[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


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


I've had an A6000 since early 2019. I love it. In the last year I've acquired 5 lenses.

Sony 55-210mm
All 3 Sigma Prime Trios
7Artisans 50mm f//0.95
and of course the 16-50mm kit lens.

Basically the 7A is for black and white portraits, the Sigma 56 is for color portraits, the Sigma 30mm is my walk around lens, the 16mm is my landscapes and astrophotography, the telephoto is obvious (I love this one way more than I expected) and the 16-50 only gets used for video occasionally because of the OSS.

I want a travel ready kit. I've been thinking about getting the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8, the Sony 11mm f1.8 and pairing those with my telephoto to be my travel kit. I've also wanted to sell the A6000 and buy a used A6400, for the picture profiles (flat, for video color grading), eye autofocus because sometimes at f1.4 my portraits aren't focused right (a convenience thing), and for 4k video. Even though the A6400 doesn't have IBIS, it sits in a price sweet spot where I see the value for the features it has. I don't see that for the A6600.

The cheapest used A6400 I've found locally is $999 CAD.

I have found a used A7ii for $1,100 CAD and it comes with an extra battery and the 28-70mm lens. For almost the same price, I can have IBIS and a FF OSS lens. The A6000 doesn't have anything the A7ii doesn't. People complain about the A7ii battery, but it lasts as long as the A6000.

I won't have 4k video or the picture profiles though.

The A7iii would be like $1,650 CAD for the body only.

What would be the better choice here?
>>
>>4129223
Upgrade to reflex, ditch Sony. Embrace the pentaprism.
>>
Go full frame. There is no benefit to having an APSC instead.
>>
>>4129230
His entire kit is APS-C stuff.
He'd be better served by stabilization than full frame. a6500 or a6600
>>
>>4129230
Besides size/weight (which isn't as big a deal as many people make it out to be imo) and COST. Cost is a huge factor.

Besides, what is he missing with all those F1.4 lenses? That basically negates FF's main advantage imo.

>>4129232
The 6500 and 6600 are WAY overpriced imo.
>>
>>4129227
>Worst AF ever put in a DSLR
>K-1 had durable articulating screen, newer K-3 III had fixed screen
>noise reduction forcibly baked into raws, no way to disable
>worse image quality than the older KP, no sensor update, just forced NR
>inexcusably bad video, really AWFUL dynamic range in video (it turns fucking green if you lift the shadows)
>lol no lenses (no, 20 year old designs do not count, a phone has better image quality)
>"magic" weather sealing fails as often as snoy's
>glitchy AE meter
All this and you are paying MORE than a sony or (comparable) fuji (pentax can't afford 40mp sensors) user for an objectively WORSE camera with objectively WORSE lenses...

Or you could just buy a Nikon and get a better camera with better lenses if you really want a DSLR.

>>4129236
Still way cheaper than the pencucks lol, but nearly as much as a used full frame camera.

>>4129223
The A7II/A7RII's user interface is pretty bad and the A7III had shutter issue failures. There are no good sony FF cameras under the A7RIII. I recommend you check out fuji and stay with APSC if you don't want to spend more. The only other good option you have is nikon mirrorless.
>>
>>4129236
the 6600 is the best camera in its class. the only "better" one is an even more expensive 40mp fuji xh2.

