The FX9 launch got delayed again, when did Sony become Rockstar Games tier? Is it the PlayStation influence?

File: 278933 - soybooru.com - 1(...).png (331 KB, 1125x1116)

331 KB PNG

>>4535013
>>4535016
>>4535017
>my only purpose in life is to whine about the gear thread
>no I won't make photo threads
>no I won't bump photo threads
>no I won't discuss photographers
>yes I will complain about other people making threads before I authorize them

>>4535018
>newfag tears

>>4535018
FUCK. YOU.
Nigger.

File: 280387 - soybooru.com - 2(...).png (50 KB, 453x404)

50 KB PNG

>>4535022
>I'm not crying your (sic) crying

I was asked to post this here from another thread:

>My camera Canon EOS R50 V fell on wooden floor. The impact was a corner of the body. It was off the table, around 1 meter.

>It did not get a single scratch. I did test stuff, like image quality, manual focus, recording a while et c. Everything seems fine.

How serious is this?

>>4535025
The lack of ibis may have saved your ass

>>4535025
Test the AF and mech shutter
Was there a lens attached when it fell?

>>4535027
>Test the AF and mech shutter

It does not have an Mech Shutter. The AF works well.

>Was there a lens attached when it fell?

Yes, but it was not hit, but the cap popped out from the force. I detached it and I didn't see anything wrong.

>>4535028
It has a first curtain mech shutter. The AF is working accurately?
>Yes, but it was not hit,
You mean the camera fell flat on its screen? Check the lens for weird behavior that could point to compromised collimation, check sharpness along the whole focus range and zoom range too if a zoom.

>>4535028
I mean the lens would have to get somewhat hit unless the camera laid on the screen side, even if it wasn't the first point of contact with the floor

File: ssssss.png (351 KB, 627x556)

351 KB PNG

>>4535029
>It has a first curtain mech shutter.

I couldn't take pictures without the lens. Only record video, the video is blurry without the lens. But I can take pictures with the lens. Is that bad?

>The AF is working accurately?

Yes, AF and MF works fine.

>You mean the camera fell flat on its screen?

No, the corner, pic related.

>Check the lens for weird behavior that could point to compromised collimation,

This... is scary. It looks like it could be strange... But it also depends on how I hold the camera, the focal length and such. I will go and take lots of pictures...

What if the videos are fine but not the images?

>check sharpness along the whole focus range and zoom range too if a zoom.

Works normal.

File: cat_oiia_camera.png (456 KB, 1000x984)

456 KB PNG

I need a Nikon ZR and Tamron 35-100mm F2.8
but I love my LUMIX and SIGMA lenses

>>4535033
>But I can take pictures with the lens. Is that bad?
Apparently it's fine but you could try this to be safe https://youtube.com/watch?v=lxxq-RUrMZY
>No, the corner, pic related.
Then the lens had to get hit unless it's a tiny pancake or something
>This... is scary. It looks like it could be strange... But it also depends on how I hold the camera, the focal length and such. I will go and take lots of pictures...
You may luck out and have nothing like that happen. If the sharpness across the image is similar to when it was new then it's fine.
>What if the videos are fine but not the images?
That could indicate a minor problem that requires full resolution to be seen.
>Works normal.
Sounds good

>>4535035
GAS is a bitch, a silly addiction

>>4535036
>Apparently it's fine but you could try this to be safe https://youtube.com/watch?v=lxxq-RUrMZY [Embed]

This R50 stuff didn't work on the R50 V, even the buttons are different.

>>4535041
R50V version https://cam.start.canon/en/C021/manual/html/UG-10_Custom_0020.html

File: ssssss.png (466 KB, 945x1031)

466 KB PNG

>>4535042

The mode showing this is S&F. And yes, I can take videos with S&F. But in picture mode I cannot enter this orange setting. And it will not take pictures without a lens. Not even such an orange menu option.

File: IMG_2756.jpg (198 KB, 787x984)

198 KB JPG

>It’s a scoop!
>Fast! Get it on the wire!

>>4535043
Try one of the custom modes, can you take stills in them?

Why are DSLRs and mirrorless worse at exposing correctly over 90s SLRs? An old Nikon understands that snow and sand should be white, while an R5 gives you grey.

>Ricoh and Pentax are still too retarded to develop a digital Auto 110

>>4535063
On DSLR, skill issue. On the søy of mirrorless, søy.

>>4535063
>An old Nikon understands that snow and sand should be white
It didn't understand. A normally metered exposure would be underexposed - it's just that the machine or technician interpreting the negative had the intelligence to boost exposure for the print. Negative film has the latitude to make such exposure adjustments possible.

>>4535066
More like these faggots want to preserve highlights so they enable that option and they also don't know how metering modes work.
Ironically, reading Ken Rockwell would help them.
I never had problems with thin negs using SLR metering, it's not just a technician thing.

File: lumix-anniversary-1_lc_26(...).jpg (574 KB, 1920x1080)

574 KB JPG

Looks like Lumix is releasing at least one new camera for 25th year anniversary.
Hoping for S9 update with EVF and mechanical shutter!

>>4535025
In my experience camera bodies can take a decent amount of beating no problem, but the lens and the lens mount are the weak points. If the camera works without error messages why should you expect there to be damage...

>>4535074
>20mp micro four thirds (5mp equivalent)
what did he mean by this?

Every time a new one of these threads starts I have this urge to ask what camera introduces the most beautiful moire patterns in the images. All I care about is seeing the false colour in boring deadpan images of buildings and suits. To me uninspired photos of mundane things with moire is the height of art and a camera is unusable if it's designed in a manner that t minimises moire.

>>4535069
Nothing poomix releases will ever be worth buying. They live in an alternate universe where last year's nikon is not available on the used market.
>BUT THE VIDEO
The S9 and S5II had fucking cropped 4k60 and the same rolling shutter as the a7iii they literally re-release sony cameras but even worse (and sony was already garbage) that's all they do

Lumix S body = low quality parody of a shitty sony
Lumix L lense = low quality parody of a nikon S lens

File: 1792120018354144.png (1.05 MB, 1444x854)

1.05 MB PNG

>>4535067
In other words, the best way to nail everything is to shoot raw.

People dont like negative film because it's film. They send it to a lab. They like negative film because negatives are essentially raw files and the labs scanning fee pays for 15 min of editing for 36 photos.

The human brain knows what the white balance and shadow exposure should be. No camera's screen is accurate enough for replication work so it's ultimately better AND MORE ACCURATE to do it in post.

