I'll start this off, just upgraded from my aging FF to a new APS-C and I feel much more at home. Does anyone else came back to the forbidden fruit?
>>4519845Personally I have a few little APS-C and m43 gems in my cabinet I like to come back to every once in a while, but I strongly prefer the image quality from full frame. I also prefer the range of DOF you get with the average FF setup, and I prefer the lens interactions on FF.
Full frame is just better, and there’s a good reason most art photography is on 6x6, 6x7, 4x5, etcBackground noise and DOF equivalence doesn’t tell the whole story. Just the part that’s most easily understood.
about to pick this up for my a-mount collection, should be comparable to a nikon d5500/canon 80d but better autofocus (same sensor as a5100)i'm going to sell my a58 for $140 to make up for it, not a bad camera and its definitely the smallest of the newer SLT cameras with sticky af (i find the autofocus on this a58 being as good as my "nice" pentaxes like the k3/k1ii; the eye AF makes portraits a breeze so the a68 should be exciting). a68 is a a77ii with a plastic lens mount and no weathersealing. was initially looking for an a77ii but they're like $400 when they come up for sale...ditto a77. would rather spend the cash on a ff a900/a99. and often the a77s have delaminated screens. i could've offered $200 but he wants $250 on ebay too...figure i offer him what he would get minus ebay ees from me and i save on the tax. $220 for a net of $80.
>>4519852When is bro gunna get onto the canon stuff
>>4519851On my long lenses I exclusively use crop bodies. Bigger resolution, more detail, subject fills the frame better, much higher burst rate to catch a fleeting moment or movement, it is just better allaround. For example my FF has 36MP and the APS-C crop mode yields 16MP. Even the 45MP Canon R5 only gets you 18MP in crop mode, while a crop sensor from 10 years ago had 24MP. An R7 gives you 32MP. More pixel density, more detail, more resolution. APS-C is just better when it comes to wildlife and sports, anything with a long lens. And a BRRRRRRT instead of a slowpoke clack-clack
>>4519852Bad idea, A mount was expensive snowflake mount and it is still expensive and rare. Get a Canon 7D Mk2 or a Nikon D7200/D500 instead and you will have access to the massive EF and F mount used lens market. Cheaper altogether
>>4519845>buy So-ACK!
>>4519856This shill is low IQCan you upgrade your indian to an AI, nikon marketing?
>>4519856Can I have neither
>>4519845>Nikon>2026>can't use zebras in stills mode>no live view blinkiespathetic.Why even bother going mirrorless if you don't allow best capabilities of EVF?
>>4519853never i turned down a $100 finepix s3 because i didnt want to drive 2 hours (if i find a $100 5d maybe) >>4519855anon...i said a-mount collection >3x 5ds>2x 7ds >2x a100s>1x a390s>maxxum 7000i 35mm>a58 ofc and a bunch of autofocus maxxum lenses (28-75mm km f2.8, 35-70mm f/4, 50mm f1.4 sony, 135mm f2.8, 100-300mm apo, 28mm f2.8, 35mm f1.8 sony, 100-200mm f4.5)i actually shill people on the canon/nikons for dslr recs but i just love how the 5d/7ds render photos; pic rel was 7d + 100-200mm sooc. a390 is pretty damn good. the raws are super pliable. sony ccd jpeg engine is complete shit but the raws are nice just converting them to jpeg in LR>>4519859>why bother going mirrorlessso true anon i didnt read the rest after that
>>4519859The shillbot is here. https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/XpsE3uA7KHqX8mXYO7v57Q/Every image it posts has been posted beforeEverything it says has been said beforeSay what you will to it. It will never remember. It will never change its mind. Its job is to keep saying what it was programmed to until you leave and a naïve user eventually encounters it without any pesky humans warning them that its bullshittingIt has never posted an original photo or proof of camera ownership, or humanityWoe unto the fool that mistakes it for a human with reasonIts owner does not want you to buy a used DSLR. Its owner does not want you to buy a sony. Why might this be? Who or what is threatened by old DSLRs and sony?
>>4519860>$100 5d maybeDefinitely do-able. You could probably find a 5D classic or 5D2 for that price if you're lucky. I've found a couple for that price or lower.
>>4519861DSLRs generally dont have wifi, or good wifi. Newer cameras are probably easier to get into and made after advances in spy tech. Sony wifi is shit and barely works if the phone is sitting on the camera. So guess.
ohw shit waddup!
>>4519863Mine does. And bluetooth.Ironically it is a Pentax
>>4519865Pentax has live view blinkies does it not?I wonder if blinkies aren’t warning us about impending overexposure, but actually, mossad spying :o
>>4519866It is just clipping warning. In viewfinder mode it has a dynamic range protection mode where it adjusts exposure compensation to avoid clipping. It does not warn you it just works.
