so I tried some sony cameras

File: Scan-161015-0022.jpg (195KB, 1152x768px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1152x768px

>>2947433
sorry about the size, let me resize these next ones

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	9000F
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	594 dpi
Vertical Resolution	594 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1152
Image Height	768

File: Scan-161015-0015.jpg (147KB, 1141x768px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1141x768px

>>2947435
it was dark in those

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	9000F
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: Scan-161015-0025.jpg (146KB, 1088x779px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1088x779px

>>2947437
in this it was reeeally dark

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	9000F
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: Scan-161015-0045.jpg (149KB, 1136x779px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1136x779px

>>2947438
I think this is a portrait of somebody

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	9000F
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: Scan-161015-0039.jpg (351KB, 1147x773px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1147x773px

>>2947439
nice green place this one, shame about the low contrast

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	9000F
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: Scan-161015-0056.jpg (328KB, 1152x773px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1152x773px

>>2947441
second part of the grim place

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	9000F
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: Scan-161015-0063.jpg (326KB, 1104x779px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1104x779px

>>2947442
green place, not grim place
this is actually another green place

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	9000F
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: Scan-161015-0049.jpg (117KB, 1151x778px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1151x778px

>>2947443
last one, hope you enjoyed and will eagerly wait for me to finish shooting my current roll

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	9000F
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.10
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>2947433
>my biggest impression was that the RX1RII actually is much bigger than it seemed to me
Full Frame is pretty large. But that particular body is actually smaller than any APS-C body out there.

>>2947586
[Citation needed]

>>2947624
The A6000 is a small compared to other APS-C bodies.

The RX1 is small compared to A6000.

>>2947626
>this small-ish camera is smaller than another camera I own so therefore it's smaller than any APS-C body
>camera is literally bigger than APS-C compacts and heaver
>camera is bigger and heavier than 135 compacts and premium compacts
Sure thing. Let me just ask you once more for a citation senpai.

>>2947630
You might want to re-read the part where I said body.

Go ahead and look up the body dimensions of that camera and compare to other APS-C bodies.

>>2947682
I caught that you said body. It's a stupid comparison to make. One is a compact all in one. The other is an ILC (presumably).
This walnut is smaller than these apples!

>>2947685
You made an entire thread to whine about size of the camera though.

Anyway if you want to count lens into the comparison, make sure you have a proper equivalent aperture. 23mm F1.3

Good luck.

File: RX1R next to an Sony Alpher Six Thoosand.jpg (220KB, 1152x724px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1152x724px

>>2947686
I'm not that goyim. I don't give a fuck about your equivalent lens. --But now that we're on this path. You wrote a whole post to defend a camera brand, presumably for no reason other than to just be a prick on the internet. Or you're paid :^) Get back to >>>/dpreview/ m8

The camera is big for a compact. No amount of correcting the record will change that. Pic related.

>>2947689
I'm pretty sure you are that goyim. The thread was saged into page 3 until you bumped it. There's no one else than you and me.

>>2947690
Oh no. I bumped a photo thread on a board with over 100 non photo threads.Even more OH NO! is that I replied to your >>>/dpreview/ tier post that had nothing to do with the actual pictures in the thread.

So I must be the OP of course. With three posters. Oy vey! You failed to CORRECT THE RECORD.

>>2947691
>>Oh no. I bumped a photo thread
No you bumped a flamebait OP post. There are only 2 people here, no one cares about this thread but you.

But it was funny to see you stick the tail between your leg as soon as equivalent aperture was brought to the discussion.

File: 1390623609094.png (9KB, 95x113px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 95x113px

>>2947692
FUCK OFF TONY. It's not my place to care about your equivalent aperture m8. I don't care about your depth of field gearfagging oh yesssssssssssssss look at this eloquent bokeh it's so much nicer than aps-c bokeh at f2 hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Well, two people care. Me and you. OP's fucked off, he's posted his photos and he's gone.

You failed to correct the record on the RX1R being small. You tried to weasel your way out of it by saying it was about ILC bodies, then brought in the equivalent aperture bokeh wanking oh yesssssssssssss that bokeh is fucking divine.

RECORD STATUS:
[ ] Corrected
[x] Not corrected.

>>2947694
No, I initially just wanted to compare bodies, because I knew it would be hard for you to find F1.3 23mm lenses.

But since you insisted, I let you have your body+lens cake. But it's still your job to be fair and use proper equivalents lens.

>>2947697
It's not my job to do anything m8. I don't give a fuck about your bokehwhoring, I'm not a meme photographer desperately looking for 35/2 bokeh. There's no need for equivalent aperture here. Only faggots wanking over gear need to apply for that to matter.

Keep defending your brand online, maybe Sony will give you a free RX1R accessory as a reward. :^)

>>2947699
>There's no need for fair comparisons here here.
That's your entire argument summed up.

>>2947702
I have no argument m8. Your initial comparison is flawed. There's no coming back from that. I'm not interested in your bokehfagging or gearfagging. It's not a small camera using your original post.

Here's your entire argument summed up:
mention equivalent aperture hehe i bet he can't
haha i meant just the body exx dee
ill call him out on not addressing my equivalent aperture hahahahaha maybe hell fall for it this time
ahahahahahaha he still can't respond exxxxxxxxxxd eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee i did it good oh god quick gotta find a way to turn it around he mentioning bokeh n shit now uhhh fuck thats no fair
hahahaha you wont do it because its fair argument ha!
gib fair comparison
debate me-
-- pls ;__;

>>2947709
I agree you have 0 argument.

