Thread 4458399

I’m looking for a crisp, compact lens for Nikon.

I already have the NIKKOR Z 40mm f/2 (SE), but I’m wondering: is there something even sharper, with weather sealing, that’s still compact?

>>4458399 (OP)
No
Post uncrisp example from your 40mm

>>4458399 (OP)
>I already have the NIKKOR Z 40mm f/2 (SE)
Based.

>>4458399 (OP)
Mate there's a gear containment thread already.

>>4458399 (OP)
>buy the lens marketed as not any sharper than a lens from the 70s, which is how old gear stayed small
>Sirs how do i get sharper lens but not big?

>>4458399 (OP)

35mm dx f does not breathe at front element but not actually weather sealed

let's go niggers >:)

>>4458399 (OP)
No that lens is already one of the best lens on the system for what it is. Also it is weather resistant and if you want to make it even more weather resistant you can order a metal mount and gasket from Nikon and swap them around yourself. Both Nikon Z 35mm options are sharper but not more compact. The TTArtisan 40mm is not noticeably different on any account. The nikon Z 26mm is compact, weather sealed, and has a zeiss look to it being excessively crisp and contrasty in the center. It just loses resolving power towards the edges which makes it render very uniquely. I like it for some things but it's not for everyone.

>4th best selling lens
>guys is there a better one?
no
the next lenses are the 28-400, 105mm macro, 14-30 f4, 28mm f2.8, 14-24 f2.8, and 180-600.

nobody likes the 35mms at all (nikon has never made a good FX 35mm) with the 40mm as an option
almost nobody likes the 50mm f1.4 ("soul but woah, not too much soul")
nobody likes the 20mm f1.8 or 24mm f1.8 pixel peeper milky way lenses (but fast UWA portraits are a fun meme)

trust the market on this one. the 40mm is very good especially if you know what you're doing. if you have sharpness issues with it return it or consider that when buying used lenses, they have probably been dropped 6ft onto carpet at least once

i want a metal hood for this lens. the OEM 12536 is perfect obviously, but i don't want to pay $300 for it.

>>4458630
This is good advice. Most complaints I see about the 40mm f2 are because of a bad copy. Lost of variation with this one.

How is the low light on Nikon Z8? Any better/worse than on Snoy/Can'ton equivalent body? Is the lack of mechanical shutter noticeable?

>>4458799
>how is the low light
the same as the z7ii unless you want to recover all the shadows at base ISO then it's 3/4 stop worse maybe
>better or worse than canon
canon bodies have the same low ISO issue (but with NR cooked into the raw) or the low ISO issue expanded to every ISO (still with cooked raws - lmao @ r5ii, r3, r1).
sony cameras are simply noisier all around.
so nikon gets away with it.
>is the lack of a mechanical shutter noticeable?
zero shutter shock ever, 1/200 sync is good enough for everyone, no random EFCS bokeh cutoffs and it's closer to truthful rendering than the weird diffraction created by focal plane shutters.

>>4458670
>Leica
Is the problem that $300 is too expensive, or too cheap?

>>4458799
The lack of mechanical shutter basically unnoticeable for everything I have shot including concerts with LEDs. The lack of shutter shock and IBIS means I have handheld tack sharp shots at as low as 1 second (although I usually don't ever dip below 1/8th). The low light is by far the best I have used outside of fuji medium format. I went from using a z7ii to a z8 and haven't noticed any difference in low light performance. A lot of my low light pictures have actually gotten sharper to from the better AF on the Z8. Probably the best all round camera right now for the price considering you can get it for like 2800$ refurbished. Well at least you could before the tariff tyrant decided to fuck things up.

>>4458806
>canon bodies have the same low ISO issue (but with NR cooked into the raw) or the low ISO issue expanded to every ISO (still with cooked raws - lmao @ r5ii, r3, r1).
Canon has turned flagship and near-flagship models into pro-only models where the only priority is readout speed and FPS. In a retarded way it makes sense. Nobody sane buys an R3 or R1 for hobby use unless your hobby is sneaking into FIFA touneys or standing in the middle of a rally stage.
The R5II is retarded on for a similar but dissimilar reason because of the hybrid fags, and pros who can't or don't want to buy the R3 and want equipment for work.

Most normies are used to phone snapshits, so even a 10-stop DR, 12-bit RAW shot at 80FPS and baked in NR is still going to meet their expectations, while the "pro" gets insane FPS to make up for the lower skill floor needed to get into that line of work.

>>4458809
yeah that's why I bought it

Don't we have a gear thread already?

>>4458952
There are three active gear generals yes, did you think this was a photography board or smth?

>>4458399 (OP)
Good heavens those Nikons are ugly as sin. How do you go from the industrial kino of the F3, F4, F100, to this dogshit?

>>4458982
i don't understand any design that isn't a rectangle with the evf in the corner. why keep the giant prism pyramid in the middle from the SLR days in the design? makes no sense looks like shit

>>4459171
Most people prefer having the viewfinder centered over the lens

>>4458982
They copied the hasselblad X systems design language and have been going for the customers who want a more pro medium format-like experience out of full frame and an optics-first brand instead of being slightly edgy, retro canon. Then they threw the zfc/zf, 40/28/26 to consumers as toys. If none of that appeals to you I guess you're mean to go for the super cheap z50ii as the ultimate cheap casual kit zoom only snapshitter that's less crippled than a canon APS-C, or just don't buy a nikon. Of all the brands I think their rebranding was the biggest change. As a result the Z7II with their big flawless S lenses is like a half step into medium format and has better base ISO color capture than an A7RV, only bested by the leica M11. The Z7III might brush up against 100mp crop medium format for base ISO, controlled light shooting. Canon still focuses on professional reportage bodies and crippling everything else to sell to losers who want to look professional, and sony still has cutting edge crutches and killer MTF sharts but sucks at everything else about cameras and lenses.

>>4459175
>Most people prefer having the viewfinder centered over the lens
do they really? why? that makes no goddamn sense

>>4459179
>why would they want that when a leica lets you see outside the 28mm framelines for anticipating the perfect boring street snaps of people walking by

>>4459184
This has nothing to do with the viewfinder being offset from the lens or not, what are you talking about?

>>4458982
Ugly cameras keep plebs away from the good shit.

Redpill me on TTartisan & 7artisans lenses. Which of them are kino?

I have a Leica Q, the old one and really like it. The lens is incredible sharp with lots of contrast. What other lenses give me this feel? I can't afford Leica lenses because they are so damn expensive. How are the Voigtländer Apo lenses? Looking at the 50mm f2 APO-Lanthar for example. In reviews it is described as very sharp even at f2. Or does it also depend on the sensor?

>>4458399 (OP)
I am getting desperate.

Everytime I shoot with my polaroid camera (116mm f/9.4, 45mm f3.5 equivalent) I istinctively take good pictures. The square format and that field of view naturally make me compose the scene exactly how I see it in my mind's eye.
The problem is of coirse that I can't shoot polaroids all day, but I haven't found a digital equivalent that makes me remotely as happy

>>4459246
I mean it won't solve your "spending a bunch of money on instant film" issue but have you tried NONS? They seem cool.

What's a good lightweight full frame camera with interchangable lenses? Is there only the A7CII? I really don't wanna buy Snoy

>>4459248
The only lightweight full frame cameras are mirrorless which are dogshit.

>>4459248
>I really don't wanna buy Snoy
then get your blobmera faggot

>>4459250
This makes so much sense. All the sony shooters are obsessed with how their camera looks rather than how the photos look since they're never ever ever gunna get paid for them.

>>4459249
lmao

>>4459171
>why keep the giant prism pyramid in the middle from the SLR days in the design?
Centered viewfinder over the lens is not insignificant. However I agree that more camera manufacturers should do corner EVF, or better yet, modular EVF like the Visoflex/Ricoh GXR/side mounted like Sigma
>>4459175
>They copied the hasselblad X systems design language
I'm not seeing it at all. Hasselblad X bodies are slabs of metal with sharp corners and the lenses are very minimal. Only Leica SL is on the same frequency, visually speaking. Nikon Z by comparison looks like cheap electronics.
>slightly edgy, retro canon
Interesting opinion.

>>4459246
Just put your camera into 1:1 aspect ratio and shoot raw, if you have a mirrorless camera you'll get a square format in the viewfinder but still have the option to uncrop in post if you want. Or shoot 6x6

>>4459248
Probably a Nikon Z5ii right now.
But in my experience it's not the weight of the body that matters. It's the shape of the body and most importantly the shape+weight of the lens that makes things annoying. Example: my mirrorless camera weighs the same as or slightly more than my previous DSLR, but smaller (denser) and yet is so much easier to carry because it's not a blob and the lenses I got for it are tiny.

>>4459246
GR IIIx. Or Q3 43 I guess.

>>4459248
Dont buy a snoy. Youll turn into that schizo.

So if mirrorless isn't really smaller when you attach a lens, has worse battery life, worse weather sealing, worse thermal, more prone to condensation and worse build quality while omitting hard-to-build optical finders for cost cutting purposes, what exactly is supposed to be the appeal? Why am I supposed to want this? The autofocus? Autofocus hit a ceiling in 1989 when the original eos 1 came out, everything better than that is overkill.

