>>4353813
they're pretty good at what they do

>>4353813
>Z6 looks worse with each iteration
The fuck?

>>4353813
>how did Panasonic do it?
I mean they use snoy sensors so maybe you should be asking how snoy did it lol

>>4354525
sharpening

The only thing that can defy physics is processing. DR boost is on 1/15 and shorter so it gets an extra 2/3 stop = apsc

Also, dpreviews tool always fucks up. Like the different whote balance between the Zf and Z6II (same sensor). Sometimes you download two preview raws with the same exposure settings and one is darker, and they're the same brand so it's not ISO labeling differences. I don't trust them.

OP this doesn't mean shit show us the under as well.They might have tweaked the sensor towards highlights.

>>4354525
Are you blind?

>>4354753
They are reading out both gain stages at once, so it adds deep shadow DR equal to what an APS-C camera would have. Panasonics shills explained this during the initial viral marketing campaign.

That's why shadow recovery tests are so good for the format, but normal images don't look any better.

For FF snoy money i'm not impressed but it's better than fujifilm x-h shit at least

>>4354525
thats nikon slowly figuring out the best way to hide pdaf pixels from the z6, to the z6ii, to the zf.

+6ev pushes are only of interest to astro nerds who give a shit about things like dark current noise btw.

>>4354769
>nooo the dynamic range the camera was advertised having and sold to you as capable of using is actually just nerd shit you’re doing it wrong!
Why always with this garbage take? They sold me 15 steps of DR I better fucking be able to use them.

>>4354772
Show us your best 15 stop real life photo.

>>4354772
>They sold me 15 steps of DR I better fucking be able to use them.
for what? creating uncanny looking HDR images? get lost, idiot chartfucker

Friendly reminder that the s5ii was so good that SoCaNikony got Amazon to pull the plug on dpreview so that it wouldn't be reviewed by the biggest review site around until after they'd had a chance to release some new cameras

>>4354818
Friendly reminder that some companies actually pay people to make posts on the Internet.

>>4354798
NTA, it could be useful e.g. for evening photos w/o artificial lighting. Even when there's enough light for the subject, you often either have to leave it dark or blow out the sky.
Or when you have sun in the frame, there often isn't enough DR for subject AND a sun that isn't inside a big overexposed blob. I wouldn't get it myself, but it does have it's uses.

>>4354839
so yeah uncanny HDR look. got it. get fucked chartfucker subhuman

this is schizophrenia

>>4354772
>This garbage take
+6ev push photos look like actual phone shit no matter how hard you wank to your sensor.

In many cases it looks worse than getting it more right in camera because of some meaningless sensor architecture junk. There is a reason the G9II did not essentially take over. One, the autofocus actually sucks. Two, normal photos still look kind of bad even if shadow pushes are almost as good as those on a shitty fuji.

Camera companies will continue to release more cameras that look even WORSE with 6ev pushes and no one will care outside of the dpreview/p2p follower space of irrelevant wankers because nobody wanted to do a 6ev push anyways. The only people hankering for more DR have iso 200 mft bodies, which shouldn't be an issue because ideally you would spend less than $300 on one of those and have a better camera on the side.

>>4354839
What you're describing is a 2ev push max, and it will still look awful because of the clean background and blurry subject.

>>4354818
The S5II was supposed to be good because of some video mode almost no one needs, but the autofocus is essentially unusable compared to a $500 used FF DSLR from 2013. That is the same size. I'm not convinced.

Very, very few people actually need more than 1080p 30fps SOOC with good colors. Unlike stills, videos are enjoyed one blurry frame per fraction of a second.

The difference between a professional photographer and an amateur who would never be hired more than once:

>*snap* *dials in fill flash* one more!
>*snap* I can just PUSH THE SHADOWS! Flash is big and ugly and i dont know how to use it.

This is why every camera company will continuously release bodies with LESS shadow push capabilities to squeeze out higher framerates. Sorry. You, an amateur, are no longer their priority.

While you are buying a gfx for "the dynamic range" professionals are buying cameras with even less dynamic range than their last one for higher FPS numbers and better autofocus so they can miss fewer shots at events.

>>4354920
>inb4 then why full frame?
Rendering, bokeh, and shot noise. Shadow DR and noise aren't necessarily the same as you can see by the G9II having lots of shadow DR, but normal MFT noise otherwise.
>but bokeh is bad! this ugly canadian failure on youtube said-
Tell it to the people who get paid for this kid.

i have never had to increase shadows more than 2.5ev. ever. shooting in dim rooms in front of bright windows. because even with the best camera here, a nikon zf, it just looks too bad with noiseless well lit parts and a fuzzy subject

imho this is purely related to frame stacking raws for deep space imaging, since consistent deep shadow noise like PDAF bands are additive and become more visible with each frame stacked. dedicated astro cameras tend to be small sensors optimized for deep shadow noise.

>>4354916
>Claiminh any camera made in the last 5 years has "unusable" autofocus

At least the retards make themselves easy to spot

>>4354963
If it's a low end or non-canony mirrorless yes, the autofocus is unusable. It might hit a building corner or your dog sitting there looking stupid but a DSLR from 10 years ago has a higher hit rate on something as pedestrian as a model walking towards the camera.

Cameras have gotten WORSE. Did the part where the once #2 brand and "the name of photography" nikon totally lost their standing in less than 2 years not tip you off to that? Cameras got worse. It is normal for a mirrorless camera to be objectively worse for photography than a DSLR. The majority of mirrorless cameras in production are worse than DSLR predecessors.

>>4354983
based and true.
>mirrorless fags:
>i just need to spend $2000 minimum on the body and pretend i never wanted dynamic range or banding-free shadows anyways, and then it can finally replace my DSLR
>its so small and light, except the lens is twice as long
>it shoots 4k!
>wellllll actually DSLRs are worse because... exposure preview. Why are you saying "you're bad at photography" i bet you clip highlights sometimes or don't have the optimal noise level!

>>4354985
And the classic
>well mirrorless lenses have nicer "male to female charts" whatever that means. Imagine not wanting to pixel peep at f1.2. More defined eyebrow hairs when only the eyebrows are in focus is more better (thank you amazing mirrorless eye tracking!)

>>4354983
>it's a "contrarian 4channer insists that things are worse now than they were in the past because dude trust me" episode

>>4355006
>contrarian
This was the mainstream belief for a long, long time until the relatively recent high end FF mirrorless like the a7iii, a7iv, and r6ii came about.

Most mirrorless are still worse than DSLRs at everything but crutches and video. Even the autofocus is somehow worse for general photography. Slightly better than macro because focusing stopped down eliminates focus shift.

>>4354839
Evening photos will be shot at a higher ISO and won't have nearly as much DR. DR converges across sensors within a format, with only small (i.e. invisible) differences as ISO goes up due to shot noise.

Every ILC camera on the market today has enough DR at low ISO in stills to cover every situation except the most extreme sun-in-frame shadowed landscape shots. That's the only situation left in the real world where you can separate cameras on their low ISO DR. But you can always shoot/blend two frames in that situation (doesn't have to be HDR, manual blending looks more natural). And in fact, the two frame blend will have higher IQ in the shadows even if you can get away with a single frame on the higher DR camera.

