[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/p/ - Photography


Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 36 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


4chan Virtual YouTuber Contest Final Round - 4chan Pass users can now vote on one of the top 20 entries!




File: eosr.jpg (44 KB, 696x464)
44 KB
44 KB JPG
So who's waiting for theirs to ship tonight?
What are you expecting? Did you get any of the new lenses with it?
>>
>>3371881
canon could have done much better
>>
>>3371881
Nah man got a Z7 on the way and will have a look at the panasonic when I get a chance.

Of the new cameras announced the canon is at the bottom of my list. Right below sony and their awful ergonomics.

I haven't shot Canon since 2012 when I went D800 and I don't miss them at all.

>the 7d was a t2i turd wrapped in a brick.
>change my mind
>>
>>3371881
ofc sony a7m3 is what i would buy if id decide switch camera. but if i would gifted for free i'd wont be dissapointed with any of them: z6/a7m3/eosR all done nicely

question is price/quality. sony a7m3 outstanding here
>>
File: New friend.jpg (38 KB, 640x480)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>3371944
Made the switch a week ago with no regrets. I upgraded from a several years old t3i. I really did consider the r for a moment but in the long run I feel I'm better off jumping ship now. Canon refused time and time again to put the features in to at the bare minimum match what was already on the market with the a7 lineup. All the time they simply told us to fuck off in the form of "if you want to shoot video, buy into our cinema line"

Honestly I think it's interesting how the lens mount will allow you to bring over your FF lenses etc and the drop in filter slot seems it could be convenient but ultimately, they're pushing this camera to SELL more lenses and they'll certainly accomplish that. They don't care otherwise. It's also a minor attempt to stop the bleeding since Nikon decided to put out a mirrorless cam too.
>>
File: CANON EOS R.png (229 KB, 540x472)
229 KB
229 KB PNG
>>3371881
See >>3371894
>>
>>3371899
i don't understand why the 7D is crop if all the rest of the #D cameras are full frame
>>
>>3371952
"professional" flagship camera. There was no point at all to release it as a crop camera when the ##D cameras are already pro-sumer.
>>
>not 1 saying use a gear thread
>make Z7 thread
>LOL OMG GEAR THREAD CUNT

Just shows how many canon turds are there

it's a garbage camera, 1.8X 4k Crop if you use digital stabilization which made the footage on the DP Review so soft and blurry

You northrup taking a 1/8 Sec photo on an A7 and it's sharper than the canon, both handheld
>>
>>3371960
everyone is shitting on the camera here you nigger
>>
>>3371960
nikon z7 same as a7m3 basically but i think it would have better iso as always nikon have. also 24-70 f4 nikon already killed down to earth sony 24-70 f4. btw sony 27-70 f2.8 is worse than canon 24-70 2.8 nikon 24-70 2.8 and even sony zeiss 24-70 2.8 for minolta a. so its really good competition between sony and nikon here. though sony already have userbase and 50+ native lenses so winner is already exists. canon eos r not so bad. if you not buying it for you own money. its overpriced. 1700$ real value of it. nikon z6 overpriced also it must cost 1800-1900$. only camera which is fit its price is sony a7m3, thats why it would be overwhelmingly winner. even though all that features like giant mount which canon and nikon provide. battle was over before battle.

sony perfectly knew canon and nikon would enter fullframe mirroless sometime. so they prepared. and they overprepared. and they overprepared so much that its already no battle. no nikon no canon right now photography market is owned by sony.

next 10 years of history already known like its was known in 2008 when canon released 5dmII. it was win of battle with no battle. same here lads
>>
i was thinking about either getting the z6 or the EOS R as my first camera

now im torn since im considering going aps-c instead of full frame and just go FUJI XT-3
>>
>>3371894
First camera is never the best camera
>>
>>3371960
>muh video
Just stop.
>>
>>3371977
>sony 27-70 f2.8 is worse than canon 24-70 2.8 nikon 24-70 2.8 and even sony zeiss 24-70 2.8 for minolta a.
Man, imagine how carefully controlled a test you’d need to set up to show a quality difference between flagship 24-70/2.8s, and how terrible a photographer you’d have to be to think those differences would have any real effect on actual pictures.
>>
>>3372010
Not to mention they are wrong.

