/p/ - Photography » Thread #3958880

[88 / 10 / ?]

246KiB, 1500x1667, 7D37F8E8-AAC1-4F56-AC89-BE5D1DB2CF5E.jpg

Anonymous Wed 03 Nov 2021 16:59:54 No.3958880 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3958901 >>3958903 >>3958935 >>3959079 >>3959096 >>3961543 >>3962243 >>3962494 >>3963139

Camera Advice
Looking the get new mirrorless camera.
Can’t decide between fujifilm xt-3 or xt-30ii
xt-3 would leave me with only 18-55 kit lens
xt-30ii I would have budget for a nice prime

Also looking at canon m50ii because a lot cheaper and more money for glass

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Nov 2021 17:18:29 No.3958886 Report

Quoted By: >>3958888 >>3958889 >>3958899

>More money for glass
>Disregards sony, the leading brand in 3rd party lens support

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Nov 2021 17:25:10 No.3958888 Report

Quoted By:

>>3958886
hi moop

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Nov 2021 17:27:32 No.3958889 Report

Quoted By: >>3959087

>>3958886
Rather the look and feel of fuji. Only Sony cameras I like are full frame A7s and all outside my budget

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Nov 2021 18:07:04 No.3958899 Report

Quoted By:

>>3958886
>disgregards snoy, the king of breaking at -5°C weather

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Nov 2021 18:13:36 No.3958900 Report

Quoted By:

Go for Fuji, the film simulations are really nice.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Nov 2021 18:18:07 No.3958901 Report

Quoted By: >>3959128

>>3958880
Get an x-t3 and a used 35mmf1.4, which is dropping in price with the new 33mmf1.4 coming out. Aim for anything under $350. It’s the only lens you’ll need for at least a year

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Nov 2021 18:28:18 No.3958903 Report

Quoted By: >>3959128

>>3958880
For stills...

Fuji is the better *system* camera. I like the EOS M bodies but they are really secondary cameras for existing EOS EF photographers, niche cameras for YouTubers, and replacements for P&S for the people who used to buy those. This isn't because of any body limitations. It's just that Canon will never fully flesh out the EF-M lens catalog. What's there is very good, it's just not a full system.

That said, while the Fuji system is complete, it's limited relative to other mounts. Fewer lens choices and locked into APS-C. Doesn't make it a bad choice at all, it is a nice and capable system.

If you're on a budget I would recommend at least looking at used Canon and Nikon DSLRs and lenses. "Muh mirrorless!" has created downward price pressure on flappy mirror equipment. But in all reality that equipment is just as capable as the best mirrorless bodies available as long as you can put a little effort in and don't have to rely on animal butthole AF.

For video...

M50ii is a nice solution for 1080p with great AF. Vlogger type stuff. Fuji X-T3 is a beast when it comes to professional 4k results. It's hard to beat the X-T3 for cinema even with FF.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 03 Nov 2021 20:44:54 No.3958935 Report

Quoted By: >>3959128

>>3958880
Fuji XT-2 is still a capable camera as well
But this isn't the gear thread where you ask singular gear-related questions

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 09:25:27 No.3959079 Report

Quoted By: >>3959128

>>3958880
>xt-3 would leave me with only 18-55 kit lens
The X-T3 is also available with the 16-80mm. Seems like good value, so I got it. Though since you mentioned wanting a nice prime, you might be disappointed with a max f/4 aperture. What kind of photography are you planning to do?

>Also looking at canon m50ii because a lot cheaper and more money for glass
Problem with that is that they don't make anything good for that system. You'll have to adapt full frame EF to get the really good stuff, which means spending a lot more than Fuji lenses for no real gain.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 10:08:37 No.3959087 Report

Quoted By: >>3959088

>>3958889
Sony a7ii 2nd hand are roughly the same price as a 2nd hand xt3.

Problem solved.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 10:11:47 No.3959088 Report

Quoted By: >>3959092

>>3959087
The lenses are much more expensive, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 10:23:20 No.3959092 Report

Quoted By: >>3959164

>>3959088
No they're not.
Give me an example of a lens you think this applies to.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO xt3.png, 365KiB, 1454x731

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 10:43:52 No.3959096 Report

Quoted By: >>3959128 >>3963780

>>3958880
Currently you can buy xt3 without charger for almost same price as xt30. Last Christmas XT3 was for 1000, so this year it will probably also drop it's price a bit.