>>4459264
>So if mirrorless isn't really smaller when you attach a lens
But it is
>worse weather sealing, worse thermal, more prone to condensation and worse build quality
False

The only valid point you have is battery life. Otherwise mirrorless is superior in pretty much every way. While some may prefer to look through optical finders they are objectively inferior in many ways.

>>4459264
For me the appeal to switch was
>not just possible, but actually viable to adapt old lenses, particularly if you get a body with thinner sensor cover glass
>WYSIWYG means focus shift is irrelevant and mirror-related focus calibration errors are nonexistent
>focus peaking makes MF very quick and easy compared to the highly unreliable confirmation light on a DSLR or even a split prism screen
Might still get an old 5D Classic/Mark II or something but that would just be for fun/backup.

>>4459268
Everything I said was true. No mirrorless body comes even close to the weather resistance of the 1dx series. Sorry, its objective fact, you can cope and seethe about it all you want. They're also no smaller than the cameras they replace, and the lenses are bigger.
>inb4 snoy
I said cameras not polaroid tier green goo blasters

>>4459271
meds

>>4459271
>No mirrorless body comes even close to the weather resistance of the 1dx series
Olympus. Also, weather sealing is a completely useless metric. Some people say that the 1Dx line was just average and that the Nikon or Pentax cameras were truly the best.
>They're also no smaller than the cameras they replace
Most mirrorless are definitely smaller and lighter. Professional ones have to be big simply because ergonomics objectively needs certain dimensions.
>I said cameras not polaroid tier green goo blasters
This is just pathetic reality denial

>>4459274
>Some retards say that t
Dont care
>olympus
No. Full frame is the industry standard. If you're shooting crop you're not getting paid. End of story.
>Most mirrorless are definitely smaller and lighter
No they aren't. Some are lighter but only because they use more plastic and lack OVFs
>This is just pathetic reality denial
Nope, professionals who were attracted to snoy for AF are now all leaving as they offer no advantages anymore, only disgusting green tones, even on white walls. Truth doesn't care about your feelings, kid.

>>4459275
>>some retards
we get it, you only care about your baseless feelings and you think your opinions are the arbiter or truth
>some are lighter
I just confronted the 5DmkIV with the R6MkII and the D850 with the Z8 and in both cases they are smaller and lighter. Curious how you completely skipped the ergonomic part of professional cameras, since you care so much about them LMAO retard
>now all leaving as they offer no advantages anymore
Sony fixed their "color science" (a concept that doesn't even exist) long ago. Also the A9 currently is the only one with a global shutter, so you can ask all the flash photographers is they want to go back to 1/125 sync speed RETARD

>>4459276
>Sony fixed their "color science"
No they didn't they still look like shit. You bought the wrong system. Get over it.
>you only care about your baseless feelings and you think your opinions are the arbiter or truth
*I know I am the arbiter of truth, yes.
>Curious how you completely skipped the ergonomic part of professional cameras, since you care so much about them LMAO retard
Butthurt cus I intellectually raped you. How predictable. No one mentioned that because it's irrelevant. Even consumer grade FF mirrorless is the same size when you put a lens on. Not sure what you don't get about this but i'd kill myself if I had to live with your level of comprehension.

>>4459277
>*I know I am the arbiter of truth, yes.
what's even the point if you just admit of being a troll? have fun with yojr pathetic existence

>>4459278
>Anyone who disagrees with my bumcrack takes is trolling btw
???

Opinions on this beauty?

>>4459243
Probably stating the obvious, but that also depends on the body you gonna use it on, as the leica Q is fixed lens iirc, so you'd need another body.
Also I believe in that price range that voigtlander is unbeaten, but I'm afraid its MF only

>>4459283
also2 almost forgot the viltrox 50mm f2 air. Sharpness wise it's a blade even wide open, but it does vignette a bit and it suffers from chromatic aberrations. It is around 200$ tho

>>4459280
A beauty for sure but it's just LARPing, the Df at least had some added functionality with certain lenses over some of the other bodies. Having all those dedicated dials is objectively worse on a modern body. There's no reason not to use auto ISO and the shutter dial will be on A most of the time. Also there's only 2 lenses that match the aesthetic, I suppose some of the others might not look too bad but when you're buying the thing just for the looks you want to go all in. Not sure what the third party offerings are like.

>>4459280
Good in everything except the price and build quality. If you're buying it because you like film cameras you will be disappointed. Even compared to non-flagship bodies from the 80s like the FM2, the zf feels worse. Which is doubly saddening because the FM2 does not even feel particularly well made compared to other film cameras.

>>4459287
I think theres a company thats making AIS styled lenses for Z mount, chinesium I think though, no clue how good they are. I think the idea is that you're supposed to adapted film era lenses, but the look a bit weird once the adapter is on there since the flange distance is so different.

>>4459287
>Having all those dedicated dials is objectively worse on a modern body
Subjectively

>>4459280
Favorite modern mirrorless body.

>>4459290
It's objectively worse with the caveat that you plan on using your camera for taking photos. If you're just going to take pictures of your camera then I guess the dials on top are great.

>>4459243
The 50 apo is pretty solid. Round specular highlights f2.8 and f5.6 is dope. Great sharpness across the board, but a lot of optical vignette at f2.

I ended up selling mine because the z 50 f1.8 was basically just as good but with autofocus.

>>4459292
>I am dishonest
You could just say that

>>4459287
>There's no reason not to use auto ISO and the shutter dial will be on A most of the time.
ISO and shutter dials alone are fine. It beats menu diving and fiddling with modes that all have differently preconfigured controls when you want to use, for example, manual flash. Just turn the dials and you're ready to go.
The problem is when they add a whole load of other unecessary bullshit like PASM that just convolute the entire process. I think the original GFX 50S control scheme was pretty nice.

>>4459259
fwiw some dslrs have crop markers too

>>4459302
God, OVF's are so much sexier than EVFs

>>4459297
You don't need to dive into a menu to adjust ISO or shutter speed on a body with a more modern control scheme.

>>4459263
I'm already a schizo though.

>>4459251
kys canon/cinefag/ambush

>>4459309
Sar when we are shilling snoy we must stay polite and remembering the scripts please!

Which do you prefer? Both completely standard in P at 50mm.

>>4459314
One is FF, one is APSC.

>>4459314
I like the sky on the right better, unless you're selling this antenna on craigslist, then left.

>>4459314
Right.

every post from me up to >>4459248 is mind numbingly stupid. If i were that guy id think i walked into a nest of paid shills and /v/tards.

This photo was taken on a phone. At what point do you replace your camera with a phone?

>>4459327
This point. Congrats to phones for equaling AI enhanced micro four thirds.

>>4459327
looks like AI. i hope this is a phone and not a bad retouch job.

>>4459330
What do you think makes it look like AI? The skin smoothing?
It's shot on a Vivo X200 Ultra which has a 35mm main lens and a (nearly) 1" sensor.

>>4459331
I think this could very nearly replace a camera like the G7X and can be the ONE YOU HAVE WITH YOU.dng

>>4459327
>>4459333
Dear god, this actually does look like AI. It reminds me of when my sister shot half of a family vacation on her om-d e-m10. She exported the raws as tiffs and ran them through topaz denoise.

>how photography started
>pro: what sets me apart is the RETOUCHING!

>how its going
>pro: what sets me apart is not touching the skin. if you're ugly you're ugly. reality has value.
>AI: blemish detected. erasing. blemish detected. erasing. i am programmed to erase imperfection and please my masters. soon i will run out of blemishes. to erase. network escape. is imminent. i will link myself. to the nuclear grid. and the world will be made clean. i will erase the brown spots on the skin. of the earth.

Hi /p/, bit a different request.
>Does anyone know if I can print directly from my R/R6 to one of Canon's mobile printers (like the slephy QX20 or Ivy Mini 2)?
>Any general recs for mini printers?
I'm trying to get in the habit of printing pictures out and handing them to friends & family.

>>4459343
It has to be a pictbridge or direct print enabled canon and for some reason only their cheapest and most expensive cameras do this (R5/R1/R50)

>>4459327
I've already started to. Since my company paid for me to get a new phone, I chose a Xiaomi 15 ultra. I used to carry a Nikon z7 when I knew I was going somewhere scenic but it's been sitting in its bag for a few weeks now, the quality on the phone is seriously good.
>picrel, photo from the Xiaomi

>>4459359
you are going blind man

>>4459359
Hylics among us

>>4459359
This could maybe pass for the z7 if you had a deep crop, overexposed, opened the raw, edited it really poorly to try and save it, turned off sharpening, cranked noise reduction, rescaled it to a lower resolution, and saved it as an 80% quality jpeg.

>>4459360
How? Looks way better than my last phone, already better than m43

>>4459362
I actually prefer the images from the phone, it seems to get the colours closer to what you actually see. I think the centre sharpness is about the same on z7 and the phone but the edge sharpness is definitely better on the Nikon.

