>>4512168
>>4512085
What's with the obsession with busting lenses in half and ripping lens flanges off of cameras? Is this some spastic/retard thing? I've been playing around with photography since like 2000 when I got my first camera from my grandpa and I've never dropped a camera once. Cameras are delicate pieces of equipment, not tools. Do you people not use straps?

>>4512172
My gf uses a strap on me
I shoot sony btw.

>>4512173
gross

>>4512172
>Cameras are delicate pieces of equipment, not tools. Do you people not use straps?
Cameras are photography tools, wtf anon... Of course you treat the camera accordingly to its value. I don't own very expensive cameras and ditched the straps very soon after picking up the hobby. If I sailed or used multiple bodies on one shoot then the strap would probably be a smart idea.

File: Ricoh_GRIV_in-hand_front_view.jpg (34.9 KB)

>>4512168
Tell me why I shouldn't sell my A7IV with lenses and just buy the GRIV and add later the GRIVx?
Two of the best focal lengths, tiny bodies without any weight, very sharp lens that compensates the smaller sensor, great colors ooc. Whenever I'm doing a day trip like hiking or so that Sony is just enough heavy to make it annoying and a burden.

>>4512180
>why shouldn't I replace my versatile FF camera with interchangeable lenses with two $1500 APS-C point and shoots

Uh, because that would be fucking dumb? Just save up and buy the autistic point and shoot and carry it when you don't want to carry a bigger camera.

>>4512180
>without any weight
AI Overview: The Ricoh GR IV weighs 262 g (9.2 oz).
So you are wrong my dude

>>4512168
What is the point of advertising a magnesium or whatever fuck body if the god damn lens mount is structurally plastic?

>>4512180
because the image quality is worse

>>4512168
As a snoy user I'm disappointed we shifted from snoy slander to nikkek slander.

>Be me
>Go from Nikek D7000 to Snoy a7iii
>Huge down grade in UI
>Used lenses cost significantly more
>Even flashes cost more for having S instead of N in their product code.
No, seriously, why Sony lenses are so expensive on used market? Even shitty stock shit nobody wants is subject to snoy tax

>>4512212
>go from consumer camera to pro camera
>help menus and pretty pictures disappear
>higher end lenses with way nicer AF motors and better features ie: zeiss t* coatings and click/declick aperture rings are more expensive
Say it aint so. With the exception of fujifilm, panasonic, and om system camera stuff gives you what you pay for. Nikon is government contract gear. Sony is corporate contract gear.

>>4512217
He's right though, sony's UI is objectively more poorly design than nikek or cunon.

>>4512168
OP, I've got to say that you are a silly guy. What piece of gear should I post for the thread?

>>4512212
>>Huge down grade in UI
What does Sony do worse in UI compared to Nikon?
Genuinely curious, I've only used Panasonic and trying out Sony I also felt it was a huge downgrade.

>>4512176
A camera is a tool but that doesn't mean you can use it like a hammer. A ruler is also a tool but it'll break if you try using it as a crowbar.

>>4512225
>What does Sony do worse in UI compared to Nikon?
Literally nothing, I found the Sony menus to be a bit better than Nikon. I use both interchangeably and find both perfectly fine. I heard the menus on the A7III are an older and clunky style, so that could be it, as I only have some of the newer Sony's and their menus are basically the same as anyone else's. Canon's menus and UI feel a bit older but they are also more utilitarian cameras overall so I don't mind.

>>4512225
Nikon DSLR features a lot control combinations that I found easy to learn. For example:
>push AF button and rotate a wheels, one wheel adjust AF mode, other AF area.
>Release AF, and camera is back to initial state with AF settings adjusted
>You can follow settings while shooting, release button and push shutter.
>or i-menu
Compare to Sony:
>Push menu and go through retarded menu
>or push func and adjust in a less retarded quick menu, just like i-menu on nikek
And this shit is with almost everything.
>But muh custom menu and custom buttons
You can't customize them to serve multi function, you can't add context to wheels like nikon did in factory
>But do your own menu
I could on Nikon too, but there was no need for it, because it's significantly less retarded.
>Skill issue
Sure, I'm just a scrub, but go ask snoy boys about UI, I tried, they say "customize it bro", not even realizing that they are effectively admitting the shortcoming. Perhaps worst slap in the face in A7III is the fact, that it's a touch screen, but function is very limited. Oh, and wifi retardation gave me cancer.

>>4512217
>go from consumer camera to pro camera
>help menus and pretty pictures disappear
This is literally the opposite. Nikon's button-wheel combinations are visually minimalistic, whereas sony relies menu nesting.
>Prosumer camera should have shittier UI than low-mid range
But why? I don't know about Nikon's milc's, but Nikon's DSLR's share lots of controls between different marketing and age brackets. Didn't Snoy do slightly less retarded menu for later models? Why didn't they release it for earlier models as an update

>>4512234
>Sure, I'm just a scrub, but go ask snoy boys about UI
Look above, I posted about it as a regular Sony and Nikon user. A7III was kind of known for its old style menu, all the models after that got an updated and better menu. Hearing about the A7III menu put me off getting one funnily enough.

>>4512234
Sony has deeply nested menus because EVERYTHING can be customized and there are far more buttons in general. It is an actual high standards professional tool. The kind that has employee training instead of "UX". Going from an older sony to the newest nikon is fucking frustrating with how many stupid decisions nikon permanently makes for the user. Sony is more in line with what experienced photographers want. We don’t need or want simple menus for people who have never used a computer. We want to set our camera up the way we want it, not the way a steve jobs wannabe thinks is right. Sony’s only real firmware fuckup is taking so long to add the ability to save settings, and maybe having one or two conflicting settings. I have heard they exist. I dont hear about them anywhere serious because they don’t seem to affect people who aren’t new to cameras.
>button wheel combos
These are ruined by being limited to a bunch of jpeg only functions (a sign of a consumer camera) and make one handed use kinda shit because nikons button placement is not universal and kinda sucks for big meaty hand chads. Maybe they should let people remap that useless button array?

Nikon has always been a consumer/hobbyist brand, really. Their biggest focus is legitimately birdwatching hobbyists. Like FF olympus. They are so hobbyist, they didnt even bother making the 40mm f2 out of real lens materials.

It is genuinely unfair to compare nikon to Canon and Sony. Canon and Sony make all their money off selling masses of cameras to industry professionals. They make nikon cameras feel like toys. Nikon is focusing hard on pleasing pixel peepers at a competitive price point and their biggest draw being a sony a7iii with cheaper pixel peeping and more modern video options for the price of a fuji xt5 or a6700. In context all the things they suck at are forgivable. They’re a budget brand and all of their hardware is downstream from sony’s older cameras. It’s like comparing VW to BMW and Audi.

>>4512227
> I found the Sony menus to be a bit better than Nikon.
It's not even about menus, Nikon's context dependent wheels allow quick adjustments bypassing menu's completely
> I heard the menus on the A7III are an older and clunky style
That too, what took them so fucking long to realize that it is retarded? Why didn't they release an update once they realized that they were producing shit for years?
>>4512236
>all the models after that got an updated and better menu
You are still missing the point of quick adjustments. Did they add context feature for wheels? Or are you still stuck with choosing one function per wheel? Or is it Nikek's sekrit tech?
>But the menu is now less retarded
And it took them only 3 generations to figure it out?
>>4512238
>>button wheel combos are bad cuz they are limited to a bunch of jpeg only functions (a sign of a consumer camera
Are you retarded or just suffering from terminal stage of snoyboyism? These made to do essential adjustments not related to picture format. jpeg functions are not deemed important enough to warrant quick adjustments. You could've mentioned that DSLR's had more real estate for buttons since they are bigger, but for some retarded reason, you reversed it and tried to claim that DSLR's are worse for big hand chads.
>Sony has deeply nested menus because EVERYTHING can be customized
And yet they still figured out how to do it better in later models. You are making excuses for bad UI. Instead of camera symbol 1 and 2 they could've divided into sections and using descriptive names, this UI design 101, why are you defending this bullshit?
>>4512239
>It's unfair to expect snoy to do propper UI cuz good UI is for noobs
No seriously, why do you keep defending this shit? Even Sony acknowledged it and did better with A1 series.

>>4512242
essential adjustments like… built in crop? white balance? are we living in the same century?

I’m not autistic enough to start rattling off my camera settings. I’ll just leave you to be a typical combative nikek.

Oh and wanna hear how I bought my a7iii. A Pro sold it to me, when I asked to show me how to setup focus assist for MF, he scrolled it for 2 minutes, telling that his A1 has newer menu. Then I asked to show me how to setup wifi connection to a smartphone, it took 10 minutes and he noted that wifi is shit. But hey, at least I managed to haggle.
>muh UI should be shit for pros.

>>4512246
That's what happens with changing any camera maker though, even the same bullshit has to happen when you change cars because everyone has their own menu and you have to get used to it.

why are nikon z lenses so fuckin ugly to look at? Why does my 50 1.2 just have some giant dildo turnwheel in the middle for the focusing and then some pencil dick command wheel all the way in the back that's not even clickable. Actually why the fuck does nikon hate aperture rings?

>>4512246
Pros don’t change their settings much. It’s a waste of time. There’s an initial week of tweaking and adjusting while shooting your cat/dog/fish and then they stay that way. Granular control is better than ease of use for people who haven’t use the menu lately.

A lot of gearfags actually enjoy this part and they routinely buy new cameras just to entertain themselves by setting shit up and taking test shots. I don’t know why they do this, but they do.

>>4512250
>why they do this
perfectionism
the thrill of expecting new packages
arguing about their latest/next purchase and defending their current favorite brand on the internet makes them feel better about their boring photos and gross expenditures
being a tech geek, car guy with cameras
liking cameras != liking photography

File: image.png (162.0 KB)

>>4512250
>Pros don’t change their settings much. It’s a waste of time.
Pretty much this. My work camera is setup and done, I've never had to just anything again beyond aperture, ISO and shutter speed. My personal camera is also the same with the custom buttons being assigned to my ideal settings, so I basically set all my cameras up on day one and leave them that way pretty much from then on.

>>4512251
>being a tech geek, car guy with cameras
Gearfags obsess over settings and gear but never over actually taking photos. Liking cameras doesn't equal liking photography, it's just liking the technical aspects.
It would be like saying you enjoy movies but then just obsess over what camera was used and not even care about what the actual movie is.

>>4512251
>being a tech geek, car guy with cameras
sounds more like being a car boomer where you just go on about specs to all your friends but never actually drive the car anywhere but to boomer car shows where you just park it and talk about the specs again.

File: boomer gearfag wojak.jpg (739.4 KB)

>>4512252
>>4512253
Bros… is 4chan a boomer website?

>>4512254
I see a lot of boomer photographers when I'm out, so I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of them are here in gear threads. They always have big camera bag, old fashioned neck strap so it bounces of their beer belly and use either a Leica or a Canon, sometimes even having a t-shirt on that is a logo of the brand they're using or just some meme about photography in general.

>>4512255
fuck bro, i'm only 32 why you gotta do me like this?

