Formerly known as /gear/

"Inferior micro four thirds tier "Niggon" D700 DSLRnosaur meme camera VS glorious Leica™ L mount™ Lumix™ S1R™" edition

Last sausage party >>4428429

>>4431162 (OP)
>The panasonic

Are you supposed to use lens cap and hood at the same time or nah?

>>4431175
no cap bruh #hoodshit

>>4431162 (OP)
God women are disgusting

subject checks out

>>4431162 (OP)
Ten seconds in lightroom would fix the image on the right.

>>4431238
and an hour of retouching to make her look like plastic

neat

>>4431284
Ah yes, the aperture ring that goes from auto, to 1.8, to 12, to 18, back to 11, then 15, then 18 a second time.

>>4431284
holy fuck they're AI generating lenses now

>>4431291
Wdym you don't put the shutter button on the lens barrel?
Get with the times old man.

>>4431284
>let's make aps-c as big as ff so it's ff with a missing iso stop and worse tonality
I dont understand lenses like this. Why not just go to ff? FF has smaller primes and bodies than fuji now lol, aps-c's advantage is the absolutely tiny zooms.

Since the Z5II release, my local FB market has been blowing up with full frame F mount gear. 5 D750s listed in the past week.

I guess DSLRs are finally cooked.

>>4431351
Cause Fuji/aspc takes better pictures than full frame. More depth of field at the same apertures. Better for people who don't use bokeh as a crutch for bad composition. Plus it's the only company besides Canon with good color science.

>>4431354
I mean nikon didnt get a decent handle on colours until they went mirrorless. Their dslr colours are all over the place. There are some cool F mount lenses but the cameras are a fuckin mess

>>4431358
>more depth of field at the same apertures
No, it has the same depth of field at the same apertures... f stop is a ratio, the depth of field is determined by the actual physical aperture size. your low iq plus crop factor math equals mucho confusion. you shouldn't be an artist if you can't speak math as a language and only remember it as factoids. math is the purest way to describe god's creation. just ask davinci.
>muh bokeh crutch
right, that's why fuji is pumping out a bunch of oversized "f1.2" lenses, and FF chads have largely switched to f4 zooms and f2.8 pancakes.

due to all the pseudo-mathematical copes, crop sensors have become the new gearfag format, because it gave them many more opportunities to argue over "facts and logic" they barely understand and flee from what they do not (3d pop, rendering, and tonality).

>>4431360
>Every camera has unique but good color science
>This is somehow a bad thing

>>4431162 (OP)
what's the best mirorless camera for beautiful skin tones?
>>4431284
this shit looks like AI

>>4431367
>what's the best mirorless camera for beautiful skin tones?
According to all the friends and family members who fell victim to my gearfagging? The nikon ZF, and so the Z5II is also the best for being the same camera with a grip.

I edited every photo in capture one and did my best to correct skin tones but everyone agrees sony, a7iii, a7c, or a7iv, loses a lot of healthy glow that's hard to edit back in and the ZF is the best with the least effort.

>>4431284
>click

>>4431367
>this shit looks like AI
because it is, great observation

>>4431367
>what's the best mirorless camera for beautiful skin tones?
any and learning how to edit

>>4431367
>6000k +3g vs 5200k +3 M
nu canon skin tones do look as bad as snoy tho

>>4431361
Incredibly based post.

>>4431361
IDK my Nikon Zf has a lot less depth of field at f8 than a Fuji xt5. Kind of regret not getting the Fuji. I feel like full frame kind if dilutes colors too. It's too big it waters down and stretches the colors till they're bland.

>>4431371
Eh it's okay I guess. Nikon mirrorless has a problem with lots of dead pixels and lenses that are way too big and overcorrected. That's why most people recommend a Sony a7cii. Good Sony lenses and better color science than the Sony a7c/a7iii

Is Canon's EF nifty 50 a bad idea on APS-C?

>>4431480
>complaining about niggon lenses needing software correction at baseline to be decent, and in the same breath recommending snoy lenses that do the same shit
Never change, shills

>>4431487
nta but "overcorrected" is a term describing the optical design i.e. why nifty fifties went from being tiny to being in the 1kg range as designers added more elements to correct for more aberrations

>>4431480
>>4431478
I see huskychad was correct about you. You're a pathetic quivering shrimp. All you do all day is fish for (you)s. You sad virgin. Holy shit, you aren't even hiding it anymore.

Close the computer. Go outside. Have sex. With a human woman, this time.

people who say "overcorrected" be like
>oh no, my $500 lens is too good
>please charge me $500 for a worse lens, nikon, like fuji
>viltrox, samyang, ttartisans: hey our lenses are worse
>no it has to be a brand name bad lens, like fuji
>you mean leica?
>is that a kind of fuji?

>>4431498
Hey buddy this is a camera board. Please stay on the topic of photography and cameras. Debating whether or not somebody has or not had sex with your mother is not what this board is about.

>>4431502
Least upset full frame user

>>4431512
Literally all you do is spout whatever nonsense you think will get someone to correct you. And you've been doing it for so long, people no longer think you are just stupid. Now people think you are very ugly, a bit fat, and have never had sex. Sad!

>>4431478
>>4431480
Wow, obvious much? Back in my day trolling was a art form.
Also your penis is EXTREMELY small. Your mom told me.

>>4431498
Who do you think that is?

>>4431531
>man caught being optimistic that there is only one person that stupid
imagine if there were literally dozens of people that stupid, just on this board. and millions outside of it.

photographers would be stereotyped as pompous idiots that pump out pretentious and frankly bad looking trash while jerking off to spending too much money on cameras that suck balls to non hipsters.

>>4431362
I mean I never used the word 'good' to describe Nikon DSLR, but yeah I agree. As someone coming from film, I really love camera with highly lifelike colours, as that's something film always struggles with.

>>4431517
>>4431528
You type like a fagemelting down on Twitter lol. I'm just talking about how a lot of professionals prefer the depth of field that Fuji has over the theoretical benefits of full frame. If you want a full frame Nikon and can afford then you should buy it. It just comes with some drawbacks/downsides

>>4431371
>everyone agrees Sony
Talk with any two people and at least one will tell you it's not Sony.

>>4431533
So you don't actually have any idea?

>>4431547
that you made up.
>nikons expensive lenses are too good. they need to have bad expensive brand name lenses.
>hot pickles!
>actually sony colors are better
>fuji has more dof!
Textbook trolling get a life

>>4431586
>Sane people: Yeah, its sony. Zombie skin every photo. Get a canon/nikon.
>Sony fanboys: YOU NEED TO COLOR GRADE MORE! IF YOU THINK GOOD PHOTOGRAPHY MEANS ADJUSTING LESS THAN TEN HUES, YOU DONT KNOW ANYTHING! I HAVE SKILL!

>>4431589
I’m not the one that responded to that post so why would i? M

The funny thing is, OP pic makes me think this is a snoy thread. Not helped by the fact that him trying to be a funny cunt and leave out the /gear/ tag means it falls through the catalog.
>inb4 who the fuck cares
Anyway, trending from the line of discussion itt so far, it should be called /brand/

I genuinely want to know why everyone feels the need to fag on and off about their favourite multimillion dollar camera company (or in the case of snoy, the console company).

>>4431602
Because leave fuji and panasonic alone! Nikon and canon are actually bad! t. fuji fanboy who lost it after fuji broke xt5 tracking af and released another x100 with a groaning lens

>>4431547
according to you professionals would love micro four turds then, even morre depth of field than a fuji! no "stretching colours" there! whatever the fuck that bullshit even means you wanker.

>>4431602
ahem ackshually if you're going to be cheeky like that, snoy is a banking and insurance services company

>>4431606
He means he is losing it after realizing he dropped $4000 on digital garbage that gets mogged by a $200 nikon d610


Have you seen the prices on fujis junk?

>>4431631
You can get a 50mp full frame camera with stabilization for the price of a fuji xt5, which promises 40mp, but looks no better than 24mp, but blurrier. Canon 5ds + tamron VC primes. Or, buy an aps-c camera that actually fits in a pocket and can go everywhere with you for 58% of the price. But there's a sucker born every minute and fuji managed to sell the same x100 six times in a row just by appealing to zoomers who are literally brain damaged, so brain damaged the US healthcare system is predicted to collapse as soon as they start turning 40

x-t5 lol

>>4431679
a canon r50 would mog this pretty hard ngl

>>4431681
I love it when some random anon validates my purchases
Now tell me old EF glass BTFOs RF mount

>>4431681
no doubt
>>4431686
happy to help

>>4431686
>Now tell me old EF glass BTFOs RF mount
well, i mean, in some instances, absolutely. RF doesn't even have ts lenses, there's no contest. Greatest EF mount lens every produced incoming.

>>4431686
Some of the EF L IS III USM pro zooms are as good as RF mount (with fewer digital corrections)

ewaste bros what we bidding on this week

also have not shown a takumar pentax-f 70-200mm f4-5.6 i already bought for $20, the smc version i bought before is mint but it looks too grainy/fuzzy even through the viewfinder (decentered?)

i already have 2 konica minolta asweet (dynaxx/maxxum 5ds) but i don't have a a7 even though its 90% the same camera

might take the snoyt dslr-a100 to the airport with me and shoot tomorrow morning

>>4431606
I mean yeah a lot of professionals prefer micro four thirds because of the depth of field and lighter weight. The best setup is probably a medium format camera and micro four thirds or Fuji for when you want something light. Full frame is a compromise between the two system. That's why dumbass wedding photographers use it and YouTubers recommend it.

>>4431806
>professionals prefer micro four thirds because of the depth of field
so they want everything to look like a phone picture? I don't get it

>>4431802
what website is this? Do you just collect stuff?

>>4431806
Smaller sensors don't magically change DoF silly guy. You don't get a free lunch for it either.

>>4431812
buyee, it lets you bid on yahoo auctions and buy off mercari (both japanese)

i like a-mount and k-mount because its cheap so i can buy a bunch of cheap out of date junk and have fun and the colors look nice. my most expensive lenses were $60-70. i do collect i guess, a lot i got as bundles or with other bodies

my current bodies:

konica minolta asweet (black + silver, paid $50 + 40)
sony dslr-a100 (blue/black, 1 has a bad steadyshot im selling, paid $30 + 40)
sony dslr-a390 (second newest, 14.2mp ccd, from 2010, paid $80)
pentax kf (24mp cmos, my newest camera, paid $300 off goodwill ebay)
olympus e500 (this is getting sold soon, 4/3rds ccd = next to no dynamic range, struggles on cloudy days)

my favorite is actually the konica minoltas for feel/shutter/colors (i took this with the konica) but the kf just eats at high isos.

current lenses:
minolta: af 28mm, 50mm f1.7 2x (great prime), 70-210mm f4 beercan (overrated), 100-200mm f4.5 (much better imo than the 70-210mm) 18-70mm dt, 35-70mm f4 (good walk around lens), 35-105mm f3.5-4.5, 100mm macro, 50mm macro, 75-300mm (newer style), 100-300mm apo (my favorite lens imo for the ecosystem), 18-55mm ssm sony

pentax: da-l 18-55mm, 55-300mm da-l, 18-135mm da (awesome walk around/trip lens), 35mm f2.4 da, 50mm f1.8 da, 70-200mm smc, 80-320mm smc

>>4431817
Nice, I just won an E-520 from Japan in perfect condition with everything included for $70. In theory it's worth about double that. Hopefully I can have some fun with it and make a profit

>>4431810
>phone picture
>m43
What's the difference

>>4431162 (OP)
>>4431367
I'm starting to think it's not the cameras fault and it's the terrible makeup that is fucking with the cameras white balance abilities. The OP image has so much awful makeup that she looks like the dead woman that was painted gold in Goldfinger.

