Is this camera enough for professional work?
If not, what would be the "bare minimum"?

>>4447374 (OP)
Depends what professional work you're doing. For example it wouldn't be enough for real estate as you have no ultra wide angle. But the performance of the camera itself will be plenty for almost all professional work, yes.

>>4447374 (OP)
Second body if you expect to swapping lenses and moving a lot in unknown environments (re: not in a controlled/studio space.)

>>4447376
"professional" photography is all about clout
you need an expensive camera to signal that you are a clout goblin
people look at your $6,000 hunk of metal and think
>bazinga, now that's a camera hubba hubba

>>4447383
Unironically I think that's true.

>>4447374 (OP)
Yes, you should be able to do many kinds of pro work with that.
>>4447383
lol no

>>4447383
You're partially right, but people have no idea what an expensive camera looks light. You could use a canon 1100d but if you put a huge matte box, auxiliary monitor, cage, side grips and an offside flash, that would definitely trick them. There's no way the lay person could pick the more expensive camera out of an eos rp vs an r5 without some serious thought.

>>4447397
bro they just look to see if there's a red metal ring around the lens mount and if there isn't you're poor

>>4447376
>>4447399
I also god a sigma 85/1.4 art and an EF 16-45 f/4L. Do I need more red rings?

>>4447374 (OP)
It'll do professional work but not all professional work.
That camera + the 24-105 there will be an absolute powerhouse. It will do the vast majority of professional photography that is "reshootable" or otherwise low stakes, so no weddings. Senior portraits, newborn and maternity, studio work, etc.
The limitation is its single SD card slot, and despite the possibility of failure they WILL fail eventually (even if you use a new one every time), it could be 30 years from now, it could be tomorrow. You don't want to say 'yeah sorry, due a technical failure i lost pictures of the kiss at the wedding...' But saying, 'hey, sorry, because of a technical failure, we have to redo your senior portraits. Sorry for the inconvenience, when is good for you? I'll refund the shooting fee and my photo packages will be 50% off to make up for it." Annoying af for everyone involved but you can live with yourself after it happens.
>>4447383
lol no. Basically any DSLR-shaped camera people will be like "wow that camera looks really expensive." They either know about cameras, and realize it doesn't fucking matter, or they don't know about cameras and don't know that it doesn't matter. The only exception are snoy bros who think if you don't have a snoy it's because you're a terrible photographer, but you don't want those people as clients anyway. They will literally make shit up based on something they read online to justify their world view. "Wow, this 8x10 print is absolute shit. The problem is you didn't use snoy so you couldn't print at 300 DPI, you need at minimum a 40MP camera for that!" And then autistically spend the next two months perma-online shitting on your business because you didn't use snoy so therefore supposedly a shit photographer scamming people. I've seen it happen.

>>4447402
>I've seen it happen
I've done it to people
I am a snoy boy shill

>>4447397
>people have no idea what an expensive camera looks light
"Big", DSLR, or something that resembles it, like a bridge.

Show up to the wedding shoot with a Leica, hand a Powershot to your assistant, and people will think you're the assistant.

>>4447374 (OP)
Since you're asking here I'm guessing professional work means weddings and school portraits

In that case, yes

But be prepared to rent gear to impress rich hos. Someone WILL realize your camera is older and lower end. That is when you say
>Excuse me mam, but this is just the basic package. I wouldn't leave just anything sitting out to collect dust. I do offer higher end experiences with the canon EOS R5 and fujifilm GFX100SII cameras.
You do not own these cameras.
You are going to go to lensrentals, and rent them for the wedding/shoot (2-3 days)
And you are going to pass exactly the entire bill on to the client

>>4447402
>uhm women and normies dont know anything about our ways!
Youtube and google are right there. They know. Women have asked me if my a7c was an a7c "arr" and said "ew" when I said it was an a7c.

>>4447376
>ultra wide angle
>Dont use stitching
gear fag

>>4447415
Realtors want an UWA, not a stitched panorama with a flat perspective, and want the rooms flashed to make them look bright and sharp with good window detail. If you do stitching instead of just buying a cheap 14mm zoom you're going to have flash color consistency issues with the 9 row panoramas required and finally start sperging over edge sharpness.

>>4447416
It's bait, no one is that retarded.

/gear/ bros, /an/ is making fun of us because of doghair
https://desuarchive.org/an/thread/5015878/

>>4447428
>hey leo, were the beneficiaries of a trust fund scientist. now pose
>which one is the sinar i cant tell
>i mentioned sony because it makes /p/ angry and now you are angry. my master plan has come to fruition!

>>4447428
no they're making fun of you for being a m43 tardlet

>>4447428
>doghair posts here
>gets told his photos are blurry
>doghair posts somewhere else
>gets told his photos are blurry
>even /an/ normies notice the aliasing he consistently forgets to edit out
bro should be shooting jpeg

>>4447434
>bro should be shooting jpeg
bro should be shooting on an iphone because they're the same quality as m43

>>4447431
This. It's basically all one really obsessed guy and it makes me laugh every time I think about it. Poor fellow follows me around EVERYWHERE.

>>4447436
Do people seriously use m43 in 2025?
I thought aps-c was the king of amateurs and hobbyists.

>>4447443
It's a mentally ill cult, so yes of course, there will be people using them. Cameras from 2006 look way better than modern m43 cams.

>>4447441
More realistically than it being one guy from /p/ who followed you to /an/, it's a few guys from /an/, who followed you to /p/, are not a photographers and dont know anything about cameras, but they do know which camera adjacent words trigger you.

And I do recall someone bitching that your attention whoring killed some thread, and someone calling you anti-cat schizo, so could it be - TWO guys!? Maybe even three. Or four. Maybe some people followed you to /an/ because of your anti-mft shitposting, and some people followed you to /p/ because of your anti-cat shitposting.
Which I do believe, because you are an annoying fuck who never knows when to stop talking and antagonizing a whopping two whole people on 4chan is not beyond your spastic personality.

And you do exhibit lolcow behavior. You never stop responding no matter what people say

"I am trolling you. German shepherds are shitty aggressive dogs."
You would respond to that at least twice.

>>4447446
You are right. I like responding, but the great part is it is always someone I am replying to. My m43 stalker also shows great lolcow behavior.

>>4447446
I mean I respond to people obsessing over me. I think the obsession over me is great lolcow behavior and I love milking it. Sorry they ALWAYS respond and never stop inviting me into threads. Notice how it happened in this thread?

>>4447446
/an/ here. leos owner is a delusional narcissist. he killed /dog/ by making himself the center of every discussion as soon as he got leo. he is a zoophile. he posts in feral friday in /trash/. he is anti-cat schizo and randomly starts talking about how cats arent pest control and dogs are better. and leo is a shitty aggressive dog. he's admitted to it twice. he furiously replies to everything everyone says to him on 4chan 6 hours a day which leaves him almost no time to take care of his (dads) farm and give his dog the 3-4 hours of interaction working breeds require to be well behaved so leo still goes apeshit every time someone visits him. everything in the background of the pictures he posts is falling apart. he's like a cwc tier lolcow and has apparently tried to dox himself, or bait people into doxing him, or just threatened to dox himself to bait more people into paying attention, and is allegedly involved in a sekrit discord circlejerk that ruined /dog/ the rest of the way by spamming nonsense.

we're starting to think he's an irritating idiot that produces nothing but photos of dirty neglected garbage because he gets more attention by being a noticeably dirty and incompetent person, otherwise everyone would ignore him

and mostly we feel sorry for leo because he gets a camera shoved in his face more than he gets to see the world outside leofags dilapidated, neglected farm

>>4447451
>I think the obsession over me is great lolcow behavior
Yeah bro, the anonymous postetrs trolling a spastic autistic retard are the lolcows. Sure.
Listen buddy, you're the lolcow. You have a wiki page on kiwifarms

>>4447454
>>4447453
Your post is lolcow behavior, your obsession with me is lolcow behavior, pic is lolcow behavior.

Keep it up.

>>4447455
>pic is lolcow behavior.
this is typical kiwifarms tier behavior
you don't even know what lolcow means
you are actually functionally more retarded than chris chan amazing

>>4447456
Cope harder lolcow

ITS ALL ONE OBSESSED GUY.

My point is proven. I am out to enjoy my beautiful day and not argue about gear or interact with my lolcows. Lets see how desperate they get when I ignore them. Hah.

>>4447456
>>4447455
Now that you mention it, that does read like a kiwifarms raid jej.

