Thread 4449752

Compact edition.
Is there a smaller way to get a 50mm equiv with a decently wide aperture?

just use m43
m43 is the best

>>4449752 (OP)
>smaller
a7c would probably be about the same size but that way your photos wont look like phone pics the way x trans tend to.

>>4449752 (OP)
Why would you want to go smaller? You can't lift your current 400 grams of gear?
Honestly, too small cameras are a pain in the ass to hold.

>>4449756
I travel a lot and I got really ticked off with my X-T4 being all big and heavy walking around Barcelona for 3 days so got an X-E4 instead.

>>4449754
With the cheap 50mm 1.8? IT's about an extra 150 grams which is fine. Is there a better 50mm?

>>4449753
I took a PEN F to Hong Kong but hated the high ISO noise. Was not acceptable for me.

>>4449757
You already got the sweet spot for size. Just get a grip, that camera feels like a slippery brick.

If you want the absolutely thinnest, get those pancake lens cap sized shitty primes, image related.

>>4449754
Pretty damn impressive I gotta say.

>>4449759
desu with the weight of the grip I may as well get a X-T3.

>>4449757
An X-T4 is small and light not big and heavy

>>4449758
the noise adds grit and character
much better than plasticky full frame
looks like film, looks REAL and AUTHENTIC

>>4449752 (OP)
X-M5 + 7Artisans 35 f1.2 II

>>4449763
Yea but three days of carrying it doing 20,000 steps a day it got pretty cumbersome.
I've actually considered not even having a camera and just using a high end smartphone like the X200 Ultra.

>>4449762
It's literally like 50g. Go to a gym bro.

>>4449766
If a T4 is cumbersome for you for that, yes you should should use a phone instead
Maybe practice walking more too

>>4449752 (OP)

Two potential options are the Ricoh GR 3x with its 40mm equiv fixed lens or a Nikon Z body with the 40mm equiv pancake lens.

Personally I prefer 40mm because it can fit just a bit more into the frame.

>>4449767
It's the side grip for the hand, not for the battery

>>4449769
I had a GRiiiX but I missed the EVF and felt it was pricey for what it is.
I'll look into Zs.

Buy a used Leica Q (first gen) or wait for Ricoh GRIV?

>>4449776
>nikon: half a lens, marketing lie. doubles in length when fully assembled.
>canon: almost 10mm of focus breathing, 3 stop vignetting, loud focus motor.
>panasonic: fixed f8 aperture, manual focus only
>sony: a real lens, but you could have chosen the zeiss 35mm f2.8 or samyang 35mm f2.8 because they’re smaller and dont waste space on the unergonomic aperture ring meme
wow, so sony makes the only small lenses that are actually good. ok. great.

its not like any of these would fit in a pocket anyways

>>4449752 (OP)
50mm is either big or super shit and only attaches to unreliable blobs (canon rf 50mm) which defeats the point. Japan hates 50mm chads.

>>4449759
>f/6.7 equivalent
Kek, at that point just get a G1X III and enjoy zoom and better IQ you retards. Pancakes are the saddest cope imaginable.

>>4449779
Equivalence only includes aperture, not ISO. Tonality, detail, and color are independent of equivalence. The only part of ISO it touches in the SNR of a photo of a solid gray patch at 200% zoom without any processing. Color detail and tonality remain untouched.

>>4449782
Demonstrably wrong, but anyways the G1X III has an APS-C sensor and opens up to f/5.6 when fully zoomed in or f/2.8 at its widest.

>>4449784
You have no idea how badly your asshole is going to be gaped. Equivalence does
Not include ISO. only SNR of a gray card. everything looks better with bigger cameras and better sensors.

He wont admit it because xtrans is a visible equivalence buster that only performs as expected on SNR charts. Basically no chroma noise and no worm/zombie issues if you simply use capture one.

>>4449779
Bad pancakes are the saddest cope imaginable.

>>4449789
It's objectively worse than same size Bayer lol. The X-T5 has 40MP and squanders them all. AF pixels make it even worse.
X-Tranny is garbage tech unlike SuperCCD which actually brought improvements to the table.

>>4449790
We can go lower, what about bad bliny?
Damn I got hungry.

Went from the fuj to canon. Ergonomics are better, raws are a bit sharper than xtranny, autofocus is much more reliable.
Other than that, I miss the colors and the dials.

Thanks for your attention.

>>4449769
as a griiix user, the portability, snap focus and discreteness is what makes it so good. I carry it with a fanny pack and a power bank, charger dock, 3 batteries and cable and its still lighter and more portable than pretty much any camera. if you dont mind carrying a full frame camera, then go full frame.

>>4449778
>nikon: half a lens, marketing lie. doubles in length when fully assembled.
what did xir mean by this

>>4449782
>Color detail and tonality remain untouched
What do you think happens when you reduce the SNR?

>>4449794
It's unsurprising, Fuji is the worst brand in the market. Even OM System is an upgrade. Hell even Sony ewaste is.

>>4449791
>BUT IF I PIXEL PEEP XTRANS IS 15% WORSE ON SOME COLOR COMBOS!
ok resize the photo you only ever use 16mp anyways

>>4449797
you have no idea how badly your asshole is going to be gaped
the btfoer announced he bought another z7ii in the ‘cord
he’s going to redo the equivalence btfo test

>>4449794
>>4449800
pathetic samefag

>>4449802
Mental illness

>>4449801
Cope. High red was the only justification to go with a larger sensor, if you're resizing to 16MP then equivalence holds even truer.

>>4449805
xtrans is a visual equivalence buster
no chroma noise
superior luma resolution

you lose on the basis of facts and logic
we ARE going to get corgifag to participate

>>4449806
I don't care about whatever bullshit cuckord troons come up with.

>>4449808
crop coper assholes are going to get gaped. equivalence is a lie.

>>4449801
>how badly your asshole is going to be gaped
So it's going to be gaped badly, as in minimally?

>>4449810
>homosexual perspective moment

>>4449811
That's the definition of a "bad gape", isn't it?

>>4449757
>With the cheap 50mm 1.8? IT's about an extra 150 grams which is fine. Is there a better 50mm?
No clue I dont shoot sony because the colours are disgusting. Im sure any 50mm is fine

>>4449812
If you think there’s a good way to abuse the anus and rectum

>>4449752 (OP)
what you want is an 5d 2. you can spend all the money you save on figuring out how to now be a massive pussy and hold 400g+ object

>>4449815
You mean a hasselblad H4X and an IQ180, poorfag?

>>4449814
If you're speaking from the perspective of the recipient, all gapes are bad because they necessitate penetration.
The adjective "bad", then, becomes redundant.

>>4449817
You are low iq

>>4449818
You are illiterate.

>>4449752 (OP)
>Is there a smaller way to get a 50mm equiv with a decently wide aperture?
Yeah, but you'll have to learn how to use a camera.
>ticked off with my X-T4 being all big and heavy walking around Barcelona for 3 days
LOL

>>4449820
OP is either a woman or a basedtranny. Since no woman would populate this place he must be the latter.

>>4449822
I hate these stupid wordfilters. A soitranny is what OP is.

