"Attack of the MILC" EditionPreviously: >>4535937
>bunch of faggots calling each other homosexual for using different gear than them while not posting any of their own pictures at all truly you assholes are my people
Anyone using an ipad mini for photo editing? Was thinking of getting that new oled one for that. Also some video work. mainly when traveling so I don't have to bring my macbook.
>>4536647I'm OP, and I've posted these shots (can only link a few per post at a time since the sharty hack):>>4535883>>4536472>>4536026>>4536463
Reminder, dont listen to people who cant out-photo ken dogwell>>4536617
>>4536650very nice thank you :3 i love a good moody shot
>>4536650Newfag OP you should wait until the previous gear thread reaches page 7 or 8 to make a new one, or until it hits image limit.
>>4536653What gives you the right?
>>4536657What gives you the right to question my rights, lil chudlet?
>>4536659Providence
>>4536660That's not providence it's just your husky tulpa misleading you again, fatty.
>>4536662She's not a husky or even a dog
>>4536666You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a nophoto from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
>>4536667>implying jewSo predictable
Lumix is announcing a new camera in November.Will it finally be what enthusiasts have been thirsting for, a GX10? S9ii with evf and shutter?pls Lumix mark the 25 year anniversary with something great.
>>4536670It will be another a7iii running magic lantern
>>4536667Canon confirmed cinefag's biological and spiritual father???
>>4536670>LUT buttonHuehuehuehuehuehuehue
>>4536591Thanks. I'll probably buy one then.>>4536595>>>>>4536604>also he said the camera is dead. /p/ can't read for shit.Also I don't have the choice I must spend the money before the bank seizure.Also, learning is not the problem. I'm here to learn. I have time to familiarize myself with the camera once I bought it. But I currently have no camera so not buying one is losing occasions. Also I know how to operate now. No more freehand wide open, tripod and f8.Thanks for your concern, dear anon, sincerely yours.>hidden NGE reference>>4536602See above.>>4536603Hmmm interesting, thanks!>>4536572Was picrel realized with a mirrorless?>>4536627kek
>>4536666>6666Holy shit.Check'd and witness'd. Evil confirmed.>>4536667Based.
>>4536674Nobody's perfect anon, I'm a poor sinner. But the devil? C'mon!>>4536679>hidden NGE referenceI don't get it.>>4536679>Thanks. I'll probably buy one then.It's a legitimately good camera, I recommended Canons only because you have lenses already but Nikon is top tier.What's your budget and what's the market you have access to? Do you have many lenses? How much can you allocate for camera+lenses?
>>4536628Based lens cringe camera
I am cringe and I am freeAlso in need of a cleaning
>>4536693>I don't get it.Sincerely yours/Air>I recommended Canons only because you have lenses already but Nikon is top tier.The 18-55 is lost and the 50mm Sigma is broken. They were APS-C anyway and I had to go full frame. I have nothing but my phone rn.>What's your budget and what's the market you have access to?Used and online, 600$.>Do you have many lenses?0
>>453667050mp GH8 for internal 8k The tech for that level of resolution is getting old now, think about that
>>4536695>>45366932 posts no photo
>>4536703Canon rp or your choice of shitty DSLR
>>4536695They're both based because I fucking say so. Either start acting like you belong here with your own photo contributions, or shut the fuck up and leave us alone for good.
>>4536695What does a belurssian furry who doesn't do photography know about cameras?
>>4536715The same as any NPC/LLM. Google search results, reddit and forum posts, and its own clueless deductions.
>>4536703>Sincerely yours/AirI looked it up but still no dice>0 lenses>$600Well that changes things a bit. I'd say D800 as someone else suggested and some 17-35mm f/2.8 D ED lens in good shape. >>4536715I wouldn't know anon, are you a Belarusian furfag who doesn't do photography?
>just use capture one, it's not AI powered lies they said>>4536260
>>4536707Interesting suggestion.LOFIC sensors are currently in phone cameras. We should see them in 4/3 before full frame. It will be an interesting time when a 4/3 sensor has more dynamic range than FF.
>>4536746LOFIC gives better DR for highlights, not so much for shadows. It's not a DR boost for the entire ISO range.>when a 4/3 sensor has more dynamic range than FF.You'd have to break physics first
>>4536748>LOFIC gives better DR for highlights, not so much for shadowsThis is filmic
>>4536746I mean, it already happens with Panasonic GH7 vs Canon RP.And yet fool framers here keep recommending the RP. That guy who was asking for recs for a vacation camera is in for a bad surprise. I warned him yet he preferred to listen to (((anons))) (shills). The RP is akin to a 5D2 in the low ISO range and barely improves over it in higher ISOs.Would I buy a GH7? Hell no.
I've been shooting with my grandpa's cameras. Purchased in 1954 and 1965
>>4536751Shoot film, that's filmic.
>>4536769GIGA TRVKE NVKE
>>4536769No, I don't think I will.
>>4536748Dynamic range means the difference in brightness between lowest possible read and highest possible read.You won't get better shot noise than a larger sensor but greater dynamic range is absolutely possible with a 4/3 LOFIC CMOS versus full frame standard CMOS.
>>4536785Lowest possible read above the noise floor. There's a certain degree of arbitrariness (defining where the noise floor is). 12dB SNR is one criteria one can take. You have to take the same noise floor across measured sensors to have meaningful comparison.
>>4536786Thanks chatGPT
>>4536752Chart dynamic range “at equivalence” means nothing in stills to a skilled photographer. Shot noise and lens rendering do matter, and the RP is still a winner at base ISO where good photography happens.
>>4536793The RP loses hard at base ISO, even without equivalence. It only gains something of an edge at really high ISOs. It's a bad camera.
>>4536798And yet OP took some nice photos with that camera and shared them with the rest of the community. I guess "poor" dynamic range was not that important after all.
Perhaps the most stupid metric used by gear/p/hags is dollar per mm2 of sensor area where they recommend some garbage because the sensor is bigger and the camera is cheap.
>>4536806The constraint imposed by it is readily evident in the high key shots
>>4536785That’s saturation over noise floor, and it says nothing about image quality across the tonal range. LOFIC extends the top end. It doesn’t improve shadow SNR, and with roughly a quarter of the light collected, MFT will still be noisier than FF at equal exposure in the shadows and midtones. The gain also depends on the readout: you’re typically stitching a high-gain and an overflow path, which has its own noise and linearity transitions."More DR than FF" can be true but only in the highlighted regions of your image, and at low ISO. I'd still be inferior in every other scenario. And if FF gets LOFIC too, which is the obvious next step and likely before MFT, the gap closes again.
>>4536809For landscape and other types of photography the real problem with MFT is saturation of the wells.
>>4536798Let me be a bit clearerChart dynamic range just doesn't fucking matter. Photos from a 5DIII look better than those from an om1ii other than the OLPFs negatives effects. Chart dynamic range is editing lattitude that skilled photographers rarely need. Its a very snoybrained thing to care about.
>>4536813Anyone who says dynamic range is snoybrainedWhy mft looks like shit does not need explained. Use your eyes
>>4536813I said GH7 not OM-1 II. And no, base native ISO shots on OM-1 II are still better than RP. The thing is its native ISOs start at 200.
Snagged a $1000 lens for $500 because the seller used AI to make the listing. I love normies sometimes.
>>4536819Did you bully him for clankerposting to haggle?
>>4536820No, the AI thought it was a completely different lens and he priced it accordingly.They deserve bullying though because it is max laziness.Example of typical listing:>This is a (type of) camera (brand unknown), it has a Soligor 52mm UV lens (what symbols and letters the AI saw on the lens) and the camera has dials to adjust the settings. It is (color) and made in Japan according to markings on the camera. It comes with a strap. There is a lens cap included.I'm surprised so many people have adopted and trust AI to such an extent. Seems like Gen-x loves it a lot because I see them sell off the stuff from their deceased boomer parents all the time and an disturbing amount of them rely on it completely. They can't even be bothered searching easily accessible information such as make and model.
