>>4502814
>panasonic FF chads just keep on winning
Canoniggers always have and always will mog Panasoynic.

>>4502814
>look at muh f/4 primes and f/9 zooms guyes!

>>4502858
Post your uber gear nigger. Is a gear thread afterall

File: Screenshot 2026-03-31 at 20.55.21.png (297.7 KB)

297.7 KB PNG

what we think about this camera

are lomo lenses shit? even compared to like a comparable used camera in that price range

>>4502858
Thats not m43 you retard

>>4502814
What's a cheap range finding tool for camera's that have no such thing?
With or without hot shoe mount, I don't really care.

>>4502883
Gonna be real it's not much of an upgrade lel

>>4502814
>no shutter
>no hotshoe
>sony a7iii sensor
>every lens is available on sony except for the vlogger zoom
The shitter: sony
The toilet paper: fuji
The toilet: nikon
The sewer: panasonic
The street shitter: Canon. Canon doesn’t care. Canon has been doing this since before you were born. Canon looks you in the eyes and drops a dookie on the hood of your car. Not to make you mad. Just to remind you who you’re fucking with.

Thank you for reading my analysis

>>4502879
At $500 I just don't see why anyone would ever buy one, you could get a really decent used point and shoot for way less than that.

>>4502879
The corny message written on the top panel would make me never consider it if I was in the market for a camera like that.

>>4502985
I have not heard a single positive word about the writing on the top of the camera, and I admit, it's rather corny. What were they thinking?

File: L mount system camera rumors and news.jpg (74.8 KB)

74.8 KB JPG

>>4502893
>>no shutter
>>no hotshoe

>no EVF
>no AA filter
>no grip

I think Panasonic was just trying to make a very cheap full frame to have an "entry level" to their system.
The plan seems to have worked, their share of full frame sales has rocketed since the S9's release.

I pray that they release a mark 2 with EVF and mechanical (or global) shutter, something like in fanboy concept pic related.

>>4502997
I want them to release an SX1 which looks like the L1, complete with a shutter speed dial

>>4502814
Is this the smallest full frame mirrorless setup?

>>4503003
The contax T series are smaller FF mirrorless cameras.

>>4503005
heh, Tessina achshually

>>4503009
Yeah there's quite a few options, really. Rollei 35 is pretty nice too. The old one. The newly made one is shite.

>>4502814
>relisted all my Pentax gear but for a lower price
this time I’m moving it all

I think at this point in my life I’m done with photography. I’ve accomplished all I want.

File: Panasonic-Lumix-S9-vs-Sigma-fp-back-view-size-comparison.jpg (32.3 KB)

32.3 KB JPG

>>4503003
Sigma's fp / fpL is smaller.but you don't get screen articulation (unless you use the darkpowerlabs mod)

>build leica m6 kit for 3500
>everything is horrible and goes wrong
>build nikon n80 kit for 200
>everything about it is perfect
damn im legit going to sell my m6

>>4503029
Should have gone with an om3 retard

>>4503030
Should have gone with a kodak easyshare retard

>>4503032
I prefer a challenge, fuckwit.

will i regret selling my leica m6 + 28mm ultron f/2 to finance a nikon f100 with 28mm f/2.8 D + ricoh gr iii or iv? i kind of hate my M6. i'm sick of ruining shots because of bad rangefinder composition, or because i'm not quick enough with the meter, or because a digicam was just the right tool for the job instead of film autism. at the same time the nikon is way bigger and its lens is worse.

>>4502983
Reliability though.

>>4502997
Highly unlikely. We are at a stage where cameras are the way they are because they can't possibly squeeze that much new tech into them and maintain the form factor. Such a tiny package with all that goodness is sure to sucking a lot of juice which means bigger batteries or some other compromise.
>Compact m43 all discontinued
>New full frames remove features to make new product seem better (r5 vs r5II dynamic range etc)
>Digicams are just remakes of 6-10 year old cameras and the ones with "new features" such as the TZ300 just removed the EVF from the previous model and up-charged it massively for an additional zoom that nobody asked for, Leicas newest digilux is just a LX100II in a slightly different package etc.
We all want shiny new things, but they are unrealistic the way I see it. It is the same way with PC components as well.. ooooh this new GPU can artificially make frames to make your gameplay seem smoother, but realistically it is barely distinguishable from the previous generation.

>>4503043
That lomo piece of shit can't even reliably advance to the next frame.

File: lomo-mca__silver__top__on-grey_1_.jpg (42.1 KB)

42.1 KB JPG

>>4502987
sounds like a leftard slogan, pretty cringe

>>4503029
It is really fascinating how those who want to get into film photography jumps straight in and gets metal body cameras from the 70s that they don't really understand and completely ignores the more dependent auto-focusing 90s and early 00s cameras.
>New in box Canon EOS 3000n with a lens for $50? Nah, I'll take my chances with a Canon AE-1 that "worked when it was put away 30 years ago" instead.

>>4503048
>>4502987
>>4502985
Such a non-issue. If you dont like it, put some tape over it. Who cares how the camera looks or what is has written on it if it performs well?

>>4503059
Its considerably worse lifestyle shit that everyone here shits on fuji for tbqh

>>4502890
>bigger foolframe sensor is always better!
>no not like that!

>Canon EOS R5
>Canon RF 24-105mm f/2.8L
>Canon Speedlite 470EX-AI

Is this the complete one and done body, lens and flash set- up that you will ever need /p/?

>>4503098
Depends on usecase

>>4503059
You see it every time you look down on your camera and I don't want to put tape on my camera either.
I find it to be very hyperbolic "wholesome" and I don't like it.

>>4503098
If you're gunna spend that much you might as well get a Godox v100. Probably the best on-camera flash you can get.

i grow tired of filmfagging
should i buy either of a ricoh gr iii or gr iv
is that stupid

File: ill_bd_evf-in_gfx100-2.png (22.9 KB)

22.9 KB PNG

>>4503046
They should do an accessory hotshoe EVF.
Minimal cost increase for users who don't need an EVF, while also giving an option for users who do. (also opening-up the camera to flash users)

It needs to be low-profile like this fujifilm one or it defeats the purpose of the compact body.

>>4503150
Either of those Ricoh are good, but the III is a lot cheaper used. Just beware that the AF isn't great on Ricoh.

>>4503046
>We are at a stage where cameras are the way they are because they can't possibly squeeze that much new tech into them and maintain the form factor. Such a tiny package with all that goodness is sure to sucking a lot of juice which means bigger batteries or some other compromise.
Now this is cope. Manufacturers can already make the perfect camera but they dont because they need to milk it out to gullible consoomers like you.

>>4503163
This but it applies to everything in the world. The next 10 years of tech already exists, but it's trickled out so that they're never without "new" ideas and features. Phone and computer manufacturers have been notorious for this and only rollout new stuff when they've truly exhausted incremental updates people will buy.

>>4503163
Not cope, reality. You really think they wouldn't remake upgraded models of ten year old micro four thirds cameras that today on the used market sell above retail if they could? It is simply put a matter of physics, things such as battery capacity and sensor readout are close to their theoretical max limits, same with silicone. The thing is that if they did in fact remake those old cameras that people are paying boatloads for such as the pen f, the gm1 and small point n shitters they would not be much better than what they were. Oh you want higher resolution screen? better EVF? How about modern, faster WiFi so you can upload to instagram from your shartphone? Guess what.. that requires energy which means bigger batteries and suddenly it is not the same product anymore.
Why would this be cope? I am perfectly fine with the situation as I make good money from it. I'd love to see some revolutionary progress be it global sensors that are not dogpoop and solid state batteries, but guess what? It is all just a pipe dream.

>>4503169
>muh physics
Kek people said this in the 2000s. I missed the memo where humanity changed the laws of physics since then.

>>4503169
>You really think they wouldn't remake upgraded models of ten year old micro four thirds cameras that today on the used market sell above retail if they could?
Selling well on the used market is not an indication that remakes would sell particularly well on the mass market. The special 'cult' cameras like PEN-F or GM1 are special to a relatively small number of people.A remake would saturate that market very quickly.

Should I get a Pentax? I want my photos to be beautiful but I only use mft and the photos are not so beautiful sometimes. I do macro and nature photos. I like that Pentax is well sealed and has interesting lenses, but I don't like that all their bodies are on the heavy side. Thank you for your time.

>>4503150
get the iiix, 28mm too wide filmbro

How much do you value weather sealing when choosing a camera, is it a deciding factor for some?

File: IMGP0128.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

>>4503191
Here's my opinion as a Pentaxian

Do it if you like:

DSLR OVF Experience
Cheap lenses and lots of variety (especially once you start buying vintage film lenses)
Great IQ (no AA filter) for the money

Don't do it if you like:

Good AF (its okay at best)
Modern lenses (anything made after 2010s = $$$$) even used due to lack of availability
You shoot auto (kinda "dumb" re: shutter speed and ISO on auto/program mode vs other brands)
Small size (go for a APSC mirrorless)

The best bodies to buy are used K-3/K-3II and K-70. KF is too expensive for a new camera. KP is overpriced. K1 is $900-1100. K3-III is cool but extremely rare and the same price as a last gen FF mirrorless. K-50, KS-2 and older all have aperture solenoid issues, only buy if <$200 and comfortable soldering. There's a $275 K3 + 28-75mm f2.8 on NYC Facebook Marketplace I implore you to check out; I'm sure you could snag it for $240 and its a perfect starter kit, I went through Europe with that lens and it's still $100 at its cheapest.

>>4503194
I prefer to have it, some cameras really lack it to the point that you feel exposed using them. ZVE10 was one I owned. The ports might as well have been wide open and I got caught in a thunderstorm with it.

