Is it worth it to trade in my Sony a7ii and Zeiss 50mm f/1.8 lens for a Pentax KP with a couple primes and a zoom? I like the weather sealing of Pentax bodies and any lenses I get for it will also work on my K10D. I can't think of anything about the a7ii that makes me want to keep it except for the fact I already have it. Thoughts?

my cheap auction d200 has a pin missing in the cf card slot

I still can't help shake the feeling I made a mistake buying M43, even though the images are great and all other evidence like people printing huge and taking professional shots says otherwise

>>4443454 (OP)
Yes. The second gen Sony bodies are some of the worst bodies you could use. The 55mm (like most of their lenses) suffered from poor quality control. Anything would be an upgrade really.

I want to buy a new camera and 3 or 4 very high quality lenses. I want: wide-ish prime, short telephoto prime, macro, and a super telephoto. What would you pick? I'm considering gfx (something like the 45mm, 110mm, 120 macro, and 250mm) as it has very beautiful lenses but would be open to FF.

What lenses come on the Pentax? It's basically equivalent to a Nikon D300, Sony A6000, or a Canon 7D Mark II

>>4443464
Go with the Fuji. Fool frame is a meme and just as bad as m43.

>>4443464
If you're throwing that much money away just get a Hasselblad. Fuji is just a cope

>>4443468
The blad kit is even more expensive last I checked and I'm not sure it's worth it, would love to be proven wrong.

>>4443467
Eh if it's 40mp+ I'd probably be more than happy.

>>4443470
What does MP have to do with anything?

>>4443470
you don't need to buy all the lenses at once and they will retain a lot of value

>>4443460
Can you show me your camera? Id like to your exact setup.

>>4443488
EM1-III
Olympus Pro f1.4 20mm lens
That's it

just use the damn camera you have i dont believe anyone that uses 4chan would use a camera in any scenario that needs weather sealing

>>4443490
No like a picture of the camera

>>4443460
>images are great
then what's the problem?

>>4443507
I'm just having trouble separating myself from the gear people

>>4443464
The fuji and the hassleblad as foolframe+ copes. Go large format sheet film or you're a nigger

What can be done about the zoomer menace? 180 for a shitcam. it boggles the mind. i paid 200 for a canon 7s with the 50/1.4 not too long ago. will it ever end?

>>4443528
>i paid 200 for a canon 7s
Lol you're just as bad

I want to get into photography, can a good camera be got for 500$-1000$ to start?

>>4443529
>plastic disposable irreperable electronic junk is the same as a mechanically serviceable machine
i mean, indictment of consumerism aside, i don't agree that its the same thing.

>>4443530
>can a good camera be got for 500$-1000$ to start?
A canon 5d mark ii costs less than that so yes

>>4443530
yes that's enough money. Don't ask this board what to buy. There are multiple mentally ill retards here that will try to shill you into their system

>>4443531
Nigga you bought a camera with a selenium light meter

>>4443465
35mm f/2.8
50-135mm f/2.8
55mm f/1.4 (only worth it for super-fast aperture)
70mm f/2.4 (maybe not worth it bc zoom)
200mm f/2.8

>>4443535
it's completely uncoupled the camera is fully mechanic lol. And the lens alone is worth more but i digress, the problem is the zoomers making it bad for the rest of us.

>>4443536
If they're all Pentax autofocus lenses its worth it, A7II isn't worth shit second hand (actually the same price as a KP, or $5-600). All those lenses go for $1-200 each on average. Zeiss 50mm f1.8 is still $500 though used

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 a6700 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?

>>4443527
I can't into home dev because I'm scared of pouring even diluted chemicals into my septic and I don't enjoy having other people develop my film. I'd rather stay digital.

>>4443559
>it overheats
Unless you plan on shooting videos it's not something you need to worry about.

>>4443454 (OP)
This is what 4chan/reddit do to your brain.

Dont forget, you’ll stop being happy with it when you stop posting there and here. You will regret everything. You were and are happier with what you have. But you will do it anyways and you will shill for what you bought and against what you sold to feel better about yourself.

>>4443559
SOOC jpegs only look excusable in thumbnail sized youtube popups and they are cherry picked

Get them on your computer irl and realize you just spent $1500 on phone smear quality, and every other photo that isnt a planned out portrait has a weird green or magenta tint

>>4443564
You can get some 5 gallon water jugs and just dump chems in there. One for dev and one for fixer. Most devs are fine for septic, really. Fixer is what you want to avoid dumping in septic.

Once you 5 gallon jugs are full you can bring them to your local dump. If you collect enough soent fixer you can actually collect a little silver if you wanted. :o

>>4443568
just pour them out in the backyard like a real man

for how much should i sell my lumix g7 for? with the kit lenses

>>4443569
I pour my dev in the backyard, lol. I do not pour fixer photoflo or selenium toner in backyard.

>>4443571
selenium is a micronutrient your plants will love it

>>4443573
It's illegal and easily detected.

>>4443550
fuck yeah I’m gonna do it, although I might go for a K3iii instead of the KP.

>>4443574
>it's illegal to do what I want with my own materials
>it's not illegal to fuck us out of housing
Hmmmm

>>4443574
just pour it into the storm drain near the homeless encampments?

>>4443568
>Fixer is what you want to avoid dumping in septic.
Please elaborate, I mean you'll just mix it with shit.

>>4443575
Honestly I don't think a K3iii is worth it. They're $1800 new and $1200 used. At that point just stick to Sony and do a A7C or A6700. Or get the CanoNikon equivalent (7DII or D500) for $4-500.

The KP trade is worth it if you're not adding money on top and those are all Pentax autofocus lenses (and that's because the lenses are worth the money). And if you really like the lenses and they're FA (full frame) maybe upgrade to a K1ii (which is equivalent to a A7III/D810 honestly, just $1200 instead of $600).

>>4443574
detected by whomst? who is looking? why would anyone even come check your yard? and i thought canada was an over reaching nanny state, wherever you live must suck lol

>>4443582
My government has teams of environmental agents who go door by door and if any pollutants are detected they execute the inhabitants. I live in North Korea btw

>>4443566
Listen to this man. You are 4chan gearfagging. Leave this site before you hop on this ride.

>>4443454 (OP)
Brehs, how many years from the manufacture date of a camera will the weather sealing start to degrade?

>>4443587
That really depends on the quality of the weather sealing and how much sunlight the camera gets (sunlight destroys rubber). You can just replace the gaskets and stuff on most cameras though.

>>4443584
He meant you'll start being happy when you stop posting though

>>4443582
No one will probably find it, but it isn't worth risking and I don't want to poison the ground that my well and my neighbor's well resides over lol. It's just a retarded move to do it.

>>4443596
Just dump them chemicals straight into your well son, they're good for you.

Weather sealing degrades over time. If you’re buying a camera that’s 5+ years old, the weather sealing around high use areas like wheels, buttons and sd card doors most likely no longer works. Most people dont notice because their camera gets a light sprinkle of low conductivity freshwater or melted snow once a year and cameras are generally well made with inherently water repelling designs like overlapping seams and tight fit parts for light-tightness.

If you want to change cameras solely for more dependable weather sealing and actually take it through downpours in vietnam, you have to buy something newer. likely technically worse, more expensive, or both.

>>4443598
Not a thirdie and I do not participate in thirdie behaviors.

>>4443600
or you could just buy or make a camera bag that works underwater

>budget: $1500 USD for body and lens
>want SOOC jpegs, no Lightroom
>prefer a prime lens (28mm or 35mm) to zoom
>want a center mounted viewfinder
>bonus: touch AF while using the viewfinder
Considering both of these

>>4443610
Fuji sensors are extremely soft. Don't fall for muh film simulations meme

>>4443610
>jpegs
just use your iphone

>>4443464
throw out the 45mm and get something actually wide.

110 is nice since it's the best portrait lens on gfx, 120is a little redundant but if you really need the macro capabilities. Then 250 for tele is nice but are you sure you don't want something even longer?

>>4443610
Ah yes. The Canon RP. A camera with no better quality than my EOS 50D but for $1,000 instead of $100.

>>4443470
You can get a Hassy roughly for the same price with the x1d on the used market. It's only 50mp as opposed to 100mp with the x2d or with Fuji.

>>4443619
>buy a x1d for the same price as a new a7rv
>tiny lens selection
>lenses are still $3000 each

>>4443620
>comparing snoy to Hasselblad
lol

>>4443615
If you seriously cannot tell the difference between a JPEG taken with a phone and one that comes from even an APSC camera, go to the eye doctor.

>>4443621
a7rv has better quality than an x1d
x1d is old and busted literally zero reason to ever buy one, the X2D is better than anything sony has for photography

>>4443490
>Olympus Pro f1.4 20mm lens
unfathomably based lens choice

>>4443628
An a7rv is alsomuch more expensive than a x1d on the used market

>>4443638
Maybe a thousand dollars cheaper but that's the price of one camera lens, if that difference bothers you, you should be buying m43 cameras to shoot pics of your trans dog

>>4443639
I shoot on Fuji gfx 100s but I gotta defend the Hassy x1d here. I‘d pick a x1d over a a7rv any day. The sensor got nicer tonality and sharpness and highlight rolloff are much nicer. You can also load pics on your phone and apply a preset and edit in Hasselblads iphone app on the go - which imo is a huge plus for the plattform. All that for cheaper than the a7rv. The only point snoy here is the much better iso noise performance.