The sony has better tranmission, vignetting and chromabs than the supposedly "best" canon. And the sony resolves up to 28mp, so unless you NEED more resolution than 28mp, the sony is by far the best lens, it's also nearly 100g lighter.

Anti sony fags are hilarious. So easy to prove their lies/ignorance.
>>
>>3371996
Just get the sony you nerd.
>>
>>3372023
>>3372010
AXAXAXAXAxaxa 4chan professionals teaching me da life. guys i rad so many tests and seen so many samples cheked so many customers reviews that you know, i ll just
keep silent. arguing with stupid people is worthless
>>
>>3372035
Superb rebuttal, i particularly appreciated your use of references and explaining everything in a clear, concise, unbiased fashion.

You definitely didn't lose your argument then embarass yourself by pretending to be a retard, no sir, not at all.
>>
>>3372035
Have you tried... taking pictures?
>>
>>3372041
>>3372076
m8s come on stupid question: stupid answer
sony 24-70 2.8 is weak. its useable but nikon 24-70 2.8 is masterpiece of optics art its cant be even compared. most funny that sony 24-70 2.8 price twice much. go check user reviews or leave please dont bother me and my peacefull life
>>
>>3372134
Is it? Because everything I've read about it said the sharpness was kinda just okay for the price and Canon is much better.
>>
>>3372152
link or it never happend. i read thousands of user reviews
>>
File: nik_vs_sony.png (1.76 MB, 3690x5072)
1.76 MB
1.76 MB PNG
>>3372134
>>3372163
from opticallimits
>>
>>3372168
yeah yeah yeah i see the pics. please provide legit user reviews or it never happend
>>
>>3372172
>https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-2-824-70mm-gm/
>This zoom lens can keep up optically with many of the best prime lenses in every regard except of speed and flare resistance.
I don't even shoot Sony and I know their 24-70 is known for its sharpness. Also, Phillip Reeve/Jannik Peters are great reviewers
>>
>>3372172
>optical limits say the Sony is sharper at all focal lengths
>DXO says the Sony is sharper at all focal lengths, and half a stop faster.

>yeh, but, where's the revieeeeewwwwssss, you know, subjective pieces by people on payrolls for competitors.
>>
>>3371996
Always go full frame if you can. Get the best gear you can. If you settle you will always be dissatisfied and envious of the gear you didn't get. At least rent or borrow the gear you really want and decide if it's what you need.
>>
retarded normies and shills ruin everything they touch
>>
>>3372192
I sold my Sony a7Riii and got an X-T3, couldn't be happier
>>
>>3372195
If you bought the X-T3 first you would always think the A7R3 was better but now you know it's not. It's all about knowledge and experience.
>>
>>3372184
user reviews no mate i see you dont get it
NOT A REVIEWERS REVIEWS LIKE GO TO FORUMS AMAZON OR WHATEVER AND READ WHAT REAL USERS WHICH BOUGHT THIS LENS YEARS AGO AND SHOT DOZENS OF THOUSANDS OF SHOTS WITH THIS LENS WRIGHT WITH CAPS LOCK ITS MORE UNDERSTANDABLE OR NOT?

i read dozens of real users reviews. all of them are sad and bitter

lens dont cost its price. it twice much priced than same nikon and less good. it even cant provide stable result do to bad construction. random decline of sharpness to corners and lol its not same on every lens its totally random. one lens can have drop os shartp and other can not. thats a pure comedy for such price.

