What would be a good DSLR camera to start learning with? I'd preferably like to get something that I can use for anything and have for years as I don't want to put a TON of money into.Preferably under $2,000High quality build, no janky bullshit that's going to randomly stop working for no reasonHigh MP full frame, preferably over 30, ideally closer to 60 so I have more flexibility with the end resultSomething with add-on options like larger batteries and flashers, etcI'm open to any recs, feel free to share photos you've taken along with the camera you suggest, I'd like to get a feel for what it can do.
>>4501611Pentax K-1 with the kit zoom, and the plastic DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8. Alternatively any other (mid-high range used) DSLR with the kit zoom and a pair of 35 and 50mm primes.For Canon I recommend 6D, 6DII, 5DIII and the APSC ones 70D, 80D, 90D, 7DFor Nikon D610, D750, D7100, D7200Just kidding with the Pentax, they are good but only get into it if you know what you are doing. Or an idiot with money, your choice.
Nikon D850, that thing is a fucking beast. 45MP full frame and really well built, easily one of the best cameras they ever made.
>>4501611>virginsD7200-D7500, 80D, 90D>chadsD610, D750, D800, 5DIV>autists, furries, and redditors5DIII, 5DII, 5D, D200, D300S, S5PRO, any “pro sports” model (ie 1d or d3), any pentax>retardsSony, Minolta, Olympus, lesser nikon/canon aps-c
>>4501611D850 is king5D4 if you want to dabble more with video or M42 lensesD810/6D2/5D3 to save $
>>4501611what do you think you need high mp for?Instagram and social media is like 1MP resolution so unless you have some amazing place to print wall sized prints you do not need 60mp even remotely and are sacrificing other things for something you dont need.
>>4501640Considering he's mentioned being a beginner and was talking about flexibility with 60MP, my guess is he plans on doing all his composition in post by cropping all the time instead of getting it right.
>>4501641Do people really? If I come home with 200 photos and have to browse through them, I want the exact framing or very close to done already so I can quickly choose the best shots.Going into every single individual photo and trying out 10 different crops sounds like pure living hell and would turn a 20 minute job into a 4 hour job.
>>4501642Beginners probably do. 60MP is way too much for his needs or most peoples really and he'll probably realize that as the storage space disappears from hundreds of photos of waste, they'll be about 90mb a piece at that resolution.
>>4501644on an old nikon? they were uncompressed as i recall, so probably closer to 150mb or more per image kek
>>4501641Primarily I'd just like to have really high definition photos. I got an old camera a while ago but it was like 12mp, maybe? But the pictures weren't as good as I would have liked. I'd mainly like for it to have really good detail and be able to last for years.
>>4501611Why would a beginner immediately want a dslrosaur?
>>4501652Bro trust me, 60MP is absolute insanity, you'd only really need that if you're putting your photos on billboards. To put it in perspective, 8MP is 4K resolution and 33MP would be 8K. The reason so many cameras are 24mp and have been for years is because that is literally enough for every use that isn't something specialized.
easily 5d3 or d850 depending on what brand you wanna go with i just picked up a 5d3 a couple months ago and its so fucking solid
>>4501655100 megapickles medium format absolutely mogs fool frame 45-60 megapickles when it comes to color accuracy and that sort.
>>4501667I've read that the quality of aps-c is worse even with more MP?
>>4501669APSC magnifies imperfections and the higher pixel pitch means more noise and less color accuracy.
>>4501669In theory, sureIn practice, more pixels is pretty much always better regardless of sensor size
>>4501688Until the lens outresolves the sensor. Most APSC lenses struggle to outresolve 24MP.It's like some of us have experience withese...