>Your initial comparison is flawed.
No it's perfectly unflawed to say that full frame body is smaller than any APS-C body.

And as soon as you brign lens into the discussion, just make sure it's an equivalent lens, otherwise leave lens out of comparison.
You can't really say it's fair to compare size of F5.6 lens to F1.4 lens either for example.

File: APS-C cameras.jpg (255KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 1500x1125px

>>2947712
Okay senpai-kun. Like I said, it's flawed. You're going to use bodies, let's use bodies. Using an APS-C body just like your FF body. I'll put the D E P T H specs in a separate column for you since you don't want to compare lenses ,';^) I think that's pretty fair after all. Remember that if you're going to reply to this one that this is excluding lenses, so using your original statement as a source and leaving lenses separate for you.
This is my last post in here for a while so you've got one more chance to correct the record.

RX1R II:
Dimensions: 6.54x11.3cm
L E N S 7.2cm
Weight 507g

Pleb tier APS-C body:
Dimensions: 6.1x11.7cm
L E N S :3.47cm
Weight: 245g

Awwwww shiet. The APS-C body is smaller and lighter than the full frame compact. Almost like we're now comparing baby corn to daddy corn. Fuck, those giant APS-C bodies.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi

>>2947721
>since you don't want to compare lenses
I do want to compare lenses, but only after you have a proper equivalent lens. 23mm F1.3.

Good job I guess. You had to stall the argument for 6 hours with distractions before you finally found an unspecified body which is 2 square milimeter smaller than the FF body.

With these 2 mm^2 less size, I'm sure you can finally be relieved that you found a truly compact body that fits your needs.

File: haibara expresses her opinion.jpg (51KB, 549x412px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 549x412px

>>2947729
>I do want to compare lenses, but only after you have a proper equivalent lens. 23mm F1.3.
Oy vey. I guess we'll just head back to the 23/1.3 defense. Only you and bokehfags care about that shit, the RX1R II doesn't gather more light and you're not even competing in the T-stop game. You can stop trying to bring it up in an effort to make your hilarious brand defense more justified.

see >>2947682 & >>2947626
Oy vey, you mentioned bodies, no lenses.

also
>Full Frame is pretty large. But that particular body is actually smaller than any APS-C body out there
>that particular body is actually smaller than any APS-C body out there
>smaller than any APS-C body out there
>smaller than any APS-C body out there
>smaller than any APS-C body out there
>SMALLER
>THAN
>ANY
>APS-C
>BODY

You failed to correct the record s e n p a i. Your assblasted brand defense failed. Even funnier is that you continually replied to a genuinely autistic person to do so because you can't handle your favourite brand being mentioned in a slightly negative way on the internet. The sole statement being:
>my biggest impression was that the RX1RII actually is much bigger than it seemed to me
OP didn't even badmouth the camera, just offered their impression on the camera and posted photos.

Grow a thick skin m8, shed the buyers remorse and pick your words carefully before you enter a taiwanese sock puppet imageboard to defend a fucking camera. Good job derailing a photo thread into gearfaggery because you can't handle someone feeling different about a camera.

>>2947733
>Oy vey, you mentioned bodies, no lenses.
That was for your sake. Now go invent that equivalent lens, otherwise we can't compare.

>You failed to correct the record s
I failed by 2 mm2. Which is a shame.

But I have you run around like a desperate chicken for 6 hours looking for a smaller body. So it was wirth it.

>>2947738
Oy vey, it's almost like you're trying to compare walnuts to apples.

m-m-m-m-m-maybe if I say it was 6 hours again people will take me seriously, muh equivalent lenses

Fuck off bokehfag.

>>2947630
>>2947689
>>2947690
>>2947691
>>2947694
>>2947709
>>2947721
>>2947733
>>2947738
What the fuck is this shitshow

>>2947741
Concentrated autism. DPreview.com brought to /p/.

>>2947686
>You made an entire thread to whine about size of the camera though
actually I made this thread (not that other guy) because I wanted to show you guys this pictures and get comments, but I was curious about what would happen if I mentioned Sony, even if I posted pics
and guess what, you're all gearfags and you didn't even look at the pics
>>2947741
>>2947744
I'm sorry people I promised I learned my lesson and will not mention Sony again on here

now would anybody be so kind as to spend a minute or two to give me an opinion/critique/destroy my pictures?

>>2947877
>not that other guy
Oh come the on, there was no other person in the thread than me and you. I got a reply just 10 minutes after I made the faulty size claim.

Consider the fact that we're on /p/, a dead fucking board, and your thread was buried down the pages.

>>2947879
Holy shit, you're so autistic you still don't realise that I wasn't OP.

Holy hell, you are fucking retarded. I'm sorry that your mother didn't take you to the vet. She bleedin' well should have.
>>2947877
Well, you knew it'd happen. The Sony shitter(s) cannot resist a chance to "show" people that they're wrong. A single post in response is all it takes to set him/them/it off. There's a several hundred response thread where a single person or two replied endlessly.

>>2947903
Man, you were so stupid you never realised I saged the thread on my first reply to the thread.

The thread was never bumped to the front page until bumped it, it was always just me and you mr. retard.

>>2947433
These shots are quite terrible.

Did you select these specifically from your rejected bin?

>>2947907
Yeah, you're just retarded.
I'm surprised you've made it this far in life.

>>2947940
>These shots are quite terrible.
thanks
would you mind elaborating please, so I can improve instead of killing myself and whatnot?