Fujiworms crawling out of OP's ass

>>4486887

first day on 4chan huh

>>4487057
Honestly the only reason I would buy a Fuji would be for Medium format. I hate their colour science. Everything is bleak. They still crush black. The tones are always sickly. Nikon for realism, Canon for richness.

>>4487067
Is it yours, Mr Wrongthread?

>>4487054
Are all these shitty thumbnail sized ad videos made by the exact same chinaman?

PS:
The X2D uses a sony sensor with lenses made by fuji

>>4487054
retard influencers need to do their composition in post apparently

how many videofags must I behead to get a series of RF primes made for stills?

micro four thirds

X-E5 :3

>>4487109
>mf shooters that edit their composition in post: >:(
>snoy foolframer shooters that fix their colors and edit their composition in post: :D

>>4487179
>mentions sony completely unprompted
Unironically rent free kek.

>>4487181
> becomes the symbol for everything wrong with vapid modern sloptography

> this is winning

>>4487181
the biggest snoycel here is the only one that says post processing is developing your photography skills lol

>>4487188
It is. Competency is good. Not knowing how to do stuff is bad. If editing takes hours you might not be smart enough to be a photographer.

Photographers by IQ:
Ansel Adams - 136
Garry Winogrand - 117
Sebastio Salgado - 122
Edward Burtynsky - 135
Richard Avedon - 129
journalists and commercial photographers - 96

How do you measure up?

>>4487201
Not knowing how to compose properly in the moment is very low IQ anon.

>>4487201
Bunch of midwits outside of Adams and Burtynsky. And it shows.

>>4487212
there's more to developing than just cropping, dummy. thats probably the thing people do the least.

>>4487239
Besides fixing green colors, cropping js definitely the thing people do the most. If you cant grasp basic composition youre ngmi. Might as well just AI to make your photo for you.

>>4487241
>Might as well just AI to make your photo for you
Sounds like the fuji experience kek.

>>4487242
...?

I might get an old Finepix S2000HP for free, what am I in for?

What is sharper and has less CA: the Fuji GFX 80mm stopped down from 1.7 to 2.8 or the Hasselblad 90V stopped down from 2.5 to 2.8?

I've tried Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, but I still like Canon colors the most. Not the most accurate for sure, but the pictures look the best I think.

When did they start being jews and get rid of built in lens hoods?

>>4487054
Do these people know that telephoto lenses exist?

>>4487296
>24mp ff sensorlet cant crop so he has to buy new lenses

>>4487292
Canon photos are pre-edited to a neutral negative filmy look, but studio pros (not garage studio youtubers) all use nikon. Annie still uses a d810.

>>4487292
Canon=Nikon > Leica > Fuji > Panasonic > Olympus > Sony

>>4487323
Reality: Sony effectively removed any reason mft had to exist
4chan mft fanboys: DESPISE BEING USED BY ALL THE PROS SNOY IS SHIT SNOY IS SHIT SNOY IS SHIT SNOY IS SHIT (repeat forever, make every thread about this) SNOY CLAP IS CLAP NOT CLAP AN CLAP OPTION! YOU HAVE TO BUY AN OM5 NOW THERE IS NO SMALL FULL FRAME!

>>4487332
>most mentally stable snoy shooter

Canon has the best ergonomics also, buttons and dial are where you want them, I'm not saying this as a fanboy, more of an enthusiastic user.

>>4487334
>m43 shill has no theory of mind, can not understand the white mans ability to unemotionally write a character, giving it words and tendencies that are not his own
The sony a7c alone forced olympus out of business. Your screeching is getting old. Whats next, math is a lie because 4 dont equal no 8/2?

File: snoyboy.png (365 KB)

365 KB PNG

>>4487336
>sony
>white

>>4487338
The #1 camera brand in india is canon.

>>4487335
That's because they've been in the photography industry for so long. They make ergonomic photographic tools, not awkward unintuitive computers.

>>4487335
Canon control layouts are horrible and only get half as sane as an entry level nikon for their top tier full frame models. Their cheap cameras dont even have a sensible af-on button.

File: Pentax-K-70-vs-Sony-SLT-A68-size-comparison.jpg (40.8 KB)

40.8 KB JPG

I regret selling my Pentax KF for $320 and want a newer APSC camera for my K and A Mount Lenses I can keep in the car and abuse. The CCD stuff really fucking sucks in low light to the point that if you introduce any movement it shits itself. Its fun to use in a sunny day but not practical. The K1 is too expensive and big to edc.

Sony a68 or Pentax K-70? Both are like $260-300. The Sony is harder to find because its region locked so I have to buy one in America, the ones sold on buyee are Japanese only.

Pentax KS2 is $140-180 off buyee too but the K-70 has better low-light performance. KF/K-70 was excellent for low light for a APSC just the AF leaves a lot to be desired. There's also a K-70 with a busted screen I could try to repair for $120 (I can get the KS2 display for $40 off Aliexpress).

a68 might be cool too since my newest A-Mount camera is a 14.2mp CCD a390. a77ii is like $4-700 still and other than the plastic lens mount I won't miss anything I think. I do feel like the Pentaxes are sturdier cameras than the Sonys, especially the SLT line which half of the ones for sale have a error message or bad focus/antishake/sensors.

>>4487350
>alien hands typed this

>>4487358
Stay away from Sony. I had IBIS issues on my KM5D and Sony a200 back in the day that killed them. Would imagine they would be ticking time bombs 20 years on and with no warranty.

File: PICT0955.jpg (1.2 MB)

1.2 MB JPG

>>4487367
Ironically I own 2x KM5Ds and 2x a100s. The IBIS broke on one of the a100s (this is where I found out all the Sonys were region locked since I had to reflash it to use the English FW). I also own a a390 that's fine.

I might try to fix that $120 K-70 (below). Hoping its a display issue and not a bad aperture solenoid since would have me soldering. I have a eye on 2 K-70 auctions too I'd rather get if under <$200.

https://buyee.jp/item/jdirectitems/auction/h1190619887

Pic was from a 5D

>>4487316
>Spend $12000 on a camera
>Can't afford new lens since I spend $12000 on the camera so I crop in 1000%
>lower resolution image than some chud with a 15 year old crop sensor dslr and a 55-250 he bought for 12 euros

>>4487404
The power of digital MF is the ability to fuck your framing up so badly but still be able to salvage something.
The mindset of "i'll figure out what a good photo is later".
>captcha: CHUDEE

camera in dog bowl

>>4487431
Not really a MF thing. Snoy shooters have been poorly composing photos on their a7rs for the past decade.

>>4487431
I don't question it has utility, just that it's retarded.
Medium frame has a negative crop factor, so that 55mm has what, like a .6 or .8 crop factor, so like 40mm ish?
The Canon 90D has a lower pixel pitch than the Hasselblad, I mean you could go birding with a 24mm ef-s lens and crop, doesn't mean it's not retarded.

>>4487432
>shlopcam 5000

But why?

Will I become based with this setup?
>Nikon D700
>Nikkor 24mm 2.8d
>Nikkor 50mm 1.4d
>Nikkor 85mm 1.4d
>Nikkor 300mm 4d ed if
Planning on nature and wildlife photography where I sit in the same spot for 5 days with the camera on a tripod

>>4487441
The camera should be off.

i had an animal related incident with my camera bag and require a new one
how many pockets of autism do you prefer your camera bag to have

>>4487070
Was considering a GFX as I found out that most EF lenses cover the whole image circle with minimal vignette, but that autofocus is terrible. I tested out a 50S II and even with first party lenses you might as well consider it a manual focus camera. It's so slow and even in good lighting it feels like it's failing focus like 30% of the time. Indoors way more. Genuinely haven't experience AF that bad since Nikons screw drive film cameras. No idea what I would even get for MF digital now, no way am I shelling out for a new mirrorless hassie, maybe a digital back and an RZ or maybe the pentax...

>>4487338
This image will never not be funny

>>4487443
>Screw drive nikon
>wildlife
Kek. If you're shooting wildlife, leave all of those AFD lenses at home, the autofocus is slow and inaccurate especially if you expect to be tracking. And unless you expect to be getting extremely close they're not really long enough. Just take the 300mm, if it's the lens I'm thinking of it has an in-built focus motor.

>>4487475
Forgot the text

What’s /p/ serious opinion on zoom camera phones?

>>4487476
Why using a phone with shit ergonomics if you want to zoom?

What are some okay lenes with at least 400mm at the longest if a zoom, under $500 on the EF, or could be adapted to the EF mount, yes this means old manual film lenses too.
Before you start, YES I know they're going to be all shit unless you manage to find a 400mm f/5.6 at a robbery prices, I am just curious since I saw a Sigma 150-500 and it didn't seem too expensive. Was for Nikon though, just made me look into it a bit.
I KNOW it will be extremely limited, I use a 70's Tokina telephoto so I'm not exactly expecting the world.

>>4487054
>that focus breathing
holy fuck this looks like zooming from 24mm to 70mm LOL
chinese leica is just trash

>>4487454
>medium format
>light circle covered by 35mm lenses
>yes goy, that's $9800 for the body. thanks

Recommend me a magnetic lens filter system
Or maybe step-up rings that are both threaded and magnetic so I can re-use my existing filters

File: screenshot.png (87.7 KB)

87.7 KB PNG

>>4487379

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

I just found out about this site meant to compare sensor dynamic range and

>K-70 is ridiculously OP for a APSC DSLR in low light (1 stop in DR away from the FF K1ii). I think it has to do with the accelerator chip for noise reduction in the K-70, K1ii which would explain the sharp gain around ISO 600 in DR. It comes close to even some mirrorless APSCs sold today (Nikon Z30, Canon R50, Sony a6100 all within 1/2 a stop or less)...but I can find one for <$300.