or you could buy the xh1 with inferior build quality/everything i guess? but with fuji you have to pay to play
>>
File: kp vs k3.png (311 KB, 578x301)
311 KB
311 KB PNG
>>4129261
>Worst AF
Fake news. Best Pentax AF to date.
>K-1 had durable articulating screen, newer K-3 III had fixed screen
Horses for courses, K-3 III is sports-oriented. It shoots at 12 fps against 4.4 on the K-1 II.
>noise reduction forcibly baked into raws, no way to disable
Who cares? Everyone does it to some degree.
>worse image quality than the older KP, no sensor update, just forced NR
In what way is it any worse? If anything, it's beter.
>inexcusably bad video, really AWFUL dynamic range in video (it turns fucking green if you lift the shadows)
You shouldn't lift shadows in video unless it's RAW.
>lol no lenses (no, 20 year old designs do not count, a phone has better image quality)
fake news
>"magic" weather sealing fails as often as snoy's
fake news
>glitchy AE meter
user error most likely
>All this and you are paying MORE than a sony or (comparable) fuji (pentax can't afford 40mp sensors) user for an objectively WORSE camera with objectively WORSE lenses...
Fuji needs 40MP to cope because X-tranny sucks major dick. Sony and Fuji are the worst two brands in the market by far, if any cameras are objectively worse than the rest it's Fuji and Sony. Cheaply made toys.
>Or you could just buy a Nikon and get a better camera with better lenses if you really want a DSLR.
Nikon ragequit the DSLR market after getting btfo.
>Still way cheaper than the pencucks lol, but nearly as much as a used full frame camera.
Then get an used APS-C camera
>The A7II/A7RII's user interface is pretty bad and the A7III had shutter issue failures. There are no good sony FF cameras under the A7RIII. I recommend you check out fuji and stay with APSC if you don't want to spend more. The only other good option you have is nikon mirrorless.
kek, Fuji is the brand to get if you want to spend more. Literally built on fleecing the customer (who is targeted with dumbass designs that only appeal to the kind of retard who'd pay good money for a plastic fantastic)
>>
>>4129279
>best pentax AF
>fastest turtle
Lmao sorry the 2k k3 sucks DICK compared to a mucb cheaper sony. Weather sealing is fake news and all your lenses are bargain bin soft for sony/zeiss prices.
>>
>>4129279
Maybe one day you’ll wake up and realize this board would be a nicer place without you
>>
>>4129279
shut the fuck up. This is unrelated.
>>
File: 1674621841501.png (26 KB, 572x106)
26 KB
26 KB PNG
>>4129279
>kek, Fuji is the brand to get if you want to spend more. Literally built on fleecing the customer (who is targeted with dumbass designs that only appeal to the kind of retard who'd pay good money for a plastic fantastic)
Sorry are we talking about the company with a bunch of ancient crap lenses that's still making DSLRs, dumbass designs that only appeal to the kind of retard who'd pay good money for a plastic fantastic? (speaking pentax lenses...)
>Who cares? Everyone does it to some degree.
Bro, the shadows start turning purple at ISO 6400.
>it's for sports!
What part of that excuses the lack of an articulating screen with this price tag
>fake news
yes most pentax lenses are trash
>fake newwwws
Do you need all the weather sealing failure posts from pentaxforums again
>User error
No, pentax meters are always off. it's like, their thing.
>i hate fuji and sony!
You hate fuji and sony because every single pentax fag with sense goes to either fuji or sony because they'd rather not spend the same amount of money on objectively worse cameras. Every "pentaxian" does. But the A7RIII kicks the K-1 IIs ass for dynamic range and doesn't rely on forced noise reduction to force DR charts. Fuck even the D810 kicks the K1s ass. And what doesn't outdo the K3?
>>
tldr:

buy a used a6500 or a6600 instead of switching systems and go to bed knowing that your camera shits all over literally everything pentax has ever made.
>>
the pentax k-3 iii is just about the only major aps-c dslr that overheats while shooting video

at least with a sony you can raise the shutoff temp and move the screen out to cope
>>
File: WAFL.jpg (231 KB, 1024x1024)
231 KB
231 KB JPG
>>4129223
ok so you want an A6400 for..
>eye autofocus when you're on f/1.4
decent idea but is it really worth $1k just to shoot portraits on f1.4? i mean damn homie nobody shoots portraits so open.
>4k video
eh... the A6400 4k doesn't go past 30fps. so if you shoot any 60fps footage (and this is 90% of what looks good when randomly travelling around) then you have to deliver in 1080 anyway.
The A6000 shoots a decent bitrate 1080 all the way up to 60. it's good. desu I wouldn't pay for that upgrade.
if you have a new iPhone then it's outshooting the A6400's codec by far. 10-bit prores nigga
>flat video profile
it's still 8-bit so this just really isn't a big upgrade from setting up a custom hacky profile on your A6000.

>A7II
honestly just too outdated to justify a jump from your current setup. the a6000 shoots NICE stills bro, and you have great glass. don't half-ass into FF, if you want to go FF then buy some actually nice shit cuz ur current setup really is not slacking at all.

save your money and upgrade when sony releases a new APSC. get a seriously dope body to use with those lenses. don't buy some bargain bin shit.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
PhotographerREGALADO SANTOS
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4129223
If you're tempted to change sensor size then you can abandon Sony altogether, I'd go nikon personally
>>
>>4129311
>decent idea but is it really worth $1k just to shoot portraits on f1.4? i mean damn homie nobody shoots portraits so open.

