>>4497140
Sinar is number one, obviously.

>OM System
The auto focus should be better for a system that has great tele options. They're small but at what cost. I kinda hate them. I feel like Panny understood the format better with more appealing small lenses.
>Snoy
Great IQ, great AF, ergos and build quality were a disappointment. Maybe just not my thing. I don't own them anymore.
>Nikon
I only used DSLRs back in the day. I remember liking how photos looked with less processing back in the day. I've looked at raws from mirrorless Nikons and they basically look like Snoys. Maybe I'm just old and grumpy.

Canon, Sony, and Nikon are basically the only ones worth a fuck

Everything else is FF nikon or sony aps-c money for a less reliable, less functional products

There is no validreason for panasonic, om system, or fuji to actually exist

>>4497144
I agree with you but post a photo

>>4497144
I don't see any point in not getting a full frame camera these days unless you absolutely absolutely need it as compact as possible.
Crop sensor cameras are barely cheaper than full frame cameras. I got an aps-c camera a few months ago and I just could never get it to look how I liked, so I quickly sold it and went back to full frame where I immediately felt back at home. I'm never going for smaller than full frame again.
Not saying you can't get a good photo out of an aps-c camera, I just don't see why anybody would spend money on one when the gap is basically non existent to a nice full frame one.

>>4497144
This but sony, nikon, and phaseone.

>>4497147
Worthless cameras for worthless photos
FF is better, but for birds and street/building corner photography, who gives a fuck, that extra $$ is going nowhere, it's not a cherished memory, it's not your favorite spot on the trail, it's not a loved one, it's not even your beloved dog, it's a fucking wikipedia article photo or a CCTV grade snapshit

For photos that exist solely to sate the instagram algorithm and a "hobby" that exists solely to state the instagram algorithm, who gives a fuck, its basically a different discipline than what large sensor users engage in. High volume vibes only photography.

>>4497140
Canon- baby duck syndrome so it just feels right to me from the oldest Rebel to the newest mirrorless. the colors are just nice, the menus are sensible, even the plastic bodies can take a beating. RAWs are easy to push and pull, and oodles of lenses without having to shell out for the Fancy Red Line bragging rights on an L lens, but woe be it if you got a crop sensor body and your much recommended nifty fifty 1.8 becomes an unwieldy 80mm
Nikon- the lenses are backwards I hate it I hate it
Olympus- overbuilt little bricks meant for Arch Linux users and obsessive-compulsives up to the em5 mark 2, and plastic fashion accessories for everything newer. Disappointing when using the little sensors with kit lenses, and "why the fuck can't I get a lens this sharp and cheap in a non m43 system without going to pro lenses?" when you find out about stuff like the Oly 75mm or Samyang 7.5 fisheye
Panasonic- The lens controls are backwards again I hate it

>>4497149
Well I saw a noticeable difference when I got a new aps-c camera a few months ago, so I'm never going back down from full frame again myself. I don't care about social media and there's barely any price difference if money is tight.
Some people make it work, but I wasn't a good enough photographer to do that. It just wasn't for me.

>>4497155
The skill to use crop comes down to not taking photos. Thats it.

That, and using AI and going for a final output of 2mp, or doing such unnatural garish edits and shooting at high ISO so consistently the fine tonality of a larger sensor is lost

Stop gearfaggling. If you can't take a good picture with any of these brands your bad and you should sell your gear and do something else. They're all fine and have made some good and some bad cameras.