>a68 is noticeably behind equal to the Pentax KS2 which is half the price used, KS2 definitely a generation behind K-70 its 1/2 a stop in DR less at every ISO

>CCD shitters are horrible, though I feel like my 5D takes better low light photos than my K200D.

>K-3III is ridiculously good too for a APSC almost as good as some older FF cameras.

Guess I'm shopping for a <$200 K-70

File: IMG0833.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4487070
Finally a honest fucking take. Fujifilm colors are tacky most of the time. Some of the shit they give with you in the camera as "simulations" are decent for certain looks but the stuff that's supposed to be the "neutral" or whatever always felt worse than what sony puts into their cameras.

Also they should start calling the worms reticulation so it has that "film feel" to it. Pic related.

>>4487278
bump? :(

>>4487501
Those downwards facing triangles mean the chart is meaningless anon.

Dynamic range can not be measured using the signal to noise ratio as a proxy if there is noise reduction after the sensor and ADC. Only the signal coming out of the ADC is the actual digital photo the camera takes - everything that happens to it after that is an edit. Raw IS NOT raw data. It is a file format. It gets processed.

Bill cant always detect post NR either, and doesnt adjust his charts for measured ISO, so this site is absolutely useless for comparing cameras. Its only good for landscape and astro fags calculating ideal ISO settings for doing HDR or avoiding processing artifacts in stacked composites.

You are using it wrong. You are an idiot. You are misinforming people. You are lying. You are spreading idiocy. Stop any time.

>>4487501
>be pentax
>apply noise reduction to the raw
>call it ACCELERATOR
>idiot thinks it adds dynamic range because someone labeled his noise vs iso setting chart dynamic range
this shit, and pentaxes inability to issue recalls and bug fixes for defective k1/ii and k-## models, is why pentax is dead as a company. its like doing everything bad snoy does (forced raw nr, parts failures never recalled, firmware bugs galore) but also constantly re-releasing old nikon dslrs with worse autofocus and an awful overpriced lens selection.

*cranks noise reduction slider to 100*
my om-5 is now just as good as fool frame!

File: xCOawp6.jpg (123.2 KB)

123.2 KB JPG

>>4487516
>You are a idiot

I know, that's why I'm posting it here to see if I'm reading it correctly. I thought it was comparing sensors ala DxO. I did notice the sharp jump on the KP/K70/K1ii as likely being the accelerator chip (NR feature between the sensor and ADC).

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/361360-acceleration-chip-k1mkii-kp-k70-whats-difference-2.html

>>4487517

It does help the low light performance though, so mission accomplished?

>>4487519
Imaging engine doesnt mean ADC. It means the stuff that turns the 1s and 0s into a raw file.

I turned the NR slider up to improve my camera’s low light performance. Its the same thing - the sensor is not gathering any more light, and the ADC and wiring shit is not adding any less of its own noise. The only other company doing this retarded shit as aggressively as pentax is sony, to hide the noise issues on the a6700 and a9iii.

>>4487523
Oh wait, I was wrong too.

The r6iii, r5ii, and r1 also do this to hide how the actual sensor does. Shadow recovery reveals the deficit visually.

Again it doesnt improve performance. It improves metrics in computer generated "objective" reviews like dxomark and dpreview. Nothing is happening to your photos that a slider or dark frame subtraction cant do. And you cant turn it off. It only serves to convince you the product has improved when it actually hasn’t. Your photos will look the same with or without forced raw NR, because you will adjust jpeg NR up or down to achieve the desired noise level anyways. It ONLY affects retarded reviews and charts, and the idiots that take them as gospel.

How does a modern mirrorless camera with on-camera lamp assist compare to a DSLR with a flash grid assist in terms of autofocus speed and accuracy? Despite it being compatible, I can't get the grid to work with my DSLR. Just wanted to know if I was missing out on something or if modern AF renders it unimportant.

>>4487538
mirrorless on body af lamps are borderline useless and low light af has been a downgrade overall. if you need quick autofocus in darkness use a dslr and a flash with a supported IR lamp.

fyi this is why mirrorless babbies (even foolturds) abuse bokeh. the -10ev nikon cameras other than the z8 focus stopped down (cripple hammer), and others have shitty low light AF even focusing wide open so they shit themselves indoors.

mirrorless = scam

>>4487485
I have the 150-500mm and I've been pleased with it, far from shit. I imagine you can find one in EF within your budget. I wouldn't bother with anything lesser than that, any manual lens of that length is just going to be shit and you really want AF, ideally IS too. The only cheap superteles I'd recommend is mirror lenses for fucking around with, they can give interesting results and they're small enough it's not a lot of effort to chuck one in a bag just in case.

File: IMG_1791.jpg (574.7 KB)

574.7 KB JPG

>>4487323
I've shot with Nikon (albeit CCD), Canon, Leica, and Fuji (40MP).
In my experience it's been Leica > Nikon >> Canon. I won't speak to Fuji since I used it in a particularly bleak and snowy winter period so everything was virtually B&W in real life anyway, but from what I've seen of the simulations, they're purely a gimmick.
Canon is passable but the 'muh colors' is a meme. Going from a 5DIV to a previous gen Leica mirrorless has been a total fucking renaissance for me. Maybe I'd be happier with a 5DII/III but the IV (equipped with a 24-105L) produced files I found hard to work with in many cases, pic rel being a random example

>>4487552
Preferable yes, but I can deal without AF or IS handheld with an OVF for the most part.
It's more of a thought exorcise, doesn't have to be the most practical as long as it's good optically. Though if it's a manual lense I really wouldn't want to be spending near $500. I saw that Nikon and a 1970's a 600mm FD mount L series so I've gotten curious at some of the options around even if unconventional.
I've had a mirrored lens on my list but haven't seen any cheap enough with an adaptable mount around.

>>4487563
>Preferable yes, but I can deal without AF or IS handheld with an OVF for the most part.
You say this, but I'm assuming you haven't actually tried it. Many old lenses are just trash, the longer lenses more so. Optical finders are hard enough to focus with as it is and it's even worse with a long lens that soft and dim and your view is shaking all over the place and the focus ring is stiff and heavy because you're moving a ton of glass. I'm guessing you're probably also using a crop body given your lower budget so you're then essentially dealing with the shake of a 750-900mm.

What is this "thought exercise" of yours? What is your actual intended use? If it's just going to be a stationary subject, if you're just wanting to peep through the window of the hottie down the street and you can set up a tripod, then maybe you can get by. If you're wanting to shoot stuff that moves handheld and actually want decent looking images then just pony up and get the 150-500mm and enjoy your practical and easy to use lens.

>>4487456
I'm shooting general nature too, ie rocks and leaves. For non wildlife I may as well buy MF, it's not going anywhere.
Re: 300mm, I know it'll be a struggle but I hate portraits of animals with nothing going on and the background blown out. I like when the critter is small in the frame and it has a sense of place. You're probably right though, maybe the 200-400 or 200-500 instead? Or take a TC for when I know I'll need reach?

File: IMG_8792.jpg (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB JPG

>>4487572
>You say this, but I'm assuming you haven't actually tried it.
I've taken like 3000 photos with it.
>What is this "thought exercise" of yours?
I want to know the optically best lens under $500 that is a long focal length telephoto. If it was a telescope and could be focused a I'd try using that on wild life for fun.
I want something to experiment with while while waiting for proper high end lenses or bodies to show up used locally to upgrade.

>>4487580
EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM

>>4487580
save your money and use this time to practice your fieldcraft. $500 can be a big difference.

>>4487547
>other than the z8
Have they still not rolled out that update to all their other full frames yet?

what's a good general purpose lens for the Z mount?

I sold my old shit and just bought a z8 and 180-600 (mainly birder) but i want something general for travel.

>>4487647
40/2 or 26/2.8 pancake

File: Screenshot 2025-12-10 at 8.12.39 PM.png (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB PNG

excited I found this a neighborhood over I'm picking it up tomorrow morning after work. mostly bought it for the 35mm f1.8 dt sony prime, don't really have any primes in that focal length (have a 50mm + 100mm macro, 50mm f1.7, 28mm f2.8, 135mm f2.8) and I love the 35mm apsc equivalent on pentax

definitely a good addition to my a-mount collection where the newest camera is a a390 14.2mp ccd from 2008-09 (includes 2x a100s, 2x km5ds, and a a390). iirc this is 2014 with a cmos 20mp sensor from the a5000.

was originally looking for a a68 or a77 but those are $260-400 body only....I wanted those for the micro adjustment in the body

a-mount is fun to shot tbqh I love the pictures I can get out of my a390 and km5d (the a100...not so much tbqh)

I took a chance on a cheap adapter to put old lenses on a Canon 40D. Does anyone have any experience doing this? I hate being restricted to one lens mount type and the adapters seems like a good way to get around that.

ANON'S WITH THE NIKON ZF
What's your biggest lens? What made you pick that one? I'm looking at the 24-120 f4 and like the quality for the price just worried about the size. I've held one in store but it was mounted to a z9 so it didn't seem huge.

