>>4505251
If JK Imaging ltd. is in any way involved, don't bother.
Everyone else is more or less okay, depending on what qualities and features you value the most.

Get a (used) 90D for $900, or an R7 for ~$300 more if you want IBIS. Paying 40% extra for full frame is essentially pointless for a beginner.

At the end of the day, you can't go wrong with anything Canon makes in Japan/Taiwan. Their Malaysia/Thailand stuff is junk though, but that's OK because it sells for junk prices.

>>4505251
just use your phone. they take good pictures

>>4505253
I don't really want to start slow and upgrade several times. I want to just get something top tier immediately, I can't be bothered with wasting my time. It should be realistically sized etc. Not those cameras they take with them to photograph amazon wildlife from a canoe

>>4505254
Not good enough, especially garbage at low light

fuck you motherfucker i hate you

>>4505255
>I just want something top-tier immediately
You're in luck, digital photography technology was perfected a decade ago. This is why /p/ is constantly seething. Both the cameras I listed are professional-grade cameras and will do essentially whatever you want them to.

>>4505256
>>4505255
ok get a used a7s

>>4505257
>This is why /p/ is constantly seething.

what's their problem? they seem really bitter

File: 1765031782201372.jpg (38 KB, 634x597)

38 KB JPG

>>4505256
turn the torch on

>>4505257
>>4505258
why are you telling me to get used products? do you feel superior to me?

>>4505259
because they spent thousands of dollars on dust collectors.
/k/ does something similar but at least they have the excuse that you can't shoot guns in public the way you can take photographs.

>>4505261
ok go to b&h and sort by price high to low

>>4505254
They really don't and you immediatly realize this when shooting with a camera for the first time.
You can't get the same image quality as a full frame or APS-C sensor with a smartphone-sized image sensor, it's physically impossible for many reasons. That's why the philosophy is to have a heavy post-process pipeline to try to compensate.

File: Screenshot From 2026-04-1(...).png (1.21 MB, 1770x1102)

1.21 MB PNG

>>4505264
>They really don't and you immediatly realize this when shooting with a camera for the first time.

right, these pricks dont want us to have nice things, fucking motherfuckers

I sorted price descending in local e commerce and this seems kinda steep but maybe I should go for it

>>4505259
fuck you

>>4505266
I would love to kick your fucking ass, fucking nerd!

File: 1770079444085479.jpg (245 KB, 1200x980)

245 KB JPG

Stop being poor and just get the fujifilm gfx or whatever entry level hasselblad

>>4505255
>I don't really want to start slow and upgrade several times.
That's how it works. You've got to start somewhere. It's basically the meta in photography to buy used gear, and sell it back when you need to swap brand/mount or upgrade. It's far cheaper than buying new, and you will upgrade eventually, like everyone who does photography professionally or as a serious hobby.

Also, if you're a complete beginner, full frame or APS-C won't make a difference for you. Depending on the type of photography you want to do, there's no single camera that's best in all fields.
Want to shoot wildlife?
Sports?
Street photography?
Travel?
Landscape?

Your style and type of photography will dictate what kind of camera and lens is best for you, but that comes after you've picked up photography.
First get a cheap used DSLR with a couple of lenses and play around with that.

Some people cream their pants over the latest ultrawide super fast prime lenses paired with their R5 Mark II to shoot on the streets. Others do wildlife and instead will pray for a new fast (and affordable) telephoto lens or an APS-C with fast readout speed.

>>4505255
First question you should ask yourself is what kind of photography do you want to do and when/how. That should drive your choice.
portrait?
macro?
landscape?
travel?
some videos too?
studio?
at night?

>top tier immediately
"top tiers" setups easily reach 30k+, are you sure you want that?
Also, high end gear requires great skill to take advantage of and skill >>>> gear.

Anyway, your pic is a good all rounder, it will take years before any update would add something meaningful.

>>4505259
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQsR78SB3DM
They are all gearfags or gearfags in denial

>>4505269
>That's how it works. You've got to start somewhere. It's basically the meta in photography to buy used gear, and sell it back when you need to swap brand/mount or upgrade. It's far cheaper than buying new, and you will upgrade eventually, like everyone who does photography professionally or as a serious hobby.

I don't play by your rules, faggot

>>4505271
Why are you talking about snoys?

>>4505251
I'm in the same position as you. Get Sony a6700 with sigma 18-50mm lens if you can afford it or a6400 with Sony lens. The reason why you want Sony lens in a6400 is because it lacks in body image stabilization and sigma lenses don't have it built in.