>>4447454
Link it

>>4447458
>you DAMN DIRTY TROLLS, I am out to enjoy nature with my DOG BF, I have SEX with HIM all DAY, sonichu bless you

>>4447414
normies don't research. They only know the brands with the biggest marketing, or what their fathers owned.
So they see Canon, Nikon, Sony, and a big DSLR-like shape, they think it's a great camera even if it's a bridge camera. See: >>4447413 kek
They see OM-System/Olympus, Lumix, Pentax, Fujifilm, and even Leica and Hasselblad, unless their dad had that camera, they're going to think it's a shit no-name camera.
Although on Leica and Hasseblad, if they're rich and fashion-conscious they're going to see Leica or Hasselblad and you get instant cred. Rich people are really class conscious about brands. Fujifilm is also a bit of a wildcard -- people into really trendy social media tend to recognize it.

How come I've never seen a good m43 picture posted on 4chan? Is there a specific reason for this?

>>4447464
Because m43 are meme cameras. They're overpriced shit sold to gays, women, and zoophiles. They're more expensive than an APS-C but worse in every way.

I just thought he was stupid, it turns out kiwifarms was here and knew how to bring out the stupid

>>4447464
Yeah, lots, actually. And off 4chan too.

Is leo sad when you sit on the computer and seethe at cheap compact cameras?

I’m looking for a camera with an OVF that will work great for portraiture and low light shooting. I was thinking of getting an old D750 or D810 and using the F mount voigtlander lenses or maybe something vintage Nikons or maybe something more like an Xpro 3? I don’t really want to spend more than $1500 as I’m not a pro and I’m not interested in going pro. Would appreciate some reccs.

Body size doesn’t need to be super small but I hate using suuper long lenses. I hated that my old ZF could only have smaller lenses by adapting aside from the 28/40

>>4447465
Makes sense. Thanks.

>>4447466
Cool! Why did the m43 guy steal images from to post in the m43 general and Why all the m43 threads all get banned from /p/?

I never really understood the whole "we need a general for a sensor size" thing.

>>4447469
at that price range you could just get a a7sii
there's no reason to pay more than $200 for a DSLR, you can just get a $200 canon from the late 2000's if you want one

>>4447471
Because as soon you and huskyfag owner showed up, they went to shit.

>>4447469
Huskyfag talked me into buying a D750 and it was terrible. Even with AF fine tune, it would front or back focus depending on where the focus point started and the autofocus was slow with a high miss rate.

You might as well save your money buy a 5d classic for the soul memes. The autofocus might actually be faster, and most nikon lenses are really soft.

>>4447473
>talked me into buying a D750
your fault for buying a niggon
normal people buy a canon or a sony, you fell for the meme

>>4447479
The weak blame their problems on the strong.

Follow up from last thread, got the Z6ii. Doesn't feel like it's going to lack on any area that matters to me, and the nikkor optics are really nice. I could recommend this to others in my situation.

>>4447488
what are you going to be photographing?

>>4447492
Landscapes and artsy stuff mostly. Portraits when given the option. When there's nothing else then whatever the nearby forests have in stock. But mostly static or predictable stuff, so the "shit af" will serve me well.

Pic related, got the 24-120f4 to go with. It's impressive, at least coming from older DSLR lenses.

>>4447469
Actually somewhere the Pentax K1ii is good. Beats Nikon for high DSLR performance. You'll see people talking about "baked in noise reduction" but it's because they're actually doing noise reduction between the sensor and CPU, using techniques that aren't possible in post. They have an "accelerator unit" that profiles the sensor in your particular camera, including sensor temperature, gain, and shutter time, and applies sensor-specific noise correction.
Then you can get the old manual focus 50mm f/1.2 for under $300, or the autofocus FA 50mm f/1.4 for under $150. There's a 28mm f/2, too. Nice.
>>4447471
Because you can't mention m43 on /p/ without the most extreme autistic sperging I've seen outside of /b/.
>>4447473
how can you fuck up af on a d750

>>4447505
Is that why K1II files have a purple cast in the shadows?
>how can you fuck up af on a d750
Nikon already fucked it up. Every canon camera I have used had way faster and more accurate AF. DSLRs are not super high precision shit but nikon autofocus is a noticeable step down from EF mount.

>>4447471
>I never really understood the whole "we need a general for a sensor size" thing.
>inb4 M43 is a mount not a sensor size
The phone general and digishit general are kind of the same, but they're more like sensor size classes.
The real answer is that 95% of the M43 shooters on the board are actually, genuinely, concerningly levels of retarded and need to keep reminding everyone here that their cameras exist and are valid. APS-C is for most other non-autistic people and that's basically what /rpt/ is, and most people shooting foolframe are either cashed up and dgaf or are actually semi-competent and post their own threads.

>>4447510
Micro four thirds used to be pretty vibrant and was /p/'s second favorite system after pentax.

The dogfucker era basically killed that. As in, husky molester pulled a sugar but worse and literally spammed the /m43/ threads to death several times in a row with some of the worst "photography" ever seen, and doghair backed him up and acted like they were in the same discord chatting about 3d pop.

I haven't seen husky molester lately. Hopefully he finally realized photography isn't for him. When the last dogfucker finally leaves maybe we can have a nice /p/ again and I'll go back to making photo threads. Until then why bother, they'll get ignored or the guy that smells like german shepherd balls will hijack them or call his buttbuddy back over to spam shitty dog pics.

>>4447510
This makes perfect sense, and is what I suspected all along. Thanks.

>>4447510
>>4447519
I think MFT is fine if you're like a birdo shooter, use OM-1/5, and the long-ass lenses?

Not for anything else.

>>4447521
MFT isn't even fine for birdo shooto, it's pretty bad actually. All the cool birds come out when there's not enough light for an ISO 800 camera with an f8-11 zoom to present with excusable quality. Picking up FF, even with a cheap old EF 100-400 II on an EOS R, is the difference between "i'm going to come home with some sick bird pics today" and "i'm going to get a good photo of a bird eventually, so, i guess i have more time to figure out the best AI denoise settings".

Maybe if you're a biologist doing ID shots, it's perfect. That was kind of their market. Unless you can not afford full frame, micro four thirds is a non-artistic photography system. It's not really good at anything. It provides expensive camera QOL with PNS quality and a PNS price. Body quality peaked with the E-M1 II that can be found for less than $400. If you can afford more, just get a better camera. /p/ always liked it before the dogfuckers showed up because most people on 4chan are NEET cat owners.

t. MFT shooter

>>4447517
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4033819/#q4039740

>>4447508
NTA but I'd take the purple cast (which is minimal and only really visible with high ISOs in certain situations) over the worse autofocus (which you WILL notice a lot more when you keep missing focus and getting soft pics or discards)

>>4447530
Pentax has the worst autofocus

If they update it, it might finally catch up to a shit ass nikon, but everyone sane already went for a canon or mirrorless. Canon DSLRs are still so expensive because their AF systems are accurate enough compared to mirrorless for them to remain a viable option. That, and dual pixel AF in live view is literally what's on the RF mount cameras.

>>4447497
Nice shot. I have the 24-70 f4. I've even done some retarded waist level snap shits with it and it focuses on those.

>>4447532
india has some cool sidewalks but where is the focus point? ever face is blurry

>>4447524
Before the evil dogs destroyed m43 general it was just a giant circle jerk. No wonder they are so mad it got killed.

>>4447531
I know, and K1 vs K1ii = slightly improved AF. The improved keep rate on the ii makes it worth paying the extra money unless you're going to exclusively shoot static images.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/pentax-k-1-ii-review/autofocus.html

https://www.pentaxforums.com/reviews/monster-adapter-la-ke1/autofocus.html

It's unironically making it hard to justify paying for the $1000+ most people want for K1iis for me if it's that fucking bad. Better off doing a A7C/A74 and adapters. I hate taking a million pictures and having half of them miss focus.

>>4447535
everything is soft because the shutter speed is too low

>>4447540
slow shutter speed doesn't explain the lack of sharpness everywhere nothing is in focus

>>4447542
actually that's exactly what it explains. We were both walking at each other. Also didn't put the camera in continuous af

>>4447505
Thanks for the recc. I never considered Pentax before but my first ever camera was a K1000 so it’d warm my heart to go in that direction. I’m gonna seriously consider it, I have a GR that I love so I’m already a fan of the brand.

>>4447521
Just to defend M43 a little bit, I have a small Olympus E-P7 which I got to essentially be an interchangeable lens version of my GR and I’d say M43 is great for that. I can shoot 28mm or 90mm whenever I want since the primes can literally fit in my pocket.

>>4447537
You still here? Who the hell takes care of your dogs?

>>4447538
Autofocus pentax lenses really are not anything special, they were kind of bad at making them actually. Neither were sony A mount lenses (they also had SLRs with IBIS). This is ultimately why IBIS took so long to catch on among pros, association with shitty overpriced hobbyist cameras, and the general impression it was for people who didnt actually need a "real camera" because 90% of pros all used canon and IS L primes/zooms or a D810+the latest VR trinity zooms or teleprimes (nikons fastest focusing lenses as well). Anyone still pursuing these cameras is kind of a gear nerd so the pentax FF body market is in "star wars dolls" mode.

