looking at this comparison video of dslr and mirrorless cuz i'm looking into what to buy. and honestly the DSLR just looks better. like, with the mirrorless it doesn't look real. it's as if they turned up the color saturation way too high. to me, the DSLR seems to capture a more realistic/authentic photo of real life.this is the vid i'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC3Z_73m6G0maybe it's just the particular cameras he compared? and it has more to do with the brand/model (canon vs sony)
>>4335568Biggest consumer of gear is retirees. As you get older your eyes lose their ability to see colors as strongly. This is why you see such overly saturated shots from boomers. Pros do not give a shit about jpegs and grade their own raws so this doesn't bother them. It's only a problem for little newbies like you who rely on YouTube reviews to make a decision on "the right purchase". Go out and shoot instead, faggot.
>>4335568nothing to do with mirrorless vs dslr, different cameras can look different and different processing can look differentyou can find a dozen pictures from the same camera that all look totally different
>>4335575>Biggest consumer of gear is retireesFacts. Just today I was at my local camera shop and some boomer who must have been 70s if not close to it, traded in a mamiya 7 kit towards a gfx100ii kit and some lenses. Wild stuff. That disposable income from not leaving anything to their children, I guess.
>>4335568>it's as if they turned up the color saturation way too highSo turn it down?>>4335579>That disposable income from not leaving anything to their children, I guess.nice projection
>>4335579>disposable income from not leaving anything to their childrenAt least they'll get a decent camera by the end of it.
>>4335568Check Flickr groups, every camera has a group with photos taken on it.Also check some film cameras for comparison too.It’s not unusual to see 50% of all photos in a digital group ruined by terrible editing. I can explain why too. Digital photos look average out of camera, and not as good as film or mobile phone photos. People who paid 3k on gear feel the need their photo should look better so go overboard trying to make it better with editing sliders. It’s really really hard to edit digital photos to have nice colours and Flickr is proof. Ppl will disagree with my post but nobody will be able to explain why so many digital photos on Flickr have terrible editing, and will just blame boomers despite you can go to peoples profiles and see it’s not just boomers.
>>4335568Color profiles only matching changing tastes (zoomers prefer iphone colors!)Mirrorless use the same sensors as DSLRs. The tech has not changed meaningfully.
>>4335590people who form their gearfag opinions based on a dead instagram wannabe are the worst gearfags>i saw a ken rockwell so digital is worse than phones durrrrr
>>4335590>It’s really really hard to edit digital photos to have nice colours and Flickr is proof.If your average hobbyist paid professionals to color-grade their digital photos like they do with film photos, this wouldn't be an issue. You see worse colors on digital on average because it's more easy to edit colors, not more difficult. >>4335600Truly lol
>>4335568The white balance and exposure arent even the same. The optional color profiles used are different. This is the shittiest “test”.
>>4335579>trading a mamiya 7 for soulless piece of digital ephemeral shitwtf
>>4335605to him the mamiya was soulless consumer jap scrap all the same. it's not like it was a hasselblad.
>>4335605That was my reaction. The boomer salesguy kind of knows me as a film consoomer so he offered it to me before they properly priced it and put it out for display. But it still would have been like over 4k Trudeau coins lol. Yikes.
>>4335601Then how do you explain the film groups always having nice photos despite the profiles clearly showing the majority are just casuals?
>>4335600How dare I base my opinions on 1000s of photos taken from on said gear at full resolution on my correctly profiled and calibrated 24inch monitor?Flickr is photography, Instagram is social media and nothing to do with photography…
>>4335616>>4335615Flickr is a dead social media website. You are just viewing the chops of blind boomers. Judging equipment based on this sets a new low for gearfaggotry.
>>4335618Holy cope, Flickr is pumping, Insta is beyond dead for photos and won’t show them to hardly anyone. My Flickr clears 1 million views a year and I barely use it.
>>4335615I literally just told you that people typically pay pros to develop and balance their work for them. Your average casual film experience is outsourcing half the creative process, and you ask why it typically looks better? Come on now, I can only hope you're bring ironic
>>4335620Most ppl scan their own, have you seen the costs of getting scans done?
>>4335621Yeah, after the exposure and color work is done? Everyone I know that shoots film hands it over to a shop for developing. Don't change your premise.
>>4335575this
>>4335621Most people do NOT scan their own, are you retarded?
