>perfect colors right the first time edition>>4484029
>>4485653what exactly is this supposed to be showcasing?Half these photos look like wormy shit either RAW or edited.
>>4485653What is the model of the camera in this advertisement? Is the x-half a good camera to get into Fuji? Will the colors be just as good as the ones from the camera in this advertisement?
>>4485653But all of the colors look like shit? Why pay extra, give up image quality, build quality, and working autofocus, just to have mid tier contrast/saturation-boosted lightroom profiles baked into the cameraFfs just use your phone. These photos look exactly like iPhone photos with filters enabled. No discernible difference at all.
>>4485660>But all of the colors look like shit? Le vintage and nostalgiac tho
>>4485660>all of the colors look like shit?nah they don’t, they actually look pretty good
>>4485653>raw == editedor am i color blind
>>4485653>RAW/EditedWhat did he mean by this? A RAW file doesn't even have colors
Is it true that Fuji kit lenses are better than the competition?
>>4485660>noooooooooo you just have to waste countless hours sitting infront of your boomer pc editing your green images with your yearly adobe creative cloud™ subscription because... you just have to okay!!!
>>4485694>developing your skill = wasting hoursOk man
>>4485695>developing your skill>dragging slidersL M A O
>>4485696>would rather let the machine make the wrong choices for himngmi, sorry, its already over for you. its a given that a photographer should know how to edit and clean up photos.
>>4485696Uh man, you sound like a hopeless faggot.
>>4485698>own a shit car>spend hours fixing it daily>somehow thinks this is a good thing>not owning a car that just works properly in the first place and spending more time enjoying driving
>>4485700nah, it's like having a fine car, but someone else do the driving for you
>>4485700>car analogyLmao.Except it's more like>Own a Tesla that only drives pre-programmed routes to certain destinations>Not allowed to steer or operate pedals yourself>Can't manually override the pre-selected options, only allowed to tell it where to park when it gets thereVS>High power, carburetorred, manual transmission 4WD with no ABS or TCS that will allow you to completely fuck your day up if you don't know how to use it properly>Actually allows you to drive wherever you want and in any way you wantRAW wins every time, chuddy.
>>4485692The 18-55 f2.8-4 was great at the time, definitely the best of other 18-55/16-50 kit optionsThe new 13-33 is supposedly pretty decentPretty sure the others are just normal kit level
>>4485694>le hyperboleand you also waste hours at mcdonalds paying off your $3000 fuji kit, for photos that look exactly like your phones. Exactly.
Editing raws is easier and faster than shooting jpeg and an iPhone outperforms the fujifilm xe5 and x100viIf you disagree you’re too dumb to use a computer. Simple as.
>>4485712What if you shoot raw on fuji
>>4485713It takes longer because xtrans raws are slow to load if you don’t spend thousands of dollars on a computer. Fujifilm makes bad kit that only impresses people used to other garbage cameras like SNOY. >iPhone quality and iphone camera filter looks if you shoot jpeg>Slow to work with, worms, and zombie colors if you shoot raw>unreliable, rattly, short lived, bad ibis, worse autofocus, basically a snoy in a suit and a fedoraNo wonder despite being 70% of the inorganic internet hype they sell 7% of the camerasJust be normal and buy a canon or a nikon
>>4485700Shooting raw with a normal camera like a canon is easier and faster than shooting jpeg. Just one click with fropak3, a little crop, and you’re good to go. Have fun playing white balance and film sim selections, pushing buttons all over your camera like its a nintendo lmao
>>4485700>can't take an interesting picture without nuking it with le film simulation and colour gradingmaybe you should work on your subjects and composition, and then u can learn how to edit after that. sounds like you're at the very start of your journey tbqhwyf
>>4485722He doesnt have a canon. He doesnt know what its like for sooc jpegs to look good with a natural kook.
>>4485653is this real? I hate editing. should I get a tranny worm camera?
so tuff
>>4485663get they the flesh color right on the dildo cup, faggot?
>>4485695lol, every real photographer has a dedicated editing slave. Sebastião Salgado never developed his files himself for exampleediting is a monkey skill for the creatively impaired
>>4485729Nope. As a professional with paid editors, I know better than you. Sorry, just hard facts. You don't just pay people to edit in their own style, you need to be able to edit yourself so you can have them edit the photos for you in your style. And it's only useful if you have heaps of photos to edit. Nice try, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
>>4485729Can we see some of the photos your editors did?
>>4485723unironically canon has always been the better choice for this reason. all throughout the digital era. even with their shit dynamic range it doesnt matter because literally no other brand can make images that look exactly like real life. only canon can. ive started buying up their old film cameras too and even the cheap entry level slrs are made better than n*kon. the metal so much thicker and they use so much less plastic.
Can someone explain worms to me
>>4485745Based on the sharpening algorithm used, sometimes X-Trans can have a "wormy" or "waxy" or "oil panting" or "smeary" look to some fine detail / texture. Compare these 100% crops from an otherwise unedited file. Notice the appearance of the wood and leaves on the right.It's mostly apparent when using Adobe's default sharpening settings, and sometimes with Fuji's own JPG conversion. If you use LR's enhance feature, actually adjust your sharpening settings, or use other software for processing, it's a non-issue. It's also not really noticeable unless you're at least at 100%, and it's not necessarily a given depending on the texture / detail you are photographing.
>>4485745Here are two SOOC jpegs from the x100vi. The fine detail is wobbly and waxy like a phone because fuji uses a large color pixel pattern on a small sensor like a phone. Normal camera = 2x2 pattern, 35mm sensor. Fuji = 3x3, 23mm sensor. Phone = 4x4, 13mm sensor. They are not at crazy high ISOs either. You can see more on dpreview. Fuji requires 40mp (so a $$$$ ILC body) AND a $$$$ sharp, clinical lens (rendering like nikkor z s lenses) to equal a normal 24-ish megapixel camera like a $500 nikon d750 with a soulful nikkor af-s g lens.
>>4485750Fuji has other issues, like an equally bad weather sealing/build quality track record vs sony, slow and miss-prone autofocus, and IBIS that isnt very good (most people struggle to take the x100vi slower than 1/3rd. A camera with a 35mm lens and no IBIS can be shot handheld at 1/15 to 1/30. 2-3 stop IBIS, worse than a canon IS prime. Canon 35mm IS = 1s exposures handheld, 2s with skill. Modern canons do 8 stop stab with pro bodies, ie: multiple seconds with a 35mm lens)You can see more wormy shit like this in the dpreview sample gallery from whence it cameFuji’s biggest defender here is also one of the biggest spenders on /p/ and mostly shoots raw. Being five thou deep to start approaching an old canon 5div doesnt bother him. The fuji matches his fixie and french press coffee and works fine for when his leica is in the shop, like how BMW drivers often ride shitty harleys when their car is in for its bimonthly major service.
>>4485738>my dad works at nintendosure anon
>>4485751>>4485750>someone mentioned Fuji? >time for dishonesty
>>4485756Nothing is dishonest there. Those are real x100vi SOOC jpegs from a reputable source. Everything I said can be verified. Fuji charges a lot of money to underperform an old canon DSLR, equal a new iphone, and include some crappy vsco filters. The one technical inaccuracy is fuji xtrans being a 3x3 sensor. Technically, with the AF pixels, xtrans is 6x6.
>>4485751Legit this looks exactly like a phone photo
>>4485757The detail isn't due to xtrans, it's the sharpening used for it, which does include JPGIt doesn't require a clinical lens to hit basic DSLR tierThe weather sealing is more dishonesty from cherry picking and ignoring all positive weather sealing anecdotesThe AF is only behind for 3D tracking, still accurate and quick for everything elseThe rest is you making stuff up in your head about me2 random sample images alone is kind of dishonest, unless you agree that if I post samples with similar levels of detail also implies problems with whatever body, you could at the very least also include samples from Fuji where the issue is less apparentThe full image of this can also be currently seen elsewhere on board >>4485748, along with many other x-trans shotsLast time I posted a mix of x-trans and Zf shots together, people couldn't figure out which was which
>>4485760>people couldnt tell my 300px thumbnails apart>sure, fuji might be 7% of the camera and have infinitely more weather failure reports than canon (0 issues), but some people had good luck!>despite what everyone else says fuji autofocus is TOTALLY GOOD! I set to af-s and it locked onto a posed model facing the camera in less than a whole second!Lol this company is going to die. The x100vi literally can not compete with a phone. Their cameras aren’t up to the standard of an old a7iii let alone modern cameras like the canon r6ii. Its just a fact. You’re the dishonest, misrepresenting one if you’d defend fuji’s shit autofocus. Whats next, u dun need moar because rpt is all trees? DISHONEST.
>>4485760>dont waste time editing, buy a fuji, shoot jpeg>uh, fuji only looks exactly like phone photos if you shoot jpeg, you need to shoot raw and run lightrooms enhance feature for every fileVintage macfag grade copeAnd calling the af quick and accurate… yeah compared to a nikon z6ii maybe. Even the fourth rate nikon zf can hit moving subjects better. Even the canon 5dII can hit moving subject better. Fujifags are dishonest, which is why they call everyone else dishoenst
>>4485759phones render skin tones way better. x-tranny makes skin look like waxy corpse skin. terrible
>A canon R8 with IS lenses has better everything than a fuji xt5KEK
>>4485761>let's reply with more dishonestyI usually aim for 1000px at a minimum, and always ask when people cope like this, how many pixels they need to see the difference, but no one ever gives me answer, how many do you need? >dishonest anecdotes beat your anecdotesI've posted examples of the continuous autofocus here even, certainly still does work most of the timeThey've had more growth in sales this past year than any other brand lolLook forward to seeing you post a photo when you get a camera one day>>4485759If I find other samples like that from other bodies will you agree the same?
