>rockwellcore superzooms
Sony A7C + tamron 20-40 f2.8.

File: b27.jpg (41 KB, 798x644)

41 KB JPG

>>4230669
>snoy

File: 1397542185997.jpg (60 KB, 600x450)

60 KB JPG

>>4230672
>know your meme filename
trash

>>4230668
This is a nice camera, sir

>>4230674
Which one?

there is something to be said for how a more limited focal range gives more character and consistency to a series of photographs. the visual effects of perspective are stronger (on a subconscious level) than you think. a single photograph is a word, a set is a sentence. a picture is a brushstroke and an album is a painting.

superzooms like these are associated with professional event photographers who have a checklist of shots meant for various purposes (thats the wall hanger and these are the facebook pics and this is for the squarespace page and etc etc etc), like a wedding photographer. they are simultaneously working on several "sets" and some portraits that were planned out a day in advance, and need to be shot on the first try every time during the proceedings, as the photography is not the subject of the event and few accommodations are made for it.

if the latter describes your line of work it literally does not matter what gear you use, people are still at the top of the field with DSLRs and non-stabilized lenses. people arent super critical of your output, but your business skills. just buy the most zoom range you can. fuck, even buy a z5 instead of a pricey z6 ii. the canon lens has IS, which is theoretically more effective if you use it in combination with an R6 instead of an R8. but that line of work requires shutter speeds around 1/250 for all the generic shit shots because people move, so it doesn't matter.

>>4230680
I am just a hobbyist who wants a camera for taking pictures of my travels and weekly walks.

>>4230681
I'm not going to diss you for wanting FF image quality but you're not going to take a huge superzoom, or a bulky body intended to be more ergonomic with huge zoom lenses, out as often as you think.

The A7C or an A7III/RIII with a smallish tamron zoom is actually a better suggestion (the a7c has better weather sealing but fewer features).

File: file.png (1.23 MB, 2554x1391)

1.23 MB PNG

>>4230682
behold the compromise between nikon faggotry and sony smallness

also this tool is bullshit, the lenses are all larger than they are in real life

File: 10404-BFA-1987-4541-8-ACA(...).jpg (73 KB, 640x613)

73 KB JPG

>>4230686
The 17-28 is used to substitute for the missing 20-40 and is only a little bigger

17-28 f2.8 would be fun as fuck for more creative photography than 24-70 tho. Do you even get lenses like that on other systems?

>>4230687
>Do you even get lenses like that on other systems?
nope. not unless you consider an f5.6 equivalent lens an alternative to an f2.8.

>snoy
>dies after taking 10k pictures

>>4230695
https://www.ebay.com/itm/266392697475
i dont know they seem to do pretty well when you use them normally instead of doing retarded youtube torture tests. most cameras do except for a few bad models everyone has. only canon didn't have dramatic issues, just noise banding that could be fixed if you sent your camera back in, third party batteries exploding, and the original 5ds mirror flying off.

>>4230687
Ive got the 28-70 on a 7iii and its pretty big ngl

A bit offtopic but the first thing after having the tamron in my hand i noticed the zoom goes pretty hard, its not super smooth and fast like i seen on other lenses, normal?

>>4230706
>tamron isnt smooth, luxurious, or loaded with extra switches, just optically sufficient and functional
yes thats why they're cheap

>>4230707
I dont mind, just wondered if its normal or mine has some issue (got it used)

>>4230668
Nigon is a much better camera

>>4230669
>>4230680
>24-120 or 24-105
>"superzoom"
/p/ is retarded

>>4230682
>>4230686
>>4230687
>completely different lenses
>chose the biggest possible zoom for the canon, not what op was looking at
>"look at how small my choice is!"
Sony shills are retarded.

>muh 17-28!!!
Weak. You have any number of 14/15/16-35 zooms in other systems which are better for their focal length range. <20mm an extra 1-2mm is actually a lot. And there's just no reason to cut an UWA zoom short at 28mm instead of 35mm.
>muh size!
Body size differences are minimal, and you had to cherry pick lenses to make snoy look small. Throw a pancake lens on the Canon or Nikon if you want lightweight. Size/weight are not going to deter you from taking the camera out if you're serious about photography. If you want a tiny, casual camera you're not looking at FF. Get a small apsc or m43 + pancake lens.

