>*yawn*
>>4338477>That'll be $4999 plus tax, sir
*farts*What bodtly sound can YOU come up with? Write in the comments below.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300Vertical Resolution300
>HNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG
>>4338477what was canon fanboys were expecting? a global shutter? gtfo nigga
At least it's more exciting than the R1. This basically proves the R3 was originally the R1 but Canon got completely blindsided by the A1 and Z9. Canon is 3+ years behind at this point.
>>4338477R5 MK II is actually a good improvement but the price is absurd. >45MP stacked sensor>Upgraded to 30 fps continous shooting from 20>$4200Absurd price.The R1 is fucking stupid>Some new sort of autofocus. Honestly I don't know how much better the autofocus can get, it's already outstanding.>24MP Stacked sensor (no change from the R3)>Some meh EVF changes>Dual CF express type B slots (should have been there in the first place on the R3)>$6299You have to be a fucking idiot to buy an R1.
>>4338497What a fucking cope. 1/4 of that is AI related bullshit cope faggotry. Canon is pulling an Intel and artifically boosting specs with nonsense to seem comparable to the competition.Goblohomo shutter when
>>4338499Oh I guess it has 40FPS continuous shooting as well on the R1, i missed that.
The R5MKII seems like a good future-proof camera, but the pricing is just dumb. In socialist countries we end up paying $5500 for the camera alone.
Okay, can I ask a serious question that I promise isn't b8, in what way is the r3 better than the r5, or the r1 better than the r5ii?You can't honestly tell me that a slight improvement in burst speed or exposure latitude, for the massive resolution drop, is worth $2k?
>>4338506Oh you mean like Australia?
>>4338519AUD prices?
Ooh neural network noise reduction and ai upscale built inHell yeah Canon, cut the middleman out and have instant deliverables straight outa the camera
>>4338497>in camera AIcANON warned us and canon did it first lmaoImagine buying an ai camera. Its a good day to be a film GOD.
>>4338518R3/R1 is FPS and AF oriented at the cost of resolution because it’s aimed at photojournalists/sports guys. Same reason it has an integrated Ethernet port and a battery grip built in. Whole idea is snap shot and send ASAP. Same idea as the Sony A9/A1. R5/II is meant to be specifically for image quality and resolution. Studio work, art reproduction, etc. It seems to be really popular with prosumer types, but I always assumed a lot of the goal was actually to compete with MF digital. Like the A7R series, you’re pushing into MF resolution but with a much wider range of lenses, better AF, etc.All these categorizations have broken down in the last few years because for the most part, cameras crossed a line into ‘good enough’ for all tasks, whereas in the DSLR era the differences were more pronounced because FPS, etc was driven by changes to camera mechanicals. It’s all sensor driven now, so readout speed and DR is about all that can meaningfully vary between bodies other than ergonomics.
>>4338560>battery gripIn sony land, a battery grip holds TWO batteries, not 1.5 batteries. What’s wrong with cannot POS R? The a1 with an optional grip has better battery life than the r1. Sony also didnt put ai nr on a camera and claim 16 stops of “dynamic range” (reduced noise, every camera has about 3 more stops of dynamic range after you edit the raw. dr numbers are noise in raws. canons numbers never counted because they apply nr to raws)
>>4338500Cross type AF on the R1 is nice, but as we saw with the OM1 it's not really an exclusive tech on mirrorless, and Sony's also been experimenting with similar shit in their smaller sensors. More interested in what an A1mii will bring at this point, since Canon is mostly stuck on gimmicks like eye control AF and 96MP JPEG upscaling. Since both the R5ii and R1 use beefier batteries it's pretty obvious the AI crap is taking quite a bit of processing power. Oh and it seems like the R1 can only do 0.5s of precapture compared to the A9III's 1.0s. lmao.
>>4338563my R5 with battery grip has 2 batteries
>>4338477Main thought among many is how Canon seems in a shit position. >forced to fund high cost of sensor development>lenses in a similar spot>firing Rudy Winston and much others of Canon supportHigh cost indicates they are searching to milk prosumers/professionals in ecosystem for all, but this comes at cost of alienating everyone in the field. People want to aspire to the halo effect of more affordable products too and the Z9, A1, A9III even are more affordable, plus with better lens selection. All this seems to foretell is that blood is in the water. Best choice for Canon, although I'm sure development will be half a year away is to get an r6ii or the r5 even in a retroblob AE-1 body, plus an RF 50mm 1.4.
