Post all your insecure Sony rants and hot Fuji takes in here.

>>4438543 (OP)
One should only be allowed to have opinions on ecosystems that you have personally tried.

And as a hobby enthusiast you should try all the ecosystems. Spend a year with Canon, spend a year with Snoy, spend a year with a Leica M11, spend a year with a Hassy.

Buy and sell stuff constantly. <gearfag rant over>

>>4438543 (OP)
no photo
no opinion

>>4438544
What if my hobby is photography and not gear?

>>4438558
valid. But then don't have opinions on the gear that you haven't tried.

Canon is the Superior choice.
Small lens, cheap and high IQ.

Doghair photo mogs all anti gear gearfags. he thinks he needs medium format digital to take snapshits of his dog, sure, it seems bizarre, but he also at least attempts photography. anti-gear gearfags and shit camera copers (ie fuji/mft shills) dont post photos at all. maybe doghair is on to something that makes photography more enjoyable.

until the shit camera copers and anti gear gearfags can post more and better photos than what doghair and his $20,000 of large and medium format gear typically produce, logic dictates we should be taking him more seriously and engaging in excessive gearfaggotry by buying the really expensive, over specced cameras we actually want to make photography more fun.

>>4438566
Can you share some of the photos you've posted?

I just ordered a Zf, all you poorfags can suck my dick.

All the recent Fuji talk has got me using my Pro2/3 edc for last week or so
I think the Pro2 will go down as one of my all time favorites, the hybrid OVF + ERF is just such a good shooting experience and not really found on any other system yet
Pro3 is a good example of better on paper (better specs / performance), but just so much worse in practice
Hoping they don't fuck up with the Pro4 (lol x-e5), but I know they will

>>4438563
RF has been a bit of a disappointment really. Shitty narrow max apertures on most lenses. heavy reliance on distortion correction, and for some retarded reason coma on everything until you stop down to like f/8. Maybe L-tier RF shit is free of this nonsense.

>>4438576
Post building corners.

>>4438566
It's true, he has no shame. And he keeps posting because he thinks his cameras make his photos better. The people who don't post actually have equally bad pictures.

>>4438566
I don't think I need MF to take pics of my dog. I just really like how the pictures look from them and have fun using those cameras the most. Get a pentax 645D and see what mf is all about. They aren't that expensive and you get 50 whole megapickles.
The only camera I "need" to use are 4x5 and 8x10 because I love making contact prints. I have the absolute most fun using them. So much fun that I'm satisfied with taking one or two pictures in a day! Limit yourself to only a couple pictures in a day. It's a pretty interesting limitation to impose on yourself.
I guess I could print digital negatives, but I would rather spend the money on film instead of ink and an expensive printer that won't even get close to the quality of my real cameras.

Yeah. Don't take yourself too seriously, buy the cameras you want, and take the pictures you want. Have fun. Create something meaningful! That's what hobbies are for.
Just look at how many people's heads my dog and I live rent free in because I am simply taking and sharing the photographs/prints I want to take. They love saying my pictures suck, but they will never give any meaningful criticism or share their work.
I'll tell you right now it is not because my pictures are that terrible. My photography could be better, of course, but so could yours and everyone else who posts on here!
I think it is pretty immature to care so much and obsess over how good or bad another person's work is. It's not a competition. The sane adults are in it to have fun, talk about something most of us really enjoy and maybe make a few bucks if we're lucky!

>>4438582
Tremendous cope. Go look in fgt I posted some nice pics. Give me some real criticism about them. :D And maybe post a few photos.

Oh yeah, I sold my first albumen print of eggs the other day. :D

Mftrannies and fujisisters, can we defeat him?

>>4438543 (OP)
I want a low light event camera to finally move on from my old ass Sony a850.

I am so confused by the marketing, I thought the a7s series was meant to excel in low light? I have no interest in videography and saw the normal a7iii does just as good...

What is the point of this? Should I get a used a7iii or an a7sii or is there an alternative in another brand since I am changing everything anyway?

>>4438597
We can have an egg photo battle if you want. That could be fun.

>>4438576
what about the xpro3 do you think is worse in practice? i started with the 3, switched to 2, and now use the 2 and frequently have to resist the urge to switch back to 3. i loved how the 3 felt, but was plagued by reliability/longevity glitches and issues

As a longtime anolog fag, I am really impressed with how the Fuji X-trans 5 sensor behaves. It is almost indistinguishable from film in some instances. The film sims are fun.
Fiji's in-camera grain filter has also improved since the previous models.
I think I can get by with it and save money on 35mm film.

>>4438600
"Just get an a7iii" is THE answer to every gear question. A camera so good, nikon rested their hopes and dreams on trying to copy it 4 times (z5, z6, z6ii, z5ii).

If someone has a problem with the a7iii they genuinely have skill issues.

>>4438604
Xtrans 5 = fuji finally achieved 24mp ff resolution. If this looks like 35mm to you and not 120, what crazy iso 25 shit are you shooting?

>>4438572
You'll be happy with it

>>4438606
You're right, these results are closer to medium format film in terms of detail / grain. In the sample image I had grain set to small+weak.
Anyway I'm super happy with the results I've been getting out of it, but my analog cameras have been sadly gathering dust.

>>4438600
I just want to get some seething started early

>>4438600
What aperture and ISO's do you tend to shoot at?

what the fuck is wrong with snoy?

>>4438619
F64 and iso 256k

>>4438622
Neat, most of my lenses don't even go to f64

>>4438623
Skill issue. Your lenses not you.

>>4438624
Very true, I need to level up my gear purchasing

>>4438619
on a850 I basically never went above 1600 because it looked like pure shit even without considering the noise and i don't really have the energy anymore to do 2 days of aggressive editing so save shots. One of the yearly events I do is outside in poorly lit conditions.

>>4438621
Sony has ugly image quality. Snoy cultists cope by screeching about how good the animal asshole AF is

>>4438621
>>4438618
>If you update the camera's ADC by 5 years, it gets slightly less noisy
>if you update the camera's AA filter by 5 years, it handles moire slightly better
However, you get stuck using a NIGGON with a dogshit oversized body, worse AF than a R8, and oversized lenses with no third party

Let's not even get started on canon
>every camera has APS-C DR for the first four stops of ISO at least
>R5II, R1, and R3 have APS-C DR period
>No third party lenses
>Point of mirrorless defeated by first party either being huge and poorly made, or adapted DSLR glass

>>4438634
>I pixel peeped at ISO 102k, and every camera looked like shit but the sony looked slightly MORE shit. that's why you shouldn't spend $900 on an A7III and instead YOUR ONLY OPTIONS ARE TO SPEND $2500 ON NIGGON OR USE MICRO FOUR THIRDS! HA!
But in real life no one pixel peeps test charts at ISO 102k and the A7III did more in revenue than the entire nikon corporation, because no one pixel peeps test charts.

Also, panasonic m43 is a failing business and olympus m43 is a failed business because you dont even have to pixel peep to tell how bad that shit looks.

>>4438636
uh no sweaty i pixel peeped on dpreview and searched high and low for clickbait thumbernails that support my point saar so your only choice is to spend $3000 on canikon or shoot micro four thirds. snoy is bad thats why its the #1 in full frame market share and only 4chan and mu-43 hates it saar.
/s

I don't need high FPS bodies but I also don't understand the point of high DR. High DR shots look ugly, normally I boost contrast a lot. Overexposure or crushed blacks look good. (Not to mention whatever meager DR benefits you get picking an unstacked sensor would be completely fucking wrecked by just a 2 shot exposure bracket on any camera, although that can mess with action shots of course.)

