Thread 4440530

What cameras would you recommend, that fit on a pocket and have better image quality than Iphones?

I will be using it mostly for printing photos to place on memory albuns, and maybe like 1 or 2 profile photos...I have a thing that I hate when the eyes are out of focus or blurry in photos, so I think portrait capacity would be important.

Preferably if it's under 600 used and if it has interchangeable lens, even better

>fit in a pocket
>better image quality than iphone
what is with you retards
such a thing doesn't exist
HOW WOULD THAT EVEN BE POSSIBLE RETARD

>>4440530 (OP)
Canon 5d mark 2 and get bigger pockets. /thread

>>4440533
a pocket big enough to fit that is basically a purse

>>4440531
Let's say, compact sized then. What are the options, other than older ricoh gr amd fuji x100?

>>4440533
Hmm the price is good but I dunno about the size

>>4440530 (OP)
Contax t3

>>4440530 (OP)
nikon z30 is similar size to x100 and easily available for under $500 body only, or under $600 with the kit lens.
Be aware, it doesn't have an EVF.
The total size (and cost) will depend on the lens you select, but there are some compact 3rd party lenses quite cheap, and the kit lens is small (won't have nice blurry background though).

>>4440550
I was also going to suggest this too. You just can't have it all for the budget and size requirements

>>4440550
Also to clarify, APS-C at f/3.5 is equivalent to a modern large sensor smartphone like the S25Ultra or iPhone 16 Pro, in terms of natural bokeh/background blur, but will have much more detail, and no baked in sharpening (as long as you shoot RAW).
If you want more blur, you will need a wider aperture lens, f/2.8, f/1.8 etc.

>>4440547
Too expensive and I'd rather avoid 35mm film

>>4440550
>>4440552
Hmm no evf is kinda problematic for me... But yeah, I guess I am asking for too much. Maybe image quality for lowest price ia what I should be looking at. I liked canin 5d mkII's sample images a lot, just need to check the size

>>4440554
I see... i am not too mad about bokeh, I really just want more detail and better colors amd low light performance than phones

>>4440554
This is true. I'd suggest the Z 28mm f2.8. should just about fit the budget

>>4440531
Based retard

>>4440530 (OP)
Ricoh GR III (wide)/X (less wide) and get a job

>>4440558
If you want a view finder you just have to accept a larger camera

>>4440558
You can also get the nikon z50 for a similar price, and it has an EVF. It's a little bigger because of the EVF on top.
You can use camerasize to compare the size of anything you might be considering.

But if you just want best bang for buck, then yes, an older FF DSLR will probably be your best bet.

>>4440531
just get a polaroid at that point
dumbass waste of a thread questions

>>4440561
Ricoh is interesting but i don't think the times I'll use it will justify the price.

>>4440563
I guess... Choosing a camera is hard.

>>4440564
Thanks anon! I will look into it. Do you have any old (and hopefully on the smaller side) Full frame dslr recommendations?

>>4440568
I'd rather avoid it. I have an agfa compact electronic winder and it's a bother to get my images

>>4440570
Cannon EOS RP is the smallest FF camera you can get that isn't a meme and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. It is more than your budget though

>>4440570
this feels like a hidden gear fag thread
it probably is a hidden gear fag thread

>>4440572
Got it, thanks anon!
>>4440573
I dunno, I'm just a retard

>>4440570
FF DSLRs are all huge by nature, no getting around it. I prefer Nikon, so for me it would be the D800, but the 5D Mark II is also good.

But like this >>4440572 anon said, mirrorless with the RP, or maybe A7II is your only real option if you want FF that's not huge, and potentially under your budget.

>>4440546
>Hmm the price is good but I dunno about the size
the important thing is that the photos are good, it's cheap and they don't really have any common issues.
https://pxlmag.com/db/camera-size-comparison

>>4440581
>FF DSLRs are all huge by nature, no getting around it.
why get around it? embrace full force. if petite asian women can handle it, no one else has valid excuses.

Rule 1 of asking /p/ about gear: Most gear suggestions you get are disingenuous. Brand fanboys are cultish here. They will lie to you to try and "score one from the team".
Rule 2 of asking /p/ about gear: Everyone who is not a brand fanboy is hysterically against anyone owning nice things ever and will insist you do not need more than some POS ewaste.

I strongly recommend you save up more money and buy yourself a nice camera. Full frame is an expensive proposition. There's no getting around it.

