>>4492332
If you don't bring at least a B-cam to a paid shoot you deserve the consequences. Hell if I was soloing a wedding it'd be a B-cam and a C-cam.

File: IMG_3452.jpg (237.6 KB)

237.6 KB JPG

The switch to mirrorless has seen build quality crater across all major brands

DSLR = reliable camera
Mirrorless = big disposable pns

Companies did not even give mirrorless new battery packs for more power hungry cameras, why wouldnt they make shutter blades and shutter drives and basically everything out of cheap plastic?

>>4492338
yeah but the lens sharpness and 6 stop shadow push and AI autofocus and autochimp and megapixels

must crop my cropped crop for reach and miss exposure -6 stops for max highlight protection
must shoot one handed while looking at the back screen and crop and rotate later
must consoom

>>4492337
This. A big part of being a professional is anticipating problems and having your bases covered for when they do occur. This should be a simple switch to B cam moment, worry about dealing with that later.
>>4492338
Nice feelings

>>4492338
Which camera models have you had to send for repair? Don't forget to include your repair receipts as evidence

>>4492340
>part of being a professional is just buying more shit so i dont care if snoys explode every 20k shots!
good snoygoy
dont ask questions dont have standards just be thankful you have a new product to consoom

>>4492332
lol, sony
>>4492338
spbp
mirrorless is ewaste for unserious photography

>>4492342
>I shouldn't need a backup just in case because I buy reliable products like [BRAND]
Snoy IS shit, but if you aren't employing redundancies into a professional workflow then you're going to get a problem one day and it's going to cost you more than simply having a backup at hand.
If I could swap my lenses between different brands (in a fake world where mounts are all the same) then I'd have a mix of Canon, Nikon and Pentax.

>>4492338
SP
BP!

>>4492348
Yes yes backups are needed, but backups with canon DSLRs collect dust and get sold to lucky hobbyists on ebay, and backups with mirrorless get used up quick, and then replaced with more backups a year later

Welcome to the enshittified world. Corporations are not your friends. They do not do make what they love, they cut costs aggressively and leverage a small department of psychologists to brainwash people into buying overall downgrades. Sometimes they dont invest into new products at all and just repackage old products under new marketing slogans.

>>4492342
You'd be surprised to learn even non-Sony cameras can stop working too

>>4492338
I feel like people only think DSLRs are more reliable because they're heavier so they give an illusion of sturdiness.

File: snoykon.jpg (2.3 MB)

2.3 MB JPG

>>4492407
Or because they are actually built better than mirrorless

>>4492332
>randomly freezing and getting bricked in the middle of a shoot
Wow they arent kidding when they say Sony cameras are more like mini computers than photographic tools

>>4492410
>he bought a nikon

>>4492407
>illusion
>magnesium alloy monobody vs. multiple thin parts
nigga the zf z6iii z8 and probably the z5ii flex
literally
not nigga flex
creaky and freaky, dont drop it flex

people used to complain about lens mounts screwing into a big chunk of plastic because it would get fucked if they used their 100-400 as a club
today entire camera bodies are liable to explode into their component parts and the lens and mount still get fucked

File: neverhappens.jpg (251.3 KB)

251.3 KB JPG

>>4492410
lol

>>4492423
What cameras do you recommend using?

>>4492427
Film and the cheapest ff DSLR near you

>>4492427
got the lumix S1, its very big and has that sony sensor, but it's also the cheapest camera around, it has ibis, decent video, the best evf made, and a sony sensor

>>4492425
>using the back LCD of your consoomer DSRR

Thats why you get the pro level with top LCD and pro 100% viewfinder
A d7100 / D600 is like $400 nowadays and if they broke just get another one

>>4492449
But it was implied just a few comments ago DSLR's don't break

>>4492457
DSLRs are on the whole, more robust.
That does not mean they are immune to standard 0.5-2% failure rates, or dumbassery usage conditions.
Early MILCs absolutely suffered higher than standard failure of critical components AND random incovenient bullshit. Hypermodern mirrorless is about the same reliabilitiy of manufacture as DSLRs, but still don't really hold the same field-resilience as moderately-modern to late-modern DSLRs.

It also goes to say that constantly smashing your shutter at 10FPS+ is not the default nor good for longevity. Yes, I expect my $4000 brick to withstand the conditions of a wedding or a sports event or whatever, but remember that the people actually shooting these events on the regular are insured with service contracts; failures still happen they're just hedged against feeling the full weight of a total equipment failure. You and I are not.

Even doing some brief real estate photography, I found out from the old guy working there that they had a camera failure outright every 6 months or so at an average of 1000-2000 photos per day of shooting.

>>4492460
How come you don't call them out when they are being dishonest?

>>4492460
>You and I are not.
Speak for yourself, as one of the few working professionals here, that does in fact have business insurance coverage
(and also used to facilitate camera repairs for many years)

>>4492460
You had to find out from a guy that some camera shutters fail after 125k-250k shots? How long did you think they last before he told you?

>>4492461
Because I don't give a shit on a personal level. Honesty is a feature of humanity and nobody on this godforsaken site has any. Using 4chan is heathier if you pretend everyone else is a chatbot with a slightly higher IQ.
>>4492462
Okay. Why exactly did you bring this up? The point of saying this was to show the vast majority of people using a camera do not have a service contract. Here's your (You) I guess.
>>4492463
I wasn't under the impression shutters lasted longer than that, It was more a statement of the volume of photos the place went through daily. If anything I was mildly surprised there wasn't more failures. We were using a mix of 7D's and 200D's and was originally under the impression that the consumer-grade cameras wouldn't stand up to the use as well as they did.

File: tokyo_01-3ac3821b547c.jpg (187.9 KB)

187.9 KB JPG

I want to digitalize all the negatives I found in my granmas apartment. Instead of spending a lot for a real scanner I was thinking of just using my Nikon zf and build my own setup to scan and convert them.

Is it best to have a macro lens for it? I do have an old one smc Pentax-M Macro 1:4 100mm. But are those old analog lenses sharp enough to capture much details of the negative? Or is it better to have a modern macro lens? I also have the 40mmf2 and 50mm1.8s.

>>4492469
Huh. Black and white lets asians pretend they're white people... why does this solve so many questions

>>4492469
Pentax-M Macro F4 100mm is supposed to be very sharp. Depends of your setup but the results should be good enough. and work may take a lot less time than than doing it with a film scanner.
(Also depending where you live you might check if your can get access to a film scanner via local library, community college, photography club or whatever.)

>>4492493
it’s not a 1:1 macro lens if that matters

>>4492469
Nikon makes a film adapter for the 50mm macro (es2) and jjc makes a multi lens one (JJC FDA-K1)

Keep it simple. You dont need 400mp flawless scans of 40 year old 35mm negatives shot on dogshit consumer cameras from last century. One shot scans and negative lab pro will outdo any 1hr photo.

File: Super-8-Instax-1536x998.jpg (175.4 KB)

175.4 KB JPG

S O U L

>>4492521
Yes, it's 1:2 and an inexpensive extension tube set gets it to 1:1.
(Check the Pentax Forum lens database for that lens yourself.)

Fujiworms are consoomer goycattle

>>4492622
Pentaxfags are ewaste funko pop collectors who are blissfully ignorant of how crusty, clunky, unreliable, and low quality their shit is

Ken Rockwell should have been a pentaxian since he calls every lens, including blurry kit zooms, super sharp

>>4492606
Is Fuji competing again for the most useless wheel?

>Sony Releases Stupid Piece Of Shit That Doesn’t Fucking Work
>Uploaded 16 years ago.
https://youtu.be/8AyVh1_vWYQ?si=4EVxGHSRlT10zmu1

>>4492639
nothing more pathetic than fujislugs punching down at pentaxians when they paid $2000 for a apsc shitter with worse iq than a 10 year old $300 pentax apsc dslr at least pentaxians know their cameras are shit and ricoh is a joke of a company fujislugs are in denial about it the whole time

>>4492775
It's the meme of all the brown people claiming they're true Aryans and not to trust the real jeets
Same concept here.

As everything I'm late to the party, but damn those Helios 44-2 lenses look like fun. Only now do I notice how much the look that type of lens gives has been used in movies and stuff the last couple of years.
I'd like to get one for fun even though the look has been overused, but where would one go about buying one in Europe? and are there any z mount adapters that are better than others?
I've been completely out of the photo/video world for years and don't know where to look.

>>4492778
>buying one in Europe

its unironically pretty cheap/easy there, i'd imagine ebay or whatever from warsaw pact countries.

glad you made this post because i was gonna ask what's the best/most fun $50 m42 lens you could buy (helios 44-2, carl zeiss jena 50mm 2.8 tessar, or takumar 55mm 1.8)

>>4492332
What do you even do in this situation?