>>4230698
>has to lie about other cameras to make snoy look good
Do you really?

Any way the Z6ii is a better body than the original R, but the R6/R6ii are better than the Z6ii. OP should decide which system he wants to be in, then choose body/lens, because all of the bodies are pretty good. A standard zoom ("superzoom" lol) is better to start with than an UWA zoom unless you already know that landscapes are your main thing.

>>4230758
TLDR shill essay

>>4230758
16-28 f2.8 is smaller than 16-35 f2.9s and f4s retard

>SIZE DIFFERENCES ARE MINIMAL
Tell me you've spent most of your life shooting DSLRs without saying it. Yeah anything is minimal if you're used to 2-3lb DSLRnosaur bodies that repel pussy harder than an anime t shirt

>>4230765
>cameras repel pussy
lmao it's you that repels it, incel

File: WEB_steven-tilotta-headshot.jpg (216 KB, 511x650)

216 KB JPG

>>4230768
Let's check on the average canon DSLR user real quick
https://www.outsmartmagazine.com/2020/12/looking-through-an-affirming-lens/

>>4230771
Wow, epic pwn going to some faggot website to show me. Dare I say it, stunning and brave. Fucking nigger, kys.

File: 24-100+ lens comparison.jpg (756 KB, 3224x1388)

756 KB JPG

>>4230686
>comparing apples with oranges
Based retarded Sony shooter.
Plot twist: they're all practically the same. But Nikon mogs the other 2 for the slightly better range.

>>4230686
>also this tool is bullshit,
I've been saying it for years. Sizes are just inconsistent on PXLmag

>>4230777
he's recommending something else entirely because superzooms are dumb
>inb4 a 24-105/120 is not a superzoom
it is.

>>4230785
It's not a fucking superzoom, dumbass. Superzoom means at least 8x range. A 5-50mm is a superzoom. a 50-400mm is a superzoom. A 24-105mm sure as fuck isn't.

File: Fujifilm-X-T5-with-Fujifi(...).jpg (63 KB, 500x758)

63 KB JPG

>>4230786
Again with the reach obsession

Anyways. Here OP, here's a better camera for you.

>>4230789
>reach obsession
I didn't even mention reach, just called out on your bullshit. You can have zero zoom and extreme reach, go back to /a/ or something if you're too dumb to talk photography.

>>4230785
Theres nothing dumb about any lens just because it personally doesnt suit your style. Comparing an UWA zoom to a wide to tele zoom is retarded. Both have their uses and neither replaces one another.

>>4230790
>go back to /a/
Anime website.

>>4230793
Sounds like you wouldn't complain at /a/ for insisting that you use weeb terms properly. Then why do you get mad at /p/ for insisting you stop misusing the word "superzoom"? Shoot yourself with a 28mm. But use a cannon, not a Canon. Of the sPzB 41 variety.

>>4230668
I have the Canon lens but the Nikon is much better. The image quality from the Z6ii setup will definitely be better.

The only negative is that the Z lens doesn't have VR/ILIS. The ILIS on the Canon lens is superb.

>>4230668
All canon eos R cameras use a form of noise reduction that is detectable even by a hobbyist wanker. Be warned. It's fake high ISO performance.
https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20R5,Canon%20EOS%20R6,Canon%20EOS%20R6%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%20R8

Of course, everyone else probably does this, but given canon's track record with sensor and hardware quality, it makes sense for them to use the most extreme measures.

>>4230885
Are canon sensors bad or something, and is it still true?

>>4230886
Sort of. Canon doesn't have the budget of other companies and they still pursue class leading video specs and framerates on every high end model. Despite that chart canon images look similar to everyone elses with the same level of noise reduction so it's probably pretty fucking bad without it.

>>4230765
16-35 f/4 is a better choice than 17-28 f/2.8. On the UWA end the extended focal length is far more important than 1 stop of light. I'm not sure what Tamron was thinking with that lens, and I love Tamron.
>inb4 muh astro
If you're not shooting f/0.95 - f/1.4 primes, you're just not serious about astro.

>muh dslr dinosaur
>muh too weak to lift camera+lens
>muh girls find me unattractive
If you lifted maybe you wouldn't be an incel.

