The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
p.4 #1The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
EB-1 wrote:
Just kidding.
If you want rough edges get a Fuji X System body. They are nearly as harsh as a 70s SLR.
EBH
Hahaha, yes. It's ironic how Fuji users praise the aesthetics of their cameras while bolting on an endless variety of grips so they can actually hold them.
raminolta wrote
I thought he was referring to Sony camera bodies having sharp straight line edges. Canon has the most soft curved edges and Nikon is the second (among the top three). That puts Sony at the bottom in terms of camera look. I think he is right!Just kidding.
EBH
Hahaha, yes. It's ironic how Fuji users praise the aesthetics of their cameras while bolting on an endless variety of grips so they can actually hold them.
Jul 10, 2026 at 02:43 PM
p.4 #2The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
umut_h_toprak wrote:
I feel a lot of the complaints about the "perfect camera" not existing is rather about people waiting for something better than currently offered before upgrading, which I think is a healthy approach rather than buying every generation of equipment. People who frequent forums like this and have no current equipment are surely exceedingly rare.
At least I am on this boat when I mention a flaw about a camera. When I do, it means it was on my radar and the decision not to go for it was because it fell short one way or another.
I agree about the...Show more →
That's exactly my line of thinking too. My main cameras are a Sony a7rIV and a Nikon Z8. Ideally, I would like to update the a7rIV, as I would like to get the better color science, better IBIS, and faster responsiveness that Sony has added to their cameras since. Lens wise 3 of the top lenses 5 lenses on my lens wish list have no Z mount alternative. For example, one is the Sony 28-70mm f2. My current 24-70mm f2.8 is the f mount 24-70mm G and is close to 15 years old now. I think it's fair to say it's had a good run. But before I buy such expensive e mount glass, though, I would like to have an e mount camera I am truly happy with. Especially since next to the Z8(2023) the a7rIV(2019) is showing it's age. But I can't help but feel like Sony has yet to produce that wow I need to upgrade E mount camera.
When the a7rIV launched in 2019 it was priced at 3,500 and it tied or beat the d850 priced at $3,300 in most ways. Now, when the a7rVI came out this year, it was priced at $4,500, while the Z8 is priced around $3,500 and doesn't clearly beat the Z8 in most ways. The closest Sony has to the Z8 is the a1II priced at $7,000, which is abut 2x the price of the Z8 and even then, the Z8 has some features the a1II does not. The value proposition of Sony cameras just seems to be getting worse for my needs. Even the third party lens support isn't as much of a plus anymore when it's still limited to 15fps and even the entry level a7V can do 30fps.
Maybe Sony spoiled us. For the first 4 generations of the r series I thought each one was very exciting, even if I didn't buy it. With the 5th generation, I thought it was a nice improvement, but not as exciting. Now in the 6th generation, I feel like all I would be gaining for photography vs the a7rV is 1 stop of dynamic range at low ISO, 5-6mp, and .5 stop better IBIS. Maybe Sony has just set my expectations too high, but I just can't help but feel like they could do better and make a camera I truly want to buy and feel is worth the price point again, just like they used to do.
I feel a lot of the complaints about the "perfect camera" not existing is rather about people waiting for something better than currently offered before upgrading, which I think is a healthy approach rather than buying every generation of equipment. People who frequent forums like this and have no current equipment are surely exceedingly rare.
At least I am on this boat when I mention a flaw about a camera. When I do, it means it was on my radar and the decision not to go for it was because it fell short one way or another.
I agree about the...Show more →
That's exactly my line of thinking too. My main cameras are a Sony a7rIV and a Nikon Z8. Ideally, I would like to update the a7rIV, as I would like to get the better color science, better IBIS, and faster responsiveness that Sony has added to their cameras since. Lens wise 3 of the top lenses 5 lenses on my lens wish list have no Z mount alternative. For example, one is the Sony 28-70mm f2. My current 24-70mm f2.8 is the f mount 24-70mm G and is close to 15 years old now. I think it's fair to say it's had a good run. But before I buy such expensive e mount glass, though, I would like to have an e mount camera I am truly happy with. Especially since next to the Z8(2023) the a7rIV(2019) is showing it's age. But I can't help but feel like Sony has yet to produce that wow I need to upgrade E mount camera.
When the a7rIV launched in 2019 it was priced at 3,500 and it tied or beat the d850 priced at $3,300 in most ways. Now, when the a7rVI came out this year, it was priced at $4,500, while the Z8 is priced around $3,500 and doesn't clearly beat the Z8 in most ways. The closest Sony has to the Z8 is the a1II priced at $7,000, which is abut 2x the price of the Z8 and even then, the Z8 has some features the a1II does not. The value proposition of Sony cameras just seems to be getting worse for my needs. Even the third party lens support isn't as much of a plus anymore when it's still limited to 15fps and even the entry level a7V can do 30fps.
Maybe Sony spoiled us. For the first 4 generations of the r series I thought each one was very exciting, even if I didn't buy it. With the 5th generation, I thought it was a nice improvement, but not as exciting. Now in the 6th generation, I feel like all I would be gaining for photography vs the a7rV is 1 stop of dynamic range at low ISO, 5-6mp, and .5 stop better IBIS. Maybe Sony has just set my expectations too high, but I just can't help but feel like they could do better and make a camera I truly want to buy and feel is worth the price point again, just like they used to do.
Jul 10, 2026 at 03:02 PM
p.4 #3The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
DWOfPaul wrote:
This is exactly why I didn't want to get into who has the best AF. It's obvious you will be in the camp of Sony, having by far the best AF, when in reality, most people who have used multiple systems admit that sometimes Sony is better and sometimes Sony is worse. It really comes down to what you photograph, how you photograph, and some personal preference as to what makes the best AF.
