Can you name a single thing about any of the current range of

>>2942828
just buy the sony

/thread

I don't mind the odd bit of banter between brands but you're ramping this shit up something awful right now.

Fuck off back to >>>/dpreview/ with your bullshit.

You don't give a fuck and even if you did, you'd still be limited by the fact that you'd never use either camera to their full capabilities

>>2942828
1. Lack of fags like you

>>2942828
>an equivalent lens

Sony has lenses? When the fuck did this happen?

In all seriousness, I would probably go A7R II for the high rez FF meme. But the Fuji line is sweet so I wouldn't blame someone choosing it.

>>2942828
looks to me like someone is trying to get someones attention. How desperate can they be

>>2942832
I've just seen a lot of competition between the 2 right now on the board and have failed to see any rebuttal by a fuji shill hold up.

I'm just trying to ascertain what parts of this argument comes from shills, buyers prejudice or objectivity.

I shoot pentax, and have no intention of changing.

And yet again, I've seen plenty of vitriol, but zero objectivity in this thread. No one is saying you can't personally prefer fuji, but to not admit that sony is objectively better in every respect seems foolhardy.

>>2942849
Don't try and justify your shitposting, you're just making another thinly veiled gearfag war thread.

No-one gives a fuck about who you designate a shill or what their opinions are. Now fuck off outside and take some pictures of something that isn't a bird or isn't a bridge.

>>2942852
>staying in shitposting, telling others to go outside

It's nearly 3am where i am

gg anon

So many angry anons, so few replies to op's question... Typical fuji users

>>2942856
>>2942855
Fuck off to bed or fuck off outside. Stop shitting up the board constantly with your brand wars.

There are websites literally dedicated to it yet you fuckers seem intent on having at least 1 thread a day now where you continue to fall for the fucking bait. There's 7 threads already and a gear containment thread.

You're too hung up on 'the objective' and 'professionals'

Personally I've found that a lot of people use fuji because the features that you write off as gimmick modes such as film sims or shooting jpeg are more tools for working creatively

For me personally I don't have a standard for quality that I would need to uphold and for all intents and purposes usually resize to web anyways so at that point it all comes down to which camera works best and I've found that fuji has a great lineup to pay attention to in that regard

My question to you is do you feel bad using an 'unprofessional' camera and if so, why?

>>2942863
>implying anyone with more than a fleeting interest in photography apart from isi doesn't shoot in raw.

You also say
>which camera works best
The whole point of this thread was to quantify that, and yet again the fuji camp fails to do so in any way but say "fuji good".

File: image.jpg (320KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

320KB, 1500x1000px

>Sony
>Fujifilm
>Olympus
>mirror less cameras
>""""""""professional""""""" cameras
>not using based canon for it better sensors, tonal depth and color range

Fuck off, canon is LITERALLY the only good brand out there

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2942878
Canon have objectively got the worst sensors, tonal depth and color range.

>>2942877
>implying anyone with more than a fleeting interest in photography apart from isi doesn't shoot in raw.

You can still shoot in raw though

>The whole point of this thread was to quantify that

OP said objectively and my response was that looking at objective quality of cameras is largely pointless and that it mostly boils down to subjective opinions about the functions each camera has

>>2942835
Abundance of fags on fuji, our biggest cuck is their loudest voice.

>>2942889
So you admit fuji is objectively worse in every way, but subjectively you prefer them, that's a fine answer.

Or are you seriously arguing that ibis, hss flash, low light performance, decent video and pro lenses are "largely pointless" and shouldn't hold any relevancy when choosing a brand?

>>2942892
>Or are you seriously arguing that ibis, hss flash, low light performance, decent video and pro lenses are "largely pointless" and shouldn't hold any relevancy when choosing a brand?

Yes absolutely. You'll completely label me as some crazy fuji shill after this I'm sure but in my honest opinion at the end of the day the only camera that matters is the one that will enable you to take good photos

I used to care what camera was objectively better and had more features and whatnot but the breaking point is when I spent more time comparing cameras than thinking and practicing my own photography

I'd gladly buy a sony if I needed it but I don't so I wont. Maybe someday

>>2942892
>you admit fuji is objectively worse
No, stop putting words in my mouth, i said specs are irrelevant, and no ibis doesn't make sony better, i don't have parkinsons.

filmfags go for fuji
chartfags and video go for sony

>As long as it's applicable to professionals.
>""""""""professional""""""" mirrorless
>making a living off mirrorless

lmao

>>2942878
>>not using based canon for it better sensors, tonal depth and color range

>proceeds to argue his thoughts with a highly photoshoped pic

Looks legit

>>2942895
>one that will enable you to take good photos.

Ok, so you want to shoot in daylight with fill flash...

Or you're shooting 200mm, lights falling, choose between ugly iso, motion blur or having ibis...

Or your client asks for super thin dof, and shows an 85mm f1.2 shot that he likes and wants replicated...

Or you need a 10mm to 15mm non fisheye shot...

Or you need a flash commander unit instead of having to manually set every off camera flash your using...

These are all situations I've been in and my camera hasn't prevented me from doing what i wanted. Whereas a fuji would have stopped you in your tracks.

I dont even do vidya, where I'm aware the disparity between the 2 enters a whole new realm. And why invest in a system with barriers to your progression, unless there's a damn good reason.

>>2942909
>picking a camera based on potential capabilities
>not on users needs and expectations

not that guy, but i made the switch from fuji since i dont do client work. if i really did, i would just shoot with a blad' or a mark III.

but now just walking around i dont try to shoot everything that is possible with everything technology can offer. the argument "one that will enable you to take good photos" are the hobbyist or their travel kit - people forget /p/ is just a leisure thing.

and honestly if your work is ranging from flashes (i mean the xpro has a hotshoe), to fish eye, to bokeh crap - why isnt canon/nikon your main gear

>>2942909
Yeah but your pictures are out of focus and have shitty colors

>>2942915
but yeah going back, objectively its shittier. most people on /p/ dont make a living off photography as you can see (but sure they can freelance), landscapes can only take you so far. but if youre concern about gearfagging can you really tell the difference between pauls and broncolors strobes? there is, but no one cares. thats how most fujisonyfags threads are.

>>2942909
>Ok, so you want to shoot in daylight with fill flash...

use a flash

>Or you're shooting 200mm, lights falling, choose between ugly iso, motion blur or having ibis...

fuji lenses with that length have OIS

>Or your client asks for super thin dof, and shows an 85mm f1.2 shot that he likes and wants replicated...

use the 56mm 1.2

>Or you need a 10mm to 15mm non fisheye shot...

use a fisheye?

>Or you need a flash commander unit instead of having to manually set every off camera flash your using...

you can on most fuji bodies

>>2942922
>use a flash
Can't because no HSS

>fuji lenses with that length have OIS
Also they're slow, so choose between ugly iso or motion blur.

>use the 56mm 1.2
Nope, that's same DoF as a 85/1.8, not as a 85/1.2.

>use a fisheye?
And have absolute shit corner resolution

>>2942923
>Can't because no HSS

But on xt-1 the hss is up to 1/4000 I believe

>Also they're slow, so choose between ugly iso or motion blur.

But the 50-140mm is f2.8

>Nope, that's same DoF as a 85/1.8, not as a 85/1.2.

So space out your subjects and backgrounds a bit more. Get creative and solve a simple problem with a simple solution

>And have absolute shit corner resolution

That rokinon 8mm fisheye is fine, but yeah a nicer native fisheye would be good

>>2942925
>xt1 has hss

There's no flash units for fuji with hss

>but the 50-140
Is equivalent f5.6, also sonys ois lenses now work in conjunction with ibis.

>so space out...
The word you're looking for is compromise

>rokinon 8mm is good
I specifically said non fisheye, rectilinear if you will. Fisheyes are 90's pleb tier, especially flattened.

File: the p theory.jpg (117KB, 834x669px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 834x669px

>>2942925
>140mm
>200mm

>So space out your subjects and backgrounds a bit more.
Sure, let me feed this girl a shrinking potion and move this mountain back a couple kilometers.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>2942909
Or your client wants you to toast marshmallows on the sensor after a few minutes of use.

I wish OP would post this in the fujilove group on facebook.

>>2942935
Hands up anyone here who's sony camera has gone into thermal protection whilst shooting stills...

>>2942936
Omg, screencap it, post it, report back the lulz

>>2942878
Please don't post my photograph with your gear argument

>>2942922
I'm a fujifag and don't take part in these shitshow threads but the 56mm 1.2 isn't the same as an 85mm lens. It's a nice equivalent in 35mm terms but it's still very much a 56mm.
It's a great lens, I love it, but it's not an 85mm.

Source? I'm also a Contax shill who shoots furru furamu on an A7.
People who really want a neato 85mm aov with great depth of field shoot a 150~ on MF anyway.

