File: ZR vs A7C.jpg (116.8 KB)

116.8 KB JPG

>>4496215

>>4496216
Why is the space for your fingers so small? Is the camera designed for women and small fingered men only?

File: Z-sony-a7rvi-HandGrip1.jpg (229.6 KB)

229.6 KB JPG

>>4496217
>Sony
>Ergonomics
Pick one

>>4496216
>omg guys look at this vlogger camera
The ZR doesn't even have a shutter. Who cares?
>and this badly designed lens from 201X!
The chinks copied nikons 40mm f2 and ported it to sony btw
https://georgeholden.media/blog/ttartisan-40mm-f2-street-photography-review

There's also a great compact 50mm f2 for FE, and sigma's 90mm f2.8 is currently without paralell. No one else makes a compact FF f2.8 telephoto.

>>4496218
>THE SONY IS TOO BIG!
>I MEAN ITS NOT BIG ENOUGH!
Sony has never really been a "professional" (corporate snapshitter) brand and the first E mount cameras were not released targeting the "fast aperture pro zoom" market of journos and wedding snappers... the first lenses for it were compact f4s. I'm glad sony has continued to forget to think of them, otherwise their cameras would be DSLR sized like canon's.

>>4496216
Why are e-mount lenses so xbox huge?

>>4496217
>Why is the space for your fingers so small?

>Get btfo

>>4496219
>Sony has never really been a "professional" (corporate snapshitter) brand and the first E mount cameras were not released targeting the "fast aperture pro zoom" market of journos and wedding snappers... the first lenses for it were compact f4s. I'm glad sony has continued to forget to think of them, otherwise their cameras would be DSLR sized like canon's.~~~~~~~

seriously, kys sony shill

>>4496218
>>4496216
Both these images have been reposted 3 times. Same md5 and filename. Who pays you?

File: 1305139527817.jpg (14.7 KB)

14.7 KB JPG

Get on topic you fucking spergs. Generic sony shilling/shitting belongs in the gear thread.
The point is that Sony has a golden concept with the A7C line, and this is proved by the fact that it continues to outsell despite being rather poorly executed, as you've all graciously demonstrated and as was already implied in the OP.

>>4496222
Panasonic is my guess. They haven't released anything new since the S9. With them an A7C competitor could be visually be based on their L1 4/3 DSLR since that's what gave them the RF shape on the GX line

>>4496218
>>4496221
Dang I was going to get a sony to do wildlife, but I need a camera that will let me use longer lenses while wearing gloves. Any recommendations for a better brand?

>>4496222
>>4496226
>meanwhile shills Sony hundreds and thousands of times on this board

>>4496222
>no argument
I accept your concession

They all got this weird obsession with prism humps on cameras that don't got prisms

>>4496233
You would too if you didn't have anything else to hump.

File: the_worms.gif (3.2 MB)

3.2 MB GIF

>>4496233
That's fine, those bodies have their place, but it's like there's some kind of taboo for them to try something else.
Rumor has it that Nikon reps start to sweat if you ask about using the ZR for stills. Think about that for a moment, it either means they're gearing up for a full-frame Z30 release (good scenario) or they have some kind of internal politics bullshit going on where they're huffing the copium about Sony continuing to exploit this segment with zero competition and BTFOing them in the overall charts as a result.

>>4496222
>Image board where people post images
>shockedpikachuface.gif
>meds.jpg

>>4496227
Nikon if you want full frame. OM system if you want to save weight and money at the cost of image quality.

>>4496235
I could see them taking the ZR frame and putting the remaining 45mp sensor in it as one of the last expeed 7 cameras before the z9ii and expeed 8. They'd call it a zfR or something stupid. Could do well if it has a viewfinder, attachable or otherwise.

>>4496244
>>4496238
>>4496232
>>4496229
Samefag

Every time
>NO SONY IS NOT AN OPTION SAAR SONY IS SHIT YOU BUY BIG NIKON OR OLYMPUS SAAR

>>4496216
Are you stupid?

>>4496219
Bodied that freak.

>>4496246
lol take your meds anon. I posted the nikon and OM system rec because they specifically asked for alternatives to Sony. Sony has good options for wildlife too. They are decent cameras I have take great pictures with before. I just don't like how their lenses render street lights at night so I swapped to Nikon. I will say your constant screeching does more to put people off Sony than anything else. No one wants to be mistaken for being like you jsut cause they bought a Sony.