>>4449823
onions

>>4449816
why the fuck would i want that. if you use a camera more expensive than a 5d 2:
1) you are a gearfag. non-negotiable fact
2) your photos are shit
3) you are fat

>>4449825
5d2 is overrated, only the IQ holds up

>>4449825
Every dslr shill is a right wing loser who takes soulless photos of their dog

Real artists use medium format

Gearfag is a right wing word. Left wing aka successful people buy nice things because they’re better. Just like your right wing overlords do while you act like you’re amish for anything but doordash, ar15s and cars.

>>4449830
David Lynch, more of an artist than you'll ever be, didn't use MF. That's enough to disprove your retarded rules.

>>4449830
That last line is absolutely true. The right freaks out when people own nice things that dont guarantee profit or pussy. Just wait for them to bring up soi/numale stereotypes. Wealth threatens them.

>>4449832
>david lynch, an overrated hack
Used sony mirrorless

>>4449833
Trinkets aren't wealth. The idols of the right are filthy rich from Musk to Trump. Your entire reasoning is false.
Mind you, I'm no rightist. But you argue so dishonestly it disgusts me. I can see your nose from here.
>Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

>>4449835
And Epson rangefinders and Canon DSLRs. But never full format unlike his admirer Crewdson.

>>4449830
lol nice try but u have no clue
real tankies use 5d2 because anything else is mindless consumerism and decadence

>>4449835
david lynch never used snoy
nobody uses snoy
it shrekifys u

>>4449839
He did own some at the very least, IF YOU WILL BELIEVE IT.

>>4449836
He's right, however. Anyone screeching about "gearfags" and "you dont need more" faggotry on the internet always turns out to be some right wing loser.

>>4449841
only so he could take funny shrek photos as a joke

>>4449843
>tfw no shrek chrysta bell gf
Thanks for the laugh)))

>>4449838
If you're a thirdie, a teenager, or otherwise don't give a fuck and just want maximum results for minimum money, I agree a 5DII or III is the best deal you will find period. That's the wonder of it:
>with a $250 body and any selection of excellent quality EF lenses that cost $100 you too can take photos that'll rival the quality of true professionals and top-class hobbyists
But the second you have more money to spend, the allure is gone.

>>4449842
Whatever helps you cope with your buyer's remorse. Had you learned the basics your photography would be better but of all things you decided to waste your money on a camera body that was simultaneously more expensive and technically worse.

>>4449845
A 5DII is better quality than a Snoy a7rv
This is a fact
Canon cameras are greatest quality

>mfw GFX with the GF55mm1.7 lens is dream image quality
>too heavy to have on strap all day long when traveling
sad

>>4449850
looks like shit should have used canon

>>4449848
Hard agree, but that's a rather low bar.

>>4449846
>bla bla bla muh guts n grit n skill durrrrr actually better things aren't better cuz GUTS GRIT IN SKILL, SAWN.
Sportsbrained/blue collar prefrontal deficiency.

Photography doesn't actually work like that. Better cameras do in fact produce better photographs than you would take with a worse camera. DSLRs in particular are strictly inferior to mirrorless. Switching to mirrorless, with greater autofocus coverage, better autofocus period, and tilting screens enables taking photos that required carefully planned studio shoots on SLR shit. Mirrorless can also use sharper, smaller lenses while SLR lenses are either only fully sharp at f8 or the size of a small grenade launcher.

Of course SLR shills being what they are, they'd say the slight weight difference and laying in the mud to take a picture of their cat makes them manly (and yet, they do not have sex with women. some men!)

ive never seen someone actually just carrying a dslr. literally never. some ugly fatso will claim he did (to go to a museum or national monument) but it just doesnt happen.

the best camera is the one you have with you, and DSLRs are fucking garbage. fuji mirrorless is just better than canon blobs.

>>4449848
>

>>4449855
>fuji is only better when the camera is considered as an accessory to my outfit!

>>4449855
fuji is for gay metrosexual bottom twinks
Even a Canon 30D is better than a GFX

>>4449853
>Switching to mirrorless, with greater autofocus coverage, better autofocus period, and tilting screens enables taking photos that required carefully planned studio shoots on SLR shit.
kek, this belief is why your photography sucks ass.
PHOTOgraphy is the art of working the light. You'll remain an available light snapper, wondering if the secret to the look of the greats is that your camera body isn't as good as theirs yet. It's the redditor's approach. Now go take another picture of your funko pop collection, bugman.

>>4449858
>>4449859
Looks matter. You are what you signal.

Using a DSLR in public is as bad as playing your nintendo on the bus, child.

>>4449862
women love my BIG BLACK DSLR

>>4449861
>NOOO ACTION PHOTOGRAPHY ISNT ART ONLY STUDIO PHOTOGRAPHY MEANS ANYTHING
Studio shots are quickly forgotten clothing ads and tabloid covers
Action shots are in history books

>>4449862
Quentin uses a DSLR, lol

>>4449865
Quentin told me he upgraded to a fujifilm GFX100RF

>>4449864
>I have a 1D
Oh so you're saying you shoot a lot of herons catching fish huh

>>4449862
>DSLR
Thats guy's a PRO!!! Look at that camera!! Pro!!! Thats what they look like!! A pro!!!

>mirrorless
Um are you taking photos of me? Can you stop pointing that at me please? I don't consent, creep.

>>4449752 (OP)
What's a "wide" aperture? You mean "fast"?

>>4449865
Quentin told me he upgraded to a Canon mirorrless. I asked him why not another brand and he just said "Shrek" and hung up on me

What you faggots fail to understand is that everyone has different needs and priorities, so constantly shilling for a particular brand and none other is a complete waste of time. Consider the following hypothetical scenarios:
>I want a solid, classic setup to learn on. I prioritize build quality and performance at the lowest price possible. I want more creative control than a compact would offer.
Used 5DmkII or III with 50/1.8, later upgrades e.g Zeiss EF lenses possible and viable with a quick focusing screen swap. Teaches you to shoot the same way people back in the 2010s used to learn on cheap film SLRs, with QoL improvements
>I am new and want something with fast AF and burst for wildlife/sports, price may or may not be an object.
Any later A7 starting with something like a 70-200. If it's a high-res model you can just crop if you need >200mm, and is a decent enough foundation for other types of photography if you decide to branch out with more native glass.
>I need a solid general-purpose camera. I like to use adapted lenses; I enjoy manual focus but also might want a good kit zoom or some AF primes. My budget is average, so I don't need to limit myself to a used 5D.
Nikon Z5ii/Z6iii + your choice of lenses. The experience will ultimately be better than a DSLR due to lack of mirror-related focus shifts and the WYSIWYG nature of an EVF + manual focus aids. Very versatile due to sensor glass design causing fewer issues with adapted lenses than other brands (not just wide angle: telephoto lenses also display problems, e.g. Leica 90/2)
>X-T4 is too big for me
Get a GR and stop embarrassing yourself.

>>4449874
>I want a solid, classic setup to learn on. I prioritize build quality and performance at the lowest price possible. I want more creative control than a compact would offer.
Olympus OM-D E-M5 III. Canon DSLRs are ewaste with the same DR as micro four thirds, retard.
>I am new and want something with fast AF and burst for wildlife/sports, price may or may not be an object.
Olympus OM-D E-M1 III + Lumix 70-300 II.
>I need a solid general-purpose camera. I like to use adapted lenses; I enjoy manual focus but also might want a good kit zoom or some AF primes. My budget is average, so I don't need to limit myself to a used 5D.
Olympus again!
>X-T4 is too big for me
OM-5.

