/p/ — /gg/ Gear General

File: maxresdefault.jpg (110 KB, 1280x720)

I have the A7CII which I enjoy a lot. Great image quality. I have the 40mm2.5 lens as well as the 85mm 1.8. Now I want something more wide in the 28mm range. Was thinking of the Sony 28mmf2. Not the very sharpest lens but it should do the job. But since that A7CII is quite chunky and the lens rather long.. I'm kinda leaning towards that new GR IV. It costs 1000€ more than the lens but I could have a pocketable camera to bring. Also more incognito and not so flashy. Apparently the lens is very sharp too. But can it compete with a mediocre 28mm lens on a full frame camera? Or is the Sony still noticable better in image quality? I'm afraid that in the end, especially after the honeymoon phase, it's collecting dust because FF is better in the end. Or even worse: I always bring both with me.

>>4511300
dude don't by a gr, waste of money. get yourself a nice sigma contemporary or sony g pancake and be the guy with a camera strap around his shoulder and an extra ~1000 euro to spare.

>>4511300
Well what if you found yourself at times wanting both 28mm and something else? Then your stuck taking both cameras and awkwardly having to switch between them. I would rather get the lens and then with the money left over get a more versatile pocket cam, like an RX100 (which I did). Sure it's a bit of a downgrade in image quality but it's still decent, it's good enough for most situations where you'd want a pocket cam and I'd rather be able to zoom than have to crop in from 28mm on the larger sensor.

File: 1677019383521753.jpg (105 KB, 641x355)

Anons, I'm having buyer's remorse.

I had the R7 + 100-500L that I sold to get the R5II + 200-800

I see absolutely no difference. Sure I have less rolling shutter, AF is a bit better (not that much actually it struggles in the same situations as the R7), and I have a bit less noise at high ISO but nothing modern software can't take care of anyway. The 200-800 is noticeably worse than the 100-500 even with a crop sensor, battery drains much faster, the vast majority of added features aren't useful to me, apart from 4K120 and the third wheel to control ISO.

The 200-800 makes it so that at 800 I get two thirds of a stop disadvantage, and if I pull back to 470mm on the 100-500, I'm at 6.3, so a full stop more light at 750mm FOV equivalent. If I want something better the next super telephoto lens is at $10k which I can't justify, especially when the R7/100-500 combo performs so amazingly well.

I'll probably switch back again, at least I won't lose more money considering how much the R5II costs. That will teach me for being a gearfag.

File: Leica-M-10-1-von-2.jpg (1.22 MB, 1500x1000)

I'm selling my Fuji GFX kit because it's simply too big and heavy even though I really love the image quality of that big ass sensor. Now looking into what other system to buy. Fuji x is a no no for me because apsc won't fill my needs.

I see that there are Leica M10 on the used market at around 3000 bucks which isn't too bad. I could combine it with 2-3 used lenses, probably Voigtländer. I've tried the M240 of a friend some time ago and it was really fun. But other than the fun part, are there also benefits in the image quality? Is there really something special in those lenses, "Leica colors", etc. or should I just go for Nikon or so and be happy about the instant autofocus? I'm not shooting professionally so I seek for a good combination of joy, image quality and not too bulky.

>>4511324
>it's simply too big and heavy
fr? doesn't seem like it

I'm currently upgrading from my t7i and looking to get a full frame, my two options are the r8 and the r6 mk ii. Is there an extremely noticable difference between the two? I don't do anything professional, just as a hobby.

>>4511310
I never had the 100-500, but I did "upgrade" from the R7 to the R5 as well. If you do a lot of low light stuff the R5 is certainly worth it, but it becomes noticeable after a while that the R7 is a generation newer with certain quality of life improvements such as being possible to browse the photos directly from the camera and being able to use the joystick button as an "OK" button in any given situation. That was the hardest things for me to adapt. I also loved the control ring on the R7 and feel like it was a proper, innovative and ergonomic step forward, but of course the boomers would throw a fit if they implemented it on the full frame cameras because everything has to be like their dslrosaurs from 2 decades ago.

