Dead system edition.
I love dead systems. They all have the lenses I need, no new lenses to tempt your money and cheap AF.

Previous thread >>4424884

>>4428429 (OP)
Got this for £100 and ordered the 30mm f2 for £150. I'm going to sell one mediocre Fuji lens to fund them both.
Will probably sell my X-E4 and remaining lens too as I'm not photographing as much as I used to.

What wrong with my Sony?

Smasnug in the OP!

>>4428437
Ayyyyy
(This is my old one)

I used to love dead camera system till I got into nikon 1. Couldnt GTFO from there fast enough: not a single good body, every lens is hilariously bad, and that's in the 10% of cases where it actually works. And tryna adapt anything is just pain.

>>4428433
That's just Sony ripping the sovl out of Konica Minolta every year until the A Mount was killed off, nothing wrong.

Should I buy a used Leica Q-P as my one and only camera?
>compact enough for travel
>one of the best and sharpest Leica lenses
>AF not the fastest but still faster than any fuji
>Beautiful camera (especially the P version)
>26mp enough for photography
>macro mode
>28mm focal length has many uses
>shitty LCD EVF
hmmmm

Other option is to wait for the soon to be announced Fuji X-E5. Even less weight, can add more lenses but I'm afraid the image quality doesn't have that depth and detail of the Q

>>4428451
I used to have one. The build quality and the manual focussing are superb. It was the best night-time camera I'd ever owned.
But 28mm is gimp-tier focal length (although probably useable for travel alone) and the EVF flickered RGB so badly I hated it. Not sure if I'm particualrly sensitive to the flicker but when you move your eye you can see the RGB.

I'm waiting for the Q3 43 to drop in price but I know I'll be waiting for 7+ years.

Why the Q-P and not the Q?

>>4428442
I honestly miss my V1 a bit
AF was great for the era, small body, worked great with AF-S f mount lenses, tried it with the 200-500 once
30/60fps stills was cool at the time and let me shoot +4k RAW video snippers

>>4428476
I reemmebr trying it out in a store in 2011 and being pretty impressed how slick it was. Probably not aged very well but I feel like at the time it was a leap in UX.

the samyang 14mm is availble in pentax k mount. can i put that new lens onto my (based but old) p50 without issues?

>>4428462
>Why the Q-P and not the Q?
I love that grey-black finish

The 43mm must be nice

>>4428429 (OP)
>I love dead systems. They all have the lenses I need, no new lenses to tempt your money and cheap AF.
Agreed. but to finance this hobby you have to frequently sell your system and buy all new. And every interaction with the used market fucking sucks. Only infuriating people there.

>>4428451
I don't understand why Leica went with a 28mm for this. Not wide enough for nice landscapes, not long enough for nice portraits. Made for nobody.

>Nikon Z6 (original) is cheaper second-hand than EOS R, has IBIS, has top display, has AF joystick and can take both EF & FE adapted lenses

So, what's the catch?

>>4428490
I heard it was so it didn't eat into the M line market share.
The 43mm would be so perfect for me but fuck £5500 for a camera.

>>4428490
28mm is a great and popular focal length

Bought an A7C2 for travel/street but I’m not really enjoying it, my photos feel flat.

I’m considering a second-hand D750. Does that make sense or theres no going back?

>>4428500
Try more fun lenses first, it's a interchangeable lens camera after all. I don't have any issues with my A7CII.

>>4428500
welcome to snoy colors, they are super flat and snoy might be doing some weird shit with their raw files where they're actually editing them to hide a secret flaw. sony has always done weird shit to their raws.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/62010566
i've heard from someone claiming to be an engineer that the thickness of sony's cover glass fucks with colors and required digital corrections, and some third party lenses can't be corrected so they have color shifts in the corners anyways

also efcs on the a7c2 makes for half exposed images at 1/4000 with some third party wide angles, especially manual ones, and there's no full mechanical shutter. maybe it's something like that. sony does so much dodgy shit (see sony timer meme) i dont buy anything they make, period. after their headphones started exploding i became an absolute believer in buying anything but a snoy.

>>4428493
autofocus only a smidge better than fuji's

>>4428500
I found the A7C complettely lacking in any fun. The EVF was pitiful compared with my X-T4 so just went back to Fuji where I will probably stay forever.

>>4428500
Sell it before the weather sealing starts disintegrating
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1ehckii/a7cr_rubber_sealing_gasket_by_card_slot_begins_to/
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1fxmsh6/issue_with_the_sealing_around_the_sd_card/

>>4428500
>my photos feel flat.
that's a you problem, not a camera one

>>4428510
>use a snoy
>everything is flat and dull and people have green undertones in their skin
>"its not the camera its you, just open up the color range picker and start fixing literally everything or buy my lightroom presets skill issue skill issue"

>use anything but a snoy
>colors are good in jpeg or right after opening the raw in a professionally made program
imagine defending snoy. snoy colors are worse than fuji autofocus.

>>4428505
>autofocus only a smidge better than fuji's
As long as it's DSLR-good and doesn't see-saw my EF lenses to death I'm good.

>>4428515
It's worse than a DSLR. Their DSLRs always focused wide open and had an option to in live view, so you always kept your -4 ev low light autofocus limit, AND could use IR assist beams.

Their mirrorless before the expeed 7 bodies always focused stopped down to a limit of f5.6 so you only get your full low light autofocus capabilities if you're also shooting at f1.8 or focusing at f1.8 and then manually stopping down like it's fucking 1960. And IR assists don't work. Cheap for a reason. The IR assist thing isn't fixed on any brand so a lot of nighttime club/wedding photography is still using DSLRs.

>>4428517
New nikon low light limit: -10ev. even at f5.6 it focuses in darker conditions than a DSLR.

the z6's low light limit is effectively +0.5ev if you're using flash/photographing stopped down and "low light mode" is laggy dogshit that turns up sensor gain for AF-S instead of just opening the aperture like it used to

>>4428517
>Their DSLRs always focused wide open
I always wondered why that is. Because it's not how that works when there is a manual T-stop/F-stop ring on the lens. Seems like unnecessary step to reset the aperture after every single shot. Weird engineering decision.

>>4428512
i see plenty of sony images that don't feel flat and dull, and plenty of flat and dull images from other brands
if two people are using the same gear, one get results and the other just complains, it is skill issue

>>4428517
>>4428518
Oh fuck, guess I'm gonna keep shooting old trusty DSLRs then and put money on some nice Canon/Zeiss glass when you still can get one for affordable prices.

For future refrence, does Canon R5 also have some shitty booby traps compared to DSLR?

>>4428500
i had that camera

build quality was terrible, every single button felt like chinesium
i also fell victim to sd card weather seal flaking
battery life was terrible, might as well buy nikon or canon
skin tones were horrid
it heated up noticeably in the middle of winter
ibis was overrated (more like 3-4 stops than 7) and no better than the 5 stop ibis on a nikon body. the active stabilization in video wasn't even good.
every single photo needed 3-4 extra editing steps to fix some weird hues
there's extreme copy variation with some of the lenses would be the best otherwise (24 f2.8, 40 f2.5, 55 f1.8, 85 f1.8)
and the only pancake lens on e mount doesnt even work with it (shading at 1/3000-4000)

i also had an a7rIII and the original a7c for a while, same shit. i wanted to like sony because they fit in my glovebox and backpack better but they're junk. now i'm using a d750 until nikon mirrorless fills out a little better (z5ii looks cash, not enough well built small primes yet, metal and glass 40 f2 pls). if you're stuck with it, zeiss tamron and sigma lenses improve the colors a little, but you should ditch it if you're unhappy and get a z5ii/r6ii or something. if someone gave me a free sony tomorrow, and said i couldn't sell it for a canon or a nikon, i would sell it and buy a fujifilm.

>>4428525
>tech company apologist nophoto
yes no one can ever dislike a $1700 camera they must work harder to overcome its flaws while thanking sony for the camera every time they pick it up

dear god you are the most pathetic poster here, tech company apologist nophoto. you dont even own a camera.

>>4428536
REMINDER: huskyfag is ken rockwell trolling us

>>4428533
>keep shooting old trusty DSLRs then and put money on some nice Canon/Zeiss glass
Zeiss lenses are nice. But the lack of autofocus on the Milvus/Otus series sucks ass. With Sigma Art lenses you get basically the same sharpness for much less money and with AF.

>>4428537
Support my growing family so I can afford a Z7III

>>4428536
>if someone gave me a free sony tomorrow, and said i couldn't sell it for a canon or a nikon, i would sell it and buy a fujifilm.
My sir, you are aware you are comparing the choice camera of the associated press, with the best autofocus and G master lenses, to an xtrans crop sensor yes? I think you just lacking the skill to handle a Sony Alpha.

>>4428536
thank you for proving someone can take good photos with sony

>>4428538
It's ZE for me as they are relatively lightweight and affordable used, lack of AF doesn't matter here. Nothing wrong though with Milvus/Otus and Art Sigmas.

Talk me out of selling my 24mm f1.8 G

I only used it for a cat snapshit and then forgot about it

>>4428557
That's an ideal astro lens, and a great landscape lens too, though a zoom is better for non-astro. Try doing a photo walk with only it, I like that FL but if you don't then IMO sell. Lots of people have that range covered with a zoom as I said, if that's you then the only use I can think of is indoors, astro, and night.
On the other hand, it doesn't go for much these days. I'd keep it just because the cash it'd bring in wouldn't justify the hassle.

>>4428557
Do it, sir. The 24mm f.18 GM is much better.

>>4428557
>24mm f1.8 G
>>4428561
>24mm f.18 GM

What the fuck are either of you ESL talking about?

>>4428563
My sir, I have made a typo, I meant the Sony 24mm f1.4 GM my sir. It is the best 24mm lens to ever made. It is smaller and lighter than a "nikkor" and much sharper and gathers more light also. Nikon DSLR? You might as well use micro four thirds, because a nikon lens is not sharp until f4, and a Sony lens is sharp at f1.4. Sony cameras are superior to nikon's. It is 10 years of progress, and the preferred camera of the associated press.

Sony cameras do not demand that you edit, they only ask that you be creative. Shoot Sony. #BeAlpha.

>>4428575
>snoy shill
>posts photo OF camera not photo taken WITH camera

like pottery

Finally got my nikon d5300 in the mail. Still trying to figure out all the features. The seller included a Marumi lens filter/protector in the box. are these things worth using?

>>4428596
No

>>4428521
What about it are you not understanding? Wide open focusing with auto aperture has been pretty standard for about 50-60 years on SLRs.

I have a benro XL aluminum tripod w/ a geared head and this shit is heavy as fuck and not at all portable. thinking about getting a 3 legged thing leo 2.0 to have a lighter and smaller option for hikes and walking around town. anyone here using 3 legged thing?

>>4428636
I've got one with what looks like the same ball head. It's a proper cunt to get it back in the bag with the head attached and it doesn't lock into the stowed position at all so it either needs to go in the bag or be tied up for carrying around. No complaints apart from that. I use a 5d3 with dual battery grip and it holds the weight at odd angles fine.

https://petapixel.com/2025/05/21/the-highly-anticipated-ricoh-gr-iv-is-in-development-and-coming-this-fall/

>>4428694
I hope it comes with an nd and not the faggy Instagram Vaseline filter, the article claims that the hdf was “extremely popular” which is depressing.

Partially inspired by the cum thread I want to start doing some motorsports shooting.
Anon there said he was using a 100-400mm lens but I see lots of good deals and high praise with Canon's 70-200mm series. I wish there was exif to read so I could see what people are using most often. I'm just afraid I'll buy a 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 and find that 200mm isn't enough for the positions I can get in near tracks. But then the 100-400mm lenses I'm looking at are big bulky and double/triple the price.
OG EF 70-200mm f/4 IS is fuck all ($600 CAD) money around here. Any anon's have input or experience?

>>4428720
Yes, it is assumed that the ND filter will be the default again with the diffusion version coming later.

>>4428755
Sorry, for that you do want the 100-400 over the 70-200. $600 isn't nothing towards the EF. I think Sigma and Tamron made 100-400s for EF too, they're well under $600 but also worse than the EF. I'd just save up and get a monopod (and the wimberly monogimbal) to deal with the weight. You probably won't be moving much once you're there so heavy doesn't matter a whole lot.

>>4428759
>you do want the 100-400
Oh I guess I was a bit vague. Anon was using the RF 100-400 f/5-6-8 and I figured that's the same price new as the EF 70-200 f/4 used. I didn't really consider getting the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 for a handful of reasons, but I will look into it. Idk, I guess I just wanted to see what the big fuss about those big whites are all about and the 70-200s are the easiest entrypoint. No fucking point buying one if it won't actually be useful for motorsport though.
>monopod for the weight
I have a tripod but I'm thinking that'll be a pain in the ass compared to a monopod. Will probably look into that
There's an event I'd like to go to at Laguna later in the year and wouldn't mind practicing for a bit beforehand

>>4428429 (OP)
If I have a Rebel SL1 as a spare camera, (gf got to get into p and she didn't take to it like we thought so I bought it off her since it's adorable and the smallest actual DSLR I am aware of) and am in the EF ecosystem already, does it make sense to try and even look at M43 for a daily carryable camera? The SL1 is still pretty bulky even with the little pancake lens on it. I sort of want to carry a camera with me all the time or at least most of the time, yes phones exist but I hate taking photos on phones, it feels so sterile and there is this intangible thing that feels less creative.

I guess I should try actually carrying the SL1 for a while and see if I am even capable of daily carrying a camera before spending significant money on a different system I have zero hardware for.