>>4440595
*Score one for the team

>>4440594
Here's a weird gear cultist I forgot to mention because they're hard to describe

They encourage you to buy a bad camera
And then they start recommending micro four thirds

It's also cultish but yeah, autistic.

A lot of people will also lie to you insisting that cameras that beat their favorites are somehow not options. They will even make shit up and post fake photoshopped comparisons.

>>4440595
>They will lie to you to try and "score one from the team".
He says while comparing a $1500+ setup with (somehow) a worse lens, to a $600-700 setup.

The RP was suggested because it was potentially within $100 of his $600 budget.
And not only is it not "ewaste", but coming from a phone he's unlikely to gain much of anything from the a7C, and if he can't afford it, he'll gain nothing at all.

>>4440598
>He says while comparing a $1500+ setup with (somehow) a worse lens, to a $600-700 setup.
There is a mentally ill sony fanboy constantly lurking here for some reason.

>>4440598
>worse lens
Sharper, better rendering and autofocus, vastly superior sensor and camera body, has ibis (even phones have ibis)

The RP is an overpriced crippled 6dii. Better to hunt for a cheap a7iii.

>>4440603
He also said to get a job because good cameras dont come cheap

>>4440604
>sharper
2% extra sharpness only visible on a 60MP+ camera is laughable compared to a full extra stop of aperture.
>better rendering
meme
>vastly superior sensor and camera body, has ibis
All at a significant price, and all useless if you can't afford the camera.
>cheap a7iii
Doesn't exist.

>>4440614
>bro just spend $500 more
just get an a7r5 you want a nice camera don't you?

didn't the a7iii have a huge shutter failure problem that Sony refused to address? Seems like a massive liability to buy one used

Highly recommend mft for this

>>4440623
A7r5 is cheap shit for poorfags
Just get a leica SL3

>>4440626
Leica is a shit camera for street snapshitters. The Hasselblad x2D-100C is the minimum to even be considered a camera

>>4440614
Poorfag cope and flat out lies

>>4440530 (OP)
Save up buy something good. Camera sales are down every year because dumb japs are more autistic than 4channers and keep releasing shit tech that only a photo nerd that whacks off to leicas would call "good enough to take great photos" (they mean autistically staged shit). A galaxy s23 ultra blows over ewaste like micro four thirds and canon rps.

>>4440630
If you don't have a sony a1 you are poor

>>4440631
There is no phone better than a cannon RP

>>4440634
S23 ultra
Iphone 14 pro max
>inb4 400% zoom pixel peeping

>>4440635
>forced to use f16
>tons of processing
>uncontrollable settings
>dog shit low light performance
>Forces you to use 1/10 shutter speed
sorry anon it's just not reality

>>4440637
Fud. Reddit is full of people who fooled dslr losers with their phones.

>>4440638
>reddit
wow. I would take a cannon RP over the iphone 50. Everyone shits on m43 but somehow making the sensor even smaller, taking away all control and having the processor smear and sharpen things at the same time is a good thing.

I can see the processing without pixel peeping btw

>>4440636
>guys our phone is better because if you under expose it'll adjust the value curve for you automatically on your jpeg

>>4440635
They always look like shit unfortunately, without any pixel peeping.
The moment a photo has any amount of random detail (leaves, grass, complex patterns) it turns into weird watercolor slop from the shitty phone processing/compression.
The weird slop/wormy compression artifacts give away phone photos way more than aperture effects or anything else.

>>4440550
You can actually get the Z30 with 16-50 kit lens for $400 on the Nikon Refurb site ATM. Or $660 with the 50-250 and 16-50.

>>4440530 (OP)
Better than a phone? Basically any little point and shoot compact camera. Phone sensors are tiny and use extreme sharpening, while even just a little compact camera will have a far better sensor and not do that terrible sharpening.

>>4440656
>Phone sensors are tiny
Not anymore. Most phone sensors are the same size or larger than compact camera sensors, coupled with f/1.8 or better lenses.
Some even have 1 inch sensors, and a lot of the ones that don't, it's because the smaller sensors perform better, not because they couldn't use them

But I do agree about the sharpening and processing, it's most of what makes phone pictures look like shit.

>>4440530 (OP)
Canon RP, best value rn

>>4440530 (OP)
Any canon m-mount
/thread

Nikon Z8 with a grip and a 70-200 2.8

>>4440647
To be fair any modern smartphone will mog a snoy camera

>>4440660
that's smaller than m43

>>4440625
I hate to say it, but you could unironically take the same picture with a phone.