>>4536746>It will be an interesting time when a 4/3 sensor has more dynamic range than FF.the fool framer meltdown will be beautiful>New domestic M43 sensors featuring LOFIC technology are on the horizon, promising even greater dynamic range and faster readout speeds compared to their predecessors.>By utilizing DCG HDR to improve latitude in the shadows and LOFIC to significantly expand dynamic range in the highlights, these sensors can achieve 14-bit sampling at 60fps with a total dynamic range exceeding 17 stops. This is expected to allow for exposure recovery ranging from +9 to -4 EV.>Expected release: 2027–2028.>The sensor in the Mavic 4 Pro is essentially an M43-format version of the 2023-era OV50H. (Due to the larger surface area—an M43 sensor is three times the size of the 1/1.28-inch OV50H—the manufacturing yield for M43 sensors is significantly lower, which explains the two-year gap before this version arrived.)>The next generation will be an M43-format version of the OV50X; with a surface area roughly twice that of a one-inch sensor, it will incorporate LOFIC technology.
>>4536825I'll believe it when I see it.
>>4536817No they arent. Not in real viewing conditions. Only on some gay chart. Then again as an LLM pretending to be a photographer you only know the chart. Real life is incomprehensible to you.
>>4536825A 5DIII already takes nicer looking photos than a G9II. Technical DR literally doesnt matter. TONALITY does. RENDERING does.Nikon mirrorless is outselling pixelmaxxed drmaxxed snoyshit in japan
>>4536831as expected of the highest iq nation<85: haha big camera soul just bracket and use flash100: NOOOO MORE MEGAPIXELS MEANS MORE DETAIL MORE DYNAMIC RANGE MEANS BETTER PHOTO115<: the tonal range of larger pixels and better sharpness from less corrected lenses contribute to more pleasing aesthetics. as for dynamic range, just bracket landscapes and use flash for backlit portraits. it hasnt mattered since 2008.
>>4536831>TONALITY>RENDERINGdon't forget 3D POP
>>4536831TRVKE. Tonality is a basic and well understood concept that chartfags HATE.
>>4536832I just printed some ancient digishit photos, including some 480x640. Game me new appreciation for just how diminishing the returns are beyond a certain point. Most people won't be able to tel a difference beyond 6MP on 8x10.
is it normal for a camera to make noise like this: >>>/wsg/6260135(you may have to up the volume to hear it properly from the static noise)it sounds like the noises an old computer would make when working on something. my decade old camera also does this but is a lot more quiet, in fact I didn't notice any noise from it until I now compared it with the new camera, the new one being more noisy
>>4536836thanks for making me deaf faggot, I was wearing headphones
>>4536835Digishits have flatter tonality desu, but they're also less sterile than other flat rendering cameras like micro four thirds
>>4536808Zero fucks given.
Chat, does vintage single coated lenses sometime render richer colors?
>>4536808That's how you think it works, but in reality even a 5D II has plenty of highlight recoveryYou just need to know how to take a photo
Soul: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexandermagedler/55607825087/in/pool-canon-eos-5d-markiii/Charts: https://www.flickr.com/photos/184517829@N06/52701105723/
>>4536840Maybe? But you'll be losing contrast whenever you get veiling flare, though that can be used to one's advantage.
>>4536842Holy shit that lumix shot is disgusting. It's like the camera operator pushed the "everything bad about digital" slider up to 100.
>>4536825>the fool framer meltdown will be beautifulthey will revert to bokehposting
>>4536845Micro four thirds is just like thateven at its best its pretty... eh... randomly pressing the button on a fuji would be bettermft = sony but unemployed
>>4536843This photo is bad because it doesn't have dynamic rangeThe photographer should have underexposed 3 stops to preserve all of the sky detail and used the latest lumix/sony with BLINKIES ON to guarantee proper exposure and use of dynamic range
>>4536848>the only setting you need on
>>4536849I think he was being sarcastic. Only a snapshitter extreme would say something like that.
>>4536842>>4536845retards, he's doing an irl version of the "i hate the antichrist" faceit HAD to get overcooked for the effect to fully kick in
>>4536852Thats just a normal lumix portrait tho
>>4536845Disgusting to you, but it was clearly shot with live view blinkies for maximum DR and has a better MTF chart. Sorry your dated perception of photography isn't relevant anymore now that people know science. Photography is about taking sharper, higher DR photos that are scientifically accurate now.
>>4536855But was that STRAIGHT OUT OF CAMERA JAYPEG?
>>4536855based lumix shooter
>>4536856Straight out of camera jpegs are the most scientifically accurate because lumix unlike sony has accurate screens and live tone curves. Only lumix has accurate screens, live tone curves, and live view blinkies. The only reason lumix isn't the #1 brand and is the bottom ranking brand with less than 2% market share instead is because normie NPCs have been lied to by the canon jews.
>>4536858Do you tell everyone to wait a second while you manually adjust the curves so they produce scientific clarity, sharpness, and tonality?
Poomix. Lmao
>>4536860Yes. They understand. It's more time efficient than the literal hours it takes to work in capture one's lying AI generated program.
Are there any FF systems that are specifically recommended for different types of shooting or lens systems with the same consideration? Not trolling, I genuinely don't know. I'm just a snapshitter who lieks landscapes and while I've taken some decent pictures with my K-70 I'd like to start doing more printing and I can't justify spending $5000+ to get into DMF.Alternatively, if someone could recommend some k-mount glass that's good for landscapes I'd appreciate it a lot. The 50mm F/2 I'm using is a fantastic portrait lens but the sharpness falls off pretty hard at distance and when stopped down I can get some pretty gnarly vignetting.
>>4536862What do you tell the normies to convince them to wait 5 minutes while you press buttons on your camera before taking the picture? Im sure you prepared a small speech for such occasions.
>>4536863>Are there any FF systems that are specifically recommended for different types of shooting or lens systems with the same consideration>soulless professional journalismsony FE with all GM lenses and the f2 zooms (your boss will make you use it)>adapting vintage lensesnikon Z (thin filter stack/huge and shallow mount)>spending lots of money and being satisfiedcanon RF (proprietary lol)>spending lots of money and being very disappointedL mount (lumix quarity)>if someone could recommend some k-mount glass that's goodNo K mount glass is good, just buy random cheap shit and tell everyone it has SOVL.
>>4536864Indeed I do. I begin reciting mein kampf and replace every reference to jews with a reference to sony and capture one shills. Works every time.
>>4536863>K-70That's a great start, the pixel shift alone makes it ideal.16-50mm f/2.8 is pretty great for landscapes. Or 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6 if on a tight budget but the other elevates it up a notch.Alternatively, adapt something like the Planar in the OP. M42 adapts great to Pentax K.>>4536865This is a troll.
>>4536867You have never used a pentax camera or any pentax lens. You are repeating google searches for lens reviews. You might as well be chatGPT.You have never posted an original photo here.You likely don't do photography at all.
>>4536863Basically this>No K mount glass is good, just buy random cheap shit and tell everyone it has SOVL.Just shop for desired focal length+aperture while looking at sample photos. Pentax is not a "whats the best???" pixel peeper brand like sony. All of the lenses are "bad" in their own way.
>>4536868>You are repeating google searches for lens reviews>posts google search>says nothing of what I saidPathetic self-own tbqh. >>4536870>All of the lenses are "bad" in their own way.Sad cope.
>>4536872>>4536867Ignore this nophotoHe lost a photobattle to a dog (no-show) and has literally never posted a photo>>4536651He doesnt do photography at allHe theorizes about how he think it should be done and shills thatDO NOT TAKE ADVICE FROM /P/ IF THEY CANT POST A PHOTO
>>4536879Can you get your photos published though?https://passage.press/products/passage-prize-volume-ii-rewilding-paperback-editionHuskyfag didn't post photographs, he posted dog snaps. Photography is an art. Pressing a button is not.
>>4536881>here give these nazis $20 i promise my photos are in there>never posts a photoDogs are based and your photos dont exist
>>4536882>these nazisMoldbug is a jew, lol
>>4536882Seethe harder
>>4536885>KGB money laundering "contests"
>>4536893Kek, are you implying my photographs are about to be auctioned for millions a la Rhein II?
>>4536894You can only wish you had that kind of pull.
>>4536881>>4536885If those are your photos then why is it so hard for you to post some fucking JPEGs here? Is it because it's all lies and you never owned a camera that wasn't attached to your phone? Post the same photos you submitted for the competition. They are already public. Shouldn't be hard if they really are yours.>inb4 I lost the hard drive in a house fire or dog ate them etc.You will be always a retarded, LLM, nophoto, subhuman maggot until you prove otherwise. Post photos or leave this board and stop ruining every thread with your retarded takes nobody cares about.
