>>3790641Yes, because your claim is fucking stupid friendo.
I'd post a pic of my Canon with a piece of paper quoting your post and telling you to cope more but the last time I did it I got a warning and my post was hotpocketed so I'm not risking it.
Sony sucks the moment you put skin in front of it, that pic you're posting everywhere is pretty much fine.
Also I wouldn't buy an RP or a Sony, but I'd rather buy an RP than a Sony if I had to. Because Sony's build quality and ergonomics are trash.
>>3790644>It's dead anon, the bodies are shite, the lenses are overpriced, no one is buying into it.The S1H looks pretty nice to me. For a piece of shit with a screen where a viewfinder is supposed to go, that is.
>>3790644>Ah, like k mount?That's not the own you think it is. Since when is K-mount an open system?
>...they are anti consumer you dumb cuntNot really, they have even denied the FBI access to customer info in phones.
>Except they're no better than whatever Sony, Zeiss, Nikon, sigma, tamron and Pentax are putting outThey aren't? lol
>No, it was quite purposeful, these same ef sigma lenses adapted onto Sony work great and they use the latest ef mount specification.I think you need to lay off the tinfoil. Why did everyone but Sigma guess the data right?Someone at Sigma didn't do their job well enough. All the other third party vendors did, and their lenses stayed compatible. You know the risks when you buy unofficially supported stuff. If you're too pussy for that and for doing the required modifications, buy Sony and get inferior ergonomics, weather sealing and shutter mechanisms. But hey, at least it's not a Fuji, those buyers are the kings of foolishness.
>let me get this camera with a shitty sensor because it has "film simulations" that totally look like film, nevermind it doesn't 
