Thread 4469276

Your worst nightmare edition

Previously: >>4468045

You know sony cameras are good when /p/ has a full time shill making sure to cherry pick anti-sony content for the OP

Last time he pit the cheapest sony 50mm up against a $3000 nikon prime with best buy demo shelf default settings lmao
>cuz real photographers shoot sooc, sootb, to ensure the brand wars have some ground rules to prevent filthy dumb setting changing scum from pretending all ff mirrorless are the same
He will now write a seethe post about some bullshit and then people will point out it happened to every brand
He will then cry about indians because he is one

>>4469284
Buy an ad

>>4469284
Your essay being assblasted is 10x more pathetic. Move on niglet

>>4469284
Meeeds

Why does Sony being superior cause so much butthurt here?

>>4469288
Because it’s associated with artistic success

>>4469284
Sony cameras are shit and I curse vishnu. You cannot say the same.

>>4469276 (OP)
>pov you're a wedding photographer and don't have proper gear insurance
why are women so dumb?

I got to use a leica... it felt amazing, now all I can think about is buying one.

>>4469308
Buy this >>4469117

>>4469302
kek, i remember this from the other threads. he legit refused to do it.

>>4469284
I've heard it's not a shill but is just some autistic guy named Clive that has been banned from various camera forums for the same sperging. He's sort of like one of those people on /g/ that loves Android and hates iPhone or vice versa I guess.

>>4469284
>>4469330
assblasted samefag

>>4469331
>this from the fag that posts a snoy thread every week
Lol okay.

>>4469332
ive never made a thread about your precious little camera brand

>>4469276 (OP)
I hope that never happens to me and I hope I can just rip out the curtain and use ES if it does.
I've seen that people were locked out of cameras because some sensor noticed that the M shutter was broken.

>>4469302
Sony cameras are good and i curse vishnu, ganesha, brahma rama buddha satan the talmud odin thor and zeuss. Christ is king.

>>4469363
Also sony cameras are the best and I denounce the quran and accuse the prophet mohammad of talking to satan and lubing his personal dildo with bacon grease. Praise the lord.

Phew. Forgot one

Rate the haul /p/, I posted this in the last gear thread and then another thread by accident. I love Pentax and Minolta because it lets me consoom for relatively cheap

Velbon VGB-32B for $10
New Manfrotto MT055XPRO3 for $50

Both off craigslist in my neighborhood

I might turn around and sell the Manfrotto for $100 on eBay, I just bought a Slik off eBay on the right that better fits my needs for $30 all in (this thing is nice but huge + it needs a head)

The Velbon is actually pretty nice I would've just bought that but the Manfrotto was just $50 realizing I didn't need it and it's overkill.

I fucked up buying the Tamron 17-50mm, didn't realize it was a APSC format lens until after I won the auction and I'm using it on a FF K1II. Probably gonna sell it for what I paid for it.

The flash is nice to have a spare especially at $35 vs the $80 they go for new. The teleconverter I got at a crazy deal but I don't know if it'll work with my camera, the pins are different than the other Pz-AF version that's also commonly sold (this says Mx-AF). If it's Minolta I have A Mount lenses I can use it with.

On the lookout for a few primes next. I definitely need a Pentax 50mm f1.4 and maybe a Tamron 90mm 272E. Just wanna pay under $100 (maybe $150 if it's the HD 50mm or 35mm f 2). I would also like a 28-105mm D-FA K1 kit lens but I wanna pay under $200.

>>4469284
Sony cameras are shit, just like EOS R cameras are shit and Nikon Z cameras are shit, virtually all modern cameras are SHIT costcutting garbage with more software and processing than sensor output.

I got into photography recently when I inherited my dad's old system as he upgraded to GFX. I am contemplating upgrading as I feel the size and weight of the system is too large for EDC

Got a 5d mkii and quite a few of the best EF primes as well as some zeiss primes from that era. Love the camera, works flawless I am in no way limited by my gear. Thing is I want a camera I can somewhat carry as an EDC, and the 5d+lens is just too much. Also draws a lot of attention.

Was thinking of maybe getting into the z-system, maybe the ZF as I have heard great things about it, and especially lens adaptability. I have a nikon F3 I also shoot on, and a couple of lenses, would be cool to be have an overlap of lenses between a digital and my film camera.

Looking for advice, maybe something completely different would suit me better? Budget doesn't really matter, but a flip screen would be welcomed. I like doing portraits of friends and family as well as taking it on the occasional hike/roadtrip

thanks in advance

dont wanna be a nopic so here is one from a museum I took last year

>>4469398

Yes. Nikon single digit D series slr's are the best.

>professional
>doesn't have all his gear under warranty

>>4469284
>>4469276 (OP)

sucks to be these people

>>4469405

D4 supremacy posting ITT, anything else is just a toy.

>>4469409

that's not the point, homie missed critical shots because his shit failed mid-shoot

>Not having back-up bodies

>>4469398
>all the cameras used by people more successful than me are bad!

>>4469402
Nothing bigger than an a5100+20mm f2.8 is "EDC" able but everything smaller than a bronica gs1 is no big deal for a photo trip
Digital EDC is a tough question to answer without blowing over $1k to get canon rebel quality so maybe try a film camera like a canonet or an om2n

Imagine a world without videotards neutering cameras with useless garbage.

>>4469402
ZF is almost as bad as the R cameras for destroying texture detail with it's AI noise post-processing (even on RAWs) because modern fast sensors have insane amount of color noise, the post processing destroys depth of color and texture in the images and leaves behind noise in black/white shadow situations.

Get a EOS M with magic lantern for EDC unless you're doing it professionally, especially since you got EF primes and stuff, if you need a newer camera the last compact Canon before the images got over-sharpened and the noise reduction turned the images totally flat was the M5.
If you need it even newer get a Fuji, they were the latest to destroy their images, I think the absolutely newest cameras they make are ruined though, because people are sheep who complain about noise in the colors and only want totally flat super saturated colors.
The reviewers are of course happy about it because in their retarded tests the "sensors" perform "better", but really the images are just AI adjusted to increase test parameter scores instead of a pleasing image.

>>4469416
>all the cameras used by people more successful than me are bad!
KYS Sheeptard, you're not successful and you never will be.

Did jewtubers inflate the price of the EM5/10? I was looking for an early one but they seem expensive now if you want a not dragged behind a car condition one by the grading scales of these reseller.

>>4469423
I don't think so they are still relatively cheap, but a lot of people are looking for older non-AI cameras so prices are going up across the board.
AI gang thinks adding dehancers and shit on their cameras will make them take more pleasing pictures, but they are just adding one type of post-processing for another type.

>>4469423
i've seen quiet a few "is the em5.2 the goat camera?" videos plop up on my timeline.

What is the cheapest camera with an evf with focus peaking?

having the system switching itch

>>4469421
>>4469424
You can feel free to ignore this fag because he is literally making shit up.
>ITS AN AI CONSPIRACY!
Nothing in this post makes sense. Literal 5g mind control gangstalking conspiracy theory levels of bullshit.

Go be a retard on /x/. Or prove me right by rambling about targeted individuals, jews, eglin bots, glowies, alien demons, etc.

>>4469446
Are you implying Jews aren't real?
Also newer sensors don't have less noise they just remove it with deep learning algorithms.
It's about as much a conspiracy theory as the Jews attacked the USS liberty.
https://global.canon/en/technology/dl-iptechnology-2023.html

You are the niggerest of niggers on the entire planet, I bet you shoot on a Sony camera.

DESU, if your lens doesn't feature 5 or 10 aperture blades, I don't even LOOK at it. 12 blades is deemed acceptable. If your movie or documentary feature those, then I know the guys behind it are connoisseurs, men of culture with the finest taste.
If it's an 9 or 11 blades vomit-inducing abomination, into the trash it goes.

>>4469421
>>4469447
That sensor been in use since 2018, noise behavior haven't change since. It would be a fucking joke if that old ass Nikon processor chip is capable of anything AI when it can't even focus properly.

>>4469451
But that movie is like the worst looking movie of all time?

I didn't quite get what the deal about new nikon body construction was in the last thread

>>4469402
>ZF
Was my initial plan as a new edc but it's not all that small. But with the 40mm it must be a nice package. Leica M or Q can give you an small edc as well but quite expensive if you don't buy used and the tech inside isn't the best. But you can get some damn amazing lenses. Fuji x is small but apsc and I always find the images rather flat and lifeless. There are good deals for the Lumix S9 (probably because no one buys them) but they seem not of good build quality. Sigma BF is compact too and some are quite happy with its colors. But a bit too quirky for me.

I went now with the new Nikon ZR hoping the sensor is fast enough for stills as it doesn't have a mechanical shutter. Other than that same photo specs as the Z6III, compact rangefinder style body, no evf (which I rarely use) and the option to do some fine video.

>>4469452
Deep learning only applies in specific situations it recognizes, so if you're taking astrophotography it doesn't do anything, but if you're taking a portrait it probably will.
The test image used on DPR is not a specific situation that is recognized by the deep learning algorithm (yet).
As you can see, all these cameras basically take the same photo, but if you look at pictures taken by these cameras in normal situations they are vastly different.

Also as I said, noise has not gotten better with the sensors, they only remove it in certain situations.

>>4469284
>mirrorless scamera
Might as well be a Sony, LOL. Although then it would have a baby mount with built in software copes for it (lifted exposure) and water ingress as the cherry on top. At least you can genuinely say Sony cameras are better than Fuji's, but being better than the worst isn't a high bar at all.

>>4469398
>>4469405
Based and redpilled.
>>4469412
His real mistake was trusting a mirrorless when the push came to shove.
>>4469416
ur b8 isn't good m8
>>4469402
Shoot film and you'll soon realize EDC is a meme because you'll feel bad for wasting an increasingly scarce soon to be banned resource on garbage snapshits.