If you already have a DX pentax keep it for backup if its worth <$500 or sell everything, pick one.

>>4447524
Why do m43 users attempt to rewrite history?

I didn't know there was an m43 apocalypse

>>4447553
They started spamming so many threads in the catalogue that the jannies put a ban on all m43 threads. This is blamed entirely on two people that owned dogs.

>>4447557
wow I thought it was m43 seethers that were the aggressors but they're actually just traumatized by dog posters

>>4447508
>>4447530
Really, it's a problem at low ISO.
The accelerator chip is said to actually be doing work at low ISO to improve tonality and dynamic range. My guess is they're using the green pixels to drive the signal of the red and blue pixels (red + blue = magenta). Essentially a bit of pre-bayering.
>>4447538
First, your link about adapter doesn't compare keeper rates between the adapter on a Sony vs. the K1/ii. It does demonstrate that the lenses are way faster on the K1ii than on the Sony (probably not Sony's fault, just the adapter doesn't perform at a native level).
One of those links is about the 77mm, the one with the hit rates. That's a very slow lens, using screw mount and old 90s tech. It's known to be less accurate. Screw drives have the tendency to back and front focus because of inherent inaccuracy (they overshoot, or the algorithm underestimates how much it should drive).
On the other link about the k->e adapter, you can see the 28-105 is way faster at autofocus.
Generally the non-screwdrive lenses (ie. SDM, DC, and PLM lenses) do way better.
In practice, I haven't noticed any difference in autofocus performance/accuracy and hit rate between Canon and Pentax. And the Pentax does a lot better in low light than when I used to use older Sony mirrorless. But I also mostly shoot street, not sports or high action which is Pentax's weak point, especially the tracking algorithm (with the K3iii only just catching up to Nikon D500 performance).
But Pentax AF isn't as bad as people say it is, inherently. Just Pentax still markets a lot of screwdrive lenses, and people judge it by that. And those ARE worse at autofocus. (Either that, or they're recalling like 2005 era Pentax or even film era Pentax).

>>4447558
Go look in the archives. The trolling was extremely tame. Even pre dog trauma era they were basically asking for it. Count how many times they say fool framer per thread lol

>>4447558
And I will add that there was still a lot of trolling that happened before the dog days. The simple fact is that once two dog owners joined in on the fun they had people they could blame for all their problems.

>>4447544
FWIW, the #2 reason to buy Pentax at this point is the ergonomics and usability, which Pentax still gives a shit about. #1 reason is the Limited series of lenses. Pentax, Leica, and Fujifilm are the only people who still give a shit about the usability of their cameras.

Snoy has never cared about that, and Canon tries to be more tech-oriented so a lot of reliance on touch screen and screen-based function selection and it's only gotten worse as they've moved to mirrorless. Nikon used to care a lot about it, with the D8xx series being one of the best cameras in that regard, but it's taken a back seat in priorities except the Z8 and Z9. Panasonic was trying the D850 thing with the S1, but with the S1ii went full Snoy -- literally just trying to be the budget version. Fuji seems to be slipping as they try to push their cameras to satisfy the video part of the market.

>>4447571
In other words, vague spooks and memes

The K-1 feels suspiciously similar to a heavier A7RII.

>>4447573
Low quality bait 0/10

>>4447531
I have a Pentax that focus so bad, I gotta turn the lens ring myself.

>>4447595
ironically focusing these is easier than focusing a shitty digital camera

>>4447596
It's not that difficult, the focus ring is smooth but some lenses tend to "jump" too much and you end up missing the shot.

>>4447600
Very cute pic.

>>4447560
interesting test, I did a similar but much more limited test with my mk1
it showed similarly poor results at 100 pushed, but imo "better" (more invariant) results after that (picrel is a few of the test shots, should really redo it with a better test subject)
>(red + blue = magenta)
in theory the magenta is a feature of any bayer sensor
maybe this is something everyone else already knows, but I figured it out recently writing a digital camera sim for work
you've got more green pixels so assuming SNR is the same for all pixels, you'll have less green noise once you debayer
not half as much, but I did end up with exactly the same magenta tint I get from my K-1
it was cool

Gearfags, consolewars, and trolls have always been the same. I have learned today that history does repeat itself. Incredibly telling to actually read some of these old threads.

https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4258887/#q4258887

>>4447639
Even in 2023 huskfucker was ruining /m43/ for no reason
https://archive-media.palanq.win/p/image/1701/23/1701235222337.jpg
Imagine thinking this owns anyone

>>4447642
EMO dog. I found this absolute gem browsing.
It's interesting to search for the origins of specific nicknames and stuff like that. I wonder what the first use of fool frame and snoy was haha

>>4447642
Look at the date on this one.

>>4447642
That is really low image quality for a 6 megapixel image

D750 moment

>>4447647
Good shot compared to the "yesphoto" snapshitters in the m43 threads. Those poor guys got their pictures torn to absolute shreds. No wonder they don't post pictures anymore and want to forget their past.

>>4447656
Huskyfag, that is a poorly lit moderately obese dog on a patio chair, with wrong white balance, and less resolution than a phone and as much noise as micro four thirds.

>>4447374 (OP)
>Is this camera enough for professional work?
Why wouldnt it be? Its not a Sony or m43.

>>4447656
Lol no
These are a lot better
#4258991 #4258904 #4259289 #4259129 #4259035
How can you compare that dog snapshit to these cool pics

>>4447658
>>4447662
Huh... Must have been looking at a different ancient mft thread. They're full of meme treasures btw.

https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4265500/#q4266398

>>4447664
>https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4265500/#q4266398
That was about the time I started visiting /p/ and fuck me what a difference.
>captcha: D8ARN

Ummmm m43sisters how do we respond? Dogman said he like m43.

>>4447665
All boards have gone down hill significantly, so I don't feel as bad about my favorite boards also going to shit even if it sucks. :(

>>4447664
>huskyfucker comes into mft threads just to (repeatedly) announce that they're quitting mft and are must more happy with their nikon z6 (which no one cares about) and then post ugly photos of their dog which clearly demonstrate that they don't need different gear, they just need to learn to take photos.
>why don't they post the nikon photos in the nikon thread, you may wonder. it is because their photos are boring and poorly executed and they won't get any attention there. while it's true mft users are easily trolled, they also get attention from ff users who applaud this move, who fail to realize it makes ff users who hang out in mft threads look like idiots and assholes.
He posted this to claim mft sucks
https://archive-media.palanq.win/p/image/1702/93/1702935894430.jpg
lmao
god it's fucking garbage

>LOOK AT MY OLD POSTS
Huskycuck: ALMOST as pathetic as dog hair fagatives

>>4447668
But then mft got so so mad

Who the fuck is Husky? And why are you people obsessing over him so much?

>>4447672
He killed my beloved m43 general. How could you not know the EVIL MAN named husky.

>>4447672
Shitty poster whose photos were so bad the only way anyone would look at them was if he posted in /m43/ and trolled. Eventually this killed the thread. He's doghairs friend and they back each other up when they shitpost.

>>4447665
>>4447667
you think 3 years ago is different, you should have seen this place 20 years ago, phew. i don't know if anything even exists from then. i remember /p/ was created around when m00t nuked /g/-guro, and eventually it came back as /g/-Technology. yeah i've been on this fucking god forsaken website, intermittently but still, since high school 20 years ago lel. kill me.

>>4447672
incompetent gearfaggot with a faggy poof dog last seen crying bitch tears after being told to give the fuck up because those photos were ass

>>4447673
>>4447674
>>4447676
So he sounds like some guy that posted some dog pics. What's wrong with that?

>>4447677
His (your) pics were shit and he (you) kept claiming he had proved micro four thirds was somehow "bad" with his shit pics.

>>4447677
Everything. How could you not see that?

>>4447680
>i-i mean he din du nuffin
spamming ungodly bad dog walk snapshits in /m43/ threads to try and silence them after he lost a gear argument

>>4447672
don't confuse huskyfag (troll who posted nikon photos as m43 in m43 threads to rustle jimmies amongst other things) with doghair, who got the name originally for posting photos of his dog and his shitty farm from negatives covered in doghair. doghair is currently on his largeformat eggfag arc, and recently it looks like he's onto dog photos again. There's also corgifag who i must admit i'm not familiar with, but it trips me up because i have corgis and post them every now and then so it makes me think people are talking about me lol. There was also m43fag who was like the one genuine okay photo poster in those generals but i don't know where he got off to. And there's a few others, plus the tripfags. some characters over the years.

