>>4374760
it's somehow worse than fuji

what the fuck are these cameras doing?
I never see peoples skin in real life with the texture so exaggerated like this.
And dont even get me started on the wildly inaccurate colours.

Makes me love film even more, film you just take a portrait and the skin instantly looks nice with nothing at all done.

>>4374764
35mm = 100MP is also pretty sweet.

>>4374764
Get closer to women and you'll find many suck ass at applying makeup + fail to take care of their skin

>>4374764
that's the magic of high resolution digital sensors, baybee. Unironically digital sensors peaked around 12-16 MP

>>4374767

Na i think these modern lenses can obtain more texture than your eye naturally sees, like some type of weird magnification and over sharpening to what you would see in person.
Im sure it boosts the test chart score, but its kind of fake.

>>4374765
Christ, get a job

>>4374771

like what does the sharpening slider do in photoshop or lightroom?

If you can make your lens do that it will score higher on sharpness tests.

And they can, so they do, and here we are.

>>4374760
I prefer sony's gritty look

>>4374760
How did Canon get skin colours correct on their first digital cameras, yet Sony, who has been making digital cameras just as long still cannot get it right? She looks sickly on the right. Is it cus canon and nikon got groomed by Kodak?

>>4374778
>I prefer people to look like sick dead green zombies

File: unsplash-image-C48OYi9Lai0.jpg (182 KB, 1500x1000)

182 KB JPG

Don't know, don't care kiddo

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1500
Image Height	1000

>>4374789
Everything in that front row is expired anon, you can see it all turning blurry alread

1. In isolation and if you didn't know it was a photo from a Sony you probably wouldn't say anything. Same way people will nitpick a 4/3s photo when they know it's a 4/3s photo.
2. If you're doing anything serious, especially with people, you'll be processing RAWs and not just going with out of camera jpegs regardless of what brand you're shooting with.

>color science
Don't you adjust this with post processing? Are you just raw dogging photography like some film hipster who lets a photo studio technician to do his color science for them because he is talentless?

>>4374803
Nah pro that picture on the right looks like shrek branded sandpaper. Something about the sharpening as well isn't great. Would I instinctively know it's a Snoy? Probs not, but I'd instincitvely know it looks like unpolished asshole

>>4374760
Sony makes incredible wireless headphones

>>4374760

i do not want to know how close in timeline these so called photos were taken

>>4374760
PanaSonyc keeps on winning

>>4374803
holy cope

File: Screenshot 2024-10-17 090758.png (909 KB, 1211x601)

909 KB PNG

>>4374760
unless you actually do blind comparisons

color is malleable anyways

>>4374843
it's not too surprising that only blind people prefer sony

>>4374765
Are you the same fucking guy who posts about how much MP which film is every fucking day? Autism final boss.

Why is it whenever I'm not on /p/, I don't see one iota of this non-stop sony hate, but when I'm on /p/ its the first thing I see.

IRL these are pretty well liked cameras, on /p/ and /p/ only its
ALWAYS A FUCKING PANASONIC REVIEWER
And a clear white balance error (look at the color temperature of her WHITE shirt - if you've edited a raw before you can see what's actually going on)

I have a feeling that /p/ actually has an autistic panasonic shill on it. It's the same fucktard that always posts "its over for snoy" every panaSHIT release. I'm sorry kid but PANASONIC IS UNUSABLE TRASH.

Buy a fucking Nikon. Panasonic us unusable garbage. The only brand that can exceed's sonys performance, colors, rendering, etc is Nikon. Period. Sony cameras are great, better than what canon offers except for talentless retards (ie: videographers and FPS freaks) but Nikon's are significantly better.

>>4374764
Resolution baws.

Digital cameras have limited resolution, called the nyquist limit, prior to which they generate max contrast and sharpness. All of the lenses outresolve the sensors, so they generate false detail/false color at and below the nyquist limit due to bayer's retardation. Proprietary raw processors cook some sharpening and NR into files even if you think they're off because you dropped the sliders to 0, which makes things look a little weird after software auto-corrects flaws.

Foveon is less prone to this but will still look like pixel art and get moire somtimes.