>>4428768
SL1 is already very small, if that's too big, you need to stick to phone or a point & shoot
or just get over and use the SL1 instead of buying an entirely new device you also realistically wont use

>>4428771
Going APS-C to M43 might be the biggest exercise in futility and waste possible for photography. You gain effectively nothing in most cases, and in those that you do it's still a shit trade.
The only thing you would gain is losing a few dozen grams, and gaining IBIS if you go with Oly. Enjoy your $1500 f/2.5 prime lenses and noise profile of a 2010s digishit the moment you step out of base ISO.

>>4428768
There are 3 kinds of camera

Fits in a pocket
Doesn't fit in a pocket
Boat anchor

Ricoh GR, sony ZV1, etc is category 1
Everything from an olympus pen to every fujifilm camera to a nikon z6iii is category 2 if you stick to slower zooms/primes
FF telephoto zooms, medium format, "wedding lenses" et al are category 3

Going from cat 2 to cat 2 to make your camera more portable is an exercise in being a fashion victim. You will still dislike the weighty presence, the rib slapping, etc, if you try and pocket it, it'll bulge and weigh down your coat, you'll be miserable, you'll stop carrying it. It doesn't matter how many "grams" it saved, a pound in either direction is unnoticeable to adult men.

Instead go down a whole size class for something that weighs less than 350g and actually fits in a pants pocket (real pants for actual adults, not sweat pants or cargo shorts) like a ricoh GRIIIx or a 1" sensor zoomy PNS.

>>4428765
A total banger configuration is the Canon R7 with the RF 100-400, very light and as a combination costs less than an RF 100-500 on its own and it accepts a 1.4x TC well. Great for wildlife and cum as well. You might want a normal prime later on like a 24 or 35mm

>>4428793
I want to eventually get out of crop. Kind of regret spending so much on an R10 when an RP was about the same price.
I guess I can never have too much reach for shit like cars and air shows so the ability to buy a TC sounds nice in theory.
Idk, I think I'm going to have some sort of regret no matter if I buy the EF 70-200 f/4 or the RF 100-400 f/5.6-8. I'm either gonna go, reee no reech, or reee f/8

>>4428771
Yeah that's kind of my thought. Prove I will actually use the SL1 first by carrying it around and *doing* before just gearfagging.
>>4428778
Well if I went M43 it would be a mirrorless, the SL1 has a full mirror and everything so it's still fairly bulky width wise.

The idea is if I could cut down in just one dimension then it'd be easier to carry.

>>4428787
That's a good breakdown. I was looking at the Ricohs they seem pretty cool. I think I'm gonna carry the SL1 to start and just see if I will actually do it consistently. Been trying to use the philosophy of "buy for what you currently do not for what you might someday do" and it has helped me cut down on gearfagging a lot. I don't always follow that and sometimes you have to break it but stopping and at least asking that question helps avoid impulse buying gearfagging.

>>4428804
The RF 100-400 is FF compatible so it is a good investment. Later on you can cop the RF 200-800 but that needs a good AF body like the R5. Maybe R6.

>>4428804
>no reach
>reee f/8
Don't listen to the /p/ trolls. In the olden DSLR times we went for the fast telephoto because of a) sharpness but most importantly b) more light for the AF, the more light the AF gets the faster it works. That is still true to some extent today. The other problem was the physical limitations of phase detect AF, the most you could have is f/6.3 at the center point, f/8 on FF high end bodies, also center point. The slower the lens was the less AF points you could use. On these modern mirrorless bodies you can do the center zone at f/11 that is the size of the full AF coverage of a DSLR. Of course you still needed good enough sharpness and good light for accurate AF. Sigma is notorious on being useless on the long end of its telephoto zooms and the AF is unreliable, jittery, hunting, difficult to lock on.
The compression or background blur is less dependent on these long teles on the f number and rather dictated by the focal length. With cars panning does the background blur while keeping the subject sharp.
400mm will always feel too short crop or FF no matter what so you will invest at least in a 1.4x TC.

Sigma, plz continue expanding the i series. I just want a cute and funny 115mm+ f2.8 like the 90mm f2.8.
That's all I want at this point.

>>4428811
See that's been my current outlook on developing a well rounded kit: buy native and modern and get all the advantages associated with that. I just don't have thousands to throw at RF L.
Ive heard so much good shit about EF L lenses, and f4 going to be 1 2/3rd stops faster (at 200mm) than the 100-400 that it seems like a legit alternative.

Maybe I go the RF option and just save for FF body

I have one of these and white camera's look cooler than the normal ones

I bought an ef 70-200 and rf adapter I rarely use mostly because it looks funny to have big white lens on small camera

>>4428823
The RF 100-400 is not an L lens, the RF 100-500 is. The 100-400 costs like $600 (before tariffs) and is super sharp considering it is just a regular consumer zoom. I'm not saying the EF 100-400 L is bad but you would definitely see more benefits from the RF.
On the EF 100-400 L the original push-pull zoom dust-pump is quite soft on the long end, not even competition for the RF 100-400. The EF 100-400 L MkII now that is a good lens.

>>4428830
>The EF 100-400 L MkII now that is a good lens.

Can confirm. I shoot some wildlife but I like race cars. I just got one after deliberating for years. Single most expensive piece of camera gear I own and I bought it used in apparently quite decent condition. Not a scratch on it. I'm planning to go RF eventually but I didn't want to keep waiting so I'm using this multi thousand dollar lens on a Rebel from 2015 for the time being.

>>4428500
Street photography is (99%) faggotry.
The 1% being people like Trent Parke.

>>4428636
That tripod is tiny. I hike with a fluid head cine pod. You're just weak. Stop trying to spend money to fix your faggot body. Just work out retard.

>>4428920
congratulations, I'm still not trying to walk around town with a tripod that's taller than you

>>4428636
Yes. I have a Corey. Straps right onto my bag and has been a great little tripod. It's like those chinesium travel tripods but like..... Made well. Also you can remove one of the legs and use it as a monopod. 10/10 would buy again.

I'm playing with an old DSLR and it makes me miss that top screen that my RP doesn't have so much.

>>4429002
I have two DSLRs both with top screens and I almost never use it. Everything I need is on the back screen and much more easier to read.
But yes, top screen meant upper level body design.

>>4429002
Real patricians know all about that second rear LCD

>>4429008
Blue board anon.

>>4428429 (OP)
Jesus Christ, the used market in the US is awesome. I‘m in heaven here. Fucking Europeans always want 90% of new price

The NX line of Samsung cameras are great. I don't understand why they are so cheap. Is there some "uuugh it's not apple" mentality that has spread from the cellphone market or something? It is somehow considered low class? I honestly don't get it. Just fiddling with their cheap digicams for instance.. often you will get a massive zoom range, WiFi, bright high quality touch screen etc for way less than say a Canon IXUS.

>>4429043
Depends on what part of Europe. If you compare prices on ebay between the UK and Amerifatica you will see that the UK is always way, way cheaper.

>>4429044
They are cheap because the whole line is dead including the entirety of Samsung's camera business wing. Something about patent dodging.

>Nikon announced today that it will increase the prices of its products in the United States in one month, on June 23, 2025, due to tariffs.
https://petapixel.com/2025/05/23/nikon-will-raise-prices-in-the-us-in-one-month-because-of-tariffs/

Again, you have one month left to buy your shit.

>>4429057
>please panic buy this totally wont be reversed
The only losers in this trade war are europeans, the canadians that voted for more low iq replacement migration to own the chuds, and people who panic bought caddies and $3k cameras

>>4429060
Tariff pricing never reverse. It fucks with the supply chain and importer first and the final retail gets to pay the extra, a week by week instability like Trump can cause entire supply chains to collapse, as it did with the PC parts, Gamers Nexus made a good video about it, is 3h long.

Fact is even if the tariffs are taken back the retail chain will not be taking risks like that and will build it into the pricing. Without tariffs it already raised the prices considerably.

>>4429062
Tariff pricing does reverse if more manufacturing is moved to the country that tarrif-ies you

Nikon already has a manufacturing plant in the US and some in Japan. They're probably never going to manufacture in thailand again.

>PC parts collapsed
Honestly good. I hope cameras come next so people can start using the 20+ years of perfectly sufficient cameras that were thrown away because they didnt film youtube videos as well or achieve maximum sharpness photographing distant tree leaves.

>>4429063
>Nikon already has a manufacturing plant in the US
Interesting, where is it?

>>4429063
Your third world country is incapable of high tech manufacturing you inbred troglodyte

>>4429065
Long beach

IIRC it's more for the military but they have a foothold and could expand, and the fact that it's for the military puts them in a favorable political position.

Between trumpykins, how nikon can play their cards and canon's shift to full automation, I have a feeling sony might be an RF 28-70 f2 II and a Canon RF compact away from losing most of their sales

>>4429067
>Your third world country is incapable of high tech manufacturing you inbred troglodyte
That's canada, and lol, no. The US medtech/defense manufacturing sector is perpetually growing. The US can't manufacture affordable high tech for consumers at scale, is the sole problem, meaning that if it were to isolate it would be the end of smartphones but not anything that's actually good about modern society.

The US is also essential for designing the technology the chinese use. They are strangely incapable of inventing anything and wholly dependent on voluntary disclosure and academic and industrial espionage.

>>4429068
Found it
>Nikon SLM Solutions held the grand opening of the Nikon Advanced Manufacturing Technology Center in Long Beach, California, USA, on January 14 2025. The approximately 8,400 m2 facility is expected to serve as a hub for innovation, combining Nikon, Nikon SLM Solutions, and Nikon AM Synergy Inc.
>Designed to support industries such as aerospace, defence, and aviation, the centre offers advanced Additive Manufacturing technologies, including Laser Beam Powder Bed Fusion (PBF-LB) and Directed Energy Deposition (DED), as well as integrated manufacturing solutions.
Yeah, that doesn't sound like much At all. It's basically a 3D printing facility to make 5 specific pieces a year for satellites or planes or whatever.
Nothing that could accommodate for mass manufacturing of low to moderate margin products in a declining market.

>>4429072
Nothing in a country with basic human rights can accommodate mass manufacturing of high end consumer technology. Don't get me wrong. But they could theoretically make non-consumer technology here or in japan just fine.

Your electronics hobby literally can not survive without slave labor. The only reason japanese products used to be affordable was their proclivity for working unpaid overtime.

>>4429073
So the future of cameras is americans use old DSLRs until they break and only make high end cinema cameras, and everyone else gets to consoom glorious mirrorless cameras made by subhuman slave labor as god intended? Haha you’re communist russia

Chris Nichols here.

>>4429087
Hey chris how much does om system pay in kickbacks? I want to shill but sony doesn’t like me :( (i called them green machines)

I'm a bit tempted to upgrade my Sony 18-135mm so I can take pictures of birds from further away without spooking them.

Why is the new Sigma 16-300mm lens so damned slow? The improved IS sounds quite nice because I suck. But that doesn't matter as much when I need to use 1/1600 shutter speed. It also doesn't seem like it blows the Tamron 18-300mm out of the water in image quality. If I see anyone dumping their Tamron to switch to Sigma, I'd buy it in a heartbeat!

Or should I just get a camera phone with a telephoto lens like the Xiaomi 15 Ultra? The Xiaomi 15 Ultra has a 200MP F2.6 100mm equiv telephoto prime lens and I wonder if it can take better bird photos than my current A6600 + Sony 18-135mm combo? It would be very nice to be able to take it on the water when I go paddling since it's somewhat waterproof.

>>4429083
Yes.
>Haha you’re communist russia
Yes.

Amerizorki soon, comrades. Gotta have an American camera for your American film (STILL superior to digital despite 20 years of japan stealing america's research). After we conquer canada and claim their CCD fabs, we'll be making CCD rangefinders for the partisans who lack the americredits to purchase the party's film.

>>4429098
>200mp
binned to 20mp, actual detail resolved is more like 8mp
>f2.6
*f22.6 equivalent

>>4429098
>Why is the new Sigma 16-300mm lens so damned slow?
Because it covers a massive range. You already have up to 135mm covered, so get something like a 70-300/350, 100-400, 150-500/600.

vertical grips are a must

>>4429149
vertical grips should 1: be optional 2: work like they did on later nikon DSLRs, and not occupy the battery slot 3: accept AAs

if all 3 arent met its a shit camera

Are the APS-C Sonys nice to use for photography, or are they more video machines?

>>4429163
I used a NEX-6 then an a6300 for a good decade. Perfect for hiking. Never really used them for video, I'm not interested in those features. A recent a6xxx with the newer menus will fit the bill for stills, but even an old a6xxx or a NEX will still be more than serviceable for photography.

>>4429153
Huh, my K-1 battery grip does all 3

>>4429163
how much do you like green tints, and how careful are you with cameras?

Been looking at point and shoots for a compact camera I can bring to places that are afraid of DSLR shaped blobs. I was considering a ricoh GR III but from everything I have seen it's kind of platicky and has quite a lot of issues with it's build. I'm honestly considering just getting a used Canon M6 and the 22mm f2. Seems cheaper than any other ASPC point and shoot.

>>4428819
I miss 135mm 2.8 lenses.

>>4429196
yes

any1 know of any reasonably priced and sturdy SDI field monitors?

I do CCTV work and one of our clients still has SDI cameras.

viltrox dc-x3 seems appropriate but don't know what thats like.

Apparently, canon cameras have the highest failure rate, lenses too.

