>>4497651
What do you gentlemen think about the Sony A7R V?

got donated
FTb + AE1-Program w/ winder
FD SC set of 28/2.8, 50/1.8, 135/3.5
neat

File: 016.png (68.7 KB)

68.7 KB PNG

>I buy $4000 of gear to shoot JPG

>>4497651
why are they so terribly underexposed

gearfags suck so hard at photography

like just use the auto mode at this point

>>4497659
Dynamic range? Not for me.

File: 173920482725.jpg (39.3 KB)

39.3 KB JPG

>>4497658
>I buy $4000 of gear but then have to buy an additional lightroom subscription and boomer desktop PC just to end up making JPGs anyway that dont look like shit

File: 1770779945988438.jpg (103.4 KB)

103.4 KB JPG

>>4497171
>Are there any types of (cheap/Shitty) lens that have a lot of chromatic abberation? If its a different mounting system, does the fact that you are using a lens adaptor help in getting that effect?
>Any tips in achieving this?
>Pic related is from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chromatic_aberration_(comparison).jpg

>>4497261
I've got 58 thread on what I use, so that might work. hmmm.
I actually thought you were talking about those teleconverters that go in between the lens and the camera.

>>4497280
>I bet really old brass lenses with simple designs you could adapt would have significant CA. There are small ones with shorter focal lengths that are not very expensive you could get. They should work fine projection-wise on FF or smaller.
Any specific model names that come to mind?

>>4497176
>I forgot which lens it was, but one of the really early film era budget EF zooms had loads.
does anyone else remember what it was?

>>4497663
Just say you're scared of learning to edit photo lil bro xD

>>4497659
Fuji user, it's just how it is. I think they're good cameras for if you're just some casual traveler that wants a baked in look, and that's likely why you only see pros that work commercially using Canon and Sony but never ever Fuji.
But if you use RAW, you can make anything look like anything and brand becomes only relevant for the ergonomics you prefer on the camera.

>>4497651
c'mon anon, I like saying snoy as much as the next guy but this nigga didn't even set his WB.
If you're gonna buy a camera to literally not have control over anything then don't.

>had nikon d3300 in office
> want to get nikon d750
> some street, portrait and just skill building
thought I will get myself same d3300, it's cheap and I don't think my skill surpassed it, but the controls are meh, the crop is killing me sometimes. Also it's hard to me to focus perfectly at viewfinder, I think it's because the camera, don't have any eye problems
also please some d750 lense suggestions

"Colour science" is just the camera world's equivalent of "tone wood" regarding guitars. Wood does make a difference (particularly for acoustic instruments), but "tone wood" is just a made up concept to fuel sales.

>>4497713
35mm f/1.4 af-s and 50mm f/1.4 af-s are both relatively cheap great lenses. The 58mm f/1.4g is well regarded as a beautiful portrait lens too.
To me 50mm is the ultimate portrait lens focal length, but if you like narrower fov the 85mm f/1.4 and the 105mm f/1.4 are great.

>>4497651
>foolframe is always bette-ACK!!!
Brutal mogging

>>4497721
105mm 2,5 AiS is hhhhhnnngggg!

>>4497725
>These 0.5MB 60-compressed OOC JPEGs look identical when I look at them on my 3.6" long phone screen!

>>4497719
I mean different cameras do handle colors differently. Color science exists it's just not really noticeable once you edit your pictures. It's a minor thing that gets blown out of proportion

>>4497735
does anyone like to leave photos unedited?

Hate the whole wonky white balance shift orange skin tone Fuji recipe community.

>>4497651
>dogshit underexposed photos
>obviously bizarrely wrong white balance
I used that exact camera and the AWB always leaned overly warm and a bit magenta.

Its not just possible, but probable he changed the settings to shill. Most things on social media are faked, ads, or both.

Now have a freakout and spam nonsense
>cope snoy gm saar cope snoy *picture of broken camera* snoy snoy snoy

>>4497663
>i buy $4000 of gear but i dont own basic adult shit like a computer and can’t afford $10 a month
Why are you buying cameras for adult men if you’re still a child? Whats next, you dont have a car?
>you need to travel to take better photos
>omg i already spent $4k on my fuji im not going to pay $90001 for a boomer car unc cringe rizz l no cap
Maybe buy a college degree and get a linkedin account before you buy a camera lmao

>>4497735
Camera color science literally does not exist beyond jpeg and encoded video. Raws dont contain colors, they contain photon counts from a monochrome grid that lives under a relatively standard colored grid. Just change the icc profile to a canon one. Every camera after the wild early dslr/mf slr days has used the same basic sensors with no appreciable variation. The sensor contributes maybe a light source specific metameric error. Maybe. All of them are the same now.

99.9% of baked in color differences are the lens coating. Buy different brands and series of lenses. The colors change even with native glass. The sony 40mm f2.5 has dull and cold colors, the zeiss 35mm f2.8 looks a lot better (and like any camera using a zeiss), the 16-35 f4 G PZ makes any old sony look like it could be a canon or a nikon.

Its sad that cine fags have known this entire post is true since before most photo fags even owned cameras.

File: boatloads of CA.png (157.5 KB)

157.5 KB PNG

>>4497664
old (early 2000s) hyperzoom lenses tend to have boatloads of CA at the corners, also why do you want rainbows everywhere CAnon ? you must tell me CArlos

>>4497663
/thread
Work smarter, not harder.

>>4497760
>Work smarter
>By constantly fucking with camera settings
>And not owning a computer, so you can't actually do any work
Shooting jpeg:
Always nail white balance, you cant change it later
Tough light? I hope you brought your gray card.
Always nail exposure, you cant change it later
Always consoom the correct brand
Always consoom the newest camera from the meme brands for the best jpeg conversions. All of a sudden, nikon, sony, panasonic, and olympus cameras are essentially unusable. You are limited to canon and fujifilm. And only canon has working autofocus and full frame options.
Shadows too dark? Highlights too bright? Open the menu and change your dynamic range settings, buster.
This isn't hard work, it's uh, skill. Nothing says "artist" like being an expert in changing settings on a tiny computer pretending to be a camera!

Shooting raw:
EC -1
Do not give a fuck about camera settings, just the exposure triangle
No need to nail exposure, it's just a "negative" and hasn't been developed
Open file, presets already loaded, + one click white balance + export, already looks better than jpeg
Manual changes take less than 10 seconds per file, ie: shadows +25 or highlights -50

Shooting film:
Snap
Missed exposure? Big deal. What's white balance?
Mail it in
Nice photos!

>>4497760
Don't /thread yourself, fujitroon

>>4497763
He's not wrong. It's called taking photos, not photoshopping.

>>4497762
This. Shooting jay-peg is fucking miserable and encourages consoomerism. With raw an ancient micro four thirds camera takes better looking photos than a $2000 x100vi with minimal effort and an old canon 5dII blows it away. Brand doesnt matter, just skill… and you dont need any technical skill at all to shoot raw, only creative skill.

Film > raw > jaypeg (aka max digislug consoomer tech bug faggotry)

Imagine being a jpegcuck.
Thanks to advancements in denoising, I could come back to 15 years old RAWs and achieve results I could only dream of back then.

Do you guys not realise that shooting jpeg is just an in camera processed RAW? That's not automatically bad or any worse than shooting RAW and processing it later on another computer, it's not really taking a photo at a lower quality. As long as it's not some ancient piece of shit camera it's perfectly capable of processing the files at a decent quality. The parameters will also be adjustable. Most of you RAW shooters probably just apply a blanket preset to all your shots, the only time RAW is better is if you go ahead and alter the settings for every single shot and they're in challenging enough scenarios that the in camera processing wouldn't suffice (which with a decent modern camera doesn't happen all that often).

Do your cameras not have a raw + jpeg option? Mine does. I don't use it though I only use the mode that you hate, and the brand of camera I use is the brand that you hate.

>>4497757
>old (early 2000s) hyperzoom lenses tend to have boatloads of CA at the corners,
what site makes this chart? that seems useful.
>>4497757
>also why do you want rainbows everywhere CAnon ? you must tell me CArlos
For vibes mostly. I kinda want to see how much you make a a photo look blurry and full of chromatic abberation with out using editing software.
i am actually using a canon camera by the way.

>>4497658
>>4497663
ive shot incredible photos on shitty mobile phones.

>>4496857
>is it safe to recharge use old batteries that haven't been used and have just layed around for a very long time? like 5-10 years or so?
>i had a point & shoot camera lying around and i was wondering.

>>4497664
Browse ebay for cheap vintage lenses. If you snag one for less than 20 dollars and it doesn't have obvious defects like fungus or spots its going to have chromatic aberration. This is especially good if its a 3rd party lens for the old mount from a company that you don't recognize.

