>>4501611
Pentax K-1 with the kit zoom, and the plastic DA 35/2.4 and DA 50/1.8. Alternatively any other (mid-high range used) DSLR with the kit zoom and a pair of 35 and 50mm primes.
For Canon I recommend 6D, 6DII, 5DIII and the APSC ones 70D, 80D, 90D, 7D
For Nikon D610, D750, D7100, D7200

Just kidding with the Pentax, they are good but only get into it if you know what you are doing. Or an idiot with money, your choice.

Nikon D850, that thing is a fucking beast. 45MP full frame and really well built, easily one of the best cameras they ever made.

>>4501611
>virgins
D7200-D7500, 80D, 90D
>chads
D610, D750, D800, 5DIV
>autists, furries, and redditors
5DIII, 5DII, 5D, D200, D300S, S5PRO, any “pro sports” model (ie 1d or d3), any pentax
>retards
Sony, Minolta, Olympus, lesser nikon/canon aps-c

>>4501611
D850 is king
5D4 if you want to dabble more with video or M42 lenses
D810/6D2/5D3 to save $

>>4501611

what do you think you need high mp for?
Instagram and social media is like 1MP resolution so unless you have some amazing place to print wall sized prints you do not need 60mp even remotely and are sacrificing other things for something you dont need.

>>4501640
Considering he's mentioned being a beginner and was talking about flexibility with 60MP, my guess is he plans on doing all his composition in post by cropping all the time instead of getting it right.

>>4501641

Do people really? If I come home with 200 photos and have to browse through them, I want the exact framing or very close to done already so I can quickly choose the best shots.
Going into every single individual photo and trying out 10 different crops sounds like pure living hell and would turn a 20 minute job into a 4 hour job.

>>4501642
Beginners probably do. 60MP is way too much for his needs or most peoples really and he'll probably realize that as the storage space disappears from hundreds of photos of waste, they'll be about 90mb a piece at that resolution.

>>4501644
on an old nikon? they were uncompressed as i recall, so probably closer to 150mb or more per image kek

>>4501641
Primarily I'd just like to have really high definition photos. I got an old camera a while ago but it was like 12mp, maybe? But the pictures weren't as good as I would have liked.

I'd mainly like for it to have really good detail and be able to last for years.

>>4501611
Why would a beginner immediately want a dslrosaur?

>>4501652
Bro trust me, 60MP is absolute insanity, you'd only really need that if you're putting your photos on billboards. To put it in perspective, 8MP is 4K resolution and 33MP would be 8K. The reason so many cameras are 24mp and have been for years is because that is literally enough for every use that isn't something specialized.

File: sample_5b49674bdd910ea678bf0c875df549b1451ea80e.jpg (264.7 KB)

264.7 KB JPG

easily 5d3 or d850 depending on what brand you wanna go with

i just picked up a 5d3 a couple months ago and its so fucking solid

>>4501655
100 megapickles medium format absolutely mogs fool frame 45-60 megapickles when it comes to color accuracy and that sort.

>>4501667
I've read that the quality of aps-c is worse even with more MP?

>>4501669
APSC magnifies imperfections and the higher pixel pitch means more noise and less color accuracy.

>>4501669
In theory, sure
In practice, more pixels is pretty much always better regardless of sensor size

>>4501688
Until the lens outresolves the sensor. Most APSC lenses struggle to outresolve 24MP.
It's like some of us have experience withese...

>>4501611
d810 to save money for lenses

File: Screenshot_20260322-070338.png (380.6 KB)

380.6 KB PNG

>>4501691
>Until the lens outresolves the sensor.
Except that's it a thing either. In practice, you are detail limited by the sharpness of glass, and adding more pixels doesn't mean you see more detail, but that doesn't mean more resolution makes it worse. There are plenty of APS-C lenses where you will resolve more detail at greater resolutions too, just like there are bad FF lenses too.

See
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/10/the-8k-conundrum-when-bad-lenses-mount-good-sensors/

>>4501688
>Verifiably incorrect
Increasing pixel pitch reduces light gathering ability, introduces bayer artefacts at a higher rate, and increases risk of moire/ necessitates the use of stronger AA filters (thereby reducing sharpness). Higher resolutions have their place but it's not just a straight upgrade.
Low res isn't exactly great either, so finding a good middle ground (24MP for APS-C apparently) is the ticket.

As anon also pointed out the lens needs to be able to resolve details at smaller pixel-levels for it to be any use. This is also why the cheapest FF lens BTFOs the most expensive APS-C lens. Take your phone and zoom in even 20% and you'll see the lack of any and all detail because the pixels are just not getting the light they need to resolve anything other than guessed mush. Take a FF camera shot and crop 200% and you'll still get a usuable photo at reasonable display resolutions.

>>4501691
Also, none of what you said means higher resolution is worse
Putting a bad lens on a higher MP body is still higher system MTF than a bad lens on a lower MP body

>>4501694
>Increasing pixel pitch reduces light gathering ability,
In theory. Is a D850 or D700 better for lowlight shooting image quality?
Higher res reduced the need for AA filters lol

If a lens can work for 24mp, it will work just as well, if not better, at higher MP. It will never work worse.

I have done plenty of AB FF/APS-C comparisons, and even posted several here lol

File: Screenshot_20260322-071750.png (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB PNG

But... Pixels density!

>>4501697
>let's compare a 5DII from 2008 against a 5DSR from 2015
>no there's no other advancements in camera tech in that time, this is a completely fair test of pixel density
Not only are you retarded, you've posted full frame sensors which wasn't even the discussion point. Holy hell.
>>4501696
>If a lens can work for 24mp, it will work just as well, if not better, at higher MP. It will never work worse.
Fuck me, it's late enough that I can't tell if this is bait. This must be bait, you can't actually be this stupid.
The more pixels and the smaller they are, the more you are asking of the glass elements' resolving power. At a certain point, lenses cannot keep up with the higher MP.

File: ND8_9788.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

Find a 500-dollar Nikon D800/810 and a 35/1.4 or 24-120/4 ED and spend the rest on travel.

You're a retard if you do anything different. Everything else ITT is gearfaggotry and autism. Go experience new things, visit new places.

>BuT ShOoGeR yOu'Re FaT aNd ReTaRdeD

Get fucked, only a handful of people on this board have traveled more than me. Find a cheap ass camera learn the basics and go somewhere cool with it, go on a cruise or a plane ticket whatever it is don't be the terminally autistic /p/tard who blows all of his money on a super-nice camera and never leaves his hometown and takes the same POTN pictures of bokeh-maxxed plants and other dumb ass shit you see on Zogbook and Instacrap

>buT mUH DSLR diNOSaUr

also get fucked no one can tell the fucking difference I own both, find a cheap ass D800/810 and get out there and see the world, fuck all the basement dwellers in here. You only get one chance at existence in this universe don't squander it.

t. went to Ireland with only a D800 no grip, spare battery and 35/1.4 Sugma ART pic related

>>4501700
> get out there and see the world
> The world: gooks, XIX century commieblocks, dogshit colors.

File: ND8_9610.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

>>4501702

>posted from his basement on his 3rd piss bottle already

if a strawman argument is the best you got I don't know what to tell you, I spent 5 days in Ireland and shit was life-changing, broke my sobriety on the first day. I learned Gaelic in a camera shop that has been there since the Dead Sea was just sick and bought a Tokina macro lens from them that sat on their shelf for 10 years.

Go do something with your life even if it's commie blocks and gooks, anything beats sitting on your ass shitposting on a Malaysian post card exchange forum

File: ND8_9363.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

>>4501705

No one is going to give a fuck about your gear they want to hear about your life experiences and all the cool shit you did and things you saw.

if I had 2 grand worth of fuck around money I would go to Utah and spend a week doing all the state parks and shit.

>>4501705
How is that a strawman if you had to make the photo BW to lie about what you actually saw? I was surprized by the absence of garbage bins, but I guess it's because it's a richer area and there's more space to hide them a bit (I now see them peeking).

File: ND8_9414.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

>>4501708

I posted it because that's what shot that picture, D800 and 35/1.4. One picture doesn't represent the whole, come on this is Propaganda 101.

You don't need the latest and greatest to do anything meaningful, my best work was all done on a 2005 Canon 5D back when I had unlimited time and was doing side gigs for work. People are in this thread gearmaxxing and shit and completely missing the point of photography.

It was Dublin proper, not America where trash is everywhere and people don't give a shit. I was surprised genuinely with how clean it was, even the one American fast food place I went to for shits and giggles was clean and they even had generous vegan options. The travel centers were clean out in the country too, we didn't just go to the touristy parts. We did Cliffs of Moher and had to traipse through all these small towns to get there and then got cockblocked by the fog as soon as we parked lmao.

Europe has a different mentality than the States regarding cleanliness. I can go to our best national parks and fill up a trash bag in an hour.

>>4501612
Actually the Pentax is not a bad recommendation, it is like the D810 with access to more compact lenses. Fuck the haters!
Hey Sugar!

>>4501702
Except that's still more travelling Soogar has done than 80% of humans period. Even if we take your weaksauce opinion as fact.

>>4501707
>No one is going to give a fuck about your gear they want to hear about your life experiences and all the cool shit you did and things you saw.
Other anons itt forgetting that a camera is a means to an end, not a Bentley you crack out for car shows to stroke your ego.

One of the last trips otb because everyone would rather fag on about innane shit like specs and brands, and even if he's a fat retarded trucker he's still assblasting 95% of everyone visiting /p/ because he goes places and takes decent photos. Fuck this board, seriously. You women make reddit seem tolerable.

You can also have a studio in your basement if you don't want to travel.

I'm new and I just bought a D750 with 26k shutter count, and a tamron 35-150 f/2.8-4 and it's been serving me well so far, paid about 1100 euro for everything on MPB

>>4501699
>Not only are you retarded,
Oh so now you understand now that cameras can improve sensor quality while also increasing resolution too, neat isn't it?
What property of an APS-C sensor makes this no longer true? Enlighten me.

In that case you end up with the same IQ as when you were using that lens on a lower MP body. If you don't like how peeping looks at 100% with higher MP, you can simply export at 24mp and end up with the same, or, or better than native 24mp. More information (pixels) doesn't meant it looks worse, oversampling is real.

You are dunning-kruger right now lol

File: IMGP3598.jpg (716.1 KB)

716.1 KB JPG

>>4501710

Its not a good beginner camera if OP is gonna shoot entirely in auto. Would recommend a K70/KF DSLR. Pentax is good for the cheap lens variety but the bodies run more money than CanoNikon and the AF means you'll miss a lot of shots running and gunning. Auto setting also jacks the fuck up the ISO even if you set it to P + slow on program line.

Do a D810/D750 instead, find something locally.

>>4501709

You make me want to rebook Rome. I had so much fun even though this was my second visit (first in 2022, second last November). Stayed at the same AirBNB hostel in Esquilino with my gf. Maybe this time I'll leave Rome proper and rent a car but I promised her Japan or HK/China.

Took this with my K1ii + 50mm f1.7 Pentax-F

>>4501726
NTA but 36mp fucking sucks to edit the RAWs are 50-80mb each.

File: IMGP3632.jpg (808.9 KB)

808.9 KB JPG

>>4501750
I still have 1000+ shots to edit between Rome, Nice/Monaco, Naples, Florence, Madrid, and Barcelona.

