.2.. a lens costing less than 1/20th of the price, but nonetheless a lens that people have criticized wildly.
>>4483058Leica is the Vertu of scameras
>>4483058>shit optical qualitiesInstant soul. I will buy 10 of those
redpill me on aperture.I keep seeing people talking about "fast" and "slow" lenses. Now, I understand the difference. But if you listen to the "pros" it sounds like anything under f2.8 is complete garbage. But if that's the case, why do companies even bother making lenses with high apertures? It's not like all slow lenses are cheap. I guess what I'm asking is does the average dude really need to be afraid of f3 and up? Or is it all just gear shaming to sell more expensive glass?
>>4483138This isn’t a redpill, it’s a fact: aperture is a physical measurement. Say you’re making a 50mm lens with a maximum aperture of f/1.4: what’s 50/1.4? It’s roughly 36mm. That means your lens needs to be at least 36mm wide, but what if your customers want a compact lens, but they still want a full-frame image circle? You can’t shrink the whole lens down and give them an APS-C sized image circle or smaller, so what can you do? Make the maximum aperture smaller. For instance, f/2.8: what’s 50/2.8? Roughly 18mm. You can now make your lens far more compact.I’m sure other anons will chime in with other facts about aperture but this is a good starting point: it’s a physical measurement.
>>4483138no one knows what you mean when you say 'high' or 'up' with regard to aperture because it's a reciprocal paramater. say wider, larger, faster, etc. to answer your question, listen to the people who are doing what you want to do. if you're not a pro, then why would you care about what pros say?
>>4483141I understand what aperture is. That wasn't my question. >>4483143Anyone with half a brain does. But I also used terms like fast and slow. And again, that doesn't answer the question.
What’s the deal with Fuji and this $500-$600 sale in the EU right now?Are they trying to offset the loss of sales in the U.S. because of the tariffs or something? that’s a huge drop in price for new products.
>>4483138Inertia from film days when 100 speed film was the most common. Faster than f/2.8 was super common for primes and when zooms came out they were all slow. The fastest zooms were f/2.8 and that kind of set the boundary. Slow zooms on modern digital are able to a lot more than film on an f/2.8 zoom but the quality requirements (mindless pixel peeping) have also gone up.
>>4482747this is so laughably untrue
>>4483050if you only shoot in auto get the R50, if you plan on doing any sort of manual control get the R10 when they have their year end refurbished sale.
>>4483138If you're talking about f stop you say higher or lower. Lower fstop = more light/larger aperture. If you're talking about aperture you say smaller or larger. Larger = more light/ smaller f stop.
>>4483154>What’s the deal with Fuji and this $500-$600 sale in the EU right now?They are just competing. All the major manufacturers do the same thing. In order to move product during winter when there is little light around they use this strategy.
>>4483145>But I also used terms like fast and slow. And again, that doesn't answer the question.Fast in the sense that it lets in more light which allows for a faster shutter speed in order to attain correct exposure.
>>4483168>>4483171Could you fucking queers actually address the question instead of being pedantic homosexuals?
>>4483169I can’t recall seeing that type of sale here in the U.S. by a camera manufacturer, at least not for brand new products.
>>4483175Learn about the exposure triangle.
>>4483145ah right, my bad >>4474666
>>4483175>Why do companies make fast aperture lenses?Because people want them and people buy them.
>>4483175https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/app/uploads/2022/02/technical-article-depth-of-field-and-bokeh.pdfbasically wider apertures give you shallower depth of field and more background blur, but it's more complicated than that.>anything under f2.8 is complete garbage(I assume you mean ƒ/2.8 - ƒ/∞) that's horseshit and you should immediately disregard anyone who says that
>light/compact>interchangeable lenses>weatherproof/water resistant enough to be in watery/muddy environments where a plastic bag would most likely get torn>dust resistant>shock resistant>cheap enough to not be a disaster if it gets damaged/destroyed.The camera/lenses are going to be carried around on the back of a dirtbike/hiking pack into shitty conditions, and will almost certainly be dropped with the bike at various points.Are there any systems that fit this criteria other than Olympus/OM? What do are the pro nature/landscape guys using when they're taking equipment into shitty conditions?