>>4338477Whats the yawn for sir? This is the best high resolution cameraNikkon high res is slow bad autofocus or low dynamic rangeSony high res is expensive alpha 1 or cripple hammered to shoot 6fps if you dont use 12 bit compressed raw formatSirs, this is the best camera you can buy. Z8 btfo. Fuji not even an option because they cant make gfx autofocus or fps work. My gaming pc can write a 500mb picture faster than their shit gimmick camera. Canon is the default choice for a professional unless they are being bribed by snoy/nighor or actually doing laundry not photography (panasonic is BTFO)
>>4338587The audience for these cameras doesn't care about noise levels at all, which is why cramming AI lies into a pro camera seems odd.
AI upscaling for JPEG instead of pixel shift.Are the Canon engineers smoking crack?
>>4338477>Nikon and Sony users every time canon releases an underwhelming gimmick camera
>>4338530>>4338543And people here called me a schizo, lol. I merely saw the writings on the wall.
>>4338636You are a schizo because you tie this to viewfinder tech, which is unrelated, and tech conspiracies because you're a retard and think electronics are undecipherable magic.A DSLR can have AI processing. The OVF doesn't matter. Humans have two eyes, we know what the scene actually looked like. And human vision is very good. I can see most of what a 600mm lens can, actually more because no bokeh.This is the part where you start going "BUT-" and bring up schizo moon landing shit. But it's actually a physical impossibility to see the lunar landing site from earth because of heavy atmospheric distortion, and you can actually test a camera to see if the EVF is AI replacing shit or not. It's not a magic trick that can be slipped in at no cost. It requires its own hardware and you don't need the source code to find AI processing on a camera.
>>4338637>I can see most of what a 600mm lens can, actually more because no bokeh.No you can't, lol. AI will eventually be patching up stuff in real time and you won't be able to tell the difference. And eventually the end user will demand it and protest if its not there. "Tim's camera can see the moon landing site and mine can't, mine is so uncool!"
>>4338477Man, this is really making me think about buying a D850 or a 1DX or anything to get away from the AI future ahead of mirrorless.
>>4338639>TWO MORE WEEKS, ITS ALL ABOUT THE MOON LANDINGYou can prove if a camera fakes its viewfinder or not. That's all. They are not magic. Humans made them, humans can analyze what they do.OVFs were not the last stand of photographic integrity. They were the last bit of saving face, for the idiots that thought you could trust photographers. If a photo is faked the photographer must be in on it no matter what the viewfinder was. >my photos are real. how do you know? optical viewfinder! i would never lie because i have a prism>photo: already AI mangled, possibly on camera
>>4338641Waste your money and eventually give up on that blob and go back to film thenA DSLR can run AI, and a MILC can not. The viewfinder is totally irrelevant except for a fictional scifi story that this tripfag keeps trying to write where people actually want AI generated moon landing sites (in his story, it never happened, but we live in the real world where it did, and the LRO has clear photos of the landing SITES, plural. why does he deny it? because hes a russia fanboy and hates the though tthat his favorite country didn't even get to be #2 on the moon. if you doubt it, he'll probably fix that and list all the soviet non-accomplishments that the world forgot because america put men on the moon repeatedly)
>>4338642No anon, I'm a zero-trust guy. It was the last stand of photographic integrity because if YOU are behind the camera, you are a real eyewitness.>You can prove if a camera fakes its viewfinder or not. That's all. They are not magic. Humans made them, humans can analyze what they do.You need to catch them doing it and you need access to something to compare that against in order to prove it. And even then, most won't care. Just look at the denial that the mRNA vax caused myocarditis.
>>4338666You're spouting actual nonsenseYou can determine if a camera runs AI. These are not magical devices. They can be reverse engineered easily. If it becomes an issue, they will be.>You are behind the cameraMe and my left eye. An OVF is a total non-issue. You are just some nophoto idiot dutchman who spends all day smoking pot and snapshitting houseplants.