However, cameras don't really matter. You might want to check out Mattias Burling's latest video. You might be better to buy something cheap, second hand.

https://youtu.be/96XJnRfJu00

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 13:19:20 No.3959128 Report

Quoted By: >>3959131 >>3959201

>>3958901
2mm can’t be very noticeable
>>3958903
Had canon dslr before, size of body and lenses annoyed me. Most of time used my phone. Mirrorless seems to be a nice in between.
>>3958935
Looking for new only, second hand market here is shit
>>3959079
Mostly looking to shoot landscapes and portraiture, some arty shoots from time to time
>>3959096
Unfortunately camera ain’t as cheap here

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 13:44:53 No.3959131 Report

Quoted By:

>>3959128
Probably best is to get into some shop and try which body fitts your hands best. Fuji also has even more compact xe4, which comes super cheap with 27mm f2.8

I like feeling of larger fuji bodies like xt3, but I see why people would pick smaller ones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 14:24:40 No.3959136 Report

Quoted By:

I recommend the XT3 w/ 18-55 f/2.8-4. Great camera and great lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 15:59:58 No.3959164 Report

Quoted By: >>3959166 >>3961478 >>3961699

>>3959092
Fuji XF 8-16mm f/2.8 R LM WR: $1,999
Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM: $2,898

Fuji XF 16-55mm f/2.8 R LM WR: $1,199
Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM: $1,998

Fuji XF 50-140mm f/2.8 R LM OIS WR: $1,599
Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II: $2,798

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 16:03:46 No.3959166 Report

Quoted By: >>3959185

>>3959164
all the Sony lenses are not only a stop faster, but offer a higher total resolution across the sensor and more options for dof.

Try again.

Or is it not fair if you have to use like-for-like light gathering and dof?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 16:34:20 No.3959185 Report

Quoted By: >>3961498

>>3959166
>all the Sony lenses are not only a stop faster
No, look again, they are all f/2.8.

>but offer a higher total resolution across the sensor and more options for dof
This is true, but I never said there weren't advantages to full frame. The Sony system is very good. But if they are out of OP's budget, what good does it do?

>Or is it not fair if you have to use like-for-like light gathering and dof?
You have to pick one or the other. I picked light gathering because that's usually the more relevant one. If OP wants the shallowest depth of field for the least amount of money, full frame with is the way to go.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO I_LOVE_CHARTS.png, 2MiB, 4096x3239

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 16:53:05 No.3959193 Report

Quoted By:

Moop when baiting another retard into debating specs.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 16:54:15 No.3959194 Report

Quoted By:

Kids, don't take the bait.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSCF9034-Edit.jpg, 136KiB, 1000x1054

Anonymous Thu 04 Nov 2021 17:01:34 No.3959201 Report

Quoted By:

>>3959128
>Mostly looking to shoot landscapes and portraiture, some arty shoots from time to time
The same use case as me, then. The typical landscape setup is one wide zoom and one long zoom. For portraits you can put something like the 35mm f/1.4 in the middle.

One option could be to start out with a body only and a prime, not bothering with the kit zoom, and saving up for the wide and long lenses.

I got the kit 16-80mm because I didn't know exactly where I wanted my middle prime, if not primes. Using it I've found myself gravitating towards 35mm, so that will be my main prime.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 13:10:36 No.3961478 Report

Quoted By: >>3961501

>>3959164
yeah but the sony has 3rd party options like tamron and sigma

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 14:46:29 No.3961489 Report

Quoted By: >>3961513

Just get the one you like the look of ffs

You can take good photos with the shittiest of cameras. Unless you're someone with a business that absolutely requires you to have the best gear, gear doesn't matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 15:10:59 No.3961498 Report

Quoted By: >>3961506 >>3961547

>>3959185
>They're all f2.8

Which gather less than half the light across the sensor on apsc than on full frame. The real comparison would be apsc having f2.8 lenses against full frame f4.5 lenses.