>>4447681
How do dog pics silence m43? I mean I know how they eventually accomplished it, but that wasn't really their fault. The m43 guys chose to spam 800 m43 threads.

>>4447683
>Spam unrelated shit in someones thread
>They get mad
>How could they do that?

>>4447682
You talk shit about my beautiful and amazing slice of heaven "doghair farm" but I will still say cute dog.

>>4447685
Are we talking about the one with all the unmaintained buildings, disintegrating machinery, and scrap metal aimlessly scattered around

>>4447684
So husky had that power over the m43 lads? I don't really see how the victim narrative works when it was the m43 guys spamming loads of m43 threads. Maybe they were victimized, but then they fucked the whole of /p/ over with their incessant thread spamming.

>>4447687
Maybe you should learn to take a photo before you spam an unrelated thread with your dog

>>4447686
No, maybe?

>>4447678
>>4447680
>>4447681
>>4447682
Who hurt you guys?
Unironically go outside and touch some grass

>>4447688
You seem to be avoiding the real matter at hand. Can you show me the spam? Maybe you still have an archive tab open!

>>4447691
He probably autistically screenshots everything and has his archives links bookmarked and ready to deploy

>>4447691
Fine, let's find it
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4335736/#4336717
He had a meltdown and spammed it because he lost the argument that equivalence makes full frame irrelevant
>Now, I'm going to make your chart thread my bitch
All because by ISO 400, he lost. Micro four thirds looks the same.

>>4447690
THEY TOOK MY M43 GENERAL! My sweet sweet child!

>>4447693
Right on cue LMAO you cant make this shit up

>>4447695
>Link archives
>I copy and paste the arhcive link
>i remember he put the name of his camera in the filename and bought all the nikons
>search zf, z5, z6, and z7
>find it >This is the fate that should await flat earthing chartposters with z7
You're low IQ if you think that was hard huskyfucker

>>4447693
Wow. I did not realize huskyGOD was so based. Sad I didn't know about the m43 threads at that time.

>>4447697
He posted a photo of his dog pissing

>>4447698
Metaphorically pissing on the m43 thread?

>>4447698
Also, I meant to ask what the fuck made you think that looked good, and then deleted my post and forgot to clear the image when I realized you have never improved and asking would be pointless

>>4447698
>He posted a photo of his dog pissing
>this is what is triggering /p/
You guys really are a bunch of autistic retards huh? kek

>>4447701
>I sure triggered you
Maybe you should learn to trigger the camera in front of a nonshit photo op

>>4447701
Some people take the interwebs WAY too seriously. Being a humorless little salt lick is a sure sign of it.

>>4447696
This guy literally lives rent free in your head. Absolutely obsessed lol

>>4447704
The craziest part is he let his obsession get the best of him and ruined it for all the m43 bros.

>Husky molester and doghair still gloating

>>4447704
there were even weirder schizos from /an/ trolling here specifically following one of the two for a time, you thought they were bad, woof. /an/ schizo is another level of fucko. i don't remember if it was husky or doghair they were after.

>>4447707
>you thought they were bad, woof
Oh my god it's a fucking furry

>>4447706
Personally I had zero intentions of destroying m43. I swear it on my dog. I just thought it was funny. I'm not actually a camera autist in the modern sense and dont care at all really.
Before I got my mfdb and before I even went on /p/ I wanted to trade my 5dm3 for an xt4 or 5. I told huskyGOD on /an/ one day and he seems extremely perturbed by it. You could even find it on the archives I bet. Lol

Idk what's going on here but I like my rp and 24-105 it just works

>>4447712
Based Canon chad

>>4447595
>a sussy pentax

>>4447374 (OP)
>Is this camera enough for professional work?
Depends on the kind of work. Weddings, maybe.
>what would be the "bare minimum"?
Fullframe DSLR with 20MP+ and a general purpose zoom like a 24-105 f/4. That still leaves you high and dry for a few types of pro work.
I can already say that action sports, indoor events, real estate, night events, and portraits are going to be harder than they should be if possible at a pro level at all.

>>4447745
So what could be used for action sports, indoors and night events, real state and portraits instead?

>>4447751
a mirrorless snoy
anyone who takes sports or real estate photos uses snoy due to superior technology

>>4447751
f/2.8 or faster lenses
24-70/2.8 for a normal-wide zoom and a 70-200/2.8 for telephoto and portraits. 100-400 and the likes or longer for longer reach at daylight.

>>4447758
Go to bed Sanjay

Who the hell is buying these things? This is more than a mamiya6/7 or even some leicas, and it’s just a ticking electronics timebomb. Is this money laundering?

>>4447759
I got an EF 16-35 that could maybe be used with a tripod for interiors and environmental portriats at either 16 or 35mm. And a sigma 85 art that will probably only be useful for portraits.
Should I go for the 24-70 f/2.8/70-200 f/2.8 or is there a more useful lens?
Otherwise I could save and get an R6 mark II to get more confidence to do weddings or action/sports.

>>4447767
Forgot pic.
And I could use the RP as a backup or hobby only camera.

>>4447769
You don't really need any more gear and can do a wide variety of pro work with what you have already.

I bought and returned my ZF as I fell for the retro design meme and now I'm without a camera aside from point and shoots. I'm tempted by the Z5II although I already sold my Nikon lenses like an idiot. Is there anything better under $2k used or new out there right now? I primarily want it for portraiture and lowlight shooting.

Sony is tempting for the lens availability but A7IV is out of budget, it would likely need to be an A7III or A7RIII and I know people bitch and moan about the colors of those cameras so I'm wary.

>>4447778
I guess I should also say, I hate that Nikon really only allows the use of smaller lenses by using adapters which compromises the weather sealing of the camera. I know there are some fans here of using Sony lenses on Nikon. Is the performance of autofocus lowered at all? Feels strange buying lenses for a system I don't own.

>>4447778
From the A7III to the A7IV is not that much difference if bought brand new.

>>4447780
Use a sony if you’re going to just use sony lenses

Nikon makes technically perfect cameras not small ones. They have 3 small lenses for FF. Two are plastic. One is genuinely awful.

>>4447780
Just get a Sony or stop worrying about minor size differences

>>4447778
why did you return the ZF?

I'm looking to jump from the RP, I want something with IBIS and I feel that the Z-mount is the most future proof out there... and I'm falling for the retro design meme

why not get the ETZ adapter and buy Sony glass while you decide to jump ship?

>>4447787
Not him hut the zf has shit ergos and a cheap plastic bottom. Get a z5ii if you actually use your camera.

>>4447787
You will have to understand that the IBIS in Nikon is not a smooth experience, it makes the image "jumpy". Nikon fans say you get used to it but I know it would drive me insane over time. Stay with Canon and get an R5 and RF lenses, those work with the IBIS together giving a much smoother experience.

>>4447789
I don't care about the bottom, I'm coming from an RP, isn't ergos and the bottom issue fixed by any grip?

I like the idea of a dedicated exposure compensation/ISO/shutter control ring

I could do with a visual dedicated exposure compensation like what the A7CII has...

>>4447791
*R5 or R6

>>4447793
With a grip its larger than the z8

>>4447791
VR shift is universal to highly effective IBIS. Even olympus has it. If your snoy lacks vr shift thats because the sensor cant move enough.

>>4447791
So true, can we see some photos where you utilized this on your canon to good effect?

>>4447795
photofags just listen to CIPA and end yo wrong
CIPA measured battery life by preventing sleep mode
CIPA stops are how long IBIS can run accurately but not how far it can travel

canon’s stabilization is 8 stops on paper but ~5 in reality, nikons new IBIS is an actual 8 stops because it can correct for larger movements made by human beings, just like olympus IBIS

>>4447793
>isn't ergos and the bottom issue fixed by any grip?
Yes, grip or half case solves both.
Z is best for adapting manual focus / vintage / rangefinder glass if that matters.

>>4447797
Nikon IBIS also gets linked to the focus point rather than whole scene ibis

>>4447797
*how long it can run accurately bolted to a vibrating table

Not a bobbing, swaying 6ft average human. This is related to why sony receives 5+ stop CIPA ratings and 1-3 stop user ratings.

Are used gear sellers actually mentally retarded?
Pic related is z5ii.

>>4447807
yes. keh, mbp ebay etc are reaching covid electric guitar market levels of scamminess because normies are fleeing en masse from phones computational AI shit

my normie mother told me she bought a fuji xt5 last week "because my phone installed an AI"

>>4447807
AI is telling kids to kill their parents, and as long as it's closed source AI has full access to everything on your phone, and AI is heavily involved in phone cameras. Guess.

Camera sales are actually going up again.