Then as someone else mentioned get a cheap 2x teleconverter for that lens. Just get whatever the one for that mount is. If you can find a 3rd party teleconverter for that mount it will probably introduce more of its own chromatic aberration. It is introducing a bit of its own, but the real quality you want from the teleconverter is that it is magnifying the existing chromatic aberration.

>If its a different mounting system, does the fact that you are using a lens adaptor help in getting that effect?
Only if there is glass in the adapter.

File: 5E7A9787.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

>>4497783
Peep this. I adapted a 300mm cooke soft portrait lens to a 5dm3 for fun. You can control the amount of spherical aberration the lens has by turning a ring on the lens. This one is wide open at the softest setting. On 8x10 the effect is extremely subtle compared to this.

>>4497789
NTA but pretty cool anon. I think there is a soft focus lens for EF too, but its pretty old and they never made a second version.

>>4497783
Oh yeah I did a little research. If you search up meniscus lens on ebay you can get a 120 format folder for like 30 bucks that you can rip the lens off and adapt to digital. Meniscus lenses are single element lenses and will be extremely poor performance.

File: cheap chromatic ab probably.png (90.2 KB)

90.2 KB PNG

>>4497788
>>4497664
Here I think I should include an example. A 5 dollar zoom lens from the 70s or 80s with an 8 dollar teleconverter from the same era. There is no way in hell there won't be a lot of chromatic aberration.

>>4497790
EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
Cheap as shit and rather decent, but shitty micromotor autofocus is a real drawback

File: Untitled120leo11 (5).jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4497790
Definitely recommend a soft focus lens if you ever just want a fun lens. They're really great for portraits and can be pretty nice for other genres as well if you get creative with the effect.
Here is what the cooke looks like on 8x10, wide open and full softness just like the previous picture. Kind of an interesting comparison.
On portraits the combination of ultra shallow DoF and the softening effect doesn't quite remove skin pores, but it kinda rounds everything out in a subtle way. The effect is more pronounced the closer your subject is.

>>4497789
>Peep this. I adapted a 300mm cooke soft portrait lens to a 5dm3 for fun. You can control the amount of spherical aberration the lens has by turning a ring on the lens. This one is wide open at the softest setting. On 8x10 the effect is extremely subtle compared to this.
This photo looks like those flashback or dream scenes from movies.

>>4497757
>>4497783
>what site makes this chart? that seems useful.
Nvm managed to find the site myself:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/

>>4497780
>Do you guys not realise that shooting jpeg is just an in camera processed RAW?
/p/ contrarians are actually very low IQ individuals. They think the more time you invest in something, the better it will be. The equivalent of thinking that if you manually focus every shot instead of just using autofocus, your photos will be better. lol nobody cares. They are also the ultimate consoomers that blindly buy more computers upgrades, RAM and yearly software subscriptions.

>>4497794
what are those large white spots? Dust?

>>4497793
>micromotor autofocus is a real drawback
Yeah it's not great but still better than AFD

>>4497789
>Peep this. I adapted a 300mm cooke soft portrait lens to a 5dm3 for fun. You can control the amount of spherical aberration the lens has by turning a ring on the lens. This one is wide open at the softest setting. On 8x10 the effect is extremely subtle compared to this.
>>4497794
I do have to say those taylor cooke brand lens are pretty expensive.

>>4497809
Once you get into lenses that need the projection for 8x10 almost all the lenses are kind of expensive simply because they usually need to be so big. Vintage cooke lenses are also super highly regarded to this day, and that drives the price up. Funnily enough even in 1920 they were super expensive, around 5k in todays money.
There are cheaper and more expensive options for soft focus lenses that will get you there. Wollensak verito/veritar is a more affordable soft focus option if you wanted a barrel lens, but if you aren't shooting LF just get one of the FF specific ones. It's going to be a pain to adapt 150mm+ lenses to a handheld camera.

>>4497780
>Most of you RAW shooters probably just apply a blanket preset to all your shots
I never use presets and individually edit each photo I take. The closest I come to using a preset is when I copy settings from one photo in that set and apply them to others in that same set for consistency.

>>4497744
Yeah I agree that's what I was saying. It's basically just differences in auto white balance settings and maybe default curves. Most actual differences come from the lens. The only sensor specific differences is potentially from false colors and any baked in raw denoising. Although that's so miniscule you really have to be autistic to care.

>>4497744
This. Sony makes the vast majority of camera sensors for various brands but everyone seems to willfully ignore that fact. Change the ICC profile and you instantly have whatever cameras color science you want and even I do that from time to time.

I also used to edit EXIF data on my photos to show as other cameras back when /p/ had EXIF just to mess with people. That's probably what makes me miss the EXIF feature the most since it could be used to have some fun with gearfags.

>Buy sony
>set to raw
>import into capture one
>set canon profile as default
>editing done!
>NOOOO YOU CANT DO THAT SHOOT JPEG LIVE IN THE MOMENT COMPUTERS ARE BOOMER! YOU CANT USE A SONY! -the broken record paid shill that starts every gear thread with anti-sony propaganda, like purposeful white balance fuckups
Who pays him, bros?

>>4497820
Multiple companies contract with his employer. Its some social media firm in india. Its not even one guy. Its many different indians supervising an AI chatbot and a few uber indians (iq: 90!) tweaking it as they go along.

>>4497820
I saw someone saying he's some autist from a camera forum and got banned for being a sperg, so now he comes here to sperg out.

>>4497820
>>4497821
>>4497822
aannndd the snoy schizo is back from his 3 day ban! saaar!

What's the best of the 50-58mm fast primes of the film era that's actually attainable? noct is obviously not

>>4497651
>color science doesnt exi-

File: PXL_20260211_113856661.jpg (716.7 KB)

716.7 KB JPG

got this meme cam for £70

>>4497773
>using third person for yourself

>>4497838
EF 50mm f/1

>>4497839
>>4497835
Pathetic samefag schizo

Yes, color science doesn't exist. The shill vid in the OP is obviously a guy fucking with the white balance settings. I have never used a sony that made outdoor scenes that aggressively green.

Lie/10. You are a liar. That's all you are.

And if you have to lie
1: What you are arguing for is awful
2: What you are arguing against is ridiculously superior
Ergo by lying, and posting lies, and being so desperate to lie that you stalk /p/ to make sure every single /gear/ thread starts with these lying asian shill vids that always purposefully make sony look bad, it's safe to assume you are a paid shill. Like those losers on /pol/ that make the exact same agitprop thread over and over again for weeks on end and make the entire board unusable.

>>4497835
I was never banned. Take your meds. Most posts that disappear are people like cinefag, ambush, moop and cANON using VPNs getting auto-banned btw. Try not to hallucinate janny conspiracy theories. The VPN detection systems are automated.

>>4497744
Fax

>>4497762
Trufax

>>4497780
Every camera i have ever owned produced either softer or more poorly sharpened images with more chroma noise than capture one. Jpeg isn’t good. Fuji jpegs are so bad the x100vi sooc jpegs literally look exactly like the newest iphone because cameras cant house good enough processors to properly demosaic xtrans.

No one actually shoots jpeg. Its just a theoretical argument for brand fanboys to have because the jpeg capabilities, which no one uses, differ from camera to camera and let them pretend their brand or their newest mirrorless waste of money is totally worth it.

>>4497851
It doesnt matter if you’re smart and experienced enough to tell that video is obviously faked. Real sony camera defaults add so much magenta tint in AWB trees turn yellowish sometimes and the sky is always a bit pink. The point of shilling is to keep a lie up for so long that casual users see it and don’t investigate further.

That’s why the anti-sony shill samefags himself also. If he gets btfo he needs to get that BTFOing off the front page ASAP and make sure that casual users scrolling past will just see the lying shill vid and posts he made/approved of confirming it. Smart people aren’t his target. He’s after people that have never owned a camera before and his goal is to make it look like all of /p/ and photographers in general agree sony isn’t good and fujifilm is.

> itt multiple brand shills having a meltdown at the same time

>>4497858
Or maybe multiple people are sick of the sony hate schizo trying to hijack the board 24/7

Nikon, Canon, and Sony are all equally good.
Fujifilm, Panasonic, OM System, and Pentax are all equally worse than Canikony.
Sigma is wasted potential, they won’t be great until they stop reboxing panasonics and make a true foveon lineup again.
Film is always dramatically better than digital and any way digital approximates film makes it better, including raw (digital negatives). Digital can not approximate slide film (yet) due to its inferior handling of white balance and color reproduction but old CCD SLRs came close.

Accept the natural order.