>>4335590I agree. I remember seeing ancient full frame digital Canon stuff like 5Di or ii posted and thinking how good it looked then felt frustrated when I finally got full frame and it wasn't looking as "cool". Turns out those guys had a really good eye for aesthetics and were profiling better. Once I learned that my shots greatly exceeded the image quality with the same kind of aesthetic.
>>4335590>>4335626so if i just wanna take photos and have it look good without changing a million settings, i should get a dslr over a mirrorless? i just wanna take photos in the city at night and of women
>>4335625When I take my film to the lab they ask do you want dev and scan or dev only and do you want the negatives cut and that’s in the form they attach to my film. No way they ask every person this unless tons of ppl scan themselves. You have lost the plot.
>>4335657Yeah 100% for photos at night go dslr. Film sucks at night, it’s its biggest weakness. Night you just want cheap dslr as you don’t want to be mugged. Also you want f1.8 or f2 lens do not cheap out in f4 zoom. Night you need lowest f stop possible to get more light in.
>>4335660Mirrorless offers nothing over a dslr for night photos and costs more, mirrorless for not advantage is video.
>>4335660For photos at night, shoot ektar 100 and use a flash, dummy.
>>4335657lens choice, skill / technique, and processing are going to matter way more than which camera you pickthere are dozens and dozens of body & lens combos that could get you similar results to the video
>>4335590film vs D850 lol
>>4335601Are you a professional color grader?
>>4335657low light shooting takes a lot more thought than just "point and shoot" with or without a mirror. if you're a turbopoor, get a DSLR. if you can get a full frame mirrorless without being worried about next month's rent, get a mirrorless. the only objective advantage of DSLRs in low light is being able to use an IR flash AF assist. either way you'll be tweaking a bunch of settings, and if it's a DSLR you'll also be calibrating each lens
>>4335568With more experiencre you will discorver that the same difference in colours could be achieved on the same camera just using two different lens.If you shoot raw, colours are not important.Anyway, the second pic have more realistic colours for a daylight pic in a weather where a person would willingly wear such a dress. That said, a lonely cloud could mess your white balance and influence your contrast shifting your pic from the second to the first.I suggest you to pick your camera based on the lenses you'd like to use and the subjects you will take picture of. If you are really interested in portraits or your pics will benefit of a shallow DOF go for a FF. You wanna go for birding or wildlife, then you could go for aps-c. You will mostly took pictures in dark environments, go for sony mirrorless. Etc.
>>4335568I like the mirrorless image better
>>4335568looks to me like theres just a slighlty warmer temperature balance on the mirrorless one. i like it more
>>4335661Brighter viewfinder and many mirrorless bodies have IBIS
>>4335568They both look like shit.
>a missing mirror has an impact on the look of the photopeople are nearing medieval levels of stupidity
>>4335997If I shoot in mirror lockup will my photos look like mirrorless?
Is this board being ironic with these threads? Genuinely asking cause I'm new around here because there is absolutely no fucking way you people care this much about gear instead of the obvious flaws with the image that are the shitty colors and tones. Like actually no way.
>>4336095Welcome. 1/3 are autistic gearfags, 1/3 are only concerned with golden ratio rule of threes snoy colours etc. the last 1/3 are tolerable
>>4336095this is just 2 photos. Once you buy one of these cameras you have these problems over and over again endlessly and end up like this.You might just say o its just one picture who cares, but it keeps happening every shoot, every day you use your camera, over and over. You eventually lose any ability to just hand-wave it away. Its a massive pain in the arse and flaw with these modern cameras. It is not going to make up for it to say huuurrrggghhhh just add this complicated colour profile every time and spend 15 minutes sliding sliders to get it to look right every single time you want to actually use one of the photos you took.No at some point you get pissed off call this technology for what it is. Mirrorless was a step backwards. I refuse to settle for the amount of work required to fix sony colours. Its not necessary so its just a huge waste of time.
>>4336095Majority of this board has no idea what they're talking about, only stare at charts, and haven't taken a photo in probably 8 months.This is why you'll see people bitching about 'onion ring bokeh balls' , 'soul' , 'high standards in film communities' as if their out of focus back shot of a dude walking down a alley in B&W is good. Hell look at the dog thread that currently up and it'll give you a better understanding of the retards that post here as they think those images are great.>>4336109Then just shoot JPEG as clearly editing photos is too 'time consuming' for you.
>>4336095Could you post some photos with good colors and tones? Obviously doesn't have to be yours, just nice to have a frame of reference to see what you mean.
