File: 1787794518840991.jpg (284 KB, 1749x661)

284 KB JPG

This is the bald headed Trvth

File: Sigma 26-60 f2.7 LMFAO HA(...).png (1.41 MB, 1990x1420)

1.41 MB PNG

>APS-C is now just slightly worse full frame
>neither of these $4000 cameras is weather sealed as well as a 2013 DSLR
Gearfag sisters…

>>4525021
Obviously you could show us a photo you've taken that just would not be possible without "weather" ""sealing"" gaskets, right anon?
Surely you have lots of them on hand?

>>4525022
>Uh, the $4000 camera doesnt need to be weather sealed if you dont show me a photo i like that needed a weather sealed camera
>if it rains on your trip just let your camera die
How about we just dont buy garbage cameras that are clearly meant to transfer money from shut-in anime doll and pet dog "photographers" to japanese businessmen?

Sony and fuji just dont make good cameras.

File: GearFagBingo.png (126 KB, 594x206)

126 KB PNG

>>4525022
>he did the meem
Post corgi

This place is so boring now, not even creative enough to come up with new memes
Just the same engagement bait over and over

>>4525025
Not me, I've given up on the engagement bait here

>>4525026
Of course. Everyone is autistic. The few /gear/ fags who take photos literally take the same handful of low effort dog/tree snaps over and over again to pixel peep and compare all their cameras and lenses.

Pretty soon /gg/ and /gear/ will be word filtered and autobanned

>>4525028
What photos do you share?

Nikon
https://youtube.com/watch?v=RB7vvAnKDaA
Olympus
https://43addict.com/2025/07/18/om-system-om-5-mark-ii-camera-weather-sealing-test-video/
Sony
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1ehckii/a7cr_rubber_sealing_gasket_by_card_slot_begins_to/
Fuji
https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/10sefvs/failed_xt5_weather_sealing/
https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/1ujus6v/xt5_is_apparently_not_weather_resistant/

Why do gearfags cope and defend multimillion/billion dollar companies charging them thousands for cameras that are less water resistant than an iPhone? Does anyone know?

Even when the OP isn't blatant bait, the retarded arguments just spill in from the last thread with zero awareness.

>>4525031
Crippling buyers remorse
>no one here is actually “smoke a $1000 blunt” rich despite how they act when criticized
>even $1000 is a lot to spend when 4chan clearly, logically, and factually demonstrates it was spent poorly
>cameras are ripe with this because its a dying market with many low quality products, inadequate competition, and low IQ irrational consumers who all spend $5k just to post all their pics on instagram
High exit fees
>mpb, keh, etc take 30% or more off the low end of fair market value
>ebay subtracts 13.5% of the buyers gross total from the sellers net total and buyers can easily scam sellers out of their sale or their camera or send back damaged and devalued equipment
>local sales are unlikely to occur and even more likely to end in theft or outright fraud
Declining interest in actually doing photography
>its all dogs/cats/flowed
>same meh location every day
>unless you live in NYC or tokyo, cameras sit on shelves for 11 months out of the year or they take 11x more shit photos than good ones
>most people can not keep up with social media and fall into gearfagging
>most lie about being a professional, may have done some cheap favors for friends and family who couldnt afford a real professional
Increasing OCD/autistic gear neuroticism, more test shots than art
>end stage of 90% of “photographers”
>photography is inexorably tied to reality
>you need to live an interesting life to be an interesting photographer
>most people here alternate between walking the dog, smoking pot, screen time, and anime/furry cons
>only time most 4channers travel anywhere cool is if they’re spooks and grunts that arent allowed to bring real cameras
>/gear/ isn’t a side show, it’s a graveyard of broken dreams and failed pursuits
>the same goes for dpreview, fredmiranda, mu-43, *rumors, etc

>>4525031
>Why do gearfags cope and defend multimillion/billion dollar companies charging them thousands for cameras that are less water resistant than an iPhone? Does anyone know?
Probably same reason you spend your free time reposting the same memes over and over lol

>>4525033
TLDR

"Serious" digital photography is a machine that turns several thousand dollars into shitty photos of brick walls and a case of clinical depression
The kind of camera the average american can comfortably allow to sit on a shelf for ages is no better than their phone

>>4525033
>you need to live an interesting life to be an interesting photographer
You mean a life of leisure or being paid to photograph people living such a life. But in reality what you need is an interesting (creative) mind and the resources to bring your ideas into fruition.

>>4525036
Yeah its literally impossible to drive 3 hours to a national park or something if you have a job

That would mean one or more! days without social media, porn, video games, and doordash. Fuck that. Aint no one here live that kinda richfag life. Between my NYC flat, my new mac for school, my civic intersectionalism degree, and the payments on my honda i can barely afford gettin some panda express to my door mayne!

File: araghchikot.jpg (48 KB, 720x1280)

48 KB JPG

>>4525036
>But in reality what you need is an interesting (creative) mind and the resources to bring your ideas into fruition.
In Ansel Adams' words, you don't take a photograph. You make it.

>>4525031
At this point I feel like asking ChatGPT for camera reccs would be more fruitful than trying to have any actual conversation here about different cameras. I don't care about brands and just buy what I like, but every single time I post in here someone has some issue with whatever brand it is.

>>4525082
Your fellow Jew, Garry Winogrand, was ten times the photographer that literal tree hugging communist incel adams was. Why do you shill for rocks and leaves man?

>>4525093
You replied to the one post itt with actual factual real world info not a botched unrealistic pixel peeping attempt or a meme

>>4525095
>You replied to the one post itt with actual factual real world info not a botched unrealistic pixel peeping attempt or a meme
Yes, which furthered my point that there really was just one single post that was actual info and not endless garbage about "my brand better than yours."

>>4525097
Then you now know everyones brand is better than fuji and sony and you can ignore the sad soiboys who shill that junk going forward

Good job!

>>4525098
Enjoy shitting in the pool of piss I guess.
And yet you retards wonder why /p/ has such a low poster count now.

>>4525099
>why is the /p/ - photography board such a bad place to discuss /g/ - technology?
The more gearfags leave the fewer terrible repetitive dog/cat/back of head photos we see and the higher quality photo threads become, tbqh.

File: snoysane.jpg (266 KB, 1000x961)

266 KB JPG

>>4525031

>>4525100
What tends to happen on 4chan is that occasional posters leave and what remains are a few circlejerking autists making the same posts in every thread. More or less what we see here.

>>4525100
>>4525117
Photography is all about gear. Who the fuck cares of muh street photos of random people, of a landscape or your dog. No one. No one sees any pleasure in those photos beside you. It's all about men having an expensive toy to play around with. Just like with cars back then. Or watches. Or anything. It's for men that work 40+ hours per week to have something to hold in hands and feel joy. To store photos on your hdd and in some years look at a few of them sipping a whiskey.

>>4525120
Where can we see some of your photos on the board?

>>4525128
This board is not for photos, it's for gear. If you wanna see strangers photos go on instagram or those facebook groups

>>4525132
Sad perspective you have nophoto

>>4525135
>>4525132
The best thing that happened to this board is the purge of the EXIF data. No more sizing photos up only by the gear it was made, no more rampant gearfaggotry in the photo threads. People actually talking about their shots or just enjoying the shots.
The only place gearfaggotry remains is the variations of the gear threads. No wonder these things are filled with schizo nophotos. In an ectual photo thread they feel vulnerable and weak because the only photos they can post is their garbage bins and pets because they never leave their own basement. You can't do much with charts in a photo thread.

>>4525137
You dont even know who’s posting if they don’t post their dog or use a stand-out camera

Two of them sold their high end nikon Zs for an old DSLR and film and now they blend in except when they post their dogs. Only filename pattern autists and foliage recognizers know.

File: truth-nuke.png (146 KB, 498x368)

146 KB PNG

>>4525112

File: 0131_cmxy.gif (1.98 MB, 186x183)

1.98 MB GIF

>>4525095
>Your fellow Jew
Seems like you got the wrong poster. I'm intact and my blood is untainted.
Don't you have a niacin deficit or something? Honestly you should probably do a niacin flush.

File: 0A05E349-D440-41E8-8191-9(...).jpg (2.33 MB, 4032x3024)

2.33 MB JPG

i think it finally happened and i regret buying my z30 instead of a z50 or z50ii

wishing i had a viewfinder

hope the z70 is real so I have a good reason to buy another camera

>>4525165
Hush, baldy. Your cover is blown. Go back to photographing saturn and ukranian military positions mossadbro.

