File: 1657581184211.jpg (19 KB, 590x366)

19 KB JPG

Either I wait for the R7 mark II or I replace my current R7 with a FF. What would be a better replacement, the R5 or the R6 mark II?

File: snoyboy.png (437 KB, 1116x1116)

437 KB PNG

>>4495130
Remember when this exact thing was happening to A7II's and all the indians that buy this garbage were saying
>"no sir!! no!! this never happening again sir!!! fixed since a7.3 sir!!!"
And would you look at that. It happened again.

>>4495149
R6 mk3

File: Canon R.jpg (251 KB, 2500x500)

251 KB JPG

>>4495149
R6 MKII is alright imo.

File: threadadapterphotography.png (363 KB, 660x660)

363 KB PNG

Alright, I dont normally browse to this area, and maybe asking it here will be fine.

I bought some various camera thread adapters and
>pic related

slide right inside a 1/2 EMT conduit. I plan to use some jp weld and place some of these inside the conduit for some cheap arms to attach to some clamps I have.

question I have is, if you were going to make these, would you just have thread size you use most on both ends, or would you vary it if you made multiple of these?

>[1/4 female : conduit : 1/4 female]
>[1/4 female : conduit : 3/8 female]
>[3/8 female : conduit : 3/8 female]

this wont be for photography, some 3d printed projects will involved 1/4-20 heat set insert to give compatibility to be mounted on these arms, some will be lights and other stuff.

>>4495155
Not enough megapickles

File: maxresdefault.jpg (169 KB, 1280x720)

169 KB JPG

The optical viewfinder is the last stand of photographic integrity.

Mirrorless cameras ARE a skill issue.

File: file.png (671 KB, 1440x882)

671 KB PNG

>>4495165
This, except with the one that offers interchangeable focusing screens.

File: Sony PSP BSOD.jpg (1.23 MB, 3264x2448)

1.23 MB JPG

>>4495130
>>4495150
Wow! Its just like my gaming consoles!

>>4495167
>Wow! Its just like my gaming consoles!
Yea they're both 100% plastic

>>4495166
>>4495165
Huh, weird. These cameras look really reasonably sized compared to average mens hands. /p/ said they're unusably big blobs that instantly destroy your social life because they're basically the size of your skull. Was I lied to, or is /m43/ malnourished pakis and jeets?

>>4495170
>/p/ said they're unusably big blobs
Without the battery grips they're an extremely comfortable size. I like the battery grips too but they're not for everyone.

>>4495170
>t.obese american

>>4495149
>>4495152
Sony A7V

>>4495172
>how much big you are saar? 5 10? wow americans are super fat. i am 4 6. healthy from my vegan diet. snoy is the choice of a healthy man my sir. dslr is for fatty.

>>4495175
I cant believe sony literally released the a7iv twice just so people could buy a new one with a warranty before the shutter exploded

>>4495149
R5. It doesnt have the REECH but cropping on crop sensors looks like shit anyways.

>>4495213
>I cant believe sony literally released the a7iv twice just so people could buy a new one with a warranty before the shutter exploded
NTA but Canon does the same with each MK, that's just the industry now. Incremental upgrades just like phones.

>>4495217
The gap between mk1 vs mk2 and mk2 vs mk3 is tremendous

>>4495217
>guys we added an extra 3 megapickles and more video-centric features because remember nobody gives a fuck about anything but short form video
>we promise we fixed [issue last version had] for good so you should sell that one and buy a new camera
>no we couldn't have just pushed a firmware update, it was very important that only the new model is fixed
>finally with our new 80fps (electronic only) and super dooper high readout speed you can finally become good photographer by holding down the shutter button
>>4495220
>The gap between mk1 vs mk2 and mk2 vs mk3 is tremendous
MkI and MkII had a decent gap just because the MkI suffered from early mirrorless bullshit. The MkII and MkIII differences are purely video related except for the whoop-de-fuckin-do extra 6.5MP

File: 1656941947153.jpg (11 KB, 499x280)

11 KB JPG

>>4495167
Lol, I also bricked my old PS3 slim when I tried to update it a year ago. A big mistake. Fucking Sony pushing updates that keep bricking their EOL products.

File: Deconstructivism Colours (...).png (9 KB, 777x888)

9 KB PNG

Gear fags, how many shots do you take per week?

>>4495221
33% higher resolution, half a stop better IBIS, twice as big image buffer

>>4495226
So many features you had to list, *checks notes*
>half a stop better IBIS
Ha. Haha. Hahahahahahah.
Yeah bro totally worth spending another $2500 holy fuck.

File: 1000-Fujifilm-XPro3-6_157(...).jpg (89 KB, 930x698)

89 KB JPG

Starting fresh after years of #nophoto. Finally have some money to sink in again. Not 100% sure wether to go full frame or apsc. Went to a store and really liked the fuji form factor especially with its lenses. Not professional, just as a hobby and to document daily life, my kids, family, traveling, day trips, photos at home. Should be fun.

Option 1
>used Leica Q2 full frame
Gives me native 28mm but also enough mp to crop up to 50mm. Probably one of the best lenses around. Looking at samples these photos really do POP. Very detailed, beautiful blur, they seem so alive.

Option 2
>used Fuji xPro3 apsc + xf23mmf2 + voigtländer 35mmf1.2
The body with those two tiny lenses seems very promising. Looks very much like the Leica M but with autofocus and much cheaper. However, no full frame. I don't even mind the worse dynamic range. When editing I used to work with color only and increasing contrast a bit but no rising shadows etc. But I'm worried about the loss of overall detail in apsc, even when looking at the full image.

Option 3
>Nikon Zf full frame
But here I have difficulties chosing a lens. Sure the 40mmf2 is compact but image quality seems to be rather soft. The manual voigtländer for Z are all quite bulky.

Option 4
>Ricoh GRIV + later GRIVx apsc
The most compact setup and from what it seems (I may be wrong?) the image quality overall is better than fuji apsc. But no EVF and so. Still quite interesting.

If starting out what would you do? Any other recs/combos? Kinda excluded Sony because they don't look as fun. Don't like the classic dslr body design of Canon

>>4495149
Don't fall for the fool frame meme.

>>4495248
>guys i need to crop my crop camera for more reech

>>4495251
Mental illness.

File: xtrans crops.jpg (2.89 MB, 2536x1488)

2.89 MB JPG

>>4495230
I'd go Zf, it's a legitimately good workhorse camera that also has some of the best functionality for using MF glass. Z5II is more sensible if you don't care for the form factor (which is not great without adding a case / grip).
Realistically for Fuji 24-26mp, picrel is what you can expect for 100% crop detail, but I would opt Pro2 over Pro3 and definitely different lenses.
GR's are the best actual compact, but I just use X-Pro/M10 is always compact enough for me. At a certain point, getting too small makes it less enjoyable to use, and if I'm really needing that small of a footprint, I just use my phone.

>>4495227
Cope snoyboi

>>4495253
Looks like a phone. Probably had to shoot raw and tweak them in capture one too lmfao, jpeg would look even more like a phone.

And it's a fuji, so it has worse autofocus than a 5d mark 2.

Imagine spending over $1000 to take photos that look like that on such a clunky piece of shit with a tiny TV for a viewfinder. Fucking lmao.

>>4495166
This has always been the truth.

>>4495248
Sensor size is the only specification that actually matters besides having an optical viewfinder (fuji xpoo doesnt count its a shitty pns viewfinder)

>>4495268
Can we see some of your 100% crops for comparison?
Instead of assuming what I did, why not ask? These were all in C1, with sharpening at 75 (less than default), and everything else at default or off (no structure, etc)

>>4495268
Oh also, what phone would recommend for getting 100% crops like this? I'm sure I can find examples myself if you have a phone in mind

>>4495268
Xtranny is an easy target, find some better material for this thread.

>>4495253
Kind of a cool 2x2 series tbqh

File: image_100crop.jpg (1011 KB, 3471x2314)

1011 KB JPG

>>4495270
>Can we see some of your 100% crops for comparison?
Lol, here you go. Taken with my phone and cropped 100%, which, if you couldn't tell, mogs yours. Sit down lil bro, get humbled lmfao

>>4495220
Same as the A7III and the A7IV, but just like >>4495221 said, the MKII to MKIII for the Canon was pretty much the same level of incremental.

>>4495311
Lol nope. Nice try ramjeet, go back to india.

>>4495130
>Here's your reliable professional camera company bro
lol

>>4495253
Way way way oversharpened. Capture one goes iphone by default. Please use the actual sane settings:

Clarity -10
Structure -5
Amount 50
Radius 0.5
Threshold 0

>>4495318
this, if not amount to 0

protip: sharpening is not real sharpness except on test charts because they’re just black and white lines anyways. with natural layers of detail it looks sharp with sharpening off entirely, or your camera is shit/you fucked up and you can only fake it. 99% of capture one and lightroom users use too much sharpening because their aperture is always too large, the shutter is always too slow, and their camera is kind of shit, and they’re in denial about it.

Absolutely unreal what I see in all the trendy luxury camera brand subreddits. Leica, Hasselblad, GFX, etc. Literally the worst photographs I’ve ever seen.

Some guy on the GFX sub bought a GFX 100 II, took shitty pictures of his cat, compressed the images to under 1MB, applied instagram filters and uploaded them to show them off.

>>4495324
>YOU HAVE TO TAKE FILMIC AND CINEMATIC PHOTOS OF WOMEN AND ATTRACTIVE MEN!
>hehe kitty *snap snap*
>NOOOOO! AT LEAST TAKE PHOTOS OF SUNSETS AND PEOPLE WALKING IN FRONT OF STUFF IN THE CITY!
>pspspsps kitty kitty *snap snap*
What a chad

>>4495324
https://old.reddit.com/r/FujiGFX/comments/1qm2bo4/first_shots_on_the_gfx_100_ii_100mp_files_budget/
Idk man this sure mogs some peoples shitty corgi and german shepherd/egg pics

Also photofags have this retarded idea that megapixels are for print size and cropping, and that only high flying professionals even deserve so and so
it's wrong.
Megapixels are the sampling rate. Even at low final sizes, 100mp produces finer and smoother detail than say, 24mp. You can check this on dpreview yourself using the "print" and "comp" views. I think 100mp and 8x10 (3000x2400) is the intersection that creates the point of diminishing returns, but 3000x2400 doesn't even fill a standard notebook PC display.

Just like anyone can enjoy better autofocus and shit, anyone can enjoy a 100mp camera, if they can afford it. Get a job!

A lower resolution camera would show less fine detail at that size, with more aliasing, jaggies, and softness or hella fake looking sharpening. It would look different, a bit more digital. Even on a notebook PC 100mp, 45mp and 24mp cameras can give photos different character.

