Why do so many, if not all, "gear doesn't matter" phototubers, have super expensive cameras, usually full frame?

>>4436107 (OP)
because theyve got the bucks

A Toyota Camry and a Mercedes S Class will both transport you perfectly well to where you need to go. As such, there is no need whatsoever for the Mercedes, but people who have the money will nearly always opt for it anyway. It's just nicer. Same principle applies to camera gear. Almost nobody actually needs animal butthole AF or a gazillion megapixels, but if you can afford it, there's no reason not to have it. It's a nice luxury purchase.

>>4436107 (OP)
"gear doesn't matter" is just annoying therapy-talk

They say it to reassure themselves of their own skill

But it is so unnecessary, gear is super fun. Spend a year shooting with a Leica m6, then try out the Fuji gfx100 system. Sell that and do a year with a Canon + Blazar anamorphic. Then play around with a Mamiya rb67.

Playing around gearfagging is super fun. Generating "art" that rots on your harddrive that no one ever looks at is the real waste

>>4436107 (OP)
>Why do so many
Name 5.

>>4436107 (OP)
>super expensive cameras, usually full frame?
Full Frame isnt even expensive tho?

>>4436128
I think in the sense that they don't use crop sensor which are cheaper cameras because "gear doesn't matter".

>>4436107 (OP)
Full frame isn't expensive, there are tons of cheap used FF DSLRs on the market.

Gear doesnt matter comes from shilltubers (dishonest ad men who couldnt succeed even as a wedding photographer)
YOU DONT NEED- YOU WASTED YOUR MONEY YOU ONLY NEED- SKILL ISSUE! comes from 4channers
Actual successful people have the newest sony, a leica, medium format, 4x5 film, etc and will trash talk yesterdays junk and subpar gear behind closed doors.

Guess why?

>>4436131
They only do so when directed to by their handlers.

>>4436142
forgot
"its about the soul and experience and what the camera makes you feel" comes from redditors
>pros: nah 8x10 = 1000ml fuji sucks shoot real film

I go outside and look at nature, no camera can do my vision justice

>>4436143
>>4436142
schizo

>>4436147
oh sorry did i touch a nerve

there are opinions that only come from fucking losers
do you really look at gerald undone, tom calton, and /rpt/ and think "i want to be that"
or do you reserve that for leibovitz, gursky, snyder, hoytema, nolan, brandt etc, people who actually make money instead of social media likes

>>4436147
>thinks youtubers arent shills following a script
Oh no, he’s retarded. Panasonic cut a guy off for saying the words "rolling shutter" ffs.

>>4436107 (OP)
When the people don’t get a new /gear/ thread they’ll start their own i guess

>>4436107 (OP)
They're following a script that's meant to be a companion video for when they eventually shill a crop sensor camera. All of youtube is ads. There is no genuine content. All of it is sponsored.

They are technically not employees, because their pay is indirect (companies only lend gear, gifts are pretty under the table and undisclosable, money is made off youtube's ads) but the intent is the same as if they were employees because if they don't do what the companies say, they stop getting loaner gear (and undisclosable gifts) and therefore stop making lucrative videos that bait shoppers into watching ads

>>4436151
Gerald undone is a fucking clown lmao so egregiously a shill and it was especially obvious when he went on his anti-shilling tirade because some big company didn’t fly him out and woo him like they always have (was it panny?).

>>4436163
Panasonic cut him off because he finally cracked and admitted their cameras were dogshit. I think he said something like "this is just the sigma FP again, my a7c is better".

>>4436151
>>4436163
>>4436165
Who can I trust then? Camera is such an expensive purchase. I don't want to get shilled.

>>4436174
>who can I trust
No one, really. But despite what internet trolls and what the turbo speds argue about night and day, this shit is all pretty interchangeable for a normie as it sounds you are. Get whatever is cheap that isn’t four turds.

>>4436174
>>4436174
Set your budget. If you can fit full frame into it and you're not put off by the size and weight, there ya go champ.
If not, buy APS-C. If for some reason that's still too big, buy a large sensor compact like a Ricoh GR or a Sony X100V.
As for brand, every brand is shit for one reason or another. It's like buying a car: defenders will claim it has sovl and character, while it's breaking down every thousand kilometers.

Do a bit of research if you care, but you'll probably think you made the wrong choice regardless of what you get or how much you spend. I wish I just bought full frame from the get-go. Oh well.

>>4436174
>Who can I trust then
Market trends exist for a reason and professionals use what they use for a damn good reason.

Buy a full frame canon, a full frame sony, or a full frame nikon, and your chances of landing on a shit camera are near zero unless you are legit rich and unwittingly stumble into a specialized sports photography body.

>>4436174
top selling camera is sony a7cii
before that it was sony a7c
before that it was a7iii

canon is good too but they are visibly meant for professional use only unless you buy a powershot v1.

this will trigger a lot of cope and FUD
just know that if sony was bad, people wouldn't have to lie so much, and could just point to it failing to outcompete nikon or something

>>4436187
lol

>>4436174
Anyone who takes pictures of their dog should be regarded as a trustworthy source for all gear related purchases.

>>4436107 (OP)
they are talking about output. obviously gear matter for enjoyment

>>4436124
>Thomas Heaton accepted a free 15K+$ Hasselblad
>Samuel Lintaro accepted a free 15K+$ Hasselblad
>Karin Majoka accepted a free 15K+$ Hasselblad
>James Popsys accepted a free 15K+$ Hasselblad
>Ulysses Aoki accepted a free 15K+$ Hasselblad
I'm so glad they all gave their unbiased-opinion-I-swear-I-can-say-no-to-the-gravy-train-whenever-I-want.

>>4436182
>Sony X100V
sony rx100. tripfag checks out.

Because Full frame has far better resolution for editing.

I've been editing some of my old 10mp, 24.6mp and 32mp Photos recently and I fucking hate it.

40mp MINIMUM please.

>>4436207
just use AI to upscale your images to 10,000MP

>>4436211
AI upscale still fucking sucks. Have you tried Real-ESRGAN etc.

>>4436174
If you are a schizo just get a canon or Nikon

>>4436190
Huskyfag told me to buy a D750 and it turned out to be fucking garbage. Sony makes better cameras. He's a retarded trolling faggot and probably works at a shitty camera store and trolls us by faking exif and borrowing cameras from work.

