Probably because you are afraid of taking risks.

>>4505377
true, but I've made this thread anyway
>Gear threads are discouraged but permitted

>>4505382
Gear threads are half the board. Jannies don't actually want to draw a hard line for users to follow because the already dead board will be on life support (nobody actually takes photos).

Anyway, to answer OP question, fuck you, fuck your wallet, and finally, what are you going to do about bitch?
Dedicated cameras are a niche that most people never commit to, and are thus priced accordingly. Economies of scale and all that. There was a time from about 2000-2013 where dedicated PnSs and DSLRs were actually rather common and thus were a less demanding purchase.
So what do you do about? You buy used, because the functions of a camera can theoretically last forever if not abused, and the market is flooded with practical choices. The true walletfucking is from buying LARPing gear like Leicas and Foojis.

>>4505385
I'd like to find a used Zf for cheap

Gear is cheap as fuck what're you talking about? The level of camera you can get for <$1000 or quality of glass you can get for <$500 is insane.

>>4505369
Film gear? Because the manufacturing tech needed to build it at scale was melted down and everyone who knew how to build and tune that machinery is dead. It’s like how humans forgot how to build pyramids and make damascus steel.

Digital gear? Because its a low volume market and sales take longer to pay for R&D, facilities, and employees but CONSOOMERS still expect “improvement” and regular releases. Thats also why cameras suffer from straight downgrades like OLPF removal and dynamic range loss to boost framerates. CONSOOMERS expect whatever they are obsessed with at the moment to get better. Whatever is at the top of the spec sheet. Whatever the influencers are being told to talk about.

The only camera company actually innovating with new tech is unironically sony. Everyone else is repackaging their stuff. Sadly sony has no aesthetic sense and likes planned obsolescence. Canon does some cool stuff for defense and security customers but their consumer cameras are remaining lower quality newspaper slop for NFL games and news photographers that spam shots and crop later.

All this in turn leads people to buy up discontinued cameras to escape a world where they’re expected to pay two grand for what is largely a downgrade from a d850. Driving up d850, 5div etc prices.

File: 10.jpg (3.8 MB)

looking for a telephoto lens to add to my collection
I use a pentax spotmatic and currently have a 50mm f/1.4 super takumar and a Auto Berolina 28mm f/2.4
135mm auto takumars are plentiful and really cheap but ive heard people say that 85mm is much more versatile (and much more expensive on m42 mounts)
Im also considering getting rid of the Auto Berolina. I cant find anything online regarding this lens and it strikes me as kinda cheap.

File: nikon-zs-rangefinder-styled-disappointed-that-no-one-has-v0-wq0qmglh612f1.jpg (160.5 KB)

I love Nikon. You can just send photos to your phone via Bluetooth or Wi-fi. You can use literally exact same preset file in NX Studios on PC and in your camera. So if your camera is old and you can't put presets in it, you can still apply those presets using PC.

Idk if the other brands also have that kind of stuff but I like how Nikon has it all.

Amazon sent the wrong lens again. These thirdparty sellers really are shit. Anyway, I'm considering the following to choose from:

>Tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC
Ordered this one the last time but was sent non-VC, non-internal AF motor version instead.

>Tamron 60mm f2 macro
Thought it might be nice for portraits and short telephoto.

>Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C
I previously had the older model to try out. The glass was nice enough. Variable aperture though.

>Nikkor 50mm f1.8g
I already have the 355mm dx, which is okay, but I've heard that the 50 has better IQ. Some people seem to like it on DX bodies in spite of the tighter framing.

These all cost roughly the same used so I am not sure where to put my fun-money. Thoughts?

I'm done playing around with "hybrid cameras." I'm going to get an old Lumix M43 as a video camera and focus on photography again. I don't know why I let myself get pulled into this marketing nightmare. Aside from a handful of lenses that weren't possible before, and some weight savings on staples like pro zooms, mirrorless has just been slowly and expensively reinventing the wheel.

>>4505417
Boy are you in luck. The best value proposition camera of all time, the 5D mark ii, which is well known for being the best stills camera ever, is now also the best video camera ever thanks magic lantern and RAW video.

Anyone getting any good deals on the marketplace? Just scored a bunch of fine art photo paper worth probably $500 for $40 shipped.

File: 10inhomo.jpg (580.9 KB)

(Your) favorite lens.

File: lumix.jpg (129.0 KB)

>>4505369
What's the best do-all camera? Chats tell me that it's the LUMIX S1II, are our best hallucination engines right?

>>4505445
There is no "best camera" there is only a bunch of compromises regardless of brand.

>>4505445
The sony a7v is flat out superior

For some reason NPCs shill lumix. Panasonics cameras are pretty bad. Buggy, miss prone autofocus, mediocre lenses for lots of money. All they really do is enable as many video modes as the sensor supports to appear professional but most of those modes are totally useless (dci 4k! open gate! who cares?)

File: 1760277225483.png (571.8 KB)

>>4505446
Do-all means accepting compromises of course.
But which one camera is the best if you have to buy one and stick to that for the next 10 years?
I'm a poorfag, I can't buy a new body and setup on a whim, but I'm saving up for a new camera because my A7S II died (repair shop told me he's dead jim). I've fallen back to using my phone and AE-1 for the time being.
>>4505450
No open gate and no de-squeze for anamorphic lenses tho. I want to film with anamorphic lenses, I do stupid shit like dangling out of cars sometimes so having a fuckhueg rig is off the table, not that I could afford it in the first place.

>>4505452
You do not need open gate to use an anamorphic lens. Stop listening to youtubers on the specs treadmill. You can frame wider. You can crop more and upscale. You will not notice.
Everyone will watch it 20ft away or at effectively 720p. Just tell normies and even academy awards cotwrs something is in 4k and they’ll believe it. They coumd be convinced that star trek: TOS was shot on an r5c.

>>4505452
open gate was for low resolution 4:3 sensing areas
like super 35
there is no appreciable resolution gain going from 16:9 to 3:2 and you are not using resolution limited film that is expensive and difficult to get more than 8mp from
take one step back wala
open gate on ff is dumber than caring about the 4k120 crop factor. step back! duh
>inb4 make sure the film is perfectly taut and flat, do everything perfectly and scan each frame on gfx100s with a flawless macro lens and film is better than that. i took a 120mp photo of my dog with a zenza bronica.
people literally could not do that 10 years ago and most still cant

File: Lumix.webm (2.7 MB)

>>4505450
>The sony a7v is flat out superior
Don't fall for the snoy meme.

>>4505450
One shill, the snoy poster guy. Everyone else just goes with Canon or Sony but he loves his Panasoynic.

>>4505445
Z5

File: 1756093202094.jpg (37.8 KB)

>>4505453
Alright then.
>>4505454
I can't walk back half a meter while I'm hanging out of the passenger window of a car ripping a drift on some mountain backroaf or doing an Autobahn pull. I know, stupid use case, but it's fun.
I've just watched the Gerald Undone review of the A7V, and I get what you mean. The only two things irking me now are that there's no RAW Video and that he literally tells me that I should go with Lumix if I want to shoot anamorphic.

File: Screenshot_20260418-193827.Facebook.jpg (514.2 KB)

>>>Pentax

File: DSC07923.jpg (584.6 KB)

>>4505463

>>4505181
>should i stop being a pentax autist

no the lenses are damn near worthless and half the fun is rolling the lotto for a lens that you might really like. its dollar store gearfagging.

>k3 vs k1 vs kf

personally i wanna try a k3-3 but theyre nigh impossible to find used and $1800 new/$1200 used is rape for a dslr with 10 year old nikon d500 capabilities...ffs a d500 is a $6-700 usd camera in america. but being the newest ricoh it probably has the smartest auto settings re: iso/aperture/shutter/meter. i saw a few videos where its like a stop behind a k1 for most situations, but benefits from the smarter/more accurate autofocus (not just quicker, but more intelligent) which makes it sharper even on screw drive lenses

k1 is a brick with shite autofocus but can get really really nice pics

go k70/kf if you dont want to spend a lot or maybe try a sony a7iv ($1200-1500) + monster adapter ($400).

i got my k70 for $160 and my kf for $380, theyre the same other than the aperture solenoid and screen.

k3 is a fine option too, im running a junk condition one as a beater atm and its fine but it definitely doesnt have the dynamic range of the k70/kf....the newer sensor + accelerator unit makes it damn near iso-invariant for a apsc. k3 gets pretty grainy past iso 1600. would not bother with a kp (too much) and if you find a k3/k3ii pay <$300 for it (i paid $225 for mine)

if i had a massive fire and lost all my pentax bodies i'd probably buy another <$200 k70 and call it a day. sometimes tempted to sell the k1ii if a nice k3-3 comes up. pentax apsc just feels better

>>4505455
First shot definitely has that m43 look lol

File: IMG_20241225_175205.jpg (3.1 MB)

henlo everyone, I just ordered a used eos 550d and a m42 to ef mount so I can use my grandpa's old soviet lenses (pic rel, some of the cameras he had, I wish people developed film in my shithole town but noone does, so going dslr&mount is the only way these things realistically get some use).
I have never used a dslr but I'm excited :D

>>4505401
I also really like the way nikon handles it and it's one of the main reasons i picked up my ZF. I shoot in RAW only but still have the presets on to visualize what my final edit may look like. Obviously it's not baked into the raw only the preview on my camera and mac but man when i'm on the spot and taking the time to pick my shots its a great thing to have.

>>4505459
On the other side, I use open gate for filming 100% of the time, anamorphic or not

Wait so you're telling me mirrorless lenses are optically imperfect requiring in-body correction, can't be adapted in the future, still lack critical focal lengths in the lineup 10 years on AND are more expensive? Well hell, sign me up! I don't want to look like a broke faggot in front of my friends.

>>4505459
If you cant step back, use a wider lens.

Id argue you dont even need THA BEST. The a7v does have like 16 stops of base ISO DR in stills but when was the last time you needed that? Its nice to have fkr sure, but 14 stop cameras already equal and exceed film and display mediums are only at 10 stop DR.

Fuck man. You dont even need 6k video.
>TO CROP!
No one can even fucking tell if 4k gets cropped to 1080p. Its video.

Also do not fucking listen to gerald undone
He is literally a paid advertiser like the slap chop/shamwow guy.

