>panasonic FF chads just keep on winning >>4501071
>>4502814>panasonic FF chads just keep on winning Canoniggers always have and always will mog Panasoynic.
>>4502814>look at muh f/4 primes and f/9 zooms guyes!
>>4502858Post your uber gear nigger. Is a gear thread afterall
what we think about this cameraare lomo lenses shit? even compared to like a comparable used camera in that price range
>>4502858Thats not m43 you retard
>>4502814What's a cheap range finding tool for camera's that have no such thing?With or without hot shoe mount, I don't really care.
>>4502883Gonna be real it's not much of an upgrade lel
>>4502814>no shutter>no hotshoe>sony a7iii sensor>every lens is available on sony except for the vlogger zoomThe shitter: sonyThe toilet paper: fujiThe toilet: nikonThe sewer: panasonicThe street shitter: Canon. Canon doesn’t care. Canon has been doing this since before you were born. Canon looks you in the eyes and drops a dookie on the hood of your car. Not to make you mad. Just to remind you who you’re fucking with. Thank you for reading my analysis
>>4502879At $500 I just don't see why anyone would ever buy one, you could get a really decent used point and shoot for way less than that.
>>4502879The corny message written on the top panel would make me never consider it if I was in the market for a camera like that.
>>4502985I have not heard a single positive word about the writing on the top of the camera, and I admit, it's rather corny. What were they thinking?
>>4502893>>no shutter>>no hotshoe>no EVF>no AA filter>no gripI think Panasonic was just trying to make a very cheap full frame to have an "entry level" to their system.The plan seems to have worked, their share of full frame sales has rocketed since the S9's release.I pray that they release a mark 2 with EVF and mechanical (or global) shutter, something like in fanboy concept pic related.
>>4502997I want them to release an SX1 which looks like the L1, complete with a shutter speed dial
>>4502814Is this the smallest full frame mirrorless setup?
>>4503003The contax T series are smaller FF mirrorless cameras.
>>4503005heh, Tessina achshually
>>4503009Yeah there's quite a few options, really. Rollei 35 is pretty nice too. The old one. The newly made one is shite.
>>4502814>relisted all my Pentax gear but for a lower pricethis time I’m moving it allI think at this point in my life I’m done with photography. I’ve accomplished all I want.
>>4503003Sigma's fp / fpL is smaller.but you don't get screen articulation (unless you use the darkpowerlabs mod)
>build leica m6 kit for 3500>everything is horrible and goes wrong>build nikon n80 kit for 200>everything about it is perfectdamn im legit going to sell my m6
>>4503029Should have gone with an om3 retard
>>4503030Should have gone with a kodak easyshare retard
>>4503032I prefer a challenge, fuckwit.
will i regret selling my leica m6 + 28mm ultron f/2 to finance a nikon f100 with 28mm f/2.8 D + ricoh gr iii or iv? i kind of hate my M6. i'm sick of ruining shots because of bad rangefinder composition, or because i'm not quick enough with the meter, or because a digicam was just the right tool for the job instead of film autism. at the same time the nikon is way bigger and its lens is worse.
>>4502983Reliability though.
>>4502997Highly unlikely. We are at a stage where cameras are the way they are because they can't possibly squeeze that much new tech into them and maintain the form factor. Such a tiny package with all that goodness is sure to sucking a lot of juice which means bigger batteries or some other compromise.>Compact m43 all discontinued>New full frames remove features to make new product seem better (r5 vs r5II dynamic range etc)>Digicams are just remakes of 6-10 year old cameras and the ones with "new features" such as the TZ300 just removed the EVF from the previous model and up-charged it massively for an additional zoom that nobody asked for, Leicas newest digilux is just a LX100II in a slightly different package etc.We all want shiny new things, but they are unrealistic the way I see it. It is the same way with PC components as well.. ooooh this new GPU can artificially make frames to make your gameplay seem smoother, but realistically it is barely distinguishable from the previous generation.
>>4503043That lomo piece of shit can't even reliably advance to the next frame.
>>4502987sounds like a leftard slogan, pretty cringe
>>4503029It is really fascinating how those who want to get into film photography jumps straight in and gets metal body cameras from the 70s that they don't really understand and completely ignores the more dependent auto-focusing 90s and early 00s cameras. >New in box Canon EOS 3000n with a lens for $50? Nah, I'll take my chances with a Canon AE-1 that "worked when it was put away 30 years ago" instead.
