Trichromatic edition (strong filters are better for color according to PhaseONE, Kasson is WRONG)https://youtube.com/watch?v=HHM-vp9lWkkPrevious national tragedy thread: >>4532911
>>4533682If the scanner is limiting you, you can enlarge before scanning. It can resolve up to 160 lp/mm. The rest is a digital problem not a Velvia one.
>>4533685Anything beyond 30MP is just grain. There is no detail there.
>>4533688160lp/mm on 35mm is way more than 30MP, sorry to pop your digislug bubble
>>4533693Even if you were right there is no vintage glass that could resolve that detail. You're delusional, stuck in the past and frankly, not very intelligent. You are the epitome of the echo chamber you spoke of in the previous thread.
>>453369490s glass is vintage now, unc..
>>4533694Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 (ZF/ZE) will do. Available for Canon EF.
>>4533694bro theres so many lenses that outresolve my gfx 100mpx sensor, 30mpx FF is easy
>>4533697To be fair, resolving 100MP GFX is just like resolving 60MP FF (it's basically a bigger a7RIV sensor). I wouldn't be surprised if a7RIV sensors were just defective GFX100 ones that got salvaged via binning, not sure how feasible that is as binning in CPUs is with same size ones where the defective part just gets disabled, a camera sensor would require cutting and that the electrical part of one half works after severing the other. Example: many 3-core processors are just 4-core ones with a defective 4th core, at first just defective binned ones but then they started disabling good ones to satisfy demand.
>>4533705yeah, thats what i meant, you probably dont own a camera with a higher pixel density (not counting m43 because i am not a child), and ive gone through enough old lenses to know that the japs and germans knew what they were doing.
>>4533707Other than MFT, Canon 90D/M6 II/R7 (32.5 MP) have denser sensors. Still mogged by film.
>>4533693https://www.clarkvision.com/articles/scandetail/index.htmlThis guy actually tested Velvia 50 with a drum scanner and concluded that digital cameras with 12 to 16 MP sensors will match actual useful resolution of that film stock. With the best modern scanners you can get maybe 30 MP worth of real useful detail from that film and even that is stretching it. Enlarging grain is not extracting detail. You're like that old uncle repeating the same old bullshit stories he heard 20 years ago at a bar. You never did any research. You chose to believe false information without any proof because it fits your agenda. You're an idiot.Not a single person was able to scientifically prove that Velvia 50 can hold more than 20 to 30 MP of real detail. Fujifilm's spec is theoretical and does not translate to real world examples.If you want to continue this conversation then produce proof, not folktales.>>453369590s glass is nowhere near as sharp as modern computer designed glass and most film stocks crap out at ~10 MP of useful detail.
>>4533715>Published: January, 2000.okay
>>4533715>4x5 200MP equivalentNice.
>>4533716If it was published today you'd claim it's AI bullshit. People like you will do all kinds of mental backflips to discredit the truth if it doesn't fit their agenda. Being very stuck in your established worldview and refusing to budge when presented with proof is a major sign of low intelligence. There is also a strong link between low intelligence and endorsement of right wing ideologies and since cANON is a proven nazi then it means he must be ultra retarded.
>>4533681>Trichromatic edition (strong filters are better for color according to PhaseONE, Kasson is WRONG)>https://youtube.com/watch?v=HHM-vp9lWkknice find. very problematic for the guy who shills Capture One and Sony at the same time.
>>453371835mm has been proven to be good for 250-270mp
>>4533719Do you have a reference for a single modern mirrorless’ CFA spectra or do you just make up technobabble to justify your brand shilling tho
>>4533717According to that guy useful real world detail is actually more like 50 MP on a digital camera. Digital medium format already outresolved film a couple of years ago and without the stupid limitations of ISO 50, unrealistic color and getting lucky with your processing. Anyone who shoots film for fine detail is a retard. You shoot film for the analog experience, funky colors, halation and vibes.
>>4533718Oy vey!
>>4533720Actually half frame 35mm film is good for 350 - 800 MP we just don't have the scanners to scan it.
>>4533718trying to prove your theory with an article based on 2000s digital scanner technology is retarded
>>4533724Also I was told that if you use an oldschool enlarger you can blow up a single 35mm Velvia 50 slide to the size of a football field and it will be super crisp even if you look with a microscope because that film was not a product of a scientific process and corporate manufacturing capabilities of the 90s but magic, fairies, unicorn tears and stardust. BuT It'S AnAlOg bRoFucking retards.
>>4533722>took the bait>posts insanely retarded takeThank you. Kek
>>4533725If an old low res scanner already reached the limit of film resolution then what good would a newer high res one do? It'd be like sticking a shitty lens on a 60mp body when a 24mp one would already be more than enough.
>>4533728>It'd be like sticking a shitty lens on a 60mp body when a 24mp one would already be more than enough.Hilarious example because it's been tested and proven that you get more detail even after the supposed resolving limit of the lens with a denser sensor.
>>4533721Do you have a better explanation as to why Sony's colors look off than poor CFA?They sure as heck don't look like Nikon colors.
>>4533732>you get more detail even after the supposed resolving limit of the lens with a denser sensor.To an extent. Note how I said 24mp would be more enough, in this hypothetical situation. Nice strawman though.
>>4533724akshually super 8mm is 8 gigapixels but i dont have the potent microscopes for it
>>4533734What strawman? lmao cope harder, 24MP wouldn't be enoughyoutube.com/watch?v=bUUuWf7_IEkk
>>4533733Sony colors are among the best. >NOOO THATS NOT THE MEME I FORCED ON 4CHANYet sony is used by the AP and the majority of journalists outside of sports because of their accurate colors, and an increasingly large majority of fashion photographers shoot sony a7r bodies.
>>4533739>because of their accurate colorsno, it's because these JPEG photographers use live view zebras which Canon and Nikon don't can't do.
>>4533739>THE MEME I FORCED ON 4CHANEven Ken Rockwell says Sony colors are workable but lack the greatness of Nikon
>>453372835mm film is rougly equivalent to 2 gigapixels.
>>4533748TRVKE
>>4533739If you had the faintest idea of how corporate buying decisions are made you wouldn't use that as an argument. They draft some spec checklist and then pick the lowest bidder, open to whatever negotiation the execs can do like endorsements or whatever. It's no different than the brand of oil a car tells you to use in the manual.
>>4533738That wasn't my point. It was just an example.
>>4533681
>>4533739>sony is used by the APNIkon is used by NASA. In which application do you think color accuracy is more important?
>>4533761>worms
>>4533762
>>4533762>unrealistic colors camera chosen for fake space footage>>4533761Wow, adobe camera raw is bad software. Capture one has never had a problem with sony’s advanced raw format. Why should anyone trust dpreview if they wont even use industry standard software? Adobe is for youtubers. It takes hours to do what capture one does in minutes.
>>4533776low tier gearfagging like dpreview is for youtubersPros shoot phaseone and sony for real photography and canon for sports photography so they have no use for amazon owned shill review sites. They already have the best.
>>4533777Trips of truth>>4533776Adobe isn't for anyone anymore. Photocraft/Lightcraft totally killed any reason to use shiteroom.
>>4533776>Capture one has never had a problem with sony’s advanced raw format.
>>4533781kek, so much for it being a lightroom issuehow will mirrrorlezzies cope next?
>>4533781None of these are capture one. Also, you are indian.
ITT: 72 IQ jeets pixel peep other peoples test charts because they cant afford to do photography but cant afford to lose izzat by letting other people like brands they dont either>saaaaar i poost it again saaaar noone is allowed to like the snooooyyyyy saar i will lose many izzate saaaaar this is a jugaad (hack) i repost and reply to self and then i am right and i redeem
>>4533784>>4533785It's Sony's Imaging Edge Edit, which kinda destroys your claim that the RAWs look like shit on Lightroom because Adobe sabotages brands that send their customers towards Capture One. This is SONY'S OWN SOFTWARE.
>>4533786>saaaar i cant afford capture one saaaar i can only improove slightly over lightroom so its cameras fault saaaarYou get what you pay for, dalit. Shit, you cant even afford a camera. You dont fucking know how they work! You’ve never used one! You dont know why shooting black and white lines at f5.6 is a bad idea and you’ve never done any real photography at all! All you know is words and how you can use them to chase izzat!
>>4533786> your claim that the RAWs look like shit on LightroomESL. Too poor to own a sony or a capture one perpetual license. 100%. Have fun theorizing about how your imaginary photos suck because of the camera you dream of owning lmao
>>4533786>The softwae I was given for free is only slightly better than lightroom and not as good as industry standard softwareWell, in the future when you can afford a sony, learn to use it so you don't get moire. Don't take photos of fine repeating details like test charts and brick walls at a sharp lenses sharpest aperture. It's not hard. 99.9999% of professional photographers use and prefer cameras without AA filters.
Remember to follow the filter guide to hide indian's shill postshttps://pastebin.com/diHque73
>>4533789>ESLI'm sorry for your education, maybe I should have written some ebonics so you could understand what I said.
>>4533791You get Capture One for free with Sony cameras disingenuous shill
>>4533793Yo raj, it's not "on lightroom" its "in lightroom".Files are opened IN programs. Not ON programs. Why do thirdies always mix up "in" and "on"? Learn to speak english before shitting up our website.Oh, and prove you even own a camera.
>>4533795You edit ON Lightroom.
>>4533797>Being this confidently wrongJesus fucking christ. Nuke india. No, you open a file in lightroom. You edit it in lightroom. You do everything in lightroom. In. Inside. In.I get it, in your country, everything is on something. You don't have "indoors", you live in open air huts, so you're never "in the house" you're "on your mothers patch of dirt" or "under the roof" instead. You eat on the ground, not in the dining room. You do everything on something. Even when you have sex, your penises are too small to get inside, so you "have sex on the vagene".But in the first world, we have "inside" as a concept.