>>4431919
This. If you shoot raw the colors can look like whatever you want

>>4431810
>>4431813
>>4431895
>takes picture with M43 camera and full frame at f4
>Pictures look basically identical but M43 picture has twice the depth of field
>Get uselessly large 16 by 12 print of both for shits and giggles
>Still virtually identical outside of depth of field

Life is a lot better when you spend more time outside using a camera you like and less time sperging about gear

STOP buying lenses with perfect bokeh. Every AI model is trained on professional photos taken with snoy gay master, niggon sucker, and cannot loser lenses so the bokeh is totally neutral. if you have dust spots, onion ringing, nisen bokeh, bokeh fringing, etc accept the SOVL because AI is not going to be advanced to copy that perfectly and consistently for every OOF object any time soon, not before the butlerian jihad wipes it off at least 40% of the earth and we have to quarantine the american internet to keep AI from spreading.

Genuine optical sharpness falloff and field curvature are also low on the list of AI priorities atm.

>>4431179
post wall women yes. they serve no other purpose at that age really.

>>4431982
That's not how it works. Foolturds f4 is f8, the aperture is the same actual size as an FF's f8. There is no improvement or benefit whatsoever, you're just missing out plus every single camera has the real world photography base ISO DR of a Z6II at ISO 1000. And everything looks way fucking worse. I have bunch of family snapshit 4x6s and the only source cameras I can't tell apart are the zf, z6ii, d750, and z7ii (do BSI sensors and megapixels matter? not that much desu)

The micro four thirds cameras I went through (em5ii and em1ii) on the other hand always stand out even with smaller 4x6 and 8x10 prints because the colors are just less varied, there's always highlights blown in one channel if the photos weren't taken in the shade, and there's significantly less tonal variation in the shadows. The more shadows have to be recovered to protect highlights the flatter it gets. The sensors just can't soak up light as effectively. They need to be shot with flash or bright soft light whenever possible.

When I still had excessive cameras I put the EM5II up against the Z7II in the same light (LEDs), in the same spot (a blue couch), and shot with equivalent settings, and this happened
>the EM5II's raw was underexposed at exactly equivalent settings (so much for "more intense light")
>the Z7II had significantly richer and more varied colors
>but just as predicted "but if in theory!" if you zoomed out the noise levels and DOF looked almost similar
That was when I knew for sure I was going to resell the micro four thirds junk and stick to sensor sizes that don't drive brands to bankruptcy. Even fuji is better than micro four thirds. They even fixed their autofocus 90% (XM5).

Pic unrelated it's a d750 with a tamron lense but it's proof i own a camera unlike you

>>4431992
Uhm, excuse me sweaty, but you're meant to spend $2500 on a Lumix G9II and Olympus 25mm f1.2 PRO (f2.4 equivalent) before micro four thirds gets good, and then use AI on everything. Fool frame btfo.

>>4431996
I use the kit lense with my 850D and it's an infinitely better experience than 95% of cameras.

>>4431992
>more and larger pixels gather more light
no way thats impossible professionals only gravitate towards medium format to show off. fuji aps-c is better because it doesnt stretch the colors, and xtrans is higher resolution and immune to moire because its a random filmlike pattern. thats why the fuji x100vi sells and the hasselblad h6d doesnt.

>>4432003
>no way thats impossible professionals only gravitate towards medium format to show off. fuji aps-c is better because it doesnt stretch the colors, and xtrans is higher resolution and immune to moire because its a random filmlike pattern. thats why the fuji x100vi sells and the hasselblad h6d doesnt.
literally who are you mocking. Nobody thinks that.

>>4432004
fuji is better than full frame. im sorry you overspent. according to leading photography experts, film is better than digital, and fuji simulates film.
https://www.fujifilm-x.com/en-us/products/x-trans-cmos/
Moiré is controlled by a low-periodic color filter array that replicates a highly random arrangement of silver particles on the analog films and efficient color interpolation from surrounding pixels.

xtrans is better than bayer and fuji x trans cameras are the most popular cameras with real professionals. here’s proof
https://www.fujirumors.com/oppenheimer-movie-photos-taken-with-fujifilm-x-h1-and-these-xf-lenses/

you dont need full frame
full frame is not better

its not

stop buying full frame

your oversized pixels stretch the colors and full frame lenses are overcorrected and bad

>>4432005
>oversized pixels stretch the colors
This is your brain on MFTurds

>>4432006
not an argument

fuji wins

>>4432007
I think the mentality that <insert your favourite brand> wins, makes people look like a homo regardless of the subject at hand.
Spouting incorrect pseudoscience just makes you sound like an idiot.

>>4432015
>ad hominem
do you deny fuji’s expert conclusions? wheres your degree in color science? the x100vi sells, the h6d doesnt. aps-c is better than these pointlessly large sensors and crop sensor using artists are better than these neo nazi wolfdog owning reality scanners.

>>4432017
>I'm not a homo because I read the /pol/ sticky to sound smart
>continues to white knight the company regardless of the point being made
I called you out on your bullshit pseud statement, idgaf about your favourite brand of camera. It's retardation like this I wish /p/ was free of. Dropkicks like you spout bullshit as fact, and the very few newcomers we get here are suckered in to this magical idea that somehow gathering more light is bad for a piece of equipment where its entire job is gathering light.
Crop is fine. I shoot crop. It works for a lot of people as a balance between price:performance. But you, good sir, are a delusional faggot.

>>4432015
It's what happens when people can only afford to use 1 brand

>>4432023
>no argument and admits to going to /pol/
>defends fool frame but doesnt use it
i arrest my case

>>4431982
So you just stop down the FF to f8 and the dof is the same. What are you arguing. In this case FF has the option of having a more out of focus background while mft doesn't. How is having less ability an advantage

>stretch the colours
What the fuck does this even mean in non schizo terms?

>>4432033
This. Fool frame sucks as cameras because they cant get anything in focus. Crop sensors are superior.

Only nazi reality scanners with wolfdogs disagree because they have to hide their identity to avoid being arrested for dog marriage.

>>4432044
every pro-crop post in the thread is nonsense. full frame is objectively superior, and it's not even close.

>>4432044
It doesn't mean anything. For a super low res camera he might mean the res is too low for the sensor size, but I'm already giving him too much credit for the statement.
>>4432047
>Fool frame sucks as cameras because they cant get anything in focus.
Have you heard of this thing called stopping down? Yeah shooting everything at f/2 is retarded, but FF literally just gives you more choice. This means on crop you're 1 1/3rd stop higher in real DoF at all times. You hit diffraction sooner and you can't make your DoF as shallow as FF. That's literally it.

any bags recs for a Z8 with a 70-200 attached? I've got a lowepro bp 450 AWII and it's kinda dookie

>>4431919
>OP image has so much awful makeup that she looks like the dead woman that was painted gold in Goldfinger.
kek

Just ordered a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 (G1) for just 180 usd!
Really excited to get it

I’m looking at buying a blackmagic pocket cinema camera 4k. My questions are:
>Can/should I buy used? Are there any differences between ones I might find on the used market? Older generations and such?
>What the fuck else should I get? Mic, tripod, and gimbal?
>Any starter lenses?
>Is it good enough for stills when necessary?

>>4432254
>Can/should I buy used?
Always. Electronics are a money black hole. Buy used. Buy once. Use until broken, and by then a generation that is significantly better will already have depreciated 50%. For reference most early DSLRs that haven't been dropped or dunked still work so it could take 20 years or more for it to break.
>Are there any differences between ones I might find on the used market? Older generations and such?
Nothing important unless you are working on a netflix original and have to meet requirements so autistic you aren't even allowed to shoot on film.
>Any starter lenses?
sigma 18-35???
>Is it good enough for stills when necessary?
No mechanical shutter or readout/flash sync is less than 1/160 = not a stills camera.

>>4432258
Well then, should I spend a bit more for the 6k or 6k pro instead?

>>4432263
Can you imagine a future where 6k benefits you outside of cropping to cope? If so, yes.

>>4432174
What's the matter anon. Your full frame can't fit in a normal backpack? I don't have that problem with my A6700...

>>4432326
You don't even know what a 70-200mm is, do you?

I'm loving my GFX100SII but it's a pain for long travel. Like when we walk 15000 steps in humid and hot Tokyo it's just not comfortable to have that much weight in my hand/neck the whole day. Especially because my favorite lenses is even more heavy (GF55mm1.7). So I was thinking of leaving it in the hotel room when I know I'll be out the whole day and instead bring something compact. Now here comes the twist: I'm looking for a 2nd camera that is tiny and light to bring everywhere. I did some research and brought it down to the following.

A) Fuji X-E5 with that new 23mm pancake lens + the xf50mmf2. 40mp sensor and ibis is nice. Must be no issue to bring all day and I can change lenses.

B) Ricoh GRIV. I used to have the GR3 years ago and the sharpness was quite good.. unlike fuji apsc I could not see any difference to a full frame sensor. I have high hopes for their coming model.

C) Leica Q Type116. Yes, the old model. It's very cheap on the used market. Probably just a few 100 more than option A or B. But it's full frame and a Leica. However, it doesn't seem all that compact and light. Still probably much more comfortable as a daily compared ot the GFX. Possible i guess.

D) Not my favorite but compromise on buying a light lens for the GFX such as the GF35-70. Then I can enjoy my medium format image quality still, don't have to decide which camera to bring. But it's still big and heavy compared to A, B, C.

What I excluded:
A7CII: checked in store and didn't like the body in hand and shutter sound.
Nikon Zf: beautiful camera but as clunky as my gfx.
X100VI

Really difficult to decide. It's not urgent so I can wait at least until end of the year. What would you chose?

>>4432384
The griii really is a great little thing tbqhwy. So much so that I went and got a iiix also for the 40mm lens. Love how easy it is just to pocket it and whip it out for anything. Snap focus once you get used to it is a great feature that I wish more cameras had. People will come and try to spook you about the dust or whatever but it’s overblown.

>>4432371
big lens with short reach?

what kind of person buys a b&w only digital camera?

>>4432384
You know, and I know, that A, B, and D are the only rational courses of action and it depends on your personal weight tolerance and how essential it is to fit your camera in a normal pants pocket.

>>4432416
>foolji apsc
>rational
Nice meme anon

>>4432417
Yes, foolji APS-C is rational at this point. The XM5 kit was sold for less than $1000 and is more capable at rendering good photographs than every micro four thirds compact you can get around and above that price point, simply by omitting gimmicks. the XE5, if it follows fuji's current trend of HR xtrans (at this point in its development, xtrans is beginning to show some clear advantages over bayer if you do not use eithers output at 100% size), improved autofocus, and added IBIS. if it releases for less than $1599 it's going to be the GOAT travel camera on the market.

video/sports AF still isn't anywhere near an older snoy but it's finally good enough for goofing off

>>4432384
x-e5, then swap for x-pro4

>>4432423
>small camera that makes sense, swap for huge larp

>>4432387
Yes. It's fast and sharp, and BIG.
Wether you attach it to a Snoytoy or a blobmera doesn't really matter.