Or you can compare the Sony f2.8 lenses against f2 Fuji versions if you want.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 15:23:55 No.3961501 Report

Quoted By:

>>3961478
They do, and both have cheaper non-red-badge native lenses too, but that's not what was asked. The question was to give an example where an E-mount lens was more expensive than the equivalent X-mount one. I gave three examples.

A good rule of thumb for lens prices between formats is that for the same price one "stop" of sensor size in one direction means one "stop" of lens tier in the other direction. For example red badge Fuji lenses are priced similarly to G tier Sony full frame lenses. There's no way out of it, you have to either pay for the extra image circle you need, or compromise on something else.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 15:29:35 No.3961506 Report

Quoted By: >>3961519 >>3961577

>>3961498
Nonsense. Light meters do not come with a frame size dial. When I shoot the same scene at the same ISO, aperture and shutter speed on my crop, full frame and medium format cameras, I get the same exposure on all three. You can trivially simulate a crop digital camera by simply cropping your full frame image in post. You can simulate smaller film formats by taking a larger negative and using a pair of scissors to make a smaller one. In no instance does the exposure of the image change. Go ahead and try it if you don't believe me.

But of course you won't. You people are the flat earthers of the photography world. No matter how trivial the experiment that proves you wrong is, you will never do it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 15:44:32 No.3961513 Report

Quoted By: >>3961521 >>3961527

>>3961489
>gear doesn't matter
Stop it with the retarded catch phrases. Obviously gear matters.

You should have gear that you don't have to fight all the way to do what you want to do. For instance if you want bokeh, don't fight with some bullshit 1/4" sensor and fake lens blur, get a bigger sensor. Otherwise you're just wasting your time and getting disappointing results. The other side of the coin is of course not to buy gear as a substitute for photography skills, which of course also leads to wasted time and disappointing results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 16:01:19 No.3961519 Report

Quoted By:

>>3961506
>he doesn’t know MF scans have more DR than 35mm

Oh wow

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 16:05:48 No.3961521 Report

Quoted By: >>3961528

>>3961513
>bokeh
Oh, I see. Many fresh photogtaphers faul for this pitfall thinking that bokeh will make their photo interesting or will make up for their subject, framing or lighting. However, none of this is true.

Just take your first 10 000 photos and come back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 16:20:40 No.3961527 Report

Quoted By: >>3961528 >>3961537

>>3961513
>muh bokeh

Found the instagrammer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 16:22:44 No.3961528 Report

Quoted By: >>3961529

>>3961521
>Many fresh photogtaphers faul for this pitfall thinking that bokeh will make their photo interesting or will make up for their subject, framing or lighting. However, none of this is true.
That's correct, but where did I claim otherwise?

If you don't like it as an example, how about this one? Instead of trying to do night photography and fighting with an f/4 and ISO 12800, get an f/1.4 and shoot comfortably at ISO 1600. Though of course then you'd probably just say

>Many fresh photogtaphers faul for this pitfall thinking that low noise will make their photo interesting or will make up for their subject, framing or lighting. However, none of this is true.

You'll learn much more from taking those 10,000 images if you actually use the right tool for the job.

>>3961527
How does anything I wrote suggest that I'm an instagrammer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 16:27:20 No.3961529 Report

Quoted By: >>3961535

>>3961528
What kind of photography you do that requires you to shoot at night without tripod?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 16:44:27 No.3961535 Report

Quoted By: >>3961540

>>3961529
What difference does it make? Isn't a tripod also a piece of gear, proving my point?

As in, "why fight a camera shooting hand held at night when you can use a tripod?"