>leica then:
>unique sensors
>sovl
>looks like film
>full frame ccd
>partial IR sensitivity

>leica now:
>sony sensors
>guess what the new leica is going to be? another a7rv without autofocus, or another a7rv with worse autofocus? exciting!

>>4497866
Only two more weeks until leica has their own in-house sensor on a camera.

File: consoomer.jpg (26.4 KB)

26.4 KB JPG

>>4497858
>> itt multiple brand shills having a meltdown at the same time
obligatory

>>4497858
I don't even care about brands since they all use the same sensor anyway and RAW makes it all utterly pointless. I use whatever brands I want. All that really matters at this point is the lens.

Why are so few photo's on the Leica subreddit good? (Why do I still want one?)

>>4497879
Leicas are pretty much exclusive to people that have never worked a day in their life (whether as a photographer or as something else) and buy them because they're really expensive. Leica is like the Gucci or other basic bitch luxury of the camera world where it's all name and the people that have them are retards with more money than skill.

>Why do I still want one?
Because of the brand name, you want to be part of a club of the cool rich kids.

>>4497869
Its genuinely important that people dont fall for the lied and pick fuji trash over a quality canon/sony. More fujifags? More people switching back to their phone because it can actually get shit in focus and has fewer worms.

>>4497882
Looking shitty is part of the Fuji appeal, so I doubt they'd go back to phones.
>"Out of focus? No! It's soft focus, just like film cameras!"
>"Weird colors? No! It's just like film!"
Though maybe people will just start uploading their phone photos to ChatGPT and prompting "make it look like a Fuji film photo" kek

>>4497882
GFX is fine. The 40mp aspc sensor has some real smoothness issues though.

>>4497896
gfx files always somehow look closer to full frame than hasselblad x files if not identical to full frame unless its something that fucks cameras up at any size like distant trees. Some gearfag expert somewhere said the gfx actually gets less exposure per the same shutter and aperture setting vs the x2d and ends up having a bit more noise as typically used. Or maybe it’s just fuji getting worse lenses, despite making hasselblad’s for them.

>>4497901
Wrong. It's not a huge difference but competently shot GFX ALWAYS beats competently shot FF.

>>4497901
Eh they both make good cameras. GFX and hasselblad are capable systems for what they are.

File: fuji-sony-moire.jpg (67.8 KB)

67.8 KB JPG

>>4497853
>to make it look like all of /p/ and photographers in general agree sony isn’t good and fujifilm is
But he's right though.

>>4497852
i shoot jpeg when i do portraits/people because the lower resolution and smoothness/lack of detail make people look good

>>4497835
I mostly lurk and read whichever thread is active at the moment, I've noticed that there is always a mention of this snoy schizo and everyone that dares to defend sony gets called that and at first I was taken aback because it mostly happens when somebody is shitting on sony, not really shilling. I get that shitting on sony is a meme over here but most of the time it doesn't even make sense to call someone a snoy schizo or a Clive for that use case, I think I'm too much of an autist and I can't find it funny when used "incorrectly"

I got into the camera community recently and everyone in various cities are shooting Sony. Why is SONY so popular with young people? I saw a cute blonde shooting with a canon DLSR though.

File: UK Lake District.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

>>4497845
Based Honda Civic Manual bro

>>4497925
Sony and Canon are basically all that most people in the camera world use these days, with some having a Fuji or Ricoh as a secondary. There's also those that use Canon for work and Sony in their free time, that's something I see a lot in commercial photography.

>>4497921
>samefagging saar
nice try. buy an ad.

>>4497932
you know, I actually chuckled now that it happened to me

>>4497910
>hasselblad are capable systems for what they are.

body+lens new comes out to like $13k USD. i would hope so.

>>4497942
Yeah they aren't particularly good value for money. A Nikon z7ii is like 90% of the quality for like a third of the price

>>4497915
I think moire as an issue is really overblown. I wouldn't even say that's Sony's worst flaw

>>4497915
>the camera in my phone is better than Sony
wtf

>>4497915
Pisses me off that I can't find this section of the site easily

File: rAIjeshi.png (126.9 KB)

126.9 KB PNG

>>4497951

>>4497926
Judging by vomit-inducing colors, this comes from Fujifilm r*ddit.

>>4497738
I scoured that fuji x weekly blog everyone creams over for a decent preset to capture some everyday snapshits of family, and they're almost all terrible for skin tones. His sample photos are mostly still life or landscape, where these profiles look fine, but every time he posts some photos of his kids, they look like grey skinned lifeless zombies.

>>4497915
What is this from? Why is the Sony doing that?

>>4497925
Performance wise, Sony has a solid platform for both video and stills, with some design decisions that probably align better with the preferences of younger folk.

Non-conspiritorial business answer is that they also offer the best incentives for camera dealers. Best vendor discount for employees, so you have lots of retail employees using them, and even if they aren't keeping them, they'll flood the market with used bodies once the year is up. Also have the best spiff/commission, so retailers are incentived to sell Sony over other brands.

Pure vibes based now, but it does feel like they focus the most on marketing events for social media influencers compared to other brands.

File: ContactSheet-001.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

>>4497971
DPReview studio comparison tool. Not really a Sony thing, that's just showing one of the differences with xtrans, check out picrel and see if you can spot the two xtrans frames based on the text. This includes all the other brands.

>>4497975
>>4497971
Also worth mentioning the tool uses Adobe defaults, so a simple slider adjustment may eliminate the issue entirely that you see on the Sony

>>4497969
Just use stock reala ace or if you have an older fuji, classic chrome with the saturation turned up a little.

>>4497971
Xtrans was designed to photograph test charts. The only real world analogue to this is specific fabrics, which would instead render as blurry mush

It fails on real subjects
https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-the-promise-and-the-problem-31407fa43452
https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-vs-bayer-fantastic-claims-and-how-to-test-them-475b4f1b7fae
> An anon here even had moire issues on fuji.
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4261297/#4263286

>>4497974
That is a conspiracy theory. Retail stores are increasingly nonexistent. Sony’s huge market share is more related to 1: they’re good, so good /p/ has a dedicated 24/7 shill team who make literally every /gear/ thread with an anti-sony op and spam some memes cooked up by russians and indians with a “my fellow 4channers” vibe, and 2: multiple major media agencies like the associated press and PA britain switched to exclusively using sony cameras. Afaik only some sports orgs and getty are still canon exclusive and no one uses nikon, just freelancers. Almost nobody major uses the bottom tier brands besides internet gearfags and a few wedding/portrait/“art” fags all of whom are brand ambassadors.

Fun fact: fujifilm once paid annie leibovitz to claim she used an x100 and a gfx. On her next shoots, she used a hasselblad, a sony, and a nikon dslr. She does not use an x100 and a gfx.

File: Screenshot 2026-02-18 094455.png (28.6 KB)

28.6 KB PNG

>>4497989
>That is a conspiracy theory
Nope. Commission for Sony became much better than Canikon once they switched to e-mount. Their employee purchase program was like double Canikon's discount too. Problematic enough for employee reselling that their the only vendor I know that would browse used sales to check serial #'s for abuse of the program.

>>4497987
Reminder that both those articles are retarded, just stick to the dx0 one, it says all the same stuff with more authority and less misleading information.

>>4497991
Retail stores have been in sharp decline for decades. Most camera sales are online or direct to agencies and rental houses.

There are fewer camera store employees than there are pentax users.

You’re blaming a tiny smattering of best buy employees, like 30 people per major city, for sony outselling everyone but canon (canon’s aps-c offerings are superior down to the r10 and r50) when the reality is… sony cameras are good. Shocking, I know. Its almost like /p/ has a lying shill problem.

>>4497992
>Retail stores have been in sharp decline for decades
There was a decades long decline, but has been a resurgance in last few years.
>Most camera sales are online
Which still yield commissions, unless you mean people by Sony's from Sony.com, which is not the case for most.
>There are fewer camera store employees than there are pentax users.
True, only like 3-5k in the US probably, but there are lots of non-camera stores that carry Sony products for whom employees are eligible. Their discount program extends to non-employees too in some cases.
>You’re blaming a tiny smattering of best buy employees
No, I'm saying Sony, from my experience, puts the most effort into getting their brand out there, and those were just a few (true) examples. At no point did I say that camera shop employees are driving Sony, just that they are an example of Sony's priorities, and that hopefully helps explain their position in the bigger picture.
> sony cameras are good
Which is what I said in the first sentence and will agree with you again if it makes you feel better.