>>4505272
What's your budget then, big boy?

>>4505270
>"top tiers" setups easily reach 30k+, are you sure you want that?


well no, I meant top tier within the realm of my reality of someone who isnt a millionaire

>>4505275
>What's your budget then, big boy?

I'd say about 3000 euros, that shouldn't attract too much attention, still cheaper than an apple monitor

>>4505274
but /p/ said sony is garbage and makes everything green

>>4505276
>top tier within the realm of my reality
What kind of schizo reality then? You don't even know what you what kind of photography you want to do and want "top tier".

The R6 Mark II is a very good all rounder, but the 35mm IS STM is an entry level RF lens, so that alone you will sell back to upgrade to a better lens in the future.
So why not trying out with a used camera that you can sell to get something better instead of insisting on spending 3K€ on something you don't even know if you'll enjoy?

Top tier in the real of wildlife are 20K€ prime lenses.

My RF 100-500 alone is 3300€.

>>4505271
I didnt watch the full video, but noticed he mentioned "zooming 300% on a 4k monitor while our audience watches on a phone"

retard doesnt know shit of fuck, a phone is like 16k so zooming 300% on a 4k monitor isnt even enough to be adequate, let alone exigent

>>4505279
>why not trying out with a used camera
I'm not OP but I feel you have to have a certain level of skill to buy used. How would I know the ibis is fucked, or there are scratches on the sensor if I never held a DSLR before?

File: 20260417_142924.jpg (2.81 MB, 2970x2046)

2.81 MB JPG

>>4505264
point to the problem that my phone sensor has. RAW image with no tweaking by the way

>>4505279
>Top tier in the real of wildlife are 20K€ prime lenses.
i am aware of that, and so is everyone else, you stupid fucking cuck, trying to seem like you have insider knowledge, thats why i mentioned
>>4505255
>t should be realistically sized etc. Not those cameras they take with them to photograph amazon wildlife from a canoe

>>4505281
By from MPB if you're in Europe or equivalent used markets, all the gear is checked by professionals. You can get a used D800 for like 400€. Or a Canon equivalent if you want to upgrade to an RF camera with your EF lenses.

>>4505283
Then be more specific than "I want top tier according to what's in my sick mind" you schizoid vermin

>>4505285
camera to take pictures of family and shit like that, and want them to look as good as they can, which is better than iphone

>>4505286
So a used DSLR will be enough. Thanks for your attention, very cool.

>>4505287
thanks for fucking nothing

>>4505288
A used D800 + a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART get you:
- one of the best full frame high resolution camera ever made
- one of the best 50 mm lens ever made, easily in the top 3
All for around 800€ used

But if you absolutely insiste on spending 3000€ on a R6 Mark II and an entry level 35mm lens, go ahead, you don't need my approval, attention whore.

>>4505289
in b4 this is a meme after i buy it

>>4505286
>camera to take pictures of family and shit like that
Get a GR IIIx. You can get something bigger once you know what you want from your camera and you get to keep a pretty good pocketable one too.

disclaimer: I have never used a GR. I did use the FoV quite a bit and it's a pretty versatile one.

>>4505255
>I want to just get something top tier immediately, I can't be bothered with wasting my time.
Good news is, most new gear is pretty good, and just fine in the hands of a capable operator.
If you simply take the time to figure out what is important to you in a camera, what your actual needs and goals are, you wont have to ask others for help figuring out what you like.

>>4505290
it is

sigma makes dogshit lenses optimized for sharpness that suffer from really poor color transmission and internal reflectance issues like contrast loss and haze in real world conditions. photographers who dont know how lenses actually work call the issue “flat rendering” or “lacking 3d pop”. accentuated by the fact that good mtf charts equal unnatural photographs. realistic detail loses more edge definition the smaller it is. thats how your eyes see.

use a normal sized lens not a fucking sigma fart bazooka

>>4505295
>that suffer from really poor color transmission and internal reflectance issues like contrast loss and haze in real world conditions
With it being such a persistent issue, surely you have examples, or at the very least cherry picked anecdotes from another person(s) to share

>>4505292
Most gear is actually pretty bad. Cameras went pros only in the 2000s and became horrid and retarded for real world use. Pros are expected to deal with any stupidity. Consumers are expected to upgrade yearly.

Compared to classic processions like om1n to om4ti, cameras are serious enshittification victims.