The sony a7c is a 100x better camera than any shitty nikon DSLR.

>>4436224
>actually buying a DSLR for the same price as a full frame mirrorless
yeah you got trolled
for the price point sony is better than everyone else when looking at cameras under $6000

>>4436226
You bet I got trolled. Every lens is shit, the autofocus is slow as balls, there's almost no AF coverage and the sensor is as bad as micro four thirds.

Huskyfag, if you're reading this, I'm going to kick your stupid dog in its stupid face if you ever tell me the D750 is "better than a Z7II" ever again you dumb dogfucker.

>>4436227
There's no such thing as a DSLR that's better than mirrorless. You shouldn't have taken the schizo bait.

>>4436227
I hope I gain cred for posting an article comparing a D750 to modern mirrorless and showing how outdated they really can be

>>4436224
Forgot to mention husky owners can be untrustworthy. It's German shepherd owners that can be trusted with the upmost confidence. I thought that was obvious. Sorry!

>>4436227
Skill issue

>>4436260
The german shepherd guy lies even harder. He keeps saying film is 1000000 megapixels and talks about 3d pop and how micro four thirds is bad.

Most of them are shills first and photographers second

>>4436264
Photographers never, more like. Unironically one of the more photographer-like shills on YouTube that I’ve seen is Jared (((polin))), the I shoot raw tryhard guy. He’s printed his photo books and actually shot high profile things like Bernie when he was relevant and lots of close contact famous musician access. I’m sure someone will come along and say “consumer slop not photography reeeeeee” but it’s more than many other camera gear talking heads and certainly more than most retards on here. I also like tony and Chelsea just cause Chelsea a cute tho

>>4436262
He(I) does not say any of that.

The only film worth shooting anymore is sheet film if you want to play the resolution game with digishitters. Only dummies and chart nerds really care about resolution. Exceptional color is what you should really care about.

Small film is still great for darkroom prints and can make way nicer looking prints than most digital. Don't get it twisted.

3d pop is a real thing, but it comes from a combination of things and not just your lens. Excellent color/tonality is something I have discovered to be essential for 3d pop/good depth rendition. You heard it from me first. Thanks mfdb!

It's just funny to shit on mft cause this one guy was an asshole to me one time for no reason.

I've still yet to find an actually good photography youtube channel that's honest besides the kino of Kai and Lok Digirev
>the photographic eye
Clickbait shit
>grainydays
Are you the creator of Calvin and Hobbes? Because you're making me laugh
>james popsys
le gear doesn't matter btw i use a hasselblad and leica

>>4436271
Jared is a good example of someone that comes off cringy at first but is actually alright
and yes Chelsea is cute

She was based before she started having her husband be the co host and went full leica shill
https://youtu.be/ChKzHBLffho?si=LgPpU0jnfxYfKfN1

>>4436107 (OP)
Because good gear makes your life so much easier, but unfortunately gear won't make you a good photographer.

>>4436227
kek

>>4436107 (OP)
"The gear doesn't matter" thing can be solved by buying a 5d mark 2

>>4436224
Can you show us a couple example images from both? I would love to see just how shitty this d750 is...

>>4436260
>>4436272
You are even less worth listening to, but the D750 is heavily shilled on /p/, something you can shill on /p/ without anyone disagreeing, and mr. only takes technically well executed and artistically void photos of running dogs said the AF was totally as fast as every wildlife photography review on youtube said it was, which was enough for me to believe everyone else.

It is not fast. The majority of lenses nikon makes for this thing are slow as balls. The viewfinder mode autofocus is slower than my old canon rebel. Live view is much worse than my old canon rebel. Not to mention a modern camera. And it's not a good sensor like everyone says, it's noticeably noisy. Nikon d750 ISO 3200 looks like sony a7c ISO 6400, and pushed shadows turn mushy and purple. the AA sensor is so strong 24mp actually resolves 20mp. I've already returned it and will be keeping my a7c. /p/ was wrong about everything, nikon fanboys are just insane and delusional. these old pieces of shit do not offer image quality that competes with modern mirrorless. i would rather use a fuji x-t30ii than a nikon d750. it would still be a huge step up in almpst everything.

>>4436288
>It is not fast. The majority of lenses nikon makes for this thing are slow as balls.
Are you using screw drive lenses? I know Nikon AF is dogshit but lol

>>4436288
yeah nikon AF on all of its DSLRs are mogged by an EOS 1v (and all of the cameras based on it) so long as you're using USM lenses lol. Someone tested it a while ago and even the newest nikon DSLRs struggled to keep up with their best lenses.

>>4436288
this board is full of schizophrenics who hate sony
because uhh reasons
but in reality sony has the best cameras for the price point

>>4436288
>complains about unnecessary luxuries
>needs high iso

Oh, so it's just a skill issue. I heard mirrorless are good for people with those.

There aren't many people that can handle a 40lb camera here. It really is that simple. Don't listen to me. You aren't ready yet.

>>4436291
Sure that happened

>>4436294
>s-s-sure that happened!!
Lol. Say louder you bought into the wrong system

>>4436294
The 1v AF is even better than a 5dm3 for some weird reason...

One thing that's always funny, is looking through the RPTs and seeing how many shots would've benefited from even just using continuous focus. For as much as we all complain about it on here, we sure are taking pictures of relatively static scenes. Like what pictures in the RPT would a D750 honestly struggle to take?
Even in the birding thread, last time I checked, fewer than a quarter even had any movement at all, AF-S would've worked fined for the vast majority

>>4436290
I bought an af-s 35mm f1.8 and a 24-70 to start, autofocus was very slow. Returned also. Autofocus on canon DSLRs is much better.

>>4436287
I deleted it and sent that shit back in a day

>>4436293
You can call AF a skill issue all day if you can put your MF where you mouth is, but high ISO is a godsend.

>>4436296
You know the cameras based on it have the same or slightly improved autofocus? The 1D (1-3 at least maybe 4), and the 1Ds (1 and 2 maybe 3)

>>4436299
>You can call AF a skill issue all day if you can put your MF where you mouth is, but high ISO is a godsend.
Manual focus is a skill, but if I'm buying an autofocus camera with autofocus lenses, I want said autofocus to fuckin work.