Film's resolution works differently and is in excess of digital. Film has more resolution, way more, but the finer the details get, the less ACUTANCE aka "sharpness" (clean edges) it has. This is actually similar to how your eyes perceive reality so it looks less unnatural. But to photographers, this is what makes film worse because its less "sharp" when pixel peeping.

>>4374760
why does ms. panasonic shill not know how to use the white balance feature

i do not have a green tint on my a7cii in daylight if i set the color temp to 5200k 0 tint in capture one

you are being shilled on paying for a camera without a single shutter curtain and unusable autofocus.

the a7cii, x-t5, and nikon zf are currently the only usable cameras on the market.

Only two companies with genuinely great color science are Hasselblad and Arri. One is a cinema camera company, so it really tells how bad things really are in the photography area.

>>4374760
Why are they using this cakefaced skank for skin-tone testing?
The only actual skin visible in this image is 2 inches into the part in her hair.

>>4374990
>sony reveals ugly makeup
>pana blends it in

its over for snoy

>>4374930
Yeah, truth be told, those are the only two you can realistically look up to for excellent true to life colours. If you edit your pics you can make anything look like anything (except video, up to a point).

>>4374760
>say all the new snoy bodies have finally fixed the color science
>this is the result
Oh NO NO NO

Its a white balance error, probably on purpose because all youtubers are paid shills and panasonics shills are super desperate (they even pay them to post here. Most of the thread is 1-2 samefags. This is true with all the sony spam. Its worse when panasonic releases something new. 10 g9ii threads. Just 1 g9ii user on /p/ and they are clearly not a photographer.)

>>4375017
>Its a white balance error
Yeah, the Sony auto white balance is causing the error. You need to use manual white balance for each individual photo and also still post process every photo you take when shooting with a Sony camera. All other cameras don't have this issue (their AWB just works).

>>4375019

There was a lot of green in the background so the Sony colour science needed to balance that out with adding some more green to the image.

>>4375019
This is not true, but you did describe panasonic cameras fairly well. AWB and autofocus do not work. Only video IBIS. Nothing else.

>>4375017
If you're processing your raws and not just using sooc jpegs then you don't need to set your white balance. The process is the same regardless of camera brand.

I don't want color science, I want color art

File: color soyence.jpg (2.91 MB, 4697x3661)

2.91 MB JPG

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:09:25 12:46:26
White Point Chromaticity	0.3
Exposure Time	1/2 sec
F-Number	f/10.0
Lens Aperture	f/9.9
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	6000
Image Height	4000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4375048
43 should be renamed to "Sony Skin"

>>4374789
Yeah, I'm thinking based

>>4374760
How do you know the right isn't more accurate?

>>4375048

wtf this chart is totally cooked.
there is no way 77 is actually pale blue its pink.
48 yellow green is just yellow
14 vermillion is not vermillion, its orange.

Was this photo taken on a sony?

>>4374803
>you wouldn’t say anything about the green zombie
True, you would just run screaming from it.

File: EXPO001_77mm_ExpoDisc_4_4(...).jpg (72 KB, 480x480)

72 KB JPG

>>4375027
Getting white balance right on scene saves you a headache later on

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	480
Image Height	480

>>4374760
>renders gypsy colors bad
ok with that

>>4375125
All you need is one shot that you can set the white balance from, then you apply that to all shots from the day. You don't need to
>use manual white balance for each individual photo and also still post process every photo you take
Setting white balance is part of processing, takes almost no time, and is something you should be doing regardless of which brand you're using

>>4374874
>writes an essay on digital and film
>based on cameras from 2008
Digital passed up film on resolution over a decade ago, upgrade your camera.

>>4375125
Unless you shoot RAW, at which point your wasting time by setting up WB

>>4374869
Just wait until the guy who spends his life taking pictures of maps notices my post.

>>4374760
if you can't tell that that is just slightly different color balance (S9 image is more warmer and tinted magenta), you are like sub-novice level...

>>4375149

I never understood who post process pics and doesn't use raw.