>>4501611d810 to save money for lenses
>>4501691>Until the lens outresolves the sensor.Except that's it a thing either. In practice, you are detail limited by the sharpness of glass, and adding more pixels doesn't mean you see more detail, but that doesn't mean more resolution makes it worse. There are plenty of APS-C lenses where you will resolve more detail at greater resolutions too, just like there are bad FF lenses too.Seehttps://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/10/the-8k-conundrum-when-bad-lenses-mount-good-sensors/
>>4501688>Verifiably incorrectIncreasing pixel pitch reduces light gathering ability, introduces bayer artefacts at a higher rate, and increases risk of moire/ necessitates the use of stronger AA filters (thereby reducing sharpness). Higher resolutions have their place but it's not just a straight upgrade.Low res isn't exactly great either, so finding a good middle ground (24MP for APS-C apparently) is the ticket. As anon also pointed out the lens needs to be able to resolve details at smaller pixel-levels for it to be any use. This is also why the cheapest FF lens BTFOs the most expensive APS-C lens. Take your phone and zoom in even 20% and you'll see the lack of any and all detail because the pixels are just not getting the light they need to resolve anything other than guessed mush. Take a FF camera shot and crop 200% and you'll still get a usuable photo at reasonable display resolutions.
>>4501691Also, none of what you said means higher resolution is worsePutting a bad lens on a higher MP body is still higher system MTF than a bad lens on a lower MP body
>>4501694>Increasing pixel pitch reduces light gathering ability,In theory. Is a D850 or D700 better for lowlight shooting image quality? Higher res reduced the need for AA filters lolIf a lens can work for 24mp, it will work just as well, if not better, at higher MP. It will never work worse.I have done plenty of AB FF/APS-C comparisons, and even posted several here lol
But... Pixels density!
>>4501697>let's compare a 5DII from 2008 against a 5DSR from 2015>no there's no other advancements in camera tech in that time, this is a completely fair test of pixel densityNot only are you retarded, you've posted full frame sensors which wasn't even the discussion point. Holy hell.>>4501696>If a lens can work for 24mp, it will work just as well, if not better, at higher MP. It will never work worse.Fuck me, it's late enough that I can't tell if this is bait. This must be bait, you can't actually be this stupid. The more pixels and the smaller they are, the more you are asking of the glass elements' resolving power. At a certain point, lenses cannot keep up with the higher MP.
Find a 500-dollar Nikon D800/810 and a 35/1.4 or 24-120/4 ED and spend the rest on travel.You're a retard if you do anything different. Everything else ITT is gearfaggotry and autism. Go experience new things, visit new places.>BuT ShOoGeR yOu'Re FaT aNd ReTaRdeDGet fucked, only a handful of people on this board have traveled more than me. Find a cheap ass camera learn the basics and go somewhere cool with it, go on a cruise or a plane ticket whatever it is don't be the terminally autistic /p/tard who blows all of his money on a super-nice camera and never leaves his hometown and takes the same POTN pictures of bokeh-maxxed plants and other dumb ass shit you see on Zogbook and Instacrap>buT mUH DSLR diNOSaUralso get fucked no one can tell the fucking difference I own both, find a cheap ass D800/810 and get out there and see the world, fuck all the basement dwellers in here. You only get one chance at existence in this universe don't squander it.t. went to Ireland with only a D800 no grip, spare battery and 35/1.4 Sugma ART pic related
>>4501700> get out there and see the world> The world: gooks, XIX century commieblocks, dogshit colors.
>>4501702>posted from his basement on his 3rd piss bottle alreadyif a strawman argument is the best you got I don't know what to tell you, I spent 5 days in Ireland and shit was life-changing, broke my sobriety on the first day. I learned Gaelic in a camera shop that has been there since the Dead Sea was just sick and bought a Tokina macro lens from them that sat on their shelf for 10 years.Go do something with your life even if it's commie blocks and gooks, anything beats sitting on your ass shitposting on a Malaysian post card exchange forum
>>4501705No one is going to give a fuck about your gear they want to hear about your life experiences and all the cool shit you did and things you saw. if I had 2 grand worth of fuck around money I would go to Utah and spend a week doing all the state parks and shit.
>>4501705How is that a strawman if you had to make the photo BW to lie about what you actually saw? I was surprized by the absence of garbage bins, but I guess it's because it's a richer area and there's more space to hide them a bit (I now see them peeking).
