Thread 4473842

ASMR edition

Last: >>4472265

>>4473842 (OP)
snoysirs... at least we still have the video market... right??

If the shutter sound of a camera doesn't sound pleasent I just wont be able to cope with it. I've sold the Zf, among other reasons, because of this.
They got sound engineers for closing car doors. Surely they will pay some attention to the shutter sound as well.

On my g9 I can even add a synthetic shutter sound. Completely retarded. Just as much as a *beep" when the focus hits. Seriously who in their right minds would ever need that?

Anyhow. Jesus approves. Shutter sound matters.

>>4473844
True, I like the Zf sound

>>4473851
I have the "Lowepro Flipside Trek BP 450 AW Backpack" for dedicated photo trips. It's great! Not a lot of space outside the camera compartment though but that's by design. I use a camera cube with my hiking backpacks for when I hike, just one of the peak design ones it doesn't really matter.

>>4473844
>who in their right minds would ever need that?
I don't know but "beebeep.. kaklunk" from DSLRs is borderline nostalgic for me at this point.

>>4473842 (OP)
That "Canon" is a Nikon Z6, but okay

>>4473896
take your autism pills

>>4473844
Canon 1v has the most satisfying shutter noise I've heard.

>>4473842 (OP)
>brand war gearfag is a nikon user
>>4473843
>edited a meme originally meant to make fun of nikon users
huh
>>4473719
>50% of sony/fuji hate on /p/ is some thirdie incel
>The other 50% is mirrorless niggors feeling the buyers remorse after spending a month with their overpriced medium format sized spec sheet camera
You were right.

Nikon is now the hylic brand.

>>4473924
>>edited a meme originally meant to make fun of nikon users
The original is for kamala voters retard

>>4473971
>image makes fun of nikon users on /p/ for ages
>w-well actually if you were on /pol/…
That is exactly why it was used to make fun of niggors

>>4473977
The problem isn't that you didn't know where it's from, the problem is that you open your mouth about a topic you have no clue on. Actually goes for everything you post about. Many such cases.

Are micro two turds people special? I keep getting recommended videos of that homely face for radio looking chick that simps those cameras for some reason and I'm reminded they even have a thread here
Bro you can get a A6400 for 600 bucks what are you doing

>>4473979
>Bro you can get a A6400 for 600 bucks what are you doing
Paying that much for a mass produced, out of date, entry level crop sensor is just as retarded. Get a used full frame. A 5Dii is like 150 bucks.

>Canon EOS R6 Mark III Specifications
>Effective 34.2mp (Same as the Cinema EOS C50)
>32mp for stills
>Dual Pixel CMOS AF II with multiple subject detections
>IBIS: 6.5 Stops
>Pre-capture
>Max Framerate: 40fps E-Shutter
>Max ISO: 64000
>Open Gate
>Price €2899
>Shipping late November (Tentative)
>Canon RF 45mm f/1.2 STM
>Price: €599
Canon chads eating good!

>>4473981
All that shit at $3k just for more shitty sports photography like this

The better sportscuck gear is, the worse sportscuck photos are
>muh silent shutter fps, readout soeed and tracking focus doe! otherbrand btfo! the 4k120 crop factor broe! the lens mtf shart bruh! imma get da shot with da sharpness and da sharpness and da bokehs! <- about to get artistically btfo by the guy still using his 1dxIII
Canon r1, sony a9iii, nikon z9, its all the same
Nice cameras for bad photographers

>>4473983
Meanwhile people got kino shots like this in athens with 2004 gear. kek!

Its worse because the megapixels amirite?

Let’s have some actual intellectual discussion:
Are rangefinder style cameras sexier?
Is this worth the price premium of the x-pro over other Fuji bodies?

The ergo-blobs are better in some ways, but I hate looking like a tourist, and I hate not having physical controls like on my film camera.

>>4473985
they are meant for insecure people who cant own what they do and larp as movie characters and historical figures to excuse themselves

as long as its not as visually offensive as a dslr or a canikon its fine

>>4473984
If only he had full coverage face tracking AF and a modern 600mm f4 so the black guy could be an indistinct blur, removing the racist implications of this photo and rendering chinamans eyebrows with superior fine detail

>>4473984
Looks like he's trying to run away from a flying nigger. Great photo.

I don't see an editing thread. I switched to raw like mid of this event but switched back in like 30 seconds because the buffer on the T6i was terrible.
The camera wasn't allowing me to set exposure compensation some reason and with the sun in the clouds directly behind this one was very bright compared to the other pictures. The data says it was at 250 ISO, so I don't know what the camera was doing to bump the ISO up while being so over exposed.
I never really wanted to do editing nor do I know how to so I just shoot jpg. But this one image makes me want to because I would like to do a print of it but it's really blown out.
Could I turn down the highlights and make it work? I just installed dark table and I think it might look a little bit better, but I have never printed anything so I don't know how it would look as an actual physical picture, especially since the center would basically be plain white.
I have another picture I could use but it doesn't grab me like this one.
How large can you go with a 24MP jpg? I know it can't be gigantic, would A2 be okay?
I really don't want to edit, but being able mess with exposure would be nice. Is there anyway to just get an image with the camera's picture settings, but have the ability to edit the exposure of the raw? I feel if I shoot raw for every image like that I'll have 2000 that would probably just look worse than default jpg's since I literally have no experience doing any of this. I could do JPG+RAW, but with the amount of pictures I take it would just make storage even worse.

For the gearfag part, if I am doing plane spotting or other telephoto heavy stuff, would I benefit at all from going full frame like a 5d Mark II and up/6D or should I just stay with crop sensors? Is there any crop sensors with better sensors that the T6i? Even the 7D II and 70D are lower resolution, not by much but I don't know enough to know if the features on those pro/semipro bodies would really net me much.

>>4473985
xpro and x100 are more expensive due to the ovf, not due to the body style. and the question of whether it's worth the cost obviously comes down to personal preference.

>>4473985
I don't even know what a range finder is aside you don't look through the actual camera lens.

Any legitimately high capacity FW50 batteries out there worth a shit?
I always hear about aftermarket batteries being worse/overreporting capacity, but I do have at least one device at home with a battery that's not "supposed to exist" that legitimately lasts about 50% longer than the original and has been working for a few years without blowing up.
Surely there's one of these?
>Use an external battery
No I'd rather stick with the normal duration of these batteries and buy more if there's no such thing

>>4474003
Holy hell man that is a lot of questions.
It probably doesn't really help but I think the photo is beautiful the way it is.

>Could I turn down the highlights and make it work?
If you want to edit, its best to do saw with RAW files, there is a lot less data stored in a jpeg and stuff like highlight recovery isn't really possible with them. In future for events like this, either shoot in aperture priority with manual ISO, full manual, or manual with auto ISO.

>How large can you go with a 24MP jpg? I know it can't be gigantic, would A2 be okay?
24mp is plenty for an A2 print, yes.

>I really don't want to edit, but being able mess with exposure would be nice
It's definitely worth learning.

>I could do JPG+RAW, but with the amount of pictures I take it would just make storage even worse.
You might be using a low memory card, it might not be your cameras buffer, so check that. You may be able to get more out of your camera if that's where its bottlenecking.

>Is there anyway to just get an image with the camera's picture settings, but have the ability to edit the exposure of the raw
Yes, but I dont think you can do it with custom image styles. Lightroom (and other software probably) lets you select one of your cameras picture styles to apply to your raw, but it might look a little different than the jpeg still as RAWs are generally flatter due to having more latitude. If you dont want to pay for lightroom, you can use monkrus or genP, do some research, you'll figure it out.

>or should I just stay with crop sensors?
This really depends on how much you wanna spend, there's always a better camera out there. If you go for an older FF you might be disappointed that its missing some features that your t6i has or it may have slower AF. For now I would stay stick with what you have, and when buying new lenses, buy ones that work with both crop and full frame in case you decide you do want a new camera in the future. (so not EF not EF-S)

>>4473842 (OP)
Why shouldn't I buy a Sigma SD1 Merrill or a DP2X or DP1 Merrill?
>unreliable AF
>very noisy past ISO400
>slow write speeds
>discontinued
>no viewfinder on the compacts
>requires proprietary software for RAW development
I mean otherwise they seem hella good in terms of IQ. I'm really turned off from the compacts bc they don't have viewfinders but they're much cheaper than the SD1. I wouldn't consider any of the earlier DSLRs and idk about the SD Quattro, since it's an EVF (idk it's just an autistic thing, I like OVFs).
I'm pretty sure no one here shoots Sigma. Thoughts?

>>4474034
I found an SD10 in a shop in a small town ages ago, never used it though. I'm curious why you're after a foveon? Are there any upsides to that sensor?

>>4474037
>Are there any upsides to that sensor?
Other than the film tier photos?

>>4474037
It doesn't require interpolation so the sharpness seems quite insanely good, as well as colors.

>>4474003
>Camera put ISO at 250 despite being overexposed
Depends on the quality and type of metering your camera is doing. If that was evaluative metering then I'd say that's about right. It'll try and expose for the whole scene but also place priority on wherever your focus point is (probably the center in this shot), so it's trying not to crush the planes into complete black. Canon cameras are actually pretty good for this kind of "smart" metering, but the problem is it's still just trying to guess at best. It still wants to try and expose the subject (the planes) to middle-grey.

>I never really wanted to do editing ... Could I turn down the highlights and make it work?
You *can* still edit JPEGs. It's not blasphemous to do so, but anything beyond basic or light edits WILL destroy the photo because you're working with so much less data. 8-bit is not more than half the data of a 14-bit RAW, it's 64x more data. Or that is to say a JPEG has 1.5% the data as a 14-bit RAW. You might as well try, since you have no real alternative. I'd say crush the blacks and turn the planes into silhouettes, but the clouds in the center can't be saved as they've been blown out.

>How large can you go with a 24MP jpg? I know it can't be gigantic, would A2 be okay?
24MP can make 13.3x20 inch prints if you keep to 300DPI (which is recommended for high quality). That's pretty big. If it's sharp and correctly exposed, I wouldn't hesitate to push it to 200DPI and get something like a 20x30" if you really wanted. Remember: larger prints are meant to be viewed from futher away, so you can get away with pushing the DPI if you want to. I personally stick to 300DPI minimum.
HOWEVER: Bayer bullshit that camera sensors do typically mean for maximum colour accuracy you want to downsample your photo to at least 75% of your RAW size. This isn't always necessary but for maximum quality I would. That leaves you with 4500x3000 which could still make a 15x10" @ 300DPI.

>>4474038
>>4474039
Huh maybe i should get it out. It has a 55-200 or something with it, I dont really like zooms so I never touched it.

>>4474046
Absolutely

>>4474028
I was drinking so I ended up rambling a bit too much.

>>4473979
https://www.nikonusa.com/p/z-30-refurbished/1749Q

Nikon has the $400 Z30 refurbished kit back in stock, will you goys buy?

I might pick one up for my trip to Italy/France/Spain, its that or I lug my Pentax K1ii around. Its probably the best "small" APSC on the market imo.

