Tarantula Guy

@panther fan you side stepped my argument. That's the kind of thing people when you've made a point. I made valid argument, address it or shut up.

Yeah and neither is canon's. Canon's 24-105 is known for being a terrible, but you know what people still it. If the sony help someone get the shot then great. Why do you care? besides sony has...

I'm a sony user, but that's funny!

It's not that sharp

Why is dpreview always a week late?

Heard that same exact thing from my dad.

Their just as bad as sony fanboys

Am I the only one who's seen better on flickr and Instagram? I mean none of these shots are bad (there frankly quite good), it's just I've seen better.

Guys I think @just someone is trolling us.

I'm honesty confused. Did you selected the right camera in the studio scene? When I compared the D850 to the a7R3 and the a73, I found that the sonys performed slightly better.

I love echo chamers.

Yeah it's pretty dumb, but its sell cameras (unforunately)

Where's the evidence.

I wouldn't trusted the light meter on the canon. Tony Northrup says that canons tend to under expose.

Not bashing Sony or Canon......wait?

yeah, and in the nineteen eighties (and much early for that matter) nat geo photographers were able to captured amazing images on cameras that are so much less than today cameras. Take for example...

yeah it sucks

zero likes

"as other-worldly as D5s and a9s," I wouldn't say the D5 is "other-worldly". Sure, the autofocus system is "other-worldly" but apart from that, nothing else on that camera is.

I'd rather burn the sensor on my camera than my eyes. You can always get a new camera, you can't get new eyes.