>>4436301
It feels snappier on the 1v.

>>4436299
High iso is just a crutch. Just get a tripod.

>>4436304
That's odd, maybe you need to clean the AF sensor on your digital versions. I have heard the APS-H versions are a little slower but it's the same 45 point system.

>>4436304
(You) are a crutch

>>4436307
>snaps another 8x10 of dog

Yep. That's it right there. Real photography.

>>4436304
>High ISO is a crutch
Yeah dude, if you just photograph sleeping dogs and building corners, micro four thirds rules because you can use the awesome IBIS to shoot 4 second exposures!

>>4436205
At least you know Karin isn't going to suck Hasselblad's dick because she's not into penis.

>>4436205
Hasselblad cameras are objectively good, if for nothing else, making zoomers seethe because it costs so and so and does not shoot video.

>>4436313
I have my phone and small film cameras for such images.
An 8x10 camera with it's 200x larger sensor than mft is necessary for my important work. One day you may be able fathom my grand vision.

>>4436286
I loved my MkII, had it for years after I replaced my 5Dc with it, but more than a decade on while I still love some of the images I shot with it, I don't miss it, whereas I still miss the 5Dc. Wonder if it's because it represented a big leap going from APS-C to FF, or the fulfillment of a lot of saving to buy, or if because there's some intangible BS I look at when I look at images from both that makes me more nostalgic for one and just kind of respectful of the other.

Both excellent cameras though, especially for their time, and with good glass and technique, there's still a lot of genres of photography today that you could use a MkII without anyone being any the wiser upon viewing the output, even if getting the image might be tougher than with something modern.

>>4436319
Calling pictures of your dog important work stopped being funny months ago, when it became apparent you had no intention of branching out into real photography.

100 photos of your dog are as good as one. And it is not even purposeful like a time lapse. You are just testing out your gear and then buying more gear to test with more identical dog photos, probably so you can compare your gear better.

>>4436322
Your most powerful cope yet. Like I said, maybe one day you will understand.

/p/'s self-accredited gear friend here, I say this all the time too. I'll explain why.

I've ran the gamut on good shit and e-waste. I have a D4 and full f2.8 VR ED zoom setup from 15 to 200mm, plus a full set of f1.4 prime lenses. I have good shit. That D4 will find a spider in a pitch black room with its AF. You can pick your nose and flick the booger off a 10 story building and its AF will track it all the way down it's just fucking stupid what it does. It tracks and shoots 10fps like a CWIS on a Russian MiG it's dumb.

You don't need it. I've made good images on compact point and snaps, 8 and 10mp crop sensor cameras, I've done my best work with a 100 dollar Sigma EX lens with a huge gouge on the front element. Some of my best and most engaging work was done on Kodachrome back when you could get it developed in K-14 and shot through 60 year old Nikon glass.

Why do I have the fancy shit?

>>4436115
>>4436108

are correct, because I can. Yes I could take the same picture on a Canon Rabal, the D4 is more fun though. Something you people here forget, is that photography is supposed to be fun. Don't forget to have fun, do it on whatever you like. You like m4/3, cool, go make art with it. >>4436123 this anon is also correct. I've shot on an M6 and it made my dick hard.

>>4436328
as much as i fucking hate agreeing with sugar he's right, so is the other anon. the best gear is whatever it is that makes your dick hard, whatever it is that will make you think "i should get off my ass and go outside and take photos because that makes it fun." taking more photos will inevitably lead to more shit photos, more kind of ok photos, and eventually, even if you're a complete fucking hack, a few photos that you look at and go "fuck me, that's great, how do i do that again next time?"

practice doesn't make perfect but practice makes better, better makes for motivation, motivation makes for more photos and the cycle repeats. i have an m6, an m10 and a hasselblad 500cm, could i have a do-all setup from any other company that is more capable, more reliable, more well-rounded? absolutely. unequivocally. but would they make my dick hard? would they make me think, sitting on the couch, or sitting on the toilet literal-shitposting on /p/, "fuck it, let's go outside and shoot." ? nope. and that's why i'll keep them for another ten years or more.

>>4436321
The big difference between the classic and the Mark II in my mind is that the classic represents an effort to move professionals over to digital once and for all, while the mark II is the first professional digital camera representative of the workflow used today. The Classic encourages you to use a more SOOC workflow (if any) as it sacrifices detail, even in RAW for more contrasty "ready-to-use" tonality. While the colours remain almost identical between the two models, the higher dynamic range of the mark II and the RAW files it produces are definitely much flatter, reserving better detail in the shadows and MUCH better detail in the highlights than its predecessor. For me, I would never get rid of either camera, I love them both and still use a mark II for my paid work today, but it's obvious why the classic has such a cult following. While it's results never looked particularly filmic to me, the shooting experience of having a full frame camera with manual controls and great lenses while not necessarily having to edit your photos at all to achieve good results is definitely reminiscent of using something like an EOS 1n or Elan.

>>4436336
You make some solid points.

>>4436336
Nobody is forcing you to edit pictures either way

>d750 is too bad!
skill issue
works on my machine
-sent from my D750
(the D stands for dog picture machine)

>>4436346
It even has 3d pop. Neat!

>>4436345
No but if you leave RAWs from newer cameras unedited typically you get pretty washed out, low contrast images. It's cameras designed to shoot SOOC versus cameras that are detailed oriented, with files designed to be oriented. No one is "forcing" you to turn a screwdriver to use it, but if you didn't you'd be a retard.

>>4436346
I refuse to believe this isn't a phone picture or at least HEAVILY cropped.

>>4436358
Can you please show us a phone pic that is better than that?

>>4436336

I loved my 5dc when that was my main squeeze here 10 years ago.

>>4436360
Yeah I mean since you're too retarded to use google here you go
the first photo I could find on wikipedia taken with an iphone
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/Alexander_Solomonov_-_01.jpg
Literally has better microdetail than the dogshit you posted you animal rapist

>>4436369
Not him, schizo

>>4436369
Jesus you are a moron
it clearly isn't wide angle and it clearly doesn't have a tiny aperture
>MUH MICRO DETAIL BUZZWORD
Phones sharpen the shit out of everything and that photo sucks

>>4436371
That is one lucky anon. He just needs his phone in his pocket and he will be forever happy with his IQ. A little jelly tbqhwy

>>4436369
Lol imagine getting BTFO'd this bad. Pretty hard to imagine that itoddlers have gotten to the point where all the AI garbage is enough to complete erase the need to nikon dslr toys

>>4436371
>and that photo sucks
It's dpreview test shot tier. So exactly the same level as every photo huskyrapist has ever posted. Honestly couldn't think of a better comparison.

