bulky old junk no one cares about because leica lenses are better and leicas are more portable

only a non-photorapher pushing his political schizophrenia could be as obsessed with DSLRs for such bullshit reasons as this nophoto

>>4539013
Anon, if no one cared about them the market price wouldn't be as high as it is
This is 127, golden ratio we're talking about. Yet you people make a big deal about shitty 4:3 127-sized format and call it "digital medium format".
It's small format, but the king of small format and in this case it has a proper aspect ratio.

>>4539015
No one cares about a plastic star wars doll from a specific year still in its chintsy plastic box either yet there are 10 on the market and 9 irrelevant autistic man children eager to spend their last dime on that junk before they die forgotten and their kids put everything on ebay

Collectibles are ordinary and often exceptionally BAD as practical goods, yet priced high because of someone with a mental disorder that causes hoarding behavior

>>4539019
Just say you can't afford it or are a wrenchlet.
If you can daily a classic you certainly can shoot an Exakta regularly.

>>4539022
>cant afford it huh? its premium garbage thats very rare and desirable among all 50 collectors and there are only 49 left for sale

>>4539023
That's the fujislug argument except their cameras actually suck

>>4539024
These cameras suck too

>>4539027
No they don't unless you refuse to give them proper maintenance. Same as a proper classic.
Does a 109.018 "suck"? Or do you, anon?

Love the art-decoesque design language of the old exaktas.

Mods please make /gg/ or /gear/ in the subject field or OP comment an automatic month long ban

>>4539045
This

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/90652-magic-lumix-panasonic-s9-and-gx80-officially-hacked/

Andrew at EOSHD got Quake running on the S9, meaning it can run whatever code a photographer/videographer could want. Does it from SD meaning re-flashes are not needed when updating the programs on SD.

>>4539030
>he wants to know if another man sucks

Thinking of getting a Sony a6500. How much will the lack of a front dial cripple me?

>>4539123
the atrocious ergonomics will do it first

>>4539126
What alternatives are there if I want IBIS and want to spend about $600 or less

Is there any reason to shoot anything but sony?

>>4539123
Not much considering it has a secondary dial at the palm, just like old Canon DSLRs, plus the fact that most of the good Sony lenses have aperture rings
If the IBIS is for video, you hardly need dials at all since you rarely change settings

I dislike it for being to small to shoot with

>>4539129
If you want good MF focusing aids with legacy glass, go Nikon
If you're a pro who uses your gear enough to need repairs / maintenance, go Canon

There's a reason you can find pros using all the major brands, because often times the differences don't actually matter that much
But there's also a reason why in certain genres you'll see a larger proportion using XYZ brands

>>4539131
Yes but Canon is really lacking in the lens department. Don't tell me to buy oversized bulky EF telephotos with inferior stab and focus motors and that still cost more than new Sony/Nikon releases.

>>4539132
If you're heavily budget constrained you should state that, as that changes the original question quite a bit
Not everyone is too poor to afford new gear

>>4539132
Which specific lenses do you find them lacking?

>>4539133
>Bro, you're just too poor to afford an old EF 400mm f/4 DO that costs almost as much as a new 400mm f/4.5 GM
Sure bruv

>>4539134
Anything 100 and beyond.

What did they release in the past 3 years?

Oh yeah.

RF-S 3.9mm
RF 35mm
RF 28-70mm
RF-S 7.8mm
RF 16-28mm
RF 20mm
RF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 (absolute trash, it's the EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III from 1999 remounted on RF)
RF-S 14-30mm
RF 85mm
RF 45mm

Now 2026?
RF 7-14mm
RF 14mm
RF 20-50mm

Canon is a VIDEO FIRST company now.

>>4539130
>I dislike it for being to small to shoot with

no such thing. sure I don't have tiny asian hands so it will not exactly fill out my hands but I will appreciate the saved weight and size when carrying it with me. I want to pair it with a small bright prime or two

>>4539137
So stuff like the 70-200, 200-800, 100-500, etc don't exist or what?
>>4539135
If only OP mentioned which specific lenses they were actually wanting, could have a genuine conversation instead of just making straw man lens picks like you are
>>4539138
A camera too small to comfortably hold is no bueno for me, but fortunately you can always get grips for most models
Weight is only an issue once we're talking a few lbs, I've used heavy setups for decades now

>>4539176
Also the RF 135, and a handful of 600 and 800 primes, a 100-400, a few 85's (not +100 but still), etc
Just seems like whining

>>4539176
The 100-500 was released 6 years ago.
The 200-800 is 3 years old and is pretty much a joke. Worse than The 180-600/200-600 on all aspects, even price.
The rest are EF lenses with an RF mount.
It's common knowledge among everyone even canon fanboys that the RF mount is lacking on good telephotos.
At least the competition is bringing out fresh stuff every year for everyone.