>>4497160
i can take "some" good pictures with a shitty camera but i'm not wasting two fucking thousand dollars on some unforgivably poorly made crop sensor trash with busted AF and a wormy sensor like a fujifilm or $3k on a panasonic with autofocus that makes the canon rp look like a class leading sports camera in the "actually focusing on things" department

people are allowed to hold things to standards
sorry your favorite brand is an irrelevant hair on the market share chart because they make incompetently put together garbage and sell it with gimmicks
but they're a japanese company, their society is collapsing, they do not have the excess intellectual capital to assign to such meaningless industries as cameras - a solved problem since the release of the d750 and 5div

the fact that there are two competent japanese camera companies and one barely lagging is a fucking miracle that mostly has to do with canon being a us/israel defense contractor, nikon making optics for medical/scientific/military use, and sony being a tech conglomerate

>>4497160
depends on the kind of photography you do.
If you are trying to catch fleeting wildlife moments the camera you choose can make the difference between having a great shot, a poor shot, or no shot, because a poorly designed camera puts extra time/steps between you and the photo you want.

I tried out a Sony a65 for example. The camera has a single control dial, making manual mode slow. OK so use P/A/S? Well if you want a decently exposed photo you will probably need to use exposure compensation. That single dial does nothing in P/A/S mode until you activate the exposure comp function. That kind of pants-on-head design is why I won't be using Sony again.

Even something so simple as a slow boot time can make you miss a shot.

>>4497140
Canon: Great ergonomics and useability. But a bit bland and not that fun to use.

Nikon: Same as above. Their bodies always have lower MP than the competition.

Fuji: Good UI and pleasing colors SOOC. Hate how their ISO is a misleadingly a few stop slower.

Panasonic: not bad but cant stand m43. Havent used any of their FF line.

Olympus: i always found their UI ugly

Sony: Only good on paper, generally unreliable and autistic menus. More of a computer than a photo tool.

File: Leica-sales-breakdown-by-(...).png (253 KB, 700x435)

253 KB PNG

>>4497140
Leica sales
40% M
40% Q
12% SL
rest is others
wdyt?

>>4497140
this is a bunch of nonsense, in current year you can take decent photos with all the systems. i've owned a camera or videocamera from most of these brands at one point or another. grass is always greener

>>4497140
what kind of faggot ranks camera by jpeg output
>fuj-
oh, no surprise

>>4497179
>t.salty green snoy shooter

>>4497175
Image quality does not matter on /p/ only compact cameras, great AF, and 25600000 iso performance.

>>4497164
>>4497165
This isn't a console war. Your fighting straw men

>>4497175
Based. The only one I haven't used is a phase one. I'm sure it's pictures turn out great too.

>>4497175
You can take some decent photos but in many cases you’re stuck paying a premium to never use quicker autofocus than a 5dII’s or be limited to 5diii at iso 1000 quality, or be unable to shoot good looking jpegs without defaulting to magenta tint and reduced saturation to downplay the ugly colors (it used to be nikon that was notorious for this and in my opinion nikon and sony are tied for most garish and ugly jpegs, and nikon has actually gotten worse)
>cope brands: the $2000 mirrorless rig is a little better than a 14 year old dslr for photography. it has also gotten more chic. stop complaining. also we enabled a niche video mode the competition did not. please forget dedicated camcorders exist. this totally matters.
>the one from a deservedly more popular brand: *blows it out of the water for less money*
Many such cases

It makes me sad that this hobby is now infested with people who would pee their pants at having to use a manual focus lens or actually any autofocus system made before the year 2005. It's gotten too easy and now we have a bunch of whiners who don't even take photos or enjoy photography. At least gearfags back in the day had a basic understanding of their gear and the principles of photography.

>>4497189
Manual focus is fine. On dirt cheap cameras with optical viewfinders. Sorry but I’m never going to cope and excuse paying thousands for shit autofocus or manual focus only on digital cameras. Money can be spent better no matter how rich or poor you are. Those companies can release better products or continue selling a dwindling number of cameras to a dwindling subculture of idiots. I’m not buying that shit. I am telling everyone else to stay away. How hard is it? Fucking canon had more accurate and faster autofocus in dslr live view compared to some high end mirrorless shit from fujifilm and panasonic.

It’s not a respectable business model to sell inferior products for more money, and simping for these scam artists is not a good way to demonstrate your skill. Compare the israeli camera industry. Leaf only existed to make the best possible cameras. Not to stick around, try their best, and make a lot of ads about their heritage. When they could no longer acquire and allocate enough fiscal and intellectual capital to compete, they merged with other companies to continue making the best possible cameras.

