Thread 4455714

Shrek Colors 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

Previous thread: >>4454569

>>4455714 (OP)
Is sony the ken rockwell of cameras?

I'm once again asking what to buy between panasonic S5D and canon RP. I need full frame and only these two are in budget. Most importantly redpill me on panasonic

>>4455721
Why do you need full frame? Just flip a coin to decide.

Can you guys get some new material already

>>4455730
No. The same people argue about the same stupid shit everyday. That is the life of an NPC. Their hobby is memorizing camera stats, and they hate photography.

>>4455714 (OP)
Is Fujifilm cameras having bad autofocus just a meme? I refuse to believe any camera made in the last 5 or so years can have 'unusable' autofocus...

>>4455725
I have many 35mm lenses that I want to adapt (canon ef, leica m, m42, ltm...).

>>4455732
partially. i haven't used many systems but i would believe that fuji has the worst af. i don't believe that it's 'unusable' for most cases tho
>>4455721
why don't you just get the zf? i always hear that's the best camera for adapting 35mm lenses. plus z cameras are said to have thinner cover glass on the sensors, and therefore give better corners on rangefinder lenses

>>4455732
Bad as in expect a ~50% hit rate for all area AF with tracking, compared to Canony's +97% hit rate. Video tracking is also too unreliable for more serious video work using AF, but fine for normal usage.
Zero issues if you simply AF-S instead of continuous AF. Early models are better with moving subjects while using just AF-S and just quickly shooting, instead of continually focusing.
Many of the early Fuji lenses have old and slow AF motors too.

Unreliable enough that you may miss some quick action shots (you'll still get others in a burst), but still reliable enough that you could get +95% of what gets posted here.

I want to buy a wireless trigger to use my speedlite off camera (offhand direct light portraits, long exposure shutter sync or ambient bounce indoors etc.). only lighting gear I own right now is a stroboss 36. I might get a second light at some point if I find a need for it but it's not an urgent need.
what would be the best option for me? is it worth it investing into stroboss ecosystem? some cheap ass yongnuo trigger kit?

>asking actual gear question on sensor size autism board

>>4455762
it looks like stroboss is just a godox rebrand so you could just buy godox directly for cheaper (double check first lol just what i saw quickly googling), and it's a decent system for a noob or a light user. I use godox with on camera trigger and one of their bigger studio flashes (ad400) and also some speedlight type ones, and though it's got chinky quirks as expected, generally it works decently.

>>4455736
zf is too expensive, only canon rp and the panasonic S5D are within budget. I do not care about fancy functions or random bullshit, I'm only concerned about panasonic reliability, since I heard quite a few complains. I'm just a film fag who needs a 35mm digital body for some works.

>>4455732
No, not a meme
>how can it be unusable?
It IS unusable. If you want in focus photos you have to shoot bursts.

It would not be an issue if fuji didn't charge nearly and sometimes over two thousand dollars for this shit. I don't understand what's up with digital camera prices. A lot of digislugs are clearly living in dingy shitholes and apartments and yet seem to accept the industry's pricing practices without complaints. What cucks.
>meanwhile, film people: Kodak raised the price of gold 5 cents? DIE KODAK DIE! I AM NEVER BUYING THIS SHIT AGAIN! FUCK KODAK! TOTAL KODAK DEATH!
There are some sanely priced deals like 2nd gen nikons and snoys but that's for a reason (2nd gen nikon autofocus is merely better than fuji, sony builds cameras almost as poorly as fuji).

>>4455860
Do not buy a panasonic camera. Colors worse than sony, reliability worse than fuji.

>>4455860
Not only does panasonic have an ass reliabiltiy track record they share in nikon's policy of not repairing gray market cameras (this makes financial sense actually), but unlike nikon, panasonic does not have an easy way to identify if a used camera or lens is gray market. Nikon US body serials start with 30, jap bodies start with 20, etc. Panasonic? No easy way to tell. They expect you to pay new prices for their dodgy junk and inexcusable-for-the-price autofocus (anyone complaining about fuji hasn't tried panasonic or pentax).

And I mean the focus box turns green and its usually out of focus. The $3000 S1RII had a <30% focus hit rate but the OSD indicated it was almost always in focus.

>>4455869
>If you want in focus photos you have to shoot bursts.
Dishonesty

>>4455875
>l-leave fuji alone
The autofocus is unreliable in af-c. Shooting bursts is the only way to guarantee at least one photo of a moving thing will be in focus.

Fuji makes a bad product. Their ILCs have almost no market share because of this. Only a brand fanboy or a fool would pony up for what they're charging.

Ironically, their cheapest cameras like the x-m5 have better autofocus than their over-$2000 XH2.

fuji continuously raises prices while continuously lowering build quality lol
>x-t3: solid feeling, metal, made in japan
>x-t5: flimsy feeling, flexes, rattles, plastic, made in china
and somehow the af-s on the x-t3 is more reliable than the af-c on the x-t5
and somehow, the x-t3 has better color in low light

>>4455875
He's right, even when the camera says you're in focus, most of the time you aren't, you'll have a soft focus.
That and their ageing lens offerings made me abandon ship.

>>4455875
>Fuji could not possibly charge a lot of money for a bad product. After all, professionals have used it in scenarios where they controlled light and subject motion and could shoot in manual focus, and were being paid by fuji to do product placement.

>>4455731
>Creative hobby
>Posters aren't creative

>>4455731
We just like to bully you for fanboying/shilling a shitty camera brand because its funny

>>4455890
Not completely true.

>>4455891
The truth hurts. Sorry it triggers your cope.

>>4455896
>The truth hurts
That fuji/sony fanboys are easy to make fun of?
>s-staaahp making fun of fujifilm
>ur a bugman
>u cant hold expensive cameras to standards AND be an artist!

>Average art photographer: Check out my phase one. Way better than my old nikon d850. I mean I'd still use the d850 if I failed and had to become an art teacher lol but this phase one is killer.

>>4455887
>even when the camera says you're in focus, most of the time you aren't
More dishonesty
>That and their ageing lens offerings made me abandon ship.
I've also been abandoning ship and other brands certainly do have better AF
>>4455889
Fuji does charge more in terms of performance per $, not sure why you'd think I'd disagree
Do you not think there are any professionals that voluntarily use Fuji as well?

t. Actually shoot photos for a living and often use Fuji

>>4455902
>Dishonesty
No, he's correct.
>Do you not think there are any professionals that voluntarily use Fuji as well?
Something /p/ often forgets because few people here are actual professionals is that professional needs are their own thing.

Professionally it's preferable to use a zenza fucking bronica over some digital cameras and the total lack of autofocus doesn't even matter because people who are paying to have their picture taken will hold still and pose when asked.

>>4455902
>More dishonesty
Anything to back that up, chud?

>>4455903
>No, he's correct.
Nope. Most of the photos I've taken on all the Fuji's I've owned have been in focus. Easily +95% when not using tracking, and at least 50% when tracking. Unless they are talking about certain X-T5/H2/s firmware that has been fixed.
Thank you for agreeing that beginners need fancier cameras to makeup for their shortcomings as a camera operator.

>>4455904
he's just fanboying a camera brand. there's a gorillion user reports about how fuji turns its little focus box green when it's not actually in focus.

the entire reason sony ever sold cameras is because their autofocus is reliable for professionals who do video interviews and event photography, while not being big expensive blobs like canon, while fuji was not, still isn't, and likely won't be except on their cheapest camera 5 years from now after nikon will have already taken over the industry and sony will have bought fujifilm

>>4455899
Do fuji and sony live rent free in your head? Insecure about them? I never once mentioned either. I'm thinking yeah..

>>4455906
>and at least 50% when tracking
Lol.
>Thank you for agreeing that beginners need fancier cameras to makeup for their shortcomings as a camera operator.
I didn't say that. I said certain professionals don't need autofocus at all because they can tell people to stop and pose. You sound VERY insecure. Are you the same guy that seethed when huskychad showed capture one's noise reduction is lacking?

Now what has been said is
"Fuji focuses less than 50% of the time when tracking" - You

>>4455904
Like 500k shots across a half dozen Fuji cameras and 2 dozen Fuji lenses in a variety of environments. Picrel is my last wedding.

>>4455910
>How dishonest of you to say fujifilm has bad autofocus
>It's in focus at least half of the time

>>4455906
>Easily +95% when not using tracking
So your camera can do single focus 95% of the time? Impressive 2010 tech.
>at least 50% when tracking
That's bottom of the barrel for hybrid cameras, you know that, right? That means you need to shoot burst to get at least one in focus, which was the main argument you tried to deny >>4455875 nice self own.

>>4455913
It's below bottom of the barrel. It's worse than a canon R8 that costs 1/2 as much as an xpro 3.

>>4455907
>a gorillion user reports about how fuji turns its little focus box green when it's not actually in focus
And yet you miss the reports of it being fixed.
>>4455909
How many shots posted here would even benefit from tracking AF? If you use tracking a lot, yes Fuji is behind, but if you crank out 40fps with 50% accuracy, you're still getting 20fps a second in focus.
>"Fuji focuses less than 50% of the time when tracking" - You
Never said less, and added additional context. You're doing the same thing where someone reads a research paper, finds one sentence they agree with, and ignore both the rest of the context of the paper and the authors conclusion.

>>4455914
At least the R8 has a real sensor.
Actually that might be why it hits focus.

>>4455915
>How many shots posted here would even benefit from tracking AF?
Most, and especially the shots that are taken and valued but NOT posted on a neo-nazi anime pornography website.

Why are you defending a brand you are jumping ship from? Fuji makes bad cameras.

>>4455912
>It's in focus at least half of the time
More dishonesty when I literally said in focus +95% of the time.
>>4455913
I know that, but I also don't let it be an excuse. I started on worse gear, used worse gear for years, and use better gear too.

