pocket sized full frame edition!Previous: >>4499288
>>4501071Why on earth would it not have a hotshoe?
>>4501071Had no idea about this cameraCute
>>4501074That weird thumbgrip is mounted on the hotshoe
>>4501077It's not a hotshoe, its a coldshoe, it has no electronic connection for a flash.
>>4501078But it does have it's very own app! Now you can use the camera while having your phone out to use the camera!
upgrading to an entry level camera now. Sony a1 IIPrevious camera was a sony a7RIV.
>>4501071LEICA KILLER.
>>4501087>no viewfinder>aimed for "content creators"Yet another youtuber video slop
>>4501071When you take a photo with this you must cry out 'Exterminte'
>>4501091Why do you have to yell "Anal gape"?
>>4501071>no shutter>no viewfinder>no hot shoe>shitty 1/30s readout sensor from the a7iii>same shitty colors as the a7iii and a7c>same lack of an OLPF creating moire so dxomark fags can wank to sharpness charts as the a7iii and a7c>L mount lenses are the same chinese crap and sigma shit snoy users usually stick on their cameras>worse autofocus than a fucking fujifilmSo its an even worse snoyNo fucking thank youThrow that shit in the trashI will shoot aps-c until CANON AND NIKON make smaller cameras. Sony and Panasonic are NOT real camera companies. They are TV and washing machine companies. CANON NIKON FUJIFILM LEICA PENTAX HASSELBLAD PHASONE = real camera companiesI would rather shoot a 20 year old digital leica than a gimped SNOY a7c with the rest of its half shutter removed
>>4501071>mirrorlessWhy cant your phone send imessages or run instagram and discord, unc?2012 is over old man. Stop wasting your time on phone cameras minus the phone. All the gen alpha chads are shooting with OVFs now. I’m just 19 and all my friends have old DSLRs, zenza bronicas and pentax k1000s. Enjoy your AI generated photos, mirrorless cucks
>>4501094>until CANON AND NIKON make smaller camerasr8's pretty small
> d750 owner> slightly hesitant to invest into the F mount lensesshould I learn more skills and move to mirrorless or jump to d850 to wait for the future? I'm not even a amateur now, but hell do I fucking like it
I find it odd Canon hasn't released a retro body camera. They can just slap the guts from an existing camera into a a housing that looks like their old cameras. It just seems like an obvious move to attract even more customers."But already Canon sit on 60% of the market or something", that's true, but companies like this always want to have more. Releasing a retro body camera will appeal to a lot of people who don't like their black blob cameras.It just seems like such an obvious and easy move to make.I saw they had that prototype on concept camera on display recently where the viewfinder was on top. So it looks like they're open to retro bodies, but not quite what I had in mind.
>>4501103I think you should go into a couple good quality F mount lenses, the D750 is quite capable for any task and F mount lenses are very cheap and in abundance on the used market. With a D850 you still need lenses and those better be able to outresolve the sensor so you would have to buy the high end stuff, gold ring, f/1.4 primes and the f/2.8 zooms.If you get the lenses now you will have them ready when you move up to the D850 or just get the adapter for Z mount if you move to mirrorless.
>>4501103Getting any lenses other than a kit one makes sense only if your goals are pixel peeping or sport (b*rd) photography.
>>4501103There are some great AI lenses, and most are really cheap. And unlike the plastic consumer crap, they're gonna last. Some of my favourite lenses.
I am a noob and bought an R100 with the two kit lenses and the 50mm f/1.8 prime as my first setupit's a good camera but the main issues I ran into using on vacation the first time (lots of architecture shots and historical places) was the prime not having enough angle of view for many interior shots, and the wide angle zoom being too dim for the same shotsnow I'm wondering if I should have got an EOS RP instead since having a full frame would help both of those problems, and it's not that much more expensive
>>4501113Or anything low light. Or longer focal range. Or a smaller physical size. Or unique rendering like sunstars. Or more depth of field. Or weather sealing. Or better AF. Or sharper prints. But yes your right if you don't care about any of that then a kit lens is probably good.
>>4501094>>worse autofocus than a fucking fujifilmPost is mostly accurate but this is not. Panasonic's autofocus on 10 year old cameras is better than Fujifilm's autofocus today.
Is the dust issue on the Ricoh GR a bit overstated? Even if it happens can't I basically edit it out in 10 seconds in LR if it's even noticeable?
>>4501103get old F lenses that tempt you on the used market, every gearfag is selling them to consoom the Z ones.the D750 is already overkill if you say you're not even an amateur. >>4501113kit lenses are shit. if you're going this way just take pictures with your phone.
>>4501087I would buy the S9 if it had a viewfinderI would buy the CL if it had a flippy screenIt's almost as if they don't want me to buy a camera.
>>4501094>no shutterNo physical shutter? That's going to be so fucked up if its used indoors kek.>snoy sperging again for no reasonGear threads are so tiresome these days.>>4501131What dust issue? From the vacuum when the lens retracts?
>>4501104I fear that the "retro prototype" is in fact the rumored camera and not for instance a AE-1 reissue which would have sold like crazy. The used market for that particular camera, the most mass-produced SLR in history if I am not mistaken is extremely hot, as is the used market for compact Canon IXUS digicams, especially those of the colored variety.. zoomers can't get enough of them and they pay twice what retail was 15 years ago. So what exactly they are doing I am not sure. Same with the G7X thing.. zoomers want it to the point of being out of stock everywhere. They have absolutely 0 clue about the market it seems.
>>4501134The CL is about as ergonomic as a brick though. Extremely terrible to handle.
>>4501136snoy is satantotal snoy deathi declare jihad against the great camera satan snoycanikon akbar
>>4501094What camera models do you use?
>>4501071Anyone else have gear they've used for a long time?I don't mean gear that is old, but new to you, or gear that you've had a long time but hardly use.I'm at 12 years of use from one of my lenses, few months away from 10 years for one of my bodies. What have you kept, and kept using anons?
>>4501138Exactly, just put one of their modern mirrorless full frame cameras into an AE-1 body like the Nikon Zf. It just seems like such a no brainer move. It would take close to zero rnd and spread their market more.I think it would sell way more than the prototype they showed. But I'm a middle aged loser who had to move back in with my parents and not the head of Canon's product development team, so what do I know. It just seems like such an obvious move to get into an aspect of the market they have zero hold in right now.
>>4501167I forgot to say put it into an AE-1 style body, not an actual AE-1 size. It will obviously be a little bit larger, but it's doable.It's vain, but I don't have a lot of money, so when I'm spending that amount on something I'd like it to look cool too and not just like an ugly black blob. I like the old school dials on top too. It's not gimmicky at all, they serve a clear purpose.
Is it easy to tell that one of these was taken with a smartphone camera and one wasn't?
>>4501171it should be but its more obvious on more detailed objects like living things and nature
>>4501172Well which is which
>>4501171I can't tell. I can see the differences in settings and lens but that's about it. My guess would be the one on the left is with a smartphone.I like the one on the right better, maybe that's why I think it's NOT a smarphone photo so I'm a little biased. What is the other camera you used?
>>4501171>>4501174>Shrodinger's /p/haggot>Any blind test otb exists entirely to make op look good, and other anons look a fool>If no anon answers genuinely, all photos in the comparision are both good and bad at the same time>this eliminates the possibility of op being anything other than a baiting faggot
>>4501175Left was shot on Canon IXUS 285 HS A, right was shot on the new Xiaomi 17 Ultra , idiot
>>4501177Haha you got me. Thanks for the chuckle.
>>4501171They both look like str8 dookie
>>4501139yeah, S9 is pretty bad too.Anyone seriously using these cameras adds a grip to them.
>>4501177Cool now do something thats not thumbnail sized and has actual detail. Thumbnails of digital images are assumed to be AI period. You need to have a ~24mp original and the raw to prove your images are real life and not AI. Sorry!>but people scrolling past on social media will only see-They are not important going forward - and they were not important before. They are effectively captured and sterilized. Curtis Yarvin has some nice things to say about this and refers to them as undesirables. If they do this shit they dont exist. This system, called the beast by some, is already in effect. It is also assumed YOU are not real and only two or three humans will actually read this post!GET OUT NOW!
>>4501167Zf is like same size and slightly lighter than an FTbAE-1 is definitely smaller, but still should be do able
>>4501071Sony sisters... perhaps we got too cocky...
>>4501171>>4501177keep in mind now very much all phones sport ai upscaling and trickery, mostly for close ups and moon/night sky, for things 5-10m away phones still pump out oil paintings / melting plastic, so very much any camera inherently curbstomps them
If I switched my rx1r I to a gr IV, what what I miss the most? rx1r is my first real camera so I'm oblivious to what full frame offers over aps-c
>>4501147>canikon akbarI though Canon and Nikon were good but then I learned that they don't have a way to show overexposed areas before taking the photo. That's 2006 level of functionality.