>>4535084
Yep. Reality is relatively subjective so fixing up a raw later is actually more accurate than pretending an evf/screen can be used to pre-edit. Literally all cameras are brighter and more contrasty on-body than the photos actually are.

I'm planning on trimming down my camera collection /p/:

Keep:

Pentax: K3, K70, K10D
Sony/Minolta: a68, a390, a100, KM 5D (3x)

Sell:

Pentax: K1ii, K200D (2x, one has 100k shutters the other 5k shutters).

Sony/Minolta: a58, KM 7Ds (1 has FBF and I can't revive it, the other is absolutely MINT and I don't feel worthy of keeping it...like it has the box and all even the grip)

Sell K1ii: I don't like it, I'm going to a Sony a7iv + LA-KE1 and LA-EA5 Pentax and Minolta AF adapters from the proceeds of selling everything. The sensor on the a7iv is better and the autofocus is superior. You can find a a7iv for ~$1500. And honestly that's if I want it....I might just not buy it and focus on shooting what I already have. Probably gonna ask $1200. I've posted about it before, but I never saw a real difference shooting FF.

Sell K200D: Again, don't like it, I like the K10D more. Plus I have a ton of batteries that work well between the K10D and KM 5D/7D. Probably gonna sell for $80-100 and $140

Sell a58: a68 replaced it, basically the same thing with better AF. I really like the a68, its a great overlooked camera. a6000 sensor + SLT DSLR body + A-Mount lenses. Would recommend it to anyone who wants to shoot Minolta. They're cheap too...$200-250. I'll probably sell the a58 for $150.

Sell KM 7Ds: One died of FBF and I can't revive it, which has me scared the 2nd will die too. The prices of 7Ds is retarded high. I can probably ask $250 and get it. Personally I like my 5Ds more....they're more reliable, smaller, and give the same look/visual effect/picture. Anyone interested in the 7D I usually steer them towards a 5D instead. Broken one I think $40 is fair.

File: lumix_monitor-viewfinder.png (34 KB, 696x265)

34 KB PNG

>>4535085
>evf/screen
he's learning.

>Literally all cameras are brighter and more contrasty on-body than the photos actually are.
if only there was some way to adjust the displays.

>>4535088
These gross adjustments are worthless

And you dont even get them on well made cameras as an implicit admission that shooting raw is better. Weird how the WORST cameras are the ones that jive with your nophoto ideas of how photography should be. Its like the world is right and you’re wrong
>but the words make sense in my head…
Lies usually do.

>>4535089
Those who can’t provide an appealing camera in real life instead provide an impressive philosophy to self absorbed midwits who treat their cameras defining and practically useless gimmick as world changing.

This weird panasonic jpeg accuracy autist, and all the fuji film fakers, and snoy/four thirds chart freaks on earth are all the same type of ideal marketing victim

When certain companies (coughsonypanasonic fujiA-) cant provide a good tool for photography they try redefine what good photography can be through propaganda and gimmicks justifying their products practical limitations

>>4535090
>justifying their products practical limitations
holy projection

We get it. You use a DSLR which is a weird transitional solution between analog and digital photography.
You are not able to do cutting-edge digital photography with that equipment and you can't do analog either.
You want to downplay the importance of accurate captures because it's not something you can do. You want to pretend that guesswork in your RAW editor is just as good. Probably you are too old and lack the neuroplasticity to transition to true digital photography. Sad!

>>4535092
NTA, but can you please post some of your cutting edge digital photography.

File: D71543E3-C6DB-4711-BB2A-7(...).png (2.18 MB, 1536x1024)

2.18 MB PNG

It took free tier of ChatGPT less than a minute to generate this. There’s no point of doing photography anymore. Sell your gear while it’s still worth anything.

>>4535094
Can chat gpt create raw files so anons can edit them on their calibrated monitors.?

>>4535090
Who can provide an appealing camera irl?

>>4535094
>Jew York streetfaggotraphy.

>>4535084
>People dont like negative film because it's film. They send it to a lab.
Speak for yourself niggerfaggot

>>4535090
>This weird panasonic jpeg accuracy autist, and all the fuji film fakers, and snoy/four thirds chart freaks on earth are all the same type of ideal marketing victim
Nailed it
>When certain companies (coughsonypanasonic fujiA-) cant provide a good tool for photography they try redefine what good photography can be through propaganda and gimmicks justifying their products practical limitations
Namely the lack of an OVF redefined in marketing as an advancement instead of a budget cut coupled with larger margins
EVIL cameras were a mistake.

>>4535094
It's funny how AI produces clones of street non-photography. It's like Chinese cars, they all look like a bastardized copy of something.
If you do actual photography you have nothing to worry about. If you're a street fraudtographer then yes.

>>4535092
>a weird transitional solution between analog and digital photography
That's called scanning or film intermediate, retard.

>>4535086
The only correct part of your comment is:
>ISO100 FF = ISO400 MFT
The rest is complete bullshit.
Aperture and focal length are properties of the lens. Doesn't matter what sensor size you have they always mean the same thing.
Resolution is not affected by sensor size but SNR is. This makes your ISO claim mostly true if we assume the same sensor tech was used for both sensors in comparison.
Difference in SNR is something that is inherently dependent on the sensor size and will always differentiate smaller sensors like MFT, APS-C or "Full frame" from less cucked sensor formats.

>>4535099
Then don t buy a sony faggot.
Buy only brands that have ovf and olpf
Does the sony sales man comes to your house and pouts a gun to your head demanding you buy sony cameras?

Rolls Royce is a shit car because it consumes more fuel than my mini cooper and can t find a parking spot easily
Nobody is forcing you to buy shit you don t want fagget.

>>4535099

Ok gramps. Time for a nap and meds.

File: IMG_5061.jpg (400 KB, 530x1104)

400 KB JPG

>>4535104
Those dirty poorfag mirrorless haters are pathetic. If you gave them the newest Sony mirrorless kit they would never look at their crusty old 5D MK IIs ever again.
Sad they are too dumb to notice how pathetic and retarded they look making a new gear thread every other day, arguing over the same inane bullshit with the same old arguments over and over again. Longing for them mirrorless grapes they can never reach.

