[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 84 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


What went wrong?
Went from the most recognised camera brand to completely forgotten.
Just dropped a new camera and zero threads.
Everyone I know who had canon has swapped over to Sony.
Are they finished?
Would you be embarrased to be seen in public shooting on a canon?
>>
File: 1660949642297.jpg (807 KB, 2560x1707)
807 KB
807 KB JPG
>>4096693
>completely forgotten
retard
>>
>>4096707

yikes that is one unaesthetic camera.
>>
>>4096711
>unaesthetic camera
dump fujihipster
>>
>>4096713

the black lenses with the red rings looked nicer, i dont know why canon didnt do more of that.
Also why such a massive tripod mount on that little lens?
>>
>>4096711
>>4096713
I am a certified Fujihipster (adapted vintage lenses and everything), but that camera and lens combo actually looks cool as fuck
>>
>>4096693
>be sonyfag
>hate everyone that shoots anything else but sony
>make threads mocking every
You yourself is to blame for your sad and lonely life.
>>
>>4096715

maybe im just seeing it weird because I am so use to the usual sized canon white 70-200 and that ones a weird short version.
>>
Kill yourself and stop shitting up this board. Yes, in that order
>>
>>4096717
It looks like a stubby beer bottle. Funny looking, but cool in its own way
>>
>>4096719

It is a legitimate question, what happened to canon, they were the most posted about brand a few years back.
I am trying to understand how they almost never get mentioned on this board anymore.
>>
>>4096726
They're mentioned all the time in all the gear threads because you losers never shut the fuck up about which of the brands has the most or has lost market share or whatever the fuck you think is important
>>
>>4096693
At least they will fix your camera if it’s not a US market model from an authorized dealer, unlike nigkon.
>>
>>4096693
>Everyone I know who had canon has swapped over to Sony.
which in nobody
>>
>>4096693
I started the new gear thread praising Sonys new game, praising the A7R5. However, I'll probably buy the Canon R6 II due to Canon EF system compatibility, little interest in high megapixel shots, much interest in little rolling shutter, differences mirrorless make against conventional cameras. Until now I've mostly used Canon DSLR, then Sony mirrorless, as Sony didn't cripple functionality. The R6 II now addresses most of what I've missed with Canon mirrorless earlier at an expensive but somewhat reasonable price.

Sony is banging with more extensive changes and improvements, Canon more or less just releasing what was restricted or poor in prior models.
>>
>>4096693
>1.6x crop
>change mounts a million times
>tell lens manufacturers to stop supplying lenses for their system
>ugliest cameras
>never innovates, only copies and refines
i wonder why
>>
>>4096693
They failed to open their new mount, assuring the dominance of Sony yet again. No modern camera brand who keeps all lenses inhouse shall prosper now that Sony has opened their mount and protocols to third party brands.
The amount of Sony E lenses that exist compared to Nikon Z or Canon RF says it all.
From my personal experience with the newer mirrorless cameras, Canon's top lenses are made mostly of plastic and are generally inferior to other native offerings, with 1 or 2 exceptions.
They are losing out of ego and pride. Consumers buy what they see benefiting them in the future, the economy is fucked, cameras are more expensive than ever and every phone is capable of taking great photos. A camera system must truly be worth it for photographers to decide on it.
>>
File: rp unboxed.jpg (814 KB, 2604x1989)
814 KB
814 KB JPG
love it like you wouldnt believe

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON D7100
Camera SoftwareWindows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384
Maximum Lens Aperturef/4.1
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern45188
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)52 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2020:05:18 20:55:25
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/4.2
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating2000
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length35.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2992
Image Height2000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlHigh Gain Up
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
File: laughing.jpg (51 KB, 634x318)
51 KB
51 KB JPG
>>4096777
>From my personal experience
>>
>>4096693
>canon users spend all day on forums talking about equipment instead of taking photos
Then they would be Sony users.
>>
>>4096773
>>1.6x crop
Imagine shooting crop.

>>change mounts a million times
>introducing a new mirrorless mount is 'changing a million times'
Also: Canon is the only one with a mirrorless mount that is 100% backwards compatible. EF lenses behave like RF lenses on an RF body.

>>tell lens manufacturers to stop supplying lenses for their system
Your only real complaint.

>>ugliest cameras
Compared to boxy Sony?

>DPAF
>DP RAW
>eye controlled focus
>28-70 f/2
>135 f/1.8 IS
>50 & 85 f/1.2
>drop-in EF/RF filter adapter
>best UI/ergonomics
>>"never innovates, only copies and refines"
The absolute state...
>>
File: 1637132251628.png (1.59 MB, 827x817)
1.59 MB
1.59 MB PNG
>>4096693

All my pro photo fag mates, either swapped to Sony for mirrorless or the event boys are still using their Nikon stuff for weddings (most have switched to the Z9 now)

Canon have no compelling lens at good prices are always behind in sensor tech.

Our entire team now shoots Sony mirrorless in one form or another, they are real workhorses. FX3, ASIII and A7III& IV Sony workflow is great.

Feels good to be a Sony Chad.
>>
>>4096909
That's right. All professionals only use Sony™ cameras with Sony™ lenses for the highest possible image quality and most professional workflow. Using anything but Sony™ brand Sony™ cameras and Sony™ lenses is career suicide. Everyone who sees your photos will instantly know you used nikon, canon, or god forbid, pentax - and if you thought "olympus" or lumix would be acceptable, I doubt those noisy, blurry rectangles would even be recognized as photos.

Only a Sony™ is good enough. If you want to be a real photographer, go to the nearest Sony™ authorized dealer right now and buy as many Sony™ products as possible. Other cameras aren't good enough for anything but blogging and shitty wedding snapshits.
>>
>>4096693
>to completely forgotten
that's not the Nikon logo
>>
>>4096928
>everyone who sees your photos will instantly know you used nikon, canon, or god forbid, pentax
Of course, because those cameras are the ones with nice color rendition
>>
>>4096861
>Imagine shooting crop
With this attitude, no wonder...

>Compared to boxy Sony?
Sony is utilitarian, boxy can be sexy if done right, Canon is stuck in the 2000s design where a flat line is not allowed to be anywhere.
>>
>>4096707
Another Fujihipster here, I think it looks dumb as fuck with that chode of a 70-200mm. But I recently had the opportunity had the opportunity to try it at a show, and I have to admit, it's ergonomic as fuck.

If I was a pro and had to spend all day long holding and shooting I wouldn't consider any other camera.
>>
>>4097242
>I wouldn't consider any other camera.
It's silly to say something like that without first trying x different cameras on a large scale. The Nikon Z9, for example, is said to make a very good impression, and Panasonic has literally made it their goal to aim their bodies at professionals. Is /p/ flooded with bots?
>>
>>4096693

They literally have the biggest market share of all camera companies worldwide
>>
>>4097260
I got to compare Nikon, Sony and Panasonic next to the Canon. They were all good, maybe other people’s hands fit better with the others but mine fit with the Canon.