>>4487710
It's kind of annoying but whatever

>drop off some film
>see lens I might want
>some guy starts browsing lenses, picks up the one i'm interested in
>reeee I'm still paying for my film dev
>finish paying, walk over to lens area
>wait for guy to set down the lens
>smile at him and snap it up for myself

>>4487710
It can be varied, some adapters are too thick and won't hit infinity. Also, heavy lenses can make the fit loose. I've stopped using adapters, instead I 3D print a new mount. This way it's possible to use more lenses, canon fd are easy to rebuild for example

>>4487710
You'll want to swap out the focus screen if you're using anything faster than f/2.8, unless you want to use live view

>>4487475
>>4487476
They should just make a phone with a mount and direct access to the sensor at this point.

>>4487562
>Going from a 5DIV to a previous gen Leica mirrorless has been a total fucking renaissance for me.
Is it the Leica itself or the fact that you ditched a ton of weight and used a manual focus lens?

>>4487336
A7Cs are amazing. I'd argue they kind of made the high-end A6XXXs irrelevant. Large sensor, similar body weight, the rest depends on which glass you pick.

>>4487715
>f/4 zoom for $1000
I don't have anywhere near enough lenses or experience to judge these things, but that feels expensive to me. I know it's not an S-line, but the 24-200mm f/4-f/6.3 is $800. What's the big trade off here? Glass quality?

File: Screenshot 2025-12-11 at 4.10.14 PM.png (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB PNG

ewaste bros what we getting

>>4487793
Man that looks like fun. Id totally get one for $30.

File: image.png (565 KB)

565 KB PNG

reposting:

I occasionally do photography at museums, but I always rent or borrow a DSLR. Secondly, I have collected a lot of out of print books I want to digitize the illustrations of

I'm trying to decide between buying a flatbed scanner made for books, and buying a camera that i'd mount pointing straight down on a table or angled at the same angle the book would be at, that way I could scan books and also have a camera to use without needing to rent one

However, last time I borrowed a camera I tried this out with a normal tripod, an extension arm, etc, and it was kinda a finnicky mess. The arm to get the camera pointed straight down had unbalanced weight so the tripod consantly tried to tip over even when I tried to weigh it down, not to mention that the threads that fixed the camera to the arm/tripod, and the tripod itself, had no way to move in fixed angle increments to ensure I was exactly at 90 degrees

So:

>Is there gear that will help for this sort of setup?
>Do they make tripods and mounts that lock to specific angles?
>What sort of light would I need to get even lighting for the books without casting a glare?
>What type of lens is as close to possible as being totally isometric to minimize lens distortion?

File: 7ko60z2qgq3f1.jpg (134 KB)

134 KB JPG

Guys I'm torn. I want to get either the RF 28mm or EF 40mm pancake. Problem is I shoot both an EF SLR and an R8.
28mm and 40mm are both something I'd use. I just want a lens to chuck in a bag alongside a beeg telephoto.
I use the SLR about 1/8th as much as the R8 but ngl having the 40mm for both systems is tempting as fuck. The only drawback is with the adapter I'm making the R8 bigger than it needs to be and the RF lens is way sharper.
For context I have an EF 16-35mm f/4 I use on both systems regularly but it's huge and not always ideal to pack that along with my EF 70-200 f/4

The EF lens is about half the price of the RF 28mm, but it gets such good reviews I feel like I'd be a retard to get the old EF lens over it.
So basically do I just give up and get the EF lens so it fits both systems or do I get the RF lens because of the extra small package and super dooper sharp results?
>inb4 buy both
No, I have enough shit as it is, I just can't make a choice and would like some input on the matter.

>>4488053
Well would you prefer a pancake with your SLR or the R8? Personally if I'd like something like that I'd go with the EF lens, since it's not big adapted. Investing in EF is always a good idea, since you can just adapt it to basically anything. And you wont lose much if you decide to sell it later.

>>4488053
I have that ef 40mm, it's very cinematic, I like it a lot. But with the adapter it's not super small.

Is there any advantage to using the native mount apposed to adapting? Not talking about electrical contact or auto focuses lenses, just like using manual Pentax lenses on a EF mount instead of a Pentax DSLR.

>>4488075
If you're talking about just manual focus lenses then yes because a Pentax body will be able to control the aperture, either auto or stopping down to the selected aperture only when the photo is taken. Same goes for the older non-AF Nikon lenses, although body compatibility with those can be a bit fucky.

>>4488053
Get the EF 40mm. I have one and love it. It’s absolutely tiny, is surprisingly sharp for what it is, and 40mm is a great focal length.

>>4488077
Pentax-A and newer like Pentax-F/FA = electronic aperture control (has two contacts on lens mount for that) on all DSLRs and AF Film Bodies

Pentax-M and older like M42 and unlisted (think Ricoh, Takumar lenses) = manual regardless the body its on

How much is the minimum I can expect to pay for a decent camera? I'd rather buy new because I don't buy used stuff I know shit about.
Also
>Why don't you just use your phone?
My phone is shit and I don't want to use a phone anyway

>>4488087
Either you want cheap or you want new I'd say. Your money will last much longer if you go for used, check out mpb.com

>>4488090
I'll check that website, thanks.

>>4488096
They give a 6 month warranty I think and it's legit. The prices are above classifieds but pretty ok

>>4488087
Check Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace. Cameras either work or they don't.

t. Just picked up >>4487679 and didn't get ripped off, was being sold by a old white guy.

This Sony has way better auto iso/shutter speed capabilities than the older cameras lol. My low light photos are way nicer (probably the more advanced 20mp CMOS sensor helping).

>>4488081
Pentax A doesn't have any electrical connection to the body, it's all mechanical. I don't know if it's all Pentax bodies or if they gimp some of them like Nikon but at least the ones I've seen they have an actuator to control the aperture, either keeping the lens wide open until a photo is taken where it will stop down to the selected aperture or if the aperture ring is set to A then the body gets to choose the aperture. They can also sense what value the aperture ring is set to and meter appropriately, because the lens will be wide open by default. Put an A lens on a Canon body and you're stuck with a dark viewfinder unless you're shooting wide open.

>>4487678
Retarded

>>4487647
24-120mm f4 for general purpose
50mm f1.8 for lighter travel
Get both anyway

>>4488087
Buy a T6i for like $150.

>>4488107
https://www.mosphotos.com/PentaxLensesExplained.html

https://www.pentaxuser.com/article/pentax-a-series---the-arrival-of-the-ka-mount-2244

I can't upload pics because 4chan is being gay but they do have a electrical contact on the lens mount, second link has it halfway down.

I have the golden opportunity to get a brand new X100VI for $1500 from a good friend.

Do you think it's worth getting this if my only photography experience is with my phone? Like, can I produce quality photos with this camera on auto?

>>4488166
If he's your friend ask to borrow it for a few days and test it out.

>>4488166
Its a pretty dogshit camera. Blurry lens, slow noisy autofocus, 2 stop IBIS. The IQ is comparable to an om5.

>>4488168
We live far from each other. He currently has it listed on Facebook for $1900, but he’s offering me a special price since we’re friends. Apparently he’s already had a lot of offers, but he’s willing to hold it for me for max of 5 days if I decide to buy.

>>4488166
Abandon the /gear/ thread because you'll never get genuine advice regarding fujifilm here
You can always resell it yourself if you end up not keeping it if your friend is truly getting multiple offers for $1900

>>4488174
Yes /gear/ is unfortunately redpilled on how badly made fuji cameras are

Just buy an om5 instead

>>4488174
>>4488178
Who should I listen to here

>>4488179
Trust yourself
Try the camera for cheap, resell it for profit if you don't like it or find the fixed lens too limiting

>>4488179
>>4488181
Or hell, if you resell, split the profit with your friend since he's giving you a deal right now

>>4488182
What a dick move

>>4488179
Good photographers like corgifag, doghair, sugar, and huskyfag endorse the om system om-5 and sony a7c as top tier choices for digital

>>4488183
Fuck you I'm not a good photographer and I would never endorse either of those cameras

>>4488169
Why is it so popular and backordered everywhere then?

>>4488189
>Why are the sheeple buying small retro "asthetic" larp-grade cameras en masse from the (former) film company?
Small because dainty wrists
Retro because larping is the top priority
"Film" company because film is nostalgic (read: omg muh heckin childhood!)
Backordered because Fuji succesfully convinced scores of millenials and gen Xers that by buying their film simulations they too can be the dad they never had and recreate fond memories of their vacations to Pheonix.

Instax is like orders of magnitude more succesful in terms of total revenue compared against real cameras because it captures ease-of-use and larping in one tidy cheap package.

>>4488192
>40MP apsc sensor
>IBIS
>Tilting screen
>Weather sealed
>All metal body
Is there any other compact camera as good as this one though?

>>4488194
>40 MP APS-C
Terrible pixel pitch, holy hell. May as well use a phone. Nobody is blowing up big 30" prints using this.
>IBIS
is a video feature (so if you're into video then it's a +, genuinely)
>Tilting screen
You literally need to buy bottom-rung Cannikkoy to not have one, this is hardly a +
>Weather sealed
Yeah lmk how that goes in anything other than a light mist (and this goes for any brand btw)
>All metal body
Err.. yeah this is okay I guess. I don't see the point now that engineered plastics are basically just as durable when paired with a strong frame like titanium or w/e. Anyway, I don't see this as + but you might

>Is there any other compact camera as good as this one though?
Define 'good'. Feature rich? Sure. But if you handed me (for free) a $50 crop cope sensor Nikon from 2010 or one of these brand new, I'd still take the Nikon. Am I shill? Maybe, but I'd take a Cannot 450D as well, or a Pentax K30. Then again minimal size isn't important to me.