>>4449874
Canon has great autofocus, much better than Snoy
Canon has much better general purpose cameras, much better than Nikon
Canon is the best, anyone who waists they're money on other brands is retarded

>>4449875
>>4449876

>>4449875
confirmed as facts and logic

DSLRs are irrelevant junk.

>>4449879
DSLRs still outperform mirrorless and always will. Mirrorless is a scam sold by a certain tribe of people

>>4449876
Canon is just sony but uglier.

https://fstoppers.com/reviews/hey-canon-why-are-your-cameras-falling-apart-636447

>>4449880
M43 exists, so there's no reason to buy a DSLR. This is an objective fact.

>>4449882
Top left looks the best by far, stop coping

>>4449881
hello rajeesh

>>4449883
top left: reeves mwmwnjin
top right: reeves bltromarine?
bottom left: reeve's ultramarine
bottom right: reeves ultramarine and you can read some of the other text

DSLRs. 4x the size. 4x the weight. 2/3s the image quality. Flat out, worse technology.

>>4449869
All jokes aside I had a uncomfortable amount of people assuming I was a pro when I went to Disney and they saw my Pentax KF + 80-320mm + Strobe around my neck. They kept asking me to take pictures for them with their phones and assumed I was good at it because I had a whole $500 in camera equipment around my neck.

>>4449885
it's actually 1/4 the image quality in the real world. dpreview shoots these tests with studio flash and professional lenses. in the real world, DSLR image quality is horrid from the inaccurate autofocus, low quality of most lenses, and mirror vibrations.

>>4449885
Nobody needs to pixel peep with ultra high "quality" on plastic looking disgusting images that mirorrless makes. Canon DSLRs make that classic DSLR look that the ladies love

>>4449875
M43 has utility in wildlife scenarios and the glass is fairly sharp. However it is difficult to recommend for anything else. Good luck trying to separate a subject.
>>4449876
Canon in current year is off the table for general hobbyist use.
>their good glass is enormous and expensive
>few to no third-party options to mitigate the above
>dumb-adapting older lenses also off the table if you don't want smeared corners
It may be fair play for a certain category of pros but I wouldn't be recommending it to hobbyists on /p/. Canon R is the antithesis of fun.
>>4449879
That just shows how good the 5DmkII is given you're comparing it to a camera from 2019.

>>4449879
>>4449875
Really? My graph says otherwise

>>4449888
Ironically it's DSLRs that look like plastic frigital digital. Mirrorless invented the film sim.

9/10 people whose first camera is a DSLR quit photography within the first year
10/10 people whose first camera is a fuji x100 are still photographers 5 years later

>>4449891
you know this is true because every single x100 for sale has a shutter count under 2000

>>4449892
>nooo you have to shoot in burst mode and delete 100 photos for every one you keep! SHUTTER COUNTS HAVE TO BE HIGH!
Taking 36 good photos in a week is a feat only the best photographers can achieve. So an amazing photographer will get about one year out of their x100 beginner camera, before they graduate to an xpro.

A bad photographer who still knows that photography is the art of not taking a picture will take years to reach 2000 shutter flaps.

Sorry if it offends you when fuji people can produce better content with fewer button presses.

>>4449893
lol film SLR shutters were normally rated for 1000-5000 actuations and most of them still work. anyone who racks up more than a few hundred shutter flaps a year on their personal camera is a talentless chimping snapshitter.

work cameras are irrelevant because if you're a real pro you rent those. only idiots actually buy professional cameras like nikon z8s and phase ones. they aren't meant to be owned. they're meant to be rented so the client pays for it.

>>4449893
>Sorry if it offends you when fuji people can produce better content with fewer button presses.
I am a fuji shooter, I hold down continuous fire and rake the manual focus to land a shot on a still subject because I dont have to rely on crummy autofocus like nikon pedos

>>4449779
He clearly asked for something light and compact, feel free to offfer something better.
There isn't anything. He compakt, he delivers. Aperture is not an issue if you shoot between the hours 11:00-13:00

>>4449895
>film SLR shutters were normally rated for 1000-5000
zenits maybe. olympus nikon and canon aimed for 100k. dont know where you heard this but you're an idiot

>>4449896
just say your autofocus is as good as a 15 year old dslr

>>4449896
Sounds more like you're a sony shooter who got confused and bought the wrong brick

This is fuji's fault for offering them in all black

>>4449879
Are you really this dense or just pretending? Canon sensors being light years behind the competition isn't a secret, but IQ plateaued long ago. I feel like you're actively trying to be proven wrong by bringing up PDR.

>>4449901
No I am a performative indian basedboy. I am definitely a fuji shooter.

>>4449902
>IQ plateaud ;_;
It didn't. Removing the mirror allowed for a significant improvement in IQ. DSLRs held cameras back.

A nikon Z7II has significantly better image quality than a D850 in real life
>BUT ON A TRIPOD WITH FLASH AND MIRROR LOCK UP AND THIS SPESHUL LENS
The fucking kit zoom is sharper than every F mount prime.

>>4449904
Nice cope, consoomer manchild. Enjoy your shadows on the cave's wall.

>>4449904
maybe he meant the IQ plateau was digital taking ages to catch up to 6x9 film? the gfx100s finally did it :')

>>4449902
Dynamic range beyond like eleven and half EV or so is a meme. If you're not getting you're exposure all in with that you're just an idiot.

>>4449905
>right wing pseud babble
You forgot your greek statue and VHS effects

>>4449908
>plato
>the alt right figurehead

>>4449907
That's not actually how digital cameras work

DR is the clipping point to the noise floor. If your camera has 11.5 EV DR, the shadows are already mushy and flat.

On film this is a non issue because exposure can be increased to fill the shadows without destroying the highlights. There are only minor color shifts.
On digital, everything stays the same until pixels clip, which causes major color shifts and jaggy, weird artifacts. The shadows can not be filled with exposure (a "skill issue"). The sensor has to be replaced with one that uses better technology.

>>4449906
GFX is a meme and somehow produces worse results with the same sensor as a Hasselblad.It didn't bring anything new to the table other than a lower price to get to that sensor. That's its whole merit, being cheap.
>>4449908
>philosophy is right wing
lel
It's funny to me that you brainwashed fucks keep saying the third position is extreme right.

>>4449910
>w-w-well actshully
idiot

>>4449907
yeah you know so much you know better than all the successful photographers and real artists who use modern cameras

if annie leibovitz needs a gfx100s for a globohomo vogue cover shoot what makes you think anything less than a full frame nikon will look better than your iphone? it has already been proven sony cameras take iphone quality pics.

>>4449910
You know nothing about film and nothing about digital, yet you feel like lecturing us. Please go on.

>>4449911
>hasselblad MF offering better than fujis
as it always has been

>>4449913
>if annie leibovitz needs a gfx100s for a globohomo vogue cover shoot
She needs it but the reason isn't the images it can produce.

>>4449911
>GFX is a meme and somehow produces worse results with the same sensor as a Hasselblad
Because "the same sensor" (sony IMX model) discounts the different
>microlneses
>IR filter
>UV filter
>CFA
>OLPF
>cover glass
>ADC
>signal processing chips, shielding, grounding
In other words, you don't know what you're talking about. Sony sells monochrome photon counters. Camera companies specify everything else per product.