90% of this thread is just solved by using a 5D mark 2. It's boring and completely style-free and unsexy but you genuinely cannot get a better camera as tool for the money. They have no common issues, there's heaps of them out there, they take good quality pictures so long as you're not pulling shadows like crazy. You can adapt many vintage SLR lenses including m42, f mount and OM, their native EF glass is really good and pretty cheap, especially if you go third party.

>>4447807
Lots of shit went on sale start of July and lots of lew lenses and bodies were 10-30% cheaper than the used ebay market. Put an offer on an R6II. Offered $2000 for a $2900 listing since new was going for $2600 and the guy had a boomer sperg.

>>4447819
What an engineering student take on photography

You don't understand feeling or ideals or emotional standards just function, viewing distance, circle of confusion and cost/benefit analysis. You know how you can tell the STEMbugs taking an obligatory arts course from the art students taking STEM courses just to get a job?
>STEM: Casio/apple watch
>Arts: Mechanical watch

>>4447823
It's good to move past the equipment infatuation stage of photography as quickly and thoroughly as possible. You shouldn't waste time pining over which camera you have and which cameras you *need* you should get one that does pretty much everything and start shooting. That way you can learn things that actually matter, things that will be seen in the content of your photos rather than the absence of grain in them.

>>4447751
>action sports
70-200 f/4
>indoors
70-200 f/2.8
>indoors and night events
70-200 f/2.8 or 50mm/100mm/135mm prime; pick any two
>real estate
16-35 f/4
>portraits
135mm/100mm f/2

Realistically a 70-200 f/2.8 would cover most bases very well as long as you can be fucked carrying it. The UWA is only needed for real estate.

>>4447827
>>real estate
>16-35 f/4
if you're doing on the cheap sure, but the f2.8 versions are usually higher quality optics with lower distortion.

>>4447751
>Action sports
A fast 100-400
>indoors and night events
A 24-70 f2.8
>real "state"
Certainly not israel. Wait, you meant real estate? A 14-24/16-35 of any aperture doesnt fucking matter, and a studio strobe or two to bounce off stuff and get windows and rooms evenly lit.
>portraits
Literally whatever you want. Portraits, unlike that other stuff, fall under art photography.

>>4447828
>gotta get that edge sharpness at 61mp for zillow
>zillow: 1920x1080 70% quality jpeg

>>4447829
>A 14-24/16-35 of any aperture doesnt fucking matter, and a studio strobe or two to bounce off stuff and get windows and rooms evenly lit.
You know if you have no clue what you're talking about you can just not answer.

>>4447827
i love that the worst retards on this board use trips so I can filter them

>>4447831
Large aperture does not fucking matter for realestate. f2.8 zoom or f4 zoom, it will always be shot at a small aperture.

And yes, you will be expected to light rooms with flash. It's more natural and sharp looking than HDR stacking. It fills all the shadows so buyers can see everything. It is what everyone else is doing. Realestate is soulless product photography of homes. You are expected to take the same photos as everyone else for the same reason every advertising photo of a fast food burger looks the same.

>>4447830
Ah shit you're right you should actually just use a circular fisheye and do lens corrections in post since we're just recommending shit that's fucking wrong.

>>4447833
And I forgot to add, save your money for the drone and the matterport/insta360 etc camera, which actually set you apart from other photographers.

Using an f2.8 UWA zoom will not. No one will fucking notice. Unless you are photographing mansions for a high end firm, realestate photography always ends up as <8mp.

>>4447833
No one is using flash in real estate retard. You have no clue. Introducing an artificial light source into and otherwise naturally lit scene doesn't make it more "natural". Next time hush up and let the money makers do the talking, lil bro.

>>4447832
Thank you for announcing this instead of just doing it. Classic teenage attention whoring strat.

>>4447833
>it will always be shot at a small aperture
You get better contrast and shaprness by focus stacking tho

>>4447834
You pixel peeping fucking retard. I don't know where you get off spouting nonsense like "uhhh the f2.8 is more professional because post corrections or something" (which isn't even true brand to brand) but digital distortion correction is unnoticeable to people who don't check the edges of their tree photos at 300% zoom.

>>4447791
I want to be able to buy third party lenses, I have 4 EF lenses and 2 RF lenses, the R6 is my other choice, R5 is too expensive for me

I want the camera for stills, I'm not sure jumpiness would be a big issue for me

>>4447839
Realestate always ends up at <8mp.

>>4447837
Agents do not want anything in shadow. They do not want the contrasty and grainy "photography" look. They would present homes only as 3d renders if they could. They want everything to look like the sun is in the room because that's what makes homes look attractive.

>>4447840
When I'm looking to buy a house the most important thing is that the product pictures are pixel perfect, I zoom in on the individual pixels and if I don't like the image quality I will not buy the house even if it's free. This is not only common it's industry standard, you are obviously not well versed in the real estate industry.

>>4447840
>actshully gear doesnt matter im just going to recommend the first thing i think of, fail to use any reason and then die on that hill because im an obese fuckhead
So why dont you just tell him to shoot real estate on his phone with a ringlight

>>4447837
>No one is using flash in real estate
it's product photography
everyone is using flash, you want to use a diffuse strong flash that gives even lighting to everything

>>4447843
Zillow is <8mp
Agency website is <8mp
Only people who zoom in on literal distant tree leaves in the forest can claim there's any effect from digital distortion correction. Homes are low frequency detail and geometry so the finer points of resolution faggotry don't matter like they do for pixel peeping pine needles.
And not all f2.8 zooms are less corrected than f4 zooms.

You seem to have mistaken realestate photography for pixel peeping national parks and getting autistic over star fields.

>>4447841
R6 and R6II seem like sweet spots to buy into. Forced NR is annoying but nobody that isn't 4chin-tier autistic cares.
>>4447843
Just use your phone on 0.6x then if that's the case you facetious fuck.

>>4447844
>comparing not buying the f2.8 ultra pro lens for f16 product photography to using a phone
Someone has buyers remorse from his fast UWA
>t-the distortion correction
>i pixel peeped my astro and noticed some oblong stars. no way could this be used to photoraph bare white walls!

>>4447842
>Agents do not want anything in shadow
Flash creates shadows. It doesn't matter how diffused your light source is, you're going to create shadows with every single piece of furniture, curtain, ceiling fan. You do no have time to set up 5 diffused lights in every room, which is the only way you could solve that problem and even then it wouldn't negate it. HDR on the other hand does solve that problem as you can just raise the shadows. That's why everyone uses HDR and no one uses flash.

>>4447850
>Flash creates shadows. It doesn't matter how diffused your light source is, you're going to create shadows with every single piece of furniture, curtain, ceiling fan
Yeah. That's why every time you turn the lights on in your bedroom there are sharp dark shadows everywhere. You're schizophrenic, you are off your meds.

>>4447850
>flash creates shadows
I get it, you don't know how to use flash.
>everyone uses HDR!
Nope, all flash. You clearly only shot in some meth head town like walla walla. I shoot in seattle.

>>4447847
still no dedicated exposure compensation control in any of those Z6II looks good I guess? it has the screen at the top and it costs around the same as an R6 or a ZF

A7CII or A7C has that dedicated control, but I don't like sony that much, I have a a6000 and while good, I don't really enjoy shooting with it, the EVF preview is very different to the outcome image most of the time, I hate that

>>4447848
>no-no you can't buy the obviously better option
>b-because I dont have it so you cant either

>>4447852
>I get it, you don't know how to use flash.
I have never even once in my life used flash since my camera has HDR. Flash is bad, no professional in any industry uses it.

>>4447852
Thats awesome anon you should post some of your real-estate shots with flash :)

Is the Z6 III dynamic range actually as bad as people make out?
And does it actually matter?

>>4447857
I'd get doxed my name is literally on zillow

>>4447856
Learn nigga
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHC2AHEGCJ4

>>4447853
I don't know enough abourt Nikon or Snoy to pass any judgement. Top screens are nice but I wouldn't personally care if I went without (currently do).
>still no dedicated exposure compensation control
use a $200 control ring adapter for your EF stuff and set it to do exposure comp. That's what I do and it works a treat.

>>4447853
>EVF preview is very different to the outcome image most of the time
That's because you're using third party lenses. Sony lenses and select third party lenses will have lens compensation on the preview. If you use a lens with aberrations it's going to show a different image in the EVF because the camera isn't compensating for the lens.
skill issue

>>4447859
>I'd get doxed my name is literally on zillow
Oh so you don't have any, I understand. GG nice try tho :)

>>4447859
15 minutes of photoshop for his photos to look like SOOC jpegs. Holy shit americans are bad at this hobby.

>>4447859
This guy is editing his pictures which is fraud, if he actually used these for a listing he'd get 15-30 years in a federal prison.

>>4447864
Liar

>>4447863
SOOC camera jpegs have white or near white windows every time, mushy interiors if you wanna fix it. This is why people keep thinking cameras are worse than phones and then getting mad at phones and going back to cameras forever (because HDR sucks too).

