HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I dont get it
>>2760350
mirrorless larger than DSLR. memeshit
>buy mirrorless they said
>it will be small and compact they said
>it will cure your dslr arm they said
>>2760353
Yes. A mirrorless is smaller and lighter than a DSLR. No one ever talked about the lenses.
Fun fact: I only shoot with DSLR.
Full frame mirrorless like the Sony A7 is particularly dumb.
The crop mirrorless cameras with lenses designed just for crop only actually are smaller than DSLRs.
>>2760366
Shut up.
Sony is still cheaper and better.
>>2760368
Whoa no need to get defensive friend.
>>2760343
Meanwhile over at Fuji
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 600 Image Height 399 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:04 10:17:33 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 840 Image Height 399
>>2760379
cool pentax q.
pls. fuji makes huge lens as well.
>>2760387
Fuji makes SOME huge lenses, for when you want huge lenses. They also make small pancakes, prime sized normal zooms, a cute little 35mm, etc.
Having a fuji is a lot like having a normal dick. Having a Sony or DSLR is like having a dick that's hard 100% of the time. With the fuji, you can have it small and compact and out of the way when you don't need it to be enormous and powerful. With full frame, you're sporting a huge monster camera boner at all times and it makes a weird bulge in your pants and sure it's great when you're fucking, but the rest of the time, people are just giving you weird looks.
Wow thanks canon, so compact
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:05 02:34:00 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 830 Image Height 1869
>>2760343
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH
>>2760398
T O P K E K M 8
O
P
K
E
K
M
8
>>2760398
I really hope this is real
SONY
O
N
Y
why buy anything else.
Gearfags
>>2760417
Better to be A Gearfag than a poorfag
>>2760411
>SORRY
>O
>R
>R
>Y
>why buy anything else.
because it's not as shit as sony
>>2760428
>calls it shit
>can't come up with an actual argument why it's shit.
Stay retarded you troglodyte.
>>2760428
Delicious tears of buttmad mft, apsc and DSLR fanbois
>>2760402
it is real.
>>2760435
DSLR fags so far behind they are in disbelief that performance this good could be possible.
>>2760437
>performance this good
>not being able to take 301 shots
>enjoy autofocus during sporting event/races
Sony fans actually thinking their meme mount is worth shit kek
>>2760437
only on canon.
nikon uses sony sensor and gets better result than sony.
a6300 will btfo dslr in sports.
>>2760439
>399 af points
stay plebeian with your measly 10 af points.
>>2760441
>a7rii couldn't btfo DSLRs
>a6300 will btfo DSLRs
Typical Sony mentality
>>2760442
>42 megapickles
>Doesn't have the IQ of D810
Kek
>>2760392
That's my professional street photo setup
>>2760439
>not being able to take 301 shots
>enjoy autofocus during sporting event/races
Found the shitter that cannot do without 15fps+ burst
Try getting better instead of crutching on gear
>people actually using autofocus
lol
oh yeah now I remember why I stopped coming to /p/ for a year
>>2760468
Because you read through the shit troll gear threads rather than minimizing them and going to the photo-centric threads like the critique thread, the RPT, and other assorted anon photo threads? Because you have nothing to contribute, and come here expecting to be entertained, and only feel the need to speak up in order to complain when it isn't happening?
>>2760379
keklet
how small is panolym on this scale?
>>2760468
Because everyone you come on /p/ you realize Sony is master race and that affects your DSLR fanboi brain?
>>2760343
yup looks the same to me
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Photographer Sean Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Image Created 2016:02:04 09:35:45 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 944 Image Height 588
>>2760480
In actuality? A little bigger than the X-T10 and 35mm f/2
>>2760482
Ergonomics perfected.
>>2760482
Do you often use your camera without a lens on it? Strange. Do you have a sample?
I thought the bonus to mirrorless was being able to adapt lots of different lenses
>>2760366
Full-frame lenses are larger than crop lenses? What a surprise.
I actually do really appreciate you guys being such retarded gearfags and fanboys that you motivate me to spend another year taking photos outside and getting continually better instead of sitting in my ass arguing about camera brands every day like you guys.
Thank you.
>>2760485
>mfw using pancake on dslr
>sometimes go through my bag and see dslr in there and think I forgot to put a lens on and that it's only the body
>>2760486
What?
Why is that relevant right now?
>>2760486
DI SUMWUN SAY ADORPTUMS?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2014-01-17T05:53:44-05:00 Image Width 640 Image Height 380
>>2760491
because you can have a more versatile selection of lenses to choose from if you need small and light?
>>2760470
such shitty troll threads have no right to exist in the first place, stop defending them fuckface
>>2760485
No, but I often use smaller lenses, that aren't even capable of being used on a 5d.
Sony native lens selection sucks, no shit.
>>2760500
>And you lose lots of features in order to get there.
Like what?
>>2760500
It's almost like some people don't want / need / use certain features of cameras.
If I shoot 0 video, should I care whether or not my camera shoots 4k?
>>2760504
Your own personal priorities do not negate the fact that, in fact, features stop being available when you adapt lenses. The only difference is, that loss of feature is not important to you personally, which only applies to literally you alone.
>>2760506
>The only difference is, that loss of feature is not important to you personally, which only applies to literally you alone
And everyone else that's fine with using manual focus lenses
>>2760398
Damn, Canon really sucks if their studio camera isn't as good in low light situations. If I ever shoot my studio stuff in pitch black I'm sure to use the A7Rii
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 960
>>2760510
wait for the next sony, that shit will annihilate canon. canon is on the brink of death.