Video isn't quite the same because some of Canon's cameras don't have a LOG format that can encode everything the sensor can deliver, putting them slightly behind competitors. (It's stupid that they're just now introducing their best LOG format.) But even then they're still so damn good that you could shoot video for a year and never have a DR problem.

tl;dr - DR is simply measurebating. Which is why when you ask DR cheerleaders for real world samples, they never have any.

>>4355008
>Dude, trust me

First gen mirrorsless were worse. They quickly caught up. The "autofocus is still worse than decade old DSLRs" meme is a recent /p/ contrarian view, always posted by gearfags who want to think they're better than other gearfags because they're buying gear that isn't popular

The truth is mirrorsless af is better now, but only because they're more recent and af has generally been constantly getting better. It also doesn't matter because any af made in the last decade is good enough

>>4354983
We differ in degree, but you do have a point. If you know how to use an upper tier DSLR's AF, it's damn hard to beat. My 5Ds can edge out my R6 on single point/point cluster AF, though the R6 is quite close. (The R6 takes the lead in really low light.) Where the R6 can win of course is changing the AF point for you to track the subject around the frame, though the 5Ds is pretty good at that too (AE meter is a low res imaging sensor for iTR tracking).

But all this fancy subject recognition AF can and does fail. So for stills on the R6 I often just use single point.

Video is another beast altogether, and when you need video AF, you need subject recognition AF.

>>4354991
That's a myth any way when comparing DSLR lenses designed/upgraded in the 2010s. Shorter flange distance gives designers a little more freedom for some focal length designs, but also creates some problems. For most focal length designs it doesn't do shit. At the end of the day manufacturing capability determines what lens designers can do and what the final IQ will be, not flange distance. You don't see this in Sonyland because their DSLR lenses are so old now, but recent Canon/Nikon DSLR lens designs absolutely hold their own against their newest mirrorless designs.

I stuck with my 5Ds and EF glass rather than replace everything (R5 + RF) because there were no IQ gains to be had. And I just adapt EF to my R6 since Canon did it right and EF glass is handled natively on RF, even has OIS/IBIS coordination. (Some RF lenses have even tighter coordination, but EF lens still work together with IBIS.)

>>4355047
>First gen mirrorsless were worse. They quickly caught up.
If by "quickly" you mean "over a decade."

>The truth is mirrorsless af is better now,
Mirrorless is better at changing AF points for you (subject tracking). Upper tier DSLRs still edge out mirrorless using single point/single cluster (i.e. assist points) AF. It's close, but you can still see it in action. And that's what one would expect considering upper tier DSLRs have double cross type AF points while mirrorless is just now getting any kind of cross point AF.

>>4355047
>They quickly caught up
*If you were buying the newest canon/sony

if you compare the autofocus on a $750 6dii to that on a $2k fuji xh2 or nikon z7ii lol, its worse

>MIRRORLESS CAUGHT UP
>Nikon ZF $2000
>Canon R6II $2000
>Canon R8 $1300 missing half the shutter
>Nikon Z8 $3800
>Sony A7IV $2000
>Sony A7III $1200 no weather sealing (used)
>Sony a7c $1200 missing half the shutter

>top shelf DSLR $800 off ebay "but IBIS!" (useless gimmick when you move on from sleeping pets, flowers and building corners)

>>4353813
>equivalence
Is for DOF not exposure! Especially if you’re using flash.

f5.6 exposes the same everywhere. Whenever i see an idiot think dpreview using f5.6 matters i cringe. The people who think about comparing gear the most know the least. Croppings extra noise also is not ISO noise. It is pure photon shot noise and does not include amplified electronic and heat noise or circuit switches or hidden processing like ISO noise does. Equivalence does NOT include ISO, it is only for DOF and jerking off to cameras.

>>4355059
>>top shelf DSLR $800 off ebay "but IBIS!" (useless gimmick when you move on from sleeping pets, flowers and building corners)
I can't agree with that, IBIS on the R6 is pretty awesome. My OIS lenses gain a couple stops, and my primes without OIS suddenly get 5-6 stops IS. It's nice.

I would, however, recommend someone on a budget stick to used upper tier DSLRs unless they need specific features (usually video). At least in the Canon ecosystem where EF adapts perfectly to RF.

>>4354916
>the S5ii has unusably bad AF
You've never used one.
If you want to reply to this post include a picture you took with it.

>>4355041
>every ILC on the market has enough DR to cover every situation
In many occasions I have to shoot with auto ISO, say at functions where I might get a big bright window in the background in a shot and a dark corner in another and I don't have enough time to fiddle with the manual controls.
Having more DR means there's more room for error before I get blown out highlights and unrecoverable shadows.
Cameras are great nowadays, but there are many many situations in which improvements would be convenient.

>>4355059
I'm not sure you can even buy a 5Div used for that amount of money.
>IBIS is useless
IBIS is so useful it's comical that someone would choose that among every possible coping strategy.

>>4355288
>In many occasions I have to shoot with auto ISO, say at functions where I might get a big bright window in the background in a shot and a dark corner in another and I don't have enough time to fiddle with the manual controls.
>Having more DR means there's more room for error before I get blown out highlights and unrecoverable shadows.
Marketing tells you that, and you repeat that, but of course there are no examples because cameras are so close now in stills that the differences can't be seen apart from a test chart. And that's at base ISO. If you're shooting auto ISO then you're scaling well above base, where shot noise is the practical limit on all of them (within a format).

Not to mention that some RAW converters are so good now that even older sensors are hard to distinguish from the newest ones. DR has become the same as resolution: everyone has enough.

>>4355288
> I don't have enough time to fiddle with the manual controls.
This is literally what exposure compensation is for, and why it's usually one of the most easily accessible controls.
Also you could switch to spot metering and conditionally use AEL so you can choose what gets exposed right instead of leaving it up to your camera and relying on DR when it gets it wrong.

Pulling skin tones out of shadows always looks like shit FWIW. Proper exposure is a lost art these days and it really shows in how shitty most photographers' photos are.

>>4355289
IBIS is only useful when you photograph things that stay still or when you're a literal retard that can't hold a camera steady.
The number of interesting photos that 1) stay still outside of landscapes, or 2) better done with a flash anyway, are pretty damned small.
I'm glad IBIS exists for my retard bros but if you're not a retard it's a way overrated feature.

