File: blurrynikon 100% crops.jpg (1.59 MB, 3600x2700)

1.59 MB JPG

Image 2/2
100% crops.
No sharpening applied.

maybe your lens sucks

File: 8307400812_3109312cdc.jpg (50 KB, 377x500)

50 KB JPG

>>4310413
>everything always inevitably looks like shit down at the 1:1 pixel level
It takes at least a grid of 4 bayer pixels to guess what color each pixel will be. Of course it looks like shit on the pixel level. It's amazing it even works at all.

>>4310413
>Should I get a 45MP Nikon or a 61MP Sony?
>Would pixel shift likely solve all my problems?
Assuming you're not limited by your lens, yeah probably.

>>4310413
try sensor-shift mode at 96 mp

User error

if only there was some aperture between f4 and f16 that yielded max sharpnes

100% user error or shit processing unless the UPS guy drop kicked your lens.

I wouldn't get a sony btw, if this bothers you, sony will bother you even more with all their raw cooking.

File: blurrynikonflat 100% crop.jpg (1.13 MB, 2000x1500)

1.13 MB JPG

>>4310419
Z6 II doesn't have such a mode.
>>4310422
f/4 is what yields max sharpness, at the center of the frame, which isn't crisp even there.
Here's a 100% from f/4 in a flat perspective. Not a single point in the frame anywhere in it is close to being tack sharp.

>>4310416
Maybe. This is the only lens I have though and it is supposed to be great according to all review sites.

>>4310421
>focus in front of subject
>focus shift shoot a few hundred frames at smallest step increment with e-shutter mode on, VR off
>cherry pick "sharpest" image from the bunch based on the center
>still not actually sharp
I would like to blame me but I can't imagine a way to try and squeeze more out of the gear. I'm not missing focus on moving subjects I'm trying to tripod shoot non-moving stuff in ideal conditions.

>>4310417
The more I look into this shit it seems like everyone saying bayer offers anywhere near its advertised resolution is on some serious copium. On the other hand it seems like even people pointing out it isn't perfect also can't get their facts right..
For example the site here says removing a bayer filter and shooting monochrome turns a 20MP EOS 6D into 80MP, but that should be impossible, in theory that could only make it a "real" 20MP.
http://www.centralds.net/cam/?p=8561

Regardless of that fuck up the example images on display there seem to show what it is that's missing from my photos so I guess the color filter combined with the AA filter is the root issue.
Fuck me I should have gotten the ZF (has pixel shift, Z6 II does not) but that also has an AA filter so maybe its pixel shift isn't as good as others. Considering I only need a bit more sharpness and detail maybe the Z7 II would satisfy me but at this point I don't know if I should even stick with Nikon. Their flagships don't even have a fucking mechanical shutter so they can't even shoot fast things without rolling shutter artifacts.
I might just wait a few years to see if cameras get better.

>>4310413
I bet shooting 4x5 would solve your problem.

>>4310433
>The more I look into this shit it seems like everyone saying bayer offers anywhere near its advertised resolution is on some serious copium
Yeah, digital color photography is inherently algorithmic and approximate, hence why I think digital purists are kinda retarded. With Bayer, your color resolution is 1/4 of your photosite count. If you want to view your scene at a certain size but are not happy with the sensor quality, use a higher megapixel one and downsample to the same size. The more you downsample, the less approximate it gets.

To clarify the size thing, a higher megapixel sensor will have higher per-pixel noise since each pixel is smaller. Thus, it may actually look worse at a per-pixel level though obviously that will be more "zoomed in" compared to the 100% view on a lower megapixel sensor. Where you do see benefits however, is when viewing at the same picture size since the higher megapixel sensor will be sampling that image more finely.

>The more I look into this shit it seems like everyone saying bayer offers anywhere near its advertised resolution is on some serious copium. On the other hand it seems like even people pointing out it isn't perfect also can't get their facts right. For example the site here says removing a bayer filter and shooting monochrome turns a 20MP EOS 6D into 80MP, but that should be impossible, in theory that could only make it a "real" 20MP.
You're right, that's not how it works. 20MP is 20MP. Removing the CFA does make each pixel a whole lot more sensitive though, since it's no longer exposed to just one color.

>>4310433
>Not a single point in the frame anywhere in it is close to being tack sharp.
Looks pretty dern fine to me, chief, considering you're taking a picture of a US dollar bill which is mass produced ink on fabric and isn't gonna be perfectly sharp anywhere itself.

>>4310413
>This is a problem because I got this thing with the intent to digitize a bunch of stuff
Why on earth did you think a Z6 II and a 50mm f/1.8 was a good choice if this is all you wanted? You could've got an A7R and an amazing macro lens (that would actually get you your 1:1).

>>4310413
What are you doing about the lighting? What's the field curvature of the lens? There's a lot of autism when it comes to digitizing stuff. If you're gonna be nitpicky about it, it might be best to pay someone who has the knowledge, experience and gear to do it properly.

>cropping into a tiny portion of the image, can see small details and marks on the money
>cries about not being able to see atoms
im so glad i shoot film

>>4310414
middle looks good, edge and corner is never going to be pixel perfect sharpness at that distance when the image is tilted.
It's only going to be a couple of millimeter of perfect sharpness at a close distance and on top of that the focus plane isn't always perfectly flat either.

>>4310450
this

The 100% crops you’re posting look fine to me. Apply some output sharpening and quit being autistic.

Some serious case of pixel peeping ITT
100 % crops were a mistake

>>4310413
>>4310414
These look fine to me, you are being way too autistic about this.
Perfect sharpness does exist.
Perfect color reproduction does not exist.

the 100% crops look totally fine
you are pixel peeping too much and would be equally unsatisfied with anything else on the market
more pixels doesn't necessarily mean more detail, and you're already unsatisfied with the detail offered by a top tier consumer lens
you also need to consider sharpening settings

I've used a few higher res models, gfx included, but the only one to really feel different on a pixel level has been my m10-m and to a lesser extent, my dp3m

>>4310413
Such are the sorrows of mirrorless.

>>4310511
>You are pixel peeping too much!
Nah, low resolution models have always been a joke for detail because bayer fucking sucks (and xtrans sucks 1.5x more). Always. 24mp is essentially 8mp in terms of detail worth seeing (you can zoom in to see computer artifacts hinting at individual hairs i guess?), and hardly competes with good 35mm film. The Z6II is a low light camera that looks like shit close up because those fat ass pixels also retain their correct colors better at high ISOs (up close it looks even mushier). The Z7II is definitely more detailed, natural, and has smoother color transitions but once you hit ISO 3200 and beyond you're not getting rid of the green/purple fog without getting rid of a significant amount of tonality in general.

24mp ~= Consumer 35mm film
45mp ~= Quality 35mm film or amateur-shot 645

People have always coped over this post-digital due to only being able to afford the low resolution model, but not actually wanting it.
>Stop zooming in!
Screens got bigger and higher density. For some people, 36mp fills the entire screen, they do not have to zoom in. They can see their photo as a full sized 256dpi print just by opening it. Also, if a camera takes large photos, why can you not look at them closer? Is that wrong, to look at something closely? Why? How much of this is motivated by money cope and how much of it is a sort of rebuttal to "ur camera sucko"? Would people WITHOUT cameras or any prior camera use, say pixel peeping was wrong if the more detailed camera system was cheaper?
>YOU DONT STAND THAT CLOSE TO PRINTS, U CAN PRINT 60" WIDE WITH 20MP
Oh, but actually, I do - once a print leaves the gallery for a home you can fucking bet the rope barrier isn't coming with it. If you wanted it to be blurry for the moody black and white street photography thing, ok, but what's wrong with wanting it to be detailed for other stuff? Can we not have quality photography because so many years ago we normally didn't?

>>4310557
can we see some of your examples prints?

>>4310560
You first

Because the largest photo I ever printed was a family portrait

>>4310557
they will passively aggressively seethe at this and look for excuses to take you down and call you a shitty photographer because its the truth

>Would people WITHOUT cameras or any prior camera use, say pixel peeping was wrong if the more detailed camera system was cheaper?
no
they would not, that would be fucking stupid
and if high res cameras were always cheaper, the narrative would be "high iso performance is a myth, stop snapshitting without light, l2flash" (btw, people who went broke going into super high res gear literally repeat this cope verbatim or say dumb shit like the z6 and z7 totally look the same at iso 6400)

>>4310562
I don't do large prints, 13x19 at most, I just wanted to see yours

>>4310566
Maybe you should. Digital RA-4 prints are cheap. Inkjet prints are cheaper.