>philosophy is right wing
Dated philosophy is right wing. Most of it rested on old interpretations of specific religions being universally accepted as truth. Modern philosophy is nihilist, materialist, and individualist.

>>4449913
>if annie leibovitz needs a gfx100s
>annie leibovitz
>vitz
Why should I care what some retarded kike thinks? I know more than her by virtue of being white and male. To even consider the position of a sickening little gargoyle such as that would be poisonous.

>>4449914
Whatever you said is completely meaningless coming from you. Please, leave your trip on, it saves people the trouble of refuting what you say. So long as it's there we already know you're stupid.

>>4449917
>Sony sells monochrome photon counters
aka sensors lel
>Modern philosophy is nihilist, materialist, and individualist.
That's not philosophy, it's a mere simulacra of it.

>>4449913
The only reason she "needs" such a device is to signal her cultural capital to braindead execs willing to trade some of their material for her (((brand)))
>oy such a distinguished choice

>>4449922
It's a shilling campaign actually.

Try reading Rittenhouse's book instead of some photo book slop next time you feel aimless, consoomer sheeple.

>>4449922
It's because the GFX100S takes better looking photos instead of obliterating texture and detail with bayer aliasing. Sorry, it's not "consumerism". Your canon rebel takes worse looking photos than a GFX in the same hands.

Just because annie could outshoot you with your camera doesn't mean hers isn't better.

>>4449925
Gearfag confirmed for being a right wing word
>better tools are better?
>NOOO THIS IS A JEWISH MANIPULATION OF OUR SOCIETY TO MAKE OUR LIVES POINTLESS WITHOUT THE SYSTEM, MAN!
No better tools are just better lol get a fucking clue and stop being antisemitic

>>4449928
>someone brings up anti-consumerism
>stop being antisemitic
curious that you'd make that connection.

>>4449928
lol, you just showed your nose Chaim. I was merely critiquing consumerism and the fact it has become a religion. Hippies would probabñy agree and they were a bunch of leftist fucks.
>>4449927
Annie has access to any camera he wants, even ones that utterly mog the Fuji. It's a covert ad campaign, with the others she has to pay to have them. Here, she gets paid to use it. What better way to lend legitimacy to your product than to get a celebrity to use it and promote it?

>>4449929
that book IS explicitly antisemitic, however

>uhm, everyone has to be a christian and abhor buying nice things, everyone has to be an amish, then we can have a society!

>>4449930
Consumerism isn't a religion, it's a fact. Better tools are made. They cost money. That's it.

>It's a covert ad campaign
Or, the GFX100 series strikes a balance between good autofocus and good image quality. Imagine that.

We must remember, you hate fuji. You despise it. All of your views are centered around what you need to believe to believe that fuji is factually bad. This is ultimately because fuji people enjoy photography and you don't.

>>4449932
>Or, the GFX100 series strikes a balance between good autofocus and good image quality. Imagine that.
Except its AF sucks and she doesn't use AF anyways, that's what her assistant is for.
>All of your views are centered around what you need to believe to believe that fuji is factually bad.
Nah, Velvia 50 is the bees' knees.

>>4449932
>This is ultimately because fuji people enjoy photography and you don't.
this is the most delusional thing i've read on this website canon trolling or not, fuji people like looking like photographers, they enjoy the larp. maybe the MF users are less so but anyone buying an x100 is buying a look lmao. its fashion disguised as utility.

>>4449931
Jesus was a jew.

>>4449911
>>4449935
wait so this tripfag is unironically just a neo-nazi?

>>4449933
>Its AF sucks
You haven't used the AF on a hasselblad or P1 if you actually think this. GFX100S/II AF is actually insanely good for the format. It also allows working with real software instead of just phocus, without having to be a $50k phase one setup (which goes back to being a glorified manual focus only camera).
>Assistants are for autofocus
Holy nocamera. Assistants are for adjusting the lighting on her direction and managing the PC and initial batch edits while she shoots with wireless tethering.

>>4449935
Jesus was a judean*
The modern jews are the people who got kicked out of their home country which was then replaced with palestine because the romans didn't like that they weren't pagan.

Christianity is a schism in yawhism, similar to islam and mormonism.

>>4449936
Neo nazis are a spook.
>>4449937
You think they'd rely on AF? lol
>>4449938
He was a jew, in fact the biblical Israel is the church as a whole, the baptized as a whole. Later protestants took things like "Israel will prevail" to mean the state of Israel will prevail because they rely on sola scriptura bullshit and don't truly understand the Bible, falling for the many boomerisms you now see. The modern "jews" are the Pharisees from the Bible.

Also I didn't actually read the Rittenhouse book, just liked the cover :^)
I'm sure it'd help some of the soulless bugmen here a bit though, no matter how bad it may be.

>>4449836
I too enjoy Austrian painters

I don't care much about photography, but I love mechanical stuff. What's a completely mechanical but cheap camera I can buy and open up to see the inner workings?

>>4449938
>because the romans didn't like that they weren't pagan.
Oh that must be why, same with the other 108, they were a bunch of pagans who didn't like their religion.

>>4449943
uhh a disposable, just don't get zapped by the flash

>>4449862
>HBO

>>4449950
women get the ick if you're homophobic
I got all of my gfs by showing girls pics of me sucking dick

>>4449759
>You can't lift your current 400 grams of gear?
>Honestly, too small cameras are a pain in the ass to hold

are these actually bad? Just got one for my niggon

>>4449939
>we wuz jooz
rightoids are pathetic people

Tf these retro shit cams still overpriced as hell
Nikon Df - $900+++
Olympiss Pen F - $1100+++
PanaSonyco GM5 - $900+++

Especially the GM5 which is now more expensive when you bought them new a decade ago. Jokes on you /p/haggots who said micro four turds suck micro cock but there are still stupid hipsters (in 2025 mind you) and weakling boomers who pay for this crap. Jokes on you /p/tards who said the Nikon Df is an ugly buttchild of the FM. Jokes on you for not buying the smol peepee GM5 over the GR or watever X100 phuji comes out with.

Now if only the Zfc and Zf will hold the same value but no cause Z lenses look too dumb on those damn film like bodies

And no Fujifilm wont have that retro styling tax because those nippons are stupid enough to make all their bodies rook the same.

>>4449953
what a harebrained interpretation of what I said

>>4449911
>GFX is a meme


It was always a meme. Everyone realized that when this fat fuck retard showed everyone in the world how his 4 layers of neck can't take a decent photo to save his life

>>4449957
he's a beautiful man with a beautiful 10/10 black bf you racist bigot

>>4449771
>d, not for the battery
z30 plus pancake lens easily fits into a tiny fanny pack, its m4/3 size. Cons, still no EVF lol

>>4449957
what a lolcow lol

>>4449958
>beautiful 10/10 black bf

I always knew you are a massive faggot ken. I doubt you remember the time when your livestream moderator called me out for asking if you're into fellow men. Now it all comes full circle why you always SHOOT RAW.

>>4449960
Ken still saying to everyone those GFX shots are unedited "RAW" shots.

>>4449961
schizo

>>4449963
you goddman communist motherufkec i know what you put in my os oup last week , last thursday you put it in the souup to mak me CRAZY i'm not crazy, i am NOT crazy

>>4449928
>Consumerism is Judaism just as much as the black bloc

>>4449932
>the GFX100 series strikes a balance between good autofocus and good image quality
That and the 1/125th X-sync really seals the deal.