>>4505455
>misrepresented, fake test done in low resolution short form video
This must be the paid shill that tried making all the /gear/ threads and reposts shit constantly.

File: nikon_g_vs_e.png (62.6 KB)

Be honest with me. Nikon G vs E pro zooms. There's nearly a 100% premium for the Es used. Actually worth it? I've been building up my stable with 1.8G primes. I'm not really concerned with having "the best of the best" but I am willing to spend money if it's worth it.

>>4505521
If you shoot sports or video, or buy a sony a7c or fuji xe, it’s worth it.

If you’re landscape wanking just buy a 16-35 f4 L and a 5div.

Isnt going from 16:9 to 3:2 open gate like going from a 35mm lens to a 32mm lens or something? Totally meaningless

File: 800px.jpg (102.0 KB)

>>4505557
It allows more space from the image circle, which opens parts of the lens that aren't normally usable when the camera crops straight from the middle (as well as making a more graceful crop to other square ratios, if that's your intention). If you don't need it, then just crop from the middle like you normally would in editing anyway. This seems like a weird thing to get hung up on.

>>4505567
16:9 to 3:2 is literally nothing. A technicality for the kind of mind that installs gentoo on a desktop.

File: a11bed4ddf684c9e98f7157ac7ecf27f_eos-r6-mark-iii_2552-21.jpg (183.8 KB)

>>4505557
Open gate is just recording with the full sensor, so usually 4:3 or 3:2
> going from a 35mm lens to a 32mm lens or something?
Same horizontal field of view, with a greater vertical field of view, you can also think of 16:9 as being open gate and then cropping the top and bottom parts off

Even if you are outputting to 16:9, open gate gives you better flexibility for deciding how to crop in post (and better cropping to other aspect ratios or vertical), better digital stabilization, gives you more resolution when working with anamorphic
On my camera, it gives me 2x the vertical resolution and 1.5x the horizontal resolution over the best 16:9/17:9 modes, which is a big jump

>>4505569
How many MP do you think is enough for a stills camera?

>>4505569
And just like that, Big Aspect Ratio's grip on the TV and film industry was no more. All it took was one brave soul to stand up and say, "Erm, ackshually, the difference between 1.5 and 1.7 repeating is pretty much a rounding error, EYE EM OH."

>>4505571
In practice its literally fucking nothing. That extra vertical FOV is like 2mm of lens.

>>4505572
>stills
30 with a quality OLPF
>video
12 with a quality OLPF
>huge prints/imax front row
100+

The difference may not be earth-shattering, but it's also not as insignificant as you make it seem. You haven't even said why it's supposed to be harmful.

>>4505582
Its insignificant and harms you by convincing you to limit yourself to certain brands when you can, in fact, film on literally anything

its video. people dont sit there looking at screengrabs to check out whatever detail isnt motion blurred.

>>4505577
Good thing people don't shoot open gate for that 2mm fov difference
>>4505583
You're right it shouldn't be a priority for most people, but silly to ignore all the potential benefits it brings

More bean soup theory at work by the resident schizo

>>4505583
>limit yourself to certain brands
This is it? Your reasoning just boils down to brandwhoring?

I choose my cameras based on my intended usage and whatever on-board features that will help me reach it faster. I've always wanted a full-sensor output feature, though it's never been a dealbreaker (and you couldn't get work if it was anyway), nor does it matter to me what brands it "limits" me to as long as I can still use my same lens collection (hint hint...).

Do you even work?

File: trollge.png (39.1 KB)

>>4505539
>If you cant step back, use a wider lens.
There's 35mm and 55mm for the lens I'm aiming at.
>Id argue you dont even need THA BEST
Probably not, but again, I want to buy something that lasts me at least 10 years.
>The a7v does have like 16 stops of base ISO DR in stills but when was the last time you needed that?
I mostly do night time run-and-gun photography and videography (cars and nightlife, boring shit) and family events once at day once in a while.
I don't technically need 16 stops, I just want to be able to turn up dark spots or entire pictures, the A7S II did disappoint at times.
>You dont even need 6k video.
Correct, I don't care about that, 6k was incidental to the S1II, Gemini and ChatGPT recommended me that camera because de-squeeze and because anamorphics won't be too wide on open gate. Plus stacked sensor for a fast asf read out speed so I won't have too much rolling shutter distortions when I'm tracking cars going mach fuck from the sidelines.
Here's I want:
>Anamorphic night time aesthetics for my car friends' snapshit uploads and instameme edits
>Good event camera for family events
>Document my life sometimes
Pretty straight forward I guess.
>Also do not fucking listen to gerald undone
>He is literally a paid advertiser like the slap chop/shamwow guy.
Who do I listen to then?

>>4505587
de-squeeze in camera is something I thought I'd want, but I ended up not really caring about
it's not really necessary for 1.33x
for +1.5x it shrinks lcds so much they're not great for use, and any decent monitor has de-squeeze already
just food for thought, open gate is great through

>>4505586
>brandwhoring over 2mm of fov
The retard is considering blowing $4k on a sony with alternative firmware to film his friends breaking traffic laws m8

File: 1773012369206700.gif (2.2 MB)

>>4505596
>H-HE'S GONNA BREAK THE LAW WITH THE WRONG CAMERA!
Please tell me you're trolling.

>>4505596
Meh. Not my money, not my high-fidelity and aesthetic evidence, not my problem. I still like having open gate.

>>4505596
>no, you actually want to use less of the sensor on your camera
Interesting perspective

>>4505636
>>4505615
>>4505610
>muh 1mm of sensor edges
אני עובד בפנסוניק, תן לי את כל הכסף שלך

File: s9.jpg (201.0 KB)

>the perfect full frame travel setup doesnt exi-

>>4505656
Buy an ad

File: file.png (138.7 KB)

>>4505656
kek

>>4505656
>no mechanical shutter so anything moving will distort severely
OH N-
>autofocus too slow and inaccurate to photograph anything moving so its not an issue
phew

>>4505656
>>4505660
>no mechanical shutter
Really? That's disgusting.

File: IMG_3976.jpg (19.6 KB)

>>4505656
Imagine how tiny this guys hands must be for him to make it look that big

File: nba_d800.jpg (417.4 KB)

The NBA uses a Nikon D800 with an AF-D 28mm f2.8 for under basket remote shots. Total cost of like $600 on MPB. And you think you need a Z8 to take photos of your ugly life.

>>4505660
>no mechanical shutter so anything moving will distort severely
and anything under artificial light will have scan lines

>Canoniggers releasing an R8 mark II
Did someone tell them that no one cares about the R8 ?

>>4505668
To be fair the d800 will more reliably take photos of animals running towards the camera than the z8

File: flicker_vs_clean.jpg (105.8 KB)

>>4505669
only if the light source is flickering

but yeah they really need to put at least EFCS or global shutter in that thing (if not mechanical).

File: Screenshot 2026-04-20 093234.png (1.3 MB)

please be real

File: scans.png (1.0 MB)

>>4505689
>only if the light source is flickering
No, it depends on the shutter speed because of the hertz. If the shutter speed isn't matched up to the hertz, you'll get the lines.

>>4505656
>18-40
What the actual fuck...?

>>4505725
hnnnnng

>>4505725
>this kills the a7c

Fuck canoniggers for not releasing the R7 Mark II.

The R7 is great for what it is, but since I'm doing wildlife in the early morning/late evening or in forests, low light is crippling image quality and AF.
I'm strongly considering switching to FF. I have an R7 with the RF 100-500. What alternative setups would you recommend?

Other birders (mostly boomers) are almost all using the Nikon Z8 so I'm leaning towards that, especially for the fast electronic shutter, but I'm open for any suggestions.

>>4505749
Get the 200-800 and deal with the weight. Literally the best birding lens available.

>>4505761
What camera tho

File: images(18).jpg (30.9 KB)

I found a Nikon FM on fb marketplace really close to me for a really reasonable price. $125 and comes 3 lenses
I already own and use a Pentax Spotmatic so idk if it's worth getting another full manual, full mechanical camera. I would *like* to have a camera that uses F mount because Ive heard glass for that mount is fantastic
Idk though. Maybe it would be more worth it to continue using the Spotmatic and learn as much as I can using that before buying other cameras

>>4505725
I had a black dial S2 for a few years, neat camera

>>4505761
R8 for weight, R6II for all rounder, R6III for the extra pickles (not super necessary imo), R5 if you literally just want to burn money. Avoid R5II. R8 battery is kind of shit but I just take a spare with me and I'm fine. Full disclosure I rented the 200-800 and while it was a stellar performer it was expensive and heavy. I genuinely don't know if I'd tolerate it on a long-term basis. I don't do birding much anymore so I settled with the 100-400 f/5.6-8 which was 1/4 the price and half the focal length, but paired with full frame I don't think 400mm is quite enough for birding on a regular basis.

The R7 + 100-500 is unfortunately one of the better birding setups so to go any further you're gonna be burning money. I don't think an R7II is going to solve your core issue which is crop-tier low-light results. In fact the higher than average MP count on these bodies is further doing you a disservice. Could just use the 100-500 you have with a full frame camera; it'll still be a better setup than 95% of people birding.

>>4505822
Slow readout is hurting the R7 a lot for AF performance
Low light can always be improved even on higher MP count, with dual gain or low interference circuitry for example.

File: Flicker in LED Light bulb 26 kinds per 40 seconds.mp4 (3.0 MB)

>>4505734
There is no Hertz to match up if the light isn't flickering. You're probably assuming that all indoor lights flicker due to AC mains frequency - they don't. Modern LEDs all transform mains AC to low voltage DC, and with a properly designed driver there is no flicker.

>>4505819
Only if the lenses are different focal lengths than what you already have.

Anybody got any experience with the Epson 8550? I've been trying to print on Epson Archival matte which is a rather thick paper from the rear flat feed, but it only spits it straight through without printing. A4 wasn't any issue, but A3.. sheesh If I had money I would have thrown it off the balcony.

>>4505832
That all entirely depends on the building. I've been unlucky enough to be in malls, libraries and other public halls as recently as 3 months ago that used LEDs that would flicker if the hertz weren't lined up. Yes, some LEDs won't flicker, but it also depends on what ones the building you're in bothered with using and large buildings will always go as cheap as possible.

