Making a new thread as the old one's gone.
Just discovered that the manual focus on this lens/camera has a perfect 1/4. Actually the best fly-by-wire focussing I've used since the Leica Q.

>>4436848 (OP)
Question for anons who regularly buy and sell stuff: Do you sometimes like get stuck on gear and not be able to sell it?

I feel no particular pressure to sell my vintage lenses bc they will in all likelihood forever be adaptable to new bodies. Maybe I'll put it on a future body in 20 years. So I can just tell the lowball offers no.

On the other hand old DSLRs with high exposure counts will never sell - even for ridiculously low prices. Better just use them myself until they break, right?

>>4436859
Depends how many I have. I never have more than 2 bodies but old lenses are worth nothing so I have a few that I never use.
I hate clutter so keep it simple.

How important is camera weight to you? I want to try th Leica SL but worried about the size. Is 1.2kg lens and body combo too much? I current have an X-E4 so only used to half of that.

Just released apparently. What's it gonna cost?

>>4436895
a predatory amount of money just like every other "equivalence bro, this will totally make your crop sensor as good as full frame bro" lens that nonetheless, has never made a crop sensor as good as full frame (real professionals actually consider full frame disappointing or even insufficient. the minimum standard for professional photography is 43.8 x 32.9mm sensors)

>>4436898
I don't care what pros use. I want to swap my RP for an R7 because of the 'reach'.

>>4436864
If you're fat, not only is your neck padded, your ribs are padded, and the pear shape allows DSLRs with long lenses to rest comfortably instead of knocking just one edge against your ribs over and over again.

But since I'm healthy, it's not that weight matters (i can just get a padded strap instead of having a padded neck), it's weight distribution. Cameras need to rest flat. Unfortunately some companies design their strap lugs and lenses so this is impossible.

>>4436864
Don't worry about camera weight when it's between two small/light options.

>>4436902
What camera do you use and what strap? I like how the X-E4 is light enough to use the Peak Design Leash over the shoulder but my X-T4 was a little too heavy for that to use all day.
I'm not fat

>>4436895
I can't say anything on the sensor size discussion (I use FF only) but to me 40mm is the most useless focal length ever. Not long enough foe nice portraits, not wide enough for meaningful landscapes. This would have been better as a 17-28 lens

>>4436911
The FOV equates to 27-64mm (on a Canon 1.6 crop)

>>4436913
That makes it worse. What matters for portraits is the focal length, not the FOV - so 40mm is still not enough. And 27mm FOV is barely useable for landscapes

This truly is the worst focal lengths of all worlds. Maybe it's the perfect lens for a very niche set of very specific users. Otherwise disregard this option.

>>4436895
Just seems like a bokehwhore lens. Maybe a good low-light general purpose zoom. Would be a decent replacement if someone likes using wide aperture primes for their strengths but still wants to zoom, or videographers.
>What's it gonna cost?
By using the power of the search engine: $919 USD

But anon >>4436898 is right. You'll get a better improvement to low-light performance by using a full frame camera. One or two stops of ISO saved by going as far as f/1.8 is still probably going to leave you at ISO 6400+ (because no OIS) which is going to look worse than a FF camera at ISO 25600.

>>4436911
Most 35mm lenses are actually closer to 40mm (37-38mm), and the standard 80mm lens on 6x6-6x9 cameras equates to a 40mm FOV.
>inb4 ACKSHUALLY
80mm is 35mm small format 40mm's FOV on 6x9 (full frame), the diagonals for the crop formats (6x7 and 6x6) dont actually change the perspective (or the vertical FOV which is what gives wide angle lenses their core character).

Sally Mann once said that if she had to choose one lens to make all of her art with, it would be the Zuiko 40mm f2.

>>4436920
It's literally just a worse 24-70 f2.8

This will take photos with the same FOV (crop) and DOF (physical aperture size) as a FF 25.5-60mm f2.7. But the FF camera will have better color depth and shadow/highlight recovery at every ISO as long as it's not HR FF (R5/Z7/A7R be grainy as fuck with faded colors at high ISO)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/356824024846
Holy fuck $1350 nikon zf

i just bought an om1
FUCK
FUCK

Thoughts on the D Lux 8/LX100 ii for everyday and travel photography?
I like a compact camera especially with a EVF. Not really aware of many alternatives of this size, with an EVF and M43 or bigger sensor.

>>4436929
Here's a good graph showing the equiv apertures.

>>4436929
The low res sensor, combined with the shoddy lens, and panasonics build quality, mad ethis camera a failure. It's "good enough for instagram" and some street photographers in particular would call it "character" (that's street snapper for "cant tell if i missed focus or not") but if you're pursuing large sensors for a quality boost you're not going to get it out of the lx100 series, and then the camera will break.

They're not even that small. Get an olympus e-p7 and the pancake zoom.

>>4436933
I'd say it is pretty small. No EVF on the E-P7 either. You're right about the lens, watched a few videos shilling it and whenever they zoomed in it looked like trash. I'm not that bothered about IQ though desu as long as it's nice to use and easy to carry.
I welcome any other suggestions for M43 cameras with EVFs.

>>4436939
EVFs are overrated, but the E-M5 III is basically the OM-5 with two less firmware gimmicks and easy to find for $500. It's not feica styled but it fits in a jacket pocket as well as any other.

What zoom lens would you anons reccomend for a t7i under 1000$? Planning on using it for landscape and portaits.

>>4436942
Standard zoom?
18-135mm STM

>>4436942
>what zoom for (everything) on canon?
24-120 f4 IS USM is always the answer
>but thuh crop factor
35mm is as wide as anyone should go anyways

>>4436949
>35mm is as wide as anyone should go anyways
Sounds gay and lame, I personally consider 35 almost into telephoto range. I keep that 15-35mm thang on me

>>4436864
>How important is camera weight to you?
not at all. I'd use a massive medium format camera if I was rich

>>4436942
That's easy. I would get a 24-70 f2.8 L. It's only like $400 and you're going to want the brighter aperture for portraits. With the money you save you can also get a prime if you want something wider or more telephoto

>>4436942
EF-S 17-55 2.8 still kicks ass, has stabilization to boot.

>>4436848 (OP)
If you have the Fn button dedicated to ISO control, is auto ISO part of the lineup or do you have to menu dive to toggle it on/off?
I'm asking specifically about the earlier entries in the X100 series, but any information would be appreciated.

>>4436973
Medium format is smaller and lighter than taking ken rockwell or /p/'s usual advice

Would result in better photography too

Why do gearfags always recommend new people buy DSLRs? Yes specs/price, but a mirrorless with worse IQ specs is more fun to use and more convenient to simply have with you... and doesn't give chicks the ick.
>"i do filmic portraits like platon" cool dude cam
>"i shoot childrens soccer games" pawn shop pedo cam

>>4436985
DSLRs are terrible for beginners. They won't understand that what they see through the OVF isn't what they'll get on the SD Card.

>>4436986
Even pros cant trust a DSLR light meter not to blow highlights or recommend crazy wrong exposure if something very dark or very light is in the frame

It worked better on film because it had -3/+5 stop exposure lattitude. Modern dual gain FF digital has -4/+2 stop and aps-c/old DSLRs are worse

>>4436859
>On the other hand old DSLRs with high exposure counts will never sell - even for ridiculously low prices. Better just use them myself until they break, right?
Skill issue. If you follow the /p/ gearfag strategy: you got fucked over when buying

>>4436983
Can't speak for early x100s but every x body at least X-pro2 and after has had separate auto iso presets as values on the full ISO list
right on dpad when selecting will bring it up to adjust the parameters too
no enable / disable, just another value like on thee dials

>>4436911
I just played with the Konica 40mm F1.8 and I loved it.

>>4437030
but why. W H Y. What is it good for. Not for portraits, not for landscape. Maybe very specific street scenarios? Geniuenly what is it good for

>>4436942
He cute

>>4437035
>NPC.exe error: Input focal length is not in suitability array for selected modes: landscape or portraits. Fuzzy heuristic match found in suitability array for street photography. Please consult NPC.exe(296) for information photography routines.

Maybe one day medium format will be affordable

>>4437127
Bronica s2 and buy 5 packs of kodak gold

>>4437124
The doll is creepy

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/om-system-om-5-mark-ii-initial-review
Congratulations, it's a trash heap!

I have a white Samsung camera but lack the cat

>>4437136
Well yeah it's m43

>>4437021
Ah, so auto was a step below your minimum ISO or a step above your maximum on the setting table?

>>4437136
I guess, it's a competitor to Fuji X-T cameras, it's okay when seen this way. What makes no sense are OM-1 and OM-3, which are the same camera priced 2-3 times higher.

>>4437129
I mean digital

>>4437160
they don't even make it in 6x6, it isn't real.

>>4437160
There is no digital medium format only bigger aps-c (bigger) and macro four thirds

>>4437160
Just shoot in burst and panostitch images together

>>4437166
645 sensors are pretty big. Fuji gfx is crop MF.

>>4437169
Name one that isn’t 20 year old e waste junk

>>4437170
20 year old digital medium format cameras are still good

>>4437171
That talentles shepherd snapper proves otherwise. Looks worse than a nikon z7, even accounting for shadow banding because you cant push shadows more than 2 stops on old sensors anyways. Tech has improved beyond sensor size. A z7 or a7riii beats a sinar hy6. An iphone beats a d200/s5.

>>4437127
It is affordable. On the used market you can get some bangers for cheap

>>4437170
> name one
Hasselblad X1D for 1700€ used

>>4437175
You're confused. If you are good you don't need to push anything 2 stops

>>4437179
>Hasselblad X1D
you are trolling

>>4436859
I don't sell stuff that I want to keep.
>On the other hand old DSLRs with high exposure counts will never sell - even for ridiculously low prices. Better just use them myself until they break, right?
I never have this problem as I usually know when I'm buying something if I'm buying it to keep or buying it to resell it. I haven't sold anything I bought to keep and I haven't kept anything I bought to sell.

>>4436848 (OP)
>Hot Shoe Kitty Edition
What about coldshoe x 3?

/g/ is laughing at us again

after shooting only 20years old nikon dslrs for my entire life (d700 and 800, d3s) i got some xtranny xt1 partly as i was curious, partly as a meme.

First outing bringing only the fuji with me at some arcade place/pool tables, fuji 35f2 and chinese 25mm lenses, after about a minute i swapped to manual focus cause of how insanely bad the af is. I get it's an old camera and shit, but holy fuck. Is it any better with newer models or is it still meme tier?

>>4437209
Eh, their AF is pretty bad. Even the Xpro 3 has awful AF and that's probably the only desirably APS-C camera theyve ever made. I couldnt tell you how good their GFX autofocus is but I can tell you they still don't have an APS-C camera that can compete with an EOS 1V or a 1Ds (MY 2000/2001)

>>4437210
I guess I'll just get some 23mm MF lens and avoid sinking more money into the system. I will admit tho, the size/weight difference was nice.

>>4437183
No why. You wanted medium format, you got medium format. Analog medium format can be achieved even cheaper

>>4437163
Lies

>>4437175
>A z7 or a7riii beats a sinar hy6
Are you talking about backs or bodies?
Rollei makes the Hy6, Sinar made eMotion/eVolution backs for it.

Colbor cf5 vs ulanzi filmog ace vs telesin c40?

The hype says the colbor has more fog output than the others and is comparable to the smokeninja. The ulanzi has removable batteries. The telesin has a side usb c port and has screws on the bottom so looks like I could easily swap the batteries.

If the colbor genuinely has the most fog output I'd pick that but if they're really the same I'd pick removable batteries

>>4437210
>>4437209
Has /p/ moved on from fuji obsession?

>>4437235
Personally after having used my friend's X-Pro 3 and XH2s there was very little interest in ever owning one for me. Personally if I wanted tacky build quality and iPhone photos I'd get one of those 'le vintage camera' iPhone cases and shoot with that.