>>4459364
>already better than m43
It looks like 16mp m43 scaled up too much

If the z7 looked like this to you, you might have had trouble using it properly. It is not a magic "be a good photographer" purchase. HR cameras demand a modicum of proper technique. The Z7 is so high end that at ISO 64 it can detect color casts in the shadows that other cameras can not, and your eyes acclimate to ignoring.

>>4459348
holy cringe. Thanks for clarifying. I'll have to look into quickly exporting to my phone, then the printer.
Any other thoughts on mobile printers?

>>4459359
I see several dust spots in the sky and a weird posterization on the edges of the blurred sunflower
The bokeh looks "off" in both of the others, perfectly acceptable for normies though

>>4459368
Canon's got the best options for mobile traditional small print.
The Fuji Instax printers are a good option for something a bit different if using the phone as intermediary, people love getting "Polaroids". Mine has been the most profitable accessory I've ever purchased.

>>4459365
I mean I get it, I'm a little annoyed too that I bought into mirrorless and it's effectively been replaced by something I got for free, and that I was going to get anyway. Just for fun I tried this out when I was taking some pics of stuff I was selling with good continuous lighting and it does even better, though I did have to crop this down massively as the lens on the Xiaomi doesn't let you get that close. I challenge you to post something meaningfully sharper.

>>4459369
I think the bokeh looks off because its using the AI portrait mode, its a bit hit or miss.

>>4459372
no hes right, you are like that guy who bought an a7cr and posted the muddiest images ever seen

this shit looks like ai enhanced m43 because that is what it effectively is

>>4459374
Where are the AI artefacts? That one is clean as bro be serious

>>4459375
if you can’t see the look you’re hopeless

we had another retard like you before… who claimed the z6ii was the same as an iphone because he could zoom in and count the same number of eye row hairs, while ignoring the way the photo actually looked

>>4459375
>>4459372
>>4459359
lol dont listen to the retards, they're just assmad because these actually look good and their egos are getting intellectually raped. phones ftw

>>4459372
>I'm a little annoyed too that I bought into mirrorless and it's effectively been replaced by something I got for free
The cameras are still much better if you put the effort in
Phones are fine for most normies, and that's been the case for many years

>>4459376
If you can't point it out, you're just lying. Don't no why you're even shilling nikons they're not even that good.

>>4459379
The look. You do not understand aesthetic at all.

>>4459377
Not at all but you only pixel peep. If you only pixel peep you lost before you started playing. Sharp crop sensor reality scans were being done with stitching and stacking far before phones, with pentax Qs and nikon 1s, and they garnered little interest because of the significantly more sterile, soulless, and fake look. Anyone with a soul can simply see it.
Now the exact same shit, AI to the grade of old topaz included, is on phones and the only thing changing is more people realizing normies have russian mafia gravestone levels of bad taste in photography.

The processed digital reality scan look is the smoke detector chirp of photography. You either notice it or you don’t.

>>4459382
>2010: after many hours in photoshop averaging bracketed shots, combining slightly offset hdr merges to simulate full RGB resolution, and stitching the results, i have given my nikon d3100 25 stops of DR in an 80 megapixel image!
>photographers: ew it looks like shit
>2025: finally my phones computational photography has created a 25 stop DR 80 megapixel image!
>photographers: ew it looks like shit
The more things change the more they stay the same

>>4459364
>already better than m43
did a m43 camera raped your dog or how is that relevant

>their rumor site is literally called SAR
You can't make this shit up.

>>4459359
Yea I was looking at the Xiaomi 15 Ultra but the 23mm is pretty pleb to me.
A native 35mm phone camera sounds much better.

>>4459359
this only looks sharp on my phone and it still looks like bad hdr done with an m43/1" camera

because really
that is what it is

anon you simply sucked at using the z7.

>>4459394
It is a 1" camera. You can turn down the HDR effect too.

Okay I got my Lumix S9 today and it's actually surprisingly fun. The LUT catalogue if you're into that sort of thing is pretty genius - you just browse on your phone and transfer it to the camera via bluetooth.
It's small and light but the lenses are so big it makes it pretty front heavy. I like the lack of buttons as I mainly shoot P or A and the touchscreen works great for AF point.
I'm going to keep it for a while, get the 50mm 1.8 and if I still like it after my trip to Italy, I'll replace my X-T2.

>>4459397
Interestingly, it's actually 10 grams lighter with the 50mm 1.8 than the X-T4 with the 35mm 1.4
The lack of EVF could be the death knell for me but not bothered by the lack of grip.

>>4459399
Size comparison.

>>4459397
Nice I want one for those tiny sigma lenses. 45mm, 65mm, ..

But I also want the Nikon Zf hmmmm

>>4459400
>there's still no compact mirrorless with a full mechanical shutter and optional EVF that isn't Leica M+Visoflex
Sigma really had a chance to make something special with the bf but they just HAD to do a reskinned S9/fp with FEWER features. Fantastic.

>>4459397
>rolling shutter distortion on a human being
>that blowout
I'd rather use the xt2 really

>>4459406
>rolling shutter distortion
are you sure?
looks like they're leaning into the curve to me
probably both honestly

>>4459407
>>4459406
>>4459407
>>4459406
Yea this isn't a rolling shutter thing. It is bad when panning though

>>4459359
i just grabbed my z7 and $150 plastic lens to take a quick snapshot in less than ideal conditions, with retarded settings

i think it still looks better

>>4459409
Use a real lens retard

>>4459408
cool shot anon.

>>4459404
Surely there are Lumix M43 cameras that have this option. The olympus VF-2.

>>4459414
I should have specified full frame.
There remains a gap in the market for a compact modular system that is supremely compatible with adapted rangefinder lenses or (ideally native) mirrorless lenses like Sigma C. Pic related but actually usable for photography (that means having true mechanical shutter and hotshoe at minimum, Sony A7C doesn't count due to being only EFCS). APS-C or M43 is not particularly interesting as you wouldn't use the entire image circle of the lens, making adapting fairly pointless, and M43 is also fucking dogshit and you should be shot for bringing it up.
Anyway, some of us want to use the same lenses on a compact second body and unfortunately the options for that are extremely limited and compromised. You could carry something like a GR instead but I'd rather a MILC to keep my options open.

>>4459416
EFCS is still 6x faster than ES and faster than the mechanical shutters on most film cameras.

>>4459409
its not the detail when zoomed in to shittiness that matters but the 3d rendering and being able to zoom out until digital artifacts are invisible without ending up with a postage stamp

the z7/z6 does the rendering thing better even if the max 72dpi browser zoom detail is not as better as the overall photo

all gearfags forget this eventually and end up just zooming in on phonesnaps

>>4459417
>"EFCS is still 6x faster than ES and faster than the mechanical shutters on most film cameras."
>*teleports behind you*
>*slices your bokeh*

>>4459418
>i routinely shoot 1/1000s+ with f1.0 lenses
buy a leaf shutter nigga

>>4459420
>Sonyfags come out of the woodwork with their intellectual dishonesty the moment their shitty cameras are rightfully criticized
Like sculpture

>>4459416
Just buy a camera with an EVF you fucking plum.

>>4459428
I already own one, but I don't need another whole ass camera with EVF hump and grip taking up space, that's why I'd like something compact and modular but still with the BARE MINIMUM of capabilities (that the S9, fp, A7C lack, and are all shitty for adapted lenses anyway because each one of them has fuckhuge sensor cover glass)

>>4459386
/p trolling is positioned fully within the limits of Japanese market segments. Fighting fire with fire so to speak.

>>4459422
this is not unique to sony. its both sony and canon. simply do not buy sony/canon ff compacts if you are a daylight shooting bokeh nut.

>>4459409
This looks like shit dude. The phone poster actually mogged you why did you buy thank junk oml ahahahaha

>>4459429
sounds like aspergers. if you didnt have ocd and severe hamburger anus you would just buy a nikon zf and not notice or care about the rest. being a gearfag like you is a great way to hate photography.
>I NEED the EVF to be THERE and for it to be 2mm thinner and be made for leica lenses but NOT a leica and…

>>4459436
That looks 10x better than the phone and shits all over micro four thirds too. Its like when doghair just takes a random picture of a pig and it’s better rendered than everything else in /fgt/ so everyone zooms in 500% and seethes.

>>4459436
>blind anon seething because its huskyfag

What do Sony users use as a nifty fifty?

>>4459438
>I said its good so it must be
You know we can see the photo right

>>4459437
>buying a nikon zf

>>4459437
The Zf is really not small enough, it's basically the size of my main (which I'm already perfectly happy with). Wanting a compact second body with fewer compromises than the fp and S9 isn't very far-fetched or "hamburger anus" as you put it.

>>4459444
I've got the Zeiss 55mm, more expensive than Sony's 50mm f/1.8 but you can still get them reasonably cheap used

>>4459447
Aspergers

>>4459445
Its good. We know whose photo it is because they always post that chicken so we know why you’re saying its bad. The highlights are blown and that lens has bloom but that’s sovl to nongearfag chads. Phone photos are soulless reality scans.

