>>4532622
Lmao
What a retarded request.
Cool shape, though.

>>4532623
What's so retarded about it, never heard about people having a hobby?

You could have just googled it. Nobody has this camera
https://photo.yodobashi.com/sigma/imp/sdqh_e.html

>>4532622
You think they'll drop a full frame foveon sensor soon?

>>4532624
I'm not going to explain to a retard why he is retarded. That seems pretty futile.

>>4532627
To be honest I'm not sure. Sigma itself advertise aps-h foveon x3 as medium format or full frame if I'm not mistaken, all because of it's construction
>>4532630
Good.

>>4532622
Sigma makes the coolest cameras.

>>4532622
Welcome to /p, please use the gear thread.

>>4532622
Welcome to /p/

Filter half the gear thread
https://pastebin.com/diHque73

>>4532638
Their L-mount cameras have been pretty retarded, but I can forgive them if they deliver one with a foveon sensor. I want to like the BF, because I get it, but the lack of removable storage is a no from me.

>>4532661
>installing filters maintained by furcord

>>4532622
Can do with a DP3M in a couple days, maybe tomorrow

>>4532690
Do you have any evidence based JJ Silverman is a furry?

>>4532696
Thanks!

>>4532625
Macro photos with flowers are insane

>>4532625
>>4532729
https://onfotolife.com/camera_sample_photos?camera_id=3184&page=1&iso_min=0&iso_max=65535

Mixed up links

File: 250px-Photo_actor_rathbone2.png (60 KB, 250x250)

60 KB PNG

>>4532630
>I'm not going to explain why I'm projecting
Sounds agreeable to all involved. Run away

>>4532720
Other than his avatar?

>>4532863
>see a pic of a dog (a real life dog)
>instantly think of dog porn (furries)
wtf is wrong with you

>>4532878
>see someone using a dog as his avatar
>this is totally normal (for furcord members like myself)
It's his fursona, he identifies as a dog. If not a furfag then maybe a "therian" (just a furfag in denial)

>>4532898
projecting furfag

File: DP2M0619.jpg (704 KB, 1568x2352)

704 KB JPG

>>4532932 >>4533008

This is from my DP2M. You're right, there's no clouds like foveon clouds.

I would love to get a SD quattro at some point, something about that cameras design really does it for me, but Im also trying not to gearfag too much and I own enough cameras already

>>4532930
Thank you so much! Those clouds look so gorgeous, imagine how good it will look at dusk with all those reds and deep purples. Ofc the trade off is iso 100, so tripod needed

File: DP2M0213.jpg (2.71 MB, 2509x3763)

2.71 MB JPG

>>4532995 >>4533008

>>4532932
My experience has been that the DP2M itself is easy to use, but finicky to get the most out of. If you want color images you really gotta stay close to ISO100, maximum 400, so the tripod is a must often. B&W images also look really nice and there you can increase ISO a bit more as the grain is also quite pleasing.
The biggest pain is editing the images with SPP, which is also a must, at least for the older Merrill models. For the quattro model you can get DNGs straight out of cam I think.
The foveon look is really special though, I love it. Its like the sensor was made for clouds, foliage and other scenes rich in detail, where the microcontrast can shine.

File: DP2M0636.jpg (4.2 MB, 3763x2509)

4.2 MB JPG

>>4533008 >>4533444

>>4532932
>>4532994
Ill post some more photos for you

File: DP2M0430.jpg (2.75 MB, 3763x1389)

2.75 MB JPG

Last one for now

>>4532994
Yup, in >>4532930 you can see green lines, so iso 100 is a must.
>>4532995
Omg, it looks so beautiful, colors are so rich! Imagine, how those clouds would look like from high altitude
>>4532996
Personally, not a fan of B&W photos, I really love colors
>>4533001
Looks like cinema, add gnomes walking around xd

Thank you for the photos!

>>4533008
Fun thing about Foveon, if you pixel peep it looks like pixel art sometimes. That's because there's no demosaicing to steal detail from the picture. It's basically an instant trichrome image. Also why it does great as a monochrome camera too.

I've been waiting so much for a full-frame foveon, man

>>4533002
That's really nice, very sharp. I bought a Ricoh GR IV Monochrome, it looks similar.

On the color side, I have a used Fuji X Half toy camera on the way, the noisy little 1" sensor plus film simulations really do give it a decent film look.

>>4532995
looks like AI shit sadly. That's the problem with digital. the better it is the faker it looks.

What are some good FOVEON models? Or they are all pretty similar if you are fine shooting at ISO100 only.

>>4533447
SD1 Merrill
I wish I could convert it to EF but I bet I'd just break a flex cable worth more than the camera trying.

>>4533691
Why is that? Because SLR?

>>4533691
You have never owned or used that camera.
>>4533447
Just get whatever one looks cool.