>>4501227They're both good cameras but I don't really see the point in replacing one for the other.
>>4501228Its not possible because previews and all data derived from them is derived from an line skipped 8 bit jpeg (nikon uses the preview for their autofocus in lieu of having cross type points which is why it sucks)Sony can sort of lie to you with a zebra limit over 100 but its still inaccurate. Just have a feel for your camera. Most highlights arent worth recovering anyways. >expose for the sun bro!
yo
>>4501238>Most highlights arent worth recovering anyways. The ones that are probably aren't too blown anyway, recovery in modern cameras is really good. Obviously there are limits but slightly over can be saved pretty well and anything that can't was probably intentional anyway.
>>4501236i cant afford both but i have only tried the rx1r.I'd like to see if downgrading to an aps-c is truly that noticeable as currently, the better low light and color contrast you get from a full frame isn't that impressive to me - given that the rx1r hunts in low light anyway and its AF even in good light is pretty sluggish. This is probably due to it being 13 years old I'm sure. Portability is key to me and i think a rx1r is the biggest I'll ever go. I'll probably just save up for an rx1r III
>>4501242It's a very strange price gap, the GR IV is nowhere near the same price as a RXR1 III so I'm getting confused. I thought you were talking about a RXR1 I vs a GRIV, not the latest one. As far as cost and worth goes, the GRIV is really good value for money compared to that Sony and the 28mm is pretty much perfect for being an all rounder. It has some good film emulations on it too if you care about that.But if you have the money and are autistic about image quality, that RXR1 III with the 61mp sensor is hard to beat. Sony is also the most well known for having some of the best autofocus of all and the Ricoh is known to have a few slight issues, but they're not major or make it unusuable or anything.
>>4501243i see sorry for the confusionmy options would be sell rx1r I and get a GRIV now so i can learn a bit more about sensor differences or wait a year or so to save cash as well as sell my rx1r I to fund an rx1r III which would solve all my complaints but would also force me to get better with my current shitty AF.Funnily enough the GRIV being 28mm was one of my offputs which is why i was looking at the GRIIIx too, I do portraits quite often so I'm not too sure about a wider focal length.
>>4501245If portraits are your main thing, the GRIV probably won't be ideal. I guess there is also the RX100VII, that's roughly in the same price range as the GRIV and has a zoom lens along with the really good autofocus. The GRIIIx is still a good pick though if going used and really only doing portraits.
>>4501246Like i said, I'm not a professional photographer so I have no idea, but it wouldn't sit well with me spending $1000 on a 1" sensor camera even if it does have all the bells and whistles.Where I am the gr iiix is still selling for msrp used unfortunately. That being said I heard the AF across the Ricoh's aren't that great either and rely heavily on snap focusing, which makes sense given they're tailored for street.
>>4501249Yeah the Ricohs really are more built for street and travel, not really portrait. The Sony's are probably your best bet if you really want compact and good autofocus. But considering your doing portraits mostly and I doubt there will be a lot of motion, the GRIIIx isn't a bad idea.
>have a single AD200pro >spent way too much time thinking about buying an AD600>ended up buying two more AD200s and the AD-B2 bracketdid I do good? hoping the AD200s taped together can work as a key light on a decently sunny day for some portraits
I just got thinking, would a Canon EOS RP with a pancake 28mm be a good choice? It's roughly the same price as the Ricoh GRIV (not that anon above but I'm also looking for a compact travel setup).
>>4501171Seems to be more detail on the right one if you look at the pitting in the plastic chrome on the neck.
>>4501168They could make grip extensions which includes more battery juice kinda like the motordrive grip or the extra beefy grip going from the ae-1 to the ae-1 program that enables more power draw etc, but yeah seems like a missed opportunity from Canon. Seems like the are too busy catering to autistic boomers instead of studying the actual market conditions because if they were they would have made such a camera in several revisions by now not to mention milk the zoomer market for what it is worth.
A7 IV + Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 DI III VXD G2 or Sony A6700 + Sigma C 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN?The cost difference in my country is about 800 usd cheaper for the A6700 combo, both new. I want a large depth of field for close up pics of long objects but also good quality
>>4501277Eh, if you have the budget for a FF I would say get that. Why not something like a Canon R6 or Nikon? Also what is your intended use?
>>4501277How much night work will you be doing? The noise on cropped sensors can be rough, so the FF A7IV might be better.
>>4501071IDGAF about fucking pocket size ff or even worse bullshit portable micro four turds. Give the BIGGEST setup you have instead. Maximum quality picture quality at all cost. Ignore weight and size completely
>>4501278>Why not something like a Canon R6 or Nikon?Sony lenses are more available and cheaper>Also what is your intended use?Indoor photos, some videos, and photos on trips, for example, to tank museums.>>4501279>How much night work will you be doing?I won’t be doing much night work at all, but I will be taking pictures in possibly dimly lit museums. What bothers me about full frame is the shallow depth of field. When something starts close to the camera and extends farther away, on full frame only a small part of it can be sharp. I wonder if a crop sensor would be better for this
>>4501281>Sony lenses are more available and cheaperNTA but I was pretty stunned at some of the price differences. I think it might also be because Canon full-frame doesn't allow any 3rd party lenses so Canon can charge whatever they want.
>>4501277Like the other anon said, get a Canon or Nikon instead. Sony is a meme.
>>4501282>Canon full-frame doesn't allow any 3rd party lenseskek really?
>>4501283>get a Canon or Nikon insteadWhy? More expensive, with poorer availability of lenses and the cameras themselves in my country, and there are far fewer reviews online. That’s why I’m only considering the A7 IV or A6700
My D3400 had some strange rubber thingy in this area. It was all covered in dust from clothes, so when I tried to remove the dust I accidently removed the whole rubber thingy, what did I do? How bad can it be? Do it need a UV filter now? Everything seems to be fine but it's cloudy rn so I can't really tell
>>4501286/p/ has a rage boner against Sony and Fuji (and Nikon to a lesser extent). Buy what suits your needs/what you like.Anyway, if you're autistic about image quality, full frame is what you need.
>>4501277I'd buy me a Nikon Zf
>>4501291If this is not the best looking camera on the market then what?
>>4501287It's there to block crap from getting inside the camera, so you'll get a build up of crap over time in there.
>>4501291>>4501292Expensive for what it is though, it's just a Z5 in a vintage looking body and will still suffer that same AF problem. Shame really, the manual shutter button is based.
>>4501293It seem like some other cameras don't have it there at all, google said it was there to prevent light from bouncing everywhere
>>4501295If that's it's purpose, then you might see some stray light depending on angle. It probably won't fuck shit up all the time but there will be certain situations where it might (same as how lens flares don't always happen but do at just the right angle).
>>4501271They're big enough that they don't need to cater to one part of the market. They could make something like this with close to zero work and hit a totally different part of the market.
>>4501292The silver version is way better looking.>>4501294What AF problem? I've had mine for a few months now and haven't run into any auto focus problems. It feels like a camera from the future compared to my old camera, but I've been out of the game for many years so take what I say with a grain of salt. I just really love my Zf.
>>4501277>>4501286>>4501276Buy an ad, snoynigger.
I just got a Fuji S5 Pro. What do I do with it?
>>4501307Nice. I have one of those. Take pictures of people or scenes with strong highlights.
>>4501301They're probably alluding to the stop down AF and ignoring they the AF is significantly improved for a Z5, and even class leading in some waysAnyone who thinks Zf has AF issues is retarded
>>4501309Every nikons autofocus kind of sucks. No cross points and they apparently run AF off the EVF preview because AF precision improves in crop mode. The cheapshit canon r8 has i think 400 cross points. This means a nikon cant lock focus on a horizontal or vertical detail depending in camera orientation. Live view also shits itself in low light because of the permanently closed aperture thingI sold my zf and z7ii because of this shit and went to an r8 and r5. Nikon cant make good autofocus, and its been this way since their DSLRs - top tier sports cameras like the D4 had worse AF than the standard line canon 5Ds kek>inb4 the buyers remorse corgi homo gets triggered
I think I need a 28mm lens for my Nikon crop camera, what are the options?A 35mm lens seems like a little bit too much, I don't have enough space
>>4501312im 99% sure nikons -10ev autofocus rating is fake and mostly contrast detect AF basedi rented a z8 once and it was laggier, noisiee, and not really working that well if it got dark compared to other cameras so it didnt really perform better than sony and canon. canon > sony > nikon autofocus and low light imo. the z7 and z8 sensors are just not good in low light however. lots of chroma noise ugliness, as bad as the sony 61mp sensors. white balance was kind of green too. it always needed +1 to +7 magenta.
