Hey /p/,

1. I’ve got a Fuji X-T5 and want to upgrade to full-frame but keep size and weight close or lighter. Need no downgrade in IQ.

Any thoughts on Sony A7C II vs Canon R8 for that? Or hidden gems I’m missing?

R8 lacks IBIS. Can that be fully compensated with stabilized lenses or handheld techniques?

2. Thoughts? Other recs? What’s /p/’s preffered mirrorless Camera? APS-C? Is MF really /p/’s go-to choice for upgrades now, or just flexing?

3. Ricoh?

Also, someone on /p/ said to skip FF entirely and just go medium format (GFX or Hassy). Is that actually a thing now? Seems overkill for portability and price.

>>4445821
>>4445820 (OP)
Do you have any idea how much of a retard you sound? Typical braindead Fujifag.

>>4445822
Based. Glad you read it all despite your brain injury. Still open to recs if your fingers can type them out.

>>4445820 (OP)
>Need no downgrade in IQ.
is this ironic shitposting or something? Fuji IS the downgrade, all you can do is go up.

>>4445828
Why?

Fuji’s IQ is solid enough. I’ve seen direct comparisons between the X-T5 and full-frame, and in good light, the differences are minimal.
I’m just looking to move up where it actually counts, without going heavier or losing features like IBIS.

Can someone pls try to address 1,2,3?

>>4445843
fuck off retard

>>4445821
Only worth it for the 100mp models and only if IQ is your absolute #1 priority above all else. FF is still better in many ways.
I too am selling my X-T5 soon, but I picked up a Zf as side grade to a 50R and never looked back. Z5II is solid option now.

>>4445820 (OP)
GR is based, I run a IIIx for daily life and errands and a regular fullframe setup for cooler stuff. In my experience it's not the size of the body that counts (as long as it isn't genuinely enormous like a pro DSLR) but rather the lens, so if you get something like a Z mount camera with small rangefinder lenses (this combination specifically because Z has the thinnest sensor glass besides Leica) it will be very comfortable dimensionally, if you don't mind manual focus

>>4445820 (OP)
>>4445870
But if you need AF while keeping things compact as you mentioned, you can't go too wrong with Sigma contemporary stuff, E or L mount depending on your taste in body - either will work. Even going for a larger body than the A7C won't be that much of a difference to your X-T5 and either way it'll be worth it once you see how the files BTFO your x-trans sensor.

>>4445870
z-mount (z5II/zf/z6iii/z8) also has the best MF functionality with adapted mf glass of any system

>>4445820 (OP)
Sony or zf

>>4445821
Can you afford a hasselblad 907x, cfv100c, and two primes?

>>4445874
I wish the Z7ii weren't so fucking UGLY with its pre-redesign viewfinder hump.

>>4445872
L mount cameras are poorly made and incompetently developed, like they are trying to be bad. Fuji outsells them with half the IQ. Panasonics solution is to make influencers lie instead of releasing better shitb

>>4445880
Even the SL cameras are rattly, buggy shit with pretty bad autofocus. They exist solely for dumb studio boomers who think the brand name is magic. Panasonic exists for those same people, for when they can't afford leica but believe in the power of brand adjacency (sony also did this with zeiss, because during the zeiss partnership their cameras were fucking shit)

>>4445882
Yep. And don't even get me started about snoy. Only Fuji cameras are good, I have over 300 of them.

>>4445880
>rattly, buggy shit
Clearly never even breathed the same air as one IRL. Cope poorfag

Went from xt3 to a7cii. Don‘t do it. It‘s small there are nice lenses, great iq but the cam is ugly, annoying loud shutter sound and its not fun. Then i couldnt get back to shitty apsc IQ and sacrificed sice to get the gfx50sii. Probably should have bought the zf instead. GR is also good and sharper than any fuji apsc/lens

>>4445887
It took them over a year to acknowledge and fix this
https://leicarumors.com/2024/07/11/the-leica-sl3-camera-overwriting-deleting-images-issue-confirmed-by-leica.aspx/amp/

>>4445883
Snoy is good now, but only if you like warm cameras and battery life that tanks if you use the menu

No mention of Canon? Why?

>>4445889
>Snoy is good now,
It makes you look like shrek
warped distorted green skin

>>4445888
>it didnt match my purse and had a manly clack instead of a cute feminine click
Sony if you wear north face, zf if you wear predatorrat, big film if you wear a fursuit, simple as

>>4445889
>It took them over a year to acknowledge and fix this
A single body and a single issue rarely caused by boomers fumbling.
>>4445890
Mount too closed off to recommend. Unless you already have EF glass and an adapter and don't mind fuckhuge primes

>>4445890
Hugely overpriced pro shit and crippled consumer shit, and their pro shit makes snoy look good unless you’re a video autist

>>4445827
All right, I will give you the distilled main thing about MF digital.
Ask yourself, do you absolutely have to produce big prints and does your income predominantly depends on the quality of these big prints? If not then you don't need MF.
Do you need quick and reliable AF? If yes then stay away from spending money on MF.
MF is specific in what it does good that if you need to ask if MF is better or FF from upgrading from your APS-C system then you don't need MF. Just stick with FF, for the majority of everyday photography (including pro and art photography) you can do with FF or even with APS-C system.
If you really do want to move away from your Fuji APS-C system then look around the market, look for photos you like and with what system it was made with and rent it out for a week or two, then rent something else. Then decide on what to buy. Just forget about MF.

Ps.: modern digital MF is not much bigger than FF. Film 645 has considerably larger frames than digital 645. Digital 645 is basically FF with higher pixel density, the emphasis is on the lenses.

Is the Samsung 28mp sensor any good?

>>4445899
>its only for prints and pixel peeping
Its for tonality, rendering, and clean high ISOs you hylic

>>4445899
>look for photos you like and with what system it was made with
Single best advice in the thread. I have done this with lenses and always very happy with the purchase.

>>4445902
>tonality
Lol all those sensors are the same brand and type, only Fuji managed to fuck up the colors on theirs. Just ask any Hassy user why they didn't go for the cheaper GFX if it is the same sensor.
Good to see /p/ nophotos still fall for the marketing buzzwords

>>4445906
Because the hasselblad is smaller and looks cooler? The meme colors are only in phocus and most people just use lightroom

>>4445843
>R8 lacks IBIS. Can that be fully compensated with stabilized lenses or handheld techniques?
Pretty much every lens that Canon makes for RF has lens IS so IBIS is kind of redundant. The only lenses off the top of my head that don't are the 50mm f/1.8, 28mm f/2.8 and the 28-70mm f/2. Handheld techniques to stabilise will vary person to person but depending on what you're shooting, it's not going to be consistent enough.
>Thoughts? Other recs? What’s /p/’s preffered mirrorless Camera? APS-C?
There is zero consensus on any topic regarding gear. You'll get three different opinions from any given anon depending on the temperature of the room and what kind of moon cycle we've got. I'd say go R10 or R6 for Canon.

>>4445909
Lens IS is 3 stop, nikon IBIS is 8 stop, sony IBIS is 7 stop. There's a huge difference here and canon cripples more than just that. Budget canon is basically micro four thirds, but ugly and blob.

>>4445908
Well, would you look at the little faggot! Tonality was based a couple posts before now colors are a meme? Lmao fuck off you nonsense little shit

>>4445820 (OP)
I have an a7c and I've used a Fuji xt-5

The a7c might be lighter but it's more uncomfortable to hold due to the smaller grip.

I'm thinking about selling my zoom lenses because of this, just shooting those compact primes instead. I just want a camera that can swing in my neck and I don't have the strap digging into my skin

>>4445909
> 0 consensus

It looks like most of the ppl on /p/ tend to avoid Fuji for some reason?
Isn't the XT5 crisper the Ricoh GR or on par with other FF sensors? It's 40 MP after all...

>>4445912
>Lens IS is 3 stop
I get 3 stops from my 20 year old EF zoom. RF lenses give closer to 5 stops in practice. IBIS also doesn't help as much with ultrawides or telephotos. I'd much rather have actual OIS.
Canon are cripplefucking chuds, and I failed to mention a few other lenses without IS, but RF's greatest weakness is the narrow apertures on their zooms and the forced corrections.

>>4445922
Fuji are wormy memes. M43 is a cult meme. Nikon can't hit focus meme. Canon cripplehammers everything not a $6000 flagship meme. Snoy makes everything green meme. Ricoh sucks dust harder than a whore on Saturday meme. You can't really win. Doesn't matter what you go with there's 10 anons here at any point that'll call you a retard for buying it.

>>4445915
>Color calibration is tonality
Lmao no, tonality is basically color depth/bit depth plus resolution.

medium format shoots 16 bit raws and can actually fill those 16 bits with accurate info, and the resolution is a major factor here. 100mp bayer is about 80mp non-bayer, or the peak resolution of scanned 6x7 slide film, which gives it the same ability to record gradients and surface textures as 6x7 slide film if you simply resize your files to a saner size. digital accuracy IS tonality. film had practically infinite "bits" and covered deep, saturated colors most digitals still cant record. LF film is even better than a 150mp MFDB, and is still produced because basically no one needs that resolution every day and shooting film is actually more cost effective than shooting digital there.