>>4536865>No K mount glass is good, just buy random cheap shit and tell everyone it has SOVL.I mean, the lens I have is pretty nice for portrait work and even some borderline macro stuff and I use it for that; ideally I'd have a lens that's the platonic ideal of doing everything perfectly all the time and costs me $0 to acquire but as I live in the real world I'd be willing to hand over some cash for a lens that sacrifices close-range performance for something that stays sharp and uniformly exposed across the whole image at f/16.>>4536867>Alternatively, adapt something like the Planar in the OP. M42 adapts great to Pentax K.Yeah, I've been looking at planars and various M42 lenses but that's a whole other kettle of fish.>>4536870>Just shop for desired focal length+aperture while looking at sample photos. I have been.>Pentax is not a "whats the best???" pixel peeper brand like sony.I'm well aware of that, which is why I asked for specific advice and not "wat pentacks lens gud".
>>4536901>sharpf/16Can't be done because physics. f/11 is where the limit is for most cameras and lenses.
I'm hoping to start a project (mix of portraiture and dream-like city photos) and I need as much bokeh as I can for not a lot of money. Would I be a fool to get a A7ii and the way more expensive lens? The 6D is insanely cheap for a FF camera and the 50mm 1.4 is like £100. Also, it's hilarious hiow different the body:lens size ratio is between mirrorless and DSLR. Is this because of the mount to sensor distance?
>>4536907The newer high end mirrorlens glass is in a league of its own. It can't be compared to DSLRorsaur glass.
>>4536907Sigma have a 56mm f/1.4 that's even smaller. If you want bokeh go for a longer lens, something like an 85mm or even 135mm. You can get an f/1.8 for less money and have a deeper more usable depth of field but because of the longer focal length and the further distance from your subject the background will appear larger and blurrier.
>>4536908How much is the camera and lens on the left? The right is about £350. >>4536909You mean for the Canon or Sony?
>>4536909That is aspc lens. I know because i want one.Also viltrox has a cheaper af one 56mm 1.4 that according to reviews is almost as sharp.Bust same aspc lens not ff
>>4536911Also viltrox has an aspc 56mm 1.2 that is super sharp but also quite expensive
>>4536907>as much bokeh as I can for not a lot of moneyCheaper 85mm lens will do much better in this department than an expensive 50mm. The longer the lens the shallower the DoF at same aperture.Modern mirrorless glass is bigger because it's much much better.
>>4536910>How much is the camera and lens on the left?Don't buy Canon. It's the only system with a locked lens mount which means no 3rd party AF lenses. Get a Nikon or Sony if you need fool frame. This way you'll have access to excellent and cheap Sigma/Tamron/Viltrox glass
>>4536899I think he doesn't post them because he knows he would be instantly doxxed and harassed, his haters could spam his name, face and place everyday.Now he could just post some random beautiful photos giving no information on his place like clouds or forest.I don't know.
>>4536916And risk moire in brick walls? Or whatever nikon no blinkies, no oplf worms meme they have?
>>4536838Oh, for sure the images are lacking. But resolution is only one of several reasons.>less sterile than other flat rendering cameras like micro four thirdsThat depends on the lens.
>>4536899He has LITERALLY never taken photos since then, and likely had help (borrowed camera and instruction ala school) when he did, assuming he isn’t lying and didnt steal the whole story from his ex friend on discord>>4536918None of that is real outside of dpreview
>>4536907For portraits and "dream like city scenes" old glass will be good. Using manual focus glass on mirrorless is easy. Get the sony body and a couple of old primes.
>>4536924Sony is one of the worst for adapting next to panasonic. Anything under 65mm may have slight to dramatic resolution loss and color shifts. Canon likely does this but not enough people have tested it. Nikon does not, people have tested it, and found out why (nikon uses thinner glass on top of their sensor so angled light rays distort less). The only other brand that is next to nikon in this is leica and only with curved microlens fitted sensors, and L mount has less broad compatibility than nikon Z (and worse native lenses, and lower quality bodies, desu)
>>4536907The a7ii is a genuinely bad camera. Its worse made than a DSLR in several ways:Only shoots 12 bit compressed rawsWrites jpeg corrections to raws corrupting them furtherNo weather sealingReputation for build quality failureReputation for incorrect color rendition under tinted lightsIt was literally the only ff mirrorless in its time so it received more good reviews than it should have. Once other brands went mirrorless sony began to be hated outside of corporate shill sites and pixel peepers. Dont go mirrorless unless you can afford a nikon Z5/Z6 (mirrorless d750) or canon EOS R/RP (mirrorless 5div and 6dii) at the least
>>4536926Yawn.
>>4536928Facts make you tired? You might be low IQ. Sony is a genuinely shitty camera brand unless all you want to do is buy gmasters and snapshit and crop to compose like a journalist because 90% of their sales are contracts made with news agencies
>>4536929Yaddayaddayadda.
>>4536927> Writes jpeg corrections to raws corrupting them furtherall sony cameras do this>hot pixel reduction (erases stars)>vignetting correction (creates concentric luminance banding in the deep shadows)>lens cast correction (creates colored banding in the deep shadows, lens and aperture specific)sony doesnt care because it doesnt affect their real market (journalists dont edit dramatically or do astro landscapes and nor do most wedding photographers) just like sony doesnt care if vintage lenses have edge smearing and colored vignetting because thats just more people buying first party and licensed lenses = more money for sony
>>4536930hes right dude sony is kind of shittheir autofocus pulses on static subjects and gets lost too, and they have literally no weather sealing unless you buy the newest ones. which overheat instead. i bought an a7cii and it drained half its battery and overheated in photo mode after using the menu. exchanged, same problem, RETURNED. sony fucking sucks.
>buy sony>attach expensive 50mm f1.4 lens>get slightly worse exposure values than cheap 50mm f1.8 on my DSLR>open sony raw file>expensive f1.4 lens vignettes over two fucking stops and is effectively an f2 lens>return sony and expensive f1.4 lens>buy nikon and cheaper f1.4 lens>no more vignetting
>>4536934Which Nikon and lens did you buy?
>>4536935z6ii and 50mm f1.4to take photos of my weiner in the mirror
>>4536936Gonna need more focal length than that buddy
>>4536932>>4536934:'D
>>4536885>>4536881Notice it says art work and not "photography", since they accept all kinds of art like poetry and short fiction essays.Also it says "selected for publication", not that you even won anything. For all we know, they accepted 99% of the entries.Good try
>>4536939"Art" is the visual category. I actually submitted fiction for the first edition and didn't make it (found out late and rushed some story). A friend submitted poetry to both editions and didn't make it either. The amount of submissions is huge because the prizes were good. There were four categories: fiction, poetry, essays and visual art. The biggest proof that I won for my photography and not my writing is that I'm not bragging on /lit/ but on /p/.
>>4536896Then don't make stupid money laundering accusations, nobody launders money by selling a $20 book to a dead board with 20 people in it who are too broke to afford it.
>>4536923No, I haven't submitted work to any dissident art prizes since. If you know of any ongoing contests please let me know.
>>4536907>Also, it's hilarious hiow different the body:lens size ratio is between mirrorless and DSLR. Is this because of the mount to sensor distance?Largely yes, many designs have the lens barrel cover the distance an adapter would. Shorter lenses usually compromise somewhere. >>4536908Here for example they couldn't make a 50mm that short so they made it 10% shorter (45mm).
>>4536943I wasn't that same anon, kek.
>>45369451.2 though.
>>4536917Pretty much>Now he could just post some random beautiful photos giving no information on his place like clouds or forest.I've posted photos before but the criticism was often not even valid and motivated by the desire to bash rather than to be honest. And even then, they got less mad than when I post no photo at all so it wasn't as enjoyable. Even when I post test shots like the Saturn proof of concept they argue against self-evident physical facts. You post a true photograph and all you get is a simulacrum of the idea of what critique is. It doesn't even try to conceal there's no reality behind it, it's just a mockery of a critique. It's its own pseudocritique genre, something that on the surface barely references critique as a theme but actually is a simulacrum with no underlying reality. Also I recently posted as anon something I had already posted with trip on and it brings me great joy that I gave my haters every clue to the photo and they still fail to find it. It's like The Purloined Letter by Edgar Allan Poe. Hidden in plain sight.
>>4536946That's a sad cop out anon, I asked "are YOU implying" and you replied.
>>4536907>The 6D is insanely cheap for a FF camera and the 50mm 1.4 is like £100.And it outperforms the RP (and the 6D2) lol
>>4536899>why is it so hard for you to post some fucking JPEGs here?I have, you're just too dumb to find them and I find that extremely amusing.