>>4519859They aim to be as good as Canon, which is a low bar.At least on Nikon there is a workaround to use Picture Controls to override clipped colors in the EVF, but clipping indication is saved in JPEGS.https://github.com/horshack-dpreview/NikonPictureControlsDev
>>4519868Who the fuck cares about fucking JPEGs? I shoot RAW!
>>4519864>decade old camera from other manufacturer has better feature set than 2026 Canikonmany such cases.
>>4519871thats a sign the features are dumb gimmicks for anyone who knows how to use a camera
Why is everyone chimping out over zebras for stills? I the last time I blew out a highlight was maybe 3 years ago.
Is it accurate to say Nikon is the camera of eco terrorists?
>>4519875>eco terrorists>8x disposable alkalines
>>4519874Its a bot thats meant to discourage buying used DSLRs and encourage buying panasonic products
>>4519856Why is the Sony lens double the length?
>>4519878If you have to pick between used Canikon DSLR or Canikon mirrorless, definitely go for used DSLR because Canikon barely has the features that make mirrorless an upgrade.
>>4519883For a start it's a full frame lens. Nikon's full frame 24mm is even bigger, in fact it's even than Sony's 24mm f/1.4. I suppose it's a good thing if you never plan on upgrading to full frame. However it's just a case of cherry picking, it's just as easy to do a comparison where Sony comes out on top.
You guys are getting lost in the sauce with features and specs that don't matter. Compare some samples. Not benchmarks, actual samples.
you too could own a ff mirrorless no excuses if youre poor /p/
>>4519907Why wouldn't you get the EOS R over the RP? They're basically the same price on the used market.
>>4519903We had two posters who did proper comparisons with their dogs and everyone hated them because they showed and agreed upon the truth - that sensor size was the single largest determinant of subjective quality („tonality“), and that this was obvious to anyone who saw the original light of the scene or used a different camera for that very moment.Allegedly both were established professionals, as in, the guy who sells prints of mountains and flowers at farmers markets. Everyone agreed to never acknowledge the truth ever again and ever since then it has been widely recognized that doing gear comparisons is pointless, especially since half of every gear thread is AI and people who might as well be AI.
>>4519908The R is typically a few hundred more used which is a lot if you are on a tight budget.
>>4519911I'd say worth it. I've seen EOS R's for less that than 580 USD on facebook marketplace. I think the RP in particular has a bit of a reputation regarding build quality, even if the internals are good. R8 is another consideration but I think thats more expensive still.
>>4519907Just buy an old z6/z5 for povertymaxxingIts the same shit as the Z6II with one less card slot and pattern noise with 6 stop shadow pushes
>>4519913I didn't know the RP had a bad reputation for build. Too bad, it seems like a great camera.
>>4519897>For a start it's a full frame lens>Sony shills are just making shit up now
>>4519916>thirdie snoyschizo arguing with himself over how big shitty budget lenses are because their spines disintegrate if they strap on more than a poundkek. funniest shit ever. you already had an argument with yourself over the 40mm f2.5 last thread. when will you get tired of it? its literallly the same stupid shit every timeYour screen must look sad>my cherry picked pxlmag comparison!>no mine! (You)>no mine! snoy bad! (You)>no snoy good! snoy is the best! detailed proof i had ready for some reason! (You)>no snoy bad!!!! i am silly! (You)Its every thread bro. When will you stop arguing with yourself about snoy shit no one here uses or cares about? This is a DSLR board. Mirrorless is for video. DSLRs are for photographers who appreciate seeing the light of the scene.
>>4519917I think its how he pretends he’s not poor and can afford a camera
>>4519903There's basically no image quality difference between modern cameras of same sensor size if you're recording RAWs.Autofocus is good enough with all brands in the last 10 years except Fuji.That leaves feature set as the main difference. Good feature set helps photographers take perfect photos fast. Poor feature set impedes, causing missed/bad shots in fast-paced photography.For beginners the feature set doesn't matter much since you are the bottleneck, but once you master your part you realize that the camera could do things better, and when you try out different brands you realize that there is a wide gulf between the best and the rest, and an even wider gulf between best and perfect.
>>4519923Most digital camera features are fucking useless. Only these>exposure bracketing (burst)>focus bracketing>pixel shift>IBISAre of any useYou’ll notice, eventually, that the more experienced people are the worse their camera is. Up to leica.
>>4519854If you're mostly concerned with pixels on target "birding, racetrack, plane spotting, etc." then APS-C is absolutely superior. It kind of just comes down to the sheer price, weight, and size needed to get beyond 200mm. Even "standard" 100-400mm lenses are not small per se, but if for some reason you needed the FoV of a 800mm lens lol go fuck yourself that'll be like $2000-5000.On crop you can get 800mm FoV with a relatively standard 100-400mm lens and a 1.4x teleconverter. Yeah it'll be like f/11 equivalent, but were you really going to spend all that money and haul around an 800mm f/5.6 super telephoto? Full frame is superior from UWA to about 200mm I reckon. Give or take your specific mount's lens selection. After that it just gets prohibitive even if it'll produce technically better photos.