It would be interesting to try a deep grip Fuji, I got the less ergonomic X-T3 because I thought it was cooler, but I don’t have to use it every day.
>>
>>4097260
>and Panasonic has literally made it their goal to aim their bodies at professionals
well they're doing a pretty shit job then
>>
File: camera milfs.jpg (820 KB, 2184x1992)
820 KB
820 KB JPG
i disagree
>>
>>4096693
>completely forgotten
You need to specify IN THIS BOARD and even then that's questionable taking into account that guy who checked EXIF data and saw most photos were from Canon and Nikon cameras.
>Everyone I know
You know the entire camera market? just shut the hell up nigger lol
>>
>>4096717
Its way better. Doesnt take up a stupid amount of space. Only niggers and women care about looks that much.
>>
>>4096773
>>4096861
>tell lens manufacturers to stop supplying lenses for their system
>Your only real complaint.

Not a legitimate complaint at all. They only told like two or three irrelevant manufacturers to stop because of their niggish ways of going about reverse engineering shit. They havent said anything to Tamron or Sigma.
>>
>>4096693
well for what it's worth when I decide to get an autofocus camera I will most likely be buying a Canon EOS so I can use image stabilized lenses from 2020
>>
>>4097301
Makes sense, now. Sorry. I was weirded out why you would mention being a Fujihipster then shill Canon but without considering other cameras. Sounded naive
>>
>>4096861
>>introducing a new mirrorless mount is 'changing a million times'
nah you gotta admit this is wrong, there's at least 4 mount for canon (FL, FD, EF, RF) while other brands have either one of two mounts
>>
>>4097361
>They havent said anything to Tamron or Sigma.
well that is mainly because Tamron and Sigma don't make any RF mount lenses and don't plan on doing so
>>
what's the upgrade path off ef-m. Another brand with adapter or use till it dies? R series to expensive and no silver edition.
>>
>>4097794
And despite such a huge legacy, all are adaptable fully compatible to RF.
:^>
>>
>>4097820
>bro just get a million adapters
how much is canon paying you to shill their proprietary adapters?
>>
>>4097878
Are you just stupid or retarded as well?
>>
>>4096707
im a fujifag and I love that design, it looks so cool.
way better than the bubble design of early dslrs
>>
>>4097992
Are you mentally handicapped that you do not understand that paying for adapters is a drawback that could have been avoided if it was like Nikon where one adapter does everything?

also your attitude of "RF or nothing" is the reason why Canon is a joke
>>
>>4098316
>Nikon where one adapter does everything
retard. Nikon's FTZ adapter is garbage. The RF adapter are better than native EF.
>>
what was the point of essentially killing the ef-m mount? From what i can tell the m50 ii and m6 mk ii seem to be very good cost / performance. Shits been fun to take a pic of but was it killed in favor of rf? is it more profitable that way, could they not expand it to a full frame?
>>
>>4096711
Idk why boomers love this round plastic everything look. It feels cheap and looks like a kids toy. There's a reason the classic, most well regarded cameras of all time aren't built like a toddler toy.
>>
>>4098454
Because it’s comfortable to handle. A modern DSLR is way comfier than a smaller om-1 or leica.
>>
>>4098459
Yeah maybe if you have arthritis or something. Imagine those WWII photogs complaining about metal cameras being too hard on their hands.
>>
>>4098460
All those guys have arthritis now and they wanted blob cameras. You’re welcome.
>>
>>4098461
Too much onions. The boomers and their kids are addicted microplastics and pfthalates and can't handle cameras made out of quality materials.
>>
>>4098465
Zoomers like boxy shit old film slrs
>>
>>4097132
canon cameras are designed to be comfortable even after a full day of shooting
>>
>>4098470
They're designed to be comfortable for toddlers.
>>
>>4098316
>a drawback that could have been avoided if it was like Nikon where one adapter does everything?
Seriously? Their adapter can't even drive screw-drive AF models or sense aperture with non-cpu lenses
Meanwhile, I can put the earliest 50mm f/1.8 on a R3 with RF-EF adapter and it will just werk
>>
>>4096693
>and zero threads
They're too busy taking photographs to post on /p/
>>
>>4098472
That doesn't really work as an insult against Canon ergonomics.

Supposing you're right, if a pro tog with toddler hands has to hold a camera all day long, why wouldn't he use the one made for toddler hands?
>>
Long time photographer, boomer oldfag here… My first camera was a Canon AL-1 back in the early 80s.


To me, Canon’s biggest mistake was to downplay the full frame potential in the prosumer market. They kept the nice sensors away from the prosumer range to protect the professional cameras. Once Sony stepped up, they released the awful 6D, with was a throttled-down 5D, instead of just embracing it and giving IQ just as good as the 5Dmk2 back then, but with slower AF and fewer features.

Then they repeated the same mistake trying to step into the mirrorless without a full frame sensor. And then again with the RP and crippled low light performance.

They had at least 3 opportunities to release a competitively priced prosumer full frame camera and chose to protect the high end premium.


There’s no space for subpar IQ in a world that pretty much doesn’t need a dedicated camera.
>>
>>4099627
Just to illustrate, I’m one of the converts. Got an A7R2 and never looked back. Uncompromising full frame performance in a lightweight, small body.

Sony suffered from limited lens offering but that’s not true anymore.

The only persisting issue with Sony is lack of proper third-party complex strobing gear, which I’m pretty sure will soon be addressed by popular demand.
>>
>>4099627
Also a way to show that you have little idea, but a strong opinion. In a wider perspective, the Canon 6D was a modernized sensor that rather compares to the 5DIII, the camera was a steal for landscape and astro, and the camera introduced wifi remote connectivity. The 6D at times was the best selling full-frame Canon and was seen among wedding photographers about as often as models from the 5D. Last but not least, the AF of the 6D is on par with the 5DII, with even increased low-light sensitivity.

The Canon M line and early Canon R was just Canon stepping late into the game of pure mirrorless cameras rather than DSLR-hybrids. They had to experiment and not fear away people that expected similar performance to pro and semi-pro gear, have rather aimed for best of both worlds, offering hybrids. At times, the RP+24-105/4 sold for a few hundred bucks more than the lens alone to compensate for poor user experience or because the cameras were simply complementary.

Another perspective, Canon has offered a very versatile range over the whole time and has also kept used prices high through attractive cameras and launches, not least through compatibility, not a direct replacement, but further alignments.

IMHO, your problem is that Canon is too expensive and you want more than what you are willing to spend. The flip side of that coin is, others wanted to continue using their existing system and not compromise.
In my opinion, Canon can just now play off the fact that they have taken their time and want to implement things far-fetched and charge a premium for that.
>>
>>4097799
> don't plan on doing so
source
>>
>>4099662
>4 years without any lens
>no announcement of any kind
every day it becomes more evident
>>
>>4096693
>Just dropped a new camera and zero threads.
I hate this. All the incremental improvements they did to the specs that most people will never use, but they failed to address the biggest problems.
-have to menu-dive to switch to manual focus mode on a non-L RF lens
-have to menu-dive to change from animal eye detect to car detect or people eye detect priority
-the power switch, a binary switch that only needs two positions, is a fucking circular dial
-And I bet many of the menu options still say "enable" instead of "enabled." Fucking Japs.
>>
>>4096693
We're in a recession. I have been mulling selling my expensive Canon equipment and switching to some less expensive system or back to APS-C just so I can still have a camera.