>>>4473979
I wish, its closer to $7-800 for my region (NYC)

So I'm a huge retard
The seller for this camera I got told me "oh yeah there's a screen protector there, if you want you can take it off". Screen came pretty fucking scratched though, and all I could see was a solid metallic frame on top of the screen (I guess it would add about 1mm of protection?)
Anyways, I'm looking at it closely and I figure "oh, the corners show there's something thin on top of the screen and they don't fully match what's underneath, surely this is a screen protector, surely". I google a bit and I find reports here and there of sony cameras having preinstalled protectors that are very hard to pull from. My intention was to replace it with a new one I bought.
So I'm attempting to peel the corner off (not that it isn't quite damaged already) and I notice that what I'm peeling isn't exactly transparent. Then I notice just by peeking a little bit that it's exposing something orange. Basically what I did is pic related (well, I didn't remove the entire thing, I just took a corner. Now it won't stick all that well. Now I'm fucked. Touchscreen works as it should but now I have this tiny lip sticking out on one of the corners because I'm a dumbfuck. I'm not even gonna bother installing the protector I bought.
Anyways, are there replacements for these?
Apparently removing it doesn't actually stop it from working. It seems to be a protective layer after all (with a sony logo), but I'd like to get a proper replacement for it. Not the first time I had to replace a screen on a mobile device but fuck me, now I'm paranoid about removing anything that looks like a screen protector.
By the way shit on me all you want really, I deserve it.

>>4474034
Had a DP3M for many years, I've taken like 1 memorable photo with it, played around with it a bit this morning
>AF is limited to 9 points in good light, very slow and unreliable
>can be like 5 sec before playback can load
>lcd is low res and very laggy, feels like using old camcorder
>awful proprietary raw software
>battery life can be like 100 shots
It's got the form factor of a compact, but it's so clunky/slow in operation that I end up treating it like larger camera anyways.
It was compelling to me a decade ago, but I'd 100% prefer any +40mp aps-c/ff/dmf over it if I want to satisfy my pixel peeping.
Not sure if it's the underexposure or what, but this is the STD color profile and default everything else.

>>4474106
+1EV, much better.
>>4474003
You should learn how to use your camera better. If it wasn't letting you use exposure compensation, you should know why that is. If you learn your camera better, and how it works, you will understand why it opted for 250 ISO. You can also improve your focus too, you might consider just using a single point focus mode so it always focuses exactly where you want it to.
You can print 24mp plenty large. Don't bother with RAW if you don't want to devote the time to learn how to edit. A better lens would probably yield much better impact than upgrading bodies for telephoto heavy work. Your resolution and potential IQ is fine, you just need to focus better, expose better, and probably use a better lens.

>>4474034
and bit underexposed at ISO 400, noise aint bad (although it is only 400), but color shifting all around
>>4473985
The hybrid OVF+ERF is my favorite system to use. Hope we see something similar with other brands, or Fuji comes out swinging with the X-Pro4 (doubt).

A bunch of new cameras are supposed to be announced this month, is that right?

>>4474114
Fujirumors already have a billion affiliate links up for the XT-30III, so I reckon that'll be out any moment.
Whoever runs that site is absolutely relentless with affiliate links and almost instantly deletes comments even making vague references to it.

>>4474107
>you might consider just using a single point focus mode
I only ever use single point.
>probably use a better lens
It's a first model 70-200 F4 non IS. Obviously a portrait lens is not ideal, but jumping up any further is getting pretty specialized ie hard to find locally or very expensive online.
>You can also improve your focus too
True, in retrospect I should have switched to AI servo, but I was used to doing focus and recompose shooting or through chainlink so forgot to change it.
>A better lens would probably yield much better impact than upgrading bodies for telephoto heavy work.
I am not under the illusion that it would be drastic with a different body, but since I just search "Canon", naturally bodies show up as well. I made most of my equipment free by buying bundles and breaking them up, so I'm trying to get a feel for what the upgrade path would look like if I spot a happen to spot something favorable while looking for lenses.

Recommend me some good prime EF glass to adapt on an R7. There's too much to choose from.

>>4474121
>you might consider just using a single point focus mode
I only ever use single point.
>probably use a better lens
It's a first model 70-200 F4 non IS. Obviously a portrait lens is not ideal, but jumping up any further is getting pretty specialized ie hard to find locally or very expensive online.
>You can also improve your focus too
True, in retrospect I should have switched to AI servo, but I was used to doing focus and recompose shooting or through chainlink so forgot to change it. I didn't have the camera much more than a month or the lens more than a few days at the time when I took these. Obviously need more work but I have a slightly better feel for it now.
>A better lens would probably yield much better impact than upgrading bodies for telephoto heavy work.
I am not under any illusions that it would be drastic with a different body, but since I just search "Canon", naturally bodies show up as well. I made most of my equipment free by buying bundles and breaking them up, so I'm trying to get a feel for what the upgrade path would look like if I spot a happen to spot something favorable while looking for lenses.

Deleted post and misquoted so had to delete again award.
>>4474107
>you might consider just using a single point focus mode
I only ever use single point.
>probably use a better lens
It's a first model 70-200 F4 non IS. Obviously a portrait lens is not ideal, but jumping up any further is getting pretty specialized ie hard to find locally or very expensive online.
>You can also improve your focus too
True, in retrospect I should have switched to AI servo, but I was used to doing focus and recompose shooting or through chainlink so forgot to change it. I didn't have the camera much more than a month or the lens more than a few days at the time when I took these. Obviously need more work but I have a slightly better feel for it now.
>A better lens would probably yield much better impact than upgrading bodies for telephoto heavy work.
I am not under any illusions that it would be drastic with a different body, but since I just search "Canon", naturally bodies show up as well. I made most of my equipment free by buying bundles and breaking them up, so I'm trying to get a feel for what the upgrade path would look like if I spot a happen to spot something favorable while looking for lenses.

>>4474101
Well impatiently so I ordered some protector from aliexpress that looked like an actual replacement for this shit rather than just a normal screen protector.
I found this picture of exactly what I was peeling off but didn't out of panic. Oh well, it seems like it isn't the end of the world, now this used camera will look better with the new one hopefully.

more tariffs brehs

>>4474126
Could be some kind of anti-glare film.

>>4474124
Neat, so sounds like you just need to practice more

>>4474133
Yeah, it seems like I overreacted there. People are doing this with no trouble, I'm guessing just adding any protection on top would suffice (maybe there's some antiglare stuff as well)
https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1meaaur/beforeafter_delamination_on_old_sony_cameras_is/
Guess I could just use what I bought as it sits flush, it's ugly without the black border covering the insides but maybe that's not such a big deal.

>>4474131
Just bought a lens from a Japanese seller for $440USD, my import tax was $84.

Getting my first camera. Just wondering, Sony A6100 or A6400?
A6100 is cheaper ($700 on sale right now) but lacks picture profiles and is less "weather resistant". Can record in 4k 30fps for only for 30 minutes
A6400 is $1k and has picture profiles and weather resistance. Also it can record without any limitations other than batterylife.

Just want to know if the a6400's perks are even worth it for somebody who will use it 90% of the time for landscape, macro, and more light/contrast based photography.

>>4474141
See >>4474098

I personally came from a ZVE10, and I felt like the controls were too tight. You only really have one dial, it's not a good photography tool imo. If the a6100 has the same type of weatherproofing it's a chintzy plastic flap with zero seals or rubber so your shit is bound to get water in it if you have any sort of rainstorm.

I also think the Sony APSC lenses all kinda suck and are a afterthought vs their FF offerings. The kit lens on the Sony for example is 6 years older than the one on the Nikon. The Nikon lens is sharper. I'd get the Z30 with the 2 lens kit over any of the Sony's and quite frankly for the $1000 you're ready to pay you can get a refurb Z6II or a used Sony A7III or A7C possibly.

>>4474141
I would say buy used. I got an a6500 last week for 500€.
The recording limitation can be bypassed in older models with a tool called OpenMemories Tweak. Point is the A6400 has no limitations because it doesn't just overheat easily like some of these models.
I would try to find the A6400 for cheap. Or an A6500 if you care less about video and more about photo (it has IBIS but it's not amazing outside of photos)

>>4474148
>quite frankly for the $1000 you're ready to pay
Would rather not pay $1k in all honesty (especially considering afterwards I'll have to get a lens, SD card, bag, strap, etc). $700 is also a big stretch for me but, as they say: "Buy nice or buy twice". I don't want some toy camera either, even if it's my first.

>>4474149
>Or an A6500 if you care less about video and more about photo
Definitely more of a photo guy. I'll look into it, thanks.
Any good first lenses recs? Again, first camera. I'm not sure if a cheapo used lens would fare well, or if I should shell out $300 on something.

>>4474151
Z30 is a pretty good camera for the $400 you would pay if you can deal with the lack of a EVF, and the two lens kit will hold you over for a very long time and 90% of photography scenarios unless you want a prime. I'm considering one personally as a travel camera since it fits inside a hoodie or baggy pants pocket better than any DSLR I own currently.

Anything short of a mirrorless full frame will be considered shite for most of the people here, just fyi. For the $4-500 it's pretty good and the only better APSC will be a $1000 Nikon Z50II or Sony a6600/a6700 (at which point just buy a used Sony a73/a7c or a refurb Nikon Z6II, but you end up spending way more on lenses than the APSC cameras)

>>4474152
No EVF is a dealbreaker for me. I appreciate the recs though.

>>4474140
Import tax for a Nikon FF I was looking at was going to be $1100 USD.

I’ve basically written off buying new anything for the next 3.5 years.

>>4474153
No worries, go to a Best Buy or camera store and check them both out. Like I said I personally don't like the Sony cameras from the lack of dials + lack of weathersealing in any form for the low end models like a6100/zve10 + lack of cheap/good APSC lenses.

I like the Nikon Z30/Z50II more because the kit lenses are way better and they have more dials/controls. I think the Z50II is comparable to the a6600/a6700 honestly.

>>4474141
If picture profiles are the ones from A7C2 and you shoot mostly JPEG, I'd maybe get the more expensive one instead. Switched from A6000 to A7C2 recently and really like those profiles.

Also don't underestimate connectivity. The ability to push photos to Creator's Cloud or whatever it is called and download them from there without dealing with cables is pretty neat.

>>4474151
>Any good first lenses recs?
SEL35F18. Amazing lens. Very sharp, has image stabilization, is smallish. It was basically glued to my camera for as long as I had it.
It's more of an object photo lens than landscape or city. Great for taking pics of a person, or something relatively normal sized, but not great for taking pics of an entire street or a skyscraper.

Since Slog3 is an option on older Sony cameras (like the a6500) how bad of an idea is it to use it given there's no 10bit support?
Basically I've heard everything from "it's a terrible fucking idea" to "skill issue, it's fine as long as you know what you're doing".

Why are sony pictures always so sharp?

>>4474151
Btw, one thing you may want to consider if the weight. I don't know about the A6400, but I saw the new A6700 at a store and that thing is heavy as hell for an APS-C camera. Without the lens, it's legit comparable to A7C(2), which is a FF camera. Meanwhile, the A6000 was much lighter.

>>4474304
*green

>>4474306
Post it anon

>sharp
>green
Why not both?

>>4474109
>gear test
>dog
Many such cases

i heard huskyfag went to israel (and hopefully he died). may allah strike down the rest of the dogs and make /p/ a cat board once more.

>>4474107
Partially ignore this guy. Always bother with raw. Editing is basic and doesnt need to be "creative" if you took the photo creatively. Raw makes photography much easier and closer to the superior film workflow. You will spend 10000x less time in camera settings as a raw shooter. It is just "development", moving all the settings changing to a device that is faster and better for it. you do not need to "edit" (except to crop and rotate a little). That is optional.

>>4474316
Shooting raw is also anti-gearfag
Gearfags need to buy new cameras to get their desired colors
Gearfags need to buy new cameras for better high ISO

Some fuji people even have camera collections just for the exclusive jpeg presets

With raw every camera is reduced to its sensor size and megapixels only, and none of the rest matters. A d750 and Nikon Z6III take the same photos in raw and you can see clearly the crutches are just crutches. In jpeg they are different cameras.