>>4503048>>4502987>>4502985Such a non-issue. If you dont like it, put some tape over it. Who cares how the camera looks or what is has written on it if it performs well?
>>4503059Its considerably worse lifestyle shit that everyone here shits on fuji for tbqh
>>4502890>bigger foolframe sensor is always better!>no not like that!
>Canon EOS R5>Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L>Canon Speedlite 470EX-AIIs this the complete one and done body, lens and flash set- up that you will ever need /p/?
>>4503098Depends on usecase
>>4503059You see it every time you look down on your camera and I don't want to put tape on my camera either.I find it to be very hyperbolic "wholesome" and I don't like it.
>>4503098If you're gunna spend that much you might as well get a Godox v100. Probably the best on-camera flash you can get.
i grow tired of filmfaggingshould i buy either of a ricoh gr iii or gr ivis that stupid
>>4503046They should do an accessory hotshoe EVF.Minimal cost increase for users who don't need an EVF, while also giving an option for users who do. (also opening-up the camera to flash users)It needs to be low-profile like this fujifilm one or it defeats the purpose of the compact body.
>>4503150Either of those Ricoh are good, but the III is a lot cheaper used. Just beware that the AF isn't great on Ricoh.
>>4503046>We are at a stage where cameras are the way they are because they can't possibly squeeze that much new tech into them and maintain the form factor. Such a tiny package with all that goodness is sure to sucking a lot of juice which means bigger batteries or some other compromise.Now this is cope. Manufacturers can already make the perfect camera but they dont because they need to milk it out to gullible consoomers like you.
>>4503163This but it applies to everything in the world. The next 10 years of tech already exists, but it's trickled out so that they're never without "new" ideas and features. Phone and computer manufacturers have been notorious for this and only rollout new stuff when they've truly exhausted incremental updates people will buy.
>>4503163Not cope, reality. You really think they wouldn't remake upgraded models of ten year old micro four thirds cameras that today on the used market sell above retail if they could? It is simply put a matter of physics, things such as battery capacity and sensor readout are close to their theoretical max limits, same with silicone. The thing is that if they did in fact remake those old cameras that people are paying boatloads for such as the pen f, the gm1 and small point n shitters they would not be much better than what they were. Oh you want higher resolution screen? better EVF? How about modern, faster WiFi so you can upload to instagram from your shartphone? Guess what.. that requires energy which means bigger batteries and suddenly it is not the same product anymore.Why would this be cope? I am perfectly fine with the situation as I make good money from it. I'd love to see some revolutionary progress be it global sensors that are not dogpoop and solid state batteries, but guess what? It is all just a pipe dream.
>>4503169>muh physicsKek people said this in the 2000s. I missed the memo where humanity changed the laws of physics since then.
>>4503169>You really think they wouldn't remake upgraded models of ten year old micro four thirds cameras that today on the used market sell above retail if they could?Selling well on the used market is not an indication that remakes would sell particularly well on the mass market. The special 'cult' cameras like PEN-F or GM1 are special to a relatively small number of people.A remake would saturate that market very quickly.
Should I get a Pentax? I want my photos to be beautiful but I only use mft and the photos are not so beautiful sometimes. I do macro and nature photos. I like that Pentax is well sealed and has interesting lenses, but I don't like that all their bodies are on the heavy side. Thank you for your time.
>>4503150get the iiix, 28mm too wide filmbro
How much do you value weather sealing when choosing a camera, is it a deciding factor for some?
>>4503191Here's my opinion as a PentaxianDo it if you like:DSLR OVF ExperienceCheap lenses and lots of variety (especially once you start buying vintage film lenses) Great IQ (no AA filter) for the moneyDon't do it if you like:Good AF (its okay at best)Modern lenses (anything made after 2010s = $$$$) even used due to lack of availability You shoot auto (kinda "dumb" re: shutter speed and ISO on auto/program mode vs other brands) Small size (go for a APSC mirrorless) The best bodies to buy are used K-3/K-3II and K-70. KF is too expensive for a new camera. KP is overpriced. K1 is $900-1100. K3-III is cool but extremely rare and the same price as a last gen FF mirrorless. K-50, KS-2 and older all have aperture solenoid issues, only buy if <$200 and comfortable soldering. There's a $275 K3 + 28-75mm f2.8 on NYC Facebook Marketplace I implore you to check out; I'm sure you could snag it for $240 and its a perfect starter kit, I went through Europe with that lens and it's still $100 at its cheapest. >>4503194I prefer to have it, some cameras really lack it to the point that you feel exposed using them. ZVE10 was one I owned. The ports might as well have been wide open and I got caught in a thunderstorm with it.