>>4375135
the gfx100 came out in 2019, not 2014, unless you mean some borderline useless rattly shit, tethering only MFDB that cost $50k (no wonder hasselblad took so long to discontinue support for the V system)

even 50mp cameras only compare favorably to gfx-scanned 35mm film. theres a reason its still being used by hollywood (ran vertically with a crop over 1.5x from stills)

>>4375125
Just dont shoot jpeg like a soulless notphotog journo

>>4375106
Neither are accurate. Its just a panasonic shill desperately fucking up everything to make their bottom dog washing machine brand look better. And then you buy one and its bad enough to make you go sony (protip: buy once cry once, the canon r5 costs what its worth!)

>>4375310
Are you that whiney bitch that got his ass kicked in like 5 threads? I stopped reading both your essays, the pics prove his point. 5dsr won, that's 2015. Earlier if you count medium format backs. Upgrade your camera. And hollywood is digital except for a few nostalgia holdouts, theaters are even digital projection now. Holy shit boomer, it's not 2005 any more.

>>4375328
stop talkimg about yourself in the third person mapschizo

the dlsaar looked like an iphone compared to film even with simulated 100mp (cropping half as much for just one camera) which means 6x9 kodachrome is over 100mp

you could have took the W on dynamic range or ISO flexibility or equipment quality but nope, had to become /p/‘s biggest retard by dying bleeding out of your vagina because film resolves finer details with less sharpness (hence it looks better instead of giving models pixel-pores)

>>4375335
Mapschizo’s attempt to dunk on cms20 was even funnier
>lines are fucking vanishing squiggles, finer details totally absent
>LOOK AT HOW MUCH SHARPER DIGITAL IS! FILM HAS GRAIN AND SOFT EDGES SO IT LOSES!
>film: actual fine detail
There is no dumber gearfag retard… except g9ii schizo

Hes like that idiot that thinks diffraction softening isnt real because you can turn up sharpening

>>4375108
nope, it dont have a snoopy, and my cam colors are alrite i think, those markers irl look like that so its the markers that are botched, they aint mine anyways

>>4375335
How about you compare apples to apples. Let's say your 6x9 does actually achieve over 100mp, a Phase One XT can get 150mp with 6x4.5 or half the area. So 645 film is going to be less than 100mp, and "medium format" digital bodies are at 100mp. 35mm digital sensors are at 60mp, digital wins again. APS-C tops out at 33mp, but even the 24/26mp bodies beat film.

So yeah, if you want to compare the largest MF film format to full frame digital then congratulations, in your cherry picked example film may win (and just completely disregard the sensitivity limitations of film). Or if you want to use large format for the absolute highest resolution. But in the real world where it's FF vs FF or MF vs MF, film gets whooped.

>>4375335
You did this same shit in the other threads, accusing everyone of being one person and then posting 5x in a row. You lost, stop shitting up threads on this board you dumb boomer faggot.

>>4374764
>what the fuck are these cameras doing?
Post-processing faggotry.

>I never see peoples skin in real life with the texture so exaggerated like this.
Nobody does.
Amateur photographers, "enthusiasts", "professionals (retards doing it for $$$), and normies are all fucking retarded too and use in-camera JPEGs (manufacturer post-processing) or Adobe presets (Adobe post-processing).

The biggest offender for skin looking like absolute shit is contrast fuckery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking

People are so fucking retarded they attribute this to digital, when it's just software. You get the same fucking problems when you let retards be in control of scanning the film. Aka, most labs. Every time people say digital looks too sharp they're unknowingly referring to the overbaked post-processing bullshit used, which applies to anything it gets used on whether it's film or digital.

All that said the woman in OP's pic is a makeup goblin with scarred skin covered in goypaste (foundation) and painted over with more goypaste (makeup) so you're not even looking at a human here, but a a product. It's a shitty mud painting captured with a camera probably shot as JPEG by some moron and then edited with presets in photoshop. Nothing is supposed to look normal here.

>>4375308
The people who shoot photos and edit them without shooting RAW are the people who rent Adobe spyware and watch Indians on YouTube for tutorials on how to use the generative AI slop to turn their shit pictures into CGI.

>>4375412
No, people who don't use RAW just have the jpgs go to their phone using the bluetooth app and edit them with whatever editor they have on their phone. Or they just put them on instagram and use the editing tools on that.