>>4432426
xpros are more fun and not much bigger at all

>>4432412
Me. I wanted to buy right before the M11 launch but didn't want to wait, and figured an M10-M would make more sense than an M10-R/P or scratch the M itch well enough I didn't need a second M body at all. Great for lowlight shooting and pixel peeping. Use it for weddings, smaller sessions, and usually the go-to for drinking shenanigans with friends.
Wouldn't own it as my only camera, but I can always use it to take color photos too, subject permitting.

>>4432442
Film camera = fun
"I identify as a film camera" = dumb

>expensive camera
>ipad pro
>new laptop
>new desktop
I feel like buyfagging but I can only afford one

>>4432467
xpros are more fun for me, sorry they arent for you

>>4432474
I guess some people just prefer chicks with dicks and digital "film cameras"

>>4432384
ex 4 is cool. You could go with other crop sensors with small lenses as well. For me that's the best compromise between a huge camera and a small point and shoot

>>4432477
I meant XE 5 lol

>>4432475
i also prefer that too, yes

>>4432326
it fits, I just don't like how it fits.

I wish I was rich so I could be a true gear fag

I'm getting a Leica CL tomorrow.. what am I in for?

>>4432664
Just in time for pride month

>>4432472
Buy new desktop and a used DSLR

>>4432428
I mean It gets mogged by an olympus 40-150mm f2.8 that will fit in a backpack with room to spare lol. Theres cheaper ways to go rucking but whatever floats your boat ;p

>>4432475
Ain't nothing wrong with enjoying some girl cock

>>4432677
>it will get mogged by a 80-300 f5.6 that only works on a camera with a base ISO of 800 and flatly rendered colors
behold the power of quarter frame

>>4432664
Great little camera, better if you have a working meter. It flies under the radar cause it doesn’t have the classic “look” but it’s just as capable as an m3. The only real issue is >muh framelines but 35 and 50 are close enough to 40 that it’s a non issue in practical use once you shoot a roll or two through to know your boundaries. I really enjoy mine with a 35mm, but still tracking the proper 40mm once a good sale turns up.

>>4432694
The cl 90/4 isn’t a bad little lens either, its compactness is great. Recommended. Really the CL is a great first Leica even if it isn’t a “real” one, the CLE is apparently even better but I personally wouldn’t get one it seems too reliant on electronics that could conk out, but supposedly the M-rokkor 28mm is a great lens for its price.
>captcha: GOY82
Heh

>>4432688
Lol I thought equivalence didn't matter? Guess it only matters when you are wasting time arguing on a forum.

>>4432757
equivalence cripples crop, but doesn't matter for full frame because bigger pixels have better tonality and allow better rendering with less corrected lenses

>>4432809
too bad they aren't medium format pixels

>>4432809
The bigger pixels in full frame stretch the light to much. The colors get stretched out until they look ugly. It's the reason why most full frame has bad color science.

>>4431162 (OP)
Post RAWs on google drive or something?
Adobe software isn't trustworthy and this select/candidate view is never good

but yeah those awkward disgusting green colors are typical from modern panashit cameras

>>4432412
What gets me is how Leica monochrome cameras still sell for $6k used. I thought in the used market the real demand/supply dynamic, that isn’t cross-financed by Leicas other product lines, would easily get mogged to its real value of $1k or something like that

But apparently not. Apparently people actually pay $6k for this lmfao

>>4432829
Are you the same autistic mouthbreather that's parroting this line in every single fucking thread?
Are you poor, a jeet, a bot, or just baiting? Pick one at least so we can all move forward.

>>4432659
You just gotta sell your stuff again. And be a hard negotiator. And put a lot of time into it for transactions that don’t go through. It’s possible.

>>4432829
yes, as we know, everyone despises canon and nikons colors, and especially hates hasselblad's.

panasonic cameras on the other hand are renowned for their amazing color science which is why as you can see on this chart panasonic is the #1 brand. everyone wants a panasonic.

panasonic cameras are also super competitive because their autofocus is better than sony and their micro four thirds are better than fujifilm, and the chances of panasonic selling their camera division is basically zero because they are so amazing. just look at this, a 100% hit rate.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3898858708/panasonic-lumix-dc-s1rii-autofocus-summary
s1rii killed the camera market, it's better than canon and sony! the s9 already made everyone stop buying the a7cii, now its finally over for snoy just like the s5iix made everyone stop buying the a7iv

>>4432889
lol

>>4432902
Panasonic also has bad color science in their full frames. That's why the images look so ugly. The only brands with less full frame color dilution are Sony and Leica. probably due to the smaller mounts not stretching as much light. That's why Sony is one of the top brands. Canon is up there cause normies who shop at walmart don't know better.

>>4432916
wdym lol. I assumed the prices for new ones were because Leica is so far up their own ass & the used market prices were full of regretful sellers and no buyers. Maybe that was a fucking stupid assumption.

>>4432889
Leica shill bids used leica gear. If they win they resell it and shill bid it higher.

Rolex does the exact same shit. Accessible luxury is FAKE.

>>4431806
Depends on their genre. Some pro's have discovered it as a second system to use for their personal/casual stuff.
It's popular among semi-pro wildlife/landscape photographers for obvious reasons. Some more serious photographers in this genre do use it, but not many. Definitely viable.
You'll seldom see people using it in the studio (although it wouldn't be bad here), weddings (it can be good here if you don't rely on shallow DoF to take good pictures), and portraiture (shallow DoF is often a desired look here, so no-go for most people).
>>4431810
This is a dumbass comment.
See photo.
Most cameras use a 1/2.5 sensor. Higher end ones use 1/1.8" or maybe even 1/1.5"
Notice these are a FRACTION of the size of an m43 sensor.
Wikipedia lists 20 or so niche, mostly Chinese phones, with a 1" sensor, which is further away from M43 than M43 is away from APS-C.
>>4431813
m43 amps are tuned to higher output gains, it's why a lot of m43 cameras have base ISO starting at 200 so the noise difference is compensated to a significant degree. And high ISO performance is pretty good on modern cameras regardless, and the difference is helped further by modern AI denoise.
The main consideration for most photographers when considering m43 is -- do you need very shallow depth of field, or not? Personally I shoot full frame because I'd rather have a shallow DoF available, and not need it, than be stuck with voigtlander lenses and still be limited to f/2 equivalent DoF and wanting more.
But you can still get pleasantly blurred backgrounds with a 42.5mm lens or whatnot, and I think m43 is an ideal system for the casual hobbyist and photographers who value small weight/size.

>>4432889
Because they're not buying the camera, they're buying the luxury and status symbol.
The vast majority of Leica purchases are by trust fund kids, who really don't have any concept of how expensive those cameras are.

>>4433008
Too many words for mere cope

Olympus went out of business because of shite products not yakuza fuckery, and panasonic is holding on for dear life due to their manufacturing/R&D partnership with leica

>>4433013
Olympus exited the market because the entire low-to-mid range of the camera market dropped out, which is where m43 cameras excelled.
M43 does struggle when competing against the high end of the market -- if you're looking at a $1800 m43 or an $1800 FF, which are you going to buy as a photography enthusiast? $200 more than the G9ii gets you a Z6iii. And if you're just a casual hobbyist, are you really going to buy an $1800 camera?
The major companies are only just now realizing that there still is a low-to-mid range market, but they're not replacing it with MILCs, they're making stuff like the Fujifilm X-Half.
Maybe the time for an m43 comeback is close, but Panasonic will have to get its head out of its ass and stop trying to just be a shitty version of Sony. Put G9ii into a GX camera and revamp the lens lineup, market it as MILC alternative to Fujifilm X100 series and sell it at $1,200.

>>4433025
A micro four thirds comeback is not going to be ILCs, and putting a g9ii in a fixed lens PNS is not physically possible because of the power supply, heat dissipation, and circuit board realestate required for all its extra processing. there's just no market for a non-pocketable camera that is that much worse than full frame now that hobbyists and professionals can also choose to buy full frame gear that is honestly, compact enough. yes it is larger, but it's not enough to matter, because in either case the camera is a noticeable load, and full frame is just better most of the time.

Hear me out, fanfictioning a dream camera here.
>Ricoh joins L mount alliance
>Makes a full frame big brother to the GR in L mount
>Visually and ergonomically based on the GXR, sized up to approx. the Sigma Bf but with the GXR grip
>Pop up flash and detachable EVF just like the GXR
>Full frame sensor (24MP if no IBIS to keep the size down)
>Tilting screen
>Overall better build and buttons than the GR to reflect a flagship mentality
>Can make a lot of extra dough off selling native K mount adapters with auto compatibility all the way back to KA lenses
It could be incredibly sovlful.

>>4433040
>GR, but will never fit in a pocket because of xbox hueg L mount lenses
the entire point of the gr is a fixed prime

a FF version with a slow 35mm is feasible but this idea is just a worse sony a7c for probably $2000

>>4433008
I hope this comes across as genuine and is not misinterpreted as sarcasm. This is a very well written and reasoned post, thank you for spending the time to write this out. I do think M43 is not fully being used right now. An M43 version of a PNS like the Ricoh GR with dust sealing made for sub 1000$ would sell very well. I don't think it needs to be G9ii. Just a modern non stacked BSI sensor and good film sims/processing templates in a phone app.

>>4433040
That's just a Nikon ZF with a popup flash. If you want a smaller body than the ZF you need a crop sensor.

>>4433068
sony has entered the chat, laughing

>>4433072
That's a crop sensor. Have you seen how small the mount is. The vignetting causes the amount of light on the sensor to be closer to a crop sensor than a full frame.

>>4433075
that just means the light particles arent stretched as much, they get compressed first so sony has better rendering than fujifilm gfx from compressing more tonality through a smaller camera vagina

>>4433077
Light particles don't stretch. Color particles do. That's why sony pictures are so green.

>>4433081
sony picture are every color of the rainbow. panasonic pictures are green. thats why the sony a7cii is the best selling camera and panasonic shills lie and edit their comparisons. op is a real comparison (nikon people are truthful). proof panasonic people lie about their green skin.

>>4433082
Oh I forgot it's morning in india right now. Bye saar. I'll read your silly words later.

>>4433082
I'm surprised people still buy Panasonic, I only ever hear about Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji whenever anyone mentions cameras. I'm not sure I've even seen a Panasonic camera in a store for some time.

Just sent a lowball flea bay offer on an m2-summicron 50/2- mr4 kit, wish me luck and hope it’s declined lads. Lowball is still too much Trudeau coins lol. But I already have a cron so I can flip it and it would be a sweet price for an m2 if he accepts…

>>4433088
this post is powerful

>>4433011
> The vast majority of Leica purchases are by trust fund kids, who really don't have any concept of how expensive those cameras are
My guy, it’s only 6k. Average middle class people easily spend that much on their hobbies. No trust fund needed

>>4433100
NTA but they're only 6k? I thought they were a lot more than that. Even so, I still think they're a meme camera and are more like a fashion accessory than a proper piece of gear.

>>4433102
6k is just a used price i found. You can spend more than that for a new one and splurge on lenses.

>mfw I found my sony a6600 in the cabinet after years of using a7siii
>mfw I realize they use the same battery

Is there a good alternative to Darktable on Linux? Darktable fucking sucks, there is no reason for usability to be so weird.