>>4310565
Or the broke wankers repeat this cope
>More sharpness is always better, there is no such thing as a photo that would be better soft, I didn't want to take that photo anyways, it's stupid, I won't even buy a diffusion filter because I dont want to not because buying a $150 filter is too much after I spent $1200 on an 85mm f1.2 L
They can't even enjoy cheap chinese lenses because they are so broke.

All >udontneedthisjustdothat cope in photography is financially motivated

>>4310565
I just want to see some examples from the people claiming they do need "more", but no one ever posts photos so I just assume everyone argued just to argue

>>4310570
>Hey man, post your professional work, yeah that 60x40 you did for a wedding, let me see someone elses first kiss there yeah totally not career suicide also can i see a group portrait of your family
anon people who use more than 2mp tend to have more important things to print that aren't really appropriate for a porn website where you're always one click away from a thread full of transgender horse bukkake.

just saying, it's very easy to need more, and IMHO, just zooming in qualifies as needing more. zooming in is fun. not every photo is pure vibes nor should it be. your screen is merely not up to the task, yet, but lets be real tech moves so fast it will be in 3 years.

>>4310495
i'm kinda with this guy, i don't know if my eyes are bad or i'm retarded or what, OP's sample images look perfectly fine to me and i fail to understand the stick in his ass about it. can someone post an example of what he was expecting to see, maybe that will help me understand.

>>4310495
>im so glad i shoot film
>meanwhile, in /fgt/:
>and if i turn the scanner up to 900 you can see the fleas on my dog
Zooming in is cool.

>>4310571
I'd assume someone printing regularly takes and prints multiple photos
I'd also assume they'd have at least something worth posting that they might not consider "client" work
For what it's worth, I have posted a fair amount of client stuff here, and even selfies, and nothing's ever came of it
I just want to see people actual post photos too

>>4310557
>36mp fills the entire screen, they do not have to zoom in.
4k is 8MP
Even 8K would be 32MP and that is for a 16:9 ratio

>>4310590
I have 8x10s of my cat, but you asked for the big prints, which are client work or highly personal

Also your client work is probably instathot hos who would probably be glad to be on an anime porn website with a photography section desu

>>4310580
Cms20 4x5 full res jpg, probably...

https://files.catbox.moe/pkyh67.jpg

>>4310580
> i don't know if my eyes are bad or i'm retarded or what
At least you recognize it, a fair few here do not

>>4310413
Oh yeah, op, are you sharpening your images in post? You need to sharpen your images if you're viewing digital photos. It helps immensely for film or digital.

>>4310617
The new delusion going around with people that just bought a sharp lens and are starting to regret the monetary sum is that sharpening is post processing meant to cope with soft lenses, and to show off the supremacy of their lens they must turn off "post processing"

In reality it's to cope with how CFAs are awful for fine detail and is basically mandatory for every digital photo that's not foveon, a pixel shift image, or a very high resolution camera being used for an absolutely tiny end product. Sometimes you also have to sharpen downsized images to correct scaling algo errors. Sharpening only looks bad when it introduces more errors than it solves.

>>4310614
Even that one doesn't look sharp when viewed at 100 %

>>4310614
looks soft, high res yes, but still soft
Ken Rockwell is right you can get sharp photos with any camera/lens using proper technique
It's becoming apparent most fail at this

File: file.png (2.92 MB, 1721x1657)

2.92 MB PNG

>>4310624
Pretty good for a shitty lens on fine grained film actually, and it would print good. The reason you say it looks super bad at 100% is because of what 100% is on your screen. Most likely <80 dpi. With scaling and subpixel antialiasing. These old lenses do not have MTF charts that would wow on CMS 20 or a leica m11 monochrom, but it's still pretty good for the technology.

Buy a retina display and view this at real 100% on it (256dpi) not web browser 100%. This would print much, much better than it views in web browsers forcing an archaic resolution standard.

>>4310629
Ken rockwell said that meaning that unsharp mask solves literally every problem, even using a shitty lens, which is wrong. Look at his photos before you repeat his advice. The man has been lying about being a professional photographer for several decades.

OPs issue is he's expecting a decent enlargement out of a low resolution camera, which only works with cope like "j-just dont look at it that closely and if you have good eyesight only wear glasses for reading and stand even further back"

>>4310624
It's unsharpened in post, and my scanner can't resolve the grain. It's too fine!

>>4310631
I think it's the shitty epson v800 scanner. I used a modern rodenstock APO macro lens to take the picture.

File: Screenshot_20240408_09223(...).jpg (520 KB, 1440x1688)

520 KB JPG

>>4310631
I actually have the mtf chart for the lens. I never learned how to read these. I just found it for someone to explain it to me on here. They said it looks like the lens may have 3d pop.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.G998U1UESAFXBC
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1440
Image Height	1688

>>4310636
3d pop is a joking term for a lens that isnt very sharp

The ideal mtf chart is a straight lime across the top

>>4310644
So it is pretty good if you use it right?

>>4310636
Mtf charts are literally for trannys (male to female)

>>4310614
always so impressed with the quality of work on here

>>4310653
I know. I just got the lens cause it said macro on it, and I like rodenstock.

>>4310660
Do you like the bag of dog treats in the background? I think it really adds to the piece.

>>4310631
>>4310632
>you say it looks super bad
Definitely not super bad. Just not "tack sharp"

>Anti pixel peeping rhetoric ("24mp is enuff totally") intended to prevent people from being unhappy had the unintended effect of making OP unhappy because he bought the wrong camera
Low resolution cameras suck in another even more practical way

You can't crop. At least, not if you expect it to look good before squishing it for instagram/youtube. By the time you get to Z7II/R5 resolution you have a usable APS-C mode - the 24-120 f4 gets to 0.8x macro, the 26mm f2.8 loses its corner issues and turns into the fujifilm 27mm f2.8, and the 50mm f1.8s goes from a clinical normal to a nice portrait lens.

>>4310665
It's not a shitty lens! It's a shitty scanner.

I cant share the 500mb tiff file also. :( This is why I like printing in the darkroom better.

>>4310523
How would DSLR do better?

>>4310506
>100 % crops were a mistake
Considering I plan to photograph things 18x12 and up and want fine detail in reproducing, "pixel peeping" and 100% viewing is a must. I could just buy a macro lens and zoom in on small details, but that doesn't fit my needs.

>>4310557
>24mp is essentially 8mp in terms of detail worth seeing
This is kind of how I felt, when I scale to 50% in both directions (1/4 res, 6MP) 6064x4040 to 3032x2020 is looks fine at the per-pixel level.

Problem is, 3032x2020 ain't enough for digitizing things in my use case. Z7 II at 45 would downsample equally well(?) down with same methods to 4128x2752 and that would allow a lot more in my 300DPI target since that has room for 13x9 which easily fits an 8x10, 8.5x12 documents, but not quite enough for stuff at 18x12.

>>4310562
Large family portraits, B&W, are some of the things I intend to digitize. Even a good 300 DPI isn't "perfect" for these since B&W has lots of res but that's my target, and with what I have now photographing and reprinting one would simply look bad side by side.

>>4310600
8K has more than enough width but the aspect requires cropping a 3:2 image at 1:1, so while the 36MP files have more MP than 8K, 8K can still view sections at 1:1 without filling the screen. (7360 fits on 7680, 4900 does not fit on 4320)

>>4310614
>>4310634
>scanned on a flatbed
And at 50% that looks pretty good and is still higher res than my cam at 100%.
Imagine if we had 4x5 digital cameras.

It's also worth noting that some things are very colorful and fine details from color transitions are even worse. Actually it's fucking miserable. Vibrant reds next to blues just don't look nice at 100% at all.

Because what actually makes an image “sharp” (whatever that means for you) has much more to do with color and tone than whatever lenstester.net is charting. One of the many reasons digital is still cucked.

>>4310679
This is so true. I've noticed that simply upping contrast a little can make images look a lot crisper. Color film always looks less sharp than b&w also. The added "tonal resolution" of LF also makes a huge difference compared to smaller format.

>>4310671
It was a fun little test shot for my new ultra niche LF lens. I really hate working with cms20, and you can get much better tonality from more conventional films.