>>4469465
If you think the current batch of camera processors (which are all 5 years or older) are capable of deep learning AI and do it fast enough while processing the raw data stream and focus is laughable.

>>4469276 (OP)
But I dont have this problem because I dont shoot Sony

>>4469471
clearly, it only happens when there is no way to comparably prove it

>>4469465
You dont have a clue what you’re talking about and are pixel peeping AA filters while confusing dual gain stages for AI

The ZF has traditional and detectable smoothing above iso 12800 onl, no AI. Stop being a schizo.

>>4469461
Is this finally the perfect FF EDC?

>>4469490
not for photography. no shutter, flash sync speed 1/60 for "only" $2.7k lol. i'd pay $2k for the same camera with a mech shutter and no video at all... i hate cine so much bros. mirrorless is so shit

I got some old crap in an estate sale a few years ago and am finally sorting through it. I don't know much about older gear so hopefully someone can help - this 28mm Soligor lens has a T4 mount with an M42 adaptor but the fucking adaptor is stuck.

Maybe I'm just fucking retarded but I can't get this damn thing to budge. The big fat Vivitar next to it has T4-FD adaptor which uses the same release design and works no problem, so I don't get what's wrong with this one. Is there something I'm missing or is it just broken?

>>4469490
>that lens
>EDC

>>4469284
Fanboi gtfo.

>>4469482
/pol/yp's law: if you think "shills" are out to get you, you are wrong
there ARE shills on 4chan but 90% are advertising their own youtube channel and the other 10% are advertising consumer elec shit on /g/ and /v/
if you want shills.... every single camera youtuber is paid off via free loaners, free keepers, and free trips.

anyways
it is not the same sensor used in the d750. CFA specs have changed. it has two gain stages now. quantum efficiency has improved. the .NEF format has been tweaked. the ADC is less noisy and the overall pipeline has been altered radically (it now has actual near 14 bit precision, instead of 12 bit precision with a 14 bit format). AA filter tech has changed a bit. the sensor stack is thinner.

the zf does not use any sensor that has ever been used in a canon (canon fabs their own)

noise reduction and sharpening in jpegs of course looks different because it is a different algorithm using a different processor so it tries to be more aggressive.
NR in raws is not actually present at ISOs people actually use. the zf does some boring chroma averaging 12800+ (and EVERY fuji does heavy handed chroma averaging in jpeg)

AI NR is currently only a feature on the canon EOS R1 and EOS R5II, probably because canon sucks shit at making sensors and these full frame cameras have the actual dynamic range of aps-c. the ZF and Z6III could very well be the last or second to last nikon cameras without AI NR, but they are certainly not the first with. the processing they have on board is JUST sufficient for autofocus. even sony can't figure out AI NR so the a9iii files just get traditional smudges from averaging pixels.

What am I in for?

>>4469284
The actual truth

actual shills hate sony aps-c in particular because it mogs fuji period, mogs nikon dx for features/resolution/lenses/ibis and mogs canon dx for DR/lenses/features (canon has better stab and more pickels on the r7 tho)

>>4469506
Behold, all the bullshit a digital photographer has to know and understand simply to purchase a camera without getting fucked in the ass to the tune of $2000+ and having to cope, like this
>stop picksel peep
>it might look like shit but it spams snapshits with perfect autofocus really fast!
>muh video codecs (no i have never been paid to do video and yes i know most pro videographers including in hollywood still shoot with dated shit that doesnt even do 8k raw)

Meanwhile on film
>DOES CAMERA WORK?
>DA. GO CLICK.
>NOW TO TAKE 10,000MP PHOTO WITH TECHNICAL PAN

>>4469490
Almost. It just needs an EVF

>>4469498
Don't know if anyone gives a damn but it turned out someone has already been inside here. I unscrewed the latch mechanism from the adaptor only to find that it had been glued on at some point. I'm guessing there should be a return spring or something in the latch casing which has since been lost, without which the latch just flops in place instead of returning to position. The dumbass who did this had evidently realised this was a problem for keeping the adaptor securely fixed to the lens and had glued the latch and the adaptor to the lens. Fucking boomers, man.

I've ordered an E-FD adaptor from Amazon that arrives on Tuesday. Mildly excited to try out this lens and its fat Vivitar 90-230 cousin later this week. Will they be any good or will the previous owner have managed to fuck them up in other weird wonderful ways? Who knows.

>>4469276 (OP)
Shouldnt camera shutters last for well over 100k+ actuations?

>>4469276 (OP)
Just picked up a Nikon D90 + Nikkor dx 35mm 1.8g lens and a Fujifilm x100 for a total of $35 at a yard sale.

I know nothing about photography or cameras, are these worth using to get into the hobby or dabbling with or should I just resell them? Which of these cameras would you be using?

>>4469490
Really depends on what you want in a camera. I never shoot flash. Electronic shutter is what I use all the time on my z6iii without any issues. This and the z6iii are the true hybrid cameras. Most other "hybrids" can't shoot video in raw format meaning barely any post edit is possible. It's like a "hybrid" that lets you shoot stills only jpegs instead of raw files. So if you really do both equally photos and videos this is perfect. Also preordered it. Only thing I'm worried is the missing evf but you get a big bright screen instead..

by how much is magnification and effective display resolution decreased with the small viewfinder option on these new mirrorless cameras?
i wear glasses/sunglasses pretty much every waking hour

>>4469421
>>4469416
>>4469461

Thanks! I think I'm gonna rent out a ZF with the 40mm f2 to see how I like the files. The Leica is a good suggestion, but I would like it to have autofocus. Been using my dad's q2 a lot this summer though, it is absolutely wonderful, maybe I should just get one of those and then use the 5d for more planned stuff.

I rarely shoot above 1600 iso so high iso noise really isn't an issue to me.

>>4469541
Bruh same. It's annoying as fuck. I just deal with it, it's like a 15% decrease but I'd rather see the entire frame

>>4469538
The Fuji is like 600$
D90 is like $100

>>4469538
the DX 35mm alone goes for $70~100

>>4469432
I'm sure I saw one about em10 as well.

>>4469508
>mogs nikon dx

My D2x produces a more realistic image with greater color accuracy!

>>4469509
meanwhile on film
>shoot film
>want to share pictures
>get shit scans from 20 year old noritsu
>see shit scans, buy digital cam for "scanning"
>get better scans after thousands spent and hours of setup and testing
>slowrealization.jpg
>just use scancam for making pictures

>>4469490
Nothing full frame can be EDC

>>4469558
>>4469555
So is this good gear to get into /p/ or should I just sell them?

>>4469653
sell the fuji unless you really like it because you can turn a crazy profit

keep the d90

Thinking of buying the EOS R100 Canon
is it worth it?
should I go for the R50 instead?

>>4469652
Why not?

>>4469652
Insecure reddit soiboi culture turned "every day carry" into "concealed carry"

Nothing can ever "print" through the insecure reddit soiboi's fitted clothes
No one can ever see the EDC reddit soi is carrying anything
The EDC reddit soi can not risk anyone noticing anything he has and asking what it's for
And the EDC reddit soi absolutely can NOT carry any amount of weight. He measures his life in grams.

Meanwhile, back when men were men, the "EDC" for everyone was a full frame camera... at least.

>>4469652

just tell us you're a huge bitch and your shit's all retarded

>mfw daily RB67

extending the dopamine rush from ordering an R5 yesterday by watching videos about it.

>>4469655
>is it worth it?
no
>should I go for the R50 instead?
no

I like Fujifilm
I just think they're neat
Also rangefinder-style bodies fuck

>>4469655
It is a perfectly good starter camera but you might be wishing for something with better features really quick.
For example for wildlife, you'd really want the animal eye detect of the R50 and up - the R100 doesn't have it.

After much deliberation, I have made a decision on which camera I will purchase next

>>4469662
It is a great camera. If you live in a socialist country like me I sure do hope you bought used. Got mine for $2k back in April after upgrading from the R7.

>>4469655
I own an R50. The R100 is just a stripped down version of that. I used to use a 70D way back but only really started caring about gear capabilitiy once I went mirrorless. After about 3 months of using the R50 for travel snapshits and whatnot the novelty of "so small, omg" wore off and I was left wishing I had more controls and better tech. I bought an R8.

If you're absolutely set on Canon APS-C, I would say go R10. If your budget is too tight, stick with a DSLR. If for some reason you're dead set on mirrorless get an RP used cheap.
The R100 lacks shit as essential as a articlated screen, and if you get the R50 the moment you want a speedlite you need to buy an adapter that costs the difference between it and the R10.

>>4469662
Why did you buy a R5?

>>4469687
1580 euros (well used on mpb)
>>4469692
The price was too good.

>>4469276 (OP)
I'm considering buying a mirrorless camera and I'm looking at the Nikon Z series. Has anyone here used a Z6ii? Is the Z7ii really worth twice the price? I'll probably get the 35mm f/1.8 S, if I go for a Z series camera.

>>4469695
the sony a7iii is a bit better and has a better lens ecosystem

>>4469694
>The price was too good.
I'm surprised it's not under 300$

Thoughts on this backpacking kit for Nikon Z? 28-400, 50mm macro, 20 1.8 for stars. With a flash comes in about 5lbs. Can another system do better while doing landscape, wildlife, macro and astro?

This bad boy showed up today, 190 dollars for the kit with a bag and all original accessories.
It's taken 1720 pictures, seems alright.