Also, he can crop and pixel peep all he wants because he can afford a gfx100ii. Unless your one and only is an old AF DSLR like a d200 you dont have a moral leg to stand on. You’re just a poorer version of the same thing.

Grow up and stop being a bitter poorfag.

>>4495314
>proven wrong about something
>goes into rent free jeetmode
Kek every time.

>>4495328
>proven wrong
Is that what they call making shit up in Indian? Everybody point and laugh at this pajeet.

>>4495230
None of these options are good if you want to take photos. These are all prop cameras first, and photography tools second. Come back with some non-performative options and we can give you actual advice.

File: DF89571C-9D1F-489E-8C84-3(...).png (114 KB, 600x1059)

114 KB PNG

>"I don't want to lug around some huge full frame camera! I need something small for my everyday carry"

Translation:
>"I don't actually care about taking photos, I just think girls will think I'm more interesting if they see me with a camera. I couldn't be bothered to carry around a photography tool because they're too heavy, so I carry around a prop camera instead because it fulfils my use-case just the same. You know, since I won't actually be taking any pictures."

>>4495334
It means they’re short and have a feminine frame

Or more likely that they’re retarded and want to snapshit constantly and have no idea how shit that is, or that the je-street photographers that extol the virtues of constant snapshits produce 99.9% crap, 0.1% crap that can be interpreted as clever later, and are only successful and given a voice because of their trib-uhhh, family connections. Because they look up to those guys.
Camera EDC is so fucking gay. These retards take cameras to grocery stores on ordinary days. They take photos of backs of heads and people walking on the other side of the road while strolling down ordinary sidewalks. Reflections in puddles. Forever until one is almost good. Why put effort into thinking about where the good photos worth looking at twice might be? Just carry a shitty little overpriced fujirolleica camera everywhere! Sure, perhaps it could be better to just get something good and only use it when it should be, but that’s hard and scary, but alas, two problems. One, any amount of money sitting on a shelf makes many people anxious and dare I say ashamed. Two: The soi fears the purpose and expectations put upon him by a camera that is so clearly for taking photography seriously, so he buys a marginally smaller overpriced camera so he won’t be judged. He lusts to be seem as casual, non serious non threatening clueless and innocent. Perhaps he can not navigate a confrontation, perhaps he invites one, perhaps he can not behave normally and not take photos of womens asses, perhaps he is just a beta male that doesnt want anyone to even look at him.

>>4495337
And he claims the half inch reduction in width and half inch reduction in length have crossed the “EDC” thresshold and maybe takes it to the park while walking his dog but get real, the mirrorless soi never “EDC”s half the shit in his carefully arranged reddit edc battlestation photo. Because it’s never small enough to disappear, just small enough not to radiate too much masculinity.

>>4495170
Yeah dslrs arent actually that big but they dont match my sig p365 and smartphone and its hard to get the whole camera in focus with the rest of the edc tray :(

File: jonah.gif (63 KB, 220x121)

63 KB GIF

>>4495337
>Camera EDC is so fucking gay. These retards take cameras to grocery stores on ordinary days. They take photos of backs of heads and people walking on the other side of the road while strolling down ordinary sidewalks. Reflections in puddles. Forever until one is almost good.
Just hoping to trip and fall into a good photo at every given chance. I don't get it. I bought a nice camera because I go and do things with my life and I wanted to keep visual memories of these things. Why the fuck is anyone taking a photo of the parking out outside of their local mall?

My take is thus: I have a relatively small FF setup that gets bigger if I use my nicer lenses, but it doesn't come with me unless there's a point. People are absolutely retarded for taking their "EDC" everywhere. You still need *some* kind of reason to bring that shit with you. A small gathering with friends isn't a bad excuse for that matter, or visiting some place you've never been, or an event or whatever.

>Ohmygawd I better take a photo of that neon GAMESTOP sign omg it's so fucking kino if I just wait until some qt3.14 walks past that's street photography guyse 101
>Omg I'm gonna be heckin instagram famous!
>I'm so glad I bought this [gear] instead of [other gear] the weight savings are WHOPPING (150g)
Rediculous. These people look like retards regardless of what they brought with them, it's the fact they brought a camera out for a trip to Walmart that's the issue.

File: 1712357291900005.jpg (228 KB, 1370x1910)

228 KB JPG

>>4495334
>>4495337
>>4495338

>>4495230
I tried Fuji recently, but quickly sold it and bout the Zf instead. The difference in the image quality and look was night and day. Only thing I think the Fuji cameras have going for them is the size/weight and the recipes to have some good looking jpgs. I found the recipes to be very limited in what you could do and I could never get it to look how I wanted with the controls you were given, but many people love it.
But for me the Zf was exactly what I wanted and I'm never going less than full frame ever again.
It's basically the same price as some of the Fuji cameras, so why pay the same for what I found to be a worse image?
I got the 28mm 2.8 se and 50mm 1.8 S lenses. They're both great, not expensive and you have a ton of great options in every price range for other lenses with the z mount, be it native or adapted, new or vintage.

Also, whatever camera you end up getting, buy the Godox it30pro flash too. It's absolutely brilliant.

>>4495334
I'm a 2m tall built Scandinavian and even I got tired of lugging my camera around all day while traveling. I still want a full frame camera, but I don't want a giant lens that tilts the camera forward and makes it cumbersome. I want to be able to just have it hang around my neck without noticing it when I'm not using it.
You can get some very compact and light weight full frame mirrorless cameras and lenses these days though, so it's not really a problem.
I do admire those scrawny wedding photographers who run around all day with two Z9's or R1's with giant lenses AND flashes on top. I don't know where they get the stamina.

>>4495344
You know, people could just be into photography and bring it around with them because they enjoy it. It doesn't need to have a purpose other than enjoying it. Having a dedicated camera in your pocket could also open your eyes to mundane or peripheral things you take for granted in everyday life.
I'm not saying there aren't people who do or say to look cool and nothing else, but it doesn't have to be so fucking negative too.
It's the same with music instruments. Do you absolutely need a purpose to sit down and play/practice? or can you just sit down and just play for 30 minutes or something just because you enjoy it.

>>4495334
I was walking around all day long with a GFX100S around my neck. It's possible but annoying as hell. Constant threat of smashing it against somewhere. At some point I realized it's just not worth it. Sure it's incredible when editing in LR but once you export it as a jpg and upload it on insta or whatever, no one ever gonna notice. Normies think it's shot on an iphone. How often does one print huge ass photos? So I believe apsc is really the sweet spot. Smallish bodies with small lenses, yet enoug image quality to make editing fun.

File: GFX enjoyer.jpg (245 KB, 1200x980)

245 KB JPG

>>4495324

>>4495349
>Constant threat of smashing it against somewhere
This was the most annoying thing for me. I always had to have one hand on the camera. It never felt safe and it severely limited what type of movements I could make just walking around.
I still wouldn't go apsc. I've seen people take great photos with apsc cameras, but the image quality difference was just too obvious for me when I used it. You can get some good and compact full frame options for roughly the same price.

>>4495337
>Camera EDC is so fucking gay. These retards take cameras to grocery stores on ordinary days
Translation: I fret over gear but don't take any photos, other than photos of all my gear

>>4495349
>no one ever gonna notice. Normies think it's shot on an iphone
Who cares? Why take photos for normies? That is literally the definition of producing slop.

>>4495348
>I want to be able to just have it hang around my neck
There's your problem. Just put it around your shoulder, you shouldn't hang shit from your neck it's bad for the spine. Gives you virgin posture.

>>4495355
Gives you bad posture? How heavy do you think a camera is anon? Even carrying a fairly heavy one all day around your neck won't give you bad posture.
I usually have a bag around my shoulder, so also having a camera over my should would be annoying too. Having the camera over the shoulder would be fine without a bag though, but realistically, if I'm traveling I'll have a bag on me too.

>>4495301
>I enjoy being dishonest and never actually engaging
Nice contributing to the board mate

>>4495318
Why not instead share your own example crops for us to see? You do take photos right?

>>4495351
True, there are some nice compact FF bodies. I wish they would make more FF lenses that are slow but compact.

>>4495354
The only thing I do with my photos, apart from letting them collect dusk on the hdd, is to send them in my family whatsapp group to occasionally get some comments back like "nice" or the thumbs-up emoji

>>4495357
>t. hunched-over virgin

>>4495358
Lmao. Another m43tard coping over phonechads.

>>4495334
Very true and honest post
>>4495337
Sounds like you don't enjoy photography, or at least enjoy whining about it it others more than actually taking photos
>>4495351
Can you share us some of your photos?

>>4495362
Did you forget to make a post of any value again?

>>4495350
I say that and look like that.

>>4495324
What do your images look like?

>>4495366
I posted some here >>4495253

>>4495364
>Post a 100% crop!! you have to!!
>n-no!!! not like that!! that makes me assmad!!!
Sorry you don't like what you asked for lil bro. Stay humble and pipe down from now on :D

File: m200.jpg (1.08 MB, 3024x4032)

1.08 MB JPG

>still the perfect EDC
Will it ever be dethroned?

>>4495360
How slow would you like it? I shoot a lot in low light and my absolute limit is f2.8, so I'm never looking at lenses slower than that. But there are some nice options for compact prime lenses in that area too. You can also look at vintage lenses if you don't mind manual focusing. Lots of cool and compact lenses to add variety for not a lot of money.
>>4495363
I will never in a billion years share anything private like photos I've shot on this site.

>>4495370
>EDC
Reddit is that way. Just carry a full-frame and stop being a pussy.

>>4495372
>I will never in a billion years share anything private like photos I've shot on this site.
Translation:
>My photos suck but I think people should listen to me fret over gear regardless.

>>4495369
I just want people to post ang engage honestly here, sorry to hear you are unable to do that
>>4495368
Nope
>>4495372
>I don't take photos
You can start by being honest

>>4495375
>I just want people to post ang engage honestly here
Nope. Wrong. You want to get your incorrect views confirmed. Typical m43 IDIOT!!!

>>4495376
If they're so incorrect, then prove my wrong with some photos

>>4495377
Already did, but you threw a tantrum.

>>4495378
I see one crop from an unnamed phone that you presumably never use for actually taking photos with anyways
What phone is it? Why can't we see other crops from actual photos you've taken with it?
Easy questions

>>4495348
It's a little different when some turbonerd wants to swing his camera around in a public setting constantly and takes snapshits of every single thing imaginable.
Okay, cool, it's not a sin to want to do your hobby but if you're randomly stumming your shitty e-bay bass guitar in public you're getting the same treatment from me as snapshitting with your "EDC".

Like how hard is it just to act relatively normal? Everything has a time and a place.