>>4437235
I was curious but it did really defy my very low expectations and for the worse

>>4437235
Fuji got too popular for people here to like it
>>4437210
See this example, xpro3 AF is absolutely fine for 90% of photography, it just can't handle the full area dynamic tracking of modern mirrorless. It can absolutely track a running dog just fine. It would be fine for 99% of the pics you see posted here.
>>4437209
The first gen Fuji AF is pretty rough, but that's the case for any mirrorless from that era. Even going to 2nd Gen is a pretty big jump in performance.

>>4437156
On all the x bodies I've used, there were 3 auto presets (that you adjust max ISO and min ss) that were below the min ISO in the full list
kinda nice because you never have to adjust the actual auto iso setting, you just switch which auto iso

>>4436859
>Question for anons who regularly buy and sell stuff: Do you sometimes like get stuck on gear and not be able to sell it?
Yes, but I try not to get attached to worldly possessions are they are usually just mass produced crap that can be easily replaced. I often imagine the people sitting at an assembly line decades ago manufacturing the stuff with that eras crude methods and tell myself that there is nothing remarkable about it, but still I have stuff that I almost never touch except to admire. Most of it is overrated compared to modern equipment anyway. Fast lenses for instance though appealing are usually riddled with flaws compared to newer ones etc, then there is the Chinese companies making modern reinterpretations of everything which lowers the value of the OG etc. There is no saying how long this trend will continue as new tech may render everything worthless.

>>4436864
Very important for me. Alongside with volume (+ lenses volume and weight). I mountain hike over multiple days, and volume is shared with my tent, sleeping bag, food, and everything you need to that end.
I thus went with a NEX-6 back then, now replaced with an A7cII and couldn't be more pleased. Shit fattened quite a bit since the NEX-6 though.
I sometimes still use APS-C lenses for better portability, zooms especially.

>>4437235
No why. No manufacturer has surpassed the GFX100 line yet

>>4437255
Cause other manufacturers already made full frame cameras and don’t need the Full Frame Plus cope to get by. These users would naturally upgrade to an actual large sensor like the H1d, not a rounding error like the Fuji.

>>4437245
Oh look another loser that thinks 90% of photography is building corners
>uh we are le artistes we only need af-s here
Dude fuji autofocus cant handle someone standing in place and turning slightly it fucking sucks
Sony and canon are the top two brands because everyone else sucks
Learn to accept this

>>4437268
Fuji AF is totally fine for 99% of what people actually shoot
Sounds like you weren't able to figure it out though

>>4437269
Fuji AF is garbage. Sorry you never ran into this limitation cuz you have no friends, only dolls, trees, and building corners.

The autofocus on the newest $2300 fujifilm is worse than a $250 sony a6000.
And fujifilm users are annoying twats with unwarranted self importance and generic instagram trend snapshits.
>average fujifag shot: a fucking bench

>>4437246
Very cool; that sounds quite convenient.
Have you used a model of the X100 series specifically or just the X series in general?

>>4437245
The lacklustre AF is only one part of the complaints. If I'm going to pay for an expensive camera, it should be able to do everything better than my 20 year old DSLR which cost 1/10th as much, even used vs used, but it's not the case. The lenses suck. The build quality is dogshit. The weather sealing is plainly absent. The autofocus is just the cherry on top. I'm not paying full frame money for a crop sensor camera, that comes with all the problems of crop sensor (and times that by two because xtrans) for the sake of what? Fashion? I don't care if my camera is babyshit brown I just want it to take good pictures.

>>4437277
Have to disagree from my usage, but to each their own. My Pros and H2s have held up in the worst downpours I've used any gear with, right alongside the Zf. Sorry that you don't think you can take a good picture with a Fuji, I wonder how everyone else does it?
>>4437274
I've owned Pro2/Pro3, T2/3/5, T20, H2s, but used nearly every model (10years working in camera shops).
>>4437272
Still good enough for me to get all the shots I want :)
No other brand brings this much hate from nophotos

>>4437272
>average fujifag shot: a fucking bench
A photo of a bench can be interesting. I'm starting to think everyone here loves cameras and hates photography.

>>4437284
Fujifilm people love cameras and hate photography, correct.
>uhm, this camera makes me slow down
>skill issue
>i am skilled because i use this shitty camera
>i am rich because i overpaid for $150 of performance
>-fuji people

>is this faggot fucking serious
>-people with all manual medium format film SLRs

>All these top-of-the-art AF systems boomers could only dream of back in the days
>I only ever shoot with my Voigtlandan and Loxia shit anyway
If Leica wasn't such an overpriced meme, it's likely I'd just buy AFless cameras

>>4437288
how cum everyone with this take just shoots asian alleyways at 28mm? autofocus chads are shooting their cats being silly and their kids playing, thats way more important imho

>>4437266
The hasselblad H1d and the fuji gfx use the exact same sensor tho

>>4437290
But shootan cats with MF is more fun, those cute bratty fuckers just like toying with you.

interesting

>>4437266
gfx vs ff visually

>>4437295
>Sony and canon have the most interesting overall photo collections
>nikon users refusing to have shadows and fuji users refusing to have shadow detail is not a meme
>nikon and fuji are the building corner brands
>nikon has worse color science than sony
>fuji has worse color science than canon
Wow, almost like they're top 2 for a reason

>>4437295
FUCK, I basically never come across one of those fuckers, and if I ever do, not in an interesting environment, and it lasts 4secs anyway.

>>4437297
until you go to page 2 and things are different
and the different again on page 3
almost like its silly to judge brands this way

>>4437282
>Sorry that you don't think you can take a good picture with a Fuji, I wonder how everyone else does it?
So once again we're attacking an argument that has not been made aren't we? I'm going to go ahead and assume that's because there is no rational response to what I've said other than the concession that yes, in fact, cameras are fashion accessories to you (see also: Nikon ZF) as they are for all of Fujifilms customers. But just to make it absolutely plain and rock solid about what my point is: Fujifilm cameras represent poor value based on photo taking merit alone, and their prices are inflated because there is a huge market for cameras as fashion accessories (see also: women). My point is not that it is impossible to take good pictures with a Fujifilm camera. You can take good pictures with an iPhone if you understand its limitations. The problem is that there are other cameras out there and pretty much all of them are better as actual cameras.

>>4437288
>>4437293
Can you explain what you or your camera did to the colours in these? Did your camera ruin them or did you do that afterwards?

Why does every thread on here turn into a argument

>>4437282
Anyone can take a good picture with a fuji, anyone can take a good picture with an all manual 0.1fps camera that maxes out at 1/1000 shutter. But is anyone here stupid enough to pay $1699 plus to meet the standard set by canon rebel t2i?

And is it really about "a good picture" as if you only needed something to show someone else? What about your life? Your inner narrative - you have one, right? What about the photos you wanted to take and have turn out good, that the hardware literally hampered because autofocus hunted and settled on a miss when a rare candid moment came up, and the only "skill issue" to blame is your decision to rely on broken, non-functional autofocus by fuji(tm) instead of treating your $2000 purchase like an all manual leica?

I mean, if I had $2k to blow, and was fine with low resolution photos with dick for dynamic range, and never intended to rely on autofocus to snag something difficult, I would buy a leica M8. Not a fake asian toy.

>>4437301
Yeah it is. But I don't think it's meritless to judge based on sales, though I will admit the average photographer has an average IQ of around 93, I think that's what the study said anyway. So it's possible that they're all just cretins and it doesn't matter what the popular choice is in the slightest.

>>4437305
>Why did you choose that camera system?
>Fuji shooters: uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

>>4437304
No one wants to post photos so all they can do is argue through text

>>4437302
Cool, so Fujis aren't bad, they just aren't the best perf per $ and there are just better options for most people, which I 100% absolutely agree with
Which cameras do you use?
>>4437305
Very true, if Fuji was so bad that it was preventing me from getting the shots I wanted, I would switch. Just like I avoided their first gen because I did find it too bad for my needs. If I only had $2k I also wouldn't go Fuji.

>>4437318
Post photos to argue with corgifag? That's a bigger waste of time than posting photos to argue with huskyfag or shepherdfag. It's the trifecta of retard gearfags.
>Cotgifag: Ok, this isnt real art, disregarded... no i wont post this time. Fuji is fine. Leave fuji alone. No one is allowed to dislike overpriced, underperforming cameras because that makes me feel insecure about all the money i wasted on leica and fuji.
>Huskyfag: Art is le intent, i hate le jews, this triptych of my dog raping someones golden retriever is the highest expression of the artforme. Trust me this is definitely a photo from my new nikon d700 and NOT an olympus micro four thirds. You should definitely buy one you won't be disappointed. I am not giving you a fake recommendation to troll, trust me!
>Shepfag: Nice photo, but its not of a dog or an egg, so it doesn't count. Building corners and cats are reddit. Large format dogs are real art. You plebs could never aspire to reach such heights as I... I have the highest resolution dog photo, therefore I am the best artist. What do you mean you can tell when I use my canon 5dii because the photos are well composed and actually in focus? Silence, bigger film is more art!

>>4437335
Did you forget to attach a photo? I see a lot of text

>>4437323
>Cool, so Fujis aren't bad, they just aren't the best perf per $ and there are just better options for most people, which I 100% absolutely agree with
If them being worse value for money than any of their competitors doesn't make them bad, then what would make a camera bad to you? Would have to be completely inoperable? Because if the standard for a camera not being bad is that you 'can take a good picture with it' then there are not many bad cameras at all. People have taken good shots with Zenit 12's but personally I think the standard for a cameras goodness should be a little higher than 'it's possible to use it'.

>>4437336
Did you forget to be a good photographer because I see a lot of gearfag smugness, maybe 2 weddings, and mostly dog snapshits and lens tests of trees.

How crazy is it there are 3 people with the same modus operandi
>Smug gear opinion
>90% dog photos
>Overly defensive of their shitty gear choice (fujileica, too big film, shitty nikon dslr)
>Only post test shots, "my real photos go to another school i definitely shot more than 2 weddings before pocketing my gear money and quitting that noise"

>>4437335
corgifag
>leave Fuji alone
also corgifag >>4437323
>most people shouldn't buy Fuji
almost like you're lying
>>4437337
There are lots of different metrics and ways to analyze how a camera is good or bad
If Fujis were significantly cheaper do you think the criticisms disappear? I don't, and I have no problem bitting the bullet they aren't good for minmaxing performance per $, and they really haven't been since the T3.
Everyone has their own performance needs, but they act like their needs are the same as everyone else. At least I share lots of examples and am honest about their shortcomings.

>>4437341
>If Fujis were significantly cheaper do you think the criticisms disappear?
Does anyone criticize micro four thirds when the fanboys aren't insisting it's as good as better cameras or spending $2k on quarter frame? No, everyone freely admits sub-$500 crop sensor bodies and cheap f1.7+ primes and f4+ zooms are nice, fun, and compact.

Anyways, lets be real, corgifag, shepfag, and huskyfag have been horrid gear copers/gear shills and corgifag is only cucking out now that he has been more positively identified.

>>4437340
There's some more here that's been posted before >>4435895
My last wedding (after 7 years) is at the end of July and after that I can post much more of that kind of work.
When can we see your photos? What cameras did you use again?

>>4437344
>cucking out now that he has been more positively identified
Positively identified as a hasphoto

>>4437341
>If Fujis were significantly cheaper do you think the criticisms disappear?
There are no bad products, just bad prices. If they were competing with much cheaper cameras, then yes, they would be more reasonable. One of their biggest problems is that they're constantly trying to sell APS-C models that compete in the same price bracket as full frame offerings from companies who have spent much more money and time developing features that professionals value, autofocus being just one example. It would be hard for them to compete like that even if everything else were the same and the sensor sizes were the only difference, but it isn't. It's even worse than that.