>>4503195
Thank you pentax bro. AF being bad might annoy me now and then but it's not a major focus for me, I can just keep my OM-1 for bird blasting. IQ and beautiful lenses are definitely attractive for me.

File: IMGP1654.jpg (970.9 KB)

970.9 KB JPG

>>4503196
I own a K10D, K200D, K70, had a KF (sold), and K1ii

K200D = hard to find, kinda mid. Mine keeps having brown tinged pictures but it works after 130k+ shots. A lot of them are wrecked from battery corrosion (alkaline AAs leaking into the body, nothing specific to the camera). I paid $100 for mine. Smallest DSLR they made.

K10D = can have focus issues (mine has serious backfocus), okay, not my favorite CCD but I got it cheap ($40).

K70/KF = same shit, KF has the improved solenoid, K70 can have bad aperture solenoid but its not as common as the older ones. Awesome sensor; very ISO invariant and great in low light. I paid $120 for my K70 with a broken screen I spent another $40 to fix. I also sold my KF for $380 on eBay months prior. I think this is the best Pentax for the money. The sensor is as good as the KP; its just that the AF isn't as good. Cheapest I've seen KFs sell for is $4-500; there's a K-70 on eBay with a 18-135mm lens for $360 that isn't a bad deal. Second smallest DSLR.

KP is nice but way overpriced. Median price seems to be $6-700 (cheapest I've seen them sell for is $5-600). You can get a Canon RP/5DIV, Nikon D750/D810 for that amount and adapters for older lenses.

K1ii = The best one. Kinda shit AF and I'll die by that opinion, I actually think my K70/KF was a little better. Huge even compared to the K70/KF. On the plus side you have the best IQ and can run super low ISOs because big FF sensor. $900-1100 is the average.

K3/K3ii is supposedly pretty good. Would not bother with a K5ii unless it was super cheap ($200 or less). Not prone to any aperture solenoid issues. Just a little big for a APSC DSLR. K3-III is excellent (AF comparable to a Nikon D500) but I have never seen one sell for under $1100 and it feels kind of a ripoff; on the flipside the IQ isn't off from a K1/K1ii (newer improved sensor).

I took this with a Pentax-A 70-200mm F4 and >>4503037 is me too.

>>4503194
>>4503191
Pentax is not any more weather sealed than the high end canikons that now cost nothing and also do everything better than a comparable pentax

It was only ever a big deal because they put full fledged weather sealing on cheaper cameras instead of just the 5div/d810 tier

I want a Nikon Zf but I'm poor please somebody help meeeeeeeee

This belong here

https://youtu.be/wQsR78SB3DM

https://youtu.be/tJrr3FAtf1U

>>4503207
Cringe, didnt even watch the whole thing

People more successful than you have owned multiple nice things that your parents would tell you didnt deserve unless you were a professional since the dawn of time
Youtube influencers didnt change this
Nicer things are still nicer
Superior equipment is still superior
And poorfags are still passive aggressively sometimes overtly screaming that the smarter, harder working nobility above them doesnt deserve anything because in the peasant mind a successful person can never be good enough to own something that exceeds a peasants net worth, that they worship money or have no talent and just buy shit

But in the end its the one getting mad over a better mans better shit and its pricetags, putting effort into these cringe videos that worships money. Acting like a priest whose temple of the dollar has been contaminated by the unworthy.

The people who buy more and nicer things than you just don’t care. Why would they? Money is a fake thing that anyone can acquire loads of just by signing up for some hard union job and working a lot or overtime for a year before dumping their saved cash into a solid ETF and doing something easier.

>>4503221
this
>its BLUES LAWYERS its FUDDS its BOOMERS its INFLUENCER CONSOOMERS!
no its people who actually worked, graduated college, and got jobs without going poor buying flashy new cars, oversized houses, or eating like shit, sitting on their ass, and going woe is me over healthcare costs 10 years later lmao

>>4503221
I am very thankful for my time working at camera shops to get a good idea of all the different types of shooters and different cameras they go for
Photography is also so relatively cheap compared to most other hobbies that people don't bat an eye at
Cameras are more accessible and affordable than ever before, and people complain just the same

>>4503224
Stupid people are more able to permanently destroy their wealth forever, and social pressure actively encourages them to do the two worst things they could

Buy a late model car
Live in a large, nice house/condo in an already developed area

>>4503225
>spending money on hobbies is bad
Sad life you must live, why are you spending your free time here instead of making more money?

>>4503225
legal weed destroyed the last hope of ever having money most retards had desu

>>4503227
How much do you think weed costs?

>>4503226
I didn’t say that. I said people bitch more than ever that other people spend money on hobbies because they put themselves in the poor house despite living in a world where literally anyone can live rich by working hard, staying healthy, stayingg off intoxicant dependency (ie: cannabis dependence, alcohol dependence, vapes), avoiding new/eueopean cars, avoiding motorcycles, and living in heavily developed and gentrified areas.

>>4503228
i know retards who spend $100 a week every week on that worthless trash. shitty overpriced idiot drug that causes schizophrenia and poor decision making. so they end up even poorer long term.

>>4503229
I guess being responsible with money doesn't change being a bitch, just what you bitch about

>>4503230
Do you think $100/wk is a lot of money?
What hobbies do you have?

>>4503231
Bitching about people who are poor by choice and mad about it is fine

The poor by choice are the ones running this country into the ground by alternating between begging politicians for hand outs and begging politicians for less competition

>>4503232
$100/wk is too much money for a plant that makes you permanently retarded.

FYI, using cannabis once a week or more is considered a disorder. This is for a reason and its not a propaganda psyop or conspiracy theory.

>>4503233
>It's fine if I'm a bitch, it's not fine with others are bitch
Nice ego friend

>>4503234
Did you smoke so much you couldn't answer the basic question I asked?
Interesting, thank you for being a warning sign of smoking too much and becoming retarded

>>4503234
weed has many health benefits!
>doubled risk of caries, tooth loss, and gum disease
>heightened risk of obesity
>chronic bronchitis
>cannabis hyperemesis syndrome
>schizophrenia
>high blood pressure, heart attack, stroke
>(reversible) long term cognitive decline even when not high
>irreversible cognitive decline if used regularly before 20-25

>>4503235
>its only okay when i bitch
Chad yes.jpg
>Assuming the one calling weed a poverty trap touches the schizo leaf
Looks like someone did a wake and bake

Weed turns you gay too btw

>>4503236
>I'm so retarded I can't even answer basic questions so have to pivot and deflect
Good communication skills you have. Are you sharing yourself as an example of becoming a retard from smoking too much too?

>>4503237
I was just asking, they said it makes you retarded and then made a retarded post so just checking

I'm already gay

>>4503239
All the potheads say they were already gay, but they also say they were already hungry…

>>4503241
I will admit, munchies have been the biggest downside long term, but I do weightlifting 4-5x a week, with some cardio here and there to makeup for it

>>4503243
Wow the other gay guys must think you’re the shit

>>4503244
Yes, come join us on /fit/. Get strong. Might just see me in the cb threads sometime.

Had to check what board I was on there for a second.

>>4503247
>whine about other people whining
>whine about the poors
>whine about weed
>never answer direct questions
Idk seems like /p/ as usual to me

>>4503245
No way fag

The /fit/ to /lgbt/ to /trash/ pipeline is real. I don’t need your gay bath house to get ripped.

You probably use fujifilm or nikon too. Mega gay.

>>4503253
What camera bodies do you use?

I don't understand the reasoning for using only primes and 'zoom with your feet'. Moving closer to a subject changes the perspective of the framing especially when it isn't at eye level. I watched an interview on youtube of a war photographer who only uses a 50mm f/1.2. He talks about how he got fucked up in a few places, and I could think only of how he could have avoided all that just by using a zoom lens.

>>4503257
I'm a Canonigger exclusively.

>>4503303
It all depends on use. A lot of these boomers/influencers just decide what 'real' photography is and that means just making everything as hard as possible most of the time. Primes are excellent if that exact focal length will for what you're doing, but it won't cover everything, while zoom will cover almost everything but just won't be as good for specifics like aperture or image quiality (which both also depend on usecase).

I was a prime meme retard when I was starting out but now I just use whatever works for me and what I'll be doing at the time.

File: gffggu.jpg (589.4 KB)

589.4 KB JPG

Got the 1ds2 with a microprism, and I love the process, it's so fun to go out with a manual lens not knowing what you got, but the files are a little lacking unfortunately, should I get a better camera or give up the manual experience

>>4503306
taken with canon fd 200mm f2.8

>>4503303
true, any of that is just rationalizing why anyone invested in a particular system

>>4503308
use whatever

>>4503303
Primes offer advantages over zooms, but they have downsides as well.
If you can't see the pros/cons for both zooms and primes, you are just being bad faith.

>>4503306
I still think old pre-DIGIC 4 Canon's have the best colors bar none.

>>4503303
Zooms are ugly oversized lenses that instantly mark you as someone who is either paid to be there or shouldnt be there and needs to be removed if they won’t put the camera away.
>I SNEED the PERFECT composition!
No, even a photographer will come up to you and say, no, show me the sd card, i saw you point that at my kids, henri cartier-bresson shot his entire career on 50mm, what the fuck are you zooming in on creep
And then a mall cop ass security guard will tell you no professional photography without a pass and to hand him the camera for the duration of your stay or leave

>>4503371
You okay there bud?
>show me the sd card
Learn to fight, problem solved. 90% of people will back down when hands are raised, and with the remaining 10% you've got a 50/50 shot. Decent odds imo.
>mall cop ass security guard will tell you no professional photography
Ignorant people aren't going to give a fuck if your lens zooms or not. They're just going to see a blobmera and tell you to gtfo. For these kinds of scenarios you bring a shitty point and shoot with optical zoom or something innocuous like a rangefinder.