>>4535106
He s just a weak troll
Trying to force mems
There was one guy on .g. that used different ai models to argue with eachoter. Might be the case here also. As i see some guys that respond to him use the same replies over and over.
If he us to stupud to use ai to post he prob hase some txt files from whre he just copy pastes his retarded arguments and counter arguments.
He s mentally ill. Nobody will spend their time posting the same shit over and over and over
A sane person will just get bored and try other aproces for trolling or quit

>>4535094
Those are much better photos than anything I have produced in 25 years

>>4535109
Probably because these are not photos and probably because real world doesn't look the way those images do.
AI models are not bound by the limits of physical world and can dream up any bullshit you will ask them to.
There is nothing impressive about those images. They are a blend of old movie frames and work of the best photographers that ever existed. Stolen, lossy compressed and sold back to you as an innovation. Remember to pay your AI subscription like a good boy.

>>4535110
>Remember to pay your AI subscription like a good boy.
Those corporate investments need to make a return or otherwise they'll have to steal your 401k.

>>4535110
But they don t have moire, sony green or magenta, look like dslr with oplf, and can be curve adjusted in industry standard software
Ai is here to stay and most probably more fun tu use that people on this board have taking pictures

>>4535089
>And you dont even get them on well made cameras
which "well made cameras" don't have display adjustment?

>>4535106
But the pictures look like shit.

>>4535094
>look at this kino chatgpt generated bro
>it’s the biggest piece of shit ever

this is funny every time

>>4535117
Then dub on those suckers with your ultra quality photos from the ubermench camera
All the bad bitches will suck your cock instantly when they see the sharpness and details that the other bitch niggers can t ever have in their photos

>>4535120
That is what I've been doing m8e

>>4535103
>Does the sony sales man comes to your house and pouts a gun to your head demanding you buy sony cameras?
Indirectly yes via enshittification making every camera in the market be as bad as a Sony. They undercut everyone who made OVFs so they had to stoop to Sony's level to survive, as OVFs are expensive to make and the sheep were brainwashed into thinking they're an improvement. At first they came up with the SLT, one half of the EVIL category. Then they realized it could be made cheaper and figured a way to do on-sensor AF guessing what the pixels now replaced by phase detection photosites would have and it was good enough for the sheeple.
>Rolls Royce is a shit car because it consumes more fuel than my mini cooper and can t find a parking spot easily
>SLRs are shit cameras because they're more expensive than my mirrorless and my søy hands can't carry them as easily
The analogy doesn't work in your favor

>>4535122
And who is stopping you from buying oplf and ovf cameras ?
You can get all the oplf and ovf old cameras you want now for cheap thanks to sony
>Fuck iphones with their no keyboard phones
>everybody making keyboardless phones now thanks to iphone
>iphones removed the keyboards because they were more expensive to make and the sheep were tricked into thinking they were an improvement
>Buy an old keyboard phone than m8
>But they are shit
>there still are new phones with keyboards or keyboard attachments for your phone
>but they are shit
>everybody should be making new phones with keyboards because i say they are better and i want one

>>4535102
A 50mm f1.8 (FF) and 25mm f0.9 (MFT) have the same FOV and aperture size. The "f0.9" is literally not "faster". Its aperture is the same size. This is a fact and it will make you seethe.
>This makes your ISO claim mostly true if we assume the same sensor tech was used for both sensors in comparison.
That's a thing to bring up... considering full frame cameras usually have the sensor/lens tech unless it's a DSLR and tend to have better resolution and color even at ISOs beyond "equivalence".

Full Frame is the standard sensor size btw. This FACT makes mfturdies seethe like no tomorrow. It's the standard. And micro four thirds is dead for being worse APS-C. Haha!

>>4535099
DSLR OVFs were genuinely bad technology. Rangefinder OVFs are fine for lenses <50mm. DSLR OVFs are basically worthless kludges. Mirrorless was a genuine improvement.

RIP:
partial AF coverage
dumb PDAF points that have no idea what to track
fuckhuge retrofocus wide angle primes
fuckhuge zooms (mirrorless zooms have gotten way, way, way smaller)
blurry as fuck 50 and 85mms
"AF fine tuning" (inaccuracy from focusing and shooting off two different planes)
focus shift on every lens
mirror vibrations

>>4535124
noooo fool frame is WORSE >:( my low end beginners camera used by taylor swift could not possible be "worse" than fucking fool frame professional slop for men with jobs arrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhh

>>4535094
Just shoot raw with a 45mp+ camera
>NOOOO THATS PIXEL PEEPING
I call it reality verification.
>JPEGS ARE MORE HONEST! STOP USING RAW PLEAAAASE!
ChatGPT can't generate a 45mp file with realistic, coherent 14-16 bit color depth. Also, everyone shoots raw.

ChatGPT can generate jpegs.

Raw = photo
Jpeg = lesser derivative

Raws contain all the color and detail your camera saw when paired with the appropriate ICC profile and a program that can display it correctly (ie: capture one)
Jpegs are 8 bits of lossy compression

>>4535126
Are posting raw 45mp files on your instagram? Are you sending 45mp raw files to your client? Are you posting 45mp photos on 4chin? Are you printing 1:1 45mp pictures 27"x18" @ 300 dpi? Are you posting 45mp on your portfolio site?are you sending 45mp raw files to friend or family via messaging apps
If no stfu and fuck off
If yes then excuse me

>>4535123
I agree with the phone argument actually kek, I hate enduring these touchscreen abominations and miss the BlackBerry days. I actually held out with BB10 until after they dropped support, Heartbleed was the final nail in the coffin. Some websites wouldn't even load anymore.
The only cameras I'd be interested in aren't even available new anymore.

>>4535128
>Buy one then
>But they suck! Surely if they were modernized they would be good!
You have bad real life ideas that you keep justified with "philosophy" that sounds right in your fantasy life

>>4535124
You have shutter shock now as documented by your precious Gym Cassegrain

>>4535127
>Person: Is this AI?
>Person with nikon Z7II: No. Here's the raw file. See? Real photo.
>Person: Wow, so much detail... an AI could never do this.
>some retard: BUT INSTAGRAM CAN ONLY DISPLAY A JPEG MY MFT/AI IS GOOD ENOUGH REEEEE GEARFAGS YOU HAVENT EVEN SEEN THE CHARTS AFTER ADJUSTING THEM FOR BANNING FUCKING PIXEL PEEPING

>>4535126
>Raws contain all the color and detail your camera saw
they don't contain the correct white balance unless it was recorded at the scene and saved in metadata.
they don't contain the perceptual relation between light and dark because sensor response and human eye response is wildly different. A competent photographer adjusts the tone curve and a good camera also saves that in metadata for the raw software to apply.

>>4535130
Shutter shock is relevant for long exposures tripod photos
We got you covered, use elec shutter, there is no rolling shutter for slow action
No, fuck you i want to shoot mech shutter with no shutter shock

>>4535129
They don't suck but I'm not going to buy a 22k Leica DSLR for 11k, it's like buying a cheap BMW. Asking for trouble. And the guys asking 24k are people who don't really want to sell, probably nagged by their wives.