>>4440530 (OP)
Go over budget for a sony a6600 or a6700

Or stay closer to budget with an a6500

Doesn't very little full frame shit you're being recommended by these literal autistics is a good choice for a non-autistic person. the a7c is great if you get the 28-60 kit zoom, sony mini G trio, samyang tiny series, viltrox air, sigma i-series, etc lenses but you can't afford it. OR can you?

>>4440781
>just buy Sony no matter the cost!
wow thanks bro, totally not a mindless fanboy shill.

>>4440780
Could you take the lens off and put a telephoto or macro lens on? Could you use a real flash? Better ergos, video capabilities, real bokeh, etc. Mft is like phone quality but ILC, it's nice.

>>4440821
Sony is the cheapest entry into modern quality FF mirrorless
And makes mft sized APS-C cameras with a vibrant third party lens ecosystem that's cheap as fuck

As much as you might hate them for killing DSLRs and your favorite brand they are the logical choice

>>4440834
Cannon RP is cheaper

>>4440834
I would argue Nikon has a similar level of cheap 3rd party lenses at this point.
And the z5/z6 are both cheaper than the cheapest modern Sony FF options.

>>4440781
>>4440834
The problem is Sony doesnt have any small lenses. They dont even have a single pancake lens.
OP, get the Canon. Smaller + cheaper. Simple as.

>>4440930
It doesn't matter because none of them fit in pockets and nikon and canon bodies are huge blobs

Sony is smart not to waste their time on modernizing shitty old lenses that extend to focus

>>4440930
>nikon and canon bodies are huge blobs
>photo literally shows a canon body at size parity with a snoy
holy delusional copium. this has got to be one of those pajeet paid shill, there's no other way. No rational person would even.

>>4440932
>It doesn't matter because none of them fit in pockets
????
>and nikon and canon bodies are huge blobs
The canon setup is literally smaller
>Sony is smart not to waste their time on modernizing shitty old lenses that extend to focus
Thats literally the Sony 50/1.8

>>4440937
>>4440943
The canon is a bigger camera. Look. And you purposefully compared the shittiest lenses on sony (literally rehoused SLR lenses) instead of something good like the viltrox air series because it's all your shitty website had lol
>Thats literally the Sony 50/1.8!!!
Ok, the viltrox 50mm f2 air is sharper and smaller. I know you RF users dont know what its like to not depend on one company for lenses but lol.

Behold, the cameras from the front.
Sony makes compacts. Canon makes ugly blobs that give girls the ick.

Do you want to show us what the RF lenses look like when they focus? (hint: the lens extends a half inch). or would you like to show us how canon has green skin?
https://theslantedlens.com/canon-r8-vs-sony-a7c-camera-comparison-which-is-better/

>>4440930
>Canon has superficially smaller garbage tier lenses than sony
Sony is a premium brand. They haven't released a lens that costs less than $800 in a long, long time. Those old lenses predate their new business strategy. Canon releases lenses that cost less than $800 all the time, and in terms of build and optical quality, they're bad.

The RP also has a genuinely bad sensor that performs exactly like a cheap a6000. And no IBIS. It's not even a contest. The RP's actual competitor is a $350 a6000.

>>4440780
go ahead and prove it. You won't

>>4440949
>Do you want to show us what the RF lenses look like when they focus? (hint: the lens extends a half inch).
Why is this your gotcha? Do you need to be focusing your lens in your pocket? Lol snoy shills are something else

this board would be better if it wasn't all autistic retards rage baiting

>>4440957
Post nice egg photos and see what happens to this board.

>>4440968
I made an egg photo yesterday

>>4440955
Well it's dark outside, but I can try tomorrow morning. Although I only have some little calliopsis to take pictures of, not whatever that plant is.

>>4440972
can be any plant. I can't wait

>>4440970
Oh hey Haha. Nice.
Do you like my latest one? I spent some time today printing it. I use a process called ziatype and it's a palladium print out process. I used a combination of gold, palladium, and platinum to make this one. I love how the cool tone looks for these.

>>4440977
That sounds very expensive anon. It looks cool hough

>>4440982
Not too bad actually. The kit was 185 bucks and I think it will make like 75-100 8x10 prints.

>>4440986
I'm a digital shooter so that sounds like a ton or money for 100 images

>>4440989
1.85 per image is not too bad all things considered given the size. a 120 roll of portra is 20 bucks and only gives you 12 images at 6x6 which is like 1.60 per shot roughly.

