>>4537280
Can you stop spamming threads?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>4537287
He lost so many arguments that he wants to completely destroy /p/ now. It's kinda sad, but there's only 7 people posting here now and 3 of them are paid shills so it doesn't really matter.

>>4537288
Which arguments? Do you even know which anon you're referring to?

>>4537290
They spam the same pictures every thread. Are you stupid?

>>4537287
He is probably mad that both his sensors suffer from FPN, the Canon disease.

That said I like the 5DsR despite its flaws. It's interesting even if just for the quirkiness of having two processors. It's like owning one of those V16 cars that actually have two cojoined V8 engines.
It's cool at the raw engineering level, they're a madman's dream come true.

>>4537294
You are the only one here who cares about that - in fact, you have spammed the board for years about how much it personally bothers you and how you're supposedly "saving" people from it. It's too bad you couldn't be this obsessed over your own artistic output...

Just handled an old Sigma APS lens for Canon, a terrible defective lens with extremely flimsy build quality. It is remarkable how that company has turned around

Huskyfag is the only good photographer left here and cinefag is already trying to moop him

His advice? Buy an RP or a cheap FF nikon Z, and install capture one.

>>4537301
Corgifag mogs the cringe huskoid enjoyer. Considering you are a shit 'tog on your own admission I doubt you would understand.

Why don't you forum personality obsessors make your own damn thread where you can talk about the intricacies of faggotry and stroke each others shafts?

>>4537303
Nice projection.

>>4537304
Projection? I do not care about namefags or people who only want to talk about them. This is a gear thread. For you to call my comment projection means that you are indeed one of those faggots who are either a namefag or someone who's skull they live rent free in.

>>4537306
>no u
Nice projection.

>>4537303
This. The point of an anonymous forum is to discuss the content, not the poster.

>>4537297
I don't spam it at all, and in fact people sometimes call me a Canon fanboy. It's just something you have to be aware of to avoid nasty surprises. And it's the kind of thing that deserves to be discussed in a gear thread, what the strengths and weaknesses of different cameras are without sugarcoating it. For the FPN posting to reach something even close to equivalence of spam I'd have to post about it a lot more often.
>It's too bad you couldn't be this obsessed over your own artistic output...
It's too bad you're so obsessed about my artistic output in a gear thread. You don't care about the truth, you care about silencing anyone who reveals uncomfortable ones. Maybe you should obsess over your own. Even when it comes to gear pics in a gear I have already mogged you retroactively without even making the photo for you but for my own enjoyment.
>>4537308
That's why "nophoto" posting is cancer and reddit tier. What matters is what's being said, judged on its own.

Man this place is cooked.

>>4537314
Yep and the gear thread spamming is to blame, nophoto.

File: pen_pen-f.jpg (99 KB, 1280x721)

99 KB JPG

retrospective on PEN-F vs new PEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBWY7QsZhwk

File: IMG_8088.jpg (237 KB, 1050x694)

237 KB JPG

>>4537319

>>4537316
>nophoto

>>4537318
>bad composition
>poor tonality
>cheap message
>ugly model
>cut your fingernails
You shoot m43 dont you?

>>4537302
Corgifag also recommends an RP or a cheap FF Z
(They’re the same poster retard)

>>4537309
What you say is meaningless because you dont know how cameras are actually used IRL

You’re a benchracer. You’re constantly wrong about real life because you misapply simplistic theories.

File: 9980762714-Product-Panaso(...).jpg (394 KB, 1919x1279)

394 KB JPG

>>4537420

Panasonic's quarter century of camera innovation
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/throwback-thursday-panasonics-quarter-century-of-camera-innovation/

>>4537322
Wrong, schizo retard. I am the only ken rockwell posting on this board.

File: benchh.jpg (2.9 MB, 3000x2000)

2.9 MB JPG

>>4537328

>>4537324
>bench

>>4537327
Terrible photo and a terrible benchy. You should be ashamed of yourself, printlet.

File: all.jpg (2.6 MB, 3000x2000)

2.6 MB JPG

>>4537331

>>4537328

>>4537330
Absolute printslop. If your printer is belt driven you really need to fix the tension on those belts. If it isn't belt driven idk wtf you're doing but it's truly unacceptable.

Nikon will save us

Got my scans back from my vacation and I had barely any out of focus shots
I am becoming powerful in the ways of 35mm-fu
Unfortunately I've just realized that all the scans' filenames have *my* name in them for some reason, so I can't post any until I get home and can download them on my PC and rename them

File: tests.jpg (2.91 MB, 6000x4000)

2.91 MB JPG

>>4537338

>>4537331
really its that that bad?