>>4503373
>commits felony assault because he HAD to zoom to fill for every photo
Most photographers who were:are better and more successful than you will ever be only used primes.

Leave the extending dildo lenses to the professionals and the lame birdwatchers in the middle of the woods. Thanks.

>>4503376
>not smart enough to let the other guy swing first
Oh you've just got a unjustified hardon against zooms, yeah okay. I'll tell you what, you're a *prime* candidate for getting filtered, keklmao.

>>4503379
>but officer, he swung first
>the video of “concerned father confronts creepy photographer” going viral shows a distraught family man asking why you wont show him the picture if you werent creeping on his daughter and merely reaching towards your blobmera before getting ineffectually “punched” by a fat receding chin weirdo
>us government smear machine digs up your e621 searches and pro-MAGA social media posts
>FBI fakes an entrapment sting and calls you a lying pedo for denying it as they plant “deleted but recovered by forensics” CP on a USB drive you forgot you had (but equally likely actually do recover deleted cp ya creep)
>you get dunked on
Shoulda used primes

>>4503380
You've got a concerning amount of information of what it's like anon. Projecting even? Keep spinning, c'mon, you're genuinely entertaining.

File: 1744051013592633.png (613.6 KB)

613.6 KB PNG

>>4503303
All else held equal, primes are sharper, faster, lighter, more compact. If you're going for a smaller setup or want to attend some event without raising too many eyebrows, primes are amazing. Anything between 28-50mm can be adapter to most occasions. There will be pics you won't be able to take, but that's just a trade-off.
Zooms are just ridiculously versatile and great to have. I carry a zoom when going to new places and shooting is priory, a prime when I want a camera with me but it's not the focus of the outing.

>>4503381
I hire a random kid to play my daughter and fuck with gearfag “photographers” every weekend. It’s fun and they always end up having or posting something they shouldn’t have (ie: antisemitism) so its also a public service.

>>4503382
Also something I forgot is that primes are kind of easier because they give you less choice. Instead of wondering how exactly you want to compose a certain picture, you just have one focal length with some minor adjustments with your feet. It's just a chill, low-stakes, low-effort setup.

>>4503303
Changing perspective isn’t inherently bad, and being forced to move around to explore the perspectives and compositions available with a prime is one of the benefits.
Yes, in theory you can do the same with a zoom but I’ve gone to photography school even and invariably people using zooms don’t explore as much as people with primes. The images are weaker like 80% of the time.
They’re cool for like wedding photographers where the versatility lets you get several signature shots without a need to be too artful, or photojournalists where getting the shot is more important than exploring a shot.
Otherwise when you want to maximize an image’s impact a prime forces you to find the most impactful version of that image.

>>4503413
I think that still depends, mostly on what your intentions are. I have a zoom with a pretty good wide angle on it and I use that in place of buying a wide angle prime, then with the 35mm and 50mm settings, I use those as I would if they were primes. There's a lot of varying reasons for everything, I'd never try to say primes are flat out always the best choice but YouTubers sure do kek.

>>4503303
>Moving closer to a subject changes the perspective of the framing
yeah changes it positively, ie into a more interesting frame
>>4503003
are you excluding fixed-lens cameras? sony rx1 line is very small
>>4502985
i'm actually a prospective buyer for this camera, and i even like the message, but i don't want that on the top plate of my camera. i don't get why they didn't just leave the space blank and give you a sticker with the blurb, then leave it up to you. that would have been more diplomatic and probably cheaper to produce as well

>Sell digicams to zoomers to cash in on the hype
>They constantly want to know how to transfer photos from the camera to their phones
Even plug and play electronics is too complicated for the zoomer mind to comprehend.

>>4503481
It's really fucking inconvenient though.

>>4503303
You can't get perfectly round bokeh balls with a zoom lens.
Round bokeh balls = good photo
Lemon shaped bokeh balls = bad photo

File: 1768836186788p.png (43.8 KB)

43.8 KB PNG

>>4503384
>ABSOLUT BASED

>>4503489
>t. Doesn't make lemonade when given lemons.
SAD!

>ask google ai to give you settings for you camera to emulate film
>it gives you settings you didn't even know existed
>not a single youtuber mentioned them ever

It was in the manual tho, shit, always check your manual bros

>>4503517
I did that too. Really like the way it they turn out.

File: IMG_5968.jpg (28.2 KB)

28.2 KB JPG

All that gear but are you having fun with photography?

File: Screenshot 2026-04-04 145940.png (874.7 KB)

874.7 KB PNG

>>4502814
I was thinking about getting this lens, but I'm starting to have second thoughts...

>>4503533
What would you buy it for and what are your second thoughts?

>>4503551
I would buy it for my EOS RP.
>what are your second thoughts?
Initially, i wanted to buy the lens so that i wouldn't have to switch lenses too much while I'm out, but i am worried that that would be a stupid reason to buy something....

>>4503566
>i am worried that that would be a stupid reason to buy something

That's a great reason. Missing shots or getting crappy shots because you don't have a versatile lens attached is regrettable. The greatest photos I ever took I only had a couple seconds to react.
If you care about animal/wildlife photos I would get something with an even greater zoom range.

>>4503571
That is all true but only one specific side of the whole thing. I only use zoom for birds/wildlife because my big bazooka is a zoom lens. For my walking/touristy/generic shooting I switched from my generic 16-50 zoom to a prime and never looked back. I started taking photos differently, having to walk up to stuff, think more about composition. It is a very different experience from the run-and-gun zoomer photos.
Since OP has doubts I would recommend getting a cheap kit zoom and see how it works for convenience and the quality of the shots (apart from the lens quality of course) and then make the big decision.

>>4503580
What prime focal length did you go with?

>>4503584
It is more complicated because when I switched to prime I also switched from APS-C to FF. I can still use my APS-C lens in crop mode so I did for a while but when I put on the 43mm it just stayed on.
I figured if I need something zoomed in the 50mm or even a 100mm will not be enough so I would just use my bazooka. If I would need something wider for a landscape I can do panorama stitching or just use my phone. I rarely need wider than 43mm and even then I can look for tighter compositions and just get more shots. Super wide shots are boring anyways, far away stuff appears even smaller and you will always need something close to fill in the foreground. With that said there is a new 21mm prime I am salivating over... so far I could keep the urges at bay.

>>4503590
Strange, you didn't just want to go with a 35mm as a general walkaround/tourist lens?

>>4503591
Hehe, I did but it did not work out. The lens was sharp and good, it was not the problem. With 35mm I could not find compositions easily and everything looked plain and boring. It did not tickle my brain particularly well. 50mm was too constraining and I had the option for it but the 43mm intrigued me and thankfully it worked out and that focal length clicked well with me.

File: pepe-apu.gif (51.1 KB)

51.1 KB GIF

hhelp, i want a ricoh gr iv but theyre on backorder for a million billion years. dug up a old canon powershot sd750 ccd camera from my parents with chdk. realistically how much worse is it going to be if leaning into digishittery

>>4503593
Interesting, I get what you mean to a point. I've seen some 40mm lens around and I've wondered about those, but going beyond 35mm feelslike I'd be restricted. I had a 35mm on a APSC for a while and that came out to 52mm I think, which was terrible for anything beyond portraits when I was just walking around my city.

>>4503594
Using CHDK on that digishit? You'll get some decent kino going actually.

>>4503595
Yep, I felt that same exact thing. 40mm is wider than 50mm but not as wide as 35mm. I can't really explain it any better, it works for me while 35mm does not. It must be how 43mm is the "true neutral" focal length for FF and supposed to be the most natural to use. I don't know if it is true in any way, it is just the fact that the focal length is the same as the diameter of the frame, nothing more. It must be more about that sweetspot middleground between the 50mm and 35mm.

>>4503597
I might consider one of those Ricoh cameras then, the cheaper model was a 40mm equivalent on APSC and the pocket size means less hassle when I walk around my city.

File: 1771462641437029.png (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB PNG

>>4503595
>I had a 35mm on a APSC for a while and that came out to 52mm I think, which was terrible for anything beyond portraits when I was just walking around my city.
I had the same set up as you and agree that 35 on APS-C felt restrictive. I made it work after a while, but it's really something that excels better at taking pictures of things than of environments.
I now have a 40mm on FF. It's substantially wider. You don't get the same capture-everything look as you do with 28mm, but it's nothing like 35 on AP-C.

File: tamron-18-300mm-f_3.5-6.3-long-term-review-is-this-the-ultimate-walkaround-lens.jpg (249.9 KB)

249.9 KB JPG

>>4503580
>I switched from my generic 16-50 zoom to a prime and never looked back
16-50 is pretty useless as a "zoom" so switching to a similarly limited prime isn't going to make much difference.
I would never EDC with anything less than 10x since I don't know what photographic opportunities will present themselves while I am out and about. I do know that I would immensely regret not getting a good photo because I had some extremely limiting lens attached at the time. May as well just use a phone if you are not going to use a proper zoom lens.

Focal length FOMO is the mark of the snapshitter. Who knows when you’ll miss a bokeh closeup or a photo of a mangy cat?

Real photographers only need one focal length. Two tops.

File: hipertextual-iphone-11-2019772090.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4503642
>Real photographers only need one focal length. Two tops.

I'm a real photographer ^_^

File: 1748275346747374.png (956.4 KB)

956.4 KB PNG

>>4503635
I honestly love my Tamron 28-200. Really opens up a lot of opportunities.