Pro-tip: Canon is shit.
I shot Canon for the longest time and the best decision I've ever made was to sell all my Canon gear. Megapickles, autofocus, battery life - all those mean shit if the megapickles are shit, autofocus has a worse hit rate than manual focus and it takes literally 3 seconds to switch batteries on any camera.
I now use Fuji.
>>2760506
>features stop being available when you adapt lenses
Yeah I didn't negate that, and I even said:
>Sony native lens selection sucks, no shit
>which only applies to literally you alone.
And anyone else that shares my priorities, which is actually a lot of people btw.
See pic related, I like cameras compact enough that I can carry with me literally everywehre. Weight's a consideration too for many (3.5lbs vs 2lbs). I was a Nikon shooter for ~7 years, I sold my D800 / D750 / D4, it's just not worth the size / weight when I can get the same (if not better) IQ in such a smaller (and lighter) package.
If I still shot profressionally (weddings or sports), no doubt I'd still be using Nikon. But for every day / travel / portrait photography, the a7 series is basically a ton of upside with little to no drawbacks (virtually none in my case).
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Sean Image-Specific Properties:
>>2760512
So true, I've basically heard nothing but bad shit from my Canon reps, they've been doing awful sales-wise. I know at least for my company, as far as ILC cameras go, Sony had 2x their sales and Nikon had ~5x.
>>2760512
Maybe, but >>2760398 is a field test of a camera that was never supposed to shoot in the dark. You have controlled light in your studio, the 5DS is a studio camera, why would they care about the ISO performance?
That's like saying a race car without headlights is shit on a country road by night. Of course it is, but that's not what it was build for.
These tests just show how desperate gearfags try to start arguments. You guys aren't better than the people on /v/ arguing about superior consoles. Yet you people forget to take actual pictures with your precious whatever camera and resell it after half a year with a 800 shutter count because DXO said the latest camera was slightly better in some aspects.
>>2760518
cute argument. It's too bad the sony can do everything the canon can.
>>2760518
I don't use either, I just thought that image was funny as another useless comparison between the cameras. High ISO performance and lens size don't matter if you're actually out taking good pictures.
>>2760527
MFT shill on sight.
>Single lens fags in this thred
>Mirror slap
>Holding camera to their eye
>35mm
topkek
>>2760691
what are these cameras called with the two lenses?
>No varnished wood
>Pretending to use the zone system
>Having a sensor smaller than your face
Do you even bellows son?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 (Windows) Photographer CEphoto; Uwe Aranas Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2013:06:16 17:27:05
>>2760694
tlr or twin lens reflex
>>2760696
how do you prevent light leaks
>>2760697
tanks
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Paint.NET v3.36 Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi
>>2760482
This is the only important post in this thread. Like wow the camera in the OP is a little longer with a lens on it. Fucking neat. There are more dimensions to a camera than the length of the lens.
>Capturing your art onto a surface smaller than your chest
>grain/noise
>Keeping your camera on you at all times so you can always take a shit photo
Get on my level
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3X Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Photographer Lonna Tucker Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 1046 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 6048 Image Height 4032 Number of Bits Per Component 16, 16, 16 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2010:09:15 09:35:47 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/7.1 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/7.1 Exposure Bias 1 EV Subject Distance 2.51 m Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 900 Image Height 600 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control Low Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Soft Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2760700
>This is the only post in the thread that still makes it seem like mirrorless is actually more compact than a DSLR.
fixed that for you.
My car is lower to the ground than a Lamborghini when you take the wheels off, but you can't drive it that way.
>>2760713
No but you're wrong still. The body of the A7 series is smaller and lighter than any other full frame camera. Sure the lenses are the same size (hurr durr physics exists) but that's not super relevant. the 70-200 from sony is lighter than the 70-200 from Nikon. The 50mm zeiss is bigger than a lot of canon or nikon 50mm lenses, but it's a zeiss and it's worth it. If you want to put a smaller lens on then you can.
And your comparison is retarded. A Lamborghini with no wheels is still better than your shitty car with no wheels. Just like my A7ii with no lens is still better and lighter than your 5D Mkiii with no lens.
>>2760482
looks like shit camera handling to me.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Picasa Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 320 Image Height 214
>>2760714
>but that's not super relevant.
Why would it not be relevant? You can't use the camera without the lenses. If the total package is the same size, then it's not smaller, is it? Unless of course your the target Sony market, who only uses cameras for the numbers that go along with them on paper... If I'm holding a camera and lens that's nine inches long, and you're holding a camera and lens that's nine inches long, but the part you use to actually operate it is smaller, more cramped, and less ergonomically suited to the human hand, then I'm not seeing the benefit.
I want a camera body that's large, with buttons that fall to hand, and smaller lenses, personally.
>>2760714
>A Lamborghini with no wheels is still better than your shitty car with no wheels.
Uh, no, it's literally the same. Probably worse, actually, because it's less comfortable, less space to move around, less space for activities, a worse sound system...
>>2760716
Because the length is the only dimension of size that matters, right guys?
How about weight, and ya know, like the other 4 measurements that indicate size. Length of body with lens is ONE unit. Depth, width and height, plus weight are all 100% equally relevant.
>>2760513
which are the bad XF fuji lenses? just saw a craigslist ad and I'm having trouble remembering
>>2760723
Only one I've heard is not that good is the 18mm. No personal experience tho.