Why is this just a statistical fact on a table somewhere? Why did I hear "BUY A CANON, SONY BREAKS" so many times? Shouldn't this be bigger? The deeper I dig the more stupid shit I see, like "unknown numbers of canon-camera-model have a hardware defect, pay to repair" no recall or anything. Green striping sensors on DSLRs, motherboard failures on MILCs, etc. I'm still not buying a sony obviously (nikon for life)

>>4429338
>source: just trust me the Nikon shill bro

>>4429338
because canonfags dont want normies to realize they’ve been the worst brand since after the 5dIII

canon is the old sony
sony is the new canon

photographers use fuji, pentax, nikon, panasonic (not L mount), and olympus

>>4429345
If you want your troll posts to be believable, you can’t stick such an obvious bait like
>photographers use fuji
In there. Otherwise it almost passes for a legitimate post.

>>4429348
no one uses pentax except nips and pentaxians

nips do be loving m43/43 stuff doe

nikon is probably the only normie brand people use other than canon, and that's because you can pick up a canon at every target/walmart/best buy in north america (rebel t7i or r50/r100)

>>4429345
>photographers use fuji
Yeah, GFX maybe.

The gas will pass.

>>4429379
something only said by rich fucks with canon L zooms and recent large sensor mirrorless

if you got memed into a d500 by /p/ the gas will not pass - you will want stabilization with a sub$500 sub2lb telephoto that isnt a soapy mess wide open at a whopping f5.6

>>4429345
As a Pentax user that post is full of shit. Maybe the recent bodies and the HD and D-FA lenses but anything before the recent Ricoh upgrades was hot shit including the Star lenses. And I own two of them, DA* 16-50/28 with a dying SDM and DA* 300/4 that is slow as shit, apparently it was like that new. AF was abysmal before the K-1 and especially the K-3 MkIII, everyone is waiting for the K-1 MkIII like the messiah to have an actual working tracking AF on FF. The K-3 MkIII finally had a BSI sensor and the K-1 MkIII is rumored to have BSI as well. What is not documented is the K-3MkIII seems to have some sort of eye-biased function, the AF points seem to follow the subject's eyes so that would be a welcome thing for the K-1 MkIII.

Yes, some older lenses are great like the 43/1.9, also have it, it is great but that is not how all the lenses are. So far Canon seems to be the big winner of the mirrorless shift with Sony being largely forgotten and Nikon being the Pentax of Mirrorless.

>>4429384
>DA* 16-50/28
Hmm, my first camera was a K10D and I had that lens, in my memory it was very good. Of course the camera had a low mpx number for today. (NTA btw)

>>4429163
The APS-C camera without active stabilization are all shit cameras with horrible rolling shutter and blurry ass 1080p. Only the A6700, ZVE10 (maybe), and ZVE10 II and FX30 take acceptable video. The ones before these are only good at shooting 4k 25p or 30p at things that don't move much or 1080p if you don't mind the shitty blur.

>>4429387
Luckily I didn't ask if they were good for video.
Thanks all the same though.

>>4429386
Yes, it is very good, stellar even especially for close up portraits. For landscape it is good, nothing special but anything is just outside it's focus zone gets horrible fringing and aberrations. For close up portraits the background bokeh is great so it must be coming in at some distance and wider apertures but for shooting an event if you miss just a little bit it will fuck you in the eyeballs. And there is the annoying SDM issue.
I went as far as leaving it at home and only go out with the 43/1.9 prime.

When are Chinese manufacturers going to start making zoom lenses?

>>4429407
Samyang has some for full frame.

>>4429408
I just bought two Samyangs, one is hot chicken and the other is double chili

>>4429338
I have bought 2 digital cameras ever and both Canon. One was a Canon 1200d that didn't turn on. Obviously they replaced it with one that did turn on when I went back to the shop but it's a pretty high failure rate in my anecdotal experience. The guy in the shop did say like one in a thousand is dead in the box, you'd think they'd do just a little bit of quality assurance and turn the fucking things on once they're done with assembly and avoid that shit but whatever.

>>4429418
QA doesn't work like that, especially not with such bottom of the barrel cameras like the 1200D. They are produced at much higher numbers so they open one box in a row and dismantle one per batch it would take too much time, resources and paid experts to turn on and check every one item produced. They don't even check every 1D class or R1, R3 bodies but they check more per certain number of production.

>>4429423
I would imagine that a quick power up test would be the final step in assembly, not after they're packaged for sale. 1 in 1000 sounds like a high enough failure rate to warrant that step. But then I am not a Chinese factory overseer so fuck knows.

AF-S 24-120 or 24-70 Z?

>>4429426
Z mount zooms are better period

unless you are spending at least $1k no f mount zoom even comes close… to the z mount kit lenses.

>>4429426
z lens for sure if youre into shooting brick walls and test charts

>>4429426
Z lens for sure if you're into making fujifag-esque people like >>4429439 seethe. You'd also fit in with basically every successful art photography and director of photography ever because being a huge lens autist seems to go hand in hand with creative success.

F mount lens if you want the corners and sides of every image to be hazy glaring purple nonsense unless you follow ken rockwells advice and f11+go up on the sharpening and saturation
OR, just buy a ttartisan pocket prime for that so you're not miserable with a blurry blob. Consumer grade DSLR zoom rendering is a whole other flavor of bad that isn't cool like digishits or 3 element primes. It just looks bad. Mirrorless zooms are so good, the worst kit lenses like the nikon 24-50 and sony 28-60 can replace every prime ever made for an SLR and stand toe to toe with the leica lenses poseurs drool over.

Can someone explain why nobody has managed to produce a noiseless camera yet?
Why is digital noise still a thing?
if you're going to set up a tripod and get the "right" exposure your image should be immaculate, but that is not the case, why is that?

>>4429446
there are literal dozens of cameras with no perceptible noise at base ISO unless you zoom in not 100%, not 200%, but at least 300%.

no one ever mentions this because photos without grain look bad.

>>4429448
>there are literal dozens of cameras with no perceptible noise at base ISO unless you zoom in not 100%, not 200%, but at least 300%.
Name one?
And why do you need a word like "perceptible"

I've seen plenty of full frame cameras properly exposed that have visible noise
it's subble
but it's there
and sometimes if you're busting a tripod out it'd be nice to just, idk, wait 2-10x longer for ISO1 or whatever would be neededo get an actually good capture

workaround I found is to just do HDR bracketing and merge in post

Let's say I have a canon camera with a shitty sensor. What is the best old used cheapish camera to buy to upgrade. (EF mount)

>>4429463
Define "cheapish"

>>4429466
$500

>>4429467
5d3 or 6d2 if you have EF lenses (i.e. not EF-S)

>>4429426
why not the 24-120 z?

>>4429463>
EFS Lenses? 7DII or 850D etc. Basically any high MP APS-C canon from the last 5-10 years would be about the same in terms of upgrades
EF Lenses? 5DII/III/IV depending on how much you actually want to spend. I personally think the 5DII is the golden point, but many complain it's a bit old.

>>4429468
Best image quality would be going analog in fine grained films like 50D. Tons of good EF analog cameras around. Contra: this setup sucks after iso 400 or so

The 6D mk ii is fine. I'd personally try to lowball a seller into giving me their 5D mk iv or 1D even.

I've been looking into pocketable cameras, but the more I think about it, the, the more I wonder what it would provide that a modern phone wouldn't.

>>4429541
Faster adjustment of settings, potentially a wider zoom range that's not limited to 2 or 3 focal lengths, a real shallower depth of field (newer phones have got better with their subject masking but you can still tell that it's fake blur), less noise without losing detail, some of them have a proper xenon flash, better battery life, and some of them have an EVF and/or tilting screen

>>4429446
Sensors are semiconductors, semiconductors have temperature noise. The sensor noise is a fundamental property of the material used. You can reduce noise by cooling with a thermoelectric peltier cooler or even a chiller but those make the camera much more expensive and bulkier so it is limited to either high performance video setups or high performance astrophotography and research use. You will always have noise on your sensor there is no such thing as a "noiseless" camera

>>4429542
The Xiaomi 14 Ultra actually has variable aperture and can achieve shallowish depth of field.

>>4429425
Very difficult to do if you want actual results. Let's say you turn them on, how will you able to tell if it is turning on and turning on properly, not to mention working properly? You cannot simply do it automatically, you have to at least partly disassemble them to access test points. You would have to assign humans to do it and you will need people who at least know how to work a camera and that costs a lot of money. Manufacturers don't like to pay their workers that is why we have so much automation, and as a side result, poverty.

https://x.com/TansuYegen/status/1926393887112774049
>everything is bokeh
I wish I didn't have perfect eyes.

>>4429408
It's not a chinese manufacturer though

>>4429541
A lot. Most importantly, they provide reality. Real light, real optics. Just a photo. The sharpness and detail and whatever you get onto that sensor is real. Color interpolation is simple math, not machine learning. It has a resolution hit but doesn't make stuff up above the max resolution, it just fails to be accurate below its max resolution (nyquist limit). If you shoot film there is no limit, just worsening edge contrast as you go smaller down to the 1-micron film rains.

Phones provide AI driven HDR, detail reconstruction, and attempts at bokeh simulation. I have pixel peeped iphone 16 pro shots extensively and found that while you might be able to count as many individual hairs as a real camera all of those hairs look like lovecraftian worm creatures and text in the background randomly turns into runes. Also, you can not actually disable a smartphones cell radios without turning it off AND keeping it in a faraday cage or just destroying (most modern laptops can also be remotely accessed via an always on 5g radio that only the NSA/manufacturer can utilize), and there is no guarantee that apple/google/samsung/your government will never force an OTA update that gives them full AI powered monitoring, control, and censorship powers over what you photograph.

Does it matter?

Does it matter if you take photos of things instead of asking veo 3 to generate videos of things?

>>4429620
> and there is no guarantee that apple/google/samsung/your government will never force an OTA update that gives them full AI powered monitoring, control, and censorship powers over what you photograph.
Also you will call this schizo but it is not only feasible, but likely given the trend among the worlds politicans. They are constantly calling for no encryption and total control/monitoring protect you from using drugs that dont cause lung cancer, children from CP, celebs from fake nudes, and israelis from criticism and backlash.

>>4429182
>>4429384
why does pentax even

>>4429384
>Nikon being the pentax
Nikon has the same AF performance as everyone else and vastly superior lenses/sensors/color science

Sony can't make a sensor break 10fps anymore without dropping 2 stops of DR. Every canon had the same problem as the Z8 but with forced NR in raws to hide it, and now the R5II has the same problem as the A9III.

No, nikon is turning into the hasselblad/leica of FF mirrorless. Huge value share tiny market share.

>>4429679
Nah. Fuji GFX is the new Hasselblad and unironically Pentax is the new Leica
Away from the mainstream they just do their own stuff not being bothered by mainstream drama.
Nikon does the mainstream always behind Canon doing the same thing a little bit less efficiently. Their jittery AF and constantly resetting IS something to get used to, it still delivers but not very pleasant on the other side of the viewfinder.

>>4429546
>how will you able to tell if it is turning on and turning on properly
Come on man, you can't be that dense. On the off chance that you simply misunderstood me and aren't just playing dumb for (you)s the issue was that they literally don't turn on, dead on arrival, stillborn, no sign of life whatever. Most likely due to faulty PCBs but that's speculation on my part. The guy in the shop said around 1/1000 come in like that, apologised and swapped it with another one after he tested it with the battery I already charged. You could train a monkey to pop a battery in and flick the power button on, off and remove the battery in under 5 seconds before they go to packing.

>>4429681
>he's STILL mad about the expeed 6 bodies
It's like seething at sony because the a7 to a7iii were absolute dogshit - well actually, not, because the a7iv is still pretty shit

How retarded am I for wanting to buy busted lenses and flip them?

>>4429686
The case is (You) don't understand. Turning them on (You) are assuming Jack Potato walks over there turns them on and sees if they turn on. That is the case that never will happen, ever. Nobody will want to pay someone do this because they need many others paying multiple and they will need someone who can manage to learn the most basic operation of a camera and that means educated, it costs a whole lot more.
No, testing is automated since it is cheap, doesn't need toilet breaks, no weekends, no holidays, no maternity leave. It is difficult to do because the camera is designed for human hands and human operations and you would need very sophisticated robotics with even more sophisticated software to read visual clues about the camera operation. Costs too much, also no.
What you get is you already have a small team of QA doing various testing so you task them to open x number of boxes per batch and see if they are okay, you already pay them so it doesn't cost anything to just give an extra task them, cheap and effective, automotive industry does the same.

>>4428429 (OP)
>no OVF
hard pass

Is there any reason I should not buy this lens?
On occasion I go on photo walks with my friends through parks/nature reserves/etc. and lament not having a telephoto.
It seems to have decent IQ at a fairly affordable price, according to reviewers at least.

>>4429697
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unRxOZenh0o

I'm getting close to buying this thing. I've held off for 2 years

>>4429759
>"fast, accurate phase hybrid autofocus..."
I'm gonna stop you right there home slice

>>4429754
It has flat rendering

>>4429759
thats a lot of money for a z6ii with worse autofocus and shitter lenses.

isn't panasonic for mentally ill people that zoom in on paused videos to compare codecs? like, video sony?

Will this faggot ever learn how to use the Shift key?

>>4429776
>reddit capitalization

>>4429768
>isn't panasonic for mentally ill people that zoom in on paused videos to compare codecs? like, video sony?
why should I care about this. I'm currently using a t7

>>4429795
Are you ever going to shoot sports, birds, wildlife, anything with a long lens and tracking AF? If yes forget it and go with Canon or Nikon instead.

Canon switchable teleconverter rumor: Will it be a gamechanger?
I hate changing my TC on the field, for me this would be a day 1 buy.