>>2943123
>I'm a fujifag and don't take part in these shitshow threads but the 56mm 1.2 isn't the same as an 85mm lens. It's a nice equivalent in 35mm terms but it's still very much a 56mm.
Anyone can say they're a Fujifag and then say something contradictory to basic knowledge any Fujifag would have.
That doesn't make it believable, anon.

File: DSCF6451.jpg (391KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1000x1000px

>>2943128
Sure thing fampai.

Guess I shouldn't mention that the X-Pro 2 isn't in frame because the weather sealing failed.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-T10
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.6.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	90 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:10:08 21:47:21
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	800
Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Brightness	-4.6 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Spot
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	60.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2943140
Probably user error.

>>2943156
Yeah, probably wasn't the best idea to put it in the river and do a three hour timelapse. Completely my fault.

>>2943167
>he thought weather sealing was waterproofing
Lmao

>>2943175
>he took the bait
Just like the fish circling my camera in the river :^)

>No one has proven that the XT-10 isn't the best value for money.
>ever
>literally XT-1, minus fluff feature for a 1/3rd of the price

>>2942828
Fuji over saturates colour even more than the Sony over saturation.

other than that the camera's themselves look better.

>>2943190
It's the same price point as the pentax k3, which has a better sensor, proper weather sealing, ibis, better af, better battery life, better ergonomics, faster (does the same 8fps, with 8 more megapixels), hss flash and has a much better range and quality of lenses.

Or the sony a68, its cheaper than the other 2 and has almost identical stats to the k3, but with an evf.

Let's not forget how fucking terrible fuji evfs are in comparison either, anyone that's shot both systems will know.

>>2943308
Lol yeah no.

It's a fuck huge piece of equipment with a mirror flapping about.

>>2942828
>Can you name a single thing about any of the current range of fuji cameras that is objectively better than anything sony do?
>As long as it's applicable to professionals.

Get laid.

>>2943308
The evf on the xt10 and xt-1 are absolutely fantastic and as for lens selection pentax is absolutely horrible about having any decent lenses in the 14-28 range

There's a ton of amazing cheap manual lenses but I'd rather use an evf with colored focus peaking and a bunch of other great functions for manual lenses

I'll definitely agree to ibis and hss flash

>>2942880
how come my eos m is better than my nex?

>>2943368
Define better
If it's because of colours looking prettier, thats your lack of skill in post processing, not the camera being better.

It's been said timeand time again, if your editing is shit, your best off with a fuji or Canon. If quality and versatility are important, pick any other brand.

I had a sonny and it kept making the photos too yellow or blue, swapped it for a fuji and not had any problems. What's the point of a "good camera" if every photo is the wrong colour.

I couldn't even open the sony photos on my pc, could only see them on the camera.

>As long as it's applicable to professionals. (i.e gimmick modes, jpegs, film sims, etc. Don't count)

But you're still comparing the x-pro2 to something? The whole camera is a photographer's toy, a gimmick, a swan-song to the film era.

And it's fucking magnificent: the camera's rear is designed with aesthetics a distant fourth. There's a bit of a grip, and empty space where the thumb goes, and a bunch of buttons that the cellphone generation cam operate with said thumb. And a honking big display.

There's no logo on the front. When you switch the camera on, it makes no sign that it's alive if the view mode is set to "viewfinder + sensor" and sensor cleaning isn't set to happen at boot.

Think about it: with an x-pro2 (or leica or pen f or some such), a professional (or the pro's assistant) can shoot a fucking funeral in a documentary ("street") style. There's gimmicks related to form factor and SOOC output that're worth something over raw numbers.

Also, x-trans no-aa yada yada

>>2943451
*tips bessa*

>>2942828
If you compare NUMBRZ, then yes, Sony is gonna win, because they are specwhores.
But actual customer experience, Any other brand is gonna win out. From jello-video and bad manual controls to corroding bodies, Sony is simply shit.

>>2943451

So, Fuji's only one-up over Sony is that they're gimmicks. I can accept that, must be frustrating if it's your only system though.

>>2943463
>jello-video
Show me a problem video with a current gen body.

>bad manual controls
No other brand has as many customisable buttons or dials, do fuji even do a triple dial model at all?

>corroding bodies
You mean that one guy, who lives on the coast, who clearly gave his camera a surf lesson and bitched about it on youtube. And has been on a hate campaign against Sony for months? (seriously, check his social media, guys cringe as fuck, bitching about fake sony AA batteries at one point)

You do know that these cameras aren't even listed as weather proof?

http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7rm2/specifications#features

>>2943480
Do learn to judge a gimmick before dismissing it as worthless simply for what it is. Otherwise we'll simply call 36x24mm a gimmick, or a bayer filter, or an AA filter.

Every "pro" camera today is basically extremely good, (fucking look at the film thread for examples of things having plateaued long ago), so the difference comes from whether you get the shot or don't -- megapixels, sharpness, colour resolution, aa filtering, whatever the else, those things don't matter for any shot you didn't get. If for you the difference is in what Sony offers, then so be it; some people are ga-ga over the 135-sized sensor in the Pentax K-1, as well.

Also, let's say you've got a marginal shot. Boring light, shit lines, delete it when you get home, et cetera. Let's also say that the "toy camera" processing gimmick puts it over the line of acceptability. Does Sony supply this, in camera, with wi-fi shit to get it out on someone's Instagram in five minutes?

>>2943502
>Does Sony supply this, in camera, with wi-fi shit to get it out on someone's Instagram in five minutes?

You can set the camera to push all your images straight to your phone when you turn it off, their smart remote app works over wi-fi too, meaning I can operate my camera, from my phone, and instantly have the images on my phone.

There's also an IG app for sony bodies, if you don't want the convenience of a much better screen & processor for putting your shots up.

So yeah, Sony has this niche nailed.

>Also, let's say you've got a marginal shot. Boring light, shit lines, delete it when you get home, et cetera. Let's also say that the "toy camera" processing gimmick puts it over the line of acceptability.

A shit image is a shit image, regardless of the meme processing applied. The fact you think there's a difference says enough really.

>>2943507
Well, whatever floats your boat, fampai.

>>2943502
>so the difference comes from whether you get the shot or don't

Yep, and if we're both shooting the same lens from the same spot, you with a fuji, me with an a7rii, not only can I bump the iso an extra 2 stops before things get messy, I can shoot in 3 stops less light thanks to ibis AND I get more photo, your shot will effectively be a centre crop of mine, if yours just clips off a dudes foot, mine will be fine.

So that's 3 separate things that mean with the Sony, i'm less likely to miss the shot, and I can handhold in 5 stops less light without worry.

File: tfw no ff.png (9KB, 400x479px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 400x479px

>>2943507
>>2943511
fujifags BTFO

>>2943502
>Also, let's say you've got a marginal shot. Boring light, shit lines, delete it when you get home, et cetera. Let's also say that the "toy camera" processing gimmick puts it over the line of acceptability


Fuji: not even once.

If you think digital processing is what makes a shot , then you are at best a digital artist that uses a camera, not a photographer, or more likely someone with enough disposable income to have an expensive hobby.

>>2943517
Having subjective opinion on one's photographs? Well I never, this is 4chan: a gearhusband-only zone.

Please return to your containment thread.

>>2943520
>Team Fuji take their swings at a comeback

"go away, pliz"

faggot

I've had a XPro-1 since it came out and i love it. Only issue I've had with it is AF in Macro mode but that's more of a me issue instead of the camera.

I don't think the Sony mirrorless is bad...has many more features that both the XPro-1 & 2. There's really nothing that it does though that makes me need to buy into a whole new lens scheme. Heck, I don't even see why I would need to buy into the XPro-2 other than the weather proofing.

I haven't seen anyone shooting the Fuji or the Sony in a professional setting, either. If I see people out and about getting paid for their work, it's usually Nikon or Canon. People that shoot with mirrorless today are more likely to be hobbyists with a little more disposable income. So the idea that having a Sony or Fuji makes you more pro is kind of nonsense.

>>2943524

>I haven't seen anyone shooting the Fuji or the Sony in a professional setting

Sony has fucked the competition when it comes to videography, errbody got an a7s, nothing else comes close under $10k

>>2943527
>errbody got an a7s

I dunno, I see more video shot on FS series cameras and GH4.

A7S has amazing low light, but other than that it's mediocre. Rolling shutter is a frequent complaint.

Can you just fuck off to DPReview to masturbate to DxOMark scores or something?

File: 1260socash.jpg (19KB, 242x251px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 242x251px

>>2943535
Weirdly enough, you're the first to bring up dxo.
Who's the gearfag now?

>>2943524
Photojournalists shoot fuji

File: 28031739394_3680868097.jpg (78KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 500x500px

Sony quality control

>>2943544
I'm pretty sure they shoot Canon worldwide

File: fuji_x100_take_apart-3.jpg (99KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 900x600px

>>2943549
>still reposting the same image of one camera over and over

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3.4.1
Photographer	James Maher
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:05:18 18:41:52
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.39 m
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	38.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2943550
Historically yes
Fuji is the new babe of no-raw wire photography.