>>2760723
There aren't any BAD ones, but there are slower ones. The 60mm, the older 35mm, the 27mm, and the 18mm are just okay, overall.
The 60 and the 35 have really nice image quality, but are slow to focus and operate, and are loud, and clunky. The 18 and 27 are optically still pretty nice, but not *as* nice as the others.
>>2760718
The overall bulk of the system is only marginally smaller. It's not really worth talking about. The other dimensions are the ones where you want the size, so that you don't have to try to work a little wrist-watch calculator to make it all work. Big lenses on a small body feel off balance, awkward, and uncomfortable. The larger sony grip will help somewhat, but the issue is well observed.
Weight, again, the difference between carrying 5 pounds for 8 hours, and carrying 4 pounds uncomfortably for 8 hours is pretty negligible.
The A7rmk2 and a6300 have a lot better places to claim superiority over dslrs than size.
>>2760729
I guess my issue is that I have small hands, so my A7ii is equally comfortable as the D750, which is for all intents and purposes basically the same camera, just DSLR vs Mirrorless.
Since I have small hands, the smaller body isn't a negative, so why not save that extra pound? I go on serious backpacking trips and that does add up for me.
>>2760729
Right. Size is the stupidest argument ever. As soon as I went into an electronics store and held the A7's for the first time the first things I noticed were
1.) They aren't that compact. Smaller, sure, but I don't imagine them finding their way into my pants pockets comfortably.
2.) They aren't exactly light either. Hardly lighter than most D-SLRs, sans the D5/1DX II type cameras.
I really like all that Sony brings to the table too but I still really enjoy picking up and shooting with my D-SLR, and I'm not entirely sold on EVF either. I don't need to see what my exposure looks like since I shoot in aperture priority and know how to meter for the result I want anyways, and I'm not fond of the idea of having to turn on the camera just to look through the viewfinder. I'd love being able to adapt just about any lens possible though - I've thought about adding a Sony MILC as a second body and adapting my current lenses + other lens mounts on it.
>>2760762
>mfw small hands
>>2760343
Mirrorless is the worst meme. I usually stay away from gear threads but I can't believe people actually fell for what is literally a point and shoot with interchangeable lenses.
Like really guys?
The new lens looks really good. It has a nice aperture ring too, unlike the amateur Canon lens.
>>2760461
>people actually using MF when they have the option of AF
That's almost as bad as the people go go around bragging about how they always shoot in full manual, but just match the needles on the in-camera light meter up for every shot.
>>2760694
Dalek-cams
>>2760718
>How about weight
Any weight advantage that the sony has is demolished by the amount of batteries you have to carry around
>>2760770
I know, right? Without a mirror flapping around, it's just a toy.
>>2760343
Eeeh, a lens's size is also dependent on the AF motor, optical formula, and element count
>>2760726
18 is my daily carry and I love it. I'm dissapointed in the 35mm 1.4 because the diaphragm is loud as shit, despite a firmware upgrade "fixing" it.
>>2760784
Fly by wire aperture rings are for fags.
>>2760512
>canon is on the brink of death
You mean Nikon?
>>2760985
I think he means Sony, who has been having back-to-back terrible fiscal years for the better half of the decade.
>>2760995
>Outside of Japan, Canon is doing awful.
How do you figure?
>>2760869
You probably got your trauma from one of the old APSC kit lenses or something.
The better lenses with Zeiss batches have excellent haptics. Good resistance to the ring, and virtually zero lag.
>>2760836
It's 45g per ~350 well-framed shots or two-three times as much with some people's faster shooting style than CIPA ratings would suggest.
So, no, not really... theoretically on week-long hikes on foot with no solar larger panel that might be the case, but few do this.
>>2760869
Works excellent. I very often MF on my 90mm FE Macro, and it's not really any obstacle.
The difference is just barely perceptible at best. You wouldn't even mind if the glass wasn't quite as insanely good as it is.
>>2760519
>sony fag in denial
>>2760698
>how do you prevent light leaks
by not being a full autist and stabbing the bellows with scissors?
>>2760527
>High ISO performance and lens size don't matter if you're actually out taking good pictures.
OIMLAUGHIN
>>2760696
>not having aperture bigger than your head
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS M Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Photographer Janne Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:05 12:33:01 Exposure Time 1/30 sec Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 800 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 633 Image Height 950 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2760353
>dslr arm
you're in dire need to start lifting weights man
I have an A7 because ergonomics.
having one dedicated dial for each part of the exposure triangle is a godsend, it makes shooting manual so much easier it doesn't make sense to do otherwise. absolutely every other camera got it wrong.
on the rare event you feel too lazy too shoot manual, there's still the exposure comp to go along with semi-auto programs.
and, since mirrorless is in what dslr-fags call 'live view', you can directly see the result of your exposure.
Thousands times better.
Ya'll arguing on irrelevant shit.
The body not looking like ancient dogshit is a nice bonus. Like, finally something actually modern.
>>2761086
>having one dedicated dial for each part of the exposure triangle is a godsend
I literally thought until now other cameras had this. Wow DSLR what fucking shit
>>2761086
> absolutely every other camera got it wrong
I understand some of the rest of your argument, but having those dials isn't really an A7 specialty?
>>2761100
you'd be surprised to see how many cameras only have 2 dials. fuck tons.
Canon 5DM3? One dial at the top, a spinning wheel on the back.