>>4447863
1. he should have just put the flash on a telescopic cantilever above the scene to avoid shadows
2. To avoid glare he should have just used a CPL and put a polarizer on the flashes

>>4447866
All these guys are doing are making their darker shot (aka the window shot) also have room detail. Potentially you could have a HDR merge when combining your ambient room exposure and your flashed window shot with only those 2 exposures. The problem is you're making new shadows that weren't present in the ambient shot, and you're not gaining any data that wouldn't be gained from doing a normal 3 or 5 shot HDR. It's also going to be a slower, less automated process because you need to keep turning your flash off and on between shots, and most likely you will need to play around with the flash level and bounce distance too. You gain nothing and make so much extras work for yourself.

>>4447866
>telescopic cantilever above the scene to avoid shadows
Like... an arm?

>>4447868
No, like what you put a boom mic on. You want the strobe to be near the ceiling. pointing down.
>>4447867
They just don't know how to use a flash correctly. It's sad really.

>>4447867
You are visually illiterate

People flash for window pulls because otherwise the shadows are cast by the window. This looks unprofessional and can be construed as hiding something.

>>4447871
>because otherwise the shadows are cast by the window
No that's not correct. You should not be using your window shot for anything other than the windows. If you are you're doing something very wrong. You need to learn to use your camera to expose the correct level for the walls too, you need more than one photo for a HDR. Not sure why you're speaking on shit you don't know, but you should stop.

>>4447872
>>4447871
Sounds like it is time for a real estate photo battle.

>>4447871
>This looks unprofessional and can be construed as hiding something.
what a leap, sounds like some shit a youtuber would say

>>4447872
>>4447874
he's huskyfag

>>4447871
Ah yes because introducing new light sources that completely change how the space was designed to be lit by the sun is more honest. What a Rockwellian approach to flash usage, just dump it at the ceiling because I don't understand design. I bet you also think your poop chute is a two-way opening.

>>4447877
>how the space was designed to be lit by the sun
What country are you doing real estate photography where the rooms were "designed to be lit by the sun" and have no lights in the ceiling? There's no electricity in your country?

If you put a strobe light with a diffuser near the ceiling and point it down it'll just be like the light that's installed in the ceiling but much stronger.

>>4447878
I'm Bangladeshi, we don't waste money on "electricity" like you Amerifats. We design room around Aryan sung god's rays of Brahamin light.

>>4447878
>What country are you doing real estate photography where the rooms were "designed to be lit by the sun"
Nigga you can't be serious

>>4447880
You see that shiny thing above your head in the ceiling? That's called a "light". Your house was designed for these "lights" to shine down on things. Like the "sun" which is outside, but at night.

>>4447861
I don't use third party lenses on the a6000, it's the kit lens, I only use it for snaps (pic related).

>>4447860
that's dedicated yes, but I still can't see it at a glance from above, I have to look at the EVF or the screen to see what EV I'm at, that's what I want to avoid

>>4447884
>to see what EV I'm at,
maybe you should just set it to auto lil bro you ain't him

>>4447875
Huskyfag doing actual professional realestate photography would be a shocker. I'm not him. Until now I'd assume you were someone that stupid because all that fag posts is HDR edits from his nikon and capture one.

>>4447877
You don't understand how professional realestate photography works. When half your room is underexposed because "its meant to be lit by the sun for artistic honesty", buyers think "they're hiding their shitty scuffed up floors".

>>4447885
>no picture attached
no surprise here

for realestate you need an f2.8 zoom (preferably an f1.8 prime) so you can shoot in low indoor light because homes are meant to be lit by the sun

no one wants windows and distant walls to be in focus, have foreground interest and get really close the things like tables and chairs to make your photos more interesting. if buyers want to see the windows take separate photos of those. get creative instead of perfectly scanning reality all in one flat picture with no 3d pop or tonality.

it's also important to take a photo of your dog on the couch (maybe two) to show buyers how comfortable the home is

if your photos are too dark increase the shadow slider in capture one

>>4447891
btw i forgot to mention you should use the largest sensor possible and give people full sized pngs, not jpegs. jpegs compress out the detail that make big sensors clearly better.

>>4447891
you forgot that you need your dog to be at an angle where their dong shows up in the picture
make sure you use the rule of thirds, their dong should be exactly in the top left or right 3rd of the picture, where it catches the eye
everyone loves it

>>4447893
Actually, the new thing is to have your dog be at an angle where their balls show, to exhibit your large sensor's 3d pop.

So if I just buy a bunch of film and let it expire hipsters will pay a premium for it?

>jannies deleting threads discussing cameras now
Are they seething m43 shooters or something?

>>4447955
It's genuinely stupid that most item-specific gear threads get deleted

>>4447819
Yeah, used one and while good, it's limited. It's more suitable for studio work and portraits imo.

>>4447955
Not much of a point all things said. Sony's Q3 competitor is the A7CR with a 40 f/2.5.

>>4447955

>>4447828
The 16-35 f/4L has high-quality optics and low distortion. It only loses to the 2.8 III and RF versions afaik.

>>4447959
>>4447958
>>4447955
holdup, they're trying to sell a bajillion camera without an EVF?

>>4447964
It has an EVF in the picture, and says so on he specs
Have you never seen one before?

>>4447955
>>4447956
>thread about the best innovative camera release of all time and it gets deleted
We know that Sony have won and utterly killed the competition. Jannies on this site are well known for being anti Sony and delete any positive Sony talk. They even go so far as to spam fake edited green Sony comparison images to desperately beg and convince people not to buy Sony. Sony is outselling every other FF camera manufacturer on the market with innovative and world class leading imaging devices.

>>4447965
nevermind, I somehow didn't register it.

If I sell everything I have except an old DSLR and a 50mm lens and only shoot black and white, will I become Good? Or am I coping? I want to make photos that are art. "Photographers" who don't believe in artistic photography need not reply.

>>4447975
you are and will remain shit. hope this helps :)

>>4447979
Thank you. I will give up.

>>4447975
Shoot film

>>4447975
50mm vintage and black and white doesn't automatically make you good.
In fact, it's a difficult focal range to make art with imo.

>>4447961
In terms of distortion I think they're both beaten out by the tokina, but its more limited on the narrow end.

>>4447985
Perhaps, but I'd totally use the 16-35 f/4 professionally, as I can correct any distortion is post. It has prime like IQ as a bonus.

>thread about the best innovative camera release in recent time gets reported and deleted
Some anti-Sony hater here keeps on reporting and getting positive Sony posts deleted. We know that Sony have won and utterly killed the competition. This anti Sony individual amongst us is getting paid by the competition to trash talk Sony. They even go so far as to spam fake edited green Sony comparison images to desperately beg and convince people not to buy Sony. Its truly pathetic. Sony is outselling every other FF camera manufacturer on the market to date with innovative and world class leading imaging devices.

>>4447982
Thank you, I will consider.
>>4447983
>In fact, it's a difficult focal range to make art with imo.
That may be true. Maybe a telephoto then? On the other hand, a difficult constraint might help me learn.

The RX1R release actually makes me curious. The Cybershot lineup was basically all Sony-Zeiss lenses, but Sony seemed to have been moving away from their cobranded Zony lenses for a while now with I think the last ILC Zony lens being the 35mm 1.4 released in 2015. RX10 died in 2017 and RX100 died in 2019, so its possible there's some contract Sony had with Zeiss for the entire Cybershot lineup, for a hypothetical example, stipulating all successor cybershots will be required to have a Zeiss lens + branding and also pay Zeiss a % of the sales. Otherwise I don't see why they're still using that ancient Zony 35mm f/2 lens which was even sharp enough for the 42MP sensor, not to even mention the 61MP one. Unfortunately no way to know an answer to this since even if the RX10/RX100 get renewed those cameras had actually incredible lenses for their form factors, so they probably don't need lens updates either ways.

>>4447995
>which was even sharp enough
which wasn't* even sharp enough

>>4447975
I do love 50mm on my monochrom

The RX10/RX100 lenses were pretty incredible especially considering their zoom ranges. Zeiss hasn't been doing much on the consumer side aside from the downgraded Otus MLs and failed ZX1, so them not caring about Zony lenses makes sense. I do wonder if that ZX1 failure might be why the RX1R is back.

>>4447998
Dammit Corgistan! Don't you know what whale eyes are???

>>4447993
It depends. What kind of art do you wanna make? I personally enjoy wide angle and 35mm

>>4447965
I didn't know this line of camera existed before today

>>4447995
>completely mogged by Leica and Fuji
That lens is going to perform even worse on their noisy 60MP sensor. Plus add on top of that no kind of image stabilisation. What is Sony thinking?