They have what amounts to a 4x5 flatbed scanner you slap on the back of view camera. Theoretically they can shoot very high MP images, but they're incredibly limited due to how slow it takes scan/capture an image.

File: MTF.jpg (31 KB, 640x427)

31 KB JPG

>>4310636
>https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Help/MTF.aspx

Best way to wrap your head around MTF charts is to imagine circles radiating out from the centre of the image. Blurring between those circles, or how much a point of light smears outwards from the centre of the image, is Meridional mtf.
Then imagine the circles had spokes. The blurring between the spokes is your sagittal MTF.
Lateral CA shows up in the meridional measurement, hence why it's normally the lower of the two lines.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Flash, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4310710
What is the difference between four seperate pairs of lines on the graph?

>>4310711
You take the measurements at increasing distances from tne centre of the image, and plot that from left to right to draw the mtf curve.

>>4310717
Oh, the 4 sets are progressively higher lp/mm that are measured over the projection of the lens. So the graph shows that the lens is a good bit sharper at f/11 than f/22.

File: MTF.jpg (90 KB, 600x700)

90 KB JPG

>>4310711
>>4310717
sorry, I was talking about the 4 zones on my image.
On the MTF sheet that the doghair man shared, the 4 different lines represent the sharpness measurements at each finer degree of detail.
>2.5, 5, 10 & 20 line-pairs per millimeter
Because that's a chart for a large format lense, it's important to note that it's measured over a huge 10 inch image circle, and at much lower lp/mm levels that you'll see quoted for tiny full frame lenses.
In pic related you can see what a good full frame lense does, at f/1.4 it's roughly as sharp as the doghair lense is at f/11, but only for a circle about 3cm across vs 12cm on the big boy.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Flash, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

File: MTF.jpg (138 KB, 1146x1281)

138 KB JPG

>>4310720
>a good bit sharper at f/11 than f/22.
Correct, they also show what a theoretical diffraction limit would be, ie how sharp could a perfect lense possibly be at that aperture, which you can see is a bit of a flex.
The bigger the hole for light to pass through though, the higher the potential resolution is, but thee harder it becomes to design for.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.22
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Flash	Flash, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4310671
>Considering I plan to photograph things 18x12 and up and want fine detail in reproducing,
So why the fuck did you buy a 24mp camera

45mp is the highest resolution in a GOOD 35mm camera, any higher and you need a fuji gfx100.

Sony is absolutely unusable for this due to the design flaws of the baby mount and snoy cooking their raws to fake DXO scores. Canon also cooks raws in every EOS R model so fugeddabout them for digitizing.

>>4310728
>>4310722
So that lens is pretty based. I feel a little bit gayer now that I understand mtf charts. Thanks for your help.

>>4310729
>buy a snoy for pixel shift
>color correct your scans
>wtf is wrong with the corners
>why are film grains totally missing and why are the centers knocked out
>realize the image is actually much softer than it should be almost like there's hidden NR
>wtf is going on
>fucking snoy
>sell snoy
>shill panasonic s1r for months on end
the last repro fag to post here

>>4310413
Since most people seem pretty unhelpful, I'll chime in.

So, let's eliminate several things to get started. These images seem pretty dark, what aperture are you using? If it's 1.8, it might contribute to less sharpness, but it shouldn't be that much, so let's leave it as a possible contributing factor. Add some more light to the scene, turn down iso to 100 and see if that makes it any clearer.

Second question is, how far away are you from the subject? Online, it says this lens has a minimum focus distance of 40cm. I would ensure you are at least half a meter away, retake the photos.l, and see if that made any improvements.

Next, how cropped are these? And how much have they been edited? Are you sure that you're exporting them correctly? If you're taking jpegs, etc. yada. yada. Try shooting in raw and throwing them into light room, make sure they are exported at 300 dpi, or target 5mb as file size. The noticable effects of compression should be limited to the viewing medium at that point.

If all those boxes are ticked, and it is still this blurry, then it's concerning. But try to eliminate all of these factors and repost, if possible. Also, don't trust autofocus. Try and use manual focus and use focus zoom (whatever it is called on nikon) to make sure the focus is spot on to one point on the image, and go from there. Autofocus can sometimes need some tweaking in settings to get dialed in. Yours might just be exceptionally "off" from the factory.


Good luck, I would find this super frustrating.

>>4310729
>So why the fuck did you buy a 24mp camera
I tried doing math.
18x300 DPI = 5400
12x300 DPI = 3600
I assumed 6000x4000 should be enough, but didn't realize each pixel at 1:1 would be so blurry.

What do you recommend?
I looked at and considered Nikon flagships but they don't have mechanical shutters (lol?) so can't be used for fast moving subjects at all, and Z7 II doesn't have pixel shift. ZF does, but is 24MP and has an AA filter so I'm not sure how beneficial pixel shifting behind AA would be. I thought Nikon would be good due to their lenses but apparently their bodies are all gimped.
Z7 II has no AA filter, if it had pixel shift, I'd probably buy one this week to try out. Instead, I'm not sure what the fuck to do now and am considering switching brands entirely or shelving the project until better shit comes to market.

If I'm not gonna get the results I'm really after, I might as well get a micro fool thirds and just snap 16MP -2/-1/+0/+1/+2 expo bracketed HDR snapshits of all the stuff and worry about finer quality digitization at a later date. In the meantime it would also leave me with a more portable disposable camera to play with than dealing with some heavy full frame shit that can't even see fine detail or meet expectations. Sure, at 25600 ISO at f1.8 and 1/30 it almost has fucking night vision but I don't really need that. It's cool, but not needed. I'd rather have a camera I can set on a copy stand and take 30s exposures and simply have enough detail to not want more.

>>4310782
>Nikon flagships but they don't have mechanical shutters (lol?) so can't be used for fast moving subjects at all
Indeed anon, Sony recently did the same thing with the a9 III, baffling decisions but I'm sure the next yearly model they release will "fix" the problem as a "feature"

File: fujishit.png (424 KB, 365x735)

424 KB PNG

>>4310782
> I might as well get a micro fool thirds and just snap 16MP
You will find those 16MP to be sharper than you think

File: duh.jpg (177 KB, 587x641)

177 KB JPG

>>4310782
Want a commercial grade capture setup but only have a low end consumer budget. Not sure what you expected.
Takes 3 sec to find out what you gona get without buying anything.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4310790
Based hallucinator

>>4310413

the 24M image is interpolated, things are sharp at 6M, if you demand 24M shoot raw and use interpolations like amaze or ahd to make best of it and slightly sharpen the image to counter antimoire filter blur

>>4310671
>Considering I plan to photograph things 18x12 and up and want fine detail in reproducing, "pixel peeping" and 100% viewing is a must
No it isn't you retard. Cropping into a given size is reasonable, because that's what matters. Cropping into 100% is retarded, you could have 400MP camera and 100% crop wouldn't look any better, even though the camera would be perfectly good for your purpose.

>>4310828
I'm seriously beginning to think Ken Rockwell posts here or has inspired a (ironic??) cult like following

>>4310413
>70 replies
>nobody pointed out the obvious fact that non-macro lenses perform drastically worse at their closest focusing distance
This is why this board is dead

>>4310894
His example photos may be near the MFD, but his problem is that he can't get any sharp pictures at all. Maybe learn to read a little better.

>>4310896
What other photos has he posted?

>>4310898
>Doesn't matter what I do or how I do it, everything always inevitably looks like shit down at the 1:1 pixel level. There's always a soft blur. Not a single point in the frame is ever truly sharp.

>>4310900
Sorry I don't see a non MFD photo in your reply

>>4310901
Sorry, I don't see anything but cope in your reply.

>>4310894
Some non-macro lenses do, some don't. The new nikon 50mm f1.8 is one of those that are sharp at MFD. This is just normal Z6II fine detail. It's 24mp, with an AA filter, aimed at the bayer camera nightmare scenario: colored fine detail. The Z6II is a great piece of digital night vision equipment but a high grade scanner it is not.

I really think that most people (daylight/flash shooters) should buy a higher resolution camera in the a7riii, z7ii, r5, a7riv class for general photography. You do not need FFs advantages for every single photo but when you do, you usually need the resolution and base ISO dynamic range, and having a usable DX mode is a huge plus. High ISO performance is a smaller niche. Surprisingly few people expect good photos at ISO 6400+ or even use those settings.