>>4429827
Its worse than you could imagine

Panasonic AF can not even handle toddlers, cats, and dogs unless you want to furiously snap with a 1/4 hit rate - meaning paying over 2000 clams just to settle for saving the photos you didnt want and getting the safety shots instead.
>heh, skill issue. i got in focus photos with my panasonic. ;_;
it also struggles with models walking towards the camera

The 3 most common and honestly important types of photography (family snapshits, pet snapshits, sexy modeling sessions) are the most impacted by quality tracking AF. Sports? Wildlife? Come on dude you only need a DSLR's AF for that shit, everyone crops it later so the limited AF coverage doesnt even matter.

>>4429768
>isn't panasonic for mentally ill people that zoom in on paused videos to compare codecs?
Panasonic only ever made one product line of superb excellence. Which is coincidentally the only product they never sold, only rental. It's their anamorphic lenses.

>>4429827
didn't they fix the autofocus with software

>>4429900
Define fixed

They made it just slow and inaccurate. Before they "fixed" it, it would randomly give up in addition to being slow and inaccurate. S1RII had a <30% hit rate in dpreviews bike test. Even the lowly nikon zf in eye detect got almost 100%. Even the canon r50 got 100%. Its an easy test. Sony a6000s have better AF than panasonics most expensive camera.

>>4429902
No sweaty there is no such thing as a bad camera. Just attempt the shot more times and thank panasonic for making such an amazing device, gearfag complainer. If you have a problem with a camera you need to work harder and stop being so ungrateful towards out most benevolent and high corporate friends.

>>4429902
I'm talking about the s5ii. Is this guy a shill lying about it's performance?
https://youtu.be/U324ZfEwbF4?t=656

>>4429904
If its a panasonic review on youtube it is a lie of omission. They blacklist anyone who says anything too critical and stop sending them review samples.

Panasonic AF only appears to work at video resolutions (2mp) so its mostly the tracking that gets demo’d. At photo resolutions 70%+ of photos are noticeably soft if shit moves at all. Notice they show you tracking confirmations at low res but not the actual hit rate. Usually tracking confirmations on relatively static subjects.

When it lost focus on the dog as soon as it moved shortly after the timecode you linked he cut the clip. See that? And subsequently it constantly loses focus any time the dog moves forward.

You know why they never shoot a burst and show you how many are in focus? Because it doesnt fucking work. The S1RII has their latest and most fixed AF and it still had a <30% hit rate. Thats a $3k high res camera to say "stop pixel peeping, photos should be 2mp!" for!

>>4429905
alright well the z6ii is also on sale. Maybe I'll go with that

>>4429907
Its just as bad. Get a canon r8 and stick to IS lenses, or spend for a nicer nikon like a zf or z5ii.

>>4429908
how is it that everything is bad?

>>4429912
Just early mirrorless and some failing brands

Canon has been dominant for a while and nikon is now as good and sometimes better. Like it always has been. Panasonic and Fuji are just the current pentax and olympus. Doomed.

>>4429912
50% of the world uses canon

panasonic is an influencer meme

>>4429912
>How are so many mirrorless cameras bad/non-competitive/suffering from killer flaws?
It's a new paradigm. Cameras just progress like this now. Thanks to importer shenanigans the western camera industry was systematically destroyed in the 20th century, and japan as a culture is notoriously incompetent when it comes to mating technology and design due to their overly conservative attitude.

For the first ~10 years of practical mass market DSLRs, film SLRs remained superior if you had the slightest idea of what you were doing and weren't shooting insane volumes. Some people couldn't figure out how to get more than 24mp out of medium format, and then skilled people were milking 80mp out of MF and 24mp out of 35mm. MF and LF film are still frequently used for editorials and art because digital hasn't actually fronted an acceptable replacement that doesn't cost $50k to get started with just one single body.

Large sensor mirrorless ILCs that are not PNS/building corner grade (like m43 and fuji) have only been a mass market thing since 2017. Most releases are going to miss the mark and be furiously defended by coping fanboys and "unpaid" influencer shills before their parent brands give up and die until 2027-2030. Maybe closer to 2035 if this new "unpaid" "influencer" shilling thing manages to prolong a few brands. Fuji is definitely on life support thanks to instagram.

>>4429912
Anyone recommending one of canon's cripplestick'd cameras is an absolute retard who you shouldn't listen to. I mean this guy
>>4429871
unironically thinks snapshitting pictures of your dog is more difficult than wildlife or sports, and thus you NEED a better camera to spray and pray.

Cameras were solved a decade ago, just try all the cameras at whatever price point you are prepared to pay (avoiding traps like anything below canon's top couple of tiers being crippled beyond recognition) and pick the one that feels nicest in your hand

>>4429924
Snapshitting pictures of your dog is more difficult than wildlife and sports.

If you want it to look decent you need to shoot from the hip and rely on eye tracking to catch a moving subject in thin up close DOF.

>Cameras were solved! THEY ARE ALL GOOD! BUY FOR THE GRIP! NONE OF THEM ARE BAD!
Ok, but if you point a $500 canon r50 at a moving subject, and then put it up against a $2000 S5II, a $3000 S1RII, and a $2500 Fuji XH2S, the canon r50 will have 2-3x more photos in focus while the copers will say
>ALL CAMERAS ARE GOOD! SKILL ISSUE! JUST WORK HARDER AND BE GLAD YOU HAVE A CAMERA AT ALL! STOP COMPLAINING! CORPORATIONS ARE OUR FRIENDS!
And then the shitty corporations will all but go out of business. Like pentax. And you will regret defending cameras with reduced functionality and making gay excuses like "your photos arent IMPORTANT enough for you to expect a $2000 camera to actually fucking work"

>>4429912
any camera is capable of getting good pictures
only a truly great camera will let you do it without any consideration to settings or thought or skill

>>4429924
>cameras were solv-ACK
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dc-s1rii-review#AF
1/3 hit rate
a $300 dslr outperforms this while you cope and cry "skill issue".

hold corporations accountable for selling garbage. it is not our job to work harder to cope with bad products. if i wanted to cope with a bad product i would spend $30 on a nikon d40 not $3000 on a panafuji mirrorless.

>>4429926
>Snapshitting pictures of your dog is more difficult than wildlife and sports.

>If you want it to look decent you need to shoot from the hip and rely on eye tracking to catch a moving subject in thin up close DOF.

This is what canon snapshitters actually believe

>>4429927
Any camera is capable of getting "some good pictures at the end of the day"
Whether those are the ones you wanted is down to whether the camera is made competently, and whether you are a sane creative person who focuses on composition, or a soulless bugman who focuses on memorizing sensor noise specifications and optimizing autofocus mode shortcuts, and instead of taking photos and moving on, hyperfocuses like an autist and stands there buried in the camera re-taking the photo 20 times just in case the autofocus fucked up.

There is a reason "autism central" 4chan /p/ has people defending garbage and the world of normal people who take good photos instead of precisely aligning building corners just uses canon

Im planning to buy certain second hand lens but Im little worried - would that scar on front glass be visible on photos themselves? Shop claims it wont have any impact but I wanted to be double sure.

>>4429929
should have got a z50
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-z50-review/6

>>4429931
>has people defending garbage
because some people can actually use them and get good pictures
other people blame gear for their own lack of skill

>>4429934
You don't have a skill. You are the linux user of cameras. You just waste time and effort on coping with trash when shit put together by competent professionals doesn't require that you be a faggot nerd buried in their cameras menus taking 6x as many shots in burst mode to cope with the autofocus.

You are a type of creature only to be found on 4chan, reddit, and wherever STEMbugs dwell. A creature, not a creative. Your hobby is not photography. Your hobby is operating cameras. When the autofocus sucks or the metering cant be trusted you click your heels in joy because you can finally feel like you're good at something as you optimize your settings and workflow and finally get to use the spot meter and do zone system math.

And yet that still isn't photography. That's camera operation. In real art, the director of photography concerns themselves with light, shadow, perspective, and composition. You are just a camera operator.

>>4429933
>the worst autofocus nikon has ever released, frequently criticized by artists for being worse than a DSLR and frequently defended by autists who enjoy adjust settings, is still better than a $3000 panasonic

>>4429935
You're just mad I make better pictures using worse gear that you can't use

>>4429936
good thing I listen to photographers and not artists

>>4429937
When are you going to post your amazing building corners? Did you at least hire a prostitute to hold still while you selected the ideal AF area?

And really, you just proved me right that you're a linux STEMbug type of person. All you STEMbugs ever care about is that you put in the effort to learn how to use some outdated and poorly designed garbage. It makes you feel smart, for some reason. But is someone really that smart if they use technology to increase their workload instead of to reduce it? Or are they just trying to replace accomplishments that actually require intelligence?

>>4429938
And by that you mean you listen to people like ken rockwell and youtube influencers instead of artists

>>4429939
If you can't get results with a camera and someone else can, that makes you a bad camera operator
>>4429940
Who should I be listening to?

>>4429941
Why would I want to be a bad camera operator? Why would I pride myself on putting time and effort into coping with a bad product after wasting $3000 by giving it to a shitty japanese technology company?

I can buy a panaonic and be buried in my camera redoing shots and telling my model "again, again" (and i'm fucked if my model is not paid to be there) as I take safety shot after safety shot after safety shot in burst mode because skill or no, you can't skill or will a bad autofocus computer into being a good one. You can only take extra photos or avoid dynamic posing and action entirely.

Or I can buy the cheapest canon in walmart and nail it every time in single shot mode.

Anon, your penis will never get longer because you cope with an overpriced and shoddy piece of consumer electronics
No one will ever recognize it as a skill
No one will ever admire you

They LAUGH at you as you sit there furiously rattling off bursts and pressing all the buttons on your enormous blob

>>4429942
*Why would I want to be a good camera operator?
Because whenever i look at a movie set the camera operators are retarded looking monkeys who are there temporarily and the director of photography actually has a career

The good camera operators who do it for free are all hunched into their fuji XH2s while the bad camera operators raise a small, fashionable camera up to chest level and then put it down and go back to living life

I think it's clear which ones get laid here

>>4429938
>good thing I listen to photographers and not artists
panasuck finna do a pentax

>>4429932
Scratches on front element tend to have massive impact on resale value. Lens may have slightly more flare and less contrast when shooting against light at night. Grab it if the price is right.

>>4429766
What do you mean by 'flat' rendering?
Do you mean it lacks vibrance/contrast? Or is there no "3D pop" that people on here talk about sometimes.

>>4429945
Price is around half of new one but overall lens itself is not cheap (its Tamron 24-70 2.8 with very good reviews) so I wanted to be absolutely sure it won't be that much impact. By mentioning "against light at night" you suggest that it will have impact when shooting with wide aperture?

ITT: Mirrorless problems

My D750 has a 100% autofocus hit rate, costs less than it should, and doesn't force you to look at a tiny TV to take pictures.

This board always makes it easy to just not buy anything

>>4429965
Nah, D750 AF sucks, anecdote:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4570373
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1404071/

>>4429942
>the technology is too hard for me
are you a zoomer

>>4430027
It's not hard, it's a stupid waste of time. I'd rather use an old dslr with pure cross point phase detect AF than a shitty mirrorless with busted hybrid AF. DSLRs are only missing subject detection. Shitty mirrorless just don't focus on the right spot like they can't see it. The only workaround is to try multiple times.

>>4430032
> Shitty mirrorless just don't focus on the right spot like they can't see it.
funny you say that, happened with the D750 in this very review
https://admiringlight.com/blog/revisiting-the-dslr-is-mirrorless-really-better/
>there are a number of ways mirrorless has caught up and then surpassed what can be currently done in DSLRs
>they are not as quite as consistent, not as precise, and have lens to lens variability
>The number one letdown of the D750 over my R5, R8 and previous Sony bodies (and even my older Fujifilm and Micro 4/3 bodies), is focus precision
>An example is the shot above, which I simply could not get the camera to focus on the right spot using the standard PDAF focusing
>I would imagine most people still arguing for DSLR autofocus over mirrorless haven’t had a lot of experience in using more recent mirrorless cameras. This is because the precision of full sensor width Eye-AF and subject tracking is just a game changer compared to what a DSLR can do.
> At this positioning, the D750’s focus points wouldn’t be able to reach his eyes
> you can see just how small an area this AF system covers…and it’s one of the better DSLR systems for coverage! It amounts to just 15% of the area of the frame. Some higher end newer DSLRs do have a little more coverage than this, but even the dense D6 covers just 22% of the frame.

seems like mirrorless pretty good in comparison

>>4430033
Sounds like his was dropped

>>4430036
maybe he just lacks the skill to properly use it

>>4430037
No, DSLR accuracy issues are usually from equipment damage or buying a pentax. The focusing system needs the mirror and focusing screen to be in perfect alignment and drops break them like they break snoy shutters. There's not much skill involved in using a properly functioning DLSR. Put the box over what it should focus on, and it focuses.

>>4430041
If you have to assume someone's gear is defective with no evidence, sounds like cope. Could be a good excuse for us all to use going forward, anytime anyone has a bad camera experience, now it's just that they were using a broken camera.
DSLRs don't include af fine tuning because they assume they will be dropped or damaged. What does damage have to do with having poor frame coverage?
>The focusing system needs the mirror and focusing screen to be in perfect alignment and drops break them
Sounds fragile, another win for mirrorless

>>4430045
>If you have to assume someone's gear is defective with no evidence
Unusual AF inaccuracy is literally a symptom of dropped DSLRs. There are 3+ parts that need to be aligned for DSLR AF to work. A drop fucks them.

>Muh poor frame coverage
Beats panasonic AF (confirming focus 2" in front of the subject) or early nikons shitshow (did you just stop down? oh our AF actually only works from +3ev to +10ev)

>>4429932
>shop claims it wont have any impact
If I were selling a damaged lens I would claim that as well.
There's a reason even the worst dog shit condition lenses on ebay are EXC+++++ (VERY GOOD) and proceed to be basically non functional and full of fungi.