>>4535130
>mirrorless has shutter shock
DSLR mirror shock was enough to soften handheld pictures. Mirrorless shutter shock is a tripod only issue cured by turning on EFCS.

>>4535132
Now this is what I call being fucking retarded. Do you own a camera? Post it.

>>4535133
Electronic shutter introduces other artifacts

>>4535131
Wow such nice fantasy.
This never happens outside prestigious photo contests
Implying i can t send show the original jpeg with same result.
Nobody is going to see your raw files nigger, calm down

File: a81ddwe_460sv.mp4 (191 KB, 460x258)

191 KB MP4

>>4535135
>DSLR mirror shock was enough to soften handheld pictures.
>heeeeelp søybot, hold my camera please!!!!

>>4535136
Like what?

File: White-balance-in-photogra(...).jpg (109 KB, 1415x947)

109 KB JPG

>>4535135
>Now this is what I call being fucking retarded. Do you own a camera? Post it.
which is the correct white balance?

>>4535137
>AI has killed photography! Look at this slop
>Well I can just show you the raw file and prove its a real photo which gives it innately more value than slop
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NO ONE FUCKING CARES REEEEEE
Kek

File: images (1).jpg (29 KB, 335x597)

29 KB JPG

>>4535140
All of these would look different on your shitty panasonic anyways
>>4535084

Just edit it how you remember it like everyone else and stop being autistic

Plus, if you have a raw file, you can prove its a real photo taken by a camera and not an AI generated jpeg.

>>4535140
For me, it's the middle. That delicious lynchian look.

File: jpeg babby.png (118 KB, 1435x964)

118 KB PNG

>look at facebook lumix groups
>laugh at jpeg babbies being confused that shooting jpeg isnt working like how the lumix shills told them it would

>>4535141
Nobody will care if your street photography is "real", you can't prove you didn't just telecine it.

>>4535145
>nobody cares reeeeeeeeeee
Mad because you don't have 45mp and can't shoot raw without bogging down your thinkpad t60 for hours

>>4535141
How many times were you asked to send raw files to prove your photos are not ai?
Nobody cares outside contests. That is no reason to shoot raw. You are just making up fantasies that will never ever happen to normal people who take photos
>I have a condom in my wallet all the time in case some whore wants my dick, must be prepared
>Virgin

>>4535146
I have 280MP with 35mm Copex Rapid

>>4535141
Are your photos that good and mindblowing that people say
>There is no way a human could posibly take a picture like this. This is ai for sure

>>4535144
The difference between picture display and expsim, it's been true since the introduction of live view in the 00s

>>4535144
>Set camera screen brightness to max to shoot outside
>Review your photos on a screen indoors with brightness set to 50% or less
Complain they look diffrent
At least he says he s a beginer. He will learn

>>4535142
>edit it how you remember it
lower IQ = higher confidence in memory

>>4535124
50mm is 50mm.
f/1.4 is f/1.4.
If you want to match field of view between different sensor sizes then you need to use different focal lengths and when you change your focal length your depth of field at selected aperture setting will change with it. If you try a 50mm and a 28mm at f/1.4 on the same sensor size your depth of field will also be different. This has nothing to do with a sensor size.
50mm f/1.8 on FF and 25mm f/0.9 on MFT are not equal. f/0.9 will let in more light and result in brighter exposure.
The only thing that changes between different sensor sizes is... the sensor size. The larger the sensor area the better its signal to noise ratio because the larger sensor area captures more data overall.
MFT, APS-C, 35mm and medium format are all standard sensor sizes. There is no single best tool for every job in photography but it's true that some tools are more useful than other.

>>4535139
Reduced dynamic range, flicker, banding, rolling shutter.

>>4535140
>which is the correct white balance?
The one that reflects the temperature of light at the time of capture. Only the photographer who took this photo can know.

>>4535152
Electronic displays are inherently untrustworthy, the meter is there for a reason.

>>4535155
On a long expose picture, where shutter shock is a problem?

File: 1730274223517324.jpg (102 KB, 749x1024)

102 KB JPG

Christ this board has gone to just plain shit.
At this point, partaking in anything except RPT and dedicated anon threads is just self-flagellation.

How can any of you enjoy flinging shit over brandwars, nigger tripnames, and overly complex technical fucko shit? The technical shit isn't even interesting because of the retard-tier fervor of people being wrong, subjective, or plain contrarian.
Like actually what the fuck was the point of posting anything between >>4535151 and >>4535088? It's all just a bunch of you faggots back-and-forthing and getting your balls twisted over all sorts of fuckass topics.

The actual last post itt that has any merit to being posted is >>4535087 because anon wanted input from other anons, and he got completely ignored because none of you actually own a camera or know enough about them to offer a personal perspective.

>>4535156
No, that's the acvurate one. The correct one is the one that realizes the artist's true vision.

>>4535160
I ignored him because he's selling a K1 for a fucking mirrorless turd

>>4535154
A 50mm f1.8 and a 25mm f0.9 have the same aperture size and therefore the same light gathering
>50mm f/1.8 on FF and 25mm f/0.9 on MFT are not equal. f/0.9 will let in more light and result in brighter exposure.
Wrong.

>>4535154
>f/0.9 will let in more light
Per square millimeter.
>and result in brighter exposure.
True, but being the same total collected light the SNR will be roughly the same. And there's a chance that increased brightness saturates your wells in the highlight area. In that case the FF guy may be able to drop ISO while you'll have to use a faster shutter speed and lose to the FF.

File: canonr5.jpg (2.57 MB, 4000x2500)

2.57 MB JPG

>>4535156
exactly.

>>4535161
distorting a capture isn't art. pic very related.

File: DSCF4776.jpg (4.54 MB, 2948x4422)

4.54 MB JPG

>>4535158
I don't care I only answered your question.
>>4535161
It's a different point of view that I personally don't agree with. Doesn't mean it's invalid though.
>>4535160
You're absolutely right. I do own a camera though and I post pictures every now and then but coming here and correcting retards is my guilty pleasure.
>>4535087
Sell all of that ancient crap and get yourself one decent modern camera with the nicest lens you can afford.

>>4535167
>I don't care I only answered your question.
But none of that except the reduced dr is applicable for long exposures. You answered the question but out of context. The question was for that specific case not for some other instances.
>can you use a fork to eat the meat from a soup if there is no liquid left?