>>2943552
>but this 6 year old Fuji has white stuff too!
t. fagbait

File: Capture.jpg (749KB, 2009x1290px) Image search: [Google]

749KB, 2009x1290px

>>2943550
fujifags btfo again

>>2943552
this is salt damage

>>2943549
this is corrosion

I assume the X100 was well used in a coastal setting. The A7 appears to have been corroding long term, possibly starting while still at the factory. Shocking, really.

>>2943549
see
>>2943480

>>2943575
>this is salt damage
Yes, Fuji owners tend to generate lots of it.

>The A7 appears to have been corroding long term, possibly starting while still at the factory.
It's not. The A7R photo in question is from a guy who thought it's sealed like A7 non-R.

>>2943576
my Rebel isn't waterproof either, and I live in Miami-Dade. It hasn't corroded.
Sony build quality is responsible for this.

File: 11.jpg (2MB, 3504x2336px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3504x2336px

>>2943578
>my Rebel hasn't corroded.
Yeah, this obviously means that all Canons are impervious to that.

>>2943570
>new babe of no-raw wire photography

Please translate from fag language to English.

>>2943580
This looks much less drastic than the Sony example, and also seems to occur more rarely since there are far more canons, but we only associate mass corrosion with sony

sorry you're a sony user and have to defend a company that is proudly lazy.

>>2943582
Photojournalists, real photojournalists that work for companies like Reuters and the Associated Press are no longer allowed to make use of raw files (most didn't anyway because speed is important to their industry, getting files to editors immediately)

https://andybushphotography.wordpress.com/tag/xpro1/ This guy has been using an Xpro1 in Iraq for a while. That's not feasible for most. The Xpro2 and XT2 however are very feasible.

>fag language
I'm sorry, I thought this was a board for photographers. Most people here should know what "the wire" is.

>>2943583
Show me another example of this happening.

As has been mentioned quite a lot already, it's just one guy that's pissed he took his in the sea and it broke.

>>2943590
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/sony-a77ii-damage-due-to-corrosion-diy-fix_topic111310.html
http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/4642-humidity-caused-corrosion-on-a7s-i-ii/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54791177
http://petapixel.com/2016/03/14/photographer-matt-granger-ditching-sony/
http://community.sony.com/t5/Alpha-SLT-DSLR-Cameras/Sony-A7II-Corrosion-and-warranty-issues/td-p/563613
should I keep going or do you get it?

>>2943585
>The Xpro2 and XT2 however are very feasible

...except they aren't used because real photojournalists don't fall for magical fuji jpeg meme.

>>2943611
http://davidduchemin.com/2015/03/qa-fuji-x-on-assignment/
https://andybushphotography.wordpress.com/2015/08/17/the-age-old-dilemma-of-what-to-take/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dNQZaHtsU8
petapixel.com/2016/08/02/fujifilm-x-pro2-designed-decisive-usability/
http://www.fujirumors.com/andrew-quilty-documents-afghan-war-with-x-pro2-reportage/

Sony is the one no professionals use, newfriend.

>>2943611
Wasn't the first leaked image from an Xpro2 from a Reuters photographer in Paris during the Bataclan happening?
Oh, that's right, it was.

>>2943622
>youtube
>fujirumors
>petapixel

nice sauces faggot

>>2943622
I don't get it. What are those names supposed to prove? They seem less prolific than some random Youtube faggot like Jason Lanier.

And more importantly the photos I see there are pretty much shit and don't make me want to look for more.

At least if I link you to http://briansmith.com/ you immediately see some actually nice shots. Besides, that guy's rep sheet looks good - did do a lot of famous shots and won a Pulitzer.

photojournalist don't care about image quality.
they just care about getting the shot and that is canon.

>>2943585
Hey guys, my favorite system finally just got it's very first camera that crosses the threshold into usefulness. It's now the best system of them all! Professionals everywhere have and are switching all of their gear for this very first camera that just barely works in a professional situation.

>>2942828
Sony is for pixel peeping autists who don't understand that photography is an art

>>2943666
PS: I also see that Youtube video was shot on a Nikon.

I'm kinda forced to conclude here that this was the tool that the professional photographer ACTUALLY chose to work with in this case.

File: hide_sony_threads.jpg (281KB, 1304x892px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1304x892px

>>2943659
seriously, how autistic are you?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	95 dpi
Vertical Resolution	95 dpi
Image Created	2016:02:23 22:12:37
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1304
Image Height	892

>>2943672
Commercial photography is mostly IQ whoring with a device that has fast working speed for products, portraits & events, architecture, macro, pornography, yadda yadda.

Sure, there is also prep and post work involved,which is not very dependent on which camera exactly you use and you could do some "art" there. Though in most instances even there even prep is *also* more technical than creative.

For journalism and sports I think it is AF performance and lighting / low light capabilities. No art involved anyhow.


Photography is mostly about operating (hopefully good) gear with some skill. Maybe a pinch of creativity too, but it's almost not worth mentioning.

If you're doing something else, you are probably stuck in an "art" circlejerk nobody else cares about.

>>2943671
Hi guys, I'm a Canon user and it angers me irrationally to know that professionals in warzones are swapping to these cameras that haven't been out very long. I am blind to reality, and will continue to think Fujifilm is not competing in a market my Canondaddy has dominated for decades because they don't dominate the market entirely in 6 months time.
So what if there are as many of them now as there were Nikons 5 years ago? What does that prove?

>>2943685
>If you're doing something else, you are probably stuck in an "art" circlejerk nobody else cares about.
>he's worried about being cared about in a world of billions
heh, spot the existential ennui and future suicide case when he's never famous

>No art involved anyhow
then why do so many retired photojournalists like to sell photobooks?
Are documentaries not art?

You Prosumers don't understand photography, you understand gear. That's your problem, heh.

Fuji is more pleasant to actually use. Using the Sony, despite it being generally capable of more (at least the FF models are), is like pulling teeth. It's worse than any other system ever, from old Canon to Nikon to anything in between.

A camera that I don't want to use is not one I'm likely to use unless it is the only option out there, and it isn't..

That being said with the endless recording hack my a7sii can't be beat for amateur video.

It's still fucking ass to actual use though.

>>2943688
> he's worried about being cared about in a world of billions
If you are *actually* as bad as the billions of people that are neither doing this as job nor as a hobby, you probably are the one thinking about suicide. Sucking like that is highly depressing.

> Are documentaries not art?
By the definition where basically *everything manmade* is art (expressing imaginative OR technical skill), they are

But I think they're too much on the technical side for most artfags. At least until you start dressing like a nutjob and insist that your unique creativity and personality is showing SO FUCKING MUCH in these images, or something. At which part it becomes very great art in some of these people's minds.

File: smdh fam.png (551B, 65x18px) Image search: [Google]

551B, 65x18px

>>>/dpreview/

>>2943699
You seem to have a uniquely edgy and cringy understanding of what art is. Probably never studied it, just observed your fellow millenials roleplaying?

Smh.

>>2943702
That's one of the academic definitions of art first, followed by my real life perception of artfaggots.

> studied it
If I ever fall on harsh times I guess I might steep low enough to offer humanities or religion or something as a teacher to suckers that pay for such nonsense.

Apparently there are still suckers that fall for this, despite it being abundantly obvious that that leads to nothing. (Anyone who actually wants to know how this shit works instead studies the human brain and body as a biological computer machine).


Either way, my opinions about artfags and humanities aside, most photography is just factually very technical and gear heavy, and long has been that way.

>>2943511
>3 stops less light thanks to ibis AND I get more photo, your shot will effectively be a centre crop of mine, if yours just clips off a dudes foot, mine will be fine

You're serious? Three stops just because of ibis? How much slower do you think you can set your shutter speed because of it?

>your shot will effectively be a centre crop of mine, if yours just clips off a dudes foot, mine will be fine

Why? Are you trying to suggest that you cant ever shoot the same FOV with crop?

>>2943717
Olympus shooter here observing the lols
I can shoot my 45 (90) lens at nearly a full second handheld without bracing and get a fully sharp image. It's literally a godsend because most of my low light subjects don't move fast.

The dude is saying with the same lens, which is retarded. Why would you use the same lens?

>>2943716
You have autism and a tendency to overanalyze your surroundings, nothing more.
It's a shame you don't better understand your own brain.

File: IStest_300mm_IS_off.png (15KB, 528x918px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 528x918px

>>2943717
>Three stops just because of ibis? How much slower do you think you can set your shutter speed because of it?

5-10 times slower is realistic with pretty much every IS system on the market.

<-- And then there's ridiculous shit like this.