>>4336162NTA but the OP image and youtuber are retarded, they're edited in completely different ways with different posing and different brands(canon in general is preferred color wise for portraits). This would be similar to comparing a sony body to a canon body in general.The only difference between a mirrorless vs dslr sensor, besides upgraded sensor technologies and AF is the lack of mirror.Perfect example is the OG Canon r6 having the same sensor as the Canon 1Dx MK III.Here's a better comparison than whatever OP posted(same brand[nikon], same lens), it's camera body tone choices that make the difference, and more so color profiles(most mirrorless camera profiles are more neutral in general):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yXHVIlSpr4However the only really GOOD comparison would be between the Canon r6 vs 1Dx MKIII as it's the same sensor, just without the mirror however I cannot find any good 1 to 1 comparisons of same day/light shooting, this is probably the closest:https://www.diyphotography.net/testing-the-iso-of-canon-eos-r5-and-r6-vs-1dx-mark-iii-and-5d-mark-iv/Good used pro level dslr bodies though are a fantastic value and are great to use in general.
>>4336171>ask to share what colors and tones he consider good>goes into an autistic gearfagottry tirade everytime
>>4336172I'm not that anon retard, I literally said it doesn't matter if you use dslr or mirrorless, there's no real difference.Use what you like and stop worrying about bullshit minute details.>gearfaggotry>says used dslrs are a great valueYou need to work on your reading comprehension nigger.
>>4335620>Your average casual film experience is outsourcing half the creative processThis is one of major reasons why i move out to digital from film.i live in south korea and developing, scanning a 135mm roll costs 3 usd and 2 to 4 hours ~ 2 day if the store has a massive queue.at some point i realized there isn't much authority? autonomy in my film unless i do it all by myself putting a lot of efforts and costs.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNORITSU KOKICamera ModelEZ ControllerCamera SoftwareEZ Controller 7.40.010 (210714)Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2023:09:08 19:14:13Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width3089Image Height2048
>>4336199well stop living in a bug country, duh
>>4336199+ Muh 90% of film looking, film aesthetic comes from the old lens. not from the film.you can add grain more than the worst film ever made, you can curve your color just like your peyronie's diseased dick.If anyone, especially normies who don't have any data base of taking picture and just want what they've seen they rather go to compact, affordable digital camera with a lens mount and old lens.
>>4336171>>4336174>You need to work on your reading comprehensionYou missed the point entirely. My comment did not involve the OP images, nor anything mirrorless or DSLR. I simply asked to see examples of what they thought as good color and tones.
>>4336199>2 to 4 hours ~ 2 day if the store has a massive queue.WHat the fuck you retarded gook, just develop it yourself for pennies on the dollar in your bugshack you live in. Its incredibly easy and rewarding.
>>4336162For sure, I'm too lazy to post multiple pics but I like the colors from these guys (IG @'s)maria_lax_ andrew_millergnarstiejase.filmeduardooropezaSome of them have examples of portraits, but I don't think you need anything special for them. As long as the skin looks good you can grade however you want.
The mirrorless one is more filmic, has better tones and microcontrast.
>>4336308>such color and tones
>>4336308Checked the first photographer, it’s all shot on 120 film kek.Yeah you are not getting the look of 120 film with digital, zero chance.
>>4336324As discussed, this is film, digital cameras can not get this look despite what your YouTube influencer trying to sell you a digital camera is trying to tell you. Like ask yourself why the person shot it on film if it could be done with digital?
>>4336326>Like ask yourself why the person shot it on film if it could be done with digital?sure, but only if you ask yourself why they also shoot digital if it could only be done on filmyour only fooling yourself if you think you cant get those colors and tones with digital
>>4336327I own a digital camera and a film camera. I am 100% certain you cannot get a digital photo to look exactly like film.Anyone who owns both would know this too so the only people who claim otherwise are people who only own digital cameras and are on some endless look to get the film look which they never can so it never ends. Just buy a film camera, any other path is pure copium.
>>4335568Live view abuse leads to minmaxing noise at the expense of a natural look. Mirrorless is a crutch and the product are images suited to the visual cripple behind the camera.
>>4336331Replicating the look itself is for sure not really doable, but why would the film have any bearing on the color? It's just film, which you can most definitely emulate.There's nothing super special about it.
>>4336331sounds more like you don't know how to post process100% bet you could not correctly identify film vs digital shots in a blind comparisonespecially considering you recommended people that also shoot digital anyways
>>4336331you sound like you may have just started this hobby a year ago. film look is very achievable on digital. everyone who shoots video knows this.