>>4485764>>4485763>>4485762The nophoto anger, let it flow through you
>>4485766With an honest comparison, same scene, non-equivalent settings (but the best each camera can do) fuji is noticeably worse than a proper camera even at 8mp (4k). You do not do honest comparisons. You put motion blurred, overexposed zf kit prime shots against competence with a fuji. This does not excuse fujifilm’s objective, measurable shortcomings in light of their high prices. Your ability to twist comparisons does not change objective facts. Facts are facts. A sharp knife is sharper than a dull knife even if you put the sharp one against leather and the dull one against paper or only chop celery and say "you almost never cut tomatoes anyways"… and the dull knife is more expensive>well OTHER cameras can look as bad as fujiYes with major fuckups, shitty lenses, and higher ISO settings. Wasnt the point of fuji to shoot jpeg? Why, if the jpegs literally look like a phone and you have to wait for lightroom to enhance each raw?
fujifilms price/performance isnt just inexcusablefujifilms performance period is inexcusable. under no conditions should a properly exposed photo from an ILC look as bad as one from an iphone. ever. if an x100vi or xe5 can not turn its sensor data into a jpeg as well as an iphone its not a good product.
>>4485760>anecdotesI thought you were supposedly advocating for Fuji, what a self-btfo fujislug. >>4485774This tbhfam
Does Canon have anything that isn’t a big chunk? Realistically, I do this as a hobby and prefer a smaller camera. I’d buy an m240, but $3k for a body and a 50mm prime is too much for a hobby. I know I should just get an a7c, but I just don’t vibe with it, and the gigantic hyper-corrected lenses defeat the purpose of a compact body. Same issue I have with the Nikon Z mount, desu
>>4485778pulling off a canon is a privilege reserved for people who have hit the gym and dont rely on a retro twee camera to further excuse their kitschy etsy fashion
>>4485653Looks like the smartphone filters you used to get on VSCO back in 2016.
>>4485778Get an R8 and dress better. Its light, which is what matters. The visibly larger aesthetics work if you’re not wearing wranglers and a baggy tee or bell bottoms and a vest or whatever trash /p/ dresses in. Look a little more upper class, get better fit clothes from this century, don’t be a shoulderlet caught without a coat. Sling it crossbody or straight up on one shoulder, never necklace style. Cameras are to outfits as outfits are to people. The latter excuses the former. If you need a rangefinder style or faux-vintage snapshitter to not embarrass yourself you have a fundamental problem the camera cant fix.
>>4485786As far the camera goes, while I do like the vintage look but it’s more about the size/weight. Even APS-c DSLRs were big to the point that I left it at home pretty often. So the R8 weighing as much as an xpro2 is pretty much perfect, even if it’s not my favorite form factorFor lenses it’s 100% a size issue, modern lenses are apparently all retrofocal and just stupidly large. I do wear wranglers lmao, but I’m a 6’3 blue eyed white guy, so being slightly unfashionable in terms of camera+outfit match isn’t the end of the world.
>>4485786Really I should just shoot film, it’s a much more straightforward way to get that classic look in the images. Only downside is having to fuck around with processing or labs
>>4485789The lenses aren’t big. The 35, 50, and 85 are about the size of vintage SLR lenses from the really old days ala nikkor 85mm f2. The 24-50 is as short overall (maybe smaller) as a 70s film camera with a 35-70. The pro lenses are definitely big but a 24mp camera doesn’t really benefit from them. It’ll still mog a phone or a fuji with the normal glass.
>>4485789canon literally has the only "real" full frame, full features pancake lens>nikon: cant use filters without doubling in length to same size as a sony 35mm f2.8>lumix: fixed f8 manual focus only>sony: fixed f4.5 third party phone quality lensthe rf 28mm is also the sharpest ff pancake
>>4485720i never understood the fuji worms meme, just dont zoom all the way in and sharpen the fuck out of your pictures in post. i had to look up what they meant and ive seen worms in pics taken with nikons and sony going off that definitionfuji worms is only a issue if you shoot raw and sharpen the fuck out of your pics, even the newer photo editors don't have the worms anymorehttps://nzdigital.blogspot.com/2019/10/beware-of-worms-sharpening-fuji-files.html>>4485772i dont get why "look like a iphone" is a insult either when iphones are literal super computers compared to your average 2010s dslr? i've never seen a older DSLR deliver the same look sooc jpeg as the fujis ive seen. you just cant add sensor or lens to the iphone like you could a camera
>>4485794DSLRs deliver way better IQ than fuji. Lacking the corny +sat +vib +contrast +warmth vsco filters is a feature not a bug.
>>4485791>>4485792Oh, cool, I genuinely didn’t know that. I just assume all modern lenses are huge for no reason the way Sony, Nikon, and most of the non-Chinese third party lenses are. Just looked these up and Canon should really be leaning on this more in their marketing. That’s the only modern AF 50mm I’ve seen that’s a normal size or comparable to a film lens. Will definitely consider this, there’s still something about the Fujis that I like, but I can see the value of getting real FF and semi-compact packaging on both body and lens, even at the cost of vintage-style ergo and controls. I think I have weird hands, I learned on my dads film cameras, and the ergonomic blobs just feel off to me, no matter what the science says. I will say this, looking at the R8, I like the look of the way Canon designed the blob-handle. Having the shutter button more on the front face makes way more sense if it’s gonna force your hand into that position. Shutter on top works great on vintage shape bodies, but always felt off with the Nikon ergo grips that I’ve used. Also, on a silly level, I do have a positive image of Canon from all the sponsorship they had in National Geographic back in the dayAre people on more of a budget mostly adapting EF, or are the new RF lenses worth the money to avoid the adapters?
>>4485795im tempted to switch only because im gonna edit the fuck out of my photos if i shoot raw, i'd rather have a fuji as a vacation camera and end up 90% there sooc jpeg than spend hours editing 1000+ photos to suit each situation.either i shoot fuji or i shoot fuji 400, 35mm is tempting for that reason (i have the photos ready to share as soon as they're back from the lab)i think fujislugs are aware their cameras arent the best for the money, that's why they're paying mirrorless ff prices for a apsc with crap gen 1 mirrorless af
>>4485722>Cant take an interesting picture without spending hours fixing it up in Lightroom vs simply shooting SOOC to focus on the actual shooting experienceThe irony of your post
>>4485692I tried the new 16-50 on an X-T5 for a little while. This lens supposedly resolves 40MP, but all I got out of it was awfully mushy details, and yes, worms - even with low sharpening. I don't own any other APS-C kit zooms to compare it with, but it was truly awful in isolation. While you should take this with a grain of salt (I shoot primes on full frame so I'm used to much better), it's very clear that this system is designed for low-tier amateurs who only shoot JPG.If I were in the market for APS-C zoom I would be very tempted by the Sigma 17-40mm F1.8 Art. The results from that lens look very nice indeed, pic rel
>>4485798Yeah, I keep doing the math on analog as well$25 a roll for dev+prints sucks, but the up front cost is miniscule, so it’d take a long time before mirrorless saved me money
>>4485799>implying it takes hours to click on a preset and tweak a couple sliders to tasteShooting JPG is a crutch for bad photographers. If you have to rely on your camera or someone else's "recipes" to do your job for you, you're just shit. If you had an ounce creative vision in your bones you'd appreciate the transparency of a raw file and the latitude it gives you.
>>4485804Why not try the 26mp Fujis like the XT30, XT3/XT4, or XM5? Maybe its one of those cases where the "worms" get worse because its too many megapixels for the same size sensor>>4485805You can make a photobook with the prints while you rarely print digital pics imo unless its for a business/professional use.
>>4485806>Im better than you because i wasted my time manually dragging some sliders to overcompensate for my cameras color science!?
>>4485812>spending thousands on measurably worse cameras than old dslrs to compensate for not being able to edit and still have to use a computer or phone to do final edits and upload: good!>spending 5 min clicking 2 buttons: BAD BAD BAD MY CAMERA IS BETTERAnd yet its a lie because every nikon and canon ever made has perfect colors in sooc jpeg and fuji colors look like shitty instagram filters (because they are), and fuji needs to shoot raw to look better than an iphone camera anyways lolYou dont have an argument my man. You have buyers remorse. You’re the one who keeps posting these shitty propaganda OPs after all. Everyone else is just debunking the lie before anyone else wastes their money on a shitty fuji. A $1000 canon will blow a $2000 fuji out of the water. A $2000 canon will fulfill your camera needs for the next 30 years and mog every fuji phone and snoy to come. Nikon hasn’t even 100% caught up to the r6ii yet, and the r6ii still mogs the a9ii while the r5(1!) still mogs the a1 and z8… lol. Canon just makes the best cameras. Over one out of two cameras sold is a canon.
>>4485816is canon paying you per posti want a new r8 i want some canonbucks
Why does the mere mention of Fujifilm cause such a visceral reaction in /gear/fags?>inb4 the same sperg out giving me (You)s
>>4485819>fujislug words: i think having skill is a waste of time and cool people purchase their skill. being able to do things is for faggots. i am so bad at things applying a preset to a raw takes hours. all of your cameras have bad colors and you have to edit. my purchases make me better than you. >fujislug reality: SOOC jpegs literally look exactly like phone photos. sooc colors look worse when not relying on a vsco filter. features and quality on 2026 gear costing thousands cant keep up with cameras from 2016.that is why people are mad and believe it or not its not just /p/. everyone hates fujislugs. you are proud of being stupid and wasting money. you think being more competent than you is bad. that’s it.
>>4485822They’re emblematic off the app generation. Not only are they unable to use a raw file, they’re willfully ignorant of the great colors everyone besides sony, panasonic, and olympus already had straight out of camera. Fujislugs act like every cameras jpegs are as dull and lifeless as a fuji without sims or a snoy. Reality is their enemy because in reality fuji just charges a fat wad to whoever falls for the marketing rather than bothering to make a good camera for photographers.
>>4485700Not even close, this is more like having a nice car and then detailing it to make it look even better.
>>4485819>Why does the mere mention of Fujifilm cause such a visceral reaction in /gear/fags?Its literally just one extremely autistic anon that keeps on having a complete meltdown and proceeds to write a schizo essay about worms
>>4485819Fuji is fine, it's just when it's the one faggot that thinks it's the best camera on the market because it has built in filters like a phone.
>>4485825>only one person thinks fuji sucks>its muh cANON its ambush its m43!93% of people who buy cameras think fuji sucks lolfuji is every way mirrorless is worse than dslrs rolled into one brand where a basic kit costs $3000 and the only gimmick is instagram filters. also it looks like phone photos.