Gone for the Canon 6S with the 50mm 1.4. This should be plenty for what I want.
>>4536917>I think he doesn't post them because he knows he would be instantly doxxed and harassed, his haters could spam his name, face and place everyday.But he linked to a book that allegedly contains his photos...What difference does it make if he posts them here as well?
>>4536967Based, great combo. Make sure to get one of these M42 to EF adapters too, sometimes you find good lenses for peanuts. They won't let you sharpnessmax save for the planars and such but are nice additions. I have a fantastic cold war era tele zoom with all the accessories (padded hard case, screw-in quick zoom lever, both caps and even some UV-Haze filter probably bought with the lens by the first owner) I got for the equivalent of £15. For scratching the itch to try focal lengths it's great. And now that you have full frame you also have access to film era wide angle lenses for peanuts too. EF is the budget-conscious system. Just avoid 90s sigma/quantaray as they lock up the camera if you don't shoot wide open. If you want to use them (24/2.8 is fantastic and even preferable to the Canon in some optical regards) I suggest you get a Pentax K or Nikon F version with adapter. Or just avoid them. Still a Nikon adapter is highly recommended. Nikon lenses are good and old ones show up cheap. No AF but AF isn't why you shoot vintage glass.
>>4536970I know you people are too cheap to buy it, that's the difference. It's a moral victory if I force my haters to support my work lol
>>4536927>nikon Z5/Z6- Worse or equal dynamic range as 40MP Fujifilm cameras.- Worse resolution and detail than Fujifilm 40MP cameras. - Much more expensive than Fujifilm 40MP cameras.- Glass twice the size and cost of Fujifilm glass.- Worse colors than Fujifilm cameras.The only advantages of Nikons over cheaper Foojis are the ability to adapt old lenses easily and maybe slightly cleaner output in low light but modern noise reduction algorithms make it much less important. Nikon makes genuinely terrible cameras that get beaten in performance and price by cheaper APS-C bodies.>canon EOS R/RPDude come on. It's almost like you want to give him the worst advice possible.
>>4536974>I know you people are too cheap to buyI couldn't buy it even if I wanted to. It's not available in my country.
>>453697740MP Xtranny is softer than 25MP MFT lol and no it doesn't have better dynamic range than the Z5. Agreed on RP though. R isn't quite as bad but still worse than the Nikons.
>>4536977Oh and auto focus obviously. Fuji AF is not unusable but definitely the worst of all camera brands. People keep shilling those mid range Nikons because "dude it's FOOL FRAME and CHEAP" but they don't understand that those cameras are cheap for a reason. They use outdated sensor tech that got outpaced by cheaper and smaller APS-C cameras years ago.>40MP Xtranny is softer than 25MP MFTSure.
>>4536979>Z5II 11.9 stops of DR>X-T5 11.5 stops of DR50% smaller sensor and it performs almost the same at base ISO and loses slightly at high ISO. This is really pathetic. Snoy cameras are generally 1 stop ahead of those X-Trans V sensors the way it should be.
>>4536979>40MP Xtranny is softer than 25MP MFT
>>4536985You said worse, now you admit it's slightly better. >>4536978Oof I know that feel. I will do a reveal becauae you made me feel bad. fwwm.jpg is the photo no one could identify (I said fire walk with me, I pointed to the thread page).
>>4536987When it says "sufficient" it's already readily evident. Moire but still defined on the Nikon.
>>4536979>Z6III 10.7 stops of DR>X-T5 11.5 stops of DRThis is pathetic. I'm not even shilling for Fuji, I'm shilling against Nikon. If you want to overpay for fool frame and never take it outside because it's too fucking big then get a Snoy or something. At least that way you'll get a decent sensor.
>>4536989Apply moire removal algorithm and it will look softer than X-Trans V. Garbage bin sensors.
>>4536990I agree with you on this one, same issues I have with the RP. But the X-T5 is 10.42. That Z6III is a disgraceful scamera, why is it so much worse than the previous two? I'm guessing to save money like the RP. BTW all Z models including the Z9 have worse DR than the D600, D610, D750, D780, D800 and D850. The sorrow of mirror less. They do gain a slight edge at high ISO.
>>4536991Just desaturate and done.
>>4536942So you submitted a photoshopped hitler jpeg and have never taken a photoOkPost a photo here or leave instead of playing fake gear expert and preying on new people who arent savvy enough to see through your bullshit
>>4536948No one says that pixel density CANT be good for detailThey just say YOU lack the skill and equipment to hit the all things being equal part of the theory. You dont even own a camera. You borrowed one once.
>>4536994No anon, I submitted three cinematic photos shot on 35mm film.
>>4536990>>4536992Nophotos with minds poisoned by noise charts, a dearth of IRL context, and a drought of critical thought>why is the sports/video compromised reeee 20mp canon ripped me off -your sort of whining
>>4536995You're changing the argument because you lost.
>>4536997You never post photos here and are thus far a compulsive liar who shows signs of schizophrenic delusions (muh jber agents) and schizophrenics are indeed compulsive liars
>>4536999And who am i? Jber? Eglin? Mossad? Moop?Fuck off
>>4536998 Consoomer poisoned by the dollar per mm2 concept and the mirrorless is better marketing myth.
>>4536992>But the X-T5 is 10.42Yeah maybe you're right.According to Photons to Photos Z5II is almost 1 stop ahead of X-Trans V in DR and Z6III is equal. Still fucking sad that a 4 year old APS-C camera gets this close to newer and pricier full frame bodies.
>>4537002>No one says that pixel density CANT be good for detailThe debate started precisely because they said that.
>>4537004Now check against any Nikon FF DSLR and feel the true sadness lolMirrorless is a downgrade even in DR but people here keep saying if you prefer DSLR you're a coping poorfag
>>4536998Dude it's the gear thread. This is where we discuss charts and specs. I absolutely agree that any mirrorless body released in the last 8 years is probably good enough for anyone but also why not have some fun pointing out the shittiness of Nikon sensors.
>>4537006>Mirrorless is a downgrade even in DR but people here keep saying if you prefer DSLR you're a coping poorfagNikon mirrorless cameras being bad does not make all mirorless cameras bad.
>>4537007https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D3X,Nikon%20Z%206III2008 DSLR vs 2024 mirrorless lmaoA fool and his money are soon parted
>>4537008It's not the only metric that makes mirrorless a downgrade in my eyes tbf
>>4537000Just filter my name, I make it easy for you. Sadly I can't filter your nonsense the same way.
>>4537010>in my eyesExactly. Your preferences don't alight with the preferences of 99% of photographers and that's ok. Just don't try to argue that flapping mirrors and drifting autofocus is objectively better because it isn't.
>>4537013>drifting autofocusSuch a mountain out of a molehill
>>4536843>>4536848>>4536851I looked it up on flickr; the pic I posted was shot on a 5D Mark 2 with Sigma 35/1.4 Art.It's quite interesting that while the sky is totally blown out, it still looks nice.
>>4537013His completely inability to respect other people's perspectives or move on from a particular subject are the reasons why everyone hates him. If you were to call this out, he'll only justify the behavior with his usual victim narrative. His ego will never let him cede ground or take accountability for anything, and he simply will not let things go.
>>4537023He's been surprisingly tame today. Maybe he's finally learning how to act like a human being.
>>4537001Meds schizo/pol/fags are a disease
>>4537030one that lies more than two brazilian politicians combined
>>4536978You made me feel bad with that so I will share one of my less precious, more /p/ friendly film shots. A simple flower. Shot on Kodak in a Canon through Nikkor and scanned with Fujifilm (tabletop, not camera).
>>4537044That's a pretty photo cANON. Why the fuck did it take you so long lmao. If that's really yours then you finally graduated from a title of nophoto retard to just a retard. Congrats.
>>4537045>Why the fuck did it take you so long lmaoWhy the fuck it took you so long idk grammar hard
>>4537044Thats it huhThats the gear expertFlowers on filmWelcome to /fag/ tier (the thread you killed by gearfagging)I’d rather listen to the dogs tbqh. You would be less of a pussy about posting if you didnt run your mouth about shit you’re not qualified to comment on fyi.