>>4512256
32 is fine bro, I'm talking about 50+ guys with beer bellies that look like they couldn't walk more than a few hundred feet before calling it a day.

>>4512252
>picrel
these are always useless to me beyond M and B or movie mode if it's on there.

File: 1756986073474193.jpg (80.2 KB)

>>4512250
>Pros don’t change their settings much. It’s a waste of time.
Sure, and that's EXACTLY why they would benefit from non-retarded UI!
>>4512238
>Sony has deeply nested menus because...
I have a question, do you use Sony? Because the problem isn't "deeply nested" menus, it's unnested menus, which makes you scroll through countless pages seeing six items at the time. Here's another example, SteadyShot:
>Camera item 2, 4/9 page
>>Steady shot
>>> on/off
>>Steady shot Setting
>>>Mode: auto/manual
>>>Set focal length
So what does it mean:
>If you don't know menu by heart, to find it you have to scroll through 18 pages not knowing what's on the next page.
>If you want to add it to custom menu, you have to add two items
>If you set up custom buttons, you have to use 2-3 of them
This is pure UI incompetence from Snoy, there are no pros for it.

File: image.png (328.4 KB)

>>4512260
NTA but I use newer Sony and Canon. The latest menu is easy enough and even looking at that photo of the older style looks alright to me, I can't say I spend much time in any of these camera menus since I really don't have to and I don't see why you'd need to either once your done with the initial setup.

File: 1759712844267968.png (2.2 MB)

>>4512262
Ironically, that looks like menu on my old nikek DSLR. I guess after three generations of bullshit menus, they finally learned basics of UI. Oh look, they lifted old UI from their DSLR, not realizing how many features they added since then. It might have been adequate for minimal settings of a330.

>>4512168
Should I get a new canon EOS 2000d or try and get a nikon z9 used? Would like to take photos of rhe local wildlife whilst out with my dog at the bigger local parks

File: a7rvi.jpg (132.8 KB)

>a7r VI
What went wrong?

Since Sony users are fighting right now, I hav e question since I'm considering an A7 variant: With Sony's C modes on the knob can I set up multiple custom shooting modes for the more niche parts of this hobby? For instance C1 could be my landscape mode where it defaults to single focus with a manually selected focus point, auto ISO off and exposure bracketing in large raw, C2 could be bird/airplane mode where it goes to continuous dynamic focus mode at the highest framerate with aggressive auto ISO to keep shutter speeds high and HQ Jpeg, then C3 could be macro mode with focus bracketing? That way I don't have to ever have to dick with focus modes and auto ISO preferences like shutter speed bias in the menu

>>4512260
Thats a lot of seethe because you’re autistic as fuck about a menu that actual photo takers rarely use after day one. You’re such an entitled child. Its not a core function like autofocus.

>>4512279
Yes but
>shooting jpeg
>not having all that shit on buttons and the quick menu

>>4512283
>buttons and quick menu
For one, I'm looking at them and don't know how the custom buttons work hence asking the question about my preferred way to do it (the knob). 2 I am talking about not using the menu at all, I'm out on a hike, saw a bird, turn the knob to C2 and I'm on bird mode, turn the knob to C3 because I saw a tiny mushroom with a bug on it now I can clip onto my tripod and focus bracket a few shots.

I'm not going to get into a raw vs jpeg debate that is pointless, but take note that the only custom mode I specified jpeg on was birds where I don't want to take up extra card space with 25 shots of a bird from a 2.5 second burst where only the best 2 will get kept and all I'm going to care about as far as IQ is good colors and exposure, not pulling up a left biased exposure for preserving every little highlight like my landscape or macro.

>>4512284
Dude, these are professional cameras. What you’re doing for your uh, hiking hobby is covered by manual mode, a one button auto ISO toggle, focus bracketing in the i-menu, and not being autistic. All the options and custom modes are for pros to switch flash shit around on the job. Its possible yes but why bother?
>can afford a $2000 full frame mirrorless
>worried about card space
Jej

File: IMG_4191.jpg (22.4 KB)

>>4512254
>This is the average 4chan poster in 2026
Bruhs… was I gooning in the same porn threads as a boomer? Wtf im quitting porn and selling all my canon gear for fuji

>>4512296
Yeah, and I can afford a house but I don't leave the faucet on just because I can "afford to waste water" you twerp. Being economical is a mindset.

File: grinning strider.jpg (10.4 KB)

>>4512299
>you twerp

>>4512238
>and there are far more buttons in general
Sony definitely has some deep menu options, but I'm not sure it's a given they have more buttons in general for direct control. Seems most modern mirrrorless run like 12-14 custom buttons, I'd be curious which settings you find yourself changing so often, because I only even use like 8 or so.

>>4512284
This works, and is a good idea on paper, but unless you're actually using specific dedicated modes often, it's not a big deal.
I just have one mode for M, one for A, and one for video, and that's it. If I want to change focus points, I just press a button, but I also just use focus modes that work for most situations. Don't have to worry about changing auto ISO, because I care about my images, so I don't use it.
Don't get lost in the customization and forget about the basics. You'll spend enough time setting it up, and then have to tinker again for the specific scene anyways, so why not just learn to change settings quickly and effortlessly?

>>4512299
Being economical is not buying the newest or even second newest iteration of the official camera of the associated press if you can’t afford a measly 500GB card.

I just can't stop winning on the used market and for that reason I am probably kinda locked into the whole gear faggotry thing, but at least I make money from it, but I agree with the sentiment that gear faggotry needs to be reduced.

>>4512303
Where did I say I was buying the newest most expensive camera, retard? An "A7 variant" I didn't want to get bogged down in shit flinging over which specific model but probably an A7R III because I really don't see the utility in anything newer than that.

>durr u poor u can't afford a pocketful of 6 million GB cards to fill with uncompressed raws

You snoid raw evangelists are insufferable. It's all preference anyway, some people just don't like spending hours in lightroom applying tone curves to every single flat image they took after every trip. Meanwhile people who have cameras with decent color science can get prints of jpgs right off the card looking excellent.

File: Baumquadratur.jpg (963.7 KB)

>>4512168
my D850 doesn't have this problem lol!

>>4512279
Yeah you should be able to do all that, don't worry about the others saying it's pointless because if that way of doing things works for you then that's what matters. Saves you from having to remember all the settings you need to adjust. One note though, you don't get focus bracketing unless you get one of the newer models. I don't remember when they started implementing it exactly so check before you buy.

>>4512260
Sony cameras are just mini computers, not photographic tools. Because of that philosophy they will always have unintuitive menus.

>>4512311
FUCK well I'm not buying an A7RV so I guess I don't get focus bracketing. I ASSumed that since the A7C II had it, that surely the A7R III would, but nope. Just going to have to keep doing it manually like I have for all of these years ;_;

>>4512279
Yeah that can be done. You can have an additional 3 custom settings too since you can use "memory recall" and I've done that for some where I've customized certain settings I won't use very often, so I get 6 custom settings in total with 3 being on the dial and the additional 3 being in a quick access menu.

>I'm not going to get into a raw vs jpeg debate that is pointless, but take note that the only custom mode I specified jpeg on was birds where I don't want to take up extra card space with 25 shots of a bird from a 2.5 second burst where only the best 2 will get kept and all I'm going to care about as far as IQ is good colors and exposure
You do you I guess. Depending on the camera you get, RAW files might only be about 40mb and a 256gb card will allow about 2600 RAW images and about 10,000+ JPGs (depending on quality choice). I've yet to fill a 256gb card in a single day and you could probably get by with a 128gb card if you're not going over 1200 RAW images in a single session.

>>4512315
I really wish it did, the A7R III is what I have. The A7C II is like 6 years newer, I don't know what took Sony so long though when Nikon had it with the D800 5 years prior and probably even had it in models before that. There is an android app called Alpha Focus Bracketing that will do it, however it's paid (and pretty expensive as phone apps go) and having to use your phone all the time isn't the most convenient.

If you have any other queries, either general Sony stuff or specific to the R III I'm happy to help.

>>4512334
Good to know. An app based solution sounds slow and cumbersome. Wouldn't be great for anything that might move.

Do you ever use your R3 for birds/wildlife/stuff that moves like that? How's the AF performance? It's not my most common use case, but I read that the A7R II was a turd compared to the regular A7 II and I know the A7 III is pretty damn quick and accurate. I like the idea of having extra resolution to work with. I also have a few Canon EF lenses I've accumulated over the years I'd like to try to adapt instead of ditching them altogether if possible since I know I'd have to spend a bunch more than they'd sell for to get native Sony glass: 24-105 f4L, 300 f4L (non-IS), 180mm f3.5L, 16-35 F4L. If you've adapted any of those or known/seen someone do it successfully that would be nice to know. I haven't done much research on how well they perform when adapted but I sold off my few Nikon lenses in preparation for this purchase because I did see that Nikons don't adapt well.

File: _DSC9842.jpg (306.3 KB)

>>4512343
To be honest even the bodies with built in focus bracketing wouldn't be fast enough for stuff that moves, for the Sonys it's like 1-3fps and even the D850 (I got the wrong model earlier) only goes up to 5fps. In theory the app could maybe be faster, I'm not sure what the limit would be determined by, but it looks like it only lets you set intervals down to 1 second. I just tried the Sony app but that has like a 2-3 second delay between taking photos. It would be cool to have some sort of motorised follow focus setup and let that take care of racking the focus while blasting off shots at 10fps.

Despite previously shooting Canon I've never bothered to adapt any of my old lenses, firstly because a lot of them are crop only and I started with a first gen A7 and adapting A mount lenses to that seemed like the better option. From what I've read though many people have good experiences adapting Canon. I haven't done birds in flight but I find the focussing speed and tracking to be decent and the animal eye AF works reasonably well. If you rattle off shots at 10fps they're not all going to be keepers but you should get some good ones in there.

>>4512369
Well, it's not really about something actively moving, it's about the fact that something that might move. When a cool bug lands appears on something and stays still it usually isn't for long. As is I focus manually then tweak it manually to focus stack but it sure would be nice to just set up my tripod and blast away in continuous. 1fps or less sounds barely any faster than what I can manage manually.

>>4512168
Is a used A7RIII as good a deal as it seems? For ~$1500AU I get 42 megapickles, 400 AF points, a 10fps RAW buffer? some weather seals, a much more decent battery life than the A7RII (which seems like better value for money almost, at ~$1000AU) and it's full frame, duh. Dunno if it's really worth it when I already have an APS-C camera with five lenses in another mount. Of course I can adapt them but that seems really cumbersome and they won't all have a full-frame image circle, not to mention the AF on those lenses probably won't work with the Sony. I downloaded some RAWs from the A7RIII from DPReview and played with them on my computer and, despite the slightly slower processing and loading, I think it could handle it. The other issue, though, is my monitor only has a display covering 60% of the sRGB gamut. Am I too concerned with buying more gear? I'm not even really unhappy with the photo quality of the camera I have right now, just itching to spend money I guess...