File: pige.gif (44 KB, 160x200)

>>4511310
Idk what to tell you man, you have an objectively better body but a technical downgrade on the lens so I'm not sure what you expected. The RF 100-500 costs how much more than the 200-800? It's also an L lens while the latter is just painted white.
What you've done is raised the ceiling of potential quality photos, but you need to put the money down for it. Seems like you sidegraded yourself and are somehow confused why it isn't twice is good. The 200-800 is astounding for the FL and price.

>The 200-800 makes it so that at 800 I get two thirds of a stop disadvantage
If you were using the 100-500 on a FF camera this would be true. You were using it on crop and it doesn't quite work like that. When you "Crop" a photo you discard a lot of info/light which is the whole point of having a wider aperture.

>if I pull back to 470mm on the 100-500, I'm at 6.3
If it only took such a small FL change to drop the aperture value, then you are on the cusp of the halfway point between f/7.1 and 6.3 @ 500mm. Apertures aren't steps they're gradual, but the software only confirms 1/3rds of a stop instead of 100ths so it 'appears' there's a big change.

>the R7/100-500 combo performs so amazingly well.
If you are birding you should have stayed on crop. The sheer amount of money to bird on FF you need is absurd. IIRC you were the anon complaining about low-light scenarios with the R7+100-500. And I'm afraid to say the reality is, you need more light, not more gear. You can't make every single photo opportunity a great photo when you don't control the environment.

>try to take some photos of my cats sitting on the couch with their heads popped up over the edge
>af detect set to animal
>it detects their face or eye and does green confirmation box
>take shots while they do stuff
>check
>out of fucking focus and instead the focus is on the couch edge
>get annoyed switch to pinpoint, dot on my cat's forehead like im a dog sniper in some cat-dog war
>green confirmation
>take the shot and check
>it's still focused on the edge of the couch (slightly in front of my cats) instead of my cat
holy fuck, i got so annoyed I almost went and listed my nikon zf on fb marketplace. I'm so god damn sick of this shit happening. It happens with people to where it's showing me the focus is locked on a person's eye then when i get home turns out nope it was on their nose or some dumbass shit slightly in front of the eye. I really wish I wasnt so heavily invested in this fucking system or that nikon would get their shit together with their broken ass af

>>4511427
Overwhelming probability of user error. I've never had this problem with my z8.

>>4511410
The R8 version 2 is rumored to come out later this year, also the current r8 doesn't work with canon's VR lens
https://app.ssw.imaging-saas.canon/app/en/vru.html
subscription is only required for videos over a couple minutes.

>>4511429
I've found multiple threads including dpreview's review mention that the zf has issues with focusing properly on what your subject is and instead focuses slightly in front of or behind it. In particular, the eye focus "locking" only for it to have focused on the eyebrow, which is something I've experienced when shooting at parties and other events. I would hope a z8 doesn't have this issue but at the same time I don't want the bulk of the z8 (or the price)

>>4511427
is it always with one lens or all ur lenses? fast lenses will have a different focal plane when stopped down then when they're wide open (when you're doing the AF) so you have to focus with DoF preview turned on.

>>4511427
use a piece of ham/salami and maybe switch to MF w/a wider aperture

File: AG-XE5-Kipon-M-FX-Macro-Thypoch-75mmf14-L.jpg (931 KB, 2500x1667)

As a 2 year Canon shooter (From Rebel T3i, to 90d, to R10) am I going to regret selling everything for the Fuji XE5? I do appreciate having all the specific dials and having aperture control on the lens, which is not really a thing on the Canon. And I don't like how hostile Canon has been (APS-C) and is (FF) to third party lenses, which is sad because I really like Sigma primes.

Also I've never used any film sim and I think they're a huge gimmicky meme. Am I wrong on this too?

>>4511424
>The RF 100-500 costs how much more than the 200-800?
Actually just $1k. cANON priced the 200-800 similarly to the 180-600 and 200-600 from the competition but it's worse than a 7 year old sony 200-600 on all aspects but FL, go figure. They should've called it the 200-700 anyway, at 800 sharpness and contrast drop so much you're better off croping from 700.
>If it only took such a small FL change to drop the aperture value, then you are on the cusp of the halfway point between f/7.1 and 6.3 @ 500mm.
I read that optically at 500 it's much closer to 6.3 than 7.1, yes, that's also visible when you compare it with other canon lenses at 7.1, it looks a third of a stop brighter.
>IIRC you were the anon complaining about low-light scenarios with the R7+100-500.
No I'm not. This upgrade path is very common though so that's probably why you're confusing us.

