New Snoy RX1R III Dead On Arrival Edition

Previous: >>4445820

>>4448394 (OP)
why wouldn't you just get the crop sensor body with a 35mm for like $2k? Who is this for?

>>4448394 (OP)
Classic Sony. Release old tech for ridiculous prices. I promise you there will be non stop YouTube shilling of this scamera when it's released. The poor tiktok girlies that buy this are going to be so disappointed in the green corpse skin that's in their SOOC jpegs. You might as well get a gfx100rf if your willing to drop that much money on a fixed lens point and shoot.

>>4448396
Are you going to post it?

>>4448394 (OP)
Beginner babby here, I'm looking for a cheap DSLR to learn fundamentals. Any recommendations? Someone recommended the Canon Rebel T7 and I found a local listing from a college girl for $300 that looks to be a good value from what I can tell:
>I bought this camera and kit for around $550 in 2020. $350 OBO. Don’t use too much anymore. Great kit for beginners to explore photography, that’s how I used it, but also has enough different accessories (that I never fully understood how to use) that a more experienced person may get more out of the camera. Listed as Used- Good because there’s small wear and tear, but nothing that affects the camera quality. Through cannon app can connect to camera and download photos directly to phone.

Includes:
-Camera w/ neck strap
-Carrying case for camera + all accessories
-Macro lenses +10 +4 +2 +1
-CPL filter, FLD filter, UV filter (has crack unfortunately)
-Wall charger and car charger adapter
-2 rechargeable batteries
-SD to USB reader
-Attachable flash
-3 32 GB SD cards
-High definition 0.43X wide and lens
-High definition 2.2X AF telephoto lens
-Remote picture clicker attachment (like it’s on a wire so you can take a picture from further away from the camera)
-Manual
-Light blocker thing? (Lower left hand corner)

Anyway, I've never bought a used camera before; any tips on what to look for when inspecting one?

Street photographers idiocy and poor fiscal responsibility + corporate laziness and greed = ruining cameras for everyone else

We will never get a compact thats better and cheaper than a phone because streetfags can be convinced any trash (see: leica Q) will make them a better photographer and companies will oblige

>>4448401
its all junk. no wonder she quit photography and left it in a closet. some anticonsumer poverty cultist will now call it good enough and sovl im sure.

dont make her mistake. pick up something popular and good so if you quit you can sell it locally without eating ebay fees. ultimately this is why the sony a7c and fuji xt cameras are good, gearfag nitpickers despise them for good reason but they are affordable and popular, and really you should learn to work with raws before you buy a really nice camera like a nikon.

>>4448401
$250 is probably a more fair price
It's a 7 year old body from the most basic entry level, that also often went on sale for $400-450 new
Don't consider all the little useless accessories value wise, it's just junk she has no use for anymore

>>4448406
also if you’re actually poor and not just following the upgrade ladder scam its the canon 5diii or 6dii for you. people still buy them and not just people on the the side of the country. for your first and therefore least likely to be last camera this characteristic is genuinely important. do not lose money on a first camera. aim to make money if anything.

>>4448403
They're are plenty of compact options that are better than a phone

>>4448410
It depends. New phones are really, really good with their main 24mm camera and the tertiary telephotos are actually fine for architecture and portraits. Just don't use digital zoom. If you have an iphone SE or the shittiest 4k chinaphone yeah a 1" shitter would be an upgrade.

>>4448401
Yes, definitely don't buy this. It's a genuinely shit camera that pushes the limits of practicality and bringing the camera being worth it. Even relatively technically bad cameras with worse autofocus and smaller sensors get EDC'd when canon rebels get left in closets just because the quality of life is better.

Step up for something you can actually resell (aka a "meme camera", something well know that's in all the gearfag top 10 lists), so you don't end up desperate to offload ewaste of the kind a lot of people dump at goodwill, and something that is more versatile and useful than a low end camera. Even if you buy a micro four thirds like an e-m5 ii or a gf1 (a famous photographer actually used a gf1 for some $$$ magazine shoots) it's going to be more fun and useful than that ewaste blob.

>>4448413
Those were more like $$$,$$$ magazine shoots

>>4448406
Thank you for the recs, honestly I know nothing about cameras and just looking for a platform to help me learn fundamentals with some amount of manual control; I'd like to try and take better photos with my Minolta Super A I inherited from grandma :') to keep adding to the family album. And also for documenting my other hobbies/travels better than my shitty old iPhone camera, and learn to edit raws. I had no idea how expensive cameras were until recently so your input is valuable.

>>4448407
Thanks for the input; ik it's not the best but compared to other listings it looks ok just considering the bag, card reader, and flash. I suspect the other shit is gimmicky.

>>4448408
Yes lol I'm actually poor and am just starting to enjoy taking pictures for the first time, so I'm not aiming to compete with gear lovers on here; I have lots of side hustles and projects so it'd be cool to eventually take nice promotional photos of my art, electrical work, and woodworking as I think nice visuals add a lot to a brand.

>>4448401
>-High definition 0.43X wide and lens
>-High definition 2.2X AF telephoto lens
>-Macro lenses +10 +4 +2 +1
That's not how camera lenses are listed. I'd say she bought some retarded chinkshit lens peripherals that were actually designed for use on surveillance cameras. I'd also say she's being 100%honest when she says she didn't know what she was doing with it.

>>4448394 (OP)
Holy fuck dude, the rx1r iii is not sealed, so once dust inevitably gets in the fixed lens it's there forever in you $5k body.

>>4448416
Buy the cheapest, good condition sony a6*** or an olympus e-m5ii/e-p5. These cameras are not the best, but if you start out with f1.7/f1.8 primes (which are cheap, as in, $100, and typically as good as any professional lens) and shooting raw you will learn actual photography, instead of zoom to fill photography and useless camera menu stuff. Shooting raw basically makes every camera 10 years newer and is easy as fuck once you get used to it. It will also discourage you from taking 50 useless photos you'll never look at every day.

these are affordable street photography/vibes memes so lots of retarded teens will line up to buy them if you quit and list your kit for $50 less than ebay

>>4448413
1" would be an upgrade on most any phone lol

>>4448421
You wish, but quad bayer "computational photography" breaks all your gay equivalence rules. The iPhone 16 pro takes really, really good photos with its main camera. It's edging close to APS-C now. With the caveat that it's only in 24mm, in daylight, or if you can meme it into taking a long exposure where nothing moves.

>>4448408
Also thanks for the recs, I'll keep your advice in mind. I'd like something slick, but it's more sensible for my current stage to go for something modest but resellable.

>>4448413
Thanks for the input. You're speaking my language as I hope to get something affordable that's not just a brick I end up hating and have the burden of offloading or wasting. And thanks for the recs! The gf1 looks to be a good fit for what I'm looking for. Though I'm cursed with minmaxitis so I must ask if you have any recs for full-frame cameras?

>>4448423
Fun and good full frame is typically at least $1000 for the entire kit unless you really like 2lb SLRs

Some masochists are still managing with their sony a7iis and a7riis (the original a7 and a7r are almost unusable in how poorly built they were)

>>4448423
>nikon z5/z6, generation one, <$800

>-a bit big
>-slow and sometimes unreliable autofocus
>-shortish battery life
>-z6 needs a CF card (~$100 extra)
>-lines show up on the z6 if you underexpose and push raws by 3+ stops

>+can use a few cheap lenses under $250 and all of them are p. good
>+not a sony
>+not a sony
>+not a sony

>>4448422
Nah, better hardware, phones are just more accessible for beginners like you

>>4448429
>muh sensor size and lens sharpness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7BNX_bbfhg
you have to pixel peep pretty hard

>>4448432
>phones are better
>check out this YouTube video proving it
lol

>>4448396
>I promise you there will be non stop YouTube shilling of this scamera when it's released
Too late anon.

>>4448432
fuck off

>>4448436
>>4448433
>pixel peepers malding because phones do a good job with 24mm, no motion, and good light

>>4448425
>>4448427
Thanks again, I appreciate all the responses. For now I think the e-m5 ii fits my use case and budget the best.

phones lose miserable even w loads of aislop and stacking tricks even to 4turds, which is already kinda bad

>>4448448
m43 is a 3x bigger sensor. FF is 3x bigger than that

>>4448448
Now this is pixel peeping

I'm almost certain that this thing was hastily pulled out of development that was formerly axed pre-COVID since the last Sony body to have a non-customizable exposure comp dial was the A7C in 2021. It's possible there could be a major refresh in 2-3 years similar to the A7CII (2 years after the first one) which basically fixed all the concerns from the A7C, but it's far more likely it doesn't sell enough so the line gets axed for good this time

>>4448452
not so fast!

>>4448455
>old EV dial
>old FW50 battery
>old fixed LCD
I dont know how they did it, but Sony somehow regressed in technology with this camera. Seriously, when was the last time Sony made a camera that didn't have a fixed screen?

>>4448455
>old EV dial
>old FW50 battery
>old fixed LCD
I dont know how they did it, but Sony somehow regressed in technology with this camera. Seriously, when was the last time Sony made a camera that had a fixed screen?