>>3372187
>DXO
LOL just go do your business we talking about real people with this lens in real conditions not some nerds in studio just please keep silent

>>3372194
>retarded normies
its like hot ice or cold fire please choose one
>>
>>3372163
A video the Northrups did and showed two 100% crops Canon vs Nikon and said Canon is a lot sharper. And the other test I saw on photographylife showed it performing a lot less than in >>3372168
>>
>>3372206
>Northrups
LOL

canon 24-70 2.8 is worst 24-70 2.8 ever every old real user of it saying it

it evem aint sharp at 70mm at 2.8

nikon 24-70 2.8 is best 24-70 2.8 ever every real old user saying it. it masterpiece of lensmaking. sharp from 2.8 like prime lens. perfect contrast.

ans every real old user of sony 24-70 2.8 saying it on level of canon maybe and lowe than nikon but it cost twice as much.

i dint know why spending my time here with you guy who believe
>Northrups

they promoting canon for a long time all reviewers promote something you blind and deaf or what?

only real long term owners reviews are legit all other you can use as comedy tonight show which i lovely do. its funny to lilsten all of them nice fiction world videos. funny and interesting. like DXO ratings for an example.
>>
>>3372208
Hey, I’ve got the old canon 24-70/2.8 mark 1 and it’s great, so everything you’ve said is wrong.
>>
>>3372218
oh yeah? now go pixiel peeper choose canon 24-70 2.8 at 70mm and then do same for nikon. check thousands photos for both. tell me later about embarrassment what you feel
>>
>>3372238
Oh, I already have. The Canon has much higher levels of optical clarity per line pair and much softer vignetting. At 70mm and f/2.8, the microcontrast and color resolution really stand out.
>>
>>3372247
nice words bro. somebody gifted to you technical dictionary for a birthday? i dont really know what it all meant but spoiler: i really looked through thousands of photos on pixiel peeper at 70mm 2.8 for both years ago. and what can i say. nikon is sharp and canon aint. all customer reviews i read saying this also. so desu m8 desu ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>
>>3372248
> i dont really know what it all meant
See now you're just proving your ignorance.
>>
>>3371899
>>the 7d was a t2i turd wrapped in a brick.
>>change my mind
Your mind is a turd wrapped in a brick.
>>
>>3371960
>muh video! what...about...muh...video!
Sonygger tears will be delicious when the camera outsells the entire A7 line.
>>
>>3372010
>DR difference under extreme shadow push that no one ever does
OH MUH GOD SONY RULZ CANON DROOLZ WHEN WILL CANON UPDATE THEIR DECADE OLD SENSORS?

>Canon lens can clearly out resolve Sony lens
HA HA LIKE WHO REALLY NEEDS A SHARPER LENS AMIRITE?

>the absolute state of the sony fanboi
>>
>>3372197
>how waste a lot of money buying and reselling shit at a loss instead of just taking advice
>the post
>>
>>3372394
>buying and reselling shit at a loss instead of just taking advice
/p/ - the mantra
>>
>>3372248
>and canon aint.
You're a liar or a retard. Not sure which.

The mk I was sharp. The mk II is holy fuck sharp. As in "I've cropped the center 25mp out of a 50mp RAW and blown it up to 16x24 and there's fabric moire on a sensor with an AA filter like how the fuck" fucking sharp.
>>
>>3372168
Fucking sonyggers
>>
>>3372023
And yet it doesn't matter. At all.
>>
>>3372400
The one you have with you.
>>
>>3372383
But my pics are better.
>t. I got canoscammed back in 2010.
>>
>>3372388
>when the camera outsells the entire A7 line.
okay canon shill
>>
BANDING
A
N
D
I
N
G
>>
>>3372493
>claims to have better pics
>no pics attached to post
The absolute state of /p/

>>3372507
>>when the camera outsells the entire A7 line.
>okay canon shill
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

>>3372509
>i'm a retard who thinks they put the 5D2 sensor in the EOS R
>>
>>3372509
>>3372510
I am a retard who has already seen ISO 100 pictures with banding. The topic is currently being discussed in German forums.
https://www.dforum.net/showthread.php?670627-Bildqualit%C3%A4t-EOS-R
https://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=1918343
>>
>>3372316
i just dont care what you mericans think about me. go to russia and say its to my eyes.