File: 3e7fbb43d8f848dacb39dc76c(...).jpg (152 KB, 1000x1000)

152 KB JPG

>>4525174
you could get one of these
not too expensive on aliexpress and they fold to 1/3 the size.

do you carry multiple lenses with you if you're out and about? e.g. you're on a trip and will probably want to take landscape and animals and insects and people and what have you. i got a 50-210, 18-45 and 50mm and it's awkward to carry all 3, 2 of them would fit decently in my pouch with the camera. i also wonder if it makes sense to drag it all with me due to weight and it being an expensive thing to drag around

>>4525183
why not a 16-50 and a 50-250 for muh reech ? also an uwa for buildings and wide landscapes

>>4525186
that seems close enough to what i got no?

>>4525183
I am on my vacation and I brought 4 lenses in my bag and my 70-200. It just wouldn't fit next to the 150-450 and the two bodies.

>>4525165
>niacin
>cruise
Worse than a jew tBh

>>4525187
i guess you are using aps-c, the 18mm is 28mm on ff, not enough wide in kinda many situations, although you can do pano

>>4525183
I usually just bring 1 lens per body, with 2 bodies most of the time, usually 24+50, 28+50, 35+135, sometimes just pick any two of 28/35/50 and one is film or BW only, other digital color
A single midrange zoom or 35/50mm works well for one body
I see focal length maxing as pretty silly nowadays, and 95% of what what I like to shoot is fine between 28 and 50

>>4525183
All you need is a Canon 5D II and a Canon EF 50mm f1.8 STM.

>>4525191
>a scientologist and a moon landing denier walk into a bar
>he uses a Canon DSLR

Olympus E-P7 with olympus 25mm 1.8 lens worth $700 or nah?

>>4525215
Nah. Its 2 stops worse than aps-c. The sensors arent just too small, the underlying tech is severely outdated. The IQ is phone-like. Fujis latest Xe5 looks like medium format compared to that junk. Even a sony a7c is better. The ep7 isnt weather sealed and its still too big for a pocket. Even a ricoh grIIIx is cooler. Wow.

You’d be much better off just saving up for a better camera that you genuinely want. Get waitpilled. Delayed gratification chads always mog impulsecels.
>inb4 brand fanboys try and shill this poor bro on blowing his money early

I’m patiencemaxxing
Savingspilled
I’m not going to settle for spending all my money on what I can afford
I’m mogging impulsecels by spending some of my money on what I want
#delayedthadification

File: sigma-20-200-mm-test-YT-2(...).jpg (747 KB, 1920x1080)

747 KB JPG

>>4525183
Modern mirrorless superzoom lenses are actually good and most have decent macro capability.
Tamron 18-300 (crop)
Sigma 16-300 (crop)
Sigma 20-200 (FF)
Nikon 28-400 (FF)

If you are still using a DSLR there is one good superzoom lens which is Sigma's 18-300.

If you use micro 4/3 there is Lumix 14-140 and Olympus 14-150 and Tamron 14-150
Olympus 12-200 is the only one with big zoom range but sharpness is bad.

>>4525020
Swap Kodak and Sony

File: fixed.jpg (256 KB, 1749x863)

256 KB JPG

>>4525224
>>4525020

File: IMG_4812.jpg (143 KB, 1037x1107)

143 KB JPG

>>4525227
He who edits meme, portrayed accurately in first version

>>4525227
>it got to him
>he autistically rearranged the other logos too
Fucking lol
Here’s to you being butthurt enough to repost this five times in the future

>>4525227
>made the snoy schizo have another melty
ohnono

>>4525236
>t. spent 20 hours rearranging camera logos in photoshop because he got called bald
lol nice try baldy
>nooo its about my brand war!
no its about your hairline
you are bald
if you dont like sony buy a fuji. but if you shoot boomer brands you are bald. rules are rules chrome dome.

File: Screenshot_20260828-205617-577.png (1.68 MB, 1439x1422)

1.68 MB PNG

We interrupt this shitflinging to announce that I have recently become resolutionmaxxed and wide-gamutpilled.

File: 1777378769860497.jpg (936 KB, 3856x5120)

936 KB JPG

Did I do good, /gear/?

I found a v1 Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm on m42 mount complete with front and rear lens caps, the original manual, and a lens case that (surprisingly) isn't full of disintegrating 50 year old felt, all for just 55 kangaroo bucks (~39 burger coupons). The glass is clear with no fungus; there's a fingerprint visible on the edge of one of the front elements but it doesn't affect image quality. The macro function works and hasn't been broken.

I already had the v2 made by Tokina but I've been looking for a Kiron v1 in a good condition for ages, so many of them go up for sale at twice this price despite being totally trashed. Now I just need to find the f2.8 Komine v3.

what do you think about compact zooms? It's the one thing that a phone obviously can't do. are they worth it if you want something truly pocketable

>>4525031
I used to consider weather sealing a priority and almost didn't buy my lumix on account of lacking it, but after 10 years outdoor shooting and no problems I don't consider it so important anymore.

If you can keep yourself dry you can keep your camera dry. A few rain drops or snow flakes here and there won't cause a problem. I generally keep the camera on a shoulder strap under jacket.

I guess it might be different if you live in a salt water environment since the salty air is way more corrosive.

>>4525227
You are both retarded

>>4525242
That era zoom lenses are ass as fuck, expect soft images at the minimum, chromatic aberrations everywhere.
If you want an affordable 70-200 you can look for a Tamron 70-200/2.8 IF Macro in a compatible mount.

I want to replace my Panasonic Lumix LX15, should I buy a X100VI anon?

I just want something semi-compact that I can sling around my neck on my travels, and I can't be arsed with RAWs anymore..

> inb4 instagram retard
B-but anon I don't have any social media accounts

File: X-E5_ooc_vs_raw.jpg (769 KB, 1800x700)

769 KB JPG

>>4525268
Panasonic's JPEG engine is decent. Fuji's JPEG engine blurs fine detail.

>>4525183
I only have a single body and a 50mm lens most of the time, I hate carrying around a camera bag. You'd be shocked how infrequently I feel any limitations. If I absolutely need something wider I have my phone in my pocket in a pinch with its 26mm and 14mm lenses, and typically those shots where I "need" width are just group shots of people indoors rather than anything that would have artistic merit.

>>4525020
Trvth nvke. Baldies malding

>>4525243
Sony makes the best for full frame, but for compact aps-c zooms you gotta go with fujifilm and sigma

>>4525268
The Xe5 is an objectively better camera.

>>4525276
> No flash
> No ND filter
> No weather resistance
> F2.8 vs 2.0 with same focal length and size
Why is it better, because of the interchangeable lens? Most of my photos are between 35-50mm

>>4525020
Lanier doesn't wear a fedora to hide his luscious hair, just saying.
Also Ken Wheeler shoots Fuji. Ken Rockwell started balding after his switch to Sony. Thomas Heston's hairline receded after a short stint of dealing with Fuji-induced stress. Nick Carver's hairline is holding up pretty well, he shoots film. Digislugs can't catch a break.

>>4525279
>no phoneflash
Accessory flash looks better
>no ND filter
So? Its not a real ND filter. Its software. >no WR
Literally no fuji has this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/x100v/comments/1csw3xm/beware_even_with_a_filter_weather_sealing_isnt/
https://www.youtube.com/watch/iyolwKxSSck
https://youtube.com/watch?v=hwUJkgPImqM
>max aperture sperging over a fractional stop
Who the fuck cares every good photo is taken at f8 iso 100 anyways. Did you get brainrotted by those pixel peeping “equivalence” “low light perfurmennns durrrrr” retards or something?

>>4525240
>IPS
Sorry I don't understand why in 2026 you wouldn't get OLED for photo enjoying.

>>4525295
> Accessory flash looks better
Sure, and it adds bulk, the built-in flash works good enough for my use case (with the LX15)
> Software ND filter
What the fuck are you on about? It's a real 4-stop physical ND filter on the X100VI
> No WR
X100VI is weather resistance with a lens seal, sure it's not IP rated but it's better than nothing
> Aperture difference
It's a full stop difference, that will make a difference in low light

>>4525296
It is a productivity/professional creativity display not l33t hax0rz lol gaming display.
Maybe you should grow up and leave the toys for the babies.

File: GarryWinochad.png (606 KB, 1294x506)

606 KB PNG

>>4525279
>fuji purposefully refuses to release an “f2” (f3) lens to “compete” with the x100 one thats slow, grinding, inaccurate, and a bit blurry to drive at least some guillible retard to buy their “pocketable pancake” in a non-ILC form factor
>at least one retard falls for it and screws himself into having to repair, replace, and improve the camera and shitty 90s japanese electronica tier lens as a unit
Good gaijin

The x100 is wider and taller than some full frame cameras so I dont see how a little lens protrusion matters. Just use a better lens than the x100 gets instead of either lame street photography larp for scared betas. Maybe even a voigtlander or a leica. The x100s lens is basically off a canon dslr
>bzzz wheee creak
And its 70% of why SOOC x100vi jpegs often look similar to an iphones

Pic rel, garry winogrand mogging pancake twinks

>>4525300
You’re too insistent on using a reddit EDC lens (“pancake”) and fuji has manipulated their product line to fool you. Imagine being this much of a sucker. You even think their “wr” marketing is real lol. Let me guess you think leicas ip ratings do anything too? Lol shmucks. Rename the x100vi the Shmucks100VI.

