I bought a K -> M42 adapter ring

What M42 lenses should I check out? Preferably <$100

>>4490471
why would you want to adapt k lenses to m42 mount?

>>4490472
Other way around, I have a Pentax DSLR and I bought the adapter ring to use M42 lenses.

>>4490470
Video shit is meaningless but
>still less resolution than a nikon dslr from 2016
>still the noisiest sensors after canon
>still has snoy colors
>still a snoy
5div and d810/850 - unsurpassed to this day

File: super_takumar_50mm_f1-4_8-element_MTF50_graph_1526301997.jpg (59.4 KB)

59.4 KB JPG

>>4490471
super-shitumar of course

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/cameras/digital-cameras/i-think-camera-autoexposure-is-sometimes-too-clever-for-its-own-good

Discuss

>>4490480
So you bought an M42 > K adapter, not what you said

>>4490493
I miss my 5DIV. If it had an articulating screen, it would've been damn near perfect.

>>4490534
>SNOY
no wonder he's complaining

>>4490539
>the is board is only for memes
Pls go

>>4490535
You should leave this website for good and go to reddit. You would fit in a lot better there, you pedantic man-child.

>>4490493
Not sure why we're comparing the d8XX series to the GOAT. The d810 is plastic shit with plastic lens mount, the d850 has colours only a retard would enjoy and both of them focus slower than an EOS 1n. Great for an amateur, but pros shoot Canon. Just hard facts.

>>4490542
you must be a woman if you think using the right naming is "pedantic"
>man-child
ok, you are a woman

>>4490550
It's obvious what he meant because one of those things exists and the other doesn't. Even bothering to point it out makes it obvious that you're a retard because only a retard would would feel the need claim such a thing as a victory.
>ok, you are a woman
There's no women on this website. Retard.

>>4490562
>no women
Well, HE is pretty close in spirit.

I asked chatgpt to recommend me a camera, considering I never had a real camera, but want a great one nonetheless.

It recommended:
Both the Nikon Z50 and Canon EOS M50 Mark II are exceptional choices for beginners aiming for professional-quality pictures. They offer great image quality, versatility, and the ability to grow with the photographer's skills.


I wonder if this is actually good advice or worthless ai slop?.

>>4490562
now you're the autist

>>4490572
>ai hallucination
>recommends aps-c baby sensor
lol

File: Screenshot From 2025-12-27 18-43-39.png (136.2 KB)

136.2 KB PNG

>>4490584
yeah, I erased the convo and rephrased the question, and it made completely different recommendations. Conclusion, it cant be trusted, useless.

>>4490585
just get a SNOY or CANOT mirrorless full frame - any will do as they all have great low light and auto focus. or get one of the newer nikon full frames (z5ii, zf, z6iii, z8, z9). the earlier nikons have superb low light but shitty AF. the newer ones have great AF.
everything else is a meme (for your usecase at least)

>>4490585
no because cameras are almost all the same in the big 2025 if you're spending <$2000

go to a store and play with the one you like the most, sony canon nikon will all give you great pics as long as you go for a full frame. if you go for apsc (smaller sensor) the lenses get smaller but the quality can suffer a stop (a stop = where you could get away with 400 iso on ff you might need 800 iso or similar)

just avoid fuji (overpriced) and m43 (again overpriced)

don't have any lighting gear yet and I just ordered a godox v1 pro and a trigger but now that I'm looking at softboxes I'm wondering if I should just return it and get an ad200.

>>4490506
Do chartfags actually take any photos?

>>4490572
Yeah dogshit recs. Dated mirrorless for new mirrorless prices vs. dated mirrorless with the youtuber meme tax.

Just get a FF DSLR. 24mm 35mm 50mm and 85mm primes are cheap. Nikon D750,800,810. Canon 5DIII, 6DII, 5DIV, 5DS.

IF you are kind of a bitch get a nikon d500 or d7xxx and take 1.5x off the focal length

Dont bother with mirrorless unless you can afford one of these:
Nikon zf, z5ii, z6ii (shittier AF)
Sony a7c, a7iv, a7cii - a7iii and older have dodgy reliability and need a lot of color work in post
Canon R8 (poor battery life tho) - avoid RP, its a 6dii with worse battery life, avoid EOS R, its a less reliable 5div - canon mirrorless is generally expensive

If you MUST crop cope:
Sony a6600, a6700
Canon EOS R7
Nikon does not make good crop mirrorless

Avoid entirely due to dogshit performance and build quality issues:
Panasonic
Fujifilm
Olympus
Pentax

>>4490601
whats your favorite m42 lens anon

>>4490602
Also I forgot, the canon 90d is the r7 with a real viewfinder, cheaper lenses, and better battery life
Dont buy an 80d (bad DR)
Dont buy any EOS M shit (reliability/build qual issues) like the m6ii is an r7/90d with a non replaceable internal battery that WILL die and dials that WILL stop working and its the nicest one

>>4490602
don't get a DSLR if you want to do low light photography. the viewfinder gets dark when it's dark (mirrorless can boost the EVF which makes composing easier). also DSLR autofocus is ancient and total shit (on the level of fuji).
if you can't afford a mirrorless just save your money until you can. buying a DSLR is like buying a horse carriage if you want a truck

>>4490605
Why post if you’re a wrong nophoto

You know autofocus means focusing not eye detect and tracking bullshit right? A fucking d750 focuses better and faster than many mirrorless scameras. A 5diii will fucking trounce anything that’s not at least as good as a sony a9ii.
>BUT IN LIVE VIEW?
More like EVIL, EW!

>>4490607
>idiot cope
yeah get fucked with your ancient bullshit
>le based mirror box
kek

>>4490607
Its worth considering a D750/5D3 because at least in the US they're $400-500 vs the $8-900 a early FF goes for (A7III/Z5/Eos R)

Older DSLR glass is also a lot cheaper. Think half the price and the pictures can still be great. Plus it opens the door to vintage glass which can be fun to explore different focal lengths with.

I personally like the D750, its a great camera and probably the best value in full frame. If you feel like a FF camera is too big I'd also look at a 7D Mark II

>>4490608
Nice cope but not having eye detect and tracking doesnt equal bad autofocus. The viewfinder squares in a d750, which isnt even that great by dslr standards, will hold focus on a moving object better than anything short of a newer sony like an a7c (a7iv-like autofocus system) so definitely better than half baked canon eos r stuff, every nikon under $2k, every panasonic/fuji/om

The d500/d7500, 5div/iii, 1d, d# series etc are even better

>>4490611
>luddite drivel
not gonna read that, sweaty

>>4490611
Looks like you won the argument.

>>4490632
I guess he did, if this is the best response.

>>4490634
His best response was a concession after reading your argument.

File: 1725515378306383.jpg (98.6 KB)

98.6 KB JPG

>>4490636
It wasn't actually mine, lol. I shoot mirrorless.

>>4490642
I appreciate your honesty.

>>4490611
Mirrorless also get better at tracking when the only available area is a small central zone
If you just focus and recompose, mirrorless are still better
DSLR's might also be quicker in situations, but they aren't as accurate or reliable

>>4490701
Why do you lie? Buyers remorse?

Mirrorless is only more accurate when it switches to single point contrast based af-s which every dslr made after 2010 can also do

>>4490715
nuh uh muh $2500 flagship mirrorless is finally better
>gets dark
>viewfinder starts lagging
NOOO I NEED TO CONSOOM A $3500 CAMERA TO FIX THIS REEEEE

File: rx1.jpg (86.1 KB)

86.1 KB JPG

>snoys absolutely BTFO and humiliated by /ourgirl/
m43 won...

>>4490719
Sony more or less confirmed that the people neurotic over cameras size and weight are idiots by actually making money off this POS. I mean, to high IQ people, micro four thirds had already proven it but sony pulled a leica tier scam while having the polar opposite of leica’s reputation. Bravo. Even the fuji x100 had some normie friendly marketing (film experience, film brand name, fake film looks). as far as user experience and color science go, sony just makes marginally larger larger micro four thirds cameras with better autofocus and video, more sharpness and less noise.

There is a mania, an irresponsibility, a desperation, to camera size autists. Sony, olympus, and panasonic are actually all competing in the same market (but sony also competes with canikon with the viewfinder hump models). If you’re a high IQ lateral thinker you’ll just get this.

>>4490715
Why do you lie? Enjoy ruining the board?