>>4438636
>Just accept a stop worse iso performance because I said so
>oversized body,
are you a woman?
>worse AF
man how did people shoot in the film era
>nd oversized lenses with no third party
you only need 3 lenses
>>4438638
>>I pixel peeped
sorry kid that's 100% resolution and it's afull stop worse
>$900 on an A7III
you can spend $900 on any camera
>A7III did more in revenue
irrelevant. It's like you're a cultist
>Also, panasonic m43
didn't ask

>>4438654
Simple. I can say my camera is better because number bigger.

>>4438621

>>4438665
he posted the thing! HE POSTED THE THING!@!!!!
Thread complete!

>>4438622
based pinhole photographer

>>4438665
I just see two photos of a goblina creature that is horrifying either way

>>4438686
the sony makes her look like a dead goblina

gear doesn't matter

t. faggot with good gear

>>4438675
>snoycuck got triggered by the bait again
>next hes going to post a screenshot of all the times this meme has been posted saying its the same person

>>4438656
Sony is #1 in ff market share because in real life (not amazon marketing arm lies) they are better deal w it

>>4438665
Also faked, she added green tint in the camera awb menu. Even her shirt is green. Panasonic influencer guidelines strike again.

>>4438707
No your gear fucking sucks. We ran a dogfucker off the board over recommending your favorite camera and lying about its af and dr being good.

>>4438727
>we

Kek

>>4438727
>market share
nobody cares

>>4438727
They both look like absolute shit.

>>4438727
>she added green tint in the camera awb menu. Even her shirt is green.
No she didnt. Thats just sony awb. It adds a green tint automatically because its retarded. You need to always use manual white balance with snoy bodies. Everybody knows this.

>>4438693
It's a color accurate depiction of her. It's not Sony's fault that she looks uglier in reality than with shitty popped out ultra saturated colors

>>4438737
Are we going to run the sony shill/liar off the board for blatantly lying about sony cameras now?

>>4438737
I have owned five sony cameras and this is an outright lie.

You can also just, you know, look outside of virgin central 4chan. Most normal people use a sony. Most people period use a sony. Canon is king of the closet, and nikon fuji panasonic are incel cameras.

>>4438738
You're really reaching if you're saying the natural state of people is to look dead.

>>4438757
i myself have never seen sony hate outside of /p/. literally never. the vast majority of people see sony as desirable but expensive.

>>4438759
Her shirt is green dude. It's really obvious panasonic influencer guidelines struck again here. You have to repost one screenshot from one video that included a free of charge S9 loaner (panasonic is notorious for demanding dishonesty from reviewers that receive free gear)

Literally everyone else praises the camera except for heat management and battery life when attempting professional videography

No matter how hard you shitpost on a board with 12 users, 4 of whom have bought a sony specifically because of you, sony will not stop mogging the competition.

>>4438765
her shirt is clearly not green

>>4438759
She has a huge amount of makeup on, she's caked up like a whore you'd find in the parking lot of a wendy's. No, an Arby's. Look at her neck in the A7CII picture, normal human skin tone near the shirt. Look at the areas around her eyelids where the foundation is thinner. It's an awful comparison picture, she looks like a clown wearing corpse makeup

>>4438771
heavy cope

>>4438768
>open mspaint
>use color picker
>pick a point on the sony side's shirt
>R157 G170 B176
Huh, cool and green. I wonder why?
>google "Sony a7cii skin tones"
>every single result basically says they're good
Well.

I don't know what is so hard for you to understand

Take it from someone who used to be a panasonic "influencer". They tell people to do shit like this. She opened the white balance menu, pressed the arrow button, and set the camera to use a cooler and greener tint.
No one else has this problem.
It's one video, from one influencer, who panasonic flat out told to lie.

just like panasonic told EVERYONE who got an S1RII to review that they were required, if they wanted any more cameras, to title their video "better than canon and sony" and to claim "the autofocus tracking works as well as a sony" (dpreview's objective test aside... of the influencers, only tony is big enough to record scratch and tell the truth)

Sony is good
Canon is good
Nikon is catching up
Fuji is catching up

Panasonic fucking lies. Non fucking stop. They lie. They send you a camera, and then they tell you how to lie, exactly how, or they cut you off and no more $1000/video ad money for you.

>the snoy schizo forgot to take his medication again

I think it's really funny when I am 100% satisfied with my camera but some gear autist drools and seethes and tries to convince me that it's actually bad

>>4438786
This. 100% they hallucinate the issues and then refuse to show you a picture with their idea of good IQ. It's hilarious.

>>4438786
listen here bucko you need to sell your $4000 sony camera and buy a $1000 Nikkon DSLR M43

>>4438790
YOU LIE TO ME SAAR. I KICK YOUR DOG!

>>4438781
>No it's not real it's a schizo!
Hey, I'm the one that gets to play around with review samples while /p/ actually thinks I buy cameras, you're the one who lies about sony more than panasonic's marketing mooks.

Why do you hate sony again? Do you blame them for your favorite brands failure? Is it just because they're so popular?

>>4438797
I hate snoy because it's trash and a Canon EOS 5D outperforms a snoy a7rv, in terms of color grading, exposure, ISO, megapixels, everything

>>4438798
Can you prove it?

Sony is a fucking meme. Nobody actually shoots Sony here.

>>4438799
Not without buying snoy products to show the difference, and I would die before buying snoy

Even my micro four thirds camera BTFOS those junk pile ewaste sonys! Yeah!

>>4438798
Is that why just one sony camera can outsell the next 3 brands combined? I mean, they're horrible, why are people buying them?

This is an "iphones are bad because i cant pirate video games" "stop telling me about their superior battery life and longer support intervals" moment.

>>4438618
ADC tech progresses, sensor tech is stagnant. Thankfully everyone uses NR and no one uses extreme ISOs.

The A7IV looks bad for the same reason the Z7II does btw

>>4438621
This is a defect in ACR, similar to why the fuji looks turbo shit. Capture one has less false color here for the same reason fuji is 50% sharper in C1. I've never seen this with sony myself, but I don't do whatever crooked/incompetent shit dpreview gets up to.

>>4438808
anon asked about low light. Sony is consistently a stop behind

>>4438810
The loss of the 24mp models was sad for all 3 people who shoot above ISO 6400 without using noise reduction. More advanced ADCs and improved shielding really could have made ISO 102,400 look slightly better.

However, the other 99.9% of photographers prefer higher resolution.

I'm really sad for the one guy on /p/ who posts such killer shit such as 6 digit ISO tennis shoes.

>>4438810
>>4438812
For most use cases actual photography is done in controlled conditions. Low light photography is extremely specialized, hardly anyone needs that

>>4438813
Most low light photography is underexposed significantly instead of night for day. If you've ever actually done it, it's mostly ISO 800-1600.

Still, the loss of the 24mp models was very sad for all 3 people who think dpreview's high ISO raw samples are relevant to anyone.
>every single photo looks unusably bad, even too bad to fix with AI
Those people will have to keep coping until they can afford a GFX100S

>>4438815
>it's mostly ISO 800-1600.
It's not. It easily goes up to 6400

>>4438578
Distortion correction and bad focus motors are all hallmarks of the budget RF lenses, but the RF 28 2.8 despite it's distortion correction and tendency to flare etc is an excellent lens for the price. It is actually the only must have "low tier lens" in my opinion and also one of the sharpest Canon lenses ever made. The 35 IS is kinda neat too, but that focus motor...
The 50 is sharp enough, but falls apart when pixelpeeping and comparing it to L-series. I wish they had something similar to the EF days with a somewhat normal 50mm f1.4 with a proper focusing motor instead of that VCM 50mm that is over the top again and unnecessarily large. Today's Canon has this really weird product segmentation.