>>4503646
Trvke

File: IMG_3888.png (330.7 KB)

330.7 KB PNG

>>4503646

I'm starting to get acclimated to using 35mm on crop. Now, I want to find one or two other lenses to make a compact kit. I have a few thoughts about what might work best.

>50mm 1.8g
Fairly cheap and the extra bokeh would be nice, but i am not sure there is enough to really differentiate it from the 35mm 1.8 dx. My testing with the 18-55 kit lens at 50mm didn't convince me.

>85mm 1.8g
Probably the safest way to go for portraits, but it is more expensive than the 50 and also more situational.

>[brand] 17-50 2.8
I've heard good things about these premium standard zooms. A single lens to fit most situations is appealing, but I'd really only want it for the wide end to do street/architecture. On that point, a sigma 18-35 would be better, but it's way more expensive.

The wider end of the scale is more relevant to my interests. Unfortunately, crop cameras are disadvantaged there on account of the crop factor.

>>4503642
The real end game is having favorite focal lengths and using different lenses of the same focal length
Ascending from focal length coverage as a priority to optical qualities of specific lenses

>>4503651
>Unfortunately, crop cameras are disadvantaged there on account of the crop factor
If only lens manufacturers considered this and made tons of wider angle crop lenses to compensate for this

>>4503652
Bokeh autism is a pitfall trap before nirvana

You think you’ve progressed but from the outside looking in you are a sad small man repeatedly taking the same photo of a toy on your porch with string lights and then going into capture one to zoom in on the bokeh balls
Is that photography? Zooming in on balls that are bigger than yours? No. It’s the first step to becoming gay.

File: z6-iii-s1-ii-a7v-photonstophotos.jpg (97.5 KB)

97.5 KB JPG

Remember that shill that malded at the a7v release telling everyone it was the same camera as the a7iv? Likely the same one that called the r6iii crippleware?

Well, he was actually malding because nikon got MOGGED INTO A PULP

Malding nikon shills copemaxxing are the cancer of /p/. Every coping gearfig is always a niggor.

>>4503656
Lol a7v vs nikon is the same difference as 5dii (ewaste) vs 5div (the standard for a modern camera). That’s huge.

>>4503655
>the virgin “rendering, character, soul, tactile feel”
>THE CHAD FIX IT IN POST

File: Y5dBKDePw5Uc2fYXy7qf6b.jpg (512.9 KB)

512.9 KB JPG

Any opinions on the GFX100RF? I've once had the X100VI and I really hated the image quality but I loved the film sims and colors. The GFX has a similar size, just a bit bigger. F4 lens isn't really fast but I don't really care about bokeh. Same the missing IBIS.. looking at samples it seems that higher ISO is no issue at all. It seems like a nice package for an EDC to take photos of family, travel and my kids. What do you think? There are already some good offers on the used market.

Right now I have the Leica Q2 which is almost perfect. Size, built quality, incredible sharp lens, etc. But what I don't like are the colors when editing. There is always something off. And the "film sims" you get in that Fotos app are pure shit. So I'm thinking of selling and buying that GFX instead.

>>4503682
if you hate leica colors, fuji will be worse and you might even like sony so get an a7v. it has the same dynamic range but can use more than one lens and isnt so uggo.

the gfx100rf looks like a terrible chinese ripoff of a nintendo 2DS with a stylus stored on the back lol
>fujis biggest market is china, and they actually outsell other brands there

>>4503655
>who cares about the optical qualities of a lens, I sure dont
Sad

File: 1734179015339397.jpg (84.9 KB)

84.9 KB JPG

>>4503682
It'll be better than any x-tranny camera, that's for sure.
However, consider that it's f/4 at 100MP without IBIS or OIS. Your Q is an infinitely more usable camera.
>but muh colors
Cope, you're just looking for excuses to gearfag the 100RF. My advice to you is to figure out what color grading style you like and try to copy it. Literally put a reference image next to your own working image of a similar scene in Lightroom and try to match the look as close as you can. Then carry on from there. Forget about in-camera "film simulations", they're a mere gimmick and marketing tool.

>>4503656
>>4503658
For me it's that one schizo who thinks PtP are complete fucking idiots and sensor tech peaked 15 years ago.

>>4503635
>>4503648
>zoomers

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

67.8 KB JPG

>OH N-

Made a thread yesterday but it got archived. Rate my first learning setup please. Nature/landscapes, any/all animals. Also concerts, though I am aware of the limits I will have here while learning. Thanks /p/!

>Adorama Order — Est. Delivery Apr 14
>Canon EOS R10 w/ RF-S 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM — $1,449
>Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM — $699
>Canon LP-E17 2x Battery Pack — $131.69
>SanDisk 128GB Extreme PRO UHS-II SD Card — $109.99
>Total: $2,580.87 (includes tax, free shipping)

File: daoko.jpg (15 KB)

15 KB JPG

>>4503705
That's one hell of a price for APS-C and a couple slow as fuck lenses. Why didn't you just go entry level full frame immediately if your budget is $2500? You don't need that focal length coverage. A small cheap 35/40/50 for general use and a telephoto zoom for your wildlife would have been enough.

>>4503706
The jump in cost isn't worth my abilities right now. I'll add it later and this becomes a secondary setup

>>4503306
>1Ds Mark II
Yeah, they're fantastic. The autofocus is incredible, especially if you pair it with a USM driven lens. The only thing that shits me off is that you can't get replacement port covers for them, no one makes them despite them being the same part across like seven different 1D and 1Ds models.

File: Nikon_Z9_Product_Images_25_resized.jpg (243.3 KB)

243.3 KB JPG

>>4503709
>The only thing that shits me off is that you can't get replacement port covers for them, no one makes them despite them being the same part across like seven different 1D and 1Ds models.

Shitty (=non-hinged) port covers in cameras make my blood boil more than anything. I mean, you drop 5 000 bucks on a allegedly ruggered pro body from Canon or Nikon (pic from Z9) and all you get is those shitty, disintegrating rubbers from 25 years ago. Like you said, good luck finding new ones in 10 years, even harder to design and (re)make yourself no matter how desperate you are.

Just because it has hinged port covers, I've been considering a Pana S5 II over Canon R6. Even if those hinged cover break some day, making DIY'd ones isn't impossible.

>>4503712
>Like you said, good luck finding new ones in 10 years
Yeah its pretty unfortunate, though it seems like around 2006/2007 seems to be the cutoff period for what chinky manufacturers are willing to produce. It's really annoying, but at least everything from the 5D and onward are pretty attainable at the moment.

>>4503705
Brand new sony ff money for the shittiest canon gear… wow.

>>4503715
You're coming across as someone who's just a prick, so whatever your point is is lost

>>4503705
Versus
>5D mark II - $200 (could also go mark III if you can find a good deal)
>EF 100-400L - $600
>EF 24 f/2.8 - $150
>Total $950
This is what I would have bought, but even then I wouldn't do what you're doing with the lenses. Say I wanted to shoot nature and landscapes. Big autofocus telephotos are expensive but the 100-400 is a good, not great choice. It's good lens but really expensive for what it is. Whether or not a lens is third party or first party matters less now than ever on digital as autofocus has gotten so fast on mirrorless even with third party lenses. So I would definitely consider getting a third party for the telephoto, or an EF 100-400L first generation if you're really set on going Canon for everything. For the setup I listed, I did choose a first party L series lens as the difference in autofocus between first and third party for DSLRs can be a large and important one.

I would also not get a superzoom. If I thought I wanted a wide angle for landscapes I would just get a prime. The superzooms are expensive (for what they are) to buy new, and for a lens they hold value poorly because basically no one outside of beginners uses them. They also pretty much universally suffer for slow apertures and poor sharpness. For EF, the original 24mm is abundant and cheap, has full frame coverage, and has a pleasing, constrasty rendering despite the edge softness. For RF the 16mm is what I would go for.

APS-C isn't such a bad choice for nature and birding, but if you're already getting a 400mm lens, you wouldn't really need the reach. Reach is good for nature photography, but what's more important is learning how to get close to your subject. Anyone can take a photo from a kilometre away with a superzoom bridge camera, but it will look like crap, or even worse, a wikipedia photo.

File: 1Telephoto Speadsheet.png (76.3 KB)

76.3 KB PNG

>>4503719
>I would also not get a superzoom.
Not that anon, but I'm stuck in a situation where a 50-400mm Tamron seems like my only option on the Z mount due to size and price. I was hesitant to consider it for the same reasons: I already have a 50mm and I want my target lengths to be as sharp as possible (300+). I'm used to 450mm (My old 70-300, whose price on the sheet is the repair cost) on crop sensor, so I worry about 300 being short to the point of uselessness on FF. That's why I didn't include the PF 300mm. And adapting lenses feels like I'm giving up the benefits of changing to mirrorless in the first place.

It doesn't seem like there are realistic options for non-professionals to do telephoto on the Z system without superzooms.

>>4503719
The RF 100-400 is definitely better than the old first EF 100-400L especially at the long end. Plus the old dust pump is heavy and unwieldy while the RF 100-400 is light.
The reach in birding is not for the distance, if the subject is 100m away you will have a whole lot of problems with the image regardless of the lens. 400mm is the bare minimum (300mm on APS-C) to start birding but you will constantly wishing for more reach even if you are 20m or less from your subject. Small birds are small and you need the focal length to fill if not the frame but a substantial crop of the frame. There is always more and more.
And recommending a 5DII to a complete beginner? What are you even smoking? If you would recommend a DSLR why not a 5DIII or a D750 or better yet a D800 or D810? What Anon posted is a very reasonable setup especially considering he is a complete noob. Somebody must have made the effort to get some good and simple gear for him to start out.