As anon said, resale value would be much lower than normal. In regards to image quality... ehhh.. it's right on the periphery of the element so in all likelyhood it would only degrade image quality in a modest section of the widest-angle focal length (assuming this is a zoom). Sharpness and contrast in that section of the photo will suffer, but as to how noticiable it is will depend on a lot of shit.
Basically, I wouldn't fucking bother. You're taking a gamble and there'll be other lenses for sale out there.

>>4430053
>Unusual AF inaccuracy is literally a symptom of dropped DSLR
It wasn't unusual, it just didn't perform as well as the mirrorless. Again, that sounds like DSLRs are fragile and prone to AF issues.
>Beats panasonic AF or early nikons shitshow
You probably just used some broken models

>>4430077
Early Nikon AF (I had a Z50) was so bad my Pentax DSLR that came after was a improvement and Pentax AF is fucking garbage.

Also hated the colors it gave out I always used a Canon 5D Mark II or Fuji 400 preset on my photos

>>4430056
Shop is quite trusted, I was buying second hand stuff from them for years now without problems. Like mentioned before, price is at half of new one.

Lens is 24-70mm 2.8. So you say that it would be visible at wider focal length?

>there'll be other lenses for sale out there

Problem is, there are none. I need fast lens for stage events (concerts and such) and all other 24-70 2.8 are only available as new ones.

>>4430089
Alright. If you can get a full refund, if you find the impact on images is too much, then go for it.
From where the mark is I'm going to guess the lower-left 1/4 corner of the image at 24-35mm will have some sort of noticable impact if any. The wider the more obvious since as you bend light into a more narrow focal length, less of the front element is used.
This is opposed to if you somehow had a huge mark on an internal element you'd have an impact on all focal lengths.

I would be looking for a lack of contast and sharpness, which you might want to do some test chart shots, or maybe shoot something flat and consistent like a brick wall or treeline at infinity, and look comb over the images for differences/problems in that area. Other anon was right about causing flaring and shit when shooting into bright lights as well, so you might actually need to take it for a test run at one of your events before knowing the full extent of it.

>>4430092
Do you think I could replicate such conditions at home? I admit I never had to run any tests aside from standard check if lens "talk" with camera at all (which is why I buy at shop, rather than online - they even expect people to come with their own camera and have set with miniatures for doing test snaps) so I'm rather green at finding out.

Funny enough, they have two of such lenses, both with single scar but the second one have it located near the very center so I assumed it actually would have impact.

I could also buy almost-like new previous version of same lens (Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD) without any scars (the scared one is G2), do you think it would be much better idea?

Forgot to attach image, that other lens have scar at this location. Older model have no scars anywhere but most sites I ran into claims that G2 have much better image quality than older model. It is supposed to replace Nikkor 24-120 f/4 in situations where I cannot move away from scene to use 70-200 2.8 I already have, instead.

>>4430095
You want to take photos of things that have consistency to them, so you can look for inconsistencies.
You want entire frames filled with in-focus, similar looking objects (which is why a test chart is good here) and to be really combing over it for problems.
Small test charts off Amazon are like $20 and would probably be good enough.
Just take multiple photos using different areas of the frame until you've tested everything. Test at higher apertures as well, as wide-open will do a decent job at hiding problems that stopped down will show.

If you can, do tests of something like
>24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 60mm, 70mm
>f/2.8, f/5.6, f/8, f/11, f/22
I would also test at close-focus and infinity. This will take some time and effort but if you're going to be buying damaged optics and testing them, here you go.

The second lens >>4430096 has a much smaller mark, but it is in the center which is more of a problem. I would avoid this personally, but without trying both and testing I wouldn't be able to choose between the two; I tend to just spend the money for undamaged stuff. I also don't know enough about these lenses specifically to say if the older one is worth considering.

>>4430041
>No, DSLR accuracy issues are usually from equipment damage or buying a pentax
Or just wear, or slop from looser manufacturing tolerances on cheaper models. It also relies on perfect calibration. The camera has no way of telling the difference between what's in focus on the AF sensor array and what's in focus on the image sensor, it has to be told.

>>4430086
Nah, sounds like you tried a broken camera

>>4430130
Mine had 400 shutter counts when I bought it. It was used by a mid 30s white guy for his wedding.

The colors were the most frustrating part. Nothing I did made them look good until I started using the Canon 5D Mark II preset as default. Every camera reviewers raves about Nikon color science and Nikon colors but at least on the Z50 they looked too artificial. Maybe the camera had a hard time setting AWB properly

>>4430136
Skill issue then

>>4430102
But mostly damage. Do you know how many people brag about dropping their DSLRs and them still working? They are the ones who post all the blurry photos taken with DSLRs. The lenses are actually really sharp, but once one of those 3 critical pieces is out of alignment because of worn foam+repetitive slapping or a drop the camera will always be out of focus in a different way every shot.

>>4430138
He doesn't have a skill issue. The only way to outskill the shitty AF on the Z50 is to take more pictures because single point af-c often fails to lock focus. It's just shit. You get that? It's the same story as with a damaged DSLR, but every Z50 basically came damaged out of the box due to bad design. Nikon's early AF implementation could not even reliably detect I believe, perfectly horizontal lines.

There is a such thing as a bad camera. Say it with me. There is a such thing as a bad camera. It is not our job as photographers to put up with bad cameras. If a camera costs thousands of dollars, it is not our job to put in the extra work to cope with a feature that is decades behind the competition. Some companies, like panasonic and fujifilm, are simply unable to compete on the merits of their products. Nikon was behind their competition until recently. The majority of photographers use canon because it just works.

>>4430186
>f a camera costs thousands of dollars, it is not our job to put in the extra work to cope with a feature that is decades behind the competition
Uh no, our job as people with very tiny penises, aspergers syndrome, and no life, is to put in the extra work to cope with shit that is decades behind the competition so we can show normies that we're skilled and actually very smart people who would be successful if chads didn't unfairly rule the world

t. proud atheist and user of panasonic autofocus, arch linux, darktable, and a manual transmission

>>4430187
ideal camera for /p/
>panasonic autofocus, no manual focus, that would be too easy
>sony colors
>100% primes, no zooms
>only shoots raw
>no auto white balance
>no grip
>no buttons just an unlabeled control wheel
>runs gentoo linux and requires manual command line input at boot to load the OS

>>4430186
Nah, the camera was damaged just like the D750

>>4430191
Mirrorless cameras focus off the sensor, so damage can't actually throw the focus off. It will always focus on whatever is in the focus point as well as it can. What damage can do is skew the DOF due to the scheimpflug principle.

Buying a used SLR of any kind, digital or film, is a risk, because film SLRs need the mirror (moving part) and focusing screen to always be in spec, and DSLRs need the mirror, focusing screen, and AF sensor to stay in spec. If one is dropped and becomes one of those "DSLRs are unkillable dude!" stories it's going to be randomly out of focus unless you always shoot at f8. Let's just say there is a REASON all those d750s and 5dIIIs are $400 and down on ebay, just a few hundred off the price of a used z6 or EOS R.

But a mirrorless? It might be too decentered for landscapes, but do portraits fine.

On the other hand, bad programming on the part of the worst country for software development second to india (japan) can certainly make a mirrorless camera struggle to focus when the confirmation box says it has focused. Panasonic's abysmal hit rate on a $3000 camera (they are going to go out of business just like pentax and olympus) and nikon's struggles with making AF work going all the way back to the slow contrast only live view in their DSLRs exemplifies this. Meanwhile canon hires more american programmers apparently because the 5div's live view mode focuses better than every panasonic L mount camera in existence, just by getting the dodgy and unreliable shit (mirror) out of the way of the sensor.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3898858708/panasonic-lumix-dc-s1rii-autofocus-summary
Only one photo (run #2, photo 12) is 100% in focus
>Perhaps the most concerning behavior, though, was one we've seen in other recent Panasonic cameras, where tracking AF will fail to find something to focus on at all and will simply present a red flashing box and make no further attempt to focus.
Can someone please tell me what skill overrides this

Paying $3k for a mirrorless camera to have to use manual focus? You know, you could just buy a leica

>>4430195
The skill of timing and not relying on spray and pray bursts

>>4430194
Sounds like cope

LOL nophoto telling how photography is and nophoto arguing nah-ah!

Absolute cinema!

>>4430239
if the autofocus is bad bursts are how you get around it

because a single shot will almost always be out of focus

>>4430262
If the AF is bad all your burst is going to be bad. It's like you never shot a camera before.

>>4430263
I sometimes shoot with my Blazar anamorphic which does not have AF. Bust mode is a perfectly fine strategy.

I did this on new years eve gettogether. You try to nail focus manually, hold the shutter and then either move half a step while holding the shutter or keep moving the manual focus. It's very hard to nail focus perfectly on the eyes otherwise under such conditions

I'm so ready boyssss

Has anyone shot canon EF glass on fuji gfx bodies? How much cropping is to be expected.

Idgaf about vignetting that just gets darker in the corners. But I would crop out the point where there is an all-black circle.

>>4429932
The actual answer is no, you won't see it.

>>4430283
cant wait for 40mp to lower dr even more and af to remain sub-nikon
and a new film sim!
that will be $1700 plus tip

Not the anon, but that discussion about the scratch has been interesting. I've been eying a 135mm f1.8 GM sold rather cheap because of the scratch. The location being halfway between the center and the corner made me a bit concerned though.
On the other hand, for close to the price, I could just buy the Samyang 135mm brand new. But will someone ever tell Saymyang about the existence of aperture rings.

>>4430300
Don't care, if I want quality I bring my Hassel. X-E series is perfect as a small edc

Have Rebel T6i

Have mix of EF and EF-S lenses

Want to upgrade for better low light, AF, and faster continuous drive. Thinking FF 24Mp will achieve this. Also want to adapt vintage 35mm lenses to modern sensor without the infinity focus problems.

Do I:
1) R8 as cope
2) R6 II now
3) R6 III fucking whenever god knows
4) 5D IV now

5D wouldn't help the vintage lens thing. Or really anything beyond being a cool camera for the same price as an R6 II.

>>4430305
hasselbad has af that is so unforgivably bad fuji gfx is considered groundbreaking despite being held back by fuji’s lack of good programmers

how hard is it for them to poach an engineer from snoy ffs

>>4430311
wait for the r6ii to crater in price ~1yr after the r6iii release
trade up to a 6dii in the meantime (its a baby 5div)

I can't believe all cameras have bad autofocus

>>4430315
The new expeed 7 nikons, most snoys, and every canon have good autofocus!

OM-1 autofocus isnt terrible either its just not that great (better than panasonic/fuji)

>>4430311
M42 and Pentax bayonet lenses (probably others that I don't know or care about as well) adapt fine to EF mount with cheap adapters. In fact, that's the entire reason I went with Canon instead of Nikon when I bought my first DSLR and only because I already had those lenses and wanted to use them. There's no way after knowing what I know now that I'd buy a new camera solely so I can use "vintage" lenses, they were made for vintage cameras and that's where they should stay.

>>4430302
What can be decieving is that the depth and width of the scratch often has a bigger impact than the length. If that's super shallow it will barely cut through the coatings (which is still less than ideal), and the impact will be minimal. You could score the entire length of the lens top to bottom with a razor thin, micrometer deep scratch and it won't actually be that apparent.
Compare that to a tiny gash that will flare and ghost even in mild lighting.

I still wouldn't gamble on damaged optics unless I knew what I was doing.

>>4430311
>Want to upgrade for better low light, AF, and faster continuous drive.
You want mirrorless, ignore the 5D IV.
>Thinking FF 24Mp will achieve this
Megapickles don't have any impact on any of this except maybe for AF and that's just increasing the focusing points, not making them faster or more accurate.
>want to adapt vintage 35mm lenses to modern sensor
EF mount is generally the easiest to adapt onto another body, nfi if it's easiest to adapt to.
>R8 as cope
I tried one. Don't bother. Overheats like a mf.
>R6 III fucking whenever god knows
Yo fuckin' same. Probably just going to get an R6II unless the III has something nice like BSI or stacked sensor (and Canon doesn't somehow fuck that up)

>>4430302
I honestly wouldn't worry about such small and light front element scratches, at the very worst you might notice a slightly increase in flaring if you're shooting right into a light source. I don't remember the last time I had something like the sun in the frame. I do have the Samyang and I'm very pleased with it (I pretty much always shoot Av and having Av on the front dial is preferable to me), if I had the choice of either for the same price I would probably go for the Sony for the faster AF and weather sealing. However I got mine used for like 20% off so it was a no brainer, so if you're fine with used too then maybe look into that option.

>>4430328
Well, I have the same megapixels on my Rebel, but on APS C. I assume a full frame sensor of the same megapixels will achieve better low light performance. That's what I was trying to say by that.

In the mean time waiting for a R6III I'm not out there enjoying a new mirrorless. I don't know why I put so much faith in blind rumors. We have no actual idea if one is coming out soon or not.

I bought my T6i brand new when it was still being sold, so if I buy something I will probably stick with it for a while despite its flaws or shortcomings. I don't get FOMO too bad with shit like this and I'm not someone with a million different cameras. I picked the Rebel I did because it was the best Canon I could afford at the time and it had no glaring problems so I stuck with it. New cameras have finally gotten good enough and I have begun bumping up against some of the limitations of my Rebel to start looking for higher end cameras.

>>4430332
>bought a t6i new when they were new
arent you a bit old to be posting on a site where rule -1 is "welcome to 4chan, now call that fag a nigger"

>>4430056
>EXC+++++ (VERY GOOD) and proceed to be basically non functional and full of fungi
i fucking hate this so much
do they treat their domestic market like this too?