>>4436371
>sh-sharpness is just a buzzword
>m-my camera is just good!
>w-what?? b-because it has my favourite brand written on it!!!

>>4436375
yes micro detail is buzzword you don't know what it means

Someone mad at huskyfag lol. Many such cases.

>>4436369
>if i pixel peep my 50mp phone camera i can count more AI generated eyebrow worms in good light
https://files.catbox.moe/fsyomb.png
a phone would never be able to do this in this light, and it's a cheaper camera than the newest apple slab. i guess i should buy an a7riii again to keep up with the pixel peeping eyebrow hair counting contest. a lot of my friends and family have the newest iphone and most of the time it sucks. if you zoom in you can maybe read some extra text, sometimes (if the AI doesnt squiggle it), but color and rendering are always bad, and apple scans and catalogs your photos btw.

>>4436375
>sharpness
ai squiggles and fake bokeh

you are a lucky pixel peeper, you can pay for AI sharpening and upscale apps and think the results look good.

>>4436458
NTA but this looks like actual ass. Why tf did you buy this camera? Surely there are benchmarks online that could have showed you how soft this is before purchase

>>4436462
zoom back out. they have the d810 and mirrorless for pixel peeping. i'm more into color, tonality, rendering, and 3d pop.

>>4436458
>a phone would never be able to do this in this light
but you used flash lol

>>4436472
>mistaking a east facing, half obscured window barely illuminating a dog cave for studio lights
such is the life of a tonalitylet

you didn't even notice the purple shadows

>>4436472
Lol no point telling this retard anything. Just look at the fear in that poor animals eyes.

>Forcing people into a staring contest with your dog
Satanic ritual. Don't look into the dog's eyes.

>>4436477
>mistakes diffused 6pm window light for flash
>mistakes puppy dog eyes that just saw a treat for fear
what's next, you mistake your hand for a girlfriend? you should take some pills for that.

here, have a marginally sharper lens to /p/ixel /p/eep, /p/leb

>Ken rockwell using his dogsitting business to troll, again

>Ken rockwell using his dogsitting business to embarrass trolls, again

FTFY

>">Color, tonality, rendering, and 3d pop"
>"Mirrorless bad"
>Buying soft lenses on purpose
DSLRs are the final form of fujifaggotry. Taking blurry ass dog snapshits and coping because a Sony a7iv is way sharper and has better dynamic range. Lmao.

>>4436480
Do you ever take photos of your dog with any artistic thought? Every single one I've seen just looks like point camera snapshot

>>4436492
Taking pictures of your dog is artistic by its very nature. Surely, a great art critic like yourself would have known this fact.

>>4436493
So no

>>4436495
Obtuse anon, if I tell my dog to sit and snap photo, that is more artistic than any building corner, landscape, or the backs of stranger shot ever taken. Please elevate yourself a little and understand these fundamental truths about art!

>>4436496
But other people post more thoughtful and artistic dog and pet photos here? What good is your expertise if you don't put it to good use?

>>4436492
>but where is le art? this doesn't belong in le MoMA. this isn't le real art.
to complete with "bokeh, cat" and "corgi, flat"? haven't you seen my masterpiece, oversaturated bokeh chicken? it's just cute pictures of my dog man. she's afraid of flash it's not worth wasting time on. if i got out a big ass 5 foot photek softlighter she wouldn't sit still for it or look at the camera, and off leash outdoors is 0% successful until she gets to kill at least one rabbit.

wasn't this about you not being able figure out how to use a d750 and complaining about not enjoying the pixel peeping experience?

>>4436501
do you think you need a flash setup to take artistic photos of a dog? why not just put effort into the cute pictures of the dog?

not sure who you're responding to, but nta

>>4436503
we still haven't seen paul allen's business card. maybe when you figure out how to use your camera. lel.

>>4436504
is this art?

>>4436505
He didn't tell his cat to sit, so no.

>>4436505
behold, real art

>>4436508
This is art

>>4436508
such a shame you dont take good photos
above average gear and experience for what

>>4436510
>being this mad because you couldn't figure out how to use a d750
first it's "ill kick your dog if you say the d750 is good" then its "you rape your dog because this isn't a zeiss GM lense on a sony a7r5" then its "all these photos are bad because they aren't REAL art"
sorry nophoto you'll have to stick to your phone until you develop some more skill, that's that

>>4436509
Cool edit.

>>4436513
It's painfully obvious you have never gotten into art school and never will, probably because you're a fucking nazi and are literally incapable of being creative. This is what art looks like. You could be told to take notes now, but it would be a waste of time because you do not have a human soul and are not able to understand anything about this photo.

>>4436513
D750 is a great camera and was incredibly popular among the pro community for years
Newer camera do have some advantages but a D750 can still put out world class work in the right hands
That's all the more reason you should be putting out great images of your dog

>>4436501
The anger some people exhibit over cute pics of beloved pets is a strange phenomenon. Good photography does not need to have artistic merit.
It's a funny/cute/comfy pic of my dog and that's all it needs to be to be great. It’s not meant as an affront to anyone's deeply serious and intellectual artistic pursuits. It is just fun to take cute pics and share them. And now you are literally hitler for not appealing to strangers artistic sensibilities.

>>4436516
weak bait lmao

>>4436520
post 3. Huskyfag, shepfag, and corgifag are the trifecta of talentless idiots and the cat "photographers" aren’t even noticeable. Pet photography is inherently non-artistic.

>>4436532
Skill issue. Lmao

>>4436520
Once I wanted to do some sets like this in the woods in fall with a large softbox and a reflector instead of in the basement full of unwanted knick-knacks with a large window and some off-white walls, but she's afraid of flash and was never trained off leash as a puppy, and controlled lighting is a must for reflective skin/fur. It takes two to tango and she's not a photography dog in the end. She was probably neglected abused, or at least I'd guess, because I adopted her out of a filthy duplex full of fatsos that didn't even have a yard and for the first year she flinched around hands and barked at older men.