>>4375352
Only wrongfags seethe this hard desu

Rightchads we fucking won

>>4375348
And other things digislugs tell themselves to cope with buying a $10,000 SNOY for 2 ok pictures of a rock and a leaf. Go to the museum. Most good photography is film.

>>4375421
>Most good photography is film.
Because film has infinite resolution.

Besides that, most other good photography is in a studio or lab. Often times with scanback cameras (samples one line at a time, in full RGB no interpolation, but slowly) which completely BTFO any bayer/tranny nonsense.

>>4375428
Fuckin hell, you're exhausting

>>4375429
He's a schizo retard. Ignore him. Or re-post 5dsr anon's images if you want to see him meltdown.

>>4375421
>Go to the museum. Most good photography is film.
Most "good photography" in museums is there because of its content, not it's technical quality. And most of the content that finds itself in a museum happened well in the past before digital was viable. Also many modern "artists" who care about having their work in museums are pretentious and continue to use film because of "soul" and shit like that.

>>4375481
Almost all professional and fine art photography is now digital and has been for a while. 2013 was the first time I got to compare 80mp MF to 4x5, 60" prints, at Rodney Lough Jr.'s gallery on the Vegas strip. There was no technical advantage to 4x5 at that size, the 80mp print was stunning, nose on print. He still shoots film but I believe now primarily shoots a Phase One IQ4 on a 4x5. If there was any sacrifice in technical quality he would not do that.

wow she is pretty

how do you even cleanup skin on digital bro

>>4375803
you turn sharpening and "local contrast" faggot shit off and disable your shitty meme contrast curve edits
it's that simple

muh
muh
MUH
I WANT SHARPER IMAGE THO!!!!
Then buy a fucking sharper lens or get a tripod.
When you take a blurry photo you get a blurry image. When you try to shine your blurry shit photo with meme post-processing skin gets memed hard.
Stop trying to be an "artist" and just use a sharp lens and disable the bullshit and use good lighting.

If someone actually has bad skin (acne) you can edit that out easily.

>>4375805
>post processing destroys skin
Just use a fucking subtraction mask. Photoshop is a tool and people (You) can learn how to use it. Completely possible to isolate the people in an image and still clean up the rest of it. Completely right in saying not to fuck the shot up from the get-go, but let's be honest, it's only a matter of time until you find yourself needing to salvage a less-than-ideal shot.

>>4375805
Is there a way to soften the image without it looking like you used a disposable camera lens? I genuinely think some images are too sharp, I want something that's not shit quality but also not so sharp you can make out the pores on people's skin

>>4375809
there's no such thing as an image that's too sharp
post an example of a photo that you think is too sharp
I guarantee it isn't too sharp, just baked in post-processing

perfect sharpness is the ideal in every single possible circumstance outside of things you want to deliberately blur or obscure

>>4375809
unfortunately agree with >>4375814, except sharpening is probably baked into the sensor processing these days to "win" cropfests.

>>4374808
"sorry, I can't get you the photos right now over bluetooth, I gotta head home and post process all these shots, then get them to you"

>>4375814
>there's no such thing as an image that's too sharp
unless you photograph women for living and the sharper the image is the more one can see every single blemish on their face that you will have to spend hours editing out

Is it worth getting an a7c over an a7iii if I can save $200

It's the same sensor and the a7c gets a cool flip screen right? I've never gone FF before so idk how important the front dial is on the a7iii

I'm also looking into a6400 and just using primes to make up for shitty low light performance

>>4376194
>a cool flip screen

>>4376185
Post a single example of an image that's too sharp.
I'll tell you why it's not.

>>4376194
I would pay the $200 just for the larger viewfinder. Missing a dial may not matter if you're only shooting Av with auto ISO, however while that's what I'm using most of the time I prefer using the front dial to adjust aperture over the rear one. Also as someone who has both a first gen A7 which has a similar size grip to the A7c and an A7R III I much prefer the grip on the latter.

>>4376194
>throwing your money down the drain on a toy snoy
Buy a Canon or Nikon anon.