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1334442257633.jpg, 86KiB, 380x520

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 16:49:19 No.3961537 Report

Quoted By: >>3961545 >>3961552 >>3961555

>>3961527
>Found the instagrammer.
Found the newfag. "Bokeh" was used by photographers to mean background blur long before Instagram was founded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 16:52:45 No.3961540 Report

Quoted By: >>3961549

>>3961535
>What difference does it make?
Well, if you cant name it, I guess you dont need it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:00:22 No.3961543 Report

Quoted By: >>3961560

>>3958880
just get a sony and adapt vinatge lenses

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:01:16 No.3961545 Report

Quoted By: >>3961557

>>3961537
Maybe by five years. Calling it bokeh today means that you're 22 instead of 18.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:03:42 No.3961547 Report

Quoted By: >>3961577

>>3961498
>less than half the light across the sensor
No
>half the light
Yes, because the sensor is half the size
>this is bait
Maybe, but don't spread bad info on purpose

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:08:25 No.3961549 Report

Quoted By: >>3961551

>>3961540
I've named enough examples to get my point across by now. And you clearly know what I'm talking about when you yourself suggested a piece of gear to improve a type of photography. Joke's on me I guess, you're just pretending to be retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:09:35 No.3961551 Report

Quoted By: >>3961554 >>3961567

>>3961549
Ok, so what is kind of photography that you need to do at night and doesnt allow tripod?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1636521574615.jpg, 34KiB, 699x485

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:10:55 No.3961552 Report

Quoted By: >>3961555

>>3961537
>"Bokeh" was used by photographers to mean background blur long before Instagram was founded.
Ahtually, it's term for quality of background blur, not a term for background blur.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:15:08 No.3961554 Report

Quoted By: >>3961556

>>3961551
I don't know, did I say anything against using a tripod?

I'm just saying use the gear that makes it as easy as possible to get the results that you want. If that's a tripod, obviously use a tripod.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:16:21 No.3961555 Report

Quoted By: >>3961562

>>3961552
this
Sometimes I close down the aperture on purpose because I want a more defined background and smaller bokeh balls.
It's still bokeh all the same.

>>3961537 is a larper

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:16:47 No.3961556 Report

Quoted By: >>3961559

>>3961554
Oh, so you have no examples. Meaning this is very niche use scenario.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:19:12 No.3961557 Report

Quoted By:

>>3961545
Instagram was launched in 2010. Bokeh outside of Japan is a mid-90s thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:24:55 No.3961559 Report

Quoted By: >>3961565

>>3961556
>Oh, so you have no examples.
Examples of what? Night photography without tripods? Maybe if you're in "oi u got a loicense" land and a security guard will come running if you look too professional?

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that never happens, nobody ever needs to shoot hand held in low light. It doesn't exactly support the argument that gear doesn't matter when the alternative is to bring more gear in the form of a tripod.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:28:41 No.3961560 Report

Quoted By: >>3962942

>>3961543
Not OP, but I was going to do this.

Turns out the prices are so inflated now that it's often cheaper to buy Fuji primes brand new in box with warranty, get all the modern features, and not risk getting scammed on eBay. Vintage lenses only make sense if you have a bunch of them already, whether you stocked up before they were expensive, or had them since they were new.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1636504683060.jpg, 7KiB, 250x241

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:31:31 No.3961562 Report

Quoted By: >>3961723

>>3961555
>smaller bokeh balls. It's still bokeh all the same.

"bokeh balls" are optical phenomena called specular highlights. The quality of specular highlights is one of the factors determining "bokeh".

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:33:10 No.3961565 Report

Quoted By: >>3961582

>>3961559
Let me spell that out for you. You miss all the situation which small kit from any modern camera manufacturers can handle and instead focus on some obscure scenarios that you cant even name.

Instead of realizing how much creative freedom can provide even most basic digital camera you look for justification for you gear obsession.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 17:44:02 No.3961567 Report

Quoted By: >>3961582

>>3961551
pretty disingenuous to say that low light performance doesn't matter. Of course for a real photographer™ who isn't a gearfag justifying a new body or lens they "need" will change their position for light, brace themselves, boost the ISO, flash, or even use their phone if its better with the post processing.
Don't argue with the gearfag, just buy his dust collectors with >10k shots when he inevitably upgrades again to have the equipment his favorite youtuber with affiliate links posted. They're useful retards my last used cameras had >3k and >6k.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 18:03:34 No.3961577 Report

Quoted By: >>3961589

>>3961506
>But lightmeters
Iso 100 is an arbitrary amount of gain applied to reach a reference brightness level in camera. The smaller the pixel, the higher the gain applied to each.

