Thread 4450591

Dresden edition

what would be the best camera to take "street" portraits, with little to no editing? one with great skin tones and which has at least an 85mm and 135mm equivalent lens in its ecosystem?

all suggestions are welcome, as long as it's a digital camera.

>>4450601
Canon RP

>>4450601
>one with great skin tones
look no further than a sony, my friend!

>>4450601
Sounds like a really low bar, pretty much any digital sold today will manage if you know how to set it up. If you want it out of the box with good tones then I guess Canon.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3trM4ji_qfw

>>4450614
Actually it's an editing video kek, but almost any camera has color balance settings for its jpegs. Set those up and you're golden.

>>4450601
Nikon z30 is what you need champ

>>4450591 (OP)
>A camera from the time when they called 127 format small instead of medium like the same sized digital sensors of today get called

>>4450731
yeah, just remember than 35mm was considered miniature.
wild

>>4450732
>FF were the real sensorlets all along

Would Mechahitler use an Exakta?

i hate being so limited with money man, choosing my first (and for a year at least) only lens is so panful. idk what the fuck i want or need

>>4450761
Just debtmaxxx, what’s the worst they can do, ruin your (((credit score)))?

>>4450731
8x10 is real full frame.

>>4450743
ideas communicated with alt right memes are typically completely incorrect

>>4450794
Taking obvious shitposts seriously is a sign of autism, as is being an unironic leftist.

>>4450601
Anything desu, Fuji is the best and most fun to use though if that;s important to you.

>>4450601
fuji and sony make the best and funnest cameras for photography, but nikon makes the manliest in case you're afraid of coming off as a bit metro (or aren't a bit metro and prefer a manlier experience)

>>4450826
Sony jpegs

>>4450601
Sony cameras are free, just go to a furry convention and grab one. They don't put the serial number in the EXIF so you can't get caught by posting pics from it online.

>>4450828
>this is what passes for a reaction image in india, circa 2025

>>4450601
If you want a cheap, lightweight walking around camera with good jpegs I'd suggest a used Olympus Micro Four Thirds.
If you are doing everything in the daylight it doesn't really matter which, if you have some money to spend get the E-M1 Mk1 or Mk2 and some nice glass depending on budget. They are better experiences than they have any right to be and even the weather-sealed telephoto are light enough to carry around with a wiimote-esque wrist strap.
That or just ignore the above advice and go for the cheapest 00s DSLR you can find, if such things still exist in the double digit range these days due to CCD hype memery.

>>4450794
i refuse to believe somebody who's such a stick in the mud is a photographer

Should I go R8 or R6 mark II? They take the same pictrures

>>4450859
he's a camera operator

https://www.fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/gfx100s-ii-fine-art-x-bryan-minear/
What are the implications of GFX shooters faking the mars landing?

>>4450858
>That or just ignore the above advice and go for the cheapest 00s DSLR you can find, if such things still exist in the double digit range these days due to CCD hype memery.

i can still find d200s, k10ds, and km 5ds for <$100 so yeah. the d200s being more difficult because of boomers who think because they paid $3000 for it in 2007 means its still worth $300

i second the olympus m43 or nikon d200 suggestion, olympus if you have $500-800 nikon if you have $200~. the em1 mk2s go for $4-600 from a quick glance just body only.

>>4450705
if the z30 is anything like my z50 9/10 times i found myself using the canon 5d mk2 preset in nxstudio for my files which is embarassing because at that point i would've just bought a canon 5d if i wanted canon 5d colors

actually on that note consider the 5d classic/5d mk2 and the 7d mk2 sibling, you can find 7ds for <$300 nowadays. always look local whenever shopping for canonikon since they're available cheaply and you can lowball people who dont wanna ship shit on ebay

>>4450858
Ha, don't. I use that crop shit for macro and macro alone, which is just curiosity snapshits. On anything you can see normally IRL it looks uncanny because you can see how it looks, you remember how it looks, and then micro four thirds turns it into some kind of vibrant plastic.

>>4450601
A film one. The old olympus OM SLRs can use a real good, small, cheap 135mm f2.8, the g-zuiko 50mm f1.4 has very good rendering, and zuiko 85mm f2 has soul.
https://omexperience.wordpress.com/lenses/zuiko-85mm-f2/
https://28mmf2.wordpress.com/2015/05/30/the-sony-a7r-and-a-zuiko-85mm-f2/
It being film also makes people significantly more open because digital cameras are for creeps.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/285553222287
Bros I'm going insane what the FUCK does Canon AF mount mean? I heard online that Canon didn't let third parties put EF on their lenses but I don't know for sure and don't want to buy a paperweight if it doesn't fit on this T6i

>>4450912
That's a poor quality brand engineered old Sigma from Ritz Camera. You'll likely be unable to stop it down (it gives error 99 and shuts the camera off if you try). Those work fine with early 90s Canon SLRs. Back in the day you could send them to Sigma service for a rechipping, no longer the case. They don't even work with the EOS 50.

>>4450888
Damn, for once they do something right.

>>4450888
These photos are pretty amazing. Whenever I see work by pros it always looks a little special compared to stuff here or on other websites. Like it's cleaner. Is it just photoshop usage?

>>4450931
Purposeful color grading instead of editing for "reality but as nice looking as i remembered it"
Status signaling tricks like shooting environmental stuff with super long focal lengths
low ISOs on high end cameras
retouching to determine the amount of detail in each image instead of buying soft and sharp lenses

>>4450794
Go back to /pol/.

>>4450894
I know it's a troll post, but talking about cheap lenses while ignoring the gaping black hole that is buying and developing film is just retarded

>>4450976
Just snapshit less and git gud bro

>>4450976
just shot foma and self develop lmao

>>4450601
>what would be the best camera to take "street" portraits, with little to no editing? one with great skin tones
Literally anything except a Sony.

>>4450988
You spam the same image because it’s one fake review from a panasonic shill. Obvious bad white balance settings.

>>4450731
What was the film grain like back then?

is it worth upgrading my 7d2 to an EOS R? i dont really wanna pay more money for lenses but having better low light performance would be nice

>>4450601
>135mm
are you trying to take *across the street* portraits?? just get the biggest sensor your budget allows in whatever body you're comfortable carrying around in the place you plan to be and slap a fast 50 on it

>>4450859
If you've ever been to a photography group / meetup / market you'll realise there are so many mudstuck sticks that it looks like a boardwalk over the swamp. Everyone wears le vintage carhartt jacket and beanies. They dress like animated youtuber avatars. None of them are worth talking to unless you want tips of taking pictures of cameras.

>>4450601
if you're normal looking get a 24 and a full frame body.

if you're a pedophile get a nikon d3100 and a 70-300 lens.

>>4451089
>if you're a pedophile get a nikon
Or a well-adjusted detective with a chocolate daddy complex

>>4451102
Ok but was Dexter really pro Nikon, or was he just using department issued tools which he probably rightly inept despised?

I ordered some gear from the US and genuinely wtf is wrong with you cunts postal service. It's been like a month and it still hasn't left the US. It's been to eight (8) different states, most of which follow a non-linear path.

>>4451000
"street" with quotations means they're not studio portraits, it doesn't mean I'm shooting strangers

>>4451102
>>4451111
The show literally got paid to sponsor Nikkon lmao
Niggon is desperate always has been

>>4450601
OM3 or fuji 40mp if your that lazy. If you want something that weighs as much as medium format, a Nikon Zf

When is Nikon going to release a FF rangefinder style body already?