>>4533799bodied that jeeti bet hes crying to the mods right now>saaar i was reposting my sony argument on /p/ fifth thyme this week and they called me an indian with a small penis please ban for the racisms they just wont accept my dp review screenshot proves panasonic is better than fuji sir i have to keep reposting they wont agree please help its racism sir please thank you>-the shill
>>453380115th timehttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/lRlWMfJOjjLd9QkGp1D4ew/
>>4533705>To be fair, resolving 100MP GFX is just like resolving 60MP FF (it's basically a bigger a7RIV sensor).I told this to a GFX user who was proudly claiming it was a Fuji in-house developed medium format sensor and was oblivious to the fact that it is in fact just a different cut from the same a7r4 sensor wafer, and he unfollowed me. Touchy...
>>4533799Look it's defensible to say that "in" is more idiomatic, but it's just wrong to say "on" is not correct.Here's a translation for you:>It's sonys imagine edge edit nigga, u say RAWs look like shite in lightroom cuz adobe finna fuck brands sendin their johns to that other pimp Capture One. This is sony's OG nigga, here have some lean this shit kicks
>>4533804You indians are so fucking dumb holy shit.
>>4533804Let me guess, AI told you "The file looks bad on lightroom" is correct>yes saar, i, jeetotron, agree, hinglish is valid
>>4533805>>4533806You were talking about rendering of a RAW photo, it's like saying "the photo looks blurry on instagram". It's not "in instagram".When you say file you're changing the construction like the filthy weasel you are.
>>4533803>different cut from the same a7r4 sensor waferCamera sensors are not like CPUs. They can't have parts sliced off because there are important circuits at the edges of the die. All camera sensors are manufactured at their correct size and faulty parts are discarded. You can't cut a medium format chip to 35mm and still have it work.
>>4533809Of yea it's definitely in-house Fuji manufactured and designed, you are right! Retard...
>>4533809Doesn't negate the possibility of it being on the same sensor wafer in fact your pic shows one wafer with different sensor sizes
>>4533810>definitely in-house Fuji manufactured and designedI never said that. I only corrected part of your comment. I'm sure Fuji had some small input in manufacturing of their sensors but they were obviously made by Sony.
>>4533811>cut from the same a7r4 sensor waferI understand this as "all sensors start as medium format sensors and the faulty ones get cut down to smaller sensor sizes". I've seen this take here in the past and it's just not correct. If I misunderstood his post then my apologies.
>>4533813The arrangement of wafer cuts on various parts of the sensor does not change the fact that it is all based on the same a7r4 wafer... Your "correction" is irrelevant deflection.
>>4533814>"all sensors start as medium format sensors and the faulty ones get cut down to smaller sensor sizes".This was never claimed directly or implied. If that practice occurs as some kind of sustainability or cost efficiency measure in some product production scenarios, it is irrelevant to the fact that the GFX and other "medium format" sensors are using Sony a7r4 wafers.
>>4533718>There is also a strong link between low intelligence and endorsement of right wing ideologiesThere's no correlation, actually. Intelligent people typically ignore political boundaries in their own worldviews. But what does this have to do with photography?
>>4533766>Half-life_crowbar_noises.mp3
>>4533807Because instagram is a website, not a program. You post ON a website because it's the digital equivalent of posting a piece of paper ON a corkboard with whatever you posted written/printed on it. You load data IN software because it's the digital equivalent of putting something IN a machine that will be used to modify it.The British should re-establish the Raj and teach you Godless retards how to speak my language correctly already. I'm tired of doing their job for them.
>>4533791>Well, in the future when you can afford a sony, learn to use it so you don't get moire. Don't take photos of fine repeating details like test charts and brick walls at a sharp lenses sharpest aperture. It's not hard. 99.9999% of professional photographers use and prefer cameras without AA filters.The new guidance with snoy "f/22 and be there"
>>4533859https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/XZ0CFqP4AAis98kM0bUcUw/>15 timesand still you have never owned a camera, paneer rashit. you have no idea how cameras work. notice no one else is complaining? avoiding moire is something beginners learn. but you are too dumb to learn. you only need izzat from winning an argument which is why you have the same one 15 times. if you lose you gave to regain izzat and try again. but the izzat can not be regained. when you repost to retry an argument you already lost you nuke your izzat. you currently have -9000000000001 izzat.
I don't even have to try to avoid moire, it's just never shown up. This is the one photo I've ever taken where I thought it may have been an issue with the fine repeating pattern of the rad grill and carbon but it's just not there. It's almost like you have to purposely go looking for situations where it might arise, getting just the right angle and distance for it to show.
>>4533847True. No intelligent person would support "palestine" (latecomer arab immigrants that diluted out the original population) as they'd have already learned the real history of the region. or support literally any muslims cause because they'd have already read the chronologically ordered quran and realized that once the abrogations muslims follow are factored in, it allows muslim men to rape all infidel women and take men who refuse to convert as slaves.Being "an islamophobic zionazi" (as the leftists say) is right wing and ultra high IQ. Zero correlation. Colleges have sadly turned into leftist indoctrination centers. Teachers will cancel class and required students to protest some bullshit ie: BLM, free "palestine". Guess what the 19-20 year olds who swallowed the propaganda do to the ones that refuse to participate?
>>4533863>I don't even have to try to avoid moire, it's just never shown up.either the camera has an OLPF, or the lens isn't sharp enough to resolve detail smaller than single RGB photosites.Moire appears very reliably otherwise.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2TyUrVBL8
>>4533872https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/Qd3_W2K-taL5PfrIxtryCA/>16 results found>techno babble from a dpreview reading pajeet that has never used a cameraEvery time you're told why you're stupid, you have the same argument over 50 times until no one is left to decisively disprove you.The majority of professionals use cameras with sharp lenses and no AA filters. No one is complaining except you. It's almost like moire is a trivial mistake the new/bad photographers make. An AA filter is a huge sign that a stills camera is low end and meant for beginners and casuals, since its purpose is to blur literally every photo so a clueless idiot can't make that trivial mistake. AA filters are primarily relevant to videography because moving subjects, changing camera position, and less room to alter the aperture (mandatory shutter speed, can't float the ISO without pissing off the post guys, can't use DOF the DP doesnt like...) make avoiding moire harder. Also, the highest resolution video footage most people see is ~8mp so blurring it a bit doesnt matter.Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to slaughter a cow. Yes, I'm killing a cow today. 9mm to the skull. It's all going in my freezer. Tootles!
>>4533872you are indian
>>4533874>The majority of professionals use cameras with no AA filtersFactually wrong.
>>4533877You're literally correct in that low res models have very weak AA filters but they still have moire on dpreview so we're writing those off for now since that doesn't jive with rajesh's "argument".
exposure preview is uselessno one shoots jpeg or fucks with "tone curves", videographers set up their log gamma and gobut EVFs have made moire in real life photography basically vanishif you dont see the moire flicker in and out and move your camera slightly to get rid of it, either you're stupid or your EVF is 480p
>>4533872It's an A7R III so no OLPF and that would have been taken with the Zeiss 16-35mm probably stopped down a little bit (not to the extent to cause diffraction) so plenty sharp enough. If it requires an even sharper lens than that to get moire then it's even less of a concern.
>>4533849Deep down, a website is a program too. Even Adobe sometimes uses the expression "on lightroom". You can try to gaslight all you want but in the end you know I'm right. For me, lightroom is like a light table when it comes to viewing pictures.
>>4533880Holy shit i never thought of this. I do it. But I never thought “wow good thing i saw the moire on that window mesh and moved my camera 1cm”.
>>4533894It’s “in lightroom” raj>well adobeAdobe is staffed by vibe coding indians Get out of my country
>>4533861>>4533874You retards looked at a VERY CLEARLY MOIRE'D branch that this autist posted and said "nope, no moire". You have gone full-on Emperor's New Clothes, you make fools of yourselves every time he posts. I can't take you seriously and will never believe the slander. He has the same argument 50 times because none of you have actually proven him wrong.Ban gear threads.
>>4533896You sound like the type of guy who'd call Ted K "Indian". You can't eat your cake and have it too.
>>4533897Some retarded indian who has never used a camera pixel peeped a branch shot and processed incompetently by dpreview We call him retarded because this shit NEVER HAPPENS TO US BECAUSE WE KNOW HOW TO USE OUR CAMERASITISASKILLISSUEPAJEETSTOP SPAMMING THE BOARD
>>4533897raj, moire (interference pattern) is not the same as false color (demosaicing algorithm issue, minimized by using quality software and using your camera intelligently)both are skill issuesmistakespart of knowing how to use a camera is knowing how to avoid themsure huskyfag got moire when he shot his bnw husky fur at f5.6 on an unfiltered sony gm lenswho the fuck does that?
>>4533897It's the same as with cANON, he'll say some truism like "denser sensors have more reach" and these idiots will enable him arguing the opposite because they're too emotionally invested in their choice of camera being the best. At this point I'm convinced it's feigned retardation for entertainment.
>>4533899>Moireautist posts it again>Uhhhmmm uh but um actually uhhhhh FILTERED erm ahhh um JEET LOL>To date, not a single actual valid counter-argument, no valid counter-example, just reeeeing and sperging and coping and seething and malding, every single attempt has fallen flat on its faceNot falling for your copium, sorry! Shoulda bought something other than a Snoy. What a shame.
>>4533900You know how he could have avoided moire on the fur? With a camera that comes protected from the factory.
>>4533903It's amazing how angry people get when you tell them the truth about something that they spent money on.
>>4533897>You retardsThere is only one moire denier on this board. He samefags all the time and assumes everyone who disagrees with him is samefagging too.
>>4533901A camera isnt just a sensor. Idealized arguments are useless. Denser sensors have more reach if your lens can resolve details that small without looking like shit and you can hold the camera steady and avoid shimmer and hazecANON failed at all of this himself and micro four thirds reveals the problem readily. it takes $4k to make a 600mm f8 equivalent for a 20mp micro four thirds sensor and its bigger than a 600mm f6.3 for FF because the optical complexity needed to correct aberrations for teeny tiny pixels, smaller than an a7rv’s. And most people still take blurry photos with it, cranking the ISO or having motion blur issues they use AI to fix later.