>>4539177
>Just seems like whining
Lack of lenses is iterally the biggest reason why people are switching away from Canon and the biggest complaint professionals have right now.

>>4539129
Angry internet memes made by other brands fanboys
Forced memes on /p/ courtesy of panasonic/olympus fans who blame sony for killing their brand
Being too poor for an a7v

>>4539179
Which specific lenses do they complain about not having?
That's not a complaint I've heard from any of my local Canon pros, and I talk to lots of them

>>4539179
Oh do you mean because the mount is closed and the lack of 3rd party support? That's fair, but also a non-issue for pros or most enthusiasts, and again a budget issue more than anything

ok guys help me out with zoom and film cameras.
my daily is a pentax sl, i usually use a takumar 28 or 35 plus i have the i think the 70-210 adaptall. I like the adaptall well enough, EXCEPT the aperture setting doesn't click into place. This has caused me to fuck up a bunch of shots by accidentally nudging it throughout shooting.
I would like recs for either a good zoom lens for m mount, or other mounts (ONLY if there is a fully mechanical slr available for that mount, i don't want a fricking light meter or any shit built in).

>>4539184
im retarded, m42 mount not m mount
looking for something that goes upto like, 150mm at least

File: IMG_20261113_024821658.jpg (2.06 MB, 4624x2600)

2.06 MB JPG

>>4539086
>>4538969
>>4538955
Guys... I fucking patched it!
And it hasn't bricked (yet)
Going to borrow a DX lens from a friend tomorrow to see if it actually works. What a time to be alive.

>>4539134
Midrange telephotos..
400 f4.5, 500 5.6, 600 6.3 etc, lenses that are available from both first and third parties on Sony and Nikon. There is probably even a better selection on L-mount.
As it is right now you either have to get slower zoom lenses, the ridiculously slow 600 and 800 or extremely expensive, made for the wealthy safari tourists or sports journalist type stuff which even if you could afford it comes with its own drawbacks such as a hefty weight and size.
I am sure this is part of some larger strategy from Canon's part though, if they want to recoup R&D cost from other lenses first or if they are cooking something remains to be seen, but it surely is a big issue that it causes people to leave the system and it isn't like it is beyond their capability to make such lenses, so why? Could be many reasons, their 100-500 won't sell as much anymore for instance and the used market would be saturated with them, thus forcing them to lower retail etc. Either way it is retarded.

>>4539176
I want to use it for snapshits primarily and take it with me 100% of the time so I will prefer to save weight over having slightly better grip on the thing

>>4539184
>I would like recs for either a good zoom lens for m mount, or other mounts
Nikon's 80-200mm f4.5, the Square Rear, and Minolta's 70-210mm f4, the Beer Can lens, were famous for being tack sharp.
Don't know about the compatibility with a full-on mechanical SLR, i think the beer can would have some trouble.

>>4539134
Is that a joke?
>just have more money bro
They have a decent selection of short focals now, but they've always been lacking good affordable telephoto lenses.
There's fuck all between the expensive, old, heavy, bulky, slow EF primes and the pro-grade super telephotos above 10k (which are EF adapted to RF, they're the exact same lenses)
As someone above said, Canon has no mid-range offering for the vast majority of consumers and prosumers. You either go for the 600mm f/11, which is absolutely ridiculous, or the RF (EF) 600mm f/4 that costs 15k. If you want any other focal, you have to cope with the EF adapter.

The new FE 400 mm f4.5 GM costs 2800€ anon. 2800.
The FE 600 mm f6.3 GM OSS costs 3900.

Sure it's not f4, but at least it's something more affordable yet not as ridiculous as an f11.
Besides, most pros don't buy those 10-15k lenses, they rent them, or they're company bought and insured. They're not meant to be bought by the average camera enthusiast.

>>4539191
very cool, looking forward to seeing the output.

>What a time to be alive.
indeed - liberating our cameras from cartel control is the best thing to happen to photography in the last 10 years.

>>4539083
Obsessed homo

>>4539123
Not as much as the lack of an OVF preventing you from directly engaging with light to learn how to work with it

So how about those LOFIC sensors?

>>4539309
Only useful for landscapers at very low ISO.