>>3372398
not its not. its common meme in professional photographers party that canon aint sharp at 70mm at 2.8
>>
>>3372512
>5.5ev push has banding
>OH THE HUMANITY!
Stop photographing your black cat at -6ev ffs.
>>
>>3372516
>i base my opinion on memes
I've shot with both and you're wrong.
>>
>>3372518
Start reading and stop accusing me of things that I didn't say or didn't do.
The banding is visible already with a 1.5ev push, which is quite common with a correction for shadow and highlight correction.
>>
>>3372519
you is amateur im talking about professional party. your opinion last what about i would care
>>
>>3372510
ok canon shill
>>
>>3371996
Fujis are as big as the EOS R so you might as well get a full frame.
>>
>>3372388
>everyone else can do full frame readout
>sony downsampling 6k footage
>canon can't do that
>1.8X crop is good
>>
>more value for your money suddenly is bad
>who needs all those features
>canon only mirrorless out there with drawbacks in literally every function and feature
>nikon few less AF points than sony
>burst locks exposure
>highly rated EVF but
>canon just shit at everything
>>
>>3371996
Would you want to be a beta tester? If not, just get a sonygger A7III.
>>
>>3372400
But, objectively speaking, sony is the best.

Nikon being heavier and half a stop slower and with three times as much chromabs is pretty fucking embarrassing. And all 3 of these factors DEFINITELY affect the quality of your final shot, starting with the half stop longer exposure.
>>
>>3372512
>>3372518
>>3372521
Meanwhile the discussion stated the problem could be related to the new cr3 file format. Images fine jpg don't show banding.
>>
>>3372509
YEAH YEAH ITS CANON ITS BANDING BABY
>>
>>3372522
The only pro you know is your mom. And she ain't shooting pictures.
>>
>>3372521
>The banding is visible already with a 1.5ev push,
Except that it's not.

>>3372545
>ff 4k video determines marketshare
The EOS M isn't even FF and it beat Sony in Japan.

>>3372601
>But, objectively speaking, sony is the best.
>if you don't need best resolution
>>
>>3372835
Wow. Just wow.

WOW.
>>
>>3372835
This is neither brand wars nor let's close our eyes to Canon.
>>
>>3372835
>cheaper camera beats more expensive one in sales in 1 country

woooow!
>>
>>3371894
Canon body dept. isn't gimping intentionally anymore, clearly their sensor, processor tech just can't compete. Even the firmware is half-baked. You pay $2,300 for beta testing.
>>
>>3372835
>if you don't need best resolution
That's 99% of customers, the sony is sharp up to 28mp, which is enough for a pixel perfect 300 dpi print half a metre tall. Only goofs print 300 dpi larger than a sheet of a4, and 99% will be shown on a 8mp screen at best.

The sony is the better choice.
>>
WHO DID CANON MAKE THIS CAMERA FOR?
>>
File: sony_a7r_iii_10_resized.jpg (2.05 MB, 1334x2000)
2.05 MB
2.05 MB JPG
>>3372939

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-7RM3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CC (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)86 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width5304
Image Height7952
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution350 dpi
Vertical Resolution350 dpi
Image Created2018:09:24 23:13:30
Exposure Time1/100 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Brightness2.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length86.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1334
Image Height2000
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
>>
File: crop-1.jpg (1.46 MB, 1276x1323)
1.46 MB
1.46 MB JPG
>>3373110
>>
>>3373110
Promo studio shot. Average joe will output same quality shots as those shot on rebels.
>>
>>3372168
I do also love to convert my photos into excel bars
>>
>>3373123
>on aps-c rebels
>implying

>promo studio shot
the shot is actually a snapshit from the Sony A7r III event https://youtu.be/Cq8ZWpDtWMM?t=369 (6:09)

https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a7r_iii_review/sample_images/
>70-200mm 2.8 GM at 86mm f/4 1/100s ISO 200
>>
File: brainlets.png (32 KB, 645x729)
32 KB
32 KB PNG
>>3373140