>>4495379
>W-w-w-well no... y-you can't post that photo... y-you have to post o-other photos
Unsocialized luddite. Sorry, just simple facts. I'll post more when u can post something better than a random phone snapshot (you can't) :)

>>4495381
>I can't honest engage with others
Sad, you should leave the board if that's really the case, pretty low IQ behavior

>>4495373
Sorry Im not gonna spend $5k on a bulky FF setup and look like a clueless out of touch unc

>>4495382
>Still simply refusing to acknowledge he got BFTO'd
Dance around it all you want. You made a request, and got humbled. Pretty simple.

>>4495384
>dance around
>I can't even tell you what phone model I'm using or share more than a single crop
Are you talking about yourself?

>>4495383
5D2 is 200$. Any other digital camera = performative retard using it as a prop to try and pick up a lady from the fleeing masses of women that his odour panics.

>>4495383
>how a camera looks when I'm carrying it is really what matters
I bet you're super cool

>>4495385
>This many messages and still operating solely on cognitive dissonance
I already said what model of phone it was. Nice try. I accept your concession though.

>>4495388
Oh really I must be a retard then, what model was it? Or where did you say what it was?

>>4495389
>Playing dumb
This is an eighteen plus website.

>>4495390
>I am actually just dishonest
Had me fooled there for a second

>>4495391
>Dishonest
Lol. Are you talking about yourself? Since all you've done is whinge and moan that someone did what you wanted them to do.

>>4495374
>>4495375
>Posting anything even remotely private on this site
You have to be insane to willingly do that on this lunatic infested site.
Besides, it's a lose/lose situation anyway because of the eternal contrarians on this site too.
>Post photo
"What a shitty image haha!!! Everything sucks about it haha! etc etc"
>Don't post photo
"Haha you don't take photos haha!!! etc etc"
Even replying to this is more engagement than it's worth.

>>4495393
>words words words
K cool nice excuse man, maybe come back when you're actually interested in this hobby rather than just the gear.

Holy fuck will you guys shut the fuck up.
Trade discord links and fuck off tb. You're both insufferable faggots.

>>4495380
I'm not saying there are people like that (because there are) I'm just saying it doesn't have to be so black and white as you see it. You could bring a little camera with you everywhere, but then not take a single photo with it for days before you see something worth taking a photo of.
Everything does have a time and place and a lot of people to act normally. I think it's maybe just because you see a lot of stuff people post on social media and not the thousands of people who take photos that never share it beyond their friends and family.
I'm just saying it doesn't always have to be 100% good or bad, and try to see some shit in a more positive light. Ignore social media dweebs who post photos of bin bags on the street and act like it's high art or something.
And I mean, the whole "just sit with your shitty ebay bass and pluck terribly along to a song or two" is also such a fucking negative view man. What you're saying does exist, but also lighten the fuck up too man

File: qPYqirEZc4gPY7micGgI5W_kK(...).gif (260 KB, 200x200)

260 KB GIF

>>4495396
Noted. Self checked. Still annoys the fuck out of me though.

>>4495386
Shot with my 5dmkii as my only camera for 15 years, but it feels like a dinosaur compared to my new Zf. I'll still keep it as my backup and sentimental value, but its age is very apparent after having used the Zf for a few weeks.
>>4495394
Case in point.

>>4495397
Just for the record, they annoy me too, but just try and ignore those dweebs and enjoy photography how you like to do it

File: worms.jpg (273 KB, 3106x1462)

273 KB JPG

Friendly reminder that at this point most of the gains in image quality are obtained through in-body noise reduction to improve DR. Modern APS-C have better DR (up until 800 ISO) than top of the line FF from 10 years ago.
A 1.5 jump in DR was observed between the 1DX and 1DX Mark II thanks to DIGIC 6 alone.
APS-C is king, of course.

>>4495344
Its redditor culture

Consoomerist minmaxing plus performative consumption rather than creation. gotta get them upvotes.
Also see: 4channers that consoom to be BASED and never buy the CRINGE and just take pics of it

>>4495363
>>4495353
Seething r/edc larpers

>>4495400
>muh dr
Meaningless chart thats all about bill laff missing forced nr and gay six stop shadow pushes no one does

>>4495402
>six stop shadow pushes no one does
I do.
The Man himself does it too.

>>4495403
>six stop shadow pushes
Fuckin excuse me? Six stops recovery is enough to obliterate even the most hypermodern sensors
Nah legit I want to see something you've pushed so far that doesn't look like grainy ass.

File: soyboy.jpg (53 KB, 640x958)

53 KB JPG

>>4495353
>I fret over gear but don't take any photos, other than photos of all my gear
This is literally what all the neurotic fujifag/leicafag "EDC" cucks do lmfao

>>4495400
>a less noisy signal chain, ie: improved ADC, wire routing, heat management, emi shielding, reduces noise (you are using an SNR chart)
>wow this is just like the aggresive chroma smoothing algorithm that lightroom and ACR apply to every .raf regardless of user settings! noise reduction!
Also p2p uses ISO setting but not real sensitivity. Fuji and m43 are known for using a slower shutter speed or wider aperture at the same ISO vs canikony, while pentax is known for needing less light at the same ISO vs canikony. Its also just an SNR chart. And you’re comparing a 1st gen DSLR to a $1500 used aps-cuck that somehow has worse autofocus than a 1st gen DSLR. Compare it to say, a z6ii instead (cheaper camera comparable autofocus), and dont forget to edit the chart to shift the fuji line 2/3s of a stop to the left to approximate measured ISO.

I mean really this site will imply a z50 and om5 have the same IQ but thats demonstrably false. Its not meant for comparing cameras. Its meant for astrophotography nerds to determine ideal ISO settings.

>dont forget to edit the chart
>Its not meant for comparing cameras.
Foolfags are deranged.

>>4495412
>oh no, facts
>better just pretend not to understand them
Iso setting is not real iso

>>4495412
Improving sources of electronic noise is not “in body noise reduction” it is literally just less noisy. That is not how semantics work. Noise reduction means reducing noise that is already there, not designing electronics that have less of it to begin with.

You think and argue like a libtard.

And you compared a $1500 scamera that gets trounced by a z5ii (on sale for $1100!) to a 1st gen dslr lol

You “an m43 25mm f1.4 gathers more light than an ff 50mm f1.8” ass retard

>>4495413
>Iso setting is not real iso
Like we have fake genders?
>>4495414
>You think and argue like a libtard.
>*redditspaces his way in the conversation*

Clown thread. Where's cANON when we need him?

>>4495415
Enjoying photography and getting more pussy than you could dream of.

Anyways, they are correct. Fooljifails are fake ISO using xtranny scameras and m43 f1.4 = FF f2.8.

Nice try, foolfag, but no trips = not cANON.

>i cant do math or logic so an xt4 is better than full frame. source: misinterpreted noise chart that comes with a footnote telling you not to use it to compare cameras.
The state of A Pajeets Scam Camera shills

>>4495426
>misinterpreted noise chart that comes with a footnote telling you not to use it to compare cameras.
This is the dynamic range chart, and no, it doesn't come with a footnote saying not to use it to compare cameras.
The read noise chart and the dynamic range chart are completely independant, measure different things, and the footnotes from one don't apply to the other.

Imagine confusing DR and RN, holy shit.
Don't blame pajeets when you're as illiterate as them, and stop drinking cow piss, ranjeet.

>verification.not.required

File: sensor mod.jpg (74 KB, 798x1423)

74 KB JPG

>noooooooo youre supposed to buy a boomer desktop and adobe subscription and spend hours infront of a computer editing your photo after you take it!!!
>physically modifies the sensor to monochrome only so you dont have to
ABSOLUTELY BASED

I wish Nikon or canon would come out with a rangefinder style body so I could have a viewfinder without pressing my nose against the screen. Tried the Sony a7cii but the rolling shutter ruined so many pictures. Hell I'm considering the gfx100rf I'm so desperate for a rangefinder with decent image quality.

>>4495428
>it is a dynamic range chart
it is an engineer's SNR chart, it's almost always several stops off from actual visible dynamic range tests.
also imagine confusing measured ISO and ISO setting. they are different things. fuji ISO 200 is the same as pentax ISO 100 and nikon ISO 120. olympus/panasonic ISO 200 is the same as nikon ISO 120. this is why shitty cameras look better than they are on that chart. the ISOs are labeled per different standard.
>Note that the x-axis is ISO Setting and not a "measured" value. Keep this in mind particularly when comparing to the Ideal lines.

it is also important to note that a camera with worse DR on his SNR chart will not always have more apparent photon shot noise unless you are an incompetent shadow pushing retard because the worse SNR will be in the extremely underexposed areas no one wants to look at. the g9ii is notable for looking good on DR charts but 99% of the actual photos look like dogshit.

it is ALSO extremely important to note that comparing a 1dx (1st gen ewaste) to an xt4 (that is worse in every single way vs a cheaper z6ii) is retarded, claiming SNR improvements are from "noise reduction" (ie: smoothing) not actual hardware improvement is super fucking retarded, and ignoring the ISO setting/measure ISO difference is extremely, extremely retarded.
leave gearfagging to smart people.

>>4495436
Sony needs to put the a9 III sensor in an a7c body. But it wont happen for a few more years and when its finally out theyll charge $10k for it.
Im surprised Canikon dont have a rangefinder body option yet.

>>4495436
Yeah, funny neither company make that when you consider how successful Fuji have been with their retro body cameras.
Nikon have the Zf in vintage styling, but obviously not a rangefinder. It seems like it'd be a home run for Canon too if they made a full frame rangefinder / vintage body camera too instead of their weird black blobs.
That being said, I'd pass on the 100rf. It's like a medium format camera without the ability to have the depth of field a medium format camera is known for. I find it a totally waste for that alone.
I'm not personally into the aspect ratio dial on the camera either. I don't like gimmick buttons like that. The x100vi doesn't have any gimmick buttons, so I find it odd the 100rf does when it's the the "premium x100vi". Or just the classic spec gimping to make you go for the other gfx cameras.

>>4495443
fuji hasnt actually been successful (low market share), and their target market is rightfully seen as victims of a short term fashion trend none of whom have any standards and just snapshit benches and cats

give it five years and they will use leica phones

>>4495402
>>4495410
>waaa you should listen to my opinions about gear even though I never use the shit i've got

>>4495454
>if you dont snap backs of heads at the dollar general you dont really use your camera #M43GANG #XT4LYFE
This man clearly has upskirts and yoga pants creepshots galore and needs that modern shadow recovery and toy camera aesthetic

He’s not just about EDC, he’s about only deleting from one card

>>4495455
Lol it's OBVIOUS you know nothing. If that's what you think street photography is, you are retard who knows nothing about photography. Only indians who use m43 do this, and since thats what your mind instantly thinks of, this is what YOU are. Lol. Just simple facts.