>>4505295
Recommend me a new camera. Not old scheiße

>>4505296
>do my research on sigma arts flat rendering for me!
Why, when the camera industry already implicitly admitted it was an issue by pouring most of their effort into lens coatings - AFTER those DSLR era sigmas showed that high element counts aren’t free lunch (sigma never really improved either)

You’re basically asking me for race footage to prove a ford model T was slow
Fuck you, figure it out yourself cuck

>>4505299
>already implicitly admitted
And you are implicitly admitting you have nothing at all to backup what you are saying
I'm just asking for any actual evidence that isn't from your undiagnosed schizophrenia, my bad

>>4505299
watch out, you’re basically offending a sony color science coper. get ready to be told to tell photos apart after heavy editing, with no control reference, at 0.2mp.

>>4505298
buy a canon r8 and 35mm and 85mm primes

never take a photo of a bird unless you want to suddenly hunger for dicks up your ass

>>4505299
>Source: it was revealed to me in a mushroom trip
Why are copers like this?

>>4505299
>the camera industry already implicitly admitted it was an issue
You mean the camera industry implicitly admitted Sigma was right by forcing Canonikon to stop selling overpriced, soft 50mm lenses in favor of vastly improved designs.
>pouring most of their effort into lens coatings
Specifically because they tried to catch up by improving upon Sigma, and nano coatings became essential on simpler designs.

>photographers who dont know how lenses actually work call the issue “flat rendering” or “lacking 3d pop”.
Photographers who don't know how lenses actually work use three sentences to describe "micro-contrast" instead of just naming it.

>It's dogshit
Purely subjective. "Muh unnatural feeling of sharpness". Warning, we're entering the niggerlicious and LGBT-friendly realm of psychophysics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysics
Micro-contrast enjoyers are worse than reddit vegans.

>>4505305
Sigma was right for who? The dying breaths of a DEAD field? Name any admirable photographers still working. Its all corporate slop, intern journos cropping to compose at the HIGHEST while the remaining serious professionals shoot medium format kit the “modern photographer” believes underperforms full frame (and does in sharpness, af tracking, etc) and cinematographers slap 20 flavor filters on an arri master to make it softer or rehouse a vintage SLR prime.

Photography is dead and you know it. Developments since have appealed to the camera equivalent of protestant megachurch “worship guitarists” - horrid gearfaggots with all the creativity of a rock, spending a grand a week while obsessing over the minutiae of GARBAGE under a microscope.

You think film is still alive because its better than digital? No, its alive because the standard for good in digital has been handed to complete fucking morons. Photography: sony G master edition is pure fucking irrelevance. The modern camera buyer is the most pathetic, balding dad-hobbyist on earth right now.

>>4505257
Pretty much this, there's not much change from a camera made 5 or 10 years ago to a camera you can buy right now. Even a really basic brand new model is about on par or better than a top of the line camera from 10 years ago.

>>4505308
Agreed. All the new hotness and serious creativity is in videography right now and guess what videographers are buying… vintage lenses lmfao.
>sigma art was right tho
>look at the nikkor s line ultra g master primes and 100mp bodies
>videographers aka relevant people: 12mp and vintage prime pls

>>4505308
the worship "guitarist" comparison is pretty on point

wanting ~better~ camera gear really is on the level of thinking the gibson les paul and marshall tube amp are now insufficient… yeah you might technically improve it but no one will enjoy the end result except for people like tyler larson aka guitar ken rockwell

just buy a dslr and a normal lens not a sigma art

>>4505308
Mirrorless sales are picking up, people who go for film or retro style cameras are just hipsters, probably fujiworms too.

>>4505314
>mirrorless sales are picking up
for video
most big releases are explicitly vlogging cameras

vintage lenses are either holding their value or appreciating

>>4505251
>Over the years
This is why I know you are full of it.

>>4505279
>the 35mm IS STM is an entry level RF lens
It is a good lens for the money, especially if bought used. Image stabilized, relatively fast, semi-macro. The only thing I don't really like is that it focuses rather slow, the chromatic aberration I can live with. No such thing as a perfect lens anyway.

>>4505251
Canon 5D Classic + 50mm f1.8 IS STM, the white mans camera.

>>4505301
>never take a photo of a bird unless you want to suddenly hunger for dicks up your ass

bird as in minge or fowl?

>>4505334
You wish

>>4505375
How does someone spend several years figuring out what camera to get and then blame his non-decision on the opinions of a couple of hobbyist photographers on a Senegalese horse breeding forum?

>>4505261
>why are you telling me to get used products?
Photography is one of those hobbies, where a lot of people pick it up and then drop it after taking 100 pictures. There are plenty of gently used cameras out the costing half of the price of a brand new camera. Even the people who do get into photography tend to devolve into gearfags and end up buying gear they never use

File: fuji-sony-moire.jpg (68 KB, 737x743)

68 KB JPG

>>4505278
they switched from green to magenta

>>4505278
Snoy is a meme. Spend your money on a real photography camera.