>>4501312I have a complete opposite experience with the AF on my Zf. It has worked flawlessly in every scenario I've shot with it so far, both photo and video. It's hard to take most critique serious here though. I don't doubt you had trouble with it since you switched brand, but if almost anybody here says "I like x item" then you instantly have a bunch of people piling on saying "x is the worst piece of shit ever made!!! It's so fucking horrible! You're a moron for picking that you idiot!!! Haha how dumb!!!"But it's fine swapping brand if you're having problems, we're all extremely spoiled for choice in this day and age, so if you're not gelling with the gear you have, just sell it and try another brand.I just don't recognise any of the critique from my experience.
>>4501312>I am retardedSad, looking forward to never seeing some awesome AF shots you've taken with those bodies in the RPT
>>4501321Yeah sure, we’re spoiled, todays most subpar product still outperforms most shitty old cameras. But these big clunky pieces of jap branded plastic still cost a lot of money, and nikon just puts inferior tech in their bodies and lenses. They have a big mount and a thin sensor stack for people who adapt film lenses and sperg out over vignetting correction - that’s it. Otherwise their autofocus (among other things) is noticeably worse and it’s not just their bodies. Their lenses have issues too. Their new 70-200 is marketed as 14x more accurate and performs about on par with the canon and sony alternatives. Which means nikons first wave of southeast asian manufactured tech is 14x less accurate than canons japanese manufactured focusing systems. Some other nikon niggles>counteracts having a better grip purchase for boomerzoom usage by having too short of a grip and their continuing retarded iso/exp comp button placement, may as well be a sony especially with that retarded zoom button thing they’re sticking with>zf is rattly, less ergonomic than a fuji, and has a lot of scratch prone plasticky parts>their colors. ew. they actually got worse. sony looks good now.
>>4501322Post corgi
>>4501312>r8 and r5Do either of those have cross types? Should've got an R1 lolhttps://www.canonrumors.com/eos-r1-autofocus-what-sets-it-apart-from-the-eos-r5-mark-ii/>This gives a Canon mirrorless camera an autofocus “blind spot”. The camera can focus on either horizontal or vertical features when the camera orientation is parallel to the feature. For instance, your R5, R5 Mark II will struggle to lock onto horizontal features, when the camera is in landscape orientation. This is because on all of Canon's DPAF sensors up to the R1, all the DPAF pixels were orientated in the same direction.Here, you can use this example going forward since you're honest right
>>4501325Post shots using your amazing R5/R8 autofocus, and I will share more for you
>>4501238I don't buy it. If they can do zebras in video mode they can do it in stills. Even Fujifilm has accurate blinkies in the live view for still photo.
>>4501326>nooo you got the exact technical explanation wrongIn any case the AF works better than nikons trash which fully explains why canon outsells nikon by more than five to one. There’s a jared polin video you can find easily showing that even the R8 has better autofocus than the Z8 and definitely better than the ZF. The zf is an underwhelming and badly designed camera, not just because its a nikon. Not recommended.>>4501327Knew it.
>>4501329video is 8 or 10 bit and the evf image is 8 or 10 bitstills are 14 bit and the evf image is 8 or 10 bitsony doesnt actually do raw zebras in live view either. an artificially high zebra limit like 106-107 is just less inaccurate. its a useless feature regardless. cant you just tell by the highlight rolloff if you shoot in neutral?
>>4501330>I am retard nophoto liarKnew it.>showing that even the R8 has better autofocus than the Z8I already agree an R8 has better AF than a Z8. Note how that wasn't what you said initially.
>>4501331Doesn't matter. It might not be possible for 100% sensor accurate, but it's easily (and trivially) doable for a "close enough" indicator. No one is asking for 1:1 RAW accurate.
>>4501332>noooo you used the wrong blog for your infoOk but nikon still sucks lol>>4501333Just looking at the preview using a flat/neutral profile is also close enough. Zebras are really only a video feature because 10 bit video still has almost no attitude. In stills what are you going to clip - the sky between some tree leaves? A lightbulb?I have literally never missed live view blinkies ala the anus alpha seven are four
>>4501277>>4501279>>4501283>>4501291Actually, before choosing, I got my hands on both cameras and can share the results
>>4501336Unfortunately, the A6700 has noticeably worse image quality than the A7 IV, but it is also much lighter and more comfortable to use. The depth of field is also much better on the A6700 (more of the image is sharp up close), so it suits my use case better.I also added a phone to the comparison: Samsung Galaxy S9. You might wonder why not the S25 Ultra or a newer phone. I tested newer models, but they just produce AI slop images. They look like absolute garbage when you zoom in, especially on text or other things AI doesn’t know how to generate properly. The Galaxy S9 produces much nicer, more natural-looking photos compared to newer phones.Lenses used: Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN (A6700) and Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Di III VXD G2 (A7 IV)
>>4501294Lol it's a a z5ii in a vintage body. It's got expeed 7 AF pretty similar to the Z8/z9. Your retarded and can't read
>>4501080Yes
>>4501335>I have literally never missed live view blinkies ala the anus alpha seven are fourProbably because you shoot RAW.
>>4501324>todays most subpar product still outperforms most shitty old camerasSee this is something I disagree a lot about, or at least think is a very poor mindset to have. You call it "subpar", but truth is you can pick basically any brand's mid price and up camera and have a fucking amazing camera you can use for years with great performance. When you and other people are HYPER critical over minor stuff, then it's because you compare it to the absolute top of the line gear.>Big clunky pieces of jap branded plasticI mean what cameras aren't that these days? I agree with this. I find most modern cameras to be weird black blobs, but the way you say it sounds like you're just dissing Nikon and not talking about Canon that only makes those black blobs. We were just discussing they should make a retro body too.Fujis look cool, but I really didn't like the look the images had (and actually dreadful and inconsistent auto focus). Leicas look cool too, but I like rangefinder style. I also like them ergonomically because the viewfinder is offset so your nose isn't sticking into the screen. That's why I got the Zf, it's nice, compact, feels good and looks cool.Zf is rattly? Mine feels totally solid. I agree the ergonomics aren't good, BUT (and this is a huge but) it has perfectly good ergonomics if you put a grip on it. I have the smallrig L grip and it's great (I love the arca swiss grip on the bottom too. Very handy). I'm very tall and have very large hands, so I need extra grip, and it's perfect with the L grip."But it weighs more!!!" I barely feel it around my neck when I have it on a strap. Especially compared to my old heavy ass Canon dslr/lenses.The weight is also centered on the body and not the lens (of course depends on what lens you use, but I don't use giant ones) so it sits very nice around your neck without being front heavy.I'm just incredibly happy with my Zf, but could just as well have bought a Canon version of a Zf. I don't care about brands.
>>4501337You know you can stop down the lens on the full frame body to get the same depth of field right?
>>450134550$ camera 50$ lense
>>4501352It might be his first time using a camera instead of a phone, so it's worth cutting him a little slack.
>>4501353Green AF
>>4501338>Your retardedanon...
>>4501352Yes, I know, but then what’s the point of carrying such a heavy full-frame setup if you have to stop down so much just to get the subject in focus
>>4501071Just Picked up a Z30 for cheap ($200). I put the 40mm F2 from my Zf on it. I think I like it.
>>4501364So then get a smaller, light, and cheaper f/4 zoom
>>4501345I am hyper critical because a $1000+ device should be better executed than an iphone. Simple as. The camera companies are not being competitive enough for what they continue to charge. I literally bought 3 z 50mm f1.8s because the first two had noisy focus motors and minor focus inaccuracy. Ken rockwell has received nikon bodies with tilted EVFs. They’re no longer a top brand. >>4501337The DOF isnt better. F stops just arent real. They’re an abstraction, not a real thing. Fstop equals focal length divided by aperture size. Ergo a 50mm f2 on full frame has the same aperture size and same dof as a 35mm f1.4 and they have the same FOV. There is no free DOF. You just misread the label. Aperture size = DOF and light gathering. This is called equivalence but it does not include ISO. Iso 100 on aps-c is not iso 200 on full frame. Iso 100 on aps-c is iso 100 but with magnified photon shot noise from the crop, and less lattitude/less smooth gradations aka tonality from having smaller pixels that cant hold as much light. Internal noise sources dont increase so some crop cameras can have comparable shadow recovery vs full frame. >>4501364Because full frame can use a lower ISO and get a sharper image with nicer colors and more editing room/not giving a fuck about settings room from a lens with fewer elements (superior light transmission, bokeh rendering). Complex and expensive aps-c glass is only as sharp as more retro ff glass. >>4501353Film is cheating because 35mm has been proven to be 275mp
>>4501369I sure hope you are just pretending to be retarded
>>4501372nothing i said is incorrectmaybe… 35mm is more than 275mp
>>4501377the best color film is 160lp/mm, that is 87mp equivalent to digital (i kno color film is foveon alike) and youd need a 500lp/mm lensPD: the kinda equivalent to CFAs in analog would be autochroms
>>4501379I have seen 275mp 35mm scans with 1px wide details. Made with cheap equipment other than the scanner. Is this like when the gay chart site says ff has 12 stops of dynamic range when it’s actually 14?>film is so and so lp/mm under this standard (ie: grain visibility) that would only matter to a NERD
Should I invest money in crop lenses or should I skip this part and jump in full frame? I want a 35mm lens, so it means I need a 24mm lense for my crop, I can do that, or I can skip it and buy me a full frame later, like a Z5 for example.