>>4490724
>are people realizing a dslr is good enough and no one needs the newest snoy mirrorless to do photography? dont they know the most expensive mirrorless finally beats a dslr at more than being 1/2lb lighter?
>/p/ has fallen
>the gearfags are spending half as much
>millions must snoy

>>4490719
how much ozempic is she pumping into her system?

>>4490717
>muh epic dslr camera
>gets dark
>time to pack up boys, cant see anything through the finder

>>4490726
>more dishonesty
You must hate this board

>>4490611
This tbhfam

>>4490740
Sorry your eyes suck donkey dick, dork

>>4490780
At least they have used a camera before nophoto

>>4490782
Cope, mirrorlesscuck.
Your pictures make it to 4um, mine make it to billboards, magazines and world competitions. We're not the same.

>>4490786
I'm sure your "photos" get posted all over different places in your head

>>4490788
Ask Curtis Yarvin :^)

>>4490791
Just because he talked to you in your head, doesn't mean he talks to me in mine

>>4490791
What would I even ask him?
Why is cANON always retarded?

>>4490791
>I'm a sellout and Peter Thiel lines my pockets
Weird flex but ok

>>4490780
yeah, you've got that ahead of you when you're not an edgy teen anymore
>>4490786
fresh from /r/thathappened brought to you by your favorite tripfag nophoto

>>4490794
Cope
>>4490796
Ask him about the fren, he'll know
>>4490798
Taking money for something I'd do anyways doesn't make me a sellout. I didn't take the pictures for them, I got them published through them and got paid for it. Cope all you want.

>>4490800
Closer to being middle aged than teenager, but whatever floats your boat. I was doing IR photography as a teen.

>>4490801
How cool! Where can we see these published photos for ourselves?

>>4490802
>Closer to being middle aged
Explains the boomer mentality

>>4490804
>can you dox yourself?
Nice try, say hi to your fellow spooks.

>>4490809
There's nothing more cringe than trying to brag about photos you won't even share
>dox
Always cope

>>4490809
>paranoia
Makes sense given your schizo qualities
Who else talks to you in your head? What other imaginary photos do you take?

>>4490811
>>4490813
I've seen enough people doxed on /p/ to know better. I've also seen friends harassed by spooks over harmless photographs, after all one of the missions of the CIA was to destroy genuine art and replace it with garbage no one would be interested in if they didn't psyop them into it, see MoMA and Jackson Pollock as low hanging evidence of it anyone can look into. To crush genuine art and attain hegemony to impose whatever they please is one of their evergreen goals.

>>4490814
>Yes, I am a schizo
At least you can be honest about something

File: 1766899635706157.png (575.6 KB)

575.6 KB PNG

>>4490814
>Actual kekanium-grade schizophrenia
How many whippits have you done this last week cANON

>>4490816
>>4490817
god's chosen screeching

Anybody here has any feedback on the Fujifilm 16-80mm F4 lens? Some reviewers love it, some say it sucks at the wide end, others say it sucks at the long end.

I think the focal length is great for travel and I'd also benefit from the relatively close minimum focus distance for food photos. Ideally I'd just have it on all day on vacation and not carry anything else; I can switch to a prime for the evening/night if needed. Mostly interested in general travel shooting (including landscapes) and some food photography with strobes. I currently have the kit 15-45mm (excellent between 15-30mm or so, bad after) and a Viltrox 35mm 1.7 prime, which is very sharp. I am using an X-T30ii body, but might be interested in getting a 40MP body down the line (maybe in a couple of years or more).

is there a site like cpricewatch for nikon gear?

>>4490822
>f6 lens

>>4490767
>Stop giving me buyers remorse

>>4490740
Another lie. Stop lying and go take a photo of your dog. We know the real reason supposed good photographers gearfag over mirrorless. One handed dog tracking AF.

>>4490726
100% correct

It takes well over $1500 into the body alone for a mirrorless to beat a dslr in more than these two barely relevant ways
>focus point coverage (when do you focus on the corners? WHEN?) but also every dslr has live view that does this slightly slower
>being 1/2lb lighter and being slightly shorter and sharper looking
A 5div will easily outperform the vast majority of mirrorless cameras

I will consneed certain sensors have better ultra deep shadow recovery (5-6 stops) and ultra, ultra high ISO like over 12800 but nobody uses that shit except for gearfags showing off how cool they think their camera is because it looks like phoney dogshit regardless

>>4490897
I don't think I have a problem with that for lugging it around during the daytime (beaches, city breaks, whatever); it should not be that different from using the 15-45 apreture wise, and it has OIS too. I can use a fast prime for darker conditions/shallow DoF when I really want to (I actually enjoy shooting with it a lot). However it would be easier to just have the 16-80 on most of the time and not take any bag, not think about what lens is better for the shot at hand, etc. I don't like carrying stuff. The 15-45 gets ugly after ~30mm, so essentially what I have is a 15-30 slow zoom and a fast 35mm prime.

If you have any specific arguments either against this lens in particular or F4 in general, please shoot - I'm trying to talk myself out of buying it.
It's supposed to have good OIS too (F4 is only a stop slower than F2.8).

>>4490904
It's not about being able to focus on and take a photo of your subject when it's at the edge of the frame, it's about being able to track your subject across the entire frame.

>>4490904
imo mirrorless also holds focus better long term because less moving parts. only way you keep a dslr accurate and focusing fast is if its a last gen nikon/canon AND you regularly maintain or service it AND you don't let it beat up/dropped

i hate doing lens microadjustments and some lenses are so worn out/beat up they can't focus for shit.

i would take a last gen mirrorless over the current gen of dslrs but it would have to be at least a canon r8/sony a7iii or a7c/nikon z5ii, the sonys being the cheapest (prefer a a7iv honestly) but yeah $1500 is the starting point. on the flipside you can get a d750/d810 for $500 and a 5div for $7-800. d850s are still close to $1k.

>>4490601
Yes, photos of other charts

>>4490493
The A900 A-mount DSLR has better colors than a modern Sony, and its sensor is from 2008

>>4490739
The problem was only like 50% her weight. The rest is her profoundly mid angloid peasant phenotype. Even just looking at that thumbnail I can see she has the hands of a warhammer player.

>>4490919
at least she got her teeth fixed
earlier videos of her are just brutal

>>4490814
>I've also seen friends harassed by spooks over harmless photographs


Really?

>>4490493
>Video shit is meaningless
good luck getting more than 100 followers on Instagram without vertical video

>>4490535
The Pentax K/M42 adapter sits flush inside the body of the camera and requires a tool to remove, it effectively turns a K mount camera into an M42 mount one, unlike most adapters which are external and can easily be removed with and left attached to a lens. So calling it K to M42 makes sense - you are adapting a K body to take M42 lenses.

>>4491025
Nope, adapters are always labeled as lens to mount, because you put a lens on a body (instead of body on lens).
Some adapters are thick, some combinations are thinner. That doesn't change how they are labeled and there are other examples with a similar adapter thin-ness that are labeled correctly.

What specific adapter did you buy (brand and model)?

>>4490936
Yes, and videos. They didn't get the symbolism and allegedly thought it was plausible he had inspired some attacks. Likely made it all up to have an excuse to harass him.

File: IMG_3419.png (11.6 KB)

11.6 KB PNG

>>4490944
good luck getting more than 100 followers on Instagram
Get real life friends holy shit lmao

Imagine not having a social life outside of the internet. Imagine needing “instagram followers” (AI advertising bots) to justify having a hobby. Fucking lmao.

File: 1596045293359.jpg (45 KB)

45 KB JPG

I'm gonna do it lads, I'm gonna consoom the z6iii. I was torn between it and the z7ii, because they are currently the same price here in bongland. I mainly do landscape right now, so the z7ii seemed like the right choice, but there were a couple of reasons why I'm leaning towards the z6iii. Many years ago /p/ memed me into buying a Pentax, so taking pictures of moving things is pretty difficult, and I'd like to give it a try. I think the z6iii is a bit more flexible in that regard. The received wisdom is that you need the higher resolution for landscape, but you really don't. 24 is fine. Sure, higher might be nice, but if it comes at the expense of flexibility, I'd quite like the flexibility instead. Also, the higher resolution evf is really nice. I did consider snoy, thinking an a7riv(a) might be the best of both worlds, higher res, nice evf, functioning af, but I tried it on and just didn't like it as much as either Nikon. Looked at the z8 too, but I can buy either the z7ii or z6iii plus a lens and a cfexpress card for the cost of just the body with a z8.