>>4450995
For what, dog pics? Yes

.>>4451204
Only Leica can sell rangefinders, it's a status symbol. Plus, Nikon is green.

>>4450860
I have an R6 II and I felt the need to immediately get a second battery. Got a grip when they went on fire sale during BILD and now it's like a baby R3 :3
I know the R8 doesn't have IBIS but I can't imagine trying to use a diet R6 II with a T6i battery.
Extra dial is nice too. Primary reason I got the R6 II initially.
No I don't do video faggotry either.

>>4451204
Honestly would be cool, but it would be an investment for them to develop a modern rangefinder mechanism and integrating it with the Z mount. I guess it would have to have no mechanical linkage from the body to the lens and just have it be an electronic "experience".

>>4450860
Currently having the same argument with myself.
>IBIS, Dual card slots, better ergos, more controls, RATE (topkek) button, weird spinny fuckin back control dial, Biggur EVF, 2.2x battery capacity, fully mech shutter R6-2
OR
>Lighter, smaller, cheaper R8
Now, it's a bit of a meme on /p/ but lighter and smaller are genuine niceties, paired with the fact that you save a couple hundred bucks that go towards a lens that isn't some f/7.1, forced correction joke. I've got some old EF 'BEEG WHITES' and the 200g diference between bodies would be noticable not just for total weight, but also weight balance.
>>4451215
Lack of a D-Pad where the dial is, is a primary concern of mine if I were to pull the trigger on one. Tell me, is the shutter button actually too far forward for smol hands such as mein and is the DoF preview button at the front actually of any use?

R6II is in my cart right now, I just don't know if I'd want to wait the two-three years for an R8II to appear.

>>4451204
Probably never. They have a retro crop and FF. It might be interesting to build something off of the z30 but I doubt they'll do it

>>4451263
I solved my gear dilemmas by switching to nikon

The z7ii’s AF is not great but its a well made non-sony 45mp and the AF still beats the shit out of fuji

>>4451263
>Dual card slots
i now know not to care for anything you might have to say or opine on about cameras. this is the biggest snapshitter meme "need" ever.

>>4451270
Never said it was a big deal, Chuddy. That's literally a difference between it and the R8.
Nobody sneeds anything more than their phone, friendo.

>>4451263
Not sure. I have exceedingly average sized hands. Here they are holding it at what I would call a normal orientation. As you can see my pointer finger extends well past the shutter. I guess the problem if you have small hands would be getting around the outside of the grip than anything. I guess try it out.
I have zero problems with the ergonomics personally.

I have never used a camera with a dial until I got the R6 II. I don't understand why a D pad in the middle is needed. There are so many mappable buttons and dials on this thing (especially when you have a control ring) plus 3 storable modes that it's such a non-problem. If you want a D-pad, the little joystick works as one in the menus. You can use it also to move the focus point around, though the touchscreen works better for that.

Actually, getting thinking about it, yeah, no I would be less happy if there was a D pad on the wheel. Letting it just be the wheel lets me be a bit imprecise with my thumb-aim. I use the touch screen (not viewing through the screen, my eye is up to the viewfinder and the screen is off but you can still use it almost like a touchpad on a laptop to move the focus point) to move the focus point around if it's needed. Though the autofocus is so goddamn good that there is basically no need to tell it what to focus on.

>>4451284
>same keyboard bro
Thanks anon. I think I'm just going to quit being a bitch and buy the damn thing. It's on sale now for less than used ones are going on ebay where I'm at (which is retarded but wygd) so if I don't like it I'm only out a few hundred bucks at most.

>>4451284
dirty deskpad sisters fucking rise UP! the p17 doesn't mean anything just what i had handy at the desk presently.

>>4451286
I snagged mine right before the tariffs hit for pretty cheap. Its a lovely camera.
>>4451287
I almost took another pic near my gear shelf because I lurk /g/ most of the time and they're a bunch of pansies about dirty desk pads. I'd make the excuse that I just cleaned a bunch of goop off my mom's old Sigma >>4451224 but that's only part of the truth. The real truth is I do things at my desk in front of the internet and I simply don't bother cleaning my desk pad but very seldom. Ain't got time for that shit.

>>4451265
>I solved my gear dilemmas by switching to nikon
Many such cases.

If Nikon Z get a really good, native performance EF adapter, canon's probably going to sue. They'd lose half the hobbyist market except for the poor souls who already memed themselves into $2000+ of RF L lenses.

>>4451204
The same day they fucking produce a Nikonos Z.
>No VF, just big rear display.
>3 Big tactile knobs for simplified operation
>Waterproof, to 600 feet
>all controls wirelessly transmit to inside body
>machined from solid block of aluminum
>FF Square sensor for full image circle capture & angle/crop in post, bc no stable tripods, levels or horizons when underwater

Fucking never, bc new Nikon is run by american investors that don't know, understand, or give a fuck about any of the things that Nikon ever did that made people love them.

Looking for my first film camera and I have my eyes on this bad boy. Is it any good for taking pictures? Or is it more useful as an extra pair of weights?

When will we get fiber optic sensors?

>>4450860
If you don't already have canon lenses, why lock yourself into a system without third-party lens support?

>>4451321
Rangefinders require regular maintenance by pros, which can be hard to come by. Find a recently CLA'd SLR instead.

>>4450601
Pentax K1000, MX, or Leica (digital or film). These are your only good options for street portraits. Anything else is trash.
Seriously, though, with no editing:
Sigma, Pentax, Fujifilm have the best "creative" color modes available.
Canon and Nikon have good color modes for portraits, landscapes, and standard, their "creative" colors suck.
All of Sony's colors suck.

>>4451326
>third party lens support
I won't pretend Canon make a flawless set of lesnes for RF but if a primary of yours concern is 3rd party then it sounds like you're just poor.

>>4451326
you only need 2 or three lenses. This shit about a mount having a gorillion lenses is not relevant

>>4451333
20, 28, 35, 50, 85, 135, 24-105.
These are the lenses any self respecting photographer has.

>>4451338
wrong, if your system doesn't have 31, 43, 77, then it's trash.

>third party lens support
Sorry, im not a poor snoyboy that relies on 3rd party brands to make good lenses because the first party lenses are trash!

>>4451339
Jokes on you the real focal length is almost never what's painted on the barrel
>stealth 50mm user

>>4451342
joke's on poors, who can't afford lenses that don't change focal length with focus

>>4451309
>Nikonos Z
Would likely end up the same way as the Nikonos RS. There's also less need for it now because you would have to buy new WR Z lenses, whereas the obvious solution is to buy a housing for whatever camera and lenses you have.

I'm downgrading to the X-T2. The weight difference is inperceptible and the EVF is twice the size. I also save about £400
Feels good, man.

>>4451370
Furthermore, two card slots, weather sealing (useless for me as I have no WR lenses), an ISO dial and MADE IN JAPAN.
Spoiler, the Fuji takes better pictures. Never buy L mount, lids.

>>4451344
I'm pretty sure he was not talking about focus breathing.
>>4451376
A fool and his money are soon parted.

>>4451383
A whole £350 for the X-T2. I will never financially recover from this.

>>4451384
The advantages of L-mount? Priceless

>>4451384
>£
What is it with retarded swamp specimen angloids and crop sensor copes? If it's not fooj-e-waste it's nikon entry level DSLRs.