>>4492785
Proceed to not give a shit and get B-cam out. Claim on insurance later.
>Don't have a B-cam
lmao
>Don't have insurance
Extra lmao

>>4492780
I've just never looked into anything like this before, and the prices could be insane since it's vintage stuff and it's been very popular the last couple of years.
You never know which way the prices will go with stuff like that.
Asked a friend about lens recommendations and he mentioned Helios and Takumar to me. Looked them up and really liked the Helios stuff. I found one on my country's version of craiglist, but I think it's one of "the bad ones" or something.
I also saw a video of a guy talking about buying a really cheap z mount adapter that was so cheap he couldn't use focus assist stuff on the camera? Can you get some better ones that allow you to use that function where the stuff in focus has that red pixelated outline? I reckon that would be a must have for an old manual lens like this if you want to have some sort of normal workflow speed.

I was just curious if the photography/video world had something similar to the musical instrument world has in reverb.com

>>4492780
I own all three of these lenses (for the Helios 44, both an M4 and the original 44-2)

The Takumar can have issues with some M42 mounts, but probably not an issue with adaptors (I exclusively use film so wouldn't know 100% though). I prefer my Tessar to the original Helios 44-2 but not the M4.

>>4492787
Afaik there are no "Bad ones" for Helios 44. Just the original 44-2 tends to cost more because of retards overpaying due to influencer hype. Simons Utak has a full review of all the Helios 44 series lenses: https://youtu.be/7hJUyKs8Z08?si=eUR8Ey8pCk0XuZnR

Prices for Helios 44-2 are extremely exaggerated because of influencer hype nonsense. I paid £5 for mine on Ebay with a Prinzflex 500 body simply because it was listed as "prinzflex 500 with lens" which shitfluencer watchers don't know because they're not autistic about Soviet photo gear.

>>4492785
Switch to the other camera you brought and worry about sending it for repair later
If you didn't bring a second camera, panic because you aren't acting like a professional

>>4492789
Other than price, wouldn't buying a new Voigtländer be better? You can get a native z mount and the ones they have that open up to 1,2 get swirly backgrounds too.
I checked their website for dealers in my country. They have four listed, but they don't really have any available. They're not on amazon.de either

>>4492800
I don't have much familiarity with modern glass but I would assume all modern glass is far better than any vintage.

I've heard it touted that SMC Takumar lenses can be visually as good as modern glass (owning several I can attest that they're very good, but my base point is stuff like Industar 50 or Helios 44 not modern lenses). The only gripe i have with Takumar lenses is they are fussy about mounts (which is effectively irrelevant for this thread of digital users).

tl;dr not really the right person to ask but my best guess would be yes, voigtlander better.

>>4492807
Thanks anon, I'm glad for your honest and normal response and not the usual shit flinging you see everywhere else here.
It'll be a couple of months before I can buy another lens, but I'll keep researching until then.
The more sensible choice for me though would be getting the Tamron 35-150 2-2,8 for work related stuff (great concert lens), but I've become very interested in those swirly lenses after my mate recommended those brands.

>>4492800
Yeah the new voigtlanders are very good. The 40mm f1.2 is in particular a very beautiful rendering lens that resolves 45MP easily. I would recommend getting them used though through Map Camera on Ebay.

File: 50ish.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4492807
>>4492800
for reference, 2 on right and 3 on left are modern voigt (f1.5 II and f2 apo), both wide open
rest is mix of cheap 7artisans/ttartisan and fuji xf glass
their 35 f1.2 III is my favorite glass out of everything I own I think, and the 50 f1.5 II is top 5 for sure

>>4492808
Tbh if you watch ebay (or local equivalent) for a bit you can usually find Helios 44 of some kind for a pretty much throw away amount (obviously I don't know your circumstances, so maybe this doesn't align for you) so you might be able to find one earlier without impacting saving up for the nicer lenses. Can't hurt to look.

Look for Zenit B/Zenit E or Prinzflex 500 auction listings which don't mention the lens, the body is effectively worthless and people tend to skip over it but often they come with either Helios 44-2 or Industar 50. The industar is a bit underappreciated so much cheaper but it gives an interesting soft look (no bokeh tho) and might be a cheaper route if you want to play about with Soviet glass just for experimentation. Obviously the Tamron is far more practical, so don't make it "one or the other", be an opportunist about it.

I am probably more normal about it because I'm not somebody who has spent thousands on gear desperately trying to justify my purchase. I buy cheap gear from dead countries and don't pretend it's anything better than that.

>>4492839
Looking into it a bit more, a lot of those older lenses are actually really cheap. I just come from the guitar/music world where prices almost automatically hike up like crazy just because it's old, so I figured it'd be the same in the camera world.
But some stuff like old Nikon f mount stuff is really cheap too. Those Helios lenses are generally quite cheap too. It's honestly in the exact price range I hoped they were. I don't want to spend tons of money on a "fun character" lens that I'll only use occasionally. These are generally so cheap that I can just get an adapter, two or three fun old lenses and the Tamron (along with my two other modern prime lenses I already have) for work related stuff.
I used to do a lot of portraits, concert photos and shot a lot of music videos, for me I think both having stuff like an old Nikon 105 mm f/2.5 Ai-S or Helios 44-2 for portraits with a lot of vibe along with the Tamron 35-150 will be a great to have in my camera bag.
Some pro modern gear to get the job done and then some fun stuff to play around with if there's time for more fiddly gear.

Although the subject detection + back button zoom combo looks like it will make manual a lot easier.
My new Nikon has really got me excited about photography again.

>>4492786
>Camera randomly dies for no reason
dont have this problem because I dont have a snoytoy

>>4492852
>don't have this problem because I don't own a camera or use it often enough
True

>>4492838
what's number 3 on the right?

I'm on an a6600. Without a camera stand and just doing point and shoots, what's the best way to make photos less blurry? I swear like half the time I take pics, I check raws later and it's like my hands have tremors or something.

>>4492879
xf 35mm f2

>>4492883
Use a high iso so you can get fast shutter speeds.

>>4492883
Make your shutter speed higher or use flash
How low you can go depends on how stable you are and what you're shooting, but 1/250 is a good ballpark for general shooting
Being still, with good IBIS, and a static subject, and a normal to wide lens, can get you down closer to a second (being practical, I find my lower limit with good IBIS ends up being more like 1/10th)
If you can't achieve a fast enough shutter speed because it's too dark, you need to raise ISO or aperture more to compensate
Or just use flash which both adds light and the flash itself can freeze the subject

>>4492883
Try shooting manual and setting your shutter speed to 1/100 for a start. Then increase it until you no longer notice the blur. Crank the ISO as much as you need and deal with the noise in post, it's better than a blurry shot.
An ancient shooting trick to longer handheld exposures is to steady your arms or entire body by leaning against things such as walls, poles, guardrails and such. Anything that will help reduce the body's sway.
You can also use flash, a lens that has optical stabilization or go with a wider focal length as those are more forgiving to shake.

I'm also guessing that's with IBIS on? Just in case you're shooting with a manual lens that doesn't have electric contacts, you need to manually input its focal length in the menu, otherwise IBIS might make things worse.

File: 20260108_200020.jpg (1.3 MB)

1.3 MB JPG

After over 10 years and thousands of pictures my beloved sekonic l608 finally kicked the bucket. Weirdly sad about losing it. One of the few pieces of gear that has been a constant throughout all the different cameras Ive used in that time. Hopefully this new one will serve me just as well.

Post your light meter so we can have a based gear thread.

>>4492922
my camera has a light meter

>>4492930
Lightmeters can still be useful if you ever work with strobes.

File: how_to_be_a_famous_photographer.jpg (115.6 KB)

115.6 KB JPG

>>4492332
/p/ es finito

>>4492977
>a literal jewish bug woman
the archetypical olympus user

>>4493007
Why the nose always such a dead giveaway I fucking swear

>>4492934
Not worth the cost if you are not a dedicated studio photographer.

Is it worth trying to upgrade from an a6500 to some other sony camera? I'm trying to avoid selling a bunch of lenses (or adapting them).

>>4493023
What do you feel like you're missing out on?

>>4493025
Not much, mostly ergonomics. The rest are just nitpicks:
ISO noise isn't great. Would be nice to have a camera where I can rely on Auto ISO a bit more.
I think newer sony cameras have more options in picture profiles.
Most custom functions are just toggles for menus, instead of toggles for said functions (eg. I would like to toggle between steadyshot on or off, but it's showing me a menu, fuck off menu, just show that it's on or off when I hit the button)
More than once I found myself wanting one of those flippy screens. Maybe I should have thought of that before buying this shit.
I bought this over the a6400 because of IBIS and I don't know if that was a good choice, considering it doesn't seem to be doing much of fucking anything.
This is a me issue, but the wheel on the back is too sensitive. Not when turning, when pushing it. I want to turn it and accidentally open up a menu. Maybe it's my butter fingers.
I don't know if any better cameras fix most of these.