If I wanted a camera with shitty autofocus I'd buy a good one that actually improved something in return instead of a fooljifilm that gets turbo-mogged by canon's cheapest cameras.

Fujifilm is for brand fanboys.

>>4455917
>Most
Most are of static objects or static scenes. Most moving shots are slow enough that AF-S, or even Fuji's bad AF-C would work just fine.

Fuji also makes good cameras and innovates in ways other brands don't. I know I own a mono, but I try not to see the world so black and white like you do.

>>4455920
They innovate how? With X-tranny that tried to solve problems only low res bayer had, which it doesn't anymore, by creating more problems? With their 10 year old lenses on 40 MP sensors?

Only Sony's innovating.

>>4455921
All brands innovate in their own ways, not sure what would convince if you don't see that already.

>>4455920
You are an insufferable gearfaggot brand fanboy
>These cherry picked throwaway shots on 4chan would be fine with a fuji SO FUJI MAKES GOOD CAMERAS
They make blurrier sony aps-c with worse autofocus and fake dials for gearfags and screw people over in ways very few brands do.

It should be a rule of thumb, that if anyone owns a leica, they must say so first thing, so everyone knows to stay away. Anyone who would pay five figures for that junk can't be trusted to be reasonable or see the world like a normal person who does not waste hilarious amounts of money on cameras.

>>4455923
>more dishonesty, gatekeeping, and gearshaming
such is /p/

>>4455922
Maybe by substantiating your claims? If a brand innovates, they surely have something to show for?
Releasing a new overpriced point and shoot with a plastic body doesn't count as innovation.

>>4455921
They innovate by raising prices, cheapening production, neglecting to improve the simplest things, making really nice marketing webpages, and focusing on product placement like when they paid annie leibovitz to pretend she was a fuji shooter (and 2 days later she was seen with a rented snoy in her hand and a D810 on a table)

>>4455924
Leica people are the only people on earth who deserve to be shamed
You spent $10,000 to pretend to own a film camera
lol

>>4455928
Could have just got a Zf and at least picked a nice color

>>4455924
What do you expect from the npc? His hobby is to get mad at things on the internet. He doesn't even own a camera.

>>4455926
The hybrid OVF/EVF is pretty innovative in a lot of ways. Dial-based cameras with no easy automatic mode was pretty innovative in the digital era.
The MF aids were pretty innovative. Most brands had only focus zoom, peaking, and sometimes a guide for chipped lenses. Fuji added picture-in-picture dual display modes pretty early on, and the split focusing aid.
They offered direct from camera wireless printing to their Instax printers, something only Canon offers similarly.
Other brands have had the same functionality of customizable jpgs, and I just shoot RAW, but you'd have to be blind to see how popular (and market shifting) they have been.
The GFX line is obviously innovating.
>>4455928
Well I got it after I sold my film Leica and most of my other film bodies, so sure
>>4455927
>more dishonesty

>>4455932
That's not dishonest at all

That's what fujifilm actually does

>The GFX line is obviously innovating.
The GFX line is marketing to consumerists. Medium format is only needed for professional fashion, forensics, museum repo etc work. GFX sacrifices color accuracy to go down-market and focuses on autofocus and convenience, which the people who actually need MF quality do not care about.

Full frame blew past the point of diminishing returns ages ago.

Fujifilm is a consumerist brand.

>People claim to shoot for a living here
>But are always here to defend the honor of fuji/snoy 24/7 for hours on end, and even defend the honor of cameras they don't even own
>their proof is the number of raws they have saved
legit have an easier time believing the german shepherd guy operates a portrait studio for profit and gives darkroom classes bruh

if anyone claims to be a professional on /p/ and is such an irrit gearfag cunt either its true most professionals are irrit gearfag cunts or they shot just enough weddings ran an anime con photobooth to pay off their toys and got back on 4chan where they always wanted to be

>>4455872
ok thanks, I will go for the canon rp then

>>4455932
>Dial-based cameras with no easy automatic mode was pretty innovative
this is not just not innovative (its strictly worse, its a fashion/lifestyle toy) it was a copy of what leica already did.
>The MF aids were pretty innovative. Most brands had only focus zoom, peaking, and sometimes a guide for chipped lenses. Fuji added picture-in-picture dual display modes pretty early on, and the split focusing aid.
tbf other brands didn't need to care about picture in picture manual focus, because they had focus confirmation that worked and autofocus that worked even better.
then nikon added subject detection in manual focus which was a real innovation. can't believe sony didn't do it since they had native, officially approved manual focus lenses from fucking zeiss.
>They offered direct from camera wireless printing to their Instax printers, something only Canon offers similarly.
this is the only actual innovation that shines but maybe it stands out because everyone else already does phone transfer and phones can already connect to basically any printer

>>4455943
No one here shoots for a living

Some people here supplement their cryptocurrency gambling with gigs

>>4455910
>He fell for the leica meme
Opinion disregarded

>>4455910
>wedding chud
Well this is like the lowest form of snapshitter for hire, blech

Guys I'm loving this R7. Due to wind these flowers were moving around pretty heavily, but nevertheless I got roughly 50% of the photo's sharp enough to keep. Love dat tracking.

>>4455979
Cool photo, bad color grade, bad composition for the aspect raito (try a vertical crop in 4:3/4:5)

>>4455986
Maybe I should give it some work, this was just the auto button in LR lol.

>>4455979
What lens?

>>4456003
rf 200-800 @ 430mm

gotta correct myself, it was more like 30% keepers.

What are some good low light lenses I should look at for a DSLR k mount?

>>4455977
only a leica man could defend fujis autofocus so disingenuously

i prefer the other dogfags approach to bad cameras
>yes the z7 sucks
>buy a z5ii instead
>uses it anyways

Snoy or Canon?
Thanks for your attention

>>4456006
Damn, wouldn't the 100-500 be better for the R7? Smaller, lighter, still plenty of reach with the crop.

>>4455978
You know I post all kinds of non-wedding photos too lol
>>4456030
Just trying to battle the dishonesty with some actual honesty

>>4456039
I'm between 700 and 800 most of the time.

>>4455943
I've posted several client work images here, and bts style photos too
How many client related photos would prove the point to you?
>>4455948
Just because you don't think something was not innovative, doesn't mean it wasn't. You aren't engaging in good faith with what I say, just more dishonesty.

>>4456038
Pentax

>>4456043
What do you need 1280 mm for? Spying on your underage neighbor?

>>4456047
small birds

>>4456048
That's equivalent to 37x binoculars, from how far do you shoot them?

>>4456045
>he thinks copying leica is innovative
brand fanboy gearfag lol

>>4456050
>from how far do you shoot them?
bro my brain doesn't record such things

>>4456050
this is 740mm

>>4456050
More like 26x unless it's APS-C

I don't know if I should get the 70-350 lens or replace my 16-50 kit lens for a better one on the same range.

>>4456061
Get the long one, expand your horizons.

>>4456059
Yes we're talking about the R7

>>4456061
>f/10 zoom
Don't bother. Save up for a better zoom. Your kit lens is probably fine.

>>4455732
Fuji AF is fine.
Panasonic has better colors than Sony (everyone does).
Ignore the snoy schizo.

>>4455732
Fuji AF is horrible and belongs on a 2009 micro four thirds
Panasonic is the only brand that is as bad as sony
Ignore anyone who blames "snoy shills" when its pointed out that canon and nikon are superior (they make no sense)

>>4456041
if you were honest youd say fuji sucks and you put up with the pain because you’re a gear queer instead of going year of the linux desktop on everyone
>you could have made dat 4chan post from the command line!

>>4456086
Hey now, a 2009 micro four thirds is funner and more sovlful than fuji’s consoomer ewaste.

>>4456090
>youd say fuji sucks
I do, and have in this very thread. Fuji sucks in some ways!

>>4456106
>consumerist fashion accessory makes high iq right wing thought leaders gag
no really?
its junk. should be $800. an om-5 is better.

>>4455872
what does gray market even mean?

>>4456106
>not a big brick
>Soulful design
>Soulful lenses
>Soulful JPEGs
Easy to see why!

>>4456181
>is a medium sized brick
>design stolen from other companies
>second rate lenses
>jpegs with teal skies and fake grain
That's just "a camera"

If you want to do photography, get a Nikon

>>4455732
Fuji and Nikon are probably the worst at AF of everyone.

>>4456206
The new Nikons (ZF, Z5II, etc) have better AF than sony*

*They lack cloud detect mode when set to auto everything so they are still not good enough for ken rockwell

>>4456106
Do I need 40mp raw files for my snapshits?

>>4456250
1 xtrans mp is 1/2 a normal mp so just shoot in image size M and itll look normal instead of like a blurry upscale and be just big enough

>Sony owns 15% shares of Tamron
>Nikon rebadges Tamron to Nikon lenses
>Nikon uses Sony sensors
>Z mount adapts FE mount lenses
Bros, I'm nooticing something here...

>>4456251
>1 xtrans mp is 1/2 a normal mp
>a blurry upscale
Fuji sisters, our response?

>>4456250
Well anything under 40MP in 2025 is essentially for amateurs.

>>4456255
Nikon makes sony cameras if sony cameras were actually good?

It’s been that way since after the d700. Sony makes garbage. Then nikon makes what sony should have made if they were a real camera company. This has the effect of ensuring sony gets lots of retard bucks from brainless consoomers and nikon gets steady profits from the real photographers filtering in.

>>4456260
Whatchu doin with all them pickles anon

>>4456250
24 is just fine

>>4456206
Lol Nikon has been good AF for the last like 3 years or so. Plus the best manual focus experience by far. The Sony shills are out in full force tonight.

>>4456264
What's the nikon equivalent of the a6700?

>>4456289
They don't really have a shitty vlogger cam. z50ii is the peak of their aspc lineup.