>>4437345
>I'm shooting another wedding soon because daddy needs a new summilux
K
You 3 dog-gearfags are the shittiest posters

All ya'll contribute is "i did better once, i promise", gear tests with your dogs, and acting like you're better than other people for using shitty cameras. That's all. Not getting in a contest with any 3 of you because ya'll say the same thing whether it's you, cinefag, or doghair
>no i'm a real artist you're not

>>4437347
Funnily enough autofocus hasn't been a boon for professionals. Professionals were shooting fast action and crazy candids on the 5DIII with stabilized pro zooms.

Autofocus and IBIS been a boon for hobbyists who will never shoot for 6 hours straight, use small, non-stabilized primes, and mostly grab lifestyle shots while being involved in the scene themselves, which is a whole other skill compared to being the dedicated photographer on the sidelines putting 100% of their effort into the shot

Just look, all real movies are shot with manual focus
But sony autofocus has enabled casuals to be more creative without having to set up a steadycam and follow focus rig with a monitor and cables flying all over

>>4437348
I post all kinds of useful comparisons, links to relevant articles, encourage others to post
All you do is complain and not post photos
I wouldn't buy a Summilux, too expensive and I'm very content with my current selection of fast primes
>>4437347
Again, so the camera performance is totally fine for taking photos for most people, it's just priced too high? I agree

>>4437350
I remember in the 5D2 era when pros just always used single center point focus with BBF
Even on a 5D3, you can only use the spot meter off the center point, lol
Sony AF is dope

>>4437351
The camera performance is insufficient for most people, and most people gravitate towards cameras with much better autofocus so they can shoot when they're involved in the scene instead of having to be totally focused on the camera. It's just it would be fine if it were cheaper because no one expects much of a digital camera that costs 1/3 as much as an ihpone.

>>4437351
>Again, so the camera performance is totally fine for taking photos for most people, it's just priced too high? I agree
Assume this is true, this comment could be about a 20,000 dollar phone, a new-in-box MJU, a hasselblad stellar, a leica Q or a fuji. It's meaningless. If we're comparing gear the price dictates your competitors, and if all your competitors are better than you, then you are shit. I don't understand what you don't get.

>>4437351
>i post useful comparisons
Unlabeled snapshots of trees are less useful than googling lens reviews
>links to relevant articles
Bloggers gearpinions
>encourage others to post
You doghair and huskyfag do this just so you can insult whoever posts and claim you're special for using your shitty cameras, fur real. It's funny when you 3 argue with each other because you act the exact same.

>>4437354
>The camera performance is insufficient for most people
By what measure? Sales seem fine. Seems sufficient for 95% of shots that get posted here. Been sufficient for me, been sufficient for other shooters I know. That old Shotkit survey had pros using X-T3's at the same rates of Z6II, R, 5DIV, a7IV, etc. Are those also insufficient then?

>>4437357
I look forward to you posting better and more useful comparisons and examples for everyone
I've only insulted Husky because I hold him to a higher standard, but you also ignore the praise I have given him, I repeatedly praise others that post when asked as some do
>>4437356
Didn't realize Fuji cameras cost $20k now

>>4437359
>Sales seem fine
Fuji and panasonic are quickly heading the way of the pentax because they're NOT sufficient. It's not the shots that get posted here, it's the shots that never get posted because the camera fucked them up.

People buy these pieces of shit and quickly find out they struggle with basic things like rooms with windows and kids moving about. I'm sure they're sufficient for attempting "art photography", but so is a manual focus viewfinder camera with apertures f5.6-22 and shutter speeds going all the way up to 1/350. Thankfully for us art photography really doesn't matter because it's not actually art, it's just put in museums if you happen to know the right jew. Art has been severely devalued and a photographer calling themselves an artist is like an AI prompter calling themselves a director.

>>4437360
I think you and husky suck equally and are basically the same person, as is doghair, down to the portraits he promises he shoots, and we can get an idea of how he lights them from his dog photos, just as we can sumrise from your dog photos and husky's dog photos that you all consistently employ the same two lighting formulas. Powerful ceiling bounce, and softbox at 7/kicker at 3.

You are all mid tier amateurs with big egos and mostly you post photos to support your present gear shitposts and attempt to lend more credence to your most recent gear opinions.

>>4437365
Every amateur photographer
>Couldn't figure out how to use it huh
>softbox/kicker, ceiling bounce, golden hour, shade under a tree
>may have done direct flash once
>"as you can see by the fact i took a photo, i am an expert on this subject"
>might do a wedding every year or two to fund their continued consumption of high specced gear and fashion accessories

>>4437365
At least I've posted a few portraits, maybe a dozen or so people by now
>employ the same two lighting formulas
I don't think any image I've posted here has had external lighting lol

I post because I was on this board a decade ago as a beginner and I learned lots from a few of the genuinely talented people that came before me (Photoshop(C) & 5hoe especially).

>>4437367
Scratch that, 4 off camera and 1 direct flash in >>4435895
Never have used flash for the doggo

>>4437367
You're right, I looked and your use of studio lighting is limited, which is even worse. For some reason I thought you might be lighting things, but the difference between pushed shadows and filled shadows is easier to see at higher resolutions.

If this is a decade of progress dude I'm sorry but you're not qualified to call out "skill issues" when people hold their cameras to standards. It just screams that you're unsure if your various purchases were worth it. Being a GWAC wedding photographer who did product shots for a pot shop isn't a huge own, the standards for the field are very low so whether or not people engage in it depends on how badly they need or want the money.

I just want this fag to admit he bought Fuji for the retorlarp because he’s outright admitted it has zero other advantages over competition. It would honestly be more respectable to just say “I just like how they look” ffs instead of all this bullshit womanly cope

>>4437370
i think he's an insecure amateur who actually did spend a lot of money, not for him, for anyone (even bill gates thinks a rolex is expensive) and when people complain about the autofocus on a nikon or a panasonic he feels a little pang of regret because he's sitting there with a $10k manual focus only camera and a $2000 camera with worse autofocus than a $250 a6000. the feelings are a mix of "stop complaining i use worse!" and "its not worse im better!"

>>4437369
Very true, can you share some better example of lighting so I can learn from you? Are you going to share some of your work too now?
>>4437370
Dials are fun, but Fuji does have the 2nd best employee purchase program which helps with the value per $.
The truth is I world camera shops for a decade and out of all the gear I've owned, I have the most fun with Fuji. But I'm comfortable enough that I'd use basically anything in the last decade if I had to, I don't let the gear become cope.
>>4437371
I have a Zf when I need better AF, but the Fuji's are just fine most of the time.

>>4437381
Ok, we get it, you're a camera nerd who worked at the gear store and shoot like snappiness, but fuji autofocus isn't sufficient for "most things". It fucks up trying to shoot my kids softball games. I use an a7c and an a6500 and they're pretty flawless compared to fuji's most expensive cameras.

Fuji autofocus could work if you were shooting street or other more pretentious things but so would a manual focus film camera. And if you used a manual focus camera, then you could actually claim to have exercised some skill.

>>4437383
Sorry to hear you couldn't get the Fuji working for your needs

>>4437385
Yes dear, I can't figure out how to use a D750 and you have a sleeping dog shot with a blurry as fuck tamron lens to prove it

Wait, wrong dog snapping gearfag

>>4437387
I don't own any Tamron

>>4437388
Wrong dog snapping gearfag, sorry, you're all the same.

>>4437391
Yes, we post photos

>>4437392
You post snapshits of dogs and claim to have shot a few weddings, while defending objectively crappy gear

I think you just have insecurity and financial issues. All of you. One is always coping with his overpriced cameras, the other is on a constant trend towards cheaper gear, the other is wasting $50/shot on pictures of his dog and has already spent about $17,000 on cameras...
Clients dry up after you blew your wad?

I am a better photographer than everyone here. I'm a real professional and you all have skill issues, nophotos who can't use cameras.

Pic related I just shot this amazing work of art on my Fujikon X750 8x10 film camera. You probably wouldn't be able to figure out how to use it.

>>4437395
I post a lot more than dogs, you should look a bit more.
I defend it as "good enough for most" but also "don't recommend Fuji" and "it's not good value" for most. I just don't think it's quite as bad as its made out to be, that's all.

Which photos have you posted again?

>>4437397
Too bad you don't actually take photos or that would've been a good a opportunity to actually show me up

>>4437397
Lmao they do be like that

>>4437395
Corgifags business dried up (7 years no weddings) and he’s around $20k deep
Huskyfags probably failed because hes autistic
Doghair cant get off the ground and sells eggs to buy gear
All spent or are spending many thousands and have sunk to "me has photo" to back up their gear shitposts on /p/

Deffo money issues

>>4437288
>If Leica wasn't such an overpriced meme, it's likely I'd just buy AFless cameras
There's always the Pixii.

>>4437291
Sony's 50MP CMOS didn't exist at the time of the H1D.

>>4437403
I think you missed the "overpriced" point.

>>4437395
B&w 8x10 is only like 10 dollars a shot. Aint no thang. It really is not a lot of money at all and Im having fun. When you start shooting real cameras you don't need to take hundreds of shots like digishitters do. Your whole outlook on photography changes. I take 1 or 2 pictures most days, and I am beyond happy with that. It really is a much better way to approach photography.

I recently got a couple lenses that are worth 2.5k and 3.5-4k for 100 bucks each. If I sold them I could almost pay for all the 8x10 stuff I've purchased lol. I wait for extremely good deals to pop up on ebay and snag them, so as long as I keep my shit in good condition I've got stuff I can sell for big profits.

>>4437408
>its a better way to approach photography
nigga you spend $10 a shot on pictures of eggs on a table
>7-8k
>almost pay for the 8x10 gear
christ

>>4437409
My gitzo tripod + arca swiss cube combo was nearly 4k. No biggie lol. I'm looking to spend 800k on new land for my chickens and pigs, big dawg.

Yes I take pictures of things I'm drawn to. I went to the beach with my 8x10 yesterday and did not feel drawn to photograph anything, so I didnt.

>>4437409
My dog doesnt cooperate with me if I dont have at least a 5 figure camera setup to photograph him with.

>>4437410
just when you think dog gearfags are sad they get sadder

>>4437413
What's sad about deriving joy and meaning from a hobby? Some people only take pictures of landscapes. Nothing wrong with that, but there are people that have a problem with someone else taking only pictures of things they like.

What's the difference?

>>4437413
Using an 8x10 camera because you need it to make prints is not really gearfagging imo. It's just real photography. I don't even have plans to enlarge my 8x10 images I just use them for making contact prints. I like the process and look, so it's what I do.

>4x5 shots of underage anime doll ->> :D
>8x10 shots of dog ->> >:[

>>4437419
How can a doll be "underage"?

>>4437420
Underage looking dolls* -_- Sorry!

>>4437398
It's good enough for 5.6% of people who bought cameras, definitely not most, or else they wouldn't be a distant #4

Even when fuji offers less feature crippling on their value cameras people flock to somewhat shittier canonys, for the better autofocus

>>4437410
>I went to the beach with my 8x10 yesterday and did not feel drawn to photograph anything, so I didnt.
And then he went home and hung up another picture of an egg

>>4437419
>creative studio portrait with a mannequin ->> wow, your practice photos are great! when are you going to hire a model?
>8x10 shots of dog while claiming to be a real artist and bragging about blowing $8k a month, admits to going to the beach and not even taking a picture, but somehow finding eggs on a table supremely interesting ->> wow, you have aspergers. when are you going to go to a doctor?

>>4437428
>seething autist invents character in head to get mad at.

Always amusing.

>>4437426
>NO you must take pictures I like or you are BAD!
One day youll grow up and understand that you should take pictures for yourself instead of fake numbers on a screen. The NPC fails to understand the beauty of an egg picture. Many such cases!

Bro was confronted with raw natural beauty, shrugged, and went home to take another picture of his dog on the couch so he could zoom in and appreciate his camera

>>4437432
You'll get it one day lil bro.