>>4512257
Damn, im 45 so almost 50. Why you gotta do me like that? Imagine, its just individual people and not an entire age group. Fuckingbfaggot

>>4512275
No one likes you

>>4512180
It's not a terrible idea. I've been doing a lot more shooting in the years since I got my GRIII. It became an EDC item for me, and that ability to always have an APS-C camera in your pocket is really the killer feature of them.

I would get a used III and IIIx though, they're gonna be much cheaper than the IV, and they pop up in light used condition pretty regularly. I'm about to get a IIIx myself for situations like concerts and stuff where I need a bit more reach.

>>4512275
I like you.

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-Zar7YV6aGOEOW9Dm.jpg (1.8 MB)

>Go on Facebook Marketplace on Friday
>See this
>Head to Edison NJ to pick up a set of wheels for my project car ($820 Ambit SR71s in 18x9.5+15 for my Z)
>Drive over to Wilkes Barre to pick up camera equipment, old guy who was moving, probably the original owner, handed him $40 and took the box
>Car takes a few seconds extra to start over, chalk it up to the hot weather
>Go to Waffle House for lunch in Allentown
>Car doesn't want to start....disconnect battery reset floor it and it fires up after sitting for 10 mins...okay
>Drive to Bethlehem to pick up parts for new project car (center console/shifter console/dash waterfall/ashtray + JVC KW-M560BT heaudnit for blue 350Z for $400)
>Car shuts off and dies, won't start at all, end up stranded, either fuel pump or crank sensor
>Get towed home and have to pay for a $800 tow 2 hours back to NYC because AAA couldn't get a tow truck negating any money I saved

how was your weekend /gear/ anyways lets unpack some ewaste

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-yyARZ0hfWXQ5bq.jpg (2.4 MB)

>>4512417
not gonna lie i did already opened it a bit because i was excited + wanted to make sure the star of the show was there (konica minolta maxxum 7d) before i handed my $40 bucks over

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-y1ybv8goWZyF1Ki.jpg (2.5 MB)

>>4512418
what are those colored plastic covers?

Minolta Maxxum 7000 is remarkably in mint shape other than the LCD bleed.

Bigma 400mm f5.6 has a decent amount of mold, yuck.

Kodak 400 roll there is undeveloped :)

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-uJtBRRLiLqAw.jpg (3.1 MB)

>>4512419
The real star of the show, this Maxxum 7D is in nicer shape than the one I bought as "junk" from a estate reseller last month for $40.

Not even first black frame. The bottom of it is mint. Love how it came with all the paperwork/manuals and cables (USB + Charger + A/V out).

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-x0lauXoeOsC29.jpg (4.1 MB)

>>4512420
>printout of 9/11 commission in KM 7D box

uhhhh based????

Konica Minolta AF 28-100mm (D) is no good. Camera won't fire with it on, its like it wont even detect it. Will try to clean the contacts and see what happens, but it has a bit of mold so who cares.

Minolta 70-210mm f4 Beercan is okay, I never liked these. Maybe this one is in nicer shape than mine in terms of IQ, no mold.

Tamron 28-300mm has a decent amount of mold too. Not shown.

Sigma Zoom AF-S 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 is pretty nice actually, might be a keeper other than being heavy from the few test shots I took.

OP did state in the ad the 28-100mm and 400mm had no working AF.

Did not check the flashes but w/e I have 2 Konica Minolta 3600 HSD strobes that gives TTL for all A-Mount cameras.

File: 251023_shopdcfeveroct_01.jpg (200.6 KB)

Is it ok to get the Nikon ZR instead of the Nikon Zf even if I use it mainly for photo? I know the ZR is mainly a video camera but the features seem totaly fine for me as a photography cam. Same sensor as the Z6iii with fast readout speed (less rolling shutter issues). I never use flash. I rarely use the EVF and prefer a big screen. There seem to be enough custom buttons for my use as well. But I really like the form factor of the ZR, it's a bit lighter, no EVF eyepiece that makes it clumsy to throw the camera in the bag. And on top I can do some R3D videos for fun.

>>4512396
Nothing wrong with being old, I'm just saying I see a lot of those old guy photographers that are fat and look like they're larping as old timey photographers.

>>4512381
>>4512369 here, when upgrading from my A7 I was weighing up whether to get the A7R II or III. To me it was easily worth the extra money, better AF, higher res EVF, double the burst rate at 10fps, USB C, better controls with a joystick and touch screen for AF point adjustment, significantly better battery life (over double), and I think it performs better with adapted lenses. Also it has a second card slot although that doesn't really matter to me. I paid the equivalent of $1640AU just over 2 years ago and I think the II's were a little over a grand so around the same difference if not a little bit more.

>>4512334
>If you have any other queries, either general Sony stuff or specific to the R III I'm happy to help.
nta but considering an RIII as an upgrade to my aps-c dslrosaur kit. do you think it's worth upgrading for what I do? mostly street photography with a 28mm lens and some night time stuff, some birds and wildlife (I'd never have a decent lens for this on E-mount unless I sold both kidneys thoughbeit) and very few portraits (I'd like to do more). My original comment >>4512381 here. I'm also concerned I wouldn't be able to just stop at a camera upgrade, I'd also need a computer upgrade for processing the much larger RAW files.
>>4512438
Thanks for your comment. If I do decide to spend the money, I'll definitely reach for the RIII. The II doesn't seem worthwhile when the III can be had for not much more... and it's funny how sticky the prices are on them. I thought camera prices would fluctuate more.

>>4512396
>you are being called a faggot by a 45-year-old man, not a 14-year-old.
that's a sobering reality check.

>>4512444
To be honest I would probably go for an A6500/6600 (6700 would be dope but above your budget). Less resolution to deal with but a greater reach advantage for the wildlife and birding (the A7R in crop mode only gives you 18mp), smaller, lighter, and most importantly cheaper lenses, a bit better AF, and you'll be able to adapt all of your current lenses.

File: DINNERTIME(jk).webm (2.1 MB)

>>4512412
Thank you :)

>>4512425
Have you ever tried to speak to any and see if they're friendly or just larping? Might be a gem of a mentor amongst them. Anyway, wasnt offended desu, was just wondering lol

File: IMG_4195.jpg (163.8 KB)

>>4512396
Same here brudda. When I’m not pluckin my paul (its an R8 btw), riding my harley, or hating my wife i’m here on /p/ talking about how darn annoying sony’s menus are. Kids these days have no clue what a real photographic tool is meant to be like I tell ya.

>>4512453
Damn man. I’m 52 and I do all that and my dog. How did we all end up like this?

>>4512309
I have used every major system and literally none of them produce better jpegs than they do raws. None of them have auto white balance that can be relied on. All of them handle fixed white balance significantly worse than color negative film. All of them have inferior sharpening and noise reduction settings and algorithms compared to capture one. All of them produce quality comparable to a phone if you do not edit your raws… or do ludicrous dated time wasting gearfag shit like playing with tripods and GNDs. I love watching copelords like that get rounded up and kicked out by park rangers so much I’ve started narcing on them to get their cope kit out of the good vantage points.
>hours in lightroom
It takes 5 seconds to click auto levels, adjust wb, tweak the exposure and hdr parameters, and sharpening and nr in capture one. Lightroom does have a less efficient workflow and does have more lag and more bugs and instability. It is an inferior program that has spent far longer being developed by ranjeets. If you can’t afford a capture one perpetual license you shouldn’t be wasting your money on a professional camera if you can not even utilize 10% of its capability. These are professional tools. Not consumer toys that are meant to be dumbed down and just work for some lazy broccoli headed idiot.

>>4512458
This. The only people who shoot jpeg shoot in terrible light and post blurry instagram snaps with the skill issues showing through even at 1mp like this >>4512310
Real photographers do and always have shot raw or spent time in the darkroom… just don’t use anything but capture one or phocus, or sit down, stay quiet, enjoy your fujifilm and know that your place is posting 1000px 72dpi cat/tree snapshits not talking about equipment you can’t appreciate or utilize.

>>4512451
I started going to my cities local digital photography club, meets up once a month
25ish people and only a few under 40, with most being +60
wide variety of cameras, wide variety of skill
they do monthly photo contests too, but only 8 or so contribute
one of the guys did a presentation on landscape stuff, typical boomer hdrslop

>>4512459

I have read dumber things, but that was a great effort.

Why is XTOL more flattering to foids than diafine?

File: file.png (1.7 MB)

Why doesn't this happen to Canonchads??
Nicuck xisters... our response?

>>4512458
>none of them produce better jpegs than they do raws.
I didn't say the jpegs were better than raws. Stopped reading there.

>>4512482
jpegs look like shit and raws look like crap and only film is innately good
these are objective facts. any opinion to the contrary is cope.

>>4512459
>Real photographers do and always have shot raw or spent time in the darkroom
Real photographers shot slide film, meaning it had to be done right on site, not corrected later.

>>4512487
>shooting RAW means I need to correct things
Dumb take

File: raw-vs-jpeg-900x600.jpg (92.5 KB)

>>4512488
Competent pros shoot JPEG. RAWs are just for backup.
When you have a good camera and know how to use it, everything you do with your RAW software can be done quickly at the moment of capture.
Pic related was made by a beginner who hasn't yet learned that both results can be achieved SOOC.

>>4512490
Patently incorrect bullshit fed to you by brand fanboys who use improving jpeg options to justify buying a new $4000 camera every year because they finally added another 1% of what a 2008 PC running pirated software can do.

No, “professionals”, at least not in the context that they are meant to be admirable and seen as skilled, do not shoot jpeg. Jpeg is for the news.

>>4512490
>Competent pros shoot JPEG
Professional sports or journalists, sure
Big no for most every other genre

>>4512490
>bro, just live in the moment and change all these settings
FUCK jay-peg.

>>4512492
Trvke. Its just brand fanboy faggot morons who think preferring some baked in lightroom presets is enough to justify how much money they waste on gear.

>>4512487
Slide film was for color accuracy in advertising and rockwell tier boomer gearfags. Negative (AKA print) film was for everything else.

>>4512495
*spends another $2000 on the newest fooljisnoysonic*
but the "color science" bruh
using a computer is le bad i wont accept it
only boomers dont buy product and get excited for next product unc

>>4512451
There are some that really know their stuff and try things you wouldn't expect, but those fatter and more larper looking ones usually do the most tourist/snapshit style photos and I have met a few of those types that were rude and didn't seem to like younger people doing photography.

I did meet some old guy that was dressed sort of like a 60s college professor, had a vintage style mirrorless (silver version of a Fuji XT-5 or a Nikon Z FC) and was a pleasant interesting guy. He didn't have any social media and was just doing it for himself and his own enjoyment, which was pretty based.

>>4512490
>Competent pros shoot JPEG. RAWs are just for backup.
This is only true for sports and journalism where you're here to document an event and feed continuous ready-to-publish images through FTP.
You're missing the point and you don't understand why they do that in the first place.
If you want to snap JPEGs left and right without thinking, just use your phone, you can set it up for HDR too.

File: sony colors.jpg (399.0 KB)

>sony has perfectly fine colo-ACK!