>>4537336
Yeah you have rigidity and flow problems. Those ones look a little better but you have major slop in your xy axis. The uneven/wobbly lines are from using the wrong temp/flow/speed parameters and the bulging on the corners is from slack in your xy travel. Do you have calipers? Lets see your print tolerances lil bro.

>>4537301
>cinefag is already trying to moop him
Am I trying to moop moop? Do you hear yourself, Tim?

>>4537338
Based, some proper advice on /p/ for once.

File: ghostie.jpg (2.56 MB, 6000x4000)

2.56 MB JPG

>>4537342

>>4537338
>your print tolerances
i dunno, sorry, hav a couple moar

File: group.jpg (3.81 MB, 6000x4000)

3.81 MB JPG

>>4537341

>>4537301
No, I'm way better than all of those retards.
Which is why I won't post my photos here.

>>4537346
Congrats you can do more than point a camera at a dog, nophoto.

>>4537302
Ty
>>4537322
Nope. I wouldn't generally recommend an RP and the cheapest FF Z I'd recommend is a Z5II. But I also think an RP is perfectly capable of great photos, and have shit on threads here where OP has one but also takes garbage photos then blames the camera.
If you want to know my actual opinion on any cameras, just ask. I work with all kinds all the time.

>>4537371
Corgichud confirmed ken rockwell.

>>4537371
Wow you're one snobby and spendy gearfag

I've noticed reddit users do this a lot desu
>only what reddit agrees is the best consoomer product is worth buying
>if you can't afford it, buy this cheap garbage and use it until you can
no. mid priced hobby items are fine. z5 is fine. z6ii is fine. z50 is fine. all are worth recommending.

>>4537376
You sure know a lot about reddit, kind sir.

>>4537376
>one snobby and spendy gearfag
If that's about what I own and use, I really don't spend that much, I've just been doing it a long time, slow accumulation of gear.
Do you think a Z5II is spendy? It's like entry level for serious enthusiasts, scaling up to early pro work. It's absolutely mid priced as far as new cameras go lol.
Again, you can make great images with those too, but if your that budget constrained I'd be looking D850 or similar instead.
Plenty of people, even just starting own, can afford a Z5II or similar. I guarantee I've meet more photographers at a beginner level than you have.

>>4537376
fucking exactly. just get a camera. you spergs, not you particularly, but the spergs here in general, believe if they review enough charts, read enough reviews, and research, research, research, they'll actually find the best camera. they won't. they can't, but they sure can make themselves fucking anxious to spend any money, because there is no such thing as a perfect camera. anyone telling you otherwise is delusional or paid off.

>>4537378
This is a very reddit attitude
>A $1599 camera is just entry level if you're SERIOUS
Literally all of reddit is like this
Stop acting exactly like a consoomer bugman
You might as well be calling everyone ya'll and asking for pronouns

No retard, a $1599 camera is professional equipment and very very few people need the extra it does over last year's professional camera and the year before that, besides "not be a huge DSLR blobmera"
Also no you're not rich you're probably a $25/hr amazon wagie

File: no i'm not religious i do(...).jpg (59 KB, 680x674)

59 KB JPG

>>4537378
>Do you think a Z5II is spendy? It's like entry level for serious enthusiasts, scaling up to early pro work. It's absolutely mid priced as far as new cameras go lol.
You said this about the Z5 before the Z5II was released.

>>4537379
>but they sure can make themselves fucking anxious to spend any money
many are better about making themselves spend anxiety inducing amounts of money desu

/p/ - buyers remorse

>>4537380
If it's not Leica it's not Likable.
>hasselblad gets a pass
Sorry

>>4537383
at least leicafags are good old school opulent euroluxury buyers

being a consoomer for plastic japanese prosumer junk is pathetic. its like paying $5000 for a casio g-shock.
>cant affod it huh
>its very entry level for people who are SERIOUS about it

>>4537384
I only use my 28mm Elmarit in lowish light because I fear people seeing me with anything that's not at least f/2.

>>4537371
>the cheapest FF Z I'd recommend is a Z5II
It was literally the cheapest FF Z until they launched the Z5 II C lmao
Probably still the cheapest used because there's more of them

File: 1697646170958.png (1.72 MB, 1101x1230)

1.72 MB PNG

>>4537380
>>4537376
They're called redditors with advanced taste

>>4537324
>benchracer
I know this must be some hilarious in your mother tongue, you really owned me with that one
Izzat +50 or whatever, pathetic

>>4537390
Holy newfag
https://archive.4plebs.org/o/search/text/benchracer/
First year on 4chan kid? Maybe when you finally turn 18 you can get your first camera

>>4537391
This isn't /o/ and you were trying to do some wordplay, Ranjeet

>doubling down
Newfags amirite

File: consooooooooooooom.png (41 KB, 650x509)

41 KB PNG

>>4537397

>>4537378
>Do you think a Z5II is spendy? It's like entry level for serious enthusiasts, scaling up to early pro work. It's absolutely mid priced as far as new cameras go lol.