>>4534272
That and it being full resolution Foveon (quattro gets its name from having lower resolution in the red and green channels, 1 pixel of each per 4 blue ones to improve noise performance) and the hot mirror is removable so you can shoot IR if you want without modding the camera.

>>4534276
You don't buy a Foveon because it looks cool, you buy it because the photos look cool. It's the opposite of fujisluggery (I personally don't think they look cool though and really like the Sigmas but that's unrelated to the reason for getting one)

>>4534452
You have never used a fuji or a sigma so what do you know? You've never even posted an original photograph
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/username/cANON/filter/text/

File: 28424 - SoyBooru - Copy.png (123 KB, 527x611)

123 KB PNG

>>4534596 >>4535045

>>4534452

>>4534502
>The coal that is killing the party
This is why we can't have nice things

>>4534502
>'ru dust on obsessed gearcaca thread
do nuswas really??

>>4535045
He switched to this after desperately trying to get people to download `p

File: Untitled-1.jpg (132 KB, 1589x439)

132 KB JPG

>>4535218

>>4535053
Who switched from what and when?

>>4535180
Clamstaples did

>>4534475
>You've never even posted an original photograph
Every opinion of cANON's eternally debunked

>>4535247
I posted one of my originals again a couple days ago but did it as anon, it was even praised. Had I posted it as cANON or had you recognized it, you'd have trashed it. You hate me because I break the faux-anon circlejerk and you feel you can't compete.

>>4535286
my photos, too, go to another school

>>4535305
If you were a tiny bit honest you'd simply admit you're making shit up when you say I've never posted an original photo. It's impossible that such an obsessive stalker missed it. Now that the dust has settled, perhaps the truth can be realized: you never cared about my photography, you only cared about the things I said which offend you greatly. Even if you deny it. You ask for photos for three reasons: drama, giving fraudulent criticism and trying to get personal information to advance your agenda. There's a reason Eglin AFB has a suicide epidemic.

File: 1787583536251650.jpg (2.85 MB, 6000x3887)

2.85 MB JPG

>>4535317

>>4535307
mentall illness
seek help
https://screening.mhanational.org/screening-tools/psychosis/
https://psychology.com/tests/psychosis-risk

>>4535312
>gaslighting
You implied you've seen every one of my posts when you say I never posted an original cANON, yet you refuse to acknowledge I posted an original cANON just over a week ago as anon. One that I had posted twice as cANON, same filename and all. So you're either dishonest about me posting originals, or you really suck at surveilling me. Those nicotine pouches aren't good for your health BTW.

>>4535317
>my good photos go to another school i'm heccin published
>zyn chewing glowies are gangstalking my cat
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5888735/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10919765/

>>4535317
Why not just post a photo here. Now. In response to this discussion. Literally just post a photo right now and save yourself another nine paragraphs.

File: Lynch_Cannes.jpg (24 KB, 250x377)

24 KB JPG

>>4535334

>>4535322
I'm not going to do my stalker's job for him, let him take a deep dive into the archives if he so desires. I even gave him a timeframe. Another clue here.

>>4535325
Delusion of grandeur

>>4535334
If you claim someone "has never posted an original photo" you're implying you've seen every one of their posts. So either he saw the photos and is lying, or didn't see all of my posts and is making baseless claims without evidence. You be the judge.
All my photos that I post on this board haven't been uploaded anywhere else btw.

>>4535338
You literally think this photo that goes to another school is so amazing and distinctly yours that people would instantly know it. That people care so much about you they mentally catalog your usual subjects and locations. That you have a stalker from a federal agency.

This is absurd.

There are stalkers on 4chan, like that tripfag cinefag who has a bestiality fetish and develops obsessive relationships with people who own dogs he finds attracts. But even autistic freaks like him can't look at a photo in /rpt/ and go "ah, this must be corgihusky".

But you? No one cares about you at all. You're just an annoying tripfag that (re, re, re, re)posts hot gear takes that go against all established/proven knowledge and essentially say the entire world is in the wrong, but you never post photos except for really terrible gear tests that range from botched to invalid and irrelevant for being done so poorly with such outdated low-end gear.

>>4535340
>You literally think this photo that goes to another school is so amazing and distinctly yours that people would instantly know it.
No, I think you would know it if you are confident enough to say I've never posted an original photo.
>That people care so much about you they mentally catalog
Someone made a collage with some of my pictures a while ago to "expose me"
>There are stalkers on 4chan
Yeah no shit, like huskyfag the glowie
>But you? No one cares about you at all.
You post a lot about me for not caring at all
>You're just an annoying tripfag that (re, re, re, re)posts hot gear takes that go against all established/proven knowledge and essentially say the entire world is in the wrong, but you never post photos except for really terrible gear tests that range from botched to invalid and irrelevant for being done so poorly with such outdated low-end gear.
You keep proving me right every time you attempt to prove me wrong. The latest is the cheetah. It isn't proof that reach doesn't matter, in fact without a 700mm both pictures would have less detail. The argument was pixels on target which incidentally is the same argument for denser sensors.