>>4338644>A DSLR can run AI, and a MILC can not.Wrong at the time being. No DSLR can run AI, and MILC certainly can. A hypothetical DSLR could run AI, and some MILCs can, but to say a MILC can't run AI is bullshit. And the difference is were the DSLR to run AI and alter the image, you'd be able to tell it's an alteration. Not with MILC, because what you see is already altered without a chance to verify anything independently. Unless you use an OVF like someone suggested in another thread, using some Soviet OVF on a RX1R.
>>4338477This is alright but why did they accidentally name the R3 mark II the R1?Rather embarrassing to have your TOTL model be behind the Sony A1 despite releasing years after...
>>4338673Your entire argument falls apart in two words:Left eyeball.On the more complex front, not all MILCs run AI. In fact, most don't, and CAN'T. Any camera could if designed to, but most lack the hardware, and provably don't contain any AI fuckery at all.You just have a neurotic need to believe in this because it helps you feel comfortable with your already disproven moon landing denial.
idiots: no true digital camera! this one has a different viewfinder so its real. trust me.smart people: no negative not a real photo
>>4338677>Left eyeball.That only applies to normal lenses on 1.0x VF magnification, kike>already disproven moon landing denial.There's no conclusive proof of the alleged moon landing, cope.
>>4338680>the Patterson-Gimlin film was real trust me!!
>>4338684It's a real film of a real man in a real monkey suit.>>4338683Already seething because you know you're a loon
The moon landings were clearly faked, but that doesn't explain why Canon never released a retro-style camera on their own while the competition with a similar pedigree such as Fuji and Nikon already have.We are also missing something in the 60 megapickles range and something between 24 and 45 megapickles that is not an aps-c.It seems like their strategy is not really clear. Why are there no photocentric smaller full-frames for folks who just appreciate good technical quality photographs and not really care about 8k and whatnot.As an R7 user with lots of glass i feel somewhat left out in the upgrade route. I can't afford the r5mk2 and I don't want the noisy R5MK1 either.How about a Retro-style AE-1 with an optional battery grip that gives a deeper purchase if someone wants extra juice?
>>4338730The moon landings clearly happened and canon has an image to uphold as “professional cameras” (but not magnum, conde nast, gucci ads professional, getty and the nfl professional)
>>4338743I'm not talking about a fashion statement camera here, but something usable and compact. To say they don't have a room for such a product in their lineup is just silly, they have made all sorts of products, they are like the Seiko of the camera industry.
>>4338748Everything you can buy is somehow related to fashion. Besides a logo and some factories, brands are now marketing themselves as identities and lifestyles so canon has to keep looking like people expect canon to canon's customers can be "canon people". I'd be generally surprised if they did anything to deviate from their image of making "cameras like the professionals use".
>BR...>BRRR...>BRAAAAAAPP!
glad I went with nikon this time around
Canon might be annoying but snoyfags are unsufferable
we know were superior[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelILCE-1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.0.1 (Macintosh)PhotographerBoris DroutmanMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Focal Length (35mm Equiv)600 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2023:10:23 11:05:27Exposure Time1/4000 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating2000Lens Aperturef/4.0Brightness4.9 EVExposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length600.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessNormal
>High quality sex doll $3000>Some underwhelming cancuck $4299Do the math
>>4338584When will you retrofags stop coping, not a single major manufacturer wants to spend millions to create a whole new product just to sell a 1000 units for the super niche but super vocal group that is you guys and especially not canon, get over it
>>4338855/gear/tography is not niche, it's just rich fags hobby
>>4338499>Honestly I don't know how much better the autofocus can getnigga what?eye outofocus is literally the most impressive autofocus mechanism save for telepathy autofocus. you are literally allowing the photographer to control precisely the point of focus without fiddling with buttons or without giving uo control to the camera entirely.what Sony does is using advanced algorithms to substitute the photographer's thought process meanwhile Canon is making the photographer able to make his thought process as istanteneous as his eye movement
>>4338497The launched the R1 (R3II) as a cope to make the R5II look good in comparison.If this is the best they can do they're toast.>Sony sensors are shit>Canon sensors are shit>whatever Nikon used in the Z6III is shitSeems like Panasonic finally did one thing right and wrestled themselves towards a manufacturer who makes sensors as they like instead of being forced to buy whatever Sony sells.