>>4456291
>no ibis
>battery lasts for a whole hour of shooting
truly a peak body that beats a "shitty vlogger camera" to a pulp

w2c portrait backdrops and frames/booths for an outdoor/portable portrait setup? something light that packs small but nothing flimsy either.
I saw this but it seems flimsy, the LEDs might be a bit bright or harsh, even with a diffuser, idk, I don’t have much experience with LED lighting, but this booth is good because it’s a controllable environment for setting up outdoors or indoors. I’ve also seen some backdrop frames which could be good too but I will have to deal with natural lighting more. That could be good or bad, I’m not sure. Thoughts? Experiences?

>>4456311
>this
https://youtu.be/uExok_IUfy4?si=7nljXAx-dNkspdFG

This would be my dream camera.

is the old Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART really that sharp? I mostly shoot on film era lenses for my own enjoyment but occasionally need something sharp for client work. Yes i know it's huge, but if the sharpness is as good as they say it's worth it for me.

>>4456289
>If sony cameras were good
>Whats the nikon equivalent to the inferior sensor size camera?
Nikon doesn't make alternative to sony's fake cameras, only sony's real cameras.

>>4456250
On bayer, yes. 40+mp eliminates most aliasing and detail loss so it's closer to 35mm film.

On xtrans, even with 60 it would be blurry as fuck. With 40 it's blurry. With 24 it's burry. It doesn't matter. Fuji built a camera JUST for instagram you know. Just buy an x-t3 and pay as little as you can, like, less than $700. The newest ones are rattly chinese plastic.

>>4456390
why even bother buying a "good" fuji when it's not that good? buy an x100s. it embodies the fuji spirit. piece of fashion junk. looks like a chinese leica. takes blurry pictures with vsco filters. i think they're $600ish.

>>4456377
Ah yes, give me a stupid shutter speed dial that will spend 95% of its time on A, unless you larp as a pro by chasing the meter in manual mode. At least aperture rings on lenses actually get used even if they are unnecessary.

>>4456377
Nikon has no clicked aperture rings and that pancake lens sucks shit.
>what it says: 26mm f2.8
>what it actually is: 26-35mm t4
The retro cameras are pointless and the zf is the first and last. Maybe they will make a zfcii with updated AF and IBIS, and then call it good.

The zf is so pointless its gone from what people settled for becuase the z5ii wasnt out to what poorfags go for because it pops up on ebay for $500 less than the z5ii.

>>4456404
Pros don't chase the meter, they'd just set manual once and then shoot
You only have to change if you're lighting changes significantly, and for most shooting, it doesn't change that often

>>4456406
That would work on film but on digital it doesn't really. Film has exposure latitude, digital has dynamic range and clips individual channels which makes skin tones and skies look like shit. You'd know if you used a camera.

Now cope.

>>4456407
A pro would know how to expose without clipping
In the real world, lighting doesn't change that much that often
Do you think a pro setting things manually or one using a priority mode would be more likely to run into clipping?

>>4456409
You sound like you don't actually own a camera

>>4456409
>In the real world, lighting doesn't change that much that often
when u wanna be annie leibovitz on the 'chan but leaving the basement aint ever in your plan

>>4456409
>In the real world, lighting doesn't change that much that often
lol sometimes I think I'm old enough to have seen the worst of the internet in its early days. Then I saw your post and realized that no, your dumb ass is the worst thing on the internet.

>>4456414
>>4456416
>>4456412
Happy to share my exposure breakdown from the big wedding. It's quite easy to meter once outside and then shoot for an hour without needing to adjust exposure at all (outside of like simple compensation for adjusting aperture).
If I go for a walk with my dog, at worst I might have to meter once for shade and once for not shade, but often just once for cloudy.
If I'm shooting inside, it's not like interior lighting is changing all the time, or I might just be using flash.
If I'm doing landscape, I can sometimes sit at the same exact settings for hours.
When sunset hits of course the lighting changes more rapidly.

>>4456419
for some reason these guys think that exposure is changing by the minute, hard to explain why. if it's a sunny day, that's why sunny/16 was a thing. you could just basically fire off any equivalent exposure and be largely fine as long as you are in that "sunny day" window. somehow having autoexposure made everyone retards that don't actually understand it anymore.

>>4456419
Oh it's this fucking retard, the one that needed to shoot 14,000 frames for one wedding and simps and cucks for gear he doesn't even own when anons upgrade.

>>4456424
Proper exposure changes by the minute, yes.

>>4456424
on film that worked fine. even if you blew shit the fuck out, it still looked decent, as long as you didnt underexpose by 3 stops or more it looked decent.

on digital it really helps to actually use the right exposure instead of the close enough exposure.

>>4456419
You're retarded. If you're outside with a direct light source on your subject (the sun) or similar (say a large open hall with overhead lighting and no obstructions) then sure, but otherwise light bounces. Just sitting in my room and not even moving from my chair I can get exposures ranging from ISO 100 to 1600 at the same f/ stop and shutter speed, or a 4 stop variation in case you can't do the math.

>>4456427
>Proper exposure changes by the minute,
Sometimes, but rarely. More often then not, it's pretty static for long periods of time.
>it really helps to actually use the right exposure
Which is why I shoot M, not A+Auto ISO anymore.
>>4456447
>I can get exposures rangingat the same f/ stop and shutter speed
Obviously your meter will get different readings when you point it differently (which is why A can be worse than M), but that doesn't mean a "proper exposure for the scene" is changing.

>>4456453
>just clip by the window and crush the blacks anywhere else, bro
You needed 14k photos to shoot a wedding so

>>4456453
The exposure is changing because there are different amount of light being reflected and different light sources depending on where the camera is pointed. Do you know why ray tracing was such a big deal in video games and made stuff look more real? Because it simulated reflected light.

>>4456405
>The retro cameras are pointless and the zf is the first and last.
I wonder if the zf looks touristy enough to reduce attention from guards and other busybodies. The z8 is a magnet for idiots who wage war on "professional" photographers. Fuji shooters get less heat

>>4456458
Yes, which is why M is better
>>4456454
Didn't need to, don't normally, agree it's excessive

>>4456405
Relax anon. Take a chill pill, my dude.

>>4456476
i just tell those people "how can it be professional? it's not a sony" or "its not professional, it's a sony" depending on what i brought

>>4456305
lol the a6700 is double the price. I mean you don't really need IBIS for anything aspc should be shooting. I'll take good color science over Sony's useless IBIS. Besides just get a z5ii or a used z7ii. If you really want the reach from a crop sensor you might as well get a cheap m43 camera. Your already sacrificing image quality so you might as well get something out of it.

>>4456405
>Nikon has no clicked aperture rings and that pancake lens sucks shit
you sound like a youtuber

What is each AF mode on Ricoh GR III intended for? The manual is too barebones.

>>4456476
It's less conspicious than a Z8 for sure but the whole retro thing makes normies comment on it a lot more. I literally sold it cause every hipster dude that saw it would come up to me and say "is that a film camera" in the most annoying tone imaginable. I'm thinking about getting a ricoh GR so it flies under the radar more. Just don't want to deal with dust getting behind the lens.

>>4456405
Sorry, not buying your ugly giant $800 brick!

>>4456506
>If the nikon pancake is shit, that means you like this shitty snoy videography lens
Nope. The nikon pancake is shit. Pancakes period are shit. Not one single pancake is good. They are ALL consumerist toys for fashion minded faggots.

>noooooo you just have to consoom the latest biggest and expensive xbox huge vlogging lenses... because you just have to okay!!!!
No.

>>4456514
Again, clive, pancakes are overpriced toys for pajeets and women. The Nikon 28mm is $150. The non-phone focal length 40mm f2 is $200. The Nikon 26mm is $500 and worse in every single way.
The RF 28mm f2.8 is $300. The RF 50mm is 2mm longer and a superior lens in every single way.

Sony has nothing to do with this.

Pancakes are consumerist toys for fashion minded faggots.
>b-b-b-but the sony-
Every single sony camera is unusable garbage, barely a hair better than the unreliable pieces of plastic shit that say "lumix" on them. What sony has or doesn't have is irrelevant.

>>4456517
True facts. Imagine caring about snoy lenses. Every single snoy lens is APS-C because the mount is too small and the cameras are cheaply made just like APS-C cameras would be.

The panckaes are also aps-c because they vignette over 3 stops so they're basically snoy lenses.

>>4456506
$800 for this? LOL

>>4456519
$3k for a camera that disintegrates? LMAO

Every few months my minimalism GAS is kicking and once again I ask myself do I really need my GFX100SII with several lenses? It's a pleasure to shoot and even more so to edit those amazing files in LR. Zooming in being amazed by those incredible details. Hit export as jpeg and send it via whatsapp to my family who occassionally react with a thumbs up. Then those jpgs collect dust on my hdd until I feel nostalgic to look at some, being amazed again by the IQ. Not a penny I ever earned from photography, which isn't my goal. It's a several thousands bucks toy that I love to use as often as possible, motivating me to travel and leave the house. I never regret purchasing. Still I'm often dreaming about just selling it all and settle down with something like the Ricoh GR3x. Tiny, light, can bring everywhere and shoot even more often. Sharpness on par with good full frame gear. I used to have the GR3 28mm and miss it quite often.
Would you embrace the idea of minimalism? reducing gear. Never questioning what lenses to bring, not even a need of a bag. Pure photography. Later add the GRIV with 28mm as a second focal length and I'm all set. But I know at some point in future I would miss that medium format look that a GF55mm1.7 can give me. That 3D pop and background blur. But I can't justify owning both cameras.

>>4456524
AI post, or just retarded?

>>4456524
Just work some overtime and keep it all bruh, ez. I couldn’t sell something I enjoyed using, unless the alternative was like needing to suck dicks or something.

>>4456521
Pancake tier performance

>>4456533
lol

>>4456524
Digital is shit unless you can afford a hasselblad (the minimum) or a phase one trichromatic back (the ideal). Shoot film.