>>4443454 (OP)
Yes.
Give up trying to optimize your photography with your camera, get something that actually has soul™, git gud, and learn to actually enjoy photography.
The KP's image quality is only a little behind the Sony unless you're trying to get your camera to see in the dark and slow shutter speeds aren't an option. That's the main thing that matters.
You'll never enjoy photography using a Sony. The enjoyment of Sony comes not from photography, but from wearing beanies and hiring hot models so you can show off on instagram and tiktok.
Notice very few people run Youtube channels about Pentax except Snappiness, despite it being an uncontested niche. That's because once people buy Pentax, they actually start taking pictures.
>>4443464
Just get a Pentax K3iii with DA Limited's. 15mm for your wide-ish, 40mm or 70mm depending on what you consider a short telephoto, 35mm for your macro. For your super telephoto you can pick up the 300mm.
>>4443465
Google "Pentax Limited Lens Special Site". Start collecting.
>>4443479
Once you start printing large 24mp because inadequate. 40MP sounds like what I'd like to shoot for, but 30s are more realistic. Once you git gud someone always has some rich aunt that insists on buying large ass prints as a Christmas gift regardless of your genre of photography. 20x30 prints are not uncommon.
>>4443460
Are you printing large? No? Doesn't matter.
Are you enjoying photography? Yes? Does matter.
Gigapixel AI works in a pinch if large prints do matter (although it's nice being able to say your art is untouched by AI, AI denoise and upscaling seems to be legit areas to use AI -- basically use it to make up for technological shortcomings, not artistic vision shortcomings).

>>4443530
Get a Pentax K-70 or KF, the 18-135mm, and the 35mm f/2.8 Limited Macro.
This is all you need to git gud, and more importantly, enjoy the fuck out of photography.

Get K-70 if you want to save money because getting a brand new KF won't actually take any better of pictures.
Get KF because you want to buy new, or because you don't want to take the solenoid problem gamble with a K-70, or because you care about special edition color modes or otherwise updated firmware.
They're basically the same camera, the KF just replaced the K-70 because of a specification change due to parts availability.
>>4443534
Confirmed. I'm a Pentax fanboy and 80% of my posts on this board are trying to convince people to buy Pentax.
This makes the Sony fanboy seethe, because they hate knowing people are taking better pictures on gear they deem inferior, and what's worse from their perspective, is people shooting Pentax actually enjoy doing photography.
>>4443559
Just buy something cheap. Like a Pentax K-70 or KF. But seriously, you don't need to spend $1500 to take pictures of fucking butterflies. If you don't like my Pentax recommendation then I recommend the Canon R50, seriously. You won't have to learn much photography and can rely on auto modes like your phone camera, but end up with much better pictures. The 55-210mm lens will be good for butterflies because it's actually pretty decent at "close up" photography and will let you keep your distance without spooking them, and Canon's autofocus is very good making taking those pictures super easy.

>>4443575
Get the K1/ii over the K3iii, they're selling for nearly the same price. Only exception is if autofocus performance is important to you, where the K3iii is a little behind Nikon D500 performance and ahead of the K1ii and KP. But the K1ii is probably better than the KP for autofocus.
KP is Pentax's "I just want to enjoy photography" camera. By all accounts, it lives up to that standard.
My plan is to get a KP to take over as an EDC camera from my KF, and the KF will be used for social outings (because of the flippy screen) and for making videos for social media.
The latest rumor is that a refreshed K3iii is coming out somewhat soon (which in Pentax time means it could be 3 months or 3 years) to replace the K3iii as parts became unavailable during COVID, so I'm personally holding off on a K3iii for now. I'll pick that up once it comes out.
(A cool thing about buying a mature system, is eventually you actually have everything from the brand that you care about, and it becomes super affordable (relative to the camera market overall) to keep up).

>>4443454 (OP)
you fags need to learn to post the new thread in the old one.

Why do zoomers have cages around their cameras?

>>4443675
>>4443677
>>4443678
>Like a Pentax K-70 or KF. But seriously, you don't need to spend $1500 to take pictures of fucking butterflies. If you don't like my Pentax recommendation then I recommend the Canon R50, seriously.
pretty based desu i might be lost in the sauce, will look into this

>>4443678
The only reason I held off on going with a K1 is because the lenses it uses are FA but I have a K10D already which uses DA. I want whatever gear I get next to work with the K10D as well because I’m attached to it. It’s been my shitty camera for nearly a decade and it’s never given up on giving me great photos. I barely use my Sony and it’s full frame with a dickton more megapixels.

>>4443684
suck my dick faggot

>>4443677
a lil chunky but the k-70 is better, why do you like pentax so much?

>>4443693
Seriously, the Canon R50 is the camera I recommend over the Pentax. I'm just a Pentax fanboy.
Your hobby is photography -> Pentax.
Your hobby is being supplemented by photography -> Canon R50.
>>4443694
Yeah, if you already have a DA lens collection, going FF is tougher. I started from scratch, so I was able to buy with intention to use lenses on both FF and APSC. The FA 21, 31, 43, 77 work great on both systems, and then I have the 15, 2.8 f/2.8, and 18-135 for APS-C itself, and 28-105 for FF itself. A lot of overlap so it's comfy to have both systems.
Thinking of getting the 300mm to use on both systems, too.
Sometimes I use the 18-135mm on my K1ii, as it's nice having that extra few MM's to hit 200mm equivalent. It's a better experience than I thought it'd be.
>>4443701
It's about the same size as a Lumix G9 m43 lol.
I think they really nail ergonomics and "user experience". I turn the screen off and just start shooting, only looking at the screen to review at the end of every "sprint". I prefer the OVF experience and Pentax is the only brand still saying they're invested in DSLRs (whether Pentax will discontinue it is yet to be seen and up in the air -- no one except the people at Ricoh knows, but they're still releasing firmware and "premium features" so it's a good sign). Using Pentax cameras, more than any other brand, I find I can focus more on photography instead of the camera.

>>4443701
>>4443706
Just wanted to elaborate on OVFs.

I have a theory about OVF's.
So, human sensory experience -- our vision is very, very strong. We are vision-centric animals. It overrides all of our senses *and even our imagination*. Do an experiment for yourself: close your eyes, imagine your phone. Imagine it with a background wallpaper that's green instead of whatever color it is (if it's green, then imagine it's like red or something). You can probably imagine it pretty vividly.*Now look at your phone* and try to imagine it again. You'll notice it's much less vivid, if you can imagine it at all. You can probably notice your imagination competing with what you actually see, with your focus veering back and forth.
*This leads us to the advantage of OVF*. EVFs are WYSIWYG -- generally, what you're actually seeing in the EVF is the actual picture you're going to end up with. It's the exposure you'll get, it's the color you'll get, everything. Seeing what you're going to get overrides your imagination for envisioning the photograph you want to get.
An OVF, however, requires you to use your imagination more, to think about how what you're seeing will transform into a photograph you'll eventually get. You stop relying on the EVF to get the result, and you become a more imaginative photographer for it. How will your framing and composition work with the contrast and colors present? How will your exposure lend to developing contrast in the final image? I find I'm thinking about all of this stuff far more with an OVF. Not having the WYSIWYG image helps this process come far more naturally.
This is reason #1.
Reason #2:
There's also something intangible -- you look into an OVF, and you're seeing the real world. It enhances your interaction with it. It's a human touch, that EVF just doesn't come close. Would you rather watch a sexy woman undress with your own eyes in the same room, or just watch a live video of it behind a partition?

>>4443690
so they can rig better for video, also extra protection and look cool

>>4443710
True, that's why offset RF OVFs are the best

>>4443710
your theory reminds me of heidegger's concepts of readiness to hand vs present at hand, how you're describing how you take pictures is BEING IN THE WORLD, it's a long time since i looked at that so idr how to explain it but it gives me a similar feel
just realized why pentax sounded so familiar, it's the camera most of my childhood pictures were taken with, a Pentax K1000

>>4443710
>You'll notice it's much less vivid, if you can imagine it at all
If anything it's easier... I think you might be retarded?
>anon just realized that individual experience is subjective and varies

>>4443710
If you're taking photography creatively and artistically you are 100% correct. If you're just documenting reality and attempting to do it as efficiently as possible an evf may be a better choice for you.

I show people the back of my view camera and they almost all are amazed at the look of fhe ground glass. I show people my ipad has a camera they don't care. I don't have an ipad. It was just an example.

>>4443706

I know you're a fanboy like I'm a A-Mount/Minolta Fanboy, my problem with the system is that they're not a good value relative to what's out there now both new and used. At least the Minolta stuff I can throw it on a new Snoy mirrorless and have vintage glass when I want while still keeping the benefits of new tech (best in class AF, low light performance/DR). Minolta glass is nearly worthless too.

Its not like the professional Nikon/Canons are bad cameras either. Most of the Disney photographers at the parks use D750s/D810s. Canon 5Ds were used by most of Hollywood/Media for a good 10 years (and stuff like the 5D Classic/Mk2 + Nikon D200s became cult classics for their SOOC photos). Canon EF and Nikkor glass is some of the best in the industry too (Canon 24-105 f4 USM for example).