>>4493030
What lenses are you using with it?
Handling / ergos are why I switched from Sony years ago

File: 115064161.jpg (171.1 KB)

171.1 KB JPG

>>4493038
Mostly cheap Viltrox air lenses, because they're light and small and they get the job done
Honestly I "had" a cheap canon DLSR before and while being bulkier it was more comfortable to handle (and lighter). With the a6500 I'm using one of these things.
I'll be honest the a6700 does seem like a definitive upgrade.

>>4493040
If you want a meaningful difference in ISO noise and are already using fast lenses and already shooting optimally settings wise, you need to go to FF

>>4493040
Oh, also another thing I noticed is that the internal battery seems to drain fast or not work correctly. In the last 3 months I had the camera ask me for language and time and date settings twice again. Not sure if I should replace that or if I'm just not using my camera enough.

>>4493041
Anything decent on the sony side that doesn't break the bank on the used market? Maybe an A7III? I confess I only looked for APS-C cameras back when I bought this one.

>>4493041
>and are already using fast lenses and already shooting optimally settings wise
he’s definitely not getting enough light if noise is an issue

>>4492415
Because he shook it like a spastic. I'm not even a phtographer but i know not to do that. Ther's moving parts and electric motors in there, why would you yank it around like that?

>>4492977
>the eaten off nails
yuck

File: sddefault.jpg (30.3 KB)

30.3 KB JPG

Is this Viltrox good? I can only find influencer reviews and they all say it's on paar with lenses three times the price.

I know I'm talking about cheap lenses here so I don't expect anything amazing, but is the meike 55mm f1.8 Pro that much better than the f1.4? The Pro is considerably heavier and more expensive.

>>4493131
I have the Air 15mm and 25mm f1.7 and they're both pretty decent lenses in most aspects except autofocus where I struggle sometimes.
I've been looking at that 50mm one as well but I've been looking for alternatives.

>>4493045
Do many or all crop only lenses? If so an A7R III would get you 18mp in crop mode so not a massive downgrade a.nd still more than enough for most uses. Also gets you a higher res EVF and screen than the III and your A6500. It's is a bit of a downgrade in AF tracking performance though, but still pretty good and probably better than the A6500. If you're considering an A6700 though that will be leagues ahead of any of those other options and the logical choice if you do anything like sports.

why is there a phone attached to the camera
why is there another camera filming the camera taking the photos
nothing makes sense anymore and i don't like it
can we go back to 2005 already

>>4493159
its staged.

also look at his reflection
he’s fucking disgusting looking

>>4493159
>>4493161
it's somebody who makes photography content for instagram. probably not staged, you can see a million videos of photogs showing off them taking photos then cutting to the edited photo like this. (also most photographers i know look a bit gross lol)

>>4493167
>makes photography content for instagram
so staged lol

there isnt even a framed photo on the rear screen. they’re not even trying to take a photo.
theyre not using the viewfinder
its faketography

god only knows what retarded shit they subjected that camera to

>>4493159
>why is there a phone attached to the camera

i was in a big city a there was this blonde boomer doing this to a couple crossing the street, a prewedding shootout i guess, they use the phone to take video and the cam for stills

>>4493169
its a basedny, its normal for them to get bricked for no reason xD

>>4492606
>eras dial
the taylor swift fans are gonna freak

>>4492977
qt

>>4492977
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-09/qld-bug-hunt-insects-photos-research-citizen-scientists/106171252

>>4492332
I want to sell my K-5 IIs, Sigma Art 18-35mm f/1.8, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8 and DA* 300mm f/4. Should I sell them separately or bundle them together? I’ll be selling them on eBay. I’m not sure if I should bundle them since I’ll probably get less money than I would selling them separately, but maybe it’ll move faster? I also have a Pentax 28mm f/3.5 and a K10D. Again, bundle or separately? Hell, I could even bundle the whole lot as a mega kit with two bodies. Anyways, thoughts?

>>4493317
Separate always

As a bundle you won't get shit for it, only do bundles if you want to get rid of it in one go. The DA* 300mm f/4 is probably the most valuable there followed by the Sigma 18-35mm and K5-IIs.

>>4493340
Yeah, I will do ‘em separately, cheers anon.

>>4492606
Obscene ultra gimmick but at least they are taking risks tbqh

File: -1089621806-1735507759.jpg (435.4 KB)

435.4 KB JPG

Which type of filter pouch for my vND + CPL + 1/4 & 1/8 black mist filters + step up ring?

>>4493356
Fold outs are annoying to open up, but are slimmer.
Wallets are bulkier but give easier access to all the filters.
I prefer the wallet style, but bonus points for being able to hitch it to your belt.

Which camera centric phones are /p/ approved?

Just bought a newly serviced 1975 Helios 44-2 as my first vintage lens. Am I cool now??
I'm also buying an anamorphic modded 44-2 and Nikon 105mm 2.5 AiS when I get my next paycheck.
I've never had a vintage lens before, but you can get some incredible stuff for almost no money. Especially compared with their modern day equivalents. They're priced exactly how I was hoping fun vintage stuff you don't use all the time would be priced.
Subject detection + zoom in + focus peaking (and lots of experience manual focusing video) should make the manual focusing aspect pretty easy on my Nikon.

Can't fucking wait. It's the first time I've been excited about photography itself and not just using it as a tool in years.

I consider it a plus when I can adjust the aperture on the lens itself because it disables the oversensitive wheel on the back of my camera so I don't have to worry about changing any adjustments when pressing the wheel buttons

>>4493379
The one in your pocket

>>4493379
Just try and disable whatever bullshit processing and use the manual or "pro" modes and you're good to go
I'd say if you can't take good pictures with your phone camera don't even bother with a normal one. The shittiest sensor is enough.

>>4493379
None of them. Buy a real pocketable camera like the GR or the RX100, then get a dumb phone for calls and texts.

File: Vivo X200 Ultra vs Sony a6700.jpg (316.7 KB)

316.7 KB JPG

>>4493379

File: m200.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>the perfect EDC doesnt exi-ack!

>>4493400
Implessive photoshoppu

The chinese have never not been a nation of liars. They have no morals or principles. Their economy is based on slaves, espionage, and lying.

>>4493400
>falls for xink propaganda
Ngmi desu

>>4493366
I wish the stupid cases the filters came in weren't oversized AF.

I'm tempted to leave the 1/8 black mist filter on full-time and leave the lens hoods at home. I'm not sure if that's a stupid idea or not.

>>4493400
Based. Mirrorless cameras peaked a decade ago.

File: GR000976_resized.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

Is this a good lens?

Reminder: All cameras with wifi are potentially vulnerable to exploits

Even if canon says they fixed them, they contract with the US government…

>>4493452
No more or less vunlerable than any other device with a WiFi radio chip set to disabled.
Speaking as someone who has done some grey-hat shit in the past, there's very little to be gained from something like a standalone camera. Targeting a phone or laptop is infinitely more sensible. Even as an ingress to a compromised network, the fact that camera software is propietary and not widely exploited means even if you get in it's going to be a clusterfuck to do anything with it.

If you're paranoid strip it down and yoink the internal antennas so it has a broadcast range of fuck and all. The chip itself is likely soldered.

File: IMG_4485.jpg (6.6 KB)

6.6 KB JPG

>>4493452
>mfw they hacked my smart fridge

>>4493401
I miss the ef-m mount cameras

>>4493462
Who is "THEY"?

>>4493452
I feel bad for whoever has been assigned by the US government to look at my photos and spy on me in general. I'm the most insignificant nobody who takes nothing but shitty photos of nothing.

>>4493465
Funny thing is they still exist.
Or get an R50V if you're okay with no mech shutter.

>Nikon bodies
>like 1 for every 20 Canon, probably 70 if we go off of only 24mp bodies.
>Nikon super telephoto lenses
>like 10 for every Canon
>every single listing of a camera more modern camera than 2015 is a scam, if it isn't it's as much as a new one is
I am going fucking INSANE.

Recommended cameras:
>Nikon
D200
D300s
D500
D700
D750
D780
D810
D850
>Canon
5DII
5DIII
6DII
5DIV
5DS
90D
>Fujifilm
S5 pro

If your camera wasn’t mentioned its either very specialized or very shit
And remember kids, mirrorless will steal your soul, empty your wallet, and give you nothing in return if you do not shoot professionally or do a lot of video.

>>4493555
>mirrorless will steal your soul, empty your wallet, and give you nothing in return
you have a DSLR fetish

Yeah I really recommend DSLRs

Destroying
Semitic
Lands with
Rockets

>>4493574
MILC = May Israel Lead the Country
Not to be confused with EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lense) cameras

I'm thinking of getting a 35mm EOS SLR to be able to shoot with some my DSLR glass on film. Which models are good? At least they're mostly cheap. I already have a lot of manual focus film gear but would like to try some 90's plastic fantastics too.

File: e-mount lenses on panasonic s9.jpg (561.1 KB)

561.1 KB JPG

>fixes your color science

>>4493625
So lumix, like snoy, depends on zeiss lenses to look half as good as canon? Typical

Imagine being dumb enough to buy lumix. The only cameras worse than SNOY and fujiworms. Less than 1% of the sales with a crazy number of broken cameras. The epitome of mirrorless ewaste.