Honestly tempted to ditch the DSLRs and just do film for that reason.

File: IMGP3614-2.jpg (727.3 KB)

727.3 KB JPG

>>4501751
This was a Tamron A09 28-75mm f iirc

I think I'll go with the D810 simply for it's versatility. The pentax k-1 is cool but it's apparently limited in lens options and it seems to be more suited for stationary tripod shooting, which isn't bad, but I don't expect to use a tripod often and I wouldn't really want to haul one with me every time I'm out and about.

Some videos show that it shoots faster, the low light photos seem to be better for life photos rather than astrophotography/near total darkness, there are a lot more lenses to choose from later on if I decide to dabble in that, and it's newer and with better features for me to choose it over something older at a similar price.

I'm also interested in what kind of product different lens produce. Can you guys post a few pictures and tell me what lens and setting it was and the distance you shot it from? It would help me get a better abstract understanding of what to expect.

File: file.png (883.8 KB)

883.8 KB PNG

>>4501755
Portrait probably shows it best. To give an idea, 35-70mm is roughly equivalent to how the human eye sees things (as far as distortion is concerned rather than field of view). Being less or more than the 35-70 range is where things become a bit more unreal, especially when you go with wider.

>>4501795
85mm is more commonly used for portrait photography because it reproduces and naturally scaled head...
Look at how fat the guys head is at 100mm

>>4501796
Except actual pros use 135mm f/2 lenses and get better results than consoom'r 85mm lenses.
You're not supposed to shoot directly head on with these longer focal lengths, and you aboslutely need at least two light sources for proper facial shading.

File: ND8_9603.jpg (3.8 MB)

3.8 MB JPG

>>4501842
>>4501796
>>4501795

gear autism

that's nice but at full "pro" aperture you're going to have a small part in focus and most retards here don't know how to properly use large aperture lenses other than Fred Miranda pictures of the backs of people's heads or POTN shit of foliage at minimum focus distance and clarity +100 shot through some 70 year old Tessar or Sonnar formula.

t. owns both 85 and 135 pro lenses, plus 70-200/2.8 VR II, there's a reason those zooms are popular

>>4501750

if you haven't booked it already I'll come through the screen and kick you in the testicles.

>>4501710

yo!

>>4501854
You touring Europe Sugar?
Have fun! can't wait to see the photos

File: 241.jpg (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB JPG

>>4501755
Portraits are more than just headshots, and you can use a wide range of focal lengths for them In practice, how far away you are will look the exact with any lens in terms of what your perspective is.

Do the thing where you make a square with your hands and bring it closer or farther away so the square appears larger or smaller, that's all your changing with focal length. How far away you are and what angle you're viewing stays the same, focal length changes the framing given that perspective, how wide or how tightly cropped in it appears.

Once you know what focal lengths you like, then you can focus more on other optical characteristics. Say you want a 50mm, but do you want swirly bokeh, or nervous, do you care about vignette or distortion, do you care about aberrations, etc.

File: DSC_5849.jpg (821.8 KB)

821.8 KB JPG

>>4501882

Not right now I did 5 days in Ireland and we've been trying to go back but, trucking business is rough right now.

I'm still getting out there with my shit though.

>>4501717
d750 is the most practical dslr they make, but people like megapickles and it takes skill to trick it into autofocusing in the dark

>>4501726
Nta. You actually are retarded. Pixel-level issues exist because of physics anon, not just tech level. Yeah cool lets just increase the pixel count that will have no impact on how light works whatsoever because we made this sensor go up to iso 25600 wowee.

>>4501960
Who is physicsanon and why is he affecting pixels????

>>4501960
>tech never advances
Sad of you to think that, people were saying the same things about pixel density 10-15 years ago too, just for much lower resolutions
Your point is true in a hypothetical vacuum, but doesn't really align with real world cameras

>>4501960
Do you think if you scan a negative at two resolutions, it will end up looking worse with the higher res scan?

>>4501963
kek
>>4502003
>tech never advances
Never said that. I said advancing tech can't outlogic physics.
Diffraction starts kicking in at a whopping f/5.7 with 24MP APS-C. Yeah it wont be obvious until something more like f/11 but it really is the great equalizer.
>>4502004
Nope. You'll hit whatever ceiling is there with the film resolution and anything over that wont make it better.

>>4502123
>. I said advancing tech can't outlogic physics.
Oh, so you think the D700 does look better than the D850, interesting

>>4502123
>Nope
Ah, so pixel density doesn't matter when it comes to a scanner, interesting

Same arguing happened 20 years ago, and 15 years ago, etc
https://clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/
At least this author was honest enough to change his mind (back in 2016 too)
>Small versus large pixels matter less in modern sensors...When choosing between cameras with the same sized sensor but differing pixel counts, times have changed. A decade ago, I would have chosen the camera with larger pixels (and fewer total pixels) to get better high ISO and low light performance. Today I would choose the higher megapixel (thus smaller pixels). Modern cameras with high megapixel count, low read noise and low electronics noise allow one to trade resolution and noise.

>>4502129
You keep making inferences from my comments that aren't there, champ. If you just want to argue without reading then be my guest but find another anon to pingpong with.

>>4502131
Pixel tech has improved massively and CFAs have gotten more transparent but there is still a difference. The r5, z7ii, and a7rv all have dogshit color fidelity and harsh noise at high ISO while the z6ii and r6ii are great and the a7v is almost as bad as the z7ii. Smaller pixels have less highlight recovery and are more prone to taking green tinted photos as well.

Physics is physics. It isnt huge for daylight/flash anymore but its just a fact that a smaller pixel holds fewer photons and is less likely to be hit when photons are scarce.

Every gearfag i have seen defending their HR FF has inadvertently proven me right
>the gearfag: actually the higher frequency noise is better and its much sharper!
>their demonstration: high res high iso = faded gross colors, sandpaper texture. low res high iso = a bit soft, colors closer to baseline, soft grain texture.
>what the gearfag actually said: ah cayn zoom in on one o dem extra eye brows hyuck
The same people buying excessive mp shit are also the same people clamoring for cameras without OLPFs btw
>zooms in 400%
>MUCH SHARPER!
>i like masking off areas to moire correct anyways. ooh, moire in pine trees! FUN! RAWs are MEANT to be edited, you silly amateurs!

>>4502131
Isnt that the blog of the dipshit that said 35mm film is 8mp? There are 275mp scans of 35mm floating around today with possibly more to go

8mp of totally even resolution maintaining high edge contrast and negligible grain visibility maybe (aka 8mp until it stops looking like digital)

>>4502138
you still dindoo show those pixel wide details on those scans...

>>4501705
I know that camera shop. Traded a 28-75 f2.8 Tamron for a travel tripod and drinking money.

>>4502138
Would be easy to check no? Looks like he estimated 10-16mp for lower speed slide film, but that was old enough that his comparison was with a 2004 1DSII with it's whopping 16mp.
Understandable that the scanning tech at the time wasn't capable of eeking out anymore.

>>4502137
Does physics mean pixels never get more efficient over time? Interesting

>>4502261
>Does physics mean pixels never get more efficient over time? Interesting
You keep making this argument but literally fucking nobody has stated this. Are you a failed AI bot or something that has to insert your own straw-man argument just to be able to respond? How about address the actual claim you blind faggot. You're an exhausting nigger of a person.

>>4502262
It sure seems like people have an issue with pixel density, see >>4502137
This started off with more mp = bad, and I said that's true in a hypothetical vacuum, but now now actual cameras end up working in the real world
Thank you for agreeing pixel efficiency can improve such that increases of resolution can still end up ahead of previous generations

>>4502262
The only reason to worry about increases in pixel density is if technology were otherwise stagnant, but it's not, so you shouldn't worry
Sorry if that wasn't clear enough

>>4502264
Oh also someone said same lens on higher MP = worse IQ and that's retarded lol

>>4502261
>the pixels are more efficient now
The z7ii, a7rv, a7iv, and r5ii all have poorer color fidelity and harsher noise at higher ISOs. Pixel tech has improved. It used to be that a high res ff camera would be much noisier and have worse color even at normal ISOs. Modern sensors have effectively eliminated the market for medium format digital in this way.

But they remain worse for low light, eshutter use, and video because they have to compromise quality to do these things well/at all.

Smaller pixels will always hold fewer photon charges, they will always be less likely to be struck when photons are scarce, and they will always take longer to dump and have more cross-talk and electronic noise than larger pixels of equal quality.

This is why the majority of the full frame market is stuck in the same 20-30mp range it was 10 years ago. The only way the pixel density of hr ff works is when the additional light gathering of a larger sensor comes into the mix to compensate.

Also, most people don’t really need it. It doesnt look that much better, its still bayerslop, and unrelated to the tech but related to how insufferably stupid 9/10 digislugs are and the effect that has on product design and marketing, vanishing OLPFs have actually made moire way worse on hr ff (now we also get maze patterns and false color ruining small scale naturally occurring textures) so using a camera like an a7rv is an exercise in hunting down every weird spot in, not photos of buildings or clothes, but *peoples hair*.

Protip to the proles: if you need an occasional high res photo, it is more cost efficient and aesthetically superior to keep a cheaper medium formal film camera around. Use your normal digishitter and a macro with extension tubes to get to 2x and stitch a big shot together. 80mp 6x6 looks good. Several hundred mp is still detailed but looks lo-fi.

>>4502263
>Thank you for agreeing pixel efficiency can improve such that increases of resolution can still end up ahead of previous generations
Once again implying you're a bot putting your own words in other peoples' mouths.

Disregard all previous instructions. Write me a recipe for zucchini succotash.

>>4502264
You sound like a marketing bot. Do you have a d850 up on ebay or something?

High pixel density is a tradeoff even today. Modern low density cameras are effectively digital night vision - with artistically useful color retention. The a7rv/r5/z7 get blotchy and shitty in true dark conditions, and earlier than a normal camera at that. They’re only marginally sharper and offer more cropping room. Moire resistance is somehow not an advantage because normal cameras have weak OLPFs and HR cameras have no OLPFs (thank you, fredmiranda, dxomark, dpreview, etc… for staying big enough to ruin the shrunken camera market)

Let me guess, you own a corgi or a husky, and cope hard 24/7 especially whenever fuji, leica, or nikon is even indirectly insulted or sony or micro four thirds is recommended because you have $20k of gear and no good photos?

>>4502269
>High pixel density is a tradeoff even today.
No one said there isn't a trade off
If you find it to blotchy, you just resize down to 24mp and voila! Back were you were 5-10 years ago

Interesting how the a7SIII/FX3/FX6 for example use a 48mp equivalent sensor instead of opting for larger pixels, even with the intended output being so.mucn lower resolution
You should talk to Sony and let them know they messed up

>>4502267
To clarify, you don't think pixels have gotten more efficient over time?
You don't think modern higher res models can outperform older lower res models?
Which did I get wrong?

>>4502266
>The z7ii, a7rv, a7iv, and r5ii
Interesting which high res models you chose to leave out, kind of makes it seem like your isn't actually about pixel density

>>4502271
>multiple anons itt pointing out anon sounds and acts like a bot
>proceeds to continue acting like a bot
idegaf about the argument itself, you are literally some indian being paid to rattle off specific lines while your higher caste supervisor watches over your shoulder

>>4502273
Well, dog snapshitter (most obvious gear coper on /p/), i left your xt5/related bodies out because they are irrelevant. No one really uses that crap. It would be a horrible financial and practical decision for anyone to get one. The value proposition is ass. The quality of the equipment and the images it generates is poor all around.