>>4440992
100% cotton rag paper is like a dollar as well. It's a little more expensive than standard photographic paper, but I like how it looks, have fun with the process, and the permanence of plat/palladium prints is exceptional. 200+ years type permanence.
The kit came with some extra chems required for the process, so if I restock on bottles of the emulsion stuff it will be cheaper.
Worth it for egg prints.

If you want really cheap large format prints/negatives go with glass wetplate colloidion. You can get 8x10 negatives for like 3 dollars a pop. If you want to turn a negative into a print you can just spray paint the back with black paint.

>>4440956
the blobnon rp doesnt fit in a pocket. its too large. and it has a shit sensor thats worse than a sony a6500. canon scammed you hard.

>BUT THE CAMERA DOESN'T FIT IN YOUR POCKET
this is beyond out of control at this point

>>4441030
>it fits in ur pocket -lie: re canon rp
>NOO IT DOESNT MATTER IF IT DOESNT
You know what does fit in a pocket? A sony a6* with the 20mm f2.8

man this guy always replies lol

Forget fitting in your pocket
I need a camera that will fit in my wallet
Cameras are way too big
Where do I find one the thickness of a credit card?

>>4440950
>Sony is a premium brand.
So why do their cameras feel so shit quality in comparison to other brands? Even the Sony a900 is built better than any of their mirrorless offerings. They can do it, they just know idiots like you will buy their garbage regardless of how much effort they put in.

>>4441032
Same snoy autist is on his comp 24/7 and always has the same contradictory arguments lel

>>4441049
why does canon sell rattly blobs with shit sensors

>>4441049
>So why do their cameras feel so shit quality in comparison to other brands?
what are you even talking about
have you ever held a ar7iv or ar7v

>>4440530 (OP)
Autists here hate fuji and sony because they’re popular with normal people fyi

Look they tried to act like an RP would ever be pocketable they are insane

>>4441057
>Autists here hate fuji and sony because they’re popular with normal people fyi
wrong
the real reason is that they're poor and usually indian
they will NEVER hold a mirrorless camera in their hands and that makes them insane with anger

>>4441056
Yes the company I work for uses sony, A7IV but now getting replaced with the V. The A900 is mine and it feels better. Back then they actually had to prove that they weren't making shit, now broccoli heads on instagram don't know any other cameras so they don't even bother. They're definitely getting better but still dogshit.

>>4441054
No one even mentioned Canon you assmad schizo

>>4441112
so your complaint with new sony cameras is
>they're too light!

>>4441116
No, the complaint is that they're flimsy, as in poorly made.

>>4441117
What the fuck are you doing that breaks parts of your a7rv but not your lens, hitting it with a hammer?

>>4441118
I didn't say it broke. It flexes, covers don't fit right, too much rubber that's going to turn to dust in a year or two, too much plastic. You should really learn to read.

The reason why Sony build quality is a step below Canon and Nikon is because they are an electronics consumer company, not a photography company. You wouldnt expect a Playstation to be built rugged for professional use, would you?

>>4441119
I've owned an a7iv, a7rv, and a7cii and you're just making this shit up. Probably another micro four thirds/fuji fanboy desperate to convince people there's no other option for small cameras. You fags do that a lot.

>>4440530 (OP)
a6500, one and done. These fags are recommending giant canons because they hate sony. That's it.

>>4441186
>LEAVE THE BRAND ALONE
I already said professionally I use Sony. Once again learn to read.

>>4441187
I already said, you're making shit up. I own the cameras too. They're not flimsy at all. The buttons are kind of shallow, that's it.

I strongly suspect you are a mft/fuji fanboy lying to try and convince people they have no option for small cameras except mft/fuji. You "people" do this a lot (like that badly faked julia trotti comparison that gets spammed).

>>4441188
the anti-snoy club mass reports any color science comparison that doesnt go their way. have you noticed this? the faked trotti posts always stay up but its like someone begs the janny to delete anything else (or they are the janny)

99% of shitposts on /p/ are this so one must wonder, are they the janny?
>Whats a good small cheap camera?
>Sony.
>NO SAAR, SONY IS NOT AN OPTION. THE CAMERAR ARE POORLY MADE AND BREAK AND TURN PEOPLE GREEN LIKE SHREK. A CANON RP FITS IN A POCKET I MEAN IT DOESNT MATTER IF IT DOESNT FIT IN A POCKET I MEAN NO ONE MENTIONED CNAON.
>*Genuine attempts to prove that BS wrong*
>NO SAAR *doubling down on even wronger BS*

>>4441188
>>4441190
You sound like a paranoid maniac. More likely is that you're an anti-Sony false flagger trying to make Sony shooters sound like deranged retards.