So for a budget (as much as that is possible) full frame, mainstream mirrorless, is the Z5 essentially the objective best choice? Or Z5II with slightly larger budget.

>>4493653
Take advantage of the crazy discounts Nikon have for another week or so and get the best one you can afford. I'd hold out for a Z6iii

>>4493654
I'm not really planning on buying anything right now, and either way I'd probably be looking at used for even greater discounts. And don't really need to overpay for extras like video improvements.

>>4493653
Z5II is well worth it over a Z5
R8's a good option too

>>4493653
The Z5 is unironically worse than the D750 at everything but pixel peeping the lenses and video codecs. The autofocus in particular is incompetent and somewhere around the level of the canon 5d classic and 5d mark ii. That is, the OVF on a 5DIII would blow the z5 (and z6/ii and z7/ii) out of the water at everything put sometimes, maybe, putting the focus box over the eyeball for you (which even the z6ii doesnt actually do that well).

Bear in mind the second cheapest ff canon MILC, the R8, has better autofocus than the $3000 nikon Z8 and nikon is just a 4chan/reddit/forum meme because they market heavily to birdwatchers and people who pixel peep their images for lens sharpness.

>>4493660
Ah that's too bad. They have some crazy discounts right now.
Z5II is what I'd go for then. I just shoot a lot of video too and the extra options you get in the Z6III is more than worth the extra dosh for me. But get the best camera your budget can stand

>>4493664
nikons bird autofocus is excellent. their everything else does suck.
>1000% of r&d budget into bird lenses
>canon: hey you’re going to put IS on a standard range prime right?
>nikon, sony: NO ONLY BIRD LENS! MUST MAKE GLASS SHARPER!

>>4493254
> tfw new Fujis have film, era, and vibe dials in place of the aperture, shutter speed, and iso.

>>4493410
At this point, Snoy should just add a phone to their cameras.

>>4493495
Nowadays, the real consequence is having your bank's AI analyze your photos and adjust your credit rating accordingly.

>>4493494
big icebox

so canon won't open up the rf mount because they know they'd never sell another non-L lens, right?

>>4493681
Don't they sit on 60% of the market globally? They don't do it because they don't have to.

>>4492457
But anon, can you explain why even the cheapest shittest DSLRs still work while even flagship mirrorless bodies are toast after a few months? Please include sources and receipts for your claims.

>>4493555
>Canon
No you're missing some.
>1DS3
>1Dx
>1Dx2
>1Dx3
And you can take the 6D's off there, they're crap.

>>4493704
market share generally just means you're moving the largest amount of cheap shit. Everyone and their grandma has a t7 stashed somewhere

>>4493555
>D300s
>D500
>D700
>D750
>D780
>D810
Wrong. The objective truth is that these are all plastic crap that's just going to break.

>>4493430
Why are we taking listing photos with no flash and on film?

File: Screenshot 2026-01-14 145239.png (986.4 KB)

986.4 KB PNG

Can you tell which of these 2 were taken with a dedicated camera?

>>4493716
I mean neither are spectacular quality but that's probably just down to file compression. Though left looks like a SOOC RAW from an APSC camera like a a6000 or something, right looks like it's been through some AI sharpening/denoising to me, as it has some of those edge artefacts. I would say right is from a modern phone.

>>4493717
Both were actually taken from a smartphone.

Left is S25 Ultra and right is Vivo X200 pro. I'm in the market for a new phone right now, and I was so close to getting the vivo. Does it really look unnatural?

>>4493719
If they're both unedited I would go with left. Less processed, will give you more to work with if you wanna edit. It definitely looks like the kind of flat, sterile look you get from a RAW file, though I suspect if you uploaded a full quality image from that phone it probably wouldn't get confused for something taken with a large sensor camera.

>>4493720
>Less processed
lmao there's not a single pixel in the S25 that hasn't been run through at least 6 ai tools. At that point you could save $1000 by just asking grok to generate your photos for you

>>4493719
Both look the same as youd get from any mirrorless camera. For most normal usecases phones have IQ on par with cameras today. Anyone that says otherwise is coping.

>>4493723
Please provide evidence for this claim

>>4493723
Only if you're looking at them on a shrimp dick sized screen.

>>4493716
Both of them look like they were taken with the latest FF mirrorless cameras

>>4493729
>>4493723
In good light and when looking at a small resolution downsized image, sure. Which for most people is fine because we've all gotten used to the Facebook/Instagram/etc. look of max 2048px per side photos taken in good lighting conditions.
We've become condition to low res, good lighting photos because that's most of what we see online. No one expects great low-light pictures from phone cameras, but only because they suck, and so they're never posted on the internet, thus we don't think about them.
No one cares about high res photos you can zoom/crop into while retaining good quality, because we're all conditioned to seeing standard-sized pictures on a phone screen, and just looking at them as they are.
So if that's all you're going to be taking - photos in good lighting conditions to be posted on the web then yeah, no reason to spend money on a dedicated camera.

>>4493731
Literally took a group photo with a real camera the other day and blew the dicks off of everyone by how much you could zoom in and still see clear well defined faces, vs the guy who whipped out his phone tripod and prayed to whatever god the Chinese believe in.
Just because a bunch of rando web surfing normies don't give a shit doesn't mean the people I care about in my life don't. Where are your priorities anon?

>>4493733
That's exactly what I'm saying. My entire post was saying that if you have shitty priorities (tiny photos for shit sites) then you can do with a shitty camera (on your phone). I.e. if you actually want to do anything better than that very limited scope, you'll need a better camera.

>>4493716
now post higher resolution versions instead of the 0.5MP equivalent, which is too small even for IG

>>4493706
It's hard to explain something for you that isn't true to begin with
Do you have sources and receipts that flagships mirrorless are more prone to breaking than DSLRs?
My source is myself working in cameras shops for a decade and taking in thousands of repairs

>>4493736
Oh. Fuck I'm blind, you're right.
Overall a sound statement.

>>4493716
Right looks faker but its irrelevant. These are sized for indian computer screens. I dont use a camera based on what rajesh using his anturdroid phone can appreciate.

>>4493710
>buy perfectly good photography camera
>attach bazooka sized snapshit lens
>drop it
>HOW COULD NIKON DO THIS TO ME

I bought a sony a5000 on ebay it will be my first real camera i can't wait to take pictures :)

I can't wait to roast this snoygger's pictures :)

File: Screenshot 2026-01-14 232356.png (599 KB)

599 KB PNG

Ricoh GRIV Monochrome
>1800€
I want one so much but I already have a Leica Q2 and recently bought the Nikon ZR. Life is difficult as a gearfag. I probably wait for GRIVx Monochrome as I'm getting bored of 28mm

File: img098.jpg (3 MB)

3 MB JPG

Just ordered a LN- X100VI from KEH and it should be here Friday. Excited to try and get back into photography when I havent really shot much in almost 10 years.

Still have all my development and scanning stuff as well so we'll see how that goes.

>>4493788
enjoy being frustrated when all the megapixels just make high iso and colors look paradoxically worse and the IBIS isnt much better than just puckering your asshole

gear sucks now. even the newest snoy is just the same one from last decade. the newest canon is the last one but worse. the newest nikon is a sony a7iii with an extra video mode in firmware. its very sad. and true, which triggers some people because they buy cameras for fun. the x100v was the peak.

>>4493788
Contrary to what you'll find here, I actually really enjoy the 40mp sensor, shot on the X-T5 for a few years and the files were pretty solid.

>>4493733
>Literally took a group photo with a real camera the other day and blew the dicks off of everyone by how much you could zoom in and still see clear well defined faces, vs the guy who whipped out his phone tripod and prayed to whatever god the Chinese believe in.
>And then everyone stood up and clapped!

>>4493806
If you've never impressed normies with the fact that a decent camera is miles better than a phone, you're either a nophoto or have no normie friends. I'm guessing the former and I'm wondering why you're even on here.

>>4493814
>ugh its creepy anon showing his big camera again
>um yeah thats a really cool pic! like great quality and stuff!
>quick lets get out if here before he takes more pics of us

>>4493806
My family tells me I’m not allowed to sell my camera until phones have 800mp because it mogs all their phones

They’re in for a surprise
When phones have 800mp their photos will still look like shit for anything but worthless garbage like flowers posted on 4chan and my 20mp FF DSLR will STILL mog them

ONLY sensor size matters
Nothing else.

Buy a 5DII and call it a day until you can afford a hassy.

>>4493817
oh my fucking god please dont tell me you think women care about your hobbies

virgin shit

women only care if you’re paying attention to them and if you have a ricoh gr she’ll still cheat on you. they basically arent people. they’re more like dogs.