Regardless it's not relevant. Not every picture needs to be rembrandt, especially not to please a salty retard on 4chan who can't even use a camera.

>>4436553
That's much better than your usual

>>4436558
Because it's a lighting concept shot closer to what I'd do for a serious photo, if I felt like taking one

It's /p/, if burtynsky posted here he'd post hiking snapshits instead of nat geo covers. Only a fool would post anything of value on 4chan. Anyways where's your disposable snapshits?

I don't think you'll ever get a picture like this with a d750. My guess is a new update did something to make my phone take even more AI shittified images. This is obscene.

I just bought this lens for my Pentax KF :)

>>4436629
if you just bought the lens how did you take the picture

>>4436629
Now take a photo of your dog for vanity fair and complete your /p/ initiation

>>4436629
Whatever you do, don’t waste your tone on fucking dog pictures

>>4436629
I look forward to seeing you utilize your tone to its fullest extent by taking amazing and artistic dog photos.

>>4436629
TAKE A CAT SNAP

you people seeth over the dumbest shit

>>4436629
Pentax is for cats
4chan is for cats

You know what to do

>>4436645
Why would you snap a catsnap to post on a dog website? Serious question.

>>4436650
Cats are reddit

>>4436687
>>4436652
Cats are the 4chan animal and pentax is the 4chan camera brand, dogniggors.

>>4436687
Dogs are quite literally the reddit animal
They're the ones who invented the terms doggo and pupper

>>4436689
Based. Dogfags btfo. Cats are 4chan. If you prefer filthy d*gs, leave. D*gs are for normies and redditors.
>#1 requirement of owning a dog is going outside
Case. In. Point.

https://alphauniverse.com/stories/first-look-using-sony-animal-eye-af-suki-cat/
Confirmed: Sony is based and catpilled

>>4436689
Incorrect. Cat subreddit has around 8 mil user, while dog only has around 2 mil.

>>4436692
Got any more cool reddit facts for us, since you clearly live there?

>>4436693
Cope harder lil bro. Google search is not reddit.

Dog owners have more based cameras than cat owners. This is an undeniable fact I am sure you're all aware of.

>>4436694
>i promise i don't go to reddit i'm just really good at googling about reddit
Sure sure

Dogredditors malding at the very notion of anon taking a kot picture rn

>>4436695
>ok, so i might be an uncreative snapshitter, and a redditor dognormie, but, i bought a nice camera!
Sad.

Another W for kotbros.

>>4436696
>>4436699
>copes harder

Fucking Kek. You guys are hilarious.

Lets make a cat vs dog thread and see who is the better photographer. No old pictures. My guess is you won't post a single picture.

>>4436701
Team kot will indeed let the dogredditors embarrass themselves. /p/ - cat pictures was better without doggearfags.

>>4436703
Okay. We'll hash out the rules here and then I'll make thread.

No old pics and there must be atleast one cat or dog in the pic. No ai bullshit or composite imagery. Film or digital. 2 weeks after thread is made the judging will begin. Good? Feel free to suggest any rules I am missing.

Looks like someone jumped the gun

>>4436707
Well I posted about the competition in that thread as well. Bro is extremely cringe for making that thread.

>>4436701
What if we have cats and dog?

>>4436719
I also have cats and dogs. I think it could be funny if there was a "other pets" category so no one is left out. It would also be hilarious if team turtles absolutely btfo cats and dogs or something, so if you want to rep cats and dogs I think that would be classed as an "other pets" entry.

Idk if you read my other post, but I would like to award both single best image and best overall group.

I'm totally open to suggestions on any aspect of this and from all sides.

>>4436721
you could also have separate categories for
>most technically proficient
>most artistic
>best color
>most 3d

>>4436723
I don't want it to become too complicated, but I think that could actually be a good idea.
Divide the awards into an odd number of seperate categories and the winner gets one point for their team. Team with most points wins it all. Thoughts?

>hairy negatives aka dogredditor got so mad at being told 4chan is a cat website he started a photo contest so he could declare himself the winner and continue seething at cats
lol. mental illness. imagine being this easily baited.

>>4436729
>if I say you're mad enough times it will come true and he won't have his competition!

Not mad at all. I am excited to produce some high effort photos of my dog.
You are so incredibly scared. I'm going to put effort into making sure judging/voting is as fair as possible. Really weird projection, bud.
Have a little fun. Take some creative shots of your little furbaby and submit them. Or just continue acting like a scared child...

Wow dogredditor this is a new low. Why did you invite us here from /an/? To laugh at you?

Samefag is shivering in his boots. Lmfao.
Seems like a little melty, honestly.

Like I told you and your little cope posting on /an/ put up or shut up. The contest is happening. It will be voted on/judged fairly, and there WILL be a winner.

>>4436723
Thoughts on these subjects? 11 is too many. I think 5 will be more manageable. Are they too boring? I asked chatgpt and had it gear the topics towards more "advanced" photographic categories rather than easy ones like silliest expression.
Maybe a couple easy/lighthearted ones would make it easier for everyone to participate.

1. Environmental Portraiture
2. Use of Natural Light
3. Black & White Composition
4. Decisive Moment
5. Fine Art Abstraction
6. Emotive Narrative
7. Texture and Detail
8. Symmetry and Composition
9. Interaction with Space
10. Studio Lighting Mastery
11. Photographer’s Signature Image

I’m just here to make fun of the losers

>>4436760
We should also add
>best use of advanced AF system

>>4436853
Still seething because people dont pay when nikonfujisonic charges new snoy prices for pentax dslr hardware?

Bad AF isnt unusable, but people just dont want to be scammed by the incompetent japs at fuji. Canon set the standard for a camera costing more than $800. If a company can’t meet it, no one should buy their junk. No one should buy a nikon, fuji, or panasonic on principle. Autofocus is the defining feature of a camera. Not gain stages or video codecs. Those are for autistic people. Canon R10 > nikon z8.