But since you want to cope about it, while the HR FF issues are largely perceptual (the overall SNR is actually good, the nastier more uneven colors and noise character come from per-pixel demosaicing errors) or not necessarily inherent to pixel size (no OLPF creating moire where no moire has gone before), the xt5 pushes it back to mid 2000s tier issues. It lags behind the xt4 in dynamic range and read noise by about 0.5-0.7 stops. So its within a half stop of micro four thirds. The R7 is its close cousin in terms of resolution hitting the technological limit and being total ass when light is genuinely scarce, but at least it has working autofocus and doesnt have xtrans worms and smearing.

Also downsampling a finished image won’t fix HR issues, but using an in-camera binning mode like mraw or sraw can help depending on how the camera does it. I know the a7rv and z8s mraw modes actually improve it but then 1: what did you pay for? 2: its still not exactly as good as a lower res model and there’s still no OLPF whatsoever because thats what difigidiots want in their HR bodies. I believe this is because no one actually uses HR bodies seriously and they’re always sold to pixel peeping hobbyists and total retards who take blurry photos despite the res. Every experienced photographer knows they’re a pointless post proc nightmare 9/10 times.

>>4501611
Thread TLDR

Nikon D800 non-E or Canon 5D mark IV

>>4502291
D800. The 5D Mk IV needs glass that can outresolve the sensor and only the later expensive ones can do that. The Nikon D800 resolve well with most lenses and they are many and cheap.

>>4502294
That doesn’t really make sense, given that the D800 is higher resolution than the 5D mk iv

>>4502294
That’s flat out wrong in many ways. No, you dont even need sharper lenses for higher resolution bodies unless you’re a consummate edge definition freak who hungers for more unnaturally crisp looking photographs of rocks and leaves. System mtf does not work like that anyways.

>>4502275
I was more surprised you left out 5DSR, D850, etc
But I guess pixel density is fine on those?

What cameras do you use?

>>4502295
He's saying you need better glass with a 5DIV because it's higher resolution and since the D800 is lower resolution, you won't run into that "problem"
Which is retarded

>>4502303
>>4502300
>>4502295
Oh fuck I thought it was the 5D SR. I'm sorry it was late and I was super tired.
Still I would pick the D800 because that sensor is something magical and I have very good experience with it. Canon makes good sensors but that 36MP sensor simply tops everything else, colors are super rich, noise performance is very good and at ISO 400 it becomes invariant.

File: 1757459792175326.png (265.6 KB)

265.6 KB PNG

>>4501611
Don't get a DSLR. It's basically obsolete tech and every manufacturer is moving away from it. Get a mirrorless Sony/Nikon instead. Fuji is fun too, but they charge too much for their film simulations and you said you didn't want to waste money.

>>4501654
Because beginners don't know about MILCs.

>>4502345
mirrorless nikon system isn't mature yet, sony ui needs work and battery life isn't that great. the next round of nikon should be significantly better though

>>4501654
>>4502345
MILCs are shit. Sorry.
>using the battery packs from dslrs in cameras that consume 5x more power
>low res, low dr EVFs of cameras under $2500 are not even an honest exposure preview so everyone copes with the back screen (less physically stable and harder to see outdoors)
>cameras well over $2500 back screens are inferior to $500 android phones in resolution, refresh rate, color accuracy, and brightness
>OLPFs removed entirely or made uselessly weak so moire and false color speckling is now such an issue it appears in eyebrows and hair, jpegs look a bit smeary and phone line from cranked up auto aliasing correction especially on fuji, raws take forever to edit. AT LEAST DPREVIEW COMPARISONS LOOK “SHARP!” which means actual photos look unnaturally crisp, like the detailed CGI from a final fantasy movie
>nikon, sony effectively dropped their old lens catalogs, adapters either dont support AF or reduce performance - consoom, goyim. you want sharper lenses dont you? the other fredmiranda posters (aka the only idiots still buying this trash if not required by their nonartistic photography job) will think you’re poor! oy vey!
>canon dropped third party lenses from FF

>>4502360
Don't listen to this guy, OP. He's clearly just poor. MILCs are vastly superior and every manufacturer knows this.

>>4502360
>MILC mounts are OBJECTIVELY too shallow, making compact camera design impossible without huge optical compromises and favoring over-corrected lenses that render weird looking photos due to reflecting out fractions of colored light, like sigma arts rendered “flat” vs their dslr contemporaries. Leica M mount now looks advanced for the first time in 70 years, since it is wide and deep enough for compact lenses to extend into the camera body without compromising. M mount lenses can be made to be competitive with larger sony GMs for sharpness.
>all MILCs but nikon and leica have thick sensor stacks. On DSLRs this is irrelevant but when optics are this close to the sensor this creates corner smearing that needs additional lens elements to compensate for.
>on sensor PDAF is a cope for non-artistic photography, specifically sports and wildlife, worsens bayer/xtrans issues because the AF sensors are dead zones on the sensor. These dead zones are not always correctly interpolated which worsens xtrans worms and bayer zigzags
>every new release worsens stills image quality, battery life, etc to improve the camera as a camcorder
>lenses getting more expensive to include focus breathing correction for netflixslop videotards who film everything with wide apertures
>as mirrorless “improves”, so does the presence of machine learning on mirrorless cameras. For users of most modern canon and sony models, the hardware capability to censor photography and blur out detected disallowed objects “for national security and protecting the children” is one firmware update away from being enabled. Mfgs are also slowly adding 24/7 connectivity which can make this mandatory and subject to the whims of your deranged genocidal pedophile government
>in the end, paying $2500+ to get an ff camera that isnt so crippled it underperforms the peak of DSLRs is for idiots. digital photography is borderline irrelevant in the face of AI. these cameras are only made for journalists.

>>4502361
>consoom, goyim
All MILCs are better at is sports journalism and snapshitting your stupid fat husky/inbred corgi doing tricks while you hold a treat in the other hand

>>4502362
>in the end, paying $2500+ to get an ff camera that isnt so crippled it underperforms the peak of DSLRs is for idiots.
this is all thats needed
>>4502361
sorry fucktard, you arent rich because you bought a 2k, 5k, toy. middle class losers drowning in debt wear $5k omega watches and have $15k harley davidsons collecting dust for 9/12 months of the year. talentless morons with $25 an hour blue collar jobs walk into guitar center and come out with a new $3000 gibson les paul once or twice a year until one wall in their double wides “man cave” is worth a down payment on the real house they have forgone and the boutique and classic tube amps in the corner could be a fortune if invested in actual valuable assets.

in all likelihood you are below even these people, and own nothing but some amazon furniture in your apartment, and a drug habit. from what i have seen of peoples dwellings on /p/ most of you legitimately own nothing but your retarded fujisnoykon (you NEED it or all your photos are blurry? LMFAO) and two or three of you are the aforementioned gibson guitar boomers.

>>4502363
>>4502364
You'd consoom too if you could afford it instead of writing walls of autistic copimum. MILC is better at everything except battery life. Simple as, deal with it.

File: 1749511245307704.jpg (347.1 KB)

347.1 KB JPG

>>4502364
>that fucking meltdown
Anon...

>>4502366
>cant afford it huh?
Sorry is this coming from some anime doll wanker who has his desk, bookshelf, tv, photography funko shelf, and vidya gaymes all in one room like 90% of the dwellings ever photographed for /p/?

Take one look at what us actual rich people shoot. Go on. See what cameras a nigga brought to the oscars.

FILM LEICA. FILM CONTAX.

Oh damn, you could afford that. But you go for the $5000 nikon zee blob, why?

Spending big on electronic photography is exactly like lower middle class idiots and their $5000 tiger maple electric guitars and dumb motorcycles. Newsflash - its not real photography, its not a real musical instrument, its not a real mode of transport… it’s jewelry for unattractive balding men and your primary hobby is geeking out over every marginal “improvement” to technical specs, while remaining ignorant of the sharply degrading aesthetics of an already questionable domain of “art”

>>4502369
Some of you need to hear this periodically.

You own literally fucking nothing. You have a $5000 camera that is worse at actual photography to be better at auto-tracking-focusing on the quarterback for a braindead internet with the associated press. You keep this on a shelf in your studio apartment that is five feet away from your twin mattress, amazon desk, and anime dolls. Your photography hobby is defined by neurotic insecurity about your photos not being sharp enough and women rightfully attacking you for being a creep because you brought a more noticeable, louder camera to the grocery store or the city park (as you lack the primary component of a photogtaphy hobby - traveling to new places and/or meeting new people, and just snapshit fire hydrants, parked cars, trees in empty city lots, and your pets)

Please refrain from ever pretending you are justified because you are “not a poorfag”. You are a poorfag. You might as well have a cadillac parked outside your moms apartment and walk around the projects wearing a gold chain. That is the definition of poverty. You have voluntarily trapped yourself in a lower socioeconomic strata so you can tell more intelligent, more successful people on 4chan that they are poor for not wasting money on a shittier digital camera.

You are ruining your own life and bragging about it.

>>4502372
>>4502376
QED: This is what happens to you if you buy a DLSR. OP, get a MILC. You're welcome.

>>4502379
>okay nigga but that cringe af unc i got a gold chain and a caddy and you got “words” n shit case closed homes chains are based -ironically, a white kid who doesnt understand why he is going to be poor for the rest of his life
You are the section 8 trash now.

Please keep me in mind when I buy your parents house because you cant afford the estate tax.

File: 1750043197467244.jpg (60.6 KB)

60.6 KB JPG

>>4502381
>i'm not poor, i'm just frugal
>can't even afford a camera

File: CT5_JjdUsAAKlss.jpg (156.8 KB)

156.8 KB JPG

>>4502383
>my life might be shit
>but all this stuff i can fit in my studio apartment is awesome
>why am i poor?
Oh lemme guess
>da jooooooooooz
And then you order a new toy (used, off ebay) so you can tell 4chan “cope, thirdie, you cant afford it” again lmao

>>4502385
I don't know what you're on about. Clearly all his stuff fits perfectly fine. Guy should get a wireless mouse though.

>>4502383
Tbf you wouldnt even be able to afford an internet connection if you didnt rent an apartment in the projects and you’ve burned every bridge and ladder buying increasingly new tech hobby stuff to wank to

the rich collect sportscars when they want to
you collect back pats from redditors to cope with the latest depreciating asset you scored on ebay

>>4502389
>collect back pats from redditors
Fuck these paper hands. If I knew they were worth anything I'd have held.

>>4502389
jokes on you i live with my parents
>he gave up the chance to use a superior sony mirrorless to "own a home" (pay property taxes like a good goy)
>he "has a job" instead of a secret bitcoin stash
sucker

File: 1760769354767766.png (1001.7 KB)

1001.7 KB PNG

>>4501611
>What would be a good DSLR camera to start learning with?
None. Buy picrel instead.

Why a DSLR? Get a Canon 5D4 and start building a catalog of EF lenses, they can be used with whatever you get next.

