if it’s so good why did they discontinue it

File: ba1ca5d2-a136-11e6-8486-8(...).jpg (45 KB, 700x525)

45 KB JPG

>>4316635
You're going to look like a fool if someone walks in holding one of these.

[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
Image Width	700
Image Height	525

>>4316635
Actually bought mine two weeks ago. The hybrid viewfinder is so very good. Such a great camera!

>>4316637
It's just too expensive for what it is: a secondary chill camera.

File: IMG_2251.png (372 B, 433x270)

372 B PNG

>blocks your path

>>4316660
Leica would like to have a word with you

>>4316635
if you shoot buildings and rocks it will do the job beautifully, but when you point it at people not so much, fuji doesn't understand how to render highlights and shadows properly, everything look like a pic from iPhone with a filter, puls the cameras are expensive.

Girls definitely like the look of a Fuji but it's not going to get you laid. The few times I've been asked about mine the end result was them showing how their phone + some film emulation app was just as good.

>>4316669

then you listened intently and found your common interest in photography and used that to build a dialogue leading to secks?? or did you sperg out?

>>4316635
No one worth fucking can tell this from any other film camera so it doesnt matter
I’ll dare say anyone that would fuck you or not over a camera isnt worth fucking either

>>4316678
Thats the cuck shit that hooks you up with a white bitch that wants to “fix” you.

>>4316635
>using camera to get laid
based, only autists would refuse to use a product outside of its intended usage.

>>4316641
But no one is making new APS film rolls

>>4316691
That's not a film camera.

File: IMG_2051.jpg (661 KB, 1500x2221)

661 KB JPG

>>4316635
>Fuji really does have the best looking cameras
Partly correct. Yes, it’s a Fuji, but not the puny cuckbrick you posted. Excuse me while I walk into the room with a smart rugged suitcase and whip this bad boy out.
>t. Actual 680 owner and all I get is weird stares

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:02 20:18:50
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1500
Image Height	2221
Scene Capture Type	Standard

Fun story: I once hit on a girl with an xPro 3, who was walking around a little town in Italy.
Now I have Nyctalopia quite badly and have real trouble seen at dusk, so we spent over an hour walking around town chatting before It dawned on me that she was a dude.

Someone's dream I'm sure, but not for me.

>>4316711
Well yes, imagine being the retard carrying that shit to shoot 120, my Rolleicord probably looks better lmao.

Get a proper 4x5 and stop larping

>>4316713
The voice didn't tip you off?

>>4316713
Motherfucker living my dream

>>4316686
>I’ll dare say
how dare you.

>>4316731
Kinda but Italian is not my native language.i just thought it was a religional dialect it something.

>>4316732
Yeah I'm afraid the whole experience was wasted on me.
Was cute tho.

>>4316714
I have a proper 4x5 as well. And a Roleicord. I just enjoy using the chad of 120 cameras is all, simple as.

>>4316635
I have had sex with this exact body and lens combination

>>4316635
I dont rely on chintsy consoomer hobby items to get laid like some geek showing off his nintendo collection at anthrocon but you do you, eugene

I’ve always liked how this camera looked and felt, but couldn’t justify it with its shit sensor.

>>4316773
The Fuji shooter

>>4316775
The Sony shooter

>>4316635
I also shoot Fuji and I'm here to call you a loser.

File: 240523240.jpg (2.34 MB, 1875x2500)

2.34 MB JPG

I never got along well with the 27mm f2.8
Pro3 keeps feeling more outdated
Pro4 can't come soon enough

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro3
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	41 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Exposure Time	1/3800 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Brightness	7.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Image Width	1875
Image Height	2500
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4316856

That is a nice looking photo with nice looking colours

>>4316846
every sensor in the last decade is good. they resolve more detail than 35mm film. the colors are fine. every camera brand is good. stop being a pussy

>>4316856
>my camera from 2019 is outdated i need irritable bowel stabilization
you're a pussy

>>4316890
M4turds copers found the thread, abandon any rational discussion moving forward!

