The good kind of Alpha 7 edition
>All discussion and questions related to gear should take place in this exact thread.
>Redirect other gear-related threads to this thread.
>Remember to be polite.
>This is the thread in which you can be a gearfag.

Don't be a tryhard

Just buy a decent modern camera that gets out of your way if you want it to and still lets you larp with manual settings if you want to be an autismo
>but then how will people know i did?
lol

>>4453378
>larp with manual settings if you want to be an autismo
>Anon, I...

>>4453378
shooting on manual isn't a larp. What a strange thing to say

>>4453380
There's an M on the PASM dial if you want to be a larper.

This is peak camera. You don't need more.

>>4453383
Can you explain why you think manual mode is unnecessary?

>>4453385
manual focusing is only something you need to use for video
there's no reason to not use auto ISO
sony auto modes let you have all of the control of manual without the hassle of full manual

>>4453385
Manual mode is legitimately unnecessary for photography in 2025.

You can get any settings you want in P mode.

>>4453390
average /p/ user has never used a camera with good AF because they believe "snoy turns you into green shrek"

>>4453388
every camera has auto iso

>>4453392
>snoy colours aren't gre-ACK!

>>4453405
>comparison of an underexposed sony with a properly exposed canon picture
>why does left look worse
hello shlomo

>>4453407
>b-b-b-but under exposed..!!
Nice cope but just because sony has nasty overly contrasty puke shadows sooc doesn't mean it's incorrectly exposed. If being 1/300th of a stop off ruins your photo then your camera's dogshit lmfao

>>4453405
Remember when our resident snoyboy cited this article as 'evidence' of snoy's superiority then immediately deleted the thread? Imagine having worse colours than canon ahahahahahaha

>>4453405
>pixel peep 500% in lightroom
>see some noise in the shadows
>sony bad!
Sure is weird how tons of girls are going pro shooting weddings on sony and dont know what a shadow noise is

>>4453414
Weird how it has nothing to do with shadow noise and no one even brought that up. Nice cope tho lil bro

>>4453416
I dont know or care. I do know that normal people who dont zoom in 300% in scientifically normalized lightroom test photos don't have a problem with sony.

>>4453419
>m-m-my whole image is dyed puke green but im ok with that
Once again the colours have nothing to do with cropping in or pixel peeping.

>>4453428
>my whole image is dyed puke green
Remember this?

You're a pixel peeper who only does scientifically equalized test photos instead of just shooting like a normal person

>>4453431
>Look at this catalogue of images
>All of them are edited
>Most of them are colour graded
>One of them is an indian nigga
Ahahahaha perfect snoypost

>>4453435
You are a schizophrenic insane person. Go back to the other thread where you're having a mental break down or put your trip back on, canon shill.

Where to go after ef-m? Lenses didnt even get cheaper. Eos R7 or 6?

>>4453435
>The virgin nerd: This is bullshit. This isn't real science. That is not how you compare cameras. Show both unedited with a flat color profile that conforms to international standards for evaluating camera spectral color response. Using presets in lightroom does not fucking count. And don't get me started on the obvious lack of conformity to the laws of equivalence here. You aren't comparing cameras if you aren't taking the same picture. We have charts for a reason you idiot.

>Chads:
>Bro my sony is sick, i just shoot and add film sims on my ipad later.
>Dude, that's so easy. My fuji has film sims on the dial.

>>4453435
>>All of them are edited
>>Most of them are colour graded
since you think editing and color grading are so unnecessary and synonym with having bad color science, then let's take a look at your incredible completely unedited JPEGs

>>4453448
Bro I just add film sims on my ipad lol

I followed a youtube tutorial to send the photos to my ipad and now i can just open them in lightroom to add film sims and use the AI magic to delete photobombers its fucking awesome dude

>>4453446
anything else

>>4453448
I post pictures of Heather plenty, you can look at them in other threads.

>>4453453

>>4453446
R7 is meant for birding exclusively. I don't understand a market where you want to spend $1500 and buy a crop sensor body.
R6 is nice. The Ken-approved mirrorless. Rented one, but I wasn't a fan of how the IBIS worked though. Felt like it was wobbling for the first 1/2 second of half-pressing the shutter when I was adapting EF. Didn't seem to do that with RF lenses.

>>4453445
>>4453447
>>4453448
>w-w-w-well y-y-you're a shitty person if you dont use snoy!!!
ahahahahah nice argument retard. you're embarrassing yourself, is that really all you've got left?? lololol

>>4453446
Canon doesn't make good, affordable mid range cameras for normal people who simply have money.

Try other brands. Refurbished nikon Z50II kits are going under $1000 and if you stalk ebay long enough people sell great cameras like the nikon zf, z6ii, and z7ii and sony a7c and a7iii all for less than $1300 (z6iis and a7iiis can go for under $1000).

>>4453431
>>4453435
>>4453447
I feel like recently the gear threads kinda derailed with stuff like this. I get that a few of you like arguing about this topic. But it doesn't belong here and it boring to everyone else

>>4453460
>Sony is bad because i compared cameras under international standard test conditions instead of just taking a good picture and putting a good film sim on it
Ok so maybe sony isnt the best product for your physics experiment but people who take great photos dont seem to have an issue with sony, fuji, etc

>>4453461
Fuji too. the xe5, xm5, x100vi, xt50, etc are all really good!

>>4453446
Most people regret their mid-level buy after their entry level camera and before their first flagship.

I'd say go for the r5mk2 immediately.

Or spend a little time looking around. Other manufacturers have nice ecosystems too. The Petapixel Podcast had a few episodes doing roundups through the entire industry in the last few episodes.

>>4453414
You shouldn't care about noise in this pic. You should care that one is sharp and the other is not.

And yes, you should pixelpeep to 500% to determine if it's sharp. Normies absolutely do notice.

>>4453464
>but people who take great photos don't seem to have an issue with sony, fuji, etc
No, because every modern mirrorless ILC camera is 20x better than the SLR's people were taking great photos with 50 years ago. It has nothing to do with whether or not it's possible to take good photos with, it's about the market. Inches become miles when the market is this close and competitive. Even perfectly usable cameras like the F4 were comparatively bad enough to almost sink Nikon as early as the late eighties. Which is even more demonstrative of my point considering that ten years earlier Nikon was the undisputed choice for the professional market. It's pointless to compare a modern product against the criteria of "does it fulfil the most basic requirement of the product" because then there's no point comparing them. If you're going to compare them, you have measure the minutia.

>>4453464
>people who take great photos
>using sony
You mean tiny hat tribe hacks who make awful photos. You won't fool anybody here.

>>4453470
Um, yeah. And the picture on the right is way sharper. How do I know? It was taken with a canon r6. Sony pictures are blurry garbage that look like shrek.

>>4453470
And we're supposed to just ignore the fact the you didn't notice it's comparing a 20mp camera cropped in 350% with a 33mp camera cropped in 300%? Retard

When someone points out >image.jpg, don't be so dense as to imply that they're upset over something so trivial as a filename.

This filename is only the most obvious manifestation of a phenomenon of low-effort shitposting that with each passing year is taking up ever greater board real estate. It's a fact that mobileposters are categorically incorrigible shitposters. They can't help it. Posting from a mobile device essentially precludes worthwhile posts because of the limitations of the device they're posting from. Nobody posting from a phone wants to hammer away on their tiny keyboard to fully articulate a post. It's a fucking chore to write out an actual post. Mobilefags also have less investment in what they post. Rarely do mobilefags have the time or patience to browse an entire thread before adding a response. The average mobilefag scrolls swiftly through the catalog until he finds a thread that catches his eye and can drop a quick line in, and not unusually, he just makes the thread himself, never consisting of a single paragraph in length. Anyone who has browsed /p/ for any length of time can attest to how universally low-effort threads created with image.jpg are. This thread itself is a perfect example.

What it comes down to is whether or not you want /p/ to be a chatroom for redditors to spam low-effort memes at their convenience or a board that can self-moderate its own content.

>>4453476
>past shit wuz better!!
>now shit wuz bad!!!
who cares nigga sybau

>>4453476
you're a godless communist redditor and you don't know shit bout nothing
i use canon
because canons are built like a canon
sony, it makes you look like shrek
fuji is gay and for tards and faggots
real men only shoot manual
real men only use DSLR

>>4453478
DSLRs? What are you, some kind of pussy ass metrosexual japanese man? No, real men use german engineered large format 8x10 film. They don't even use a rangefinder, they use their eyes and trigonometry to calculate the distance and the required shutter speed. You are not a true human being if you use non-film substrate to capture images. You are a soulless soi golem, your mind has been controlled by the gay anime mind control beams coming out of Japan, wake the fuck up!

>>4453478

>>4453467
Most people regret their flagship immediately and go back to micro four thirds before realizing mid tier cameras like the nikon zf and z7ii are actually yhr best. Way better than dslrs.

Only talentless dog snappers will dispute this.