>>4456506
Shouldnt this be much better for being double the price? Or way less distortion for being bigger?

>>4456528
I guess I'm a real person

>>4456532
Yeah that may be a way.. at least until I figure out wether I need it all

>>4456535
Must be fun to shoot film. What camera would you recommend?

>>4456524
just get a Hasselblad. If you're going to spend a fuckload of money a Fuji is a cope and a waste of time

>>4456535
Digital is shit unless you can afford a hasselblad (the minimum) or a phase one trichromatic back (the ideal). Shoot film.

Indeed. Unless you're spending a film budget's budget on a back and using 3 lenses that you can only afford to rent for a weekend, you're better off shooting film because the amount of time you're going to lose being buried under 100:1 coverage and making digital look like anything but a turd smoothie is wayyy more costly than an extra 400' of ektachrome and will still ruin your project. In the end film is far less $ and gives you a more focused performance bc your actors know they're going to get 1 or 2 takes and that's it. All you have to do is cut it and splice for story and continuity and you're done. then you can add some fucking jawas falling off cartoon dinosaurs 30 years later and make the world realize you're not in fact the fucking genius mastermind we all thought you were, you FFFUCK

I'm looking for a camera for film scanning that i could have some fun with outside of that too. I'm looking at used and for good value per dollar mainly.
I was looking at a sony a7r ii, because i figured with an adapter on a mirrorless i could just use my current macro lens.
Would i be better off getting a lower MP (and price) dslr like a canon 5d mkiii with a lens?
I mainly care about quality of the images of negatives, not so much about every day usability and ecosystem quirks.
With a budget around 700 for the body + lens (or body and adapter if it is mirrorless) used

>>4456553
Film digitizing is unironically one of the applications where more megapickles is better so just get what you can afford there. If it’s mainly going to be a negative snapping slave I’d say cost is the main factor

>>4456562
Are options with smaller sensors worth considering? I'm still shopping around and pretty ignorant about most of this.
Is something including pixel shift something to look for?

>>4456562
more megapixels is generally better. People follow these soulless px=in rules with boomerific caveats like "and you have to stand far away enough to see it all at once without moving your head - and wear blinders" but people forget, bayer megapixels are not real megapixels, and digital cameras, unlike film, totally erase sub-pixel detail that would show up just fine in a 4x6 - if it were there

>>4456567
i guess it depends on how autistic you wanna get about pixel peeping. i've seen people on youtube using m4/3 cameras to digitize and they seem happy with it. shit, people even do it with their phones.

>>4456578
Thanks. I'll have to do more research on specific models and see what is on fleabay.

>>4456540
Its a Sony lens. They are generally overpriced and have worse IQ that rely heavily on digital corrections despite being bigger. Made for consumer vloggers.

Big lens with perfect image or small lens with good image?
I can't decide whether heavy lens is worth it or not.

>>4456545
Hasselblad 500cm

>>4456524
Do it, I did my big gear purge a few weeks ago and feel great
If you're even considering letting go of the GFX, then it isn't the perfect camera for you

>>4456545
Nah get a mamiya 6 or a mamiya 7.

>>4456524
Ask yourself - how much are internet retards influencing this? 4chan and reddit basically make a point of trying to induce consumerist neurosis. is it to make a constant stream of low value content for /p/? Are /p/'s weird anti-wealth spiels getting into your head? Is the 4chan "if you're not first you're last" gearfag attitude starting to get through to you? Would you be perfectly happy with everything you own and doubt free if /p/, reddit, tech rags, and youtube pundits simply did not exist and you never heard or read a single word from them? Do you want to "be based" to strangers so you can "btfo" others?

Or are you actually broke and not hesitating to get rid of gear, but hesitating to keep it?

Because it doesn't sound like you hate using the camera.

Besides, I don't see why you can't justify owning both if you own a fuckin' GFX. If you can afford over $10k of gear a ricoh GR is 2/3s of a G mount lens and subs for an AI-enhanced governmnet-tracked phone camera who the fuck cares.

>>4456630
> Is the 4chan "if you're not first you're last" gearfag attitude
you mean the right attitude? pffft. cope medium format is for cucks. real gigachads spend $30k on REAL medium format. pffffft.

>>4456631
Most people here have phones and walmart cope cannots

>>4456641
sounds like poorfag cope. fool frame and crop medium format are compromises. if you can't afford a phase one iq4 just shoot aps-c. no one cares about your photography so it doesn't matter.

>>4456643
Or you can deal with the inconvenience of 4x5 film, and get the best results.

>>4456644
Holy cope. If you're not shooting 8x10 you shouldn't be allowed to move beyond micro four thirds. If you can't justify 8x10 your photos are still shit.

>>4456645
This kind of poster is what assures me that 90% of 4chan is fake and ragebaiting
Like, how many people shoot sheet film in this day and age? Probably <1000 people. The only reason film still exists is because of Hollywood anyway.

>>4456645
Hilariously, I am pretty sure I'm the only person that has shot/posted anything 8x10 in a long time. You can get started in 8x10 for like 1.5k-2k and just buy expired film off ebay for like 3 bucks a sheet. It really isn't too terribly expensive if you don't get the top quality stuff for it.

8x10 is quite limiting compared to 4x5 which is why I suggest it instead of 8x10 and if you are just scanning your shit it really isn't worth the added bulk and hassle.
You can pack a very lightweight 4x5 kit with like 3 or 4 lenses and 5+ film holders. 8x10 cameras, film holders, lenses are all very heavy. My 8x10 field camera pack was 35lbs with 2 lenses and 3 film holders, and a CF tripod sturdy enough was another 10lbs.

Regardless, your sentiment is severely based. Cheers.

>>4456645
Another hilarious side effect of 8x10 is that a small, but very vocal group of people HATE when you post pics with the god tier IQ of 8x10. I think its the sour grapes squad, but I cannot confirm that.

>>4455714 (OP)
any thoughts on the following lenses for sony e-mount for use both on apsc and full frame cameras (I have a full frame my gf has apsc)
tamron 35-150mm f2-2.8
viltrox 16mm f1.8
sony 200-600m
Ill be using it for bird, aviation watching as well as night time landscape photography
she will be using hers for event photography of gigs and other things in low light with spots and other dynamic lighting

When did you realize Frost is a useless bokehfag?

>>4456814
Who is Frost?

>>4456826
Frosteez nutz, bitch.

>>4455714 (OP)
Shrek's
Overrated
Noisy
Yikes

There is the Canon 70-300,75-300,55-250, is there anything else on the mount I should be looking for if I want the cheapest telephoto I can? Need minimum of 250mm.

>>4456914
used 100-400 L

>>4456914
how cheap exactly are you?
for $30 + shipping you can get a manual focus m42 telephoto lenses (adapter is ~$20 as well). depending on your local used market, 200mm are dime a dozen but there are options for 300mm or 500mm mirror lenses to think about

>>4456914
If you get the 55-250 make sure it's the STM version. Pretty good for what it is but keep in mind it's a kit lens and has optics to match, and it's APS-C only.
The 75-300s are all hot garbage and you should avoid them as they're no better than the 55-250s but can fit full frame.
The 70-300s are okay. The L version is decent if you need 300mm instead of a traditional 70-200 f/4 but is heavy. The IS USM II version is rather recent and an okay (not great) FF lens but is still destroyed by the 55-250 STM on APS-C.
A used push-pull 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L will optically be the best thing you can get for full frame EF mount on a budget, but is still 6-8x the price of the EF-S 55-250 IS STM

>>4456918
I have a manual lens, but for dynamic things the manual focus and aperture is hard to work with. It's helping with fundamentals but not really useful for actually taking pictures, at least with how I tend to do it. If it was mirrorless with the live display of exposure and such it would be easier but with the DSLR it's like 10 tests of me changing settings to get good exposure without blown out iso and half the time just stopping since it was too dark even with the ISO.
>>4456919
I would like to be under $200 if possible.
I knew the 75 was bad but wasn't aware the 70-300 is still bad compared to the 55-250.
I'd like as much range as possible but if the 250 is drastically better, it's preferable to have a further sharp image than a close blurry.
This will be the only thing for a very long time, I don't see myself going into the 100-400 f/4.5 price range, especially considering it's still a lot more than the 55-250 used.

>>4456925
>I'd like as much range as possible but if the 250 is drastically better, it's preferable to have a further sharp image than a close blurry.
250mm vs 300mm on APS-C is fuck all difference in terms of FoV.
I can get the 55-250 IS STM for like $180 aussiebucks used here, and generally in great condition. I used it before I bought my 100-400, but I also paid $1000 for it.

Wide open it's pretty decent. At 55mm going down to f/5.6 gets you a bit better contrast and less vignetting, at 250mm f/5.6 is where you want to sit unless you want to go to f/8 for a small vignetting reduction. Basically, stay at f/5.6 for everything if you want best IQ. I tried some light birding with it once or twice and it's not bad. Light, useful, not concerned if I broke it.

>pic rel is a snapshit in some bushland at about 8m away @ 250mm, f/5.6, ISO 1600, 1/500th

Why are sony colors actually so bad?

>>4457122
They’re only bad in lightroom

In capture one they are exactly as mediocre as canon colors

>>4457122
Skill issue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIgta-MZp_Q

>>4457128
Apparently, sony only renders good skin tones for attractive women and its only uglier girls that look a bit shit

>>4457122
Result of being a consumer playstation company vs companies thats actually primarily specialise in imaging and have a photographic history.

>>4457122
Forced meme+disinfo, the result of salty brand fanboys mad at sony for knocking their favorite non-canon brand down a notch (and possibly into bankruptcy)

The #2 brand overall and #1 brand in full frame ILCs has bad colors? Sure. Maybe if you literally never change the settings and use the shittiest default profile in lightroom (not even the industry standard editor)

>>4457126
>>4457128
>>4457130
>>4457145
>gm saars!

>>4457145
Confirmed.