>>4501708I posted it because that's what shot that picture, D800 and 35/1.4. One picture doesn't represent the whole, come on this is Propaganda 101. You don't need the latest and greatest to do anything meaningful, my best work was all done on a 2005 Canon 5D back when I had unlimited time and was doing side gigs for work. People are in this thread gearmaxxing and shit and completely missing the point of photography.It was Dublin proper, not America where trash is everywhere and people don't give a shit. I was surprised genuinely with how clean it was, even the one American fast food place I went to for shits and giggles was clean and they even had generous vegan options. The travel centers were clean out in the country too, we didn't just go to the touristy parts. We did Cliffs of Moher and had to traipse through all these small towns to get there and then got cockblocked by the fog as soon as we parked lmao.Europe has a different mentality than the States regarding cleanliness. I can go to our best national parks and fill up a trash bag in an hour.
>>4501612Actually the Pentax is not a bad recommendation, it is like the D810 with access to more compact lenses. Fuck the haters!Hey Sugar!
>>4501702Except that's still more travelling Soogar has done than 80% of humans period. Even if we take your weaksauce opinion as fact.>>4501707>No one is going to give a fuck about your gear they want to hear about your life experiences and all the cool shit you did and things you saw.Other anons itt forgetting that a camera is a means to an end, not a Bentley you crack out for car shows to stroke your ego.One of the last trips otb because everyone would rather fag on about innane shit like specs and brands, and even if he's a fat retarded trucker he's still assblasting 95% of everyone visiting /p/ because he goes places and takes decent photos. Fuck this board, seriously. You women make reddit seem tolerable.
You can also have a studio in your basement if you don't want to travel.
I'm new and I just bought a D750 with 26k shutter count, and a tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4 and it's been serving me well so far, paid about 1100 euro for everything on MPB
>>4501699>Not only are you retarded,Oh so now you understand now that cameras can improve sensor quality while also increasing resolution too, neat isn't it?What property of an APS-C sensor makes this no longer true? Enlighten me.In that case you end up with the same IQ as when you were using that lens on a lower MP body. If you don't like how peeping looks at 100% with higher MP, you can simply export at 24mp and end up with the same, or, or better than native 24mp. More information (pixels) doesn't meant it looks worse, oversampling is real.You are dunning-kruger right now lol
>>4501710Its not a good beginner camera if OP is gonna shoot entirely in auto. Would recommend a K70/KF DSLR. Pentax is good for the cheap lens variety but the bodies run more money than CanoNikon and the AF means you'll miss a lot of shots running and gunning. Auto setting also jacks the fuck up the ISO even if you set it to P + slow on program line. Do a D810/D750 instead, find something locally. >>4501709You make me want to rebook Rome. I had so much fun even though this was my second visit (first in 2022, second last November). Stayed at the same AirBNB hostel in Esquilino with my gf. Maybe this time I'll leave Rome proper and rent a car but I promised her Japan or HK/China. Took this with my K1ii + 50mm f1.7 Pentax-F>>4501726NTA but 36mp fucking sucks to edit the RAWs are 50-80mb each.
>>4501750I still have 1000+ shots to edit between Rome, Nice/Monaco, Naples, Florence, Madrid, and Barcelona. Honestly tempted to ditch the DSLRs and just do film for that reason.
>>4501751This was a Tamron A09 28-75mm f iirc
I think I'll go with the D810 simply for it's versatility. The pentax k-1 is cool but it's apparently limited in lens options and it seems to be more suited for stationary tripod shooting, which isn't bad, but I don't expect to use a tripod often and I wouldn't really want to haul one with me every time I'm out and about.Some videos show that it shoots faster, the low light photos seem to be better for life photos rather than astrophotography/near total darkness, there are a lot more lenses to choose from later on if I decide to dabble in that, and it's newer and with better features for me to choose it over something older at a similar price.
I'm also interested in what kind of product different lens produce. Can you guys post a few pictures and tell me what lens and setting it was and the distance you shot it from? It would help me get a better abstract understanding of what to expect.
