Thread 4464206

I am stuck on my gear journey
>started with little compact rx100vii
>liked its size but the image quality especially in low light was lacking
>sell it and buy a k1-ii
>was a disaster, too heavy, baked in NR, never took it anywhere
>sold it bought em1-iii
>enjoy it but wonder if a larger sensor will actually make a difference
>scared to take it out in public because it's larger than a compact
>but also want it to be durable and tough so I don't have to baby it
So what the hell do I do? mushroom for attention

Just use the camera you have BITCH

you should use a kodak brownie :^)

>>4464209
/thread

>>4464206 (OP)
Sounds like your brain on /p/
>i HAVE to buy something 4chan will call based!
There is a damn good reason basically everyone buys a sony mirrorless or a low end canon, but autistic hobbyists go for canon and nikon's fuckhueg professional models

>>4464206 (OP)
camera durability is a huge meme, anon

when was the last time you dropped a camera? only massive cameras built out of one piece of metal have slim chances of surviving such treatment
when was the last time you drenched a camera and could not have possibly opted to use a cheap rain cover in advance? only a RELATIVELY RECENT camera has even the slightest chance of effective so-called "weather sealing" (all seals harden and shrink over time), the rest are gambling on tight fit parts, strategic circuit board placement, and the minimal conductivity of typical rainwater.

most people who talk about well built cameras have never taken their shit into a warzone and never will
its all about having the most "based" brand and saying "otherbrand BTFO because i have something those cucks dont"

>>4464368
Not at all, I just want something high quality but also not obnoxious to take out in public

>>4464206 (OP)
>muh low light
WHAT THE FUCK KIND OF PHOTOS DO YOU ALL TAKE IN LOW LIGHT ALL THE FUCKING TIME DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT PHOTOGRAPHY IS ABOUT

>>4464582
The market for standalone cameras is reasonably small. The market for standalone cameras that are needed to be built like a brick shithouse is a sliver of that. The middle of the venn diagram is profesional-grade DSLR/MILCs and that means obnoxious is part of the plan; everybody must see how pro and job-ready you are, the whole point is to not hide it.

>>4464582
>>4464368
bro is right if you don't like m43 and do like compacts you have to be a snoy. i had an a7c. it was a decent camera for a casual. much better colors than the a7riii, but if i did it again i'd buy the sigma 45 and 90mm primes instead of the 40mm and 16-35.

it only has one problem that is sony's fault and not people whining about it not being a perfect camera or having skill issues:
there's a bad batch of LCD panels that are magenta tinged
sony would fix that under warranty but no one buys this shit new

i also had an a7cii. it was actually worse than the a7c. more features and megapixels, worse feeling build, overheated in the menu, flaky seals, weird firmware bugs.

imho sony only made one good full frame camera that feels like it has a point, and it's the a7c. the rest are crap.

>>4464585
Chill out nigger. Yes it's hard to believe but sometimes you want to take a photo that isn't in broad daylight. Pulling shadows down always looks better than pushing them, so starting with a more sensitive, more capable camera is always going to be a winner.

>>4464587
but also the z7ii is more better than it is uglier despite the subject detect af being shit and mine was only $200 more than an a7c

l'moa.

>>4464588
>not a single example
exactly

in retrospect the sony 40mm was a shitty lens and the 16-35 f4 pz was better

16-35+90 would also be a cool combo

I like mft because it's comfy and easy to use. OP should buy a compact dye sub printer and do this: >>4464209

>>4464585
>cat
>inside
>iso 6400
sneed

>>4464596
>I cannot accept a photo of my cat having a little easily removable noise
yep, sums up what pictures are actually taken on this board

>>4464596
Are you sure this isn't micro four thirds in broad daylight?

>>4464600
korrect, comrade. that photo is not important enough for full frame digital camera. this is khokol kulak insanity of so called democracy of degenerate westerners and NAFO nazis.

photography komissar vladisoilovich, confiscate this nazi capitalists wasteful immoral purchase at once. redistribute him the zorki and one roll of svema film only when it is needed and have it develop in glorious peoples darkroom to prevent the secretive hiding of dissident material. the party has higher concern than capitalist picture of cat. mother russia will not stand for such selfishness and indulgence.

>>4464609
>I have a perfectly fine pocketable camera that takes good pictures in any reasonable light situation
>but I will complain that I have to spend money and be foced to use a bulky model to satisfy some retarded constraints
Yes, the arrogance of wanting to shoot a cat at a quadrillion ISO with low noise necessitates equally arrogant equipment. So start saving up or be contempt

>>4464614
Agreed, comrade. These capitalists are arrogant degenerates. No one need "better image quality". No one need more than party has decided. Big sensor is only for professional approved by the government!