>>4433114
rawtherapee ? I prefer using lightroom or affinity photo in a vm personnally

>>4433068
Exactly, and the Zf is incredibly popular, so this could be a very good move for Ricoh as a competitor to poach part of that market (a Zf, but smaller, with flash, modular EVF, better ergonomics, native access to L+K, perfect as a second body or an entry level first body).
>>4433048
You're thinking inside the box, this is not meant as a replacement to the GR but as a successor to the GXR (which was not as pocketable as the GR in all but possibly one configuration) that could actually sell well this time. Ricoh could have taken something like this route instead of making bullshit like the Pentax K-01, but they didn't and are worse off for it now.
>worse A7C
as if anything can be worse than the A7C.

>>4433100
>it’s only 6k
I can purchase a liter bike that will shit all over super cars for that price. I can purchase two sets of skis and 5 years of season passes for that money. I could build a top of the line rtx 5090 build with VR and a racing sim, and still have money left over. That’s a month of the average worker’s earnings, before taxes or expenses. Even professional tier cameras are less.

You’re telling me people drop that kind of money to take black and white pictures?

is m mount even worth getting into? are the lenses that much better? been thinking about getting an m4 because they look neat :^)

>>4433135
I bought some VM stuff to use on my mirrorless since the lenses are very small and the adapter is way slimmer than any SLR to MILC mount. I'm more interested in balancing sharpness with pleasant rendering and portability over pure IQ at any cost and these lenses hit that mark extremely well. It's a lot of fun, I'm very happy with it.
But as usual, first think about what lenses you want to use and for what purposes, and treat the body only as a means to an end, because that's what it is...

>>4433128
Yes. People spend money on their hobbies. People spend far more on regular setups to end up taking just as bad pictures.

>>4433140
Enthusiasts do not buy high price low performance hypebeast noob magnets.

>>4433141
All the Leica owners I know irl are enthusiasts or pros. Most of the rich guy with camera people I know opt for normal flagship bodies.
The mono bodies were class leading in terms of B+W IQ too.

>>4433135
Yes GM IQ at a fraction of the size and price

scold me

>>4433142
kit lens iq
https://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Summicron-M_28_mm_ASPH_Technical%20_Data_en.pdf
in marketingese, this lens is made for storytellers and real photographers muh jewish street snapper etc
in realityspeak, d60 plus 18-55 better

>>4433147
>D60 + 18-55
Neat, that's what I started on 16 years ago, I like my M10-M a lot more though

>>4433128
So you agree? A little pricey, but no trust fund needed. Easily affordable to middle class. At least if they spend a few months saving for it.

>>4433135
M-mount lenses e.g. from LightLensLab or Leica are super duper sharp for lenses from the analog era. The average Snoy G-mount f1.4 or Canon Red line or Sigma Art lens still MOGGS them tho

When people sing high praises of M mount glass... they mean compared to the 90s.

>>4433151
>still MOGGS them tho
Only in terms of absolute sharpness. You pay for that with boring flat rendering, size, weight, and women who see the plastic incel micropeen compensation barrel on your creepshot cam and immediately report you to the police

>>4433151
Depends what you're comparing
Modern VM glass is generally pretty good, but they also offer models with an intended vintage look
Leica could be better, they just keep using the same optical designs of 20-30 years ago in new housing, the newest designs like their APO 35/50 are pretty exceptional, but outrageously priced

>>4433154
Also, of my own m glass, the sharpest (voigt 50 apo) ends up being the one I probably use the least, sharpness ain't everything

>>4433151
M mount lenses are pretty above average but nothing you can't get from nikon/olympus/zeiss

Today even the best $8000 prime from leica is no better than a cheap samyang/viltrox/whatever and there is no reason to actually buy it when you can get the same optics for $150.

Leica products are jewelry, not tools.

>>4433154
I hate this guys oversharpened comparisons of buildings and tree branches. For autism we have test charts, for everything else, take a picture of your dog or something

ARE YOU WEARING EXPENSIVE ITALIAN FASCIST SUIT OF HAND SEWING, DRIVING HUGE EXPENSIVE NAZI MERCEDES OF A.M.G. SHOP, SAILING ON MASSIVE YACHT TO GREEK ISLANDS? BUY LEICA.

FOR MAN WITHOUT EXPENSIVE SUIT, BIG BLACK MERCEDES, AND MASSIVE YACHT, LEICA IS FOR PRETENDING OF BE RICH LIKE BLACK GANGSTER OF AMERICAN CITY WITH GOLD CHAINS OF LOW QUALITY AND JEWELS OF COLORED GLASS.

FOR REST OF WORLD THERE IS FUJIFILM WHICH IS SAME PICTURE FOR COST LESS.

>>4433142
All the leica owners I know IRL are hobby fly and bass fishermen with corvettes and camaros, and they dont know what the fuck they're doing any more than a 16 year old with a $100 nikon DSLR kit does.

I know OF one "leica person" who does know what they're doing and takes pictures at least as well as the corgi/husky/shepherd poster(s? plural unconfirmed) but they adapt vintage M mount lenses to a ZF instead of buying new M mount lenses or using a leica body

The funniest part is they're a former leica ambassador, and left voluntarily because the opulence and luxury of it wasn't compatible with their faith

>>4433158
>$8000 prime from leica is no better than a cheap samyang/viltrox/whatever

Disagreed. Entry level lenses are shit. Any f1.4 lens is sharper and has less ugly color fringing than entry level lenses

This is pretty obvious. Impossible to net see when you try it even once

>>4433161
Fujifilm charges a premium for less raw imaging capability than a similarly priced sony/canon/nikon. The functional and aesthetic equivalent of a fujifilm camera is a tiny and cheap sony APS-C with viltrox prime lenses and a free lightroom preset pack. If leica is the corvette (hood rich fag or retiree) then fujifilm is the WRX (20-something year old wagie with no kids or sense of financial responsibility)

>>4433166
subaru is simultaneously fuji and olympus
>i just like the feeling of the gear shift in my hand
>you dont understand the grumble and rumble of the subaru ej420 vape-4
>its called sovl dad you wouldn't get it
>its outdoorsy and well made *head gasket blows*
>muh rally car *bends tie rod on a pothole*

>>4433169
>*is $50k and a slow as fuck, overweight blob*
WRX sti ass camera

What’s the GTR of cameras?

>>4431606
No, nobody likes micro four turds.
Why? Micro four thirds is artificially gimped.

Cut a full frame sensor down and give it a four turds lens mount and it would be awesome.
Instead, we have shit micro four turds sensors that suck ass and aren't even competitive on noise performance with the same exposure vs a crop from full frame.

This has nothing to do with sensor size and just market segmentation and lower standards for the smaller formats. It's a scam.
Micro four thirds, if it were given proper hardware, would be amazing.
Unfortunately that is not the case.

Yes proper full frame is superior and always will be.
More line pairs through the bigger optics projected onto a bigger sensor will win every time on comparable optics but most of the time you're not chasing line pairs and micro four turds with its slightly softer optical maximum is plenty, and becuse bayer shit is a thing full frame is still interpolated anyway so unless you're shooting monochrom/greyscale with a modified sensor the edge full frame has in optical clarity usually just leads to moire anyway.

>>4433164
Sounds like it must not be a brand thing then, maybe take some introspection about the types of people you surround yourself with

>>4433173
Lumix SEX

>>4433175
Anon there's literally nothing they can do to give you something like a z7's ISO 64 sensor or a z6ii's killer low light ability, just with a 2x crop. That's not how light works because light is quantum information. It does't actually exist. It's a procedurally generated information-object that needs observation to exist. When the sensor is smaller, it receives less information. Even if the lens aperture is the same physical size (this is the only part of equivalence that actually works) because the sensor is smaller, despite the light intensity being the same due to the identical aperture size, the camera records less light.

This is why most micro four thirds use a native base ISO of 200, unless you spend $2k on industry leading sensor technology.

What you actually want is a z7ii with a small prime, which shoots in 24mp mraw for tonality, 45mp for detail, and a 20mp APS-C crop (a micro four thirds crop would just be bad, on anything, ask sony a7rv users for their 16mp m43 crops).

>>4433175
who cares what plenty is. technically my phone is plenty. i always have my phone on me so whats the point of micro four thirds?

literally not being able to afford/physically handle a ff maro/telephoto lens? and then people buy an om1ii and 800mm f16 equivalent zoom which proves that it's not that. no, it's that they lack the skill to get closer to birds.

Is there any mount I can adapt to RF for vintage shit that makes sense? I just want to pour a hundred bucks or so into some manual soviet lenses or whatever. M42 looks plentiful but the adapter adds a rather large 28mm or so. I read somewhere the L39 mount has a much shorter flange, but I have no idea about what's cheap, what sucks, etc.

>>4433190
M would work well, lots of native M options and you can stack adapters like LTM or M42 onto it as well
Any M42 lens you'd want to use is going to require that size of adapter, part of the adapting is making sure that spacing is correct as it would be on an SLR
If you want a small adapter size, you'd need lenses designed for that small size to begin with, like M mount and other rangefinder glass

Every now and then I have a gander at canikon, and it is so much more expensive (and crippled) than sony to get something with serviceable AF and small native lenses that I can't fucking believe it. A7III/A7C, samyang 35mm f1.8, samyang 75mm f1.8, go shoot a wedding or a studio portrait session or some landscapes or even some indoor sports, for less than $1500 if you buy it all used.

No wonder normal people put up with needing presets to fix the colors, when their other option is nitpicking video codicks and weather sealing that doesnt actually get used IRL unless you go out of your way to be a nerd, and not having any cheap third party lenses, defeating the point of using a mirrorless camera (smaller lenses). On nikon you need to spend at least $1599 to have more reliable autofocus than a DSLR, otherwise the only "skill issue" solution is to unironically pay nikon $1000-1500 for a body and $500+ per HUGE lens (nikon has 3 small lenses, 2 are plastic, one belongs on micro four thirds) just to fall back on manual focus and tricks like opening the aperture to focus and stopping down to shoot like it's 1960.

>>4433199
Great analysis, can we see some of your work?

>>4433201
Why do you need to see my work?

Did commenting on how expensive canon and nikon are just to be as useful as a cheap sony ruffle your feathers a little?
Did the autofocus comment offend you because the z6ii still has better autofocus than your panafuji?

Do you want to call whatever I post shit? Yes you do.

>>4433202
arent most gearfags triggered by one of those?
>spending a lot of money on "better" things with not as much real world benefit (ie: weather sealing autism btfo by plastic bag)
>spending a lot of money on something that's not very good (fuji xt5 costs as much as an a7cii!)

>>4433202
You sounded like someone that had lots of knowledge and experience and I just wanted to see how that translates to the work you do
It's fine you don't actually take photos, my bad

>>4433206
I definitely take photos, but it really sounds like I made you a little butthurt and you want to make fun of whatever i post to try and goad me into posting sexy women for you because I insulted your favorite gear directly or indirectly.

>>4433203
So it seems. So it seems"

>>4433208
Not butthurt, I just like seeing the variety of photo backgrounds from our comment contributors here
Again, if you don't take photos and just enjoy photography online, that's awesome too

>>4433184
Anon, no.
You think you understand this shit but you don't.
That's now how any of this works.