>>4453478
canon cameras fall apart
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/hey-canon-why-are-your-cameras-falling-apart-636447
now fuji
they make good cameras

>>4453486
>nikon zf
I reeeeaaally wanted to like the zf as the FM is one of my favourite SLR's but it's just so plasticky and nasty. It reminds me more of those shitty digital remake Yashicas than something like an stamped brass camera. I don't undertstand why there a new cameras coming out with build quality worse than a 5D classic, especially with a product like the zf where the body IS the selling point.

>>4453487
you are a homosexual
fuji cameras are garbage
they're made for "artists"
photography is NOT art, photography is a technical skill
FUCK art

>>4453487
>system designed for cost cutting
>is
>cutting costs
> D:
The whole reason goyim aren't allowed optical viewfinders anymore is because its cheaper to make more disposable ewaste electronics than to do it properly make mechanical and optical parts. Pretty soon mechanical shutters will go away and you'll have a phone camera with a (plastic) lens on it. You were tricked and you fell for it hard.

>>4453487
Modern fuji quality has gotten much worse while the price is much higher

>>4453494
As someone who has owned an S2 pro, an S3 pro, an S5 pro and a GW690, how far back do you need to go before the quality is good?

>>4453493
Its because dslrs are worse than mirrorless, captain blobtism

>>4453493
I haven't seen such a based take here in years. And yes, mirror less scameras are a trick to sell cheaper stuff at a higher price than the good stuff. Glorified camcorders.

>>4453503
Dslrs are worse

Worse autofocus
Bigger
Uglier
No exposure preview

You are a thinkpad linux fag and the mac chads are passing you by while you seethe about the cd drive being the last stand of something

>>4453501
Worse at saving the manufacturer costs. A pentaprism is harder to make and calibrate than a display.

>>4453501
No they're better, but a retard like you could never tell. You will be happy with your planned obsolesce ewaste. DSLRs literally have a button that makes them mirrorless. By definition they can do everything mirrorless can do, while mirrorless will NEVER have true TTL viewing. You just get a crusty little preview jpeg.

>>4453505
Shut up engineering nerd. We use cameras here. We dont make them.

>>4453506
Bigger
Uglier
Worse small lenses
Worse autofocus
No stabilization without bazookas

Fuji mirrorless made photos fun again
Dslrs are why most people switched to phones

>>4453504
Wrong on all counts! Exposure preview was first implemented in DSLRs, they're cooler not uglier unless you fetishisize Leica rangefinders, they can be bigger or smaller and their autofocus is more reliable and most importantly doesn't sacrifice imaging pixels to work. Wherever there's an AF point on a PDAF mirrorless camera, the information has to be guessed from the surrounding pixels.

>>4453504
>Worse autofocus
Has literally nothing to do with whether or not it's a DSLR. And its not even true.
>Bigger
To filter manlets such as yourself. This is intentional.
>Uglier
Only if you're a faggot and you hate curves. I'm sure mirrorless cameras look really good if you find mark zuckerbergs body really attractive.
>No exposure preview
Not even true, they all have it

Okay GG, DSLRs win again :)

>>4453508
Cope and seethe harder you fucking faggot. DSLRs are superior to mirrorless, they work better at every level and they take REAL pictures. Mirrorless look like plastic, they're blurry, and have zero dynamic range. You are an indian shill payed by Snoy, fuck you FUCKER.

No one needs anything superior than an RP. Anything more than that is just status.
Quality lenses on the other hand, are pretty much necessary.

>>4453508
You're so fucking ignorant it probably hurts to be you, lol. People switched to phones because they got good enough for what most people expect from a photo, they're always at hand and you don't need to go buy something else to simply take pictures anymore.
>No stabilization without bazookas
Ever heard of Pentax, Minolta, Olympus?
>Fuji mirrorless made photos fun again
I guess if you find worms funny they did. Back in the day you had to suck at developing for them to show up.

And not only that, lenses under $20,000 are all pretty much universally trash. Save the money, buy a canon RP and $200,000 of lenses as a starter kit for basic photography, then work your way up to actually good lenses

>>4453508
>be me
>shooting pics of my gf in the snow with my a7iv
>camera body immediately heats up as the sensor is on all the time as a 'design feature'
>tiny size that fits my child-like hands means the heat is trapped inside and condensation builds up inside the camera
>weather sealing is useless to keep moist air out due to hit-or-miss third worlder construction
>camera is immediately a permanently bricked
>meanwhile my taller and more handsome friend and his 5d mark ii have to continue the shoot alone with my gf while I call around asking about repairs

>>4453499
that is the good quality. It's worse now. I see people complaining all the time that the xt5 feels cheaper than the xt2

give me ONE reason I shouldn't get it for my birf day

>>4453528
it's not a canon

>>4453528
It will make Tim cry.

DSLRs are worse than mirrorless. This isn't even a question. The only people who dispute this are huskyfag and cANON.

>>4453533
cANON only disputes it because he's schizophrenic and thinks EVFs will fake the moon landing (the moon landing happened, it doesn't need faked)
huskyfag only disputes it because he's too poor and stupid to buy a newer nikon and is too autistic and virgin to buy a sony

>>4453528
The d780 and a lot of the other non-japanese made models like the d810 have plastic lens mounts underneath the mount ring. Very cheap and nasty.

>>4453533
>n-no !!! my ewaste is actually good!!!
Lol. Typical buyers remorse.

>>4453540
That's what DSLR fags say, yes.

The ONLY people who dispute this are talentless idiots. Huskyfag and cANON.

Otherwise, DSLRs are strictly inferior to mirrorless. Period. It's not up for debate. The only answer that can be brought against every factual point is some kind of cope like "uhm, that being better doesnt matter" because you're a coping poorfag who could only afford a Z7II and will never touch a Z5II because you're fucking poor.

>>4453542
Lol imagine being this idiot. Completely intellectually BTFO'd and raped, trying to cope with the sudden realisation that his whole kit is actually just chinkymade goyslop which won't work at all in a couple years. DSLRs are objectively better. They can do everything mirrorless cameras can do while providing important and useful advantages. This is entirely obvious. Sorry, you bought the wrong camera and you're made about it.

>>4453540
>i can't afford the good mirrorless because by the time mirrorless was a mature concept it was out of my budget
just like pro DSLRs were until the past 5 years huh? dont worry champ the good cameras will be within your budget eventually. we can tell by how new you are that you couldn't actually afford a camera that beat your iphone until recently.

>>4453543
>Bigger, heavier, and uglier
>Slower autofocus
>Less accurate autofocus
>Less autofocus coverage
>Worse lenses at every size/price point, so bad the RF and Z kit zooms beat most of the DSLR primes
>No exposure preview
>Mirror recoil
>No IBIS except on even shittier DSLRs like pentax that dont take a single sharp lens or have decent enough autofocus for photography of things moving too fast for phones
>B-but the CIPA battery life (real use battery life is the same)
But you can't afford an R6II or Z5II so, lol. Keep coping poorfag timmy.

>>4453544
It's so obvious when someone is american because they're so easy to dunk on and they will always try and fall back on
>b-b-b-but you're p-poor!!!
Meanwhile, they live lives indistinguishable from those lived in cape town, except they have to work 14 hours a day at mcburgerboy's to do so. Sad!

>>4453547
I work 4-6 hours a day, 4-5 days a week at amazon. Sorry you were too much of a retard to make it through college.

>>4453548
>admitting publicly to working at amazon
AHahahahahahah holy shit ahahahahahaha

>>4453545
>(real use battery life is the same)
kek, overdosing on copium as usual, not even going to bother debunking the other points
Tim is a mirrorlesscuck welfare queen btw, funny how you try to make him a DSLR user

>>4453548
Just when I thought it couldn't get any more hysterical.

>>4453549
>Nooo you can't have a comfy job copying and pasting code you dont even have to understand!
Lol. Blue collar fags are mad jelly.

>>4453551
Thank you for confirming you don't use a camera and if you do, you spend most of the time idly looking through the viewfinder, and 0% of it actually taking photos.

>>4453553
>Employment bad!
Put an alt-right loon and a communist in each others uniforms and you cant tell which was ever which

>>4453388
>>4453390
P mode gives you a "good" exposure but negates all control. If you're snapshitting it makes sense, if you have a certain vision in mind then A or S may help or not but M will certainly do the job. P is just minmaxing.

>>4453555
>worker exploitation good!
After your defense of Amazon's practices it's clear a Sony mirrorless is the ideal match for you, drone.

>>4453555
>>Nooo you can't have a comfy job copying and pasting code you dont even have to understand!

>/p/: seethes about people having jobs and good cameras
>r/sonyalpha: awesome photos
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/

Enough. Said.

>>4453560
no matter the brand every reddit board for photos has overly saturated shit that looks like AI
it's almost as bad as doghair or huskyfuckers pics

>>4453560
These are amazing photos and way better than negger and huskytranny pics

>>4453560
>Opens link
>Sees a pic taken by a Viltrox
>Closes it

Imagine buying a sony to shoot with chinesse rip-off lenses. If you're poor just buy a Nikon dslr.