>>4488203
It also has built in ND filters.

>>4488139
I have an old Pentax A 28mm f/2.8, I never knew that little dot was an electrical contact. But still I don't see how that changes anything as they still have mechanically actuated aperture and you'll only get that functionality on a Pentax body.

Just bought a refurbished Sony 20-70/4 for $450. What am I in for?

>>4488026
>>4488026
>>4488026
Also, disregarding the whole book digitization question, what should I be looking at for my first camera to use at museums and the like?
i've previously rented or bought-and-returned various Canon Rebel cameras over the years with a 18-55mm lens and I've thought those were fine enough, though something which can do better in low light conditions without me needing to pump the ISO or Depth of Field up would be nice.

As I understand it, people tend to favor mirrorless cameras these days, but I've never used one and I'm a little skeptical about not having an optical viewfinder.

Is there a place I can likely find a used/open box rebel t6/7 with a 18-55mm lens for like under $200, or am I really better off looking at other cameras?

>>4488203
>IBIS
>is a video feature
not him and don't give a shit about the x100vi but you're fucking retarded

>>4488266
it clearly IS although perhaps not primarily

>>4488263
No mirrorless camera can provide better image quality for static images than your higher end DSLRs like the D850 and the equiv canon. Mirrorless is mostly a scam and a money grab aimed at zoomers who think that if your camera doesn't have le hecking blazing fast c-af, it's useless

>>4488275
No DSLR can match the IQ of a fpL with its 60 megapickles

>>4488275
Well, googling it and a d850 is around 2000$, and I'm sure as fuck not spending that much money on this (at least not if it's not also part of the book scanning setup)

I could probably justify up to around 500-600, and I'd rather spend less then that: As I said I'd want to spend like 200$ or less on a rebel, so if I'm paying over twice that amount I would want something that's significantly better, though not ness twice as good, especially since quantifying this stuff is iffy anyways

File: 746870218-copystands-1024x550_1200x645png.png (346.6 KB)

346.6 KB PNG

>>4488026
You likely need to weigh down the tripod if using an arm like that. Any decent tripod will have a hook on the column to add weight. Some will have a center column that is designed to tilt out like that, and others may have a column that is reversible so you can just mount he tripod directly above and shoot directly down.
A picrel "copy stand" is what you really want, but new ones can be just as spendy as tripods. Keep an eye out for used ones. The easy way to light something well like this is by having two lights, one on each side at roughly a 45 degree angle towards the subject.
Keep in mind, even if you have lens with 0 lens distortion, as you change your camera to book distance, you will still see differences in perspective distortion, especially if too close.

>>4488263
If you can use tripods, camera performance will matter a lot less. You want as much light as possible, the less light you get, the less clear the details and less accurate the colors, and a tripod can get you as much light as you need.
A better camera can handle shooting in less than perfect light better, and a better lens can get you more light, as can IBIS (which most DSLRs lack).
For your budget DSLR definitely the way to go, and for your use case, you wouldn't really benefit from the advantages mirrorless offer.
T6 would be a fine starting point, capable of great images, just remember it's a 10 year old lowest-tier entry level camera.
>>4488281
D850's are half that used, and are one of the best performing DSRL's ever made. If you can find a cheap used 5D3, D750, or D810, those are good options too. Due note to get the best of a nicer camera, you'll also need generally more expensive lenses. If you're fine with the rebel but want better QoL, an 80/90D would be worth looking at.

>>4488275
slapping a mirror in front of an inferior sensor does not magically create superior image quality

File: supeilol sensol.png (728 KB)

728 KB PNG

>>4488295
>SuPeRiOr SeNsOr
Who cares if it reveals one additional eyebrow hair if its noisy af and has snoy color

Behold a great way to spend an extra thousand or more and get uglier pics
>but 12 or even 17 extra mp will show one or even two extra eyebrow hairs!

>>4488298
Really obvious raw NR smearing on the FP L there. I wonder how bill claff missed it on his charts?
>yeah this a7rv repackage totally performs like an ideal 100% quantum efficiency future sensor from the 2100s no tricks here just ignore the added blurring that looks like noise reduction

>>4488298
>gets btfo
>immediately resorts to snoyposting and coping
embarrassing

>>4488302
Ima be real with you nigga a ff snoy with a better sensor than a d850 does not exist

>>4488303
why do you keep bringing up sony?

>>4488304
Let me rephrase

The sensor on the d850 is the highest performing sensor ever put on a ff camera period full stop

>>4488302
Yes, you did get btfo, and you are in fact coping.

How does the FP L track the ideal line on P2P charts despite using the a7rv sensor, with e shutter, which increases noise? In the blurry character of high ISO noise and detail, we see the truth. Noise reduction is applied to raw files.

>>4488305
The Z7II actually.

>>4488298
Snoy sisters... Its over...

>>4488306
https://www.dxomark.com/cameras/

It’s as though you’re retarded

>>4488308
The differences between the d850 and Z7II for sports, portrait and landscape are measurement errors. And I say that despite the z7ii beating the d850 at high ISO, by so little it could be attributed to better wire routing, a slightly better ADC, or component copy variation and tolerance stacking. They use the same sensor. Only the z7ii doesnt need MUp mode for every photo because it doesnt have a heavy ass mirror vibrating everything and it has IBIS so handheld bracketing is finally doable with 0 alignment errors.

>>4488298
Lol the 61mp sensors are so garbage in low light tony northrup made a huge cope video defending them, and still btfo himself
>SEE ITS SHARPER! MORE MP BETTER IN LOW LIGHT!
>colors visibly shittier with more obvious noise blobs

>>4488309
>muh c-af

Kill yourself brain rotted freak

>>4488311
Show me in the post where C-AF appears. Your strawman is about as real as your womanhood.

At what point do you give up on problematic lenses? I've had a lens give me two distinct issues that required two repair jobs while it was under warranty. Now, the warranty is expired, and I've experienced both of the issues again. One has resolved through tinkering, and one remains. Is it worth it to drop $100 on a lens repair for a $700, 7-year old lens if it has a history with an issue? (Stuck aperture blades, doesn't focus unless it's set to max focal range)

>>4488298
>>4488303
>>4488305
>>4488308
Now try comparing it to an A7R III. Just because the 60mp is a newer sensor doesn't mean it's Sony's best, as you should clearly know claiming the D850 is the best ever made.

>>4488317
The a7riii is known for godawful colors with any amount of editing, sensors breaking free from the IBIS mounts, fuji grade weather sealing, and no better performance than any other sensor.

>>4488317
>https://www.dxomark.com/cameras/
>snoy piece of ewaste literally ranks below D850 in every objective metric except for - get this - muh fucking c-af


why do you even bother posting

>>4488315
three repair jobs seems like a lot, but I guess it depends on whether you're attached to that specific lens and can afford a new one. imo it only makes sense to repair a lens like that to increase the resale value.

>>4488323
>increase the resale value.
That's what I was thinking too, but I'd also hate to pass off a lemon to someone else. Unfortunately, there's no real Z mount equivalent to the F mount 70-300mm I'm using with the FTZ adapter. The closest would be 24-200mm for $800, but losing 100mm (especially when I'm about to move up to FF) is going to be huge. 300mm can already feel too short with a lot of bird species as it is.

File: more better.png (253 KB)

253 KB PNG

>>4488321
That's it, just move those goalposts my boy
>no better performance than any other sensor.
Well it's better than the D850, so if you think that's the best FF sensor there is then the A7R III is better than anything else.

>>4488322
How about you actually look at the charts instead of focussing on those meaningless numbers. Here, let me save you the effort.

>>4488328
oh, you're english, that's what your problem is

>>4488328
>ranks several places on below the nikon on the objective rankings
>that mean's that it's better

okayyyyyyy then

Do camera shops let you try out gear?

>>4488328
How about you look at the photos instead, you circus freak? Suckstart a shotgun

>>4488336
>why don't you just experience the ghetto for yourself instead of looking at violence statistics, you circus freak?
Gee, I dunno. Maybe because the data is accurate?

File: noise.jpg (400.5 KB)

400.5 KB JPG

>>4488334
In dynamic range the D850 is 0.11 EV better at base ISO. But sure let's just ignore that it's 0.16 lower at "800", 0.5 lower at "1600", 0.4 lower at "3200", 0.43 lower at "6400", and so on. For the colour depth it's 0.4 bits higher at base ISO, 0.4 lower at "1600", pretty much equal everywhere else until you get to the silly high ISOs where the A7R III is better. And then there's the "Sports (low light ISO) score where the A7R III, but we'll just pretend that one doesn't exist.

>>4488336
Oh we can totally do that brother.

>>4488340
>demented malding freak

yep, it's a snoy!

>>4488338
>>4488340
Par for the course for a chart loving incel who lives in his mother's basement. Who gives a shit about dpreview charts? Did your mother's Saturday pumper make fun of mirrorless cameras for you to hate them so much?

>>4488340

>muh specs


people like you are the very worst thing about this board. You literally don't care about photography, you care about rubbing it to fucking excel spreadsheets

>>4488342
>>4488343
I only posted that stuff in reply to someone using them to say the D850 had the best sensor. If it's good enough to say the D850 is better than the A7R V then it's good enough for the A7R III
>Did your mother's Saturday pumper make fun of mirrorless cameras for you to hate them so much?
You what mate? I don't hate mirrorless, I'm well aware they're vastly superior to DSLRs in most ways.

Are Lexar cards any good or should I stick to SanDisk?

