>the perfect compact FF camera doesnt exi-ACKPreviously: >>4507402
>>4509022>you can only use first party lensesfucking dropped
>>4509022>the perfect compact FF camera doesnt exi-ACK
I'm looking to upgrade from my d3300. When I got it I was only interested in taking photos mainly portraits, but the occasional landscape and nature photo. In the decade since I have branched out into product photography and due to my work it would be a great assistance to be able to do good quality video content for my work. This will be talking head videos and product videos. In the video department the d3300 isn't cutting it, it's just awkward and I need better lower light performance. I have a dx35mm prime lens a af-s 50mm 1.8 a af-p DC 70-300. Overall I am content with the optical quality of these lenses but I think I'm going to need wider angle lenses. And ultimately given Nikon seems to be moving away from f mount these lenses will be junk eventually. What is the general recommendation here for my use case
>>4509065>ultimately given Nikon seems to be moving away from f mount these lenses will be junk eventually. If you buy a decent F mount mirrorless now, you'll still be set for years with all the old lenses since you'll still use the camera for years to come. I don't know enough about Nikon to recommend a specific camera but a mirrorless is what you'll want if video is needed.
>>4509065Z5II/Z50II if you want to stay with Nikon, but none of those lenses are really worth staying Nikon for
Looking at a rx100 vii for general hiking & bird watching photography. Been looking for a rx10 iv but they're rare and overpriced; I'm just looking for a camera I can have autistic fun with and my wife can also grab and use without swapping lenses on a hike. Any words of wisdom, O /p/?
>>4509147Is there a decent standard lens for Z5II? It seems really appealing but the only Nikon 40mm is a "budget" lens. I looked at the 7artisans 40mm and I'm not really sure if it's up to scratch... I did look at a few 35mm lenses for Z-mount, too (Nikon have three) but none of them seem so compelling that I'd sell all my current gear to trade up.
>new r series body>only 6.8 more MP What went wrong?
>>4509152The f1.4 primes are pretty budget, I would definitely look at other options like maybe an older Sony/Canon mirrorless if those aren't budget for you
>>4509152The 50 1.8 Z is also excellent for the price and relatively cheap
>>4509022>compact FF>camon r6v with 20 50 f4you retarded or what?
>>4509163they went for the video market insteadthis camera better make A7R V cheaper so I can buy one
>>4509163How many mp do you need?
>>4509163>>4509174I'm new to this but want an a7cr. Any idea when to see an effect on used prices and how much?
>>4509177This won't have an effect on used a7cr prices
>>4509179Aww. I thought it was similar in specs to rv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDhbKSdqqb8THIS KILLS THE CANON
new garbage just dropped
>>4509193this is great,can't wait for when they put them in cameras
Thought the X100 series was popular but nobody replies to my X100T ad
Will 2026 be the year of JXL? Should I start developing my new raw images into JXL?
>>4509150If you don't care about EVF a Canon G3X is the smallest with biggest zoom range on 1" sensor.If you do care about EVF get a FZ1000 mk1 or mk2 (FZ2000 is okay too but a little bigger / heavier).
>>4509213Wasn't on my radar but looks sweet. Appreciate it.
>bought fast lenses without realizing my r50 only goes to 1/4000 shutter>have to put the cope sunglasses or buy the r7
>>4509245It will do 1/8k in electronic shutter, and as long as you keep and eye on your highlights you can over expose and bring it down.
>>4509022just come to have a whinge about eBay's new seller fee policy since I already sold a couple grand worth of bodies and lenses in the last year. if I had sold them NOW... I wouldn't have lost 13.4% of my sales to eBay. whinge over. hoping I can take advantage of this and that it will also make prices better on used gear going forward since hobby sellers won't have to compensate for eBay's cut.