OP seems to be attempting to use the Z6II to get a good DX crop for pseudo-macro. Nope, low resolution cameras need the correct lens for the FOV. You can not crop, nor can you enlarge that much - 24" wide is as big as the Z6II goes while still looking super sharp from a foot or two away. Depending on what you plan on doing you can end up spending the money you saved on the body plus some on more lenses.

File: DSC_0720.jpg (2.02 MB, 1500x1500)

2.02 MB JPG

*laughs in pixel pefect 12mp images*
You FOOLS!! going above 10 megapixels will only give you diminishing returns.
Buy a D700 and some ED glass and you too will be content for the rest of your life.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4310908
also he has really obvious
>field curvature
at this distance, its stopping down that gets the edges in focus, almost every lens has obvious field curvature until f5.6, including a disappointing number of macro lenses
>looking at you, snoy 90mm f2.8

>>4310910
this isn't pixel perfect at all but it does look like lab scans

acceptable replacement for 35mm film/10

>>4310910
a7s series will be superior to d700 then

>>4310911
No its not sharp because thats the compressed version i pulled off discord cus im not home lmao

>>4310915
You would think so but it doesnt have an optical viewfinder so like, its more like a camcorder

File: PICT1933.jpg (533 KB, 1728x1152)

533 KB JPG

I take all of my pics at 2 MP

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-7
Camera Software	K-7 Ver 1.13
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:04:18 20:24:55
Exposure Time	1/90 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	1/2 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	40.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1728
Image Height	1152
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

File: DSCF0049.jpg (2.34 MB, 2529x2023)

2.34 MB JPG

>>4310979
yyYYYEEEAAAAAHHH!!!!!!!!!!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	FinePixS2Pro
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2018 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	157 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:05:12 16:27:24
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/13.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/13.0
Brightness	9.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2529
Image Height	2023
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 1714880043748343.jpg (2.02 MB, 3600x2700)

2.02 MB JPG

All these replies and nobody's tried just sharpening the image, which is what OP should be doing anyway, as these images are all perfectly fine.
OP, while your camera and lense are both high quality and functioning perfectly, you are using spherical optics to expose an image on a bayer sensor, manage your expectations.

>>4310908
>OP seems to be attempting to use the Z6II to get a good DX crop for pseudo-macro.
Not quite what I'm after, I am intending to fill the frame and want 18x12 subjects to look good either printed back out to size or viewed on an 8K display.

My phone at 16MP 4608x3456 currently fits a 6K display 6144x3456 at 1:1 (somehow stars align exactly with pixel height) and I will be alive long enough to spend decades using 8K displays, but am content with not filling those and living with some letterboxing to display at 1:1.
Unfortunately the 1:1 output doesn't meet expectations with 24MP since it's all interpolated.

>>4310896
Turns out I think my photos/lens are "sharp" but the rest of normies are so high on copium and Adobe falsification (capture sharpening, local contrast, default sharpening, boosted contrast, etc) that they believe their blurry images are sharp when they are not. I definitely need 24MP RGB (non-bayer shit) or something way higher res. 4-shot pixel shift to get RGB per pixel and not need to demosaic might cut it for my needs but at that point I don't see why not just use a 16 shot mode for more resolution as well.
My camera can do neither so I'm screwed. Gotta get something else.

>>4310790
They actually do seem pretty good, small sensor deep DOF without needing to go to a tight aperture is probably nice for general photography too (not bokeh chasing) but I'm disappointed smartphones are unironically winning the resolution war. I know they're putting the 108MP sensors behind huge bayer masks that effectively makes them just 12MP with binning but MFT with 100MP and no quad/triple bayer would probably be amazing. Obsession with low light shit seems to really be cucking real cameras.

>>4310733
I looked at some Sony examples and this post has me concerned. Not sure if it's a meme or a joke but I've seen some examples and it does look like there's some noise reduction being baked into some sony raws, this shit seems like a nightmare. Maybe they just use a really strong OLPF/AA filter for moire since they seem pretty video focused.
Nikon bodies seem to suck, Sony seems to be doing dumb shit, Canon is gatekeeping their lenses with lawyers going after 3rd parties, and they don't even have a first party macro capable of 1:1 so I'd need to retrofit some old EF lens to do any negative scanning if I went canon which is fucking ridiculous.

Meanwhile, Nikon has the 50mm macro and their ES-2 film digitization kit.
IF ONLY THEIR BODIES WERE GOOD.
Z8 with mechanical shutter please, honestly what the fuck.

>>4310998
Sharpening is copium and doesn't really do anything but add artifacts to be honest. If you view unsharpened images on a low contrast display yeah they look soft but if you view them on a high native contrast display things change, but most importantly sharpening doesn't actually restore any fine detail that is down at the "these details vary based on demosaicing method used" level and that's where my problems lie.
Thought I'd be getting 24MP color but instead I got scammed and everything is sub sampled and interpolated instead. A little sharpening can make things look more crisp but will also highlight the problems.

Downsampling to 50% scale (6k x 4k -> 3k x 2k) then a bit of sharpening can look decent but sharpening bayer at 100% scale is a joke.

>>4312358
Mft diffracts earlier in the aperture range and the SNR is shit even at base ISO. Which still exposes like base ISO.

the one thread where artreprofag would be relevant

>>4312361
No sony uses no AAs
>nikom bodies suck
Their autofocus was not very good in low light until the zf and z8 but who cares

The z7ii is the perfect camera for 99.9999% of people who are not fucking wedding photographers

>>4312361
Sony bakes spatial filtering and vignetting reduction into their raws

>>4312361
Not that it makes canon less gay, but at least as far as adapting electronic lenses goes, ef-rf is probably the best one I’ve ever come across (used ef to Sony, ef to m43, and som others before). Canon claims ef lenses work as native adapted and in my experience they work even better in some cases.

>>4312419
Funny you should say that, i knew a wedding videographer who used a z7ii and he loved it

>>4312361
>Thought I'd be getting 24MP color but instead I got scammed and everything is sub sampled and interpolated instead
It has literally always been this way. 6mp was always more like 4mp real resolution, 12mp was always more like 8mp, etc. People been coping with "muh 640x480 is good enough for web" since the early 2000s. Did you really not peep any images before spending thousands of dollars on camera equipment? If you actually need 24mp (and not just for internet wank points) you should've got a 45mp camera and scaled down to 24mp.

>>4312441
yeah i dont understand this, they've never pixel peeped a picture ever before?
every sample image they saw was apparently "good enough" to buy the camera

File: _DSC2990 - C,S1 (43).jpg (2.84 MB, 1916x2395)

2.84 MB JPG

maybe the print on the bill itself is not sharp. can’t create sharpness out of nothing.

I shot pic related with a Z 6II, 105mm MC f/2.8. sharp enough for me

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 6_2
Camera Software	Adobe DNG Converter 15.3.1 (Windows)
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	866
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	105 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:10 10:35:33
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4312461
That's so nice, seems like a lot of DoF for f/3.2! What's your flash setup here? It's looking like the 105 MC is my next lens, tempted by the 26 and 180-600, but the macro is probably the one.

>>4312490
>seems like a lot of DoF for f/3.2!
You mean very little. What's up with everyone misusing the term recently? It ain't hard to read up on.
>DoF is the distance between the nearest and the furthest objects that are in acceptably sharp focus
In other words DoF is the area IN focus.

>>4312633
no he means a lot. f/3.2 at that macro distance should mean that only a small sliver of that flower should be in focus. Probably focus stacked

>>4310790
fuck fuji, but the noise on the lumix is GROSS

>>4310636
>They said it looks like the lens may have 3d pop.
ho ho ho you got memed

>>4313527
You think I take anyone seriously on here? The lens is fantastic in many ways.

>>4313527
What does "3D pop" mean?

>>4313683
Not him, but it's a look you can achieve with a decently sharp lens, good composition, and lighting.

>>4313683
It means a shit lens that’s only sharp in the dead center

>>4313696
Snapshitter cope.

>>4313697
>t. post-lomography hipster gearfag passing off blurry building corners and pedestrians as “art” because he used a shittier camera

>>4313719

Seething snapshitter cope. Lmao.

>>4313720
he nailed it didnt he

Can we see those awesome photos of your champ?