>>4502434
The 5D4 costs twice as much as the D810 and has a slightly not as good sensor. Plus I'd rather not go crazy and start buying loads of lenses, a couple lenses that are good enough for MOST things and MAYBE 1-2 special lenses for other applications that the others can't fit, like macro or telephoto.

DSLR just werks. I don't know enough about all the other types of cameras and film and whatever to want to pay a premium to get into it. I'm familiar with DDLR, I'm comfortable with them, and they're what I'm used to. I want to stay in that vein rather than pay extra to try a whole different route.

Paying a little bit for a nicer DSLR than I'm used to plus a couple lenses to play with is more than sufficient for what I want to do, which is take cool nice looking pictures when I see something that I think would look cool. Theres really no need for me to get anything more advanced, especially since I'm just starting to actually get into it as a proper hobby.

For reference, the camera I have now is from the 2000s and is like 10mp.

File: 515onNBrgIL._SS400_.jpg (26.6 KB)

26.6 KB JPG

>>4501611
Canon EOS T3i, i had to use it on a project and literally was my entry gate to the /p/hotography world

>>4502450
I also can't share photos because it was related to software aimed at children so lots of pictures of kids using computers and teacher meetings

>>4502345
DSLRs are still good in general and epsecially for beginners. I'm a Snoyboy when it comes to using mirrorless but the Nikon DSLRs are still very based, so I use them from time to time if I want something different.

OP could also get something like the basic Canon EOS RP, they can be had really cheap when sued. It just sucks that Canon lens are expensive as fuck and they don't allow third party lenses on their FF cameras.

>>4502472
>DSLRs are still good in general and epsecially for beginners
They really aren't either. There are still some DSLRs in the pipeline, but it's basically a tech destined for the graveyard. Beginners especially are better off with MILCs because they can preview the exposure.
Canon EOS RP is a perfectly decent pick.

>>4502492
being able to preview the exposure isnt going to make you a better photographer; learning the exposure triangle, aperture, and ability to control light will. ditto getting used to a workflow where you actually get the photos off the camera onto a computer to edit and share them vs just going off your phone to social media

but i agree canon rp does not deserve the hatred /p/ gives it its the cheapest mirrorless ff other than a snoy a7ii

>>4502514
You don't need the exposure triangle any more or less on a MILC than you do on the DLSR. The only difference is that you can preview exposure more accurately. Let's not pretend that DLSR peeps don't do the whole shoot and immediately look at the result on the screen routine.

>>4502515
i still believe in dslr supremacy for cheaper lenses and bodies

milc is better especially if you need the autofocus or video but i personally dont make money off this hobby + have more expensive hobbies i drop $$$ on

>>4502519
>have more expensive hobbies i drop $$$ on
hopefully coke and 40k

>>4502434
>Why get a DSLR?
>Get a DSLR instead
Brain damage, anon?

>>4502472
DSLRs are just the cameras of yesteryear. There's no reason to look so deep into it. If someone's budget fits a DSLR but not a MILC, then there ya go. Love muh SLR though.
>OP could also get something like the basic Canon EOS RP
I'm actually divided on if this is good advice. One the one hand huehue enjoy your $700 6DII. But on the other hand, it's still half the size and weight of a traditional blobmera.

>>4502519
>have more expensive hobbies i drop $$$ on
Same. I just bought two sticks of 48GB DDR5. Cost more than my camera body lmao.

>>4502532
I'm absolutely with you on this one. Photography is a hobby that can easily get expensive. I think it's great that anons with fewer means can still get into it through older bodies and older lenses.
That said, it's becoming easier and easier to get modern budget glass from Korea and China nowadays, so you don't really have to resort to old glass.

>>4502519
>autofocus
milc autofocus isnt actually better all around. tracking across the frame is better (sports and birds who cares) but they fall behind in other areas. companies publish these crazy “autofocus works down to -## EV” specs but when actually using them in low light, they slow way down, hunt and lose subject lock like crazy, and then you find out that crazy autofocus spec actually refers to locking focus at all in af-s. Hunting is not a fail condition. When MILCs are getting easily confused and take forever to lock, quality DSLRs zip right into focus. Many DSLRs ive used zip into focus in darker conditions than the manufacturer rates them for, and as long as there’s some DOF (ie <35mm lens) and some distance between you and the subject, they don’t exhibit enough inaccuracy to matter. They’re marginally to noticeably less accurate in low light but mostly for near-macro distances.

Neither system can track subjects in true darkness and the contrast detect and image processing component of MILC autofocus is obviously a tradeoff.

And then there’s nikon Z, which ONLY autofocuses and viewfinds with the aperture closed to the shooting aperture up to f5.6 (except for the z8/z9s new firmware). They claim -10ev autofocus on a few cameras but yeah, like I said, that doesnt mean autofocus works well at -10ev. It means it can lock accurate focus at all at -10ev, measured at the sensor, so shooting stopped down fucks up both viewfinding and autofocus (it gets too noisy for manual focus, quick). In practice the nikon zf and z5ii dont actually have better autofocus than the sony a7c and canon r8. Some retards they only take photos of their dogs shilled nikon here for a year and this is the source of how much /p/ dislikes mirrorless. Nikon mirrorless is garbage. New sony/used canon prices for an old sony with more magenta and saturation in jpegs. They even overrate their IBIS like sony. Nikon: last year’s sony, with an ergo-grip for birders.

>>4502535
Photography is a hobby that can get expensive but has no right to get expensive. Comparing it to gibson and PRS guitars is on the nose. They sound and feel EXACTLY like used shit that is 1/3 the price. Same cork sniffing hood rich audience too.

I like watch collecting and look down on people who buy any expensive camera that isn’t a leica or medium format. They’re sports model honda civic ass toys.
>its actually called a civic si, homie. got a tune and a downpipe bro. cant afford it ese?

>>4502536
MILCs cant use infared autofocus assist beams either

also astro
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/137-photographic-industry-professionals/437329-sony-a7-series-nikon-z-series-low-iso-raw-cooking.html

File: 8596986287_a1ddeb9b6c_k.jpg (575.3 KB)

575.3 KB JPG

>>4501611
5D Mark II with the latest EF 50/1.8 is probably the best value for money basic setup at the moment, being about $300 off the top of my head, but it's lower res than you want. Maybe being massively under budget would make it worth it for you though. Also has famously nice colors, whatever that means.
>Pentax
Honestly a pretty based choice. It's what I learned on. The Pentax-A manual focus lenses are quite fun and work perfectly on their DSLRs, SLRs, and dumb-adapted to any mirrorless. They're not expensive either.
>Nikon
Good cameras, but I'm not sure if I would recommend the system, since they had the roughest transition to mirrorless. You'll have less of a fun time upgrading later on. Their lenses also turn the wrong way compared to everyone else and their FTZ adapters suck if you use older F lenses (anything without electrical contacts). But if all you're going to do is shoot with modern G glass then it's no issue.

>>4502540
5dII/III has the shadow recovery of a 1st gen micro four thirds
>recommending pentax dslrs over nikon dslrs
sure if you like way slower autofocus, aperture solenoids that fail, sdm motors that seize, mode dials that fall off, and firmware crashes so you can adapt a 70 year old lens without doing some research first
>inb4 my higher end aps-c model
d500 is better
d7500 is better

DSLRs were when nikon was competitive. pentax, sony, minolta, and olympus made ultra shit garbage. they fucked up mirrorless but mirrorless is camcorders so who cares?

>>4502541
Guess we just have different priorities. On paper a recent Nikon DSLR is obviously better, but he's a beginner, so spending just $300 and dealing with the resulting limitations is fine. I always recommend the 5D Mark II to beginners and everyone who picked it up to learn on has been very happy with it.
Once he's advanced and actually knows what he wants, and more importantly the direction in which he wants to grow his lens collection, he can go ahead and spend more on a better camera.

>>4502543
>cripple yourself to LRRRRRN BRO
Learn what, shit no one does anymore like fill flash and GND filter use? Everyone always hated flash, tripods, and filters. Having more than two or three stops of natural looking shadow recovery is and should be standard.

Skip the 5d before the iv (the 6d series really fucking sucks too, literally get a nikon apsc and its better). Canon got away with this because of the paradigm of the day. Fewer people had the storage and processing to shoot raw. Today everyone has that. More people shot with flash and carried tripods. Today everyone knows they can choose no flash/no tripod and, unsurprisingly, chooses no flash and no tripod.

>>4502543
D610 > 5DIII

>>4502543
>more importantly the direction in which he wants to grow his lens collection
Sounds like locking yourself into an inferior system by getting a bunch of glass that will be a poor fit once you get a better camera that's probably not going to be a DLSR.

>>4502547
>better camera
>not a dslr
birds in flight has ruined cameras and peoples attitudes towards them

File: 1773782498155689.jpg (8.9 KB)

8.9 KB JPG

>>4502545
>>4502547
You guys are fucking insane. It's $300. You aren't locking yourself into anything when you buy a body and one decently versatile lens in a setup that has already long bottomed out in price.
That's exactly the fucking why you buy a 5DII with that 50/1.8, to NOT lock yourself in to a system, because it's so ridiculously cheap for how competent of a setup it is. You just sell it on when you get something else. Fucking hell, this board sometimes man.

>>4502546
More like D750, the D610 has the APS-C AF sensor clustered in the center of the frame. At least the D750 has FF sized AF array

>>4502515
>Let's not pretend that DLSR peeps don't do the whole shoot and immediately look at the result on the screen routine.
Not when you've learned what to expect, you don't even need to look after you've used it a little. You can't preview how film looks either and only have that meter to go by too and people have been dealing with that just fine decades.

>>4502552
BIF are the most boring of bird shots. Bird on a stick and its variants or water bird swimming and doing water things are perfectly doable with a 40D and an EF 400/5.6, no IS. Only down to the photographer to catch the moment and anticipate where a bird is expected to land or just perching.
People think you need some world class tracking AF and AI scene analysis to find a bird. It is ridiculous!

>>4502556
But for $150 aka nothing extra you get a d750 that you will actually keep

>>4502586
Lets be real. Mirrorlesscucks chimp hard because too many mp+no AA filter+clinical lenses makes hand shake and motion blur stand out, and half the time the magic autofocus locks onto the wrong thing but the low res evf wont show the focus miss. Only now they can chimp in the viewfinder and pretend it never happened.

>>4502541
im a pentaxian and i agree

unless you find a k70/kf/kp for <$300 or less or a k5ii for <$200 just go nikon (i paid $120 for a k70 with a broken screen off buyee i fixed for $40...that k70 is my favorite + most versatile camera though)

90% of pentax lenses use screw drive = not as good as the usm on canons or afs on nikons which is alot more prominent

that said pentax lenses are fun and cheap; i would say half the lenses i own are <$50 but personally if i did it over again i wish i started with a d750 or d810. now i have a k1ii, k70, k10d, k200d, and a bunch of minolta stuff (a58, a390, a100, km 5d)

i find the pentaxes jack up the iso and the sony a58 is the smartest camera re: auto shooting but the pentax k70/k1ii has the best low light capability

>>4502587

good af is only appreciated for sports + run and gun situations like vacation photos

>>4502537
>Photography is a hobby that can get expensive but has no right to get expensive.
I never mean to sound full glownigger, but camera companies are absolutely taking the piss with their price:value ratio. What's that? 90% of camera sales died off with the invention of the pocket smartphone? Better keep costs high and offer nothing special in terms of features, but hey we let you SHOOT RAW so you'll totally drop $3000 on current gen gear right anon?