>>4505845
I figured it out after quite some time and lots of swear words. Just putting the paper in the rear so the printer can grab on to the paper when it is ready is not how you are supposed to do it even though it is the most logical thing to do. If you do that it will just send it straight through without printing for whatever reason. What you are instead supposed to do is start the printing process, wait for what appears to be an error message with a tutorial pop up telling you stuff you already know and have done where the only option is to cancel. What you are supposed to do at this point is to ignore that message that gives you the impression that you have done something wrong and instead feed the paper on to the rollers at which point the actual printing will start and the confusing message goes away. Nobody on youtube or on the forums told me this when I tried figuring it out.

Please give me some camera recommendations.

Budget 1500$-1700$

Usecase: I mainly do color photography but I also do video work on and off because only video work pay the bills, kek. So I need recommendations for a hybrid camera with 4k videos which renders colors(I do color photography) nicely.

Previous camera: Canon 6d mark 1, for video work I used rental services to get Sony A7S3 but it's way out of my budget.

what focal lenght do I need for everyday use?

is 24-70 good enough?
28-75?
24-135?

Is SIGMA alright?

>>4505961
Sigma is alright. 24-70 is good for everyday use.

File: PanasonicPrimes.jpg (262.9 KB)

>>4505659
>kek
What did anon mean by this?

>>4506013
Panachads... I kneel

My brother is looking at buying a Lumix ZS99K because he can get it for 400USD and it's very easy to travel with
Can someone intelligent tell me if I should tell him to get something else

File: DSC02292-1-1280x853.jpg (109.9 KB)

>>4506047
Panasonic makes great compact cameras. I would probably get one of the 1" sensor models for better low-light and overall picture quality, but if more zoom is priority ZS99 is fine.
Since it doesn't have an EVF I would get one of these rubber LCD viewers for shooting in bright conditions. Also helps with aiming at full zoom.

>>4506013
I think I'm going to preorder it. It's only $400. I have the Sigma 45 2.8 and wow, what a well made well designed lens, I could bash someone's head in with it... and it totally doesn't match the S9's role as a small video camera. I would rather have a button and an assignable wheel than manual focus and aperture. The Sigma feels more like it should be on a Fuji body.

File: nikon2470.png (30.4 KB)

I don't know what the deal is with these Nikon 24-70 2.8E lenses. Way more expensive used on MPB/BH. I found some beat up ones domestically on ebay for about this price. Japan is selling them for this price on ebay but not the seller I trust. When I finally jump on a Z camera I will 95% still adapt this one. Many years before the v2 24-70 gets to my price range.

>>4506051
many thanks, anon

>>4506055
based savings enjoyer.

File: Screenshot 2026-04-21 at 9.42.32 PM.png (1.8 MB)

>>4506059

https://www.fb.com/marketplace/item/937875885889562/

What Pentax Lens is this

In all seriousness I think I'm done with primes in my Pentax collection, but I'm missing the kit lens for my K1ii. Is it worth picking up for $200? I'm going on a Trip to Florida 4/29, not sure if I bring my K1ii + 28-105mm WR OR a K70 w/28-75mm Tamron A09

I kinda understand why people use zooms now as stupid as I sound, lol. Kind of annoying swapping lenses or missing shots because you have a 50mm prime on your camera.

>>4506013
Probably at the lack of mechanical shutter like everyone else.

File: 1760549761897179.jpg (892.5 KB)

I've been eyeing this fat fuck in a local junk store for the last couple of months and finally decided to get it today. I'm waiting on an adapter to arrive in the mail but until then does anyone know anything about it or what I'm in for?

My expectations aren't high considering it cost me only 100 kangaroo dollars in a junk shop, weighs over a kilogram (it's heavier than feathers), and I've found fuck all info about it on the net besides it being a rebranded Makinon.

File: nikond3400.jpg (111.6 KB)

Hi /p/, I'm interested in getting my first camera exclusively for documenting my reef tank journey. I was looking at the Nikon D3400 because initial searches online suggest that but if there's a better option for my use case, I'm all ears.

>>4506078
Actually, I'm seeing the D3400 is a bit outdated. How's the Canon EOS R50?

>>4506078
>>4506080
Biggest difference is the price. The D3400 is dirt cheap in comparison.

>>4506081
I'm finding the R50 for $800 and the D3400 for around $650ish on Amazon. Would you happen to know where a good place to buy online would be that ships to the US? How's the used market for cameras? I'm hesitant to buy used electronics from anyone but Nips and Koreans. I just want this to photograph my reef tank and dogs so I don't mind buying used if it's in good condition.

>>4506082
>I'm hesitant to buy used electronics from anyone but Nips and Koreans.

with photography equipment the meme is that nips half the time consider stuff with obvious flaws as A+++++++++

just look on facebook marketplace or ebay, you can find a d3400 for half that amount. photography equipment usually see very easy lives and get treated better than something like a phone or game console or laptop

>>4506082
That is far too much for a D3400, you need to look elsewhere for one.

>>4506083
>with photography equipment the meme is that nips half the time consider stuff with obvious flaws as A+++++++++
Aren't they usually really autistic about grading? They're considered harsh critics in the used luxury watch world for example. The thing that is scariest about used camera gear from Japan and other Asian countries is mold, as the high humidity usually means a lot of lenses from there have mold issues. Something you'll notice on their listings is either saying explicitly that there is no mold or there will be no mention of mold at all.

>>4506083
>>4506084
I ended up going with the R50, Amazon gift cards helped lessen the blow by about $300. Hopefully you guys will be seeing my reef pictures soon.

>>4506085
>he redeemed the giftcards

>>4506082
The R50 isnt worth that much to begin with but if you were trying to save a dollar literally most canon or nikon APS-C DSLRs could be had for $100-400 tops and set you straight.

File: saar3.jpg (1.3 KB)

>>4506085
Nevermind you did the redeem.
I do not wish to instill fomo upon you but I owned an R50 and if you ever go beyond basic camera use you're gonna wish you bought an R10 instead.

Wait. I almost forgot. The R50 does not have a standard flash hotshoe, and there's every chance you're going to want a speedlite to improve your photos. You can buy an AD-E1 adapter but it adds a bit of height to the setup and that's $50 you could have just put towards an R10.
If you aren't going to buy a flash then it's a moot point.

>>4506103
I ended up cancelling the order and I'm just going to do some more research.

File: 1.jpg (340.7 KB)

>>4506081
>The D3400 is dirt cheap
because you can't connect a mic to it, so if you're not planning to make videos - go for it
also for nikon a 35mm lense is very cheap and for canon - at least 3x as much


t. D3400 haver

>>4506081
>The D3400 is dirt cheap in comparison.
It launched 10 years ago for $650, and has had plenty of sales of $500 for two lens kits
If your paying more than $300 for one, new or used, not a good deal

>>4506104
Look, if you want to keep this simple then follow this structure:
>APS-C or Full Frame
APS-C is good enough for most casual users. It's only beyond casual-intermediate use that going full frame prices is advisable. The bigger sensor of full frame is a significant advantage.
>Mirrorless or DSLR
Literally just a question of money these days unless you're a brainrotted EVF/OVF argument faggot. DSLRs are still very servicable, and you'll save a lot of money on used lenses, but Mirrorless are the future.
>[Brand or Brand]?
Just stick to Canon or Nikon if you are unsure. No, Sony doesn't count. Pentax also exists and is a good hobbyist brand but if you're asking such basic questions then I would just say stick to either of the big two. Personally I like Canon but both are good. What's more important is the lens selection each ecosystem gives you. As other anon said a 35mm lens for APS-C is 3x more expensive with Canon for whatever reason. I find canon EF (DSLR lenses) are pretty cheap used, but RF (mirrorless lenses) are a gouge.

>So by that logic:
If you want to save money, get any APS-C DSLR from the last 10 years and you'll be fine. Might only spend a couple hundred all together.
If you want something a bit nicer but just as old, get a full frame from 10-15 years ago like the Canon 5DII, Nikon D700 etc.
If you want something more modern but don't want to spend a lot, get a modern APS-C DSLR like the 70D,80D, D3500 etc.
If you want cheap mirrorless, get an R50, R10, Zfc etc.
If you want the best, get an R8, R6 or Zf. At this point you're spending at least $1500+ and more likely $2000+

>>4506104
Just pick any to start, they're all fine for beginners. You won't know what actually matters to you until you use them for a while, and then you'll know exactly what to upgrade to. The camera and body are only part of taking good pictures anyways.

>>4505455
Christ this is awful. Every time I see one of those shorts selling a brand posted in this thread the colors, exposure, contrasts and disgusting diffraction and digital noise give me depression. He literally just pointed an automatic digital camera at something important and pushed 1 button. How can you take photos for a decade and not develop the smallest hint of artistic vision?

>>4506129
>t.seething nophoto
Do better.

File: jared-polin.jpg (145.4 KB)

This man absolutely hated the Sigma 12mm F/1.4 that I was looking at for my R7 (19mm FFE) saying it's not really ultrawide enough. Is he right?

>>4506133
Also I should note the next best thing is probably the Sigma 10-18 f/2.8. Do I get that and sacrifice the bright aperture?

>>4506130
why are you defending this? are you working for lumix?

>>4506129
>t.fumbles and sprays during important moment
Buddy, I hired you to get lots of clear shots of the launch from different zoom levels, and you sent back a bunch of blurry shit because you couldn't prioritize between documentation and LE ARTISTIC FRAMING in the heat of the moment. I ain't paying for this shit.

>>4506133
19mm-20mm is this odd but sort of useful FL where you wanted to be wider than your standard 24mm where zooms cap out and primes are prolific, but avoids the worst of the UWA distortion.
While technically an UWA focal length, if you want UWA effects and want to use them on purpose then you want at least 16mm.

>>4506139
Why assume that it is impossible to succeed in capturing good images? What kind of cope is that?

I was expecting you all telling me this is beautiful baqed lumix® digital photography and I am just a jealous hater, but I was really not expecting someone telling me "yes this sucks but it's good he didn't try to make it good cause it would be hard".

>>4506141
You need better bait.

The two cameras in my budget are: Sony a7iii vs Canon r8

a7iii offers ibis but r8 has no ibis. What do? Which one has better video?