>>4448458
My best guess is the RX1 line was axed for good with the release of the A7C, but Sony didn't realize there ended up being a demand for such a camera and that they were just early, so they pulled all the designs from 2017-ish, updated a few things, and released it as quickly as possible to not miss the current hype cycle.

>>4448401
that's not a "cheap dslr"
a cheap dslr is something where you can get the camera, lens, and battery for under $100.
they're still out there.

>>4448394 (OP)
This is so fucking funny. Good fucking god, Sony.

>>4448398
Nah I'm not that schizo. He's pretty funny though. I'm just jilted YouTube convinced me to buy an a7cii at one point. What a piece of shit

>>4448435
I wish I couldn't feel embarrassment like a YouTuber. Good God that is a pathetic image

>>4448480
>he actually fell for the SNOY meme

>>4448480
Where did it fall short of your expectations? As an A7C owner, I'm genuinely curious.

What you dumb apes fail to realize is that camera tech has plateaued. 5 years ago we reached the peak of what is possible with current manufacturing methods and battery technology. That is why we don't get any new compact micro four turds cameras, that is why new flagship cameras have low resolution sensors and why new high megapickles cameras always gimped in one way or another compared to their predecessors in order to fit the new bells and whistles. Good time to be a used camera gear enjoyer, bad time to be a gearfag.

>>4448473

Yeah, if you want a 6 to 8mpx, and accept that it can quit working at any time.

you fuckers were right, i should have shut my mouth and just use the camera i have. since i went to /p/ i got so insecure about all the little details and buyers remorse, that i bought a a7IV in addition to the 5d Mark IV i hunted down for cheap. i dont want to become a gearfag. help me please

>>4448394 (OP)
Why would you, and I'm not meming, why would you not buy a fucking Leica for that price?

>>4448513
Leave. Best advice I have.

>>4448499
This

>>4448447
>he fell for the meme
Just get something like the 6D+50mm f1.8. Don't do this if you absolutely don't need the small size.

>>4448513
Don't go to /p/ if what people who don't post pictures say goes to your head.

>>4448520
Because Leica are overpriced trash garbage? If you can afford $5000 for a camera you should just save an extra thousand or so and buy a hassy X2D. Medium format, the best photography camera unless you're doing sports photography then you should be buying a Sony since everyone else is garbage for sports

>>4448406
lmao, popularity isn't a reason to avoid Rebels which are some of the best selling cameras in the world, much less to buy a fucking Fuji which besides the poor gimmicky design can't even outsell dying brands. The word you're looking for is "hipster crew", not popularity.
>>4448408
>actually poor
>6d ii
Kek
>>4448401
Avoid T# models like the plague, they're bottom of the barrel and artificially crippled. Look for T#i models as a beginner. T6i is great for a beginner, but anything from T3i upwards will serve you well. T2i has the same IQ as the T3i but lacks the highly desirable swivel display for low angle shots. Nikon D5300 is another solid option. Pentax K-70 too but only if video doesn't matter to you.
Canon is best at adapting lenses from other cameras and best at video. Nikon is the one with the best design but pretty much limited to native lenses and Pentax is about as good as Nikon in terms of design, adds in-camera stabilization and can use M42 lenses with a simple adapter. The Canon offers the best upgrade path of the three because you can easily use Nikon or M42 lenses on it as well as native Canon. The T6i in particular has a 24 megapixel sensor which is an interesting upgrade over T3i, T4i and T6i, but I tend to dislike that it has a touchscreen. Other viable options are Canon SL2 and SL3 (make sure this one comes with the center pin for the flash as there are variants without that which lock you into the Canon ecosystem or its specific clones).

>>4448526
Fool frame is the hill I'm willing to die on.

>>4448528
Do you live in bumfuck? You can just rent a hassy and take pics with it for a day for pretty cheap to see the difference. If you're ONLY using your camera for photography it's the best camera, I just use sony because they make the best hybrids right now

>>4448529
No ovf, no deal.

>>4448531
lmao
i doubt anyone is actually that autistic

>>4448529
Also try renting a proper lens for your FF and realize how little the sensor matters. The comparison is biased towards X2D because there's no bad lenses for them, but your lenses are middling at best. Try a high tier Canon L.

>>4448532
It's called implicit photographic integrity, sweetie.

>>4448528
I hate to be on the same page as a goddamn namefag but I agree. I am facing a problem where my camera has not enough burst rate for birding but I would hate to give up the FF sensor image quality to an APS-C with high burst rate. I'd rather suffer missing timing but have the FF with those I can catch.

>>4448394 (OP)
>>4448395
>>4448396
>>4448455
>>4448458
There is a very simple explanation for this camera. Rumor has it that the largest market of the RX1R II was aerial videography, far outselling the regular photography segment.
When you look at the specs from that perspective, it all makes sense. Sony simply refreshed it to milk dronefags even more.

>>4448538
What the fuck are you even talking about bro? If you want higher burst rate you have to stay FF, since Sony α9 III has 120 burst rate, the highest by far. Gotta have that global shutter.
>$6000 MSRP

>>4448538
Birding is different, I'd use high res APS-C just for the reach. Using the same lenses it actually upgrades the quality.

>>4448540
Enjoy your well-focused backgrounds with your blurry bird in front, jej

>>4448499
Because the tech hasn't plateaued and we are still getting new features and better performance

>>4448513
My mindset somehow changed when I just started to focus and challenged myself on how to be better creatively, even with just the basic gear I have. Now, I'm not lusting over new or shiny gear.

>>4448543
>Enjoy your well-focused backgrounds with your blurry bird in front, jej
so you're schizo
the bird autofocus is better than anything any other brand has right now

>>4448544
New gimmicks and paid hype to make mountains out of molehills is what you're getting. Engineered "needs". Same type of hype as when they shilled the newest (at the time) iPhone as "beating full frame cameras" with pictures where it was once again humbled by the full frame yet the imbecilic basedboys mistook the boosted contrast with sharpening artifacts for image quality.

>>4448546
It can't even beat an ancient D300S, lmao https://youtube.com/watch?v=68WJqbJQxJE

>>4448394 (OP)
Is there a more objective description of fujis film simulations? Like with a test chart to describe color shift and strength of grain effect

>>4448541
I do other things not just birds.
Also fuck you namefag, piece

>>4448548
His complaints are schizo shit, his hairline is atrocious he needs to shave it all.
>muh ergonomics
Sony A7RV has perfect ergonomics, designed for Japanese hands. Sorry your giant yt hands are too big for it, not Sony's problem. Unlike Canon they aren't on their hands and knees for the yt devil. He has giant yt ogre hands, that's the problem.

Autofocus on both those cameras is great he just doesn't understand how to adjust the settings in the menu.

>>4448552
>Is there a more objective description of fujis film simulations?
Yeah, "presets" or "profiles", because film simulations they are not.
>>4448553
Why not get a cheap 2nd body then?

>>4448554
>you didn't debug the code my toblerone runs, it's your fault the AF sucks!
LOL, darktable tier

>>4448557
The AF isn't set up out of the box for birding, it's set up out of the box for general use which will make everything except portraits look like shit.

>>4448558
Again darktable tier.

>>4448555
>>Is there a more objective description of fujis film simulations?
>Yeah, "presets" or "profiles", because film simulations they are not.
captain obvious, you utter moron

>>4448554
*chafes your knuckle*

>>4448555
>Why not get a cheap 2nd body then?
The APSC would be the second body, it is not cheap either.

>>4448561
Why are you holding it like this are you spastic
>>4448559
>muh camera needs to jest werk cuz im retard

>>4448563
>coping this hard
your ergos are shit, you wasted your money. let the buyer's remorse wash over you anon, it's okayvs2ya

>>4448565
now post the goblin shrek picture and say snoy
look at the spastic who took these pictures and made this review, who the FUCK clips their fingernails like this? a retard
you don't hold the camera like that, nobody would

>>4448567
>doubles down on the copium
listen fag, if you want to submit an image of how you're "supposed to" hold a sony, i'm all eyes
until then we can confidently conclude that, if there must indeed be a "right way" to hold a sony, this fact immediately demonstrates their poor ergonomic design and unintuitiveness on its own

>>4448552
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2020/08/18/fujifilm-film-simulations-definitive-guide
Basic explanation from Fuji
https://www.fujifilm-x.com/en-us/exposure-center/get-to-grips-with-film-simulation-modes/
They are just complicated presets

>>4448547
Or new features that I use everyday and wish every camera had

>>4448572
That Velvia example is hilarious. /digitshit/ tier colors they're trying to pass off as a """"faithful"""" """""simulation"""""

>>4448558
Not him but it is generally known that mirrorless AF has a stronger background bias than DSLR AF. DSLRs use a different optical path that is more stable, think about a rangefinder system with a wider geometry. The focus sticking to the background is a problem present on all mirrorless AF systems. It is a known fact which is why most birding lenses have a preset function you can set to jump the focus in front with a push of a button.