I can certainly see that images stay a bit cleaner at higher ISO on the R5, but again, the difference isn't massive like it used to be on DSLR, and software can take care of that, IQ wasn't really the issue with the R7. My problem was the inconsistent AF, but apparently the R5II despite all the publicity around its digic accelerator struggles just as much in many situations.

>>4511443
>keep the R10 and get a EF adaptor so you can put cheap AF lenses on it
>use the XE5 as your snapshitter with manual lenses and adapted old shit
this way you get the best of both worlds, use the canon when you want to "produce" an image, and take the fuji with you everywhere. this is what i do except i use a canon A1 as my snapshitter but since you don't like film emulations then you probably won't like film either.

>>4511443
>am I going to regret selling everything for the Fuji XE5?
probably, but not because fujifilm's cameras suck per se but because you'll likely realise how vain and pointless it was to switch systems... yeah canon aren't playing nice with the third-party manufacturers but, on the other hand, you can get more than decent canon lenses. forget what canon bodies you're using, what about lenses? you might miss them more than you've considered...

>>4511449
I only use Sigma primes on my R10 (12mm, 23mm, 56mm all f/1.4) plus a chinkshit fisheye.
Sigma offers the exact same lenses for RF that they do for Fuji X mount.

>>4511450
Is having more manual controls the only thing about a Fuji that makes you want to switch? That doesn't seem like enough reason. Sure, you'll be able to get the same Sigma lenses you already like but not without selling your current ones for a loss. Why not consider an R7? that is, if you need an upgrade. Check yourself: are you just suffering from "shiny new thing" deprivation? Anyway, the XE5 looks like it would be too small for such large lenses. The Canons have really deep grips, much more ergonomic. Did I mention already you'll have to sell all your lenses for a loss?

File: Sony.jpg (144 KB, 1280x720)

>>4511297 (OP)
>a7r VI
What went wrong?

I'm a little uncertain about wireless flashes and transmitters and receivers. Can I use my Flipper Zero as a transmitter to sync both an off camera Godox wireless flash and my Canon DSLR?

FWIW I have been reading through Strobist, but I'm still unclear.

>>4511437
Z bodies outside of the Z8/9 stop down when focusing, so focus shift isn't really an issue
>>4511427
What AF settings are you using? I've done a few thousand people on my Zf and never really had AF issues like that

>>4511443
>am I going to regret selling everything for the Fuji XE5?
Yes. Don't fall for the retro style bodies, there's a reason nobody recommends fuji.

>>4511454
nothing. its superior to every competing camera. every sony release outsells the entire ff mirrorless market combined. why would sony push even newer tech when everyone else is so far behind the next most popular brand in full frame (nikon) has worse autofocus than canon and no compact model that isn’t crippled to mark it as video only?

>>4511443
Yes. You’ll end up one of those posters who says mirrorless is an overall downgrade from DSLRs. Fuji isn’t very good. They’re a brand for their fans, if you know what I mean. Like apple but with slightly fewer firmware bugs.

>>4511443
sounds like /p/s shills memed you into anything but a sony syndrome with literal lies

a used a7cii is in the same price bracket and is a significantly better camera at everything but slapping (copyrighted) film stock names on its vsco presets

>>4511427
Its could be the lens. Nikons thai ladyboy manufacturing has really bad QC on some lens AF motors. Some are noisy, others are inaccurate. 50mm and 35mm f1.8s especially.

But nikon does do this sometimes when the detected eye is close to a contrasting line. The actual detect box is larger than what the screen shows.

>>4511427
You're right.

>>4511429
A lot of Nikon Zs won't focus on horizontal lines and will happily back focus on textured things BEHIND your subject. Even if they're hundreds of feet behind it.

The green box isn't the boundary box for the AF zone, behind the scenes the box is much much larger and will snap focus on the highest contrast thing inside it. Pinpoint does nothing, because things outside the box are invisibly included in the zone.