>>4506140
yeah I figured, guess I'll go for the sigma 10-18.

>The R7 Mark II is actually the R6V squeezed tighly next to the C50
Yawn.
Who can save us birders at this point?

>>4506163
What more do you want from a new camera?

>>4506164
Faster readout. Better AF

>>4506165
Sorry to hear current technology isn't advanced enough for your picture taking skills

>>4506169
Imagine coming to the gear thread and complaining about new gear

>>4506170
Imagine being so amazing at taking pictures that the only conceivable feature or performance gains you want more of is faster readout and better AF, I could only wish to be that good

>>4506180
>If you want faster readout to eliminate rolling shutter it means you're bad
Must be easy using your smooth brain when there's only two available options to choose from.

>>4506181
>If you want faster readout to eliminate rolling shutter it means you're bad
No, that's a good thing, it's a sensible thing to want improved with newer cameras

>>4506182
I'd like to see the same, but as it is now with increased readout it goes at the expense of dynamic range and vice verca it seems. Global shutter sensors are aps-c tier etc. So I guess we should just enjoy what we have instead of lusting after things that does not exist.

>>4506137
Meds

>>4506170
>>4506165
>>4506163
The R7 Mark II does not exist. What are you even arguing about?

>>4506218
Not enough gear has been made already so the desperate otb have to argue over theoretical gear

asking again here, but is there a point in having a TG-6 and an EM1-III? That's my setup right now but it feels kind of redundant

>>4506224
Mrow...

>>4506224
Use them both at the same time. Akimbo style. I doubt you will feel they are redundant when you can double your snapshitting output.

>>4506224
Can you take the EM1-III under water?

>>4506082
>D3400 for $650
holy fuck that is too much

>>4506244
Amazon.. You can find them for less than $200 elsewhere.

File: canon_6895c002_eos_r50_v_mirrorless_1742993170_1886961.jpg (48.6 KB)

How is the R50V as a 90% photography camera? Any compromises I should know about? I am not a "content creator". I was going to buy the R7 or even wait for the Mark II but I found out this thing exists and has IBIS and USB-C, both of which are features I wanted that my DSLR doesn't have.

>>4506303
nevermind, the R50V does not have IBIS

>>4506303
Get a full frame instead. R6 MKII or R5 are excellent bang for buck cameras now.

R5
R5 Mark II
R6 Mark III
For birds using the 200-800

Which one? Debate

>>4506320
R5 with RF 100-500 and a 1.4x TC
2x TC if you hate yourself

>>4505369
It’s cause you chose a special edition film camera that’s NIB complete set, kept like that as a collector’s item since the 90s.

>>4506320
R7 + 100-500, don't need more.

File: canon.png (1.7 MB)

anyone know how this seller can beat Canon's price by $350? Obviously it's not a scam, there is plenty of positive feedback even for this item in particular. I'm just wondering if there's some sort of dealer discount, bulk discount etc. going on.

>>4506334
It's not an authorized Canon dealer, so you you'll have to pay for any warranty type repairs. Other than that it's likely just a perfectly normal body.

Most wholesale margins on bodies are like 8-12% for retailers, with the full MSRP (before any Instant Rebates), so they are likely relying on importing from cheaper wholesale markets.

Some similar places will try to nickel and dime you after the fact that accessories that should be included, like the battery.

t. decade working and running camera shops

>>4506334
Grey market. Products from Asia sold at much lower price. Very common practice, you can even find much cheaper L lenses like that. 99% of the time there's zero issues, however you lose the official Canon warranty.

>>4506303
Got it for an EDC setup.

The compactness is nice but in practice it restricts your options heavily, I can't use any of my L glass except maybe the 20mm because the whole setup becomes unweildy.
Its very comfy with the 28mm though.
I've had great results with the 10-18 and a backpack clip for ski touring.
I'd completely forget about any telephoto work with it. The lack of evf really restricts your options, even with a 100-400 its a pain to use.

Your call I guess.

>>4506398
I should add: I started with the R7, very capable camera and not nuch biggger (in a backpack) the EVF is a godsent for telephoto. Overall I'd say its a much better "starting" camera, because it does everything well enough. The sensor is very demanding though (that 10-18 loiks ok on the r50v but dogshit on the r7, same for the 18-150)so an R6 mk2 for example might be a valid pick as well. Keep in mind Canon APSC is is 1.6 crop so with 33mp youre well into M43 pixel pitch territory, wearas an R6 will probably give you better IQ from cheaper lenses because its got 24 mp and a full feame sensor, better for general use but less capable telephoto-wise.

>>4505832
>DC
Transformers for lights are cheaply produced. Most of them are simple diode bridges with a single cap, resulting in a measurable sawtooth. Digital shutters WILL pick that shit up.
Digital-only shutters are as shitty as flathead screws, I honestly wonder why anyone even bothers producing them anymore.

I just found a used Canon 5D MK IV for $800. 16,000 shutter count. That's a steal, right? Feels like this is the upgrade from my Rebel T5i I've been waiting years for.

>$800 for a DSLR
>$800 for a DSLR released 10 years ago
It's not a steal, but you should still buy it if you want it.

>>4506334
>>4506338
>>4506387
Yes and no
I bought tamron lenses and nisi filters at the cheapest price i could find on the internet including greymarket from the biggest retailer from my country
Lens serial numbers recognized by tamron and ggot 5 y guaranty on their website
Maybe stock clearance os something

>>4506413
I checked ebay prices. $800 is good but not great like I thought it was. It's a good bit of cash, but it would hopefully be my one and only upgrade for a long, long time. I'm trying to talk myself into it.

>>4506412
No.

I paid just over $600 for my 5DIV when roberts camera was selling a bunch of them.

$800 would buy a nikon Z7.

>>4506416
Hobbyist dump sites like eBay/reverb/etc are full of scam prices - buyers remorse sellers and greedy flippers trying to push prices up on their estate sale finds.

I hate to tell you guys but DSLRs are having their comeback just like film cameras. The mystique of mirrorless gadgets has worn off. Now we are back to the "authenticity" of the D700 and 6D mk1. You can decide that it's not worth the asking price, but it doesn't take long for ebay, MPB, KEH, and the rest to align on market prices given increased demand. Your best bet is to pray for a local to sell their old camera on Facebook or Craigslist and not bother to look up current prices.

>>4506417
>$600 for my 5DIV
Just the body? Any accessories at that price?

>>4506404
>Digital-only shutters are as shitty as flathead screws, I honestly wonder why anyone even bothers producing them anymore.
Cost savings. If they are trying to profit off the "vlogger" trend mechanical shutter is a low priority. Omitting it allows a lower MSRP which is the main thing mass market cares about.

>>4506414
We're talking about Canon, not Tamron. Canon doesn't accept warranty claims on grey market products.

File: file.png (435.9 KB)

I want this cutie pie, please be 10 aperture blades

>>4506447
You want 9 or 7. With aperture blades even number is peasantry

>>4506055
I received my lens from Nikon and it's indistinguishable from new. Pretty good deal!

Is the Nikon F-501 (N2020) considered a good camera? I got one in my possession today. Bought it because it came with a lens worth twice what I paid. It had some corrosion in the battery compartment, but some contact cleaner and elbow grease made it turn on and it seems to work flawlessly. I like the feel of it.

File: neo.jpg (84.5 KB)

>you can buy native af ff mirrorless chinese lenses for less than $100
What a time to be alive

File: 1772635750639742.jpg (109.1 KB)

>>4506461
I know right? But only for the chad mounts.

>>4506461
And it's probably just as shit as stuff like the Yongnuo 50mm was back in the DSLR days. You can get used first party versions for the same price.

File: Night photo in fog.jpg (1.5 MB)

>Bought a Pentax Kf as first camera half a year ago
>Didnt wind up doing what I thought I would be doing with it and wound up doing nighttime street photography
>Its okay but I want something that gets less noise
>Started looking at the Nikon Zf and it looks very capable for what I want but it seems like the full frame body might be big as fuck
Anyone have a ZF? How is it? The youtube shills say its built sturdy and well, it looks nice but it also looks large as fuck with Nikkor lenses, is the lens ecosystem for Z mount?

File: zf-kf.jpg (110.1 KB)

>>4506478
Own the Zf. It's slightly bigger. I owned an A7C before and I'd say its comparable to what you'd say in "moving up to something bigger", but honestly the size is very negligible because the lens is always going to be the thing that will make your experience. You can get some pretty small pancake sized lenses for the Z system, but if you want something with large apertures, you're going to go big if you want Z-glass with AF.

Although another wonderful thing is the Zf is really great with vintage lenses. I have a Helicoid Macro adapter with the Minolta Hawkeye 56mm f1.2 , absolutely superb.

>>4506478
I like mine a lot, held up in loads of rain
It's a normal size camera, plenty of film cameras and DSLRs are the same or bigger, it's just not as compact as the modern mirrorless offerings or smaller SLRs
I just use the 50, 28/40, and then just adapted lenses

>>4506442
I did not buy it from the grey market.
But was cheaper than the greymarket. That is what i m telling you
From the biggest photo video gear store in my eu country
So i don't know exactly how they manage to lower the prices so much. Yes i got the hear on sale but the price was lower than any other official partner site from eu usa or asia

>>4506475
>he fell for the first party meme
good goyim

File: c5e4ff0a7c4550ecc9159e5d4d3b8ab43637fe38-1371x2048.jpg (529.0 KB)

Is it possible to make a replica of this Rolleicord?

In theorhy I only need metal and glass, which isn't as hard to craft as electronics in today's cameras

File: file.png (496.2 KB)

Sigma-san... Please expand your iSeries... I just need a smoll cute and funny 115 or 135mm f3.5 like the god tier 90mm f2.8...
In which temple do I have to pray for this to happen. And why is everybody only making these fucking f1.8 monstrosities.

