>>4392821
i like it when people know what they're talking about and dont screech shit
im thinking about buying soms fuji film instax mini 99 for my mother and i
just some "have fun" level stuff.

Other than than i plan at some point buying a 600mm sigma for my eos6d
pic real
taken in my 300mm lens

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	darktable 4.6.1
Lens Size	70.00 - 300.00 mm
Firmware Version	Firmware Version 1.1.6
Lens Name	EF70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:14 20:11:06
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/11.3
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	270.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	639
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Mode	Manual
Focus Type	Auto
Metering Mode	Partial
Sharpness	Unknown
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Shooting Mode	Manual
Image Size	Unknown
Focus Mode	AI Focus
Drive Mode	Single
Flash Mode	Off
Compression Setting	Unknown
Macro Mode	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Compensation	3
Sensor ISO Speed	192
Color Matrix	135

>>4392851
oh sweet the metadata stayed this time
usually doesnt when i phone post

>>4392821
Got this lens from the late 1800s. Dallmeyer rapid rectilinear. Taking some film pics with it today.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	Galaxy S24 Ultra
Camera Software	S928U1UEU4AXK4
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	13 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:16 19:40:57
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4000
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Unique Image ID	K12XSPE01NM
Image Height	3000
Brightness	1.3 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	83/5000 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/2.2
ISO Speed Rating	320
Image Width	4000
Focal Length	2.20 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4392859
The digital test shots I took with it are very promising.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 10.0.2 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	5760
Image Height	3840
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:16 19:39:46
Exposure Bias	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Program	Manual
Color Space Information	sRGB
White Balance	Auto
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Metering Mode	Pattern
Exposure Time	0.2 sec
Flash	No Flash
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4392862
very cinematic looking

>>4392859
This is wide open and the first was with the aperture in place. I need to calculate the FL to see what stop the aperture slide is. This shot is from the center of the projection of a lens that has coverage for 15x12 film so it isn't at all representative of corner sharpness.

I plan to make a very small aperture slide for this to get maximum DoF for macro work.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 10.0.2 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	5760
Image Height	3840
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:17 09:13:51
Exposure Bias	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Program	Manual
Color Space Information	sRGB
White Balance	Auto
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Metering Mode	Pattern
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
Flash	No Flash
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4392868
I think it looks great for a 150 year old lens with a projection over 100x larger than a 35mm tamron lens, and film lenses don't produce the same IQ with digital sensors as they do with film either.

This lens is going to be an absolute banger with large format film.

>>4392874
It’s hazy and has terrible CA

This is an effect lens for funkily lit womens portraits and does not flatter fruit and cobwebs

>>4392874
I'm sure it'll look much better on large format film with a chance to use much more of its image circle.

>>4392878
>surely, demanding even more of this struggling lens will work
heres to another hazy photo of a dead bug

>>4392877
You clearly lack experience with older lenses adapted to digital. That haze is typical on essentially all film lenses when used with digital. The filters in front of the sensor and the angle of the light hitting the sensor reduce IQ.

>>4392878
Yes. I specifically chose the rapid rectilinear because it has a symmetrical lens design that should be ideal for macro. My plan is to use it at very small apertures, so really, the sharpness only matters so much. Same lens design Weston used for his macro work.

>>4392881
I have used countless film lenses with digital and the only ones that were hazy on digital were also hazy on film. People never noticed because they were getting 4x6 enlargements with contrast adjustments from the paper and minilab scans being shit out a printer, not 36mp true color scans with just inversion

You’d have a point if this were about corner color shifts, smearing, and extra vignetting but high quality film lenses are high quality on digital. The only difference is coatings for digital don’t need to block any UV and IR film does not need to be a design consideration if the manufacturer does not make an IR ILC.

>>4392885
You are simply incorrect. At least for my 5dm3, or maybe you have never adapted large format lenses to digital?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark III
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 10.0.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	5760
Image Height	3840
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:10:27 19:54:15
Exposure Bias	0 EV
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Program	Manual
Color Space Information	sRGB
White Balance	Auto
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Metering Mode	Pattern
Exposure Time	769/10000 sec
Flash	No Flash
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4392886
Or maybe you just use crappy lenses

These look just like your film test shits

>>4392862
>>4392864
That's really impressive. Looks like modern IQ.

>>4392885
Impressive confidence for talking out your ass . I can learn from this example.

>>4392892
Dallmeyer was a true G. Kinda cool having a lens made in/near London...
The rapid rectilinear came after the petzval and made shooting wide open better with a flatter focal plane. I think.

>>4392890
Well, my test worked perfectly and I can just ignore you now.

>>4392893
I took this picture with a modern 300mm Rodenstock APO sinaron se/sinaron-s lens that is without a doubt a world class lens.

The IQ degradation is very very similar between this image and the vegetable ones I posted earlier. There's a reason LF lens manufacturers all have digital versions of their lenses with updated optical designs...

>>4392896
To sell more lenses ofc

>>4392899
At first, yes. Rodenstock or schneider tried using their old LF film designs, but in MF focal lengths and people got really upset at them because the IQ was not acceptable. Afterwards they updated their lens designs to work well with digital and all was made well. :)

>>4392896
Because most LF film shooters don’t actually enlarge their photos so every 35mm slice is its full 30+ mp. Digital sensors are smaller and automatically produce huge enlargements. This is what demands better optical designs.

LF film doesnt diffract at smaller apertures for example, its just no one ever enlarges it so much that the airy disc goes beyond the circle of confusion except landscape photographers comparing gear at max grain peep. In normal use 4x5 is enlarged 3x tops which is like producing a palm sized print of 35mm. The flaws are invisible and the contrast is fixed in printing. Your average world class LF lens is actually just getting away with being shit because 4x5 geeks rarely pixel peep (noone wants a 5tb scan anyways)

>>4392908
(Except doghair, who would get 10x less shit if he didnt post crops and worked on taming global contrast issues)

>>4392908
So an entirely apples to oranges comparison is why it's shit even though it is objectively not shit?

>>4392911
Huh?

Boughted 105/2.5 and 35/2.
Cheap glass is curse.

what's the video autofocus on the a7rv like? I primarily do photography but I want to also film some vids where I'm in focus when moving

they use an EOS R3

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R3
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:18 14:29:03
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1333
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Going overseas for a semester abroad in a photography program and this is what I'm bringing, still unsure how much studio or event I'm doing so covering my bases. I could probably cut a couple lenses from the digital stuff without even noticing desu

big wish is either a new K1 coming out so I can justify a 70-200, or a new 50-135 to replace the uh, 15 year old? SDM model
otherwise im debating a 105 and the 35 fisheye for the 6x7 for portrait and astro work respectively

>>4394571
>photography program
>Pentax
lol

also, you are bringing too much stuff.

>>4394571
>SD card cases
really though

Anyone else keep a list?

>>4394611
No but I made one for you because what I do have is pretty similar:

Nikon D40 w/ kit lens
Nikon AF-D micro 105mm f/2.8

OM System OM-5
OM System OM-1
M.Zuiko 60mm f/2.8 macro (<3)
M.Zuiko 40-150 f/4-5.6
M.Zuiko 12-45 f/4
M.Zuiko 20mm f/1.4
M.Zuiko 75-300 f/4-6.3 (might sell)
M.Zuiko 40-150 f/2.8
M.Zuiko MC-14
Samyang 7.5mm f/3.5 (should use it more, it's insane how sharp this is)
Panny 20mm f/1.7 (might sell, hate the AF)
Voigt 42.5mm f/0.95 (might sell, just don't use it enough)

Yashica C I've put 2 rolls through and never developed ;_;

Godox TT350o x2
Godox transmitter
Olympus FL-LM3 (<3)
Some folding diffuser

Carbon steel tripod forgot the brand
Ball head forgot the brand

>>4394611
what do the colors mean?
i surely hope you dont still own all of that

ive only made lists for insurance, but it's easy to remember all the important stuff

>>4394632
The colours of the text? It's for whatever brand the item is/is associated with. The colours of the columns don't mean anything they're just there to visually separate the columns. I have a separate sheet for stuff i've sold, I own all of that.

>>4394634
oh duh
well, you have a hoarding problem, no doubt
its too bad you opted to hoard such a mish-mash of brands and junk gear

>>4394645
Ok

>>4394647
>12 digi point & shoots, 13 digital ilc bodies (6 alone for m43), 8 film bodies
>dead mounts like samsung NX, Sigma SA, and actual 4/3 glass
>most recent ilc body is 7 years old, most recent ff is 16 years old
>every focal length under the sun
why not sell most of the junk and consolidate down to some good stuff?

>want to get into photography
>cheapest beginners
>$1600 x100
>sold out all the time
>$2000 for the non-externally sold out version
>look into entry level
>Fuji X-M5 $800
>people doing comparison with iphone
>most of the pictures are objectively worst on the Fuji
FML it’s like a catch-22 with this hobby, stand alone cameras tech just can’t catch up smartphone tech.