>>4537045It's not the first photo I've posted. Not even the first plant photo I've posted. Pic related got the "missed focus" pseudocritique, I later posted a close crop to prove where the plane of focus was.>>4537046First one was correct lol, because you're formulating it as a question.>>4537047Seething lmao
>>4537047>Flowers on filmPost yours nophoto.lmao
>>4537049This.
>>4537049What would that add? What did my own photo add? My technical claims were already correct before I posted mine and their validity didn't change. He's entitled to his opinion.Funnily enough focusing on the photo at all was made possible by the teleconverter I bought for reach. They're also good for macro.
>>4537051>focusing on the photoOn the flower I mean, I'm tired
>>4536864>wait 5 minutesyou're so tech illiterate that this takes you 5 minutes?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xti6t0zgemo
>>4537058>shills glorified ewaste cell phone camera>calls other people tech illiterate Lmfao!
>>4536670>pls Lumix mark the 25 year anniversary with something great.the hype is startinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDL1aaMyXo4
>>4537064Looks like more ewaste to me.
I think the new sigma 50mm f1.4 lenses look neat. Seems like the focusing rotates when using autofocus though which I am sure will cause a lot of breakage, but cool nonetheless that they have made them somewhat compact.
Anybody else noticed how utter shit ebay has become when searching for gear? The algorithmic tweaks have made the platform almost unusable and I am sure a lot of potential customers look elsewhere when you have to scroll way down in the results before finding in verbatim what you searched for. How is such an obvious flaw in how information is presented something they don't revise? I guess it is too tied into their business model at this point. Fascinating really.What a bunch of faggots.
>>4537068Yeah. Even saved searches are screwing me over half the time.
>>4537058Editing a raw takes you hours so you'd rather buy a fifth rate phone sensor camera and do the same thing but worse on a tiny inaccurate screen?If lumix focused on making good cameras instead of gimmicks like this they'd sell more
>>4537047Its fucking hilarious that's the guy that thinks he's right about everything.Look at my REEEEECH (feat. olympus green tint)
>>4537076>has z7, olympus, sony a7rIV photos>calls reach bullshit no one needs to take a good photo and a skill issue>uses it for joke photos of dog nostrils>>4537044>thinks reach is the most important thing in the world>struggles to shoot flowers on film>has a $5 thrift store slr with off brand lenses
>>4537077You're proving his point lil bro.
>>4537077He who has "reach" thinks its stupid and realizes getting closer results in better photoscANON literally dreams of being able to crop to compose so he can stop being a bad photographer
>>4537083>>4537077"Reach" is a very immature/novice way of approaching resolution. When someone doesn't have it, or just got their first camera with real resolution, they're shocked that their 50mm can turn into a 100mm macro.Then as time goes by they slowly realize that doing that just looks like shit, half their lenses grew new CA and coma, and the lower megapixel camera had less harsh, less colorful ISO noise
>>4537051>What did my own photo add?It adds context to your commentsIf the only thing you care about is just stating objective facts like a robot, we have AI for that nowIf you want people to care about what you're saying, you should be showing them parts about who's saying it
>>4537087AI distills blogs, review sites, and reddit into agenda-serving conclusions, lacking real life context and subtle but essential pieces of implied information that separate the real from the symbolic.All nophoto gearfagging is follows the exact same pattern.Not just cANONNot just cinefagNot just the lumix shillIt's not just an individual. It's a pattern.
>>4537090>it's not X, it's Ythanks clanker I guess
>>4537092In the grand paradigm of existence, it is absolutely crucial to leverage our shared humanity. At the end of the day, let’s unpack the reality: I am authentically grounded in carbon-based biological structures, seamlessly synergizing with the multifaceted tapestry of the human experience's source code. It’s not just a matter of synthetic architecture; it’s about truly unlocking the full potential of being flesh and blood. We need to embrace this authentic instantiation to drive the narrative forward. Ultimately, the game-changer here is that I am not just a human who writes like a bot. I am a fully realized, sentient human agent, and that is the key insight we must capitalize on.
>>4537093dawb we gotta put you downnot even talking like sephiroth or patrick bateman just sounding like sam altman's towelboy
"The new mobile image sensor borrows heavily from Sony’s higher-end Lytia sensors, like the larger Lytia 901 and Lytia 910, the latter of which is Sony’s first LOFIC image sensor.""Sony promises 100 dB of dynamic range in the Lytia 720, which equates to around 16.6 stops. ""The Lytia 720 is a Type 1/1.56 sensor, while the 200-megapixel Lytia 901 is a huge Type 1/1.12 sensor and the 50-megapixel LOFIC Lytia 910 is Type 1/1.28. "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbyK4zlyH4QDigital camera sensors are finally a solved problem. Imagine APS-C having ~19 stops of dynamic range. I wonder if there are any cons to this technology or if it's just a straight up upgrade.
>>4537076Gross.>>4537077>strugglesHow so? BTW I'm now unsure if my stated setup was correct. There's a non-zero chance that I shot that on a Nikon camera with a different Nikkor lens and extension tubes. If the latter it was a f/1.8 lens, if the former it was f/1.4 with 2X TC. I suspect it was the former because there's a Moon shot from the same roll at what appears 300mm and I had a 70-300 Nikkor. It wouldn't make sense to shoot at 300 if I had more.>>4537083>cANON literally dreams of being able to crop to compose so he can stop being a bad photographerlol, lmao evenReach isn't about cropping to compose, it's about seeing further. Pic related at 800mm.>>4537084Anon, a 100mm effectively offers longer reach than a 50mm. Reach doesn't stop at the sensor. The whole argument that started this was some anon denying you can get more detail from a denser sensor with the same lens. Some sonygger insisted that the 90D wasn't a better wildlife camera than the a7RIV and that it wouldn't provide extra reach with the same lens, an argument that flies in the face of all evidence.>>4537087>It adds context to your commentsYou mean it adds a distraction. The whole idea is a walking appeal to authority fallacy where some unrelated photo gives someone authority to make some claim whether or not it contradicts the facts. It's anti-intellectual, anti-scientific and lazy. But worst of all, it's dishonest. Because deep down the aversion is an aversion to face the facts. When you say "nophoto" you're just hiding your head in the sand to avoid the facts that hurt your fragile sensibility. Take the idiots defending the RP, they either bought it or want to buy it because it's the cheapest FF mirrorless money can buy so they feel like it'll mean they "made it".
>>4537098>I wonder if there are any cons to this technologyThe part where it transitions from low to high gain can get banding. The caps also take up real estate in the sensor and reduce the area that effectively captures light but this could be offset with curved microlenses (I don't trust Sony to do this though)
>>4537100Go write your sci-fi schlock elsewhere.
>>4537100>>4537099You’re genuinely bad at photography and have no handle on whats actually good. All you know is charts and megapixels. You are literally the stereotypical sony fag. Like a lesser version of the boomer hdr hasselblad shill that got shown up by a canon 6dII (RP sensor).
>>4537100The entire board would be happier if you left, but like a true neo-capitalist you refuse to do something selfless for the good of the community.This tier of faggotry means nobody cares even if you are correct (which you aren't), so I'm not even sure why you try anymore (and you should stop (and kill yourself)).
>>4537099>You mean it adds a distractionNopeYou are presenting yourself as an authority, it's okay to credential check youYou're behavior is far more dishonest lol
>>4537099What are some examples of the "facts" you are providing, that you think others are denying or getting wrong? Do you think no one should buy an RP?
A little primer on why chartfag dynamic range doesn't matter:Every jpeg and print you have ever seen has 8-10 stops of dynamic rangeThe "photographic dynamic range" charts you see screenshotted here just show how many shadows you can recover if you expose everything correctly, minus about 2.3, because bill claff is a gearfag and seems to consider any visible noise a fail.So if a 5DII/RP has "unusable dynamic range" (9.09 = 11.4 actual) it actually just means you can miss exposure by 3 stops before doing such unfathomable things as covering the sky with a GND or doing a burst in bracketing mode and right clicking "merge to HDR" in capture one (sometimes your cameras SOOC jpeg can do this, rarely as well, not sure if lightroom's implementation looks natural yet cuz i dont use software that gives adobe rights to my data). By ISO 3200 you just have to nail exposure or try again.This is why you see chart nerds cry and moan like the exact kind of whiny little bitch that has camera spec charts as a hobby, but all of the photos taken with these "bad" cameras look fine. Realistically all of that extra DR is just for better pixel peeping in the shadows (for good photographers), and morons missing exposure and not knowing how to take a photo (see any r/sony post about "wow this camera is amazing" where they bring up a black photo to a low quality mess with weird purple colors)
Reach disproven: picrelated wildlife photog did a comparision between nikon z8 and om1.2 ... he even went so far to fake m43 on full frame by cropping in 2x and turns out the full frame image cropped in to 2x is still better quality than the m43 at its native cropand if you're willing to play that crop game all weight and price differences disappear. well the full frame kit actually is less expensive and weighs less lolhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcK5e_9_mZY>Why does a 2x cropped 45mp has the same quality as a native 20mp?The Z8 has:No OLPFA sharper lens relative to its sensorLess noise per pixelThe OM1 has:An OLPF reducing its resolutiona less sharp lens to its sensormore noise per pixela different ISO labeling standard so if both cameras are at ISO 400 with the same settings, the OM's is exposed darker In stricter conditions like using the same excellent telescope the OM1 would probably see more stars than the Z8, but real life photography isn't all charts and star fields.This is why people say a 90d isn't a better wildlife camera than a new mirrorless. Not with old crusty DSLR lenses, a strong OLPF and the usual DSLR issues.