>>4464615
There is a difference between wanting better quality and bitching about better quality being expensive

>>4464616
silence, capitalist. expensive is not real. only needs and does not.

>>4464618
your parody got boring real fast once it's obvious you just made up in your head what my point was

>>4464620
in soviet russia, point makes you!

>>4464589
Going off filename formats, is this the Z7?

>>4464592
>>4464596
>>4464587
Is this the sony?

If so, congratulations, you downgraded. The sony photos look significantly nicer.

>>4464600
Darktable doesn't have denoise, and all free software chads had to upgrade to full frame.

>>4464653
>nikon is soft with a green tint
>sony is sharp with good colors
fucking lol. always do the opposite of what /p/ says. who needs sony shills when we have nikon users?

legit the only cameras that can nail lifelike color are sony and canon

nikon is always way off
fuji is too but at least fuji owns it and does the film sim stuff

nkon is the color science version of the guy who pisses his pants and pretends nothing is wrong

>>4464781
What about phase one?

>>4464781
Gentle reminder that the snoyggers constantly need to defend their purchases

So after all that, what do I do? Keep what I have and just focus on taking good shots?

>>4464800
troll /p/ one last time and sell it all for an a7c

>>4464800
rx100 = em1
you literally went full circle and bought the same camera but overpriced and bigger. no one can tell 1" from m43 if both have a modern sensor without serious pixel peeping. both are phone sensor sizes.

you bought two cameras in a row that were both too big for you to travel with. LOL. your brain on /p/ gearfaggotry and forced meme brand wars.

take your pick of things /p/ hates because they're used by cool people who actually take cool photos instead of snapshits of their dog inside
>sony a7c
>sony rx100 series
>sony zv series
>olympus em5 series
>olympus e-p series (not e-pl they're ewaste)

>>4464909
Huh, they can't even take pics of a dog indoors? No wonder everyone hates them and thinks they suck.

>>4464781
>legit the only cameras that can nail lifelike color are sony and canon
Unless you do any editing at all, and then it doesn't matter

>>4464924
Are you sure? What if the sensor is physically inferior?

>>4464926
no way

>>4464926
Well every time I've posted a blind comparison of different brands, that's the cope everyone gives when no one can tell which is which
Sure seems like I see lots of pros using all the brands too

>>4464933
I can tell the difference between my apsc and ff

>>4464934
But could you given two images with no knowledge of what they came from?
My APS-C and FF are different too, and FF does have advantages for certain images, but by the time everything is processed and delivered, no one ever notices which is which

>>4464937
That's just stupid autism. If you can tell there's a difference and think that difference makes your pics better that is all that matters.

>>4464909
I bought them because I thought it's what I wanted based off my needs and reviews
I'm now thinking just to keep the M43 and get good at photography

>>4464937
>no one ever notices which is which
Because under specific circumstances, lesser cameras can produce similar results to better ones.
In the APS-C vs FF battle, the differences that aren't "equivalent" are harder to spot, but they're there. The easy ones are when you reach the limits of your sensor/glass combo, such as low f/stops, high ISO performance, and pixel pitch (light gathering and colour accuracy).
There is zero way to get true f/1.2 on an APS-C camera. Doesn't exist. So if you want that DoF you sneed FF. Same goes for trying to get even true f/5.6 out of a phone sensor.
But, under good light at base ISO with a moderate f/stop you've basically got the same thing as a FF camera; you're not trying to do anything the other thing can't. But the moment you wish you could go beyond that limit, you should have bought FF.

M43 is a more extreme example that is (rightly so) assblasted on /p/. Because the best it can do at base ISO wide open with plenty of light using the widest prime available on the mount is look like FF ISO 800, f/2.8. Wow.
And this is ignoring the more subtle differences like shorter focal lengths below 50mm having more distortion that need more corrections, or that such a fine pixel pitch requires shockingly clinical glass to not look like pure ass.
APS-C can get a pass if you're using FF lenses to avoid the outer image circle of a lens, but now wide angle and UWA are basically unavailable to you unless you buy APS-C specific lenses thus defeating the point.

>>4465074
Thank you for agreeing that aps-c is just as good, and indistinguishable as FF in most circumstances

>>4465159
It really is not. APS-C can look sort of ok in SOME circumstances, but in the same hands, with the same scene, FF will often achieve something subtly better.

Also it helps the FF case that most APS-C cameras are just garbage to use, and cost so fucking much, you might as well just buy a real camera from a few years back instead of fucking yourself with a newer beginners scamera. Fujifilm in particular makes really horrid cameras. Long term reliability is piss poor. Autofocus is incompetent for anything but a static object. Prices are sky high. Despite charging thousands for 40mp sensors, xtrans and their shitty glass produce such blurry results the max allowable print size is 8.5x11. They certainly earned their fanboys with the first few japanese made models... not anymore.