>>4503195Thank you pentax bro. AF being bad might annoy me now and then but it's not a major focus for me, I can just keep my OM-1 for bird blasting. IQ and beautiful lenses are definitely attractive for me.
>>4503196I own a K10D, K200D, K70, had a KF (sold), and K1iiK200D = hard to find, kinda mid. Mine keeps having brown tinged pictures but it works after 130k+ shots. A lot of them are wrecked from battery corrosion (alkaline AAs leaking into the body, nothing specific to the camera). I paid $100 for mine. Smallest DSLR they made.K10D = can have focus issues (mine has serious backfocus), okay, not my favorite CCD but I got it cheap ($40). K70/KF = same shit, KF has the improved solenoid, K70 can have bad aperture solenoid but its not as common as the older ones. Awesome sensor; very ISO invariant and great in low light. I paid $120 for my K70 with a broken screen I spent another $40 to fix. I also sold my KF for $380 on eBay months prior. I think this is the best Pentax for the money. The sensor is as good as the KP; its just that the AF isn't as good. Cheapest I've seen KFs sell for is $4-500; there's a K-70 on eBay with a 18-135mm lens for $360 that isn't a bad deal. Second smallest DSLR. KP is nice but way overpriced. Median price seems to be $6-700 (cheapest I've seen them sell for is $5-600). You can get a Canon RP/5DIV, Nikon D750/D810 for that amount and adapters for older lenses. K1ii = The best one. Kinda shit AF and I'll die by that opinion, I actually think my K70/KF was a little better. Huge even compared to the K70/KF. On the plus side you have the best IQ and can run super low ISOs because big FF sensor. $900-1100 is the average. K3/K3ii is supposedly pretty good. Would not bother with a K5ii unless it was super cheap ($200 or less). Not prone to any aperture solenoid issues. Just a little big for a APSC DSLR. K3-III is excellent (AF comparable to a Nikon D500) but I have never seen one sell for under $1100 and it feels kind of a ripoff; on the flipside the IQ isn't off from a K1/K1ii (newer improved sensor). I took this with a Pentax-A 70-200mm F4 and >>4503037 is me too.
>>4503194>>4503191Pentax is not any more weather sealed than the high end canikons that now cost nothing and also do everything better than a comparable pentaxIt was only ever a big deal because they put full fledged weather sealing on cheaper cameras instead of just the 5div/d810 tier
I want a Nikon Zf but I'm poor please somebody help meeeeeeeee
This belong here https://youtu.be/wQsR78SB3DMhttps://youtu.be/tJrr3FAtf1U
>>4503207Cringe, didnt even watch the whole thingPeople more successful than you have owned multiple nice things that your parents would tell you didnt deserve unless you were a professional since the dawn of timeYoutube influencers didnt change thisNicer things are still nicerSuperior equipment is still superiorAnd poorfags are still passive aggressively sometimes overtly screaming that the smarter, harder working nobility above them doesnt deserve anything because in the peasant mind a successful person can never be good enough to own something that exceeds a peasants net worth, that they worship money or have no talent and just buy shitBut in the end its the one getting mad over a better mans better shit and its pricetags, putting effort into these cringe videos that worships money. Acting like a priest whose temple of the dollar has been contaminated by the unworthy. The people who buy more and nicer things than you just don’t care. Why would they? Money is a fake thing that anyone can acquire loads of just by signing up for some hard union job and working a lot or overtime for a year before dumping their saved cash into a solid ETF and doing something easier.
>>4503221this>its BLUES LAWYERS its FUDDS its BOOMERS its INFLUENCER CONSOOMERS! no its people who actually worked, graduated college, and got jobs without going poor buying flashy new cars, oversized houses, or eating like shit, sitting on their ass, and going woe is me over healthcare costs 10 years later lmao
>>4503221I am very thankful for my time working at camera shops to get a good idea of all the different types of shooters and different cameras they go forPhotography is also so relatively cheap compared to most other hobbies that people don't bat an eye atCameras are more accessible and affordable than ever before, and people complain just the same
>>4503224Stupid people are more able to permanently destroy their wealth forever, and social pressure actively encourages them to do the two worst things they couldBuy a late model carLive in a large, nice house/condo in an already developed area
>>4503225>spending money on hobbies is badSad life you must live, why are you spending your free time here instead of making more money?
