File: maxresdefault.jpg (110.1 KB)

I have the A7CII which I enjoy a lot. Great image quality. I have the 40mm2.5 lens as well as the 85mm 1.8. Now I want something more wide in the 28mm range. Was thinking of the Sony 28mmf2. Not the very sharpest lens but it should do the job. But since that A7CII is quite chunky and the lens rather long.. I'm kinda leaning towards that new GR IV. It costs 1000€ more than the lens but I could have a pocketable camera to bring. Also more incognito and not so flashy. Apparently the lens is very sharp too. But can it compete with a mediocre 28mm lens on a full frame camera? Or is the Sony still noticable better in image quality? I'm afraid that in the end, especially after the honeymoon phase, it's collecting dust because FF is better in the end. Or even worse: I always bring both with me.

>>4511300
dude don't by a gr, waste of money. get yourself a nice sigma contemporary or sony g pancake and be the guy with a camera strap around his shoulder and an extra ~1000 euro to spare.

>>4511300
Well what if you found yourself at times wanting both 28mm and something else? Then your stuck taking both cameras and awkwardly having to switch between them. I would rather get the lens and then with the money left over get a more versatile pocket cam, like an RX100 (which I did). Sure it's a bit of a downgrade in image quality but it's still decent, it's good enough for most situations where you'd want a pocket cam and I'd rather be able to zoom than have to crop in from 28mm on the larger sensor.

File: 1677019383521753.jpg (105.2 KB)

Anons, I'm having buyer's remorse.

I had the R7 + 100-500L that I sold to get the R5II + 200-800

I see absolutely no difference. Sure I have less rolling shutter, AF is a bit better (not that much actually it struggles in the same situations as the R7), and I have a bit less noise at high ISO but nothing modern software can't take care of anyway. The 200-800 is noticeably worse than the 100-500 even with a crop sensor, battery drains much faster, the vast majority of added features aren't useful to me, apart from 4K120 and the third wheel to control ISO.

The 200-800 makes it so that at 800 I get two thirds of a stop disadvantage, and if I pull back to 470mm on the 100-500, I'm at 6.3, so a full stop more light at 750mm FOV equivalent. If I want something better the next super telephoto lens is at $10k which I can't justify, especially when the R7/100-500 combo performs so amazingly well.

I'll probably switch back again, at least I won't lose more money considering how much the R5II costs. That will teach me for being a gearfag.

File: Leica-M-10-1-von-2.jpg (1.2 MB)

I'm selling my Fuji GFX kit because it's simply too big and heavy even though I really love the image quality of that big ass sensor. Now looking into what other system to buy. Fuji x is a no no for me because apsc won't fill my needs.

I see that there are Leica M10 on the used market at around 3000 bucks which isn't too bad. I could combine it with 2-3 used lenses, probably Voigtländer. I've tried the M240 of a friend some time ago and it was really fun. But other than the fun part, are there also benefits in the image quality? Is there really something special in those lenses, "Leica colors", etc. or should I just go for Nikon or so and be happy about the instant autofocus? I'm not shooting professionally so I seek for a good combination of joy, image quality and not too bulky.

>>4511324
>it's simply too big and heavy
fr? doesn't seem like it

I'm currently upgrading from my t7i and looking to get a full frame, my two options are the r8 and the r6 mk ii. Is there an extremely noticable difference between the two? I don't do anything professional, just as a hobby.

>>4511310
I never had the 100-500, but I did "upgrade" from the R7 to the R5 as well. If you do a lot of low light stuff the R5 is certainly worth it, but it becomes noticeable after a while that the R7 is a generation newer with certain quality of life improvements such as being possible to browse the photos directly from the camera and being able to use the joystick button as an "OK" button in any given situation. That was the hardest things for me to adapt. I also loved the control ring on the R7 and feel like it was a proper, innovative and ergonomic step forward, but of course the boomers would throw a fit if they implemented it on the full frame cameras because everything has to be like their dslrosaurs from 2 decades ago.

File: pige.gif (43.8 KB)

>>4511310
Idk what to tell you man, you have an objectively better body but a technical downgrade on the lens so I'm not sure what you expected. The RF 100-500 costs how much more than the 200-800? It's also an L lens while the latter is just painted white.
What you've done is raised the ceiling of potential quality photos, but you need to put the money down for it. Seems like you sidegraded yourself and are somehow confused why it isn't twice is good. The 200-800 is astounding for the FL and price.

>The 200-800 makes it so that at 800 I get two thirds of a stop disadvantage
If you were using the 100-500 on a FF camera this would be true. You were using it on crop and it doesn't quite work like that. When you "Crop" a photo you discard a lot of info/light which is the whole point of having a wider aperture.

>if I pull back to 470mm on the 100-500, I'm at 6.3
If it only took such a small FL change to drop the aperture value, then you are on the cusp of the halfway point between f/7.1 and 6.3 @ 500mm. Apertures aren't steps they're gradual, but the software only confirms 1/3rds of a stop instead of 100ths so it 'appears' there's a big change.

>the R7/100-500 combo performs so amazingly well.
If you are birding you should have stayed on crop. The sheer amount of money to bird on FF you need is absurd. IIRC you were the anon complaining about low-light scenarios with the R7+100-500. And I'm afraid to say the reality is, you need more light, not more gear. You can't make every single photo opportunity a great photo when you don't control the environment.

>try to take some photos of my cats sitting on the couch with their heads popped up over the edge
>af detect set to animal
>it detects their face or eye and does green confirmation box
>take shots while they do stuff
>check
>out of fucking focus and instead the focus is on the couch edge
>get annoyed switch to pinpoint, dot on my cat's forehead like im a dog sniper in some cat-dog war
>green confirmation
>take the shot and check
>it's still focused on the edge of the couch (slightly in front of my cats) instead of my cat
holy fuck, i got so annoyed I almost went and listed my nikon zf on fb marketplace. I'm so god damn sick of this shit happening. It happens with people to where it's showing me the focus is locked on a person's eye then when i get home turns out nope it was on their nose or some dumbass shit slightly in front of the eye. I really wish I wasnt so heavily invested in this fucking system or that nikon would get their shit together with their broken ass af

>>4511427
Overwhelming probability of user error. I've never had this problem with my z8.

>>4511410
The R8 version 2 is rumored to come out later this year, also the current r8 doesn't work with canon's VR lens
https://app.ssw.imaging-saas.canon/app/en/vru.html
subscription is only required for videos over a couple minutes.

>>4511429
I've found multiple threads including dpreview's review mention that the zf has issues with focusing properly on what your subject is and instead focuses slightly in front of or behind it. In particular, the eye focus "locking" only for it to have focused on the eyebrow, which is something I've experienced when shooting at parties and other events. I would hope a z8 doesn't have this issue but at the same time I don't want the bulk of the z8 (or the price)

>>4511427
is it always with one lens or all ur lenses? fast lenses will have a different focal plane when stopped down then when they're wide open (when you're doing the AF) so you have to focus with DoF preview turned on.

>>4511427
use a piece of ham/salami and maybe switch to MF w/a wider aperture

File: AG-XE5-Kipon-M-FX-Macro-Thypoch-75mmf14-L.jpg (930.8 KB)

As a 2 year Canon shooter (From Rebel T3i, to 90d, to R10) am I going to regret selling everything for the Fuji XE5? I do appreciate having all the specific dials and having aperture control on the lens, which is not really a thing on the Canon. And I don't like how hostile Canon has been (APS-C) and is (FF) to third party lenses, which is sad because I really like Sigma primes.

Also I've never used any film sim and I think they're a huge gimmicky meme. Am I wrong on this too?

>>4511424
>The RF 100-500 costs how much more than the 200-800?
Actually just $1k. cANON priced the 200-800 similarly to the 180-600 and 200-600 from the competition but it's worse than a 7 year old sony 200-600 on all aspects but FL, go figure. They should've called it the 200-700 anyway, at 800 sharpness and contrast drop so much you're better off croping from 700.
>If it only took such a small FL change to drop the aperture value, then you are on the cusp of the halfway point between f/7.1 and 6.3 @ 500mm.
I read that optically at 500 it's much closer to 6.3 than 7.1, yes, that's also visible when you compare it with other canon lenses at 7.1, it looks a third of a stop brighter.
>IIRC you were the anon complaining about low-light scenarios with the R7+100-500.
No I'm not. This upgrade path is very common though so that's probably why you're confusing us.

I can certainly see that images stay a bit cleaner at higher ISO on the R5, but again, the difference isn't massive like it used to be on DSLR, and software can take care of that, IQ wasn't really the issue with the R7. My problem was the inconsistent AF, but apparently the R5II despite all the publicity around its digic accelerator struggles just as much in many situations.

>>4511443
>keep the R10 and get a EF adaptor so you can put cheap AF lenses on it
>use the XE5 as your snapshitter with manual lenses and adapted old shit
this way you get the best of both worlds, use the canon when you want to "produce" an image, and take the fuji with you everywhere. this is what i do except i use a canon A1 as my snapshitter but since you don't like film emulations then you probably won't like film either.

>>4511443
>am I going to regret selling everything for the Fuji XE5?
probably, but not because fujifilm's cameras suck per se but because you'll likely realise how vain and pointless it was to switch systems... yeah canon aren't playing nice with the third-party manufacturers but, on the other hand, you can get more than decent canon lenses. forget what canon bodies you're using, what about lenses? you might miss them more than you've considered...