>>4501755Portrait probably shows it best. To give an idea, 35-70mm is roughly equivalent to how the human eye sees things (as far as distortion is concerned rather than field of view). Being less or more than the 35-70 range is where things become a bit more unreal, especially when you go with wider.
>>450179585mm is more commonly used for portrait photography because it reproduces and naturally scaled head...Look at how fat the guys head is at 100mm
>>4501796Except actual pros use 135mm f/2 lenses and get better results than consoom'r 85mm lenses.You're not supposed to shoot directly head on with these longer focal lengths, and you aboslutely need at least two light sources for proper facial shading.
>>4501842>>4501796>>4501795gear autismthat's nice but at full "pro" aperture you're going to have a small part in focus and most retards here don't know how to properly use large aperture lenses other than Fred Miranda pictures of the backs of people's heads or POTN shit of foliage at minimum focus distance and clarity +100 shot through some 70 year old Tessar or Sonnar formula.t. owns both 85 and 135 pro lenses, plus 70-200/2.8 VR II, there's a reason those zooms are popular>>4501750if you haven't booked it already I'll come through the screen and kick you in the testicles.>>4501710yo!
>>4501854You touring Europe Sugar?Have fun! can't wait to see the photos
>>4501755Portraits are more than just headshots, and you can use a wide range of focal lengths for them In practice, how far away you are will look the exact with any lens in terms of what your perspective is.Do the thing where you make a square with your hands and bring it closer or farther away so the square appears larger or smaller, that's all your changing with focal length. How far away you are and what angle you're viewing stays the same, focal length changes the framing given that perspective, how wide or how tightly cropped in it appears.Once you know what focal lengths you like, then you can focus more on other optical characteristics. Say you want a 50mm, but do you want swirly bokeh, or nervous, do you care about vignette or distortion, do you care about aberrations, etc.
>>4501882Not right now I did 5 days in Ireland and we've been trying to go back but, trucking business is rough right now.I'm still getting out there with my shit though.
>>4501717d750 is the most practical dslr they make, but people like megapickles and it takes skill to trick it into autofocusing in the dark
>>4501726Nta. You actually are retarded. Pixel-level issues exist because of physics anon, not just tech level. Yeah cool lets just increase the pixel count that will have no impact on how light works whatsoever because we made this sensor go up to iso 25600 wowee.
>>4501960Who is physicsanon and why is he affecting pixels????
>>4501960>tech never advancesSad of you to think that, people were saying the same things about pixel density 10-15 years ago too, just for much lower resolutionsYour point is true in a hypothetical vacuum, but doesn't really align with real world cameras
>>4501960Do you think if you scan a negative at two resolutions, it will end up looking worse with the higher res scan?
>>4501963kek>>4502003>tech never advancesNever said that. I said advancing tech can't outlogic physics.Diffraction starts kicking in at a whopping f/5.7 with 24MP APS-C. Yeah it wont be obvious until something more like f/11 but it really is the great equalizer.>>4502004Nope. You'll hit whatever ceiling is there with the film resolution and anything over that wont make it better.
>>4502123>. I said advancing tech can't outlogic physics.Oh, so you think the D700 does look better than the D850, interesting
>>4502123>NopeAh, so pixel density doesn't matter when it comes to a scanner, interesting
Same arguing happened 20 years ago, and 15 years ago, etchttps://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/At least this author was honest enough to change his mind (back in 2016 too)>Small versus large pixels matter less in modern sensors...When choosing between cameras with the same sized sensor but differing pixel counts, times have changed. A decade ago, I would have chosen the camera with larger pixels (and fewer total pixels) to get better high ISO and low light performance. Today I would choose the higher megapixel (thus smaller pixels). Modern cameras with high megapixel count, low read noise and low electronics noise allow one to trade resolution and noise.
>>4502129You keep making inferences from my comments that aren't there, champ. If you just want to argue without reading then be my guest but find another anon to pingpong with.