Just get an xe5 and a better lens. Real flashes are better too and unlike these cameras godox makes flashes that fit in pockets, for real

>>4525300
>low light broooo
>*pixel peeps the background noise*

>>4525303
Antediluvian man practicing macro photography in liliput, 14,000 BCE (colorized)

File: 1773825637237030.jpg (437 KB, 1080x1320)

437 KB JPG

>>4525302
>2026
>still doesn't understand the benefit of OLED
Let me guess, you shoot Canon?

File: IMG_6833.jpg (155 KB, 1320x1588)

155 KB JPG

Fujisisters, does anyone have experience pic related? Going on my honeymoon in Greece in two weeks, and I’d prefer not to carry around a camera bag with lenses. The WR, LM and fixed 2.8 will be welcome. I have the classic 18-55mm kit lens but it is beat to shit and worse I believe it has some issue with the coating; I get a light blue blob in many of my images. I am thinking it’s time to retire that kit lens. Thoughts?

>>4525308
I picked the Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 instead of the new XF 16-55mm f2.8. I know it's not an exact match so you're going to have to decide whether the larger aperture or extra range & less weight is more important to you

>>4525308
>>4525309
Actually, forgot to mention the one big factor in me choosing the Sigma was that it's all internal zooming whereas the XF lens extends when you zoom in.

>>4525309
>>4525308
>spending thousands to turn your small convenient aps-c fuji into a worse full frame nikon
Any of these choices is actually worse than a z6ii with a 24-70 f4 or 28-75 f2.8. Why tack a shitty imitation of a pixel peeper bokeh faggot zoom onto a camera for fun?
>le sigma 26-60 f2.5
>finally the ff 24-70 f2.8 boomer zoom experience but worse

>>4525309
Rethink your gearfagging >>4525021

>>4525311
*f2.7

>why is /p/ so dead? why did they all leave?
>/p/
>>4525311
>>4525312

The anon wants advice on /gear/, not to hear schizo /gear/fagging

>>4525313
>nooooo dont discourage people from being gearfags!
/p/ isn’t any deader than the rest of 4chan. The photo threads are doing fine.

This is an anti-pixel peeper, anti-bokehfag club that dislikes autistic nerds and values fun. We only cal it /gear/ on a technicality (and because /soul/ confused the gospel folks - ayyyyyyy-men!). If you want a bazooka sized super sharp zoom so you can peep the corner pixels maybe try talking to your fellow non-photographers on fredmiranda? We do photography here.

File: IMG_6825.jpg (1.23 MB, 3024x3758)

1.23 MB JPG

>>4525311
>nikon babbling

Anyone understand what this retard is saying?

>>4525310
>>4525309
The sigma is a good lens but I think I’d prefer the zoom versatility of the fooj. 2.8 should be good enough for low light and bokeh farming innacity. Do you know if the WR rating of the Fuji means it can still block water and dust from entering the lens despite the zooming?

>>4525318
I've never put myself in a situation where it really tests the WR of any lens.
I used to have the XF 10-24mm WR and it handled some light drizzle in Japan but that's about as intense as I've put it through.
The one landscape fooj shooter I watch on YT, Andy Mumford, has put his lens through some crazy conditions so I think the WR should hold up. He is a fuji ambassador though but he legitimately goes to glacier areas, desert areas, etc. so I'd still say he's being truthful about environmental resistance.

>>4525319
He’a an ambassador so the gear they send him gets extra QC. The rest of us don’t get that. Fuji WR failures are from WR not being tested or held to the standards of internal or external testing.

>>4525321
nooo the paid shill for chinese made cameras would never represent their quality as better than it is in real life

>>4525319
Yeah not trying to do underwater shots or anything but if it holds up to passive and long term dust and water resistance, or deliberately shooting in the rain for kino shots then I’d be satisfied, and not care so much if it zooms in and out

>>4525275
>Sony makes the best for full frame
no they don't. too big. I mean a dinky little shit that has the irreplacable lens extend from the body once you zoom. sensor size is secondary

>>4525325
sensor size is all that matters really. aperture size and mount flange distance, not sensor size, sets lens size. mount diameter, birdwatcher arthritis, and videofaggot whining about overheating shooting 3 hours of 4k60 sets camera size. there’s no non-financial reason for full frame not being the only sensor size.

videofags wanting less rolling shutter/no crops for less money counts as financial (total videotard death btw)

>>4525321
More like he gets sent a new one should it fail, his silence has as price.
The stress testing isn't done on every single camera coming out, at most it's a few per hundred made. The resistance comes from design, not testing. And they're not designed to truly resist bad weather.

>>4525239
>>t. spent 20 hours rearranging camera logos in photoshop because he got called bald
What the fuck are you on about?

>>4525020
Uncs will never recover

>>4525332
Just like all the sony reviewers huh
>sony forums: the shutter/screen coating/weather sealing gasket fell apart wtf this camera was $2500
>sony videos: this camera is flawless and better than the competition in many ways (every brands shills say this)
>sony, inc: recarru? nani? camera is pafekto gaijin wachu yutubo gozaimas

File: 1784365663660210.jpg (1.36 MB, 2048x3072)

1.36 MB JPG

>>4525260
>That era zoom lenses are ass as fuck, expect soft images at the minimum, chromatic aberrations everywhere.
Confirmed for never having used a Series 1 70-210

Zooms from before the digital age are indeed total ass and I don't bother with them - except for this particular lens. Vivitar pulled some optics space magic out of their ass when they designed the 70-210 and then chose very carefully (or lucked out) when selecting third-party manufacturers for the first 3 versions of it. The sharpness is of a level more than acceptable by modern standards.

>>4525345
I disagree re: soft zooms pre-digital. I really like my Minolta Maxxum AF lenses.

Especially the 100-300mm APO, 100-200mm f4.5, and 35-70mm f/4 kit lens. For 1980s Zooms they're excellent whether I put them on a Maxxum 7D, a Sony a390 (14.2mp CCD), or a Sony a58 (20.1mp CMOS, haven't tried with the 24mp a68)

>>4525302
When I see someone shilling OLED here, they always seem to have a strange obsessive aura.

At any rate, this new monitor is still a large upgrade from my 13-year Viewsonic hospitality monitor (another IPS that had surprisingly good color accuracy and quality).

File: heh.jpg (232 KB, 1500x1000)

232 KB JPG

>>4525345
It is indeed an amazing lens
posting without trip in case some glownigger saw me post this in the original board

>>4525329
not what i asked

File: DSC_0572.jpg (1.57 MB, 1200x1800)

1.57 MB JPG

>>4525308
my friend has the mk1 (which is like $700 btw). very crisp lens but it essentially makes your kit the szie of a full frame kit. the 18-55 or 16-50 make more sense to me as a walkarond lens, being about half the size of the 16-55.
>>4525183
i don't bring lenses to swap anymore, if that's what you're asking. i'll bring multiple cameras pretty often though. here's the stuff for my last multi-day trip. often i take a small camera with a wide lens for fast shots and a bigger camera with a normal lens for slow shots

File: oled-vs-lcd-monitor.jpg (136 KB, 1650x928)

136 KB JPG

>>4525384
>another IPS that had surprisingly good color accuracy
so what 8 out of 10 color accuracy?
meanwhile it has 1 out of 10 contrast accuracy because it displays black as some sort of gray purple lol

>>4525308
Sigma 17-40 is the better option unless you plan to do lots of video with zooms while filming.

>>4525021
>2026
>still caring about sensor size
lol you people are terminally retarded

>>4525431
Sensor size is all that matters

Paying more than $500 for a crop sensor body is fucking retarded

>>4525432
trvke

most modern camera buyers are retarded gearfags (or videofags but videofags aka av club spergs were always the original gearfag losers)

>>4525432
>Sensor size is all that matters
Sensor size is important, but it's less important than
- size/weight/ergonomics
- physical controls
- firmware controls
- autofocus ability
- display quality

File: DSC02101.jpg (1.67 MB, 4308x2872)

1.67 MB JPG

damn i took some really good shots with my sony zv1 looking back through some old photos

makes me wish i picked up another compact camera carrying a ilc is inconvenient for edc/backpack use though my current pentax and sony dslrs (k70, k3, a390, a68) are damn near disposable (<$300) other than the k1ii so if i bash them it sucks but it wont hurt me financially

i traded it in for a slight profit when i got bored of it thinking i would be better off with a zve10 but didnt like that either so i sold it and never replaced it

why dont they make more big sensor compact cameras with decent zooms....its really just sony (zv1/rx100) and canon (g7x) everything else is fixed lens (ricoh gr3/gr4) or too old (nikon coolpix a)...i'd compromise on m43 but the zooms kinda suck if you're trying to stay small.