>>4451385
I only bought the S5ii to flip. got it with two lenses for £1300 and sold for £1750 selling seperately.

>>4451387
I live in a walkable city which means a smaller camera is preferable. Testing the X-T2 with the 35mm f1.4 against the S5ii with 50mm f1.8 confirmed that APSC is plenty and much smaller.

>>4451387
Why do you make do with full frame when medium format exists?

>>4451394
35mm is the industry standard whether you like it or not. Medium format is merely a market offering for people who bought into full frame and still can't get results.

>>4451393
An a7 is the same size as an xt2. A7c is even smaller.

>>4451396
I know I had one. EVF is shit and the jpegs were trash.

>>4451397
All jpegs are trash

>>4451396
Sony cameras are for nerds who enjoy editing more than shooting.

>>4451401
>Sony cameras are for nerds who enjoy editing more than shooting.
Yeah I know that's why I recommended them to a fuji shooter.

>>4451398
You've never shot a Fuji, have you? You actually dont need to edit every one of your images to fix the shit color science, thats just a Sony issue.

>>4451403
Wdym? The colors of sony jpegs are more accurate and better. If I wanted oversaturated warm jpegs I'd get ChatGPT to bake them

>>4451403
>i need to further lower the quality of my mushy ass iphone xtrans sensor

>>4451404
>The colors of sony jpegs are more accurate and better
gm saaaar!

>>4451404
>NO FUN ALLOWED

>>4451397
>Why is that f/2.5 prime lens so big?

>>4451408
Because it's full frame. It's one of the most compact lenses in its class and was recommended to me right here in /gear/. It was overly sharp and had zero character. Why have full frame when you get f2.5 if you want an actual (semi) compact lens?
APSC is superior for this.

Same DOP, better EVF, 100 grams lighter, looks far better and nicer images.
Fuji wins.

>>4451413
Do Sony thin making the top plate 2/3s of the thickness of the camera makes the camera slimmer?

>>4451406
>>4451407
They could be better, I prefer the colors on Leica and Hasselblad jpegs, but I'd rather have my pictures look the way my eyes saw them than look like a fascimile of color film to appease boomers

>>4451321
I had one back in high school like 20 years ago. The beauty of it it’s so simply constructed that you could probably tear it down and cla yourself in a weekend (if you enjoy that sort of thing. If that doesn’t sound like your cup of tea, I’d pass. If you’re going to pay a serviced camera premium there aree much better ones for just as cheap. But it is a capable little thing, the lens has that characteristic vintage glow (Inb4 seething about “it’s not real”) and the thing is basically bombproof. Wouldn’t be my first choice if you aren’t used to RF and old camera quirks already though, unless it’s dirt cheap. I wonder if my folks still have my old negatives from it lol, may have to check when I head back home for Christmas.

>>4451413
I went from A7II to T2 back in the day

>>4451413
>Its da same!
Equivalence doesn't include ISO. Sony has greater photon well capacity, higher real resolution, and no xtrans worms. The files are more flexible and render better above instagram sizes.
>Better EVF
If all you do is look at the camera
>100g
This is not perceptible to men.

Fuji is one of the few brands that is just worse than sony. The others are olympus (way worse autofocus, worse menus, worse colors, worse reliability, WAY worse image quality) and panasonic (extremely unreliable, autofocus doesnt even work). With competition like that, who needs to make good cameras?

>>4451408
Because sony packed it with useless videographer shit
>aperture ring
Bloat
>click/declick switch and infinitely variable aperture
Bloat
>the styling
Bloat
>Overly fast autofocus motor for a lens its size
Extreme bloat. It's like they pulled a reverse fuji GFX (fuji puts the slowest, noisiest motors in some of their $3000 GFX lenses lol)

Shooting fuji is how gearfags openly and constantly admit they are gearfags. They're just here for the cameras and the instagram clout.

Sony users do at least pretend to be photographers, but we all know that if they're not renting a flagship for work and shooting nikon/leica at home they're new at this.

>>4451438
>>4451436
The FDS begins

This is also part of the boards culture problem for any onlookers

>>4451438
I shoot sony at home and rent an x2d 100c
sony jest werks

>>4451441
Fuji just doesnt make good cameras. If you broke their market share down by model it would be 2/3s x100 and entry level cameras. Their attempts at "high end" cameras with the x-t/x-h probably don't sell. Only gearfags are stupid enough to pay $2000 for an aps-c kit that underperforms micro four thirds since they get so caught up in brand wars and "color science and rendering" schizophrenia that only a gearfag could make a decision like that.

>>4451448
You are so right, I have never heard that on this board ever
How genius are you to notice that and speak up, when no one else ever has before
You should copy that so you can paste it down the road in case anyone else forgets

>>4451448
Not even, it would be like 90% instead, and THEN everything else lol. People always forget about instax here, like /v/ snoyboys always forget Sonys primarily a banking and insurance company lol

>>4451448
Correct. The xt5 is the worst piece of shit ive used and returned. There is no reason for that rattly, blurry pic toy to cost more than a full frame nikon Z. And fujislugs are cancer, like the opposite of cANON they believe bullshit so they can like fuji instead of so they can always hate it.

>>4451453
I've had them all and came back to Fuji.
But I don't do any editing as it's boring.

>buy a pentax k50 PINK
>photography is fun again
I just fucking hope the thing doesn't die on me

>>4451473
>PEAK SOVL

>>4451469
When you think about it, fuji is just leica for poor people.

It's kind of like how real musicians just go to the store and buy a mexican fender with a comfy neck and a line6/boss multi-effects that can plug into a PA, and "guitar hobbyists" build a pedalboard and pay out the ass for a vintage gibson.

So if you're a "thing hobbyist" instead of a "artist who uses thing", a fuji is actually the most reasonable purchase, because your other option is a leica or a real film camera.

>>4451520
>more FDS

>>4451525
>referring to TDS, when trump later turned out to be a pedo in israel's pocket
i still voted for him because normies were doing a bad job at noticing how many politicians are aipac pedos and kamala would have kept up the sovietesque denials of the biden admin tho

are we going to find out epstein preferred fujifilm?

>>4451530
>i am crazy
yes

>>4451531
sorry i forgot this is 4chan and you guys actually like pedos

>>4451534
trump isn't a pedo he said he would never fuck anybody under 13

>>4451469
same
but i also enjoy editing too

>>4451408
Buy a Canon of Nikon if you want smaller faster FF primes.

>>4451634
>smaller faster FF
>canon or Nikon
Step aside plebs, the king is coming through

is it better to start with simple jpgs instead of raw? can good editing be made out of jps if necessary?

>>4451637
>throw away all semblance of optical quality
>now it's small
many such cases on m mount

>>4451645
Despite what the autistic screeching here would have you believe, most modern cameras can out out a perfectly decent and usable jpg, so long as your exposure is correct. But there isn’t much editing room for correction with them. If you’re just starting Jpgs are fine to get the basics down, then maybe you can consider raws if you want further refinement. If you’re learning a camera and the also learning editing, which are two different things, you might start to conflate the two if anything seems off

>>4451645
no. shooting raw makes even the shittiest camera feel like professional equipment and decouples as much of image quality from the camera as possible.

>>4451650

so essentialy editing a jpg is just putting something over a photo, while with raw you can change the photo - i have some room for error when taking them?. sorry im not even starting yet

>>4451650
Feel free to ignore this guy. It's shooting jpeg that makes people believe phones can perform on par with ILCs. The sharpening and NR engines in these things just aren't good enough and the older the camera is, the worse it gets. The higher the ISO, the more jpegs issues show.