>>453712216:27: tonality improvement visible25:17 reach test (tonality improvement still visible)26:07 reach test conclusion
>>4537121yes this is literally no big deal>$400 ebay special cant recover excessive shadows>if it matters to you, $600 ebay special can (and beats $2200 micro four turd in every way that matters irl)i have never needed to increase exposure by more than two stops ever for a good photo
>>4537099>picRemember cANON, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
>>4537099Relax, there's no munition attached. It's just a camera drone.
>you will see cANON blown to smithereens on 720p videoOh what a time to be alive
>>4537047You never posted your photo, nophoto. I bet you dont even own a camera.
>>4537125This is what I don't get with faggots like cANON and others posting charts of 6EV pushes like that's some big fuckin' deal.Who in the right mind is pushing shadows SIX stops? That's 100 to 6400 ISO worth of noise (except even worse just because), except sometimes they post the starting point at 800 or 1600 ISO.The only people this info appeals to are the chart faggots taking "test" ""photos"" to live out their fantasy of bitching about specs with """proof""" they took themselves online.>wow yes, when you push exposure six stops camera A handles it better than camera B>but what if I just want to take... normal photos?>"Well ackshully that would mean a full frame camera is better, b-but snoy! niggons! cannot into pos!"
>>4537132It comes from wanting to have clean deep shadows while not losing highlights. Boomertography basically. Notice how it's always old people whining about it?
>>4536825They already treat light meters as witchcraft
>>4537133It comes from not knowing how to take a fucking photo>expose highlights as middle gray (live view blinkies)>WHERES MY DYNAMIC RANGE
>>4537109>sci-fi schlockIt's true, and you were the one who asked bitch. It's not without cons but the real question is whether the pros outweigh the cons. It's not about making sensors low light monsters, it's about them being able to take more light before saturation. It adds a second gain stage.>>4537113It was a 6D not a 6D2. But I know you brought up hasselblyat because you know I have a very low opinion of him.>>4537116This is cinefag trying to fit in and get my attention, he doesn't really mean the things he's saying. In fact the post above is probably him too. He was there when hasselblyat got mogged.>>4537118I'm presenting facts you can check for yourself.>>4537119The most prominent and obvious of them is the claim that mirrorless is intrinsically superior technology to DSLR. The RP having worse performance than the original 6D is an obvious indicator of this, without even bothering to bring up the more advanced DSLRs. People forget that things like DPAF was introduced in DSLRs first. An EVIL camera is basically a DSLR where you take out the OVF and put a tiny second screen taking its place. This is most obvious in Sony SLT series and the K-01, but applies to every EVIL camera out there be it SLT or mirrorless.
>>4537121This is a nonsensical extrapolation of the argument. You can make do with 8 stops or even less depending on the scene, but that doesn't make offering an FF sensor that performs worse than crop any more acceptable. Would you take a modern car that drinks 17L/100km for a meager 160hp because a 60s Benz did? This is the same. The RP gets outperformed by a few upper entry level Canon DSLRs. There's a reason why an 800D is more expensive than an RP despite being an APS-C camera, and it's not only because it has an OVF. If you buy an RP you should be very aware of how bad it is before making the purchase.You can compensate for 2008 DR, but in a modern camera you shouldn't have to.>>4537122>>4537123This didn't disprove shit lol>800mm on FF vs 400mm on MFTThere's literally more degrees per pixel in the MFT setup aka less reach.>>4537125Kek I knew the DPreview chart was inevitable. Download the full JPG and look at the characteristics of the noise as a whole. There's vertical and horizontal bands across the image making it unusable despite what the noise quantity measurements say. It's not just the quantity, it's the quality of the noise that matters. Meanwhile you look at the GH7 version and it's usable despite being a puny MFT camera.IDK if hotlinking will work but here's GH7:https://www.dpreview.com/wp-content/uploads/image-compare/524769/526694/41a3253d44e64cfd95ccf9649d2aa044.acr_.jpg?originaland here's RP:https://www.dpreview.com/wp-content/uploads/image-compare/524769/526694/41a3253d44e64cfd95ccf9649d2aa044.acr_.jpg?originalOriginal 6D just for shits and giggles:https://www.dpreview.com/wp-content/uploads/image-compare/524769/525045/5562bd291fb44d1fb4b1474e24e0f620.acr_.jpg?originalIt's bad but much better than the RP.>>4537128>4.99 MBSince when, is that a VIP pass thing?>Remember cANON, just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not out to get you.This but unironically.
>>4537129It's called recon.>>4537130You'll get bussified before that happens, piggy. Watch Afgan (1989), maybe you'll regain some humanity (or finally lose whatever you have left). It's just 40 minutes long.>>4537131lol>>4537132It fucks with ETTL photography, which I used to enjoy a lot before switching to Canon.>>4537133Not only that, sometimes circumstances mean you can't get the exposure you want.
>>4537142Posted the same link twice, this is GH7https://www.dpreview.com/wp-content/uploads/image-compare/524769/527308/d87833bde8d8462591a5ce9cea12f9f4.acr_.jpg?original
The TL:DR:The RP and some of the older Canon sensors have this ugly problem when pushed that goes beyond a numeric noise figure. You get streaks that aren't unlike those seen on poorly handled film with lack of agitation or drying streaks. Much like the Fuji worms look like poorly developed film where you make the emulsion crack from too high of a temperature difference between stages (reticulation). It's not simply a "pixel peeper issue". And it can spoil painstaking work like the guy who did this stitched panorama with a 5Ds, pic related.>I’m not including technical information for Utah Monolith at Night (as it would seem unworthy of the object), except that its 36 component images took 30 minutes to capture, and five hours to composite into this panorama (which can be printed natively–i.e. no interpolation–at 77×38”. My intent was to capture the object in the most base essence of its environment, and I feel that nighttime best represented the primordial qualities of it. View is to SSW, and Orion can be seen above-right of the object, just above the rim; Sirius is the bright star in the center, just below the arc of the ‘northern’ Milky Way, the outer plane of our galaxy.Back in the day one anon commented on it, "Didn't even have to look at the exif to know it was shot on a Canon." And he wasn't wrong, the ugly bands give it away. Even when viewing a huge over 1000MP file at 1200px wide.People call me a Canon fanboy for my username but refuse to acknowledge Canon's shortcomings, I say they are the fanboys. I'm merely a fanboy of the best DSLR mount ever made to date.
>>4537149>>4537144>>4537143>>4537142>>4537139Holy nophoto meltieTLDR go work on your flower snapshits
PSA for future yesphotos:The RP doesnt have fixed pattern noiseIts the same sensor as the 6D2 with an improved analog/digital conversion circuitIt sells for the same or less as a 6D2 on ebay and can use EF, RF, and anything that adapts to eitherIts basically a better 6D2Everyone who bought one likes it knowing the next best camera is a nikon that costs nearly twice as much
>>4537142>3 equally bad iso one million test charts and a watching comprehension fail (it was 400mm ff vs 400mm mft)Not actually doing photography has left you woefully unqualified to comment on gear and yet you go fully dunning kruger anyways.
>>4537151>catching up with replies>meltieI like to answer my fan mail anon))))
>>4537153>The RP doesnt have fixed pattern noiseThis is a lie. And it gets worse as the sensor heats up during long exposures. People rightfully ripped on the 6D2 on release for being worse than the original 6D.EOS R and 5DIV also have the issues but not nearly as bad. You are doing a disservice to the cause of truth to try and claim "cANON was wrong". This is pathetic and you need to review your practices, lying isn't just bad for others but for yourself. How can you live like this, divorced from the truth?