Nikon 810? One dial at the front, one other at the back, the menu "wheel" does not spin.
for christ's sake.
even the fucking Nikon DF, with its ton of dials, somehow made it so the longest exposure you can easily get is 4 seconds. because it's more important to write it down for up to 1/4000.
I'm not saying it's an A7 specialty... but the only other camera I've seen doing it right is the nex-7.
>>2760368
Why do you care? you don't even take photos :^)
>>2760343
>Expecting a FF 85mm 1.4 to be small
ISHYGDDT
>>2761134
They could have reduced the flange distance at least though, unless ergonomically it wouldnt have been possible to hold the cam with that thing on.
>>2761086
Whatever floats your boat, but generally, DSLRs have a dial for shutter speed, a dial for aperture, and most times a little button to press for ISO that's right under your finger and slows you down a lot less than having to reach up to the top of the camera with your off hand.
Fun fact, DSLRs also have EV comp, and live view.
>Thousand times the same
Fixed that for you.
Which dial on the A7 is for ISO?
>>2761163
>They could have reduced the flange distance at least though,
Oh man, you should write them a letter. I bet they didn't think to try this...
>>2760343
Is that sony weatherproof yet?
>>2761163
It really does not seem likely that they made it bigger for ergonomic reasons.
This glass is probably just going to be fucking amazing again, like the 90mm FE is.
Actually kinda feels like Minolta's glass designing prowess is coming back in the present...
>>2761172
I don't think it will be. Just "-resistant" again.
So there is probably at least a year of "Sony can't be used for x" shitposting left, even if this glass -as one would expect after the old 70-200 f/4 and the 90mm FE- is of the highest optical and mechanical quality again.
>>2761167
>but generally, DSLRs have a dial for shutter speed, a dial for aperture, and most times a little button to press for ISO
That's not a dial.
This is a dial.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model ILCE-7M2 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7.1 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:02:28 11:18:20 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 500 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 1.1 EV Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2761178
It's a lot faster to press a button that's under your pointer finger, and turn a dial that's under your thumb, than it is to take your camera away from your eye, lower it down, move your left hand up to the shoulder, depress a dial lock, turn the dial, put your hand back in position, bring your camera back up to your eye, re-frame, etc.
Is it as fun? Hell no, but this conversation isn't about fun, he's claiming it's a much better way of doing things, which that objectively is not.
>>2761178
god thats pretty
>>2761178
>>2761182
>Not even pushing the hotshoe cover in all the way
Now THIS is pretty
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D800 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Macintosh) Photographer Loriene Perera Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 100 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4850 Image Height 3232 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition Unknown Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:09 14:57:59 Exposure Time 1/100 sec F-Number f/5.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 2000 Lens Aperture f/5.0 Exposure Bias 1.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1600 Image Height 900 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2760398
yeah, since i'm a fucking imbecile with literally no skills and knowledge regarding the very basics of photography, i'm gonna shoot my next session with iso256000. shooting portraits outside at night is a regular thing for me. i'm a sony user.
>>2761178
>>2761185
Everything about the goddamn x-t1 seems perfect even the selection of lenses
am I crazy
>>2761194
That doesn't show the 35 f/2, 56 APD, the 90mm, and the 16-55, which are also very very very nice lenses.
>>2761194
Honestly, if it works for you, that's great!
To me, everything seemed a bit too mediocre when doing a hands-on.
Controls were fine, but almost no really high-end lenses, camera sensor is only upper mid-range at best, AF is not at all great as compared to Sony / Nikon / Canon, AWB is rather wonky, and so on.
>>2761180
>he does not know how good it feels when you're turning all the dials for "the decisive moment"
>he does not understand why evfs after xt1 greater then ovfs
>he will always be treated like some pedo digi fag instead of some film enthusiast
>>2761194
>Everything about the goddamn Fuji is perfect
FTFY
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make OLYMPUS CORPORATION Camera Model E-M10MarkII Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5.1 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Color Filter Array Pattern 898 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 40 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 3905 Image Height 2197 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:01:14 09:46:20 Exposure Time 1/25 sec F-Number f/4.2 Exposure Program Shutter Priority ISO Speed Rating 250 Lens Aperture f/4.2 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 20.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 610 Image Height 343 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control High Gain Up Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2761203
None of this is true.
All of the lenses are high end (the complaint with Fuji is usually that there are no LOW end lenses and people can't afford them)
The sensor is fantastic, with great dynamic range, and an enormous amount of detail from the lack of AA filter and the addition of the XTrans array.
The AF on the "pro level" lenses is nearly instant in nearly all light levels.
>Pic related, 50-140 nailing 14 locks in a row in near darkness
The AWB works perfectly and predictably, and Fuji is usually lauded for its colors and rendition (Except for greens, which tend to come out a little blue)
>>2761209
>>he does not know how good it feels when you're turning all the dials for "the decisive moment"
>>he does not understand why evfs after xt1 greater then ovfs
>>he will always be treated like some pedo digi fag instead of some film enthusiast
I was able to make that statement because I own both the X-T1 and the 7D. As I said, the Fuji is more fun, but it is certainly not more efficient or more effective.
>>2761211
I love having seizures whilst using cameras
>>2761213
I assume you're talking about how the screen is dark, and the lights up during focus. That is because I have "preview exposure in the EVF" turned on, and the settings are set to show the light level in the room (low). If I were actually taking photos, the settings would be adequate for the shot, and it would be bright the whole time at ISO 6400 probably (for that lighting)
That feature can also be turned off, for when you're using strobes, so that it just shows you the scene in front of you exposed brightly, regardless of your settings, so you can work in dim modeling lights without having to deal with a dark-as-shit display.