>>4535344
>Random anonymous is glowie
>Random anonymous is exactly the last person that explained why I was stupid
>I'm being gangstalked
das rite i'm /\mbush Huskyfag, a dog farmer from Bristol, and I endorse buying a nikon and zooming in on 8x10 film.

>>4535344
Less post makey more meds takey
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3188774/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/481713
https://www.brightquest.com/schizophrenia/recognizing-the-prodromal-symptoms-of-schizophrenia/

>>4535344
>someone tried to show me that the point of crop sensors is tighter framing instead of pixel peeping shit thats obscured by 1000m of heat shimmer and out of focus grass, and that getting closer with skill, not buying a canon 90d, always results in better wildlife photos
>i am traumatized by this
>-cANON

>>4535353
>the point of crop sensors is tighter framing
That's retarded, you can always crop from full frame or even use a teleconverter.

>>4535357
If only that crop were higher resolution

Not to "reach" and zoom in on some heat shimmer/generally obscured, blurry, dim subject
But to see more of what you're already close to

>>4535362
>If only that crop were higher resolution
>But to see more of what you're already close to
That's reach with other words, you're agreeing with me.
The Saturn shot is just proof of the same concept.

>>4535366
It's not mere reach, it's reach used properly.

The most important part about "theories" of camera oepration is applying them correctly.
>The saturn shot
You never had a saturn shot. You had a blurry dot.

>>4535377
Some blurry dot with rings, strangest blurry dot ever ))))
Just take the L dude, at any point where your subject doesn't cover 2/3rds of the frame in either direction you benefit from a denser crop sensor. If you need to go wider you benefit from full frame. It's not rocket science but you keep making me explain it in different ways and you still don't get it.

>>4535443
>get closer to my subject?
>use a more powerful wider aperture lens, such as a telescope, for astronomy?
>no i need to buy a whole other camera
>only buying new cameras can solve problems
You lack skill
You are unable to think with context
You are basically an NPC not unlike a vibe coding leftard

File: cOWNON.jpg (480 KB, 1000x667)

480 KB JPG

>>4535476

>>4535443
>i dont need to get closer i just need more megapixels so i can crop!
Here's the results you got before you stopped taking photos and dedicated yourself to arguing for a basic theory taken out of context

Getting closer gathers more light, improves detail resolution and color rendition, and cuts atmospheric shimmer and haze. It doesn't matter how dense your pixels are, if your lens can't resolve them, and it doesn't matter how good your camera and lens are, if you're not close enough to your subject to get a good photo.

>>4535467
>only buying new cameras can solve problems
I never said this. What I said is a denser sensor boosts reach from your optics. And the cameras with denser sensors can be had for less than a telescope. You shill full frame for religious-adjacent reasons, not rational ones.
>>4535468
>reeeeee how dare you take snapshits with a long lens at 90km/h, I don't consent!!!!!
The biggest problem there wasn't atmospheric haze, it was speed and tinted glass.

>>4535476
>just make your $1000 90d a p1000 bro. crop your cropped crop for reach.

>>4535493
You're already cropping to get Saturn to fill that much of the EOS RP frame in that picture you posted

>>4535499
Of the composite frame I should say. There would be a lot more detail with a 90D

>>4535500
There would be more detail with a 90d and the same lens, but in your hands? No

Pixel pitch isn't a replacement for quality large aperture optics. They work in concert. And in terrestrial photography, you're better off getting closer and treating "reach" as access to tighter framing, not the longer distance implied by the word "reach".

>I am forgotten
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5LnwYkYpUU

>>4535898
>no foveon sensor

>>4535557
You're just coping lol. Take the far picture with a 90D and the same settings and there's an automatic improvement. This is science, not opinion.

>>4535929
Ah the ol' smaller sensor is better lie the retards tell themselves whenever it suits their argument. Never gets old.

File: images.png (4 KB, 225x225)

4 KB PNG

>>4535931
Not the smaller sensor, the denser sensor. If it were an 80MP full frame it'd be the same thing. But keep arguing against your made-up positions you pretend others hold.

>>4535929
Its not reach, its magnification. Distance sucks. The further away something is the more haze and heat shimmer fuck it up and the dimmer it gets. Your megapixels dont matter. You’re just pixel peeping blurry detail and turning your nice camera into a shitty bridge camera.

Megapixel faggotry = bad photography

>>4535935
>resolution is... le bad!!!
This is farther away (640mm equiv, vs Clark's 910mm equiv and the subjects are smaller relative to the frame), with a shorter lens (400mm), a tighter aperture (f/7.1) and much higher ISO (640) and it still looks better than both of Clark's pictures. Sharper and more detailed.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/wendycoops224/53600559224/
>haze and heat shimmer
That really depends on how far you're pushing it. If the heat of the savannah isn't enough at these distances to cause it, then it's obvious it's not far enough to be an issue.