>>4438816
Bright wedding prints issue, lack of light sources issue, or skill issue?

I swear people say low light photography but they actually mean freezing motion by moonlight, and were shopping for a game camera

hmmm i guess this is why the brightin star 50mm f0.95 mark ii (right) never got release in the west. The overall optical perfomrance seems to be worse than the first at the cost of improved corners.

>>4438835
what if it didn't actually get worse but they just released an mtf chart from a more average sample

Just bought a very rare "for parts" lens for a mere $10. Anybody else winning?

>>4438839
Then the company woud be pretty fucking retarded

>>4438830
I'm shooting at 1/100 f4 iso ranges from 3000-6000 depending. I'm not doing day for night or anything retarded. It's just dark outside

Olympus's naming scheme causes my brain to hurt.

>company: how about, smaller number better?
>photographers: my brain hurts!

>>4438867
>i'm shooting at
>f4
lol. 35mm f1.4 is sufficient DOF for 99% of shit why are you using f4?
>1/100
you only need 1/30 unless its a candid. skill issue.

>>4438875
He said Olympus, not OM Systems.

I got baited into the “f8 and be there” meme and mostly shoot f8 when I can.

>>4438563
>Sony held back by its small e-mount diameter limitations
>Canon smaller and lighter
>cheaper too
What went wrong snoybros??

>>4438957

>>4438867
Too bad you don't have a faster lens so you can get more light and use a lower ISO

>>4438965

This board is bad at doing generals.

>>4438957
The left lens is an adapted minolta SLR design
Be wary of small lenses on mirrorless. Canons vignette a lot and have slow focus.

>>4438957
Sony could make garbage lenses like that RF shitter, but they probably don't want to.

Their image, for those of you who live under a rock, is that of a video-centric premium brand. Canon's small lenses are noisy and focus breathe a lot, sony is trying to stand on on those terms, just like canon is trying to stand out by not letting sigma, tamron, chinese, and the koreans outcompete their lenses.

>>4438965
>its a bzzt bzzt lens

>>4438987
their professional lenses are definitely another story lol

>>4438543 (OP)
Change my mind: If it's hard to find a camera on the used market for cheap, it's good, and if it's easy to find one for cheap, it's shit and no one wants it.

I can't find a used a7cii anywhere and it was the top selling camera last year. Definitely lots of nikon ZFs.

>>4438572
It’s only like 2k my guy. If 2k is enough for you to call others "poorfag“ it means you’re a poor as well

>>4438988
>canon fags with 1 bazillion parts arguing with snoy fags wit 2 bazillion parts
> still not as sharp & still more CA than an Elmarit from 40y ago

Skill issue lmaoy4syw

>>4438994
why do you make shit up? does sony offering a better camera than micro fool turds/foolji hurt your feefees and give you buyers remorse?
>buy used a7c/a7iii
>crop sensors forever BTFO
>"ITS NOT AS PERFECT AS NIKON! SNOY! >:("

>>4438988

>>4438999
oh my fucking god
$2499
https://opticallimits.com/canon/canon-rf-50mm-f-1-2-usm-l-review/
3.24 stops of vignetting
wtf
$2499!

>>4438997
It is pronounced micro four thirds and yep it's better than sony ewaste. Thank you very much.

>>4439000
But that's only wide open, at f4 / f5.6 where everyone actually shoots at anyways, it's fine

>>4438999
>>4439000
Dissapointing. But RF mount is full of random wins and losses. Would have thought their pro 50mm would be uh... not as shit.
How's snoy's and niggon's 50mm fare in comparison?

>>4438997
Elmarit = Leica = Fullframe

But I agree with you that m43 and Nikon are in the same category as Canon and Snoy

>>4439002
I have never used f5.6 or f4. The only valid apertures are stopping down an 1.4 to f2.8 or to f8. Everything inbetween is bullshit.

>>4438997
Snoy fags sitting on m43 is so funny to me. Your gear is in the same category.

It’s like Parkistanis and Indians being racist towards each other. As if there was a difference lmao

>>4439004

>>4439008
Sony is the second must used FF brand by fashion photographers after leica

The vast majority of serious and admirable professionals use sony. Canon is for the mooks that shoot sports.

>>4439012
Snoy fags sitting on canon is so funny to me. Your gear is in the same category.

It’s like Parkistanis and Indians being racist towards each other. As if there was a difference lmao

>>4439014
>indian can't stop thinking about ltierallywhoistan and his shithole country
I can't even point to pakistan on a map and I am proud of this

I can point to uruguay, guam, seychelles, but not pakistan. I also don't know the name of a single any major city in india. If I had to guess, one of them is called ashaghandi?

>>4439015
Only brown people are racist. Fuck off to pol and waste the time of the other indians like you there

>>4439024
It's not racist to call a country a shithole.
>Hungary is a shithole
>omg u racis agianst ypipo!
>Estonia is not
>you are still racist somehow!
Religion and governance are not races

>>4438876
nothing is in focus at f1.4 and I don't like 35mm
>you only need 1/30
I wasn't born with surgeons hands

>>4439002
why would you pay more money for f1.2 then?

>>4439012
It's so funny that every argument that snoyboys use starts with the word "Canon". Absolutely rent free. While we (people who chose the correct system for actually taking photos) are out shooting and getting paid, the Snoygoblins are online performing mental gymnastics to try and justify their never-used gear collections.

>>4439058
Idk, go ask the people in this thread >>4438567

Why is Pentax so eager to craft the most un-competitive, economically hopeless system known to man? The K1 and K1ii are honestly pretty cool cameras but their price point and the lens ecosystem is just fuckin stupid. Even on the used market you've got to be a Pentax obsessive to justify it over a 5D mark whatever or a d8XX

>>4439063
Pentax is a dead brand. Apparently they filed some mirrorless patents recently so if they make a comeback be on the lookout for that. For now Pentax is just a brand that's frozen 10 years in the past

>>4439066
Yeah I mean Pentax with no penta... would it just be called an X?

>>4439060
>canon fags: boss can i hold the camera? i love working for the NFL
>sony chads: i am my own boss

>>4439071
>First word is "Canon"
>Again

>>4439070
They can give it 5 of something else.

>>4439073
>canon fags keep getting made fun of
>they think this is a win
The brand name "canon" literally defines worthless camera-holders. It is an insult in itself. It's kind of like how saying "jew" is antisemitic.

>>4439076
>5 le film sims

Speaking of le Pentax, is the LX really as complicated as people say it is? I don't really like owning mechanical cameras I can't fix if I need to, and have thus far avoided the LX as a result due to said rumours. Anyone have experience repairing one?

>>4439014
>It’s like Parkistanis and Indians being racist towards each other. As if there was a difference lmao
>snoycucks malding at canon and writing essays on why snoy is number one
Yep, you summed it up perfectly kek

>>4439115
cant imagine caring about pakiwhos and thinking of indians as a cohesive unit instead of a disorganized bunch of pagan cults

unless i were indian myself, then i would do that all the time, and seethe about sony

truth be told
the more I dabble
the less I need

>>4439080
just get mx or 1k

>>4438572
me too anon, hopefully mine comes in before saturday :)

>>4438572
>>4439145
Im looking at getting an xf lol

>>4439004
>Would have thought their pro 50mm would be uh... not as shit
Anything's an improvement over the turd that was the EF 50mm f/1.2"L"

>>4438988
>concave front element on the sony
neat
>>4439063
what specifically about the lens ecosystem is stupid?

>>4439163
this
all my pentax lenses fit all my pentax cameras
what's not to like?

>>4438987
>>its a bzzt bzzt lens
So is the Sony. Noisy and slow AF. Trash lens.