100mp dx medium format is the point where photos start approximating life better. the camera does less reduction, and things that would be messy and harsh on a lesser camera start to look more structured because all the fine shading and color differences were preserved and give things more shape and separation. if you're a skin tone autist or shoot landscapes in a place with actual woods medium format is it, either go 100mp or buy a 6x9 camera.

even when you reduce your files to a shit ass 4chan jpeg to show them to some loser furfag weeaboo that doesn't matter, a lot of the color/shading/texture is still going to be there and lesser sensors will look more contrasty and plasticky in the same scenarios.

>>4445927
>sony makes everything green
except, they dont make everything green

some flaws of the a7c and a7cii are cheap feeling buttons, log gamma like default color science (its 90% their lenses 10% their sensor), noisy very high ISOs, 80s consumer autofocus SLR tier ergonomics, shitty viewfinders, poor battery life, and weather sealing below the standard of the a7iv/a7riv

but they dont make everything green. more like dull beige with harsh contrasty red splotches.

>>4445922
It's fine, OP is just a faggot who thinks FF will look a lot better. In reality the difference isn't quite as big, and 40mp allows you to crop a lot. Just shoot in good light. Source: used to own one, don't anymore.
>>4445820 (OP)
What the fuck do you expect to get if you don't even give out any criteria? It's not like one camera body is magically better than the others. Afaik Z6/A7III/R6 are not too different. Stop looking at the bodies and look at the lenses. Fuji glass is pretty good for what is available for aps-c.
>>4445821
At that point just start shooting large format film
>>4445872
lmao. did you buy into the l-mount meme?
>>4445887
Literally the cheapest shit you can get brand new. The lenses are pretty OK and the original S5 was fine, but at least my copy of the S5II was utter shit. Lucky got a good deal on it so could sell it without any losses.

>>4445934
The difference is pretty big, actually. Fuji files always look flat and ugly. Like shitty lab scans of kodak ultramax.

>>4445938
They look fine, sounds like you are doing something wrong.

>>4445940
>>4445934
this doesn't look good
you have tiktok induced brainrot
>LE GRAINY HECKIN NOSTALGIA BRO
>CHONKERS!

>>4445828
>muh xtrans pixel is actually 3/4 of bayer pixel
t. adobe dev

>>4445940
>they look fine
Ken rockwell "every lens is sharp" moment

>>4445942
An xtrans pixel is actually 1/2 a bayer pixel if something is a mostly red or mostly blue texture

This can be a desirable skin smoothing effect for some people, if you edit raws, turn off unsharp mask, and paid fuji $2k+ to use your "40mp" camera as an 8mp camera in the end

>>4445941
That's Ultramax you fucking moron.

>>4445943
Xtranny sacrifices a bit of chroma (about 10%) for a bit more luma, in the end it's purely a demosaicing problem. The best xtranny algos do multiple passes and that computational constraint is likely why the GFX went back to bayer, but otherwise there's no loss in quality with a decent software.

>>4445922
>Isn't the XT5 crisper the Ricoh GR or on par with other FF sensors? It's 40 MP after all...
It's not a great sensor.
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-fujifilm-x100vi-the-hype-camera/
I tried an X-T5 with the new 16-50 lens for a while and it simply cannot be compared to the GR. Fuji is smartphone tier, really. 40MP is especially memetic at APS-C with much smaller pixel size running your low-light performance into the dirt. The GR is really the ultimate snapshit camera, pic rel is one I took the other day using the close-up function.
>>4445934
>Literally the cheapest shit you can get brand new.
I'm talking about SL. Never handled Panasonic in my life. SL however is excellent.

>>4445948
Another GR snapshit

>>4445948
SL? Sure, why not. And I wouldn't call fuji smartphone tier (picrel) but I sold that system just because if I wanted to take a smaller camera with I was just taking my ricoh.

>>4445943
Sharpened for print, so it's a bit crisp on digital. Couldn't care enought to do another export.

>>4445952
I took about 1000 pictures with the X-T5. Details are mushy as hell, like they've been denoised via some smartphone algorithm.
X-T5 + 16-50mm f2.8-4.8, ISO 400, 28.7mm, f/6.4, 1/120, 100% zoom

>>4445955
+ full size. Fullres image is beyond filesize limits so this'll have to do unfortunately.

>>4445955
That just looks like you turned raw sharpening off. Or then the new kit zoom just sucks. This is 35mm f1.4 (the old one) at f4. Default lightroom sharpening, 100% zoom. Screenshot just because.

>>4445959
And fullsize. Exported at 2000px wide edge and max 5000KB.

>>4445955
>let's evaluate a sensor based on corner crops from a kit lens stopped down past optimal sharpness

>>4445959
Still seeing mushiness there (lol)
Here is another crop with the zoom... also at ISO400
>>4445961
Center crops, not corner. Also this particular kit lens is supposed to work well with the 40MP sensor, unless it's just marketing bullshit?

>>4445962
ISO 400, 27.1mm, f/3.6, 1/600

>>4445962
>>4445963

>>4445955
>>4445956
>>4445962
>let me zoom at 500% on a wide shot

So, a zoomed-in portion of a wide 23mm picture, that's likely not exactly at the focus distance, with a zoom lens that's far from exceptional?

I don't know what more you expect, unless what you show is exactly what you focused on, and not on the corner of the frame, this is what you should expect from any landscape shot, anything within hyperfocal will look "in focus" unless you pixel peep.

Pixel peeping is not how pictures are looked at. You either look at a compressed image on the internet, or a print, and for both cases that's more than enough information density.

Pic related is a 500% zoom on a landscape picture taken with a sony A7RV and a 24mm lens. Yeah it's Sony focus magic, yeah it's bayer, yeah it's 61 MPx full frame, but it's still a wide shot with most of the frame in the hyperfocal range, i.e. not really in full focus.

>>4445962
I think the old one was better. Picrel the sigma alternative.

>>4445968
Fullres. X-T5 w/ Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 @ 5.6.

>>4445966
100% is not 500%. 27mm is not 23mm. kys

>>4445966
Thanks, good breakdown.
>>4445970
How to miss the point completely. post photo or gtfo

Pic GrIII @ 102400ISO and custom jpeg bw preset. I've found very high isos usable on the GR as long as you shoot BW, high contrast stuff. Not for everyone.

>>4445970
>100% is not 500%
This is not a 2x zoom by any means, on either of your pics.
>27mm is not 23mm
The point being?

Learn how to take a picture first then blame the gear.

>>4445969
>>4445968
It's still mushy.
40MP stretches x-trans beyond its capabilities. I'm not the only one claiming this.
>>4445966
>unless what you show is exactly what you focused on
Cottage picture was focused on the cottage. I used center spot and refocus. As a matter of fact the background trees are less in focus than the cottage. It's either a shit sensor or a shit lens, or (more likely) both. The kit zoom is a good choice for comparisons since this is a gear recommendation thread and most new people will probably pick the kit.
>>4445973
>Learn how to take a picture first then blame the gear.
Did I touch a nerve? I'm sorry about your buyer's remorse. You can still reclaim most of your cash if you sell your X-T5 ASAP. You might even make enough to buy a real camera.

>>4445975
center spot and recompose*

>>4445973
Should have gotten a modern m43 camera.

>>4445975
>My 500% zoom on a wide shot with a zoom lens isn't razor sharp at the pixel level REEE
dunno, seems the fuj got to your nerves before I did
I don't even know what your point is, I can show you countless landscape examples on full frame + prime lenses that aren't sharp as fuck, because landscape pictures aren't meant to be as sharp as portrait pics, that's just how it is, your feelings don't apply, pixel peeping still isn't how you judge pictures.

>>4445977
Should have gotten a leica*

xtrans is shit on purpose. you people are fucking morons.

yes, fujifilm xtrans is objectively bad at taking a picture.
yes, fujifilm x lenses are soft as balls except for some overpriced cope glass that's still never going to be as good as cheap stuff on sony/nikon FF.

but HOW?

well, if you would direct your attention to fujifilm marketing, they are NOT selling a technologically competitive camera. they are selling a "film simulator". if you bought your xt5 expecting it to be a real camera and not the kind of retarded thing a "women/queer owned" photography business might use when being DEI'd into shooting a vogue cover (at best), you weren't reading (a straight male photographer would just shoot film)

35mm is shit and the lenses for most 35mm cameras are soft
xtrans is shit and the lenses for xtrans are soft

wow who knew

>>4445981
I thought it was some kind of snoy/yakuza plot?

>>4445978
It's not the same type of softness as you get e.g shooting wide open with a film lens on an otherwise sharp sensor.
The pixel-level mushiness contributes to degrading the entire image at regular magnification. Every picture I posted would have simply been nicer had I used bayer.
>>4445981
>they are selling a "film simulator"
True

>>4445981
Kek this
>i bought a camera marketed as simulating a mushy, low resolution film format and now my photos are mushy and low resolution. they look like terrible lab scans of cheap consumer film. how could this happen to me?