File: _P2M0859.jpg (4.35 MB, 4704x3136)

4.35 MB JPG

>>4535949 >>4536044 >>4536046

>>4533447
after owning a DP2M, SD Quattro, and SD1M id say either go for the shitty Merrils or wait hope and pray that the newly developed Foveon looks good.

anyone looking to take pictures with these things needs to realise to get the best out of them, the RAW file type is X3F, and the proprietary Sigma software is old bad, but if the picture is exposed right you won't really want to edit it at all.

if you are after that "foveon" look i really dont think anything other than the DP Merill series gives that, shame they are now £500 but you can hook up an external battery and fix that issue.

File: _P2M0824.jpg (4.71 MB, 4704x3136)

4.71 MB JPG

>>4536046

>>4535948
I meant the issue of the shite little 20 shot batteries (requiring you to carry half a dozen)

here is my contribution of cloud pictures

please continue the bickering, I personally like a good lens and a good sensor

>>4535936
Gearfag pixel peeper babble

All i know is you posted a link to an overcooked photo with fucked contrast. There’s no replacement for closer camera placement.

>>4535956
You just posted cope for your photon measurebation content getting btfo by facts

>>4535965
So an all things being equal test is btfo by different lighting and different settings where the colors are still dull af just like in all your blurry cow photos?

Furry porn has melted your brain

>>4535970
>all things being equal test
Except it wasn't, the subject fills most of the frame in the second one.
>different settings
Yes, disadvantageous to the 90D. Less light.
>where the colors are still dull af
Grasping at straws and the reason could easily be editing choices.
>just like in all your blurry cow photos
All one (1) of them?
>Furry porn has melted your brain
So now you're talking to yourself

Facts of the matter are, with greater reach comes greater detail, sometimes even standing a bit farther away.

>>4536020
The test was meant to show that all things being equal, closer subjects expose brighter with better color and detail

Which it did

What you call reach is more like magnification for us PHOTOGRAPHERS
creepy furfags doing voyeurism need not subscribe

File: Antique-Rose5-7.jpg (100 KB, 410x527)

100 KB JPG

>>4532622
>Foveon
I'm sure these sensors are unique and all but I'm not sure you can't achieve similar results with Bayer digital cameras and a RAW editor. (If you told me the pics in these thread actually weren't taken with Foveon, I'd believe you - these pics don't tell me these cameras are anything special.) I'd prefer doing that instead since Foveon sucks above ISO 100 and it's pretty hard/impossible to adapt lenses to the Sigma Foveon system.

>>4536031
I guess I better sell my 70-200, literally no point when I have a 24-70. And sell the 24-70 for a 14-24 while at it. cANON is an annoying tripfag but you're being a complete retard and validating him. Stop helping him ruin /p/.

>>4536037
Your 70-200 f2.8 has a larger aperture than any of those
The point is its wasted if you rely on megapixels to crop and pixel peep “more detail” instead of taking a good photo

Megapixel autism is sony coded l

>>4536039
>Your 70-200 f2.8 has a larger aperture than any of those
Yes, but getting closer means the others will collect more light and therefore be more detailed. They're f/2.8 too.

>>4535948
Thanks for being on topic. The namefaggot talking to himself about nonsense no one cares about for 60% of the replies really killed this thread.

>>4536042
We’re talking about some tripfag retard that never shuts up about cropping his 90d+400mm to 4mp here don’t be autistic

His photos look like total fucking shit

>>4535948
>>4535949
Very impressive for APS-C.

>>4536045
>don’t be autistic
You're the one autismaxxing this thread
It's KC tier

>>4536031
It was meant as a smelly red herring that has nothing to do with the topic at hand
>>4536037
It's just distilled contrarianism from a hater. At least you have the maturity to admit I'm right about this even if you find me annoying.
I'm not ruining /p/.
>>4536039
Point is sometimes those megapixels improve your photo.
>>4536045
I don't have a 90D and never spoke of "cropping to 4mp". My argument was always that you get better image quality of a subject that fills an APS-C or smaller area of a FF sensor if you use a denser APS-C sensor than if you use the FF.
You react emotionally to this statement because you're emotionally invested in the idea of your camera being the best for everything. So you make up garbage claims like " you only enlarge aberrations" even though the proof is everywhere that most lenses are good enough to extract extra detail from with a dense sensor.

File: DSCF5059.jpg (4.63 MB, 3606x5409)

4.63 MB JPG

>>4536091 >>4536171

>>4536085
>I'm not ruining /p/.
Yes, you are.