>>2943723
But that's OIS on a 2500 dollar lens and we're talking about ibis on sony bodies

There's OIS on the longer fuji lenses too and you're trying to tell me that you're going to get three more stops of performance with ibis working in tandem with OIS which i have a hard time believing

>>2943727
There's OIS on all Fuji zooms, but on none of the primes, which really sucks in case of 27mm.

I haven't seen any tests of Sony's combined IS compared to separate IS systems. There is reportedly an improvement, but seeing as they don't shill the feature as much as lolympus and panasonic, it's not too big.

>>2943728
My question still stands. Shooting a fast prime of the same length how much slower can you set your shutter speed because of ibis?

Because I seriously doubt it's 3 stops worth

So I shouldn't buy an a6300?

>>2943737
The A6300 looks like a pretty sweet camera, but it's about an order of magnitude overkill for a first camera, if that's what you're asking. You're much better off buying an older generation body like a Nex 7 (better than an A6000 btw) and getting some nice lenses. Like the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 DC DN

>>2943729
Just did a completely non-scientific test with my GX85 and a fifty-equivalent, I got 10 out of 10 sharp images at 1/8s, while with IS off it's 9 out of 10 at 1/60 - so yeah, that would be around three stops.
And Panasonic's IBIS is considered one of the less effective ones as far as I know, so Sony should be as good or better.

>>2943738
>Nex 7 (better than an A6000 btw)
no

>>2943728
>There's OIS on all Fuji zooms, but on none of the primes, which really sucks in case of 27mm.
it doesnt suck when you have good iso performance, m43friend. quarterframe babies.

>>2943747
There's like one stop of ISO difference, not enough to compensate for 1.5 stops in pancake lens speed and 3+ stops of IS.

>>2943747
Sorry but your 27mm lens is slower than the 20mm even after equivalency. It's also bigger, heavier, more expensive, and I'd be mildly impressed if it was as sharp.
And, sadly for Fuji, m43 isn't the only brand with IBIS, Sony and Pentax both have superior ISO performance and 5 axis IBIS. So not only in this instance are you actually defeated by the quarterframe babby sensor, but you can't hope to compete with the other formats. There's a lot of good things about Fuji, but you probably picked the weakest.

>>2943739
Well I'll be. I borrowed an xt10 for a little and was able to handhold 1/15 just fine

That being said looking at the iso performance of the xt2 and xpro2 I still don't think the original comparison holds any merit

>>2943754
>superior iso performance to an xpro2
yeah, no
you really need to refresh your talking points, did you just return from a 2 year ban? Havent seen you around here in a while.

>>2943754
>I'd be mildly impressed if it was as sharp
The 27mm is very sharp. Wide-open it's the sharpest of Fuji primes (though it's hardly surprising as it's also the slowest)

>>2943760
IS is essentially an additive improvement, if you can hand-hold a lens at 1/15s, then with IS you'll be able to handhold it at 1/2s. The efficiency only drops when you approach tripod tier stability, e.g. with your elbows on a stone parapet and your eye firmly pressed against the finder, or something like that.

>>2943765
>superior iso performance to an xpro2

I believe he's talking about full frame.

>>2943770
xpro2 is superior to most full frame cameras as well in iso performance.
it's not as clear cut as "full frame good, crop bad" anymore, newfriend. Stop reading info written in 2011.

>>2943765
>did you just return from a 2 year ban?
I've never been banned from 4chan. I don't think that image quality is the only degradation going on with you...

>>2943772
>Most
Well, Sony has the best ISO performance of any full frame camera currently, so even if it's "a few" which is more realistic than what you seem to believe is true, it still doesn't come close.

File: hamster_doesn't_get_it.png (205KB, 433x276px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 433x276px

>over 20 new replies
>2 new posters
STOP TAKING THE FUCKING BAIT.

The shitposters have already admitted that they do it only because it's "so easy". They're purposefully baiting you on the same things all the time for a reason.
Even if you say an objective truth, they'll just say it's not valid or dodge the bullet and pick on something else.

Stop being so fucking retarded and just hide the thread if you don't like their opinions, we don't need more fucking DPreview tier arguing outside of the gear thread. Post some fucking pictures, that is if you've ever taken a shot outside of a wedding or a boring landscape.

File: 200_s.gif (47KB, 358x200px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 358x200px

>>2943774
Oh gosh I found autism
I recommend hiding the thread if it triggers you this badly

File: Untitled-1.jpg (264KB, 1350x1048px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1350x1048px

>>2943772
>xpro2 is superior to most full frame cameras as well in iso performance.

No, it's not. It just blurs all the detail and passes it as its special snowflake x-trans processing.

>>2943775
I suggest you fuck of back to >>>/dpreview/ and >>>/reddit/.
You're not posting any photos and you're not helping anyone, all you're doing is arguing about gear, fuck off to a dedicated gear forum, you're going to trigger a lot more users that way. Or you won't because you have to hide behind Anon to shitpost instead of making duplicate accounts.

File: us-propaganda-08.jpg (21KB, 169x220px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 169x220px

>>2943780
You're as cute and hilarious as you are wrong.

File: super penis zoom.jpg (321KB, 1277x903px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 1277x903px

>>2943774
>>2943780
Oh no! The The thread police is here!

>implying /p/ is not a dedicated gear forum

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D80
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	834
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	75 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2007:12:12 02:25:20
Exposure Time	1/5 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Tungsten
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1277
Image Height	903
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2943784
shut up tranny

File: 9e9.jpg (128KB, 605x695px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 605x695px

>>2943783
awwwww shiet. He used the "you're wrong" defense. Fuck, however will I recover.

Maybe I'll try the point out his tactics defense.

>>2943787
There's no need to defend myself from people with too many chromosomes too get to the bathroom on their own.

>>2943747
>doesn't suck when you have good iso performance

What, 1 or 2 stops worse than a7sii/a7rii?

>>2943772
Lol, no.
1. X trans sensor lets less light through than bayer

2. Fuji uses sony sensors

3. Iso performance is limited to how much light the sensor can gather

4. Ff has twice the surface area as crop, which means twice as much light is gathered at once


Unless a new sensor company comes along, a current gen crop will never beat a current gen ff at iso.

File: X-Trans-Sensor_zps9cfjlzu2.jpg (58KB, 524x277px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 524x277px

>>2943939
>X trans sensor lets less light through than bayer

X-Trans is just a different subpixel arrangement (with a little bit higher proportion of G subpixels) why would it let less (or more) light through than Bayer?

>>2943970
Use the same settings for exposure on a bayer and an xtrans camera, the xtrans one comes out nearly a stop darker.

So it's either lying about it's settings, or letting less light in.

>>2943983
Protip, it's lying. It's widely known. Their ISO figures are a filthy lie.

It measures light at the same rate as other APS-C cameras I've used in the same conditions.

I honestly did not read the thread (or the question) but I have sme experience with both Sony a7 series and Fuji (XT1) I am also lolpro, but who the fuck cares.

I MUCH prefer the images from the Fuji.. I cant explain it on a technical level but from having used both systems the Fujis just produce amazing images that edit much better than the Sony images.

I dont know if its x trans magic at play but at least in my experience the Fuji raw files seem to push and pull much better.

jpegs are no contest Fuji dominates (obviously, its no secret) but I only use jpeg for personal stuff while travelling etc.

Fuji also has a much better user experience, build is also excellent much better than Sony.

my experience with the Sonys is that they are quirky as fuck (the menus are all over the fucking place) they have weird quirks like not being able to add a picture profile in movie mode, but if you switch to stills mode and add it and then switch back to movie mode you can then use that picture profile etc.

Fuji lenses are magic but Sony has some nice third party manual focus lenses (specifically from Voigtlander) I also like the fact that their cinema camera (at least the entry level models) also use the E mount, thats pretty useful and cool.

>fuji shill

Iv owned both, I obviously prefer the Fuji ecosystem, but I think both are good.

>As long as it's applicable to professionals

I sold my D4 and D700s and shoot all my paid work on a Fuji XT1, I make several thousand dllars a week with the setup. Fuji lack third party flash support (though profoto and a few others are supposedly working on support right now) they lack pr support from Fuji (Fuji regular support is excellent), Fuji lacks long telephotos.

good luck

>>2943994

Ill also add that the sensor on my a7R shit itself, Sony support tried to fuck me but thanks to some contacts I was able to get a replacement which I sold. Sony support is fucking horrendous.

>>2943994
>sony has some nice 3rd party mf lenses
Ignores the fact sony has the best oem lenses on the market, and the best 3rd party lenses. With Exclusives from zeiss, voigtlander, tokina, samyang and more.

>quirks
From very old firmware

>fuji build quality is better
Confirmed for never holding both an xpro and a7*ii, there is no question here, the fuji feels like an empty tin toy in comparison.

>claims to also have d4 and d700, and an a7r
Prove it faggot

>fuji lack 3rd party flash support
No, they lack 3rd party lens support. Fuji lack a proper flash system, oem or 3rd party.