>>4437431
>invents character in head
it's you
that person is you sperg

>>4437434
in fact its literally what he says

also see: literally shepcorgsky fag.jpg

>>4437432
I will say that I appreciated all that stuff in person, but I was simply not drawn to photograph it, which is totally fine. You're like that syjack meme with the two guys pointing at the vegan chicken nuggets, but it's a beach instead of chicken nuggets lmfao.

>>4437434
I'm not wasting my time explaining how idiotically wrong you are. Your post was comically stupid to the one person you're trying to own or whatever. Well done.

>>4437436
You actually imagined THIS:
>raw natural beauty: pointing soijak
>dog on couch: gigachad
Dear fucking lord, it's like when eglin afb spooks make political chad vs. virgin memes trying to encourage people to enlist in the israeli foreign legion, but worse.

>>4437439
Nope, because I'm not the one waxing poetic about the beach(rocks,leaves, and water). I dont love the beach, but I do love my dog. I love my home also. I photograph things I love and that interest me like eggs.
You're just too immature to recognize that people care about different things and enjoy photographing different things. It's really weird how controlling people here are, and how angry they get when they can't control literal strangers/ other men. Big time loser behavior.

Trust me, that you'll be a much happier person if you stop caring about the things you can't control and start working on the things you can.

>>4437441
>I dont love the beach, but I do love my dog
dios mios, los zoofilico! la abominación del 4chan /p/!

>>4437443
Thanks for proving my point.

>>4437441
Why don't you show your bitches your pictures of eggs and dogs instead of 4chan
>because you have none

>>4437447
I do. :) She loves them. Are you projecting again? Anyone with wojaks on their computer is surely bitchless LOL

Sure is an awful lot of comments and not very many genuine pictures
nophotos gonna nophoto

>>4436848 (OP)
I'm after a mega compact second body + wide lens solution to carry next to my main camera. I have narrowed it down to a few options but please feel free to suggest more.
The idea is to use primes from the same line to keep my rendering consistent between cameras. However, it's not a hard requirement. My main is a VM50/1.2 adapted on full frame and I also have a VM28/2.8 which feels a little too tight as a wide secondary to the 50, although its rendering is amazing. Ideas so far:
>Ricoh GR(III/IV) with wide angle conversion (equiv 21mm)
I already own a IIIx so I am used to using this and know it will be decent.
>Sigma fp/bf with VM21/3.5 or Sigma 24/3.5 or similar
Full frame is good and the lack of IBIS doesn't really matter. I like the modularity. Maybe the best option in terms of freedom and being able to match the output look of my main. Also less weirdly shaped than the GR+wide angle.
>Any APS-C compact, with VM15/4.5 or similar
Probably retarded but could be fun with a Leica CL, Rixoh GXR A12 or something zany like that
Thoughts bros?

Idk if this is gear question or not

Would you rather bring a 90mm 2.8 on a wildlife night hike, or the 1.4gm

GM has the higher aperture, but the 90mm has the longer focal length and 2.8f ain’t no slouch

>>4437447
Don't ask that guy about his bitches...
>>4437457
>bark once for nice photo, twice for snapshit

>>4437468
This is the gear and get angry at dog owners thread, sir.

>>4437477
True, which is why I've been asking for people to post relevant photos when they talk about gear they use

>>4437476
Success angers the loveless incel more than anything else.

>>4436864
In my experience it's the length of the lens that makes carrying a camera a pain in the ass for walkabout/travel/hiking. You can have a heavy, dense body, and as long as the lens is short and light, it's no problem, even with a thin strap. My lightest setup is approx 900g for the body and 150g for the lens and it's really very nice. But I wouldn't use long zooms or enormous primes unless I specifically need one for something and know I won't be out backpacking all day.

>>4437479
Oh gotcha. Here's my goofy 8x10 with a massive 210mm lens + bag bellows. The lens is so big it kinda makes the camera look like a 4x5.
I wanted to see what extreme rear standard movements would do. This lens has a 500mm projection, so I can get away with 25 degree+ movements. Pic came out kinda cool, but juice wasnt worth squeeze. I think it could be interesting with more practice/right subject/better visualization of what extreme perspective shifts actually do.

This is the camera that really makes people incredibly angry.

>>4437472
As a griix owner, I think a GR with any filter or wideangle/tele adapters totally kills the point of the camera, you now lose the size and have to deal with clunky autofocus, mediocre low light and battery life. may as well just get a more sturdy ilc.

The sigma fp seems intriguing but its completely video focused, its expecting to be a part of a rig with external controls. the lack of on camera controls would probably be incredibly annoying if youre photo walking. the bf seems more stills oriented

considering your budget, you may as well jsut go full frame and get an a7cii and adapt something like a voightlander 21mm.

>>4436848 (OP)
where could i get some cute hot shoes like the one in op?

>>4436848 (OP)
Both my cameras stolen don’t want to completely give up on my hobby laso my dumb ass sold all my compacts and now they are going for much more online
Can anyone recommend me a good compact body that’s not over hyped and over priced

>>4437474
I'm going to assume that's the 90mm macro but which f/1.4 GM are you on about? There's an 85mm, 50mm, 35mm, and even a 24mm. If it's the 85mm then the 5mm difference is irrelevant. If you're wanting to actually do macro then the 90mm would be a no brainer. Otherwise, assuming you already have both lenses I would do some test shots and see if going faster than f/2.8 still gives you enough depth of field at the distances you're likely to encounter. No point going to f/1.4 over raising your ISO two stops if it's just going to give you a shitty blurry subject. You can also check to see whether the f/1.4 is sharper at f/2.8 than the 90mm wide open.

If you're talking about any of the other lenses then fuck knows man, you're the one that knows what you'll be shooting.

>>4437506
Contax T3

>>4437474
Dare to be different

>>4437481
But not so different your wife goes woof

>>4437493
>GR with any filter or wideangle/tele adapters totally kills the point of the camera
True, I experienced this myself when I tried using the filter mount. Ended up returning all that and kept just the camera.
>its expecting to be a part of a rig with external controls
You don't need any of that stuff for photography. I'd max add a grip (likely) and EVF (less likely). Set ISO and shutter speed to auto and use the top dial for exposure comp, simple as. In fact the Bf might be less suitable since the only dial seems a bit awkwardly placed.
>a7cii and adapt something like a voightlander 21mm
Sony is completely out of the question because a) 3mm cover glass wreaks havoc on wide angle M lenses and b) I don't really want to add a second full-frame system when I'm already on L mount unless strictly necessary. For compacts that leaves Sigma fp and bf, Lumix S9, Leica CL/TL2.

>>4437506
Sony A7III

The default jpeg/video color settings need changed which filters 90% of total retards and keeps the price fair. Also, despite being just one camera, it outsold every non-canon brand combined.

I used to be into photography, all film stuff. Haven't really messed with it in forever. I have a few old M42 mount lenses, is there a good digital camera to use them with? idk if this is even the thread to ask about it in. Any recs at different price points? Or is it even worth it to use old lenses with digital?

>>4437518
Okay, zoomer continue living in delusion while everyone successful laughs at you and moves on after 2 seconds. Your posts reek of failure. Work on it.

>>4437523
Since M42 is an SLR mount you won't have edge smearing/color shift problems on digital like you would with L39 or other rangefinder lenses. Get a camera with a BSI sensor and a decent adapter. Make sure you get full frame to use your entire image circle. Something like a Z5ii would be good if you want to buy new.

>>4437528
I do have some L39 stuff I would like to play with... But yeah I was thinking about full frame vs whatever smaller sensor sizes are out there. Is something like an old Canon 5D (refurb) just totally stupid?

>>4437536
To clarify, edge issues with adapted rangefinder glass usually only happens with wider and faster lenses. Maybe it won't even bother you. Some digital cameras are worse (Sony) at this than others due to excessively thick sensor cover glass. For SLR lenses it's almost irrelevant.
An old Canon 5D (or II) is a fine idea however be aware of the following:
>the EF flange distance is not short enough to be a very versatile system for adapting lenses. iirc you can realistically only do M42 and Nikon F and even that is inconvenient
>the adapters, being so slim, are a massive pain in the ass to mount and unmount, be it from the lens or the body
>you may also encounter problems with mirror clearance due to the above
>even chipped adapters might not give you working focus confirmation, and either way you'll end up needing to get a replacement focusing screen, either the Eg-S or some split prism one to manual focus properly
Any mirrorless system will give you way better options for adapting - not only a greater number of mounts but also shit like focus peaking in the EVF.
Honestly if you want a 5D then get EF glass and shoot EF (and you can get an EF film body too), it's better that way, and the pictures will be good. You can get a 5D + 50/1.4 for $350 and the shooting experience will be much nicer than trying to adapt M42

>>4437549
>much nicer than trying to adapt M42
*than trying to adapt M42 on EF

>>4437523
Z5ii, you get the best digital MF experience for those lenses or anything else you want to adapt

>>4437523
Go on ebay and get a cheap Olympus dslr. The E500 and before have CCD sensors

I found a bottle of pic related in an old camera bag. It is probably 50 years old, but I swear it does a better job than modern lens cleaning solutions.

>>4437580
More poisonous and environmentally damaging ingredients in the old stuff.

>>4437225
Imagine putting a big fat greasy mcdonalds thumbprint on that sensor

>>4437225
>show one that isn't 20 year old ewaste
>posts 30 year old ewaste instead
kek, i wonder if you could even power and use that thing these days. you'd need to find the software from 1996 and a computer to run it. might be a cool project.
https://www.epi-centre.com/reports/9604cs.html

>>4436917
>What matters for portraits is the focal length, not the FOV
what

>>4437510
35mm sry. Trade off being higher f/stop, but much wider focal length requiring subjects to be much closer

>>4437175
Wrong. That sensor is incredible and has more pop and better colors than just about anything I've seen on here. It is kinda picky about lighting tho, so for the skill issue inclined get something more modern.

>>4437226
The body is made by rollei and the sensor is made by sinar. There's also the Leaf afi wifh aptus backs that are the same camera with different firmware. They are still amazing cameras when used correctly. Mainly as studio queens.

Those incredible medium format cameras also have the super power of making the seething nophotos seethe more than even imaginable. It's hilarious and the cope is even funnier.

>>4437596
>”pop”
Tonality i can believe if tonality is light recorded, finer gradations from more accuracy, bit depth, pixel capacity, etc

Because these sensors have gapped low capacity high noise pixels and shoot <14 bit raws they literally can not have more pop, its just the editing you tend towards and your overuse of bounce flash. You could make the illusion of pop with micro four thirds and bounce flash.

>>4437600
Prove it.

It works in natural lighting as well.

>>4437600
5dm3 gets mogged beyond belief in similar lighting.

>>4437599
So true. Did you forget to attach your medium format photo?

>>4437603
The 5dIII is a very low DR sensor. It records as much light as some m43 bodies.

>>4437604
I have been busy with 8x10, but I can make some MF pics tonight for you. :)

>>4437605
And? It still gets decent pics. Just not as good as the medium format sensor. The colors are significantly better on mfdb.

>>4437606
>ff dr has better colors than m43 dr

>>4437607
Why are you talking about doctors now? Lol. I take pics and then I look at them. The mfdb camera takes very pleasing and awesome looking pictures. Way better looking than most of what's posted on here. It really is that simple.

>>4437606
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205D%20Mark%20III,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M5%20Mark%20III
U haet m43
U use m43 (moar bokeh edition)

>>4437608
a camera doesn't take good pictures—a photographer does

>>4437608
It looks like full frame cameras with the same resolution, without your inch thick ego glasses, my zoophile friend. You could probably take better photos with an easier to use camera too ( you aren’t very good at this ) based on how whenever you have a canon or fuji filename your photos are actually almost in focus and have some semblance of composition

>>4437611
That's simply incorrect, mr sour grapes. You are one of the nophoto losers, so your opinion is immediately thrown into the trash.

>>4437612
Cope

>>4437613
Prove me wrong by posting one of your incredible photos(you dont even have a camera). You losers have lost all credibility with your obsessed and degenerate posting.