>>4533904>>4533903>>4533902No one complains except your samefagging ass because ITISASKILLISSUEPAJEETSTOP SPAMMING THE BOARD
>>4533906>mft equivalent blah blahThat's not the cANON argument at all, he says that if you take your FF lens and mount it on some high mp MFT you get more reach>>4533904It's like the buyer's remorse makes them impervious to the truth. What's it called, cognitive dissonance? The board is like an empirical version of the emperor's new clothes, fascinating.
>a dpreview shitter took a bad photo>this is proof all high end cameras are defective and every photo taken on them needs to be blurred>why am i the only one who knows the truth? my FACTS AND LOGIC are a full replacement for actually using a camera. I WILL REPOST THIS 50 TIMES UNTIL YOU ALL STOP DENYING MY TRUTH!!!!!!!Why is /p/ dead?
>>4533905That would explain a lot if true. One more reason to turn on post IDs.>>4533901No that was a bit different, cANON was saying -smaller- sensors had more reach cuz muh crop factor, he left out the real reason why his APS-C got better results than his FF on Saturn and didn't mention that just getting a better FF sensors would've done better.Plus that's not even a very good way to get reach in AP, AP is extremely hardware-sensitive and more focal length will almost always be better than denser sensor, especially if it's also smaller.A dense full-frame sensor on, like, a 7" Mak with a good Barlow would smoke the absolute shit out of any crop sensor.
>>4533909It doesnt matter if your lens is shit and you’re a shit photographer. And it is. And you are. SO WHY THE FUCK DO YOU BRING UP THIS USELESS THEORY TEN TIMES A DAYYou dont take or post photosYou only argue about idealized theoryYOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT USING A CAMERA IS ACTUALLY LIKE
>>4533907Cope, you're the one arguing dishonestly as if you could recoup some izzat or something btw
>sirs, nikon z8 is defective, sony a7rvi is defective, look, dpreview moire>posts a photo a bad photographer took on an a7iv (has an aa filter) and processed in shitty software>why does everyone deny there are problem sirs? i must poast agen
>>4533911>No that was a bit different, cANON was saying -smaller- sensors had more reach cuz muh crop factorI distinctly remember him talking about pixel pitch, not crop factor and you reeeeeing saying that it's image scale not pixel pitch as if pixel pitch wasn't the only variable of image scale that was changing in his example. You're a lolcow and I really hope you are doing this shit on purpose.
>>4533915>no sir i dont care it does not hapen to you. it hapend on dp review sir. all modern camera is problem. every photo need blur so problem never happen. majority of pro is wrong and coping. dp review matter sars. is not skill issue. is problem. no skill should be need. quality on 60000000000 rupee camera nomatter. skill issue should not be a problem sir. i will post again. stop denying it. you have never prove me wrong. stop denying it. i will post agen.
>>4533891Is it SOOC processing or with a RAW editor?
>>4533912You're only here because you got banned on FM for being a retard.
>>4533919>no sir, no one who disagree with me is right. You are all dumb. You here because you banned. There is problem on dpreview, there is problem on camera. There should be not problem on dprevjew sir! It should not hapen! If problem on dpreview problem on camera! I post agan! No one ever disprove me! I post again ! I post again! I post again! STOP DENYING MY TRUTH SIRS! SONY IS BAD! YOU NEED THE OLPF! YOU HAVE TO SHOOT JPEG ON MIRRORLESS!And yet the world turns and people much smarter, better, more successful and richer than you keep:Shooting cameras without AA filtersShooting rawUsing sonyAnd you:Do not own a cameraDo not take photosDo not post photosRepost technobabble on /p/ desperately trying to prove your favorite brands are better than your least favorite brands by spamming until no one is left to disagree >sirs! sony has weak CFA? proof? SONY IS BAD. THATS THE PROOF. I POST THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL YOU AGREE IT IS A FACT SONY IS BAD. I MAKE NEW GEAR THREAD. YOU WILL ADMIT SONY IS BAD AND THEN I STOP SIRS!That’s you.
>>4533916I'm not the STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION guy, anon. cANON got absolutely fucking BTFO'd in that thread. It was so bad he had to make a new one (despite there already being like 10+ of these on the catalogue). You wouldn't happen to have forgotten your trip, would you?
>>4533918Straight out the camera, I only shoot jpeg
There are over ten 300 post gear threads on /p/ because one fucking retard keeps reposting his propaganda>there is moire on dpreview so camera is bad. i dont care if it never happen to you. i dont care if 100000000 pros use it without an issue sir! there should not be moire on dpreview and I have the solution! NO ONE EVER PROVE ME WRONG I POST AGAIN UNTIL YOU AGREE >shooting raw is dated bad for boomers sars! panasonic has tone curve menu! SHOOTING RAW IS BAD I REPOST THIS UNTIL YOU ADMIT IT>sony has bad colors because I SAY SO SIRS i will repost this UNTIL YOU STOOP DENYING MY TRUTH! 100 REPOSTS UNTIL YOU AGREE. IT IS BECAUSE WEAL CFA. PROOF IS SONY IS BAD. STOP DISAGREEING. 100 MORE REPOSTS!This is just one indian (half the youtube links he posts are in hindi) and its basically killed any real discussion that ever happened here
>>4533925ONE youtube link is half? That wasn't even him btw.
>>4533926Sure spamjeet, and no one ever proved the nonsense you repost is a skill issue either, which is why you’ve made over a dozen duplicate gear threads just to repost your disproven and nonsensical claims.
>>4533927I'm not moireautist, sorry. Looks like you're delusional, whoopsie. One more reason to turn on post IDs!
>>4533928Sure. I’m shohei otani.
>>4533928>post IDs>not user IDsESL detectedJeet likelihood 100%
>>4533920So you DID get banned from FM... It was a shot in the dark but your reaction confirms it.>>4533921That's the thing, he didn't get BTFO. Your attempts at argumentation about reach are so poor you supported his point. You unironically made less of a point for your position than he does about his nutjob moon landing/holocaust denial theories. Maybe you're his sidekick and we're all being taken for a ride here, you can't be this stupid.
>>4533936i have never posted on fm in my lifeI have only ever had the misfortune of reading forums when looking for lens reviewsYou stupid hindu>no cANON WONcANON like you has his idealized theories balls deep in his own asshole but he’s permanently disconnected from the productive reality of photography. His all things being equal theorizing means nothing to the real world where no things are equal in any reasonable comparison (ie: not d750 vs g9ii tier dumb). Thats a thing none of you nophotos getYour theories based on charts and dpreview screenshots do not translate into that thing you dont do - practicable photography. Reach isnt just buying a camera. Its buying a good lens and being a good photographer first and foremost. Moire is a skill issue. Good photographers fly through raws faster than you can pre-adjust one jpeg. Equivalence falls the fuck apart in real use. Moving away from abstract theories to real mechanisms, aperture size controls light gathering, system mtf depends on the entire optical path AND pixel pitch AND conditions AND (you), pixel size controls per pixel photon noise and full well capacity (tonal range) adjusted for heat, interference, etc, and sensor size is just how many pixels of X size are in the camera. Real life doesn’t work like your abstracted gearfag theorizing. Real gearfag theorizing is a bit more complex and useful. The problem is… it doesnt prove one camera is better than another.
>>4533922To be honest it looks like a phone or Olympus image to me based on the processing I see, especially on the flattened patch of grass in the foreground and the right-most bike in the background.
>>4533941You may argue that it's pointless to argue about reach, but can't argue he's wrong about it. I'm yet to see you debunk his claims, all you've done is distract and deflect. I'm reading the thread on the archive and cANON was right, you think you're smarter than you are. You're just like the angry photographer.
>>4533945He’s only claimed a theory with all things being equal. In practice very few things are equal, but he makes asinine recommendations to new people based on a theory that doesnt work without more information than he or they have and mixes it with his idiotic paranoid schizophrenia over viewfindersHe is not and never has been a photographer. No one had a problem with cANON because his simplified abstracted theory was wrong. It was always because its irrelevant in context but he plays fake expert to fool random new people into buying dogshit canon APS-C DSLRs that get curbstomped by cheap olympus gear
>>4533945cANON is a nophoto who technobabbles at whoever he thinks he can fool into buying a shitty canon rebel to “own the mirrorless jews” or somethingalso buying a denser sensor isnt free reach. his saturn “photos” proved it. all that reach and the result is still unusable.
>>4533954But you claimed it was wrong. And you even claimed a Nikon from 2006 was a better buy than a 2017 Rebel. It's like you're desperate to contradict anything he says without considering whether it's true or not first.
>>4533955They proved the point that there's more detail extracted and there's a quality improvement going from the one with lesser reach to the one with more reach. I don't think he ever claimed it was the ideal kit to image Saturn, that's a separate argument you're making to dismiss the actual claim. Of course a paranoid schizophrenic like him isn't going to show what he's using the extra reach for, for all we know he's sneaking around in a Ghillie suit near some building he suspects of some conspiracy to enslave humanity and put mirrorless processors connected to our retinas to fake the moon landing or some shit like that.But the point that denser sensor=more reach remains uncontested and despite you protesting so much you failed to prove him wrong on that.
>>4533956I? I did what? Who do you think I am, you fucking schizophrenic retard? The mossad agent NASA sent? We all learn from each other here. Not everyone who comes to the right side is whoever the fuck last proved you wrong. I’m not the corgi fag who said a fuji was more fun to carry outside. I’m not the husky fag who said a d200 would take nicer looking photos and be nicer to handle because its not crippled consumer level gear. I’m just sharing some of their correct takes that I learned and verified, mixed with my own take:Micro four thirds sensors are better than older canon aps-c (and better than the 5DIII at shadow recovery) despite the size disadvantage
>>4533958>I’m not the husky fag who said a d200 would take nicer looking photos and be nicer to handle because its not crippled consumer level gear.Well that's what I assumed you were because he too insists on using Capture One and that moire is Adobe's fault>Micro four thirds sensors are better than older canon aps-c (and better than the 5DIII at shadow recovery) despite the size disadvantageSounds like the kind of shit even cANON would agree to
>>4533959You mean false color? Moire is an interference pattern. False color is a demosaicing issue.Both are skill issues but moire is more skill related than false color. Strong AA filters are not the answer for professional level photo gear… they are for beginners and video cameras. Professional gear has very weak or absent AA filters. More than one person can also acknowledge capture one has always had better demosaicing than lightroom and any free software except for expertly configured darktable. It’s the industry standard for a reason and its the software phaseone pairs with the iq180.