>>4445985
For the record, I did not buy the camera but had it on loan from a family member.
t. yesphotos
>>4445975
>>4445963
>>4445956

>>4445981
>(a straight male photographer would just shoot film)
No one but unironic homosexuals shot film to feel "special" nowadays.

Real men shot nikon with prime telephoto to spy on the neighbor's daughter

>>4445975
Is this mush in the same room with us? That's just how 100% crops look. I think that's plenty good for aps-c. Here's some "real mush", f22 and x-trans 4. Kit lens. Does this fact make it a bad picture?
>>4445978
I think they are either trolling or in denial.

>>4445983
Sony's yakuza plot amounts to this
>If you make a better camera than us, buy your sensors somewhere else or get third rate shit like olympus.
So it's like how the sigma and panasonic aren't allowed to outdo the leica Q (which would be accomplished by adding a mechanical shutter and EVF to the BF and S9). They are forced, by a backroom deal, to fill a different market niche. Fuji is not allowed to directly compete with sony. Therefore they sell a film simulator instead of a good camera.

Nikon also has a non-compete clause and Z mount is why so many third party lenses have truncated zoom ranges and weird focal lengths now. Non-compete deals from these yakuza fucks are crippling the camera market and may very well kill it.

Sony makes smartphone sensors. No one else does.

>>4445989
This is a bad picture - for kit sold for thousands of dollars.

This is a distinction /p/ can't seem to handle.

If you bought an a7iv and every photo you take is f16 iso 1600 and scaled to 2mp yes you might as well have used micro four thirds

>>4445991
four-turds is DOA

>>4445989
It's just not a good sensor. Why would you pay more for x-trans when it's objectively worse than bayer? I am just sharing my disappointment with it after hands-on experience and you accuse me of trolling or being in denial (of what, exactly?). I'm perfectly happy with what I actually use.
>>4445990
>outdo the leica Q (which would be accomplished by adding a mechanical shutter and EVF to the BF and S9)
Leica Q is a fixed lens crop camera, so your theory is nonsense until Leica makes a compact SL.

While we're on the topic of sensor mush, how about them AA filters, and why sony and canon can't seem to make a good one? You can tell when they blur more in one direction than another

Things like this turn distant foliage and grass into a nervous blur and obliterate surface texture as hard as diffraction smearing would.
>dooont pixel peep noooooo you need to pay thousands of dollars to only use your camera for instagram! viewing more than 2mp = PIXEL PEEP! BAD!

>>4445994
>dpreview
As expected

>>4445993
Would anyone buy the leica Q, if sigma gave the BF an EVF and mech shutter with a nonexistent/negligible size/weight increase? Anyone?

No. Because they could use any L mount lens they wanted instead of just cropping the fuck out of a 28mm.

It would cause another business failure like when they shared a PNS model with lumix.

>>4445995
it's funny how there is no argument against dpreview so you impotently try to suggest it's bad just because

>>4445998
Are you new on this board?

>>4445995
Dpreview shoots these tests so we can shit on gay brands without joining the bickering club with doghair, huskyfucker, and corgicuck.

It also provides an objective baseline so we can say "this camera does this" without some sperg sped saying "WELL I THINK YOUR PHOTO OF GRASS AND TREES IS BORING AND SHIT SO IT DOESNT MATTER USE YOUR PHONE GEARFAG" (because they secretly hate photography)

It's pretty based of them if you ask me.

>>4445909
>RF has lens IS so IBIS is kind of redundant.
Would you like to hear about our lord and savior the prime vcm lens?

>>4445940
Looks like the same type of quality you'd get from a 2010 leica digishit.

>>4445996
>Would anyone buy the leica Q, if sigma gave the BF an EVF and mech shutter with a nonexistent/negligible size/weight increase? Anyone?
Yes, because those people wouldn't have bought a Q in the first place. The only real competitor of the Q, in the eyes of its target audience, is GFX100RF (and my mistake assuming the Q was crop).

>>4445999
you hate dp review because it proves that your precious sony a7c isn't as good as you say it is

>>4445909
>ibis is redunant
>simply limit yourself to buying this small selection of optically bad, poorly built, slow focusing electronic-plastic primes that canon sells for well over $500 for some models
>and use them on a design flaw ridden cripple hammered blob
or i could put a $200 50mm f2 on a $1350 zf and get better results with any lens i want forever including adapted leica M mount

>>4445994
why does only Nikon clearly show the line in the illustration?

why the fuck is the X-H2 almost the same size of the K-1???

>>4445995
Dpreview is based. It shows what the charts don't, like how the z7ii is actually grainier than the r5, and how the a7c has directional detail smearing.

>>4446010
Sony: AA filter smears horizontally
Fuji: Xtrans reduces resolution overall and then nukes what aliasing is left with strong chroma smoothing
Nikon ZF: weak AA filter smears detail a little less, vertically, because most details IRL repeat horizontally
Canon: Multidirectional FF filter and noise reduction baked into raws to hide something we may never see unless canon chooses to show us (it's probably fixed pattern noise)

The S5IIs results are similar to the ZF. The S5II has no OLPF filter at all, and people actually pay to add one.

>>4446014
>FF filter
AA filter kek

>>4446011
Because fuji is an image first brand and they wanted it to look professional to clueless retards

I know some aliasing (rainbow slop, zigzags, etc) with ultrafine black and white detail (ie: white girl, dark eyebrows) is normal unless you nuke resolution altogether with a soft lens or extremely soft sensor, but the R6II raws show some weird shit

I opened them myself to confirm

They are cooking their raws in ways we may never understand. Sony (already known for star eater and weird gaps in raw histograms) shows a lesser form of the weird sensor fuckup.

>>Pentax

I don't even care that I own one this is funny

>>4446018
someone told me adobe is more aggressive with weird color shit and capture one is not because it's meant for users of higher end cameras. lets try c1.

wew lad.

>>4446021
>canon sending encoded messages in their raws

>>4446004
Don't talk shit on sony

>GXR revival but without the lensor nonsense
>L-mount so that Ricoh doesn't need to develop a new one for mirrorless
>mech shutter, IBIS, full frame, tilting hotshoe EVF (sold separately)
>24MP sensor with thin cover glass also good for tiny adapted rangefinder lenses
>keep size at or below A7C/Leica M
>can also sell a good K to L adapter for perfect compatibility
>positioned as a main camera that the GR can complement or a side camera to a larger full-frame
It would sell like hot cakes. Why don't they try it?

>>4445820 (OP)
I am once again asking if anyone here uses ipad for editing? Like, how convenient is it to load raws on the go, apply preset, do light edit and quickly airdrop them?

>>4446030
You mean the z5ii?

>>4446020
Furries also like fujifilm

>>4446032

>>4446025
thats where the raw noise reduction algorithm passed over the big green line that would normally be there on a canon sensor

a few X-T5 100% crops
true its not as good as 40mp bayer
but can hold its own with 24mp bayer

in either case, post processing sharpness and nr makes a bigger difference

>>4446040

hi guys i'm a hiring kike with a love for niggers i'm looking for cum managers and dick Developers for my tight jew ass send me an email at john@thefreewebsiteguys.com

I'm not seeing any worms anymore on fuji with the lastest lightroom version. Has adobe finally fixed it?

>>4446044
they're in your brain now

>>4446034
Sony is the official furry camera.

>>4446043
>>4446000
Samefag

>>4445944
>>4445940
what region is that?

>>4446037
Non-difference IRL especially when you consider that sony lenses must be larger for the same aperture/quality

>>4446040
Do the cat again on bayer, i want to see if the nose gets pinker and the irises and eye folds get more saturated

>>4446053
>sony lenses must be larger for the same aperture/quality
?????
*Nikon lenses must be larger for the same aperture/quality
https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/sony-20-1-8-g-20-1-8-nikkor-s-on-nikon-z7/

Don't get the A7Cii. It's the only camera I have ever used with a rolling shutter so bad it affected normal still images. It's also got a really bad build quality to the point I was afraid of breaking it on accident. The mount also has so much vignetting that it is closer to ASPC than FF. An XT5 is probably higher IQ than it. Just get z5ii or a refurbished z7ii. If you are willing to spend more money then go for a z8 or a GFX100sii.

>>4446031
>I am once again asking if anyone here uses ipad for editing? Like, how convenient is it to load raws on the go, apply preset, do light edit and quickly airdrop them?
I already told you to grab Photomator. You drag files from sd card to either photos app, or a local directory, and then you can do automated mass edits. Smidge slower than on a laptop, but fine nonetheless.
Or grab Nitro Photo if you don't like Photomator.

>>4446055
>muh one design mistake
And the sony lens works on nikon bodies lol

>>4446055
The vignetting and distortion on that snoy lens is insane. What good is sharpness if your edges and corners have micro four thirds light gathering, and your images need stretched and smeared to be straight?

>>4446055
Who cares they are both bad lenses that get mogged by a cheap viltrox 20mm you can get for 150$. Like honestly gmaster and S line lenses have some of the ugliest color and tonal rendering it's crazy. Pretty funny the best Z mount lenses are the cheap ones like the 35mm f1.4. Kind of cool of nikon to make the S line for the wedding photographers who shoot brick walls and leave the good lenses cheaper for real photographers.