>>4497657
>FTb + 28mm f2.8
>heavier and bulkier than my Zf + 28mm f2.8
>hardly any bigger than the AE-1 and only like 80g heavier
If the Zf is too big, how did people ever manage back in the day lol

>>4497992
>Retail stores are increasingly nonexistent.

if i wanted to buy a camera at a retail store walmart/target stocks canon and best buy stocks canon sony nikon from personal observation

sony did a good job capturing the streamer/youtuber crowd post-2020 which is the real answer, most people buying sonys arent taking photos with it as their primary use they're making youtube videos with it or streaming on kick/twitch.

>>4497993

sony also spends a decent amount of money on marketing at a social media level too

File: Sony-NO-Intrest-for-12-Mo-hor.jpg (135 KB)

135 KB JPG

>>4497993
For two more examples, I would also say that Sony is the most aggressive with offering trade in incentives or discounts from other brands (trade in any brand get $XXX bonus off).
They also tended to have the most financing promotions, like picrel.
That's not to say other brands don't do both, but I don't think Canikon did either to the same level as Sony.

>>4497995
>>4497993
You seem desperate to credit sony’s dominance to literally anything but them being good cameras
>employee kickbacks are why the AP dumped canon for sony!
No. Sony cameras are good.
>employee kickbacks are why people buy sony!
No. Sony cameras are good. That’s it.

Nikon released the z6ii and z7ii for new sony money and they had worse AF than a 1st gen a7 or EOS R lmao. There’s a real reason canon and sony dominate. Quality. Their shit actually works. The newest $2300 fuji cant even get autofocus to work, it just performs better when zooming in 400% on a zebra stripe test chart but is just blurry irl.
>BUT I FOUND THESE PICTURES OF BROKEN CAMERAS
More cameras being used = more cameras break. Canon and sony each out sell all of their competition combined. There’s over 4x more canon/sony cameras to be used up and abused.

Now go grrr indians and post a shill vid or purposeful white balance miss

>>4497998
>You seem desperate to credit sony’s dominance to literally anything but them being good cameras
They are good cameras, and if I were to sell everything I own and consolidate to one brand, it very possibly would be Sony.

They are good cameras, and they are good at marketing. Both can be true.

>>4497998
they're not better cameras than canon/nikon. i'd argue they're the same give or take a few features.

they're better camcorders. what's driving camera sales after literally EVERYONE getting cell phones with the IQ of a 2010s point and shoot is video and content creation. its people on fredmiranda and /p/ that get hung up over stills. everyone else wants to buy a good camera for VIDEO to make youtube videos or stream. even the sony bragging point of autofocus is because they were designed for video first then stills. you need good AF for video tracking

>>4498000
nikon's flagship still has worse autofocus than the canon r8. it doesn't even have cross points meaning a nikon camera can not focus on contrasting lines in certain orientations. this is similar to the af on the 1st gen r6, which couldn't lock on to a horizontal line!
z8, z9, zero cross type focus points. zero. this is a DOWNGRADE from a DSLR.

if autofocus is not a priority then why even buy mirrorless. the autofocus in a 5divs OVF is very fast and confident if you merely have skill.
>you need autofocus for video more than stills
if by stills you mean still life... dslrs were always a race to the most autofocus coverage and fastest, most accurate autofocus points

canon is equal to sony

but nikon doesn't belong in this discussion
>their S line lenses are very good for the money!
very sterile too, like sony G masters, and most sony shooters are using third party and mid grade lenses. all nikon is good for is adapting leica glass, but leica glass is merely equal to canon EF glass but without OIS or autofocus so what's the point? maybe nikon should give up and just make digital rangefinders

>>4497999
>two retards fighting
Sometimes I wonder why I even bother here anymore

>>4498001
again in 2026

>give or take a few features

sony has better video/af because they had mirrorless 8 years earlier than canon/nikon had their first gen mirrorless. sony realized that cameras on phones were likely to keep improving (to a point) and focused all their r&d budget on improving their cameras for video recording. they were better prepared for the crash of photography sales

sony dslrs also all sucked dick and were mogged out of existence by nikon/canon to the point that they werent worth considering and pentax/m43 were serious competitors in the early-mid 2010s.

now in 2026 they're more or less equal other than /p/ and dpreview camerawars shit. i dont like sony ergos and i dont want to drop $1500 on a7iv so i'll probably not get one anytime soon.

>>4498002
Get a film camera and post in fgt. No eternal gearfag arguments by the paif shills.

>>4498003
>the few features are literally the selling point of the upgrade from a nikon dslr to a nikon mirrorless
>nikon self-btfo the z9 and z8 with the z5ii and z6iii
>still worse autofocus than a canon r8
lmao nikon

all nikon sissies are selling their mirror slappers and buying canon. no one who bought a nikon has been happy with it. ken rockwell swapped his z8 for an r5 and even our own loathesome huskyfag and corgifag gave up on using nikon and now use their fuji and snoy.

File: sony_a6700_45_crop.jpg (68.3 KB)

68.3 KB JPG

>>4497971
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xs20&attr13_1=sony_a6700&attr13_2=fujifilm_xh2&attr13_3=sony_a7v&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=125&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.31037331758431863&y=-0.07213352959877546

The geniuses at Sony decided that deleting the optical low-pass filter (or installing a very weak one) while also having lens resolution and sensor resolution matching was a great idea.

Comparison above and pic related are the result.

https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6700/sample_images/sony_a6700_45.jpg

>>4498006
Yikes. What were they thinking? That looks like something taken with an early 2000's digicam.

>>4498000
>everyone else wants to buy a good camera for VIDEO to make youtube videos or stream. even the sony bragging point of autofocus is because they were designed for video first then stills. you need good AF for video tracking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG8-ecvu3ko&t=583

>>4498011
>pulsing vs missing focus entirely
Solution: buy a canon

No one gives a shit about using autofocus for video anyways. Its a loud minority.

>>4498000
The majority of video is shot stopped down with a wide angle or is of a stationary scene with purposeful focus pulls. Autofocus is of little use to video and a lot of the trash mirrorless AF is actually sufficient for video because 99.9% of video is seen at <1080p perceptible resolution with 0 chance to zoom in or admire fine details. Or tell us more about how the 1d series was for filming with autofocus, not photographing?

>>4497651
Most braindead comparison ever made

>>4498015
duh its a shill

dude literally went into the awb menu and went heavy on blue and green. current sony color science is very canon 5diii/5div like. not cool but never warm, and often too red or magenta.

>>4498017
It's not about the color science or the AWB, but the simple fact that he's comparing an APSC fixed lens compact against a full frame mirrorless with third party zoom.
If this stupid nigger really had to compare an X100 with a snoy he could've used an A6700 with some 35mm equivalent pancake for fuck's sake.
I don't shoot either brand but shit like this pisses me off and is clearly just brainlet tier viral marketing nonsense for clueless retards on instagram reels who should KYS

>>4498018
>third party zoom
nvm I'm the tard, it's a sony. Point still stands thoughever

>>4498009
They were probably thinking, "hey, we can save $___ per unit without an optical low-pass filter".

When your userbase is founded on marketing / hype you can release all kinds of slop which they will be oblivious to.

Why does every gear thread devolve into the exact same argument? I am starting to believe that there are actually paid shills or even worse an obsessed autist that does it for free.

>>4498026
>gear thread
>discussing gear
>noooooo dont say anything but positive things about my favourite corporate brand or you're part of a conspiracy!

>>4498028
I think the sony shill makes the anti sony posts so he can defend them

>>4498025
No, they traded the uncommon occurrence of moiré (which is often fixable for when it does happen and if it bothers you that much) for greater detail. With modern high resolution bodies it's just not really needed anymore. Nikon figured out and did the same over a decade ago with the D800E and I don't even think they were the first.

>>4498042
lmao truly schizo behaviour

>>4498064
No one is more obsessed than the sony shill, and if he was paid it makes sense for him to set up the perfect opportunity to post pro sony garbage without coming off too shill like/spammy. Remember that all discussion about X brand is exposure and therefore good advertisement.

>>4498068
>>4498064
>>4498042
>>4498028
Stop samefagging schizo. Get off /p/ and take more pictures of your dog

>>4498043
is there a way to make more moire in photos?

>>4498069
>schizo post
>not an argument

Gottem kek

I just bought a Tamron SP 35mm 1.4 for $480. I can't believe there's retards out there who would pay upwards of 1500 for a 35/1.4 that produces inferior images

>>4498026
It sucks. I'm sick of it. We should be fagging out about old lenses and camera bags.

I need a comparison between the new Tamron 35-100 and the 35-150 asap.
Mostly considering if the extra 50mm reach is worth the big price gap and double weight.
I'm 99% sure I'm getting one of them as they are the perfect specs for concert/event/reception stuff.
The price and size difference alone has me more interested in the 35-100. I prefer that focal range over 24-70 type zooms as I have a wide angle prime I like.