File: IMG_20261113_214411465_HDR.jpg (4.03 MB, 4624x2600)

4.03 MB JPG

>>4539191
>>4539252
It works!!
This is actually blowing my mind. I thought for sure I would brick my camera, on Friday 13th and all
>AF-S 55-200mm f4-5.6 @ 200mm

File: IMG_20261113_214414484_HDR.jpg (4.17 MB, 4624x2600)

4.17 MB JPG

>>4539312
And here's in DX mode

>>4539310
Ah yes this is why they are being used in phone cameras. Because phone cameras don't need to handle anything you throw at them and are actually very specialized landscape cameras.

>>4539292
>preventing you from directly engaging with light to learn how to work with it
EVFs are preventing me from looking at my subject over the camera? What a truly satanic invention.

>>4539312
>>4539314
Glad it worked out. That vignette is tiny. Nikon forcing DX crop even for raws is just silly.

>>4539317
LOFIC only works to protect highlights in case you want to expose for shadows too in a brightly lit environment. Instead of filling the well, you store part of the charge in a separate capacitor.
It's useful for HDR so smartphones have to stack only 30 shots instead of 100 in daylight.

>Ah yes this is why they are being used in phone cameras.
That's not an argument.
Smartphone sensors are produced at much larger scale than APS-C or FF sensors and are much smaller, making them much cheaper to produce.
BSI arrived in smartphone sensors in 2010 with Apple
Stacking arrived on smartphone sensors in 2012 with Sony
Smartphones from 2012 weren't used to shoot bird in flight or fast action, yet they had BSI stacked a decade before full frame. Deal with it.

File: IMG_20261113_222109371_HDR.jpg (3.55 MB, 4608x2592)

3.55 MB JPG

>>4539319
It's not silly when you consider how much money they'd lose on people opting for dirt cheap DX lenses on their full frame bodies, kek.
>AF-S 40mm f2.8 DX
On a white background you clearly see some vignetting in the corners, but it's not bad.
I'm actually a little bit disappointed that there's no distortion at all happening towards the outer rim. My main purpose was to see if I could get some cool edge distortions. Perhaps an ultra wide lens will be different.

File: IMG_20261113_222114699_HDR.jpg (3.31 MB, 4608x2592)

3.31 MB JPG

>>4539322
Here's the DX crop

Printed my first pics a few days ago.
I now understand why pixel peeping is schizo-tier and why 24MP is enough.

File: 3040834.jpg (467 KB, 2000x1333)

467 KB JPG

Christopher Frost got lumixpilled.
Tracking autofocus test included
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xV7oTRHVb0

File: IMG_20261113_222841525_HDR.jpg (3.27 MB, 4608x2592)

3.27 MB JPG

>>4539322
But it varies a lot by lens
Here's
>AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 DX @105mm

File: IMG_9338.JPG.48288338fc72(...).jpg (268 KB, 1920x1440)

268 KB JPG

>>4539054

>>4539322
>corners
Yeah but imagine if you don't care, and just want to shoot 4:3 or 1:1 squares using uncropped DX for the vertical height.

Not letting us do this by default, by choosing (with a popup warning about vignetting) is absolutely unjust and unfair. Makes me more willing to just buy third party lenses because Nikon actively sabotages their first party ones with anti-consumer DRM style feature limiting walls in the way.

>>4539339
Anon, Nikon doesn't want the unfair reviews complaining about the vignetting when the lenses are used in the wrong camera. They do it to save their reputation.

>>4539339
>imagine if you don't care
Imagine if you just bought proper glass for your body

>>4539234
>400 f4.5, 500 5.6, 600 6.3 etc, lenses that are available from both first and third parties on Sony and Nikon.
Which only just came out very recently....
Did you also complain about those brands before they came out too?

>>4539339
>Yeah but imagine if you don't care
I don't have to imagine. Why do you think I wanted this patched?
But yes, I agree that it is a bit scummy to lock it down in the first place.

https://www.cined.com/nikon-z30-wonder-lantern-mod-adds-higher-bitrates-200-mbps-4k-25-minute-slow-motion-photo-zebras/
All this Nikon hacking makes it extra regrettable that Z30 does not have a corner EVF. Could have been the perfect EDC camera - compact, good grip, great sensor/color, mechanical shutter, z-mount can adapt nearly any lens.

>>4539344
The Sigma 500 5.6 has been out for over 2 years now, the Nikon 600 6.3 has been out for over 3, their 400 4.5 has been out for over 4 years, the Sony equivalents are more recent, but at least they had access to the Sigma. It is very much justified to complain about these things. Canon does make some interesting lenses though, but it is evident that they are lagging behind in that particular segment and it is not like they are announcing anything either, everything is kept secret so RF users don't really know if and when they can expect such lenses or at what price points. If you want something in that range you are forced to adapt EF glass and even then you are quite limited and will have to accept compromises.