>>4312933
CCDs have always done this. I'm not sure why it's a big deal suddenly. If you didn't care before there is no reason to care now.

File: ccd-versus-cmos-comparison.jpg (163 KB, 1441x839)

163 KB JPG

>>4312937
Nice try. I accept your defeat.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	150 dpi
Vertical Resolution	150 dpi
Image Width	1441
Image Height	839

>>4312943
So you've always owned cameras with global shutters, right?

>>4312946
Let me rephrase your question: "Did you ever own a digishit camera without a Sony sensor?"

>>4312949
Well it's clearly a very important feature to you and the tech isn't new, so I'm assuming you've always had one and this isn't just a shill thread

>>4312951
>the tech isn't new
This tech wasn't available for FF CMOS until now so derailing this as a shill thread might me exaggerated.

>>4312954
You've never owned a camera with a global shutter so you clearly don't need it

>>4312956
Ok i'll bite. What's the catch with this tech?
Why is it being available sub 10k a bad thing?
Gatekeeping your precious "professional" sports or bird photography?

>>4312959
I'm not the one shilling it like it's new and revolutionary. You are. It's always been around and affordable, it was just so far down on your requirements that you didn't bother and you were just fine without but now it's "unimaginable" to buy anything without it. If it's so "unimaginable", why didn't you own one sooner?

>>4312962
>it's new and revolutionary
It is.
>it was just so far down on your requirements that you didn't bother
Exactly. Can't shoot decent sports with an M8.

>>4312964
It's clear that you didn't even know global shutter was a thing until snoy announced it in that camera. You don't need to shill for a multibillion dollar corporation. They got it bro

>>4312965
>They got it bro
Maybe they are because the competition is shit.

>>4312964
Does the M8 even have a global shutter? It sure doesn't have an electronic shutter.

>>4312979
Yeah it does.
However it's a travesty of a mechanical clusterfuck that cant do more than 1/8,000 and fails miserably at 10k releases. Contact Leica support for your cheap $1,000 fix as warranty does not cover this.

>>4312982
Do you like actually own one and are you speaking from experience or?..

Gearfags gearfagging. Post one picture you've taken that was affected by rolling shutter.

>>4312987
I've got three of these. One actually working one as i scrap the other two for spare parts.

File: main-qimg-4aedf440ab9f0ce(...).gif (3.68 MB, 500x281)

3.68 MB GIF

>>4313004
Imagine not taking photos of propeller planes because of embarassing results.
Ever.

>>4313007
Fair enuff, I'll believe ya.

>>4312933
FPS wont improve your photos enough for the bad color science to stop being noticeable

Snoy has always had the fastest camera and only people who review lenses for a hobby ever really cared. Actual professionals use very slow cameras.

No, sports is not actual professional photography.

>>4313043
Just out of curiosity: Name one professional and the camera he/she uses.

>>4313045
Steve McCurry
Leica SL2

Annie Leibovitz
Fujifilm GFX100

Tim Walker
Pentax 67

File: 5c15e2_0cca02caaa4a4e7d95(...).jpg (77 KB, 616x927)

77 KB JPG

>>4313051
>Steve McCurry
>Leica SL2
But he used a Nikon for the afghan girl?

>Annie Leibovitz
>Fujifilm GFX100
She is using an A7rIV now.

>Tim Walker
>Pentax 67
His new works are made on A9. Pic related.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	616
Image Height	927

Having to comb through high speed video footage for single frames is annoying

>>4313008
Just use a higher shutterspeed, duh

>>4313053
Annie is still using a fuji bruh. To my knowledge she and tim both get temporary promotional deals with sony but instantly go back to proper cameras.

Annie was also momentarily using an a7riii+24-70 f4 scheiss (awful camera with an awfuller lens) because sony paid her and it was bad enough she used a d810 alongside it for 90% of the pictures

Notice when they use sony you hear about it and when they use their preferred cameras you do not. Sony does these promotions all the time. They even convinced some magnum fags to use their bodies for a short period, but they wouldnt use their lenses so it only happened once.

Fashion and editorial is still film or MFD for the majority of shoots lol. Full frame digital is for tourists.

>>4313080
As a full frame user with some experience in fashion, I will concur

Full frame is noisy. It's soft. It's easily ruined by aliasing. You have to accept total fucking shit and adopt cope like "expecting quality is using a camera wrong, zoom out bruh, feel the vibes", resize to 4k after paying for 12k, etc. It's ALMOST too shit to take photos for serious professional work. Large brands want photos of their products or models showcasing their products to be tack sharp up close on large prints, because it's not about some moody magnum art shit they're selling jewelry and clothing.

You really need an extremely sharp lens, at least 45mp and to never leave base ISO for full frame to be sorta good.
>inb4 sharpness is bad
Digital sharpening is bad. A physically sharp photo does not look "clinical" or "crispy". Optical, system sharpness makes the photo look more like your eyes. Digital "sharpening" just highlights the processing errors of having computer generated color guesses.

Of course smaller sensor sizes and lower resolutions are even worse but at least when you get to micro four thirds you can excuse it as its own look ("le digicam"). Not to say most people do... most m43 users cope as hard as FF users when it comes to medium format being better. If you want a quality camera on a budget shoot 6x7 and use a m43 for snapshits.