Damn, you're right. I appreciate you, homie.
>>
>>4129223
I think the best option is to sit it out a bit, Sony is rumored to update their apsc body line this year, this is especially important if you care about video since the new model will definitely have active stabilization and focus breathing correction from the a7iv

If you save up until then you'll be able to buy an awesome body that will last for years and can keep using your lenses.
>>
>>4129388
I like this too. I'll wait it out. I can get hasty sometimes. I keep telling myself it would be cool to have a FF body too, but when I use my rational brain, I can't find a good reason. I don't really have much to gain from buying a FF.

I spend a bunch of money on a body and even more on lenses to get about what I already have now?
>>
>>4129223
If you're fine with the A600 body and controls you may update the A6400. I used that one for other stuff and it worked fine.
I personal don't like the A6XXX lineup because of the fucked up controls and old menu.

Going fullframe will cost you something, since you have to get new lenses. So if you're on a budget stay in the APS-C line. You won't lose that much image quality.
>>
>>4129388
I’m actually interested to see what direction they’re gonna go with. Will they just slap a new sensor in the same crappy body where everything is controlled by the thumb or will it be an a7 body with apsc size sensor in it? I’ve already moved on from Sony mostly but I hope it’s a professional a7 body. It’s long overdue. Anything bigger than the Sigma primes is honestly an unpleasant experience with the current bodies.
>>
>>4129223
If you shoot snoy and don’t own 55mm 1.8 ZA, 85mm 1.4 GM, 25mm f2 Batis, 90mm 2.8 G macro, 135mm 1.8 GM and 35mm f2 apo asph voigt then why are you even on snoy system in the first place?! Just get a nikon or canon
>>
>>4129317
No but for real though, he’s right - nobody in the entire industry who shoots people whether it’s fashion, beauty, portraiture or whatever else, none of them shoot on 1.4, 1.8 or even 2-2.8, the lowest ive seen big name photographers go was like f3.5 because she was shooting without strobes or flash in an abandoned building… You’re always on f5.6 - f11 or even higher than f11.

Spending thousands on a f1.2 lens is a literal waste of money no matter how rich you are.
>>
>>4129429
I don't know what any of that means, but it all sounds stupid af
>>
>>4129223
panasonic has pdaf now, they solved camera making
>>
>>4129701
>panasoynic
>>
How do you zoom on Sony like 5x-10x? Can you customize it to be something smaller like 2.5x?

Canon and Nikon have dedicated buttons for this and it’s throwing me for a loop
>>
>>4129223
>Full Frame
Why? Get some lens adapter and attach your glass to a small m43 body
>>
>>4129765
Why would anyone who's snot a wildlife/bird photographer want m43?
>>
>>4129849
Isn't wildlife/burd better in FF?
>>
>>4129865
In my mind wildlife means ZOOM. A small crop sensor gets you the most zoom.
>>
>>4129866
And in my experience wildlife means detail, very high shutterspeeds (1/2000 the slowest) and subsequently ISO climbs high. For that you need FF and its bigger pixels.
>>
>>4129983
That makes a lot of sense. I don't shoot wildlife so I don't know wtf I'm talking about.
>>
File: p1133617.jpg (309 KB, 1500x935)
309 KB
309 KB JPG
>>4129849
>>4129983
In my experience, wildlife means lots of walking carrying your gear. I own Om System Om-1 with picrel (150-400mm). It weights less than 2.5kg (around 5lbs) and is able to shoot between 50 and 120 single exposures per second. AF animal tracking is awesome too. Try it if you have the chance. For me, low weight won the contest.
>>
>>4129995
>xhe spent $10K on mft
this is a larp isn't it? i don't even believe the dumbest fucker on the board would do this
>>
>>4129995
You're imagining you're speaking with people who have gone out in the woods with their cameras and lenses.
haha
In reality you're speaking with autists who stay at home and unironically think anything below FF will not produce good quality photos.
>>
>>4130057
I'm a full framefag and I only hate APS-C. Pointless shit. Basically the same size and price unless the camera manufacturer is purposefully trying to make it into the budget version of full frame.