>>4496227
Canon or Nikon. Theres a reason why pros use them, they have usable ergonomics.

File: 1759118080800.png (2.2 MB)

2.2 MB PNG

>buy om system to save weight!
For phone IQ? No thanks

picrelated wildlife photog did a comparision between nikon z8 and om1.2 ... he even went so far to fake m43 on full frame by cropping in 2x and turns out the full frame image cropped in to 2x is still better quality than the m43 at its native crop
and if you're willing to play that crop game all weight and price differences disappear. well the full frame kit actually is less expensive and weighs less lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcK5e_9_mZY

how will you rectify this problem?
buy an f11-16 lens that is past the diffraction limited aperture when wide open and hit it with the AI sharpening?

>>4496253
Anything smaller than medium format is unusable

>>4496254
What's the best medium format or larger birding/wildlife set up then?

>>4496255
How about Phase one iq4 + XF body + Blue ring lenses?

>>4496260
That would be sick, but the longest lens for the XF bodies is like 260mm f4.5. You could use a mamiya 645 that has a 500mm f5.6, but that's kinda slooooow for the birdies and no AF.

>>4496220
The mount was only made to accommodate an APS-C sensor. They shoved in a FF sensor without any planning. Thats why there are always corner issues and lens cant be as small.

File: fuck you dipshit.jpg (56.1 KB)

56.1 KB JPG

>>4496216

>>4496269
>f/2.5
>$800

>>4496269
Dated choice
https://georgeholden.media/blog/ttartisan-40mm-f2-street-photography-review

>>4496272
Its 1/2 off used. Besides doesnt micro fool turds have $1000+ f2.8 equivalent lenses? Still better than overpriced om, foolji and panasonic dogshit

>>4496253
I said buy om system if you want to save weight at the cost of image quality. Thank you for illustrating my point with facts and logic™

>>4496272
I think jerking off about 2/3rds of a stop of wide-open aperture is retarded. Don't get me wrong, snoy word funny and all, but the optical performance of the lens is what matters.
I'd happily give up f/2 > f/2.8 for a 50/40mm prime if it were the better performer.
>see RF 28mm f/2.8

File: IMG_1689_2.jpg (1.7 MB)

1.7 MB JPG

>>4496281
>see RF 28mm f/2.8
Dunno, I'd like the lens to have a less sterile look. Maybe I should use filters or shoot exclusively landscapes.

>>4496281
I would rather a better, brighter lens at 1/4 the price.

File: Riddler.jpg (26.5 KB)

26.5 KB JPG

>>4496283
I keep seeing anons use this "sterile" word in reference to sharp lenses but what the fuck does it mean? It's just such an ambiguous, subjective discriptor. Like cool, I get that for hundred years plus your corners were mushy but I don't see the problem with that being fixed more or less now.
Also, if that's your biggest concern then slap a 1/4 diffusion filter on and then you can take that off when you want better performance. In comparison you can't do anything if your turd of a lens isn't sharp enough.

>>4496286
>I would rather everything be amazing for fuck all money
And I'd like a Porsche 918 for $100, what's your point? Also, better is subjective as per anon above. Better could mean less shading, or better resolution, or another dozen things. If you want the best of all worlds you're going to pay top dollar (and still not get everything).

>>4496245

Why would you put a huge 45mp sensor in a video body? the ZRii needs a 12 MP fast sensor for video. Like the Sony FX3 and the ZV-E1. You know the sensor they should have put inside their FX2 body.

>>4496273
>Dated choice
It’s not that simple
https://www.snapsbyfox.com/blog/ttartisan-40mm-f2-vs-sony-fe-40mm-f25-g

>>4496289
>He fell for the overpriced is better snoy meme

>>4496289
I think it's a too much information thing. For example if a lens faithfully reproduces every pimple, wart, pore and bristle of a beautiful subject in zillion megapickles it could be called sterile. Using a simpler lens with pleasant "character" or the "sterile" lens and a filter smeared with vaseline with could produce less detailed and faithful but more pleasant photo.
It depends of subject and intention. Lens with "character" likely could be a bad choice for a star field photo but good for a moody landscape in fog.