For example (start at 8:57, for some reason, the start time is being taken off the URL when I hit submit):
https://youtu.be/MOpB_Q-qSjY?si=fJqyI2aUJb744CZ9&t=537
That's hilarious - "most people" - making an unqualified claim to prove your point, and then picking one edge case where you probably never want to take a picture anyway - small bird far away in the bushes - and then claim "sometimes better sometimes worse" - when in virtually every other use case it is worse. Just check out the long threads in the Nikon forums from users who struggle to get reliable results and the Mark 2 wish lists people post.
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
What did you ignore, well here is one example of a more recent Jan Wegener's videos where he says that the one thing Nikon need to get right in their next version of the Z9 is even better autofocus to be able to take advantage of their great lenses (at 10:16) - no way anyone says that if they think the AF is on par with that from the other manufacturers.
https://youtu.be/RWAEh5tZyiI?t=618
Regardless I am basing my experience on having used all the above mention cameras myself - and have posted links to AF failures previously so you can check the RAW files out yourself. That big failures aren't even action shots - just relatively simple static shots where the focus was randomly off my meters despite the camera reporting focus on the subject.
duncangr wrote
EDIT: Complaining that A7RM6 doesn't have Sony's best autofocus based on not having 120 af calcs per second and in the same breath suggesting switching to the Z8 - which as we all know has less than stellar AF.For example (start at 8:57, for some reason, the start time is being taken off the URL when I hit submit):
https://youtu.be/MOpB_Q-qSjY?si=fJqyI2aUJb744CZ9&t=537
That's hilarious - "most people" - making an unqualified claim to prove your point, and then picking one edge case where you probably never want to take a picture anyway - small bird far away in the bushes - and then claim "sometimes better sometimes worse" - when in virtually every other use case it is worse. Just check out the long threads in the Nikon forums from users who struggle to get reliable results and the Mark 2 wish lists people post.
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
What did you ignore, well here is one example of a more recent Jan Wegener's videos where he says that the one thing Nikon need to get right in their next version of the Z9 is even better autofocus to be able to take advantage of their great lenses (at 10:16) - no way anyone says that if they think the AF is on par with that from the other manufacturers.
https://youtu.be/RWAEh5tZyiI?t=618
Regardless I am basing my experience on having used all the above mention cameras myself - and have posted links to AF failures previously so you can check the RAW files out yourself. That big failures aren't even action shots - just relatively simple static shots where the focus was randomly off my meters despite the camera reporting focus on the subject.
Jul 10, 2026 at 03:09 PM
p.4 #4The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
duncangr wrote:
This is exactly why I didn't want to get into who has the best AF. It's obvious you will be in the camp of Sony, having by far the best AF, when in reality, most people who have used multiple systems admit that sometimes Sony is better and sometimes Sony is worse. It really comes down to what you photograph, how you photograph, and some personal preference as to what makes the best AF.
For example (start at 8:57, for some reason, the start time is being taken off the URL when I hit submit):
https://youtu.be/MOpB_Q-qSjY?si=fJqyI2aUJb744CZ9&t=537That's hilarious - "most people" - making an unqualified claim to prove your point, and then picking one edge case where you probably never want to take a picture anyway - small bird far away in the bushes - and then claim "sometimes better sometimes worse" - when in virtually every other use case it is worse. Just check out the long threads in the Nikon forums from users who struggle to get reliable results and the Mark 2 wish lists people post.
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring...Show more →
I've had just as many misses on my A1 as my Z9 that I can't explain. Both have flaws. I see no consistent pattern though.
I agree with Jan, the Sony is worse at picking up smaller subjects in busy settings, but better often in picking up subjects against a clean background. You can work around these things. I don't how much A1II has improved over the A1 but it doesn't seem like much changed for initial small subject detection.
DWOfPaul wrote
duncangr wrote
EDIT: Complaining that A7RM6 doesn't have Sony's best autofocus based on not having 120 af calcs per second and in the same breath suggesting switching to the Z8 - which as we all know has less than stellar AF.For example (start at 8:57, for some reason, the start time is being taken off the URL when I hit submit):
https://youtu.be/MOpB_Q-qSjY?si=fJqyI2aUJb744CZ9&t=537
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring...Show more →
I've had just as many misses on my A1 as my Z9 that I can't explain. Both have flaws. I see no consistent pattern though.
I agree with Jan, the Sony is worse at picking up smaller subjects in busy settings, but better often in picking up subjects against a clean background. You can work around these things. I don't how much A1II has improved over the A1 but it doesn't seem like much changed for initial small subject detection.
Jul 10, 2026 at 08:44 PM
p.4 #5The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
This is exactly why I didn't want to get into who has the best AF. It's obvious you will be in the camp of Sony, having by far the best AF, when in reality, most people who have used multiple systems admit that sometimes Sony is better and sometimes Sony is worse. It really comes down to what you photograph, how you photograph, and some personal preference as to what makes the best AF.
For example (start at 8:57, for some reason, the start time is being taken off the URL when I hit submit):
https://youtu.be/MOpB_Q-qSjY?si=fJqyI2aUJb744CZ9&t=537That's hilarious - "most people" - making an unqualified claim to prove your point, and then picking one edge case where you probably never want to take a picture anyway - small bird far away in the bushes - and then claim "sometimes better sometimes worse" - when in virtually every other use case it is worse. Just check out the long threads in the Nikon forums from users who struggle to get reliable results and the Mark 2 wish lists people post.
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
What did you ignore, well here is one example of a more recent Jan Wegener's videos where he says that the one thing Nikon need to get right in their next version of the Z9 is even better autofocus to be able to take advantage of their great lenses (at 10:16) - no way anyone says that if they think the AF is on par with that from the other manufacturers.
https://youtu.be/RWAEh5tZyiI?t=618
Regardless I am basing my experience on having used all the above mention cameras myself - and have posted links to AF failures previously so you can check the RAW files out yourself. That big failures aren't even action shots - just relatively simple static shots where the focus was randomly off my meters despite the camera reporting focus on the subject.I've had just as many misses on my A1 as my Z9 that I can't explain. Both have flaws. I see no consistent pattern though.