>>4230888
A stop of light is pretty major for wides because you have so much DOF anyways. Things move. Sometimes you want bokeh on a wide.

28 to 35 isn't major because 35 isn't even a wide angle lens anymore, it's normal.

>le lift
Kek you think you're strong? It's just embarrassing to be seen with and obnoxious to carry. I wear weighted vests to go running and still think DSLRs suck.
>a 35mm mirrorless camera
>the size of a 645 SLR
>just protog pretender things

>dslrs are fine
>i dont notice it
>you need to lift more
you can just tell someone is fat when they say this stuff
it's not about the weight, it's about camera to ribcage contact getting obnoxious. of course fat people can't feel it. their ribcage is well padded.

these are the same people that bitch about sony/fuji ergonomics because their fat hands have difficulty with stability and slimmer grips with larger lenses.

>>4230785
>it's a superzoom because it's too heavy for me to lift and i can't get pussy so i blame the superzoom instead of hitting a gym
Sony user in a nutshell.

>>4230873
The stills IQ from the bodies in question is a wash.

>>4230886
No. This is just the snoy shill from above trying a new tactic. The NR applied at base ISO is minor otherwise it would affect resolution which it does not. Every manufacturer has done this at one time or another. Video specs and budgets have nothing to do with it.

Keep in mind that Sony has also done this many times. For years Sony A7 bodies (including R and S) were called "star eaters" because the baked in RAW NR at high ISO was so severe it would erase all but the brightest stars, making Sony bodies worthless for astro. In other words, it was MAJOR NR being applied, implying the sensors looked pretty fucking bad without it. Neither Canon nor Nikon have ever applied so much NR that stars disappeared.

>>4230892
>A stop of light is pretty major for wides
f/4 vs f/2.8 is pointless for UWA zooms. You don't gain anything in terms of DoF. And you're shooting so wide that you can usually just drop the shutter speed, especially with OIS+IBIS.

>Sometimes you want bokeh on a wide.
That requires f/1.4.

>28 to 35 isn't major because 35 isn't even a wide angle lens anymore, it's normal.
Exactly, 35mm is a very different view and perspective from 28mm.

>>le lift
>Kek you think you're strong?
I've never cried about carrying a DSLR.

>It's just embarrassing to be seen with and obnoxious to carry.
And FF mirrorless is practically the same damn size unless you limit yourself to pancakes.

>>4230895
>muh ribcage hurts
Holy shit I have never, ever heard anyone cry about a camera hurting their ribcage. Not even women. Not even petite pwomen hiking all day with DSLRs. WTF is wrong with you? How skinny and weak are you??? Are you sick? I'm sorry if you have some disease that causes you to waste away, I didn't know man.

>>4230898
>Fatso with a DSLR literally can not comprehend the sensation of a camera knocking against his ribcage
>Literally doesn't know what it feels like
>Thinks it must hurt because he's been fat all his life and never experienced it
>Also thinks IBIS is a substitute for fast shutter speeds proving he never shoots people
Kek. It's just annoying. Write another essay.

>>4230897
>Keep in mind that Sony has also done this many times. For years Sony A7 bodies (including R and S) were called "star eaters" because the baked in RAW NR at high ISO was so severe it would erase all but the brightest stars, making Sony bodies worthless for astro. In other words, it was MAJOR NR being applied, implying the sensors looked pretty fucking bad without it.
It was long exposures for automated hot pixel reduction. Don't lie if you want people to take you seriously.

Smart people just stacked shorter exposures for astro instead of whining about something that only negatively affects astro and improves everything else. Quick question, how do you do hot pixel reduction without a star eater algorithm? Do you check the option in DSS while you stack exposures? So do I, but my exposures are shorter so there are fewer. Lol.

You have never used a camera. You have only read angry blog posts written by people who have reviewed cameras.

>And you're shooting so wide that you can usually just drop the shutter speed, especially with OIS+IBIS.
Holy shit, THINGS MOVE. Fucking landscape boomers man.