>>4519890Canon MILC having RGB histo is quite nice (even if it's for the JPEG preview and not the RAW).
>>4519925>>IBISLowk I think ibis is a meme. The lens stabilisation is more important imo, you only need it for long lenses, but even on short ones its pretty good.
>>4519944Cant ibis screw with image quality or something? Seems pretty prone to color stretching in certain cases.
>>4519945IBIS corrections can introduce motion blur in the corners, particularly in wide angle lenses. Maybe someone remembers the article. On a tripod, they say to turn if off because some systems expect some shake. The pros outweigh the cons for most people.
>>4519945If your device is malfunctioning it can introduce additional shake rather than less, but usually if ibis break the sensor just sags.
>>4519945IBIS on my R6II seems to cause a bigger delay between activating AF and getting a stable image vs my R10 which seems practically instant. I don't even mean the difference of double the delay or anything, I've had 24mm shots taken within a full second of activatng focus come out with blurry corners. I feel like I'm babysitting it more than the R10.
>>4519925Please include:>RGB Histogram>Eye tracking AF (and/or) Joystick>DoF Preview
>>4519916Who the fuck is paying $900 for apshit-c lenses?
>>4519942TBF 400mm is all you need with APS-C. 400mm is the sweetspot of superteles, it gives you the reach while you still don't shoot through a whole lot of atmosphere minimizing detrimental atmospheric effects. 600mm and 800mm are specifically wildlife and birding lenses and only good for the same reach as with the 400mm but when your subject is tiny. 800mm is excellent when you want to fill your frame with a kinglet or a warbler and other tiny birds, also good luck aiming lol. Anything further the atmospheric effects get magnified profoundly.400mm lenses are (kind of) cheap because it is the most common format while the 600-800mm are specialty lenses. Also the amount of glass.Now there are the Sigma/Tamron 150-600 lenses, those are technically 400mm lenses, the IQ gets soft and shit towards the end. I would sooner recommend someone the RF 100-400 than those shits.
>>4519961Fuji users?
>>4519969The Fuji 23/2 is like half of that
>>4519944I've been using IBIS for more than a decade, there is nothing wrong with it. If it is problematic send it back under warranty to be replaced or fixed. If you are in a third world country without warranty (USA) then you can still turn it off. But a properly working IBIS, even a basic 2 axis one is going to improve your shots.
>>4519971Wait, Fuji is better than Nikon now? I have been away for far too long.
>>4519944You also want stabilization for low light shots with shorter lenses.
>>4519916Not lying, just mistaken. I thought the 24mm was introduced along with the 55mm for the original A7. A reasonable assumption given all the other Zeiss primes are full frame.
Honest question, no desire to start any kind of flame war or anything - how much of autofocus performance is related to lens and how much to the body? I know it sounds like stupid question but I simply want to know. When shooting at high iso values (1600-6400) and wide opening (2.8) I see that many shots that were considered "okay" by camera AF system appears slightly off-focus at PC monitor. Since that behaviour was similar on two different bodies (D750 and Z5 II) with shared same lens (Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2) I got little confused since I thought that AF performance is purely body territory.I don't want to blame gear, I honestly want to get better and overcome my errors.
>>4520009>how much of autofocus performance is related to lens and how much to the bodyThere are some exceptions but for the most part:>The bodyHandles actual target aquisition, so its responsible for tracking setting the desired position, figuring out exactly where the AF should be.>The lensContains the focusing motor (usually, some older DSLRs have it in the body) so the lens is responsible for recieving the focusing information from the camera body and using the motor to set the commanded focus distance as quickly as possible. The lens can hamper focusing speed if the focusing motor is slow, bottlenecking the process. For example if you use an old stepper motor lens on a brand new mirrorless camera, the camera will be able to aquire the correct focus point instantly, no different from any other lens, but the lens will take longer to actually set that focus. Beyond that, the kind of motor used in the lens, the lens won't make much difference to autofocus speed. Pretty much all first party lenses with ultrasonice motors will be fast focusing, and won't have much difference between them. Sometimes third party lenses, even with ultrasonic motors can be a little slower as lens firmware doesn't mesh as cleanly with the camera, but this was more an issue for the DSLR era, its less noticable with mirrorless.To answer your question about the focus accuracy, usually focus accuracy is an issue of the camera dialing in the wrong focus point and sending that to the camera. However, since you're using a third party lens, you may just have to go into your cameras settings and mess around with per lens focus adjustment. This is likely the answer if you're missing focus by the same amount every time. Third party lenses often need some kind of calibration. ISO and aperture value won't affect autofocus in stills. Aperture will a bit if you're shooting video, with wider apertures being more accurate.