>>4430344
>do they treat their domestic market like this too?
This is the same culture that can't make a video game without including SSSSR ranks because the concept of A, B, C, D, E etc isn't attractive enough.
Everything is super even the things that aren't as super as the other ones.

>>4430346
fuck you're right

accepting fate and looking at trading in my pentax system for a sony one for work stuff, I mainly do commercial and product, with some landscape and architecturaly thrown in, and for fun do sports every weekend or two.

I'm thinkin I should stick with a more general body like an A7III or IV, but I was wondering if the A7R series might work just as well if not better for my work stuff? bit limited in terms of access to these to try them, so really just looking for advice.

pic of gear cause fuck it, this is what Ill be saying goodbye to. (I'm a little sad at the prospect)

>>4430350
I would imagine the extra resolution would probably be helpful for you, not necessarily for requiring the full resolution but for the flexibility allowed by cropping. With mirrorless (or at least the A7 series, I'm not as knowledgeable with the other brands) you tend not to get the disadvantage of the higher res bodies being slower like you did with many DSLRs. From the A7R III onwards you're getting 10fps and better AF than most DSLRs regardless of resolution.

>>4430350
>trading in my pentax
:(
>for a sony
:((
>for work
:o
>I mainly do commercial and product
:o
>and for fun do sports every weekend or two
:D
>like an A7III or IV
:c
>this is what Ill be saying goodbye to
;(

>>4430350
what limitations are you having? Also if you're going to change I would recommend keeping the body and 2 lenses just to have fun

>>4430350
dont snoy, at least get a canon or one of the new nikons

going from pentax to snoy feels like going from driving a BMW to driving a hyunda accent. their cameras are extremely poorly made, despite the excellent autofocus algorithm.

>>4430356
Okay, I'll look into the R series bodies a bit more, see what's available near me.

>>4430358
Main issue is replacability and ongoing lens support. Pentax isn't exactly doing too much these days, and living in a country with no stock on shelves is a bit scary if something breaks. Secondaries are typical crop sensor issues, namely noise control, wide angle options, depth of field, etc. I will miss the battery life, I get around 3000 shots on a battery at the moment.

I'm hoping the trade value works out I can keep the body and a couple lenses for hiking and holidays

>>4430365
biggest issue is getting glass for me, the local store has a ton of near new or in box sony stuff that's hallf rrp, where as with nikon and canon it's a lot more sparse and even EF and some F stuff is still way up in price.

>>4430357
forgot to reply but yeah :(

>>4430366
did you ever stop to wonder why they have so much unsold sony stuff?
>be sony
>release a huge run of a7iiis with defective shutters
>get sued, as people are sick of your bullshit after the a7rs with defective lens mounts and the "official sony rubber band"
>refused to disclose the serial range, issue a recall, or admit fault
>release a7iii with same shutter pn#
>allegedly use up stock of defective a7iii shutters
>already got the suit dismissed
>"contact pro imaging services gozaimasu"
also weather sealing no workie, sickly to dull skin tones, star eating, vignetting, etc
>later it turns out the sensor is mounted to the ibis unit with thin plastic which sometimes breaks, finally explaining why random people are convinced sony 5 stop ibis is only good for 2 stops
snoy

>>4430371
>be snoy
>release a7rv and a1 top tier pro cameras after emerging victorious by simply dismissing all criticism of your fuckups
>release new firmware for a7rv and a1
>brick thousands of cameras
https://petapixel.com/2024/09/13/sonys-latest-firmware-update-borked-cameras-again/

>>4430371
*release a7iv with same shutter pn# as *a7iii

>>4430366
For a long-term investment (since you're doing this for work, it counts, unlike 99% of people here), I wouldn't even consider snoy with all the bullshit they've had to deal with the past 5 years or so.
For pro work you want Cannikon end of story. Canon's customer service for pro-tier gear especially is mint, but it really depends on how much income you make from the job.

>>4430377
It counts no matter what

No one should buy a sony, really.

>>4430377
I've looked but yeah, it's really a cost thing, the Canon and Nikon options, with glass to keep me doing what I do right now, would be enough that I'd only have to stretch a little and be into Fuji Medium format, even Hasselblad.

>>4430371
The Sony stores in NZ closed or stopped stocking cameras, can't remember which, so my local store bought their stock

>>4430366
I think Pentax's business model is to just make old shit forever for boomers that never want to upgrade

>>4430350
Honestly if you have all those Pentax lenses why not try to pick up a 55-300mm PLM? Why would your K3III break in the first place?

>>4430397
It's about 5k away from the shutter warranty now, and it's more if something happens like I drop it, or something stupid with a tripod etc. I don't think I would break it through use besides that really. I have the older 55-300mm, debated the newer PLM model but it's only use would be for sport

>>4430387
yeah them re-releasing the old FA 50mm primes was a bit of a meme, same with discontinuing without replacing their pro crop lenses like the 50-135 (a lens that is genuinely great and just needs a new motor like the PLM). The lack of any solid lens lines like the Nikon G series primes hurt them too I think, their lenses are either entry level zooms with wildly bad CA and distortion, or higher end professional lenses with wildly bad CA and distortion.

Love their body ergonomics though, always a joy to use

I want to impulse buy a 1D Mark III even though I just ordered a new camera

>>4430404
I feel bad for camera makers. They all need a gimmick except for the top 3

>>4430350

I traded in two giant boxes of Pentax gear to Adorama and barely got enough to get 1 Sony GM lens. I had the Silver Special edition K-3iii, a Silver KP, a Black K3 and 14 lenses. I think I lost over $2,000 just on the K-3iii camera. Tried to sell them for years and never got even the slightest bit of interest either.

Sony autofocus makes using the Pentax system seem like I had potatoes. Feel dumb as fuck for sticking with Pentax for so long.

>>4430410
Kinda where I'm at
Like why would I put money into a K1-II at this point instead of swapping. Even just getting access to a 3rd party lens selection again will be worth it.

>>4430408
Yeah it definitely sucks, I wish pentax could just afford to do a new camera every year or two, and like 3 lenses a year maybe. Just enough to keep people checking in, and they have so much in their library that just needs updating with newer motor systems, newer coatings, and improved glass making techniques. Fuck just make some stuff thats apochromatic so I dont have to manually adjust the CA every time I open an image in LR or whatever

>>4430411
lol they wasted all their R&D on that film camera. I think Pentax is this benign tumor that Ricoh keeps around because it's theoretically worth something. all their revenue is coming from the GR3.
I'm not even sure how to bring it back. I guess they would have to make a mirrorless derivative and keep the flange distance the same so you can use the lenses

>>4430283
aw, they got rid of the super slick lines from the xe4...that's fine. i was already interested only in the next xpro. that 23 looks cool though. it's shaped a little like a rangefinder lens. 'A' setting next to wide open seems like it could be annoying
>>4430285
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uxvvpxJ9QVFFyh0pW2rs9KBmUW9vlh-d-VnbcLDCTn8/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=108628632450090560676

>>4430413
that or stick with DSLRs and shoot for rugged durability, and lean into heavy weather sealing etc, build em like tanks, even more than they are, then hope that they can push past influencers shooting hasselblads in the wild and convince people its worth taking their camera out

>>4430413
Pentax is one of those brands like Olympus that's almost exclusively bought by Japanese people.

I only shoot Pentax because my KF was $300 from Goodwill and my most expensive lens was a $65 18-135mm off buyee followed by 2 $60 each primes (35 + 50mm DA). I like the ergos, the shutter sound, the colors, and I shoot for fun not professionally. Most of my lenses + flashes cost $20-60.

I'd never buy a limited like you guys and even for what the K3s sell for you could buy a Canon/Nikon DSLR that's light years ahead even on the DSLR scale (D500/7D Mk2 if APSC, D750/810+ or 5D Mk3/4 if FF). Even a 55-300mm PLM is a little hard to justify at $250 or so.

>>4430417
Not sure if you could just go back to the way things were. People are jumping ship they'd have to completely reinvent the brand
>>4430421
Exactly Pentax is the king of the used market which is not a good thing for the company

>>4430421
as far as DSLRs go, the K3iii is probably one of the best two or three crop sensor cameras ever made, like it's genuinely a great camera, but the aging autofocus and lack of lens support kills it in a professional sense. I will say, while I have a lovely collection of lenses, only three were bought new, the 150-450, 18-55, and 24-70. The rest were either finds in second hand sections at camera shops here and in Japan, or from the Pentax Club in Tokyo where they sell factory refurbished stuff for less than half of retail (200USD for a 100mm Macro that isn't in my photo as it's currently getting serviced for dust).

I've covered all sorts of jobs with my camera, the reason I'm swapping is just a practical one from a tool perspective. I need something that I can replace or repair more easily, and allows me access to more lens options, and a bigger market for both buying and selling any used stuff I have. I agree on the current K3 price, I'd say just get the K1ii if you want K mount but don't need some of the fancier features like 14fps or the built in astrotracer

>>4430414
That's just fujirumors fake images for their articles, not a leak or so. I think the camera gonna look very close to xe5 and the lens might be an 2.8

>>4430428
DANGIT i hate their little mockups
i would not be surprised to see the 23 max out at 2.8 in order to stay compact without stepping on the x100's toes.

Which brand has the best weather sealing? Nikon?

>>4430414
>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uxvvpxJ9QVFFyh0pW2rs9KBmUW9vlh-d-VnbcLDCTn8/edit?usp=drive_web&ouid=108628632450090560676
This is cool.

What exactly do the columns E-H mean? F means soft vignette... so the colors red to green mean how bad the soft vignette is? How can a lens be hard vignette in column E but good soft vignette on column F, what does that mean?

>>4430414
>>4430435
question 2: how good is native fuji g-mount glass? If I don't care about AF speed or smudgy edges... should I just go for an adapter and mount Sigma Art for EF lenses on it?

Sorry for still digging the issue but - considering between second hand Tamron 24-70mm F/2.8 Di VC USD G2 and G1, would improvements with G2 (apparently, mostly about autofocus and vibration reduction, some mention better contrast) really have big impact? I mean, I can buy (in both cases for half the price of new one) either G2 with tiny scar on front lens, as mentioned before or G1 with clean front lens and no scars. And I honestly can't decide. I would probably get more information about lens itself once I get there but wanted to gather as much information as possible before that. After all, even with such reduced price, it's still expensive stuff.

>>4428429 (OP)
>canon releases a 25 year old lens with a native RF mount
>Uses their prehistoric autodrive focus motor not seen since times immemorial
>Uses the exact same optical formula of the often dunked on EF 75-300 series
>Filter threads rotate as you focus so CPL/Grad filters are practically worthless
>Entire design is practically identical except for the added length to account for flange distance
I thought it was a joke. A lens sold in this day and age without even a (now rather basic) STM motor? Did Canon just have a bunch of parts lying around and the intern was too high not to suggest they repackage them?

Also, updoots to the left because I didn't make a whole thread about this like some ignorant fag.

>>4430433
OM Systems I think technically have the best, but yeah, Nikon then Canon after that if you want big 3

>>4430455
>OM Systems
Wow amazing. Thanks.

Is there a good explanation why m43 cameras don't have good autofocus? I have never used one but you guys keep telling me this.

>>4430437
The gf glass is pretty good, but definitely get LM lenses if you care about AF
If you do go GFX, make sure it's for 100mp, the 50mp bodies aren't worth it
If you plant to just use adapted FF glass, just stick with a good FF body

>>4430462
I think that's not true. Sigma Art lenses are much better than GF lenses. If you do not care about AF it's better to adapt a Sigma Art lens to a 100MP body than to use native glass.

It's sharper, nicer falloff, nicer rendering... basically everything except vignetting and AF speed

>>4430468
But worse boy performance for minimal IQ gains

>>4430469
what's that supposed to mean

>>4430470
Body

>>4430433
Nikon.

OM shitstem is a little worse, actually. IP rating standards are less strict than nikon's internal standards.

Anyone here have any experience with the Konica M-Hexanon 35mm f/2?
It's a toss-up between this or the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f/1.5
Either one of these will be going on a film rangefinder camera. They both will cost the same amount, but I'm having a hard time deciding on which to go with.

>>4430484
no experience with the hexanon, but i dislike like the 35 f1.5 nokton
i would probably take 35 f2 ultron over either given the choice
but i use mostly 35 f1.2 iii and 35 f2.5

>>4430461
Contrast detect only AF with quasi phase from the longitudinal aberrations, if there is enough contrast on the subject.

>>4430461
Because half of them are made by panasonic, which means the AF doesnt work, and the few olympus models with passable autofocus are way overpriced thanks to wannabe street photographers buying up all the stock from a brand that is actually dead (new OM system products are overpriced re-releases of old tech) and as this goes on, olympus AF is aging without an update. Fuji autofocus, on the other hand, is improving. If the trend set by the XM5's autofocus continues, fuji's entry level cameras will soon sport better autofocus than the stupidly expensive OM-1 II.

>>4430439
Don't you mean 28-75? I've got a G2 and I'm thinking about selling it honestly, it has some nice colours and is sharp but is heavy af

I'm thinking about just buying these mini Sony f2.5 primes instead

>>4430482
Lol what a ridiculous claim. How could it be more strict than the top end of IP ratings that are essentially water proof outside of diving. If it actually was rated better than OM system why wouldn't they get an IP rating?

howtee everyone

>>4430461
They are just gearfagging out. Modern m43 autofocus is on par with modern sony/canon/nikon flagship autofocus. They just like triggering m43 boomers.

>>4430532
No, 24-70 2.8, from 2017: https://lens-db.com/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f28-di-vc-usd-g2-a032-2017/

>>4430539
>Modern m43 autofocus is on par with modern sony/canon/nikon flagship autofocus
This was true when the sony canon and nikon flaships were the A9, EOS R, and Z7.