>>4457141
This. Sony cameras are a meme.

>>4457141
lol, Sony has far more ties to Imaging than any other company, they just weren't involved in the obsolete and archaic film formats. They were the first to make a digital stills camera, they make sensors for themselves and other brands, they make professional displays, they make professional video cameras far above anything Canon makes. For them to make professional class stills cameras with bad colours they would need to be doing it on purpose, and if they did then no one would be buying them over Canon or Nikon. And yet here they are, number 1 in full frame.

>>4456914
I've got both the 70-300 and the 55-250, I haven't done any side by side comparisons because I'm not quite that big of a nerd but I'm inclined to agree with faggotwithaclue and the 55-250 is the better lens if you're only shooting aps-c and also cheaper.
The real redpill is that aps-c is better for telephoto anyway and neither of these lenses are excellent in any way.
Have this shitty blown-out broad daylight snapshit of a rabbit taken with the 55-250 wide open
>>4456928
>I can get the 55-250 IS STM for like $180 aussiebucks
Funny, I'm pretty sure that's exactly what I paid for mine about 10 years ago

>>4457169
there’s no fucking way in hell that’s a rabbit

>>4457128
Why is every single comparison for snoy a woman who can't actually be bothered to take the same photo for the comparison?
Nigga on the right, she's pulling a happier expression, the lighting angle has changed, the distance to the camera is changed... like for fuck sake at least be consistent. OH wait, I get it she got paid for this.
>>4457169
I like the rabbit anon

Which ones are from a Sony?

https://files.catbox.moe/ka7ro3.JPG
I became slightly less retarded and found the programmed auto exposure so I could actually use the manual lens without being completely retarded. Still looks like shit though.
Is there information on how to actually use the graphs on these old telephotos?

>>4457216
>>4457216
Those lines that spread out to the F numbers are showing you how much of your image is in focus at that aperture and at what focal length.
>e.g. use f22 and pull the zoom back and it will be in focus from 10m past infinity

>>4457210
The lighting is the same. Canon colors are just like that.

>>4457214
I mean they are all pretty boring so they are all at least spiritually from a Sony YouTuber

>>4457241
> argues about color science
> various color photographs posted
> shifts goal posts
Why are jeets like this?

>>4457245
Lol this is my first post in the thread. Besides Sony is an Indian brand for H1B incels. I made the mistake of getting a Sony as my first mirrorless after listening to redditors and learned the expensive lesson. Literally the only people I see shooting Sony still is west coast YouTubers. Everyone else moved to Nikon or Fujifilm and has been happy with it.

>sony has green skin tones
>post photos with no people in it
>see, I told you sony has great skin tones
LOL

>>4457246
You seem to be confused. We are talking about the color science of cameras, not the color of the skin of the people holding them.

>>4457251
Picrel

>>4457258
>posting the edited pictures and not the original
???

>>4457259
Right, I forgot op's pic is a sooc jpeg

>>4457258
WHOMST

>>4457261
Looks like she could be Andy Six's sister.
>well would you?

>>4457258
whats the logic in posting the photos after theyve been heavily edited?

>>4457273
Snoyfaggots: WHO ACRES YOU BE EDIT IT ANYWAY SAAR

>>4457258
No, we're talking about the color accuracy of the sensors of which most modern snoys are quite terrible.
Profiling cameras can only do so much, every time you push one color the others get affected too. Color science is a meme. Having more accurate color input always results in a better image.

>>4457267
i would do THINGS to [spoiler]hold[/spoiler] her [spoiler]hand[/spoiler]

If snoyggers posted the RAWs (as TIFFs or whatever) their arguments would fall apart at the seams
Any disingenious attempt at validating their purchases with obviously edited slop should be ignored or at most replied to with "snoy".

You just dont see this sony hate outside of /p/. In the real world, they’re the top selling name in FF ILCs. How are they, if they’re so bad? They aren’t bad. Its just a few schizo samefags like clive, husky rapist and the lumix shill forcing a meme on a board with 12 people on it.

These people are literally obsessed with sony and bring it up unprompted and then start hysterically yapping about imaginary indians. All for what, to stop all 12 /p/ onlies from buying one maybe? Too bad it makes the board unusable so more and more people leave 4chan and realize sony is good and film is <12mp

>>4457258
I love seeing the collages I make get reposted
Same cope as last time
>colors don't count if edited

>>4457314
>Saaar your camera is bad YOU CAN NOT EDIT YOU HAVE TO SHOOT JPEG WITH DEFAULT SETTINGS SAAAAR

>>4457128
/thread

>>4457313
/p/ lacks skill. They only use cameras in jpeg+green box mode and cope.

>>4457246
>everyone
>fujifilm
Fujifilm doesnt make good cameras and this is reflected by their low market share. They make limited hype drops for tiktokkers not cameras.

Best?

>>4457334
the one with autofocus.

>>4457340
So the f3?

>>4457344
Hahah nice! That lil white dudes for nikon fella gets around!

Just picked this up to learn about fixing cameras (following that national camera course).
Cleaned up nice and even fixed a couple minor things wrong that I wouldn’t have known about without disassembling. Neat.
Gonna roll a roll or two of film through it.
Honestly kind of excited to work with those limitations.
Also have an Agfa Silette, Kodak Vigilant Six, Monitor Six, and a Tourist II I’ll be fixing up in the coming weeks. Will put film through those too.
Also found a Rolleicord, Rollei 35B, and Voigtlander 110 EL for like $15-40 each that need TLC. But those’ll have to wait.

>>4457347
Be careful with those older kodak point and shoots, some of them have really brittle plastics on the body.

Is the Viltrox 50mm f2 a better choice than 50mm 1.8 S from Nikon for someone who doesn't pixel peep?

>>4457375
The vignetting on it is really bad. It looks like its an aps-h lens and doesnt cover the corners.

Consider the 40mm f2 or just get the 50mm f1.4/f1.8

I'm looking for a geared 3-way head, arca-swiss compatible. Seemingly suitable options include:
Benro GD3WH
Leofoto GW-01
K&F Concept
Anyone have some ideas here?

>>4457384
Just buy the arca, what are you, poor or something?

>>4457388
The cube is extremely based, but heavy. In most cases a 2 axis head is perfectly fine. It is not difficult to level a tripod.

>>4457388
Too poor to justify Arca-Swiss prices for the intended use case, yes.

>>4457375
The 50 f1.8 S will be one of the best 50's you'll ever use, and is already relatively cheap
Second the 40 f2 if you want something small and cheaper

>>4457384
K&F seems to actually give a shit for their brand despite being a Chinese company.
>>4457375
The Chinese lens companies like Viltrox, 7 Artisans, etc. have high quality optics, but don't have good optical formulas. Their good lenses that are sharp, control aberrations well, etc. are basically just vintage lens designs.
That's great and all, and makes for some really good lenses. But the part they're really weak on is their coatings. Even Takumar SMC coating is better than those lenses. Flaring, ghosting, etc. all look ugly as fuck: too controlled to be aesthetic, but not controlled well enough to keep it non-distracting.
Just go with the Nikon.

>>4457383
>>4457395
>>4457399

Alright then. One more question, every single store in my country was running some Nikon discounts and they all stopped at the same time. Is this common everywhere?

>>4457403
Most discounts are done in the form of rebates from the manufacturer, who also sets the discount period. Stores could do extra discounts or free accessories on top of that at their own discretion, but retail margins for cameras and lenses is like 8-12% for most stuff. Nikon's discounts come and go throughout the year.

>>4457403
Dunno about everywhere, but it seems to be the norm.

hey guys, any opinions on the canon eos rp? heard it was a decent full frame camera on a budget (gonna get it used for like ~600)

>>4457415
It's decent, not great. You'll take good pictures. Don't pixel peep and compare it to cameras costing 2-3x the price. It's good enough that no one will ever notice the difference if you're making 4k screen savers and printing 8x10s.

>>4457416
thank you, I appreciate the straightforward answer

>>4457314
>>colors don't count if edited
Thats going against your point that Sony has good color science if you have to post process every image. Posting the original images SOOC would at least make sense.

>>4457466
>saar that does not count it must be jpeg with default settings in auto mode! that is the real color science test!
>no saar you can not use capture one it must be lightroom with default profile that is real fair scientific color science testing!
objectively, profiling every camera with a colorchecker under CIE-A and CIE-B and then doing a portrait under each light source is the actual color science test

everything else only measures changeable settings so your bitching doesn't even matter
>fuji has the best jpegs after because once you change the settings and enable your favorite film recipes...
>NO YOU CANT CHANGE SETTINGS ON SONY! THIS ISNT FAIR! THIS IS FUCKING CHEATING!
whats next, FF cant be better than m43 because you have to shoot at f11-16 and iso 1000 for fairness and equivalence?
Nigger sony is the #1 brand in FF. If their colors were that bad they'd be down there in the garbage can with panasonic. The only "sony colors" problems in memory were one, a bad profile in adobe lightroom, and two, vloggers missing white balance in video

>>4457415
It's pretty shit. Noticeably digital looking, prone to blowing out skies. RF mount is expensive. Consider ignoring /p/'s FUD memes and buying a sony a7iii. They're easy to find for <$800 and the cheapest autofocus lenses are under $200 ea.

>>4457466
>Thats going against your point that Sony has good color science if you have to post process every image
Good thing no one said that

>>4457314
What a strange thing to say. The complaint is that sony camera colours are ugly, not that lightroom colours are ugly.

>>4457415
Before you consider the a7iii as >>4457493 says, google the words "camera shutter failure" and see which camera comes up a hundred times in images.

>>4457496
If you put a Sony file into LR, you are still seeing Sony colors

>>4457499
Yes. Unless you select the adobe profile where it tries to make all cameras the same though this is as bad if not worse than sooc sony colours. My point was that yes "colours don't count if they're" edited because we're comparing unedited colours. There's no point saying sony has epic colours if it takes 5 minutes in lightroom adjusting every photo.