>>4493817
Ah ok, so both the former and the latter

>>4493817
KEK

>>4493804
It's hard to go wrong with most brands these days when you get to the mid range priced cameras and up. But the eternal contrarians here will fight over any and everything for no reason.
Truth is we're totally spoiled for choice in every regard

File: cleanmoreclean.png (555.4 KB)

555.4 KB PNG

>>4493806
Lol you virgin. Nothing ever happens amirite?
Nobody clapped, nobody was like 'wow good job spending all that money anon'. But every friend there was like huh, that's very detailed and looks good. Everyone understood why you go through the effort and cost of buying a proper camera. Especially since we had a comparison shot with a phone at the ready as well.
>>4493817
As long as you're not being a hyperautist and keeping the camera stowed for a reasonable amount of time, nobody cares. None of my friends give me shit because they understand it's a hobby and I'm not fagging on about specs or something constantly. It's a camera. You take photos of moments you care about with it, and my friends understand that I want to have nice photos around for when I'm old and my memory is fading. If your friends aren't understanding then that's your loss, not mine.
One friend of mine attended a drift show with me not long ago and now they want advice on a real camera purchase. If you keep the hobby feeling organic and don't force it down everyone's throats it all feels normal.
>>4493820
>women don't care about your hobbies
Mostly correct. My long-term partner will occasionally pretend to give a shit when she wants me to buy her something kek.

File: Pentax_SF7.jpg (497.5 KB)

497.5 KB JPG

Bought the Pentax SF7, which goes really well with my vintage lenses, from ebay. It cost $60 but came with a telephoto lens and a broken Canon EOS 100 (with a kit zoom). It's pretty gud considering that my local camera shop wanted $220 for a tested SF7 with a worse lens. I will be posting my shots in /fgt/ but hope I can use this setup for a series of photographs for an exhibit.

File: hdr.png (286.5 KB)

286.5 KB PNG

there will come a day when dedicated cameras will be as good as phones (but not today)

>>4493849
Honestly there's a lot of deals out there right now on AF SLRs. I picked up a F80 for $30 USD cus I wanted something 'professional grade' but still with a popup flash. It had that thing where the rubber grip pads get sticky, but you can clean that stuff off really easily with citrus cleaner. It's basically perfect now and I really like it. Feels really well made for a polycarb cam.

I'm super noob in gear and I'm thinking to buy a good full frame cam.
I've been trying astro with a telescope my phone and also taking photos of birbs with binoculars.
So I was thinking into something that can do video fairly well.
So was thinking on:
- Sony a7 IV (although you guys hate sony IDK )
- Canon EOS R5 I
- EOS R6 III (although its even more expensive right now than R5 I)
- Nikon Z6 III
Seems like the Nikon Z6 has a lot of good reviews and recommendations but it's sensor is just 24.5MP
Also I have 0 idea on lenses. Probably I'll try to get something like 50-100mm but they are expensive as fuck

Also the other cam that I have is an olympus e-420

File: tracking mountpng.png (678.6 KB)

678.6 KB PNG

>>4493860
AF SLRs are honestly cheating. Extra cheating for Canon because you can slap modern stabilised lenses with excellent abberation control onto a 30 year old camera and get results you couldnt dream of at the time. Excellent/10.
>>4493870
All the cameras you have listed are basically top tier and generally overkill unless money is no object. The only incorrect choice is the Snoy.

24MP is absolutely fine for full frame cameras. As you go higher in MP your lenses need to have even more resolution and corrections to avoid showing the stronger abberations that lower MP cameras don't need. Extra MP is absolutely great, but just keep in mind there's limited gain to be had unless you're buying top shelf lenses as well.

I recommend saving a couple grand and getting something used. Used R6IIs are going for like $1500 now because of the III release.
Use the extra money you save for better lenses and accessories. A $1000 star tracker is going to make much greater improvements to your astrophotography than spending another grand on the fanciest camera body.

With RF Canon bodies you can also buy the EF adapter and slap some very very nice EF primes on your camera with zero downsides. The EF 200mm f/2.8 can be had for like $400-500 and will destroy your dick and balls with how good it can be paired with a star tracker.
https://www.absolutelynothing.co.uk/blog/canon-200mm-28-astrophotography-review

>>4493858
>we need more fake hdr
Jews were right about goyim

>>4493870
https://www.star-surfing.com/blog/2021/4/7/mirrorless-cant-do-astro

>>4493874
Thanks, I guess now I want my dick and balls to be destroyed by an EF adapter.
Also I was thinking to buy some day a good telescope tracking mount like a EQ-5 /EQ-6 pro.
But I guess I'll try to look for an used startracker instead.

But also, I don't know If I should go for a 70-200 f/4. Just for versatility and because they are reaaaally expensive. I'll keep looking because I can't tell which lenses are for full frames and which aren't

>>4493880
But buying a dedicated camera for astro feels like I have to also invest into an amazing mount and a good telescope. And that's like 3k€ or so.

>>4493881
>But also, I don't know If I should go for a 70-200 f/4
I personally own an EF 70-200 f/4 IS USM (version I) and it's easily a TOP MINT lens worth getting. The IS is a tiny bit loud (as in you can hear it as opposed to being silent) but it's far cheaper than the version II.
I recall using it for some astro tests to see how viable it is on the long end and it was a fair performer but certainly not what I would call ideal. It's a king of versatility, but for astro you get decent gains from going all-in on the top performers.

I have an EF 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro that I've had good performance with but I think something longer like the 135mm f/2 or 200mm f/2.8 would be better if I was buying all over again. The 100mm is just versatile.
The 300mm f/4 is there if you want to go even longer, but if you were going to go that far I'd say just buy the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 because it'll get used far more often outside of astro.

A few more points:
Be aware that with longer lenses you need better star trackers. The cheap ones are only rated up to like 100mm focal lengths and even pricey ones will normally advise against going above 200mm. The issue isn't that they don't work, it's that they lose accuracy too quickly and you have to take more and shorter exposures instead of a couple longer ones.
Lastly, driving out to a low light pollution area will improve your shots greatly. If you're lucky enough to be close to a proper dark site, you will see a big difference.

>>4493874
>Extra cheating for Canon because you can slap modern stabilised lenses with excellent abberation control onto a 30 year old camera and get results you couldnt dream of at the time.
Yeah lol I have a bunch of Canon lenses but at the top of the pile that I wanna use is my 20mm f/2.8 USM. Currently looking for a decent deal on the small configuration of the EOS-1n. I found you can get really cheap rechargeable 2CR5 and CR123a's on AliExpress. Currently using the latter in my F80 and it's working fine so far. I think for UWA Nikon screw drive AF does the job, but it's just not on the same level of speed and accuracy as Canon's USM's.

>>4493886
>I found you can get really cheap rechargeable 2CR5 and CR123a's on AliExpress.
Holy shit. What a find. Thanks anon.
>I think for UWA Nikon screw drive AF does the job, but it's just not on the same level of speed and accuracy as Canon's USM's.
I have the EF 16-35 f/4 IS and use it on my ELAN 55. It's a dream, if a bit chunky. I've leaned into the blobmera look.

>>4493887
>I've leaned into the blobmera look.
Honestly I think they look and feel really good. I usually use a 5D2 and even though it is objectively a hideous camera to look at, I have learned to love its shape as it's form following function in what could be described as the perfect rugged package. Most EOS cameras look pretty similar, I haven't used a 1n yet, but I've used other polycarbonate cameras and I like them. If I don't get a 1n I'll probably go for an Elan 7n/7e whatever it's called, as its mostly metal, relatively new and has a popup flash. Only thing that's annoying about a 1n is it's ATTL not ETTL or ETTL2 so I'd need to find a different flash for it. I know how to use manual flash but I would much rather TTL mode for film.

>>4493870
Slow the fuck down and start with a sensible camera with affordable lenses like a Canon 6D mark II or a nikon d750.

>>4493889
Not that anon, but my first camera was a Canon 5dmkii that I bought 17 years ago. No problem going big right out of the gate if you know you're going to use it.
I learned everything about shooting photos and video on that camera. It felt worlds apart whenever I compared it to cheaper cameras.
Took it around the world with me. Still have it now even though I recently moved on.

>>4493889
You are probably right. The only bad thing of the 6D is the 1080p video. But I guess I could sell it losing 250€ in 2-3 years or so.
The only thing I don't know is the lenses. I guess I'll lurk a bit more and watch some videos that give me an idea

>>4493908
The 6DII’s video specs are fine unless you are a professional cowtowing to client demands. Even then, house was filmed on a 5DIII and it still looks great. Not shooting 4k 10bit to raw makes video a lot cheaper and easier and leaves more room for the creative process. Movement, moment, lighting, perspective, etc. Low lattitude sensors also write nicer looking images and require less post shit so no need for a gaming pc to turn your flat ugly log gamma tier shit (even if not shooting in a log gamma… r6ii colors are just ew even in stills) into a movie. That will be 1080p anyways.

The actual hard part about doing video with the 6dii is the need for an external mic to get around ef lens clicky noises but you should do that anyways.