>>4505413
I see you are preying on peoples ignorance with a cherry picked aliasing test.

Its easy to lie like this. It takes some explaining and a few links to show everyone how you’re lying. That’s why you post it over and over again, because eventually everyone gives up and you can score one for team fuji and dissuade someone from buying a used sony off ebay.

>>4505278
/p/ lies. A lot.

File: IMG_0939_crop.jpg (211 KB, 800x800)

211 KB JPG

>>4505251
I only picked up photography a few months ago. My goal was to be able to do a little bit of everything (besides videos) for cheap so I could learn both what I liked to shoot and what different lenses were good for. I bought a Canon EOS R100 with both kit lenses (18-45mm & 75-300mm) a 50mm prime ("nifty 50") and a small backpack (lowepro tahoe bp130) for about $1k all together and started bringing the whole kit whenever I went anywhere interesting.
So far I've been very happy with my setup. You can probably skip with 75-300m pringle can lens, it's not image stabilized so it's not great for sports or birds and the zoom is kind of overkill when combined with the crop factor of APS-C. It's neat to have because it can very easily do things that a phone can't (like take decent moon pictures) but going through my albums I found that most of the actual good shots were taken with the cheapo wide angle zoom (usually outdoors/daytime and wide DoF) or the nifty fifty (for indoors/night/bokeh). Up to you if the $200 is worth it to play around with taking spy photos of things/people from insane distances.
Other than that I think the R100 is very easy to use, I basically shoot in manual the whole time and have few issues, occasionally I'll miss focus or have to take test shots to dial in settings, but usually the preview is enough to quickly tweak shutter/aperture and get what I want at the highest ISO possible.

>>4505475
>You can probably skip with 75-300m pringle can lens, it's not image stabilized so it's not great for sports or birds
Try using a pillow between the camera and a windowsill or a table, it's still pretty bad a lens but at least it'll be stable

>>4505251
I still have my t3i from 2014 and it works fine. My only gripe with it is low light performance on modern cameras is much better. I wouldn't concern myself with spending 5k on a camera when you can spend that on lenses easily. If you pick up a DSLR and take a bad picture it's your fault. Don't pay attention to retards who tell you to use your phone.

File: a6700-base-exp_1.5.1.jpg (310 KB, 1920x1080)

310 KB JPG

>>4505451
There is no reason other than bad color science for the moire to be so strongly shifted towards magenta.
Anybody with eyes can see that Sony, a6700 especially, has a terrible magenta bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3l0HDGh7PM&t=1087

File: ContactSheet-001-1.jpg (1.04 MB, 3000x2500)

1.04 MB JPG

>>4505490
Yeah Sony is so clearly obvious, completely impossible to use Sony and get goo pictures, no one ever has or will

File: Untitled.png (1.81 MB, 3006x1336)

1.81 MB PNG

>>4505490
You are REPOSTING a LIE again.
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/dd_RABzf1Itj3hVAcQCg4A/
You literally tried this before. You’re hoping someone who doesnt know how cameras work will fall for it.
>le sooc video defaults when i push shadows in video
Who the fuck does that? Who the fuck cares about that? Are you seriously using video quality as a stand in for raws stills, when video is essentially a jpeg/heic sequence and has limited editing lattitude?
>the moire is purple!
I found your problem: adobe camera raw is shit and dpreview is crooked for using it. Here’s how it renders in an industry standard raw editor. Dpreview used to and likely still does skew their tests by secretly underexposing and overexposing select cameras and changing the ACR presets they use to make the so called raw and jpeg, assuming adobes poor support for many raw formats does not skew the tests for them.

https://www.captureone.com/blog/fuji-x-trans-sensor-excels-in-capture-one-7
And here’s a note that xtrans actually has the same moire problems, just on patterns other than the ones dpreview tests.

/p/ lies. A lot. You lie. A lot. You repost lies. A lot. I believe you, or rather, various employees who work with you, have been persistently shilling against the a7c since its release here.

Who pays you guys? Panasonic? You guys hit on panashill talking points like open gate being a standard or necessity (its not) and the a7v lacking vidtard uselessness like that so I’m thinking its panasonic.

Now despite the palanq.win lookups anyone can do showing how often you repost shit verbatim you will say “meds schizo crazy conspiracy theorist” like your script says to, right? How about you take the L instead you fucking shill?