>>2761211
>no LOW end lenses
no one talks or cares about fuji's XC lens.
mostly because the C stands for Chinacheapcrap.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 96 dpi Vertical Resolution 96 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 950 Image Height 534
>>2761219
>mostly because the C stands for Chinacheapcrap
Fun fact though, the optics are almost always just as high quality as the XF series, it's just that a lot of the metal is replaced by plastic. The 16-50, for instance, is a fantastic lens with ultra fast accurate AF, and truly surprising sharpness, only tarnished by its association with isi lately.
>>2761211
> All of the lenses are high end (the complaint with Fuji is usually that there are no LOW end lenses and people can't afford them)
They're higher-end than the $100-300 entry level glass the majority of people would like to buy.
They're just not quite like the best Olympus M.Zuiko, Nikkor, Zeiss or Canon "L", Sigma Art, Sony "G"...
> Pic related, 50-140 nailing 14 locks in a row in near darkness
Shows nothing, really. Can't even see if that focused accurately.
And what's "near total darkness" anyways? Something like -2 EV (0.625 lux)?
> The AWB works perfectly and predictably, and Fuji is usually lauded for its colors and rendition
Uh, no. That one was absolutely not the case, and only Fuji users think that's good color rendition ("Fuji color rendition" instantly primarily gets negative search results too, though maybe you're trapped in a search bubble...)
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think by any means it's trash bin material. Just a bit mediocre. [And I haven't even touched speedlights and workflow and stuff yet.]
>>2761227
Oh, so you're E-M1 fag then. Welcome to the party!
>>2761218
Do another with it turned off pls
>>2761219
actually XC and entry level Fuji stuff is made in thailand by ladyboys
that's where the x-trans name originally came from
>>2761211
>im going to post these to the recent photo thread
>>2761232
When I get a chance, I will, yeah. What are you hoping to see from it, so I can get you what you want.
>>2761234
What?
>>2761238
Implying the average /recent photo is some sperg 360ing in their room with a camera
>>2761246
Oh!! Hahaha
>>2761227
>and only Fuji users think that's good color rendition
lol, no.
Does anyone even use these Sony lenses on their a7? I have 8 lenses for mine and none of them are Sony.
>>2761305
I have the 90mm FE (which is a Sony G).
It's immensely neat glass, and feel like I am fairly tempted to get one or two of these new lenses...
Don't forget you don't need clinical perfection to make good photography.Over a 100 years of photography has showed this.
I value small sized lenses more.
>>2761234
every
single
one
>>2761173
>Minolta's glass designing prowess
When was that?
>>2761486
Well, there was quite a lot.
In terms of still having relevance today, I'm especially thinking of the APO glass. That was released around the early 90ties (depicted was released 1987 and revised 1989), and is still really good glass by today's standards. Also still gets traded for around or above $1k.
Look at this:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/1395293@N23/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/seagr112/sets/72157601574520630/
http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/660-minolta200f28?start=1
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2013:08:19 16:54:03 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 300 Image Height 500
>>2760343
what's this left lens?
>>2761515
New 85mm Sony is releasing
Anybody using the Tamron 18-200 Di III VC on their Sony?
>>2760353
>dslr arm
You mean my sick gains?
>>2761515
85mm f/1.4 Sony G, just announced with other very high-end lenses for the E-mount & the new APS-C A6300.
It got presented with review samples and specs and marketing rap and stuff, so hype is building 'cause it really all looks fucking good.
Not on sale yet.
>>2761529
>85mm f/1.4 Sony G
So then I guess the large size is due to macro or magnification capabilities? Is there data about the closest focusing distance?
>>2761529
it's a G-Master fuckwit.
>>2761529
A6300 beat everything this year.
>>2761590
It's for refining the Bokeh.
they are removing the Onion rings for good with the new type of glass.
>>2761529
Ok wtf is the point of that 85mm. $700 more than the Zeiss lens.
The Zeiss Batis for E-Mount is literally one of the sexiest lenses ever produced. Who on earth is their target audience that would want the Sony version for nearly double the price of a fucking ZEISS BATIS?
>>2761619
Zeiss batis is f1.8, this is f1.4. That makes a huge difference. If sony's marketing is to be believed this will also destroy the batis optically.
>>2761620
Not $700 difference, in my opinion.
Also, the Batis can't be destroyed optically, no matter what Sony says. It's basically the Otis which is one of the most sought after lenses of all time. It's fucking gorgeous. Pic related, the first of the random snapshits from flickr for the Batis.
>>2761621
Another example.
Jesus Christ.
My 6D + Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 VC USD is even more compact.
>>2761621
Batis has shit bokeh. Good bokeh is one of the selling points of G unit. The batis doesn't even have any aspheric surfaces. For perspective the nikon 85mm f1.4 is over 1000$ more expensive than the nikon 85mm f1.8. Those two lenses also perform very similarly. If the G unit was a zeiss branded lens it would probably be 2 or 3 times the price of the batis. Be grateful sony didn't pay to put a zeiss badge on this lens.
>>2761629
You are pants-on-head retarded. Shit bokeh? From a Zeiss lens? They're literally known for having the sweetest bokeh out there. Also just look at those examples.
