>needing to color-grade every photo so it wouldn't look like absolute dogshitMeanwhile, Canon, Fuji and Nikon record JPEG's that are good to go. How do Snoyboys justify this?
>retard has opinionperhaps, stop using lightroom, and stop expecting cameras from 2017 to be perfectdoes it ever strike you as weird that sony gets so much shit when fuji has the same awful color "science" if not worse? maybe start slapping vsco presets on that shit and call it filmlike despite it looking more washed out than film with the usual digital transitions between sharpened detail and unresolvable CFA blur that never occur on film
>>4330520>shooting jpegi would never.
>>4330520Shooting jpeg is the peak of digital photography as a consumerist degeneration of the art form. People now consoom individual cameras just for what, in the film days, would have been the equivalent shifting the settings on the minilabs scanner.>You NEED TO BUY the NEW camera so you can HAVE BETTER JPEGS>NEED TO BUY>NEW>CAMERABack in the film days, everyone shot raw except for polaroid fags. Yes, everyone. All non-instant film photos were raws. Not finished prints or "jpegs". Even slide film has fuckloads of adjustment room compared to an 8 bit data storage format invented by some CS grad whose specialty was math and optimizing ancient computer systems.
>>4330527Neither would I, but Canon's CR3 files, if exposed correctly, usually don't require any post-processing whatsoever either.
Just shoot jpg I like Sony greens
Just shoot bitmap
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jaredpolin/albums/72177720313596484/Case in point: R3's high ISO RAWs are literally ready for publishing, whereas Sony A9 III's images look fucking disgusting.
>gearfaggotryMay i see your photos?
>>4330546You've seen my photos.
>>4330520I'm a canon shooter but going for jpeg ooc is pretty retarded even if canon's built in bullshit is half decent.If you got a decent exposure and a good in focused shot it takes all of 90 seconds to do any finishing touches after on the RAW like >>4330532 mentioned.Sure the jpeg out is nice for a quick handoff to friends or whatever but there's no reason not to shoot raw especially since all cameras like to fuck the WB a bit and even if you set it manually to like a 5200 certain conditions or locations do require adjustment. Also noticed that JPEG ooc usually have jank lighting adjustments added which can make the image worse.Regardless though, none of this matters, just go out, shoot and enjoy the process.>>4330539>he doesn't shoot in bitmapngmi>>4330543That's a interesting comparison>I shoot raw shirtI really hope retards don't unironically wear that shit.The low iso performance on my r6mkii is honestly fucking mindblowing especially when compared to my r50.Genuinely the r6mkii at 25,600 is better than the r50 at 6400.
>>4330548>Genuinely the r6mkii at 25,600 is better than the r50 at 6400.My RP at 12800 is better than my old M6 at 1600. And I really loved that M6.
>>4330550It's been a major upgrade for me, I still love my r50 as it's tiny as fuck and light as hell, it'll be my dedicated camping camera with the cheapo rf-s 55-210mm on it. Best decision I've made in a while was buying that kit and getting into photography as a hobby. Was a great learning tool and test to see if this is something I wanted to pursue.Here's a muskrat from yesterday's walk with the RF100-400mm on the r6mkii. Might snag the RF 200-800mm in a year or two, but pretty content at the moment.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS R6m2Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Windows)Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2024:06:28 17:16:29Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating3200Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternFocal Length400.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibrated
>>4330543>all those women have horrible picked at acne Women are disgusting slobs that do not engage in the most basic of self careNice detail though at high iso, made me regret zooming in
>>4330548Camera jpeg noise reduction, moire reduction, and sharpening are also strictly inferior to what a real computer can do, even automatically. I've tried some mirrorless cameras where the jpeg M or jpeg S output looked as bad as a phone, but processing the raw and exporting to the same size with real software looked significantly better.Imagine brandfagging cameras over that. Disgusting, actually.>i cant shoot ____ because of the jaypegsCamera jpeg has to cheap out on processing to promise those newspaper intern friendly FPS numbers and infinite buffer, computers can take a full second to process a raw, i know, but maybe photography would be better if we told newspaper sports faggots to use their phones?>>4330543But this guy is an example of why raw might not be the most popular. His color decisions are genuinely bad. He makes canon and sony both look like a poorly made fuji preset. Some people need their hands held.