File: stuff.jpg (3.4 MB)

Hello. Needed an actual camera for my next vacation trip so i got this one after making some research, maybe not the best of best but this should do it for my little trip, plus it was expensive enough as it (looked at Sony rx100vii's prices and i lol'd)
Looking to buy a transport case and thinking about getting a thinktank 5, i guess it should be enough right? For another battery and maybe 1 more memory card, and a cable

File: 81NtCHjZwoL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (124.3 KB)

Got this huge thing coming in the mail in a few days. It's comically huge compared to the nikkor 50 1.8g

File: long-weekend-camera-pouch-camera-love.jpg (188.4 KB)

>>4506601
>Looking to buy a transport case and thinking about getting a thinktank 5, i guess it should be enough right? For another battery and maybe 1 more memory card, and a cable

An actual camera bag seems like overkill for such a small camera. I would get a pouch similar to this.

Genuinely, how much of a camera is a skill issue versus actual gear? I feel like I've been hooked by marketing and now I'm stressing even though I have a camera

>>4506644
Does you camera do everything you want? Do you ever feel limited by its features? Those are the only questions you need to ask yourself. I was using a DSLR for a long time but I really noticed how limiting it was, especially with the controls as it had just one control wheel and you'd have to fuck around in the main menu for some settings.

Basically any mirrorless camera made in the last 6 years will do everything you could ever want.

>>4506644
Pick up a vintage camera and see it for yourself.

New cameras let me push-pull the raw file more in low lighting/bad exposures and their autofocus is a bit snappier. The greater dynamic range lets me get shots with less noise especially during dusk/dawn.

Pick up a $80 CCD shitter and see for yourself. Especially if it cross references with your current mount. I go back and forth between my Pentax K70, Pentax K3/Sony a58, and Konica Minolta 5D all the time. Even the K3 vs the K70 I notice more grain/noise in the pics above 1200 ISO. The 5D is closer to ISO 400 but its pleasing.

>>4506644
Its usually the camera if its a dynamic range or AF speed/accuracy issue (ie: you know how cameras work and single point didnt improve things)
Its also NOT a skill issue if photos need edited to fix colors other than white balance and exposure. It is the camera. Buying a cobalt pack or colorchecker is not a skill it is buying a bandaid for a problem that shouldnt exist after 2010.

A lot of cameras are pretty bad products with pretty annoying fanboys defending how far behind their tech is. This is the real reason people dont really buy them anymore.

>>4506644
Nicer gear makes it easier to reliably to get the shots that you want. A good photographer will still get great better stuff, shots with bad gear, just less consistently or efficiently.

Some gear is needed for specific use cases, but most stuff is just fine for most things. If you're willing to do a little extra work in the process you can often make up for any shortcoming. A tripod can take a mediocre camera and make it compete with much better mods, but that isn't always practical.

Consider how many amazing shots were taken on gear now considered outdated, but also consider the performance standards and expectations have also increased over time.

Now that tank based printers are gaining traction.. how long until we get one that can do a2 prints?

do you guys like to watch gear porn?

https://www.youtube.com/@mikeno62/videos
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/LgWPVhTc3pY

>>4506666
Photographer used to be a real profession because no one wanted to bother with tripods, flashes, gels, and filters.

Let alone film. Big film with fewer chances.

Now cameras are good and photographer is no longer a real profession. It’s a hustle. A scam. Most of it lives off dishonest, predatory pricing targeting the most vulnerable and stupid people on earth (women achieving life milestones). The rest is passport photos/realestate, product ads, and nepobabies aka fashion photography (also, literally product ads). I believe this downgrade is the source of a lot of the hate for people just buying a good camera like a nikon z5ii or a sony a7cii instead of awful junk like fujifilms and dslrs.
>Noooo the world cant progress it left me behind

>>4506191
>increased readout it goes at the expense of dynamic range
Because if you clock your circuitry higher, it'll draw more power and generate more interference.

DR is determined by the full well capacity (photosite size. Actually their volume as they can be made deeper) and read noise. FWC dictates the upper bound of achievable DR, but it's never reached unless you can zero out all possible interference and eliminate shot noise. Read noise can eventually be minimized but that stricly depends on the sensor architecture.

First generations or stacked sensors and global shutters do lag behind, but let's not exaggerate things. The R5 Mark II is barely a tenth of a stop behind the R5 or the R6 Mark III. The A9 III is also a tenth of a stop behind the R5. Newer generations will likely get that DR back.
The counter argument being the Sony A7V, it's partially stacked yet has a third of a stop more DR than anyone else, because Sony likely prioritizes read noise over readout speed. Hence why their previous cameras had abysmal rolling shutter, and why even a partially stacked BSI sensor is as fast as the non-stacked R6 when it could be much faster.

>>4506726
The biggest culprit in the stagnation or reduction in DR is the introduction of more and more video features.

>>4506447
>>4506449
What could possibly be the difference?

>>4506723
You do not actually know how far behind the r5ii is because you did not do a step wedge test with detail discrimination.

You are absolutely looking at signal/noise ratio measurements.

And the R5II and A9III apply noise reduction algorithms to raw files at every single ISO setting.
If you are using SNR as a proxy for DR you are officially a gearfag idiot. Manufacturers are exploiting the assinine, non-photographic tests done by gearfag idiot sites like photonstophotos, dxomark, and dpreview and tailoring their cameras to them.

AA filters are being weakened and removed to improve MTF chart results on dxomark and 200% pixel peep/72dpi max print sim on dpreview. False color now occurs in natural, irregar detail like foliage and hair.
Actual dynamic range is flatlining and tanking and you are looking at p2p charts, dxo scores, and the noise on dpreviews grey card and not seeing the issue.

At this point they are openly manipulating you into buying worse cameras for the wrong reasons. The only people buying these cameras are professional newsmen who can NEVER EVER EVER make an excuse for missing the perfect shot of hirohito gonzalez hitting a ball with a stick and therefore need 120fps no matter what compromises it comes with, and actual fucking retards.

>>4506729
p2p makes an effort to label when cameras use noise reduction and admits he cant actually detect all of it
the a6700 has deep shadow noise reduction that manifests as color shifts (software dependent) and smearing (universal) a lot like the pentax k1 mark 2 and he totally missed it

whats extra sad is how many people miss the downwards triangles on his charts
or the iso setting/measured iso discrepancy (he should just bake that into the pdr chart as a toggle already)

people who think the r5ii isnt an aps-c tier scamera tailored to shutter spamming journalist photography and nothing else basically cant read, or reason

>>4506728
Aperture blade count influences bokeh and sunstars (and probably something else I'm forgetting). Even number of blades = soft, shitty, and unimpressive sunstars, because each point in the apeture blades creates a spike/vertex you get overlaps and thus fewer spikes. An odd count causes double the spikes (so 9 blades gives 18 spikes). Bokeh also wants a higher blade count so the balls looks smoother, otherwise you get bokeh balls that look like obvious polygons.

So ideally, you want a high and odd count for the best of both worlds. Some people like 10 or 12 as you still get lots of sunstar spikes, but 8, 7, 6, and 5 blade counts are pretty much universally disliked.

Order of importance
>1. Lighting
>2. Lenses
>3. Cameras

Order of frequency of discussion by gear whores (/p/, Youtube, etc.)
>1. Cameras
>2. Lenses (Chinese slop from Amazon)
>3. Lenses (quality first party)
>4. "Codecs"
>5. "Ecosystems"
>...
>99. Lighting

If you're worried about the "low light performance" of your $3000 camera and you use a TT Artisan lens and you probably don't even have a Godox speedlight in your bag, you are not based. MarkusPix is based because he uses 15 year old Panasonic MFT cameras you didn't know existed and has a basement full of lighting equipment.

>>4506733
They will hate you because you speak the truth

>>4506733
Cameras are more important than lenses and have been since about 2016. All consumer lenses are now good enough.

Digital cameras on the other hand can easily fail to surpass 35mm and 645, or worse, find new ways to be uniquely bad in ways film could never approximate. Meanwhile a competent user can pull 100mp + of good but low contrast detail out of consumer 35mm shot on junk.

File: shrug.gif (474.7 KB)

>>4506733
You forgot
>0. Be There
But yes, lighting is ignored because it's not very exciting to fag over strobes and speedlites. And in complete fairness it's fucking obnoxious when fagtographers machine gun their flashes in public.
>inb4 you mean natural lighting
Yes I figured, but /p/ is a gear board after all and nobody here is going to be able to afford Allah's ante.

>>4506733
flash is unacceptable outside of the studio and studio photography is fake and gay might as well be ai generated slop

>>4506733
>1 Composition
>2. Light
>3. Lense
>4. Camera

fify dumbass

>>4506744
On the other hand if your camera sucks and you just can't catch a moment you wanted - it's over

1 Camera
2 Composition
3 Lense+Light

CCLL

>>4506745
>if your camera sucks
that usually implies that the photographer sucks.
So basically
1 photographer
2 composition
3 lighting
4 lens
5 camera

>>4506733
>>4506743
Kind of this. Outside of a studio or macro work it takes a good bit of time, effort, and skill to make artificial lighting look good, night club shooting is perhaps one of the few genres where an on camera flash is acceptable. Unless you're doing paid portraits no one's carrying around a strobe and softbox and reflectors outdoors. Unless the lighting is complete trash working with available light is going to look better than blasting your subject straight on with your flash, and if it's that bad just move somewhere else.

>>4506746
This post bleeds cope

>>4506741
Truth nuke. If you cant do it with a later EF lens you’re NGMI. The cameras however were dogshit, especially canon bodies sensors and nikon bodies autofocus and raw color.

Camera matters way more than lens now and has forever. Very very few people, mostly canon cucks with no ibis, spergs sperging about equivalence (that almost never matters), and terminally retarded pixel peeping hylics need to care about lenses anymore.
>but RENDERING
Aka nothing. Stop zooming in on bokeh. Make a background mask, drop the clarity and structure sliders and laugh at onion ring autists.

>>4506320
R6 Mark III.
The AF is just as good as the R5 Mark II, it has pre-capture, electronic shutter is fast enough for 99% of situations, it has better DR than the R5 Mark II. It's $2K less because it's an unstacked FSI sensor without the useless gimmicks of the R5 II like digic accelerator and action priority (not used by anyone), eye AF (not used by anyone), top display (cool but not required), 5.76m EVF, and the stacked sensor.

>Muh 32.5 MP
More than enough to crop. Majority of wildlife was done on 18-24 MP in the past. Especially at 800mm, if you need to crop, it means your target is too far and you'll run into atmospheric disturbances anyway, or you want your bird to fill the entire frame, which is actually a bad composition and unappealing. Unless you just want to document birds for yourself., having its habitat in the frame is more interesting than counting the feathers.