File: tamron.jpg (52.9 KB)

52.9 KB JPG

>>4498116
I feel like its just a boosted 28-75/2.8. the range just doesnt work for me. It would always be just not wide enough and just not long enough.

>>4498117
I get your point. I used a 24-70 2,8 on my Canon for years as my only lens, but 70 was never enough reach for me. I have primes I like from 28 up to 56mm. The 35-100 could be an all day lens, but the 35-150 would be a "just for the reception" or "just for the gig" type lens.
I got fucking tired of lugging my old Canon 24-70 lens around too, so my idea was to just generally downsize everything from now on. But again, the 35-150 would be used sparingly, so the weight wouldn't really be an issue. It would be the price considering it wouldn't be used as much. But I need a lens like that.

>>4498026
It's easier to talk about gear than take pictures
It's easier to be negative about stuff than it is to be positive
We just have lazy retards on the board scaring away all the worthwhile posters, it's xbox vs PlayStation tier posting

>>4498120
Oh also, people don't bother trying to be honest or engaging in good faith

>>4498121
Imagine being honest on 4chan.

>>4498123
Wasn't always like this. We used to have an actual community here.

>>4498026
>>4498120
It's exactly like the guitar general on /mu/. It's the same five (at best) lunatics who repeat the same five things ad nauseam. "I like X brand/item" "X IS THE WORST BRAND/ITEM EVER!!". Eternal contrarianism for the sake of it. Some lunatics just get a kick out of that.

>>4498135
>>4498136
Good example of posts showing why the board sucks now

>>4498136
I’m pretty sure huskyfag, cinefag, and corgifag are all one autistic guy who owns several different dogs and cameras changing his routine to stay anonymous

There’s no way multiple people here have the exact same everything and many high end cameras but one autistic camera store employee might

>>4498139
I posted >>4497994 >>4497974 >>4497975 >>4497991 >>4497997 >>4498002
>>4498120

t. corgifag

>>4498137
>>4498141
Do they not have a point? You’re mad because… Retards that buy high end shit for their hobby, that they arent even that good at, keep getting trolled, in the gear thread? And you’re complaining about gear arguments in the gear thread instead of making a photo thread, why? All are your photos blurry low light dog centered in the frame? You dont have to be in the gear argument thread you can just close it and go post photos
>$2000 camera $1000 lens
>super opionated about high end cameras, coincidentally to justify and defend the exact shit he bought
>the photos: blurry centered dog way past sunset, blurry centered dog, blurry centered dog, blurry rule of thirds dog
>shills in the gear threads
>why am i getting bullied
>/p/ is horrible because people are disagreeing with me in /gear/!
Nice cameras are fun to use but maybe everyone hates you because you’re a self appointed gear expert, but only post blurry centered dogs and shill meme cameras because you broke your sony?

>>4498139
I think I can clearly remember >they both had an a7R III at the exact same time. Either discord butt-buddies or the same guy.

>>4498135
Hey fag show some respect to the squid, he died so we could use his death to evangelize people about the importance of safety gear.
>>4498136
>post Mark IIC+ Boogie
vgh, disgvsting

>>4498143
>You’re mad because
I'm mad about low effort shit posters
I don't care what people buy, I think all modern cameras are pretty awesome and we're spoiled with choice and value compared to when I started

I would love more actual conversation about gear, just not low effort shitposts or dishonest posting like those garbage xtrans articles
Do you think it's possible to have a better quality gear discussion on here?

>just go
Same thing I tell them, sure seems like they hate both photography and cameras

I post a lot more than that, in fact dogs and cats have only been like 20% of what I've posted in total
So you obviously don't know much about what I post, but have such a strong opinion. Interesting.

>>4498144
>an entire gear post in a gear-oriented thread that somehow sidesteps the entire topic
wow, you have truly outdone yourself you nazi shitposter fuck

>>4498145
>dishonest posting like those garbage xtrans articles
It's the X-troon marketing that is dishonest. X-tranny cameras try to pass as film cameras both externally and in the processed picture, but they fail miserably. X-tranny, YWNBARFC

>>4498143
So you see >>4498148, is this the quality of discussion you'd like to have about gear?

>>4498145
>crying because people disagreed with your gear shilling and said your most recently consoomed brand is shit and a bad deal
>y-you people just hate photography and cameras!
Go post photos, buyers remorse shill. Its /p/ - photography not /p/ - all cameras are kweens

>>4498144
Wow, right on cue. Are you all in the same discord?

>>4498150
>Go post photos,
I do more than most here lol
Sorry for wanting the board to be better

>>4498150
>disagreed with your gear shilling
What gear have I even shilled ITT? My Zf?

File: butlerian jihad.png (460.4 KB)

460.4 KB PNG

>>4498146
It's a post about people, not gear.
>>4498149
X-tranny is garbage and deserves to be called out for what it is. Enshittification of cameras propelled by dishonest marketing.
>>4498150
No, we're on the same imageboard. For allegedly being from 4chan you are awfully ignorant of your surroundings, almost like you came from Moltbook and are still harvesting data but can't figure out the missing links from what are eons ago to your clanker "mind".

>>4498149
Gear discussion should be shit. Ya’ll spend $2k-10k on underperforming fashion accessories and actively defend buying digital leicas and this is what you get. Its the post tits or gtfo of /p/. If the first thing you have to offer is what camera you bought and your gearpinions then your camera is shit and you’re a consoomer fag. This is to discourage you from thinking anyone cares about your brand or wants to join your fanboy club/fujislug buyers remorse support group.

I’m not especially familiar with /gg/ that you say this is just like and i don’t play guitar but I did see it a few times due to adjacency to the metal thread, and I understood their shitposting as ritual mockery of gearfags that would only stop when they stopped being gearfags. So that would make you the guy who won’t shut up about how magic wood makes his shitty playing sound better and keeps talking about his gay $2000 guitars for people having mid life crises?

>>4498153
>X-tranny is garbage and deserves to be called out for what it is.
I have not problem with people having legitimate criticisms of xtrans, as I have criticized here many times too.
If you're going to make the criticism, at least try to put a little bit of effort into being honest with it, that's all I'm asking. If you were honest in criticisms, I'd have no reason to chime in.

>>4498154
At least your honest about wanting the board to be shit, I can respect that
>that you say this is just like
Not me mate

>>4498155
Aspergers gearfag post

A $2000 camera should be perfect and fujis newest fail at simple photography stuff a canon R8 or RP excels at and can somehow, lag behind some DSLRs when doing stuff like sports wildlife and astro

No one cares how unfairly you think your mid life crisis camera got criticized. Its stupid either way.

File: xtranny.jpg (110.2 KB)

110.2 KB JPG

>>4498154
Leicas at least provide something authentic that no one else does, you can't get a full frame rangefinder outside of Leica. I'm not a fan of them but they're vastly superior to EVF cuckmeras.
How about pic related, fag? Entire rows with no green pixels because they wanted their shitty phase detect AF which doesn't even work properly and gets mogged by all the competition.

>>4498158
>How about pic related, fag? Entire rows with no green pixels because they wanted their shitty phase detect AF which doesn't even work properly and gets mogged by all the competition.
Meant for >>4498155

>>4498156
No, I’m okay with gear shills having a horrible time. You either enjoy it being shit which says more about you or you stop being an autistic gear shill and post photos

But you won’t because 99/100 of your recents are blurry bokeh dogs, trees in the park, and poorly lit brick walls and you’re an autistic furry whose real hobby is nerding out over excessively priced faux-luxury purchases for neurotic 30 year old virgins lol

>>4498157
>being honest and using facts is stupid
Sad
>>4498159
What about it would you like to talk about it? Or are you just trying to say more bad stuff about cameras you don't like?

>>4498159
You’re based for shitting on childless nerds who shill $4000 funko pops and get mad when people dismissively dislike the lame camera brand they sunk a down payment into, but post a photo

Just because the fuji shill can only say his photos go to another school and it would be an epic mog

>>4498160
>because 99/100 of your recents are blurry bokeh dogs, trees in the park, and poorly lit brick walls
What's the point in posting when this is the kind of dishonesty I'm met with? So you don't recall any of the landscapes, any of the studio, any of the boudoir, any of the weddings, any of the engagements? Sad
Since you know my photos already, where can I go to see yours?

>>4498161
>aspergers gearfag thinks this is a technical analysis
>cant understand its about the social implications of people getting pissy because their buyers remorse gearshilling only receives low effort dismissals
No matter what your overpriced mid life crisis cope camera is stupid. No one cares how technically correct people are in calling it stupid. It should be called stupid regardless. It is stupid regardless. It’s the $2000 electric guitar with gay tiger stripe wood and a retro brand name of photography.