>>4483221Canon 5dIIIPussy
Relatively new to photography and looking to upgrade from the 16-50mm kit lens on a snoy a6700, would like /p/ guidance. Considering either the sigma 30mm or the 18-50mm. Shooting is mostly urban, architectural, sometimes in-doors, and frequently low light. Issues with current lens are I'm seeing fringing at the edges when shooting wide, and the low light performance seems not great since min aperture on kit lens is like f3.5 to f5.6.
>>4483259>min aperture*max aperture
>>4483221>weatherproof/water resistant enough to be in watery/muddy environments where a plastic bag would most likely get tornanyone stupid enough get their Olympus covered in sand because they thought a plastic bag would most likely get torn deserves what's coming"Do not contaminate the exterior of the camera or lens with sand. Sand will become embedded under control dials and buttonscausing malfunction""Service Advisory: Product damage caused by sand or liquid contamination will void the original warranty and any extended warranties if applicable. In most cases Olympus service will not be able to repair the camera. In these situations, the camera would be deemed beyond reliable repair and returned without servicing."
>>4483221>>4483266Is it just better to never take a camera to anywhere sandy? I've been wanting some good desert photos but the sand was always a big concern for me.
>>4483221A 2010s Pentax DSLR. Check out all the videos on YouTube of people running water over them in the shower, dropping them in puddles on asphalt, hell even submerging them, and they keep on trucking. Lenses will be the expensive bottleneck but you could get a decent 24mp APS-C camera like the K-3 for about $300US. Make sure any lenses you buy have the WR (weather resistant) or AW (all weather) tags.
>>4483267Get a beater camera and use bags or a waterproof camera/housing. >>4483259The Sigma 30mm is one of their oldest and not nearly as good as their newer stuff like the 18-50mm. The Sigma 30mm has some wonky autofocus issues and a lot of CA.
>>4483259The 18-50mm seems very reliable, and it is half a stop to two and a half stops brighter than your current zoom. The ePhotoZine review says it controls CA very well. It is also really well priced? I think, so why not? Maybe have a look at what Tamron and Sony are offering at the same price point.
>>4483268Mud and sand will work its way into the O-rings and destroy the weather sealing and other mechanisms. This happens to fully underwater rated cameras let alone merely "weather sealed" ones. Gaskets work great for rain but abrasive particles are particularly harsh on things that have moving parts.https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/08/please-dont-take-our-photography-and-video-gear-to-burning-man/
>>4483266Good to know that Olympus isn't a good option then. I'd seen them recommended as one of the sturdier/more weather sealed brands so assumed that would be the go-to.I would be putting my stuff in waterproof bags when on the bike, but bags getting torn when I've got the camera out and using it is a genuine concern, as I've already used plastic bags for some of my non-photographic equipment and it inevitably gets holes in it when I'm on the road/out in the bush, and the bulldust enters that shit without mercy.>>4483278From the linked article here looks like you're shit out of luck if you're taking cameras to anywhere harsh and the only way forward is to use beater equipment and pray?
>>4483267Some sand is fine, I've shot on the beach thousands of times at this point and never had issues from sand (or rain)If you're going to high wind desert, or anything like, I would assume some dust like in the LensRental article linkedEven the heartiest of cameras can get fucked up from thatI would look into a TG-7 or similar, something not just weather resistant, but sealed fully enough to be submersible (very few ILC options for this)Or just use any camera with one of those basic waterproof camera covers
A camera store near me has the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 (v1, not v2) used on a screaming deal. I would be paying under $400 after the student discount.The only problem is that the front ring (the part that the hood screws on to) is loose - the clerk claims that it's a common problem and that part doesn't do anything with the front element, but I'm concerned that means it's been dropped. Should I take the risk on it?