Poorfag here, would it be worth getting a A7c over a a7iii if it's $200 cheaper? Like I could get a couple of primes vs one 50mm for the a7iii

My options are those but I'm not sure how important a front dial is or an extra couple of custom buttons

Or I could get a canon or Sony crop and spend an extra $600 I saved from the body on lenses to uncuck the camera in low light

>>4376244
Moot you fucking faggot you made me post the same post because your shitty captchas

>>4376219
I heard only canon and Sony crop are worth a damn because Nikon can't work out decent autofocus

>>4376206
Good insight anon, with previous cameras I found I like the viewfinder a lot more than the back screen for composition.

>>4376198
It is cool, you gotta pay an extra 1.5k for the premium fag A7 with a flip out screen

Not worry it imo

>>4376250
Not worth it

>>4376194
Forget getting a crop sensor
Can’t replace low light high iso performance of a full frame
Your low iso pictures will also be that much cleaner/flexible

>>4376246
Nikon AF literally mogs Snoy these days

>>4376253
Compared to the a7iv, a7c, etc the tracking, speed, and accuracy are the same.

The ZF has some nice gimmicks that sony didn't add until later (user configurable area, auto subject detect, vehicle detect, etc) but the actual focusing part mostly peaked around the a7c and canon r6ii and nikon just finally caught up. Nothing life changing. People just used tracking squares before vehicle detect.

The Z8, Z9, and Z6III dont count because they're APS-C, not full frame
The R5II, R1, and R3 and A7RIV, A7RV, and A9III are also APS-C to be fair!

>>4376323
>Everything is APS-C
wat

>>4376194
In all honesty, get the A7CII. It will be better than either of those cameras.

>>4376390
He's looking to save money and you send him to the brand new expensive one you dumbass coon shill

>>4376388
>he doesnt know
Nikon invented the aps-c full frame camera and then sony and canon jumped on the bandwagon

It turns out all anyone wanted was for aps-c to be bigger and more expensive

>>4376244
If you’re budget limited and shooting stills get a DSLR. You can get higher IQ and more/better glass for your money. If you go EF your lenses will work perfectly on a future RF body, even with IBIS/IS coordination.

If you want to shoot video a used R6 gives you oversampled 4k60 with the low light capability of an A7s II/III (better than the III actually) plus faster shooting, better AF, better IBIS, and you can still buy EF glass to save money.

>>4376497
DSLR is a dead platform anon, not worth it when mirrorless cameras are under 1k now

Anyone buying into it would eventually have to sell all their DSLR gear and buy buy mirrorless anyway, especially if they wanted to get into video.

>>4376390
A7cii is double the price and has no real features apart from the Sony "colour science" meme and bad ai gimmicks

>>4376518
It has a front control dial.

>>4376518
The a7cii is actually worse. The 33mp sensor has more inherent noise than the old 24mp sensor. On top of EFCS always being slightly noisier on any camera.

All for some worthless video specs only needed by people that use box cams. The a7riii’s 42mp sensor was also better than the riv and rv for noise. And now nikon and canon joined the ff price, apsc dr club…
Cameras are getting worse in the name of spec sheet vanity.

I can not blame anyone for abandoning the DSLR because SLRs are a bad design period and cameras should not, regardless of how a local tripfag compensates for his hilariously tiny penis, be that big.

But this apsc dr full frame shit is ass.

File: meds.jpg (25 KB, 512x497)

25 KB JPG

>>4376522
>The a7cii is actually worse. The 33mp sensor has more inherent noise than the old 24mp sensor. On top of EFCS always being slightly noisier on any camera.

>>4376525
These are measurable facts. Sony sold you an inferior product and called it an upgrade.

The a7c and a7iii can get between 9 and 10 FPS with 14 bit raws. The a7iv and a7cii can only shoot 6-7fps with full raws. They only hit 10fps with 12 bit *compressed* raws, which limits them to the dynamic range of an APS-C sensor and introduces artefacts if you push any edits

It is a downgrade for anything but the useless 4k60 shit

>>4376515
>muh dead platform
Canon EF lenses and newer Nikon F lenses work fine on mirrorless bodies. You lose nothing by starting with a DSLR when you're on a budget. Thinking you have to consoom the 'latest gear' when on a budget just leaves you stuck with consumer build bodies and kit lenses.