At this point in my life I basically just want to sell everything. I already cleared out most of the EF/EFS mount for a deceent profit, but it's not as if I had anything particularly nice to begin with.
What do you think of just keeping these three?
>EFS 24mm
>EFS 18-135mm
>EF 70-200 F4 USM (non IS) L
I can fill in gaps with adapted lenses. I got a 400mm Vivitar TX mount thrown in from a nice old photo journalist I got a few other lenses off of, but I need to get a M42 TX mount to adapt it to M42-EF since it's a MD one now.
Asides that, I still have a 50mm F1.8 II and a 55-250mm II. If I was on a full frame I'd have some use for the 50mm, but on a crop sensor it's neither wide nor telephoto, so using it by itself is not much use. The extra light is nice, if it was a STM for what I paid I would keep it, but for a plastic fantastic I don't see enough difference in subject separation compared to the 2.8 24mm to justify keeping it if I got a favorable sum for it.
I can use the 18-135mm for general use, and the 70-200mm for telephoto and if I bring the 24mm I have an option for wider angle shots.
55-250mm is better than the 75-300 I had, but if I get near what I listed it for I could get a 1.4 tele for the 70/200 and have a longer telephoto with better optics, so it feels redundant.

>>4469719
>no viewfinder
Honest question, why would you do this to yourself?

>>4469721
It's my video camera, going to suffer with some magic lantern.
My photo cameras have viewfinders.

>>4469712
i went backpacking for 10 days with just the 24-120mm F4 S. got aurora borealis shots too. not sure why you need more. good to keep things lightweight

>>4469720
Keep the 24mm if you’re on APS-C
I swear it can do anything (if you can get close enough)

>>4469720
The 24mm is great and dirt cheap, may as well keep it.
The 70-200 is pree good but I'd rather have the IS version. Depends on how much you use it I guess.
On crop just sell all that other shit you mentioned and get the 55-250 STM. It's way better than the II version you have.

Dear /gear/.

I'm currently using (second hand) D750 but started to notice that my shutter already reported error few times at short exposition times (1/2000 and the like). If I would want to get replacement camera, is D850 logical choice or I should pickup something else? I already have 7 lenses so complete system change is out of question. Thanks for help.

>>4469744
D850 is technically a better camera, slightly less character in the pictures but it's sensor output is still top 5 in testing so if you care about technical spec testing then yes.

>>4469773
What do you mean by "slightly less character in the pictures"?

>>4469774
>what do you mean by “character”
Schizoid ramblings

>>4469744
D850 is the only sensible upgrade unless you want to jump to Z or another mirrorless mount
Don't fall for the sink cost fallacy of "not being able to switch"

>>4469695
I'd take Z5II over either of those
>>4469652
Most of my EDC is with a FF

>>4469734
Macro is a special interest of mine, and typically I get some wildlife shots as well. Mostly I do overnights or 3 days, if I was going on a 10 day I'd question bringing 5lbs of photo stuff for sure.
>aurora shots
That's possibly less demanding than milkyway shots without star trails? If I could get a 2.8 zoom lens at 24mm I'd drop the dedicated astro lens.

Am I the only person not impressed by the Leica "color science" from the Q series cameras?

It's distinctive, for sure, but the 'it insists upon itself' meme comes to mind every time I look at sample picture from them. The color isn't really reflective of reality.

>>4469692
>Why did you buy a R5?
Name a better bang per buck full frame.

>>4469744
D800/D800e/D810 is a good option, at a fraction of the price.

>>4469809
Z6II. It makes everything-detect crutch dependent dog snapping pixel peepers seethe and brings modern full frame dual gain sensor quality to the <$1000 price point without being a janky, failure prone snoy with shitty heavily vignetting 3lb lenses.
>but megaypixels. i must croooooop. i must zoom in. 35mm film is 900mp i must pixel peepee my dogs fur.
Skill issue.

Beware that /p/ has stupid gearfags on it that only shoot the most dogshit wedding photography (and are so bad at it they need to go through 14k+ frames per wedding to get enough keepers) and photos of their pet husky/corgi/german shepherd. These people have aggressively stupid gear opinions and I'm pretty sure the husky fucker just shills whatever he's selling on ebay because he told everyone to buy a D750 and then sold his.

>>4469744
Just use this as an opportunity to switch to a mirrorless body.

>>4469803
>shooting JPEG
Only have yourself to blame. And if you say no they were raws, then the colour science is not relevant and it’s on whoever processed the raws.

>>4469821
>schizophrenic's aggressively stupid opinion

Never change /p/

>>4469821
I have never gotten worthwhile gear advice from any of the dog faggots and have only watched as they never followed their own advice beyond installing capture one and making a few darkroom prints. Oh thanks fkr reccing me a d750 huskyfaggit you said the autofocus was great but it sucks whats that? You went with a z7ii? Fuck you!

The corgi fag is super irritating
>how dare you claim a nikon z50 has "bad autofocus". people have taken in focus photos using a z50 so it has good autofocus. stop being entitled gearfag.
>you can still take good photos with a potato in some situations
>you cant tell a sony from a canon after i spend an hour editing
>yes i own a full frame leica and $20k worth of gear overall why do you ask

Only the hairy negatives fucker isnt totally dishonest because all he does is think photo on big film = good photo

>>4469744
>tfw bought a second body D850 with only 9.6k shuttercount for 1.3k from a photographer
it was a good day

Sweet, as of today my camera is now worth $200 more

>>4469834
doesn't make your pics better :^)

I am tired of people who do this
>monday:
>why this POS is all you need
>tuesday:
>why i love my expensive full frame camera
>wednesday:
>i bought a hasselblad
>thursday:
>just shoot! this fujifilm is all you need to take great photos
>friday:
>5 best hasselblad X system lenses

>>4469836
stop lurking youtube so much then

>>4469839
That describes ken rockwell, most photographers blogs, and half the posters here as well
>yeah this compact is the best camera for a pleb like you now me i am important as you can see by this building corner i actually need to enjoy using my camera and get great image quality in wildly varying situations. you need to stop caring and only post on instagram. only serious photographers like me are allowed to notice and care.

>>4469836
You mean people that enjoy a variety of different cameras?

>>4469821
>dishonesty
>>4469830
>more dishonesty

/p/ wont get better unless people start being honest

>>4469845
I mean hypocrites with gear opinions that don’t match their gear.

I respect udunneedmoar coming from someone with a pentax k70 more than someone with a failjifool as a side camera to their fucking leicablad z9000.

>>4469848
>with gear opinions that don’t match their gear
Nothing you posted in the example is hypocritical
>I respect udunneedmoar coming from someone with a pentax k70
Well there's your problem, what a silly perspective

>And that friends is why the olympuji xf10iii is all you need.
>Cut! Thats a wrap
>get this garbage away from me. where’s my R5?

>>4469849
>i respect advice from people who follow their own advice but not people who say you can tow a trailer with a corolla but drive an f250 max power with complimentary truck nuts, glock and ar15
Yes.

>>4469849
Camera guys be like
>*hits joint* weed is bad for you

>>4469851
What advice are they not following?
>you can tow a trailer with a corolla
No one says that though, more dishonesty. If we're going to play that game, the people here say you can't get to a grocery store with a corolla, so you have to upgrade to a current year SUV.

>>4469853
>you can get to the grocery store with a corolla
>you drive a fucking WRX STI. if the corolla isnt worse where’s yours?
>SO? AM I WRONG? DISHONESTY.

>>4469830
Based and honest post. We would be better off without dishonest gearfagging like people defending the shitty autofocus of cameras they dont even use
>z50 is fine! yes i use a zf. so?

>>4469830
No one seems to know my actual opinions, or just comes up with weird half truths about them. You included.

>>4469855
Except it'd be more like I have both cars, and still choose to drive the corolla at least half the time, because I know it's fine for me 90% of the time. When people complain about issues with their driving, they should probably try to be a better driver before simply getting a new car.

>>4469852
I like weed. It has pros and cons, and I smoke everyday, but definitely isn't a great choice for everyone. That's how I usually describe cameras too, because I understand different people have different needs and preferences. I just want people to be honest when talking about them.

>>4469856
If people were honest and fair about the limitations of cameras, I'd have nothing to bother replying

>>4469858
>literally *hits joint* weed is bad for you
No wonder you’re retarded

Maybe people dont like corollas because trackday dudes sperging about corners aside they’re not very fun and cant pass shit on the highway?
Maybe people buy nicer cameras to worry less about fiddling and just take a high quality photo with a better made device?

Stop smoking pot for a year or two and you might realize why people dont like low end junk instead of going all "like chill maaaaaaaaan its just like a different experience like everything is coooool maaaaaaaaaan"

ffs fucking druggies

>coping fujislugs are potheads
pottery

>>4469858
mhmm would love to smoke a big fat blunt and then go out in nature with that M. Growing legal weed here in Germany made me buy a macro lens, lots of fun

>>4469858
I used to be like you, and looking at this picture I feel nothing but revulsion. You will feel the same way some day.

>smoke weed
>spend $10k on a manual focus only camera
>’sall good bruhhhh like, it takes pictures maaaan its a viiiiibe

>sober
>see $10k manual focus camera
>What kind of fucking idiot…

>>4469835
>implying he even uses a camera

>be wealthy person in wealthy nation
>spend $10k on a manual focus only camera

>be poorfag
>see $10k manual focus camera
>can't afford therefore need to insult others who can

poorfags being poor

>>4469858
>A fucking pothead is the shit gear simp that simultaneously overspends on bullshit cameras
/p/ in a nutshell. This is who is giving you advice. Someone who inhales smoke that makes him retarded. That explains the taking over 10,000 photos to shoot a wedding and all the shitty dog pictures.

>I smoke every day
POT DOES NOT WEAR OFF IN A FEW HOURS. It takes over a day to fully wear off and builds up in your system. You are always high. You are always retarded.