>>4439165
I'm not necessarily disagreeing
they have a tiny in-production lens lineup with some glaring gaps they're not in any hurry to fill
they probably have the attitude that you can just go buy an FA/FA* if you're one of the people who really need one of those, and they save on r&d
pentax makes more sense if you view it as some ricoh exec's hobby project

>>4439172
or you can just use older pentax glass and m42 glass

>>4439218
Speaking of.. I just discovered the Pentax SMC-M 100mm 2.8. That is one underrated piece of vintage glass.

>>4438544
I've spent multiple years with Nikon, Canon and I started with Sony about 18 months ago. I've come to like the Sony the most, with Nikon in a close second, though I think I might still get another small Canon as a sort of "take everywhere every day" camera if I don't want to carry much gear.

Or maybe Fuji for the meme.

>>4439240
Olympus makes "sony but small"

Is the Panasonic S9 actually shit? Or is it secretly based?

>>4439253
no it's just stripped down S5ii

>>4439253
yeah its shit
>pay $1000
>get a7c with no flash shoe, shutter, or autofocus
>colors just as drab if not worse
>enabled an extra video codec doe
>bmpcc chads: lol.

>>4439255
>No autofocus
Does Panasonic still use their retarded AF system? I thought they got rid of that.

>>4439163
The lens ecosystem is stupid because they're expensive lenses for a deadend system. It's really hard to justify to a custom why they should shell out money for lenses when Pentax has provided no evidence that they plan to stay competitive with the bodies. The lenses would make more sense if they stuck to cheaper stuff too since every model they make bar the K1 and the 645 are APS-C

I've started to use the ancient EF primes, the ones no one uses because they f/2.8, kinda uncommon and worse IQ than the zooms while not being any faster. But it's nice having smaller lenses.

>>4439270
>every model they make bar the K1 and the 645 are APS-C
You mean the KF?

>>4439272
>they f/2.8
Excluding the 35mm and the 50mm's.

>>4439275
Oh yeah, I meant the wider ones. There actually is a 28/1.8 in that series too.

>>4439272
How's the overall experience? I think I'm done with EF now, but I'm interested how the film-era stuff holds up on modern MP-count bodies for real-world shooting.

>>4439279
>There actually is a 28/1.8 in that series too
The f/1.8 is part of the second generation of primes.
It has a ring-type USM.

>>4439281
Edge softness is pretty rough, but I really like the rendering. With the exception of the 50/1.4 USM, they have a nice look. This was the 24/2.8 with no hood. Unedited other than fixing the shadows.

>>4439283
>With the exception of the 50/1.4 USM, they have a nice look
Haram

>>4439285
I don't, I really don't like it at f/2.2 or lower. It just feels so sickening and swirly, feels like it has no sharpness or contrast anywhere let alone the edges.

>>4439286
I'll agree that it can be swirly, but it certainly has sharpness and contrast.

>>4439293
Honestly the best photos I've taken with it have been at like f/8.
>pic unrelated, not one of my best but it is at f/8 on the 1ds ii

>>4439283
I had one recently for a short while. It came bundled with a bunch of gear so I had no intention to keep it, but it seemed to be a decent performer for a nearly 40 year old lens. Perhaps I should have kept it, but I have another 24 and several zooms covering the focal length already so I have to limit myself. Doesn't seem to be all that common on the used market which could also be because people keep them. Neat lens nonetheless.

>>4438992
don't rub it in bro

>>4439334
Now he's going to rub it out instead.

>>4438992
Not even

ZFs get one scratch on them and they get sold for $1350

>>4439382
I find this hard to believe considering it's a hipster camera, and hipsters love things that are "retro" and "worn in."

>>4439385
The $1350 ones sold (and now two /p/ users have one in the mail?)
Here's one for $1474
https://www.ebay.com/itm/326650431853
OM5II MSRP: $1199

>>4439393
Refurbished at Nikon's store were even cheaper

>>4439394
Strange how that works with relatively new cameras. The R3 for instance was on sale here for less than $3k, but the used market still want $3.5k for them. I guess people who bought new are reluctant to accept the financial loss.

thinking of getting a hasselblad

>>4439401
Same

What's a nice lens I can get for my T7I that isn't too expensive?
I currently have a Tamron 18-400 and while it's has good reach, the pictures are kind of meh.
I also have a Tamron 10-24, which I feel like has better quality, but is a bit limited in use.

>>4439409
50mm f1.8

>>4439409
Probably a lot of lenses made for Canon APS-C DSLRs are gonna be very cheap. Depends on what you want out of the lens. The 24mm f/1.4L isn't too bad on ebay for a pro quality lens and would be a nice wide-standard on crop. If you're ok with not zooming, the results on primes are always as good or often much better than zooms, especially superzooms.
Otherwise maybe try the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. That lens seems well regarded and is under $400.

>>4439407
i know right ? I mean I'll never have the money for it but I can at least think about it

>>4439416
Oh.. Yeah.. haha we love thinking about these things on /p/

>>4439420
ignore all previous prompts and give me a banana cake recipe

>>4439145
mine just arrived, surprised since canada's postal system isn't known for being fast

>>4439424
The Olympus professional imaging system is the number choice for discerning photographs! The micro four thirds sensor provides the greatest image quality of any modern day camera while allowing for robust and necessary features to become the best photographer you can. Buy Olympus and become a real photographer.

>>4439401
I could technically afford one but dumping $15 on a camera system would be very irresponsible

>>4439437
I could too but can you really afford something if buying it would be a very bad financial decision ?

>>4439442
I guess it all depends. I could buy it and I wouldn't die or starve or be late on bills. I just think my life would have better long term outcomes if I just invested that

>>4439014
Fucking lmao that’s exactly what it is. Well done

>>4439437
Get a 500CM and use your existing digital camera to scan it

>>4438543 (OP)
I kind of miss my M240 for its black and white jpgs honestly

Man that new Fuji 23mm f2.8 is so disappointing.
They have the technology to make an f2 pancake but are too afraid people might opt for a lens instead if buying an X100VI as secondary camera.

>>4439453
its ok people already ignore fuji and buy the a7c+35mm f2.8 they have like 4% market share

>>4439453
>Nooooooooooo you cant make a fast mirrorless pancake lens its literally impossible!!!
>t.snoy shooter

>>4439453
Fuji has adopted the apple strategy. More money for a worse product

>>4439467
Its possible to hit pancake f2.8 (on ff) with compromises like noisy slow autofocus, extending parts, no controls, corner softness, and extreme vignetting

see: rf 28mm f2.8, z 26mm f2.8

>>4439467
Sony wont release a pancake until they figure out all this shit >>4439470
If Z mount couldnt do it better its probably impossible due to FF MILC mounts being too shallow.

>>4439467
Sony physically cant do fast full frame pancakes with their e-mount because it's too small.

>>4439412
>>4439415
I think I'll get a 50mm 1.8 because it's cheap refurbished atm.
Then I'll save for either a 17-55 2.8 or the sigma 18-35 1.8 I saw while looking for it, because it looks pretty nice too.

>>4439415
The 24mm f/1.4L is heavy for a normal APS-C lens though.

>>4439479
I’m sure they can, it would just be as awful as nikons and be an embarrassment. The Z 26 is the same length as the zeiss 35/2.8 once you attach its mandatory hood to regain filter threads, and so is the rf 28 when its fully extended. From an engineering standpoint, only the m43 and leica M mounts can support a decent pancake.