I agree with Jan, the Sony is worse at picking up smaller subjects in busy settings, but better often in picking up subjects against a clean background. You can work around these things. I don't how much A1II has improved over the A1 but it doesn't seem like much changed for initial small subject detection.
You're claiming a win on a useless use-case - when last did anyone post a wonderful wildlife image like that where the subject is that small in the frame - but for sure claim that as a win if it makes you feel better.
It's ironic that if you do tend to take pictures of subjects that are that small you would be better off with the A7RM6 with its higher resolution. Sony has you covered
.
As for "most people", "most people" have decided - just look at the mirrorless market share...
duncangr wrote
DWOfPaul wrote
duncangr wrote
EDIT: Complaining that A7RM6 doesn't have Sony's best autofocus based on not having 120 af calcs per second and in the same breath suggesting switching to the Z8 - which as we all know has less than stellar AF.For example (start at 8:57, for some reason, the start time is being taken off the URL when I hit submit):
https://youtu.be/MOpB_Q-qSjY?si=fJqyI2aUJb744CZ9&t=537
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
What did you ignore, well here is one example of a more recent Jan Wegener's videos where he says that the one thing Nikon need to get right in their next version of the Z9 is even better autofocus to be able to take advantage of their great lenses (at 10:16) - no way anyone says that if they think the AF is on par with that from the other manufacturers.
https://youtu.be/RWAEh5tZyiI?t=618
Regardless I am basing my experience on having used all the above mention cameras myself - and have posted links to AF failures previously so you can check the RAW files out yourself. That big failures aren't even action shots - just relatively simple static shots where the focus was randomly off my meters despite the camera reporting focus on the subject.
I agree with Jan, the Sony is worse at picking up smaller subjects in busy settings, but better often in picking up subjects against a clean background. You can work around these things. I don't how much A1II has improved over the A1 but it doesn't seem like much changed for initial small subject detection.
You're claiming a win on a useless use-case - when last did anyone post a wonderful wildlife image like that where the subject is that small in the frame - but for sure claim that as a win if it makes you feel better.
It's ironic that if you do tend to take pictures of subjects that are that small you would be better off with the A7RM6 with its higher resolution. Sony has you covered
.As for "most people", "most people" have decided - just look at the mirrorless market share...
Jul 10, 2026 at 09:42 PM
p.4 #6The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
duncangr wrote:
You're claiming a win on a useless use-case - when last did anyone post a wonderful wildlife image like that where the subject is that small in the frame - but for sure claim that as a win if it makes you feel better.
It's ironic that if you do tend to take pictures of subjects that are that small you would be better off with the A7RM6 with its higher resolution. Sony has you covered.
As for "most people", "most people" have decided - just look at the mirrorless market share...
Sounding just like a rabid fanboy, well done. If you don't like facts, that's your problem. If you want to trash other brands, that's your problem. I own and shoot both Sony and Nikon and know very well the weaknesses of both brands AF.
Oh and please show us the breakdown of A1(II) sales vs Z9/Z8 rather than posting hype.
You're claiming a win on a useless use-case - when last did anyone post a wonderful wildlife image like that where the subject is that small in the frame - but for sure claim that as a win if it makes you feel better.
It's ironic that if you do tend to take pictures of subjects that are that small you would be better off with the A7RM6 with its higher resolution. Sony has you covered
.As for "most people", "most people" have decided - just look at the mirrorless market share...
Sounding just like a rabid fanboy, well done. If you don't like facts, that's your problem. If you want to trash other brands, that's your problem. I own and shoot both Sony and Nikon and know very well the weaknesses of both brands AF.
Oh and please show us the breakdown of A1(II) sales vs Z9/Z8 rather than posting hype.
Jul 11, 2026 at 06:49 PM
p.4 #7The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
jeffbuzz wrote:
Just kidding.
If you want rough edges get a Fuji X System body. They are nearly as harsh as a 70s SLR.
EBHHahaha, yes. It's ironic how Fuji users praise the aesthetics of their cameras while bolting on an endless variety of grips so they can actually hold them.
Well, no, actually.
I know these things are subjective, but it depends which body (from any manufacturer) you are using. One of my systems is based on the XT5, and I would never add a grip to the thing.
Different strokes, and all that.
- - -
DWOfPaul wrote:
That's exactly my line of thinking too. My main cameras are a Sony a7rIV and a Nikon Z8. Ideally, I would like to update the a7rIV, as I would like to get the better color science, better IBIS, and faster responsiveness that Sony has added to their cameras since. Lens wise 3 of the top lenses 5 lenses on my lens wish list have no Z mount alternative. For example, one is the Sony 28-70mm f2. My current 24-70mm f2.8 is the f mount 24-70mm G and is close to 15 years old now. I think it's fair to say...Show more →
Your situation is a little bit similar to mine, though with different pieces in the puzzle. I’ll be moving from a Canon 5DsR to the A7rvi as soon as I see all of the necessary support items i need (things like L-brackets from the manufacturers I use, etc.) and once I sort of the lenses.
About pricing, it is important to consider the effect of inflation on pricing. The A7riv was $3500 at its 2019 introduction. According to one online inflation calculator I checked, the equivalent price today in inflation adjusted dollars is… $4571!
My old 5DsR cost $3699 when it was released in 2015. In inflation adjusted dollars, that would now be… $5212 today! That $3500 A7rvi starts to look like a bargain!
- - -
duncangr wrote:
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
No. It isn’t. ;-)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=web
EB-1 wrote
raminolta wrote
I thought he was referring to Sony camera bodies having sharp straight line edges. Canon has the most soft curved edges and Nikon is the second (among the top three). That puts Sony at the bottom in terms of camera look. I think he is right!Just kidding.