>>4536086
This is like digital film, based Sigma

>>4536085
Lol look at this wall of schizophrenic garbage

Being filtered really turned up the meltie factor and when people found out you were a furry you’ve been in a full fledged panic. Why not just own it?
>why yes, i am dropping my trip so you can’t filter me.
>why yes, i am a furry. tfw no gsd dogwife. problem, humanfuckers?
>-cANON if he weren’t a bitch

File: file.png (1.93 MB, 1280x1280)

1.93 MB PNG

3CCD camera construction. Ohhhh, I would like to see how this will do with 3 cmos full specter monochrome sensors. I also looked up how much they priced, very expensive, ans this is just the same sensor but without bayer filter

File: gigachad-clown.gif (118 KB, 459x498)

118 KB GIF

>>4536139 >>4536146

>>4536104
>become a furfag to own the libs

>>4536133
You're already a furfag

We found your photos from the belarussian furry meets and you went into maximum panic mode

You were even using your usual camera (some sort of 1dx)

>>4536139
You went on some furfag site, looked for some furfags from Belarus and accused me of being one of them. Flimsier premise than Iran having a nuke. Why should anyone entertain your compulsive lying?

>>4536141
And it sent you into a panic

>>4536141
>thats just some random furfag that has my camera and looks like me and is a furry like me and i seethed about ukranians in /hmofa/ when /p/ found out i used to hang out with them >:( the jews did this!
kek

>>4536133
>>4536139
>>4536141
>>4536143
>>4536144
Guys, can you fuck off from this thread? I created it to discuss non standard types of sensors. Cmon. you only wiping this channel with offtop nonsense

File: DSCF5052.jpg (4.54 MB, 6182x4121)

4.54 MB JPG

>>4536151

>>4536091
Thanks. Shot on Fujifilm X-H2 with XF90 f/2. SOOC JPEG.
I'm glad you enjoy the superb quality of those Fuji files.

Man you're retarded. Stop posting.

>>4536147
Thank you for confirming why foveon never fucking went anywhere

Not only did sigma's purchase totally kill all R&D (high tech's worst fate is being bought by a small incompetent company like sigma or panasonic), the benefits it provided were only perceptible to extreme pixel peepers and "color science" schizos who freely hallucinate their confirmation bias

File: _P2M0661.jpg (4.67 MB, 4582x3055)

4.67 MB JPG

>>4536159 >>4536160

>>4536046
honestly the DP2M has absolutely fuckall features and is terrible to use but takes great pictures, the closest thing I can find to its sharpness and weird colour processing is some digital medium format stuff

im a sucker for that awful mustard yellow tinge which i can only put down to the way the sensor is setup and the wavelength differences

>>4536044
at least they arent using the file limit and keep bumping the thread up

>>4536156
This could be mistaken for any other camera with a shitty global color edit desu

File: _P2M0781.jpg (4.73 MB, 4704x3136)

4.73 MB JPG

>>4536156
its a bit like im talking to myself but if anyone cares they can take really nice monochrome too, was the main reason i got it because colour is usually so shit on digital i was surprised by how much i liked and used it

File: SDQ_1176.jpg (3.65 MB, 5424x2328)

3.65 MB JPG

>>4536164

>>4536159
yeah if u could namedrop any that would be good, inb4 iphone photographer

this one is more on-topic and was taken with the quattro, the crop settings made for some fun sometimes but I really feel it struggles without a god-tier lens (of which there are few I want to spend money on getting in L mount)

File: Untitled.png (71 KB, 686x1441)

71 KB PNG

>>4536167 >>4536170

>>4536161
Literally any. Sharp photos at 4582x3055 (13mp) and ISOs <400 is nothing. Mathematically a mono/foveon sensor is only 1.5x sharper than bayer so any camera with at least 20mp could get the same crispness, and the colors are literally nothing special since every program worth using has a tool like this

Trying to buy looks in digital photography is completely stupid. The only thing that stands out is the lens (lens coatings add a heavy, color-filtering tint) and maybe how it handles colors under shitty LEDs and other peaky light sources (which varies so much camera to camera there is no hard and fast rule ie "this type of sensor is more better")

You could very well buy a sony a7r (1st gen) and convince /p/ you had a fuji, a d810, a canon 5d, a micro four thirds, and a foveon by changing the filenames and using edits that correlated with what /p/ expects from those brands

>>4536164
It's beyond sharp. There's no demosaicing. You'd have to do trichromes with a monochrome camera to come close to it.

>>4536167
Unironically wrong.