>>4313081
Sorry I meant big ads and covers. You’re not wrong though plenty of other cameras for ecomm, ads, go-sees etc. I’m going to a shoot right now and already know they use 67 for 90% of shoots.

>>4313081
a d850/z7/r5 is going to be seen as the minimum sufficient camera soon.
7600x4300 displays will become the standard just as fast as "retina" (4k) did. that leaves you a tiny, tiny bit of cropping room.

ff is that shit, it's already within the realm of "minimum consumer camera that is actually better than a phone" (take a look at x100vi and iphone 15 pro max samples side by side if you dont believe me). we have maybe one decade of FF being the minimum and then it's a medium format world when phones AI lie photos get even better and become the standard (simultaneously ending most civilians privilege to present photographic truth - you will never see real, unbiased coverage of any political event ever again!). if you want to get ahead of the curve, 6x7 400 speed film is essentially a 150mp, non bayer photo.

crop sensors unironically have a better chance at surviving for getting "decent" quality out of optical zooms and having semi-competitive FPS compared to this upcoming generation of professional journo boxes.

File: IMG_9661.jpg (190 KB, 825x1000)

190 KB JPG

>>4313086
Is there a difference between an x100 and a phone, really?
>the x100 cant record video with autofocus because its slow and the internal mic picks up the buzzing noise
Oh yeah that
Just get pic related

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	299 dpi
Vertical Resolution	299 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1000
Image Height	1000
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4313094
The phone has 3 lenses and somehow has better fine detail
The phone can get something in focus without a 1 second delay
Manual controls on the phone are slightly harder to use but the x100 isnt very good either, its no nikon

>>4312933
>24mp
>micro four thirds dynamic range
A camera made for the newspapers? Does it at least do global shutter in video? Because global shutter on video cameras was already a thing and RED’s aps-c GS cams unironically have more DR than the a9iii

This thread has further convinced me that my inclination to abandon digital entirely in favor of film is correct. What a monumentally stupid thread.

>>4313102
Digital is for journalism, video, and scanning

90%+ of REAL art and quality critical work is still on 6x7+
BUT
You are not and never will be a real artist

>>4313120
That would be the majority of /p/. What do you suggest?

>>4313102
Hate to break it to you son but you’ll get rolling shitter with shutters on film cameras too, you just cant correct it. …UNTIL YOU DIGITIZE UR FILM AND PHOTOSHOP YOUR SHOT

>>4313074
1/8000 shutter speed
is
1/14 shutter speed
on nikon z7
each row collects light for 1/8000th of a second
but it takes 1/14th second to sample top row to bottom row
so the overall process, of rolling shutter, makes it a 1/14th shutter speed

you need mechanical shutter to compensate
or CCD
or a nu-global shutter CMOS

cameras have been cucked unnecessarily for so long
rolling shutter is ridiculous

>>4313095
>The phone can get something in focus without a 1 second delay
lol no

>>4313315
>You need mechanical shutter
Well then, problem fucking solved.

Now what's the point of paying out the ass for a global shutter sony when
1: It has the dynamic range of a micro four thirds camera, so bad sony has clear noise reduction cooked into their raws to make the SNR *LOOK* like its only as bad as APS-C (to be fair they are not the only one, canon does a similar thing with... literally every EOS R, usually at low ISOs but its every ISO on the R3, olympus apparently forces color noise reduction in raw and denoising and moire reduction is normally a baked in part of demosaicing xtrans)
2: RED ALREADY HAS AN APS-C GLOBAL SHUTTER SENSOR WITH SEVERAL STOPS MORE DYNAMIC RANGE THAN THE BEST POSSIBLE FULL FRAME CAMERA YOU CAN BUY, FOR THE SAME PRICE, AND IT SHOOTS 16 BIT RAW (IS JAPAN EVEN FUCKING TRYING?)
(hot takes ahead, some plane spotting autist might be mad, and some gearfag autist whose ego is based on racking up debt to buy an R3 might be madder)
3: The readout of a mechanical shutter, or a MS-speed eshutter (Z8, R3) is already excessively fast for anything but specific motorsports, which is honestly a boring, soulless non-artistic waste of time of no more value than blurry phone snaps taken of the exact same thing and you should feel bad for being enough of an autistic bugman to want to photograph it with a $6000 camera.
4: Anything over 10FPS is of 0 use for anything but PROFESSIONAL sports photography where things like the very moment a golf club hits a ball are valuable. Again this is a soulless endeavor. it is impossible for it to be art. you should feel bad for wanting to photograph this. This is the domain of engineers playing with high speed cameras that they would normally use for testing and research making an appearance on an informational youtube video/mythbusters or some shit, not "REAL" photographers (artists). Perhaps 12fps, but much faster and we're getting into the territory where strobes recycle times can't keep up.

File: -1x-1.jpg (398 KB, 2000x1334)

398 KB JPG

>>4313319
>RED ALREADY HAS
*Nikon already has

RED just asked for the sensor, towejazz designed and built it. Then Nikon asked for RED and everything they had, including their supplier contracts with towerjazz.

kekekeke

>>4313319
muh mechanical simplicity
muh indestructible electronics

>>4312933

>Landscape photographers
>Architecture Photographers
>Studio Photographers

Meh

>>4313319
>>4313120
But photography isn't even art to begin with

>>4315598
Saying photography isnt art is like saying theatre isnt art because its real people instead of moving paintings