File: pancakechads.jpg (171.1 KB)

171.1 KB JPG

>>4496281
>>4496289

File: shrug.gif (474.7 KB)

474.7 KB GIF

>>4496306
Alright, I see your interpretation. But my counterpoint to that, is that your issues only affect a specific subset of photography, namely portraits and very specific landscape.
If I can help it I use a 1/2 or 1/4 mist filter when I know I will be shooting portraits or people in general. But for my astro, landscapes, urban, macro, and product photography I'd rather have the optical clarity which I can't claw back from a soft shitty lens.
So, looks like it comes down to use-case... which uhhh lo and behold applies to basically every camera related purchase. Calling a lens sterile with intentionally bad connotations seems like a cop out for anons that want to shit on something that's technically superior.

>>4496300
Nope. Cripplecanon. Sorry anon, no prize this time.
Didn't overpay either, and I'm not poor, so the money thing doesn't make sense either. Shrug.

>>4496216
I've sold my A7CII for the ZR to use as 50/50 photography and video. Very pleased with it. I much prefer the Nikon body as it feels nice in hand somehow, huge ass screen to replace that awful a7cii evf, buttons feel better, good UI, files are nicer to work with photo and video. So far not missing the manual shutter, no banding at all up to now (6000 raw files). Lots of fast movement of my kids. I guess the sensor is fast enough. Only thing that is annoying for all compact FF bodies: missing compact lenses. The 40mmf2 is mediocre. Good thing Viltrox is kinda filling that market.

I'm still craving for something like the X-E5 or x-Pro3 that come with truly small lenses in width and length. But I don't wanna sacrifice the image quality

>>4496227
I swear gloves with my A7C2 all the time. Never had an issue.

>>4496328
>missing compact lenses
Just git gud with manual focus and you can shoot with tiny third party M mount lenses.

>>4496331
Yes that would be the other option, hmmm

Not entirely on topic but anyone have APSC mirrorless Nikon or Canon reccs that i can look at? Still stuck considering a Sony a6400 with some pancake + zoom

>>4496283
RF glass has next to no 3d pop or micro contrast. It's over corrected and focuses more on global contrast.

>>4496294
It wouldn't be a video body at that point. Nikon would advertise it as their version of rangefinder.

>>4496345
What are some lenses that do have 3d pop?

>>4496348
the lens you have with you

File: IMG_1678.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4496306
I starting to think >>4496345 might be right, the pictures taken with the RF 28mm f2.8 just look slightly fake and uncanny to me. Or maybe I just hate wide angle lenses

>>4496351
But I have an RF 28mm f/2.8 with me

File: 1216x984x1.jpg (144.2 KB)

144.2 KB JPG

>>4496353
Your options are limited (by design) with RF mount. If you truly want to pursue the neverending autism of 3D pop you'll need a Nikon or Leica body for the thin sensor stack and subsequent compatibility with rangefinder and vintage lenses, or skip full frame purgatory entirely, to enter medium format heaven where the natural response of film combined with the higher resolution and smaller aberrations of 120 format compared to 135 create 3d pop in abundance for little effort.

>>4496355
Could you show me a photo with this 3D pop you speak of?

>>4496356
I just did, faggot. Kill yourself.

File: dont-cry.gif (17.2 KB)

17.2 KB GIF

>>4496357
Lmfao. So quick to turn sour.

>>4496355
What are some lenses that do have 3d pop?

>>4496359
NTA, but Canon EF 135mm f2 is said to have 3D pop: https://www.flickr.com/groups/625952@N23/pool/with/55052428417

>>4496359
If you're asking genuinely, then Voigtlander 58/1.4, Zeiss ZM 35/1.4, Pentax 67 105/2.4 are a few examples of lenses typically said to reproduce depth in a pleasant and realistic way ("3d pop"). I'm sure some jackass is going to come out of the woodwork and disagree on an irrelevant technicality, so you're better off doing your own research.

>>4496345
>anti sony shill (clive) reposting his disingenuous memes
>now the 3d pop pseud
Oh wow canon doesnt have bokeh?

>>4496352
It looks fake because of heavy handed digital corrections and exotic wavy elements like those used in phones that literally throw away color rather than attempt to focus it correctly

>>4496362
Whip out the optical science textbook and show us where “reproducing depth” is mentioned.

Real things: color transmission, contrast
Delusions: magic depth rendering that only vintage and european lenses can do!

Fuck off you’re worse than guitar tone paint schizos

>>4496362
Thanks. I'll look into those lenses.

File: 1216x811x1.jpg (218.8 KB)

218.8 KB JPG

>>4496365
Notice how none of the lenses I listed are European and only one of them is out of production as of 2026.
If you're one of the few unfortunates that can't see 3D pop no matter how hard they try (might be related to not having an internal monologue, or being unable to visualize and rotate an apple in your mind), it might be time to take a step back from such discussions.