>>4485812Im better than you because I have talent and you have toysSimple as really :D
I’ve looked over probably hundreds of sample GFX produced images and they look remarkable, as good as anything I’ve seen apart from Hasselblad.Images from the GF 110mm f/2 lens for example are stunning. I have no idea what you people are on about.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
>>4485833Fuji gfx has a few problems to make up for undercutting hasselblad cfv/x2d cams (low sync speed, wires coming off in the camera, ibis failure) but it has nothing in common with fuji x besides dodgy weather sealing and chintsy vsco presets. generally its users are more level headed and less retarded.
>>4485819they're upset someone didn't choose price/performanceagain fujis are apsc mirrorless with gen 1 mirrorlews apsc af (think canon m50, nikon z30/z50) sold for the same price as a nikon z6ii/sony a7c/canon r8 (mirrorless ff) >>4485823the only colors i really liked were canon 5ds rest were okay or still needed workif a camera company wanted to push fuji off they would've had improved their jpeg processing engines by now, you buy a fuji and pay a little more + take the iq drop strictly for that. https://www.veresdenialex.com/post/best-digital-cameras-with-film-simulations-my-picksim considering switching if the filters mean i'll like most of the photos out the box + the size of the kit is way smaller than the ff dslr i was carrying. probably gonna be either a xt30 or xt3/xt4, i don't see the point in 40mp out of a apsc sensor
>>4485839Fuji jpeg processing is really poor. It LITERALLY looks like a phone. Fuji has nothing but their bad ergonomics and their marketing. There is no tech angle to it. They name pretty shitty presets after film stocks but they don’t look a thing like film stocks. Nikon already has user picture controls that do the exact same thing, but that doesn’t matter because it’s not the technology. Fuji is so bad at in house technology and so good at bullshitting idiots they called a regular pattern of squares "more random like film". The only thing they can actually do is make lenses and paper (they make hasselblad’s lenses). The cameras are junk. Its like buying a snoy but instead of chilling and fixing white balances and presets later the fuji experience is mashing through menus for the film sim, dr400 shit, and white balance AND mashing through menus to cope with their shitty AF system (it cant just be left on auto like a canon/nikon circa any year after 2010)Oh, and there is no defending price/performance that bad. Money is real. It is a thing that can be wasted. And $2000 is a lot of it even if you’re a retarded childless pothead with a wall of funko pops, when the deal is basically a nikon z50 in terms of tech but with the picture controls already on the camera. You can just download them to the sd card it takes two minutes.
>>4485840>Nikon already has user picture controls that do the exact same thing, but that doesn’t matter because it’s not the technology.They don't work, I've actually tried it. You have to do it in post in nxstudio. It doesn't work in camera. It was with a Z50 too. Maybe the Z50II fixed it. I couldn't get colors I wanted out of it so I sold it. I'm not claiming there's a tech angle. I'm saying if camera companies wanted to sell more cameras they'd work on the jpeg engine/processing because this is what sells cameras, your average normie does not care about IQ nearly as much as /p/ photography nerds. Most pics taken with ILCs aren't being used in prints, they're being shared on laptop and cell phone screens. I think the pictures look pretty good especially if they're SOOC. Why can't Sony or Canon or Nikon do the same as Fuji and let you do in camera presets as good? I don't see the point in spending $2000 for any APSC but the 26mp Fujis are usually $1000
>>4485841>they didnt workThey do? You personally dont like them. Many personally dont like fuji film sins especially with artificial light. >this is what sells camerasMarket trends say, it doesn’t. At all. People who cant pirate lightroom or configure camera settings dont buy these things. They are all inherently complex and that selects for a level of competence. If fuji had the magic bullet they’d be outselling nikon at least. They don’t. Their serious fanboys… are even shooting raw. Shooting raw is actually most of what separates cameras from "picture taking devices". Its similar to shooting film in that it can be pushed or pulled and precise settings dont matter, only the exposure triangle affects anything and there’s multiple stops of fuckup room.
>casually gives you a mental breakdown
>>4485845buy an ad raj9/10 people pass over this overpriced junk
>>4485845Unironically I just boughted an X-E5
>>4485844No no, as in this was the message I got when I tried doing it. No matter where I put it on the SD Card. Tried a different SD card too. Had to resort to applying the picture control profiles in NXStudio in post. For what its worth my favorite two were Canon 5DMK2 and Fuji Provia. Maybe it was *MY* specific camera. They're only 2% off Nikon which has a more diverse catalog. I personally just want a camera I can simplify my workflow by not having to edit.
>>4485846>overpriced
>>4485845Why are there worms in the fucking meme as well. Did you film sim it too, Rajeshi?
>>4485849>I personally just want a camera I can simplify my workflow by not having to edit.no you have to spend hours infront of a computer screen editing like everyone else on /p/ anon!
>>4485854Impressive. Very nice. Now do the Leica Q3.
>>4485841You just sound like someone that doesn't know how to use a cameraIf you couldn't figure >>4485849 this out, you should give up on cameras lol>I personally just want a camera I can simplify my workflow by not having to edit.That's any camera you want if your pictures are ever making it to a PC or Phone or tablet, importing is all it takes to have a preset applied>>4485860>find a preset you like>set to auto-apply on import>takes 0 extra time
>>4485772>more dishonestyGood tryWhat do people think of the details on something like this?
>>4485864What details?
>>4485867Does this one still look cell-phone tier?
>>4485854I’ve been shitting on snoy. What does snoy being worse at overpricing meme cameras than fuji have to do with fuji selling shitty cameras for the price of an FF nikon?Fujifilm simply does not make good cameras. Neither does sony, but that’s another story.
>>4485867Or this one, guess focus wasn't good enough here lol
>>4485860You keep saying hours, but its false. It takes less time overall than shooting jpeg. Why aren’t you mentioning spending thousands extra for worse everything? Sure with a $1600 x-t5 and another $1000 in glass, fujifilm can approximate the capability of a nikon z6ii with the cheapest kit lenses.
>Fuji autofocus is GOOD. See, AF-S hit the building corner every time! SHOW ME WHERE IN RPT SOMEONE SHOT SOMETHING OTHER THAN A BUILDING CO->canon autofocus on the fucking r50: birds in flight, no problem, athletes running towards the camera, kids, cats, dogs, nails it every timesuch is the cope of people who overspent by thousands on phone tier jpegs and raws that take three times longer to load
>R50 sample gallerywow look at that detail
>>4485848Based in the moment enjoyer
>>4485877How the hell is it sharper than the x100vi? With better colors?>>4485881In the moment:RawEc -1Manual with auto ISOAlso in the moment:Fixed ISOAperture prioritySend the film to a labNot in the moment:Make sure the photo is fully exposed because you cant fix that in jpegMake sure the white balance is right because you cant fix that in jpegAre the shadows too dark? Dr400, whats this do? Is there a higher setting? Reality isnt this contrastyThis film sim doesnt look very good here. Maybe this one. No, this oneNow that its on my phone i notice a weird magenta tint… the white balance looked good on the screen… why…I am buying a canon!
>>4485888>Manual with auto ISOThis always gives me dunning-kruger tingles
>>4485888Better detail than this?
>>4485877Idk what the problem is. Despite the creepshot and building corner, it's a clean, sharp image that the AF nailed with no wormy bullshit.If this was a good photo, the R50 would do it justice.
>>4485890Why though. I see no downside. Cap the top end of the ISO range to something non-retarded like 1600 or 3200 and it's literally the smartest way to deal with less than ideal light amounts. Use Av mode for good light where you can stick ISO to 100-400 safely (lots of modern cameras dual gain @ 400).
>>4485891This looks like an upscale
>>4485892This is not a sharp image though, the detail is clearly lacking. Maybe you can see it better here?Consider that you should be viewing the 40mp shots at 77% when comparing to 24mp too.
>>4485893If you care enough to be shooting M + Auto ISO and using EC too, the next step is to switch from Auto ISO, in favor of your bodies optimal ISO settingsYou shouldn't treat ISO as a control for exposure, and if you're going to be using EC and correcting exposure in post, might as well sit on on an ISO and reap the benefits from more consistent exposures>>4485894It's from the very same gallery as the other twoWhat do you think of >>4485864 and >>4485868 and >>4485870?
>>4485895This looks alright. Not cuttingly sharp, but clear enough. Although this means fuck all without knowing how much post sharpening was applied.Not being a dick but could you now show me what you'd consider to be better (and maybe tell us how much sharpening is applied)?
>>4485896ISO invariance is actually a lie. Most cameras will show more deep shadow noise than they would if the raw were better exposed instead of excessively dark. The cameras chips actually have access to raw-er data that is not written to a raw file so the internal amplification is slightly better at high intended ISOs (3200, 12800). Less than that and it makes no difference, and good cameras wont blow any important highlights at -1 anyways.
>>4485888>getting angry at made up scenariosngmi schizo
>>4485897This looks like APS-C (or maybe M43) with cheap kit lens quality to my eyes> Although this means fuck all without knowing how much post sharpening was applied.Good thing to acknowledge, hope you acknowledge it with every picture you seeCompare it to something like this, which is more what I would consider sharp. Compare the brick to >>4485895
>>4485896>If you care enough to be shooting M + Auto ISO and using EC too, the next step is to switch from Auto ISO, in favor of your bodies optimal ISO settingsI read an anon was talking about just lifting massively underexposed shots in post to preserve highlights. I just havent experiemented with that myself. Going to give it a go. Looks like my camera really likes full stops from 100-1600 and then takes a bit of a constant nosedive from there on, so I'll give your method a go.So, if ISO isn't supposed to be exposure control, then what purpose does it serve? Am I better off just sticking it to base ISO unless you're crushing/clipping?
>>4485902I just only ever shoot at my base ISO's (100-160 and 400-640) or who care's at 6400, and then push in post as needed.I was mostly A/M + auto ISO until I got tired of correcting for subtle variances between exposure. Much better to shoot at the same ISO and then I can correct all consistently with ease.Say you're shooting with auto ISO and your framing has a tad bit more shadow, so it wants more brightness, and raises ISO accordingly. Well now that -1EV protection anon mentioned above becomes 0 and then your highlights potentially take a hit. Where as with manual ISO, I don't have to ever worry about that, and anything minor enough that Auto ISO would be adjusting for, I can just correct for in post.Noise comes from exposure not ISO, so that should always be the priority.