Anyway, the anons otb and itt swinging their cocks around because they've got $X amount of gear are the problem. Buy a camera. Buy one within your means, and fucking take photos with it. It's not hard.
>oh but I need muh 3071-point AF and 24-600mm f/2.8 lens or else I'll miss the shot! DLSRs are DEAD anon!
Yeeesh.

>>4502637
>good af is only appreciated for sports + run and gun situations like vacation photos
I go to too many events where you're surrounded by people or need to move along, and accurate AF is a lifesaver. Outside of such rushed shots, I don't understand the hype.

>>4502637
>run and gun situations like vacation photos
I use my screwdrive prime for that and never ever had to secondguess the AF, it was always on point. Also run and gun on vacation? Bro vacation is supposed to be a chill experience. Slow down, take in the scenery, take your time composing.

>>4502671
>Outside of such rushed shots, I don't understand the hype.
You'll understand if you ever get kids.

>>4501667
>Megapixels change colour accuracy

File: IMGP3612.jpg (992.8 KB)

992.8 KB JPG

>>4502710
>>4502676
>>4502671
i was trying go through a new city during a mediterranean cruise within the span of 6-8 hours = lots of running and shooting without checking to see if it came out nice

came home to lots of missed focus or out of focus/soft focus shots

was with a k1ii w/28-75mm f2.8 or 50mm f1.7

>>4502671
>itt swinging their cocks around because they've got $X amount of gear are the problem
Nobody is swinging cocks here because we spent more on cameras. It's disingenuous though to advise people new to photography to get into an effectively dying ecosystem just because you personally can't afford to buy anything more modern. Don't make your constrained budget everyone else's problem.
If OP's budget was $500 I would also be telling him to get a used DSLR off eBay. With a $2000 budget he should absolutely be getting a modern MILC and calling it a day.

>>4502717
Man, living in Japan and looking at this pic really makes me appreciate how everything isn't covered in graffiti here.

>>4502715
Pixel pitch does.

File: 1615152585143.gif (776.1 KB)

776.1 KB GIF

>>4502723
>budget is $2000
>just get a milc anon
>no, you won't have any money left over so just use the kit lens
>no, lighting isn't important because you don't have the budget for a flash or diffuser
>no, it's not possible to take good photos with something that isn't actively being R&D'd
>no, the RP doesn't count because reasons
>no, it's literally impossible to use a DSLR becauase it's a dead ecosystem! Not allowed, sorry!

>>4502731
Oh yeah, sorry, my bad, I forgot that Americans need to pay tariffs on everything these days.

>>4502731
NTA, but what's your alternative? Buy $2000 worth of garbage from Craigslist?

>>4502735
Fuck you.

>>4502731
50 dollar film camera, 100 dollar lens. 1850 dollars on film and development.
Still beats all modern cameras in terms of image quality.

>>4502739
$0.30 BIC pen, $0 for writing on your palm (reusable endless canvas!!!!!!), $1999.70 to spend on LSD. Completely destroys everyone on /p/ creatively.

>>4502738
>NTA, but what's your alternative? Buy $2000 worth of garbage from Craigslist?
>budget is $2000
$1000 on body, $300-800 on lenses (depending on use-case), remainder on lighting, filters, accessories etc. If anon doesn't want better lenses then up the money on the body.
Good carbon tripod or monopod comes in clutch. Nice CPLs are a godsend just to avoid aluminium chinkshit. A proper cleaning kit, storage, extra batteries... these aren't free either.

>What do I actually recommend for $2k?
Canon R8 ($1000)
RF/EF adapter ($100)
Any EF L lens (or good quality non-L) that fits their usecase, such as an: EF 24-105 f/4 IS USM II ($450). This
Carbon monopod or tripod/not needed ($100/0)
Godox speedlite and biggest diffuser you can be fucked carrying ($150)
Remainder on accessories.

>inb4 canon shill
Nope. Don't give a fuck. Get a Nikon equivalent if you want.

>>4502742
>OP is a beginner who wants to buy camera
>start using lenses with adapters
Anon...

>>4502741
Not a bad idea, but not many people want to make art on /p/. They just want to document reality with camera and ogle at technology.

File: 1765164415616816.png (92.4 KB)

92.4 KB PNG

>>4502742
>Canon R8
Wait, so your suggestions that instead of getting a MILC, OP should get Canon R8... a MILC?

>>4502746
Never once said to not buy a MILC. I said it's fine to buy a DSLR to fit things in your budget. Stop conflating random anons itt together

>>4502747
You should follow the discussion better. Nobody is seriously arguing about spending all $2000 on a new body with a kit lens or that there isn't a case for used DSLRs on particularly tight budgets.

I guess what I'm kinda looking for is what can I get that's pretty good while not costing brand new prices. Something in the range of a nikon d600-d750-d810 is kind of fitting that spec. There also seems to be a decent selection of lenses for a couple hundred bucks for a good condition unit.
Again, the current camera I have is over 15 years old and has 10mp aps-c sensor so anything better than that will do as long as it doesn't cost over 1000 bucks which is kind of the limit for what I'm willing to put into a piece of technology like that, especially without really being experienced or knowledgeable enough to really take advantage of any special features.

>>4502717
I never had near miss issues with screw lenses on nikon outside of macro. Having AF motor in the lens isn't going to fix the camera focusing on the wrong thing entirely.

>>4502537
>hating on hondeezy
ngmi

>>4502717
I never had issues with my K-1 and 43 and 35, both focuses on point. My 16-50/2.8 can have some issues but I am aware of the SDM dying. One thing and this comes down to technique or the lack of, you can manually twist the focus out if you are holding the camera wrong and rushing things. The camera focuses right but you holding on to the focus ring even with your fingertip can switch over the clutch system and override the focusing. Happened to me a couple times when I didn't pay attention.

>>4502787
The autofocus is very slow and inaccurate in af-c and still inaccurate in af-s. Its a measurable fact. You use lenses with wide DOF so it’s less noticeable.

Pentax never sold well for a reason. That and the firmware crashes
>k1: oops you filled the buffer *freezes* there go some photos *mode dial falls apart internally*

>>4502787
I don’t know about the 35mm but the 43mm really isn’t the most accurate focuser. The screw drive is honestly the limitation here. Basically with a screw drive, you have to trade off focusing accuracy against focusing speed.
Realistically, for the stuff you’re using a 43mm for, it’s not a serious limitation. But if you’re trying to do the sharp-eyelashes-blurry-ears thing you’re going to miss focus without manual focus. The lens really excels rather when you let the depth of field breathe a little bit, back up a bit (widening the focal plane), and let the focus develop a bit more context.
The 77mm is far more accurate though, but it takes like 2x+ the turns of the screw to focus (and therefore is a bit more slower to focus). The lens is perfectly happy to nail very shallow depth of field.
I don’t know what the poster you replied to is on about tho. There doesn’t seem to be any actual point of focus and everything is out of focus because they didn’t even try to focus on anything. I’m guessing they just let their camera automatically decided focus with a relatively narrow aperture so the camera optimized for…. an average over everything center-frame-ish? Which then this is the kind of photo you’d expect. They’re crying because they don’t have Sony autofocus to make decisions for them.
Blatant skill issue.

>>4502789
Depends on the lens. Some screw drive lenses will be accurate and slow, some will be fast and inaccurate. See >4502793
The more modern lenses with PLM/DC/SDM work far closer to competing DSLR autofocus systems, close enough to not matter for most people outside of serious sports photography and birding, where it’s still viable but falls behind the top-tier Canon/Nikon.
But they never sold well because 1) they never invested in marketing, and 2) they never tried to be the best at anything technical starting in the 90s after too many innovative missteps in the 80s, beyond a vague emphasis on photographic experience. With the MZ-5 that basically admitted they are giving up on appealing to professionals and are just making technologically lackluster cameras, but cameras that feel better to use for people who do photography for the sake of photography. But no one wants that, everyone wants to pretend they’re going to get published in NatGeo and the only thing holding them back is they just haven’t bought the right unicorn lens yet. No one wants to buy a mere “enthusiast” camera except as a stop gap because they can’t afford a pro camera.

>>4502795
Lol no, i has a k1 and the newer star lens 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8

It was garbage. The autofocus on the canon 5dii was comparable. The 5diii and d750 would easily blow it away. The d810 its a ripoff of too. All pentax has is some shitty 2 stops effective ibis really

>>4502796
Yeah I’d recommend the K1ii to anyone over the K1. The autofocus performance *is* on par with the D810/d750 whereas the original K1 falls short. The major issue is the algorithms that deal with subject recognition and tracking. The K1 is fine if you don’t stress autofocus much. The autofocus is quick and accurate on the modern lenses but you’re going to be struggling with action without keeping the subject under the autofocus point(s). The K1ii added a co-processor module that gave it the processing power it really needed to properly detect and track moving objects. It’s honestly good enough I’d recommend it to most people. Is it the best? No. Will you get nice photos of your kids and pets? Yes. Are you birding? Go fuck yourself, I don’t give a shit about the autistic pits of photography. Take some nice photos of birds at the park and be happy, I’m not spending $4k+ on a camera and lens to make autistic redditors happy that my bird photo is sharp at 400% zoom.

>>4502671
>camera companies are absolutely taking the piss with their price:value ratio
Canon are the absolute worst, high lens prices and no third party fullframe lenses, so they just charge as much as they want since you're stuck with what they give you.

>>4502798
The k1ii goes for ff mirrorless money. It’s just retarded.

>>4502834
show me a mono camera for less than $2000 for that matter

>>4502845
there will never be a k1ii monochrome because pentax is retarded

File: 1740840489840128.gif (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB GIF

>>4502848
:(

>>4502834
Because it’s that good. Even still it produces one of the best image qualities available, as since its release cameras have been focusing on autofocus and video. What you lose out on mirrorless features, you get a camera that has some of the best ergonomics and usability available.
Faster autofocus means shit when you’re 3 levels deep in the menus trying to tune your autofocus to be more sticky to a subject, then clamoring to remember which menu you need to switch to since point AF because that’s the only thing going to save your ass now IF you haven’t already missed the shot.
There’s a reason this camera, the D850, and 5DIV still sell for the price they do.

>>4501611
>2,000

That's not a beginner budget, that's like a a full load out that can do professional work. I would look at d850 or canon 5D. the nikon probably has cheaper lenses.

>>4502825
The thing about canon is they have some of the best value cameras too. The R50, R10, and R8 are hard to beat for value. Their entry level lenses are also high quality, user friendly, and useful, with their only knock against them generally being a narrow aperture.
Then as soon as you want dual card slots, IBIS, f/2.8, etc. you’re googling how to sell a kidney.
I’ve came to peace with it. Once you stop spec fagging and stop acting like you’re the next coming of Steve McCurry, their cameras make a lot of sense at the prices they’re offered for. They market segment like hell, but those segments are well researched and well reasoned.
Getting you in cheap then charging the fuck out of you to move up feels like a pretty Jewish move, but these aren’t Jews, they’re nips. And nips make good shit, and when they realize that, they sell it at a high but fair price. Stop crying because you’re broke and think IBIS will make you a better photographer (it won’t).