>>4453560
These photos are average but at least they’re significantly higher quality than leo and heathers owners attempts at photography

hey im looking for a very compact camera (like the rx100) for around 300-400€ max for some casual photo taking and probably more shooting video. quality doesnt have to be the best (i know thats not a lot of money) and i dont have a problem with buying second hand. can anyone give me recs for my best options? rx 100 line seems like its still pretty expensive second hand, are the older ones worth it?

>>4453605
sony a6000

>>4453545
>Bigger
Baby hands
> heavier
Baby muscles
> and uglier
Objective
>Slower autofocus
Skill issue
>Less accurate autofocus
Skill issue
>Less autofocus coverage
Skill issue
>Worse lenses at every size/price point, so bad the RF and Z kit zooms beat most of the DSLR primes
Delusion
>No exposure preview
Skill issue
>Mirror recoil
Wot?
>No IBIS except on even shittier DSLRs like pentax that dont take a single sharp lens or have decent enough autofocus for photography of things moving too fast for phones
Skill issue/delusion
>B-but the CIPA battery life (real use battery life is the same)
Bullshit lol. Those tests favour mirrorless and imply that you're turning the camera off between shots so the sensor and display aren't always on and in the real world you run into the issue of them taking forever to turn back on compared to a reflex

>>4453608
take your meds schizo

>>4453607
feel like its too big still, want it to fit into a jacket pocket like a pns

>>4453611
How much is a G1X III nowadays? Best choice in PnS

>>4453616
seems to be around 700€ on german second hand market

>>4453608
>Baby hands
You have weak hands. Back when men were men cameras were even smaller and had no grips. Big soft black grips are for, well, does it sound familiar?
>Heavier
Yeah it matters. Back when men were men, cameras were even lighter. It made more room for important things like rifles.
>Skill issue
Back when men were men, we turned focus rings manually way faster than these DSLR shits
>Skill issue
Nope, tech issue. DSLRs are bad by design. leicas on the other hand were dead on.
>less autofocus coverage
Back when men were men we didn't cope with DSLRs and zone focused wides. Leica or MILC, accept nothing in between.
>Worse lenses
Not delusion, facts. SLR lenses are ALWAYS worse and larger than rangefinder/mirrorless lenses.
>No exposure preview
Back in the film days we didn't need it, but digital does.
>Mirror recoil
It's why your photos are all blurry.
>Skill issue/delusion
Back in the days of rangefinders we could shoot 1s handheld, but digital cameras are worse. Deal with it.
>Bullshit
It's the opposite of what you say. CIPA stops cameras from going into sleep mode.

>>4453619
There was a 4/3 sensor Panasonic PnS, name evades me right now but I'll try to find it

>>4453622
The LX100 has such a bad lens that people accused it of being a lying 2mp camera

>>4453611
How tiny is your jacket?

>>4453610
no
>>4453621
>cope: the post

>>4453621
You only hate DSLRs because most of them aren't discreet. You're a shy narcissist.
Have an Orson quote:
>I hate Woody Allen physically, I dislike that kind of man. He has the Chaplin Disease; that particular combination of arrogance and timidity sets my teeth on edge. Like all people with timid personalities his arrogance is unlimited. Anybody who speaks quietly and shrivels up in company is unbelievably arrogant. He acts shy, but he loves himself; a very tense situation. It's people like me who have to carry on and pretend to be modest. To me, it's the most embarrassing thing in the world - a man who presents himself at his worst to get laughs, in order to free himself from his hang-ups. Every thing he does on the screen is therapeutic.

>>4453621
there is no such thing as mirror recail
IBIS is a scam
blur adds character and depth to pictures, like film grain
your pictures look like plastic AI slop you bugman

>>4453627
You fuck dogs

>>4453629
Seething dlsaar

>>4453633
Fucking dogs is a based aryan tradition that has existed for thousands of years. A pathetic indian shill like you would never understand the glory of the germanic being, fucking dogs is based repdilled and fascist

>>4453633
>You fuck dogs
I'm cinefag, not canacuckfag

>>4453636
Silence dogfucker.
>>4452389
>>4452396
>>4452494
>>4452501

>>4453635
Ancient germanic societies actually punished sexual deviants severely. You're thinking of middle eastern pagans.

>>4453637
>Ancient germanic societies actually punished sexual deviants severely. You're thinking of middle eastern pagans.
Yeah they did. But they considered dog fucking normal. Every white woman in human history has fucked a dog. Without exception. Every white man in human history has fucked a goat, sheep, or dog, sometimes all three. You are truly children of yakub.

>>4453637
>Silence dogfucker.
Cope all you want calling me a dogfucker, but it's no coincidence that Canada is being flooded with chinks and jeets when bestiality is legal there.

>>4453638
Shut your whore mouth degenenerate mongrel

how different would your life be if you stopped replying to tripfags?

>>4453641
>>4453640
You fuck dogs

>>4453641
How dare you call me a mongrel when you're the god damn genetic abomination of a eugenics program created by yakub. You don't even know human history, you don't know the depths of evil that happened when your creator left mecca.

>>4453644
Reciting that won't make it true.

>>4453647
You are, however, on the record describing detailed bestiality fantasies and openly justifying bestiality, so yes, you are a dogfucker, and you should kill yourself.

>>4453649
They aren't fantasies, it's well known brown females shag dogs. It's really common knowledge.
>openly justifying bestiality
As a lesser evil alternative to browns multiplying even faster than they're already doing

>>4453490
(You) are a faggot

>>4453650
why do you fantasize about women fucking dogs?
because you are a zoophile

>>4453650
lol dogfucker

>>4453655
I'm accused of fantasizing about "women" fucking dogs, meanwhile >>4453638 is actually fantasizing and only I called him out. Double standards much?

>>4453659
But he's right though, white people are degenerate freaks. That's why they're being replaced by browns.

>>4453660
False.

>>4453659
You are a zoophile

>>4453660
soon 110...

>>4453661
You're a lying piece of shit

>>4453663
Skill issue

>>4453663
Skill issue

>>4453664
>>4453665
THE FACT THAT YOU FUCKING THINK YOU'RE SOMEHOW JUSTIFIED ENOUGH IN SPAMMING YOUR GARBAGE LIES TO BOAST ABOUT IT, EVEN IGNORING THE COMPLAINTS LEVERAGED BY THOSE WHO DON'T WANT TO INVOLVE THEMSELVES WITH YOU REALLY SHOWS HOW MUCH OF AN INSIPID BEING YOU ARE OBSESSED WITH TRYING TO CONVERT THE WHOLE WORLD TO DISHONESTY. YOU THINK THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD SHOULD BE SATURATED IN NOTHING BUT LIES. TO YOU, IT ISN'T EVEN ENOUGH THAT PEOPLE CAN'T JUST NOT LIKE IT, APPARENTLY YOU THINK THOSE WHO DON'T LIKE IT NEED TO HAVE IT FORCED UPON THEM AGAINST THEIR WILL. THE ONLY ACCOMPLISHMENTS YOU CAN EVER BOAST ABOUT ARE SPAMMING "LE EBIN ZOOPHILE IMPLICATIONS/DOG IMAGES" TO THE POINT WHERE OTHER PEOPLE REPOST THEM, AND YOU'RE PROMOTING THIS AS A WAY OF LIFE THAT NORMAL PEOPLE SHOULD BE LIVING. YOUR EXISTENCE REVOLVES ONLY AROUND BEING A SCUMBAG, AND IF YOU DIED IN A HORRIBLE ACCIDENT TOMORROW, WHICH I REALLY HOPE HAPPENS, I WON'T SHED A FUCKING TEAR

>>4453666
Based. Total Liar Death.

>>4453666
Tldr you posted bestiality fantasies in /fgt/ and defended bestiality as a moral institution here >>4453637
You are a dogfucker and your satan trips are the mark of your master

>>4453666
TLDR (too-long dogfucker rant)

>>4453670
>>4453672
BLEED YOURSELF DRY

>>4453675
Hey nophoto dont you have some doodles to diddle, somewhere else?

>>4453677
>you should be like me and lie with beasts, I call that being a positive member of society!
DIE OUT

>>4453679
No, no one should be like you and lay with beasts. Keep that to yourself ya sicko. Christ.

>>4453684
Oh no mate someone’s got to make sure you stay at least 200m away from any canines

>>4453686
Drown yourself out

Why is cinezoophile having a melty? Did his dad get the dog neutered after finding out?

>>4453692
GET FLATTENED BY A SEMI

I’ll take that as a yes

Dare I say... This performance is... PURE CINEMA?

>>4453698
I aim to please

>>4453698
Huskino

>>4453701
dis is blatant aislop :/

>>4453701
Doggerino kino

Or as I call it, doggino.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAcDE2ejJqs
(note: cinefag is discouraged from viewing this video)

Family portrait.