>No you need a spoon, how are you supposed to the liquid?

>>4535168
get bent

>>4535169
No, you

>>4535165
Can you post some examples you have taken?

>>4535165
That's more art than your soulless attempt at reality scanning.

File: Number+1.jpg (170 KB, 1280x920)

170 KB JPG

>>4535173
reality scanning = peak soul
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTXo4_AnZGQ

>>4535165
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/ByTXjgqqQPG8ox3Vto9pVA/
Months in and literally no one has ever agreed with you

>>4535154
Years in and literally no one has ever agreed with you either

You two have the same arguments over and over again because you are proven wrong over and over again. You need to just take the L.

The real world has already spoken

Micro four thirds is effectively a dead system because it's worse. You can twist words and spam on 4chan all you want. It's not coming back. It's worse. That's it. Lower quality. Not smaller or cheaper enough. Not as good for real life photography as APS-C.
Panasonic is a dead brand because it's worse and their gimmicks are actually useless. You can twist words and spam on 4chan all you want. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are still "photography". Canon's kit zoom outsells the entire lumix brand... because lumix cameras are worse. That's it. Less reliable. Less functional. Not as good for real life photography.

You can write fantasies out, shill your "ethos and philosophy" and tell people how things "OUGHT TO BE!" in such a way your brand/system is suddenly the best justified, and try and force your reality on /p/ all day long but in the real world, panasonic isn't selling, micro four thirds is deader than dead (re-relegated to camcorder sensors where it belongs), and these are non-reversible years long trends grounded in physical reality.
You're not accomplishing anything. You're just killing /p/ so the end you're barreling towards is outsiders accidentally coming here, seeing your stupid takes associated with exactly 0 good photos and cANON denying the moon landing, and everyone who might ever have any influence deciding then and there that whatever you think is the opposite of true and returning to wherever they came from.

>>4535153
its literally the opposite. higher IQ people have better memories.

>>4535177
its way worse than that (for them)

people come to /p/, see the actual photos (ie: /rpt/) all being taken with everything the /gear/ schizos hate, and then they see the /gear/ schizos and anons pointing out how they've repeated themselves again

their very existence is self-refuting
in the blue corner you have 15 /gear/ threads and the panasonic, dslr, and micro four thirds schizos repeating themselves while anons point out that they are retards that repeat themselves
in the red corner you have the photo posters - the vast majority of whom are using canon, sony, nikon, and fuji FF and APS-C mirrorless and singing its praises

/gear/ is humiliating itself by default. like communists. they keep shilling the theory with their "logic and reason" backing it but they're poorfags living in squalor while the rest of the world is having a great time.

>>4535178
higher IQ = better reading comprehension

File: me.jpg (19 KB, 474x569)

19 KB JPG

>>4535188
High IQ people overwhelmingly prefer to shoot raw, use mirrorless cameras, and edit in capture one.

File: 2026_best_budget.jpg (37 KB, 606x341)

37 KB JPG

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VP7oHlfkwfU

File: Untitled.png (600 KB, 3700x974)

600 KB PNG

>>4535191
>i'm a shopping addict. i currently own 25 cameras let me tell you about how some e-waste i impulse bought on ebay is okay I gue-*ytblock finally turns on*
Youtube is garbage and it's full of garbage people with garbage behavior.

Its all consumerist shopping addict behavior reinforcement and AI slop. I've blocked so much shit 9/10 times youtube takes forever to load as ytblock processes everything.

>>4535191
I'm waiting for someone to make this video about Olympus E-P7 so that I can sell mine for $1000.

For whatever reason Olympus has been memory-holing this model even though it's actually a good one for m43 standards.

>>4535177
>Years in and literally no one has ever agreed with you either
You two have the same arguments over and over again because you are proven wrong over and over again.
kek prove my arguments wrong then I'm waiting

>>4535198
>you have to prove me wrong every time so i can demand you do it again until no one is there and i win by default!
But in real life micro four thirds is dead because it takes $1000 and a manual only "f0.9" lens to underperform the rf 50mm f1.8 stm (which has the same aperture size)

>>4535176
>dishonest shitposting
That's hyper resolution not reality scanning. It's intrinsically transformative from the get-go.

>>4535086
More like 20MP MFT/44x33=17.8MP FF/APS-C.
You pay a penalty for your sensor being the wrong aspect ratio and having to crop to the intended one afterwards.

>>4535201
equivalence includes megapixels sorry there is no coping your way around this

four mft pixels = one ff pixel
two apsc pixels = one ff pixel

so a 20mp mft camera is 5mp equivalent and a 20mp dx camera is 10mp equivalent. thems the rules.

there's also an uneven crop factor from ff to dx medium format (1.2 = 1)

there are also resolution penalties
soft lens = -10% resolution on average (varies, but natural radial blur)
AA filter = -10% resolution (varies less, some are stronger, some are weaker, some run stronger in one direction than the other, rare good ones are just like using a soft lens no matter what you do)
xtrans = -30% from bayer
bayer = -50% from monochrome/foveon

Enjoy a rare look at what a sensor actually looks like and what the shit on top of it actually does
https://www.maxmax.com/maincamerapage/monochrome-cameras/olpf-study

Funny excerpt for the people ITT:
However, the fact that Nikon has chosen to sell a more expensive version D800e without the OLPF lends credence to our long standing opinion that the OLPF is, in general, an unwanted thing for most camera uses. No medium format back camera has one because those customers wouldn't buy it. We suspect that the use of the OLPF in consumer DLSR's is more of a marketing concern where they don't want someone posting a picture of a test chart online showing how a camera without an OLPF could exhibit moire. In most real life photographs, moire isn't an issue.

>>4535202

You sure did write words and numbers

>>4535204
Sorry chud, but there's no coping your way around this.

MFT looks 4x worse than FF if you don't adjust for equivalent megapixels. It would take a 96mp MFT sensor to equal a mere nikon Z6.

>>4535205
Not how it works

>Thank you for your patience while we're closed for Shabbat. You may still add items to your cart or wish list for later checkout.
LMAO

>>4535200
It is as real as the words on your screen.

>>4535199
It doesn't have the same aperture size you retard. I don't even shoot MFT I just hate seeing misinformed idiots spread their ignorance with such confidence.

>>4535205
>>4535206
If cANON has to correct you then you know you just went full retard

>>4535208
Not really, the words are just one step removed from the idea and allow the readers to fully reconstruct the original idea in their minds.
They're stage 1 of simulation, the symbol represents a basic reality.