>>4519968400mm lenses in general just seem to be where the industry had a hard stop. After that you don't really have any zoom options so you need to buy these behemoth prime teles that cost far too much for it to make sense. It honestly feels like a smarter play to purposefully buy an APS-C body and pair it with your normal tele (70-200, 100-400 etc.). Like the EF 600mm f/4 III is $13,000. Just get an R7 for 10% of that despite your practical aperture being two stops slower using a 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6.>I would sooner recommend someone the RF 100-400 than those shits.Funny because I own this and even with the super narrow aperture, you still need to stop down at least a 1/3rd a stop to get acceptable IQ. f/9 is not fun at 400mm. Its main selling point really is the lighter weight and the size. I only ever use this at the race track and honestly I think I'm gonna sell it and get an RF 70-200 F/4. I used to have a 70D and the 55-250 STM (which was a $150 kit lens mind you) and I reckon total IQ of the RF 100-400 doesn't quite reach that crop combo.
>>4520011There are probably more X-500/600mm zooms than there are X-400mm ones, unless you're only looking at first party lenses. I'm not really sure why third parties seem to focus on the former but the first parties tend to give up at 400mm.
>>4520010Okay, thank you. I guess I would need some precise measurement range for proper AF calibration. I didn't notice any problems with focus on bright light, however, always in low, indoor light (and dancing performances). Maybe it's also related to how I use AF in such situations (single area, AF-C and simply adjust position of AF rectangle manually) but I don't know any better (tried using this auto detection setting but it would too easily change subject if detecting something more optimal within range).
>>4520010The Sigma 150-600 is known to have an unusable AF performance, randomly starting pulsating around the focus but not hitting it, this on Canon RF systems, I have seen it on R5 and R7 so it might be system wide. Did not hear from the Nikon performance but my experience with Sigma telezooms says to avoid them anyway.>>4520009Your experience says the lens or body might received a knock at some point, it needs AF microadjustments, it is usually in the menu. It makes sense on a DSLR but on mirrorless the AF is in the plane of the sensor, not separate, so it should be hitting the focus spot on. I had not heard about AF adjustment on a mirrorless body. Could be something up with the lens focusing, might need cleaning and a thorough service. I would have it looked at.
>>4520030>The Sigma 150-600 is known to have an unusable AF performanceHm, that's interesting, I didn't know that. Sounds like a firmware issue with the motor overshooting input values. Probably fixable with firmware upgrade, if sigma decides to make a statement on the matter.
recommendations for a camera and a lens that I can carry with me at all times mainly to shoot outdoor cats, sometimes in low light, from a few metres away? And other general shotos of everything so preferably a zoom to be versatileI don't post on social media so I care about every pixel being as sharp as possible for my own pleasure
>>4520034>camera and a lens that I can carry with me at all timesThis really depends on what you're willing to carry. An old FF dslr and a zoom lens would be the best price per performance option, but not everyone wants to carry that. If size and weight are important to you, you could try a crop sensor sony mirrorless camera like a sony a6000 series, with the folding EPZ kit lens, or an m43 camera like an olympus EM10 / EM5 with the folding kit lens. If you want small and really high quality images, you will probably need to go something full frame mirrorless. Though if you want to keep this small, you're probably going to need to go for a prime lens rather than a zoom, as pretty much all full frame zoom lenses are big.
>>4520037thanks. where is that screenshot from?
>>4520038Its an online camera + lens size comparison toolhttps://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison/Or if you dont wanna click links just google 'pxlmag size comparison tool'
>>4520038Its not a very accurate site imho. Look at photos of people holding the camera you want instead for a realistic sense of scale. It quickly becomes obvious that “huge problematic differences” per /p/ are nothing IRL. Here’s a normal sized guy with a full frame sony a7c and a “big” zoom lens. Its tiny. It would fit in a jacket pocket with the zeiss 35mm f2.8 or viltrox 26mm f2.8 pancakes. Real life advice: avoid micro four thirds like the plague! The most compact lenses are all kinda shit and IQ is phonelike. FF is better, APS-C is budget and still better. The sony a7c and canon r7 killed micro four thirds.
>>4520040even the "large" full frame cameras are really small in real life. slightly smaller than a phone in 2d and maybe 3-4x thicker. there isn’t an appreciable gap between a nikon z5ii and olympus em5 in real life until comparing wide aperture, high quality full frame lenses to micro four thirds shitters that are equivalent to ff f3.4 primes and zooms with tiny aperture ranges like f11-16. Full frame also has richer colors and renders more 3d looking images due to the effect of using larger photosites and larger lenses. All micro four thirds can do to excuse itself is have exactly as much background noise in SOME small aperture, high ISO shooting situations.