>>4437614
Lets say you just want to say I suck. How would be sucking prove you dont suck? Can you look at stephen shore, lewis baltz, annie leibovitz, platon, diane arbus, richard avedon, etc and see what they do that you dont? Can you look at a reddit photo contest or photo youtuber and see what they do that you don’t?

Why do you think you are the best and no one dislikes you for credible reasons?

>>4437614
he's right you kinda suck

"dog in middle of frame" can only be shot so many times before you are wasting your time. and your other photos. like what the fuck is this
>>4434549
maybe a clever mirror shot but no, its just for pixel peeping grass isn't it? would you hang this on your wall or were you trying to see if you could get a sharp picture with some settings so you could zoom in on it and enjoy your gear? and then there's what, a dim gray butterfly on a dim gray background? is there a chicken i'm missing?

you're just not putting out good photos. leave the farm for a day. holy shit.

>>4437615
I constantly say I'm perfectly average, retard. I never said that my 8x10 dog photos are the best because theyre the highest resolution. I was laughing that it could possibly be the highest res dog pic ever posted to 4chan, and that's it. And of course Im constantly reflecting on my work. If you werent just a seething loser you would see that I have been learning and improving a lot. You aren't here to see that. You're just here to troll and act like a weirdly obsessed freak because you are a shitty person. It is really that simple. Im pretty sure I know why, but I will not get into that.

You posting a photo would at least give you a modicum of credibility, but you will not do that because you're just an obsessed loser. A cowardly one too.

Now make your little excuses why you can't btfo such a terrible photographer like myself.

>>4437620
That one was meant to be a sort of self portrait, but my reflection didn't come through in the mirror well enough.

>>4437620
My egg still life is a good photograph. It's more than just something I took while walking around.

>>4437620

Here >>4435790

Good composition, meaningful, executed well. The single hard light is standard for still lifes.

>>4437622
>dirty mirror doesn't reflect
you are a perfectly average retard

>>4437621
ok, so, when do you leave zach tier?

>>4437624
you really tried, it's obvious, you had a long time to double check, but still everything is slightly off. the shadows, the angle, everything is just slightly wrong. it just doesn't look good. i do not know what to say, you don't have an eye for this.

>>4437626
See more idiotic trolling.

>>4437627
truth hurts.

>>4437626
This is actually the most braindead critique I have ever heard. Good job with that. I have nothing to prove to people too scared to even post a single photo while freakishly obsessing over the people that do.

>>4437629
You just said you don't like it, which is fine. It's actually a good thing you don't like it all things considered.

>>4437621
Your photos could be better, but I only say that because I hold you to a similar higher standard as husky. Your attitude is great though.
t. corgi

>>4437631
I completely agree! I try to hold myself to a higher standard as well, and it has been paying off because I am objectively better than when I started photography that wasn't just street photography. What I like shooting is not a very popular genre and it's really really hard to get super good shots, which is why it is fun.

>>4437624
>meaningful
Eggs and chicken foot? What a stretch.

>>4437632
What standard? Better than zach? Please look at the work of better photographers.

>>4437636
Thanks for proving yet again how stupid you are. I thought the meaning and symbolism in that still life was actually TOO obvious. LOL! What a guy you are. Thanks.

Use that little brain of yours and you may figure it out. I believe in you!

My iphone has this feature where you take a picture but it's essentially an ultrashort video, after which you can convert it to a 'long exposure'. Any cameras with this built in?

>>4437657
no dedicated camera does this. Apple includes alot of computation here least of all stabilization

desu it's quite jarring how most people don't make normal photos anymore since most peoples primary camera is an iphone and iphone photos are now live photos and spatial. It's a huge cultural paradigm shift and nobody talks about it...

>>4437659
Hmm,kinda seemed like it would be right up Olympus's sleave.
It's nicely convenient compared to dealing with ND filters, you can mess around with it on the computer later and include less frames or shit like that.
Could be patented I guess.

>>4436864
The prime reason for me to switch to mirrorless was the huge weight saving (as my lenses will be heavy due to physics, at least gain on bodies) and this is a big reason why I hate that milc cameras got so huge compared to the early ones over the years. I got the first and last A7R and the difference in size is just plain disgusting
And sony is the one who tries to keep everything small...

>>4436848 (OP)
as mentioned in previous threads I'm still looking at the Hassy x2d vs fuji gfx100iis. I stumbled upon a comparison video with these two was attached: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/qo9jxgrboorhc9qa59d56/h/SHARPNESS?dl=0&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

And the guy didn't even mention the jarring amount of chromatic aberration in both of these

Is this normal? Does the "luxury" brand Hasselblad really suck as much in terms of chromatic aberrations?

>>4437688
Really depends on the lens more than the camera.

>>4437689
Thanks captain obvious. This is a comparison between the gf80mm and the xcd80. Not a comparison between the camera bodies.

>>4437692
Sorry when you said you were comparing the camera bodies I thought that meant you were comparing the camera bodies. I should have known.

>>4437657
You can take a burst of still images and use Photoshop to average blend them for a similar effect
>>4437688
Link doesn't work, but GFX100s II is much better general purpose. X2D really only makes sense if you plan to make heavy use of the leaf shutter.
The GF80 isn't that amazing either, I'll see if I can dig up some of my own crops, but the GF110 is much better.

>>4437688
>Does the "luxury" brand Hasselblad
Different system but remember all their HC are just Fuji rebrands

>>4437693
oh so you're retarded. When buying into a new system the available native lenses are the first and by far the most important thing to look into. This is self evident for anyone even vaguely familiar with the topic

>>4437699
I could explain to you why everything you have said thus far makes you an objective retard but I think it's funnier to not help you so I won't :)

>>4437694
>You can take a burst of still images and use Photoshop to average blend them for a similar effect
You don't say.

What the fuck are you guys shootng that needs ultra fast AF? I never even knew that Fuji focussing is considered slow until regretably coming to this board. Literally never had a problem with AF and I've shot all kinds of brands except for Ricoh GR, that hunted like a bitch.

>>4437706
Same. I shoot analog cameras with 100x worse AF. To me all of the mirrorless AF systems seem amazing - so I don’t get what there is to complain about fujis

>>4437710
It's almost like the people in this board spend all day looking at specs and focussing their Sonys on their micropenis and their cumbox in quick succession.

>>4437657
>>4437659
https://learnandsupport.getolympus.com/learn-center/photography-tips/browse-tips-by-camera-feature/live-composite-mode

>>4437706
Kids, pets, birds, friends goofing off

If you only shoot people bobbing around on a stage, parked cars, anime cons, and building corners of course you won't notice, but also, why would you pay $1000, $2000 for a camera if it didn't do something

>>4437710
Fuji has unreliable autofocus. The screen will say the subject is tracked and focused on (and because it's a screen, you cant really know if it is), the photos come out slightly out of focus. I would rather use a real analog camera than any fuji film.
>1/10th the price
>guaranteed to be in focus every time if you have eyeballs
>ACTUALLY film, not "simulated" film that looks like a snoy with the black level and color channels fucked with

>>4437712
Nah we actually have lives. if you're a beanie weirdo who stands in the corner playing with his camera shooting at furry conventions and taking pics of corners you wont notice any difference between cameras. but if you have kids or even friends suddenly you'll realize why canon has 54% of the market and fuji has 4.5%.

>>4437719
can confirm, have life, sold my x100vi for an olympus om-5 and now wow, amazing, i can rely on autofocus if someone is moving torwards or away from me wow amazing how could fuji not do this

>>4437719
>Kids, pets, birds, friends goofing off
Well there you have it.

>>4437733
Sounds more important than building corners

Anyone can make pretentious art photography with a $25 film SLR, but a good digital camera has a job to do

>>4437793
id go as far to say photography is not real art unless its on film

>>4437807
Printed is what matters.

>>4437809
Prints are obsolete. Real artists display negs.

>>4437818
Powerful cope and a truly tasteless take. Sad!

Local retailer has Canon R3 for $3k now. I am very tempted.

>>4437706
>>4437710
No one is saying the autofocus is unusable, it's just bad by comparison. If you're paying the premium for a product, you want it to be better than it's competitors, but it's not, it's worse. And in the crop sensor market, you are paying a premium for Fuji products. It's just one of a plethora of issues that makes it hard to justify for the pricetag compared to offerings by other manufacturers.

Why did Nikon rework its model naming system? Why would they not make their flagship called the Nikon Z or Nikon Z1, like the Nikon F or Nikon D1? Do they even have a flagship anymore?

>>4437934
Because it makes more sense that higher number = better

>>4437934
But that's not how it was with the DSLRs. They started with the D1 but then it was D2, D3, D4, D5, and finally the D6. Bigger number = better. So yes, the flagship is the Z9.

>>4437943
they should just take a page out of SNOY and make both high and low the co flagships just to cover all the bases.

>>4437943
Not sure if trolling or you really don't get how the mirrorless and DSLR naming systems are different. All of their mirrorless cameras are the letter for the system (Z) and a single number, with the number dictating it's place in the hierarchy with the number being bigger, meaning its higher up. The exception being their APS-C models which no one has ever used so it doesn't matter. Historically, single number cameras e.g F4, D2, D5, have been reserved for flagships, with the number representing the iteration and the letter representing the system, but now almost all their cameras are single number. Basically iteration =/= place in product lineup.

>>4436864
I count by the grams. that's why I have a smol mirroorless apsc with smol lenses. my other camera is a pants pocketable one. I don't use my slr and dslr anymore.

Battery grips are metal?

>>4438001
What do you have? Post smol cams, lads.

>>4438012
And yes that is a home made pro mist filter made with black spray paint.

>>4436848 (OP)
is possible to get good colors on a digital camera ? or am I doomed to either shoot b&w or go analog ? What's the trick to it ? Is it merely good light ?

>>4438018
Get a Fuji. Lots of colour tweaks you can do I'm sure you will find something that you like.

>>4437997
But that also isn't how it was, because a D90 wasn't better than a DX00. The mirrorless system is much simpler. Two digits = crop, single digit = full frame, higher number = better

>>4438018
yes, you're just a retard.

>>4438018
>good colors on a digital camera
What do you mean by good colours? As in accurate? Or are you wanting 'le vibes' or 'le filmic' colour grading?

>>4438024
no u

>>4438026
I feel like film camera grading is just too good, pic related was taken with an olympus af-10, fuji 400 and scanned with a super basic print scanner and the colors are miles better than anything I could do with my pentax k5

>>4438021
i've got a fuji x100, I'm not really sure if I can tweak much colors with it since it's pretty old

>>4438028
Have you tried using the colour grading section in lightroom? To replicate that you might try something like tinting the shadows blue and the highlights yellow slightly.

>>4438030
I use rawtherapee and yeah I know about color toning. I think it's more about how the colors are stored in relation to each over on film vs digital
idk something like that

>>4438031
I don't know how rawtherapee works but with lightroom you can download other people's presets to use on your photos. It might be worth finding some film ones you like either to use or to learn how to make your own. I don't typically use film sims but when I was messing around I found this one for Cinestill 800T, and while the photo itself doesn't really look like in the sense of its texture and grain, I think it replicates the colours of that particular stock pretty well and does an OK job at the tonality, though it's a little more contrasty than the real thing I think.

>>4438032
yeah I came to the same conclusion, I also have some shots left on my current film roll so I should look about making my own, thanks

>>4438028
If you don't think you could get that with your K5, you need to learn how to edit
Or if you're lazy, just find some presets you like

>>4438029
The newer models added additional control like blue chrome to give a more filmic look.

>>4438029
https://fujixweekly.com/recipes/
See if you like any of these and buy camera with the relevant sensor.

>>4438031
>the soul of film argument
Schizophrenia. Digital can recreate it in every sense.

>>4438021
You can do all of those “color tweaks” on any other body this fuji special colors meme needs to die already, anll modern (last 10 or more years) give you flexible enough RAW to fit to your taste.
Unless you’re shooting JPEG in which case how dare you even speak.