For being dogshit, it sure does seem like lots of older / bad cameras took plenty of treat shots

>>4506753
not really

unless you like ken rockwell photography became irrelevant as soon as digishit hit and is only just now making a comeback

>>4506753
>sometimes in broad daylight on a still day with a tripod and a gnd filter set and a 4 shot stitch a nikon d300s could take a good photo
yeah and 35mm film blew it out of the water any day then and competes with the a7rv today (if you have steady hands and accurate focus it takes an a7rv to scan it anywhere near its potential)

Oldfags did it right.
Tilt shift is THE way to photography. Why isn't this a more common feature on modern lenses?

>be at ground
>try photographing building or tree or tower or something on an angle
>impossible to get planar alignment
HMMMMMMM if only there was a-
oh, there was, and it was how a lot of cameras used to
but now everything's for stupid journalists and paparazzi who only chase celebs around and need to be able to shoot and autofocus while being bumped into in a crowd or getting trampled by their peers as they chase paris hilton around for an upskirt only pajeets wanna see

we need real lenses to make a comeback
this modern shit is all GARBAGE

>>4506750
Through focus MTF matters. PSF matters. If your cardboard cutout with AI enhanced bokeh background sells, congrats on your product, but that has little bearing on whether it's good photography. Might as well argue that cranking the contrast slider as much as possible is the most important part of photography.

>>4506759
A canon ef 35mm f2 is usm (or any comparable lense) ranges from the equal to the superior of any leigay lense in all those respects

>>4506753
Modern cameras are better but that doesn't mean I haven't jerked off more to photos taken with old ass cameras.
Many people think lighting doesn't matter anymore. Softcore porn sites in the 2000s shot on digital offered great quality content despite the technical inadequacies of early digital. Now you have 60IQ people roaming around with $5000 cameras because they're paid by Cannot or Wurmji to shill Adobe Photoshop (indirectly) by selling presets and all these retard mouth breathing influencers wouldn't know how to photograph a hot babe indoors if their life depended on it, and that's with their 14-15 stop dynamic range sensors.

WHY CAN'T I ACHIEVE THIS LOOK?
>attempts to fake it with sliders instead of proper light setup
I BET THIS <2010 PORN SITE JUST ENHANCED THEY SHIT WITH AI OR SUM AIN'T NO WAY THEY PULLED THIS OFF WITH A MK I

Even if we had 24 stop digital sensors you would still need good lighting. The idea of a fill flash is a foreign concept to many people who own fancy cameras these days.

>>4506761
>muhporn
People jerk off to AI generated furries. Your brain shuts off when you’re jerking it or even slightly aroused.

File: sony_a6700_45_crop.jpg (68.3 KB)

>>4506729
>AA filters are being weakened and removed to improve MTF chart results on dxomark and 200% pixel peep/72dpi max print sim on dpreview. False color now occurs in natural, irregar detail like foliage and hair.
>Actual dynamic range is flatlining and tanking and you are looking at p2p charts, dxo scores, and the noise on dpreviews grey card and not seeing the issue.

I can't believe that there are "photographers" out there that consider this acceptable

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

>>4506764
So you complain that extra detail that can only be seen when pixel peeping, but complain about the false colour that also is only noticeable when pixel peeping.

>>4506760
You think that shit bokeh is fine, because you can "fix" it in post. Your opinion on what makes a good lens is worthless.

File: a6700_moire_building.jpg (147.6 KB)

>>4506767
my man, that's a 100% crop. You can see those moire patterns from space.

Do you think this building's horizontal window bars are actually painted alternating green/purple?

>>4506767
>t. Notphotog
Moire fucks up fucking 8x10 prints. The smallest print anyone wants.

Little green color flecks in hair and trees do not vanish when not pixel peeping except for blurry social media sized images at winshit-compatible dpis (proper retina display compatible dpis show the moire plainly)

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

heh, nothing personal kiddo

>>4506773
Remember when anon showed that capture one doesnt have this specific issue at all?

Adobe’s demosaicing algorithm is inferior.

File: unnamed (1).jpg (743.6 KB)

>Buy $225 Pentax K3 with 28-75mm f2.8 Tamron A09, 22k shots
>Missing bottom port cover, K10D port cover (larger one in the pic) doesnt sit flush
>E-Mail Ricoh USA asking if they sell them
>guy asks me for my address and I get one a week later in the mail

based flipping pentax

>>4506776
From reading their user manuals I get the impression Pentax has something special going on in terms of user-conveniences.
At the same time, having always used EVF I don't think I would enjoy using OVF where I can't use menus, see exposure simulation, see white balance, and zoom in for sharpness checks.
Kinda hoping Pentax does get into mirrorless, even if they stay on K-mount.

>>4506782
I just wish they made their cameras cheaper but the lack of video features mean they're never going to sell Nikon numbers and I guess they feel like selling 1000 $1800 cameras makes more business sense than 10,000 $1000 cameras. They're fun to use and gearfagging with them is super cheap. They tried going mirrorless and it failed miserably because K-Mount flange is too long (and the K-01s broke the shutter long-term).

I always stand by the best Pentax body being a Monster AF Adapter on the newest Sony mirrorless you can afford (or your favorite mirrorless if you can focus manually). Or pick up a K3/K70 for <$300.

>>4506770
>100% zooming in on something looks bad
Shocking. And nobody would ever do that either, cropping to that level is retarded.

>>4506790
Then why remove the AA filter? Any detail improvement from that is not appreciable unless viewing at 100% or closer, and the AA filter prevents huge scale moire patterns as in >>4506764 which are visible even with the image scaled/fit to a 1080p display..

File: IMG_1251_Closed_On_Sundays_Reduced.jpg (4.9 MB)

>>4506398
I have an R6 II but I was thinking about this exact setup for that exact purpose. I even already have the 28. Kind of a cute little EDC thing and maybe also as a fancy action cam.

Since you literally have and apparently enjoy the exact setup I'd consider, I should ask:
- Is there any good way to swap between manual and aperture priority without using the touch screen? This is my big hangup as I don't believe there is.
- Can you rebind the power zoom rocker to do anything other than what it was made for, when a non power zoom lens is attached?

28 2.8 on APS-C would be pretty nice.

>>4506757
I read Ansel Adam's The Camera and I feel completely fucking boxed in with traditional lenses now. I wanted a TS lens already but now I REALLY want one. Hope Canon releases some RF ones so the old EF ones I want drop in price.

Dear /gear/.

Since my D750 (bought second hand) body start to get errors on exposure times shorter than 1/1000 I was thinking about getting second camera ahead. I was checking second hand shops again and from what I see, I have basically three options, since I won't change the Nikon system - D850, Z6 II and Z5 II. D850 sounds like logical evolution of my existing D750 but it will be quite heavy for sure. At the other hand, mirrorless is marketed as "future" but I'm not sure if they would work flawlessly with my normal lenses (mostly Nikon own ones but also one Tamron). I'm also concerned about their supposed small battery capacity. I mostly shoot at cons and events, most demanding situations are stage events, which usually have fast moving subjects in low and/or dynamic light conditions. What would you suggest?

Thank you for any advice.

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-HwqYnIGX2yq1KjU7.jpg (861.5 KB)

/gear/ what do we think of UWA lenses, realizing my widest lens is a 28mm f2.8 prime and 28-75mm f2.8 zoom

are the old 80s 19-35mms worth it? or should i just save my money for a $200 11-18mm/12-24mm?

https://iwantgrain.com/cosina-vivitar-promaster-soligor-phoenix-19-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-review/

These Viltrox Evo lenses. I guess the future is Chinese.

File: aea43Eh.jpg (352.9 KB)

What is the point of a 28mm lense and less?
What do you even shot with it?

A 35mm is basic minimum

File: Sigma105mm_on_D850_Macro.jpg (2.0 MB)

>>4505369
You gotta buy used to get "cheap". My second hand collection:

>Pay in AUD
>$850 D850 with aftermarket grip, 120,000 count
>$80 Godox XPro trigger
>$400 Sigma 105mm EX DG OS HSM Macro (pic related, or see more in the latest macro thread)
>$330 Sigma APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM barely used
>$600 Nikon AF-S 24-120mm f/4G ED VR
>total $2560 dollarydoos and covers pretty much everything I need it for as a hobbyist

My first was a bit overpriced
>$500 for D7100 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF
and now I only use the lens on the D850. The D7100 sits with the crop kit lens 55-200 on it

Only new thing has been flash unit because I couldn't wait for a good used deal, and the memory cards.

>>4506832
Landscapes?

>>4506836
Wides rarely make for interesting landscapes, most scenes lend themselves to normals and teles better. Wides are for exaggerated perspective and cramped interiors.

File: IMG_1587_1C.jpg (4.3 MB)

>>4506797
Sadly, you can't rebind the zoom rocker, I think you need to keep in mind that this basically a video camera with a photo mode tacked on.
I have checked, there isn't any way to bind a mode change to a specific button.
Personally I have aperture on the control ring, shutter speed on the top dial and iso on the bottom dial, it works for walk around shooting.
The 28mm2.8 behaves like a 50mm.
In the end its not that compact, it won't fit in a jeans pocket, however as a walk around that you don't notice, its quite satisfactory, pic rel is a 1/4 res of a pic I took last yea. In the end I wouldn't say its the ideal solution, I just bought it because it shared a mount with the rest of my gear.

>>4506837
Also cramped exteriors and macro.

File: 1757960990482570.png (4.0 MB)

>>4506837
Depends. Plenty of great landscape photographers shot wide. Kenna and Rowell just off the top of my head. Ansel Adams has more photos in ~35mm, which is wide-ish, than in all other focal lengths combined.
Telephoto landscapes look great though.

>>4506832
I mean we have an entire thread for just 28mm >>4462866

Don't think of what do I use XX focal length for, that's beginner thinking (and posting a beginner misleading image)

If you've ever wanted a wider field of view than 35mm offers for a scene, that's when you got wider, simple as

You might not have any interest in shooting wider, I rarely go last 24mm, but it's pretty obvious what the use cases would be

>>4506840
Yeah, I just find them to be the hardest to work with. Normals just capture what you see and telephoto lets you isolate features, going wide requires much more planning to avoid overwhelming the actual interesting part of your landscape with pointless scenery. With wide angle you so easily end up with shots that are only worth cropping down to normal-ish fov if they're usable at all.