>>4495414
>You “an m43 25mm f1.4 gathers more light than an ff 50mm f1.8” ass retard
A concerningly high number of anons otb don't understand that f/stops are a ratio and when you reduce the focal length for a given f/stop you're getting less TOTAL light. Holy fuck I don't know why so many people struggle to understand the concept.

>25 f/1.4
25mm / 1.4 = 17.85mm aperture opening
>50 f/1.8
50mm / 1.8 = 27.77mm aperture opening\

But because of every sensor format pretending to be full frame, they slap "50MM EQUIV." on the barrel and everyone just sees that it's an f/1.4. That must be better than f/1.8!
Christ.

>>4495462
one does not mald this baldly unless called out

its ok at least you dont sneak shots of your dogs balls like some people

I'm almost ready to start taking pictures. I just need to test some more gear tto make sure I have the right equipment.

>>4495475
Doghair?

>>4495451
I thought they were about to overtake Nikon and claim 3rd place with the recent x100vi success and some of their other more "entry" level cameras doing well. Isn't it more or less just the xhalf that bombed recently? Not saying they're the kings of the camera world, but I don't think they're in the shitter in general. Far from it.
But maybe they really are just running on instax money. What do I know.

>>4495488
Fujifilm has been successful for years. Ignore the weird fuji hating schizo that repeats the same thing in every thread. I think some Fuji rep fucked his gf or something.

>>4495496
>Fujifilm has been successful for years
It certainly has. All due to the insane amount of basic white art hoes buying INSTAX, not because of anon's obsession for xtranny
INSTAX is the sole reason fujifilm didnt go insolvent in 2017, and everything else is being bankrolled by it.

>>4495475
Do you even have a premium camera bag yet?

>>4495165
cringe
>>4495166
based

>>4495496
If it's not Fuji hate then it's "Snoy green tint haha!" or Canon haters or Leica haters or Nikon haters. The eternal contrarianism is so fucking tiresome.

>>4495471
>brings up baldness in totally irrelevant context
Guess we know you're bald now LOL

>>4495488
They weren’t, not their ILC division anyways. The ILC division is almost panasonic tier.

Nikon briefly overtook sony and trends indicate that the only reason they cant sustain it is having no pro services equivalent and closing most of their service centers.

>>4495508
Fuji, panasonic, om system, and pentax ilcs all sell relatively poorly for good reasons pertaining to low quality autofocus, phonelike quality (xtrans jpegs, m43) and build (lol at fuji and panasonic) so by this point its not contrarianism, its pointing out the obvious. The only way they dont make bad cameras is if they’re compared to 10 year old products and the goal is saying >back in my day to excuse how shitty these things that cost well over a thousand (up to three grand sometimes) are.

Calling fuji shit is like calling hyundai shit
>ITS BETTER THAN CARS USED TO BE! IF YOU SPEND $80K ON ONE…
Its still shit and costs way too much for being shit.

>>4495510
noooo fuji autofocus and weather sealing is NOT shit show me your fast action burd sports photos and everest climbs or you CANT COMPLAIN its good enough for you just give fuji your $2000 and stop complaining instead of buying an older cheaper camera that still matches and exceeds the fuji. fuji has uh, the dials and they named their kitschy jpeg filters after film! who cares if its non competitive and priced like a full frame nikon! dont ask questions, consoom what you want, what can do what people post on 4chan, and stop looking at pricetags

now leave fuji alone, or else!

oh did i mention im the camera sales guy at best buy btw

>>4495510
You talk about it in a normal way though, so what you're saying comes across better and rational. I mean look at this dildo, he's exactly what I'm talking about >>4495511

>>4495477
No. I'm looking into enlarging my 8x10 negatives using my 8x10 camera atm. I want to make big prints of some of them. I already have a great lens for it. Just need trays, lighting solution, and paper.
It feels great to not need or really want anymore camera gear. I already have basically everything I could want or need aside from some insanely expensive and unnecessary 8x10 lenses in the 5k-8k dollar range. Cooke convertible and the pinkham and smith soft focus portrait lens.

i really like my a7iii, why do people hate it so much?
tested the a7iv recently and couldn't figure out much of a difference quality-wise, its a bit better in general though of course

>>4495524
The jews want us to buy DSLRs because mirrorless cameras make their noses look big by comparison.

>>4495441
Yes, PTP's DR chart is derived from SNR = 1 (or similar thresholds), not from a human-vision-based "how much DR looks usable in a final image" test. It’s an engineering metric, a standardized benchmark, not a perceptual one. Which also makes it perfectly valid to COMPARE CAMERAS.

> it's almost always several stops off from actual visible dynamic range tests.
PTP's DR chart correlates very well with lab-based step chart tests (DXO, IMATEST, CineD, etc.), differences between "visible DR" and SNR-based DR are usually fractions of a stop, not "several", unless you can prove it.
>protip: you can't

>also imagine confusing measured ISO and ISO setting
You're right that 100 ISO doesn't mean the same for each brand.
Now, real-world usage: If you are a photographer, you care about how the camera performs when you set it to "ISO 800." If Camera A at ISO 800 has more dynamic range than Camera B at ISO 800, Camera A is performing better for you in the field, regardless of the underlying "true" voltage measurement.

Some like fujiworms "underrate" their ISO to protect highlights. This might shift their position on a graph slightly, it doesn't magically create dynamic range that isn't there, that's just a physical impossibility. You can’t "fake" high dynamic range by simply renaming ISO 100 to ISO 200 and dumping gain. If a sensor is small or noisy, it will show up as a lower line on that chart regardless of the label. At best you'll offset the curve by a fraction of a stop, and that's pretty much all PTP warns you against when comparing at a specific ISO setting.

>the g9ii is notable for looking good on DR charts but 99% of the actual photos look like dogshit.
DR measures how much detail you can pull back from both extremes, the potential recoverable signal, not artistic usefulness or perceptually how good the image will look. This is off-topic. Blame Panasoniggers for their non-existent skills.

>leave gearfagging to smart people.
So not you?
Niggerlicious post.

>>4495524
>why do people hate it so much?
By people, do you mean /p/?

No one on this board enjoys photography, or life in general.

>>4495515
Nah, still retarded

>>4495535
Wrong. I enjoy both.

>>4495534
>it might look worse but its performing better, technically, if you were taking photos of stars the hst and jwst already took photos of
ok so the chart is useless to photographers.
>the line is in the wrong spot but it can still be used to-
nope
>sure i was comparing an xt4 to a 20 year old dslr and not the z6ii and a7iii that btfo it and spouting nonsense about magic noise reduction algorithms but-
no you’re just a retard

>>4495549
I accept your concession.

>>4495550
>it looks worse
>but its better!
>the line is in the wrong spot and its an overpriced scamera vs a 20 year old thrift store find
>but its a valid comparison!

Are their fixed focus lenses that aren't quite literally toy lenses? Seems interesting to play with but I'd rather have an actual piece of glass if I could.

>>4495552
Literally all large format lenses.

>>4495534
>p2p: it has 11.something stops of dr
>step tests: 14.something
p2p is ran by one of those “35mm is <12mp and 10 stops of dr” sorts of fools
just wrong by using assinine cutoffs that dont visibly apply. perception matters more in photography than reality scanning.

>>4495571
This sounds like lowkey snoyposting

>>4495383
i go photographing with my 2 friends who both have x100vis and i have a z8 with a 35mm and i don't care

>>4495571
I mean if you don't care about grain resolution and perfect condition studio settings that's essentially correct

>>4495383
The clueless out of touch uncs are the beardie beanie reddit faggots and quirk chungus femcels with their precious eedeesee jewels. Every fellow zoomer and gen A i see has a bulky ass instax or a vintage dslr.

You’re out of touch. You’re a macbook at starbucks person. You’re a MAGA,
you’re an AWFL. You’re a first generation facebook user. You send thoughts and prayers. You speak out and care about principles. You’re libertarian, you’re a rational atheist, you’re a humanist, you think jesus is love. You’re a renee good. You’re a nick pretti. You’re a charlie kirk. You’re a joe rogan. You’re a white knight. You miss small smartphones. You want a leica. You think cars are cool and crossovers are gay. You have no idea what’s going on but you will die for and with your 2010s ass retardation because your brain got dipped in cement when you graduated college in 2014. Maybe you should just stay home and play your strat-o-caster and play on your mac, unc. The world is moving on without you whether you like it or not. I haven’t seen a protest or a maga hat crowd with an average age under 35 and every mirrorless sony fuji fucker looks like they review indie rock on youtube and have to pay someone to figure out tiktok for them.

t. 21

If you wanted to buy two (2) GF lenses for a Fuji GFX camera, which would you pick?

The 55mm 1.7 GF lens looks remarkable in terms of quality.

>>4495646
Zoomers really do say the darndest things. Cute!

I'll put my post in zoomer terms for you so you can better understand. You thought you ate, but you're just munch. Understand now?

File: DSCF0890b.jpg (1.64 MB, 3000x4000)

1.64 MB JPG

>>4495648
I've had the 55mm and it's nice indeed but a bit slow on older GFX cameras. I've sold my gfx and lenses because I wanted something smaller. I miss it at times. If I would buy one again it's the 55 again probably coupled with that cheap and light 35-70 zoom lens.

>>4495656
I'll def go for the 55 but it's been sold out for like half a year on B&H, and when it pops up it for like a day, it gets snapped up. So it seems to be pretty popular/well regarded for sure.

What are your preferred non-GFX lenses at this time? I'd consider smaller alternatives as well.

>>4495648
The 50/3.5, and then whatever you need that it can't do. You WANT a pancake on any cam you have because it becomes VERY portable and portable can be very good for travel.

>>4495571
>35mm is <12mp and 10 stops of dr
Is this supposed to be wrong?

>>4495673
You can get 20 stops out of bw film if you really wanted to bro

File: file.jpg (163 KB, 682x1023)

163 KB JPG

>>4495130
How come no one mods cameras anymore?
Anyone remember back in the day there would be hardware mods to certain cameras like for example the DVX100 Andromeda?
It was a mod which tapped into the hardware for 4:4:4 12-bit uncompressed output straight from the DVX100 A/D converters.

I feel like there's tons of cameras which use really great sensors, but hamstrung by shitty implementations/firmware. With how insanely cheap FPGAs have gotten, it's weird no one really does intense mods like these.

>>4495696
Because zoomers are more tech illiterate than even boomers.

>>4495222

just delete failed partition make new usb key and redo?