>>4533925This thread is just an LLM reposting the same things in different words.> Moire> Blinkies> Snoy> Xtrans
>>4533959>a dog snapper is the only person here thats smart enough to recommend the industry standard raw processor and the only decent one with a permanent purchase optionMany people here use capture one. Huskyfag is just the only one who bothered challenging you to a photobattle (that you lost by default) because the rest of us already knew you would pussy out (you dont own a camera).
>>4533961>False color is a demosaicing issue.False color like in pic related can be improved using a different demosaicing method, but that demosaicing method nukes color resolution by blurring with adjacent pixels i.e. does exactly what you complain about X-Trans doing.An OLPF on the other hand doesn't really cause any resolution loss since the 0.5 pixels blur it causes is easily recoverable with raw demosaicing/sharpening.
>>4533964Oh look, more pixel peeping dpreview samples.Sure is weird the gorillions of photographers who have buying sharp lenses and bare sensors since the d800e/5dsr dropped never had a problem.It's almost like this is a skill issue>>4533897https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/1eO4TIIQ7ft19IWHYIV0ow/SEVEN REPOSTS. SEVEN!You have been proven wrong a fucktonne of times. Everything you complain about is limited to dpreview samples. Actual photographers don't have these issues because we learn how to use our cameras. Our cameras, meaning, we own cameras. Unlike you.Does it strike you as odd that you think the majority of ILCs topping sales charts today are "bad" (based on your dpreview pixel peeping adventures) and every single one needs a $400+ special purpose modification? Does it strike you as odd you have to repost the same claims dozens of times because literally no one agrees with you?Does it strike you as odd the whole fucking world is using these cameras without issue and you can ONLY find problems on dpreview?It's a skill issuePOST YOUR FUCKING CAMERA OR GET THE FUCK OFF OUR BOARD YOU STUPID AUTISTIC PIECE OF SHIT
>>45337334 reposts>>453376115 reposts>>45337813 reposts>>453385915 reposts>>453387216 reposts...
>>4533964oh my fucking god kill yourself alreadycongratulations you found a badly taken, badly processed photo on dpreview do you want an award? if it were a design problem you wouldn't be reposting this on 4chan hundreds of fucking times over the course of several months you stupid fucking piece of shit autistpeople who can actually afford cameras have been avoiding this problem forever by using the correct settings. if you lack the skill to use a high end camera without generating false color do not use a camera that is above your skill level. if you need every single photo to be blurred by default so you never have to worry if shooting a tree at f5.6 with a gmaster prime will generate false color or if you need capture one to extract as much detail as possible, we have a camera for you. it's called the iPhone.fuck off now.oh sorry did you just get disagreed with? did yet another person refuse to agree that every camera besides your canon rebel is bad? are you going to repost your dumbfuck nophoto shit ANOTHER 50 TIMES?
We had actual discussion here once. Now its just people telling a nophoto pajeet to shut up and stop reposting his retarded gearfaggotry.
>>4533961>You mean false color? Moire is an interference pattern. False color is a demosaicing issue.>uh, you mean AIDS? HIV is a pathogen, not a diseasekys
>>4533969He is right. Stop spamming the fucking board with this reposted gearfag garbage. Stop. Its a skill issue. No one has an issue with this except one indian (you) pixel peeping sample photos from amazon employees. Less than a dozen sample photos you found issues with. And test charts shot at lenses sharpest apertures and processed in one of the shittiest programs (or as they say in your country, “shot in lenses sharpest apertures and processed on one of the shittiest programs”). We do not need to have five daily discussions on proper camera operation because your fucking autism might mislead someone. And this is before addressing the flat out lies you post about sony CFAs and secret AI hidden in everything.
>>4533681Should I buy a Red One X for 1000 bucks
>>4533971Oh no, but you see, if anyone thinks that buying anything other than a panasonic is a good idea, especially if they buy a sony, his life is over. So he has to repost as much fake expert horseshit as possible to make it look like the only choices are a canon rebel or a lumix.
>>4533971See you're deflecting again, false color are the only reason anyone cares about color just like AIDS is the only reason anyone cares about HIV. There's ways of making the false color less noticeable but the information is lost for good because it was never properly recorded (no OLPF). Everything else is seethe, cope, dilate and everything in between.When (You) say "just do xyz to avoid moire" all your options involve changing the framing, aperture or focus. (You) are admitting a Sony camera gets in the way of the photographer's artistic vision.
>>4533975That's because Sony cameras are just toys for people who once dreamed of becoming photographers some day. You buy a Sony because it's cheap not because it's good.
>>4533976>>4533975Hey dude, it would be nice if we could have our board back without you running your shitty propaganda campaign 24/7.>omg taking a photo without moire means taking a different photoYes that's right, cameras are limited tools. You often have to use f11 instead of f8 to get an anti-aliasing effect. You can't buy a hypersharp nikkor gm L and shoot everything at f5.6 on a high end camera without issue. That's not how cameras for competent people work. They don't include things like mandatory blur to protect incompetent people from common mistakes.> (You) are admitting a Sony camera gets in the way of the photographer's artistic vision.Shooting a deep focus photo of a tree at f11 instead of f8 if you're using an ultra sharp lens compromises your vision? But having mandatory blur glued to the sensor doesn't?Basically every full frame mirrorless has a weak or totally absent AA filter including the nikon Z7II, Z8, and Z9, every medium format camera, and believe it or not, most of the cameras from your favorite brand (lumix). Lumix has no AA filter at all on their 24mp models, while the a7iv, z6/z5, and r6 series all have weak asymmetrical AA filters. Which is ironic because lumix is a video-centric brand and video on a low resolution camera is the one application where an AA fitler makes sense.This doesn't have dick to do with sony. Sony is actually one of the brands that is LESS prone to aliasing because more resolution makes it even more of a skill issue.Please fuck offJust fucking leaveWe do not need your stupid sony/lumix centric propaganda campaign hereYou have been reposting it for agesWhat did you get as a repsonse?We tell you fuck lumix. We call you stupid. No one fucking buys your reposted gearfag garbage propaganda. Fucking. Leave.Leave.Go. The. Fuck. Away.I want my board backEveryone wants the fucking board back to the way it was before you came here and started spamming /gear/ threads.GO AWAY
>>4533976>>4533975fuck off and die clive
https://kolarivision.com/product-category/camera-conversion/olpf-aa-filter-upgrade/>the kolari OLPF upgrade is only available for lumixSony?https://fstoppers.com/reviews/heres-how-good-image-quality-sony-a7-iv-587329>For example, the Sony a7 IV sensor has an AA filter, which although can help prevent moire, also reduces image quality.The local autistic shill has been spamming /p/ with ass-pulled horse shit about moire to "own the sony fans" when it doesn't even affect sony?>>4533976>>4533975You are unbelievably fucking stupid.Not only have you never used a camera, not only do you not even own a camera, you don't even check the specs of the cameras you shill and whine about to sate your autistic fixation on camera brandsFuck off alreadyI want the real /p/ back where we were able to admit some sony cameras are really bad and some are just a bit shit and leave it at that, where we had maybe two or three /gear/ threads max because you weren't making a new one every time you lost your contrived arguments based on reposted liesFucking leave
what's an affordable camera that will allow me to shoot with around this much resolution?https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%E4%B9%BE%E9%9A%86%E7%9A%87%E5%B8%9D%E6%9C%9D%E6%9C%8D%E5%83%8F%E8%BD%B4.png
>>4533814OP here, I didn't claim that was the case but I did suggest it as a possibility. I wouldn't write it off entirely as a future possibility, it's a matter of someone clever enough coming up with a way to do it. If someone comes up with a way to produce a 44x33 sensor built as two seamless 24x36 ones, cropped to 44x33 someone's pockets will get filled. I mean this without a hint of irony, you can salvage a FF sensor if one half of the 44x33 gets botched. Turns loss into gain very quickly.That said they most likely are made from the same wafers just because the lithography is the same and like your picture shows you'd waste a lot of the wafer if you only made the larger sensors. Incidentally this is also why the idea of making circular sensors isn't economically feasible. I have neither proof nor doubts that from each IMX 461 (44x33) wafer some IMX 455 (a7RIV/a7RV) get made.
>>4533983fine art reproduction is almost always a custom scanning rig. the camera/light is moved over the piece (moving along a rail powered by servos) and many images are stitched together.
>>4533766>kasson will defend thislmao
>>4533866I'll take a Muslim Palestine from the river to the sea over the current thing. We can always do a crusade after we get rid of the real problem.
>>4533809A lithography scanner’s exposure field is only about 26x33 mm. That’s smaller than a full-frame sensor, never mind medium format, so large sensors are usually made by “stitching”, or in other words, by printing several exposures side by side, using repeated pixel-array blocks plus edge blocks that carry the peripheral circuitry. With a modular stitched design, a manufacturer can in principle make different sensor sizes from shared building blocks by changing how many array blocks are stitched together. In that sense, a family of sizes can come from a common design.Probably people truly believe that bigger sensors are just cut with scissors to make smaller ones, but the point stands: you can take an existing design and scale it up or down. That's how you can make "cut-down" versions of a sensor, not by literally cutting the die.>Camera sensors are not like CPUs.That's not how it works with CPUs either, and they're much more complex to manufacture than photographic sensors.
>>4533967There are only a few circumstances when no OLPF is acceptable:- Monochrome sensors.- Foveon or similar sensor where there is no space between different color photosites.- Gigapixel sensors that no glass will ever be sharp enough to resolve down to individual photosite level.>>4533980>Sony is actually one of the brands that is LESS prone to aliasing because more resolution makes it even more of a skill issue.Neither camera in pic-related has OLPF. Why does the lower megapixel, smaller sensor have less intense false color given the same RAW development process?