Fuji in particular goes from iphone quality to normal ILC quality just by opening raws in capture one instead of shooting jpeg.

>>4451654
Shooting jpeg is pre-editing in camera with one of the least competent raw processors on earth unless you unironically spent $2k+ on your camera.

White balance, "DRO", etc have to be controlled before the shot and it's a massive waste of time and an actual downgrade from the workflow of shooting film, with added frustration from cameras rear screens tending towards inaccuracy because they're meant to impress best buy window shoppers and every proper repeat customer already shoots raw so companies don't care.

>>4451655
>>4451652
Right on cue. The photos are not good enough for pixel peeping turbo speeds but for normal folks they’re totally fine

>>4451657
>STOP NOTICING THINGS! Having aesthetic standards is for AUTISTIC NERDS!
And you spent how much money on cameras to still hold this retarded position?

>>4451645
Shoot RAW+JPG and just worry about the JPG's for now
RAW can give you more editing options down the road if it's something you'd even be interested in doing
On the chance you do enjoy RAW's or your JPG profile tastes change, it's nice to be able to go back and adjust it to your newer taste or skill

>>4451657
for "normal folks" (or, as the jews call them, cattle) a sony a7rv and an iphone 16 pro take the exact same picture once they're sent through imessage or instagram

if you are shooting jpeg you should be shooting phone. it's like buying a sports car, and never engaging in motorsports because point A to point B is fine for "normal folks" (as if that's something to be proud of lol)

>>4451660
>it's like buying a sports car, and never engaging in motorsports because point A to point B is fine for "normal folks"
This is usually a consumerist thing but you see it associated with more insecure "passion" and anger on 4chan because every other person here was bullied in school for being a nerd.

>>4451659

i had no idea you could have both at the same time, guess that solves it. maybe tomorrow i finally unbox the camera lol, why is this shit so intimidating

>>4451666
The nice thing about digital is you can basically just blast away infinitely until it starts to make sense. Imagine only having 24 chances to get it right lel

>>4451645
Start with JPGs of course. You dont need to spend hours editing your photos on a computer because your camera is incompetent (unless you bought a Sony or something)? Go outside and have fun taking photos.

>>4451666
Yeah I only suggest +RAW because I know I have stuff I shot JPG only from years ago that I wish I could go back and edit differently

>>4451678
>Hours to edit
Leave the continuous high setting alone, digislug.

>>4451685
I just post directly to instagram from my phone
it just works, I post millions of pictures every year, mostly of blurry out of focus shots of the city

>>4451678
Editing just takes a couple clicks now

>>4451654
look at what I was able to accomplish with an optimally captured exposure and RAW processing that could not possibly be improved upon

>>4451698
lmaoing at the mexico filter

>>4451698
the only problem with left is that the red's are underexposed
right looks bad

>>4451675
Anon none of those are 50/0.95s what do they have to do with anything

note that this is an OBJECTIVE improvement
the tonality and contrast of the natural colored landscape that's blueish because of the clouds contrasts with the bright red gate
Would making the sun rays more pronounced make it better? Yeah but that would have required having the raw which you did not provide

>>4451703
>Anon none of those are 50/0.95s
shit nigga, just lean against something why do you need that shit. A 2.0 is perfectly serviceable even in low light.

>inb4 muh bokeh
just shoot medium format lmao

>>4451702
well, it couldn't possibly be any better captured or any better edited, so it really is just a limitation of the gear used, but thats okay because im buying a better camera soon

>>4451709
you're going to need to spend at least $10,000
Everyone knows you start being able to make truly good pictures when you spend at least $20,000 on a camera and $60,000 on lighting

>>4451699
its not a filter, the files are colorless and presets don't work because it's Canon so i have to edit from zero

>boomer millennials still edit all their photos on a computer
ok unc

>>4451718
Zoomers and gen alpha are literally so dumb their premature dementia rates are projected to collapse the healthcare system - if they get any healthcare at all, that is.

having a blast with this shitter

>>4451745
Mju bro.
They're so expensive for what they are. I'd never buy one at Ebay prices but I got this one that was sitting in a box at my parents' house. I gotta test it out but it seems to function as much as I can test without film.

The battery door latch is also broken so it's currently being held together with electrical tape.

>>4451722
You can tell when you're talking to one because of how incredibly stupid and shallow they are about everything.

What is the better EFS telephoto, 55-250 or 70-300?

How can I photograph my own vocal chords?
What lens do I need? Do I get the Laowa probe with built-in ring light and just gobble that up until it sees something?

>>4451814
If that's all you've got I would save the money and just get a new phone.

>>4451814
55-250 by a longshot

>>4451814
55-250mm STM is cheap and the best version. The 70-300 is soft and riddled with aberrations and the fact they ported it to RF is fuckin' outstandingly retarded.
>>4451830
>If that's all you've got I would save the money and just get a new phone.
ignore this retard.

>>4451830
I wish my phone could get distance shots without it being blurry dogshit, distance shots with telephotos are half the reason I use actual cameras

>>4451881
Most recent phones have excellent telephoto lenses now. It aint the 2000's anymore, unc.

Fuji APS-C are toy cameras for normalfags and girls. They are only viable as JPEG producing machines in a cute housing (but not quite as sovlful as the cameras they're based on), which is of course their stated design goal in all Fuji marketing.
"Pros" who use APS-C Fujifilm bodies unironically (read: as anything but a goofy little camera to play with now and then) are just hard coping and would be better served with any other system.
I can say this because I had an X-T5 on free loan for a few months. The shooting experience is great, the dials are great. But the menus suck ass, and the files are awful if you're trying to be at least somewhat serious (read: shooting RAW).
If you're intent on shooting Fujifilm, shoot 100MP GFX. If you aren't, just shoot anything else.

>>4451891
>even more random fds
You should share some of your examples

>>4451878
So the 75-300 is Canon's worse lens, then the 70-300 is shit too? Is there any lenses intended for the full frame that that I could leverage the crop sensor to get up to 300mm or more? I'd like as much zoom as I can without having to spend $1000 on a fancy white bodied telephoto

>>4451896
>the 70-300 is shit too?
No, different lenses can be different quality
The 75-300 in particular has just stuck with an optical design now +30 years old

55-250 is your best cheap option, then maybe like 100-400 (incl third party)

>>4451897
>The 70-300 is soft and riddled with aberrations and the fact they ported it to RF is fuckin' outstandingly retarded.
Is this wrong then? I knew the 75 was bad because it's a very old kit lens but didn't know people thought the 70 was too.

>>4451905
Canon made multiple 70-300mm lenses, so helpful to specify which. There is no 70-300 in RF mount at all, so it's probably a typo on their part and still referring to the 75-300.

>>4451882
Name those phones, all I'm coming up with is Chinese lens adapters for iPhones and vaporware Chink phones that cost $1500+ and can't support any western 5G bands

are there any f mount lenses that are good enough to warrant buying an FTZ adapter? I only have Z glass right now

>>4451917
Yeah my bad I combined the two. All the EF 75-300s are ass. The EF 70-300 IS USM I is terrible, the MkII Nano USM is much better. The IS USM DO version is a meme. The L IS USM version is bretty good but I can't remember if the Nano USM version ended up being a better performer for less money. I think it did.