So... a promo shot with studio strobes... very intredasting
>>
>>3373140
Goodness me, and I thought publicity events are promo studio shots, what was I thinking?!
>>
>>3373141
>>3373144
If you say promo shot i think of something like https://www.sony.net/Products/di_photo-gallery/camera/ILCE-7RM3/

but please, post some sharp shots of your rebels, I'm curious.
>>
>>3371881

i saw all the new cameras (nikon, canon, panasonic), but they all have flaws that don't work for me (nikon: 1 card slot, lenses i don't want / canon: no ibis / panasonic: CDAF), so i got a Sony a7 III instead. placed the order just yesterday.
>>
>>3373140
>>on aps-c rebels
>>implying
You just argued that it's pointless to print >A4 so Sony lens is best lens despite being softer lens. That was your argument.

At that print size nobody can see the difference between a 24mp Rebel and a 42mp A7rIII. Hell, nobody could tell the difference between the A7rIII and an original EOS M with the 22mm f/2 lens which I think is lighter than the Sony body alone. They go for about $200 today btw.

So why the FUCK would anyone buy an expensive A7rIII and FF Sony lens if sharpness and detail beyond A4 (or an 8mp screen) doesn't matter? ANY camera would do at that point.

If we're going to nitpick IQ then the highest IQ lens wins and that isn't the Sony in this comparison. If IQ doesn't matter beyond what's needed for A4 then anything works.
>>
>>3373163
wait, canon couldn't even be bothered to do IBIS?
are they not serious about this?
>>
File: blurry.jpg (121 KB, 1345x709)
121 KB
121 KB JPG
>>3373410
you don't need IBIS with 1.84X crop with their amazing digital stabilization LOL

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>3373141

Having a decent model and a set of strobes isn't that surprising for a pro body and lens dude.

Sorry you're so poor and gearless.

>>3373303
Actually the 24mp rebel tops out at about 12mp of actual resolution when paired with a very good lens, but being a half size sensor you double the apparent sizes of chromabs and other imperfections, which can have a huge effect on how sharp the photo looks. 12mp is ok for printing at up to around an 8*10", but it will not look as crisp.

>sony isn't the best iq

Yes, it is, it's got the lowest chromabs and the best mtf50 and the fastest transmission.

>>3373410
No more patents left. Canon would need to reinvent the wheel.
>>
>>3373429
top kek
>>
>>3371881

Tried it at PhotoKina. EVF lagged like fuck. Kinda disappoint. My X-E3 had no visible lag under same conditions.
>>
>>3373429
84% of the sensor to float the image around on for electronic stabilization?
Is Michael J. Fox a canon engineer now?
>>
>>3372834
She's all about the large aperture, though.
>>
There is nothing going for the canon

What area or feature does the canon beat out the competition, absolutely none. Don't know why anyone is buying this camera unless you got 15 L lenses and even then what are you downgrading from

>no ibis
>4k horrendous crops
>low burst with AF, down to 3FPS
>DR banding
>worse DR than competition
>lenses all huge, nikon made tiny 24-70 F4, tamron 28-75 on sony
>no AF joystick
>touch bar complaints from basically everyone
>lowest CIPA rating
>>
>>3373740
Bro you missed MUH 24-70 F/2 shitposting that went on for weeks as soon as it got announced. Don't you know people like to shoot wide fucking open all the time?
>>
>>3373445
>Actually the 24mp rebel tops out at about 12mp of actual resolution when paired with a very good lens,
Actually megapixels is a measure of sensor sampling frequency and NOT resolution. Parroting the dxo "perceptual megapixels" meme only shows that you know shit about resolution.

Imaging Resource doesn't fully test the Rebels, but the 80D has the same sensor as several of them.
80D Resolution: 2,700 lph
A7 III Resolution: 2,800 lph

You will find the same thing over and over again when comparing APS-C and FF sensors with the same MP: nearly identical results in resolved detail (lpmm or lph).