MFT is based because it embraces the advantages of crop while APS-C only exists for economic reasons. The only APS-C only brand is also one of the most greedy, just saying
>oy vey we better discontinue 3 packs of film because of demand and sell single packs for a large markup!
>>
>>4130073
Agreed
>APS-C: it's "small" and "not intimidating"!
>is smaller about 1-2cm in every dimension and lighter by 1/10th of a pound, literally does not affect how you use it
>MFT: it's small
>actually is small, can pocket an ILC, superetele lenses are the size of 70-200s on full frame
APS-C? Stop down on your sony. MFT? It can't be outdone, the pixel density, reach, stabilization, depth of field, etc, are all insane and MFT cameras will be the first with phone tier computational photography assuming this shitty gearfaggot and larping hipster infested market doesn't kill the standard.
>>
>>4130073
>The only APS-C only brand is also one of the most greedy, just saying

Fuji Fags BTFO!
>>
>>4129232
hed be better served by selling his entire kit and going full frame with less lenses initially
>>
>>4129999
Nice numbers, but you don't know shit about shooting wildlife photo/video.
Also you sound like you are poor, and I hate poor people, so fuck off.
>>
File: 1661466218184.png (1.07 MB, 1203x575)
1.07 MB
1.07 MB PNG
>>4130119
post your photos then, larper
>>
File: 1658658348944.jpg (286 KB, 1048x1392)
286 KB
286 KB JPG
>>4130119
Please demonstrate what 1000mm f/11.25 is capable of anon.
>>
>>4130057
>you're speaking with autists
I see. I just said that "low weight won the contest *for me*". It's a fucking hobby for God's sake.
I bought the camera and three lenses last summer and I am happy so far. Last Christmas I presented some framed photos I shot with the telezoom to a couple of friends who go hiking with me. Prints were 18 x 24 inches and they looked super nice.
>>
>>4130123
>post your photos
>he posts the back of a fox and a half asleep Rudolph eating grass
NatGeo safari tier anon. Kek.
>>
>>4130145
>spent $10k on gear
>nothing to show for it
KEK
>>
>>4130145
>makes fun of someone posting photos
>for posting photos
>on /p/
>>
>>4129999
He could've spent even more to be at feature + range parity on a larger format, and it would still have been at least like twice as heavy and bulky on top of that.
>>
File: 1658643902136.png (76 KB, 1202x442)
76 KB
76 KB PNG
>>4130384
MFT loses on price and image quality (prime 800mm f/6.3 vs zoom 800mm f/9), and all you gain is more flexibility with the zoom/TC. You're only saving 600g and a bit of bulk, but when you're already carrying something as large as the 150-400, those are fairly negligible. You're also buying into a mostly dead system vs a system that is growing quickly. And of course
>$10K
>m4/3
>>
>>4130390
>only saving 600g
>only
We are talkin cameras and miles walking anon. 600 is a lot.
>$10K
Latest camera of the system and and best lenses. Compare all the features of the body aside of sensor size. Also check some video about how this tele works. You can take a portait of a goat HANDHELD at 800mm. You can't beat that, so you must carry a tripod, but that's ok, because "you're only adding 3000g and a bit of bulk", right?
>mostly dead system
The two brands that make m43 put their last flagship cameras in the market in 2022, so not that dead I'm afraid. M43 was mostly dead since the beginning 15 years ago, according to people like you. Man, just enjoy your huge and great Sony sensor or wathever and let other anons enjoy their great gear. Go out and take some pics.
>>
>>4130459
>600 is a lot
hit the gym, lardass
>>
>>4130390
what about when you want to shoot at something between 300mm and 800mm. i wouldnt buy his setup either but you've unironically made it look more appealing
>>
>>4130390
Now compare the zoom with another zoom retard.
>>
>>4130145
Samuel campos tier sour /gg/rapes posting