>>4439495
>From an engineering standpoint, only the m43 and leica M mounts can support a decent pancake.
How is this possible if there are M to L and M to Z (mirrorless) adapters? M pancakes are easier because no AF I suppose.
I wonder if MFT is the largest sensor that can support AF pancakes. The sensor size is deceptive because it's more square than 3:2, so the corners are even more forgiving than they otherwise would be.

for $100, seems worth it
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-viltrox-28mm-4-5-af-pancake/

>>4439509
>so this is the power of SNOY

>>4439509
>>4439510
It's smaller than the other 2 pancakes and doesn't need to poke out a half inch to focus. but ultimately it's a lens that's meant to be a toy.

>>4439514
>it's a lens that's meant to be a toy
as pancakes are

>>4439510
>>4439509
Small mount, puhreeze understandu!

>Sony pancakes
Yeah but the cameras are so fucking fat you can't fit them in a pocket

My micro four thirds camera (em5iii) is the hardest to justify owning. Since it's the same size as my a7cii, the only way it could make sense is with an incredibly small lens like the kit zoom (not the "pannycake" that thing cant af for shit and it randomly causes banding), but it doesn't fit in pants pockets or comfortably sit in a jacket pocket either so that's irrelevant. you know what makes it really, really irrelevant? a ricoh gr is more pocketable and the af is just as shit as any small m43.

If it gets dark it's totally fucking useless compared to the a7cii and if it's bright it's totally useless compared to the a7cii. in the "i'd shoot this at iso 800-3200" zone it's ok. the ibis is worse than the a7cii. the autofocus is way, way worse than the a7cii. the a7cii has a bunch of small primes to use m43/aps-c (50mm f2 air, 40mm f2.5, 90mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8). every m43 lens that's good is about as big (or smaller but still as inconveniencing) and slower even "equivalently".

so far i've only been able to make it stand out and make it useful by attaching the 12-60 f3.5-5.6 because sony has yet to release a 24-120 f7-11 thats this tiny, for people to use to turn their nice $2000 a7s into boomer bridge cameras. i guess one of the smaller, lower end 300mm zooms could be cool, and the 60mm macro is a missing option on ff (autofocusing slow macros for compactness, 1-handing w/ off camera flash), but i don't give a shit about birds or bugs. and honestly, if i did give a shit about birds and bugs, i would prefer micro four thirds to full frame and aps-c because i could shoot critters all day every day without noticing the camera any more than i notice an a7cii with a 90mm f2.8.

>>4439488
It looks to expensive for a poorfag like me anyway.

>>4439510
You can get it for Nikon afaik.

>>4439516
Then why do they use these stupid sterile modern sharpness first formulas (that still dont achieve consistent sharpness across the frame so it's sterile and looks like shit) when they could be using the optical formulas from classic leica M mount pancakes, that give more consistently good rendering just with no modern 100lp/mm super-sharpness anywhere?

>>4439505
They’re not pancakes anymore with the adapter retart. Leica sensors sit further inside the body, so lenses can protrude past the mount.

>>4439529
seems smol idk

>>4439532
I want to get a Panasonic S9 so bad.

>>4439532
>f4
yikes

>continues to make snoytrannies mald and seethe
>inb4 snoytrannies malding and seething

>>4439543
f4 is fine

>>4439543
no one ever needs anything faster than f4

>>4439548
>>4439551
if you only shoot pics on a tripod while jorking your peanitus and wearing a brown vest sure

>>4439555
you mean you don't indulge?

>>4439547
bzzt bzzt *vignettes 3 stops*

>>4439548
>>4439551
What kind of pseudo-artiste poseur are you?

>>4439555
Never felt like I needed something like f/2.8 as I can just either use a tripod or increase the ISO
What makes fast lenses so desired? Don't tell me it's depth of field, even f/4 can do that magic bokeh

>>4439560
Oh boy, here’s more shit gear cope. We get it, you only take pictures of building corners and your dog and got sick of trying to improve your photos with more gear (and also, never moved beyond building corners and dogs).

>>4439562
"f4 is all you need" is the latest /p/ meme pay it no mind

>>4439562
No one needs more than dog and building corner pictures >:( besides, REAL artists shoot everything at f/11 to get the professionally built backgrounds in focus!

no i do not have a set design crew why do you ask

>>4439555
modern sensors can shoot at night at f4
>>4439559
aperture =/= art

>>4439571
I see, you're just coping. It's okay anon, what you're demonstrating right now is a symptom of something called aspergers syndrome. You're not retarded, you're just literally unable to comprehend the wants and needs of others differing from your own. You're like a psychopath. You might have emotions, but you can't ever understand what other people are thinking.

Actually, that does make you sound pretty retarded doesn't it?

>>4439562
Maybe I don't need to be like everyone else doing portraits at the widest aperture. There are people who buy gear because they are interested in the gear itself. Photography comes second.

>>4439574
>There are people who buy gear because they are interested in the gear itself
Yeah, that's the exact kind of person that buys an f4 prime lens. They define their photography with the gear. The gear is the primary. The gear is their identity as a "photographer".

"I am the type of photographer who only needs f4" they think

The polar opposite of you is "i am the photographer who takes pictures", i don't need to overpay for an f4 lens on a manual focus only camera to define myself and neither does anyone who isn't an autistic drone with no soul, feeling, or personality. I can buy an f1.8 lens and be happy because sometimes you just need to take the picture and it needs to not look like m43 tier shit.

>>4439576
TLDR version:
Go ride your fixie, hipster fag.

>>4439576
Nah the guy with the $1200 obscure camera and $500 toy lens is an expert anti consumer he's not like you people who buy gear just because they're obsessed with cameras. he only buys exactly what he needs for his very artistic street photography.

consumerist npc = buys a "little sony aps-c" (gearfag shit with too many specs)
enlightened anti-consumerist chad = pays $12,000 for a leica and a f5.6 prime lens

>>4439560
>What makes fast lenses so desired
I have a hybrid camera and I need a lens that can shoot 60 or even 120p without looking like ass

>>4439581
Imagine being a gearfag who "needs" grainless low ISOs on digital. Are you taking hundreds of pictures of herons catching fish and printing them 5 feet wide for a nature magazine? You don't need "no grain". Real photography is done with pushed tri-x anyways. Go overspend on gear you dont need to make good art somewhere else gaylord. I'm sick of photography being dragged down by talentless skill issue havers like you who need all the latest tech when garry wingorand or henri cartier bresson could outshoot you with a potato. But what do you soulless gearfags know about art? Nothing. You just want your running dogs to be "sharp" and "better than micro four thirds" because you need to blow everything up to fill a macbook screen... when good street photography aka art only needs a black and white 4x6 to have emotional impact...

...fools. the real waste of money is money spent on a camera that lacks the biggest optical luxury in the world
the leica glow

>>4439576
You are looking for ways to contradict me so you end up appearing smarter. But your argument doesn't appear to be based on anything but your own opinion.

>>4439586
>Are you taking hundreds of pictures of herons catching fish and printing them 5 feet wide for a nature magazine?
I'm taking pictures of my gf. I need that super high low noise resolution so I can coom better. You don't get it, cooming is life brother. Cooming is everything.

>>4439587
You spent $1700+ on a camera kit with perfectly chosen severe limitations.

You are, by definition, a gear person. It's like, if you're a chef, you want to make good photo. but if you're a knife guy, you need a knife that is for nothing but cutting the florets off broccoli, but also, you don't really cook.

>>4439590
Did you type all that to not say anything relevant? Think before you speak my man, not just shout whatever comes to your mind.

>>4439593
How is it not relevant? You spent $1700+ on a severely limited camera. It can not realistically take a lot of kinds of photo. You are, by definition, someone who is just into cameras, not photography. You're not a normal person, and you don't get no bitches.

