Only A Gameboy Camera Is Good Enough™Previously: >>4524132
This is the bald headed Trvth
>APS-C is now just slightly worse full frame>neither of these $4000 cameras is weather sealed as well as a 2013 DSLRGearfag sisters…
>>4525021Obviously 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 dieHow 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.
>>4525022>he did the meemPost corgi
This place is so boring now, not even creative enough to come up with new memesJust the same engagement bait over and over
>>4525025Not me, I've given up on the engagement bait here
>>4525026Of 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
>>4525028What photos do you share?
Nikonhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=RB7vvAnKDaAOlympushttps://43addict.com/2025/07/18/om-system-om-5-mark-ii-camera-weather-sealing-test-video/Sonyhttps://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1ehckii/a7cr_rubber_sealing_gasket_by_card_slot_begins_to/Fujihttps://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.
>>4525031Crippling 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 instagramHigh 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 fraudDeclining 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 professionalIncreasing 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
>>4525033TLDR"Serious" digital photography is a machine that turns several thousand dollars into shitty photos of brick walls and a case of clinical depressionThe 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 photographerYou 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.
>>4525036Yeah its literally impossible to drive 3 hours to a national park or something if you have a jobThat 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!
>>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.
>>4525031At 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.
>>4525082Your 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?>>4525093You 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 memeYes, 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."
>>4525097Then you now know everyones brand is better than fuji and sony and you can ignore the sad soiboys who shill that junk going forwardGood job!
>>4525098Enjoy 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.
>>4525031
>>4525100What 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>>4525117Photography 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.
>>4525120Where can we see some of your photos on the board?
>>4525128This board is not for photos, it's for gear. If you wanna see strangers photos go on instagram or those facebook groups
>>4525132Sad perspective you have nophoto
>>4525135>>4525132The 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.
>>4525137You dont even know who’s posting if they don’t post their dog or use a stand-out cameraTwo 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.
>>4525112
>>4525095>Your fellow JewSeems 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.
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
>>4525165Hush, baldy. Your cover is blown. Go back to photographing saturn and ukranian military positions mossadbro.
>>4525174you could get one of thesenot 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
>>4525183why not a 16-50 and a 50-250 for muh reech ? also an uwa for buildings and wide landscapes
>>4525186that seems close enough to what i got no?
>>4525183I 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>cruiseWorse than a jew tBh
>>4525187i guess you are using aps-c, the 18mm is 28mm on ff, not enough wide in kinda many situations, although you can do pano
>>4525183I 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 colorA single midrange zoom or 35/50mm works well for one bodyI see focal length maxing as pretty silly nowadays, and 95% of what what I like to shoot is fine between 28 and 50
>>4525183All 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?
>>4525215Nah. 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 patiencemaxxingSavingspilledI’m not going to settle for spending all my money on what I can affordI’m mogging impulsecels by spending some of my money on what I want#delayedthadification
>>4525183Modern 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 14-150Olympus 12-200 is the only one with big zoom range but sharpness is bad.
>>4525020Swap Kodak and Sony
>>4525224>>4525020
>>4525227He who edits meme, portrayed accurately in first version
>>4525227>it got to him>he autistically rearranged the other logos tooFucking lolHere’s to you being butthurt enough to repost this five times in the future
>>4525227>made the snoy schizo have another meltyohnono
>>4525236>t. spent 20 hours rearranging camera logos in photoshop because he got called baldlol nice try baldy>nooo its about my brand war!no its about your hairlineyou are baldif you dont like sony buy a fuji. but if you shoot boomer brands you are bald. rules are rules chrome dome.
We interrupt this shitflinging to announce that I have recently become resolutionmaxxed and wide-gamutpilled.
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
>>4525031I 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.
>>4525227You are both retarded
>>4525242That 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
>>4525268Panasonic's JPEG engine is decent. Fuji's JPEG engine blurs fine detail.
>>4525183I 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.
>>4525020Trvth nvke. Baldies malding>>4525243Sony makes the best for full frame, but for compact aps-c zooms you gotta go with fujifilm and sigma
>>4525268The 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
>>4525020Lanier 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 phoneflashAccessory flash looks better>no ND filterSo? Its not a real ND filter. Its software. >no WRLiterally 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/iyolwKxSSckhttps://youtube.com/watch?v=hwUJkgPImqM>max aperture sperging over a fractional stopWho 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>IPSSorry 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
>>4525296It is a productivity/professional creativity display not l33t hax0rz lol gaming display. Maybe you should grow up and leave the toys for the babies.
>>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 unitGood gaijinThe 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 creakAnd its 70% of why SOOC x100vi jpegs often look similar to an iphones Pic rel, garry winogrand mogging pancake twinks>>4525300You’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*
>>4525303Antediluvian man practicing macro photography in liliput, 14,000 BCE (colorized)
>>4525302>2026>still doesn't understand the benefit of OLEDLet me guess, you shoot Canon?
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?
>>4525308I 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>>4525309Actually, 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 nikonAny 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
>>4525309Rethink your gearfagging >>4525021>>4525311*f2.7
>why is /p/ so dead? why did they all leave?>/p/>>4525311>>4525312The 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.
>>4525311>nikon babblingAnyone understand what this retard is saying?
>>4525310>>4525309The 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?
>>4525318I'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.
>>4525319He’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.
>>4525321nooo the paid shill for chinese made cameras would never represent their quality as better than it is in real life
>>4525319Yeah 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 frameno 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
>>4525325sensor 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)
>>4525321More 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 baldWhat the fuck are you on about?
>>4525020Uncs will never recover
>>4525332Just 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
>>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 70-210Zooms 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.
>>4525345I 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)
>>4525302When 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).
>>4525345It is indeed an amazing lensposting without trip in case some glownigger saw me post this in the original board
>>4525329not what i asked
>>4525308my 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.>>4525183i 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
>>4525384>another IPS that had surprisingly good color accuracyso 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
>>4525308Sigma 17-40 is the better option unless you plan to do lots of video with zooms while filming.
>>4525021>2026>still caring about sensor sizelol you people are terminally retarded
>>4525431Sensor size is all that mattersPaying more than $500 for a crop sensor body is fucking retarded
>>4525432trvkemost 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 mattersSensor size is important, but it's less important than- size/weight/ergonomics- physical controls- firmware controls- autofocus ability- display quality
damn i took some really good shots with my sony zv1 looking back through some old photosmakes 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 financiallyi 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 itwhy 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.
>>4525439honestly i agreei 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 sensorif 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
>>4525439While 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.