>new R6II
Great, now my R6 just lost 1/2 its fucking value on the used market. Thanks, Canon.
>>
>>4099824
>-have to menu-dive to switch to manual focus mode on a non-L RF lens
Button customization
>-have to menu-dive to change from animal eye detect to car detect or people eye detect priority
Button customization, if necessary at all
>-the power switch, a binary switch that only needs two positions, is a fucking circular dial
It's a fucking ternary circular dial that shift places. The movie/still photo fucking binary circular dial took it's place.

The specs and performance are worth it to me considering you want to use electronic shutter. If you want to use mechanical shutter, any other camera will do and became cheaper.
>>
File: thats a paddlin.jpg (20 KB, 474x346)
20 KB
20 KB JPG
>>4099833
If you say "button customization" one more fucking time, I will reach through the computer screen and slap your fat fucking face with a wooden paddle.

Read very carefully here. I will not repeat myself.

THOSE ARE NOT OPTIONS IN THE BUTTON CUSTOMIZATION MENU, YOU MASSIVE FAGGOT LYING PIECE OF HUMAN GARBAGE.

The only "custom" way to deal with the problem is to put them in the My Menu/Favorites, which is still menu-diving.

>hurrdurr its a ternary derpty doooil durrr
Nikon has had the power switch figured out for decades. Sony and Pentax and Fujifilm all do power switches right. All Nikon, Pentax, Sony and Fujifilm cameras have power switch commonality. It is not a difficult concept. You should be able to reach it and manipulate it without looking or thinking. Listen to me right now, fuckface.

THE EOS R POWER DIAL HAS "ON" ON THE LEFT (NO NUB PRESENT)
THE R6 POWER DIAL HAS "ON" ON THE LEFT (NUB ON DIAL)
THE R6II POWER DIAL HAS "ON" ON THE RIGHT (NO NUB PRESENT)

That is NOT a good example of an ergonomic, logical power switch. That's an example of how to piss off your customers. Not to mention that all of them are in different spots on the camera and different from the classic EOS DSLR power switch, which most Canon users will be familiar with and the R3 even makes use of.

>The specs and performance are worth it to me considering you want to use electronic shutter.
There is no practical difference between the R6 and R6II performance with electronic shutter, and I guarantee that you are not shooting any sort of subject where it would matter.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4099848
Dunno. Assign a button to registered AF function, press INFO to customize AF to manual. If that fails on your model, configure manual focus on a custom program C1-C3.

I agreed with the power switch, think it should be the Sony and Nikon way.

Meh. Electronic shutter now can be set in the rate to be 40fps, 20fps, 5fps, 1fps and it allows AEB, unfortunately still no firing flash. The readout should be increased from 1/40 to at least 1/60, certainly be around 1/80. The shortest exposure is 1/16.000s depending on the mode, requiring TV or M. There's a raw burst mode that allows to pick a certain image from 0.5s before the shutter was pressed, respectively, while the shutter is half pressed. AF-Auto-Mode, so you no longer have to set the AF to human, animal or anything else. The AF in general is similar to what Sony A7RV, Canon R3 offer, albeit a bit slower than the R3.
>>
>>4099854
>switch over to a completely different set of camera settings just to switch your camera into manual focus mode
Did you think before you clicked "Post"?
>>
>>4099830
>sell expensive camera
>to buy less expensive camera
????
what kind of logic do you have
>>
>>4099859
>sell $2000 camera and $4000 of lenses
>buy $400 camera and $600 of lenses
>have $5000 in my bank account that wasn't there before the trade-up, which I can help with other financial needs resulting from the bad economy
I didn't think it was that difficult of a concept, but sometimes this stuff needs to be spelled out for "people."
>>
>>4099860
>he has monetary issues in a recession
Don't buy what you can't afford
Only poor people lose in a recession.
>>
>>4099861
Post bank account.
>>
>>4099862
>bank account
lmaooo you are poorer than i thought

i'm not the one downgrading due to "muh recession"
>>
>>4099863
>shit talks someone who is having a hard time
>can't back up his shit talk

Child. Get lost.
>>
>>4099864
i shittalk bad finansial decisions

do you really expect a bank account to prove anything when a inspect element could change that?
>>
>>4099861
You're showing your poverty here. A recession can be a great buying opportunity for equities and realestate. Always maximize your dry powder on the cusp of a recession instead of wasting it status signaling on depreciating assets like consumer electronics that are quickly being overtaken by fucking phones. The ILC as we know it is living on borrowed time and values will crash hard when the death blow is dealt, but $5000 properly invested at the bottom of a bear cycle can do a 10x.

Smart is the man who dumped his OM-1 when it wasn't a $50 camera body yet.
>>
>>4099867
kys phonefag
>>
>>4099863
Post literally any pdf from any account anon, it’s not that hard.
>>
>>4099867
>status simbols
>that you already own
>that are old
>noooo i have to have the latest

he isnt buying 5000$ equipment now, hes selling it, and buying new cheaper equipment.

>>4099873
you realise pdf can be fabricated too?
>>
File: i see...jpg (15 KB, 293x241)
15 KB
15 KB JPG
>>4099874
>simbols
>>
>>4097794
>nah you gotta admit this is wrong, there's at least 4 mount for canon (FL, FD, EF, RF)
FL/FD were compatible with each other and date back to the fucking 1980s. Tell us about Minolta's mounts back then since their line became Sony's line. Oh...you can't? Because you have no fucking clue? Neither does anyone else except retro hipsters shooting 35mm film and adapting old manual glass for "muh cinematic effect."
>>
>>4098316
>muh one adapter!
Nikon lens compatibility has always required a fucking map. Literally. I had to download a chart to help a friend understand which lenses could be used on which modern bodies when my friend's uncle gave her his old kit. On top of that the FTZ adapter sucks.

All EF lenses behave natively on RF bodies because they practically are. The RF protocol is an extension of the core EF protocol. No one else pulled this off.
>>
>>4098454
Because boomers grew up with "muh classic boxy camera look" and they were hard to hold once any weight was involved. The Canon shape dates back to the Canon FD T-90 when a famous engineer was hired to design a modern camera body. Guy actually paid attention to ergonomics and made something comfortable to hold even with heavy glass.

For boomers the T-90 was stylish, different, and functional. For hipsters (aka you) who grew up with curved camera bodies, the old shit is different and therefore perceived to be desirable.

I'll take modern ergonomics over a box any day, but I'm not a hipster or a girl so...
>>
Gearfag
>>
>>4099627
>To me, Canon’s biggest mistake was to downplay the full frame potential in the prosumer market. They kept the nice sensors away from the prosumer range to protect the professional cameras. Once Sony stepped up, they released the awful 6D, with was a throttled-down 5D, instead of just embracing it and giving IQ just as good as the 5Dmk2 back then, but with slower AF and fewer features.
The 6D literally had IQ just as good as the 5D2 but with slower AF and fewer features. Actually, I think the 6D edged out the 5D2 on high ISO and base ISO DR, though not by a large amount in either case.

>And then again with the RP and crippled low light performance.
The RP has very good low light performance. Better than the A72 which for some unknown reason falls short of the A7 and A73. The one place where the RP stumbles is in base ISO DR, and even the A72 beats it here.