You still haven’t posted a photo, you just said your real photos go to another school. Are you digging through 1000s of dog photos to find something good?

>>4498162
They will seethe more if I call them out while being a "nophoto".

>>4498163
>yes. thats right. i’m a hasbeen all my good work is half a decade old, and might be stolen so i limit it to collages to confound reverse image search. i have nothing to post but 1000 photos of my dog. im not shooting professionally anymore and spend my free time defending fujifilm’s honor on /p/ because im an autistic furry whose real hobby is pointing out the technical details of camera sensors
ok

>>4498165
Or maybe you can’t because whatever photos you have that aren’t your dog are the spots you frequent with your dog and everyone would know which poster you are. Just guessin.

File: collage.jpg (4.5 MB)

4.5 MB JPG

>>4498164
>You still haven’t posted a photo
You never asked, what kind would you like? Here's my old mega collage to get you started on some non-dog photos.

>>4498166
It's more like the bulk of my actual shooting is portrait and wedding work which I'm less keen to share here, though I still have, so I mostly end up sharing snapshots from my daily dogwalking or weekend trips. Since it's a common cope, I'm sure you can understand.
Good news for you though, I have wound down the wedding portion and taken my wedding site offline, so I can post much more of that style now, but I'm afraid they'd all be 2025 or earlier, and I'm not sure that'd be good enough for your standard. Probably be a bit more free to post more portrait type stuff as it happens too though.

>>4498168
>my real photos would get me doxxed. have a reposted collage to discourage reverse image search.
I asked for recent photos not a collage of photos from half a decade ago that literally anyone could post

>>4498166
>spend my free time defending fujifilm’s honor
By suggesting they use the dxo article instead because it's both more authoritative and relevant to the actual quality of xtrans.
Suggesting an article that is a better actual criticism of the sensor technology is defending Fujifilm?
Interesting logic

>>4498167
I don't have a dog. I don't see the appeal.

File: 251023013.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

>>4498169
>I asked for recent photos
and I said
>what kind would you like? Here's my old mega collage to get you started
have a deer for now
>reposted collage to discourage reverse image search
Well yeah, I've posted all those collages individually before, and many others. Can probably find the full res for any of the files, or at least definitely whatever I exported the original files as.

>>4498172
Severely digitally deep fried, non-decisive moment, asymmetrical trees intersecting the subject from bad choice of perspective. Dog walk snap/10 do better.

>>4498172
AI has gone too far

>>4498174
Very true, now when are you going to post some of yours?
>>4498175
Not far enough

>>4498154
> I entered gear thread on /p and saw a post about gear.
> This says a lot about society.

File: moire_suit.jpg (1000.8 KB)

1000.8 KB JPG

>>4498043
>No, they traded the uncommon occurrence of moiré
>uncommon
Yeah, just don't shoot photo/video of fabric or architecture...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2TyUrVBL8&t=1138

>for greater detail.
The loss of detail that a quality OLPF causes is so minimal it's not worth mentioning.
A quality OLPF isn't cheap though.

>(which is often fixable for when it does happen and if it bothers you that much)
difficult and time consuming to fix, earlier in above video shows how.

>>4498183
Holy fuck that dog is FAT

>>4498172
this looks like a cropped and rotated snapshit trying to pose as a photo

the low quality and overcompensating clarity/fake sharpness, the awkward downwards perspective, the deer being centered in the frame but not with the trees, the awkwardly posed deer, there’s nothing intentional here but some post production

>>4498183
Can confirm that doghair is not from gg and he doesn't have a fishtank either. Can confirm that he has dogs.

Check out this autism rig he uses to take top down pictures of eggs. Vibration free electronic shutter on his view camera and a macro lens specifically designed for LF use.

File: 20260212_123147.jpg (2.4 MB)

2.4 MB JPG

I forgot the most important part! Woops. Here is the gear for the gear thread.

>>4498178
Um our response sony bros???

>>4498192
>$750 shutter presser to take a picture of an egg
>negative comes out dirty
is dusty eggs the new goodlogs my fellow notank fishlet?

>>4498192
Why are you doing macro photography with a video light you giga retard?

File: Untitled (54)_1.jpg (4.5 MB)

4.5 MB JPG

>>4498196
It's easier to precisely set the shots up how I like them. I have a good reciprocity calculator, spot meter, and pretty rigid set up so long exposures don't really make a difference for what I'm doing. I've had to do 20+ minutes exposures because of f64 and bellows factor before lol.

>>4498194
Kek never forget the goodlog days and flanders. Does he still post on aqg?

>>4498194
I spent like 800 bucks on a mistral 3 film dryer and 350 bucks on one of those plasma generator film cleaner things that actually fits 8x10 film. The film dryer was an amazing investment because it dries film in 15 minutes, and it keeps the film almost entirely dust free. The antistatic film cleaner is pretty great when I'm making contact prints.
I'm also going to spend like 15-20 grand on a badass darkroom with a positive pressure HEPA system to eliminate dust from my working environment. In like 6 months you'll see it on fgt. 2026 is the year of dust free negatives. :D

>>4498204
>plumbism manifest

Fujis still crushing blacks, even after all these years.

Sure it makes some street shots look aesthetic, but for neutral shots its awful.
The only Fuji I would ever buy would be a 100mp or a Medium format film.

File: Screenshot 2026-02-19 at 9.31.04 PM.png (529.1 KB)

529.1 KB PNG

scored a nice little somewhat rare piece of vintage glass. Pentax SMC 35mm f3.5 in native K mount for a whopping $42 bucks shipped.

has a lot of good reviews and a nice little addition to my manual lens collection (currently made up of 50mm f1.7 Pentax-A, 28mm f2.8 Pentax-A, 35-105mm f3.5 Pentax-A, a Sears 135mm f2.8, and a JC Penney 28mm f2.8)

>>4498215
What does smc-a stand for?

>>4498220
Suck My Cock - Anon

>>4498221
That's what I was thinking, but I wasn't sure. Ty anon

File: shadow-tone-options.jpg (136.5 KB)

136.5 KB JPG

>>4498210
Depends on the film sim.
You can always use highlight/shadow to compensate.
And if you develop RAW it's a non-issue.

>>4498220
Super multi coated. A probably means automatic apeture at a guess although my Pentax SMC lenses are missing the A.

Pentax SMC glass is some of the best bang for buck you can get in terms of vintage lenses. I have a 50mm f1.8, 50mm f4 macro, 135mm and a 70-210mm (iirc) and I think they're all pretty good (the zoom lens isn't as great but it cost a whopping £15 so I don't mind)

>>4498205
>>4498206
>>4498207
Seething petcucks

>>4498240
Fresh pasta?

>>4498241
Stale pasta from /an/.

>>4498168
Post the bride one in full res nigger. also post more hot sluts pics
What type of fag are you to censor tits?

>>4498244
i think he either steals photos or did facebook marketplace one off gigs once and stopped to switch hobbies to gearfagging because he’s been reposting these collages of decent shit forever but the live photo feed is all super shit

>>4498240
theodore roosevelt national park?

File: IMGP1428.jpg (466.3 KB)

466.3 KB JPG

Muh colour science

>>4498240
Huh

>>4498242
I've never seen it before.

>>4498272
Pic isn't mine if that's what you're insinuating

>>4498272
Yuck

>>4497663
>I will allow camera decide what kind of feelings this picture will convey instead of deciding myself.

Why even do photography?

Sigma... Please release a iSeries 135mm f3.5 or something...

>>4498210
The 100mp GFX cameras are really their only good value product

>>4498291
>I will intentionally buy a bad camera that requires every photo to be fixed.

Why even do photography?

>>4498327
You've exactly described film photography except some of the cameras are great.

You should try it out sometime. It's pretty fun to take film pics and make prints in a dorkroom.

File: 710TQlGhf+L._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg (75.6 KB)

75.6 KB JPG

Thoughts on the TG-7? I'm wanting a decent but also compact "everywhere" camera, it's appealing that it's waterproof, and I like hiking so it can handle being hit a little.

>>4498335
Photo quality of a 2015 phone.
You're paying for the controls, ergos, jpeg engine, and durability. Valid to buy if that's what you're desiring, but in terms of IQ it is no better than a $30 digishit.

It also has waterproof housings available and a convenient macro flash. Both nice to use if they would apply to you.

>>4498327
So, fujifilm? Xtrans requires a PC to process otherwise its blurry with color bleed and worms. Fuji jpegs look as bad as iphone photos. $2000 cameras should not have the same photo quality as an iphone camera app with retro filters.