>>4511489
Yeah, but our local nikon shill spent like 8 grand and since he switches to ch+ when using af-c and frequently utilizes refocusing and safety shots even in s and af-s he pretends there is no issue
>issue? SKILL issue! focus somewhere else and then do it twice just in case. Be glad nikon lets you have a camera. Hey no dont upgrade from your nikon please just learn to deal with it… ;_;

But on canon and sony, there actually is less of an issue. The AF is simply more advanced. BUT, they STILL dont have real cross points on most models, a continuing downgrade from DSLRs. Nikon is approximately two generations behind in camera AF and lenses are only now beginning to catch up, but the top tier AF still falls behind the older paradigm in as many ways as it surpasses it. Mirrorlesscucks are paying early adopter penalties like the retards who coped hard with early DSLRs.
>Uh NO, you have a skill issue and you know what film is worse. My D300s has more resolution and DR than fucking portra! This has nothing to do with my finances i already spent $5k on this i said it has nothing to do with money ok this is saving me tons of processing fees and i cant afford a dust control system or a drum alright - 2006
>Okay, yes, 35mm film can match the resolution and DR of modern 20-24mp FF digital, and careful use combined with high end scanning equipment has extracted over 200 megapixels of fine detail, but, uh, digital is good enough and doing that is hard and also digital is sharper. sharpness is what matters! quick remove all the AA filters -2026

>>4511489
The biggest issue with most nikon bodies is stop down AF. Like using a slow lens on a DSLR made a portion of the AF points less useful and live view CDAF shit the bed with a poor SNR off the sensor, nikon forcing anyone who doesn’t have a z8 or z9 to deal with their f1.2 lens focusing as closed down as f5.6 (to preview the shooting aperture supposedly, like anyone ever cared about 24/7 DOF preview even during AF - we want live raw highlight clipping indicators instead) makes their AF less useful - slower and more easily confused.

They claim -10ev autofocus and “no issue” but its a literal chartfag figure leaving out some reality. A nikon camera can focus on a static object at -10ev. Slowly. Using the central AF points.

>>4511492
Here's an example of the AF running into similar issues as OPs Zf, except on a D810
https://www.photo.net/forums/topic/524417-multicam-20k-3d-tracking-lock-on-redux/

>>4511493
>Like using a slow lens on a DSLR made a portion of the AF points less useful
More true for some Canon, but pretty much all Nikon DSLRs see no AF benefit from using lenses faster than f5.6, the AF module won't "see" the extra light from a wider aperture

File: Screenshot_20260527-103347.png (523 KB, 1080x1254)

>>4511495
For those to lazy to read through linked thread

>>4511495
Tracking is something DSLRs were shit at and mirrorless was meant to improve despite other regressions lol. Its hard to deny nikon mixes cripple hammering (stop down AF) with sorta subpar tech right now. The oft stated joke here, R8>Z8, is actually the result of field tests done by jared polin.

If it makes you feel better about your $$$$ zee lenses, the camera industry goes 4-5 generations between concept and supremacy (5d to 5div, a7r to a7riv, a7 to a7v, d700 to d850). Nikon is on third gen tech and is about on par with the a7iii which means within two years, you will likely not have as much coping to do and you seethed in nikon’s defense for no reason.

>>4511497
>now we shift the goalposts
To be expected
>$$$$ zee lenses
Yes those big money lenses the 28/2.8, 40/2, 50/1.8

>>4511498
Damn bro you spent a grand on entry level first party primes for an immature mirrorless system. Must have been a lot for you. I thought you were a serious pro having second thoughts about a real investment not an impoverished brand fanboy straight outta reddit.

You should be reasonable then, just be happy because nikon is relatively cheap.

>>4511499
I mean I have singular lenses for other systems that are more expensive
The 50 1.8 Z was good enough for me to sell my CV 50 2 APO, so saved some money in a way
Might sell the 28 2.8 though, don't use it as mic and I have better 28 options

What gear do you like to use?

>>4511501
Gear is too rigid for me. Too mechanical. I prefer to have your mother hold my sheet while I expose the scene.