>>4537394
>pretending you weren't resignifying the term
lmao your sister wishes a guy like me gave her a chance
Maybe you could get Vance to "do the needful"

>>4537395
Based, just like it never mattered how compact a camera is if you don't glow or need it to fit your pocket

>>4537380
The more I shoot, including for professional projects, the more I think this kind of "Reddit" thinking about these tools is missing the forest from the trees. You want a tactile user experience and ergonomics to create something good. Every system, even really poorly conceived and marketed systems like Ricoh's 35mm film X mount have enough lenses to do anything from macro, to telephoto to fast primes. If it's digital, especially mirrorless, where you adapt any lens, and ramp ISO, the camera does not matter at all beyond your preferred ergonomics and user experience. I've been using heavily "downgraded" tools personally just because I am more consistently creating something that moves me versus my expensive, clinically and technically perfect "pro" gear. We are in the age of auto-stack HDR multi-lensor smart phones with computational photography, and AI image enhancement (if not just generation). If you are not using a tool that makes you happy to use it, you are not going to be creating good photos with it. And if you only feel "good" because you have some Reddit approved "perfect camera" based on technical charts or some other faux-objective set of metrics, you are probably better off in a different hobby or at least just using your phone until you can start creating for yourself.

File: 034.jpg (1.76 MB, 1818x1228)

1.76 MB JPG

>>4537333
imagine being a tardigrade and living here
you'd be king of the bugs

>>4537375
I'll never get Ken's hateboner for MFT and Olympus/OM. Regardless of crop, he seemed to hold a certain resentment or grudge towards them for failing to develop a pro-level autofocus film system. The E-1 is now considered groundbreaking, the E-5 is so durable that its value on the used market has held for close to a decade.

>>4537399
Kinda based.
When I was buying my camera I looked at the specs but finally decided on a model that looked good and felt right in my hand. Any ILC released in the last 10 years has good enough specs.

>>4537402
And the E-3/E-5 have great reach, just not on the sensor.

File: dream_camera4.png (646 KB, 1030x760)

646 KB PNG

>>4537415 >>4537419 >>4537434

>>4537280
How is your dream camera?

File: baseddep.png (1.32 MB, 1117x1301)

1.32 MB PNG

>>4537403
>Any ILC released in the last 10 years has good enough specs
Truth of Spades.

>>4537402
His review of OM-1 mark 2 is pretty positive and he praises their new menu system.
On the other hand it does not look like he has ever reviewed a Panasonic camera.

>>4537409
Fujifilm X-T5 but:
- Better build quality
- 16 stops of DR
- Fully stacked sensor for fast readout
- large, 3 million dot LCD
- 9.44 million dot, 240 fps EVF
- Canikon tier AF

>>4537409
I own my dream camera so my other dream would be a CFV-100 back for my Hasselblad 500CM

>>4537325
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE0ofdzBpL0

>>4537396
>saaar do not resignify the term do not resignify -cANON
What is this ESL gypsy nonsense? Can someone translate?

global shutter, one gorrilion megapickles, super dynamic range and a tiltable EVF is all I want, is that so much to ask?

My dream digital camera sacrifices "dynamic range" and megapixels for superior tonality.

645 sized, 33mp sensor, not ISO invariant, CCD. Simple as.

>this is what snoyfags took from you (including early DSLR specfags since nikon used sony sensors after the d700)

>>4537399
These pro cameras are designed specifically for news coverage and weddings

Everything they add to them is either for video, or a crutch so drunk/high weddingfags and panicy journalists don't have to make excuses for missing the shot. Nobody else needs or even wants 60fps e-shutter but if your job depends on not missing an 0.02s moment in a wedding ceremony it's understandable.

>>4537427
You can already have that if you embrace 50/100 iso.

>>4537429
First, boomers and japanese flipper scum have to be wiped off the face of the earth so they can be fairly priced again

>>4537430
How about getting a job and stop beeing poor?

File: Sony a7C II.jpg (153 KB, 1280x720)

153 KB JPG

>>4537409
It is fulfill my dream, sir.

>>4537430
2k for a 33ish MP mfdb isn't that terrible, really. Maybe in another decade they'll be cheaper.

>>4537433
My shekels will not be unjustly spent

>>4537435
They were $1k once but I was still in school and wasn't permitted to blow large amounts of shekelage

>>4537446
You can get them for basically "free" or very inexpensively if you wait and get one packaged with a body + lenses. That's how I did it.
The other thing to remember about mfdb is that they're good for like 1 million exposures because there are no moving parts.