Its just that Pentax stopped being competitive in 2018 and as everyone swapped to mirrorless it meant the old legacy DSLRs depreciated hardcore to the point that they're often 50% the Pentax equivalent (when brand new they cost the same). You can buy a D810 or a 5D Mk3 on Craigslist/Facebook locally, there's maybe 10 K1s for sale in the United States at any given time and they're almost always 2x the price.

I only bought my KF cuz of the ergos, but I kinda feel like I would've gotten a better camera if I tried a D500 or a 7D MK2 instead. I will say Pentax does do magic with their sensors imo, they do awesome at higher ISOs. It might be due to the lack of AA filter + thin glass over the sensor.

Pic rel is with a 70-200mm Pentax-F I paid $20 for (there's a Takumar-F 70-210mm on eBay if you wanna try)

Is €500 a good deal for a used Tamron SP 150-600mm (G1)?

Finally doing a gear purge this month. So far I'm up to 12 lenses and 1 body I'm letting go of.
Plan on picking up 1-2 lenses in their place, but pretty done after that. Any bodies I'd be interested in probably won't be out until next year
Been a slow accumulation over many years and finally whittling things down

>>4443751
Bro I hit 6 lenses recently and thought I was being a fuckwit. Have you just got like four mount systems?

>>4443610
Fuji: blurry, bad colors
Canon: micro four thirds DR
Neither has essential features like IBIS. Micro four thirds woukd be better!

Consider doing what normal people do. Buy an a7iii. Dont take /p/ autistic advice. Their recommendations are informed by brand fanboy rivalries from /v/.

>>4443675
4chan brained. Ignore this autistic fag. He’s in the same retro tech cult as thinkpad lusers and he’s mostly a /v/ tourist that’s mad at sony for beating xbox.

>>4443761
snoy didn't beat xbox, xbox one is the best console

>>4443751
This is the kind of person shilling pentax as a cure all for "fun". Its not fun. Its a shopping addiction blended with using real life decisions to troll on 4chan.

Dont be like german shepherd fucker and husky rapist, buying stupid gear to be "based" and "own the people with brands i dont like". They live sad empty lives and their photography never leaves their back yard. All they do is test their gear and zoom in to talk about made up shit like tonality, soul, and magical viewfinders.

Use what you have. Hire a model. Travel.

>>4443675
all snappiness takes pictures of is rocks and leaves behind his house. snoytubers hire hot models and go to sports games. snappiness is an actual ewaste collector who owns funko pops. snoytubers arent gearfags, they just do reviews to make extra money and send it back later.

>>4443764
>Hire a model
I'm not gay so I don't have to pay women to be around me.

>>4443761

>>4443765
snoytubers buy whatever youtuber told them is a good video camera for blogging and photography is a basedtard hobby which is why its a major at art schools and liberal arts colleges (this board isn't exempt)

>>4443764
This. So much this. These contrarian gearfags post memes, not photos, and on the rare occasion they post photos it's their ugly cat, their abused looking dog in their back yard, a carton of eggs, a leaf, or an underexposed sunset (to hide that it was taken in their backyard/apartment parking lot).

YOU ARE NOT INTERACTING WITH PHOTOGRAPHERS HERE
YOU ARE INTERACTING WITH CONSUMERISTS
THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY USE CAMERAS

Average /p/ photographer be like
>I bet you thought you were based. But look at the camera I bought this month. Snoy/canon/foolji/fool turds/niggon btfo by the GLORY of *cameraibought*
>fullresphotoofabusedlookingdog.jpg
>It's not about the "specs". Snoy makes you SHREK! SNOY IS SHIT! Its about the SOUL. I am a real human being and an aryan hyperborean. Everyone else is an NPC pajeet. That's why I prefer the SOUL of a medium format SLR I mean pentax I mean x100v.
>fullresphotoofgrass.jpg

meanwhile on a site for people with less severe autism
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/
damn look at all those cool photos
https://www.reddit.com/r/Nikon/
so many cool photos
https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/
oh ignore this one its almost as bad as /p/

>>4443771
Well... Lets see it. Post a good picture.

>>4443773
Here, I took this on my amazing micro four thirds camera. The sharpness proves snoyboys are dumb NPCs with no soul and FF blobs are forever btfo.

>>4443775
Why is it always a husky

>>4443776
Because 4chan is a husky website.

>>4443776
its a meme. bad photographers who are also tryhard contrarian gearfags (ie: muh pentax muh ancient camera muh slr, the most popular mirrorless cameras are actually the worst) all own wolf like dogs because it speaks to their deeply insecure personality and seething bitter hatred towards what normal people like - pitbulls and golden retrievers.

>>4443772
anon i can't help but realize you missed a link

https://www.pentaxforums.com/gallery/

>>4443780
Lol. That just sounds like projection.

>>4443781
Dear lord, they're either retarded or clueless. This is so bad.

>>4443776
It's a joke about how gearfags are all dogfaggots. Dog people aren't capable of art. They can only analyze specs and participate in pseudo-social brand wars. Cat people are the only real artists.
https://leica-camera.blog/2020/09/28/nikita-teryoshin-backyard-diaries/
Cat people are more creative and artistically daring. Dog people can make good particle physicists and engineers. Look up famous cat people, all artists. Look up famous dog people, all politicians and scientists. Ever seen cat person art? Its amazing. Dog person art? Its accurate, well done, and boring. Dog people have hitlers artistic sense, cat people have that black jazz and jewish funk. If you’re a dog person you probably shouldnt be wasting your time with photography as an art because jazz and funk is all that stands out. Anyone can be accurate and realistic if they buy a nice camera.

Its ok if you arent and cant be an artist. You are still a person. Most people make fun of artists for our mental illnesses and trouble paying bills anyways lol you’re not missing out on much.

>>4443783
name another reason to own a hyperactive aggressive dog that kills cats like a german shitperd or a shitberian shitsky when you can just adopt a retriever mutt like everyone else

dogfags are deranged, that's why they come to /p/ despite not being photographers just to pretend to be photographers by buying increasingly large cameras and doing resolution tests on their pets

>>4443786
Well bred gsd is just a great dog. Smart, biddable, good drive. If you train them properly they aren't aggressive.

Cant speak for huskies, but a lot of people like them for their more aloof and independent behavior.

My latest egg + hand print is proof of how wrong you are about that. Why are you seething so very badly?

>>4443791
Despite being less than 2% of dogs, german shepherds are the #3 most dangerous breed in terms of severe and fatal maulings.

And despite being 100% of what hookers have to eat, your egg prints are 0% artistic and pure soulless orderly pictures of things. You clearly have no sense for art. Go to any museum that exhibits modern art and take note of the differences between them and you.

>>4443793
Gsd were overbred and have been extremely popular for a very long time. Of course they're going to be poorly bred examples. They aren't needlessly aggressive like some pitbulls, but you are right that they need extra work to train.

Oh no the seething guy is making shit up again. Can we see see your art, please?
Here is the one I'm talking about >>4441830 this is a lovely picture and a wonderful use for 8x10. Can you link me a picture posting on /p/ that belongs in a museum? I always find it comical that owning and using a nicer camera than you means everything I shoot MUST be museum quality best in the world photography or I'm the worst photographer in the world. It's ridiculous just like your seethe.

>>4443795
>literally all he thinks about is how his camera must be impressive
>isn't aware that he looks like a retard using thousands of dollars of 1920's best professional equipment to take terrible photos

>>4443797
>doesn't see how foolish his sour grapes autistic rage looks

Okay, angry lil guy. Seethe more for all of us.
I'm just out here having a great time making and sharing awesome prints.

My advice? Less seethe more photos. Go ahead and btfo me with your impressive art. We all want to see doghair get absolutely btfo by the mft snappers.

>>4443757
3 mounts, and I'll still have like 14 lenses + 4 bodies after selling

>>4443764
I wouldn't recommend pentax to anyone. Only ever would (at least in the digital era) for someone with a very specific use case where a K1 might make sense.
>They live sad empty lives and their photography never leaves their back yard
lol

>>4443771
I post tons of photos here. See >>4435895 for a big collage, but I can probably link another 20 across different threads.

>>4443820
>cat person comes closer to producing art than the doggots
>degearfags and whittles it down to a sony and a film camera like a sane person while doggots are still consooming
kino

What mirrorless cameras start the fastest/instantly?
I've seen people talk about some cameras taking a couple of seconds to start, or even worse a couple of seconds to even wake from sleep when you press the shutter button.
Since this is what I hate most about phone cameras, (and the instant start was what I loved about my old D300s), I want to avoid it at all costs.

>>4443820
Nice dog pics.

>>4443454 (OP)
No. The pentax kp is too old and shitty and most good lenses are not sealed
https://youtube.com/watch?v=tkdohlJgi64
Also weather sealing doesnt matter anyways
https://youtube.com/watch?v=UPTXDwYs8Vs
And ultimately pentax does not make good cameras. They are bad. Much worse than a sony a7ii. "You can still take great photos" but of walls and parked cars, "IF you only post on instagram!!!"

Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Canon RD50
Pentax K70

Which should I get as a beginner?
I mostly just want to take pictures when im on night walks or out in the forest/parks so I can take good quality detailed pictures so I dont have to rely on my phone like pic rel

>>4443820
>i posted tons of photos then i quit from gearfaggotry overload
The cure is simple

Buy a canon or a sony. Go against the hipsters. Separate yourself from them permanently. Reject their ideology. Reject their priorities. Reject their lifestyle.
Stop going to hipster hangouts like 4chan and reddit.
Stop exposing yourself to hipster subcultures like photography youtube and photography instagram.