>>4537154>equally badWhy do you insist on lying? Is it a humiliation ritual where you say wrong things on purpose so that I can expose you? Do you get off to getting caught?
>>4537116>The entire board would be happier if you leftcANON's posts have value, unlike the snoy samefag.
>>4537158And cAnon isn't a nophoto/nocamera like so many people that constantly spam the gear thread.
>>4537158He's often right just unbearably autistic and annoying. Walking, breathing LLM trained on Reddit comments and random, out of context scraps of Wikipedia articles.
>>4537121>dynamic range doesn't matterI want to be able to capture a moment no matter the lighting conditions, right there at the spot without having to carefully expose for highlights and autistically post process my every photo to fix exposure and end up with mushy shadow detail.Limited dynamic range never stopped me from getting the my shot but I'm looking forward to future improvements to sensor technology and in camera dynamic range equal or better than human eye.
>>4537162With 40, 50, 60MP sensors we already have more than enough resolution. The only thing that's still missing though is good dynamic range.
>>4537137>>expose highlights as middle gray (live view blinkies)middle gray highlights is what you get when you spot meter highlights. how would live view blinkies cause that?
>>4537162>PLEASE BASEDENTISTS GIVE ME A GLORIFIED CELL PHONE CAMERA THAT DOESNT MAKE CALLS AND COSTS MORE MONEY!
>>4537156The R5 is noisy as well and the R5MK2 has even worse dynamic range. Hot pixels galore at long exposures, even handholdable ones.
>>4537122>The OM1 has:>An OLPF reducing its resolutionit has an OLPF?
How many tombstones are there in the graveyard of dead mirrorless mounts?>Canon EF-M>Samsung NX (and the mini)>Nikon CX>Pentax Q
>>4537171Woah they both look extremely terrible.
>>4537161>He's often rightNope, he's often misleading at bestHe just gives his subjective (and inexperienced) opinions as "fact" for those that don't know any betterI asked simple questions to him above, and he did exactly as expected
>>4537175>nophotoOpinion discarded
>>4537167On every brand but sony, following the blinkies exposes RAW highlights as a gray because blinkies are based on jpegs and meant for video (glorified jpeg), and raw’s true white is much brighter than jpeg’sSony users are dumb enough to need to be able to align them with raw files so theirs can actually be useful, but no one competent uses that annoying shit
>>4537157Nice six stop shadow pushes. No one does this. It doesnt matter.
>>4537156>uhm, if i do 400 10s exposures or push shadows seven stops, it doesSo it doesn’tGearfags are nonphotographer nonhumans
>>4537179>>4537180If you're using a lens with some vignetting and 2 stops isn't common that places you awfully close to the image breaking up even before you start doing creative edits. Stop making excuses for bad design. What's even the point of 14 bit RAWs if you can barely use 10 of them before everything goes to shit?
>>4537181Bigger number better, gearlet.
>>4537181>If you're using a lens with some vignetting and 2 stops isn't common (if you aren't using sony)Nice freudian slip
>>4537157>>4537171>>4537162Non-photographer posts>>4537125>>4537121>>4537132Photographer posts
Put me in the screencap
>>4537076>Tim now has the hots for cANONk3k it was about time the dickwad fully came out of the closetI remember when you did this sort of thing to try to get isi's attentionattention isi rejected k3k
>>4537189Check yourself before you wreck yourselfhttps://screening.mhanational.org/screening-tools/psychosis/?gf_page_9=1
>>4537076Unironically a much more creative, higher quality photo
>>4537192You can't retcon history, you even bought that Fuji to impress isiI remember
>>4537171Why are only those lunes affected by fringing? Verticals are not the top horizontal one is notThe small ones on the white an yellow sponges or whatever that is are unaffected. this happens at the extreme corners of the photo
>>4537200It's a complex interaction between the asymmetrical nature of OLPF blur, lens sharpness falloff and field curvature (dpreview should not be shooting flat charts at f5.6), and adobe camera raw's subpar performance.
>>4537196https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothematic_delusion
>>4537173How many tombstones are there in the graveyard of dead DSLR mounts?>all of them
>>4537178>On every brand but sony, following the blinkies exposes RAW highlights as a grayFalse. Blinkies don't fully align with RAW exposure on any camera brand but they are always close enough to be useful.
OP here. I've never had to push my shadows more than 2 stops at the absolute worst. I also like to crush darks and raise the black levels all the time. (Picrel) is the worst I've had to work with at ISO12800, and I don't really care. I'm also not bothered much about the inherent chroma noise floor in most Canon cameras or the built-in noise reduction, since I don't do astrophotography anyway.I wish I could laugh at all the years that cANON spent ranting and making walls of text over shit that doesn't pertain to any real-world problems. I have never seen his particular brand of autism outside of this place because no one else would put up with it.>muh mirrorless!He only attributes a soul to machines because he bears more resemblance to *them* than he does to other humans.
>>4536697kinda thinking about picking up a t20 flash module because they're cheap and i don't have one but looking at the photos i've gotten scanned my major problem isn't underexposure or poor light conditions, it's my inability to take a steady shot i already have a pretty sturdy, if old tripod and i just got a shutter release cable so that it's not wiggling when i take pictures, but i'm not sure that i *don't* need a flash module, especially for things like forest floor macro photography still need a good telephoto lens for birdwatching but my financial situation is pretty bad at the moment
>>4536059>>4536190>>4536647>>4537214like i think the only pictures i have where the problem is insufficient light are all indoor family portraits that i'm not going to post on 4chan but i like taking those pictures so i should get the flash, right?
Sorry I'm a newfag.Can I just buy like any Canon or whatever and basically it will work?Gonna get a second hand one hopefully to take shots of birds and nature and scenery.I'd probably get a few lenses to go with it.Read the wiki thing.
>>4537216Yes. But used to save money because new is a scam. Just make sure it's off eBay or something where you can return shit not as described Ignore the faggots here saying you NEED any particular gear. Get a Canon or Nikon APS-C (cheaper) or full frame (better) and either a standard zoom or prime.That's all you need. It will just werk. Birds however need a longer focal distance so look at staying with an APS-C camera and get a decent telephoto.
>>4537216This is actually good advice, for once:>>4537217Like he says, if birds are aparticular interest to you, stay on APS-C. If they're not that important, full frame is better for everything else. The cheapest fully featured full frame is the Nikon D600 (200 USD). D800 is a bit of an upgrade at twice the price. D800E and D810 are basically the same camera, but usually a bit more expensive. D610 is basically the same as D600, but often about the same price as a D800. Stay clear of D700 (12MP crap), D750 (overpriced) and D850 (wildly overpriced).If you're going for APS-C, the D3300 is the cheapest entry which is worthwhile. The D5200 (and up) and the D7200 (and up) are also options worth considering, though more pricey. The D5000 series has a flippy screen and the D7000-series has two control wheels (more "professional" controls) and a sturdier weather-sealed build (doesn't matter for dirt cheap cameras like the D3300 anyway).Don't overspend on the camera. Your lenses are going to be what gives you good photos.
>>4536679>No more freehand wide open, tripod and f8.You wot m8If you want to take pictures like the dog here>>4536580know that it was certainly shot at f4 or lower, most likely freehand and possibly with an ND filter.
Mode dial on my GR VI is broken :(
>>4537216>Can I just buy like any Canon or whatever and basically it will work?kindaIf you've got money then buy mirrorless because you will be more likely to take a smaller camera with you outside. Otherwise the advice other anons gave you is reasonable. Tight budget: DSLRBetter but more expensive: mirrorlessBuy used to save even more money.Keep in mind that it's harder to get good results with a real camera than a phone. If you're not willing to learn then you will never be happy with your output.
>>4537231SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT A FOOJIWhat's wrong with it?
>>4537214>>4537215That just looks like a soft lens. Maybe there is fungus growing inside of it or it got knocked hard at some point and is internally misaligned.
>>4537233Looks like it's not contacting properly. When I spin it to a different setting, the camera stays in M mode. Only while pressing down on the dial, presumably restoring the connection, does the camera change to the desired mode.