>>4394678
>not even into photography yet
>already a gearfag
It really isn't a catch-22 at all. You get a camera you like and take pictures with it. It's not that hard. Maybe even buy a couple lenses if you wanna go a little crazy.

>>4394680
What’s the point of if it performs equal or worst than a phone I already own. The only time a camera is superior is when that camera is closer to twice the price of an iPhone.l not including the lens.

>>4394678
Buy something a few years old, maybe even used. I'm using a 7 year old full frame body and it absolutely blows away any phone and even the very latest APS-C and 4/3 body (except for AF, but still decent). Phone images may look good at first glance and when you're seeing them on the internet and through videos but they're processed as fuck (phones being able to do all that "in camera" is the only advantage they have) and the sharpness and lack of noise only holds up at low resolution.

>>4394682
It doesn't lol. Simple as.

>>4394682
Any interchangeable lens camera will be better than a phone if you know how to use it.
If you don't want to think and just point + click, just stick with your phone anyways.

>>4394683
I have a hand me down D3200 with a few cheap kit lens. The only time it looks better than an iPhone is if I have a tripod attached and used a really slow shutter speed.

>>4394687
Opposite experience w/ d3400.

>>4394687
skills issue

>>4394687
skill issue for sure, but you should prove us wrong and post photo

I picked up an a6000 from a guy online recently but didn't realize I should check the sensor until after

Is this level of scratching ok?

>>4394691
if this is bait should have been its own thread lmfao

>>4394692
it's from a 2 week old reddit post
but that was probably bait too

anyone here used the canon ef 24mm f/2.8 prime lens? thinking about buying it for a *wider* portait lens on my t7i, but I want to ask if there's anything I should know before buying

>>4394687
Well first of all you're now comparing to a 12 year old crop body. Secondly that's still far more capable than any phone, if you know how to use it.

>>4394591
More just so theyre in something for this pic, I have a soft case I keep them loose in normally
>>4394588
Fair cop. The 6x7 is for personal stuff, same for the ME Super, and as I said, I can cut stuff out of the digital lens selections easily if I need to, just trying to cover my bases

>>4394697
No IS. Not fast enough for maxbokeh. Probably too wide for portraiture unless we're talking group portraits. Would rec a 35mm instead.

>>4394678
A used full frame like a z5 or z6 plus the 24-70f4 S or the z 40mmf2 will get you started much better than any fooji.

You poorfag? Buy an old dslr.

>>4394687
Don't listen to the dinosaur >>4394743 he thinks it's still 2018 when mirrorless was still expensive

If you get an old dSLR your options are limited to old dSLR gear, a lot of which is old and questionable quality (more risk of lens fungus etc). Remember you're buying into a lens mount ecosystem not just a camera.

Buy any cheap canon/Sony/Nikon mirrorless FF camera second hand (1-1.2k) and a cheap 50mm prime. Total cost will be under 1.4k USD

Then if you still enjoy photography pick up more lenses, if you don't like it you can still sell your mirrorless gear fast for minimal loss unlike the dSLR shit.

How do I stop being a retarded gearfag and thinking I made the wrong decision, and just use my camera and not worry?

>>4394747
Know that IQ never defines a good photo. A good photo evokes something in the viewer.

I shoot with a z8, but some of my best photos this year were taken with a five year old phone.

>>4394652
Because I like it, they're cheap systems and I don't need modern stuff.

>>4394571
Gigaboomer detected

>>4394768
You also don't need all of that shit, you don't use it all. You're just a hoarder.

>>4394801
I use it all, and I'm going to buy more.

>>4394798
Not actually, main reason I even have a pentax is I was given a film body by family a few years ago, and when I wanted a new digital, the K3iii had just been announced and did everything I wanted while not having a shitty EVF like other options in my price bracket
In hindsight, I do wish I'd gone for a Canon or maybe a D500 Nikon. But I might swap systems in a year or so when I run the warranty out on the K3's shutter

>>4394802
You actually might be a hoarder, anon.

>>4394804
Ok

>>4394802
No, you don't. The point and shoots are likely all trash. You don't use the 10D when you have the 5Ds and you're not carrying around two 5D classics when you have a Mk II. Neither are you carrying around four similar 4/3s bodies. Chances are you're not using all those film cameras either unless you have each one loaded up with a different type of film. The only shit that you might conceivably actually make use of is all the lenses but even then it's doubtful, hell you have a couple Nikon lenses but no F mount body.

The fact you were autistic enough to make a spreadsheet shows that you're just collecting, which would be fine but it's mostly just cheap boring crap.

>>4394807
I'm not reading that retard
I'm gunna keep buying shit and never selling it :D

>>4394807
He's just a hoarder. Let him enjoy his collection.

>>4394809
>He's just a hoarder. Let him enjoy his collection.
No. I Can't Let Anyone Enjoy Anything. It's MY Choice How Everybody Lives. He's Hoarding And That's Not Allowed. I WANT THAT STUFF. ITS MINE. HE CANT JUST HAVE IT.

>>4394809
Like I said I'm fine with collecting, I do it too, he just has shit taste and wastes money on multiples of the same crap.
>>4394811
>implying it's jealousy
I don't want most of that shit. I wouldn't say no to the Fuji or Sigma bodies but I have no lenses that would fit them and I don't buy stuff I can't use. There's nothing else on that list to lust after or that would be unattainable for me.

>>4394812
I'm not implying it's jealousy, you cave person. I'm informing you of the objective fact that you're a developmentally disabled ten year old in the body of a balding adult.

>>4394812
Totally agree. His collection makes no sense at all, but he doesn't care. In all likelihood he doesn't care about photography too, like most of /p/. So who are we to tell him to align his gear with a pursuit he doesn't care about?

>>4394811
Lmfao, why did he say this?

>>4394812
Do you actually believe this? He probably just buys shit that's cheap, why else would you have duplicate bodies that old? How is this not immediately obvious to you?

>>4394747
Go look at the best pictures people have taken with your gear (or worse / older gear). Then you'll know the only difference between their shots and yours, is skill, not gear.
Also, try new techniques with your gear. Want more more resolution and less dof? Brenizer, etc.

Sup guys look at this stuff I got from my aunt's.
Grandpa was a bigshot photoreporter for a communist newspaper in Greece so he left a bunch of slav cameras and slav camera accessories.
I like the exa and the zenit TTL Moscow Olympics edition the most. He also left a vintage light meter, all of the writing in Cyrillic.
Noone does film development around me, is it hard to get into developing shit at home ?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Xiaomi
Camera Model	2310FPCA4G
Camera Software	MediaTek Camera Application
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Height	2301
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:12:25 17:52:43
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4608
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Not Defined
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Height	6144
Brightness	0 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	59999/1000000 sec
Flash	Flash
F-Number	f/1.8
Image Width	8160
ISO Speed Rating	350
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	4.27 mm
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Other

>>4394627
>>4394611
Dear lord. These are the people giving you advice. Blind geeks with mountains of ewaste, just poor ken rockwells.

>>4394819
i did this and came to the following conclusion: gear matters a ton. low end digital doesnt produce good photos. is it the users or no? just building corners and backs of heads and everything is blurry in a very bad, nervous way with nasty colors. you need film or the newest sony (so you can fuck it up with film sims) to be a good photographer.

>>4394825
Sweet stuff! Black and white is very easy, colour on the other hand is much more difficult

>>4394825
>Grandpa was a bigshot photoreporter for a communist newspaper in Greece so he left a bunch of slav cameras and slav camera accessories.
Awesome stuff. If you didn't know, the two cameras on the right are what are colloquially known as 'scameras'. They're like chinese knock offs.
https://youtu.be/Hu72sLmvl8w?si=3KvcJmJleoRHeeCP

>>4394826
>don't do things you like, you have to do things I like
Ask me how I know you were the kid no-one wanted to play with

>>4394826
Wrong I never give people advice. I'm here to have fun.

>>4394830
Lol hoarder

>>4394841
I have no issue with hoarders, because >>4394840 they don't make trouble.

Brandfags, gearfags, and pretend-pros are the worst.

>>4394845
Doesn't mean you can't make fun of them. He can do what he wants, I don't give a shit if he's wasting his own money, but I'm still going to call him a spas and criticise his decisions.

>poorfags seething at others owning and using gear they enjoy
lol that's rich (not you, you're poor)

>>4394845
the worst are the ones that do shit like pay leica $4000 for leica brand gaussian blur and say it makes them a real artist, and then proceed to write some vile shit accusing people of being incapable of abstract thought

absolute worst
they are the photography version of men who think anyone gives a shit about their watch

>>4394851
Oh yes that kind of guy
>durrr if you dont own a rolex by 30 you are a failure of a man with no soul and you arent white
>-sent from my $250,000 cardboard house

>>4394848
But he doesn't use it, it's just a pile of trash collecting dust

>>4394855
Even better.

>>4394851
>has to buy their edits baked into the gear instead of doing them in the darkroom
>calls other people uncreative
Do photographers REALLY do this? Sad

>>4394827
Sorry to hear you are visually illeterate

>>4394571
is that the 150-450 on the top right
why lol

>>4394859
sorry to see you are visibly illiterate

>>4394894
sports and wildlife

e-waste collected

>>4394905
See, now that's actually kind of interesting as a collectors piece being the second four thirds body released and not having a regular pentaprism.

