>ladies and gentlemen >I present the a6000 >The worst

>Anons
>I present to you this thread
>The worst thread on /p/
>Please go out and take photos
>And stop with the gear faggatory

File: Screenshot_2017-07-21-14-26-14.jpg (496KB, 1080x1052px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 1080x1052px

>adapting old lenses

>>3118435
this

utterly pointless

>>3118435
>>3118504
i really wish these meme cameras never were made. now good old lenses, and even the ones from the oldest and crummiest systems are being sold like gold because of the mirrorless cucks.

>>3118507
Get a McJob so you can afford those dog-shit lenses then you scrub.

>>3118507
I only paid 8$ for that lens you fuckig mongoloid

Get a fucking g job

>>3118433
>a6000
>worst camera ever made

just because you are unable to take decent pictures with it!?

>>3118525
No, it takes fine pictures

>>3118525
I think most human being have trouble turning the damn thing on, munless they had surgery to replace their hands with multi-tentacular manpiluation limbs

>>3118433
owned for 4 months, what a soulless fucking camera. glad i sold it

>>3118435
Why wouldn't I adapt old lenses.
There's more than sharpness to a good image and some of the old timers are really aesthetic.

>>3120243
>more than sharpness
>muh aesthetic

t.shit photographer who thinks you need muh """"character"""" because he can't shoot good, crisp, clean neutral images.

a lens is a tool, if it can't do the best possible job it can do, it's shit
you get a lens to give you the best, sharpest, most color-neutral image without your disgusting chromabs, and stupid over, or underdone contrast

Let me guess, you think stupid instagram filters and fake film grain are good too? fuck off

File: 4FABAD6B-ACC4-4D33-8F3D-3CE901B782F1-9165-00000C1CEBF61EDE.jpg (190KB, 1200x1030px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1200x1030px

>>3120265
>you get a lens to give you the best, sharpest, most color-neutral image without your disgusting chromabs, and stupid over, or underdone contrast

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3120265
That is really the most retarded thing I have ever read.
highly paid portrait photographers use black pro mist because sharpness is over rated
A 50 year old Angenieux has better color then a new kit lens.
a 75 year old gold dot dagor will shoot better images then your brand new L-series

>>3120344
lens full of disgusting uncorrectable spherochromatism

File: 351414681328.jpg (28KB, 229x333px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 229x333px

>>3120344

>>3120349
>sharpness is over rated
>better color
>better images

These are you opinions which you are perfectly entitled to hold. But they are not facts, don't state them as such.

>>3120349
>Being absolutely retarded
>Muh lomography softness, chromabs, vignette, and shitty contrast/ colors

KEK

Don't eveR post here against until you learn how good photography works retard

>>3120357
>>3120358
I used to be just like you guys.
I have been shooting professionally for years. Mostly marketing stuff.
I have my L-series primes.
I would shoot whatever for the client, then spend hours in photoshop making the photo look good.
(get the sharpest, most neutral image possible, adjust in post". That is the rule right?
Then, one day, I bought an old Super Takumar lens at a swap meet for 20 bucks. At the end of a client shoot, I put it on my camera and shot off so I could compare it to my L-series of the same focal length. (just for me, not for the client)
The client saw those shots when I uploaded them. Picked one of those shots on the spot. No editing required.
Now I use old lens, strange lenses, pantyhose over my lenses (got that from Star Wars), whatever... just don't shoot clean and sharp.

>>3120364
OP here I can agree, that jupiter 8 is my favorite lens, and it's ridiculously, even wide open

>>3120368

sharp*

>>3118433

Why can't /p/ just say they don't like something?

It always has to be the wordt or terrible in some way. Very few people just come out and say, "It was a neat camera and took good enough pictures, but i prefer using a dslr" or "It was nice, but I prefer getting laid so I got fuji".

Instead it is always "IT ISNT WATERPROOFED! TRASH! GOING BACK TO MY *non-waterproofed body of choice*.

>>3120265
Actually I really dislike insta filters and fake grain makes me vomit.

Also the reason I like vintage lenses is because they often have odd characteristics to them like weird depth of field effects and generally just look pleasing to me and I am in no way talking modern and sharp lenses down here so either you're insecure or you're projecting so hard you can point yourself at a wall and show a powerpoint presentation.

So calm down mi negro.

>>3120364
>pantyhose over lens
Show me some of your work, please.

>>3118433
i think that's the 6d2.
>$2000
>dynamic range of rx100
>no 4k
only cucks will buy this

>>3120344
>tfw neet
>tfw bought a minolta md 50 1.7 for $13 instead

>>3120405

I spent $100 on the f/1.4.

It comes with a built in hood which is pretty neat though.

>>3120405
Did it come with a camera attached? That's how I started using my Minolta x-7a, I just wanted the lens.

modern lenses:
>sterile
>lifeless

old lenses:
>character

>>3120681
Aspherical elements vs. not. Character this, impressionistic that, leica glow something or other. Turns out people are into that olde-timey optics stuff, especially when they get old and clinically precise contrast-out-the-arse lenses make them and their pals look crusty.

Vidfags, please stop using sonyshit. The rolling shutter gives me a migraine.

>>3118504

They're cheap

>>3118435
Why wouldn't I? I have three old film SLRs i got for free, two of which (Minolta SRT-101 and an old Topcon) came with two lenses each. Why wouldn't i pay sub 30 for an adapter and just use the free lenses over forking out another 2-500 bucks for a modern lens? I'm sure they will have much better glass and take technically better images, but I'm not made of money here.

File: boatfour.png (502KB, 750x1125px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 750x1125px

>bought an a6000 body for $400
>adapted Canon FD 1.8 and 1.4 50mm lenses along with a Pentax SMC 1.2 50mm
>Have spent in total, including lenses and adapters, $450
>Images are all way more interesting, even wuth the horrendous C/A, than when I used native lenses.
>Didnt have to pay out the ass for a singular native Sony lens with a worse f stop that would cost more than my entire setup

Feels pretty fucking good.

>>3120372
Because this board is filled with idiots who see the camera they bought as part of their identity. Anything that challenges that camera, challenges their identity.

A normal person can look and say "Yeah its an okay camera, but there are things about it that I don't like. I'll stick with what I have" instead of screaming about tiny details that nobody gives a fuck about

>>3118433

Did op even say exactly what he didn't like about it? I use one for my live performance photography and it's amazing. I need a new lens though.

>>3121205
That's the beauty of E-mount my man but you're really missing out on no Eye AF without native AF lenses. Unless you don't shoot people.

>>3121395

Eye AF works with quite a lot of adapted lenses, but not all of them.

>>3121205
>muh f-stoppppppsssss

...I like mine

>>3120562
no, but i did get a bentax me + 50 1.7 for $20.

>>3121501

You should.

It is a good camera.

Ignore the fanboys and just go take more photos.

File: 20160923_234018.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

I'm some shit newfag that ordered this camera and was wondering if there's a decent lens any of you recommend for night street photography. I use to take pictures of these skeletons. Not related just a picture of a skell

>>3121959
There's a sigma 30 1.4 or a Sony 35 1.8 with oss.