>>4512492
>No, “professionals”, at least not in the context that they are meant to be admirable and seen as skilled, do not shoot jpeg
It takes more skill to shoot good JPEGs on the scene than export good JPEGs out of RAW software after massaging sliders for hours in the comfort of your armchair. That's a fact.

>>4512495
>bro, just live in the moment and change all these settings
It takes some practice. It's like learning to shoot in manual. Once you get manual exposure and white balance down it's time to learn in-camera highlight/shadow control.
With a modern mirrorless camera that can show you exactly what the photo looks like in the viewfinder there's really no need to rely on RAW anymore.

>>4512499
>If you want to snap JPEGs left and right without thinking
It's RAW shooters snapping without thinking, who will "fix it in post".
JPEG shooters actually need to get it right on the spot.

>>4512512
Massaging sliders pre-capture and fussing over the accuracy of your camera’s screen calibration, jpeg engine features and “brand color science” isn’t skill. You are a whipped bitch that sucks the cameras dick and thanks it for slapping you when it finishes.

Raw shooters make the camera their bitch.
>camera: hey i think-
>SILENCE
>camera: can you at least change-
>NO
>chad photographer plaps the raw into submission later
>camera: h-hey you can only adjust that so far without upgrading me! d-did you just load a canon ICC profile for an ARW file? STOP STOOOOP THIS MAKES EVERYTHING MEANINGLESS

>>4512511
Why do these commenters look indian?
Why does it read like a scripted interaction?
Why was julian trotti the only one with a problem?
Why did she dramatize it by seriously fucking up white balance?
Why did she get nervous and go lol hahaha when a human commenter pointed out the white balance looked wrong?
Does lumix actually hire shills to put on these elaborate acts? Lmfao

No mention of how the s9’s autofocus speed and accuracy falls apart beyond 1080p either?

As expected of a brand that gets outsold 5x by fucking fuji

>>4512513
Fujifilm’s business model is literally locking film sims to certain cameras and the only way around it is to shoot raw and change the exif. Panasonic tries to market applying LUTs to raw conversion as a selling point. Canon doesn’t put good noise reduction on cheaper cameras and gradually improves the algos used from 2005 tier to 2026 tier for each more expensive model. There is unironically greedy, long nosed capitalist money behind trying to convince people to shoot jpeg.

>>4512515
Sony does this too. They started out the older cameras with meh colors and by the a7cii the colors are the same as canon. The APS-C cameras colors are purposefully kept a generation behind. Since sony’s professional broadcast cameras have always had great natural colors, it’s safe to assume they intentionally cripple hammer the sooc color of jpegs and videos. But, in raw, the colors can make that generational leap just by changing the input profile.

Color science is a marketing department invention to trick retards into buying more cameras. With raw, an older DSLR takes the same photos as the newest mirrorless.

>>4512514
>Why was julian trotti the only one with a problem?
Because she's an idiot and doubles down on mistakes. Any mention about the color science meme only includes examples from her and nobody else, so it really is just a problem with her.

>>4512515
Pretty much this. Sony makes the sensors for most camera brands as I recall (even some Canons) and you can easily just apply whatever color science you want to any RAW from those cameras.

>>4512516
> by the a7cii the colors are the same as canon.
I really can't tell a difference anymore, I'd even argue both Canon and Sony lately have a slight lean toward red. I use both brands interchangeably for work and also use RAW, so SOOC isn't even something I bother with anymore.

>>4512513
read this aloud to yourself and take a moment to recognise how perverted you sound

>>4512527
Stop… I can only get so erect OwO

I've only ever shot jpeg, never once had a negative comment. It's not like they completely uneditable either, you don't have as much latitude but unless you're fucking things up really badly in camera or have a really challenging scene it's not bad.

>>4512529
The issue with JPG and editing is that it's a lossy source, so making edits and then creating a new JPG loses even more quality.

>>4512530
Sure, but nobodies posting the highest quality jpegs from raws online either. Whether you go from a 45MB raw or a 20MB jpeg we're all ending up at comparably tiny low res sub 5MB jpegs.

>>4512529
>I don't really care about getting the maximum quality of my images
You can just say that instead

>>4512531
I’m not convinced there’s any upside to shooting JPEGs. I have the storage space for RAWs and they have a much deeper bit depth and store a lot more data. There’s no concern for me to have a quick turn around for clients since I shoot for myself. I don’t make really big adjustments to every image I shoot but I want the ability to make such adjustments to *any* image I shoot. That’s why I shoot RAW

>>4512529
bc no one cares about your photos. If no one cares just use your phone.
>but i care
shoot raw
>not that much
>>>/m43/

>>4512515
>There is unironically greedy, long nosed capitalist money behind trying to convince people to shoot jpeg.
Shooting RAW is an obsolete work flow for obsolete equipment - DSLR.
If I had to use a DSLR I would probably record in RAW as well. On mirrorless I can see exactly what the photo looks like in viewfinder. It's easy to get things exactly as I want SOOC, so saving the RAW is made redundant.

It's market demand from consumers and professionals to get things like LUT in cameras. Some people enjoy post-processing, but most people would prefer to get the "look" / results they want straight out of camera. Professionals especially seek to minimize time spent on the work.

>>4512516
>With raw, an older DSLR takes the same photos as the newest mirrorless.
Exactly. RAW is for DSLR.

>>4512538
>pls keep up with buying the newest BRANDNAME mirrorless saar raw is a cope for dslr. Saar the mirrorless has preview i do not need to use the brain sirs. Its the future sirs.
>*makes up a bunch of shit about professionals, but he isn’t one*
Buy an ad slave.

Jpegs look like shit and setting them up is a waste of time just to achieve inferior image quality and incorrect white balance, shadow tone and highlight recovery. If you’re going to accept whatever a corporation thinks your photos should look like and perpetually CONSOOM to “keep up”, use a phone, corporate slave.

>use an milc
>turn off preview
>shoot raw
>patel seethes because im not consooming to get the “color science”

>>4512538
RAW allows a lot of breathing room, whereas that jpg might've looked perfect in camera until you get it on a screen that is larger than 3 inches and realize the colors actually suck or the shadows are shit.

>>4512538
Live LUT is video only. The only brand applying it to stills is the bottom seller. The vast majority of serious photographers do not shoot jpeg, do not want to shoot jpeg, and haven’t since the standard laptop was able to load a raw in <1s and cards began affordably breaching 64gb. Jpeg is specific to high speed journalism. And retards that bought a professional camera while still thinking like a "consumer" (also called goyim in the biz).

>>4512538
Good bait

>>4512458
> It takes 5 seconds to click auto levels, adjust wb, tweak the exposure and hdr parameters, and sharpening and nr in capture one.

>brags about photography superiority
>one button auto adjustment
You’re literally just doing whatever those “JPEG cameras” are doing, but with extra steps.

>>4512551
Ironic, huh? Boomers think wasting hours on editing their photos everytime they get home on a computah makes them superior somehow. So strange.

>>4512458
>auto

You may as well shoot your snapshits in jpeg if you're using auto, you fucking faggot

File: F22 snapshit.jpg (334.0 KB)

I'm going to go to several airshows this year since I'm going to be flying shifts with a friend who flies a historic aircraft to some airshows to display it. What's the best sub $1000 (used market) telephoto option for air show photos? Yeah, I'm being cheap, I don't want to spent a ton because every dollar spent on photography gear can't go to my flying hobby. I'm using an old A7ii I picked up.

E mount
Sigma 100-400 F5-6.3 OS Contemporary
Tamron 150-500 F5-6.7 VC
Tamron 50-400 F4.5-6.3 VC
Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Contemporary
Sigma 150-600 F5-6.3 OS Sports

Or A mount adapted? Cheaper, but I'm not sure if A-mount to E-mount adapted lenses get slower when you adapt them.
Sony AF 70-400 F4-5.6 I/II
Sigma 50-500 F4.5-6.3 OS
Sigma - 120-400 4.5-5.6 OS/Non OS
Sigma - 150-500 F5-6.3 OS/Non OS

Mediocre uncropped F22 photo from my current 300mm manual lens related.

>>4512551
>whatever those “JPEG cameras” are doing, but with extra steps.
Yes, to get better results
>>4512570
>hours on editing
Always interesting when a beginner has such strong opinions

>>4512570
>hours
hyperbole is an automatic L. also, dont use laggy confusing shit like adobe jeetroom. its boomer software. boomers call it the standard because adobe bribed community colleges to teach it in the 90s and 00s.
boomers are the ones who shoot jpeg and think setting the white balance on their nikon and turning on hdr takes skill
ken rockwell is fervently against shooting raw. most boomers are. auto mode, P mode and jpeg have always been there for boomers. no one else uses them. literally no one under 30 ever used auto, p or jpeg unless they’re a retarded foid.
>inb4 boomers defend mlady and whine about muh incels while standing by israel

>>4512551
>NO you cant use auto on the rgb levels tool thats the same as submitting your bussy to snoykonans “color science” and blurry iq
You’ve never even used a real raw processor. You don’t even know what he’s talking about. You’re a boomer who only used adobe and facebook.

>>4512582

Pathetic.

File: download (2).jpg (7.8 KB)

>>4512468
>>4512168
Feels good to see this come to light, seeing as Nikon users have long been projecting about the so called 'reliability' of their underspec'd and overpriced shitbricks. Now they have nothing! LOL!

>>4512588
True, glad we exposed Canon's "reliability" in the last thread too

>>4512592
>canon:
>a few lemons made it out the door

>nikon:
>$4k z8 has worse autofocus than $1k canon r8
>all dslrs other than vert grip blobs have weak lens mounts
>horrid qc, so bad even ken rockwell a professional shill got a tilted evf
>oversized lenses and plastic optics
>can not make a good small camera because their lens engineers were too shitty to utilize a smaller mount
>in danger of being outsold by fujifilm, so desperate they price an FF z5ii on par with the sony a6700 and fuji xt5
>still so bad at everything sony feels comfortable fucking people over at every opportunity - are they gonna buy a nikon? maybe if they’re a retarded redditchanner lmao!

Anyone else remember the days before sony cameras were taken seriously, and nikon was known for a green tint? Well, I just sold my Z7II on ebay after getting tired of green tints creeping into everything. It hasn’t changed. It was just overshadowed by vloggers struggling with AWB and their sony’s cripple hammered video colors.

Yes, sony cripple hammers video color profiles. Alpha series cameras don’t even get the real SLOG.

In stills sony==canon. Just dont fall for the jpeg scam. Sony cripple hammers color and canon cripple hammers raw conversion so the r1 has sharper demosaics than the r8.

>>4512602
It's a shame you can't be honest

>>4512605
Look guys, the white knight nicuck shill remembered his catchphrase!
>le dishonesty
Now post a photo of your dog so we can laugh

File: Screenshot_20260603-105939.png (692.3 KB)

lol Canon

File: Screenshot 2026-06-03 140450.jpg (59.4 KB)

>>4512602
>>in danger of being outsold by fujifilm, so desperate they price an FF z5ii on par with the sony a6700 and fuji xt5
Retarded take, you should have left this one out dumbass. Canon is dominating the entry level FF market with the EOS RP, which is cheaper than a Z2 by like a third, you fucking idiot. Second, nikon has always been the value brand and tends to make their sales to gearfags and pixel peepers by offering the similar or better specs at a lower price, so the Z2 being more expensive than the RP is a big L.