The amount of gain applied to a pixel half the size of another is double, thus halving your signal to noise ratio. If you have smaller pixels on a large sensor, like on a 42mp a7r ii, then you're going to get the same per pixel noise level as a 20mp apsc, but once you resize the image to 20mp, the ~50% downsampling increases your signal to noise ratio by the same ratio.

And yes, cutting a piece of film in half, and enlarging the final image to the same size as the original, does make the SNR and DR to drop by a stop. Try it, your gradients will be less smooth.

No matter how trivial the experiment, nor the mountains of existing data, you will never accept that total sensor area is the deciding factor. Because you're poor and mad.

>>3961547
Yes, half the light across the sensor, not half the light per unit area.

My info is good, your reading comprehension is bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 18:10:37 No.3961582 Report

Quoted By: >>3961588 >>3961619

>>3961565
>>3961567
If merely owning a camera with a bigger sensor than 1/4" and a lens brighter than f/4 for a modicum of low light performance and DOF control is "gear obsession" and "gearfaggotry", how the fuck is owning a tripod not being a gearfag?

All I'm talking about is not using the blatantly wrong tool for the job, which only causes frustration and poor results, no matter how good of a photographer you are.

Gearfaggotry is thinking that good gear causes good results, no matter how bad of a photographer you are. Merely using adequate gear for what you are trying to accomplish is not gearfaggotry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 18:16:30 No.3961588 Report

Quoted By: >>3961591

>>3961582
Good gear (full frame) doesn't mean good results.

It means you have tools that can deal with more scenarios, and offer improved image quality regardless of situation.

It's like a new carpenter asking if he should get a hammer with just a striking head, or one with a striking head and nail remover. The obvious answer is the one with more functionality, unless he can't afford the extra 10% in cost now, knowing he'll have to spend much more in the future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 18:17:01 No.3961589 Report

Quoted By: >>3961594 >>3961595

>>3961577
I never claimed there weren't SNR advantages to larger formats. That's probably their most important reason for existing. But the film cut in half still has the same sensitivity to light, you expose it with the same shutter speed and the same aperture.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 18:22:26 No.3961591 Report

Quoted By: >>3961595

>>3961588
>Good gear (full frame) doesn't mean good results.
Where did I claim otherwise?

Gear is necessary but not sufficient. Ergo gear does matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 18:34:20 No.3961594 Report

Quoted By: >>3961596 >>3961601

>>3961589
Dude's clueless basement dweller. 35mm film cut in half has the same properties as 35mm film. LF and MF film is different altogether than 35mm. Even when it's the same brand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 18:35:05 No.3961595 Report

Quoted By:

>>3961589
>Film speed still has the same sensitivity
Yep, just like a 15mp mft sensor will have the same amount of gain applied to hit iso 100 as a FF sensor that's 60mp. But the larger sensor still has the dynamic range advantage.

To make it simple, think of the small sensor\film as 4 pixels\grains, and the large one as 16, and each can either be black or white. In a shadowy area (bottom 1\3), the small sensor could either be 4 black or 3 black and one white; the larger sensor could have 16, 15, 14, 13 or 12 black pixels. 2 values Vs 5 values, the more potential values = more dynamic range and signal to noise ratio.

>>3961591
>Where did I claim otherwise

I was agreeing with you almost word for word you dumbass, when you said "gearfaggotry is thinking that good gear causes good results" and I agree, gear doesn't mean you will instantly be more creative, or have better composition skills. Just like a good hammer & chisel doesn't automatically mean you can do perfect dovetails, but IS necessary if you want the best dovetails once you've learnt how to do them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 18:36:19 No.3961596 Report

Quoted By: >>3961601

>>3961594
No anon, all film sizes are made from the same emulsion. Dumbass basement dweller.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 18:48:21 No.3961601 Report

Quoted By: >>3961906

>>3961594
>LF and MF film is different altogether than 35mm. Even when it's the same brand.
>>3961596
>No anon, all film sizes are made from the same emulsion.

