daily reminder that if your camera doesn't weigh a lot,

Yeah, the fatter and heavier, the more pro.
Your mom is pro-est of pros.

>>2964515
Not everyone on /p/ is compensating for their penis size op.

Daily reminder that you shoot more with the camera that you actually can be bothered carrying

Can confirm, own d700, f5 and little plastic af3 point and shoot

Guess which one i take out with me when i go somewhere

My D7100 is made of plastic I'm pretty sure and it's fucking heavy lad.

>tfw your memeya is made of plastic but still weighs over 2-3kg fully loaded

Hold me /p/. More importantly, hold my fucking camera for me.

Plastic > Metal in the vast majority of instances.

Metal body garbage should not be on the market, but I guess too many stupid Artfags wanted dem imaginary feels of stability.

>>2964515
>camera needs to be heavy
>mirrorless are gay but xt's are ok
>xt's weigh 20% less than a7ii
>A7ii is magnesium body

get rekt.

Ill take the bait and say olympus OMDs are completely made of metal.

File: Thatface20110725-22047-wlaopv.png (7KB, 645x773px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 645x773px

>>2964515
> tfw got xt-1 and d700
> and nikkor 50mm 1.2 too
> didn't have heart to sell the nikons
> almost never use it anyway, too heavy
focusing the 50mm 1.2 with d700 is a chore

>>2964532
>>2964536
>>2964565
>>2964567
>>2964580
>>2964591
Didn't your mumma ever teach you not to bite the bait?

>>2964603
There's not a single non-bait thread on /p/

>>2964603
>But I was only PRETENDING to be retarded
>cuckgobbler.jpg

>>2964632
>implying I'm the faggot OP
Sorry you're too autistic to notice an obvious troll thread

>>2964637
>BUT I WAS ONLY PRETENDING

>>2964643

>>2964646

File: kids please.jpg (323KB, 1434x950px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 1434x950px

>>2964515
pictures of god-tier gear thread?

File: sonyfagswhenwilltheylearn.png (721KB, 1129x701px) Image search: [Google]

721KB, 1129x701px

>>2964529
implying sony fags arent the ones compensating for their penis size

>>2964560
loleé hard

>>2964666
This is something I don't get about the sony mirrorless meme:

>remove le mirror box for more compact system
>design most of your lenses with dumb turtlenecks the size of mirror box

...What was the point, again? What am I missing?

>>2964728
The point is that you can mount any lens ever created due to the fact that the flappy mirrorbox is gone.

I thought we've been over this before?

>>2964728
Removing the mirror was initially for size in the ep1/g1 era, but now that the technology has developed, there are other advantages. Such as highly integrated and accurate live view, live histogram, more accurate metering and focus, etc. If you think "Full frame A7" because you want a compact, you're retarded.

File: 1137-4280001.jpg (840KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

840KB, 1440x1080px

>>2964658

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

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

>>2964732
Mfw most sold this for good money on the digital rise
>Still considered god-tier

>>2964729
>>2964730
That still does not explain why so many native -emount lenses have that dumb neck on them.

Is there an actual sensible technical reason? Or is it just because they took a bunch of existing A-mount designs and added the extra body length so they could be lazy/cheap call it a day with that?

>>2964762
Why would anyone design a fucking lens just for the e mount system?

It is far more practical for sigma, tamron or tokina to design a lens for the nikon F mount flange distance. Then adapt it to canon and sony.

File: 81e+WBM3YoL._SL1500_[1].jpg (137KB, 1500x875px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 1500x875px

>>2964804
Ok.

So what is Sony's excuse?

>>2964762
>Is there an actual sensible technical reason?

You get less vignetting with a longer distance between the rear element and the sensor.
That's because the light doesn't hit the sensor at an awkwardly shallow angle.

My D600 + Nikkor 24-70 is quite heavy. Am I doing it right, anon?

>>2964818
>You get less vignetting
by the use of aspheric lenses too. So it could be a question of expense.

I'm neither an export nor a native English speaker.

On wide-angle lenses a large flange distance requires retrofocal lens design to increase the otherwise short distance between lens and sensor (which for dslrs is blocked by the mirror box). On telephoto lenses, reversed retrofocal design is used to shrink the required distance to the sensor. The required distance depends on the focal length: Without retrofocal design, lenses set to infinity focus (think of the lens-group merged into one single lens) require the distance between the lens and the image plane to be exact the focal length.
That's why mirrorless systems have compact wide-angle lenses, but no real benefit on compact telephoto lenses.

>>2964521
>Yeah, the fatter and heavier, the more pro.
>Your mom is pro-est of pros.

How the fuck is this not the most underrated post of the year?

>>2964515
>12 MP
>Tons of noise
>1986 glass
>better than you

Ok

File: 137659952.nh5cOxO7.graflex.crown.graphic.special.140553.jpg (344KB, 750x659px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 750x659px

>>2964515
my crown graphic is about half the weight of a shitty prosumer DSLR

>>2964762
A lot of it is down to what we currently know, high end lens design has been focused on dslrs with mirror boxes for 50+ years. It takes a lot less time to develop.

If we look at sonys mid range options, like the 28, 35 and 55, they are clearly designed from the ground up for a much smaller flange distance and their quality and speed belies their size and weight. Rumor has it there's a 20mm and 85mm coming for this range next year.

Voigtlander and leica have been doing this for years, and their tiny lenses are testament to what can be achieved and improved.

>>2964804
>why would anyone design a lens for e mount

Because the smaller flange distance opens up a whole world of possibility. You can do things that aren't possible on a dslr. Hence why mirrorless is the obvious choice for anyone looking for the best equipment.

>>2965061
>smaller flange distance opens up a whole world of possibility

>>2964842
>That's why mirrorless systems have compact wide-angle lenses, but no real benefit on compact telephoto lenses.

Guess who of you acts like a shill.