I shoot film and this attitude really drives me nuts. Yes, vintage film cameras look great, are fun to collect, and if they took great photos then they'll take great photos now. I would love to have a Leica that costs as much as my car. My Canon AE-1 is great and looks great in selfies.
But 99.9% of beginners to film photography, and most people in general that aren't into it for the purpose of collecting vintage gear, would be happier and taking better photos with a boring SLR from the 90s-2000s.
Think about it. Cheap, plentiful, easy to find. The peak of film camera design. Huge lens ecosystem, most compatible with modern lenses.
All the modern auto-focus and conveniences if you want it, or drop it into manual mode for full control.
Everyone should be starting off on some $50 Rebel EOS or Maxxum or something. I personally love my Rebel XS I picked up in great shape from a thrift store, and it gets more action then my couple vintage cameras.

>>4436875
Have you ever given a non-autistic person such a device
>step 1: why is the sky white
>step 2: what is all this colored dot shit
>step 3: i never bring it with me, it's heavy and ugly as fuck. you can give it back to your dad.
>step 4: use capture what? sorry no.
Normal people should get a fuji xt30 or something. Looks matter more than your autistic spec minimums.

>>4436884
No offense, just genuinely confused by what you mean. Of course a neurotypical person should just get a DSLR and not shoot film. Or, if you're into it because it looks cool, then buy that expensive vintage rangefinder, have fun, go with god.

I was just referring to the specific tendency I see with film shooters online recommending beginners $1k worth of gear when you can be set up for the foreseeable future for under $100 bucks.

>>4436916
No dude, I'm saying a neurotypical person should buy a fuji X100.

>>4436861
you sound like the seething one

>>4436141
bought a d700 a couple months ago at a photo gear swap meet, for $100. 2 batteries, manual, charger, 32gb CF. And a lens for $5 more. 9000 some shutter actuations. card had some interesting photos on it even.

>>4436115
>Almost nobody actually needs animal butthole AF or a gazillion megapixels, but if you can afford it, there's no reason not to have it
For more situations*. This sounds like a cope but more megapixels is not an advantage if you shoot astro (much higher noise floor) or if you don't have a powerful computer at your disposal for editing. Batch editing 30 images at 9504 x 6336 is gonna require a lot more overhead than doing so at 6000x4000. But other than that there's not much downside to getting an ultra high end body, your pet photos + macro flower shots will really pop with that tack sharp resolution!

>>4437061
Normies like to pixel peep now so you need to text them links to 10k photos in order to prevent the visually illiterate cattle from saying "my phone has more megapickels, i can see just as much eyebrow"

I myself enjoy http://youtube.com/shootfilmlikeaboss because he’s one of the very few I’ve seen that actually is a real photographer and darkroom prints his photos. If you ain’t printing you ain’t real.

>>4437095
This. It's like if you were tk buy a steak, season it, but never cook it.

>>4436861
what a retard, jfc

>>4436107 (OP)
you need a lot of gear to realize gear doesn't matter

>>4437642
Unless you need perspective correction or the ability to manipulate your focal plane.

>>4437643
yeah so "gear doesn't matter" is pretty bullshit because you always should have the right tools for a certain task
"you don't need the most expensive tools for a job" is how it should go

>>4437645
Yeah. That makes sense. Perspective control is one of many examples where more specialized gear makes a difference in your ability to take a good photograph.

It's kind of silly to be an anti-gear gearfag in a lot of ways because you can always argue that price doesn't matter if you need a lens or body to achieve the look you're going for. Maybe saying that art can be made with any camera or something like that is better. Idk

>>4436107 (OP)
Because gear really doesnt matter if you have the best gear! It's like sitting in a hypercar and speaking to some pleb in his Minicooper at the red light saying don't worry empovrished bro. Speed doesnt matter in the end. Or on r9k incel threads where chads come a post dont worry incel bro, you arent missing anything. Sex is overvalued and women are shit.

A high form of gatekeeping but playing it cool and boasting at the same time.

>>4436688
>pentax is the 4chan camera brand
So contrarian and obsolete?

>>4437643
What PC lenses do you use to accomplish this? Can you share some examples?

>>4437697
View camera.

>>4437700
Neat, so do you think everyone should just be using a view camera?

>>4437777
Nope. Most people don't need one.

>>4437697
>>4437777
Is this the trolling flavour of the week, the incessantly demanding to know what gear someone is using? I’ve seen you spam this bullshit in like every thread.

>>4437785
Its corgifag trolling fool framer gearfags while laughing at /p/ for believing he owns a leica (it’s an e-m1 iii)

>>4437787
Stay in your M43 shitpost thread, please.

>>4437789
im just stating confirmed facts

>>4437785
I get not sharing photos, but it's crazy that people can't be honest about what cameras they actually use half the time

>>4437813
The m43 guy that stole pictures off flickr and said there were his is trying to flip the narrative for some reason.

>>4437791
No you're not, faggot. You're part of the cancer that's killing this board. Fuck you.

>>4437816
sorry but most good photographers here use micro four thirds. full framers and film size queens just do test shots and post charts and schizo theories.

>>4437819
Why did the microsissies have to steal photographs??? I've never seen 8x10GOD steal photographs.

>>4437819
You are a pathological liar and a net negative for everyone here. You are nothing more than a one-note shitposter who doesn't even try to change up his routine. All you have ever done is make things worse. Just fucking leave.

>>4436107 (OP)
this man always makes this expression like he is in pain. some sort of a british grimace

>>4437831
He gives a terrible name to all of us m43 users.

>>4437834
he is married and has 2 kids, his life is hell
>>4437687
yes

>>4437831
>Having this schizo meltdown because your camera got made fun of

Micro four thirds
>Real 4channer
>Can troll and be trolled without crying
>Posts cats
>Creates funny memes
>Posts artistic photography

8x10 film/D750 shill
>Lost redditor
>Can't handle the banter
>Had a meltdown and started a fake photo contest because someone told him dogs were reddit
>Creates boring photos of eggs and UHR dog snapshits
>Only posts photos to justify their gearfaggotry

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2015/02/09/year-of-the-cat-with-micro-43-by-pierre-arden/
Can you post better photos than these? I think not!

>>4437868
Never forget, /m43/ was just a normal ass photo thread before shepfag and huskycuck spammed it.