>>4483348Any decent camera shop should let you test it on your own camera, take some test shots and review it on your computer to see if the focus is actually good and it’s it decenetered or anything like that. If they allow returns even just buy it and test and return if it’s a dud. A drop doesn’t immediately mean the lens is toast
>>4483349Thanks anon. I took a couple test shots when I was in yesterday, so I suppose I'll review them now. The thing that really concerns me is that the clerk was very insistent that it's a "common problem", despite me being unable to find any supporting evidence online. They won't take returns on it because it has a defect.
>>4482193this is first time I've seen anyone posting evidence of that, thanks
>>4483278>nothing lasts foreverwe know >>4483348>the clerk claims that it's a common problem and that part doesn't do anything with the front elementWalk away. You don’t need to believe this guy. He’s there to convince you to give them money for obviously faulty camera gear. Go with your gut. You know something’s fishy.
>>4483354>The thing that really concerns me is that the clerk was very insistent that it's a "common problem", despite me being unable to find any supporting evidence online.BRO walk AWAY. Stop giving him the benefit of the doubt at this point.
>>4482193>not posting the photo with the camera and lens informationishygddt
>>4483138>listen to the "pros" it sounds like anything under f2.8 is complete garbagewho tf says that ?
>>4483372The pros, anon. Try to keep up.
>>4483373I’m a prosumer and I don’t say that
>>4483367>we knowthe wear from even a single day shooting in a dust storm is orders of magnitude greater than typical wear. >>4483298For sand and mud, Olympus has the Tough series underwater cameras. Plastic bags are meant for rain although because they are impermeable are helpful in sand but obviously not abrasion resistant so you'll need to use a camera bag. I used to just stow my camera in a plastic bag and then in my hiking pack when I went into the bush but there's probably a small durable camera bag that would suit a motorcyclist.
>>4483373there are cases of wide open f1.8 lenses that perform better than lets say f1.4 lenses stopped down to f1.8, so...
>>4483402I don’t know what you’re trying to say.
>>4483417some fast lenses suck optically when you shoot wide open vs slower lenses
>>4483419Yes, that’s what you said, but I still don’t know what you’re *trying* to say. What’s your point?
I'm looking for a beginner camera, and my question is: is there a noticeable difference between the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G80 and the Panasonic Lumix DMC-G97? Anyone used either of these and can share their experience?
>>4483452>Yes, that’s what you said, but I still don’t know what you’re *trying* to say. What’s your point?/p/ is insufferable
>>4483551Do yourself a favour and get a used dslr instead. Any cheap android released in the past 5 years takes better photos than micro four turds.
>>4483616phones are full of ai bs now, both ai nr and ai upscaling, many real cameras now come with ai nr even in the raws but no upscaling, fool turds is inherently superior to smaller formats but still quite suck, so of course everyone should get at least aps-c
>>4483626> many real cameras now come with ai nr even in the raws but no upscalingWrong. Is your standard for a real camera an iPhone? Only the canon EOS R1 and R5II have "AI" noise reduction for jpegs… and it’s not AI, that’s a marketing buzzword for any NR that isn’t based on averaging and has more conditionals/presets than camera jpeg engines usually have. Canon’s "AI" NR is close to non-AI NR from computer raw processors so you know it’s not AI. It’s profiled denoise.
>>4483630>https://global.canon/en/technology/dl-iptechnology-2023.html>https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/features/oh-my-god-canons-in-camera-ai-is-going-to-change-everything>A method of machine learning based on artificial neural networks inspired by the human brain. By training a computer using large amounts of data, it can make desirable inferences and decisions based on features derived from that data.>The Canon EOS R1 and Canon EOS R5 Mark II are packed with incredible new tech – none more incredible than the incorporation of in-camera neural network processing, powered by AI and deep learning. they admit themselves that they're using AI for noise reduction
the beg screens started
>>4483631They’re using marketing buzzword AI for jpegs. Its not cooked into the raw. Marketing buzzword AI means there are if and case statements in the source code.