>>4488349
>you wot m8


it's an actual snoy pajeet, neato

>>4488353
Lexar is the Pepsi to Sandisk's Coca-Cola
They're both good

>>4488355
Perfect. Thanks.

Every time I look at sony a7riii photos the colors especially skin tones are puke. Not worth 5% less noise.
>THE COLORS ARE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE!
That doesn't mean pleasing. Human eyes aren't scientific measurement devices. They have a bias and the way you see skin tones is not the way an ideal computer sensor does.
>YOU HAVE TO EDIT RAWS! EXTENSIVELY!
Funny canon and nikon dont have this problem
>REAL PROS DONT SHOOT JPEG ANYWAYS
Funny canon and nikon dont have this problem
>STOP SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT SO-
https://www.dpreview.com/news/0261142298/lensrental-discovers-cracked-sensor-mounts-inside-some-of-its-sony-a7-series-rental-fleet
https://kolarivision.com/sony-a7r-iii-weather-sealing-examination/

>>4488353
Own and use both brands. I use low, and mid models and have never had an issue.
Been using a Sabrent V90 card lately and it has been rock solid as well.
>>4488354
>>you wot m8
>it's an actual snoy pajeet, neato
I'll have you know the Indian population of Australia is only 43% of the nation. But yeah, this guy shouldn't have passed the citizenship test.

File: Twin Vases_copy.jpg (723.4 KB)

723.4 KB JPG

>>4488263
>Canon Rebel cameras... with a 18-55mm lens
Are good entry-points into actual cameras. I wouldn't get one older than 2015 at this point though unless I was on a shoestring budget.
Full frame cameras can do better when starved for light over crop cameras, but don't kid yourself, there's no replacement for having enough light. Dark scenes are going to look either dark or riddled with noise, althought yes going to full frame absolutely improved the ratio of noise to light (or as you'd say, SNR).
>something which can do better in low light conditions without me needing to pump the ISO or Depth of Field up would be nice.
Technically speaking as 5D MkII would fit this criteria but might be a bit old for your liking. Take a look. EF lenses are cheap and plentiful, and a big boy sensor is going to make photos look nicer overall.
>As I understand it, people tend to favor mirrorless cameras these days
Sort of. Mirorrless has made bodies more compact which appears to be the main driving factor, but your overall size is still mostly determined by what lens you mount. My super small mirrorless camera is 85% the same size as my old 60D once I slap my 70-200mm on it.
EVF vs OVF is a nothinburger; I use both an SLR and a MILC and both have ups and downs. You buy a MILC for quality of life features, or having the most up-to-date tech, that's about it.
>am I really better off looking at other cameras?
For a relatively small kit, not really. I will say though as someone who goes to musuems regularly, the main factor in having a good shot is mostly how well the lighting is done in the building, and if there's glass involved bring a CPL.

>>4488340
Looks like raw NR. Sony added more than star eater. Natural noise is speckled because its error pixels. Not soft and smeared. Overall the snoy looks worse like they added raw nr to the shitty a7rii.

>>4488263
Correct exposure is correct exposure, no matter the camera. Assuming working light meters and non-tricky metering situations, if camera A says the correct exposure is EV 5, then camera B will say the correct exposure is EV 5 as well. How you expose for that EV is up to you- do you open your aperture? Your lens may not open far enough, and you may not want that shallow a DOF. Do you slow down your shutter speed? You may not have a tripod or image stabilization to prevent shake, or you may be introducing too much motion blur. Do you increase ISO? You may be introducing an unwanted level of noise. This is all science. No camera can magically produce a correctly exposed image at a light level of a given EV outside the constraints of the exposure triangle.

Here is what you CAN control:

Lens aperture. A faster (lower f stop number) lens can open up more to let more light in. Faster lenses are generally more expensive than slower ones for a given level of quality.

Image stabilization- this comes in three flavors: IBIS, which stands for in body image stabilization (stabilization of the sensor), OIS, which stands for optical image stabilization (stabilization inside the lens), or physical stabilization, such as mounting the camera on a tripod or setting it on a table or the ground.

ISO performance- different cameras exhibit different amounts of noise as you increase in ISO. Some look terrible by 3200 ISO, some can salvage something useful out of 25k ISO. This is another area where all other things being equal, high ISO performance can cost more. All other things are, of course, rarely equal.

Sensor size- this one is kind of adjacent, but it is worth noting that the size of your sensor has a practical effect on your depth of field. In general layman's terms, the smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field for any full frame equivalent focal length, and the larger the shallower. I'd explain why and give examples, but post too long

Is the canon 17-40 mm F4L worth getting? I am looking for a zoom for lower focal length. I got the 50 mm 1.8 and the 85 mm 2.8 and the 70-300 mm from canon, which I don't use that often.

Or maybe get a prime lens for wide angle?

>>4488392
It is probably the softest EF l series zoom. Cheap for a reason. However, a constant aperture ultrawide is cool regardless. If you don't care about corner sharpness then go for it. If you don't like it you can always resell it. I doubt that these will go down in value as they are easily adapted.

>>4488392
God no, it's horridly soft. It was garbage when it released even because Canon couldnt make an UWA lens to save their lives at the time.
I wouldn't touch that or the 16-35 f/2.8L version I. I would maybe get the 16-35 f/2.8L II if you were getting a great deal but it's still not that much cheaper to the vastly suprior 16-35 f/4L IS which might be my favourite lens these days. I got mine for $650 AUD without much looking whereas the 17-40 f/4L is about $350-450.
Theoretically UWA is a great candidate for a prime lens, but I can't think of anything outside of the 14mm f/2.8L (and it's still $1000+) that I'd consider "better" than one of the good zooms, and it still has its own problems.
If you are on crop which I didn't think about but you didn't specifiy, the EF-S 10-18 IS STM is fantastic and I used it for a good while before going full frame. I got mine for $150.

>>4488392

Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC, you're welcome

>>4488398
Found a
Canon EF 16-35mm f/4L IS USM
For 400euros. Seems like a decent price and it's almost new.
Thanks for the hint regarding softness. I don't like soft lenses too much. If I carry a DSLR around I want the photos to be as sharp as possible.
I got a 6D. After years of circling through Ricoh, Fuji, Lumix, Nikon Zf, ..and some others, I came back to the roots. Started with a 600D around 15 years ago.
It's a different approach but I like it better. And I really don't need all them technical gimmicks.

The tamron doesn't sell in Austria.

File: skintones.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>4488368
Since you have such a good eye for color, do you think you could help me figure out which of these came from an a7rIII and which came from a D850?

>>4488368
>Wonky mounts and fractured components sound scary, but in total, less than 2% of Lensrentals’ Sony camera stock was found to have lens mount issues and only 1.6% suffered from the sensor mount problem. That’s not an insignificant number of cameras given how large the rental fleet is, but considering these are rental cameras and it took hours of intense inspection of the outlier samples to notice even the smallest impact on image quality, it's hard to say how serious the issue really is in practical terms.
>Upon further inspection of the most affected camera bodies, Roger discovered each of them had a history of a drop or required ‘significant internal work’ after being rented out at one time or another. He also notes it makes sense these cameras are more susceptible to damage when bumped or dropped due to the tendency for these cameras to be used in harsher conditions and with longer, heavier telephoto lenses, which could more easily bend the mount ‘because force proportional to mass and all.’
Wow sure are some harsh words about Sony build quality

>>4488414
>now that i have extensively edited them and shrank them to thumbnail size you cant see the green tinged patches of skin! snoy wins!
How dishonest of you. How would you feel if you were told
>oh, the M10M is a great camera? tell us which of these thumbnails is an M10M and which are from an OM5.
I think you would feel like buying micro four thirds.

https://petapixel.com/2018/10/09/is-sonys-color-science-really-that-bad/
Oh no no no
>only use your $2000 snoy and $1000 GM lens for instagram thumbnails and you cant see the green patches as easily!
>you need a $750 canon DSLR to look at photos in 4k silly
OH NO NO NO

>>4488419
snoys and dishonesty come hand-in-hand

>2018

How significant of a difference is there between the z50 and the z5ii in terms of low light autofocus performance, EVF clarity, and ease of use? I'm interested in upgrading, but I'm also afraid of having too similar of an experience, considering the z50 isn't that old, both are 21-24MP, and many example images between modern crop and FF look very similar. So, I'm not expecting the photos themselves to be radically different. For the money, I need to be able to feel the difference in use. Right now, the challenges I face with my z50 that I hope would be resolved with the z5ii:
>Poor AF performance in low light using any aperture other than f/1.8
>I can't distinguish what's in sharp focus using the EVF without zooming, and even then it turn out muddied on review of the exposure
>Moving the focus point takes too long, especially for posed shots of non-models
>My hands aren't the steadiest, so non-VR lenses on my no-IBIS z50 aren't working with me
Things I'm uncertain of how I'll feel about once I get to experience it
>The focal length difference of dropping from an effective 75mm to 50mm
I only have 2 lenses.

>>4488411
>I got a 6D
Then the EF-S 10-18 is what you want for an actual UWA lens. No competition on crop Canon for a different UWA lens, it's literally the best thing you can buy. But, you did originally say you just wanted a wider lens, not a UWA necessarily. Good thing is, you can get that for cheap as fuck so if you still want something that acts like a GP zoom on crop but with much better glass, the EF 16-35 f/4L would be a better albeit bigger and more expensive choice and act like a 25-56mm lens in terms of Field of View. You can not go wrong with either lens.

>>4488501
What about an uwu lens?