>>4437868
can't wait for that cat dog contest

>>4437868
>small sensor cat photos from 2015 have better sharpness and less ugly noise than d750 dogfuckers snapshits
HA

>>4437868
The schizo still thinks I'm huskyfag. Mind BROKEN.

>>4437874
Im making the contest thread later today!

I think I will be contributing photos for fun, but I will not be eligible for awards and my photos will not contribute to the final scoring. I want it to be as fair a contest as possible and I have a small upper hand because I'm the one deciding what categories will be voted on.

>>4437868
Those photos all look really flat even if the detail/sharpness is just okay.

>>4437868
these photos look the exact same as most full frame dslr photos, maybe better

the only better gear is a canon r6ii/r5, sony a7iv/a7rv or medium format fuji

>>4437868
Still seething after getting btfo too many times. KEK

>>4437831
this

>>4437819
And folks where’s the lie?

>>4437886
Samefag

>>4437871
I member. We had a vibrant community and then dogfuckers killed it because they didnt like knowing they wasted their money on non artistic pet snapshits.

>>4437887
Shepfag

>>4437889
Imagine letting two random guys with dogs have so much power over you. M43 in absolute shambles.

Guys, why is the m43anon having such a huge melty? What happened? Did he get caught for stealing more photos?

>>4437893
>imagine two talentless snapshitters spamming your threads to death
we are not forgetting
husky fuckers endless essays denying equivalence
or you backing him up

>>4437896
Another absolute lie from the coping microsissy. 3 photos are spam? Please continue with your delusions while people with memory better than a goldfish laugh at your meltdown.

>>4437896
>we

FUCKING LOL. The jokes never stop.

Anyone know what happened to that m43 guy that sold his kit to invest in bitcoin so he could buy a gfx?

>>4436346
Do you seriously think this looks good? It looks worse than a phone.

>>4436501
Do you? This is blurry, flat, no tones, no contrast, it's bad.

>>4436504
How much did you crop this blurry shit? It's a cat under a messy chair. This is a terrible portrait, it's a snapshit.

>>4436508
Do you think you're funny or do you have no taste? Are you a zoophile? Why did you think dogs fucking would make a good framed triptych?

>>4436553
Worse image quality than a lumix gf1 award.
>my good photos go to another school faggotry
No one believe this. If you ever took "real photos" once, you didn't take any after that because they sucked.

Verdict: learn to use a camera, or give up because you have no artistic talent. You are an overspending gearfag idiot. You would make a mediocre camera reviewer, and you're a horrible photographer. You have been posting here for at least a year and you have not shown any improvement or posted anything but your dog. Get a fucking grip. Photography is not for you.

The melty is beyond leaky.

Why is the one micro four thirds meltdown guy threatening to dox people now?
I thought they could take the banter? What happened to the be trolled and troll without crying thing? He seems pretty angry...

>watching this thread

Huskyfag: COUERDALENE, ID.
Doghair: PESCADERO, CA.

Behave yourselves now.

>>4437918
That's pretty lame of you

>>4437868
This aged well...

>>4437917
Kind of a strange request, but can you post a pic of your dog and your leica together?

>>4437918
Oh no. I think i’ve been to the dog hair farm.

>>4437927
And you didn't ask me for the 4chan discount? You fool! You could have saved a couple bucks on your eggs.

>>4437913
His leaky anus hopefully got banned for doxing since those posts are gone.

>>4437936
Im sad that he probably won't be able to participate in the Cats vs. Dogs contest.

>>4437924

>>4436107 (OP)
Because like OP, nobody ever believes gear doesn't matter until they've bought all the gear. Then, once you've bought everything you thought would make a difference, you will be left with some really good gear and the knowledge that it wasn't actually necessary.

Also >>4436192

>>4437939
Thanks bro you a G.

Captcha HGOD40 sounds about right...

>>4437939
clearly a gx9 with an adapted lens

but did he use photoshop or tape?

>>4437942
Or maybe an M10-M

>>4437944
Probably a pen F or an xe4

>>4436107 (OP)
Because you have to try a lot of gear before you can realize that it doesn't matter.

>>4438593
True

>>4438593
Try? I think you meant buy
"Gear is a tyrant that decides what i can and can not realistically shoot" <- can only afford one camera
"Gear doesnt matter" <-Has digital medium format, newest sony, micro four thirds, and a ricoh gr to choose from every time he leaves the house

>>4438611
yeah once you're able to buy some nice modern camera you realize it only made you like 3% better and it mostly just provided some conveniences that made things easier

>>4438614
No dude, its game changing. Maybe if all you shoot is benches and backs of heads it makes you 3% better but something as simple and relatively meh today as 80% af coverage makes it possible to take a ton of photos on the first try instead of coping with prefocusing, bursts, and reshoots. Having good DR instead of mft/5diii/d750 dr is huge. No more stacking, no more mandatory ettr. It makes a difference.

The only people who disagree i expect to be linux users and communists/"anti consumers" (antisemitic communists).

>>4438614
You speak of photography in purely artistic terms here. To do "art photography", you do not need ANY tech. You only need some imagery or theme that pleases your jewish masters.

But to do photography for fun, instead of pleasing nepotistic self-fellating tastemakers who like to pretend their IQ score is 15 points higher than it actually is, you actually need some tech to shoot more cool stuff, especially if you want to get shit on the first try with minimal kit.

>>4438630
>>4438641
what are you shooting?

>>4436516
>never gotten into art school
>because you're a nazi
There's a joke in here somewhere

>>4437940
>>4438593
I can't afford to do that

>>4440296
That's fine because you can take good photos with any camera that's not a Canon.

>>4440327
And if you disregard schizoid delusions, you can take good photos with a canon as well.

>>4440329
that's debatable

>>4440330
I said to disregard schizoid delusions remember?

>>4440332
I have never heard you say that.

>>4436107 (OP)
Because they aren't poor

>>4436205
>shooting on hasselblad
>gear doesn't matter
i'd unsub so fucking fast dude

>>4440575
>gear doesnt matter bro
>how can you ever feel limited by a g7xii
>when i feel limited i just pick up my mamiya 7ii lol
>you can still take great photos
>oh yeah wouldnt take anything but my a1 to this aviary wouldnt wanna fuck up the good shots

>I use a 28mm lens for birding
>I use a camera with trash autofocus for sports photography
>gear doesn't matter
It's a bullshit claim, you want the right tools for the job. What is true is that you don't need the absolute best gear when starting out, because you don't know yet what direction you'll take. So "gear doesn't matter" is just a phrase to make photography seem less intimidating and gate-keepy.