>>4394907
It's a pretty interesting little thing. The form factor is quite pleasing, it's a lot thicker than a camera of its size should be. I want to get a compact lens for it but I don't really want to pay for the Leica one.

>>4394858
>Film dial
Wtf am I looking at?

>>4394918
Basically a filter selection dial, they're "film simulations"

>>4394928
Oh damn, that sucks.

>>4394571

Too much shit.

I did a week in Ireland with nothing but a D800 without grip and 35 Smegma ART. I'm the biggest gigagearfag here and even I traveled light.

Don't be a gear nigger, I'd bring the digilol with a single 24-70 and the 67 with one lens. You don't need all that shit.

>>4394571
all of that to take sub quality pictures to post on 4chan

>>4394930
If it was a quick holiday sure, I'm going away for 5 months, and doing a semester of courses in photography. I get its a lot but it makes sense to me.

What are my options for FF bodies priced up to or around $2500? Decent battery life and handling is a must, don't really care for sports and wildlife features. Ideally 30MP and above...
I have a lot of good EF and old Nikkor Ai-S glass.
Pretty much just a7C II and a7 IV, right?

Is there some nice thing you can put on your hotshoe to hold a small LED light?

>>4394935
Just get a light meant for the hot shoe
Are you doing video? If not, why would you need one?

>>4394934
What are you interested in shooting anon?

A7c and A7 series are very different feeling cameras. Might even be worth looking into Nikon Zf

>>4394936
In Nordic countries it is dark most of the day this time of year. I was thinking I could still get some photos while exposing for a few minutes. The LED would help with composing before turning it off and opening the shutter.

>>4394935
dont ttartisan make an led light for hot shoes

>>4394938
If you are exposing for a few minutes, you don't need the flashlight.
Is it so dark you can literally not see at all through your camera? Because I can use all mine at night time without a flashlight no problem.
On camera constant lighting makes sense for video, not much else.

>>4394944
I pretty much can't see anything. I use a DSLR.

>>4394937
Travel, hiking, casual portraiture, social documentation, product and marketing, and film digitization, in that order of importance. Also want to get into printing.
As a result I tend to shoot in low light very often so I appreciate good stabilization, fast lenses, and noise performance at >1600 ISO. Battery life, build quality, and weather resistance are also important. Also need decent to good eye tracking AF.
The >=30MP requirement is to give me enough tolerance for cropping the edges of digitized film and some potential for decently sized prints.
I was given an X-T5 and it's almost perfect for my usage besides being APS-C and having weird RAW decoding no matter what software I try (compared to my traditional full frame DSLR which I'm trying to replace here). It also looks approachable which is a plus when taking pictures of people.

im genuinely considering buying a hassleblad just to shoot some instax

>>4394946
Can you post an example of the types of pictures you are taking? That are so dark you can't see at all?

>>4394571
Personally that load out seems a little light. I'd bring a few more lenses to really make sure all my bases are covered. Maybe 2 additional cameras that fit in your pocket nicely.

>>4394947
If it wasn't for the low light requirement I would say stick with the Fuji and get more into flash. I used a XT-4 once and it was good fun while still portable enough with primes.

If you're a big joystick and custom button autist I think go for the A7, if you can do without it I think the A7cii because it's more fun and incredibly light. But some people don't like the viewfinder in the A7C, the EVF is a lot worse than the A7IV and the XT-5. (big flippy screen somewhat makes up for it shooting in the dark).

Go to a brick and mortar shop and play around with them. Buying blind online you might be disappointed.

>>4394947
The a7c is the camera you will end up with regardless as you slowly realize most photographers just like playing with cameras and dont have their priorities straight. On full frame, the a7c series with sigma and sony’s stock of compact lenses is unbeaten and as close as you can get to a real film (as in, film in a modern SLR like the 1v or original alpha 9) replacement, and fuji is a terrible value proposition because their nornal cameras just exist to scam zoomers to fund GFX series R&D instead of to seriously compete with FF themselves. Fuji instead competes with 1970s film cameras for people who cant afford or figure out how to use them.

And then you’ll slowly stop taking it out unless to use a special lens and switch over to a rx100, ricoh GR or film PNS for most photography. You will then sell the a7c, to trade for a better body for all the special lens stuff like an a9ii (fyi, cheapest good sony with focus bracketing).

>>4394964
>Snoyphoto
Opinion discarded.

>>4394965
Canon and nikon are not even trying to make their shit smaller, and keep cutting dynamic range which is increasingly the only thing distancing real cameras from phones and compacts. They just want the newspaper photographer market because they genuinely believe hobbyists wont be around in 10 years.

Fuji does not have the funds to keep up with sony or the balls to abandon the xtrans mistake and its color resolution cut and weird nervous looking squiggly shit, which is why they seem to be aiming to switch to the studio wanker market and take advantage of hasselblads death and phase ones pricetags while the x100 trend is still pumping money in.

Sigma could have saved digital photography but didnt have the money so the future is phones running in 24/7 pixel shift mode. Panasonic and leica do not have the funds to compete and are essentially re-releasing sony cameras.

Ricoh has the GR and this camera for all its flaws remains unbeaten because sony couldnt build an RX1 series to last more than two years and unlike the fuji purse camera, actually fits in a pocket.

Cameras are dying, bruh, no cap. If you’re down to settle for the big camera segment and something less than the best sony has, you really might as well ignore mirrorless because the canon 6d is still good. And sony products other than the newer, g/gm lens, post 2019 body shit break on their own and have shit colors so you better like DSLRs. Lol. Beats spending $2000+ on second rate blobs and rattly plastic dials.

>>4394930
>tripfag opinion
Ok so do the exact opposite of whatever this guy says and maybe your photos will turn out alright.

>>4394969
its so funny the canon 1dxiii still shoots faster with flash sync than the $$$$ r1 and has better autofocus in low light studios with off camera flash enabled
you can leverage that to make capturing stunning fine art action portraits that todays available light mirrorless sports snappers just dont. canon cant beat themselves. cameras stagnated technologically and started focusing on being more accessible to interns in journalism.

>>4394975
>to make capturing stunning fine art action portraits that todays available light mirrorless sports snappers just dont
can you post some examples of this?

>>4394957
>some people don't like the viewfinder in the A7C, the EVF is a lot worse than the A7IV and the XT-5
Good to know, thank you for this info.
>>4394964
>switch over to a rx100, ricoh GR or film PNS for most photography
I already own a GRIIIx which is the reason the X-T5 was not originally in my shortlist. I made a place for the Fuji as a platform for casual shooting with adapted F glass, and the WR + excellent kit zoom made it a more attractive option for hiking in strange weather. On the last walk I had the GR in my pocket as a backup the whole time and didn't take it out once, nor wish I left the X-T5 at home.
So what I need is not necessarily another semicompact camera. I basically need a mirrorless version of my DSLR (5Dmk4) that fulfills the previously stated objectives.
>the a7c series with sigma and sony’s stock of compact lenses is unbeaten
E-mount is certainly attractive but if Canon comes out with an R6mk3 that's over 24MP then I would likely get that as I also value the perfect adaptability of my existing EF glass. The counterargument is that I could trade my Sigma 50/1.4 and 70/2.8 for the E-mount versions of the same and sell the 5D and remaining EF glass to recoup some of the cost of an A7Cii + an all-rounder zoom. See pic rel for context. At the same time I prefer Canon's handling and the only real thing giving me pause is their unwillingness to open the RF mount on full-frame.

>>4394989
Adapting DSLR lenses on mirrorless is a miserable and front heavy experience

>>4394985
Almost every decent dance photo, and every art study of an athlete in a studio, taken in the past 10 years was shot with reliance on high speed mechanical shutters to cut down on studio time ($$$$$$)

And it is genuinely sad that mirrorless cant beat a cheap 1dxii for this, and most mirrorless dont even AF as well as DSLRs in studio conditions with dim ambient light and a small aperture set on camera, even with exposure preview off.

This also has implications for trying to focus stack on living animals but that’s kinda gay. We lost some cool shit so newspaper homos could more reliably get ball catch/smack/toss moments at sportsball games. Instead canon is investing in on camera AI NR so sportsball shooters can keep their ISO at 12800.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4664
Image Height	6274
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2018:07:09 12:33:56
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	85.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	803
Image Height	1080
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4394991
I don't really care as the only time I would be adapting EF->mirrorless is for specific situations like product work or film digitization, neither of which require good portability (and in some cases it's not like the native mirrorless versions are any better - pic rel). Plus the Voigt 40/2 is a tiny lens even when adapted so there will be no issues there, and likewise the Nikkors are also small enough to be OK (as I find on the X-T5).

>>4394995
If its for scanning why does perfect adaptability matter? Perfect adaptability is for AF-C performance that can go beyond brides walking forward and maybe force an aging AF motor to get a 50% hit rate at a football fame, it matters less than you think. You could even put the lenses on a nikon in this case.