There is no good reason for four turds to usually be ISO 200. They just do it because people like you are perpetually high on copium and regurgitate youtuber lies and LARP as a smart guy who tries to explain why subpar performance is acceptable. Just stop.

16MP micro four turds is around 265 photosites per millimeter
to scale that would scale up to around 9600x6400 for full frame, or 61MP

Do your mental gymnastics all you want
explain to me why the four turds shit will be 200 ISO and noisy at base while a 61MP full frame can shoot at lower ISO and have cleaner images, even when comparing a CROP to match the 16MP of four turds, discarding all the extra image data captured

16MP cropped OUT OF a 61MP fool frame
vs
16MP full sensor readout from a four turds

Why is the 16MP full sensor readout from four turds worse than a CROP from a fool frame?
It's because four turds cameras are usually e-waste and this ain't about fucking light or physics or any of that, it's just greedy corporations. Even fucking smartphones can shoot at low ISOs now. There's no excuse for four turds to be so shitty.

>>4433216
smaller sensors gather less light than cropping a larger sensor in post why doesnt everyone know this already? equivalence doesnt include iso, the photon shot noise just looks similar, tonality/total information absorption is different, and capped lower
>Why is the 16MP full sensor readout from four turds worse than a CROP from a [61mp] real camera?
because light isnt real, and it takes $2000 of g9ii to reach the amazing performance of iso 400 equivalent and still have less tonality

huskyfag proved this recently (again) and the irony is he shoots mft

>>4433216
Panasonic made a full frame sized, almost two thousand dollar mft camera outfitted with the highest DR sensor that exists for the format and it took all that to achieve normal DR at certain shutter speeds only. Equivalence blogs have melted your brain. Smaller sensors gather less light and equivalence cant save them.

>>4433216
>You think you understand this shit but you don't.
Same to you
>There is no good reason for four turds to usually be ISO 200.
It's because the baby sensor isn't able to gather enough light and needs to apply more gain to get acceptable shadow detail. Light only exists at capture. It's not really particles, it's the idea of particles that are also waves. It will never gather enough light because it's a smaller sensor. A larger sensor will always measure more photons with more certainty. ISO 100 mft actually has more advanced technology than FF, which is why the bodies are larger. More processing, power, heat dissipation, etc. Real artists intuitively understand such things, you see. That's also why we use larger sensors. We can just look at a small sensor and know there's some gymnastics involved in getting the photos not to look like shit and would rather not engage in some NASA space observatory shit to photograph a tree.

The actual problem with micro four thirds is the GM1 proves it could be a lot closer to fitting in pockets, but that part of the market basically fell out due to APS-C reaching the same size, so now panashit and the brand formerly known as olympiss only market to turbo-gearfag giga-retards like you with turbo-gearfag giga-retarded scameras like the G9II and OM1II, for people who can afford actual cameras but want to act smart on the internet by coping hardcore and doing NASA space observatory shit to their tree photos.

>>4433232
>Equivalence blogs have melted your brain.
No, maybe they have melted yours though.
>Smaller sensors gather less light and equivalence cant save them.
Are you retarded?
Smaller sensors gather what you give them. If you give them the same amount of light, 4turds still performs horribly. Worse than crops from real sensors. The problem is their sensors are garbage and being at a base ISO 200 for many sums it up.

>>4433237
>Same to you
Lmao.
You don't even know what you're arguing about.
>It's because the baby sensor isn't able to gather enough light and needs to apply more gain to get acceptable shadow detail.
Sensor size doesn't mean anything here. No amount of copium will change this.
A 10mm x 10mm portion of a full frame sensor out performs a 10mm x 10mm portion of a 4turds, despite being the same size, even when they have the same photosite sizes. Shooting the same scene with the same lighting through the same lens and the same exposure time and with the full frame operating at the 4turds ISO value. The hardware is just inferior.

No amount of AI denoising or fluff will change this. The fact that so many 4turded photographers depend on such tools just proves the point. The platform is a meme. The only thing that can save 4turds is if someone comes along and makes a camera with a sensor that isn't garbage, like if Sony wanted to enter the market but they won't because that would hurt their full frame sales.
Anyone buying a digital camera that can't shoot at ISO 100 or below is a fool. 4turds is even noisy in daylight for fucks sake, when you have an abundance of light, it can't even.

>>4433250
You don't understand. The size of the sensor itself warps reality differently. Full frame is literally magic. By capture the light around the mft sized crop, the light in the mft sized crop becomes more existent.
>iso 100 mft would totally kill full frame!
the g9ii is out
it still sucks

Full frame is simply magic. Crop sensors, on a fundamental level, stretch out incomplete photon counts to guess the colors because their narrow world view prevents then from knowing more about what little they can see. Much like the crop sensor internet defense force. Full frame gets more complete numbers even with "equivalence" because its reality warping effects cause less color stretching. Also, because full frame is a real camera, the confidence you gain aligns the world with your expectations and you begin taking better pictures through "latent human telepathy" (superior awareness warping reality).

>>4431354
On ebay, anyway, there is no sign whatsoever of any decreases in prices.

>>4433150
You can also buy a Rolex for 6k but you don't see the average middle class person buying one.

>>4433301
The average middle class person definitely has spent $6k on a hobby or extra on a car

>>4433179
Sounds like coworkers from any law or medicine or adjacent job. I’m in medicine and my sister is in accounting, and all of the older men have boats, leicas, rolexes, sports cars and other stereotypical shit.

Rich boomers really are the face of the brand. A lot of brands, actually.

>>4433304
99% of middle income people would buy a 6k car but not a 6k camera.

>>4433301
yes they do. A Rolex is the most middle class status symbol ever

>>4433309
>average middle class people have Rolex's and 6k digital cameras
uh huh

may I please get a reccomendation for a cam + 1-2 lens combo under 1.5k eur that would do product/event photography better than a phone?
flash isnt always an option

>>4433348
You wouldn't need that much money realistically, but if you want to spend that then go for gold.
Any full frame DSLR from 2010 onwards would set you. Something like a 5DIII or a D800. I would take the kit zoom and a fast prime like a 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 and 85mm f/1.8.
Depends a lot on what kind of products and events, but that's a solid foundation. If I were photographing small products indoors I'd opt for a longer telephoto like a 200mm f/2.8, but if I were doing cars and machinery etc I'd get a wider prime like a 35mm f/2.

Whatcha shooting anon?

>>4433348
Sony a7iii
Tamron 28-70 f2.8

>>4433354
Chatgpt

>>4433366
Human. Mirrorless is much better than a DSLR. 4chan fags only like DSLRs because the steeper learning curve, immense size, and limiting shitty old tech (like 20% autofocus coverage) helps them forget their virginity by claiming to be smarr, manly, and highly skilled on the internet.

>>4433368
Fagpt

Everything I said still applies. If you want mirrorless just replace 5DIII with R6 and D800 with Z6II.
Anon said he wanted to take photos, not fag on about some internal argument you have in your head.

A nerd told me japanese camera use chips with 22nm fabs and are over twice as slow and inefficient as they would be if camera processors were made on taiwanese 4nm fabs. Is this true? Japan sucks?

The fucking US makes more advanced CPUs than that. 10-22nm according to google.

>>4433307
You missed the "extra" I mean a middle class person will splurge for a $30k car when a $24k car will do just fine, $6k is $6k
I have no doubt most middle class people wouldn't buy a 6k camera, but most middle class people definitely spend that amount on other stuff with similar utility. Just substitute camera for fishing, hunting, snowboard, mountain biking, etc.

>>4433374
And DSLRs are worse for taking pictures. No tilting screen, no exposure preview, less reliable metering, less accurate autofocus, less autofocus coverage, bigger and heavier, no IBIS. They are just worse. A d750 with a nikon 24-70 f2.8 vr is three times the size and weight and somehow ends up being more expensive. An a7iii with a tamron 28-70 f2.8 is cheap and highly capable of doing things DSLR users need to chimp the screen, bust out the tripod, or just cant expect success for.

Its not even a skill issue unless you think you can skill a toyota corolla into winning a drag race with a mustang lol. Mirrorless is just vastly superior. The closest DSLRs get is 5div live view, which is why the 5div is sold by ebay scammers for the price if an a7iii.

>>4433378
People splurge on cars because its debt and normies do not realize debt is actually money

And no, a camera does not have the same utility as a fishing boat or a camper. Its a fucking camera. They already have one that mogs a leica at most things other than pixel peeping. Called a phone. Leica sells sony cameras with all the features removed and expects people to thank them because photographers really do live up to the pretentious do nothings shooting hobos stereotype jej

>>4433354
the events would be like conferences, not cars
so something with decent low light and autofocus
second hand market also isnt ideal here (eastern euro)
>>4433366
this would be great obviously but way overbudget

>>4433381
Not sure why you need to bring up debt. Are you saying everyone who spends money on hobbies is in debt?

To you it doesn't, to someone else a camera has even more utility. That's the problem though, you only can see things from your perspective. You're making a point why no one should have a camera at any price, not that $6k is an unreasonable hobby expense.

>>4433384
Is the european economy that bad?

>>4433387
Because almost 100% of cars are financed.

A leica definitely has less utility than a boat. It has less utility than a fucking phone. They are THE camera for a rich boomer that thinks they’re still hip or a little dicked camera nerd trying to fill the void left by not having a girlfriend.
>did u no i shoot manual focuth and manual exthpothure? $6000 is a normal hobby purchathe to me, babe. -4channer with leica

>>4433390
>Because almost 100% of cars are financed.
aka
>let my hyperfixate on one part of one example given so I can ignore the general point entirely
followed by
>I am decide utility of everything for everyone else, no one else's opinion or preferences matter at all
good contribution to the board

ITT: A very, VERY small penised individual tries to act rich by claiming $6k is a normal hobby purchase.

Even in claiming an 8" dick is average (it's not, 6" is) everyone can instantly tell this strategy is good for a joke but not much else. How sad is your life if you need to spend 20 posts trying to insist than buying a leica is normal? It's not. Normal people do not buy leicas. They are cameras for idiot doctors and trust fund kids that think very highly of their "art" "project" studying the textures in their moms driveway.

>>4433305
>>4433179
It is coworkers at a law firm. I make about $300k a year as compensation for sharing air with 60 year old men who have to pay mexicans to scrub the algae off their barely used yachts. I still won't pretend $6k is a normal hobby purchase, or that leicas appeal to anyone with sense. Especially not the digital ones.

>>4433379
>No tilting screen
>D750
Lmao

>>4433400
What hobbies do you have?

>>4433400
actually, $6k is a normal hobby purchase for childless redditors.
>man makes 40k a year (needs vidya downtime)
>woman makes 50k a year (needs to break the glass ceiling)
>no children
>both live in a fucking apartment
>man and woman have their own boyfriends
>mucho disposable income
>both die alone
>but they definitely got them funko pops

>>4433400
If you only surround yourself with rich schnobs that happen to shoot leica, that's on you
You should try getting out there and meeting some not snobby sbooters

>>4433400
I've spent more on my dog than that lol

>>4433402
Anyone who has used a d750's live view for anything but pixel peeping landscapes in real time would take no notice of it.

>>4433403
Woodworking, fishing, photography, saxophone, shooting.