>>4503720
Nikon 200-500 with the FTZ adapter

>>4503722
I feel like that size and weight excludes it from being used for anything but tripod and short trips. I can't imagine lugging it around on the beach for 4 hours.

>>4503721
>D750 or better yet a D800 or D810
Because these cameras have bad autofocus and bad colours. Nikon DSLRs should be avoided like a plague. They're also unreliable and overpriced and have plastic lens mounts, which are unbecoming of a product that costs as much as they do, even on the used market. The only thing they have going for them is dynamic range, which doesn't matter past 11 stops.
>dust pump
Unless its an internal zoom it makes zero difference for getting dust inside the lens if the is push/pull or twist.
>while the RF 100-400 is light.
If an under 1kg difference is making a noticeable difference to you, it's time to hit the gym. Pretty simple.
>400mm is the bare minimum
Not true. If you're wishing for more reach you're doing it wrong. If your photos aren't good enough, you're not close enough.
>What Anon posted is a very reasonable setup
Not for that much money, no.
>Small birds are small
Correct
>and you need the focal length to fill if not the frame but a substantial crop of the frame
Incorrect. Get closer.

>>4503723
I use a similar one on a DSLR body with a vertical grip. I handhold it all the time, no time to fiddle around with a tripod. You just need a good wide strap and a good technique handholding and aiming.

>>4503725
You are full of shit. Stop confusing the newbie just because he dismissed your snoy.

>>4503705
It's a good setup, anon, don't listen to the schizo. His words alone might sound sane but what he says is gibberish bullshit meant to confuse you. Carry on and report back with some shots.

>>4503720
I wish I could help you but I haven't used Nikon Z, only F and Canon EF. The setup I recommended are lenses/bodies I've used for work at some point in the past and I've actually used them. I can definitely see that Z lenses are expensive, so maybe you could try adapting EF lenses or non-screw drive Nikon lenses to your mirrorless setup. I know you said you don't want to lose the benefits of going mirrorless, but part of that benefit is that you can adapt so many different lenses to it. I don't know what autofocus you have on that, but generally DSLR lenses will work better on mirrorless bodies with phase detect AF, as thats what they were designed for.

File: lenscompare.jpg (377.5 KB)

377.5 KB JPG

>>4503727
>I use a similar one on a DSLR body
Which lens? Because this thing is twice the size of my old one, and that's without the FTZ adapter.
>>4503730
I've got a Z50 and a Z5ii. I'd like to be able to use whatever I get on both depending on how much reach I need. I'll look into some more F-mount options, but I feel like it's going to lead me back into a 70-300. Like I said, the 300mm PF is an interesting option, but only framing at 300mm without a wider focal length to drop down too might cause more missed shots than I expect.

>>4503732
>300mm without a wider focal length to drop down too might cause more missed shots than I expect
In my experience as someone who uses a 300mm f2.8 manual focus prime pretty often, I don't miss the zoom at all. When I use a zoom lens I basically leave at whatever the longest focal length is. Maybe its worth looking around for something 400mm? Idk what 400mm options Nikon has really, but I find 400 to be a good focal length on full frame for wildlife. So long as you're doing what I said earlier and focusing more on getting closer rather than constantly just trying to buy more reach. I know the canon EF 100-400L mark 1 also supports the teleconverters if you really want that extra reach, though I have no idea if these would change the autofocus performance when adapted. They don't normally change it natively, so I should imagine not.

This isn't what most pros do though. Unless you really want to specialise in nature and make that your main focus, most professionals just use a 70-200 f/2.8 and then a teleconverter if they need more reach. This isn't to say that people don't buy longer telephotos, people, including pros definitely do, it's just that if it's not your main focus, you get a lot more value out of 70-200 and a teleconverter, its a much more generalised setup.

>>4503733
99% of my shots on my 70-300mm were at 300mm, and often wanting a bit more reach. That's why I was thinking 50-400mm. The 70-200mm Z is more expensive than any of my spreadsheet options even before the $550 TC. A used F 70-200mm + TC + FTZ on a tiny crop Z50 sounds like a technological amalgam of a mess, and still expensive. Unfortunately, there are just few attractive options for what I'm looking for. A $292 repair bill for a faulty lens being one of the least attractive.

>It's a good setup, anon, don't listen to the schizo. His words alone might sound sane but what he says is gibberish bullshit meant to confuse you. Carry on and report back with some shots
My read as well, thanks. Another anon helped talk me down from the R5/R7. I'll get there eventually. Can't wait to start shooting shit. Need to add the belt and the bag as well. Anything else you think I may not realize I need? Still got a few days cause Passover

>>4503653
Too difficult. the wider in absolute focal length you go the harder the lens is to make to a certain standard. Not really a problem these days but I feel like the demand just isn't there and manufacturers would rather say "buy fool frame".
>>4503705
>Made a thread yesterday but it got archived
The fuck it did. This board has threads from 6 months ago in the catalog. But it doesn't matter because you should have just posted here anyway.
Also,
>Rate my first learning setup please
>$2,580.87
Is that... USD? Sheeeeeeeeeit nigga that's a lot of green. Why the fuck did you buy a UHS-II card for a camera that is only UHS-I? Waste of like $50 right there. The kit zoom is fine, and the 100-400 is actually based because who the fuck wants to spend $2000 on a beeg white just for it to be 3x the weight as a beginner. Idk man I would have just gotten an R8 or R6 and a simple prime or two for the money but you do you.
>>4503735
>99% of my shots on my 70-300mm were at 300mm, and often wanting a bit more reach
Could consider a TC no?

>>4503738
>Could consider a TC no?
My now-broken 70-300mm didn't take TCs. And I was aiming for a native z mount lens. The only 70-300mm on z doesn't have VR and also doesn't take TCs.

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-MFSqPSaIMI2.jpg (2.1 MB)

2.1 MB JPG

Hi /p/ - Pentax I just picked up a new camera for my collection~

This time it was a Pentax K-3 with 22k shutter counts for $225. It included a Tamron 28-75mm A09 f2.8 Zoom Lens, original charger, strap, BG-5 grip, and a 128GB SDXC card. Bought it locally.

I'm gonna sell the lens (I already have the same exact lens, no need for 2) probably for $80 bucks :) I actually really like it, it feels nicer than my K70 and the metering is on point.

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-aQyEsm6VTlJsRFc8.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>4503746
It was absolutely filthy: I spent today cleaning it; it had some weird white corrosion under the pop up flash by the little arms for it that wouldn't let it pop up. This thing definitely saw some use. It was super grimey. If it was on yahooauctions.jp it would qualify for junk status. Fortunately everything still works. I do need a cover for the bottom port though.

Sensor was remarkably clean though the lens mount had corrosion (wtf?); I'm guessing the guy took it to the beach/water out a few times.

Once I sell the lens I'll be in for $100 bucks basically. Updated it from 1.00 -> 1.43

File: DSC07932.jpg (750.5 KB)

750.5 KB JPG

>>4503748
wwyd if your favorite camera runs into the pentax gang

>>4503197 is my post i think i'd rank the k3 pretty high actually from using it, i tie it with the k70 which imo has a better sensor especially for low light but i like the metering and build quality on the k3 a bit more

would definitely not refuse one at $300 the $120 this cost me once i sell the lens is def worth it.

honestly if this 2014 k3 feels this good i could realistically replace my k1ii with a k3 mark 3 and not miss it at all. pentax's speciality really is apsc.

maybe i should just replace my k1ii + k200d + k10d + k70 with a k3-iii and keep the k-3 as a beater...

I'm getting an a7 V with a Sigma 24-70 and none of you retards can stop me.

File: file.png (436.7 KB)

436.7 KB PNG

>>4503712
If those hinge things come off, you can also get port covers. There are plenty of USB C, Micro USB, HDMI etc covers since they're all used on computers and IT shit that will get dusty. I doubt they will do anything for your overall weather sealing but they would keep dirt and other shit out of the ports at minimum.

File: s-l1200.png (1.4 MB)

1.4 MB PNG

Do you guys keep all the camera/lense boxes or toss them?
What if you're not planning to resale anything later, what is the point of having the original box?

>>4503776
It's just good to have I guess. Also you never know, you might sell it eventually. I bought a late 80s film camera a few months ago and the autist owner kept the original box, manual and even had a notepad inside with settings info for his specific usecases.

Boxed stuff also goes for more, even if it's just a lens.

>>4503207
The first the one is just /p/eeps here, except none of us actually had a wife in the first place

>>4503732
I use a 150-450mm on a K-1 body, similar weight. Nice wide strap so it is comfortable cross shoulder, one end on the body the other on the lens so the lens does not stress the mount. I also use the tripod foot rotated to the top so it acts as a handle and doesn't get in the way of handholding. I"m not gonna lie, first couple times I was a wobbly mess, arms like a wet noodle but now I don't even feel it. The trick is you only holding it with your hand when shooting otherwise it is hanging from across your shoulder.

>>4503733
This is absolute bonkers bullshit. No professional wildlifer would just pack a 70-200 with a TC. They will absolutely pack whatever lens they need even if it is a 600/2.8 that needs two unfortunate interns to carry it for you. Yes they will use the 70-200/2.8 whenever it is needed.

>>4503787
>No professional wildlifer would just pack a 70-200 with a TC
Nigger thats what I said, what do you think the word 'unless' means? Learn to read you retarded american

>>4503772
I tried this but like half of them didnt fit, some ports I couldnt find, I just ended up cutting a piece of foam and putting that over them since I don't use the ports anyway.