>>4394999
Not only scanning.
In this event I'd most likely sell the EF 24-105/4 (likely for a native 24-70/2.8) if it won't see use because as you say, it's front-heavy and will be especially so on mirrorless. But for all of my other lenses it is a non-issue and the reportedly excellent performance of EF->RF adaptation is just very nice to have. If I can get better AF performance with continuous eye-tracking out of my 50/1.4 while shooting wide open, why shouldn't I?

sony a6700 or lumix s5 ii?

>>4394993
I wanted some example pictures, not more claims and anecdote. The picture provided is with a 5DIV.
Is it your contention that a 5DIV will also outperform modern mirrorless?
I was hoping to see an image that a 1DXIII could take, that modern mirrorless could not, like you said. How about, could you just point me to some contemporary photographers using a 1DXIII for the types of shooting you mean? I can go research myself then.
>most mirrorless dont even AF as well as DSLRs in studio conditions with dim ambient light and a small aperture set on camera, even with exposure preview off.
Factually not true. An R8 has a 2-3EV advantage for lowlight AF over a 5DIV or 1DXII/III. Not all mirrorless focus stopped down either.

>>4394934
D800/D800e/F810
Ar that budget you could even get a D850 with some nice glass, though it's really no point in doing so.

>>4395019
It’s from a photographer that did a lot of his set with a 1dxII.

>believing low light AF figures
They make these with a f1.2 wide open.
Canon Rs focus stopped down. They will also automatically stop down even if you’re wide open if the lens is too soft for on sensor AF. Also, annoyingly, dual cross points are gone in lieu of whatever-detect.

>>4395042
You didn't answer my questions.
>Is it your contention that a 5DIV will also outperform modern mirrorless?
>could you just point me to some contemporary photographers using a 1DXIII for the types of shooting you mean?
Cool, well seems like 5DIV is also good enough for him too then. What's their info so I can do more research?
>They make these with a f1.2 wide open.
And? That's why said ~2-3EV because other Canons use f1.4.
Canon mirrorless have mixed AF stop down behavior, depending on the model and setting. Many are capable of focusing wide open.

>>4395050
It’s tyler stableford
>mixed AF behavior
This is a huge problem, if you’re really shooting in low light it needs to be configurable. DSLRs let you hard select between different AF mechanisms with their own pros and cons (live view AF is better for subject tracking and closeups, OVF AF is better for flash, high DR scenes, and low light). I have major doubts about the glories of RF mount, especially since the mirrorless are the same size as the DSLRs and could conceivably be repackaged as DSLRs, and for canon, lens performance hasn’t actually changed much. Sigma arts were the first modern mirrorless style lenses and went on mirror boxes no problem. Canon has only released one "rangefindery" lens design (rf 28 pancake), and the rest that used mirrorless quirks actually abused them by relying on live optical corrections to sell optically awful lenses like the 10mm zoom and 24mm f1.4 to name the most dramatic examples. They’re not improving, they’re cost cutting.

>>4395052
nikon took a dump too, and they knew it which is why they sold the d780 (corporate version of "oh god, we’re sorry, but the video surge and zoomer retardation plague is making us do it"). a couple of S lines are a bit better than F mount gold lenses but it’s all within what could have been done on a DSLR and most of the improvements are coming from new lens manufacturing technique. the dumb mounts sole contributions are negligibly less vignetting and less focus breathing (the video craze made them do it). sorry to canon RF bros, canon is so lazy the lenses now vignette noticeably more.

only sony improved because A mount and SLTs were awful and anything would have been better

>>4394973

I said the same thing as

>>4394588
>>4394591
>>4394798

are you implying they are wrong too or are you just looking for attention because you're a faggot

>>4395052
>It’s tyler stableford
Hmm, well his most recent stuff was with the R series, but he also kinda dropped photography in 2021 it seems
Not sure he's a good example for the state of modern mirrorless performance
Got anyone else? Or just more rambling claims and anecdotes?

>>4395057
I'm not implying anything. It's an objective fact that your photos are some of the most mediocre uninspired dogshit to ever be posted online and taking anything you say about the topic seriously is retarded.

>>4395106
You sound jealous.

Nikon FM for 20 bucks lets go.

>>4395106

The quality of my work has nothing to do with this thread and was never mentioned until you brought it up.

You have TDS, Trip Derangement Syndrome. The cure is to KYS.

>>4395149
Your results show how much your process and advice should be valued. You have GRD, generalised retardation disorder. The cure is to put your helmet back on and stay away from doorknobs.

>>4395152

ad hominem, good day sir

>>4395153
>a-ad h-hominem!!!
Says the guy giving you driving advice from the window of a car rolled into a ditch. Retard.

>>4395154
You have mentally lost it. Get BTFO'd

>>4395057
>tripfag accusing others of attention seeking while mass replying in hopes of getting (You)s
ISHYGDDT

>>4395155
>arguing with a pigeon
Do not post here again.

my copy of the sirui 40 came in today, pretty neat
af is totally fine during actual recording, but kinda noisy when not recording
or taking stills with af-c, af-s is fine
surprisingly light weight, bulk feels just about right

>>4395175
Noob here but what's the guys phone attached to the rig for? What's the other thing?

Is the camera screen not good enough ?

>>4395176
No.

>>4395176
In this case, mostly larger screen. Some cameras lack video features like waveforms, false color, anamorphic de-squeeze (relevant with this lens), previewing LUTs, etc, that a secondary screen can assist with. Could also use it as a secondary recording or streaming the camera footage. Orange is an NP-F style battery, just to keep the camera/phone going all day.
For what he was doing, not sure it makes much sense to me to rig like that.

What should I grease a focus ring on an old MF lens with? It's really slow, presumably because the grease went bad with age.
The only thing that could work which I have is brass instrument tuning valve grease.

>>4395552

Japan Hobby Tool #10 or #30 for most lenses. You will have to do a full disassembly and remove all the old grease, I use naptha or WD40 to remove the old grease and Japan Hobby Tool helicoid grease.

You want to specifically use helicoid grease because it doesn't outgas when it gets hot and won't leak down into the aperture.

Which lens is this?

Just put in an order for a Ricoh GR IIIx HDF to complement my GR III. Wont get filled until Jan 6 most likely.

>>4395645
This one
>>4395216
>>4394422
>>4394420
I finally managed to take it apart yesterday after much hammering and repeatedly dousing the screws in penetrating oil. Picrel is photo of my monitor (featuring some random image from /fgt/) I took with it pressed against my nikon DLSR in mirrorless mode.
>Japan Hobby Tool helicoid grease
Hmm, I'll try to find something locally (cz), though it's often a pain when I don't know the common translation.

So if I have a lot of EF glass I should just buy a mirrorless Canon and use the adapter?

>>4395729
If you’re just going to use EF glass then why upgrade to mirrorless? That being said if you’re going to do that you don’t necessarily need to upgrade to canon mirrorless, they make EF adaptors with autofocus and everything for Z mount, E mount.

>>4395725

Hand cream with over 50 percent petrolatum would work, something like Cera Vie, I did one lens with it for fun to see if it would work and it's going on two years now, no outgassing or anything.

is the kit lens on the a7c2 any good?

>>4396589
>24-50 f/2.8
Only if you're planning on vlogging handheld. I'd get a 24-70 for photography.

>>4396590
ah good point, thanks

>>4396589
Not really. The 24-50 f2.8 just feels pointless. It's only covers two focal lengths that are normal to most people. 24mm (iphone lensfov ) to 50mm (average camera). might as well get a common 50mm f1.8 and a 24mm f2.8 that would take up just as much space as the zoom. The other $1000ish compact sony G zooms are more exciting.
>16-35 f4 PZ
16-35 f4s-types are always great lenses, the whole industry has these figured out. sony, canon, and nikon's are all amazing and it's a very useful lens that covers all 3 common wide angle prime focal lengths. 16-35 f2.8s are always fucking massive, and you probably won't care about the aperture because wide angle lenses can get away with slower shutter speeds and the bokeh is pretty similar. pair with a longer prime to cover more telephoto FOVs, the bokeys, and high shutter speeds in low light.
>20-70 f4
ever so slightly bigger than the 16-25. a little less fast but you usually shoot f2.8s and f4-f8 anyways and the wider focal range is unique, like a mirrored 24-120. pair with a faster general purpose prime lens to make up for the huge low light difference, or, don't if it doesn't bother you.
>16-25 f2.8
huge fucking cope but i'm not going to lie the 16-35 f2.8 is fucking massive and $1000 more, so there's an appeal to astrophotography hiking fags (comfy camera on strap, vs, can be used as a weapon) who mostly shoot at 16mm and 24-28mm (close enough)

>>4396591
the 24-70 f2.8 gm ii is the smallest 24-70, but it still dwarfs the a7c. the handling/travel (and price) difference between it and the short range/f4 zooms is as noticeable as the feel difference between zooms and smaller primes.

>>4396589
Based Ted's enjoyer.