Just needs the monkey sound effects and CGI bananas floating in the air (iykyk)
>>
>>4130480
>Samuel campos
who? some other talentless gearfag?
>>
>>4130485
No, an impoverished third worlder that gets unreasonably angry when people have things he can’t afford and is all
>hurrr u dont deserve it
While, despite that, being a gearfag or doing absolutely nothing and having no creative output whatsoever. A truly pathetic individual with the mind of a bitter liberal woman who just saw a sportscar.
>>
>>4129288
>Lmao sorry the 2k k3 sucks DICK compared to a mucb cheaper sony.
On paper maybe, not in practice unless you're legally retarded.
>Weather sealing is fake news and all your lenses are bargain bin soft for sony/zeiss prices.
I've seen what a Pentax can endure.
>sony
Speaking of fake sealing.
>>4129294
>implying
>>4129298
Unrelated to what?
>>4129299
Pentax doesn't charge hundreds for a 50mm.
>that's still making DSLRs
That alone earns my sympathy.
>Bro, the shadows start turning purple at ISO 6400.
Easily corrected.
>What part of that excuses the lack of an articulating screen with this price tag
The part where a fixed screen is desirable because of the environments it will be used in. The price tag itself is justified by the performance and the FF-tier viewfinder alone.
>yes most pentax lenses are trash
What a weird way to say they aren't flat and clinical. Pentax optics are for auteurs.
>Do you need all the weather sealing failure posts from pentaxforums again
They're a handful at most. Shit happens, I have a quality control background andnot even the best process can achieve perfect results. Also people mistake weather sealed for waterproof. Pentax sealing is only matched by Olympus, Panasonic and Leica. Canon and Nikon cone second and after a power gap there's Fuji and Sony.
>No, pentax meters are always off.
Learn to use them.
>You hate fuji and sony because every single pentax fag with sense goes to either fuji or sony because they'd rather not spend the same amount of money on objectively worse cameras. Every "pentaxian" does. But the A7RIII kicks the K-1 IIs ass for dynamic range and doesn't rely on forced noise reduction to force DR charts. Fuck even the D810 kicks the K1s ass. And what doesn't outdo the K3?
You look at charts, I look at pictures. I've seen a good picture of a coyote recovered from a pitch black one from a K-1 II. with no magenta bullshit. Being a canonfag I know magenta bs well.
>D810
That's a fine camera, shame about the mount.
>>
>>4129300
Lose the fanboy cope and it's actually decent advice if he has more than one lens. But if he doesn't have too many sunk costs it's the ideal moment to graduate to reflex and stop looking at pixels.
>>
I can’t help but notice that for how much snoy and fool frame shilling that goes on here they never post photos
>>
>>4130496
>stop caring about the image that comes out
>care about how your toy works instead
Pentax cameras are unreliable and poorly built. You pay new sony prices for 10 year old canon performance. It’s a shitty brand with no sales and no notable pro users and won’t be around in 5 years.
>>
>>4129306
Pentax cameras were never about video, the codecs suck. You want the best video experience, you buy a Canon. 5D mark III, enjoy 4K RAW. Not sure which APS-C is best, probably the one with the latest DIGIC that can run ML. Pretty sure 60D was viable.
And if you want mirrorless, then Panasonic or bust. There's no Sony that can hope to offer what Panasonic gives the videographer.
>>
>>4130497
for how much butthurt cropfags come up with schoolyard taunts you never see any photos from them either

that depressed sonychad shooting out his window made something more aesthetic than pentax general and their, uh, photos of rocks. could say the same for fuji.

>>4130500
ricoh is just milking real pentax’s r&d library until they make a profit on the purchase and then they’re discontinuing it
>>
>>4130503
Pentax cameras were never about photography either because they turn the shadows purple lmao