>>4451941
300 f/4 pf and 500 f/5.6 pf come to mind. The huge pro 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 for f mount are way cheaper than the Z equivalents too, but absolute beasts to use. There's a crazy 120-300 f/2.8 lens Nikon made too. And there's also the 105 f/1.4. If you're ok ditching AF, older glass is cheap and has character. That all said Z glass is better than F glass, generally speaking.

>>4451941
>>4451998
I'll add, none of these are BETTER, they're all just gaps not yet filled by Z in some way or another. Lighter, cheaper, or some focal length/aperture combo.

>>4451941
The F mount 85mms, 105mm, 135mm (135mm is af-d so you'd need a zf/z5ii/z8 for full focus confirmation)

For some reason the camera industry forget lightweight, good enough short teles have an audience due to obsessing over "professional use", when 99% of cameras are not used professionally

Would the Canon 50D be viable in 2025? I just don’t want blurry photos.

>>4452086
it wasn't viable when it was new anon please don't do this to yourself.

>>4452093
Damn, what should I do then?

Someone bully me into canceling my preorder for this fuji.

Currently shoot on an A7C2 and have a bunch of E mount gear, have a contax film camera, and tempted to get this just for the colors and X-Trans vibe.

Also debating a Ricoh as a better everyday camera.

The hype is making me want to cunsoom.
Need some bullying to not be a gearfag

>>4452112
Of all the Fuji options, X-E5 is one of them that makes the least sense

>>4452113
Thank you anon. Youtube sales people are getting to me, and I missed the X100VI hype train.

XM5 could be fun if it had an integrated flash.
Or if the Ricoh GRIII had an integrated flash.

I wish there was a digital version of the Contax TSV2. I'm too afraid of breaking the lens mechanism to use it anymore

>>4452112
By all means buy it, it will teach you to appreciate your Sony piece of trash by being even shittier. Fujifilm is the brand keeping Sony from being the worst interchangeable lens camera brand. Also be ready to enjoy the worms from the X trans vibes. Seriously I can't imagine wasting 1.9k on a Fuji as a superfluous purchase when the K-3 III Monochrome is just 2.2k and an actual joy.

>>4452117
have sex incel

>>4452112
But thats actually a good camera and an improved upgrade over your sony system. Plus it comes with an actual high quality small lens and no more shitty color science. Enjoy a way more enjoyable shooting experience with your new EDC anon.

>>4452120
>buy fuji cam
>"wow anon just like film"
>have sex

Considering the Ricoh GR2 due to the onbody flash, or using an old A6000 with a pancake. Just want a camera to take spotaneous pics out and about and at parties without looking like that guy with professional gear

>>4452123
I'm afraid you're correct about this.

If you could choose either would you go with XE5 or X100VI? The other Fuji small lenses are also really nice. I even like their kit zoom that has an internal mechanism.

>>4452123
That's.... not right at all. But hey, this is 4chan. Anyone who isn't a shill, is a toxic hipster who hates everything that's popular and good.

>>4452127
Can you educate me more?
I've gone down the rabbit hole of Bayer vs Xtrans. I owned an XT5 then sold it for the A7C2.

While less sharp the Xtrans photos had a liquidy quality them that reminded me more of film in addition to the grain control.

I found the color science hit or miss, like sometimes it worked but it often made skin tones look very dead to me. Also the dials seemed silly compared to PSAM

Is the kodak pix pro az425 decent?

>>4452115
Would 100% recommend an XM50 and just get like the Godox im20/it20
The 23 f2.8 kinda sucks too
There's a lot of Fuji hate here, you can even see it above, so just take it with a grain of salt

t. resident Fuji expert

>>4452129
The only color rabbit hole TRULY worth going down into is Foveon. Accept no substitute.

>>4452132
Example shot from the XT5. Really loved the shutter on it as well so much more subtle than the full frame sony.

I was just looking at the XM5 on B&H. I had Fuji's compact flash, EF-X8, as well which I liked. Thanks for the tips.

General idea is to have XM5 (Or did you mean XT50? Which has onbody flash) with a pancake for EDC then A7C2 with 70-200 or primes for actual shoots

>>4452132
Do you have the Godox IM20? I have one and really don't like it being a dumb flash.

I might just need to get good but it always fails me in critical moments and I have trouble balancing the exposure manually in came and keeping shutter speed down so it illuminates the whole frame.

This skill issue is partially why I'm so interested in inbody

>>4452135
wao is that ur GF?! can you show coco milkies?

>>4452135
Oops yea xm5
No experience but seems solid for the size / price
The 35 f2 and 16 f2.8 are great compact options, I hated that the 27 was not internal focusing and motor was so slow / noisy
>>4452138
I really like it, only upset they just release the it20 which adds ttl, but at least I can still pick up picrel
Manually flash can be tricky but just consider exposing for the scene vs flashed subject and let ss control the ambient

>>4452126
>If you could choose either would you go with XE5 or X100VI? The other Fuji small lenses are also really nice. I even like their kit zoom that has an internal mechanism
Sounds like X-E5 would be the better fit. Only get the X100VI if you really really really specifically like 35mm.

>>4452132
XT50 with the 27mm F2.8, any thoughts on that pancake? The focus motors bothered me but the results were really nice

>>4452147
>FILM
kek, embarrassingly poser

>>4452146
Total personal preference but I'd go from X-M5 right to T5. The EVF on the E5 really sucks so either save weight and money with M5, or right to T5 for a bunch of functional gains for not much bigger
>>4452147
It's totally fine optically, just relatively slow and noisy, decent bokeh up close picrel
The 35 f2 in comparison is quick and silent

>>4452144
Hadn’t heard of the TTL version, think I will get the taller version of that and it will satisfy my gear urges for now.
Pic rel, me soon

>>4452149
haha holy shit, its almost as embarrasing as the BOKEH setting on the p17

>>4452149
Absolutely the silliest dial in the camera industry

>>4452135
This isn't anything special. Xtrans looks the same as turning off sharpening.

>>4452150
Fuji / Xtrans handles greens so much nicer than Bayer / Sony in my experience. Cute puppy! Do you shoot on an XT5?

>>4452112
realistically, how small and light do you want your everyday carry camera be?
a7c 2 body is 500g + lens. so ricoh gr3, or 4 (when released), xm5 + lens, xe5 + lens, x100vi. plus consider their bulk.

>>4452155
>Fuji / Xtrans handles greens so much nicer than Bayer / Sony in my experience.
Homies have no clue how to edit

Xtrans isn't magic, it's just lower resolution bayer that is poorly compatible with unsharp mask (so it's not used). Everything else is basically color profiles.

Buy a new camera when your old camera literally can't do something because you're saying xtrans handles greens better when capture one just handles color better than lightroom

>>4452157
Interesting is there a way to turn off or reduce the unsharp mask on a camera like the A7C?

Will have to try capture one. I thought due to the construction and larger green pixels Xtrans somehow handled it differently

>>4452158
>Interesting is there a way to turn off or reduce the unsharp mask on a camera like the A7C?
Yes, turn the sharpening amount slider down.

>I thought due to the construction and larger green pixels Xtrans somehow handled it differently
It doesn't. It's basically the same look as 24mp bayer scaled up 1.5x with the aliasing manifesting as diagonal lines or color blobs instead of weird wavy stuff and color speckles. The a7cii is better suited for aping it than the a7c though, because the a7c has a shitty filter on the sensor that smears detail horziontally.