The 28-60mm Sony kit lens is really good, but idk if Ted's packages that one. You can also get it for a lot cheaper from DigiDirect, that's where I got mine about a year ago.

https://www.digidirect.com.au/sony-fe-28-60mm-f-4-5-6-lens

Unironically a good kit lens, not amazing, but it'll keep you going until you decide to get a prime lens or something like a Tamron zoom lens.

>>4396590
I'd argue a 24-70 is pretty limting, and not much better than a 24-50. The only redeeming (saar) quality of 24-70 lenses are the ones that have wide apertures like f/2.8, otherwise you're cucking yourself until you get something more like a 24-105; the extra 20mm going from 50 to 70 isn't really that much and it might just be smarter to buy a telephoto zoom on top of the kit zoom

>>4396647
75mm was traditionally a normal focal length like 40mm, only japs dont like making them. It was more of a european style (hence the superior sovl).

>>4396647
>70 to 105
Mild crop and not as cool as 135mm, only nikon figured out that 24-120mm and 0.5x macro is the minimum. Might as well buy an 85mm f1.8 otherwise, close enough reach much better speed.
>20mm
Literally unheard of in a zoom that is constant aperture and goes past 60mm

20-70 f4 is a winner

>>4396589
>>4396590
>>4396595
>>4396647
why not go for a 28-75mm, the tamron is slightly bigger than the sigma and sony but you get extra reach.

75mm at 2.8 makes for nice portraits. It's why I've not bothered to buy a cheap 85mm prime.

>muh weight

if that’s an issue pick up that tiny 28-60mm kit lens for $200

>>4396672
>why not buy a larger rattly flat rendering scamron for your premium ff compact
more like why isnt your first lens a small voigtlander, G series or sigma I series prime

if this is only a hobby or a side gig instead of a career as a studio or art photographer you should think of zooms as a garbage bin of primes you’d never bring with you or even buy. i always use 40mm so my prime is a 40mm. i like 20, 24, 28, 50, and 75 but shant be buying a staircase of primes so the 20-70 is my garbage bin lens for landscapes and other peoples requests because it takes up as much space as 1 or 2 primes (its just 1/2” longer than the 20mm f1.8) but does the job of at least 4
a wedding photographers favorite prime is usually going to be an 85mm so a 24-70 is the group/pair portrait and venue snapshit garbage bin for example, or they like 50mm so their garbage bins are a 16-35 and a 70-200 (covers 85 and 135)

>>4396676
>bro unless you're a pro wedding photog don't buy a zoom!!!

retarded advice

I shot a punk gig recently with 28-75mm and I had basically everything covered, f2.8 covers low light fine on FF.

Imagine trying to pocket 3 different primes or a faggot tier lens manbag and trying to swap out lenses with dust/beer/bodily fluids everywhere. Actually I had a friend try this recently with an ancient DSLR and his shit got wet in light rain so he couldn't shoot anything anyway.

>>4396686
>i did this niche semi-professional photography and found a professional lens useful.
Yeah that’s why boring and mildly big standard zooms exist, event coverage. But they’re not very fun for, yknow, having fun. I like the slower wider ranging ones because i’d rather shoot outdoor graduation portraits with fill flash than fuck around at events and the added range makes them more fun for non-professional work aka 90% of what I do because professional photography is soul sucking beer money work

>>4392821
I can grab a new a7cii for $1,300. Worth doing?

I have an a7ii now and am mostly happy with it outside of the slow autofocus and poor battery life. Sounds like the a7cii would fix this.

>>4396807
Batteries are small and cheap. If you aren't doing sports or wildlife don't bother upgrading just for AF, you should be refining with MF for static subjects anyway.

>>4396807
Thats a crazy deal and you should take it just to sell it for $1600 if nothing else, but it is a much better camera. Better colors better sensor better autofocus better battery better build quality (sony has actual weather sealing now).

>>4392877
cope. you are mad because you are poor

>>4394678
$300 for a SLR body and lens from Minolta AF system and you'll body some shit Fuji APSC. Don't fall for the digital meme.

Am I retarded or is this a redpilled move?
I'm obsessed with the idea of using the same lenses for film and digital, but adapting (D)SLR lenses to mirrorless is cringe, with the huge difference in flange distance.
What if I sold all my shit and got an M-mount film camera and some tiny primes, an adapter, and any modern mirrorless in Z/RF/E mount? It sounds kino but what's the catch?
>lose weather resistance
>no EXIF
anything else?

>>4396896
You can do it on F mount with no adapter at all. I do and it is convenient. Honestly, rangefinders seem rather limiting.

>>4396898
I don't want to use a DSLR with manual focus lenses. It is nigh unusable compared to mirrorless. Yes I have tried it.

>>4396899
The focus confirmation dot works for me pretty well for me, on a 105 too, not just wide angle. But you could get a split image focusing screen, if that doesn't work for you.

>>4396896
That's basically what I did. Shot m-mount for film and then those same lenses on mirrorless.
Zf + TTArtisan 6-bit adapter is the best option. Favorite set-up I've used, and hands down best MF experience for adapted M.

>>4396896
Apparently mirrorless sucks for M mount lenses, some more than others, due to how close the rear element is to the sensor and the extreme angle that light comes in. Why not just get a digital Leica? And at that point why bother with film at all?

>>4396906
It's more like stock Sony sensors (you can have them modded), suck for most wider angle M lenses. It's not much an issue if you shoot mostly 28mm and up. Even if then, some like the voigt 15mm in m mount works just fine on Sony.

>>4396906
To be fair I am fairly deep into vintage F and modern EF at the moment so maybe I should just bite the fat adapter bullet or stop worrying about digi+film system compatibility altogether. Leica digital M is cool and all but has its issues + is mega expensive. If I sell all my camera gear I could afford one body and a couple of Voigtlanders.

>>4396908
afaik some canons have this issue too

>>4396909
My advice is let mounts stay native, adapting stuff never really works right so if you want a digital/film combo of nikon F and canon EF lenses then you should stick to cameras that natively mount those.

Also, sharing lenses between digital and film is a bit overrated, I've been doing it with my nikon system and its not really that much more convenient and instead i've locked myself into nikon rather than testing out new systems

Don't get into M mount stuff unless you got a huge boner for rangefinders, it is NOT worth it otherwise.

>>4396916
Older R bodies are worse than Sony, but newer R bodies are better. Z is still the best outside of actual Leica bodies.
Hard disagree on M, has the best compact performing lenses, and you can adapt them to just about anything.

>>4396916
I don't currently adapt F to EF. My SLR and DSLR setups are completely separate, and I am looking to add a mirrorless camera.
The main draw of adapting M to mirrorless for me is the improved portability over adapting F. Hence considering whether it's worth getting into.
>SLR glass->mirrorless:
>only additional purchases for me would be a milc and a couple adapters
>SLR lenses will be front-heavy and long on the milc
vs
>M->mirrorless:
>would need to purchase M glass, M film body, milc, and adapters
>but both setups will be nicely portable

>>4396923
While you can adapt M glass to anything its also kinda expensive for what you get (500+ dollars for completely manual glass thats not even fast?) plus the aforementioned issues with some bodies which does shrink the pool of bodies decent for adapting. Like, would you really want to adapt lenses to a body where they'll look really weird and sometimes outright bad?

>>4396926
Well, all I can say is do research which bodies give you the best performance if you're gonna go the mirrorless/film M route. Alternatively just go balls to the wall with a digital leica, those M typ 240's look pretty tasty, you can even stick an EVF on them

>>4396923
>Hard disagree on M, has the best compact performing lenses, and you can adapt them to just about anything.
Sony has better compact lenses, with AF, and you don't need to adapt them because they're native to the best bodies

>>4396937
It's not as cheap as Chinese glass, sure.
>would you really want to adapt lenses to a body where they'll look really weird and sometimes outright bad?
No, which is why I recommended the Zf. Again, even with Sony it may not be an issue at all depending on the lens.

>>4396940
Which e-mount film body would recommend the OP gets to use with them?
I agree Sony has some of the best compact AF lenses, but M still has great options that can be more compact and/or better optically.

>>4396943
He could just finally let film go, not really any point to shoot it if he had a decent FF digital body.

>>4396943
Why shoot film? You’re just going to scan it with a camera (flatbeds are also cameras, just small shitty ones with auto stitch) and go
>wao film looks as good as a camera

>>4396961
>>4396967
Sometimes a nigga just wanna shoot film, jeez

>>4396967
>>4396961
Who cares, why? I made the same switch and don't shoot film anymore, but it's just silly to assume everyone else has the same preferences as you do

>>4396973
Everyone ends up with similar preferences eventually

Some people prefer to eat dirt but with literacy and an education they would cut back significantly

>>4396973
Because not only is he going to compromise by shooting film, by wanting to share lenses between the two he's also going to compromise his digital experience.