>>4448005
I nearly jumped out of my seat when I read the announcement. It reminds me of the A7sIII: not expecting that it would still happen. I think a big reason for the RX1rIII being made is the other premium compacts like Fuji doing so well. The RX1rIII is very pricey but Sony might feel they will sell well anyway, even though it is nearing Leica territory. Funnily enough it will cost about the same buying this new RX1rIII as buying a second hand ZX1. On the negative side, it has the same EVF as 10 years ago and yeah the lens seems the same. On the plus side I can use my NP-FW50 batteries from my (still) functioning Nex in this one hypothetically.

>>4448008
The prior models also used the same type of pop viewfinders as seen in the picture and found in other Sony point and shoots like the RX100 and HX80/90 lines

>>4448013
>same EVF
actually worse magnification
>NP-FW50
Absolutely nothing should be using those ancient things anymore. The only reason I don't use my RX10 more is because those batteries fucking suck. Still only 300 shots while the Q3 gets 350 and GFX100RF gets 820.
https://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=fujifilm_gfx100rf&products=leica_q343&products=sony_dscrx1rii&products=sony_dscrx1riii&sortDir=ascending
And I guess I forgot the Q3 has a tilting LCD too, so the RX1RIII is the only one to not have that.

>>4448013
Nobody is buying the Snoy at that Leica price when it's still a Snoy. Really egregious pricing.

>>4448018
It's barely more expensive than the last iteration adjusted for inflation

>>4447958
The 40 f2.5 is turbo shit. Way too big for its optics, because they just had to add the smooth aperture gimmick. The old 35mm f2.8 remains their actual best lens. Maybe if E mount weren't garbage it could have been a 40mm f1.8.

ANYWAYS

I am having a lot of trouble MFDB shopping. These were mostly sold between people who knew each other on a first name basis for five-six figures so there isn't shit for reviews. What's the cheapest 16 bit, 14+ stop DR MFDB that fits on a hasselblad H and isn't egregiously cropped with a gfx sized sensor? Phase one preferred

>>4448020
But it loses the things that actually made the RX1RII unique and cost more, including the popup EVF, variable low pass filter, and front focus mode dial reminiscient of the old Minoltas. If anything the RX1RIII release just seems to be a cash grab and is just telling the whiners to buy the A7C instead. It's possible an RX1RIV could fix most of the issues, but with how terrible the III's release is I'd say there's no chance of a successor anymore.

>>4448020
And you could say the low pass filter was just a gimmick that nobody used, but it definitely cost millions in R&D to create it, which gives the RX1RII some justification in its costs.

>snoycucks will defend this
ahahahhahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>>4448023
nobody cares about any of those things though. It's a hipster camera. A nerd camera like that last one wont sell because people don't care about EVF (see griii), nerd filters and dial position. Just buy the old one if that's what you want

>>4448027
>nobody cares about any of those things though
>It's a hipster camera
You seriously don't understand hipsters then. They specifically want weird and quirky features because they're weird and quirky.
>Just buy the old one
I have an old RX100 and there's no chance I'm buying anything that uses those shitty BX1 batteries ever again. The in-camera drain is absurd since the tiny battery is also used to power the clock while the camera is off.

>>4448026
Sony isn't a good camera brand. Even snoycucks just recommend a used a7c/a7iii because everything else is overpriced.

>>4447958
>Sony's Q3 competitor is the A7CR with a 40 f/2.5.
lol the Sony comes nowhere close with that large, slow overpriced toy lens

>>4448027
>>4448031
I just had to check and even with the FW50 it actually has worse battery life than my ancient rx100m3 with the BX1, so even if the RX1RIII was half price I still wouldn't consider it. Sony should've put the FZ100 in and gave the thing a larger grip. The miniscule size/weight increase hardly matters when the lens is that big anyways.

what an accursed time to get into digicams

>>4448031
Current hipsters want things that are bad and expensive for no reason. Look at the Sigma BF

>>4448042
There is round meal and cube camera. What a beautiful wirld we live in.

>>4448043
>Sigma BF
That's more male jewelry than anything else. That Dpreview fag that shilled the BF constantly is only a faux-hipster at best even though he occasionally wears a beret.

>>4448045
lol and what about all of Leica? Just Panasonic tech with a 5x markup

>>4448040
>old battery
>300 shots
Snoy sisters, we got too cocky...

>>4448047
A Leica Q3 43 is 3x the price of a BF, but it's still mostly for faux-hipsters. Real hipsters only buy M-series Leicas.

>>4448040
you gotta remember that the actual battery life is higher

>>4448054
I literally have my RX100 right next to me as well as a handful of cameras that use the still awful FW50. You don't think I know how bad a 300 shot CIPA rating is? It's not that 300 shot is unusable, it's that releasing a new camera with that spec and ancient battery is retarded to say it nicely.

>>4448054
Sony shills on life support kek

>>4447778
honestly the 26mm pancake is fine for everything besides landscape and architecture. Basically the ideal snapshit lense. I do wish they did a nice metal premium version of the 40mm f2

C stand + extension arm is so much nicer than a standard tripod for strobes. Wow.

>>4448040
I'd put a Wasabi FW50 on that $5k camera

>>4448054
No, it can be lower

On the a7cii at least, using the menu sucks the battery down extra fast for some reason. I've heard of this being a thing on the r6ii and nikon zf as well. CIPA tests are done by shooting the camera often enough to prevent it from going to sleep so mirrorless always scores lower than it would under real use. But if you use the menus a lot, which you're sure to do with any sony or canon, or an ergonomically crippled camera like the zf, the battery will die in an hour.

I'm in the market for a film camera. I want a rangefinder for 28 or 35mm shooting.

My local store has a Leica M3 w/ Summaron 35mm + goggles for 2.1k. Am I a retard for considering this? Pic related.

The only lens I own is the f1.4 20mm Olympus lens, should I also get the Olympus 14-150mm?

>>4448065
I use 3rd party batteries on my A9 so not much of a difference in theory except that 70% capacity from 3rd party batteries for the FZ100 still gets significantly more shots than even a new Sony branded FW50.

>>4448070
>am i a retard
that depends, can you comfortably afford it with no effect to your financial standing? then no, not at all, enjoy it king and get out there and shoot those building corners. Have to put it on credit? nigga just buy a canonet ql17 and get 90% of the experience for like 50 bucks.

>>4448073
For standard and ultrazooms, you can pick some but not all of sharpness, lightweight and range:
Sharpness, lightweight: 12-45 f/4
Max range: 12-200 f/3.5-6.3 (the 12mm is the big win here)
Sharpness, range: 12-100 f/4
Lightweight, range: 14-150 f/4-5.6
Middle path: 12-40/2.8

Telephoto zooms are similar:
Telephoto compliment to your 20mm, lightweight: 40-150 f/4-5.6R (not sealed)
Sealed compliment, still light and compact, way sharper: 40-150 f/4 pro
Sealed, takes a 1.4x tele, very sharp, but huge for mft: 40-150 f/2.8

If you're not sure I'd get a 12-45mm and a 40-150mm f/4, UNLESS you want to bird or do wildlife in which case stick with your prime and save up for the 40-150 f/2.8 and the TC.

>>4448066
>or an ergonomically crippled camera like the zf
The nice part about the Zf is you don't have to menu dive at all actually

>>4448066
>using the menu sucks the battery down extra fast for some reason
it's electron
they fucking wrote the menus in react running on electron didn't they

>>4448066
>if you use the menus a lot
why would you use the menus?

>>4448081
They are a camera operator, not a photographer
They have to constantly tinker with niche menu settings before every shot

>>4448070
yes. Leica is a hipster meme. SLR is a better design

>>4448081
It's a Sony. Menu diving is kind of their thing.

>>4448073
there is no need to ask this question. Do you find yourself not able to take pictures of things far away? Then get it

any recs for a 3 section carbon fiber tripod that isn't super expensive? currently looking at the benro tortoise which seems pretty solid @ $299

>>4448083
>Nooo you can't use the menu to change your settings for an easier shooting experience!
>Did you just change the AF mode? NOOOO NON ARTIST BLUE COLLAR HY-
Lmao

You're not really a gearfag until you think things like this. Next step for you is buying a limited camera to buy your way into artistic veracity according to you and other gear nerds.

>>4448073
>f4-5.6
>an actual f8-11 zoom
using that must be miserable

>>4448096
Meanwhile fool frame shooters have to stop down to f/8 to get everything sharp and fix their bad corners while the m43 lens is sharp wide open and you get faster shutter speeds ;)

>>4448094
Just buy used. Gitzo makes a killer CF tripod.