>>4446056
The a7cs have a 1/160 sync, canon efcs is 1/200 on cheapies and 1/250 on good ones, z8 shutterless is 1/200

>>4446056
Good advice here

>>4446062
Yeah a decent canon is a good option too. I just don't recommend them cause they breakdown so much. Really only useful if you have their pro services IMO.Plus most of the RF lenses are ass so you have to adapt EF lenses if you want decent rendering.

>>4446053
>Non-difference IRL especially when you consider that sony lenses must be larger for the same aperture/quality
My original post was about a theoretical new camera, not an A7C.
Personally I just need a compact full frame body to put my wide angle M lens on and carry in my bag beside my main so I don't need to swap primes all the time. A7C doesn't cut it, hence the daydreaming.

>>4446081
M10

>>4446084
M69

>>4446081
Zf or z5ii

>>4446084
overpriced snoy with all the features removed (and a worse reputation for QC)

>>4446061
24-70 is gud tho

>>4446087
You're wrong. The optical viewfinder is the last stand of implicit photographic integrity. Besides, the Leica actually has a solid build.

Do I replace my mft kit with an L mount kit? The 24-60 f/2.8 and 100mm macro are quite small and sharp, but I'm not sure about the bodies at this point.
>inb4 sony
Never

>>4446145
Schizo nonsense isn't a retort, and leicas are literally legendary for failing parts. They're as expensive to own as they are to buy. Feast your eyes, they are worse than snoy
https://www.google.com/search?q=leica+m10+failures
Kind of like how /p/ sleeps on canon's failure rate
You're afraid to acknowledge the elephant in the room - nikon makes the only good cameras.

And for your schizo ass, they even make the d780, d500, and d7500.

>>4446146
panasonic is just sony with worse autofocus and more video modes checked in the firmware build options desu

they promise some minor weight savings and in return colors are bad, bodies don't last, and even fuji mogs it in AF reliability

>>4446149
It's not "schizo nonsense", the image you see in an EVF is literally computer-generated. As for the cost, who cares but the buyer?

>>4446149
Also curved microlenses enable the capture of deeper tonality.

>>4446151
>oh no, i get better autofocus and exposure preview when i use my camera, the west has fallen
yes it is schizo nonsense

>>4446152
Curved microlenses slightly increase SNR and improve extreme corner sharpness when using lenses with extreme ray angles, which is really just a leica M mount problem. Leica lenses aren't particularly good so it's not worth losing sleep over.

>>4446153
>oh no, I need my crutches because I'm photographically disabled!!!

>>4446154
>which is really just a leica M mount problem
Sony lenses vignette so the cameras bake shadow lifts in the corners of their compromised raws

>>4446152
>microtonal harvesting

>>4446155
>how it started: It's philosophical
>how its going: NOO YOU CANT HAVE NICE THINGS YOU HAVE TO WORK HARDER IWTH WORSE THINGS
Just another commie

>>4446156
No one cares about sony schizo this is a nikon and micro four thirds board

>>4446150
oh yeah forgot it was a video format, meh. I like the lenses though. Maybe I'll get an SL3.

>>4446158
>a fake rendition is better than reality
At long last the escapist outs himself.

>>4446161
And now the commie backtracks to trying to assign deep philosophical implications to a camera viewfinder. What a buffoon.

DSLRs are obsolete due to total inferiority btw.

>>4446166
Name one relevant thing the 1D X Mark III can't do that mirrorless can.

>>4446170
Not be an autism blob

>>4446170
eye detection auto focus

>>4446175
It can, you've been deceived.

>>4446177
prove it

>>4446178
Rtfm

>>4446177
Not competently

>>4446170
Use significantly better, smaller lenses where it matters (primes for editorial style shooting). Small primes on SLRs are dogshit and lack stabilization, and usually have to be shot at f4 with higher ISOs (no stab) making it basically m43

IDGAF if the pro lenses are still big, those are meant to be insured and kept in dry boxes when not at work. Quality first.

>>4446180
Suppose it can't, even though it can. I asked about relevant things, eye tracking AF is a gimmick.

>>4446182
Small lenses are not relevant in the slightest to editorial shooting, they're always a cheap compromise. And generally speaking mirrorless has bigger lenses because of the short flange. Only neurotics care about camera size.

>>4446183
>everything good cameras do is irrelevant
t. this
>https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/tripcode/%21%21oKsYTZ4HHVE%20/filter/text/
>https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/tripcode/%21%215Dz%2BC7v45HK/filter/text/

>>4446185
Sentence by sentence
1: Lie or retarded. Editorial STYLE, not paid assignment.
2: Lie.
3: Cope.
You're on fire.

Shit SLRs got almost universally discontinued for a reason. Even pro-only medium format is now mirrorless. Give up, schizo. SLRs were always a bad design. There are no philosophical implications of viewfinder technology.

Go back to /pol/ sweaty

>>4446187
>SLRs got almost universally discontinued for a reason
Cost cutting

>>4446187
>Editorial STYLE
So an organized shoot. Size is no object.

Is the nikon 80-200 af-s a good lens? Would it be a good idea to buy it for a z6ii?
What about other lens of that age, like the 24-70 2.8G?
And are similar aged 3rd party (tamron, sigma etc.) all shit?

>>4445912
Stops of stabilization are listed as theoretical, not what you're actually going to get, and Lens rated stops tend to get far closer to the rating than IBIS.
Pros of IBIS:
- Really good on your 35mm and 50mm.
- You have it on all lenses.
- 5-axis stabilization.
- Will work with Lens IS to be even better (lets the lens do the 2 axis it's better at, then takes over for the other 3).
Cons of IBIS:
- Realistically expect 50%-70% of the rating, so more like 3-4 stops, 4-5 on your 50mm.
- On wide angle lenses you get smeared details in the corners.
- Long focal lengths IBIS just stops working well, expect 2 stops best as you approach 200mm.
Pros of Lens IS:
- Tuned for the lens, so works better than IBIS on wide and long lenses. Very big deal.
- Tends to provide better optical quality with less loss of detail (IBIS isn't perfect) (not big enough of a difference for me to care).
Cons of Lens IS:
- Needs to have it on the lens, so not all your lenses benefit.
- Increases the cost of every lens it's on.
- Doesn't have as high of max capability.
- Only corrects for two axis.

Honestly, lack of IBIS isn't going to keep me from buying the R8, as Canon lenses tend to have IS where it matters. If my camera ever pays for itself, THEN it justifies spending even more for a better system. Lens IS works well enough for casual stuff.

>>4445927
>he didn't mention pentax meme
Pentax wins again!
The only thing people have to shit on about Pentax is that Pentax might not ever release another new camera or lens again.
Everyone recognizes Pentax for its photographic superiority.
Usually mentioning Pentax just provokes autistic sperging out by snoy fanboys because they have nothing to actually defeat it.

>>4446195
Pentax has one downfall and it's video but it shouldn't matter to a purist.

>>4446021
lmfao, didn't expect Fujifilm to win, and didn't expect Nikon to actually do clearly better than Sony and Canon.

>>4446196
I don't wear a beanie and I don't rely on shitty cliche instagram reels to get pussy.
I don't give a shit about video.

>>4446193
Skill issue, mr parkinsons

>>4446195
Pentax just sucks. Dead brand. Bad cameras. Worse lenses.

BlobSLRs are irrelevant
Sony lost
Olympus died
Canon crumbled
Panasonic is a punching bag
Nikon and Fuji mirrorless are superior

>>4446197
fujifilm gambled their entire brand on shooting that test chart. you better appreciate it.

Is the Nikon Zf really unusable with bigger lenses, or are camera reviewers just weak basedboys?
Trying to decide between used a Zf and a used Z6ii.

>>4446208
just get the zf and don't be a fag

>>4446209
OK, but what about when I mount a tamron 200-400 f/5.6 via FTZ (~1400g total)?

>>4446210
Hold it by the barrel

>>4445820 (OP)
Do what I did. Just buy em all and see for yourself. Just remember that /p/ is a bunch of lying seething envious poorfags who don't want you to enjoy what they can't have.

>>4446210
quit yer gimpin’ boy and HOLD IT

>>4446213
This is an absolute fact. Sour grapes crab bucket photography hating bonanza.

A7R IV worth an upgrade from A7II?
I'm mostly tired of any new feature or accessory being compatible from A7III onward and I need more resolution to crop in for birds since I bought a sigma telephoto like a retard and don't get to use a teleconverter.
But for most stuff I'm still making it work so I'm kinda on the fence.

>>4446230
no just wait for the A7RVI to be released and then buy a used A7RV
the lack of a fully articulated screen makes the A7RIV worthless

>tried to take photo of large moon tonight
>came out like a big circle and can't see shit
Taken with EM1-III with f1.4 20mm, what fuckin do?
Is it a skill issue or wrong camera issue?

>>4446002
That's shitty scanning+sharpening for print for you.
>>4446051
Near Tampere, Finland
>>4445991
So it's bad that you use the tools you choose for the art you want? Are you actually autistic or retarded? That kit costs sub 1k now afaik.
>>4445993
You are in denial of sensor mattering that much to the end result, and trolling because you still seem to think the matter was the camera instead of yourself.
>>4446020
LMAO sounds about right

PSA to gearfags here, optics matter more. And don't shoot in bad light and expect good results.