>>4438018
Just use the fucking camera

How big of a difference is it between the canon ef 24-70 mark i and ii?

>>4438048
It's a pretty big difference in image quality. Funnily enough the original 28-70/2.8 from the 90s has better IQ than the the 24-70 mark 1 that replaced it. It also doesn't get the flex cable issue that both of its successors get, however most of them were beat up and used to death, and they're not weather sealed. To answer your question, yes, there's a reason for the massive price difference. The mk1 is just okay, fine, and the mkii is one of the best zooms ever made.

>>4438050
This applies to pretty much all the EF zooms in later years. The 16-35mki is soft, the original 70-200/2.8 is soft, the mki 24-105, and on and on. Makes you wonder what they were huffing over there at canon. Maybe it was going from film to digital, digital made the warts obvious

>>4438050
>Fall for the DSLR meme
>find out the 3 standard zooms you have to choose from are either all destroyed or defective by design, one of them is soft as shit, and the other 2 are merely as sharp as the mirrorless kit lens
Many such cases

Mirrorless is an upgrade in every way, and with what retards charge for the 5div/6dii, the same price lol
>inb4 5diii/5dii
Same perf as micro four thirds, save your money. Shoot olympus.
>5dC
At least it's a classic digishit and $200

>>4438053
Lame bait, but no one is this retarded. Your routine needs work lil bro.

>>4438051
>>4438053
Can confirm. Bought a RF 100-400 about a year ago and was decently impressed. Online articles said it was shit for a couple reasons. Figured I'd get something pro-tier to replace it.

Enter the EF 70-200 f/4 IS. Every single review says this is one of the sharpest lenses ever to grace the earth. Even recent reviews from this decade jerk it off like the 4th coming of Christ.
Now, it *is* very good. But modern mirrorless lenses keep up with it very well, especially in the center. Center performance between the EF 70-200 and my kit lens is almost identical wide open.

For so much extra weight, size, and needing an adapter, it's like maybe a 25% IQ increase... in the corners. My suspicion is the 20 year old lens cant keep pace with the higher megapickles and sensor improvements. Just buy native for max performance.

>>4438054
>i-its bai-
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1222&Camera=1508&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=979&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
RF mount kit zoom is sharper than the best 24-70 f2.8 canon made for EF - with both at f4.

Mirrorless lens designs are VASTLY superior to DSLR glass. The mirror box is an immense obstacle to optical decency. Because of this, a micro four thirds camera will take noticeable sharper pics than an FF camera, and if you use a good sensor (IE: olympus/OM system) the "worse noise" isn't even noticeable in real photography

Bring on the dpreview test scene screenshots, but if you ever open those raws they use yourself, you'll find... they fucking underexpose them. Every single one. When they test micro four thirds cameras, they dim the lights, and then push exposure to make them noisier to hide the ACTUAL FACT (PROVEN BY BILL CLAFF, A SCIENTIST, NOT AN AMAZON MARKETING EMPLOYEE LIKE DPREVIEW) that micro four thirds has the SAME DYNAMIC RANGE AS APS-C.

>>4438056
Not reading that lil bro

>>4438056
Lol the state of dslrnosaurs

>>4438057
Micro four thirds has the same dynamic range as aps-c (minus one ISO setting) and sharper lenses than DSLRs
Dpreview purposefully fudges their studio scene by dimming the lights and then pushing exposure to make cameras they dislike look noisier

>>4438060
Micro four thirds also has more dynamic range than old shitty canon sensors lol
>5dii/5diii: "Enough for pros enough for y-"
>OM-5/OM-1: "NOOOO MICRO FOUR THIRDS IS BAD BECAUSE THE UH... TONALTIY QUANTIZATION" dog.jpg

>>4438048
Just get an OM5, the mark ii is coming out soon so they're even better value. They have faster AF than any sony mirrorless, better colours than any c*non ever made, a bigger and better lens selection than Nikon and 2 stops better noise performance than any the next best f*ll fr*me system. You also don't need to set your aperture for anything other than exposure because even at f/0.95 you get more in-focus area than f8 on f*ll fr*me. Its the obvious solution for professionals and beginners alike. It's also small enough to fit in your jacket with any lens.

>>4438050
I only buy primes so I can’t speak of the 28-70 but WHAT

I have only ever seen Canon glass get sharper and less CA. The old FD lenses were super soft and had so much CA. The old analog EF lenses were so soft. The lenses from the early DSLR days also didn’t have the fine uumf kick in sharpness. The modern mirrorless RF might have slightly declined due to being smaller but after that they too only ever got better

>>4438056
>>4438053
Wow old DSLRs are shit. No wonder they’re cheap
>/p/ will shill mft image quality for an mft price as long as its a canon blob
Is it retardation or mft shill reverse psychology? traumatizing people with mft tier ff so they dont ever pursue ff and go to mft?

ignore old dslr shit buy a ff mirrorless to properly btfo the fool turds. sony a7cii = best camera ever made.

>>4438063
Yes it's all true, I would post graphs but literally everyone doing benchmarks on lenses and bodies are soured rogue traders involved in a global conspiracy against Olympus imaging linked to their embezzlement scandal. DSLRs are utter garbage, they're even less repairable and have worse build quality than the Pen EPL series, and they have less weather sealing.

>>4438064
Nope sorry, utter junk and completely BTFO'd by the OM5 mark ii. Worse AF, worse build quality, no 5 axis image stabilisation, shit snoy lenses. OM5 is the obvious choice.

>>4438065
The om5 is a rebranded camera from 2016 you retard it cant even keep up with the a7iii unless you score cameras based on gimmicks and hypothetical narrow scope landscape/building corner photogtaphy applications
>well uh if its a building corner and you arent allowed to use a tripod and you arent allowed to have less DOF (because you arent) it - oh no 33mp looks better than 20mp i still lose. and i already lost the other 99% of the time. noooo!
>-micro fool turds and cannot blobslr shills crumbling before the a7cii

>>4438066
> That guy who brings a tripod on a date

>>4438069
Bitches call me tripod cause I got three legs.

>>4438069
Yeah, I do, because with this bad boy i can take a sick bokeh portrait of me and my gf without cucking out and using an iphone tier lens with weird distortion and no bokeh. Im not ashamed of being a photo geek. I own it. Bitches love bokeh.

Even when i used micro four thirds i used a tripod because its infinite ibis stops and i can take real photos with me in them instead of shitty 20mm lense selfies

Ibis is a gimmick for angsty emo kids who think photos of building corners are art
ironically i have never seen a building corner or landscape that could not be shot at iso 100 f/11 1/15 at least, well within the reach of ancient sony 2 stop ibis and definitely easy for the a7cii’s 7 stop ibis. what is the real world use case for equivalence? none. modern ff mirrorless steamrolls the competition. micro four thirds can only compete with Dog Sexing Loser Retard cameras like the D750 and 5DIII.

Got an AE-1 today and the metering only works intermittently when I tilt the camera downwards. Please help because mod on this board is a faggot and would probably delete the thread if I started a new one. Bad connection that can be rectified with some contact cleaner or something else?

>>4438076
The dog sexing loser retards here dont know small tripods exist. They need a big metal piece of construction equipment to hold up their blobmera.

>>4438077
Return it or flip it for a profit and buy an om-4 or fm3a. Early canon cameras were NOT well made. If you fix the meter the mirror or shutter magnet will break next.

>>4438079
Flipping is exactly what I do. I have had great success with these particular cameras in the past, rarely nothing wrong except for a flat battery, but this one not so much. Wasn't a huge loss as it came in a bundle. The problem is just so weird. I have pretty much narrowed it down to being related to the shutter button and metering. Sometimes it fires at a fixed speed no matter what i select, even in bulb mode, then it might not want to fire at all until i wiggle it around a bit. Thinking gunk under the shutter release mechanism. Spraying it with contact cleaner seemed to make it better for a short while. Pointing the camera upwards disables the metering it seems as I can hear it when half-pressing.

>>4438076
IBIS is a video feature. Photography doesnt need more than 2-3 stops of stabilization unless you’re an autistic.
>inb4 generic waterfall photos
Pocket tripod does 20 seconds when ibis only does 2. Foolturds btfo by sonyGODS.

>>4436991
Using a spot meter on DSLR + Zone system makes DSLR super easy to get really nice exposure. Remember your meter is measuring for middle gray at EV-0. On a typical camera at ISO 100 you can get about 3 stops above EV-0, 2 stops at ISO 3200 for high end cameras from 2015ish or practically any modern camera.
So treat EV+3 to EV+2 as Zone IX, and Zone V will be EV-1 to EV-2.
Easy mode: point the spot meter at the brightest thing you care to preserve tone for, place it at EV+3 to EV+2, point it at t he brightest thing you care to preserve texture for, see that is 1 stop lower than the prior step. If it's not, use your judgement. An afternoon of practice should get even a beginner photographer a feel for it.
Super easy mode: get a camera with highlight metering mode.
Advanced mode: Learn where objects typically fall in the zone system, e.g. caucasian skin in sunlight is typically zone VI, shadowed skin is zone IV. Weathered wood is Zone V.
Expert mode: creatively decide what zones you're going to place different parts of your photo in.

Any metering other than spot metering is a mistake. Only use them when you don't care about taking a good picture.

What would it be like to use a 400mm without IS on a Canon R7? Obviously IBIS isn't really for long lenses, but would it at least make the viewfinder a bit calmer?

>>4438082
Mirrorless has spot meters too or you can just stop wasting time and look at the screen

SLRs were good for film because any exposure would make a nice pic

>>4438083
Eyeing off an old EF 400mm f/5.6 I see.
IBIS ain't gonna do shit. Probably end up saving you a whole stop of SS at most. It probably won't be very helpful in the viewfinder either because of how ineffective it will be, Even my gen I 70-200 f/4 IS *only* has three stops rated and that still leaves the viewfinder wobbling around (but not jittery) at 200mm.
On the plus side, the AF would be pretty good considering mirrorless and the moderately wide aperture. It's a lot of weight and bulk though, why not just buy native mount?

>nikon z7ii on sale for $1800
BROS...

>>4438085
Yes, mirrorless is the same process.
"Just looking at the screen" is a shitty way to get a good exposure. That you're even saying that exposes that you don't know shit about photography and cameras.
Spot metering + Zone System is the best way to get good exposure on both DSLR and mirrorless. Once you learn this technique, you'll really actually start getting pictures that have way more pop to them, and it'll set you apart from other photographers.
Use a dedicated light meter for flash photography.
Metering between DSLRs and Mirrorless use essentially the same techniques technically. You won't find any meaningful difference between them.

>>4438077
If it's only happening when you tilt downwards its probably either a dirty contact or a detached cable somewhere that's making contact when moved by gravity. Get some contact spray but keep said spray out of the finder, prism and focusing screen unless you want to take those apart and clean them as even "residue free" non-conductive cleaners like the ones from WD40 leave some residue if you use enough.

>>4438079
>Early canon cameras were NOT well made
What does that have to do with the AE1?
>fm3a
one of the most expensive and fragile SLRs ever made, absolutely littered with issues, shutter blade failures, springs loosing tension... stupid recommendation. all om4's come from the factory with a stupid battery drain issue so also stupid.

>>4438086
>why not just buy native mount?
money

>>4438088
>"Just looking at the screen" is a shitty way to get a good exposure.
No, it's a great way. Maybe if you wasted your money on a "nikon" you're stuck guessing with the jpeg histogram or using fucking uniWB and stop-counting zone system spot meter faggotry, but sony has zebras in stills mode. If you set custom level 107+, blinkies correspond to blown highlights in the raw.

Or, just don't do that, and stop worrying about optimizing SNR like a fag.

>Metering between DSLRs and Mirrorless use essentially the same techniques technically. You won't find any meaningful difference between them.
This is absolutely incorrect outside of autistic landscape photographer SNR optimization. With a DSLR you have to chimp to make sure multi metering isn't being an idiot. With a mirrorless you can see if its fucking up before you take the picture and just the exposure dial. It's just better.