File: 51829914274_89b29b7b55_b.jpg (207 KB, 1024x1015)

207 KB JPG

>>4537453 >>4537454 >>4537455

>>4537427
I went down the CCD digital back rabbit hole and found Kodak Professional DCS 645 Pro Back on flickr. It does have a beautiful look. Still, CCD died for a reason. It was an inferior technology.

>>4537452
Pretty cool gallery. Modern day russia reminds me of poland in the 90s.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsykhra/51830162226/in/album-72177720296063396/

>>4537452
Big ccd is terrible for walking around and taking snapshits. It is still awesome for studio work. You just need a shitload of light.

>>4537452
It's not an inferior imaging technology

it's an inconvient snapshitting technology that's expensive to develop and manufacture, and cameras two biggest buyers are news drones and weddingsloppers

>>4537455
CCD is power hungry so not suitable for battery powered devices and already outperformed by CMOS that replaced. It's true that first CMOS sensors were inferior to CCDs but technology advanced and now there is no reason to use CCD outside of specialized equipment.

>>4537457
I think I get like 150-200 shots on a full charge from a battery just powering the mfdb. They all use one battery for the body and one for the db.

there are many objects I have still wrapped in the corner of a room here because of drunk buying frenzy.
there are a couple boxes of girl themed toys and painting sets from this period I used to larp as a single dad to strike conversation with a cashier

>>4537463
>there are a couple boxes of girl themed toys and painting sets from this period I used to larp as a single dad to strike conversation with a cashier
What are you, George from Seinfeld?

>>4537464
It's called pickup artistry, Jerry.
I'm a pickup artist!

>>4537412
Why did he wait for Olympus to die before changing his mind?

>>4537457
And then mirrorless babbies hybrid snapshit machines end up draining their (considerably more advanced) batteries in 300 shots lol

>>4537450
"Very inexpensively" but people are asking $3-4k and that's just not justifiable for what is effectively ewaste. Collectors are a scourge.

I remember seeing full h3d kits for $1000-1500 a few years ago

>>4537470
Isnt selling that shit for $5k the equivalent of selling a 5d classic for $1000?
>ITS 75% OFF AND I AINT EVEN ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION KID I KNOWS WUT I GOTS THIS STILL HOLDS ITS OWN AGAINST YER NEWFANGLED 5D850 DARNIT -boomers

>>4537470
Stupid to call them ewaste when they produce better looking pictures than modern cameras and the databacks basically last forever.

File: images.jpg (28 KB, 447x447)

28 KB JPG

>>4537475 >>4537484

>>4537472
The same could be said of a lot of ewaste

>>4537474
>mfw i have an s5pro and and a couple mfdbs
Ewaste is as arbitrary of a term as snapshit on /p/.
In my superior and absolute opinion essentially all digital mirrorless cameras are the precise definition of ewaste, so take that and smoke it.

>>4537475
Ewaste is not long for this world

Capacitors age out and blow. Shutter and aperture mechanisms fail entirely.
20 year old cameras might die in the same year the newest snoy does
But they will still die

>>4537474
I flipped one of those. Took a chance on an "untested" unit, got a battery and charger for it, worked perfectly. It had just over 10k clicks. Made about 300 bucks on that transaction. Thanks e-waste enjoyers!

>>4537479
Yeah guy, every electronic camera is ewaste and every mechanical camera is mwaste and you are just bwaste. Ashes to ashes dust to dust. Use the cameras you want to take the pictures you want.

>>4537485
Not paying $5k for a meme that'll take a shit and die in five years tho

>>4537491
5k would get you something around a phase one IQ180. Not a meme, unless youre a visually illiterate retard, and that back would last you well over a decade and hundreds of thousands of exposures.
You think they're using cheap components in a 45k new dollar digital back?

>>4537491
There's an IQ250 on ebay with an 800k shutter count for 4k lmao

>>4537492
Now add the body and just one 80mm lense for an extra $2k
>not a meme
Yeah any photographic image quality improvement is a meme

The museums are full of cropped 35mm film shots

>>4537494
You are one goofy guy. You know that?

>>4537496
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUBBgc6k2Sw

>>4537497
>you after you sold your objectively superior blobmera for a fujifilm.

>>4537498
You don't know me

>>4537500
Sounds like I know you a little too well...

>>4537501
Really? Then who's my waifu?

>>4537502
Probably one of the umamusume horse girls.

>>4537502
The goth bird chick from helluva boss

>>4537424
I'm pretty sure it's cANON /pol/itisperging and schizoing out, if I got it right he's thinking of "benchod" (sisterfucker)

>>4537502
Charlie Morningstar obviously
Freak

>>4537502
Reimu hakurei!

File: 1373224605241.png (495 KB, 720x540)

495 KB PNG

>Uma musume
>Vivzieslop
>2hu
Are you really the people I've been spending time with? Saddening.

>>4537491
No one is forcing you to