>>4448561
>>4448565
Ah yes, the familiar feeling of jamming your fingers between two toblerone slabs (not UK version).
>>4448562
A 90D is probably around 1200 donalds nowadays new.
>>4448563
>>4448567
Delicious , delirious cope.

>>4448570
here you go you gad dang communist bastard

>>4448580
>lens removed
>shelf dust
The jokes write themselves

>>4448581
The dust gives it a protective patina. It adds to the value

>>4448576
I don't want a second body especially not having to buy a new lens for it. I want my delicious OG K-1 but with brrrrt instead of flap-flap-flap
Can't wait for the MkIII to finally surface

>>4448575
You'd have a point of the guy went back to DSLRs
But he just says a Z9 is much better for birding than an a7RV

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

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

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

>Same as it ever was...

>Shutter blades breaking, and SD cards failing
>There are greens under the skin tones
>Can't make a pancake, still no A7V
>Google how to fix Sony colors

>Letting the frames go by, all the gear threads have moved on
>Letting the frames go by, no uploads to /rpt/
>Into the shop again, into the bargain bin
>Shilling and schizo posts, there are no pics to be found

>You may ask yourself, "Why are my knuckles chafed?"
>You may ask yourself, "Where did those ergonomics go to?"
>And you may ask yourself, "Why does all my glass vignette?"
>And you may say to yourself, "My God, what have I done?!"

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

>Same as it ever was...
>Lenses aren't holding up, edge smearing everywhere
>Same as it ever was... (letting the frames go by)
>Here comes the shill again
>Letting the frames go by...
>Why did I buy this thing?
>Letting the frames go by...

>>4448581
That's not shelf dust. That's cheeto dust and dried cum
I wish I could unsee this pic, anon get your shit together, clen your filthy room, clean yourself and clean you camera! Have more respect towards where you are living and the things you own!

>>4448586
Oi! Leave the greatest band ever alone, you hear me?

>>4448583
Oh you're kinda fucked then, K-3 III is the only fast one and not cheap if godly.

>>4448591
My current K-1+FA43 combo is too good to move on from the system. And now the D-FA 150-450 as well.

>>4448593
Yeah I get what you're saying, K-1 is one of the most desirable cameras in existence.

>>4448597
I feel really uncomfortable having a namefag siding with me.
How about I just thank you and tell you to go fuck yourself?

>>4448599
Just take comfort in the truthfulness of the statement. Still, I'd get maybe a K-5 II for cheap. 7 fps is better than 4 if still not ideal.

What do you call a small metal piece that basically consists of two rounded nail heads? And can I still get decent quality ones today?

It's used to connect leather straps to older cameras, binoculars or the likes.

>>4448601
A rivet? JFC kids these days

>>4448600
Yeah, I have an OG K-3, I don't use it much. Putting the K-1 away just... feels wrong.

>>4448603
No, not exactly. A double headed river would maybe work, but it would squeeze the leather. What I'm looking for is one single piece of metal. The strap has two "key holes" that attaches to the metal piece - this makes it removeable. Chicago bolts could also work, but it's not the real thing and I want to keep it as original/authentic as possible.
But you nearly had me with your comment, ngl ;)

I have a cute little Olympus E-P7 and I am looking to get a full frame camera for when I need to shoot low light. I am thinking about getting a Z5ii but am also open to buying an older DSLR to save some money. Is the new Z5 the best moderately priced option I can get or is it overkill for a non professional?

For reference, I take photos of local theater productions with minimal lighting and they specifically don't want flash photography. So I need to capture movement in low light meaning high ISO performance is important.

>>4448613
Maybe I should have mentioned, I have borrowed cameras to do this job in the past (Nikon ZF and Canon 6d) but I don't own a full frame of my own. Both of those cameras worked fine, the ZF better than the 6d for sure but I really didn't like the ergonomics on the Nikon.

I also used a Fuji X-T2 in the past and that was just hopeless in terms of low light AF.

>>4448612
Look up button-rivets, young child.

>>4448612
I'd probably take a double headed rivet, rivet it to something thick enough I can later break and make the piece that way.

>>4448580
>knuckle still hitting where the lens would be
lmao

Anyone who has problems holding a sony is an actual numale
>I NEED EVERYTHING TO BE CONTOURED SOFT AND JUST THE RIGHT SIZE TO FILL MY HANDS!
Yeah, "ergonomics are objective and important" leaves out a huge truth
Ergonomics are objective and important to the weak. They are relative and a non issue to the strong. Ergonomics are literally the science of making it so people have to exert LESS strength and coordination to do something. If you have strength and coordination in abundance they don't matter. I use sony cameras for work and hold them in a pinch grip like a gripless camera, and would actually prefer it if everyone got rid of grips entirely because anyone that thinks they were a good idea is probably some subhuman arthritic carpal tunnel faggot.

Stop ruining cameras with your accessibility/disability-friendly bullshit, you weak fucks. Pic related is the most grip any camera should have. A shelf for your fingers to catch on when you carry it. Nothing else.
>MY WRISTS HURT
You are a disabled fuck.
>ERGONOMICS ARE OBJECTIVE!
To disabled fucks.

The nikon ZF is a great example of a camera designed for man hands. Weak unhealthy fucks with creaky inflamed joints can't even reach the shutter button.

Gripped cameras are designed for prunes, women, children, and fags.

>>4448394 (OP)
Ok fellers, here's the deal:
>I need a digital camera
>I need an 85mm and 35/40mm full frame equivalent lenses
>They need to have f/2.8 full frame equivalent DoF or wider
>JPEGs have to look nice with no editing
I don't care about size or brand. What's my best option to get this setup with as little money as possible?

>>4448627
Sony promotes bad form and its users are the atrophied of the future

>>4448628
your point is? you can cope with retarded design and feel superior for eating shit, volountarly?

>>4448629
>canon 6d + 85mm/1,8 + 40/2,8
>about $600 used
it's an option, possibly not the best option but worth considering

>>4448629
here
/p/s guide to cameras

>sony: very dull and lifeless colors with or without editing, looks like the camera can not differentiate dozens of hues, cold and dull skin tones, color accuracy falls off in correlation with vignetting, stopping down rarely reduces vignetting to normal levels (<1/2 stop), sporadic reliability issues model to model, inconsistent build quality. the colors are not a meme, editing does not fix it. sony shooters simply lean into the dull lifelessness.

>fuji: hides snoy tier colors behind vsco presets, smeary fine detail unless processed in dxo, capture one, or ansel, lightroom only with time consuming "enhance" feature, colored textures obliterated, garbage autofocus almost as bad as panasonic, inconsistent build quality

>canon: $500 for garbage, $1500 for sharper faster focusing garbage, ugliest cameras on earth, any body too far under $2k so hilariously crippled, high failure is rate never mentioned on /p/ but well known among pros and rental houses, extremely buggy firmware, so many models have suffered from motherboard failure and sensor glitches that no one really buys these without the extended warranty and CPS subscription, prone to false overheating due to bad programming and bad heat sensor placement

>panasonic: very dull sonylike colors, huge bodies, huge but mediocre lenses, borderline useless autofocus performance given their price (it would be considered "up to snuff" by medium format users), gearfag catering with useless video codecs, no AA filters, shilled heavily on /p/ and youtube, confirmed for encouraging influencers to flat out lie and fake test results

>GLORIOUS NIKON: best colors, comparable to phase one and hasselblad, shitty (but still way better than panasonic and fuji) autofocus on expeed6, expeed7 is flawless for wildlife and sports, really fucking good lenses, only FF mirrorless mount thats actually designed for full frame, biggest complaint anyone has is their toy pancake lens kind of sucks

>>4448632
As an able bodied man who doesn't have swollen creaky joints all I notice with gripped cameras is that they are big and ugly. Gripless cameras are nicer to use.

Ergonomics is, again, literally the science of reducing the need for physical ability. I want you to imagine for a second saying "oh so you're superior for eating shit voluntarily?" with regards to a camera weighing more. Do you suddenly sound weak? Yes. Because you are weak.

Deal with it.

>>4448632
His point is he doesn't like the look of a proper grip (possibly out of a fear of guns) and doesn't use the camera for any other purpose than to look at it. It's that degenerate mindset where function follows form. And he likes the -objectively uglier- flat design because he's been conditioned to do so, possibly through weaboo media.
The reprobate should repent but he won't.

>>4448636
>color accuracy falls off in correlation with vignetting, stopping down rarely reduces vignetting to normal levels (<1/2 stop),
this one is only a real problem if you don't use sony's lenses

>>4448636
Listen buddy, the question wasn't "what is da best brandzz????". The requirements are very clear, and this is the most gearfag post I've seen here this month

>>4448636
>canon: $500 for garbage, $1500 for sharper faster focusing garbage, ugliest cameras on earth, any body too far under $2k so hilariously crippled, high failure is rate never mentioned on /p/ but well known among pros and rental houses, extremely buggy firmware, so many models have suffered from motherboard failure and sensor glitches that no one really buys these without the extended warranty and CPS subscription, prone to false overheating due to bad programming and bad heat sensor placement
Sounds like mirrorlesscuckold issues, try buying real (reflex) cameras next time.

