>>4343478
panatranny soi9

>>4343478
Sony a9iii or canon r3

File: 02.png (1.57 MB, 1899x1065)

1.57 MB PNG

>>4343482

>>4343484
me in the background

File: IMG_2216.jpg (330 KB, 489x1755)

330 KB JPG

>>4343485
You mean this one?

[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	489
Image Height	1755

File: file.png (314 KB, 3225x1597)

314 KB PNG

>>4343478
After years, and I mean decades, of pros shooting sports with mechanical shutters, the industry decided that every sports/wildlife camera needed to be APS-C levels of noisy and possibly bake in NR to cope to get minimal rolling shutter distortion out of electronic shutter.

Possibly because photography agencies stopped hiring competent shooters and started telling interns to just hold the shutter button down 24/7.

>>4343497
What's the fastest burst rate these days with mechanical shutter? The 1DX III was hitting 16fps even with a mirror flapping about

>>4343500
The 1dx iii is unsurpassed. Precision mechanical shutters are too expensive for the anime merchants just like talented photographers are too expensive for the "truth in journalism" merchants

Everything is turning into shit.

File: ewfw.jpg (118 KB, 900x683)

118 KB JPG

>>4343507

>>4343478
Literally looks like his face has been inkjet printed onto a piece of foamcore that someone in the audience is holding up

>>4343507
the only nikon full frame body with normal high ISO performance and autofocus that isn't literally, measurably worse than a D3400 in every mode and setting is the retro larp zf
every canon drops to 12 bit e-shutter to shoot faster than 12fps
snoy cripple hammers stills FPS hard to protect a1 and a9 sales so their current cameras technically underperform their predecessors

it's a joke. but the log gamma "dynamic range" (before post) bro! it's gotten sooooo goooood and my youtube audience didnt even notice when i switched from a gh5 to an a7s fuck

>>4343478
OLYMPUS NUMBER ONE

>>4343516
I said it before and I’ll
Say it again, hybridization is killing (killed?) photography. Fucking video faggots just buy a camcorder.

>>4343523
It probably has more to do with the expense of making a good high speed focal plane shutter that doesn't easily destroy itself. Rolling shutter in video was already good enough for MULTI BILLION DOLLAR HOLLYWOOD PRODUCTIONS over 10 years ago.

File: 1618833479718.gif (1.47 MB, 236x250)

1.47 MB GIF

>>4343478

>Horizon not level
>Distracting shit in the foreground out of focus
>Blacks crushed harder than the Zulu Nation
>Fucking Canon 5D Classic 2005-era Fruit Loop grainy shadows

What limp-wristed smegma-sucking fart-wanking cum-guzzling fuckstick did they hire to shoot these?

>>4343503
>talented photographers
Too expensive and a poor value for money. Sonys new autofocus and a high burst rate literally replaces all that for a fraction of the cost.

>>4343539
Me

>>4343516
>every canon drops to 12 bit e-shutter to shoot faster than 12fps
The R5MK2 doesn't though?

>>4343650
>not their newest most expensive one that still gets mogged by a sony a1!
i bet it'll still have forced low ISO noise reduction lol

>>4343634
Enjoy your apsc noise levels.

>>4343652
Can you show us a sample photo where this "forced low ISO noise reduction" makes any visible difference in detail?

Is the "forced low ISO noise reduction" in the room with you right now?

File: 1709337261533.png (692 KB, 1134x528)

692 KB PNG

>>4343656
>coping
Shadow detail is mush

>>4343539
>>4343497
>Possibly because photography agencies stopped hiring competent shooters and started telling interns to just hold the shutter button down 24/7.

>>4343478
Canon 1D
Nikon D1

>>4343655
I won't because nobody even looks at photos nowadays. Literally nobody cares about sports photography.

>>4343661
what website is this?

>>4343661
Thank you for showing us an example of AA vs no AA filter. Now can you show us an example supporting your claim?

>hint: you would be comparing against a 5Ds

>>4343737
A really strong AA filter that only blurs things that badly in deep shadows?

The 5ds has a notoriously noisy sensor. Almost as noisy as micro four thirds. It's only well liked because higher resolution enables better detail retention in the same final product after noise reduction and resampling.

I would totally believe you if you aid the r5 is actually as noisy as the 5ds at low ISOs.

File: Screen Shot 2024-07-31 at(...).jpg (269 KB, 1150x1158)

269 KB JPG

>>4343661
>z7ii
>not a9iii
kek, literally worse than apsc
>but i need 120 fps!
skill issue

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1150
Image Height	1158

File: Screen Shot 2024-07-31 at(...).jpg (155 KB, 1146x592)

155 KB JPG

>>4343738
>A really strong AA filter that only blurs things that badly in deep shadows?
It's actually a weak AA filter and visible in all comparisons.