EBH
Well, no, actually.
I know these things are subjective, but it depends which body (from any manufacturer) you are using. One of my systems is based on the XT5, and I would never add a grip to the thing.
Different strokes, and all that.
- - -
DWOfPaul wrote:
That's exactly my line of thinking too. My main cameras are a Sony a7rIV and a Nikon Z8. Ideally, I would like to update the a7rIV, as I would like to get the better color science, better IBIS, and faster responsiveness that Sony has added to their cameras since. Lens wise 3 of the top lenses 5 lenses on my lens wish list have no Z mount alternative. For example, one is the Sony 28-70mm f2. My current 24-70mm f2.8 is the f mount 24-70mm G and is close to 15 years old now. I think it's fair to say...Show more →
Your situation is a little bit similar to mine, though with different pieces in the puzzle. I’ll be moving from a Canon 5DsR to the A7rvi as soon as I see all of the necessary support items i need (things like L-brackets from the manufacturers I use, etc.) and once I sort of the lenses.
About pricing, it is important to consider the effect of inflation on pricing. The A7riv was $3500 at its 2019 introduction. According to one online inflation calculator I checked, the equivalent price today in inflation adjusted dollars is… $4571!
My old 5DsR cost $3699 when it was released in 2015. In inflation adjusted dollars, that would now be… $5212 today! That $3500 A7rvi starts to look like a bargain!
- - -
duncangr wrote:
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
No. It isn’t. ;-)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=web
Jul 11, 2026 at 08:45 PM
p.4 #8The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
To be fair, market share is widely available. You are picking very specific goal posts by requiring sales of specific cameras. He is right that in mirrorless, market share ia firmly established now, and Nikon is way, way behind.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's ironic that if you do tend to take pictures of subjects that are that small you would be better off with the A7RM6 with its higher resolution. Sony has you covered.
As for "most people", "most people" have decided - just look at the mirrorless market share...Sounding just like a rabid fanboy, well done. If you don't like facts, that's your problem. If you want to trash other brands, that's your problem. I own and shoot both Sony and Nikon and know very well the weaknesses of both brands AF.
Oh and please show us the breakdown of A1(II) sales vs Z9/Z8 rather than posting hype.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
duncangr wrote
You're claiming a win on a useless use-case - when last did anyone post a wonderful wildlife image like that where the subject is that small in the frame - but for sure claim that as a win if it makes you feel better.It's ironic that if you do tend to take pictures of subjects that are that small you would be better off with the A7RM6 with its higher resolution. Sony has you covered
.As for "most people", "most people" have decided - just look at the mirrorless market share...
Oh and please show us the breakdown of A1(II) sales vs Z9/Z8 rather than posting hype.
Jul 11, 2026 at 10:37 PM
p.4 #9The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
I feel that neither the RV nor R6 have been particularly interesting. The A1ii certainly wasn't. It is the downside of more frequent models, compared to say, Nikon, whoch is still stuck with only 20fps raw.
DWOfPaul wrote:
At least I am on this boat when I mention a flaw about a camera. When I do, it means it was on my radar and the decision not to go for it was because it fell short one way or another.
I agree about the current tech being super. I started in 2007 when digital sensors were starting to get good. The difference from then to now is unbelievable.That's exactly my line of thinking too. My main cameras are a Sony a7rIV and a Nikon Z8. Ideally, I would like to update the a7rIV, as I would like to get the better color science, better IBIS, and faster responsiveness that Sony has added to their cameras since. Lens wise 3 of the top lenses 5 lenses on my lens wish list have no Z mount alternative. For example, one is the Sony 28-70mm f2. My current 24-70mm f2.8 is the f mount 24-70mm G and is close to 15 years old now. I think it's fair to say...Show more →
DWOfPaul wrote:
umut_h_toprak wrote
I feel a lot of the complaints about the "perfect camera" not existing is rather about people waiting for something better than currently offered before upgrading, which I think is a healthy approach rather than buying every generation of equipment. People who frequent forums like this and have no current equipment are surely exceedingly rare.At least I am on this boat when I mention a flaw about a camera. When I do, it means it was on my radar and the decision not to go for it was because it fell short one way or another.
I agree about the current tech being super. I started in 2007 when digital sensors were starting to get good. The difference from then to now is unbelievable.
Jul 11, 2026 at 10:42 PM
p.4 #10The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
DWOfPaul wrote:
There is no doubt Sony is an extremely innovative company and has helped push the photography industry forward. Such as the first full frame mirrorless cameras, the first full frame stacked sensor cameras, the first full frame global shutter camera, and many innovative lenses.
But this innovation often comes with tradeoffs. Take, for instance, the 200-600mm f6.3, which changed the game for telephoto zooms, but has high focus breathing or the 400-800mm f8 that hits a lot of the right marks but then seems to suffer from high sample variation.
Now let's jump to the latest releases, the 100-400mm f4.5 and...Show more →
I currently shoot with a Sony A7c, A7iv, and a Canon R6II (plus an OM System OM-5 for rainy days). The one big issue I find with Sony is the sample variations of their lenses. To "play it safe", I make sure to stick with Tamron lenses because they have performed flawlessly for me over the past couple of years (except for the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 which suffered from heavy vignetting). When I buy a Tamron lens, I can count on it being at least 95% great when it comes to sharpness, IQ, AF, and overall reliability. On the other hand, I can only count on a Sony lens being 50% either a good or bad copy (decentering issues).
I tried Viltrox and Samyang; both were way worse than even the usual bad Sony lenses I've owned. The Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8 had serious communucation issues with my A7c (froze my camera continuously) and the Samyang 35mm f1.8 had the worst AF noises and klunking that I've ever experienced on any lens ever.