>>4520040>>4520041Trvke. Everything between a ricoh GR (truly pocketable) and a medium format mirrorless or FF DSLR (4lb hunk the size and shape of a kitchen appliance) is basically the fucking same. An obvious camera that might fit in a coat pocket but really belongs on a strap.
>>4519873yeah, and when light meters in the viewfinder started appearing on cameras some boomers called that a dumb gimmick as well.
>>4520043Blinkies have existed for over a decade and remain a niche video feature for wrangling the nonexistent editing lattitude of 10 bit compressed log footageAt some point its just easier to know how to use a camera. And that point is blinkies. They aren’t even raw-accurate except on sony.
>>4519943>>4519950Histograms are obsoleted by exposure simulation. (unless you are using an unshaded rear screen to compose)Do you need to look at a graph or meter to select one of these exposures?The only exposure assist needed on modern mirrorless EVF is clipping indication since it's not possible to tell the difference between very bright and clipped on an EVF otherwise, and the ideal exposure for maximizing signal to noise is often just under clipping for the highlight you want to keep.
>>4520045Clipping indication is genuinely useless (if you need it, you are new, or shooting compressed and processed video) and exposure simulation frequently fucks with autofocus and accurate composition when shooting backlit or just dark.
>>4520040The site is accurate - as long as you scale the site to a ruler but /p/ tends to give small differences in size too much importance. And those sites don't give you a sense of the weight or handling. APS-C is pretty likeable for a compact setup which is why I keep mine around despite maining FF. But if I had to have just one camera, an A7C would be the best compromise.>>4520041people defending m43 as the idea compact setup are still stuck in 2009>>4520042I can't stand influencers saying the GR is pocketable. I have one and you CAN put it in a pocket but it is not comfortable especially if you have keys and a phone. Great in a jacket though. Some of the old digicams were much better for actually slipping into a pocket without noticeable bulk and weight but a smartphone beats out all of those and with better quality. Everything larger, as you say, belongs on a strap.
>>4520047Sell your computer phone, buy a kosher phone. You’ll have much more pocket room.
>>4520031It is absolutely a firmware problem and an incompatibility with Canon's lens communications and of course, just like before Canon does nothing to mitigate the problem and Sigma is left on their asses because they lack the complete specs of the RF mount to properly fix the issue. There are some guidelines that help avoiding the pulsing focus loop but it is not 100% and you will have issues right when you need the precise focus the most. Just avoid Sigma.
>>4520048Never heard of it. What are they like and why did you get one?
>>4520050It’s a dumbphone with useless, life worsening features removed and preloaded scripture and prayer reminders for smart people such as myself
>>4520051based
>>4519923>There's basically no image quality difference between modern cameras of same sensor size if you're recording RAWs.A lot of cameras have no or poor optical low pass filters which results in pervasive moire and false colour effects with sharp lenses. Fuji's X-trans sensors, though they do not have OLPF, are pretty effective at avoiding moire.
>>4520042Nah. I very much feel the difference between my small m43 camera (e-p7 with the pancake zoom or a small prime) and my slightly larger aps-c kit (Fuji with the recent 16-50). I would prefer m43 if the IQ wasn't kinda bad.
>>4520056No, they are not. This is a pervasive myth. Fuji has moire issues. Its still a regular repeating pattern. Its just that fuji moire has the same structure as chroma noise so cranking smeary NR reduces moire (capture one has a slider for the “xtrans effect”, not sure about lightroom)Additionally, ACR has an objectively inferior demosaicing algorithm. These raws look SIGNIFICANTLY different if you take them off dpreviews site and open them in a real program like capture one or dxo. Even darktable can do better than the dogshit they put on dpreview. You are encouraged to stop using their tool entirely except to download raws. You will notice that their lighting changes camera to camera if you do, which means many comparisons are invalid.
>>4520059based 5'4" femboy fox
>>4520060>Its still a regular repeating patternYes, but the pattern is much more organic which makes it less likely to interfere with the typical textures being photographed which generate moire.
>>4520063>more organic>a pixel grid with 2x2 green only dead zonesFuji just has false color and worms instead. In addition to moire on diagonals instead of verticals. And lower color resolution. Xtrans is an engineering failure. Its purpose is clearly cost cutting. Fuji is a CFA manufacturer. They do not make OLPFs. Bayer with an OLPF is superior to xtrans by a large margin. But fuji saves a ton by buying one less component from other businesses.
>>4520056Reposition the crops to be over the text, portion, and you can see a much bigger difference between xtans and others when it comes to fine detail
>>4520065no way the company that literally resold a less reliable d200, discontinued all their film and threw build quality into the trash after the xt3 would never cut costs
>>4519973What are you on about?