Even sigma have said "fuji is not important, their market share is too small and the x mount was a bad decision" (paraphrased)

2/10 attempt at subtle shilling

>>2944000

kek stay mad fgt

>>2943983
>it's either lying about it's settings

It is. There is no clear standard for sensitivity on digital cameras (the ISO standard is defined around film densities, not digital values), which allows camera manufacturers to tweak the numbers in different ways. Fuji is known for slightly inflated ISO values compared to Canikon.

I wish more review sites would match exposures for low light performance comparisons to take this into account.

muh over 9000 lenses meme. you can only use one lens at a time. about maybe .7% of the people on /p/ even have more than a kit lens and a prime or two.

>>2944002
Not the anon that made the original comment, but, if i boost exposure on my fuji file to the same brightness as the one out of my nex 5 the noise is MUCH worse on the fuji. Surely as they have the same sensor, they should be very comparable. Unless the fuji was letting in less light.

>>2944004
I have 5 pro zooms, 7 fast primes, and a couple dozen other lenses, shift, anamorphic, pancakes, etc.

Please don't project your poverty so much, it's depressing.

>>2944006
>if i boost exposure on my fuji file to the same brightness as the one out of my nex 5 the noise is MUCH worse on the fuji
With the same exposure settings? I find this hard to believe, the ISO value difference is like half a stop. Can you post a pair of images for comparison?
(Also, make sure you use an up-to-date raw developer, third-party x-trans support was godawful at first)

>Surely as they have the same sensor
They don't. Fuji's sensors are made by Sony, but they're not the exact same design.

>>2944000

>build quality

You could easily bash someones head in with an a7ii.

>>2944012
you're not kidding

shills have been bashing me in the head with it all thread

File: tumblr_n170p3byGH1rc3z3ro6_400.gif (774KB, 341x256px) Image search: [Google]

774KB, 341x256px

>>2944009

That don't impress me much.

>>2944013
>sony shills
Sony's better because of x,y and z
>Fuji shills
Fuji's better because of my emotional connection to the camera, you can't say one's better than the other, man.

So, you say you're being offended by logical reasoning as opposed to whiny emo fankiddos?

>>2944017
It was a joke, dude

I realize sony shills are autistic but you literally did just gloss over a joke and get confused about how emotions work in one post

>>2944015
The BBC are in the middle of doing a bit about me for a documentary, the head videographer that popped round lost his shit at my whole lens collection.

I'll take impressing a BBC videographer over impressing some povvo cunt on a serbian cock art exchange message board.

>>2944018
>Sony
>autists choice

How often are people with autism wrong

neutralface.jpg

>>2944019
Well we all know how much you like the BBC so it's not suprising

>>2944020
>How often are people with autism wrong

I'd have to link the whole board of /p/ as an example

>>2943939
current gen crop always beats current gen ff, though

>>2944048

For most manufacturers, yes. But Sony refreshes their FF sensors yearly.

>>2944049
>he doesn't know how little of a role the sensor itself plays
Autistic AND ignorant.

>>2944048
Sorry, what crop sensors out perform the one in the a7rii or a7sii?

>>2944048
>current gen crop always beats current gen ff

dude what

File: Capture.png (40KB, 790x208px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 790x208px

>>2944055
>what crop sensors out perform the one in the a7sii?

idk, d7200?

>>2943774
>mad animeposting fujifags

>>2944012
Say that to my F4s and not online, and see what happens, fucker.

File: 1473602449320.jpg (500KB, 784x890px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 784x890px

>>2944064
Oh wow! absurd results of Dx0 are still funny.

>>2944160
Still waiting you to post a more credible source.

>>2942909

wow.... those are the criteria you consider for a good photo?

fuck.... this really is a gear-husbandry board

that's the kind of lists that facebook photographers who caption every photo with "LOOK AT THIS CREAMY BORRKEEEH" make.

you must be a really low-level photographer to let anything in that list of technical matters get in the way of a good photograph.

or don't tell me... a good photograph can't have any sort of grain, is perfectly BORKEHLIXCIOUS DURRRGH and has to use rule of 3rds?

>>2943480

The reason I switched to fuji from sony because sony was so limiting. It's the opposite way around, fuck the Sony gimmicks. You must be confused?

>>2942828
Op you just answered your question yourself. Sony is a great father's tool. Fuji is photographers.

>>2944249
Fucking autocorrect. Gearfaggers.

File: Fuji+Fujifilm+X100+X100S+X100T+X-T1+23mm+f1.4.jpg (105KB, 1000x482px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 1000x482px

>>2942828
Sony menus and ergonomics make me wanna die compared to any Fuji. Don't just look at specs, go out and hold them. Then tell me which one you are leaning towards

Pro-tip: Fuji wins

>>2944419

Sony a7 menus are a hundred times better than their APS-C. imo they beat Fuji thanks to their heavy customizability.

>>2942863
>Personally I've found that a lot of people use fuji because the features that you write off as gimmick modes such as film sims or shooting jpeg are more tools for working creatively

This is exactly it for me. The files that come out of my Fuji are closer to what I want than files from other cameras I've owned and used, and that substantially speeds up my workflow. I save several minutes per photo because of it, and in a professional capacity that's a big deal.

The size and weight of the whole system are also important to me, as is the fact that the Fuji system is discreet and non-threatening compared to an SLR or any FF system. My job is to photograph people doing their thing without making an annoyance of myself, and Fuji is great for that. The fact that my X-Pro2 is uncommon and looks totally different from other systems also works in my favor, and in many situations I've found that people are interested in the camera and think it's cool when they would've been pissed off at having a big DSLR stuck in their face. At least for now it also has a similar effect on clients, and projects an image that I'm a specialist with specialty gear, as silly as that sounds.

FWIW, I'm speaking as a former full-time photojournalist who previously owned a top of the line pro Nikon system (D3S and D300S, 2.8 trinity, 500/4, 1.4 primes, etc) and used work-supplied equivalent Canon systems regularly as well. My current specialty is documentary-style photography for PR and advertising material, mostly in the engineering, automotive, and aerospace sectors. That means I do stuff like shooting pit crews in action, techs at work on machines or engines, training in progress at tech schools, stuff like that.

>>2944249
Who's your daddy.

>>2944419
I own both, sony wins with hand grip, triple dials, better balance, more customization. Even cameradecision.com lists the fujis as "average ergonomics & handling" and the sonys as "good ergonomics & handling".

>>2944489
>environmental portraiture
>no flip out screen
Not even once bro. Also, i don't believe you do that work, I've worked in that sector and i can count the number of times I've been invited to do it in a "live" scenario on 0 hands, which is what you insinuate you do every time.

>>2944519
I'm not sure why I'd want a flipout, most of the work I do is from standing or crouching height, and a flip screen is slow and just adds another thing that can break or let grime and metal shavings and shit into the camera.

And I mean you can believe what you want. I mostly work with smaller companies and shops, maybe the big ones are less willing to let people on the shop floor while work is going on. It might also help that in addition to my journalism background I've also worked in a metal fabrication shop and most clients know that, so they may be more comfortable trusting me around work in progress.

>>2944529
>why would I want a flip out screen
So you can take photos accurately anywhere from groundlevel to 8 feet in the air without getting your knees dirty or a stepladder out and you can bring your camera right back to a wall and still see what you're doing. It's pretty much essential for any environmental portraiture as you're often working in cramped, ugly environments that require careful angles to not be reproduced in the shot.

If you had actually done any of this line of work, you would have been well aware of this already.

>>2944419
can the xt1 be set up so that the aperture ring controls aperture, the shutter speed dial controls shutter speed, the rear dial controls white balance, the front dial controls ISO, and the EV comp dial controls EV comp?

because that would be everything I use on a daily basis all on physical controls. i think you shoudl be able to but I've never owned an xt1 to try customizing it.

>>2942828
>Can you name a single thing about any of the current range of fuji cameras that is objectively better than anything sony do?
Fuji shills take much better pictures, Sony's cocksuckers can barely operate a camera

>>2945172
Put your trip on isi you're shit

I like how many lenses we have.
Our auto-focus and tracking is stunning (XT2).
For non paid work I'm loving the Jpegs, saves me tons of time for family related stuff.
2 sd cards is awesome, I just did 43 days backpacking and it felt great knowing all my stuff was backed up.
The coloured noise in X-trans is far batter than sony.
I like the on camera controls.

That's all from me.

>>2944419
fuji ergo makes me want to kill myself. A7 did as well until gen 2. a proper DSLR still has best ergo. don't know about menus since i haven't used either of them that much.

>>2945247
A good guess but incorrect. At least you didn't deny that she is a better photographer than you. After all she actually takes pictures. You never contribute anything. You're just a belligerent waste of space trying to sound informed

>>2945349
>we
>our

>>2945160
That's ridiculous. I've been around this industry for years and I don't think I've ever seen a pro shooting with a camera that has a flip screen. The vast majority of work is done with flagship DSLRs or one tier down (D800/5D), none of which have them.