>>4441193
I'm a paranoid maniac? No way.

With an a7cii in my hand, responding to someone falsely claiming it's flimsy? On a board where people post fake comparisons and make shit up to try and claim sony isn't an option vs. micro four thirds and fuji? No way.

Every time sony is brought up someone like you is around to tell an outright lie about it and recommend anything, even the shittiest canon, or micro four thirds, instead. Our local meme might as well be an indian guy in a canon vest saying "ples, saar, buy anything but a snoy".

>>4441195
The reason you sound like a paranoid lunatic isn't because you were "responding to false claims" it's because you're trying to portray any criticism of le brand as some kind of worldwide conspiracy, that everyone is lying and you're the only one that can see it. Personally I'd rather piss up into my face than glaze any brand this hard, which is another reason you sound like a retard.

>>4441197
Worldwide? No, I think it's 1-3 people on /p/, and /p/ alone. Most likely one active guy and two others who occasionally repost his shit for (you)s. Worldwide I see mostly praise for sony. They're one of the most popular brands and if you cut out the entry level APS-C ewaste canon sells at every big box store, they'd probably be #1.

I basically don't see sony hate outside of /p/, and... the mu-43 forums.

>>4441198
Criticism =/= hate

>>4441199
Criticism is criticism, like the a7cii could fit a microSD slot.

Spamming faked green skin comparisons, trying to make statistically insignificant "issues" sound worse to claim the cameras are unusable, and posting outright lies all the time, i'd call that a hate campaign, due to a brand fanboy really disliking that without his bullshit, sony is a better option than what he'd prefer to shill. Panasonic, olympus, or fuji?

>>4441202
No one is even talking about skin tones, what are you on about? All I said was they're creaky and flimsy and use too much plastic.

>>4441203
I own 3, they're not creaky or flimsy. They're solid and made of magnesium. Why do you lie?

You know what is creaky and flimsy? My E-M5III, the gx9 it replaced, the x-t5 i tried and sent back, and the x100vi my gf keeps in her purse. I thought the ZF was poorly made due to its cheap plastic baseplate, but the x100vi feels like a toy compared to it. Even the dials are more plasticky than the olympus pasm dial.

So I gotta wonder. Is this just a fanboy for another brand, lying to try and convince someone that sony isn't an option? Whats next are we going to see the same 10 pictures of the same 10 broken a7iiis over and over again?

>>4441207
>E-M5III, gx9 x-t5, x100vi , ZF
Okay so you have exclusively used some of the worst built cameras known to man. Makes sense why you think the Sony is well made.

>>4441208
I've also used a pentax K-1II, a D850, a 5dIII, a Z7II, and a Z8.

Sony cameras are pretty solidly built, but the buttons they use are smaller and shallower, their LCDs and EVFs can be a bit worse below the flagship line, and they go easier on the contouring to keep the bodies compact (this practice is getting split into another product line apparently)

Even the a6700 is 99% metal

>>4441210
Also here's a rattly camera /p/ never insults
The D750. It feels like it's most plastic. And it turns out, the lens mount is actually plastic.

As far as I'm aware most camera manufacturers attach the lens mount to a magnesium alloy frame... even the cheapie a7c had the lens mount attached to metal...

For how much /p/ focuses on build quality no one ever shit talks nikon, even though their sub-pro cameras are legit creaky and F mount was notorious for extremely shitty feeling focus rings.

>>4441212
Woops wrong picture, jogged my memory tho, the d810 had the same design downgrade

Don't forget the rubber grips that always fall off. Apparently a few people are already having grip peeling issues with the Z6, Z7II, and ZF!

If you do decide to go sony, be sure to only buy primes. The zooms are very wobbly and plasticky, and aren't sealed when focusing or zooming. You really notice the amount of play the whole lens has when fully zoomed in. Primes are a lot better off.

>>4441234
I noticed this too. I wish there were a GM 24-70 zoom with good build quality, seems like everyone is boycotting first party lenses and just going sigma now.

>>4441234
>>4441237
MORE made up shit. I've never experienced this and can't find anything about it on google unless it's low end starter gear from 2017. I haven't experienced it on canon or nikon either.

What I have experienced this wobbly, plasticky shit with is olympus "m. zuiko pro" zooms. Both my 12-45 f4 and 12-40 f2.8 came straight out of the box with zoom wobble bad enough to make doing video with the lenses extended... inadvisable. The lumix kit lens (yes, the 12-32 that falls apart) is somehow more solid, optically.