>>4440679
You can still ignore the influencers and get something all around good like an a7iii instead of a pns/d750

>>4436107 (OP)
that's how they know it doesn't matter. obviously

>>4440713
The a7iii is still disgustingly sold as new by Sony despite being 8 years old, so the used market for it is borderline highway robbery since it hasn’t deflated in price the way such an old camera should naturally. An a7sii might be the better buy imo

>>4440713
I have an A7III and I don't see how I will ever need another camera, it's great.

>>4440718
>The a7iii is still sold as new
>There is a continuous supply of lightly used, deeply discounted a7iiis being sold by dadographers and MWACs who couldnt figure it out and never left iauto+jpeg s
Sony knows exactly what they are doing here. I can open up facebook, type "sony a7iii", and find one for <$800 within a 4 hour drive.

Also, it's funny, but they get away with it because their "competition" is also selling the a7iii, just with different firmware.

>>4440718
They get away with it because it still competes with newer cameras in everything but number of video codecs enabled
https://theslantedlens.com/canon-r8-vs-sony-a7c-camera-comparison-which-is-better/
https://theslantedlens.com/canon-eos-r-vs-sony-a7-iii-which-one-should-you-buy/
In fact, the skin tones are less green than on canon

>>4440731
>In fact, the skin tones are less green than on canon
I swear, that one bait image is the funniest thing ever because it's so obviously just the white balance being wrongly set (I opened it in camera raw to see if I was right and I was)

>>4440733
As you will eventually learn, any shilling that involves panasonic doubtlessly involves lying.

Watch the titles and timing of influencers videos around panasonic releases. Panasonic does not allow criticism of their products or praise for their competitors in the same video if they are providing the review sample. Even sony lets people be harsher on their stuff and say more nice things about say, nikon in proximity to the newest snoy.

>>4440713
You are the local sony influencer. Enjoy your overpriced 8 year old camera with a self destructing shutter

>>4440773
Sony sold more a7iiis than every other brand sold cameras combined. A few are gonna break.

1 broken fujifilm or nikon camera is statistically equivalent to 100 broken sony cameras

>>4436227
It's not THAT bad.

Even tony went hasseblad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-LAufmX09w

Full frame was never that great, or impressive in low light, it looks almost as bad as m43 really. MF digital is as close as it gets to the quality offered by a real photographic medium like 6x7 film. It's over, fool framers. Buy a medium format camera or gtfo.

>>4440929
A Phase One is the minimum you need for taking good photos, everything below (including Hasselpiss) means you are poor and are okay with excessive amounts of noise and bad DR.

>>4440929
but how will he ever take photos without Sony tier autofocus?

>>4440782
>they sold more
whatever you say SOny marketing department. Nobody cares

>>4441398
watch the video, he says why he can

his hasselblad’s presence. when a hasselblad shooter says hold still, the world holds still until he has taken the picture. even cats pose when they see the overbearing godliness of the hasselblad.

he does not need a camera to scamper and do backflips to catch up with things not under his control. he is in control. football players pause and strike a pose mid air from a mere glance at the sheer grandiosity. that is what it means to have a serious camera (hasaelblad, mamiya, etc). simply by existing they command universal respect.

the shape of the black cube allows hasselblads to call upon the power of saturn (aka satan, yahweh) to actually steal a part of your soul and burn it into the film.

>>4441432
Does this work with all hassies or just the modern ones?

>>4441432
>Hasselblad: Went to the moon
>Other cameras: did not go to the moon
They have permanent big dick energy. It's impossible not to look like you're doing something important with one.

>have hasselblad
>never take photos with it because nothing is worthy of being shot with it

>>4441447
Didn't kneekwon go to the moon?

>>4441458
>Didn't kneekwon go to the moon?
in later missions once no one cared anymore. but the OG were all hasselblads.

>>4441520
Sad! When do you think they will bring mft camera to space?

>>4441447
Well they also took Nikons to the Moon and everybody on earth has a Nikon so big whoop

>MY CAMERA WENT TO THE MOON!!!
You sound like a bunch of 12 year olds.

>>4441558
My camera actually went to the moon though, I paid $400,000 for an original hasselblad that was taken to the moon. Poorfag seethe.

>>4441559
What kind of pictures do you take with it?

>>4441558
My camera system was used by legendary film director David Lynch. Can you say that about your system?

>1 WEIRD TRICK TO NAIL AUTOFOCUS EVERYTIME CLICK HERE
>its just turning the tracking AF on the 3000$ or more camera on

>>4440929
the right camera is blob city
>>4441447
ugly

>>4441645
>what matters is how it looks, not what it produces
gay fujicuck mentality

>>4441645
>the right camera is blob city
hey, at least it's not a Canon

>>4441645
>calling a saturnalian cube a "blob"
I curse your bloodline

>>4441725
Do you think cfv100c is the patricians choice of hasselblad 100MP cameras?

>>4441726
I'd say it's more of a middle class camera, for people who still need to look serious because they're not well known enough to just be serious.

>>4441748
Wow. I like the h6d too. The IBIS in the other one seems like such a nice feature tho.

>>4441650
i didnt say that

>>4441650
A hasselblad doesn't have "looks" like your chinese made fuji toy or west g*rman scamera that would be absolutely nothing if they didn't hand a free M to every jew they shipped stateside. It has presence. Heritage, authenticity, prestige, culture, importance. Know your place.

>>4441773
Shut up Sven, I won't buy your ugly as shit pos camera.

>>4441777
Cheers to you too, Shaquan.

>>4441773
Jfc what lens did you use to take this picture its awful

>>4441777
>Shut up Chang
ftfy
>>4441773
>muh heritage
sold off 8 years ago

>>4441780
The Leo-Wetzlar 420.69mm hairy planar

>>4441793
One of the most based lenses in existence.

>>4441645
>ugly
imagine being visually retarded when you have a hobby that requires visual literacy.

sorry bro

>>4436107 (OP)
>phototubers
ewww

>>4441788
Kek absolutely rekt