Also, I strongly suspect you either don't understand what I do, or don't know what environmental portraiture is. EPs are in-situ staged/posed shots, I've done plenty of those in my career but they're not my specialty. I do "fly on the wall" documentary kind of shit.

>>2945572
that'd be me and my wifes son

>>2945717
>flagship dslrs

You mean like the k1 and a99?

>>2945727
>You mean like the k1 and a99?
No, flagship DSLRs not toys for faggot wannbes

File: DSCF2369.jpg (623KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

623KB, 1000x750px

>>2944012
You mirrorless babbies are so adorable. So salty your cameras corrode.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X20
Camera Software	Digital Camera X20 Ver1.02
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:04 10:08:07
Exposure Time	1/9 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	0.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	7.10 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Hard
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Sharpness	Unknown
White Balance	Auto
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Flash Mode	Off
Macro Mode	Off
Focus Mode	Auto
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Blur Status	OK
Focus Status	OK
Auto Exposure Status	OK

>>2945768
You're right, i wish i could afford a pair of decade old crop cameras and a 3 year old point and shoot :(

>>2945769
I wish I could be unconcerned with gearfaggotry, spend my money on travel, a foxy girlfriend, a life, and not jerk off and take Sony's dick in my mouth every 6 months when they release a new camera to fix the intentional faults of the previous model.


Oh, wait..........

>>2945717
I've once talked to a guy using an E-3 to do off-road shoots for a car magazine.

>>2945799
with sony, buy the cheapest model like a6000.
can't go wrong there.

>>2945799
I dunno, I've got an a7ii, a hot gf, spent 2 months abroad this year and don't even have a job.

Maybe you're just bad at life.

>>2945799
How's the ibis on your nikons?

>>2942828
EBC coatings.

Its why I go through the enourmous expense and pain to use my ancient Fuji GX680 with a shitty 22mp leaf back I found on ebay for $1500.

>>2945805
>implying EBC is better than T*

lol

>>2945803
I've been living abroad for the past 3 years, working long hours as a teacher and getting shit pay in a shit currency but it's an adventure.

>>2945804
Honestly I don't miss it. The times I've used an a7 I've always been absolutely appalled. While it's quite impressive in terms of specs the ergonomics are ghastly for me and I hate the EVF.

The bottom line is with the D300 I've got a rock-solid tank of a body, it's not particularly limiting and works great for the wildlife I like to shoot. And I've got the whole range from 12mm to 300mm covered, mostly pro-quality zooms and primes, for around $1k. You can't even get close to a used a7 for that kind of money, much less one of those ridiculously overpriced higher-end Sony lenses.

>>2945816
>implies he prefers the thumbnail size viewfinder from his dslr, that can't focus on lenses faster than 2.8 over an EVF that's larger than full frame and allows accurate focus and framing no matter the light or conditions.

lol.

>>2945810
It's like you don't know that Fuji's EBC coatings are what's used on multi-million dollar cinema lenses, laser optics, medical optics, and other industrial machines, whereas that crappy T* shit is nothing but an anti-reflection coating gimmick/marketing tool.

>>2945820
>thumbnail size viewfinder
>can't focus on lenses faster than 2.8

u fucking wot m8?

>allows accurate focus and framing no matter the light or conditions.

They figured this out a long time ago, it's called a reflex optical viewfinder

File: shooting manuel ficus.jpg (60KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x500px

>>2945829
>can't focus on lenses faster than 2.8
He probably means that you can't see the actual DoF at wider apertures, which is a problem for manual focusing.

>>2945827
>implying T* isn't the marketing term for the coatings used in Zeiss' own widely used industrial and analytical optics

So, which of the two cameras in the OP is actually smaller/lighter with an attached lens? The Fuji body seems to weigh less than the Sony, but I need to compare them with an attached lens, e.g. a 35mm or equivalent. When travelling I need to save weight and space.

>>2945840
http://camerasize.com/compact/#579.394,679.596,ha,t

>>2945840
You're comparing full frame with ibis to crop. the fuji body is only 100g lighter.

The sony 35mm f2.8 lens is only 120g and 36mm long, the nearest fuji equivalent is the 23mm f1.4, which is more than double the weight and length. with ibis and the better low light performance of a full frame sensor, the slower sony lens will still be more usable in low light situations.

>>2945829
>They figured this out a long time ago, it's called a reflex optical viewfinder

he thinks you can accurately focus an f1.4 lens on a stock focusing screen.

>laughinggirls.jpeg

>>2945874
>not the 23/2

>>2945905
>still heavier
>still longer
>still no is

just to put this into figures for you for usability.
The sensor in the sony has 1 to 2 stops better high iso performance depending on if you get the a7ii/s/r.

Then a further 2 to 3 stops better low light handheld performance from the ibis.

the fuji lens is 1 stop faster. So the Sony setup gives you an extra 2 to 4 stops in low light in total. Or the difference between iso 400 and 6400 in your equivalent end photos.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=fujifilm_xpro2&attr13_2=sony_a7_ii&attr13_3=sony_a6000&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=400&attr16_1=400&attr16_2=400&attr16_3=400&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.48115776227833973&y=0.8749560140580256

Here you can compare the image quality of the two cameras in the OP. Fuji just doesn`t hold up to Sony in terms of sharpness and overall image quality.

>>2945924
>inb4 fuji fags whine about acr

>>2945876
I can and I have, I shot sports and wildlife for almost 10 years manually focusing with stock focusing screens.

Imply that to my face fucker not online

>>2946067
what f1.4 lens is it that you use for sports and wildlife?

>>2946074
I really don't know what you're on about. The very nature of SLRs means no matter what, what you see is what you get for DoF. If you can't nail your focus just looking at the screen, use the focus rangefinder. If you can't nail focus with EITHER that's your fucking problem. If you're that much of a buttbabby you can put in whatever the fuck focusing screen you want.

1.4, 1.8, 2.8, 4, 8, I've NEVER had any problems focusing any of them with a stock screen.

Also, I know the only way you can get decent quality without selling organs on Sony is to buy a bunch of adapters and use janky fucking old lenses. I know this because you're so hung up on some mystical farcical delusion that you can't focus with fast lenses, which is not an issue, has never been an issue, and if you're incapable of managing it that's your failing.

Keep foaming, this is kinda fun.

>>2946085
>first paragraph
both not answering my question and showing how little you know about slrs
>second paragraph
literally what are you on about
>keep foaming
yes that's what I'm doing

>>2945927
Acr is exactly the reason and you want us to disregard that? Sonycuck.

>>2945924
Holy shit the Leica q is amazing

>>2946085
Mate, you're a dumb dumb, it's well known stock focusing screens don't work with fast lenses, use a google before going full retard.

>>2946112
Why don't you use the fucking camera before parroting nonsense? They work just fine with fast lenses. It's even EASIER with fast lenses because it's brighter and you have shallower DoF to confirm your focus.

God damn, please stop posting.

>>2946147
your ability to see well and focus accurately depends on the speed of your lens... enough said

>>2946147
>he doesn't know that focusing screens are designed to only show DOF and brightness up to a certain f-stop
>he doesn't know that even manual focus screens from the film era topped out at F2-2.8
>he thinks he can get critical focus with manual focus in highly fluid situations at F1.4 with anything but a manual focus designed screen, and even then thinks he can do it reliably
>laughinggearfags.webm

>>2946156
Why would you even use MF for such critical things when fast AF primes are a thing?

Besides, it's not like you can't stop down to whatever the hell aperture you want, or use magnified live view....

>>2946164
Yeah but this guy's all

>I can and I have, I shot sports and wildlife for almost 10 years manually focusing with stock focusing screens.
>1.4, 1.8, 2.8, 4, 8, I've NEVER had any problems focusing any of them with a stock screen.

Notably, he doesn't shoot at f5.6.

>>2946177
I'm glad someone else noticed this, I was having a giggle earlier.

>>2946147
Which one, I've got around 10 135 bodies, 3 mf bodies, 2 dslr and 2 mirrorless.

I also have a 28 1.8, 20 1.8, 35 1.8, 5 50 1.4's, 85 1.4, 85 2. And can confirm the dof doesn't change a jot going from wide open to 2.8 on the focusing screen. Go look up a nyquist limit and stop embarrassing yourself.

>thread still here
>still got the >>>/dpreview/ tier shit arguments
>223 posts
>60 posters
So, when is /p/ actually getting a new mod or jannie?

>>2946287
Fujicucks on suicidewatch
Literally can't handle a thread showing up how inferior their brand is.

Previously we needed hugboxsafespaces for victims of rape, now we need them for salty fuji users.

>>2946288
Just fuck off, no one cares.

Found out yesterday that sony's lenses have huge optical problems that they solve by baking their files. Haven't seen anyone talk about that anywhere. But its disgusting. On the other hand fuji is great a making glass.