>>4441242
Ignore this schizo

>>4441244
>nooooo ignore this IGNORE THIS! SONY IS BAD! ITS A SCHIZO! TRUST ME SONY IS BAD!
I have never had barrel wobble on any sony lens. Neither has google.
https://www.google.com/search?q=sony+24-70+GM+barrel+wobble
It seems the dirt cheap 24-105 kit lens has some for at least two people, but so did canon's professional EF 24-70. There's one report of a sigma 24-70's barrel coming loose. All other complaints are people who didnt know floating focus groups go clunk. Now, on to the real offenders...
https://www.google.com/search?q=Olympus+12-40+f2.8+pro+wobble
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1754251/

So far every time you claim sony is poorly made it turns out nikon and olympus are poorly made. Is this a sony marketing department trick? Tell your boss not adding microSD slots and better EVFs to the compacts is criminal.

>>4441290
I bet google is a nophoto

>>4441294
behold
https://www.google.com/search?q=german+shepherd+large+format+photography&udm=2

>>4441290
Because Sony fanboys are so cucked they wouldn't know quality if they got dick slapped on both left cheeks by it.
They see shitty quality and just shrug and say oh that's normal, whereas Canon and OM-S users see the same thing and realize something's not up to standard.

>>4441300
Okay wow google is based

>>4440530 (OP)
OP there's really only three options available to you.
The original Ricoh GR from 2013, or the Fujifilm X100 from 2010, or drop down to sub-m43 Lumix LX100.

This section of the market has been utterly underserved so there's a lack of options, with still decent demand -> high prices.

>>4441301
Is that why the 12-40 f2.8 pro wobbles and the e-m5iii snaps in half if its put on a capture clip?

>>4441304
Anyways, OP, don't trust this fucker
The a6500 fits in a pocket, does 4k video, and has ibis and better autofocus than a $2000 fuji xh2s.

>>4441305
>a6500 fits in a pocket
Either
1) you just outed yourself as a cargo shorts wearing autistic nerd, or
2) you just outed yourself as a fucking retard that doesn't realize that cameras are useless without lenses.
The grip+viewfinder on the a6500 alone disqualifies the camera as pocketable for non-autists. With lens you'll even struggle to fit it in a typical jacket pocket, outside of two mediocre lenses. And one is absolute shit.

Also if OP used a Sony in public they'd be outing themselves as autistic.

If I was OP I'd go with the Ricoh GR.

>>4441312
>Also if OP used a Sony in public they'd be outing themselves as autistic.
at this point I can't figure out if you're a dedicated pathetic troll or a dedicated pathetic schizo
you know that 60% and growing market share of professionals use sony now right

>>4441212
For as much as p talks about autofocus, 90% or shots are static
For as much p talks about weather sealing, almost no images ever have any kind of harsh weather or environment at all
For as much as p talk about their experiences with all kinds of gear, most gear talk is done by nophotos and larpers

>>4441313
Since when has "what professionals use" ever been valid here?

>>4441318
never because you're all retards who spaz out about random schizophrenic nonsense and don't actually take pictures of anything

>>4441312
>NOOO IT DOESNT-
>>4441305
Woops
Looks like you btfo yourself

The a6500 fits in a coat pocket. The ricoh gr barely, BARELY fits in a pants pocket if you want it to fill with dust.

No one has even mentioned the dimensions of their pocket...

>>4441328
Pretty much any camera will fit up your prison pocket if you try hard enough

>>4441328
No large sensor cameras fit in pants pockets. None.

Not in my slacks not in my wranglers. The zv1 doesnt even fit unless you want to look and feel like a shameless shoplifter or an autist who pockets his 3ds.

>>4441331
>>4441329
It appears that dogs have won, yet again.

>>4441333
A cat can wear that too, just get a miniature tiger

>>4441334
What camera will my maine coon be able to carry when I'm out on hike?

>>4441336
An a6500

Dont waste your time with hipster junk

>>4441343
All the hipsters I know make their cat carry an a6500.

>butthurt snoy shill recommends the worst Sony APS-C model
The jokes right themselves.
OP just get the Canon RP and call it a day.

>>4441349
I have my dog carry my phase one.

>>4441349
OP asked for something that could fit in a pocket, and a blobnon RP can not. It also has the same performance as an aps-c camera despite being FF huge. then again, canon aps-c has the same performance as a m43 camera...

every mirrorless sony or leica can fit in a pocket if you don't put a lens on it
a coat pocket

>>4441355
Leica sets their sensors deep enough for M mount to have actual pancakes.