>>4503225legal weed destroyed the last hope of ever having money most retards had desu
>>4503227How much do you think weed costs?
>>4503226I didn’t say that. I said people bitch more than ever that other people spend money on hobbies because they put themselves in the poor house despite living in a world where literally anyone can live rich by working hard, staying healthy, stayingg off intoxicant dependency (ie: cannabis dependence, alcohol dependence, vapes), avoiding new/eueopean cars, avoiding motorcycles, and living in heavily developed and gentrified areas.
>>4503228i know retards who spend $100 a week every week on that worthless trash. shitty overpriced idiot drug that causes schizophrenia and poor decision making. so they end up even poorer long term.
>>4503229I guess being responsible with money doesn't change being a bitch, just what you bitch about
>>4503230Do you think $100/wk is a lot of money?What hobbies do you have?
>>4503231Bitching about people who are poor by choice and mad about it is fineThe poor by choice are the ones running this country into the ground by alternating between begging politicians for hand outs and begging politicians for less competition
>>4503232$100/wk is too much money for a plant that makes you permanently retarded. FYI, using cannabis once a week or more is considered a disorder. This is for a reason and its not a propaganda psyop or conspiracy theory.
>>4503233>It's fine if I'm a bitch, it's not fine with others are bitchNice ego friend>>4503234Did you smoke so much you couldn't answer the basic question I asked?Interesting, thank you for being a warning sign of smoking too much and becoming retarded
>>4503234weed has many health benefits!>doubled risk of caries, tooth loss, and gum disease>heightened risk of obesity>chronic bronchitis>cannabis hyperemesis syndrome>schizophrenia>high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke>(reversible) long term cognitive decline even when not high>irreversible cognitive decline if used regularly before 20-25
>>4503235>its only okay when i bitchChad yes.jpg>Assuming the one calling weed a poverty trap touches the schizo leafLooks like someone did a wake and bakeWeed turns you gay too btw
>>4503236>I'm so retarded I can't even answer basic questions so have to pivot and deflectGood communication skills you have. Are you sharing yourself as an example of becoming a retard from smoking too much too?
>>4503237I was just asking, they said it makes you retarded and then made a retarded post so just checkingI'm already gay
>>4503239All the potheads say they were already gay, but they also say they were already hungry…
>>4503241I will admit, munchies have been the biggest downside long term, but I do weightlifting 4-5x a week, with some cardio here and there to makeup for it
>>4503243Wow the other gay guys must think you’re the shit
>>4503244Yes, come join us on /fit/. Get strong. Might just see me in the cb threads sometime.
Had to check what board I was on there for a second.
>>4503247>whine about other people whining>whine about the poors>whine about weed>never answer direct questionsIdk seems like /p/ as usual to me
>>4503245No way fagThe /fit/ to /lgbt/ to /trash/ pipeline is real. I don’t need your gay bath house to get ripped. You probably use fujifilm or nikon too. Mega gay.
>>4503253What camera bodies do you use?
I don't understand the reasoning for using only primes and 'zoom with your feet'. Moving closer to a subject changes the perspective of the framing especially when it isn't at eye level. I watched an interview on youtube of a war photographer who only uses a 50mm f/1.2. He talks about how he got fucked up in a few places, and I could think only of how he could have avoided all that just by using a zoom lens.
>>4503257I'm a Canonigger exclusively.
>>4503303It all depends on use. A lot of these boomers/influencers just decide what 'real' photography is and that means just making everything as hard as possible most of the time. Primes are excellent if that exact focal length will for what you're doing, but it won't cover everything, while zoom will cover almost everything but just won't be as good for specifics like aperture or image quiality (which both also depend on usecase). I was a prime meme retard when I was starting out but now I just use whatever works for me and what I'll be doing at the time.
Got the 1ds2 with a microprism, and I love the process, it's so fun to go out with a manual lens not knowing what you got, but the files are a little lacking unfortunately, should I get a better camera or give up the manual experience
>>4503306taken with canon fd 200mm f2.8
>>4503303true, any of that is just rationalizing why anyone invested in a particular system
>>4503308use whatever
>>4503303Primes offer advantages over zooms, but they have downsides as well. If you can't see the pros/cons for both zooms and primes, you are just being bad faith.
>>4503306I still think old pre-DIGIC 4 Canon's have the best colors bar none.