File: DSCF8152.jpg (1.91 MB, 2000x3000)

1.91 MB JPG

>>4316635
>nothing will
well i already knew that lel!
anyways i'm so excited for yet another fuji thread!!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	FUJIFILM
Camera Model	X-Pro3
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.34
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	41 mm
Maker Note Version	0130
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2023:06:30 02:05:46
Exposure Time	1/1300 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	320
Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Brightness	8.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	27.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4416
Image Height	2944
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown
Blur Status	OK
Chroma Saturation	Normal
Continuous/Bracketing Mode	Off
Auto Exposure Status	OK
Flash Mode	Unknown
Focus Mode	Auto
Focus Status	OK
Picture Mode	Aperture Prior AE
Sharpness	Normal
Slow Synchro Mode	Off
White Balance	Auto

>>4316661
This shit still gives me nightmares. The fucking wormy sharpening artifacts man, fuck…

Xtranny sensors are so fucking useless

>>4316856
This looks like shit compared to what you normally post. There's sharpening artifacts or false detail and a digital dissolving effect in the dog.

But there shouldn't be, because xtrans resolution loss should only occur with finely alternating primary colors, and white/brown/black should be within what it can handle, unless I'm wrong about how it works and it's actually worse than thought

Are you just sharpening to salvage a shittier lens? Or is the dog too close to the edge of DOF and only circle of confusioned into sharp focus (never looks exactly like really being in focus)?

>>4316635
>Japanese camera
>Get you laid
Lmao

>>4316890
Unless you have a high resolution full frame camera made by Nikon or Leica, 35mm film still outdoes your gear. The smaller and lower resolution your digishit gets the worse and worse it looks compared to film. Smaller sensor or less pixels = more digital looking.
>BUT THE GRAIN ISNT REAL DETAIL! IT ISNT REAL TONALITY! THE LINES I COUNTED ARE THE-
Cope
Beats false-*X* artefacts from bayer having a fraction of the resolution you think it does and weird digital noise. Bayer isn't real colors lmao

Film looks visibly higher quality than digituhl until you have more than 24mp and a sharp lens on full frame (digital lenses need to be sharper because any amount of blur confuses the bayer arrays color guessing) and then it just looks prettier instead of better all around

>>4316997
>made by Nikon or Leica,
just say sony.

>>4316996
Incidentally, I normally post from xtrans more than any other system, I just rarely leave EXIF unless it's especially relevant.
This is 0 capture sharpening and very minimal output sharpening, with small grain that I'm sure further muddies up the detail. I don't really min/max on pixel peeping anymore.

Do you want me to post 100% crops with actual sharpening instead? More than happy to, just don't really see the point.
Do you think the picture itself would be meaningfully better if it were sharpened appropriately?
Could you explain where you are seeing the sharpening artifacts and false detail?
Could you explain a bit more what you mean with the "digital dissolving efffect"?
I like to learn from my mistakes, I just want to better understand your feedback.

>>4316997
take more pictures you talk too much

>>4316997
Based and true

People arent still paying for portra because a d750 is better. Its actually almost as good and only for pixel peeping. Film still looks better. You need at least a d850/z7ii and huge premium lenses to beat the quality of an om2n and zuiko 50mm macro with portra in it and film still has better dynamic range even then (6 stops more highlights, 3 stops less shadows)

>>4317034
Films so much better that 16mm wins oscars while digital 16mm (m43) is barely good enough for netflix lol

>>4316635
>thinking someone would fuck you because you spent used 1985 honda civic money on a fuckin camera
A top shelf iphone is poorfag standard gear. Maybe you mean you’ll give the escort a camera instead of cash?

>>4317013
Don't fall for it. This board is full of retards blaming camera brands for their buyers remorse, repeating the same stuff over and over again, feeling empty.

>>4317013
Some people here have an eye for shit after shooting pro stock forever and anything that looks digital in a photo is an instant turn off for them but goes under digionlys radar

For bayer: You need 4x more megapixels on the sensor than in your final image to hide all digital flaws
On screen, standard web scaling: 24mp digital camera = 8mp image. That means you shouldnt be posting much larger than 3000x2000 on 4chan. Do not use input sharpening in capture one.
300dpi prints also hide most of it but you should still scale to 75% size if there’s super fine detail or any noise

For xtrans you need 6x more megapixels on sensor than when finished. That means a 24mp camera is only good for 4mp web images or the full view without further browser resampling looks a bit bad. Never sharpen xtrans at all without using AI.