File: IMG_7063.jpg (293 KB, 1280x1009)

293 KB JPG

So I got my hands on a Zeiss Ikon Ideal (250/7) 9x12 (which is almost 4"x5") and it's actually in better condition than I bargained for. Unfortunate, right?
I actually intended to more or less take it apart for a different project but now I actually feel like using it properly.

Anyway, I just don't have the sheet/plate holders (type 726/7 I believe) and I have some trouble finding them online. Anyone know of a good diy solution to get some negatives behind the thing? Maybe I can adopt an existing ground glass + sheet holder that is a bit more conventional? What would be a good way to go here?

>>4535214
That's some terrible taste in art the seller had

File: orion-fullframe-vs-1.6xcr(...).jpg (225 KB, 1080x800)

225 KB JPG

>>4535209
>uhm it says f0.9 so the aperture is bigger
a 50mm f1.8 has a 27.7mm aperture
a 25mm f0.9 has a 27.7mm aperture
aperture is literally the only thing that affects total light gathered
https://clarkvision.com/articles/exposure-f-ratio-aperture-and-light-collection/
mfturdies denying this is funny as fuck to me because you actually get equal light gathered and a narrower FOV by using a large aperture lens meant for FF
extreme low light, long distance (aka astro) is literally the one thing your shitty baby cameras are good for

of course, you can't be like cANON. you need to also know how to take a photo and use a quality lens instead of a drain pipe and a teleconverter!

otherwise ff has superior tonal range and better options for wider FOVs <135mm, all the good glass is native, and the cameras themselves are engineered and built to a much higher standard

>>4535219
>aperture is literally the only thing that affects total light gathered
For the picture, aperture and sensor size actually, you don't gather what falls outside the sensor.

File: orion-fullframe-vs-1.6xcr(...).jpg (209 KB, 700x779)

209 KB JPG

>>4535220
you didnt even read it

its just actual aperture size in mm
nothing else
not sensor size
not f-number
just how big the actual hole letting light in

magnifying photon shot noise is another thing
and FF having more tonal range between the noise floor and clipping is another thing

light gathering is literally how much light makes it through the hole

this is for real photography not pixel peeping test charts and comparing bokeh ball sizes

>>4535219
>extreme low light, long distance (aka astro) is literally the one thing your shitty baby cameras are good for
More like aka reach. I've been saying this for years, the 90D is a better wildlife camera than any full frame in the market. Especially in low light.

>>4535221
Anon, the light gathering ability of the system isn't that of the lens. It's limited by the light gathering ability of the sensor. Light gathered (lumen) is light intensity (lux) times area (m2).
It's no secret that the absolute aperture is the focal length divided by the relative aperture. That's where equivalence comes from.

>>4535221
Also nice of you to show how other people have replicated my results from the Saturn experiment. Let that be a lesson to the JBER glowie.

>>4535222
It doesn't really work entirely like that and no wonder because you fucking suck at photography.
Scroll down to
>Light Collection from a Cheetah on the Serengeti
It is not enough to have a big aperture, or a good crop factor, or even a nice lens
You must also get closer!

Getting closer to the cheetah, keeping the aperture, FOV, and shutter speed the same, results in a brighter photo with better detail and color

It follows that a larger aperture, wide FOV lens actually offers the opportunity for SKILLED PEOPLE (not you) to gather even more light
More light equals better photo.

Reaching (tighter FOV) your way around your inability to get closer will just result in terrible dim blurry photos
The "reach" is actually just a tight FOV. There is no replacement for closing the distance just like there is no replacement for quality glass or photographic skill.

>>4535223
It's just the aperture. Look at the astro examples again. Sensor size isn't even real. Pixel size sets per-pixel noise and tonal range that's it.

>>4535224
Huskyfag, as far as I know, out-reached you with an A7R III and the point he was making is the same as the one I'm making.

You don't have "reach" and don't know what it's good for. You've never made effective use of it. You magnified a gap between two blurry "things" in an unidentifiable photo that is allegedly saturn. You don't use focal length properly and don't know how to take a good photo, and the way you twist otherwise legitimate information results in bad photography.

The cheetah example shows this clearly. An FF user would also have a dim, shitty image of the distant cheetah. The denser sensor might resolve more detail but it's a snapshit. Getting closer gathers more light and resolves issues with atmospheric haze and heat shimmer.

This is also exactly what /\mbush tried to explain to you many times before giving up.

>>4535216
Thanks for looking at my photo, I guess...

>>4535225
astronomers do this too

the best space photos are taken by getting closer to the stars, even if by a little, reducing/eliminating atmosphere by using elevation and even launching imaging devices into space, and using a really fucking big aperture

>>4535200
sounds like you didn't listen to the interview.
if this isn't reality scanning, what is?

>>4535225
>Getting closer to the cheetah, keeping the aperture, FOV, and shutter speed the same, results in a brighter photo with better detail and color
How is this news to anyone? kek
Reach is how much detail you can extract from a given distance.

>>4535228
He can say all the mumbo jumbo he wants but he knew he wouldn't get f/64 style results.

>>4535225
>Huskyfag, as far as I know, out-reached you with an A7R III and the point he was making is the same as the one I'm making.
He outreached the 400mm with a 500mm, proving my point altogether. I kept the 800mm (after TC) out just because I wanted to keep things nice and civil and because one should keep their capabilities ambiguous. I even kept Saturn out of the conversation.

>>4535232
He drastically, drastically out-reached you. Not just with gear, but with skill.

>>4535229
Look at the cheetah again
looks like shit

>>4535233
>Look at the cheetah again
>looks like shit
It's the same reach in both pictures, same 700mm on the same camera. Cope.
>He drastically, drastically out-reached you. Not just with gear, but with skill.
kek, top zozzle even. Go back to making your cave glow.

>>4535235
>it's the same reach
But getting closer gathered more light. Even in the same lighting conditions, just getting closer improved both detail resolution and color accuracy - with the exposure triangle left alone.

If you want every camera to be a glorified P1000 with terrible IQ be my guest, that's not even photography, but you can't even get a saturn photo that looks like saturn so unless you want to learn how photography actually works beyond peeping the megapixels and literally counting hairs, lay off the gearfaggotry for the rest of your life and maybe try taking some nice photos of flowers until you understand such things as holding the camera still, getting the subject in focus, and getting the subject in the frame instead of cropping your cropped crop for reach.