>>4501394Buy full frame lenses, you'll end up getting one someday. My APS-C camera became my b-camera after a few years.
>>4501358That’s the vibe in the Amazonas you fool
>>4501369Where can we see some of your photos?
>>4501335>we don't need x feature because you can kind of already do it with y or you don't actually need itSad way to think about productsI don't think it's necessary, but it's nice to have
Film is actually 47888222 mp because I used my trifocal microscope to take a 15mp photo of a single film grain once, there I saw an edge that was 1 px across
HA! You absolute fool its the other way around! Not even an 8x10 LF camera with a macro lens could sharply resolve the pixels in a 10mp digicam snapshot. I mean you can definitely kinda see the pixels but they are not sharp (more than 1 film grain across the border) all analogshitters get dunked on by 2 decade old digicams. Get with the times grampa
>>4501421>>4501422Allow me to posit a reasonable third view: its quite difficult and maybe even meaningless to compare the two media by how well one converts into another. Better to assess them in other ways
>>4501423fag
>>4501394Full frame.
>>4501359Oh you got me. I made a minor spelling mistake and that means your point is now correct.
Guys, should I test this claim >>4501422? I have some cheap lith film I could use.
>>4501074Because it has no shutter and a piss poor sensor readout speed. It's a vlog camera, not for photos.
>>4501167>It just seems like such an obvious move to get into an aspect of the market they have zero hold in right now.>>4501138>So what exactly they are doing I am not sure.It's simple, products take a long time (years) to develop. Add on that we're talking about an old Japanese corporation, they'll be:>less willing to latch on to trends that could evaporate by the time their product development is finished>moving at glacial pace anyway>crippled by extremely convoluted internal politics that might make it unthinkable to propose a camera that would actually outsell their other cameras due to the personal honor of the people in charge of those existing product linesThe Canon retro camera is indeed that silly toy with the waist-level finder. A retro SLR inspired competitor to the Zf concept is not happening (besides, think about it, an AE-1 with a mildly updated aesthetic to somewhat fit the contemporary canon design language would just look like a Sony A7 camera).You should be more interested them producing a compact full frame body without a hump. That's what is actually largely missing in the industry right now.
>>4501394There are enough good compact full frame lenses to never have to buy a crop lens. Especially if you can manual focus.If I were a crop shooter, the only crop lens I would ever consider is the Sigma Art 18-40 f/1.8, as it's good enough to use in crop mode on a full frame camera provided you have the megapixels.
>>4501329Olympus / OM figured it out as well.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWkYe_8b-8M&t=139>>4501420yes, the coping for sub-par products/functionality needs to stop.
Bought my first Canon today so I'm officially a Canonigger. Lens is in the mail though so I won't have it till Monday kek.
>>4501491To be fair, om solves the accuracy problem by being shit. Micro four thirds has ten stops max dynamic range, so if it can run a 10 bit preview its exact or even 8 bit would be close enough. It also actually needs it.
>>4501496Canon is the least nigger brand.
>>4501501>good cameras but users are very gearfaggy/brandfaggyCadillac of cameras, very good but very black.
>>4501496>Canoniggerfirst time i've seen this phrase but i like itanyway, i have an R8 and i've seen there's a new firmware version online. is a good idea to just update camera firmware if everything is okay or should i just leave it be? i've never updated it and just used whatever firmware version was on it out of the box.
Gear thread.Nobody posting their gearI m interested in what accessories are you guys using and usecaseFilters, adaptors, tripods, pano heads, rails etc whatever
>>4501071Whats that thing in the hotshoe?
>>4501504Probably safe. It is usually Nikon and Sony that bricks cameras with firmware, but as a rule of thumb it is better to wait a while if the firmware just released.
>>4501507these threads are for canoniggers to post about their new lens and to dunk on snoyposters.>>4501512it's been out for a few months and i haven't seen anything negative about it, i just wondered how worthwhile it was if it doesn't bring any new features and only fixes bugs (bugs i haven't even experienced at all btw). are there ever cases where firmware updates bring new features or is it always to fix bugs?
>>4501507>>4501508That's not a hotshoe and the thing is called a thumb grip
>>4501507I'll bite. What I do is 100% unadultarated hobby grade photography. Started with APS-C, hoarded a lens collection mainly for APS-C with a few FF capable and then switched over to FF. I use a lot less lenses but this situation allowed me to slim down and eventually dial down the gear hoarding. I mean I'm still hoarding the APS-C stuff just not using it much.My main photography is whatever I feel fancy. Generic walkabout, touristy stuff and of course birding and nature. For this I use a single prime, 43mm. For birds I used a 300mm prime with a 1.4X TC I put on or not but last year I gave into the dark urge and got myself a nice supertele zoom. It goes out to 450mm at f/5.6 and it works well with the TC. I also use a 90mm macro for, well macro.I also have a 70-200/2.8, old but nice good optics but since I got familiar with the primes I don't use it as much, I still like to take it out and do some landscape/nature. Maybe I could replace it with something like a 135 or 150mm fast lense to keep my gear lighter.My camera is a P*ntax K1. I do not post my photos much because fuck the internet and especially fuck the AI scraper fuckers. If you want to appreciate your photos, print them.
>>4501516>>4501507Oh yeah I have a tripod, old and heavy, but not studio heavy. Manfrotto 190XB with a ball head 498RC4 switched for and arca-swiss plate. I also have a geared head that came with the tripod that I don't use much. Or at all.
>>4501516Based. I'm also trying to stop consuming so much gear, I've now got Nikon, Canon and Sony and various lenses for each and it's ridiculous honestly. The next step is printing at home but I've had bad luck with getting printers that shit themselves after a year of use and haven't bought a new one in a few years.
>>4501518Printers. Fuck! I use a couple of them for regular office stuff and all I can say is fuck HP with a red hot poking iron! I exclusively look for non-HP stuff, preferably Ricoh, Kyocera or maybe Brother. My favorite was Samsung but HP fucked it all up. Fuck HP! >Didn't change the toner for a while? >must be using third party refills, let us just disable your entire fucking printer remotely! Fuck them!
>>4501523Lmao yeah it was always a HP that I'd buy since they were the most common, so you just assume they're good if it's what every store sells. All I want is a photo printer that does decent quality 5x7 photo prints and I'll be happy, but I don't know what I should get anymore, I'm sick of buying printers that fuckup within a year.
>>4501516Ok. NiceI m also interested in your additional gear and if possible show foto. I m just trying to get some knowledge of extra eqpt and their use case,>>4501071>>4501514Like op picture with that finger grip i had no idea until now was a thingMy gearA6700Tamron 18 300Sigma 16mmTamron 90mm macroLeveling baseMagnetic filter rings and this shithttps://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005010415126102.html?browser_id=bced43ffce4743038bb85cd6c92a1c2b&aff_platform=msite&m_page_id=ypbiraccabxckeqo19d0f67903a105c47fad73f49c&gclid=&pdp_ext_f=%7B%22order%22%3A%228%22%2C%22spu_best_type%22%3A%22price%22%2C%22eval%22%3A%221%22%2C%22fromPage%22%3A%22search%22%7D&pdp_npi=6%40dis%21BGN%2118.14%2119.36%21%21%2173.44%2178.40%21%40210388c917740799385998523e2791%2112000052331632606%21sea%21BG%213060516097%21X%211%210%21n_tag%3A-29919%3Bd%3A395da786%3Bm03_new_user%3A-29895&algo_pvid=5c655beb-f231-4cb9-a3d8-9ecd0c5ddfd0&utparam-url=scene%3Asearch%7Cquery_from%3A%7Cx_object_id%3A1005010415126102%7C_p_origin_prod%3ATo try and attach my new nisi 49mm 9diopter close up lens that i intend to use with my tamron 90mm macro.Was cheaper than raynox in my country on sale but does not have the snap on adaptor that raynox has. And can t find a knokoff one so my best shot was this to switch from 1:1to 1.8:1 and infinity focus in the fieldHave a cpl, 2-5vnd, 1000nd and 0.9 nd gardient filter, uv filter, wr filter that i got for free with my sigma 16mmstep up and step down ringsCage10&16 mieke extension tubes with el contactsNeewer mini tripod https://neewer.com/collections/mini-tripod/products/neewer-mini-tripod-66600289Some cheap ass 1.50m aluminium tripodCold shoe Phone holder with ballhead Blower, lens and sensor cleaner solution, sensor cleaning swabsHand strap
>>4501507I got a SmallRig LED light that has some softlight cover over it. Surprisingly it's actually really good and pretty bright.>>4501525How's the AF on the Sigma? I've heard Sigma can be a little sluggish but I'm tempted by some of them.