At best they’re about recycling moldy film cameras lenses
>>
>>4130497
For how much larpanon spent on m43, you'd think he'd have at least one photo to display m4/3's superiority
>>
>>4130505
just ignore the pooptax shills. they’re just salty because their shit looks bad even compared to overpriced phone-tier fooj stooges. its plain to see that any real developments stopped years ago and they’re just robbing the fanboys now.
>>
>>4129311
Yeah if he's going to buy Sony he should get something with IBIS to not just be burning money.
The iPhone is indeed more sensible codec-wise but you're missing interchangeable lenses.
>>
>>4129397
The reason to go FF is adapted glass or going wider than APS-C would allow. If you don't care about adapting stuff you can safely disregard FF.
>>
>>4130504
>that depressed sonychad shooting out his window made something more aesthetic than pentax general and their, uh, photos of rocks. could say the same for fuji.
There was the K-1 guy who left /p/ who used to make some mind-blowing stuff, but the window anon's pic is beautiful.
>>4130500
They're vastly superior to 10 yo Canons thanks to the Sony sensors. Equal to Nikon really. But Canon has Magic Lantern for some older models and that's what I require. Otherwise I'd be balls-deep in Pentax with a multi mount mod.
>>4130510
There's no more desirable crop DSLR in the market than the K-3 III, except maybe the 90D for muh reach.
>>
>>4130521
The K-3 III that skipped the tilting screen because ricoh coldn't afford it? The one that turns shadows purple at sensible high ISOs and overheats shooting video? The one with detail eating noise reduction baked into the raw files? The one with sony tier weather sealing? The one that charges $2k for all of this because it just now caught up to nikon's AF and burst speed?
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/189-repairs-warranty-service/431701-k-3-iii-water-damage.html

How about you just don't use a DSLR because all the competent engineering is going into mirrorless now?
>>
>>4130525
lol dead from being splashed on a kayak
even my phone is more waterproof
>>
>>4130505
>they turn the shadows purple lmao
K1 II and K3 III, the others shove your entire system up your poohole in terms of RAW file quality
Many retards praise the quality of the Ricoh GR II/III files while forgetting Pentax APSC DSLRs are the exact same thing but better, like the K5 IIs or K3 II. Kp is more expensive and i wouldn't vouch for that one due to price alone, the K5 is not that far away.
>>
>>4130529
>the others shove your entire system up your poohole in terms of RAW file quality
so does every sony, so does the nikon z7, so does the nikon d810, so does the nikon d500...
All while having access to a superior number of superior lenses and being cheaper than pooptax, or significantly more advanced and without peers among pooptax.

>Many retards praise the quality of the Ricoh GR II/III files
Yeah because they're retards and they've never seen anything outside of film and iphone 12 built in cameras before.
>>
>>4130526
It probably got hit by a wave and the retard was using a zoom lens. I bet it sucked vaporized water in.
>>
anyone defending nu-pentax is a retard.
>pay new camera prices
>get shitty old camera
old pentax is where it's at. you pay shitty old camera prices for a shitty old camera.
>you, nu-pentax shill: my brand new $1500 lens is soft even on my 36mp sensor ;_; i can see the chromatic aberration in full detail
>me, old pentax chad: my 20 year old $30 lens is sharp for my 10mp sensor :3 oh look there's another cool lens for $20
>>
>>4130543
Yeah, heard it before
>Sony weather sealing is good but using the buttons in heavy rain sucks water in!
Weather sealing doesn't reliably do anything except keep your camera alive if it gets wet *AND* you stop using it right that moment and dry it off. This is why their warranties don't cover water damage.
>>
>>4130544
I don't entirely disagree, I'd never buy a KF when it's 50% more expensive than a K-70 with nearly no improvements.
>>
>>4130548
and i'd never buy a k-1 or k-3 III when its as expensive as a new mirrorless and the lenses that are meant to be good enough for the improved sensor are bad compared to the rest of the industry. they just now updated the 100mm macro to be usable right? will they fix the 70-200s non-competitive softness and focus breathing next? those are pro cameras for pro prices without pro quality. sad.

if i needed that much detail for work or something i would buy something suited to work and offer my clients the sharpest possible image so they could have whatever cropped out or order any print size they wanted

but when was the last time you shared an image with more than 10mp? k10d is enough for /p/.
>>
>>4130461
retard alert
>>
>>4130378
you missed the point
>>
>>4130555
fatass alert
>>4130559
the point that anon spent $10K on m4/3 for wildlife but still can't produce a single photo?
>>
>>4130564
it's the guy that doesn't even own a camera, he does this.
>>
>>4130564
>still can't produce a single photo
Are you the one who produced the photo of the fox? I would like to know what camera and glass was used for that unique masterpiece. KEK
>>
>>4130573
Still not seeing any photos, larper
>>
>>4130554
I would't take a mirrorless if it were free, we're not the same.
Why fuck around with a mirrorless camera that only has an advantage for video when affordable cinema cameras exist that do a better job with ergonomics better suited for it?
The BMPCC6K has an articulated viewfinder, records continuous 6K RAW and has a glorious Super 35 sensor with EF mount and access to the MagicBooster. That would be my pick before any mirrorless hybrid.
>>
>>4130583
mirrorless has the advantage for everything. i'm not going to lie. i'm not going to be a luddite. EVF vs OVF doesn't matter anymore and hasn't mattered for 5 years. CMOS sensor to CMOS sensor, there is no magic, you're just being a sperg. mirrorless cameras are better than DSLRs ever were. saying a dedicated $2500 cinema camera is even better for video doesn't change that a mirrorless camera is more than good enough for 90% of video while a DSLR just isn't.

