>forces you to use a tripod or set your ISO to 256 million in low light>forces you to use an ND in daylightwhen will this shit technology improve?
>>4298090A possible solution is to ignore those pesky photons and instead let camera AI read and analyse consumers mind and generate the exact picture they want.
>>4298090>poorfag can't afford the latest ff with bsi sensorno in-body nd filter though, now that shit's annoying
>>4298105I have a Z8. It's about the principle, anon. Why we gotta brute force the problem?
>use a tripod Ok, I understand, tripod means long exposure, and you want a short exposure.>set your ISO to 256 millionOk, you want to use extremely low ISO like film (100-400) at the same time. >in low lightPlease examine the exposure triangle. If there is not a lot of light, exposure is fast, and ISO is low, you must have a very large lens aperture.Daylight should be no problem, unless, again, you want to do something weird.
>>4298090>forces you to use a tripod or set your ISO to 256 million in low lightGit gud. You want a 100% QE sensor? Upgrade to medium format? How low is this light, pitch dark? Use a flash. FYI high ISO 4k video (if oversampled) is actually cleaner than staring at a high ISO still (it's the meeting of human visual processing and downsampling=NR). We can see well in low light because we're kind of like RGBW-sensor video cameras so if one readout has missing data or noise somewhere the next frame will have it somewhere else and our brains can average it all out. If you somehow took stills from human vision, they would be much softer and noisier than you are used to, and you'd be suddenly thankful that something like a nikon Z6II or canon R6 is basically a night vision camera by comparison.>Need ND filtersYou can also use higher shutter speeds and smaller apertures. You want bokeh in bright daylight or super long exposure times you're going to have to buy an ND filter. Deal with it. Even with sensors that have base ISOs of 50, even if we got as low as ISO 1, you'd still end up buying an ND filter eventually.
>>4298090>doesn't know what ISO stands for>gets madISO is defined by the exposure value for a given light value, it's the amount of gain required to achieve that EV
>>4298155Wait, OP needs to come to realization that it's something else about high ISO that he doesn't like, so the conclusion is internalized. Then, if he guesses correctly, we can start talking about real issues.
>Organic sensor is done, sigma's foveon is next to it's complete>Which will definitely mog current snoy cmos with 30stops+ DR, 100% accuracy in colour>No we're not gonna use itWhy did they make it even?
Speaking of tripods, what do you think of the Leofoto Ranger LS-323C + LH-40
>>4298090if you actually saw the signal coming off that sensor (especially for VIDEO) you would understand how crap it isthe postprocessing is "magic"until you realize it makes all the photos look like the same pile of beautified poo
>>4298090You're the most retarded posted I've seen all month
>>4298090>shooting in harsh daylightdoing it wrong
There’s literally no reason to not use medium format (film) in the year 2024. It provides amazing results and forces (you) to take better pics because you can’t just snapshit
>>4303867>and forces (you) to take better pics because you can’t just snapshitchallenge accepted[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4303864>Just digicuck things
>>4303924Harsh daylight sucks on film tooBut if you go innawoods you get quality dappled light
>>4303926Ironic that the convenience format is limited to golden hour outside, lol.
>>4303936It's really not, you're just a sunk cost fallacy gearfag grasping at imaginary justifications for all your wasted cash and newfound inability to afford anything except your next $15 roll of portra.Shit light is shit light on every mediumWell, maybe, in a month when you feel the need to make more fun purchases, you will start thinking shit light is good on digital too because you found a canon ixus for $15.
>>4303942Same cameras since 2010/2011. All the film I shoot gets written off.
>>4303957hard to believe because you have a take as shit as>really bright hard light only looks good on filmSkill issue, there's no difference, wtf are you doing wrong, applying a really stupid curve to your raws and letting your lab apply a better one to your scans? My film shits and digital shits look the same in the same light.You make OP look smart
>>4303959*cough*hard clipping*cough*
>>4303961>Skill issue>Cinefag: why yes, it is a skill issue.Thank you for confirming that you do not know how to use a camera. Is this what shooting with live view preview does to people? They just hard clip everything trying to fill the shadows?>BUT THE SHADOW NOISEVs film's mushy voidYes congratulations you just found out film has 13 stops of DR and FF digital has 14 so they basically do the same thing with different resolution (digital has more) wow. You may, in fact, still need a GND, because cameras didn't actually change that much except for a brief period where digital was actually worse than film.l2curves.
>>4303962>what is using soft clipping with artistic purposeEver heard of distorted guitars? With photography it's similar.
>>4303964Did you know people consistently fail to differentiate tube and solid state amps in double blinds because even order harmonics and soft clipping can be simulated with an appropriately high bitrate?It's the similar to the reason you have the same DR on film and digital if you do things right. The only difference is film has subtractive color via emulsion layers and dye clouds and digital has additive color guessing via the CFA (until modern foveon hits or we get 1/60 4 shot pixel shift with 240fps cameras).
>>4303967There are some pretty good amp simulations, fair enough. And yet, at the end of the day Tarantino, Nolan and others choose to shoot on film. Because film simulations just aren't good enough.
>>4303969It's not because of hard clipping. It's because of the color palette, halation, the more brutal shadow crush with grain here and there feeling closer to the way most people see darkness+eigengrau, and the fact that grain and noise are not the same thing.it is a creative decision, not a technical decision. you need to learn this. all of gear is creative decisions. not technical decisions. there is no absolute superiority. you want it to look like ____ or _____ and don't let some clickbait hypebeast tell you to stop wanting ____ and just use ____.
>>4303974Sounds like you're agreeing that film is superior in more ways than one with extra steps
>>4303975Film is different. Nolans films have a look, and part of that look is the way film looks. Digital also looks good, but it doesn't look like nolan.Arguing film vs digital is like arguing strawberry vs raspberry, gearfag. Don't tell anyone, and don't let anyone tell you, that your photo is better or worse because of the gear, because the gear is just one of the many creative decisions that create the aesthetic.It would be like telling me that my playing is better or worse because of my authentic Gibson Les Paul Standard 60s not being a PRS private stock or condor shitter. That's stupid, and you can hardly tell anyways, I just use it because I like it ya consoomer war SOI.
>>4303976>Film is different.So you finally admit it.Maybe stop trying to shame people for shooting film.
>>4303980I only shame gearfags for thinking dumb shit like digital is incompatible with hard light.
>>4303959>Desperate projection over finances>Gets told
>>4303983tbf 99% of the time people with stupid gear console war opinions turn out to be poor. hood rich tops.
>>4303980>sensor can only be used once before necessitating complete replacementlol, lmao even>baked in color, requires changing entire sensor for different gradespfft what a joke format
>>4303985I wouldn’t know
I wish we'd get CCD sensors back
>>4304010Your behavior exposes the lie.
>>4304033If you say so