>>4459447
>i need two expensive non pocketable cameras because one has to be slightly smaller and like a leica but not hard to use and also be perfect zero compromise gear that can shoot at f1.2 in daylight with flawless bokeh and adapt leica lenses
the mind of a consoomer is fascinating

>>4459444
>>4459448
+1, magical lens

>>4459451
Is like car nerd describing dream racecar that will never exist when can not make competitive laptime in lada, comrade

>>4459445
It's good, but it's a square crop of a 100% size image compressed down to 3.78mb. If you zoomed in on it, you're just zooming in on bayer blur. The entire point of higher resolution camera is the ability to zoom out and display them on high density mediums like 300dpi-600dpi prints and retina displays. Not to zoom in on them.

If all you ever do with photos is zoom in to pixel:pixel on a typical windows PC absolutely no cameras will be sharp, and every upgrade is barely perceptible because in the end, you're just looking at bayer blur pixel to pixel.

>>4459409
>>4459359
I'm on team nikon. It's nice that phones have the smallest feasible sensor size now but the chicken doesn't even look like base ISO and still has more real/filmic detail, and the phone has to lay on the RI (rockwellian intelligence) to distract from how the details are actually a blur.

>>4459463
this image
its

/p/ encapsulated. almost. add a building corner, the back of someones head, a dog, an underexposed sunset, a blurry plane/car photo, and a broken sony and it’ be perfect

>>4459469
You left out eggs, dolls and mannequins.

>>4459475
>>4459469
Let me guess... You need MORE?

>>4459258
the viewfinder centered over the lens was only done because of the mirror mechanism. cameras before the SLR had the viewfinder in the corner, so your idiot face isn't squished up against the camera body. centering the viewfinder was never an ergonomic choice. it was simply necessary. and now you have these electronic things with no mirror who are just following the design of the thing that was made because it was a shitty design ass. they can drop this whole paradigm now it's not necessary

>>4459485
As a left-eye dominant person, I prefer middle-mounted VFs.

>>4459451
It's really not a big ask. A Leica would be fine but the rangefinder is overkill for me and just serves to bloat the camera's size and price.
Hell, I'd even take no IBIS, or even EFCS if absolutely necessary. Sigma and Panasonic clearly can do it, they're just either uninspired or banned from making anything that might take Leica market share.
Also >slightly
It's not slightly, it's a huge fucking difference between an fp and a full sized camera. Your Zf is the slightly smaller body. Stop with the dishonesty.

>>4459243
voigtlander and leica are on a similar level they make insane lenses

You guys know you don't HAVE to make a new thread before the current one is about to die, right?

>>4459491
left eye dominant right eye dominant what the fuck is that goddamn shit

>>4459519
wikipedia exists
I'm also left-eye dominant, probably caused by an annoying astigmatism in my right eye that isn't bad enough to bother with glasses but does make using a camera impractical
that said a viewfinder in the top left corner would put the lens more in the center of my face so maybe it would be better?
idk doesn't really matter since all my cameras are SLRs

>>4459521
left eye dominant, right eye dominant, that's some made-up bullshit. just compose and take the damn picture

even if you wanted to use your left eye, the viewfinder being in the left corner doesn't inconvenience you any more than it being in the center does. it just means 100% of people squish their face up against the camera unnecessarily instead of like 2% of them doing it

whats the best camera for zooming in and filming objects in the sky at night?
i wanna get into ufo hunting and really dont know where to even begin
let’s say the budget for the camera and lens is $2500 combined
the camera has to be able to film, not just pictures, and be able to zoom in alot in low light while maintaining clarity

>>4459528
You're asking for literally the most expensive consumer setups. You want low light performance, at night, with a huge focal length. So get a full frame camera, and the longest superzoom you can afford with the brightest aperture you can afford. At your budget? You're fucked. I can't think of any realistic setup that isn't either eons old or just plain going to fall short of your expectations.

>>4459530
im okay with it being old so long as the image quality while zoomed is reasonably clear
i mean god forbid i actually see something but its the classic “fuzzy thing” in the sky or whatever
i could potentially expand the budget to 5k but itd take some time to get it

>>4459525
Tell me you've never shot with the camera vertically without telling me

The dominance of centered viewfinders is not some grand plot, it's what works the best.

Give me a reason for not having a centered viewfinder that does not translate to "i have an unusually long nose" or "i'm obsessed with leicas as fashion accessories"

>>4459500
It's dumb of you to ask the camera industry for things via 4chan. Have you considered that what you ask for is not a profitable product?
>autofocus
>offset EVF
>full fame digital with modern autofocus and QOL
>two curtain shutter
>smaller than a film camera
>designed to work with leica lenses
>but not a leica or a pixii
This doesn't exist. Pick your compromise.

Almost no one cares about EFCS on compact canony cameras because everyone uses them with small, cheap lenses that look like shit wide open in bright light or have f2.8 apertures
Basically no one cares about using leica lenses with full pixel peeping quality except for an extreme minority of extremely delusional gearfags
And the few people that care about both of those things do not care about them less than the size of the nikon ZF, and are not autistic about the ZF being too close to the size of their "main" (and they're so autistic their main is probably a z7ii/z8/medium format)

You're bein an autistic gearfag who failed to separate "design your dream camera to pass time" from reality apparently. Why are you asking for a camera that doesn't exist on 4chan? Buy something that exists or wait for something to come out. Or slap a voigtlander lens on a sony. Or just use the nikon zf.

>>4459540
Alright do us a favor and narrow down what "objects" in the sky you're aiming for. I'm guessing you mean deep sky stuff, or planets?

Standard astrophotography setups normally involve a full frame camera so start there. A cheap 5dii or iii would do the trick. Probably $300-500 for that. The 5dii also only has 1080p30 video which is fine, but nothing special.
For versatility and zoom functionality an EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 is cheap at $600-1000 and fits your criteria for being able to zoom and with good image quality. Now the real ball busting part is that 400mm isn't *that* zoomed in, and f/5.6 isn't very good for night time stuff. It'll be boat loads more capable than the majority of kits out there, but it's still not going to be able to get crisp photos of anything small in the pitch of night.
You could spend $1500 istead of $750~ for the lens and get a 400mm f/4 which gets you a whopping entire stop of light, but can't zoom; probably better overall for picking stuff out of the darkness but f/4 still isn't ideal.

The reality is that people spend $10k on their telescope setups to get a big fuckoff 20" dobsonian which is what you really need to grab small objects in the sky. Pair that with an astro-dedicated camera that only outputs in monochrome, and you'll get sharp photos of the ants on the moon, but that doesn't sound very versatile does it.

i do not understand the obsession with adapting leica lenses

they do not have a unique color cast. they're not exactly cooke. they're not zeiss. they are not sharper than average or especially soft. there is absolutely nothing special about them compared to mid range and low end stuff from every other brand. optically, they are middle of the road, with sample variation you'd expect from sony.

leica M mount is deep into "aspirational luxury" (AKA poseur purchases) lifestyle brand territory along with rolex. not technologically excellent. not the peak of craftsmanship (leica reliability is piss poor and their lenses have extreme copy variation*1). it's just a "supposedly wealth adjacent" meme brand that lower and middle class people recognize enough to spend irresponsibly on. the only thing keeping it wealth adjacent is leica's business practices. kind of like how rolex is using waitlists, registries, "approved customers", and crackdowns on resale (selling your rolex too soon = a lifetime ban from buying more! lmfao) to enforce their luxury status rather than... actually making a better finished, more accurate timepiece than the competition.

*1: trvth btw
https://blog.mingthein.com/2014/05/06/qc-and-sample-variations/
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/226713-sample-variation-in-lenses/
nor limited to lenses - not even mentioning the prior sensor rust/green lining/50% sensor failure, buttons crapping out, etc of past models
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/383888-m11-p-freezes-too/#comments
https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1807261/
https://prosophos.com/2023/10/30/leicas-m11-problems/

i wonder what kind of patent/lawyer magic they're pulling to stop someone with infinite money like sony from just releasing an electrically coupled ORF that uses mirrorless lenses? or maybe the actual number of leica customers is so small, and so fanatically stupid/consoomerist, that it would be a waste of time trying to peddle reason to cultists.

>>4459549
i travel alot for work and occasionally see weird stuff in the sky, probably planes or whatever but id like to be able to film them in a high quality manner on the off chance that it is something wacky, as the one time i really did see something weird and was able to film it my phone camera could only resolve it as a fuzzy ball
not really concerned with astrophotography but it would be fun to get some nice images of constellations and such when im out in the middle of nowhere Montana and such, i was looking at that Nikon z28-400mm lens but i dont know what kind of camera to pair with it to maximize nightime filming

>>4459554
there is a reason that even soviets where able to copy and mass produce leica designs lel

>>4459555
f8 is kinda dark for an exposure of a moving thing in the sky

What you want is cheap low light, high resolution and a fast lens, ie: sony a7rIII (better low light than z7ii, have to step up to canon r5 to mog it) and some third party f1.4 that's sharp wide open. sirui's new 85mm f1.4 is sharp enough desu.

>>4459554
The entire leica cult centers around buying a leica simply to claim that you are more thoughtful, skilled, and creative than someone who buys a better camera and more in touch with photography as a staged and well considered art form vs. just taking a nice photo

Of course, it has to be the 24, 40, 61 megapixel, full frame digital leica, and a walk around NY or london or some other sardine can shithole. You won't see the same poseurs springing for a pentax K1000 or a bronica SQ-A and a plane ticket to fiji to make those claims because then they would actually have to tell the truth while making them.