And no, "use the spot meter and count stops for the special 14 zone digital zone system" is NOT an alternative to just using the screen.
>honey, take the picture
>not yet sweetie i haven't made sure i exposed to the right without clipping the green channel -DSLR users

>>4438092
gotta ettr uniwb in mirror lockup exposure delay mode and check the per channel histograms to ensure maximum definition and minimal noise on ur tree leaves at 800% zoom bro DSLRs are great bro
>Dogfucker750 still has worse shadow noise than $600 Z6 mk 1

>>4438092
Chimping/exposure review mode is less of a waste of time than using the spot meter desu, exposure preview mode is still superior

>>4438088
turbo cope
>linux is just as good as real UNIX, now give me a few hours to optimize my gentoo install

>Someone fell for husky rapists DSLR shilling
>now /p/ is redpilled on DSLRs being shit and husky rapist being a shitty poser fauxtographer gearfag
Bbbbbbbbased! House of cards go down

>>4438092
Ironically, upping exposure until you're just below clipping, by looking for zebras/highlights, is essentially ETTR technique that is about SNR optimization.
And it sucks. Because:
1) cameras don't reproduce tones very well at the upper regions of their DR range. Which Zone system comes in handy here, because you're going to put textures a full stop down from the upper limits of a camera's DR, and you're going to place near-white tones near the limit. Getting your clouds to be in Zone 8 vs. Zone 9 because you just used ETTR with zebras means you preserve a lot of "pop" in the clouds.
2) The more you push shadows, the muddier and flatter the colors get, and you lose "pop" in the image. Even on your greatest Snoys.
Just because you have 12 stops of dynamic range (and if your camera manufacturer says 14 stops, it really means you have 12 stops) at ISO 100 doesn't mean that more than 8 stops will look good when pushed. Coincidentally you only need about 8 stops of "pushes with good quality" when using the zone system.
But this means when you shoot at higher than ISO 100, you already need to start questioning your shadows.
You can't do this if you're only paying attention to clipping highlights. You need to spot meter and figure out where your shadows are and how you want to represent them.
It will also inform you if you need to use exposure bracketing.
Seriously, this will give your pictures way more "pop" and your pictures will start to look *good*. It will be glaringly obvious when compared side-by-side with people shooting without awareness with the Zone system and using ETTR technique.
> And no, "use the spot meter and count stops for the special 14 zone digital zone system" is NOT an alternative to just using the screen.
Just looking at the screen isn't an alternative to using the zone system.
It's not that hard.

>>4438092
>not yet sweetie i haven't made sure i exposed to the right without clipping the green channel -DSLR users
Zone system is distinctly different than ETTR.
You seriously don't know what you're talking about.
It's also pretty quick with some practice. Usually you can look at a highlight and say, "I want this to be zone 8, so that's EV+2," or "I want this shadow to be zone III, So I'm going to put that EV-3 or EV-4 depending on the contrast of the scene," or just defaulting skin in sunlight to EV-1 (a safe zone VI from ISO 100-800).

>>4438101
>Ironically, Sony mirrorless lets you ETTR easier
That's cool, and its just overall proof that mirrorless makes getting good exposure significantly less time wasting.
>cameras don't reproduce tones very well at the upper regions of their DR range.
If you shoot jpeg. If you overexpose an image without clipping and -1 in a raw editor, it looks the same as a normally exposed image if it were shot at a lower ISO. Raw files are just numbers dude. That's it. If your RGB numbers are 25 25 25 or 50 50 50 and then made 25 25 25 in the raw editor its the same numbers. Because cameras add noise (errors), normally exposed RGB would be more like 27 23 30 and overexposed RGB would be more like 51 50 50, and then you'd be seeing off 27 23 30 vs more accurate 25.5 25 25. You would only have shitty tones if you overexposed one color channel, which is why if you see clipping in live view, go down until it vanished and then maybe down another half stop.
>2) The more you push shadows-
That's because the shadows are noisier and noise = less accurate/fewer colors.
>Just because you have 12 stops-
It's 14-16.
>it really means you have 12 stops
No, it's 14-16.
>BUT THEY DONT LOOK GOOD
That's because you're not meant to push the bottom 14th stop up to middle gray, you retard. You're not meant to bring the deepest blacks up to middle brightness like ISO invariance memers pretend you can.

>You need to spot meter and figure out where your shadows are and how you want to represent them.
No, you do not have to, and should not, waste your time doing this on a digital camera. This is a method for FILM because of how developing and darkroom printing works with film's dynamic range. It does not apply to digital cameras. Digital cameras record numbers, that's it. You have clipping (when the photon counter overflows and can not store any more charge) and the noise floor (where you cant tell if the photon counter counted a photon or just had an ambient fuckup). That's it.

>>4438102
The zone system does not apply to digital cameras you actual retard.

>>4438103
And lastly, how is live view better than this time wasting spot meter autism? And how is it better than using a DSLRs OVF meter?

Because your eyeballs are much better at knowing how your photo should look than a computer program running off a photosensor chip in a nikon dogfuckslr. A DSLR can not be trusted. It may think your subject should be bright or dark depending on the color of their clothing or something, it's just not accurate. That's why YOU waste your time spot metering... and everyone else just bought a camera that isn't a hideous 3lb blob that looks like a sex toy and sounds like a typewriter.

Dslr = real photographers camera
Mirrorless = glorified point and shooters camera

>>4436848 (OP)
Hello friends, i

>>4438108
*picked up a Fuji XE4 as my first camera, guy was selling a 23mm 1.4 with it. Overall it cost me 1k, is this a decent deal? Im also thinking about buying a 18-55m zoom lens, or would you recommend something else?

let me guess, you "need" more

>>4438103
> If you shoot jpeg. If you overexpose an image without clipping and -1 in a raw editor, it looks the same as a normally exposed image if it were shot at a lower ISO.
Except it doesn't. There's a few reasons for this. Gamma, demosaicing, OECF function, etc.
Gamma: RAW files are mostly linear, but when you gamma correct, you end up "compressing" the higher values and expanding the lower values.
Demosaicing: If a color channel or neighboring pixels are clipped, demosaicing has to assume it's an error. It will correct that by desaturating nearby pixels. To prevent banding, it'll do this to an extent to even non-clipped pixels. Essentially the closer to white something is, the more desaturated demosaicing makes it.
So if you want better tonality (especially as the texture of something becomes important), you want tot keep it out of the higher ranges of dynamic range. Keep things that are actually supposed to be white or near white in the top stop or two of dynamic range.
>>it really means you have 12 stops
>No, it's 14-16.
Take your 14-16 stop advertised dynamic range and look at photons to photos or such other actual measurements of stops and it'll likely, realistically, measure 12 stops.
>>4438106
Zone system is still relevant in digital photography.
The point of the Zone system was to manage representation of the tones of a scene, despite the limitations of the representation (film realistically had 10-12 stops of dynamic range, you could get much, much more, but that became expensive, time consuming, and tedious. Was easier to just use the zone system).
As digital sensors still aren't limited, and actually do have similar limits to film, Zone system remains relevant. The limits are different -- ie. it was more important to protect shadows on film, and more important to protect highlights on digital, but the system to help us manage it all still applies.

>>4438110
>>4438109
>>4438108
Wow cool cameras!

>>4438111
>Gamma: RAW files are mostly linear, but when you gamma correct, you end up "compressing" the higher values and expanding the lower values.
>Demosaicing: If a color channel or neighboring pixels are clipped, demosaicing has to assume it's an error. It will correct that by desaturating nearby pixels. To prevent banding, it'll do this to an extent to even non-clipped pixels. Essentially the closer to white something is, the more desaturated demosaicing makes it.
Do you use darktable? Because this is what using darktable does to your brain. Competent raw editors do this after applying exposure corrections so +1 in camera -1 in post looks the same as +/-0 in camera with less noise.
>Take your 14-16 stop advertised dynamic range and look at photons to photos or such other actual measurements of stops and it'll likely, realistically, measure 12 stops.
Bill Claff's DR measurement is overly pessimistic. Everyone else counts the last two stops because we know they're not meant to be pushed up very far anyways, and aren't in real artistic use. Maybe if you are doing astrophotography, you should take his charts at face value for more than comparison purposes.

And lastly, what is this actually about?
Spot metering vs just looking at fucking live view
Spot metering is a horrendous waste of time and modern live view basically does the same thing
>Zone system remains relevant
No it doesn't because film is real exposure of real chemicals to real light and digital just counts quantum ballwaves of energy.

>>4438106
DSLR meters are fairly accurate, within 1/3 stop typically. That's realistically good enough for the vast majority of photography. You obviously just don't understand how they work. The caveat is that no, it doesn't know how bright a shirt is, but it's trying to find "middle gray". That's what the Zone system is used for -- it helps you recognize how to place tonality. Middle Gray is Zone V, average Caucasian skin in sunlight is Zone VI, so on your DSLR meter it will read as +1 when you are exposing middle gray = Zone V = EV-0. You can memorize how different things fall along the Zone system and use that for referencing exposure.
(Or just bring a middle gray card).
The screen doesn't give a good representation of exposure, or of how things will look when you start moving around tones in post. (This is why a lot of cameras even offer false color, to help you understand what exposure is actually happening).
Your mirrorless camera doesn't have its own meter for shits and giggles intending you to use just the screen. It has its own meter because it's a powerful yet simple tool.
If you're looking at the screen and just saying, "yeah, that looks good," trust me, you're leaving A LOT on the table and you have no fucking idea what you're talking about if you don't recognize that.

>>4438115
Sometimes I do the ballwave to your mother.

whenever I don't control the lighting I just set -2EV in camera and don't worry about it
>>4438081
why do people keep saying IBIS is for video
it makes the video wobbly

>>4438116
DSLR spot meter are accurate. DSLR evaluative meters are garbage.
>The screen doesn't give a good representation of exposure, or of how things will look when you start moving around tones in post.
Unless you are shooting 10/8 bit video, or, maybe nikons are that shit, but generally yes they do. Its really easy to tell if you're clipping the reds in someones skin with a competently made camera.

DSLRs are just inconvenient and inefficient cameras with a lot of "if and but" attached to photography, now more necessary than it ever was for film and its massive exposure latitude (+negs = raw, labs = lightroom)

>If you're looking at the screen and just saying, "yeah, that looks good," trust me, you're leaving A LOT on the table and you have no fucking idea what you're talking about if you don't recognize that.
I have an a7c myself and live view blinkies perfectly correspond to highlight clipping. High DRO settings show me how much shadow detail the camera can see. Screen works good. DSLR evaluative? Untrustworthy.

>>4438120
Because stills shooters rarely need a shutter speed that's more than 2-3 stops under the 1/flen rule, OIS is more effective with telephotos, and it's mostly marketed to vloggers that just hold the camera at arms length with an UWA.

>>4438122
ok, have fun taking mediocre photos.
I tried to show you the light.

>>4438126
Your entire spiel was based on an incorrect darktable configuration apparently

Exposure correction is applied before not after other transforms so +1 in camera and -1 in post does not have worse saturation or anything (as long as you don't clip any color channels). Going a half or full stop under the sony blinkies is as safe as using uniWB and spot meters has ever been. If your camera is so shit you absolutely need that last 1/2 stop of SNR improvement, well, you're doing astro, or it's time to move on from a 5d3 to a om5.

>>4438129
>>4438126
You guys should have a photo battle.

>>4438130
Are you a filthy dogposter?