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone(...).jpg (1.94 MB, 2048x4095)

1.94 MB JPG

Just got these 2 lenses in the mail. 135mm f2.8 lenses are really cheap and I'm gonna try more...I found that my favorite lens for my A-Mount collection was a 135mm f2.8 AF Minolta I kept using and figured I would try the same focal length/aperture for Pentax. Shooting manual is easier and more fun than I expected. Pentax AF is so bad it made me start learning how to manual focus lel.

Paid $13 for the JCPenney 28mm f2.8 + $6 shipping and $10 for the Sears 135mm f2.8 + $7 shipping. The Sears lens look like it took a drop at some point, has a big dent on the front of the lens and a scratch on the front element. Took the pic with my 50mm f1.7 Pentax-A I also paid $15 bucks for (on a K1ii)

>>4495696
Entry level mirrorless jew boxes are like $3k now. Nobody is messing with them incase something goes wrong (which it probably will if you just open the cover because their so delicate).

>>4495696
What kind of god tier hand-eye coordination do you need to have to pull this out? I fucking hate soldering anything smd related, and seeing this makes me sick.

>>4495696
Modern cameras are considerably more bulky and electronically dense than a 720p camcorder from 25 years ago. The DVX100 had "room to breathe" inside its housing.
Current cameras are precision-engineered heat sinks. Adding third-party hardware inside would likely lead to immediate overheating, if it even fits. Components have shrunk to the point where "tapping" a bus on a modern PCB requires industrial-grade microscopy and specialized equipment that the vast majority of hobbyists simply don't have.

Back then cameras had separate, accessible signal paths, used off-the-shelf ADCs, often had analog taps you could physically intercept. Andromeda literally hijacked the sensor’s output before Panasonic’s internal processing. That’s almost impossible now.
Today you’re fighting: Secure boot, firmware signing, encrypted sensor data, proprietary ISPs baked into silicon. Also image processing is now so sophisticated and hardware accelerated that there would be no gain to grab the signal and process it yourself.

The DVX100 pumped out a modest amount of data that even a desktop computer of that era could catch. Nowadays intercepting a 4K or 8K 10-bit signal directly from the sensor board requires incredibly high-bandwidth interfaces that DIY hardware simply can’t tap without causing signal degradation or timing errors. Back then you were just bypassing heavy DV compression (25Mbps) to get uncompressed data. It's not the case anymore.

DIY isn't dead, but it's gone software. Firmwares are modded directly, because that's where most of the processing is controlled, and it's already pretty damn good.

>>4495724
Sorry, 480p/576p camcorder* it was recording in SD.

>>4495668
Good suggestion, thank you

File: 1713514212250638.jpg (505 KB, 1920x1024)

505 KB JPG

What do you guys think about the Godox Lux Master?

>>4495768
Pretty cool because you can put a dome and softbox on it making it pretty versatile, but also kinda redundant since you can just get the it30pro if you want a compact (I absolutely love mine) or a regular/proper flash if you want the versatility.

File: ▄█ █▄█ ▄█▀ ▀█▀.png (522 KB, 500x737)

522 KB PNG

I just went for my first shoot with the Sony A1 I ordered from MBP and I'm seriously fucking tweaking. I just upgraded from an A7SIII and I thought this would help with the colour cast issue, and from the sample images I saw online I thought it looked better than the results I've been getting with the A7S. Even shooting RAW with AWB in the middle of the day, there is always green and magenta hue. Even if I fix the tint in post, if I remove all of the magenta from one part of the image, it will send the rest of the image green. I really don't want to switch systems as I have so much money put into E mount glass, but I seriously don't know what to do... do I really need to mask off every photo I take and tint with WB like that? FFS...

>>4495800
>Guys I bought a snoy because my snoy was having snoy-specific issues
>Do I really need to stop using a snoy to avoid these snoy-specific issues?
>I really just put too much money into snoy guys help please
Sell your gear anon holy shit you get like 80% of what you paid even with ebay fees taken into account

>>4495801
It's not just the money, I would also have to find alternatives to all my lenses. To be clear, the lenses are really good, most of them are really sharp edge-to-edge. It would just be a huge hassle and I don't wanna do it...

>>4495800
Snoy, Foolji, Panashit, and Pootax are all inexcusably bad. Stick to Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad, and PhaseOne from here on out.

You know, actual camera companies.

>>4495804
>Foolji, Panashit, and Pootax are all inexcusably bad
Why? I was looking at Lumix full frame if I replace the Sony

>>4495646
>You send thoughts and prayers. You speak out and care about principles. You’re libertarian, you’re a rational atheist, you’re a humanist, you think jesus is love.
You couldn't get into college were it not for slipping standards and government assistance

>>4495805

(L)oser Mount Alliance

File: Leica_35mm_Noctilux_Inspi(...).jpg (2.9 MB, 8000x5333)

2.9 MB JPG

>pay $10,000 for a modern rangefinder
>pay $10,000 for a 35mm ƒ/1.2 rangefinder lens
>use it to take pictures of strolling queers and fent-folders
I have to know what the fuck Leica meant by this

>>4495814
A chad took that pic and you are poor and brown lol

>>4495816
>Snapshit: >:(
>Snapshit, LEICA: <:O

File: would smash that cookie.jpg (3.4 MB, 3277x4096)

3.4 MB JPG

>R5M2
>ISO 1600
so this is the power of fool frame

>>4495823
looks like 5dIII/5ds image quality. At least the wolf is hot.

>>4495823
so what's going on here? shit lens? crop mode? noise added in post-processing? how is he getting them to look like shitty phone pics?

>>4495823
>why do images with shit lighting look shitty?
>it’s the camera’s fault

Wait, is Nikon display customization really that bad? There's no way to set custom displays, have to cycle through all the default ones? And there's no highlight alerts for overexposure? Sad.

>>4495847
You can customise the display and viewfinder display in the settings. You just have the option of having multiple display configurations you can switch between.
Just go to the menu and set it up how you like. I set up so I have three different I switch between all the time depending on what I want or don't want on the screen.

>>4495850
That's what I was hoping to find, but I'm not seeing that customization on the Z5. Either I'm blind or it's in some unintuitive menu section.

>>4495846
This is the secret sauc. The one thing every snapshitter and gearfaggot otb forgets. Good lighting > lens > sensor

>>4495851
It's in the Custom Settings Menu under d19 and d20 on my Zf.
Tons of options to customise it to your liking and have several configurations you can flick through.

File: w=960.jpg (75 KB, 960x502)

75 KB JPG

>>4495847
On OG Z5, you probably only have the option to cycle through but not customize.
Z5II and other models have full customization.
No Nikon Z has highlight warning / zebras / blinkies for stills shooting. You can see them immediately in image review, or you can make a custom picture profile with a curve modified such that it effectively puts stuff at like 254/255 to black as a workaround. Once you learn how to expose, they aren't really necessary.

>>4495823
Looks like a phone photo

>>4495800
What a good opportunity for you to share some example images of what you are complaining about

>>4495847
Yes everything nikon does is years behind. They save basic shit for the z8 and z9. Like open aperture focus.

>>4495846
>leave canon alone!
The r5ii is notorious for this. It has literal aps-c image quality. CANON aps-c image quality. Anyone who paid for it is a videographer or an idiot because all it does that the r5 doesnt is extra video shit and even more shooting speed (useless)
>inb4 PROFESHENULS
News faggots and talentless wedding/“i shoot for her socials” gwacs should have a special term as to not corrupt the good name of studio photographers and the chads who are still shooting sports on dslrs.

Besides the R8 and RP, canon does not make a single stills forward camera anymore. They literally hate you, /p/. They think what you do is fucking retarded. You’re a peasant playing with a toy. Canon’s advanced cameras are only for NFL photographers and hollywood videographers like katanas are only for samurai. You want IBIS and a bigger battery? You don’t need them, peon. Go buy some pros used up junk.
>panasonic: good. those losers dont need “good” autofocus for their cat either.
>fujifilm: agreed
>nikon: actually we didnt compromise the z7ii or the z5ii for video :D
Nikon bad.
>sony: actually we-
pxlmagcamerasizelumixpancakevszeissbatis.jpg lmao snoy cuck $800 f2.5 lmfao snoy cuck snoy

>>4495868
Sounds like you hate cameras
What models do you use?

>>4495870
>the esoteric commentary is lost on this guy
>he’s probably a furry too

>>4495870
>>4495871
Most of the people here are eternal contrarian lunatics who just want to fight for the sake of fighting. Whatever you say, they will fight for the opposite. Doesn't matter what you say or what it's about. Those types of people just want to argue and put other people down.
I really should stop looking here, because sorting through the constant stream of brain diarrhea isn't worth it for the two or three anons who genuinely want to talk

>>4495871
Sounds like you hate cameras

>>4495874
It's easy to be a contrarion hater
It takes actual effort, and experience, to contribute positively
Anons are just choosing the easiest path because they're lazy and lack actual photo experience

>>4495823
>dump highlights
>boost shadows
>neutral color profile
>"WTF MY PICTURE IS FLAT"
Kill all zoophiles.

>>4495870
>canon's mirrorless cameras are increasingly disregarding the most basic needs of photographers, downgrading essential capabilities of flagship FFs to better match their entry level aps-c cameras, and selling videographers aps-c quality cameras with full frame bokeh
>fuji and panasonic are on a decade long streak of not being able to improve autofocus, falling behind even nikon (panasonic and fuji actually have worse autofocus than om system now)
>YOU HATE CAMERAS HUH?
Why are people not allowed to point out the issues with the mirrorless market? Also, he was clearly portraying nikon and sony's critics as irrational idiots with nowhere to go, because nikon and sony are the two brands actually serving photographers what they want instead of dressing up low value products with social media marketing or selling glorified high speed camcorders to newsrag agencies.

>>4495892
Sounds like you hate cameras
What models do you use?

>>4495814
Why buy an aircooled Porsche for 90k€ with manual gears and smelly loud exhaust if you coud just buy an automatic Toyota Aygo?

>>4495892
Based and scamera pilled

>>4495893
>nooo you have to get excited for all the new products
holy reddit

>>4495898
>Why buy an aircooled Porsche for 90k€ with manual gears and smelly loud exhaust if you coud just buy a 1000hp electric mid engine performance CVT awd racecar with torque vectoring, variable aeros, and auxillary jet engines
if cameras were cars and the digital leica were a porsha shitbox just with traction control and ABS, F1 would deem most of the market “cheating, holy shit, so much cheating, humans should not even go that fast what the fuck this is a UFO, it can literally fly what the fuck this isnt even a car anymore”

File: file.png (611 KB, 507x800)

611 KB PNG

>>4495860
I havent exported any from the A1 yet but heres one from A7SIII that illustrates the issue. After looking now I think the A1 isn't as bad, but you can see the problem here. I feel like it gets way worse if the photo is underexposed.