Anyway, thanks for reading my blog.

>>4491185
Why not Z5II?

File: OMDS_OM-System-Logo.svg.png (17.9 KB)

17.9 KB PNG

How can they afford paying for all the ads and internet shills?

>>4491185
>$3000 full frame camera with aps-c dynamic range
Mirrorless is a scam

>>4491199
>Americlap gets fucked by tariffs
>Believes YouTube nofotos that not being able to recover 7 stop underexposed photos is a deal-breaker

Grim

>>4491190
Considered it. Didn't like the body as much. With the sales currently on on its not that much more for the z6iii, but yeah, if the z6 was full price the z5ii would be a no brainer

File: OB220379_b.jpg (523.1 KB)

523.1 KB JPG

>>4491185
good decision, man

>>4491194
He does it for free now that he is divorced and homeless.

File: moggedbyfuji.png (1.5 MB)

1.5 MB PNG

>>4491208
>pay nikon $3000 after das VAT
>receive old dslr performance
>get mogged by a fuji
>at least it shoots almost as fast as an r6ii. im one purchase away from not needing a fundamental photographic skill (timing)!
kek

the z6iii is a camcorder, not a camera. the stills function is bloat.

>>4491215
People will pay $2000+ for literal skill issue crutches like FPS and them get mad when smarter individuals hold these overpriced tech toys to standards and subsequently pass up on them
>DATS PICKSEL PEEPING NO ONE DOES IT ok everyone does it sometimes
>Yes I paid $2000 just to post on instagram!
Do the om5 and g9ii its funny how close they both are to the z6iii kek

>>4491215
the nophoto chartfags are here

>>4491199
Anything has APS-C dynamic range if you don't shoot optimally for ISO
You should be sure to call out all the auto ISO users for that mistake too
But you won't
>>4491208
Makes sense, Z7III can't come soon enough

>>4491215
Wow what a relevant example, can we see some shots you take at base ISO and need to push 5 stops?

>>4491219
>stop looking at measurable facts just post 4k 80% quality jpegs
The z6iii sells from anywhere from $2000 to $3000

It should be held to standards, and if it can not meet them, it is not worth buying.

A cheap fuji or old DSLR can take the same photos.
>CHARTS PIXEL PEEPING BAD
Why, because they prove that the z6iii has the same IQ as much cheaper, smaller camera systems down to the most granular nitpicking level? Is that why charts are bad? Because they prove these crutch machines are wastes of money for shit photographers and mirrorless babbies are really just paying for more FPS so they no longer have to press the button at the right time?

In any photo posted on 4chan a z6iii would never be distinguishable from all manners of cheap shit from the d750 to the sony a7ii, ever.

>>4491221
What camera do you use? Where can we see your photos?
Sounds you're saying they should just get a Fuji instead, neat!

>>4491221
>sensor is the only component of a camera
Nah

>>4491220
>coping
This camera sells from $2000 to $3000. So the extra money doesnt go to how the photos look at all? Just video codec licenses and not having to *gasp* press the button at the right time?

Im glad you agree that there are only two customers for the z6iii
Idiot hobbyists, actual idiots, of the $6000 gaming computer $20 air mattress variety. Vain materialistic reddit consoomers who just want to buy the best according to the internet.
Large businesses that buy cameras in bulk and pay interns peanuts to spray and pray in auto mode

Since you are a reddit style “i want the best there is” consumerist any indication the most expensive is not the best is offensive to you and must be invalid, yeah? Like any redditor you only buy and recommend the priciest shit like any coffee grinder under $100 would ruin your morning and the minimum price for a pen is $50. You’re all the same. You just want to spend the most money to feel like a serious participant in each hobby.

>>4491222
You sure are mad. This camera sells for $2000-$3000 and has image quality more typical of ancient DSLRs. It just doesn’t meet the standards set by the pricepoint.

Z6iii consoomers are either handing these things off to interns, perhaps some
professional videographers, but mostly just foolish redditors who pay $2000+ for hobby equipment to make themselves superficially appear to be better at their hobbies.

>>4491225
>cameras are nothing but a box with a sensor
>cameras can never help you take a picture more quickly or efficiently or reliably
>features of a body are completely irrelevant
>features I don't like or deem irrelevant to me should also be ignored by everyone else, even if they might actually benefit
Nah
>schizo level ad hom
To be expected

You don't even know what gear I do have or how much I paid for it, or how much money it's generated me in return.

Where can we see your pictures again? Did you forget to link or post them?

>>4491226
It really sounds like you're the one that's mad a product you don't use exists and that someone else might see value in it
Also doesn't sound like you take photos, but happy to be proven wrong

>>4491227
>i paid $2000+ so i wouldnt have to press the button at the right time
Funny how the best photography of the century was done with <10fps cameras. You can’t buy skills. I know you REALLY want to buy skill. But you can’t.

Nikon is scamming you idiots with an IQ downgrade because they know the real market for cameras is 90%masses of low level “professionals” (untrained camera holders working for the news), 10% incompetent spendy hobbyists who struggle to use a camera well and justify taking more and more expensive photos of their dog by doing a wedding gig now and then (and they CANT without the newest mirrorless, honest!) but really its all about that dog tracking autofocus and 40fps to get the funniest permutation of the dogs tongue hanging out

>>4491229
>more as hom and ignoring points
At least I tried. You're so right it's about skill, so can we see yours?
>blah blah blah I'm poor and whine when other people buy things
Sad

>>4491228
This shitty $2000-$3000 nikon blob has image quality on par with the very first canon eos r and r6, and the features aren’t much better. It appeals to a certain kind of redditor and a few unlucky news agencies that already have nikon shit and want to outfit more totally untrained plebs and replace toasted Z8s for less money

The latter is really the only customer that actually drives the camera market. These devices are not made for you. You could and most people like you do, get all professional work done with an a7iii and a gh6. many use a DSLR for stills because they agree no one pixel peeps that hard or pushes shadows that much. You’re really just paying thousands extra to not have to press the button at the right time.

>>4491230
>reddit consumer drops the mask
>me not poor, me spend all my money on tech toys! you poor for being responsible with money!
Ha.
The jews were right about goyim.

Is it so hard to develop a basic skill instead of paying over two grand for a downgrade?

>>4491231
>>4491233
>blah blah blah
>No, I don't take any photos
Sad, maybe one day you can afford a real camera

>>4491233
>Is it so hard to develop a basic skill instead of paying over two grand for a downgrade?
I don't know if it's possible because you haven't shared your basic skills you developed
What a good opportunity for you to share with us what your skills are able to accomplish with lesser gear

>Oy vey goyim
>Do you have any idea how much that piece of shit costs
>Just press the button at the right time
>oyyyyyy
>What are you kvetching about? It helps you? Do what, hold the button down instead of just pressing it at the right time? Bullshit pal. $2000 is a load of money.
>Alright, maybe if you're being paid for video, but if you just shot a few weddings you're being a gantseh makher about it, this is why you're never getting any richer
>We, I mean, the jews were right about you go, uh, shekel wasting trombenik schnooks, I mean, redditors
>Oyyyyy, mirrorless is an aroisgevorfene gelt.
>Just lowball every D750 seller on ebay, put it on a credit card, and invest the price in a good short term fund before your credit card bill's due, ya putz!

>>4491235
>>4491234
>you’re right and i dont have an argument but i can call your photos shit even if they’re better than mine
k

>>4491238
You mean you're the one that doesn't have an argument besides
>new camera bad
Did you forget to attach your photos to show everyone here your skill? You really care that someone here might call them bad? Sound kind of like a pussy to me mate
I post my photos here all the time, think I care what people like you think about them? lol
>>4491237
>more schizo rambling
Nice contributing to the board

>>4491239
>leave the multibillion dollar company alone
>post your photos in the gear thread so even if they’re good, I can call them shit and pretend your argument is automatically invalid
Hm, no.
Why are you defending paying $2000-$3000 to just not have to press the button at the right time?

Do you really think it makes you look richer? Lol

>>4491237
>YOU’RE… ONE OF THE RICH PEOPLE WHO RULES THE WORLD! HOW DARE YOU BE RESPONSIBLE WITH MONEY AND REALISTIC ABOUT GEAR INSTEAD OF ALWAYS BUYING THE NEW MODEL!
Kek

>>4491240
I'm not defending the specific model, I just think you look at cameras like a retard
Which seems to be supported by the fact you don't take any pictures or own a camera yourself
I'd be happy to have a substantive argument about the value of a given model, but you can't even be honest with stuff I've already said

I don't care about looking rich or not, I care about using cameras and actually taking photos. Why do you keep bringing up money? Is that a major insecurity you have?