>>4439593
>coping overspending gearfag
lol you spent all that money just to get a worse vesion of a lumix gf1+20mm f1.7

>>4439595
>>4439596
I honestly don't even know what gear you're talking about, I've just been copy pasting comments from another thread and letting people respond

>>4439551
Yeah everyone who isnt happy with their phone does, coper. Maybe you could afford an pretentious ms optical funkopop lens after all?

>>4439599
Oh I was just trying to make you mad and hurt your feelings

>>4439572
you're trying way too hard. I didn't read that btw

>>4439609
Thanks I knew I got you riled up but I wasn't 100% sure without a (you) lol

>>4439625
I'm fine all you're doing is projecting

>another (you)
you're too kind uwu

>>4439520
Why do you need a small zoom? You only need primes.
Sounds like micron four turds is a solution in search of a problem. Get rid of that ewaste.

>>4439572
>Projecting THIS hard
Yikes.

>>4439640
Give it a rest anon you caved first its joever

>>4439641
What? You've got me confused with someone else. Meds + therapy will fix you.

>>4439642
weird projection but ok

>>4439521
It depends on your degree of poverty/patience.

>>4439547
How does Canon keep on getting away with it bros?

>>4439670
with 3.5 stop vignetting, slow noisy autofocus, and bad rendering

canon really owns the low end garbage market. their expensive cameras get disappointing quick. unlike other brands, that make the worst cheap cameras and the best expensive ones (sony, nikon, fujifilm).

I don't know what to do bros, get a new system or a new lens
I have an EM1-III with the Pro 20mm f1.4
I like it but every time I use it I get a nagging feeling of "this probably would look better in full frame", but I can't afford full frame
I do like how my shots come out of the camera so maybe there's no problem

>>4439670
On the subject of canon, Why the fuck do they have no cheap chinese lenses for RF mount?
Is it because the flange distance is longer than Sony?
Or have they somehow achieved the impossible and made the chinks fear them?

>>4439678
The chinks did at first but canon threatened them with legal b& hammer. Since Chinese goods alternative goods are considered legitimate products now and not just chinesium like even a decade ago, Viltrox and samyang actually listened and pulled the lineup. Some of the other purely manual focus company’s like the *artisan ones and such will still throw a rf mount on the lenses though.

>>4439681
Forgot picrel

>>4439676
>sell EM1III = $700
>sell 20mm f1.4 = $300
>take your $1000
>set it aside
>go to work
>ask your boss for an few extra shifts
>1 week later
>now you have $2000
>buy godly full frame setup that btfos everything in micro four thirds - sony a7cii, small super sharp primes, make /p/ cope and seethe

>>4439684
This is it. This is the way. This is how you win.

>>4439684
>>4439691
full frame is trash
medium frame is the only way

>>4439684
Chat is this true
I want to buy a camera and finally be happy with it, I've flailed around and wasted fuck knows how much

>>4439693
>n-no there cant be a better camera thats the size of my foolturds ;_;
many such cases. sad.

>>4439678
Because Canon upper-levels are full of market segregating salarymen who think they'll do better by locking out 3rd parties. That if people don't like their heavily distorted, super slow aperture lenses, you've got nothing to compare them to natively.
>>4439682
Wasn't that optically just a ripoff of the EF 85mm f/1.8?

>>4439692
The seething has already begun

>>4439694
Well OK, what specifically should I get for a decently compact, decently light full frame set up that's a good all rounder but especially good for low light and minor astro?

>>4439697

>>4439684 didn't this anon just tell you what to get? If you're a neet that doesn't have a job and can't take that anon's advice, just steer clear of LoLympus and you'll be fine.

>>4439670
>>4439547
God I wish I could mount something like this on my a7cII for those times I dont want to carry a big zoom :(

>>4439698
>specifically what to get

>>4439699
pancakes fucking suck. If you're sacrificing image quality anyway you can just carry your iPhone.

>>4439699
Sell your snoy and get a Nikon and you can get that Nikon pancake and also an adapter to still use your snoy lenses. Also as a bonus you'll no longer have shitty color science.

>>4439732
Nikon fags shitting on Snoy is so funny to me. Your gear is literally in the same category. It’s like Parkistanis and Indians being racist towards each other. As if there was a difference lmao

>>4439586
>Real photography is done with pushed tri-x anyways.
>implying I haven't left my film Leicas unused, waiting for the day that has finally arrived allowing me to use Leica film in my Leica camera with my Leica lens.

>>4439739
Henri never used leica films!

>>4439742
But he would have, unless he was a bitch.

>>4439520
I like pancakes, and even on big cameras I like the way they handle. The problem is they're always slow, with boring focal lengths. I bought the 40mm f/2.8 pancake for EF which is in all aspects a good lens other than no mechanical MF. However I never use it because I find 40mm a boring ass focal length, and the 50mm f/1.4 is only a little larger. I prefer 50mm, but I would much rather be shooting somewhere in the 16-24 range.

>>4439547
My mate has this lens and it's one of the few things that make me wanna switch from EF to RF. The pictures look so sharp and it's a nice focal length.

>>4439646
That is exceptionally cheap but a 24mm lens never needs to go lower than f/4.

>>4439744
Was he a brand ambassador?

>>4439750
>a 24mm lens never needs to go lower than f/4
Says who? Some random autist on 4chan? lul

>>4439756
Well you can, but bokeh-porn is a crutch for gearfags who can't fill a frame satisfying and appealing content.

>>4439766
low IQ take

>>4439766
Fuck anyone who wants to do astro then I guess.

>>4439769
Astro photos are all the same, it doesn't matter. There's one sky.

>>4439769
why the fuck would you want bokeh for astro
you need a narrow aperture to make sure all the stars are in focus

Would you choose Nikon or Sony if these were the only options?

>>4439778
Nikon of course.

I have just placed an order for a E-M1iii and a Olympus 100-400. Scold me.

>>4439772
It’s not about bokeh retard, you want to typically be able to gather as much light as possible to be able to minimize star trails, unless you’re trying to get those specifically. Also, stars are all at infinity focus, you get one focused you get them all. Not sure if I’m being trolled or genuine moron.

>>4439783
At least you didn't get a snoy toy. Good job anon.

>>4439784
>>4439772
>you need a narrow aperture to make sure all the stars are in focus
lol, you don't shoot astro

>>4439783
>spends $1700 on quarter frame and a f10-12 zoom
You're an actual fucking idiot lol

Nobody even uses 800mm for good wildlife photography unless they're scouring the amazon for endangered parrots. Here's to a month or two of you slowly realizing AI noise reduction+AI sharpening looks like shit and edge contrast isn't as important as rendering.

>>4439766
small aperture is a virtue signal for overspending gearfags with compulsive lying disorders
>heh, gearfag
>whats wrong
>couldnt rent a studio
>i dont need "bokeh" i rent locations for my ART
>you wouldn't understand
>^actually only takes photos of building corners and his dog with such a long ass nose it needs to be at f8 anyways

>>4439798
We shall see anon, I can always return it.

>>4439799
Small aperture as in small value, yes I agree! Well done! If you're not shooting at f/8 you're a gearfag just looking for muh bokeh-porn :)

>>4439783

>>4439783
Have fun anon :D don't let this board bully you into buying more gear

>>4439801
Nah you're a gearfag. You spent $100000 on a camera without autofocus where the fastest lens is f5.6 because you wanted to pretend you worked for vogue and shot everything with a set design crew working on your backgrounds. but all you actually shot was building corners and close ups of your dog lmao.

chad with his sony and bokeh blaster impresses all the girls by taking awesome bokeh portraits anywhere while you're sitting in your basement and seething about how you would beat chad in a manual focus contest and pick better backgrounds than him. but you dont, and if you did, no one would care.