>>2946312
>makes outlandish claim
>has no evidence

Seriously, is this as good as team fuji gets?

Are you implying that those Sony lenses, that have been outdoing all their competition, only do so because they fudge their raws. That clean, clear, circular bokeh, that "better than all the rest" sharpness, all processing senpai.

Fucking clownshoes.

>>2946315
>has no evidence
My source is the British Journal of Photography. But you can just can just snap a picture on the widest focal length with your precious gear, and try to remove the build-in profile of the raw.

File: IMG_0550.jpg (55KB, 700x343px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 700x343px

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	700
Image Height	343
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2946312
You are aware that Fuji also does the same, right?

>>2946324
Yep, got an a7ii and 28mm lens.

There's no distortion or vignette correction built into the raw, the colours are almost identical to my tamron 24-70 2.8 on a dumb adapter.

Again, you've failed to provide any proof.

Oh and I've just opened the BJP's facebook, the msot recent article on there is a paid for advertisement by Fuji. Could you be any more cucked.

>>2946312
>My source is the British Journal of Photography
Well then please do share, a link, a print screen , or anything. This claim is actually quite easy to test though, just take a picture of the projection made by one of those lenses and see if it doesn't match the profile. Anyone with cardbox , tape measure and semi transparent paper can do that.

>>2946343
>>2946342
I can't be bothered. It's in the book club issue. A couple of years old. Feel free to feel like you have won. I wouldn't attack the feeble egos of sonybros too hard.

>>2946347
Team Fuji bringing out the big guns
"I'm right, but I can't be bothered to prove it, you will just have to take my word"

I have a book here that says your daddy used to finger your asshole, there's photos, stories, signed confessions, videos, the whole lot.
I would share it to prove it, but your such a bore.

>>2946312
"Huge optical problems" cannot be solved by baking raw files. You cannot make a shit lens resolve more detail than it actually resolves, or digitally center a decentered one.

If you mean digital compensation of distortion, shading and lateral CA, most manufacturers do that, and it's a completely valid lens design principle that allows you to improve other characteristics like resolution, coma, weight and price. Who cares if something was corrected digitally if the end result is the same?

>>2946358
>If you mean digital compensation of distortion, shading and lateral CA

It's worth noting, nothing is "baked in" to the raw, yeh, you can assign a raw a lens profile and it will automatically correct that stuff in your editing software, but it's nothing a single click can't remove.

Just salty Fuji fags being salty fuji fags.

>>2946367
Sony actually did have problems with "baked in" shit a couple times. Raws from their DSLRs in the A700 era had chroma noise reduction baked in. Raws from A7II series had lossy compression that produced artifacts in some specific cases and couldn't be disabled (this has been fixed in a FW update IIRC). None of this has anything to do with the lenses though.

>nothing is "baked in" to the raw
I think built-in correction data takes precedence over user lens profiles in LR/ACR, so you cannot export an untouched file. You can do it with other tools though.

>>2946367
How do you remove these from Fuji raws in Lightroom?

>>2946367
>>2946376
Oh, and speaking of Fuji raws and baked-in, the X-Trans demosaicing algorithm seems to have mandatory chroma noise reduction. Even with all NR set to zero, Fuji raws produce very little skittles-like color noise at the highest ISOs, mostly just luminance noise.

>>2946391
Photoninja called and said this conversation ended in 2014

>>2946402
Can't find any samples. Can I really get skittles so I can apply my own optimized NR with it?

I've just read this whole thread and the best defense of fuji anyone came up with was "i like fuji"

Can we get this thread stickied to help other newbies not make stupid mistakes?

File: smallandlightweight.jpg (87KB, 834x496px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 834x496px

>>2942828
if i want to shoot portraits with a prime:

sony: a7r ii + 85mm f1.4
1445 grams
$4996 new

fuji: x-t2 + 56mm f1.2
912 grams
$2598 new

not really an apples to apples comparison when one is twice the price, bigger and 60% heavier.

is the "quality" of the sony images really worth the price and the size sacrifice?

>>2947266
You don't even have an equivalent lens in that comparison.
It's cheaper for a good reason.

>>2947269
It is equivalent you nob

56 mm x 1.5 = 85 mm

>>2947271
You're successful in your shilling only because people think it's equivalent,, but they don't know the aperture also needs conversion.

>>2947271
DoF-wise 1.2 x 1.5 = 1.8

And the cameras are 24mp vs 42mp

>>2947269
>spending more money gets you better performance

cool argument

cant believe this thread has 250 replies

in fact, im a bad shill

>>2947276
should read:
>spending more money and carrying around bigger and heavier gear gets you better performance

File: slashthread.png (504KB, 866x560px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 866x560px

>>2947266
just so we can end this husbandry thread, heres an equivalent comparison:

canon: 5dsr + zeiss 85mm f1.4
2130 grams
$8189 new

compared to sony: <150% weight, <twice price

which will give you better images? are we surprised?

yes im triggered

>>2947292
>>2947266
To be completely fair, both Sony and Canon have more affordable 85mm F1.8 lenses which are equivalent to the Fuji lens.

And the Batis 85 is only 70 grams heavier than the Fuji lens.

You could even argue the Fuji lens is overpriced compared to the Canon EF 85mm which is less than 400 dollars.

>>2947292
>5dsr and a manual focus f1.4 lens

>Spending $8k and being unable to focus through the viewfinder.

>>2947266
The a7ii is a better comparison because megapixels and price are similar. Still has 1 stop better low light and ibis for 2 to 3 stops handheld.

The batis is a better equivalent lens too, as it will have a more similar dof wide open.

Weight wise and price wise there's less than 10% difference between the 2 setups now. And without the batis lens hood, they are pretty much the same size.

Full frame and zeiss glass, or crop and fuji glass... Such difficult decisions.

>>2947276
>>2947282
Stay salty.

If you're gonna be brave enough to argue that fujis lenses are imbued with unicorn spunk, remember, the sony photosites are over 130% larger, so the lens would have to be able to resolve 130% more detail than the zeiss to give the same apparent sharpness, considering the zeiss is in the top 20 lenses for sharpness on dxo, it's safe to say this is impossible.

>>2947367

I'm so glad i read this thread before Christmas. I won't lie, i really wanted to read a convincing pro fuji reply but it's getting more and more obvious that they are a really poor choice, i had never considered the size of photosites on sharpness before.

>>2947376
good for you buddy.

>>2947396
Thanks!

>>2947401
No problem pal, have a nice day!

>>2947376
APS-C's strength is, in theory, the system is lighter and smaller.
Fuji's strength is they take APS-C seriously.

And that's about it in my opinion. They are going to charge you out of the eyes for that shit. The reason is they have to buy sensors from sensor manufacturers who need to survive and make the bottom line too, so you have 2 companies who need to be profitable. That's how you end up paying 60% more for an X-T2 than an A6300.

>>2947524
If they wanted to be taken seriously, why haven't they got any serious software that's compatible.

If they wanted to beat the competition, why are they using their main competitors sensors at least a year behind them, why not buddy up with sigma and make a not shit foveon body.

Why have they not got any ibis yet, it's pretty hard to take them seriously when they're starting with a 3 stop disadvantage.

Why have they got fuck all in the way of flash options, serious photographers use flash.

If they took crop seriously, why are they behind on every metric compared to theit main rival.

What I'm trying to say is, the only thing fuji take seriously is

m e m e a e s t h e t i c

>>2947912
>What I'm trying to say is, the only thing fuji take seriously is m e m e a e s t h e t i c

So the only thing they take seriously is to make sure that you have an end product that looks the way you want

I'm starting to think you like gear more than photography

>>2947913
>meme look
>looks the way you want

No, i would much rather the aesthetic of my property was of it's time, as opposed to cheap "'memberrrr" tactics.

If you have to have meme fashion in your electronics, then go ahead. But if you look at design trends, "retro revisit" looks never stand the test of time. If fuji cameras were hairstyles, they'd be mullets.

>I'm starting to think you like gear more than photography

Coming from the guy that implied how a camera looks is more important than how it performs.

>>2947919
It's actually amusing to observe how people like you always resort to saying its all memes and getting stuck on the retro revisits

You're completely convinced that people only buy them because of how they look and that it's a fashion accessory and that the shots they get they only like because of trendy film memes

Do you get angry at people shooting jpeg too?

>>2947921
Well we're nearly at the bump limit, if you read the whole thread there's literally not been a single win for fuji.

There's nothing not meme about 95% of your sales tactics being "we look like ye olde camera".

I don't get angry at people for shooting jpeg, the same way i wouldn't be angry if i saw a graphic designer using water based felt tip pens. I just wouldn't take them seriously or hire them.

>>2947924
Considering most of those companies survive off sonys old, unwanted sensors, shouldn't it be the other way round?