but you see my DSLR was $100 and the best mirrorless camera for your money is $1300 and that's before you spend $500+ on lenses that can make use of all the megapixels you paid for. of course, this is not an option with new pentax, but i won't defend new pentax. new pentax is for idiots. spending more than $300 on a DSLR is for idiots.
>>
>>4130586
>EVF vs OVF doesn't matter anymore and hasn't mattered for 5 years.
lol, is this how mirrorless cucks cope?
>CMOS sensor to CMOS sensor, there is no magic, you're just being a sperg
Precisely, mirrorless changes just the viewfinder and the shooting experience. Image quality is the same as on reflex.
>mirrorless cameras are better than DSLRs ever were.
better at sucking battery.
>a mirrorless camera is more than good enough for 90% of video while a DSLR just isn't.
lol, the DSLR is as good and often better. 5D3, you get 14-bit 4K RAW footage. Not many mirrorless cameras match that.
>but you see my DSLR was $100 and the best mirrorless camera for your money is $1300 and that's before you spend $500+ on lenses that can make use of all the megapixels you paid for.
your mirrorless price ceiling is a bit low, you can't buy an R3, Z9 or a1 with that money. None of those can match the blackmagic on video.
>of course, this is not an option with new pentax, but i won't defend new pentax. new pentax is for idiots. spending more than $300 on a DSLR is for idiots.
Sour grapes.
>>
>>4130596
>cope
a word said by people who perform it
>Precisely, mirrorless changes just the viewfinder and the shooting experience. Image quality is the same as on reflex.
it also drastically changes your options for autofocus and video. also, the part where DSLRs are no longer getting competent sensor development, and mirrorless is.
>le 5d3
yeah if you want to use it more like a dedicated cinema camera, which 90% of people doing video do not. they want a camera that can autofocus while shooting
>sour grapes
i can afford one. but i won't buy one. because nu-pentax is bad, and i don't need some sony shit. nu pentax and competent development do not belong in the same sentence. if i'm going to pay as much as a superior a7rii i'll just get the a7rii and enjoy the lens selection larger than like, 15, not counting FA lenses that are only sharp by $100 DSLR standards and make a $1000 k1 look like a $100 k10.

this is something 4chan can not understand
you don't have to buy the most expensive version of everything to prove how rich you are. if you think you do i'm looking forward to seeing your jalopy with gold spinner rims.
>>
>>4130583
>I would't take a mirrorless if it were free
We believe you, anon.
Good look with your continuous 6K RAW and glorious Super 35, your cat is going to look awesome.
>>
>>4130603
You're bragging about your $100 camera kek
>>4130638
You seriously underestimate my burning hatred for EVIL cameras, be they mirrorless or pellicle mirror ones. Give me a proper camcorder over that any day. I refuse to accept any less than a scope that freezes the image after having tried it. There's no shortage of people who "upgraded" to mirrorless and regretted it.
>>
>>4130657
>hatred for EVIL cameras
>>4130657
>Give me a proper camcorder
mirrorless cameras literally are camcorders though?
>>
>>4130657
t. schizo
>>
>>4130583
What is magic booster?
>>
File: 1645093761528.png (110 KB, 900x303)
110 KB
110 KB PNG
>>4130669
a very overpriced speedbooster from the looks of it. schizo is a yuropoor THOUGH, so he obviously can't afford one
>>
>>4130663
They're the retarded sibling of camcorders but you got me with interchangeable lens ones being EVIL. EVIL is a term used in a stills-oriented context though.
>>4130667
What did I say that was even tangentially schizo tier?
>>4130669
what >>4130678 said but they're fairly piced, I'm also no yuro.
They're not a lot pricier than metabones and they mount inside the camera, optimally unobtrusive setup.
>>
>>4130685
>What did I say that was even tangentially schizo tier
"Burning hatred" is psychologist appointment tier, but "burning hatred" for some type of photo camera is take your meds tier...
>>
File: 1-7R308811.jpg (1.74 MB, 2000x1334)
1.74 MB
1.74 MB JPG
>>4130657
I switched to mirrorless and regret buying a DSLR in the first place. Protip: turn off exposure preview. It's gay.