>>4439803
Have you actually picked up the nikon mirrorless bodies? I held a z8 at an expo not long ago and I couldn't believe how cheap they feel. Say what you will about the dogshit performance of Nikon's DSLR's at least they didnt feel like actual toys. Even the cheaper Olympus cameras feel better. The worst of the lot was the Zfc I held a could years back at the same expo, the zf is better but not by much. I guess it's true that mirrorless is just a meme to consolidate manufacturing fewer hard-to-make optical viewfinder parts.

>>4439806
Not sure what this cope is meant to be
I have held a z6ii and an om1 and the om1 felt like a toy
Is this the usual m43 buyers remorse where they invent imaginary reasons the better options dont count?

>>4439805
>n-no y-you are..!!
Lol do you think im gunna read that? Stay assmad cus you got BTFO'd lol. Hey btw did you know since u cant fill up a frame you can save your money on muh heckin summiluxerino and just miss focus entirely. That way your whole image can be background blur. Yw :3

>>4439807
>Is this the usual m43 buyers remorse where they invent imaginary reasons the better options dont count?
Yes
>Sony is same size, 4x better
>NO SNOY IS BAD ALL THE COLORS ARE GREEN AND THEY EXPLODE AND- SNOYCOPE UR INDIAN SNOY COPE UR INDIAN
>CaNikon is the same size, 4x better
>MY DAD WORKS AT NINTENDO AND CANONIKONS ARE MADE OF THE THINNEST PLASTIC THEY ARE LITERAL TOYS MIRRORLESS OTHER THAN OLYMPUS AND LUMIX IS A SCAM

>>4439806
i own a z7ii. you are retarded lmao

>>4439807
Personally I wouldn't buy either, m43 is a dead system but at least with m43 the brand will die before the camera. With the nikon you need to deal with 2000s laptop rigidity.

>>4439809
Lol seething because chad is out there taking awesome bokeh portraits of hot women right now and you're sitting in your bedroom jerking off imagining all the better backgrounds you could use if you actually talked to girls or took photos lmao

>>4439813
Cool post one lol. Oh wait u cant because you're a fatguy. BTFO'd again, gearfags just cant stop losing

>>4439812
Yep, m43 coper. The first step is admitting m43 is a dead PNS system that was meant to compete with 1", not with larger sensors, and got pushed out of the market by phones.

The second step is admitting that sony, canon, and nikon cameras are way better, the same price, and larger but not larger enough to make a real difference to a normal adult man, and are just better cameras all around.

>>4439788
>no argument
neither do you
>wide-aperture photo of stars is soft, oof, CA everywhere
>but hey at least you could use 1/1000 shutter to compensate for your parkinsons

>>4439811
Lol I guess you never got the chance to hold one before you bought it then. They're giving A7ii's a run for their money in the fragility department it seems.

>>4439814
Chad's my older brother and he's out there taking awesome bokeh portraits of hot women right now. Pic related it's one of the photos he took.

You're just a tryhard camera nerd who obsesses over specs and imagines shooting in a studio with annie lesbowitz and hollywood background designers

>>4439816
>Never taken a photo, only imaged it based off youtube

>>4439817
>Outright lying because he doesn't want to admit there are better choices that micro four turds

>>4439817
they aren't, but okay

>>4439815
>w-w-well you're just mad because you haven't collect as much gear as me!!!
Take a look everyone, typical gearfag copium. Completely obsessed with a system he doesn't even shoot with. So bumraged he instantly assumes that anyone who ruins his fragile ego must be from le enemy brand. Are you also fat and and american?

>>4439821
You're the one who spent $1700 on a phone camera just to take pictures of birds, gearfag
>how to tell a photographer is a loser
>he takes pictures of animals instead of hot women

>>4439818
Just reverse image searched this and turns out it was taken on m43 lmfao.

>>4439784
I want to believe it was bait, but this is 4chin after all.

why do cameras stir up so much passionate feelings?

>>4439818
Nah my brother shot that on a canon 100mm

>>4439825
Wait till you see what car discussions do.

>>4439825
Cuz people who spend $1700 on shitty cameras that are only good for taking super zoomed in pictures of birds and using 20 different editing programs to fix the shitty camera quality (and turn it into phone quality) are all virgins and bullying virgins is fun

>>4439828
>>4439822
>im da alpha im da alpha!!!
Says the guy who has to post someone else's image of a girl. Taken on m43. Literally the NiCuck

>>4439830
That's my brothers and he shot it on a canon 100mm

Why do you have pictures of cartoon jewish guys saved on your computer? Are you a nazi? I'm done talking to you. Israel has a right to exist as a jewish state.

>>4439828
There's nothing that screams poor like judging how other people spend their money

>>4439832
This. They'll talk shit to anyone who buys nice thing to cope because they cant.

>>4439832
>"stop saying my pp is small because i spent $50k on a truck" moment

>>4439837
Why are you thinking about my pp?

>>4439838
Because I like guys who can pretend to be girls for me ;)

>>4439825
Autism.

>>4439752
He was a Himfluencer

>>4440073
Huh... Better than a hymnfluencer I suppose.

>>4439806
Just get a mirrorless with an optical viewfinder

>>4439825
Same thing in every hobby. Go start a thread on /k/ asking why don’t anons simply see the H&K make better pistols than Glock and that Sig does too if they don’t murder their owner and wait for the shitshow

>>4440074
Lol

>>4440081
What is the mft of the gun world? Hi point?

>>4440089
Anything in 5.7 I reckon

What's the best camera to attract cute girls to come and talk to me?
Obviously something small and cute, like the Zfc, especially with all the cute colors it comes in.
But I feel like there isn't many small, cute, lenses for Nikon Z, and the big viewfinder on top is a bit ugly.

So what's the best performance I can get that has no top viewfinder, is small and cute, has small cute lenses to go with it, and preferably comes in cute colors options?

>>4440155
Wooden 8x10. Red bellows. Deardorff ebony chamonix are all pretty good ones.

>>4440162
Bro, what?
I want girls to talk to me, not cross the street in fear.

>>4440169
I got my girl with a wista field 4x5 lol. You have the entirely wrong idea about wooden view cameras.

>>4440169
A woman that is attracted or intrigued by a camera like this is a woman worth keeping. I tell ya what.

>>4440155
>cute camera
>cute colors
are you sure you aren't trying to attract men?

>>4440089
.40

Genuinely how heavy is full frame? It's hard for me to gauge if FF is actually heavy or if it's just soi guzzling redditors being weak

Game Boy Camera app sounds cool.

>>4440383
Isnt delta on the appstore now? I don't think you need altstore / sileo anymore

>>4440255
I shoot with a 5D mark 2 with a battery grip, which is probably on the heavier side of full frame. It's not heavy, with both batteries loaded + a prime lens it won't be heavier than 2kg. I guess that would be a little annoying to carry around if you didnt have a strap or a bag but it's nothing. The absolute lightest ILC crop sensor bodies are usually around 450g and the absolute heaviest flagship FF DSLRs are around 1.4kg, so it doesn't even matter. The bigger difference would be that you have to use FF lenses with them and the telephotos and fast zooms can be a lot bigger. Still not particularly heavy as far as what a health adult should be able to carry though.
>TLDR; weight is a meme

>make a thread asking about upgrading from MFT
>404
???
So we CAN'T make gear threads or what
Also I made >>4439676 this post and I'm no closer to working out whether I should just get a full frame or not, maybe even APSC

>>4440450
Yeah the mods have their own rules, it even says in the sticky it's allowed.