>>4230897
>because the baked in RAW NR at high ISO was so severe it would erase all but the brightest stars
reality check. it's long exposures at any ISO, and a specific form of NR called spatial filtering intended to remove hot pixels. most stars remain, only serious astronomers noticed because only serious astronomers took photos of stars small enough to be affected.
https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/SonyA7S/sonystareater.html
>making Sony bodies worthless for astro.
reality check: university grade astronomy, which you are using the wrong tool for anyways. all mirrorless cameras have some issues with this, because they are optimized for actual photography, not being scientific instruments. i imagine sony was devoting 0 thought to astronomy and thinking more of people doing long exposures of non-star things when they added spatial filtering, as it is twice as fast as using dark frame subtraction on camera and only affects stars. people who take astronomy seriously don't even use consumer cameras.
https://www.star-surfing.com/blog/2021/4/7/mirrorless-cant-do-astro
>In other words, it was MAJOR NR being applied, implying the sensors looked pretty fucking bad without it.
reality check, everyone has hot pixels in long exposures. sony is the only one who used spatial filtering instead of dark frames.

i have a much better idea than comparing $3000 consumer hand cameras for serious, university grade astronomy. using a dedicated astronomy camera. you can buy a cooled 1" 20mp sensor for about $1000 which is 1/5th the price of an astro modded DSLR, 1/3 the price of a mirrorless, and has reach that actually matches what good telescopes can do. hand cameras are the wrong tool for the job.

and yet i still see boomers with astro modded DSLRs (with 20mp!) and $15k zoom lenses on tracking mounts. and even worse, top end mirrorless. these people do not know what they are doing and think the hubble would be better if it ran off an astro modded 5div.

>>4230903
You use an older DSLR and a camera lens (usually something like a $100 tamron zoom) if you're too poor for a real astro setup.
I have no idea why mirrorless would come into a discussion about astro because anyone who can afford mirrorless can afford a dedicated astro camera. A really good one costs 1/4 as much as those faggy lenses.

Gearfags desperately reaching for unrealistic ways for cameras to fail. They are like armchair survivalists getting heated over bics and moraknivs.
>If THIS happens and then THIS happens and you only have THAT and need to do THIS then you're fucked!
>When does that happen
>BE PREPARED

>>4230903
>The workaround for the Sony a7riii/a7riv is the pixel shift mode which behaves almost like dithering so the spatial filtering is mostly disabled
wait, so it's a nothingburger? if you put it in pixel shift it stops eating stars? and you were going to stack at least 4 shots anyways? that's it?

File: file.png (108 KB, 574x303)

108 KB PNG

>>4230897
>canon needs heavy noise reduction at low ISOs
>the same amount pentax uses at high ISOs on the K1 to gain two stops of fake dynamic range
>it doesn't affect resolution THO!
holly kek more canon shill lies

which of these is sharper quick tell me
(nikon wins)
(or would you like to say your 50mm f1.2 L god lens is soft as shit)

>>4230902
>It was long exposures for automated hot pixel reduction. Don't lie if you want people to take you seriously.
>>4230903
>reality check. it's long exposures at any ISO, and a specific form of NR called spatial filtering intended to remove hot pixels. most stars remain, only serious astronomers noticed because only serious astronomers took photos of stars small enough to be affected.
kinda negates the point of a RAW file tho
let me do the post processing that applies to me in my situation

>>4230789
16-80 would be the more accurate comparison

>>4230901
NTA and he's right. WTF are you doing? Do you have a disease? I'm skinny and I don't have that problem.

>>4230668
i just recently had the same problem when buying
for me it was;
>sony a7iv
>canon r6ll
>nikon z6ll

after trying all three for a day,
>sony felt the most comfortable and most professional out of the three to use, but the least comfortable to hold (im 206cm and have huge hands)
>nikon felt BY FAR the most refined and smooth out of the three, especially the build quality, the whole camera, the whole experience was miles ahead of canon and sony, (im still amazed at the build quality of the z6ll)
>canon felt mediocre in everything, i didnt find anything on the camera to be better than nikon or canon counterparts other than the ergonomics, it was by far the best camera to hold in the hand but everything else was just... mediocre, including image quality.
after that i spent two weeks deciding and weighing out pros and cons and ended up eliminating canon altogether.

then when i finally had to decide on sony vs nikon, i was leaning more towards sony because of the whole experience and image quality so then i decided that the lens selection will decide what i get... i was getting a 21/24mm, 50mm and 100/135mm. it was either:
>sony; voigt 21mm, 55mm ZA, 135mm GM
>nikon; nikon 24mm, voigt 50mm apo, nikon 70-200
so with that, in the end i went with sony a7iv and 21+55+135

oh and i do portraits/fashion/commercial, so this also impacted my choice (and i was upgrading from 5DmkIV)
do with this information what you want

>>4230928
See you in a year, when your snot dies after taking 5k worth of shots.