There's no difference from downscaling properly sharpened 20-24mp bayer besides philosophical purity faggotry that crumbles into a crying mess when it encounters the great stumbling block
>yah, but its a file on a computer, it's fake af anyways shoot film fag
>B-B__B_B_B_B_BBBBBBUT----BUT THE OVF AND THE DEMOSAICING AND THE ALGORITHMS AND....
>Jpeg means probably AI sorry fag

File: _P2M0766.jpg (4.74 MB, 4704x3136)

4.74 MB JPG

>>4536172

>>4536164
congrats on your captureone subscription, goy

if you could show an example that would be great because ive not seen anything comparable anywhere else online

>>4536167
>Its beyond sharp
Yet you mistook a SOOC jpeg from a FUJI for foveon
>>4536086
>>4536091

the resolution relationship checks out

3/4 scale xtrans=bayer sharp
3/4 scale bayer=foveon sharp

1/2 scale xtrans=foveon sharp

>>4536170
Perpetual license since 16.5, fag
>thinking that pic is unobtainable sharpness
You would have to pixel peep very hard, 100% scale file to 100% scale file with all processing off, to convince anyone there was a difference

There's nothing special without looking at individual pixels

File: _P2M0476.jpg (4.43 MB, 4704x3136)

4.43 MB JPG

>>4536181

>>4536172
im finding it really hard to follow this message I dont know if this is a concession or just babble

could you not consider that people might just like the processing of certain cameras and like the creative ease of having a certain look come straight from the camera?

youre kinda throwing out buzzwords that nobody is really talking about, all i was asking is if you could genuinely give an example because i dont feel anyone has achieved convincing images and colour solutions to what i get from the DP2M

>>4536171
That Fuji image was captured with a 135mm equivalent focal length, handheld at 1/125 of a second, ISO 320 and with added film grain.
If the most autistic nigga on /p/ can't tell a quick Fuji snap from artistic Foveon captures then what's the point of all this gearfaggotry?

>>4536168
>>4536171
>Yet you mistook a SOOC jpeg from a FUJI for foveon
I knew it was a Fuji, you even forgot to change the filename. Really telling that you have to downscale from 100MP to get that result. A friend of mine actually had a foveon and sent me samples now and then, they looked like pixel art when you peeped hard at high contrast fine detail. Maybe you could reproduce that with 100MP if you tried hard enough but I suspect the inherent softness from demosaicing will be your undoing. And that still does nothing with the rich Foveon colors. Especially with things that are tough on CFAs like fluo vests.
So congrats, all it took me for you to take off the mask was playing dumb.

File: 5dlol.jpg (4.18 MB, 4704x3136)

4.18 MB JPG

>>4536185 >>4536192 >>4536212

>>4536174
>i pay corporations and ebay scalpers money so i dont have to spend 5 minutes making a preset
Sharpness looks like a 5d2 except at the most extreme levels of pixel peeping, anything aps-c to ff with modern raw editing latitude (maybe not an ancient 5d2) could mimic this easily

If you told me it was your fuji's film sim or an anti-rockwell lightroom preset for your nikon I'd believe you

gearfaggotry is retarded

>>4536177
>when peeping hard <-mark of the retard
>you need 100mp to reproduce a 13mp camera <-confirmation
>rich foveon colors <-foveon stagnated because of the opposite - the blue and red channels receive less information

>>4536181
>Sharpness
Limited by the lens not the sensor in that case. I have seen the raws from a foveon with a good lens and they're amazing.

File: DSCF4920.jpg (4.82 MB, 5213x1924)

4.82 MB JPG

>>4536177
>you
None of these posts were by (me).
>you even forgot to change the filename
Nigga I'm only posting my afternoon walk around the block snaps at random. This one is very heavily cropped and grain made it look like shit. Don't mistake it for that famous Foveon "pixel art" like quality.
Turn off the computer and touch grass.

File: SDQ_1242.jpg (3.41 MB, 4480x3616)

3.41 MB JPG

>>4536194

>>4536181
you could have just said youre unable to, not really sure what your image is looking to prove either and not really sure what the subject or idea behind it is unfortunately....

this really isnt expensive equipment, maybe make a leica hate thread or something to make you feel a bit better?

>>4536185
It's a digital camera. It's just math. The photo is fake, a mathematical simulation of a photo, at its most fundamental.

The only difference between a layered RGB pixel and binning 4 RGBG to one RGB is the properly binned one has a better SNR for R and B and can use the extra G for luminance info, but practically, modern demosaicing algorithms are so good 3/4 scaled bayer is every bit as sharp as a theoretical foveon with the same resolution except for people who zoom in 500% (so no one who matters). 1/2 scale fuji jpegs and 3/4 scale fuji raws (properly processed) too.

>>4536192
>uhm, i'm an artiste, this isn't up to my standards
your cut off, green tinted boat park lot was very artful oui oui

pixel peepers cop out quick

>>4536193
Nice theorycrafting but in reality they're different things. You could compare foveon to 3MOS or trichromes.

>>4536194
one dig at your mid photo and you get all defensive... very telling indeed

maybe work on your portfolio this week?

>>4536194
The only artiste is the one depicted in the photo you quoted retard.

>>4536196
The guy thinks a big enough sensor with high mp count is a magic bullet that is better at everything than everything else available. That's the reason to hate Foveon, 90D, MFT and anything that can be better at something. Even if that something is taking (not making) a picture of a distant planet or pixel peeping at 400%. The idea that someone could upscale a Foveon file using nearest neighbor for artistic purposes makes him feel insecure and triggers his neurosis, knowing it wouldn't look as good with his neet life savings camera.