>inb4 well a pro used a-
Somewhere, sometime, a pro shot their entire set on an iphone. Those oppenheimer publicity shots and that vogue china run looked really bad btw.

FF vs crop works like thus
>How much do you value your own photography?
"Not much, I'll look at it once, and maybe shit it out onto instagram" -> Micro for birds/aps-c
"These are lifelong memories. My yearly family photo fills a wall." -> Buy a real camera
"You look at photos after you take them?" -> Phone

>Do you need a camera with you all the time?
"Yes, my hobby is taking snapshots of random cool shit" -> Ricoh GRIII/X. Forget other APS-C, forget m43, it's the smallest.
"No, just when I've planned on taking photos" -> Buy a real camera
"*happy fox noises* Yah I'd love to live teh photografur life~ but its gotta fit in my ophidia pochette :3" -> X100VI

>Are you in shape, or do extra ounces hurt?
"Yes, I need to hit the gym" -> 1" PNS/Ricoh GR/micro-for-birds
"I'm pretty small yea... d-does that interest you? OwO" -> X100VI
"I have no room left in my pack. I hike with a combat loadout" -> 1" PNS/Ricoh GR/micro-for-birds
"Ounces are pounds, but as long as it's just a few it's not pain" -> Buy a real camera

>>4465192
That's why I like 8x10 and contact prints so much. Even high end digital cameras/pictures feel almost worthless or cheap compared to it.
The fact that it is slow and heavy means that planning or at least some intent is almost always required. Snapshitting can be really fun, but doing actual pre planned well thought out photography is way more fun.

>>4465159
>Specific circumstances
>That means most right guys
Christ alive...

>>4465206
Specific can still be most
>>4465192
>dishonest schizo rant

"Dishonest" is just some money-wasting digislug's buzzword that actually means "fuck, I got btfo".

His other schtick is
>leave alone the multimillion dollar company. you can still take great photos with a potato.

Digital cameras are scams. This is not up for debate. It is the scammiest market to ever scam since electric guitar, aka
>we put a coil and 6 wires on a CNCd mahogany plank and spent 30 minutes spraying it with paint, that will be $3500. now would you like to purchase 2 op amps and 10 capacitors wired to a couple of stereo jacks and a button switch for $600? they're ~tone capacitors~
High price, low value is the name of the game because the companies believe in and cultivate an extremely pretentious and stupid market of consoomers who are shopping for skill and "jenesaiquo" they'd rather not cultivate. Fitting because they are both electrified creative hobbies that are primarily based on imitating a mid 20th century golden age wherein success was on the table for anyone with a modium of talent... and both are considered dead, uncool, and overcrowded today... and both are filled to the brim with people who think the equipment of the golden age had a special something that breathed a little extra life into pre-existing talent.

If I had $2k to spend on photography and I weren't buying a full frame god-camera i'd buy a darkroom setup a bunch of film, if not a decent field camera, because at least film produces a physical end result with some real value, that would take a fucking spy agency with the future's tech to AI generate, and involves some craftsmanship and personal involvement... But who cares about me, I'm just better with money and blessed with better taste and superior common sense compared to the average digital photographer/electric guitarist/motorcyclist/PC gamer/star wars toy collector/insert other lower middle class money wasting "hobby" here.
Likewise I can see an acoustic instrument being worth $2k but not anything electric!

>>4465219
Trvth nvke.

Mirrorless was the last true upgrade because SLRs had a lot of inconvenient design flaws. Cameras have peaked. Everything expensive is just playing catch up, add a gimmick, or scam a hipster.

>>4465219
> Chinese peasants must work below living wage so I can consoom for cheap.
Tariffs are here. The ride is over. You WILL pay $2500 for a crop sensor camera and $1500 for a guitar because that's what they actually cost in rnd and manufacturing.

> But it's just a piece of wood!
Go cut a tree and make your own guitar then.

>>4465226
>because that's what they actually cost in rnd and manufacturing.
RND cost of a digital camera is nada. They have not actually improved since 2013. It's a trickle-feeding scam typical of late stage capitalism. All of the tech has been developed. The marketing department is just deciding the pace at which consumers will accept it.
Production costs are also minimal relative to the pricetag. Maybe back when DSLRs were hand-wired and hand-calibrated, the prices made sense. Now the prices are not a reality so much as they are a tradition. Modern cameras are assembled on automated lines. Even the facilities cost is minimal because the camera business is actually in place to make use of pre-existing manufacturing capacity for an even lower volume market ie: scientific, medical, military equipment.

The days of camera sensors that spend 10 years in R&D are over. Hand wired cameras no longer exist. They are made like iphones, and the actual cost between R&D, facilities, employees, and materials is on par with iphones and macbooks. You really think sony spent serious R&D money on new firmware for the a7riv, aka the a7rv?