File: sigma-28-70mm-f2.8-lens-on-sony-mirrorless-body-740x536.jpg (42 KB, 740x536)

I want to get a small, light but still FF setup for traveling and general now that I have a child who will be on my back when I hike. I've been carrying a 5D III and a 24-70 L around for for years now and I'm really liking the look of the A7C II and 28-70 f2.8 lenses which will cut a full pound off of my carry kit and leave more space in my bag. I'm a little concerned I'll miss the external controls and not having to go through menus while shooting, and I think I might miss going a little wider (24 vs 28) since I mostly hike and take photos of the scenery. It has been a long timeCan any A7C users who are used to more prosumer/pro oriented cameras with physical controls speak on how compromised the interface is for day to day use?

>>4511535
>It has been a long time
*It has been a long time since I was limited in wide angle and I'm not sure if a 28mm will even be noticeable for landscapes vs the 24 I've had for years.

>>4511310

EF 400mm f/4 DO is all you need for low light on APS-C.
Fool frame is a scam and rapidly losing market share.

>>4511535
Don't bother with the C, it stands for cucked and apart from the lack of EVF hump isn't any smaller (not a big difference) and the weight difference is negligible. Just get a regular A7. They have plenty of customisability so once you've set it up how you want you'll rarely have to go into the main menu, there's also a customisable quick menu. Maybe consider an f/4 to save some size and weight, you'll be gaining around a 1/2 stop noise performance and much better dynamic range from the better sensor plus you'll also have IBIS. For example there's the 20-70mm f/4.

>>4511539
Hmm... I hadn't heard of the 20-70 f4, I'm going to look into that. It's pretty light, light enough that mounted to an A7 IV it would be about 3oz heavier than A7C II with a 28-70 f2.8. I disagree that 5oz is "negligible" though, that's almost a third of a pound.

>>4511437
it does this with all my lenses, be it the 85 f.18, the 35 1.4, 50 1.2, or 135 1.8. dof preview is on
>>4511459
3D, wide area af L, and again I even used pinpoint in the example with the cats
>>4511466
>The actual detect box is larger than what the screen shows.
this might be part of the issue then because it'll show locked onto the eye a lot of times and then NOPE eye out of focus and eyebrow perfectly sharp and in focus, especially wide open
>>4511489
nice to see someone not just say i dont know what im doing when i've done tests and seen others complain of similar issues lmao. Yeah pinpoint fucking up is what really made me angry in particular
As it stands, I've seen people have this issue with the z6iii as well, so that just leaves the fuckhuge z8, switching to either canon or sony (leaning more towards sony) or just dealing with this retarded bullshit til maybe they make a zfii or a z7iii or z8ii or something?

File: IMG_3530.jpg (1.20 MB, 5184x3456)

I'm sort of a newbie, always had interest but never had the money.
I got for free a Canon EOS1200D last year with a couple of short lenses
>Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS II
>Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM
I know it's not much, i delete like 99,99% of the photos i take, but i still enjoy it.
I wanted to get a telephoto lens, I was eyeing a used 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS II. Is this an investment worth it in the long term?
Would this lens still be worth if in the future (let's say, a year or two) I switch to a much newer mirrorless Canon body?
I know they all use RF mounts so I'd also need the adapter.
Or is it better to wait a while, save some more, and get the new body with a proper RF equivalent lens?

>>4511551
if you never had the money and you already have 2 lenses i say get the lens and later an adapter this way you can already use 3 lenses

>>4511549
you have $5k of glass and ebay eats 15% off the sale price since they calculate fees off the buyers total, not the sale price. its too late to switch systems. you are stuck waiting for nikon to move on.

the fact that they could improve at all from their early shit is a good sign and indicates they know it sucks and want to compete. take fuji, who did not really improve until the xm5 and xe5 and still suck at autofocus, indicating they know their average customer is a retard who barely does any photography and don’t care to compete (hasselblad has better AF than them now). or panasonic, who have not made even one camera with good autofocus... the z6ii outclasses their best. it could be genuinely hopeless. but it is not!

>>4511554
to be completely honest the "non having money" part, was mostly me finding hard to justify spending like 500€ for something that i never done before. I'm just that cheap and autistic, and i'm regretting not spending the money years ago.
And also yeah, i'm doing way much better financially now.