>>4099631
>Just to illustrate, I’m one of the converts. Got an A7R2 and never looked back. Uncompromising full frame performance in a lightweight, small body.
Star eating, RAW compression, off sensor flare, and AF performance were problems in early Sony FF bodies. Sony was innovative but "uncompromising" is not an accurate term to describe the first and second generations.
>>
>>4096693
>Would you be embarrased to be seen in public shooting on a canon?
Would I be embarrassed to be seen with your mom in public? Yes. Is there still a line at her house on a Friday night? Yes.
>>
>>4099858
How often do you need to do this that it's a major problem? And if it's that often, then why the holy fuck are you not using the AF-on button and disabling AF on the shutter press? Now you control AF vs. MF with every single shot. Any lens with a sonic focusing motor has full time manual override. Any lens with a motor that you'll break has an AF/MF switch on the lens.
>>
>>4099874
Post any screenshot of any banking app on your phone, it’s super simple.

What’s that?

You won’t because you’re poor?
>>
>>4099867
>hurr if i sell my camera equipment i can become rich off buying real estate during a recession
Unless anon is selling relatively recent Phase One MF bodies and lenses, or Leica/Hasselblad collectibles, he's not buying real estate with it.

>but muh equities!
Assuming the stock market doesn't collapse under a hyper-inflation scenario, he would be lucky to sell his kit, invest, and when (if) things turn have enough money to rebuy his old kit new.
>>
>>4099930
The non-L RF lenses do not have full time manual override, and they do not have an AF/MF switch on the lens. There are situations that the AF-On button can’t compensate for, like pre-focusing at minimum focus distance or if the AF is hunting and there isn’t any high contrast surface to focus on. Canon literally wants you to menu-dive just to enable manual focusing on their affordable RF lenses, the sadistic bastards.
>>
File: 1663284838250.png (84 KB, 463x937)
84 KB
84 KB PNG
>>4099936
here. if you aren't a mathlet you'll be able to calculate the account value from the APR.
>>
>>4099939
they do have manual tho
>>
>>4099939
>The non-L RF lenses do not have full time manual override, and they do not have an AF/MF switch on the lens.
Could you give an example please? Because a lens without FTM needs to physically disengage the motor for manual focus. Not doing so risks damage. Using an actuator in the lens that responds to a signal from the camera body to do this would be a rather expensive choice for a cheap lens.

I'd like to see an example. Maybe you're right. Or maybe you don't realize the lens in question has FTM.
>>
>>4099946
>>4099949
The Canon lens system relies on an AF/MF switch on the lens. Many non-L RF lenses, like the 24-105 kit lens and the 50/1.8 DO NOT HAVE THIS SWITCH. Instead, they have a switch that says “Focus/Control,” which lets you change the function of the ring from focusing or the custom ring function. However, in order to use this for normal manual focus functionality, you need to go into the menu and switch your lens from AF to MF. If you don’t do that, the lens will not respond when you turn the focus ring.

I will correct the record on one thing, though. Some non-L RF lenses, like the 35/1.8, do have an AF/MF switch. I just don’t happen to own any of these lenses and forgot that some are like that. A lot of good lenses don’t have the switch.
>>
>>4099942
That’s a really unhealthy amount of credit card debt, anon. We weren’t asking you to prove that you’re stupid, though. We were asking you to prove that you’re “rich.”
>>
>>4099972
Based brainlet
>>
>>4099970
I don't know which model you have (R6?) so I don't know which screen/custom function to point you to. I'm attaching a screenshot from reddit (sorry) which suggests the RP is limited in this respect, but that other bodies have the function I'm thinking of. For the RP the guy suggests another work around.
>>
>>4099987
Do you have autism? What’s the point of going to these lengths just to prove me right?
>>
>>4099942
>discover
>as his bank

I mean good on you for jumping out and actually posting something but 5 figure savings is confirmed poor. I spent your life savings this year on just one of my cards lel.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
CommentScreenshot
Image Width1284
Image Height2778
>>
>>4099627
>>4099926
You're mixing things up both. The 6D was a next generation 5DII, except for autofocus.
See >>4099657
Banding control, noise, DR are even slightly above the 5D3. It's missing the kind of AF system that the 5D3 has and the 7D introduced. It still increased acquisition speed and low-light AF with the cross-type AF sesnsor. Look it up.
>>
>>4099993
that's a really unhealthy amount of credit card debt anon
>>
>>4100000
IIRC, the 6D had more advanced AF than the 5DII. I could be mixing up the auto ISO menu, but didn’t the 6D have the AF Cases menu?
>>
>>4100000
The limitations different to the 5D series just came to my mind. The 6Ds shutter is capped to 1/4000 and the x-sync-speed to 1/180
>>
>>4100001
Lel what cope level is this? You think a yearly spending summary is a balance? Learn life anon.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution216 dpi
Vertical Resolution216 dpi
Image Width1284
Image Height1148
>>
>>4100007
you still haven't shown your bank account. you only showed you're bad with money
>>
>>4100016
If you can explain how doing all my personal spending on Chase Reserve and all my business spending on Amex Plat is bad I'll post whatever you want. You sound like someone who just does not have a career, or rich friends, lol.

There's no win for you here anon. I can post a 100K CHECKING wells statement and 1099s going years back for 400k each and you'll just move the goalpost.
>>
>>4100002
The cases menu with the vertical icons was introduced with the Canon 5DIII, 1D X, 7D Mark II.
The 5DII appear similar in the viewfinder. The 5DII has 9 AF points where 3 are cross-type, the 6D has 11 AF points where 1 is cross-type. The center AF point of the 6D increased low-light sensitivity, the 5DIII cross-type AF points improved, i.e. narrowed down focus failure variation with newer lenses.
>>
File: cringe.gif (3.19 MB, 498x365)
3.19 MB
3.19 MB GIF
>>4100021
>>4100007
>>4099993
>>
>>4100021
>I can post a 100K CHECKING wells statement and 1099s going years back for 400k each and you'll just move the goalpost.
but you can't
>>
File: IMG_4929.jpg (134 KB, 1000x1153)
134 KB
134 KB JPG
>>4100027
There's no win for you here anon, these take 5 seconds to come up on my phone.
>>
>>4100028
Cool photoshop
>>
>>4099988
I was trying to point you to work arounds. One of which, if it's available on your particular camera body, would solve the problem completely.

But if you don't want to read/try them and prefer insulting people instead in order to "be right", then fuck off.
>>
>>4100028
Pathetic photoshop, anon
>>
File: 71tfchkvPlL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (135 KB, 1096x922)
135 KB
135 KB JPG
>>4100034
I've got the kit lens on my R6 right now.

>set the control ring to "focus"
Not an option at all in the dial customization menu.

>AF 5 set to electronic full time MF
The option exists. It does nothing with this lens.

Like I said, I don't need you to prove me right. I know I'm right. Find the AF/MF switch on the camera or the lens. It's not there.
>>
>>4100036
What cope level is this?
>>
>>4100084
>$100K
>in a checking account
it's a shitty photoshop mate
>>
>>4100092
Lmao prove it.
>>
>>4100074
>>set the control ring to "focus"
>Not an option at all in the dial customization menu.
He's talking about the switch on the lens which you yourself discussed. The switch that let's you choose focus or control function for the ring.