Not buying any cameras after this except for medium format (film). The sony A7R3 is the best digital camera ever made under $6000.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera Softwaredarktable 3.8.1
PhotographerJoe Mamma
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2023:01:25 20:54:10
Exposure Time1/200 sec
F-Numberf/5.6
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating320
Brightness7.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height1334
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4130704
I tend to get colorful with language but let's just leave it at "I consider them abominations that shouldn't exist"
>>
File: 1-7R308778.jpg (3.06 MB, 2000x2000)
3.06 MB
3.06 MB JPG
>>4130708
no photos tho?

curiose

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera Softwaredarktable 3.8.1
PhotographerJoe Mamma
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2023:01:27 17:02:55
Exposure Time1/60 sec
F-Numberf/3.5
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating400
Brightness0.9 EV
Exposure Bias-1.7 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width2000
Image Height2000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: 1-7R308891_01.jpg (854 KB, 1000x1500)
854 KB
854 KB JPG
i have a passion for home decor and dog portraits

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera Softwaredarktable 3.8.1
PhotographerJoe Mamma
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Image Created2023:01:27 17:07:45
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/2.8
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating1600
Brightness0.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1000
Image Height1500
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationHigh
SharpnessNormal
>>
>>4130710
I've posted them while chatting witvh Alex in the past, also Sugar and Eggy if memory doesn't fail me. As anon.
>>
>>4130717
I'm Terry Richardson.
>>
>>4130708
>abominations that shouldn't exist
Good sense of humor.
I see it as just a hobby. Enjoy using your gear, make big prints of your best photos and dress the walls of your home with images worth looking.
>>
>>4130707
>medium format (film)
I wish I had time to do this. I miss the think twice before shoot of my b/w 35mm 15 years ago.
>>
File: 3fb.png (228 KB, 1063x1063)
228 KB
228 KB PNG
>>4130717
>erratic attachment to past /p/celebs that have all effectively turned nophoto
>inexplainable hatred of certain camera brands
>pathological fear of posting own photos
>extreme gearfaggotry tendencies

Yup, we have a psycho at hand.
>>
>>4130727
The most important thing to do as a psycho is always believe in yourself and remind the voices that they’re in your head and need to be respectful.
>>
>>4130719
>I see it as just a hobby. Enjoy using your gear, make big prints of your best photos and dress the walls of your home with images worth looking.
That's my approach too, but when I photograph I want the camera to be an extension of my body and EVFs get in the way of that.
>>
>>4130732
When you use an OVF, the mirror, focusing screen, and viewfinder optics are fucking your bitch. EVFs show the scene you are actually photographing. This is one of the many reasons you should buy a Sony camera.
>>
>>4130734
EVFs are digital screens. I won't miss on the optical experience just because the capture is digital, I can look at the pixels later.
>>
>>4130736
Film is an optical medium, but digital is not. The best photographers in the world use Sony digital cameras.
>>
>>4130717
You are henceforth known as cANON, one upped by dog portraits.

>>4130736
You are henceforth known as cANON, one upped by dog portraits, he who is fooled by fake zachs.
>>
>>4130732
>I want the camera to be an extension of my body
I understand. I started long time ago with a Yahica fx3 super 2000 and a contax-zeiss plannar 50 1.4 and I miss the fully manual experience: no screen, no menus, no computer and real b/w pictures.
Anyway, with the gear I use today I get much better results and I can print big.
Still using the plannar (100mm equivalent in mft) for family portraits and videos when subject don't move a lot. I get no sharpness at all, but it's aesthetically amazing.
>>
Zach and cANON you are both psychos and the board would benefit if you leave and never come back
>>
>>4130996
You'd get 4 times as much sharpness and contrast from that lens using it on full frame.
>>
this thread should be straight up deleted



[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.