At no point have I ever considered spending $6000 on one single item, let alone an item that is as objectively useless as a leica, normal or sensible. The only people I know who use leicas, especially digital leicas, are knobs. I am acquainted with a more serious artist who actually found leicas inherently offensive after dealing directly with the company. 'Ats it.

>>4433404
Oh I see, that must be who I'm arguing with. It's probably the same guy that defends shitty cameras autofocus and calls everything a skill issue. I can recognize the typing style, and the "my girlfriend is doing another guy" vibes.

>>4433407
Why does $6k on "one" item make a difference vs $6k over time on variety of items? I'd expect a fancy rich smart person to know how silly it is to think that's any different to the point

>>4433405
There is no such thing as a not snobby leica shooter unless they have an ancient film leica, lmfao. Digital leicas are exclusive to trust fund kids and tasteless boomers. It's like saying you need to hang out with different people if everyone you know who wears an omega is a douche or a retard. No, everyone who wears an omega is just a douche or a retard.

>>4433406
Dogs are more important than cameras. If your dog is just a hobby, you don't deserve a dog.

>>4433409
Well I've met plenty that weren't like that, so must be you
I see far more snobbery on here by people like you

>>4433408
>Why does $6k on "one" item make a difference vs $6k over time on variety of items?
Are you an autistic child, or THE childless redditor of middling income and below average responsibility?

And you're asking this question about
*checks*
A crippled, repackaged sony digital camera with buggy firmware and a self-destructing sensor?

What is the difference between spending $6k on fine wine and authentic japanese wagyu, and spending $6k on a shitty digital camera? The former can be enjoyed and the latter is coped with on the internet as you slowly realize that your master plan to command respect among hobbyists has completely failed and you wasted your money
>Stop laughing
>You're poor >:(

>>4433410
There is no such thing as a leica fag that is not a snob, a douche, or just a retard. Sorry. If you think otherwise, you're a snob, a douche, or a retard.

They're crippled rebadged sony digital cameras with all the marketing of rolex and none of the prestige. It takes a special kind of stupid to buy one when the two most famous photographs in the world were taken using a wooden box and a nikkormat.

>>4433411
Hey, my house is paid off and I'm debt free.
>fine wine wagyu
>camera
Yes, one you can use for years and years, use it to make money with and pay for itself, and then resell later for a net gain
The other is for purely temporary hedonistic consumption
Are you sure you aren't the one irresponsible with money?

>>4433413
Same goes for the people that hate on leica

>>4433379
>snoy recommendation
>car analogy
huehuehuehuehue
>>4433384
Hmmm, so you're probably photographing people more than anything else.
An f/4 standard zoom is probably all you need. I imagine the lighting in these places isn't "moody" and dark, and if not, that'll do you. If the lighting actually is pretty dark then you'll want a prime lens like a 35/50/85mm f/2.
>Canon RP with RF 24-105mm f/4
Would cost you probably your entire budget but would be the most capable kit I can think of. Buy some spare batteries in case of heavy use.
>5DIII/IV with EF 24-105 f/4 II (not the mark I version)
Same but cheaper. Bit bigger and heavier. Lacks a few neat features from mirrorless.
>R10/R7 with kit zoom and fast prime like a RF 50mm f/1.8
Smaller sensor camera so marginally worse in low-light, but still mirrorless. Smaller, cheaper, performance takes a hit.

How many Euros does it cost for an RP or R8 new in your area?

>>4433416
>no u!
Lmao you're 0% attached to reality. Sorry kid, from the construction site to the law firm it's pretty normal to hate on leica, luxury mechanical watches, hypercars etc because they only appeal to idiots.

>>4433415
Ok, so first you're so rich you spend $6k at once on your hobbies, and now you're so poor, you can't spend $6k unless that $6k will make $6k and you're seething at steak for being "hedonism".

I don't think you fully understand what I meant by responsibility. Responsibilities are things like supporting a family with your income. Buying a leica because in theory you think you could make money with it is not responsibility. It's cope. You're on 4chan, you don't own a photography business. Posting here is for people without jobs, and for peoples whose jobs mostly consist of doing nothing. And if you did I'm certain you'd use a sony or a canon like every other professional because they have global tech support programs and leica has piss poor warranty service and a track record of horrible reliability.

Pic related, it's a more successful professional than any of the occasional cosplay portrait booth shooters here rocking an out of date, taped up snoy.

>>4433420
imagining a cosplay portrait booth shooter trying to justify is leica is just funny lol
>its almost paid for itself.
>next anthrocon i'll be in the green.
>i'm responsible with money unlike hedonists who buy ugh, alcohol.
>i'm not a douche, snob or a retard like the other leica men. that's just you.

Since everyone here thinks they know what it's like to be rich (you don't) time for us to find out what rich photographers use together

https://www.colorclipping.com/blog/highest-paid-photographer
>1. Annie Leibovitz
Prosumer sony bodies, fujifilm x100f, fujifilm gfx, mamiya rz67, hasselblad 500cm, Nikon D810
>2. Cindy Sherman
Hasselblad 503c, mamiya rz67, canon 1ds III, Nikon F3
>3. Nick Brandt
Mamiya rz67, fujifilm gfx100s, pentax 67ii
>4. Morgan Norman
He doesn't really talk about his gear. He's usually seen with canikon DSLRs.
>GURSKY
Large format film.

Anyone seeing the pattern here?

>royalty: leica? pass. hey, is that the new fujifilm?
https://www.today.com/news/its-snap-prince-harry-shares-photos-trip-africa-1d80378147
lol

>>4431284
big boy

>>4433448
>25-60 f2.7 equivalent
>larger than a 28-75 f2.8
>probably larger than snoy's 24-70 f2.8 II
fucking lol. crop copers can't stop being humiliated. the camera industry holds nothing but ill will towards them.
>aw you want your shitty camera to be as good as full frame?
>here spend $2k on this shitty oversized lens. i promise equivalence will make it just as good!
>LMAO HE DID IT! HOLY SHIT GUYS LOOK! TAKE A PICTURE!

>Sane crop sensor shooters: I just wanted a pancake lens that isn't shit or constantly sold out, and bodies that actually fit in pockets that aren't limited production fujislop

>>4433420
>now you're so poor, you can't spend $6k unless that $6k will make $6k and you're seething at steak for being "hedonism".
That's not at all what I said. I was pointing out the logical end of your thinking. You think it's more sensible financially to spend $6k on wine and wagyu, and I was providing an example of that not always being the case. Financial motivation aside, I still would prefer $6k of camera gear to $6k of steak and wagyu, but that's just personal preference. If you are totally down for $6k of wagyu and wine, more power to you, I just see it a little hypocritical to call out similar spending.
>Buying a leica because in theory you think you could make money with it is not responsibility
100% agree, not sure why you would interpret what I said that way. Buying $6k in wagu and wine is even more irresponsible in my eyes.
I'm very fortunate to have the money I do, and I wouldn't own a Leica if I were poor. I just think $6k for a hobby expense that can potentially last years isn't that crazy.
>You're on 4chan, you don't own a photography business.
Whatever makes you feel better. I've posted work from my Leica and other cameras here before.

>>4433423
And if I post professionals that do use Leica? Is this an anecdote war that you have to rely on proxy soldiers since you don't shoot yourself?

>>4433423
>fujifilm, fujifilm, fujifilm
better taste than /p/

>>4433452
its a neverending humiliation ritual

>>4433455
it sure is strange that the best photographers on earth ignore leica and literal royalty goes for a fuji pns instead of an m11
almost like leica is for insecure gearfag douches and no one else wastes their time with it
lulz

>>4433455
>You think it's more sensible financially to spend $6k on wine and wagyu
It is, because one, if you can afford $6k on a single inessential splurge, it does not fucking matter what the earning potential is, because you're not fighting poverty, and wine and wagyu can be shared with others. A leica is literal masturbation. A leica is always about you, you, and your big fat ego. They are extremely narcissistic fashion accessories, for extremely narcissistic people. The leica man is unable not to say it....
>This is a camera for REAL photographers (me) who appreciate the purest form of horology I mean photography... if you had skill you would only need a leica and...
Fuck the earning potential, if you are spending $6k for fun you already earn too much money!

>Anecdote war!
My anecdote is a howitzer here. The highest paid photographers skip over leica and go for a fuji x100. The best, the ones who can charge $10k, $100k per shoot and get away with it. They'd rather use a fuji x100 than a leica.

And honestly, so would I.

>Whatever makes you feel better. I've posted work from my Leica and other cameras here before.
Yes, your cosplay photo booth is very nice, but you could do it with a fuji x100t and no one would notice the difference. They might notice you becoming more humble?

crossposting my question:
>>4433449
>Whats a good camera for beginners? I want to take pictures of nearby birds (but I cant go up close to them), and landscapes.
>My smartphone works fine for the latter, but it cant take good picture of birds (or other animals) from the distance.
>my budget is low
>>4433451
>hmm seems like this is actually pretty cost intensive

>>4433461
>Whats a good camera for beginners? I want to take pictures of nearby birds (but I cant go up close to them), and landscapes.
How close can you get to the birds? A talented person can shoot birds with less than 200mm of lense on a full frame camera. Someone exploring the amazon spotting rare parrots on tall branches might want an 800mm prime with a 2x magnifier.

There is no smart generic answer here. It depends on where you are and what you can do with your feet first and foremost. Likewise for landscapes. Some people live in wide open areas where every photo would be boring without a wide angle of view and foreground interest. Ansel Adams trekked through dense woods and used a 35mm and 85mm prime pair for 80% of his photographs.

APS-C is probably enough to start, as long as it's not micro four thirds. The fuji XM5 and Nikon Z50II are "good enough" for being $800-ish mirrorless. Their autofocus etc is not the best but its serviceable and you could tell your friends it outperforms a $3000 camera (see: panasonic).

>>4433423
>Anyone seeing the pattern here?
whoa anon save the antisemitism for /pol/

>>4433460
>you already earn to much money!
Is photography the next hobby to be taken over by trannie commies? Smh can’t get away from them anywhere

>>4433463
In my situation I just want to take pictures of local birds.

I'm not that far away from the birds i want to photograph. At the furthest, maybe on the roof of a house, or in a tree I'm a under.

If they are on the ground, they'd be a similar distance. I can't walk right up to them for a closeup because they will run away, but I can probably get within 20 feet of them.

>>4433468
>Thinks earning too much money [to give a shit about the earning potential of a toy] is the same as earning too much money [therefore you go to siberia]
baka

i maintain that its a more responsible use of money to share wine and wagyu with your loved ones than to be "the leica man"
leica men have not been great photographers in over 70 years, which s about as long as it's been since japan took over the camera industry...

>>4433464
They're all using fairly accessible japanese camera gear. You, yes, you, could shoot with the same shit as Cindy Sherman. But could you shoot the same shit as Cindy Sherman? Better buy a leica o;^) (the o is my tiny hat)

>>4433473
How low is a low budget

>>4433475
uh lets say under 1000 dollars (under 500 if possible).
Photography isnt a cheap hobby, but I dont know how dedicated I actually am to this.

>>4433476
Unironically micro four turds is the way to get there cheap because of the 2x crop on the sensor. Won’t be high quality, but good enough for normies.