>>4452150
>casually aesthetically mogs your Snoy FF camera
God damn. How does Fuji do it?

>>4452161
By giving you schizophrenia

Those who know the most buy the least
>signal processing / color theory
>directorial talent / set logistics
>shooting raw / manual retouching
>workflow efficiency / printing technology
>"achieving my vision"

Those who know the least buy the most
>rendering / sharpness
>3d pop / "dynamic range"
>lens character / bokeh peeping
>magic / presets
>"finding the look"

They only have one thing in common
>Fuck micro four thirds.

>>4452156
I appreciate the is breakdown. I think the X100 isn’t actually pocketable the way a Ricoh GR is, the way I see it is have one full frame interchangeable system with big lenses, and then the pocket aspC I think the GR makes the most sense

>>4452176
Both have a leaf shutter, the x100 has a mediocre lens, the ricoh GR has a mediocre sensor. Pick your preferred samurai-like lack of innovation and then listen to this after pressing "buy"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKMw2it8dQY

>>4452160
It’s interesting that Bayer is sort of how we’re taught to see the world digitally. This is a great explanation that I hadn’t gathered from other sites etc.


I have the CII any other advice on aping it besides sharpness down?

>>4452180
>Sharpening amount down, sharpening radius down
>borrow an xt5
>buy a colorchecker
>make an xt5 lut for your sony+desired lens
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6er_PI8XqvI

>>4452155
Yup, had T5 for a few years but literally selling it tomorrow lol
Used it on Saturday for some esthetician branding and worked great
Totally fine for most of what I do, I just end up using my other cameras more and it makes the most sense to trim away

>>4452133
Wow you weren't kidding. I want to live in the Foveon timeline

>>4452184
It's a shame most foveons are just so bad
I got my DP3M for free and I still hardly use it

>>4451998
lenses with character would be cool, I have a minolta adapter and can use my rokkor lenses but with the Z 1.2s being as pricey as they are it made me wonder if something like the 85 1.4g is worth copping with an adapter. the 500pf is a damn good deal, though. the 70-200 is my long lens right now and I wish I had more reach

>>4452131
There's not really anything like it currently on the market to compare it to, there were heaps about 10-15 years ago and it's bound to be better than those. Probably.

>>4452176
you may also get a small or pancake lens for the a7c2. if it's still bulky as an edc, then get a gr. the fuji becomes a filler for gear lust unless you also want an interchangeable lens camera but at the cost of a bigger size compared to a gr.

>>4452235
There aren't any small fast Sony lenses

>>4452241
is a fast lens for casual edc really needed for snapshits?
samyang 24 2.8 at 93g, viltrox 28 4.5 pancake chip at 60g are quite light.

I borrowed an EOS2000D a while ago (well, I didn't exactly ask for it) with zero knowledge about photography or even how a camera actually worked. I've been using my phone to take some pictures of landscapes and places mostly, maybe sunsets, trees, beaches, mountains, whatever the fuck I see that I like that's not close up.
I've been fucking around with it and after a while I got into it enough that maybe I'll consider buying mine and just returning this one. But I'm on a budget. Still I've seen plenty of people arguing that this camera is awful compared to even really cheap cameras, so surely, I can get something better.
Anything better and more compact around 400 europoors?

Sony a7 iii with kit 28-70
vs
Nikon z5 with kit 24-70
Price difference is negligible, both used in good condition

>>4452281
700D

>>4452286
The 24 is more than enough reason

>>4452235
>>4452250
Currently setup with the 28 F4.5. I really like it, can fit the whole camera in my pant pocket. Also have the Sony 20mm F2.8 ASPC pancake but I like this one more for edc

>>4450825
Fuji is most fun, least post production, chill camera experience if you don’t want to try hard and have shareable results immediately

>>4452301
Fuji is about just getting what other people like even if you have to spend pro FF mirrorless money for olympus om-5 performance
Other brands are about getting what you like even if only 3 other people notice

Fuji, hasselblad, leica are for andrew tate
Nikon, canon, sony are for this guy

>>4452286
Mirrorless nikons without a version number are junk. Don't get that shitty oversized sony 28-70 kit lens, get the tamron 28-75 f2.8. Don't bother with nikon unless you at least buy a z6ii.

>>4452393
Isn't andrew tate a gay man who pretends to be straight but actually has a tranny and feminization fetish? Yeah that's pretty fujifilm

>>4450591 (OP)
you dont need gear, sirs!

just use the kit zoom on your micro four thirds and crop if it is not long or macro enough
look at the amazing results (just dont pixel peep ok)

>>4452399
whats pixel peep

Canon bros, do you use Auto Lighting Optimizer?

>>4452399
Is mft just a phone camera with natural bokeh?

I have a Nikon z7 right now and mostly use it for shooting lowlight "urban landscapes" in the suburbs, some candid street/event, and daily life/family/pets. the Z7 works pretty well for everything but I recently tried out my wifes Zf for a day and fell in love with the auto focus capabilities and manual focus features. I'm looking at getting a Z8 since it's on sale from nikon for like 2800$ and I miss the subject detection for family and pets. I've heard the low light IQ is a little worse than the Z7. Is it noticeable or just really a thing you can see in a chart or pixel peeping?

>>4452408
And better zooms but yeah it's pretty similar. Good for what it is when it's in a tiny form factor.

>>4452516
its just a stop of shadow noise for the first four ISOs

>>4452516
>2800$
where the fuck are you seeing a z8 for that price?

woo, finally sold the stuff I don't really use anymore
still waiting for my sigma 17-40 to get here though

>>4452527
Nikon refurbished sale. It's directly on their site

>>4452526
oh lol for real. The way the fred miranda boomers described it you would think it was an old canon rebel. Alright I think i'll go for it then

>>4452536
You can not only check this stuff yourself instead of grasping at charts and rumors, but download raws to see if dpreview fucked up and if your raw developer and chosen settings can handle it better than theirs
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?normalization=full&widget=327

In most cases when you download a file and open and process it with normal settings, whole stop differences all but vanish and it's easy to process high resolution files down to lower resolution files so the noise is basically gone

>>4452539
The illusion of a genuine A B comparison, just lmao

>>4452542
>The illusion
Download the raws and determine if it's A:B enough for you.

They shoot each camera with the best lens available at the time of the test and "equivalence" is made irrelevant because they adjust the studio lights if "actually m43 must be at f2.8 to compare to FF f5.6" - and doing this is actually fairer because an FF F1.2 stopped down to f5.6 has a huge sharpness advantage over an MFT lens stopped down less and it's a flat object so DOF doesn't matter.

is the fuji 16-55 ii sold out everyhere or just where i am or am i missing something

>>4452548
Why can’t Fuji manufacture at scale successfully? Or is it hype fomo marketing via artificial scarcity like some Fred Again pop up bullshit

>>4452548
Probably just sold out atm, shipping dates for most retailers look to be early august

>>4452516
If you're having trouble shooting those things with a Z7 then the issue is you, not the equipment. If you want to consoom then go ahead, if having something shiny and new makes you happy because getting better photos sure won't. Personally if I was you I would just get good and be happy with that highly advanced and capable body you already have, spend that 3 grand on something more worthwhile.

I'm unsure if I should get the nikkor 35mm f1.4 lens or just use the 40mm f2 lens I have. On one hand the wider focal length feels like it might be nice and the wider aperture would help a lot when shooting at night, which I like to do night city stuff. But on the other hand, it's also a lot bigger and like $500. Anyone have experience with both of these that can give their thoughts?

lettuce be reality, is there a reason to buy any other camera?