>>4511449
I only use Sigma primes on my R10 (12mm, 23mm, 56mm all f/1.4) plus a chinkshit fisheye.
Sigma offers the exact same lenses for RF that they do for Fuji X mount.

>>4511450
Is having more manual controls the only thing about a Fuji that makes you want to switch? That doesn't seem like enough reason. Sure, you'll be able to get the same Sigma lenses you already like but not without selling your current ones for a loss. Why not consider an R7? that is, if you need an upgrade. Check yourself: are you just suffering from "shiny new thing" deprivation? Anyway, the XE5 looks like it would be too small for such large lenses. The Canons have really deep grips, much more ergonomic. Did I mention already you'll have to sell all your lenses for a loss?

File: Sony.jpg (144.3 KB)

>>4511297
>a7r VI
What went wrong?

I'm a little uncertain about wireless flashes and transmitters and receivers. Can I use my Flipper Zero as a transmitter to sync both an off camera Godox wireless flash and my Canon DSLR?

FWIW I have been reading through Strobist, but I'm still unclear.

>>4511437
Z bodies outside of the Z8/9 stop down when focusing, so focus shift isn't really an issue
>>4511427
What AF settings are you using? I've done a few thousand people on my Zf and never really had AF issues like that

>>4511443
>am I going to regret selling everything for the Fuji XE5?
Yes. Don't fall for the retro style bodies, there's a reason nobody recommends fuji.

>>4511454
nothing. its superior to every competing camera. every sony release outsells the entire ff mirrorless market combined. why would sony push even newer tech when everyone else is so far behind the next most popular brand in full frame (nikon) has worse autofocus than canon and no compact model that isn’t crippled to mark it as video only?

>>4511443
Yes. You’ll end up one of those posters who says mirrorless is an overall downgrade from DSLRs. Fuji isn’t very good. They’re a brand for their fans, if you know what I mean. Like apple but with slightly fewer firmware bugs.

>>4511443
sounds like /p/s shills memed you into anything but a sony syndrome with literal lies

a used a7cii is in the same price bracket and is a significantly better camera at everything but slapping (copyrighted) film stock names on its vsco presets

>>4511427
Its could be the lens. Nikons thai ladyboy manufacturing has really bad QC on some lens AF motors. Some are noisy, others are inaccurate. 50mm and 35mm f1.8s especially.

But nikon does do this sometimes when the detected eye is close to a contrasting line. The actual detect box is larger than what the screen shows.

>>4511427
You're right.

>>4511429
A lot of Nikon Zs won't focus on horizontal lines and will happily back focus on textured things BEHIND your subject. Even if they're hundreds of feet behind it.

The green box isn't the boundary box for the AF zone, behind the scenes the box is much much larger and will snap focus on the highest contrast thing inside it. Pinpoint does nothing, because things outside the box are invisibly included in the zone.

>>4511489
Yeah, but our local nikon shill spent like 8 grand and since he switches to ch+ when using af-c and frequently utilizes refocusing and safety shots even in s and af-s he pretends there is no issue
>issue? SKILL issue! focus somewhere else and then do it twice just in case. Be glad nikon lets you have a camera. Hey no dont upgrade from your nikon please just learn to deal with it… ;_;

But on canon and sony, there actually is less of an issue. The AF is simply more advanced. BUT, they STILL dont have real cross points on most models, a continuing downgrade from DSLRs. Nikon is approximately two generations behind in camera AF and lenses are only now beginning to catch up, but the top tier AF still falls behind the older paradigm in as many ways as it surpasses it. Mirrorlesscucks are paying early adopter penalties like the retards who coped hard with early DSLRs.
>Uh NO, you have a skill issue and you know what film is worse. My D300s has more resolution and DR than fucking portra! This has nothing to do with my finances i already spent $5k on this i said it has nothing to do with money ok this is saving me tons of processing fees and i cant afford a dust control system or a drum alright - 2006
>Okay, yes, 35mm film can match the resolution and DR of modern 20-24mp FF digital, and careful use combined with high end scanning equipment has extracted over 200 megapixels of fine detail, but, uh, digital is good enough and doing that is hard and also digital is sharper. sharpness is what matters! quick remove all the AA filters -2026

>>4511489
The biggest issue with most nikon bodies is stop down AF. Like using a slow lens on a DSLR made a portion of the AF points less useful and live view CDAF shit the bed with a poor SNR off the sensor, nikon forcing anyone who doesn’t have a z8 or z9 to deal with their f1.2 lens focusing as closed down as f5.6 (to preview the shooting aperture supposedly, like anyone ever cared about 24/7 DOF preview even during AF - we want live raw highlight clipping indicators instead) makes their AF less useful - slower and more easily confused.

They claim -10ev autofocus and “no issue” but its a literal chartfag figure leaving out some reality. A nikon camera can focus on a static object at -10ev. Slowly. Using the central AF points.

>>4511492
Here's an example of the AF running into similar issues as OPs Zf, except on a D810
https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/524417-multicam-20k-3d-tracking-lock-on-redux/

>>4511493
>Like using a slow lens on a DSLR made a portion of the AF points less useful
More true for some Canon, but pretty much all Nikon DSLRs see no AF benefit from using lenses faster than f5.6, the AF module won't "see" the extra light from a wider aperture

File: Screenshot_20260527-103347.png (523.1 KB)

>>4511495
For those to lazy to read through linked thread

>>4511495
Tracking is something DSLRs were shit at and mirrorless was meant to improve despite other regressions lol. Its hard to deny nikon mixes cripple hammering (stop down AF) with sorta subpar tech right now. The oft stated joke here, R8>Z8, is actually the result of field tests done by jared polin.

If it makes you feel better about your $$$$ zee lenses, the camera industry goes 4-5 generations between concept and supremacy (5d to 5div, a7r to a7riv, a7 to a7v, d700 to d850). Nikon is on third gen tech and is about on par with the a7iii which means within two years, you will likely not have as much coping to do and you seethed in nikon’s defense for no reason.

>>4511497
>now we shift the goalposts
To be expected
>$$$$ zee lenses
Yes those big money lenses the 28/2.8, 40/2, 50/1.8

>>4511498
Damn bro you spent a grand on entry level first party primes for an immature mirrorless system. Must have been a lot for you. I thought you were a serious pro having second thoughts about a real investment not an impoverished brand fanboy straight outta reddit.

You should be reasonable then, just be happy because nikon is relatively cheap.

>>4511499
I mean I have singular lenses for other systems that are more expensive
The 50 1.8 Z was good enough for me to sell my CV 50 2 APO, so saved some money in a way
Might sell the 28 2.8 though, don't use it as mic and I have better 28 options

What gear do you like to use?

>>4511501
Gear is too rigid for me. Too mechanical. I prefer to have your mother hold my sheet while I expose the scene.

File: sigma-28-70mm-f2.8-lens-on-sony-mirrorless-body-740x536.jpg (41.6 KB)

I want to get a small, light but still FF setup for traveling and general now that I have a child who will be on my back when I hike. I've been carrying a 5D III and a 24-70 L around for for years now and I'm really liking the look of the A7C II and 28-70 f2.8 lenses which will cut a full pound off of my carry kit and leave more space in my bag. I'm a little concerned I'll miss the external controls and not having to go through menus while shooting, and I think I might miss going a little wider (24 vs 28) since I mostly hike and take photos of the scenery. It has been a long timeCan any A7C users who are used to more prosumer/pro oriented cameras with physical controls speak on how compromised the interface is for day to day use?

>>4511535
>It has been a long time
*It has been a long time since I was limited in wide angle and I'm not sure if a 28mm will even be noticeable for landscapes vs the 24 I've had for years.

>>4511310

EF 400mm f/4 DO is all you need for low light on APS-C.
Fool frame is a scam and rapidly losing market share.

>>4511535
Don't bother with the C, it stands for cucked and apart from the lack of EVF hump isn't any smaller (not a big difference) and the weight difference is negligible. Just get a regular A7. They have plenty of customisability so once you've set it up how you want you'll rarely have to go into the main menu, there's also a customisable quick menu. Maybe consider an f/4 to save some size and weight, you'll be gaining around a 1/2 stop noise performance and much better dynamic range from the better sensor plus you'll also have IBIS. For example there's the 20-70mm f/4.

>>4511539
Hmm... I hadn't heard of the 20-70 f4, I'm going to look into that. It's pretty light, light enough that mounted to an A7 IV it would be about 3oz heavier than A7C II with a 28-70 f2.8. I disagree that 5oz is "negligible" though, that's almost a third of a pound.

>>4511437
it does this with all my lenses, be it the 85 f.18, the 35 1.4, 50 1.2, or 135 1.8. dof preview is on
>>4511459
3D, wide area af L, and again I even used pinpoint in the example with the cats
>>4511466
>The actual detect box is larger than what the screen shows.
this might be part of the issue then because it'll show locked onto the eye a lot of times and then NOPE eye out of focus and eyebrow perfectly sharp and in focus, especially wide open
>>4511489
nice to see someone not just say i dont know what im doing when i've done tests and seen others complain of similar issues lmao. Yeah pinpoint fucking up is what really made me angry in particular
As it stands, I've seen people have this issue with the z6iii as well, so that just leaves the fuckhuge z8, switching to either canon or sony (leaning more towards sony) or just dealing with this retarded bullshit til maybe they make a zfii or a z7iii or z8ii or something?