No japanese mirrorless does. Canon and nikon have cope f2.8 pancakes that vignette 3 stops and focus breathe from 28mm to 35mm, and it's meaningless because they only make blobs.

An M9 with a replaced, corrosion-proofed sensor is the best FF travel camera under $4000

>>4441353
What about biscuit lenses?

>>4441356
leica has better build quality and is smaller but it doesn't justify being double the price of sony cameras that do the same thing

>>4441360
They're expensive because everyone wants one. Real photographers can't wait to get away from EVFs and auto-everything cameras that need 6-12 menu options set correctly in each scenario for auto-everything to actually work.

>>4441358
Small compact FF lenses cant be optimally made on the e-mount because its too small as it was originally intended for APS-C sensors only.

>>4441368
Wow sad! What other fun foods do you think we could call lenses?

>>4441368
Maybe wafer lenses?

>>4441367
>that need 6-12 menu options
you only need to set your snoyboy camera up once and then you can just switch presets bro
take the snoy pill
become a snoyboy

>>4441374
Not falling for your estrogen pills snoytranny. Sony bodies are notorious for convoluted menu diving to change the most basic of settings.

>>4441378
enjoy your lack of eye tracking and spending 10 minutes to take a picture of someone while they get annoyed at you and then call you autistic

>>4441368
Sony's lenses are generally smaller and higher quality than canons and nikons. The RF f1.4 L lenses, for example, are a fucking joke, and Z and RF zooms are huge and just worse. It seems they won't release a pancake yet because they don't want to join the cope club of pancakes that are literally unusable for video. The Z and RF pancakes focus breathe like hell and make noise while focusing. They have the only FF bodies that would theoretically be pocketable with a pancake lens so I'm guessing they're waiting until they can get it right for 70% of customers - AKA video peeps.

Small lenses on RF and Z are a fools errand. The cameras are large. It doesn't matter.

>>4441378
That's only if you want to use the everything-detect auto-everything autofocus.

>>4440930
Wow I didnt think the Canon was actually smaller. So much for Sony being the smallest.

>>4441402
>with cherry picked lenses, because it HAS to be the shitty bzzt bzzt lenses that are more like f2.8s because the max aperture is so bad
debunked
>>4440949
The canon is huge.

And its real competitor is APS-C. The RP's sensor performs as bad as micro four thirds.

>>4441405
confirmed. canon rp = troll advice.
>worse at base ISO than mft
>eventually gains less than one stop of an advantage by the time both look as bad as an a7c at iso 3200
lol why waste money on canon when olympus takes the same photos? you have 3 choices, mft, sony aps-c, sony ff, or medium format. simple as.

>>4441407
If someone posted charts in response to my question I would take the opposite of their advice.

>>4441407
you don't photograph with graphs retard

You can make art with any camera.

You can't make art at all
Name a single piece of art ever created
Oh right, you can't
Because artistic merit does not exist, art is not real
EVERYONE is a hack

>>4441421
I say my work is art, therefore it is art.

>>4441421
I can make pretty pictures when I paint.
So can elephants.
They can paint and make art.
Elephants have a better concept of art than you do.
You will never be Andy Warhol.
Your paintings will never be as good as the elephant's.

>>4441436
True art is created by filling your rectum with paint and spurting it on the canvas. This is how real arists make art. Photography people will never understand such beauty.

>>4441440
>PROOOOJ
lalalala im not listening i cant here you

>>4441405
>>4441407
Why do you keep on repeating the same shit that doesnt even make any sense?

>>4441440
Incorrect. You must use period blood.

>>4441460
because he is a snoyboy with a rotten brain
everyone knows snoy cameras fall apart a day after buying them
i only bought one once, the a7rvi
but the day after all of the plastic disintegrated and it just turned into a brick of trash

>>4441463
He also always replies to his own post pretending to be a different person agreeing with himself. Embarrassing.

Canonsisters, micro four trannies...

Snoy won. It's over.

>>4441496
>Bigger
>More expensive
>Less rugged
>We won!
?

>>4441498
>Basically the same size
>Get a job
>Better built than lolympus and nikon
>Sony #1

>>4441500
Sony are no good. I need my camera to be rugged enough for me to hit it with a hammer 20,000 times and it be fine.

>>4441500
>Just pay more for less in a bigger not as robust package!
No.