I don't think you can make a sweeping statement one way of the other, without seeing every manufacturer's production line of every single film stock. It seems like it would be cheaper and easier to have a production line that applies the same emulsion on first and then cuts the film up in all the different sizes, and that would probably give the performance that the customers expect. Then again there are probably all sorts of considerations we're not privy to. Maybe you can cheap out on 35mm film that wouldn't fly with MF and LF users. Or maybe you need your MF and LF film to have a more shelf stable emulsion because it's a more niche product.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 20:04:39 No.3961619 Report

Quoted By: >>3961627

>>3961582
>Merely using adequate gear for what you are trying to accomplish is not gearfaggotry.
What have you ever accomplished with your current camera, ever?
You say this while you are looking to justify buying cameras with larger sensor (as if that was the thing holding you back) and can't explain what you're trying to accomplish or how its better over a fucking tripod that's $20 at most or using flash.
>If merely owning a camera with a bigger sensor than 1/4" and a lens brighter than f/4 for a modicum of low light performance and DOF control is "gear obsession" and "gearfaggotry", how the fuck is owning a tripod not being a gearfag?
Tripods have the same price to performance ratio, DOF is not accomplished without buying a new camera body and nobody has been able to do it until they invented that camera body, you need a $1k tripod to get good photos and its better to spend that on a camera instead since any cheaper means it won't work. That logic is so retarded its incredible, I should give you 5x$1 bills for your 1x$100 bill.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO D5CC4706-CFC0-4C61-9276-AB3AC6CC (...).jpg, 118KiB, 2000x1500

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 20:48:47 No.3961627 Report

Quoted By: >>3961637

>>3961619
I don't think you realize just how bad things like DOF simulation and noise performance on tiny sensor cameras are.

I'm not OP if you think that. I recently bought an X-T3, so I'm not looking for a larger sensor camera anymore, I already bought it. It was the lowest cost option that ticked all the boxes for the kind of photography I wanted to do, and I'm very happy with it.

I would have been miserable both if I had chained myself to my phone, or if I had overspent on full frame gear, and neither would have been conducive to me going out, taking pictures and becoming a better photographer. Overspending doesn't make people better photographers, but gear masochism is just as bad, and that's why gear really does matter.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 21:26:14 No.3961637 Report

Quoted By: >>3961653 >>3962330

>>3961627
>I don't think you realize just how bad things like DOF simulation and noise performance on tiny sensor cameras are.
Thats why you can just get a larger sensor for cheap.
>I'm not looking for a larger sensor camera anymore, I already bought it.
When? The XT3 isn't even as large as a my older entry level Nikon 3100 from 2011.
>25.12µm2vs14.12µm2
>77% larger pixel area
>Gear masochism is just as bad, and that's why gear really does matter.
I find it hilarious you say you need a large sensor so you buy an expensive camera with a smaller sensor than my entry level camera that compensates by simulating DOF when you could have had real DOF for less. That is the defintion of gear masochism. Peak gearfag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 22:10:00 No.3961653 Report

Quoted By: >>3961681

>>3961637
I don't need more DOF control than I get with APS-C sensor. And no, it's definitely not simulated. And since I often shoot in bad weather, it's also weather sealed, which isn't terribly common for APS-C bodies. And neither are weather sealed APS-C lenses outside of the X system.

There's nothing wrong with the Nikon D3100, you don't have to cite numbers to justify it. If I cared about numbers I would have picked a camera with higher numbers, but I don't. I just need something that doesn't get in the way of how I take my pictures. This is my whole point, each photographer needs to find the right gear for their exact use case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 23:21:12 No.3961681 Report

Quoted By: >>3961699

>>3961653
Why did you cite DOF on small sensor as a problem then got a small sensor, its like saying I am vegan then while eating a steak.
I can get a case for under $15 for water, or use a plastic bag. The irony of your statement is furthered by the fact that an older 5D full frame canon fixes the problems you cited, but much better. It has way better lens, as well as more selection, way cheaper, it also fixes the problem that made you buy a camera like DOF with a larger sensor, better weather sealing but you don't really cite the benefits of the XT-3 that are unique which aren't better served by better options. You say you want to save the environment so you got a smaller gas car and ignored that electric ones exist, which is hard unless you decided to buy something before you did research, the gas car was more expensive. If these issues mattered and there was a better option any rational person would choose the better specs, cost is an issue but especially in this case because it also cost less. If they actually mattered you'd have chosen differently.
>if I had overspent on full frame gear
No, you instead overspent on ASP-C, which is way worst, that is what defines gearfaggotry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 10 Nov 2021 23:58:06 No.3961699 Report