>12mp is ok for printing at up to around an 8*10", but it will not look as crisp.
IR print evaluations are nearly identical for the 80D and A7 III. The only difference is that the A7 III will hold some print sizes a stop or two longer owing to FF's high ISO advantage. Both could do 30x40" prints at ISO 100-400.

If you actually want to resolve more detail you can't simply go FF. You must go FF with a pixel density similar to crop resulting in higher total MP.
>>
>>3373930
>canun crop has same lines per mm resolution as onions full frem.

Kiddo, if something is measured in x per y, but one item has a much larger y than the other, what does that tell you.

You have the gall to say i don't grasp perceptual megapixels, when you don't understand millimetres. Wew lad.

>both can do 40" prints

Ima let you in a secret, they CAN both do 40 mile prints.

>up to iso 400

I frequently print noise free images at iso 1600

>you need higher pixel density to be better than crop.

Lmao, no, resolution is limited by the lens and sensor combo, not the sensor. No lens, not even an otus, outresolves even the forgiving large pixel pitch of the a7iii, let alone your tiny pixel canon.

If you want to resolve more detail, a larger sensor will outdo a higher mp count every single time, fact.
>>
>>3373938
>>canun crop has same lines per mm resolution as onions full frem.
>Kiddo, if something is measured in x per y, but one item has a much larger y than the other, what does that tell you.
Kiddo, that's not how LPH works.

>You have the gall to say i don't grasp perceptual megapixels, when you don't understand millimetres. Wew lad.
Lines per PICTURE Height (not sensor height; not mm's) is the TOTAL number of resolved lines in the vertical dimension. LPH is used so that you can DIRECTLY compare different formats without converting anything for physical height or aspect ratio. Millimeters has NOTHING to do with it. Wew lad.

The 80D resolved 2,700 lines vertically, and the Sony resolved 2,800 lines vertically. Period.

>>both can do 40" prints
>Ima let you in a secret, they CAN both do 40 mile prints.
Oh you sweet child. IR judges actual prints for sharpness and detail. Not all cameras, or ISOs on a modern 24mp camera, are rated as suitable for 30x40" prints.

>>up to iso 400
>I frequently print noise free images at iso 1600
You frequently print noise free 30x40" images? Really?

>>you need higher pixel density to be better than crop.
>Lmao, no, resolution is limited by the lens and sensor combo, not the sensor. No lens, not even an otus, outresolves even the forgiving large pixel pitch of the a7iii,
Most lenses have MTF10 resolutions in excess of 24mp APS-C pixel pitch.

>If you want to resolve more detail, a larger sensor will outdo a higher mp count every single time, fact.
Then explain why both cameras become unreadable on the same line.
>>
>>3374053
I should note that in their print tests IR is judging based on what the average consumer would find acceptable. I would not want to go 30x40" (133 ppi vertically) with any 24mp camera for, say, an exhibition. Critical viewing requires 200 ppi or higher, so 20x30" for 24mp.
>>
>>3374053
In addition to the good points this guy is making, I feel like I should point out that resolution is something you should only give a fractional shit about if you’re using your camera purely for technical reproduction purposes. If you’re taking artistic photos, things like lighting, composition, framing, subject, etc are the things that will actually matter.

I’ve got a 16x24 printed from a 10 megapixel camera hanging on my wall. It looks great. More pixels would not make it look better.

Arguments about resolution are good for proving your penis is bigger that someone else’s, but they have no real effect on actual photography.
>>
>>3374164
I agree with you to a greater or lesser extent based on subject matter and viewing conditions. WA landscapes can be really brutal on resolution depending on foliage. If you're doing 36" fine art prints of Yosemite you're going to want more than 10mp.

But a lot of subjects enlarge very well without a ton of mp. And the actual image itself will always matter more. I would rather have an award winning 6mp image that can "only" print 8x12 than a technical perfect but boring 50mp image.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.