>>4536199
maybe give it a rest for the evening before you embarrass yourself further?

>>4536196
>pixel peeper copping out
You realized your argument from pixel peeping was bunk so now you're trying to pretend to be an art expert kek

>>4536195
yes, different in that binning bayer is actually better

Foveon went nowhere because the only people who care are the worthless individuals that zoom in to scrutinize the individual pixels making up tree branches and sigma's complete lack of expertise resulted in not only the cameras being quite shit, but the sensor tech stagnating so hard it was pre-surpassed by more common and more competently constructed kit. Forever stuck in a proof of concept phase from when it competed with a canon 10D.

>>4536199
Foveon is one case where it genuinely does nothing, at all.

Micro four thirds is generally bad for all photography except for telephoto and macro on a budget and was largely killed by the canon R7 and sony a7c.

A 90D is fine, but you don't know how to use it and hyperfocus on pixel peeping while neglecting what actually matters, resulting in unusable, unidentifiable astro"photography" and hazy, blurry terrestrial snapshits.

>neet life savings camera
Nice projection

When I have a better camera than you, I'm a consoomer. When I have a worse camera than you and still take better photos it's poorfag cope. You are permanently coping. And ironically, a furfag.

>cinefag: self admitted bestiality fantasies
>cANON: actual furfaggot
>moop: tranny chaser
What's with /p/ trips?

File: _P2M0888.jpg (3.44 MB, 4704x3136)

3.44 MB JPG

>>4536209 >>4536213

>>4536202
this guy is getting confused on the anonymous image board, namefagging has damaged your frontal lobe so much that you dont even know who is posting what anymore

facebook group comment section is calling you pal

im here just showing what ive taken with these cameras and your buddy doesnt need a whiteknight to save him from sharing a garbage photo for an attempted "gotcha" moment

>>4536205
>try to argue about gear and pixel peeping
>get told pixel peeping is retarded and every cameras photos look the same
>get photomogged
>cop out forever

>>4536202
Here you were seething at people buying Sigma >>4536181. You are clearly threatened by it.
You keep repeating the furfag accusation but it's only you. You picked a random furfag in Belarus and claimed it was me with no proof.
>Micro four thirds is generally bad for all photography except for telephoto and macro on a budget
Because of sensor reach, you're admitting I'm right.
>largely killed by the canon R7
90D sensor, almost same reach as the best MFT
>a7c
That's just standard 24MP FF and offers nothing special for telephoto or macro, stop saying dumb shit. 60MP FF and 100MP 44x33 come close to the 90D's reach but 44x33 doesn't have a lot of good telephotos available. You could use an adapted EF one and then crop the center for worse results than both the 90D and MFT.

>>4536205
I'm almost certain he's the same sperg who goes around trying to make people think shooting film is pointless because digislugging is so good nowadays. It's some pathological need to validate his choice to bankrupt himself with a camera.

>>4536212
>bla bla bla bla muh pixel peeping
and yet you don't use a pentax q. curious.

>>4536214
If it had an OVF I would.

>>4536213
I just realized gearfaggotry is stupid and you don't need more than a 5d2 except for paid work, while having the advantage of using quality soulful lenses that adapt readily to RF as needed

Hopefully one day you too will stop being a megapixel autist

>>4536217
5D2 pisses me off but it could be used even for some paid work. I prefer 6D or 5D3, more civilized.
I use megapixels as shorthand, because the pixel pitch is fixed for a given sensor size and MP.
When it comes to extreme telephoto lower pitch is always advantageous.
Pixel peeping on Foveon is different. It's about the texture much like looking at a photo up close.

File: SDQ_1228.jpg (4.15 MB, 4480x3616)

4.15 MB JPG

>>4536223 >>4536229

>>4536213
actually funny stuff if it wasnt so poorly argued i think u caught him out too much for a comeback
maybe he will have some character development and find himself a nice pseudonym

dont let him know i sold all my sigma bodies for more than i paid for them

>>4536219
>more repetitive pixel peeper autism from the nophoto nazi furfag
Do you ever get tired of your entire personality being furry porn, literally counting hairs and blades of grass, and low quality snapshots

>>4536221
Based because you scammed pixel peeping gear queers desu

Foveon is a meme. All cameras take the same photos. It doesn't really matter. None of them are special at all.

