Best gear you could have Nikon D5 Nikon D810 14-24mm 24-70mm

flange

>>2971484
Why does it matter to have the ability to mount any lenses when you already have a great selection?

>>2971478
im with you anon, gl telling that to the fuji and sony fags here though with their mirrorless and med format that eats batteries like im cooking steak with the fuckin camera

>>2971478
there's not even tilt shift or macro capability in that list
or any fucking light
I guess that's /p/ in a nutshell

>>2971498
OVF > EVF

>>2971503
Tilt Shift and Macro are speciality, and you don't need any fast aperture lenses cause you have amazing ISO on both of these cameras.

Where's muh 1.4?

>>2971509
>you don't need any fast aperture lens
ya got me,

>>2971511
Well presuming you aren't doing portraits you're fine.

>>2971503
>Macro
>Tilt shift
why is /p/ so obsessed with meme photography? Next you are going to tell me that digital will never match film.

>>2971478
Replace the 200-500 with a 400 2.8 or a 500 f/4 and I agree. That's basically the same setup I had when I was shooting professionally, only a few generations older and my second camera was crop instead of FF. (D3S + D300S.)

I'm a fujifag now though, it's more fun and easier to cart around and I'm back to being a hobbyist with a real day job so I don't need a cutting-edge system.

>>2971489
Shorter flange distance gives much more options for lens design, especially anything wider than a 50mm. Hence why sonys 28mm f2 is tiny and under 200g, yet still outperforms every other oem 28mm.

Remember light halves for every doubling in distance, so you're losing a stop of light in your twice as large flange.

>>2971507
Why would you want to have to move your eye away from the viewfinder to chimp exposure? Why would you want to take a photo to chimp exposure? Why would you forego on sensor pdaf - other methods aren't in the same league when it comes to accuracy. Why would you use a viewfinder that doesn't work in the dark? Why use a viewfinder that doesn't work with lenses faster than f2.8? Why use a viewfinder that doesn't do focus peaking or magnification? Why use a viewfinder you can't point towards the sun? Why inflict a fragile flappy mirror on your camera? Why double the size and weight and fragility of your body for these "benefits"?

I've got more reasons that ovf's are completely redundant if you want me to continue.

>>2971580
>doesn't work with lenses faster than f2.8
psshhhh

I don't need to use focus peaking or magnification, that's what using Live View with a tripod is for.

Why would you ever want to point a camera towards the sun?

why does size and weight matter? I want to be able to have instantaneous reference rather than having lag between the two, what I'm looking at is what is captured, not a reference, also hard to reference detail in a EVF due to the fact that the screen is small as fuck, and looks like ass.

You just seem to be a butthurt Fujifag or Sony user who can't deal with the fact that OVF's are better cause you couldn't figure out how to adjust the diopter.

>>2971580
light halves every doubling in distance yes, but you aren't going to lose a stop of light at that distance, maybe a foot yeah, but at that distance it isn't going to create much of a difference.

>>2971584
>psshhhh

K, i know you can get focusing screens that allow you to focus down to f1.4, they're also 2 stops darker, and fucking useless in anything but bright light.

>i don't need focus peaking because i have a tripod and liveview
K, i have an evf and ibis, it's a lot more convenient. Or are you gonna whip your tripod and liveview out in every situation af can't lock on to what you want.

>why point your camera towards the sun
To take photos in the daytime?

>why does size and weight matter
Because some of us leave our homes.

>I want instant reference
The lag on an a7ii is about 20 ms, good reaction times are about 250ms, evf lag is not the reason anyone misses a shot.

>screen is small as fuck and looks like ass.
On my fuji xe1, it looks ass but is much larger than any crop viewfinder. On my a7ii it looks fantastic and is larger than any dslr viewfinder.

>hard to reference detail
You've never used an evf properly have you? If you don't trust the worlds most accurate af, or the focus peaking, you can zoom in. And here's the real kicker, some evfs have a higher resolution than ovfs because ground glass effectively limits the ovf resolution to how fine the finish is.

I bet you don't even have a d5 or d810, I'm gonna go with rabble or d3200 and kit lens, you have a nifty fifty on your xmas list that you think will take your photos up to a pro level.

>>2971586
>who needs the laws of physics!
Ps. Disputing the laws of physics is a really quick way to look REALLY dumb.

>>2971478
>prove me wrong

>posts a lists of fuckhuge cameras and fuckhuge zooms
>outside of gear thread
>also not Pentax

You could do better.