This website in a nutshell. You're getting advice from marijuana addicts. They fuck themselves over and think it's fine. Electric guitar is brought up often for having as much of the same shit as cameras (people who overspend on "mojo" and people who underspend on junk and claim its the superior choice "if you only do this") and it has huge appeal to people who smoke too much weed.

>>4469881
>Cue the "its not a lot of money to me" cope
It is a lot of money to you. You just have no sense of fiscal responsibility and can't plan for the future because you're a fucking pothead and you're probably planning on offing yourself instead of retiring. Fuck this site.

Enjoy your pothead advice retards

>>4469883
my future is all planed out anon, no worries. I'm not even the pothead you are referring to.
>being this butthurt that some people can afford nice things lmao

>>4469284
This is sad. Get a life dude.

>>4469883
>projecting this much
maybe dont get into photography if youre poor

>>4469809
>Name a better bang per buck full frame.
5D M3, 6D, 6D M2, 1DX, 1DX M2
D4, D750, D800, D810, D850
K1

*Pukes a little*
Also A7 III ->

>bro 10k for a toy is nothing because of my magic first world country powers
The saddest of larps besides my girlfriend goes to another school and my dad works at nintendo

it translates to "i have no kids and live worse than my career allows"

>>4469885
obviously he has a life because he doesnt live on /p/ desperately trying to keep people away from the brand thats #1 in full frame market share

>>4469889
lol nice try anon

>>4469712
>28-400
May as well use your phone or a mft camera. If you're willing you haul another kg or so you can bring a 100-400, the much better 105 and the 24-70 2.8 which can do double duty for astro. You can probably shave 2lbs off your base weight?

>>4469712
Bring this instead:
24-120
F mount f1.8 thingy
Skill

>>4469858
>pothead
>tons of wasted money on display
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3125637/
> Chronic marijuana users (MJ Users) perform poorly on the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT), a complex decision-making task in which monetary wins and losses guide strategy development.
> MJ Users are less sensitive to negative feedback during strategy development
pot makes you dumb. so dumb you dont register a material loss. when a pothead makes a financial mistake they dont go "SHIT! CHANGE COURSE!" they go "whatever, its like, an experience, dude".

you see most people on /p/ get kind of stressed at the notion of blowing four figures and finding out the camera they bought underperforms severely and they could have got the job done for half the money. its a really stressful idea for a normal person. so they call fuji shit and say a dslr or old sony is better (which is correct).
and then you go "like, every camera takes pictures man, its like, an experience, just roll with it" and post a comparison you made while high that puts fuji in a studio up against an ff auto mode snap

and now we know why

>>4469858
One day you will have to quit (maybe to maintain your rights or be employable) and you will look back and realize how badly you fucked up by taking up daily marijuana use. Once a week is medically defined as too often.

>>4469882
>>4469902
>>4469903
>>4469878
>>4469867
Found the newfags, welcome to /p/

>>4469905
Pot is objectively bad for you and cannabis legalization precipitated the mass shooting epidemic kicking into high gear as well as an uptrend in motor vehicle accidents

If you actively use cannabis you are a risk to yourself and others

>>4469883
My house is paid off, and I have a decent amount in savings & investments. I would absolutely stop smoking if it were a financial burden, just like I would sell most of my remaining gear, and never own a Leica, if it were a financial burden.
Even in this post I recommend most people don't smoke.
>>4469902
Yeah, maybe if they smoked it would help with their financial anxieties from being poor

>>4469906
>you are a risk to yourself and others
Yeah, a risk of having too much fun

>>4469908
No a risk of wrecking your life with impaired decision making and violent behavior. Read. Your poor decision making is on display here. Sober up and look at yourself.
Read the IGT study again. Without smoking pot. And now read these.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/may/8/connecting-dots-of-mass-shootings-to-marijuana-leg/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9462911/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40170208/
Throw your pot in the compost bin and get your life in order.

>>4469907
>what is opportunity cost?
(smoke pot and you’ll forget the answer and become insensitive to the concept for the rest of the week)

>>4469887
>Dslrosaurs and a snoy
Opinion disregarded.

>>4469909
It's okay, I do an hour of weightlifting to offset the bad of smoking

>>4469910
>opportunity cost
I did my undergrad in econ lol, didn't start smoking until after 25

>>4469913
And yet here you are with $12k next to pot just to produce the same jpegs as a $350 camera

You could be yielding 12% a day off crypto scams and it would be smarter than owning a soulless digital leica

>>4469914
What good is money if you don't have fun things to spend it on?
What camera will give me the same JPG's?

>>4469915
Nikon d610 and skill

>>4469900
I'll consider, would be nice to have those along.

>>4469901
? No I want to do macro. And birds. And potentially dangerous animals without having to get 120mm close to them.

>>4469911
>Doesn't know mirrorless cameras sacrifice image quality for cost cutting practices.
Nigger opinions are worthless.

>>4469928
And better low light performance! It is what the people wanted!

>>4469914
>Average /p/ is a schizo essay writing poorfag that bought NFTs
It all makes sense now

Rumors about the usual social media influencers having been flown out to Japan. Canon R6MK3 coming up?

>>4469276 (OP)
I wish Sigma would make something normal. What is this? It looks like it will give me arthritis. The display panel on the back is a nice touch, thoughever. It seems to take inspiration from Hasselblad's body designs.
>No EVF.
I just don't get it. Who wants to stare at a screen?

>>4469942
No, comparing it to Hasselblad is too generous. It looks more like they studied white goods manufacturers like Fisher-Paykell.
>SHAMEFUR DISPRAY!

>>4469942
Maybe it could be comfortable to hold with that textured frontside.
>$3995AU
Hmm...
>No, I don't think I will.

> Had my camera for a while with just the motorized kit zoom.
> It is relatively small and goes back to last selected focal length when the camera turns on.
> Think all zooms are like this.
> Get a longer zoom.
> Its advertised size is at the shortest focal length.
> At the useful focal length it becomes a foot long dildo.
> No longer fits in the bag. Uncomfortable to carry around.
> Have to manually extend and fold it all the time.
Fuck it, my next lens is a prime.

>>4469942
>No EVF.
>I just don't get it. Who wants to stare at a screen?
Are you implying EVF's aren't screens?
It's literally the same thing.

>>4469942
>Who wants to stare at a screen?
Go on any Instagram modern camera post and the zoom zooms and boomers are constantly arguing over vf vs screen. Zoomeis hardly use the vf because it just isn’t a thing they ever grew up or were conditioned to use. Their frame of reference is using a phone. It’s quite fascinating really

>>4469955
Another anon. I thought I didn't want an EVF, but then I went out of the house once and now I do.

>>4469942
This is your EVF.

>>4469950
Now this is A grade autism

>>4469855
>>4469867

I drive a Corolla to the store and the WRX STI for fun because the Corolla gets double the gas mileage and doesn't care if I redline it while it's still cold if it even warms up for that short trip

The closer equivalent is a militant $5,000 Miata owner coping and getting all sour grapes about why he can't afford a new $70,000 sports car.
There's nothing wrong with accepting you can't afford a better camera or don't want to spend the money. /p/ is a gearfag hobby, just the gear costs less than other hobbies. >>4469858 has more money than you and that's perfectly okay. It's like the workers at B&H walking past me with Leicas on their hips while my homeless looking ass is fingerfucking cameras with a $400 K70 off my neck. I made $150k last year and I'm either buying a $15,000 GC/GD WRX STI or a 5.0 Mustang this year...I'm comfortable dropping $2500 on coilovers while I would audibly cringe if I dropped that amount on a camera or lens...my most expensive kit is my $900 K1ii I sold my Pentax KF for. I could afford a $70,000 sports car but then I couldn't save for a house or have any disposable income.

>>4469911
>DSLRosaurs

Got me to smile

>>4469955
They are amateurs and as such they feel like they don't need it. They certainly have no intention of developing their skills, they just want the "nice" photos they've seen on tiktok. The G7X II and III are perfect examples of just how stupid they are. The sensor in those cameras can be found in several models and what little differentiate them is not worth the additional cost which can be over the double. The G5X for instance which has an EVF I've seen locally for as little as $250 and still be slow to move. The G5X II which has a pop-up viewfinder and thus should be less intimidating is going for less than the G7X III even though they were released at the same time and the G5XII having a higher retail price. Same story with the EOS-M cameras.. viewfinder = scary.

I dreamt of LUMIX S 135mm f1.8.
It was a great lens.

>>4469942
I actually really like the BF, just as a second camera for having fun. Really all they gotta do is make a BF with an EVF and shutter and I'd be on L mount. I will stick with my APS-C DSLR until then.

>>4469962
Please explain how an EVF is not analogous to a screen.

>>4469823
I will bite - why exactly would mirrorless be better? I mostly use camera at events and in low light conditions. I'm rather concerned with reported very small battery capacity in case of mirrorless and it's not really rare for me to shoot 2-3k photos at single concert or similar stage performance.

>>4470004
>at events and in low light conditions
for one, the evf will show you how your settings expose the sensor instead of how your eyes have adapted to the dark

>>4470004
Rough rule is you need 3x as many batteries with a mirrorless compared to a DSLR.

The only reason to get a mirrorless camera is for video and high speed tracking autofocus.

>>4470017
As well as being smaller, lighter, better lenses, faster shooting, the EVF. The only advantage DSLRs have is they're cheap and have better battery life.

>>4470018
Woah, trvth nook.
The hyllics on /p/ will not let this crime of a statement go unabaited. OVF is clearly at least 70% more sovl and better for anything because who would use an electronic screen to view the world? That's obviously just as bad as sitting at home with google street view you mindless sheeple buying new hardware.
My personal estimate is no fewer than four anons will now tell you how EVFs are inferior and how you've basically killed photography by letting this spooky demon into the market share.