>>4501526I don t have any sony gm lenses so can t compare with the best af but it s good even in low light at f1.4. I took some photos of a friend of mine who is a dj in a bar in quite dim conditions and the eye af was on point tracking the eye but at 1 2m distanceWhat i ve noticed does some hunting or loses tracking on distant subjects. It a wide prime but i have nothing to compare it to. can t tell if all wide lenses af have this issue with distant moving subjects >30m away
>>4501518Get rid of Nikon and snoy. You got enough gear with your Canon.
>>4501530I'm struggling to part with either the Sony or Canon, both have been excellent, but I've pretty much abandoned the Nikon at this point and made it the camera I lend to people.
>>4501171Why would you shoot a comparison shot at different focal lengths? Left is clearly wider than right.
>>4501364Basically this >>4501367. You can get the A7C2 with the kit zoom. The body is almost the same weight as the a6700 and the kit zoom is very light and compact. Since you don't seem to care about fast apertures and want high depth of field, just get this or the big A7 with a used A7C2 kit zoom that people are throwing away on Ebay.
>>4501292Meh, saw one at the shop, didn't like it that much. The A7 series both have better grips and I didn't like the threaded shutter button. Why would anyone use a mechanical shutter wire in 2016 much less in 2026 when a cheapo remote does the same thing better in every way possible? It's just a useless gimmick that makes for a less comfortable button at this point.
>>4501501Canon embraces diversity. Racists like you aren't welcome.
what will i enjoy more, rx1r first gen or rx100vii? I can't tell whether I'd prefer the benefits of a full frame or modern QoL and zoom lens.I'm a beginner mainly shooting street, candids and environmental portraits with the very occasional landscape/cityscape
>>4501281>I will be taking pictures in possibly dimly lit museums. What bothers me about full frame is the shallow depth of field.Yeah, I read your other replies. Easy peasy. You picked the wrong gear for the job.For tank museums, you want:1. wide angle - because you need to capture a large object in confined spaces2. only moderate speed - no moving subjects, no shallow DoF needed3. good high-ISO performance - because of low light environments4. good IBIS - can't use tripods, but also no moving subjects, so IBIS is godsend for you5. ideally something light and compactSo the answer is a newer full-frame body with good IBIS and a wide-angle lens. As I said in >>4501547 and given your experience level, you are exactly the kind of person kit zooms are for. They let you try different focal lengths cheaply, which is the right starting point.Because you’ll be shooting indoors, I would not go crop sensor. Newer and full-frame bodies handle high ISO better, and strong IBIS also helps since you can shoot tanks at lower shutter speeds. The A7 IV is rated for 5.5 stops, the A7C II for 7, so the A7C II may be the better pick if pricing is close.You can add an ultra-wide prime later. Depth of field usually is not a problem with ultra-wides, even wide open. Just do not start there, because you do not yet know which prime you actually want. Get some experience first.
thoughts on the sigma bf vs the a7cii?
>>4501550The RX1R is designed for drone use. Its capability for general photography is an afterthought. Seriously, avoid it. The RX100 series has a 1" sensor, territory that is being rapidly approached by smartphones. If you must shoot Sony get an A7C series camera and look into the small primes that are available for the system. For your use case, I would strongly suggest getting a fast E-mount Voigtlander (the 50/1.2 Nokton for instance or the upcoming 40/2 Septon), as you don't need AF for any of those tasks and you will save a lot on space compared to other brands' lenses of equivalent speed and focal length.
>>4501553There's no comparison, the bf is a fashion accessory while the A7Cii is a usable camera.The only upside I see with the bf is that it probably suffers from ray angle issues with adapted lenses less than the Sony. But if you want to use Sigma lenses then I see no reason to buy the bf if you aren't already invested in the L mount (and even then the fp, fpL, or S9 are a better buy than the bf on practicality alone).
>>4501553>sigma bfIt's kind of a meme desu.
>>4501557>>4501558I'm sad, I really like the look of it and thinking about getting my first mirrorless camera.
>>4501559The bf really is meant for people who already have a camera and just want something quirky to take on dates, or conversely people who aren't photographers and want something minimalistic that will take significantly better pictures than their phone. For these cases, it's great.
>>4501561>something quirky to take on datesCanon has you sorted m8
>>4501575omfg I love the LAAiS monopod
>>4501575It's spelled Canen, retard. Not Canon, not Cannon, Canen, ffs.
Beginner here. I just purchased this, my first lens purchase (open box so there should be nothing wrong with it) and it is much, much louder than the kit lens (which I imagine is much cheaper). Is that normal? I would expect "ultrasonic" to be quiet. It has a constant whirr when the autofocus is active, and when the lens shuts off it has quite an unpleasant and painful bzzzz sound.I don't video so this shouldn't bother me, am I missing something here? Are higher focal length lenses generally louder?
>>4501586when the autofocus* shuts off, not when the lens shuts off
>be me>only use DSLR>all of the lens and camera reviews on yt are 5 years old at least>no AI slop in sightdo mirrorlessfags have to cope with AI on their gear reviews?
>>4501586Pentax SDM is similar to USM and it gives out high pitch sound when it is dying. These motors should be silent like a whisper.
>>4501575>AI image of a CanonBut why?>>4501580It's Canonigger (we're taking it back).
>>4501549Fuck off shill
>>4501507here's a piece of gear for youi'm plannign to sell it
>>4501071My pocket sized full frame
>Redditor purchases budget, bottom of the barrel digicams at thrift stores>Other redditors shames him for doing so>Nooo you just have to leave it for the theoretical next person in line that may have purer intentions than you
>>4501648Wish I could find this shit myself but they're all overpriced now.
>>4501650Harder to find for cheap for sure, but they are still around. If you want a cheap digicam there are options that have not been shilled on ticktock plus you can always look in local facebook groups and other markets where people don't want top dollars for them.
>>4501651It's still pretty hard. People are doing that same videogame collector crap now where the market is going price crazy for no reason. Being trendy somehow just makes everything quadruple or more in price.I managed to find a digicam a few days ago and it still cost too much, but was still cheaper than what it went for on eBay.Modern world sucks man. I'm just glad I bought cheap games, consoles and other tech when nobody wanted it and I got it out of discount bins.
>>4501653Close to 2 decades ago people actually threw out old video games in the trash. I found a bunch of Nintendo rental cartridges once which was pretty cool, sat on them about a decade and sold to collectors for good money. Digicams followed a similar trend where they were all considered junk. It was close to impossible to sell even the more professional models 3-4 years ago.. nobody wanted them. The budget brands you couldn't even give away.
>>4501656Strange how all that shit works. Even at the time I didn't get why people were dumping it all, yeah the next gen had come out but it didn't make the games shit and all that Nintendo cartridge games never got ported to new consoles. I bought every game I liked the look off for something like $1 each and got some GameBoys for only $5.>Digicams followed a similar trend where they were all considered junk. It was close to impossible to sell even the more professional models 3-4 years ago.. nobody wanted them. The budget brands you couldn't even give away.Yeah I remember those days. I regret throwing away some of those, for some reason I had a friend that would give me generic no-name digicams and eventually I threw them out since they just looked like early 00s webcam pictures.
>>4501650>>4501653>Wish I could find this shit myself but they're all overpriced now.>the market is going price crazy for no reason.working at a collectibles store, you have no idea how many times a day i hear variations of 'i want it so bad, but it's overpriced now for no reason!!' the lack of self-awareness is pretty funny>>4501627how do you like the thypoch? their name is kinda dumb but also kinda cool.
>>4501662It's tiresome. But I have to wonder what current stuff we have today that might be worth a lot in 10 or 20 years. I have some rare camera bags from the early 2000s that are brand new and might be worth some cash, but I'm also too attached to them to sell them kek, I bought them as backups incase the ones I did use got ruined over time.