>Cosmetic condition: Excellent
Learn about this condition
Notes
>The LCD screen is cracked and unusable
One would think the screen is a cosmetic item.

File: Japratings.png (11 KB)

11 KB PNG

>>4488560
>Self-admitted japnigger rating system
This is the same country that develops games where anything that isn't an SSR or higher is actual garbage.
Just pretend there's an error in translation when reading the tagline rating: 'excellent' means damaged or fungus riddled.

>>4488564
Yes, they don't exactly understand western standards. I am careful regardless of purchasing anything that comes from countries with a humid climate where fungus has the ability to invite its extended family.

>>4488419
How many pixels wide do you need to see color?
I didn't edit these and do you really think they are the caliber or people that do spend time editing?

I thought the colors were so clearly ugly, but I guess you're just full of shit

>>4488421
>8 year old op ed by random nobody
Nice

>>4488454
Z5II is a massive AF difference
If you're taking pictures of people you shouldn't be wasting time moving the focus point, just use eye af

>>4488421
>>4488572
Everything he says in that article is also a load of nonsense, if he didn't have the preconception of Sony colours being bad and someone just showed him those photos he wouldn't pick out the "flaws". He complains about the first photo having orange tones to the skin, when the person is surrounded by orange lights. The green is present in both the Sony and Canon shots and is just what happens when you have dark stubble under brown skin. With the girl you have the shadow of pale skin under brown hair, it actually looks more natural than the Canon shot. As shown with the Cucumber shot it's actually a result of Canon cutting the greens. It's not like Sony photos add green where it isn't and makes people look like Shrek. As for the "band of yellow going around the model’s face" that's just complete schizo, seeing something that isn't there.

>>4488610
>no you see everyone actually looks like shrek
Or canon cuts the greens because bayer is green biased (and xtrans is worse)

>>4488166
>X100VI
>spending $1500 for an f/3 prime lens camera

How is the Lumix G3 for stills?
Yes I can imagine the m43 spergout incoming.
I see them for like $130 in good condition and it has if I understand correctly a zoom in feature for the evf to help with manual focus. It wouldn't be replacing any cameras, I would basically just using it as a host to use manual telephoto's on birds.
Obviously a E-M5 would be better due to the 5 axis IBIS, and the E-M10 due to having focus peaking, but those are over 2x the price.

>>4488646
with a shutter limited to 1/2000s lol

>>4488650
What a silly thing comment

what's the recommendation for a budget pocket camera?

>inb4 ur phone

something comparable or better than a great smartphone because I live the dumbphone lifestyle. me and my lady already own "less portable" gear we just want something to do quick social snapshots like we did in the early 00s

is whatever from Amazon alright?

>>4488659
135-185 bucks, U.S.

>>4488612
So if the traditional Bayer layout is so flawed and Canon makes their own sensors then why don't they try something else? Sigma's done it, Fuji's done it, Canon, Nikon, and Sony have done it long ago, and yet here we all are still using the same Bayer layout from the 90s.

I bought a 3-light Rotolight NEO 2 kit on MPB for sub $200. As far as constant light LEDs for indoor use go, they don't appear to be terrible, but I'm not expecting them to be good for much more than that.

>>4488659
Actually genuinely pocketable?
Ricoh "dust sucker" GR line
OR
Snoy RX100 line
>135-185 bucks [USD]
Uhhhh... a really used fungus filled Ricoh GR I
>we just want something to do quick social snapshots like we did in the early 00s
An instax mini or a shitty 1/2.3" Canon point and shoot from 2010

>>4488710
Because the market is hoovering up Bayer sensor cameras. Why would the camera industry strive for improved levels of R&D when it doesn't see the point? ROI is going to be low anyway since the camera market is a shadow of its former self. Fuji sensor tech is a joke and isn't any better than Bayer. Sigma is on death's door and its kept afloat by its lens sales for the actual camera makers.
CMOS Bayer remains the only real player for a reason: We don't have a good alternative, and nobody sane sees the point in trying.
>inb4 muh CCD
CCDs were thrown out in favour of higher readout speeds thanks to the video hybridisation creep, and the high power use they had. A high res Bayer CMOS with the AA filter chucked out is literally your best bet for on-sensor image quality improvements.

File: s-l1600.jpg (216.6 KB)

216.6 KB JPG

>>4488564
This is according to a Japanese seller "Near mint"

>>4488710
Bayer is fine
It's just nophoto autist whining

>>4488806
bayer is fine now that a paltry 20mp is considered low end instead of top shelf. all the crazy shit like super ccd and foveon came out before the d810 became the minimum, not after

>>4488659
>what's the recommendation for a budget pocket camera?
hope you get lucky finding a seller who doesn’t know what they have
your budget isn’t enough to get anything other than the most undesirable digishit of yesteryear

>>4488772
what he said

alternatively olympus pen pl1-4 or some very similar low end m43

if you had $4-600 you could get a sony zv1

File: Screenshot_20251218_034120.png (159.2 KB)

159.2 KB PNG

They did the meme.

Are 24MP full frames worse than crop if you love pixel peeping at 100%?

>>4489006
No. Full frame has no real downsides. It is the perfect sensor size. bigger sensors are specialized compromises that get closer to the film experience. smaller sensors are ewaste.

>>4489006
should be the contrary, bigger pixels on ff achieve better SNR, but 24mp aps-c has 3 micron px which is reasonable, aps-c gives you more reach for the same focal (important for tele shots when hiking 4 me 4 example)

>>4489006
Nah. FF and APS-C @ the same megapickles is just a matter of gear size:picture quality ratio + crop having an edge in telephoto. Remember, APS-C is called crop sensor because it's basically doing exactly that: cropping your photo from a 35mm frame via the sensor.

If you crop your APS-C shot further, it'll look better than cropping a FF shot to the same as the (extra) cropped APS-C shot, but you're kind of not supposed to do that. But I'm of the opinion that if you're further cropping an APS-C frame signficantly (i.e., not just to clean up borders or adjust ratio) then what you really need is a longer focal length lens.
Cropping a FF shot to the same proportions as your original APS-C frame will generally look better if you're not peeping pixel-level sharpness.

Looking for a small 50mm lens for my Nikon Zf. I know there is that tiny 40mmf2 but I prefer the 50mm. Manual might be fine too.

File: PGX90321.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

>>4489056
>small lens
>z-mount
kek, give up. not gonna happen. been there, tried everything - including adapting snoy e-mount babylenses. it's all shit
z mount is a pro mount for pro blob cameras and big huge high quality glass. it's not for cameras and lenses that just spark joy
sell your zf and join the OM-5 club

>>4489056
Plenty of small MF options, but just get the 40 anyways even if you are also getting a 50

>>4489068
Om-5 is definitely a good fit if you are a woman with small hands

>>4489056
Viltrox 50mm f2 air

>>4489068
Ignore this idiot. He destroyed his marriage and life by trying to force his wife to shoot micro four thirds. She told me he tried making her post here too. He is genuinely mentally ill and now lives in a camper parked on a mud patch. She got custody.

>>4489101
>destroyed his life and marriage by shooting m43
man take your meds, really
sony schizos are really something

>>4489068
the zf is an edc sized camera and you have all this
>40mm f2, 28mm f2.8, 26mm f2.8, viltrox air, adapted sigma iseries, adapted m mount lenses
Maybe its not that the camera is big - because it objectively is not, it looks and feels practically the same size as the om5 - maybe you have autism and start flapping and stimming if you feel an extra cm of plastic

>>4489102
You missed the meltie he subjected the bird thread to. Typical foolturd.

>>4489105
I don't see anything but birds and a shitty horse in the /bpd/

>>4489109
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4487815/#4488823

>>4489056
just use the 40mm f2 or 26mm pancake

>>4489103
> Maybe its not that the camera is big - because it objectively is not, it looks and feels practically the same size as the om5


wtf nigga, please stop shilling, this is just blatantly so untrue

>>4489159
True, the Zf is a normal person size camera and OM5 is petite lady size
Too small for any normal man to use

>RF 45mm 1.2 has autofocus issues
SHOCKING. WHO COULD'VE KNOWN ?

File: NikonZF-Top-Lifestyle.png (3.7 MB)

3.7 MB PNG

>>4489159
The ZF is tiny. DSLRs are also, not very large, especially not the d750, canon 6d, DX DSLRs, etc. They have always been easy to carry around all day long unless using professional lenses like high quality large aperture zooms, UWAs, and telephotos.

Basically all cameras are fucking tiny. A D750 is fucking tiny. Palm sized! A ZF is SMALL.

The photo gearfag space is polluted by cringing, insecure faggots who are just scared shitless of anyone seeing them with a camera and anyone thinking they must be a proper photographer or up to something if they have such a camera. Some of them are even autistic and the additional stimulus of like, five grams, is unbearably irritating to them due to the hypersensitivity characteristic of that form of mental retardation. It is from these worthless sacks of shit with worthless opinions, all these immature, stunted, and maldeveloped lessers, that all the babble accusing literally everything of being too big comes from.
>surely women, manlets, and children would complain too?
Sometimes, rarely! The insecure fucks are louder than any of them because the manlets and women have the sense to realize they're just unusually small, and the cameras are not unusually big.

The insecure fucks are the ones who have no clue whatsoever that they are the odd ones out, and the camera industry isn't mysteriously opposed to cameras being usable. Imagine that!