>>4533990>i want the warlike theocratic monoculture that wanted my culture dead and replaced even when we kept hoes in the kitchen and fags in the bath house to have a unified empire stretching from persia through africa and up through turkey >why? because i saw some nasty jews in /pol/ infographics of course.You don't remember what the ottoman empire did to europeans at all, do you?
>>4533992https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/3a9NnqqVLJ0a73UYRlHyjw/3 repostsYou have had this question answered before. https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4527555/#4528425https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4525985/#4526617https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4528488/#4528874Fucking leave dumbfuckStop spamming the fucking boardFaggot
>>4533992fuck off and die
>>4533901It's not a simple truism, there's people who really struggle with basic facts like those. I don't state it to troll them, they get trolled by their own stupidity.>>4533906>Denser sensors have more reach if your lens can resolve details that small without looking like shit and you can hold the camera steady and avoid shimmer and hazeP1100 proves you wrong. Shimmer and haze exist but much like moire, they don't affect every shot. If you won't discard Sony because of moire (which is a niche problem and could be avoided by using any other brand with an OLPF), why should someone deprive themselves of reach just because sometimes there's shimmer? Hypocrite.>cANON failed at all of this himself and micro four thirds reveals the problem readily. it takes $4k to make a 600mm f8 equivalent for a 20mp micro four thirds sensor What the fuck does that have to do with anything?>and its bigger than a 600mm f6.3 for FF because the optical complexity needed to correct aberrations for teeny tiny pixels, smaller than an a7rv’s. No, it's because MFT is a telecentric system and Sony a baby mount that corrects the vignetting in software, we've been over this already. But my point about reach was never to use MFT for equivalent lengths, it was to use the cameras as glorified teleconverters. MFT isn't even the best for that, Pentax is. Pic related. I would much rather have the Pentax over the Panasonic if chasing reach at any price (forgoing implicit photographic integrity). The gains that MFT offers over the 90D are too small. With the Pentax Q cameras you can one-up even the P1100. >>4533909>That's not the cANON argument at all, he says that if you take your FF lens and mount it on some high mp MFT you get more reachEXACTLY. I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS, HOW DO PEOPLE KEEP GETTING IT WRONG?>>4533911When calculating reach differences you use pixel pitch ratio, not crop factor. Denser sensors usually come in smaller sizes for cost and resolution reasons
>>4533997Nice wall of stupid bullshit, you autistic nophoto fuck. People agree your basic theory about reach is valid. The problem is you don't have the skill or gear to make good on it. You don't even own a camera. Fuck off.>If you won't discard Sony because of moire Panasonic is the only brand where zero cameras have AA filters... you are so fucking stupid. Fucking leave.
>>4533994>a unified empire stretching from persia through africa and up through turkey>muh ummahlmao don't bother pretending all Islam is the same thing when gulfies are backstabbing Iran to serve the west day and nightAlawites and Shias are based and I'm tired of pretending they're not. I see what jews are doing to Europeans right now, I see what they did to Spain just a couple months ago, really nice stunt on their part. Stop the jews and you stop the Muslim spillover, they're the ones bringing them. Same with Somalians in Minnesota with all those "Catholic" NGOs with jew-packed boards importing them.
>>4533999>People agree your basic theory about reach is valid.Thanks for the concession, better late than never.>>4533999>Panasonic is the only brand where zero cameras have AA filtersAt least with them you can retrofit one.
>>4534000We're paying gulfies to stay neutral and not destroy israel. The very lines on the map were drawn to keep them neutral. This is literally why iran is bombing them instead of bombing israel.>>4534001...But your theory doesn't account for the expense of actually getting that "reach" as a passable photo. And thank you for tacitly admitting you're moire spammer. Please look outside and notice all these mirrorless cameras you say are bad, are in common use in real life and are only bad in a few incompetent test shots on dpreview. If you actually owned a camera and didn't just borrow your dads once to attempt astronomy (poorly) you'd know how easy it is to avoid false color and moire issues.
>>4533957>Of course a paranoid schizophrenic like him isn't going to show what he's using the extra reach for, for all we know he's sneaking around in a Ghillie suit near some building he suspects of some conspiracy to enslave humanityThis is just stupid nonsense>and put mirrorless processors connected to our retinas to fake the moon landing or some shit like that.What do you think their endgame is? The desert of the real is coming, coppertop. I won't speculate on the technical implementation of it but AI will either enslave or exterminate humanity given enough time, and bread and circuses will shield the masses from reality. You shouldn't be so jolly ridiculing the idea. I'm not a schizo, just ahead of the curve.
>>4534004Get a fucking job
>>4534003>We're paying gulfies to stay neutral and not destroy israel. Because your government is occupied by them. You also bombed children in Iran for Israel and you started this stupid war only for Israel's benefit and Trump even admitted as much to Tucker.>And thank you for tacitly admitting you're moire spammer.I'm not "moire spammer", schizo. I do agree with him on OLPFs and I don't cope with C1 like you do.>...But your theory doesn't account for the expense of actually getting that "reach" as a passable photo.That will depend on the amount of pixels on the target. A moon photo with the same lens taken with a 90D and a full frame Canon is more detailed on the 90D every time.>Please look outside and notice all these mirrorless cameras you say are bad, are in common use in real life and are only bad in a few incompetent test shots on dpreview.Not all shots will show every camera's flaws just like not every X-tranny shot has immediately noticeable worms or watercolor effect on the foliage. Artifacts exist and they often show up in the worst moment so why not prevent them?>If you actually owned a camera and didn't just borrow your dads once to attempt astronomy (poorly) you'd know how easy it is to avoid false color and moire issues.Nice fanfic
>>4534006>using a better program is "cope">you have to use the shittier program>because then my least favorite brand looks worse>ok>the program that has always been better is cope, it has secret AI!>you have to use a configuration where my least favorite brand losesNo, you have to get off 4chan and start applying for jobs. Maybe when you get a job you'll also stop being a schizophrenic antisemite.
>>4533992>Neither camera in pic-related has OLPF. Why does the lower megapixel, smaller sensor have less intense false color given the same RAW development process?There's probably some textures that trigger the OM and not the Sony, moire is alignment-dependent not just frequency-dependent. Here they look almost equally bad.
>>4534008Wow you have such deep thoughts about zooming in on test charts nophotohave you considered suicide
>>4534007I have this thing called a vacation, I don't think Americans know what that is.>>4534009Oh it cuts deep doesn't it?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hm7vnOC4hoY
>>4534010You're on vacation all the time? That's called unemployed.Get a job.
>>4534013>all the timekek
>the moire spammer is the retarded jobless nazi
I think it's pretty funny that sonyggers and fujislugs are always the ones seething in these threads, it's like they know they have the worst two camera brands in existence but need to convince others they don't, just to convince themselves in turn. If the cameras didn't have all those problems they wouldn't be here coping and trying to justify themselves.>>4534015Yeah everyone who points out the obvious thing is one person
>>4534015I'm not jobless and in fact I corrected the "moire spammer" in an earlier post where he was cherrypicking, see >>4534008
>>4534017>>4534016>jobless>nazi>indian>zoophile>retardedYou’re a real piece of work
>>4534016Get a job, nazi
>>4534020Funny how they're all lies except for nazi. I think you're mad because my tripcode made it impossible for you to claim my post as yours.>>4534021Should I go on the lampshade business or maybe soap?
>>4534008It's true, some areas are closer, but still the intensity in the Sony seems stronger. That may just be an overall color shift. The numbers below look purple in comparison to OM's which I don't think can be attributed to aliasing. It seems like the same color shift visible in pic related which this professional creator pointed out.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3l0HDGh7PM&t=1087
>>4534022Silence, furfag.>>4534023>"professional creator"So a professional clickbait thumbnail maker couldn't use his camera correctly? Why doesn't anyone else have a problem?>professional clickbait thumbnail makerHe's every bit as unemployed as you tbqh.Looks like hating sony is just for nazi furfags and indians
>can fit an R6II, tamron 35mm 1.4, and canon 100mm 2.8 in my 6L sling>can't fit the same gear in a 21L prvkerecommend me some functional camera bags that aren't huge or ugly. I apparently fell for the 5k+ positive reviews scam
>>4534023a literally who youtube grifter is bad at cameraswho knew
>>4534027camera and main lens on strapspare lens in backpack, wrapped in a tshirtsimple as
>>4534024>So a professional clickbait thumbnail maker couldn't use his camera correctly?Why are the pics from other cameras alright?
>>4534038Why is everyone else using the a6700 without issue?It seems more like everyone but panasonic (no OLPFs on any camera, colors so bad they told users to load their own LUTS) is great
>>4534039>colors so bad they told users to load their own LUTSThat's because their target demographic is indie "filmmakers" who want "cinematic" (orange and teal) video
>>4534024>hating sonyI have usually been impressed with Sony products and have owned a few.Pointing out the obvious flaws in their cameras doesn't mean I hate them — I want them to make better cameras.
>>4534041No one has pointed out sony flaws ittSony flaws are things like bad ergonomics, crippled video specs, and shitty evfs and screens under the top tierNot a test chart rendering worse in shitty adobe software than the program sony has recommended for over a decade (leading to adobe having poorer sony support)That is one of many problems with adobe… they dont make good programs in general. Their lawyers just keep anyone else from beating them, buy out threats, and invent novel ways to trap users and build historical inertia.
>>4534043Noone ever mentions that the a7cii and a7v heat up rapidly and the a7cii sucks its battery dry just using the menu (which is more complex and less usable than the a7c’s)Its always “I SAW DIS WHILE PICKSEL PEEPING ON DPREVIEW” and “ONE REDDITOR IN ALABAMA BROKE HIS CAMWA”No one here has ever used the cameras they talk about
>>4534044>>4534043For "fighting sony" the samefag schizo ruining /p/ and spamming gear threads has literally never, ever mentioned bullshit like voigtlander and zeiss loxia lenses canceling their own focus magnifiers on the a7iv. Or no lossless compressed raw for the 1st 3 gens, no 14 bit raw for the 1st 2. It's always just a generic, inaccurate complaint that actually applies to literally every camera if used poorly, or some pixel peeping concern for people who push raws 7 stops, and in the end he makes it sound like sony is based and only retards hate them.At least we can all agree panasonic is just as shit.