>>4495893
Without SLRs or TLRs before them, we'd only have rangefinders, point and shoots, or 4x5s as options. The ergonomics, retro style, and portability you claim mirrorless cameras invented, were all innovated by SLRs and DSLRs long before them

>>4495933
Did you forget to say what models you use?

>>4495941
Your mum is me favorite model. Thanks.

>>4495802
Sunken cost fallacy

Any Canoniggas able to give me QRD on their TS-E lineup? I want to grab a tilt-shift lens because why the fuck not, but aren't sure which one to go with.
Architectual photography sounds nice with the perspective correction available. Easy pano stitches even more so. Not interested in macro with it because I already have a lens for that. I was thinking maybe the 45mm f/28 or 90mm f/2.8 since people look to shit on the 24mm, and the 135mm is pretty expensive for what is going to probably be my least-used lens.

>>4495967
I don't get why you wouldn't go with the 17mm or 24mm unless you were doing product photography or macro. Why do a stitched pano with a 45mm or 90mm when you could just use a wider lens and get it in one shot?

File: IMG_0018_v1HQ.jpg (1.72 MB, 3600x2400)

1.72 MB JPG

>>4495971
>TS-E 17mm f/4L
>eBay listings av. $2200
>TS-E 24mm f/3.5L (MkII)
>eBay lstings av. $1700
That's why. I'm not going to spend 0.35x my total camera kit's costs on a lens that's probably going to be used seriously like twice a year.
If it's not cost-feasible then fuck it, I won't buy one. Also,
>Why do a stitched pano with a 45mm or 90mm when you could just use a wider lens and get it in one shot?
Because panos aren't always about cramming every last bit in. I like doing panos to boost res which works out better with a normal/tele lens.

The only saving grace would be the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L MkI but I've heard mixed reviews on its performance.
But hey, I did ask for input so I'll take yours on board and keep looking.

>>4495974
Do you actually have an EF body or are you adapting? There's been quite a few cheaper T/S lenses made for mirrorless and you can also get adapters that add tilt to any lens. I think you can also get tilt and shift adapter for medium format lenses on some SLR mounts.

>>4495975
RF and EF. MILC and SLR. Doesn't need to fit the SLR but that would be a bonus.
I did have a look and it turns out there's an EF/RF tilt shift adapter but I'm not a fan of the inevitable shading from adapting a lens with not enough image plane to go around.
I've seen a few of these chinesium TS lenses but I'm yet to see one that doesn't result in that exact scenario where they're like
>huehue this is absolutely a tilt shift lens suitable for full frame camera teehee chingchong
>by the way if you don't use your camera's crop mode you're gonna get massive mechanical vignetting whoopsie
because I was looking at an 85mm f/2.8 TS before that realisation.

I want to test DKL lenses and can't find DKL to RF adapters anywhere. PLZ HALP!

>>4495823
For one, I like how smug he is.

File: 1749773044648759.gif (28 KB, 333x498)

28 KB GIF

>>4495130
lol, remember when the mirrorless scamera enthusiasts were calling DSLRs ewaste?

>>4496079
Pls go

>>4495833
>what's going on?
The R5II has APS-C DR. The changes canon made to speed up the sensor (10ms faster) introduced a lot of noise, like how the A9III has M43 DR to achieve global shutter, and it was already a noisy camera like every other HR FF because it has APS-C sized pixels with lacking tech. Nerds will say "but the SNR is the same as a 24mp camera" but no retard, per each pixel the SNR is worse, chroma noise is worse, color accuracy craters faster through the ISO range, shadow recovery and color retention is worse. The only thing that's always better is resolution/sharpness.

Noise reduction baked into the raws (to cheat at dpreview/dox scoring) at every ISO setting like the R3 and R1, but the missing info is still missing even if the noise is hidden from software analysis. So using it is like using the 5DS, the modern photographer expects to be able to protect highlights with sloppy underexposure, but nope, you can't do that without just not having shadows, sorry.

It is slightly technologically inferior to the Z8 (only has noise/shadow recovery issues in the first gain stage) to hit some marketing department requirements, basically. Like an older engine design running too fast and too hot to beat the competitions horsepower figure and ending up being a slightly less practical machine in reality.

File: 1.png (1.11 MB, 1366x768)

1.11 MB PNG

>>4496084
>Like an older engine design running too fast and too hot to beat the competitions horsepower figure
You mean like a Chevy?

>>4496099
yeah but the z28 had sovl and passion while the gt350 blows engines

File: that gm quality.gif (2.29 MB, 800x373)

2.29 MB GIF

>>4496103
>sovl and passion
It's a Chevy, not an Alfa or Ferrari
>the gt350 blows engines
pic related kek

File: laughing wulf.png (1.58 MB, 1082x1082)

1.58 MB PNG

This thread is hilarious, I can't... my sides...

>>4496079
DSLR's are for boomers on a fixed income and mom's that have like 5+ kids to financially support. They are good cameras, modern ones are just nicer to use and smaller.

>>4496180
Mirrorless cameras are half baked. EVFs suck shit for panning. The batteries are still literally two AAs. The lenses would make leitz cry with how overdesigned and front heavy they are to overcome excessively short flange distances and baby mounts, just to produce worse contrast/tonal transmission than a tiny prime from the 50s. The mfgs keep paying attention to nothing but eshutter fps and video codecs.
>BUT COMA AT F1.8!
Not everything is fucking astro

>Snoy schizo having a melty and making new threads to shill his slop
lol

>>4496213
I can tell you can't afford any mirrorless made in the last 4 or so years. You always describe issues that were in EF-M mount cameras lmao

>>4496152
i didnt care about the z28 until i read about it

its the 911 gt3 of pony cars which is why they cost $10-20,000 more than a used gt350 ($60k starting)

https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2014-chevrolet-camaro-z28-review

>Because the ride-height sensors can enable "fly mode," wherein the suspension tells the traction-management system "It's cool—you sense a loss of traction and want to cut power, but we're just flying through the air, good buddy. Keep piling on the juice so we don't slow down when we land."

>>4496250
Get out /p/ wheel boy

>>4496247
I'm convinced the entire cohort of MILC haters is simply made up of the bleeding-edge buyers who got an EOS R or Z7 on launch. They didn't understand they were beta testers and go figure there were issues right out the gate. You were likely just as fucked over in real terms if you bought an EOS 650 while everyone else went on about muh manual focusing T90 superiority.
I have a MILC from 2023 and it's just pure results. No actual issues outside of missing a few features Canon needlessly cripplehammers out that I would have liked.

>>4496250
The GT350 had a MSRP of 50k, the Camaro Z28 was 72-75k. You need to compare it to the GT350R, not the regular GT350. GT350R was 62k at launch. A whopping 10k less than the Camaro and it still mogged it effortlessly. That's why you had assmad gm fangirls popping up whenever it was mentioned.

>>4496278
>can't be a gearhead on the /gear/ general

>>4496280
Yeah it's definitely that. Also a little bit of /p/ being too poor to afford anything new and acting like children who think camera brands are in a "console war".

>>4496350
This isn't how you convince someone to buy a new product

I know I'm hyper late to the party, but damn the Helios 44-2 is a fun lens to shoot with. I'm really loving mine

I don't think I've owned a camera since having disposable ones with me on holiday as a child. Now I'm looking at buying a used Panasonic DMC-TZ7 for €50. It sounds to be exactly what I want - a pocketable camera that isn't a phone, has good zoom, and has a certain aesthetic quality to the photos it produces.

Thoughts?

>>4496280
The a7v, r5ii, and z7ii are still kind of shit. Some cameras are getting worse (r5ii, r6iii, z6iii).

This is an anonymous board, so this is where I can post about stupid decisions so people can laugh at me.

>buy fuji gfx about 3 months ago
>hmm, time to buy some lenses
>gfx lenses have been sold out everywhere, this mint condition/used fancy gfx is just sitting on my desk collecting dust

I guess I'll just keep shooting with my Sonychu and won't sell it until I can find a single GFX lens somewhere.

>>4496478
Buy an adapter or bellows and use mamiya lenses, dummy.

>>4496479
I plan on it, but I also want a GFX lens. Where are all the GFX lenses? did, dare I say it, (((JEWS (tm)))) snap all of them up?

>>4496478
Go on ebay dumbass. Or adapt a lens with enough image circle for 44x33. There's a spreadsheet floating around specifically for this situation

>>4496446
lmao why would I care that anyone buys anything

>>4496495
>There's a spreadsheet floating around specifically for this situation
Let me see it

>>4496515
Enjoy.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uxvvpxJ9QVFFyh0pW2rs9KBmUW9vlh-d-VnbcLDCTn8/htmlview

>>4496516
Thx

File: canon-14mm-f14-7-14mm-01.jpg (92 KB, 960x540)

92 KB JPG

>more hybrid slop
It's all so tiresome...

>>4496551
I agree I'd rather just have limited-zoom high aperture stills lenses, but these
Might be the best astro lenses ever made though.

>>4496551
>more hybrid slop
How is it worse that just a stills version? What's the difference exactly?

>>4496554
Minimal focus breathing, ultra silent, ultra fast focus motor, same form factor as the other lenses in the 1.4 lineup which makes swapping easy etc.

Is kentmere 400 a good beginner film?

The 14 1.4 seems to be the most interesting out of the 2. Nice that they made a fisheye zoom for RF, but in reality there isn't much to differentiate it from the older EF version 8-15mm F4 vs 7-14mm f2.8 to 3.5 which darkens to 3.2 as soon as you zoom and then reaches 3.5 at 11mm. In terms of size it is almost identical to the EF with an RF adapter as well which is interesting. The RF is probably sharper, but fisheye lenses are not for pixelpeeping anyways.
I'm most interested in the astro performance of the 14mm, but I prefer something tighter.. I think the 20 or 24 will be more suited for me so it is not like my wallet is gonna suffer this time around. Only conclusion I've come to is that a used EF 8-15 seems like a good deal compared to the RF.

>>4496559
Yeah.

>>4496558
>Oh no, if only it had a loud and slow focus motor... Damn it really sucks for us still shooters....
????

>>4496560
>I'm most interested in the astro performance of the 14mm, but I prefer something tighter.. I think the 20 or 24 will be more suited for me
The problem is all of these lenses are firmly in the mid-upper crust of lens prices. Like, cool, now we have 5 VCM primes that cost $2000. Nobody sane is buying $10,000 of hybrid canon gear because if you're serious about making video like that you're buying dedicated videography kit. I sincerely hope this is it for the VCM lineup for now because holy shit could we do with some better options for RF between $300-1200.

The Sigma EF 14mm f/1.8 has been out for long enough that used they go for about $900 and is an utterly seductive astro lens. Yeah, you need an adapter but so what?
It just feels like Canon is dead set on making RF the most expensive mount system to buy into and all to punch further down into hybridisation and ignore stills.