>>4493911
run and gun brah
i need 8k to crop brah
i need raw to fix white balance brah
run and gun
i need 32 bit float brah ive done 2 punk rock shows and still dont know how to do audio brah
i dont actually know what im doing but this makes money without me having to give up weed brah

Anyone else think it's funny that vintage graflex flashes are worth hundreds of dollars because they're used to make lightsaber replicas?

Going into even nooby-er gear, I was thinking of getting into photgraphy, for personal use. I'd probably mostly view them on my PC. I was thinking of going on ebay and getting something used, since I can get stuff under a hundred bucks for a whole camera/lens/battery/etc. Is there anything I should look out for to avoid? Most of these cheap deals seem like the cameras are relatively old, but I thought a cheap but reliable(?) starting point would be good to see if I enjoy it.
From what I read, megapixel count doesn't seem nearly as important as a good lense, and it only really comes into play if you're doing commercial stuff. But you guys would know.
I'd mostly be taking photos of close range. So indoors within the same room, or maybe outside during a family gathering or something.

>>4493947
raise budget, buy 5DII and 50mm f1.8

>>4493971
1.8? You can get a 5dmkii for next to nothing these days. You should have the budget for a used EF 50mm 1.2 L if you're paying nothing for the camera body.
That lens is incredible.

>>4493911
>>4493883
Thinking it a bit better I'll go with the 6d II and a 24-105mm f/4 L IS II
I would love to go for a 500mm tele but probably I should have a good versatil one than min-maxing at first

>>4492808
I have the Tamron 35-150 on my Snoy a7 IV

Really great lens to be honest.

Are f/4 lenses worth the discount vs. saving up for an f/1.8 version?

File: camera.png (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB PNG

Inherited some stuff from a relative, is this camera (Fujifilm XT-3, and a standart lens I'm guessing?) and lens any good (Soviet Jupiter-21)?
I've never used or had a camera before so I have no idea, said relative was a photo enthusiast

>>4494017
Nice, what do you generally use it for?
I've been wanting to downsize because I'm tired of heavy cameras and lenses, but the versatility that lens offers is hard to pass up. Especially because it wouldn't be an all day lens. I'd use it 1-2 hours or something and then switch back to primes. So I doubt the size and weight would be an issue for me.

>>4494022
>Free Fuji XT-3

give him a nice gift or at least a big hug because that's a $4-600 camera

try to find a adapter for the jupiter-21 it should be a m42...look for m42 to fuji x adapter if you want to try it and other vintage lenses that have screw mount

>>4494022
I have never used any Jupiter lenses before but as a Soviet camera enthusiast I'd say pretty much all Soviet glass is acceptable in quality. It won't perform on par with modern lenses of course, but it's usually passable. For the whopping price of "inherited" give it a go with an adaptor and make your own decisions.

Some people love "vintage" looking glass, but those people mostly stick to focal lengths of 30-60mm and also tend to be hipsters who won't shut up about how their Helios 44 was used in *insert movie here*.

tl;dr depends what you count as "good", it won't match modern lenses obviously.

>>4494029
>Soviet Jupiter-21
Related link because I thought I'd google some demo images. Seems alright to me: https://fujixweekly.com/2018/02/25/fujifilm-x-a3-soviet-lenses-part-2-jupiter-21m/

>>4494026
>>4494029
>>4494031
Thanks for the help guys! I'll see if I can get an adapter to try out the lens

>place an order for a lens from b&h photo 25 days ago
>still no lens

huh?

>>4493774
I asked this in the other thread, but I'll ask here too. Why don't the Ricoh cameras, even the color ones, have filter threads?

>>4494105
they're closed for sabbath or kwanzaa or something

>>4494106
Because it's a delicate motorised extending lens, they'd get people damaging it either taking the filter on and off or putting something too heavy on it. That's why the filter adapter attaches to the body and not the lens. Also it means they can sell you an adapter.

R7 Mark II coming to humiliate fujiworms. I love 2026 already.

>>4494112
>create a problem to sell a solution
sounds about right

>>4494155
It's the solution to having a small pocketable camera with a large sensor and a decent lens. Unfortunately we are bound by the laws of physics and can't have a phone sized camera with the quality of a full frame interchangeable lens one.

>>4494112
i thought it was a fixed focal length and internally focuses

anyways you can get adapter rings that stick on on aliexpress pretty easily

What’s a fair price for a Nikon D800E FX DSLR in pristine condition? A local camera shop offered me $250 for it, but I checked on eBay and they sell for twice the price there.

>>4494109
i was searching around online to see how long people in general wait for back ordered items from b&h and i see niggas saying they’ve been waiting since march for some lenses.

is this a common thing with the hebrews at b&h? this is my first time ordering from them. but if it’s going to take 10+ fucking months to receive a lens then i guess i’ll cancel?

what kind of business model is that?

>>4494176
over $500.
all camera shops are staffed by compulsive liars and scam artists in the digital section and actual photographers in the darkroom (unless they do double duty)

trust not the digishit merchant. they exist to screw people over.

>>4494180
It depends on what you're ordering

>>4494187
gfx lens

>>4494166
It's a fixed focal length sure, but it still retracts into the body to make it slimmer. No idea whether it's internally focussing or not.

>>4494159
>no we can't add half a millimeter to the end of the camera so you can put a filter on it that will make it no longer pocketable!

>>4494180
It's really just up to the manufacturers, most backorders take like 4-6 weeks
Some can take several months, up to like a year
Longest I've waited for was 6ish months, but everything else has been within 6 weeks or so

t. worked at camera stores for a decade

File: Screenshot_20260117-172059~2.jpg (320.3 KB)

320.3 KB JPG

legend

File: 1767064212806621.png (70 KB)

70 KB PNG

sony a6600 + Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 good intro gear?

>>4494232
Yeah you’ll get to learn how to edit raws and how to shop for a better camera while already having high standards you dont actually need to have

>>4494232
Yep. Great way to start out and honestly you could do whatever you wanted with that camera and not really need more.

File: 1766382253618717.gif (110.2 KB)

110.2 KB GIF

>>4494238
>>4494239
thx bros

>>4494232
Get a Canon or Nikon

Changing lenses quickly will never not be a pain in the ass. I have only 3 primes and most of the time I'm actively avoiding changing them when I'm outside.

>>4493814
>Normalfag friend
>Buys a Rebel T7 for cheap (I guess she's not impressed by her iPhone)
>Ends up never using it
>2025, middle of summer
>Anon maybe you could do some product photography with this I'm not even using it
>Uuuhhh I guess
>2 weeks later
>Absorb lots of info about photography, never use it for product photography, just landscape nonsense
>She's somewhat impressed by the shit I upload on social media
>Some girl that ghosted me years ago is checking out all of my shit as I upload it for whatever reason
>Buy new camera because I hate the idea of buying stuff for a camera I don't own (though maybe my choice of camera wasn't amazing)
>Whip it out in public, in busy streets, most people don't give a shit, some even ask to take pictures of them (with their phones though...)
>Friend wants me to take the best picture I can of her pussy and print it tomorrow

>>4494248
>>Friend wants me to take the best picture I can of her pussy and print it tomorrow
I was following fine until this part.
What?

File: DSC00573.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

>>4494249
Yeah she wants to frame a photo of her cat, pic related (this cat is how I learned about camera flicker)

>tfw dusty focusing screen

>>4494203
It would make it more than half a millimetre thicker to have a fixed lens, from photos of the camera it looks like it sticks out about an extra 1cm or so.

>>4494159
Or you could have the lens extend a bit further out from the get go allow internal focusing

>>4494248
This is such a lame thing to larp about anon. Get better dreams

>>4494303
You're misunderstanding. It's got nothing to do with the focussing, I don't know if the lens moves to focus or whether it's internally focussing but it's irrelevant. The lens retracts into the body to make the camera slimmer, it extends so that it can function correctly optically. You can't make it a fixed lens and also keep it as slim without making it a much shorter focal length and compromising it optically.

>>4494291
No I mean they could just extend the front by just a bit in order to allow you to put filters on. The gear that allows you to use filters extends it by further and is more of a pain in the ass than just giving you threads.

>>4494112
I was thinking about this post for a few days and I really hope its not true. If your camera can't handle someone screwing on an ND, how the fuck are you supposed to be able to trust it to do any photography at all, even casual photography?

>>4494344
>No I mean they could just extend the front by just a bit in order to allow you to put filters on. The gear that allows you to use filters extends it by further and is more of a pain in the ass than just giving you threads.
They could just put the filter threads on the lens and make it a tiny bit thicker, but as I said you don't really want to do that with an extending lens. That's why the adapter doesn't even touch the lens and extends further out than it.
> If your camera can't handle someone screwing on an ND, how the fuck are you supposed to be able to trust it to do any photography at all, even casual photography?
This is not something unique to the GR, there has been many a case of a point and shoot with an extending lens getting damaged from taking a knock. The lenses are designed to be as compact as possible and simply not intended to take any force especially in directions that they don't usually move. They're driven by tiny little motors with tiny little gears. If you're careful with it then sure you could probably be fine using filters on it for many years, but your average person isn't careful and you also need to consider people putting shit like ring lights on the front of the lens.