>>4355289
IBIS is useless

I have never used a shutter speed under 1/250 for things that matter instead of trees

>>4355809
As the owner of an ISO 200 M43 body and a FF snoy I beg to disagree. Even "full frame" (small format, 35mm) is barely decent once you leave ISO 100 - gets mogged by 400 speed films in actual dynamic range, maybe not in noise peeping "dynamic range", but in the actual tonal range of the scene. Digital still has significantly less DR than film and photos look like shit because of it. Photos used to look like life. Now they look "like pictures" after you've all been conditioned and buck broken by capitalists shoving disposable market-stratified digital slop down your throat and telling you to upgrade when you realize it tastes like diarrhea. Ooh, white sky, yep, that's what nothing looks like ever.

meanwhile the cameras your dads wedding photographer used to take better photos than your R5II-G9II pair ever did STILL work fine, and were DR masters because people used to combine film's crazy DR with fill flash to absolutely btfo fool frame digital

>results look much better
>not a single actual photo posted
lol, lmao even

>>4355856
No one would do a 6ev push for an actual photo

>>4355870
Note to developer: Push roll +6.
Note from developer: You need to reshoot every image on this roll over again you colossal tard, in fact just sell your camera.

>>4355855
>IBIS is useless
lol oh my fucking face was not ready for this

>>4355920
People generally aren’t ready for truth, pills anon, you’re right.

>>4355920
>his face wasn't ready for truth
when ibis first got "good" it was
>finally, after limiting myself to iso 800 equivalent noise and f8 equivalent lenses i can handhold my camera for 2s if i lean against a wall and stop breathing. oh right, i fucking have to.

>>4355920
Legit is. Stop taking photos of buildings.

Lens IS was always enough. Now bodies have half as much battery life and another part to fail.

>>4355933
>>4355927
>>4355922
>no one evar needed VR or IBIS
>just handhold ur 14mm or 800mm
>tell boats and waves and birds and people to all stop so you can set up ur tripod instead
>bc I really are that very big of an obtuse cunt
GENIUS

>>4355941
Never used a shutter speed lower than 1/250 for a photo worth saving

Sorry about your need to keep noise down on micro four thirds. I'm sure the blurry people look cool.

>>4355941
They are clearly irrelevant. No need to get so worked up

>>4355941
That's the thing.
Unless you're going for a long-shutter effect or like blurry photos, IBIS is useless for capturing waves and such because they move. Trees blow in wind. Pets and kids don't stay still.
IBIS helps you handhold a range of shutter speeds that are too slow to freeze motion, but not long enough to get a slow shutter effect. It just looks like shit.
It's almost always better to choose a faster shutter speed and bump ISO, or actually get out a tripod and use a 2s shutter minimum.
And for times you do want that slightly-too-long shutter speed for handholding, you can just brace the camera against the wall or set it down on a ledge, and get a little creative. Same effect, a fraction of the technology.

>>4355941
The more I read about how other people use their cameras the more I'm convinced the vast majority of people out there are shitty photographers that rely on their cameras' features as crutches.

IBIS? Because they lack the creativity to set their camera down or brace it against the wall ("hurr durr you don't have time to set up a tripod").
The trend of 24mm lenses? I thought people were actually getting good compositions with such a wide angle lens, a challenge! Nope, you fucks can't compose worth shit and are cropping it down to ~35mm views in post to get any semblance of composition.
High megapixels? Used to think it was about razor-crisp photos. Nope, just like the 24mm lens, it's getting used as a crutch to empower cropping in post instead of actually trying to compose.
Dynamic range? Because fucks don't bother to learn about value and how to control value with exposure. Instead they're just slamming sliders in post (and fucking up their colors while they do it, you can't just pull shadows without consequence). Or they lack the capability of even getting Strobist-tier lighting down.

>>4355969
>The more I read about how other people use their cameras the more I'm convinced the vast majority of people out there are shitty photographers that rely on their cameras' features as crutches.
>AF? Because they lack the ability to turn a simple focus ring?

>>4355975
Unironically, people are even bitches about that.
A huge portion of Sony's market is driven by people who can't focus to save their fucking life and are willing to spend thousands of dollars for a new camera that doesn't actually take photos that look any better, but has an AF that lets them more mindlessly mash the shutter button, because even using AF points is too complicated.

But let's not be facetious. I'm not saying good DR, high MP, etc. aren't desirable. Better is obviously better.
What annoys me is that people are using it as straight up crutches and to fill in for lack of skill. Then to make matters worse, they shit on people who don't rely on those crutches because they can't imagine taking good photos without them, so everyone else that doesn't have them must be shitty photographers.

Then because it's the autistic internet, and especially 4chan, it's useless to try to show otherwise. Doesn't matter how good your photo is, if I post a good example of a nice photo with a camera taken without IBIS at ISO 800 they'll call it an absolutely unusable piece of noisy shit and say that that's proof IBIS is necessary regardless of context. Doesn't matter how much noise is actually visible, they'll just see ISO 800 in the metadata and dog on that.

>>4355984
Not him, but hide your exif then. Also take the trump photo with your manual focus tripod setup. People care about moments, because photography isn't about being a good camera operator. It's like ragging on someone who can't hand-crank an engine.

>>4355990
You're still missing the point.
The point isn't that better cameras don't help you take pictures and that's great. The point is that people are using them as utter crutches.
The point is that if you don't have environmental constraints (e.g. trying to take that Trump picture), you should generally be able to take a nice and print-ready photo on a 16MP camera with a 50mm manual focusing lens in full manual control.
Yet these fucks can't take even portraits of their kids without 61MP and 24mm lens to crop down to a 50mm equivalent, then they need eye-tracking autofocus so they can just mash the shutter button. Either that or they use an 85mm f/1.4 and open it all the way up to blast the background in bokeh instead of actually trying develop an appealing composition. There's a time and place for that style of photo, but these people aren't doing it because it's the right time and place, they're doing it because that's all they can do.
Then they call themselves good photographers and consider you a shit photographer just based on the camera and lens you use because they can't imagine there's any other way to do it.
In their minds, a non-tracking contrast-based AF system = inferior photographer, because how can you have an in-focus subject without eye tracking??? You're using an APS-C lens at f/4 for a portrait? What a newb, you're not blurring the background to absolute fuck with an f/1.4 FF aperture! What do you mean you found a nice composition? I don't understand! Obviously you're just coping and a shit photographer!
That's their mentality.

>>4355997
b-but my theoretical 20 foot billboards!

>>4355997
Just ignore them lol, do your own thing. People shit up my thread with gearfaggy crap all the time but there are also people who actually discuss the images being posted. The bar to entry into photography is low now, and that's a good thing. However it has downsides for sure. As they say, the only thing worse than someone who knows nothing is someone who knows a little.