Just letting you know ahead of time, i have never seen quality photography from people who get salty over shit gear being called shit. Ever. They're just the other side of the gearfag coin, to balance out the people who call shit gear flat out unusable. They even consoom just as hard. Just look at the prices on leica's china-soft glass and how overpriced foolji junk is.

So I am already biased and will dismiss you outright if I see a single cat, a single building corner, underexposed storefront snaps, yet another "tracking scooter/bicyclist" photo, or the back of someones head.

>>4313683
It means something that can’t be objectively measured or demonstrated in any of the known lens testing methods, yet schizos insist is a real thing.

No.

>>4313723
See
>>4313694

Prime example gearfagging from the both of you.

Please learn the basics of photography.

>>4313727
>NO I WONT POST A PHOTO
Ok then, so you admit "3d pop" is just gearfag schizophrenia used to justify your conspicuous consumption, ie: paying more than $25 for a vintage lens.

if you can not post even one fucking photo demonstrating what you mean the best we can assume is "3d pop" is a made up word that makes shitty lenses feel less overpriced to the schizo retards attempting to buy their way into the talent they will never, ever have. Just like "rendering", "color science", and other gear buzzwords that are curiously not represented in any real market trends or scientific measurements, and are not really said at all outside of consoomer gearfag circlejerks further indicating that they are gearfag circlejerk nonsense.

Also see: Gearfag consoomer schizos who think a leica will make the difference in their "street photography" because of some mystical quality of the focus ring or viewfinder, while some actual artist can outshoot them with a canon rebel or a ricoh gr

File: Image 18 (1) (2).jpg (3.09 MB, 4203x2882)

3.09 MB JPG

>>4313731
You're the one obsessing over gear when I'm telling you to just do a better job taking pictures. My argument is that 3D pop is a quality of an image not something a lens gives you by simply snapshitting with it.

Old super angulon 47mm, 6x9, tmax100

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.2.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	10509
Image Height	7207
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:03:16 09:14:17
Color Space Information	sRGB
Light Source	Unknown

>>4313738
>i dont care if the dog enjoyed it
Not even if the human enjoyed it?

How did I know for a fact there would be more cope after being the only person in the history of /p/ to actually post a photo after being asked to....

>>4313735
Ew, dogfucker.
>>>/trash/

>>4313731
3d pop is the "stance" of photography, it instantly tells you their primary hobby is buying things and playing with equipment instead of actually using it. Imagine taking advice from someone whose peak artistic achievement is getting their dog in focus.

Why are the weirdos who just obsess over taking snapshits of their furfag bait wolf-wannabe dogs always self professed experts? And why is the topic of “3d pop” like a flame to their moths? Because its easy to be right about something with no definition? The husky fucker was the same way as the german shepherd fucker.

What drives someone to obsessively snapshit one single dumb animal anyways? Justifying purchases? Or something even more mentally ill? Daido moriyama shot cats but it was multiple cats not 200 photos of his cat.

>>4313746
>post photo showing exactly what they ask for.

>instantly changes subject when btfo.

Pottery.

>>4313747
There’s no 3d pop but congratulations on finally getting your mutt in focus without tons of motion blur. Do you really just use it as a synonym for subject isolation because you’re used to the entire photo being a mess?

>>4313748
Big time cope from the angry baby.

>>4313749
Do you consider yourself an expert on photography because you took 199 out of focus photos of a dog and 1 in focus one?

Any actual photographers in the house to visually educate us on the legendary 3d pop?

>>4313735
looks like iphone camera + fake film edit sorry.

File: image-asset.png (372 KB, 1920x1200)

372 KB PNG

>>4313731
3d pop does not exist. It's a nebulous term that basically means "i personally like this photo" or "i like photos taken with this gear". All attempts to quantify it have overlapped 100% with some easily measurable gear metric that the viewer enjoys because they actually have no clue what they're talking about

>>4313735
Exhibit A
The dogfucker doesn't fail horrendously for the first time in his life at taking a photo so he thinks it has "3d pop".

But it's just babbys first rule of thirds snapshit with some vignetting and a slightly blurry background. Maybe one day, he will stop snapshitting his child/woman replacement, and become a real photographer. Shortly after that he will stop saying and thinking "3d pop" because he will finally know what he's doing.

Maybe.

>>4313753
I forgot

Photo attaches is from yannick khong's attempt to demonstrate 3d pop, several years before he realized it doesn't exist. He said "its not about sharpness" and then showed what was actually a sharpness difference. Classic lens schizo mistake.

File: Image 20 (2) (1).jpg (2.6 MB, 3691x2704)

2.6 MB JPG

This is 3D POP and it doesn't matter what lens you use. SORRY! Lmao.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.2.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	9228
Image Height	6762
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:03:16 08:57:14
Color Space Information	sRGB
Flash	No Flash
Light Source	Unknown

>>4313753
I use it interchangeably with depth, dimensionality, etc. It's just a word that gearfags obsess over to be mad at something.

>>4313755
No its right, this is
>babbys first rule of thirds snapshit with some vignetting and a slightly blurry background
Amazing you followed a photography tutorial and it looks like a photo instead of a snapshit. Zach tier plus one. That’s not 3d pop thats following photo 101 rules.

Unfortunately this might be the peak of your talent, for years, maybe forever. Dog snappers never make it as long as they are dog snappers. Shut in single subject gearfags.

>>4313758
Sad I can tell how bad you are at photography from a single post. Definitely worse than zach.

>>4313760
Sorry I meant to respond to >>4313755

>>4313761
Oh, I'm talking with a 12 year old. Good to know.

DAE notice dog snappers never start threads and just repost their few in focus photos while arguing and its always pictures of dogs in oversized backyards

30 year old boomers bought cameras tryna impress 19 year old mft users on 4chan

>>4313754
Can you post the blog link? I'm curious about this and why he used such a god awful example to try and prove something like 3d pop.

No one has even addressed my point that it isn't entirely about the lens yet. It's like they're an npc reciting a script.

>>4313764
The other dog snapper said the same thing while also posting snapshits of furrybait standing in some weeds its almost like dog snappers are NPCs

They said something like “its not the lens, its how you use it” like getting a dog in focus was a revolutionary photographic technique

>>4313765
3d pop = nostalgia, frame of reference
They are new to non phone photography and are wowed when they can remember and imagine 3d scene from their 2d photograph (because they were there)
They are low IQ or live really dull lives so that is new to them

Take a photo thats in focus and not completely blurry and if it is easy for someone to imagine being there they will call it 3d pop as they remember or imagine the 3d scene the 2d photo represents. Thus, a photographer/snapshitter thinks everything resembling a keeper with weak/no bokeh is “le 3d” especially if they suffer from Unwarranted Self Importance

>>4313766
>>4313765
Remarkably low IQ posts AND zach tier photography knowledge. Nicely done.

>>4313771
Whats more likely
>you became a master photographer by buying 4x5 gear to show off on 4chan and nobody is patrish enough to “get it”. one day the world will recognize you as more than just a weird autist who lives in a field and is disturbingly obsessed with a gross, dangerous animal
>you just think every photo you take is amazing because you think too highly of yourself but the photos are actually generic beginner shit and the “3d pop” you create with your “skill” is just you feeling sentimental about your own snapshits

>>4313772
I had a good laugh reading that one. Thanks for the chuckle. I wonder if you will ever understand how stupid you just sounded.

Now post photo.

File: IMG_9672.jpg (98 KB, 1024x683)

98 KB JPG

>>4313735
Dead on rule of 3rds
Even balance
Leading line

>>4313755
Exact same photo but at least you got a bird (happy accident)

No 3d pop here, i subscribe to that being your nostalgia for the time of capture and inflated ego speaking. A photographer is in no position to ascribe the ephemeral and abstract to their own work. This, is hardly worth calling work in the first place.

EVERYONE has taken a photo using this template. In fact, the conceptual exact equal is one of the first results if you search google images for “rule of thirds”.

Do you believe you are demonstrating something new, special, or advanced? Baby’s first keeper and its a photographic technique that midjourney can pull off.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5D Mark IV
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 9.1 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2020:06:17 11:04:52
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	5000
Image Height	3333
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: WQtgwHi.png (136 KB, 325x325)

136 KB PNG

>>4313763
Yeah
Literally not one thread or real contribution to the board from these types. Nothing resembling art. They never go anywhere. Not even around town. They take very basic photos at home to fulfill "post photo" requests while shitposting about gear.