>>4336384>>4336390Dunning Kruger in full effect here.Its all their in 100% scientific fact with millions of examples already. Just go look at the film and digital groups on flickr.Unless their is some massvie conspiracy with every single user of flickr over 20 years involved, digital does indeed not look like film at all.
>>4336399When people try to do "film look" on digital they almost always overdo it with massive color cast, fake grain, etc. I think you can get pretty close but it's so hard to do it consistently without going overboard and you have to start with good RAWs to avoid digital artifacts.I shoot like 90% film 'cause it just looks good coming out the scanner without having to futz with it.
>>4336401if it was that easy to get pretty close, you still have the problem of why do the millions of people posting in the digital camera groups on flickr not manage it. Sure heaps wont be trying to, but you would think some of them would. And yet where is it? I dont see those types of photos.
>>4336403Most people in any hobby don't know what the fuck they are doing
>>4336399facts, flickr is truth like here >>4335664
>>4336458>flickr is truth>the scientific fact, of a social media website split between retirees who just bought a d850 and long time hobbyists>flickr trends = gear specsYou are, still, the dumbest gearfag on /p/. Always have been. Always will be. Just a dumb nophoto gearfag.
>>4335664top: mid tier hobbyists using lab scans and NLP presetsbottom: 65 year old spanish men who just installed adobeboth are boring "safe and nice" photos, neither exhibit a large amount of creativity, they look like they came from a dpreview articlethis says nothing about photography, it says everything about flickr
>>4336399Digital cuckolds absolutely btfo.
>4336464pathetic samefagging nophoto gearfag
I quit shooting film because I didn't want to be associated with the special brand of delusional, coping, gearfag that desperately grasps at straws that film attractsJust buy a cheap digital camera if you want lower quality photos. Any film camera less than a hasselblad v system is just cope, and even then you're just shooting with digital quality and kodak color grading.
>>4335664the colour tones on the cat photos are vomit inducing, how do you even create colours that bad?
POST EXIFPOST RAWyou won't you coward
>>4335659>When I take my film to the lab they ask do you want dev and scan or dev only and do you want the negatives cut.Like maybe 8 or 9 years ago my local store closed so I had to go out farther to get colour processed since it was a pain in the ass at home.Asked them not to cut, they didn't hit the toggle on the processor and all my x-pan stuff came back snibbedy snibbed. Was not a fun time getting it prepared to go through the pakon.
>>4335664desu all these pics are worthless shit, i don't understand why you posted it
>>4336324i like these, nice shots
>>4336858i post because no one else posts picturesplease post some non worthless ones, and i wouldnt need to
>>4335568i agree with you OP, i myself spend a alot of time daily on flickr and i agree mirrorless pics has a fake vibe to it, like it's very robotic and sharp and clean and has inhuman touch to it.dslr has a beautiful softness to it, has pleasing natural colors, you can feel the photo was made by a real person, and if you pare the dslr with an good prime the photo gains a legendary vibe to it, like this photo is epic and real.But sometimes i think dslr pics are better than mirrorless not because the camera it self but the photographer, i think an experienced mature dslr shooter can produce a better pic than a young inexperienced mirrorless shooter.
>>4336866all the pics on my device are /pol/ related sadly
>>4336873i mean i just screenshot them from flickr, but guess thats too hard for other people to do
color science is user erroropen capture one and swap camera standard profiles around and behold, dslrs tend towards being less vibrantthrow a dslr lens on and watches as all your neutral vibrant colors fade away into sort of washed out tones with an overcorrected tint from the lens itself
>>4336906putting a different manufacturer's color profile on a RAW file doesn't give you the same look as it would on the camera the profile was intended for... are you retarded?
>>4336908It mostly does. Basically every camera made for almost a decade now has the same sensor as an ancient dslr with very minor tweaks. IQ hasn't changed, just default settings and lenses. Lenses affect your colors much more than you think.
electronic shutter changes how bokeh looks. also everyone just uses presets
Are those.... colors?!?!aaaaah save me canonman I'm going insane
>>4336878Anon you are trying to impress anons on an image board from 2005, no need to do that.
>>4335748This/thread
>>4335568>maybe it's just the particular cameras he compared?Very likely. Some cameras you can also download pre-configured color balance settings to mimic different types of film. Results can very quite widely.