>>4330557>Camera jpeg noise reduction, moire reduction, and sharpening are also strictly inferior to what a real computer can do, even automatically.Oh Absolutely, just focusing on the easy things they still get wrong in general.Brandfags/gearfags in general are retarded, and majority don't even use their shit.I've only been going to this board for a few months and majority of people that talk shit or brandfag don't even post pics or CAN'T because they haven't taken a photo in 8 months+.Shit's hilariously sad and pathetic. I see this all the time on /k/ too and people won't post guns cause they're just noguns.
>>4330543Here's the comparison for lazy peoplea9iii: aps-c dynamic range, nr baked into rawsr3: aps-c dynamic range, nr baked into rawsphotographer: notorious for shitty presets and oversharpening high isosthe only major difference is canon forces you to have a "battery grip" that holds 1.5 normal batteries because they dont want you plebs walking around besmirching the good name of the r3 and r1, and sony uses an optional add on battery grip that holds 2 full batteries because they want you plebs to buy the most expensive sony you can so they gotta stay street photographer friendly
>>4330556>American women are disgusting slobs that do not engage in the most basic of self careFtfy
>>4330564I stand by what I said
>>4330520I own Canon R6 and R10, Nikon Z5 and Sony A7CII.In terms of colors, Nikon is clear #1 with Sony not too far behind. Canon is dead last, and it's not even close.
>>4330557>Camera jpeg noise reduction, moire reduction, and sharpening on my Sony camera are strictly inferiorftfyAlso, criticizing a brand for it's objective flaws not brand fagging
sony is just shit unless you're shooting sports and even then you need their high frame rate $5k cameracanon and nikon are just better at everything
>>4330629They're inferior on nikon Z. They're inferior on canon. They're so inferior on fuji that fuji users unironically use darktable to try and squeeze some actual quality out of their $2000 smudge machine.Shooting jpeg is for people who want an excuse to spend as much money on cameras as possible and come out the other end looking like an asian tourist. If you have raws to work with even micro four thirds is not even that bad.
>>4330556>>4330564>Women are disgusting slobs that do not engage in the most basic of self careThey're sports players you introverted autist. They aren't wearing make-up for sports games and they sweat a lot so their skin isn't the greatest. Most women in sports aren't super models. Try getting your dick wet sometime.picrel, it's you
>Be my phone>Shoot raw>Editing pipeline chugs away in background>Sometimes if i'm quick i can see the real photo just before the abominable "intelligence" finishes adding its utlrabright+hdr+sharpen everything even the motion blur editseven literal npcs shoot rawif you're not shooting raw, you're going to come to the conclusion that your phone is better (because your phone's abominable intelligence shoots raw!)
>>4330634>sony is just shit unless you're shooting sportsLmao, there's a total of eleven sports photographers in the whole world who shoot Sony and none of them are pros.
>>4330647im just saying they have one specific camera that is actually good for sports and can actually compete with the others in that categoryi know 2 people doing private school sports photography that use the sony a1 and they get some really great shots and moments in basketball, lacrosse and football. not everything has to be about what pros useeveyrthing else about sony is just bad, worse colors, worst white balance
>>4330651>im just saying they have one specific camera that is actually good for sports and can actually compete with the others in that categoryExcept it cannot compete because of the price.
>>4330654>Except it cannot compete because of the price.you're absolutely right
>>4330635Nah that's just cope, non-Sony cameras usually put out "good enough" pics, sure you can squeeze out even better from the raws but it's nice to have something already usable to fall back to if you don't feel like editing
>>4330664nah i've had nikons, canons, and fooljisthe noise reduction and sharpening in particular is totally out of control quick and dirty garbage and works better with a real computer that takes a full second or more to render a raw
All of the "issues" with these brands are blown way out of proportion, you're as bad as the guys that say anything over ISO 1600 is an unusable mess. The truth is something could post a SOOC jpeg with the exif stripped and 98% of you wouldn't be able to tell what brand of camera it came from or point out the specific issues, and if it was a processed raw then you'd have no chance. Also even with jpegs there are adjustments that can be made in camera, you can get wildly different shots straight out camera from the same camera.