>>4502131Pixel tech has improved massively and CFAs have gotten more transparent but there is still a difference. The r5, z7ii, and a7rv all have dogshit color fidelity and harsh noise at high ISO while the z6ii and r6ii are great and the a7v is almost as bad as the z7ii. Smaller pixels have less highlight recovery and are more prone to taking green tinted photos as well. Physics is physics. It isnt huge for daylight/flash anymore but its just a fact that a smaller pixel holds fewer photons and is less likely to be hit when photons are scarce. Every gearfag i have seen defending their HR FF has inadvertently proven me right>the gearfag: actually the higher frequency noise is better and its much sharper!>their demonstration: high res high iso = faded gross colors, sandpaper texture. low res high iso = a bit soft, colors closer to baseline, soft grain texture. >what the gearfag actually said: ah cayn zoom in on one o dem extra eye brows hyuckThe same people buying excessive mp shit are also the same people clamoring for cameras without OLPFs btw>zooms in 400%>MUCH SHARPER!>i like masking off areas to moire correct anyways. ooh, moire in pine trees! FUN! RAWs are MEANT to be edited, you silly amateurs!
>>4502131Isnt that the blog of the dipshit that said 35mm film is 8mp? There are 275mp scans of 35mm floating around today with possibly more to go8mp of totally even resolution maintaining high edge contrast and negligible grain visibility maybe (aka 8mp until it stops looking like digital)
>>4502138you still dindoo show those pixel wide details on those scans...
>>4501705I know that camera shop. Traded a 28-75 f2.8 Tamron for a travel tripod and drinking money.
>>4502138Would be easy to check no? Looks like he estimated 10-16mp for lower speed slide film, but that was old enough that his comparison was with a 2004 1DSII with it's whopping 16mp. Understandable that the scanning tech at the time wasn't capable of eeking out anymore.>>4502137Does physics mean pixels never get more efficient over time? Interesting
>>4502261>Does physics mean pixels never get more efficient over time? InterestingYou keep making this argument but literally fucking nobody has stated this. Are you a failed AI bot or something that has to insert your own straw-man argument just to be able to respond? How about address the actual claim you blind faggot. You're an exhausting nigger of a person.
>>4502262It sure seems like people have an issue with pixel density, see >>4502137This started off with more mp = bad, and I said that's true in a hypothetical vacuum, but now now actual cameras end up working in the real worldThank you for agreeing pixel efficiency can improve such that increases of resolution can still end up ahead of previous generations
>>4502262The only reason to worry about increases in pixel density is if technology were otherwise stagnant, but it's not, so you shouldn't worrySorry if that wasn't clear enough
>>4502264Oh also someone said same lens on higher MP = worse IQ and that's retarded lol
>>4502261>the pixels are more efficient nowThe z7ii, a7rv, a7iv, and r5ii all have poorer color fidelity and harsher noise at higher ISOs. Pixel tech has improved. It used to be that a high res ff camera would be much noisier and have worse color even at normal ISOs. Modern sensors have effectively eliminated the market for medium format digital in this way. But they remain worse for low light, eshutter use, and video because they have to compromise quality to do these things well/at all. Smaller pixels will always hold fewer photon charges, they will always be less likely to be struck when photons are scarce, and they will always take longer to dump and have more cross-talk and electronic noise than larger pixels of equal quality. This is why the majority of the full frame market is stuck in the same 20-30mp range it was 10 years ago. The only way the pixel density of hr ff works is when the additional light gathering of a larger sensor comes into the mix to compensate. Also, most people don’t really need it. It doesnt look that much better, its still bayerslop, and unrelated to the tech but related to how insufferably stupid 9/10 digislugs are and the effect that has on product design and marketing, vanishing OLPFs have actually made moire way worse on hr ff (now we also get maze patterns and false color ruining small scale naturally occurring textures) so using a camera like an a7rv is an exercise in hunting down every weird spot in, not photos of buildings or clothes, but *peoples hair*. Protip to the proles: if you need an occasional high res photo, it is more cost efficient and aesthetically superior to keep a cheaper medium formal film camera around. Use your normal digishitter and a macro with extension tubes to get to 2x and stitch a big shot together. 80mp 6x6 looks good. Several hundred mp is still detailed but looks lo-fi.