>>2761631
Yeah the first sample you posted has shit bokeh and the second has a simple background that any 85mm would render well. Some zeiss lenses have good bokeh and others don't. You clearly only understand hearsay and take everything you read on the internet as fact.
>>2761632
not the guy you're talking to but still lolling at u
>>2761632
Explain why you think that's shit bokeh, and then provide an example with bokeh you like more.
I've done my research and I personally love the look of that lens. Most likely it's just a difference of preference between us, but until you actually explain your stance, then YOU are the heresay. I've provided examples.
>>2761638
>>2761635
Not him but the second picture has horrendous borders and separation of edges. It's like onioning but much more. It's not pleasant or smooth at all. The first picture is better but it's too busy even at the distances between the front and back oof areas. Assuming that's wide open on both, then they're pretty ugly.
I'm a bokeh whore and I'm not satiated.
![6a00df351e888f883401a3fcf148e2970b-800wi[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RQSUVL4.jpg "6a00df351e888f883401a3fcf148e2970b-800wi[1].jpg")
>>2761185
>>2761178
>>2761209
seriously i could masturbate to those fucking awesome Fuji dials, they are so amazing. I hate using fucking buttons on dslrs.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SONY Camera Model NEX-6 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.8 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 36 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2014:04:16 09:03:57 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.5 Brightness 6.6 EV Exposure Bias 1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 24.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 553 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal
>>2761646
incredible
I wish I could buy one
>tfw I could get a 10 dollar adapter and use my fd 28mm
![CaTRwzKXEAE72Tu[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Xj8ObuE.jpg "CaTRwzKXEAE72Tu[1].jpg")
Sony is going full retard boys.
>>2761608
Too bad there aren't any lenses for it eh?
>>2761628
>it's okay when Nikon does it
>>2761649
This is only a problem for fashion fags who are worried about looking funny.
Everybody else would just use that as normal.
>>2761652
Yeah that doesn't look off balance or uncomfortable at ALL.
>>2761653
>look
That's the keyword. Your mind is in the fashion business, not the photography business.
You're worried about appearing like a macho instead of taking photos.
>>2761649
Seriously though i'd like to know who would buy a nex body and that lens with it. Jesus Christ....
>>2761651
Fucking Nikon. Worse MFT than the $1,500 cheaper Tamron. What the fuck where they thinking???
>>2761654
At least they couldve put the lens on a FF body.
>>2761655
It's not hard Anon. You have your right hand on the camera, and your left hand on the lens.
Do people ever use their brains around here?
>>2761658
You would just wine again when the issue is about longer 800mm lens. Then you'll complain and cry about your ballsack being too small for your penis and need larger camera again.
>>2761649
multicopter gear
>>2761654
Let me clarify:
That doesn't look like it would be PHYSICALLY TERRIBLE TO USE, WITHOUT THE SURFACE AREA OR MASS TO PROVIDE THE LEVERAGE AND BALANCE NEEDED ESPECIALLY WITH ENORMOUS LENSES.
>>2761662
I've never seen a lens extending in diameter
>>2761665
The 200mm lens isn't enormous.
If your left arm is too weak for the 200mm on apsc, your left arm won't suddenly get stronger from attaching a full frame.
>>2761666
I was talking about when using different, larger lenses. Your full frame camera would still look funny and unbalanced.
The trick is to stop giving a fuck about how it looks.
>>2761621
Batis is dead. Nobody gives a fuck about a lens that is on eternal preorder and playing hard to get.
Especially not if they can buy the optically superior alternative for just 600 dollars more.
>>2761508
I'm certain that they had a few good lenses considering how large of a company they were. Why is it so expensive? The A-mount users that don't have anything better?
Is it like original Canon FD to EOS converter that now sells for $1000?
>>2761621
Cat's eye bokeh?
Supposedly the new series will feature different 11 blade aperture that will make the bokeh more circular.
>>2761649
How much larger is it than the old 70-200 f/4? Doesn't look all that large if you're mainly holding that setup by the lens.
>>2761621
>one of the first examples on flickr
>bokeh snapshit of some rich asian's cunt daughter
>fake snow added
Fuck this gay earth.
>>2761729
Very accurate, but to be fair, that's how it is with pretty much everything. Want to have fun? Look up real world samples with the DP3 Merrill.
>>2760353
>>it will cure your dslr arm they said
>Being skinny cunt.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2761733
I'm 95% sure I know this man in real life. This is weird as fuck
>>2761753
he looks like someone I went to school with, Ben?
>>2761757
He was my teacher for a while in Highschool. And yep, Ben
>>2761759
small world
:)
Also if the 85mm is too big and expensive, there's always the option of adapting the old screw-drive Minolta or Zeiss 85s, and there's also the option of the Sigma via an a-mount adapter.
>>2761209
Except the auto-focus sucks ass and if you're shooting anything that's moving or in low-light, you're fucked. Fuji cams are bullshit.
>>2761590
> So then I guess the large size is due to macro or magnification capabilities?
No, it mostly is just IQ and Bokeh whoring.
If you want a Macro, get the 90mm FE. It's already out and also a "G" lens with very high IQ (its bokeh may certainly be considered imperfect, on the other hand).
> Is there data about the closest focusing distance?
Yes, I think they announced it was ~90cm.
>>2761679
> Why is it so expensive? The A-mount users that don't have anything better?
No, it's just still about that good, really.
If the current best glass in the range is $1.5-3k new (with diminishing returns on investment applied), then this one is just around $1k used.