>>4470018
>being smaller
Yes, not always a good thing, ergonomics are noticeably worse on mirrorless cameras, but size is good for some things, buy a Insta360 or use your phone, or are you some sort of girly hands fag?
>lighter
Plastic is lighter than magnesium, it's also less durable.
>better lenses
False, cost cutting plastic lenses are not better. Canon EF L series lenses as an example are vastly superior to RF lenses.
>faster shooting
If the camera is in sleep mode the DSLR is SIGNIFICANTLY faster if you need to get a shot real quick, the mirrorless can shoot pictures at a quicker rate, but why would you do that if you can just shoot a video instead?
>the EVF
Just use the fucking liveview screen you retard, whats the fucking difference?
OVF is a lot faster, no delay and you get information you can't get through the screen.

Mirrorless cameras are video cameras with a almost good enough photography afterthought.
DSLR's are photography cameras with a almost good enough video afterthought.

>>4470004
As >>4470010 says, you get your exposure as recorded by the sensor, directly trough the EVF, it makes adjustments much much simpler.
>>4470019
I saw a live specimen of this type of schizos once at the mall, the dude was desperately looking for a DSLR.

>>4470023
>Yes, not always a good thing, ergonomics are noticeably worse on mirrorless cameras, but size is good for some things, buy a Insta360 or use your phone, or are you some sort of girly hands fag?
cope
>Plastic is lighter than magnesium, it's also less durable.
cope (pro FF bodies are still made of magnesium, but that's not the point, try to hammer a nail with your boomer box and see if the delicate mirror still works.
>False, cost cutting plastic lenses are not better. Canon EF L series lenses as an example are vastly superior to RF lenses.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1197&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=1417&CameraComp=1508&SampleComhttps://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=979&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1415&CameraComp=1508&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0p=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0
>If the camera is in sleep mode the DSLR is SIGNIFICANTLY faster if you need to get a shot real quick, the mirrorless can shoot pictures at a quicker rate, but why would you do that if you can just shoot a video instead?
C O P E
>Just use the fucking liveview screen you retard, whats the fucking difference?
t.streetfag (explains a lot really)
>Mirrorless cameras are video cameras with a almost good enough photography afterthought.
>DSLR's are photography cameras with a almost good enough video afterthought.
no

>>4469918
>Nikon d610
Can't crop like the M11. Much less dynamic range and lenses that can't at all compete with Leica glass. Nice try though

>>4469942
>I just don't get it. Who wants to stare at a screen?
I rarely use my evf for several reasons: I shoot mostly from hip or chest level because I'm not a manlet. For landscapes where I could use the EVF it is more difficult to compose and get the horizon even. That leaves me to very bright days with direct sunlight where I can't see shit on the screen. The only usecase where I use the evf but I would trade it for a smaller, lighter body

>>4470004
You know you can still get 2-3k shots on a single mirrorless battery right?
>>4469949
That's why internal zoom/focus lenses are dope
>>4469980
I also worked at camera shops for many years, so most of my gear purchased is with the vendor employees discounts

>>4470025
You're the one coping, poorfag can't afford a real camera along with his little toy video camera.

>>4470028
>You know you can still get 2-3k shots on a single mirrorless battery right?
No you don't you get about 400-500 shots or so on one battery.

>>4470031
I can get 500+ shots on single battery with my R8, and it's battery cucked.

>>4470030
take a family photo faggot, lets see those Hasselblads you undoubtedly have stashed up your own ass right next to your head.
>>4470031
factually untrue, those retarded rated shots measures are totally out of touch with reality, even on an R5mkII I fill up a 128GB card before I'm at 1 bar on the battery, the R7 has easily twice the autonomy, if you need more than that then bring a fucking spare, its not that hard. If you're out shooting all day, a spare battery may be justifiable but if you're just a tourist, then you 100% will not need a spare battery.

>>4470032
You can probably take more if you're shooting them within a short timeframe, but if you're up all night or at a wedding the shot information is relatively accurate.

i got a nikon d5000 at a yard sale for like 5 bucks a while ago and forgot that it was missing the lens, are those things really 1-200 fucking dollars and do those "telephoto" things that are like 10 actually work as a normal lens
i'm not a photographer or need turbo autist quality i've just never had a camera that wasn't shit and this one was cheap

>>4470023
>Mirrorless cameras are video cameras with a almost good enough photography afterthought.
>DSLR's are photography cameras with a almost good enough video afterthought.

That's pretty much I'm afraid of. I mean, I don't care at all, completely at all about video performance. I use my D750 for various tasks but things like architecture/tourism use is rare for me, portrait more but truly demanding are those events - it's not rare for me to shoot at 1/320 with iso 3200 or 6400, for example, this also demands quick and precise AF. Weight is not a concern either since I assume that with those grips for solving battery problem (no, I won't risk having to replace battery multiple times during performance) and converter for lens mount (since I won't be buying new, more expensive lenses when old ones works properly), it will weight similarly. Meanwhile when I check Nikon mirrorless on cameradecision, I see rather confusing informations like Z7 having somehow worse low light AF than Z6 and lacking various functions D850 have. I do not cross off mirrorless solely because of that, I'm simply trying to figure out proper tool for what I intend to use camera for.

>>4470031
I get +1k on most mirrorless I use. The CIPA ratings are effectively for screen time, not shots.
>>4470035
For weddings I usually get around 1.5-2k per battery, or 2-3 batteries for an 8-10hr wedding.
>>4470039
If you have no lens, look into the 18-200 as a general purpose option
>>4470041
Modern mirrorless lowlight AF is much better, especially if you shoot people
Z7 does have worse lowlight AF than a Z6, shouldn't be surprising, same as D750 vs D810 and many other examt, but if lowlight AF is a priority, you should be looking Z5II

>>4470042
>18-200
thanks but
>search that
>a bunch of different brands
>they're all 100+ dollars
i'm a poorfag but wtf it's just some glass
guess i'll continue using my cybershit

>>4470004
>I mostly use camera at events and in low light conditions
All the more reasons to switch. Newer sensor means better better ISO performance and with little light they tend to autofocus better than DSLRs. Canon has an 800mm f/11 lens now, you would never be able to use autofocus with a lens like that on DSLRs, but mirrorless bodies handle it fine.

>>4470023
>you get information you can't get through the screen
if it's not on the screen, it's not on the raw

>>4470035
3+ hours of shooting, ~490 pictures, and the battery was still above 50%

>>4470048
Exactly.
You may not know your settings are wrong without a OVF, you remove a crucial element, reality.

It's not a big deal in cinema cameras where everything is hypercontrolled, checked and doublechecked before the camera is even turned on.

>>4470051
You could have bought a Pentax 645Z for the same price as your entry level AI slop camera Sergei.

>>4470023
>ergonomics are noticeably worse on mirrorless cameras
Ergonomics beyond "could even trump reach this without shifting his grip? quickly go from everyone has the same hands to "but I don't have arthritis". Canon, and DSLRs, exemplify this. They are either designed for arthritic people, or for soulless, non-artistic snapshitters who have a 24-70 f2.8/70-200 f2.8 and speedlite attached 24/7 and walk around like that all day. AKA the paparazzi. No one gives a fuck about those "photographers". Cameras got worse ~for them~ because everyone fucking hates them.
>Plastic is lighter than magnesium, it's also less durable.
The good news is mirrorless actually have a better magnesium/plastic ratio than DSLRs, and use the magnesium where it aids durability instead of denting (the frame) and plastic for shells, which really matters for lenses because having a plastic coating over a metal frame results in superior shock absorption and lower chances of decentering upon impact.
>If the camera is in sleep mode...
Paparazzi shit. This doesn't matter to real photographers. Even wedding candids aren't affected by this weirdly specific scenario.
>Just use the fucking liveview screen you retard, whats the fucking difference?
3 point holds are stable/sun glare.
>OVF is a lot faster, no delay and you get information you can't get through the screen.
OVF is a lot dimmer. OVFs have <40% focus point coverage and literally can not take certain photos. OVF gives no additional information that is relevant to the end result.
It also comes with mirror shock. and focus inaccuracy, due to the combination of imaging and focusing being on 2 different planes, and the lens being focused wide open and shot stopped down.
And it ALSO comes with inferior lens design. The mirror box occupies space that lens designers require to correct most designs. This is the sole reason leica stayed in business! Most non-hueg SLR lenses are very soft until f4. Great as an option. Shit as a default.

>>4470056
>Pentax 645Z
I'm not buying a 10 year-old brick, thank you
>Sergei
Also it's Ivan from Bulgaria, fuck the ruzzkies

>>4470056
>it's the retarded schizo that thinks mirrorless are running AI, and he confirmed it by comparing the AA filters on dpreview

>>4470061
Zooms also got a lot better

On SLRs, any zoom that starts under 70mm can not be sharp all the way through. It is not optically possible. It will always underperform even shitty primes even at f8. Even today 24-70 f2.8s struggle with bokeh rendering. It's a difficult range because a 24mm lens has to be very close to the sensor, or a complex retrofocus design.

On mirrorless, nikon's 24-120 f4 kit zoom is as sharp as or sharper than EVERY. SINGLE. F. MOUNT. PRIME. And it's the fucking kit lens! Tamron makes a budget 35-150 f2-2.8. Sony sells a fucking 20-70 f4. This would all be literally impossible on a DSLR unless it was purple haze to f5.6 and always smeared so badly on the edges that group portraits without deep cropping would be inadvisable. Even low budget lenses like the nikon 40mm f2 were never possible on SLRs. The SLR version of that lens would be 2 inches longer and more complex to attempt to achieve the same performance. The 40mm f2 performs at and above the standard of the majority of leica M mount primes.