Snoy did the right thing filling that void in the market, but I do believe other manufacturers will follow.

File: NIKON Z 7_2_28mm f-1.5_0_15.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

>>4496362
Voigtlander and zeiss are pretty good in general for 3d pop. The Voigtlander Noktons in Z mount are pretty good for it if you want something with modern coatings and a chip.

>>4496367
That's a really good example for demonstrating it. I literally can't understand how people are unable to see it.

>>4496365
"3D pop" is a cult.

>>4496357
>the most garish tacky shitty artificial f/0.95 look you will ever see
>3D pop

>>4496379
3d pop comes from lighting,camera,lens,editing, and proper technique. There's no combo of camera that just shits out 3d pop in every picture.
On the other hand shitty cameras and lenses may be incapable of producing the effect no matter how hard you try.

>>4496380
It's f/2.4, try to keep up.

>>4496222
Just like the green woman, I have to assume the even sadder reality that people posting this stuff are unpaid console warriors still battling in a long forgotten war

>>4496381
Yeah this seems mostly true in my experience. It's easier to achieve the larger the format and some lenses just aren't capable of it. It really does come down to technique and the right conditions. You'll never get it with a cellphone though.

>>4496384
Yeah larger formats definitely help. 8x10 headshots really show the effect nicely in the eyes of the subject.

>>4496382
it's zoomer garbage, try to keep up

File: default.jpg (18.9 KB)

18.9 KB JPG

>he fell for the Zeiss 3D pop meme

>>4496396
Hey if you don't see it thats okay pal. You could use zooms and not feel like your missing anything.

Man this thread derailed hard lol

>>4496377
Had a voigtlander 50mm f1.1 for a while. Chromatic aberration central and extreme vignetting, but holy heck the pop. Reality is that it is all field curvature.

File: panasonic_lumix_gx9_hands_on_06[1].jpg (54.8 KB)

54.8 KB JPG

I can't explain why, but I can't see myself doing photography in with anything than a rangefinder. But I'll pass on the Sony one.

>>4496406
Yeah It's gotta be the field curvature mixed with the vignette. If you get a good central light on your subject it's pop city. Wish there was still a company making those older designs with modern af motors. should be cheaper to manufacture than the crazy high element count primes the major brands are churning out now.

>>4496407
Honestly considering getting a used GFX100RF just cause of that. Don't want to shoot Sony or Leica and that seems like the only other decent option in the 3-5k$ range.

>>4496415
Are you getting it solely for 100MP? That camera makes zero sense to me.

>>4496407
Sony don't make a rangefinder
>>4496415
Not a rangefinder
>>4496417
He said he wants to get it because it's a rangefinder, even though it's not

>>4496407
M43 has more soul than a snoy body ever could

File: DSCF_1362.png (2.5 MB)

2.5 MB PNG

>>4496423
"soul" is how 4channers cope when they can't afford success

File: questionhat.png (78 KB)

78 KB PNG

>Day 147 of asking any anon to explain 3D pop using real words instead of random buzzword schizoid terms

>>4496417
It's the only reasonably priced full compact rangefinder style body with decent image quality. The Leica Q3 is more expensive for worse image quality and no back button focus. The Sony rxriii is worse image quality and Sony. The a7cr doesn't have good 28mm lens options to resolve it. Also Sony is gross to shoot. The gfx100rf has a pretty good 28mm lens and can crop into 35mm if you are willing to lose image quality for reach. I wish their was a cheaper option from canikon but they are obsessed with imitating an slr. I don't really need ibis and will be shooting it stopped down so the f4 doesn't really bother me that much. I'm more on the fence to see if Nikon or canon do anything interesting this year.

>>4496422
Eh it's close enough

>>4496426
It's nothing objective or measurable. It's just a pseud term used to describe images that have sharp detail on the subject, while also having a shallow depth of field. You can do it with almost any f/2.8 macro lens wide open or 1/3 of a stop down from that. Having your background be really far away from your subject with nothing in between the two also helps. If you buy a lens based on this you fell for one of the oldest reoccurring baits on the board. It's like the photography equivalent of falling for flat-earth bait.

>>4496426
You'll never see it if you need it explained to you. You lack taste and ability

>>4496426
>Low IQ consoomers fall for the marketing slop
A tale as old as time

>>4496430
Examples?