>>4438133
Are you a filthy nophoto? Solve your argument like true men and post a photo.

there is no Nikon glass

>>4437266
>53.4mm x 40mm
Copium

>56 x 41.5mm (6x4.5)
It would match the film size, but not be much better. Still "mini medium" format IMO.
>56mm x 56mm (6x6)
This would be amazing and holy shit I want it.
>56mm x 84mm (6x9)
This would be even cooler.
>56mm x 168mm (6x17)
YES PLEASE

It would be amazing if manufacturers actually started making larger sensors in bulk though. Imagine having 56x41.5 being the norm. Not for "medium format", but just for full frame capturing more of the image circle. With more captured, you could choose how to crop later regardless of how the camera were held during the shoot.
Remember rotating the camera 90 degrees is only required because your sensor is cropping what the lens sees.. imagine not having to worry about that? literally EVER AGAIN? 56x56 would be best, but even cut down 41.5 due to binning/whatever you'd still have ~20% extra room vs the longest side of a 35mm sensor, and that means not only could you choose orientation after cropping but also rotate to align horizons if needed with less of the image lost to cropping.

>>4438168
You have 100k laying around for a sensor?

>>4438168
I don't give a shit about going larger than FF because of the lens selection, but I'd love a square sensor that FF lenses would cover. It would be a little smaller than 35x35mm so when cropping down to 3:2 it would be slightly less wide but I can deal with that.

>>4438172
There's many good reasons to keep sensors small. Maybe one day there will actually be good <2 micron/sub micron pixel pitch sensors and you can have all your pickles and eat them too.

>>4438171
The only reason larger sensors cost more is because fewer are made.
It is unreasonable to assume larger sensors have to cost so much more.
Like I said, if they invested in production and started making them the prices would fall and 36x24mm sensors would be the new MFT copetown.

Even a 36x36 sensor would give us the ability to choose our orientation in post but if you're going bigger we might as well get a bit of wiggle room for assisting in composition (rotating for alignment, etc) so 40x40 makes more sense. They already produce 53.4x40 they can easily start pumping out 40x40s if they wanted to.

>>4438172
Yeah, and some smaller sensor cameras offered that feature. It's a shame we don't have it on full frame.
Sometimes I don't even want landscape/portait and would like a fucking square so a square sensor would be amazing. Vignetting and all.

>>4438176
This isn't about megapixels. Also, not every camera needs to be rapid fire. A camera that doesn't need you to sit and artistically level it for the perfect shot or awkwardly rotate it would lead to faster and easier shooting regardless of the potentially slower readout times.
The cons of increased sensor size are always some kind of compromise dependent on "what ifs" but in many cases those "what ifs" don't fucking matter to begin with, so, that's a bad argument.
Sports snapshitters can stick to APS-C if they want.

Digital has utterly failed to deliver us medium format.
The next best thing would be uncropped Full Frame.

>>4438176
>be me
>full frame edgelord
>spend all my days on 4chan making fun of crop sense porofags
>be sony fag, out shooting with friend, my battery dies
>friend lends me his Nikon D7500 he has as a backup, tells me it's a pretty sweet full frame, don't pay much attention to lens that's on it
>back home editing, hey these pictures are pretty nice, I'm impressed by budget Nikon FF DSLR
>tell friend, friend tells me lol joke's on you it's a full frame
>actually call my friend a faggot, tell him I hate his kind of people, that he deserves to be lynched
>he never talks to me again
>lost my friend's respect, but I gained respect for APS-C

>>4438179
It's not just a simple supply and demand and so few are made.
First of all, it basically costs the same amount to process a silicon wafer to make chips, regardless if you make 1,000 chips on that wafer or 100 chips on that wafer. Essentially, you're paying for the area.
But then there's X number of errors per Y unit of area. And smaller chips = more chips per area = more chips per error. So as chip size goes up, you get fewer chips per error. So yield goes down as area of chip goes up, and thus chips actually get *more expensive* as area of chip goes up.
Essentially, there's "overhead" in waste in chip production that's proportional to the area of a chip.

Essentially, bigger sensors are fucking expensive. Simple as that.

>>4438179
Bigger sensors = more rejects = more costs, probably exponentially higher failure with size. There is not much way around this.

Square sensor idea is cool.

Extra jumbo sensors lead to mega big cameras with very shallow dof. May as well lug around a view camera with anything bigger than 67 at that point.

>>4438179
Consider that a 50mm FF FoV on 6x17 is 200mm. Shit gets crazy with big sensors.

Internet camera communities are full of faggots.
>Be me, do research, buy Sony FF for $1500 used based on opinions of youtube and internet at large
>eventually some ape steals it and all my lenses
>don't have money right now for a new one
>dad buys me a Pentax KF for my birthday because he used pentax back in the day
>ok SLR is kind of weird and feels like cavemen tech
>don't notice any difference in quality
>my photos are actually better for some reason I don't understand
>camera that costs $600 new does just as well as a camera 3x its price.

>>4438207
BUT MUH DYNAMIC RANGE AND SNR CHARTS

On a budget for something for general day to day photos and family shots. I only want SOOC JPEGs—no interest in Lightroom.

Must have a viewfinder in the middle of the camera. No rangefinders.

Considering pic related.

What else should I consider?

>>4438299
Pentax cameras and Sigma's foveon cameras also make good SOOC JPEG machines.

>>4438299
>general day to day photos and family shots
iPhone is what you want

>>4437499
Search your favorite shopping sites for "camera shoe cover"

>Yo, dawg. I heard you like cameras.

Just bought a 5D MARK IV for 720
How fucked am i ?

>>4438333
idk but now you can post about how superior Canon colors are without posting pictures so that's a plus I guess

>>4438333
Depends, how many exposures does it have

>>4438325
kys

>>4438342
no one in your ugly family cares if their picture got taken with a shitty smartphone or a proper camera

>>4438168
>>4438171
>>4438179
>>4438184
>>4438186
>The only reason larger sensors cost more is because fewer are made.
to expand on what the other anons said
the cost of a single chip basically has three parts (ignoring any tech licensing):
>1. development costs
>2. raw manufacture cost
>3. manufacture loss compensation
first one is constant for a given design, other two decrease roughly by the area of the chip
third one increases by the area of the chip: errors are constant rate based on surface area of wafer, one error = useless chip
let's make up some numbers
say you manufacture 500k of a 10x10mm chip, 100 per wafer, that cost 5mil to develop and 5k per wafer to manufacture, at a failure rate of 1 error per wafer
minimum cost of each chip is then
(dev cost + (per-wafer cost * (chip count / chips per wafer))) / (chip count * (chips per wafer - bad chips per wafer) / chips per wafer) = 60.61 per chip
increase the chip size to 20x20mm and now you can fit a little less than a quarter of the count per wafer (square chip on round wafer); assuming 20 per this gives you 273.68 per chip
super rough approximation with unrealistic numbers but you get the idea

Tempting. If only it didn't have such a shitty minimum focus distance.

If only canon had a Z7 equivalent.

>>4438354
bro wants to take macro shots with an 800mm lens

>>4438362
It's 6 fucking meters.

>>4438364
That's still probably fine for portraits with 800mm, right?

>>4438354
>>4438362
>>4438367
you could use this lens to make portraits if you spontaneously had to shoot a portrait and had nothing else at hand. But don't buy this lens for the purpose of shooting portraits, don't even buy it as a dual purpose lens. You'd be disappointed.

>>4438369
I'm the guy who posted that listing and am only considering it for wildlife, some other troll brought up portraits.

>>4438299
>general day to day photos and family shots. I only want SOOC JPEGs
just use your phone. skip the fuji meme.

this body with canon internals desu

whenever I see girls wielding a camera, 9 out of 10 times it's a Nikon
why is that?

>>4438404
because nikons are cute

Would you rather get a hasselblad h6d or 907x?

>>4438402
literally entry-level tier body.
S1 had a much superior body and it's a shame what Panasonic did to the S1ii to turn it into a budget Sony.
>>4438404
What are you talking about. Girls are what keep Canon relevant.

what strength ND do I want for a xf35mmf1.4 and xf18mmf2? One ND to use with both. For shooting bokeh portraits in full sunlight.

>>4438408
>S1 had a much superior body
Alright, that then.

>>4438402
>>4438408
But the Pentax K1/ii is actual peak photo-centric body.
>>4438409
just get VND lol. Even better a VND/CPL hybrid is very useful.

>>4438407
by far 907x. The amount of money some people still want for their 4 generation old dslr cameras is bonkers

>>4438409
None? Iso 100 & put the lens to f2.8 to get more sharpness out of it. They easily have the right sxposure with a fast exposure. No ND needed.

>>4438409
The amount of stops you now have to stop down but don't want to.

>>4438412
No ovf seems kinda gay tho

>>4436848 (OP)
just got mine

>>4438012
just an xf10, a6k for digital. that nx looks nice bro.

>>4438407
>>4438415
the h6d is one of those cameras that honestly should be worth like 1.6k-2k ... like several hundred bucks more expensive than fullframe dlsrs from the same era. But sellers mostly want $6k for it.

Honestly, I'd say make lowball offers to humiliate sellers and then buy a 907x instead in the end

I think I wanna be a Nikon guy.

>>4438507
I think you can get the body for that much or maybe a bit more, but the 100MP sensor on the back is what makes it very expensive. I feel like I would enjoy using the h6d more than the 907x. H6d can also shoot 645 film.
On the other hand the only camera I have that is somewhat similar in terms of it's form factor function as a 100% liveview/touch screen focusing are my 2MP digishitters and my phone. Kind of funny if you think about if. Could be fun and unique for me in a way. I wish I could go somewhere to try both!

Any Fuji's that have the guts for doing wildlife?

Do the new 40mp Fuji cameras have a 24mp or 26mp jpeg or raw option under the Settings menu? 40mp seems too big for casual snapshits

>>4438434
>look up Ali Express
>all 4 cats available for a buck each
>add all to cart plus some other items
>go to checkout
>none of your items are available

>why…

>>4438785
they all should have a large, medium and small options for JPGs, yes

Poorfag that's never owned a camera before. I bought an old fujifilm that only took XD picture cards so I resold it.
Instead of dealing with buying used again, I'm thinking of buying a new camera. Anything that stands out around the $100 mark?

>>4439081
lol

I kind of want to get a mirrorless camera, but I don't really know what's good or not.
What's the best value, used or new, right now?
I've seen a couple of Nikon ZF on marketplace for about $1400, and it camera looks pretty cool, but idk if it's good or not.
I also see canon r50s for like $500, but idk if it's any good (for that price I'm guessing bad).
I also saw that the Panasonic S9 for $1000 on eBay, and it's full frame? So that seems quite cheap. Does it suck really badly?

>>4439247
Micro four thirds is the greatest camera ever made. OM professional imaging system to be exact. Get it. You will become everything you've ever wanted to become as a photographer and more.

>>4439081
new? maybe an entry level smartphone or a dumbphone for the digishit aesthetic

Is there ever a reason to go for a M43 camera if I don't have weak little baby hands and noodle arms?

>>4439781
The mft camera is the grandest of all cameras. It is truly a master of all. My one critique about the system is that I can't use my camera as a barbell anymore! It is far too portable and lightweight compared to anything else.

>>4439781
strangely, I prefer the 4:3 ratio, and also like the digital "grain" of their old cameras, but of course that's subjective.

>looking for a good low light lens
>hey bro have you tried this f4 or higher lens
Are you people fucking retarded
Low light needs f/1.4 minimum

>>4440674
>Low light needs f/1.4 minimum
maybe if you are on crop sensor lmao got'em

>>4440674
What mount and focal length?

>>4437296
Pick a lens that isn't ass that doesnt make the GFX look so bad. And then you're still gonna have to get an actual FF with it's own lens. Again, this comes down to lenses. To replace my lightweight inexpensive 85mm 1.8, I'd need the 110mm 2.0, which will be a ~1.6 85mm. But it's more than double the weight and 4400 AUD and around 7400 AUD for the body for a marginal improvement over my inexpensive lightweight budget lens. Not only do I not have the money for that, and having poor performance vs weight, I can better spend much less money on more significant lens upgrades than the GFX has in their system

Is it safe to buy a nikon d600? All the ones with the oily/dusty shutter problems were trashed years ago, right? Or are they still out there?