>>4503752
Nice straps, how long are they and where are they from?

>>4503789
>I tried this but like half of them didnt fit
CableMatters makes them and a bunch of high quality cables for professional IT usage and they're what I use at work, so give some covers from them a try.

> I just ended up cutting a piece of foam and putting that over them since I don't use the ports anyway
That's fair too. I personally never use the HDMI port on my camera and I don't really know why would unless you urgently needed to show your pics on a big screen immediately after taking them.

>>4503776
I hate how I don't have my camera box but I have a lot of some other random boxes for scrap
I regret tossing it and the same time I don't know why would I need it.

>>4503788
>>4503733
>most professionals just use a 70-200 f/2.8 and then a teleconverter
>including pros definitely do, it's just that if it's not your main focus, you get a lot more value out of 70-200 and a teleconverter

How about you fuck off? You straight up lying in my face when a few posts above there is the proof against you? How mentally damaged do you have to be you compulsive lying fuck?

>>4503795
It is the millennial urge to keep boxes in case you would be selling thinking the box would up the price in any significant amount. Or just hoarding.

Yes I too have the boxes.

>>4503797
>Unless you really want to specialise in nature and make that your main focus
2x learn to read retarded american. Did you education system fail you or have you just been chugging tap water?

>>4503800
Box keeping isn't some generational thing, it's a hoarder and autist thing. I see 70s and 80s cameras in stores all the time that have their boxes and original books (I once saw a boomer selling his camera and he made a big deal about the original price sticker from the 80s still being on the box kek).

I was retarded with my boxes. I threw away the boxes for my N64 games but kept the console box.

>>4503803
>it's a hoarder and autist thing.
Well, I only have ADHD.

>>4503800
I doubt a mass production entry level camera needs its original box. Also I don't know why would anyone sell his fist ever camera

>>4503801
How to tell everyone you never used a camera without telling everyone you never used a camera

>>4503804
>I don't know why would anyone sell his fist ever camera
Everyone keeps their first camera?

idk if i should sell my a6400 + sigma 56mm + 23mm 1.4 and just get a gr iiix or just sell my lenses and main the sigma 18-50mm. I hate swapping lenses

>>4503800
It's not about the price it's about having an appropriate container for shipping.

Was just thinking about how based the EF lens system was compared to all the others when it comes to adaptability and then it struck me, are there any third party autofocusing EF lenses that are considered a "must have"?

>>4503806
I think everybody should. It's like with motorcycles - people always regret selling their first

>>4503738
>but I feel like the demand just isn't there
Well you're wrong considering how many wide angle apsc lenses there are

>>4503808
If you're fine with just using a fixed lens GR, why is that different from using your a6400 with just the 23mm?
If you don't want to swap lenses, don't, easy

>>4503813
There once was a time when Sigma EF-S 18-35mm f/1.8 and Sigma EF 35mm f/1.4 were "must have". Irix made some wide-angle lenses that despite being MF were more sensible than similar Canon lenses.

thoughts on a Nikon DX 35mm f1.8?

What are some better option for the same price?

>>4503826
>same price as Nikon 35mm f/1.8 G DX
>$125
buddy if you're that hard pressed just save your money. splitting hairs for this cheap of equipment is lower middle class 2003 mentality. type of question a bad photographer asks. that is a really capable ~50mm lens.

>>4503841
>poorshaming
Woah, not cool bro

I just want to shoot half-naked females in the dark at home, is it possible with the DX 35mm?

>>4503846
You're missing my point. If you are truly scrounging so much that $125 vs $150 makes a difference to you, then yeah you should be going to ALDI to buy rice and beans instead of pissing it away on landfill material (cropped F mount gear, the low-end version of a dead system).

Ignoring the context of the question, any of that stuff (like any of the Nikkor 50mm 1.4/1.8 D/G) are so capable that needling about miniscule performance details is a huge sign of immaturity. Even thinking to ask the question suggests gear is not your limit. What is even the alternative to that DX lens? What could possibly be better than it? A Sigma 35mm 1.4 full frame art lens on a crop body? Are you going to take better nudes with that? Be so for real.

>>4503826

dust/weathersealing is nice

File: IMG_0224.jpg (100.4 KB)

100.4 KB JPG

>>4503813
Probably the Sigma 50/1.4 and 35/1.4, Art versions. Beware, they are very big and heavy.
Otherwise there's the Zeiss classic line, all of them absolute kino but manual focus.

>>4503790
red strap on k-3:

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Tribute-Embroidered-Universal-Photographers/dp/B078N5D95V/ref=ast_sto_dp_puis

https://art-tribute.com/products/red-woven-camera-strap-vintage-camera-strap-belt

blue strap on k-1

https://www.amazon.com/Padwa-Lifestyle-Camera-Strap-Photographers/dp/B0D2HF8P9S/r

k200d strap:

https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256806327264009.html

(style 9, just be careful with this one since it fits loosely on the buckles, i had my k70 nearly drop with a strap from the same seller cuz bouncing back and forth loosened the strap enough to come apart)

how long: long enough on all 3 to cross shoulder wear it (across my chest) even the k1

>>4503808

dont see the point in the griii if you already have a relatively compact apsc mirrorless unless you really dislike it, both the same size/vintage sensor and autofocus

i just dont like the ricoh gr line...theyre all way too expensive for how reliable/capable they are.

>>4503826
Don't listen to the poorshaming mororn. Yes, it is a cheap lens and DX only but it is a prime and a fast one. If you are upgrading from a kit zoom this will be your best investment, by far. While it is a 50mm FF equivalent it will not give you the same images a 50mm on FF would because it is a wide angle lens on your crop sensor, but it will give you nice sharp images. Think about subject being in focus and stop thinking about bokeh.

>>4503682
The GFX100RF is a medium format camera that doesn't give you the qualities you want from a medium format camera. I'd buy a nice full frame camera or go balls deep on a proper medium format camera instead of getting that.
I had the x100vi for two months as well and could never make it work for me. The image quality just wasn't good to me and I found the recipes never looked how I wanted no matter how much I tweaked/experimented (which I did A LOT). I really liked the compact size though. Didn't even feel it when it was hanging on a strap around my neck.
Sold it and went back to a full frame camera and feel right at home again.

I'm new to this stuff and am trying to do research on what camera to buy

Is there an easy way to tell if a camera has a cropped or full frame sensor or not and if it has IBIS or not?

It doesn't seem like most just outright lists that in the spec sheet, so what should I be keeping an eye out for that tells you if the camera has that or not? Is there a particular review site which documents it for different cameras?

>>4503923
>Is there an easy way to tell if a camera has a cropped or full frame sensor or not and if it has IBIS or not?
Sensor size you can tell just by looking at the camera, as there is a physical size difference. IBIS is something you'll have to look up.

>It doesn't seem like most just outright lists that in the spec sheet
They do, a camera is called either APS-C (cropped) or full frame.

>>4503705
Full retard. You got scammed hard.

beginner goyims would really rather spend double the amount of a just as good if not better sony aps-c just because their favorite tiktok creator made a brand war joke

>>4503923
Cropped/full frame sensor
Sony a6xxx/axx
Nikon Zxx/Zx
Panasonic Gx/Sx
Canon is all over the place
Fuji skipped full frame and does medium format

As for ibis
I think all panasonics have it and most full frame cameras too

Camera decision dot com is the closest to a feature database

File: IMG_5987.png (864.1 KB)

864.1 KB PNG

How difficult is it to build a camera anyway?

>>4503866
>if you don't praise cheaply built ok lens as AWESOME and EXCELLENT++++ you're a poorshamer
How about you stop being rertarded and learn how to read?

>>4503937
>Camera decision dot com is the closest to a feature database
https://www.dpreview.com/products/search/cameras#!

I'm looking to buy my first camera. Other then IBIS, Crop vs Full frame, Megapixel/Max Resolution, ISO noise level, and the specs of the on body display screen, what should I be looking for in a camera?

Is the level of noise at a given ISO level something that's quantified? If so how?

>>4504026
Size of the viewfinder matters a lot, and is almost never mentioned. The bigger the better. A round viewfinder window is much better than a rectangular.
Also wheels and buttons. Always make sure the camera has two wheels snd enough buttons to not have to fiddle with a touchscreen menu.
Weather sealing is nice.
Startup time is crucial. Going from DSLR to mirrorless, the most painful experience was the added delay between turning on the camera, turning on the EVF, and THEN being allowed to click the shutter. On my D600 and D800 it was instantaneous.

>>4504026
For me, I would be also consider:
>usb charging capability
>evf/OVF quality (physical size and/or resolution)
>screen articulation, buttons & dials
>dual card slots
>eye / subject detection
>weather sealing and durability
Depending on what you're doing you might also put more emphasis continuous AF performance, buffer size, and video features. Lens matters just as much too.
>Is the level of noise at a given ISO level something that's quantified?
Some places try to like DxO and PhotonstoPhotos. DPReview has the Studio Comparison tool (and some other tools) but take them all with a grain of salt.
I almost care about IQ related stuff the least nowadays, most modern cameras are good enough for my needs, and I started on much worse.

I have a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 contemporary on order after much deliberation. Other than the 50mm f1.8g, I didn't see anything else that would really complement a 35mm 1.8g dx.

>>4504026
Mirrorless vs. DSLR? Your priorities will be different depending on your budget. May as well get a full frame camera so that you can continue to use your lenses on a future upgrade. My camera is aps-c and I kind of regret not going full frame from the start for that reason.