>>4317076
That sounds interesting, it sure would be nice if someone could actually explain that though, and ideally provide an example
I still don't know what they mean by "digital dissolving effect"

>>4317087
Looks clearly there to me. On film or foveon very fine details are continuous lines but on CFA cameras they visibly break up and wobble especially with any noise.

>>4317086
Very interesting, do you have further articles or sources for this line of thinking? What do you mean by hide all digital flaws?

>>4317089
>Looks clearly there to me.
Great, I'm asking what is "clearly there" to you. What should we be looking for?
>On film or foveon very fine details are continuous lines but on CFA cameras they visibly break up and wobble especially with any noise.
Very true. Foveon and monochrome cameras I've used have been something else at a pixel level. I just don't really "see it" unless I'm already past 100%.

>>4316661
>downsample 3x3 into 1 pixel
somehow still have weirdness
>downsample 6x6 into 1 pixel
it all goes away

>but then 24MP becomes 1000x750
let me guess, you need more?

>>4316661

there must be some sort of connection with layout and jpeg 8x8 pixel compression pattern, it might take a while for figure it out

>>4316637
The X-Pro 3 has a terrible LCD screen issue where the ribbon snaps meaning you have a dead display. Then there was the X-pro 3 class action lawsuit in 2022 about this that was later dismissed. The shutter release button also tends to stick and fuck up. I have handled one camera that had not just one but both of these issues and had less than 5000 photos on it.

I have an X-Pro 2 and am going to stick with that until I can justify the cost of a used M10. It is a nice camera but could have been further simplified in my opinion. I wish there were more manual focus lenses for X mount. The OVF/EVF is the best feature. The battery life is meh. Nothing against Leica either, I have 2 but would rather spend my money on another M film body.

>>4316711
>>4316767
nice
what kind of photos do you take with it, and what setup do you use? do you usually use it with the top-down viewfinder? also what lenses do you have
I've been thinking about getting a 680 but a friend is offering me his 6x6 Bronica so I'll probably go with that for now (I have no film experience)

File: IMG_2052.jpg (356 KB, 1284x1532)

356 KB JPG

>>4317289
Would not recommend the 680 unless you just specifically want that camera. Smaller lighter options with just as good image quality are out there. That said I like mine, I’ve mostly done landscape/urban scape shots with it so far (it was meant to be a studio camera lol). I have the 680iii with a nice range of lenses from 50mm to 210mm. I bought the kit off a retiring photographer so he had a bunch of lenses, 50, 65, 80, 100, 150, 180, and 210. I have the eyepiece magnifier thing but also the waist level finder, but I use the eyepiece more it’s easier on a tripod. The 50 is roughly like a 24 to 28 or around there I think, to my eye, and it’s really a great lens. The 180 is supposedly amazing for portraits as well but I haven’t had a chance to really use it for that yet. Don’t have any scans on my phone so have the list of lenses for the system instead.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1284
Image Height	1532

>>4317297
yeah this would be for setting up & autistic tweaking until the shot is perfect, the size & weight is part of the charm
I have a completely serviceable FF DSLR for everything else
I don't really want to go full LF but I do want a camera with movements — I've heard of a few other MF movements cameras but my impression is the 680 is the most complete system

>>4316713
Did he figure out what you were trying to do?

>>4316746
>i just thought it was a religional dialect

>Testosterone is a dialect

>>4317226
KEK, no
The 8x8 chunk size in JPEG favors bayer far more than fuji's 6x6
if Fuji wanted to be based, they would simply release an 8x8 pattern and include things like panchromatic luminance samples, IR, UV, yellows, and various bands of greens/reds in that 64 to generate some kind of super pixel but instead they're just doing weird non-bayer non-beneficial meme shit jsut to generate worms

it is a bit squat

>>4316856
X-Pro4 should have a design based off the GW690

>>4317414
They talk funny out there man.
And yeah but he definitely did, I was being very flirty.

At least the how I imagine it now he was passing really well. Hope I didn't make him feel bad when I suddenly made my excuses and ran. Until then it looked like we were gonna bone.

>>4317179
does fuji offer this 3x3 and 6x6 downsampling natively?