File: IMG_3530.jpg (1.2 MB)

I'm sort of a newbie, always had interest but never had the money.
I got for free a Canon EOS1200D last year with a couple of short lenses
>Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II
>Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM
I know it's not much, i delete like 99,99% of the photos i take, but i still enjoy it.
I wanted to get a telephoto lens, I was eyeing a used 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II. Is this an investment worth it in the long term?
Would this lens still be worth if in the future (let's say, a year or two) I switch to a much newer mirrorless Canon body?
I know they all use RF mounts so I'd also need the adapter.
Or is it better to wait a while, save some more, and get the new body with a proper RF equivalent lens?

>>4511551
if you never had the money and you already have 2 lenses i say get the lens and later an adapter this way you can already use 3 lenses

>>4511549
you have $5k of glass and ebay eats 15% off the sale price since they calculate fees off the buyers total, not the sale price. its too late to switch systems. you are stuck waiting for nikon to move on.

the fact that they could improve at all from their early shit is a good sign and indicates they know it sucks and want to compete. take fuji, who did not really improve until the xm5 and xe5 and still suck at autofocus, indicating they know their average customer is a retard who barely does any photography and don’t care to compete (hasselblad has better AF than them now). or panasonic, who have not made even one camera with good autofocus... the z6ii outclasses their best. it could be genuinely hopeless. but it is not!

>>4511554
to be completely honest the "non having money" part, was mostly me finding hard to justify spending like 500€ for something that i never done before. I'm just that cheap and autistic, and i'm regretting not spending the money years ago.
And also yeah, i'm doing way much better financially now.

From a technical point, does the adapter comes with tradeoffs?
I've read it can cause some AF issues, but it seems to happen only on third party lenses, so if that's true, i should be fine, right?

>>4511565
i havent had the most experience in adapters so i cant honestly tell you, if you can afford it get a nice lens for your new camera

>>4511542
In real units the A7C II is about 145g lighter, which is even less than most mobile phones. The 20-70mm f/4 is 207g lighter than the 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II which is already very light for what it is, 398g lighter than the first gen which I imagine is probably more likely what you'd be looking at.

>>4511424
>If you were using the 100-500 on a FF camera this would be true. You were using it on crop and it doesn't quite work like that. When you "Crop" a photo you discard a lot of info/light which is the whole point of having a wider aperture.
Don't confuse light intensity (aperture) and total light gathered (intensity/aperture × exposure time × sensor area).
With a 1-stop aperture advantage (light intensity), APS-C does negate the 1-stop advantage of full frame.
500mm f7.1 and 800mm f9 is a good comparison, since you get the same framing and aperture is the only variable. In this case APS-C does effectively compete against FF for birding. Low light remains your enemy but you have more room.

It's a myth that FF is ALWAYS better. As you said,FF only raises the ceiling of what you can theoretically achieve, but that's it. A good APS-C setup that you're comfortable with can and will absolutely rape a FF setup.
Shaun Antle has proven that you can win international wildlife photography awards with APS-C. Funny thing he also uses the R7 paired with the RF 100-500L.
Dan Hartman, National Geographic and BBC wildlife photographer has done many of his work using a Canon 70D with a Sigma 120-300mm and a 2x TC.
Ariane Totzke, now a tamron ambassador, who's also won many international awards with an A6600 and the Sony 200-600.
Arthur Morris (Bird as Art) and Alan Murphy used the 7D Mark II. Arthur's blog is still very relevant for bird photography imo. These two may be too "antique" for /p/ to remember, Arthur Morris was also a massive proponent of APS-H when it was a thing.

If we were talking about landscape or portrait there would be other considerations and I would not recommend crop sensors, but for wildlife, APS-C should be your number one choice, unless you're a pro or willing to spend >$10k professional lenses.

>>4511571
Oh and how could I forget the D500 that was the gold standard for birding 10 years ago.

File: Panasonic-14-140mm-an-GX8-01.jpg (81.4 KB)

>>4511463
>everyone else is so far behind
lol I tried replacing my GX8 with a6700.
Sony's feature set was so far behind the 8 years older camera it was ridiculous.

>>4511454
>>4511463
White men shoot Canon and Nikon.

>>4511577
>White men shoot nipshit brand A and nipshit brand B instead of nipshit brand C

>>4511577
Funtes’ law: anyone claiming to be white, accusing others of being brown, or saying something is for white men or brownoids, is invariably a non-white neo-nazi

File: _DSC9767.jpg (2.0 MB)

Oh kek I might actually have got the last Voigtlander Septon 40mm in Japan. Definitely the last one in all of the Bic Camera stores. It was marked as "low stock" in the last shop that wasn't yet out of stock. Until I bought it.. Well, there's still the expo model.
Lens feels really great on an A7CII, cute, smoll, lightweight, haptics feel surprisingly good despite being so small. I guess this is how RX1 rich chads must feel like. Though I assume it must feel the same with the recent TTA and 7Artisans 40mm they released recently, great bang-for-buck and with AF. The Septon is pricey for what it is, as always with Cosina-VL, especially as its optical qualities are just okayish, but with the low JPY+tax free+discount code, it makes it fall into the acceptable price range.
Only issue is when you mount/unmount it, due to its compactness there's no space left without moving parts so you end up fucking up the set aperture and focus rings, but whatever, I'm used to Loxias being the same.

I have an old EOS 5 model from 2013. a DSLR.
I have a third party 800mm that I thought "cheap but i'll try it" and it's really nice. takes really decent photos but there is no stabilizer. so I have to use a tripod.
I was 8 miles away in Berkeley from the Golden Gate bridge and it was like I was on a boat right up on it.

Im looking into buy a mirrorless when they come down in price.

I keep buying really cheap vintage lenses and then getting really disappointed with the photos I take with them. The way they feel to use is just so much more satisfying than my nicer AF lenses.

Do modern chinese manual focus lenses feel as good in the hand and actually have good glass and coatings? The later sounds obvious, but I'm not sure about the former.

>>4511551
nice ant bro

>>4511562
>its too late to switch systems.
eh i have a fairly healthy area in terms of selling/buying lenses on offerup and fbmarket, absolutely fuck ebay i would never do that shit. I COULD and the loss wouldn't even be that bad because i bought most of these lenses in japan for significantly cheaper (the 50 1.2 for instance i got for $1086).
But you're right, it seems nikon HAS actually improved over the years so maybe i just hold out as shitty as it feels to deal with this crap. It's a pain in the ass finding out info about sony vs nikon stuff w/o fanboys and literal shills spewing diarrhea

How the fuck do I set up my peak design strap

>>4511588
>bic
did you try going to actual camera shops like kitamura or map? the kitamura in osaka has an entire section just dedicated to voigtlander

first time on this board, has anyone here made an infographic for noobs on ratings and tiers of different dslr cameras? is $300 enough to get started or how much do you need for a decent resolution and clarity camera for studio photography at distances of like 20 feet max

>>4511619
There's way too much gear autism on this board to even dream of making such an infographic. My two cents for your needs would be an old Nikon DSLR, there is an absolute abundance of lenses and compatibility over multiple decades for them, and a lot of pros still use shit like the D4 in studios (beyond your budget though). Maybe look at a Nikon D610, it's a full frame DSLR, has a 24mp sensor which is plenty for your needs and is around your price range.
You can also find some really cheap cropped sensors DSLRs but you might as well spend that bit extra for full frame imo.

>>4511620
thanks. i know theres a ton to learn i just want something decent to get started in the hobby

>>4511620
is this canon rebel a good beginner photography camera?

https://www.costco.com/p/-/canon-eos-rebel-t7-dual-lens-dslr-camera-bundle/4000406477

>>4511620
i dont mind saving up some more if its gonna be a good quality camera i just dont know anything about cameras and terminology yet im a total noob i just want something that takes really good clarity and resolution photos. like what would a wedding photographer use?

>>4511625
>>4511627
Canon is still a good choice, but you will likely get have some annoyances because of how they treat their lenses. Their full frame mirrorless lenses are first party only for example and their lens prices are generally pretty high. I don't know much about that EOS to be honest, so I can't help much there, but someone else might know more. I can at least tell you not to bother with the EOS RP and the ones I could recommend are probably a bit too beyond your price range.

>>4511628
>i just dont know anything about cameras and terminology yet im a total noob i just want something that takes really good clarity and resolution photos.
Don't worry about it bro, we all were beginners once. My general minimum for megapixels is 20mp for example and most cameras from the last decade or so are about that, so you'll be good. The reason I recommend 20mp at minimum (for you at least) is you'll likely being cropping quite a bit until you really understand composition. When it comes to clarity and sharpness, the lens will matter the most over the camera body itself. A shitty lens will create a shitty photo, no matter how good your camera is.

>like what would a wedding photographer use?
I wouldn't start out in that field. I've been taking photos for over 10 years now and I've worked professionally as a photographer in various fields, but weddings are a field I avoided since fucking up someones big day is a lot of pressure and a lot of pain if you do fuck up. In a circumstance where you have to absolutely be getting things right, I'd recommend a mirrorless camera so you can see exactly what your photo is going to look like and I'd probably get a Sony since their autofocus is unmatched. But since you're in a studio with non-moving objects, a Nikon DSLR would suit fine since it's low pressure and you have more time and less objects moving around.

>>4511627

yes its good image quality but possibly has the tics

>>4511454

priced for senior engineer payroll

>>4511619
>noob
>decent resolution and clarity camera
It's about the lenses, not the camera.
300 $ is a tough call but sufficient to start.
You're not married to a camera once you buy it, it's not like buying a house.
Having said that get yourself (ofc used) a panasonic G7, any 12-60, olympus 45 1.8, a tripod, a reflector, and the most important part, books about photography and that particular camera. Make pictures, learn. If you are starting to get limited by the equipment, you will know what to look out for in your next camera.