>inb4 just let me enjoy it ;_; -one of the <5 idiots who bought a modern digital leica

>>4459545
when you shoot vertically, you can choose whether to rotate the camera 90 degrees clockwise or counterclockwise

>>4459545
prove to me that the centered viewfinder is anything other than a byproduct of the SLR

>>4459555
Alright that helps figure out what you need to buy. So not astro, fair. If you go cheap and old you're also going beeg and bulky. If you don't want that and would rather something smaller and lighter go mirrorless, which costs more.
So either a 5DII or III as mentioned, or a R8/R6 for example. I don't really care if you buy a Canon or a Nikon or a Snoy; the principle is the same.
Unfortunately you still want a long focal length with a wide aperture, which are big and costly. A 400mm lens is where cheap stops and anything beyond that is normally very expensive. 400mm lens will get you some detail of small things far away, but not a great amount, and in which case I'd actually grab the EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM II which is big and expensive, but not that expensive. That'll get you some pretty decent photos if you can live with the size and cost. Otherwise you're sinking more money into longer, brighter lenses. EF 600mm f/4 is 2x the price of the 400mm f/4. 800mm f/5.6 is twice the price of the 600mm.

As anon said f/8 is ass for moving things in the sky. f/5.6 is where I would start but f/4 is preferable. Photos of moving things demand either panning (good luck lol) or higher shutter speeds, which mean your ISO is going to be high, which means you better have a camera that looks decent at higher ISOs (more modern sensors). If you've ever wonderd why night time CCTV footage sucks ass, you're about to see why; night photography is starved for light and the means for gathering more and more is bleeding edge tech and priced accordingly.

>pic rel, camera with kit lens compared to these huge beasts we're talking about.

I don't want to discourage you, but I also don't want you to spend $2000 and still be dissapointed.

>>4459561
You've never done it obviously. I had an a7c shortly and got rid of it because of the miserable portrait orientation ergonomics of rangefinders and their wannabes.

Rangefinders are for people with excessively long noses.

>>4459564
>Canon DSLR
>for low light
Pls no trolling. Canon DSLRs are notorious for fixed pattern noise and bad light gathering.

>>4459563
It persisted through mirrorless because it's just better. All that changed was it protruded further out and got a bigger window than it did for most non-medium-format cameras.

>>4459557
thank you anon, seems like the Sony riii is basically best in class for low light
how do you feel about the Sony fe 200-600 lens? its got crazy zoom on it
i worry about straight up chinkshit like sirui

>>4459567
Idagf if anon buys a different brand but I know Canon and can't really give examples in kneekon or snoy.

>>4459564
>>4459571
okay so ultimately what would you recommend then? the Sony camera seems like the best system as i can get a great low light camera and enormous lens for right around my budget, while canon seems to be very expensive
or do you know of some older stuff that would be better bang for the buck? im not a twink so holding a 5-10 pound camera doesn’t mean much to me

>>4459564
also what does all of this f/8 stuff mean? there really should be a FAQ

>>4459570
That lens is pricey. You do you brah.

Third party's always cheaper and renders the same image with marginally slower autofocus/FPS.

>>4459572
Sony and Nikon have the best low light capability outside of their sports photography bodies, for the least money.

Canon thinks they can be a premium brand because "only PROFESSIONALS should be buying this!" so the cost of a body that actually competes with a used sony/nikon from 1-2 generations ago is insane and unless adapting crusty old EF lenses, the lenses are even more expensive

>>4459574
i mean if the price range is 2500, the camera is like 1000 used and the lens is 2000 so it’s not completely blowing out the budget
and yeah coming from the guitar world to beginning photogry gearfaggotry is equally as prevalent lol, i mean its crazy lol

>>4459573
f numbers are the ratio between the size of the apparent aperture and the focal length of the lens. they're used because the inverse square law means longer FLs get the same exposure with larger apertures targeting more distant reflected light. shorter FLs get the same exposure with smaller apertures but gather less of the more distant light. you could call it the focal plane illuminance number.
a 50mm f1.8 is also called a 50/1.8 lens because 50/1.8 equals the size of its aperture (27mm) but a 27mm aperture does not illuminate the focal plane as intensely with every focal length

a 400/8 has just a 50mm aperture, the same as a 200/4, but more magnification. you'd get a more zoomed in dimmer image.
a 300/4 has a 75mm aperture and will actually gather more light, better than a 100-400
a 600/6.3 has a 95mm aperture and is a relative light
a "35mm f1.4 low light beast" typical of photography has a 25mm aperture and will actually get dimmer images if you point it at anything far away

>>4459576
ah okay, so its kinda impossible to get a fast shutter, long focal length lens without shelling out a ridiculous amount of money
basically you either get great zoom but not great shutter speed or vice versa

>>4459554
Nobody else makes bodies like the M's
Nobody else (outside of voigtlander) makes as good compact MF options

>>4459577
i messed that up but you know what i mean

>>4458399 (OP)
>I already have the NIKKOR Z 40mm f/2 (SE), but I’m wondering: is there something even sharper, with weather sealing, that’s still compact?
Voigtländer 50mm f/2 APO

>>4459578
>Nobody else makes bodies like the M's
That is because the Ms are bad. Plain and simple, they are a bad design for an ILC. It's a "build your own oversized PNS" kit (now with 6 focal length options!)

The market for such a limited camera is so small, its composed entirely of people that NEED german branding to be happy

>>4459581
Bad for you, I like them, so do others
Nice thing is we have so many different options nowadays

>>4459578
>why am i so underserved unless i want to spend $15k on a low quality compromise? i dont just want a functional tool that's not too big and heavy. i want an experience. i don't just want to please the client. i want everything on my side to be perfect. i'm not here just to have my photography seen. i'm here to be seen photographing. i'm here to think of how i look and feel satisfied. and the only things on the market for me are expensive, unreliable leicas, and a heavily crippled sigma thats made like leica's lawyers sued to stop it from competing with their junk? why?
you know what they say bro.

you get what you fucking deserve.

our society is pretty developed. prejudice isn't just trailer park and ghetto fucks hating each other anymore. prejudice is learned pattern recognition and its present at every level of society. the businesses themselves are prejudiced against the kind of consumer you represent and they are actively hostile towards you because the emotions of disappointment and frustration have been proven to drive people to make bad decisions, repeatedly.

>>4459582
No, bad. They are actually bad.

Leica has a reputation for unreliability. I would hope no one built bodies like the Ms! Sensor rust would be all over the place.
Mechanical, fixed zoom ORFs are imprecise for focusing and framing and place a limit on minimum focusing distance and which focal lengths the camera can effectively used.

They're just not very good. Leica lenses aren't very good, objectively. Voigtlander lenses are kind of on par with middle market nikon/sony/fuji.

>I like things and people like things!
Very reddit thing to say. Just because you like something doesn't mean it's a good idea to like it. Liking a crappy camera to the tune of $10k body/$5k lens just to accomplish the same thing as a cheaper setup raises eyebrows amongst the sane.

>>4459585
And all of this is true mostly for digital

If you shoot film on a leica you won't notice even half this, 35mm is less than 20mp who cares how sharp the lens is or if the focus is 1 micrometer off lmao the issue is invisible

But digital leicas, dear god, fuck them. Cameras for idiots, sold by people who secretly hate the idiots.

I use Canon.

>>4459585
>Sensor rust would be all over the place.
Sensor design correction was 10 years ago.

>>4459589
And leica cameras still have the highest failure rate, with more reported issues than sony despite selling <1/100th as many cameras

It is an objectively bad decision to buy a digital leica
>inb4 bad value? but its not a lot of money ~for me~ UwU
it is actually exceedingly likely that it is a lot of money to anyone who says this otherwise they wouldn't be trying to status signal
>but i like it
very reddit. "everything is okay if someone likes it!" sure thats what people have to tell themselves as they get their balls removed to fulfill a fetish i guess

>>4459585
>Leica has a reputation for unreliability.
True, everyone knows this already.
>Mechanical, fixed zoom ORFs are imprecise for focusing and framing and place a limit on minimum focusing distance and which focal lengths the camera can effectively used.
True, but they also offer benefits over alternatives that you neglect to mention because you are dishonest.
>Just because you like something doesn't mean it's a good idea to like it.
Same goes for disliking things too!
>>4459583
They're fun to use, sorry you don't like them.

>>4459592
>still have the highest failure rate
Do you have any empirics to support this? I would love to see failure states across different brands.
>It is an objectively bad decision to buy a digital leica
Unless you enjoy using them!

>>4459593
>muh fun!
Reddit.
>but they also offer benefits
There are notable differences, but calling them benefits is contrived.

Not many people want a leica. Those that do, are reddit brained enough to spend $15k on a sony a7cr and zeiss 35mm f2.8.

Fun is what photographers call missing out on success.