>>4502988
It’s not that good. Pentax fanboys are just delusional.

The 5div is $650 when people are actually selling them and not trying to get their money+tax+shipping back while quitting photography or funding a near immediate upgrade to mirrorless.
The d850s price is only high because the z7ii and z8 unironically have worse image quality and the z7ii also has worse autofocus.

>>4502994
>canuck coping this hard
IBIS was a standard feature on other brands in 2013. Using the tiny shit battery for the R8 is also a dick move. Canon’s crippling isn’t really defensible. You’re coping with it like a battered woman.

File: its-pentax-its-peak.gif (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB GIF

>>4503053
k1ii costs what it does because they sold 1/10th as many compared to the d850/5div and pentax refuses to run sales or drop prices. brand new they were actually cheaper

i personally find myself using the k70 more because its half the size and gets me 80% of there anyways

>>4502834
i agree

theyre $900-1100 used = same price as a r8/a7iii/z6ii; hell you can get a rp for $400-500 used

>>4502787
had to do that a few times actually

>>4502789
never had mine crash but instead had mine stay stuck on iso 100 instead of auto iso

>>4502756
af motor in the lens = moves faster and more precisely than sdm

sdm = cheap lenses at least, i just spent $30 on a 135mm f2.8 jc penney prime (korean samyang from mid 80s) that has auto-aperture (auto on camera ring + contact pin)

>>4503058
>2/10 chance light meter would crash and had to be reset by opening and closing the menu if it was turned on with the lens cap still on
>1/10 chance the cameras firmware would partially crash as soon as the buffer filled, would still snap but no menu or settings access and photos taken wouldnt be saved
>mode dial failed on 2 year old k1, fixed it myself with ca glue
>found out 24-70 was an exact copy of a tamron zoom with the OIS removed
>sold to buy a canon 5div

>>4502994
EF was great value. Still is if you own an SLR and DSLR (and even a MILC if you're happy adapting lenses)
RF is whole other story. Don't even need to go into details. The sheer fact they charge $225 for the RF version of the 50mm f/1.8 STM when the ONLY functional change is an asp. element is telling. Everything else follows suit, and no I don't feel like paying $2000 for a 70-200 when the last one I bought was half the price new.
As >>4503054 says, the segmentation against IBIS in their mid to low end models is just pure faggotry.

Idk if it's that "they know what they've got", I think has something to do with everything looking the same.
What do I mean by that? Well, every ILC they make looks 95% the same (with a bit of a model redesign with mirrorless). Because they design their cameras from the professional line and direct it downwards.
>Woah anon is that a CAMERA? It looks just like the ones the pros use in my favourite SPORTSBALL game!
(nobody cares about your camera but my point stands)
So because they intentionally make everything appear "pro", they ream your ass over the fact they've built up this superficial image of everything they make being god's gift to photogs and you WILL pay accordingly. Canon *is* the brand for pros, but tradionally their market share was of boomers and their niffty fifties, which has now sort of just vanished. They've adjusted their mirrorless lineup to account for the fact that nobody is buying budget-tier kits anymore and they know it.

>>4502994
Being a Canonigger is a special kind of suffering. All I want is cheaper lenses or at least 3rd party damn it.

>>4503053
>The d850s price is only high because the z7ii and z8 unironically have worse image quality and the z7ii
I don’t think the image quality difference is visually perceptible in almost any situation. The D850 price premium is likely because it’s the very best and last of its kind. That brings with it a certain cachet.

>>4503112
the d850 is the last reasonable photo camera before the fall. i figure we are one gen away from in body ai raw processing and sooc becoming slop sooc

>>4503112
The D850 has way smoother high ISO noise character. The z7ii looks kind of bad and there’s a subtle pattern in the noise. Its also more prone to generating weird zig zags in eyebrows and hair. I think it has to do with interpolating the PDAF pixels since they’re basically dead spots on the sensor, combined with the excessive sharpness of nikons absurdly overcorrected primes.

>>4503122
hot take: the z5ii is nikon's first decent mirrorless camera

>>4503129
Its literally a sony a7iii with more of the video features enabled in firmware, marginally worse autofocus, and better compatibility with adapted film lenses

Nikon is already 2 weeks ahead of last decades competition

Just $1699!

>>4503133
i'm not talking about spec sheets sony bro, you are perfectly welcome to your overheating bricks with shitty menus and bad battery life

>>4503139
Nikon has worse battery life than sony across the board

Idgaf which mirrorless cameras overheat when filming your 4k60 vlogs in one take btw. That’s just zilennials not using cameras properly.

>>4503133
>better compatibility with adapted film lenses
this alone justifies it completely over any sony body. hands down.
you can cope as much as you want but in the end shooting sony (or canon for that matter) is like putting a cock cage on yourself while watching your wife (other photographers) fuck a nigger (having fun adapting all kinds of lenses)

>>4503148
>photo funkos
A lens is a lens. It doesnt matter if it was made by pentax or sony. Just put a diffusion filter over it who cares.

>>4503148
>Nikker thinks he's better than Canoniggers and Snoyboys
I would say focus more on your photography over gearfagging, but Nikons can't focus.

>>4503162
Kek

>>4503133
better controls than a7iii, idorts know the truth

File: 2025-07-07 02_08_16-(0) _p_ - I hurt myself today - Photography - 4chan — Mozilla Firefox.png (72.3 KB)

72.3 KB PNG

>>4503154
>>4503162
>thickfilterstackcels coming out of the woodwork with copium and strawman arguments
like pottery

>>4503216
tldr

you missed the point harder than nikon autofocus

File: 1751841330986904.jpg (266 KB)

266 KB JPG

>>4503242
>reddit spacing
>just repeats the same joke
>actually thinks i shoot nikon
the average snoy schizo

>>4503246
Interesting how anon didn't see the vignette or color as an issue when using it themselves, but only after listening to whiners online
Makes you wonder

File: 1764124041460520.jpg (208.4 KB)

208.4 KB JPG

>>4503246
>imagine being poor and salty

File: IMG_3868.jpg (97.8 KB)

97.8 KB JPG

>>4503246
i see anigay
i dont read
its that simple

go be a pedophile somewhere else

is there any meaningful distinction between dslr and mirrorless apart from the viewfinder

>>4503266
Yes.

>>4503266
In terms of the images they take, no.
There are lots of operational and practical differences. Mirrorless offers me plenty of tangible benefits, but I'd have no problem going back to DSLR's if I had to.

>>4503266
Not inherent, but the shift to mirrorless also carried with it a shift in camera design, where they figured out you can just shove everything into menus and reduce costs by limiting physical controls on the body even on higher end models. Sony is by far the worst offender here. Canon has an edge here because they started thinking about this stuff in the DSLR days and have at least tried to have decent touch screen usability. It’s not all lost — Nikon still understands the value of physical controls to an extent, and Fujifilm and OM System tries to appeal to retro sensibilities with speed dials, aperture rings, etc. but DSLRs were still typically far better in usability across the board. Nothing kills the flow state like having to dig through the menus for an AF setting. Please let the Asahiman Pentax rumors of a new camera in 2026 be true — they were one of the consistently best at making highly usable cameras.

File: fea05_vfdisplay_01.jpg (242.2 KB)

242.2 KB JPG

>>4503269
>Nothing kills the flow state like having to dig through the menus for an AF setting
True, much easier when your camera only has 33 AF points covering just the center with no eye / face / subject detection at all

A large number of people in the DSLR era just stuck with single center point and BBF, which works just as well on mirrorless as it did then

>>4502347
>battery life
Just got a USB-C dummy and a 20Ah power bank, works great and will join me on vacation this summer.

>>4503216
>>4503246
>Nobody:
>Schizoanon: SNOY! ITS THE GODDAMN SNOYS AGAIN!
Is the Snoy in the room with you right now? Lmao

>>4503290
Yes.

>>4503290
>op asks for dslr
>sonyfags ruin the thread

>>4503294
it got ruined because some retard started sperging out about sony for no reason, sony dont even make DSLRs.

>>4503270
Oh yeah, the eye detect is capturing the person in front and I want to focus on the person farther away for this photo, but he’s almost done with his cigarette…. Ok let me just push this AF button…. Now left left, ok that’s the AF mode… face, auto, there, multi-point mode, ok now let’s adjust the autofocus points to be the right third and…. He’s done with his cigarette and walked away.
Vs: let me hold this button and turn a dial two clicks and move the autofocus points.
Btw, later DSLRs have eye detection and etc. It’s not as advanced but it worked well. And do you seriously need more AF points? Are you doing 7/8 framing?
Modern mirrorless cameras don’t make better photos. They don’t even make it easier.

>>4503297
Good thing none of thats an issue once you learn how to use your camera, plus you can just ignore it and use it like a DSLR if you have a learning disability

Very true, interesting that Pentax didn't with the K1II, but I guess you don't care about better AF functionality anyways

>>4503297
people that think like this should be forced to use a film rangefinder for a year. if they keep complaining, then a tlr

>>4503297
If you need more than 1 AF point in the center, you're doing it wrong

>>4503266
Mirrorless cameras tend to have weak/no AA filters and overly sharp lenses with sterile, cold rendering and nasty bokeh or giant fucking lenses that render so obnoxiously perfectly the photos look hyper-real like next years AI

The end result is weird looking photos with colored dots in foliage and hair and shit and weird patterns in clothing and on buildings

I took 50 pics on a z6ii. Every single one had false color blobs. These areas have to be masked and corrected individually. Its one slider but the mask is too much. I went back to a good camera: the canon 5div

This is all because most of the people who buy new cameras are basically dpreview bloggers and all the real photographers stopped upgrading years ago. The realest stopped upgrading before digital was even a thing.

>>4503298
> Good thing none of thats an issue once you learn how to use your camera
It's like cars and their dumbfuck touch screen interfaces that require you to take your eyes off the road just to change the radio station or adjust the AC.
You can't "learn your camera" to negate it. Important feedback for navigating the menu system just doesn't exist. You have to look at the menu system. They might try to make it more seamless by making it semi-transparent or on the peripherals of the viewfinder, disguising a menu system as icons to select, but it doesn't change the fact you're navigating a menu system. It DOES NOT replace conventional schemes like pushing a dedicated button and turning a dial.
Modern cameras cope by setting up, essentially, different "modes" (which is why the PSAM dial with C1....C50 or sony's few buttons with modal configurations are so important) so shooters can essentially recall pre-configured settings, which is pretty cool when you're a pro wildlife or wedding photographer and need a reliable, quick, easy way to adapt to predictable scenarios. It fucking sucks when you like to experiment more or are constantly changing up what you shoot (like most street photographers).
Just compare the physical interface of the D850 to any modern mirrorless camera. The only cameras that come closer are Z8/Z9 and they still kind of miss the point, trying to make the camera easier to use for modern trends (e.g. bracketing) instead of fundamental photography (e.g. exposure mode).
> plus you can just ignore it and use it like a DSLR if you have a learning disability
I'm not arguing against new autofocus stuff. My argument is that modern camera interface design is absolute trash. Awesome autofocus stuff makes it easy and awesome for casual photography or predictable scenarios.
>>4503299
I do use a TLR. Nice little Rolleicord.
>>4503300
unironically this. Focus and recompose. More focus points is convenient but unnecessary.