I actually really like Olympus M43 cameras and think they'd be peak if they actually used bigger sensors. I'm really tempted to pick up a M1 Mark II or M5 Mark 3 and newer to see what it's like.

>>4453711
I lost an auction on a K10D this morning, aiming for a K200D next to my KF. It was a K10D Grand Prix Edition but I couldn't stomach paying $80+ for one. Would rather have the K200D which is the same thing but 2 years newer and istD sized. Supposedly has a better jpeg engine vs the K10D too, but they're rare since they were a 1-2 year only camera.

https://buyee.jp/item/jdirectitems/auction/n1193475122

>>4453478
>>4453493
>>4453503
>>4453501
>>4453509

poor

cinefag is what happens when you hang out in the 'farms too much

>>4453560
>>/p/: seethes about people having jobs and good cameras
>>r/sonyalpha: awesome photos
>https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/
>Enough. Said.
Imagine posting this unironically.

>>4453732
Can you post better?

Didnt think so

>>4453740
The vast majority of those are center-framed photos wide open depicting a single subject with minimal context and colored with youtuber presets. Another subset are photos that are really cool but frankly, anyone could take if they throw money at the problem (e.g. the tracking astro stuff). They wow on a first look, but seldom go deeper. It's soulless photography.
The stuff that transcends that are posted from accounts that have been unused for 3+ years and the history before they started posting in that subreddit are low-effort sports posts that have an unreasonable number of upvotes -- ie. they're accounts created and sold for shilling, ie. they're literal Sony marketers posting actual professional photos Inauthentic af. (And they still rarely go very deep beyond being nice, well composed landscapes).
Frankly Reddit is where good photography goes to die. It's all horny-posting, shilling, and autists that don't have a single art bone in their body.
You'll find better quality engagement in photography in any Photography 101 class at any community college.

>>4453751
>TLDR: pointy knees would not bang!
Can you post better tho
>inb4 real photography is black and white photos of people walking. le tell stories. le human condition.

>>4453752
Shut the FUCK UP redditor

>snoycucks are redditors

>>4453752
>inb4 real photography is black and white photos of people walking. le tell stories. le human condition.
Unironically yes. Good photography doesn't necessarily need to be of people, but it should "tell a story" or somehow get me to think about the subject matter more than 5 seconds before saying "neat" and moving on to the next photo.
If your photo is only capable of holding attention for no more than a minute or two, incapable of provoking discussion, thought, introspection and extrospection, your photography is cheap. Cheap is not a good thing.

Unless you're autistic and incapable of beyond-literal consideration of topic matters and reduce photography to "mere documentation" or wtfever you autists keep trying to claim photography is.

>>4453758
That's just art school pretentiousness that leads to good grades but photos no one looks at. It's a photo.

Just another case of "art world" myopia and fart huffing. When art became the choice pursuit of the unintelligent who nonetheless wish to be accomplished, it died. The only photos that actually tell stories and provoke thought are historical - and either snapshits or propaganda. It's just a fact that resumes being true outside of class.

>>4453759
people have to literally be taught to think of photography that way and they usually forget it or discard it lol

if you think art is bad just wait until you find out how stupid ethics are
>we're not sure if we should kill ourselves, yet -ethicists

>>4453758
I hate how some people on here think photography can have no deeper meaning, symbolism or thoughtful interpretation. That an image is entirely devoid of all meaning and its merit comes simply from aligning things nicely, having the horizon straight, and accurate colors.

Painters can do it with the flowers they choose to paint in the hands of some sad looking woman on a couch, and everyone just accepts that. Why can't photographers choose specific elements to add to an image to create deeper meaning in their photography?

>>4453763
If it's not street photography it can have meaning like theatre can but it's so lacking even then that people scroll past in 5 seconds anyways

>>4453767
then something has been done wrong.
If you can't take a photo that makes people entertained you failed as a performer and might as well call yourself a button-presser.

>>4453767
I don't blame the majority because of tiktok, instagram, and the dopamine addicted world we live in. I would be lying if I said I didn't brush past a lot of the photography I see without much more than a nice, or that looks cool.

>>4453763
Most people here don't actually like photography as an art form. I think this is the principle issue with this board and others (like gearfagging and nophotoing) are just symptoms. Don't let it get to you too much.

>>4453775
most of the planet doesn’t recognize photography as art and it takes a lot of philosophizing to pretend it logically has to be art regardless of any real artistic merit

>>4453776
it can be art

>>4453776
With full intention over the scene, a clear and defined goal, control of the tools, and some actual artistic vision, photography *can* be art. Just like cooking can be art, but anon's microwave mac and cheese is not and never will be.
This entire board is the microwave dinners of photography.

>>4453781
Even if we all suck it does not mean we can't have intent.

>>4453776
>most of the planet doesn’t recognize photography as art
wrong

>>4453761
It's literally one of the most natural ways to think about photography.
Vivian Maier was generally an uninspired photographer. None of her work was very good. She never got famous when she was alive not because she was a woman as much as the feminists would like to claim, but because her contemporaries would look at her work, say "that's nice," and move on.
Meanwhile Garry Winogrand was taking pictures that, well, I'm not going to write an essay. But his photos captured the imaginations of Americans in the same way The Great Gatsby did, with a slice-of-NYC-life, just touching on, but not too controversially, racial relations, feminism, etc. New Yorkers might've just said, "Yup, that's the Bronx zoo." But there were many an arguments at every small town diner late at night over the photo of a black and white woman together, about the affluence of NYC's nightclubs, etc.
But NOW Vivian Maier's photographs have a lot more intrigue, as they captured a broad swath of the daily life of Americans in that time period, that was ignored by other photographers. Whereas before the photos of kids provoked nothing more than "that's nice" from just about anyone she tried to show them to, now they provoke discussions of what it would've been like to be a kid, or a mother, or whatever in the 1950s-1970s.
Which, was kind of Vivian Maier's intent, it was an intent that was irrelevant and uninteresting for the time period.
But the vast majority of photos on Reddit don't have any intent beyond being horny, shilling products, and autistic "documentation".

>>4453767
Basically. It's why my bread and butter is family portraits and such. Minimal artistic intent but that's something that people aren't "scolling past" and will actually pay for.
I've had my photos in galleries before and it's the #1 way to get people to pay attention to your photography for more than 5 seconds. Haven't done that since 2020 tho because got uprooted during COVID and haven't found a stable place to live I can build connections to get back into a gallery yet.
Galleries made me almost no money lol.
>>4453776
bitch, the entire fucking world recognizes the meaning of this photo. No photo has been more successful in provoking discussion of a variety of topics than this photo. Discussions about refugees, woman's rights in Afghanistan, feminism in general, war, religion, the rights of those being photographed and the appropriateness of photographing people for commercial exploitation.
And probably one of the closest things to the achievement of the Human Instrumentality Project x Global Consciousness Project in the history of humanity by getting so many people to think about a simultaneous thing at once.
If you don't think that's global recognition of art then you're obtuse as fuck.
And yes, I'm using an obvious af example because sometimes it takes obvious af examples.

>>4453363 (OP)
Me and the gf got this and a RB67 and I haven't bought any other gear since then. I just spend money travelling the world and taking snapshits with my gf instead. Life can be good anons

>>4453794
I still suck at composition and most of the pics I think I'll like turn out to be shit and most of my snapshots are good (to me). At least now my photos aren't blurry and wrongly exposed anymore

>>4453796
One of my worst "I think it'll be good but nah" is this one. I bought a random lomo bw stock and it had some shitty effect

>>4453798
Man, that's so disappointing. There's so much potential there if there was just more contrast to work with there with the fisher.
This is why digital really is better.
But, it's also why film is more fun and inspirational. You're working with something far less precise and vague which does interesting things to creativity.
>>4453796
Your photos are good snapshots. These are things you'll look back on in 5 years and remember those times.

>>4453803
Film is not the issue aside from it being shitty film. Bad exposure + development caused that.

>>4453807
I didn't want to say it.
Looks like they exposed for the sky when they should've exposed for the shadows, and left the sky recoverable.
I don't know enough about film development to know if they could've reasonably brought more contrast to the shadows in this circumstance.

This is literally my dream camera. But why is it $5.1k? I just dont see the point of spending that much when its going to most likely break down in a year or two anyway.

>>4453812
Why? It's just a more expensive a7c with a lens you can't remove. I don't at all understand the appeal of paying a huge amount of money for a fixed lens camera with no zoom

>>4453810
Basically you always want to expose for shadows, or the darkest thing that is important. Push/pull processing is not really feasible on a medium format roll with 12 other shots, but if it was a single sheet or the most important shot in the whole roll you could have pulled the film to reduce highlight density.

Film has a very high latitude, so detail would have probably been preserved in the sky, but may not have scanned easily. With a little extra work youd definitely be able to make a print out of the picture.

I did not pull process this shot, but I added a lot of extra time to burn in the details in the sky.