>>4449963
>making these conspiracy science and "worlds going to end videos since 2020"
>calling me a schizo

Full circle lol

>>4449938
>the romans didn't like that they weren't pagan
Simply a matter of disagreement, like every other time they're expelled or prosecuted... sure.

>>4449967
You replied to an ironic shitpost basically calling him a faggot niggerlover as if it were an unironic defense of him. Invest in a sarcasm detector the next time you go buy pills for your disorder.

>>4449971
>You replied to an ironic shitpost basically calling him a faggot niggerlover as if it were an unironic defense of him. Invest in a sarcasm detector the next time you go buy pills for your disorder.
>being this triggered

found the real schizo

>>4449973
I'm not triggered. I'm just pointing out this >>4449958 joke went over your head.

>>4449967
it does baffle me how this guy has 300k subs

>>4449752 (OP)
>Is there a smaller way to get a 50mm equiv with a decently wide aperture?

>>4449977
I don't think most people would consider a 4.5mm aperture "decently wide" but it does tempt me to buy one of those for two reasons:
1) reach
2) to adopt the name Qanon for shits and giggles

>>4449956
They're from /pol/, what do you expect?

>>4449983
you know it's a man even if it's a girl (male). you can use he.

>>4449971
americans are so shit at this ahahaha

>>4449943
anything russian

>>4449952
It's dogshit anon. Why wouldn't you just adapt a 28/2.8 Color-Skopar or similar, besides cost?

>>4449995
Probably because they have lived in faggotry and interracial fornication for so long they are no longer able to perceive it as degenerate lol

>>4449839
>david lynch never used snoy
Unfortunately he was a snoyboy.

A friend gave me a Rebel T6i with the kit lens. I want to shoot wild life or distant objects.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.
What is the difference between a macro and a telephoto lens? I was trying to shoot bees and the 18-55 was not close enough for close ups or long distance.
What does the MM actually translate to in practical use? If this is a 18-55 and taken at 55, what would a 70-300 or 400-800 actually mean in terms of power? Is going from 55 to 110 doubling the zoom if it's the same type of lens on the same camera?

>>4450066
sorry moishe but you're out of luck
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 is okay
or if you're going to use tripod you can get under $200 manual 500mm lens
macro lens is out of your price range, it's about the minimum focus distance

>>4450070
What about the 70(5?)-300mm? As a logical endpoint probably be using a tripod,but I don't really want to be pushed into it as mandatory unless it's really cheap or so drastically better than something else that it justifies the extra set up time. The 55mm looks like a normalish eye level, so if I could get like 2 or 3x that for zoom I think I could make up with just getting closer in most cases.

>>4450066
Macro lenses have closer minimum focusing distances. A telephoto lens affords you longer working distances.
>>4450088
The longer the lens the more necessary the tripod is as every little shake will be amplified.

>>4449911
>>4449957
The GFX has been officially outmemed

>>4450113
>28/3.2 equivalent
What a stupid camera that Fuji is. The Sony also sucks but the Fuji especially so. Imagine buying what is essentially a worse Leica Q2 with more pixels.

>>4450113
>tiny sensor
>10 year old EVF specs
>more expensive
lmao

>>4450125
>tiny sensor
You're forgetting the aperture, the Sony is the more capable of the two. And it has a better focal length as well. Still, a Q3 43 makes more sense.

>>4450126
What makes 28mm better than 35mm?

>>4450115
This isn't really a meaningful statement. Even if you go full equivalence faggotry the GFX100S photos look better due to the higher resolution minimizing bayer faggotry, and you dont actually need a faster lens for a larger sensor to be worth it. Most photography can be done at ISO 100 and small apertures are normally needed when a long exposure would be preferred anyways.

People who bring up equivalence are almost always nophoto closet camera retards making up scenarios where their poorfag machine is totally just as good.

>>4450128
Image GIRTH.
Wide, thick, VEINY images.

>>4450129
Higher resolution also allows better noise reduction via downsampling in real life processing

Apply NR -> Downsample -> Sharpen looks cleaner than apply NR -> sharpen -> native size.

>>4450126
What makes 35mm better than 28mm?

>>4450132
He's a nophoto closet camera retard who thinks he came up with "facts and logic" that make his baby sensor cope camera better than a fuji gfx.

Mostly, he just hates fuji because it symbolizes people who have fun and sex with women.

>>4450132
Image GIRTH.
Wide, thick, VEINY images.

>>4450132
Less phone-y

>>4450134
This is what I mean, a true pillar of the community

>>4450135
Why is less phone-y better? Why does what some phones use matter?

>>4450135
It's already not phone-y. It has a wider aperture than any phone, 100mp (real mp not computational mp), way better color rendition with 16 bit files, way more editing lattitude, and it actually renders less like a 28mm and more like a horizontally cropped 24

>>4450138
The FOV is phone tier. Anything above 24mm and below 40mm is basically forgettable.

>>4450139
Skill issue.

>>4450139
It's comments like this why I think you're just a retard that needs to leave for good

>>4450144
Him and cinefag dispense such shit advice it might actually lead to people quitting photography as fast as they pick it up, if not before

>>4450115
>>4450126
>>4450135
You can tell this guy has never taken an actual photo in his entire life.

>>4450088
if you get a tele get one with stabilizer (normally will be 4 stops) so you can shoot at ~1/30s shutter

>>4450156
I'm published, lol. You think MP is everything but that hasn't been the case for a long time now. I wouldn't buy that Sony but it's the superior choice by far. Even if you were to argue that you can crop to full frame for a 35mm FOV with the same quality as a 60MP FF would have, you're stuck with an f/4 lens. Cope and seethe all you want.

>>4450176
You don't know dick about shit, nophoto.

>I'm published
You got a FHD snapshit reposted by a twitter neo-nazi with 30 followers

>>4450156
He unironically thinks that a bigger sensor is not better unless it has a faster lens.

If he has taken photos they have all been indoors by window light, handheld, with a dogshit canon rebel, and only borrowed a D610 once to compare. That is all he knows. Every "fact" he has expressed makes perfect sense when you realize that it is all perfectly true within the framework of only taking handheld photos indoors with a dogshit canon rebel, with only a once borrowed D610 to compare it to.

He thinks this makes him an expert on cameras that cost more than his person (net worth: 200 roobul)

>>4450185
lol, my main camera is FF
APS-C didn't cut it for my needs (FOV)

>>4450182
Keep seething and coping

>>4450193
Oh, you finally saved up enough welfare money to buy a $200 FF DSLR

too bad you never take photos with it

>>4450176
>You think MP is everything but that hasn't been the case for a long time now
Nope, sensor size and lens is everything. And that 10 year old soft Snoy lens is garbage too.

>>4450204
I've had it for years lol. I'm pro-APS-C for anything long range but when you need a wide FOV FF is where it's at.

>>4450207
>And that 10 year old soft Snoy lens is garbage too.
It may be garbage like pretty much anything from Sony, but at least it's bright garbage.
I'm not saying it's Leica tier or anything. This is very basic stuff.

>>4450211
>muh bokeh
Midwit confirmed

>>4450204
>welfare money
Is this poopco?

>>4450215
>le aperture equals bokeh
Had you said "muh SNR" I wouldn't object. There's no use in having more wells to fill if you don't have enough photons for them.