>>AF 5 set to electronic full time MF
>The option exists. It does nothing with this lens.
Then contact Canon tech support and ask what's going on because that function should enable FTM.

>Like I said, I don't need you to prove me right.
Stop being a stupid, arrogant ass when people are trying to help you. If other people get FTM with their R6 and kit lens, then you are not right. But you will never figure out why you're not getting FTM if you sit and suck your own dick mumbling "i'm right i'm right i'm right." Email Canon.
>>
>>4100096
it's okay anon, nobody really cares that you're trying to larp as a richfag. maybe one of these days you'll make it big.
>>
>>4100074
>>4100099
The Digital Picture says FTM works on this lens, but
>camera must be in one-shot drive mode
>AF5 Electronic full-time MF must be on
>shutter must be half pressed, i.e. meter must be active
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-24-105mm-F4-7.1-IS-STM-Lens.aspx

Online tutorials suggest that this is not the case and with the AF5 setting on you can grab the ring any time...not just when the meter is active and not just in One Shot AF...and it will manually focus. I'm not sure why there's a difference of opinion here (firmware versions? another setting which conflicts?). But if TDP brought this up in his review it means he tried it and reported his findings. Which means he was able to manually focus without switching to MF in the menu.

A setting which possibly conflicts is AF4 Lens electronic MF. Since I don't have this body/lens combo in hand I can't tell you if AF4 conflicts with AF5, and if so what the happy setting combo is. You'll have to experiment on your own.

Again: I see a difference of opinion as to whether or not you need the meter active to FTM with this particular lens. and whether or not it only works in One Shot AF. But what I am NOT seeing is people bitching that there's simply no FTM on this lens. So, again, if you can't get it to work, contact Canon tech support and they can help you. Don't sit and pout and insist you're right unless you just don't want it to ever work.
>>
>>4100099
You are beyond being reasoned with.

>Stop being a stupid, arrogant ass when people are trying to help you.
This isn't about "trying to help." I have stated a fact, which is a problem with the EOS R cameras and certain lenses. You can not cope with being wrong, yourself, and have flipped the conversation from accepting that you didn't know what I've said to a condescending tone and trying to "help" me, when you do not have a fucking clue what you're talking about.

>If other people get FTM with their R6 and kit lens, then you are not right.
First, I am not talking about FTM with a certain magical set of button presses. I am talking about manual focus. Your arrogance has led you to take a stand on the wrong position. Second, I have the camera in front of me. You do not. I am telling you that it doesn't work as some random Reddit post written by an idiot claims. Feel free to not believe me, but just understand that you are disbelieving firsthand evidence in a desperate attempt to "be right." That is arrogance if I've ever seen it.

>>4100106
>The Digital Picture says FTM works on this lens, but
>>camera must be in one-shot drive mode
>>AF5 Electronic full-time MF must be on
>>shutter must be half pressed, i.e. meter must be active
This is not manual focus mode, for which you need to have the switch on the lens on "focus" AND you need to menu-dive.

>Online tutorials suggest that this is not the case
Reddit is wrong.

>Again: I see a difference of opinion as to whether or not you need the meter active to FTM with this particular lens. and whether or not it only works in One Shot AF. But what I am NOT seeing is people bitching that there's simply no FTM on this lens.
Did you see the part of the conversation where you're supposed to be searching for that manual focus switch? You clearly are confused.
>>
>>4100101
What’s that?

You can’t?
>>
>>4100084
Just the usual from /p/, ever increasing demands because their endgame is dox. It's all so tiresome.
>>
>>4100231
See
>>4099936
>Post any screenshot of any banking app on your phone, it’s super simple.
What's that?
You can't?
>>
>>4100241
While I’d love for you to circle back around to
>muh photoshop
You can just google the qualifications for an Amex business platinum, or maybe a 50th floor condo, lol.

>>4100237
Pathetic, truly.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width960
Image Height1280
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
File: 1641817860268.png (91 KB, 773x387)
91 KB
91 KB PNG
>>4100405
Credit cards are poorfag cope, and renting is turbo cope. If you actually had money you'd show off your 5+ title deeds.
>>
>>4100405
>Living in NYC
>Has to rent for the rest of your life
Lmao imagine larping as "rich" when you're barely above median salary
>>
>>4100452
Lel he thinks a condo is rented and Amex Business Plat is a credit card.
>>
>>4100457
>Amex Business Plat is a credit card
What kind of poorfag cope is this?
>>
>>4100226
>You are beyond being reasoned with.
Says the person who is more concerned with "being right" than with getting his camera to work the way he wants.

>This isn't about "trying to help." I have stated a fact,
Which has been debunked. The review of that specific lens at TDP explicitly states that it supports FTM, and the conditions under which FTM works. Multiple online videos concur and show FTM working in the video, except that they state FTM works under more conditions. I will not speak as to who is correct regarding the conditions under which FTM is active. But the fact that the lens has FTM is not in doubt.

>trying to "help" me,
I took your claim that your camera/lens does not work the way you want at face value. Now I see that you are a crybaby bitch, or perhaps a lying shill who doesn't even own a Canon camera.

>First, I am not talking about FTM with a certain magical set of button presses. I am talking about manual focus.
>FTM = Full Time MANUAL focus
kek

>Second, I have the camera in front of me. You do not.
Assuming you're not a liar: that your camera doesn't work in this regard is not proof of a problem with all Canon RF bodies and lenses. Other people can FTM...that's MANUALLY FOCUS...their 24-105 kit lens just fine. If YOUR camera or lens has a problem, then YOU contact Canon and get it resolved you arrogant, stubborn, stupid ass.

>Feel free to not believe me, but just understand that you are disbelieving firsthand evidence
TDP has first hand evidence. YouTubers have first hand evidence. The reddit guy you dismiss had first hand evidence. Your problem isn't your camera. Your problem is that you are an unbelievably arrogant ass.

>This is not manual focus mode,
It just lets you manually focus whenever you want to. Which solves the problem for anyone who wants to manually focus. For someone who is a little bitch who wants to "be right" and cry, I guess it doesn't.
>>
>>4100464
You tell me
>>
File: IMG_4455.jpg (1.96 MB, 4032x3024)
1.96 MB
1.96 MB JPG
>>4100465
Shut the fuck up, forever.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationBottom, Right-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
>>
>>4100471
Cry like a little bitch instead of solving your problem. Forever. That way you can never "be wrong" and always "be right."
>>
>>4100474
You don't even know how stupid you are.
>>
>>4100469
so not only are you larping as rich, but you're also stupid? well your larp is pretty good in that case.
>>
>>4100477
Says the guy who refuses to try to enable FTM, or get his camera fixed, so he can bitch and cry about being right.
>>
>r3
>5999 usd
>24 mp
>muh megapickles
Yes, for 6 grand I expect some megapickles
>>
>>4099631
> Got an A7R2 and never looked back
Literally more than good enough for everything I want. I bought a SECOND brand new a7rii this year for 1k usd. Where the fuck can you get a full frame 41mp camera with great iq for 1k usd? Also in body stabilization and 4k video.