>>4452557
I'm not having trouble per say it's just nice to have snappy autofocus especially for anything quick. 3k for a new body after 5 years is really not that much either. Just a bit under a weeks salary after taxes. This board really is infested with that right wing poverty cult mentality.

>>4452568
Only if you want more megapixels. Otherwise yeah it's basically the ideal for mirrorless.

>>4452563
I ownhave both and have used both for over a year. The 35mm f1.4 is definitely sharper and much better for shooting at night. It has better pop and contrast as well. I absolutely hate how the 40mm f2 renders highlight flares like street lights so I just never use it in the dark. That being said they are essentially serving the same exact niche and the FOV between 35mm and 40mm is not enough to really change anything. I basically only still have the 40mm because I got it first and it's so cheap there isn't a reason to sell it. I do throw it in my bag for any sort of hiking/backpacking since it's so light and small. Even though they are both good lenses if I had to keep one it would be the 35mm though.

>>4452557
That's bullshit. I still have my Z7II with just the 40mm and the autofocus still has a low hit rate/focus detection rate for moving subjects (especially towards the camera) with a restricted area and release priority, and single point/pinpoint still hunts more than it should. I had better luck with the a7riii. The D750's more mature focus system+keeping the box over the thing remains more confident in focusing on moving subjects when the Z7II's software hesitates.b

Nikon wouldn't have borderline out-competed their flagship camera with a $1699 entry level FF if the 2*exp6 processor cameras didn't have deficiencies. Speaking of, the z5ii is the answer to 90% of "i want a z8" moments.
>>4452568
For most people, no. It's the coveted "a7iii but actually a good camera".

>>4452563
The 40mm f2 works ok. It's not stellar. It's hazier at wider apertures and against the light and there's so much copy variation that if you like yours, it would be dumb to sell it, and if you don't, it would be dumb to try again. It does have nicer OOF rendering than the 35mm f1.4. But, so does the 35mm f1.8.

>>4452291
how's the 28 4.5? any cons? will you rec it to someone who will buy an a7c2?

>>4452568

preowned z50 might have wider software compability

>>4452582
I would absolutely recommend it. Despite the fixed aperature been using it as my daily when i just want to have my camera in my bag after work etc.

Cons: Heavy vignetting, No manual focus, I noticed a bit of a gradient in it will find an example. Despite these technical limitations I still highly recommend it especially for the price if you're at all interested in making the A7C2 pocket able definitely worth it.

I took it to a day time party and got fantastic results i wouldn't have been as comfortable trying with a big traditional lens. It makes the camera a lot less intimidating as well

>>4452573
>>4452575
hmm, yeah I've been shooting with my 85 1.8s at night cause it's sharper and faster than my 40mm but sometimes that focal length is a bit too tight. I agree no reason to sell when it's that cheap. Frankly I wish there was an actual pancake i could slap on my zf like how I used to use the 27mm pancake on my xt50 before i sold it. I heard something about the 35 1.4 being cropped in or not actually 35 but more like 37-38mm, is that true? Also I guess there's the option of getting an ftz and that tamron or sigma 35mm 1.4

What ND filter do I need if I shoot in bright daylight at f/1.4 for environmental portrait shots on my 35mm? Is ND8 too much?

>>4452776
ND8 should be fine if you're not using flash.

>>4452715
thanks for the tip

Z30 + 16-50mm Lens is $400 again


https://www.nikonusa.com/p/z-30-refurbished/1749Q

>>4452780
Thanks. Thoughts on ND4? Or is that not enough?

>>4452811
Could buy a good dslr for that,

>>4452861
but a z30 would mog any dslr in usability why would you even

>>4452811
>No viewfinder
>Old nikon's shit autofocus
>20mp aps-c
lol why? canon's cheapest camera mogs this

What's a good entry level camera? I've been eyeing the Sony A6700 but it costs 1400 eurobucks. There's the older model like the 6400 which costs around half. Then there's the panasonic lumix s9 which costs like the a6700. I really dig the look of the lumix but it seems marketed to content creators and that kinda bothers me.
Uuh yeah, I don't know if anyone else has any other models that I can look up and add to my list of potential buys.

>>4452893
The best way to get a good camera is to go to the next major camera expo and steal one from someone walking down the street nearby
traditional gypsi camera acquisition method

>>4452893
The lumix is better if that's your price range, it's full frame. But it doesn't have weather sealing so if you use it in the rain it will explode. Also autofocus is kinda janky if anything is moving too fast. But other than that yeah it's okay

>>4452893
What's your budget? I laugh at the concept of snoy, but please don't buy a panashit, it's a camcorder with gey autofocus. I like my R50, but an R10 would be better for not much more money and the RP exists if you want cheapest FF mirrorless. You're still sub $1000 USD.
Canons are blobby and the lower models get cripplefucked hard, but the lens selection is mint.

>>4452893
The snoy is well, a snoy. It does not have good color science. The good lenses for it are big. You can live with both but you’ll probably swap fora canon r7 or a nikon zf. Used nikon zfs can be had for less than $1400 if you wait.

The lumix s9 lacks the two most fundamental aspects of a camera, the shutter and hot shoe, because part of L mount is sigma and lumix are not allowed to make a camera that everyone sane would prefer over the leica Q. This means flash is out of the question, electronic lights cause banding, and moving objects distort severely. Just dont buy that garbage. Lumix has an even worse build quality track record than snoy. Every other camera has issues with failing dials and circuit boards and their autofocus is so bad that fuji feels like a quantum leap forward. In fact you might as well buy a fuji xt4 if you’re considering lumix trash. I can not emphasize this enough. Panasonic makes shitty cameras.

>>4452900
yOu CaN sTiLl TaKe (some) GrEaT pHoToS (eventually)

>>4452899
>>4452900
>entry level camera
>have to choose between no IBIS or APS-C
If he's going to get an APS-C he might as well just get a used 2006-2008 canon DSLR for like a hundred euros, two hundred max, and then use that until he decides what features he actually needs. He'll still get around 15 megapixels and there really isn't that much of a difference in quality or dynamic range for entry level usage.

>>4452904
Even worse advice. Buy twice cry twice. Get a good and reasonably popular camera with resale value so you can exit with the same amount of money or more. A canon rebel is money down the drain. Most people drop those at charity stores for free.

>>4452819
Unfortunately I only have ever used my nd8 and nd64 so can't comment on nd4 but unless your camera caps at 1/2000 or something I don't really see the point of getting a 2 stop nd filter

What do I need to look for when buying a CPL for a telephoto lens (just ~180mm)? The cheap K&F filters I've used on other lenses aren't up to it at all.

this fucker is driving me insane with lust. im poor though

>>4452905
Yeah he should get a camera that's gonna drop in value a few hundred by the time he decides he's ready for something else. A $200 Canon 5D is fine to learn photography. So is a $400 10 y/o depreciated out M43 like a Oly EM1 or even something like a refurb entry level APSC (R100/R50, Z30).

>>4452882
R100 is shit though. R50 is $480 on Canon Refurb's site and at that point you're trading portability for better AF and 4 more megapixels. Z30 is the size of a GRIII with the kit lens on it and the AF is definitely better than the other Z cameras pre-2023 (Z5/Z6/Z50/Z7)

Z50II w/16-50 is already hitting $850 refurb, that's what I want to pick up.