>>4474316
May Mohammed suck your dick

>>4474311
This is not sharp doughbeit. Looks like fujislop

>>4474316
>Partially ignore this guy.
You didn't disagree, you just assume when I say "devote time to edit" that means going beyond basic RAW adjustments. Even those basic adjustments are "too much time" for many people.

this might be ab it schizo so bear with me.

is it possible to use fiber optic to use a lighter/cheaper steadycam system on just a lens and not the whole camera body? the line transfers all visual data to the sensor from the lens somehow, or am i being retarded.

>>4474311
Why is there so much noise on a daylight pic?

Does /gear/ have any cameras they couldn't connect with? As in they couldn't get a photo worth a damn or whenever they take a picture with it it needs *more than usual* editing in post? And when you're done you're not really that happy with the results?

In my case its two cameras.

Sony a100 and Pentax K200D. I always feel like the images coming out of them look flat and brown. I just took 50 pictures out of the K200D and on each one I always found myself editing the tint/saturation/vibrance to remove the brown undertone like the AWB kept messing up. Ditto the a100, I always find myself just editing the fuck out of the pictures when if I took it with my KM 5D or even my Sony a390 I would've been happier with the result.

Or they always feel like they're missing focus (either backfocus or the internal AF adjustment is off). The K200D seems to have a bad issue with that and it seems like kind of a hassle to do microadjustments with it vs the newer Pentaxes since you gotta go into a debug menu and its for ALL lenses (not just individual lenses like the newer ones).

Forget it on the Alpha Mount Sony DSLRs (a68/a77/a99 let you do it but older/cheaper? nope). Thankfully my a390 just has mild backfocus and my 5D is pretty spot on. The K200D I'm definitely getting lots of misses from soft photos from missed focus

I'm tempted to list them up for sale. Maybe the K200 I'm gonna try some primes (35mm and 50mm DAs) but the a100 I'm half on the fence because its not worth shit ($50-80 on eBay)

I kinda felt like this about my first camera, a Nikon Z50 too, but it was because the colors felt too vibrant/radioactive. I knew something was up when I had to keep applying the Canon 5D M2 color preset in NX Studio. That said....I'm tempted by the $550 Z30 + 16-50 + 50-250mm deal Nikon has now.

>>4474396
Save up for a mirrorless full frame and a 24-70 f/2.8 and stop getting scammed omg

>>4474396
Just be a normal person. Get a compact mirrorless and an f2.8 prime. Stop buying ewaste.

The brown is IR contamination also

>>4474413
>weddingcuck bazooka zoom
"Trinity" zooms are flat out not needed for photography. They are for meeting absurd and arbitrary client requests, ie: group photo, no we wont stagger, no we wont move, NOW PORTRAITS (with bokeh)

>>4474414
I do wildlife photography so a 24-70 2.8 doesn't seem too big to me, my bad. >>4474396 fyi you can buy a tiny cuck 2.8 prime if you want just like >>4474414

>>4474416
>bragging about carrying a 4lb camera in the woods with no one around
wildlife photography is for antisocial geeks who are afraid to shoot people and just as afraid to shoot guns

my durr rifle makes a z9+600mm look compact

>>4474414
>>4474413

ewaste is fun i dont have to take photos with a camera i can just use a phone

>>4474417
If your camera gear alone doesn't weigh 10kg, lower your tone when (you)ing me.

>>4474414
>compact mirrorless and an f2.8 prime
This is the God combo.

>>4474420
>thinks the weight of his gear impacts the IQ
Many such cases.

>>4474417
>taking pictures of weirdoes on the street is the same as aiming a gun at someone
Top shelf retardery

>>4474414
>>4474425
Dont let those snoy sisters see this!

>>4474439
This is what perfection looks like.

Should I avoid using picture profiles on a Sony camera if I just shoot RAW?
I heard gamma settings do impact the end result at least.
Also why does using these profiles disable silent shooting?

Should I get a new Sigma 17-40mm f1.8 or used XF 18mm f1.4 and used XF 33mm f1.4 for about the same price?

>>4474120
I'm surprised anyone actually clicks on affiliate links that don't include a discount; much less ones that are spammed as often and as desperately as fujirumors

>>4474447
Sigma ART lenses are the best lenses money can buy. If it’s anything like the 18-35mm f/1.8, which I have, you will want it glued to your camera. I can’t speak on the quality of the XF lenses but the convenience of having a zoom outweighs a half-stop of light, IMO.

>>4474460
Those lenses are crap though, whereas the Sony is actually crisp. Cope.

>>4474441
*pinches your knuckles*
psssh...nothin personnel... kid...

>>4474461
Lmao cope more. the canon pancake is cuttingly sharp

Every lens is perfectly sharp

>>4474482
>coldsteel pinching knuckles
You just know people have made porn of that somewhere

>>4474461
>Those lenses are crap though, whereas the Sony is actually crisp. Cope.

Bored and cashed up. Is there any Sigma foveon that's worth shooting at all in 2025? I usually shoot medium format film with a tripod or full frame digital. It doesn't bother me if the sigma needs to be on a tripod, I heard they were awesome above 100iso. Is there even a point though using one with that limitation? Would like to hear from someone who owned one, not regurgitated youtube or reddit opinions.

>>4474506
>t. poorfag

>>4474506
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/Um8ysGqSwUJEhxFSj416Ag/
Jesus christ

>>4474484
>sharpness is all that matters
The rendering is sterile, the corners vignette over 3 stops (more than any sony lens), the autofocus is noisy, focus breathing is almost 10mm of focal length, the lens extends while focusing so it is no longer a pancake... and canon doesnt have any actual small cameras to use it on, just blobs for zoom cucks and pixel peepers

It's really quite amazing how fucking useless the japanese camera industry is

Not ONE company can pull this combo:
>Non-crippled FF compact
none of them have pulled this off. a7c half shutter lmfao. s9 no shutter or hot shoe or autofocus lmfao. it would take absolutely no extra space to include a full shutter in the a7c, and absolutely no space to include a shutter and hot shoe in the s9. they cripple these cameras because their entire marketing department has determined that there is a 100% probability that if they did, NO ONE would buy a blob EVER AGAIN. Why do you think the Nikon ZF is bigger, plastickier, and uglier than the ZR that is purposefully crippled to make it borderline useless for photography? Because NO ONE WOULD BUY A BLOB EVER AGAIN.
>f2.8 pancake lens that isnt shit
none of them have pulled this off either. and likely can't. leica M mount could, but Z, E, RF, and L mounts are poorly designed and too shallow to accommodate good pancake lenses.

The japanese are idiots, and I honestly hope every single camera company other than pixii, leica-xiaomi, apple, mint, kodak, pentax and DJIblad go out of business

>>4474534
the japanese are so fucking stupid that leica can sell the same camera over and over again for over 70 years and get away with raising prices for last-in-industry reliability

fuji cameras are built like actual dogshit and designed by morons but the competition is so retarded they can charge $2000 for an oversized PNS from 2013

mainline japanese cameras are just that fucking bad if you're using them for enjoyment instead of being paid to hold a blob+f2.8 zoom+speedlite at a wedding. people will take any compromise just to escape the blobs.

>>4474447
17-40 for sure, it's excellent. I swapped both of those for the 17-40 when it came out. Kept the 23 f1.4 WR, but ended up selling it too. Size wise, it without hood is about the same as the 33 with stock hood attached.

>>4474512
Nope, just get high res FF/DMF or monochrome

>>4474449
>>4474536
Thanks. 17-40mm it is.
I'll fill out the ultrawide end with the Sigma 12mm f1.4 and the short telephoto with a Viltrox 56mm f1.2 Pro
>tfw no first party glass except pancakes
Fuji needs to step up their lens game now that Sigma and Viltrox are bringing the competition

>>4474447
>Should I get a blob so I can never go home without every possible permutation of a shot, like a scammy wedding photographer, and compromise aesthetics and atmosphere so I can take every possible photo and maybe get something that simply isn't shit, and eventually devolve into barely taking my camera anywhere because its a huge blob
>Or should I use a decent prime like literally every notable artist before me and focus on the actual core of photography as an art form, which is how aesthetics and atmosphere contribute to the overall narrative
You know what, I think you should spend a grand and get the hideous compromised blob so someone can rob you of your camera that much sooner. Or better yet, leverage your newfound hate of carrying that blob around to become a terminally online dog-posting gearfag and make 90% of your photography test shots of your redditcore normie pet and random shit in your backyard.

or maybe you want more out of life? maybe it's time to take the leap

buy a proper blob for scamming newlyweds and leave it in a dry box when you're not scamming them, and do all your real photography on a film PNS

>>4474512
foveon and monochrome cameras were invented to scam megapixel autists and tech nerds. brotip: just resize your images to 70% and its the same thing.
>muh pixel level sharpness
most people never view more than 1920x1080 pixels at once
moderately spendy fucks never view more than 3840x2160 pixels at once
if you think pixels and sharpness matter you have been lied to

Why are so many of you obsessed with pancake lenses
Didnt your dad teach you not to be ashamed of the length or your lens?
If you're taking pictures with something else than your phone you're already not discreet, having a shorter lens doesnt make you invisible

>>4474534
>snoycucks still absolutely seething and writing more cope essays

>>4474547
Its all one guy who got banned from every forum and follows incelcore shit on soundcloud

>>4474546
Ebin. Smells like burnt doghair.

>>4474548
He has a point

Its not just that snoy is shit. Canon nikon and sony are all shit. People are selling their a7rvs, zfs and r6iis and buying x100vis and xe5s.

>>4474547
>Why are so many of you obsessed with pancake lenses
The best thing to do is check RPT and realize it always comes from nophotos
>weather sealing is most important
Then RPT has no photos where weather sealing even matters
>AF is crucial
Photos are mostly of static subjects

>>4474553
Weather sealing is unimportant. Its true. Non professionals do not use gear that is too large to cover.

But AF means nothing because le rpt? Nice fujicuck/panashit cope. Most photos that are actually worth something are of peoples kids and shit. Rpt is worthless throwaway photos for getting (you)s on a neo nazi zoophile forum. Literally every normal person just buys a cheap canon because AF is the only important spec. In focus photo of your kids having fun >>> uhm but art is le planned… le sharpness… le dynadick range…

>>4474553
Weather sealing matters a lot for dust and such. It's not about rain a lot of the time, though having peace of mind for splashes here and there is nice. It's good the industry is moving to expect basic environmental sealing and I immediately suspect people of being insecure or grifters when they suggest it "doesn't matter." It's like having a plastic mount or zoom creep; by the same token none of the photos in rpt "required" metal mounts and solid construction. Nonsense argument.

>>4474550
>People are selling their a7rvs, zfs and r6iis and buying x100vis and xe5s.
Based.

>>4474553
/rpt/ is a terrible reference for most photography and I sure as shit wouldn't use it to base any conclusions from except that most photos are snapshits.
This is okay.
Smaller gear is more conveinent. Weather sealing is peace of mind and encouragement (oh no it's a light sprinkle better use muh phone). AF is needed for anything that isn't one of two things:
1) Completely static objects that give you essentially infinite time to refocus, adjust, etc.
2) Zone focusing with wide angles at small f/stops (because hyperfocal bullshit). Aka "street" ""photography"".
Go figure most people buying a leica are streetfags because their sovl bricks can't cope with even slightly demanding subjects thanks to the lack of AF.