File: 1000095097.jpg (2.76 MB, 3072x3072)

2.76 MB JPG

>>4535160
i like blogging about my camera collection desu

it reaffirms what im going to do, if i dont talk about it over and over i never end up doing it

k200ds are gonna get listed next

>>4535162
its a terrible camera, friend. it weighs as much as 5lbs while having worse autofocus than a 5 year older entry level sony apsc slt camera (sony a58). 36mp raws fucking suck ass to edit too (50-70mb) and you'll have a bunch of misses if you dont deliberately stop to take photos. its party trick is the flippy screen but if you break the pasm dial (try to turn it while its locked) or crack the pentaprism you're screwed and can't repair it unless you live in japan

if it was a d750 it would've been better and honestly im sure any sony is probably gonna be as good in terms of longevity/durability, definitely easier to fix if it breaks

maybe i'll take it with me to japan for its last hurrah next month since i intend on stopping at the ricoh store in tokyo

>>4535167

never i like my ancient crap, plus this is a secondary hobby. im actually breaking even most of the time or turning a profit from wheeling/dealing. i just sold that a58 for $200 shipped (bought it for the sony 35mm f1.8 prime, replaced it with a a68 i paid $220 for)

my primary hobby involves cars

im unironically going for a a7iv because i want my ancient lenses on the nicer body with better autofocus and dynamic range. the newer lenses ive tried look too clinical and fake.

>>4535233
>>4535232
And he’s gone because cinefag’s dogfuckery and the autistic pajeet scared all the good posters off

>>4535162
The K1 and K1II are garbage m8o

Unreliable hardware, glitchy firmware, poorly implemented everything. It's obvious pentax ran out of money in the middle of the K1 because they haven't really developed a new camera since.

>>4535209
Anon have been / are conflating aperture ratio with aperture size and light-through-iris-to-sensor-per-cm^2.
This confusion does not render their core argument incorrect: (i.e. you are retarded, and wrong)

A 40 year old nFD 50mm f/1.8 is optically superior and more useful than a $1000 M.ZUGZUGIO LE PRO 25mm f/1 and it's not even a competition. If you're afraid of using a real camera just start dressing like a faggot because you certainly have the mentaility for it.

>>4535260
>cinefag’s dogfuckery
You mean the slander made up to try to scare me off?
Huscuck didn't leave, he's just lurking in the shadows waiting to snake on others as usual

>>4535267
Watching you have a melty over huskyfag every time he's mentioned is entertaining.

>>4535267
What you said about dogs (multiple times) can not be denied
You fucking freak

>>4535270
You faggots also tried to accuse Ambush of horsefucking back in the day by twisting his words, fuck off.

>>4535219
And that f/0.9 is still 2 stops brighter.

>>4535265
>A 40 year old nFD 50mm f/1.8 is optically superior
I agree with the overall sentiment that micro four turds is trash for the most part, but let's be real here. The pro line zuikos are excellent and will mog a kit lens from the late 70s.

File: leave the dog alone.jpg (91 KB, 600x900)

91 KB JPG

>>4535272
>>4535267
Twisting your words? You literally said "how can it be rape if they're offering themselves a fucktoys to their furry companions". Those are your exact words. There's nothing to twist. There's clearly a lot going on in your brain, and none of it is good.

What you've said here can not be unsaid, and it totally reframes your habitual and obsessive interactions with the dog owning users of this board. You are essentially like a child molester sticking around a preschool.

Please leave.

>>4535273
>"but i did eat breakfast today"

>>4535275
I stand by those words. If there's some chinkette or negress and she strips naked and spreads her legs for her horny dog and the dog fucks her, it's not rape. It's not even bestiality.

Anybody following the vintage lens market? Prices have come down by a lot in the last couple of years. Good times for enjoyers and collectors, not so much for those who saw lenses as investments. Some lenses that were previously 5k can be had for as little as 1k and maybe even less now. Even some seriously limited high-end stuff is on the market for a long time with no takers.

>>4535284
I do keep a bit of an eye out for antique lenses which are surprisingly very expensive but I keep wondering if it wouldn't be possible to do some diy lens making if they managed to make desirable lenses back in the 19th century.

File: 465x300x2.jpg (11 KB, 465x300)

11 KB JPG

>>4535288
With enough CAD and machining/3d printing experience you could definitely make a small lens grinding jig.
May be a good idea to start off with attempting a meniscus design and work your way up to more complex designs. If you look at hundred year old lenses they still have a very high level of precision.

>>4535289
This will probably be an emerging market. I saw a post on that website that shall not be named the other day where some Chinese manufacturer had started created specific elements for certain problematic legacy lenses. I do believe it was a Canon 50mm F1.2 LTM where one of the rear elements have a tendency to get some internal hazing.
There are many lenses that are pretty much neglected because of bad design choices such as elements housed in plastics that are welded etc that could get a second chance at life if this catches on, which I hope it does.

File: Reddit-OM-5.png (688 KB, 700x798)

688 KB PNG

>>4535221
check out what micro 4/3 can do
https://www.reddit.com/r/M43/comments/1x6lfvb/the_handheld_hires_mode_on_the_om5_is_basically_a/

My dad has been saying for ages that he's interested in switching from DX Nikon to Olympus. Luckily he has negative GAS. He's all about having electronic shutter for long exposures and such.

>>4535326
Goddamn that looks so fucking bad. Worse than a phone. Micro four thirds is legitimately useful for serious astro in skilled hands (many high end telescope cameras are 1") with a large aperture lens instead of a cope f11 equivalent but that is not it chief.

>>4535326
How it started: Pentax has an actual star tracker, democratizing access to the skies

How it's going: Olympussies check "auto align" after selecting merge for HDR and pretend it's a star tracker while creating smeared triple images of their foreground, claim computational photography is amazing and it is has never been more over for fool frame, yet take a worse photo than their dad did with his 5d classic, which also ran for 30s on a tripod

File: HE-22.05.26-3551.jpg (225 KB, 2000x1509)

225 KB JPG

so much hate, but you cannot deny that they make beautiful cameras.

>>4535333
Looks a bit like those watercolor paintings from NASA that they pretend are real.

>>4535355
i keep reposting it but if they came out with apsc/ff they would win the camera wars

excellent glass, design, firmware, build quality above average (other than the baseplates cracking), but why would i pay ff money for m43?

im tempted to pick up a om5 if i found one under $500 bucks just as a toy

>>4535368
And then you'd be paying MF money for FF

>>4535371
Equivalence really works on price as well? Fug

>>4535368
I would find OM System APS-C on L-mount very interesting. Fill the void that Pentax has left. I feel like OM and Pentax are spiritually similar in that they are cameras made for dedicated photographers, not just consumer electronics made for profit.