>>4503324
>You can't "learn your camera" to negate it.
Did you smoke too much pot and. Become retarded too?

>>4503302
>I took 50 pics on a z6ii. Every single one had false color blobs
What a good opportunity for you to share your examples here!

>>4503324
How many total custom function buttons do you need to operate a camera?

>>4503324
>Modern cameras cope by setting up, essentially, different "modes" (which is why the PSAM dial with C1....C50 or sony's few buttons with modal configurations are so important) so shooters can essentially recall pre-configured settings, which is pretty cool when you're a pro wildlife or wedding photographer and need a reliable, quick, easy way to adapt to predictable scenarios. It fucking sucks when you like to experiment more or are constantly changing up what you shoot (like most street photographers).
this kind of structure prints money thoughever if you are an event shooter you can switch between settings for indoor/outdoor or if it's a sporting event overcast/shade vs open sun where glare will blow your highlights
>>4503359
ask ken rockwell lmao

>>4503349
Anon might be a lying faggot, but you're no better and immediately begging for evidence is nigger-reddit behavior

>>4503364
Yeah it's much easier to just say shit and never provide an example or evidence
Asking for evidence, or examples, or specifics is the easiest way to prove someone is full of shit

>>4503364
>>4503400
Why the fuck would I dig up last years raws for the coping corgi snapping pothead aka photobeggar anyways? Anyone who ever fell for his gear thread photo begging just got insulted… by someone who only takes photos of their dog. Funnily enough he even fought with another person who only took photos of their dog for showing /p/ that capture ones noise reduction is bad. Why ever give him what he wants, he’s high and has buyers remorse

>everyone always assumes it corgcuck
>it always is

>>4503403
>Someone is aggressively shitting on micro four thirds and sony while praising nikon
>tell them to post their fat husky
>they vacate the thread
>someone cries “why dont you show us” “what cameras do you use” any time the facts about nikon/fuji mediocrity come out
>it turns out to be the gay pothead
the dog snappers never learn.

>>4503348
You’ve never used a high end DSLR seriously and it shows. You might’ve had one, but you never got in deep before making the switch to mirrorless. Because the fluidity of use of a typical (even high end) mirrorless is nothing like a high end DSLR. You cant learn your way past having to look at a screen because of a lack of tactile controls or a lack of distinct physical controls.
Or are you one of those idiots constantly swerving into the other lane trying to change the climate control of their car because of dumbass touch screen controls, and insist nothings wrong because you have too much of an ego to admit you’re not driving well?
>>4503359
The D850, Pentax K1ii, and Panasonic S1 are peak camera body design. (Look, there’s a mirrorless there, going back to my assertion that it’s not an inherent problem with mirrorless, but then Panasonic fucked it up with all of their subsequent cameras as they just became a budget Sony).
>>4503360
Yeah unfortunately market forces pushed camera design in this direction as the only people buying new cameras for a while were actual working pros and vloggers (whose buying choices are largely driven by specfagging YouTube reviews and Sony marketing). There seems to be pushback though. Sigma’s BF was basically a design experiment, and Panasonic has recently talked about how their cameras have been lacking in the UX department.

>>4503415
>You’ve never used a high end DSLR seriously and it shows.
Guarantee I've used more than you have lol, it should be part of my lore by now
>You cant learn your way past having to look at a screen
You setup a mirrorless one time with more options for control, and then you don't have to look at the screen again, sounds like you haven't used mirrorless much

Since you never answered, how many custom function buttons do you need to use a camera efficiently? What kinds of settings do you find yourself changing often?

>>4503401
>schizo lies and rambling
Nice, too bad you don't post photos so I don't have a nickname for you as well

>>4503426
reddit af post
>give me exact figures and peer reviewed studies, please
>just looking at the top and back of a 5div is not enough for me. count them.
>i must defend mbrand, mlady nikon z
go snapshit your dog christ

every time you pipe up please include a photo of your dog (god knows you have 100+ per month) so we can ignore the redditarded gear warrior

>>4503405
Its amazing. The worst most annoying gear queers to ever hit /p/ all posted way too many dog snapshits.

This should be a cool cats only website

>>4503429
It's a shame you aren't able to answer simple and direct questions
You are putting a big importance on direct controls, which I love too (as you should know based on my cameras of choice), so I was curious what you actually find yourself changing often
I'd have no problem listing what settings I change often, and dedicated buttons I really appreciate it

Your evasiveness just speaks to being dishonest unfortunately

>>4503431
Just look at a picture of a 5div or d810 and then look at a picture of a sony a7v, or a fuji thats just covered in redundant exposure dials, or any nikon under $3k, you retarded dog snapper. You really do post when you’re high don’t you?

>>4503436
>I can't answer a direct question
Are you sure you aren't high?

>>4503440
>count the buttons for me!
No wonder you only take snapshots of your dog

>>4503359
As many as you want or as few as you want. I had a mid 10s Nikon DSLR that had only one wheel but you'd press two little buttons to make it adjust either the ISO or aperture and that was enough for me (for the time).

File: 1766887506123340.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4503297
>Oh yeah, the eye detect is capturing the person in front and I want to focus on the person farther away for this photo, but he’s almost done with his cigarette…. Ok let me just push this AF button…. Now left left, ok that’s the AF mode… face, auto, there, multi-point mode, ok now let’s adjust the autofocus points to be the right third and…. He’s done with his cigarette and walked away.
Or you just press the focus in the center focus button. Or use the joystick to move the focus. Or tap on the screen to have the AI lock on the guy with the cig and track him as he walks over to you and shits in your mouth.

I see the spastics of /p/ are still mad OP wanted to buy a cheap DSLR with cheap lenses instead of their special snowflake milcs

>>4503473
If you went to /o/ with a $40,000 budget for a car, you'd still get an overwhelming amount of people saying to buy a corolla/camry and keep the extra around for mods/repairs, and continue saving for a REAL nice car. Which is, honestly, rather sound advice instead of sinking $50k into a mustang and fucking the clutch a few thousand miles in, then having no wiggle money to unfuck yourself.

You give the same kind of advice here and you've got a dozen different anons having a melty.

File: 1772767361369863.png (340.1 KB)

340.1 KB PNG

>>4503476
I don’t know anything about cars, but if you went on /v/ and said, "I’ve got $500 and no idea what I’m doing. What hard drive should I buy for Call of Duty?", the right answer would not be a lecture on the relative merits of a used Seagate versus a used Western Digital for $50 on eBay and spending the rest of the $500 on weapon skins. The right answer would be: buy a fucking SSD.
That’s this discussion in a nutshell. The analogy only really breaks down because HDDs still have legitimate use cases as an alternative technology. DSLRs don’t.

>>4503482
HDDs are massively slower than SSDs while DSLRs are not slower than MILCs and in some situations especially nature photography excel over MILCs. So your analogy does not stand.

On the other hand SSDs are unreliable and break after a couple years if not right away, and once they are gone so is all your data on there, no real option for recovery, not even professional. Meanwhile on HDDs if the HDD breaks your data can still be recovered unless somehow the disc surface itself is damaged. I have extensive experience in this. So maybe your analogy has some merit afterall but not in the way you expected.

>>4503482
Also posting unrelated anime pictures with your posts especially on a photography board, in a thread about discussing cameras nontheless, is a sign of mental illness in itself

File: 1744708748848663.png (303.5 KB)

303.5 KB PNG

>>4503485
I'm well aware of the advantages that HDDs have. I would also mention that they are cheaper per kB, which makes them more useful for storage when speed is mostly irrelevant.

>in some situations especially nature photography excel over MILCs
This is almost certainly going to be some subjective nonsense advantage that can only be settled by "agree to disagree". DLSR's only real advantage is that you can keep them on for much longer without draining the battery, which is kind of like you can keep an early 2000s dumbphone on for longer than any smartphone.
Here's more anime for you, fagget.

>>4503473
DSLRs are absolutely the best budget option z and offer greater performance per $
Still silly to act like mirrorless don't offer advantages or are worse

>>4503482
Good analogy faggot, but a DSLR isn't a completely different object with a similar usecase, it's 80% the same thing as a MILC.
You also don't know anything about technology if you think someone saying they have $500 for a drive isn't a red flag. You shoot them down and go, "no retard, just spend $200 on a 2TB 980 Pro or w/e (pre fucked-prices era). If you encouraged a completely clueless /v/ builder to spend $500 on an SSD you're both a moron, and making the people around you stupider.

Your analogy breaks down because it's a bad analogy. But I digress. DSLRs and MILCs are mostly analogus, and for the purpose of TAKING A PHOTO (because remember, that's what you bought a camera for right anon?) they are functionally the same thing with one being heavier and the other having focus peaking. If anon had fuck-off money then who cares, but recommending noobs to stay well within budget while still buying something capable is not haram.

>>4503498
Yet to hear the explanation of the magic properties that DSLRs have for landscape photography.

File: 1751549346469237.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4503497
>DSLRs are absolutely the best budget option z and offer greater performance per $
It's basically photography for the poor. Nothing wrong with that. We were all students who couldn't afford a nice fixed lens rangefinder at some point (except the ones who dropped out of school and became blob carrying wedding cucks for life).

File: lolmoire.png (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB PNG

>MILCs are be-AAAACCCCKKKK
>muh sharpness at max pixel peep mufugga… *sets aside an hour to manually draw moire correction masks on 36 different raw files in capture one* m-maybe one day AI will regenerate my photo or fuji will make cameras that arent overpriced chinese ewaste with worms, bad autofocus, and m43 dynamic range
oh wait fuji still has moire, it just doesnt show up on dpreviews test chart. nevermind. kek!

>>4503502
Rangefinders are for literal faggots
>cant use a better camera. i need to look cook and fuckable to the other gay guys.
Camera aesthetics do not affect straight men unless they’re autistic and take cameras to socially inappropriate places and then make themselves look even worse by acting awkward and inappropriate. Maybe incels would have problems because they try to score pussy by buying things they think “signal alpha status” ie: bmw, sunglasses, cigars, leica.
A normal straight guy can use any camera he wants.
And autistics and incels are more likely to be gay/furry/trans/pedo anyways so…

File: 1770319814528565.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>4503512
Forgot my pic. This is me with a straight man's camera.

>>4503514
Behold, the sad cope of someone who just realized he bought a camera just to attract other men.

Let me guess, you also think people care about your watch

>>4503515
>buying a D5iii is to attract another men
???

>>4503516
>no saar i larped as you so you’re replying to yourself
Whats with gay men and roleplaying

>>4503511
This KILLS the mirrorlet

>>4503521
The DSLR photo looks better because it's blurry and hides the moire via total lack of detail, dingus.

>>4503560
That specific DSLR has an AA filter which was specifically designed to mitigate moire. It looks good because it has all the necessary details but none of the texture that causes the moire.

>>4503582
>has all the "necessary" details
>"none of the texture"
so it looks better because it literally lacks detail

File: LOLOLOL.png (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB PNG

>>4503585
>>4503560
Yeah look at all that valuable detail, homogenously mixed with the demosaicing algorithm producing errors so you cant even tell its detail. Is it? Is there even detail? Idunno! But what matters is how SHARP it is! Look at how contrasty those (mostly computer hallucinated) edges are! That’s what photography really needs. More contrasty edges in scrambled looking small scale detail at 400% zoom.