>>4506729
They all apply NR in their processing pipeline. In fact the original R5 applies more NR than the R5 Mark II
>b-b-b-but the shadow recovery
In mechanical yes, due to the higher noise floor. The R5 drops to 12 bit in ES and loses 1.5 stops, so if you're in a situation where you're using the electronic shutter a lot, there's practically no difference, and the R5 II actually has more DR.

I'm so glad I've moved past caring about some of the stuff you guys argue about

File: 81bDBm7XTJL.jpg (307.7 KB)

I just found a snoy nex 6 on FB marketplace for $250 (lens included). I'm wondering if it's still a decent starter kit for someone who just want to enjoy taking random photographs. Also do newer "photography" phones mog this thing and are worth getting more than this 13-year old camera?

>>4506849
>Also do newer "photography" phones mog this thing and are worth getting more than this 13-year old camera?
If you want to just point and click, a modern phone will do you better
If you want to take the time to learn how to use the camera, explore using different lenses, and take the time to learn editing too, the camera will be much better

>>4506850
Thanks anon. I'm really into the feeling of taking pics on a real camera lately. I'm just not so sure that getting a nex 6 will be worth the money considering that I'm getting a pixel 8 pro next week. Other options are available but at a much higher price and I'm kind of running low on budget rn.

File: 1752606621584713.jpg (153.9 KB)

>>4506067
The adapter arrived. This thing is big and unwieldy, it desperately needs some sort of tripod mount for anything at a distance but it has no collar and there are none (that I could find) that'll fit it so I'm considering buying a Manfrotto 293. This fat fuck'll rip the mount out of the body if it's unsupported. Anyone had any experience with the 293 or can suggest a cheaper alternative?

It looks kind of promising though. I only had a few minutes to play with it before it got totally dark outside, took pic rel without a tripod just to see if there are any defects. I fucked up though and inadvertantly fumbled onto aperture priority without realising it so I don't know how representative this is of its usual output.

>>4506832
28mm makes her tits look bigger so it's clearly the best

>>4506856
Leofoto LS200 is a bit cheaper, but I bet you could get baseplate + rails + lens yolk for under $50, just a tad bulkier

File: FV_mode_IMG_8775.jpg (403.9 KB)

>>4506797
>Is there any good way to swap between manual and aperture priority without using the touch screen? This is my big hangup as I don't believe there is.

Yes, use the camera in FV mode.

File: 810_0262-1200.jpg (140.7 KB)

is this a good lense?

what is the point of having a 1.8 fix lense if you can always just add more light?

File: OIP-930775913.jpg (16.2 KB)

Some dude in my local group is selling his PZ 16-50mm OSS APSC for around $50. I've got a Full frame Sony A7 but the price seems like a no brainer, just to have it. Or am I going gear crazy? Super small, prefect for travel or on the go shooting.

For reference I don't have anything under 28mm covered but with the crop factor this will be closer to 24-70 I guess, still I'm a sucker for a good bargain.

>>4506896
Going crazy. It is a kit lens not worth anything. Just look at completed listings on ebay.

>>4506896
>average snoy gearfag dust collector
go outside and take some photos

>>4506838
No no I know it's a video camera I'm just coping that Canon has literally nothing to replace the smaller M series camera where I can use all my little RF lenses on it.
Also isn't the 28 more like a 35?
Oh well. I will just keep using my little film P&S for portable stuff or wearing my R6II on a strap and not giving a fuck.

>>4506864
I don't think R50V has FV mode, that pic is of an R50.

>>4506865
>good lens?
It's probably the best performing among the nikon 18-55 kit lenses, but it's still just a kit lens.

>what is the point of having a 1.8 fix lens if you can always just add more light?
You can't always add more light depending on what you are shooting. The extra headroom just gives you more options. For example, you can raise the shutter speed higher without having to crank up the ISO.

>>4506905
>I don't think R50V has FV mode, that pic is of an R50.
oops I thought the question was about R6ii.
Neither R50 nor R50V have FV mode.

>>4506909
why not just get a reflector+flash for portraits?

and how am I supposed to shot street with a fixed lense? zooming is faster than walking
what if you see something across the road and it can only be seen from your side of the road?

>>4506898
Yeah you're right, I'll rather wait for a good deal on a Samyang 35mm/f2.8. The small profile with capable AF is something I feel missing in my kit

>>4506830
>>4506832
UWA lenses are nice because they do three things other lenses either can't or don't:
1) Most lenses cap out on the wide end at 24mm and just going wider in general has its benefits, such as indoors or landscapes where it's sensible (it isn't always). 24mm can be limiting depending on your shot.
2) UWA lenses allow intentional distortion between foreground and background that adds a unique look to the shot. Also valuable when your background is more important than the foreground which can happen.
3) UWA lenses typically have less barrel distortion around 20-30mm than their GP zoom siblings, so even if all you do is landscapes, street, or indoors at 24-28mm which is very common, the shot will come out with better pixel-level detail and corner sharpness.

My 16-35 f/4 is probably my favourite lens even if it isn't my most used. It's more challenging, but more engaging than just pointing your 50mm prime at whatever.

>>4506905
>Also isn't the 28 more like a 35?
28mm on crop is about 45mm FoV @ Full Frame. It's quite the performer on APS-C. It's so sharp the normal issues of using FF glass on APS-C aren't worth worrying about, and you completely ignore the corner shading because of the crop. R50V and the 28mm f/2.8 seem like a killer combo. If you want to go wider get the RF 16mm f/2.8. It's not as good as a performer but its biggest issue which is barrel distortion again gets reduced because of the crop.

The R50V does have a bunch of C modes though so you could probably set it up that way with one C mode being everything the same but set to Av already.

>>4506829
Anyone?

I'm honestly rather confused about Nikon mirrorless and which camera is good for what purposes. I was previously using D5300 before moving to D750 and I would rather stay on Nikon, especially since I have Nikon own lenses, plus recently (last year) bought Tamron 24-70 2.8 G2. Like mentioned, D850 sounds like logical step up but it's pretty heavy and I'm not sure if 46 MP would be much of use if I don't shoot at studio. My main concerns are about autofocus and overall performance at low light conditions, since that's the most demanding situation I would use my camera for. My main concerns about mirrorless are about compatibility between lenses (F mount) and body when using those adapters, reported short battery time (apparently ~300 shoots compared to ~1200 on D750) and having to spend extra money on those XQD cards since apparently primary slot on Z6/7 is for these (Z5 is supposed to have dual SD).

When looking at second hand market, I see, in good conditions, D850, Z5 II (one "exhibition" model that had mere 300 photos on count and spent his life on shelf at the shop), Z6 II and Z7 II. Don't see any Z6 III yet and while I see it have excellent reviews, it cost twice as much as Z6 II would. I don't want to burn money blindly but do want to get something that would serve me for long just like D750 did. Also, mentione D750 is not dead yet but since it show sings of failing, I don't want to risk. Of course, could always replace shutter mechanism but it's always a question whenever invest into old gear or get replacement instead.

Sorry for trouble.

>>4506829
>Z6 II and Z5 II.
I'd buy mirrorless, I don't understand why is this even a question

your D750 is worth fixing, probably. why would you need another DSLR

>>4506944
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to get rid of my D750, I like it, just like I still have my first camera, D5300. It's just that replacing shutter mechanism would most probably cost 1/4 of what I paid for it (it's second hand body) and at this point the same question of investing in old gear vs getting new makes sense. I simply don't want to run into situation where I shoot series at some concert and camera decide that it's "lol time for error".

>why is this a question
Because I honestly don't know if pursuing mirrorless is good idea or not but at the other hand don't want to run into situation where I buy new body (D850) and find out that improvement in my scenarios is not really that great (and I assume that 46 MP will be a problem where motion blur is something I want to avoid). I'm not as experienced as you guys, I still consider myself "amateur".

>Z6 II Z5 II
So not (brand new) Z6 III then? And about Z5 II, I keep hearing it's "entry level" camera, but specs seems rather nice. I'm simply confused.

>>4506943

just shoot D750 at x or longer times anon

>>4506955
+1

if your D750 still works just start saving money for a Nikon Fx

>>4506943
Nikon mirrorless isnt good outside of the zf (transgender z5ii), z5ii (normal camera), z6iii (cope sports camera), z8 (sports camera), and z9 (senior citizens sports camera).
>z6/z7
Shadow banding and bad autofocus
>z6ii/z7ii
Bad autofocus, consider a sony instead
>d750
Nikon might fix it for free
https://www.nikonusa.com/service-advisories/d750-july15?srsltid=AfmBOor7_GiljeyUyJBuwPaqLrQvTmhntViCbIunTk-L9kN043lWRCOJ

>>4506943
Stick with D750, upgrade to D850, or Z5II/Z8 (or wait for Z7III/Z8II)

>>4506962
>Nikon might fix it for free
My D2h got essentially replaced for free by them back in the day

File: 1755042717632776.jpg (1.4 MB)

>>4506849
It's a good camera. Like the other anon said, phones will do more out of the box, and the images will usually look better right away. Hell, my iPhone sometimes gives me shots that look "better" than my A7C2.
But you can't really learn photography on a phone and that not being snobby. Composition, absolutely, but for depth of field, metering, exposure, etc. is really difficult without tactile controls. You would also miss out on the whole editing RAWs bit for the most part. Ironically, you can do a lot more with phones if you become proficient with a camera first.
>nex 6
I used the a6000 for almost ten years. Great system, and probably the most hated camera on /p/ because everyone kept recommending it. The Nex 6 is basically a slightly older version with an older sensor. Kit lens is the same and it's fine. Get something specialized later once you know what you like.
Picrel taken with the 35mm f/1.8 while hiking (wish I had the kit with me that day). If an a6k is around the same price, try for that instead because of the better sensor. Otherwise, have fun with a great camera, anon.