>>4448639
>if you aren't weak you're afraid of guns and only look at cameras
I bet you need a modern AR pistol grip (AKA the "even a gay 5'2" mexican man can serve in the US army" grip) to hold his rifle because a more traditional stock hurts his wrist lol

Cameras had no grips, zero, for about 100 years. That was when men were men. As soon as gay rights and womens rights got going grips appeared on cameras. Do you believe this is a coincidence?

Grip = weak faggot
You are such a weak fag you think it's impossible to use a camera without a big rubber dildo stuck to the front right.

>>4448640
It's a real problem with all sony cameras. Baby mount vignetting isn't just missing light, it's angled light hitting the wrong pixels.

>>4448642
The answer is buy the nikon you can afford and never touch a sony, panasonic, or fuji.
Now fuck off

>>4448643
>Mirrorless is bad because canon can't make a good one
DSLRs are inferior period. Bad tech that only exists because of macro and sports/birds faggotry and tasteless boomer UWA landscapes. Otherwise we would have used view cameras and rangefinders for the whole century.

>>4448643
>uhm just buy the even shittier camera
here's your glorious reflex bro
https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EOS-DSLR-Mirrorless-Cameras/5D-Mark-IV-Dead-Body-NO-power/td-p/246901
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4162548
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/green-band-in-long-exposure-on-5dmk4.37489/
https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/6qmf7e/green_band_fixedpattern_noise_in_photos_with/
canon doesnt make reliable cameras. even the ae-1 was failure prone (sticky shutter magnet)

this frightens the modern soitographer

when the modern soitographer sees this, they think its only used to decorate a shelf because they literally cant imagine using it for more than 15 seconds before their hands cramp

>>4448645
>buy the nikon
that doesn't answer the question

>>4448650
those are trash
I only buy cannons

>>4448651
>I need a digital camera
Nikon makes these without them being shit
>I need an 85mm and 35/40mm full frame equivalent lenses
Nikon has these
>They need to have f/2.8 full frame equivalent DoF or wider
Nikon has f1.4s, f1.8s, and f2s for a good price
>JPEGs have to look nice with no editing
Only nikon and some very expensive canons do this

>>4448629
Cheapest will be FF, I was going to recommend a Rebel T3i or D3200 but the 35/40mm f/2.8 equivalent requisite makes it more expensive as even the cheapest ewaste Sigma that fits the bill (24mm f/1.8) is $170 and likely to leave you unsatisfied.
So it'd be FF, the poorfag's choice. Absolute cheapest would be 5D classic but it's overpriced for what you get, I'd get a 6D or D610 instead (the latter is better).
Then just get a 50/1.8 and a 35/1.8 and you're all set.
You can have the 35/1.8 G for 100 donalds plus shipping, plus the 50/1.8 AF D for like 60 donalds. D610 is like 350 donalds on MPB for a decent one.

>>4448442
Idk what phone you have but I have an iPhone X and that takes dogshit photos, in fact the Nokia N73 I had before it seemed to to have way more resolving power. Probably because it doesnt have asscake post sharpening and NR. Anyway, if I wanted a phone that takes photos as good as a 20 year old DSLR i'd be shit out of luck because it doesn't exist. The closest thing is like 1500 bucks. I'm not spending that on a phone, I barely use my phone as it is. Technology is allowed to stagnate because most people are nigger brained retards that are addicted to spending money. See >>4448435 thumbnail

>>4448647
>defective canons: exist
>anon:

>>4448627
>I use sony cameras for work and hold them in a pinch grip like a gripless camera
kekkin

>>4448655
This man only recommends genuinely bad cameras. Dont buy any of this ewaste. Even a measly nikon z6 blows it all out of the water.

>>4448657
>defective sony cameras exist: this confirms everything people say about their failure rate. why doesn't snoy issue recalls like a real company?
>defective canon cameras exist: NOOO ITS JUST A FEW
its extremely common and widespread issues. both sony and canon are notorious for letting defective cameras go out to the market and assume they will just be sent back and repaired.

only nikon has the balls to do a recall when they fuck up. sony and canon almost never issue recalls. they're afraid it would hurt their image (and if people expected them to, they would have to issue a recall with every new release). smaller brands like olympus, pentax, fuji, and panasonic are the same but because they cant afford to do recalls, not because they dont want to build better cameras.

>>4448629
GR3x in the pocket, and any mirrorless full-frame with a film-era 85mm of your choice, then git gud manual focusing (it's already piss easy through an EVF)

>>4448659
>Google camera shutter failure
>go to images
>It's ALL snoy

>>4448638
>kino blocks your path

>>4448661
Huh?

I'm well aware that sony fucked up huge batches of a7iiis and a smaller batch of a7ivs, but that doesn't mean canon is different. Or better. They actually have the highest failure rate.

>>4448662
Anon this piece of shit secured Nikon's permanent spot as second best and almost sunk the company. The F3 was being sold after the F4 had been discontinued.

>>4448663
Canon's junk cameras fail all the time yes. They're made slop for idiots. However all of sony's cameras fail all the time. Their best is still dogshit.

>>4448664
>t.

>>4448663
A little canon here, a little sony there, and some nikon DSLRs. Not surprising, nikon was a really bad brand in the DSLR era. They had even worse quality than canon and slow and inaccurate autofocus. They only survived by repackaging sony sensors because sony cameras were somehow even worse.

At least they improved. Sony and canon did not. Sony and canon only care about people who buy new, which means their unreliable cameras get returned in the warranty period and the replacement should hold their desired customer (a professional) over until they need to upgrade to maintain the warranty.

>>4448666
>666
>the F4 is good
>confirmed by the betrayer

>>4448667
The canon failures are mainly APS-H's which had a bad batch.
The sony failures are literally all of them.

>>4448665
>Canon's junk cameras
like the eos r (motherboard failrue), eos r6 (motherboard and shutter failure), eos r6ii (motherboard and shutter failure), eos r5 (general build quality/"falling apart"), and eos r5ii (aps-c dr at every iso, buggy firmware)

Canon just isn't reliable. People who buy used cameras to keep them aren't on their radar. Their money is in people who buy rebel tier cameras and forget them in closets, and professionals who upgrade frequently to keep an active warranty.

>>4448655
>>4448660
Holy fucking shit, I listed 3 basic requirements and you couldn't even stick by them.
Only on this board I swear

>>4448672
Not sure if you're new to this website but if it has some gay little callsign instead of "Anonymous" on their post in means they're a retarded pedophile.

>>4448670
>i-its only the aps-h
1st 3 images are r6iis and a 1d

The RP, R8, and R7 seem to be fine aside from being crippled and rattly, and overheating errors if they get moved from indoor shade to the sun because canon thinks the sudden exterior temperature increase means the camera is about to die.

>>4448671
>saaar you must buy sony not canon!!!
>sony makes the radio in my tuk tuk so its best!!!
Sony had a class action against them literally because of how shit the build quality is.

>>4448672
Your requirements are dogshit and can be very easily fulfilled with 20 minutes of independent research. Expect creative answers.

>>4448674
If you're not buying flagship, you're buying fagshit. Get a load of this poorfag not buying a generational product he will be able to pass down to his offspring.

Sony and canon both make junk lol
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/hey-canon-why-are-your-cameras-falling-apart-636447
https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/1fk38zl/canon_r5_ii_not_ready_for_commercial_use_so_many/
https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/rnwynb/canon_eos_r5_problems/
https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/1cekznd/problem_with_r5/ (this guys shutter is failing)

Meanwhile on sony:
Weather sealing literally disintegrating if not absent
Premature shutter failures on a7iii/a7iv
Baby mount vignetting
a7cii overheats easily in stills

Jej

>>4448676
>creative now means wrong
suggesting some defunct minolta medium format with the right glass would have been creative, this shit is just pathetic or plain illiteracy

>>4448675
>NO CANON CANT BE BAD BECAUSE...SONY IS BAD TOO!
Sony and canon are both bad.

>Sony got sued
So did pentax. Lawsuits aren't justice and aren't dispensed evenly and justly.

>>4448677
This is what canon consoomers actually believe. Alas, even the "this is for pros only" blob has issues, like aps-c dr under the NR they bake into raws, and failing sensors
https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/1iv0agx/what_is_happening_to_my_r3_this_has_happened/

>>4448672
Your requirements are only fully met on nikon

Nikon makes the only actual good cameras. Other cameras are copes for scamming consumers, and pros that have to compromise for bullshit client requirements and pass the costs of the compromise on with the rest of the bill.

>>4448672
>Holy fucking shit, I listed 3 basic requirements and you couldn't even stick by them.
My mistake anon, as I said I was thinking of APS-C at first so I said 50mm which gives you the 85mm equivalent on Canon (1.6x crop). Let me fix that by recommending the 85mm f/1.8D which can be had for 120 donalds.

>>4448680
>Your requirements are only fully met on nikon

>Nikon makes the only actual good cameras. Other cameras are copes for scamming consumers, and pros that have to compromise for bullshit client requirements and pass the costs of the compromise on with the rest of the bill.