>>4511635
>micro four turds
nigga...

>>4511427
Do you have focus point display (a10) enabled?
It will still mis-focus, mind you, but at least it will show you where it’s ACTUALLY focused beforehand so you can try and correct.
But yeah I’ve noticed it happening with my ZF a lot. Ironic, because I’ve upgraded from Fuji to get a more consistent AF, but now it’s sometimes even more finicky.

>>4511443
I’m biased towards the rangefinder styling but I think X-E5 is the best camera on the market for what it does. Unless you absolutely need very specific use cases like weather sealing or extreme low light - for “normal photography” I can’t think of anything else that performs as well, controls as well, as light and as stylish with a great selection of first and third party glass, including a number of goated Voigtlanders.

> Also I've never used any film sim and I think they're a huge gimmicky meme. Am I wrong on this too?

I think it’s disingenuous to say “it’s just filters”. They’re camera profiles which out of the box produce pleasing results. Also all sims are very usable and unique enough to give you some choice. (If you shoot JPEG ofc). They’re miles ahead of whatever standard profiles anyone else has apart from maybe Leica.
For daily photography slapping a plain Classic Chrome on will do 90% of the editing for 90% of properly exposed shots for most people.

>>4511629
>can at least tell you not to bother with the EOS RP
what's wrong with the RP? it's cheaper than a lot of aps-c cameras

>>4511645
>slow autofocus and frames-per-second
>not good for video at all
>horrendous battery life and you'd need to carry multiple with you
>lenses are expensive as fuck because it's a Canon FF
don't do it

>>4511619
for studio photography, lighting is where you want to focus your budget. any camera that accepts a flash trigger will do. the relevant feature is called a hot shoe. and then for lens, you'd have to go out of your way to find a lens that wasn't sharp enough. it's more a matter of deciding your preferred working distance and framing and picking focal length from there. look up strobist iirc for basic lighting guides
>>4511601

just shoot film and enjoy native hardware with awesome tactility plus photos that look great even when they're bad
to answer your question, there's a wide ranvge of chinese manufacturers now and you roughly get what you pay for in user experience

>>4511645
It's an objectively inferior camera. Don't go FF to cheap out on the body, it requires a much bigger financial investment in the long run. Lenses are more important than camera bodies.

>>4511625
Nikon D610 and Tamron 24-70 f2.8. You get a legitimately good full frame camera and a pretty good lens that is stabilized and each of them is pretty easily available for under $400.

>>4511539
>Don't bother with the C, it stands for cucked
Explain

>>4511297
is r6 worth upgrading over r4 or r5?

>>4511651
Compared to their full sized counterparts they have smaller lower res EVFs, worse ergos and controls, and they're not significantly smaller or lighter to justify it.

What are your favorite Nikon Z lenses (or 3rd party)? So far I have
>Nikon 40mmF2
Light and compact, not the sharpest but I like the way it renders(?). Colors, contrast is always nice

>Viltrox 85mm F2 Evo
Best chink lens I've used so far. Very sharp. Too bad I don't use 85mm all that often as a focal length

>Viltrox 50mm F2 Air
Sharper than the 40mm but also lots of vignetting and too contrasty

Might gonna buy something wide next. I read good things about the 26mm2.8 as it's tiny and very sharp. Or I buy a manual voitgländer, must be fun too.

>>4511654
>not significantly smaller or lighter
>1" shorter, 150g lighter
uh nigga that's like saying a civic isn't significantly smaller or lighter than a 5 series.

File: Sony-Alpha-A7C-Mark-II-vs-Sony-Alpha-A7-IV-back-view-size-comparison.jpg (34.0 KB)

>>4511656
>>4511654
I don't understand this. It's pretty easy to google it and see that it's 26mm shorter, 18mm shallower, and 145g lighter, which is over 20% by weight. That's definitely significant, and there's no possible way it could have had a full size EVF at that size. The small EVF sounds annoying compared to my A7RIII but the C definitely seems like it would be a good travel camera with a small prime or zoom like the 20-70 f4.

>>4511657
Probably just because I EDC with bigger cameras, but I can't think of a scenario where this 1" in height would make a functional difference

>>4511656
>>4511657
Once you take into account the weight of the lens as well that percentage drops. 150g is nothing, less than a phone. My phone is 200g and balancing that on top of my A7R III with a 55mm f/1.8 mounted (a pretty light lens) the difference is barely noticeable even when held with one hand. Put a heavier lens on there and spread the force out over two hands and you won't notice it at all.

The difference in height is perhaps more substantial but also meaningless unless you're trying to cram it into the tiniest bag, with most bags the difference between fitting and not fitting won't be that tight. In actual use, carry it around on a strap and in your hand you again won't notice it at all. Except what you may notice is more of your fingers falling off the bottom of the shorter grip of the C models, and if you go with a first gen model your hand cramping from the shallower grip. I don't even have large hands and even I've put an L plate on my A7 that extends the grip to keep my pinky from hanging off the bottom.

You're all getting too caught up in the numbers, not how it actually feels in the real world.

>>4511659
>the difference is barely noticeable even when held with one hand.
I don't think you ever carry a camera at all based on this comment. It's not when you're shooting that the weight of a camera is noticeable, it's when you're walking all day with it slung around your neck desu.

t. bought one of those gay holsters because my FF DSLR is heavy as fuck around my neck all day

>>4511661
I do, and again 150g is nothing. My next lightest lens is 240g heavier than the 55mm, if I decide to take that out for the day instead it makes absolutely no difference, I'm no more tired or worn out. If either lens was 150g heavier it would not matter one single bit.

Now, for a FF DSLR you're looking at more like 300g heavier than an A7 and potentially another couple hundred grams on the lens (depending on the particular lens of course, some will actually be lighter but for example Canon's 24-70mm f/4 versus Sony's). An extra half a kilo and all that extra bulk in all dimensions certainly is noticeable.

>>4511661
>it's when you're walking all day with it slung around your neck
That's why cross body is best
>bought one of those gay holsters because my FF DSLR is heavy as fuck around my neck all day
Understandable if you're dual shooting or using a heavier lens like f2.8 zooms all day, pathetic otherwise

>>4511665
Cross body is still on your neck (trap) and allows me to place it in the holster without ever unstrapping it. And yes, it's a 24-70 f2.8 just like everyone else. It's the most common carry lens for FF shooters.

>>4511666
You know you can use other lenses for EDC instead of boomer zooms?

>>4511666
A FF DSLR + 24+70 f2.8 is really too much for you to wear? lol sad

>>4511657
A7Compromise

>>4511671
This is one of the faggiest boards on 4chan and you're gonna try to play internet tough guy? Most of you faggots just shuffle around city streets or take pictures of your pets. Once you actually go /out/ for hours at a time, you'll see the appeal of taking a few pounds off of your neck, while your shoulders are already carrying a pack and you're somewhere other than flatland.

>>4511672
The amount of seethe the a7c causes among minmaxing gearfags just makes me like it more. Ya’ll are the type to buy an om-5 and a z8 for casual shooting and pretending your photos matter, minmaxxed to the wall.
>nonono cuck! cope! cuck cuck cuckl dont do second best buy the best at everything like me and every other city liberal reddit white boy with no bitches all your hobby equipment gotta be the best for the exact photo you’re taking at that moment
Do you also select your pen and ink for each kind of paper? Kek. Redditors actually do that.

a7c and a prime is good enough. It even works for stupid boomer birdwatching if you’re not full on bitchmode.

>>4511666
No? 24-70 f2.8s are common client shoots and wedding lenses. I have never seen anyone carry one. It’s so little zoom range its pointless. So little aperture advantage it’s pointless. If you can’t do everything with a 35mm-50mm you are seriously short on skill and creativity, and if you can’t sling a 24-105 f4 or similar you are likewise seriously short on skill and creativity.

The 24-70 f2.8 is the reddit and boomer forum rec because it sounds like a good idea in a gear autists "logical" head that is often concerned with mythical non-issues like "equivalence wars" (equivalence is not actually real). In reality everyone uses a prime or a wider ranging, lighter f4 zoom.

>>4511675
>Once you actually go /out/ for hours at a time
Yeah, because all the landscapes I post and my camping gear >>4508909, or all day weddings, means I've never had to carry a camera for a long while
I still use a harness when dual shooting for client stuff, but otherwise just stick to neck straps, regardless of the weight of gear
Should join us over at /fit/ if you want to get stronger

>>4511678
Never forget the one good thing the dogsnapper ever posted - non-theoretical proof equivalence doesn’t exist (and that capture one kinda sucks)
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4454569/#4455121
Therefore a bigger sensor always has a "tonality" advantage

>>4511680
man, going through life as a retard must be so easy

>>4511680
He broke so many gearshills on /p/ (crapture one salesmen and crop copers) they will still hate him for this years later

>>4511616
I did. Be it Osaka and Tokyo. Kitamura, Naniwa that's 2 steps away, Tokiya, Yaotomi, Fujiya, Map Camera, Lemonsha, and I'm forgetting some.
I think I visited more camera shops than actual tourist spots, kek.
Not that it was specificaly for that lens. I was also searching for a Sirui Saturn 50mm Anamorphic, but no luck. Not really surprising, I couldn't find much on their interweb either, nor on Mercari. On their Amazon, at best, but might as well buy at home, or at MBP.