>>4485900Just to make it super clear>100% crop R50>100% crop>100% crop after downsizing to match R50
>>4485862Can we see picture control profiles working on your Nikon Z camera? Take a picture of the back screen. I wasn't the only one. I fully reset the camera several times and tried different SD cards. I had the profiles in every folder since they were only a few kb. https://nikonpc.com/I will gladly buy a Z30 or Z50II if I could get it to work. You can only apply the presets in NX Studio. If you can get it to work I'll stop shopping for a Fuji XT30 II.
Found a Canon 5D Mark IV in mint shape for $700 USD locally, worth jumping ship from a Pentax K1 Mark II? Not really happy with the AF performance and lens selection (kinda shit unless I want lenses from <1990, all screw drive stuff and the "good lenses" are 2-3x Canon equivalents)
>>4485748That's AI denoising
>>4485751>An actual ganguroSeeing as it is at Asakusa, she's propably just a foreigner. Sad.
>>4485854Funny strawman comparison. The RX1RIII is also a total fucking joke and anyone who buys it is a retard. Few know this, but the RX1RIII was brought to market only because the RX1RII was still massively popular among drone videographers and Sony wanted to cash in on making these guys upgrade. So it's not even a camera intended for photographers, which you'd also see if you checked the specs.
>>4485948>it's not even a camera intended for photographers>https://youtu.be/erVGQhslgBAholy cope
>>4485949>minmaxing the market demographic by putting out a cheap ad disproves that the target audience are dronefagsReally, I'm the one coping? Coping about what, exactly? I'm not the one down $5k here, lmao
>f/8.0Barely enough>1/1000Why? Waves would be just as good with a slower shutter>ISO 400Why?>Overexposing one stop + no histogramWhy if you have no histogram?Do fujiworms really?
>>4485694>Applying a profile takes countless hoursUsing a smartphone is faster than taking a fuji out.
>>4485912Nope, LR default NR for both>>4485908Sure thing bud, I've used that utility for over a decade, all the way back to a D90, I'll share some LCD shots later, also worked at camera shops for a decade so walked many people through doing it tooWhy would you buy gear based on what JPG preset you can use for it? If your using a PC, why not find a good preset you like and have it apply on import? Then you can use whatever camera you want
>>4485692Yes, but fuji's lens ecosystem is starting to show its age. Most lenses are a decade old. AF is pretty slow. Most can barely resolve 40 MP, poor lens quality is saved by shitty interpolation making 40 MP xtranny look like 26 MP Bayer.
>>4485958The older lenses do show their age, but they have plenty of modern options with better AF motors that can handle 40mp just fine
>Sony a7V specs>Same 33MP >Same EVF>New tilting screen>More 'AI powered features'>$2899What went wrong?
>>4485961only Indians buy snoy
Looking at 135mm lenses for my old SLR. There are three versions available: f2.8, f3.5, and f4.5. What should be my deciding factor between these three options? How much I'm shooting at night? Sharpness at long distances?
>>4485908Are you sure your putting it in the right folder? It wont show up if it's not in the right folder, and you did mention "no matter where I put it on the card". This was from NikonPC.>download>put file in appropriate folder on card>load to cameraI'll give you the benefit of the doubt since NikonPC is 3rd party and doesn't technically list Z50 as supported, but you should still be able to import presets via NX Studio to the card / camera.
>>4485964Honestly I sold that camera last year because I got frustrated at not being able to get the picture control profiles on top of never being happy with the colors. I'm guessing this is on a ZF? I was putting it in the right folder iirc + the main directory. It wasn't even showing up when I tried to load it to the camera. If the Z30 lets me do that I'll pick it up since they're $380 refurb occasionally and a Fuji XM5 is 2x that with a bigger lens (16-50 Z DX Kit collapses into a pancake). Z50ii is still pricey maybe next year.I think the Z50ii should since the reviews say it has a dedicated picture control profile button. Or it simply was not supported:>Select models (ZR, Z6III, Z5II, Z50II and Zf) give you the option to create your own [Flexible Color] Custom Picture Controls and upload them to your camera via memory card—as well as download Imaging Recipes—also known as Cloud Picture Controls—which are Flexible Picture Controls you can download from the Nikon Imaging Cloud. This is a curated collection by a group of photographers and videographers from around the globe. With the Z8’s firmware version 3.0, Flexible Color Picture Controls are added to that camera
>>4485969If you weren't able to figure something as simple as that out, you should take this as an opportunity to realize that maybe sometimes it's not the cameras giving you issues>I was putting it in the right folder iirc + the main directoryWhy would you do that when it only works from one specific folder? It even makes the folder for you if you want. It's also in the manual for the Z50so it's obviously possible. Did some more digging, seems NikonPC should work just fine with Z50.>If the Z30 lets me do that You mean if you can figure out how to download a file in the right folder> [Flexible Color] Custom Picture ControlsYes and? That's just new stuff on-top of what's been available.
snoysisters... how do we recover from this...
>>4485963Logistical choices: Cost, size/weightvsFunctional capability: Resolution, Bokeh, low-lightPersonally on an SLR I think bigger apertures are needed to offset the fact you're normally shooting at 100-800 ISO and you'll more often need it just to expose correctly. However, it depends a lot on what you shoot. Do you normally take a tripod? Are you travel snapshitting? Trying to keep bulk down? Do you shoot in broad daylight or indoors? etc.I'd get the f/2.8 just because my SLR comes out when I can take my time and I'm not constrained by kit size or weight.If it's your only camera and the f/4.5 lens is like half the size, I'd consider that instead but honestly you shoul just link the lenses.
>>4485971>If you weren't able to figure something as simple as that out, you should take this as an opportunity to realize that maybe sometimes it's not the cameras giving you issuesI legitimately think it was the specific camera I owned. I did everything before giving up and just doing it in NX Studio. Alternatively it wasn't supported until recently which is why it doesn't mention the Z50 in that paragraph from Nikon's site, the oldest cameras being the Zf and Z8. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/nikon-z50-trouble-loading-custom-picture-profile.4575900/Here, in case you think I can't load a file into a folder. Someone else who had the same exact issue.
>>4485974Yes, and if you read that thread you could see they identified the issue (Mac specific) and that it worked just fine through other meansFlexible is a new and different thing that required the newer processors which is why it's limited in bodies, you could still use the other profiles as. E as before
https://www.ebay.com/itm/336198754169Someone buy this lot of ewaste before I doCanon 5D Classic w/Battery Grip, 28-135mm USM IS Lens, Manfrotto 3221WN Tripod, and EOS RT 35mm Film Body for $258 + taxI'm trying to buy a Pentax KS2 w/18-50mm Kit Lens + 50mm f2 Prime for $150 locally instead.
>>4485973>Personally on an SLR I think bigger apertures are needed to offset the fact you're normally shooting at 100-800 ISO and you'll more often need it just to expose correctly.This is usually what I go for, the widest aperture possible to take in as much light as I can since I am limited by the ISO of my film.>However, it depends a lot on what you shoot.I don't currently have a tripod. Mostly street shooting, some nature, occasional travel snapshitting. Bulk isn't really a concern, all old prime lenses are pretty small. I shoot at all light levels, indoor and outdoor but mostly outdoor. >If it's your only camera and the f/4.5 lens is like half the size, I'd consider that instead but honestly you shoul just link the lenses.https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=olympus+om+zuiko+135&_sacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_odkw=Pentax+PC35AF-M&_osacat=0This is my search. It seems like they're being categorized as portrait, standard, and macro depending on the aperture. Having macro capabilities is always appreciated and I'm wondering if I would even use it much for indoor shots or low light. It would mostly come out to capture landscapes or close-up street shots. The longer focal length bringing in more light in dim situations would be a plus and I would probably mess around with it at night butt hat wouldn't be the deciding factor.
>>4485972They've blocked 3rd party lenses from functioning. Be careful about fw upgrades with other models too.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGNrsy_XFAM&t=1058s
>>4485983Confirmed:Sony peaked, its all downhill, and they never even got that good.
So when are we gonna see some more global shutter cameras? Doesn't seem to be much going on on that front.
>>4485984All manufacturers have peaked in that regard. It isn't any different with the other brands.
>>4485988I thought there's been rumors about Canon working on this. idk if it's true but seems like the type or 'prosumer' feature evolution that is typically up their alley.
>>4485761>Whats next, u dun need moar because rpt is all trees?I mean, trees are one of the many reasons to NOT shoot Fuji so he still wouldn't have an argument. X-tranny blurs foliage creating a sort of watercolor effect.
I’ve been shooting and developing film for a few years since I had a nice place near home to develop and scan. Moved away and now I’m kinda stuck with digital. Problem is Have a 60d with some basic lenses (50mm 1.8, 24mm 2.8, 70-300 kit zoom) and it’s really not inspiring me to shoot digital since the autofocus is ass and its low light performance is shit coming from film.Should I just sell my digital setup and start over or buy a 18-55 2.8 and hope the glass saves me? Right now my iPhone blows it out of the water.Pic because I love Canon color SOOC.
So the A7V sucks. What should anyone actually buy? A Z8?
>>4486034if you mainly shoot inanimate objects (rocks and leaves) just use your phone
>>4485979The f/4.5 lenses you linked aren't worse because they're f/4.5, they're Macro lenses which involve some special optical fuckery to achieve 1:1 ratio. If you want to do macro you buy this one, full stop. However, macro on film is going to be a cunt without a tripod and flash so beware. However, macro lenses are *normally* sharper than others of the same make and FL.The f/3.5 lens looks like your basic consumer lens that would have been chucked in with a body kit or sold cheap as to pair with someone's 50mm. Perfectly good choice but probably the least optically impressive. Probably. I have no experience with these lenses myself.The f/2.8 lens actually looks about the same in terms of its position in the market. May just be a more modern rehash of the f/3.5 lens which is only a half stop slower.Anyway. I'd just buy the f/2.8 since they're all about the same price and size. It's film. You don't want to underexpose film.
If I were to get a camera for the sole purpose of taking pictures of paintings; should I try to get as many megapixels as possible or should I get something like a canon powershot g10 for the ccd sensor? I used to come here like 5-10 years ago and /p/ used to swear by the g10.>Or they were memeing.Are there cameras that have perfect color accuracy?