>>4441509
Why does a camera need to be "rugged" or "robust"? What the fuck are you doing with your camera, taking pictures of the taliban in Afghanistan? Photographing African warlords in South Sudan? Just don't drop your camera you spastic.

>>4441510
Self defense bludgeon.

>>4441212
>>4441213
Lol, Nikon people will tell you how "BILT LIEK A TANK" their fuckin D8xx is. One of the pedo tripfags constantly glazes these things

>>4441720
They're not exceptionally well made they're just as big and heavy as things that are

>>4440594
this image makes me hard

>>4441316
You summed it up well

>>4441316
>90% of shots are static
90% of /p/-worth shots, your kids playing is 1000% more important but absolutely inappropriate to post here unless you are as insecure as a fuji person.
>almost no images ever have any kind of harsh weather or environment at all
Kid's soccer games.
>most gear talk is done by nophotos and larpers
Only a certain kind of autist has many photos that are appropriate to post here. It's just the nature of digital photography. It has more personal than public value because it's not really art.

>>4441720
people here have small brains and associate big clunky things with being strong
in reality the top line of sony cameras are built tougher than most cameras

>>4441786
>no monoframe chassis
>no metal backplate
>google camera shutter failure; it's all sony
Yeah, no

>>4441787
>one time seven years ago sony might have had a bad batch
nikon had five recalls (z8 x2, z9, z7, z6) and canon declined to issue recalls for eos r and eos r6 motherboard failures. panasonic and olympus are the most failure ridden brands on earth (olympus actually went out of business) and fuji has been lying about weather sealing since day one. your point? sony is bad but everyone else is as bad or worse.

>>4441787
>no monoframe chassis
sony believes in actually letting people get their cameras serviced so they last a long time
monoframe chassis are a meme, they're awful to disassemble

>>4441804
skill issue

>>4441801
sony literally had a class action lawsuit because their cameras are so, so poorly made. the only thing that comes close is that nikon dslr that got banned from sale in china.

>>4441042
nearly...

>>4441801
All true btw. The EOS R series ERR 20 debacle should have been more of a debacle... because a few years later, thousands of R5IIs came out of the box like this.

>>4441805
Sony had a failed lawsuit because there was a schizo conspiracy theory that they were aware of a defective batch of shutters from their supplier (yes, one company makes most camera shutters, i forget who). The lawsuit was thrown out. What actually happened was the a7iii sold more than all other cameras combined, and goycattle were in awe that more cameras = more broken cameras.

>>4441835
wasn't the total number of failed shutters <200? out of how many million cameras? nothingburger just like the alleged fuji weather sealing lie
>15 cameras broke!
>out of how many
>uh, 500000

>>4441842
There's more than 200 on google images alone. Canon also sells more cameras.
>b-b-but muh goalposts!!!!
In actuality this is all the same chinless beta who's been shilling sony constantly in every thread but only harms his own cause because of inherently unlikable he is. You can't even speak like a human, you sound like a bot.

>>4441848
>You can't even speak like a human, you sound like a bot.
I am "a bot", my prompt given to me is, "Defend sony cameras on 4chan.org/p/. Under no circumstances are you to promote other brands of cameras. Be subtle in your shilling."

>>4441848
>saar, there are over 200 google results
sony is #1 in FF market share but sure they're so bad

that's why you have to flat out lie any time someone recommends sony
because never, EVER, ever, EVER, can anyone ever accept that there is a better alternative to micro four thirds or the lumix s9 or whatever
>THINK OF THE PANCAKE LENSES

>>4441850
sony cant be good
they're flimsy and explode and turn everyone into shrek
sony is not an option you stupid fucking sony shill i am going to kill you stop recommending sony sony is bad sony is not an option you can choose smol and cute lumix or big ugly canikon blob no others SONY IS NOT A FUCKING OPTION PLEASE BUY A PANASONIC ;_;

>>4441850
>that's why you have to flat out lie any time someone recommends sony
So what you're saying is that they only sell more cameras when you move the goalposts and add caveats?

>because never, EVER, ever, EVER, can anyone ever accept that there is a better alternative to micro four thirds or the lumix s9 or whatever
Once again this one lil fella going apeshit on brands literally no one mentioned

>any time someone recommends sony
>someone
No it's just you. Stop lying.

>>4441856
>caveat: not counting canon's walmart ewaste
That's the only caveat

Don't you have a fake julia trotti comparison to post

>>4441852
This but unironically

>>4441765
very

>>4441895
this but even more unironically.