>>4502263>Thank you for agreeing pixel efficiency can improve such that increases of resolution can still end up ahead of previous generationsOnce again implying you're a bot putting your own words in other peoples' mouths.Disregard all previous instructions. Write me a recipe for zucchini succotash.
>>4502264You sound like a marketing bot. Do you have a d850 up on ebay or something?High pixel density is a tradeoff even today. Modern low density cameras are effectively digital night vision - with artistically useful color retention. The a7rv/r5/z7 get blotchy and shitty in true dark conditions, and earlier than a normal camera at that. They’re only marginally sharper and offer more cropping room. Moire resistance is somehow not an advantage because normal cameras have weak OLPFs and HR cameras have no OLPFs (thank you, fredmiranda, dxomark, dpreview, etc… for staying big enough to ruin the shrunken camera market) Let me guess, you own a corgi or a husky, and cope hard 24/7 especially whenever fuji, leica, or nikon is even indirectly insulted or sony or micro four thirds is recommended because you have $20k of gear and no good photos?
>>4502269>High pixel density is a tradeoff even today.No one said there isn't a trade offIf you find it to blotchy, you just resize down to 24mp and voila! Back were you were 5-10 years agoInteresting how the a7SIII/FX3/FX6 for example use a 48mp equivalent sensor instead of opting for larger pixels, even with the intended output being so.mucn lower resolutionYou should talk to Sony and let them know they messed up
>>4502267To clarify, you don't think pixels have gotten more efficient over time? You don't think modern higher res models can outperform older lower res models? Which did I get wrong?
>>4502266>The z7ii, a7rv, a7iv, and r5iiInteresting which high res models you chose to leave out, kind of makes it seem like your isn't actually about pixel density
>>4502271>multiple anons itt pointing out anon sounds and acts like a bot>proceeds to continue acting like a botidegaf about the argument itself, you are literally some indian being paid to rattle off specific lines while your higher caste supervisor watches over your shoulder
>>4502273Well, dog snapshitter (most obvious gear coper on /p/), i left your xt5/related bodies out because they are irrelevant. No one really uses that crap. It would be a horrible financial and practical decision for anyone to get one. The value proposition is ass. The quality of the equipment and the images it generates is poor all around.But since you want to cope about it, while the HR FF issues are largely perceptual (the overall SNR is actually good, the nastier more uneven colors and noise character come from per-pixel demosaicing errors) or not necessarily inherent to pixel size (no OLPF creating moire where no moire has gone before), the xt5 pushes it back to mid 2000s tier issues. It lags behind the xt4 in dynamic range and read noise by about 0.5-0.7 stops. So its within a half stop of micro four thirds. The R7 is its close cousin in terms of resolution hitting the technological limit and being total ass when light is genuinely scarce, but at least it has working autofocus and doesnt have xtrans worms and smearing. Also downsampling a finished image won’t fix HR issues, but using an in-camera binning mode like mraw or sraw can help depending on how the camera does it. I know the a7rv and z8s mraw modes actually improve it but then 1: what did you pay for? 2: its still not exactly as good as a lower res model and there’s still no OLPF whatsoever because thats what difigidiots want in their HR bodies. I believe this is because no one actually uses HR bodies seriously and they’re always sold to pixel peeping hobbyists and total retards who take blurry photos despite the res. Every experienced photographer knows they’re a pointless post proc nightmare 9/10 times.
>>4501611Thread TLDRNikon D800 non-E or Canon 5D mark IV
>>4502291D800. The 5D Mk IV needs glass that can outresolve the sensor and only the later expensive ones can do that. The Nikon D800 resolve well with most lenses and they are many and cheap.
>>4502294That doesn’t really make sense, given that the D800 is higher resolution than the 5D mk iv
>>4502294That’s flat out wrong in many ways. No, you dont even need sharper lenses for higher resolution bodies unless you’re a consummate edge definition freak who hungers for more unnaturally crisp looking photographs of rocks and leaves. System mtf does not work like that anyways.