Recently I needed to chose between a 24-105mm f4.0 for either my Sony or for my R6II, so after much thought I went with the RF 24-105 f4.0L. I just couldn't bring myself risking the frustration of wasting money and time on having to return multiple sample variations of the Sony 24-105mm f4.0 until I got a "keeper".
Edited on Jul 12, 2026 at 08:31 AM · View previous versions
There is no doubt Sony is an extremely innovative company and has helped push the photography industry forward. Such as the first full frame mirrorless cameras, the first full frame stacked sensor cameras, the first full frame global shutter camera, and many innovative lenses.
But this innovation often comes with tradeoffs. Take, for instance, the 200-600mm f6.3, which changed the game for telephoto zooms, but has high focus breathing or the 400-800mm f8 that hits a lot of the right marks but then seems to suffer from high sample variation.
Now let's jump to the latest releases, the 100-400mm f4.5 and...Show more →
I currently shoot with a Sony A7c, A7iv, and a Canon R6II (plus an OM System OM-5 for rainy days). The one big issue I find with Sony is the sample variations of their lenses. To "play it safe", I make sure to stick with Tamron lenses because they have performed flawlessly for me over the past couple of years (except for the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 which suffered from heavy vignetting). When I buy a Tamron lens, I can count on it being at least 95% great when it comes to sharpness, IQ, AF, and overall reliability. On the other hand, I can only count on a Sony lens being 50% either a good or bad copy (decentering issues).
I tried Viltrox and Samyang; both were way worse than even the usual bad Sony lenses I've owned. The Viltrox AF 16mm f1.8 had serious communucation issues with my A7c (froze my camera continuously) and the Samyang 35mm f1.8 had the worst AF noises and klunking that I've ever experienced on any lens ever.
Recently I needed to chose between a 24-105mm f4.0 for either my Sony or for my R6II, so after much thought I went with the RF 24-105 f4.0L. I just couldn't bring myself risking the frustration of wasting money and time on having to return multiple sample variations of the Sony 24-105mm f4.0 until I got a "keeper".
Edited on Jul 12, 2026 at 08:31 AM · View previous versions
Jul 11, 2026 at 11:28 PM
|
p.4 #11The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
gdanmitchell wrote:
No. It isn’t. ;-)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=web
Different words, same meaning. Of course in some cases it may all be lies and no facts.
Propoganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t.
That's like calling the fact that Nikon has 12% mirrorless market share 'hype' and instead asking for proof of the A1 / Z8/Z9 sales - as if that even matters. The point being that 80% of former Nikon users like myself have left - i.e. "most people" have let their feet do the talking...
And if you do a quick review of the Nikon forums for the Z8ii/Z9ii wish lists - improved autofocus features prominently - so its not a figment of my imagination, it's a real issue for many Nikon users. As do many of the other features available in other brands and still missing from the Z7/Z8/Z9. These aren't Sony or Canon 'fanboys' posting these wish lists.
duncangr wrote
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=web
Different words, same meaning. Of course in some cases it may all be lies and no facts.
Propoganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t.
That's like calling the fact that Nikon has 12% mirrorless market share 'hype' and instead asking for proof of the A1 / Z8/Z9 sales - as if that even matters. The point being that 80% of former Nikon users like myself have left - i.e. "most people" have let their feet do the talking...
And if you do a quick review of the Nikon forums for the Z8ii/Z9ii wish lists - improved autofocus features prominently - so its not a figment of my imagination, it's a real issue for many Nikon users. As do many of the other features available in other brands and still missing from the Z7/Z8/Z9. These aren't Sony or Canon 'fanboys' posting these wish lists.
Jul 12, 2026 at 06:08 AM
p.4 #12The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
duncangr wrote:
No. It isn’t. ;-)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=webDifferent words, same meaning. Of course in some cases it may all be lies and no facts.
Propoganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t.
One of the many techniques used in propaganda may be the misleading presentation of facts in a dishonest or incomplete context and/or to attempt to steer people to incorrect interpretations.
However, it is simply dead wrong to say that what defines “propaganda” is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
Propaganda often relies on lies and and disinformation, not facts. In fact, this is the most common sort of propaganda, and its object is to incite emotions on the basis of untrue and inflammatory claims. In fact, quite often it is based on nothing at all but untrue statements or visual representations that inflame existing biases. Look at how propaganda portrays enemies, whether they be countries or other groups.
Show me any authoritative source that states that the core definition of propaganda is as you say.
gdanmitchell wrote
duncangr wrote
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=web
Propoganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t.
One of the many techniques used in propaganda may be the misleading presentation of facts in a dishonest or incomplete context and/or to attempt to steer people to incorrect interpretations.
However, it is simply dead wrong to say that what defines “propaganda” is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
Propaganda often relies on lies and and disinformation, not facts. In fact, this is the most common sort of propaganda, and its object is to incite emotions on the basis of untrue and inflammatory claims. In fact, quite often it is based on nothing at all but untrue statements or visual representations that inflame existing biases. Look at how propaganda portrays enemies, whether they be countries or other groups.
Show me any authoritative source that states that the core definition of propaganda is as you say.
Jul 12, 2026 at 09:49 AM
p.4 #13The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
snegron7 wrote:
But this innovation often comes with tradeoffs. Take, for instance, the 200-600mm f6.3, which changed the game for telephoto zooms, but has high focus breathing or the 400-800mm f8 that hits a lot of the right marks but then seems to suffer from high sample variation.