>>4450211
>Uhm, a bigger sensor can ONLY be better if the lens is faster!
Holy shit, you don't take photos

Trying to explain this to you is a waste of time. You are a literal fucking NPC.

>>4450217
>Uhm, a bigger sensor can ONLY be better if the lens is faster!
You are so dumb. This has been explained to you many times. I hope one day someone is stupid enough to shoot the tests to prove it to you because you will never use a decent camera and find out for yourself.

In fact, the thought of spending more than $300 on photography is probably inconceivable to you.

>>4450218
>>4450219
The only way a system with dimmer equivalent parameters is better is if you can compensate for that disadvantage with something, for example with strobes or superior stabilization (MFT style) or if you wouldn't need to shoot the brighter system wide open anyways. If you need to shoot the brighter system wide open and have no way to compensate then the darker one will be at a disadvantage.

>>4450221
You are so fucking stupid. You have never, ever used a camera. You just jack off when you think you sound smart.

It has been explained why you are wrong. The many individual ways you can be wrong have been enumerated.

Your "statements" bely that you do not know what it is like to use a camera. You just parrot "photo theory" you think you learned because you're fucking autistic. This is evident when you attempt to argue. You mostly ignore things and repeat yourself, incessantly, like a parrot. I doubt you're even self aware.

Literally nothing you post is correct. Nothing. You can't even admit man set foot on the moon. You are an autistic mental masturbating retard who comes up with his prejudices first and his facts second.

>>4450222
Actually my prejudice was that bigger sensors were inherently better in low light and found out they weren't with experience.

>>4450222
This is a topic you can ONLY be qualified to speak about if you have used a variety of modern cameras. cANON can not. "photo theory" is about idealized, theoretical cameras. Real cameras behave differently.

cANON is the kind of retard that thinks an a7iii and z6ii are the same camera with a different color profile while pixel peeping on dpreview, and then goes around acting like an expert to everyone else. Anyone who has actually used multiple cameras, as well as anyone who actually knows how real cameras (not idealized, theoretical cameras) work can instantly spot the lie as the kind of thing that needs caveats
>IF and ONLY if... you don't stand that close, zoom out, only post on instagram, and anything you say about color and tonal range is always schizophrenia because dxomark doesn't have that chart!

>>4450223
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. This is patently false. Anyone who has used real cameras, extensively, to the point of doing just about everything there is to be done with a shutter, an aperture, and a raw file, knows you are wrong.

How you are wrong and what reality actually is has been explained to you in detail.

Rather than accept it, you have only ever repeated yourself. Maybe the lie is comforting. Maybe you just want attention. Maybe you are stupid.

>>4450224
>cANON is the kind of retard that thinks an a7iii and z6ii are the same camera with a different color profile while pixel peeping on dpreview
I am the kind of guy who mentions the caveats about comparing dpreview tests

>>4450226
Also I would like you add the whole of your photographic experience is misinterpreting some dweeb's DR charts while ignoring the part that says, according to the charter himself, they can't actually be used to compare cameras and were made for the purpose of sensor analysis and determining ideal exposure settings for individual cameras.

And maybe you took 4-6 really shitty photos and a worse saturn picture than an impoverished indian teenager from cloudynights (but with 10x the ego)

>>4450226
It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about, it's that it triggers your cognitive dissonance from believing the hype and being a fujislug brandfag who thinks GFX cameras are some gift from the gods when their only merit is being cheaper. Fujifilm is a hopelessly aspirational brand for those who can't afford the real thing, from Leica to Hasselblad. You have some weird attachment to it so it bothers that I call it out for what it is.

>>4450230
>You have some weird attachment to it
It's called money per post

>>4450230
>I hate fujifilm so the stars must realign and reality must change to make every fuji camera the worst ever
>>4450232
>samefags
Every single day since you showed up, all you've ever posted about... you never diversified, you just came up with more sophisticated ways to claim every fuji is junk

>>4450238
>le samefag
Nice one
The advantages of crop medium format only apply when you have surplus light or can do a long exposure on a tripod or something. Think studio, landscape (without wind), or product photography. Out in the wild FF has the upper hand.

>>4450239
>He makes ANOTHER incorrect statement that instantly proves he has no experience
jk its not another its the same one he's been making on repeat for like 3 years lmao

>>4450230
>It's not that I don't know what I'm talking about,
Yet you rarely can answer questions directly

>>4450240
You think a camera is a bare sensor, the only one who doesn't know shit here is you. A sensor is nothing if not mated to a lens. And here the lens is fixed, a slow f/4 lens you can't get rid of.

>>4450241
he legitimately has spent less time handling a camera than he has on /p/. if only time the camera was turned on counted, i think he has 20 minutes under his belt, all with a canon rebel from 2009.

>>4450243
>A bigger sensor can't be better if it doesn't have a faster lens.
You said it again, N/P/C! Bravo!

>>4450245
I already gave you the caveats, if your exposure time isn't restrained or you have surplus light (broad daylight or controlled lighting). Without those conditions, the FF picture is cleaner every time. Cope all you want.

>>4450246
>exposure time isn't restrained
This is basically all of the time outside of sports photography.
>The FF picture is cleaner
Even dpreview's fairly unrealistic tests say otherwise. This isn't even proper processing in a real life scene taken with the exact same light, let alone challenging light for a camera like consumer indoor lighting. It's the shittiest possible example.

There's your equivalent settings bro. The GFX100RF is simply scaled down to 61mp.

>>4450249
Furthermore I maintain you are the lowest of snapshitters. You have never engaged in photography proper. You have snapshitted, mostly in your house, nothing else.

To be fair, people who use medium format just do it to flex or crop.
The same wuality as full-frame, just slightly bigger sensor. Much heavier camera and lenses.
Bro, if you wanna crop, just get an R5 with a telephoto, same results for 1/3 of the pictures price and you can still flex with a very desirable Canon flagship.

>>4450251
>Do it to flex
It's not about cropping, or flexing, or big prints.

It's about texture, filmic detail, shading, and color rendition. The rest is just gear queer chartfaggot shit.
>inb4 i found a shitty blog saying fuji color bad!!! they used lightroom so its true!
Hasselblad has better raw profiles in phocus than adobe has for any camera, I'll admit that, but fuji's only flaw is being ever so slightly darker than a hasselblad that costs $5k more and requiring 5 minutes with a colorchecker.

>same results
Provably false.

>>4450249
>both shot at f/5.6
The light hitting the Sony sensor was dimmer. And yet, there's no clear winner across the frame. Here for example the Sony looks crisper.

>>4450252
>filmic detail
lol, just buy film

>>4450255
They were shot with artificial light. They're stopped down to f5.6 to resolve lens issues and the flash normalizes brightness.

You are super, super fucking stupid.

>the sony looks crisper
It actually looks chunky and oversharpened. Lower resolution cameras tend to have that "chunky" look with detail they can't fully resolve. The sponge itself is soft, not sharp. Shoot a Z6II and Z7II side by side with a very detailed, soft object and the Z6II will render more hard and crisp, chunky edges than the Z7II. It's just what digital does.

Even though you are also witnessing an underappreciated aspect of pancake lenses (heavy vignetting throughout the aperture range) making it darker and harder to see, it's still a bit closer to reality.

>>4450252
Not to flex, not to crop or big prints. You are left with literal nothing.