>>4483631>A method of machine learning based on artificial neural networks inspired by the human brainthis sentence alone should tip you off
List cameras/lenses that take good photos
>>4483774Canon 5dmkii + 50mm f1,2 L and/or 24-70mm f2,8 LWhat more do you need?
>>4483793I need [spoiler]to carry[/spoiler] less [spoiler]weight[/spoiler]
>>4483793Canon R50 and RF 45mm f/1.2 would cost less and get you better images lol>>4483814spoiler tags dun work here kek
>>4483814The 24-70 f2,8 L is heavy to lug around, but the 50mm f1,2 L weighs nothing.>>4483817I bought an APS-C sensor camera recently after having used full frame for years. I love the lighter weight, but I'm already missing the images I got on my 5dmkii.... I ain't swapping that with the R50.
>>4483823>, but I'm already missing the images I got on my 5dmkiiYou should share some
>>4483828Fuck off this is a gear board.Nophotos allowed.>>4483823Yeah I have that internal struggle as well. If we could just shove a 35mm sensor into an R50 I'd pay the price of an R6III.
>>4483831>I don't have a camera or take photos eitherNice
>>4483828I would if this site wasn't 99,9% lunatics
>>4482073because op is a thirdie>>4482097Trvke. I hope someone from here bought one of those.
>>4483835>I have to cope because I don't take photosOkay
>>4483841Nah, because this is how it would go>Don't post photoHAhaha you're shit!!!>Post photoWhat a fucking horrible photo! You suck!! HAHA!
>>4483843>What a fucking horrible photo! You suck!! HAHAPussy!
I've seen a lot of absurd stuff but this has to be it.
>>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.>you're ignoring it because you are lazy and just want to snapshit with your chique camera,>don't delude yourselfThe only delusional retard here is (You).
>>4482475schizophrenic website
>>4482245Ignore the frogposting retards, you are right.In fact, developing a digital raw file is a much more elaborate process that challenges your understanding of everything technical about photography, as well as your artistic vision.By comparison, shooting analogue is like snapping jpegs with your smartphone.You simply press the button, apply a preset (film) and maybe move a couple of sliders (exposure, burn/dodge) and that's it, you're done. Very few analogue shooters go beyond that, and most don't even develop film themselves, so their entire involvement in the process is simply pressing the button.
>>4483929>In fact, developing a digital raw file is a much more elaborate process that challenges your understanding of everything technical about photography, as well as your artistic vision.>By comparison, shooting analogue is like snapping jpegs with your smartphone.>You simply press the button, apply a preset (film) and maybe move a couple of sliders (exposure, burn/dodge) and that's it, you're done.>Very few analogue shooters go beyond that, and most don't even develop film themselves, so their entire involvement in the process is simply pressing the button.
I cannot believe people are still buying anything other than Canon.
Rate this set up.
What's good in the world of lights for indoor work? I see some guide recommending me to buy a TT600 and a remote, but I want to be cheap. Anything decent enough I can get second hand?
>>4483221Get a GoPro
I'm currently working on my masters in ancient Greek archaeology. Now part of my research involves going around lesser known ancient sites and museums taking good technical photos. So far my current setup is not so handy. I'm using a bag insert to turn my regular bag into a day bag/camera bag. My budget is like 200ishWhat I really need is a backpack that can hold a tripod, notebook or two, a laptop, and a nikon d850 with 3 or so lenses one of those being a large telephoto lens. Id really like to have one that comes with a waterproof covering I can put on the backpack as parts of Greece gets a lot of rain outside of summer. This is also so it can be covered from dirt if I bring it on a dig site.Id like something that I can take to the lab and school while also using for field excursions. I'm in the US at the moment so I'd like to buy it here and then take it back to Greece with me.