File: IMG_4201.jpg (70.0 KB)

>>4512615
The RP is literally a canon 6d sans mirror. Even the autofocus is basically the 6d. It’s a charity camera so it doesn’t really count.

Contrast sony fucking people over so hard they expect $2000 for an a7iii that can be bought off ebay for $800-1000 or locally for less, with a survivorship bias boost protecting the poor newsnoid from early snoy’s nikonesque quality issues.

File: is this nigga serious.png (463.3 KB)

>>4512618
>It’s a charity camera so it doesn’t really count.
>shits on nikon for making an entry level camera
>Canon makes a better one, shits on that too
>somehow thinks that depreciation should dictate new prices
You're a miserable cunt, you know that?

>>4512619
Snoid harder, nicuck

>>4512620
>responds to me repeatedly saying Canon has the better camera by calling me a nicuck
Illiterate retard

>>4512621
Imagine snoiding this hard over camera gear. Lol @ ur life.

File: fuji-x-e5-with-35mm-f1-4-and-35mm-f2-0-with-haoge-bayonet-v0-66g5m2hxztkf1.jpg (274.1 KB)

After years of shooting full frame I just realized that no one cars about my photos. I only send them to my wife and family, sometimes to a friend. They don't even see a difference between iphone photos and full frame. I mean not blaming them.

But it makes me wonder why I'm even bringing all this heavy gear, huge ass lenses. Of course it's nice to zoom at 100% in LR and get a boner from it's clarity and sharpness. Also that pleasing noise at iso 6400 when shooting in the dark. It's a joy to edit. But it ends up on my hard drive and I may look at them some years later and think "wow cool". Sh..should I just sell everything heavy and just buy a compact aps-c? Those Fuji X-E5 with the f2 lenses look like a mini Leica M kit. You could probably have it around your neck all day without any back pain. Or those tiny Ricoh GR cameras. But then I check on Flickr and those images seem rather flat, less 3Dish and not so crisp. I'm afraid I regret later on.

>>4512626
Make prints and put them on your walls.

>>4512626
> then I check on Flickr and those images seem rather flat, less 3Dish and not so crisp
This is a real issue inherent to pixel size and pixel aperture size combined with lenses reflective losses, not sensor size. Smaller pixels see smaller aberrations and need more optically corrected lenses that reflect more light so the fine gradations are simultaneously lost and less likely to be recorded. You can theoretically stick with FF and still have this problem by slapping a giant fucking S line gaymaster L lens on a 60mp camera. It makes photos look more unnatural and digital.

Film does NOT have this problem because it’s an analog medium and the lenses flare so badly photographers automatically avoid lighting that forces gear related contrast loss.

Consider the sony a7c and a7cII. Same size class as an xe5. Except the autofocus actually works like a $1500 camera’s should, shading renders better when avoiding ART and GM lenses, and the sensor doesn’t generate worm artifacts. Also… Fuji mostly sells to the people who wish they could be leicamen. Not so much photographers as they are people who want to be perceived as artists. 4chan isnt the only place aware of this. There is real unspoken prejudice against fuji/leica people, “their parents better be rich” prejudice.
>35mm f2 sigma or 40mm f2.5 snoy
>90mm f2.8 sigma
>live life

>>4512626
people who buy a fuji end up either mad and disappointed at how bad it is at being a camera for how much money they spent, or fulfilled like a tranny who finally got their boobs and as defensive and catty about it too

File: 107727517.jpg (208.0 KB)

>>4512541
>RAW allows a lot of breathing room, whereas that jpg might've looked perfect in camera until you get it on a screen that is larger than 3 inches and realize the colors actually suck or the shadows are shit.
That's what the OLED viewfinder is for. It's probably better than the screen you have at home. If it isn't, that means it's a shitty camera, like a Sony, which does not allow you to adjust viewfinder's RGB levels to get an accurate picture.

For DSLR I guess you could use pic related, but it's not exactly convenient. If I had to use a DSLR I would probably shoot RAW too.

>>4512551
>You’re literally just doing whatever those “JPEG cameras” are doing, but with extra steps.
exactly, and wasting card capacity.

>>4512632
You are stupid. Please stop talking.

Everything you say can be debunked. You likely know this. Because the easy debunking would require a video demo with A:B comparisons, or a tech lecture that would depend on you having some knowledge and visual literacy to start with, therefore your trolling rests on how much effort it takes to prove you wrong in a redditastic debate.

I posit a simpler solution
Shut the fuck up, you moron. Raw is the de facto standard for every professional and hobbyist for a reason. The only people who agree with you are happy with instagram filters or are talentless grifting morons like ken “i lie about having a photography career” rockwell. Nothing you can say cam outweigh the reality that camera jpeg is completely inferior to using a real computer to turn sensor data into pictures and a brings with it a horrid waste of time fucking with white balance, hdr/dro, picture profiles and god knows what else. Yes it IS the digital version ot slide film. That is a bad thing. With slide film we needed a bag of film backs for each stock and filters for certain light sources. It was shit. Slide film was so shit digital cameras shooting raw replaced it immediately despite being several hundred mp of resolution and stops of DR behind.

>>4512632
Sony’s screens are actually way more accurate than say, nikon’s. Sony is also the only brand that offers nearly as much control as a raw editor over color grading in camera, and their AWB as of late is the best. Jpegs are still are not appropriate, or used, for more than the blogpaper’s 2 inch inserts. No one who takes photography seriously wastes time with jpeg. It is videocuck levels of time wasting. Dont forget your gray card on your way out cuck.

>>4512539
>inferior image quality and incorrect white balance, shadow tone and highlight recovery
Do you think you know what the "correct" white balance and shadow tone is sitting in your computer chair hours or days after the shoot?
You don't. You no longer have the scene to reference with your eyes.
You are editing "to taste" - your photos are fiction.

>>4512602
>can not make a good small camera because their lens engineers were too shitty to utilize a smaller mount
A baby mount with hard vignetting isn't a flex, sonygger

>>4512602
>canon: a few lemons made it out the door
the level of cope in this post is insane

>>4512618
i still dont understand why the EOS RP even exists, its pointless and an absolutely shit camera. the cost of a slightly better model is negligible.

>>4512628
Interesting, didn't know about that. Thanks anon

>>4512628
>Fuji mostly sells to the people who wish they could be leicamen.
Brutal

>>4512573
I wouldn't adapt a long tele like the 4-500mm Sigmas. When I looked into this myself because of how relatively cheap Minolta lenses are the best example I found was this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V9_-PYvCHs where the guy tests a 150-600 on an A7R4 and it struggles in his test. The 7R4 is probably faster than your A7II. Oddly enough the older screw drive primes seem to work better adapted than the newer zooms with internal motors, probably just because the zooms are letting less light through.

>>4512511
They used to. I think after the A99ii is when they started fucking up

>>4512628
>There is real unspoken prejudice against fuji/leica people
I'm not sure about Fuji but it doesn't feel like the Leica thing is unspoken, I was only starting out with a cheap DSLR a few years ago and I still managed to pickup how much disdain there was from people generally towards Leica and I think pretentious YouTubers that constantly coom about Leica didn't really help that reputation either.

There's also some fuck on YouTube that has a collection of current Leicas and a collection of the most insanely expensive camera bags I've ever seen, and he begs in every video for Patreons to support him to keep making videos. Just one of those purse looking faggot camera bags is more than most peoples entire gear setup. I forget what his name is but he's some English guy that dresses like it's still the 1970s.

File: nikon_color_balance.png (90.8 KB)

>>4512638
>Sony’s screens are actually way more accurate than say, nikon’s
False.
Even if Sony's display's were perfect out of box (far from it), displays, especially OLED shift in color with use/age. Nikon allows decent color adjustment. Sony only allows warm-cool temperature adjustment which does not allow compensation for RGB color shifts.

File: _DSC5991.jpg (642.8 KB)

>>4512652
My (older) Sigma 150-500mm focusses much better than that on my (older) A7R III with a monster adapter converted LA-EA4 and I remember it being better than that even before the conversion (using the focus sensors built into the adaptor). I was just trying it it in much lower lighting conditions and at 150mm it was flawless, not as speedy as a newer native lens but not that slow. There was some hunting at 500mm, it needs more light and higher contrast at f/6.3 than I can get here indoors, but if I had been in that guy's scenario I'm certain it would have been a lot better.

>>4512656
>what if the display was 10 years old and you still insisted on shooting jpeg, which no one fucking does except for sports journalists and retards?
I’m still laughing at you waving gray cards around and toggling jpeg settings while the raw chad is already walking away with an ettr’d picture, a bracketed version he’ll merge later, a handheld panorama he’ll merge later, and a bracketed handheld panorama he’ll merge later, and your girlfriend who thinks he’s sexy for knowing how to use a macbook and shooting canon instead of nicuck.
>wow anon you took so many pictures so fast! you’re way better at this than my lame boyfriend and his stupid nikon. he doesn’t even have an apple book.
>DID SOMEONE ASK FOR ME? NOT NOW HONEY I’M DECIDING WHICH SHADOW BRIGHTNESS SETTING LOOKS BEST ON MY OLED VIEWFINDER *drops gray card* SHIT MY PROPER WHITE BALANCE *drops GND pack* AAAAGH HOW WILL I BALANCE EXPOSURE BETWEEN THE SKY AND FOREGROUND NOW
>How about we go back to my place? i can finish off these photos later. I shoot raw, you know.
>Sure babe~

File: DSC_5572-1200.jpg (341.3 KB)

Average .jpg fan

File: 48682836563_14c0946b60_b.jpg (145.4 KB)

>>4512661
Average .CRW enjoyer

>>4512661
This dude has affected me so badly that I de-saturate just about every image I edit because I'm so afraid of my work looking like his.

>>4512663
He does this because he's colorblind.

>>4512652
That was pretty atrocious. I don't think I want a bigass 300mm f2.8 with a TC though, if TCs even work with the adapters.

>>4512659
Would you say it's fast enough for an air show? I need to look into the optical quality of these lenses.

>>4512660
>I’m still laughing at you waving gray cards
Gray cards are a relic of DSLR. Not needed with mirrorless. You just dial in the kelvin until it looks right in the EVF.
Of course you need a decently accurate EVF for this which Sony and a couple others can't provide. So yeah, if you use Sony you're pretty much locked into RAW, but leading brands are making it easier than ever to get exactly what you want SOOC.

>>4512665
There's no reason to adapt something like an a-mount 150-500 unless you get it for incredibly cheap. You have to buy an LA-EA4 and if you want good AF it has to be modified with the monster kit like >>4512659. You won't find that adapter setup for under $300, so by the time you put that behind a $400 lens you may as well have bought an E mount native lens.

File: 61681263_10156142256011820_4969897616742547456_n.jpg (218.2 KB)

>>4512669
I probably should have added that if it's a lens with a built in focus motor you don't need to bother with the converted LA-EA4, just get a cheaper LA-EA3 and it will function identically. I bought the 4 first because my first adapted lens was a screw drive macro (my only other is the reflex 500), then I picked up the 3 for cheap off Ebay and I use that with my other lenses.