File: DSC02222.jpg (2.97 MB, 5368x3579)

2.97 MB JPG

>>4525439
honestly i agree

i even see the argument behind fujislugs justifying their $2000 apsc mirrorless because the jpeg engine is good enough they're satisfied with their photos without editing them (which is all that matters...do you like the pics you take? especially if you're an amateur/enthusiast)

all the sensor means is that you'll have 1 stop better performance than a comparable camera with a smaller sensor

if that camera with the big sensor has shitty lenses, is big enough its a hassle/annoying to carry, has shit autofocus so it constantly misses focus, or the metering is wacky so you have to constantly nudge it in the right direction for a photo you'll be less satisfied with it.

and if you're shooting in bright daylight (or just between 6am-8pm when the suns still out) you could get away with even a 1in sensor if it has a decent lens...like damn near every camera with a 1in or larger sensor will be shooting at nearly base iso in daylight

another pic from my zv1

>>4525439
While that is true in the sense that you shouldn't for example pick a Sigma BF or an S9 over a more capable APS-C body, you can get all the good stuff with a larger sensor too. Gone are the days where you had to choose between a slow high res full frame or speedy crop. It's not until you step up to digital "medium format" (actually a crop) that you have to make compromises to stuff like speed and AF performance and they're also massive with big slow lenses (and it's also ridiculously expensive). Full frame is still more expensive than a comparable crop body, although the prices these days and with all the used stuff available it's much more reasonable.

>>4525439
Lens also matters even more than sensor

>>4525439
All of those along with sensor size are irrelevant compared to:
- available quality of light
- subject
- composition

Fagging over gear without considering the above for shooting your photos means you are a low T unproductive chud of a faggot.

>>4525444
Crops still beat FF for size/weight in certain areas, namely macro and telephoto. Weirdly almost no one makes small AF FF macro lenses, exceptions being Pentax and Panasonic 100mm f/2.8s, and they're still much larger than eg MFT macro lenses.

File: DSC07932.jpg (750 KB, 2048x1363)

750 KB JPG

>>4525449
yeah but the pentax af ff macro lens has the misfortune of being attached to the largest ff dslr on the market other than the canon 5d mk4

my k70 is probably the smallest crop sensor other than the a58 and its still decent sized vs a 1in compact like my zv1

>>4525450
Pentax has always tempted me. Sometimes late at night I get the urge to bulk to 220lbs on meat and cheese, then get a K-1ii and some heavy duty lenses, a huge external frame backpack, and hike around in jeans and flannel with 55lbs of gear.

Any good monitors I should check out with a budget of $850 to edit photos?

>>4525449
>telephoto
In a way, sure. You can partly make up for it with FF by sticking a 1.4x or 2x TC on there, unless you're also using a TC on the crop bodies.
>macro
I don't know about other brands but Sony has a pretty small 50mm. If I didn't already have a 55mm I'd be rather tempted by it, and I also have a pretty small Tamron 90mm.

>>4525452
save up for a retina display, anything cheaper won't be a meaningful improvement

>>4525455
I'm using a budget $200 monitor from more than 7 years ago, so anything would be an upgrade at this point

>>4525448
memorable photos are usually of fleeting subjects.
- available quality of light
- subject
- composition
are usually within a narrow time constraint to capture.
lacking cameras means missing shots.

>>4525279
An argument for an ILC is that you can put either a wider or a considerably longer lens. Another - if your favourite focal length is actually not 23mm, but 27 or 35, you can get the exact lens that you want instead of cropping every single shot.

> Buy Nikon
> Why?
> Because sensor size is all that matters. BUT DO NOT BUY PANASONIC PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DO NOT.
> I dunno, FF cameras are kinda big...
> Snoy FF cameras are small, buy Snoy.
Lol, Nikon LLM is shilling Snoy again.

>>4525268
if you want fuji worms, go ahead
>>4525276
not better than the lumix

>>4525458
That's photojournalism, not photography for the most part. Save for special things like Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.
Take for example the Moon landing photos. Those were carefully crafted in New Mexico too, but in a soundstage.

who the fuck came up with "full frame equivalent focal length" in any camera bigger or smaller than full frame, you get 2 numbers and have to alway make sure you're looking at the right one

why not just FOV in degrees measured across the diagonal?

>>4525466
Because full frame lenses work in crop digital cameras and focal length is a set number. Full frame being the most popular standard from the film era, it just made sense.

>>4525467
the "set number" as in the physical property of a lens doesn't care about the sensor behind it.

File: awjk56n7ewfdhaxervil.jpg (91 KB, 1066x1066)

91 KB JPG

>>4525469
That's why it's necessary for interchangeable lens cameras. Meanwhile compacts usually have the equivalent stated. It's only a problem when people misleadingly call the crop factor "magnification".

>>4525432
>Sensor size is all that matters
lol hes retarded
>Paying more than $500 for a crop sensor body is fucking retarded
lol he's poor

>>4525463
>special things like Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico.
there is nothing special about it other than grifter success in hyping a mundane photo.
you would call it photojournalism as well if not for the cult fabricated around it.

fine art photography is a an "emperor's new clothes" scam in general.

>>4525439
>im a sissy
>im an autist
>im an autist
>animal butthole af
>pixel peeping and chimping
/p/ in a nutshell

Full frame chads have none of these problems

>>4525449
Aperture size=lens size.

M43 macros are typically f5.6 or f7 max. Most m43 telephotos are f8 max or smaller. See: m43 ff1.4s are as big as or bigger than FF f2.8s.

>>4525461
The truth is more like, sony being small deprecated crop sensors, and this is the real reason /p/ forces sony hate memes so hard that some individuals here will spam the board if enough people refuse to go along with it. There isnt any reason to buy fuji or micro four thirds anymore besides reddit autism for the kind of person that likes fountain pens and mechanical watches.

The a7cII and a7cr are the top selling cameras and sony is #1 in FF ILC market share because of them. The flaws are overhyped by /p/ and apply tenfold to the nikon zf, twentyfold to fuji, and 9000 fold to the poomix s(cam)9. Micro four thirds is so bad it doesnt even count except for arthritic birdwatchers.

>>4525483
OK and 5.6 is faster than you'd ever use for single exposure macro and about as open as you'd go for a focus stack.

Where are the f/8 600mm FF lenses? I would buy that no question if it was under 1.5kg, had sync IS and was robustly built etc., sounds awesome. Canon makes some lenses like this but doesn't seal them or anything.

>>4525484
Sony has a vignetting mount, meanwhile Nikon's is huge, has smaller flange distance too. It mogs.

>>4525481
It was captured for aesthetic reasons, and it is a technical tour de force while at it.

File: Untitled1776_(1).png (185 KB, 413x400)

185 KB PNG

>>4525484

>>4525489
>nikon shill llm
>>4525492
>sony hater autist
sony won

File: Konica_Minolta_Dynax_7D_01.jpg (347 KB, 1534x1152)

347 KB JPG

>>4525484
Never forget what Sony took from you

File: The_Allegory_of_the_Cave.jpg (1 MB, 2400x1011)

1 MB JPG

>>4525494
>sony won
Sony won the minds of many people including you. Now you're trapped in the cave, thinking shadows are real objects.
Reminder that the optical viewfinder is the last stand of implicit photographic integrity.

>>4525191
>>4525203
I'm not a scientologist.

File: apollo_15_S1.gif (48 KB, 251x231)

48 KB GIF

>>4525203
>moon landing denier
he's right tho, this was some fake shit.
https://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

File: Netanyahusky.jpg (93 KB, 976x549)

93 KB JPG

>>4525499
>>4525498
>>4525496
>>4525495
Holy shit calm down mossadbro

Go snap a dog pic on your 5D or smth. Dog photos are your national pastime right?

File: slurp5_1000.jpg (116 KB, 1000x563)

116 KB JPG

Did someone say dog photos?

>>4525439
add to that stabilization

>>4525439
Live view blinkies and AF assist beam also matter more than sensor size.

>>4525500
>implying samefag
People are waking up to the NASA hoax. Also I'd rather get called scientologist than jew.
>Dog photos are your national pastime right?
Naming their pastime would get me banned

>>4525507
Thank god sony has both of those

>>4525508
>look at me I’m such an antisemite *slides red string up sleeve*
yawn. trying too hard.