>>4338878Wait a minute brother... if Canon is shit, Nikon is shit, Sony is shit, Pentax is shit... who the fuck is taking good photos? Did fujifilm actually justify their existence? Should I go buy their current MF right NOW?
>>4338878>The Z6III is shit because i'm stills focusedThe Z6III is as fast as full frame gets for that cheapThe ZF is great if you don't need sperts phutography>>4338910GFX is still poorly made and poorly programmed
>>4338910Z8, Z7II, S5/II, X-T4 are great for stills
>>4338910Just buy a zfAnd when you want to be a faggot and use a bazooka lens, put on that grip that adds the red stripe to complete your homosexualityOne day you will be rich from being a gay man with no children and you will upgrade to a sony a1ii
>>4338563Battery grips should have always held 3 batteries.
>>4338560>R5/II is meant to be specifically for image quality and resolutionNot really, it's a video-centric ILC, like the 5D MkII and MkIII, that's why it also replaces the R5C.The IQ/resolution bodies were the 1Ds line and the 5DS(r).Hopefully, they'll keep the R3 line and stuff a 200MP+ sensor into it, like the APS-H one they demoed years ago.
>>4338666>the mRNA vaxNot a vaccine.
>>4338672>nophoto>spends all day... snapshitting houseplants?
>>4338730>something between 24 and 45 megapicklesNegligible.
>>433900145mp isn't the big technical decision people make it out to be. It's more about the look.
>>4338910>who the fuck is taking good photos?Whoever is testing the full frame Foveon prototype.
>>4338730Canon have this weird stick up their ass about how the general public see them. That's why every single body in the past 20 years is the same. They are the "pro" camera line and they're not allowed to be seen as anything else. Ergo no fun retro cameras, no upgrade beyond R7 for APS-C, no functional improvement on the exterior and god fucking knows no moving their OVF from the centre to the side or else they fuck their image up. Ive never hated a company as much as I love their results.
>>4339022>no moving their OVF from the centre to the sideIt's not an OVF, but the R1 is the most asymmetrical (non-rangefinder ILC) design to date.
>>4338878>>Sony sensors are shit>>Canon sensors are shitnigga, they are the only ones making sensors lmao
>>4338477>iq that matches the A1 and A7R's>performance that exceeds the A7 IV to challenge the A1>not even talking about the R5ii>R5 was already so perfect that it's difficult to improve>"yawn"
>>4338730>The moon landings were clearly faked, OK retard.>but that doesn't explain why Canon never released a retro-style camera on their own while the competition with a similar pedigree such as Fuji and Nikon already have.Canon is #1 and doesn't have to rely on gimmicks.> We are also missing something in the 60 megapickles rangeThe A7R's with 60mp sacrifice low light and video capability for a minuscule increase in stills detail. While I would like to see Canon release a 90mp (2x R5) body, it doesn't seem to be a priority. The 5Ds/sR and R5's already exceed 6x9 MF film and can print to 60" if everything else (lens, technique) is solid.>and something between 24 and 45 megapickles that is not an aps-c.24mp vs 30mp in FF is meaningless.> It seems like their strategy is not really clear. Then why do they dominate global sales?>Why are there no photocentric smaller full-frames for folks who just appreciate good technical quality photographs and not really care about 8k and whatnot.R8>and I don't want the noisy R5MK1 either.The R5 is not noisy. It's good to 25k and even 51k in a pinch. Only a few cameras...like the R6 series...edge it out.
>>4339086I will say 33mp(a7 iv) vs 24mp is a bit of a difference on heavy crops(applicable for me since I primarily shoot wildlife). I feel like 33-40mp is the max sweet spot for FF, 24mp or lower is king for lowlight. Personally I'd just get a rf 200-800 vs changing ecosystems for the reach.>>4338730>calls r5 noisy>doesn't realize the higher the mp the worse the iso performance simply due to physics>schizo rant>retrotard who thinks he's the market majoritySounds like Leica is more your speed since you're treating your camera like a fashion statement. However if you want a marginal upgrade for lowlight performance, refurbed r6mkii shows up on canon's site every so often, I got mine for 1599 with 4.5k shutter and it's fucking fantastic. The r5mkii and r1 are pretty dumb, but they're oriented for hybrid shooting and sports specifically which is why they are not higher mp as they need lowlight performance. I can afford em but there's 0 reason for me to change bodies unless they drop something God tier in the next decade.See picrel for your 60mp lmao.