Your life will improve before your eyes. The longer you go without seeing the word "soul" ascribed to an electronic camera, the more soul your actual photos will accumulate. Your photos can have soul or your camera can have soul. Pick one.

Leicas and hasselblads are the only exception because they are the most socially acceptable camera to wear as part of an outfit. Wearing a sony makes people think you’re with a government backed news source. Wearing a leica or hasselblad makes people think you’re a harmless college student taking shitty photos to submit for finals. In this case, using the "wrong" camera beats not using any camera, because wearing anything that looks like asian electronics (even a fujifilm xt5 can be mistaken for a 100mp pro camera) is a great way to be told that staff will hang on to your camera unless you want to leave.

>>4443848
A sony a6500. You wont take anything larger with you.

4chan is a gearfag website.

for me it's the pastor

>>4443858
>sends nice gear back because he doesnt need it
>uses sony solely because it is the most affordable
based gigachad

Personally, I think it is great that there's such a diverse range of cameras and images being shared here.
It's weird and sad that people actively try to stop this.

>>4443862
janny at it again?

>>4443848
R50 or 5D Mark 3/4

You want low light performance. K70 just can't keep up. That said a K70 shouldn't be more than $300 which is also the same price of a 5DM2 or a low-ball offer on a local seller with a Mark 3

>4443849
From personal experience in places like that even a shitty point and shoot is considered the same as a professional camera and the only thing they'll want you using is a iPhone.

>>4443864
M43 thread spam? That's fine because the whole board was basically m43 threads for some weird reason. They do not need their own special boy sensor general, or 50 threads that could be a single sqttdot posts.

>>4443858
is he a pastor 4 real? What is this protestant/american degeneracy where priests dress like laymen?

The zooms on Fuji GFX are a total joke

I generally only ever shoot primes. But for the rare occasion when I want zoom, I want to zoom everything.

>>4443883
Well since you don't care about IQ, just adapt any of the FF superzooms

>>4443883
the more professional a system the less it leans into ken-esque zoom to fill the frame photography. it actually actively leans away from it.

rate

>>4443896
Winning.

>>4443883
GFX lenses are all intended to outresolve a 100mp sensor. You can't do that with a zoom without some serious compromises somewhere. If you look at other MF zooms it's pretty much the same situation; despite being a smaller image area MF digital is less forgiving of a format than film, so if anything the fact that we have a 45-100 is a miracle. On GFX I would just use primes personally. It's not really a "do everything" system like FF. Or just >>4443889

>>4443710
How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real

>>4443710
All this pseud rambling and yet all of these pictures >>4443781 are ass. Maybe their imagination convinced them they were good photographers and mirrorless was too brutally honest about the pictures they were actually taking.

>>4443743
You dont do anything creative or artistic. You just like to play dress up until you can imagine you do.
>my gear’s viewfinder is what makes me a REAL photographer!
levels of gearfaggotry thought impossible

>>4443904
>mirrorless cope so hard he's making shit up

Kek

>>4443905
the only imaginary thing here is your creativity and skill

you are the definition of gearfag.
>but do you know what camera i used? you wouldnt call it a bad photo if you did

>>4443896
Neither of these lenses is any good. It’s a good starting point tho. But your 3rd lens after that should really be a 50mm or 85mm portrait lens

>>4443906
See
>>4443905

Double kek

is it the greatest lens ever made?

is built-in focus bracketing a meme

>>4443898
> GFX lenses are all intended to outresolve a 100mp sensor

Why is this piece of misinformation so prevalent on this sub. EVERY lens outresolves the sensor.


You can shoot Adox 20iso film on lenses from the 80s and get pictures with details equivalent to 500MP

The point of medium format lenses isn’t to "outresolve" a sensor. It’s to be big enough to cover the sensor.

>>4443883
They have 3 kit lenses lmao why

is this a good camera for noobs?

>>4443911
>Why is this piece of misinformation so prevalent on this sub. EVERY lens outresolves the sensor.
You are confused about what outresolve means. I don't actually think gfx lenses all outresolve the sensor, but they are all exceptionally sharp.
Also
>this sub
You literally have to go back. Please.

>>4443912
It's dumb but:
- 32-64 came first. It's a good range for landscape but topping out at 50mm isn't that useful
- 35-70 is cheap, slow, and focuses kinda close as a bonus. It's the real kit zoom
- 45-100 is what the original zoom should've been; wide to short tele, fast enough for portaits but wide enough for some landscapes. It pairs with the wide zoom in the system.

>>4443896
>he actually fell for the snoy meme
ahahahahahaha

>>4443772
For me it's the no photos allowed leica subreddit

>>4443849
I stopped watching photography youtube and my enjoyment of the hobby has improved immensely

>>4443969
leicaphotos was the one meant for photos from leica gear
leicacameras is the "normal" leica sub now
leica is ran by a single moderator that is giant trump simp and regularly bans anyone that brings up politics or trump in negative light

>>4443974
wtf i love leicafags now

>>4443969
This kinda makes sense in a way, otherwise the boards just end up becoming /pics/ jr. making it useless for looking for anything else. Sort of the opposite of the problem we have here where gear threads being allowed pushes photos and photography talk out.

>>4443979
This, actually taking photos with your camera is for fags

>>4443979
>>4443969
Photos are allowed, they just have to be photos of Leica products (or significantly related to Leica as a brand without being political at all)

>>4443984
LOL

what do you guys think about phone pics? i have a shitty old motorla but think i'm gonna keep using it and buy a real camera instead of upgrading the phone

Hello dorks, need some video camera help. I've been using an old sony FDR AX33 camcorder for youtube garbage for almost a decade now and while still chugging along the poor thing is showing its age, figure it's time for an upgrade.
Seems like camcorders are pretty much dead these days, is it possible to snag something with:

Mandatory:
>4k60
>good autofocus/exposure
Optimistically:
>good low light performance
>optical zoom, doesn't need to be a lot but more the better
>good battery life
>a good gimbal

Budget is about 2k. Doesn't have to be a camcorder but apparently DLSRs are dead too. Rather not use a phone. Kinda figured we'd be in the golden age of cameras by now but it seems like phones nuked the entire industry if you're not chasing 5k+ professional grade stuff.

>>4444029
we had /cpg/ or something like that a few months ago, it's not a consistent thread. as the wise old men say, "the one you have with you"

>>4443965
not yet

I have noticed the IBIS in my e-m1iii actually still has use at 400mm, makes me wanna get some old long primes and adapt them.

>>4444057
You'll be a god amongst the m43 snapshitters and nophotos. Do it and get priority shipping.

Go into the m43 thread and say your snoy was m43 and get 1000 Blowies by the sneedsquad.

having thoughts

>>4444060
russkies did it first.

>>4443969
Amazing

>>4443925
They should replace all 3 with one 32-100. Or even 24-120 or something like that

>>4443913
yes, but only if you are getting a good deal on a used one, don't buy a brand new one that's been sitting on a shelf in walmart for 8 years

>>4443969
Leicas are made to be taken pictures of (with phone cameras)

>>4444045
>Budget is about 2k
FX30
It's ASPC but you're poor so

>>4443907
>Neither of these lenses is any good
The long one gets pretty good reviews though.

Is the D700 a good camera?

>>4444091
Good reviews for what it is, for how cheap you can get how far and good for a Tamron. But it is not a good lens in terms of excellent image quality. That’s not a "fault" of these lenses bc that isn’t even the goal of these lenses.

>>4444110
Fair enough. 'Good enough' is pretty much where I live due to budget constraints.

>>4443896
>>4444111
You're going full retard
A used a7riii in good condition is cheaper and you will get better image quality using those lenses on it since you can shoot in cropped asp-c mode and that will take care of most of the shitty quality on the edges

>>4444112
I was just about to propose picrel lol. The one thing pulling me towards the A6700 is that it'll have more modern AF+tracking than a similarly priced FF.

>>4444102
It was an exceptionally good camera when it came out. It’s still a very good camera considering the price

>>4444116
It's also beautiful.

>>4444113
The a6700 is just generally a bad camera
At your price point you're not getting decent AF or tracking no matter what, just get used to turning the focus ring

>>4444113
Go for it homie. Given that lens choice I'm assuming you're wanting as much reach as possible and an A7R III in crop mode will only get you 18mp, versus 26mp from the A6700. Also while the A7R III AF is by no means bad the A6700 will be a fair bit better especially if you're presumably shooting moving subjects. This is coming from an A7R III owner with a 150-500mm (although an older A mount adapted one). If all I was doing was birding or sports I would have made a different choice.

>>4444118
>>4444119
/p/ can't agree on a single thing.

>>4444116
I’ll keep an eye out for a low shutter count one, if they’re around… what’s even “low” on one of those? 10k or even 40-50k?

>>4444123
>50k
That's warmup.

>>4443896 #
>>4444111 #

Are you even aware what you’re buying? The question isn’t good/bad. You’re making a deliberate choice of covering the full zoom range for cheap. For the same price you could buy a single fixed lens of flagship level sharpness.

Either option is fine it depends on what you want out of photography.

It's as if you were buying a 20ft tall monster truck and ask if that’s better or worse then a Porsche. No bitch, it’s neither better nor worse but fundamentally different products for different goals.