>>4525507
>Live view blinkies
covered under firmware controls

>AF assist beam
covered under autofocus ability

>>4525510
I'm not an antisemite, in fact I'm sympathetic to the Syrians, the Lebanese and others. I might even be a bit of a PartisanGirl appreciator. Ashkenazi jews are basically hohols larping, Bulan Sabriel converted his kingdom to judaism around 800 A.D.

File: 5635.jpg (79 KB, 378x645)

79 KB JPG

>>4525514
Machined this out of 6061. I know I should have used iron but I ain't got time for that shit.
>>4525510
Am I trying too hard?

>>4525515
>>4525514
>How do you do, my fellow nazis?
This poster glows

>>4525515
>Machined this out of 6061. I know I should have used iron but I ain't got time for that shit.
Absolutely based, beautiful work. Shaper or mill?

>>4525520
In what would would someone make that on a shaper? Stop trying to sound like you know what you're talking about you absolute fucking moron. I'm surprised you didn't ask if it was made on a lathe.

File: 1788189278133.jpg (241 KB, 1600x1600)

241 KB JPG

>>4525021
pic. though buying something that expensive in the first place is retarded.

>>4525432
it doesn't matter that much, depending on what you want to do.
if you normalize by dof, all sensor sizes are the same in low light.

>>4525537
Skill issue.

>>4525520
Cheers, man. Waterjet and 5-axis mill. Only needed to use 2 axes though, obviously.

>>4525537
You could use a shaper, even an oldschool one. Cut the square on a table saw. Would only need to make one jig since the piece is the same 3 moves repeated. Just rotate the workpiece 3 times after the initial cut. Probably 2 total passes though, one for removing most of the material and a second one for the inside corners. The radius is only 1mm, I wouldn't do that in one pass.

>>4525570
It could be done sure, hell it could be made on a lathe, but no one would do it unless it was literally the only machine they had. It's a stretch to assume that anyone has a shaper never mind it being their only machine, people only have them these days as a curiosity when they already have more appropriate stuff.

>>4525537
You're trying too hard anon.

>>4525576
Not the first choice, but a lot of people have basic woodworking tools such as a handheld router. Regular carbide will cut aluminum just fine. I have cut 1" 5052 with regular table saw and wood cutting blade at home, and routed cutouts out of 3/16 by hand using my cordless DeWalt and a jig. This would actually be very easy, it's just straight cuts with 90s. I'd cut the jig on a table saw and slot it. Clamp the router down in place on the slot and move the workpiece. Homemade router table, you could bang these out all day in 12 moves.

Not trying to fart in your dinner, trash tripfags all you want. Even fake ones that may or may not glow. Men really should use the power tools they have at their disposal though, it is good practice to make do with less in that regard. I modified an entire boat with a hacksaw and files, it was rewarding. Gives you an emotional attachment and also gives it character.

>>4525586
Yes there are many ways to make it, it could have been done with just a hacksaw and files. My point was that the tripfag was just trying to look knowledgeable because he watched one video about shapers.

File: 7Artisans AF 10mm F2.5 MAX.jpg (364 KB, 1920x2160)

364 KB JPG

Friends, do you know 7Artisans new autofocus fisheye?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXIxGU2UFHk

>>4525595
Your point was trying to expose me and you failed and exposed yourself as being unable to handle a shaper in the process. I won't be baited into posting the ones I've worked with so you can track me down though, nice try.

>>4525586
My trip changed after the sharty hacked this place, just like everyone who had a secure trip. They changed the hashing salt or the method. I can't prove I'm the old cANON but neither can glowies so that's a good thing in a way.

>>4525599
Yeah, I know. Same, I just ditched the trip altogether.

>>4525599
They have your machine ID. Why would glowies be as simple as relying on tripcodes? We have access to your freakin ISP ya putz

>>4525598
Nice reading comprehension. I never said it couldn't be made on a shaper, just that only an idiot would use one to make it. The fact you made the assumption one was used also makes you an idiot. I doubt you've done any machining in your life.

>>4525597
That focuses so close the dog will doubtlessly lick the lens.

>>4525610
It is aluminum though, so is butter as far as a shaper is concerned. Totally doable if it's all you have, although that would be a strange thing to have without also having a basic router.

>>4525619
The shaper is a better teaching tool though. It's also satisfying to use (in an autistic, train loving way) so it makes sense for hobbyist stuff.

>>4525019
Might be a /g/ question but how overkill is an ESP32 for a DIY digi, just wanna keeping taking grungy pictures of pipes and other industrial stuff.

>>4525624
Tiny sensors with tiny resolution available for it, what's the point? Unless of course you intend to make a diy borescope I don't get it. It'd be better to get almost any DSLR and play with adapted lenses, maybe even diy lenses mounted on 3D printed stuff.

>>4525507
Go play with your Legos.

>>4525643
They're not 'Legos' the plural is still Lego.

I want a tripod that I can use for photos and videos of animals. I will be shooting mostly while sitting on the ground covered in a camo net using one of those little crazy creek chair things, maybe sometimes from a folding chair. I have no need for a tripod that is tall enough to use standing. Must have fluid head. Any recommendations? Most of what I'm seeing is oversized or way too dinky. My camera and lens is only 4-5 pounds but I still don't want to put it on a tripod with a 6 pound weight rating. Most of them don't go low enough either. I want to be able to use it low to the ground for certain animals.

>>4525440
>damn i took some really good shots with my sony zv1
Are the really good shots in the room with us right now?

File: GR-IV-mono_product06_LR.jpg (740 KB, 1920x1280)

740 KB JPG

I'm looking for a small teeny weeny camera to bring all day everyday if I don't wanna carry my giant full frame gear. Not poor so anything bellow 1500 bucks is a big NO. My first choice is the GR IV but now I wonder wether the Monochrome would be a fun alternation. I know the advantage is much more sharpness and I could shoot at night with low light, which I sometimes do. But can you find enough joy in shooting b&w only? Sometimes I really enjoy editing colors in LR and it gives even boring images a meaning. Now I could just try and only shoot black and white on my full frame camera for a month or so but without the limitation I lack of motivation. Then I find myself just shooting with color in mind and out of 20 pics 1 or 2 are monochrome.

>>4525683
>I’m not poor
Leica m11
>n-no i-i-i m-meant…
leica m9 w/ refreshed sensor
>okay I’m poor
Olympus ep7/ricoh grIIIx and invest your shekels more wisely

>>4525683
You should spend that money on therapy

>>4525643
Cuck by cuck.

>>4525440
>i'd compromise on m43 but the zooms kinda suck if you're trying to stay small

I can't fathom what you mean by this considering all MFT lenses are going to be smaller than anything else, including the zoom lenses.

>>4525698
Smaller is rarely small enough. The truly small zooms are worse than phone optics. This is, in addition to the tone deaf “professional” and “leica” gear being sold to people who really just wanted the small lenses to be better, is why m43 never really took off.
>i wish this tiny lens was better made instead of plastic chinese optics
>U WAN M43 BE AS GOOD AS FOO FRAME? HERE 20MM F1.4 BIGGER THAN SNOYS F2.5 ITS PRO BUY IT
>Wha-
>42 F1.2 (85mm f2.4) JUST $2000 LOOK ITS ALMOST AS SHARP AS NIKONS! FOO FRAME BTFO
>Dude everyone just wants better small gear
>NOOO BUY PRO ZOOM DEFEAT FOO FRAME

does the Hasselblad X2D II 100C have 15 stops of dual is ?

>>4525705
Most people drinking m43 kool aid are repeating marketing slogans anyway.
> I like small cameras like PEN-F, so I bought an OM-3 and put an extra grip and bottom plate on it and a 17mm F1.2.
> I am now a street photographer, look I am turning my creative dial.

>>4525684
>Olympus ep7
If it has to be a Pen, I'd wait for whatever OM is going to release next week.

File: EXCLUSIVE ARCHITECTURE re(...).png (212 KB, 1422x747)

212 KB PNG

>>4525698
>considering all MFT lenses are going to be smaller than anything else, including the zoom lenses.
was true compared to DSLR but MFT vs modern mirrorless it is not as size competitive, especially at the wide end.
This is because any focal length shorter than the flange distance of 19.25mm requires the lens to be a retrofocus design. With the crop factor that means a lens in full frame equivalent wider than 38.5mm needs to be retrofocus.
Meanwhile the newer mirrorless mounts have a similar flange distance, so for a full frame sensor on such a mount the limit before they need a retrofocus design is around 19mm.