Now let's jump to the latest releases, the 100-400mm f4.5 and a7rVI. The 100-400mm f4.5 hits many notes right, but it's a $4,300 lens that seems to have sample variation going on with zoom creep. The a7rVI has the highest resolution of any full frame camera, and possibly the best dynamic range of any full frame camera, but most of the innovation seems to be around the electronic shutter, which is to slow for quickly moving subjects and negates the dynamic range advantage of a $4,500 camera. For example, I wish Sony had added a 15 FPS mechanical shutter to the a7rVI, then we could truly gain speed and dynamic range over the a7rV. But as it stands, we need to pick one or the other. I even find it strange that Sony does not put their best AF on a $4,500 camera. It's not like there is an a1r the a7rVI would be competing against.
This pattern of Sony making awesome tech, but the tech is coming with rough edges and premium prices, seems to be getting stronger by the year. I feel like this is hurting the Sony ecosystem. When Sony was the first/only company doing something and often times cheeper than their competitors, it was easier to look away at the rough edges. But now we have gotten to the point where Sony is often more expensive than the competitors, and the rough edges remain.
Personally, I was rooting for Sony that the a7V and a7rVI would be the grand slams we know Sony is capable of making. Unfortunately, I am left wondering if I want to stay in the Sony ecosystem. Maybe Sony will surprise us and the a7s line will turn into a true Z8 / R5II competitor, but I doubt it at this point.I currently shoot with a Sony A7c, A7iv, and a Canon R6II (plus an OM System OM-5 for rainy days). The one big issue I find with Sony is the sample variations of their lenses. To "play it safe", I make sure to stick with Tamron lenses because they have performed flawlessly for me over the past couple of years (except for the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 G2 which suffered from heavy vignetting). When I buy a Tamron lens, I can count on it being at least 95% great when it comes to sharpness, IQ, AF, and overall reliability. On the...Show more →
That's mildly funny, given the number of lenses Tamron manufactures for Sony (anything that was made in China or Vietnam). It's great the Tamron-branded lenses have worked out well for you, but they're also probably responsible for some of your dissatisfaction with Sony.
DWOfPaul wrote
There is no doubt Sony is an extremely innovative company and has helped push the photography industry forward. Such as the first full frame mirrorless cameras, the first full frame stacked sensor cameras, the first full frame global shutter camera, and many innovative lenses.But this innovation often comes with tradeoffs. Take, for instance, the 200-600mm f6.3, which changed the game for telephoto zooms, but has high focus breathing or the 400-800mm f8 that hits a lot of the right marks but then seems to suffer from high sample variation.
Now let's jump to the latest releases, the 100-400mm f4.5 and a7rVI. The 100-400mm f4.5 hits many notes right, but it's a $4,300 lens that seems to have sample variation going on with zoom creep. The a7rVI has the highest resolution of any full frame camera, and possibly the best dynamic range of any full frame camera, but most of the innovation seems to be around the electronic shutter, which is to slow for quickly moving subjects and negates the dynamic range advantage of a $4,500 camera. For example, I wish Sony had added a 15 FPS mechanical shutter to the a7rVI, then we could truly gain speed and dynamic range over the a7rV. But as it stands, we need to pick one or the other. I even find it strange that Sony does not put their best AF on a $4,500 camera. It's not like there is an a1r the a7rVI would be competing against.
This pattern of Sony making awesome tech, but the tech is coming with rough edges and premium prices, seems to be getting stronger by the year. I feel like this is hurting the Sony ecosystem. When Sony was the first/only company doing something and often times cheeper than their competitors, it was easier to look away at the rough edges. But now we have gotten to the point where Sony is often more expensive than the competitors, and the rough edges remain.
Personally, I was rooting for Sony that the a7V and a7rVI would be the grand slams we know Sony is capable of making. Unfortunately, I am left wondering if I want to stay in the Sony ecosystem. Maybe Sony will surprise us and the a7s line will turn into a true Z8 / R5II competitor, but I doubt it at this point.
That's mildly funny, given the number of lenses Tamron manufactures for Sony (anything that was made in China or Vietnam). It's great the Tamron-branded lenses have worked out well for you, but they're also probably responsible for some of your dissatisfaction with Sony.
Jul 12, 2026 at 11:37 AM
p.4 #14The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
gdanmitchell wrote:
No. It isn’t. ;-)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=webDifferent words, same meaning. Of course in some cases it may all be lies and no facts.
Propoganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t.One of the many techniques used in propaganda may be the misleading presentation of facts in a dishonest or incomplete context and/or to attempt to steer people to incorrect interpretations.
However, it is simply dead wrong to say that what defines “propaganda” is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
Propaganda often relies on lies and and disinformation, not facts. In fact, this is the most common sort of propaganda, and its object is to incite emotions on the basis of untrue and inflammatory claims. In fact, quite often it is based on...Show more →
Who said anything about "the core definition" - stop putting words in that weren't there.
Well lets pick one definition e.g. Brittanica:
propaganda: dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion
My words:
"Propaganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t - with the intention of influencing others opinions (unwritten but implied)"
Which falls within the category of facts and, half-truths. Using different words but the same meaning.
Once again we have someone who is nit picking because the sentence, while having the same meaning, isn't word for word identical to the definition set out in some English dictionary.
I could have put it another way
"Propaganda by definition is the careful selection of facts and half-truths to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t - with the intention of influencing others opinions[/I]"
By using the words "Propaganda by definition..." I am referring to the actions of taken and not intending to restate the definition from some authoritative source. But perhaps that's was too subtle for you to interpret - or you're just bored looking to argue for the sake of it.
duncangr wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
duncangr wrote
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=web
Propoganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t.
However, it is simply dead wrong to say that what defines “propaganda” is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
Propaganda often relies on lies and and disinformation, not facts. In fact, this is the most common sort of propaganda, and its object is to incite emotions on the basis of untrue and inflammatory claims. In fact, quite often it is based on...Show more →
Who said anything about "the core definition" - stop putting words in that weren't there.
Well lets pick one definition e.g. Brittanica:
propaganda: dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion
My words:
"Propaganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t - with the intention of influencing others opinions (unwritten but implied)"
Which falls within the category of facts and, half-truths. Using different words but the same meaning.