I don't miss them when they inevitably get bored/mad and leave. I hope whoever he sells his gear to when he eventually quits gets a good deal but I wouldn't put it past a dogfucker to scam people.

>>4313772
>>4313775
Brutal.

File: IMG_20170520_0062.jpg (414 KB, 1291x902)

414 KB JPG

>>4313775
Hey did you know that some nerd begged me to post a photo that I took that had 3d pop for discussion about 3d pop, dimensionality, depth, etc.

When the nophotos come in and start ragging on me it tells me one thing. They are angry I took a great photo.

You notice how this is the first time I even qualified my image aside from having 3d pop? Maybe 3d pop does not exist, or it cant even have an objective definition, but the way my photo is lit, composed, sharpness, and MF film resolution give it greater depth, dimensionality, perspective than photos without those elements. Compared to your example my dog is popping off the screen!

Here is an example of another image I took. I would say that this does not have the same depth, 3d pop, whatever as the other. Maybe the guy has some, but not nearly the same as my other examples.

Your post screams inflated ego, btw. It's kind of funny to witness all this outrage and blatant thread derailment from a single nice photo I took.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	CanoScan 9000F Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.1.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2019:01:04 11:59:45
Color Space Information	sRGB

>>4313780
>i dont suck at this, people hate me because im great
Narcissism

Take a drive (and a photo outside your dads acreage)

File: IMG_20170810_0049.jpg (209 KB, 1422x1138)

209 KB JPG

Here is another example of an image that does not have 3d pop. Why does it lack dimensionality when the mid ground subject and background subject have such a great distance between them? Is it the low contrast, no leading lines, higher compression from a longer focal length, the grain from the film? Surely this Leica lens should just shit out 3d popping images, right?

>>4313785
Perfectly explains the 12 unsolicited critiques, 25 completely off topic posts, and 6 accusations that I abuse my dog that spawned from my one picture.

You've done well today.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	CanoScan 9000F Mark II
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.2.2 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4313779
He posts photos just because he knows his lack of skill and poor reputation will make him the center of attention but does not make threads because it would be too embarassing

>>4312403
I'm sure diffraction is more of a problem with the tiny tiny sensor but the upside seems to be you get to reap a deeper DOF withuot having to stop down, due to cropping and shorter lenses so I think diffraction is an overblown issue.
Shitty noise performance in MFT at base ISO seems to be the real problem.

>>4312441
>>4312454
I've used 24MP in the past a few times but assumed a lot of the issues were the fault of the kit lens.
I just thought 24MP at 4x the price would yield better results, but it's only marginal. Lens corrections still needed (OP hasn't had them applied, to prevent loss of sharpness at pixel level) and this setup just has better edges mainly. When I rice images with my phone (mounted, merging RAWs), it's not far off in center sharpness from this setup but the edges fall off way quicker.

The studio shot scene on dpreview seemed good but I should have paid more attention to the small fonts, I just figured I'd be more in the clear since I planned to shoot closer at 18x12/19x13 and thought the math giving 300 PPI would work out but it didn't.

>>4312419
>The z7ii is the perfect camera for 99.9999% of people who are not fucking wedding photographers
Maybe if it had pixel shift, the Zf (cheaper) has it. 4-shot RGB per pixel would fix almost everything but without it it's basically a cuck camera, just like the Z8 which has it but lacks a mechanical shutter.
Every Nikon body seems to have at least one serious flaw that shouldn't really exist.
All Nikon bodies have no cross-type AF, so focusing on horizontal lines is impossible unless you rotate the camera 30/45 degrees, focus, then rotate and release shutter.

It's actually a fucking meme.

>>4313683
Marketing, lies, pure bullshit. As far as I can tell.
No "3D pop" faggots ever post RAWs so it's just S-Curves and crushed blacks and sharpening for the most part. Some lenses are very sharp at the focal point but 3D pop fags never seem to agree on anything so the term is effectively BS.

>>4313791
Can you share a photo or two that you've taken to demonstrate how a photo can have depth, but not necessarily "3d pop"?

It would be great if at least one of my 3 or 4 haters actually posted a single photo.

>>4313755
>3D POP
>EPSON V800
>Lightroom
Pretty funny.
I really liked how the 3D POP erased part of the branch in the center of the image making it float, as if the stem itself has 3D POPPED itself and literally vanished from the scene.
The filename is pure gold as well.

>>4313780
>horizontally mirrored image
Retard detected.

>>4313794
Shoot at f/22, that's depth.
Something measurable and well understood.

File: 20240508_121119.jpg (1.11 MB, 1800x2271)

1.11 MB JPG

Maybe this one has 3d pop? The horse does look kinda 3d on the page. Or would you call it something else? Maybe the contrast has something to do with it, the sharpness?

>>4313791
I want to make my own thread one day, but only with pictures that I've printed. I still need to build up my real darkroom that can do color and up to 4x5 negatives.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	SM-G998U1
Camera Software	G998U1UESAFXD1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	1800
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:05:08 12:11:20
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4000
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	sRGB
Unique Image ID	XA8XLNF00SM
Image Height	1800
Brightness	10.4 EV
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	1/2500 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/1.8
ISO Speed Rating	16
Image Width	4000
Focal Length	6.70 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4313795
I hate my scanner and I hate scanning, gearfag. I only do contact sheets now that I have an enlarger. It feels so good to be fully away from the computer when processing my images.

Having everything in focus doesn't necessarily give it depth...

>>4313796
>"Maybe this one has 3d pop?"
It's a phone snapshit of a 2D print.

File: 20240514_161458.jpg (2.58 MB, 2228x3282)

2.58 MB JPG

Foreground, midground, and background subjects, AND all in focus??? Why does this image feel so flat compared to previous examples? It was taken with a Summaron f3.5!!!!!! That should be a 3dpop king, right?

>>4313804
Hold my 4x5...

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Perfection V800
Equipment Make	EPSON
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.1.1 (Android)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2229
Image Height	3283
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:02:03 01:29:57
Color Space Information	sRGB
Light Source	Unknown

File: A-large-format-stereo-camera.jpg (54 KB, 800x643)

54 KB JPG

>>4313804
Thank you.

NOW, THIS WILL SURELY, UNDOUBTEDLY CREATE 3D POP! RIGHT?

>>4313793
99.9999% of photographers have never touched pixel shift even if they have it

>>4313808
Irrelevant.
99.9% of photographers don't even shoot RAW, or own a computer with a keyboard and mouse or even USB type-a ports.

>>4313806
>>4313796
>>4313790
>>4313780
embarrassing. what consorting with dogs and gear sperging does a man.

buy a ricoh gr and use nothing but that, no process copes or excuses, until you can make a thread with 10-20 photos and have other people call you good.

>>4313814
Link me to the thread you made, please. :)

>>4313809
ok but pixel shifts sole application is extreme pixel peeping similar to buying a 100mp camera, but it only works for 0 movement scenes which dont exist for anything worth photographing

its a scanner feature. but go ahead and buy an a7riii or a7riv.

>>4313824
I used to use it for night photography where most of the movement is hidden by shadow. It looks super cool on buildings

"3D Pop" is more about the absence of defect than anything the camera or lense particularly imparts.
It's just clean, sharp photography that avoids overt camera effects.
No colour abberations, no blur, natural perspective, natural processing, sufficient DoF to cover the subject, an excess of capture resolution for the output size.
As mentioned above, it's a stupid term with a non-technical, amorphous meaning that's further obscured by the fact that leica owners are all esl chinese students sent abroad to offshore embezzled ccp money for their parents and they can't articulate individual thought, let alone do it in English.
>ming thein did the best job of it though
It won't be visible shot to shot because it's subject dependent.
A doghair covered bw frame with a wideangle isn't it.
A 35mm at f/4 and 2-3m focus distance, a high res digi sensor, framed with single point perspective and with flat natural lighting is much more likely to be it.