>>4474550
Fuji sales amount to a rounding error in the grand scheme of things

>>4474574
For as often as certain things get complained about, we sure don't see that many photos posted where the complaints are relevant
Not to mention most photos posted here are taken with old outdated gear anyways
Even in relevant threads like bird / wildlife, most of the time, the animals are relatively stationary
Same goes for lowlight AF, where are all the extreme lowlight shots that people care so much about taking?
>>4474583
I agree that it does matter, I'm just saying that we sure don't see many inclement weather photos (or even just dusty / sandy / wet environments) for as often as it does get talked about
You sound like weather sealing is important, you should share some shots where it was especially relevant for you

>>4474606
>/rpt/ is a terrible reference for most photography
True, but it's still the best reference for actual photo posters here. Pick any other thread on the board then, same thinking applies.

>>4474609
May allah feed your d*g to the coyotes, gear coper.

>>4474609
as someone who did own a camera with zero weathersealing its a factor for me selling it

i did not feel comfortable shooting with my zve10 outdoors but this is what the door for the ports looked like, probably the worst offender of any camera ive seen, just a plastic flap that clicked on. i didnt expect it to be bad enough where it felt a random drop of water could easily fuck my shit up. i also dont expect to go swimming with my cameras either.

most cameras arent this bad, i think this was a deliberate design choice by sony since they know 1. this is their cheapest camera 2. its mostly gonna be used indoors by streamercucks and wannabe youtubers

>>4474623
here's the main competitor z30 on the left and step up a6400 on the right, the door on the a6400 is more sealed/tighter fitting while the z30's flap is form fitting

i dont think its mandatory, but i dont think it hurts either. i think it shows a deliberate design choice by the manufacturer as to how much they care about their product and its lifespan

>>4474615
Okay nophoto
>>4474623
>weather sealing is good
Yes, already said that, sorry that you are too afraid to use a non weather sealed camera
Your anecdote would be more compelling if you had an actual issue from shooting, not just paranoia about one

>>4474623
Sony cameras have always had abysmal weather sealing. They are designed to be used indoors.

Where do you print pictures, do I just go to staples?

>>4474628
In my dorkroom

>>4474628
Online services are pretty cheap and convenient. Pictures come to you. I like White House Custom Color (WHCC) and Printique, Adorama's in house printing service. There are others as well. Don't go to Staples.

>>4474628
at home

>>4474626
All you do is cope about anything that could transfer to a critique of some gear you use lmao. The insecurity is palatable.

I remember other dogfaggot (the german shepherd one iirc) pointed out a problem with capture ones noise reduction and you got angry at him for it. Top lol.

Reminder: All this guy does is indirectly cope with fujis issues (inconsistent weather sealing, shitty autofocus, poor build QC) even if people are talking about other cameras.

>>4474534
>>4474547
>snoygger hands typed this

>>4474638
Nice funko pop

>>4474639
>>4474638
You guys should have a photo battle.

>>4474626
Paranoia means you're less willing to use it outdoors unless you're okay with losing a $500-2000 camera lol. Most people aren't and would flip out if a port died from it. I wasn't willing to find out and never used it outside of clear sunny days.

I've owned not-weathersealed cameras, the Nikon Z30/Z50 specifically don't advertise any form of weather sealing. Design is a factor to why you should buy a camera and weather sealing is part of that because it shows how much the manufacturer gives a fuck about the end user who is spending $800-2500 on a camera. Just like ergonomics and aesthetics.

I wish compact rectilinear ultra-wides were a thing. Like 16mm or wider. They're all so huge.

>>4474643
But they do?

>>4474645
Why did I not know about this? Now I kinda want an EOS R.

>>4474647
Time to switch to a better system anon

>>4474658
Nah now you're being weird actualling im going sony

>>4474645
Tried it. It's optically garbage and relies heavily on post corrections. Well, so is a lot of shit these days but this 16mm is bretty bad. That being said, two things:
a) That just seems to be the price you pay for a cheap, small, fast UWA prime.
b) If you crop the RAW shot tighter before applying corrections (or after, but try both) to something more akin to an 18mm FoV, it's actualy rather decent.

>>4474660
I think im just gunna get one of the EF 14mm's and stick with what I have. They seem good enough.

>>4474659
Enjoy your overpriced big lenses with soft corners, fren

>>4474658
Wow starting a sentence with "time to" is great. I'm gunna use that next time I wanna sound like an annoying asocial retard.

>>4474661
Iirc they're not that cheap even on the used market, beware.
Consider something manual like the pergear or TTartisan 14mm f/2.8 as well. Cheap as shit and manual focus with a uwa is piss easy. They cost about as much as the RF 16mm f/2.8

>>4474668
I have the samyang 14 in manual but I dont really like it. The focus throw is retardedly long for an uwa. I would also like something weather sealed.

>The joy of adapting cheap EF prime lenses on an RF body
Al-hamdulillah

>>4474693
Great, another piece of evidence suggesting I need to just buy Leica

>>4474694
>>4474693
>schizophrenic pixel peeping ensues

>>4474635
Nah, I take lots of photos too
An awful lot you aren't remembering if you forget all the other stuff I've posted
I also always acknowledge Fujis actual issues and many times have said bad things about them and recommend people go for other brands, but I guess you missed all those comments too
Good try nophoto, but you should try to be honest next time
>>4474642
Most people still just use non-sealed cameras and things work out fine, even in poor weather. How many cameras have you personally lost due to the weather? Does it concern you that weather sealed cameras can still RIP from the weather?
Also, renters/homeowners would cover it for like $5-10/mo regardless.
Have fun staying safe indoors

>>4474713
>jusr buy poorly made cameras bro. you can tell because the poorfags with poorly made cameras never take them out into the rain so theyre not needed.
False premise.
> Does it concern you that weather sealed cameras can still RIP from the weather?
That is a sony a7iii/any and every fujifilm problem.

>>4474713
>i take a lot of photos
>well, took
>i made a collage
>yes its 99% my dumb squished dog and shitty gear cope now
Do you realize how pathetic it is for a grown man to spend hours fervently defending low end gear to the people who have already gotten rid of it? Jesus christ lmfao. You’re sitting here saying NUH UH NO ONE NEEDS (STANDARD FEATURE THAT FUJIFILM LACKS/SUCKS AT) BECAUSE BRANCHANON DIINT while a revolving door of anons show up, call you a faggot and leaf

This is almost as bad as the hours you spent defending the z50s autofocus (because it was as bad as fujishits)

You clearly have insecurity issues over the gear you own being wasted money

>>4474546
>most people never view more than 1920x1080 pixels at once
Most people are on phones and phones have higher rez screens than that, retard.

I was in the last thread asking about the Pentax Q, anyways I got it with 7 lenses for about $260 usd and it's really fun, the photo quality is crap but it's a really fun toy.

Is a plastic bag the only reliable way to actually weather seal a camera?
Kinda wanna shoot in the rain with an a6500 or a6600

>>4474713
The ZVE10 was particularly bad, next time you go to a Best Buy finger fuck one and you'll see what I mean.

>>4474722

$260 is a awesome price usually you get them for that much with 2 lenses

>>4474726
Other brands don't require it on most bodies and lenses, in 2025 plastic bags are a Sony thing basically. Nothing wrong with it, if it works it works.

>>4474635
>>4474713
>>4474715
Does anyone else get weird vibes off how he never asked "how did you know it was me" or said "weird assumption, you're obsessed"?

Are these two people glowies shittalking each other, roomies, or is it one big samefag?

>>4474729
It's not even a sony thing unless you buy their canon r50 tier ewaste or an 8 year old camera, and even with the 8 year old cameras, the weather sealing is the same as fujis is today. It was not absent, just poorly designed.

A number of people had broken cameras, but a number of people also had this experience. You can mitigate low quality weather weather sealing issues by not using extending zooms, picking a sealed prime instead, and not setting the camera in a puddle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34k-AK-OF28

Their main bodies from the a7iv onwards are fine, but the compacts have lower quality weather sealing like the a7iii to cut manufacturing costs. Which is basically sony telling you "if you want this camera instead, you dont have clients, you will never have to shoot in the rain, grow up"

Nikon doesn't fully weather seal any of their low end gear either
Canon doesn't fully weather seal any low end gear or any non-L lenses

Because there are plenty of gear threads outside of the gear thread shitting up the board I decided to start doing the opposite and post pictures in the gear thread every once in a while.

Are these haoge lens hoods any good?
I need a lens hood for my sigma 30mm 1.4 and I noticed that this one was available as well as the official one, but this is pricier. What's the deal with these?

>>4474712
>schizophrenia is when one camera shows a guy has stubble and another doesn’t
>schizophrenia is when one camera shows the texture of cardboard and another doesn’t

>>4474772
Schizophrenia is when you obsess over dpreviews notoriously dodgy photos of photos scenes and pixel peep the fuck out of them

Half the time they miss focus on elevated parts of the test board and process raws like shit (making fuji look blurrier than it does in C1 for instance)

>>4474772
>I’m not schizophrenic I’m just pixel peeping
You’re a schizophrenic. No one normal pixel peeps.

I made a kit in Nikon Z and Nikon F with the Z8 and D850, the Z one was (predictably) almost $8k compared to the D850 at $3k. Is mirrorless really worth $5k more and over 2x the amount? I'd like the lighter bodies and future proofing but also I think this kit would serve me for basically ever and I'm struggling to justify such an extreme price difference, even though both are affordable to me.

>>4474778
Did you use identical lenses with an adapter on the Z8? I haven't looked up prices but I'd be surprised if a Z8 and adapter cost 5k more than a D850.

>>4474778
Mirrorless from pricy to cheap is for sports/journo pros that cant make excuses for missed shots (ie: bat cracks) or traveling hobbyists sick of mirror slap, tripods, and blobs.

DSLRs are for all the other professionals and have always been a professionals-only paradigm not intended to be used for fun. Otherwise they’d be half as big, like film cameras when normies still shot FF.

So how about that rumored somewhat cheap-ish Canon RF 45mm F1.2 lens? I think it is a cool move if real as F1.2 has been considered a luxury from first parties since forever. Probably a product made to stifle some of the criticism against them for not opening up the mount. Lots of cool stuff happening with lenses these days were the different manufacturers try to make exotic glass that is lacking in the lineup from the competition. Examples of this is the latest Sony 100mm Macro, the internally focusing 24-70 2.8 from Nikon and so on.

Hey, /gear/. Planning on getting my first camera.

Would the a7r ii be worth it? I can find it on sale for a really good price.
The only caveat is that I heard lens prices might be astronomical because it's needs full frame lenses though.

Otherwise, I read that full frame cameras are far better than APS-C cameras for dynamic range and lowlight shooting.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

>>4474693
>>4474694
Foveon is the superior sensor technology, I've been saying that for years. Even so-called medium format gets rent by it.

>>4474693
>>4474694
Foveon is the superior sensor technology, I've been saying that for years. Even so-called medium format gets rekt by it.

>>4474757
Feica tax

>>4474875
Dont get the a7rII. UI is extremely janky and the battery life is abysmal.

>>4474873
I've been hunting for a prime (either EF or RF) that's fast but not huge either. Most shit caps out at f/2.8 and the big beefeater 85mm and 50mm lenses are just too much and too big to justify. The f/1.8 lenses are just plain shit under f/4. etc. etc.
So, I can't find literally any info on this except for a blurry photo of a supposed R6 MkIII. Nothing to go off of except the rumored specs. STM is fine; smaller lenses don't need USM. As long as it's reasonably better than the 50mm at f/2 I'll probably buy it just to see how it goes. It's probably meant to pair with the new cinema camera. Lack of IS is... eh, whatever. I just want something to slap on when indoors because even my 100mm f/2.8 was struggling at an indoor event the other day.