>>4486061Hasselblad is supposedly respected for having realistic color science, as in, SOOC quality the more closely resembles what our eyes+brain perceive.
Is the Tamron 25-200 OK for close up shots? Technically it should have 0.5x magnification but I think that's only at 25mm (which means you have to be 2cm from your subject). Whats the mag ratio at say 100mm? Otherwise I might just pick up the 90mm Tamron 2.8 Macro or the Laowa 180mm f4.5.But if I can get decently close with a zoom, that'd be pretty neat too.
>>4486064Modern Nikons are pretty decent too. Not as good as Hassy but way better than Canons or Sonys.
>>4485972>>4485983Um... Sony sisters???
>>4485972lol that kit lens. even nikon gives you a constant f4 one
>>4486109>A New Challenger Approaches!
>>4485972>>4486109LOL, lmao even
>>4486049Thank you for the well thought out reply
>>4486109What a silly commentBoth Nikon and Sony have several kit lenses, some are f4 and some are not
>>4486105Video features do not matter on a stills camera and pretending they do is why LITERALLY EVERY CAMERA IS SHIT>r5ii, r1, r3, r6iii: ff sensor, aps-c dr>z6iii, r6ii, r5, r8, z8: aps-c dr at base ISO on a full frame camera>snoy: overpriced overheating blobs with the noisiest normal ff sensors because muh video, but done even more poorly
>>4486129This was true going back to mirrorless period. EVFs can have all the dots they want but panning is a headache inducing smear.
>>4486129>always something wrong with any camera
>>4486132>there might be a cock in my ass, but you don’t get everything you want!Cameras are getting worse. Whats next clown anon?>YoU cAn StIlL tAkE gReAt PhOtOs>dishonesty>its not for everyone!People pay $10k for a leica not because of le brand, but because that is how badly people want a camera that is not worsened by video. So badly they’ll give up autofocus. If canon re-released a compact 5dIV it would sell out immediately.
>>4486132nope its a hard truth. cameras are getting worse. every year brings more crutches like full time AI autofocus and higher FPS, more video features, higher prices, and worse image quality. other than golf clubs being slightly less bendy the a9iii and em1iii take the same photos. The r5ii also looks like mft. It’s that bad.
>>4486136>>4486134>modern cameras are just awful lol
>>4486138They are. It was looking up for a bit then DR cuts happened and mfgs showed no indication of improving basic shit like battery capacity, internal storage and mobile connectivity (its all awkward and buggy for everyone) because all they care about is AP journos and the exact way AP journos transfer video clips and jpegs back to HQ. And of course, making money by selling the same people more and more shit. Why would they change the battery form factor to a higher capacity single cell when they can keep selling two li-ions wired together for $100 far more often than they ever did? Why would they add internal storage when they sell their own memory cards? Why would they give a fuck about retaining the market outside of corporate photogs when those peasants are lowly unimportant artists and hobbyists, not approved pros who honor the daimyo, and it is dishonorable and abhorrent for serfs to expect to own equipment fitting of a samurai?Japanese culture is of disdain and greed. They would never do basic shit like apple and try and make things everyone likes.
>>4486141The market they failed to retain has permanently fucked off to buying used cameras or basically told companies they are never moving on if the companies aren’t. Video tards on the other hand are LITERALLY retarded and have proven they will pay $40k for a camcorder if it comes with clout and nerd out over codecs when there is literally no way for anyone in the audience ever, at all, to care beyond 4k, because unlike photos digital video can not leave the screen. Why would greedy faggots care about smart photographers who are becoming known for pinpointing what actually matters and doesnt (hence the stagnation of the megapixel wars) when dumb videographers already telegraphed their stupidity via paying RED and arri prices for a few hundred bucks of circuitry in a box
>>4486141>I know the market more than anyone, retailers or manufacturers included>Cameras are worse then everWhat are you even doing on this board if you're so smart? What cameras do you use? Can we see some pictures?
>>4486143>hence the stagnation of the megapixel warsWhat year would you say this started?
>>4486145Why does this offend you so much? Its facts. Phones have ample internal storage. Cameras do not. The camera makers sell their own memory cards. Shocker!Phones have modern batteries. MILCs are using the same batteries as ancient DSLRs and drain them much, much faster. The camera makers sell basic two cell packs that cost $2 to make for almost $100 each. Shocker!$100 smartphones have better displays than camera makers put on their best cameras and vastly superior displays to those of the "cheap" cameras (that cost as much as a brand fucking new iphone 17)They also have better software, while cameras can not even manage stable, grandma-friendly wireless photo transfer and have poorly designed confusing apps. The last batch of FF cameras released by every major brand cut image quality severely to improve rolling shutter in video. Prices continue to go up.Modern cameras are awful. That’s why you don’t use modern cameras personally, corgi snapper. You use an xpro2 and a leica. So why do you defend things like the r5ii and a7v? Sony isn’t going to fuck you. Well, they are, but not in a good way.
>>4486151I use many camerasWhy can't you even answer a simple question like what gear you own? lol truly are a nohopto
>>4486146camera image quality stagnated in 2015 with the 50mp 5ds/45mp d850 and 2017 with the p1 iq3further improvements have been marginal at best. 50 to 60mp is as difficult to perceive as 24 vs 26mp. >>4486154Because you need to hear it separately and learn to stop defending corporations like they’re m’lady. Yes, mirrorless cameras are often worse than DSLRs. They are often worse than prior mirrorless cameras. Some companies have not made a single truly good mirrorless. It is okay to admit that the products are bad and the companies that make them are ran by out of touch idiots. It is okay to admit that due to japan’s inability not just to innovate, but to copy recent innovation, ILCs are being rapidly displaced by phones.
>>4486155>correct, I do not actually own a camera or take pictures
>>4486156I own 3 cameras and take pictures. But this is a gear thread and you’re desperate to pull a "i dont like the photos you’re willing to post on 4chan so your well reasoned points i have no response to are invalid".Do you have a reasoned response to the points here? >>4486151Use your words. Excuse each and every problem in the context of climbing prices. Spoilers - you can’t. modern cameras are awful. they have been since companies abandoned SLR development to cut costs. Canonikony’s behavior is inexcusable. They can not compete with phones and have no will to appeal outside of the market that literally has to buy new cameras regularly for their jobs.
>>4486136post photos
>>4486159n-no, must consoom…! new product always exciting…! must see positives in corporate greed and buy more shopping fun! consoom must never end, always get excited for new product!
>>4486160Do you have a rational response that justifies a $3000 full frame camera being nearly as grainy as micro four thirds, worse IQ than the last model, still falling behind the cheapest android phones UX, still not offering any built in storage, and still going through batteries 4x faster than DSLRs? And how do cheap micro four thirds cameras from many years ago still enable more video features in firmware?Can this be excused? No. But… it can be ignored. People should simply stop buying these products that never improve, sometimes get worse, but keep going up in price. And they are. The high used prices of DSLRs aint being supported by everyone abandoning them!
>>4486162feel free to post your android photo that mogs the r5mkii
>>4486159>I've been asked 3 times but can't even simply name what gear I'm usingOkay nophotoIt's always more because it's interesting to see where criticisms are coming from, I never attack people on the basis of the quality of their photos, it just helps me understand their point of view better and sometimes take them more seriouslyThe fact you can't even simply list some gear you use, let alone post a picture, just solidifies your opinion is coming from nowhere>>4486162Do you have a camera or take photos?
>>4486164The r5ii mathematically can not achieve better image quality than the 10 year old d850. It also can not beat its direct predecessor, the r5. Image quality is noticeably worse. ISO 800 is now noticeably grainy. Shadow recovery brings up a void of mush. And the android comparison was about UX. Why does a $3000 camera with IQ that splits the difference between two decade old DSLRs have a worse back screen than a phone, still use a tiny DSLR battery pack instead of a modern cell, and still have the photo transfer experience of an early 2010s bluetooth enabled PDA (complete with connection drops) when a cheap shit iphone SE has one tap airdrop and a 5g radio to access services everyone uses like instagram? Laptops and tablets have had cell internet for almost a decade!
>>4486168Listen bitchtits, I asked you to use your logic and facts to formate a reasoned response. Not for you to shit on my photos to defend m’brand. Maybe if you could i’d post a photo for you. After you proved you are able to justify these increasingly worsened half-camcorders. Because as it stands the last mirrorless that aren’t worse are getting old and 99% of photographers have no reason to move past DSLRs.
>>4486172>I DEFINITELY don't own a camera or take photos
>>4486172There's also no point in addressing you honestly because I'd list dozens of things under as a tangible benefit, and you just cope and excuse away them all, one way or anotherDone this before, no point in engaging honestly with dishonest nophotos
>>4486169seems like you're lost>>>/g/107396456 might be where you were trying to shitpost
>>4486173I do. But you can’t defend these increasingly shitty scameras. You literally can not. You can not give me one honest sentence justifying this stagnation and worsening of everything that isnt a skill issue crutch or a licensed video codec some cheap panasonic already had 5 years ago.The crutches are absolutely much better. But also, people continue to take better photos than their top shelf mirrorless using friends with old 10fps DSLRs and noticeably aged mirrorless. If they don’t make anything new possible, just slightly easier to do without practice, what could justify every issue i’ve outlined, given the absurd prices? Even mirrorless cameras coming out worse than their direct predecessors?Go on. Use words. Use a reasoned out argument. And then I will let you call my photos shit.
>>4486174You mean because I already discounted the FPS/AF crutches and video is not just universally recognized as diminishing returns: the format, but already covered better by dedicated video cameras.
>The corporations are greedy and stupid. Everyone must stop giving them money. Old tech doesn’t just still work, it does meaningful things better and the things it does worse can be fully compensated for with a modicum of skill. >NO… YOU ARE LE WRONG, LE BAD! NEW PRODUCT IS ALWAYS EXCITING! STOP THINKING STOP ASKING QUESTIONS GIVE ME A WAY TO PERSONALLY ATTACK YOUR CREDIBILITY! NEW PRODUCT IS ALWAYS EXCITING!>Just tell me logically what excuses that>NEW PRODUCT IS REALLY COOL LET ME RIDICULE YOU NOW>Can you justify corporate greed like this at all>*hits dab rig* NEW PRODUCT IS USED BY COOL PEOPLE4channer vs redditor cage match
>he's resorted to caps lock strawman
>>4486180You never had an argument at all, just"Interesting argument but I won’t reply unless I may first attack your credibility"Can you excuse this corporate greed at all, redditor? Can you disagree that since they have started actually making worse cameras with higher prices, there is a moral duty and a duty to common sense to shun the factories and use what we already have until it breaks?