Removing the mirror box does great things for what actually matters in photography (rendering a good image). There is a good fucking reason the majority of significant photography was shot on leicas for 100 years, and SLRs were confined to studio shots at f8-f16. It's because SLRs are the antithesis of sharp photographs, AND the antithesis of pleasing blur. They only have weird smeary, glassy multicolored optical blur when a leica lens or mirrorless lens has glow.

>>4470064
>Muh sharpness
Ok now we know you're fucking coping, everyone knows your DLSS sharpening filter ruins pictures KYS boomer.

>>4470064
>When room temperature IQ thinks he has the good shit but in reality has trash and trash taste.
Nice try.

>>4470067
>post is about lenses
>n-no it's an AI digital filter the lenses could not possibly be superior
the lenses are superior

i dont think you appreciate how much the lens mount matters.

leica stayed in business with buggy manual focus cameras entirely because a short flange distance enables superior lens design. if DSLRs were outright better no one would have bought a leica ever. leica would not have retained fanboys. they would have been as dead as zenza bronicas for simply not producing the results. but leica had staying power because their shorter mount let them make sharp lenses with pleasing rendering and glow instead of having a divide between clinical overcorrection and blurry shit.

canon stayed in business despite making awful sensors and unreliable, buggy cameras relative to others entirely because they had a shorter and wider mount than nikon and could make better lenses

sony is slowly ceding their #1 position to nikon... entirely because their narrow lens mount prevents them from staying competitive with RF, Z, and L mount lenses *and* prevents them from actually getting ibis to perform to its rating in any scenario but CIPA's vibrating test table, and IBIS is huge. it's the replacement for OIS at focal lengths <200mm and makes lenses simpler, smaller, and more reliable.

>Take a series of 100 pics with the electronic shutter
>Check out the first raw file and the last raw file on a shutter count website (tried multiple sites, same results)
>mechanical shutter count does a +100
What is this fucking sorcery, it should be +0

>>4470072
Stop spreading false information in an attempt to make mirrorless cameras seem better than they are.
The distance between the sensor and the lens has no impact on sharpness or image quality.

>>4470023
>Being smaller not always a good thing
You can always add a grip or a half-case, but you can't make shit smaller than it comes out the factory as. I put a half-case on my R8 when using my turbonerd teles and it's perfect.
>Lighter means plastic, means bad. Metal good
Engineering plastic is not far off the durability of metal and saves significant weight, but it's also way cheaper to use plastic versus metal. Prices are already overinflated as is.
>EF L lenses are superior to RF lenses
RF consumer lenses? Absolutely, and I agree hands down since there's rough parity of prices between EF L versions vs RF consumer, but RF L lenses beat the shit out of both (rightly so)
>DSLRs are faster out of sleep mode
What the fuck kind of poor-man's cameras are you buying? My R8 goes from sleep to shooting in like 0.8 seconds.
>EVF makes no sense to use blah blah
There additional features of an EVF are fuckin' great. The resolution and shading from the sun are already differences enough to use it over the screen.

>>4470032
I get about the same, but I've had days where I get 700-800 so long as I stay out of the menus. If I'm constantly changing shit it's more like 150-400. Registering C1/C2 to a couple of common setting swaps is handy for this.

>>4470079
You are either trolling or missing the point, but you should know lots of macro lenses do really poorly with extension actually, especially ones that have floating elements. Something to be aware of.

>>4470082
Any lens made has a optimal distance metric, but the distance a lens is from the sensor has no impact on the sharpness of the lens or the picture taken, if that was the case then phone pictures would be the sharpest pictures.

I'm sorry to even ask this question about replacement camera. I will stay on my D750 until it breaks (it's currently at 1/3 of expected shutter life so I'm probably panicking).

>>4470079
>flange distance doesn't impact lens design options ever

>>4470073
Electronic shutter is a real shutter you bigot.

>>4470079
>100mm macro/enlarging lens doesnt need elements right at the sensor
and neither do telephoto zooms or UWA zooms!

but everything <50mm and most general purpose zooms do which is why leicas dominated most photography long after the invention of slrs and through the dslr era, because most good photographs are taken between 24mm and 85mm, and mount design has a lot of influence on how good those lenses can be without going full snoy gay master

>>4470090
>leicas dominated most photography
I don't think I've ever seen a leica be used for a good photography ever.
Leica is what old boomers use their money on to make sure nothing will be inherited by their children, including the worthless camera that takes ugly sony pictures.

>>4470093
>sony hate schizo has yet another npc dimwit take

Could someone recommend a body for someone wanting to dabble in the hobby after being gone for awhile?
I was using a Nikon D300. I wouldn't mind spending $100-300 for another used DSLR

>>4470106
5D Mark II / 6D sort of territory

>>4470106
Keep the camera, buy a new lens or 2 instead. The 35mm f/1.8 dx lens is great and there are cheap dx teles too. Only get a new camera once you've taken enough photos to know what kinds of photos you want. (You might want to save up a little more too.)

>>4470108
>Keep the camera
I lost it years ago. It was 'good enough' for me and I wouldn't mind getting another D300 with a low shutter count. They're about $140 on ebay. For a bit more, I was entertaining something like a D610 or D700. I still have a few lenses.
>>4470107
Thanks, I'll take a look. I had a Cannon in high school photography class and during college when I had a dark room at the house.

>>4470109
Ah sad. Yeah DX is super underpriced still, but it may be worth just going full frame if starting from scratch. Have fun!

Sony sisters, what went wrong?

>>4470119
they got popular with real artists and real artists dont care about megapixels and other brand fanboy cock measuring things

now even annie leibovitz is using a sony and fuji fags are counting megapixels and pixel peeping their corners. bizarro world.

>>4470133
Names of these real artists?

>>4470119
>>4470133
It's not that people don't care, it's just not everyone needs or wants it and for those that do there are the R bodies. Also just because it's the same resolution doesn't mean it's the same sensor, and even if it is there are still other things that could be improved on. People forget that they're not forced to upgrade to every new body and they don't have to be improved in every single way. There will be people coming from the II and III, or older R bodies, or even other systems altogether.

>>4470119
>we need a new one?
> what do you mean why, we just do, OK?!

>>4470119
>Sir here is your """upgrade"""
>What do you mean the price is $1000 more expensive and there's no perceptible difference?
>It has the number 5 printed on the side
>Oh my hecking whhaaaat!! This changes everything!! Shut up and take my money!!! Number 1 in the world!!

>>4470106
T6i.

>>4470149
Cannon EOS 5DS?

>>4469276 (OP)
buys SNOY, complains about failed shutter. many such cases.

>>4470146
>everything is megapixels
In that case just buy an a7iv for even cheaper. Why do you need the new one?

Snoy’s critics are so stupid entitled gearfaggy and soulless, I’m starting to think they are actually snoy’s users whining about how their camera’s specs aren’t perfect enough. I refuse to believe canon/nikon users are this childish and retarded. Why else would they care so much about snoy pancakes?
>Nikon user: my camera cant do XYZ… but, that doesnt matter! if i cared i wouldn’t have bought it.
>Sony user: SNOY DOESNT DO EXACTLY WHAT I WANT ITS SHIT THE WORLD IS ENDING FUCK SNOY

>>4470169
Ohnonono

>>4470169
>using a Sony camera for any sort of professional paid work
deserved desu

>>4470176
Snoys fanboys have a sense of needing to have the best product on the market so when snoy fails to release a technological wonder and make the perfect lens for it they feel betrayed and turn into snoys biggest critica

One of the major snoy schizos here sent a product markup to sony and sonyalpharumors, got a "fuck off" from snoy, and had a months long meltdown about how snoy was going to go out of business if they didn’t make his dream lens and no one should buy a snoy until they do. Yes. Really. That is the midnset of a snoyboy.

And all this company does is make mediocre cameras that make up for it by being more compact and having more access to cheap china lenses. That’s it! That’s what these deranged gearfags have latched on to.

>>4470181
>t. Snoy fanboy still feeling betrayed over a single bad batch of cameras 8 years ago
You don’t see nikkors being this salty over all the shutter failures and peeling grips from over a decade ago, or pentaxians still reeling from the aperture block thing

Man, Sony has the most autistic shills

>>4470119
1DX Mark III has 20 megapixels and takes some of the best pictures.

>>4470151
Those cost a lot more than 100-300

>>4470184
The fact that you spelled it Sony and my brain went, "wait that's not how you spell snoy" might mean I've even more autistic.
>t. canon shill

>>4470183
>8 years ago
Looks like an a7IV in OPs webm which came out 4 years ago, not 8.

>nooo, the Fuji GFX100RF is overpriced
>just get the Leica Q3 43 , it's better and for about the same price!

In some cases, Like New / Mint six month old GFX100RF's are being sold for like half the price of a Q3 43, which often come in much rougher condition.

Where are these people claiming they are in the same price range even coming from? do they not have access to KEH or Ebay to check for themselves?

>>4470301
its paid shills. fuji and leica digital cameras are quite unpopular outside the astroturfed and influencer’s internet.

>>4470197
every ff milc that uses the shutter as a dust cover is prone to doing this hence the r6ii pic. dust in the shutter accelerates shutter wear and touch it once = it WILL explode later.

turn the shutter closed when off thing OFF if your camera offers it

also beware of internet cherry picking. if you only use 4chan which you probably do, actual shills here samefag and basically live here to try and create false narratives. if just one person buys the recommended product its a bigger payout than the amount of money it took to run pajeet supervised ai chatbots. and to make it worse there are people who shill for brands… for free.