Will consumers ever be able to obtain good digital cameras that are capable of taking good color photos, or are we stuck with the current garbage (and trends) that we have today?Every single camera on the market truly sucks right now and I don't like it.I never shoot at ISO 1600 but even at ISO 64 any scene with really vibrant colors never functions properly.Bright colorful LEDs?Haha, they're clipping their appropriate color channel but also boosting the other ones, because sensitivity overlap, causing your on-sensor capture to be skewed into a mutt bastard false color. For example when something is equal to RGB 255 / 0 / 0 in real life like a very bright red LED, the sensitivity overlap means some of that red's intensity actually gets recorded in your greens and blue photosites. If you ever clip that red, you lose color context. Basically if the sensor would record a pure color in a 100%/15%/3% ratio, a profile can try to cope around that and consider anything 100%/15%/3% equivalent to red. If that red ever gets overexposed you can't go above 100% at capture, so 2-stop overexposed would be 400%/ 60%/12% in theory but limited to 100%/60%/12% in practice. In other words not even fucking close to the red and completely beyond repair.No color profiling can cope around this.Phase One and their "Trichromatic" design is how all sensors should be made.Some older CCDs performed closer to that then they do today.I'm so tired of all these "influencers" shilling "color science" memes and algorithmic slop and insisting digital is editable. It isn't. I want better data capture, and don't care about sports ISO. I will never use Lightroom or download some presets or want to "grade" with fake color painting/masking.I just want closer to WYSIWYG output than what is currently available from anything you can buy today.Is this going to be an eternal hell or will something save us from this mess? Phones maybe? I don't trust Jap camera brands. They have failed us.
>>4509022just ordered an olympus stylus 1, how retarded am I?
>>4509260sigma foveonI will not forgetI have hope it will come
>>4509261>how retarded am I?depends on what you want to do with itspill the beans
Is there any logical reason for the Canon G12 to be priced at over 500 bucks when similar models and perhaps even better ones in the same form factor go for way below that? It has to be one of the strangest examples of tiktok zoomzoom camera hype I have seen.
>>4509263>>4509263cheaper thing to chuck it in the jacket pocket when I don't want to carry around my main camera + lensDoesn't cost a billion dollarydoos, packs up pretty small, 28-300mm lens range with constant f2.8, evf and apparently compatible with the modern OM app.
>>4509262While Foveon avoids moire and results in higher quality by capturing full RGB per output pixel, the tech does nothing to address these color issues. There is significant overlapping still and that means it shares the same problem.Foveon isn't a cure and is essentially an over hyped meme because the people producing it are fraudulent retards who lie about specs.
>>4509259Is this the no more seller fee thing? Is that a worldwide thing? I still dont get how the sellers pay nothing and now the buyers pay the fees. As a buyer i wouldnt even touch ebay and go buy from amazon where i don't have to pay for a fee to use the service...
>>4509260>wall of whiningI bet you take great photos
>>4509260>>4509268Who are some industry experts or accomplished photographers talking about this issue?
>>4509260>I'm so tired of all these "influencers" shilling "color science" memes and algorithmic slop and insisting digital is editableAnd we're all tired of slop posts like this on the board
Z5, Z6, A7III or A7C? I mostly take photos of scenery and aircraft and am trying to minimize size and weight due to an injury. The Z5 is kind of slow and not much cheaper than Z6s, and I'm not sure if I'm better off performance wise getting a Z6 or if it will be equivalent with an A7III or A7C. The A7C is very tempting because it's very light.I would like to keep my Nikon lenses like my 24-70 f2.8, 400mm f4D (non AFS), 50mm F1.4, and I understand they're all adaptable but the screw drive lenses won't AF anymore so I know I'll probably want to buy the AF-S versions eventually. I currently have a D600.
>>4509274If you're getting mirrorless, no point in investing for the AF-S versionsI would honestly just get a D850 if your wanting to use your existing stuff, or a7c if down to start from scratch
>>4509275>If you're getting mirrorless, no point in investing for the AF-S versionsNTA but AF-S is mandatory to retain AF with mirrorless.
>>4509277No shitIf you have a Z, you should put your money into Z glass, not upgrading your AF-D to AF-SOr just get one of the working AF-D adapters
>>4509275>I would honestly just get a D850Ok, that's cool, but like I said I am looking at mirrorless because they're smaller and lighter but still FF not because I want to upgrade to newer better gear. Basically mirrorless is a no-brainer way to shave half a pound or more from my hiking gear to help compensate and get to my more strenuous day hikes in the mountains.>>4509277This + I am looking at used cameras, for example I'd be going from my screw drive 300mm F4 which won't AF on a mirrorless to a 300 F4 AF-S, it's still a 10 year old used lens. I'm sure the Z mount or E mount equivalent of the 300mm F4 is amazing, but it's probably also $2,000+ and I don't use my telephoto often enough for that to be worth it. I read about the LA-FZ1 for screw drive lenses and it seems like it sucks ass and would not be worth it to adapt a couple of old $400 lenses.
>>4509279>no-brainer way to shave half a pound or moreExcept the bodies you listed save you 85g, 125g or 165g, so more like a quarter lb, that then gets eaten up by the extra battery or two you'd want to bringIf going mirrorless, swapping to the Z 24-70 or 28-75 would save you even more weight than that