>>4443613
Lenses are soft, sensors don't see shit by themselves.

>>4444117
The Giugiaro heritage shows

>>4444127
What gear do you use?

>>4443610
I have the RP, the jpegs look quite nice. The ones from my 40D do also, but nevertheless.

>>4444129
No, sensors are soft. Fuji has color resolution due to xtrans being a 6x6 pattern with entire rows not having green pixels.
40mp xtrans = same detail as a blurry upscale of 24mp bayer = same detail as a blurry upscale of 16mp foveon

>>4444122
The first one is simply a troll. No sane person would say the A6700 doesn't have decent AF.

>>4444127
To be fair he's probably not after the entire range of the 150-500mm, that's just what most of the options are for zooms that go that long. His other option would be the Sigma 500mm prime, which is of course a prime, or the bigger heavier more expensive 200-600mm, 300-600mm, or 400-800mm. Even if he could cope with 400mm you're then looking at 100-400mm or even 50-400mm.

>>4444118
More brainless sony hate only heard on the /p/anasonic and /p/entax shill board

>>4444133
Analog 3d printed 6x17 camera with Schneider-Kreuznach lens. Scanning with Canon r5 pixel shift.

>>4443859
also:
>prefers f11
chad indeed

>>4444142
Xtrans itself looks like worms. Wtf.

>>4444088
Wow it's not what I asked for at all, thanks!

>>4444149
Why only 6x17?

>>4444142
That's a demosaicing problem, not a CFA problem. Stop using lightroom.

>>4444142
>with entire rows not having green pixels.
??????

>>4444142
>>4444161
If you're talking about ZA/ZB, those are part of the PDAF system, bayer has that too. Still don't know what you're talking about since this is a demosaicing issue, not a sensor issue.

>>4444142
>entire rows not having green pixels.
I just knew that 40mp aps-c sensor would be a scam in some way.

>>4444161
On the flip side you have green in every diagonal where we Bayer has no green for half the diagonals

The most convincing objective statement I've seen was by one of the 3rd party raw processors like Dx0 or something that figured x-trans had ~10% less color fidelity
Most everything else is just bs talk

>>4444165
At the end of the day though, if an X-T3 is good enough for actual fashion mags, x-trans is probably good enough for me if had to use it

>>4444165
>x-trans had ~10% less color fidelity
Yet fuji has better colors than snoy. KEK!

>>4444167
Way worse

>>4444166
Fashion mags push out awful slop all the time. They’re a dying, myopic bunch. More political than artistic.

>>4444167
In blind tests most people prefer sony colors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMfCDujQywY
It’s sony and fuji vs the blobs. Fuji needs to stop wasting time on xtranny asap and fix their useless autofocus. Too bad fuji people are stuck up retards.
>inb4 corgi molester cope

>>4444170
Buying specific cameras for their jpegs is peak sperg

>>4444172
>jpegs dont count
Then camera color science doesnt exist. only lens color science does. and since you aren't buying matched sets from cooke/arri, lens color science doesnt exist for you either.

>>4444175
Based

HMMMMMMM

>>4444192
>secondipity
Lol good luck. They support their low prices by running a customer service scam on a non-negligible percentage of customers.

ok so here is the thing, i bought a camera to get into the "hobby" without consulting /p/ ,that p even exists came to late into my mind. i bought a 5d mark IV. before i invest in glass, should i sell it again? i only paid 500 euro for 10k shutter count, 9/10 condition. so is dslr really so damn shitty to begin with? years ago i had a d50 with some vintage glass and i fucking loved it. so what should i do?

>>4444207
You can always sell it, get a 50mm 1.8 for 70 bux and go out and be your true hipster self.

>>4444209
why are hipster abusing dslr instead of mirrorless?

>>4444211
You are a hipster no matter what you do.

>>4444207
Just use it and have fun with it. The loudest gearfags on p are visually illiterate shills that either don't own cameras or take the absolute shittiest photographs in existence.
They think being a good photographer means memorizing specs and reviewing mtf charts.

>>4444207
BTW the 5Div is among the most advanced DSLRs, you'll be amazed.

>>4444207
That blob was only ever good for professionals. For a hobbyist it's very damn shitty, way too much effort to take a photo, and have fun shooting below eye level

>>4444212
photography is a onions hipster hobby meant for beta males just like videogames or watching anime which is why its hilarious to watch /p/ call each other those terms.

>>4444213
yeah what he said, 500 euro for a 5dmk4 is a excellent price, that's still a $800 usd camera in america at the very very cheapest (sometimes listing as much as $1200)

>>4443470
Please do not buy an x-tranny camera if you expect something even barely capable of licking the asshole of GFX/Hass in every aspect but kit size.
Seriously, they are smartphone tier files.

Do you anons with the more expensive kit have insurance for it?

>>4443464
This is the wrong place to ask. All these people do is cope and pretend better cameras ie: medium format, large format, sony, are somehow worse than their meme hipster shit from a company that went out of business.

A fuji GFX100S is absolutely superior in terms of raw imaging performance to any other camera found at a lower price point unless you're shopping for later 50mp+ 645 sized digital backs, and the GFX still mogs those at high ISO. But it's fuji so the autofocus is incompetently developed. This has nothing to do with sensor size and everything to do with it being a fuji. Fair warning.

If you're after beauty, great lenses, rendering, and color depth and don't want to silently snapshit at high ISOs get a hasselblad with the 39 or 50mp digital back

>>4444209
>>4444212
>>4444213
>>4444216
>>4444218
i just want to take beautiful photos of what i experience, mushrooms in the woods, nature, landscape and for family and friends. im not an artist, not a pro just semi beginner. i will try it, the price is pretty good, i can sell it with some gain. i planned for a 16-35mm f4 IS USM L and 24-70mm f4 IS USM L. any other recommendation?

>>4444192
>>4444203
That doesn't seem that ridiculously cheap, I paid £260 for mine which is the equivalent of $355 and you yanks tend to get stuff cheaper than us. Great lens though, not optically perfect but decently sharp and has a nice character.

>>4444228
If you have 5d money you could easily afford a much better camera like a sony a7iii.

It can even use the same EF lenses with fairly competent autofocus, but tamron makes much nicer lenses for E mount than canon made for EF dinosaur cameras

>>4444228
If anyone mentions sony or a micro four thirds camera you should completely ignore anything they have to say. 100% shills looking to ruin another thread.

>>4444233
The sony a7iii is one of the best cameras available. Hopping brands can slightly improved electronic noise sources at the cost of massive price increases or massive autofocus decreases and worse lens selection, worse battery life, more size, more weight, etc.

Sorry you're mad because sony killed your 3 favorite brands and is currently killing panasonic dead, but it's just a good camera. It outsold all of its competition combined and is probably the only reason sony is #1 in FF market share because the a7iv was a straight IQ downgrade in 50% of scenarios.

>>4444239
the sony a7iii is shit

i sprayed it with a garden hose for 30min while pumping the zoom lens in and out and it broke until i let it dry
sony is objectively useless
no one buys sony it's all propaganda lies. everyone uses panasonic cameras. every influencer says panasonic is better than canon and sony. maybe you should listen to them. benchod motherfucker.

>>4443559
Ricoh GRIII(x), trust me

>>4444228
Watch. They cannot help themselves and will ruin this thread.

>>4444239
For everyone's information, this is rentalfag, a notorious paid shill

>>4444228
EF is a good choice for starters.
I'd switch the 16-35 for a 50/1.4 (Zeiss Planar if you can get a split prism focusing screen, otherwise Canon's own if you need AF). 24mm is generally wide enough for what you describe and you'd also want a fast standard lens for low light and family/friends stuff.

800 millimeter lens 200 millimeter lens 500 millimeter lens 400 millimeter lens

>>4444207
>>4444246
My bad, I did not see your post about the 5Dmk4.
In that case I don't recommend the Planar. The mk4's focusing screen is fixed and the manual focus confirmation isn't great. Get the regular 50/1.4

>>4444233
>>4444244
>>4444246
who broke them, i mean i get it shitposting is fun sometimes but why in such a thread. who hurt them. i will look into it, thanks. is the sony a7iii so much better than the 5d mark iv?

>>4444252
>who broke them, i mean i get it shitposting is fun sometimes but why in such a thread. who hurt them.
You're talking to the trolls my friend as Sony is perfectly fine.

>>4444252
Mental illness turned into a very low paying job. Who in their right mind wastes so much of their time defending a shitty camera made by a giant corporation?

>>4444252
>is the sony a7iii so much better than the 5d mark iv?
You're falling into a gearfag trap. The more you buy and sell, the less time you spend shooting and figuring out your actual needs.
You already have a near mint 5D4 at half off the usual price. A 50/1.4 (or 1.8 if you really want to play it safe and skimp - it's €80) will run you for not much more. I would start with that, then add on a 24-70/4 if you like the experience. It will only get cheaper in the future.
Until you have legitimate, strong reasons to sell your gear and buy an A7III (or any other camera), use what you have. None of what you described gives me any indication that you need to run back to the shop. And don't listen to people that have personal conflicts of interest because they spent way too much money on a gear they don't need and feel a desire to cope and justify their purchase to themselves by shilling online.

>>4444253
Can you please show us some of your sony camera pictures? Surely you have many great examples that will be far more convincing than simply rattling off stats. Yeah?