>>4486181no one is obliged to legitimize your obvious bad faith arguments by replying with their own good faith arguments. Feel free to continue chimping out by yourself, though.
>>4485653My campsnap with dog days filter does a better job.
>>4486182Aw, denied the opportunity to attack my credibility through my photography you try another way to delegitimize without actually replying to a single point. You can’t excuse the stagnation, degradation, and price hikes at all can you?So, i guess i’ll stay right. What new cameras bring to photography is not, and can not be valuable because it is easily substituted by the bare minimum of skill. What they take from it is not paid back to photography. It is paid back to post production addicted video geeks. And what they have not just failed to improve, but steadily worsened, completely fails to justify increasingly high prices like a $3k post-tax a7v. It’s simple. You can not defend it. The corporations are indefensible. Their greed is inexcusable. Exactly as the rational world has been shouting in your ear for 100 years… rich people always turn bad.
>>4486186Video geeks? The a7v does worse video than the g9ii from two years ago.
>>4486179Is this an example of your honesty in representing both sides fairly? >>4486181That wasn't me, it's not about credibility, it's about you larping as someone that has uses a camera and takes pictures, when you don't do either
>>4486188I do both. You can’t respond to any points doe. I’ve been repeating myself. You’ve been coping, dodging, and crying. I guess I win by default. Mirrorless has reached full scam. Old cameras are better.
Just be normal. Buy a 5DIII and a 24-105 f4 L.
>>4486064thank you>>4486089i might just rent the Hasselblad X2D 100C like once a year when i actually need it, but i'll consider nikons
>>4486190>I still don't own a camera for take photosSad, sorry but I only address points by people who do take photos
>>4486196I already told you, you’d get an amazing photo if you could only excuse the corporate greed of mirrorless scameras. Guess you can’t so you don’t.
>>4486198>still downt own a camera or take any photosNeat
Thread summary:Fujislugs got bodiedSnoys got bodiedMirrorless consoomers got bodied
>>4485983Chinese people having British accents is so weird. Uncanny.
>>4486206>this unc has been living under a rock for 30 years
>>4486201more like>nophotos whine and complain since they don't own a camera or take pictures
>>4486228>nophotosthis isnt reddit. you dont need to share a photo everytime you post for imaginary social internet points.
>he said>on the imageboard
>>4486230>Autism
>>4486229no one asked anyone to share a photo every timei know its hard not to be dishonest, but come on
Wanting to move to digital from my x-700. I've got ~¥140000 (~$900) max to spend right now. Stills only, I do railway and other infrastructure photos mainly and take it on hikes. Primarily use a 50mm but something longer would be nice too, my current zoom isn't any good so I avoid it. Eventually would want to pickup a wide lens as well. Used market obviously, is this pointing to a cheaper crop sony? or older canon ff dslr? Haven't followed the digital market at all
>>4486242Nikon d750 simple as
>>4486239what do you think nophoto means?
>>4486244shrimple indeed.I take it that autofocus, burst rate, and maybe low light would be the main benefits of something newer? given what I'm coming from, those aren't so important. any reason for d750 over canon equiv? I've got lenses for neither so no preference.
I still regret the a6500
>>4486258People that never post photos here or even own a camera
>>4486279>2005 to 2025: some ppl post photos, some talk. >One week in Dec 2025: every fucking thread is some noob making a big deal about nophotos bc they has expectations and everyone else isn’t meeting them.Hey I know, how about you go fuck yourself?
>>4486287I've been on this board that whole time and we used to have a lot more regulars posting lots more photosSorry for wanting people to post photos on a photography image boardIf you think this is a dec 2025 issue, you must be very new here nophoto
>>4486287Sorry, I'm supposed to only give low effort feedbackI don't like your comment
>>4486258It means the fuji shill/shit camera white knight wants to discredit the people that btfo him by calling their photos shit/p/ has seen other people fall for his post photo antics and suffer - despite taking the exact same rocks and leaves and meme pet photos he posts. Don’t post photos for the fuji shill. He won’t suddenly agree with you. He’ll insult you and deepthroat fuji harder. Its all he can do because it is literally impossible to defend some camera companies idiocy+prices without going full retard.
>>4486357I just want to see the work of people here that have such strong opinionsI've learned a lot from here and want to continue learningYou'd rather no one post photos
>>4486359People can post photos when gearfags defending the brand they fanboy are quiet
>>4486360Don't know why one prevents the other, that's a new cope
>S*ny
>>4486115Why get this over the much smaller (almost pancake sized) 28-60? That little lens is super sharp too.
>>4486366Nice package of products but I'd switch the Laowa for the Tamron macro. The Tamron is only $200 more expensive but has autofocus.
Sony 16-35mm f4 PZSony 50mm f1.2 GMSony 100mm f2.8 GM MacroAll you need are those three lenses.
I have the following lenses. What should I add to it?- Zeiss Loxia 21mm f2.8- Samyang 24mm f1.8- Viltrox 28mm f4.5- Sony 28-60mm- Zeiss Loxia 35mm f2- Samyang 35mm f1.4- Sigma 45mm f2.8- Sony 50mm f2.8 Macro- Samyang 85mm f1.4Just now realizing I don't have anything wider than 21 or tighter than 85. Maybe I should get an UWA zoom?
>>4486425How the fuck are we supposed to know what you need? Clearly even you don't know. Stop wasting your money and go out and shoot
So any run of mill android phone is better than any compact camera for video recording.
>>4486420>All I need are these three lenses.FTFY, autist
>>4486436This board is called photography not videography if I recall correctly.
>>4486436Def better than a fuji for wide angle vlogs
>>4486425Sell a 35mmSell 28-60Sell 50 macro, get 105mm sigma macroSell all loxias before they break
https://www.ebay.com/itm/227117237579This is my favorite CCD + A-Mount shitter and one came up for sale on eBay in decent shape. I have two one in black and one in silver :)I want to add a KM 7D to my collection but they always either have bad shutters or broken anti-shake or some other issue like not saving the image.
>>4486425Figure out what you like using the most and sell the junk, it's better to have a handful of great lenses then a bag full of mediocre onesIf you have to ask what to buy next, you don't need anything
Should I be working with my camera files on a sony camera by just copying the contents of my SD? File structure is kinda weird.For a while I used this old outdated Playmemories home and I used to back up shit just by clicking on a button (with an SD reader, because it's much faster than USB/WiFi) but now that I use a different OS, that convenience is gone. All I see is a bunch of random folders and all my videos with .xml files next to em containing metadata.
>>4485653Why do people shit on the Hasselblad licensed cameras from the early 2010s, but don't say shit about Leica slapping their name on bad cameras?
>>4486494Just copy the pics and videos off the sd card and put them in whatever folders you wantWhat's the issue?
>>4486425Sell the kit lens and all your f4 lenses, then get the Sony 20-70mm.
>>44864251: sell2: also sell3: SELL!4: definitely sell that bloated soft POS5: sell6: sell. 7: sell8: sell9: sellBuy:16-35 f4 pz70-200 f4 mk2A nice 50mm lense
>untestedso this means it doesn't work, right
>>4486458That was my first DSLR. Eventually the IBIS broke and its now dead and wont take pictures. I still have it on display on my shelf.
>>4486425Unironically sell it all and just get a smartphone. You wont tell the difference with your usecase.
>>4486425How many bodies do you have for those?
Perhaps this is confirmation bias since I actually look Pentax K mount lenses, but was Pentax drastically more popular than most brands in 70-80's? I can't adapt canon or minolta to this so I don't really look for them, but stuff like m42, Olympus,Nikon I could use, but rarely see their lenses around.
Is there anything cheap for lens storage? I am to the point where it's not viable to just keep them loose around and I don't want to use an old bag stuck in the closet. Looks like everything is like hard cases and bags, anything like an ornament case that's just some dividers in a cheap injection molded case? Don't need drop protection, just keeping them from banging around.
>>4486425Sell whatever has the highest resale value,
>>4486443Ok thanks for the tips. I wont sell the 35 loxia but I will sell the 21. Not because it is a bad lens, but because I dont use the focal length.>Sigma 105mm macroWhat do you think of the 90mm Tamron? It's cheaper than the Sigma.
>>4486460>it's better to have a handful of great lenses then a bag full of mediocre ones>If you have to ask what to buy next, you don't need anythingTrue words. Yeah I dont know what I'd sell. Probably the Loxia 21 and the Sony 28-60.
>>4486518hmm. I like your suggestions for new lenses but I dont wanna sell all my lenses. I like all of them and they all serve a usecase. Reason I have two different 35s? One is for video (Sammy 1.4) and the other is for street photography (Loxia 35).>>4486574hmm, no.>>4486575Just one body (Sony A7CII)
>>4486580it could be because a 70s k-mount lens is still compatible with any 21st century Pentax DSLRevery? other company created a new mount for their digital cameras
>>4485653Idk why people want fake colors. That's not how reality looks so why take a photo of it? I want my photography to be as close to how my eyes see it as possible editing and goofy color enhanced photography is the opposite of that.
>>4486619Because it's art/cinema. If you want to look at real colors, go outside, don't look at photographs.
>>4486620>its art>back of head>bookshelfshitty instagram filter with fujifilm branding does not art makeanon asks why because the photos are clearly non-artisticperhaps fujifilm should hire better ad men. id rather use lightroom (the laggiest and least intuitive editor) than spend ages fiddling with camera settings on a fuji for those phonelike results.