>m43 lenses still more relevant than FF lenses in 2026
And they said it was doa over 2 decades ago

>>4525716
I see the m43 cult believes in no such thing as bad attention

>>4525183
100-300 on it most of the time for wildlife, then I swap it out for the 12-40 for times I want to take a picture of anything else.
t. Micro four turd user

>>4525723
Show us your "wildlife photography"

>>4525667
Get a monogimbal instead. Buy once cry once.

File: IMG_2772.jpg (310 KB, 1290x2185)

310 KB JPG

Should I do it? Am I delusional for wanting to bring this snow shoeing during this insane El Nino season?

>>4525738
Fine by me. If I had the dough I'd do the same.

>>4525738
must be retarded. u know its using the same sony a7r4 sensor wafer right? same as gfx...

>>4525740
so what

>>4525740
One is full frame the other is medium format, you shoulnd't be here giving anyone advice, you're clearly mentally challenged.

>>4525738
350 for a cage
Why not buy a chinese aliexpress one
Is just a piece of cnc aluminium
Smallrig if you and more expensive chinese stuff

>>4525710
Neat. I have a normal zoom lens, somewhat of a premium kit lens since it is constant f/4 and quite sharp, going from 16-45. The interesting part is it extends the barrel towards the wide angle range and is fully collapsed at 45mm.

>>4525738
Lol, that zoom lens is soft as fuck and the sensor is barely bigger than FF. It certainly won't resolve 100MP, at this point you are better off with a 50MP FF with an 24-70 L lens and you will have sharper results for half the price

File: 1405347633_124665.jpg (57 KB, 500x500)

57 KB JPG

Long shot, but anyone have any experience with pan & tilt tripod heads vs geared heads?
Need something new for studio and macro-ish use mostly and was wondering if paying extra for a geared head is worth it or are the adjustments too much of a pain. Have a couple ball heads for regular use already.

>>4525740
That was particularly low-effort.

>>4525752
Sharper lenses render uglier photos

More Megapixels+softer lenses=superior results
Sharp lenses = bad

>>4525738
Do you really want to be the next hasselblyat and get mogged by a 14 year old 6D?

>>4525759
It's an inverse bell curve, thank you.
Disgustingly bad lenses are just plain shit. Clinically sharp and corrected lenses are for science labs not creative photography.
There's a healthy middle ground where decently sharp optics can still deliver a pleasantly rendered photo.

>>4525754
Depends how heavy your camera and lens combo are. Personally I do prefer fluid or geared, but there's nothing wrong with a pan/tilt so long as your camera isn't so heavy that you would need to overtighten it.

>>4525759

That's just stupid.

>>4525754

I use an old Manfrotto 229 three way head. It's great for use in studio. I'm sure a geared head has it's advantages, but this works great for me and find it easy to set.

>>4525227
trvke

>>4525759
I d rather have ultra sharp perfect lens and blurry/ softhen them in photoshop than a soft lens to start with

I'm starting to hate this hobby. Every time I go to buy something I end up having budget creep. Just spent nearly $300 on a tripod (benro tortoise).

>>4525781
>benro tortoise
>no central column
having to adjust all 3 legs every time you want to adjust height seems inconvenient as fuck

File: sony_a6700_45_crop.jpg (68 KB, 640x480)

68 KB JPG

>>4525780
sharp lens can generate moire patterns and false color which won't be hidden by later blurring, while a softer lens prevents moire patterns and false color from appearing in the first place.

A better solution is a good OLPF (optical low-pass filter) which almost imperceptibly blurs the image while practically eliminating moire and false colors. Unfortunately OLPFs are not being included with newer cameras, probably as a cost-cutting measure, but they are needed now more than before due to the sharpness of modern optics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2TyUrVBL8

>>4525784
>dont buy a softer lens or a diffusion filter
>pay $1000 to put a diffusion filter on your sensor like a 15 year old DSLR
Or apply blurring in demosaicing like fuji does to hide xtrans being moire prone
Or grow up and realize cameras are PROFESSIONAL TOOLS, that PROFESSIONALS want the sharpness more than they fear editing moire out every now and then, and CONSUMERS who just want to shoot a decent jpeg and look at it once already have their phones

Cameras are PROFESSIONAL TOOLS. If the lazy, braindead consumer is not being served it doesn’t matter. Professionals have this figured out and the vast majority literally asked for OLPFs to be removed. You, the lazy consumer, being negatively affected never mattered because
YOU ARENT A PROFESSIONAL AND SHOULD NOT HAVE YOUR HANDS ON A PROFESSIONAL CAMERA

Go buy some cast off old garbage like a 5DIV at the MOST if you want to larp. Leave US PROFESSIONALS and our PROFESSIONAL TOOLS alone.

Capisce?

>>4525785
This point cant be made often enough. Nearly 100% of people buying cameras brand new in box are using them for work. Pro cameras are purposefully ignorant of the petty wants of snhobbyists because you niggers are an irrelevant segment of the market that thinks its entitled to a real photographers kit when all you deserve for your shitty pet photos is a canon r50.
>i want the AA filter back
>i dont want to shoot raw
>i dont want to use filters
>i dont want to use good lenses
>i dont want heatsinks for pro videography
>i dont want specialized gear thats better at one thing and worse at another
>every camera has to be perfect for me
>i want medium format shooting film sim jpegs with retro dials!
Snhobbyists are out of line. Entitled, egocentric consumers. Professionals are producers. Stop buying our shit and complaining that you have to use a professional workflow (ie: shooting raw, editing out moire, using filters). You belong on the canon r50 and sony xperia. The R6II and sony ILCs and whatnot are for people who are more important than you snhobbyists because we contribute to the real economy instead of just suckling from the teat of the technological progress other people with jobs funded and asked for.

In the meantime I guess fuji and leica will find new ways to fleece ya’ll until you live with your parents and have $0 in the bamk

>>4525783
Center columns cause too much wobble. It's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

File: Screenshot 2026-09-02 at (...).png (639 KB, 1544x988)

639 KB PNG

>>4525698
this is a sony zv1 side by side to a om5 with a panasonic 12-32mm

the zv1 has a lens that collapses into the body, m43s still stay chunky enough it wont fit in a pocket.

i would ike a m43 compact with a lens that retracts into the body, i think the olympus pens are the closest i can get to that size

like i said it seems like there's only 4 cameras on the market. panasonic zs300, sony zv1/rx100, and canon g7x that fit that form factor.

File: a6700_moire_building.jpg (148 KB, 1200x800)

148 KB JPG

>>4525785
>>4525786
At the time OLPFs were being deleted sensor resolution was exceeding lens resolution so OLPF was redundant.
In the last 10 years lens resolution has improved dramatically while sensor resolution has not, so we are back in the situation that necessitated OLPF in the first place.

https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6700/sample_images/sony_a6700_45.jpg

>>4525789
>non pro talks out her ass, posts shitty snapshots from other peoples blogs
Canon L zooms achieved moire reliably on the 5DS R, and its 50mp were not exceeded until the sony a7riv. Many of us were already using zeiss and sigma art glass that was as sharp as anything thar exists today. What improved more was the average ultrafast prime lenses wide open sharpness and star field rendering (however, this fucked up portrait lenses something fierce and created modern wedding photography’s AI generated aesthetics) but professionals already had all the sharpness in the world.

Lass, before ye ever aspired to “create content” us contributors to the economy had a free market vote on OLPFs. 5DS or 5DSR, D800 or D800E.

Everyone bought the ones without OLPFs. Better sharpness 100% of the time, to a professional who has to get the shot no matter what and make it printable in many aspect ratios, is worth editing out moire 5% of the time. Because all of us shoot raw, nothing but raw, every single time anyways, except for journalists who make $17/hr.

>>4525789
You’re just referencing amateurs and GWACs using their cameras wrong to blame the camera company for using your camera wrong

If you can’t work with a professional tool go back to your phone or pay fuji $2000 for the privilege of blurrier jpegs (you’re a clueless never-pro so you’ll never open a .raf in C1 and realize its the same as every other camera anyways)

File: Screenshot 2026-09-02 at (...).png (189 KB, 722x430)

189 KB PNG

>>4525788
I've also been going down the compact rabbit hole anon. I'm between the ZV-1 II and Canon Powershot V1. I was initially looking at the Ricoh GRIV, but a $1600 camera that can't do 4K video rubs me the wrong way. I want to do a mix of photography and video, personally.

I've been using an old DSLR with a relatively small prime as my main camera but find it's too damn big. I'm rarely actually taking the thing with me. I also am perpetually annoyed by the viewfinder, which I realize puts me in a rare camp. I'm left eyed and wear glasses so I am constantly smudging the shit out of my right lens.