>>4452893
If you're gonna spend $1400 eurobucks on a apsc you might as well pick up a entry level mirrrorless FF like a A7III/A7C, R8, or a Z5II/Z6II/ZF. I like the A6700 but its expensive for what you get unless you'e doing video or need to do distance shots

>>4452948
No one needs to upgrade if they get something good like a Zf

>>4452943
I hate how flimsy they feel. They look good other than they're pretty fat compared to an FM2.

>>4452954
Yeah but on the flip side if they don't want to have a whole separate item to take photos with it's going to be a $1400 brick (probably closer to $800-1000 resale) sitting on a shelf instead of $2-400. Not counting the lenses if he even has the money for anything other than third party chinkshit and kit lenses. A lot of beginners pick up a hobby and don't stick to it after a few months.

>>4452553
is this western europe?

I'm >>4452893, I've read all your replies (ty everyone) and let me add some extra info
I'm not interested in doing videos, I'm mostly into still pictures, landscapes and people. I value compactness a lot, a friend has a Lumix G85 and I really like how it looks and how it feels in my hands. My budget is around 1000 euros, ideally less, I'm also willing to go higher if it feels justified, but not by much, 1400 is like the absolute maximum I'm willing to go. A feature that caught my eye on both the a6700 and the gx85 is the image stabilization (my hands are kinda shakey sometimes).
Again thanks everyone for your replies, I'm an absolute noob when it comes to photography so I really appreciate all your help.

>>4453027
Just get a Pentax K70, the 18-135, and 35 f/2.8 macro Limited and/or the 20-40mm f/2.8-4 limited.

>>4453027
Your phone works good enough just get better at using that.

Thoughts?

>>4453045
this would work identically if you added a minus picture and then two people having sex and the result was fujifilm since fujifags don't even have gay sex, they get no bitches

>>4453027
It all depends on what you value in a camera (low light performance, ergonomics, compactness, etc), what your budget is ($1400 is the absolute maximum?), what your used + new market is like (terrible or good, for example I'm American and I can get a Z30 or R50 from the manufacturer refurbished for $400-480 USD), and whether you're going to stick to the hobby or you're just flirting and might not stick to it (decides whether you're going to spend close to your budget max or spend half as much)

Panasonics fucking suck, don't buy one. Horrible reliability and only good for video.

Most modern cameras have some form of image stabilization. In body (IBIS, used by Sony Pentax Olympus Panasonic) is good for short lenses or vintage lenses. In Lens (VR by Nikon, IS by Canon) is good for long lenses but can make lenses more expensive + older pre-2000 lenses might not have it.

Personally if you take mostly stills/landscapes you won't get the full advantage of the a6700's autofocus which is meant for sports/wildlife. And if you value compactness you're probably not gonna pick up a DSLR let alone a full frame one like a Canon 5D. Maybe look at Olympus EM1s? For $500-600 its great if you pick up a EM1 Mark II, M5 Mark III, or M10 Mark IV used. Otherwise I'd be checking out the Canon R50 or Nikon Z30 but I'm American and can get those for $4-500.

If you really want to stretch your budget you can find a Sony A7C which is a REALLY nice camera since its a modern full frame but it might be closer to $1500 in your market (its $1000-1200 here).

>>4453051
Both low light performance and compactness are very high on my list, compactness more than any other feature since I tend to travel with a backpack only and sometimes a couple centimeters mean I can bring another pair of socks, lol. Not really, I just don't like cumbersome devices but also don't have a problem if I have to carry around some lenses.

The second hand market isn't that bad, and yeah, 1400 is the absolute maximum. The Z30 looks pretty good, actually. And the A7C seems great, but I'm already stretching my budget to reach the 1400 limit... But apparently it can be found at 1k used...

Do you mind if I ask your opinion on the Fujifilm X-M5 and the older sony models like the A6400?

>>4453072
>Low Light Performance and Compactness

Then you're limiting yourself to APSC, the FF cameras have the best low light performance from the physically larger sensors, but in turn they have larger lenses (almost 2x the size of M43). APSC is in between. The M43 cameras are usually more compact both sensor and body and the smaller sensor trades low light performance and fine detail for better reach/focal length for the same size lens. Some of those newer APSC cameras (ZVE10, Z30) can be very compact.

Fujis I'm not a fan of but there's some people that love them for their settings and minimal editing required from the jpegs. They're expensive for what you get

APSC Sonys I'm not a fan of either, they're usually either expensive and overpriced or "okay". If you can find one at a decent deal go for it, ZVE10 for example is usually $500-600 here vs the $800 a A6400 costs (difference being the viewfinder and smaller body). A6700 is a excellent APSC (only recently bettered by the Nikon Z50II and Canon R10) but the problem is that it competes with Sony's FF cams (A7III/A7C) for the same price.

>>4450591 (OP)
Anybody scanned film on a digital M body? The only thing left I'm using my previous camera system for is scanning film and I can't really justify keeping two systems just for that, contemplating a Nikon 60mm macro and an adapter. Has any anons tried another setup worth considering?

>>4452959
Yeah nobody ever mentions that. The plastic bottom makes it feel so cheap. I was surprised since I heard everyone say that it felt premium. I ended up putting a grip on it to protect the plastic and it weighed as much as a z8 lol. Just ended up selling it and getting a z8

>>4452959
yeah, ZFc seems the one sized like the FM2.

>Canon RP
>ca rp
>crap

>Panasonic S1R
>Pa c R
>crap

>Fujinon GF
>Fuji no GF

>Fujinon LM WR
>o M WR
>WoRM

>Sony
>So y

Woah, the mirrorless cuatrifecta

>>4453132
>nikkor
>n

>>4453136
Kek

I almost want a second d850 with how cheap they’re getting

>>4453136
Rekt

>Weather sealed?
>
>35mm lens?
>
Yep, it's photo journalism time.

>>4453136
Lost

>>4453252
Fuck off with your Costeau special

bought a leica m3 with a collapsible summicron one year ago and it basically cured my GAS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2dqPBGHg2U
How is this guys photography so bad? These look terribles. Do people really watch this and think "yeah i want to be like this"?

>>4453336
Fujislugs

>>4453132
Schizo

>>4450991
Silver crystals

>>4453336
biggest issue is how much outright wrong information he spouts in that video

>>4453336
I recognise that guy, he embraces what photography is about - taking pictues of beautiful women

On the fence about getting a canon R8, used prices are dropping to my level now.. the tiny battery but mostly if the electronic shutter will give rolling shutter, high shooting speed looks great

I thought I understood this but I am just confused now seeing videos.
If it's a crop sensor, and the lens is for a crop sensor, is the depth of field accurate, or is its still multiplied by crop factor? I thought it was only multiplied if it was a full size lense on a crop body, like a EF on a EFS.

>>4454139
it doens't matter what kind of lens it is, what matters is the sensor. If you put a full frame 50mm f1.8 on an apsc camera body with a 1.5x crop factor, it's gonna function like a 75mm f2.7. Likewise an apsc designed 33mm f1.4 will function like a 49.5 f2.1. Both focal length and depth of field are affected by crop factor.

>>4454139
If you're using a crop body you can basically ignore whether a lens is designed for full frame or is crop only, it makes no practical difference in terms of the image it will capture (field of view or depth of field). The only difference is a crop only lens can be smaller and lighter, and often cheaper.