>>4430535
IP ratings are managed by an organization that is largely beholden to the mobile phone and accessory industry. The lower end IP ratings, which are the ones olympus pays for, actually allow water ingress and the test is non-demanding an unrealistic from the standpoint of waterproofing. No buttons are pressed or wheels are turned. No zoom is pumped. All they care is that it doesnt shut off while being sprayed from some limited angles.

Olympus does not pay for for the high end IP ratings.

You should actually watch the testing some time. It's actually slightly less likely to damage a camera than rinsing it under a faucet.

Nikon does internal testing intsead of paying for shitty IP ratings that don't actually say anything. They don't pay the IP rating org because it would be a waste of money unless pursuing a fully waterproof rating.

>>4430541
DSLR gear I think just get whatevers cheapest and in best condition, tamron zooms aren't gonna hold value. Could mention that to the guy trying to flog the gear and try to get a discount

They're babbies first budget zoom lens on most systems and there's a lot floating around. Saying that though like I said I do like their mirrorless range and weather sealing

>>4430439
My gut says the value/dollar of the G1 is better.

>>4430440
>Filter threads rotate as you focus so CPL/Grad filters are practically worthless
Skill issue

>>4430532
>I'm thinking about just buying these mini Sony f2.5 primes instead
They're so fucking cute. I want to grab the 40mm myself, and maybe the 24mm, but at that point I might as well buy that recently released 24-50 f2.8 zoom that is also rather small.

>>4428451
Why not go the full mile and get any Ricoh GR instead? The IV is coming out soon.
>even more compact
>one of the best and sharpest compact lenses period
>AF not the fastest but still faster than any fuji (and we have yet to see the improvements of the IV)
>beautiful camera
>26MP enough for photography
>macro mode
>28mm focal length has many uses
>decent LCD

>>4428787
>Going from cat 2 to cat 2 to make your camera more portable is an exercise in being a fashion victim. You will still dislike the weighty presence, the rib slapping, etc
I disagree. I did exactly what you say - category 2 to category 2 with better portability. In my case, I went from a DSLR+Zoom to a mirrorless with small M mount primes. The weight savings (if any) are modest but the overall package is so much smaller and I don't have an annoyingly long chunk of glass swinging around and extending on its own. Consider the simple geometric fact that a DSLR with a long (>10cm) lens is going to be resting against your body at an angle, with the bottom edge hitting your side, while a mirrorless camera with a small prime is going to hang more or less perfectly flat. That is a huge ergonomic difference.
But yes I also own a tiny compact and you're right about that part.

>>4430311
If you don't mind Canon EF bulk and are also interested in shooting film, you could get a really based film+digital setup by running any 5D series camera with an EOS 1V. Sell your EF-S shits to help fund the purchases and use your EF lenses on both + add more EF stuff to your collection over time. This setup has a good value proposition because the EF system is depreciating very quickly despite its availability of quality glass. You can even get a split prism focusing screen for both (just not the 5D4 - its screen is fixed) to make it slightly less of a pain to use vintage lenses.

>>4430350
>>4430400
>>4430423
if you're planning on switching systems, switching all at once is the best way to end up with buyer's remorse
you're dropping yourself into something unfamiliar while getting rid of your ability to compare if the grass really is greener
if grabbing a used body + 1-2 lenses in a new system is too much to ask financially, I'd question whether you can afford to switch systems at all right now
jk actually I shoot pentax and just don't want there to be one less on this board
>>4430626
>five 67s in that pic
what the fuck

>>4430626
I'm not sure how I feel about film. I used to shoot it a lot as a kid. Grandpa would give us rolls of film and his old point and shoot and turn us loose outside. God knows how many photos are lost to time. But that's sort of how I got started liking photography. I still have those same point and shoots, but I really like the flexibility of digital.

Though I also completely forgot they had some EF mount film camera(s?). Pry heard it years ago, stored it, proceeded to purge it for something else. That's definitely something I need to think about now, as you're right, there are some bargains on gently used L lenses. Got my eye on the 180mm Macro.

My entire current body/lens stable is:
Rebel SL1
Rebel T6i (gets most of the use)
Their two 18-55 kit lenses
Sigma 17-70 crop
Sigma 10-20 crop
Canon 24mm pancake crop
Canon 50 1.8
Canon 50 1.2 L
Canon 100-400 IS II L
Soligor 80-200 on the FD mount, that some anon on here shilled me like 4 years ago, and it was quite cheap, currently on a chink glass adapter, this is the one I see more potential out of adapting to something like RF non-optically.

Navigating replacing the 10-20 and 17-70 are the big ones for me, there's options on EF and RF both but EF would be about a third of the price.

After these few posts from anons there are some options I didn't really realize existed. I have some serious thinking and research to do.

>>4430491
What didn't you like about the Nokton?

>>4430648
fairly strong vignette wide open, made me shoot at f2 instead (also sunstars at f2 which is awesome)
definitely noticed the midzone sharpness dip seen in a few reviews, great in center but midframe looks meh, good review of it showing what i mean
https://jacktaka.com/voigtlander-35mm-f15
totally could be copy variation, but i felt like mine front focused half the time
the f1.2 i can nail wide open very consistently, but i felt like i always had to stop down or take a few shots
i still use it adapted on mirrorless, just not anymore on m

i've used both 28 ultrons, and the ii is just incredible and the 35 ultron isn't too far off from what ive seen

I got into photography as a form of mindfulness but my phone's camera is shit, but actually started to like it as a low-effort creative outlet. I tend to take photos of random stuff I see outside, landscapes, skyscapes and urbex.

What's are some good digital cameras for someone who has no idea where to begin? Or at least some features I should keep an eye out for?

I'd like to make prints just for small table frames if that matters at all.

>>4430484
use nokton classic sc plus expired film for the true film experience
>>4430435
i suppose hard vignette is total black, which is unrecoverable in post. and soft vignette is just darkening, which can be fixable

>>4430701
Get a cheap used camera to "learn" photography. E.g. a "Canon <3 digits>d" + a 50mm f1.8. For $50 camera + $70 lens.

Then come back in 6 months if you're still interested in this hobby and be ready to get your mind blown by how much better modern cameras are.

I went to pick up a very old Sigma EF prime but it didn't work with my EF-RF adapter, error 01. It does work on a DSLR though. I kind of assumed everything EF would work.

>>4430722
that's weird. It should work. It always did for me and I went through a lot of cameras and adapters

>>4430629
>if you're planning on switching systems, switching all at once is the best way to end up with buyer's remorse
I have done that multiple times. Heard about that strategy on this board in 2016ish and have been selling my entire setup and buying an entire used setup every few months ever since then.

>>4430725
Yes I was surprised too, glad I didn't have it shipped.
It's this lens btw: https://kamerastore.com/products/sigma-24mm-f2-8-super-wide-ii-nikon-f-1

>>4430727
That lens except for Canon mount*

>>4430722
Is it also an oldish DSLR? For early lenses Sigma didn't work with Canon and get licencing for the mount or whatever, they reverse engineered it. They worked fine on bodies that came out around the same time but then Canon changed something with newer bodies (probably intentionally) and then they stopped working.

>>4430752
Could be, I don't know what DSLR. He informed me after the fact when he tested the lens again with his camera.

What do you guys think the 50MP generation of medium format cameras (hasselblad x1d or fuji gfx50) are worth now?

I thought I could get one for $1200 and flip it again in a year or so just for the fun of it. But used market sellers seem to insist these things are still worth $6k

I don't get it. There are higher MP FF cameras out there now - which is the whole raison d'etre of medium format. So in my eyes they are toys now, sellers seem to disagree. What gives?

>>4430758
It isn't just higher megapixels, it's the size of said pixels. It's still a very large very niche very expensive and very capable sensor, even if it doesn't have all the latest tech bolted onto it.

That's my perception anyway. I'm not in the market for such a camera.

Does MBP thoroughly check whether a lens is decentered or not? Or do they accept everything from anyone and as long as it looks good on the outside it's labeled as "Excellent"?

>>4430758
I give you a better one, Pentax 645D, close enough to 50MP, biiig pixel size and CCD color magic.

>>4430629
>>five 67s in that pic
He has even more, pic rel. That's the gear cabinet of a pro who relies majorly on the 67+105/2.4 look. These cameras are notoriously a pain in the ass to get repaired so such people just buy a ton of backups.

>>4430638
Great starting point.
I would research the used value of all your gear and put it into a spreadsheet to help keep track of what you could sell for a total of how much. Then get rid of all the crop gear. Since you have some overlaps, I would sell the 50/1.8 unless you really value the compactness. The 50/1.2 is a great lens that will be amazing on film as well, definitely keep it if you intend to stick with EF. 100-400 and 80-200 also have some overlap - I'd sell the 80-200.
Then use the proceeds of your sales to help fund a 5D (a III or IV depending on whether you want the focusing screen - more on that later).
At that point you could get a 1V as a direct film equivalent to the 5D if you want to shoot film, and/or look into other classic EF glass like the 85/1.2 or something wide depending on your preference. You will have a very solid professional setup this way (if a bit bulky, but I assume you don't mind that).
Regarding the focusing screen - if you eventually want to use mirrorless for vintage lenses, then it's less important that your 5D can take a split prism, so the IV will be fine. Note also that there are good adapters (Sigma, Fringer etc) for EF to mirrorless, so you could instead get a modern body and use your old lenses adapted. However, you will soon find that it's ergonomically unbalanced and not quite as nice to use as a native setup, and will likely begin to slowly phase out all your EF glass.
I would personally skip RF due to Canon's attitude towards third party lenses and the excessive size, weight, and price of RF L glass.

>>4430779
They definitely don't. I bough a lens from them about a month ago that was so decentered it was functionally useless. Had to harass their customer support into responding. I would reccomend buying from Map Camera on Ebay if you are buying used. It will be better tested and usually cheaper too.

Based Lynch being a gear fag

https://www.juliensauctions.com/en/items/1426320/david-lynch-hasselblad-sony-and-pentax-cameras-with-accessories

>>4430726
yes sure which is honestly based
but really not how most people talking about switching approach gear
>>4430787
that's surprisingly practical, probably down as a business expense too

>>4430847
lmfao
my family used that exact same cheap-ass model of pneumatic remote release when I was growing up
I own it now and use it rarely (it sucks)
forgot it came with that step-up adapter though, it's not attached right now but I know I've seen it around here somewhere

>>4430758
I mean look at how much the 36mp ones are still going for like the 645Z etc, the quality of the sensor is still very very good

>>4430026
my d750's autofocus with the tamron 35/85 f1.8 VC pair is great. i leave it in af-c 3d tracking and it's way faster and more accurate/trustworthy than the z7ii's was. all you have to do is press the AF button with the box near what you want to take a picture of and it just werks. maybe his was broken.
>35mm f2 didnt even get all the way to the viewfinder snapshit

>>4428755
This anon here.
Ended up buying the 70-200 f4L IS and holy shit what a good choice it was. Got it super cheap too because the guy was a boomer who just wanted it gone, and it's in new condition. Just running some tests at home it blows to shit most of my other lenses. It was cheaper than getting the RF 100-400 f5-6-8 either new or used, and I have a feeling I'm going to appreciate f4 vs f7.1 at the long end versus the extra zoom to 400mm.

As soon as I have anything half worth posting, I'll put some stuff in /rpt/ or /cum/.

thinking of picking up a cheap light kit for taking pictures of anime figures
I feel like something like that
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09HCKD32V/?th=1
or similar should be enough to light a roughly 1 meter cubed of space I'd need and it's like 1/3 to 1/6 of the price of full size kits in similar style from like neewer or something
you think that could work or is it just e-waste?
my only concern is the lack of a proper softbox/diffuser

Is high res mode on m43 a scam?

>>4430937
You just had a defective ZII is all

The fuck is up with serious cameras (R7 etc) not supporting vertical grips?

>>4430944
Good for you. I always found the step up from the f4 level to the f2.8 level of telezooms worth it - no matter which manufacturer. But if you’re really satisfied like that more power to you

>>4430984
moire/noise reduction and minor color improvement no not a scam, use it whenever you can and combine raws off camera (better quality) instead of in camera jpegs (smeary)
actually getting what you'd expect from a high resolution camera? it doesn't actually do that, you need a bigger sensor

>>4430989
>you totally had a defective near mint z6ii and a defective near mint z7ii in a row because bad autofocus doesnt exist
you have a defective penis m8. nikon's autofocus was just shit for 2 generations. it wasn't very good even in the best scenarios, and the way it worked, it robbed a -3/-4.5ev limited sensor of up to 5.5 stops of light, when sony and canon just pop open the aperture for autofocus when it's dark. it was a bad design and they threw the z8 processor at everything and totally fucked their product separation due to being desperate to fix it. no amount of skill can make a bad autofocus system work faster or more accurately.

pros like Sony

>>4431009
Nah, earlier in thread someone said it's okay to just say camera is defective if someone didn't like its performance

>>4431039
thats not what was said but i can clearly see what you're doing here. i'm really sorry about whatever happened in your life, you being gay, or how small your penis is or whatever but sometimes a corporate consumer tech product is just really bad and costs too much money for how bad it is, and it's really pathetic that you think it's worth your time to "troll" by defending shitty overpriced consumer technology toys.

since you're clearly a virgin with no life i recommend you go to /g/ and tell people who dont like macs that they have a skill issue instead. you'd get more (you)s and genuine anger there. on /p/ you're just going to get irritation and contempt. i know this is the part where you ask me if i'm mad or accuse me of being mad, because that's the script, but i say this with sorrow and sympathy, i am really sorry you're an incel and had to resort to doing this for entertainment or supporting your ego or whatever.

i just wanted to add that my d750's autofocus works fine because it isn't broken and it's attached to quality lenses. apparently you wanted to feel better about your low station in life. sad.