>>4396976
What cameras do you use?
>>4396981
Compromise to you, not a compromise for others

>>4396942
Im not saying its a bad idea, just that the options arent all that vast as they appear

>>4396902
nta, but which lenses would you recommend? i'm a couple steps away from buying something m-mount for my own zf (size + iq seems pretty hard to beat)

>>4396896
>buzzwords
>want to do a thing that many people do without an issue
>no, not like that. I need to be a retarded faggot about it
There is zero chance that you're ever going to buy shit let alone take photos with it.

>>4397038
That sounds pretty based to me...

>>4397038
Nice bait, but I'll bite anyway.
What's wrong with wanting to optimize things? I already shoot a lot but I'm not satisfied with the potential direction my gear setup is going in.
Nothing wrong with trying to get more value for money using lenses that are typically very compact and have potential compatibility beyond only canikony mirrorless.

Thoughts on a6000 + 2 kit lenses (16-50 and 55-200) for $400?

>>4397210
Depends on your user case and budget, but you get good reach for the money.

>>4397213
saw it cheap on facebook marketplace, thought it would be nice to hold me over until i save up more/find a good deal on a a7iv + tamron 28-200 or 50-300mm lens

honestly dont think i need it

>>4397241
Those ancient snoys are built like crap anyways. Might as well buy a micro four thirds like an em5iii.

Anyone here ever seen a Bowens mount adapter that has generic screw points at its base? I'd like to mount Bowens modifiers to a light I made myself. All the adapters are too narrow to slip on to the heat sink.

>>4397167
>I'm not satisfied with the potential direction my gear setup is going in.
>I need to optimise
What you need to do is take fucking photos and stop posting absolutely faggoty shit about gear you're not even going to use. Just listen to yourself holy shit.

>>4397243
lets not go that far a6000 still isnt that far behind a a6400/a6700

Has anyone bought rented gear from lensrentals? Seems nice to be able to save the rental fee if I want to try something out but are the offers they give you fair at all?

>>4397210
I think that's an alright deal

does anyone know what kind of cine camera is this? it looks like black magic cinema camera 6k but the top plate and exhaust vent doesn't match

>>4397755
That's looking at the bottom and left side (when viewed from the rear) of the body, notice how we see all the ports under the flaps, so you won't see the vent or top. It certainly looks like Blackmagic's design language but I can't nail down the exact model. When I Google Blackmagic pocket I see ones that look very similar and are labelled as the cinema pocket 6k, but when I Google that instead it looks nothing like it. They have so many fucking bodies with dumb names I just don't know. Pic related though. I did see some from another angle (can't find them again) and it looked like that separate panel below the vent was a slightly different shape compared to your photo.

>>4397755
>>4397766
Also looking at it now it's clear that the left side of the body with the ports doesn't stick out as much from the lens mount on the body you posted, so it's not the same as whatever it is I posted.

>>4397755
It's just the older 6k, not Pro/G2

>>4397766
>>4397767
>>4397776
i can see it now
thank you so much anons.

I'm generally not that gear-oriented but recently I've been hankering for a DSLR. Something about the big clunk, OVF and a bit to hold on to.
Would I be making a mistake to get a Canon 6D and a 50 1.8?
Pic unrelated, just a piece of shit of a camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2492
Image Height	1660
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4397846
That's a good camera. But since you're a bit of an autist about camera noises (lgbtq keyboard checks ou), you can get basically the exact same camera with more clunking in the form of a d750 for like $400 and the same 2 lenses in the form of the 35mm f2 af-d and af-s 50mm f1.8 G.

How, you ask?
Cameras haven't actually changed except for size, framerates, and video codecs since the d750 came out.

But since you can't take a good picture with an a7c you're probably going to buy 3 more cameras after the d750 before buying a leica and realizing you just suck

is there any actually good comparison done between 35mm summaron f2.8 and f3.5?
all i can find is literal whos saying expensiver good, cheaper bad

>>4397910
I've owned a shed load of cameras in the last 15 years including three Leicas. Starting to put more enjoyment into the taking than the actual result meaning Sony is out.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	RICOH GR IIIx
Camera Software	RICOH GR IIIx Ver. 1.41
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	71 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:29 13:27:22
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	26.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3360
Image Height	2240
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

>>4397917
>phone.jpg
>i take crappy photos so i want to retreat into camera fiddling
boy do i have the camera and location for you
get this, a 4x5 view camera
and a dilapidated farm in the northwestern US

endless fiddling, boatloads of settings, all retro without a single modern design cue anywhere, and if anyone questions you, ask them to post their large format shots and claim its 500mp. they can't!

Is there a simple mid grade camera I should buy to take with me on an overseas vacation in a few months? Or should I stick to my phone (iPhone 13 Pro Max, picrel)? Would it make a noticeable difference if I'm not really trained or practiced in photography?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	paint.net 4.3.12
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi

>>4397921
the bare minimum to cover basically all photography and beat your phone is probably an olympus e-m5 iii (or e-m1 ii) + 12-45 f4 + fl-lm3, its still really limiting in the dark without flash or long ass exposures. pick up a cheap f1.8 prime maybe. most people would prefer a slightly larger and more expensive aps-c ie: sony a6600, fuji x-t4

the most important hardware feature to beat/compare to your phone is IBIS. phones have good stabilization, an ibis-less canon with only lens IS is not good enough anymore and needs a tripod.

A day playing with aperture priority and manual mode on a mirrorless is all the training you need, practice on your cat/dog
shooting raw to get the most out of an ILC (do white balance and color adjustments, noise reduction, gradient filters etc) is piss easy too, turn it to raw, install the manufacturers recommended raw editor, and copy the files off the sd card

>>4397924
Thanks, man. Appreciated

>>4397919
Rent free

>>4397846
>>4397910
>D750
There is absolutely no reason to get a D750 over a cheaper, sturdier and higher megapickels D800 or D810, other than a flippy screen.

>>4397932
d810 costs more retard

>>4397934
Not in my experience. Either way, the D800 is virtually identical and costs much less.

>>4397846
>>4397910
If you do end up going there, I'd recommend the 105 f/2.5 over the 50. Solid feel, reasonable size, butter smooth, long focus throw and - importantly - great results. There's a reason why everyone praises this lens.

>>4397932
A flippy screen will add more to your life than 12 megapixels aka nothing perceptible. no more laying in mud for low angles.

The d750 controls are also better (canon clone), nikons mode button interface sucked and no camera should ever have a wb button

>>4397957
The D750 is supposed to have significantly better low light performance. I haven't used the D800 so I can't compare, but I've taken some really nice photos (of people) in minimal light, so I wouldn't trade.
>but flash
Ah yes, I forgot, that would make dimly fire lit scene so much better.

>>4397960
Iso controls on D750 layout suck dick. The button is much harder to find by feel and it's right below photo quality button, so it's relatively easy to accidentally loop around from raw+jpg high to jpg low. But it's fine if you just stick to auto iso. Other than that, there's just minor things, like it would be nice if the MF indicator wasn't limited to single focus point. Few places where you suspect product segmentation.

Interesting. Glad I have been holding off on picking up a Z8.

>>4397978
>90mp
If you thought 61mp sony was bad
>pixel pitch too fine for all but the best GM lenses, anything else looks hazy and resizing doesnt magically fix it without very careful pre and post sharpening tweaks
>so fine you can pixel peep to detect sensor/mount parallelism issues (which are near universal to all mass produced cameras) and minute amounts of decentering and tilt in lenses from everyday use
>SO fine previously invisible coma and CA are now there and dont just resize out
>chroma noise at base ISO, noise per pixel effect on demosaicing fucks color accuracy sideways at higher ISOs (already noticeable with the z6ii vs the a7iv vs the z7ii vs the a7rv)
Anything over 36mp should maintain the same pixel pitch and just get a bigger sensor. Fuji G mount primes are all basically giant sony GMs and even they are perceived as just pretty good because its the a7riv’s pixel pitch (with better heat dissipation)

I just bought a Pentax KF (identical to K70 other than the rear screen and aperture solenoid issue) with the 18-55 Kit Lens for $340

What's the downsides of trying to use 10+ year old SLR and early DSLR lenses on it? There's a lot of older Pentax and Sigma/Tamron Zoom Lenses for DIRT cheap. Like $20-50.

All sizes too, I'm looking at Tamron 278D 80-210mm F4.5-5.6, Sigma 55-200 f4-5.6, and at the higher end of the price range Tamron AF 18-250mm f3.5-6.5 (this was used by Pentax at one point).

I'm guessing they're not gonna be as sharp or the AF is gonna suck vs newer lenses?

just missed a snoy a7c w/28-70mm lens auction that sold for $830 on ebay gonna kill myself

>>4397997
Well that sort of resolution on a crop body can be pretty demanding of lenses (equivalent to a 54mp full frame sensor, which is near the upper end), older lenses just aren't designed for it. You may still be pleased with the results but you'd be far from making full use of what it's capable of. You'll be wanting to look for the higher end stuff, which I think is FA* and DA* with Pentax (I'm not an expert on that), like lenses with a fast f/2.8 aperture that you can then stop down for more sharpness. One thing you have going for you is you have one of the few DSLRs that have image stabilisation built into the body so you can use slower shutter speeds.