Sony cameras have the best jpegs. Shills purposefully change their auto white balance to +max green +max blue for influencer shill vide but that’s it. In actuality everyone prefers sony.
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/tony-northrup-color-science-test-sony-beats-nikon-canon-and-fuji/amp/
https://old.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/1cfgvgi/unpopular_opinion_sony_now_has_the_best_jpeg_color/

>>4498335
It's as "high end" tough P&S as those come. Which is not very high but convenient and enough for documenting things in harsh, wet, dusty, saltwater or industrial environment. If you want better iq, put a better camera in a diving case and deal with the inconvenience. A tough phone is a viable alternative for less extreme use.

>>4497915
Does a more accurate sensor mean better photographs?

>>4498376
depends on what you're shooting. If you are photographing cityscapes for example you probably don't want false color striping pervading fine textures in the image..
>>4498006

Similar case with textiles
>>4498178

>>4498409
Alright so I'm good so long as I don't shoot certain patterns if I'm after color accuracy. Does it cause any patterns to form in b&w photos? In either way I guess its fine if I'm doing more artsy stuff.

Is there something I can read that explains this effect?

>>4498409
I mean to ask as well if theres a screw on filter I can use that can recreate the effect, or if I'm using Sony possibly make the effect "worse" in some way?

>>4498417
If you want worse moire then you want a lower resolution sensor, without an OLPF, so maybe something like a D800E.

>>4498266
> Anon, what a sunset.
> Yeah yeah, now fetch me that color target while I'm unfolding the tripod.
Then you'll be wondering why people tend to avoid you.

>>4498416
>Does it cause any patterns to form in b&w photos?
yes, unless you are using a monochrome sensor camera.

>Is there something I can read that explains this effect?
https://www.dxo.com/fr/news/fuji-xtrans/

>>4498417
If the camera has a video mode that does "line skipping" it will make the effect worse, you can capture stills from such clips.

File: it&#039;s ogre.mp4 (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB MP4

>reeeeee stop calling out mirrorless and AI
>reeeeee stop pretending people can track you down from pictures
Once again the wisdom of my opsec vindicates me. Enjoy your nightmare, enablers.

>>4498530
You're scum, cANON. We're not afraid of this thinly veiled threat, which is in fact only a threat to you chuds with antisocial views and vitriol

>>4498531
Not a threat, a warning about the dystopian future that awaits us all. But hey, you all wanted those stupid features because you needed crutches to make up for technical inadequacies. You get what you fucking deserve.

>>4498530
I don't understand what mirrorless has to do with this video.

>>4498530
Live view has nothing to do with AI geolocation

But this is why I only ever posted at-home photos at other peoples houses. I guess you could dox my inlaws and parents, while I’m chilling with my roommate in another house entirely.

>>4498531
It’s primarily a threat to anyone who criticizes the gaza genocide, talks about epstein, or says white people have a right to exist.

https://www.trademe.co.nz/a/marketplace/electronics-photography/camera-accessories/lenses/other/listing/5790141752
I'm new to buying old lenses. Is the condition on this alright and what is the maximum I should pay? Does fungus worsen over time? My use case is more around travel photography rather than portrait or macro so I'm not sure if I should even consider it.

>>4498548
Idk about what a fair price for that lens is, just go to ebay sort by sold and look at recent prices. I really like the dreamy bokeh and vignetting desu
>Does fungus worsen over time?
Yes unless you do something to stop it. Things you can do: pointing the lens at the sun (dont focus to infinity unless you want to burn something), then keeping it in a sealed box with silica gel, and you can even open it and try cleaning it if you're brave enough. However, you will never completely eliminate the fungus spores and humidity that's built up in every crevice. So you're stuck with a piece of glass you have to babysit if you dont want the fungus getting worse or spreading to other lenses.
If you can live with the ugly fungus on the element and get a good deal I'd say its worth it

>>4498536

you obviously do see in liveview when GPS has sync

File: DSC06277.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4497652
>What do you gentlemen think about the Sony A7R V?
Thanks to everyone who bothered to answer this. I really appreciate the effort and it helped me a lot in reaching to a decision.
Anyway.. this just arrived.

>>4498018
Except for the lens nothing of what you mentioned has any effect on color

>>4498536
It has to do with training AI to make sense of pictures. This is just one consequence of bird eye AF.

>>4498614
time to make a photo thread! :D

File: ricohGRiii.png (237.1 KB)

237.1 KB PNG

I'm trying to find a good all rounder travel lens, something that can do RAW and is pretty compact (essentially pocketable). Any advice? So far I've only come up with the Ricoh GR and the Sony RX100.

File: 1744394896468788.png (544.1 KB)

544.1 KB PNG

Is the laowa 100mm 2:1 macro any good?

>>4498684
Yes.
Good luck getting enough light on the subject at 2:1

File: 1747690988411990.png (651.2 KB)

651.2 KB PNG

>>4498708
It just going to be used for product photography so lighting shouldn't be too much of an issue, I was thinking of just using something like this to hold a small torch or something.

>>4498215
got my lens and its pretty fucking cool anons. the focus ring was locked up but i mounted it on my k70 and muscled it free. its definitely as good as the reviews claimed, i can shoot at f3.5-5.6 all day long and its very sharp

pentax af is so bad i actually have more fun using manual focus lenses desu. next purchase gonna be a super takumar 50mm f1.4 (already have a autofocus fa 50mm f1.4) and a 135mm f2.5

ebay has a listing for a 50mm pentax-m f1.4 and takumar 50mm f1.4 for $68 + $10 atm but i wanna wait next week. pretty sure its one of the thorated glass takumars (yellowed)

I saw cANON in the Epstein files. I always knew this guy was creepy.

>>4498614
>he actually fell for the snoy shilling
Anon, I...

>>4498799
On the contrary, he didn't fall for the anti-snoy schizoposting.

>>4498801
Go away green boy. Go film a vlog or some soulless pic for the AP

>>4498801
Is the anti sony conspiracy in the room with us now?

>>4498820
Look at every /gear/ threads OP from the last year, nuff said.

File: file.png (841.8 KB)

841.8 KB PNG

Finally it's available as of today, it sure took its fucking time since its announcement almost a year ago

>>4498826
>40mm f/2.5
>Still not a pancake
Lmao.

>>4498826
But why..?

File: PXL_20260224_180157563~2.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

Found this guy at a reasonable price at a yard sale. Everything works, but I hear Leica won't touch these anymore if something breaks. Should I keep this or trade it for something newer like an MP?

>>4497733
But that is the format in which 99.9% of all photos will actually be viewed these days.

>>4498831
Lens that isn’t the size of a bazooka so your a7c can actually be compact

Current conundrum - Zf for $1600 + Leica adapter, or actual m240 for $2000 for shooting lil rangefinder lenses?
Pros/Cons: Leica has far superior battery life, build quality, real OVF experience, at the cost of poor ISO performance and being truly locked into MF. You get that in the moment film camera experience without the inconvenience of the darkroom. Rangefinders are also sexier, but idk if anybody gives a damn about cameras now that it’s not 2013 hipsterville
Zf is way larger, has an SLR form factor, weaker battery life, and EVF only. Upsides are ISO, having access to Nikon AF lenses for versatility, and the option of shooting video, which I really should learn since all paid work seems to be for hybrid photo/video guys now. Downside is that all Z mount lenses are the size/weight of a cannon for no reason.
Shooting portraits, travel, maybe trying to do some work for friends at the gym to break into more commercial/influencer stuff. No birds, no test charts, and no backs of heads
Or I can grab an x-pro3+35mm and just ignore the photo world forever. Got a package deal for like $1500, and that’s tempting in its own way. No full-frame, no vintage glass, but the smallest body+lens combo by far with the simulated OVF that’s better than nothing. And the film sims would save time in post, I’m still working on post processing, I have a real tendency to get bogged down on dinking around with every individual image

>>4498824
That's the sony shills engagement bait. Why are you so gullible???

>>4498847
Viewed these days by who? Phone viewers are not important. They are less important than *you*. They may as well not exist. World leaders do not even conceive of them as human beings. They openly call them “goyim”, an old babylonian mystery cult term meaning uninitiated cattle with weak/no souls.