>>4501662>how do you like the thypoch? their name is kinda dumb but also kinda cool.I love it so far, it's not the sharpest lens I've ever seen and it's only f/3.5, but it's fucking crazy tiny, makes black and white look amusingly dramatic SOOC, and it's just a tonne of fun. I have their 50mm Simera as well which is a genuinely good lens but I kind of stopped using it after I got a deal on a Summicron. So far my experience with them has been quite good, I think they're doing some really good things in cool niches.
>>4501657>Yeah I remember those days. I regret throwing away some of those, for some reason I had a friend that would give me generic no-name digicams and eventually I threw them out since they just looked like early 00s webcam pictures.I had a Lumix LX7 complete in box that I bought brand new, well taken care of, mostly used indoors that I had for sale for close to 2 years from 2020 to 2022 before it finally sold for $80.. this on a massive site with tonnes of views. Fast forward 2 years from that and it is an easy sell for 3 times as much, 2 times as much and it would be snapped up almost instantly. Even the now extremely popular Canon IXUS line of cameras were going for $20-30 and could even sit a while before moving. I wonder what trends we will see in the future.
>>4501671I'd say old brickphones and early smartphones would probably sell easy if the old 1G, 2G and 3G networks weren't gone. Maybe the iPod Touch will see a resurgence like the Classic did.
>>4501663>But I have to wonder what current stuff we have today that might be worth a lot in 10 or 20 years.Would not surprise me if DSLR cameras become fashionable at some point, especially with shutters going all electronic moving forwards.. the audible nature of them may be appealing. I think a lot of the appeal with digicams is that the zoomzoom generation are not used to dedicated cameras and want something tactile. A 20 year old zoomzoom was 10 years in 2016 at which point their parents had probably only used phones for years so they don't even have memories of dedicated cameras which increases their allure.
>>4501672Yeah that is also a rather strange trend. People were more or less bullied into buying a new phone in the early 2000s when they pushed technology and made them smaller and smaller.. you didn't want to be seen in public with a large phone, then when these planks called smartphones came along all that went out the window. Now those old ultra compact phones seem cool again.
>>4501673>especially with shutters going all electronic moving forwardsOh man really? E-shutters are complete ass though. How will they get around the scanline issue when indoors or around LED lighting?>>4501674Size has always been weird. I remember when "phablets" were in and I had a friend that bought a phone that literally looked about as big as an iPad Mini and watching him put it up to his head to make calls was bizarre to see.I miss my Motorola Razr though, that thing was so damn good. Total shit camera but the tiny form factor and nice keypad made it all worthwhile.
>>4501091Unironically, do these actually work? Thinking of picking one up for like 20 bucks to get good landscape pictures
>>4501680Work? Yes. Are the results absolute dogshit? Also yes.
>>4501675>Oh man really? E-shutters are complete ass though.They are getting better though and at a lower cost and eventually I am sure they will figure out how to increase dynamic range on global shutters.
>>4501653Having worked at camera shops during most of the transition to digital, selling tons of all kinds of point and shoots, it's pretty crazy to see the demand for old junk nowWho knew the best option was to just sit on inventory for 15-20 years
>>4501547>buy heavily shilled a7c>stick an e-mount lens on it for a compact setupso this is the power of snoy
>>4501757Ah yes, just post of photo of one of the most oversized lenses. Fantastic point.
>>4501758>mogs you
>>4501788That plastic ladyboy-made POS? Blurry even at f8 unless you get the rare good copy. Ttartisan and viltrox both have the definitive small 40mms for both Z and E mounts. Even if you got a good copy itll go off as the plastic mount wears down and starts wobbling
>>4501789lube a bit your mounts niggas
>>4501757>>4501788>those massive lensesMove over, a Canonigger is here to mog you both.
>>4501791The zv-e10 with a zeiss 35mm is better in every way - smaller, sharper, cheaper, and has better autofocus.
>>4501792Snoyfags will always be second to Canoniggers when it comes to smaller sizes. Snoy doesn't even have pancakes.
>>4501792>>4501791>puts dslr lens on mirrorless>puts ff lens on apscretards all around
>>4501792>f/2.8lol. lmao even
>>4501507This is literally all of my gear. A Snoy ZV-E10 with two kit lenses, one Mavic Mini mk1 and a Kodak Charmera. I mainly use it for vacations and family snapshit. I also use it at work from time to time
>>4501808Nothing wrong with compact, slower lenses. Literally just bought an f/2.5
>>4501813Same. Just received my 40mm f2.5G that /p/ can't stop memeing about. I was split between this and Sigma 35mm f2. The Sigma has a lovely metal construction and sharpness, but it's really quite a bit heavier and I wanted something sharp yet compact.
>>4501814Fucking nice, anon, I hope you enjoy it.There's a lot to be said for little lenses you like carrying around.
>>4501809Nice. The zv-e10 and Zeiss 35 used to be my edc for a long time (I'd occasionally swap it out for the viltrox chip for pocketability). Compact setup, sharp pictures, tons of memories.>>4501814Glad to see anons here have enough IQ to rise above the anti Sony /p/haggots.
>>4501817>>4501819Yeah, I have a Tamron 28-200, which is a great lens. It's fairly light, fairly sharp and gives you amazing range. You see a bird on a branch, you can shoot it. You see a nice building on a smaller street, you can shoot it. It's ridiculously useful.But it's still a zoom lens and doesn't work for some occasions. A smaller prime on a rangefinder-style camera looks like you just brought your compact to take a few shots. Bring the zoom and everyone is going like "wow, that's some real pro gear", which is not necessarily the convo you want to have every time.
>>4501547>>4501551Thanks, I didn’t really consider the A7C II until reading your posts. I will return the A7 IV and try the A7C II with a smaller lens vs the A6700. The A6700 with the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 is really comfortable, but the quality compared to the A7 IV is lacking. I will come back here once I’ve tested the A7C II compared to the A6700 and post the results for my use case, though it might take a while.
>>4501821Good luck, anon! Just thought I'd share, because I went through a similar process 6 months ago. I was on a6000, which was getting a bit old and considered upgrading to a67000, but it turned out to be much heavier than the a6000 and very close to A7C2, so I got that instead. Very happy with it and sold my old a6000 some time ago. The IBIS should really be a massive help specifically for your needs.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/157774159849Good deal on a Snoy SLT-a77 if you want to try some Minolta lenses; I'd buy it to add to my A-Mount collection (3x KM5D, A100, A390, and SLT-a58) but I just spent $600 on Subaru parts.
>>4501809Samsung tripod didn't know they made tripods. Anyway i have a very similar cheap one.I also have a dji air2s
Does anybody have any thoughts on the 35mm Summarit? Seems like it produces better images than any of the older Summicrons that sell for similar prices, and it's only losing half a stop.
>>4501821The A7C's aren't much smaller than a regular A7, they just chop the EVF bump off the top and for that you get a smaller lower res EVF.
>>4501846It's not a huge difference, but it's definitely there. I can still fit the A7C with a smaller lens and some creativity into some jackets. Can't do that with the regular A7. It's also quite a bit lighter. They're both pretty small as far as FF bodies go.
>>4501847a7c2 vs sigma bf?
>>4501847They should've made it smaller yet by ditching the shitty EVF and supplying it as an optional hot shoe accessory desu
>watch youtube>some dude with 90k subs said that Sony is shit and Nikon is basedWas he right?
>>4501847You're not fitting an A7C into a jacket pocket with anything other than the shittiest pancake lens. The grip being smaller doesn't matter when any lens worth using sticks out further than it.
>>4501856It can fit sort of with the kit lens. Not going to claim that it's pocketable, but it's definitely concealable, which can be handy sometimes. The grip being smaller does matter though. You go from a ◇ shape to a △ shape. That's extra space. Being almost a quarter lighter is also noticeable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pl_nZG_ziREdiscuss
>>4501877Do people really buy anything from these faggots or is it just retard tax?
>>4501856I wouldn't call the A7C necessarily pocketably, but the lack of a viewfinder hump really does make it slide in & out easier. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
>The lens I've been looking at went on sale for $100 off instead of the $200 the sale history from Google reportsI guess this is the best it's going to get before summer.
>>4501813>>4501814>f/2.5>not a pancake>$800Do snoyfags really?
>>4501869>>4501879You're just trying to justify a body you got memed into buying. Any ridiculously large pocket you can cram an A7C into with a shitty tiny lens mounted you could also squeeze a regular A7 into. But you're not actually doing that because it's inconvenient compared to just hanging it around your neck and you use more than that one lens. 140g side by side would be noticeable sure, but not worth giving up a decent EVF and better ergos.
>>4501899We get it, huscuck. You still have buyers remorse after you ditched your a7c for another nikon.>omg sony is so bad micro four thirds is so bad buy a nikon!!!’Stfu you israeli retard. All you do is take pictures of your fat ugly shitsky. No one ever pays $800 for that lens. They’re $400 on first world ebay. Barely any more than nikon fanboys pay. For everyone else, theres the ttartisan 40mm f2.