Quoted By: >>3961731

>>3961681
>Why did you cite DOF on small sensor as a problem then got a small sensor, its like saying I am vegan then while eating a steak.
APS-C is a hell of a lot bigger than 1/4" which I used in my example. Actually Google tells me my phone is more like 1/2.55", but I can't find anything official. Still tiny compared to APS-C.
>I can get a case for under $15 for water, or use a plastic bag.
I don't want anything obstructing the controls or the front element.

>5D full frame canon fixes the problems
That's a DSLR, not a mirrorless camera.

>It has way better lens, as well as more selection, way cheaper
Those lenses are much heavier, and many of them are significantly more expensive, see for example >>3959164 (granted that's Sony, but it's comparable with Canon)

>it also fixes the problem that made you buy a camera like DOF with a larger sensor
Granted.

>you don't really cite the benefits of the XT-3 that are unique which aren't better served by better options.
You're welcome to suggest some, but I doubt there are any. Micro four thirds have lower cost and weight yet, but at a smaller sensor size. Canons have no weather sealing. The Nikon D7500 and Pentax K-whatever aren't mirrorless. That leaves the Sony A6600, but that's actually more expensive than the X-T3, has an abysmal selection of weather sealed lenses, and I don't like the controls.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Nov 2021 00:40:43 No.3961723 Report

Quoted By:

>>3961562
whatever nerd

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Nov 2021 01:05:53 No.3961731 Report

Quoted By: >>3961907

>>3961699
You already bought the XT-3, and fell for water resistance marketing. All cameras have been water resistant for over a decade and I have known people who take cameras that aren't officially sealed into heavy rain or waterfall images with no issue even though they didn't protect it. It has just marketing to gearfags, if has no IP rating its meaningless marketing with no real world benefits.
You now mention mirrorless, but why is that a factor? Are you going to keep changing what is important because I showed that the factors you chose as the reasons you bought it for were not the best for your case, and you keep moving the goalposts? Be honest, you liked the idea of the fujifilms, the way it looks, but don't pretend that you made it based on rational thinking that are better served with better equipment that is cheaper and has way more benefits versus fuji's marketing.
>Canons have no weather sealing.
Every camera has water resistance and if they don't measure to a standard its just marketing. Off the top of my head I did take my camera into a storm and just used a lens hood to protect my image quality, I've taken apart camera lens to repair them and everything with electronics has the same kind of seals.
>Chuck Westfall, Advisor for Technical Information at Canon USA states that, “Canon EF lenses that have been enhanced with countermeasures for dust and water resistance are typically equipped with rubber gaskets and seals at key points.

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/41432/what-makes-a-camera-weather-sealed
>"I’ve never been very impressed by anyone’s weather sealing. A rubber gasket at the lens mount, waterproof tape over the holes under the rubber, that’s about it. I can see that it would tend to keep water droplets from working their way inside the lens but I can’t imagine them surviving a steady rain – watersealed or not. I haven’t noted any difference in Canon, Nikon, or Olympus high end lenses."

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Nov 2021 16:18:59 No.3961906 Report

Quoted By:

>>3961601
Bruh, there’s literally video tours on YouTube of all the film manufacturers plants. It’s a coating plant, same as the place that makes bandaids or chip bags just with light sensitivity controls.