>muh battery
500 shots per 30 bucks off brand battery
>muh af
While this is a legit complain compared to modern bodies, the truth is that if you cant focus with it you are doing it wrong. Sure, more is always better but we reached good enough levels long long ago

Frankly unless you are doing sports an a7rii is all you need and you will never max out the iq and possibilities this camera gives you in the full frame format
>>
>>4100527
Meh, sports guys don't want huge files. If you want megapickles get an R5.

>>4100528
If you're a stills shooter on a budget who wants maximum IQ for large prints then you want:
>Canon: 5Ds or 5DsR
>Nikon: D800, D800E, or D810
>Sony: A7R I or II
>Pentax: K1
And spend the rest on glass.
>>
>>4096693
I hate Canon so much its unreal.
>>
>>4096693
I love Canon so much its unreal.
>>
6 fucking thousand dollars lmaoooooo cap bruh!
>>
>>4100528
>While this is a legit complain compared to modern bodies, the truth is that if you cant focus with it you are doing it wrong. Sure, more is always better but we reached good enough levels long long ago
It is clear that you don't shoot in motion. My point of view is different. For me, image resolution has been good enough for a long time. While I can do most of the camera work as manually as necessary, that's a tradeoff of effort, time and image control for missed and often technically inferior shots. We have near-perfect automatic metering methods for autofocus and exposure, but the cameras' automatic modes often don't work the way the user wants them to, even unreliably in certain situations, then in others better than the userr would achieve. Still, even the most advanced cameras have room for improvement in terms of configuration and control options, adjustability in general, and user interface. Photographers/cinematographers would have been replaced by robots long ago if automodes were enough, but the story against that is that the more professional the images become, the more work has to replace automodes, especially because automodes are still not reliable enough, not enough in control enough.
>>
>>4100532
>on a budget
Everything there is not budget
>>
>>4097820
Not EF-M I think.
>>
>>4100532
I'm a sports guy and I like my R5 megapickles.
>>
>>4101836
I actually had to double check this, I could've sworn there was an ef-m to R adapter but no I was wrong it's just EF and EFS. So no ef-m (not that the mount is relevant now)
>>
>>4102765
EF-M has an 18mm flange distance, and RF has a 20mm flange distance which means the adapter would have to be 2mm. Not impossible but not really feasible
>>
>>4102778
no, the adapter would have to be -2mm, which is physically impossible.
>>
Literally who?
>>
>>4102778
that's what I heard but I thought it was possible for rf to use ef-m only since I thought I saw an adapter on canon's site but I misread.
>>
Anyone know where I can buy the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 for the RF mount?

Seems it has disappeared completely after Canon's ban. Can't even find a used one on Ebay.
>>
>>4102779
I mean adapting RF lenses to EF-M cameras. If you mean adapting EF-M lenses to RF cameras yes that's impossible
>>
I just bought a Canon R10 but having regrets. Your only lens options are either cheap plastic entry level stuff or super expensive ($2000+) L-series lenses. You cant get any Sigma, Tokina, Tamron or Viltrox stuff.

Wish I had bought a Sony or a Nikon. Actually debating selling the R10 and buying a Nikon Z5. Then Id get a full frame sensor too.
>>
>>4103437
learn to follow the thread, dumbass.
>>
>>4103438
lol, like every aps-c manufacturer except fuji, you got hook line and sinkered.
the sole purpose of their cheap shit, sorry, affordable aps-c products is to funnel you to their expensive bodies and expensive lenses, where they put all their time effort and development into.
decide the glass you want first, and then the bodies to make it work. and be realistic, we all want a 28-70mm f/2 but we aren't actually going to drop money for it.
dump that piece of shit asap while it still has value, and either commit properly to olympus/panasonic for mft, fuji for apsc, or anyone else for full frame.
>>
>>4103442
>decide the glass you want first, and then the bodies to make it work
ill never understand people buying dogshit lenses to put on the latest and greatest bodies. should be the other way around you muppets
>>
>>4103438
the only companies that have anything respectable for APS-C are fuji, pentax, and sometimes, sony. sorry.
>>
>>4103438
Sell it and get the Fuji X-S10.
>>
>>4103442
>>4103448
>>4103453
Yeah I probably shouldve gone with Nikon or Sony. I reasoned that I already owned two Canon lenses (along with a full frame 6D). But now I kinda wanna sell those lenses anyway (my Sigma Art 35mm cant even focus). So I probably shouldve just sold everything before and started from scratch. Now I have purchased another two Canon lenses, which brings my total to four (all are EF mount so have to put them on an adapter to be able to use them).

I read that Nikon has shitty autofocusing though. Otherwise a Z5 + Nikkor Z 85mm portrait lens wouldve been a perfect combo for me. Then Id just need a wide angle lens too (not sure what is available for Nikon there). Otherwise Sony seems like a great system to buy into. But their cameras were a bit too expensive for me I thought. Even among their crop sensors, their cheapest (a6400) is years old and is still more expensive than the Canon R10.

The Fujis are interesting too. I didnt know about the X-S10. I thought their cameras started around $1500. I think this may have been a better choice.

Ideally, Id have a full frame Sony. It seems that Sigma lenses actually work on Sony cameras. Or a full frame Canon with L-series lenses. But thats way too much money for me to justify spending.

Well, it is what it is now. Crossing my fingers Canon will release some decent prime lenses next year that aren't too expensive. If they come out with a new M50/M6 with an RF mount, theyll probably release some lenses with it too.
>>
>>4103535
>ahhhh I'm gonna consooooom
>pls release new things to buy next year I need to consoooooooooooom
>>
>>4103453
>>4103535
I couldve sold my Canon lenses and instead of buying an R10, bought an X-S10 + 23mm XF lens + 56mm XF lens + 90mm XF lens.

Would that have been a good setup? Reading reviews of the Fuji lenses and seems like they are highly regarded. But dont know how they compare to Canon's offerings. Are they L-series quality but for less money?
>>
>>4103537
Hehe. I get you. But truth be told I just want a simple system (camera and 2-3 lenses) and use it for the next decade or so. My previous (first) camera with two lenses I had for 7 years.
>>
>>4103542
In my experience, 3 is good enough
a zoom so you can adapt to whatever and the one prime in your most used focal length
The third one is the specialized one, a macro, a telephoto, whatever fills your needs.
>>
>>4103538
>Would that have been a good setup?
Damn, yes. That set up is amazing.

Are they L-series quality but for less money?
No. Fujifilm will give you more for less, regarding APS-C sensor.