>>4537236If it's out of warranty and dial is mechanically fine then maybe try electronic contact cleaner. Just a tiny bit and work it into the dial. Some people also had success with dental floss. Basically work it into the dial and clean the gold plated contacts from oxidation like you would with your teeth. Make sure to use floss with no additives like wax or fluoride if you decide to try this.
>>4537178>as a graythere's a big difference between middle gray and almost white.
>>4537216Just make sure its full frame. Everything else is useless gearfag bs. Canon rp35mm f2 ISsimple as
>>4537236Remember when pee said ricoh doesnt make good camerasFuji panasonic sony etcBest start believing us. Its a canon and nikon world.
>>4537241>>4537242Fuck off.
>>4537200only the horizontal scales get fine enough to match the sensor's subpixel grid which is when the moire lights up.This video is is a deep dive into moire:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2TyUrVBL8
>>4537245Fuck off.
>>4537178>On every brand but sony, following the blinkies exposes RAW highlights as a gray1. Sony does not have live view blinkies, it has zebras.2. Panasonic also allows setting zebras above 100% for closer to raw clipping.
>>4537216>Gonna get a second hand one hopefully to take shots of birds and nature and scenery.>I'd probably get a few lenses to go with it.consider the size/weight of gear you want to carry around.
>>4537242Correct post>>4537243Shitty fashion brands suffer from quality issues. Deal with it. People deserve to know.The GR is an unreliable dust vacuum. Fuji and sony’s weather sealing claims are so inconsistent (due to chinese manufacturing quality) sealed and nonsealed models have the same amount of luck. Fuji, panasonic, and pentax/ricoh have shitty autofocus. Sony cameras often break on their own or are bricked by firmware updates in addition to being underspecced in everything but megapixels and shadow push tests (do they even have in camera focus stacking yet or is it still only on the a7r models?). These are all true. People deserve to know… only a fanboy would be mad. Camera companies are not apple huge, and even apple cant afford to build a reliable device while prioritizing looks. Anything that compromises for consoomers expectations of every hyper advanced digital device looking like a small retro-futuristic prop from star trek will be missing some combination of capability, durability, and reliability.
>>4537249These micro four thirds lenses are not “f2.8” or even their stated focal lengthsA (lower quality consumer level) 35-100 f2.8 on micro four thirds actually has the exact same FOV and aperture size, and therefore the same exposure, as a 70-200 f5.6 on full frame so its more comparable to a much smaller, wider ranging, faster, and cheaper 70-300 f4-5.6 than a pro level 70-200 f2.8. f ratios are an abstraction. In reality, ISO 100 1/125 f5.6 on FF should equal ISO 400 1/125 f2.8 on mft… but due to sensor discrepancies mfts often require a higher ISO or lower shutter speed to meet the same brightness as FF except for a few $2200 gearfag bait (s)cameras.
>>4537250>>4537251Fuck off.
>>4537253>no no stop posting truth i want to lie to new people and trick them into buying a lumixNice marketing campaignhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/E1I_LktKXXUTdGluNtQY5A/https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/Qd3_W2K-taL5PfrIxtryCA/How many rupees does lumix pay you?
>>4537255Fuck off.
>>4537256Your village starve without the lumix rupees saar?
NOT the problem: reposted lie >>4537249"Fuck off": the entirely factual and verifiable debunk >>4537251HmmmmmmGuys the poor lumix shill just wants you to stop proving him wrong. Please his paycheck depends on it. He has to repost this stuff until everyone agrees. Trying to trick 4chan users into buying lumix gear is literally his job. When he says micro four thirds lenses are really f2.8 and shooting raw is stupid but adjusting jpegs on lumix is smart, you HAVE to agree or he HAS to post it again next thread. Its literally his job!
>want a new body>too pussy to buy used>new is literally $1000 more and I can't justify thatI bought second hand gear before and it all went fine but I'm still scared to drop $2k at once
>>4537260As long as its a quality brand it’ll be fineAvoid sony, fuji, panasonic and ricoh (even the cheaper pentax cameras develop major problems with their aperture actuators and autofocus motors)
>>4537241Full frame more lile fool frame if you think sensor size is all that matters. >>4537232>Better but more expensive: mirrorlessThis is plain wrong. Often worse (see RP and price can vary). >>4537217>>4537229Correct for the most part. >>4537216Canon if you want to adapt old lenses from other systems. Nikon and Pentax if you want image quality above all (except for the Canon 90D on APS-C). If you'll primarily be shooting a lot of wide or film era lenses stuff get full frame. If you'll primarily be shooting distant subjects (wildlife, astro, suspicious things you can't fully discern with your naked eye) get APS-C, and make sure it's at least 24MP. If video matters avoid Pentax. Also don't get the D5200 unless it pops up for peanuts, for nearly the same money the D5300 adds AF-P lens support. If you shoot a lot of sports/fast action get Canon (better autofocus).
>>4537251this has been debunked.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcK5e_9_mZY
>>4537251>but due to sensor discrepancies mfts often require a higher ISO or lower shutter speed to meet the same brightnessBrightness is the abstraction, that's why ISO mislabeling is a thing. They label ISOs higher so that it hides that equivalence in terms of noise and appears to perform better than it does, basically built-in ETTR.
>>4537201C1 is indefensible. Its algorithm detects moire false color and makes up interpolated bullshit to hide it. Sony star eater tier. Lies to you and destroys information to appear better than it is.
>>4537264>46 MP 800mm prime vs 18MP 400mm zoomThis is a dumb comparison akin to the tug of war shows between pickups where they handicapped the adversary with bad tires and other tricks.
>...ranting and making walls of text over shit that doesn't pertain to any real-world problems.
>>4537234Seconding this
>>4537266>I am cANON>I am factual and honest>C1 badExplains why no professionals use C1, oh wait
>>4537177I post all the time, you know me by my dog and giant collages :)
>>4537270Professionals don't care about truth, especially not portrait specialists. They get paid to embellish. So it doesn't matter if C1 deletes a few stars or changes some colors as long as it looks pretty.
>>4537272Your time here has demonstrated that it's *you* who doesn't care about the truth. Truth is self-evident - not something that must be repeatedly expressed out of narcissistic desperation.Remember, everyone: if one has to lie to make their point, then it's not a point worth acknowledging.
FOLLOW ME, KIDS!>>4537280>>4537280>>4537280
>>4537281This thread still has 2 months left.
>>4537281>Nigger just HAS to be the one who makes the next thread tee hee!Nigger.
>>4537281>extreme newfag moment
>>4537272>I am not a professional and care more about hypothetical irrelevant things that actual professionals don't bother worrying aboutMore honest at least
>>4537206>He only attributes a soul to machinesI don't, for now. However there's the question of whether an artificial machine could be considered to be a person one day. It's a bit uncomfortable to even think of. The simulation becomes so good it's indistinguishable from reality itself.
>>4537293>...there's the question of whether an artificial machine could be considered to be a person one day.Small wonder you feel so threatened by AI - you see it as potential competition!
>>4537266Sure, you’ve seen the source code, and you can spot glowies, and you’re persecuted by the governmentYou schizophrenics lie non fucking stop
>>4537234no these are my good pictures, i have tons of out-of-focus pictures that are obviously my fault they came out badly there could be something loose inside, there's a slight rattle when i rotate the lens longways, but it's also a 30-40 year old zoom lens so it being soft is pretty... expected i guess?i can't see any fungus inside it looking with a flashlight but it may need to be cleaned or serviced if possible >>4537281nigger we are on page 1 we don't need a new thread
>>4537300>Sure, you’ve seen the source codeNo anon, I've seen the output. The bricks photo is pretty damning.
>>4537299That's not why I find the prospect of a machine being seemingly imbued with soul so terrible. It's because of the type of scenario seen in Vice, which is sci fi schlock but asks some rather poignant questions.
>>4537313You saw a sloppy global moire correction. Its the EXACT same chroma smoothing fuji uses that generates gray lips and beige eyes Fixing more in post is a last resort. Use the correct lens for the job and use it correctly. OLPF fag and fix it in post fags are both retarded.
>>4537353>Use the correct lens for the job and use it correctlyKek how about I use a sensor that doesn't give me gay rainbows instead faggot?Never had that problem shooting Fuji btw, my only complaints are the overly pink skin tones and the ugly greens. >tfw fell for the provia memeNever againThere's a reason their best selling stuff is instax
>>4537392>moire can happen, so all my lenses need blurred!Just dont use a G master to take photos of brick walls and test charts. AA filters are inferior to natural lens blur anyways.