>>4474885
What's a better alternative?

>>4474875
>Otherwise, I read that full frame cameras are far better than APS-C cameras for dynamic range and lowlight shooting.
This is maximized if you stick to the same resolution ball park as APS-C. A lot of gearfags seethe and cope about this, but noise, especially chroma noise, is more noticeable on higher resolution sensors because even though the computed signal/noise ratio of the whole image is the same, there's more errors in each pixel. At really high ISOs it'll throw colors off.
>"but its sharper" - gearfags who just zoom in on stuff all day
24mp FF low light: https://blog.kasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Z601581-3.jpg
45mp FF low light: https://blog.kasson.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Z729324-3.jpg

>>4474887
You can safely ignore that. It's just tech nerd shit, like when nerds rant about mac vs windows vs linux user interfaces. It takes 20 minutes to set up a camera and then never use the UI again, and batteries don't drain fast unless you're constantly using the playback feature or shooting video. If you can't/don't want to spend more than the cost of an a7ii/a7rii, don't. The a7iii is closer to professional cameras, the a7ii is a hobbyist semi-compact, and you don't need more.

And in my opinion, every camera's user interface is janky dogshit and requires some googling to fully understand.

>>4474891
>And in my opinion, every camera's user interface is janky dogshit and requires some googling to fully understand
>t.coping retard that has never used a well designed product before

>>4474886
If you have the dough the RF 50 1.4 VCM that got released about a year ago is quickly becoming my favorite lens. They have started becoming available on the used market as well. It is the best low-light lens in my collection thus far. Size-wise it is way more easy to manage compared to the 1.2

>>4474873
I wouldnt be surprised if the cheap Canon f/1.2 lens is just completely madeup for rumor sites to generate clicks. Its too good to be true, it would mog everything else on the market.

>>4474875
If you can stretch to the A7r III it's quite a bit better, improved AF, battery life, better viewfinder, faster shooting, charges with USB type C, better controls. Also there's tons of low cost full frame E mount lenses plus plenty of options for adapting lenses. I know it goes against what people usually recommend but not a single one of my lenses cost more than my body.

>>4474891
While I agree with you about the menus, you take a few days setting the camera up how you want including custom buttons and the quick menu and hardly ever need to dive into the main menu, the stuff you say about noise is a load of rubbish. Both of those images you posted look like shit, they're both at ridiculously high ISO and while one may technically be better than the other any photo taken with that level of noise you are going to notice it all the same, but you'll ignore it because you'll just be happy to have got the photo at all. Also if you downsize the higher resolution shots to the same size you'd be hard pressed to tell them apart in real life photos, never mind a studio scene. One reason to get the higher res bodies is to be able to shoot in crop mode and still have a decently high resolution, saving you money on buying a longer lens (as well as the size and weight).

>>4474899
True. Even a Chinese third party 50mm F1.2 that got released recently costs more than this alleged lens so it seems strange that they would give their customers such a carrot. It can obviously be done as they don't have the same cost for machinery and more infrastructure in place compared to a new company. If it turns out to be an actual product I expect lots of compromises as in not made in Japan, chromatic aberration, soft corners etc. Nikon did release a 50 1.4 at a previously unheard of price point for a first party so it may be a response to that.

>>4474891
>every camera's user interface is janky dogshit and requires some googling to fully understand
Fair point. As a fresh beginner too, it'll take me some time to google and learn it either way even if it's a good interface.

>>4474900
>If you can stretch to the A7r III it's quite a bit better
Initially it would've been me getting the a6000, but going to the A7R ii is me stretching my wallet. I could save for longer but I want to get out and start shooting sooner than later.
Also, I want to have some cash left for lenses as well.

I appreciate all the advice you guys are giving me.

>>4474906
As it's your first camera, and as someone who previously used an og A7, you will be more than pleased with the R II. While the III is an improvement in all those areas I mentioned the II is by no means bad. It's significantly better than the A6000, A7, A7R.

>>4474896
>RF 50mm f/1.4 VCM
>$2400 AUD
Nah, next load of cash is going on the 70-200 f/4 they made to replace my 1st gen EF version. I'm not a big user of primes anymore so can't justify the cost. The 70-200 gets used a lot and I'd pay that to halve the size.
I just wanted something cost-efficent for maximum light gathering. I'm not fussed if the 45mm f/1.2 uses heavy digital corrections, or isn't as sharp or AF doesn't work as fast etc. If it's $800 or less it's getting bought on release.
Funny because I had the RF and EF 50mm f/1.8 STMs and the RF version had stupidly strong purple fringing untl f/4, but the EF version wasn't nearly as bad.
>>4474899
It might be. But despite all of Canon's (many, many) laughable fuckups in the mirrorless lens market, they ARE actually releasing interesting and out-of-the-box designs. The f/11 superteles are intriguing if not everyone's cup of tea. The zooms that prioritize smaller sizes and weights compared to the EF counterparts are a neat pivot in exchange for slower apertures. It's just the high cost that's fucking me over. $5000 in gear now and it could have been twice that if I bought all the RF lenses I want.

Anyway, if the 45mm is real, I'm expecting it to be about twice the size of the 50mm, and take a lot of shortcuts to keep the price down. This is okay if f/1.2 is passable for contrast and sharpness and by f/2 it's better than the 50mm.
Fuck, I was tempted to buy the EF 50mm f/1.4 despite its dogshit optical performance just for the aperture.

>>4474447
i like the xf 33mm f1.4 so much that im seriously considering buying a fuckin $300 adapter to use it on my nikon zf since i dont have a fuji camera anymore.

>>4474946
You can use fuji XF lenses on Nikon bodies? Wtf?

>>4474891
>every camera's user interface is janky dogshit and requires some googling to fully understand.
if you're a low iq retard, yes

>>4474946
What's the *one* reason you can't live without it?

>>4474906
It's miles ahead of a6000 in just about every way. You're also going to be in the FF space right away, which means your next upgrade if that happens and whenever that happens will just be a marginally better FF body as opposed to switching entire systems to go FF.

>>4474891
>And in my opinion, every camera's user interface is janky dogshit and requires some googling to fully understand.
It's all made by Japanese people. Have you seen what their websites look like?

>>4474949
Yes, with adapter.
>>4474946
I could get that for the 23 or 18 f1.4 LM's, but the 33 was the worst of the three for sure

>>4474949
You can adapt any lens as long as its flange distance is longer than that of your camera's mount.
The X mount has a longer flange but only by about a millimeter or two, so the adapter is very, very flat (pic rel)

Same reason you can adapt practically any DSLR lens on mirrorless but not the other way around. The only unknown will be the autofocus.
For X mount lenses you have to keep in mind that fuji makes them for APS-C.

>>4474795
> Otherwise they’d be half as big, like film cameras when normies still shot FF.
This drives me crazy, ngl. I hate the giant blobs, but I really wish I could have an FF sensor.
I know I don’t need it, but I’d like it.
The only options for what I want are the zf (still kinda big), Leica (ridiculously overpriced), and Fuji (ape-c, but realistically, I’m not skilled enough for it to matter how much the files can be pushed one way or the other)
If I wasn’t such a baby about size/weight of kit, I’d buy a d750, fill out my lens lineup with screw-drive AF lenses, and I’d probably be happy as a clam. But then a comparable Fuji body+lens combo weighs literally 40% less and it gets hard to justify the big bruiser blob, especially with how much more positively people react to little retro cameras

>>4474998
Perhaps Canon releases some retro-inspired photo-centric camera when the AE-1 has its 50th anniversary next year.

>>4474998
you need more skill to make baby sensors work than just shooting with a full frame into the sun and then pulling back the highlight slider because LOL FULL FRAME

>>4474922
>I mentioned the II is by no means bad. It's significantly better than the A6000, A7, A7R.
Awesome. I'm excited to get it soon once I find a good deal on Ebay.

>>4475009
Fair lmao
Guess I should’ve said that I’m not at a skill level where I’m ending up in the kind of situations where I absolutely 100% need to make this shot work or I won’t be able to pay the rent.
I’m just doing this to fuck around and take portraits of people I know, travel photos, cars, etc

>>4474998
>normal people: the a7c is so small and light, I take it everywhere. cameras are so good now!
>other normal people: for me it's the lumix s9. it's so cute and comes in cool colors!
>normal people, still: I just use my phone :D
>/p/: I CAN ONLY CHOOSE BETWEEN THE ZF, LEICA, ND FUJI APS-C.... BECAUSE SNOY.... SNOY BAD... .SNOY... 4CHAN DOESNT LIKE SNOY... I CANT BUY A SNOY 4CHAN SAID ITS BAD... ITS NOT AS TECHNICALLY PERFECT AS THE Z7III.... LOOMIX BAD... PHONES AI... I NEED DSLR
You unhappy gearfags. Lmfao.

>>4475009
Crap sensor skill be like:
Just don't take that photo bro. Real art is planned bro. Miss the shot bro. f8 equivalent and be somewhere else bro. Buy these 3 different programs to fix the image quality bro. I dont work in a studio, but fashion photography is the only real art bro.

>>4475018
Just be a normal person and get a compact FF like an a7c or s9. Yes, APS-C looks worse and m43 looks a lot worse. Anyone can cherry pick a few images or concoct a few tests where it almost looks the same but in the same situations in real life full frame is always better.

There's a reason normal people who don't use fucking four-chan are all having fun with their compact FF cameras and you incels are coping non-stop with your crop sensor crap and oversized canikon blobs.

>>4473842 (OP)
Quick tech question:
How do I export an iPhone photo?

If I export as HEIC it has the full (compressed) resolution but lacks the live effect. If I export as HEIF it exports the full video but is reduced to only 1440p. And in no option I found was the 3D effect from the stereoscopic cameras included.

Is it even possible to export iPhone photos? This is the worlds most popular camera. How can they get away with literally holding my photos hostage in their walled garden.

>>4475009
True. Fool frame just makes things easier. Sometimes it can be beneficial to struggle with smaller formats before jumping into full frame.
>Oh wow I can used 800 ISO without it looking like a blurry mess now.

>>4474952
see and this is why I haven't pulled the trigger on that adapter. I love the lens, i love the way the photos come out and I love the 50mm focal length, especially at night.
But that's the thing, I'd be spending $300 for an adapter for a lens I like that when used on the zf would put out a cropped 10 megapp raw when I could just sell it for $700-800 and buy a nikon 50mm f1.4 or 1.8s lens for half that price. There's also sentimental value with that lens, too.
So my heart wants to keep and adapt the lens, but my brain says otherwise.

>>4475061
What does your zf do that your fuji couldn't? Did you let 4chan tell you what camera to buy? You let 4chan tell you what camera to buy didn't you.

>>4475061
Should have bought an a7c instead of an oversized nikon.

Fuji is junk tho that much is true. No one in real life even buys that shit. 50% of the “totally organic” social media hype, 7% of the market share.

>>4474533
>just donate $800 to Sony bro!
snoyggers are weird

Why do I see people keep saying if you put a 2x teleconverter on something on like a EF 70-200 F4 you will lose autofocus?
I put my aperture to like 20+ and still had autofocus so why would F4 reduced to F8 suddenly lose autofocus?

>>4475166
Because the camera focuses wide open and then stops down when you shoot.

>>4475166
Your camera isn't autofocusing at f/20, it's opening as wide as it can to get maximum light, then stopping down to your chosen aperture to get the shot. Press DoF Preview button for a better idea of what's going on. If your camera won't autofocus at f/8, then adding a TC so your max aperture is f/8 means no AF.