>>4491242
>hey, this absurdly expensive camera takes worse looking photos than a cheaper one just to have more crutches good photographers literally never needed. this isnt meant for hobbyists to buy. its for news agencies that dont want to pay skilled photographers an hourly wage but dont want clueless people to miss shots. other than that its just a somewhat nicer camcorder. anyone buying this for a photography hobby or part time gig is retarded and should just learn to press the button at the right time.
>NOOO YOURE RETARDED AND DONT TAKE PHOTOS HAVING MUH FPS IS VERY IMPORTANT. WHAT ARE YOU POOR?
Lmao mirrorlesscucks

>>4491242
Mirrorlesscucks: stop bringing up money! its the thing i wasted to make up for my lacking skills!
also mirrorlesscucks: cant afford it huh >>4491230

>>4491243
>I have nothing to contribute to the board except whining to others about products they chose to buy that doesn't affect me in any way
>I don't even participate in the hobby itself
Sure you aren't the cuck in this case?
Hope you realize how silly you look one of these days

Did you forget to attach your skilled photos taken on older gear?

>>4491244
Is the Z6III a good camera, ignoring the price? Or is it still bad even if it were $1k?

>>4491245
i take better photos than you

they aren’t relevant to this however. history speaks for itself. the z6iii doesnt bring anything important to photography and is actually slightly worse.

>>4491246
It’s not a good camera for a hobby photographer because the price is part of it, no matter what. Money matters and even just $1000 is still a lot no matter who you are. The primary market for it is news agencies that outfit people whose skills have more to do with human interaction and asking questions than operating cameras, and accessory interns that just get told to point at number 43 and hold down the button. The zf and z5ii are the ones marketed to photographers.

There is a difference between professional (full time photographer for a business) equipment and prosumer (snobs and gig workers) equipment. Professional equipment jacks up the price and yet adds compromises that dont appeal to people who can be expected to have more skill. Professional equipment is meant to be loaned to employees by an employer (the real target customer) and ONLY used for work. The z6iii, z8, and z9 are intended only for purchase by professional news agencies. If you shoot weddings for weed money, anything more than a d750 and a m43 camcorder is vanity, entitlement, and laziness.

>>4491248
>I pretend to take photos
Neat for you
Funny enough, outside of more photography experience, I guarantee I have more experience with the actual camera market too

Maybe one day you'll stop being a giant pussy and post a photo instead of just whining about others

>>4491249
Ok nophoto

>>4491251
I'm always happy to share my photos, you never asked but I'm sure you've seen some before
To get you started >>4491079 >>4483549 >>4484925
Also can provide evidence towards me working on the market side of things too if you want more.

I look forward to seeing your photos now friend

>>4491249
You are the "but I HAVE a 1D" guy but less confident and more copey
https://youtube.com/watch?v=paJqHPHLExo

>>4491252
Also, I'm right there with you on using older cameras, many of them are APS-C from years ago

>>4491253
So a Z6III is the same class as a 1D now? Man you must really dislike people that use Z8/Z9
You also have no idea what kinds of cameras normies actually buy lol

>>4491253
So you think a Z6III is closer to a 1D than a 5D? Interesting

>>4491252
Why did you waste all this time defending an overpriced nikon you dont own, from being accused of not being meant for most photographers and not meant for purchase by individuals who dont do a shitton of sports and sports video for clients with highly specific demands?

Non business customers do not need and can not justify a z6iii. Its a waste of money for everyone else. Better cameras for each task cost less and only require that the button be pressed at the right time. Its like buying an a1 for a first camera. Not just dont, but look, its actually worse at some things people are more likely to do than they are to need to shoot over 5fps. Its a waste of money.

>>4491258
Did you forget to attach your photo?

>>4491258
Why are you wasting your time shitting on a camera you don't use, and can't comprehend why others might want to use?

>>4491259
>i want to call your photos bad
Ok dog snapper. Nice collages I saw them last year too.

>>4491260
>i-i need muh 20fps and aps-c quality
>$3000 well spent
>i am free from the tyranny of having to press the button at the right time
Kek mirrorless

>>4491255
>>4491257
>double replies to double down on being the “but i have a 1d” guy
average mirrorless fan

>>4491261
>>4491262
>>4491264
Did you forget to link your photos again?
Just more whining and straw mans?

>>4491261
Not about calling your photos bad, I won't comment at all on your photos since you're so insecure about them
Just want to see the quality of work behind such strong opinions
Pretty easy to see whats going on though nophoto

Mirrorless
>i had to spend $5000 to crop more and shoot 60fps so i never miss a shot
>of course this camera sucks i buy every upgrade every year but its better than having only 5fps, less pixels, and no AI doing everything for me.
>Honey, are you done deleting 100 identical photos of the dog yet? Chads meant to be here in 10 minutes and I just finished setting up your chair. Why do you even do this? My phone is a digital camera too you know
>NO MLADY AND IT HAS 45MP IM STILL AHEAD OF PHONES

THE JOY OF REFLEX
>One shot
>One keeper
>Simple as
>Wow chad, these photos are amazing! So lifelike! Whats this camera called? A pentax 67? Cool i’ve never seem one before

L A R G E F O R M A T
>Why yes, I do kill hookers so they’ll hold still. How could you tell? I also take photos of eggs. They’re so rich in symbolism. Yesssss.

Holy fucking chartfag autism, I can't even reply to it all cos it thinks I'm spamming, kek. I was the original "in gonna buy a z6iii" post btw, so please enlighten me, what should I get instead?

>>4491269
Hasselblad 500cm

>>4491268
>more whining and arguing in my head
Did you forget to share your photos with us?
>>4491269
Don't use this board for gear recommendations, or at the very least, don't listen to nophoto retards like above
Z6III is fine, if it does everything you want and within your budget, great. I prefer Zf in that ballpark, but doesn't really matter.

>>4491269
The z6iii is a waste of money far in excess of the needs of anyone who is not a professional journalist or doing high end event coverage (especially sports) and is actually worse at common photography than cheaper cameras.

The z5ii is the one you’re meant to buy but if this is just a hobby you should not buy anything nicer than a d750. Maybe a sony a7iii or canon 5div, at the most.

>>4491275
>I am a nophoto retard
True

>>4491275
What cameras do you use?

>>4491276
>>4491277
>"dont overspend on stuff you dont actually need to take great photos"
>samefagging redditor: REEEEEE BUT THE MORE EXPENSIVE ONE HAS NICER SPECS AND THATS IMPORTANT
Chill out reddit man. Go smoke a joint. And then order a new tube amp for your latest pair of headphones or something.

>>4491279
>I don't even have a camera
Sad nophoto

>>4491276
You dont need 20fps ai autofocus to take photos of your dog
Or even shoot a wedding
Lol

These things are still being done, professionally, on nikon d5200s lol
Just have a little skill :) gear doesnt really matter and most of it is a waste of money

>>4491279
Do you have anything to contribute other than more straw mans? When you have to misrepresent the other side so aggressively, just makes your position look weak

>>4491281
I don't need those either, doesn't mean I think a Z6III is a bad camera

Did you forget to attach your skilled photos again?

>>4491283
>>4491282
>reee dont tell people to save their money and only buy what they need
>ill have you know nikons newest professional camera has some really good specs, like 20FPS AI autofocus and 6k raw video!
Ok but no one here actually needs more than a canon 6d to take great photos

Go along now. Your fellow redditors are buying fancy pens and nicer bongs without you.

>>4491285
Wrong and consumerist reddit funko pop retard tier take.
No one here needs more than their phone to take great pictures and if you think anything different you a skill-less gearfag nophoto.

>>4491288
Phone? Woah look at mr moneybags. No one needs that high tech AI enabled apple shit. Just get a d200 and a 35mm af-d.

>>4491285
I think given that I actually take photos, maybe I should stay here and you go

>>4491285
>no one here actually needs
To the extent that's true, no one here "needs" to take any photos or own any camera

Did you forget to attach your photos again?

>>4491289
>Ewasteslop lover fetishizes plastic ewaste meant for the dump

>>4491289
>D200
Why not D100?
>35mm af-d
Why not AI/s?