>>4310413
Skip the 24mp for slides. The dipshit that pops into every goddamn thread about slides insisting that at 8, 10, 12, or 24 mp “YOURE JUST SHOOTING GRAIN” is no doubt in this thread too. He apparently has fuck all else to do all day. He is a stupid cunt. You take that 50mc, if it is the mc, set it at f8. At 5.6 you reach max sharpness, but beyond f8 you get a little CA. You want as much DOF as you can to make up for the curvature of any bowing your slides may have, without getting into CA territory. Then once you get a handle on that, yes, pixel shift will get you all the detail there is in a 35mm slide. But you dont have to go to a sony to get it. The frustratingly under-sensor’d ZF works with your z lenses, and pixel shifts up to 96mp. Thats actually a little above how much detail there is to pull out of the grain of the slide. Yes at that point, you are even finely capturing the film grain. Unlike that other loudmouth jackass though who thinks 12mp is fine, your 96mp (or even 80) mpx scans will smoothly render that grain, to look like the film grain it is, instead of a bunch of shitty jagged pixelated “grains”, making the final image look like a film image is supposed to look, and able to be enlarged without immediately looking like shit & making you wonder why you spent all that time digitizing slides just to do it so poorly. Do it right, get a zf, digitize ur slides, be amazed at how nice the rest if tye camera is to shoot over your z6ii, and then get stuck deciding which bidy to sell off and which to keep, just like everyone else does. The Zf is fucking nice. Irritating bc it should have a 36mp sensor in it, and the fucking grip is so small it might as well not even be there, and what the ever loving fuck is that knob doing digging into the vf pyramid jfc design team get it together, but in every other way that is the nicest camera to actually walk around & shoot with that they make. Great big buggery beautiful slide imgs tho.

>>4313885
>he can’t pop

>>4313885
Post an example.

>>4310413
I got the Laowa Dreamer 2:1 macro for digitizing my mums olde 110 slides from the 70s. Turned out to be great, bc after i pixel-shift shot all my 110 slides and sold my Zf, I then landed in all my familys 35mm slides too. So with my z7 i just stay zoomed in at 2:1, orient my 35mm slide tray in the ES-2 in portrait, and digitize each slide vertically in three horizonal overlapping thirds, (ea third also bracketed -2,0,+2) and comp them all together as HDR in Affinity. Regardless of whether the original was shot in on 35mm or 110, my slides & negs final images are all 12,000 x 8,000. I dont actually need to know that the color of each pixel wasnt calculated by the bayer system, that fuckin algorithm works for every other image i shoot perfectly fine, & at least as well as my developers imagination as he’s developing my color film. so i really dgaf. I just need my shit to maintain the look & feel of the original film, which isnt a result of imperceptible color accuracy, its a result of resolution, and can’t be approximated by ai upscaling/blurring/sharpening bullshit. It has to faithfully preserve the elliptical pointillism of the grain, and that happens at about 96mp.

File: DSC_0205.jpg (678 KB, 1365x2048)

678 KB JPG

>>4313898
>>4313902
This is kind of what I mean.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON Z 7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	31868
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2020:02:23 19:51:28
Exposure Time	1/30 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	64
Exposure Bias	-1.5 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	26.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1365
Image Height	2048
Rendering	Custom
Exposure Mode	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Image Quality	FINE
White Balance	NATURAL AUTO
Focus Mode	AF-S
Flash Setting	NORMAL
Flash Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
AE Bracket Compensation	0.0 EV
Lens Type	Unknown
Lens Range	24.0 - 70.0 mm; f/2.8
Shooting/Bracketing Mode	Single Frame/Off
Noise Reduction	OFF
Camera Actuations	10823

>>4313989
Dog man's example is poppier than this, but I see some in yours, sort of. It comes from a different place.

I bet If you raised the shadows to reveal the detail in them that bit of pop would probably be gone. Interesting.

>>4314049
I would say it's not about subject separation, it's the "transparency", ie does it look real, or hyperreal, like a rendering almost, which is why I mentioned all of those other factors.
I actually shot this as a lens test, and ended up hanging a 16x24 of it in my dining room, I think I raised the blacks considerably for the print, but I don't have that file anymore.
>op complaining about the Z 50mm is insane btw, it's an incredible lense

>>4314146
Wait you didn't use a 20 dollar lens that you only bought because someone in a beanie told you it had 3d pop?

File: z6ii z50-1.8 flat.jpg (1.25 MB, 4040x6064)

1.25 MB JPG

>>4314146
>op complaining about the Z 50mm is insane btw, it's an incredible lense
AA filter and 24MP bayer seems to be my problem, I think the lens might be fine and the reviews and most raws I saw early on and pixel peeped before buying it were actually tested and the raws posted were from a Z7.

Will probably get z7ii and start digitizing shit, but save the large subjects (shit I can't use macro optics for and just need framing it at max res for camera to work) for the future in case z7 gets pixel shift or they release something with it, no aa filter, 45MP at least and cross type af and mech shutter or global before I consider quadrupling or tripling my budget for a defective gimped flagship.

Even if they just add 4-shot individual pixel shifting that you merge at the PC to get RGB per pixel at 45MP that'd probably satisfy me with a z7ii but if they don't add that by next year I can buy something else that has it if need be or rent a z8 or full fuji 100mp/400mp pixel shit kit to do my biggest shit that demands more.
The goal is to do everything right and AA'd bayer 24mp seems like a huge unnecessary obstacle in achieving that since it's trash at 1:1 pixel peep scale.

1/2
neutral non-sharpened render from raw

File: z6ii z50-1.8 baked.jpg (1.61 MB, 4040x6064)

1.61 MB JPG

>>4314344
2/2
mild curves + some sharpening
looks okay, but sharpening highlights demosaicing artifacts and those only go away at 50% scale (turning 2x2 grid of bayer mess into 1 combined pixel)

>>4313894
I'd consider buying a Zf for pixel shitting certain things then selling it to recoup costs, but it has the AA filter and I feel that's unnecessary.
None of the other platforms seem that great and Canon is trying to charge a monthly fee for certain features so between snoy and cannot I feel NikonZ is the least crap for now
next gen bodies will probably fix a lot of the issues but cannot STILL doesn't even have a single native 1:1 macro lens yet and that's a big no-no from me.

96MP 4:4:4 RGB shifted or for my calculations, 80 (not that zf is 80, but shitting with a 20MP should be fine) is enough since I only plan to need ~77MP to be happy.
It's a shame the ZF is so polarizing and awkward with its ergo.

>>4313906
I checked out some Laowa lenses, but unfortunately didn't see many of them supported by lensfun database. I assume that being APO macro lenses any corrections might be extremely minor or more trouble than they're worth but I'd at least want vignette corrections to be available before buying one of those. I use Darktable or RawTherapee mainly.

Digitizing 110 (smaller than 35mm, so 2:1 would be great) is a concern for me and I already plan to expo-bracket all my film scans so pixel shitting would be a free upgrade.
Maybe by the time I get to the 110, they'll have a NikonZ APS-C body that can pixel shit and then 1:1 magnification with a native Nikkor macro could be enough.
If the Laowas get profiled before that happens I might just pick one of those up. Or round my shit up and rent something. Definitely wouldn't be satisfied scanning 35mm with a 1:1 with z6ii 24mp the way it is at the moment though.
An actual good 24MP would be great though. RGB, no AA. If only Sigma foveon didn't flop and become a laughing stock.
Seeing people cope with 24MP on full frame bayer is disappointing. My smartphone has 16MP for fucks sake. I'm never buying 24MP again unless it's a MFT thing with pixel shitting.

>>4313989
Was your test shot such a fond memory that your brain created 3d pop as a simple placebo?

File: A7R06286RawEdit.jpg (693 KB, 2048x1366)

693 KB JPG

>>4314339
I mean I could have and you probably wouldn't have known. I wouldn't call this a great example, but this lense is definitely capable of the necessary IQ to qualify.
>>4314354
It's a shrub in a damp gardenbed, I wouldn't say it's a core memory for me, but certainly very exciting

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7RM2
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/50 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	1.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Daylight
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1366
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4314368
So you're saying the lens doesn't really matter?

>>4314344
Hey OP, if it's of any interest, I could try and do some comparison shots later, Zf regular + pixel shift + 40mp monochrom
Didn't realize C1 added native pixel shift support for the Zf, curious to try out

Nah son, you need the new Fuji GFX 100S II, for a 400MP pixel shift.

>>4314421
Yes, ma'am.