>>4475084
Shoot wormless photos? Shoot foliage without turning it to mush?

Am I wrong to think the ideal setup for photography is a nikon Z7II, a 50mm f1.4, and a 24-120 f4?
>Many megapixels
>FF
>more DR than every other FF
>DX mode same as D500
>FPS same as D500
>better autofocus than any nikon DSLR
>sharper lenses than any DSLR
>no vignetting snoy btfo
>nikon color science
>nikon pentax/olympus-tier weather sealing
>24-120 covers serious daylight/long exposure landscapes, events, and studio photography
>50mm f1.4 covers walk around touristy snapshitting, low light, and bokeh whoring
>wildlife capability in DX mode (180mm), needing 400mm is a skill issue
If people think the d750, d500, and d850 are still more than enough with softer F mount lenses that need to be shot stopped down, what could be wrong with this, besides triggering another one of cANON's schizophrenic episodes?

>>4475170
I made this shitmeme, kek. Nice to see it making the rounds.

>>4475170
Depends. If you're just doing general shooting a combo like that makes sense. Lots of normalfags never buy anything more than their kit lens. Lots of pros are content with f/4 zooms.
I personally take photos of too many different things that different lenses are needed. I can't shoot motorsport with a 50mm f/1.4, but I'm not going to do landscapes with my 100-400mm f/5.6.
What matters is that lenses are all a matter of subject matter.

Bodies and brands on the other hand are subjective (even if they're wrong).

>>4475170
Yes. Nikon has the best FF mirrorless system.

>>4474875
I had an A7Rii for a year and while I did create some of my favorite images with it, it's not a great user experience. Menu's are clunky, can be slow at points and battery life is ROUGH. I bought mine used from a guy who used it as his studio cam and he gave me 10 batteries... I found that weird until i took it out for the first time. Every time I looked at the screen or viewfinder the battery was a percent or two less. The sensor is good although colors out of camera aren't great but you're shooting RAW on that camera no matter what. Is it the worst camera in the world? No. Will you want to replace it after having it a while? Yes.

>>4475181
Alienware makes the best computers.

What is the cheapest compact point and shoot with a viewfinder?

>>4475184
Yep, the a7rII will just make you end up disliking photography. It turns the experience of photography into a chore. Theres a reason why its resale value has absolutely plummeted.

>>4475188
Its really not that much worse than an xt5 in terms of ux/autofocus/firmware/colors

>>4475188
Because its old enough for a muslim marriage. All of that shit describes basically any fuji, olympus, or panasonic.

Camera people are autistic. Or, autists make the most obnoxious camera people.

>>4475195
lolwut ofc the XT5 has a better UI, it came out 7 years later. But even the XT2 already had a more polished UI at the time.
The difference between Sony and Fuji is that Fuji operates like an actual camera and artistic tool, the Sony is more like a QRn unintuitive computer that works against you.

>>4474441
Sure if you like rolling shutter and wet internals

>>4475084
i had an xt50 and i wanted weather sealing so I was looking to upgrade to the xt5 then decided maybe i should jump to full frame and did my own research on various options in the price range. I much prefer and enjoy my zf over my xt50. I've been on this shitty site for almost two decades now I dont like retards influence my own retardation
another thing is lens options. there is no fuji equivalent to a bog standard full frame 24-70 f2.8 for instance because while fuji does have their focal length equivalent 16-55 f2.8, in terms of depth of field that 2.8 is actually f4.2 equivalent due to the crop factor.
>>4475110
a7c was a contender but it wasn't comfortable even for my small hands. zf at least doubles as a self defense tool since i could beat someone to death with that brick then take a photo of em after since it'd still work

why does color science even matter if you're loading up the raw in lr or c1? will the ways the colors are rendered in lr/c1 be different based on the different companies' raw files and color science?
t. only ever used one brand

This is NOT a Dating Site! Warning! You will see nude photos. Please Be Restrained! https://ln.run/LsGEt

>>4475230
Color science isn’t real

Neither is 3d pop, soul, or depth rendering.

These are all just skill issues

>>4475289
This is true. Whatever minute advantage a lens or body gives in any of these categories is completely btfo by decent light.

>>4475289
>>4475290

>>4475230
Colorspace, screen calibration and software rendering will all impact the colors. Images on 4chan look a bit duller than on lightroom because of that. They used to look duller on my image viewer too before I changed the settings to use the image's colorspace instead of forcing one by default.
Muh color science doesn't matter beyond manufacturer presets.

>>4475291
Ok I admit Sony is an exception. If you look at any other brand's fanbase they all claim their brand has great sooc jpgs... except Sony lol.

I bought three Kodak Charmera: one for me and two to gift.

Been thinking about getting a camera for taking photos on my walks instead of using my phone. I've been eyeing Olympus E-M5 Mk2 because of its small size and cool hipster look. However, I've seen them priced around €350–400 on MPB, which feels a lot for this kind of camera? Anyway, is it worth going for, or should I just stick with my phone camera?

>>4475291
This is an ugly goblina missing white balance on video mode. Watch the whole video and there are moments where the panasonic is greenish piss yellow instead because she left AWB on in video mode.

>>4475294
Sooc jpegs apparently means never changing the 30 different settings sony has to adjust each individual color.

So, color science is totally real, but…
RAW is cheating
Slog2/HLG3 is cheating
Changing settings is cheating

Sounds more like color science isn’t real

The entire associated press uses sony. Gannet USA today etc use sony. The majority of feature films are shot on sony. Where’s the green skin?

>look at dpreview
>sony a7c and fuji xh2 have the same colors on their test chart, both similar to canon
>a7cii is even more similar to canon
>nikon is the most divergent and looks the worst
This tracks with what i see and hear outside of /p/. Nikon users have garish plasticky colors otherwise every camera looks the same.
>googles nikon green tint
Oh noes

>>4475302
it wont fit in a pocket anyways. you might as well get an a7c and a small lens like the samyang 35mm f2.8.

wait for a fair price on an olympus e-p (not e-pl) camera or just get a sony a7c/fuji xm5 for a little extra

>>4475304
Colour science is just the defaults each brand provides. Even with in camera adjustments, certain camera brands lean towards certain looks. That's it. Adjusting values is allowed but out of the box it should just werk and not look like trash.
Other shit like fucky sensor glass thickness or lenses sapping the life out of scenes is a different barrel of fish.

The anons here that want to fag on about snoygrön are both incorrect and correct to make fun of snoy for it because snoytards on this board are fun to agitate.

>>4475307
>the defaults need to please me
It is a professional camera. If you need to use the defaults i dont think you should even be allowed to buy it. Spend your money more wisely.
>schizo shit about 3d pop sensor glass bla bla bla
Worse than electric guitarists

>>4475307
you’re not agitating "snoytards" anymore

its become non gearfags vs autistic gearfaggots

people like you, the corgi gearcuck, doghair, cANON, huskycuck, are the worst people on /p/ with all your schizo gear opinions. look outside gearfag. professionals and artists dont give a fuck about the nonsensical trash you ramble about. they all just pick a canon or sony depending on who has the best support in their area and offers the best price for the focal lengths and shit they need. everything your kind has ever posted about gear is wrong.

>>4475305
I posted a collage of the color charts with like 9 frames, each of different brand, and no one could tell which was which of course
X-Trans was the only identifiable, not because of color though

>>4475323
On skin tones and foliage nikon tends to stand out. All the greens look the same and people look too red and plasticky.

>>4475322
>corgi
But I'm the one that thinks all the color science talk is mostly silly and post all the collages and suggest people can get good (or bad) photos with all brands

>>4475325
You also ramble defending terrible mirrorless cameras when the realistic thing to do is admit they suck and use a cheaper DSLR or buy a more refined mirrorless that actually gets used by real pros instead of instagram nepobabies

Pro here. Most mirrorless are terrible. Its true.

5DIII produces more pleasing images than an XH2S.

>>4475326
>dishonesty
I suggest the Z5II all the time
I also suggest people can often do more by learning with that they have
I only recommend Fuji to people that already say they want one, and have many times suggested people avoid Fuji all together, and say many times they are worse performance per $
For the record, if I had to consolidate to one brand it would be Nikon, but I view Sony as the actual top brand and would recommend them to most people

>>4475327
>Pro here
>5DIII produces more pleasing images
How awesome! You should share some with us

I am also a pro and the d800 plus kit zoom produces more pleasing images than an a7rv, xt5, or r5ii. Mirrorless is a scam.

Recommend me a compact camera for around $100 or I'll buy a micro four thirds and a 2mp CCD camera and shill them constantly as being just as good as full frame or film like respectively.

>>4475327
Do people even use the XH2S for anything other than video?
If you want a Fuji for photos you get the XH2, XT5 or one of the GFX.

>>4475365
Just get the 5d, it's full frame and cheap.

>>4475365
Canon 5D Classic, Sony A380/A390, or a Nikon D200, no such thing as <$100 M43 unless you settle for 4/3rds and never shooting in anything other than clear skies outdoors. Pic rel is taken with my Oly E500 I bought for $150 off Facebook (with the 50mm Macro being the hot ticket, I think I used the 40-150mm lens for this)

Color science is real and Sony definitely has the worst colors. Simple as.

>>4475365
>compact
>$100 and under
Uhhh any ebay digishit compact that you like the look and/or name of.
But the photos will be horrid and you'll really need to lean into the digiSHIT look.
You literally should buy a 5D classic or MkII and a kit zoom. You'll spend $500 but it'll be pro-tier photos at the most affordable cost.

>>4475320
>It is a professional camera. If you need to use the defaults i dont think you should even be allowed to buy it.
It was never about need, friend. I should simply be able to expect something to work out of the factory when I'm putting down large wads of green for it. Why would you buy a torque wrench when it needs calibrating after you open it for the first time? You wouldn't, you'd disown the brand and move to the next.
>>schizo shit about 3d pop sensor glass bla bla bla
No. That's not what I said. 3D pop IS a schizo topic, but that's not what I was saying.
The plain fact that a lens element is roughly 80-95% transmittance means that the more there are the less light gets through to the sensor. Lens elements also let through different wavelengths of light at different rates. Sensor glass thickness can be looked at as the most basic of lens elements (flat & unavoidable). If you can't follow that train of logic then I'm afraid you might be mentally deficient.

>>4475322
>people like you, the corgi gearcuck, doghair, cANON, huskycuck, are the worst people on /p/ with all your schizo gear opinions.
I'm afraid you've confused me with someone you were arguing itt with, nigger. I both don't give a fuck and don't worry myself if people on /p/ want to brandwar or gearfag or whatever.
But you can't actually stand there are argue that camera manufactuers don't have any differences in their technology and the results. YES, I KNOW pros don't give a fuck; they're paid to click the button at all costs and saddling themselves with such pendantry isn't needed for their paycheck.

Fundementally I don't give a shit, and people should really just go and take photos. But if you're going to be retarded on the board you're going to get called out. Once again: Nigger.

>I have to change the color profile to my weird internet hipster tastes? NOOOO SNOY IS SCAMMING ME!
>*schizo gearfag theories*
This is what all shopping and no photos does to a mf

Meanwhile
https://thenewcamera.com/sony-is-no-1-in-mirrorless-canon-in-dslr-tamron-is-no-1-lens-brand-in-2025/
They are soooo baaaad amirite?

>>4474875
You can buy lots of cheap vintage lenses and get adapters.

>>4475184
Can't you just plug it into a usb battery pack? I think the RII operates while charging.