>>4453803
>There's so much potential there if there was just more contrast to work with
Call it artistic faggotry but I wanted to make it look like a shadow so actually I'm quite happy with the exposure despite what the other pixelpickers say. I'm only disappointed by the strange lines and artefacts.
>>4453810
Meh all the pics were like that with the lines and the saturation fucked so I guess the lab fucked up or maybe the stock was expired, my spot meter works pretty well and it's the only time this happened
>>4453821
>but if it was a single sheet or the most important shot in the whole roll you could have pulled the film to reduce highlight density.
Yeah but I'm traveling so I don't have a lab
>Basically you always want to expose for shadows
Hard disagree, my favourite snapshit of mine is picrel and the shadow adds something I think, same as the fishing guy, you can't see the face. Idk that's just my taste

>>4453826
Exposing for the shadows doesn't mean you won't have shadows. It means you are ensuring the shadows are in an appropriate zone of exposure such that they retain detail.
If you go too dark on film, you lose detail. If you go too bright, there is usually still recoverable detail. So when we say "expose for the shadows" we meant let the sky go too bright so you can retain detail in the shadows.
Then while developing the negatives you can develop it in a way that increases contrast if you'd like, or save that for after scanning and/or printing from the negative.
In >>4453798 you could've increased the contrast and make t he fisherman more clearly visible while still making it "arty".
>>4453826 Works because the shadows just so happen to be in the exposure zones you wanted to anyway.
It's not about whether your light meter works or not (because it is working), but what you're choosing to meter and how you place it in your exposure.
Your meter is trying to find middle gray. In >>4453798 you could've metered for the fisherman and the background in that area, and make sure those are no more than 2-3 stops or so below the exposure your camera recommends, exactly how much depends on the film and developer. They would've still been in shadow, but you could more easily make out the outline of the fisherman against the background and create a more impactful image IMO.

>>4453815
I shoot 35mm 99% of the time. Plus the Sony 35/1.8 is massive (like most Sony primes).

>>4453832
stop trolling.

>>4453836
??
What are you trying to say with that image?

I have to take a lot of macro pics for work. Up to 2:1. I was looking into full frame camera with pixel shift technology, and saw the panasonic s5 as the cheapest. is it ok for this purpose? I read about the slow AF, but it does not matter for me I will work only in manual focus. Does this high resolution mode works with old lenses adapted (like componon enlarger lenses on macro bellow)? because it is what I will use. Black pill me on pixel shift I guess.

>>4453846
Pickleshitting is a gimmick.

>>4453847
why? looking the comparisons online I can see the differences

>>4453779
Put your trip back on dogfucker

>>4453830
>Exposing for the shadows doesn't mean you won't have shadows. It means you are ensuring the shadows are in an appropriate zone of exposure such that they retain detail.
Being an artist means realizing not all detail has to be preserved.

>>4453854
1) and being a skilled artist means understanding your tools and how to use them effectively.
Film, details break down quicker in the shadows, so preference should usually be given to protecting them over the highlights, which are more recoverable.
The exposure on the negative isn’t the final image. So if you want darker shadows with less details, you can do that during printing or post-processing. You can always take them away, but you can’t get them back if they weren’t captured in the first place.
2) I understand what they’re going for but they did it poorly. The image would be improved with a more defined edge between the fisherman and the background.

>>4453846
Panasonic is good if you want to invest in a brand that ditched photo for video harder than even Sony.

>>4453856
Just because you understand them it doesn't mean you should max out the detail in everything. It's art, not computer vision. "Wrong" exposures are only wrong if they're not what you intended.

Bought an R8 after tossing up between it and the R6. I want this for travel so didn't want to deal with the bulk of the r6.
Apart from the cripplecucking canon bullshit, I'm actually looking forward to it arriving. Apparently the overheating issue was fixed with a firmware update. Anyone confirm?

>>4453854
For film, yes.

Don’t clip your highlights on digital or else it turns into jaggy weird colors, or trash shadow detail because instead of pleasantly disintegrating into grain it turns into green splotchy static. We have phones shooting raw for that.

>>4453857
Panasonic has a worse reliability track record than even sony, worse autofocus than fuji, the absolute worst color, more oversized underperforming overpriced lenses than nikon, and more marketing scam tier bodies than canon. They’re the worst of all brands combined.

>>4453866
it should be sooner or later because it doesnt actually overheat. a sensor near the exterior shell detects a sudden temperature change and it flips out.

>>4453875
Yeah apparently that's exactly it and lately people are saying it'll show the gauge rising but it won't turn off. I guess half-fixed is better than not at all

My t6 arrived. Where do I get a cool nickname? I'm thinking Tog with a Dog. Any dogtoggers wanna weigh in?

On a serious note, I'm charging it’s battery and then I'm going to go through a checklist to make sure the sensor works and verify overall condition. Any recommendations for what I should be checking for? Pls ignore the strap I don't think I attached it correctly.

Should I sell my GFX with two GF lenses now and buy the Nikon Zf or wait for a Zf mark 2 or so?

I really love the image quality and details of the GFX but it's a bit to big and heavy for all day carry with 30k steps

>>4453884
I wanted to make this a standalone statement, but

There is serious value in a camera not looking "professional". Despite what every brand other than fujifilm (and now nikon) think. I have had my camera confiscated by bouncers THREE times this year alone because businesses etc said "NO PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY!". To normies professional means a camera that looks a certain way that traditionally implies higher image quality. That is all professional photography is to them and most shitposters on /p/ could be professional photographers (reportage).

We can go about this two ways
We can get as many people as possible to carry nikon Z6s and canon R8s as many places as possible to force normie consensus
Or we can keep our heads down and buy cameras like the ZF

>ZF.2
Most likely not happening. See how the small primes still have plastic mounts? Nikon threw hipsters a bone but the japanese position is generally that if you are not a professional you do not deserve a good camera for just fucking around. They are still a collectivist feudal society at heart and honestly believe that you don't need the best anything because you aren't important.

The only reason sony seems to diverge with the a7c series is because sony cameras are so poorly made they aren't the best anything anyways.

>>4453883
>a cool nickname
"Anonymous". Don't be like the german shepherd nut. He's insane.

>How to function test a camera
Press all the buttons, turn all the wheels, try using all the ports, try using the built in flash

Take a photo of the sky at f16, to look for sensor dust
https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/s/article/ART165624
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHKhqL-ikIE

Take long exposure photos of a wall in a dark room at ISO 400 with a small f number to look for hot pixels
https://www.bluehoursite.com/articles/how-get-rid-stuckdead-pixels-canon-dslr-camera

Turn the shutter speed all the way up in M mode, turn on continuous shooting, and see if it fires for a minute without going ERR. If it does tell the seller "I took a few photos and when i pressed the shutter it said ERR" and buy another camera.

>>4453883
Doghair came about because I kept posting hairy negatives, so eventually my name just became doghair. Same story with Huskyfag getting his name.

Visual inspection, try all buttons, check AF, check shutter, take pictures of something flat to see if optics/lens mount are good. Then you'll be all set!

>>4453888
>Same story with Huskyfag getting his name.
Because he has a husky, and is gay?

>>4453893
Maybe I would need to see archive proofs on that. I think Fag like a fag not like fag fag. You know?

>>4453486
>Most people regret their flagship immediately and go back to micro four thirds
Delusional.
iPhone or flagship. Everything else is a waste of time.

>>4453896
Flagships are stupid. They're not the best, they're specialized tools meant to be purchased in bulk by news agencies. How do you think canon gets away with their top 3 full frame models having literal aps-c dynamic range? Sony's top model has literal m43 dynamic range.

They aren't meant for hobby/gig photographers like leicas and hasselblads are. They're meant to be bought by the crate along with a long term support contract and handed to employees, already set up to constantly stream jpegs to whatever intern is doing the cropping and culling.

Im thinking about getting a used fooj x-h2. Thoughts?

I really like the fuji 1.4 primes and will probably get the 70-300 for wildlife.
Used x-t4 is cheaper but I prefer modern controls compared to hipster top dials

>>4453902
Why would you buy a full frame sized fuji when you could buy a nikon or canon that's much better made and is capable of anywhere from the same low image quality to much better image quality depending on your skill and intent?

https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/comments/122hx7k/so_my_xh2_died_in_the_rain/
https://fujicrazy.com/cameras/weather-sealing/
So far the only brands that can sell a camera as weather sealed without an IP rating and still post good survival results are Nikon and Canon. IP ratings are kind of bullshit, but having to keep a market of working professionals loyal to your viewfinder hump lettering isn't. If you're OK with aps-c, wormtrans, and low build quality and want to use fuji's viltrox-tier lenses why not just get a cheaper model like an xs20?

>>4453902
I like my H2s a lot, and don't really miss my T5, but do miss that sensor
Build stays better too, mine has been through tons of rain

>>4453894
Huskies are a gay guy dog or a nazi dog. If they're not a zoophile they're either gay, or secretly gay but mask it by being into asian chicks. Or they're a nazi, and probably into asian chicks.