>>4491291
>Oh so I dont NEED the newest snoy mirrorless? NO ONE NEEDS A CAMERA AT ALL
M’redditor, the d750 takes the same fucking photos as your overpriced reddit flex. You’re the photography version of a fag with a $6k gaming PC who’s mediocre at fortnite.

>>4491294
D750 is a great camera, I used mine a ton and sold plenty of them to consumers. It would be a great option on a budget, but is missing some of the modern QoL I like with newer models.
The only one saying what we need or don't need is your projections. No one said they need a Z6III.

All you have is straw mans and no photos. Your whining about someone else buying something for a hobby you don't even participate in. That's much worse than whatever you can call me.

>>4491294
better photos actually. mirrorless photos look sterile and less tonally rich.
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/nikon/d750
https://www.flickr.com/cameras/Nikon/NIKON%20CORPORATION%20NIKON%20Z6_3

>>4491296
>flickr pools are a good benchmark for the quality of a camera
>the differences are so obvious, but also don't ask me to tell which was which if they were unlabeled, because I'll have to cope some more

Why not just share your own skillful DSLR photos?

>>4491295
>its good but… the $2000+ one is better and you NEED it
You are a redditor. You all do this shit. Every coffee grinder under $100 ruins yor morning. All of you fucking potheads are forever pursuing the best purchase you can claim is the best purchase on the internet. You treat consumer electronics like whisky and act like everyone is missing out on something life changing.

No. No one here needs a z6iii. Even the z5ii is overkill. It is a waste of money. Full stop. They’re fucking cameras. No one, period, needs more than a d750 to take great pics even by modern raw editing and 4k, 8k display use standards.
>quality of life!
It puts the focus box over the eye for you. Big fucking deal. Every single wedding before 2020 was shot and shot well on a DSLR, many worse than the d750. Get fucking real.

Or get out and go upgrade your mechanical keyboard, fountain pen, pourover setup, and dab rig i dont care all you redditors are the exact same fucking person

>>4491298
>still can't post photos because I can only take them for pretend
>new things are bad
What a sad life you must live

>>4491297
>the differences are so obvious, but also don't ask me to tell which was which if they were unlabeled, because I'll have to cope some more
well obviously only someone with access to two cameras and the same scene would ever be able to tell its definitely drab nikon z colors and not an inherently drab scene
i thought redditors liked the scientific method and logic n shit

>>4491298
I also bet I've been on /p/ longer than you too lol

>>4491300
>well obviously only someone with access to two cameras and the same scene would ever be able to tell
So the flickr pools above simply aren't comparable then, nice. Why'd you link them then?

I thought photographers liked taking photos, so you must not be a photographer

>>4491298
Extreme projection

>>4491304
I am a pothead so he's at least right on that

>>4491299
>reductionist redditisms
New things are incrementally less and less of an upgrade but prices dont go down, and sometimes go up. This is just a fact of technology. Right now camera image quality ranges from incrementally better to the same to slightly worse… than 10 year old cameras. Its just how it is.

No one here needs a z6iii just to shoot. Its a camera meant for business use. Its expense and the features it prioritizes are most pertinent to people doing this for business.

10 years ago even non professionals wanted a d750 because lower end cameras looked just bad in many situations and were more reliant on flash. Now old and lower end tech is really as good as the best unless you’re running a no-excuses photo business and sell the fact that your camera is technically incapable of missing a single moment at the next pre-planned presidential candidate assassination.

>>4491302
If you cant tell why would anyone waste their money on a z6iii? So the camera can put the box over the eye for them and they can hold down the button and pick the right frame out of 100+ later?

Its just a waste.

But a redditor will go $1000 deep into their barista hobby so…

>>4491306
Why don't you just ask what I use or what other hobbies I enjoy and how I spend on them instead of just making things up in your head to argue against?
I'm one of the few honest people here, happy to answer those questions for you so you can get a more accurate view or me as an individual.


>more nophoto rambling and dishonesty
Sad
You know how you say it's just us coping for buyers remorse?
Honestly, the more you talk, the more it just sounds like you have old outdated gear, and you're just trying to justify it to yourself as still being as good as anything newer
That is now my head canon, you're just salty you're stuck using old shit lol

>>4491306
So how many years of experience do you have working in a camera shop and selling cameras?

>>4491306
>No one here needs a z6iii just to shoot.

Full retard argument. Nobody needs a d750. Nobody needs an slr. People like to have things for all sorts of reasons. You being unable to understand why someone might prefer to buy in to a mount that isn't dead, using new equipment rather than second hand, along with some marginal quality of life improvements when compared to 10 year old equipment and is happy - and able - to afford to pay a premium for that might actually be autism. Or just plain ole retardation

>>4491309
Poor guy has never felt worthy enough to get himself anything nice.

>>4491309
The z6iii and d750 take identical photos.

>>4491310
I have nice things. But they are real nice things, not crutchmeras with TV viewfinders and 300 shot batteries. Ya’ll are "tesla people".

>>4491312
I thought the z6iii had the dynamic range of an apsc camera? Now it's the same as a d750? Make up your mind lad.

Name one "real nice thing" you bought for yourself in the last year

>>4491313
>You need to buy one nice thing every year!
Holy reddit

I only need so many korths and two rocks

Yes the d750 has aps-c like shadow recovery
Good thing its $450 so no one cares

>>4491314
Asking for an example from the last year doesn't mean I think that you need to buy something every year you absolute fucking mongoloid, it was just an arbitrary time point put on it. You also didn't answer the question. You said you treat yourself to things, but these things are somehow more worthwhile than something for a hobby that you enjoy. So give an example. No time period, I wouldn't want you to get confused.

>>4491312
>I have nice things
But no cameras apparently

I honestly can't wait for the inevitable "hurrrr, I was just pretending to be retarded" from this nofotos spastic. At least then his day long sperg-out over some anon choosing to spend his own money on something made within the last decade will be over

Nikon won.

File: Screenshot 2025-06-28 at 12.32.58 AM.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

Just bought myself an EOS 7 yesterday. Already have my hands on a Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 STM but after doing some research I wonder is the EF 35mm f/2 worth it?

As a serious cyclist of a few years now I've been dabbling with bikepacking more and more and generally enjoy taking a lot of my photos when out riding - typically just with my phone now. I am well aware the camera body itself is pretty large but I'm still drawn to the somewhat compact size of the lens, on top of the relatively cheap price and the focal length being well suited in my mind to the scenery and landscape compositions I tend to shoot.

pic semi-related- not my bike or photo but a comfy scene imo

>>4491325
35 is probably going to be more versatile for that type of shooting.
You can absolutely do a lot still with the 50 though, so I would just keep that for now and make a mental note each time you feel like you want something wider, and pick up a 28 to compliment the 50
The 40mm is also a good option too as a 1-lens setup, and even smaller

>>4491316
Nice try, FBI.

>>4491319
You dont need a z6iii. Thats just reddit consoomption. The D750 is the same camera but with a soul.

>>4491325
35mm f2 with IS

Its optically superior to a multi thousand dollar leica 35mm

>>4491330
Considering you don't have a camera, does that mean you have no soul either?

>>4491332
I shoot m43, chud.

>>4491337
>I pretend to shoot m43
Good for you

>>4491332
I have 7 cameras

Technically 6 of them belong to my employees

Trust me, you don’t need a z6iii. Almost no one does. Save your money and buy yourself something actually nice. Handmade in a western country, long lasting, holds its value.

Why should I not get a D850 over a Zxxx? I get that the Z has better AF but I'm not a dog fag.

>>4491341
>I pretend to take photos and pretend to run a business
Good for you nophoto
>>4491342
D850 is a world class camera, but there are plenty of valid reasons to move to Z

>>4491341
>no you can't buy 1 new camera, that's bad value
>you need to buy 7 old cameras instead
lol

>>449134

I'm kind of in the F-mount ecosystem already so my hunch is to get the 850 since its likely the last one. It seems I can easily get at least 10 years out of it.

>>4491341
>indirectly shills Leica
>muh investments
Nigga, homie just wants to take photos and a Z6 can do that. If anon isn't poor then there's no issue.
If anon IS poor then the only thing that changes is he should buy used.