Once again we have someone who is nit picking because the sentence, while having the same meaning, isn't word for word identical to the definition set out in some English dictionary.
I could have put it another way
"Propaganda by definition is the careful selection of facts and half-truths to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t - with the intention of influencing others opinions[/I]"
By using the words "Propaganda by definition..." I am referring to the actions of taken and not intending to restate the definition from some authoritative source. But perhaps that's was too subtle for you to interpret - or you're just bored looking to argue for the sake of it.
Jul 12, 2026 at 03:28 PM
p.4 #15The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
Just for clarification, what did you want from the a7V and a7rVI to be considered "grand slams"? As in what did they miss for you, keeping in mind that most would say these models are not the "flagship" models of the brand.
Jul 12, 2026 at 03:46 PM
p.4 #16The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
duncangr wrote:
No. It isn’t. ;-)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=webDifferent words, same meaning. Of course in some cases it may all be lies and no facts.
Propoganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t.One of the many techniques used in propaganda may be the misleading presentation of facts in a dishonest or incomplete context and/or to attempt to steer people to incorrect interpretations.
However, it is simply dead wrong to say that what defines “propaganda” is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
Propaganda often relies on lies and and disinformation, not facts. In fact, this is the most common sort of propaganda, and its object is to incite emotions on the basis of untrue and inflammatory claims. In fact, quite often it is based on nothing at all but untrue statements or visual representations that inflame existing biases. Look at how propaganda portrays enemies, whether they be countries or other groups.
Show me any authoritative source that states that the core definition of propaganda is as you say.Who said anything about "the core definition" - stop putting words in that weren't there.
Well lets pick one definition e.g. Brittanica:
propaganda: dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion
My words:
"Propaganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t - with the intention of influencing others opinions (unwritten but implied)"
Which falls within the category of facts and, half-truths. Using different words but the same meaning.
Once again we have someone who is nit picking because the sentence, while having the same meaning, isn't word for...Show more →
This is becoming a much better definition of propaganda as it highlights the central role of intention. For the sharing of information to be propaganda the intention of the person sharing the information is highly important. Someone trying to be fair and unbiased even if they are not being so (and rarely is anyone really fair and unbiased) is not engaging in propaganda. Someone who highlights some facts and not others may be only intending to share the most relevant information and would not be engaging in propaganda even if what they are sharing is misinformation and totally wrong. It isn't helpful to provide that information, but it isn't propaganda.
The problem as I see it in this discussion is that I don't think the OP was doing anything other than trying to share good/accurate/unbiased information. (I'm not sure they did that, but I don't see evidence it wasn't their intention, however). I want to give them the benefit of the doubt on that, so I don't think they were engaging in propaganda.
We need to distinguish between well intentioned people who just get it wrong and people with an agenda who are trying to get it wrong to whip up support for something. We all to varying degrees do the first thing, which is normal and we should have patience with each other if that is all that is happening. The second thing, however, is propaganda and the difference between these two lies in people's intentions. Intentions definitely matter, but it isn't always easy to identify people's intentions especially on the internet, so in my view we should wait until there is pretty strong evidence about intentions before we start suggesting that people are engaging in propaganda.
gdanmitchell wrote
duncangr wrote
gdanmitchell wrote
duncangr wrote
The definition of propaganda is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.https://duckduckgo.com/?q=definition+of+propaganda&t=ipad&ia=web
Propoganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t.
However, it is simply dead wrong to say that what defines “propaganda” is picking the easily proven facts that support the narrative while intentionally ignoring those that don't.
Propaganda often relies on lies and and disinformation, not facts. In fact, this is the most common sort of propaganda, and its object is to incite emotions on the basis of untrue and inflammatory claims. In fact, quite often it is based on nothing at all but untrue statements or visual representations that inflame existing biases. Look at how propaganda portrays enemies, whether they be countries or other groups.
Show me any authoritative source that states that the core definition of propaganda is as you say.
Well lets pick one definition e.g. Brittanica:
propaganda: dissemination of information—facts, arguments, rumours, half-truths, or lies—to influence public opinion
My words:
"Propaganda by definition is the careful selection of easily verifiable facts to support ones narrative while intentionally omitting the facts that don’t - with the intention of influencing others opinions (unwritten but implied)"
Which falls within the category of facts and, half-truths. Using different words but the same meaning.
Once again we have someone who is nit picking because the sentence, while having the same meaning, isn't word for...Show more →
This is becoming a much better definition of propaganda as it highlights the central role of intention. For the sharing of information to be propaganda the intention of the person sharing the information is highly important. Someone trying to be fair and unbiased even if they are not being so (and rarely is anyone really fair and unbiased) is not engaging in propaganda. Someone who highlights some facts and not others may be only intending to share the most relevant information and would not be engaging in propaganda even if what they are sharing is misinformation and totally wrong. It isn't helpful to provide that information, but it isn't propaganda.
The problem as I see it in this discussion is that I don't think the OP was doing anything other than trying to share good/accurate/unbiased information. (I'm not sure they did that, but I don't see evidence it wasn't their intention, however). I want to give them the benefit of the doubt on that, so I don't think they were engaging in propaganda.
We need to distinguish between well intentioned people who just get it wrong and people with an agenda who are trying to get it wrong to whip up support for something. We all to varying degrees do the first thing, which is normal and we should have patience with each other if that is all that is happening. The second thing, however, is propaganda and the difference between these two lies in people's intentions. Intentions definitely matter, but it isn't always easy to identify people's intentions especially on the internet, so in my view we should wait until there is pretty strong evidence about intentions before we start suggesting that people are engaging in propaganda.