>>4504031
this is actually insanely good advice

File: 20x24 (1).jpg (221 KB)

221 KB JPG

>>4503948
nop that much for the body, good optics are more trouble

File: case_logic_dhs_101_quick_grip_dslr_hand_strap_917750.jpg (267.9 KB)

267.9 KB JPG

>>4504026
consider the grip.
a camera that has a forward projecting grip can be gripped with just the fingers of one hand and your thumb is free to do what it needs to do at the rear.
Without a front projecting grip camera is held by the pinch between thumb and fingers - lifting thumb means losing grip, so another hand (or tripod) is needed to hold the camera. (or I guess a hand strap can kind of work.)

That said, I would pick a flat front over a barely protruding grip since there are more grip options and easier DIY solutions for a flat front.

So when are we gonna get higher megapickles sensor for full frame that does not have dogshiz readout?

File: Kevin-Carter-Child-Vulture-Sudan.jpg (27.2 KB)

27.2 KB JPG

>>4503048

Hello, if I am looking for the vintage Canon DSLR experience on a budget, should I prefer a 5D mkI with grip for around 170$ or a Canon 1d mkIII for 100$?

It's a good idea to use my Gumball for stabilization? My camera does not habe IBIS but i have a gumball

>>4503306
If you zoom in you can see everything... hawt

>>4504098
fuck readout. readout improvements keep making cameras noisier. the z8/9/6iii and r5ii all look like aps-c.
>but silent shutter!
the canon 5diii’s silent mode was already quiet enough. the fuck is wrong with mirrorless cucks?
>uhm, video is the future
the video thats the future is just the future of, to use a but of curtis yarvinism (he is the priest of silicon valley after all), unpersoning the undesirables. confining lower class people and the ostracized so effectively they are basically voluntarily castrated and killed despite being whole and alive via addiction to algorithmic feeds of short form video. you dont need full frame for that. you dont need a pro camera for that. and you should consider a butlerian jihad instead of a career in destroying humanity until its just lords and peasants again. the big tech neo-feudalists have long since escaped conspiracy theory hell and now openly plan. you can watch their interviews. you can get proof of their government ties on official paper. and you have to know their plan only works if you dont just fail to fight back, but actively help them.

and yet you will help them.

for “likes and follows”

dumb fucks

reject reels. reject shorts. reject tiktok. reject AI and reject 120FPS sports cameras. reject continuous high+. do human photography. you do not need fucking readout. it is a cancer and a symptom of a cancer.
>uhm i have a career in CINEMA bro
then you already have great 4k and 6k camcorders that are perfect for making netflix slop. leave cameras alone.

>>4504259
>bean soup

>>4504261
>t. unpaid employee of big tech
Reject readout
Embrace mirror flap and mechanical shutter
Do it now

>>4504262
>tfw no sony a900 with shutter shake hard enough to move the camera when its still

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8L2mN54Ldw

i wanna add a ff alpha dslr to my minolta collection now that im almost done pentaxmaxxing

I want to upgrade from my crop censor 800D to a full frame canon DSLR. is 5D mark IV my only option? I was told I shouldn't think about the mark III but wasn't told why. upgrading cause low light is cancer and better image quality.

>>4504289
That or the 6D Mk II

>>4504289
Canon DSLRs are dramatically worse than nikons with the exception of the 5DIV

>>4504289
Everything that isnt a 5div has the dynamic range of an olympus micro four thirds.

>>4504289
You should just put the D in front of 800 instead

Tamronbros...
35-150 f/2-2.8 or 28-200 f/2.8-4.5?
i want a single lens that can can do both close portraits to casual birds. Darkest environments would be well-lit cities at night. Studio level portraiture isn't a must

>>4504304
28-200 is ass. Sadly if you want birds it will always need the long lens, something like a 150-500 or 150-600 will do but at that point I would recommend the first party lenses for the sharpness.
For streets at night and city lights I would recommend a fast prime, a nifty fifty is a good start or 35mm depending if you are on FF or APS-C

>>4504307
I'm on aps-c with a 23mm and 56mm f/1.4. I want to move up to a full frame but with one lens to do it all. I feel the compromise of versatility for speed on aps-c isn't worth because of the smaller sensor.
I rarely find myself needing faster than f/2 on aps-c, my portraits are usually environmental. Regardless of that I'm not sure whether i should stay on aps-c and get a 17-70 f/2.8 or a slow ass super zoom and tank the noise when it comes, or make the switch with one of the lenses mentioned above

>>4504259
I just want to be able to stick my camera out of the window of a moving vehicle and not have any skewing.

Rate my Nikon Nihon wife, she's so good at taking photos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fv2ulkTFI4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXcfDLe0FDM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJg16vTgv0Q&t=9s

>>4504332
Please stop posting videos of *my* wife.

>tfw she will never sit on your face while preparing to take a photo (translators note: she's not wearing any pantsu)

>>4504324
Use your phone.

>>4504308
I wouldn't stick with aps-c unless I had a gun to the back of my head. If you have the money please for the love of god get a full frame camera, not a bunch of autistic-grade premium-copium turbo cropnerd lenses.

>I rarely find myself needing faster than f/2 on aps-c
Which is closer to what f/2.8 is on a full frame camera, so hey look at that if you don't mind the heft get a zoom fixed to f/2.8 which are on the expensive side but not prohibitively and now you've got a forever kit that won't be outmatched by anything other than hassy medium format for another 15 years.

Literally get an EF 24-70 f/2.8 or whatever snoynikkon equivalent and be done with it. For portraits 70mm might be a bit short but you said it yourself you normally do environmental shots not waist-up passport photos.

>>4504332
The reason why I only watch gyaru jav adult videos is because those tanned gals have the habbit of talking in their natural voice and even a bit rougher. I really can't stand this fake high pitch.

File: Screenshot From 2026-04-10 12-48-40.png (313.6 KB)

313.6 KB PNG

>>4502814
Why doesn't medium format have a single good zoom lens?
It's zoom, the quality will be worse than primes anyway. Give me a perfect 24-100 travel/vacation zoom. Not even Hasselblad has a nice standard zoom.

>>4504349
portrait lenses shitty as well. 110mm is too tight to be versatile, the 80 has crappy AF and chromatic aberration.

>>4504308
>but with one lens to do it all
No such thing mate. There are superzooms but all of them are ass, they are all waste of money.

>>4504350
The GF55mm is kinda nice for portraits imo but it comes with the same crappy af as the 80. With newer bodies it seems fine though

>>4504349
The whole reason to shoot medium format is for image quality. Convenience really isn't a factor. As such, I can't imagine there's much of a market for medium format zoom lenses.

>>4504357
Hassys 35-100 is absolutely fine, especially when stopped down. The only reason why it does not get wider than 35 is because they don't want to cannibalize sales for the 20-35. The only reason aperture isn't faster is because they don't want to cannibalize sales for the 90. Fuji is only complicit because they dgaf about GFX anymore

>>4504349
What zoom lens do you use currently?

>>4504361
only primes

>>4504354
>>but with one lens to do it all
>No such thing mate. There are superzooms but all of them are ass, they are all waste of money.
The golden path is a nice prime for highest quality portraits + 1 superzoom for travelling + a high quality prime for landscape. The perfect trinity.

It's interesting the preference for super zooms
Do people not have focal ranges they prefer to shoot at?
I'm all for zooms, but I basically only ever go past 75mm ish when using my 135mm for specific things, I just always prefer shooting in "normal ranges", even bought and sold two 70-200s over the years untill realized

File: Fn4KMiz2syjBHRBLTQgkFe-1200-80.jpg (89.2 KB)

89.2 KB JPG

>>4504354
>No such thing mate. There are superzooms but all of them are ass, they are all waste of money.
Boomer prejudice based on Boomer experience.
Superzooms in the last 10 years have really improved thanks to implementation of digital corrections.
Sigma's 18-300 for DSLR
Tamron's 18-300 for mirrorless
Sigma's 16-300 for mirrorless
All produce excellent results if you are careful with aperture.
They won't be as bright as primes or lesser zooms but it's the trade-off for versatility.

>>4504371
>implementation of digital corrections
>improved
Oh boy I'm so glad we can now experience the joys of a 20-400mm super bazooka and lenses that are *checks notes*... 1/8th smaller than before thanks to the glorious and VERY REAL AND USEFUL digital corrections!
Yeah, no. Digital corrections just mask the shitty looking pixel-level detail that would look perfectly fine if it was corrected the old-fashioned way with glass.
Every digital correction (yes even chroma seperation) destroys something in order to hide the bullshit these lens designers are now all so happy to pass, whereas before if your prime had any hint of color seperation it was just considered a shit lens.

But hey, thank god we have the super bazookas!

>>4504371
>>4504372
NTA but I love my Tamron 28-200. It allowed me to take so many pics that would otherwise just have been impossible. It's great for travel.

>>4504371
>Boomer prejudice based on Boomer experience.
This kind of true actually. I tried some superzooms just 10 years ago and they were all ass. The current flock is very decent though.

>>4504378
It does not matter if they're ass or not. You'll use your proper portrait lens for portraits and your proper wide angle for landscapes. The superzoom is only for the rare occasion where you need maximum flexibility with optical zoom.

>Z7 II onsale for $1900
>or I buy more glass...
I have a Z5. And only one mirrorless lens. The 40mm prime. Otherwise I must use the mirrorless adapter...which sucks...
the answer is more glass, isn't it...