>>4511656
I went from an A7III to an A7cII.
And I'm never going back. It IS smaller. And nobody pays you any mind as long as you don't put a bigass lens on it. Not having the meme hump prism that's a retarded boomer relic having no use anymore on a mirorless just does that.

I got a ball head that fucking locks panning when you lock the ball.
Should i get a ball head with a separate knob for panning or a panning plate and use my existing ballhead?
Both are the same price on aliexpress ~25 30€
Some people say that the panning on the ballheads is not that good

>>4511685
Depends how much you like your current head. I can't think of how a ballhead with a separate panning lock would be any worse than a panning plate.

>>4511685
Ball heads are overrated anyways. Geared/"panorama" heads and fluid heads are supreme.
>uh, photos!
Yes, for photos.

Try something new. Also start stitching panos. Free 100+mp FF. Free gigapixel+ MF.

File: image1.jpg (322.6 KB)

>>4511689
I do stitching panoramas
Almost all the time with the drone.
The thing is gear heads are expensive even the cheaper decent ones. Maybe i will get one but not right now as i mainly use a mini tripod that i can carry in my pocket. The big tripod stays in my trunk unused for more than 1 year. Yes is a pain in the ass to use the mini sometimes and is very limiting but i can have it literally everywhere with me.
Got a level base for it an just need to be able to pan it smoothly. I m considering also a clickabale indexing panning plate but will bring the camera too much up for my mini tripod and the camera might fall over. same with the gear head although is on my wish list for my macro setup

>>4511686
The comments are from ball heards. K&f and some more expensive innorel one

>>4511678
>whines about 24-70 f2.8s being heavy and limited
>24-105 f4 or similar
My 24-105 f4 is bigger and heavier than my 24-70 f2.8. Also lol @
>boomer zoom
>muh creativity
>suggests a slower lens with more zoom range because that's somehow more creative
zoom with your feet, boy! you can't fake bokeh

File: 1749260307965057.png (822.1 KB)

What type of camera straps do you use?
I use the kind that screws into the bottom.

>>4511705
The one that came with my camera and is shit

File: 1760736438395670.gif (1.7 MB)

>>4511705
...but the tripod goes in there?

>>4511704
>self reporting this hard
ngmi

spend the next 5 years with just one prime before posting again

>>4511710
>being so fucking stupid that you don't recognize "zoom with your feet" as a prime shooting saying
fucking dumb retard ESL shit

>>4511705
I used to use a crossbody sling that attached like this but I hated that I had to unscrew it to use my tripod so now I have a more conventional single point strap that attaches to a strap lug and I keep a tripod plate on the bottom of my camera. I use a peakdesign holster thing that goes on my belt or backpack strap, and it just attaches to the ARCA tripod plate.

>>4511710
>muh primes

larp

>>4511684
having the viewfinder aligned with lens helps with fast/accurate aiming with a long zoom.
Centered could probably be done without a hump, but EVF would need to project backwards more to avoid interfering with sensor/stabilization space.

>>4511712
Your attempt at a joke was recognized and discarded, sanjay.

50mm f1.8 = 24-105 f4 > 24-70 f2.8

>>4511713
24-70 f2.8 is peak larp
>I’m getting the most out of my full frame!
No you’re covering for lacking skill and creativity
>it’s a professional lens!
On youtube.

Any reccs for a compact travel camera? Preferably with a fixed lens.
>under $500
>has RAW ability
>better image quality than from a phone
I just flat out can't find anything that meets these requirements, which is just insane to me.

File: Ken rockwell seal of approval 500.gif (63.5 KB)

>>4511716
>I'm a real artist because I carry my grandma's shitty 50mm MF lens!

larp

>>4511718
cheap aps-c body with a pancake lens

>>4511718
>Preferably with a fixed lens.
>I just flat out can't find anything that meets these requirements, which is just insane to me.
Because that requirement is fucking retarded. Just get an APS-C mirrorless and a compact lens.

>>4511725
So literally nobody makes a small fixed lens camera that has RAW for less than just a regular interchangeable camera? That's what you're saying?

>>4511728
What I'm saying is that fixed lens cameras with hobbyist features are not a viable product because the buyer pool for something that is intentionally crippled with a stupid fixed lens is far less desirable to 99% of buyers than something which can be carried with a compact kit style lens or fitted with something more specialized. So no, it probably doesn't exist "for less" because economy of scale is what makes things cheaper and you'll sell nowhere near as many fixed lens cameras with hobbyist features like RAW as you will interchangeable lens cameras of the same size class.

>>4511728
>>4511718
Buy an RX100, shut the fuck up.

>>4511719
>strawman
In time you will go to a crop sensor before realizing that I’m right

>>4511730
>nigga doesn't know about the ricoh gr
slightly outside OPs price range but such a demographic does exist and there are cameras for it

>>4511731
>snoy
lmao

Where's cANON?

>>4511734
Canonigger reporting in, what do you need?

>>4511733
>nigga doesn't know about the ricoh gr
Are you retarded? I didn't mention it because it isn't
>for less
it's more expensive than more capable interchangeable lens cameras. A GR IIIx costs more than... take your pick since you're brand obsession memeing
>R100
>Z30
>E10
whatever. It's a $1300 camera in a world where an APS-C mirrorless can be had for under $1000 and he's talking about cheaper fixed lens cameras that can still shoot raw.

File: zoom in on phone pics.jpg (922.7 KB)

>>4511718
>>better image quality than from a phone

very much literally any real camera will curbstomp even the best phones

>>4511740
Wow I guess you really are retarded. You literally are brand obsessed ergo you're:
YOU
ARE
BRAND
OBSESSION
MEMEING

File: a7c.jpg (102.1 KB)

>>4511654
This. Calling it compact is just downright misleading lol. Its the same size except the evf hump is removed (and with a crippled evf)
>>4511672
Perfect description.
Im still waiting for Sony to release an actual compact model, but not holding my breath.

>>4511740
retard

>>4511740
>deleted his post when he realized he was the one confusing "your" and "you're"
Maximum kek. Raging about Sony all day really does rot your mind.

>he deleted his post after revealing he's ESL
fucking kek

>>4511718
Youre not going to get one at that price. And the high quality ones will have a fixed wide angle prime lens, so no zooming at all. Stick with your phone.

>>4511742
It's compact in comparison to its larger counterpart model (which is the regular A7). It would be like saying "That Mercedes C Class isn't a small car at all" when comparing it to some random car rather than comparing it to a Mercedes E Class, which is its larger counterpart.

File: Screenshot 2026-05-28 182902.jpg (72.5 KB)

>>4511742
>same size except the evf hump is removed
???
That's literally not true though

>>4511735
No I want the real cANON

>>4511742
>Im still waiting for Sony to release an actual compact model,
Who has released an "actual compact model" by your standard? Even the Lumix thing with no eVF at all is only slightly smaller, and that's mostly because it's a brick (no grip)

>>4511750
That Lumix also completely lacks a mechanical shutter, which is what makes it so compact. It would be disgusting if that became a trend, electronic shutter is absolute shit.

File: Screenshot 2026-05-28 190723.jpg (73.0 KB)

>>4511751
yeah this dude is cracked out saying the A7C isn't a real compact. It's closer in size to the shutterless, EVFless S9 than it is to a normal A7.

File: X-E5_ooc_vs_raw.jpg (768.8 KB)

>>4511739
reminds me of fujifilm desu

I want Nikon to make a compact FF mirrorless. I'm inches from buying a sony specifically to have the A7C and 20-70 as lightweight travel kit for mostly lanscape photography...

>>4511761
I did that and the 20-70mm is unironically great.

DJI action 6 for first action cam yes or no?
>use case
Outdoors stuff

>>4511761
Nikon doesn’t even have compact lenses without chinese third party shit, unless you really count the entirely plastic primes and one super shitty pancake. All the best compact lenses are made by sigma, and sigma and nikon hate each other after sigma literally stole their lens VR tech.

I’d buy it if they got their head out of the bokeh hole and started making metal and glass f2.8 primes.

>>4511638
Yeah I do have that on.
>Ironic, because I’ve upgraded from Fuji to get a more consistent AF, but now it’s sometimes even more finicky.
that's fucking hilarious as I also switched from fuji to nikon af being one of the reasons among others

>>4511771
Just how bad is Fuji? Because I've always heard people speaking badly about Nikon AF, so I can't image just how bad Fuji is.

>>4511772
I haven’t done any critical high performance thing like sports, racing, birds in flight but I’ve done weddings and it’s “fine”. It will miss focus or hunt once in a while but it’s not as bad as they say.
If you go on a Fuji subreddit you’ll get attacked for using AF-C as if it’s some kind of cursed technology. But I found it very usable.
It’s also exaggerated by the popular first-gen lenses that all have crunchy slow motors that tend to overshoot and hunt even more. And even then it’s usable. With modern linear motor lenses AF is definitely good enough.
To add some tangible qualification - I’ve upgraded from X-S20 (pretty much latest Fuji AF) to ZF.
Compared to old lenses (35mm f1.4) - Nikon focuses 50% faster with 50% less hunting and misfocus.
Compared to new lenses and fujicrons - maybe 10% faster if any.
AF-C tracking I did not find that much stickier actually.