>>4457500
That's just applying a different profile to Sony colors
>because we're comparing unedited colours
No one ever really does though, and when blind comparisons are done though (like Tony did), Sony came out on top
>There's no point saying sony has epic colours if it takes 5 minutes in lightroom adjusting every photo.
It doesn't, nophotos online just say it does

>>4457504
>Sony came out on top
Doesn't matter the sample size was effectively zero and the opinions of idiots don't really matter. When you compare two unedited, raw images, it makes it much easier to see the nasty greens that people are unhappy with. I spoke to a real estate photographer the other day who recently switched from sony to gfx because of the colour cast on the walls.

>>4457258
OP Here. Here are the original unedited Sony pics. Can you tell these were shot by a Sony? Yeah, didn't think so.

>>4457506
Bottom right is SOOC sony because its the only one shot in india.
All the others are nikon dslrs.

>>4457505
>Unedited
Raws do not contain color. ALL visible images are edited. You are comparing default color profiles, not cameras. Even if you use the same raw editor it is as retarded as comparing jpegs. Most of this literally looks like shitty noise reduction too. I doubt this one shitty blog uncovered a killer issue that is definitely inherent to the camera and not their amateur understanding of their own tools.

You can not compare "unedited" raws except with mathematical bullshit like signal to noise ratio.

If sony cameras are so bad, why do the majority of professionals use them? Could it be they know something about photography you don't (ie: that profiles, not raws, contain color science)? Could it be you are just a retard who doesn't know how to use a camera, and bought a professional-exclusive tool expecting it to be an ideal PNS in auto+jpeg mode? What's next, you are going to buy a race motorcycle, and complain it does not have a trunk?

Go buy a fujifilm if you either can't figure out how to use a professional camera. If it seems like a waste of time to you, you do not need a professional camera to begin with. Nophoto retards like you aren't even good at being gearfags. Maybe you should force yourselves to be hyper-averse to nice gear for the rest of your life and try really hard to think you don't want or need it, and nobody does, and make a point of not having opinions about professional equipment, because you are not a professional. Sony is an expensive brand and if you only want to use default profiles for your snapshits, and don't even shoot video professionally, the high end features are totally wasted on you. PROFESSIONALS color grade everything, that's why the PROFESSIONAL camera doesn't bother with being color graded for consumers SOOC.

You don't even need the better autofocus if you just want to snapshit with lr/c1/camera jpeg defaults. The better autofocus is for low light weddings and sports, not your dogs. Gearfags.

>>4457512
>why do the majority of professionals use them?
Do you really believe that? If so, what leads you to believe that is the case?

>>4455714 (OP)
should I get a Lumix g7 got the recommendation from the sticky
gonna be using it for instagram fitness/coach clients

>>4457512
Wow you know you're right when sanjay has to unzip this level of mental gymnastics.
>You are comparing default color profiles, not cameras
Wrong. This only applies to jpeg. Raw is the cameras in build colours science. Read more.

>PROFESSIONALS color grade everything, that's why the PROFESSIONAL camera doesn't bother with being color graded for consumers SOOC.
Spoken like a true larper whos never been on a paid shoot. PROFESSIONALS (which you aren't and never will be by the way and I am) need results quickly. Wasting time grading every shot is absolutely unacceptable and will get your ass ditched by a client or your company instantly. Just say you have no clue what you're talking about, lmao.

>>4457525
What kind of clients do you work for and how much of what you submit is split between SOOC and RAW/Post?

>>4457512
RAWs capture luminance and obtain "color" info from having the photosites behind a behind bayer filter and then demosaicing. The color is created in software but that doesn't mean it's entirely artificial. The sensor itself still affects color output. Same way lenses/coatings/filters do. Profiles only do so much, every correction has to sacrifice something somewhere.

The "color science" is in the profile, and if you take different cameras behind the same lens and shoot a color target you'll find a lot of SNOYs suck ass and can't be corrected well. The delta values remain high. Micro four thirds has the same issue and so do a bunch of more recent budget bodies.

A7R III has better colors than A7R IV.
It's not entirely a brand issue since Cannot has some awful models too but Sony varies a lot and tries to cope with profiling. Relying on profiling is not ideal.

As for "professionals" that's not even worth discussing. Real professionals don't even do photography they do video or heavily edit their shit into meme territory. Color accuracy isn't even on the menu for them, they are obsessed with orange & teal and other color grading (fake color) bullshit. If you gave the average professional a gift directly from god in the form of a 100% perfect flawless camera they would complain about it. Give the same thing to a literal who in a museum (no faggot youtubers or instaqueers) photographing things for archiving on the other hand, they'd love it and instantly want to throw out their old cameras.

>>4457523
G7 isn't great but it's not garbage either. At least not garbage by micro four thirds standards.
It's a noisy camera even at the base ISO though so just be sure to use bright lighting if you want good images. If you're indoors and it seems bright enough for your eyes, that's probably not enough. You want to aim for a "very well lit bright kitchen" goal as a minimum for wherever you're going to be taking your photos if you care about quality.

>>4457505
Kek, I looked up this blog.
> In the cucumbers below, Sony does a better job with the greens. Canon is less accurate and leans a little into yellow.

>>4457560
snoy truly is the GOAT (greenest of all time)

>>4457403
Get the TTArtisan 40mm F2 instead

>>4457525
>dishonesty
>>4457536
>more dishonesty

>>4457512
The jeets hate him because he tells the truth

Sony is the #1 brand in full frame and the #2 brand when consumer grade cameras are considered
This is not because their colors are "bad". It's because you're bad at using cameras at because you are not a professional, you are detached from a typical professional workflow.

Everyone who buys a professional camera at least changes their jpeg settings.

>>4457536
>reee i hate professionals everything they do is bullshit
>now what i do, take perfect repro snaps of my dog, that's real photography
Sony is the #1 brand in full frame and only #2 when consumer cameras are considered
And they are meant to be bad because?

has anyone here seen this level of delusional sony hate with forced memes >>4455714 (OP) >>4457344 OUTSIDE OF /P/? No, I didn't think so. OUTSIDE OF 4CHAN they are the most popular brand of pro cameras. But I'm sure 4channers are all super successful and enlightened.

I'm looking to start vlogging in my workshop. Since I already have a "set” I'm budgeting how much I should spend on audio, video and lighting. I've shot a bunch of test footage with my cell phone and it's clear I need to upgrade all three (the sound and lighting are a must with a camera being a nice to have) and my budget is around $2,000 CAD. No problem buying used gear. I'm looking for a camera with interchangeable lenses.
I can DIY sound treatment so I'm not going to include that in the budget because I figure I can make the panels for 200 bucks. I already have pretty good lighting and I did some testing with lamps and shop lights and I think I'm looking for maybe a spot and led panel to dial in a shot.
If you were in my situation with all of those constraints, what would you get?

Is my camera trash?

If I sell it should I pick another brand?

>>4457599
What do you want to do that your camera doesn’t allow you to?

>>4457599
yeah dslrs are trash for a lot of things

they cant autofocus outside of a narrow central area
the autofocus itself is inherently inaccurate because focusing and photo taking happen on 2-3 different sensors
zoom lenses are pretty soft except for a few that are still over $1000
most prime lenses that are not huge and as expensive as smaller mirrorless kit are soft. as in, the nikon Z kit zoom is sharper than almost every F mount prime... and the 28mm and 40mm kit primes are as sharp as F mounts highest end professionals-only prime lenses. these new cheap mirrorless lenses are optically comparable to $5000 primes made by LEICA.

even if mirrorless had no subject detection or exposure preview it would still be a straight upgrade from SLRs

mirrorless brought leica like optical quality, speed, and accuracy to SLRs. leica as a brand only survived and continued making rangefinders because of the design flaws inherently to SLRs. now that cameras like the Z5II and Z50II exist, there's basically no reason to buy a leica over a nikon, and no reason to overspend on professional lenses since affordable optics like the nikon z 28mm f2.8, 40mm f2, 24-70 f4, 24-200 f4-6.3, 28-400 f4-8, and 24-50 f4-6.3 are better than almost everything ever made for a DSLR. If you are a professional the 24-120 f4 is the only lens you need. There's no reason to use special purpose primes anymore since bokeh is a crutch.

>>4457612

What would you recommend as a decent upgrade from the d7500?

>>4457599
>Current year
>Crop
Literally e-waste.

>>4457493
>make camera with 1% better specs
>traditional camera reviews focus on this because they're lazy bastards who spend 1 hour photographing test charts and theory crafting based on specs
>send free cameras to youtubers acting like 1% better performance BTFO's all other brands
>don't send pre-release cameras to reviewers who don't act like Sony BTFO all other brands
>ergo, youtubers that refuse to be corporate shills don't have youtubing careers
>blatantly shill on social media (seriously, look at like 80% of the good photos on /r/SonyAlpha and notice they're all made by accounts that have been dormant for years aefter farming karma with low-effort posts about sports betting)
#1 brand doesn't mean you make th #1 cameras, it only means you have the #1 shills.
At least Canon did it honestly by having fucking awesome Professional Services that helped ensure every NFL and FIFA press section is filled with Canon cameras, offering good deals to educational institutions making sure that every school recommends Canon for their photography classes because their rental cage is filled with Canon lenses and accessories, and offering good deals to retailers making sure Canon cameras are front-and center. Snoy doesn't do any of that -- they just shill.
(I don't like Canon cameras btw, I'm a Nikon/Pentax guy, but Canon dominated for so long for a reason that wasn't shilling).

>>4457630
>Snoy doesn't do any of that -- they just shill.
well good job at showing a photo with an equal number of canon and sony shooters.