>>4355997
You realise you're making your own arbitrary restraints that are just as ridiculous as the people you look down on? You've created some dpreview golem strawman, it's probably time to take a break from the internet

>>4355809
>marketing tells you that, and you repeat that, but there's no real example
I just make an example in my post.
>noise is the practical limit above ISO100
I'll give you another example, hopefully clearer.
Imagine you're shooting an event that partly happens inside and partly happens outside.
You don't have any control over where people will choose to stand as you try to unobtrusively take pictures of the event.
At one point you want to take a picture of something happening inside, but then you hear a noise outside, get out, find that someone's just popped a champagne bottle open and someone else is about to do the same.
You point the camera towards them, but a reflection coming from the bottle makes the scene look a lot brighter than it is, the ISO setting remains low and you get a dark picture.
Or, the person's dressed in black but is standing in front of a nice summer evening sky, the ISO goes up and you get clipped highlights fucking up the sky.
In both of those situations a wider exposure latitude helps saving more usable details from your pictures.
>>4355852
>this is what exposure compensation is for
>or you could use spot metering and AEL
When I wrote I sometimes have no time to fiddle with the control I didn't mean I don't have the 10 seconds required to set aperture, time and ISO, take a test shot, adjust everything to make sure it's perfect and then shoot again, I meant I don't have the second and a half to have a look at the meter, rotate a dial to bring down the ISO until the meter's in the center and then shoot.
Also, this has the same issue as relying on auto ISO because I'd have to trust the exposure meter and take a test shot to check whether the exposure was indeed right.
I'm not saying I don't ever have the time to do it, I often do, but in those situations where I don't it might be important that I don't miss the shot, and a higher DR makes it less likely to miss.

>>4355854
>>4355855
>t. have never shot a moving subject with a tele
>t. have never shot a landscape in the dark
I wonder what sort of things you people shoot to believe IBIS is useless.

I have yet to see an artistically pleasing photo taken with a Panasonic camera.

File: fullmoon12perc.jpg (40 KB, 1280x960)

40 KB JPG

>>4356023
You obviously won't ever admit any of these is worthwhile because you're here to post me = good you = bad, I'm just posting a few pictures so that others might see how comical your post is.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DC-S1
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:04 12:26:11
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/11.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	560.00 mm
Image Width	1280
Image Height	960
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto

File: 1943547_sRGB web.jpg (132 KB, 1280x992)

132 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:04 12:23:37
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 53605777029_520d58216b_b.jpg (137 KB, 1024x728)

137 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: 53053581600_1b968c0903_o.jpg (186 KB, 1280x853)

186 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DC-S1
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:04 12:22:27
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	8000
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	400.00 mm
Image Width	1280
Image Height	853
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto

File: 53604561622_cb153ce1cd_o.jpg (259 KB, 853x1280)

259 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DC-S1
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:04 12:21:16
Exposure Time	1/1300 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Image Width	853
Image Height	1280
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto

File: ca125.jpg (111 KB, 683x1024)

111 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Capture One 23 Windows
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	683
Image Height	1024

File: tf24_97_web.jpg (391 KB, 853x1280)

391 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:04 12:36:41
Image Width	853
Image Height	1280

File: tf24_31_web.jpg (104 KB, 853x1280)

104 KB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GIMP 2.10.38
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:04 12:37:33
Image Width	853
Image Height	1280

>>4356024
I appreciate the compositions, story and setting, but dislike colours, tones, and how images look artificial.

Could get same images with a Xiaomi Redmi phone.

Stick to video if you're unfortunate to have a Panasonic

>>4356033
>images look artificial
This is about as meaningless as "artistically pleasing", and it goes to show the level of understanding that nophotos on /p/ possess.
>could get the same image on a redmi phone
Why don't you post some then, starting from a picture of the moon?

>>4356029
>>4356030
>>4356031
3:2 portrait was a mistake

>>4355055
>If by "quickly" you mean "over a decade."
that's okay, it means any sony body from 2020 onwards will be fine.

>>4356086
"Mirrorless caught up" means "canon and sony got decent".

With how bad everyone else is you might as well buy a DSLR if you can swing the size over a foolji. If you're looking at nikon Z or panasonic G or S bodies because /p/ gearfags told you to hate canon/sony based on reasons they literally lied about or blew out of proportion, you really might as well buy a DSLR because those fuckers are huge.

>>4356094
no anon on this board has raised any serious critique of modern FE or RF bodies within last month, that I can tell.

>>4356094
most people using cameras only take two kinds of photo
>picture of a ____ (needs AF-S to be close-ish)
>say cheese! (awkward model facing the camera not moving)
So they can actually get away with having worse autofocus for action packed artistically difficult shots like fighting birds and dancing people

Besides, only retarded overthinking, chart peeping, mount measuring gearfags among serious photographers even buy things other than sony and canon, usually for some spec that most likely doenst actually matter like mount diameter or a video codec no one has asked them for but youtube and internet camera arguments convinced them is necessary

>>4356031
Why mirrorless people afraid of fill flash?

>>4356096
That's an absolutely retarded metric

>>4356102
If I weren't a retard I wouldn't discuss photography on 4chan.

>>4356096
>within the last month
try the last 5 years. gearfags best sony/canon critiques are basically cock measuring and, how would you put all the seething people do over things that literally dont affect them like DLC custom grid lines they'd never use and no competent person would use? the "forced noise reduction" on canon that is literally unnoticeable and means nothing to image quality if you're not a retard trying to salvage exposures by 6-7 stops? "issues pertaining to my principles as a mindful consoomer"?

sony weather sealing hysteria is as concrete as it gets and it only actually applies to two cameras from 2018/2017 and older

>>4356105
truth be told, I like golden rules grids but that's so far down the nice to haves but still meaningless list.

>>4356105
Gearfag sony critiques be like
>well this lens on nikon is 1.5cm shorter
>until you activate the nasty noisy electronic focus or add the hood thats required to weather seal it and protect its microdick

>>4356037
I don't own a Redmi phone, because I dont want my photos to look like Panasonic, anon...

>>4356037
Panasonic colors are flat and neutral. It looks fake.

Would you expect anything else from the brand for whom the average customer shoots nothing but log video

>>4356136
they still mog anything you ever produced

>>4356137
Im not even him and lol no, but arguing with an orange and teal underexposer with an ego is a great way to post kino and get insulted anyways if you aren't also an orange and teal underexposer

>>4356138
Who gave you permission to reply to me?

>>4356004
No, I'm not saying you can't have 61mp, or crop, or have great super fast intelligent AF that lets you mindlessly mash the button.
Good photographers often appreciate these things. The difference is they don't RELY on them. A good photographer will realize you can take good photos on an APS-C format entry-level DSLR from 2006. Not that they'd want to, but they'd at least recognize the possibility and respect other photographers having a go at it.
But it's stupid ridiculous the % of other photographers I meet, even IRL, who learn I shoot a Sigma fp as my daily and go into "well akshually" mode and tell me how shit of a photographer I am based on my choice of gear before they even see my photos. Almost invariably they'll have a Sony body released in the last year with a full suite of G lenses in their Peak Design backpack. And have unartistic, but very high definition and noise-free photos of a particular object of interest (I've seen wind turbines from multiple people) or of fucking birds. So often fucking birds.
If I knew the appeal photography had to autists and pervs and how bad the social environment was I would've chose a different hobby, but I'm too invested now (emotionally, artistically, thousands of hours of practice, not just cash invested).

>>4355997
Camera operation is for soulless autists lol

if you wanted to be good at turning dials and lining up optics you should have gotten into rifles.

If $2000 today means I don't have to give a single shit about anything other than an interesting scene with nice light then so be it. That's the life my great, great, great grandfather lived with the giant ass negatives that came out of his kodak brownie.