Jul 12, 2026 at 03:47 PM
p.4 #17The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
The term “propaganda,” as used in this thread is a loaded term, intended to devalue the perspective of the person offering the information that the person using the term doesn’t like. It is a term that has a lot of pretty nasty connotations, and I don’t think it should be tossed around lightly.
The person who “went there” might be better off at least simply stating that they disagree with the information presented without resorting to the insulting characterization or insinuation as to motive.
They might also take a step back and look up some actual definitions of this term.
I’m done arguing with this person, since he refuses to look past his limiting and incorrect notions about the word. The point has been made.
The person who “went there” might be better off at least simply stating that they disagree with the information presented without resorting to the insulting characterization or insinuation as to motive.
They might also take a step back and look up some actual definitions of this term.
I’m done arguing with this person, since he refuses to look past his limiting and incorrect notions about the word. The point has been made.
Jul 12, 2026 at 08:24 PM
p.4 #18The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
All the Camera company's have different problems tbh.
DWOfPaul wrote:
Take, for instance, the 200-600mm f6.3, which changed the game for telephoto zooms, but has high focus breathing or the 400-800mm f8 that hits a lot of the right marks but then seems to suffer from high sample variation.
In my opinion, what Sony got right with the 200–600 is the short zoom throw and how the lens is sufficiently parfocal that autofocus remains locked while quickly zooming from 200mm to 600mm. Other lenses, like the 100-400GM v1 are not parfocal, and will lose focus when you zoom.
What could be better is the weight distribution, which is optimized more for gimbal use than handheld shooting. The autofocus motor is also not as fast as those in the 70–200mm GM II or the 400–800mm. Frankly the focus breathing thing is a very small issue.
Canon has the worst 200-800 imo. It randomly snaps in half, even if it has not been dropped. This makes the lens impossible to recommend.
* https://petapixel.com/2025/04/08/a-1900-canon-lens-is-breaking-in-two-for-some-photographers/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/1q0v98w/canon_rf_200800_split_in_half_design_flaw/
DWOfPaul wrote:
Take, for instance, the 200-600mm f6.3, which changed the game for telephoto zooms, but has high focus breathing or the 400-800mm f8 that hits a lot of the right marks but then seems to suffer from high sample variation.
In my opinion, what Sony got right with the 200–600 is the short zoom throw and how the lens is sufficiently parfocal that autofocus remains locked while quickly zooming from 200mm to 600mm. Other lenses, like the 100-400GM v1 are not parfocal, and will lose focus when you zoom.
What could be better is the weight distribution, which is optimized more for gimbal use than handheld shooting. The autofocus motor is also not as fast as those in the 70–200mm GM II or the 400–800mm. Frankly the focus breathing thing is a very small issue.
Canon has the worst 200-800 imo. It randomly snaps in half, even if it has not been dropped. This makes the lens impossible to recommend.
* https://petapixel.com/2025/04/08/a-1900-canon-lens-is-breaking-in-two-for-some-photographers/
* https://www.reddit.com/r/canon/comments/1q0v98w/canon_rf_200800_split_in_half_design_flaw/
Jul 12, 2026 at 09:42 PM
p.4 #19The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
gdanmitchell wrote:
One of the many techniques used in propaganda may be the misleading presentation of facts in a dishonest or incomplete context and/or to attempt to steer people to incorrect interpretations.
Use of the word "may be" (especially boldfaced) instead of "is" sounds like downplaying and redirect and "propaganda".
One of the many techniques used in propaganda may be the misleading presentation of facts in a dishonest or incomplete context and/or to attempt to steer people to incorrect interpretations.
Use of the word "may be" (especially boldfaced) instead of "is" sounds like downplaying and redirect and "propaganda".
Jul 12, 2026 at 10:05 PM
p.4 #20The Sony conundrum awesome tech with rough edges and high prices?
nhmorgan wrote:
The electronic shutter negates the dynamic range advantage anyway because that DR advantage only comes when using mechanical shutter. However, the ES DR is still very good. The max 1/8000 shutter speed with ES is a genuine puzzle for me since that seems to be artificially placed on the sensor to maintain segmentation. That sensor should be capable of a faster ES top speed. Shooters are going to hit that with 1.2 lenses in daytime conditions especially with the base ISO of 100.
I think you raise some valid points. I use a variety of brands and the Sony is...Show more →
I have the A7V and only use the electronic shutter. My eyes were opened by the Sigma BF. The Sigma BF has a 20ms readout, the A7V has a 13.8ms readout and I have never noticed banding, although of course it could exist under certain circumstances. Moving on to dynamic range, I have heared this mentioned many times, but I notice no difference in recovering highlights or lowlights between mechanical and electronic shutter. The advantages of the electronic shutter, including noise, speed (with recovery), shutter shock and longevity make it a permanent part of my photography now
Edited on Jul 16, 2026 at 05:57 AM · View previous versions
The electronic shutter negates the dynamic range advantage anyway because that DR advantage only comes when using mechanical shutter. However, the ES DR is still very good. The max 1/8000 shutter speed with ES is a genuine puzzle for me since that seems to be artificially placed on the sensor to maintain segmentation. That sensor should be capable of a faster ES top speed. Shooters are going to hit that with 1.2 lenses in daytime conditions especially with the base ISO of 100.
I think you raise some valid points. I use a variety of brands and the Sony is...Show more →
I have the A7V and only use the electronic shutter. My eyes were opened by the Sigma BF. The Sigma BF has a 20ms readout, the A7V has a 13.8ms readout and I have never noticed banding, although of course it could exist under certain circumstances. Moving on to dynamic range, I have heared this mentioned many times, but I notice no difference in recovering highlights or lowlights between mechanical and electronic shutter. The advantages of the electronic shutter, including noise, speed (with recovery), shutter shock and longevity make it a permanent part of my photography now
Edited on Jul 16, 2026 at 05:57 AM · View previous versions
Jul 12, 2026 at 10:49 PM