>>4457599
A new camera won't mean you will take better photos.
D7000 series has a fairly full feature set for serious photography. It was sold as the serious hobbyist camera, and gives you everything you need for good photos.
Upgrading the photographer will be cheaper *and more effective* than upgrading the camera.
Only upgrade the camera if you have the money to blow or you need something this camera doesn't offer.
You probably don't need something this camera doesn't offer.
>i need good autofocus!
D7500 has decent autofocus -- learn to use it, it's not press-button-get-in-focus-photo tier like Snoy cameras, but with some practice and skill it'll do birds-in-flight and sports just fine.
>i need low light performance!
learn to utilize contrast in the scene and make creative use of light sources. Nighttime street photography seriously seldom needs ISO higher than 800-1600. Honestly, stop treating ISO as a way to deal with low light and start treating ISO as a way to increase shutter speeds or getting increased depth of field. Creativity is the proper way to deal with low light.
>i need full frame!
No you don't.
>but shallow depth of field!
f/4 full frame, f/2.8 APSC, is honestly sufficiently shallow enough depth of field. Again, this is a creative limitation, not a technical one. Get better at perspective, composition, contrast, lighting, color, and that'll produce much better photos than gratuitous bokeh.

>>4457630
>>4457630
>Logic-based reasoning that destroys the snoyggers
>inb4 samefag
It's almost like creating a distinct image and a consistent if not perfect stream of technology is a good way to become the household name. Everyone cums their pants over Canon and their big whites, everyone recognises the blobmera, and it's not because they're paying off jewtoobers to fag on about MTF charts.
But it's a losing fight here on /p/. The turbogearfags are too proud of their theoretical performance to give a shit; they won the only argument they think is worth winning, because the kind of anon that is going to argue that snoy is superior isn't the same kind of real person that actually uses cameras for more than some shit-tier vlogging or e-shilling.

The absolute reality is that for the 99% of people who pick up a camera, any semi-modern device with a sensor larger than a P&S is going to function roughly the same. The real dividing factors come down to the things that aren't gear-related, but you can't solve composition by spending $2,000 on a shiny new turd. So, here we are.
Buy the newest snoynikcannot according to some hybrid retard on youtube that wants to "make it", otherwise you're a poorfag or a hopeless faggot.

>>4457595
>has anyone here seen this level of delusional sony hate with forced memes >>4455714 (OP) (OP) >>4457344 (You) OUTSIDE OF /P/?
You're upset the anime shitposting forum makes fresh shitposts? Maybe this site ain't for you cupcake.

>>4457642
Canon Professional services are honestly impressive. Go to a half-major cross country skiing event, and you'll see Canon with a a rental truck full of cameras and lenses ready to lend out to their customers. Sony reps weren't even there.
Went out just to do some exercise that day and almost shat my pants when I saw that and really understood the value of Canon and why a lot of pros shoot Canon.
Once you learn to see it, look at the press section of major sporting events and you'll see a Canon Professional Services tent ready to do the same. If you're lucky you'll see a Sony tent with some demo cameras and brochures to hand out.
And it's more than just sports. Sports are just the easy example. You'll generally see Canon showing up at most any event where you'd expect a large number of photographers to be.
Canon Professional Services is honestly THE reason to buy Canon, and it's an impressive service. It's unmatched by the other brands. I have no intention of becoming that kind of photographer -- I'm more of a studio and fine art type, so if my camera breaks or whatever it just means a two week vacation for me. CPS seems more oriented towards press/sports/etc. But if I ever do go that way, I'll switch to Canon.
You can find plenty of photos of press sections dominated by Canon cameras. I just picked the first one I saw on a google image search. :)
In the mean time, I'll stick with Pentax as long as they don't give up on DSLRs.

>>4457612
This man tells the truth

A better camera might even allow you to take better photos because a dslr flat out cant focus on someones head in a full body vertical portrait. It would have to be pose, focus, and recompose, no action ever. Also less time wasted taking and culling safety shots.

>>4457661
And NONE of this applies to YOU. To YOU, canon cameras are just expensive blobs with a high failure rate.

Sony cameras are just better canons. Yes, thats right. Sony is better. Their cameras fail less often than canon and offer better quality than travesties like the r5ii.

People like you should stick to nikon and fujifilm.

>>4457664
>(YOU) Aren't allowed to buy something if it was intended for PROS. That is NOT ALLOWED
>Immediately shills snoy
What's your youtube handle anon so I can check out your latest A7S comparison

>>4457671
Sony cameras are the best professional tools and they are too good for you sorry bub

Call back when you shoot for the associated press

>>4457664
Right, CPS doesn't apply to me. I already said that in my comment. And... look at that, I already said I don't buy Canon. But CPS is compelling. I think I would buy Canon if I was a press photographer. As a professional camera at least, if not personal.
>Sony cameras are just better canons.
In what way? Sony cameras tend to have the best specs. And then they are the least ergonomic and have the worst usability of all the brands. They're the Arch Linux of cameras. My hobby is photography, not cameras, just like I don't want to use Arch Linux because I use my OS as a way to access Lightroom and porn, not because I think tinkering with configuration files is fun.
>>4457612
Leica's own vision of itself is that the reason you buy Leica is for the Leica camera experience and luxury, not their optical quality. The optical quality is only part of that.
Fucking Takumar lenses competed with Leica, and some Pentax lenses were just rehoused Zeiss lenses or based on Zeiss optical designs. Some of the 90s Pentax lenses in those cheap plastic housings that you can buy on ebay for $40 are seriously some of the sharpest lenses you can still buy today.
(Zeiss basically traded their optics R&D with Pentax for Pentax's coatings R&D. A lot of the 90s lenses were heavily derived from Takumar and Zeiss designs but with then-modern precision optics engineering).
Some of Leica's SL lenses are just rehoused Sigma lenses.
If you think the point of Leica is just sharp lenses, you really missed the point.

>>4457672
>Sony cameras are the best professional tools
lol no. Sony, Nikon, Canon, they all make cameras within spitting distance of each other as it applies to professional use. Especially with the latest generation Nikon autofocus, they really caught up.
(Nevermind that Nikon autofocus was never that bad, you just couldn't automagically press the shutter button and have in focus images without skill. Nikon tried to carry over the DSLR paradigm to their mirrorless cameras, with the assumption that "serious photographers" wanted to use focus points and their 3D Tracking system to choose their focus target. But Youtube shills that got free cameras from Snoy dragged them in the mud for that).
(But Nikon was right. "Smart" autofocus is practically useless outside of trivial examples and sports and casual snapshooting. I don't expect Snoy people to understand that tho).

>>4457563
It has the same weird vignetting issues on some nikon cameras the 75mm f2 has so I would say get the nikon 40mm f2

I'm seriously considering picking up a Canon R50. Tell me why it's a great idea and then I'm a smart person for deciding to purchase it

>>4457690
R50 is the cheapest and reasonable (ie. not R100 that's gimped too hard) to get a current Canon mirrorless camera.
RF-S lenses are all pretty terrific so far. You don't get fast apertures, but they give great image quality. Perfect for price-conscious purchasers. If you need bokeh pick up the cheap 50mm f/1.8 too, or the 35mm if you want a "standard" lens.
The camera is really small and light.
The camera leaves a lot to be desired if you want to take photography more seriously -- for that I'd recommend an R10. But if you want to enjoy photography more casually, with a camera in automatic mode and taking some pleasing photos, the R50 is perfect.
Someday you can upgrade to an R7.
I got my girlfriend the R50. She gets pleasing results. I don't think there's a better camera for her.
The camera gives you everything you need for hobbyist photography, and is pretty ideal for it IMO.

Okay negros, I got a T3i with a first gen 18-135 for $45 just now. So safe to say the 18-35 can basically go in the garbage. Missing the eye piece and batteries for the T3i, would it be worth putting money into it to try to take that and the kit lens to sell, or should I just have it as a spare?
How does the 18-135 compare quality wise to the 55-250? I was going to buy that but I'm going to have to pause a bit while I think since there is a large overlap in range.
Am I just kinda fucked if I want to get a 300 or greater mm telephoto? Am I just going to have to get the 250mm and sit on it unless I get an L series lens, or is there anything used that isn't closer to $1000 than not.

Okay negros, I got a T3i with a first gen 18-135 for $45 just now. So safe to say the 18-55 can basically go in the garbage. Missing the eye piece and batteries for the T3i, would it be worth putting money into it to try to take that and the kit lens to sell, or should I just have it as a spare?
How does the 18-135 compare quality wise to the 55-250? I was going to buy that but I'm going to have to pause a bit while I think since there is a large overlap in range.
Am I just kinda fucked if I want to get a 300 or greater mm telephoto? Am I just going to have to get the 250mm and sit on it until I get an L series lens at stolen prices? Is this just the realistic limits of consumer equipment and to get any more I would need old professional stuff? What about other lens patterns, is there anything worth looking into that I could run an adapter with that's better than the 300mm consumer ef lenses?

What should I get for lowlight/lightweight since I am going to no longer use the kit lens? Just get the 50mm 1.8, or is there anything else worth considering?

>>4457697
I don't know whether you need so much reach but I like my Sigma 150-500mm and they're pretty cheap used

>>4457709
I want as much as physically possible while having auto focus, not being complete dogshit image quality and not raping me for $1000. I am aware all of those are basically contradictory given the price point. I just want to see birds and planes far away without having to spend so much money that I am nervous to use it and generally be retarded since I'm not getting paid.

>sony schizo having another meltdown and writing another essay
Sony cameras will never not be a meme lmao

>>4457712
I did just skim through a review comparing it to the Tamron 150-600mm and they rated the Tamron more, although a bit more expensive and from a quick Ebay search it seems like perhaps it's rarer in EF mount. I have no complaints about the Sigma although my body is also only 18mp crop equivalent so a bit less demanding. If you're not all that bothered about price as long as it is less than $1k then the Tamron is probably a good shout.

>>4457697
Stick with 55-250mm until you can afford a used 100-400 or 150-600
That's basically it

Is the best monopod literally just a paint pole with an adapter? Would be stiff enough to actually brace and use a bit as a walking pole.