>>4496569
I'm retarded and didn't quote the right part of your statement but w/e

>>4496569
Hopefully they will go down in price. I believe they will as well judging by the used prices and how long they sit before moving. Once Canon has recouped some of the RD costs they probably will.. add in a few rounds of official Canon rebates and what have you and with time the used market will be more saturated forcing them to lower the prices. In Canon's defense they did release the 45 1.2 which was a cool move though.

>>4496582
I just don't see the value unfortunately. I have 6 lenses and it's a 4-2 split EF-RF. None of the EF's RF equivalents are straight upgrades; more like sidegrades.

>Example
My EF 16-35 f/4 is amazing and cost me $450 used. Optically great, minimal shading, very sharp wide open etc. Basically flawless except for the fact that I have to use an adapter.
For $1800 new or about $1500 used, I can get the RF 14-35 f/4. Okay, 2mm extra on the wide end, that seems pretty useful actually, cool. And I guess I save a couple hundred grams which is useful but not huge. The IS is also likely better, but I can handhold the EF lens down to 1/8th normally.
In return I get:
>way worse barrel distortion 14-24mm (yes the EF can't reach 14-15mm)
>Introduces moderate pincushion distortion on the long end which the EF doesn't have.
>stronger shading all around until about f/8 except for 28-35mm
>worse center contrast and sharpness 28-35mm
I just don't see the point.

In fairness I've noticed the RF lenses that don't have EF counterparts to be rather interesting and generally good performers. Things like the 28mm pancake and the 45mm ultrafast are gems, and while not my cup of tea the superlight 100-400mm f/5.6-8 and the 600/800mm f/11 are neat in their own right.

>>4496586
Mirrorless has been a huge upgrade for nikon. Everything on F mount that wasn’t a pro zoom or huge telephoto prime was so noticeably inferior many people actually bought pentax and sony cameras. For canon, it’s just been messing with perfection.

I love 28 2.8. It does obviously also have its drawbacks such as losing contrast fast when pointed towards bright lights, but there is no such thing as a perfect lens. Otherwise it performs way above its price point in terms of sharpness. The 45 is critiqued by people who have 0 understanding of what goes into lens design, it is simply put impossible to have something in that size and price behave the way these folks expect, it is just a limitation of the optical design which interestingly is not critiqued as vocally when it is in a $10k manual lens, but when Canon releases an autofocusing lens at way lower price it is suddenly somehow bad.
I also like the 35 1.8 for its optical performance, but I hate the focusing motor. EF L lenses at least those produced from about 2010 and onward are a steal in my opinion, especially the big whites.

Been out of photography for a long time, want to get back into it. I do a lot of hiking and have read mirrorless cameras can be lightweight. Would like something good for nature, landscape and wildlife here and there (idk if I see myself bringing a fast tele on a hike). Thoughts and experiences? Is crop a good idea? Would appreciate opinions from people who actually use their cameras.

>>4496607
Cambo wrc400 + IQ4

>>4496478
This is something I never understand. Where do you live? Here in Europoor basically all lenses are available, some at reduced price and also a lot used offers. But that might be because we are too poor to afford GF.

Also have you checked the Mitakon 65mm? It's huge, heavy, not so sharp but the photos are quite unique. I enjoyed it more than GF lenses.

>>4496610
I live in the US, Mid-Atlantic/Eastern seaboard. I don’t understand it myself, in fact it’s a bit odd because I have noticed the same thing you’d mentioned.

While doing some research I found that Fuji stuff is readily available all over Europe and Asia. So idk what’s going on. I’ll likely end up buying used if nothing comes back in stock in the next couple of months.

I’ll take a look at the Mitakon, I keep reading good things about it.

>>4496597
Based. Snoycels just seethe because they will never shoot with a pancake.

Any camera strap recs? Wanna go on some hikes.

>>4496694
Capture clip or one of the smaller cotton carriers. I use a cotton carrier skout because I found the one sided carry of the capture clip uncomfortable, the clip was hard to fit on my backpack straps, and I don't care about looking a little stupid if it means comfort over miles.

>>4496642
>im so glad i got to use a color-trashing phone lens with weird contrast and flat supersharp rendering. it might not affect my non pocketable full frame much but it really makes my brand look good in pxlmag size comparisons.
I owned the rf and z pancakes and hated both so much i was glad to go to sony. Compact teles are where its at and the sigma 90mm f2.8 has no equal on ff.

>>4496586
This is probably what bugs me the most. You're basically paying a premium for a lens profile for corrections. For a third of the price of the RF 35 f/1.4 you can get the Tamron 35 f/1.4 which is an optically and visually superior lens

>buy an AD200 for my Z8
>messing around in living room testing the flash
>getting black bars at edge of frame at sync speed
are electronic shutters a mistake?

File: PDC.jpg (79 KB, 1141x486)

79 KB JPG

>>4496694
I often go hiking and straps while initially seem like an OK idea often get in the way. Imagine hiking and having your camera swinging back and forth from your neck for miles on trail. You want something to secure it to your pack. I usually have a neck strap and a Capture Clip.

The important thing for me at least is the strap lanyard is made of leather. Lots of straps have the neck portion leather, but then stitch the cheapest fucking polyester cord for the thin strap that loops around your camera. I've had bad experiences with that shitty polyester weave fraying like crazy.
I have not tried the peak design quick-click loop things - so I cannot comment on those.
You want something soft, like a soft leather for the neck part. Things like Belt Strap will dig into your neck, especially on hikes.

File: 1756228664583739.png (3.47 MB, 1920x1200)

3.47 MB PNG

>>4495898
Agreed. Sports car buyers are retards with small dicks. If you're going to spend that kind of money on a car get a nice sedan, be that a Lexus, Mercedes, Bentley/Rolls-Royce depending on your budget.

File: 1742565922520689.png (890 KB, 900x600)

890 KB PNG

>>4496734
Straps are definitely not the way to go for hiking, especially if the mountain includes any amount of scrambling.
I have a PGYTECH strap, which is amazing for talking around, but the experience degrades massively the moment you add a backpack. The camera also slides, which is great when you raising it to take a shot, and less grate when you are climbing over a rock and it gently slides into it lens first.
I also got a clip recently, but I haven't used it yet. It doesn't work well on a belt if you have a zoom lens, but seems to be reasonably comfortable on the backpack strap. I may also get a hand strap, because it's a bit scary to handle the camera without any kind of strap at all the moment you remove it from the clip though.

File: file.png (1.25 MB, 1440x1800)

1.25 MB PNG

>Blazar Talon
God damn I want this bad boy so much, but can't justify the price, and I see a few design decisions that would make its use a bit annoying.
What's a decent enough 1.5x FF anamorphic lens I could settle on? I was thinking of the Sirui Saturn series, no AF though but they don't have the weight of an anvil.
Yes, I'll take photos with it, videos are only a distant thought. No I don't care if you think these should only be used to shoot video.

File: _DSC5440_Panorama_resized.jpg (3.7 MB, 5306x2500)

3.7 MB JPG

>>4496703
>Sigma 90mm f2.8
This is my favorite lens. I love everything about it, the weight, the size, the haptics, even the fucking magnetic lens cap, it's a joy to use, and that's the most important thing. I'm literally erect whenever I get to manipulate it.
I would do unspeakable things for Sigma to expand the iSeries with a compact 135mm f3.5 or f4 mini tele. Why the FUCK is there no such compact tele in the current days when it was so common back in the 80s, it's fucktarded. There's an untapped market with zero competition right there.

>>4496805
It really is a special lens. It's going to be remembered as a classic from the Early mirroless transition. Sigma in general is just knocking it out of the park.

File: consoomer.jpg (26 KB, 680x432)

26 KB JPG

>>4495130
Posting this to trigger the Snoy shill!

Update on my multi-month journey to find a (any) Fugi GF lens:

>yesterday I see one randomly pop up as being in-stock in one of the better known camera gear seller sites after months of watching it
>immediately purchase it, order goes through fine. Site immediately shows the lens as now being out of stock again after my purchase.
>out of curiosity i check on the site again this morning
>still out of stock

Sorry guys, I think I bought the only new GF lens that Fujifilm will make available to the entire United States in 2026. If you want one, you'll have to wait until next year.

we want to know your true identity,you must indeed be someone from the wikimemes server in discord,but we want to know your identity

>sony shill meltdown

>>4496898
i hope your parents kill themselves in front of you

I am getting into photography as a hobby because my job takes me all over the country to some very scenic places.
I bought an old Pentax Spotmatic that's still in perfect working condition and it comes with the 55mm f1.8 SMC Takumar lens that they all seem to have. I liked the look of the camera and how its fully mechanical. With how everything is becoming digital and AI is being forced down our throats I just felt full analog was the way to go.
I am looking forward to taking shitty photos of the country side.
Thanks for listening to my TedTalk.

File: 465700626_181525082083305(...).jpg (510 KB, 1440x1800)

510 KB JPG

>>4495696
The juice isn't worth the squeeze for modern camera's. Tinkerers would rather focus their efforts elsewhere.

>>4496936
i think anything pre-2019 should be AIdslop free

File: arm.png (688 KB, 931x923)

688 KB PNG

I need a decent camera arm with a 3/8" bolt to screw into my desk. I'm currently using this cheap chinese arm, and it works alright, but the clamps are a little weak, I'd prefer something in a similar form factor with splines or better locking features.

>>4496911
>snoy schizo got banned and all his posts deleted
/p/ is healing

File: the_worms.gif (3.18 MB, 540x299)

3.18 MB GIF

Couldn't you videofags just buy a dedicated camcorder instead of trying to force bodies shaped like stills cameras to fit your specific needs?
Magic Lantern and the subsequent domino effect of hybridization have been an absolute disaster for the industry. Cramming high-end video specs into stills bodies takes far too much design budget away from things that actually matter to stills shooters. You already have this nifty thing called the camcorder that you've always had at your disposal to buy instead, so go fucking get one of those. What's that? You'd rather get a half-gimped stills camera that could never actually live up to your video-first expectations no matter how much R&D is unjustly poured into it? What the fuck is wrong with you?
If I hear one more thing about an SLR- or rangefinder-shaped body needing such esoteric specifications as "open gate", "external SSD recording", a "heat sink" or "ProRes RAW" I am seriously going to lose it.

>still somehow getting jobs with my Canon SL1 + $80 lenses (1.8 & 2.8 pancake)
I should probably upgrade at some point. De-noising is such an issue when people want portrait shots done at night.

I was thinking of getting a 5D MK. III because I still really do like DSLRs, and they're also a lot cheaper.