>>4448674
>1d
That's APS-H

>>4448681
well yes, if you actually shoot to pay the bills it doesnt matter if your camera isnt an investment, it matters that you dont have to make excuses. every pro has 2 canons or 2 sonys incase one breaks because they have the highest framerates and best sports autofocus, so they can never say "sorry the stars just didn't align when the quarterback caught the ball before the winning touchdown" and no one cares about the color science because its the moment that matters. the nikon z8 is a lot better and more durable yes but nikon doesn't have the global tech support to replace broken and stolen cameras, and well made gear still gets smashed and swiped on the job. sony and canon do have the global tech support to replace stuff ASAP.

of course no one here has so little self respect they'd pursue being that pro. the average 4channer is smart and wants to be an investment banker or a manager with an art hobby.

PENTAX NUMBAH ONE

>>4448682
thank you anon, I your suggestions seem quite good, I'll add them to my list. Canon seems really good, especially for portraits

>>4448684
Now tell us how the r, r6, r6ii, r5, r5ii, and 5div are actually aps-h lol

Canon and sony don't make reliable cameras. They sell cameras in multiples to professionals and run reliable tech support programs.

>>4448686
>K1 mode dial failure
>K## aperture block failure
its not a big list but there's so few pentaxes out there....

>>4448650
>>4448628
>>4448662
>muh jap garbage
Have you ever handled a real camera?

>>4448689
>posts the only product in the history of mankind to be bested by its soviet copy

I saw a Z7II with over 500k shutter flaps being sold for $1000 today. It still looked pristine. There were 5 others with deformed rubber and 200k-300k I think were left in hot cars for most of their lives.

>>4448687
You're welcome anon, but those are Nikon lenses that I matched to the Nikon D610 lol.
You can probably build a similar Canon kit around the 6D though. In that era, Nikon offers better image quality so I probably wouldn't though.

>>4448690
ukranian lies, the Kiev 60 is garbage.

>>4448693
>the Kiev 60 is garbage
Yes, its total shit. And somehow pentacon is still worse ahahaha

>>4448687
>>4448692
There's no way this tripfag isn't samefagging to feel good about himself

>>4448695
if it isnt that poor anon is going to be so pissed by old dslrs shit image quality and unreliability he's going to go full fuji/snoy/m43, like everyone else who fell for the shitty starter camera meme and therefore went shopping in "anything but another camera like that" mode.

>>4448679
>can't be bothered to research a simple gear question on his own
>wants 4chan to think for him
>gets assmad when the replies aren't exactly what he wanted
never change, /p/

>>4448679
Buy a nikon z6ii, a 40mm f2, and an 85mm f1.8 S or an FTZ+85mm f1.8 G.

I think third parties are releasing good short teles for nikon Z but you can also adapt sony lenses for $250 extra (this is not recommended because putting an E mount on your Z mount also adds baby mount vignetting)

>>4448696
>D610
>shit image quality
Sounds like you fell for the "full frame always has better IQ" meme and proceeded to use garbage dark third party zooms that operate at like f/5.6 at their widest. Do better.
>unreliability
lol, wtf

>>4448629
5D classic with either the EF 85mm f1.8 or any vintage lens adapted. The 40mm f2.8 pancake for EF is also really sharp for some reason. 5D classic is designed to be used with minimal to no editing, it was from an era where this was normal. Back then it was not a given that photographers would be doing major edits to their photos. Especially as canon's early FF offerings were often being marketed to people just switching over from film.

>>4448698
Ignoring the mirrorlesscuckoldry of your post, did you miss the part where he asked "What's my best option to get this setup with as little money as possible?" ?
Just one lens in your setup is more expensive than my whole combo. I think you're gatekeeping.

>>4448699
The D610 has shit image quality because it's ancient electrically noisy hardware and a single gain sensor with crappy shadow tonality, all underneath an excessively strong AA filter, which subsequently uses lenses that are so low quality that the nikon Z kit zoom is sharper than all but 4 F mount primes.

Then consider real world shooting challenges inherent to SLRs:
Mirror shock, which affects all tripod photography and can even affect handheld shooting (have to delay exposures 1s)
And focus inaccuracy, which is literally unavoidable and inherent to the design. Part one is focusing off a surface other than the sensor plane, so focus will always be slightly off from the mirror resting microns off each time and the viewfinder not being exactly as far away from the lens as the sensor ever, and focus shift, which happens when lenses are focused wide open and then stopped down.

Even a 1st gen Z6 or Z5 will blow a D610 away. Even sony cameras can be better.

>unreliability
Yes, old DSLRs are unreliable.

>>4448699
>>4448702
>D610
>Shitty plastic mount made in thailand consumer grade slop
Nikon people are just like toyota people. All they have to do is put le brand name on the box and retarded brexit geezers will be like "dey dont make em like dis anymore proppa reliable yeh"

>>4448701
>As little money as possible
Good cameras are expensive.

DSLRs are easily surpassed by smartphones when shooting with 24mm and good light. They're pretty bad. Even micro four thirds achieves higher quality than DSLRs in many situations simply because it has more modern sensors, more accurate autofocus, no mirror shock, and effective stabilization with every lens.

The Nikon D610 is Nikon's least expensive full-frame DSLR, and it's fantastic. The only reason to pay more for the D750 is because the D610's autofocus system doesn't work very well in light so dim that it's hard to read printed text, but so long as you're not trying to take pictures in pitch black darkness, the D610 is all anyone would ever need; it's a top-shelf camera at a bottom-barrel giveaway price.
>>4448702
Nice theorycrafting for your learned helplessness.
>>4448703
He said "as little money as possible".
>>4448704
>DSLRs are easily surpassed by smartphones when shooting with 24mm and good light.
kek, lost all credibility.

>>4448704
>DSLRs are easily surpassed by smartphones when shooting with 24mm and good light.
This. I tried doing some semi-macro test shots with my Xiami and in good lighting in blows my D800 out of the water.
>Picrel

>>4448707
Troll confirmed

Ignore this fag dude, buy a Z5/Z6II and a 40mm f2 and eventually a viltrox 85mm f1.8.

Buy once, cry once.

>>4448708
>Xiami
Meant Xiaomi sorry. 15 Ultra that is.

>>4448709
You'll be crying from the buyer's remorse with your mirrorless yes lol

>>4448707
>He said "as little money as possible".
Yep and replacing a broken nikon every two weeks will get expensive pretty quick.

>>4448708
Yeah its amazing how much cameras improve just by 1: focusing off the sensor instead of a complex arrangement of phase separating mirrors and fresnels 2: putting the lenses closer to the sensor instead of 2 inches away to make room for a mirror 3: adding an effective stabilization system 4: focusing closer to the shooting aperture.

All things 4x5 shooters have always strived for (to the point of using plain clear glass to focus for macro) btw. Tech actually went backwards from the ansel adams days!

>>4448711
>buyer's remorse
The hallmark phrase of the assmad and the intellectually raped.

>>4448712
>implying D610s break often

>>4448708
That is incredibly sharp and noiseless for a phone camera.

>>4448711
Who has buyers remorse? You dont even post photos. I took this sick flower photo on my nikon mirrorless with its kit zoom today. It took me 2 seconds.

I am now imagining you spending ages trying to focus on a leaf and being proud when you finally nail it.

>>4448718
I only have flower photos because most of the photos I take are of my gf and cat :(

>>4448720
>my gf and cat
WTF
Zoophilia really runs rampant on /p/, poor thing

>>4448722
No, my gf is a horse you idiot the cat is just a pet

>>4448715
The first 10 listings for nikon DSLRs are always parts only

Even cameras that were good copies when they came out are starting to fail from age

>>4448704
>Good cameras are expensive.
all cameras from the last 15 years are good enough, you're a larping faggot

>>4448491
The rolling shutter was so horrendous it showed up in stills and every lens vignetted like crazy. It's fine if you just shoot stills and want a cheap full frame. I just liked the nikon z7ii I eventually got more and it wasn't that much larger at the end of the day.

>>4448484
Yeah I was stupid. I thought the smaller lense mount would mean smaller lenses LMAO

>>4448727
>an fp shutter camera with a 1/160 sync speed
vintage 35mm slr tier

>>4448726
oh look, a purist anti-gearfag who says everything is good enough and dismisses all the inconvenience, unreliability, and caveats with "skill issue" and "you can still take some great photos" (SOME great photos... if you set up the shoot)

you're a fucking loser, mate. new stuff is much better. get a job if you have a problem with it. using a DSLR is more miserable than using a manual focus hasselblad 500.