>>4534043>leading to adobe having poorer sony supportIt's not just Adobe, it's even Sony's own software. >>4533781You might want to take off the Reynolds wrap before posting.
>>4534046Sony's own free software (which means it's minimum effort and basically garbage - have you ever used it? its garbage) still renders that test chart better than adobe is, capture one has almost zero problems, and it cant be stressed enough that taking a photo of a test chart with a sharp lenses sharpest aperture is literally guaranteed moire unless the raw processing method includes chroma smoothing (xtrans processing usually does, ergo dxomark doesnt test fuji)That is what test charts are designed to do
>>4534046Fucking idiot
>>4534047>That is what test charts are designed to doTo show flaws, right. And Sony cameras show them moire than anyone else (see what I did there?)
>>4534049The test chart looks the same for every brand in capture one. This has always been the case, even pre-AI. The flaw is in the dogshit software dpreview uses. You repetitive fucking moron.here's your next 3 responses for the next 3 times you repost this:The test chart looks the same for every brand in capture one. This has always been the case, even pre-AI. The flaw is in the dogshit software dpreview uses. You repetitive fucking moron.The test chart looks the same for every brand in capture one. This has always been the case, even pre-AI. The flaw is in the dogshit software dpreview uses. You repetitive fucking moron.
Can i spam at the spammer too?>>4534049Adobe camera raw issue pajeetAdobe camera raw issue pajeetAdobe camera raw issue pajeet
>>4534050>>4534051Sony issue, basically an extension of the skill issue that is picking a good camera
>>4534052Adobe camera raw issue pajeet
>>4534052The test chart looks the same for every brand in capture one. This has always been the case, even pre-AI. The flaw is in the dogshit software dpreview uses. You repetitive fucking moron.
>>4534054So if you have Capture One there's no reason to have a Sony camera because even some m43 camera will look the same, interesting. Sounds like what you're dealing with isn't a photo of the chart but some learned rendition of it.
>>4534055Adobe camera raw issue pajeet
We should have a C1 Vs. Adobe photo battle thread.
Whenever I feel low on energy I know I can come to /p/ and sap some from the Sony shill
>>4534055>autist can not read between the lines>non-literal communication is impossibleBasically, you're a living chatGPT instance.
>>4534062We all agree sony is kind of shitIt's just the reasons you use are misleading and apply to literally all cameras, so it's more like you're using sony as a cover to fool new people into buying canon rebels. Layered dishonesty is really typical of your perverted kind, desu.
>>4534064>We all agree sony is kind of shitNot the shill
>>4534066What fucking shill, autist? It's me and a few other people. We agree sony is pretty shit>>4534045>>4534044>>4534043You just pick literal nonsense reasons to hate on it. You're a disinfo bot, alive or not, that reposts these bullshit reasons forever. Some of your posts have been repeated over 15 times.Leave the fucking board.
>>4534046>it's even Sony's own software.it's especially Sony's own firmware.https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6700/sample_images/sony_a6700_45.jpg
>>4534069https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/5FoMtqg6oLHLtq9DH3AErQ/9 reposts of intense pixel peepingchecking the exif, this should have been shot at f/11 to leverage diffraction to soften up the 50mm f1.4 GM. The shutter speed (1/250) is already excessive for a static subject anyways. When using ultra sharp lenses, you need to be able to anticipate this if you expect to zoom in. Otherwise stick to less perfect optics. This is preferable to an AA filter forcing literally all your optics to be less than perfect even when moire isn't an issue (ie: not photographing grids).I hope everyone learned something from this postThe fucking idiot I'm replying to will never. He is quite literally less than human.
>>4534069FUCK OFF
>>4534073>get diffraction blur on a picture you plan to peep on
>>4534075>get aa filter blur in every photo no exceptionsjust dont be as bad at photography as a review blog gearfag
>>4534078aaaa so blurry
>>45340795 repostshttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/AONOlHUttMzT7xNwruSTAg/
>>4534080And on the second time he posted it, you did the closest thing to a rebuttal attempt, let's remind everyone of what you said:>You've had this explained to you 20+ times and you STILL post dpreview screenshits (f5.6, acr)>Why isn't it a hot topic outside of a dpreview screenshit poster on /p/? You've had this question answered many times as well
>>4534081>You?That wasn't me retard
>>4534082>there's more than one autist permaseething at ACR because of moire and shilling Capture OneNot believable
>>4534035that sounds too poor and brown for me
>>4534080>someone even posted photos showing him AA filters suckMathematically, an AA filter ruined camera is always going to have ~10% less resolution than a camera unencumbered by consumer grade crutches. Clueless people may have moire issues in some situations, but the intended customer knows enough about photography not to and would rather have the image quality improvement.There isn't even demand for aftermarket AA filter upgrades except for panasonic, since it's more relevant to video than stills. 100% of moire can be eliminated by moving the camera a little or using slightly different settings.>>4534083Once the problems with your repetitive shitposting were pointed out, what is there to say but what has been said before? You are inhumanly stuck on repeat exactly as >>4533915 >>4533917 describes you.>Nophoto>Nocamera>ACR sucks>Pixel peeping a test chart>No one has a problem but youThanks to you everyone on /p/ knows dpreview screenshots are useless because no one here uses dpreview's specific ACR presets. You're literally the only one posting them anymore. Every thread used to have 3 different people spamming dpreview screenshots at each other. Not anymore. "ACR fucking sucks" being reposted every time you repost basically killed dpreview posting across the board. Good job!
>>4534085The last word is that OLPF removal is a bad thing
>>4534087https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/optical-low-pass-filters-and-high-resolution-cameras/>Is this abandonment of anti-aliasing filters a good thing? From my experiences (especially comparing the GFX 50S and GFX 100), I think the opposite, but it’s a good idea to look at what’s happening in detail, and I intend to do that in this post.
>>4534087>>4534089>kasson is wrong, its just simplified mathematical models, real cameras arent like that, show me real pictures, thats right he's wrong, phaseone wins>nevermind he agrees with me now he's right
>>4534090I'm not cANON retardHe's drawing observations from his use of GFX cameras here
>>4534091And for GFX 50mps he should.I don't want to mislead you by explaining why, but I'm going to anyways. Moire can range from a rare skill issue any retard can avoid by learning a few things and thinking before they press the button to a pervasive problem that adds 10+ minutes to processing time.On most smaller sensors, the sensor is higher resolution and the lens is free antialiasing, even for "high end lenses". An OLPF on a 20mp olympus camera, for example, would do literally nothing at any reasonable strength so they don't use them and no one cares. On low resolution medium format, the sensor's spatial resolution is low enough for basically any quirky window glass to create aliasing. An OLPF can now have an effect (reduce aliasing, and resolution) although often a more unnatural/digital looking one than oversampling natural lens blur.The GFX has the pixel pitch of a ~=26mp full frame camera. Coincidentally, every <26mp full frame camera has an optical low pass filter except for the lumix s5/s9, and OLPFs typically disappear after 36mp where the sensor's spatial resolution begins exceeding most lenses.Not putting an OLPF on the GFX50 was a genuinely retarded design decision. No other major company has ever omitted an OLPF from a camera with >5um pixels. Just panasonic and fuji.
where r7mkII
>>4534093He used the GFX100, did you even read the article?
>>4534096No I just assumed he wasn't retarded. The GFX100S requires multiple thousands of dollars of glass that's wholly unsuited to non-professional photography to outresolve its sensor. If he's buying special purpose lenses like that and using them for every snapshit without caution, he's retarded. The majority of first party native G mount gear is not meant for casual use at all and it comes with an inherent assumption the photographer knows when to anticipate aliasing and how to avoid it.
>>4534097>GFX >casual uselmfo>anticipate aliasingholy cope
>>4534085>100% of moire can be eliminated by moving the camera a littledo you mean shaking the camera to cause blur?
>>4534099>gfx>casual useif you're not making money in a studio you're using it casually>anticipate aliasingyes, aliasing is subject and lens dependent. even cameras with AA filters can have aliasing, just a bit less.the gfx100s has the same pixel pitch (same sensor wafer lol) as an a7rv. a lens sharp enough to alias on a7rv sized pixels is serious studio gear. most people use softer lenses because oversampled lens blur looks more natural and film like than blurring a sharp lens on a low resolution sensor.>>4534105the vast majority of moire is caused by camera alignment and you can see it appear and disappear in the EVF. the last 5% is caused by pixel peeping twigs after shooting landscapes with hypersharp optics like a boomer.
>>4534109>implying /p/ is capable of internalizing the fact that a soda bottle sized 50mm prime is serious studio gear and not the bare minimum to pwn the poorfags and impress their parasocial 4chan friends
>>4534109>protest about olpf blurring the picture>blur it more using soft lenses instead>buy 100mp camera>put a soft lens on itAt this point it's clear that no olpf isn't a technical choice but a religious one. >>4534110A GFX100 is studio gear too
>>4534024You have this problem where you make up dumb random shit to explain things you can't come to grips with, believe it and then try to make others believe it too. You made up:>me being a furfag>Adobe having an agenda against Fuji and Sony causing their cameras to show issues (Sony software screenshots and D800 vs D800E posted ITT proves that's retarded)>the Leica train being the reason for jews going into photography (most of the well known ones predate WWII entirely or didn't even live in Germany or the lebensraum at any point)>me saying crop factor increases reachYour arguments fly in the face of reality so you create an alternate one to think you won, it's a sad thing to witness. You don't belong here, you belong in the laughing house.
>>4534039More random made-up shit, see above. You just imagine things and present that as if it were the truth, anyone can see you're full of shit at this point.
tripfag meltie
>>4534062Sounds like a really neat skill, doppel. I instead get drained from arguing with the assblasted Sony fangirl.