>>4339058wrong
>>4338730They have done the gay retro larp before but it's clear they felt filthy doing it. See the G9X.>>4338687How am I seething?>>4338743>The moon landings clearly happenedPoor b8, have a pity (You)
>>4338743>The moon landings clearly happenedmost retarded poster ITT
>>4339117>>4339114Moon landings happenedSorry it hurts your russia fanboyism or helps you realize america has degraded and current people are simply not intelligent enough to redo it (or just look at the state of boeing, or apple, or…)
>>4338623Me (Nikon) on the left.
>>4339100ok, show me a currently produced camera with a sensor made by someone elss
>>4339099Faggot, the OG R5 is clearly way worse than the MK2 in terms of noise.
>>4338730You are a sony/nikon user in denial
>>4339185Too autistic to change systems I'm afraid.
>>4339118Kubrick literally told you it was fake
>>4339175G9II, GH7, S5II/X, Yongnuo stuff
>>4339178Prove it, side by side comparison of it being "Way" worse.>ignored every single point I madeYou're a worthless retard, stop focusing on gear and enjoy what you have. Calling the r5 'noisy' is braindead especially when you're using an r7.>more megapixels da betters1!!1Is wrong, it's why every top end pro body is lower megapixels, hell Sony even has the sensistive line with are 10mp ff bodies.
>>4339227Yes, I ignored your nonsense as I never claimed that higher resolution sensor didn't have more noise, I was merely pointing out that the R5MK2 handles low-light better and I never said anything about being a "market majority". I just did a comparison between different brands and their lineup.
>>4338878Panasonic uses Sony sensors. The S5ii has the old A7iii sensor.
>>4339118The alleged moon landing was shot in New Mexico, *my dude*
>>4339410Do you have any proof? Apparently Sony was the main reason thez could not use PDAF.
>>4339583Do you have any proof? Panasonic's insistence on using DFD was because their software team was garbage.https://dclife.jp/camera_news/article/panasonic/2023/0105_01.html
>>4339565The moon landingS were shot on the moon, “comrade” gayass.
>>4339410the S5II has a sensor from gpixel
>>4339608They were shit from your ass.
>>4339638highly unlikely given that dual gain crossover point
>>4338477Considering the A1/Z9 were released in 2021, Canon is easily >3 years behind Sony in terms of sensor tech. At least it's finally enough to not have noticeable rolling shutter in eShutter mode, which means 30FPS eShutter is actually usable.
>>4340834oh no! no gps how will my demented ass remember where the photos nobody will ever look at was taken!
>>4339737Typical snoy fan hyper focusing on a single tech spec to claim snoy is superior. You morons did the same thing when Canon was behind on DR, yet conveniently stopped talking about DR whenever anyone brought up Nikon. Overall the R5 was competitive with the A1 at a lower cost, while the R6 out performed the A9ii at a fraction of the price. Sony has fallen behind on high ISO, is still trying to work out their color science, and still can't touch Canon's IBIS. >but muh e-shutter!!!A very low priority for stills shooters except the poor saps who bought a camera with no mech shutter.
>>4341538If Canon is so superior then why do they bake NR in their raws? We all know what Canon's REAL DR is with NR off.
>>4341594These charts can not be used to compare cameras nor do they indicate actual, visible dynamic range
>>4341594Notice it's applied at low ISO and not high ISO. So when the R5 beats the A7R V at high ISO, and the R6 bodies beat the A7S III, it's without NR.>bu...bu...but what about the nr at low iso???It doesn't affect detail so who cares?
>>4341602>Data on this chart is considered to be more accurateSource: bill claff. Textbook weasel words. According to which leading... uh, sensor analysts?The fucking retard redefines dynamic range so full frame has less than 12 stops at base ISO. In reality, shooting a xyla21 chart at base ISO, and processing normally instead of being a faggot cuckold who believes "only the RAW matters" I can discern clear tonal differences for over 18 stops. His noise cutoff is absurdly high and most of his data is submitted by volunteering taking photos of a colored square.He falls in with people like jim kasson who unironically claim that high resolution cameras have the same amount of noise as low resolution cameras, but totally skip over the difference between the signal to noise ratio of the whole image, and the impact of per-pixel noise on demosaicing.