>>4506964
I have literally never ever had any smartphone, even ones that get close to $2000 for a disposable device, shit out a photo that looks better than a canon 5dIVs jpegs, unless visible chroma noise (like color film has anyways) is a dealbreaker but AI sharpening squiggles are not? But just opening the raw and clicking export in good software like capture one or a well configured, custom compiled version of darktable (lol) and immediately clicking export produces sharper, more noiseless jpegs with almost no effort

What the fuck is wrong with the snoy a7cII

>>4506965
Nothing is wrong with it, but honestly, DSLR/MILC shots are usually more neutral (in normie-speak: blander) than phone photos, unless you put some work into them. Import into C1 + export JPEG does only that much. Phones also apply stuff like HDR automatically when it helps, since you can’t add a bracket after the fact.
Not saying they’re comparable, but if you’re just starting out, especially with an older camera, don’t be surprised if your first photos look less impressive than your flagship phone’s auto mode.

>>4506966
You may have a disorder if you need everything to look like a borderlands screenshot to “feel interested”
https://midtownvision.com/blog-posts/types-color-blindness
https://www.proactivepsychiatry.com/post/dopamine-burnout-how-overstimulation-is-draining-your-motivation-and-happiness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anhedonia
There’s preferences (social anhedonia for instance is flat out normal) and then there’s feeling like something actually more vibrant than real life colors still isn’t enough

File: 1801985023.jpg (3.0 MB)

sometimes phones can give decent quality like this

>>4506966
>Not saying they’re comparable, but if you’re just starting out, especially with an older camera, don’t be surprised if your first photos look less impressive than your flagship phone’s auto mode.
specs wise the 5div is one of the most mediocre full frame cameras that isnt explicitly “bad”/“tech nerds only” like the travesties that are older canons. it is an older camera, a much older one, by nikon sensor standards. what part of i have never gotten a better sooc jpeg out of a $2000 phone unless you prefer AI to grain (aka are blind and retarded) didn’t register?

>>4506966
>DSLR/MILC shots are usually more neutral (in normie-speak: blander) than phone photos
So what you do is turn that Saturation sider from 0 to 1 and contrast from 0 to 1 and boom congrats you just emulated VIVID mode on most smartphones.
But if all you're trying to do is replicate what a phone looks like then what the fuck would you buy a camera for?

File: 1872583053.jpg (3.8 MB)

>>4506968
but too often looks like this
they're fine for social media sharing, but details always look awful if you actually look at them, look at that foliage
both pics are the same phone too lol

>>4506968
Very harsh and flat

All computer enhanced edge contrast, no shading or color palette
>geee why do zoomers shoot film when phones are so sharp?

>>4506970
It doesn't though.

>>4506963
Even if I would wait, Z6 III is my current upper limit of what I consider reasonable for spending on a body (10000 PLN aka roughly 2200€) and Z7 III or Z8 II will most likely far above that. Again, I'm amateur as in I don't earn money for a living with these tools - it's not matter of "client won't be pleased" but rather "I can miss focus on these idol cosplayers on their performance".

>>4506962
Why exactly "sports cope" and Z5 II being "normal"? Could you please explain more?

As for fixing, I'm not from US and since it's second hand, I doubt that I would get free repairs.

>bad AF
How bad?

>>4506955
Last time I got error at 1/1000 once and I frequently reach 1/400, I'm simply wondering if I'm not at risk here already.

>>4506967
>everything to look like a borderlands screenshot
But enough about "adjusting for taste" in Lightroom.

>>4506975
Z5II is the best value, modern performance and capable of most pro level work.
Z6III is mostly for higher burst shooting and/or video, that's what your paying for and there are marginal sacrifices to be had to get there.
Z5II is basically Zf in a normal body
Service advisories can apply for 2nd hand, they are different from warranty repairs, but no promises.
>How bad?
Worse than your D750 for tracking moving stuff in dim environments, but on the flipside you get eye AF and more accurate AF-S focusing
The newer gen models have much better AF systems and arguably industry leading MF support

> reported short battery time (apparently ~300 shoots compared to ~1200 on D750)
Also, going back to this, mirrorless battery life difference is grossly exaggerated. They may be tested at that rate, but the testing is heavily in favor of DSLR models, and doesn't really match typical real world use. You also get the benefit of in-camera USB charging, which your D750 lacks.

>>4505369
Jews

>>4506975
Todays sports cameras sacrifice image quality and affordability to take photos slightly faster and edge into professional (as in for broadcast and netflix originals) video. If you don’t work in that field, don’t buy one.

>how bad is the z#ii and z# AF?
Slower, less accurate, and more hesitant than a DSLRs OVF especially indoors, and definitely if shooting stopped down because you have a slow shutter speed or a flash enabled nikons get very laggy because unlike canon and sony, they close the aperture all the time. This doesnt hurt autofocus as much on the newer cameras (they are still behind sony and canon in real world AF performance - ignore the spec sheet -10ev autofocus blurb they fudged their standards and dont actually do any better than sony/canon IRL)

Your D750 would handle basic shit like tracking a person walking much better and stay on target. the z7ii/z6ii occasionally lose focus entirely over minor movements.

Everyone who buys the first two generations of a mirrorless brand is beta testing.

>>4506978
*Eye AF except when people have hats, bangs, or glasses, definitely not when those are combined, and not reliably if they’re at an angle that partially obscures one eye

The a7iv has better autofocus than the z8 even. Nikon isn’t good at autofocus.

>>4506986
>*Eye AF except when people have hats, bangs, or glasses, definitely not when those are combined,
Hasn't been my experience after several years and thousands of people photographed, but sorry to hear you couldn't get it figured out yourself
>The a7iv has better autofocus than the z8 even.
True, but Z8 is already good enough for me too

What camera models do you use?

File: d750_focus_points.jpg (60.3 KB)

>>4506983
>Todays sports cameras sacrifice image quality
This has been the case for all "sports" cameras for the last 2 decades lol
>Your D750 would handle basic shit like tracking a person walking
It does well for getting a point, provided you keep them in the center 15% of the frame
If you set a mirrorless to just cover the center zone and turn off all subject detection, you'll get pretty similar performance. The real difference is that are expectations now are to be eye-accurate, anywhere in the frame, which a D750 can't even do to begin with.

>>4506988
It’s an AUTO MODE. It can’t be figured out. It works in a scene or it doesn’t. If it can’t handle asian girls in glasses you’re not using it that day. Nikon eye AF was minimally configurable. If it doesn’t detect anything reliably, that’s it. Switch to a box.

>>4506993
Its not similar on the older nikons unless your d750 is broken and randomly defocuses and then fails to reacquire or switches and sticks to the background because its looking for contrasting edges in what the sensor sees

Early sony models were as bad if not worse at this

The new cameras don’t do this half as much except on meaningless shit like birds in trees

>>4506978
>How bad?
Check out these videos, for Z6II tier eye detect with obstruction (hats, glasses)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmRU9bWk2ug
Same guy doing a running test
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VezVlT1pLvg
Good comparison with other brands, showing how Nikon has been behind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJwDozT1mXM
Example of AF improving simply from switching to a large box instead of all area
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzCOv1q-wio

>>4507000
>It can’t be figured out. I
Knowing how to use your cameras AF system is something you can figure out
> If it can’t handle asian girls in glasses you’re not using it that day.
Do you have an example you can share of this? I've shared a few of the old Z AF performance, seems like they can focus on people with glasses
> d750 is broken and randomly defocuses
Yes, because we all know DSLR's never missed focus, never focused on the wrong subject, AF calibration is always perfect, etc. Definitely dont search for "D750 AF issues" all them are fake and gay right?

>>4507000
Interesting how this D750 is missing focus occasionally
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ4rEvbCNuw
Interesting how this D750 is struggling to focus at f5.6, ISO 250, 2.5", my Zf seems to handle that just fine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlnG6LWwH5g

They must both be broken I guess

>>4506978
>>4506983
Okay, thank you for explaining a bit. I checked my options again and sadly D850 have to be ruled out (all used bodies have over or near 150k counts, one insane case had 470k and already after replacement at 300k holy shit) so it's either Z5 II or Z6 III but you made me reconsider 6 III. I would miss the top, small screen but that's minor inconvenience.

Funny enough, out of curiosity I used chatGPT for checking opinions about Z5 II and honestly don't understand why it keeps insisting that it's "entry level camera" and "not for professional use". Given that it was trained mostly on Reddit posts, that could be the clue. That's why I asked you guys. I trust in your expertise.

>>4507004
I had real life experiences with nikon’s subject detect AF failing and doing retarded shit like focusing on ears.

I’m sorry you’re a Nikon fanboy, but I won’t be thrashing my SSDs for 1000 deleted out of focus .NEF files - or re-buy the POS I sold - to contradict a youtuber’s shill vid done in 20 takes.
>know how to use it!
Oh you think the brand you fanboy is perfect and everything is user error
Very snoy like
Do you really think I couldn’t find and mess with the autofocus settings
Do you think I did not literally phone nikon over the open aperture focus issue (they said to invest in modeling lights and they had something planned - it turned out it was for the z8)
Dumb fanboy. Go be a brand fanboy somewhere else.

The honor of a dated camera with teething issues should not concern you. The autofocus on the first two nikon Z generations is BAD. The sony a7iii and canon r8/r6ii is WAY BETTER. This is not disputed outside of whatever 4chan thread you happen to be in, okay bud?

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-UUTqfXW0PLAUex2q.jpg (404.5 KB)

man i am so glad im too poor to shitpost about new cameras and stick to vintage shitters any of these cameras might as well be fucking ai 5g connected shutterstock download machines to me

anyways should i take the snoy a58 or a390 with me to orlando florida? 20mp cmos evf slt from 2013 with decent autofocus or 14mp ccd ovf dslr from 2010 with next to no controls (but 2 batteries)

i ordered a konica minolta 7d to my moms house in florida, hoping its not junk but it feels like half the time the shutters break/get stuck or they first black frame. was reading online it has to do with the pcb not getting enough voltage from sitting long term. picked up a konica minolta ac1l 6v 2 amp ac adapter for $22 in case its dead.

also hoping it gets there in time lol.

havent decided on the lens might just be the 35-70mm f/4 maxxum and 100-200mm f/4.5 tele.

its gonna join three (3) konica minolta 5ds!

>>4506975
Get a second D750 and ET-8550 / L8180 instead.