If you're thinking about th RF system, Canon isn't doing a very good job. the line up has it's holes...
>>
>>4103551
>it's holes
>it's
fujislug education everyone
>No. Fujifilm will give you more for less, regarding APS-C sensor.
Fuji glass is trash. You can say many bad things about Canon, but their L lenses are some of the best in the market. Talk about their anti-consumer practices if you want.
>>
>>4103538
>Would that have been a good setup?
>etc
dude you're still stuck balls deep in a gear haze
the worst question you can ask is "what lenses should i buy" --- that's something only you yourself would know because only you yourself know what sort of photography you take
get yourself the kit lens, the 18-55, and take 10000 shots. the photos you enjoyed taking, their subjects and framing, etc, will dictate what lenses you may want to consider more closely
>>
>>4103553
autocorrect is on at phone, also English is not my main language. But since you're writing 'fujislug' and is in need to correct my typos, I'll just ignore every opinion you post after that.

if you had a minimum of education as well, you'd notice I was talking about Canon's RF lens line up. But I guess it was going to be like talking to a wall.
>>
>>4103442
lol Fuji is overpriced garbage, sure they don't try to get you to buy full frame but their lineup costs as much as if it were full frame with none of the benefits
>>4103438
EF adapter fool, sorry you fell for the mirrorless meme. Should have bought a 90D instead.
Unless you're mainly into video, then you're fine.
Still, if video is your thing then Panasonic is the best.
>>
>>4103563
>lol Fuji is overpriced garbage, sure they don't try to get you to buy full frame but their lineup costs as much as if it were full frame with none of the benefits
nophotos say the damnedest things
>>
>>4096707
this combo is pure sex
>>
>>4096781
>I'm poor
>>
>>4103663
>nophotos
post photos or shut up, faggot
>>
>>4103563
> Should have bought a 90D instead
Well I needed mirrorless due to the better autofocusing system. I shoot some sports and also a lot of self portraits, so I needed something with good eye tracking AF.

>>4103558
I know what lenses I want. The problem is that I compromised and went with a Canon, and an APS-C too (I wanted a full frame), due to cost and due to already having Canon lenses.

I can see things clearly now. I shouldve gone with a Sony. And then Id get a Zeiss Batis 85mm (because I use Zeiss glass on my hunting rifles and its amazing glass). And then I could fill up the rest of my needs with lenses from either Sony, Samyang, Sigma, Viltrox, TTArtisan etc. There are so many options.
>>
>>4103668
aight den

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1280
Image Height1280
>>
>>4099824
>the power switch, a binary switch that only needs two positions, is a fucking circular dial
I love the power switch so fuckin much.
You are all envy faggots.
>>
>>4099824
I thought I was being annoying asking for BSI on the R6mkII, but you, my mate, took the prize.
>>
>>4103789
>namefag butts into the chat
>white borders
>nothing to add to the convo
>nothing to rebuke the points offered
>>
>>4103686
>Well I needed mirrorless due to the better autofocusing system. I shoot some sports and also a lot of self portraits, so I needed something with good eye tracking AF.
The 90D has those lol
>>
>>4099939
>Canon literally wants you to menu-dive just to enable manual focusing on their affordable RF lenses, the sadistic bastards.
lmao that's one thing I despise about Canon despite having one of their higher end DLSRs, if you have a low end model they make sure you're constantly aware of it. It's like the low-end Teslas that have the design, fit and finish of a peasant-oriented product.
>>
>>4105407
>nophoto seethes
>>
>>4105407
based and truthpilled
>>
>>4105408
What makes it better than the R10 though (aside from more megapixels)? It has the EF mount so I wouldnt be able to use any EF-M lenses on it anyway
>>
>>4105878
>What makes it better than the R10 though (aside from more megapixels)?
It has a real viewfinder instead of an LCD.
>It has the EF mount
Precisely, no adapters and plenty of available third party lenses.
>so I wouldnt be able to use any EF-M lenses on it anyway
What's the point of EF-M lenses? They're few and far between.
>>
>>4098454

enjoy shooting only chairs and book shelves in your room.
>>
>>4096714
>the black lenses with the red rings looked nicer, i dont know why canon didnt do more of that.
White lenses don't get so hot under the sun.
>>4096716
>be fujislug or snoycuck
FTFY
>>
>>4105890
> It has a real viewfinder instead of an LCD.
I guess thats a plus. But there are some benefits of mirrorless as well. Like being able to view in monochrome and getting the right exposure right off the bat ("what I see is what I get").
> Precisely, no adapters and plenty of available third party lenses.
Well now I already have the adapter. It is kind of heavy to be fair, but its not a big nuissance.
> What's the point of EF-M lenses? They're few and far between.
There are a couple of good ones made for crop sensors. Like the Sigma 56mm. I mainly use my camera for portrait photography, but I have realized there are no portrait lenses for Canon crop sensors. Closest I can get is a 50mm. But if I want one, Id have to either a $2000 L-series, or an old third party lens. There are also no decent wide angle prime lenses. Canon's 16mm RF isn't great.

For Fuji, Sony, Nikon you can get the new Fuji 56mm R WR, which is supposedly one of the sharpest lenses ever made (according to Christopher Frost). They also have 56mm Sigma, 13mm Viltrox (looks amazing, and its cheap too), and a whole bunch of other interesting options.
>>
>>4098454
what kind of grown ass old man needs a "sexy camera" as first requirement? do you take selfies with that camera wrapped on your neck on your iPhone and posting them on insta with retarded caption like " lookat me, imma fotografer XD " ?
nobody gives a shit about your nice looking camera if the picture quality of it is on par with iPhone 4
>>
File: 35626280885_99aa676d06_k.jpg (438 KB, 2048x1536)
438 KB
438 KB JPG
>>4105906
I get where they're coming from, it's nice to have a nice looking camera. But their taste is shit, usually some toy-looking silver cameras like those dumb vintage cope Fujis. The kind who thinks pic related is aesthetically inferior to the silver version (which is miles better than any shitji anyways).
>>
>>4105906
>what kind of grown
you aren't even 21, shut up
>>
>>4105901
>There are a couple of good ones made for crop sensors. Like the Sigma 56mm. I mainly use my camera for portrait photography, but I have realized there are no portrait lenses for Canon crop sensors. Closest I can get is a 50mm. But if I want one, Id have to either a $2000 L-series, or an old third party lens. There are also no decent wide angle prime lenses. Canon's 16mm RF isn't great.
There are plenty of options if you adapt EF or shoot EF.

>For Fuji, Sony, Nikon you can get the new Fuji 56mm R WR, which is supposedly one of the sharpest lenses ever made (according to Christopher Frost).
Fuji is a fine system if you're OK sticking with crop forever. But they often make claims for their lenses which simply are not true. Also keep in mind that sensor size and resolution are both related to sharpness. Mid tier FF lenses can often match top tier crop lenses simply because of the format difference.
>>
>>4106142
>There are plenty of options if you adapt EF or shoot EF.
For example?
>>
>>4106153
For portraits? Any Canon, Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina fast prime 45mm to 105mm (for crop). Samyang/Rokinon also have some options if you don't mind manual focus.
>>
>>4106161
Yeah but none of them will be 85mm. Tamron 45 is 72mm on a crop (while still having depth of field of a 45mm). An 85mm will be 137mm so you gotta stand quite far away (can be hard to do unless you have a very large studio).
>>
>>4106457
>Yeah but none of them will be 85mm. Tamron 45 is 72mm on a crop (while still having depth of field of a 45mm). An 85mm will be 137mm so you gotta stand quite far away (can be hard to do unless you have a very large studio).
Your autism is showing. Any 50mm is close enough to 85mm (at 80mm) to do what you want. There's probably a dozen of those to choose from, including three f/1.2 options which don't even exist on other mounts.