>>4430963
I can't put myself into the headspace of a weirdo who literally obsesses over anime figurines but let me say if you're buying lower end products anyways just go for buying from the used market.

boomer here, what's up with all these 'smallrigs'?

>>4431045
they didn't like how someone thought a D750 might actually be worse at AF than a modern mirrorless in this review (it is btw)
https://admiringlight.com/blog/revisiting-the-dslr-is-mirrorless-really-better/
and proclaimed the D750 in question to simply be broken

>and it's really pathetic that you think it's worth your time
same to you

>>4431108
>>4431108
>Autofocus: As I will discuss later, overall I find modern mirrorless cameras to provide better autofocus capabilities, but the AF system on the D750 is still quite competent. The biggest positive was how incredibly sure the focus was in dim light on low contrast subjects, even with older or slower lenses. It’s the one area where things were slightly improved with the DSLR over something like my R5 or R8. AF on moving subjects with a fast focusing lens was also quite accurate, with very good predictive AF that kept the focus on the subject.
of course a D750 is worse than an R5 or R8. the R5 is top tier and the R8's autofocus has gotten better reviews than the Z8's.
>These observations for autofocus are relative to recent Canon and Sony mirrorless cameras (A7 III, A7R IV, R5, R6, R8, etc) as well as the Nikon Z8 and Z9.
>Having also had recent experience with the Nikon Z5, which uses the older Nikon mirrorless AF system, the older Z cameras don’t seem to quite live up to a lot of these points. Luckily, it seems Nikon has figured this out for the Z8 and Z9.
were you so giddy about your trolling game that you forgot to read the blog you linked? i think you were. this bro here agrees with me, dude. 1st/2nd gen nikon mirrorless disappoints. my z7ii was so bad eye detection gave up if someone had both bangs and glasses.

qrd of this reply chain
>i dont have these mirrorless problems with my d750 (re: s1rii cant focus)
>no d750 af sucks!
>no i have a d750 right here, the af is great, fredmiranda/dpreview posters are doing it wrong, here's a snapshit i grabbed 10 minutes ago
>no the d750 sucks! *self btfo*
lol think it through next time trollfriend. it really helps to read the articles you're linking. maybe you should have searched dpreview for another "auto mode dadographer cant figure out auto mode" thread, zozzle.

Is selling your entire equipment and rebuying a whole setup regularly a real thing that people do? Or is it only a few autists on 4chan?

>>4431232
>Is selling your entire equipment and rebuying a whole setup regularly a real thing that people do?
Yes
>Or is it only a few autists on 4chan?
No

>>4431232
im the pentax guy looking at the new setup, and there's a guy here in NZ on one of the facebook buy/well groups who changes every 3-4 months. Buys it all from a department store who must have some very happy salespeople on commission, and then sells it for <40% of what he paid on fb

>>4430963
I think it's honestly unneeded. I just use natural light, which is the best kind of light there is. And my fucking TV in the background. No need for much more. One use case where it might be needed indeed, is when taking a photo of a group of figs. But even then my cheap Ikea lamp does the job.

>>4431167
See original link posted here >>4430033
Where quotes where included, not sure why you're making a point about the Z7II when that wasn't brought up
OP complained about mirrorless AF, I posted an example article about mirrorless AF being better, OP says the D750 used was broken

https://youtu.be/xyquKUFUBfc?si=cJ2_qKNYQ8Iwftyh&t=60

>>4431301
Now hold on, everyone was talking about how panasonic and fuji focus worse than a dslr and you started linking articles about how a canon r5 is better at doing something a panasonic would completely and utterly fail at, shooting a runner at f1.2 with the focus point on the frame edge, and being momentarily confused trying to focus on grass. You’re dumb as hell.

The other anon is also using godly lenses on his d750 and comparing it to the worst autofocus mirrorless ever made, in a conversation about mirrorless being littered with disappointing bodies.

>panasissy AF defense force still going
panasonic is the last place brand and the only reason they cant quit the camera market is because they produce leica's SL series shit and their products only have to keep the manufacturing facility afloat (even leica profit margins can't support maintaining a modern camera brand, not even one as shitty at everything at panasonic)

their camera biz is in a perpetual state of desperation. they enable every codec each sensor supports as a last ditch effort to sell it to SOMEONE. the AF doesnt even matter then because serious videographers who actually care about codecs almost exclusively use manual lenses.

>>4428429 (OP)
My default assumption about iphones is
- They're 2x as good as video machines than as photo machines
- They're 10x more useful for landscapes than for portraits. The wide focal length is actually dogshit for portraits.

is that correct, or do you disagree?

Fuji has like two lenses.

Is it a good idea to bid on ebay for stupid shit nobody pays attention to and make a buck by cleaning and fixing stupid little errors you can google? Like if you paid $30 and could get $200

>>4431327
>Shitty mirrorless just don't focus on the right spot like they can't see it
Was just showing the same thing can happen even with a D750 in capable hands

>>4431520
maybe. You have "business risk" that you might still sit on inventory if nobody buys

e.g. see this comment >>4431240 Guy takes a 60% his every time he flips his setup.

Tbh it's kind of weird how iliquid used camera gear markets are. Buy some super niche stocks and traders buy and sell it a bazillion times per second. Sell some mainstream camera gear and you might sit on it for months.

>>4431568
my local store has had a late model, still with box, pentax 105 2.4 for the 67 system. They've had it for 3 years now. It's priced around the median for the model, cheap for the condition.
Sometimes you just can't find a customer. I've had a lens on consignment at another camera store for over 2 years now. Don't even expect to ever sell it at this point. Might just go pick it up and try online myself.

is f/4 good enough for street + travel + low light for said street and travel when exploring at night or should i go for f2.8? considering how good denoising is in lightroom and how capable modern sensor are, is pushing iso here and there really such a bad idea? not to mention that f2/8 is way heavier, bigger and expensive

If a film era lens has a hill and valley style focus ring it's automatically a good lens.

aps-h should come back

>>4431590
>considering how good denoising is in lightroom and how capable modern sensor are, is pushing iso here and there really such a bad idea?
why don't you just shoot with your phone then

>>4431590
You'll also get better AF performance with double the light. However at the same time you'll also have a shallower depth of field, so you could very well find yourself wanting to stop down anyway.

>>4428429 (OP)
The "Cooke look", "Leica look" etc. these are all fake, right? Nobody can distinguish them in a blind test side by side with a nikkor f1.4 lens, right?

>>4431637
Correct.

>>4431590
yes. F2.8 is nicer of course but I finds street photography at really wide apertures has too much out of focus. I have a modern camera so I personally don't mind iso 6400 or so

>>4431568
yeah that's why I want to add value by cleaning or fixing stuff. Or just getting things for way too cheap from ebay auctions. Losing 60% is pretty retarded I wouldn't do that

>>4431620
I don't think there is really a reason to

I have the Canon RP, I want to explore birding, should I get the 600f11 or the 800f11?

>>4431730
800mm. More is more.

>>4431730
With a long prime you could end up fucking yourself over by going too long unless you're super sure of the reach you need and it won't be varying (probably more suited to particular sports desu), and the fact you're asking which to get means you don't really know. I would look into one of the zooms instead, quite a few options in the X-400/500/600mm range and they're going to be faster too. I'm guessing the 600 and 800 are pretty light weight (too lazy to look up specs), which is a valid advantage if you can deal with the compromises but I think in your case they may be too compromised.

>>4431757
Yeah the portability is appealing. I have also been looking at EF mount zooms btw, like the Sigma 150-600 and similar, but you know how it is with heavy equipment, it tends to stay home more.

>>4431730
you'd be surprised how much the F11 will fuck you(well depends on where/when you're shooting I guess)
between those two, 800, you always need more range for birding
the ideal solution is a faster 150/200-600 BUT one that you can get a teleconverter for
don't be like me and fuck yourself over by buying a new lens that will never ever get a teleconverter

>>4431760
>but you know how it is with heavy equipment, it tends to stay home more.
Totally get that. But it's also not much good having a lens with you if you're missing shots because it's too long and you aren't able to back up. If you're going out specifically to bird and you'll only bring the one lens then it's honestly not that bad to carry around. If it's on a monopod over your shoulder you probably won't notice the extra 750g, and if what I'm seeing is right and there's no tripod foot for the 800mm f/11 then I'd rather carry the heavier 150-600mm by the foot (I have an older 150-500mm and that's how I carry mine) than the lighter setup by the body's grip.

>>4431760
>but you know how it is with heavy equipment, it tends to stay home more
nta but I have the opposite problem, I'm always thinking "but what if I need this lens" and end up carrying too much
it's retarded gearfagging and I've been making a conscious effort to under-pack and deal with it if I'm caught with a suboptimal lens

There's pigeons walking around the city you can just photograph with your phone you know.

>>4431053
in a sane country maybe but where I live the secondary market is full of people who "know what they have" and anything more niche than glass or bodies for top 3 manufacturers is only slightly discounted compared to local MSRP(so higher than actual prices if you know where to shop)
I guess I'll take a look at ebay though.
>>4431276
yeah sorry no I want to do something better than MFC-tier garbage

>>4430963
I would probably get a single used flash and bounce it off the wall/ceiling.

>>4431730
Can you afford that white 200-800? it'll be faster than the 800 f11, is supposedly compatible with the extenders (though their practical usability seems dubious...) and seems rated pretty well.

Once I go R series the 200-800 is on my list, extender compatibility or not, still a shitload of reach for not that much money.

Though if you have 2K to shell out on the 200-800 consider the EF 100-400 IS II with an extender. I believe this will work on R series. I have the 100-400 II and it's built like a tank.

>>4430758
I bought a new gfx50sii for 2500 euro. I guess that was a good deal because it seems to be the used price on ebay

Oh no, another one joining the band. Who could have thought. BUT the American lens manufacturers will thrive!

https://press.sigmaphoto.com/corporate/05/us-pricing-adjustments-starting-june-2-2025/

i bought this

>>4432458
how much did you pay

>>4431907
I do have a decent flash and some modifiers and on camera bounced flash does work somewhat but it's very limiting.
I need to get my transmitter working so I can try off camera flash, but it stopped connecting for some reason after my flash battery died.
I kinda thought I'd need two flashes for what I want but I've been looking at some pro product photography stuff on youtube and it seems like I could do what I want just with bounce cards and single off camera flash.

>>4432552
It all depends on what you want to shoot. I kinda assumed you were cataloging or something. If your camera has onboard flash you can try syncing the external flash to that.

I've spent my entire vacation jerking off to gear.

>>4428429 (OP)
Just bought a Pentax ist
What am I in for, /p/sistahs?

>>4432667
horrific CA and a limited lens selection

Scold me.
BTW the Tamron was cheapish because the texture thingy around the zoom ring is gone.

>>4432547
900€ for the body

After a while attempting to genuinely discuss gear here, it seems every body and sensor is an overpriced shit system for coping retards
In this respect we can assume any camera will be sufficient

>>4433270
yeah basically, hearing people say that things like the sony A7IV isn't a pro quality body and you need an A1ii to call it a pro body, when you could still grab a 5dII onwards today with an older ef 24-70 and shoot a wedding, says a lot about what people think professionals need

>>4433346
I mean it's all relative, like half the "pros" in my shithole country still use canon and nikon aps-c DSLRs lmao

>>4432842
Don’t they take a lot of K mounts?

Will we ever get cameras with per-photosite ISO?
When shooting under meme lighting it would be nice to have analog gain for the underexposed channels to make up for white balancing.
Right now if you're shooting under heavily biased lighting only one channel will be getting properly exposed and your white balance may be multiplying the red or blue inputs by 4-5x and being able to apply gain to compensate would be nice.
The only alternate solution is to use colored filters to try and normalize the light intensity but that requires longer exposure.

>>4434093
to be clear I'm just interested in applying gain to the red, green, and blue separately
not any kind of per-pixel just something that gains the photosites behind r/g/b with different values but still a consistent value for all photosites of the same color

>>4434097
>not any kind of per-pixel
funny enough I was just reading today how apparently some thermal cameras actually do this
but yeah per-channel analog exposure control would be pretty cool
(my film scanner can do it but by changing per-channel exposure time)
unfortunately sensor design & manufacture is so expensive we just don't see a lot of interesting design ideas, just moar em pees

>>4434026
I misread it as an ist-d
my bad
Still bad CA though, but the M series lenses feel great

>>4434661
Works okay if I put another lens on it
Pentax K 50mm F2 A Lens

>>4434706
That was blurry because it's hard to see the focus in the viewfinder (and it's manual focus)

>>4434706
>>4434707
What?
Use a tripod..

>>4429163
I hate that lens so much. I wish there was something like the 16-55 G at that size.

I did it. I bought an R6 II and 24-70 2.8 yesterday.

Is this the right place to ask this? I just bought a cheap nikon dslr but only have manual focus. This lens is really close by and I think being af-s means it'll auto focus.. Is there something particularly bad about it apart from being cheap?

>>4429709
No need or an OVF if you have a hot-shoe kitty.
I think this must be the smallest camera combo to acheive a normal focal length with APSC. The battery is surprisingly good too.

>>4436035
I don't know whether it's good or not, but if it's cheap, 18-135mm is a nice range to walk around with and figure out what you want.
It's a cheap superzoom, don't expect miracles.

I see them for €86 on mpb, don't overpay.

It's APS-C only, meaning it won't work on full frame bodies.

>>4436412
When I got my hot-shoe kitty I instantly couldn't imagine being without.