>>4446208
It's not comfy. Cameras have grips for a reason. They act as levers to help support and hold the camera.
But not unusable.
Plus, you can just buy an aftermarket grip.
I wouldn't get the Zf if I was a wildlife shooter or someone else that regularly used large, heavy lenses. But I wouldn't hesitate to buy it if I used those lenses only occasionally.

>>4446235
Idk what happened there, but this should work.

>>4446233
40mm, f5.6 1/2000s. 12-40mm f2.8. Hard crop.
I think you overexposed it.

>>4446233
skill issue because if you knew shit, you'd know you need at least 200mm (100mm on your m43) to start looking even ok (sub-decent). You're also going to need to focus at infinity and meter for the moon.
Get a 100-400mm, learn spot metering, and try again.

So, is Ricoh GR III HDF a good upgrade?

>>4446240
Do you own another camera with interchangeable lenses?

>>4446231
yeah that might be the play
second hand prices for higher end gear are insane in my country but I checked ebay and A7R V prices from Japanese sellers are already decent, if I didn't have to pay VAT on imports I could buy one now

>>4446241
Besides the XT5, I don't :(
Planning to sell it.

>>4446245
In that case I would not get the ricoh. You'll grow bored of being stuck with 28/40mm eventually. If you're going to sell the fuji choose the next system based on the lenses available. Unless you are some sports photographer who actually needs the latest and greatest and has the money to get it.

>>4446246
I'd go with Ricoh GR III HDF.
What would you recommend next? Sony A7* R seems to be great :)

>>4446249
What do you shoot and what features do you need out of a camera? What focal lengths do you use and what for? What kind of equipment would inspire you to pick up the camera more?

>>4446251
This. They look neat, crisp and pleasing.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/daciangroza/53806539569/in/dateposted/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickjoust/52569204834/in/faves-16163817@N00/

>>4446253
Second one is 6x9 film, you're welcome to go down that path. Maybe start with 35mm or 645 though.

For the first one, you could go there and take that shot with the camera you have. Unless whatever lens you have is so bad that the images don't look good after you've stopped it down to ~f8. Your picrel was f11, MF film probably more w/tripod.

>>4446254
>take that shot with the camera you have. Unless whatever lens you have is so bad that the images don't look good after you've stopped it down to ~f8.

Are you sure I can get the same results with Fuji XT5 + Fujifilm XF 35mm f/2 R WR?

>>4446295
>>4446253
You can get shots like these with a T5 no problem

>>4446208
It's fine, bigger lenses you support by the lens anyways
The leather half cases at a bit of grip with less weight / bulk than the l plate grip, but even those aren't too bad.

>>4446233
You need to understand something.
This isn't something most other people will tell you or make obvious enough.
The thing you must understand is that the moon is VERY GOD DAMN FUCKING BRIGHT, LIKE HOLY FUCK GOD DAMMIT JESUS IT'S GODDAM FUCKING BRIGHT DUDE BRIGHT ENOUGH TO LIGHT UP EARTH AT NIGHT
You overexposed this.

The fact you aren't posting the shutter speed (your ISO should be set to the lowest) confirms this.
Try again.
Next time, remember IT'S FUCKING BRIGHT. Like, REALLY BRIGHT, and small.
It's almost like shooting a photo of a light bulb.

More thoughts on Sony A7R iii/iv?

>>4446297
OP is just bored with it, let people have fun and spend their money on what they want.

>>4446058
Well thx for your insight on this but I want moooaarrr opinions. Like not just the tech - also if people do it and if it’s good or annoying setup from a usability standpoint

>>4446306
It's sony

>>4446306
Well it’s basically like all other non-current gen flagships. Good way to get into this hobby or into this ecosystem. Especially if you get a good deal on the used market. Good startpoint to get to know the ecosystem of lenses.

>>4446297
With more blurriness and faded looking colors and blur from shit lenses and the lackluster experience of using fujis chinese toys yes

Id sell that shit and get a z7ii and 35mm f1.4 asap

What would be a good second hand purchase for switching from nikon F moun to Nikon Z mount mirrorless ? which of the previous or older Z series don't have the shitty autofocus and now go for a reasonable amount ?

>>4446306
Wonky colors
Spontaneously self destructing sensor mounts
> https://m.dpreview.com/news/0261142298/lensrental-discovers-cracked-sensor-mounts-inside-some-of-its-sony-a7-series-rental-fleet
No weather sealing
Baby mount vignetting

>>4446208
You cant really use it one handed with the 50mm f1.8 s unless your hands are larger than the caucasian average. It is a large camera. Larger than the z8 in some dimensions. It feels like a fuji gw690 but plastic

>>4446308
I fully and down with selling the T5, I am selling mine too
Just silly to think you can't get those with one

>>4446319
i bought a lightly used z7II and 24-70 s. basically perfect.

>>4446142
Yeah it's just about the only non telephoto zoom worth thinking about in Z mount IMO. Just make sure to get it used so it's like half the price.

>>4446208
It's not unusable it's just more annoying to use with longer lenses. I would say the real comparison is between a zF, z5ii, or a refurbished z7ii.

>>4446323
This is definitely the best option right now. If you need more readout speed and better autofocus the z5ii will be better but if you are okay with pretty good AF and want the best IQ the z7ii is a steal right now. If your not shooting birds/sports the AF will be more than enough

>>4446345
The Z7II has ugly noise character. I know the charts SAY its the same amount of noise, but the grain looks ugly.

The ZF has some weird shit going on too that wasn't going on with the Z6II. I think it's related to how nikon processes out their PDAF bands.

>>4445820 (OP)
As someone who had a R8 and sold it for a A7CII I can say I had quite a few issues with the R8 and focusing. Kept missing eye focus even though the eye track was spot on. It would instead focus on eyebrow or eye lashes leaving the eye soft. Had some weird focus issue in general as well. Happy I upgraded to Sony. The R8's 40 shot burst was cool though. but having 7+ stops of IBUIS is game changing for low light / slow shutter shooting.

LOLing at all the fags concerned with how the cameras look. Nigga this is photography not a fashion accessory.

>>4446208
It is uncomfortable to one-hand it with medium lenses. The OM-5/X-T5 have better designed grips.

>>4446210
That would be fine because you cant hold just the camera with a long lens anyways (its bad for the lens mount)

>>4446364
>Nigga this is photography not a fashion accessory.
blocks your path

>>4446364
Appearances matter. A lot.

You are what you signal.

Your camera doesn't just have to look good, it has to look good on you.

>>4446368
LOL!!!!! Hows your murse?

>>4446378
Murses (also called "camera bags") are for incels

Men don't "need" to carry more camera gear than just their M11 and its lens on a strap.

>>4446367
It's not like Leicas are actually pleasant to look at, lol

>>4446368
You seem really insecure desu

>>4446364
>imagine caring about aesthetics while doing a hobby entirely based around aesthetics
Inconceivable

>>4446381
carrying a lens is gay
I put my lens up my asshole and only take it out when I need to take pics
the ladies love it when I pull it out

>>4446368
The best gear is the look you bring with you
>>4446378
>>4446381
Pretty gay to care about such things.
>>4446295
Not exactly, those look wider. Go for 23mm f2 if you're going to stick with fuji. It's great desu (35mm equivalent).
>>4446323
How's that treating you? I'm looking to get something mirrorless after a year or so of only shooting film. Thinking about some nikon body+24-120f4 (ot 24-70 if I find it cheap). Maybe some prime later on if I need wider apertures.

OP Update:

Picked up a Ricoh GR III HDF and ran a few hundred shots through it. Honestly? Totally unimpressed. Sharpness, handling, and overall feel don’t come close to my X-T5 + XF 35mm f/2 - which is way snappier and just more fun to shoot with.

At this point, I’m planning to sell both the Fuji and the Ricoh and fully move to FF:

So now I’m leaning harder into FF:
- Sony A7R III / A7R IV
- Nikon Zf or Z7 II (zero Nikon experience, so open to recs)

From what I gather, /gear/ sees Canon in this range (~$2k–$3k used) as pretty much a no-go?

Looking for something compact-ish, with high res, good color, good IBIS.
What’s /gear/’s actual pick here? Anything else I should be looking at in that range?

>>4446358
Interesting I've always preferred the noise characteristics of the z7ii compared to most other brands (especially sony). The zf does have some odd things going on with some it's low light look though. Pure black and shadows looks better on the zf to me but something weird happens with noise on any sort of detail. I think I just might not like big pixels. These are all minor quibbles though. They are all very good cameras IMO.

>>4446441
I don't know what is "high res" to you but if your okay with 24 megapickles I would actually recommend the z5ii or the zf (they are functionally the same camera and the only difference is looks and ergonomics). If you want 45 megapickles get a refurbished z7ii from Nikon. The z7ii has good enough IBIS for me to shoot at 1/15th using a 35mm in low light easily. The af isn't quite as snappy as the zf/z5ii but it's honestly good enough for me since the main difference is the lack of subject detection outside of people and animals. If you want to spend 3k get a refurbished z8 and you can have the best of both worlds. It is larger and heavier though.

why the fuck is every macro guy shooting insects, every big zoom is shooting birds, and so on. Holy originality. Fucking lawyers and dentists mate

>>4446441
as a newly annointed ricoh shill, the biggest appeal to the gr is the size and snap focus. if you dont care about size and dont use snap focus, its kind of pointless. and from what ive seen online, i think the HDF filter is wayyyy too strong, i think the regular ND is much more practical.