NEW GEAR ALERT
NEW GEAR ALERT
NEW GEAR ALERT

I found a adapter to put my Minolta strobes on my Sony ZV-1! Its Sony ADP-MAA and it'll let you put cheap last gen Minolta strobes on newer Sony cameras with perfect TTL communication. It was $17 shipped on eBay and I bought the 3600HSD for $10 off Yahoo Auctions (1 yen + shipping and fees lol)

It works a lot better than the Medalight (dumb flash) I tried before, exposure is on point with zero changes in flash exposure. I have the ZV1 as a travel camera lol. Just set it to auto, shoot and have fun.

Pics were taken with my Sony DSLR-A100 and a 50mm f2.8 Sony Macro that has a fat white mold splotch on the rear lens and was left in the rain after I tried leaving it in the sun to kill that mold splotch (pretty sure it just grew more instead). I actually really like my A100 too now that I reflashed the FW to English. The 10mp gives it much better flexibility than the 6mp CCD in the Konica Minolta 5D (supposedly its the similar one used in the Nikon D200, just with a lower burst rate), and the A100s are stupid stupid cheap if you want either 1. The last Minolta camera made (literally identical GUI and design to my 5D...except its region locked because Sony lmao) 2. You want one of the cheapest ways to get into A-Mount ($20-50...I think this one was $25 off Buyee?)

computational photography

>>4433476
>>4433477
There are also bridge cameras with long ass zooms. I don't know much about them but I've read they are popular for getting started with birding.

Can you see the ~tonality~ difference between a 25 element zoom and a 19 element prime?

>>4433510
Yeah, but because they used different exposure

At least Sony lets you use grips on all their full frames.

>>4433511
Generally photos shot with primes are better, having better colors, more "pop", more depth, mostly because of the extra elements in a zoom. My 300/4 prime will always have better colors, better tones than my 100-400 zoom even if I have a TC on the 300. but sometimes, especially in wildlife using a prime is too limiting and in many situations you want the extra focal range of a zoom

>>4433511
brightness looks the same. i see characteristic big zoom lens haziness.

>>4433468
lol if you own an ILC camera it's too late buddy your a little gay. This is already a girl hobby.

>>4433484
This looks ridiculous but if it works hey good for you

>>4433511
The forum boomer equalized brightness. See the contrast and saturation difference, where it's like entire colors didn't make it to the sensor and boosting saturation and contrast in post would look plasticky and unnatural? The tonal transitions just aren't there?

I think this is most obvious in black and white comparisons. Higher contrast lenses are higher contrast because they throw away less of the light of the scene. It's not that the colors are "changed" by a low contrast lens, a lot of the light just bounces off the glass and the tonal richness that gives things shape is lost forever.

>>4433540
except they used different aperture, shutter speed, and iso
>>4433523
that sounds cool, you should share that example
>>4433602
equivalizing brightness in post doesn't mean you have the same input, it just means you tried to match two different pictures

You think this ol' thing can resolve ~50mpx?

>>4433725
lenses do not "resolve XXmp". even soft lenses still render those smaller details, just with lower contrast. This is good, and better than rendering super fine detail with super high contrast (harsh detail), because... it looks like film
>film detail resolution: varying 1um-6um, 35mm frames are good for up to 100mp but detail at 1 grain:1 pixel is low contrast and a bit blurry
>digital detail resolution: fixed 4um or something

I'm having a hard time grokking lenses as a beginner. There are better lenses and worse lenses, but as far as I can tell there aren't metrics by which they can be compared easily (i.e. without some tests obnoxious to perform). So how am I expected to understand when an upgrade is appropriate or worth some given amount of money when buying used?

Everyone around me seems to be able to rattle off lenses, when they came out, if they're good. I can't even recall the name of a single one of my three. Sure I know two are zooms, one prime. I know their mounts, but I don't know what their lowest f stop is off hand. I don't know my zooms' focal distance ranges off hand. It's just internalized. Do anons have a feed they excitedly check for new lens releases? Charts of old lenses? It feels like there's something I'm missing that everyone else around me knows.

>>4433735
Yes, you're misisng the hours spent obsessively reading reviews and doing other such extensive research before every single purchase.

>>4433735
I have the same problem so I just keep upgrading.

>>4433735
Even if you’re a functional retard there are minimum two things you need to know about your lens, how long it is and how much light it lets in. All the other bullshit about character and the other things the autismos here obsess about don’t actually matter to the act of taking a photo. The length and light gathering capability do. Your f number dictates how fast your shutter can go, in simplest terms. Read up on some basics don’t get your info from here lmao

>>4433725
the idea that lenses can/cannot resolve a certain megapixel amount is fakenews. Old vintage lenses from the 60s can easily resolve 400MP from a fujifilm gfx pixelshift.

>>4433735
>>4433737
my tip: start with the cheap lenses and learn what makes the difference in more expensive lenses yourself. Upgrading is more satisfying if you grow into it yourself.

>>4433735
>but as far as I can tell there aren't metrics by which they can be compared easily
There ARE, but due to shill culture they are dwindling in prevalence and thoroughness

Back in the day lens reviews included fucking field curvature, which in real photographic use is more important to know about than "LWPH", now they are "sharpness goodness" bar graphs generated by imatest with a test chart 10m away, and if you're lucky, someone tested the same lens at infinity, maybe. You're very lucky if you get a serious examination of the bokeh. Field curvature? Guess!

We also used to be told how brightly illuminated a high contrast target had to be for CA to show. Not anymore. Now one review says the lens has central CA and the other says it doesn't.

>>4433742
the iq of photographers started dropping hardcore after the first practical mass market DSLR

now all they know about is snoy gm mtf charts

>>4433735
It's the same with any hobby as a beginner
People know all kinds of shit about cars, Pokemon cards, bike parts, etc

Upgrades should always help you with what you already like doing, and do it better
Upgrading to allow you to try shooting something you want to try but don't already with the gear you have, is almost always a trap

Some people like having a full zoom range to cover all kinds of stuff, others have four 50mm because that's what why like shooting the most

>>4433736
That's at least half of gearfaggotry, something I've been able to avoid thus far. I wish it were more like GPU or CPU upgrading. Specs, numbers, expectations on generations. I certainly will study whatever it is I consider purchasing, though.
>>4433737
I'd like to upgrade from my Canon T5i and kit lenses to something that can last me a looong time. Probably full frame, maybe mirrorless, definitely used. Basically, I would like to upgrade in a significant way once.
>>4433738
I understand aperture and focal length at least at an elementary level.
>>4433740
That sounds like good advice. I would say that's essentially what I'm doing now, including posting here.
>>4433742
I probably would appreciate those values. It's a shame how difficult they are to arrive at, though. I suppose I'm hypothetically wishing for more objective factory specs. Precise mathematical descriptions of all lenses, margin of errors, manufacturing details. Things that could theoretically be used to compare lenses.

I appreciate the responses. My approach will be to rent some gear from the local shop to play around with. Additionally, I joined my city's camera club packed with wealthy geriatrics. After building more rapport, I'm sure a couple of them would let me take some gear on a shoot.

>>4433735
If you spend at least a small amount of time browsing gear or reviews, or whatever, you'll start to get a feel for it.
It's very hard to judge a lens' end-result (the photo) from mere metrics and stats, but there's generally some good indicators. If I were you I would just stick to things from your native mount(s) and do a little bit of research on what's currently sold and if there's any bangers that are discontinued. I would just buy "standard" consumer lenses used if I were you until you find you're unable to do X thing you wish you could.

For example, I recently picked up a 20 year-old pro EF zoom from Canon that I adapt that shits all over my recently (2 years ago) released RF native zoom. I spent more on the RF lens (and there are differences in the market-audience, specs, modern niceties like super effectve IS etc.), but the 20 year old lens is preem.
>pic rel

>>4433742
Most review sites still include all that, it's just the YouTube commentary reviews that dont

>>4433750
Most review sites include a sharpness graph and some really poor bokeh checks, like on playing cards or something

I haven't seen a decentering or tilt test outside of lensrentals in a while. Do you know why? Because if every review included decentering and tilt tests, no one would buy sony, panasonic, or fuji lenses. Sony's copy variation is abysmal no matter how slick their gear is. That's chinese optics manufacturing for you. Good for a cherry picked sample with a nice mtf chart, bad on the market.

We're also missing color filtration info and reflectance.

>>4433582
it does when the flash is bigger than the camera, on the flip side its a lot easier to carry than expected. left hand on the flash, right hand on the camera. i keep a minolta flash in my car and one at home because theyre that cheap

its nice to have as fill flash and the zv1 exposes perfectly with it in any situation...it makes me wanna get a a7iv when i finish flirting with old shitty ccd cameras

>>4433753
Sounds like you must look at bad review sites then, I've seen plenty of reviews that do run decentering tests
>We're also missing color filtration info and reflectance.
Or that's even too autismo for anyone to actually care about

>>4433742
>You're very lucky if you get a serious examination of the bokeh
Kek, so true. muh fuckin le bokeh balls.

>>4433760
Too bad p can't see the difference in bokeh anyways as evident >>4433316

>>4433749
there's also lots of sample variations with older lenses. when you get a good old lens, its GOOD. when you get a bad old lens, its absolutely unusable.

my favorite old lens is probably my 35-70mm f4 prime (minolta af kit lens from the 80s) and my 100-300mm apo but i also got a pentax smc 70-200mm that's so bad im going to throw it out and the minolta 75-300mm + 70-210mm f4s i have are full of chromatic aberrations that make them kinda crappy on the long end

>>4433758
Color and reflectance (haze) actually matter unlike "sharpness"

>>4433765
Because your tests suck, and someone could buy a lens based on them and then question why slightly out of focus buildings have weird green fuzzy outlines
>toy/garbage in shade against suburban backyard

>>4433769
>Color and reflectance (haze) actually matter unlike "sharpness"
Apparently not to anyone in the pro photo or manufacturer or photo review community.
Not all of those were mine, but what a great opportunity for you to show me up and share some better tests with everyone!

>>4433771
>pro photo
I'm seeing more and more high speed snapshitting with a 24mm cropped to compose. As always professionals are often the worst people to look up to. They're usually not photographers, they're social climbers who bought cameras that operate on their own.
>photo review community
Literal advertisers.

>>4433776
Who should I look up in the photo community that advocates for color and reflectance in reviews?
You make it sound like no one can be trusted

>>4433769
>Color and reflectance (haze) actually matter unlike "sharpness"
Have you ever used *any* entry level 50mm vs *any* f1.4 50mm side by side? Sharpness is everything.

>>4433778
>Who should I look up in the photo community that advocates for color and reflectance in reviews?
Hasselblad users, largely.
If you find a fashion photographer still putting zeiss lenses on their snoy instead of GMs, they're good too.

>>4433779
Sharpness sucks.

>>4433781
>Hasselblad users,
That's a group of people, who should I look up? Do you not actually know anyone? I want to read more about this

>>4433783
>That's a group of people, who should I look up?
Start with this one
https://www.platonphoto.com/people

>>4433789
>https://www.platonphoto.com/people
Awesome, so were can I read bout Platon talking about reflectance and lens color?

>>4433794
It's rather simple

he uses a hasselblad and a leica m6, and his pictures look good

>>4433798
His pictures being good is evidence that review sites need to talk more about lens color and reflectance? But he doesn't ever talk about it himself?
Can you bridge the gap for me,
>he takes good photos and uses x y gear
Therefore
>lens color and reflectance isn't talked about enough in reviews

>>4433816
A picture is worth a thousand words.