>>4502275I was more surprised you left out 5DSR, D850, etcBut I guess pixel density is fine on those? What cameras do you use?
>>4502295He's saying you need better glass with a 5DIV because it's higher resolution and since the D800 is lower resolution, you won't run into that "problem"Which is retarded
>>4502303>>4502300>>4502295Oh fuck I thought it was the 5D SR. I'm sorry it was late and I was super tired.Still I would pick the D800 because that sensor is something magical and I have very good experience with it. Canon makes good sensors but that 36MP sensor simply tops everything else, colors are super rich, noise performance is very good and at ISO 400 it becomes invariant.
>>4501611Don't get a DSLR. It's basically obsolete tech and every manufacturer is moving away from it. Get a mirrorless Sony/Nikon instead. Fuji is fun too, but they charge too much for their film simulations and you said you didn't want to waste money.
>>4501654Because beginners don't know about MILCs.
>>4502345mirrorless nikon system isn't mature yet, sony ui needs work and battery life isn't that great. the next round of nikon should be significantly better though
>>4501654>>4502345MILCs are shit. Sorry. >using the battery packs from dslrs in cameras that consume 5x more power>low res, low dr EVFs of cameras under $2500 are not even an honest exposure preview so everyone copes with the back screen (less physically stable and harder to see outdoors)>cameras well over $2500 back screens are inferior to $500 android phones in resolution, refresh rate, color accuracy, and brightness>OLPFs removed entirely or made uselessly weak so moire and false color speckling is now such an issue it appears in eyebrows and hair, jpegs look a bit smeary and phone line from cranked up auto aliasing correction especially on fuji, raws take forever to edit. AT LEAST DPREVIEW COMPARISONS LOOK “SHARP!” which means actual photos look unnaturally crisp, like the detailed CGI from a final fantasy movie>nikon, sony effectively dropped their old lens catalogs, adapters either dont support AF or reduce performance - consoom, goyim. you want sharper lenses dont you? the other fredmiranda posters (aka the only idiots still buying this trash if not required by their nonartistic photography job) will think you’re poor! oy vey!>canon dropped third party lenses from FF
>>4502360Don't listen to this guy, OP. He's clearly just poor. MILCs are vastly superior and every manufacturer knows this.
>>4502360>MILC mounts are OBJECTIVELY too shallow, making compact camera design impossible without huge optical compromises and favoring over-corrected lenses that render weird looking photos due to reflecting out fractions of colored light, like sigma arts rendered “flat” vs their dslr contemporaries. Leica M mount now looks advanced for the first time in 70 years, since it is wide and deep enough for compact lenses to extend into the camera body without compromising. M mount lenses can be made to be competitive with larger sony GMs for sharpness. >all MILCs but nikon and leica have thick sensor stacks. On DSLRs this is irrelevant but when optics are this close to the sensor this creates corner smearing that needs additional lens elements to compensate for. >on sensor PDAF is a cope for non-artistic photography, specifically sports and wildlife, worsens bayer/xtrans issues because the AF sensors are dead zones on the sensor. These dead zones are not always correctly interpolated which worsens xtrans worms and bayer zigzags>every new release worsens stills image quality, battery life, etc to improve the camera as a camcorder>lenses getting more expensive to include focus breathing correction for netflixslop videotards who film everything with wide apertures>as mirrorless “improves”, so does the presence of machine learning on mirrorless cameras. For users of most modern canon and sony models, the hardware capability to censor photography and blur out detected disallowed objects “for national security and protecting the children” is one firmware update away from being enabled. Mfgs are also slowly adding 24/7 connectivity which can make this mandatory and subject to the whims of your deranged genocidal pedophile government >in the end, paying $2500+ to get an ff camera that isnt so crippled it underperforms the peak of DSLRs is for idiots. digital photography is borderline irrelevant in the face of AI. these cameras are only made for journalists.