>The 5ds has a notoriously noisy sensor.
If there is low ISO NR then it should be affecting everything. So just show us ISO 100 side by side, doesn't have to be "muh +6 ev shadows!!!"

>Almost as noisy as micro four thirds.
You have literally no clue what you're talking about.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1146
Image Height	592

>>4343741
incredible how the mft camera while noisy retains detail at high iso while that old canon is a mushy mess

>>4343742
Are you blind lol

>>4343742
Incredible that you would lie when we can all see the photo. How much is Sony paying you? I could use a little extra income. Who do I contact?

>>4343746
>mft poster
>says something contrary to reality
No really?

>>4343741
Stop making me hate small sensors.

>>4343739
DPReview addresses the R5 low ISO NR in their review and it only affects deep shadows. What the sony shill fails to mention is that if you’re not pushing shadows 6 stops you can’t see it. So basically the R5 can be pushed 5 stops like most cameras while a few, like the Z7, can be pushed 6 stops. The A9iii can’t be pushed at all, but shadow details all of a sudden don’t matter to shills when it’s a sony product.

File: DSC01211))bsm.jpg (2.06 MB, 2000x1600)

2.06 MB JPG

so happy to know i don't give a shit about any of this and actually take photos with my camera

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 24.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4322
Image Height	3457
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:01 14:51:10
Exposure Time	1/500 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	3.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1600
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSC01218)bsm.jpg (2.43 MB, 2000x1600)

2.43 MB JPG

i would have no idea if this noise/grain is ok or not for ISO 2000, at the same time i dont really use anything for denoising and just edit the RAW and call it a day, but with the existing software and technologies i could probably shoot my old nex 5n and still make it look acceptable.

also im really liking the way these photos came out, i specifically tried to focus on just the lower body language of these guys more than anything else, i wasnt interested in displaying pretty much anything from the waist up. as to sort of create some sort of soft mystery as well

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 24.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4936
Image Height	3949
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:08:01 14:54:14
Exposure Time	1/750 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	2000
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Brightness	3.3 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1600
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

I shoot at iso 51200

>>4343947
So ISO 800 on an M43? kek.

>>4343947
>not shooting at ISO 102k
get gud

>>4343966
>Not shooting at iso 4M
>did infact not make it

>>4343733
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison

File: Screenshot 2024-08-16 115710.png (124 KB, 2201x674)

124 KB PNG

>>4343497
> the industry decided that every sports/wildlife camera needed to be APS-C levels of noisy
It's more like the industry is honest about what is "good enough" for the actual intended usage, after decades of shooting with even worse DR.

>>4348877
The intended use case is printing 2 inch wide snapshits on toilet paper, or recently, putting triple digit pixel resolution snapshits into webpages in a way that is compatible with ancient garbage that should have been rounded up and sent to a recycling plant ages ago.

Camera image quality has way surpassed the garbage technology a lot of people are still using due to poverty. It's a rich man's hobby with points that can literally only be appreciated by people well off enough to buy a mac or build a decent PC, AND print. Which gets too expensive for poors on its own.

What has never been good enough, for photo agencies, is their profit margins. Good photographers with a knack for timing and framing are hard to come by and want extra money just to stick around, so cameras just keep getting more automated and higher resolution than the agencies actually need them to be, lol.

File: ceaffe.jpg (145 KB, 1400x1050)

145 KB JPG

So, every single manufacturer has sacrificed low ISO resolution for high ISO dynamic range and there's literally zero camears which do not mush details at base ISO because people rather have smeared details than a bit of noise?

>>4349544
Just dont buy a spurts flagship. Realize you do not need 4k120 or 8k60.

Unless you are a paid action videographer working for the real film industry everything you make will be irrelevant free to view shit that fits in a 720p frame. 1080p tops.

>>4349544
No, just Nikon.

Canon has only improved DR since their DSLRs. Current canons are the highest res, highest DR canons ever made. The NR is a meaningless 2/3 stop improvement that most likely eliminates fixed pattern noise, not general shot noise, because you can't see any consistent detail loss that can't be blamed on their AA filters. Remember the analsysis of it was autists peering into a back box and guessing at whole image SNR. Removing FPN in the shadows would improve whole image SNR very slightly.
Sony is still technologically flawless.
Olympus and panasonic have gotten MUCH better.
Leica leads the 35mm pack in sensor quality.
Fuji GFX and hasselblad X system sensors are top tier

It's just Nikon. They have one single body that has normal camera DR (ie: not worse than a dslr/sony) and autofocus that matches its price point, and the zf. Everything else is massively crippled compared to its competition or a high speed low DR newspaper cam.