> Is it like original Canon FD to EOS converter that now sells for $1000?
No, it's not strongly about an absence of alternatives...
>>2761649
I think you're the retard who never had a big high-end FF lens? This seems perfectly fine - great, even.
>>2761729
This happens with pretty much every "boutique" lens.
Like 95% of Noctilux samples you can find on the net are either flower macros or Asian girls in front of borkeh.
>>2761652
>>2761661
>>2761946
if you are using a crop sensor why not use a fucking crop lens with it?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Adomas Mockus Image-Specific Properties:
>>2761976
1. Many will not use it on a crop sensor...? Sony's primary cash cows are the very high-end full frame cameras of the A7 series.
2. That crop sensor A6000 (and the A6300's) is equal or higher in resolution than most FF cameras' sensors today. You really quite possibly want good glass on that.
Like on Nikon / Canon's lens systems, that high-end glass primarily just is FF glass.
>>2761976
>futureproofing is evil and you should never improve or think ahead
Oh, hi Tony
>>2761759
I wonder how many suckysucky he got from the teengirlz.
>>2761976
because that lens is f/6.3
and telephotos don't benefit from a smaller image circle as much as normal/wide lenses do
>>2761985
>Sony's primary cash cows are the very high-end full frame cameras of the A7 series.
[citation needed]
>hat crop sensor A6000 (and the A6300's) is equal or higher in resolution than most FF cameras' sensors today. You really quite possibly want good glass on that.
There is absolutely no corollation between "full frame vs APS-C" glass and "Quality vs shit" glass.
>>2762295
>everybody wants or needs to the size/bulk or performance of a full frame sensor
Oh, hi /p/
>>2762396
I'm not saying that everybody wants a full frame camera, but I am saying that you should't lock yourself in to nothing but crop sensor lenses, as with Sony, high-end crop lenses are basically non-existent, they have no high end crop telephotos, and the closest there are are from 2 Zeiss lenses, one a 24mm f/1.8, the other an overpriced f/4 zoom.
If you want crop lenses, go to Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, or Fuji, as they all have high end crop lenses, Sony, for the most part, is nothing but low-end to midrange consumer lenses in the crop sensor area
>>2761066
>Canon EOS Meme
>>2762383
>Mirrorless cameras are not.
You're just plain wrong. F2,8 Zooms are expected to follow laws of physics.
That's why they are a certain diameter, and a certain length from sensor to iris plane.
From that image, it's just plainly simply that Canon has placed their sensors as close and far back to the rear screen as possible.
Meanwhile Nikon puts a large distance between the Rear LCD to the sensor plane.
If you wanna complain about mirrorless complain about the completely unusable collection of crap that is Sony's flash ecosystem
>>2761651
Nobody ever says "Get a Nikon because it's more compact" People say that a lot about mirrorless.
>>2761626
Yeah that's pretty fucking nice desu.
>>2762471
They say that because there is truth to it just not with that lens.
>>2760352
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHNtzxO0y8
Got myself a used EOS M a few months ago for fun.
Ended up leaving the EF-M to EF adapter on it most of the time.... Not even that compact....
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Macintosh) Photographer Brian P. Lawler Copyright 2009 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:07:22 22:55:50 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/32.0 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/32.0 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 100.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1080 Image Height 532 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2762419
>Sony, for the most part, is nothing but low-end to midrange consumer lenses in the crop sensor area
Well that's the problem, but it doesn't have to be that way. The primes and pancakes are well covered, and while not perfect, do ok. They've got a strong (but really expensive) standard zoom, and a wide/ultrawide. All they need is a couple specialty lenses, macro and such, and a telephoto that isn't embarassing.
>>2762621
They do have a macro lens, the 30mm f/3.5, the problem is that the focal length makes it so that you have to be up the ass up the subject in order to get 1:1 magnification. I think that a 55 or 70mm macro would be better, and give more distance
>>2760398
You're either trolling or completely stupid to post that as if it has any large significance to most real world situations.
The test result was obtained by applying a +5 exposure push and 100% shadow recovery.
You'd have to severely fuck up your exposure metering to find a reason to make that kind of post adjustment.
I've seen other Sony fanboys post this comparison as well, as if it's some death blow to Canon.
All it shows is that Sony users don't know how to take photos.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1536 Image Height 2048
>>2760513
Meanwhile most press award images are taken with Canon cameras, and sporting events are dominated by canon users, and sales indicate more people are choosing Canon by a wide margin.
It sounds to me as if you don't actually know how to use a camera, and are blaming the tech instead of admitting you're an idiot.
>>2762730
>implying it isn't a showcase of sensor technology dominance
>implying it doesn't mean you can shoot incredibly high dynamic range situations simply by metering for the highlights
>>2762383
>Mirrorless cameras are not.
>HOW DO I PHYSICS
You faggot. The biggest difference in terms of determining how big a lens has to be is the sensor size, not the focal-to-flange distance.
That said, the Canon L II USM and the Tamron VC USD 24-70mm f/2.8s are smaller than Sony's FE GM. For what purpose? No fucking reason for it to be so.
>>2762743
>implying it won't look like garbage HDR/tone mapping
>>2760343
Sony did everything well, they just fucked up the mount.
>>2762766
>they just fucked up the mount
How so?
Do you actually for even one second believe the resulting size of that lens wasn't deliberate?
>>2762754
>For what purpose?