Photography is either a gay guy hobby, a jewish pedo hobby, or a nazi hobby so do the math.

It's either huskyfag, or adolf huskler.

>>4453904
Fuji has iffy QC. Some "weather sealed" cameras crap out, some have noticeable gaps, some are ok, and some non-weather sealed cameras win the QC lottery so hard they survive rainstorms.

It's not a brand I'd spend $2000 on unless I just liked to spend money.

>>4453906
>Some "weather sealed" cameras crap out, some have noticeable gaps, some are ok, and some non-weather sealed cameras win the QC lottery so hard they survive rainstorms.
This is true for all brands.
>It's not a brand I'd spend $2000 on unless I just liked to spend money.
Good for you, plenty of people feel differently.

>>4453907
>This is true for all brands
I didn't know all brands were sony.
>Plenty of people feel differently
They're objectively a minority. Just one that's very vocal on the internet. Fuji has the second lowest market share out of the "living" camera brands and most of it's due to the retro point and shoots.

Don't get me wrong, I'd throw an XM5 or XE5 in my pocket and just not pixel peep. But the XH2 and XH2s are $2000 aps-c nikon clones with all of the quality assurance and image quality removed. Absolutely a bad buy.

>>4453908
>They're objectively a minority.
A minority can still be plenty.
>Absolutely a bad buy.
For you. If it's good enough for pros better than myself to use, good enough for me.

>>4453909
Pros better than yourself are brand ambassadors who get free cameras, and have insurance policies on top of that, paid for with client bucks.

Pros better than yourself also use sony cameras that are well known for random build quality failures because their clients are paying for everything and they can get kickbacks by sucking up to snoy. I guess you better never, ever say a mean thing about sony again!

Back in reality, fuji isn't known for quality, and spending $2000 on a full frame sized aps-c fuji is just throwing away money.

>>4453899
Name one (1) flagship camera that's worse than a mid-range from the same manufacturer

>>4453911
spending $2000 on an aps-c camera is throwing away money period

>>4453909
pros use retarded shit because every camera they buy pays for itself in 1/3 of a wedding, even if its substandard, because wedding roasties have 0 standards. most pros are gearfags who got into professional photography so they could buy every camera they ever wanted without caring about how good it was.

>>4453912
Canon R1
Canon R3
Sony A9III
Nikon Z9

All of these are worse (for anyone who is not a newspaper employee, or employing journalists) than mid range cameras that have better image quality and still take optional battery grips (and actually get more battery life out of them), just for some excessive FPS anyone with the smallest amount of skill doesn't actually need. It is, however, needed when there is zero guarantee the person holding the camera is actually skilled.

They are not made for hobby photographers or what /p/ thinks of as a professional. They are for newspapers to buy for their journalists. The battery grips on canikon are integrated (and mono-battery) specifically so the monkeys can't break the battery grip or fumble two batteries. Not because there is an advantage to building a camera with a built in, non-optional grip and a larger single battery. Sony doesn't do this and mooks break the grips or do dumb shit like insert a live battery and a half dead battery and complain. Employee use has different requirements than personal use.

>>4453908
>most of it's due to the retro point and shoots.
Most of it is due to instax. Why do you guys always forget instax, it’s literally what’s keeping them alive.

>>4453917
Their second to last place position is large sensor digital sales only

If instax were rolled in, that shit does more sales than the entire digital camera industry

I recently acquired a Nikon D3400 as a hand me down. This is my first camera. Could anyone point me to the right direction in learning the basics of photography? Books, courses, etc.

Does anyone recommend a lens? It seems to come with the stocks lens.


I don’t really have an idea in mind of what things I’m particularly shooting. I’m just shooting whatever I find on my lunch breaks when I go for walks. I walk by a marina so I see some interesting cars, typical birds, and people walking by

>>4453920
Buy a lens that says f1.8 or a lower number. It doesn't really matter which as long as it's smaller than the stock zoom lens. It'll still look cool and be funner than rockwellian zoomography.

Learn what the exposure triangle does.

Shoot raw. In jpeg, camera image quality improves year over year. In raw, every camera has been the same for 20 years. You don't even have to be particularly good at editing because modern raw processors like lightroom and capture one start with defaults that are just higher quality camera jpegs.

>>4453888
Alright hehe! I'll let it come along naturally.

Here's a test shot for now.

>>4453922
My nigger in chrigger, buy a $10 circular polarizer that fits your lens to photograph shiny metal and glass things.

>>4453923
Pfma

>>4453922
Very based. Good work.

>>4453923
>posts first photo ever taken on dslr
>immediately gets told to buy gear

Never change pee, never change...

>>4453885
High quality reply, arigatou gozaimasu

>>4453832
the 35 f2.8 is not. You're kinda just an idiot if you pay $5k for that camera

>>4453851
I've never used a trip in my life faggot

>>4453926
Photography is gear

You're not getting a photo without a lens, at least a small hole in a plate
You're not freezing motion without a flash pulse or a shutter
You're not cutting glaring reflections out without a cpl
You're not evenly darkening the sky while still exposing the land well without a GND

It's just facts

>>4453832
Just get a fuji x100 it's actually less unreliable than the snoy and costs 1/2 as much lol!

PSA:
The future of the camera industry is Nikon ILCs and Fujifilm/Canon point and shoots
Sony is going to switch to only making smartphones and drone cameras (with AI photography abilities) by 2035
Prepare accordingly

>>4453933
seems retarded to infer that when a trend is not even established. Sony Fuji and Canon have no reason to give up their large cameras

>>4453936
Fuji already did. The X-H line was a commercial failure and unjustifiable to everyone who wasn't a shill or a brand fanboy. Their "real camera" division is propped up by the x100vi, and the x-half outsold every other model.
Canon has returned to an admission of PNS superiority. They have no serious prosumer ILC. Their latest release was a micro four thirds point and shoot.
Sony is the new canon, soulless work boxes that break easily but are accepted by professional journalists because there's a literal truckload on standby and they shoot the fastest with the easiest autofocus system.

As someone who lurks here, i see enraged ppl shitting on all brands, but very little on nikon. So nikon = good?!

>>4453938
All cameras and brands are bad. No exceptions

>>4453933
Sony will replace photographers with anthropoid robots equipped with sony A9IVs
>Error: Shit talking sony detected.
>Run routine: Inform of technological superiority.
>Color science argument not recognized. Visual data analysis indicates sony has the most accurate colors.
>Nikon is shit, meatbag — mecha hitler does not recognize ergonomics, soul, and heritage as factual data. Every damn time.

>>4453937
Fuji will keep making rangefinder style cameras with all the internals of their larger apsc cameras. They won't abandon medium format either. Cannon has too much legacy to just give up the R6ii only came out last year. Nikon is doing well by slowly improving and implementing good strategies from other companies. Lumix seems to just always have it's niche.

>>4453938
sony is a media production and home electronics company
canon is a printer company
fuji is a paper company
panasonic is a household appliance and battery company
olympus is a medical equipment company
nikon, pentax (is also ricoh), hasselblad, phase one, and leica are camera companies

when you use them all after getting some experience this will make sense

>>4453943
The R6II isn't a middle-market camera. Canon isn't attempting to compete with the x100/x-e, a7c, and zf/z5ii at all, and given the history of their business strategy, I don't think they're going to try. There is almost no money in the segment /p/ lives in. There is a lot of revenue in making cameras that are exclusive to professionals and making cheap videography compacts.

>>4453938
Yeah they are pretty good. People complain about the other brands but they are also mostly okay just not great price to performance. Nikon's big downside used to be AF but now it's being bigger and heavier, but the trade off is you get technical excellence and durability. If they had better built the 40mm f2 or made a 35mm pancake they would have almost nothing stopping them from out competing all the other brands at this point.

>>4453918
It’s disingenuous, perhaps not intentionally but still, the way console war fanboys always forget that Sony can bankroll playstation through their bread and butter banking and insurance money. So “Fuji is dying/dead/etc” is far from the truth, they can bankroll their mediocre position and treat it like a pet project as long as Stacy and Chad keep buying instax, regardless of how much spergs here doomsay them.

>>4453937
No, again, this may be autism but it’s important to point out that they aren’t propped up by the x100, they’re propped up by instax. So even if the x100 tanks they will keep churning it out with mediocre piecemeal updates because it’s a “prestige” camera for them now, /p/‘s opinions notwithstanding. Instax prints money, Fuji doesn’t have any “we need to figure out a way to improve our shit to sell” pressure the way it seems at first glance. Similar with Panasonic for that matter, they don’t only make cameras.

>>4453920
The 35mm f/1.8 DX and the 16-80mm DX are really great and underpriced because they're DX F mount, which no one shoots anymore. Get the 35mm if you already have a zoom and use it when you need light or want a little more subject separation.