>>4349581
*and its the zf
Yes, the Z6II sized camera the Z6III should have been, with an awful UI and dials/ergos that are implemented so badly fuji suddenly has good ergos by comparison.

>>4349574
I'm still steady in the DSLR ship with Canon, most likely buying 5D Mark IV next into my camera museum. Ironically the RF cameras even look cheap and plastic while they cost arm, leg and your both kidneys.

However, the whole thing where RAW is nothing but an AI-baked shit with noise reduction and enchanged dynamic range makes my blood boil. Of course it was always fiddled a bit but nowhere near as much as now.

There's a bit of noise in shadows when you shoot at ISO 1600 and pull shadows 6 EVs? Good, I don't care and I can expose my photos correctly.

There's no noise and details are mushy but at least I can pull those 6 EVs with ease? Bad, very bad.

Same goes with AI enhancers & upscalers, are people blind or what?

>>4349581
>Remember the analsysis of it was autists peering into a back box and guessing at whole image SNR. Removing FPN in the shadows would improve whole image SNR very slightly.

Are you talking abot PtoP, some here say the methods are flawed and in real life things are different.

>>4349544

The Nikon D2x achieves the highest resolution per pixel at base ISO, and produces high resolution images even @ ISO 1600!

>>4349609
Lol what dunning kruger shit is this?

The gfx100 and a7riv are king

>>4349612
There was a thread while ago where some lunatic (or genius, however you like) claimed that D2x has the best sensor ever.

>>4349609
This kind of opinion is what happens when you go full gearfag but aren't smart enough to keep the specs straight

>>4349591
PtP methods ARE flawed, and his charts incompletely adjusted, but his NR analysis doesn't catch false positives. False negatives actually. Canon absolutely is applying some NR at low ISOs, and on pro bodies, all ISOs, but it's not a significant amount.

If you were to match ISO 200 to ISO 100 on a "no nr camera" with NR in post you would lose absolutely no detail. Imatest recommends using some NR. It's that much of a nothingburger. The AA filter is stronger than the noise reduction.

Also there are no cameras to my knowledge that have Ai NR or any such shit forced. Sometimes they force vignetting correction onto raws but it can be turned off, and most do some form of forced long exposure NR to counteract the effects of the sensor heating up during long exposures, but unless you are stacking dozens of frames using a consumer camera for deep space imaging it is literally irrelevant.

>>4349640
>Also there are no cameras to my knowledge that have Ai NR or any such shit forced. Sometimes they force vignetting correction onto raws but it can be turned off, and most do some form of forced long exposure NR to counteract the effects of the sensor heating up during long exposures, but unless you are stacking dozens of frames using a consumer camera for deep space imaging it is literally irrelevant.

Thank God not in cameras, I meant those AI upscaler stuff which some people love in post or super-aggressive noise reduction that smears eveything because some just can't stand a bit of noise in their images.

>>4349673
Those are for micro four thirds users

>>4349640

Specs are irrelevant! Only real world tests matter.

>>4343478
I refuse to believe this is an unedited, released photo

>>4349626

Yep, that's me. But let me set you straight by stating that it has the most unique sensor, with the most optimised pipeline and firmware.

Furthermore, it has a uniquely advanced tool set to help a skilled photographer to shoot the best images possible under all reasonable conditions.

The tradeoff for its unusually high resolve is noise. But the type of noise it produces is nondestructive, and is easily removed without penalty by modern noise reduction software.

>>4349832
As much as I'd like just believe you, anecdotal evidence doesn't cut here. Got any numbers or even real images to back up your claim?

>>4349873

I lost the images due to a sudden hard drive failure about a year ago. But I have calculated percentages based on the resolve ability of each camera I have tested vs its total pixel count.

The record is held by the D2x @ 97%. The next best camera is the Pentax K5II @ 96%.

All tests were conducted in RAW with carefully chosen prime lenses shot at their best f-stop using an Air Force test chart and complex real world scenes, with the finest quality prints viewed with a high quality loupe and a laboratory grade microscope.

>>4349878
>i am indeed a nophoto

>>4349878
>I lost the images due to a sudden hard drive failure about a year ago.
Didn't see that coming.

However, you might be into something as IIRC diffraction starts to eat avay resolution with FF above 60 MP.

>>4349881
That’s why you buy gay master lenses for your $4000 a7rv, retart. Flawlessly sharp from wide open to f5.6 and only a little softer at f8.

Can’t afford the gay master cant afford the a7rvirgin

>>4349896
>Sony GM
Do they still have QC policy where lens is fine if it comes in one piece?