>>4491341
Oh great, since your too much of a pussy to share your own photos
You should just share some of your employees, I'm sure they're excellent since it's all about skill

>>4491341
How come you don't even mention the models? It's been asked twice now. You're fine saying you have 7 cameras but won't share what models?
Interesting

>>4491357
I own a wedding venue and rent cameras is why

My personal is a 5D series body. The work cameras are R6IIs and an R5, kept in a climate controlled safe and lent out to photographers for a few hundred bucks. Most take the deal because I have two 24-105 f2.8s. The R6II is vastly superior to the Z6III and its more than anyone needs unless they cant use a camera. The Z6III is relatively a piece of third rate shit and it’s still more than anyone here needs. You are all like ken rockwell. You would complain about it, and act like its the minimum, at the same time, and buy an even nicer camera - if there werent any checks on this butiwantit behavior. If you cant understand why 99.9999% of people should get the z5ii instead, or why 4channers should go even cheaper (look at the photos here), it’s a waste of time explaining fiscal responsibility to you. Cameras are not cars. Extra horsepower does not equal fun. Cameras are not guns. Extra money does not equal hand fitting for accuracy. They are all virtually identical chinese electronics stratified by the intended customer and the high priced ones are actually high priced because they’re business expenses, not personal equipment.

>>4491367
>I am not a photographer, don't take photos, and don't work in the camera market / sales
Nice of you to try and be honest for once, still pretty obvious you're just full of shit though

I would agree a Z5II makes sense for most people, hence why I asked why not Z5II first thing. I'm just not also a retard nophoto like you.

>>4491367
Did you forget to attach some skilled photos of your employees?

>>4491367
>5D series body.
>I've never used it though, so I can't even remember which model it was
Nice

>>4491367
>I own a wedding venue and have at least 6 photographer employees
>I spend my time on 4chan judging what other people buy
Nice

>>4491367
>R6IIs, R5
>two 24-105 f2.8s
Sounds like you should've taken your own advice and not have wasted so much money
Maybe this is all just projection of your own buyers remorse since you know older cameras would've done your wedding snaps just fine, and you don't want others to repeat the same mistake
Makes total sense now

>5 consecutive replies from one nikkor with buyers remorse
oh he mad

>>4491377
they paid for themselves quick. the r6ii can make a /p/ tier retard a good photographer. and wedding photographers are retards. most would miss the first kiss with a film camera.

>>4491382
>more larping
True, people lying and ruining the board makes me rage

>>4491382
>they paid for themselves quick
Imagine how quickly some used D750's would've paid for themselves tho

>>4491384
But does the d750 magically turn a total retard into a good photographer that gives your venue a good reputation? Nope.

I dont let people use their own cameras if they’re worse unless they have a good portfolio already. That said, videographers are their biggest users.

>>4491385
I thought a D750 takes the same pictures as anything newer, isn't' that what you said earlier?
Or are you an entirely different nophoto retard?

>>4491386
It does. You just have to have a little skill.

This is apparently a tall order for today’s photographers. I built this little business off my land in 06 and photographers used to be both harder to get and significantly more competent, self sufficient, and hard working. But whatever, this business model pays well for a small initial investment. More, cheaper workers with less need for training. In the professional world these magic cameras are essential.

But here in your personal lives, all you have to do is learn photography as well as people used to, and you save yourselves several thousand dollars. Simple as.

Although videographers really need a lot of this newer stuff and are thrilled to use an r6ii

>>4491389
>still larping about fake photo business
Wish I could have your imagination nophoto

>>4491391
i diagnose you with butthurt

>>4491392
I diagnose you with no photos

>all you have to do is learn photography as well as people used to, and you save yourselves several thousand dollars. Simple as.
and folks where's the lie

>>4491395
True, no one disagrees with that
That's in fact something I try to preach here often, as I'm sure you know if you are here often
>all you have to do is post photos, and you are no longer a nophoto, simple as
Too bad you're just a retarded nophoto

>>4491391
>>4491393
>>4491397
>nophoto calling others nophotos

>>4491395
Once you actually learn photography you get to spend your money on things that tangibly improve your photography like strobes, light modifiers and backdrops.

>>4491398
>I don't bother reading the thread
Then you probably shouldn't bother commenting
See >>4491252

>>4491399
So true, can we see some samples of what you've learned now?

>>4491398
Did you forget to link your photos too?

>>4491404
kek all this caring from actual nophotos about what another anon buys

File: look-at-you-snoy-v0-41imqkyqdxyc1.jpg (29 KB)

29 KB JPG

>S-stop judging SNOYs we literally cant take good photos without AI everything
kek, lmaoing @ mirrorless gearfags

>>4491402
Im not that guy thankfully.

Imagine spending $2000 on a camera just to take pictures of dogs, cats, rocks, and leaves

>>4491408
And when you're not poor anon you too can have disposable income.
>$2000
Ever have this thing called a job?

>>4491410
>should i be responsible with my money?
>no
>must consoom newest snoykon
>i cant enjoy photography if i need skill to do it

>>4491412
Spending money doesn't mean you can't git gud you absolute loser. I also don't give a fuck if anon buys a snoy, a cannot, a niggon, a hasselblyat... it doesn't bother me one bit. The fact that it bothers (You) is telling me you must be some browncel thirdie ESL nigger.

>>4491408
Dog and cat photography is a much higher tier of photography than sticks and leaves snapshots. Don't get it twisted.

Snoycels dont even take photos kek

>noo your shouldn't buy a z6iii, a d750 is exactly the same
>Btw I own an R5 and an r6ii in my totally not made up photography business
>Also an r6ii will make you a better photographer, even though gear doesn't matter and newer cameras are a crutch
>Snoy, snoy, you're a snoy consoomer

Wow, great arguments anon

>>4490470
Ever wish sellers specified in their listing if they use direct shipping or fulfillment through US services instead of it being a guessing game? It's bad enough I have to save up for 6 months just to get a decent used body now.

File: 2025-12-31 15_26_54-Compact Camera Meter — Mozilla Firefox.png (322.2 KB)

322.2 KB PNG

>>4490720
>There is a mania, an irresponsibility, a desperation, to camera size autists.
Some of us just want a good compact. I already own a full size camera and I very much enjoy using it but sometimes you just need a backup or second that is compact enough to carry alongside the main or just under a jacket on its own. The options are still incredibly few and limited for this use case (interchangeable lens compact). You can get a snoy A7C and deal with all the tradeoffs you mentioned or an fp/s9 and learn to live without a shutter, flash, IBIS, EVF (not great).
It's really quite bizarre to me that the other brands haven't hopped on the A7C idea, given the sheer sales volume of that series and how much E mount adoption it continues to drive. The ideal side camera is an A7C-like with the shitty EVF removed and replaced with a higher res modular Visoflex type thing, and a full mechanical shutter.

>>4491446
The A7C isn't that much smaller than the regular A7's, it literally just chops off the viewfinder humpy and the eyecup sticks out a little bit less. And in return you get a smaller lower res EVF. The size difference makes no difference in practical use.

>>4491408
What do you take pictures of?
>>4491451
This is true

File: 2025-12-31 16_32_41-Compact Camera Meter — Mozilla Firefox.png (389.6 KB)

389.6 KB PNG

>>4491451
That hump makes a huge difference in fitting gear into a near-full bag.

>>4491453
lol no it doesnt

>>4491454
Ok retard

>>4491453
>have ginormous lense
>THE HUMP TOTALLY MAKES ALL THE DIFFERENCE
kek

>>4491457
>what is reading comprehension
I don't own a snoy. I want others to make an A7C like so that I can put a tiny M mount lens on it.

>>4491460
>le based zone focussing street creepograph
just get an S9 and shoot from the hip. like all the othe street shitograph incels.

>>4491453
>muh murse
lol

>>4491457
>you have to use the pro zoom and g master pro prime
lol tiny fe mount consumer lenses are sharper than nikons old gold ring primes

>>4491465
>f3.5 or whatever
kek what a joke. tehy're just APS-C lenses that get heavy vignette corrected in-cam

>>4491460
A7C is such a meme. it has the shitty SNOY screen paired with an even more shitty EVF lol. it's the ideal SNOYSHITTER camera because you can't see what you're photographing but that's OK because SNOYSHITTERS don't care anyway they just shoot trash anyway lol

>>4491455
It's a 1" cube

>>4491467
>>4491469
This is the homeless m43 gearfag lying out his ass as usual. He actually ruined his life consooming $6k of pseudo-compacts just to try and figure out if there was one as good as the a7c.