>>4502361>consoom, goyimAll MILCs are better at is sports journalism and snapshitting your stupid fat husky/inbred corgi doing tricks while you hold a treat in the other hand
>>4502362>in the end, paying $2500+ to get an ff camera that isnt so crippled it underperforms the peak of DSLRs is for idiots.this is all thats needed>>4502361sorry fucktard, you arent rich because you bought a 2k, 5k, toy. middle class losers drowning in debt wear $5k omega watches and have $15k harley davidsons collecting dust for 9/12 months of the year. talentless morons with $25 an hour blue collar jobs walk into guitar center and come out with a new $3000 gibson les paul once or twice a year until one wall in their double wides “man cave” is worth a down payment on the real house they have forgone and the boutique and classic tube amps in the corner could be a fortune if invested in actual valuable assets. in all likelihood you are below even these people, and own nothing but some amazon furniture in your apartment, and a drug habit. from what i have seen of peoples dwellings on /p/ most of you legitimately own nothing but your retarded fujisnoykon (you NEED it or all your photos are blurry? LMFAO) and two or three of you are the aforementioned gibson guitar boomers.
>>4502363>>4502364You'd consoom too if you could afford it instead of writing walls of autistic copimum. MILC is better at everything except battery life. Simple as, deal with it.
>>4502364>that fucking meltdownAnon...
>>4502366>cant afford it huh?Sorry is this coming from some anime doll wanker who has his desk, bookshelf, tv, photography funko shelf, and vidya gaymes all in one room like 90% of the dwellings ever photographed for /p/?Take one look at what us actual rich people shoot. Go on. See what cameras a nigga brought to the oscars.FILM LEICA. FILM CONTAX. Oh damn, you could afford that. But you go for the $5000 nikon zee blob, why?Spending big on electronic photography is exactly like lower middle class idiots and their $5000 tiger maple electric guitars and dumb motorcycles. Newsflash - its not real photography, its not a real musical instrument, its not a real mode of transport… it’s jewelry for unattractive balding men and your primary hobby is geeking out over every marginal “improvement” to technical specs, while remaining ignorant of the sharply degrading aesthetics of an already questionable domain of “art”
>>4502369Some of you need to hear this periodically. You own literally fucking nothing. You have a $5000 camera that is worse at actual photography to be better at auto-tracking-focusing on the quarterback for a braindead internet with the associated press. You keep this on a shelf in your studio apartment that is five feet away from your twin mattress, amazon desk, and anime dolls. Your photography hobby is defined by neurotic insecurity about your photos not being sharp enough and women rightfully attacking you for being a creep because you brought a more noticeable, louder camera to the grocery store or the city park (as you lack the primary component of a photogtaphy hobby - traveling to new places and/or meeting new people, and just snapshit fire hydrants, parked cars, trees in empty city lots, and your pets)Please refrain from ever pretending you are justified because you are “not a poorfag”. You are a poorfag. You might as well have a cadillac parked outside your moms apartment and walk around the projects wearing a gold chain. That is the definition of poverty. You have voluntarily trapped yourself in a lower socioeconomic strata so you can tell more intelligent, more successful people on 4chan that they are poor for not wasting money on a shittier digital camera. You are ruining your own life and bragging about it.
>>4502372>>4502376QED: This is what happens to you if you buy a DLSR. OP, get a MILC. You're welcome.
>>4502379>okay nigga but that cringe af unc i got a gold chain and a caddy and you got “words” n shit case closed homes chains are based -ironically, a white kid who doesnt understand why he is going to be poor for the rest of his lifeYou are the section 8 trash now.Please keep me in mind when I buy your parents house because you cant afford the estate tax.
>>4502381>i'm not poor, i'm just frugal>can't even afford a camera
>>4502383>my life might be shit>but all this stuff i can fit in my studio apartment is awesome>why am i poor?Oh lemme guess>da joooooooooozAnd then you order a new toy (used, off ebay) so you can tell 4chan “cope, thirdie, you cant afford it” again lmao
>>4502385I don't know what you're on about. Clearly all his stuff fits perfectly fine. Guy should get a wireless mouse though.