>>4501902Viewfinder humps are uglySimple as
>>4501904>Waiter! My steak is too juicy!That is what you sound like.
>>4501905>car salesman, you sold me a slick sportscar, but i clearly wanted a grandpa sedan with the same amount of cargo space, a marginally larger window, and one extra knob on the ACThats what you sound like dslr hump unc
>>4501899Jesus fucking christ wtf?
>>4501899>muh shekels!
>>4501908>oy vey those poor dollars
>>4501902> Two Snoys fighting.Such is life on /pee.
>he fell for le compact memepeak consoomer NPC moment
>>4501899I bought something more compact.
>>4501918when you EDC compactness is appreciated.
>>4501921based and paulpilled
Why buy a camera when my iphone air can take good pictures and weighs 150grams?
>>4501923>loser doesn't have the iphone vacuum of spaceHave fun digishitting for all eternity, chump.
>>4501923my iphone dirt can take bad pictures and weighs 1500grams
>>4501899It's 500USD in my country from Sony directly, so where are you looking?>>4501918Compact with changeable lenses always seemed like such a dumb thing to me. If you want compact, get a Ricoh GR, Canon Powershot or Sony RX.>>4501923Phone photos are worse than micro four turds and use AI shit >but muh RAW setting on phone!Manufacturers still force that bullshit AI processing into their RAW files for some reason or do something even more disgusting like webm related.
Nikonbros...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qTTBzhJGWw
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D3YDfIlr6ZoI need it
>>4501984>snoys spend hours to shoot raw and edit their photos in photoshop to get jpegs with colors that look half as good as what Nikon shits out on autoheh
>>4501986>thinks of snoy for no reasonRent free kek
>>4501986>oy vey sony and micro four thirds are bad buy a nikon *snapshits overweight abused looking husky*Its so tiresome. Nikon colors are god fucking awful. On nikon every shade of green looks the same and it has the same vibrant plasticky vibe as an iPhone.Canon and Fuji are the color kings. Nikon is garbage. Sony is just third rate. Its as green tinted and gross as nikon but at least its not oversaturated and vibrantly iphone-like.
>>4501984>retarded woman has opinion>runs through a slideshow of horrid looking photos of nothing with garish colorsEven with the saturation turned down nikon is too bright and saturated
>>4501992Well, she has a YT channel with 50k followers and what do you have? Her opinion > your opinion
>>4501993I could have 100k followers if I tried by shilling for nikon but unlike her or you i have integrity.
>>4501993>50k pajeets clicked LIKE on my short form video ads>i have value and am an authority figureLmfao westerners
>>4501994>I don't want to get rich by shilling for the best brandDon't lie
>>4502005I shoot Leica and Hassleblad poorfag
>>4502006Super cool, where can we see some of your pictures?
>>4501902Nah, I went to the store, looked at both and liked the C variant more. Deal with it.
>>4502005>needs an extra little screw on thing on his shutter-release because neekon just had to add the useless wire thread that is now cutting their users' gentle fingers
>>4502014You saw it and thought it looked more hip, sure. Point still stands.
whats the absolute thinnest aps-c that isn't fixed lens and has a tilting (not vari-angle) lcd with great autofocus?also why the fuck are manufacturers leaning towards vari-angles, they're ugly and flimsy
>>4502008I take picures of your mom ask her
posting here because the other thread seems dead:Why do people consider 50mm to be a good focal length for general purpose photography? I find that I need more reach or more width most of the time I am using one. It's claimed that 50mm is 'close to how the eye sees' but that's definitely bullshit. human fov is much wider than that. I can only figure that people are cropping/pixel-peeping when they use a 50mm. Otherwise, I find myself getting frustrated trying to frame shots.Honestly, the ideal seems closer in the range of 28-40
>>4502062Personal preference will vary, most people tend to feel comfortable with a 35 or a 50, 50 has been the default kit lens (before zooms became a thing) for so long that it's got a lot of institutional inertia behind it. I used to heavily meh a 50mm, but the last couple years it's become the thing I reach for first. People will tell you that primes in general and 50mm in particular is good because it makes you "zoom with your feet," that's largely bullshit. The real benefit and teacher of a normal prime is that it forces you to move objects in your frame according to perspective, by moving around with your feet. Once you see that you control the frame and the relationship to objects within it, it does force you to think more broadly.
>>4502062I always go for 35mm, 50mm always feels like I can't get enough in frame. >>4502064>"zoom with your feet," that's largely bullshitThis too. Moving around a little is okay but some people take this gay rule to the extreme where you have to move around maybe 30-40ft to get the shot where a zoom lens would've been better, but a lot of YouTube tards will go on about how you should only use primes and just move around.
>>4502016Cable releases are severely ungay. You are gay. Additionally, I use screw-top traditional shutter releases on my cameras (not Nikon) and they are in no way uncomfortable. I don't bother with soft-buttons but the reason people use them is that the surface area and leverage enable you to depress the shutter with less movement imparted to the camera, in the same way that people like flat-faced triggers or trigger shoes in some firearms.
a6400 double zoom kit or gr iiix
>>4502067If you're going for maximum compactness, Ricoh.If not, the Sony.
>>4502068portability is a big factor but i can just slap the 20mm f/2.8 for a pretty small profile on the a6400. I'm also not too sure about the snap focus i hear reviewers harp on about. Isn't good AF just better in every way over snap?
>>4502070Yeah the Sony will have much better AF than the Ricoh (something people have complained about with the Ricoh for some time).
>>4502059To answer the question you didn't ask, only Fuji actually wants that you buy APS-C gear, and maybe Snoy to an extent, given that they have a6700. Canon and Nikon don't even bother making bodies with IBIS.
>>4502059I don't know if it would qualify as great AF but the A5100 would be the thinnest (there are thinner older NEX models but they certainly wouldn't be great) as the lack of an EVF sticking out the back shaves a few MM, otherwise any of the A6x00 series will be just a few MM thicker (ignore the measurement of just the body, it seems like a lot because they have larger grips but even the biggest sticks out less than the majority of lenses) and the newer models have great AF by anyone's standard.
>>450206250mm is good on a FFon APS-C it's a little too zoomed for a do-it-all lens>It's claimed that 50mm is 'close to how the eye sees' but that's definitely bullshit. human fov is much wider than thatyour eyes are much more versatile than any camera, but their field of view is still wider than their field of focus50mm makes objects (especially faces) look the way they generally look to your eyes when you are standing far enough away to have the entire object in the center of your view and in focus
>>4502045Sure. More hip, lighter, smaller. All of which are true. I also checked the EVFs on both and, frankly, didn't think either one was anything to write home about. Yeah, I can see the picture well enough to take a short, but not well enough to see any significant detail.Zero regrets. (I also have relatives who have the regular A7s and have borrowed them in the past.)
>>4502066They are absolutely gay. My first, already well-used film camera in the 1990s had cable release. It was useful there, because cable release was the only method back then. It was made completely fucking useless by IR remotes and even more useless by Bluetooth ones.It's completely useless nostalgia-bait that Nikon added and made the shutter button less comfortable to press.
>>4502093You sound like you have gay fingers.
>>4502110You sound like you bought a gimmicky camera.
>>4502118Of course I did, I bought an M10. It’s a gimmicky meme from start to finish but you’re still gay.
>>4501071I want to get back into photography and dust off my cameras. Out of the three, which would be best for a sunset beach photo?>Nikon D5600>Nikon D50>Canon Powershot A510I'm trying to get a vintage feel, so I don't know if the D5600 is the best choice. I also have an old soviet film camera I could try, but I've never used film before...
>>4502135I hope you're not trying to say that "vintage feel" means early digital.D5600 with vintages glass.
>>4502139I don't know, I've just had much more success with my D50 honestly. The 5600 is really good, the photos are crisp and clear, but the older cameras produce a really warm picture. Lens are expensive tho, I'm trying to use what I have.
What's a good, used Nikon f-mount telephoto lens in the $1k (USD) range? Does the Nikkor 200-500 beat out the Sigma and Tamron 150-600?
>>4502135powershot has nice colors and depth of field
>>4502120Dayum! Burn!
>>4501491OM seems pretty based.Thinking about getting one of these. I don't care for the retro styling but the controls seem really good- twin dials- stills / video / s&q switch- 5 custom modesAnything that OM does terribly wrong as far as operating/firmware goes?
>>4501989>Discussing color science amongst manufacturers>Mentions a manufacturer>No reason????