>>4503303Zooms are ugly oversized lenses that instantly mark you as someone who is either paid to be there or shouldnt be there and needs to be removed if they won’t put the camera away. >I SNEED the PERFECT composition!No, even a photographer will come up to you and say, no, show me the sd card, i saw you point that at my kids, henri cartier-bresson shot his entire career on 50mm, what the fuck are you zooming in on creepAnd then a mall cop ass security guard will tell you no professional photography without a pass and to hand him the camera for the duration of your stay or leave
>>4503371You okay there bud?>show me the sd cardLearn to fight, problem solved. 90% of people will back down when hands are raised, and with the remaining 10% you've got a 50/50 shot. Decent odds imo.>mall cop ass security guard will tell you no professional photographyIgnorant people aren't going to give a fuck if your lens zooms or not. They're just going to see a blobmera and tell you to gtfo. For these kinds of scenarios you bring a shitty point and shoot with optical zoom or something innocuous like a rangefinder.
>>4503373>commits felony assault because he HAD to zoom to fill for every photoMost photographers who were:are better and more successful than you will ever be only used primes. Leave the extending dildo lenses to the professionals and the lame birdwatchers in the middle of the woods. Thanks.
>>4503376>not smart enough to let the other guy swing firstOh you've just got a unjustified hardon against zooms, yeah okay. I'll tell you what, you're a *prime* candidate for getting filtered, keklmao.
>>4503379>but officer, he swung first>the video of “concerned father confronts creepy photographer” going viral shows a distraught family man asking why you wont show him the picture if you werent creeping on his daughter and merely reaching towards your blobmera before getting ineffectually “punched” by a fat receding chin weirdo>us government smear machine digs up your e621 searches and pro-MAGA social media posts>FBI fakes an entrapment sting and calls you a lying pedo for denying it as they plant “deleted but recovered by forensics” CP on a USB drive you forgot you had (but equally likely actually do recover deleted cp ya creep)>you get dunked onShoulda used primes
>>4503380You've got a concerning amount of information of what it's like anon. Projecting even? Keep spinning, c'mon, you're genuinely entertaining.
>>4503303All else held equal, primes are sharper, faster, lighter, more compact. If you're going for a smaller setup or want to attend some event without raising too many eyebrows, primes are amazing. Anything between 28-50mm can be adapter to most occasions. There will be pics you won't be able to take, but that's just a trade-off.Zooms are just ridiculously versatile and great to have. I carry a zoom when going to new places and shooting is priory, a prime when I want a camera with me but it's not the focus of the outing.
>>4503381I hire a random kid to play my daughter and fuck with gearfag “photographers” every weekend. It’s fun and they always end up having or posting something they shouldn’t have (ie: antisemitism) so its also a public service.
>>4503382Also something I forgot is that primes are kind of easier because they give you less choice. Instead of wondering how exactly you want to compose a certain picture, you just have one focal length with some minor adjustments with your feet. It's just a chill, low-stakes, low-effort setup.
>>4503303Changing perspective isn’t inherently bad, and being forced to move around to explore the perspectives and compositions available with a prime is one of the benefits.Yes, in theory you can do the same with a zoom but I’ve gone to photography school even and invariably people using zooms don’t explore as much as people with primes. The images are weaker like 80% of the time.They’re cool for like wedding photographers where the versatility lets you get several signature shots without a need to be too artful, or photojournalists where getting the shot is more important than exploring a shot.Otherwise when you want to maximize an image’s impact a prime forces you to find the most impactful version of that image.
>>4503413I think that still depends, mostly on what your intentions are. I have a zoom with a pretty good wide angle on it and I use that in place of buying a wide angle prime, then with the 35mm and 50mm settings, I use those as I would if they were primes. There's a lot of varying reasons for everything, I'd never try to say primes are flat out always the best choice but YouTubers sure do kek.
>>4503303>Moving closer to a subject changes the perspective of the framingyeah changes it positively, ie into a more interesting frame>>4503003are you excluding fixed-lens cameras? sony rx1 line is very small>>4502985i'm actually a prospective buyer for this camera, and i even like the message, but i don't want that on the top plate of my camera. i don't get why they didn't just leave the space blank and give you a sticker with the blurb, then leave it up to you. that would have been more diplomatic and probably cheaper to produce as well
>Sell digicams to zoomers to cash in on the hype>They constantly want to know how to transfer photos from the camera to their phonesEven plug and play electronics is too complicated for the zoomer mind to comprehend.