Don't you know, the bigger the lens the more "PRO" it is (All my Normie friends).
>>2762743
What it showcases is that one sensor is better than another one under circumstances outside an intelligent users requirements.
>>2762755
This /p/ro is on the money. Intelligent people have better ways of recording under those situations to produce better results. And they've been doing it for decades.
>Sony/Nikon users: I need to get a better sensor to take better photos.
>Everyone else: I need to be a better photographer to take better photos.
Stop using your camera as a crutch for shitty technique.
>own A7
>use small Canon FD primes
>never plan on buying sony glass
<no problems here
if someone buys a camera for its size and then slaps a big ass lens on it that's their problem. this is like buying a sports car. throwing on 24 inch rims, and then complaining and blaming the car for the shitty performance. if someone is short sighted enough to buy a camera because it is smaller than a dslr and then buy massive lenses for it that's their own dumb ass decision. doesn't make the original product shitty by some strange extension.
>>2762820
That is the worse analogy I have ever read on 4chan.
Holy fuck my brain just twitched reading that drivel.
>>2762825
How? We are talking about how mirrorless cameras lose the benefits of their small size once you stick a fatass lens on them. It's not the cameras fault, the camera is still small. It's the user's fault who bought it for the compact size only to smack a huge lens on it.
Camera = sports car
Huge lens that negates the cameras small size = stupid rims that negate the original performance of the sports car
>>2762847
>mirrorless cameras lose the benefits of their small size
So what you are really saying is the benefits of that small size are hugely overrated because you can't have both small a size AND the versatility of a system camera.
So how is the A7 better than a point and shoot then?
>>2762855
You can put a small lens on a small body and have a take-anywhere camera, an option you don't have with a big body.
If you put a big lens on on a small body you're in the same boat as putting a big lens on a big body.
This isn't difficult to understand.
>>2762859
Can you put a small 85mm f/1.4 on a Sony a7R with autofocus and stuff?
>>2760352
So apparently it is larger because of the lens. You do know there are pancake lenses and adapters... And if you are judging the manufacturer's desire for the lenses on the camera, well I don't think that constitutes as a possible problem.
I will tell you what is a problem on the A7S, the fucking rolling shutter.
>>2762920
Yes you can put a pancake on a mirrorless camera, but you can also put a pancake on a DSLR. The point is, with the same focal length and aperture, the mirrorless isn't smaller (in this case)
On the other hand, compare a 5D with a 50mm f/1.4, against an x-T1 with a 35mm f/1.4.
5D with a 135 f/2 against an X-T1 with a 90mm
5D with an 85mm f/1.2 against an X-T1 with a 56mm.
>>2762924
>with the same focal length and aperture, the mirrorless isn't smaller
Care to point out an equivalent DSLR setup manage to be as small as the A7Rii + FE 35mm F2,8?
>>2761086
I don't know why you feel the need to have constant easy access to ISO as if it's a priority function that has to change all the time. Its never been that way with cameras. Traditionally ISO was a set and forget option cause of film, and it's much the same now, except you might have a small range of ISO that would be acceptable for the scene. You consider this for the environment you're shooting in or for what the intended output is and then forget about it so you can concentrate on what shutter and aperture to use per shot.
If you're manually considering and changing ISO for each consecutive image this just makes things more difficult. So access to change ISO frequently is not something most users need which is why it doesn't have the same placement as A or S in the majority of cameras.
If you need it, then that's great you found a camera that accommodates, but most don't.
>>2763131
>f/2.8 prime
Who the fuck would bother?
SL1 with 24mm f/2.8
>>2762859
Except that the new Sony 85mm f/1.4 GM is considerably larger than Canons 85mm f/1.2.
So you're actually getting less glass. You'd think the lens would be smaller no? That's the point OP is making.
Imagine if Sony made an APSc mirror less camera that was larger than FF DSLR. That would be stupid right? Just like the size of this new lens.
>>2763166
>24mm
Not equivalent to 35mm.
The burden is on you. You claim DSLR can be just as compact in any situation. Don't be a coward bro, go for it, I dare you.
>>2763170
>Caring about 3mm
Must be a sony faggot.
>>2763170
pro tip, most 35mm lenses aren't 35mm either.
>>2763181
24mm on crop is 38mm eqivalent. So a 3mm difference.
>>2763183
We're comparing FF mirrorless to FF DLSR here. No crops.
You would be wise to understand the situation before entering the loser side of the argument.
>>2763188
>Care to point out an equivalent DSLR setup manage to be as small as the A7Rii + FE 35mm F2,8?
I see no mention of full frame.
>>2763189
A7Rii = full frame
>>2763190
So you don't like how easy it was to prove you wrong, and now you're moving the goal posts all around. Sounds about right. Did you warm up before doing all these gymnastics?
>>2763194
A 1.6 crop dslr with a 24mm lens is effectively equivalent to a full frame camera with a 35mm lens. The aperture is even the same. And I do believe the SL1 with 24mm pancake is smaller.
You didn't add full frame until after. Also, I realize you're enjoying brandishing "coward" as some sort of weapon in your defense of your shitty system, but it doesn't take a lot of bravery to google some cameras. I guess it does take some to admit that you were wrong, rather than trying to worm new criteria into the mix though...
If you wanted to point out how it's not equivalent, you should have reached for your official sony supplied master stats sheet listing dynamic range, autofocus capabilities, etc. But no, you went easy mode and reached for full frame and shot your wad.