I also found these videos last night which honestly have me leaning pretty hard into the Powershot camp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC2QgrlhJvE (RX100 is compared here, but the sensor is similar/identical)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObcwTZsEKhs (video focused but shows the better image quality of the canon again)

>>4525754
I have the manfrotto 410 geared head, it is nice and precise and is annoying as fuck to use.
I got a 498RC2 ball head instead.

>>4525795
4k is overrated. 1080p at high framerate for slowmo is more important IMO. You barely even notice the difference between 1080p and 4k for video, but it's nice to have slowmo.

>>4525754
I have this, and I can echo >>4525800. It's wonderful, and I also hate using it.

File: moire_suit.jpg (1001 KB, 1920x1080)

1001 KB JPG

>>4525790
>editing out moire 5% of the time
Moire cannot be edited out because it is destroyed colour and luminance information. Maybe with newer generative AI tools, but the original RAW will always be trashed.

Also, moire scales, regardless of megapixel count as long as the lens is sharp enough to generate it, but the insignificant loss of sharpness that an OLPF causes does not scale.

>>4525804
>professionals make a living with gear you claim is useless
>you back up your claims with reasoning pulled from your ass
>the gear is the problem not you
Stop buying professional cameras if you aren’t a professional.

You have reposted this same complaint fifty times. You still dont know how to use a camera. You know how to “reason” that you “shouldnt have to” and “the companies are fucking you over” but that’s more of a symptom of you being an entitled consumerist who shouldn’t be handling professional tools.

>>4525789
>>4525804
Filmchads really are winning for never having to deal with digital artifacts huh
Hell they don't even have to worry about shitty black box JPEG processing ruining the shot either

>>4525804
>Edit it out
>NO I SHOULDNT HAVE TO AND ITS NOT THE SAME WHEN PIXEL PEEPING
>Use a diffusion filter
>NO I SHOULDNT HAVE TO
>Use a different lens or a smaller aperture
>NO I SHOULDNT HAVE TO
>pfft. Stop toying around with professional cameras if you aren’t a professional photographer
>FUJISNOYCANIKONOSONIC CONSPIRED TO MAKE CAMERAS WORSE FOR ME! ME! WHY CANT CAMERAS BE HOW I WANT THEM TO BE!?
>Goto pfft.

>>4525807
Literally zero professionals use film and your dusty dog hair covered negatives and ~happy accidents~ are why ;)

File: IMG_4831.png (1.81 MB, 3006x1336)

1.81 MB PNG

>>4525817
Post the real one, moirespammer

Which member of the telegram that purposefully tries to kill the /gear/ thread are you btw?

>>4525817
>>4525825
>sony improves
>fuji is still blurry with moire
Xtrans is 5x softer than the shittiest OLPF and doesnt actually do anything. Is fuji retarded?

File: DSC00450-Enhanced-NR.jpg (869 KB, 1536x2048)

869 KB JPG

>>4525795
I'm in the same camp minus getting annoyed by the VF.

After the ZV1 I noticed 2 limitations:

-The biggest issue with carrying one is thickness especially when drawing
-The thickness increased substantially if you added a stick on filter adapter and a 40.5mm CPL

I noticed some loss in low-light performance but nothing insane. Like I said, a stop behind APSC which doesn't fucking matter in bright daylight. The ZV1 has a excellent lens, but the other real issue with them is the extend/retract mechanism can get damaged so FYI. It is a bit better dust sealed than the GRs. I paid $400 and sold mine for $450.

I tried replacing it with a Sony ZVE10 but I found it lacking. It was just chunkier enough I noticed it., but did not come with an appreciable increase in IQ. I traded a better sensor for a worse kit lens and Sony APSC is expensive and almost all larger than the kit lens which as a retract function. I also felt like the ZVE10 had worse weather protection than even the ZV1 (I know its not weathersealed but the port covers amount to a flap that doesnt fit tightly) and it lacks a proper PASM or 2nd scroll wheel (ZV1 didnt have it either). I think I would've been better with a Z30 (better 16-50 kit lens that also collapses into a pancake, negligably bigger but gives you better ergos and a PASM dial).

I have not tried M43 but like I said, a Olympus PEN would probably come close (Pen-8/9/10) from looking at the camera decision size comps, especially with a Panasonic 12-32 and 35-100mm (these retract/collapse so they're still chunky)

For travel this year I picked up 2 <$300 APSC cameras I'll probably drag with me (Pentax K70 or Sony a68) and decide which one I really want. I like to dual wield film + digital when I'm on trips but I'm def not carrying a FF anymore like the K1.Too damn big and I'm scared of swinging around and it whipping and smacking something hard.

I took this with the ZV1 on a CDMX trip.

>>4525740
I had an online friend who bought a GFX and he unfollowed me when I told him the sensor was not developed by Fujifilm but was the same old Sony A7R sensor just a bit bigger. They are a sensitive bunch...

File: DSC00704-Enhanced-NR.jpg (596 KB, 2048x1365)

596 KB JPG

>>4525828

For what it's worth I shoot A/K because I also have a Minolta 7700AF + Pentax SF10/MZ5 35mm film cameras, I swap lenses between it and the DSLR I'm carrying and shoot film when I see something that's worth taking a photo of. Last trip I did K3 + SF10 and the K3 was still on the larger side. I'm going to Japan in 2 months so probably gonna be either K70/MZ5 with a SF10 in my luggage as backup or a68/7700.

A lot of my daylight pics on the ZV1 auto-set to ISO 125-160 and dusk/dawn/indoors = 800/1600 from looking though my pics from CDMX 2024.

I think the ZV1 has a great lens (Zeiss 24-70mm f1.8-2.8 equivalent or f4.9-7.6 in 35mm) which gets the most out of the sensor.

https://www.lindsaydobsonphotography.com/personal/sony-zv1-vs-canon-g1xiii-best-compact-camera

File: wrinkel.gif (184 KB, 460x306)

184 KB GIF

>>4525831
>blown highlights

>>4525826
Unfortunately yes, and so are most Fuji fanboys. Which sucks because I actually do like their cameras otherwise, their sensors just suck ass.

Just got the Canon RF 85mm F1.2. After a quick outing I can easily tell that this lens will improve my rocks and leaves photos.

Since when did fuji make /p/ seethe so much?

>>4525869
Since forever. 12 years ago it was just the same. Also it didn't help that some trolls started posting the most mid and bland garbage shots and other trolls started praising them until some autists started taking the whole thing serious. Add MFT to the mix and you get this.
Also we had the same old Canon-Nikon rivalry with Sony on the side now becoming Canikon-Sony rivalry, also some autists taking things seriously. There was this period when Pentax was trolled on the board as the best thing ever to exist.

So yeah, /p/ was never good. Except for the Bassackwads threads. Godspeed you magnificent bastard, wherever you are. I'll pour out some Crown Royal Blue for you.

>>4525877
Fuji was actually fairly well liked on here way back when

>>4525869
Mostly when it became mainstream as the gateway for normies, most of the anons hating on here don't even own a camera or take pictures
The a7III, which is also hated by /p/, was arguably the start of Fuji no longer offering good value proposition for the budget conscious hobbyists

File: 1666306755631621.jpg (105 KB, 750x936)

105 KB JPG

>>4525879
>the start of Fuji no longer offering good value proposition
That was X-trans and also charging FF ILC prices for a shitty fixed length compact.
>>4525877
Nah, the S5 Pro was a thing of beauty. An Velvia is wonderful.
>>4525869
Current era Fuji is hopelessly aspirational, a product for braindead cargo cultists. It's like a GTA version of a Leica with none of the quality, function or taste. It's devised to fool retards who will even go as far as calling them rangefinder cameras. It's the mirrorless scam taken to the next step. Even the whole "film simulation" gimmick is dishonest. And to top it off, they damage real usability in order to provide their absurd vintage copes. It's FAKE. Even their films are fake, reboxed Kodak Gold 200 sold as something else. At least there you get a superior product though. Fuji film stock colors were always off, particularly greens and skin tones. If deliberate it's probably an attempt to make yellow skin look good.

Got an m100 like 5 years ago just so I can take decent vacation photos.
I bought like 4 lenses for 600 euros, but the only one I use is the cheapest TTArtisan 35mm f1.4 just cause its pretty sharp and fast.
Occasionally I'll put on the 22mm f2.0 if I want someone to take a picture of me.

Do I sell the rest of the lenses and buy a replacement that has auto-focus? I also wanna get some super wide lens for landscapes or interiors.

>>4525882
>m100
The sorrow of mirrorless.
I doubt anyone will pay anything more than enough for a 6 pack of beer for some dead mount mirrorless lenses but you could try.
>I also wanna get some super wide lens for landscapes or interiors.
I suggest going full frame. APS-C is slim pickings when it comes to going wide. With FF there's an abundance of options and they're affordable used.
Otherwise you'd need to play with adapters most likely.