>>4230943
i already put 11k on it

>>4230948
You just got lucky, Big Guy

>>4230668

>empty gearfag request thread n. 1

show us your work

SHOW
US
YOUR
WORK

it will almost certainly suck ass for reasons that have little to do with the gear you have

if you can't frame, focus, expose and edit properly you are years away from needing any new piece of gear

>>4230957
You first

>>4230963
I am not in search of any new gear

>Some guy asks for camera advice
>Geniunely hard choice between two comparable cameras with minor differences
>Show your work!!! RIGHT NOW!!! DO IT NOW! I DON'T GIVE A DAM ABOUT THE FCT THAT IT IS YOUR HOBBY!!! SHOW PICTURES! GIVE THEM TO ME AND YOU WON'T GET HURT!

>>4230984
precisely because it's a hard choice he should have posted the kind of photos he takes

but alas the worthless gearfag white knights have appeared

god forbid you actually rented the equipment for a week tho, that would be too much photography to do

>>4230668
if you want an accurate size comparison use any other tool than pxlmag

>>4230957
You first

>>4230957
THERE IS NOTHING YOU NEED TO DO TO EARN MATERIAL GOODS
OTHER THAN MAKE MONEY.

ONLY CHILDREN LEECHING OFF OTHERS FUNDS NEED TO PROVE TO MOMMY AND DADDY THAT THEY TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.

You third world poorfag. Now say “durr consoom!” because you think that means something.

>>4231015
4chan is filled to the brim with people who don’t even meet the poverty line - by choice - and that’s how they cope.

I have never seen so much turbo jewery in one place, and moral high groundism over materialism from people who are not christian, buddhist, or hindu and jack off to furry porn.

>>4231015
interesting cope, noted

Why y’all so mad? It’s just some cameras, relax.

File: 7R306558.jpg (1.29 MB, 1201x1800)

1.29 MB JPG

>>4230668
any ff sony a7iii or newer + 20-70 f4

rationale:
sony is the best for photography and resolution, canon is the best for video and speed, nikon is the best for kist being a nikon user or cheaping out and buying a z5 or OG z7 because you are antsy about old sony weather sealing
if you buy an a7r version, especially iv|v|cr, the camera has a great aps-c crop mode
24 is not wide enough and is the same focal length as an iphone

>>4230913
i had a pentax k1 before this that took a dark frame after any exposure longer than a few seconds or required manual hot pixel removal, like most cameras. i like sony's much faster but star eating method, even though it should have been in jpeg on principle (maybe there's a technical reason it couldn't), and agree that if you're taking astrophotography seriously enough to encounter this issue and have the budget for sony ff, you should be using equipment actually made for astronomy since it will get better results for less $$$ than everything else anyways.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM3
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	40 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	7.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Image Width	1201
Image Height	1800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: german-shepherd-super-fis(...).jpg (95 KB, 1250x938)

95 KB JPG

>>4231049
>24 is not wide enough
>your photography:

>>4230902
It was high ISO NR and could NOT be turned off. Hot pixel elimination does not eat stars, it's accomplished by comparing the shot to a dark frame which cleanly identifies hot pixels and only hot pixels. Don't lie if you want people to take you seriously.

>but how would you eliminate muh hot pixels?
Hilarious you accuse others of never using a camera. You have clearly never shot astro.

>just stack muh shorter exposures
>just make more work for yourself
>just don't ever photograph DSOs
Just be a brand shill and never admit any short comings of your brand.

>OMG THINGS MOVE OMG OMG OMG
Shooting a lot of sports at 17mm there champ? Only real example of that is up close skateboarding. If daytime you don't need light. If night you're using strobes. Again, you don't actually shoot, you just shill whatever your handler tells you will earn PlayStation credits.

>>4230903
>reality check. it's long exposures at any ISO,
Even worse.