>>4444255
when i think about my 50d and the trashy vintage glass i had, i think i will be fine. i really liked my pictures and my family too, i just want to capture some magic in the woods if i learn enough about the settings i think im good. thanks the other thread posted something about zone system and spot metering. will check it out

>>4444258
Yeah, your 5D with a 50/1.4 or 1.8 will be fine.
Here's a picture I shot with my 5Dmk4 and Sigma 50/1.4 Art before I sold both for being too annoyingly shaped while traveling. Nice setup otherwise.

>>4444261
Canon shooters are yesphotos? Not suprised.

>>4444262
m43 also yesphoto race

>>4444253
>Sony is perfectly fine

>>4444252
the a7iii is strictly superior to the 5div in literally every way but CIPA battery life (an unrealistic test that actually measures screen runtime by not allowing mirrorless to enter sleep mode) and the lenses are generally better, smaller, and cheaper on sony. the 5div has collector/gear enthusiast appeal for its historical significance, hence the price.

>>4444255
Switching from an overweight, oversized DSLR with mirror slap, inherent focus inaccuracy, shit lenses under $1k, and no articulating screen is as far as it gets from a gearfag trap.

It's a straight upgrade that actually saves money. Third party tamron shit is sharper than EF’s best primes.

>>4444264
>picks the 61mp model and does a hilariously unrealistic 6 stop shadow push via a test website that lies and doesnt expose their cameras equally, and pixel peeps it at max zoom
Now THIS is a gearfag.

You’re not gearfagging until you’re doing stupid shit like this to justify buying increasingly hipstershit brands like fuji and niko

>>4444267
Gearfagging begins with schizophrenia
"The 3d pop tonality rendering bro. OVF evopsych magic makes my photos better. What do you mean they suck? Dont you know what camera i use?" - end stage gearfaggotry. At this point the camera doesnt leave their backyard unless its for a car show or a camping trip.

>>4444267
>as far as it gets from a gearfag trap.
I don't give a flying fuck if you think your beloved A7III (e-waste btw) is better. He needs to figure out what is better FOR HIM and the camera he already has is a perfect starting point. kys cultist

>>4444217
Dafaq are you Talking about. It’s no effort at all. The settings and UX of every Canon are super intuitive if you have used any other Canon before.

>>4444271
>an overweight oversized pos with no tilting screen is good
lol no, these were always bad. DSLRs are an inherently bad and super limited design that crashes and burns outside of planned professional photoshoots. for events and reportage… leica stayed in business just because its that easy to surpass DSLR IQ. canon stopped making them eventually for a reason. japs are just slow to innovate because their high average iq does not represent their actual intelligence, but a meticulous and cautious nature on top of perfectly average intelligence.

even micro four thirds can pull away from DSLRs image quality. they are simply not well designed cameras.

>>4444273
>its no effort
>dont forget to memorize which shutter speeds shant be touched outside of MUp, spot meter your shadows, and lay prone on the floor for 20-50% of shots because no tilting screen
>also you need to spend $1200 for a lens thats sharp wider than f8
fine in a studio sure

>>4444252
Ignore the sn0y shill, it won't go away but you'll gain nothing by paying attention to it. The 5d4 is a perfectly good camera. I will say though that the 16-35mm might be a wider lens than you're expecting and you might not need it, it's mostly for indoor architecture type stuff and landscapes. But if you know what that focal length looks like and it's what you want, by all means go for it. This photo is at 19mm on a 5d for reference.

>>4444263
Shitty pic. Doesn’t even have a composition. Why is the fence there.

>>4444274
Guess what, none of what you said is relevant (or even true, but I can't be bothered to unpack the crock of shit you've left here).
Nothing else matters but having a) a capable camera, which the 5Dmk4 clearly is and b) a functioning brain. IF and only IF he decides that continuing to use <insert camera> comes with too many compromises, then is an appropriate time to sell and think about what might fit the bill better.
>inb4 more shizo rambling

>>4444278
a photo is a photo

>>4444276
Did you use your iphone for this or is dslr ass DR+mirror shock+focus inaccuracy+mirror box limiting simple and good optical design fucking IQ as it usually does

The eye lev framing typical of OVF users is gay too. Very snapshitty looking.
Lets not forget, these things can NOT focus on a moving point that is outside of the center 5th of the frame. Literally impossible. You can try to do it manually while spamming shots, lol.

>>4444280
>>4444279
Absolute cope. Face the facts. DSLRs are a bad design. So bad even leica could stay in business.

>more schizo rambling

>>4444275
Turn the dial and click the button. It’s so easy. If you can’t do that it means you’re retarded.

>>4444282
Their next cope will be "you can still take great photos" (either with many tries, a muddy shirt, or limited to the same shit every dslr fag has been shooting forever as dictated by the cameras technical limitations)
Never mind the part where its an ugly blob banging against stuff all the time. Dont bring that up. DSLR queers, bless their fat nerd hearts, say the size and weight proves manhood.

>I CAN'T SNOY
>I CAN'T SNOY

>>4444284
>a camera is a camera! who are YOU to think you NEED BETTER!?
>results: >>4444276

>leave Sony alone!!!!

>>4444289
>don't you dare claim a better camera is better
>because... because... ITS A SONY
>I HATE THAT BRAND BECAUSE A PS5 OWNER MADE FUN OF MY XBOX
Mirrorless, any brand, is going to btfo a 5div back and forth for days. DSLRs are objectively limited by how horrible the SLR design is to begin with. If it weren't for professional sports and wildlife photography I think DLSRs would have never been marketable and the vast majority of cameras would have been mirrorless and rangefinders much earlier on.

Fucking kek at the sn0yshills losing their spaghetti over a photo. >>4444276 was an example of the focal length he's looking at getting. I'm quite aware that it isn't a masterpiece by any means, it is however quite curious that the shills aren't posting photos taken with their snoys and instead resort to incoherent rambling with every buzzword conceivable mashed together.

>>4444292
SLRs were only prolific because of professionals period and they were never intended for hobby or freelance photography

Rangefinders can't frame accurately with zooms. if they could, the optical, size, and usability compromises of an SLR would have made everyone stick to RFs. If SLRs had been outright rejected and professional photography were laughable and disliked, we would have gotten optically zooming ORFs to improve precise framing between 20mm and 135mm.

>>4444293
The 5div is objectively, strictly, inferior to the a7iii in every scenario. And the same price. I can open facebook market and buy a $700 a7iii, or I can open ebay and spend slightly more on a 5div. Lenses are a more hilariously dumb story. Most DSLR lenses are genuinely optically bad. "You need to stop down for a lens to be sharp" is a dated truism, it stopped applying to non-SLR lens designs over 50 years ago.

He's mad because he incorporates purchases into his identity, and thus any attack (or even non-preference) for his chosen toy is interpreted as a personal slight.
Nobody is really making claims that a DSLR is better than mirrorless for X or Y application, only that an anon who already has one is better off just keeping it for a while to learn about what his actual needs are instead of wasting more time and money buying shit he probably doesn't need. Yeah, an articulating screen can be more useful than a fixed one, but that's not really the point of the discussion. Just the usual rentalfag schizo rants.

>>4444296
>armchair psychologist
A 5div is factually worse than basically any mirrorless. Even a Z6II, as bad as it is compared to the competition, is a more capable, convenient, and livable camera.

The 5div is inching towards the "only a PRO would understand!" class along with MF digitals that you didn't know are basically garbage above ISO 32.

Observe how, despite the previous reply clearly pointing out that the discussion is not about DSLR vs mirrorless, rentalcel still has to repeat that exact irrelevant line of reasoning.

>>4444296
who the fuck is rentalfag
canon DSLRs are garbage compared to sony mirrorless and they were garbage compared to nikon, pentax, and sony DSLRs too except for the people that wanted faster autofocus and higher framerates

blobs are not good cameras and they were never meant to be owned by enthusiasts

>it's still fucking carrying on
Mental illness.

>>4444299
>armchair shrink mety
Observe how, this is actually about how a 5div is kinda shit compared to newer, and more fairly priced cameras. Why are people still selling that junk for more than $350?

>>4444301
Every discussion on /p/ has to be Sony worship or else rentalnigger will come out of the woodwork to derail the thread. It's unfortunate and I wish he'd use a tripcode.

>>4444301
>You're still "fucking" crying
Do you have a reason a 5div is better than an equally priced sony a7iii besides philosophizing and made up shit from le brand wars?

Blobs lost
Mirrorless is better
Reflex is IRRELEVANT

>>4444305
>Do you have a reason a 5div is better
Yeah, the fact that OP anon has one in his hand right now. BTFOs every "argument" you may have (completely missing the point btw)

>>4444305
i have four reasons

buyers remorse
brand loyalty
brand war memes
accusing you of being my schizo boogeyman, rentalfagdoghairmooptom

you lose!

>>4444307
So if you had a turd in your hand right now, it would be better than an actual good camera?

What's wrong with selling a 5div (for a profit, and actually making money off the mistake) and buying a better camera? It offends your anti-capitalist "woke right" sensibilities when people buy things they want instead of making do with hand-me-downs?

>>4444308
It's very clear you're the schizo from the other thread and also a samefag replying to yourself.