I’ve been paid to advertise on 4chan too (WAGMIM, JIDF, trump campaign, koss, openAI, lenovo, canon, seiko, twsbi). Don’t bullshit me and say you’re not a shill.

>>4505413
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/lRlWMfJOjjLd9QkGp1D4ew/
Holy shit you dont even change the filename

What do they pay you, less than a rupee per post?

File: highres-Olympus-PEN-F-Bla(...).jpg (851 KB, 3097x2088)

851 KB JPG

>>4505503
>just fix it in post, bro

or... just use a decent camera.

>>4505503
>snoy schizo having another melty
lol. lmao even.

>>4505581
>>4505638
>low res, no aa filter, sterile glass
It would be worse. Literally. This is a “how CFAs work” issue you cant buy your way around it without spending an assload on, ironically, a 61mp sony and using a soft lens.
>”fix it in post”
Anything you view on dpreview is literally post. Everything is generated with ACR.

Nice flop. And double reply. You cant maintain your ad campaign in the face of evidence = your ad campaign blows. Your concession has been accepted. And I hope they fire you.
>snoy shill
Canon. I took money to shill for canon.
Personally, after being asked to start hyping the r5ii (POS - my review copy didnt even fucking work until they fixed the firmware) here on /p/ and *use my own work for it* i resigned.

File: you.jpg (10 KB, 400x134)

10 KB JPG

>>4505639
>And double reply
Unironically go outside and touch grass lil malding bro.

Imagine shilling for fuji in the year of the Lord 2026.

>>4505645
I use an XT2 and the f2 'Fujicron' primes because those are the only good things they ever did. 10 years ago.

>>4505641
They showed me how to edit (you)s in orientation too but I already knew lol

Want to know how I can tell you’re paid? If you just samefagged and lied for fun you’d say “you fell for my trolling” for an epic own instead of doubling down. I’m well aware of how we’re supposed to act while “shaping the narrative”.

>>4505413
oh no sonysisters wha-
>>4505495
oh
>>4505503
damn
>>4505513
hahaha holy FUCK lmfao

>>4505251
Do you have a camera already? If not how do you know you even enjoy photography? Answer: get something cheap and used you can find near you. Whatever's available. Options like >>4505354 are just one of many good choices. Also choose this if you are currently using a phone or a digicam.

If you do have a camera already, what about it makes you feel like you need to upgrade? Different cameras are good at different thing and represent better value propositions depending on what your needs are.

>>4505645
Imagine caring what brands other people use

File: lumix-sony-moire.jpg (72 KB, 737x743)

72 KB JPG

>>4505639
>This is a “how CFAs work” issue you cant buy your way around it without spending an assload on, ironically, a 61mp sony and using a soft lens.
CFA produces moire effects when there is no AA filter. It does not produce an overall color shift.

Actual solution is to get a camera with an AA filter, or a camera that has aftermarket AA filter available.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9hvb4vKJnY

AA filter won't fix Sony's chopped color. Magenta cast is there regardless because their RGB sensitivity is unbalanced especially at lower luminance.
Sure, you can spend time wrangling it to look balanced, but why bother when you can just use any other camera brand.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dcs5ii&attr13_1=sony_a6700&attr13_2=panasonic_dcs1r&attr13_3=sony_a7v&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.30886919602957136&y=-0.0717941114105559

>>4505666
You know what would be even better? An example of this manifesting in an actual photo
When all you share is charts, kind of makes me think it's not actually an issue for real world shooting
If it is such a problem, there should be no shortafe of examples right

>>4505666
You’re lying and making shit up again.

Let me be clear. Not to you. You’re paid. To everyone else.

The poster i replying to is a paid shill.
I am a former paid shill. I have advertised for canon among other brands. He acts like we usually would. If not he is genuinely retarded. Too stupid to have a discussion with levels of dumb.

What this poster is spamming over and over again is an issue with the demosaicing algorithm used by adobe camera raw. Everything he said is literal nonsense. There is no magenta cast or “chopped” color. And you wouldnt see it in moire. You’d see it as a consistent issue with white balance requiring plus green to correct. He is posting the way a specific program tries to handle moire (and fails).

This is what it looks like in proper program
>>4505503

>>4505661
Tell that to the fujiworms then

>>4505671
Fujiworms are also an adobe specific error.

Amazing how many camera issues are literally just jeetware being shit

File: sony-fuji-bunny-horsey.jpg (443 KB, 1956x2200)

443 KB JPG

>>4505667
I posted a timestamped video where the guy who normally shoots with Sony complains about the magenta cast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3l0HDGh7PM&t=1087

>There is no magenta cast
The horse is black not purple.