>and a specific form of NR called spatial filtering intended to remove hot pixels
Yeah, you already tried this. Quit same fagging. You don't need to eat stars to eliminate hot pixels, you just take a dark frame. On any competent camera it's a NR mode you can turn on/off. On Sony it's always on because their sensors apparently fall apart during long exposures.

>muh most stars are still there
What a COPE. Canon's base ISO NR doesn't affect detail at all and you cried about it, but you defend this shit?

>astro is 99% of long exposures
>"i imagine sony didn't care about astro"
LOL

>people who take astronomy seriously don't even use consumer cameras.
Oh look, another lie.
>but muh blog post
You didn't read it since his opening line is "I don’t really mean that, of course, they can." He just used a clickbait title and you treated it as evidence.

>muh dedicated astro camera!
Are fine tools but can't do everything DSLRs and mirrorless can.
>muh telescope reach!
The best astrographs support FF sensors for a reason.

Reality Check: you are an obvious shill who floods every thread with lies and FUD to try and push people to Sony. It's hilarious catching you in your many contradictions, lies, and hypocrisies. You are obvious and therefore only turning people off to Sony.

>>4230904
>just use a dedicated telescope astro camera for wide angle astro landscapes and milky way shots
wew lad

>>4230905
>using pixel shift for astro
Anon I...

>>4230906
>pictures look identical
>IT'S HEAVY NR
>WHICH ONE IS SHAAAARPER???
Are you having a breakdown?

>>4230928
>two cameras with provably identical image quality
>"camera A was mediocre"
Reminder that this paid Sony shill always pretends to like or recommend Nikon...before "choosing Sony"...as a way to appear legitimate. He does this in every thread as part of his samefagging.

>>4231138
>It was high ISO NR and could NOT be turned off. Hot pixel elimination does not eat stars, it's accomplished by comparing the shot to a dark frame which cleanly identifies hot pixels and only hot pixels. Don't lie if you want people to take you seriously.
Dude. Just stop. Spatial filtering on long exposures is not high ISO noise reduction, you fucking retard. You don't know what you're talking about, and you are either lying on purpose or just being stupid.

You are directly contradicting the people who actually have some reason to complain about this.

>>4231146
>just use a dedicated telescope astro camera for wide angle astro landscapes and milky way shots
AKA the things "star eater" doesn't affect. It's a problem with telephoto, accuracy critical work. Which is better on dedicated astrocams anyways. FF sensors in astro are for gearfag, brand fanboy hobbyists who really want to use their favorite camera maker for everything.

Please shut up. You are embarrassing yourself, and honestly making canon look like a shit choice if they need a shill as spastic and retarded as you are.

>>4231146
>pictures look identical
>canon is blurrier
jfc

>>4231138
>It was high ISO NR and could NOT be turned off. Hot pixel elimination does not eat stars, it's accomplished by comparing the shot to a dark frame which cleanly identifies hot pixels and only hot pixels. Don't lie if you want people to take you seriously
seriously.
no, you actual fucking idiot.
you are an actual retard. seriously.
https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/SonyA7S/sonystareater.html
https://www.star-surfing.com/blog/2021/4/7/mirrorless-cant-do-astro
read. you. fucking. retard. READ. READ, IDIOT. READ.

>>4231146
>>4231143
>>4231138
>angry canon shill triple posts
>blockbuster films still made on "shitty" sony cameras
https://www.provideocoalition.com/did-the-creator-use-the-sony-fx3-as-an-a-camera/
Kek!

>>4231158
How does he do it? How is he too dumb to read the posts he replies to? Is he a bot?

>>4231159
We are talking about the guy who goes from "canon best IBIS canon wins see it has 6 stops with a $3000 lens" to "you fucking worthless dysgenic cripple faggot if you need IBIS you are a failure fucking kill yourself before you breed you worthless piece of subhuman SHIT GO TO A FUCKING DOCTOR PARKINSONS HANDS" in the same post. He's an actual schizophrenic.

>>4231146
>paid Sony shill
I think it's just one of poopcos mischiefs

>>4230906
If anyone thinks these look identical sell your FF shit and buy a fuji. Xt3.

>>4230668
if you need this as professional setup where you get paid for your job i would recommend z6ii. but beware, this size and weight of either is very un-inviting to carry around and shoot people as a hobby, it would feel like a choir to do take it with you.

>>4231399
My dad has Canon Rebel with a superzoom Tamron and is fine.