>>4444311
Whoever this guy is he must have been right about something because you're absolutely seething rn

Team blobslr
>no tilty screen
>inaccurate autofocus covers less than 30% of the frame
>soft oversized lenses except some $1200 zooms
>cant trust the meter unless spot mode
>extra softness from mirror shake and primitive/overly strong aa filters
>worse detail and tonality in shadows
>bigger
>heavier
>uglier
>louder

Team a7iii
>tilty screen can shoot from the ground without laying in mud
>super precise and fast autofocus covers 80% of the frame
>really sharp small lenses, even cheap third party stuff is sharper than the better primes for DSLRs and people call them too soft compared to $500+ 1st party lenses
>modern sensors have better aa filter tuning or no aa filter
>no mirror shock, efcs mode defeats shutter shock, great shadow detail and color from modern dual gain sensor, only worse compared to cameras with circuitry thats 5 years newer
>lighter
>smaller
>quieter
DSLRs are irrelevant. Only good for living on a tripod next to a bunch of flashes or doing long exposures of rocks and leaves.

>>4444313
For me it's the a7c, maybe 5% less quality at ISO 500,000, but you can take it anywhere and everyone thinks its a cheap camera like an a6000

>>4443454 (OP)
can't believe I fucking fell for this shit, a7iv purchased new, barely 68k on the shutter
thanks /p/

>>4444313
fak i forgot to mention exposure preview, and sony cameras have raw clipping warnings in stills. everyone else only has a jpeg histogram.

>>4444316
>sony cameras have raw clipping warnings in stills. everyone else only has a jpeg histogram.
Every brand has highlight warning.

>>4444315
Which discord server did you find the retard who poked his shutter on?
>retards:
>wow it has a mode to keep dust off the sensor!
>oh no i have dust on the shutter
>maybe if i just barely touch it...
>wow these cameras are so poorly made i just wanted to clean the shutter and it broke!!!!

>>4444318
actually I was shooting a building corner while it happened

>>4444317
sony has raw zebras in live view. everyone else has a jpeg derived histogram and image review blinkies that also correspond to jpeg clipping, not raws.

>>4444319
It's important not to buy a used camera that has the shutter closed when off feature, and never use the shutter closed when off feature ever. Anything touching a modern shutter assembly at all vastly increases its chances of failing early.

>>4444321
>Canon and Sony added a feature that increases the failure rate of their cameras, and told people it was meant to protect them
lmao
>matsumoto, mirrorless is small and fun now, normal people will use our camera and dishonor the legacy. what will we do?
>give bad advice that only a normal person would forrow, tachihara san. tell them to break their camera. then only professionar wirr be reft using.
>brirriant!

>>4444252
Told you. Zero photos and thread completely devolved and ruined. You already got your answer. Consider going out and taking some pics now.

>>4444252
>is the sony a7iii so much better than the 5d mark iv?
Yes. Ignore the fag telling you not to profit off your e-waste and buy a good camera. These woke right, anti-israel losers just despise people buying things because the flow of capital reminds them of how jews are rich.

>he fell for the sony meme

>>4443457
Should still work, just slower, right?

>>4444342
>Playstation has no games
>Xperia has no users
>Alpha has no photos
You honestly have to feel bad for them.

>>4443714
You are dead right

>>4443786
Huskies outside of dog sledding are some of the least aggressive, most affectionate, placid breeds around. They’re just retarded if you’re not careful about them being off leash - they’re prone to run to the horizon and wait for you.
>t. Has owned three

>>4443828
Fun fact, Leicas actually start retarded slow- the M11 got slower to startup than the M10

>And you may find yourself ordering a Sony A7iii
>And you may find yourself paying for Creators' Cloud
>And you may find yourself buying a large G Master lens
>And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful camera
>And you may ask yourself, "Well, where are the photos?"

>Letting the frames go by, all the gear threads have moved on
>Letting the frames go by, no uploads to /rpt/
>Into the shop again, after the money's gone
>Why did I buy this thing? Sony users take no pics

>And you may ask yourself, "How do I work this?"
>And you may ask yourself, "Where is that damn menu option?"
>And you may tell yourself, "This is not my 5D Mark II!"
>And you may tell yourself, "This isn't even my 5D Mark IV!"

>Letting the frames go by, all the gear threads have moved on
>Letting the frames go by, no uploads to RPT
>Into the shop again, after the money's gone
>Why did I buy this thing? Sony users take no pics

>Same as it ever was...

>>4443909
No, this is

>>4444362
>sony users take no pics
Explain the disparity here
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/
https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/
Sony users take such good pics, they dare not upload them to 4chan, lest they be traced backed to reddit and eventually their real identity.

>>4444362
LMAO

Sony won. BlobSLRs are irrelevant.

Sonychads post awesome reddit exclusive photos
Blobbers repost reddit memes on 4chan

This is the state of photography in 2025

>>4444374
Yes, /p/ is a crab bucket shithole where failed photographers try to keep new photographers from buying nice gear and encourage people to quit. The 5 people who take photos don't post anything good because they don't want to be doxxed and they actually did some professional photography, or appeared on the local news with their dog.

>>4444379
>or appeared on the local news with their dog.
and it wasn't good news if you catch my drift

Looks like canon won...

>>4444362
>there are greens
>under the skin tone

I want a camera, I'd really like to do casual astro, but the problem is I'm pretty poor
What camera should I get? I wanted to get some all rounder that's good for hiking and camping

>>4444391
Bro just use your eyes. You some sorta gearfag?

>>4444391
a job
sony a7c

>>4444374
>>4444379
>coping snoy schizo
love to see it!

>>4444396
>star eater

unironically pentax k1 if you have $900-1200, k3ii/kp if you have $5-600. canon 7d mark ii is good too for $400

/p/ help me out, I bought a canon RP and I've used it for a year, I think I want to upgrade to something with a bit more features, I'm gunning for a canon R6/R6mkii or a Nikon ZF, which one would you go with?

I don't like sony, I have a a6000 and while nice, I don't like the full-frame offerings

>>4444401
Show us your best picture and we will tell you if you deserve a new camera, chud.

>>4444400
>7dmk2
>$250
HOLY
This might be the way

>>4444401
>more
What is it that you think you’ll be able to do with a different camera that you can’t do with that one?

photography lost AI won

>>4444444
/caca/ win /qa/ won

>>4444444
another /caca/ and /qa/ win

>>4444444
/caca/ win

>>4444444
Bravo.

>>4444444
yup, issa win

>>4444444
4troons lost yet again! GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEG!

>>4444444
keyed

>>4444444

Clueless got dubs? How'd he swing that?
I think he's lying

>>4444402
>>4444419
I currently have an all EF lineup of lenses, 4 in total

Tokina 17mm
Tamron 28 75
Canon EF 50
Tamron 70 300

I'd transition to Z by buying the megadap adapter but long-term, I'd like to have native lenses eventually, or at least mirrorless lenses

I wanted to do that for Canon but the lenses are too expensive and there are no third party options, so I'm thinking Nikon's Z mount might be a bit more future proof

The other reason is I want IBIS, a better sensor and better/faster autofocus, so R6 and ZF is where I've landed.

This is not my best pic, but it is what I had handy, I usually take pics of my wife and the places I travel to, but I won't be posting her. IBIS will help me in low light situations and in shots like Pic related

>>4444479
>i'd transition
Yeah I bet you would faggot

>>4444479
Z w Expeed 7 is a great system.

>>4444444
It truly is over. The digits have spoken. Goodbye cruel world.

fucking hell i went to sleep, what is happening here. yeah some are right, i hate buyers remorse and maybe should have checked with /p/ but in modern asymmetrical information distribution its hard to look through the fog, when youre not years in deep. then there is a video from """your trusty youtube content producer""" who fixes you on some stupid idea why dslr are still super cool and stuff. i will use the 5d mark iv and if i dont like it i can sell it with some gain and keep the L lens for a sony a7 iii if im switching. i really have awesome memories of the 50d and thats why i bought the 5d.

so anons whats the best resource to learn the most about using the 5d mark iv? the other thread talked about the zone system and exposure and spot metering. whats the best way to operate here. i want to learn, throw it at me

>>4444479
Sounds like buying a few nicer lenses makes more sense just from a glancing perspective.
>the lenses are too expensive
What. Homie a 70-200 f/4 will cost you like $400 USD. You could get scores of different lenses for less. EF has so many options.

I think it's time to upgrade my body.
I'm still on an ancient A7 II.
A7R IVs are pretty cheap these days, any reasons I wouldn't want to get one? I'm not switching systems, I'm too lazy to sell my glass.

>>4444566
>maybe should have checked with /p/
No, you were right to not do so.

>>4444479
>ZF
Going from Canon to Zf is going to suck big time. Why not the Z5ii? It's better and cheaper. Sell your EF stuff and start with the Z equivalent of your most used lens and go from there.

>>4444566
>the other thread talked about the zone system and exposure and spot metering. whats the best way to operate here.
Just park it in aperture priority, turn the dial if you need to and press the button. No reason the matrix metering wouldn't work and the DR is good enough to push and pull if needed.

>>4444566
Zone system stuff is something you can learn down the line. It’s not something you need to get started.
Like other anon said, start out with matrix metering (the camera will determine exposure by itself), and learn when and why to usr Aperture priority and Shutter priority modes. Once you understand those, you can use manual mode where you’re using both aperture and shutter together, using either auto ISO and manual ISO.
Sometimes matrix metering won’t work very well because your subject is really bright or dark. In these situations you can use center or spot metering, which gives you more control over what the camera will try to optimize exposure for. Learn to use those metering modes when it makes sense.
After you understand all of that and get a bit good at it, THEN worry about the zone system and all that. Learn to walk before you run.