>>2947925
>if you read the whole thread there's literally not been a single win for fuji

There haven't been any actually decent photos either, strange

>I don't get angry at people for shooting jpeg, the same way i wouldn't be angry if i saw a graphic designer using water based felt tip pens. I just wouldn't take them seriously or hire them.

This is quite possibly the worst analogy you could come up with and it's a good thing it doesn't matter who you take seriously or hire

>Considering most of those companies survive off sonys old, unwanted sensors, shouldn't it be the other way round?
>Fuji uses Sony sensors therefore sony 'wins'

Define 'win'

What does it mean for Sony to 'beat' Fuji at making cameras

The gap between Fuji and Sony market share is twice the size of the gap between Sony and Nikon.

There is little reason to comoare the two, they are in different leagues. Fuji barely sells more than Pentax.

>>2947926
I can post photos if you want photos. Do you want photos?
It's easily done. Just say the word bird.

>>2947926
>what does it mean for sony to beat fuji at making cameras

How about having better specs, features and image quality at every price point.

>this is bad analogy
Gonna give any reason why? Don't use pro tools, don't expect to be seen as a professional, it's not hard to grasp.

>there haven't been any photos either
That wasn't what was asked in the thread, the fact is, the same photo taken on sony and fuji gear will be of a higher quality from the Sony. Whether that's from the cleaner high iso performance, ibis allowing a lower iso via longer shutter speed, or apparent sharpness due to the larger sensor and higher quality lenses. These are all objective truths, all i was after was 1 objective truth that set fuji above sony, in any category. 260+ posts in and there's been nothing.

>>2947925
>not been a single win for fuji.
how about that x-t2 blows every sonys AF tracking
also x-trans doesnt have moire
also has better aps-c lens lineup
also has better sooc
also has better ergonomics
also has WR
try again sonycuck

>>2947930
>How about having better specs, features and image quality at every price point.

Yes, so if you can prove that these things are true does that make Sony better than Fuji in every way?

Do you feel that you're worse off as a photographer having a Fuji camera instead of a Sony?

>Gonna give any reason why? Don't use pro tools, don't expect to be seen as a professional, it's not hard to grasp.

Being a professional is not about having professional tools. I believe a true professional is going to get the job done and make do with whatever they can

Just the fact that you think every professional needs to always use professional tools is laughable. Have you never seen a professional musician use an entry level instrument?

>all i was after was 1 objective truth that set fuji above sony, in any category. 260+ posts in and there's been nothing

You firmly believe in the fact that a 'better' camera will take an objectively better picture. You're completely convinced that every photo taken with a fuji would have been better with a Sony

You're so hung up on objective image quality that you forget that photography is very rarely about objective image quality

>>2947930
Did you never read this post? >>2942863

It literally describes everything you've been saying to a tee about how you're too stuck on 'objectivity' and 'professionals'

>>2947934
>xt2 autofocus
>Chris tested theFujifilm X-T2against theSony A6300, and says that the performance is “very comparable to the Sony A6300, in some cases it actually tracks better.”

Good thing the a6500 af is better than the a6300, and this af is coming to the next gen of ff bodies.

>xtrans doesnt have moire
Yes it does

>better crop lens lineup
Hows your full frame lineup? You know, those lenses that work on both crop and ff ;) you've not got a single pro lens.

>better jaypogs
Thats like saying you have better aids

>better ergonomics
No
Flat rectangle vs flat rectangle with hand grip.
Even cameradecision.com lists fujis ergo as average, sonys as good.

>has wr
Only with shitty slow zooms and only on the xt2
£2000 for a weatherproof, slow, zoom, crop camera... K, you can have that one, I'll just use a bag.

>>2947935
>have you never seen a professional musician with an entry level instrument
Yeah, and it always sounds worse than if they used decent equipment, especially if we're talking about electronic instruments. Thanks for proving my point!

>>2947937
Yeh, did you miss the op post that states "muh emotional connection" isn't a valid reason. Or are you seriously arguing that a jpeg engine is a good reason for an hobbyist/professional to buy a camera.

>>2947972
>Yeah, and it always sounds worse than if they used decent equipment, especially if we're talking about electronic instruments. Thanks for proving my point!

You're like the person that criticizes a musician for using a squire instead of a fender and that it makes them less of a musician

>Yeh, did you miss the op post that states "muh emotional connection" isn't a valid reason. Or are you seriously arguing that a jpeg engine is a good reason for an hobbyist/professional to buy a camera.

Emotional connection is literally what can make a photo good. If you want to argue for hours on hours as to which gadget is better go ahead and waste your time

My entire point is that you're trying to win a coloring book and have to use crayola otherwise you're a filthy hobbyist

>>2947975
>squire/fender
Actually the new squires are awesome thanks to their new laser cutting fab plant, however they sound a shit ton better with Seymour duncans as opposed to stock pickups. If you can't hear the difference, that does make you less of a musician.

>emotional connection can make a good photo

Yes between the model and you/the camera, not between you and the camera. If you think your photos improve because you get emotional over your fake rf, you've fallen deep into the gearfag delusion and the rose tinted specs are clearing up all the muddy tones and soft features.

>>2947983
>Actually the new squires are awesome thanks to their new laser cutting fab plant, however they sound a shit ton better with Seymour duncans as opposed to stock pickups. If you can't hear the difference, that does make you less of a musician.

Yeah but they still don't have the fender badge, not a professional's instrument anymore

>Yes between the model and you/the camera, not between you and the camera.

Are you genuinely autistic. I'm not even trying to insult you I actually believe that it might be the case here

>If you think your photos improve because you get emotional over your fake rf, you've fallen deep into the gearfag delusion and the rose tinted specs are clearing up all the muddy tones and soft features.

You literally have no idea what I mean by emotions and think it's an emotional connection between yourself and the camera and not about the fact that people may choose a camera over another one because of the specific workflow it provides to be able to let them express themselves through their photos

You've fallen into the gearfags delusion of not being able to understand why someone would like a camera or other photos to begin with

>>2947985
Well done for openly conceding the first 2 points

But
>specific workflow
What is there to a workflow for photography beside frame, set exposure, click.
Arguably sony is the best for this with its triple customisable dials and 9/10 custom buttons, no other system offers the same level of flexibility.

>>2947989
>What is there to a workflow for photography beside frame, set exposure, click.

You've just proven you know absolutely nothing about photography

Enjoy being a mindless autistic shill arguing over gadgets

>>2947992
Great rebuttal again

My reply to you is
"no, you are wrong, you dumb dumb"

Checkmate.

>>2947992
Errr just curious, what else do you think there is to taking a photo besides composition and exposure?

>279 posts
>65 IP's
C'mon how many god damn times will you have to be told to not take the bait.

>>2947989
>triple customisable dials and 9/10 custom buttons, no other system offers the same level of flexibility

No other system needs it. They're just redundant features for abject faggots. But Snoty's battery life is shit and the AF is shit. And no stupid video of seagulls will prove otherwise

>>2948011
>no video that actually proves I'm a faggot will prove that I'm a faggot

That's not how proof works, faggot.

>>2947989
In order to set exposure, you must set your aperture. I have difficulty doing this on my new Sony. Probably due to a lack of lenses.

>>2948011
>implying triple dials isn't a bare minimum
>implying you don't need customisable buttons if you have no flash system or ibis

GJ anon.

>>2948051
Name one lens that you would normally own, but can't on Sony?

>>2948073
>Name one lens that you would normally own, but can't on Sony?

A decent kit lens.

>>2948082
I presume you're talking about crop, because who uses kit lenses on FF?

The 16-70 f4 zeiss is a pretty tasty contender.

If you're talking full frame, the 24-70 f2.8 is the best in it's class.

>>2948073
>2016
>Still falling for the no lenses bait
The only lenses I want to use are the 12-100 f4 WR and 25 1.2 WR

>>2948096

>$1000 f/4
>for a crop

lmaooooo

I wonder in this thread, how many of you are real photographers...

you all should sell your 'gear' and buy a iPhone 6 or another phone with good camera.

You all are waste of time and money.

>>2948156
This thread doesn't have photographers, it features salemen arguing with other salesmen about their products. Ones that they will never have any interest in using.

>>2948011

>AF is shit

But they beat all but one Fuji model which they tie? Which is already beat by the newest Sony model?

If Sony's AF is shit, so is Fujis.

Why are you guys talking about gear outside the gear thread for fucks sake?

>>2948158

bad salesmen...

Might as well ask here instead of making a new useless thread about it. Any XT-1 or XT-2 users here? Can you give me some thoughts and experiences about those two cameras? I've watched and read reviews and some of them almost seem like paid puff pieces.

XT-1 and/or XT-2, how is it?

>>2948240
Who fucking cares. The gear thread gets plenty of use and that's fantastic. But it's not going to kill you, or anyone else for that matter, if a handful of people post their gear-related questions outside of the gear thread.

Quit being a little fucking bitch for fucks sake.

>>2948011
STOP
TAKING
THE
BEITO
DESU