>>4485658>What is the model of the camera in this advertisement?looks to be an xt5>Is the x-half a good camera to get into Fuji? i would say no, it doesn't have any useful features and if youre just looking for something simple to point and shoot its too expensive, i would save up for one of their interchangeable lens systems, an x100, or look at other brands so you dont waste the money personally i think saving up and getting a system you can grow into as you learn more is the best way to go in any hobby so long as you love doing it
>>4485658The xt5 is nearly as expensive as an a7iv especially on the used marketMost pros use sony for a reason
>>4486635Sony and Canon are the only pro cameras currently. I've never seen a pro use a Fuji and Nikon is becoming pretty rare across the board.t. worked in pro spaces with major companies for a few years now
>>4486619>That's not how reality looks.You simply do not have the spirit of an artist.
>>4486615anon he's asking why did pentax sell so many cameras in the 70s-80simo it was probably because of the k1000 being a really popular intro to photography camera and the spotmatic being successful the pros back then still used nikon/canon iirc and k-mount had easy cross compatibility with m42 which was relatively universaltoday is the 50th anniversary of the k-mount. >>4486635the pros use sony because the pros get free cameras
>>4486623>perhaps fujifilm should hire better ad men. id rather use lightroom (the laggiest and least intuitive editor) than spend ages fiddling with camera settings on a fuji for those phonelike results.Most Fuji shooters don't even have a computer, though. They only have an iPhone.
>>4486635which pros exactly? >UHHH PHOTOJOURNALISTSidc what they are forced to use by their agency, i care what artists use or used
>>4486653NTA but I've worked in commercial stuff, things like portraits for execs, real estate, new products etc and everyone uses Canon or Sony. The companies don't give a shit and you usually get to pick what camera you want to use, but they try to steer you towards what they prefer. A lot of them tend to have already gone with one single brand since it means every lens among the team is compatible, and that single brand is always Canon or Sony. I was at one place where they made the change from Nikon to Canon and everyone was pissed off about having to gradually change all their gear (despite it all being paid for). A few months later and nobody gave a shit anymore.
>>4486654Every time someone on /p/ is like "WeLl ThE pRoFfEsIoNaLs [blah blah blah]", and I'm here like yes, I did contract work for a real estate firm and the only thing that matters is the photo, not the gear. The gear matters so little. Nobody doing paid photo work gives a shit about the brand or gear itself unless they've already developed some faggot brand loyalty from their personal hobby.We used Canon and it was purely because Canon had a contract with us. Why did we have a contract with Canon? Probably because 15 years ago some middle-manager who didnt know anything about cameras saw one at Target then recognised the logo when looking for what to buy. I used a 60D with an EF-S 10-18mm for the most part, sometimes getting out the kit 18-55mm for shots of the exterior. A speedlite couple of off-camera speedlites and lighting umbrellas. Plebian setup by /p/ standards.
>>4486669For some of the companies I was at, it was either brand preference or simplicity. I think Sony got some strong favoritism at the start because of their early entry into mirrorless and the sharpness but that's just a guess.>10-18mm for the most partThat's pretty wide even for real estate, places I was at started at 14mm. We primarily used something like a 14-35mm (or 16-35 maybe, its been a while) since you could easily cover the whole interior and get a good exterior photo too. It was all about getting the house done as fast as possible with as little fucking around as possible, so that lens never left our cameras.
>>4486670>>10-18mm>That's pretty wide even for real estateYeah, we only really ever used the long end you're right. 14mm was also where we started but the firm I worked at thought being able to go ultra wide was useful for shit like pools and nice landscaping. Policy was on the inside we'd start at 18mm and go wider as needed to get the whole room in shot and keep it as much on the long end as possible. I think the other guy working there at the time was advocating for something a little more universal, but the manager was fine with us taking a little more time to swap lenses out for the exterior shots and would bitch and moan at the thought of spending more money on gear.Was a really small single business if that matters.
What are your thoughts on the Nikon Zf? It looks like the specs, size and price are close to the ideal camera I'm looking for.The deal breaker for was just that filming in 4k 60fps crops in to APS-C size as I'd want to use it for both photo and video.Also, not being familiar with Nikon cameras, do they have a lens that's essentially a copy of the Canon EF 50mm 1,2 L lens? In terms of size and image quality? Nikon's own lenses all look quite large when you get to that quality/price range.
>>4485890this is a dumb take. I think most people shoot like this, you can set a ceiling in camera for your ISO to not exceed, and then control aperture and shutter speed. Could it be that you don't know what you're talking about?
>>4486680Just got back from a week long road trip with mine, and love it even more. I don't shoot video with it often, so I can't really get into that. For the price on the used market it's kinda hard to beat for what it offers. Nikon has a 50 f1.2. As far as lens size i prefer to keep it light, think the 28mm, 40mm, and adapted old Nikkor glass. This camera has the ability to be ignored compared to when i shot with a Sony A7Riii. For whatever reason the general public turns a blind eye to you when your camera doesn't have a massive grip on it.
>>4486683I like basically everything about it except the 60fps crop at 4k. It just seems weird to me they'd put a flip screen on when the video capabilities are sort of a compromise.The Nikon 50 f1.2 is just fucking huge and heavy. Same with Canon's new RF version of the 50. The Canon EF50mm 1.2 is just so fucking perfect. I can't imagine getting a camera that doesn't have "that lens" available. That being said, the Zf is close to exactly what I'm looking for.What lenses do you use with yours?
What's the sweet spot for a used DSLR body under 300 euros?
I bought a Fooj X-T2 in like 2021 for pocket change and apparently it went up in value over the years for no real reason.
>>4486682It's a very normal take by 4channel/p/ standards - the worst place to talk about photography. Aperture priority with maximum ISO and minimum shutter speed is perfectly adequate for 99% of shooting conditions. Only if you want to tinker with moving subjects or have other specific needs it is better to shoot full manual.
>>4486682Most people do, but here are marginal pros and cons to itWell aware, you shouldn't be letting using ISO to account for minor exposure variancesIf you're smart enough to shoot in M, you should got the full setup and shoot M ISO too>>4486695Very true, aperture priority and auto ISO is a good fit for most people and most situations
>>4486680Favorite modern mirrorless body
>>4486693Canon 5DII + EF 50mm f/1.8 STM>>4486696>If you're smart enough to shoot in M, you should got the full setup and shoot M ISO tooI don't think most people shoot auto ISO because they lack the ability to look at the light meter, I think they do it for speed.Reducing your exposure triangle to two sides simply makes things faster and sometimes a few tenths of a second are enough to miss a shot.It's partly why I think film is handy to learn on; you only have two things to fiddle at most.
>>4486702>think they do it for speed.Yes, thank you for admitting it is a compromise for easier shootingShooting manual ISO also reduces your exposure triangle to two sides lol
>>4486619What do your photos look like?
>>4486698What are your main pros and cons with it? And what lenses do you like using the most for it?
>>4486693T6i equivalent if you find it for 100 eurodollarpoundyuan.
>>4486705>Yes, thank you for admitting it is a compromise for easier shootingIf you're saying this to be some sort of own, then I hope you realise anything less than large format film is a compromise for easier shooting.Your argument just falls apart at each step until that point.>Shooting manual ISO also reduces your exposure triangle to two sides lolUh, sure, until you move outside the limits of your light meter / histogram and need to *gasp* fiddle with the ISO button again! Idk why you're so hung up on this as if a photo is made better by jerking off over how "muh manual controls" are superior. It's all convenience, all the way down.
>>4486721The point of M ISO is you don't fiddle with it constantly thoughTo the extent you go outside the bounds and need to readjust, the same is true for auto ISOIt's not that manual controls are superior, it's that thinking of ISO as an exposure control is suboptimalI already said other approaches work fine in 99% or cases and for most people, I agree that auto ISO is just fine in most cases, but I do think most people are just being lazy at the end of the dayI am definitely lazy about not shooting any film anymoreIf you're confident and comfortable with M, you should just go the next step for ISO too, all I'm saying
>>4486711Good build, mines held up in tons of rainGreat AF performance, one of the best lowlight AF bodiesAt launch, it was the best body for using adapted / MF lenses, but Z5II, Z6III, Z8 are at parity nowBulk is larger compared to small mirrorless , but fine for an EDC option, most people opt for grips but the half cases can also offer more grip and protection with less weight and size increaseI would've preferred Fuji like dials but at least they fixed Auto ISO functionality The 50 1.8 S is an absolute killer, but I also use the 28mm and 40mm too when I don't need the 50Lots of adapted glass too
>>4485890I get bigger moron vibes off iso invariance wankers. Not only are most cameras not actually fully iso invariant (just a half dozen top shelf mirrorless… and zero canons) underexposing -1 protects all highlights anyways unless exposing for the lamps in a room
>>4486705>>4486723Do tell, what is the compromise with using auto ISO? Whether the camera chooses ISO 800 or you set it manually there is literally no difference, other than the latter takes more time.
>>4486742Because sometimes the cameras might want to set it to 800 when 640 would be more optimal and now you're giving up dynamic range for no reasonIf you take any amount of photos in a sequence, it's also much easier to adjust them all equally if they are all exposed equally, sometimes you might end up with an few shots where some are 500 some are 640 some are 800 and now you have to adjust each one individually
>>4486741>Not only are most cameras not actually fully iso invariantGood thing no one is saying they are>underexposing -1 protects all highlights True, using a permanent EC is also a good choice for convenience Until you get a shot that would've been better off -0.7 or -0.5 and now you've given up potential IQ
>>4486724Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't know the 50 1.8 S lens existed. It looks pretty damn great. That lens along with a 28 and 35 would be my ideal setup.I bought a Fuji x100vi recently that's great. I love the tiny size/weight and how much punch it packs in terms of photo and video capabilities. It's just my first aps-c camera and my eyes are just so used to the look you get from full frame. So I may sell it and get the Zf, or just get the Zf as well and run with both cameras hehe.The 4k 60fps crop on the Zf is just such a deal breaker for me, it's what took my interest off it when I was researching my new camera. I went with the x100vi instead, but I'm kinda second guessing now even though I've been enjoying the Fuji a ton. The difference between full frame and aps-c is just very noticeable to me.
>>4486749>nooo not 1/3 stop of noise my photo is ruinedcrop issue
>>4486751>look up why 4k60 crops are bad>vloggoids abuse hfr video to smooth oht their walking while talking selfie yootoobsLmao imagine giving up a superior camera over something an iphone would be suited for
>>4486758Good example of dishonesty and/or a useless comment
>>4486765>not 1/3 stop! 1/2 even! photo ruining!I agree thats why full frame is the minimum
>>4486760I don't make videos like that though, I just want the full sensor for 4k shooting and I don't need more than 60fps for slow motion stuff. I just need 24 and 60fps with the full sensor size/quality. It's not a big ask in this day and age. You're also a moron for making the iphone comparison, but this is 4chan after all. I only have myself to blame for talking about this shit here.