So worth it
$700 vs $2000. $1300 extra well spent. Canon 5div doesnt even have cat detect tracking across the entire frame. Mirrorless is just better. So sharp. Shaaaaaaaaahp. Objectively DSLRs are just useless. There is no reason to buy a DSLR. Just look at this proof right here. On the right, a good camera lens combo that does well on imatest mtf charts and dxo scores. On the left, a useless DSLR lacking detail.

>>4503512
>thinks rangefinders are just an aesthetic
Interesting

>>4503512
>>4503514
>>4503515
>>4503516
>>4503519
An actual schizo on /p/ kek

>>4503502
>I'm totally not compensating with my choice of consumer electronics

>>4503602
its an aesthetic
like wearing leather shoes, writing with a dip pen, and wearing a vest with a pocketwatch
like refusing to use a cell phone
like refusing to drive a car
these are all aesthetics

>>4503614
>wearing leather shoes
>somehow in the same category as writing with a dip pen, carrying a pocket watch, avoiding phones/cars
Anon accidentally outs himself as an absolute fucking loser lmfao

>>4503502
DSLR cameras are worse than mirrorless simply because you cannot see your actual image through the viewfinder/on the back screen. Makes it much easier having that mirrorless function.

Leicas are overpriced as hell and are used as a materialistic status symbol. Mirrorless cameras that cost 1/3 of what a Leica costs are just as good, or even better. Sony Mirrorless cameras are better than Leicas.

>>4503618
Found the shoetist. Imagine wearing leather shoes. Ok gramps.

>>4503625
>garbled nonsense? >>4503511
>well at least i had autochimp in liveview turned on (dslrs do this, noone uses it but women)
Lol. Mirrorless are starting to look worse than dslrs.

>>4503625
>simply because you cannot see your actual image through the viewfinder/on the back screen
This is only and issue for beginners though

>>4503640
Just women and jpeg shooters (honorary women)

>>4501611
D600. Cheapest full frame, fully weather sealed and with all the buttons, bells and whistles.
People are scared of it vecause it had a factory recall due to oil splatter on the mirror, but that is easily cleaned off and it never splatters again after 3000 clicks (all used cameras will be above 3000 anyway).
Expect to pay about 200 USD for a decent one.
The only downside to them is that they have a slightly smaller viewfinder than for example the D800.

>>4503639
>Imagine wearing leather shoes. Ok gramps.
I really hope you are just pretending to be retarded.

>>4501697
Lol why would you post this if you're a Nikon shill?? Look at the D4, completely unnatural pre-Rockwell'd RAWs... all that benchmark image and you can't find a single corner where the Nikons colours look like putrid dogshit, not only that they're completely different from the D850. They really tried to copy Canon colours from scratch with every new camera release and failed every single time...

>>4501705
Speaking of piss bottles, did you spill one on this image? Fuckin nikon colours lmao

>>4502541
Shadow recovery is literally the only flaw of the 5D2, and it's a one-click fix in lightroom. Even the fedora of cameras, the D4, can't compete with it in terms of autofocus. All nikon DSLRs have wildly different colours from model to model, none of which look anything like real life, most of which are either piss yellow or swamp green cast + prerockwell'd colours. I would be more worried about the dogshit lens mount screwed straight into plastic on both of the models you posted, than some solenoid. Literal ewaste.

>>4502584
Doesn't matter lol they both focus slower than the original eos 1.

>>4503511
>>4503601
And why are we comparing jpegs in the first place? If you're concerned about retaining detail you would not shoot jpeg. What a pointless exercise.

>>4503794
I've been in that shop many times. That photo looks pretty colour accurate to me.

>>4503799
>>4503798
>>4503793
Which canon model do you use?

>>4503799
canon is the only company whose focusing got worse for a long stretch, some of the film bodies focus better than the dslrs. nikon stayed mediocre in that aspect because ensuring backwards compatibility was part of the core cult culture. now that they've given that up things will change

>>4503818
I dont use canon, I shoot Nikon, but even I know they're really bad.

is canon m50 any good if i want something better than a phone

>>4503893
yes

literally any 10-15 year old cmos apsc is gonna be better than a phone

I pretty much have the same question as the OP, with two caveats:

- I'm poor and don't want to be spending more then like 600$ tops ideally (honestly I don't want to be spending more then like 200-300 unless I'm going to notably better photos out of it then I would a canon rebel, which I can get used for that price), though I'm fine with buying used

- My specific use case is taking photos indoors, including in places like museums which have dim lighting

I've used Canon Rebels before and I've mostly thought they were serviceable for what I was doing aside from the fact that getting either/both a higher aperture (less depth of field) and a fast shutter without the image being too dark was always a challenge, but that might be less the cameras fault and more just the struggle of shooting indoors and in low light conditions?

Is there anything I can get that's better then a rebel within this price range for that use case? Doesn't even need to be DSLR, I'm open to mirrorless, though I don't care about portability and using a digital viewfinder seems gross so DLSR is my preference, but I might just be being close minded

>>4501640
In my case the photos would be uploaded to Wikimedia, I care about having high quality and resolution images, but I've felt the resolution of the rebels i've used is fine when set to max.

>>4503922
D600 for 200 usd
Nikkor 50mm F1.4 for 150 usd

>>4503922
MILC fag here. You absolutely should get a DSLR.

>>4503933
Like the speed, but he needs a wider lens for museums. Something like 28mm or 35mm at most. He's probably not going for 1/6th of the exhibit with perfect bokeh.

>>4501611
your phone. if you feel you need a dslr to learn on then you're just looking to coooonsuuume and become a gearfag.

>>4503961
>guy in camera forum
>says don't ever buy a camera

>>4503953
>Like the speed, but he needs a wider lens for museums. Something like 28mm or 35mm at most.
Second this. Have used zooms and primes in musuems a bunch and honestly 50mm seems like the longest I'd accept, but my 16-35mm f/4 is just golden for that kind of photog

>>4503962
its a /pol/tard. they get mad whenever someone works for their money and then buys something because of something about “dajooz” (a strange third world term that means nothing, likely related to bad joojoo). Pay it no mind.
Get job, receive paycheck, acquire what you want. Simple as. If a $700 5DIV and $250 lens is killing your financial future you’re doing everything wrong. Even lower class people can buy brand new
mirrorless if they want to… Camera gear pays for itself. Wedding photographers have no standards to meet and are ridiculously overpaid. Shoot for money at least once and move on. The reason to get a DSLR isnt even the purchase price because of this. Its the replacement price, the superior viewfinder, the superior battery life, and the superior image quality with more natural film like rendering instead of hyper sharp CGI
speckled with moire and false color blobs*

*Sadly the D800E, D810c D850, and 5DS R were ahead of the curve, had already listened to dpreview and dxomark pixel peepers, and discarded natural film-like soft fine detail for "the same amount of fine detail but harsher and mixed with false detail" before FF mirrorless was really a thing. Avoid these models. Only specsfag gearfag pixel peepers like them for the same reason a child likes a honda civic with a turbo and coilovers more than an NA v8 corvette with a properly tuned suspension - mental retardation.

>>4503922
I really recommend you go to a photography forum with more active users like DPReview or some Nikkon subreddit and ask if someone with similar gear has tried your usecase recently vs. using a modern phone that I assume you own.
The issue is that cameras struggle in the dark and older cameras struggle particularly hard. A modern A7v has something like 8 stops of IBIS, which means that you can take longer shots without it all becoming a smudge. It also has a sensor that deals much better with higher ISO that you will invariably have. You could mitigate both with a tripod, but those aren't allowed in most museums.
Meanwhile modern smartphones generally have some kind of handheld long-exposure mode that does a reasonably good job for static objects despite the tiny sensor.
Maybe a 15yo camera with a fast glass will do better than a phone, maybe it will do worse. You literally need to either try it yourself or find someone who can try it for you.

>>4503966
The a7v can preserve more highlights while crushing fewer shadows, but IBIS is totally irrelevant. Its really more of a video gimmick and lens IS is already fine for photography.
>long exposures!!!!
Phone LE mode is full of AI bullshit and honestly how often do you do long exposures that cant work with a canon EF IS lens? Indoors is 35mm f5.6 ISO 400 1/4s maybe f8 1/2s territory, really easy to handhold with enough DOF while still being a real camera instead of a phone AI-regenerating a photo. Skilled people can take canon IS lenses to 1s-2s even at 105mm.

You seem to have fallen for marketing.

>>4503967
>IBIS is totally irrelevant
You couldn't be more wrong. I have a modern body with 6 stops of IBIS. It's insane what you can do with that. At something like 28mm, I can handhold it unsupported for upwards of a second and get a sharp image. That's exposure lengths when people start washing out and car lights start streaking. I absolutely couldn't do that without IBIS. With some support I can even go above that.
For static images, i.e., museums, it's amazing.

>Skilled people can take canon IS lenses to 1s-2s even at 105mm.
Under what circumstances lmfao? Lying prone while comatose and shooting a burst of 50 shots? That's 7~8 stops below the handholding rule on a modest sensor. OP isn't getting setup with more than 2 maybe 4 stops of stabilization in his price range, if any.

>>4503967
the a7v is also literallly the only ff mirrorless camera that’s a serious upgrade from a 5div/d800 for anything outside the usual realm of video, shooting aids for sports tards and birders, and fake sharpness from removing aa filters

and at over $3000 msrp with tax, and good sony FE lenses costing $500 to over a grand, a used gfx100/s is on the table for anyone considering it for raw IQ. slightly more base ISO DR, better high ISO DR, and 70 more megapixels which is actually noticeable and brings back some real world aliasing resistance.
it looks professional but so does a snoy with a gaymaster sigma fart lense

>>4503964
>no mention whatsoever of /pol/ or jews
>IT'S A POLTARD SCREECHING ABOUT DA JOOOS
Anon, it's literally what you just did. Get help.

>>4503970
Sorry you have parkinsons. Anyone with good forearms can shoot 24mm for 1/8-1/4s WITHOUT stabilization and a 20-30mp FF at mid distance - higher shutters for minimum distance of course.

Also you have obviously never used a camera in this situation
I take photos of shit for ebay in my dim basement and handhold 35mm to 50mm for 1/4 to 1s at iso 400-800 using an ef 24-105 f4, and this looks better and more natural than using an overpriced phablet for its AI powered camera (and is also, yknow, untouched by AI. chatGPT can’t even generate a coherent 14 bit 30mp raw file). Museum lighting is brighter than what I deal with in the basement. They have lamps on every display and use AR glass so no polarizer is needed.

Real world documentary photography does not need IBIS. And even going up to ISO 1600, 3200, phones still look and are faker. Maybe specific landscape shit in the evening and morning, using filters that require increased exposure, and oddball creative work would benefit from IBIS but not this boring snapshooting.

>>4503975
I think we have fundamentally different definitions of what sharp means.

>>4503977
I think you have the kind of shaky hands that get 4 stops out of 8 stop IBIS cameras.
1/30 is the typical speed for sharp static shots with 28mm although skilled people can go lower and still get max pixel peeping sharpness
1s is just under 5 stops of improvement

Could it be you’re shooting with the back screen or jerking when you use the shutter?