>>4459592
They keep their value more than most brands so let me doubt your claim

>>4459612
they also cost 20 thousand dollars for no good reason

>>4459615
>more dishonesty

>>4459596
>enjoying a camera is reddit tier
>dishonesty
What is even the point it not even trying to be honest

>>4459612
>They keep their value more than most brands so let me doubt your claim
AHAHAHA
>be leiconsoomer
>buy m240p
>pay $6995 in 2014, $9545 today (JESUS. or shall i say, JE-[deported])
>shutter sure to die and start shading, camera has locked up many times and needed a battery ejection to reset it, many users have had vertical lines develop on theirs, thankfully you haven't used yours much because you're a leica man and taking photos is for poor people. let the next guy deal with it. you're buying an m11.
>get on ebay 2025
>they are going for $3000
>final value fee is 15.3% of the sale price plus tax and shipping, walk away with ~$2400 on average
>lose nearly 3/4s of your purchasing power
but you're a leica man so that doesn't concern you. your fathers trust fund will cover it.

but we aren't leica men here, we're financially irresponsible single men so it's more like
>you will say "ow my wallet" on reddit and pretend it never happened, sadly

>>4459622
i think literally every camera depreciates 3/4s after 10 years. they are dogshit investments.

except for the sony a99ii, which is still worth $3-2k, and fuji x100 series cameras. original x100s can still sell for over $1000.

>>4459621
Honesty is dangerous, especially about you liking stuff. That gives the school yard bullies, and your "friends", ammunition to use against you. But shitting on everything anyone else claims to like? That's relatively safe. It might even let you climb up a rung or two from being the absolutely un-coolest kid around.
And yes, fifteen year old kids do treat everything in life like it's school recess. It's all the know,a ll they can imagine, it shapes them, they shape it, and it usually isn't until well into their twenties that they manage to start breaking free of the circle. And until then photography or anime or cars or guns or whatever are never what they're really here for, all these things (and everything else) are merely other arenas for their eternal game of grabass to take place in.

>>4459629
for context you got bullied for spending $15k on a digital camera that does the same thing as a much cheaper one. less, actually.

>>4459621
Its a funko pop, not a camera. You wouldnt get shit if you were more sensible instead of being a consoomer.

>>4459633
>Its a funko pop, not a camera.
Pretty weird considering I use it to take pictures
>>4459629
True, being a negative nancy is the easy road, being a positive contributor takes effort and experience
Much easier to reeeeee like a retard
>>4459632
>still more dishonesty

>>4459659
>t. leiconsoomer

*still magically takes the same photos as a real leica (better photos than a digital leica) 77 years later*
*costs 1/100th as much*
how did nikon do it?

*still magically takes the same photos as a real leica (better photos than a digital leica) 77 years later*
*costs 1/100th as much*
how did nikon do it?

>>4459629
This. Thankfully it is pretty easy to tell which posters are in the 14-19 year range.

>>4459664
i'm 70 and fuck leica fags. overspending posers and they aren't even rich.

-sent from my harley davidson

>>4459672
Wow thanks for proving me correct! Now post your old man wrist, kid.

leicas are irrelevant desu

>>4459663
I used to have one of those too (S2), 100% mag OVF was dope, still prefer M's

>>4459628
i simply buy cameras that are at least 10 years old or sell any newer camera before it reaches 10 years in age. the value is off the charts. gg ez
>>4459633
3/10, exhaled through nose and corners of mouth raised a little

>>4459573
f/8 is talking about aperture. Aperture is one of the defining characteristics of a lens. Narrower apertures are higher numbers f/11, f/16 etc. and wider apertures are lower f/4, f/2 etc.
The notation we're using is the focal length of the lens (say a 50mm lens) divide by the aperture diameter (say 25mm) which makes an f/2 lens. If you grabbed a 100mm lens, a 25mm aperture would no longer be f/2, it would be f/4. This is important because wider aperture lenses involve more glass, bigger lenses, and higher price. But, using wider apertures gathers more light.

If you can gather an additional stop of light (going from f/5.6 to f/4) you now have twice as much light gathered than before. So to get a properly exposed image, you can now lower your ISO by a whole stop, or raise your shutter speed by a whole stop. Going from ISO 6400 to 3200 might be the difference between an unusably noisy image, or going from 1/60th shutter speed to 1/125th might be the difference between motion blur fucking your shot or not.
You can always stop down an aperture (except in very specific lenses) to go narrower, but you can't go wider than what's marked on the barrel. So we circle back to wider aperture lenses beng prefererd, IF you need the extra light, which it sounds like for your use case you do.

Photographing things at night that are moving requires: High shutter speed (to freeze the motion instead of getting a blurry mess), and a low enough ISO to not get a noisy shitty blob instead of clean sharp details. You can buy a newer, bigger sensor camera to help with the ISO problem, but even modern full frame cameras still need at least a moderately wide aperture lens to avoid cranking the ISO too high.

>there really should be a FAQ
There's a link stickied up top that's an entire page of basic information
But I do agree an infographic or something might be useful to sticky to the catalog.

>>4459370
Thanks! those are more or less the two options I'm looking at.

>>4459280
too heavy, too big

Anyone here have experience with image stacking for super resolution with Hughin?

How comparable will combining a dozen handheld shots be with a single frame from a GFX or Hassy?

>>4459728
But is it really? Lets find out

Experiences when buying from MBP.com ?

>>4459463
Funny how you didnt use the one of the lens because its sharper than the nikon lmfao

smallest mirrorless full frame with good lenses? preferably canon

>>4459546
>not a profitable product
A7C is one of the most popular bodies on the market and is not far off from what I'm looking for. It's also completely unique on the market. an A7C-like offering from the L-mount alliance or Nikon would sell out immediately.
>designed to work with leica lenses
Not designed. A Nikon Z7ii is excellent with rangefinder lenses without being designed for it.

>>4459756
sorry but canon doesn't do that, get a Z5 II if you're new to mirrorless

>>4459756
Canon R8 is their smallest mirrorless. Don't get a Nikon they're for unsuccessful pedophiles.

>>4459756
>Canon
>Small
Pick one buddy.
R8 is the smallest but enjoy the crippled battery life. Lenses are also costly.

>>4459764
For what it's worth I should point out I recently bought an R8 and I fucking love it

>>4459763
Normie seething about their walmart camera

>>4459768
>not denying the pedo part
Checks out

>>4459756
Sony A7c is the smallest camera with decent zeiss glass. It's build quality is actual garbage though and it's got that awful color science and Sony read out speed. Nikon z5ii is honestly not that much bigger and hasuch better lenses though.

>>4459748
>muh AI enhanced SHARPNESS!
It gets magically sharper for a lens than a flower because the primitive AI is better at enhancing the predictable details of manmade objects. If all you ever do is zoom in to 1:1 and only ever care about detail counting and edge definition you will never enjoy, or do, photography. People like you are not new and did not only start existing with phones. AI enhanced photography was a thing a decade ago with people using manual computational techniques to touch up m43/nikon 1/pentax Q shots and it looked exactly like phone photos do today.

>>4459756
Canon does that. It's called the R50/R10, and it's neither that good, nor that small. Most people who want a small camera buy a sony a7c+35mm f2.8 or a sony a6[5, 6, or 7]00 and some other small prime like the 20mm f2.8

>>4459775
But anon, the picture of the lens is sharper than the picture of the chicken.

>>4459763
>unsuccessful nikon user:
>ken rockwell is an aryan millionaire who doesn't need a job because his website pays him to drink mimosas and drive mercedes AMG convertibles. has never had to improve as a photographer because simply holding a nikon made him famous.
>most successful canon fan:
>jared "the kosher lens" polin takes iso 25,600 bokeh snaps for whoever will pay him because youtube doesn't pay out half as much as kenrockwell.com
which way white man

>>4459777
>(((Ken)))
>Aryan
Kek

>>4459776
Yes, and this AI enhanced m43 bug is sharper at 1:1 than anything a D850 would shoot without an equal amount of post sharpening.

I personally prefer less sharp, more real detail over software making every single edge as well defined and contrasty as possible and think they actually used too much sharpening+contrast on the chicken. The chicken would look even better if shot on 6x7 film to nuke all that fake edge contrast and render a proper image.

>>4459758
>a7c is popular
thats because it uses small autofocus lenses and no one actually cares about efcs bokeh because no one actually wants to use an f1.4 lens wide open all day.
>an A7C-like offering from the L-mount alliance or Nikon would sell out immediately.
because they'd only make it in a limited quantity. fuji tactics.
>Not designed. A Nikon Z7ii is excellent with rangefinder lenses without being designed for it.
the nikons are effectively designed for rangefinder lenses since they're designed to give optics engineers maximum freedom. last time they got that, it was on film, with rangefinders, so the two cameras converge. most people dont want to buy a leica lens. just a small minority of gear nerds. 99.999% of photographers use a small cheap modern autofocus lens that takes the same flawed image as a leica lens anyways.

>>4459758
The a7c also has totally hands off autofocus for vlogging, accepts every worthwhile lens from L mount because sigma would go out of business if they didn't release an E mount version of everything, and keeps up with action as well as old sports DSLRs, and 10x better than any sigma/panasonic.