>>4448101
>doesn't understand how bigger entrance pupil and sensor affect total light gathered
>thinks f/8 full frame and f/8 MFTurds are the same thing

>>4448103
f/8 FF and f/4 4/3 are roughly the same thing

>>4448070
if you look at $2k the way most people look at $20, then yes. Definitely. Make sure to complete the look with a yellow ascot and pair of yeezys.

If you're looking at your finances to see which accounts to shift money around, and considering making sacrifices like Starbucks once a day instead of twice, then no.

>>4448095
>Did you just change the AF mode?
A photographer knows you just leave it on AF-C with a focus movable tracking point and subject detection and that fine for 99% of situations
It's tinkering with graphics card min/maxing instead of playing a game
>change your settings for an easier shooting experience
The easier shooting experience is having a camera setup in such a way that you don't have to bother menu diving

>>4448101
Oh the cope. Not how it works.

>>4448021
Mfdbs are literally a waste of time and money. most of the sensors are so bad they gather less light than modern full frame at any iso above fifty. Unless you are buying an iq4/h6d-100c, do not bother. Every mfdb that’s better than full frame is turbo mogged by a gfx100s that costs 1/3 as much.

some of those sensors are so old base ISO gathers less light than a full frame camera. they are noisy and low DR. they were amazing when your other option was a canon or a d700, yes. when someone sells a once $50000 camera for less than 1/10th its original price doesnt that send up red flags?

>>4448021
The look of mfdb is unique and amazing, but they are tough to use. They are niche professional cameras. Don't listen to chart nerds that want to stop you from buying one. The only thing I would say about not buying one is if you do not plan on using it primarily in the studio or at least on a tripod. It's tough to really pull a worthwhile amount of IQ out of them if you're just snapshitting around handheld.

There are a couple of the 80MP CCD phase ones on ebay that look cool. Base iso of 25 lol. There's also a sinar emotion 75H with a hasselblad mount that got listed recently. They were considered the best mfdb of the 33MP dalsa sensor ones, but are outdated now and you need a mac to convert the raw files.

>>4448026
Holy shit. What the fuck?

>>4448026
Defend what?
They're both trash

>>4448106
Yes. But my point being, say the PRO m43 lens tops out at f/2.8 that's really just /f5.6 FF which is kind of pathetic. Even the widest primes for m43 are f/1.2 which is f/3.2 FF. Can most things be shot over f/3.2? Of course, but you've still got less options than a FF prime that could go down to f/1.8 or even f/1.2.

>>4448175
that's equivalence of the focal plane shape. Total electron tEV hitting sensor per square mm is f/1.2.

>>4448175
>he fell for the shallow DOF meme
Many such cases

>>4448182
But given the difference in sensor performance you'd only need like an f/1.8-2 on the full frame body

>>4448184
It's just an option, one that 4/3s doesn't have

>>4448182
>Total electron tEV hitting sensor per square mm is f/1.2.
That isn't important for SNR. What saves 4/3 is stabilization, provided you aren't shooting fast action.

>>4448175
How do you calculate that?

>>4448195
Equivalence. If you want to get the same picture on 4/3 as you'd get on FF, knowing the crop factor is 2 (diagonal, if you want to split hairs then it's not), you halve the focal length and aperture from FF and divide the ISO by 4 (2 squared). Shutter speed remains the same. Then you get the same picture, save for aspect ratio and possibly megapixels.

>>4448118
It's literal e waste for someone too last to actually just use film

>>4448197
It wouldnt be the same picture. FF has more color depth at every ISO and HR FF especially. M43 sensors are very shit and paying thousands to play catch up is sad.

>>4448202
MF film also got mogged by a gfx.

Where are all the photos of 35mm film that has the same resolving power as 20-25mp FF digital, that is so often claimed?

>>4448213
You'll never see them here so don't bother

>>4448205
For equivalence, you wouldn't be using the same ISO

>>4448213
You need a $6,000 setup using a mirrorless camera and specialized gear to scan your own 35mm film with that level of quality

>>4448217
The other problem with equivalence is realistically micro four thirds uses excessive shutter speeds. Everything good can be shot at ISO 50 on full frame.
>inb4 IBIS!
FF has it too. Ever heard of a tripod?

>>4448218
So? That's what everyone talks about here so must be what they're using
Just like we have so many GRX100 users here

>>4448220
You might be too old to use this site

>>4448216
I haven't seen them anywhere when I've looked. There are plenty of 6x6 and 6x7 scans out there that look at least as good as FF digital.

>>4448218
I reworked my scanning setup and im gunna try and DSLR scan my next roll with it. 150mm macro prime, FF DSLR with a dedicated stand and light source. My expectations are still pretty low when you can get detail like this on digital with no extra steps.

>>4448221
This board is full of poor people coping and seething to justify their camera "choice" that was really just forced upon them by poverty. That's why there's so much hate against MUH SNOY, it's expensive.

>>4448222
I’m 20 and own a nikon z7. Micro four thirds is for old men with arthritis and has worse autofocus than nikon.

>>4448225
the best camera every (any old ff dslr) costs like 150 dollars, anything beyond that is just style points as far as the actual photos are concerned

>>4448228
>I'm 20 and own a nikon z7
Start photography last month?

>>4448228
>I’m 20
Nigga probably aint even met michael jackson

>>4448230
>DSLR
>good
Yeah if you don't use it for actually taking pictures. Enjoy your shitty autofocus, low ISO range, low shutter speed limit,

>>4448225
>He fell for the snoy meme
Snoys are overpriced junk. You can buy cheap second hand Snoy bodies because they depreciate so fast, but they're still junk.

>>4448237
Good morning Ranjeesh

>>4448231
I shot for the school newspaper so i have extensive experience with micro four thirds and femboys

>>4448230
Nuh uh, buy a z7ii and native lenses. It mogs dlSAARs hard.

>>4448244
>dlSAARs
How much mental gymnastics are required to trick yourself into believing that indians are not infact the group of people obsessed with blindly consuming the absolute latest technology?

>>4448245
You’d know more about indians considering you are one no cap

>>4448245
Indians such as you love new tech but are too poor to afford it.

>no one talking about indians
>some nigga brings them up 3 times in 4 minutes
What in the Bangladeshi rival upriver shithole

>>4448245
>white people are all about being regressive and shunning nice things
You seem to have mistaken yourself for a cambodian

>>4448239
I'm not Indian, I dont shoot Snoy.

>>4448248
They shit in streets, not rivers. Hence the indian hatred of sony cameras. They have turd detect autofocus and have been used to document india’s shame.

>>4448249
>>4448246
>>4448247
Obsessed low caste El atrocidad hands wrote this

>>4448254
>here you see the pretense has been lifted, ranjeesh becomes irate and his brown fingers furiously move over the keyboard as he types, a stench most foul filling the room in his small apartment as he cries in anger and frustration

>>4448254
This isn’t /vid/ no one is part of the cast here

>>4448256
>authoring rage-porn about slumniggas
Wtf is going on with yanks lmfao, is this what happens when you combine angloids with Ashkenazi/mulatto mega-mix DNA?

Good morning saars! Sony camera very good, bro! Picture come out super sharp, color also nice nice even just little green. I using from 2 year, no problem coming. Autofocus fast like anything. Only little costly for me but overall very happy. I telling all my friend — take Sony, no tension!

>>4448260
Idk he looks about as white as anyone else in ameri-stan 2025

>>4448260
Nice selfie, sony hater bro. Is this from before you switched to m43?

>>4448264
Frend, i only shoot Sony. Sony is number 1 selling of worldwide.

>>4448270
Whats with indians and playing pretend

>>4448271
No pertend sir, Sony number 1, status symbol of India to buy one.

>>4448271
Majority of poor Indians cant afford real cameras

>>4448274
Yeah, they're poor and can't afford godlike m43 cameras, to take based and aesthetic dog pics.

>>4448118
Wow, I downloaded some h3d-39, iq140 and p65+ raws and you're right

>>4448138
Absolute bullshit. I've seen your photos and now I know they look the same as the 5d because they are the same as the 5d.

>>4448282
Visual illiteracy anon you said a 5d classic looked the same as an 8x10 camera.

>>4448282
Can you post those files you downloaded in this thread? I think everyone would be interested in seeing them!

LOL

>>4447998
This is more or less the opposite of what I want to make, so thanks for that. I think I will use a longer focal length to make artistic photos, a lot of 50mm stuff seems snapshitty.

>>4447983
>In fact, it's a difficult focal range to make art with imo.
that's part of the point. Jack of all trades but master of none, while helping you git gud out of necessity because there's almost always a lens better suited.

>>4448417
You don't want to make borderline zoophilia erotic art with your film camera? Wrong board then.

>>4448417
Just be sure to actually post them and not be another nophoto whiner complainer
Also how do you not know what focal length you like? Is it your first month shooting?