>You’d see it as a consistent issue with white balance requiring plus green to correct
You do - it's disproportionate in the lower luminance levels, which is obvious in CineD's IMATEST plots and frame grabs.
https://www.cined.com/sony-a6700-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

>>4505674
You are conflating two things.

One is raw IQ as poorly rendered by adobe camera raw on dpreviews most useless page (the studio scene)
The other is pushing exposure in a processed video format and auto white balance.

These are totally unrelated.

Video is compressed, tone mapped, and drops 4-6 bits off the original data. Its basically a sequence of jpegs. It isnt meant to handle extreme exposure adjustments and if you do not set white balance manually in video you WILL have random cool, warm, magenta, and green casts with ANY brand. I have a 5div next to me that randomly adds green ffs.

Case closed: you’re not a shill. you’re a really dedicated actual fucking idiot.
You dont know how cameras work.
You probably don’t use them much.

You probably don’t even understand what I’m explaining because your ONLY experience with cameras is watching shills mess up their white balance settings and screengrabbing the WB fuckups that fit your console war.
Actual. Fucking. Idiot.

>guys i underexposed iso 800 aps-c video 5 stops and pushed it back up, and the shadow noise is purple. new sony color science meme dropped.
Oh my god ex shill anon is right this guy is literally retarded

>>4505670
>former paid shill
What was it like? Where was your shilling targeted? [spoiler]Was the pay any good?[/spoiler]?

ive had my lumix g7 for a year since i started and i like it.

File: sony_magenta.jpg (133 KB, 737x743)

133 KB JPG

>>4505676
>>4505677
The magenta cast is always present in camera output because Sony botches the color at the basic fundamental level
switching to OOC jpeg shows the same thing,

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xs20&attr13_1=sony_a6700&attr13_2=phaseone_xf100mp&attr13_3=phaseone_iq4&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=200&attr16_3=200&attr126_0=1&attr126_1=1&attr126_2=1&attr126_3=1&attr171_2=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.543831602044609&y=-0.9406926547277039

>>4505682
ALL DPREVIEW STUDIO SCENE IMAGES ARE MADE BY THEM IN ADOBE CAMERA RAW
> The visualisations of Raw data (and the accompanying downloadable JPEGs) are based on a standard development process using Adobe Camera Raw.
WE CAN DOWNLOAD THE RAWS OURSELVES AND SEE YOU’RE RAMBLING ABOUT SHIT THAT ISNT REAL YOU RETARD

>>4505680
Never more than $5/post and only for political stuff

The only nice part is they send you stuff so you can say you own it (white shills only - jeets dont get this)

>>4505682
You are making up an issue that doesnt exist by picking and choosing from information you do not understand.

You dont even understand that the lighting isn’t sunlight. you think dpreviews studio scene uses sooc jpegs (you literally can not read). You cant download the raws and see them yourself because you dont have a raw editor or know how to use one. You dont know what you’re looking at because you don’t own a camera. You dont know what white balance is. You dont know what lens color cast is. You believe in “color science” and pixel peep 5 stop shadow pushes from iso 800 and think you’re discovering something.

You are either a very dedicated actual fucking idiot or a jeet shill.

Everything you post is disinfo.
And you repost it.
You are either very very stupid or your name is prikmunch nadesh and you live in mumbai.

>>4505691
>>4505693
They offer OOC JPEGs, JPEGS with their RAW processing, and the RAWS.
if you were smart enough to download the OOC JPEG and check the EXIF you would know that.

>>4505694
>dpreview says
> The visualisations of Raw data (and the accompanying downloadable JPEGs) are based on a standard development process using Adobe Camera Raw.
>hmm the downloadable jpegs must be straight out of the camera
You dont even own a camera. You dont know what you’re looking at.

You dont even know how lens cast works or that the 55mm zeiss has colored vignetting
You dont know what white balance is
You pixel peep 5 stop shadow pushes from iso 800 and use nonsense words like color science
You are either seriously fucking stupid, like you have an IQ of 85 or so, watch camera youtube, and then start talking incessantly, or you are paid to be this stupid and are actually a malnourished pajeet.

Pixel peeper isnt an insult because you shant dare care about the quality of your camera.

It’s an insult because some people are stupid enough to make up retarded theories while zooming in on notoriously inaccurate and unrealistic test shots where the tester has 12 different ways to fuck up accidentally or purposefully while keeping (editable) exif realistic looking.