>>4450257
>film
>relevant for anything but real life darkroom work
The GFX100 sensor outresolves and out-DRs 6x9, with the GFX at ISO 400 and 6x9 at ISO 50.

Anyone using film to pixel peep instead of to do real darkroom work is a fool. It's a limited, risky, and unreliable medium and it only pays if you make real prints.

>>4450258
>It actually looks chunky and oversharpened. Lower resolution cameras tend to have that "chunky" look with detail they can't fully resolve. The sponge itself is soft, not sharp. Shoot a Z6II and Z7II side by side with a very detailed, soft object and the Z6II will render more hard and crisp, chunky edges than the Z7II. It's just what digital does.
Then if it's the camera why does the opposite happen on the other corner of the frame with the identical pencil? The differences you're attributing to the cameras have more to do with the distribution of light.
>>4450259
kek!

>>4450259
>Left with literal nothing
To someone that hates photography and just crops to fill the frame and brags about easy to understand specs. To someone who only takes closeups of their indoor cat at 9pm, it is just barely better.

To someone who likes photography and actually engages in real, purposeful photography it has smoother, more lifelike color and detail. Tonality, even.

To put it simply:
Medium format is lost on you if you are not a photographer.

>>4450260
*destroys your Phase One IQ4*
heh, nothin personnel

>>4450261
Even with the heavy vignetting, superior tonality and less aliasing are immediately obvious. This is with the budget shit GFX100RF, not a 100SII and nice prime.

I'll put it simply again, and every time you reply again, because the facts are the facts and you're just coping

Medium format is lost on you if you are not a photographer. You are not a photographer. You do not engage in real, purposeful photography. You don't take pictures at all, but when you did they were available light handheld indoor non-artistic close ups. Just frame filling snapshits. Zach tier.

>>4450263
>shoot film
>scan it with a digital camera to count so and so megapixels under hyper specific conditions
a retard's errand

only a non-photographer would even think of setting out to do this

in theory sometimes a gfx100rf wouldn't look that much better than the snoy if you were a bad photographer like at a wedding or taking a pic of your cat inside or somethign!!!

>>4450262
Putting it like that, only medium format owners can take real photography is the definition of being a gear snob.
Those tiny advantages are relevant only if you picel peep at extreme zooms.

>>4450269
>Visual illiteracy
The GFX outdoes the z6ii, z7ii, and a7rv even at pedestrian sizes like 3000x2400px in tonality and lack of aliasing. Such an immense downscale also increases the effectiveness of a good editing pipeline at reducing noise.

If all you care about is counting hairs, medium format isn't for you. If you care about tonality, if you care about color, if you care about the feel of a photo, about soft things looking soft instead of jaggy and crisp, then congratulations on being a photographer instead of a gearfag.

>>4450265
>This is with the budget shit GFX100RF, not a 100SII and nice prime.
We are talking about GFX100RF vs the newest Söyny premium compact which is also shit but somehow less shit than the Fuji.
>Medium format is lost on you if you are not a photographer. You are not a photographer. You do not engage in real, purposeful photography. You don't take pictures at all, but when you did they were available light handheld indoor non-artistic close ups. Just frame filling snapshits. Zach tier.
Sounds like projection to me. I always emphasize the importance of lighting. Look up my advice to newbies, one thing I always say is don't blow your entire budget on the body, get the things that matter instead (lenses, flashes, tripod, etc). But here we discuss the merits of two bodies, and the better of the two (as usual) isn't the Fuji.

>>4450271
You sound like a religious zealot, lol.

>>4450272
Not an argument

>>4450274
Not an argument.

You are simply not a photographer. You have never taken a noteworthy photo. Shitters like doghair and huskyfag are more talented than you. You are somewhere between zach and branchfag.

>>4450271
All that rarely matters in real life usage. Nowadays you can do a lot of color grading with very capable softwares like Lr Classic.
Now telling only MF fags can enjoy their "art" is nonsense.
A camera is a tool that serves the same purpose. Being to focused on the small little differences is kinda concerning. Or maybe a way to try to justify your overpriced acquisition or most likely even, just trying to clarify to as many people as possible you use your current respectable MF gear as a symbol of status as if you were a class above "regular" photographers.

>>4450265
>You do not engage in real, purposeful photography
I’m not the guy you were arguing with (frankly I think it’s not about being right with him. He’s probably just jerking the gherkin at the thought of people getting mad more than anything), but I am curious how you would actually define this statement. Hard mode, don’t reference any popular or pro photographers in your definition.

>>4450276
>tonality doesn't matter
>photography isn't art cameras are just for editing and getting photos for instagram
You are not a photographer

>>4450277
>Define art
You either intuit this or you go read a book. Even shitters like doghair can understand the value of tonality and artistic enjoyment over slapping a "color grade" on for a 1mp instagram post. You just aren't an art person.

>>4450278
> after all, the great rebuttal is “you just don’t get it”
I just don’t know whos trolling who anymore

>>4450278
See how much of a snob you are.
>I'm special and autist, I know so much about tonalities, art and blah, blah, balh.
>Muh gear is clearly superior, so it automatically makes me a good snapper.
>You take photos, but I don't consider you one, because I'm above you as a loving being and I'm very important. Look at me!

>>4450275
You assume a lot, yet your crowning achievement in photography is purchasing a Fuji camera.

>>4450280
>artists are SNOBS!
Yes, that's exactly what every non-artist and non-art person says.
>durr whats the point of that blue being bluer? blue iz blue hyuck hyuck ur a fuckin snob, snowflake hyuck hyuck
be less of a stereotype retardo

>>4450281
I shoot nikon and minolta, you retard. I'd never buy a GFX when it's in the same price bracket where i'd rather save up for a good one. I'm just able to admit that it's better than my camera (and yours).

Also imagine calling yourself an artist for just pressing a button on a
>Medium format sensor, just slightly bigger than Full-frame

Real artists have skill and photography is, in fact, easy. You can learn in 6 months and be the same level as someone who photographs for 10 years.
If I give you a pencil, what art can you do with it? You will never be a famous artist with that mentality.

>>4450282
Imagine being that autistic to be able to recognize all the shades of all the colors.
You depend on gear to make your thing, you don't have skill. You use MF because you can't take good photos, so you need the best flexibility in the market to compensate for itokay, now I understand you, keep using MF to at least have a chance.

>>4450182
>>4450185
>>4450204
>>4450219
>reddit spacing

>>4450222
>>4450224
>>4450226
>>4450252
>>4450260
>more reddit spacing

>>4450285
>being able to see color is autism
>how dare you use a camera that sees color better
>your photos suck because you like good colors
Right
Wing
Poverty
Cult.

This is why there is no such thing as a conservative artist.

>>4450262
>>4450265
>>4450266
>>4450275
>>4450278
>more

>>4450282
>>4450283
>>4450288
>more yet
uh2gb

>>4450288
watch out, the conservatives are now going to claim that color doesnt matter because their thinkpads cant display it accurately anyways

niggas have never been to a galley in their lives, and will never go. they actually hate photography and get angry when they see any of it called art.

>>4450288
If you want a camera that sees color better, stop looking in the wrong place.

>>4450288
Did I hurt you for being right?
Pfft, MF shooters are now the special kids on the block.
Nobody is interesting in buying your specific art. It's too generic. We are oversaturated and "classic photography" is long gone.
Go learn videography, which actually takes skill, to maybe compete in the market today. Remember, you just point your heavy box and press a button.