>>4433822
And none of them say lens color or reflectance

>>4433827
You're just tonally illiterate

>>4433735
you can't remember anything because you're a tard using ai. Try living life yourself instead of having a computer do it

>>4433912
And you can't provide a single example

>>4433725
yikes

>>4433922
>Tonally illiterate
>Can't read 1000 word lens reviews
sad!

>>4433921
I don't remember lenses because their names are too long, mostly numbers, similar to every other lens name, and they aren't memorable. You presume I use AI because I can put together a decent sentence. By doing so, you've outed yourself as a petulant child.
>>4433749
Any recommendations for reviewers? I appreciate your example. I've heard it said before that newer isn't necessarily better. I'm looking to go up towards the prosumer full frame range and retire my entry level Canon, which has given me far more than I even knew I wanted. So before I dig into reviews, I need to commit to EF mount bodies, mirrorless, or stick just higher end ES-F crop frames. Depends on what I can find used at a good price. Either way, I'm probably going to gift my old one to a friend's kid when I do to spread the love forward.

>>4433943
It sounds like you’ve drunk the brand faggotry kool aid, when in reality all you need to know are what numbers you need and what mount. Why do the names matter or need to be memorable? You need a 50/1.8, get the one made by your camera brand it’s literally good enough regardless of what the turbo spergs here might say

>>4433938
>let me not post an example yet again
good contribution to the board

>>4433971
muh rendering muh look, i sneed 10 35mms because muh rendering
>looks like turning sharpening off and adding a blue cast in post
at the most autistic you need swirly and non swirly bokeh lenses. at the most. no one cares about the rest except you the homosexual pixel peeping a:b tests fookin gearfigs

You don't need more than a 40D.

What should I buy? coming X-E5 (apsc, 40mp) or the A7CII (full frame)? Is the 40mp apsc still much worse compared to full frame? If it's almost the same I much more wanna have the Fuji simply for how nice the body looks compared to fugly A7C and the smaller lenses giving me a much more compact edc package. But i sure as hell enjoy pixel peeping (when in lightroom) so I'm afraid I regret buying into Fuji.
I do travel, family, cars. Autofocus isn't all important for me.

>>4434025
Wait for the X-E5. Fuji has soul and is actually a photographic tool. The Snoy is a computer toy.

>>4434025
Someone here owned the a7cii and hated it because of all its build quality issues

full frame can be small but not as long as the retarded elder yakuza on the design committees calling the shots keep fucking it up

But, fuji is pretty bad too. Canon is meant to release a compact ff this year. just whatever you do, dont buy a panasonshit. the s9 is actual garbage. they struggle to give it away.
>sigma fp released 3 times

Should Pentax just give up?

>>4434072
>Hire an actual good product designer
>Hire an actual good UI designer
>Hire an actual good marketing lead

That's all they need to rescue their brand. 3 talented employees. Their cameras are butt ugly that's why no one wants them. Hate to say it but they aren't hipster enough to sell on the market. They were almost there with their Pentax Q back then but abandoned anything like this. All camera UIs and apps are trash except for Leica. So they could easily jump on rank 2 with just one good UI designer that takes over the app and camera UI. And last but not least market it correctly. They already have all the tech and glass they need. It just has to be formed into a good package which they constantly fail.

>>4434065
>Someone here owned the a7cii and hated it because of all its build quality issues
Can confirm the a7cII build quality is trash. The rubber eyepiece and rubber around the memory card door are fragile and deteriorate easily.

>>4434109
>Hire an actual good UI designer
idk anon I find their UIs pretty intuitive
>All camera UIs and apps are trash except for Leica
ah

>>4434109
Japanese salaryman mentality would never let them rock the boat as long as they are scraping by “good enough”. Literal creativity lacking bugpeople

>>4434244
That's an issue everywhere. The whole German entertainment market died because of this. They used to be on par with Japan electroncis (TVs, radios, cameras, etc).

Lol this thing is ruined, how can it only have 1k clicks?

https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/sony-alpha-a7s-ii/sku-3163945

>>4434510
people use a7sII mostly for video

>>4434528
oh of course

>>4434109
I would start by eliminating all and every MFT cameras and THEN move on to what to do with Pentax. MFT is the trash of the camera world and have no right to exist.

>>4434545
start with Sony and then we can talk

The Tamron 150-600 G1 I got from mpb won't autofocus properly beyond 550mm :(

>>4434818
Worst possibility is you have decentering or misalignment somewhere, maybe worth it to have it looked at in a service because it will also degrade image quality.
Depending on the body you are using it is possible that at 550mm the amount of light (and incidence angle) decreases so your AF doesn't work properly.

New lens

>>4434943
It just arrived from mpb so I can return it. I'll use it for a while first to see if I like this sort of thing.

Still too bad because it was a good deal.

>>4435072
Return it, specify for them the issue. I have made the mistake of accepting a flawed lens and was burnt badly. This is also why I no longer have expensive complicated lens on delivery, strictly only walking into the shop.
It sucks but never accept flaws because later on when it gets worse you have no basis to claim warranty.

>>4435124
yeah I will

Is there a travel zoom lens for fujifilm gfx?

Like an equivalent of the fullframe 18-200 lenses?

>>4435164
I mean there is the 35-70 and the 45-100... but they both are neither really tele nor really landscape.

I'd want to shoot 90% of my stuff on the fixed 80mm f1.7 of course but for travelling It would be nice to have something that can do everything

excuse the subject (they're my gfs):

what would cause this kind of image quality on the right? everything has like a white tinge/haze

-optics look clear
-aperture snaps back quickly, doesn't get stuck and blades look fine
-both have the same design, just right has SMC coating
-both at 200mm focal length f5.6 aperture iso 12800, left has 1/50 shutter speed right has 1/60 shutter speed. pentax kf used as body
-both sooc jpegs, editing doesn't help the right image

left is this lens i just bought (cost $25 off buyee)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-F-70-200mm-F4-5.6-Zoom-Lens.html

right is this (cost $12 off buyee)

https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-FA-70-200mm-F4-5.6-Power-Zoom-Lens.html

i actually bought left after getting right and noticing it was the only lens i owned like that

>>4435188
another example

70mm focal length, 1/100 shutter speed, iso 6400, f4.0 for both. same exact lighting.

left: pentax-f 70-200mm
right: pentax-fa smc 70-200mm

>>4435180
Isn't 35mm pretty landscapey on the big sensor?

>>4435197
>>4435188

I found my answer by shining a light into the lenses

Left: Pentax-FA SMC 70-200mm. Heavy layer of haze almost like a oily film in the middle elements

Right: Pentax-F 70-200mm. Very mild layer of haze (tiny dots like water droplets)

>>4435197
>>4435188

I found my answer by shining a light into the lenses

Left: Pentax-FA SMC 70-200mm. Heavy layer of haze almost like a oily film in the middle elements

Right: Pentax-F 70-200mm. Very mild layer of haze (tiny dots like water droplets)

>>4435188
>>4435197
First: Jesus Christ I did not know there were lenses this cheap on the market.

Second, to answer your question: contrast and hazyness is also an feature people pay more money for. Back in the day there was even a trend where manufacturers where trying to make lenses less contrasty. But in recent decades we try to make lenses with more and more contrast since we noticed this also results in lenses being sharper.

If you want to dive really deep into this autism rabbithole topic search for "Zeiss microcontrast"

>>4435180
>>4435204
35mm on the tinymediumformat is pretty landscapey. But neither 70 nor 100 are really tele.

Both of these lenses are more similar to the 18-55 kit lenses manufacturers used to (or still do?) ship with their apsc cameras. They're not at all like the 18-200 travel allrounders on fullframe.

>>4435211
I exclusively buy shitty lenses from dead mounts (Pentax K/Minolta A), my most expensive lens is $65 or so (18-135mm on the KF) because I'm a gearfag that likes to experiment with vintage shit

I think its just bad environmental haze. I didn't think to shine a light into the lens when I first bought it, it looked clear in the light. Hazed lens could give a natural "grain"/film look but I kinda prefer the sharpness, the hazed up SMC lens gives a weird overexposed desu.

>>4435210
>>4435214
I personally would store this lens away from my other stuff. It does not really look like fungus but better safe than sorry

wouldn't it be sweet if you could pair this with a A7Sxx? Because of the ridiculous ISO performance?

>>4435233
I'd rather have working AF, thank you

>>4435197
this is what happens when your camera body doesn't have enough megapixels, you need to upgrade

Why do lens manufacturers not f/64 anymore?
I was interested in buying Nikon's 105mm Z macro but it only goes to f/32 and at 105mm that's still quite a large opening, normally I wouldn't shoot so tight with it but for some things I know I would want to, even with diffraction limitations. Wider DOF just has its obvious benefits in some scenes and I don't understand why we can't just stop down more.
What gives?
Why can't we have nice things?

>>4435223
it honestly looks a lot like heavy smoky haze

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/flashlight-test.htm

the outer glass (first + last elements) looked clear so i didn't see it

the pentax-f that's on the left also has haze (in the form of even tiny droplets almost like water) but its a lot lighter, you can see the flashlight through the lens in comparison to the other one where its blurry/hazed like privacy glass on a shower door

>>4435282

more megapickels would make it worse tbqh, it would unironically be less noticable on a ist-d with 6mp

>>4435240
I was told Sony has good AF?

>>4435379
Fell into the rabbit hole of checking more lenses:

This is my Minolta 100-300mm APO. One of my favorite lenses. It definitely shows some signs of light hazing. I can still see details in my fingers through the lens, but it looks like the left >>4435210 in this pic (Pentax-F) but nowhere nearly as bad as the right which looks like privacy glass in comparison.

I actually didn't know haze was such a killer for IQ until now, lol

>>4435552
And this is my Minolta 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 AF, one of my favorite lenses. Very light to no hazing, honestly looks clearer than the APO when I show my light through it despite being older in age.

What is the true spiritual successor to the 7Dii?

>>4435616
Probably the Canon r8

I must say I'm biased against this whole category. I want to either
- buy a cheap camera, treat it roughly, get the shots I normally wouldn't have gotten & not be overly concerned about it breaking or losing it to pickpockets, or
- get high end stuff. The best piccture quality possible

therefore I always detested the 7D and its category competitors

>>4435164
>>4435180
just put a FF travel zoom on it with an adapter lmao. The fuji GFX is not really a medium format system. Most FF lenses soft vignette a little bit but just work: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uxvvpxJ9QVFFyh0pW2rs9KBmUW9vlh-d-VnbcLDCTn8/edit?gid=0#gid=0

>>4435745
NTA but that makes those cameras seem pretty pointless vs say a A7Rxx or an R5.

>>4435747
I wouldn't say pointless but for sure a much smaller jump than people make it out to be.

It's more like back in the analog days jumping from a Nikon F5 to a Mamiya 645 - while people make it out to be like a jump from Nikon F5 to Mamiya rb67. It's still medium format - but only barely.

I like it on paper, what does /p/ think?

>>4435865
Apparently the autofocus is bad.

>>4432412
if you want to shoot bw in theory it is fantastic since you're getting all the light at 4x the resolution and no demosaicing artifacts since there's no bayer filter
but in practice noone cares and it's way too expensive when materially it should be cheaper/similarly priced to normal cameras

I want a GR but don't want to pay that much money.

>>4436848
>>4436848
>>4436848
>>4436848
>>4436848