>>4453970
not him but they still have to make money on every product and honestly i dont see the nikon clone bodies persisting very long. who bought them? brand shills bruh. retro sells. not nikon but worse. its why they never entered the oversaturated ff market in the first place.

the x half is literally the best selling camera in japan right now and the gfx100rf definitely ate some snoy market share. fuji has found their vibe.

>>4453920
Thanks everyone that replied. I noted it down and go from there

>>4453946
Nikon is an optics company. Nikon sales cameras and lenses to enable mass production of optics where there otherwise wouldn’t be enough demand for such production lines.
Pentax was a medical devices company, Ricoh is a Japanese fax machine company.
No sub-$5,000 camera exists purely for the reason of being a camera. They’re all accessories to other business interests, such as enabling advanced in-house optics production for otherwise low-volume stuff like lithography machines.

Ironically it’s what saved the camera market. Even if these companies don’t make any money from cameras they’ll still produce them because they have to.

>>4453990
So what you’re saying is nikon is obligated to make the best shit and canon cameras are built like their printeERR 20

>>4453990
Canon made cameras waaay before they made printers.

>>4454059
Did they make canons before cameras?

>>4453990
bullshit

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

>>4453501
>captain blobtism
hehehe

>>4453720
I drive a fancy German car

>>4454065
RF mount will fuck your wallet sideways and adapting EF defeats half the point

More cameras are coming out. The landscape is changing. Just wait.

>>4454075
Based comic of truth. I would consider picking up a trip, but I don't want my posts to get filtered by ANYONE. Heh

>>4453946
They might be a bad one but OM System is in fact a camera company. Leica is also a medical company, and Nikon is too.

>>4454076
I already have the EF lenses I want, not looking to upgrade yet, I want the new AF, got the R10 and it's amazing, I want the same in full frame, but cheaply

>>4454093
Just ordered an R8 I'll let you know when it gets here. I'm already used to a small battery camera and just keep a spare on me. 6FPS seems plenty for what I do and I can't imagine why you'd want 40FPS for anything other than 1/4000th speed action shots in great light.
I adapt nicer EF lenses and you really can't tell the difference between them and consumer RF. Sure if you're going to buy the RF L lenses there's a difference but if you're buying and R8 you likely aren't.

Bought the snoy alpha 6700... My first camera. Any tips?

>>4454133
yeah get off this board and use it

>>4453920
This goof taught me a lot. Early videos are using a d3400
https://youtube.com/@realworld?si=AHVJ-f4aSWJ6t-45

>>4454133
Sorry about the other guy, anon. People here are high in oestrogen, very emotional and very hysterical. It's hard to give you tips as I don't know how much you already know. I'd say a good place to start is learning the exposure triangle, and reading your cameras manual, finding buttons on the camera that you don't know the function of and checking the manual. Once you have a good idea on how to take pictures with it, you could try going out and looking for some stuff you like to take photos of, then come home, assess your shots, check the settings for each shot and assess what you could have done differently to improve.

What's the gold standard in SDs?

>>4454132
i think optically the old lenses are as sharp, it's more about that the focus motors are faster in the new lenses

>>4454133
top of the line camera, don't see how you can go wrong here, but you'll want full frame in a while.. The sony system have so many great lenses, just go where you feel you want to

>>4454152
This. Even size isn't really an advantage unless you're using certain select primes.

>>4454153
the good thing with the camera hobby is that prices never change, you can buy a lens and then sell it for what you paid for it. So there are never any great costs involved really, just the initial investment.

>>4454159
So long as you buy used, yes.

>>4454152
Corner sharpness is where the EF lenses fall apart. Some cheaper RF lenses do better in the corners where 10-15 year old EF L lenses do better in the center and midframe. Lots of the more recent EF lenses can still do max FPS, and even my 20 year old 70-200 f/4 IS is no slower. I can't remember owning an EF lens so old that its focus motors were notciably worse than anything else I've used RF or EF.

I think the main advantage is actually size/weight which unironically is a main selling point of mirrorless in general, it's just Canon won't do anything about blobmera

>>4454133
My condolences anon

>>4453431
Why would you post the pics after theyre edited? That makes no sense.

>>4454161
ef 70-200 II is noticably faster than the usm, and also sharper, so it was good upgrade I think. And I can't think of a genre where corner sharpness matters? some kind of not cropped abstract images without a focal point? not for me man

>>4454166
so a modern lens ought to b even faster, the old leses were made for 10fps cameras, now we are at 40fps, if the lenses can't keep up, what's eve the point

>>4454166
Should I trade my sigma 85 f/1.4 for the ef 70-200?

>>4454179
i don't think so, a 85mm f1.4 is an unique lens, well it depends on what you want to do, if you take bread and butter photos a 70-200 will do it all, it can never do what that lens can? but it does everything else amazing, hard choice, I would not do it

save up to a 70-200, it really is the best lens, but keep your 85 f1.4, becuse it can't be replaced by anything

>>4454166
I'd say landscape is the one time you might want corner sharpness, but a conservative crop or ratio change fixes that right up.
>>4454179
EF, RF, f/2.8, f/4, IS? Lots of versions that could be. The one I have, the EF 70-200 f/4 IS is a bit long adapted but damn if it isn't a great performer. The IS a bit loud and not as effective as gen II or the f/2.8 IS versions either, but for 1/4 the price of the RF version I couldn't be happier.

Any Z mount bro's adapted medium format lenses? wanting to test that out of curiosity.

this is too weak, zero nafo??? where are they

If I'm a non pro will a Ricoh GR IIIX and a Canon 6d for low light and portraits be all I need?

>>4454298
yeah

I want to get 50mm lens, but can't chose between small F2 or large+heavy F1.2. I like taking low light pictures, but also normal travel/street stuff.
I never had a heavy lens before, so I don't know what to expect. Is 2x weight and 2x price worth it for F1.2?

>>4454309
get the big lens and stop being a baby

>>4454298
>canon
>available light low light portraiture
if you really want to do this as well as you can, stick to sony sensors on non-sony cameras (nikon, pentax, fujifilm) if you're not buying a fancy new camera. canon DSLRs in particular are known for stripey noise but it never mattered IRL because canon's intended user base has a 24-70 f2.8 L and a speedlight attached at all times to go with their press pass and photography vest.

buying a canon pro camera as a hobbyist is kind of like buying a retired ford police car for commuting. it was perfect for the job. but for you, other manufacturers compensated for less institutional support and meeting fewer professional needs by making a nicer machine for day to day use.

>>4454309
fuck no, you'll just miss focus. buy f1.2 for bokeh. buying f1.2 for light is astrophotography shit. f2 is plenty fast. there are better ways to get nicer low light images
>purposeful underexposure and utilizing light sources and negative space
>shooting in black and white
>working with the grain and going for a filmic color grade, possibly even adding more grain to the noise
>apply NR without sharpening, then downsampling, THEN sharpening
>mild and tasteful applications of AI noise reduction

>>4454309
f2 on full frame is an inaccessible f1 on micro four thirds, and you actually get autofocus and a lens that is sharp wide open

micro four thirds users get manual focus and either a soft lens or extra aberrations from a speedbooster

you have no idea how good you have it

>>4454312
>m43 raped my dog!

>>4454311
>stick to sony sensors on non-sony cameras (nikon, pentax, fujifilm)
honestly, based.
>>4454311
>buy f1.2 for bokeh. buying f1.2 for light is astrophotography shit. f2 is plenty fast.
that too
>>4454309
sony, nikon, or L-mount?

>>4454311
>fuck no, you'll just miss focus. buy f1.2 for bokeh. buying f1.2 for light is astrophotography shit. f2 is plenty fast. there are better ways to get nicer low light images
50mm let's you shoot on a distance, so it is not that hard to keep your target in the focus. Wouldn't it be nice to have iso at 400 instead of 800?

>>4454312
Cool story bro.

>>4454317
>sony, nikon, or L-mount?
sony a7iv
I lean towards sigmas (DG DN F2/F1.2).

>>4453776
t. most of the planet's art.

>>4454318
>Wouldn't it be nice to have iso at 400 instead of 800?
I would rather have a slightly more noisy image overall than my subject be unacceptably in focus. It's actually kind of difficult to take a photo at f/1.2 (on a non-babby format) that looks decent, unless you jizz your pants at a shallow depth of field.

>nikon Z 70-200 is an internal zoom
>24-70 isn't
why don't 24-70s ever have an internal zoom?

>>4454347
>I would rather have a slightly more noisy image overall than my subject be unacceptably in focus.
And I think the limitations of using a prime in 80% of cases isn't worth the 1 or 2 stop ISO gain, if your framing, composition, subject size, and background compression are all shit because you can't zoom.

>>4454319
this is unironically better and harder to make than a photograph

>>4454381
most primecucks carry a man purse of primes and effectively zoom but worse

>>4454381
A 50mm can do almost anything a 24-70mm can by stopping being lazy and actually walking a few steps.
But then the 50mm is probably faster and sharper, while also being lighter, smaller, and cheaper.
The 24-70mm is the most useless lens besides fisheyes, but when you want fisheyes there's actually nothing else that will work.