>>4356167
and so often are you overspending gearfags just creepshotters that sneak snapshits of randos on the street and brag about how your manual focus "skill" makes you a better photographer. gonna get a leica next? you sound like such a tryhard lol
>You fake photographer, I hate sony, how dare you not see the value in manual focus skils
i bet you drive stick kek

Let people enjoy photography instead of "being good at cameras"

>>4356167
A sigma fp is legit crippled. The actual highest shutter speed is 1/30 and it can't have a viewfinder and a flash shoe at the same time. The most commercially and historically significant photographic genres are sports/news action and portraits shot with flash. Both of these are directly affected by sigma's attempt to make people pay hundreds extra for features that are standard on the cheapest micro four thirds and basically limit the FP to being a shitty video camera so I don't blame someone who knows enough about cameras to recognize the FP and know to buy sony G lenses (they're weather sealed, non-G arent) for roasting you. They probably think you're a clueless newfag gearfag who insisted on having a full frame camera but got scared off by the size, and doesn't yet understand what's wrong with the FP and why it's actually worse than an aps-c fuji.

>>4356138
>I have perfectly good reasons not to post a single picture
Right.

>>4356177
Your ego and attitude make your photos 10 times worse than they are, and they aren't that good in the first place. (not the guy you are replying with)

>>4356101
they only use natural light (tm) because they are a natural light (tm) photographer

>>4356019
>>marketing tells you that, and you repeat that, but there's no real example
>I just make an example in my post.
There was no photo attached to your post, much less a comparison photo between two cameras with greater/lesser DR.

>another example with no photos
Again, pretty much any shipping ILC can handle it. I'm not arguing against a wider DR, I'm pointing out that cameras are so close to each other in DR right now that practically you can't see the difference. You have to carefully shoot a test scene then push 6 stops with no NR to see any difference at base ISO. Differences shrink as ISO increases.

DR mattered when it was the 5D mark III vs. the D800. The difference was several stops and you really could run into practical situations where the 5D3 clipped shadows to black while the D800 could open them up. But it's a decade later and nobody is shipping an 11 stop camera. (Well...except maybe the RP.)

>>4355854
Yeah, this is just bullshit. IBIS is fantastic.

IBIS vs. OIS isn't that big of a deal because OIS often gives you more than enough shake reduction. But IBIS is great when a lens doesn't have OIS, and the two combined are also great for video.

>>4355855
>As the owner of an ISO 200 M43 body and a FF snoy I beg to disagree. Even "full frame" (small format, 35mm) is barely decent once you leave ISO 100 - gets mogged by 400 speed films in actual dynamic range,
LMFAO. Portra is about as good as it gets at ~12ev. Most other color and B&W print films are ~10ev, and slide films are ~6-8ev. FF sensors today are >14ev.

>Digital still has significantly less DR than film
My 5Ds has more DR than film and its considered an "old/low DR" sensor at 12.5ev. It edges out Portra. And with DxO's raw converter it's basically a 13.5ev camera.

>meanwhile the cameras your dads wedding photographer used to take better photos than
Nope. 5Ds out performs 6x9 on a drum scanner. Even 20-24mp out performs 645.

>>4355965
>IBIS is useless for capturing waves and such because they move.
>t. Has Never Spent All Day Holding A Long Tele Lens

File: image12.jpg (94 KB, 442x883)

94 KB JPG

>>4356745
>tldr "film sucks" rant involving velvia and drum scanner name drops and incorrect figures
Is this the retard that doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about or someone imitating him

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	LinoHell
Camera Model	TANGO
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2148
Image Height	4555
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2014:11:12 10:08:51
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	442
Image Height	883

File: MF-Fuji-RVP-Howtek-vs-5Ds.jpg (800 KB, 2370x1185)

800 KB JPG

>>4356747
>noooo film totally wins if you go to 4x5 or use a 6x7 ISO 20 microfilm!!!
Do you really want to be BTFO'd again? The last two threads weren't enough?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: Screen Shot 2024-09-05 at(...).png (109 KB, 942x984)

109 KB PNG

>>4356747
>muh incorrect figures
You still haven't learned how to read a characteristic curve, have you?

>>4356751
>Provia is a microfilm
Look up what a mamiya 7 is
Look up what provia is

now look up what an IQ180 is

And now ask why the shitty map comparison doesn't match mamiya 7 vs IQ180

And remember, you already had this exact same argument. You lost.

>Portra only has 12 stops of DR!
>Overexpose portra 5 stops
>extra shadow detail
>overexpose a fooframe digital camera 5 stops
>ruined image
Hmmmm I wonder if gearfags favorite DR figures do not actually correspond to dynamic range?

File: 7D-TP-Velvia.jpg (572 KB, 2076x690)

572 KB JPG

>>4356754
Provia 6x7 lost in your own photo, retard. Provia 6x7 can't distinguish the lines at 5. The IQ180 has some aliasing (solved with an AA filter), but can still distinguish lines to about 7. So again, you have to go to 4x5 or a microfilm to win.

And let's not forget that their "test" was completely incongruent with their real world shots where the IQ180 was damn close to 4x5 in the field despite the large size difference, and despite their line chart test suggesting it should be closer to 6x7. In fact, that line chart test you post is at odds with pretty much every other test out there, suggesting they fucked it up.

>noooo you lost!!!
Delusional. Here's another reminder of your loss, an aps-c 7D throwing punches with Tech Pan and Velvia in 35mm.

And we were talking about DR. Can you read a characteristic curve yet?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2076
Image Height	690
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Unknown
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	96 dpi
Vertical Resolution	96 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2009:12:04 01:14:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2076
Image Height	690

>>4356755
>underexpose Portra 5 stops
>mush
>underexpose digital 5 stops
>everything looks fine
Imagine not being able to figure out how exposure works to make full use of your medium whether the latitude is primarily on the shadow side or the highlight side. And it's more useful on the shadow side since that equates to higher shutter speeds.

Fucking hell, try reading Adams and learn something.

File: file.png (308 KB, 466x673)

308 KB PNG

>This is winning according to art repro dropping his name to spew his digislug delusions
lol
remember you only have to have the argument so many times because you keep losing

give it a rest.

File: 04--Top-35mm-sized-up.jpg (897 KB, 1384x1384)

897 KB JPG

>>4356761
>lines distinguished on bottom but not top
Yes, that is the definition of winning a resolution test. Did your mother drop you on your head or something?

>ART REPO
>RENT FREE
He also has samples that blow your "film is best!" arguments out of the water.

Still working on that characteristic curve, are we?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>Scan film on ancient garbage with low effective DPI and poor dmin/dmax
>look film coincidentally performs exactly like this shitty scanner
>digital is so much SHARPER! *lines change color, letters turn into squiggles, moire*
>Uhhh digital won because the moire pattern is better than less distinct lines

>>4356763
>blue lines turn gray
>so sharp tho
>flatbed vs d2x
KEK

Buy another G master lens you'll feel better about yourself

>>4356764
>drum scanners are ancient garbage
>drum scanners have poor dmin/dmax
Tell me you've never scanned film without telling me you've never scanned film.