>>2971478
>you need every millimeter

Drop the 24-70 and get the 50 1.4 prime

>>2971514
Photography is a meme

>>2971591
D800 with 35mm F/1.4 is what I use 99% of the time.

I'm just fucking with you, but still, you're making it out like Mirrorless is god's gift to photography, and you make any excuse to try and say that mirrorless is better when you can't accept the fact it's pretty much exactly the same just smaller.

I prefer ruggedness over a sony cuck body who gets one drop of water on the xsync and fails.

In the words of someone from South Sydney :

Fuck off ya dumb cunt.

>>2971630
Nah, it's nothing to do with me making excuses for mirrorless being better.

The only positive of an ovf is the 20ms less lag.

If you're willing to forego all the positives to have 1/50th of a second better reaction speeds, go ahead.

Personally, i think that makes you a dumb cunt, and that's without any regional slang bias.

Why do i prefer sony? Because it's either sony or fuji at the moment, and fuji are a joke. If canikon came out with an evf based ff body, with a new shorter mount and at least 15 very high quality native lenses, then i would consider those options too.

Ovf's are gimped as fuck and will go the way of the tlr and wlf.

>>2971580
>Light halves for every doubling of distance

This cannot be any more incorrect. Firstly light is not a measured quantity so half a light makes no sense. Instead I'll assume you're talking about light intensity instead.

If you take light emitted by a point source, the light diffuses out in a sphere. A sphere twice the radius of another will not have double but 4 times it's area. Thus light 2 times away is 4 times less intense because the same amount of light is now distributed in an area 4 times larger. This is also known as the inverse square law which applies to many things other than light.

Also the light coming out of a lens is focused light that does not diffuse out in a spherical manner. There is very negligible light loss by increasing the flange distance.

>>2971478
150-600 > 200-500
Almost everything wise. Including price and IQ.

I have a dream, that some day /p/ won't reply to such obvious b8 threads and isntead sages and reports them!

>>2971640
>focused light
The word you're looking for is colluded, and no it's not.

And the inverse square law just furthers the retardedness of long flange distances.

>>2971646
as op,

thank you

>>2971646
>sages
Sage is no down-vote. With sage one can post without bumping the thread. I use it very often on posts that somehow contribute, but not in a highly interesting manner. This post doesn't bump this thread too.
I just say this, because I've seen 'sage goes in all fields' posts lately.

>>2971647

suboptimal b8 m8 i r8 it @ 8/88

The light loss happening because of longer flange distances, if any, is exponential, not inverse-square. The more air (never perfectly clean) gets into the optical way the more light is absorbed.

The proportion is exponential.

>>2971580
>Shorter flange distance gives much more options for lens design

Too bad that the sensor cannot catch up. Canon sensors loose as much as 1EV+ with F1.2.

Same applies to corners of image taken with non-retrofocal wide angle optics.

>>2971646 >>2971649

Do not you understand that an abstract community can never sustain itself without newfags?

You are either delusional or thinking of yourself as a master troll. Both is bad for you: you can indefinitely repeat this thread with D6 and 20-80mm when they come out, you will get same results.

>>2971666
Inverse square is a type of exponential drop you home schooled nigger.

>sensor can't catch up
Got nothing to do with the sensor, it's about lens design. If you're referring to colour shifts on uwa lenses, thus can be fixed by a thinner glass filter over the sensor, this has already happened in the a6500, and will be in all upcoming bodies. You can also get your existing body modified for this.

If you're referring to vignette falloff, this is the benefit of a sony sensor, the corners can be pushed 4 stops from base iso before image degradation becomes noticeable. In reality falloff never gets as high as 2 stops.

>>2971676
>Inverse square is a type of exponential drop you home schooled nigger.

2^(-x) is exponential. x^(-2) is inverse square.

Suck that sandnigger.

>If you're referring to colour shifts on uwa lenses, thus can be fixed by a thinner glass filter over the sensor,

I am not. I refer to vignetting which happens with non-retrofocal lenses.

This is why there are none of them produced for Sony, lol. Why would you need a design choice if you are not using it?

>If you're referring to vignette falloff, this is the benefit of a sony sensor, the corners can be pushed 4 stops from base iso before image degradation becomes noticeable.

Even if I underexposed already and need that latitude for more important things than vignetting correction? What a fag.

>>2971670
eh

I'm bored

>>2971478
I'd say the one I have now with more free time and money to go to places.
It's not always about the gear.

>>2971478
Lol, no nikkor 105mm 1.4g.

>>2971478
Or, for someone who isn't an idiot, a D750 and a few primes