>>4511766
I thought it would be fine going from Fuji to Nikon, but lately I found that I don’t really want any of the lenses.
I always had a backlog of lenses I wanted to at least try on Fuji.
No wonder everyone just sticks to 40mm f2 or Voigtlander 40mm f1.2. There’s pretty much nothing else there if you have taste.

never understood why sony or minmaxxers lose their minds on miniaturizing the camera body when there is such a dearth of small lenses for the fe mount. you see this on the rx1 as well. at least half the value of a small body is lost if a long, bulky lens is tugging on the front all day.
almost any time portability vs format comes up, anons will say strictly go ff since the cameras are the same size as apsc. but nikon, canon, sony, even leica sl have almost no lenses that don't negate whatever compactness the body might have had. with such ff mirrorless, we're often looking at a similar footprint to a dslr. lighter i'll grant, but with worse balance since the weight is further forward, further from your center of mass.
i would always see the zf or the sl and think ok these are sweet but then go to look at lenses and find no native lenses that make sense. just bazookas and cheap plastic stuff. could adapt, but then i'm losing af- the major reason to get a modern digital camera in the first place.
for me, fuji really got the product lines right. i can use a truly compact apsc system when i value portability, and a dslr-sized mf system when i don't.
thanks for watching i hope you enjoyed. don't forget to like and subscribe it really helps me out

>>4511785
This sentiment peaked in a recent LUMIX L10 thread. Someone said why bother with x100VI if RX1R is smaller. Yeah it’s smaller if you ignore a giant fucking lens attached to it that makes it 3 times as thick.

File: 1769729314203839.png (372.6 KB)

Would it be dumb getting the E-M1 Mk III over the OM-5 Mk II(both used, good condition)?
I dabbled a bit in photography pre-covid, but lost motivation when the lockdowns started(ironic I know).
I got into it again last year and really enjoyed it while the weather was good, and I'm still enjoying it now with the weather being nice.

I feel like getting the E-M1 would be biting off more than I can chew. I'm not sure I see myself really getting that seasoned to really make use of a camera on that level.

>>4511785
Why are you seething at the a7c this much? It’s more portable than a normal a7, way smaller than any canikon with a shutter, and there are literally dozens of small lenses. they even got a 26mm f2.8 pancake recently.

>>4511789
>I'm not sure I see myself really getting that seasoned to really make use of a camera on that level.
>olympus
Kek its a behinner format pns designed for larping broke casuals that only view photos on their phone

I have
>15-35 f2.8
>70-200 f2.8
>24-105 f4
>50 f1.8

Debating whether I should get the 24-70 f2.8 to complete the f2.8 zoom trinity when I already have lenses which cover that focal range

24-105 has a larger range, so in situations where I only bring one lens it's more versatile (as long as f4 is sufficient)
For an intentional portrait shoot, the 50 f1.8 has a better minimum aperture, and generally 70-200 is a more suitable focal range unless I want to include more of the environment

The main benefit of the 24-70 would be that it's got similar flexibility to the 24-105 as a single-lens option, but also a wider aperture for impromptu 70mm f2.8 portraits

>>4511812
I have the typical 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 combo and I rarely use the f2.8 capabilities of the 24-70, to the point that with it being the default lens on my camera I'd probably be better off with a 24-105 or similar as long as optically the quality was similar. I don't take photos of people often though. If I had you're lineup I'd put the 24-70 f2.8 money toward a longer telephoto instead of overlapping lenses where the only advantage one has is more bokehbro appeal.

>>4511750
Nobody. Compact fool frame is an oxymoron.

>>4511788
i can't help but think of the camera market as one where the customer is usually wrong. re: rx1, it feels like an ideal design would have had an almost flat 35mm f2.8 but sony knows how many consumers turn their noses up at anything slower than f2 and thus we have this awkward half-compact instead of a harmonious, complete design.

>>4511790
seething? i never mentioned the a7c, but it was funny when that anon talked up its small size then said he puts a giant zoom on it. if there's a new pancake that's cool. but i haven't seen these dozens of small fe lenses. medium/mid-sized lenses, sure

>>4511814
35mm film cameras were compact I don't see why 35mm silicon cameras can't be

>>4511772
It really is subpar.
The premises of mirrorless is to allow real-time tracking of subjects. If you just want to focus on a point, static of slow moving subjects, any camera can do that with AF-S, thankfully, and a DSLR is enough (manual focus too, some would argue).

File: IMG_5907.jpg (375.2 KB)

>>4511818
It’s the fact that small film cameras have manual glass. Ignoring the chonker of a ZF - something like S9 or A7C with this TTartisan 50mm f2 would be “film sized”.

>>4511820
Zf is already film sized, just not "small" film body sized

>>4511772
It's perfectly fine if you use anything other than all area

File: D610 F6.jpg (123.2 KB)

>>4511818
Batteries are the limitation and in DSLRs there is extra bulk because of the prism and focus sensors that isn't there in old manual 35mm cameras. The A7C mentioned in the
>durr it's not a real compact
discussion is smaller than most vintage 35mm SLRs. Using some common 35mm SLRs and mirrorless as an example.

Width x height x depth
Canon AE1P: 141x87×47.5mm
Canon FTb: 144×93×43mm
Nikon F2: 152.5×102×65mm
Sony A7CII: 124x71.1x63.4mm
Nikon Zf: 144x103x49mm
Nikon Z6: 134x100.5x67.5mm

And FF DSLRs vs a late model 35mm SLR
Nikon D610: 141×113×82mm
Nikon D850: 146×124×78.5mm
Nikon F6: 158×119×77.5mm

File: PXL_20260529_134626555.NIGHT.jpg (553.5 KB)

>>4511823
picrel

>>4511821
The zf is film camera sized but not “film camera people actually want to use” sized. The zf is way wider, thicker, and taller than a desirable camera like a leica m5 or olympus om2n. A plasticky feel completes the disappointing package. Snoys feel more premium and that’s sad.

>>4511827
>make typo
>change m4 to the biggest ugliest leica
pottery
The leica m4 is desirable
The leica m5 shouldn’t exist and owning one today is an aspirational humiliation ritual

>somehow the seething snoy shill has returned
Its over, /p/.

>>4511829
But anon, sony being better than nikon doesn’t mean sony is good. Nikon is sony’s scraps, and sony is a poor imitator of canon and leica.

File: camera.png (529.7 KB)

>>4511824
lurker here who knows very little, but what is this and how do you like it? I really like having all the dials on top, a camera like this would likely be my first.

>>4511772
When I tried a 2023 Fuji it was worse than a 2015 Panasonic - random misses on AFS on smallest centered single box with a clearly defined subject, like at least 1 in 10. On the old Panasonic it's like 1 in 100 random misses.

>>4511835
The shutter dial always locks at b, t, and x and you can’t prevent it without removing parts from the camera. Despite being brass they all wobble and feel like plastic. The port covers and battery doors all feel poorly made and the bottom cover scuffs easily which reveals it is made of cheap plastic. And the camera is only semi-compact with lenses that are made entirely of plastic, and one kind of shitty 26mm f2.8.

I recommend you avoid nikon right now and check out the new canon r6v. Despite having no mechanical shutter its readout is 5x faster than the zf and twice as fast as the lumix s9, on par with the scan speed of a typical film SLRs mechanical shutter.

>>4511835
I like it a lot, its been my favorite modern mirrorless body.
If I didn't shoot with adapted mf glass as much, I'd probably switch back to the X-T5 though.

File: XK-XF.jpg (559.4 KB)

>>4511835
Not the person who posted but I have the same camera, even the red shutter button accessory (sold separately) with the SE 40mm f/2 lens.

Personally I love the hell out of it. Perfect street photography camera. People asked me if its a film camera before (which makes them less intimidated for whatever reason). Autofocus is superb with their Expeed7 processor. It lays somewhere between the Nikon Z6II and Z6III in terms of specs.

Dials and everything acts like you'd expect (make sure firmware is updated) and fun to fiddle with and very intuitive for me. Mine came with the SmallRig grip accessory too, so if I put a larger lens on it, it gets the extra beef to hold onto and looks sleek so its a non-issue with ergonomics for me. I stylized it like my XK, its a great digital/film combo for me.

Image quality is excellent, 24mp is nice. I do wish it had Nikon's 45mp sensor in it but 24 is sufficient for anything street.

>>4511835
It’s pretty bad. It’s a very late stage capitalism camera. It’s made for a spendy submarket of "people who like cameras" (bored upper middle class childless consumerists) rather than photographers of any sort. Think along the lines of all the other flawed but high priced products out there that come with marketing statements like "its not about ___, it’s about a feeling, it’s about knowing this name and shape was used by ____ to do something legendary".

As photography basically dies you’ll see more of this and more of the "people" this appeals to. It’s like what happened to electric guitar - just replace blues with street photography.

>>4511842
What cameras do you recommend?

>>4511844
Olympus OM1N/OM2N
Zenza Bronica SQ-*, GS-1
Mamiya M6451000S, RZ, RV
Any working 4x5 field/view camera
Fujifilm S5 Pro
Phase one backs 80mp+

>>4511845
idk seems like a list for people who like cameras
>rather than photographers of any sort
Who should I be looking to that uses that gear?

>>4511846
It’s a list for people who like doing photography. Photography is pretty dead hence its all affordable versions of what the extinct race of "good art photographers" used (what they exactly used shot up in price thanks to "people who just like cameras").

Get one before the collectors doom the last good photography cameras to a life of taking test shots of their dogs.

>>4511847
>I actually don't know anyone who uses the gear I recommend
You can just say that next someone asks

File: IDG_20260529_233751_297.jpg (2.9 MB)

>>4511821
It’s not a fair comparison, because it’s a fixed lens, but it still hilarious how much smaller film cameras can get. Especially considering that this Konica has a brighter f1.7 lens.