>>4525883
I don't mind the m100 too much since I'm not an enthusiast, ignorance is bliss type shit.
I do wish for more physical buttons and knobs but it is what it is.
I like the camera cause it's super compact and as limiting as it is there's no way I've outgrown or reached it's capabilities.

>>4525883
The m100 and m200 cameras are popular still. The 22mm f2 sells quickly. Canon hasn't made anything similar for RF yet so zoomers consider it a good content creation camera because it doesn't have a scary EVF.
t.market knower.

>>4525884
Oh it was a comment on mirrorless in general, the yin to the yang that the joy of reflex is.
But yes, having to use menus for everything and not having a real viewfinder seems miserable. Oh well, at least it's not Fuji/Sony.
Image quality wise I doubt anyone can find a reason to complain outside of low light fixed pattern noise but that's a Canon issue old as time. You could have a 5D and still have that problem.
The real issue is that an ultra wide angle lens for a small sensor requires more exotic focal lengths. A meager 24mm equivalent has to be 15mm. A 16mm equivalent is a 10mm, so on and so forth.
>>4525885
>The 22mm f2 sells quickly
I'm surprised
>zoomers consider it a good content creation camera because it doesn't have a scary EVF
That's so retarded lol. I assume content creation in this context means vlogging. It doesn't even have an input for a proper mic.

>>4525883
>APS-C is slim pickings when it comes to going wide. With FF there's an abundance of options and they're affordable used.
how wide are we talking? practical wide or some edge case "gonna need this lens 2 times in my life" wide?

>>4525785
what filter would I need to do this? black mist 1/8?

>>4525806
achschually, professionals shooting weddings or fashion shows or any sort of portraiture with suits or fabrics will dread moire.
your clients are not going to care that the image is 0.1% less sharp but will see moire and ask for their money back or worse.

>>4525880
A long time ago the xt3 was $1000 new

>>4525879
All sony hate on /p/ derives from sony killing off fuji, olympiss, and panasonic for non-retarded consumers

The issues are severely overblown and mostly artifacts of the top selling sony FF bodies outselling all other FF ILCs combined, and retarded gearfags not knowing how to use their cameras and being too literally autistic to change their habits. And I mean literally hand flapping developmental delay autism, like moirespammer.

>>4525894
Good thing all professionals shoot raw so moire is quickly and easily edited out, so only that part is 0.1% less sharp vs the entire image having a weird horizontal blur

>>4525892
Both. For equivalent focal lengths it's usually more expensive on APS-C if it even exists. The most obvious and mundane is 24mm f/2.8. The EF 24mm f/2.8 is like 100 bucks in priatine condition. The equivalent would be 15mm f/1.8, good luck with that. You could get a Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for like 400 bux new but you're losing coverage and each millimeter matters more the lower the focal length is. Wide angle photography is one of the things that made me get a full frame back in the day.

Remember when that fag with the husky had a little fit and sold his mirrorless for a dslr with an AA filter because his dog was a moire machine, and the photos just looked like blurry shit at the same zoom levels required to see moire? And then he had a Z7 again and yet never admitted that DSLRs suck? Kek

>>4525897
This guy is a fucking retard.

>>4525892
Canon ef-m 11-22
Laowa 9mm f2.8
These are fine but that idiot is going to try to talk you into a DSLR

>>4525895
>A long time ago the xt3 was $1000 new
Yeah, during covid and right after the XT-4 was launched. Used cars were more expensive than new ones too. And gasoline was 2.4 USD/USGal.
>All sony hate on /p/ derives from sony killing off fuji, olympiss, and panasonic for non-retarded consumers
Absurd notion. Sony hate is well deserved, but at least Sony shooters tend to understand the basics of photography more than fujislugs. It's just that they make ewaste. And they destroyed the DSLR market so they could replace the OVF with a cheaper EVF that doesn't let you see through the lens.

File: DSC_1993.jpg (2.89 MB, 3000x2000)

2.89 MB JPG

I have a cheap D3500, finally picked up a prime lens to replace the two kit lenses, and I'm getting my ass kicked by the lack of VR. The main kit was a 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 and the prime is a 35mm f/1.8. All DX lenses.

Seriously though, I have to make every effort to get non-blurry shots at even 1/60 of a second, while with the VR lens I could go down to 1/8 or 1/5 of a second with the same effort and shoot 1/15 without even thinking about it. I don't have particularly stable hands. I like having the wider aperture for DOF and I do think the lens is *slightly* sharper, but the lack of VR is a killer for me. I'm also not sure if the "primes are always better than zooms" really holds true with modern glass, the difference between the kit and prime in actual image quality is really small.

Pic related was the only relatively clear shot at 1/60 out of six I took in a row.

>>4525899
While I'd love him to see the light and get a DSLR, I'm on the "he's a lost cause" camp and will only try to make him get a full frame. It's objectively the best system for wide angle digital photography outside of a professional studio setting where PhaseOne DMF (real 645) shines.

>>4525901
Sheesh you complain about shit nobody cares about more than your rabbi

>>4525902
If you hadn't invested in lenses already I'd say get a cheap Pentax and be happy (they have ibis so they stabilize your vintage lenses). Sadly the flange and throat are too close to Nikon's to adapt anything from them without compromising the optics (adapters have what is basically a weak teleconverter to keep infinity focus). You could use a tripod I suppose.

>>4525902
DSLRs kinda suck and micro four thirds competes well with the apsc ones old shitty sensors

>>4525905
No, I'm saying it was a wacky time and prices from that era are bullshit and that those dollars were worth more than dollars today. They were asking 417 gallons of gasoline for a shitty Fuji is what I'm saying.

>>4525907
>DSLRs kinda suck
Compared to film SLRs maybe. Compared to mirrorless hell no.

>>4525895
How much does Snoy pay you to do this, anon? Is it a lot? Or do they pay you in cameras, so you never have to worry about Snoyshit #237 literally snapping in half? Considering the amount of people that carry multiple cameras I guess that'd actually be a pretty good deal.

>>4525910
Schizophrenia

>>4525908
>oy vey you’re not getting the point here. it was THIS many shekels!
Oyyyyy that’s a lotta shekels

>>4525910
>so you never have to worry about Snoyshit #237 literally snapping in half?
justsonyggerthings, lmao. Not like they had any photography in them, they tend to do street (journalism of the Mundane)

File: DSC_2216.jpg (1.95 MB, 6000x4000)

1.95 MB JPG

>>4525906
Maybe I just need to get better at handholding, dunno. I do like the images this setup produces and it wasn't very expensive. It's also a pretty small setup which is valuable to me, I hate big/heavy setups because I would just leave it at home 99% of the time.

Have a random snapshit I just took of my cat.

cANON go one post without complaining about something challenge: impossible

>>4525911
>you're a kike if you question the value proposition of Fuji scameras

>>4525896
it's not really possible to edit out sometimes or is really hard.
less sharp image you can just up the sharpness and that's enough.

>>4525915
>i’m obsessed with saturn, value propositions, the ukranian military, shipping vessels, and did i say money? also i am extremely paranoid
>me? a jew? no way my fellow nazis heil hitler amirite
Mossad needs to hire better agents.

>>4525916
It’s very easy to edit out. With raws.

>>4525913
For me, the best is the D5300. Ergonomically and aesthetically. The K-S2 is smaller but heavier. I wouldn't mind the extra 200 grams but I sometimes use a 1.8kg setup lol (with a late 60s tele zoom)

>>4525902
same issue I got a vintage 200mm and I can only get decent pics at like 1/600 and up even though it's only 300mm equivalent... so if I use 600mm then if need what... 1200?

>>4525918
no, but ok.
idont have a camera without olpf to give you a raw from but maybe you should try.

>>4525902
Image stabilization is very underappreciated. When comparing previous gen to the newest the difference is immediately noticeable if you do longer exposures handheld.

>>4525917
>we could throw you in jail just for saying truth does not fear investigation and we have repeatedly attempted to dox you, why are you cautious? Is it... paranoia?

File: DSC_1884.jpg (2.13 MB, 3000x2000)

2.13 MB JPG

>>4525920
God yeah the other kit lens my camera came with was a non-VR 70-300mm, if I use the 300mm end it's a 450mm equivalent so it's basically 1/800s minimum. even in daylight I'm at ISO 1600. I don't use it much for that reason.

>>4525921
Yes, retard

>>4525923
>us nazis are the most oppressed race amirite
Glowing

>>4525925
Jews literally throw 90+ year old grannies in jail for questioning their hoax

>>4525926
>be mad about a sensationalized genocide from a century ago goyim!
Why do you ADL guys push this lame low IQ antisemitism? All the jews will aliyah eventually if you make Israel a nicer place to live. There is simply no need for the drama.