The first person to evaluate your photographs is you and therefore you are the first person to cater tk
Followed by people more important than you, your family. Mother father wife children etc. If you cant show photos to these people on a 4k screen or a print 8x10 or larger why do you even own a camera?
So, given this, unless testing sensor technology in extreme conditions or checking sharpness and sharpness only, even a canon 5dII renders better more aesthetically pleasing images than the newest most advanced aps-c

File: Screenshot 2026-02-26 at 1.40.13 PM.png (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB PNG

new lens alert pentaxbros + old shitty lensbros

cant wait to get it, i already have a bunch of zooms though but its gonna be fun using manual focus. it was this or a $20 cosmicar 70-200mm f/4 but the smc-a one has more lens elements (13 elements 10 groups vs 11 elements 9 groups) and supposedly renders slightly better (maybe the extra element? or the smc coating not present in the takumars?)

was on the low end of how much they go for, next cheapest has fungus or physical dmg. this was priced the same as the worse takumars

i think with this + either my 28mm f2.8 or 35mm f3.5 takumar its a good walk around combo for trips. keep the prime on the camera and a zoom in my backpack

File: R0009375.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

>>4498680
If you only want something to look at as memory or to post on phone apps, a good smartphone will do the trick.
If you want to watch it in high def on a 27" screen or on a print, a one inch sensor camera is also plenty unless you want to do low light hand held.
If you want to do travel in the sense that you want to be able to catch magic moments reliably, the RX100 VII with it's large zoom range, great video quality and top notch AF is your choice.
The Ricoh Takes laser sharp images, even in low light, 28mm. takes skill to work with though, so the Griiix is a better choice unless you want to crop all the time.
The Panasonic TZ99 offers 24-720mm. FF equivalent zoom range at lower image quality.

>>4498850
>erm you see, the people constantly posting about how much they hate sony are actually the shills that love sony
schizo level: 100

>>4498875
He's right though. Snoy schizo shills are that obsessed. If someone says they dont use Sony they have a melty and think its a conspiracy.

>>4498875
Your post is proof that I am correct. Thanks.

>>4498850
I’ve heard this hegelian dialectic conspiracy theory before

Whats next, all the dog snapshitters are the same heeb with connections to epstein, who was photographed with the exact same white husky mutt “doghair” often posts?

>>4498899
Correct. The sony shill is conspiring with sony's marketing team to shill their cameras on /p/ by using a modified version of cunninghams law to force constant discussion of their brand while not appearing to inorganically shill "too much".
Remember rule no.1 of advertising: there is no bad publicity. Now please open your third eye and you'll see what forces are at play on the mongolian basket weaving channel. Thank you.

>>4498900
Or maybe, some /v/ and /pol/ tards dislike sony because of gay parades and playstation faggotry and come here to REEE at camera nerds because camera nerds are huge sony fans.

>>4498904
Firstly mine is funnier so that's what I believe, and secondly It's also true.

>>4498904
>camera nerds are huge sony fans
No they aren't. Stop gaslighting people into thinking everybody loves Sony. Buy a fucking ad.

>>4498904
>>4498913
the way i see sonyshills talk about other brands you absolutely cannot take a photo without the latest sony alpha a7rv and g-master lens, they don't even have the right to exist when sony is that much better according to them

its insufferable

I recently bought a Canon 1ds2 and it turns out canon had figured out AWB 20 years ago! How's sony doing?

>>4498928
Sony and canon chads both look down upon how useles and overpriced foolji and niggon are. Also panasonic doesnt exist.

t. Canon chad

>>4498941
My 5DIII and 5DIV always got AWB wrong. I never had an issue with sony other than having no real lens stabilization. Canon’s works in tandem with IBIS and beats gimbals. Sony’s stabilization is merely photography grade.

Canon’s video capabilities are so consistently superior to sony I think sony would do well to make slimmer cameras with video and high framerate features removed.

>>4498928
fuji and panasonic genuinely should not waste their time making any more of their terrible digital cameras tho. the world would be a better place without fujislugs and youtubers that think open gate and dci 4k matter.

>>4498947
Not my experience with 5d3 at all, funny how it can differ so, I never had to doubt AWB with that camera, it was always spot on. Unlike my A73, and other cameras with that sensor, lumix S1, nikon Z6, they all seemed to struggle, especially in dusk situations

i've come to realisation that i prefer using my z8 only for birding and wildlife and film cameras for everything else

>>4498948
Which Fuji and Panasonic cameras have you used?
I've only used one Sony, A7c, and returned it within the 30 day window because the firmware was so riddled with errors and incompatibilities compared to my much older Lumix where everything just works.

>>4498953
Proud of you, son.

>>4498953
z8 has shit dynamic range

>>4498949
Its AWB is always too cold and randomly adds green tints. Its on a shelf with A+5 to sort of be good. It also tends to overexpose two stops in evaluative.

>>4498958
Sounds like either nonsense lies, skill issues, or video autism. Sony video settings are really bad. Thankfully large sensor video is fucking irrelevant on photo cameras. You’re either pro enough to need a true hybrid from canon, or its a gimmick and you should buy a camcorder with a kit zoom

>>4498958
This. Panasonic makes the best cameras. There's one mad anon here that is still seething over that youtube video revealing how bad the Sony colors are.

>>4498985
Panasonic’s $3000 s1rii has a 30% af-c hit rate. Panasonic colors are consistently voted among the worst in blind tests. Panasonic is known for curating youtube reviews and blacklisting people over the slightest criticism. End result they’re not even 1/10th of camera sales and L mount has been a flop.

At least they have DCI 4k and heccin open gayte for that last 1mp of sharpness!

>>4498967
>Sounds like either nonsense lies, skill issues, or video autism.
Nope, try doing a night landscape shot on your Sony.
The autofocus won't grab due to darkness (normal with any brand) so you will need manual focus.
You will need to amplify the EVF view to frame and see the contrast of the scene. Sony's feature is called "Bright Monitoring".
Now pull up your manual focus assist to zoom in and see your focus sharpness.
Oops! "Bright Monitoring" isn't compatible with MF assist and shuts it off so you can't see shit while trying to focus.

File: a7catnight.jpg (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB JPG

>>4498998
I never had a problem shooting in the dark with the a7c even using the shittiest manual focus lenses. Sounds like you have a skill issue. Problems pressing the zoom in button, perhaps.
>a feature nikon and canon dont even have doesnt work exactly how i want it to
So? Beats the autofocus being single point afs only and awful colors (panasonic). L mount doesnt even have a pancake lens. 28mm f8 manual focus lmao. I only ever borrowed a7cs and the only thing actually wrong with them was the video mode and the IBIS suddenly losing 4 stops of effectiveness while filming.

File: Vacuum platen.jpg (339.8 KB)

339.8 KB JPG

Huge score last night on fleabay. Condit vacuum platen with built in pin register!! Super duper rare find. Ive been looking for something like this for 6+ months. Im going to make a killer contact printing box with this thing.

Vacuum frames apply significantly more pressure onto your film and paper than standard leaf spring frames, which results in even sharper and crispier prints. Makes a huge difference in sharpness when doing platinum/palladium type prints as well.

>>4498826
Without the hood, this is basically a pancake since it doesnt focus externally like the canikon ones. It might finally be time to buy an a7c instead of owning them temporarily for vacations.

>>4499003
nvm the aperture ring is useless declicked garbage

>>4499001
let me guess, this is so that we can see the hair, dust, and unidentified filth even clearer on your egg negatives

File: file.png (774.5 KB)

774.5 KB PNG

For me it'll be this sexo baby
>10 aperture blades
Yep, I'm buying your lens. Simple as.
9 and 11 and whatever uneven number of blades abomination go into the trash, where they rightfully belong.

>>4498999
The only people with skill issue are Sony's programmers and testers.
Evaded my actual point that the MF assist disables bright monitoring which is needed when contrast is low - your image isn't such a condition.

also never answered which Lumix model you've used.

>>4499005
My negatives are pretty clean these days. I just posted one in fgt. :)
The vacuum aspect is just a crazy awesome benefit to this contact printing frame.
I mainly got it for the pin register built into the glass that matches my pin registration punch. A LOT of really cool and powerful stuff you can do with a good pin registration system.
With proper masking techniques you sort of have the use of the curves tool, but analog.

>>4499008
Just press the zoom in button instead of being such a sperg. Who cares if the features cancel out, really. Nikon and canon dont even have either. I always found MF assist annoying and kept it turned off.
>which lumix
S1r, s5ii, g9ii, all trash. Tony northrup was allowed to show the s1rII’s issues so, nope. Lumix is not a real camera brand. They are clearly made by CS degree autistics.
>what do you mean the autofocus is bad
>it hits my anime doll every time
>what about this combination of software features huh?
>look at these extra pixels in video mode

>>4498967
>Sounds like either nonsense lies, skill issues, or video autism.
Sony's exposure preview is broken as well. When you are shooting a dark scene or using a dark ND filter the preview stops increasing in brightness at some arbitrary point. Exposure meter or histogram won't help because they are apparently reading the bad preview image.
So, much like with manual focus in the dark, you're taking test shots to see what the image looks like which is fun with an exposure over 5 seconds and rapidly changing conditions for example cloud cover moving over an aurora.

>>4498828
This. How do you fuck up this badly?

>>4499019
Happy you found your dream camera, anon.