Anyway, if you really want a decent solution then just get a mag filter adapter and stick that to the front of the lens, much easier and quicker to attach and remove filters and you won't subject it to any rotational force.

>jan 18, 2026
>not getting a new (to you) camera from a minneapolis protestor
lole

>>4494375
What did you get anon kek

Going from 5d mkii to a r5 mkii worth it or just get a snoy crop sensor? I don't do photography professionally anymore and haven't bought new gear since 2014.

>>4494371
I guess I just don't get the point of "pocketable" point and shoots then. I understand fixed lens cameras, but if I'm going to carry a camera I should want a camera I can just use especially alongside the gear I already own with maybe a step up if I have to.

If I'm carrying a camera it'll usually be on a strap or in a cross-body and the thought of putting it in my pocket makes me uncomfortable. It just all seems gimmicky more than anything, and this isn't a hit at the b&w version specifically.

>>4494384
>Going from 5d mkii to a r5 mkii worth it
Your sensor signal is going to be far cleaner on the R5. Idk why you'd get one over an R6 instead unless you wanted high-res specifically though. Would save you a couple grand.
Get a used R6II for like $1400 and the adapter with a control ring for $150 and you can use your EF lenses with literally zero downsizdes.
As opposed to going down a format to APS-C, down a grade to FOOJI, and needing to buy lenses all over again to... what... save a few hundred grams? Eh.

>>4493733
How did you share your photo with them?

Normie friends keep sending me shit through Whatsapp. What's easy to use but not completely shit that I can direct people to use?

>>4494232
Short answer: Very very good for photo. Shit for video. You can shoot almost everything with that lens.

But with the a6600, for video, 1080p is a blurry mess. 4k is jelly due to the slow sensor readout.

Furthermore, the UI is meh and the software (e.g. image edge) is absolute trash. Formated your memory card? Sorry, your photo folder numbering and video file numbering are getting reset.

And I'm sure you're familiar with the meme about the colour. I've only had experience with Panasonic Canon and Fuji and I'd say Sony is dead last.

Using a film sim from here helps... https://www.veresdenialex.com/8-free-sony-film-simulations But there is no way to easily switch different ones.

Despite all that, it's a great camera that has lots of useful functions.

>>4494400
Camera has a setting to send to bluetooth linked smartphone. Can keep it enabled by default to send every photo you take straight to it instead of doing it manually one-by-one.
Originally I'd just upload to our Discord server from my phone, but Discord compression is absolute ass. Now I just either mSMS to individual people or make a catbox link and post to Discord.
Not the most elegant but it works for me.

File: Ambient3_RGB-scaled.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

How is it even possible that my photo in 50mm crop on the Leica Q2 is sharper than that of my Snoy A7IV with the GM50mm 1.4? No matter the aperture. Less mp but overall sharper image. Is it that the Leica lens is really that good or could it be because of the missing aa-filter on the Leica sensor?

>>4494384
Just because its the newest doesnt mean its the best. The r5ii is a downgrade from the r5 and EOS R cameras are known for shutter and circuit board issues. Canon cut build quality for mirrorless. The r6ii is at least cheaper to replace.

>>4494466
sony cooks digital corrections into their raw files to compensate for the overly thick filter stack. on the -III models and earlier it was really obvious with a concentric colored banding effect in shadow pushes

then there’s the optional distortion correction, aka resolution destroyer

>>4494466
post the pixel peeping comparisons
both shooting raw and using the same sharpening settings in your processor?

>>4494466
The Q2 lens is top tier and quality control is better so your GM might be decentered or off. No AA filter helps but even then I would be interested in the comparison as >>4494473
said

File: snoytuber.jpg (107.2 KB)

107.2 KB JPG

>>4494466
>he fell for the "G-Master" meme

File: sureshot85piece.png (857.9 KB)

857.9 KB PNG

I have this Canon Sure Shot 85 Zoom that looks to be in good condition but it had this little metal piece rattling around in the area the film spools into. Anyone know what it is? The camera turns on, zoom works, and I'm assuming the shutter doesn't open because there's no film loaded.

I want to upgrade to the a6700 and 24mm f/1.4 GM from a Pentax DSLR kit (K-5 IIs, K10D, 18-35mm f/1.8, 28mm f/3.5, 50-135mm f/2.8, and 300mm f/4) but I have cold feet because it's a lot of kit. I'm interested in the a6700 because I find it hard to use autofocus on the telephoto lenses and the 18-35mm f/1.8 is heavy if I'm taking photos of an event. I dunno, sorta looking for encouragement to sell all my kit and buy an a6700. I like APS-C, I like 24mm on APS-C. It seems like good kit.

>>4494548
Don't get the gm lens unless you are planning to upgrade to full frame in the future. Just get the sigma 23mm f1.4. it's plenty bright enough and will be half the price and size

>>4494541
After watching some videos it looks like this part guides the film downward with a roller. How the hell can I even get this back on, should I just try to super glue it?

File: 23mm_1.4_distortion.jpg (56.6 KB)

56.6 KB JPG

>>4494573
I did consider that one but it has a lot of distortion relative to the GM.

>>4494548
The best Pentax body is a Sony with a Monster Adapter

If you really like your Pentax lenses keep the ones you value the most and sell the rest. The 18-35mm and 300mm f/4 will get you a decent chunk of change. K5-II is worth like $250-400, sell and pick up a K-70/KF or a Monster Adapter for your Sony (all roughly the same amount). K10D is worthless, you can buy those <$80 all day long (I bought one off yahooauctions.jp for $20). If you sell those 2 lenses + K5 you'll easily raise $1000 if you're in USA.

That said, IMO the a6700 is false economy if you don't need the reach or video capabilities. Why not just go for a a7c/a7iii ($1000-1200) or even a a7iv/a7cii ($1500-1700, lets you run LA-EA5 for A-Mount Minolta/Sony) for a little more? FF lets you run a stop less vs APSC in terms of ISO. a6700 is a chunky camera too for what it is too honestly.

>>4494582
>a7c
efcs
>a7iii
old camera by comparison with the a6700, although I have considered it
>a7iv
more than I want to spend on a new body
>a7cii
efcs

i also am kinda covetous of the 24mm GM, it seems perfect for me, and im more used to 24mm on APS-C than FF. afaik the 35mm GM is not as great in terms of distortion. I do wanna do macro photography too and I think the a6700's af could help a lot with the right lenses. I had a macro lens for my pentax but goddamn it was frustrating to focus it. same deal with telephoto, beautiful lens and all but useless for anything that moves.

File: 288839_sig23dysJPG.jpg (50.5 KB)

50.5 KB JPG

>>4494576
So? It will just look like this anyways

File: canon 5d mk2.png (894.5 KB)

894.5 KB PNG

Acceptable for a complete beginner? Also, what should I avoid if shopping for used?

I'm ultra late to the party as always, but I just got a newly serviced 1975 Helios 44-2 for a great price. Everything works perfectly. Feels very solid and smooth to operate. You couldn't tell it was 51 years old outside of a little worn paint on the focus and aperture rings. The colours in the indicators haven't faded either.
Manual focusing is no problem on my Zf either.
What a fun little lens. Glad I finally got into looking at vintage lenses.
Next on my vintage lens list is the Nikkor 105 2,5 AiS for portrait work that I'll be getting when my next paycheck arrives.

>>4494395
makes sense, will look into the R6ii then
>>4494470
damn, I did not know things were so grim, I have been waiting ages for the EVFs to get decent enough to replace a literal mirror and block of glass but i guess i'm just wasting my money if it's not going to last 10+ years like the 5d has

speaking of 10 years, my xpro2 is just a few months away from 10 years of shooting, neat

File: Screenshot 2026-01-20 145059.png (511.5 KB)

511.5 KB PNG

Nikon z5ii is only 1,200$ refurbed right now. Absolutely insane for how much camera you get.

>>4494576
I mean if the price differences are worth it for a little distortion correction, go for it. Seems a little silly to me.

>>4494643
the 105 f2.5 is a fantastic portrait lens. Good choice anon. You'll like it

File: cameragear.jpg (100.4 KB)

100.4 KB JPG

What do you use for home storage? Picrel for me.

>>4494659
Yeah, I'm excited to get it. I started looking into those old Nikon lenses and found out it was the "Afghan Girl" lens. It's crazy what you get for your money with those old F mount Nikon lenses. They're so cheap! I feel like I found a hidden gem.
The 105 will be very different from my other lenses, so it will be a great addition to my kit.
I'll have two modern Nikon lenses with auto focus to "get the job done" and then the Helios and old Nikkor 105mm for some fun if there's more time during a shoot.

>>4494657
Snoysisters…

What is the widest rectilinear lens available for Canon FF?

I would really like, say, a 10mm rectilinear lens. All of the lenses I can find wider than 15mm or so are not rectilinear.