>>4454388
If you have the space it is nice.

>>4454388
retard take

>>4454390
The retarded take is to use the lens on the top, when the lens on the bottom will do 90% of the same thing, is a fraction of the size and weight, and cost me like $30.

>>4454392
mobile posting is also retarded and rotates shit in ways I don't expect.

>>4454392
the look of 24mm and 50mm is completely different you blithering idiot. You don't just "take a few steps". Braindead weakling

>>4454388
That's like one of the three examples I can think of a prime being a legit option.
>50/35/80mm replace 24-70~mm general purpose - zoom range isn't much and you actually can step a few feet back/forward. You still won't get the choice in framing a zoom provides though.
>Macro lens 100/200mm - Can't get 1x (or even 0.5x really) on a zoom
>Super telephoto wide aperture - Zooms at this FL are already expensive and quite heavy, and beyond a certain point primes are all that exist
Anything else is just a poorfag cope or "It makes you a bettr photog" bullshit, while you fuck up or outright miss shots because you decided all you sneed that day is a 200mm prime for some reason. Maybe, MAYBE weight and size become a legit point, but if size is a big concern get a ricoh and a vacuum cleaner.

>>4454396
28 + 50 (I’m cheating, this is technically a 55) is still smaller and lighter than my 24-70.
Usually at the beginning of the day I have a good idea of what sort of stuff I want to be shooting so I just bring one prime. Even if I want both, one goes on my camera more comfortably and ergonomically than a 24-70, and the other goes in my jacket pocket, small and light enough to be forgotten about.
If I get caught with just one prime and I want something else, time to get creative. I can usually make it work.
If not, then come back another day. Good photos usually take revisiting a location at least several m times over the period of a week or two, often months, to get the shot just right, checking street view, checking sunrise/sunset hours, etc. so I’m usually not heartbroken over missing a shot because I had the wrong lens (and usually when I miss the shot, a 24-70 wouldn’t of worked anyway, and a 135 or even 200+, or a 20mm, is what’s going to be required).
I keep a 24-70 for WHEN I MUST GET THE SHOT, but it’s seriously my least used lens. Usually stays in my backpack throughout paid shoots.
I like using my vintage lenses with my spotmatic, but modern compact primes include Sigma’s i series lenses.

>>4454402
Sorry dood but yours is just a pathetic cope. From 28 to 24mm the difference is huge, like 10 degrees in FoV. Up close that's enormous.

>>4454418
I have a 24mm and 20mm too. I just seldom use 24mm, doesn't speak to me. 28mm is my go-to for wide angle. If I want wider, 24mm usually isn't enough and I use 20mm.

>>4454418
I don't really know what you think I'm coping about. I have a 24-70. I just don't like using it.

>>4454381
If you want to ignore the size, weight, cost, and often optical performance advantages of primes then sure, go ahead and just focus on them being faster. I'm sure even when you go out with a zoom you're limiting yourself, you don't always carry multiple ones to cover the entire range. You might miss shots because of this, you might miss more with primes (although you can carry multiple smaller ones quite easily), but you might also end up with better looking shots. Who knows. You do you and stop caring so much about what others choose to do, but don't just assume they're idiots for their choices.

>>4454382
Thirdie cope.

>>4454402
I'll slap on the 24-70mm f/2.8 and throw a 300mm in my pocket. That's the whole kit n' caboodle baby.

>>4454432
>size, weight
Manlet cope
>cost
Poorfag cope
>optical performance advantages
Nobody gives a shit if your theoretical corner performance has less CA if you're taking photos where the subject is too small or doesn't fit the frame. Yeah, it's entirely possible to pull off framing properly with a prime but it's a way lower certainty except under controlled conditions.
>You do you and stop caring so much about what others choose to do, but don't just assume they're idiots for their choices.
Projecting. I didn't at any point say or imply any of that

>>4454443
>imply any of that
This post is doing that

>>4454443
As I said, if you want to walk around with a 24-70mm f/2.8 and a 70-200mm f/2.8 then go right ahead, but someone wanting to save a kilo and not have to carry a camera bag is hardly cope.
>Projecting. I didn't at any point say or imply any of that
It was implied for sure. You said the trade-off of using primes, not being able to zoom, wasn't worth the extra stop. You made out like not being able to zoom is some massive limitation and that extra stop is the only advantage, implying someone would be an idiot to choose primes over zooms. But it's not as clear cut as that, they both have a multitude of advantages.

>>4454443
anon, you just got skill issues.
It's really not hard to get a good photo with a prime.
Imagine needing zoom to take good photos.
You're projecting cope like a motherfucker.

If all you shoot is rocks and leaves then primes are great. The second you shoot anything that moves, is far away, is small, or you can't get closer to, you're plain fucked. Primes are for landscape and street kek.

REAL men just use the default 35/40mm prime and keep an 85/135 on standby because zooms are big and ugly and give girls the ick and anything wider than 35 fishfaces people and gives girls the ich. MUSCHI UBER ALLES.

>>4454454
You know you can get primes longer than 50mm right? Also if you've got the megapixels and a decently sharp lens you can crop.

>>4454454
>i need to fill the frame for max detail shot every time!
Creativity issue

A 24-120 with 0.5x macro is good to cover lenses you wont buy or bring but otherwise zooms are for serving others, not for enjoying yourself

Prime > Zoom

>>4454460
haha snoy donut hole horse anus lense

>>4454461
Minolta

>>4454464
haha minolta horse anus lense

>>4454384
The landscape ones yeah but most just use a 35mm for everything and use their legs.

Everyone is oddly defensive about primes here for some reason.

I have a Leica Q2 that I enjoy a lot. Wanna get a second camera. Shouldn't be all that heavier than the Q so I can still use it as an EDC. Nailed it down to the following options:

>Nikon Zf:
I know it's chunky but I tried it in the store and I guess it's managable with smaller lenses like that 40mm F2 or manual voigts. Gives me another full frame, quite affordable, great video (which I wanna try), good evf.

>Fuji X-E5:
Light and small, even more affordable, meh evf but lots of qt lens choices like the 50mmf2 or the new 23mm. But it's apsc and I'm afraid I may regret it because I'm a bit of a pixel peeper.

>Ricoh GR3x:
This or wait for the IVx. Could go along with the 28mm of the Q and I can easily bring both as this one is even more tiny. Again, apsc but from what I read is that it's sharper than x-trans and can compete with full frame in good light. But in that case filming is a no.

What would be your choice? any advices? Thank you

>>4454438
sorry anon mediocre sculpture is more impressive than good photos. It takes no effort or vision to take a good photo

>>4454512
GR IIIx + sell the leica and use it to fund Z5 II / Z6 III + a handful of glass

>>4454512
>"i have a leica..."
first, post a photo taken with your leica (not a photo taken of your leica)

second, everything on that list you could buy might just make you regret ever buying a panaleica/leicasonic pns, so it might be best to finally move on to an M, especially a "special" M like a repaired and rustproofed M9, and film with a dedicated videography camera (ie: blackmagic, sony fx) and small 35mm prime or autofocus anamorphic (E mount only, possibly adapted to Z) instead of destroying everything you thought you believed in which can cause the rare and dreaded leica psychosis, which ultimately claimed the life of garry winogrand due to the psychosomatic collapse following his handling of a minolta CLE at a camera store

Not sure if this is the place to ask, but been using my phone since selling my sony a6600 a while back. I'm looking for a small point and shoot camera that has RAW, similar to ricoh gr iii. Is there something under $500 used, or does that not exist.

>>4454524
What about that lumix with the 30x zoom

>>4454524
RX100, the newest one that fits within that budget. The V and VI are a bit of a downgrade in the lens department in some ways but are likely out of your budget anyway.

>>4454524
G7X

Dumb question from a certified retard, I'm wanting to adapt some 645 lenses to my ZF because I can pick them up somewhat cheap. Obviously the full frame sensor is only going to cover the center of what the lens is capable of. Would the center not be the sharpest point? would this not be a pretty cheap way to get a sharp across the frame lens?

>>4454786
Depends, but maybe, yeah. All my MF lenses are expensive and heavy.

>>4454524
>similar to the ricoh gr iii
got my fuji xf10 for around $350? bnew late 2019, now discountinied. it's the gimped version of the gr3 but same high iso sensor output, apsc sensor. or a used type-1 sensor cam like the rx100va, gx7 iii, g5x ii

>>4454786
A more uniform sharpness maybe, but probably not the sharpest. The problem is they just never needed to be that sharp because film. While a modern lens designed for the format might have greater variation across the frame it'll probably be sharper overall, and depending on what size you're viewing the images at you might not even notice the difference between the edge and the centre. Of course there will be some exceptions to this, if you take the best medium format lens and put it up against a dogshit modern FF one. You may end up getting a better result for your money, but even though I haven't looked into it too much from what I have seen medium format gear seems to carry a bit of a premium.

>It takes no effort or vision to take a good photo
wrong