Bro, even huskyfag eventually just got an a7c. He had an a7c and upgraded to an a7cii, and tells everyone its various nikons and m43s depending on the ISO setting and everyone believes its nikon/olympus colors. Hilarious. I’m in a discord with him. It’s an a7cii+16-35 f4 and a viltrox 40mm f2.

Alright fellas I'm done with my piece of shit camera that refuses to just connect to my phone wirelessly for some reason (a6500). I'm also tired of having to edit RAW files. I'm going into simplicity because I just want to have fun with the camera, not earn money.
Always heard that Fuji was decent at this thing called "just take the fucking picture jaypeg and it looks nice" sort of shit. Straight out of compton or whatever. Are those terrible with connectivity too?

>>4491487
Canon has the best connectivity out of any brand. Nikon sometimes just doesnt work and fuji and sony drop the connection a lot.

Fuji makes editing raws very necessary and a slog because their AWB is very inaccurate (they’d call it filmic probably), their jpeg engine is a bit blurry and blends reds and beiges together due to the difficulty of processing xtrans properly, and the film sims look good on the camera and then on a real screen they look garish and kitsch. experienced fujifags spend hours punching values from fujixweekly in, taking a test shot, and transferring it to another device, and changing values again. more experienced fujifags give up and just get capture one after ages of camera configuration and waiting for LRCs enhance feature to run. Even then, fuji raws take longer to regenerate previews than normal raws. Fujifags can be very testy and defensive people after all this bull (and paying nikon ff money for a reskinned aps-c sony) kek

If you shoot canon its legit just press the button and import from canon camera connect. Maybe turn down the sharpening and turn on highlight tone priority. Thats it really. Canon colors look a lot like portra and they have nailed their jpegs every shot every time since the original 5d.

>>4491487
You actually have more in-camera JPG options with an a6500. A Fuji will be easier for you for that though if you don't want to go into a menu to set things up.
If you can't figure out how to connect a camera to your phone, you'll probably run into the same issue with any other model. It's a user issue, not camera.

>>4491488
Can we see some examples JPG's from your Canon?

>>4491489
No, its a camera issue. I have had every sony between the a7ii and the a7cii and they are all prone to dropping the connection if the camera and phone arent held smashed up against each other

Canon camera connect is way fucking better. More stable and if you dont have to convert raw-only shots all the operations are done from the phone

>>4491490
Are you the annoying corgi snapper?

>>4491487
its true canon is a lot better than fuji

especially since xtrans is inherently blurry and fuji autofocus is so garbage people still praise DSLRs. fuji to FF DSLR is a common upgrade path. just get a canon r10 or the r7, they make some good shit and canon aps-c is getting third party lenses now.

>>4491489
I used to have a canon EOS2000D (Rebel T7) and it just worked, I don't know.
I figured it out, now I can send pictures, but it's weird that if I just do a thing out of order everything breaks and I have to restart the fucking application.
Aren't newer sony cameras in the same line (a6400/6600/6700) better for picture profiles?
>>4491488
Didn't know that. I'll be honest, the more I read into it the more it seems life with Canon was easier.
>>4491493
I almost went for an R10 before I chose this one. Well I had also considered the RP but someone really didn't want me to go for that one. I should have spent more I guess. Now I have all these lenses, what the fuck am I gonna do with them

>>4491494
The RP is just a shittier R8 for not much less money is probably why

Its not unusable but its a better purchase in the form of a $350 6d mark II (not ebay priced, facebook market haggling priced)

>>4491495
RPs are REALLY cheap though

Like its probably the cheapest FF Mirrorless on the market. $5-600 on eBay. Can definitely pay $500 for one locally.

>>4491502
Original Sony A7 is cheaper, and despite being 6 years older is actually better. Only downside really is the ergos aren't great but for the same price as an RP you could get an A7II that fixes that as well as giving you IBIS.

File: dumb.jpg (14.9 KB)

14.9 KB JPG

>>4491453
>That hump makes a huge difference in fitting gear into a near-full bag.

File: 1766420277141.png (610.3 KB)

610.3 KB PNG

Someone teach me about TTL
I have a Nikon d5200 and 3 Amazon basics flashes (without TTL I think) that I (when I use them) trigger off a radio dohicky on the hotshoe.

How does TTL work?
Does my camera need TTL flashes to use TTL?
Presuming yes do All the flashes need to be TTL?
Does "the" TTL flash need to be attached to the hotshoe, or can it be radio?
What if I don't want the light to come from center at all?
If multiple are needed, do they just slave, or is radio good/bad for them?

>>4491502
If I had the extra money right now, I would get an RP just to experiment with debayered black-and-white photography. At least I wouldn't have to buy new lenses.

>>4491526
>How does TTL work?
The flash sends out a pre-flash before the photo is taken so that the camera can tell what the exposure would be like with that amount of light, then it can do some math to figure out how much power it needs for the correct exposure. To do this the camera needs to be able to communicate with the flash and adjust the power itself.
>Does my camera need TTL flashes to use TTL?
Yes, the reason for this is explained above
>Presuming yes do All the flashes need to be TTL?
Yes, although technically it could just be one main flash is TTL and then the rest are slaves being controlled by it. I don't know if such a set of flashes actually exists though.
>Does "the" TTL flash need to be attached to the hotshoe, or can it be radio?
No you can get TTL radio transmitters and receivers.
>What if I don't want the light to come from center at all?
If by centre you mean on the camera then a radio would achieve that.
>If multiple are needed, do they just slave, or is radio good/bad for them?
As above you'd need TTL receivers on all the flashes.

>>4491536
Any recommendation for "budget" TTLs?

>>4491535
What the fuck. Explain. You mean like a sensor mod or something? I'd do exactly that myself but idk what the fuck you're talking about.

>>4491540
Nta. Godox. $50 transmitter. Ttl flashes are as cheap as $50 ea. Works quite well imo

>>4491541
This explains it in depth:
https://maxmax.com/maincamerapage/monochrome-cameras/debayer-study

Basically an expensive and risky process that removes the color filter array so that the sensor records pure luminance data. Like I said, I would only do it if I had enough burner cash to justify it.

>>4491548
>website says to contact for pricing
Always a red flag. I can't in good conscience even engage with a business that does this on a personal level, because it's either tailored enterprise-grade stuff, or a rip off.
Hats off to them for basically doing something nobody has before and offering it as a service, but fuck that nonsense, it'll probably cost the value of a whole seperate camera.
A shame though, because even if it were listed as like $500 I'd be down.

>>4491502
Canon also promos them $500 new to vendor employees
>>4491492
Are you a nohopto?
>>4491535
Monochrome sensors are dope af
You can see some examples from a converted 5DSR, https://jmcscientificconsulting.com/monochrome-camera-conversions-the-quest-for-improved-resolution/
but they do bring up a good point that converted bodies add an extra step of having to convert the files to skip the debayering process in your editor
Have to imagine it'd run $300-500 for an RP conversion
>>4491540
Godox / Flashpoint

>>4491542
I dot. See any for 50.
But how's the IT32/X5N?

Seems like built in transmitter so I can just expand off that?

>>4491548
that was a very interesting read, I always wondered why companies like leica sell monochrome cameras when almost every camera can shoot b/w

File: 79b264e1c37cc113f48705088c51d10a1500cb544698ae07a0e4dc30c44bad05.jpg (100.3 KB)

100.3 KB JPG

I've been asking around and finally chose my first camera, an FF X-T50 with the XF 16-50mm lens. Realized after the fact that I never came to my local anonymous imageboard to get /p/'s opinion. Is it over for me? I previously used an OM-5 years ago before selling it.

>>4491599
That's not a full frame camera

>>4491600
By FF I mean Fujifilm, not full frame

>>4491226
lol poorfag

File: 20260101_195153.jpg (733.5 KB)

733.5 KB JPG

Never had a "real" camera before but I picked this up recently to use instead of my phone for stuff.

Can't really complain for $150 CAD so far. Only issue I've encountered so far is sometimes the images come out looking like the colours were all inverted but I can't tell if that's a skill issue or not.

File: Leica_M-EV1_front.png (180.9 KB)

180.9 KB PNG

>MEV1
>didn't just remove the viewfinder entirely, slim it vertically and sell it with visoflex
What the fuck were they thinking? Seriously, are they actually retarded?