>>4512665
Yeah I think it would probably be good enough for that, you've got a well isolated subject and it's not going to be moving significantly towards or away from you (relatively to the overall focus distance so it just needs to lock on and track it. I only have a few plane photos, this would have been back when I had my first gen A7 so pre-conversion of the adaptor. Not an air show it was just flying overhead, so I'm guessing you'll be even closer.

>>4512670
>I probably should have added that if it's a lens with a built in focus motor you don't need to bother with the converted LA-EA4, just get a cheaper LA-EA3 and it will function identically. I bought the 4 first because my first adapted lens was a screw drive macro (my only other is the reflex 500), then I picked up the 3 for cheap off Ebay and I use that with my other lenses.
I thought the old 150-500 was screw drive. If it isn't, my bad.

File: 224876.6f49abaacba55b589a83329627665631.jpg (48.1 KB)

I was looking at delving into third party lens companies and found them. The first thing I noticed is their primes are probably the best on the market. Why can no other company make small, light, inexpensive, ultrafast WR lenses with AF, in a developed country, like they can? What am I missing here? Is there some sort of compromise with their lenses?

>>4512666
Oh sorry i thought you actually knew your shit despite being retarded.

I am now laughing at your dumb indian ass fiddling with kelvin and tint while squinting through an EVF. Lmfao. Let me guess, your first camera was a sony and you still blame it for why all your snapshits look bad? And your snapshits still don’t look good?

Buying a professional camera to shoot jpeg is pathetic.

>>4512666
>one shot wb off a gray card? that’s for dslrs. i set kelvin manually!
LOL. What mirrorless even has tint in the manual kelvin menu? So few people shoot jpeg but not AWB it’s been a neglected feature for a decade.

Behold, the photographic genius of the guy who begs people not to buy a sony.

Reality check:
Every new Sony outsells all of their competition combined
If it weren’t for their better entry level cameras canon would be the #2 brand
Everyone shoots raw except for redditors and certain (not all) photojournalists

File: gear.jpg (310.6 KB)

>>4512672
There may have been a screw drive one back in the day but this is a newer HSM model. My 70-200mm f/2.8 is also HSM, but I have an older 100-300mm f/4 with the shitty finish that flakes off that is screw drive. For some reason Sigma cheaped out with some of their older lenses, I also have the 100-300mm in EF mount and that one of course has a focus motor built in.

Jpegjeet has no idea DSLRs have live view because he has never bought his own camera. He has only ever demoed mirrorless at best buy.

Every real photographer buys a DSLR as a backup. They are unkillable. Any shitty ones are already dead.

>>4512581
>>4512581
Absolute cope. No boomer shoots JPEG to this day. They can’t even comprehend in-camera JPEG as something viable, because they’re used to DSLR results being not 100% predictable.
Even when mirrorless got mainstream JPEGs were still mediocre because most cameras had limited customization, awful picture profiles that no one ever used and processors were not snappy enough to include high quality processing on the fly.
JPEG became accepted when:
1. Cameras got fast enough to include high quality JPEG processing.
2. Leica and Fuji crowd became big and loud enough bragging about their SOOC colors and picture profiles.
Now that we’re seeing more brands include actually useful custom profiles like LUTs on Panasonic and Nikon’s profiles.
So no, it can’t be a “boomer thing” because it’s all relatively new in the camera history timeline.

>>4512678
You are basically admitting you have never actually used a camera now.

I had a nikon z7ii up until recently and the jpegs were no better or worse than a d850 or d810. I have rented a z8 and had the same issue. I flipped an a7c and an a7cii each and found their jpegs superior to nikon, both in pure image quality and configurability, but still vastly inferior to capture one even if wasting time on getting DR and white balance right. Jpeg IQ has not improved at all between the 5div tier and the EOS R1 tier. The R1 is still worse than C1 but at least it has real NR now.

You are definitely some shill advertising for the usuals.

Post hand with camera and timestamp. Dont bother fucking replying if you aren’t going to submit and do what I say. All further posts made by your idiotic ass will receive 1: post hand faggot 2: ok nophoto.

>>4512678
did chatgpt write this post for you, shitseep prikesh?
>remember sirs, delete one point from rule of 3 and remove the long - so they cant tell -your manager

To solve all this we just need someone to post their best jpeg, and also upload a raw and challenge the other side to process it

>>4512646
>i still dont understand why the EOS RP even exists
they needed to have something cheaper to go with the R when it came out
now the R8 is the normal entry level full frame and they sell the RP for cheap because it's old tech and more than capable of taking nice stills with a cheap prime lens

Found a Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 at a thrift store today, for $2.50. Purchased it in your honor, Sugar.

>>4512679

Whiny little bitch

File: boomer pc.jpg (126.2 KB)

>>4512551
>need to edit on a pc to feel like a big boy
Its a boomlennial phenomenon

File: IMG_6024.jpg (3.7 MB)

>>4512679
Why don’t you post 2 JPEGs, one SOOC, one from C1 where we can all see that C1 is so much better.

>>4512676
You've also adapted EF to sony? How does that work out. I've wondered if a 100-400L would adapt well because those lenses are excellent

>>4512718
Nah I haven't, well, I have a dumb adapter but not an AF one. A lot of my EF lenses were crop only and I don't think adapted lenses worked very well on the first gen A7 (other than A mount) if at all. From what I've read though people have had fairly good results doing so with newer bodies, although I did read somewhere that with adapted lenses the frame rate when using eye AF drops to something like 3fps if that matters to you.

>>4512678
You sound new to digital cameras. You are being ahistorical if you don't think boomers shooting JPEGs have long been a thing.
For example,
https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm back in 2009.
Why do you think FroKnowsPhoto was pushing 'I Shoot Raw' back then too? Because it was a response to boomers then, and today, still just shoot JPG.
We can also look at the volume of RAW editing tutorials, and see they most aren't from boomers either.

File: Screenshot_20260604-054426.png (386.8 KB)

>>4512722

>>4512723
>>4512722
Looks like Ken an Jared talked this out 15 years ago
https://youtu.be/0rj155IDE9U

>>4512678
>No boomer shoots JPEG to this day
You are embarrassing yourself, they were known for JPEG-only and still do to this day, the hobbyists at least.
This is a direct response from shooting film, and even if hipsters and filmsters cope the fact is good film and a decent lab made them never edit any of their stuff, DSLRs having an in-camera JPEG engine was advertised as a "portable lab" back in the day and they treated it as such.
And to be honest the whole aspect of Fuji's crop sensor but with "film emulations" is just repackaged old APS-C DSLR advertising about JPEG-only shooting with an in-camera processor, only now it also has the larp steps of an old-timey styled camera body.

>>4512706
>>4512705
>>4512695
Lol look at these riled up gearfags
>two nophotos and a hipster LARPer from reddit
Does all the pot you losers smoke not calm you down anymore? Shoot raw. Use a computer. Once you do it you won’t mald so hard over how superior it is.
>bbbut zoomers mock milennials for using a superior device they cant afford!
Yeah, the same zoomers that are rabid antisemites and the lowest IQ generation in US history? Who cares.

>>4512723
Ken Rockwell is a bad source. He has repeated claimed to have high end clients with zero proof and photos that look like shit. Why quote someone who lies about being a photographer? He’s a retired programmer.

File: Ken rockwell seal of approval.gif (394.8 KB)

>>4512730

Ken Rockwell is the perfect antithesis of /p/ and he will be discussed here until the heat death of the universe.
>He's a gearfag but an anti-gearfag
he reviews all of the most expensive gear but repeatedly tells people that all you need is x cheap camera or x old lens and calls cheap entry level cameras perfect repeatedly
>he's obviously successful and has a lot of money but also obviously stretches the truth
he's been an engineer, a broadcaster, a marketer, a photographer, has patents and big clients, but proof is only there for a couple of his claims
>his photographs are highly stylized and more successful than anyone on /p/ but mostly hideous
he's like terry richardson but without being a world class coomer
I love Ken Rockwell precisely because he makes so many people apoplectic and his site actually does contain lots of useful info about old stuff as long as you're intelligent enough to take his opinions with skepticism.

>>4512732
Think about it. He’s everything wrong with /p/.
>gear
When its his, the Z8 is terrible, he’s getting an R5. Nothing is ever good enough. Ok. Sure. The Z8 really is worse than the R5. But for what? He shoots the same lifeless static things over and over again, and I’ve seen more exciting action photos of dogs, cats, and sparrows on /p/. Sound like basically anyone from here? Yep. They need a zf for their corgi, an x1dii for their husky, 8x10 for an egg.
When it’s yours, he insists upon and defends hot garbage almost as if to atone and try and keep you from his path. But it’s actually just hypocrisy, and starting out on a disappointment is how people get used to upgrading. Sound like anyone here? They’ll tell you some shitty camera is fine but they own a leica and a z8, they tell you to avoid sony but use an a7c, they tell you to buy a DSLR but they have a mirrorless.
>caree
He shot a wedding, he’s a top tier pro, he shot the mcdonalds menu, he won a contest. Oh boy does he shoot for vogue under a false name too? Can’t show you the real stuff either, it’s a sensitive secret. When examined these claims run from false to unimpressive. He was the cheap option for a friend who couldnt spend $5k on a real wedding photographer and he further lied to sound impressive. Yep, that’s a lot of people here! They shot a friends wedding for a few hundred bucks and they lie out their ass about being a pro from then on. Many such cases.
>visual and artistic quality
Not just bad, stuck in a decades long rut, shooting on repeat. And he’s not just stuck, he got worse. Most people agree he has a few decent older photos. He hasn’t done better since. Hasbeens - a common creature on /p/. Reposting collages and that one time they convinced a woman to pose for them, never posting anything new except another dog/flower/wall.

Dream big
Spend bigger
Lie hard
Shill harder
Gearfaggotry for me, not for thee

>>4512735
>need a zf for their corgi,
I got my Zf for weddings, portraits, and at the time best in class MF for adapted lenses support

>>4512738
Sure thing, rockwelloid variant biomass. Its not just a hobby!
You are definitely a professional. You charged a friend $250 to shoot a wedding and did your moms facebook profile picture. Your obsessive perfectionist spending is alright now.

That’s why you’re so busy shooting for pay and not defending your purchases and favorite brands on 4chan.

Gearfags btfo so hard they’re involuntarily snoiding

>>4512738
>uh no my gear is-
No one wants to read you blog about your shitty plastic budget camera nikek. You don’t have to reply because you feel targeted by a vague statement about stupid gear purchases and dogs. Just go take a photo instead of being a gearfag lol (not another dog one, please we’re begging you)

>>4512738
> best in class MF for adapted lenses support
Isn’t it useless for most lenses but a few that actually have electronic contacts.

>>4512741
its pretty useless period really. its just nikon half assing af-d support. pathetic, not praiseworthy. meanwhile sony has full native autofocus for every A mount lense. kek.