5d2 chad wins with better photos and the right attitude

Gearfags lose and cANON loses the hardest for being a furry with no photos

>>4536219
>cANON confirmed too dumb to use a 5DII
he needs better live view to take a photo kek

>>4536221
Definitely, something there hit too close to home. He's just repeating himself now because he can't come up with a comeback.
>>4536223
>Based because you scammed pixel peeping gear queers desu
>Foveon is a meme. All cameras take the same photos. It doesn't really matter. None of them are special at all.
>still coping
lmao
Richard B. Merrill won
>>4536225
>better photos
lmao
>>4536228
It's not about live view, it's about questionable ergonomic and setting choices they made. The auto iso option being selectable in manual only for it to show A and be in 400 will never stop being funny to me, as the dial function lock with the power switch. Two things that make you think the thing is broken until you RTFM. Later models are more intuitive. And the 6D has amazing performance for a Canon sensor.

>>4536229
Fug, trip cleared.
>>4536223
>Foveon is a meme
Also this is true but not in the way you think
https://www.sigma-global.com/en/our-community/sein/voice/TheMemeofFoveonandSIGMA/

>>4536229
Auto ISO is a skill issue. Very SNOY coded.
>help me camera. i do not know how to control exposure.

>>4536232
It's not a skill issue when it says one thing and does another. You can argue against using auto ISO, you can't really argue for labeling ISO 400 as "Auto"

ITT foveons biggest fanboy is a nophoto pixel peeper
No wonder it died

>>4536233
Mad cuz bad

>>4536232
You can't be serious.
On modern cameras auto ISO always picks the lowest ISO possible for the chosen shutter speed and aperture. You can then fine tune it with exposure adjustment dial. In this context there is nothing you can do better or faster manually than what camera can do automatically. By fiddling with your settings every time the light changes you're wasting time and missing shots.
>>4536233
>You can argue against using auto ISO
No, you can't argue against using auto ISO.

>>4536237
>No, you can't argue against using auto ISO.
With older Canon cameras, you certainly can. They have analog and digital ISOs, the digital ones trim your DR without really adding any shadow improvement.
And anyways, shooting with a fixed ISO was fine with film and is fine with digital. The worst part is the deception where it tells you it's auto ISO but is actually ISO 400. Some hipster will probably try to spin this as a good thing "it slows you down and makes you think of the shot" or something like that. But it slows you because it gets in the way. And just like that there's a number of counterintuitive choices in the camera's design. With the 5D3 and 6D they got their shit together, 5D2 is basically unfinished.

File: James Whitmore with pipe.jpg (31 KB, 360x450)

31 KB JPG

>>4536241 >>4536244 >>4536257

>cANON posting ALL DAY on /p/ for hours, only stopping to sleep
Does he ever go outside to take photos?

File: cringe larper.jpg (23 KB, 393x508)

23 KB JPG

>>4536236
No anon, mad cuz FAKE. It's ISO 400 larping as auto ISO.

>>4536239
It's caturday

>>4536232
If you can get usable exposures automatically than knowing how to do everything manually is overrated. Composition and how you edit the shot after are far more important skills.

>>4536241
>was also on 4chan all day, every other day of the week

>>4536239
>Does he ever go outside to take photos?
He doesn't go outside, ever. He also doesn't own a camera anymore. Probably sold it for a sack of potatoes. In Belarus potato is love, potato is life.

>>4536244
You still have to explain the Schneider beer without me being some KGB superagent with Argie attaché contacts

>>4536245
Actually you being in the slav equivalent of JIDF makes all the sense in the world. Paid to deny western achievements and demoralize. Not a superagent, a troll farm shill.

>>4536229
Major cope

>>4536225
Correct
>foveon, pixel peep!
>no, look the same as every other camera
>... FUG
And then sigma anon never bothered trying to post a sharp photo again

Gearfags always lose

>>4536239
If it's Belarus time then it's always early morning, afternoon or late night. As if he has a lunch break at noon.

>>4536256
A fool is the digislug that’s proud of their gear. A cheap DSLR will always mog them.

>>4536238
>male brain: the canon 5dII doesn't have auto ISO in manual. and with metering and DR like that, good fucking thing too.
>female brain: i can't... i just can't... the worst part is the deception where it tells you it's auto ISO but is actually ISO 400.... some guy i dont consider hot will probably try to spin this as a good thing "because nerd stuff" or something like that... ugh... i'm already getting the ick... at least the 6d had a selfie screen
cANON is spiritually a white woman

>>4536296
That explains a lot
>talks too much
>pathological liar
>dunning kruger
>always has to be right
>furry

>>4536253
>implying diplomats would bring cheap beer with them
It's pretty good, but it's one of the cheaper Argie beers. Have you even bothered to consider the possibility I'm in fact NOT in Belarus?
Also why would anyone waste money paying people to post what you call "demoralization" on this dead board? You're welcome to try to prove the landing btw
>>4536257
See above
>>4536296
The 6D in fact has no "selfie screen". It's superior because of the sensor and better thought out UX.
>>4536303
>pathological liar calling me a furry

You fags still haven't proven your dumb claims about Foveon btw

File: IMG_5003.jpg (27 KB, 380x256)

27 KB JPG

>>4536384

>>4536307

>>4536332
heh heh heh... I win