>Uhhh digital won because it distinguished more lines
Yes, that's how a resolution test works.

File: 645-vs-5Ds.jpg (1.22 MB, 3142x2014)

1.22 MB JPG

>>4356765
>flatbed
If you have to lie to win, then your win is a lie.

>>4356766
>Digital distinguished more lines by making up new lines that fan out in the opposite direction and are also different colors
Geez this is embarassing

At the end of the day, digital looks like shit. Sorry.

File: HB-Pier-Yashica-Mat-Velvi(...).jpg (233 KB, 1600x1280)

233 KB JPG

>>4356768
>"digital looks like shit"
>t. nophoto
Do you even have a film photo to post? No?

>>4356769
I have better things to waste time on than someone that thinks this >>4356767 is a valid comparison

You just suck at scanning film, sorry

>>4356772
>noooooo
>if the scanner had been better film would have TOTALLY won!
>a pro lab just sucks at film scanning, OK?
Geez this is embarrassing. So to recap...
>you have no photo
>you have no film
>you have no scanner
>you can't read a characteristic curve
>taking advantage of shadow latitude instead of highlight latitude is baffling to you

File: 10-topping-moss-iq180-vs-(...).jpg (323 KB, 640x832)

323 KB JPG

>>4356774
Your cherry picked, scientifically invalid tests mean nothing

You dont post your own because there are pubes on your blurry scans

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	640
Image Height	832
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2014:12:18 13:42:10
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	640
Image Height	832

>>4356779
>MUH CHERRY PICKING!!!
>proceeds to post the photo that proves his cherry picked line chart test was fucked up
LMFAO where is Art Repo? I want him to see this shit.

>you don't post your ow...
I shot the 5Ds side here >>4356751 and the 6x6 Velvia shot here >>4356769

Where are your shots?

>>4356782
>digislugs be like
>mmm, worms and colors melting together, lovely. i like it when my orange grass turns green if it gets too fine for lolbayer. such sharpness.

>>4356785
>incoherent rambling intensifies
So you really are a nophoto?

>>4353813

i can see canon rp, sony a9 and a9 2 being awful what else is new

>>4356787
It's one guy, 39 years old. Makes 90% of the post here, no photo ones.

>>4356997
oddly specific
almost autobiographical
or perhaps a touch of fregoli delusion

>>4356997
Does he also post the m43 shit? Or just film?

File: the schizo is here.png (41 KB, 1066x259)

41 KB PNG

>I know personal details
>I know who it is
>its him
>it's all him
>i have mod like knowledge of peoples posting habits
Who? What? How?

Schizo spotting schizos ffs

>>4357183
It doesn't help that there are 3 regular posters here and the janny doesnt even own a camera.

>>4353813
I just realized based on this post
>>4358108

That OP might have photoshopped some lies into his little test here

He's also an equivalence liar so that tracks.

>>4358126
So is the m43 fag the same guy as the filmfag?
>m43 is best!
>film has infinite resolution!
>film has 20 stops DR!
Might just be a professional troll, but something tells me he believes his shit even though he can't prove he owns a camera.

>>4358178
There are many filmfags. /fgt/ is the only living thread on /p/.
There are 2 mft fags.

There is only one insane map spammer butthurt that his favorite DSLR is slightly worse than 6x7 (you)

>>4358181
I think there's 3 but one posts once in a blue moon

>>4358181
Oh, so you can answer directly then.
- You're obviously the dumb filmfag who has to cope because you've made such stupid statements that are against all evidence.
- Are you also the m43 fag who keeps shitting up the board?
- Why can't you prove you own a camera?
- Why don't you have any of your own photos?
- Are you paid, or do you do it for free?

>>4358220
Calm down schizo. I am not your CIA agent.

>>4358230
That was close, Joe, he almost outed you

>>4358230
You are my nophoto though, aren't you?

>>4358301
yes, I am. I am everyone you dislike. I am doghair having a laugh. I am isi. I am moop. I am your mother telling you your hotpockets are done. And I am fucking your mother as well.

>>4358301
No, I am spartacus

>>4358312
OK nophoto

>>4358411
You also have nophoto, nophoto

>>4358478
Except I'm not. >>4356751 >>4356759 >>4356769

>>4358663
Ok you’re badphoto, actual hylic

Why are you mad about a $10 frame of film being slightly better than your favorite dslrnosaur?

>>4357183
Why are there so many schizos on /p/?

File: 9e0c9e2c44b031a1484a59f1e(...).jpg (113 KB, 680x510)

113 KB JPG

>>4358667
>nooooo you're just a bad photo
Still beats a nophoto, nophoto.

Still waiting for that MF shot that can beat a DSLRnosaur with infinite resolution and 20 stops DR. Any chance we will see it soon?

>>4358669
Didn't someone else already link you extensive empirical tests showing that 6x7 film out-resolved an 80mp medium format camera and it took 400mp pixel shift to full scan 4x5 tmax?

You are still seething days later. Possibly months, knowing how arguments on /p/ go. You're like the clive of detail resolution. Just an autistic retard stuck on repeat.

>>4358671
>incongruent with other tests on same page
>worst possible scaling algorithm for digital, i.e. intentional fuckup
>provia 6x7 still lost, have to shoot iso 20 microfilm to win
>"extensive empirical tests"
When are you going to post any photo that you have taken? Do you have any? At this point I would even accept phone pics. It's obvious you've never touched film, but everyone has a cell phone camera. Or maybe you don't? Maybe you just don't know how to use it?

^look at him go! what a retard

File: G9 vs a9.jpg (243 KB, 1065x1065)

243 KB JPG

>>4353813
WTF is this real?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1065
Image Height	1065

>>4358687
Look, still nophoto.

>>4358688
He photoshopped it a little but its true that ultra high speed FF sensors have poor shadow recovery

The people who actually buy them just dont miss exposure land handheld landscape wankers do

>>4358686
Remember you got btfo on every point and even got 800mp film photos last time?

You made the scaling algorithm shit up even. Lol. So mad that film is better than his favorite dslr. He’s like the people who get angry about fuji gfx and claim its not better than full frame!

>>4358688
Fellow Sonycucks.. not like this!!!

>>4358691
>true that ultra high speed FF sensors have poor shadow recovery
How is it worse than MFT though? It doesn't make sense.

>>4358744
Electronic noise that PROFESSIONALS never even see associated with the extra readout circuitry

Shadow recovery is something only internet wankers care about. Manufacturers consider it the first thing to sacrifice for any other spec unless they market exclusively to forum losers because professionals do not push shadows more than 2 stops like, ever. Neither should competent hobbyists.

>>4358744
How is it the mft camera has 4x the noise at every iso for every photo that isnt salvaged from pitch black?

>>4358688
Yes, a9 cameras are for journalists to spam the shutter midday and sacrifice literally everything to be better at that. I’m surprised they even shoot raw. They have an ethernet port for faster transfer of jpegs.