>>4446451
What would/are you doing with a macro and big zoom?

>>4446451
If you want to shoot birds and insects, those are the lenses you need, duh.

Any guesses about the possible announcement of the R7 mark II?

>>4446454

i have no idea, i have 0 creativity. but i refuse to believe those are the ONLY things one can do with that type of photography. seriously its uncanny, borders on npc to me

>>4446441
>Sony A7R III
This is part of the generation that made so many people hate sony. Do you want to find out why?
>A7R IV
The colors are still fucky and it has a lot of ugly high ISO noise
>/gear/ doesn't like canon
/p/ doesn't like canon period because their brand image and marketing strategy essentially refuses that the prosumer market exists, or acknowledges it and tells it it doesn't deserve nice things if it doesnt want to spend over $3k overall

Get a nikon Z5II. You can use sony lenses later, and it has pickle shift.

>>4446451
Those are the most interesting and common subjects. Calm the fuck down

>>4446055

>>4446441
wait for the Pentax K-1 III

>>4446479
Why are you comparing shit ass lenses and a fixed f8 manual focus lens to sony’s largest small prime instead of the 35mm f2.8, which is still better than all of those shitters?

Is it because… panasonic wont make cameras in 2035?

>>4446483
Its all the users of inferior cameras have
>well, i have a crappy lens that's slightly smaller

The niggors always decline to mention that their pancake is, despite the largest mount, incredibly fragile and lacking filter threads without its hood, which takes away its pancake status. It's also the one with the worst corner resolution. With its hood it is the same size as the 35mm f2.8 zeiss.

The lumix pancake isn't even a real lens.

Canon has the only good-ish one, but also the largest bodies, and all their small stuff is crippled.

Full frame pancakes worth using are an impossibility with flange distances less than 27mm.

>>4446479
Sony sisters...

What shitty old camera do you like using because you like the look of it?

Why would anyone go out of their way to shoot full frame in the name of image quality and then handicap it with a dim pancake lens?
>>4446521
Not exactly old but I like shooting with disposables now and then, love their look specially with oddball films like ortho Svema.

>>4446561
>Why would anyone go out of their way to shoot full frame in the name of image quality and then handicap it with a dim pancake lens?
Yeah, id rather have a dim f/2.8 lens in a bigger size!

>>4446570
All of these shitcakes vignette 3 stops wide open. In terms of light transmission f2.8 and f4 are nearly the same. Also only the canon has all 4 basic features every lens should have:
autofocus
filter threads
more than one aperture setting
corners that are visibly sharp by f5.6

like the other f2.8 and even f2 and f1.8 lenses are way better and small enough. Pancakes look cute but dont make cameras that much more portable unless you are literally keeping a camera in a purse, as in, a womans purse.

Has anyone here tried the Viltrox 50mm f/2 air?
How does it compare to the Nikon 40mm f/2 Z?
The Nikon is only ~$20 more in like new condition.

>>4446583
The viltrox is vastly superior

>>4446521

>>4446594
based

>>4446482
never gonna happen
no money in the furry market for a DSLR

>>4446575
>In terms of light transmission f2.8 and f4 are nearly the same

>>4446441
>don't do thing!
>does thing anyways
>disappointed

You are beyond helping. If I were you I'd sell everything and get a Nikon D600 and invest in quality lenses. That's the most you can take advantage of. Think of upgrading when you know how to take photos. Or if that sounds gross then a Canon 6D is right up your alley.

Is Nikon ZF the best option after Z9/Z8? Don't care about ergonomics/video.

>>4446521
E500 for me

>>4446487
>>4446575
>wall of cope

Nikon Zf with a 35mm, 50mm prime and 24-120f4 or go a bit chunkier with a GFX? I like the 50R maybe coupled with the GF55mmf1.7 as a start.

Only thing that I don't like about the Zf is that stupid vlogging screen that you can't just tilt quickly to shoot from waist.

>>4446639
Absolute gigachad

>>4446638
Z6III, then Z5II/Zf
>>4446617
It's funny because this reply just shows how stupid you are to take what they said and interpret it that way
If you have an f2.8 lens with excessive vignetting, going to f4 sometimes doesn't actually give you that much more in terms of overall transmission
Instead of getting more light, you mostly just get less vignetting
>>4446647
I went 50R to Zf and prefer the Zf by a longshot

>>4446666
>nd prefer the Zf by a longshot
how so? size of lenses?

>>4446667
More responsive, better at collecting light and better image quality I'm guessing. GFX cameras are pretty abysmal outside of a tripod in a studio.

>>4446667
Early GFX AF is legitimately bad, enough that I preferred using MF, and started using MF lenses instead
Zf is smaller, lighter, one of the best of all time for using MF glass, with very competent AF
Much smaller lens options, and much better options for fast lenses too
Also having used high res cameras for years, I don't need more than the standard 24-26 for most of what I do
For the times I want extreme resolution or bokeh, panostitching and brenizer gets me farther than a GFX every could

>>4446670
>>4446672
thanks a lot, I guess zf it is then

What's the point of the Panasonic S9?
It has no viewfinder and no shutter, so it's bad for photography.
It's small and has no active heat management, so it's bad for video.
And even though it's compact, the lenses are all big, and because it has a longer flange distance than Sony, there are fuck all 3rd party options.
It's also pretty expensive, so it's not like it appeals to poorfags.

So who is this camera actually for, is it supposed to be a full frame phone camera?
Is there any compelling reason to buy it?

>>4446725
>Is there any compelling reason to buy it?
Fashion, it's for homosexuals.

>>4446725
it's a fujifilm style "metrosexual hobbyist camera" for upper middle class homosexual men and bored teenage to 20s women

>>4446728
>>4446730
So it actually sucks as much as it seems it would?
I only looked into it because one popped up on marketplace cheap, despite being brand new, and I was wondering why the seller hadn't used it.
I was a bit shocked by how bad it looks on paper, and thought there must be some secret to it.

>>4446674
He is kind of shitting you, if you have the money for a 100S
The GFX50 and hasselblad CFV-50C had worse light gathering because they had ancient tech where only a portion of each pixel was sensitive to light, so they needed more exposure to actually get the same image. The only people who should buy ancient MF digital like that are people who know how to leverage superior color depth. The GFX100S is a straight IQ upgrade from full frame in every way.

>>4446725
The point is "glorious L mount alliance" is actually leica telling panasonic and sigma "if you make a compact camera that hurts our sales you are fucking OUT", which ends in them being out, just later. Panasonic is heading the way of the pentax, fast.
>Is there any reason to buy it
Being a self important video autist who thinks the handful of codecs they enabled as an apology for how shit the rest of it is are actually needed by anyone who isn't already preferring a real cinema camera

>>4446733
>So it actually sucks as much as it seems it would?
yes, it's a dead end. GH7 or whatever the FF L-mount equivalent is are vastly more useful outside of rich tiktotkers

>>4446760
>GH7
It's a slow motion video camera with an f8-11 birding zoom that no one wants except for videofags, that's all it really is. It's terrible for everything else.
>FF L mount
Basically everything in this system is garbage. they're 5 years behind nikon and that's saying something
>but they enabled open gate!
No one notices or cares. Panasonic buyers make youtube videos. At best they're used as crash cams.

>>4446602
Prototypes were already out in testing last year, manufacturing is most likely taking place right now. It is a confirmed rumor.

>>4446602
Pentax literally has to make a K-1 III because sony discontinued the 36mp sensor. It's the company that says they're dedicated to SLRs because they failed to develop a good mirrorless.

Expect basically no relevant improvements (also see: olympus and panasonic) and another re-release of a 90s screw drive lens

>>4446617
Yes, because f4 just removes a little of the 3 stop vignetting from f2.8. The center remains about as bright. They are genuinely terrible lenses.

>>4446645
You have no retort

You are obsessed with sony pancakes and never stopped to realize all the full frame mirrorless pancakes are just bad. Worse than "characterful" chinese lenses. Maybe the real reason you care is because sony has the only bodies that could be pocketable with pancakes? Just buy aps-c lmao, with a 16mm mount depth they basically cant make a pancake without it being even worse than nikons.

>>4446769
>Expect basically no relevant improvements
Lol, it is already confirmed it will have the K-3 MkIII AF system upsized for FF and probably more AF points. The K-1 MkII already had an improved shutter block over the K-1 and the K-3 MkIII had an improved mirror flip mechanism, it is basically comparable to the D500. What is confirmed is basically a D500 with FF sensor and faster processor.

There is an interesting feature not documented on the K-3 MkIII, it uses the lightmeter sensor to help with the tracking of objects. The K-1 also has this feature and has quasi eye-AF. The K-1 MkIII will be peak DSLR.