>>4535374
>L mount (no good lenses, baby sized, doesnt even have an FF pancake, thick sensor stack cant use M mount lenses)
No fucking thank you
L mount is code for shit camera
>The brand that re-released the same camera 5 times is for dedicated photographers
It might not register to westerners who barely use them and mostly see the marketing material/youtube shills but OM is very much a cheap shit ewaste brand coasting off the reputation olympus had in japan, and their cameras were known for failing switches/screens.

>>4535374
It has been 9 years since Leica made the last APS-C L-mount camera. Out of all the dead systems that is one of the stranger ones because if any of the other manufacturers had picked up the ball they would have enabled the use of Leica glass which I am sure would be a factor in sales.. first party high quality glass for more reasonable prices. As it is now they are pretty much delegated to use in crop mode on full frame cameras.

File: 28ultron2.jpg (2.11 MB, 1236x1575)

2.11 MB JPG

>>4535375
Relax, dude. L-mount only started getting popular in the last few years due to Lumix. The lenses are coming.
And unlike E-mount, L-mount was actually designed for full frame, not a re-purposed APS-C mount; in E-mount's case the tight geometry causes distortions.

>>4535381
Distortions are caused by thick sensor stacks and close flange distances, and L mount checks the boxes. Even older leica SL cameras can't use M mount properly.

Nikon Z mount is the ONLY mount that can properly adapt all vintage glass.

L mount is exactly as garbage as sony, if not even more garbage because it doesn't even have a pancake lens

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/s1r-adapted-slr-lenses-edge-corner-smearing.4603830/
>So I went with the plan, and ... it didn't work. All of the wide-angle Nikkors that I tried with the S1R produced poor off-center sharpness, and there was "some" to "a lot" of smearing at the edges and corners. The 28mm and 35mm PC lenses were poor even un-shifted.
https://www.leicalensesfornormalpeople.com/2020/05/07/using-leica-m-mount-lenses-on-a-panasonic-s1-is-a-mostly-unmitigated-disaster/
>Images obtained at infinity focus and wide open had major issues AT ALL FOCAL LENGTHS and were unuseable at 28mm with the lenses I tested. The commonly held belief that this is only an issue with wide-angle lenses is wrong with the lenses I tested. It is worse with wide-angle lenses but important all the way up to at least 50mm if shot wide open at infinity.
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/313691-m-lenses-on-lumix-s5/
>As one would expect with a Sony BSI sensor, loss of sharpness in the sides/corners with the APO Summicron-M

Panasonic resells last years sony in an even less reliable, more poorly made body
But they turned on the DCI 4k option! That matters! (it fucking doesn't)

>>4535387
Wow. I thought L mount's native selection was bad already. Lots of oversized expensive lenses with so-so image rendition. If I wanted optical compromises I'd buy a cheaper compact lens... but L mount doesn't even have a real full frame pancake like Canon and Nikon! If even adapting is fraught with issues I guess I'm not buying a panasonic.

Apparently their AF-C doesn't work either. Yikes!

>>4535385
>Even older leica SL cameras can't use M mount properly.
Wrong

>>4535392
Not all of them have the special microlenses... and even the newest SL kind of sucks

The best way to use M mount, besides an M camera, is Z mount. Nikon is simply that good.

>>4535389
>Apparently their AF-C doesn't work either. Yikes!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG8-ecvu3ko

>>4535394
>VIDEO autofocus
Wrong board bud

Panasonics inaccurate slow af AF might work in video because it looks more like what real videographers use (manual focus) but photos need fast snappy af AF that isnt afraid to hunt and pulse a little to keep on a moving subject

>>4535395
Film is the pinnacle of photography as an art

>>4535396
>Dog fucker has an opinion

>>4535397
Do you imagine me as a nonwhite foid? Because those are the dogfuckers

File: scared dog.jpg (156 KB, 2100x1400)

156 KB JPG

>cinefag is posting about dog dicks again

>>4535399
>you should be like me and spam bestiality allegations everywhere and blackmail people into making it the only thing they ever see! That's being productive, and I'm productive in doing that!

>cinefag is having a meltdown over being called a dog fucker because he doesn't believe having sex with a dog is bestiality
Absolute cinema

Hasbara couldn't spin up a worse neo-nazi if they tried

>>4535372
They overcharge for MFT, either because they have to or because they like ripping people off, so what makes you think they wouldn't do the same with a larger sensored body? Do you think they'd just charge the same and destroy their MFT market? Also they created the format and built themselves on the premise that it's all you need, they've had over 20 years to go back on that so they never will.

>>4535403
No anon, I consider nonwhites to be subhumans so them having sex with dogs is mere interspecies sex, not bestiality.

>>4535395
if you watched the video you would see that the AF has settings for speed and sensitivity. Defaults are more tuned for video, but snappy autofocus is possible too. Bad AF on a modern Lumix is a skill issue.

>>4535406
Panasonic AF is inaccurate in stills. Its just a fact. The S1RII dropped with a 30% hit rate in stills with AF-C. Their algorithm is better suited for a 5fps camera like the snoy a7iv.

File: WinkyDoggo.jpg (74 KB, 672x960)

74 KB JPG

>>4535396
>makes you too flustered to post

i have a z5
but i want a z6iii
is it worth it...

File: blinkies.webm (370 KB, 640x360)

370 KB WEBM

>>4535422
Any particular feature you want?
Personally I would not "upgrade" to any camera that does not have live view overexposure overlays. Nikon as yet only has indication during playback and does not allow zebras in still photo mode.

>>4535424
mostly the improved AF. I hear it's a big step up.

>>4535424
Competent photographers simply dont need this, which is why it's only on cameras for incompetent non-photographers such as sony, panasonic, and fujifilm bodies.

File: 1704043494276698.jpg (136 KB, 550x535)

136 KB JPG

>>4535408
nice "argument"

>>4535428
You've said more than enough, dogfucker. Go back to /trash/.

File: 1555088360470.jpg (94 KB, 471x388)

94 KB JPG

>>4535429

>>4535424
This bullshit again?

>>4535430
>>4535428
Zoophile crashout

File: avatars-000156232277-hje1(...).jpg (151 KB, 1080x1080)

151 KB JPG

>>4535438
>jew making shit up

>>4535426
>good tools are for incompetent people
DSLR boomer cope

>>4535439
Lmao
>>4535405
>>4535277
Scurry along now zoophile
>>>/trash/

>>4535455
>training wheels are safer and make it easy to park your bike, boomer >:(
Average sony fan

>>4535458
By allah, he is worse than a normal zoophile
He is a cuckold zoophile