>>4398001
Yeah the DA* lenses are priced accordingly. As much as the high end lenses from CanoSnoyikon ($500-1000). Even the PLM lenses are a decent chunk, the 55-300mm PLM WR is a must-have for Pentaxians shooting distance since it has the best AF and sharpness but its still $260 used/$380 new (same price as the Nikon Z DX 50-250mm I bought a few months ago).

I was gonna try to make do with something like this

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-80-210mm-1-4-5-5-6.html

^^ is $20-40

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-55-200mm-f4-5-6-dc.html

^^ is $60

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tamron-af-18-250mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-ld.html

^^ is $100, pretty sure this was rebadged by Pentax

https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/sigma-28-200mm-f3-5-5-6-dg.html

^^ $30-40, pretty sure this was also rebadged by Pentax and sold under their name

I think I'm gonna pick up the 80-210, 55-200, and maybe the 28-200 since I can probably get them for $100 total

>>4397978
lol

>>4398005
Kek

I guess I will post this in the gear and film threads. I have some old EF mount (yes, EF not EF-S) from when I had an aps-c rebel in college for film class. I saw that you can use EF lenses on film bodies so I just ordered a rebel 2000 off ebay for like $50 with batteries and shipping. how good/shitty is the auto focus and light meter? I'm trying to decide if I want the camera or if I am going to give it to my brother for his birthday. I feel like if I am going to take a camera I can't fit in my pocket I'd rather just take the 645 SLR I have. My 645 has manual lenses and full stop exposure comp and shutter and half stop lenses, so its kind of shit at slide film. idk what cameras my little brother has but I know he has a K1000 I bought him for his birthday one year and I think he has a range finder and was looking into 120 cameras. I think the rebel 2000 (it hasn't arrived yet) has 1/2 stop exposure and shutter speeds so would it be good at shooting slides or in low light or some other scenario I haven't thought of that would make it have a niche? right now I am thinking of just giving it to him and telling him to use it as a beater/so he can have a different kind of film loaded.

>>4397987
What? I thought that you want the sensor to outresolve the lenses, rather than the outer way round.

>>4398049
NTA, but a higher sampling rate means you're getting more noise at pixel level (and effects like fringing). To recover a good image from that means you need image processing that effectively blurs out the noise.

Much easier to have the lens slightly outresolve the sensor.

>>4398054
Which will then lead to more moire. But yeah, I guess it depends on your priorities too. If you slightly outresolve the lens, you could downsample that to near foveon-like full color 20MP, except with much higher usable iso. But that won't work if you need the resolution.

>>4398057
Yes. Point being that for sensor size+lens combo, there's a sensor megapixel sweet spot. Makes no sense to have 40MP on a crop Fuji with soft lenses, because everything is already blurry (lol filmic) at 24mp.

If you need more resolution from a given sensor, pixel shift or stitching is the practical solution. If you need less noise, pixel averaging.

I think I'm going to sell most of my kit. Is MPB a scam? I put the stuff into KEH and it seemed like a scam. I want to reduce my kit to just the 75mm and 150 mm for 645 and 20mm, 75mm and 60mm macro for micro43

>>4398087
What do you mean by scam? Are they not offering you enough?
I thought about getting more money for the stuff I'm not using any more, but then I realized that if I sell right now and immediately put it into BTC / MSTR / ... I'll very likely have more by end of the year than if I spend time and energy to sell it for more money, so that's what I'll be doing this weekend.

>>4398102
the keh offers seemed crazy low compared to ebay listings

>>4398109
Sounds reasonable, they're a business that has to make a profit and they do a lot of testing before reselling to other people. If you want quick cash you sell to a pawn shop, if you want decent money then you take the time and effort to sell it yourself.

>>4398111
it seemed pretty crazy, like offering $30 for a lens going for $200 on ebay. like at that point its almost like why bother selling it (that lens was one that came with the camera off ebay, the guy who sold it must have been into landscape photography)

>>4397959
I don't know what I'd shoot with a 105mm. 50m is consistently the most versatile for me.

>>4398087
Welcome to used resellers.
>>4398112
Because it's a quick, guaranteed sale with little to no effort involved.

>>4398123
nta but how is it any less effort than listing a no returns ebay listing for 75% of average? i get notified for listings like that all the time and they're often sold out by the time i'm awake and clicking in the email. i wouldn't call it a scam but it's a bad deal no doubt.

>>4397959
>>4398122
that seems like a weird jump from a 50mm to a 105mm. 35-55mm is a normal "normal" lens. 85-135mm and you are in the portrait telephoto range

Just sold my X-T4 +35mm f1.4 for a Ricoh and a Canon 6D and a 50mm 1.8.
I hope this scratches my itch where sometimes I really want a viewfinder, other times I want a pocketable camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Comment	Screenshot
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1174
Image Height	494
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4398129
my GAS basically entirely went away when I bought a 120 camera. now I don't see the point of anything I can't fit in my pocket when the other option is medium format film

>>4398138
Post photos.

>>4398138
>when the other option is paying $3 per shot of 45mp full frame at iso 3200 and no lenses faster than f1.4
Medium format died sooner than 35mm for a reason
Crappy cameras too

>>4398140
In UK it's more like £5 per shot. Fuck that.

>>4398140
film looks better than digishit, 120 looks better than 35mm
>>4398139

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Epson
Camera Model	PerfectionV600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 8.0 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2018:11:05 17:45:20
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4398140
>>4398146
where are you getting these numbers? its less than $1 per shot

>>4398148
My local photo place charges £23 for a develop and scan and film here is £20+ per roll.

>>4398147
That photo gives me GAS for you.

>>4398124
An eBay customer can still fight you on "no returns", and eBays cut. I'd much rather spend 1-2hrs packing and shipping one box of items, then spend weeks monitoring many different sales, and having to handle shipping for them individually. I've done lots of piecemeal selling on Craigslist, but now that I don't have to min/max on $, I just want things gone as convenient as possible.
Keh also visits stores for purchasing events, so you can just drop off what you want and get a check that day.
Less hassle is worth less money, for me.

>>4398147
This is "better than digital"? It looks like you dipped a nikon d40 in vaseline.

>>4398147
so this is the power of 120?
lol

>>4398147
Waste of film

>>4398151
>>4398172
>>4398178
>>4398179
>post photo
>troon seethe
this is why no one posts photos

>>4398178
That is in fact the power of 120
The majority of 120 roll film cameras and their lenses are physically incapable of meeting the films resolution. It will often look significantly worse than 35mm with modern optics and more like a deep crop of some mediocre 4x5 shooting because of all the misalignment involved in average 120 gear. The DOF to FOV is also going to be the exact same as 35mm, because no one ever made MF lenses equivalently faster than their 35mm counterparts.

The only thing you really get is less noticeable grain clumps. hence how often it looks like shitty digital, the only thing that differentiates film from digital without pixel peeping to the extreme is the visibility of emergent patterns in the grain.

The only time anyone has ever shown 6x7 film being as high resolution and 3d poppy as it should be, they used a mamiya 7 system and did and redid their own drum scans in pursuit of perfection. Now look at the price of the full system (mamiya 7 and heidelberg tango) and tell me you believe it's an 80mp camera, lmao.

>>4398180
>Seethe
I am just sad man.
No composition, no thought behind the shoot, and you were too much of a coward to approach the guy and get a proper portrait, you were a coward and took his photo from the other side of the street.

And you think your photo is good just because it was on 120

>>4398185
>>4398181
keep seething troon

>>4398180
you have to be real insecure to really care what someone here thinks about your photos
it's a fine photo, not a good example to highlight the quality 120 offers, or do you think it is?

>>4398122
>>4398125
I was assuming >>4397910 who advised getting 35 f2 and a 50. I'm suggesting to get the 35 and 105 instead. 50 is a good only lens, but if you get 2 lenses, it's better to get 1 wider and 1 longer lens.
>I don't know what I'd shoot with a 105mm
Portraits, landscape, whatever requires a little more reach. If you need more context, that's what the 35 is for. 85 is probably a bit more versatile than 105, I just recommended that one, because it has good reputation and feels nice in hand.
>35-55mm is normal "normal" lens
Exactly. That's why it's silly to have a 35 and a 50 as the only 2 lenses.

>>4398206
I don't care what yuros say. I just thing 120 looks better than digishit

>>4398209
>>4397910
>>4398122
That makes more sense. Anon should RENT, not buy, RENT a 50mm and 35mm and then purchase which ever one he likes better

I want to shoot panoramas, but xpans and tx-1s are overpriced. Am I doomed to use some shitty mask/crop adapter that wastes half of my film, or can I expect something that uses the full height of 35mm film for panos to come out anytime soon?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS5 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1548
Image Height	2178
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2013:07:19 12:24:23
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1549
Image Height	2179

>>4398256
I think they already make tripods anon

>>4398256
Buy a digital camera and crop to 1:2 (cant with film because its just 6mp)

tempted to try a sony alpha a390 for the last of the ccd sensor cameras, $2-300 on ebay atm

>>4398256
6x12 back + view camera. 6x12 backs are kind of expensive, but not really overpriced.