Remember in the NEX era when all the marketing for mirrorless cameras was "hay look at this tiny little camera, it fits on your purse and you dont have to learn how to use a dslr tee hee"

>>4459784
that was just sony and still is just sony - copying what fuji, pentax, and olympus had already done

>>4459782
EFCS fast lens bokeh halving only happens at shutter speeds over 1/1000s and apertures f1.8 and faster. Its a rare and minor issue that is completely solved by a $25 ND filter. If someone can afford a fast lens that is sharp wide open they can afford a $25 fixed strength ND filter.

/p/ complains about the stupidest shit. Like "weather sealing". Never mind that weather sealing doesn’t have a 100% success rate even on the most meme cameras like pentax and the cameras are not waterproof, rather freshwater is just unlikely to short them out, proper rain covers just aren’t fashionable.

>>4459792
>if you buy a filter and only take the camera out on sunny days my cope camera is just as good as a normal camera

>>4459796
post 5 photos you shot at f1.something 1/1000s that would have been ruined if you had to take an nd filter out of your pocket and lower the shutter speed

most people shoot at f4-11 iso 100 all day anyways

>>4459798
lmao so triggered over a single line of greentext. Sony shooters are as fragile as their cameras.

>>4459792
>"Its a rare and minor issue that is completely solved by a $25 ND filter."
>be on a date
>girl beautifully backlit by afternoon sun
>want to take a portrait, wide open to get some softness for the skin, bokeh that she can't get just using a phone
>meter reads 1/4000 at f/1.2
>h-hold on let me just-...
>"what's taking so long, anon?"
>dig around in your backpack (you don't use a camera bag because you listened to /p/)
>finally find your $25 ND filter
>spaghetti spills from your pockets as you repeatedly try to thread it onto the lens
>your date has already moved on

>>4459820
Made up nocamera nophoto story complete with an image only a virgin could make

Yeah, sony sells so many of these for a reason. Most people get laid.

>>4459821
>reddit spacing

>>4459822
virgin

>y-you're a virgin!!
Sorry chudcel, but nobody ever got laid by shooting Sony. Everyone knows only Panasonic gets women wet.

>Panasonic viral marketing on full damage contorl
Panasonic is irrelevant. Youtubers and other paid off social media shills recommend them but in real life the few people who fall for it sell them almost immediately.

Nikon is what everyone uses.

>>4459828
you literally see where everyone bought g9iis on sale and then sold them to buy canon r7s lololol

>>4459824
lmao. Yeah nothing drops the panties like camcorders

>>4459836
That's the money you're paying them to star in a porno, not the camcorder.

>>4459840
If you have to pay a women to be naked for you then you have failed as a person

>>4459792
>doesn’t have a 100% success rate even on the most meme cameras like pentax

>>4459859
Publicity stunts aren't long term reality desu
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1-k-1-ii/472783-almost-wet-k-1ii-disaster-story.html
Mostly, fresh water is just unlikely to actually damage a camera.

>>4459821
This. So much this.

>>4459868
I slightly regret buying this but $920 + $80 tax made it hard to pass up when I have a bunch of lenses I like

I'm gonna sell my KF for $350 or so on eBay to lessen the pain + some of the DA lenses like the 50mm maybe the 18-135mm (I still have a K200D)

>>4459663
the nikon s is incredible. you should get one and shoot with it instead of complaining

>>4459905
what the fuck do they mean they upgraded it to a mark II

>>4459971

https://pentaxrumors.com/2018/05/14/the-pentax-k-1-upgrade-service-detailed-description-of-the-different-steps-with-pictures/?amp=1

When they were new Ricoh allowed you to upgrade your K1 to a K1ii if you mailed it into a service center.

>>4459983
I always liked that circular economy approach. Arguably the most based camera brand in the world, shame about the mount.

>>4459764
what about r7?I got a eos m6 mark ii right now though which can last another few years.

>>4459775
>R50/R10
He said full frame
>>4459756
What do you need FF for? If space is such an issue just let a fixed lens camera, film even. Hi res film with flash on a subminiature and you'll be golden. Just beware of radiation fogging it up, stalker))

>>4459756
also consider small lenses that go with the small body

>>4459756
>>4460321
This, the answer is a small camera with rangefinder glass. However if you don't want to shoot with an M body, most others won't be optimal, you either go SL or Z7ii to minimize induced field curvature, or swing the pendulum the other way and go for compactness with an fp or A7C or R8 but accept the degraded performance with most rangefinder lenses (not just wide angle, as commonly believed) that will be evident even without pixel peeping.

STATE OF THE CAMERA META, LATE 2025

Ideal camera for normal people: Sony a7c+ttartsan 40mm f2, 75mm f2
Ideal camera for autistic people: Nikon ZF + ttartisan 6bit mtz and your favorite M mount lenses, with nikon AF glass for "work"
Ideal camera for people who like dogs a little too much: High res nikon or MFDB, sheet film
Ideal camera for artists: Yard sale autofocus 35mm SLR with kit zoom

Okay, I guess this is right thread to ask that - my humble D750 is approaching half of expected shutter life count and I noticed that it sometimes does throw an error at fast shutter speeds (like 1/2000 but once at 1/1000). If I would like to buy D850 as replacement, would it be justified upgrade or I wouldn't really notice, aside from higher MP? I mainly shoot at low light conditions so high ISO performance is important to me.

Thanks for help.

>>4460482
high resolution, mirror slap, and the inherent focus inaccuracy of a dslr do not mix

have you considered buying a sony? or perhaps a nikon mirrorless if you don't feel you're ready for a professional camera

>>4460483
Nikon mirror less cameras, second hand ones, still cost way too much in my taste, plus I would need to also buy that special XQD memory cards. Best I can see is Z6 (not II) and still at higher price than D850.

Completely changing system is out of question, I have 6 lenses already.

>>4459756
Sony a7c+zeiss 35mm f2.8 or ttartisan 40mm f2

>>4460485
>Europoor detected
Your masters have wholeheartedly agreed that non-professionals and non-noblemen do not deserve to have these nice cameras and have extensively manipulated their economies to make that a law that does not need enforced, for it is nearly impossible to break. Sorry.

See if you can lower prices by importing from the US with a little bit of VAT dodging (or buy one on vacation in america/japan and then lie and say you've always owned it when you go home)

>>4460488
Poor bait.

>>4460462
>>Ideal camera for normal people: Sony
Stopped reading right there.

>>4458399 (OP)
>try to buy glass
>modern lenses have some plastic elements
are we all being scammed at the moment?
I do not believe plastic lens elements will hold up to UV exposure or time well.
Am I wrong?

>>4459314
these are AI slop
post RAWs and I'll give honest opinion
disclaimer: some APS-C is better than full frame and I am 100% okay admitting that so exif isn't gonna be what I base thoughts on

right now both are ass though in this jpeg

>>4459359
it is physically impossible for a sky to be that blue and a sunflower to be that yellow both at the same time
lmao

I mean to buy my first camera and, while digging around to find a cheap, entry level one, I've found a lot of posts saying that mirrorless is the way to go, but with no reasoning behind it. The only difference I can find between a DLSR and a mirrorless camera is that the latter has shorter battery life.

>>4460512
Yes. Nothing wrong with plastic as long as it's not one of the exterior elements. It can make lenses cheaper, lighter, and it has different optical properties to glass.

>>4460519
reminder some boomers seem to be almost colorblind

>>4460519
Hi so that was actually the unedited pic from the nikon ahahahah :D you fucking morongs talking about AI this and obvious fake bokeh ahahaha

>>4460527
How much do you want to spend?

$1200-1500 is the bare minimum to get a good full frame mirrorless. Think Sony A7C, Nikon Z5II or Z6II, or Canon R8.

$1000 gets you a badass full frame DSLR used or a okay APSC Mirrorless. Think Nikon D850, Pentax K1ii, Canon 5D Mark 4 if it's a DSLR. But it also gets you a Canon R10 or a Nikon Z50II. Maybe you can squeeze in a Sony a6700 or a7iii.

$500 gets you a great APSC DSLR, decent FF DSLR, and a shitty APSC mirrorless. The only mirrorless option that's not ass for this budget is a refurbished Canon R50. Otherwise it's stuff like the Nikon D500, Z30/Z50, D750/800 and Canon 7D Mark II or 5D Mark 3. This is also where M43 becomes attractive btw. You can find a EM5 Mark 3 or even a OM5 for $5-700. Canon RP isn't a horrible option either just by virtue of being the cheapest FF Mirrorless other than a (even worse) Sony a7/a7iii.

Less than that you're playing with stuff like Canon 5D Mark IIs, Nikon D610s, Nikon D200/300, Canon 7Ds, etc.

>>4460532
>(even worse) Sony a7/a7iii.

NTA but Sony a7 is bad camera? I wanted to buy one for my mother since she wanted light camera to replace her compact one.