>>4475365
Not possible on digital but the canonet ql17 is doable

Just mind this: you cant waste film on dog snapshits and test shits to learn with and talk gear. You have to actually try to be good at photography.

For a practice cam get any cheap aps-c dslr and 35mm/40mm lens (like a canon rebel and 40mm f2.8)

Just managed to reactivate a dead light meter on a Ricoh 500g by smacking it. I feel pretty accomplished now.

>>4475187
New? Probably a Fujifilm x half

I quit photography almost immediately after I bought a z6ii. I need to go back to the a6600 but i’d lose money selling the gear comparisonfag darling nikon and buying another a6600…

Woops
The worst part is nikon Z jpegs are not very good! Their DSLR jpegs were very good but I dont see how nikon Z is better than old sony colors? Even the raws always need magenta tint to cancel out the green and the jpegs are just meh.
Someone out there is going to get a good deal on being able to pixel peep harder i guess

>>4475447
many such cases desu

this is how most micro four thirds users are born

>>4475322
>professionals
Whew, we better listen to wedding cucks.

>>4475327
>Pro here

>>4475447
Yeah, no lol. Sony has atrocious colors. Nikon is one of the better ones.

I bought an X-T5 for a first camera because I thought they look cool and film simulation seems like a cool feature.
There seems to be some strong feelings about the brand that worry me

>>4475497
Just take pictures and don't pollute yourself with the gearfagging poison.

>>4475447
Explains why no one shoots Nikon Z and /p/ can always pick out Nikon Z in a blind comparison with other brands 100% of the time

>>4475505
>No one shoots nikon Z
I mean that's kind of true. Outside of japan nikon has very little market share. The supermajority (80%) of people shoot canon or sony and you won't find much hate for either outside of /p/, while non-/p/ autists are quick to shit on nikon for weird colors, green tints, oversized and expensive gear, and shitty autofocus. Right now a ton of people are trying to get out of their nikon gear and ebay is oversaturated with 24-120s, 40mms, 28mms, z6ii/z7iis, and japanese sold ZFs.

>>4475485
And other things you only hear on loser nobody hangouts like /p/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMfCDujQywY
It's actually nikon and modern canon EOS R cameras that have the worst color

I've noticed this even on /p/ while /p/ users aren't aware of their own color. Canon RP and DSLR shooters have amazing colors, but canon R6/R5 shooters with the new modern sensors have really bad colors with fucked up blues and greens. Sony shooters have very lifelike, organic colors that aren't too vibrant and nikon shooters have a wall of indistinct greens and vibrance overload. Sony, fuji, and classic canon skin tones are mellow and smooth. Nikon skin tones are radioactive. Nikon DSLRs were also the worst cameras for color, notorious for a green tint.

>>4475497
It's a $1699 camera but doesn't deliver its price point. You could buy a cheaper x-t50 and have the same camera, because the only relevant upgrade is alleged weather sealing (and bulk)... and fuji is notorious for not having actual weather sealing. x100v, x100vi, x-t5, x-h2, despite being fairly unpopular and almost no one using them IRL (super low market share, lower than nikon) there are a lot of reports of all of them dying in a drizzle.

Coping fuji fanboys here never shut up about when sony had equally shit weather sealing because unlike sony, fuji never improved.

If you can return it and buy a cheaper x-t50, do.

>>4475514
>You could buy a cheaper x-t50 and have the same camera, because the only relevant upgrade is alleged weather sealing
Your post is full of dishonesty like this
>I've noticed this even on /p/ while /p/ users aren't aware of their own color.
So you think you could tell a brand used by the colors? You'd be the first on /p/ to do so

>>4475514
>Right now a ton of people are trying to get out of their nikon gear and ebay is oversaturated with 24-120s
Which is fucking odd because on paper the lens sounds fantastic. A GP zoom with constant f/4 and extended tele end that costs not much more than Canon's abysmal RF 24-105 f/4-7.1, which is only 24mm due to digital corrections and a laughable max aperture at the tele side. I must be missing something, but there've been anons here that praise it as well.
>but canon R6/R5 shooters with the new modern sensors have really bad colors with fucked up blues and greens.
Literally own one and can not vouch. But I don't shoot jpeg so RAW must undo this fuckery. If anything the skin tones ooc are noticbly magenta and if you're retarded enough to use the Portrait picture style it simply makes it even stronger. Other than that, nah, everything looks fine.

>>4475518
Nah hes right the xt5 doesnt add anything significant over the xt50. Just lies (fuji fake weather sealing) and useless gimmicks (pixel shift but it takes so long it always fucks up, shit no one needs, meaningless minor specs)

the xt50 is the camera for photographers and the xt5 exists to milk a couple hundred extra out of retarded gearfags

>>4475521
Its because the cameras it attaches to kind of suck. Very bad and inaccurate colors even in raws. All the lenses are either really big and sterile or super shit or entirely plastic. Canon, sony, and fuji are much better.

Nikon is for internet brand warriors whose entire personality is hating sony and not being able to afford a canon. The only thing nikon does that other cameras dont, besides give soulless engineering nerds a boner with the mount size and MTF charts, is adapt leica lenses without reduced corner IQ. Which is minor because leica lenses don’t perform any better than normal lenses. They’re a scam that baits gearfags into coughing up cash.
>surely if i use the same lens this guy 50 years ago did my photos will look like his

>>4475497
You’ll be fine. Consume zero gear related content until you’ve been shooting for like 3 years. Photo taking and editing tutorials only.
There’s nothing an xt5 is meaningfully holding a noob back from doing.
Yeah, you probably could’ve spent less, but you won’t need to get a new camera for a hella long time.
Only gear thing is go on the Fuji subreddit or youtube and figure out all the different autofocus settings, it can be a picky system, and some work better than others.

>>4475524
it literally cant autofocus on a moving subject even half as well as canons cheapest r50 lol

fuji does not make good cameras

>>4475523
>Nah hes right the xt5 doesnt add anything significant over the xt50
What a silly thing to lie about
>the xt50 is the camera for photographers and the xt5 exists to milk a couple hundred extra out of retarded gearfags
XT50 is hobbyists on a budget, X-T5 is for photographers

>>4475531
>i spent more money on the same pictures. thats what being a photographer is all about!
Fuji people lol

Dont cry now your fake weather sealing might crap out from the tears

>>4475533
>same sensor = same camera, nothing else matters in a camera
Already sold my X-T5, but it did hold up mighty well in the PNW rain

>>4475536
Correct.

What also holds up are fuji’s non weather sealed cameras because they are all built the same as a sony a7iii. They have tight screws and overlapping panels instead of proper 100% sealing so they gamble on minimal intrusion and the low conductivity of rainwater.

>>4475541
>I am a retard
You could've just started with that

>>4475543
There is no meaningful difference between an xt50 and xt5

All cameras are just a lens, a sensor, stabilization, and the exposure triangle. Real photographer know. Gearfags close their eyes and plug their ears.

>>4475544
>Yes, I am retarded
Okay

>>4475544
I mean yeah, but lens selection varies across mount systems and QoL + Functionallity niceties vary according to manufacturer and market-segment.
If all anyone ever wanted was a sensor, lens, and three buttons to change the main settings there'd be exactly one camera sold to everyone. But tastes come into play and suddenly snoy is popular because people also own a Playstation

>>4475497
>There seems to be some strong feelings about the brand that worry me
>Fujifag
You probably shouldn't get a Sony.

>>4475544
>All cameras are just a lens, a sensor, stabilization, and the exposure triangle.
So weather sealing and AF tracking don't actually matter at all to a real photographer, got it! Awful lot of gearfags on here that bring those up, look forward to seeing you call them out too

>>4475547
Sony is popular because unless you’re a no skill jpeg retard, extreme pixel peeper who zooms in 200% on corners, video post production nerd or a machine gunning sports photographer, a $1000 a7iii with cheap sigma/tamron lenses takes the same photos as $2000 cameras that use much more expensive lenses.

The camera industry depends on delusional gearfags, people keeping up with mr jones from redditube, and discerning nerds that zoom in on their dog to count whiskers to exist. Otherwise everyone would still use 12mp DSLRs, which produced prints that still sell for thousands today.

>>4475544
>lens, a sensor, stabilization, and the exposure triangle
>rate my pics

>>4475550
>weather sealing
This really does not matter. Film cameras never had it. People just wore wide brimmed hats and put their coat on over their camera. Problem solved. Weather sealing is for massive blobs like the canon r1 that can’t be covered. Which is why you’re an even bigger fool for spending extra to allegedly weather seal a compact.
>AF tracking
Sure, this matters. But it’a not worth discussing because every canon and sony has had excellent AF tracking for almost ten tears now with only marginal improvements since. All AF hype and arguments come from the fuji/nikon/panasonic fanboys because being able to leave af-s and not get 8/10 blurry shots blows their mind. The other 80% of the world was already using canon and sony.

>>4475551
They also offer the best commission and discounts for retailers and retail employees. It would not surprise me at all if they had the largest marketing focus.
But they also make genuinely good cameras that work well for the current modern photo/video hybrid market.
>>4475555
>Gearfags close their eyes and plug their ears.
Are you sure you aren't a gearfag?

>>4475555
>every canon and sony has had excellent AF tracking for almost ten tears
I don't know about Canon, but Sony AF has improved a shit ton over the past 10 years. The new "AI" autofocus is pretty great.

>>4475557
>heh, for pointing out my conspicuous consumption and irrational attachment to underdog brands, you have also considered gear, so you’re a gearfag too!
Sure, and calling nazis evil is the same as nazis calling jews evil.

I’m just saying you could keep an a7iii under your coat and outside of doing post prod in pro video and machine gunning 40fps for low-skill action photography, MILCs already peaked almost a decade ago and the only thing keeping most people from realizing it is their irrational gearfag brand fights over pixel peeping and consumerist one upmanship deftly masked as "personal preference and QOL" (and then they cry poorfag when millionaire swede pewdiepie uses a canon rp)

>>4475558
For 99% of photography the a7iii/a7riii autofocus was nearly hands off and the a7c bumped it up to excessively good.

For shooting tiny flying birds in the woods, tracking specific sports players in a crowded field, and hands off video autofocus there have been some improvements.

>>4475562
>when millionaire swede pewdiepie uses a canon rp
But he also has sex with both of our moms, so I don't know what that has to do with anything.

This thread is very reminiscent of platform focused threads on /k/, just further proves the point that brand loyalty and confirmation bias will actually rot your brain. I’ve never seen people more dedicated to wasting their time than people who spent >$1500 on a toy.

>>4475565
buying an old sony/canon is like buying a smith m&p sport 15 AR and a bottle of lube. the weather sealing/but this is better crowd cant stand it
>but my socom bro
>ur upper isnt mono have fun keeping your nvg, lpvo, dot, magnifier, and backup irons aligned when a tank runs over your gun
>that stock is obsolete wheres your integral cheek rest
Buying a DSLR is like buying a .357 levergat and matching revolver. Mega gearfag seethe.

And then there’s the guy that doesn’t/cant shoot with the 44 magnum and too much affection for his dog

>>4475562
I 100% agree that an a7III would meet the needs for most people, but I'm not so retarded to think differences or further improvements dont exist
>>4475565
What about people that waste their time complaining about toys other people buy?

>>4475568
The further improvements don’t matter

People shit better shot on DSLRs circa 2004 than today’s sony a9III and canonikon Z1 users can manage to grab with their spray and pray crutches. Less than perfect gear works fine with situational awareness and pre-visualization.