They sell relatively inexpensive 3D printed panoramic cameras as well, but they're limited to the lens they're designed for. Usually the 3d printer guy can make a longer or shorter camera based on what focal length/lens you want to use.

>>4398276
>half-frame is 3mp
truly the snapshits of photography world

>>4398320
>3mp half frame still looks better than any mft camera

Truly the overpriced smartphone on wheels of the photography world

>>4398325
>literally no one
>brings up mft
Who are you quoting? I don't think anyone has ever claimed such a thing besides yourself.

>>4398326
Incorrect. Everyone with eyes can see the obvious truth.

>>4398329
Feel free to prove me wrong but I am pretty sure you are just making things up.

>>4398333
Cast pearls before swine? I think not.

>>4398335
Ok so you were just trolling, egg on my face ig. Have a good evening.

how many lenses do you fags have per camera?

>>4398364
2-5 for most, but I have like 10+ large format lenses.

>>4398364
Two - A standard zoom and a fast prime

>>4398364
of what i actually use, 6 bodies + 23 lenses
id always want at least two for anew system, a 28mm and 50mm

>>4398364
for my two srt bodies I have 8 lenses
28 f/2.5
50 f/1.7
50 f/2
100 macro f/4
135 f/3.5
500 mirror f/8
100 bellows macro f/4
28-210 zoom f/3.5-f/5.6
I guess its 9 if you count the 2x teleconverter.

>>4398364
Those I plan to keep: 17, 24, 35, 50, 100 (macro), 105, 180, 28-70
but they're shared between film and digital, so technically, that's 4 per camera.
I plan to sell 28-200 (came with film body) and 70-300. And some APS-C shit I started with.

>>4398364
16-35
55
90 macro
135
70-200
150-500
500 mirror

I don't actually use the latter, I just got it for the collection because it was really cheap and is kind of interesting being the only AF full frame mirror lens. I may end up getting a wide to normal zoom at some point.

>>4398364
2 for my s5
1 for my em10
1 for my km (the film one not the digital one)

debating getting an 85mm or 42.5mm for either for portraits but thinking about selling both and buying into Sony instead because of better lens selection

>>4398364
I have an F65, an F80 and a D800 and all share my 7 lenses

>>4398364

At risk of being trolled into the Cretaceous period, here goes nothing:

Nikon AF
14/2.8 EX
16/2.8 D Fisheye
20/1.8 EX
24/1.8 EX
28/1.8 EX
35/1.4 Art
55/2.8 AF Macro-Nikkor
50/1.4 Art
85/1.4D Nikkor
100/2.8 Tokina Macro
135/2 DC
180/3.5 Tamron Macro
15-30/2.8 VC
24-70/2.8 ED
70-200/2.8 ED VR2
200-500/5.6 ED VR

Nikon F3 w/MD-4
17/4 Noritar
20/3.5 UD
28/2 NC
28/2.8 Nikkor 8-element
35/2 O
50/1.2 AI-s
55/2.8 Macro AI-s w/PK-13
85/1.8 pre-AI
105/2.5 pre-AI and AI-s
135/2.8 Steinheil Munchen
300/2.8 ED
28-90 VS1
70-210/3.5 Tamron BBAR

Nikonos II

15/2.8
28/3.5
35/2.5

35mm RF Leningrad and Canon 7

15/4.5 Voigtlander
20/5.6 Russar
28/6 Orion
35/2.8 Jupiter-12
50/1.5 Jupiter-3
85/2 Jupiter-9 (from anon on 4chan!)
135/4 Jupiter-11

50/2 Summitar
90/4 Elmar
135/4.5 Hektor

Beseler Topcon RE-Super

28/2.8 Vivitar
35/2.8
58/1.4
100/2.8
135/3.5
180/3.5 Red V
35-105 Vivitar

Kodak Retina-Reflex IV and III

28/4
35/2.8
50/1.8
50/2.8
85/4
135/4
200/4

MF RB67
50/4.5
90/3.8
150/4 SF
180/4.5
250/4.5

LF
90/5.6 SW ED
180/5.6 and 315/11 convertible

>but shooger why all the Nikon prime lenses with those awesome zooms

Many of those were bought specifically for use in a pair of Ikelite housings I have for D700 and D800, if I weren't doing UW I would probably have a 1/3 of those lenses, probably the two Arts, the 85 and 135 DC and the zoom lenses.

Many of these were bought to learn camera repair and I never sold them, the Beseler kit had a slow shutter and most of the lenses needed full CLA, same with the manual focus Nikon stuff and 35mm RF

>hurr you still suck

Yeah but I'm having fun and I've learned a hell of a lot about camera repair, I've made thousands fixing other people's shit because of these. I have two full CLA early Bronicas, an F3 and Canon 70-200 f4L IS waiting for a camera shop in SLC once the weather fucks off.

>>4398197
sex

i used to have 2 of these softboxes with one big bulb for each and took comfy pictures indoor of people.
Would you recommend me these since i don't wanna mess with flash..or some other variation of softboxes ?
mainly for still portraits of cute waifus

>>4398432
Just get one giant softbox. I'm talking 6 feet or bigger.

>>4398434
i think i will get this one. it attaches 4 bulbs
+ i have a big ass umbrella that i can attach on this one too

>>4396807
>a7cii for $1,300

So I grabbed it.

Got a kid on the way, so I figured something compact would be nice. I figure I'll pick up a decent 2.8 zoom, and some compact primes, and maybe a 24-105.

>>4398495
24-50 f2.8 - boring as hell, but likely the only f2.8 you will ever want to pick up.
20-70 f4 - actually a cool lens, everyone shoots at f4+ anyways
40mm f2.5 - literally designed for the a7c, sharp but has character
sigma 45mm f2.8 - tiny lens and one of those soft lenses that renders nice images instead of just having weird linear blur
sigma 90mm f2.8 - the lens we wish the zeiss loxia series was
24-105 f4 - the long end quality is low enough that cropping from 70mm with a better lens looks slightly crisper. a good lens to avoid.
tamron 28-75 f2.8 gen 2- light despite its length, sharp, very good weather sealing.
tamron 70-180 gen 2 - as good as any 70-200, and what most non-professionals should buy instead

>>4398502
>the only *sony f2.8
Pro zooms are big and feel bigger on an a7c

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	523
Image Height	579
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4398502
what makes a lens "boring"?

>>4398502
>24-105 f4 - the long end quality is low enough that cropping from 70mm with a better lens looks slightly crisper. a good lens to avoid.

Really? I had heard good things when it launched. Actually looking for something in that range so a little disappointed to hear that.

>>4398505
24-35-50
Is less fun than
20-24-35-50-70 (can crop to 105 with no perceptible quality loss)

Its for if you need to save weight, demand first party features like focus breathing compensation, and need f2.8.

very slightly weird. I thought I gave my cousin my EF-S 55-whatever, and nifty fifty. Turns out I must have given him my EF-35mm f/2 or whatever the cheaper one was. bad news my only EF lenses are the 50mm 1.8 and 50mm 2.5 macro. good news is that rebel 2000 + 50mm f/1.8 is a total fucking beater rig worth less than $100 I will not give a single fuck about

why the fuck are m43 lenses way down in cost, but used pen f bodies are going for more than what I paid for mine new in 2016?

>>4399141
are they? the zeuiko pro lenses are still really expensive..

>>4392821
Cannot charges 5 bucks a month or 50 per year to use their cameras as webcam: https://romanzipp.com/blog/no-you-cant-use-your-6299-canon-camera-as-a-webcam

>>4398256
put 135 film in $20 old german folder 6x9 mf camera using $10 adapters, same thing - use money to travel to interesting places

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.2.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2020:04:20 18:39:44
Color Space Information	sRGB

I don't think I'd use it much but it's SO FUCKING CHEAP.

>>4400806
>56mm
what an odd focal length

>>4400807
This is an apsc lens. Please understand. (84mm full fame equivalent.)

Is it worth buying a vintage tilt shift lens to fuck around with? I have no idea what prices are like on those.

what full frame body + telephoto lens (at least 600mm) would you buy for $2500USD

for wildlife video, specifically in darker enviroments

>>4401291
You could maybe get a 5D II or III and an old 600mm f/4 for that price, but that only gets you 1080p60 and no stabilisation. One of the zooms that go to 600mm might be a better choice, you'd be raising the ISO but at least it would be stabilised and with the money saved you could get a newer body that does 4k.

>>4401293
i currently have a panasonic g9ii and 100-400mm (800mm FF) which is 4k60 and has dual IS
your suggestion seems like a downgrade, how much would i need to spend for it to be an overall improvement in most reguards other than size and weight?

>>4401297
I dunno, probably like 4x your budget. One of the main advantages of 4/3s is reach, it just relies on having a sharp enough lens to resolve the higher pixel density of the sensor but when you're talking about ~8mp video that of course is far less demanding.

>>4401298
>4x your budget
yeah fuck that guess ill just stick to what i got