File: Nzfistini.jpg (2 MB)

2 MB JPG

>>4489171

File: 20250902_151212.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4489171
The funny thing is that no one really cares if you aren't getting in peoples faces and then they only care sometimes.
Even my 8x10 which is a real "big camera" brings almost no attention when I've been carrying it around on a tripod, using it, or having it setup up next to me while I'm relaxing. A naked chick floating down the river asked what it was and then just kept floating down the river after I told her. Maybe it's different with view cameras. Idk.
My advice? Carry around a 45lb pack with 2 lenses, 6-8 sheets of film, and a tripod enough times and all handheld cameras will feel tiny.

File: BEARINGS..jpg (807.8 KB)

807.8 KB JPG

>>4487054
i need 151,3mp to see BEARINGS.

>>4489180
good news, 35mm film scanned with a gfx100s is 400mp. not a razor sharp 400mp, but discernible detail bayer would mush nonetheless

>>4489178
nooo you cant use that! its too big to spark joy! and your egg photos remind me of my hairline!

File: 20240626_131141.jpg (861.1 KB)

861.1 KB JPG

>>4489182
The size of the camera sparks the joy.

>>4489056
Viltrox makes one, also, if you buy the ttartisan 6 bit mtz, you can use leica lenses with subject detect trap focus. Mfturds cant do this!

>>4489185
Ribbed for your pleasure

File: IMG_5126.jpg (665.7 KB)

665.7 KB JPG

>>4487054
Is the silver specking along the edge of the len balsam separation?

File: IMG_5127.jpg (1 MB)

1 MB JPG

GRADE
>EXCELLENT
LENS
>No scratches.
>A few tiny fungus.(No impact)
>A few tiny haze.(No impact)
>No balsam separation.
>A few tiny dust.

>>4489193
But one of many pleasures when using large format cameras.

>>4489171
They're not huge cameras like a D850 or D4 (or MF or larger film cameras) but they're pretty big. The OM-5 is what I'd call smedium. Ricoh GRs are small.

>>4489226
FF is small. Get over yourself.

>>4489230
FF can be medium to large, but the ZF is on the large size of medium. MFT is small to medium.

>>4489232
Relative to what, your weiner?

>>4489232
>are my standards mentally ill? no, the entire camera industry is dedicated to making massive cameras that are too heavy to use.

File: 1745441318679885.png (453.2 KB)

453.2 KB PNG

>>4488659
A used Sony DSC-WX350 is just barely outside your budget. Kodak PIXPRO FZ55 would be within budget new.

File: file.png (191.6 KB)

191.6 KB PNG

I have a Canon EOS R and am looking to upgrade, mainly because i find the auto focus to be slow and quite inaccurate. I'm mainly looking at either the R6 mark III or the R5 mark II. I do print photos, though generally not anything huge. The extra megapixels would be nice for cropping in as well as just being more of an upgrade but I'm not entirely sure its worth the extra $1k+. Money isnt really an issue but its just a hobby for me and i do go periods where i barely shoot or simply don't at all. The better viewfinder on the R5 is also a pull. Anyone that has used both would be the best, any suggestions would be welcome.

Side question, i have an EF 70-200 f2.8 II and have been looking at getting the original RF 70-200 f2.8 due to the size and weight difference and not needing the adapter. I was offered $660 trade in for my current lens and the shop has an essentially new model (guy bough a full canon setup and shot ~1k pictures then brought it all back and went leica) for $2150, out the door I'd be paying $1600 tax included. Is that worth it or should i try to sell my lens myself for the full ~1k? My lens is in more or less perfect condition, still have the bag it came in as well.

>>4488787
you're acting like it'll affect your pictures. most of that glass is just structural anyway

>>4489168
no way bro /gear/ was telling me it's basically an L lens and I'm just a pixel peeping snoyboy who doesn't know anything about le heckin 3D pop.

>>4489233
>>4489234
Resorting to logical fallacies already I see. I'll lay it out plain and simple for you.
>1kg: huge
>700g: big-ish
>500g: medium-ish
>300g: small
The Nikon D750 is only small for DSLRs. It's a pretty large camera. It's convenient for Nikon Z to appear small so they market the ZF as a compact camera, but it's (objectively) big. The OM System OM-1, which everyone says here is huge, is medium, sitting right in between the ZF and OM-5. Nikon has lost the plot and mostly makes huge mirrorless cameras with huge mirrorless lenses.

>>4489248
Sovlful defective AF per cANON's insight.

>>4488564
TOP KEK / Any cANON schizobabble
SUPER KEK / Snoyposting
OMEGA KEK / Micro four turds homeless retard
KEK++++ / Fujiworms
KEK / Ambushposting
LOL / nophotos

I saw a thread on the DPreview forums with a guy complaining about how he could focus fine at f/1.2 - 2 on his Zf, but using f/8 wasn't getting focus at all. The commenters referred him to the Maximum Aperture Lv setting, which only a few of the Z series has. So, my question:
Does the Z5ii have anything in it that makes it superior to other Z cameras in regards to low light photography? My Z50 is useless focusing at anything higher than f/2.0 in the normal conditions I shoot. Am I going to run into the same issues after upgrading to the Z5ii before (if) they add Maximum Aperture Lv in a firmware update? Low light struggles are my main reason for wanting to upgrade.

File: japoid.jpg (200.9 KB)

200.9 KB JPG

N MINT

■ Optics
Lens
Beautiful condition.
-No fungus.
-No haze.
-No scratches.
-No separation.
-No large dust.

File: 1000065714 (1).jpg (224.8 KB)

224.8 KB JPG

>>4489171

you need to go through south europe with a pentax k1ii and a tamron 28-75mm a09 2.8 like me

bonus: i was also dual wielding a pentax sf1x with a 50mm f1.7

im downsizing to a k70 its a little too big i chipped one of the dining chairs when i sat down to eat when it slid back on my shoulder and it smacked it

>>4489256
Are you meming or seriously asking

>>4489265
I've had anons try to convince me with -EV documentation that a Z50 should be able to focus perfectly fine in candlelight situations and that it was a skill issue, so yes, I'm seriously asking.

>using lens feature search
>looking for super zooms , maybe like 24-240 or something
>35-350 USM L
Why the fuck does it seem like all the best EF mount shit was coming out in the film era?

>>4489266
Nikon can not do open aperture focus except on the z8. This means their -ev at f1.2 rating is useless shooting stopped down because any other camera will pop the aperture and focus fine. Ergo far fewer people are buying into nikon vs canon and sony… nikons cameras simply do not get the job done.

Canon r8, -6.5 ev @ f1.2
Nikon z5ii, -10 ev @ f1.2… and then knock off 4 ev if you stop down. What happens is if both cameras are in low light on the edge of the limit only the canon will focus if the final photo is to be at f5.6+. And the z8 solves this problem in software so nikon just hates you.
>its better than a d610 you entitled gearfag you dont know how good you have it now give us $1600

>>4489266
>anons
anon. the shit gear simp strikes again. its some fujislug that takes everything as an indirect criticism of his precious wormy scamera. and he’s a pothead so he cant really make good financial decisions.

dont feel bad about passing up a bad product because its at least better than cameras from 2013. these things cost a lot of money. potheads dont feel financial loss (scientific fact btw)

>>4489376
>z8 solves this problem in software
z9 just got it too in their firmware up. I contacted Nikon simply to ask if they planned to roll this feature out on all their modern Z bodies and I got a canned response about how they can't discuss product development. I just wanted an acknowledgment basic features will be added.

>>4489192
I never adapted any lenses, does it decrease the quality/sharpness somehow? Or just more vignette (if at all)?

File: www.nikonians.org_res_images_2014_05_20140514_160340_02.jpg (60.6 KB)

60.6 KB JPG

This lens still worth getting? I found one for 300 leaf dollars.

>>4489401
nikon makes the only mirrorless that can adapt leica lenses without fucking up the iq

>>4489419
Yeah because the sensor's are bad enough to match the Leica optics.

>>4489421
nah it's because nikon doesn't use retard strength sensor stack

>Sell Canon AE-1 to a very inquisitive older gentleman, answer his questions to the best of my ability
>He gets camera
>One month later he wants to return it because he has finally gotten around to testing it
>Light meter doesn't work on slower shutter speeds which is absolutely necessary for him, the camera is useless.
>No problem, return it for a refund I say
>Camera gets returned, old man has been shooting at ISO 3200, exceeding what the camera is capable of.
>Apologizes, says it isn't many people around that knows how to work on these old cameras.
Words of wisdom from me: Whenever you encounter people who are asking more than usual questions just ignore them, they are looking for an excuse to not buy and will often find one when it doesn't even exist in the first place.

File: 1739640804996480.png (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB PNG

>>4489439
Similar experience but less annoying than yours. Sold my 10yo A6000 to some guy asking a ton of questions. Payment never came through and the transaction got cancelled.
Eventually managed to sell it a couple of months later for about the same amount. Pretty happy with being able to get 75% of the original price for such an old body that I used extensively (plus a few filters and a remote I can't use on my new camera).

What would be the bare minimum camera body (new or old, DSLR or mirrorless) that comfortably beats any modern smartphone like the iPhone 17 or an android flagship?

Assume its using kit/shitter lenses as well, no pumping up the comparison with $3000 glass.

i bought a UI-3880CP monochrome industrial camera for a project. im not much of a photographer. it has a 6.4 MP Sony IMX178 CMOS sensor with 1/1.8" sensor format. i was thinking it would be cool if i bought a c mount lens for it and started doing nature photography. i'm wondering if a smartphone would do a better job though i don't think this thing is meant to do traditional photography

>>4489477
Well it depends a little bit more on your skill, with older cameras the full auto mode was more hit or miss and with lower end lenses you're going to want to be stopping them down a little bit which is going to mean shooting in Av, plus you might want to be changing the metering and focus modes where as a modern phone has the processing behind it to figure it all out for you.