>>4470312
>shutter as dust cover
this is so fucking retarded. nikon never bought into this meme. and if nikon thinks it's a dumb idea then it is a dumb idea. you can say about nikon what you want but their cams are indestructable tanks

Have KEH and MPB always been out of touch with their used pricing? Trying to find a used Fuji X-H2 seems impossible.
>$1650+/- MPB & KEH
>$1300+/- sold listings on reddit or fb groups
>$1977 new with some discounts
Can someone redpill me on anything comparable? Sold my GFX50SII a few years back and I'm looking to get back in.

>>4470329
stupid cameras for idiots have stupid prices for idiots, prices that rival the cost of serious professional equipment. if you cant find something for under $1500 either its hyper specific top shelf professionals-only gear like a medium format rig, brand new sports photography camera, high speed video camera, cinema camera, etc

or it’s for idiots

and a ff sized aps-c with a blurry cfa and fuji grade programming and engineering is definitely none of those. also see: leica.

note: non-professionals buying the aforementioned also count as idiots
if somehow a <$1500 camera like a z7ii or z6ii r6ii or r5 or r7 or xt5 or a7(r)iii or a7c does not satisfy you, for fun and even gigs you are fucking broken

>>4470329
In niche markets plagued by irrational gear queers like digital cameras, star wars dolls, etc supply and demand can reverse on itself. Low supply and low demand together raise prices. No one bought that scamera and no one wants that scamera so the price goes up to cover the lack of inventory movement, so when it finally sells (and some hipster/brand fanboy will buy someday) at least they get more money. It goes like this until there is only one for sale and half a customer, and the price is sky high. Consider it the free market’s way of telling you to get something else.

I don't have a digital camera.
Is it stupid to want to get a 5DMkII? They're cheap and they were good enough for TV n movies n shit, will I be missing anything super important like compatibility with newer lenses?

>>4470350
it was great for professionals used to working with slide film but it has zero exposure latitude and struggles with taking photos in the dark even with long exposures

get a nikon like a d610 or d800 for a more negative film like experience with the proper 14 stops of dr

If teleconverters magnify the center, does that mean you don't have to stop down to get a sharper image since it isn't using the whole area of the lens, like if it were stopped down?

>>4470350
I got one cheap, takes nice photos, low light is not great as >>4470351 said but for less than $ 200 to try out digital photography it’s a great deal even if you cheap out in a 50mm f 1.8 and you’ll get your money back if you don’t like it

>>4470322
>this is so fucking retarded
Seriously, what was Sony thinking?

>>4470329
The KEH + MPB pricing is probably taking into consideration the increase in new prices over the last few months because of the tariffs. +$200 new = more room to raise used prices.
I went 50r to Zf, but do love my X-H2s, solid body and held up well under lots of rain. I do miss the 40mp sensor from when I sold my T5 though, it's probably my favorite aps-c sensor for stills. It's good enough for pro fashion shooting, so probably good enough for you.
>>4470350
If you want to do video, something more modern will have a lot of benefits. It was a great camera for it's time though. Forums used to be all about 5D2 vs D700 back in the day.
>>4470322
Not actual shutter, but Nikon does make use of a sensor shield.

This is my sensor, the photo was taken against a white paper sheet on minimum ISO, maximum aperture with nearest possible manual focus

The circular things are some spots on my sensor
Is this clean enough, or should I wet clean it?
I ask because I already wet cleaned my sensor twice and it always left some spots like that anyway, so I think it's impossible to get rid of all of the spots, and this is a pretty minimal amount from my previous experiences, so I'm thinking I shouldn't clean it at all
What do you think?

>>4470375
pro fashion shooting can be done with an all manual film camera that tops out at 1/250s and its still not a high bar to meet because its product photography. why does /p/ idolize magazine cover photographers? because real art is confusing and scary?

real artists dont waste money on fuji crap. peep trevor wisecup’s loadout and learn.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=7Llr0p9DmQc

>>4470381
No point in arguing with his dumb takes. The fuji shill’s a pothead. He could spend $50k on a candy bar and "chill out about it bruh". The very concept of wasted money does not exist in the pothead brain… and that’s a scientific fact.

>>4470381
>real artists
>trevor kikecuck
3/10 made me reply

>>4470381
>why does /p/ idolize magazine cover photographers?
Because it's an easy example of work done at a professional level using this specific camera. If a camera is good enough for a pro fashion shooter to use consistently, should give some food for thought that it's probably good enough for most of us here.
You are very right that you can do lots of photography with lots of different cameras, if only we celebrated and enjoyed the variety of cameras that Trevor does. You should try learning that from him if you are really a fan.
>>4470380
If you see spots come up in photos you take, with apertures you normally use, you should clean it. It's possible those spots are under the sensor cover glass, so wet cleaning wont do anything anyways.

>>4470385
>If you see spots come up in photos you take, with apertures you normally use, you should clean it

I think I don't, but I'm going on a trip abroad tomorrow so I'm cleaning my gear
But I will skip cleaning the sensor then

>>4470383
When talking Fuji here, years ago I ALWAYS used to caveat with
>Fuji isn't a good fit for most people, Fuji isn't a good choice if performance per $ is your prirority
>Film sims overrated, X100/XPro not worth it at all if not using the OVF, etc
But being honest about the limitations never mattered for people like you.
Any positivity about the system, any at all, and even with shitting on it pre-emptively, is always met with the Fuji derangement syndrome posters
Your hate only makes me more evangelical about the brand. If you were honest about your criticisms, and willing to live in a shared reality, I wouldn't respond to half as much shit, so keep it up

>>4470385
Nah. We should hold companies to standards instead of rolling over like cucks and calling worse products "diverse experiences". Trevor uses cheap and unique stuff not the newest $1699 wormtrans experience. But you’re a fucking pothead. Brainless junkies like you can’t stand up for themselves or care about anything. What good is talking sense with a senseless drug addict?

>>4470389
>But you’re a fucking pothead.
A pothead that takes more photos than you
>What good is talking sense with a senseless drug addict?
Idk, why do you guys keep bringing me up?

>>4470388
>be like, positive man
>this log of shit is really smooth and well formed
Shut up shaggy. Fuji charges brand new FF nikon money for micro four thirds everything else mixed with sony build quality. And that isn’t okay. These things cost a large amount of money for anyone and should be held to standards instead of written off as "experiences".

I wouldn’t expect a pothead to be capable of grappling with a concept like this. You already pay a drug dealer to make your life incrementally worse. Why not expand that to everything else?

>>4470090
>everything <50mm and most general purpose zooms need elements right at the sensor
to be fair, they don't need to be right at the sensor, that's what retrofocus designs were invented for
but allowing for close elements does make those lenses easier to design while correcting aberrations to modern standards

>>4470375
>It's good enough for pro fashion shooting, so probably good enough for you.
I did a lot of product photography, it was my bread and butter. I liked the balance of the GFX50SII having 50MP. Time spent on focus stacking wasn't terrible.
I have a passion project that I want to pick back up that *really* depends on being able to see small details while printing. I have several big prints with an A7 II, X-T4, but I can kind of see the difference between them and the GFX. I'm thinking the X-H2 at 40MP will be enough. I've also been considering a GFX100S, but I'm not trying to blow my whole wad on 1 body 1 lens.

Riddle me this, /gear/fags
Why does it bother you when someone enjoys a brand of gear that you don't personally shill for?

>>4470416
For me it’s the apple problem. If it gets popular enough everyone else tries to copy the shit and it’s worse for everyone (see removing headphone jacks). Campaign against it while you can.

>>4470041
if you need great AF in low light event settings just use a DSLR since it can actually utilize IR assist beams

>>4470412
fuji 40mp performs on par with bayer 24mp but it crashes out at iso 1600, has worms, and is bigger and blurrier. also tje autofocus will fuck up on a static subject.

for weird technical reasons this is true unless you buy the sharpest oversized pixel peeper lens ever and stick to test charts and basically monochrome objects

have you considered the z7ii? it can get superior detail capture even with mediocre lenses like the 24-70 f4 (bigger pixels than 40mp foolji)

>>4470444
Nah I think I'll get the Fuji

>>4470041
Photography on mirrorless is better than DSLRs and as good as using a real film camera.

>>4470417
It’s already happening but mostly just fujis dumbest ideas none of us care about. no one is going to purposefully use xtrans lol.

>>4470445
dont say you weren’t warned. even the loser druggie fuji shill has admitted to this. 24mp ff ~= 40mp wormtrans on real world subjects.

>>4470448
>even the loser druggie fuji shill has admitted to this.
stop making up shit you schizo

>>4470449
Making shit up is the bread and butter of anti-shills

>>4470448
>dont say you weren’t warned
I've used the x-t4 for pro photos and video as well as the gfx, and even x100vi for pro photos. Never had a single instance of worming. I also don't use lightroom. idk why i'd ask for honest advice here. a lot of you guys are just childish.

>>4470453
>don’t say you werent wormed
>says he was never wormed
This guy got wormed

>>4470454
Maybe he was craving the worm.

>>4470457
they call him Muad'dib

Are there any decent non Canon EF teleconverters?

>>4470388
Who is it a good fit for? I wanted an x-pro back in the day, and now that there’s all this hype I still want one, but it feels sillier to de-prioritize performance/dollar that hard. I learned on film cameras my dad had, and I just don’t click with the new form factors.
>>4470392
Yeah, the zf is almost undoubtedly a better option for what I want to do, with the exception being that the lenses are so goddamn big. I understand, corrected optics, blah blah blah, but I think it’s ridiculous that every z lens is this travel mug sized bazooka.

Micro 43 obviously does even better in terms of size/weight etc, but going even smaller than aps-c just seems like a mistake.