>>4512739
Thank you for the compliments
>>4512740
But look how much hatred I inspire with one simple comment about why I like a certain piece of gear
>>4512741
The novel thing was keeping subject detection on for any adapted lens, so now if I'm using manual focus on a person, I can press the zoom button and it goes right to their eyes, no need to have to move the focus point around or recompose anymore
Then if you just get a chipped adapter, any lens gets green box focus confirmation where I can just turn the lens and wait for the eye box to turn green, and accurate focus without having to rely on peaking or zoom at all. Can also do focus trapping, and it provides focus direction indicators too.
If you know a better system for manual focusing, I'd love to try it.
>>4512742
They have adapters for that now, what AF-D lenses do you have? I used to have the old 50mm and 60mm macro.

File: 6521a9f123ca49c7321a265bbc121ed5.jpg (41.5 KB)

>>4512675
>What mirrorless even has tint in the manual kelvin menu?

>>4512735
I don't need an 8x10 camera to photograph eggs. I need an 8x10 camera because it allows me to materialize my artistic vision.
It's actually the exact opposite of gearfagging, but because the camera is really big, kind of expensive and takes extremely high quality pictures it is hard to see that, I guess.

>>4512603
>I just sold my Z7II on ebay after getting tired of green tints creeping into everything
Seems quite foolish to sell a perfectly good camera for something that can be fixed by moving a couple of sliders in Lightroom. You can even make a preset for it that will remove the green with one click.

>>4512748
Hell you don't even need lightroom for that bullshit you could do it in fucking darktable

File: 61u5OC8D2bL._AC_SL1000_.jpg (56.2 KB)

>>4512677
>Jpegjeet has no idea DSLRs have live view
Live view is useless in a bright environment unless you use one of these.
EVF is a good display in a light controlled environment, which is what is needed to develop RAWs.

>>4512673
I had an EF mount Sigma lens and it was my favorite on that platform. It was somewhat large, but extremely sharp, photos always looked great. I sold it about 10 years later when I got rid of all my EF gear for slightly more than what I had paid new. Conclusion: Sigma makes good shit.

>>4512756
>jpegjeet cant see the screen
kek no wonder. you’re blind.

>>4512748
thats quite false. correcting a green tint also magenta poisons the other colors. then they need corrected. it will never look natural if your starting point is green tinted. even snoy fixed their greening ffs.

File: kf_img_26.jpg (40.2 KB)

>>4512758
>kek no wonder. you’re blind.
with every post you expose how out of touch you are.

The benefit of EVF is that you can make choices about exposure, white balance, shadows/highlights because you have a light controlled environment to view the preview/photo in.

DSLR live view, unless you are using a loupe, won't allow you to make good choices because of the perceptual issues with contrast, reflections, and glare that happens with an exposed screen.
You wouldn't develop your RAWs in Lightroom with sunshine streaming onto your monitor from an open window. for exactly the same reason.

If I didn't have the confidence to immediately export JPEG and delete the RAWs, I would record the RAWs and process them in-camera later using the in-camera RAW development (not available on Sony)
No need for another computer + lightroom subscription.

>>4512761
Nta, but shouldn't you be able to just visualize all that stuff once you meter the scene?

>>4512761
Who’s paying you to ramble about this nonsense? It’s a lot of words just to fall to:
Everyone who isn’t a retard or a subset of photojournalists shoots raw because it is better. In every way.

Your cope essays are proof enough. Raw is better. Justifying jaypeg requires these prolonged mental gymnastics tinged with mirrorless consoomerism, hyperbole about how you’re so dumb using a computer takes forever, and imaginary zoomers that mock you for using a computer (which matters to you because jpeg is for pedos?)
And despite your cope essays most of what you say in them is wrong

Either you are genuinely stupid, paid to do this, or have exponentially less self worth than the average troll. The only person that’s more obvious a failed tech nerd larping as a photographer is ken “my clients go to another school” rockwell.

>>4512761
you haven’t made any valid, realistic points this is just a retarded sales pitch for mirrorless. like we haven’t all used half the mirrorless available today and /p/‘s national sport isnt trialing and flipping cameras on ebay and we dont 1: have the skill that makes your bs irrelevant 2: plenty of experience with jpegs being shit and a waste of time to prepare for in camera.

>>4512748
Or just buy a camera that doesn’t need correcting every single fucking picture.

>>4512771
It's probably more a Lightroom issue than a camera issue, the default profile is the Adobe Color profile instead of the camera matching profile. It threw off a lot of reviewers in the past and some tards still use it anyway because they think it's a good neutral way to review, even though it isn't how it would look on the actual RAW or SOOC.

>>4512773
No. Nikon jpegs and nefs in capture one are all subject to green tint. Nikon color science is very bad with green.

The correct way to fix it is to adjust the green channel’s curve individually for each image (there is no universal degreening fix). It’s just part of how the sensor records color.

>>4512779
can confirm. nikon cameras are very prone to green creeping in where it shouldn’t. its like they’re oversensitive to the tiny amount of green light that reflects off trees.

>>4512779
>>4512782
got any example files, i wana play around with this

File: media_172407033b845a4fd9510f97eff20e0e313ee0c6d.jpg (45.6 KB)

>>4512768
>Everyone who isn’t a retard or a subset of photojournalists shoots raw because it is better. In every way.
RAW is shit because when you are sitting at your chair hours or days later developing them you no longer have the scene to reference with your eyes.
This makes the photos nonsense - works of fiction - lies.
Normies are okay with that since they love lying and being lied to.

I can respect someone who shoots RAW + JPEG, taking care to capture the scene accurately and referencing the JPEG when developing the RAW, but I have no respect for auto mode RAW snapshitters who later tweak the exposure into "looking good". Same as I have no respect for "photographers" who airbrush, AI enhance or otherwise doctor their "photos".

Pic related, I wasn't there so I can't tell you which is the better photo. But if it looked like left and you are showing people image on the right, you are lying to them.

>>4512815
>Oh, you didn't use a 360 camera to capture the entire scene? Your selective framing means you are a lying photographer!
All photography is a lie, dummy.

>>4512815
Nonsensical mental gymnastics. Opinion discarded.

No photography is honest or truthful. Never has been. Don’t be stupid. Color and contrast are and always have been fake. Fine detail has always been mushed or unrealistically crisp. Framing is always abused to exclude crucial context or recontextualize something.
>but if it looked like left
You probably have age related vision issues that make dark areas darker and colors less vibrant. Yes, this is a real medical fact. Your eyes lose DR and color accuracy with age. You can’t take an honest photo. It has never been possible. You could only take scientific measurements with a specialty reference camera, and never render them as a photo, only as spectra, because perception is subjective and inherently a lie.

>>4512815
>I wasn't there so I can't tell you which is the better photo
I knew people could be retarded, but not this retarded

File: 1779455887366913.jpg (60.4 KB)

>>4512815
Are you clinically retarded or are you too poor for a diganosis?

Photography is either for the purpose of entertainment or documentation. If it's the former like your picrel, then your logic does not apply since all photography outside the realm of science or fact-based reporting is doctored to one degree or another. That's just how photography is.
>Durr you cropped it!
>Hurr you increased the saturation!
>Gurr y-you masked the noise!
If you're talking reality-based photography for the purpose of science and news (lmao) then whatever, but also who fucking cares.

>>4512815
Holy based.
I fucking despise mask edits. Not only it looks extremely fake it also doesn’t even look good most of the time. Ah yes I’m sure your bird was glowing like a lightbulb user the tree canopy.

>>4512819
kek documentary and news photos are peak dishonesty

>>4512821
Thats not a mask its an attempt to fix linear recording with a curve or slider adjustment. linear is a lie unless you have degrading eyesight and worsening low light vision to mimic it.

Digital cameras are linear analog devices with ADCs, literally not capable of portraying shadows and highlights realistically. Edits can get them closer but literally only film, overexposed properly, has a logarithmic response that’s close enough to how a healthy eye works fresh off the press. Curves are applied to digital and are scene dependent. There is no master curve that always makes digital look correct.

>>4512816
some more than others.

File: 708_1000.jpg (92.5 KB)

>>4512467
Sir, this is a Wendy's gear thread

>>4512823
I was not referring to the image.

>>4512815
I also dislike over-edited landscape photography that looks unnaturally bright and colorful or just has straight up procedurally genned sky/clouds like a video game skybox
Between your pics I think the best would be something in the middle where you can see details on the ground but it's still dark relative to the sky
A result like that could probably be done in-camera on a modern mirrorless

>expose film perfectly
>develop film with optimal density
>make print on correct grade of paper
>only needs 1 test strip to find correct exposure time
>no dodging, burning or other manipulation required and print comes out amazing looking
Filmbros... I think we won this one if we don't consider RA4 prints.

>>4512823
>Digital cameras are linear analog devices with ADCs, literally not capable of portraying shadows and highlights realistically. Edits can get them closer but literally only film, overexposed properly, has a logarithmic response that’s close enough to how a healthy eye works fresh off the press. Curves are applied to digital and are scene dependent. There is no master curve that always makes digital look correct.

Modern cameras have (optional) selectively applied tone curves which better simulate how human vision interprets a scene.
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3798759501/apical
https://amateurphotographer.com/technique/expert_advice/in-camera-dynamic-range-optimisation/

>>4512836
>A result like that could probably be done in-camera on a modern mirrorless

I could get the one on the right on my Panasonic
i.Dynamic raised
...if that's not enough...
shadows raised, highlights lowered
...if that's not enough...
contrast down, saturation up.

all of these can be assigned to the Q. Menu, so it's all quickly changed using dials.

For realistic results just raising i.Dynamic is enough most of the time.

>>4512706
>dat s o u l
Why is Fujifilm and Nikon so aesthetic?

Not sure if I should sell my EM1-III or not. I like it, but I love to do night shots and M43 just has this slightly mushy quality to it, but I also want a camera I don't have to babysit.

>>4512827
>tfw no coomer photography gf

>>4512841
in camera dro is never right. but digislugs, especially the ones that give sales pitches to justify shooting jpeg, dont really have taste and are basically ken rockwell clones so they’ve never cared

the jpegfag is incapable of realizing why raw results in better results. jpegfags love overly saturated contrasty shit with too much magenta/green tint and kitschy retro filters. convincing a jpegfag of raw’s superiority is like convincing a goyslop addict that real food tastes better.

>>4512859
>in camera dro is never right
Not on Sony, but other brands do it well.

>>4512881
Sony and canon do it better. Nikons doesnt do anything and the rest arent worth mentioning. Real people dont use them desu.

File: Snoyspresso.jpg (748.9 KB)

>>4512883
>>4512881

Why are leica users such leicucks?
>canikony people: if this $3000 camera is sub par in any way it is fucking GARBAGE. OFF TO EBAY WITH IT! my photos can’t wait for this garbage fashion accessory!
>leica people: yeah my camera is half broken and the hot shoe no longer works but i like cameras its an experience :) only $1000 to repair the strap button that fell out? thanks! :D i love my leica and i love using cool cameras and being seen with cool cameras. everyone thinks im a photographer this is great. memory card partially overwritten because i ran out of battery? lol its worth having a leica.
Just look at any leica forum or r/leica. Their cameras are always breaking 2-3 years in and they just accept it.
Canikony chads = dumping the bitch that cheated on you
Leicucks = asking if the guy she cheated on you with is bi

The annoying gearfag that defends every camera especially nikon and fuji from being called rightfully kinda shit is, in fact, a leicuck. What is with the psychology of people who feel emotionally attached to poorly made consumer products?