>>4448531
lol I always forget your a moron until you start coping about DSLRs

>>4448561
lmao did they even test the ergos before releasing it. Dear god thats awful

>>4448730
Kek this. At least a hassy pays off so the work is worth it. With a DSLR its as big as a hassy, 10x uglier, and you're getting m43 quality sometimes (like with old canons) after all that "if you do this but you cant do this and you have to do this and learn to pay attention to this" bs

do we need to bring up the gear devolution of huskyfag? now that i know how to find his mirrorless photos by filename on palanqwin he's a good example of what happens when going from Z72_/Z62_ to D750 (mushy, low quality files with slightly off focus, flat shadows, and vibrational blur)

>>4448718
hell yeah. The z6iis sensor is so nice

>>4448730
After browsing this board for 10 years I have never seen a single post where someone went "Here is a bunch of pictures I took with my new camera that wouldn't have been possible with my older one" or "Here is a bunch of pictures I took with my current camera and clearly buy a new one would have made them noticeably better"

>>4448730
Face it, if you need the latest greatest cutting edge technology just to be able to take snapshits, the problem is (You). We got on perfectly fine for decades until useful idiots like you came along and decided to shill for multinational corporations on an unpaid basis just to mitigate your buyer's remorse after realizing you bought a camera with way more "features" than you'll ever realistically need or use.

>>4448733
God bless that snapshitting retard and his consistent filenames
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/filename/Z62%2A/
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4436107/#4436346

Huge IQ cratering. I wonder if he ran out of money lol

>>4448735
That happens all the time, but people don't go out of their way to show it because they're not insecure fags who need to justify spending money like a teenager asking their mom for a new toy
>Mom can I have a new camera?
>Not until you practice more timmy

>>4448737
I need a $10,000 camera, $20,000 lens, and $30,000 of lighting to take snapshits at the mall sorry that you're poor

>>4448739
Wasting money reeks of insecurity

>>4448735
I could do that but nobody would care

>>4448741
Wasting money? Only if you're poor. If you make a normal salary of $10 to $20 billion per year this is pennies anon.

>>4448737
Face it, you're a poverty cult loser who retches when an actual fucking man spends money because you don't have a job. Better tech is better. No one cares if everyone in the 40s drove a model T. Model Ts are garbage today. There's more to life than point A to point B. You're an intellectually dishonest, inconsistent moron who's amish about cameras but lives comfortably in his mothers basement with a gaming computer and high speed internet because you're just fucking broke.

You would definitely use a nice mirrorless if you weren't broke but you shill DSLRs to cope with your poverty. When BETTER MEN THAN YOU use their excess money from actually having a job to achieve better image quality and greater convenience, you twist words around to claim that somehow you are better for being a poor, ugly virgin failure with no job because you put in a little extra work to take a picture that will be looked at twice and forgotten because it's blurry mush and worth nothing.

>>4448730
>using a DSLR is more miserable than using a manual focus hasselblad 500.
>t. never touched a hasselblad 500
6x6 is an incomparably greater pain in the ass to use than a DSLR. Nerd-necking down into the WLF magnifier to focus properly, transferring exposure settings from your meter every time, not being able to take pictures from directly above something without literal gymnastic manoeuvering, and the most egregious of all, the inverted viewport, all make using 6x6 only for those truly passionate about the format.

>>4448745
>, transferring exposure settings from your meter every time
look at this retard lmao, just use your eyes

>>4448741
>Noooo you're wasting money
Jobless loser or fast food cuck? The disposable income I get in one week would buy me a new Z5II. You wanna talk about wasting money? One of my coworkers owns a 907x+CFV-100C and doesn't even use it. Now that's wasting money.

If the price of a nice camera is a huge financial decision for you, grow the fuck up. If you're older than 20 and making less than $60k/yr you fucking failed at life. Maybe since you live in mommy's basement it's time for you to go part time and go back to college so you can get a REAL job. I know college is scawwy and jobs are scawwier because you can't spout alt right shit on social media, have to listen to liberals speak without screaming "cuck nigger" at them, and have to get off your phone and study or put your brain to work instead of to 4chan, but that's the adult world kid.

Or just sit there being a fucking loser thinking a $1000 camera is a massive opportunity cost and the red line that divides the future rich from the forever poor because you have no idea what it's like to make money. You scrounge up scraps and gamble on crypto, don't you, loserkid?

>>4448745
>Nerd necking
Eyeball it and zone focus or use the prism finder
>Transferring exposure settings
Sunny 16
>Can't take pictures directly above something
You hold the camera straight up and down with the WLVF pointing towards your face
>inverted viewport
Low IQ issue.

The point is, the work and skill actually pays off. With a DSLR you get shit m43 tier photos as your reward for carrying a 4lb ewaste blob and dancing around the flaws of ancient technology. Film pays out, digishit is just soulless.

>>4448747
The length and language in your reply matches your insecurity, no wonder 5 simple words triggered you this much.

>>4448739
>I wonder if he ran out of money lol
His dog went from very healthy looking to looking 10 years older and having a poorly hidden bald patch in every photo so yes, he ran out of money
>how it started: the z7ii is ace im gonna get a gfx
>how its going: the d750 is all u need!
DSLRs are always a poverty cope. No one actually thinks they're good enough or better than mirrorless. They're so shit they propped up the compact market because no one wanted to put up with a DSLR's bulk and gotchas.

>>4448741
What and how much is waste is relative

>>4448747
>The disposable income I get in one week would buy me a new Z5II
The disposable income I get in an HOUR would buy me 10. I still wouldn't waste my money on niggon or cuckon.

>>4448737
>>4448744
>Face it, you're a poverty cult loser who retches when an actual fucking man spends money
Really funny that you say this. I'm not the anon shilling DSLRs here and as a matter of fact I also use an expensive mirrorless camera.
In my case I absolutely needed a better manual focusing experience than a late-era DSLR could offer, so the price I paid for the body was justified for my use... unlike (You) buying some overpowered 40FPS burst rate camera just to shoot building corners.

>>4448718
lmao, doesn't look like a picture worth 2 grand to me. You could have taken that on a 2007 Canon and no one could tell the difference.

>>4448750
Typical shut in mommy's basement gamer. You can play armchair psychologist when someone bites back but you can't get a job.

4chan is infested with neo nazi shut in basement losers like you. Do you think you're the only one here and it's all about you? Mommy's basement alt right gamers are usually narcisisstic and entitled so I bet you do. It's not about you, it's about the culture that spills from /pol/ and /r9k/, which is based entirely on mommy's basement alt right gamers being broke, entitled, and egotistical.

You aren't saving the white race kid, you're saving $5 a week to buy another lenovo thinkpad.

>>4448749
>eyeballing when a single shot costs $2 and you only have 12 of them
>sunny 16: see above
>doing gymnastics just to shoot something on the ground
>implying viewport inversion is an IQ issue when it's just a fucking annoyance
Okay, post some pictures.

>>4448755
>your resized 3000px 80% quality jpeg isn't as good

If I was shooting on a 2007 canon it would look even worse and I'd have to lay down in the mud like a cuck to get that low, and spend a minute taking the photo several times to cope with the shitty focusing. I was walking with my gf and the cat on a leash so why would I want to waste my time licking a DSLRs asshole, when I actually went to college, unlike you risk and debt averse entitled alt right losers, and actually make money?

>>4448757
kek this

>every 4chan hobby board

>hey guys should i buy this relatively affordable piece of modern technology that is a noticeable improvement in convenience and quality

>ihatethejews9001: SKILL ISSUE! hard times create strong men. you soiboy redditor. i lay in the dirt to focus my speed graphic. fucking crutch dependent fag.
>destroy_the_soi96: reddit consoomer bugman. consoom product. CONSOOM.
>xXwmnrwhoresXx: stop wasting money cuck. buy this piece of shit that's 10 years older and invest in bitcoin.
>PATTERNNOTICER: you dont need more. you dont need that. if you're not a professional you shouldn't be spending money. do you know who owns the camera industry?

>Okay, you're a bunch of nazi children. Go to college and get jobs.

>chuds: SOUNDS INSECURE TO ME.

Buying a mirrorless is like buying a mac

Yes, it is technically better.
Yes, it does make your life easier.
Yes, it is more enjoyable to use.
Yes, it does do the job better and faster.
Yes, it does do more.

But how will you ever tell mac users they wasted their money and you have sick computer skills because you have the perfect arch linux install and a minmaxed windows gaming PC if you are a mac user yourself? You'd have to figure out some other way to feel accomplished, like having actual accomplishments (ie: girlfriend, job).

>>4448758
>too retard for sunny 16
this board is hopeless

>>4448759
Actually downscaling hides defects, lol.
It'd also look just as good shot on a D5100 and you wouldn't have to lay down on the ground either. There's nothing particularly impressive about that picture.
>>4448713
>putting the lenses closer to the sensor instead of 2 inches away
That's how the horrid vignetting starts, coupled to a baby mount and thick sensor stack it's lethal. There's a reason why lenses meant for the big screen have a longer flange than every 35mm photo camera out there.

>>4448764
It's a photo of a neat flower i took in 2 seconds while the gf was letting the cat sniff

What did you expect, an expertly lit portrait? It's a throwaway. I'm not going to post photos of anything I have on facebook here because unlike you mommy's basement neo nazis, I have a job and went to college lol. You guys can sabotage your life and be blacklisted by HR all you want.

>>4448763
Yeah, let me just use a last-resort rule of thumb when I'm constantly moving between highly varied lighting conditions.