>>4486766>more dishonestySee, that's what people get for actually trying here
>>4486742ISO doesn't really change the exposure. You get a cleaner image exposing for a lower ISO.
>>4486775Indeed, it is dishonest to say full frame is the minimum. If it’s not at least 6x6, its a major compromise.
>>4486779On most cameras ISO is more than a lightroom slider. The on camera chips have access to rawer data than the so called raw file up to a point where the signal is so noisy it makes little difference.
>>4486774Video IQ doesn’t matter. Your demand is autistic and retarded.
>>4486691>I like basically everything about it except the 60fpsWhat do you use 60 fps for? Slow motion?
>>4486748>Because sometimes the cameras might want to set it to 800 when 640 would be more optimal and now you're giving up dynamic range for no reasonYou don't get more noise with 800 vs 640 iso. Most cameras have their dual gain come in at 400 iso. Anything above that has the same amount of noise.
>24mm is too wide>28mm is for phoneshitters>35mm is for streetshitters>40mm shouldn't even exist>50mm is a memeWhat is an acceptable focal length for a prime lens then?
>>4486830>letting nophotos dictate what focal lengths are for and what people they're made fo.
>>448683018 and 85, Otherwise you are just pussyfooting around. …and the 85 is only if you don’t have enough room to shoot with your 135.
>>4486820Any modern camera should be able to perform as well as Nikons Z8, where noise is not even detectable under iso1200. bc Nik is just buying stock sensors from Sony, so if they can get clean performance out of the sensor, so should anybody else be able.
What's a good Z-mount lens for video? I have the 40mmf2. I read good things about the 50mm 1.8 being incredible sharp. But when I rarely shoot wide open does it make a difference? For example comparing both at f5.6 or so.
>>4486834th.....this is retardation surely
>>4485695its easy to laugh at them now, but these retarded children have been raised as consumers in a no skills/no expertise/no education/no experience needed version of reality sold to them by software companies “democratizing” & removing gatekeepers from production. Why learn what those sliders are doing, all you need to do is know that a slider slides back and forth or how to select an insta “filter” on your phone and you’re producing content just like the pro’s! Of course the universal quantity/quality maxim still applies, so as generations due off and are replaced by billions if clueless fucking morons, it devalues all production across the board, and as we’re seeing in nearly every industry, humanity ends up drowning in an endless sea of worthless garbage and then wonders what’s left to make money off of, but of course the answer is buying and selling money itself to each other at inflated sums in confidence scams, as we’re already arriving at today. And all of it was engineered to be this way, this is the start of the shortsighted anti-human dystopia you get when you let engineers engineer themselves a society without the annoyances of the philosophers, scientists and artists.
>>4486879No anon. Engineers did not do this. Engineers HATED this every step of the way and chanted "TEACH. THEM. C!" and demanded automation be pruned and replaced with modularity and programmability. Engineers did not do mac OS. Engineers did plan 9. Engineers did not do the iPhone. Engineers did nokia. It was a philosophy, a religion, that did this, the very one that made art a worthless sea or shit that glorifies ugliness and illness and “critiques” everything. It is a religion that teaches its adherents that they are smarter than everyone else and their duty is to stay pure and guide the cattle of the world onward in safety, goodness, and grace. You will find people from this group at the top of nearly every tech company, usually with an indian as the figurehead masking their influence. You will find them at the top of the chain in media and in finance. And they certainly aren’t engineers. They’re better at plagiarizing works in physics.
>>4486837I’m not sure it matters. The 20mm, 85, 50, he’ll even their budget lenses are far sharper than the sensors are capable of resolving now, and the sensors are higher fidelity than any compression algorithm is ever going to let you see in your final output file. The glass is no longer the weak link, it’s the video delivery system. No one wants to wait to download & then store full color full res raw video, & no one wants to have to buy physical media, so as usual in video, the lowest quality format wins in the market. Pick your lenses based on your shots, 300mm for flattering closeups, 85mm for nice flat normals, and the 20mm for those wide John Ford epic establishing shots. …the Z 85 and 20 are practically optically perfect though. And shockingly inexpensive. I leave the 85 on an Z7 body and grab it for stills about 99% of the time. It is the my favorite lens I’ve ever used from any maker in 27 years of shooting.
>>4486879This is the world (predominantly far left wing) artists literally asked for and (jewish) philosophers supported with the help of (agreeable) scientists (the ones that disagreed with them had their funding pulled)
>>4486848You typed out a stutter. Consider how you will end your life now.
>>4486670>That's pretty wide even for real estate, places I was at started at 14mm.10mm on cropped Canon is equivalent to 16mm full frame.
I occasionally do photography at museums, but I always rent or borrow a DSLR. Secondly, I have collected a lot of out of print books I want to digitize the illustrations ofI'm trying to decide between buying a flatbed scanner made for books, and buying a camera that i'd mount pointing straight down on a table or angled at the same angle the book would be at, that way I could scan books and also have a camera to use without needing to rent oneHowever, last time I borrowed a camera I tried this out with a normal tripod, an extension arm, etc, and it was kinda a finnicky mess. The arm to get the camera pointed straight down had unbalanced weight so the tripod consantly tried to tip over even when I tried to weigh it down, not to mention that the threads that fixed the camera to the arm/tripod, and the tripod itself, had no way to move in fixed angle increments to ensure I was exactly at 90 degreesIs there gear that will help for this sort of setup? Do they make tripods and mounts that lock to specific angles? What sort of light would I need to get even lighting for the books without casting a glare? That type of lense is as close to possible as being totally isometric to minimize lens distortion?
>>4486813>You're autistic for wanting to use the full size of your sensor!!!Do you even read the shit you write anon? The absolute fucking state of this place.>>4486819Yeah, slow motion is a must have for me. I've shot with cameras that couldn't do it properly for years (I know I could just have upgraded sooner, but I've had other priorities for a long time and finally coming back now) and I've been in so many scenarios where it would have been ideal to have. Don't even need crazy slow motion, just 60fps because it's perfect for so many things.
>>4486691>As far as lens size i prefer to keep it light, think the 28mm, 40mm, and adapted old Nikkor glass.
>>4486572its my favorite snapshitter this is sooc jpeg after straightening itlens used was minolta af 135mm f2.8 prime that has the coating flaking off iirc i paid $30 for it 1/400 f2.8 iso 160you can import one from japan for less, buyee has a few for $30-80 usd. batteries are shared w/pentax k10d so theyre easy to get for <$10
>>4487026i've posted this pic before, if you get it from japan it comes in a slick silver color. i paid $40 for it in feb 2025a-mount is fun because the lenses are cheap + worthless (only the ssm/hi speed minolta/late model sony g master stuff is $$$)
>>4486671>the firm I worked at thought being able to go ultra wide was useful for shit like pools and nice landscapingThey didn't care about distortion? 14mm is already a little odd looking but still comfortable, while 10mm is going to be just too much.>Policy was on the inside we'd start at 18mm and go wider as needed to get the whole room in shot Policy for one place I was at was to have the room look as large as possible, but also avoid things like dead space as much as possible (such as only showing a small piece of the third wall and having the other two walls the focus), so it was always a balancing act. Houses that were still furnished also needed extra attention to height and angle since the distortion on furniture could look bizarre. I had to take a photo of a tiny bathroom once and the toilet bowl ended up looking like a giant oval kek.>>4486905Ah yes, I'd forgotten about cropped. Everywhere I've been at has used full frame so I forget about people using cropped.
>>4486885>(predominantly far left wing) artiststhere literally aren't any rightoid artists. the creation of actual art is a leftist concept. all rightoids can do is co-opt and pervert existing art
>>4486909>>4486909>>4486909Alternatively if this is the wrong thread for this let me know, I don't visit /p/ often
>>4486909I think you're really going to have an easier time getting a scanner.
>>4487492Probably, but if tripods etc do exist with angle locking/snapping as a feature I'd be interested in it for other reasons anyways
>>4485748Are you kidding me? Those two pictures look 100% identical.
>>4488423>t. legally blind
>>4488481>t. troll who enjoys the thought of retards squinting for hours to spot the difference
>>4485653I just bought a Snoy Alpha 57 with a broken stabilizer for 40 bucks. It's on the way to me. How fucked and/or retarded am I?
>>4488941a57 is a great camera but broken stab makes it annoying to use but for $40 its decent, a charger/battery costs $20. for reference i paid $180 for a a58 (newer 20mp sensor) locally with a 35mm f1.8 dt and its honestly a pretty enjoyable camera to use, newest i own for the a-mount lenses i still have. it uses the sensor from the a5000 so you get a good pic out of it. the sony cameras were great just horribly unreliable, near e-waste build quality. the SLT setup doesn't impact image quality as much as you'd believe because the sensors are still pretty damn good. i would def pick up a a58/a65/a68/a77 if they were <$300 (like $180 for my camera is closer to $100 when the lens goes for $80). a68 is probably my next purchase if i can find one <$200.
>>4489019Yeah, I thought it would be kind of a gamble but it comes with charger, original Sony carrying pouch, two old batteries (I ordered a new one), instructions and a CD ROM (?) that has software on it. All of it looks decent, like not dirty or anything. I thought I could get away with the broke stab because I intend to use it just for tripod shots in my home.
>>4489064the broken stab should be fine if you're on a tripod unless the sensor is jammed or it throws a error code (these stupid slt cameras always do that). pick up a decent strobe too if you're doing indoor photography. a cheap way is a minolta flash like a 3600hsd or 5600hsd or the metz/sigma equivalent since it uses the old style minolta and sony dslr hotshoe (a58 uses newer). should be pretty cheap, i have a 3600 hsd i picked up for $10 off buyee that gives me pretty accurate pttl and with a adapter even works on the newer sony cameras (i had it on a zv1)
>>4489260That's gonna be exciting. At that price I am not worried to yank around on it. We'll see if I can make it work.