>>4341632>it doesn't affect detailThe only reason he put triangles on that chart is because he was able to confirm that shadow detail was smudged compared to other cameras.It's actually a small wonder he hasn't put triangles on the g9ii chart, om1, vast majority of sony bodies, etc, because these all show subtle signs of NR, it just doesn't smudge shadow detail as severely, but the noise is noticeably smeared. Not enough NR for him to care and he's probably accepting $5/mo from sony.
>>4341638>The only reason he put triangles on that chart is because he was able to confirm that shadow detail was smudged compared to other cameras.I've never seen this in R5 files versus, say, the 5DsR. If Canon really is using low ISO NR it's probably because those sensors aren't invariant until something like ISO 800. But it's not enough NR to care.
>>4341651The R5 was actually the first camera he (likely a snoy hitman being paid under the table) analyzed and because he noticed detail in the deep shadows was softer than other cameras using equally good lensesIt's most noticeable at ISO 100 and probably has something to do with hiding pattern noiseI believe he's totally missed similar processing on snoys and niggons and just has it out for canon
>>4339608Cope, it was all shot by Kubrick in some soundstage
>>4341655America landed men on the moon six times and russians couldn't keep life support systems going for a turtleAll moon landing denial stems from subversive boypuccian propaganda inspired by the crushing sense of inferiority they felt over this
>>4341665All moon landing denial stems from the lack of actual proof that they got there, all anyone got was an American propaganda movie and its stills. Dmitry Rogozin is right, and the most disturbing thing is that even people at Roscosmos have fallen for the meme. Back when he was there he asked for proof of it and all he got was some book with American anecdotes, penned by Americans.
>>4341654The R5 is sharper in the shadows than the 5DsR in DPReview's test. Lens probably is playing a role in this corner, but on the other hand I don't see any NR smudging on the R5 side. If it's there, it's to little to be relevant.>>4341745https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width1168Image Height612
>>4341747>3d "reconstructions">from Japan, the American colony since WW2>literal pajeets>some schoolboysThanks for ponting me to some more pointless drivel I guess
>>4341753>"you have no evidence">here's evidence>"noooo imma hand wave that"The photo collection alone is proof. Nearly 15,000 photos, most on 6x6 MF, decades before photo realistic CGI, and MF is far too high resolution for studio sets, matte paintings, and practical FX to pass.>but muh kubrick!2001 looks like dog shit compared to the Apollo archives. It would be impossible to make a dozen frames that passed in the 1960s. They have thousands.
>>4341755>decades before photo realistic CGIDecades before commercially available photo realistic CGI you mean.>It would be impossible to make a dozen frames that passed in the 1960s. They have thousands.When you have NASA's budget no, lol.
>>4341758>but muh gov had super secret cgi!No, they did not. Computing was no where near the level necessary to support it. Yes, we know this for a fact. They were still using transistors and core memory for fuck's sake.
>>4341760Wanna talk about Main Core and how they were using big data to profile people decades ago and were only stopped by whistleblowers (until they figured a way to outsource that)?
>>4341763>wanna talk schizo?No thanks.
>>4341766I accept your concession
>>4341769You already conceded when you brought up irrelevant nonsense. Nobody could do photo realistic CGI in 1969. Not even close. Decades away. "Muh big data people profiling" has nothing to do with this. There were no computers capable of the trillions of calculations required for photo realistic 6x6 renders.
>>4341773Remember the Alamo
>>4341747>ancient lens>5ds shadow dr: 2 stops lower than the r5 w/ NRhmmmmm
>>4341787>now on to "nukes arent real"peak glowiethere's something they don't want us to notice going on
>>4341755>15,000 photosHow did they have time to fart around on the moon then? Surely it must take an awful lot of time to take all those photos. It is not like they had 40fps electronic 14bit raw snapshitter cameras. This sound awfully a lot like how the Germans cremated 6 gorrilion.
>>4341847They shot the entire program and trip, not just moonwalks, including some automated cameras on the space craft. It’s not hard to rack up those numbers across multiple missions, especially when a lot of shots are bracketed.
>>4341849your average /p/ snapshitter gets through that in a weekend.