>>4448765
stop replying to trip fags

>>4448767
But he's a nazi and I like insulting nazis

Gotta admit, that's some stellar bait. Used every controversial dishonest tactic that comes to mind
>politics
>GET A JOB
>Mac
>muh salary
>le girlfriend
Sprinkle in some veganism and I might actually fall for it.

>>4448768
lol it's a waste of time. He thinks the government secretly have technology that's like 500 years more advanced. He doesn't live in reality

>>4448765
>What did you expect, an expertly lit portrait? It's a throwaway. I'm not going to post photos of anything I have on facebook here because unlike you mommy's basement neo nazis, I have a job and went to college lol. You guys can sabotage your life and be blacklisted by HR all you want.
If you're using a picture to show off how amazing your camera is, it better be something you couldn't take with the cameras you've been putting down the entire thread.
>>4448767
Samefag
>>4448768
Good goy

>>4448769
Veganism is the DSLR user diet
>actively cripples you and makes everything about your life worse
>but muh principles
>its the last stand of dietary integrity
>meat is too expensive ur wasting money

>everyone that doesn't like me is samefagging

>>4448772
Being vegan is actually much more expensive than eating meat, getting enough protein and calories is hell and you have to constantly be on meds even to survive.
So it's more of a mac user than anything.

>>4448772
Camera conspiracies is a vegan and mirrorlessfag, lol. He's pretty much the poster child of mirrorlessfaggoty

Now it's become clear:
iToddlers=mirrorlesstoddlers

>>4448771
You don't understand the point. You're still looking at it like a mommys basement neo nazi who's always on his own with nowhere to be.

I took that photo in two seconds. I held the Z7II next to the flower with the screen tilted and pressed the button. One shot. Done. I used the 24-120 kit lens which is sharper wide open than every DSLR prime is at f8. My gf likes to look at flower pictures but she doesn't like waiting for photo autism.

To do the same with a DSLR, I would have to
>use a big professional prime lens because the 24-120 and 24-70 f4 kit zooms are sharper than every DSLR prime
>lay in the mud or set up a low tripod
>turn on mirror lockup
>manually focus in live view or take safety shots
>retake the photo 5 times to get rid of the digital noise from shitty old sensors
Why bother with all of that bullshit? If I had to use a cheap camera I'd get a micro four thirds like an E-M1 III and the olympus 12-100. Convenience over pixel peeping.

Sonybros, not like this.....

>>4448777
>see, i combined the name of the better technology you use with toddler
>thats proof i am skilled and cool and manly because i waste my time on coping with worse technology (it's not like i have anywhere to be or anything to do)
Maybe one day you'll get a job and real accomplishments

All the meaningless shit flinging aside, getting a full frame first for general photography and then a separate micro four thirds for bird autism\long distance photos is a good plan, right?

>>4448778
>he unironically needs to do all that to take a decent image with a DSLR
lol

>>4448760
>noticeable
zero proof of that being the case

>>4448778
kek, you could have taken that with a D5200 and kit 18-55mm

>>4448781
Yes

Quality with bird photos doesn't matter. No one will go out of their way to look at your bird photos. They can just google the species name and see something someone else already shot with a Z9 and nikon's most expensive telescope. Probably something way better because national geographic paid them to sit in a hide for 3 days to study natural bird behaviors.

General photography is as diverse as the human experience. Just look at vivian maier. She took general snapshots and now she's in galleries just because those snapshots were half decent and mostly medium format film instead of grainy half frame.

>>4448781
It's not terrible but I'd go the Canon EF route so you can use the same lenses natively on both. 90D's pixel size is on par with most MFT offerings save for the 20.1MP flagships.

>>4448784
I used to use a D7200 and kit 16-80. DSLRs are not even close.
>DSLR lenses are only sharp at f8
>DSLRs have bad shadow detail/color
>DSLRs have slow and inaccurate autofocus
>DSLRs have bad sensors with uglier grain and mushy detail
yes, there are better photos, but I'm not posting my cat or girlfriend here with you nazi fucktards. If i have it on facebook on my instagram with my real name on it (i know, incomprehensible to you GED holders) it's not going on /p/. Sorry! I didn't buy a camera to take building corners for 4chan!

>>4448785
It's not that it doesn't matter, it's that it's genuinely better with MFT than with full frame for the same focal lengths. It's got more reach (smaller pixels).

>>4448781
Just buy something with more than 24MP and crop, like other anon said nobody gives a shit about your bird pics

>>4448788
No. Full frame is objectively better image quality. There's no way you can cope around this. Olympus went out of business, nikon sells enough telescopes to professionals to buy olympus twice (but they won't because its garbage). That's because the bigger cameras are better my nazi friend. Just like race and IQ is a myth, and immigrants improve the economy.

>>4448787
>If i have it on facebook on my instagram with my real name on it (i know, incomprehensible to you GED holders) it's not going on /p/.
lol, you literally stole that argument from me so don't try to play the unfanthomable angle.
From what you say it sounds like you had a defective copy of the lens.
>>4448791
jej, some will take this post at face value

>>4448785
>>4448786
>>4448789
Hell yeah.

>>4448787
Actually I just realized one thing, you said kit 16-80. The only ones with a kit 16-80 are fujislugs, the D7200 kit lens is the 18-140 VR.

>>4448792
>i-it was defective
SLR lenses are worse because the mirror is in the way, even if you autistically manually focus to make up for how SLRs have inaccurate autofocus. It can't hold up to the lesser Z kit zoom. It's sad when I have to post a test chart.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1038&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1214&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I used a real life d7200 and real life 16-80. The photos were blurry unless it was stopped down. the stabilization was worse so it needed higher shutter speeds. it needed higher ISOs. i would rather use an e-m1 iii and 12-100 f4 than that POS. maybe you should. but i went to college and got a job so i have a nikon z and 24-120 instead. yowza!

>>4448796
Sorry I dont know the finer points of nikon camera marketing. I bought my d7200 with the 16-80 as kit off ebay. But hey leave it to a nazi to know things with no real world application.

>>4448798
>I bought my d7200 with the 16-80 as kit off ebay.
You bought it used and had issues with a lens renowned for its sharpness. Sounds like out of collimation to me. Happens to the best gear, even Leica levels.

>>4448800
>Renowned for its sharpness
Only boomer retards that shoot everything at f11 and turn up the sharpness in photoshop ever thought that piece of shit was good. As soon as phones got good, DSLR junk was irrelevant.

>>4448801
Phones haven't gotten good yet. They only fool the untrained eye with their baked edits.

>>4448802
Here's your photography

>>4448801
I shoot everything at f22
yeah baby

>>4448804
the fuck is that

>>4448804
My snapshit of my work, shot on a phone.

>>4448810
Machined billet aluminum. With a machine tool, you can make anything you want.

>>4448813
except a gf
but then again you have your dog for that

>>4448816
Funny that you posted the gear pic but not the gf pic from around the same date (no, I won't upload more nor reupload the original, find it if you want)

>>4448820
That was a tranny tho

>>4448822
cope

>look for comparison of Z6III vs A7IV
>Jewred Polin and Toneh Northrup both prefer Sony
>Random Jeet reviewer thinks the Nikon is way better
Wtf is this upside down land?
I you guys said jeets love Sony.

>>4448827
Literally every anti-sony shill here is an Indian, that's why they always call people who like sony indians, deflection

>>4448828
>deflection
more like projection
https://www.business-standard.com/companies/news/canon-eyes-chip-fabrication-in-india-in-talks-for-lithography-machine-124122200181_1.html

>>4448827
>polin
>northrup
>prefer sony
yeah, that tracks

>>4448513
>>4448521
>>4448525
>>4448545
so i went out with the 5div what to you think?

>>4448561
>>4448565
Snoy cameras confirmed for small women and trannys.

>>4448839
Blurry with flat shadow tonality. Just as predicted by the dog hair scrolls.

>>4448849
educate me, can i fix that in LR? what dog hair scrolls?

checkem
snoy can lick my ballsack

>>4448852
No, you cant, the super shit sensor doesn't record light from dark areas as well. That's why all old pro photography you see has so much fill flash.

Modern dual gain sensors have better shadow tonality.

>>4448394 (OP)
>Makes the overpriced fuji shitbox look like good value
I'm speechless. What was Sony thinking?

>>4448883
They released a slightly upgraded version of their previous camera for the same price. (inflation + tariffs). The problem is that type of camera is not really relevant anymore and especiallly not for that price.

>>4448884
>for the same price
Holy cope!

>>4448877
based

>>4448944
it objectively is the same price. I don't even own any sonys so there's no coping on my end

>>4448947
It's not.
>but inflation!
Wages have not changed. The currency has not changed in value. Corporations simply increased their level of greed. There is no "inflation". That is a nonsense abstraction made up by corporate lackies and the central bankers that ultimately own every large corporation. The so called inflation rate is the rate at which the rich have planned to raise prices in order to more quickly or slowly rob the working class.