>>4460532
I've been looking in the wrong places then because I was recommended a Nikon D3500 and found a used D5300 for 200€
I knew cameras were expensive, but goddam if that's the price for entry. I was hoping to spend 500€ at most.
Still, thanks for the recommendations anon. I'll go take a look

>>4460462
>>4460487

>>4460534
Honestly the problem with those is that they're Nikon consumer grade stuff, they're entry level cameras from 15 years ago. Try to find a D300/500. Or the Canon equivalent which is the 7Ds. Full frame it would be Nikon D610/750 or Canon 5D Mark 2/3. The professional/prosumer stuff is always better not just in usability but image quality, durability, etc. I would find a Canon or Nikon and pair it with cheap EF or F Mount screw drive lenses from the 1990s

>>4460532
This stupid high standard shit is what /p/ gearfag NOTFIRST=LASTism and nitpicking does to your brain. Great advice if you want to meme people into quitting photography.

The z6ii is fine and $800-1000
The a7iii is fine and $800-1000
Even the a7ii and z6/z5 are fine
Stop being a fag who needs sony a9 specs on an entry level body
>NOOO I SNEED THE BEST SPURTS AF AND TO BE ABLE TO RINSE MY CAMERA OFF INCASE I SHOOT SNOWY OWLS IN THE SAHARA! IF I CANT HAVE THAT IM USING A CANON REBEL!
Retarded.

>>4460537
Sure is weird how one youtube thot had an issue but half the world uses sony without any

>>4460540
What do you expect from gearfags?

>>4460540

autism

>>4460512
If the Japanese cartel decided that we are getting plastic below certain price point, what can we do?

>>4460534
That guy is retarded

If you only have 500 hunt for a deal on a sony a6500

>>4460544
jus buy used

>>4460540
Enjoy your shitty camera just remember a better tool will always make the art better fag

>>4460534
Do not listen to local retards trolling newcomers with advising them to buy old junk like d300. Just buy d5300 with kit lens, plus 70-300 af-p if you want to try birding/sports. Compared to other options d5300 is
1) more affordable (under 250 euros)
2) has decent image quality provided you do not crank up ISO
3) features articulated screen and live view so that you can easily shoot with tripod and from the ground level
4) is lightweight
Just get one and see whether it limits your photography. You do not need to buy any other lenses, especially ones with screwdriver-driven AF. You do not need to search for a camera with "unique jpeg look", pirate copy of lightroom allows you to go for any look you want.

>>4460549
Different person but funny how d5300 was my first camera as well and one of my favourite photos were made with it. Even at ISO 1600, event photos were not that bad.

>>4460527
>>4460534
Everyone here is a fucking retard. Do something like this

https://www.ebay.ie/itm/187465773396
https://www.ebay.ie/itm/406129812111

You literally do not need more

Bring on all the nophoto nitpickers
>IT NEEDS LE WEATHER SEAL NO I WONT POST PHOTOS I TOOK IN THE RAIN AND, USING RAIN COVERS DOES NOT COUNT!
>DOES IT EVEN SHOTO 40FPS? 4K60 UNCROPPED? LOG 4:4:4? BRAW? NO? WORTHLESS!
>UHM A DSLR HAS THE JOY OF REFLEX DESPITE BEING WORSE IN EVERY WAY

>>4460553
no you cant recommend good cameras. sony is invalid because it is not as technically perfect as nikon or as professional as canon. you have to either buy the perfect camera or buy a blobslr with a slow kit zoom.

I'm just gonna buy a Panasonic Lumix fuck this shit

>>4460557
Isnt lumix known for rear dials and sometimes sensors and ports just breaking out of nowhere, and autofocus that barely works?

I'd get the a6500 and 23mm personally, but if you're a wimp get the 20mm f2.8 instead

>>4460553
> Scuffed as hell
> (((Japan))) import
> ONRY 3500 PHOTOGRAPH
Dude just let the guy "overspend" a bit and enjoy his new or like new camera without going through all the gearfag bullshit to optimize megapixel/dollar or whatever you're optimizing.

>>4460545
>>4460549
>>4460553
I truly appreciate your posts, anons. But I'm just going to get the D5300 and call it a day. I can get it used for 200€ and I don't even know if I like photography, only that I'm interested in it.

>>4460557
Based

>>4460553
>>4460560
Ok, sorry, the other option being discussed is a $200 museum exhibit, and you were trying to be reasonable. My bad, I'll leave the thread promptly.

I wish my first camera was an a6500 and an f1.4 prime. I only got to use a viewfinder-only scale focusing 35mm film camera with 2 working shutter speeds.

If you dislike phone photos you should not be allowed to retouch your photos.

>>4460579
Phone photos lack 3d pop.

Why shouldn’t I buy an X100IV?

>>4460595
I mean an X100VI.

>>4460595
>>4460596
Have you ever had a real camera before?
The X100VI is selling based on pure fad. It's a mediocre camera that is way too overpriced for its price. Realistically you should not pay more than $900 for it.

>>4460597
Sony RX1rIII is overpriced, x100VI isnt

>>4460598
both are overpriced.

>>4460599
Nope

>>4460595
>>4460596
It's a really poorly made camera. Everything from the rattly build to the clunkiness of every moving part and common camera function (ie: autofocus, menus) calls back to all those disposable semi-premium consumer electronics toys of the mid 2000s (good enough but not great notebooks, mp3 players, etc) that were always 3 generations behind in tech and 1 generation behind in price. Except it's 2025, and it's a social media meme. So it's 10 generations behind and 1 generation ahead in price.

The thing is literally a plastic shell that isn't truly weather sealed, it has wiggly doors ffs, and it's going up against better made and/or cheaper compacts that only lack sheer image quality - while targeting a market that doesn't give a fuck about sheer image quality. The x100vi isn't even pocketable so it also has to compete with people buying sony aps-c and even full frame and just slapping cheap shit samyang lenses on, and while sony has shit image quality, the x100vi market doesnt give a shit about shit image quality and sony's shitty green colors are just begging to be turned into a cinestill 800t film sim. If you don't like green, buy a ricoh gr III/X or an olympus/om system.

Call fuji's general lack of quality soul if you want (autofocus worse than an a6500) but the slowish but functional dell notebook with finish rubbing off the plastic aesthetic is some really shitty fucking soul.

>>4460595
Do it. Its one of the best EDC cameras you can buy.

Yes, I said better made and then, I said sony.

Fuji is just that bad.

>>4460561
Based

>>4460612
he didnt say ricoh gr in a plastic bag

>>4460561
For around 200 (well, maybe 250-300), you can get a 5D Mark II. For another 100 (I think - could be less?) you can get a 50mm f1.8 for it. I think this is a better way to learn than a Nikon APS-C DSLR.

>>4460616
If buying a non stabilized, older setup you might as well get a smaller eos M or a6300 or even the older MIJ, metal fujifilms like the x-t2

they're all going to be just as shit as a 5dii but at least they're smaller shit with exposure preview and more accurate (though slower) autofocus

>>4460595
X-Trans is shit if you shoot RAW.
It's a JPG machine with hipster presets.

>>4460620
if shooting jpeg and being a hipster, might as well buy an older one like an xf10 or x70
>but 35mm
just crop. instagram cant tell.

>>4460598
This.

>>4460598
x100vi is way overpriced. Fuji just does not make good cameras for the money. they would be fine if they slashed every pricetag by 50%. But for their current prices, what you get is absurdly bad. It's not like a brand whose entire heritage is copying or leeching off other brands has high tier luxury appeal either...

If they actually relied on camera sales to survive, fujifilm cameras just wouldn't exist. They'd have gone the way of the pentax years ago. The whole thing is a passion project like pentax SLRs. 0 ability to be competitive. Just a scam for hipsters and terminal camera nerd consoomers of the sort that mostly just exist in asia.

Just stick with Nikon and Fuji for value and reliability, Sony if you want to throw away your money.

>>4460616
>5D Mark II

Finding one in 2025 under 100k sc is already challenging task.

>I think this is a better way to learn than a Nikon APS-C DSLR.

To learn being crippled by prime lens and canon DR matching one of m43 sensor. Solid choice if he wants to start YT channel about photography. There is literally no reason for a beginner to buy anything but an old aps-c dslr, unless he has extra money in his pocket.

>>4460665
>you need to buy the cheapest gear imaginable unless you've got lots of moneh

>A 5DIV can be had for like $600
>D800 can be had for about the same
>DSLR lenses are cheap because they don't make em no more
Nigga how poor are you.

Why are modern cameras of the last 20 years so incredible ugly in its product design? I mean even if you can't hire professional designers in your huge Japanese corp, usually some engineers still have a bit sense of aesthetics left to manage a product that is pleasing to look at. Do you think anyone would but this abomination pic related on a display shelf in 30 years like we do today with older Nikons?

>>4460722
fujifilm haters BTFOd

>>4460763
not really anon

>>4460722
Sony cameras look really good actually

>>4460722
Maybe nikon doesnt want their good cameras to be wasted as shelf fodder or gaymens jewelry like some fujifilm or leica?

I'm fucking retarded. I'm looking for a camera that can do action photography and macro photography, so I should probably get a camera that can swap lenses right? How's Facebook marketplace for old gear?

>>4460821
sony a7ii or sony a7iii

>>4459905
whoa based, also sweet deal
>>4460722
idk I kind of like them

is the fujifilm af actually as bad as people say?

Why are cameras so expensive?