>>4358751
Nice meme, sensors are pretty linear lol

File: 10,000-ppi-Scan-vs-5Ds.jpg (2.6 MB, 3840x3840)

2.6 MB JPG

>>4358693
>nooooo i won i won
You're not only a nophoto, you're a delusional nophoto.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3840
Image Height	3840

>>4358751
>1/4th the sensor
>4x the noise
Works out.

>>4358751
As >>4358843 points out it's rather simple. The only reason your ultra small sensor cameras like phone cameras look even halfway decent is due to intense software processing. NR out the ass, forced HDR bracketing, contrast and sharpness dialed up etc. M43 shit still acts like a camera and (generally) doesn't force all the processing on it by default so it ends up looking worse because, well, it is.

>>4354916
>S5II bad AF
retard never touched one. Panasoynic PDAF is now second only to Snoy

>>4358688
ohnonono

>>4358751
>"pitch black" exists only in -6ev exposure shots
based nophoto foolframe retard

File: 1701834552514070.png (32 KB, 946x633)

32 KB PNG

>>4353813
Panasonic is just *THAT* good

>>4359132
This is a really weird way to say third after first place canon.

>>4359224
niggonsisters.....not like this

>>4358751
It doesn't because you're not comparing the same shot in regards to exposure, DoF and FoV.

In fact m43 has both less noise and higher DR for the same shot.

>>4359224
>still using these charts
Labeled iso is not actual iso, and claffs special “pdr” does not correspond to any real photographic effect unless your hobby is missing exposure by 5 stops.

generally this website is untrustworthy and inaccurate. use dxomark.

claffs charts say the z50 is as bad as mft. open up dpreview samples and behold, thats wrong, unless you spend $2000 on a g9ii and miss exposure by 5 stops.

>>4359351
Yes it does you fucking retard. Mft has 4x the noise at every iso. One single $2000 mft has aps-c like shadow recovery that only an incompetent snapshitter would use (lmao missing exposure by 5 stops) but all that matters for is literally masturbating to your camera.

Literally. Masturbating to your camera.
>UHNNNNNG IT HAS THIS VIDEO CODEC ANOTHER CAMERA DOESNT I DONT KNOW WHAT IT DOES BUT OTHERBRAND IS SO BTFO! IM CUMMING UNNNNNNNNGH
>your photos: noisy cat

I troll m43 gearfags by opening my aperture one click
>NOOOO THATS NOT EQUIVALENCE
>subject is still in focus and the blurry background is slightly blurrier
>MY IBIS MEANS I HAVE MORE DYNAMIC RANGE *takes motion blurted photo* NOOOOO MY CAT WOKE UP NOOOO MY $2000 CAMERA

>>4359353
at "every ISO" you get different pictures you braindead retard.

>>4359356
they troll you by opening their aperture one stop too. oh wait, they don't even have to because IBIS alone gives them a 2 stop advantage

>>4359357
>noooo the blurry background is slightly blurrier!
Non autistic people do not notice or care
Thats why any micro four thirds influencer that isnt video only is ugly as fuck. Autistic people are ugly as fuck.

Also when the fuck do you have to raise your iso? I can walk around all day shooting iso 50 f/16 with full frame. Sounds like something that only applies to autistic uggo photography like indoor cats and dead bugs.

>>4359358
>uhhh my ibis lets me!
>*blurry photo*
People move a lot more than sleeping cats, dead bugs, rocks, and leaves as it turns out. You do that 1 second exposure of a rock champ, fool framers are so jealous because they would “have” to stop down and raise their ISO….

but when does this happen in real life? I can literally take every photo worth taking at f16 iso 50 1/60. Sleeping cats and dead bugs in your basement. Rocks and leaves. Kek.

>>4359360
cope and seethe, fooltard.
Remember, as soon as you're above ISO 200 and f/2.0 you lost to m43. Irrevocably.

I am hysterically laughing irl imagining an ugly fat person talking about how a full frame camera would have to be noisier “if you reject le toneh meme” (they would say that) as they take 1 second exposures of a dead bug

Then some guy who looks like manny ortiz walks over and takes a much cooler photo with his canon r8 set to bokeh mode and the fat person stomps their feet yelling at him about how he had to take the same photo and its not fair
>its not fair! you have to shoot equivalently! its not fair its not fair its not fair! you cheated! you fucking cheated! <-nasally voice
hahahahahaha

>>4359361
you mean iso 400 and f5.6, if you have a particularly bad sports oriented ff, and only take photos of dead bugs in your basement?

hahahahahahaa

>>4359360
Micro four thirds doesnt have any quality autofocus lenses that are over f1.4 (f2.8????) and even those cost more than ff and apsc gear

No wonder olympus sold their camera division

>>4359359
Lmao and you wonder why no one takes you seriously. If you don't consciously choose your DoF, you're seriously NGMI. Might as well use auto mode, CAF, and burst

File: 1712557690267415.png (15 KB, 1257x136)

15 KB PNG

>>4359352
>STILL seething about these charts
KEK

>>4359471
>bill claff: bill claff’s data is the most accurate
he is the only person who uses his re-definition of dynamic range and his data is user submitted photos of pink squares
his charts are presented as comparison tools but he’s too lazy to write 2 lines of code to adjust for measured iso
he can not even measure iso. he steals that data from dxomark.

when someones comparison tool says the z50 is as bad as the g9 you know they’re full of shit

>>4359475
he also only detects raw nr on canon when olympus, panasonic, and nikon all use it at every iso

File: 1696728346709674.png (14 KB, 574x137)

14 KB PNG

>>4359475
>when someones comparison tool says the z50 is as bad as the g9 you know they’re full of shit
absolute nikonboomer cope. nikon is pretty much using the same sensor as the d500 released in 2016 because they're ran by bean counters. panasonic has a sensor 5 years newer because they care about photography.

File: a9III.jpg (262 KB, 1096x1674)

262 KB JPG

>>4358688
What went wrong?

File: nikonboomers seething.png (546 KB, 577x582)

546 KB PNG

>>4359482
A9iii (FF global shutter) quite literally has no competition and will not for many years, just like the A9 when it was announced back in 2017 with 20FPS blackout free shooting.

File: Screen Shot 2024-09-12 at(...).jpg (304 KB, 1146x1160)

304 KB JPG

>>4359361
>Remember, as soon as you're above ISO 200 and f/2.0 you lost to m4...
m43 sisters...not like this...

[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	1160

File: laff.png (1.67 MB, 1146x1189)

1.67 MB PNG

>>4359481
Sensor Size Is The Single Most Important Specification In Photography.

File: laff at claff.png (1.38 MB, 1134x1166)

1.38 MB PNG

Sensor Size Is The Single Most Important Specification In Photography.

>but IBIS GIVES ME-
a tripod or just setting the camera on something is infinite IBIS, if you're photographing rocks and building corners... who cares.
>EQUIVALENCE! DEY DA SAME DEN!
IDC about your autist cave closeups of your cat. Shooting outdoors, in brightly lit rooms, or with flash makes equivalence irrelevant.

Watch out, the paid pajeet panashill doesnt know how cameras work so he thinks dpreview shooting at f5.6 is unfair to mft.