>>4511848
>"camera fan": Ha, i knew that junk was never used by anyone famous! It’s just functionally similar to it!
Sasuga.
Real photographers could have exactly what famous people used if collectors didn’t buy it all already and doom it to a life of per photos and the camera version of white lawyers playing the blues (modern street photography)

>>4511838
>Despite being brass they all wobble and feel like plastic
they're not brass, they're plastic

>>4511841
A working XK is such a flex. Those things are so temperamental

File: nigga please.png (167.1 KB)

>>4511849
>tape over the logo

File: potmetal.jpg (33.6 KB)

>>4511851
Its actually "brass" (a cheap brass-like alloy - it feels really light and flimsy). How close are "street photographers" getting to blues lawyers? Well, "relic cameras" have landed.

File: zf-w-50-f-1-0-v0-st5a2vbr6vxc1.jpg (1.0 MB)

>>4511851
They're definitely brass bb

>>4511854
>>4511855
its only a very thin layer, it's "metalized" plastic, as in its just coated. similar to what a-series canon top and bottom plates, and dials were made of, but a those didnt use any brass

>>4511856
with how fucking cheap the pleatherette and entirely plastic bottom plate, screen+hinge, and rear controls feel i can believe nikon not actually using much metal

the z6ii and z7ii were their last unibodies and everything since has been a multi part scaffold ala sony build quality

>put grip plate on zf to compensate for subfuji ergos and hide plastic base
>now as wide and tall as a z8
nikek

File: got-this-setup-for-90-bucks-canon-ae-1-program-with-auto-v0-du0hjpuq20p81.jpg (176.3 KB)

>>4511858
>Z8 is too big to use
>picrel never existed, neither did half cases
You must be extra dainty bb

>>4511857
I don't know why you people don't just shoot flagships or film cameras if you're this worried about build quality. On the ZF, I understand why it's annoying because what it essentially is, is a fisherprice plastic toy copy of an FM, which already isn't made that well. However if you're using a camera as a tool who cares if the dials are polymer or metal. Canons been using polymer for dials since the EOS-1 and its not like they're in the habit of cracking.

>>4511859
Except the A-series came with a removable grip, which unlike on a ZF, you dont need a baseplate to attach. That is a powerwinder. Not the same thing.

>>4511861
>let me miss the forest for the trees
Good honest engagement I see

>>4511862
Honest engagement? Like your strawman about the z8, I suppose... :')

>>4511853
I just hate the Nikon font ok. I’m not some larper streetchud

>>4511860
>just pay a high price for a quality downgrade bro
Old niggon zee = camera built inside a bolted together magnesium shell that acts as one solid piece of metal when assembled
https://kolarivision.com/nikon-z7-ii-disassembly-and-teardown/
New niggon zee including the zf, z6iii and z5ii = plastic camera attached to an internal structure of thin metal plates
https://kolarivision.com/nikon-z6iii-disassembly-and-teardown/

Feels cheap, weird color science, no small lenses, third rate autofocus… nah bro, get a canon.

>>4511859
the z8 isn't too big to use it's just spec-raped by canon

>>4511860
Are you really trying to bean soup the build quality of a camera that costs as much as a used car, major medical bill, etc? Actual corporate cuckoldry.

>>4511866
I wasn't talking about nikon flagships in particular

>>4511864
>Like your strawman about the z8
>now as wide and tall as a z8
Well if you think being as big and tall as Z8 is not a bad thing, than I guess it was a strawman
But since that's not the case apparently, glad to have you on the size doesn't matter crowd

>>4511838
> Despite being brass they all wobble and feel like plastic.
Idk what kind of ZF you got but it’s not it. Dial quality gotta be one of the best things about this camera.

>>4511867
Its not too big to use in a professional context or autistic context like birdwatching. It is absolutely inappropriate outside of a professional/autistic context. The zf was meant to be a compact travel camera but the design is so poor everyone ends up with a z8 sized brick.

>>4511871
Conflicting reports are the worst thing about a company with both fanboys and bad quality control. I can believe zf fit and finish varying because i experienced the same variance on nikon lenses. Some had loud, grinding, slower focus motors and more play in the focus ring and mount than others. Some were silent, fast, and fit precisely. Made in thailand lol.
Here’s to your journey towards step two: "finding THE ONE is just part of being a nikonian and bonding with your camera"

>>4511838
Did you buy a fake ZF? The used ZF I got to fingerfuck at my local photography store felt like a nice piece and the dials and buttons felt so nice.

Hmm. A fake modern camera... Does such a thing exist, like fake 35mm Leicas and such?

>>4511870
There is nothing I can say to you to help you, sorry.
You so deeply misunderstand basic english and the definition of a strawman.
I could spend hours teaching you what your teachers did not, or I could give up on you like the lost cause you are. Sorry, educating you will simply never be an economically viable option for anyone, including yourself.

>>4511852
yes, well... working for now, lol

>>4511875
Ken Rockwell, among many others, received nikon Z bodies with EVF screens that were tilted out of the box and nikon has issued recalls for the z8, z9, z6, and z7 with the z8/z9 ones being show stoppers (the cameras either fell apart or got stuck to the lens). Perhaps nikon thailand doesn’t make every camera a winner and canon keeps making shit in japan for a reason.

>>4511872
>I am that dainty
Sorry bb

>>4511874
Ok fair enough. I did notice that Nikon audience is quite militant and tends to completely reject the idea that camera could have some quirks or issues. Like AF issues mentioned earlier here.

>>4511878
>my collection of anecdotes is better than your collection of anecdotes
>also don't dare go looking at issues with models other brands have had
Nice

>>4511875
They're all fake in the same sense those plastic TLRs with webcams inside are fake. The ZF was supposed to ABSOLUTELY DEMOLISH the build quality and shooting experience of the entry level camera from 50 years ago it was based on and it ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT!!!

>>4511880
>Like AF issues mentioned earlier here.
You mean the people that laid our directly what the issue was, with multiple links to example videos and explained what it happened and how to avoid it and examples where AF was perfectly fine and it has since further improved via firmware?

You'd rather listen to other side that just screams Nikon AF is garbages period?

>>4511880
>I did notice that Nikon audience is quite militant and tends to completely reject the idea
Yes nikon people do tend to reject all forms of though, especially those regarding body odour, age of consent, personal space, composition and saturation.

File: Snap.jpg (42.1 KB)

>>4511879
>I’m fat so i don’t feel it
Carrying a big camera only works if the camera is worth it, like mf film. Carrying a big digital camera if not shooting warzones and woodlands is a humiliation ritual. You exist to make leica users feel even better about themselves.

>>4511882
It does for me though :)

>>4511885
>Zf is a big camera
lol
I also shoot Leica, sometimes I even bring both

Not fat, just fitter than you apparently, but I do lift weights often

>>4511886
Well that's great for you. There is plenty more slop out there made for cattle with undiscerning taste such as yourself. Wait till you hear about this thing called 'Disney Plus'. You'll love it.

>>4511887
>bragging about lifting 700g
ph*tog masculinity, everyone.

>>4511881
>>4511883
Oh please stop being a coping militant brand fanboy.

Nikon’s QC isn’t good.
Nikon’s autofocus is notoriously third rate.
Nikon has lowered build quality.

Get over it. Your favorite brand was never going to be the best. They’re positioned as a value option. They sell FF cameras for what everyone else sells APS-C cameras for. This necessitates that they do not make the best cameras. They sell f1.8s that are meant to be a budget alternative to sony f1.4 GMs. This necessitates that they compromise somewhere besides just aperture size. Everything about nikon is actively avoiding first place. They are cheap cameras.

>>4511890
Nikon has been 'the raped' since 1989.
At least Olympus and Pentax embrace their outgroup status and do different things.
Nikon is just a 5'6" cucky with shoe-extenders in, competing in a race he will never win.

>>4511890
>Get over it
If only you could do the same lol
>>4511889
Happy to share my lifts or routine, but I try to keep that to /fit/
I'd rather be able to simply use a Z8 than complain about how heavy it is

>>4511894
Nikon isnt gonna let you fuck her bro

>R7 has better AF than Nikon's top cameras
How will they ever recover?

>>4511894
>Happy to share my lifts or routine, but I try to keep that to /fit/
Lol no one wants to hear this from some beaning-wearing professional hobbyist bragging about lifting 700g. Newsflash. No 35mm format camera is heavy. You're just a pussy, dude. Sorry, just hard facts.

>>4511896
They haven't ever been in a position to recover themselves from. Since 1989. Look at the sales figures. In fact, autofocus has been nikons issue for most of that time.

Haven't chimed in, but Nikon AF has been hot trash.
The most recent Expeed 7 processor cameras are 'acceptable' with AF now. Still not great. But not super trash anymore either.

I never knew there were so many sports/wildlife photographers on /gg/. I wonder what truly "acceptable" AF is like considering I still have a D610 I've had for a decade and a screw drive 300mm f4 which I find a little slow but not enough that I don't get shots I'm happy with.

>>4511897
Yeah true

I can carry a 5div and not notice the weight. But it’s ugly and hits the stuff in my immediate area. Fuck that.

>>4511901
I’d be happier with a dogshit dslr from 2008 having subpar AF than I would be with a $2000 luxury purchase falling behind a cheapo used canon mirrorless. Why buy a z8 if a d610 is not that much worse? Shit, the d750 is a bit better at focusing than the z8 sometimes.