>>4470482
fuji is good for hobbyists imo. i might have replied to you in the last gear thread, but i think the only stuff xpro has an advantage in is street and event or documentary-type stuff. ovf is very nice in low light because it lets you see everything clearly without having to wait for evf lag. and it's very pleasant in general.
what you should keep in mind is every camera and system makes compromises. as you say, the zf makes prettier photos and has some practical advantages, but at a penalty to portability. the best way to figure out which compromises you prefer is to get your hands on everything you are remotely interested in and shoot it. until you actually see firsthand, you will always wonder if maybe that other system would have been just that little bit more satisfying.
for me, i started out on fuji years ago simply because i liked how the camera looked and saw from sample photos that it was more than capable for what i was doing. at present i've stuck with fuji for my digital system because it does what i want and i still find everyone else's cameras larger than i need, homely, or in the case of leica, lack the autofocus and flexibility which is one of the great conveniences of using digital.
de-prioritizing performance is only silly if you personally prioritize performance. unless you are shooting for money, don't concern yourself with the preferences of others, much less internet strangers. autists here will spam endlessly about performance:cost but in truth, most people here will never hit the limits of their system and most differences between modern cameras are small to negligible. for me and many others, there are a hundred setups that would meet my functional requirements, and all that remains is to choose my favorite form. money is a very powerful resource, but for me it is trumped by time. i do not care to waste my limited time on earth using forms which do not please me when a more beautiful form also does the job.
tldr just shoot

Hmm, sell the R5 for profit and keep the R7, or keep the R5 and sell the R7. Something to ponder.

>>4470691
>owns flagship product that is basically the best thing you get from that company
>wants to sell it for a cope sensor birding getup
wut

This must have been asked plenty of times but what's a Rebel T7 upgrade for around 600 eurodollar
I like to be discrete about taking pictures so something compact would be nice
I also like taking pictures at night

>>4470106
D600 is the only "professional" full frame you can have for about 200.
You may luck out and find a decent D800 at 300.

>>4470693
>DSLR?
70/80/90D
>Full Frame?
6DII or 5DIV
>But I want muh mirrorless
RP for full frame and R10 for aps-c
Don't buy new it's a trap. Go onto ebay and find something lightly used for a 20% discount off new or hunt for auctions

>>4470695
Eh in the end I decided against upgrading for the time being, I can't get any good used deals in my cunt
I'll get a cheap EF-S 24mm f/2.8 pancake lens instead and cope until I can get myself something really decent, or maybe this is all I really need

why skin tones on sony cameras look so gray and waxy? or is that because how lightroom treats sony raw?

Is the Olympus EM-1 MkII really worth twice as much as the first one?

>>4470742
yes its lightroom. the problem is common to fuji which is why fuji people think editing takes forever.
sony is so aware of their bad lightroom support they have official presets
https://alphauniverse.com/resources/lightroom-presets/
https://alphauniverse.com/resources/presets-by-monaris/
just keep trying presets until you find one you like for your camera+lens and be glad free ones are common.

>>4470752
fuck no. dont blow more than $250 on an mfturd.

>>4469285
>>4469286
>>4469287
All me btw. :)

>>4470764
I'm not american, I can't even get an E-M1 Mk1 for less than 300€ and any of the "budget" cameras people recommend here are way pricier (used btw) than what's suggested. My only option is to buy from random "japanese" sellers on ebay and get raped silly by customs.

>>4470766
street price is (much) lower than ebay, where do you live if you have no local market? penguin island?

>>4470767
I live in a shithole where people don't treat their stuff properly and overcharge for everything they see that's not readily available. I'm done with that shit after years of having terrible luck with the locals.

>>4470770
Sounds rough, for me in europe the real price that I buy and sell stuff is like 50-75% of the price on mpb.com

>>4470765
>only snoy owner on /p/
>gets mad when people tell the truth

Sony has that thick sensor, but if you only use sony lenses is should be ok?

>>4470777
You caught me. Cards on the table. It's me. I am the one snoy owner, actually in the entire world. Nothing pains me more than the good denizens of /p/ having wrong opinions so I try to show them and everyone else on the planet the light, even if that require I employ subterfuge.

i love gear bros

>>4470787
>loving bros
Why are you gay?

Looking at some chinesium ultra fast lenses at the moment as I want to film the night sky, not timelapse photography. Any suggestions? Canon RF.

>>4470502
Thanks man, and yeah, you wrote to me before.
I’m really struggling with it, heart says x-pro3 for the size/weight of both the body and lenses, plus I’ve wanted something from the x-pro line for years. Wish I’d bought one when they were cheaper haha
On the other hand, I can get the Zf for barely any more money, and the performance I see in terms of portraits, autofocus for action, low light, etc, is really compelling. Watched some of Cam Mackeys videos on the zf, and the pics he’s getting are amazing. Granted, he’s also a wildly better photographer than I am lmao.
I like the idea of the optional OVF, and Fuji has some other benefits here and there, was thinking of getting one of those lil instax printers for parties and stuff. I do personally prefer the Fuji look, and I’d agree with the idea that it’s a camera that people respond a little more positively towards. Walking around with the big chunky Nikon lenses just makes you look like a tourist.
Nikon has their own version of film sims now, and their lenses are optically superior, but at the cost of being chunky. Doesn’t matter if the Z glass is so perfect if I mostly end up using 3rd party lenses for reduced size and more “character”, desu.

Wallet and logic says Zf, but heart and vibes say Fuji, I just like the concept of it. And yeah, like you say, I should just get out there and shoot, sitting around comparing specs and example shots isn’t getting me anything.

>>4470790
> why are you gay
This man has the answer

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ooOELrGMn14

I actually hate gearfaggotry
It's worse than PC building, it's virtually impossible to get good advice on what to buy

>>4470852
/g/ here, buy AMD

>>4470853
you've spelt MacBook Pro wrong.

>>4470852
PC makers don't purposefully gimp their best offerings.

>>4470852
/g/ comes down to if you go for the green team or the red team, and the choice normally comes down to cost/value versus total horsepower. Kind of simple, just set a budget throw a dart and you're probaby good bar a drop dead retarded purchase.
/p/ is more like 7 different camera makers trying to convince you that they did the camera the best but they all assfuck you over the price of things. There's no real winners unless you either check out mentally about the gear itself, or you throw money at it until you've got something that isn't cripplefucked.

>>4469276 (OP)
is a hasselblad 500 really that nice to use?
thinking of gasmaxxing for the total eclipse next august

are these studio tests all that reliable?

>>4470831
Cam also used to use X-T3's for pro work back in the day, and has used X100's a ton too.
The direct to printing on Instax (only SP-1, SP-2, SP-3) has been one of the best features of any accessory I've owned.
X-Pro definitely more fun to use, but Zf is a workhorse.

>>4470891
Fuck I forgot to finish the post
What I mean to ask is if they were reliable for deciding on a camera purchase, given they're all using different lenses anyways
All of those are 4 cameras I've been looking at, vastly different ones I know

>>4470891
Yes with the caveat being the noise you see is with whatever (likely default) settings they use in the RAW processor. With using a different processor or different NR settings, you might get slightly different results. It's still good for a general idea though, and you can just download the RAW files to see and compare yourself too.
For sharpness / detail, while all are shot at f5.6, there is still a fair amount of quality variance across the lenses used, and again you're likely seeing default Adobe sharpening settings.

Good on you for setting it for same output size, lots of people ignore that part.

>>4470894
What lens you chose can often matter more in practice than what this scene shows. Like if you got the R10 with a faster lens, you could shoot at a lower ISO than you would with 6DII and a slower lens. So while one camera might be better on its own, as a system (of lens + body), you could end up worse off.
Lenses should be considered just as much, if not more, than the body.

>>4470897
I see. I was thinking of grabbing an R10, but I came across way too many other options.

>>4469482
i'll bite, here's a 4000 iso "normal situation" photo
please point out the ai noise reduction that everyone can notice

Should I grab a Z30 or spend more for an A6500?

>>4471006
a6500, only nikon mirrorless aps-c should be z50II, avoid anything earlier

Looking for Fuji x-mount lens recommendations. Gonna be shooting at least 1 wedding soon. I have the 23 & 33 primes, plus the 16-80 kit lens. Thinking of picking up the 50-140. Any thoughts/suggestions? I will also have my 28mm leica q3 so I am not super concerned about wider angles.

>>4471079
get the standard zoom f/2.8 you doofoos

>>4470061
>OVF is a lot dimmer. OVFs have <40% focus point coverage and literally can not take certain photos
retarded zoomzooom can't focus and recompose? Lmao

>>4471188
Sure, just fuck up your focus accuracy even more

>>4471196
>no you don't understand I simply MUST shoot everything at f1.2 with a razor thin DOF!!! I NEED MY CREAMY DREAMY STEAMY BOKEY!!!! Actually compose my background so that it helps support my overall composition?? NO IT"S NOT CREAMY

>>4470886
It's not as nice to use as a classic high-end mechanical 35mm SLR like an F3 for example, or a Leica.
>finicky film loading like most cameras that take 120
>must take care of the darkslide
>mirrored view is an annoyance
>hard to shoot basic angles that are a given with eye-level finders
>yes, there are prism accessories, but they are overpriced and enormous
These are my general complaints. They may be outweighed by the leaf shutter, higher resolution, and better tripod shooting ergonomics, if you value those things.

>>4471336
would like the 1:1 format and extra resolution really
i imagine getting the "extra height" would help framing mountains and stuff
maybe i'll just get a 28 or 35mm lens instead

>used Nikon D500 for ~200 euros
Is that a good deal?

Should I get the rf 24-70 f/2.8 or the rf 24-105 f/4 for a travel lens

what kind of camera could i get to take with me camping? im worried about cold and humidity.

Was thinking about the om-tg7 but seems like a lot of money for a digital camera

>>4472096
how cold cold? the phone might suffice

>>4469370
wow anon u must be a pro at spending money cuz ur a sucker