Inb4ing it here. F5.6 exposes the same on every camera. Equivalence only *roughly* affects dof and fov. Opening the aperture would be giving the mft camera more light, and overexposing the image. In real life this does not happen hence mft is dead outside of camcorders

>>4359538
In real life outside of the basement the bokeh difference is irrelevant due to distance to subject, or there’s excessive shutter speed, or its wildlife and ff has the faster lens… but most mft people only shove their camera in their cats face.

File: cut_my_dr_into_pieces.jpg (2.04 MB, 1816x2462)

2.04 MB JPG

>>4359538
Of course it's incorrect because it's not the same shot.
Both are at 1/5000 f/5.6 which means the correct comparison is pic related.
In actual real life, the G9II has 4-5 stops of DR advantage when IBIS is factored in for the same shot.

Pretty comfy picturing you seethe knowing full well your DR is 2004 Nokia tier as soon as you touch the ISO dial.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1816
Image Height	2462

>>4359534
>>but IBIS GIVES ME-
>a tripod or just setting the camera on something is infinite IBIS, if you're photographing rocks and building corners... who cares.
Not only that, everyone has good IBIS now. Canon is hitting 8.5 stops assistance with the R5ii and R1 and some RF lenses. So how is it a m43 advantage?
>protip for m43 sisters: it's not

>>4359546
>but muh IBIS!!!
Canon R6 can deliver up to 8 stops shake reduction, just like the G9ii. It even coordinates IBIS with older EF lenses that have OIS. There is no IBIS advantage for the G9ii you moron.

>>4359546
No, this is not how cameras actually work. That's why MFT is totally dead and full frame is the standard. Thats why you don't see MFT at 1st world sporting events even though businesses want to save every penny and avoid workers comp claims for their photographers.

It's actually worse in basically every single situation except basement cat snaps without flash.

Claffs charts are also not accurate for comparing across brands and generations, and "IBIS accounted" does not work because you'd be using a shutter speed too slow for anything but a rock.

You'd know if you used a camera, but you're either some turd world brownoid being paid to shill or some fugly white autist arguing because he has no friends and never leaves the house.

I personally think you're most likely a really, hideously ugly white guy with no friends whatsoever who has unironically considered moving into a trailer and buying a small horse so he can finally lose his virginity. Kind of like doghair, but you don't have a dead rich uncle to fund such endeavours. A third worlder being paid to do this would be talking about the video codecs by now so logic dictates you are the archetypical incel.

Therefore, accounting for the age I lost my virginity (14) you lose the argument because you are objectively inferior to me. You will now proceed to seethe and lie about losing your virginity earlier, while scrolling through listings for small mares and zillowing trailers in wyoming.

>>4359552
woah take that back!

you dont know if he’s straight!

>>4359534
>Z50 has better IQ and less noise than a FF Sony

Nikonchads...we won

>>4359552
this explains the dilapidated farm desu…

>>4359555
EFCS increases shadow noise. A7C got cripple hammered.

>>4359555
>>4359561
>*BZZZZZT*
>*Bzzzzttttt*
>*Miss focus*
>*BzzZZt*
>*Miss focus*
>He doesnt have Sony AI powered autofocus
>*BZZZZT*
>Not a single photo in photo out of 1000 shots
Oh NO NO NO
Hahahahahah Nikonfags are such fucking losers constantly coping and seething

so much fooltard seething, i jusy cannot.
just don't touch the iso dial, it's that easy to "win", lmao

>>4359552
But you lost your virginity to a man, so that't doesn't really count.

>>4359563
you either have some serious buyers remorse or its true you’re an ugly horse fucker

>>4359565
I vote for ugly horse fucker. I mean /p/ already has a husky fucker, so...
>NEEEEEEHHHHH means NO

File: images.png (5 KB, 243x208)

5 KB PNG

fooltards ITT

>>4359571
Sorry i dont have a poor microdick baby sensor LOL
>Shoot at ISO400
>Completely unusable photo due to the noise
>*Snap*
>Another watercolour noise painting
>*Snap*
>WTF every photo is unusable
GOD it must SUCK to be using such old microshit tech in 2024
HA HA HA HA HA

>>4359573
Your photos are ruined at iso400? You're just outing yourself as a shitty photographer lol. But it's okay, you can always learn how to expose properly eventually, but I recommend you stick with auto mode in the meantime.

>>4359581
His photos are fine at ISO 400 because he's not using a baby dick sensor.

>>4359593
You too huh, that's a shame. Keep at it, you'll get better

File: Screen Shot 2024-09-13 at(...).jpg (91 KB, 1146x602)

91 KB JPG

>>4359601
>mft sisters
>not like this
>not...like...this...

[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	602

>>4359602
If you think that would be a good photo without noise, you should stick to your phone

>>4359604
>look at my red herring
>LOOK

>>4359622
Do you even read the conversation you reply to? What a dumbass LOL

>>4359623
Do you even know what a "red herring" is dumbass? LOL

>>4359630
Nice try, so you're literally retarded. As if it wasn't obvious enough

>>4359630
Prolly goes good with some chips and tartare sauce

Hi guys, G9II here, hope everyone is ok.
It seems like my superiority has, once again, led to controversy.
I would advise all mft frens to just point and laugh at the fooltards and their 8stop DR above ISO 400. That is all.

All these charts, and yet in real photos, everything you shoot is 4 times noisier than it should be, and you have bokeh anyways, but its nervous, distracting, and artistically bad.

yes I have seen g9ii anon's "photography" when he still wasn't too embarrassed to post it
no i will not pretend more than 1 person on /p/ was dumb enough to spend $2000 on a FF sized micro four thirds for worse than nikon z50 shadow recovery unless it was tom/f8haus because his entire life is taking slow motion bird videos

the g9ii is a wonderful amateur camcorder and an awful photography camera that can't even hold up to older pentax DSLRs outside of theroetical scenarios about photographing anime dolls indoors without proper lighting

File: image_2024-09-13_215403538.png (226 KB, 590x393)

226 KB PNG

fooltards continue to seethe in the m43 thread.
the king accepts your gifts of tears

>>4359636
>he doesn't know
OK retard

>>4359751
Post pics
>crickets as nophoto panics

>>4359763
He used to but the mockery was so intense. Photos so bad doghair looked like helmut newton.

Do you know why he screeches about “husky fuckers”? Because huskyfag killed some of his gear threads with photos and the annoying m43 guy couldnt put up

>>4359771
Sugar did the same thing. All sugar hate on /p/ is some mft gearfag still mad because sugar literally photobombed his equivalence chart thread.

>>4359771
>>4359791
LMFAO that's marvelous.

>>4359791
Photobombed with what? Subpar quasi art 3/10 snaps? Dude is also like 40 and still posts on 4chan LOL

File: 2P8ML.jpg (25 KB, 399x385)

25 KB JPG

>seething schizo is having imaginary convos with himself again

>>4359940
Put your trip on, Honey. It's been 25 years of posting on 4chan yet you still have to make a decent picture.

>>4359940
Sad. Many such cases.

>>4359940
>>4360255
samefag