>>4446521
konica minolta a-sweet/dynax/maxxum 5d

probably my favorite camera

>>4446639

i didn't like mine, horrible dynamic range and auto white balance was always inaccurate

>>4446782
great so it'll be comparable to the last nikon/canon dslrs made (d850/5dm4) but it'll cost as much as something like a z7ii/r6m2/a7iv. im not even wishing for mirrorless af im wishing these things had the af capability of dslrs from the same time period

>>4446788
If it has 8fps burst I will be happy. I need to know some of the actual specs to decide if I buy a K-3MkIII to complement my K-1 or replace the K-1 entirely with the K-1MkIII. It would be so nice to know the finalized burst rate.

>>4446797
Also the D-FA 21 Limited.
Man, I am coming down with the GAS hard, hold me bros

>>4446782
The K3-III doesn't focus nearly as quickly or accurately as the d500, pentax salesman man.

>it uses the lightmeter sensor to help with the tracking of objects
Nikon had this on the d750 lol

>>4445951
>>4445948
Beautiful. Post more GR snapshits!

What mirroless cameras have actually good viewfinders?
I tried a few at a store, and the canon r50/r10 for example, looked like a photo of a laptop from 2007.
The Panasonic S5 was a lot better, but still was pretty laggy and annoying.

The only one that was really acceptable-to-good was the Canon R5, but it's expensive, and the lens selection is shit.
Is there any way to get a decent EVF without spending $2.5k+?

>>4446821
Basically all of the ones that say they have nice EVFs but arent expensive either have shit everything else or drop the resolution and refresh rate as soon as you do literally anything

>>4446821
A purist doesn’t need a viewfinder, he can see the shot without even looking through the camera, accepts that the camera is an imperfect machine and embraces the nature of the divide by merely aiming the camera in the general direction of the scene with a minimum of care or expectation, unburdened by societies insistence that man be subservient to machines. At the end of the shoot, the photographer may discard all or some or none of these images, keep or cut up parts that either remind him of what he experienced in the scene, or just simply likes relating to nothing, and paste them together into inspired images as a painter using his paints. That is the ultimate expression of photography.

6x7 = ~80mp, and 6x9 ~100mp, so

If you only shoot kodak gold 200 ($8 a roll) and pay someone else to dev and scan (~$20/roll)
And the average 100mp medium format camera is $500, including a lens (GW690)
By the time you have taken 800 6x9 photos, you might as well have bought a used gfx100s (and the lens!) off ebay and slapped a grain sim on

Film: If you do not run a darkroom, and intend to use your camera at all, don't bother

>>4446826
cheap color film would actually knock 6x9 down to ~60mp so it's better to compare with the cheaper a7riv (and suddenly "sony bad colors" arent so bad when you use a film sim regardless)

>>4446824
>drop the resolution and refresh rate as soon as you do literally anything
That's cancer, I fucking hate shit like this.
It's like those vacuum cleaners that advertise "5hp" but that's actually just the energy the motor draws as it catches fire when massively overdriven.
>>4446825
Lmao

>>4446831
>That's cancer, I fucking hate shit like this.
Welcome to the sorrow of mirrorless

>>4446821

>>4446835
No one wants a lumix

They do everything that doesnt matter and nothing that does. Even their pancake lens is such a joke it counts LESS than sony's samyang and viltrox pancakes.

>>4446836
>pancakes
who cares

>>4446838
How about the garbage autofocus they put on bodies costing thousands?
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3898858708/panasonic-lumix-dc-s1rii-autofocus-summary
This is a $3000 camera, folks.

>>4446835
>>4446836
>>4446833
Goddamnit, it looks like used R5s are under $1800, but the lenses are so damn expensive, unless you buy the oldest shittiest Tamron/sigma EF lenses.

God I hate trying to buy camera gear on marketplace.
The sellers are actual subhuman retards that list used shit for new prices, and fucked shit as used like new.
Then they get real pissed and offended when you offer them an actually fair price, niggas think they're selling the queen's finest jewelry.

>>4445820 (OP)
Wherever you go, you only need to know one thing

Switching to micro four thirds is a form of quitting photography.

Breaking - red/p/illed gearfag confirms sony a9iii is worse than Z9, D300s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68WJqbJQxJE

>>4446839
I'm just saying crying about pancakes is gay. Woman lens

>>4446894
he's balding.

>>4446898
Using cameras causes baldness.

>>4446894
>it might as well be a toblerone
lmao

>>4446894
The eternally out of touch richfag
>hmmm no camera is perfect methinks i will buy a z9 for action and a leica SL3 for non action
>people shooting literally everything with a z5ii: doctor is this man sane?

>>4446894
>Camera manufacturer relentlessly shilled by indians and schizos is actually not very good afterall
Shocking

>>4445820 (OP)
is $1k USD a good price for a like new Zf?
There's a guy selling one locally, and it seems like an OK deal, but it's still a lot of cash to drop on camera.

>>4446901
the only richfag worth watching is markuspix and his leathery wife kek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXZHMFUSvlg

>>4446905
>I don't shoot RAW, EVER!
My sides!

>>4446904
Oy vey where’s your chutzpah? Jump on it
Then resell it for $1500 and buy something cheap

>>4446904
well it's normally more than that so yeah that's a great deal

>>4446583
The viltrox is flat. The Nikon 40mm f2 is one of the best lenses for 3d pop and color representation. It just has a kind of bad build quality.

>>4446583
>Chink trash
lol no. Dont fall for the Viltrox meme.

I want a 1ds mk2 for no reason

>>4446933
Do it.

>>4446933
>Ultimate in blob technology

>>4446933
>>4446952
The last gen of DSLRs are actually fine cameras. Like the 5Dmk4 or 1Dmk3. Only thing is used sellers are delusional about these. They always still want like $1k-$2k for these. They should be like $500-$700 max.

>>4446933
That's weird I actually just bought one a couple weeks ago. Wasn't looking for but it was a super cheap, only 80usd. Was used by sports illustrated when it was new. It's not bad but I still prefer the 5d mark II in terms of image quality.

>>4446974
The image quality really Isn't bad even when pushed to the limits. My main problem is the dynamic range, I often have to use HDR editing mode in LR to save highlights, which is fine, but for whatever reason HDR editing mode doesn't seem to agree with the files like it does on newer cameras. I've also tried DPP4 but it can't rescue highlights like LR can. The actual dynamic range on the camera is pretty good, considering its age. This could also just be me completely misunderstanding HDR editing mode, so take my advice with a grain of salt. Picrel was at 1600 ISO and has no noise reduction, but I did need to use HDR to bring the highlights down.

>>4446894
>top of the line mirrorless fixed EVF blackout by replacing it with pixelation at the critical moment
>mirrorless feels like holding a toblerone
>mirrorless "smart" AF actually picks up the background instead of the moving bird like a DSLR can do without breaking a sweat
Hilarious, maybe clueless anons will finally wake up and stop disputing that an EVF is a downgrade, that the only thing preventing Sony from being the worst camera brand is the existence of Fuji, that mirrorless ergonomics suck and that EVFs alter the scene.

>>4446952

A CHALLENGER APPEARS

>>4446933
>>4446974
It always amazes me that the digital versions of the EOS 1v that use most of the same body panels as the 1v with the same AF system as the 1v are so much cheaper than the 1v. When you compare the Epson RD1 vs the Voigtlander it's based on, the Epson is almost always more expensive, and it's only APS-C. The original 1Ds takes beautiful images, much like the 5D classic and other early large sensor digitals. Same with the 1Ds 2 and the APS-H versions.

>>4446952
>>4447011
isn't D850 straight up superior?

OP here.

After digging around a bit more, I noticed that the XF 23mm f/1.4 LM WR and XF 33mm f/1.4 LM WR might actually be game-changers for my current X-T5 setup - especially in terms of AF performance and sharpness.

Before I go all-in on selling the Fuji kit:
• Anyone here made the switch to these LM primes? Does AF really improve that much compared to the older 23/35 f/2s or f/1.4s?
• Do these lenses put Fuji closer to FF-tier IQ (realistically), or is it still a dead end vs jumping to A7R III/IV or Zf?
• Worth trying these lenses first, or just commit to FF now?

Trying to make the smartest leap - or not leap at all.

Someone also pointed that the XF 23mm f1.4 R LM WR is a better lens than the 33mm. Have a look at the resolution charts from lenstip, comparing 18, 23 and 33:

https://www.lenstip.com/611.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_18_mm_f_1.4_R_LM_WR_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/628.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_23_mm_f_1.4_R_LM_WR_Image_resolution.html

https://www.lenstip.com/622.4-Lens_review-Fujifilm_Fujinon_XF_33_mm_f_1.4_R_LM_WR_Image_resolution.html

>>4447020
Doesn't the D8xx series straight up have plastic lens mount?

>>4447023
I have owned and used most of Fuji's primes. The AF is much better than the older, but only marginally better than the f2s, which are also lm and quite quick already. Picrel is an example IQ wise from the old to new.
The 18 f1.4 and 23 f1.4 WR definitely are in the territory that I don't miss good FF glass when using them. The 33 f1.4 isn't quite there wide open, but is still very good once stopped down. I'd put the 90 f2 and 30 f2.8 macro also in the "don't miss good FF" tier of IQ (but the 30 sucks otherwise). Everything else has just been "good enough" or comparable to mid-low range FF glass.