Now have you noticed how many cameras seem to be designed with the assumption that ONLY a professional can, will, and should use them, with design and product line structure decisions that are an insult to a hobbyist/artist? That's because professionals spend clients money, not their own, upgrade when the warranty ends, and camera companies know they will pay anything so they're just sticking to the part of the market that WILL keep those lines running. Not the market that will need convinced to.

Let's not get started on e-guitars. Those are cheap lumber with a veneer and basic hardware. People make them in their garages for <$150.

>>4465226
Sure nikon definitely spent a ton on releasing literally an a7iii 5 times in a row
>tha r&d!
The z8 paid for all of it which is why they put the same core hardware in every camera later.

>>4465231
>>4465239
> /p is apparently full of people who make their own digital cameras
> They never show off their unique gear
Mean.

>>4465219
and your schtick
>why no, I don't actually take photos

>>4465231
>They have not actually improved since 2013
more dishonesty, this is why no one takes you seriously here

>>4465328
He's half right. Dual gain stage sensors came out in 2015 i think, and then dual gain output was developed by canon in 2020.

Nothing else has happened since and nikon actually released the a7iii four times
>z5, z6, z6ii: oh shit how do we autofocus? how did sony do it?
>z5ii: now that the z8 has paid its R&D bill, and we cant figure out how to autofocus, let's just put the z8 guts behind the same sensor we used the last 3 times
>z6iii (doesn't count): let's just make the camera flat out worse so some videofag pixel peeper can be slightly less unhappy (they'll never be happy)

>>4464369
This is true. I can't think of a single camera worth using that could reliably survive a drop from waist height onto hard ground. Some definitely are more durable than others, but the thing is, people bringing their cameras into warzones are still looking after them. If you drop a 1DX with a 70-200, your mount will break, probably on the lens but maybe on the camera. Every time. Its not cus the 1dx is bad, its cus it will happen to any camera if you drop it. They're fragile things. The most durable camera 'worth using' I can think of is the nikonos V, which takes ""decent"" quality pictures for film at least and is fully submersible, but its also a hassle to use. The unfortunate truth is that you do have to baby your camera to some extent. But there's nothing wrong with taking good care of your belongings and being careful with them.

>>4465328
This buzzword of yours is really wearing thin m8

>>4465333
Some cameras are pretty sturdy

If you drop a z6ii with a 40mm f2 there's a 90% chance it'll be fine and a 10% chance the lens mount will break

>>4465337
I would be hesitant if I'm honest. High end mirrorless cameras are really dense, they're small and heavy, so they accelerate quickly. I would have to see it to believe it. Even with a pancake lens you're way more likely to shatter the glass on the lens than you are to crack a mount.

>>4465339
Pancakes are floppy. Try a biscuit lens and you will be suprised at their extreme durability.

>>4465340
Wouldn't the floppiness absorb the forces from the impact??

>>4465339
>a lighter camera made out of a magnesium shell with a disposable plastic lens will accelerate faster than a heavier larger camera with a heavy metal and glass lens
Looks like someone failed high school physics

>>4465341
I've picked up many pancakes and they are usually so floppy that they will break under their own weight. Never the case with a biscuit.

>>4465342
Anon he said denser...

>>4464206 (OP)
Worry about taking well composed photos of interesting subjects in good light instead of gear.

>>4465344
>F=ma?
>Fuck that newton was retarded
>F=da HD STAR AW!
>-/p/

>>4465346
denser =/= lighter, anon

>>4465347
>/p/hysics: a 2lb mirrorless will accelerate faster than a 3lb dslr because it's denser
cameras are known for their significant aerodynamic resistance after all

>>4465349
What is heavier 1 ton of sony cameras or 1 ton of pancake lenses?

>>4465357
the cameras because sony has no pancakes

>>4465340
>>4465349
lmao
>>4465347
Gravity doesn't care about such things

>>4464781
>legit the only cameras that can nail lifelike color are sony and canon

>>4465334
I'll stop using it when people stop being dishonest, pretty simple
>>4465331
>more dishonesty
>>4465333
Out of all my shit, I feel like my x-pro2 + Fujicrons have been the most durable, held up to many drops from waist to chest height onto wood, concrete, dirt
I dropped a different body + bigger lenses from about chest height, but onto carpet, body and lens were totally fine but impacted enough to break the l-plate grip on it
Super right about shearing at the lens mount, from my repair days, breaking battery door was also super common

>>4465537
>le white balance fuckup
Watch the whole video. She fucks up the colors on both cameras every single take.

>>4465550
Fuji’s quality today is absurdly poor.

>>4465556
Fujinone more like it?