Your real issue, in anything outside of Fuji or EOS-M, is that APS-C specific lenses are few and far between, and are typically consumer zooms. So you're carrying around FF size/weight for an APS-C sensor. I shot APS-C for years. It can be very good. But having moved to high resolution FF I never want to go back.
>>
>>4106457
>>4106738
And along the same lines: you chose your bokeh when you chose crop. No one gets away from this. You can put some big, heavy, expensive f/0.95 lens on crop...where they even exist...and get FF like bokeh. But you're back to carrying FF size/weight while saying "I've got a crop lens", all while sacrificing IQ because the lens is damn hard to make. Nobody can escape this, not even Fuji.

That said: FF bokeh advantage really comes into play when using pro f/2.8 zooms. In my experience a f/1.4 prime on crop gives you more blur than you need. Years ago when my primary portrait combo was a 7D + Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (the version before the ART) I often shot at f/2. The lens was beautiful at f/1.4 but I typically wanted a little bit more of the subject's face in focus. At f/1.4 it was damn close to "one eyelash in focus" which is overrated any way.

So if you're going to shoot portraits using a fast prime on aps-c, I would say you're fine. A 50mm f/1.4 works great, as does an 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4. If you're going to shoot a wedding or event with a pro zoom, you want FF because on FF you still get some blur at f/2.8.
>>
File: intropic.jpg (100 KB, 600x648)
100 KB
100 KB JPG
>>4096707
>pro lens that telescopes
yeah they fucked up big time

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC 2019 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2019:12:04 10:39:20
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width600
Image Height648
>>
>>4107140
>24-70's all telescope
>100-400's all telescope
>canon 70-200 telescopes
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAA I'M GOING INSANE
>>
>>4107141
>all telescope
I thought Canon were for pros? None of Nikon 2.8 trinities telescope
>>
>>4107143
The Nikon 24-70 2.8 does nothing BUT telescope.
>>
>>4107141
What, you thought the compact size was because of the mirrorless mount? lmao
Mirrorlesscucks get what they fucking deserve, ingrate cunts.
>>
File: 1656071745209.jpg (44 KB, 402x268)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
>>4107161
>What, you thought the compact size was because of the mirrorless mount?
literally not possible with DSLR flange distance
>>
>>4107222
>doubt
>>
File: 1648341638930.png (58 KB, 209x805)
58 KB
58 KB PNG
>>4107230
t. brainlet
>>
>>4107246
Are you seriously implying that DSLR lenses never have a rear element flush with the rear opening of the lens?
>>
>>4107247
tell me smartass, how are you fitting those two elements from the RF lens on a DSLR lens when there's a MIRROR BOX where those elements go?
>>
>>4107253
>lens elements inside the lens
>THEY WILL HIT THE MIRROR BOX
>THE MIRROR SWINGS INSIDE THE LENSES!
You are an idiot.
>>
>>4107254
did you drop out of middle school or high school? because optics was taught in at least one of those physics classes
>>
>>4107261
Keep doubling down on your theory that the mirror swings inside the lens. Moron.
>>
>>4107267
so middle school then. and no I did not say such a thing, you're the one that's too dumb to even understand basic optics.
>>
>>4107271
You pointed to two rear lens elements as if DSLR lenses don't have rear elements. You're a fucking moron who understands nothing about optics and lacks even basic common sense. Here's a clue, retard: if there are any lens designs which are "literally not possible with DSLR flange distance" they exist in the wide angle range. And even then lenses with equivalent focal lengths, apertures, and IQ could be made, but they would likely have to compromise on size/weight.

In the tele range the flange distance doesn't matter. If Canon wanted to make a telescoping 70-200 for EF tomorrow they could. Any claim that the RF version exists "because of muh special RF flange distance" is a load of marketing crap. I don't blame you for falling for marketing crap. But to then insist it's real by randomly pointing to rear lens elements, as if DSLR lenses have no rear elements, is pants on head retarded.
>>
>>4107278
t. turbobrainlet
>>
>>4097260
>>4097301
>It would be interesting to try a deep grip Fuji
As an update, I recently went and tried a couple.

X-T5 is amazing for the form factor, I'd say it's comparable to the Nikon Z7II. Too bad there's no vertical grip option.

They overdid it with the X-H2. Awful unless you have freakishly large hands.

GFX 100S is god tier, even though the R5 may be marginally better.
>>
File: 1665729955537.png (299 KB, 1702x305)
299 KB
299 KB PNG
>>4107326
>X-T5 is amazing
>overdid it with the X-H2
>GFX 100s is god tier
awful larp. X-H2 grip is close to the GFX 100S and the X-T5 is barely an improvement over the X-T4 which was awful
>>
File: 1649459942070.png (543 KB, 1715x359)
543 KB
543 KB PNG
>>4107326
>>
File: 1668049020654.png (224 KB, 919x354)
224 KB
224 KB PNG
>>4107326
>>4107326
>>
File: 1646710314283.png (136 KB, 1150x1040)
136 KB
136 KB PNG
>>4107326
Even Fuji knows their grips are lacking which is why these are a thing that Fuji themselves sell. Notice how the GFX grip only extend in the Y axis while all the other grips extend in the Z axis
>>
>>4100486
>Says the guy who refuses to try to enable FTM
You're unbelievably stupid. Do you even own an EOS R series camera or one of the lenses he's talking about?
>>
>>4107337
you sound european and small-penis'd
>>
>>4107365
fujifags can get very irrational and irritating over the x100 cameras but bring up grips and it doesn't take long for them to froth at the mouth... even if you like fuji!

>>4107337
God I wish other manufacturers would do this. Grip depth should be adjustable to scale with finger length otherwise a camera is better off completely gripless if it's too shallow.
>>
>>4107365
>projecting
>>
>>4107370
>>4107372
I would guess German, 5'8 (small for your people), 3 inches soft.
Your beard is meticulously trimmed because you feel it brings a certain gravitas to your personality that is otherwise lacking.
It does not bring that at all.

I'm never wrong about these things. I'm highly rational and logic-oriented.
>>
>>4107375
Like I said. Grips come up, mouths start frothing.
>>
>>4107375
damn you're short. and sorry about that size. you can always get surgery
>>
>>4107376
>WHY DOESN'T MY CAMERA HAVE A BIGGER GRIP SO MY WEAK FINGERS CAN MORE EASILY HOLD THE ONE POUND OBJECT?

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Quite the opposite. Wheelchairs are an ergonomical device.
>>
>>4107410
Write another deranged essay over a piece of plastic it’s funny
>things only fujihipsters do
>>
>>4107410
bro when he said mouths start frothing he wasn’t giving instructions
>>
>>4107414
kek fujislugs on suicide watch
>>
>>4107412
>>4107414
>>4107415
>timestamps and newfags: a perpetual life lesson
>>
>>4107416
You ok bro? You’re muttering some random sounding nonsense over there.
>>
>>4107416
We’re all clowning you anon
>>
>>4107333
>>4107334
>>4107336
>>4107337
What the fuck are you on about?

I held all the cameras I mentioned and that was my subjective opinion of them.

Am I supposed to use a camera less comfortable to my particular hands because of some autistic objective standard of how camera grips should be designed? How exactly does knowing that a grip is comfortable for most people help me when I'm not comfortable?



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.