File: lateral_CA_correction.jpg (570.5 KB)

570.5 KB JPG

>>4504372
>Oh boy I'm so glad we can now experience the joys of a 20-400mm super bazooka and lenses that are *checks notes*... 1/8th smaller than before thanks to the glorious and VERY REAL AND USEFUL digital corrections!
you should read-up on how it works, it's actually brilliant.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/2128193923/a-distortion-of-the-truth-here-s-why-we-re-not-against-software-lens-corrections

the main forms of defect all happen at known values for a particular lens design. The lens manufacturers calculate/measure it and then program the values into lens firmware's look-up table for the various focal lengths, which the camera then applies if generating JPEG or saves into metadata if keeping the RAW.
- lateral chromatic aberration: how many pixels to shift the red and blue channels to make them align w/ green
- distortion: how many pixels to spatially shift the image to undo the distortion
- vignetting: where and how much to brighten/dim the image

>Yeah, no. Digital corrections just mask the shitty looking pixel-level detail that would look perfectly fine if it was corrected the old-fashioned way with glass.
Correcting with glass = added cost and weight, plus every piece of glass added darkens the lens and reduces contrast. This is exactly why Boomer era superzooms were garbage (except for very small sensor cameras).

>Every digital correction (yes even chroma seperation) destroys something in order to hide the bullshit these lens designers are now all so happy to pass, whereas before if your prime had any hint of color seperation it was just considered a shit lens.
I hate to break it to you but modern primes are using digital corrections, and there's no reason not to except for pointless purism.

R8, 50mm f/1.8 and some flash and tripod for $1.1k
or X-T5 + 56mm f/1.2 + 16–55mm f/2.8 for $820

The X-T5 feels like the much better deal for starting out and actually taking it with me? How much will I regret Fuji?

>>4504440
Fuji will have great JPGs out of camera and if you combine that with using RAW, you'll be fine.

>>4504440
I miss my X-T5 a fair bit honestly, but R8 is definitely the better camera

>>4504440
>R8, 50mm f/1.8, flash, and tripod
Decent combination. Thank you for not ignoring how useful a speedlite can be. Nothing saves bad lighting quite like a well used flash. The tripod also gives you access to different techniques and abilities.
I'd go for the RF 35mm f/1.8 but it's 2.5x the cost and focal length is a personal prefrence so don't worry about it if it doesn't fit your budget/needs.

>X-T5, 56mm f/1.2, 16-55mm f/2.8
Just feels like a worse kit all around desu. APS-C instead of a normal sensor size. A moderate tele prime that goes no further than the zoom... eh.
I wouldn't recommend anything Fuji to anyone other women or larpers, but I'm also not going to get into a faggot brand war over it so w/e.

Snoychads, a7 IV or a7c II?
Is the AI AF meme really that much better on the newer a7c ii for birding/animals, or should I prioritize the ergos on the chunkier body?

>>4504387
>super rare occasions
>such as vacations

what is the right price for a Nikon D80?

>>4504449
About $2.50

>>4504447
Probably the A7CII, not because of the AF but because it's more compact. Get a small enough lens on that thing and you can really take it anywhere.

>>4504448
You're missunderstanding me on purpose.
You know what I mean. Most vacations you can take a portrait lens and a landscape lens and be fine. Just the rare occasion where you spontaneously do something without knowing if the 20mm or 35mm or 50mm will be better suited and also don't have time to swap. This is rare. Like once a year.

>>4504454
It's not rare at all if you've ever traveled with a superzoom. Ironically, you don't know how many opportunities you are missing with just a prime. See a bird, can't shoot it. See a nice boat in the sea, can't shoot it. See a nice building, can only shoot like a quarter of it. You can make it work sometimes by creatively limiting yourself, but you're absolutely just missing shots left and right.
A superzoom is just a nobrainer can do it all reasonably well lens. Again, I was not a fan of what was available 10 years ago or so. Everything just looked like a mush. But modern Tamron lenses are great.

>>4504387
You are partially right except for the superzooms. Their only purpose is to bait the dumbass masses. A few decades ago we only had film cameras that either came with a cheap 50mm lens or as a point and shoot had a 35mm or 28mm built in, no zoom options. If you wanted to photograph something further away you had to get closer. Everyone used these and it worked.
For vacations I only bring a single wide angle lens, 40mm and be done with it. No nned to stand in the middle of a square zooming in on a lamppost, those shots don't worth a damn thing. Find something worth a shot, compose, get the shot. Done. walk some more, repeat. My vacation shots got infinitely better, more enjoyable instead of "this is a fancy brick I saw here and there" while you have no other context. "This is a shot of the nose of a statue fuck knows where. Do you enjoy my camera's zoom range?"
No, this is literally zoomer mindset, leave it, it only makes you waste time generating worthless shit. Get a prime you are comfortable with. Start making photos with composition instead of lens zoom.

>>4504457
You sound pretty biased ngl

File: file.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

is $200 for a canon 5d mark ii and a 50mm f1.8 a good deal?

>>4504450
I wanna buy me a legendary Nikon, something that will only get higher in price. Something like F2 of our time

>>4504440
i always say get every system you are interested in and then once you've tried everything out, sell down to the one you prefer. what do you want to use it for?

File: sigma-16-300mm-f3-5-6-7-dc-os-review_amateurphotographer.com.jpg (723.1 KB)

723.1 KB JPG

>>4504456
>See a bird, can't shoot it. See a nice boat in the sea, can't shoot it. See a nice building, can only shoot like a quarter of it. You can make it work sometimes by creatively limiting yourself, but you're absolutely just missing shots left and right.
Exactly.

>>4504457
>A few decades ago we only had film cameras that either came with a cheap 50mm lens or as a point and shoot had a 35mm or 28mm built in, no zoom options. If you wanted to photograph something further away you had to get closer. Everyone used these and it worked.
A few decades ago film cameras with such lenses were used for family/social snapshots 99.9% of the time. It worked because there was no need to zoom in that situation. Good look getting a picture of a bird or the moon with one of those.

>>4504469
Buy a normal Nikon and spend the rest on MSCI ACWI ETFs. You'll have a camera now and will be able to buy a legendary camera from today once you know which one of them is legendary.

>>4504478
Picture of a bird is for nature photography. Picture of the moon was Nasa territory with some hobbyist astronomy here and there with astrophotography only becoming a more widespread thing after digital becoming a stable platform. None of them are vacation type photography. Nice try moving the goalposts, better luck next time.

>>4504486
NTA, but birds are absolutely vacation photography. I was in Thailand last year and have tons of pictures of interesting birds I have never seen before. Also boats. I get it that you can zoom with your feet, but unfortunately I have not unlocked Jesus's power level yet and thus can't walk on water.

>>4504478
Unironically that first shot is better than the zoomed in second. And that first one is nothing more than a snapshit. You only achieved proving anon's point.

>>4504488
NTA, but I don't think the point of that photo is submitting this to a competition. Dude found a cool crest and wanted to take a picture of it. He did. You can't. Deal with it.

>>4504490
There are nice compact 300mm primes for that. Walk around with the generic prime and it is always in the backpack if it is needed. A 70-200/4 for alternative.
And that image shocases everything that is inherently bad with superzooms. I can see all the aberrations, softness and smearing even though it is a vastly downsized JPEG meant to be viewed on a tiny phone screen for clicks revenue.
But no need to listen to someone who has been through all this, spend your money as you like. Unless Anon started this debacle because he already bought a stinker and is coping with regret. Good for him, in time he will be learning. Unless he is american, we all know those never learn.

File: iBy1lw4OZ_wAAAAC.gif (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB GIF

>>4504488
>And that first one is nothing more than a snapshit

>>4504506
>There are nice compact 300mm primes for that. Walk around with the generic prime and it is always in the backpack if it is needed. A 70-200/4 for alternative.
Inconvenient. Why would I want to change lenses if I can just have one lens that is good enough?

>>4504510
That is a you problem.

File: 1749380037945441.gif (1012.4 KB)

1012.4 KB GIF

>>4504512
Seems like it's only a problem for you. I'm having a blast taking pictures of all sorts of things with my Tamron.

>>4504506
>There are nice compact 300mm primes for that
Are there? What does "compact" even mean at that point? Just switching to Sony FF for a sec 'cos that where I live, but my Tamron 25-200 is 575g and 121.5mm (stowed)
Doing a lazy search for a 200mm prime finds me a "LAOWA" lens that's 1500g and 174mm.
The obvious reason for that is the zoom is f/5.6 and the prime is f/2 - I can't imagine anyone is going to bother making a lighter/smaller telephoto prime with a smaller aperture.
Also, the last thing I want to be doing when I'm on holiday, which usually involves other people being with me, is wasting time swapping lenses.

>>4504506
>There are nice compact 300mm primes for that. Walk around with the generic prime and it is always in the backpack if it is needed.
And when something rare and interesting pops-up, by the time lenses can be swapped it's gone.
And if you manage to swap it in time, enjoy the water droplet/dust speck that landed on your sensor or rear element.

Even with a superzoom I often miss shots because there are only seconds to react.
For this reason in Boomer times serious run-and-gun photographers would carry two different bodies - one with wide and one with tele attached, but modern superzooms really are good enough to make that unnecessary.

>>4504451
the a7c ii with a 600mm just looks silly though

>>4504516
NTA. It may look silly, but it's perfectly functional while still giving you the option of running a small prime and making it a "small camera for social occasions".

>>4504304
If you had to pick between two it would have to be the 28-200.

>>4504307
>28-200 is ass
That's certainly an opinion. It's easily one of the most recommended travel lenses for Snoy.

>>4504456
>if I see something, I should take a photo of it
No wonder you like superzooms, some of us aren't into photomaxing

>>4504523
Weird flex. Admittedly, in the correct containment thread.

>>4504524
>it's a flex to take as many different photos as possible instead of having favorite focal lengths to use
Interesting