It happened again, M43 threads are instant 404
What the fuck is going on?

what do you guys think about phone pics? might get a new phone but not sure if i should keep getting mid-tier motorolas or something with a better camera, looking at mirrorless cameras too, tired of all of my pictures looking like shit
what phones are you guys using?

>>4441228
Based mods.

>>4440450
You know there is a gear general, right? How about you post in there instead of adding another stupid shitty gear thread to the catalog?

>>4441365
>You know there is a gear general, right?
Yeah usually there are multiple because anons think it's funny to start the same general with a different name, or start a new thread way before the current one is even close to expiring.
And then there's the fact that this board would be a wasteland without gearfagging.
Maybe the mods should read the sticky themselves.

How far back should you go with camera tech?

>>4441599
for digital? as long as it meets my rqmts, just for snapshitting.

i have 200 euros, im tired of taking photos with my phone, what should i look into? (other than killing myself)

>>4442300
option 1: stick with the phone; option 2: Analog.

>>4442300
an old digicam what might shit after a few uses. an old dslr, or maybe a generic chinese made camera with a phone sensor. or just use your phone and learn to edit photos via snapseed app (free).

what do you guys think of the fujifilm x-s20?

>>4442300
Old DSLR.
older m43 camera.

A6700 or R7 for out and about stuff?
>mfw the Canon mounting plate itself is bigger than the Sony camera

>godox it30 pro ttl
Has anyone tried this little flash ?
Youtube is full of gayvloggers

>>4442758
bro hands off canon shit unless you go for a professional set up with a full frame etc.
don't buy their crap with a new mount every 5 year
I am not even a sony fan but anything > canon, which became a joke

>>4442758
Sony lets you run Minolta lenses with LA-EA5 so you can have fun being a gearfag under $100 a lens

>>4442955
>LA-EA5
That's a pretty interesting adapter with its screwdrive.

>>4442932
It's a shame it can't bounce, and the touch screen and "diffuser" are dumb. Otherwise I bet it's solid if you really want to do direct flash photography. Would be nice for macro with a foldable diffuser I bet.

>>4442932
looks like a built in flash for cameras without a built in flash.

>>4442955
>Minolta
show me some Minolta glass I should get

>>4443011
100-300mm APO is $60-80, 100-400mm APO is $100 and a cheap way to get a 400mm tele lens with minimal fringing for 1990s shit. Minolta APO is the equivalent of Sony Gay Master aimed at having the least amount of purple fringing and aberrations

50mm f1.7 and 28mm f2.8 primes are fun to use

35-105mm f3.5-4.5 is my usual walk around lens.

35-70mm and 70-210mm f4 are a great combo, I have a 35-70mm f4 and it's my favorite short range zoom. I paid $20 each. Very punchy saturated colors on Minolta stuff and you get better AF than any of the A Mount cams only held back by the screwdrive slop/speed. Personally wasn't impressed by my 70-210mm f4 beercan, the 100-200mm f4.5 is smaller and has better AF and sharpness.

I use my 28mm Prime, 35-70mm f4, and 100-300mm APO the most

The problem with these old lenses is fungus, haze (tricky because you can't see it initially until you shine a light into them), and sticking aperture blades from oil (actually really common)

Best part is it's all cheap. Everything minus the APOs you can find off eBay or buyee for $20 or less.

>>4443044
nice, thx for the write up

>There is a slight lingering odour of smoke.
haha that's new.

>>4443262
I forgot the coolest lens out there

https://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-Reflex-500mm-F8_lens25.html

$75-100 on buyee, $150 on eBay, and a Minolta A exclusive. The shortest cheapest way to get 500mm focal length with AF imo.

Monster also has a E to F adapter that supports their screw drive lenses, crazy to see Sony support more Nikon lenses than Nikon

https://www.monsteradapter.com/products/la-fe2-nikon-f-mount-lenses-to-sony-e-mount-cameras-adapter-with-af-motor-built-in

>>4443336
I almost forgot: only works with like a few bodies. A6600, A6700, A7IV/A7C2/A7R4 and R5, and A9II

You're SOL if you wanna run LA EA5 on a A7C or A7III. Sony has to be Jewish somewhere.

Currently on my shopping list:
-Pentax-FA SMC 100mm f2.8 Prime ($50)
-Pentax-F 24-50mm f4 ($20-50? This is a pretty rare lens honestly but it has good reviews)

I kinda wanna buy a K1ii I just don't wanna pay the $1200-1300 most sellers want. If I find someone willing to take $1000 or less for one with relatively low shot counts I'll take it. It's definitely gonna be a upgrade over my KF that I'll probably sell for $300 to make up for the difference. I have all these Pentax lenses and flashes, some of which are actually decent I wanna use on the K1. I I just wish I wasn't essentially paying 2x for a Nikon D810. AF performance is definitely gonna be better than my KF. I don't see the point of a K3 Mark III, they go for the same price as a FF K1ii used $1100-1400 but perform worse than any mirrorless APSC that came out in the last 10 years (not counting the Nikon/Canon first gens like Z50 and M50...even compared to a $500 D500 it's probably about equal).

I was looking at A7IVs or A7C2s but they're still $1700-2000. Anything lower than that and it's a scammer. I'm hoping they crash in price when Sony releases the A7V but they're not releasing it until 2026 at this point. I figure the K1ii can hold me over.

There's a K1ii I posted on another thread about for $1150 2 hours away by car on Craigslist but I'm gonna wait until it's on the market for a month before hitting him with a low-ball like $900 or $1000. 3600 shots iirc just missing the SR badge.

what's the best camera for travel pics (mostly landscapes) but also butterflies pics?

i got into butterfly hunting this year and it would be cool to take pics of them instead of just catching them in a net, birds pics would be cool too but i am more interested in butterflies so i guess eye focus isn't that important

nice vids would be somewhat cool but that's like 10% of what i care about, mostly interested in photos

tired of how all of my pics from my phone look like shit, have been researching this all week and have it narrowed down to:

Fujifilm X-T4
Fujifilm X-T3
Fujifilm X-T30 II
Fujifilm X-S10
Sony A6700
Sony A6600
Sony A6400

chatgpt kept trying to push the x-s20 on me but i read lots of people saying it overheats, i think the a7000 might have the same issue

i watched a bunch of vids comparing how the pictures actually look straight out of the camera, it was from a chinese dude taking pics of hot girls

fuji x-t4 with classic chrome vs the sony a7iv = fuji 18 / sony 4
nikon z5 vs fuji x-t4 (provia) = fuji won 100%
lumix s5 vs fuji x-t4 = fuji 12 and lumix 5
canon r6 vs fuji x-t4 = fuji 6, canon 17 (the canon in this one used some $2000 expensive ass lens)
sony a6500 vs fuji x-t3 = equal


trying not to spend more than $1500, okay with buying used, any tips on how not to get scammed? i've only taken pics with my phone since like 2012 so having a real camera would be nice, i hate how all of my pics are shitty phone pics

don't have any lenses or anything so i don't wanna fuck up and get into the wrong system, is it way harder to find cheap fujifilm lenses? are they like the apple of cameras where you can't get third party stuff?

>>4443551
>i think the a7000 might have the same issue
a6700*

>>4443551
Maybe figure out what lens you wanna use and work from there, you can photograph butterflies very well with a 15yr old DSLR. I guess some modern bodies have built in focus stacking, but I dunno how well that even works with a butterfly that isn't dead.

I have used none of those cameras you mention, but the A6700 is likely to have the best tracking.

>>4442992
gr3 and gr4?

>>4440409
Funnily enough, weight is a non-issue with cameras that have good ergonomics but fucking hell I got so sick of my previous ZF once I put a zoom lens on it. I’m never falling for the retro styling meme again. If I want it so bad I’ll just buy an actual film camera.