>>4491665
The EVF is usefull for granpas with bad eyesight. That's the only market for the MEV1

File: Screenshot 2026-01-02 194040.png (139.4 KB)

139.4 KB PNG

About to sell my Nikon gear with all lenses to fund my first Leica M11-P. Not 100% sure if that's the right move but I have zero motivation to use Nikon. Just like my prev Snoy it feels like a computer. So effortless to use that it takes all the fun away. Clumsy UI, huge ass lenses. Ugly camera body. I always need to carry a bag because it strangles my neck if I have it hanging around a whole day. I've tried the X100VI for some weeks but the images are a pain to work with, probably because of that ant sensor. I photograph only as a hobby when traveling, meeting friends/family. The short time a wageslave like me has for freetimes activities.. i rather wanna enjoy it as best as possible. I only read good things about the user experience of an M so I wanna give it a try.

>>4491680
Yes, that's what the visoflex is for

>>4491683
the visoflex sticks out

>>4491684
And? It's removable, so if it sticks out too much for you in the moment just pop it off. Besides, this theoretical EVFless MEV1 with a lower profile and visoflex on top would be still smaller than a Z6 or something similar. This, plus the fact that it has adjustable angle, makes it an objectively better configuration than what we got (a really barebones built in EVF)

>>4491682
Enjoy the future disappoint
It's a great camera, but you sound like someone that will just find problems with anything

>>4491682
Can we see some of your X100VI shots?

File: 1756102785-COaDJZtIKeuHY9niWqP2Vf34.jpg (379.4 KB)

379.4 KB JPG

>>4491682
The lens is what makes the difference. You will soon find a host of annoyances you didn't anticipate shooting with a rangefinder:
>rf knocked out of alignment, have to send it back for recalibration
>lens has focus shift, which would be irrelevant with an EVF
>lens rf coupling is slightly off
>rf accuracy poor with longer lenses
>rf window fogs up in humid conditions
>lens focuses closer than rf minimum, have to use live view
>etc.
In your position, I would try adapting rangefinder lenses to your Nikon. VM is excellent if you want to buy modern. That way, if you do end up buying M camera, you will already have glass for it. If you decide to stay with Nikon, you will have a very fun 'casual' setup, access to nice manual focus aids, and an acceptably thin sensor stack for those M lenses.
>X100VI for some weeks but the images are a pain to work with, probably because of that ant sensor
Yes, that camera is a piece of shit

File: 476616750_10231446202612118_8774856474686235917_n.jpg (76.1 KB)

76.1 KB JPG

>>4491690
>what did you just say about fujifilm!?
most annoying poster on /p/.

File: hq720.jpg (58.6 KB)

58.6 KB JPG

Is APSC really that bad? I'm looking forward the GRIV Monochrome that is announced for this year. That monochrome sensor apparently is much sharper than the usual aps-c sensor and you can crank up the ISO by a lot with no issues.

On the other hand there are also small full frame cameras like the A7C. Sure, not a monochrome sensor, but you can always shoot in b/w or edit in lightroom. And it's full frame. For purely b/w is there a winner in overall image quality? Would it be apsc but monochrome sensor or is it still better to have a color full frame sensor and just shoot in b/w?

>>4491726
It's fine in a trouser-pocketable body like the GR, where the trade-off makes sense.
APS-C monochrome is probably about equivalent to color FF. If you're somebody that loves the GR size and shape and loves shooting B&W then it's for you. If you're not sure, get something else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu0PIQqDfHg

How did your favorite brand do?

tl;dr Ricoh GR, Canon R5/R6, and Sony A7R4 were the winners.

>>4491694
>asking for people to share example images on a photo board
>so annoying, I just want to be a nophoto shot poster
So you're one of the nophotos too? It's got to be so annoying seeing me take and post so many different photos
>>4491691
All of those have been non-issues for mine lol
>>4491726
APS-C is totally fine and no one here can reliably tell the difference between the two
Monochrome sensors are dope, but if that's what your after, and can't afford FF mono, I'd just get higher res FF instead

>>4491726
One thing I'll add to what anons have already pointed out: With a true colour sensor you can make very precise contrast edits per colour channel in post to really squeeze out the best look. This is because the colour data is still there in the RAW to work from.
With a monochrome sensor you'll have to go old school and stick a coloured filter on. It's supremely based, but you lose 1-3 stops of light and can no longer make per-colour adjustments for contrast later on.

I would also vote just to get a higher res FF camera over a mono APS-C, BUT only if the compactness of the GR isn't a selling point for you.

>>4491817
I can tell with my own shots because I know what shit is meant to look like

Go molest your dog or something you disingenuous gearfag

>>4491817
Consider posting beautiful egg photos if you want to maximize your nophoto annoying.

>>4491830
What am I being disingenuous about? I try really hard to be honest
What a good opportunity for you to share those example with us so we can learn from you too!
>>4491833
Did you forget to attach a photo again?

>>4491836
I could post eggs if you want lol

Fujifilm cameras suck. Autofocus as bad as a 2nd gen nikon mirrorless. Build quality as bad as a SNOY. Colors duller than a panasonic. Xtrans blurriness puts the D750 AA filter to shame. Tiny sensors, with even worse DR on the 40mp models. For $2000, they should be perfect.

Sadly, the statement "for $2000, they should be perfect" literally sends the corgi rapist into a blind rage.

>>4491841
The x100vi combines the 2 stop ibis, nonexistent build quality, and slow grinding autofocus of the sony a7II with the good looks of the amazon digital camera 4k 50mp shenzhen technology wonder co digital SLR compact camera

File: Screenshot 2026-01-03 at 2.10.13 PM.png (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB PNG

I just bought a lens off eBay and the front lens elements are loose. You can actually see them rattle around. What should I do?

Really not trying to be a jew here but this is fucking ridiculous. Aperture blades are oily and sticking too.

File: 1000066788.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4491851
Here's the lens

>>4491852
Tighten the front retaining ring after positioning the front element. You may be screwed.

>>4491853
Yeah that improved it but the aperture blades mean I'm probably just better off returning it tbqh. Just gonna return it as is. Front element is scratched up pretty bad too.

I could've gotten a Pentax Takumar 135mm f2.5 for $8-10 more ($30 vs $22) tbqh

>>4491830
Hey friend, are you going to call out >>4491841 for being disingenuous too, or?

>>4491866
But he’s 100% correct. Those pieces of junk are a scam. More like faux-luxury fashion accessories than cameras.

You don't need a new camera, he said.
I say spend more money. More money spent is good. Imagine having money

>>4491884
He's not though, you can't even be honest about that, but hold others to a higher standard?

>>4491726
>>4491826
There's also the whole thing of having to deal with color filters. It's one more thing to worry about.

>>4492130
its amazing how contentious basic factual posts like this are. most of /p/ agrees with you. its just one single mirrorless consooming chart nerd gearfag that gets mad.
>but what about the 5 stop shadow recovery and iso 25600 DR!? what about af-s consistency on a macro test chart!
meanwhile 100 years of legendary photography was done on split screen slrs, rangefinders, and 1 to 9 point autofocus systems without issue and photography got oversaturated with worthless snapshits as soon as mirrorless happened

it makes in focus bokeh shit accessible to retards who think they’re photographers, but are actually closer to being camera salesmen and reviewers with a button pressing hobby

>>4492130
mirrorless gearfag words
>they are better! what are you poor!?
mirrorless gearfag thoughts
>i cant take good photos without exposure preview or constant chimping

>"purist" (they're actually not) retards fighting
>think that coping with obsolete tech somehow makes them better photographers
>protip: it actually makes them worse
>protip: the real reasons to dab on mirrorless are the seeming impossibility of making a proper pancake, designers' autistic obsession with blobcams and copying SLR body forms, EFCS/fully electronic shutters being commonplace in cameras with a stills function, and the constant pandering to videofags to the great detriment of enthusiast photographers
The real master race are lens autists who only shoot manual focus adapted glass on their thin sensor stack mirrorless cameras.

>>4492147
>the closer your digishit gets to film the better!

Based.

>>4492147
>i cant figure out how to use a leica let alone afford one: the post
Jfc m8s are not that expensive you pixel peeping chart nerd

>>4492150
>>4492156
>still seething despite graciously being given a list of actually valid reasons to disdain mirrorless on a silver platter
Can't get across to DSLRfags, it seems.

>>4492157
>delusional cope poster gets angry when confronted with the truth

Sad!

>>4492157
>bbbbut i can use leica lenses without having to be skilled enough to use a real leica!
Sounds like a skill issue

Let me guess you have auto trap focus and cropping room, and can miss exposure 7 stops and recover the raw? Skill issue.