>>4534087>>4534089>broken clock, bla bla bla>>4534090It's the truth though, all he does are simplified mathematical models. That's not the problem, when doing science you inevitably use models. The problem is then acting like the simplified reality is the complex ones. Like PhaseONE says color patch charts aren't enough to model the color behavior a sensor will have in real time. Reminder that Kasson is the type of guy who casually mocks the idea that Kubrick shot the Moon landing out of the blue. I read him but don't find him particularly trustworthy. I think he's the type to know more than he lets on.
>>4534117>replying to stuff is a meltyI'm just catching up>>4534111Exactly. I won't give (you)s to the coper he's already btfo.Good work anons, don't let him inject his bullshit.
>>4534109>the vast majority of moire is caused by camera alignment and you can see it appear and disappear in the EVF.Have you seen this demo?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2TyUrVBL8&t=1138Professional photographer/videographer Sven Bayer of CameraRig is doing a dolly zoom, meaning the camera is moving while the lens is zooming. In balance this creates the effect of a still subject. Moire appears and disappears throughout the range, but if you stopped the zoom at any point where moire is visible, moving the camera would not remove it unless you are extremely close to the subject, moving the camera closer and further. Otherwise moving the camera laterally will absolutely not remove the moire, just change its colour phase. Photographing distant buildings you can step 5 steps forward or back and the moire won't disappear.Using pixel shift to move the sensor does reduce moire because the sensor moves to sample each point of light with each colour of photosite, exactly what an OLPF does, but with additional limitations.
>>4534111>buy 100mp camera>put a blur filter on its so its really 90mp>because the test chart on dpreviewgood thing literally all high res professional cameras have no blur filters at the request of actual professionalsa high res camera should give a competent photographer the choice between the sharpest possible picture for when moire isnt likely and lens softnessblur filters look like shit. they’re unnatural. real lenses have glowing spherical aberration. blur filters have asymmetrical smearing. >>4534124>look at this test chart i pixel peeped on dpreview>now listen to this video about exactly what anon said - lumix is the only brand that omitted an OLPF from their low density sensorsyou are genuinely stupidonly lumix has no blur filter on cameras that need them. every full frame with less than 36mp has a blur filter. having no blur filter on a z8 or a7rv is fine. >but the test chart on dpreviewdoes not represent real photographyprofessionals use capture one, not adobe camera raw. adobe has worse demosaicing algorithms. professionals do not use $1500 GM lenses to take photos of test charts at f5.6only lumix cameras are badall other cameras are goodsimple as
A buddy wants to buy a Sigma fp with 45 mm lens and EVF. Any reasons not to do it? I think he mostly wants a camera for fishing trips.
>>4534126This. Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm are industry standard. Almost no one uses lumixes because lumix removed the AA filter from a camera that needed one. Capture one for raws and photoshop for tiffs are industry standard. Almost no one uses adobe for raws because adobe lightroom has always been a slow, laggy piece of spyware that added AI noise reduction and generative AI while still having worse demosaicing than literally darktable.
>>4534127The sigma fp has no OLPF or shutter. Get a sony a7c instead. The sony a7c has an OLPF so it has less moire and a shutter so it has no rolling shutter distortion. Its also more weather sealed than the sigma fp and has more lenses, including a pancake lens. L mount has no pancakes.
>>4534126>>4534128Try to be less obvious, samefag
>>4534127no mechanical shutter means rolling shutter effect with fast moving subjects like pic related.
>>4534131Being schizophrenic wont change reality anonCanon, Nikon, Sony, and Fujifilm are industry standard.Almost no one uses lumixes because lumix removed the AA filter from cameras that need them. No one else did. Capture one for raws and photoshop for tiffs are industry standard.Almost no one uses adobe for raws because adobe lightroom has always been a slow, laggy piece of spyware that added AI noise reduction and generative AI while still having worse demosaicing than literally darktable.OLPFs on low res sensors are important. Thats why every canon, nikon, and sony with less than 36mp has an OLPF and fujifilm uses xtrans with unique processing that makes it easier to automate moire removal in the cameras jpeg converter.
>>4534130>The sony a7c has an OLPF so it has less moireIf it has an OLPF it's nearly worthless.D800E on left has no OLPF.
OH MY FUCKING GODNO ONE gives a shit about AA and moiré, you fucking spastic spergmasterWhy do you go on these insane rants EVERY SINGLE THREAD?
>>4534130Thanks, I'll have him look into it.>>4534132Okay, might not be a problem for him.
>>4534134Cameras with OLPFs can still have moire if you take a photo of a test chart with a sharp lens set to f5.6. Additionally, adobe camera raw is worse at demosaicing than capture one or properly configured darktable and has more moire where it shouldnt because adobe just uses worse math. In real life there aren’t nearly as many problems as there would be with a badly designed camera like a lumix s5 or lumix s9 which have no OLPFs. Adobe is so bad it makes fujifilm raws extra blurry and adds worm shaped artefacts. Capture one and darktable do not have this problem. Adobe = low quality softwareCapture one = industry standadThe gold standard for moire reduction is still using a higher resolution sensor and a lens that is just slightly soft. The end result is more resolution than a low resolution sensor with any lens and no moire, and the natural anti aliasing of the lens looks better than a filter smearing detail artificially. No one knows why lumix has no OLPF on the s5 or s9 and sigma has none on the FP or BF… maybe they are just dumb. No wonder everyone buys canon, nikon, and sony. All 24mp FF cameras need OLPFs.
>>4534127Fucking retarded choice for a fishing trip, get something more rugged like a K-1 and closer to 30mm if it has to be a prime. Or get an underwater housing. >>4534130>>4534132Gr8 b8
>>4534127Just get a D3300 with a kit lens.
>>4534134>>4534138There's a D800 vs D800E comparison ITT, fuck off with your dishonesty
>buy a lumix>have to pay kolari $500 for a hack job sensor upgrade that will probably fuck up autofocus or IBIS and need sent backWow. I’m glad sony is dedicated to OLPFs. They even have one on the a7iv and a7v because even 33mp FF isn’t high res enough to beat moire. It usually takes 45mp FF to not have a problem unless using the sharpest possible lens to photograph a chart or brick wall and editing in bad software like adobe. Why does lumix sell cameras missing essential features?
>>4534141No one cares about pixel peeping dpreview charts. Dpreview does not use industry standard software (capture one) to process their files and they do unrealistic and misleading things like using a lenses sharpest aperture to photograph test charts. Also, 36mp isnt far off from 33mp. Sony uses an OLPF on their 33mp camera. Curious. Sony really is better at making cameras… and every sony comes with a free capture one license. And they have a pancake lens. Why do you guys shill lumix?
>>4534139>>4534140You are the worst. Why should someone who's not that knowledgeable (and flush with cash), buy a 10 year old bulky camera instead of a compact mirrorless?
>>4534136I suggest you disregard what that August said, moire isn't an issue on a fishing trip. It shows up in high frequency detail (tightly spaced lines mostly). On a fishing trip you'll likely shoot the fish you get and the surrounding landscapes. Splash and rain are bigger concerns than moire will ever be, and so is getting a wide enough lens for nice coastal shots.
>>4534144If he is "flush with cash" he can just buy a Leica to wank on
>>4534145>AugustKek, it was autist.>>4534146Q3 is weather sealed and all metal... It's also 7k>>4534144For the record D7200 beats D3300 for a fishing trip
>>4534144They are dishonest shills is why>>4534145The sony a7c is plenty splashproof with the right lens. Lots of people have gotten their sony wet. But for the best weather sealing in the industry, you need to buy a nikon. Not a shitty pentax with no OLPF, autofocus that doesnt work, and reliability issues.The nikon ZF and Z5II have been tested in swamps, rainforests, and hurricanes. Pentaxes have just been rinsed while turned off and then turned on for 5 seconds before the youtube video ends. Nikon has the best weather sealing.
>>4534143>Sony uses an OLPF on their 33mp cameraWeren't you arguing that OLPFs are bad and blur things? You're so desperate for a win you just contradicted yourself. Very Trumpian.
Not only are OLPFs important for avoiding moire, EVFs are too. With an EVF, you can see moire flicker in and out of your shots before pressing the shutter button. Exposure preview is a crutch but this feature is important. So is the EVFs ability to see in dimmer light than the human eye… and mirrorless cameras having more accurate autofocus, not just in low light, but all the time. OVF autofocus is inherently inaccurate.
>>4534150Who do you think you’re talking to schizo? Anonymous isn’t one person. Paranoid schizophrenic… flat earther… moon landing denier… antisemite… iran supporter… yep, cANON cAN’T be trusted.
>>4534151Okay, you're doing a bit. Performance art. Got it, keep doing your thing. Pretend I didn't say this, don't break the 4th wall.
>>4534153You are mentally ill.
>>4534152I'm not a paranoid schizo or a flat earther
>>4534154How is moire relevant to a fishing trip you obtuse dullard?
>>4534149Lots of a7cs stopped working after getting wet too. It's a camera bought for being cheap not for being good.
>>4534157Using a bad camera ie: lumix s9, sigma fp without an OLPF can result in moire in organic things like tree branches and hair, even if not using a $1500 hyper sharp lens like a sony G master because the pixels are so big even normal lenses can outresolve the sensor. There is a reason all other 24mp FF cameras have OLPFs.
>>4534158>a redditor dropped his a7c in a lake>this means it cant handle a little splashIf you want extreme protection you need a nikon or a waterproof shell. Not even olympus promises real weather sealing, only an IP rating that means nothing (protected from light water spray up to 60 degrees from vertical? lol!)Nikon cameras are used in space where conductive dust floating in zero G can destroy electronics fast.
>>4534148D7200 is a D3300
>>4534159Take your meds>>4534160>muh IP ratingsThe a7C has a known water ingress weakness at the battery door. >>4534161It's sealed, the only identical things are the sensor and optical performance. For a fishing trip it's a relevant distinction.
>>4534162>weather sealFair enough, but then you might as well just get a D600 instead
>>4534163Not familiar with it other than it being the bottom of the barrel FF offering and probably with worse construction than the D7200, it was made to meet a price point.