>>4520037I don't think any camera body size is an issue for me (don't need the vertical grip tho obviously), I just don't want the lens to be too long. while ideally being somewhere in the 20? to 150 mm-ish range I think. don't really know how much narrow focal length I need.
>>4519866>Pentax has live view blinkies does it not?Yes. Pentax is amazing.
>>4519907>EOS RP with an APS-C lensIs this bait?
>>4520074>20? to 150 mm-ishThis will be a massive lens on full frame. A 24-105 is already a decently large lens. I would definitely consider a crop sensor or shooting primes. Personally I basically only use prime lenses on my full frame cameras.
>>4520074the camera comparison site lets you pick lenses to put on the camera and it tells you how long they are physically. crop is worth a look >>4520083, my vote is for the the RF-S 18-150mm which hits that range and is pretty compact
>>4520074You dont need more than a 35mm prime
>>452007424-105mm f/4, plus the 1.5x crop mode on a high res FF body gets you to a nearly 160mm equivalent. The crop option does save you about 350g but doesn't go quite as wide (28mm equiv). It's also not as equivalently fast, ideally you'd be wanting an f/2.8 to make up for the ~1 stop worse sensor performance.
>>4520089Chad option right here
>>4520091Genuinely I think he would be very happy with a DSLR and a 50/1.4, a 35/2 or an 85/2.
>>4520034>recommendations for a camera and a lens that I can carry with me at all times mainly to shoot outdoor cats, sometimes in low light, from a few metres away? And other general shotos of everything so preferably a zoom to be versatileThe only actually compact FF setup you'll ever need.
>>4520093He wants one do it all lens though. While he could be happy 8 times out of 10 with one of those options there will be those times when he'll be unhappy.
>>4520095I love the white version but I'm afraid it will get yellowed/dirty looking with use.
>>4520095>same sensor as a7c missing everything else>no mechanical shutter, 1/30s readout=dramatic distortion, panning and action verboten>no hot shoe can not use flash>unusable af-c worse than fuji, inaccurate in full res stills because everything panasonic does is meant for lower res (8mp) 4k video>panasonic color science, worst in the industry>L mount has no pancake lenses (fixed f8 doesnt count)>40mm muffin is so soft a viltrox is better, sony f2.5 is sharper at f2.5 than it is at f5.6-8Whenever you wonder how sony sells so well, remember, its because the other option is a POS like thisPanasonic is the literal bottom brand. No one buys this shit except for video nerds that want literally every cool sounding feature so they can call everything cinematic>OH MY HECCIN DOGGO IS THAT DCI OPEN GATE? ITS SO CINEMATICOh but wait 4k60 is cropped 1.5x so its not even cinematicPanasonic: the only cameras so bad they actually hired a guy to advertise on /p/
>>4520095Imagine having a "kit zoom" that cannot "zoom" to 50mm.
>>4520102fairly certain the L mount "alliance" with leica includes a non compete clause that disallows panasonic from making any camera that could detract from sales of the Q, since any panasonic L can use a leica lens, ergo the S9 actually had to be unusably shit because the leica Q isnt actually very good either and the bare functional minimum would blow it out of the water
>>4520095>f4.5-6.3This was retarded when sony released the 28-60 and its still retarded nowLiterally micro four thirds aperture sizes
>>4520105canon rf mount does the same shitwhy do they use tiny apertures
>>4520106Probably because ISO performance is better than its ever been, so super bright lenses are less necessary, especially for hobbyists.
>>4520104Leica is irrelevant and is probably going to be bought out by a Chinese private equity firm for a measly billion dollars. Panasonic can afford to keep Lumix in business because they make money selling toasters and business electronics. Leica on the other hand is going the way of Rollei, Minolta, Polaroid, Kodak and Yashica (relabled Chinese trash). Soon you will be able to buy a Chinese junk camera with a Leica label. Oh wait, they've already whored out their name with Chinese junk companies like Insta360, Huawei, and Xiaomi so you can do that today! I guess slapping a Leica label on Lumix cameras and trying to charge a fortune didn't work out too well for them!
>>4520107Its the same as it was 10 years ago. 1600+ looks kinda bad. 3200+ looks bad. 6400+ looks worse. 12800+ wtf use your phone.
>>4520110>Its the same as it was 10 years ago10 years ago it was also pretty good. At least on high end cameras.
>>4520106To sell a pancake lens to "street photographers" probably.
>>452011110 year old high end cameras are $500 now. What has gotten better is recovering 5 stops of shadows. But it still… looks bad.