There was a period where MILCs focused worse than DSLRs and were just janky live view, almost as bad as a d300s but they put the focus box over the eyeball sometimes, but that ended before 2017 (just not for nikon panasonic fuji they took longer due to almost no one buying = no r&d money)

>>4475568
> What about people that waste their time complaining about toys other people buy
That’s what I’m describing, it’s not enough to know/think they spent their money correctly, they have to ensure other know they spent their money incorrectly because of their mental disorder and the fact that any 4 digit purchase has the potential to dramatically change their financial situation.

>>4475570
>I am both retarded and dishonest
>>4475571
You're describing yourself, and everyone reacting to other anon purchasing their own toy

>>4475571
>the gearfags are now in ur-poor mode
Your financial decisions are objectively bad
Your life is economically stalled
If your fiat investments tank you are fucked

The reason people give a fuck is because you use status signaling and shaming tactics like this to try and rope other people into your cult. A bunch of losers on 4chan saying "prove you’re white and not a thirdie by having an expensive toy!" and posting gibson les paul, nikon z8, purebred dog, $2000 assault rifle, and custom gaming pc, all in a dingy apartment/trailer or their parents house. Lol. Poor thirdies btfo!

>>4475574
I don’t know who you think you’re talking to, I just care about my hobbies and enjoy talking to people who feel the same, I could not care less about which toy they have.

>>4475574
The gearfags will never, ever get it. They live on 4chan. All they are to other people is the gear, hand, and outlet they have to post.

That is a 4channers ENTIRE identity, seld worth, and ego. The fancy pets, fancy gear, and racist badges of honor they can photograph and post on 4chan as proof of being "based".
If you have not realized this is what everyone here does yet, you just did.

4chan is even more consumerist than reddit because all the other things they do are anonymous. Their identity is just what they bought and their skin color.

The most reliable way to troll /biz/ is to post advice from actual wealthy people about the importance of not wasting money on depreciating expensive toys and baubles. 300+ seethe replies every time.

Hence /p/ hates cheaper options and needs to create their own little snob culture where spending $2000 on a camera isnt cringe.

>>4475485
I thought Nikon used the same sensors.

>>4475581
they do but he needs to justify avoiding the cheaper option so he can prove he’s a based white first worlder

>>4475574
>If your fiat investments tank you are fucked
Bold of you to think that people are "investing" into currencies.

>>4475382
>>4475412
>>4475434
>I want a little tiny point and shoot shitter to put in my pocket when I don't want to have 4 pounds of plastic and glass on my neck while doing something.
>Have you considered a 5D Mark I?
>>4475398
I wasn't saying there was for $100, I was just threatening to buy one and haunt the thread with terrible posts about it.

>>4475576
Based take, same
Modern cameras pretty much all blow me away compared to what I started on anyways
It's just easier for people to be negative than it is for them to be positive
The camera market is cheaper and more accessible than ever, with more information and education out there than ever, and yet we have to suffer through more whining and complaining and dishonesty then ever

Why did Canon Waffen win out in the DSLR market over everything else?
Like every Nikon I see is from 2008 at the newest.

Nice lens but does it have creamy creamy yummy cummy wummy mummy dummy bokeh?

>>4475616
Worked in camera shops like 2008-2020ish, a few things that stand out in the pre-mirrorless era:
1D AF + EOS lens tech was much better for sports side of things, see also 7D/II vs D300/s
Canon had FF out years earlier, and a 5D was much more accessible than a D3.
Nikon beat Canon to DSLR video, but Canon's implementation was much better and continued to be better (until possibly future with the RED acquisition)
5D2's offered a cheaper entry to "higher res" (more than 12mp) than a D3x, and were cheaper than more comparable D700's
Nikon was the only serious competitor, and I don't think they really hit their stride with DSLR's until the D750/D800/D850 lines. D4 was iconic too, and maybe an argument to be made for a D200 at the time.
Sony's a900 line was great on paper (and huge OVF), but Sony lacked the support (and tech) they have now

If you buy a cheap adapters for vintage lenses just go in automatically assuming you need to drill out the locking pin hole. Maybe other camera's have smaller ones and are spec'd different, but I have bought two for my EF mount and both were undersized. One worked in after long enough and the other I just drilled out a cunt hair to get it to lock. Knowing how shitty quality control is probably expensive ones too.

Best strap for a mirrorless camera?
Actually how do you all wear these? Do you even use a strap at all? I've seen some people not use them. I drop my phone about twice a year, no reason to think this won't happen with a camera

>>4475576
Based.

>>4475638
I just use Peak Design's wrist strap but I also only have an X-E3 so size and weight aren't pushing the wrist strap to its limits

>>4475636
I've owned dozens of cheap adapters and never had to modify them. Only had an issue with one, where it was shimmed wrong such that lenses never hit infinity.
>>4475638
Wrist strap if you want to force yourself to use it, otherwise neck strap. PD links always for easy on/off.

>>4475514
>Sony shooters have very lifelike, organic colors

kek

if that was the case all portraiture / event photographers would use a fucking snoy not canikon, the only reason snoy is popular online is because of jeets and other brown therdies who are buying 5th hand used snoy a7iii for 399$ and pairing them with a shitty 30$ Chinese lens, these people like (you) are defending snoy online.

Should I get the Tamron 35-150?

>>4475662
There's countless of good photos done with the a7iii, jeets won't ever make a good photo even with best camera and lens.

>the jeet that tries too hard to act like a racist white guy reposted the lumix ho's white balance fuckup again
time for the sony wins link wall pasta then

https://www.photoxels.com/sony-strikes-another-5th-news-agency-win-reuters-decides-on-sony-a7s-iii-and-pxw-z280-as-their-journalists-main-shooting-kit/
https://www.photoxels.com/britains-pa-media-group-selects-sony-alpha-full-frame-mirrorless-cameras-and-cinema-line-camera-fx3-as-preferred-equipment/
https://www.photoxels.com/fourth-win-sony-strikes-deal-with-the-canadian-press-to-be-its-exclusive-image-products-provider/
https://www.photoxels.com/gannett-usa-today-selects-sony-as-exclusive-imaging-product-provider-for-their-photographers-and-journalists/
https://www.ap.org/media-center/press-releases/2020/ap-to-equip-all-visual-journalists-globally-with-sony-imaging-products/
https://petapixel.com/2024/09/18/sony-again-claims-the-1-spot-in-the-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-market/
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/tony-northrup-color-science-test-sony-beats-nikon-canon-and-fuji/

You lose microdick xbawks... I mean, niggon blob buyers remorse fags btfo. at least the z5ii sold well in japan lol (so did the zf, and there's a million cheap used ones on ebay now because no one wants to stick with nikon)

I got that alpha seven triple. Bitches dont want no Z. Z? shit. Those lenses look like fuckin dildos mayne. Pancake? I eat those for breakfast. Gimme dat G lens, beyotch. You keep yo horsecock 85 milimeter. It fits you, you sissy azz nigga. I got the 85 f1.4 G master. G MASTA, f1.4 bitches. Aint no equivalence on yo olympus beatin that. Bitches love my balls. Bokeh balls, bruh. What were you thinkin bout? Shit

Ya’ll nikkors gay

>>4475668
hahahahahahahahaha

Calcutta EOS Raj

Will buying a FF camera and a 50mm and nothing else make me a better photographer? Should I spring for GFX? An eye for decent, simple compositions still alludes me. I want to make beautiful rocks and leaves photography.

>>4475667
Fly high. No lie. You know it...BALLIN'

>get curious about the poopistanian camera economy
>a zve10 is over 58 thousand rupoos in poopistan
>poopistan median wage is 27 thousand rupoos
>it takes a saar more than two months to afford sony’s shittiest camera
Oh lol that explains it. Sour grapes.
I’m American and I make 1.5 ZVE10s a week. I’m not even white collar.

>>4475675
It is ALWAYS sour grapes.

>>4475671
No

It will make your pictures look nicer but photography hasnt been about nice looking pictures since art stopped being about talent and skill. It wasnt even the jews. It was the french.

>>4475681
Ok but I want to make beautiful photographs of rocks and leaves. So it sounds like yes?

>>4475662
>all portraiture / event photographers
>caring about the opinion of manual laborers

>>4475671
I think what you really want is a macro lens.

>>4475514
>Sony shooters have very lifelike, organic colors that aren't too vibrant and nikon shooters have a wall of indistinct greens and vibrance overload. Sony, fuji, and classic canon skin tones are mellow and smooth. Nikon skin tones are radioactive. Nikon DSLRs were also the worst cameras for color, notorious for a green tint.

>>4475671
It’s “eludes,” and, no, it won’t make you a better photographer but Sony/Nikon/Canon/Pentax will happily take your money if you believe it will. What do you even wanna take photos of primarily?

>>4475684
I have a macro lens...

>>4475691
Leaves and rocks. Basically nature photography, often at shorter distances than typical landscapes as well as landscapes.
>It’s “eludes,”
fuck fuck fuck I can't do anything right

>>4475497
i first got into fuji with an xt50 because of similar reasons, and i liked the film sims and all that until i started doing stuff on my own in post at which point the film sims, which was a huge selling point of the fuji, lost any worth to me so I sold it.

>>4475697
nta but i dont think you should necessarily jump to gfx, that's quite a big increase in cost. I think it's cute you wanna do rocks and leaves. I can't say if it'll make you a better photographer, but going full frame does have some advantages for this kind of stuff, especially when you're in lower light situations. What're you using right now?

>>4475514
>worst color
Is this related to the sensor or just the processing done by their software?

>>4475700
>especially when you're in lower light situations
Especially new FF with crazy IBIS. I can easily take 1s handheld exposures now. It's literal magic.

>>4475523
Nikon cameras are superior to Canon ones un most ways though, shame that F-mount is so long

>>4475697
>fuck fuck fuck I can't do anything right
If you are alluding to your orthographic ineptitude, it is certainly very apparent; yet, with some attention, truly sublime spelling shall never again elude you, my son.

I am going to buy a secondhand film camera and I have two options: a Canon EOS 300 and a Pentax P30T. The major difference for me is the lens they come with, the canon comes with a 28-90mm 4/5.6f one, and the Pentax a 50mm 2.8f lens.
Any thoughts on which one I should get? I could invest in a 50mm EF lens, but the Pentax is cheaper than the Canon anyway.

>>4475671
The lighting of that scene is absolute dogshit bro. Spend a lot of time working on that before considering a new camera.

>>4475578
>>4475574
>Hyper feminine hands typed these posts

>>4475700
The price difference isn't a major deal for me... If I think about the cost over the lifetime of the camera it'd matter more to me to get the right thing first. I don't really like reselling.

>>4475756
What do I do to make it better?
>Spend a lot of time working on that before considering a new camera.
Why not both?

Got myself a Voigtlander Vitessa 1000 SR in a huge lot of cameras I bought and I can't seem to get the leaf shutter to move. Wondering if anyone has any experience getting it to move again. The shutter mechanism is a Prontor 1000 LK. It is a cosmetically, optically and mechanically sound camera otherwise so it deserves to be preserved.

>>4475763
Because you will realize that how you light a scene/how it is naturally lit is 90% or more of the "image quality" you get from a camera.

The light is sloppy and harsh.

Will I become a jeet if get a Tamron?

>>4475428
Yes I think he did that in studio but i guess when he shot models out and about he had a shit load of batteries

I understand that "3D POP" has become a bit of a buzzword with gear but is there a technical reason that creates that effect? I used a 7Artisans 35mm f1.4 M mount (the similar lens created for mirrorless systems produces totally different images.) and found that it created an effect that made building pop out against the sky. I don't have this lens anymore but miss the images it created. What should I look for in lens design to get this?