To call it "inflation" would be to imply it is an inevitable, natural consequence. It is not. It is simply corporate greed. Sony DECIDED to increase the price of this TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN LAST TIME.

>inb4 uhm corporations have to raise their wages, and if they don't you have to go work for someone else! the free market works!
The free market does not work. It ends up being a fairly cohesive group loosely conspiring against everyone else to maximize capital extraction. Every time.

>>4448949
>To call it "inflation" would be to imply it is an inevitable, natural consequence. It is not. It is simply corporate greed. Sony DECIDED to increase the price of this TO MAKE MORE MONEY THAN LAST TIME.
Inflation is an inevitable consequence of increasing money supply. It's a covert tax.

>>4448952
You know, sony could simply decide to make less money. Every corporation could.

The pressure would then be on governance to better control the money supply, rather than an ineffective pressure on the lower classes to make more money (which the upper classes inevitably work tirelessly to prevent). And there are, in fact, actual multinational corporate conspiracies and corporations deeply embedded in governments. Entire industries, actually.

Watch your histogram better next time.

>>4448949
Inflation is literally just the measure of actual prices going up. If the price of a Sony camera rises, that is an example of inflation.

>>4448949
>The currency has not changed in value
lol you have no clue what you're talking about. Inflation means the currency has less value. Come back in 10000 years when you understand the most basic of economic theories

Was there emerging technology in film that got it's development cut because digital took over?

mark galer doesnt have the balls to call this camera what it is

>>4448967
>implying anyone on /p/ can read a histogram
epic fail

>>4448977
Ironically, Kodak developed the early digital camera. Patented it, then hushed it so as not to kill film.

>>4448955
Schizodonaire

>>4448992
I want to know about film specifically though. Like were they working on iso 6400 and they cancelled that

>>4448987
I can, but sometimes I forget. It's essential for studio work because the lcd screen is a lying bastard and you may as well saturate your sensor to get the best colors if you have all the light in the world.

>>4448994
You could probably shoot XX at 6400 with the right developer. That film is insane.

>>4448394 (OP)
roast me /p/ I wanted to get a camera for some time lapse photography for a senior thesis and I lurked here before I sprung out to get my camera without even asking anyone and now I think I made a mistake

here's what I picked up

Nikon D3300 (just the body, refurb, came with battery, charger, strap)
Bought a normal f-mount lens 18-55mm from the camera store
bought cheap tripod, bag
picked the D3300 because I realized I needed an intervalometer and it has a port. Got a chinese one
got the sd card, adapter
picked up the dummy battery ac adapter
realized with my shit eyesight I probably needed a corrective diopter so I ordered one, didn't stop me from setting up.

I put up the camera pointing at a well lit table where the petri dishes w/ mold cultures are gonna be and through a book and youtube tutorials worked out how to manually adjust the camera's aperture and exposure and stuff and worked out the timer mode and intervalometer settings, feeling good about this. but eventually I talk to the guy at the camera store while picking up an ordered part and I'm findout out that long timelapses with lots of clicks can apparently really wear out the hardware? by this point I had invested quite a bit because I had the idea this was going to be my forever camera or something for the next ten years

I mean it's just mold I could probably set it to a photo every 30 minutes or so. but I might be doing these timelapses a lot even following my thesis

am I fucked. did I spend a bunch of money on an obsolete camera that I might wind up breaking

>>4449224
>lots of clicks can apparently really wear out the hardware
Most consumer level DSLRs like the D3300 have a shutter that is rated for around 100,000 actuations, but they tend to last long when not firing on continuous due to the head that is generated from constant shooting. One shot every 30 minutes is still only 17,520 per year. It could likely last for years and have no issues. Other than the shutter, nothing on the camera will wear out from normal use. Just make sure the mould doesn't get on the lens as that will fuck it up :)

>>4449226
thanks anon the mould is actually dangerous so the sample is going to be entirely isolated in a special sealed glass box that has some tools for regulating internal temperature and humidity. The camera, and myself, are going to be safely outside it in the lab

>>4449224
just sell it when you're done. the people buying ewaste DSLRs are clueless and wont ask. just put up an ad that sounds like its a closet find.

>>4449224
You will be fine anon, timelapses is one of the things I do with my DSLRs in pretty tough weather and they're holding up just fine for years now.

>>4448977
>Was there emerging technology in film that got it's development cut because digital took over
what is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Photo_System

>>4449338
>i do things with my DSLRs
no one has ever seen proof of this. its basically bigfoot.

got a brand new a7iii with a tamron 28-75 g2 as a first "serious" photo setup, did I do well?
got it all for around 1500€ so I'm pretty sure I didn't overpay much

>>4449386
It's fine. Good photographers will take good pictures. Bad photographers will take bad ones. Everyone here will seethe. Just take pictures

>>4449224
It's fine anon. Cameras are not ewaste. Cameras and audio equipment are the only things that aren't made to break in 2 years.

>>4449386
Enjoy your green shrek photos!

>>4449386
It's okay, but not really good enough for art. For art you need at least a mamiya 645df and a phase one p40+ back

>>4449415
*a d40 the kit lens and a joint or two

>>4449416
name 15 decent artists who used an aps-c dslr

>>4449413
>implying he will take photos

Anyone here use like a python script or something like that to edit?

I feel like I could dial in my personal style as a preset more perfectly if I had like if-statements at my disposal

>>4449431
transcendent levels of autism

>>4449431
You can always fork a tool like darktable and make it your own.

>>4448394 (OP)
i swear to God, my Canon EF lenses adapted to Fuji GFX are sharper than native GFX lenses. At least the red line Canons and the Sigma Art ones. Am I imagining this?

I'm going on a day-trip to Boston from NYC

What should I take? At my disposal

Pentax KF (24mp CMOS) and

18-135mm DA Lens
28-90mm Quantaray Macro 80s Lens
70-210mm Pentax-F Lens
35mm f2.4 and 50mm f1.7 Primes
80-320mm Pentax-FA

KM 5D (6mp CCD) or Sony A390 (14mp CCD) or Sony A100 (10mp CCD) and

28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.7 Primes
35-105mm f3.5-4.5 AF
35-70mm f4 AF
100-300mm APO
100-200mm f4.5
100mm Macro Prime

I was thinking the 28-90mm and 70-210mm Pentax combo

>>4449459
Fuji medium format is just notoriously shit

They did the bare minimum in user experience gimmicks to give people a reason to buy it over hasselblad and then cheaped out on everything else. Color rendition is extremely poor, the sensors are somehow less efficient than the same ones used on hasselblad (hasselblad uses more expensive microlenses or something), the lenses are soft (despite fuji also making hasselblad's lenses), and they throw in some piss poor noisy and slow autofocus motors given the sony GM pricetags on their glass.

it's almost like they do not want a bigger sensor to equal a better camera and went out of their way to make sure the big sensor camera would remain in its studio/landscape niche
much like how panasonic, when given the opportunity to release an a7c killer, crippled it so hard it has a 1/30 flash sync

>>4449479
the focal lengths you use most of the time. and keep your travel gear light if you need to.

>Bought a Camera
>Pretty excited because it finally came today
>going through the shit and putting it together and learning the settings
>Realizing it came with a CD for the software or hook it up to computers but my computer was a custom build that has no disk drive
What kind of laptop is good for photography purposes?

>>4449587
Yeah I kinda realized when I put the 35mm, 28-90mm, 70-210mm, and strobe in a fanny pack that it felt ridiculously heavy. Realized to keep it simple and just used a long strap on my KF with a 28-90mm lens.

It's mostly street photography anyways and corners of buildings, I went to Philly instead since I couldn't get my gf out of bed early enough

A friend gave me a Rebel T6i with the kit lense. I want to shoot wild life or distant objects. Could I chink out and buy a $100 telephoto lense and it be okayish? I'm not spending more than $200 on anything related to this because I am a cheap jew and I was using a shitty phone camera before so anything is an improvement. I hear this lense format goes back to like 1997 so I suppose I could have a lot of options on the used market but I don't really know what I need for zoom, just that the kit lense is not enough.

>>4449224
>eventually I talk to the guy at the camera store
My dude just because he works at a shop doesn't mean he knows shit about shit. Do you think somebody working in an appliance shop knows anything about microwaves? He is just making shit up for the sake of opening his mouth because people listen to him. Just keep doing what you're doing and don't worry about it because if you keep asking for advice here you'll summon that mentally ill snoyshill telling you that you absolutely need the latest 1000cc turbo gAy7 mk.20 because mirrors don't real or some shit

>>4449611
look for and download the software version instead on the web. or go to a place with a cd drive and save it in a usb flash drive. or buy a cheap, external portable optical drive, the ones for laptops.

>>4449652
Thats actually a good idea thank you

What are some good K lenses?

>>4448394 (OP)
Leica Q series chads we're simply unable to lose.

Is it worth it to buy used lenses or should I just get new ones?

>>4448445
>comparing 24mm to 35mm
>45% crop for 35mm
what the fuck did the rice farmer mean by this?

>>4449715
24mm on APS-C is 36mm equiv, you fucking dumbass.