>>4511855
Very pretty camera

>>4511761
Do it. It's a kino combination. Its' what I use for mountain hiking. Heck, even the cheapo smoll 28-60 does absurdly great to that end.

>>4511901
It's always funny to see comments then go check the RPT
Same goes for weather sealing

>>4511943
>ok but you dont need that feature to post throwaways on 4chan! pls buy fuji/nikon/sony!
Ok but if I didnt need or want it I would not pay thousands of fucking dollars for a plasticky trash mirrorless that falls behind industry (canon) standards at it. Nor should anyone. It is perfectly fine for people to be against paying extra for mediocre shit with a meme brand name. Something brand fanboys like you need to come to terms with. Somehow no one cries when anons say a canon r10 isn’t good enough for their hard earned money or a sony’s weather sealing is too shit for a $2500 camera, but god fucking forbid anyone point out nikon or fuji made a mediocre camera that isn’t their best (or better than anyone elses). Why is it always nikon and fuji? Is it just one butthurt fanboy bitch? Have we been raided by redditors that are programmed against saying negative things about eachothers consooming?

But I still want both weather sealing and good autofocus, to make my life easier and my camera last longer. And at mirrorless prices I am getting it or I am passing over your favorite brand and telling everyone it sucks.

>>4511947
100% just one guy, like that snoy shill that always piped up saying weather sealing wasn’t real.

Are niggons the new snoys?

>>4511901
>D610
Very based, I'm looking at one of them myself lately.

>>4511947
>Somehow no one cries when anons say a canon r10 isn’t good enough for their hard earned money
Saying anything against Canon inevitably leads to calling someone a Sony user and them just melting down about Sony. It's just not worth criticizing anything from Canon.

>>4511948
Canoniggers feel like they're the worst lately. I had to use one for work (provided by the company) and I was already regretting what I would be hearing from the boss if I mentioned that I have some Nikon, Sony, Canon and Panasonic cameras. And yeah, I regretted it alright, it was all Canon and nothing else for him and he just kept going on about it.

>>4511950
>>4511901
>D610
Is that the one with the plastic lens mount? Or is that the one that's so shit it got banned from being sold in China entirely..? Lol

File: jesse what the fuck are you talking about.jpg (24.5 KB)

>>4511951
>plastic lens mount

File: file.png (457.9 KB)

>>4511952
>he doesn't know
basically all of the non flagship nikon dslrs (yes even the full frame ones lol) have a metal ring thats screwed straight into plastic.

>>4511954
Nikek!

At least the weather sealing is better than snoy :')

>>4511952
>>4511954
ooooff that's embarrassing lol

>>4511954
and? the ring, even on flagship cameras is nickel plated brass. this is for the sole purpose of being a highly durable wear item. ABS plastic is extremely durable but not immune to abrasion, the ring with the nickel plating takes the brinell hardness to the moon, shit is incredibly resistant to wear and the softer brass allows the mount to flex and redistribute point forces across all of the anchor points in the plastic body. basically, if you manage to snap the mount off the body, you fucked up so badly that if you did the same with a magnesium alloy body your shit would be bent so far off parallel there's not real practical difference.

>>4511300
Just get the GR already. Youre never going to get anything as small.

>>4511967
>ABS plastic is extremely durable
lol, lmao even.
canon makes their cameras out of metal :)

>>4511970
A quick Google search showed that some of Canons DSLR cameras from the same time period also used ABS plastic for the mounts.

>>4511845
>Fujifilm S5 Pro
lol u srs?

>>4511855
what the fuck are people doing to their cameras for them to patina like this, ive had mine for over a year and use it all the time yet the black paint is still good as new

>>4511974
people purposefully rub the finish off to pose as someone who has used their camera a ton

>>4511954
>>4511866
Holy kek. Nikon really nicucks their customers.

>>4511978
When every review mentions a patina you know it’s a camera for larpers

>>4511978
alright that's about what i figured. that's fuckin gay

>>4511954
>moving the goalposts
First you said it's a plastic lens mount, and I call you on it. Now you
>w-well actually the mount IS metal... BUT THEY SCREW IT TO PLASTIC!!!!
gtfo

>>4512002
I love how you say this like having a metal mount ring screwed straight into plastic is somehow better than both just being plastic. Very retarded.

>>4512003
the wheels on your car aren't rubber just because the rubber touches the road. It's inconsquential that a $400 used camera isn't milled from a single billet

>>4512004
>w-w-w-w-well actshully it has a little metal ring stuck on it
who cares. the whole thing cracks, the ring gets ripped out of the plastic """chassis""". its a shit design and theres a reason why no other company does this lol

File: 7D.jpg (77.1 KB)

>>4512005
>theres a reason why no other company does this lol
Nope. Welcome to the 21st century, retard. If you want a slab of metal you're spending $5,000+ or buying something old

>>4512007
>posts a photo of a camera with a full metal chassis
>a crop sensor too
oh shit nigger what are you doing ahahaah

>>4512009
Dude this is well known don't start coping now
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/the-plastic-in-your-camera.3395078/

>>4512005
>theres a reason why no other company does this lol
They literally all do

File: nicuck.jpg (204.5 KB)

>>4511954
Lmao. Nicucks on suicide watch!

>>4511954
>$3000 full frame dslr
>made in india or some shit
>worse autofocus than a canon from 1992
Fucking kek.

>>4512011
Nope. Just Nikon. Maybe some entry level pentax's have it but not even snoy does this shit on full frame. Its pathetic that people still pay for this shit, especially when they perform so poorly already. Pretty simple lol.

>>4512014
Sony has the best build quality of any manufacturer. Nikon and Pentax are more budget oriented brands. Yes, the mirror box in a 5D is plastic, though I never took the mount ring off of mine to see if there was metal behind the *ring* itself.

File: snoyboy.png (437.3 KB)

>>4512015
>Sony has the best build quality of any manufacturer.
Fucking LOL!

Why is everyone so shocked that a D600 has a plastic internal chassis? It is a consumer camera. A D800 would be all metal, it's a professional camera. Toy cameras have been plastic for 50 years

>plastic mount sperging
Damn 4chan you're late to the party, the big photography forums were sperging about this 20 years ago.

>>4512017
The picture was literally of a d810.

File: file.png (2.0 MB)

>>4511954
many such cases lol

>>4512019
kek, for real? I'm glad I switched to Sony

>>4512021
Yes you can see the badge in the image.

File: K5IIsDamagedLensMount_2015-09-19_16-17-53_IMGP1326_©DaveRobinson2015.jpg (127.5 KB)

>>4512005
>no other company does this

File: file.png (280.3 KB)

>>4511954
meanwhile... entry level canon made for vloggers... LOL!

File: 5d mirror box.jpg (162.3 KB)

>>4512024
Meanwhile 5D MKIII... LOL

File: 1DX mirror box.png (1.7 MB)

>>4512025
1D for comparison showing what a metal mount looks like. The 5 and 7D are both plastic

File: 5d4 mirror box.jpg (153.7 KB)

NO NO ONLY NIKON DOES IT CANON WOULD NEVER!
>$3,500 full frame canon dslr

>>4512024
And to think even flagship niggons dont have this... LOL!

File: file.png (520.6 KB)

>>4512027
>>4512025
Except the 5D (and even the eos M lol) have metal chassis. Nikons like the d810, a camera thats SUPPOSED to be professional is plastic all the way through lol.

File: A6000 mount.jpg (89.6 KB)

>>4512027
Meanwhile sony puts a metal mount on a $700 crop sensor mirrorless. Cantards btfo!

>>4512029
>b-b-b-but the chassis!
Lens mount is plastic on the 5D. Get over it

>>4512012
Nicucks having an ego meltdown rn lol. All they ever talk about is 'build quality' never anything that has to do with taking photos or specs. And its now coming to light that they dont even have that.

>>4512032
>deflecting
All I see is a cantard who was trying to flex on niktards and getting BTFO by glorious Nippon Metal in superior SONY cameras.

>>4512031
Which camera brand is world renowned for their cameras literally cracking and snapping in half lol? So much so they're banned for sale for being a scam in china? Canon? oh right ahahaha no its nikon LOL!

File: file.png (3.1 MB)

>>4512034
calm down ramjeet. sony cameras are made in india.

File: A7S lens mount.jpg (276.6 KB)

>>4512036
>gets BTFO
>tries to change the subject
Sorry to hear that your lens mount on your $3500 FF DSLR is plastic. My A7 is a metal mount.

File: Screenshot_20260530-055038.png (1.6 MB)

oh no

File: A7S lens mount rear showing full metal chassis.jpg (278.6 KB)

Imagine buying Canon in current year
>plastic lens mount just like Nikon
>worse sensor performance than Nikon and Sony
>no IBIS
Sad!

File: Screenshot_20260530-061435.png (631.2 KB)

>>4512038
At least Sony can use their own mounts now

>>4511947
>Somehow no one cries when anons say a canon r10 isn’t good enough for their hard earned money
You must be new here because that absolutely does happen

Nicucks are seething!

>>4512014
>not even snoy does this shit on full frame
Actually the first gen A7 an A7R did, but they learnt from it and all subsequent models have been metal

>>4512014
>Nope. Just Nikon. Maybe some entry level pentax's have it but not even snoy does this shit on full frame. Its pathetic that people still pay for this shit, especially when they perform so poorly already. Pretty simple lol.

I don't want to belabor a point someone else already made but both the 5D and 7D lens mount rings are screwed into a plastic chassis, and this was despite other adjacent parts being metal.