It’s all made from the same giant master roll and cut to size as needed. That’s why everyone in film is doomed if cinema ever goes full digital; photo film is a byproduct of having to run machines mostly for cinema film.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO npc.png, 44KiB, 500x607

Anonymous Thu 11 Nov 2021 16:43:37 No.3961907 Report

Quoted By: >>3961967

>>3961731
>be honest, you bought camera you like!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 Nov 2021 21:01:38 No.3961967 Report

Quoted By: >>3962223

>>3961907
Nice selfie gearfag, now buy the 1K lens you’ll use once.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Nov 2021 14:01:02 No.3962223 Report

Quoted By: >>3962516

>>3961967
$1k isn’t all that much for a decent quality lens. Spend more time thinking through your comebacks so you don’t reveal too much about yourself.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 2EB4F5C5-E607-4C9F-91EF-92012008 (...).jpg, 516KiB, 1302x1288

Anonymous Fri 12 Nov 2021 14:14:34 No.3962230 Report

Quoted By: >>3962242

And yet still nobody posts a photo they took where less DoF was needed.
And yet still nobody posts a photo they took where less noise was needed.
And yet still nobody posts a photo they took where more megapicksels were needed.

Looks like nobody actually takes photos

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Nov 2021 15:00:02 No.3962242 Report

Quoted By:

>>3962230
>using a f/1.8 lens
Gearfag detected, should have used a tripod instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Nov 2021 15:01:38 No.3962243 Report

Quoted By:

>>3958880
>Fujifilm X series is the only real option that respects you

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 Nov 2021 18:21:14 No.3962330 Report

Quoted By:

>>3961637
> When? The XT3 isn't even as large as a my older entry level Nikon 3100 from 2011.
>>25.12µm2vs14.12µm2

Are you legitimately retarded? Sensor size, not pixel size. How can you even think that 14.12 square MICROmeters is the size of the sensors? You leave me speechless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Nov 2021 03:31:18 No.3962494 Report

Quoted By:

>>3958880
I have an xt30(version 1) and x-t3 and I personally like the x-t3 more. It's got a few more buttons and a dedicated iso dial. I would say get the x-t3 when it's on sale.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Nov 2021 06:15:56 No.3962516 Report

Quoted By: >>3962553 >>3962606

>>3962223
The horror of a talentless nophoto gearfag making fun of me not spending 1k on a lens. The worst thing that in the world.
You revealed you’re a fag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Nov 2021 11:13:39 No.3962553 Report

Quoted By: >>3962612 >>3962615

>>3962516
I bet you use old, shit, adapted manual focus lenses and take fucking terrible photos

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Nov 2021 15:02:35 No.3962606 Report

Quoted By: >>3962615

>>3962516
Look, there's absolutely nothing wrong with using a spartan kit. You really don't have to compensate for your lack of gear this badly. Just shoot with whatever makes you happy and leave the rest of us alone.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Nov 2021 15:23:00 No.3962612 Report

Quoted By:

>>3962553
yeah, because not one single good photo has ever been taken in the history of photography until your $1k lens was produced. brainwashed consumer

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Nov 2021 15:25:27 No.3962615 Report

Quoted By: >>3962630

>>3962553
I know for certain you're a worthless nophoto with your gear because we’re both on 4chan
>>3962606
Leave the then, topic bitch, you want me to compensate like you? A butthurt gearfag. Why are you even on 4chan?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 Nov 2021 15:51:10 No.3962630 Report

Quoted By:

>>3962615
>Leave the then, topic bitch, you want me to compensate like you? A butthurt gearfag. Why are you even on 4chan?
All I'm saying is use the gear that works best for the kind of photography you are trying to do. Underspending and overspending are both bad things. If you can't stop yourself from autistically screeching about it, that's a you problem, not a me problem.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 Nov 2021 20:40:55 No.3962942 Report

Quoted By: >>3963137

>>3961560
wait what prices are inflated? you mean vintage lens prices? i didnt consider that but you are absolutely right. its insane. i have a whole bunch of vintage lenses allready. i bought a barely used a7ii for 500 bucks

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Nov 2021 10:21:04 No.3963137 Report

Quoted By:

>>3962942
Yeah. I wanted to get some to shoot actual film, but also get an adapter so the lenses could do double duty and save space in the camera bag. But I'm not about to pay more money for worse lenses. I like to shoot film once in a while to spice things up, but I don't actually need a full complement of lenses for it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 15 Nov 2021 10:54:12 No.3963139 Report

Quoted By:

>>3958880
you should get the NIkon Zfc

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 17 Nov 2021 02:26:50 No.3963780 Report

Quoted By:

>>3959096
I've been waiting for prices to come down. Why are these still so expensive?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches