Probably because you are afraid of taking risks.

>>4505377
true, but I've made this thread anyway
>Gear threads are discouraged but permitted

>>4505382
Gear threads are half the board. Jannies don't actually want to draw a hard line for users to follow because the already dead board will be on life support (nobody actually takes photos).

Anyway, to answer OP question, fuck you, fuck your wallet, and finally, what are you going to do about bitch?
Dedicated cameras are a niche that most people never commit to, and are thus priced accordingly. Economies of scale and all that. There was a time from about 2000-2013 where dedicated PnSs and DSLRs were actually rather common and thus were a less demanding purchase.
So what do you do about? You buy used, because the functions of a camera can theoretically last forever if not abused, and the market is flooded with practical choices. The true walletfucking is from buying LARPing gear like Leicas and Foojis.

>>4505385
I'd like to find a used Zf for cheap

Gear is cheap as fuck what're you talking about? The level of camera you can get for <$1000 or quality of glass you can get for <$500 is insane.

>>4505369
Film gear? Because the manufacturing tech needed to build it at scale was melted down and everyone who knew how to build and tune that machinery is dead. It’s like how humans forgot how to build pyramids and make damascus steel.

Digital gear? Because its a low volume market and sales take longer to pay for R&D, facilities, and employees but CONSOOMERS still expect “improvement” and regular releases. Thats also why cameras suffer from straight downgrades like OLPF removal and dynamic range loss to boost framerates. CONSOOMERS expect whatever they are obsessed with at the moment to get better. Whatever is at the top of the spec sheet. Whatever the influencers are being told to talk about.

The only camera company actually innovating with new tech is unironically sony. Everyone else is repackaging their stuff. Sadly sony has no aesthetic sense and likes planned obsolescence. Canon does some cool stuff for defense and security customers but their consumer cameras are remaining lower quality newspaper slop for NFL games and news photographers that spam shots and crop later.

All this in turn leads people to buy up discontinued cameras to escape a world where they’re expected to pay two grand for what is largely a downgrade from a d850. Driving up d850, 5div etc prices.

File: 10.jpg (3.83 MB, 2048x3089)

3.83 MB JPG

looking for a telephoto lens to add to my collection
I use a pentax spotmatic and currently have a 50mm f/1.4 super takumar and a Auto Berolina 28mm f/2.4
135mm auto takumars are plentiful and really cheap but ive heard people say that 85mm is much more versatile (and much more expensive on m42 mounts)
Im also considering getting rid of the Auto Berolina. I cant find anything online regarding this lens and it strikes me as kinda cheap.

File: nikon-zs-rangefinder-styl(...).jpg (161 KB, 1080x1080)

161 KB JPG

I love Nikon. You can just send photos to your phone via Bluetooth or Wi-fi. You can use literally exact same preset file in NX Studios on PC and in your camera. So if your camera is old and you can't put presets in it, you can still apply those presets using PC.

Idk if the other brands also have that kind of stuff but I like how Nikon has it all.

Amazon sent the wrong lens again. These thirdparty sellers really are shit. Anyway, I'm considering the following to choose from:

>Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC
Ordered this one the last time but was sent non-VC, non-internal AF motor version instead.

>Tamron 60mm f2 macro
Thought it might be nice for portraits and short telephoto.

>Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C
I previously had the older model to try out. The glass was nice enough. Variable aperture though.

>Nikkor 50mm f1.8g
I already have the 355mm dx, which is okay, but I've heard that the 50 has better IQ. Some people seem to like it on DX bodies in spite of the tighter framing.

These all cost roughly the same used so I am not sure where to put my fun-money. Thoughts?

I'm done playing around with "hybrid cameras." I'm going to get an old Lumix M43 as a video camera and focus on photography again. I don't know why I let myself get pulled into this marketing nightmare. Aside from a handful of lenses that weren't possible before, and some weight savings on staples like pro zooms, mirrorless has just been slowly and expensively reinventing the wheel.

>>4505417
Boy are you in luck. The best value proposition camera of all time, the 5D mark ii, which is well known for being the best stills camera ever, is now also the best video camera ever thanks magic lantern and RAW video.

Anyone getting any good deals on the marketplace? Just scored a bunch of fine art photo paper worth probably $500 for $40 shipped.

File: 10inhomo.jpg (581 KB, 1080x1545)

581 KB JPG

(Your) favorite lens.

File: lumix.jpg (129 KB, 1280x720)

129 KB JPG

>>4505369
What's the best do-all camera? Chats tell me that it's the LUMIX S1II, are our best hallucination engines right?

>>4505445
There is no "best camera" there is only a bunch of compromises regardless of brand.

>>4505445
The sony a7v is flat out superior

For some reason NPCs shill lumix. Panasonics cameras are pretty bad. Buggy, miss prone autofocus, mediocre lenses for lots of money. All they really do is enable as many video modes as the sensor supports to appear professional but most of those modes are totally useless (dci 4k! open gate! who cares?)

File: 1760277225483.png (572 KB, 679x578)

572 KB PNG

>>4505446
Do-all means accepting compromises of course.
But which one camera is the best if you have to buy one and stick to that for the next 10 years?
I'm a poorfag, I can't buy a new body and setup on a whim, but I'm saving up for a new camera because my A7S II died (repair shop told me he's dead jim). I've fallen back to using my phone and AE-1 for the time being.
>>4505450
No open gate and no de-squeze for anamorphic lenses tho. I want to film with anamorphic lenses, I do stupid shit like dangling out of cars sometimes so having a fuckhueg rig is off the table, not that I could afford it in the first place.

>>4505452
You do not need open gate to use an anamorphic lens. Stop listening to youtubers on the specs treadmill. You can frame wider. You can crop more and upscale. You will not notice.
Everyone will watch it 20ft away or at effectively 720p. Just tell normies and even academy awards cotwrs something is in 4k and they’ll believe it. They coumd be convinced that star trek: TOS was shot on an r5c.

>>4505452
open gate was for low resolution 4:3 sensing areas
like super 35
there is no appreciable resolution gain going from 16:9 to 3:2 and you are not using resolution limited film that is expensive and difficult to get more than 8mp from
take one step back wala
open gate on ff is dumber than caring about the 4k120 crop factor. step back! duh
>inb4 make sure the film is perfectly taut and flat, do everything perfectly and scan each frame on gfx100s with a flawless macro lens and film is better than that. i took a 120mp photo of my dog with a zenza bronica.
people literally could not do that 10 years ago and most still cant

File: Lumix.webm (2.72 MB, 720x1280)

2.72 MB WEBM

>>4505450
>The sony a7v is flat out superior
Don't fall for the snoy meme.

>>4505450
One shill, the snoy poster guy. Everyone else just goes with Canon or Sony but he loves his Panasoynic.

>>4505445
Z5

File: 1756093202094.jpg (38 KB, 511x350)

38 KB JPG

>>4505453
Alright then.
>>4505454
I can't walk back half a meter while I'm hanging out of the passenger window of a car ripping a drift on some mountain backroaf or doing an Autobahn pull. I know, stupid use case, but it's fun.
I've just watched the Gerald Undone review of the A7V, and I get what you mean. The only two things irking me now are that there's no RAW Video and that he literally tells me that I should go with Lumix if I want to shoot anamorphic.

File: Screenshot_20260418-19382(...).jpg (514 KB, 1080x1714)

514 KB JPG

>>>Pentax

File: DSC07923.jpg (585 KB, 2048x1363)

585 KB JPG

>>4505463

>>4505181
>should i stop being a pentax autist

no the lenses are damn near worthless and half the fun is rolling the lotto for a lens that you might really like. its dollar store gearfagging.

>k3 vs k1 vs kf

personally i wanna try a k3-3 but theyre nigh impossible to find used and $1800 new/$1200 used is rape for a dslr with 10 year old nikon d500 capabilities...ffs a d500 is a $6-700 usd camera in america. but being the newest ricoh it probably has the smartest auto settings re: iso/aperture/shutter/meter. i saw a few videos where its like a stop behind a k1 for most situations, but benefits from the smarter/more accurate autofocus (not just quicker, but more intelligent) which makes it sharper even on screw drive lenses

k1 is a brick with shite autofocus but can get really really nice pics

go k70/kf if you dont want to spend a lot or maybe try a sony a7iv ($1200-1500) + monster adapter ($400).

i got my k70 for $160 and my kf for $380, theyre the same other than the aperture solenoid and screen.

k3 is a fine option too, im running a junk condition one as a beater atm and its fine but it definitely doesnt have the dynamic range of the k70/kf....the newer sensor + accelerator unit makes it damn near iso-invariant for a apsc. k3 gets pretty grainy past iso 1600. would not bother with a kp (too much) and if you find a k3/k3ii pay <$300 for it (i paid $225 for mine)

if i had a massive fire and lost all my pentax bodies i'd probably buy another <$200 k70 and call it a day. sometimes tempted to sell the k1ii if a nice k3-3 comes up. pentax apsc just feels better

>>4505455
First shot definitely has that m43 look lol

File: IMG_20241225_175205.jpg (3.06 MB, 4080x3072)

3.06 MB JPG

henlo everyone, I just ordered a used eos 550d and a m42 to ef mount so I can use my grandpa's old soviet lenses (pic rel, some of the cameras he had, I wish people developed film in my shithole town but noone does, so going dslr&mount is the only way these things realistically get some use).
I have never used a dslr but I'm excited :D

>>4505401
I also really like the way nikon handles it and it's one of the main reasons i picked up my ZF. I shoot in RAW only but still have the presets on to visualize what my final edit may look like. Obviously it's not baked into the raw only the preview on my camera and mac but man when i'm on the spot and taking the time to pick my shots its a great thing to have.

>>4505459
On the other side, I use open gate for filming 100% of the time, anamorphic or not

Wait so you're telling me mirrorless lenses are optically imperfect requiring in-body correction, can't be adapted in the future, still lack critical focal lengths in the lineup 10 years on AND are more expensive? Well hell, sign me up! I don't want to look like a broke faggot in front of my friends.

>>4505459
If you cant step back, use a wider lens.

Id argue you dont even need THA BEST. The a7v does have like 16 stops of base ISO DR in stills but when was the last time you needed that? Its nice to have fkr sure, but 14 stop cameras already equal and exceed film and display mediums are only at 10 stop DR.

Fuck man. You dont even need 6k video.
>TO CROP!
No one can even fucking tell if 4k gets cropped to 1080p. Its video.

Also do not fucking listen to gerald undone
He is literally a paid advertiser like the slap chop/shamwow guy.

>>4505455
>misrepresented, fake test done in low resolution short form video
This must be the paid shill that tried making all the /gear/ threads and reposts shit constantly.

File: nikon_g_vs_e.png (63 KB, 646x478)

63 KB PNG

Be honest with me. Nikon G vs E pro zooms. There's nearly a 100% premium for the Es used. Actually worth it? I've been building up my stable with 1.8G primes. I'm not really concerned with having "the best of the best" but I am willing to spend money if it's worth it.

>>4505521
If you shoot sports or video, or buy a sony a7c or fuji xe, it’s worth it.

If you’re landscape wanking just buy a 16-35 f4 L and a 5div.

Isnt going from 16:9 to 3:2 open gate like going from a 35mm lens to a 32mm lens or something? Totally meaningless

File: 800px.jpg (102 KB, 762x800)

102 KB JPG

>>4505557
It allows more space from the image circle, which opens parts of the lens that aren't normally usable when the camera crops straight from the middle (as well as making a more graceful crop to other square ratios, if that's your intention). If you don't need it, then just crop from the middle like you normally would in editing anyway. This seems like a weird thing to get hung up on.

>>4505567
16:9 to 3:2 is literally nothing. A technicality for the kind of mind that installs gentoo on a desktop.

File: a11bed4ddf684c9e98f7157ac(...).jpg (184 KB, 1024x580)

184 KB JPG

>>4505557
Open gate is just recording with the full sensor, so usually 4:3 or 3:2
> going from a 35mm lens to a 32mm lens or something?
Same horizontal field of view, with a greater vertical field of view, you can also think of 16:9 as being open gate and then cropping the top and bottom parts off

Even if you are outputting to 16:9, open gate gives you better flexibility for deciding how to crop in post (and better cropping to other aspect ratios or vertical), better digital stabilization, gives you more resolution when working with anamorphic
On my camera, it gives me 2x the vertical resolution and 1.5x the horizontal resolution over the best 16:9/17:9 modes, which is a big jump

>>4505569
How many MP do you think is enough for a stills camera?

>>4505569
And just like that, Big Aspect Ratio's grip on the TV and film industry was no more. All it took was one brave soul to stand up and say, "Erm, ackshually, the difference between 1.5 and 1.7 repeating is pretty much a rounding error, EYE EM OH."

>>4505571
In practice its literally fucking nothing. That extra vertical FOV is like 2mm of lens.

>>4505572
>stills
30 with a quality OLPF
>video
12 with a quality OLPF
>huge prints/imax front row
100+

The difference may not be earth-shattering, but it's also not as insignificant as you make it seem. You haven't even said why it's supposed to be harmful.

>>4505582
Its insignificant and harms you by convincing you to limit yourself to certain brands when you can, in fact, film on literally anything

its video. people dont sit there looking at screengrabs to check out whatever detail isnt motion blurred.

>>4505577
Good thing people don't shoot open gate for that 2mm fov difference
>>4505583
You're right it shouldn't be a priority for most people, but silly to ignore all the potential benefits it brings

More bean soup theory at work by the resident schizo

>>4505583
>limit yourself to certain brands
This is it? Your reasoning just boils down to brandwhoring?

I choose my cameras based on my intended usage and whatever on-board features that will help me reach it faster. I've always wanted a full-sensor output feature, though it's never been a dealbreaker (and you couldn't get work if it was anyway), nor does it matter to me what brands it "limits" me to as long as I can still use my same lens collection (hint hint...).

Do you even work?

File: trollge.png (39 KB, 300x168)

39 KB PNG

>>4505539
>If you cant step back, use a wider lens.
There's 35mm and 55mm for the lens I'm aiming at.
>Id argue you dont even need THA BEST
Probably not, but again, I want to buy something that lasts me at least 10 years.
>The a7v does have like 16 stops of base ISO DR in stills but when was the last time you needed that?
I mostly do night time run-and-gun photography and videography (cars and nightlife, boring shit) and family events once at day once in a while.
I don't technically need 16 stops, I just want to be able to turn up dark spots or entire pictures, the A7S II did disappoint at times.
>You dont even need 6k video.
Correct, I don't care about that, 6k was incidental to the S1II, Gemini and ChatGPT recommended me that camera because de-squeeze and because anamorphics won't be too wide on open gate. Plus stacked sensor for a fast asf read out speed so I won't have too much rolling shutter distortions when I'm tracking cars going mach fuck from the sidelines.
Here's I want:
>Anamorphic night time aesthetics for my car friends' snapshit uploads and instameme edits
>Good event camera for family events
>Document my life sometimes
Pretty straight forward I guess.
>Also do not fucking listen to gerald undone
>He is literally a paid advertiser like the slap chop/shamwow guy.
Who do I listen to then?

>>4505587
de-squeeze in camera is something I thought I'd want, but I ended up not really caring about
it's not really necessary for 1.33x
for +1.5x it shrinks lcds so much they're not great for use, and any decent monitor has de-squeeze already
just food for thought, open gate is great through

>>4505586
>brandwhoring over 2mm of fov
The retard is considering blowing $4k on a sony with alternative firmware to film his friends breaking traffic laws m8

File: 1773012369206700.gif (2.25 MB, 640x360)

2.25 MB GIF

>>4505596
>H-HE'S GONNA BREAK THE LAW WITH THE WRONG CAMERA!
Please tell me you're trolling.

>>4505596
Meh. Not my money, not my high-fidelity and aesthetic evidence, not my problem. I still like having open gate.

>>4505596
>no, you actually want to use less of the sensor on your camera
Interesting perspective

>>4505636
>>4505615
>>4505610
>muh 1mm of sensor edges
אני עובד בפנסוניק, תן לי את כל הכסף שלך

File: s9.jpg (201 KB, 539x746)

201 KB JPG

>the perfect full frame travel setup doesnt exi-

>>4505656
Buy an ad

File: file.png (139 KB, 383x452)

139 KB PNG

>>4505656
kek

>>4505656
>no mechanical shutter so anything moving will distort severely
OH N-
>autofocus too slow and inaccurate to photograph anything moving so its not an issue
phew

>>4505656
>>4505660
>no mechanical shutter
Really? That's disgusting.

File: IMG_3976.jpg (20 KB, 389x514)

20 KB JPG

>>4505656
Imagine how tiny this guys hands must be for him to make it look that big

File: nba_d800.jpg (417 KB, 2560x1440)

417 KB JPG

The NBA uses a Nikon D800 with an AF-D 28mm f2.8 for under basket remote shots. Total cost of like $600 on MPB. And you think you need a Z8 to take photos of your ugly life.

>>4505660
>no mechanical shutter so anything moving will distort severely
and anything under artificial light will have scan lines

>Canoniggers releasing an R8 mark II
Did someone tell them that no one cares about the R8 ?

>>4505668
To be fair the d800 will more reliably take photos of animals running towards the camera than the z8

File: flicker_vs_clean.jpg (106 KB, 1600x900)

106 KB JPG

>>4505669
only if the light source is flickering

but yeah they really need to put at least EFCS or global shutter in that thing (if not mechanical).

File: Screenshot 2026-04-20 093234.png (1.25 MB, 1919x1075)

1.25 MB PNG

please be real

File: scans.png (1.04 MB, 1381x695)

1.04 MB PNG

>>4505689
>only if the light source is flickering
No, it depends on the shutter speed because of the hertz. If the shutter speed isn't matched up to the hertz, you'll get the lines.

>>4505656
>18-40
What the actual fuck...?

>>4505725
hnnnnng

>>4505725
>this kills the a7c

Fuck canoniggers for not releasing the R7 Mark II.

The R7 is great for what it is, but since I'm doing wildlife in the early morning/late evening or in forests, low light is crippling image quality and AF.
I'm strongly considering switching to FF. I have an R7 with the RF 100-500. What alternative setups would you recommend?

Other birders (mostly boomers) are almost all using the Nikon Z8 so I'm leaning towards that, especially for the fast electronic shutter, but I'm open for any suggestions.

>>4505749
Get the 200-800 and deal with the weight. Literally the best birding lens available.

>>4505761
What camera tho