>>4457717
sony will never not be the #1 full frame brand no matter how hard you lie and shill to try and convince the 12 people here its actually bad

got any stories to make up, cherry picked skill issues to repost, or meaningless specs to hyperfocus on? of course you do but outside of your /p/ echo chamber sony remains #1 in FF.

What mount has the highest quality optics to price ratio? EF?

This anti-sony shit is extremely sus. Several anons have bought sony cameras because the counter shills use sourced facts showing how good sony is, and the anti-sony schizo only has forced memes and reposted bait. How likely is that? It actually fucking happened like, three times. They posted their receipts.

I’m somewhat convinced all sides are paid sony shills because its obviously scripted at this point. Paid sony shills are acting out a fuckin’ sony commercial in real time, every single day. It goes like this
>GRR! i HATE sony! its the worst! Other brand is better!
>Actually, my fellow 4chan poster, Sony is based because [well reasoned factual response] and other brand is cringe because [inconvenient facts]
>RARHH! SNOY BAD! PANCAAAAKE!
>Oh, you must be interested in our Zeiss 35mm f2.8. It is not marketed as a pancake, but you see, it is actually the same size as this nikon lens when both are at feature parity, if you ask me, the focal length is less reminiscent of an iPhone. It is, in fact, similar to the lens used by the famous x100vi.
>RRRRGG… SNOY! SNOY BAD! Me have no argument! I AM SILLY
>Well, looks like you have some growing up to do. I am very intelligent.

>>4457771
Dude, Sony makes a fine sensor but their cameras suck ass. They’re obviously designed by engineers, not designers, a typically American product mgt mistake to make. Bc you get a great sensor shoehorned into a piss-poor body design with a menu system universally hated.

No grand conspiracy needed, hold that piece of shit in your hand and realize how badly every part of it is placed, and how often you need to fish around in that fucking menu. That’s why most people who like a Sony are tripod shooters who don’t have to hold their cameras or noob youtubers who’ve never had a quality camera so don’t have anything to compare it to. Also, Sony is a dick company that deserves its decline.

>>4457771
I know. It is literally on repeat.

>>4457779
You totally missed the point. The sony arguments are scripted. In fact, your post is so stupid I think you're a sony shill too. Now totally not you or one of your fellow shills is going to coolly post a counterpoint, you're going to get btfo, and it's going to be just like that greentext.

/p/ barely talked about sony before the weird pancake schizo started posting. The entire thing is a shill op.

>>4457779
>hold that piece of shit in your hand and realize how badly every part of it is placed, and how often you need to fish around in that fucking menu
The majority of professionals use sony cameras without issue. It seems less like sony is badly designed and more like you don't know how to use a camera properly because you're inexperienced, and still struggle with camera menus because you haven't used one before. If you were more experienced you'd know canon menus are about the same, and sometimes have even more options and sub-pages. Why would a camera meant for experienced users have a simple, beginner friendly menu?

>>4457770
>What mount has the highest quality optics to price ratio? EF?
Easily. Also very good if you want to go from SLR to DSLR to MILC in any order since there's genuine gems of lenses for fuck all money that'll fit everything without a hassle and full functionality. You can drop a modern UWA on a 90s SLR and get results you couldn't dream of back then.

>>4457771
The anti-snoy shit is actually funny as shit because it triggers so many people here. Someone else said it a few weeks back but basically, it's fun to poke the bear. Your comment is case-in-point; like three guys itt post a snoy meme and it starts a week-long argument and the most butthurt responses.
Angering the snoyggers on /p/ is a time-honored tradition at this point.

>>4457789
Meds. the only people sony are paying is those snoy shill ranjeets. we just dont like sony here because they dont make real photographic tools. come on boys, look at this soulless snoyboy. he probably even thinks the fuji x100vi is a scam because snoy has no pancakes.

>>4457793
Actually, the a7cII with the zeiss 35mm f2.8 is not meaningfully larger than an x100vi (neither is ever fitting in a pocket) and is a much more capable camera for not much more money. For a working artist, it helps to have a camera that can keep up with things that move faster than street signs, benches, and eggs.

>>4457796
Snoy cope
>i-t's not that much bigger
lmfao snoy cope. its a whole quarter inch bigger.

>>4457779
Am I alone in thinking Sony has the best menu system? Their groupings seem the most logical (to me), and the in menu description (when pressing delete) is super helpful. They also seem to have useful descriptions of why a feature is disabled (can't enable flash because shutter is electronic, etc).

Canon's menu is oversimplified, and crams all advanced features into a single "custom functions" page.

Fuji has decent options, but the organisation and groupings suck. Nikon's menu is by far the worst.

>>4457797
Lol, hit the gym bro.

wake the fuck up sheeple
Both sides are shills
They dont even try to hide it. Tell me this shit looks like organic discussion.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of mirrorless? Some of the tiny ones are cool and the M43 Olympus cameras look neat, but I probably wouldn't invest heavy into one since I am only buying poorfag optics for my DSLR.

That aside how much does shutter count matter on DSLR's? Not that I have high shutter count ones, but if I take as many pictures I do a day every day for like a year I could theoretically hit the 100000 rated limit. Do I think I'll do that reasonably probably not, but when I have it on continuous when a plane is landing I get kinda nervous letting it run for like 30 shots if I do it several times a day, or if I find a higher end camera with a higher count I want to try out.

>>4457799
Based. The Sony is a compact FF with ultra sharp lenses, glue like AF, and wonderful ergonomics (front, rear and too dials, excluding the "wheel").

And the Fuji has the built in flash, leaf shutter with high speed flash sync and film sims. Truly the only two bodies anyone needs.

I added two more to my collection - a GR for something truly pocketable, and a beat up X-E3 that I can use without the fear of losing.

>>4457801
Well, there's the Canon shill that lashes out at everything non-Canon, there's the Sony shill that repeats the "number one brand" phrase in every post, there's a whole m43 shill thread.

>>4457815
This entire act is staged. Its all sony shills. Even the sony hater is a sony shill.

>>4457815
Sorry but the Sony schizo is by FAR the worst. He defends Sony like his life depends on it and writes whole essays. Its actually sad.

>>4457821
Meds, my sir. It is clearly just multiple sensible sony users responding to the slander posted by one disruptive individual. Ganesha bless you and have a good day!

>>4457833
>multiple sensible snoy users
I've yet to see one on this board

>>4457821
>slander
lol literally nobody cares but you lil bro

>>4457833
>slander
lol literally nobody cares but you lil bro

post yfw you see Nikon’s 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8 zoom lens

>>4457852
>1200-1700mm f/5.6-8
Nikon Z version when?

>>4457807
Mirrorless: what you see is what you get.
DSLR: You get precise framing, but some people feel it helps their creativity by giving them more room to think about exposure, aperture, and shutter speed and how it will affect their photo. It's also nice seeing "the real thing" and creates a stronger emotional connection (and thus boosting creativity further) rather than seeing a screen, which is on any extant camera is still obviously a screen.
Tell me, would you rather watch a pretty girl stripping live stream, or with your own eyes? (nb4 autistic 4chan incel faggotry shit like "why would you want to interact with a real girl" or wtfever you nerds use to justify your shit).

>>4457858
DSLR: no lag, no refresh rate

>>4457807
Smaller, lighter, allows for better lens designs, potentially cheaper and more durable/reliable due to fewer moving parts, they often have IBIS where as few DSLRs do, much better AF especially when it comes to tracking and accuracy, slightly less shake when taking a photo. Then there's all the advantages that come with an EVF, larger and brighter, you can see what you image will actually look like in terms of exposure and depth of field, less blackout because you only have the time it takes the shutter to move and not the addition of the mirror flapping about, you can get more information in the viewfinder and even review images and browse the menus (good for sunny days).

The disadvantages are battery life and the things related to DSLRs having been around a lot longer, you can find old used ones for really cheap and many more lenses on the market (although many can be adapted to mirrorless).

Cute and funny.
How small is it actually? I can't really visualize how big it is off of dimensions in comparison to a T6i, but it is 4 ounces lighter.

>>4457859
I'm pro-DSLR camp but the flip side response to this:
1) Really, the last couple generations of cameras the refresh rate and latency is much improved compared to earlier cameras. They're very usable. You don't notice it after a few minutes of using it.
2) Coming from a DSLR it's blatantly obvious even on the newest of cameras and is really annoying until you get used to it. Just the fact that it's there makes me not want to use it, regardless of how "usable" it is. DSLR is just better in that respect.

>>4457861
Should be noted "better lens designs" doesn't necessarily mean optically better. The shorter flange distance just makes it cheaper/easier to make wide apertures and wide angle lenses, and in those sort of lenses you'll see reduced weight and size.
Mirrorless having generally better optical quality is mostly just down to optics technology, rather than anything inherent in mirrorless design, where mirrorless lenses are almost universally (except for old Sony, Panasonic, Olympus designs) newer designs than DSLR designs.

>>4457949
you can't beat the speed of light
OVFs just don't *have* latency, as far as I know

>>4458082
I mean technically optics work by slowing the speed of light, so there is latency with an OVF vs just your eyes
but it's not meaningful because it's well below your eyes' temporal threshold
but that also implies if you get an EVF's latency below that threshold, it's basically latency-free as well

>>4458220
>I mean technically optics work by slowing the speed of light, so there is latency with an OVF vs just your eyes
>but it's not meaningful because it's well below your eyes' temporal threshold
>but that also implies if you get an EVF's latency below that threshold, it's basically latency-free as well
>this is the autism taking photos on this board
No wonder every photo posted here has no creative talent

>>4458898
>ree no fun allowed
indeed

>>4458898
What are some examples of images with creative talent posted elsewhere?

>>4457859
dslr also lets you frame and track with strobe lights
something impossible for digital viewfinders kek