The market share is the truth here. The top 3 brands in the consumer ilc market are the top 3 for a very good reason. The slackers should just be ignored. Like you would ignore shitty no name laptops and android phones.

>>4497190
I imagine its so bad at low tier camera brands their executives see the abundance of used canikony stuff and third party lenses as their #1 competitor
>toppu fiveo turetso to fujifilm camera, genterman? ebay, craigslist, facebook, mbp, keh. we must make a better camera than this old pieco shitto and we will be fine. photographer dumb, would pay high end canon yens for camera from 1982.

>talk endlessly about camera brands and formats
>not one post of any photos detailing the need for the gear

>>4497140
I fix and flip cameras so I've used a lot of different stuff.
1) Pentax. Only ancient stuff available but the K1ii still gives amazing image quality. But the winner here are the lenses: they render like vintage lenses and provide a character that's absent on most modern glass. Another huge plus is they "get it". The cameras are super ergonomic. Never have to touch a menu. And the Pentax 17 is cool, too.
2) Sigma. They "get it" in camera design. The fp, fp L, and BF are all studies of human-camera interaction. And their lenses are top-notch, while being more affordable than first party.
3) Fujifilm. They "get it" too. Huge emphasis on providing an enjoyable experience.
4) OM System. They're like Fujifilm without R&D budget.

Yeah -- basically, I highly prize the usability and ergonomics of a camera. Nothing kills my creative flow or inspiration like having a useless camera for the scenario until I find the right autofocus setting in the menu system. The more immediate a camera is to use, the better.

5) Nikon and Canon are tied here. Generally good usability but they don't put an emphasis on that design aspect.
6) Sony. They don't give a fuck about usability. Like, as soon as you pick them up you know they're shit because the grip's too close to the lens and you're scraping your knuckle on the lens.
7) Panasonic. They used to be cool with the S1 -- an amazing camera. Then they decided to be a more affordable version of Sony with spec sheet fagging and caring more about shitty videographers with beans than photographers of any type.

I used a Leica X Vario for a little while. But too old to draw generalizations of the brand. I'd like to try newer Leica because it had some good things going for it.

>>4497193
This isnt reddit. You don't need to share pics of your cat for imaginary internet points.

>>4497157
What are you even on about? I went from a 21mp full frame sensor to a 40mp aps-c sensor. I found the extra mega pixels worthless because the image itself wasn't nice looking as a whole, but it got worse when you cropped in too. So what's the point in having an aps-c with so many megapixel when the pixels you get are a worse quality. I found it to be the exact opposite with full frame.
But it's always like this here. If somebody says they like full frame then full frame is the worst shit in the world and if somebody likes aps-c then you're a poor loser who can't afford shit. It's fucking tiresome.
I saw it with my own eyes and there's no going back for me.

File: fujisnoy.jpg (837 KB, 1810x1195)

837 KB JPG

>>4497196
I agree with everything you say.
I own fujifilm and full frame sony and i still pick fuji 80% of the time due to enjoyment of using it.
Niggas here are overly attached to pixel peeping full frame shit.

>>4497140
>camera brands ranked
grim state of the board honestly
completely subjective thread that incites aimless shitflinging contests with a zero-sum-game

>>4497197
completely missing the point. At least reddit has people posting their shit for people to see how they actually use their much talked about gear.

>>4497209
Sounds you should fuck off to reddit then rofl

>>4497193
>but do you personally NEED the bad tech high price brand to be good tech?
If I didn’t I would save thousands, just buy a used nikon and it would still be better

>>4497196
You sound like you shoot benches for social media and your “get it” experience just means retro chic slop

Mechanical watch target market ass take

>>4497219
No dude stop buying cameras to accomplish things

Buy cameras to buy an like, experience, duuuuuude