From a technical point, does the adapter comes with tradeoffs?
I've read it can cause some AF issues, but it seems to happen only on third party lenses, so if that's true, i should be fine, right?

>>4511565
i havent had the most experience in adapters so i cant honestly tell you, if you can afford it get a nice lens for your new camera

>>4511542
In real units the A7C II is about 145g lighter, which is even less than most mobile phones. The 20-70mm f/4 is 207g lighter than the 24-70mm f/2.8 GM II which is already very light for what it is, 398g lighter than the first gen which I imagine is probably more likely what you'd be looking at.

>>4511424
>If you were using the 100-500 on a FF camera this would be true. You were using it on crop and it doesn't quite work like that. When you "Crop" a photo you discard a lot of info/light which is the whole point of having a wider aperture.
Don't confuse light intensity (aperture) and total light gathered (intensity/aperture × exposure time × sensor area).
With a 1-stop aperture advantage (light intensity), APS-C does negate the 1-stop advantage of full frame.
500mm f7.1 and 800mm f9 is a good comparison, since you get the same framing and aperture is the only variable. In this case APS-C does effectively compete against FF for birding. Low light remains your enemy but you have more room.

It's a myth that FF is ALWAYS better. As you said,FF only raises the ceiling of what you can theoretically achieve, but that's it. A good APS-C setup that you're comfortable with can and will absolutely rape a FF setup.
Shaun Antle has proven that you can win international wildlife photography awards with APS-C. Funny thing he also uses the R7 paired with the RF 100-500L.
Dan Hartman, National Geographic and BBC wildlife photographer has done many of his work using a Canon 70D with a Sigma 120-300mm and a 2x TC.
Ariane Totzke, now a tamron ambassador, who's also won many international awards with an A6600 and the Sony 200-600.
Arthur Morris (Bird as Art) and Alan Murphy used the 7D Mark II. Arthur's blog is still very relevant for bird photography imo. These two may be too "antique" for /p/ to remember, Arthur Morris was also a massive proponent of APS-H when it was a thing.

If we were talking about landscape or portrait there would be other considerations and I would not recommend crop sensors, but for wildlife, APS-C should be your number one choice, unless you're a pro or willing to spend >$10k professional lenses.

>>4511571
Oh and how could I forget the D500 that was the gold standard for birding 10 years ago.

File: Panasonic-14-140mm-an-GX8-01.jpg (81 KB, 850x575)

>>4511463
>everyone else is so far behind
lol I tried replacing my GX8 with a6700.
Sony's feature set was so far behind the 8 years older camera it was ridiculous.

>>4511454
>>4511463
White men shoot Canon and Nikon.

>>4511577
>White men shoot nipshit brand A and nipshit brand B instead of nipshit brand C

>>4511577
Funtes’ law: anyone claiming to be white, accusing others of being brown, or saying something is for white men or brownoids, is invariably a non-white neo-nazi

File: _DSC9767.jpg (1.99 MB, 4781x2000)

Oh kek I might actually have got the last Voigtlander Septon 40mm in Japan. Definitely the last one in all of the Bic Camera stores. It was marked as "low stock" in the last shop that wasn't yet out of stock. Until I bought it.. Well, there's still the expo model.
Lens feels really great on an A7CII, cute, smoll, lightweight, haptics feel surprisingly good despite being so small. I guess this is how RX1 rich chads must feel like. Though I assume it must feel the same with the recent TTA and 7Artisans 40mm they released recently, great bang-for-buck and with AF. The Septon is pricey for what it is, as always with Cosina-VL, especially as its optical qualities are just okayish, but with the low JPY+tax free+discount code, it makes it fall into the acceptable price range.
Only issue is when you mount/unmount it, due to its compactness there's no space left without moving parts so you end up fucking up the set aperture and focus rings, but whatever, I'm used to Loxias being the same.

I have an old EOS 5 model from 2013. a DSLR.
I have a third party 800mm that I thought "cheap but i'll try it" and it's really nice. takes really decent photos but there is no stabilizer. so I have to use a tripod.
I was 8 miles away in Berkeley from the Golden Gate bridge and it was like I was on a boat right up on it.

Im looking into buy a mirrorless when they come down in price.