Download some nikon z raws they overexpose them sometimes
Download the raws this retard is talking about and realize acr sucks and dpreview fucked up the white balance
>>4505695
They shouldnt even be using the 55mm to test cameras anymore. The sony/zeiss lenses all had ass QC and weird issues with copy variation. Some had green corners some were decentered some had ridiculous CA.

>>4505695
Logic isn't your strong suit, so let me help you out:
>The visualisations of Raw data (and the accompanying [RAW export] downloadable JPEGs) are based on a standard development process using Adobe Camera Raw.

The non-RAW JPEGs are OOC. If you were smart enough to download the OOC JPEG and check the EXIF you would know that they are OOC.

>>4505697
>dpreview fucked up the white balance
I guess the videographer in >>4505674 also fucked up the white balance in the exactly same way. What are the chances!

Default color is botched. Maybe fixable with a custom 'Picture Profile'. I was considering doing that before I realized Sony's bad color is only the tip of the iceberg of Sony problems.

>>4505674
>a one sentence comment in a 25min video where the speaker still ends up preferring and using the Sony anyways, and after giving it praise for the grading capability too, and apparently it was too small of an issue to even mention in the conclusion either
Sure sounds like a big problem

Do you just link random stuff to make a point? Nowhere in that article do they find it relevant to mention color, magenta/green, white balance, etc.
>Sony’s new a6700 APS-C camera performs very well in the lab. Rolling shutter values are OK, dynamic range is on par with a lot of other consumer cameras for the APS-C as well as for full-frame sensors, and the latitude results really show the capabilities of the new sensor/image pipeline and robust all-I 4:2:2 10bit codec. This size/price/performance ratio is hard to beat!
Not an issue to mention in their summary either.

>>4505782
Here's a better example,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bnAimJhwKs
Shows the difference in color profiles clearly, has a few A/B comparisons, and offers solutions as easy as adjusting white balance or just the RAW profile used

>>4505771
1: they are not OOC. ALL images in that useless test are generated with ACR.

And yes, auto white balance does fuck up predictably, like canon DSLRs predictably adding slight green tints to blue heavy scenes and magenta to green heavy scenes because that is how cameras work.

Once more
You are making up an issue that doesnt exist by picking and choosing from information you do not understand.
You cant download the raws and see them yourself because you dont have a raw editor or know how to use one. You dont know what you’re looking at because you don’t own a camera.

>>4505782
Its a nocamera nophoto paid shill. He reposts the conversation starter and then lies out his ass by relying on youtubers and dpreview to look like a photographer.
He has NO photography experience and can not interpret the one screengrab/one line youtuber shit properly because he does not know how cameras work and just relies on youtubers doing everything right (they don’t)
He doesnt even have photo editor software and thinks dpreview is a trustworth source for image quality tests (anyone with a raw editor knows they are not, and never have been, and have always been improperly exposing cameras, botching white balance, and despite their infinite budget sticking gear they like with great up to date glass and gear that doesnt come with enough reviewer kickbacks with 12 year old low cost primes)
Like why are they putting a cheap ebay special 55mm on the newest sony and a $1200 leica branded prime on the newest lumix exactly, knowing that lenses are the primary determinant of color rendition and resolution?

If he is not paid to post all his disinfo and willingly comes to /p/ to lie about cameras despite not even owning one he is seriously mentally disabled. Like christian weston chandler developmentally delayed.

>yet another massive problem with sony that only exists in one 4chan commenters screenshots of youtube videos and dpreview pixel peeping
>meanwhile in reality, the sony he’s bitching about: *outsells its competition five to one*

>>4505681
do you keep Constant Preview enabled?

File: Screenshot From 2026-04-2(...).png (357 KB, 933x658)

357 KB PNG

OP here

What about this:
Canon EOS R10 + RF-S 18-150mm F3.5-6.3 IS STM

>>4505841
will it make better pics than the latest iphones?

>>4505376
there are hundreds of different cameras and lenses, it's impossible to figure this shit out

File: olympus-e-m5-mark-ii-14-1(...).jpg (49 KB, 1000x665)

49 KB JPG

>>4505843
it's best to buy something used/cheap to get some experience with.
This will inform you of what you like and don't like.in a camera.

Micro 4/3 is the oldest mirrorless format so you can find plenty of used bodies/lenses for cheap. The shooting experience doesn't differ from newer mirrorless (as opposed to DSLRs from back then which shoots differently with the optical viewfinder).