>>4231432
does your father shoot birds and shit?

>>4231483
He shoots everything. He doesn't care about bokeh or soft corners, he just wants to have pictures with things he likes.

File: IMGP6276.jpg (394 KB, 1280x1600)

394 KB JPG

>>4231399
>digital people: is that a camera bigger than a phone? unusable. you'd have to pay me to use that.
>film people: i barely notice the weight of my pentax 67

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1280
Image Height	1600

>>4231530
Digislugs on suicide watch

>>4231146
you fucking retard why would i recommend canon over sony or nikon when i tried all three cameras?
its not about the brand its about these three specific cameras that happen to be from 3 different manufacturers.

i tried all three cameras for a day and had plenty of time to play with them, shoot with them and fool around with them and from my experience with the cameras, sony made the best images and had the best lens choice, nikon was close behind sony in that regard but also had extremely good build quality, while canon was just... there. other than superb ergonomics, the camera is kinda just there. when it comes to photography, theres nothing special about R6ll compared to images Z6ll and a7IV are producing.

i went with sony because of better lens choice and because it makes nice images for my line of work but i would recommend nikon to everyone else

canon is just kinda there as a third choice...

>>4231777
>i went with sony because of better lens choice and because it makes nice images for my line of work but i would recommend nikon to everyone else
i notice literally every sony user on /p/ recommends nikon what is that

>>4231779
You're talking to the Scheiss autist, I wouldn't take his word at face value.

>>4231815
>t. admitted to eating out a dog, collects welfare, lives with his dad, tried to take a photo of saturn after blowing all his welfare bucks on ancient beginner grade canon gear only to be outdone by some kid from new delhi who used the same budget more intelligently

the rp with said canon lens is nice if you like taking pictures and not just posting schizo shit

>>4231843
>no ibis
>6d sensor
just use a 90d its better

mirrorless without ibis = scam camera.

>>4231815
>he thinks theres only 1 person on /p/ with an a7IV
>being this retarded
kek
i have 2x a7IVs, am i a snoy shill?

>>4231779
i dont. i recommend snoy over both nikon and canon

>>4231851
mirrorless is a scam in itself
and thats comming from someone who has two mirrorless cameras

>>4232221
>I recommend snoy over both nikon and canon
But how do I get over my fear of it dying after taking 10k shots?

>>4232410
Stop believing lying schizophrenic shills on /p/

>>4232222
It really is, most of its improvements (which also aren't particularly relevant) are just held from DSLRs as a planned obsolescence strategy banking on FOMO.

>>4232504
>bro had beef with someone and got so destroyed that he got traumatized and now he calls everyone a lying schizo
the ultimate kek

>>4231530
>normal people's backs _____
>photographer's backs _-_-_

>>4232543
Wrong.

>>4233110
Incorrect + cope.

Post one single photo.

>>4232543
Mirrorless AF tracking is at another level. The problem is that the better DSLRs already had great tracking and could reliably nail the shot. Mirrorless AF has more of a practical impact on video. For stills it's neat to see in action, but it doesn't practically change the result except in the most contrived scenarios (i.e. feeding a child Red Bull then trying to photograph them running around with an 85 f/1.2 while consistently AF locking their right eye). And, it is something that was "held back" from DSLRs. Just use an imaging sensor as the AE meter in a DSLR and you can AI track subjects, which a few late Canon DSLRs do. They're not as impressive in terms of subject recognition and stickiness as today's mirrorless, but they could be.

EVF exposure preview is a very intuitive way to work. I have to admit that. It's nice to see live exposure and have three dials (shutter, aperture, ISO) at your finger tips. That is mirrorless unique. You can accomplish the same in tricky lighting by mastering your DSLR spot meter, but EVF preview is just intuitive. That said, I still prefer looking through a good OVF.

Most mirrorless EVFs suck ass in low light. But I must admit that the best low light bodies (i.e. R6, A7s III) let you compose night shots in situations where you can't see shit in a DSLR.

Mirrorless can now shoot at fps speeds no DSLR can touch. You just can't flip the mirror that fast. I'm not sure how much that matters practically though.

tl;dr - if you're on a budget you can accomplish all your photographic goals with a DSLR, and at much lower cost and/or higher IQ for your budget.