>retard has opinion
perhaps, stop using lightroom, and stop expecting cameras from 2017 to be perfect

does 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 jpeg
i would never.

>>4330520
Shooting 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
>CAMERA
Back 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.

>>4330527
Neither 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.

>gearfaggotry
May i see your photos?

>>4330546
You've seen my photos.

>>4330520
I'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 bitmap
ngmi
>>4330543
That's a interesting comparison
>I shoot raw shirt
I 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.

File: muskrat (1 of 1).jpg (3.58 MB, 5000x4000)

3.58 MB JPG

>>4330550
It'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 Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6m2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.4 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:28 17:16:29
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated

>>4330543
>all those women have horrible picked at acne
Women are disgusting slobs that do not engage in the most basic of self care

Nice detail though at high iso, made me regret zooming in

>>4330548
Camera 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 jaypegs

Camera 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?

>>4330543
But 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.

File: Untitled.png (3.98 MB, 1973x866)

3.98 MB PNG

>>4330543
Here's the comparison for lazy people

a9iii: aps-c dynamic range, nr baked into raws
r3: aps-c dynamic range, nr baked into raws
photographer: notorious for shitty presets and oversharpening high isos

the 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 care

Ftfy

>>4330564
I stand by what I said

>>4330520
I 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 inferior
ftfy
Also, 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 camera

canon and nikon are just better at everything

>>4330629
They'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.

File: notbang.jpg (69 KB, 586x680)

69 KB JPG

>>4330556
>>4330564
>Women are disgusting slobs that do not engage in the most basic of self care
They'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 edits
even literal npcs shoot raw
if 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 sports

Lmao, there's a total of eleven sports photographers in the whole world who shoot Sony and none of them are pros.

>>4330647
im just saying they have one specific camera that is actually good for sports and can actually compete with the others in that category

i 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 use

eveyrthing 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 category
Except it cannot compete because of the price.

>>4330654
>Except it cannot compete because of the price.
you're absolutely right

>>4330635
Nah 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

>>4330664
nah i've had nikons, canons, and fooljis

the 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.

>>4330696
anything over iso 1600 is an unusable mess

if 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 examples
anything else just kinda seems like pointless arguing

>>4330520
Sony JPEGs look fine.
Sony RAWs look like shit because Adobe can't get their shit sorted out.

>>4330730
ive 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 it

jpeg 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.

>>4330520
Color science = fraud

>>4330730
>Sony JPEGs look fine.
cope/10

>>4330560
>poorfag has to crop 600% because he cannot afford a real lens
Lmaoooo

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?

>>4330776
yes, gear is part of photography retard

>>4330776
Enjoy making cool photos without a camera lad, tells us how it works out for ya

>>4330776
With threads like this we warn newfags about the non-obvious faults of sony cameras, it's a public service

File: DSC00629.jpg (3.09 MB, 2832x4240)

3.09 MB JPG

>>4330520
SOOC, explain why these colors shold be bad

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7S
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2024:06:30 11:23:54
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	200
Brightness	2.1 EV
Exposure Bias	-1.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Shade
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2832
Image Height	4240
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4330806
>Snapseed 2.0

bait

>>4330811
You are retarded

>>4330806
You 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

>>4330776
Gearfagging 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

>>4330806
You missed exposure, the photo is unviewable

>>4330806
Which Chinkphone did you shoot this with?

>>4330841
Sony

>>4330806
Looks like pentax, right down to the missed focus and underexposure

>>4330811
>>4330814
>>4330840
>>4330841
>>4330888
It appears then that Sony colors look perfectly fine

File: 1000003761-01.jpg (1.69 MB, 2832x2835)

1.69 MB JPG

>>4330900
Oops file failed to upload :)

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7S
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	35 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Height	4240
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:05:21 13:48:35
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Image Width	2832
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Height	4240
Brightness	10.0 EV
White Balance	Auto
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	3/10000 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/2.8
ISO Speed Rating	100
Image Width	2832
Saturation	Normal
Contrast	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Focal Length	35.00 mm
Metering Mode	Pattern
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4330903
For memes i would say its sony thus colors bad, but i like it, grate job photochad. Im proud of you.

File: DSC42069.jpg (2.23 MB, 2400x1597)

2.23 MB JPG

>>4330520
Why 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

>>4330909
most of /p/ use a phone and are extremely butt mad they can't afford canon or sony