>>4450282
>I shoot nikon and minolta, you retard. I'd never buy a GFX when it's in the same price bracket where i'd rather save up for a good one. I'm just able to admit that it's better than my camera (and yours).
So you're an armchair reviewer simping for a product you assume to be superior because you don't understand how cameras work, got it.

>>4450294
>Nobody cares
>Art doesnt matter
>Art is a waste of time
>Do what makes money
>compete in the market
>Hustle hustle
Moop was right

>>4450292
This is one of those moments where a bugman thinks he's smart but is actually wrong

>>4450295
Do you think that shooting nikon precludes people from using a GFX100? Dear god.

Moop was right about you "people".

The most basic aspects of art, color and tonality, are "useless" to you and then you start talking about hustling and the market. You don't have souls. I'm sorry. Art is not for you.

>>4450296
It's not just about the money. You will never be relevant or famous for snapping shit today. Maybe you can impress a few equally respectable snobs in your very small circle.
Social media is what gives you exposure nowadays, and your "art" would look like an aps-c capture on that platform..
I can take the same photos as you do, with a Full-frame camera, it's 100% skill issue.

>>4450296
>This is one of those moments where a bugman thinks he's smart but is actually wrong
Indeed you are.

>>4450297
You're colorblind, Timothy.

>>4450275
Can you show us your artistic images worthy of 100MP crop medium format sensor so we can call it shit even if it is the best pic ever?

>>4450298
>Its not about money, it's about fame! HUSTLE HUSTLE! THE MARKET!
>Color? Rendering? Aesthetics? They dont matter!
Yeah, this is why you don't make art.

It’s amusing that the arguments are basically converging around “art is what I say It is versus art is what you say it is.” Which is an argument as old as art itself, and not exclusive to photography. Time is but a flat circle, and this thread seems to have been nothing but a waste of it.

>>4450301
>he calls random people timothy
Oh no, you're an indian. Blimey. This explains so much.

>>4450307
>art is what I say it is
I say art is expression and control over color and tone are the most fundamental part of it. Even before shape, color and tone set the mood. Next detail matters. Something as minor as a sponge being realistically soft or sharpened and jaggy can change the mood of something. Or someone's wrinkles and facial hair.

A shitty camera has its place in art. Someone has to get that effect somehow and scaling nice cameras down with the ISO cranked doesn't actually turn them into shitty cameras. Terry knew this but /p/ can't accept that it isn't a dichotomy and a GFX just captures color and detail better.

Should I go into crazy debt and get a Canon R1 or an R3?

>>4450310
do you take hundreds of pictures of herons catching fish? :^)

>>4450312
I would like to, but yeah I take pictures of birds among other things.

>>4450310
Nah, especially not if the price of those is "crazy debt" to you.
You'll spend money you don't have on some mirrorlesscuck camera and then have nothing to take pictures of, sad.

>>4450313
then you could use a 1d

i mean an r1

(but the z8 is better)

>>4450307
Read the archive back in 2015 if you want to see how weirdly true that is.

>>4450314
You're indian.

>>4450312
Anon don’t forget they are also good for capturing hundreds of similar photos of the sportsball joggers in their natural habitat.

>>4450317
Well I guess I'll scalp you after I'm done robbing the train then

>>4450319
Based.

>>4450304
Not an argument

He's probably going to send himself a bunch of countertop catalogs now to cope

Fuji mirrorless better than canon DSLRs and more preferred by actual artists
Canon DSLR pic of thing soulless snapshit
Fuji person have more fun and sex

/thread

>>4450324
Canon DSLRs are Best Emma's choice and she's an artist I care about, cope fujicel

>>4450322
It's been a while since his last episode, I thought him gone until this melty.

>>4450292
I have one of these and it sucks. There is a reason no one uses foveons.

>>4450327
>3D

any anon here using a Sigma MC11 for ef lenses on sony a7iii/iv? can you tell me how good the adaptor works or the lens?

>>4450274
>You sound like a religious zealot, lol.
Nah, you do

>>4450292
If it's so good why not show us examples from yours
Or are you just simping over gear you don't have again?

Did canon create a proper ef-m replacement yet? Especially 22, 32 and 56mm lenses.

>>4450396
Who tf shoots M-mount in 2026. Do you enjoy outdated experimental cold war technology?

>>4450399
Are you confusing ef-m with just m?

>>4450399
Nobody has made anything like the 22/2. Cope and seethe. Enjoy your xbox lenses.

>>4450327
She quit dslrs for mirrorless compacts

She uses ricohs and the olympus pen f now

>>4450343
shinju a cute

>>4450409
>Muh 22/2
Imagine flexing a lens cap lmao

>>4450310
>Should I go into crazy debt and get a Canon R1 or an R3?
If pocket change like this puts you into debt, then no. Try saving like 3 months of expenses in checking account and multiple times that into stock market for retirement (e.g. RothIRA if you're in the US or Kapitalsteuerfreibetrag in Germany)

If you have done that come back to talk about consumer products

>>4450399
M mount? Like Leica M? They still make excellent new cameras and lenses for it. And it probably will outlive all of your RF-mount, GFX-mount, E-mount, L-mount by a long shot.

>>4449752 (OP)
I am currently using the original A7 and looking for an upgrade. I primarily do landscape and street photography, using adapted vintage lenses. I would prefer to stay within the Sony ecosystem to avoid purchasing another set of adapters. I was considering the A7C II, but I'm not sure.

>>4450223
They are for FSI architecture, given the proportion of the surface area dedicated to the circuit traces.

>>4450310
Wait until the R3 Mark II is released or the original is discontinued.

>>4450343
>2D

>>4450342
What do you hate about it?
My SD10's voltmetre is shit and claims my Eneloops are depleted after every shot.

>>4450610
My sd10 sits on the self because I hate the colours and tones

>>4450343
>cuckime
>>4450413
>not a real Emma

>>4450609
Thats honestly pretty good for an anime. Cameras are hard to draw and even harder to animate.

>>4450521
Imagine getting mogged by a decade old lens cap lmao

Rant of the day: Why are people still buying presets in this day and age? You can just ask ChatGPT to guide you to replicate a specific film type and make your own, or use the film as a basis and ask it to adapt it to your taste.

Just ordered an xpro1 to counteract my xs20
im hype bros

>>4450856
I dont understand why you'd want your photos to look like film. Film is just digital + inaccurate colours, highlight rollover and grain

>>4451009
It's called character.
Skill makes anything look good, despite gearfags thinking absolute IQ is the most important aspect in a picture.

>>4451212
>"skill" is letting your gear make alterations to reality for you
?

I think I want a Leica Q - first version, 116. If (You) have or had it, how does it hold up in 2025? Is UI still snappy enough to more or less keep up with modern standards? Is manual focus ring actually manual when you switch it, or is it a digital controller for servos inside the lens? Is it fun?

To be honest, I think the only thing that keeps me away is the focal length that's not exactly in my tastes. If Q 43 would exist and would be priced around the same as normal Q, I wouldn't even think twice.

>>4451214
If you want to underline how the photo has been part of a process, how it's expressly not reality, that's a good way to do it. It's an artistic choice. Of course one can prefer to have a tool that is transparent to achieve other objectives. In the end it's all rationalization because we do what we do because we like it. God forbid a nigga likes something different from you.