File: r10.jpg (2.85 MB, 4000x3000)

2.85 MB JPG

>>4505841
All of these come from that camera or lens, and I'd say is arguably better than most of what gets posted here
Truth is though, they could have come from a dozen other similar bodies or lenses and it really wouldn't make much difference
You gotta start somewhere, and eventually you'll find what you like/dislike and what actually matters (or doesn't) for you

>>4505841
Its pretty shit.

Remember, just because someone could take A GOOD PHOTO on some gear doesnt mean they didnt pass up untold shots, have to reshoot something 5 times in max fps burst mode and spend an hour deleting dupes and checking sharpness, end up cucked by a phone when someone important to them wanted their picture taken in conditions the camera couldnt handle, or end up forced to haul tripods, flashes, and even graduated filters (ugh).
Anti-gearfags or anti-consumerists or whatever they call themselves, people like >>4505858 can be ignored. They’re usually poor, or autistic losers who do photography all on their own as a lonely pseudo-contemplative activity like painting for people without souls or talent.

I’m assuming you have a soul arent autistic and will take your camera into and along with an actual life where you wont want to get cucked by your girlfriends phone or have to make excuses for why you cant take a good picture of something without carrying max strength pussy repellent.

You need full frame and IBIS. These are mandatory features for a camera not to legitimately struggle and fall behind smartphones in real life photography. Just get a nikon zf or something.

>>4505859
>nophoto schizo rambling
As to be expected

>>4505859
>Just get a nikon zf or something.
Also true, this is one of my favorite bodies so good recommendation

>>4505860
>no retort
Just because "A" or even "some" good photos could be taken does not mean many more could not be or turned out better on a phone.

Imagine cucking out on a tenth rate camera when you can afford to cameramog phonecels. Couldn’t be me.

This is the truth people who spent big on junk like dslr ewaste, oversized film formats, fuji and micro four thirds hate to hear.
Maybe those people should pipe down and go photograph their dogs (again).

>>4505865
>many more could not be or turned out better on a phone.
Very true, thank you for agreeing some things matter more than even the camera itself when it comes to making good pictures

>>4505867
>clocking peak cope because your APoorSmellyChud scamera got qualitymogged by phonechads
It has never been more over.

>START
Sensormaxxing
IBISmaxxing
Rawmaxxing
>GET
Zoompilled
Primepilled
>DONT
Flash cope
Crop cope
Cope
>ENJOY
Mogging cameralets

>>4505869
>Sensormaxxing
Unless that means open gate
>Rawmaxxing
Unless that means editing

>>4505871
>copecucked
>maldmaxxed
>seethepilled
Get mogged gearcel

>>4505859
>>4505865
>>4505868
>>4505871
You have contributed little to nothing of value while only succeeding in starting useless arguments. You have only been a net negative to people's discussions here, and you clearly don't want to stop. You're too fucking deluded to see people's responses as anything other than a platform to rant some more and I'm beyond fucking sick of it. If you do have any valid concerns, then you don't deserve to have them taken seriously.

>>4505886
>a poorfag scamera cope chud seethemaxxes because he cant be left along to meme newcels into going broke buying entry level canon junk
Full frame with IBIS or it’s not even a camera - it’s a toy for incels to “photowalk” with
>you can take a good photo
Yeah at high noon with a tripod kekkeroni

>Full frame with IBIS or it’s not even a camera - it’s a toy for incels to “photowalk” with

The benefit to FF is in low light conditions when higher ISO is needed, but you aren't going to be able to cope with such conditions on any camera without actually learning manual mode or at least exposure compensation.

m4/3 shooter who actually learned to use their camera will produce better results than a full frame shooter who thinks he can fix a bad exposure in lightroom.

>>4505905
>if you use a better camera incorrectly then my copemera is better because uh, i shoot in manual mode
now this is what i call malding

>>4505859
Recommend me a camera and lense. Please nothing used, I am not rolling that way

>>4505280
Please comment on this reply I posted.

>>4505842
>will it make better pics than the latest iphones?
No. Unless youre shooting f/1.0 on a FF mirrorless brick, modern day smartphones are 99% as good and will even take better pics instantly as they dont require manual editing.

File: phone aidslop artifacts.jpg (269 KB, 1910x966)

269 KB JPG

>>4505842
no, phones are far far better than even phase1, mind you

File: 2G5A0157.jpg (1.33 MB, 6000x3322)

1.33 MB JPG

>>4505251
OP, R6 MII is an absolutely excellent camera. I don't even want to upgrade to MIII despite better video options (i might get C50 just as dedicated video camera).

Autofocus is apparently second best to sony, but I still find it loses eyes all the time and has trouble getting them back, especially when shooting kids who are always moving around.