I'm also one of the posters selling their T5, but I'm still keeping 3 other Fuji bodies and the 23 f1.4 WR and 90 f2 are keepers for sure. I'm getting rid of most the other X-mount glass like the 18 and 33 and replacing with the new Sigma 17-40.

>>4447053
Would you consider the Zf/Z5 ii? Seems like it gets lots of praise.

>>4447073
I do have the Zf and use it alongside the T5, and it's definitely part of the reason I'm selling it. There are a lot of things I prefer about the T5, but the Zf is just so much better when it comes to adapted vintage / mf glass for me
I wouldn't hesitate to pickup a Z5II, and if you're thinking about switching nows as good a time as any to sell Fuji, and like as good as the 33mm might be, for like $550 new on sale, the z 50 1.8 s is on another level, also why I'm getting rid of mine (and my 50 f2 apo)
Keeping the old 35 f1.4 for the more unique look and 35 f2 instead

simslop BTFO'd

>>4446951
I just bought a new camera I really don't need one
>>4446970
I don't want it because it's bad. I want it because it's old and has a different aesthetic in its physical use and image quality.
>>4446976
We're spoiled by modern raw files. I think the point of using 20 year old cameras is for the look they give you. You just have to take a 95% good picture in camera.

Alos apparently you can get one of these new lol

>>4447085
sterotypical boomer opinion. He's mad about how film was more difficult. Zoomers don't remember so they think it's cool

>>4447098
>He's mad about how film was more difficult.
average reading comprehension

>>4447099
my comprehension is perfect. He doesn't like the invocation of film in any way. You are a dimwit for not putting 2 and 2 together

LOL

Z6ii or D780? The only digital camera I use (besides GRIII) is Oly E500. Bored of film currently, so looking to get something digital I can abuse. I'm not heavily invested in any digital lens ecosystem, so I'd be willing to consider other options as well.

These were the cameras that I found would fit the bill, since they should be relatively robust and feature good sensors. And based on my research the autofocus on these should work just fine.

>>4447085
>Noooo you cant not spend hours on a computer fixing your white balance!!
Snoy moment

>>4447198
Apparently the z6ii has the worst autofocus and it's evil. I use it though and I think it's pretty good so idk

>>4447094
Extremely based. What are you going to photograph first?

There's an emotion 75h back with hasselblad adapter for sale on ebay right now.

>>4447094
Oh nvm. I thought that's the camera you bought lol

>>4447203
Figures. I'll go handle one in a store and see what I think.

>>4447209
haha I just thought it was funny that there are 2 bodies that got left behind. I'll probably get a used one eventually

Why are they still so expensive? The AF is horrible, its unironically big and clunky even compared to other DSLRs, and they're built like shit (broken hotshoes, bad PASM dials, Pentax repair/support doesn't outside of Japan)

K-1II goes for $1100-1300. I think I can get a a7c/a7iii for less money and the D810 is like $6-700 used.

>>4447271
it costs a lot because they don't sell any. SOme demands but shit supply

>>4447084
/p/ gear arguments got another one

we're great at making everyone just quit gear :'(

>>4447295
that's because all cameras are bad so you might as well just pick what you like

>>4447271
Because people are waking up to the joy of reflex. The Nikon is awesome - unless you intend to adapt vintage lenses. And the K-1 even has IBIS, you can shoot an stabilized Kilfitt 300 Tele Kilar if you so desire, or a Zeiss zebra, or whatever you want. K-1 is an endgame camera and very friendly to the manual photography enthusiast. Have I told you about green button metering yet? What about pixel shift? Now, if you're a working photographer it might not be the camera for you.

>>4445820 (OP)
get an x-t2

>>4447327
Jfc this guy has the worst takes.

Recs for a decently light and compact weather sealed zoom lens for M43? I want a walk around all purpose zoom

>>4447208
We know you're talking to yourself anon. Nobody else cares about early-digital DSLRs except you for the last few weeks.

They're the worst deal you can get. Worse than the last gen of analog and worse than early mirrorless. Early digital is truly the worst of them all.

>>4447271
I’m kinda tempted to get this beast as my next purchase. What are the /p/ approved prime lenses? I like manual focus but any reccs would be appreciated.

>>4447607
Dunno about /p/ approved but the DA 40/2.8 and DA 35/2.4 are FF compatible. I like and use the FA 43/1.9 a lot and heard good things about the FA 77/1.8 and D-FA 100/2.8 Macro.
The DA* 55/1.4 is not fully FF compatible but close enough and the FA 50/1.4 is cheap but softish wide open. Then there are the D-FA* 50/1.4 and D-FA* 85/1.4 which are superb lenses with the appropriate pricetag.

>>4447445
>t. doesn't understand exposure so shoots on an auto mode and cried when le 5d classic blew highlights

What's the cheapest mirrorless APS-C body with IBIS I should search for? I'm not invested in any mount yet.

>>4447733
a7sii
>but it's fool frame
you can still use aps-c lenses

>>4447736
>you can still use aps-c lenses
If you're fine with a whopping 5.4mp. Also it has shit contrast detect AF. An A7R II could be had for the same price and would be vastly superior and give you an actually usable 18mp in crop mode.

>>4447750
My normal zoom lens (16-50) is APS-C but I have 16MP with APS-C crop. 32MP FF.
APS-C crop is no problem granted you have the pickles to begin with. A7SII is retard level suggestion for this.

Could it be that Hasselblads X-System and Fujis GFX system are more related than just using the same sensor?

The lenses they offer have a suspicious large overlap in focal lengths and apertures. For both the very wide lens is exactly a 20-35. For both the only lens with very wide aperture is exactly the 80mm - not the 90, neither makes a 85, exactly the 80. Most suspicious is: for both the only macro is exactly a 120.

It's not just the same sensor. The whole XCD ecosystem is just a fucking rebrand, isn't it.

>>4448160
made all in the same province of China

>>4448160
It's just common focal lengths for MF
The x system is designed around leaf shutter lenses, and GFX is not
The hasseblad H system on the other hand is a 100% direct rebranding of Fuji manufactured lenses

>>4448207
> It's just common focal lengths for MF
Not true, neither have a real 50mm (except fujis pancrap which of course Hassy wouldn't want), both have an 80 and a 90 but no more common 85. 120 macro isn't common either, that would be a weird coincidence.

>The x system is designed around leaf shutter lenses, and GFX is not
that's true. Also Hasselblads unique octogon aperture. But I still think the glass elements must be the same but rehoused.

>>4448263
80, 90, and 120 are all very common MF focal lengths and there are several 120mm macros

>>4447297
>that's because all cameras are good so you might as well just pick what you like
ftfy
>>4447339
/p/ only becomes minimally usable once you filter canon and cinefag. i think they were both banned for the better part of the year so it wasn't so obvious until recently

>>4447339
>>4448362
>sincerely, a fujislug
Kek

>>4448263
did you read "MF" and think "FF"

What is the difference between a macro and a telephoto lens? I want to shoot far away, but the kit lens was also too short to get close ups unless I zoomed with my feet.

>>4449987
I forgot, what does the MM actually translate to in practical use? If this is a 18-55 and taken at 55, what would a 70-300 or 400-800 actually mean in terms of power? Is going from 55 to 110 doubling the zoom if it's the same type of lense on the same camera?

>>4449987
>>4449988
A lens can be one or the other or both. A macro lens is one that allows you to focus closely, resulting in your subject taking up more of the frame and being more magnified.

A telephoto is one with a long focal length, or a higher number before the mm (which if you didn't know stands for millimetres). At what point a lens becomes telephoto (ignoring the technical definition) can vary slightly from person to person, and also changes based on the sensor size of your camera. Generally speaking it's anything longer than around the diagonal dimension of the sensor, so longer than about 50mm for full frame, longer than 35mm for APS-C, longer than 25mm for a four thirds camera, etc.

Combining these two, a longer more telephoto lens that is also a macro lens will allow you to get high magnification on your subject while also being further away from it, because it will be more "zoomed in". For simplicity's sake that's what the focal length means, a longer focal length gives you a tighter field of view that is more zoomed in. Double the focal length and you're basically cropping a quarter off each side of the image, or you can double your distance from your subject and get essentially the same photo (not exactly, but again we're simplifying things).

>>4449987
>>4450073
>ignoring the technical definition
ree
but also you can have a macro-focusing lens that is also a telephoto (according to the technical definition)
particularly if your camera focuses using bellows, then every lens is a macro lens
"macro lens" as a special category is an artifact of fixed-barrel systems
>>4449988
>Is going from 55 to 110 doubling the zoom
yes basically, until you start getting into very wide/short lenses, then the rule of thumb breaks down and you have to do trigonometry
"have to" if exact angle is important but honestly it never is
also that only holds true for rectilinear lenses, they still use mm focal lengths for fisheye lenses but it isn't comparable (would be better if they used degrees instead)

>>4446422
>The best gear is the look you bring with you
Based