File: IMG_20260209_103430792.jpg (468 KB, 3072x3072)

468 KB JPG

Just got my buyee haul lets open the box

this is after being stuck in customs hell at ups louisville for a month, had to pay the gf tax and pay her share of the tarriffs for christmas ($190 she ordered some /fa/ bullshit)

File: IMG_20260209_103620916.jpg (521 KB, 3072x3072)

521 KB JPG

>>4497050
they did a pretty good job packing it actually

thankfully did not pay any extra than the 15% ddp buyee charges from japan to usa but it was stuck in customs for a full 30 days

File: IMG_20260209_105654530.jpg (883 KB, 3072x3072)

883 KB JPG

>>4497051
Left to Right:

Konica Minolta aSweet Digital 5D #3: I bought this for the 50mm AF 1.4 Prime on it that normally goes for $40-50. I think it has first black frame which sucks. Locked up on me hard when I took the second pic. Thankfully I have 2 other ones that seem okay. Glass is good thankfully. Was $60.

Pentax K10D with the strap and no lens: I bought this for $19. Was listed as junk. Definitely has something wrong with it, I stuck a battery in it and it flashes the battery symbol. Smells like hot plastic after 20 mins. I was gonna rip the aperture solenoid out of it for the K70

Pentax K10D w/24-70 f4 SMC FA: This was $46 and has nothing wrong with it, was gonna play with it. ($60-100 here)

Pentax-A 35-105mm f3.5: This was $48, has light haze but mostly clear when shone into a light. I have some grace here since its probably 1980s build. ($60-80 here)

Pentax-A 28mm f2.8: This was $22, its nearly brand new. ($40-60 here)

Pentax-FA 50mm f1.4: Found a tiny mold spot I wiped off the front element thankfully. $55 ($80-120 here)

Pentax-FA 35mm f2 HD: This was pricey, actually in nearly new shape. Was $125 (normally sold for $190-230 here)

Pentax K-70 with a broken screen: I got a great deal here, $106 and came with a OE charger and battery. I already have a screen from Aliexpress I paid $44 for I'm trying to swap. Normally they go for $300.

Ricoh Shop Goodies: M42 to K Adapter Ring, Viewfinder CoversI, and Magnifier Eyecup O-ME53. I think I paid like $28 for the adapter ring and $17 for the eyecup. The ring is $90 and eyecup like $35 on B&H

Oh and a Tomica Vintage Neo Evo IX MR (LV-N349) and Tomica WRX STi S4 Limited (same color as the one I own IRL)

so im looking for a new camera bag, preferably on the smaller size one that is divided into camera compartment and whatever else compartment. right now i have a lowepro slightshot i think its called, the issue is that it has one strap going sideways and im looking for something more balanced. at first i was thinking to maybe get a normal backpack and a camera cube but after buying the backpack i came to the realization that its going to be cumbersome, also i need something for the travel, normal backpack is lowkey which is good but its just too much hustle. anyway, my main to choices were pgytech onego lite and brevite jumper. anyone can share some opinions on them? theres pretty much no reddit threads about the pgytech one. ive also looked at shimoda but i dont really like the look, also crazy expensive. inb4 why not lowepro or [photo backpack brand], since its for travel i really want it to be lowkey

>>4497146
How about
https://www.thinktankphoto.com/products/backlight-sprint

>>4497148
i dont think this one will work for my usecase but i want to eventually start doing wildlife/aviation so ill bookmark this one for sure

>>4495805
I went down that route, tried the pani s5ii and if you are going to go down that route just get the 24-60 2.8 and don't even bother getting any other lenses besides maybe a 105 or 135 if that interests you.
The 24-60 is just unreal, probably the best lens I've ever used and definitely the best zoom, but the system itself is absolutely horrendous to work with if you want to use flash of any kind.
I moved back to Nikon after a few months because the lag when using any flash at all was missing me dozens of shots.

File: sneed4444.jpg (56 KB, 720x381)

56 KB JPG

browsing through estate auctions and saw a mju 1 which looked in decent condition in a lot with some random electronics and binoculars. i won the bid at £70 (one other mfer bidding with me).

I think i'm probably retarded since i hadn't inspected the cam in person and it may be completely bricked. But i still am excited to see if i actually wasted my money.

Are these cams easy to fix? I know a repair guy who generally works on SLRs (electronic and mechanical)

We'll see if i struck a decent bargain or not tomorrow.

>>4497158
>Are these cams easy to fix?
No and very few are willing to work on them, if you find someone willing it will probably cost more than to buy a functional one.

File: Chromatic_aberration_(com(...).jpg (103 KB, 423x339)

103 KB JPG

Are there any types of (cheap/Shitty) lens that have a lot of chromatic abberation? If its a different mounting system, does the fact that you are using a lens adaptor help in getting that effect?
Any tips in achieving this?


Pic related is from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chromatic_aberration_(comparison).jpg

>>4497171
you want it? get a cheap 2x teleconverter

>>4497171
I forgot which lens it was, but one of the really early film era budget EF zooms had loads.

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone(...).jpg (3.62 MB, 4898x3972)

3.62 MB JPG

>>4497052
So good news and bad news:

Bad:

Minolta 50mm AF 1.4 has really oily aperture blades. Sucks because I didn't realize it was stuck wide open until I took it off the camera. I've done it before on a 50mm f1.7 but it still sucks putting the aperture diaphragm back into the body. Not excited but I would like a fast prime for my Minolta/Sonys (fastest I have is 35mm 1.8 and 50mm f1.7).

$19 K10D is definitely dead. I tried reviving it with 3 different batteries left in there for a few hours. Might try some dexoit on the contacts but I don't think it'll change anything. Just flashes empty battery symbol when you switch it on. Hopefully I can rip the aperture solenoids out of it (should have 2 good for my K200D + K70)

KM 5D #3 had a disgusting film of oil/grease on the sensor and mirror that was a pita to clean. Otherwise seems okay, might've scratched the sensor a little in the process but nbd. Seems like it works fine.

Good:

K-70 seems 100% fixable, just had to order kapton tape off Amazon to match the old screen. Was a bit rough removing the circuit board since the old tape really had it glued down and I thought I could reuse it. Does not have any aperture solenoid issues though. Checked by going from f/22 to f1.4 and taking a few images with 1 second exposures then going into live view (stops down to f4).

$46 K10D and K70 are both nearly new and at their base firmwares (v1.0) so I can upgrade the K10D to v1.10 to do the lens microadjustments for it.

>>4497146
How low key are you looking to be? I personally want to just run a backpack + pgytech beetle quick disconnect clip. I find dedicated camera bags awkward. Would rather have an actual backpack and a quick release so I don't have it dangling off my neck for a few hours and have room to carry more than 1-2 lenses.

I bought the K70 personally as a travel camera for that reason, so when I go somewhere I won't feel as bad dropping/banging around a $150 DSLR instead of my $900 K1ii.

>>4497186
To add I hate normal camera bags. They're awkward. Too small to carry more than the camera + 2 lenses and once I'm somewhere I usually have the camera hanging around my neck and the bag around my shoulder. Its awkward. Would rather just have a backpack on and the camera attached to the shoulder strap so I can just take a shot when I see something I like.

>>4497043
5D MK3 is a great camera, will let you run half the ISO you normally could and will probably have better AF than your SL1. You can find MK4s for <$800 sometimes too. Its just big as fuck so you might wanna be like me and keep the 5D for peak IQ and the SL1 as a travel/beater.

>>4497186
My observation about purchasing used camera gear lots in the US is that everything has been picked through several times and almost never worth it. Even on dedicated youtube channels that showcase these types of things where it is their main income I am always amazed at how bad it is. Bad condition and high prices, lots of work for little profit.

File: PXL_20260211_113856661.jpg (3.05 MB, 3024x4032)

3.05 MB JPG

>>4497158
Just got it. Has a roll of film and batteries in it. Everything seems to be working including flash. Just need to look at the photos now.

>>4497173
>you want it? get a cheap 2x teleconverter
any recommendations?

File: teleconverter.jpg (50 KB, 807x583)

50 KB JPG

>>4497259
Something like this, but depends on your filter thread

https://www.amazon.com/Definition-Telephoto-Teleconverter-Magnification-Photography/dp/B0866Z74ZJ/141-1395782-5998500

>>4495230
OM-1 and Voigtlander Super Nokton 29mm f0.8.

>>4497171
I bet really old brass lenses with simple designs you could adapt would have significant CA. There are small ones with shorter focal lengths that are not very expensive you could get. They should work fine projection-wise on FF or smaller.

>>4497262
Lol I love the om-1 but that is a stupid fucking suggestion. Nigh unusable for a majority of scenarios and fuckin heavy for what it is. Might as well get a z5ii and 40mm f2 for that price.

Is there such a thing as a small camera that isn't dog shit? I love the idea of a leica D-LUX 8 as a secondary camera to my nikon FF kit, but the leica tax is crazy. Yes I've seen the panasonic version of the same camera but it's still more expensive than I believe it would be worth for me. Are any of the Lumix TS line good? Just want something to throw a neckstrap on and hang off my shoulder on hikes until i need it.

File: Screenshot 2026-02-12 171437.png (1.85 MB, 1841x974)

1.85 MB PNG

>>4495130
My collection is growing. I picked up the 300mm today and was using it with a 1.7X teleconverter. Now I'm really wanting a 400-600mm lens for birds

>>4497359
Get a Ricoh GR IV or III. If you want a zoom get a canon g7x iii

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone(...).jpg (4.99 MB, 3339x6704)

4.99 MB JPG

>>4497192
Ehhh it wasn't a lot, it was all stuff I was looking for from Yahoo Auctions Japan purchased through buyee. A lot of it was listed as junk though. Pic related is the K70 and photos from it. Only real 2 duds from this is the Minolta 50mm 1.4 (oily aperture blades) and one of the K10Ds (took the pic of the K70 with it and the FA 50mm f1.4). Other 2 pics were test shots with the K70 + 50mm 1.4.

Its actually kind of insane how much cheaper it is to buy this stuff even with the tariffs and shipping. Americans really get gouged with pricing but it could also be the low yen working in my favor + more availability for Pentax/Minolta.

K70 is gonna be my edc/beater camera when I don't want to lug a CCD vintage sovl pos (or need the low light performance without a 4lb FF brick). I really love how these cameras just eat at high ISOs.

>>4495823
nice tongue

>>4497261
I've got 58 thread on what I use, so that might work. hmmm.
I actually thought you were talking about those teleconverters that go in between the lens and the camera.

>>4497280
>I bet really old brass lenses with simple designs you could adapt would have significant CA. There are small ones with shorter focal lengths that are not very expensive you could get. They should work fine projection-wise on FF or smaller.
Any specific model names that come to mind?