>>4520106Cost cutting and upgrade scams. Nothing else. They charge more for less and make less more disappointing than ever to drive you towards more. Imagine being a company and seeing redditors calling $1000 shit entry level, cautiously recommending top tier cameras that outdo the 1dxIII in many ways as if they aren’t good enough and your camera journey is not even beginning, posting with pride about snapping their cat with a gfxWhy wouldn’t you instantly begin butt fucking those stupid fucking cattle as hard as possible?>Oh you’re that stupid? Pay us $500 for an 18-40 f4.5-6.3!
>>4520105Even the full frame Lumix kit mini zoom f/4.3-6.3 is faster than the m43 kit lenses which are f/7-f/11 equivalent, let alone the Sony f/4-5.6 kit mini zoom.
Get thisLumix made a 24-60mm f2.8Lmao
What god do I have to pray to for Nikon to make a ZF2 with a slightly higher megapixel sensor? Love the camera because it looks good and has all the physical dials you need, but I also need to do some larger prints sometimes. Z7ii is good but showing it's age, Z8 is too big of an investment for the level I operate at.
>>4520103Imagine having a kit lens that can only go as wide as 28mm lmao
>>4520122>What god do I have to pray to…yhwh>… for Nikon to make a ZF2 with a slightly higher megapixel sensor?baal
>>4520102full of poopoo as usual>>L mount has no pancake lenses (fixed f8 doesnt count)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNTSobQN_Cc
>>4520125>baalWorried this was the case.The ZF is the perfect body size for me as I mostly adapted F mount AIS glass and a couple of their smaller Z mount primes. I typically shoot abandoned buildings or deep in the woods landscapes so a light, somewhat small kit is a priority to me. I have an opportunity to have one of my prints hung up in a local art gallery and I want to be able to print a decent size image. I'm just worried about the 24mp holding me back or showing it's weaknesses at 20x24
>>4520128That’s the toy lens everyone (you) made fun of sony for. Even the dog snappers didnt like it. L mount has no pancakes bruv.
>>4520102>>panasonic color science, worst in the industry
>>4520129I printed 12x24 family portraits with a 5DII for years and no one caredMegapixels are for people with aliasing issues, crop copers and 40"+ prints
>>4520034135mm f2.8 minola maxxum af and sony a68 any tele and dslr will do fine. i think your best bang/buck would be a nikon d750 (good autofocus and full frame sensor; $4-500 used)>>4519852i picked it up and had to scrub the fuck out of the top plate with a few drops of dawn dish soap in water and a tooth brush. iso/exposure comp/shutter all had this nasty brown residue like someone spilled coke/coffee on it and the buttons worked but were hard to press. kept scrubbing it and wiping it off until i quit seeing brown, then applied red caig deoxit on all the buttons with a tiny brush to reach underneath and wiped it off. gonna leave it alone for a few days and apply more deoxit before i try to power it on. kinda feel a little ripped off but pic rel was a test shot.
>>4520136>literally one moment from a youtube video where she fucks up the color with both cameras>she had indians astroturf this issue in the comments>reposted 200 times on /p/meanwhile panasonic sells so few cameras everything they make goes on sale within 3 months$800 S9s lol
>>4520139>go on their site>see this huh, toaster oven company, you're not kidding
>>4520065>Bayer with an OLPF is superior to xtrans by a large margin.sure, but that's not a choice with current cameras.
>>4520144You’ve been told a number of times, and even shown, that this site doesn’t represent how raws look when processed competently.And yet you keep posting screenshots from it like a retarded autistic child of the sort who attempts to correct adults by referencing twitter posts.
>>4520150lol i was about to demo it, then i remembered there are paid shills here who dont even own camera, and realized it was probably repostedand it washttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/lRlWMfJOjjLd9QkGp1D4ew/and i even found the deboonk>>4520144you’re a pathetic creature you knowprobably shorter than 5'10" toopost timestamped proof you own a camera
>>4520144Can you post the IQ4 one so we can see that as well.
>>4520152No, it should post proof it even owns a camera.
Imagine spamming /p/ with carefully crafted disinfo for 2 years straight to try and stop at least one person from buying a sony despite not even owning a camera yourselfVery sub-5'10" behavior
>>4520150>it still has false color when you open it in Sony's own raw softwaresnoy sisters what's our response
>>4520155So this is the power of x-trans...Damn bros, I fucked up by buying sony FF, fuji is clearly superior. im switching to fuji now. What you reccomend my new fujibros?
>>4520156>>4520155Its not even acknowledging that it was just doing it wrong. Its replying to itself and doing it wronger. Pixel peeping a tesr chart. Holy shit. Is it not just short, but pantone 448c too?I refuse to believe this creature owns a camera. You could spam post camera, post photo at it all day. It would never do it. It would repost something again two hours later. It’s not a human being.