>>4330696anything over iso 1600 is an unusable messif you're not targeting baby resolutions
for all the complaining people do in threads like this, it sure would be nice for people to actually post examplesanything else just kinda seems like pointless arguing
>>4330520Sony JPEGs look fine.Sony RAWs look like shit because Adobe can't get their shit sorted out.
>>4330730ive never seen good jpegs, i can see the machine behind the magic now because i know all the tricks they do, but everything looks smeared and not very sharp or have unnatural sharpening applied to itjpeg always looks like shit in comparison
I use the same film emulation color profiles regardless of what camera body I'm using so makes no difference to me.
>>4330520Color science = fraud
>>4330730>Sony JPEGs look fine.cope/10
>>4330560>poorfag has to crop 600% because he cannot afford a real lensLmaoooo
Is posting in threads like these fun for people? I just want to make cool photos and have fun. Is this really what photography is all about?
>>4330776yes, gear is part of photography retard
>>4330776Enjoy making cool photos without a camera lad, tells us how it works out for ya
>>4330776With threads like this we warn newfags about the non-obvious faults of sony cameras, it's a public service
>>4330520SOOC, explain why these colors shold be bad[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7SCamera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2024:06:30 11:23:54Exposure Time1/80 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Brightness2.1 EVExposure Bias-1.3 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceShadeFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2832Image Height4240RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4330806>Snapseed 2.0bait
>>4330811You are retarded
>>4330806You missed focus, the photo is unviewable
All photos in this thread are good
>>4330814>missed focus And you know this because? I should have focused at infinity? Lmao
>>4330776Gearfagging on forum is easier than going out and taking interesting photos with the one you have with you, so its plentiful. Special gear is required for some niches of photography but whatever major brand kit released within last 10+ years you can afford 2nd hand should be good enough to for 90% of general photography. Get a camera kit or compact or a j-phone or whatever, shoot things you like, find cool, find important for you, your family, friends, hobbies &cet. If you have talent and put your mind in it you will get better and other people may even find your photos interesting, if not, its still fine, you'll have lots of snaps of things and people you care about.
How come you can spot the sony camera easily every time?film vs digital is harder to spot compared to sony vs any other camera
>>4330806You missed exposure, the photo is unviewable
>>4330806Which Chinkphone did you shoot this with?
>>4330841Sony
>>4330806Looks like pentax, right down to the missed focus and underexposure
>>4330811>>4330814>>4330840>>4330841>>4330888It appears then that Sony colors look perfectly fine
>>4330900Oops file failed to upload :)[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-7SCamera SoftwareSnapseed 2.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Focal Length (35mm Equiv)35 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Height4240Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:05:21 13:48:35Vertical Resolution350 dpiHorizontal Resolution350 dpiImage Width2832Exposure Bias0 EVExposure ProgramAperture PriorityColor Space InformationsRGBImage Height4240Brightness10.0 EVWhite BalanceAutoRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoExposure Time3/10000 secFlashNo FlashF-Numberf/2.8ISO Speed Rating100Image Width2832SaturationNormalContrastNormalSharpnessNormalFocal Length35.00 mmMetering ModePatternScene Capture TypeStandardLight SourceUnknown
>>4330903For memes i would say its sony thus colors bad, but i like it, grate job photochad. Im proud of you.
>>4330520Why does /p/ over-criticize sony for flaws other brands also have? Why don't flaws unique to other brands get whole threads?I think it's sour grapes
>>4330909most of /p/ use a phone and are extremely butt mad they can't afford canon or sony
>>4330903>snapseed
>>4330903inb4 a certain faggot is all>omg your picture is RUINED>chromabs man, the CHROMABS
>>4330903>Exposure Timei like this photo, where did you take it?
>>4330909this is what its like to feed cats when you full frame
>>4330909Over half of /p/ are legally blind and/or using trash monitors not suitable for viewing/editing photos so they just repeat what they read on other sites here, but with more anger because as you said, sour grapes
>>4330923I hate pathetic niggers like you so much[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid TP1A.220624.014.A515FXXU8HWI1Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height2400Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:06:30 18:54:08Light SourceUnknown