>>4494676
14mm f/2.8L II USM is the widest rectilinear lens Canon has ever made. It's very quite wide, well made, and sharp.
The two downsides I can think of is that it still has a bit of barrel distortion, yet not a significant amount, and the front lens cap is shit. You can buy aftermarket lens caps that are better for not a lot of money.
There's also the RF 14-35 f/4L IS USM which is more expensive, has more distortion, only fits RF-mount, and is f/4 instead of f/2.8. But, it has killer IS, can take normal front filters, is a zoom, and is just as wide as the EF prime.

A 10mm lens on FF has no hope of being rectilinear. To get a total image plane without fisheye levels of distortion would require a huge front element and would likely have a dogshit small aperture opening.

Now as an alternative, people have adapted the EF-S 10-18mm f/4-5.6 STM to full frame with a cheap metal mount conversion (I have done this) but you normally do it for video, as you will get heavy mechanical vignetting using a FF sensor size.
I bring this up because if you just want the widest lens that phyiscally fits your camera and you don't mind using APS-C mode, then this is a cheap and effective workaround.

>>4494631
because I have autism, I’m worried about the loss of quality from digital corrections

>>4494708
>>4494676

Laowa makes a FF 10mm f/2.8 for around USD$1000. They market it as zero distortion.

>>4494711
A valid concern. You can also just not use digital corrections.
Unless you're photographing the side of a brick wall, light distortion is undetectable and mild distortion is only noticable if looking for it.

File: Screenshot 2026-01-21 at 12.35.18 AM.png (723.8 KB)

723.8 KB PNG

I LOVE GARBAGE

GIVE ME THE GARBAGE

The ZX-7 I ordered for $25 had a half used roll of Kodak BW400CN but the body was dead, the mirror didn't wanna stay down. Transferred the film to a SF1x body I had and probably lost some exposures in the process. Lens was actually in great shape other than the start of some fungus thankfully on the outside of the front element that wiped right off

Kinda excited to try the 135mm f2.8 Sears and 28mm f2.8 JC Penney, I think they're both Samyangs. How bad can they be for $20 each? I have a K1ii and K200D to play with them

>>4494714
I am also retarded. Canon makes a 1st party RF lens that reaches 10mm on FF: the RF 10-20 f/4L IS USM. So I'm just flat out wrong and should feel bad.
The kicker is I'm actually kind of right in that it has some intense distortion and forces correction as to hide this, and f/4 on a prime is kind of pathetic outside of superteles.

I'm quite against distortion correction as it destroys resolution and gets worse the heavier the correction is. But hey, 10mm rectilinear is quite impressive.

>>4494718
>forces correction
lol
the disingenuous practices of contemporary camera companies are heinous crimes up with which I shall not put

>>4494718
>makes fisheye
>corrects fisheye in post
>we made a lens!!!
Modern canon is awful

Old canon had meh sensors, technically, but great colors to make up for 0 lattitude making editing less necessary (ala ccd raws) and great lenses.
Modern canon has meh sensors with forced NR in raws, meh colors, and scam lenses. But AF and FPS and codecs.

>>4494720
>>4494721
These are valid critiques.
I have largely kept with EF lenses adapted to RF because they tend to give less distortion. RF lenses seem to prioritise weight and size.

File: IMG_7782.jpg (2.7 MB)

2.7 MB JPG

Oops

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

274.1 KB JPG

Can one get used to aspc sensor image quality? I recently had he X-E5 in hands and it's so damn tiny and light. What a joy to hold. I magine it to be perfect for travel, etc. Even the A7CII is kinda bulky compared and especially once you attach lenses (even slow ones). I'm just afraid that I don't get used to the IQ. Not even on pixel peeping level but looking through samples on flickr the fuji photos always look more flat and less detailed.

File: sony prime.jpg (79.4 KB)

79.4 KB JPG

>makes fisheye
>corrects fisheye in post
Digital and mirrorless was a mistake.

>>4494711
You are just a retard then

>>4494718
Explains why no professionals ever use lenses with corrections ever
And of course you're a professional too so you have the same standards

>>4494752
You uhhh... you having fun arguing with yourself there champ?
Literally said it's impressive in its own right and that I personally don't like using distortion correction.

Go be a faggot someplace else.

>>4494747
I bought the x100vi with all the bells and whistles regarding accessories three months ago. I did a lot of research and thought it was the right camera for me, but I just never liked the images I got with it. It was my first aps-c camera, so I assume that was the main reason behind how the photos looked. Spent two months of daily experimentation because I thought it was user error since I had seen a lot of great photos taken with it.
Sold it and went back to full frame and immediately felt like I was at home. I'm never going to buy aps-c again. Some people can make it work, but I'm too shitty of a photographer to do it.
I loved the size, weight and built in nd filter though.

File: xtranszf.jpg (4.3 MB)

4.3 MB JPG

>>4494747
You'll be fine
I've shot on x-trans for 10 years now, alongside FF and GFX
>>4494754
Can you share some of the images you didn't like?

>>4494753
Why would I go elsewhere when I can learn from people like you that know more than other professionals?

>>4494756
You'll probably say I'm full of shit, but I don't like posting private stuff here be it photos or videos, so I'd rather not.
But like I said, I've seen people take great photos with aps-c cameras, it just wasn't for me. I was considering holding out for the XT-6, but the x100vi put me back to full frame.

>>4494758
Not full of shit, just a pussy or a nophoto (which is true)

>>4494759
Eh call me what you will, I ain't posting anything private in this hell hole

>>4494761
>I have to cope because I don't take many photos
Sad, you should leave the board for a while so you can take some photos, and then come back when you have stuff you can share

>>4494757
You're an exhausting individual. Literally creating arguments in your own head.

>>4494765
Now just imagine how exhausting commenters like you make me feel

>>4494767
I state an opinion and you decide sperg out about claims no-one ever made. So... nobody is allowed to post opinions otb, is that what you're saying?
What's it like being legitimately schizophrenic, anon?

>>4494763
I don't think you understand why I won't post stuff here. Or maybe you do and just want to pick a fight over nothing. Either way, I'm never posting private stuff on this site, ever

>>4494769
You made a silly statement about caring so much about distortion
>>4494773
You should leave then of you aren't going to contribute positively to the board
Sorry to hear you don't take photos enough to post

>be me, father of newborn
>shoot mostly my Q3
>when in use 100% satisfaction, amazing photos
>don't shoot it as often as I wish because of protection, bulky, camera bag, two hands, etc.

Makes me really think wether it's a good thing to buy the GRIV as my "always with me" camera to capture all kind of memories. So basically replacing my phone camera. On the other hand it's just more of the same, same focal length but worse IQ, worse everything except portability.

>>4494778
I haave been pretty pleased with it as an "everywhere" camera and yeah it's entirely for the form factor. It's very good image quality for the size but nowhere near a Q3. I would buy it if your planning on putting it in a pocket when you go to the grocery store. 1500$ just has to not be that expensive for you. Otherwise you'll worry about throwing it into a pocket.

>>4494747
Every bayer sensor is a compromise in image quality. Having a camera that you want to use is more important than the image quality.

I've been thinking about the problem of lens mount ecosystems. I was planning on getting a Nikon full frame, but just now the news hit that they're pursuing legal action against third party manufacturers making Z-mount lenses. That also prompted me to look more into lenses and mount compatibility, and it turns out the Sigma lenses everyone online seems to be praising are not available for Z-mount, most likely due to Nikon not granting a license.
The scariest part is how they could disable support for third party lenses on a software level, updating the firmware in a way that disallows the usage of unlicensed glass.
In the pure software world this has long been settled with Oracle v. Google, that you can't protect rights for an API. I guess here manufacturers use the fact that it's a physical hardware interface, and that you can patent.
The most open and friendly FF mount appears to be the L-mount, but there you're stuck with one of two video-heavy Lumixes, an overpriced Leica, or a quirky Sigma.
It's all so tiresome.

>>4494777
Anon you're such a whiny nigger why bother commenting

>>4494876
>The most open and friendly FF mount appears to be the L-mount
E-mount

>>4494882
I'm a Sony user and have never had an issue with any of my third party lenses but I have to disagree, many of the Chinese lenses aren't licenced and aren't guaranteed to work as has been shown with the A7 V. Also for the newer bodies that can shoot bursts at like 30fps they cap them to 15fps with third party lenses, in practice it's not actually an issue for 98% of people but it's a purely software limitation with no justification.

>>4494885
on the other hand, you get to choose from more than four cameras to use on E-mount compared to L-mount
pros and cons

>>4494887
While it's not as many there are 15 different L mount bodies (stills focussed, there are a couple Blackmagics and the DJI Ronin) to choose from, and one could argue that having three different brands to pick from is better than being tied to one.

Sony A6600 or Fuji X-T4?
I wanted a compact mirrorless to move away from my Canon EOS T6 (first cam).

I hear the Fuji has better colors but thats about it