>>4502201>I don't care for the retro styling but the controls seem really goodJust get an EM1/OM1 then. They fair far poorer on the used market so you can get barely used second hand ones for very cheap. It has even better, more configurable controls.
perfect camera doesn't eck
>>4501406>That’s the vibe in the Amazonas you foolIt's still fucking green.
>>4501524Buy EPSON and leave it on 24/7. That will keep the heads from clogging. But don't let it sit too long.
>>45022557.8 too much green
>>4502220Those have movie mode on the main mode dial though.I like the solution of a separate stills/movie switch so you can stay in the exposure mode you are in and just switch between stills and video.This configuration seems to be more and more common on new cameras, so maybe I'll just wait for newer OM's.
>>4502318I might be retarded because I never shoot video but can't you just tap the record button and it'll start doing video with the settings of the mode you're currently in?
>>4502343On my 2014 Panasonic the record button reverts to a basic P mode regardless of the exposure mode it's in, but I guess other brands, or even newer Lumix, could do it so it respects the mode dial.
Beginner here.When people talk about the "nifty fifty" and it being a good general purpose focal length, are they talking about 50mm on full frame? So if I want a "nifty fifty" for my APS-C I should actually be looking at a "nifty thirty-five" or so? I have shot a 50mm lens on my aps-c and it's too zoomed for a lot of the shots.
>>4502356>are they talking about 50mm on full frame? Yes.>So if I want a "nifty fifty" for my APS-C I should actually be looking at a "nifty thirty-five" or so?Uhh kind of. If you're trying to replicate the same framing and FoV, then yes. However, part of the reason it's called that is because 50mm f/1.8 (or f/2) primes are cheap as fuck, and normally the first lens people buy after a kit lens. If you're going to spend $500 on a 35mm f/1.4 (which is still less total light than a full frame 50mm f/1.8 btw) then you're kind of defeating the point. Canon makes the APS-C specific 35mm f/2.8 macro which while a stop slower in marked f/ number (and two and two thirds slower in real terms), would be a relatively cheap and very useful lens to pick.
>>4502356Basically. It's neat for taking pictures of people, but you may find it a bit too tight for general use, which is why the 35 (or 40) are so popular, which would be ~25mm on APS-C. You don't get the fun bokeh experience, which is totally worth it, but it's a more versatile lens.
>>4502356Yes and kind of. I started with APS-C and my first proper prime lens was 35mm f/2.4. Thankfully my camera had the nifty fifty version in 35mm as well with the two often referred to as the "plastic fantastics", plastic build with good sharp optics. Despite the plastic build (including the mount!) it has never failed or gotten sloppy, it is still as good and snappy as it was when I got it.
Vintage lenses are mostly shit and digital corrections in modern lenses is perfectly fine.
>>4502406Vintage lenses render more aesthetically pleasing photographsExcessive edge contrast is for test charts
>>4502406vintage lenses are going up in value while snoy gmasters depreciate rapidlydslr lenses are even holding their value against new hyper-sharp aberration free 24 element mirrorless slopsurely people will find out how bad they are on the test charts right? any day now. reflectance isnt real bro 3d pop is schizophrenia. whats a color cast. need moar sharpness.
I just want a Nikon Zf with their built-in film mimics
>>4502415You mean a Fuji?
Pixel peeping test: Samsung S23 Ultra (50 MP) vs Sony A6700 (26 MP) vs Sony A7 IV (33 MP). Photos were taken with similar framing and heavily cropped to compare detail
>>4502436What lens did you use?I find the difference between 6700 and a7 too much. Even at higher iso i don't believe the difference is that great.What crop % are we looking at here?Pls state how you performed the test
>>4502438Main camera on the S23 Ultra set to 50 MP (200 MP looks even worse). Lenses used: Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN (A6700) and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2 (A7 IV).The S23 Ultra was on full auto. Both the A6700 and A7 IV were set to aperture priority mode at f/2.8 (wide open), with everything else on auto. Both ended up around ISO 1250.The crops are very heavy, roughly 600%+ on the A6700, but this varies between images due to different resolutions, so the exact crop level isn’t identical across devices. I’ve also included another crop from the same images. The A6700 obviously loses to the A7 IV due to higher noise and lower resolution, but it’s still significantly better than the Samsung S23 Ultra. The newer S26 Ultra uses basically the same camera hardware btw
>>4502446>>4502438That sounds about right, APS-C will have at least a stop worse noise performance from the FF counterpart not accounting for the lens softness also being magnified. That is actually in line with my experience with APS-C and FF.I have always chased noise and sharpness when shooting birds at high shutter speed on long telephotos stopped down to f/8-f/11 under thick canopy. Switching to FF even if I use the APS-C crop made a big difference. The big pixels of FF just perform much better and catch more light.
>>4501831That tripod came with a cheap Smasnug handycam. I lost it on a travel but i kept the tripod.
stupid niggers complaining about a camera not autofocusing a static horizon lmfao learn to fucking shoot mongoloids
>>4501071Can anyone ballpark the best way to trade these in for a larger, more modern lens? Should I sell to a brick and mortar? To an established online dealer? Ebay it?Left to right with retail guesses:>Photoco Tc 1.7x ~ $40>Nikkor 50mm f1.4D ~ $150>Nikkor 300mm f4 ED ~ $175>Tamron 75-300 f4-5.6 AF LD ~ $20> Nikkor AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D ~ $60>Nikkor AF 70-210 f4-5.6 ~ $60That'd be +/- $505 retail. What's my best way to get that without shipping and tax and fees eating my profits?
>>4502436>>4502446Just FYI, but you can just check what it looks like on DPReview minus the phone and specific lenses.https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison
>>4502446Can you try with the same lenses on both cameras and post result. The ff in crop mode. I m interested only in center/subject sharpness. Might be to difference in lens sharpness. Also pls test at sweetspot f4 or f5.6 or whatever achieves best sharpness
>2026>no Nikon Nippon wifehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg16vTgv0QRemind me again why live?
I feel like APS-C dslrosaurs are at a place now where digicams were 5-6 years ago. They are like max camera deflation.
N
if any of you pentaxbros in the nyc/long island area want a cheap piece of pentax collectors memorabilia (k-01, first/only mirrorless, has the k5ii sensor but prone to bad shutters, comes with 40mm f2.8 pancake)$120, not related, would buy but i just spent $60 on 2 70-210mm f4 pentax-a lenses and close to $1500 on subaru parts (the bigger impact to my finances). the pancake costs that much you're getting a free camera
@ the fucking autist with a special interest in the Canon 5Dmk2 who refuses to upgrade to the 5Dmk4 even tho they’re dirt cheap:I found another dirt cheap camera on the used market. The Snoy A7R4 is like 1.5k on the used market. You get to upgrade to mirrorless and your resolution triples to 60mp.
what are some essential e mount lenses for aps-c? Having trouble deciding
>>4502721Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 DC DN
>>4502752why this over the Tamron 17-70?
>>4502721SEL35F18 was my favorite. Got it some time after getting my a6000 in 2016 and it was basically glued to my camera since.I tried the kit zoom, PZ 18-105, 20mm pancake and Sigma 19F28, but didn't like any of them except the Sigma because they all seemed pretty soft. Kept the Sigma for a bit, but didn't use it much and sold it too.There may be newer, better glass nowadays, but the 35mm was great. A bit too tight for a lot of shots though.
>>4502721Essential?Depends on what you want to photographBut as a beginner with no clear idea what i want to shootI got sigma 16mm 1.4 for milky way and low light with no flashTamron 18-300 3.5-6.3. Shit in low light but has good reach during daytime for animals birds and moon shots. Has 0.5mag for semi macro at 18mm but only 5mm working distance.Tamron 90mm 1:1 for macro. Is af lens so focus staking for static stuf is easy peasy. If you want more mag there are better lenses from laowa that are 2x mag native, cheaper but manual focus only, or you can use magnifing adaptors lenses like reynox or nisi or other apo attachments to your tele lenses to get cheap alternative for macro.I find myself using the tamron 80% of the time because of the huge focal range.Af and iq are ok for me. I switch to sigma or the 90mm only at night or when going for macro shots.Sigma 56mm 1.4 is regarded as the best portrait lens for aspcViltrox has an 56mm 1.2 lens which has some very good reviewsVitrox has a couple of excelent lenses. Just make sure you do your researchThere are 3 sigma lenses that are a must have apparently. 16 35 56 all f1.4But a12mm 1. 4 launched a couple of months ago with good reviews.The 15mm 1.4 launched also recently is meh according to reviewsIf you go for>>4502759>>4502752You might consider the sony 70-350 which is regarded best bang/buck telephoto for sony aspc, just o cover the telephoto part
a6400 or x-m5?
>>4501071when are they gonna make one of these with an EVF
>>4503610Why would you want it? It's e-shutter only.