>>4534162The a7c’s weather sealing works great. The battery door is sealed against light splashes buy a nikon. >>4534163Dont get a DSLR. They’re oversized, the lenses are worse, they have mirror shake issues, OVF autofocus is inaccurate, no good ones have stabilization except on giant lenses/small aperture zooms, and OVFs are worse in low light and less useful overall. DSLRs are poorfag cope. Even the husky cuck admitted he only uses one because he cant afford to break nicer cameras.
>>4534165>mirror shake issuesMirrorless has shutter shake even on tripods and its worse than on a DSLR, probably because they're so flimsy and unbalanced. Huskyfag has an ancient one, D200 is a 20 year old camera.
Cope tier:DSLRsLumix (no OLPFs or pancake lenses)SigmaSony made before 2020Mediocre tier:FujifilmOlympusEarly nikon mirrorlessGood tier:Newer sony, canon, and nikon mirrorlessGod tier:Phaseone
>simpleton tier: >>4534169
>>4534168Sorry about your pre-2020 sony
>>4534170You are a moon landing denying nazi furry that supports iran.
>>4534172Not a furry, and saying I support Iran is a bit much. I haven't aided any of their efforts.
>>4534171Sorry about your cope.
>>4534173>im not a furry i just like anthropomorphic wolf women>i dont support iran i just cheer them on and hate jewsYeah whatever muhammad al-yiffer
>>4534176See once again you're making up random shit, when have I said anything about anthropomorphic wolf women? Is it projection or what? You could have accused me of something with some sort of basis in reality but no, the bussified zelenskiite pahlavist reality distortion field is too strong.
>>4534177>schizo babbleCalm down muhammad al-yiffer. This is a camera thread. We’re talking about how sony makes the best compact full frame camera.
>>4534178They're close but the RX1R II is no match for the Q3
>>4534179Sony also makes the Q3.
>>4534164You're a fucking retard. The D600 isn't "bottom of the barrel" at all. It had a production flaw which could cause oil splutter on the mirror (easily fixed), which is why it is very cheap now. It is a fully featured FF camera, with weather sealing and all.
>>4534180Weak b8>>4534183It was the budget, entry level FF model. D7200 was a professional model. Even the maximum shutter speed reflects this. It's basically a DX D750.
>>4534184No muhammad, the d500 is professional. The d7200/d7500 are just non-crippled hobby gear. Of course a canon fanboy nophoto has no idea such things exist
>>4534185D7500 is crippled because they launched the D500 and are super aggressive with segmentation. If you want D7200 pro features in a later model you need the D500.>Of course a canon fanboy nophoto has no idea such things existThat's rich coming from a guy who just showed he knows nothing and talks about everything.
>>4534142>have to pay kolari $500 for a hack job sensor upgrade that will probably fuck up autofocus or IBIS and need sent backThere is a magnetic clip-in option.
>>4534184Lmao, it was the entry level fullframe, which was still miles ahead of the casual market APS-C D7200, which was just a D3300 in a heavier shell.
>>4534189You're just talking out of your ass, the AF of the D7200 alone is heads and shoulders above the D600. In fact, there would be a better argument for the D600 being the D3200 of full frame. It even tops out at 1/4000s. The professional standard is 1/8000s.D600 was what people got when they wanted no frills but full frame coverage.
>>4534190Jesus christ canon, must you always make such an ass of yourself?
>>4534192I am the one making an ass out of myself? I even got called a Canon fanboy out of the blue by a guy claiming the D7200 was just a D3300 in a heavier shell. If I were to make an ass of myself I'd drop a detailed list of features differentiating both, I held out most. He's probably looking them up himself and realizing I was right, but too proud to concede. I'm willing to let it go, I already set the record straight. People here get mad when you call a spade a spade and that's a problem.Say the D600 is entry level? UH OH YOU'RE A CANON FANBOYI didn't even say it's a bad camera or anything of the sort. In fact if I had to get one camera for still photography with one lens, between D600 and 5D3 I'd take the D600. It's just better in every way other than the mount, video and AF.Ergonomics, image quality, even aesthetic design. It even has a flash, with commander functionality! Just look at the subtle power switch placement. There's a reason why Pentax copied the Nikon layout and not the Canon one. Even the *ist is basically a D100 copy.
>>4534193Did you ever stop to consider for a second that you may be replying to multiple anons? Not everyone can be a massive tripfaggot like yourself.
>>4534195I'm aware, I was just explaining I wasn't the one being an ass here and got carried away into writing an ode to Nikon DSLRs.
>>4534190>>4534193You're just talking out of your ass You’ve never used any of these cameras and probably dont even own a camera.
>>4534193ok nophoto/the reason /p/ is dead
>>4534201Most of the things I said can easily be checked by looking at photos of the cameras but it's true I haven't used a D600, just a D610. Virtually the same thing without the shutter issue.Anyways, I don't plan to stay much past midnight today so cya around and be sure to check what I said, you'll see it's true.
>>4533980>Please fuck off>Just fucking leave>We do not need your stupid sony/lumix centric propaganda campaign here>You have been reposting it for ages>What did you get as a repsonse?>We tell you fuck lumix. We call you stupid. No one fucking buys your reposted gearfag garbage propaganda. Fucking. Leave.>Leave.>Go. The. Fuck. Away.>I want my board back>Everyone wants the fucking board back to the way it was before you came here and started spamming /gear/ threads.>GO AWAYEven if I left now the moire posting would continue. Most of the posts you are replying to are not mine. Why are others re-posting the content I introduced? Because it's a real factual defect that popular reviewers ignore. Reviewers ignore it because they want to stay in the good graces of the Japanese corporations which provide them early access to products for review - reviewers depend on product early access to stay relevant.Anons dropping a few thousand $ on a camera have the right to know about these defects.
I'm glad you moiré autists exist.It caused Nikon to release D800e right after D800, which is why I was given a spanking new D800 for free back then.Never change
Worst thread on the worst board.Why isn't photography popular on 4chan?
>>4534208Those were sharpness autists not moire autists
>>4534210>Literally made a new camera just because of a moiré filter
>>4534206>a test chart shot at f5.6 and processed in non-industry standard “software”Reviewers ignore this for obvious reasons. No valid conclusions can be drawn from dpreview. Dpreview user is code for idiot. Nothing on that webpage is realistic. What reviewers dont ignore is that the lumix s9 and s5 do not have OLPFs. This means they have legitimate issues with aliasing that other cameras do not. Canon, Nikon, and Sony all put OLPFs on cameras with less than 36mp. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are industry standard. Capture one is industry standard and comes free with sony and fuji cameras. Dpreview is an advertising page owned by amazon. Simple as. Dpreview screenshot = invalid post. Nobody photographs test charts at f5.6 and uses adobe except for dpreview. Real facts = Canon, Nikon, and Sony use OLPFs and Lumix does not. Lumix has real world moire problems. Lumix also has inaccurate screens so configuring jpegs on camera is impossible. Lumix makes very bad cameras. Canon, Nikon, and Sony are industry standard.
>>4534206lol cope its just you spamming dpreview screenshits. no one else is autistic enough to use that worthless disinfo site.
>>453369590s? Listen here kiddo, I have a Tamron 70-200/2.8 from 2008 that is considered vintage. 2008 was 18 years ago.
>>4533965>SEVEN REPOSTS. SEVEN!Yeah, cuz it's a good example of what happens when you use a shitty ewaste camera to take actual photos instead of gooning over muh sharpness, lolNTA. Stay mad.
>>4534217>buy super sharp studio lens>photograph tree branch at f8 instead of f11/f16 when the lens was designed to photograph hot women at f1.2>use low quality jeetware instead of the industry standard raw editor>zoom in 9001% on a twig after doing everything wrong>complain your improperly taken twig photo has 3 bad pixelsNikon, Sony, and Canon (industry standard brands) dont have moire problems with proper use. Its a skill issue. They all use OLPFs on their low resolution bodiesLumix does not. Thats why the kolari OLPF is only for lumix. Lumix has moire issues. Thats why lumix isn’t industry standard and neither is lightroom.
SHUT THE FUCK UP SPERGS
>>4534214> Canon, Nikon, and Sony all put OLPFs on cameras with less than 36mp. Really? So why does the 25mp a6700 have such bad moire?>>4533859>>4534069
>>4534221Adobe is not industry standard softwareSony G master lenses are meant for use by knowledgeable professionalsSorry no one complains but you because everyone knows review blogs are stupid lolMaybe try being more industry standard instead of shill standard
>>4534221No exif no full image no point. The building was shot with a g master. Why do everything you can to provoke moire, and then complain that the camera shouldnt let you? Used properly (for studio portraits) GM lenses are fine without an AA filter. You just want training wheels.
Starting to think new z6iii won’t be dropping below $2k :(
>>4534223>No exif no full imageworks on my machine.
NEW THREAD>>4534229>>4534229>>4534229
>>4534230You're a NIGGER.These threads should hit actual limit before needing a new one but one or two of you genuine faggots feel the need to be in control of making them.
>>4534218The actual reason is that the Kolari filter isn't for cameras with IBIS but nice try
>>4534193>self-hating canon user has a melty over getting called a canon fanboylove to see it k3kplease do some more self-flagellation
>>4533739>Sony colors are the bestWhen was the last time you saw a serious portraiture pro use a Sony? Oh right, they don't. Journalists use Sony for good autofocus, burst shooting, and the fact that they're quintessential beater cameras. Journalists don't give a shit about color accuracy or artistic interpretation because the images go straight to JPG and to the editorial office within minutes.>>4533751This is probably the most important reason. Sony reportedly has good bulk enterprise offers.
>>4534409>When was the last time you saw a serious portraiture pro use a Sony?Portraits are so edited to fuck that any of the brands will suffice. Shit they're more than good enough for almost any type of photography outside of scientific stuff. It doesn't matter who is the best or who is the worst because 1, they're very close, and 2 most professional work is going to be edited and you can get near enough the exact same look with any of them. All you can argue over is jpegs, some brands do have greater and easier controls for modifying how they will look in camera but none of them are terrible.
>>4534249It's a sensitive subject