>>4314403
That'd be cool, but I'm not sure how you'd be able to really show the comparisons.
Ideally, uploading RAWs of a single shot then the 4 or 16 in a way where we could merge it in Nikon's software or maybe just posting a merged RAW would be neat

I expect the 4 shot pixel shitting would be fine for delivering 4:4:4 RGB 24MP but have doubts about its pixel shitting at 96MP being much better, due to AA/OLPF but I could be wrong.


Unfortunately almost all people showing examples of it are post-processing the images so their examples are kinda.. either untrustworthy or not ideal. Most we can really see are youtubers showing it in general, found a guy who posted z8 pixel shit images on his website but they were JPEG only and those did look decent but being JPEG says enough, not fit for true in depth comparisons.
But Z8 pixel shit JPEG did indeed look good, even though the colors and shit were way off the original single shot. Lot more fine detail however it was not a static scene but the still bits looked alright.

This is the vid with a link in his description to the JPEGs on his site if you're curious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3Xdxpb5ihE

OP here, got my hands on a Z7 II.
So far images seem way sharper. Night/day difference. Even at 100%.
I suspect the AA filter is responsible for a lot of the issues.

Even scaling this down to 73% (bringing 5520 px to 4040px height to match z6ii) which is non-integer interpolated sampling results in a clearer image than z6ii at native. Z7 II images at 100% zoom 45MP

No sharpening, looks almost as sharp naturally as the sharpened z6ii images even at 100% scale at 45MP.
Think it's safe to say lens is fine.
Will probably buy Z7 II unless ZF anon makes a compelling case for ZF but considering that has an AA filter AND pixel shitting wasn't a native function of it on release, I feel its pixel shitting may be gimped.

Glad your autism itch got scratched anon. What are you documenting by the way?

>>4314611
Whole bunch of stuff.
Art, kid's "art", inherited family things like family diaries, certificates, cards, IDs, documents, plaques, some posters (some are old/dead, like old vidya maps and stuff that can't readily be found online in anything of acceptable detail), vinyl sleeves+vinyls themselves and more. Basically if it's worth keeping I'll consider shooting it.

A lot has already been photographed but not well at all. Mainly phone snapshits with the phone flash. Doing it right will make throwing out some originals less of a concern for all parties involved. Still intend to keep all the film and a bunch of stuff but a bunch of it falls under what objectively could be the junk category but nostalgia is a bitch and people like to hold onto things. Not always for the things, but because they trigger good memories. Properly digitizing such junk will make it easier for people to let go of some stuff and stop hoarding. Lets things be discarded, but not forgotten. At least for the non-essentials. Quite a bit could fit in a flatbed or a sheet fed scanner but those either take long or don't yield good quality and they're annoying to clean. Very little middle ground with these. EPSON's premium flatbeds deliver quality but are slow, and can't fit anything large or not flat so the camera is way more versatile. All the "fast" bulk scanners are like 1/10th of what you get from a good slower flatbed.

As a bonus the whole thing justifies a good camera purchase and it can be used for other stuff like actually taking better photos.

>>4314645
Sounds like a cool idea for a business if you love documenting shit.

You could do the whole hoarders haul removal/digitization package.

>>4314646
Might give that a dabble, as a side hustle. I'll test the waters extending some effort to digitize some friends shit I guess.
When my family and friends are settled I'll know by then if I'm sick of it or up for more.

The thought of having to deal with some random person's box of family history sounds like a chore though, a lot can go wrong (bugs, damage in shipping) so it might seem more like a good idea in theory than it is in practice desu.

>>4314647
Yeah... I'm sure you would come across someone that would want you to document decades worth of saved newspapers or magazines, and it would just take an obscene amount of time. I guess that's fine if you're getting paid. I would go crazy doing that...

Discussing a gameplan with the property owners could probably account for most of that stuff.

>>4310413
Try going to f8, or f10... focus near the first digit, or f16 and correct with ai diffraction remover (lightroom has this).

>>4310413
Just use some light. Try to take same photo outside.

Are you planning on uploading this stuff to Archive.org?

How are you lighting the items?

>>4314557
In fairness, it's not like your ever viewing actual RAWs outside of a RAW processing program. I'm not sure why a minimally processed JPG would be problematic for comparison purposes. I can disable capture and output sharpening though. Might have to wait till tomorrow, wrapping up some other editing today.
I'm kinda in the opposite boat as you, used to have a GFX kit too. Grass was always greener with better gear, always after sharper lenses and more resolution / detail. Shot with my GFX for a few years, and, now I have zero desire beyond 40-50mp, and find 24-26mp absolutely fine for 99% of shooting. I can still pixel-shift or pan stitch for when I really need more. GFX gave me the most pixels, but nothing has ever looked as good at a pixel level than my monochrom or DP3M.

>>4314578
>Think it's safe to say lens is fine.
No shit.

Just get a Z7II, until a new higher res Nikon model comes out and you feel unsatisfied again, and keep the cycle going.

>>4314659
Lol.
It's directly under a lamp on a tripod + eshutter w/release timer.

>>4314661
Some stuff, probably.

>>4314709
>it's not like your ever viewing actual RAWs outside of a RAW processing program.
True but there are so many ways to edit and fake sharpness. Like crushed blacks, local contrast, clarity, "lens deblurring", etc that makes it hard to trust JPEGs in general. You're aware of that though so if you could make good JPEGs I don't see why they wouldn't be somewhat useful. All the JPEGs I uploaded ITT were 4:4:4 but it's common for people to do subsampled chroma.
Whatever you feel like doing would be nice to see.

>I'm kinda in the opposite boat as you, used to have a GFX kit too. Grass was always greener with better gear, always after sharper lenses and more resolution / detail.
I realize what I am after isn't crucial for everyday shooting. However for something that will spend a good bit of its like on a mount for digitizing stuff the fine details are important at least for now.
I'll probably grab a MFT for an everyday carry casual shooting since 16MP and noise is fine for casual shoots IMO.

>nothing has ever looked as good at a pixel level than my monochrom or DP3M
Leica's Mono cameras look great but I'd probably go the cheaper route and buy an APS-C Nikon and get it converted, or an MFT cam.
Foveon sounds great but every time I checked none of their cameras were available for sale. Sigma's available cameras at the moment seem to all be bayer. Might have to rent one some time just to see what it's like.

My Z6ii is on its way back, friend's Z7ii convinced me I do not want to keep the 6.
I'll probably pick one up next week unless ZF seems worth it. I already wish the Z6/Z7 were bigger in the hand (grip could be thicker) so I'll have to hold a ZF in store to check the ergo. Even if its pixel shitting is impressive that might be enough to prevent me from buying one. I don't intend to use pancake lenses on full frame so a tiny body won't help me.

>>4314921
He’s saying better lighting would give you sharper results.

>>4314921
>cares about iq
>uses e shutter

>>4314978
Should he be using an f shutter?

>>4314921
Low MP counts look aliased and digital if you shoot anything but blurry women and building corners and by 16mp it's impossible to resize it out 100% for 4k output

There's a reason there are still people who believe film is superior, and it's all the digicopers settling for crap

>>4315026
to be fair it takes digital a wee bit of extra bulk and money to outdo portra/ektar/velvia/tmax, a nikon f slr and a good copy of a 24mm f2.8 on a technical level because film manages to get better and more lifelike resolution out of worse glass since it doesnt add interpolation blur to optical blur

the next best thing is a sony a7riii and 24mm f2.8 g - $1500 setup used, have fun color grading

>>4315055
Have fun with digital rendering of skin and hair and eyes!

>>4315064
By the a7riii class of cameras with good lenses skin detail, hair, eyebrows, eyelashes, and eyes are as good as they are on 35mm or 645 depending on skill/gear (steady hand, correct shutter speed and focus, RF, or SLR with mirror lockup, pro stock not fuji 400)

You need MFD to compete with “real” MF and 4x5 with modern glass

>>4315026
so when he takes pictures of his documents on film, how do you suggest he digitize them? why not just digitize the documents directly in the first place?

>>4314924
Also a “lamp” is probably very low CRI, if it’s an LED or CFL bulb, even worse. For doing copystand work, you want a high CRI LED COB with a nice big modifier like a soft box with diffusion. Or a strobe. Profoto or Elinchrome if you’re ballin, Godox for a budget.


Honestly all of this seems like so much overkill for a documentation of hobby hoarding. If you’re not uploading to Archive.org or otherwise sharing the results with fellow collectors, what is the point? Autism?

>>4315072
a7riii in 4 shot pixel shift