Is APS-C miles better than M43?

Moments ago I have placed an order for the Canon 200-800 :O

>>4444625
neat
do you have experience shooting long telephoto?
what are you going to use it for?

>>4444627
>do you have experience shooting long telephoto?
Some, I am about to send the Olympus gear I got from MPB back. I've decided to order this lens and then make do with my Canon RP for the time being. (Until I can upgrade to an R6ii or something)
>what are you going to use it for?
Birds and other critters.

Redpill me on the Fuji X-H1 and X-S10.

>>4444583
I've thought about that too, but where are you getting those prices for the RF 70-200?? I get $1300 USD for a used one

I want to stop using EF lenses eventually, that's the thing.

>>4444601
can you elaborate on why'd it suck? do you mean the ergonomics?

I'd go for the ZF instead of any other nikon camera because of the physical controls, how much better is the Z5ii?

comparing the specs the z5ii seems to have an advantage on video, which I don't care about at all

I'm buying my first actual camera and after a little bit of research I've stumbled on a few used ones that look promising.
Olympus om d e m1 mark i - around 300$
Sony a7 mk 1 - around 350-380$ - looks like the best option so far.
Olympus om d e m1 mark ii - around 500, I'm not sure I'm willing to spend that on a body alone.
Lumix GH3\GH4 - Around 300-400$ as well, but it's mainly used for video?
Planning to get a cheap-ish actual lens for one of these, around 100-200$ and then a bunch of old soviet ones to experiment with, they're dirt cheap over here, is it true that mirrorless suits better for old lenses? Do I need mirrorless for that, or micro four thirds good enough? Sony being full frame and E-mount apparently being "really versatile" with a lot of mounts sounds promising, but I'm still not sure if I'm making a mistake.

>>4444045
I know no one gives a shit but I snagged a Canon XF405 for only a grand. They're older models but it does literally everything I need so I'm happy.

Best gear for landscape and telephoto? Thanks

Why people who sell this shit used insist they get 90% return of original price?
No other lens sold is like this. Only this fucking thing.

>>4444444
What a waste.

>>4444661
$400 can get you a Nikon D750/810 or Canon 5D Mark II. Canon 7D Mark II and just maybe a R50 if you want APSC. The first gen A7 wasn't a good camera and $400 is a tight budget for Sonys, the only thing that could fit that is a a6000 or a ZVE10 which is a a6100 without a viewfinder and better colors

I would also look at Nikons for that amount. I know you could get the Nikon Z30 from their refurb site for $400 very recently with the 16-50 kit lens which was actually pretty good and even with the complaints of their autofocus being bad it's hard to argue against $400 for what's a new camera with great lenses

>>4444949
Thanks, those Nikons look pretty good, but most of them are around 500$ over here, though I might cough up some more cash at this point or try to haggle.
>Nikon Z30 from their refurb site for $400
Sadly not an option, a new one with a kit lens is like 800$, the price hiking for anything new here just makes it inaccessible. So, Sony's not good, okay, anything you can say about Olympus\Panasonic? And should I even care about camera being DSLR or Mirrorless, full frame or micro four thirds? Probably won't buy another camera for years, makes me pretty anxious about all of that.

>>4444977
Yeah I just saw you missed the sale by a week or two. Try to see what's for sale locally and hit them with a lowball. They might bite instead of worrying about shipping + eBay or trade in fees. That's why lately I've been shilling the CanoNikon DSLRs, they're cheap and common enough with everyone switching to mirrorless systems that you can get them relatively cheap. On that note a Canon RP is probably the cheapest FF mirrorless you can buy ATM other than a Sony A7.

M43 is hard to justify. But a EM1 is a good camera. It depends on the application. If you're doing a lot of outdoors distance photography of stuff like wildlife that's the M43 niche. Olympus in particular has razor sharp glass that I wish you could get on other brands. But the problem is the lack of dynamic range which means that photos that are under or over exposed are harder to recover, and the cameras can struggle in low light moreso than other larger sensor cameras. Just spend 5 minutes here and you'll get spammed to.death about how it's good or bad. I disagree with it being "the same as a cell phone" though, a M43 sensor is still bigger than any phone and 1in sensor phones are exclusive to $1500+ Chinese market Androids, plus half the reason to shoot with a camera is because of the glass which you can't put on a phone.

>>4444888
>Why
Because they can.

>>4444888
Used market sellers are degenerates.

Make a lowball offer after another. Do it for months if you have to.

What's a good price for a used Nikon ZF?
NOT eBay, those "people" are retarded cattle.

>>4445050
Look up trade in value at MPB or Adorama/BH, add a extra 10-20%

>>4444888
Maybe you already know this, but there is also a Sigma 500 5.6.

>>4445193
I don't buy sigma products. They work with snoy, and that's why I boycott them. I will never buy a product made by such an evil company that would support satan itself, snoy must burn.

>>4445196
check who made your sensor

>>4444045
consider starting off with the kit lens on XM5 or ZVE10II
the ZVE10II has a larger battery, can stabilize video in post with gyroflow, and can record with all I-frames
the XM5 has 6K30 recording, is cheaper, and has a bit better selection of lenses for APS-C
you'll still have money for a gimbal like RS4 mini with the tracker add-on
and you can get a different lens depending on what you feel is lacking

sigma 17-40/1.8 for low light
tamron 17-70/2.8 for more reach and in-lens stabilization
tamron 18-300 if you want to zoom farther and in-lens stabilization
sony 18-105 or fuji 18-120 if you want a longer power zoom lens (the above aren't)

if you want an EVF, then R10 or Z50II but nikon/canon may not have certain lenses or you'll have to get FF lenses
if you want to go cheaper on the body, then R50V is the cheapest option that has 4K60

caveats are that because the sensor is larger, you won't get as much optical zoom over your AX33 unless you get a lens in excess of 200mm or so
and most of the good lenses have to be zoomed by twisting the ring, which can affect video if you want to zoom while recording

>>4443559
update: ending up getting the sony a6600 + sigma 18-50mm lens both new for $1618 after taxes, came with a gay bag and sd card too; the x-s20 would have been $2061.77 total for the camera + same lens; i think i might have got the om-5 or e-m5 iii or e-m1 iii or something but it would only save me like $100 so why bother?

>f/0.7

Put my order in for the Sigma 17-40
Hopefully get my copy in the next few days

Is the R7 as shit as they say?

>>4445471
>Is the R7 as shit as they say?
It's a competent camera.

Thoughts on Temu camera bags?

>>4444656
>because of the physical controls
The physical controls suck ass. Nikon really fucked up the Zf by not just going for a classic SS and ISO dials with auto (like their actual film cameras) + exposure comp.
The Zf's control scheme is extremely convoluted and requires heavy mental gymnastics and brand loyalty to defend. PASM on a ""retro"" camera is a joke and exterminates the point of making things retro in the first place. You get lying dials and weird auto-ISO configuration. It's a weird compromise between retro and modern controls that just fails.
I say forget about it and just get a Z5ii. Nikon clearly doesn't and never had the genius to keep things simple (see: the absolute clusterfuck the Df's control interface was) in the design of retro-styled cameras.

>the fate of canon users

>>4445533
The auto iso control issue has been fixed with firmware and it's no different than any other dial camera. You set your dials and if you want to override one of them easily, you use the PASM. If anything, it's better than having auto on dial because you can leave a specified value and toggle auto on/off.

Or you can ignore the dials entirely and rely on the control dials like any other modern camera.

>>4445533
How retarded are you m8? If you're looking at the dials you can see the PASM position.
Surely you can think of more than 2 settings at once, photographers have managed to for the last 30+ years.
>Noooo I can't have more options on my filmerino style camera
If you don't want PASM, just leave it on M and forget.
And if you're some ape-handed, club-fingered, Parkinson's riddled klutz who can't stop himself bashing the switch, then unless you're also fucking blind, you can see what mode you're using in the viewfinder.

>>4445534
just holding a canon feels like enough to break them
delicate shit

>>4445533
I understand how it worked on firmware 1.0 and I actually preferred that to what it is in FW 2.0, but it works fine that way too

>>4445505
the exact same as all other chinkshit camera bags, which is they'll be fine but weather resistance and longevity will be random
zoomers thinking temu is anything else that worse aliexpress is getting on my nerves

>>4443454 (OP)
Is anyone on GFX editing on iPad?

>>4445793
https://support.pixelmator.com/faq-photomator/resources/digital-camera-raw-formats-supported-in-photomator

>>4444479
I think this photo would have looked better as a composite, with the street at a higher shutter speed i.e. by using a tripod or shutter bracket + photoshop

>>4445193
They do. But it still doesn't change the fact that people who sell the f mount 500mm 5.6 think they have something worth more than a 400mm f2.8, yes I see those always cheaper.

is the Sony a7C II a good camera to start as a hobbyist?

>>4448392
It's an A7 IV with a worse viewfinder, slower max shutter speed and flash sync speed, only one card slot, fewer controls including no AF point joystick, and slightly worse battery life. All to have a camera that's about 150g lighter and not meaningfully smaller (because once you put a lens on it it's not going to be fitting in a pocket). Unless the C is significantly cheaper I'd say no.

>>4443454 (OP)
Sony wins!