>>4489477
Any canon APS-C camera from 2010 onwards.
iPhone will win if you're just instagraming photos, but for anything where you pay attention for more than two seconds the $100 you spend on a T6i or something will blow your cock off.

>>4489478
smartphone is better than anything up to APS-C (including)

>>4489478
You will end up with more sovl per pixel with this autistic loadout, which might be up your alley.
A modern phone will win in terms of total IQ but that's only if going for hyperealisitic looks

>>4489477
Do you want to just use full auto mode everything
Or will you put the effort in to learn different settings? Will you put the effort in to learn better editing?
The more you're willing to learn and "do yourself" the less good the camera needs to be

>>4489376
Can you share with us some example scenes you've shot at -6.5EV? Be honest with your example scenarios
If you're shooting that f1.2 lens at f2.8, Nikon wins and you tie at f4
If you're using an f2.8 lens, Nikon wins always
If you're using an f2 lens, Nikon always wins
Nikon basically only falls behind if using an f1.2/1.4 lens shooting at f5.6 in extremely dark environments
Nikon caps aperture at f5.6, so anything past that remains in Nikon's favor
Nikon still has the best lowlight MF capability too

>>4489523
shillllll

>>4489477
A used A6000 from >>4489443 with a modest prime, e.g. SEL35F18, will absolutely obliterate any phone under any circumstances for photo. Phones just can't capture that amount of light.
Under best lighting conditions, you may find that the phone looks better because it will do a bunch of automatic computational photography like coloring skies bluer. You kind of need to do that yourself in post.

I’m thinking of swapping my D5000 for a D3400, it seems like a no brainer to me because the D3400 has better processing better ISO and double the megapixels

Is there any reason to keep the D5000 and am I being retarded

>>4489523
>Nikon basically only falls behind if using an f1.2/1.4 lens shooting at f5.6 in extremely dark environments
Then Nikon would win in every scenario if they would just update the firmware for their whole mirrorless lineup. What sense does it make voluntarily be inferior when all they need to do is make software changes? Maximum Aperture Lv is necessary for low-light photography and they've only added it to 3(?) of their cameras.

>>4489584
>voluntarily worse
Yes, but you conveniently ignore when they are voluntarily better
You should be equally as critical of other brands for being voluntarily worse too, but you aren't
There is a processing cost to it, and judging from what cameras it's made it's way too, it wouldn't surprise me if it's presently a processing limitation
>Maximum Aperture Lv is necessary for low-light photography and they've only added it to 3(?) of their cameras.
So is lowlight EV focusing, which again, you only seem to place any blame on Nikon
Why is the canon only at -6.5EV? Why don't you call them out for their own limitations too?

>>4489565
Sony had the best AF, but if you have AF issue with a Zf, that is user error, mine has been perfect and I guarantee I've shoot with it more and in darker environments than you have
You should share some examples for us like I asked

>>4489631
>A7cII
>-5EV with f1.4
LOL

>>4489631
>You should be equally as critical of other brands for being voluntarily worse too, but you aren't
I don't care about other brands because I'm not invested into them. I'm not talking about anything other than a feature I want my camera, and the camera I wanted to buy to have.
>There is a processing cost to it, and judging from what cameras it's made it's way too, it wouldn't surprise me if it's presently a processing limitation
Z5ii shares the same processor (EXPEED7) as the Z9, Z8, Zf, Z6iii, but doesn't have it. It may get it in the future, but making the purchase now (to get the holiday discount) is a gamble. I don't want this camera without this feature. I struggle enough as it is on my z50, focusing at f/1.8, then doing two full dial slides to get up to f/8 for my shot.
>Why is the canon only at -6.5EV? Why don't you call them out for their own limitations too?
I don't care about what Canon is doing, I don't have any Canon gear. I'm not the guy arguing with you. I'm the Nikon user who wants features that exist in other cameras to exist in my camera.

>>4489244
is there any real reason not to get the R5 II other than the increase in price?

>>4489633
Manufacturers publish these ratings but i had a zf and the focus just missed constantly in situations where the a7c worked fine.

Pretty sure they all use different AF targets and modes and weird circle of confusion standards. Like how IBIS ratings are as fake as can be (vibrating table lol)

I just bought a M42 Adapter Ring

What M42 Lenses should I look at <$100

>>4489647
Has APS-C like SNR, DR, and noise.
It's a true hybrid camera with two features that really work against photos: fast readout speed, and high MP.

>>4489631
>There is a processing cost to it, and judging from what cameras it's made it's way too, it wouldn't surprise me if it's presently a processing limitation
>I have 99/problems but the sorrow of mirrorless ain't one

>>4490137
>I don't know how technology works
True

>>4489649
Mine been rock solid in lots of dim environments, user error for sure
Lowlight EV is just one aspect, it's not a measure of accuracy, just what the camera is capable of, which is much dimmer environments
You should share some pics of your misses so we can see
>>4489643
You don't care about cameras or the market at all, you just want one thing to be obsessively annoyed about and distract you from actually taking pictures or learning how to use your camera

>>4489643
Are you the same Z50 owner that was too retarded to figure out the Nikon picture controls or was that someone else?

>>4489254
Underrated kek.

>>4490108
>features that really work against photos
>fast readout speed
???

>>4490137
>I have 99/problems
Err 99 problems?

>>4490156
Mechanical shutters make readout speed irrelevant. Its only a feature for non photographers (video tards and spray and pray hacks).

>>4490144
>You don't care about cameras or the market at all
I care about the single camera I will buy and use for years before it's time for me to upgrade.
>obsessively annoyed
I don't want to be, but I am. The Z5ii is the only FF (not Z50ii) in the Nikon mirrorless lineup that has modern ergonomics (not zf), stills focused (not z6iii), and under $2000 (not the z8/z9). There's no other upgrade path for me here without moving systems. I found out Sony doesn't focus wide open either, so switching systems isn't a smart idea either. If you have enough information to make insulting claims like this, please tell me what you believe I am doing incorrectly to where this is a "learn how to use your camera" issue.

>>4490145
No. What about my post leads you to that? Do you shoot in scenarios with low light, but need a higher aperture? AF on the z50 is abysmal in these situations.

I'm trying to find the EM1.3 for the lowest possible cost. What websites should I be looking at? I've already decided on it because I've got the Pro lens, I just don't wanna pay 1000 bucks if I can avoid it.

>>4490170
You're arguing with corgifag, a notorious brick wall. Just fucking ignore him. Yes, it's the guy that simped for the z50. He defends nikon like a z9 will grow tits and fuck him. Nikon cameras have issues. They're not justifiable. They noticeable hobble performance in real life. They're not the #1 brand for a god damn reason (canon is).
>l-low light ratings arent a measure of accuracy in low light, its a measure of how dark it can be for the camera to still try its best :) all modern cameras are great you should be thankful nikon let you have anything UwU
Yeah meanwhile it takes a zf to focus, IRL, as well as a 5div...
If you absolutely demand a perfect camera right the fuck now, buy a canon r6ii, or go back to DSLRs.

>>4490157
Kek, luckily not so far.

>>4490187
>Dishonesty
Very true

>>4490170
So get a Z5II and stop whinning ?

>>4490170
>Do you shoot in scenarios with low light, but need a higher aperture?
You'd probably think DSLR's are even sillier
They typically will focus wide open, but in many cases, it's not actually helping with the AF at all (in terms of more light)
You end up with f2 lenses shooting wide open having the exact same lowlight AF performance as an f4 zoom, even with some of the better bodies

The max aperture live view thing is just a red herring. There are plenty of AF examples on YouTube for every camera, go watch those. The z50 just sucks at AF because it's an early gen Nikon mirrorless.

>>4490170
Just for my own curiosity sake, I did some practical testing with my Zf at f5.6 in extreme lowlight on a variety of subjects. For scenes where a "proper" exposure was:
>1/60, ISO 12800, f5.6
Totally fine
>1/60, ISO 25600, f5.6
AF-C can start to feel more sluggish, focus acquisition can take a half second instead of relatively instantaneous. AF-S seems normal.
>1/60, ISO 51200, f5.6
Subject detection and tracking still work, but tracking can fall off if subject lacks enough contrast or is in darker parts of the scene. If subject is adequately lit, tracking stays sticking and smooth.

If your scene goes another EV darker (to 1/60, f5.6, ISO 102400 equiv), I would say the AF is "possibly usable, but unreliabl", and another stop before it's basically useless. AF-S stays a bit better, but it still falls off pretty quickly with the 3rd example above. I do occasionally shoot this dark, but for what I do, it's more f2/2.8, 1/60-1/250, ISO 12800, which is never an issue. I'll have to try some shooting at f5.6 that dim next time and let you know how it goes.

>>4488375
How can I tell if a camera is full frame or a crop sensor? I've never run into those as terms before.

>Technically speaking as 5D MkII would fit this criteria but might be a bit old for your liking.
I mean, what does age matter assuming the specs are as good as a newer camera and the specific one I buy off someone is in good condition?

>For a relatively small kit, not really.
You mean price wise or size wise? I don't mind a camera being big as long as it's still relatively portable

>CPL
I've tried these and didn't feel like they were doing anything, but I could have been using cheap, trash filters.

>>4488385
Is ISO performance something that can be quantified and I can look for in a specs sheet?