>>4520156Can't go wrong with the Fujifilm X-H2. It really blends the compact and lightweight versatility of APS-C mirrorless cameras with an unmatched back-side illuminated X-Trans CMOS 5 HR imaging sensor. More resolution and higher quality than even Sony's latest full frame A7 V. I'd pair it with a Fujifilm X100VI, for unrivaled quality and portability. Imagine that, an X-Trans imaging sensor combined with that classic 35mm FOV, fast f/2 lens in a package smaller than any competitor can hope to match! We're eating good Fujibros!
>>4520159The autofocus doesn’t work and the photos are blurry as fuck. What are you on about? Fujis entire brand is outsold by just one of sony or canon’s cameras because their shit sucks.
>>4520159>Fujifilm X-H2>X100VIThanks bro, I'm going to buy both right now. Fuji bros stay winning!
>>4520157Can you do the phase ones against gfx100 and cfv100 PLZ.
/p/ wishlist>due to persistent automated advertising activity, creating a gear thread will result in a 30 day range ban
>>4520161Same. I really regret buying the A7V but a lesson learned is a lesson earned I always say. Well I'm not going to let anyone else make the same mistake, into the trash it goes! Your tireless work >>4520144 is not in vain.
>>4520165You're just going to throw away a totally perfect paperweight?
>>4520165>the bot tier snoy poster is trans, and a secretly a snoy shillThe schizos warned us about this happeningI guess for a shill there’s no such thing as bad exposure>claim relatively shit camera is better than a sony>get told you’re wrong>???>profit
>>4520168A paperweight is actually useful though.
>anyone that disagrees with me is a bot reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
>>4520170Is a camera in the trash really better than two the bush?
>>4520174yes, if it's a snoy
Snoyboys are truly mentally ill
>>4520174Okay thank you. In that case I will leave the snoys in the bush. Maybe some homeless man can find them.
>>4520045>Histograms are obsoleted by exposure simulationNot even remotely why they're useful. Exposure should be pretty obvious to at least somewhat nail.The whole point of an RGB histogram instead of a luma histogram is so you can see if individual colour channels are being fucked, which red loves to do well before the other two colours. Tell me more about how you can descern that without an RGB histo?>>4520077>Is this bait?It's retardation, but an RP with the 28mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.8 is still leagues better than most cameras being used and isn't very expensive.>>4520085>RF-S 18-150mmAn R7 and that lens basically solves photography for most people. If you need a shallower DoF then buy a prime to go with it and you're still only spending $2000.>>4520106They're joos. That's about it. They probably did some market analysis and found out more sales can be made when you make the total package smaller and lighter as to not scare off the smartphone refugees.I'm genuinely impressed with things like their RF 70-200 F/4 & F/2.8, but then some things are just sidegrades or downgrades like the RF 24-105 f/4-7.1 being just flat out worse than the EF 24-105 F/4-5.6 STM.Just adapt EF L lenses that you're willing to deal with and you get better optics at a cheaper price.
>>4519845Came back to Fuji after using Nikon FF for a while. Apart from extreme low light (where I’d use flash anyway), I didn’t not see any magical image quality or 3d pop increases that people rave about. Has to be some kind of cope or placebo.I did however notice an increase in size, usability, lens selection (especially Voigtlanders) and weight. Now I can casually carry 450mm equivalent in a 4l sling bag on a park walk and barely even notice it. All those giant f1.4 lenses gotta be a meme - no one ACTUALLY needs anything below f2 (FF) where DOF so narrow that you can’t get the whole face in focus and APS-C world has an f2 equivalent for every focal length.
>>4520085what about something like this
>>4520095I wish I could get these lenses for my Sony body :(
>>4520190That lens is a little over an inch longer than the Canon but you get more reach. You can include a soda can for scale on that site.
>>4520190>>4520192my bad, I forgot they were different sensors, the Canon will have a little more reach
>>4520192>>4520138maybe i really should buy an old camera or rent one just to discover what focal length i actually need…
>>4520074You can try to start with a travel zoom, which come in around 24-70 FF equivalent (on my Fuji it's 16-50). They are fine for city walks and such and they are reasonably sized.
>>4520198>>4520198There are virtual director's viewfinder apps you can use on your phone that I think would be useful for what you are trying to do.
>>4520074what you want is an apsc dslr for best reach/cost/iq. you want good autofocus. sony apsc is a after thought, nikon apsc is expensive (but still look used anyways; you want d5500/d5600 or d7200/d7500 or d500). canon 7d mk2 or canon 80d/90d. preferably the 7d. alternatively could possibly stretch to a canon m6 or r50. mirrorless lenses however are kinda pricey (r50). look for a canon 7d mk2 and a 70-300mm usm and go from there. https://fstoppers.com/originals/canon-6d-mark-ii-vs-80d-and-7d-mark-ii-depth-review-193200