>>4512897
https://fstoppers.com/reviews/hey-canon-why-are-your-cameras-falling-apart-636447

>>4512899
>unprovoked leicuck/nicuck fanboy canon hate
Leica people gladly use cameras that fall apart. Nikeks actively defend nikons bad cameras and demand people prove they need more like holding four figure photography toys to standards is unreasonable. Leica almost never gets shit for it and receives praise instead. Canon lets some lemons through and loses all of those people to sony. Even jared polin is leaning towards sony, and he’s a professional canon shill.

If it were not for canons cheapo cameras being the best put together, sony would outsell them period. Yes they are that bad lately. Sony is not exactly as good as they should be for their price point either and is known for actively fucking customers over. But many of the new R5IIs shipped with severely buggy firmware on launch so what else were people gonna use? A nikon? Lmfao.

>>4512901
>>4512897
>unprovoked fanboy hate
True

God tier:
phase one
mamiya / leaf
canon 5dii
nikon d200 / fuji s5 pro
film

Ok tier:
newest snoy
hasselblad
fuji gfx
most older DSLRs

Meh tier:
Canon
Ricoh
Most older snoys
Pocket PNS

Kinda bad, buy cheap tier:
fuji X
nikon
olympus

Don’t bother tier:
panasonic lumix
om system
leica

File: GRYP6UtawAAFx6P.jpg (423.7 KB)

>>4512180
Is there any reason to get the IV over the IIIx besides the sensor arguably being a bit better in low light? I'm not really seeing much of a compelling reason given the price jump for a first time buyer.

Where's the best place to buy a new camera body? I'm looking to buy an r6 mkii, but I'm curious to know where you anons do your shopping.

File: file.png (487.4 KB)

>>4512897
they LITERALLY don't even take photos

>>4512919
Undeniable TRVKE

>>4512919
Truest, most honest, and most objectively factual post ever made here fr. Make it official.

>>4512926
Thank goodness I'm one of the many banned from that sub

>>4512932
>thank goodness im a redditor
>and a leicuck from a gear board on reddit
yikes.
/p/ would be better off if redditors didnt post here desu. you soibois aren’t really compatible with 4chan culture. 4chan culture is thrifty, aware of value cost and return, anti-consumerist, libertarian leaning with right wing characteristics, and is 100% in favor of hurting feelings and making people feel unwelcome if they should. it is the polar opposite of reddit, where no one can ever be wrong, everything is just someone’s unjudgeable preference, and “karma” is awarded for posting photos of recent purchases and reviewing them. the closest 4chan comes is (you)s for destroying a camera with a sledgehammer and cumming on the remains.

>>4512937
eh, I bet I've been on /p/ a whole decade longer than you, maybe two decades for 4chan itself
thank you for sharing your perspective of both platforms

>>4512941
Once you go reddit, we’ll never forget it. You lost your based status. You are now a funko pop collecting dog dad numale snoyim.

>>4512945
thank you for sharing your perspective newfriend

>>4512946
>trying to un-switch teams
Nikekking @ snoyim

>>4512897
>>4512901
Well yeah, Leica is like Gucci for camera people. It's a name to show off and will fall apart if you actually try to use it. Leica also recently announced they're going to source their sensors from some new and unknown Chinese sensor maker.

>>4512919
Agreed.

God tier:
Photo takers

Plankton tier:
Nophotos

Simple as

>>4512957
Imagine how amazing this thread would be if the people that argued the most in it just posted banger after banger. At least corgichad has a bunch of pretty good pictures to prove he actually owns and operates a camera.

>>4512962
The removal of EXIF essentially ended gearsperging since people in /rpt/ now have to judge images by how they look and not by what camera took the photo.

>>4512962
Please do not talk about yourself.

>>4512963
Clearly it didn’t.

>>4512965
>Clearly it didn’t.
It did on /rpt/, just not in the gear thread.

>>4512965
Idk why I even watch this thread. It's so remarkably boring and the exact opposite of what photography as an art and hobby should be.
I feel like the people that post argumentative essays in this thread are just so desperate to feel right about anything related to photography while avoiding what photography truly is.

>>4512968
What do you mean, we got some high quality stuff here
>Boomers, RAW or JPG?
>Which brands suck the mostest, besides all of them?
>More menus, more problems
>Here's some old junk I found

>>4512962
Hell yeah thank you

>>4512968
I come by every so often in the hopes I can get a gear recommendation (lens, compact camera, other misc shit) and it always has some brand sperging. Not even /fa/ is this retarded and bitchy about brands.

>>4512968
I don’t really like or hate any camera. I use random old junk as long as it’s at least full frame. But I like pissing off people who care about digital cameras and post exactly whatever I need to until they give up internalize a universal dislike for gear in general. When I’m done with you, you’ll quote ken rockwell as truth, recommend $20 AF SLRs and 5DIIs, and despise anyone who thinks any camera is good or that equipment is worth talking about except to deride it. This is how my species, homo sapiens saturatam maximi, reproduces/infects new hosts.

Soon you will all be one with the kit zoom, and the catalog will be oh, so more vibrant. Join us.

>>4512978
So much more vibrant
So much more… saturated

>>4512970
Please do not reply to yourself talking about yourself.

>>4512989
Good thing I dont

>>4512991
Yeah sorry no one believes that
>wow corgi chad is such a good photographer
>thanks i am
No one even knows who you are or which posts are yours. Stop pretending you’re famous while being named ANONYMOUS and talking about yourself

I kind of feel like updating my camera. I use an old fuji xt1, which is a fine camera. , but I do wish it had ibis. I'm sure xh2 is very capable camera, but xh1 can be had for so little money I feel I should just get one... But I do kind of want the pixel shift capability and 40mpx is 40mpx... And the evf on th xh2 is awesome.

Then again the sony a7r iii is very cheap these days...

>>4513007
sony a7c
dont look back
dont be a fag

>>4513012

I'll be what ever I want to be, but that tiny evf will not do it for me.

>>4512180
GR4 seems to have QC issues. Has Ricoh addressed it yet?

>>4512788
Naturally enough, there has been no response to this. Because this is literally an imaginary issue.

>>4513002
I will take it as a compliment then

>>4513016
more likely it's a workflow issue, most people just import into their pirated lightroom, fuck about with the exposure curve, crop and hit export.
9 times out of 10 the fuck ass adobe color profile ruins the original intent of the image, and the WB presets aren't even remotely close to white point on the camera itself and the end user has no idea which one of these things is the cause or where to begin fixing it. for example:
>the R5 I have as a white point of 5200K
>the bmpcc4k is pretty close kelvin wise at 5700K but also needs a fuck load of green bias or everything looks like it was shot in a abattoir.
basically, all cameras are fucking liars and most people editing images have no clue what they're doing (especially when they're getting fucked over by adobe software, god i hate those cunts so much it's unreal).
that's why it would be great to get a hold of some examples of this "problem" since any issues with color can be corrected if you care to actually look into it.

File: ContactSheet-001-2.jpg (1.0 MB)

>>4513016
Every time I have ever posted blind comparisons, no one ever gets them all right.
Picrel has all brands at LR defaults, but I can only really spot the Fuji ones (and not because of color).
When I made the portrait color comparison after hearing same complaints of Sony, the cope was that you can't tell if they've been edited at all, but Sony is still the worse because the editing requires more work. I'm sure they'd say the same for Nikon tint.

>>4513026
bottom right is niggon?

>>4513027
I made it so long ago I have no idea anymore, but if it's interesting I can remake
I just know it has 1-2 of each major brand, and for sure 2 Fuji
I might see if I can find the old folder and get it from that, I'll let you know

File: IMG_0544.jpg (380.0 KB)

B-b-but… fuji xisters… i-it said ‘weather-sealed’ on the box..

>>4513021
It can be a 1-click fix even
https://youtu.be/4bnAimJhwKs

File: anecdotebattle.jpg (1.8 MB)

>>4513029
>xt30
>weather sealed
How honest of you to leave rubber missing from OP's camera out of the crop too

>>4513026
You dont know how cameras, human vision and perception works, or how dpreview works, if you think this retarded little collage shit by a notorious crooked site that mis-exposes select cameras and fucks with lighting to cheat reviews, is telling anyone anything

When people say x camera has green tint they are speaking about real life references, usually excessive sensitivity to reflected light (ie: skydome cast, foliage cast). Nikon began have issues with this around the d750’s extremely blue shadows.

It’s not relevant to dpreviews botched studio tests.

It’s not relevant to studio photography.

It’s an issue with reflected light appearing in shadows from trying to unnaturally push high ISO performance and shadow recovery.
This sort of issue actually appeared between the 5dIII and 6d2 as well. Purply blue skydome lighting creeping in everywhere, at levels higher than better cameras and human vision would perceive. Not as much green as nikon picks up though.

The tinting varies by image and requires per-image fixing. Any camera that has issues with this is trade in material. Editing to fix it is a waste of time.

>>4513032
Lol going full base rate fallacy. Why are fuji and nikon fanboys the same everywhere?

Your brand is cheap chinese/thai shit. Well, fuji was cheap. Now they’re a low tier wannabe luxury brand.

Canon outsells EVERYONE by a factor of over five. Fuji is a distant #4 brand. One or two broken canons, relative to how many canons are out there, is normal. The sheer number of newer fujis like xt5s and xh2s failing in light drizzles indicates INCONSISTENT MANUFACTURING QUALITY. /p/ cant comprehend this and thinks that all cameras are made exactly as well as others of the same brand.
Fuji camerad are made in CHINA.
What is china known for?
Eating fetuses? Human trafficking? Torturing stolen dogs before eating them? The ughyur and tibetan genocides? Slavery? Lying about the state of their nation? Yes. But also, INCONSISTENT MANUFACTURING QUALITY.

Sony cameras are made in china
Same issue
Nikon cameras are made in thailand
Similar issue
Canon cameras are made in japan. With several times the sales they have fewer lemons than fuji, nikon, and sony combined and a superior pro support program.

File: IMG_4232.jpg (266.5 KB)

>>4513038
No! Chinese made cameras could never be prone to random build quality failures because fuji is my favorite brand! Fuji’s autofocus is not bad! They’re a small project that doesnt have the funds to develop good AF? But! Its my favorite brand! Prove you need better autofocus to post on 4cha ! Its my favorite brand! Prove you need better weather sealing! Prove it! I stole photos from flickr im a PRO shut up and give fuji your money stoptellingpeoplenottobuyfuji leave! Fuji! Alooooone!
*snaps dog*

>>4513007

I don't shoot fast moving subjects. Most of what I do is slow photography indoors and outdoors. Pixel shift would be good for studio, I think.