>>4503481It's really fucking inconvenient though.
>>4503303You can't get perfectly round bokeh balls with a zoom lens.Round bokeh balls = good photoLemon shaped bokeh balls = bad photo
>>4503384>ABSOLUT BASED
>>4503489>t. Doesn't make lemonade when given lemons.SAD!
>ask google ai to give you settings for you camera to emulate film>it gives you settings you didn't even know existed>not a single youtuber mentioned them everIt was in the manual tho, shit, always check your manual bros
>>4503517I did that too. Really like the way it they turn out.
All that gear but are you having fun with photography?
>>4502814I was thinking about getting this lens, but I'm starting to have second thoughts...
>>4503533What would you buy it for and what are your second thoughts?
>>4503551I would buy it for my EOS RP.>what are your second thoughts?Initially, i wanted to buy the lens so that i wouldn't have to switch lenses too much while I'm out, but i am worried that that would be a stupid reason to buy something....
>>4503566>i am worried that that would be a stupid reason to buy somethingThat's a great reason. Missing shots or getting crappy shots because you don't have a versatile lens attached is regrettable. The greatest photos I ever took I only had a couple seconds to react.If you care about animal/wildlife photos I would get something with an even greater zoom range.
>>4503571That is all true but only one specific side of the whole thing. I only use zoom for birds/wildlife because my big bazooka is a zoom lens. For my walking/touristy/generic shooting I switched from my generic 16-50 zoom to a prime and never looked back. I started taking photos differently, having to walk up to stuff, think more about composition. It is a very different experience from the run-and-gun zoomer photos.Since OP has doubts I would recommend getting a cheap kit zoom and see how it works for convenience and the quality of the shots (apart from the lens quality of course) and then make the big decision.
>>4503580What prime focal length did you go with?
>>4503584It is more complicated because when I switched to prime I also switched from APS-C to FF. I can still use my APS-C lens in crop mode so I did for a while but when I put on the 43mm it just stayed on. I figured if I need something zoomed in the 50mm or even a 100mm will not be enough so I would just use my bazooka. If I would need something wider for a landscape I can do panorama stitching or just use my phone. I rarely need wider than 43mm and even then I can look for tighter compositions and just get more shots. Super wide shots are boring anyways, far away stuff appears even smaller and you will always need something close to fill in the foreground. With that said there is a new 21mm prime I am salivating over... so far I could keep the urges at bay.
>>4503590Strange, you didn't just want to go with a 35mm as a general walkaround/tourist lens?
>>4503591Hehe, I did but it did not work out. The lens was sharp and good, it was not the problem. With 35mm I could not find compositions easily and everything looked plain and boring. It did not tickle my brain particularly well. 50mm was too constraining and I had the option for it but the 43mm intrigued me and thankfully it worked out and that focal length clicked well with me.
hhelp, i want a ricoh gr iv but theyre on backorder for a million billion years. dug up a old canon powershot sd750 ccd camera from my parents with chdk. realistically how much worse is it going to be if leaning into digishittery
>>4503593Interesting, I get what you mean to a point. I've seen some 40mm lens around and I've wondered about those, but going beyond 35mm feelslike I'd be restricted. I had a 35mm on a APSC for a while and that came out to 52mm I think, which was terrible for anything beyond portraits when I was just walking around my city.>>4503594Using CHDK on that digishit? You'll get some decent kino going actually.
>>4503595Yep, I felt that same exact thing. 40mm is wider than 50mm but not as wide as 35mm. I can't really explain it any better, it works for me while 35mm does not. It must be how 43mm is the "true neutral" focal length for FF and supposed to be the most natural to use. I don't know if it is true in any way, it is just the fact that the focal length is the same as the diameter of the frame, nothing more. It must be more about that sweetspot middleground between the 50mm and 35mm.
>>4503597I might consider one of those Ricoh cameras then, the cheaper model was a 40mm equivalent on APSC and the pocket size means less hassle when I walk around my city.
>>4503595>I had a 35mm on a APSC for a while and that came out to 52mm I think, which was terrible for anything beyond portraits when I was just walking around my city.I had the same set up as you and agree that 35 on APS-C felt restrictive. I made it work after a while, but it's really something that excels better at taking pictures of things than of environments.I now have a 40mm on FF. It's substantially wider. You don't get the same capture-everything look as you do with 28mm, but it's nothing like 35 on AP-C.