>not worth it when mirrorless cameras are under 1k now
Which 20-50mp professional build FF mirrorless body is under $1k?

>Anyone buying into it would eventually have to sell all their DSLR gear and buy buy mirrorless anyway
No, they would just have to add a mirrorless body when ready.

>>4376531
You lose the inspiration to take that non stabilized blob+bazooka out of the house
>but i need professional ff mirrorless to replace a dslr!
you can buy a z6ii or silver top a7c for under $1k with patience and a local market. And the r7 is a dirt cheap professional dx sports body if thats your thing.

or stop being a wanker, xt4/a6500 are cheap.

File: Screenshot 2024-10-21 at (...).jpg (340 KB, 1144x1156)

340 KB JPG

>>4376522
>I can not blame anyone for abandoning the DSLR because SLRs are a bad design period
They're a good design with some advantages like power efficiency. It wasn't until the last few years that EVFs were worth a shit compared to an OVF.

>and cameras should not, regardless of how a local tripfag compensates for his hilariously tiny penis, be that big.
Gym issue. Also: I always marvel at size arguments when FF mirrorless setups are often as large and heavy as their DSLR counterparts, even worse in some cases. If size/weight are actually issues then you should be shooting a really compact apsc setup.

>>4376525
No, he's right on that one. The 33mp sensor is worse at high ISO than the 24mp sensor. If you don't ever need those ISOs then hey, no big deal. But if you do...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1144
Image Height	1156

>>4376540
>gym issue
It’s 4lb vs 2lb. Not a gym issue.

Are you really an artist if you dont care about your own aesthetics?

-sent from my leica

>>4376540
optical rangefinder digitals also have power efficiency. but without mirror slap and blackout.

a shame sports and wildlife photography exist or we would have gotten optically zooming ORFs with holographic framelines from 16mm to 200mm

>>4376533
>You lose the inspiration to take that non stabilized blob+bazooka out of the house
Plenty of stabilized lenses and an equivalent FF mirrorless setup is almost always going to be just as big and heavy. Seriously, why do people make this argument? Do they spend all day at camerasize.com looking at pics of bodies? Do a few mm's or ounces really make that much difference after you attach the lens?

There have been times when I didn't feel like carrying a FF DSLR or mirrorless and grabbed my EOS M. But in that case the size/weight difference is huge, the M+22 is P&S territory. After attaching a lens there's really no practical difference in size/weight between my FF EF and RF bodies.

>you can buy a z6ii or silver top a7c for under $1k with patience and a local market.
Or get a 36-50mp DSLR for even less. Nothing wrong with going for the mirrorless option if you need video, I even discussed that. But if you're pure stills then you can put together a killer DSLR kit on a budget. 20-24mp is even cheaper meaning more money for glass. I'm not saying someone has to go this route, there are reasons to start with mirrorless, but "muh dead system" is simply not one of them unless you're looking at Minolta/Sony DSLRs.

>apsc
I would never tell a newbie to go apsc just to have mirrorless over a FF DSLR. For a stills shooter that would be retarded unless they were specifically looking for an ultra-compact setup and not a main system camera.

>>4376543
Show me equivalent FF setups with pro glass and a 2lb difference. Apart from a pancake lens (if you're not on Sony lol) it doesn't work out that way.

>>4376552
Wew lad
Never seen a wronger gearfag outside of /mft/

>>4376557
Its probably the same essay writing schizo

>>4376557
>nooo don't buy the pro build dslr with pro lenses
>it's a DEAD SYSTEM OMG!!!
>and omg it's soooo heavy, like...totally
>spend your money on this consumer build apsc with a kit lens instead

>>4376567
>Be a poorfag contrarian loser like me and buy some ugly bulky 20yo dslr
Gross. Imagine walking around in public with one of those things lmao.

>>4376571
>i need my camera to accessorize my dress and purse
You could have been a man, but you will never be a woman.

>>4376572
>obsessed with trannies
How am i not surprised lmao

>>4376574
Not obsessed, you just don't pass is all.

>>4376571
This is something a autistic terminally online 4chan dork would say


irl no one gives a fuck 90% of normies are carrying entry level canon rebels or nikon d3500s when you see someone with a camera

>resorts to samefagging

>>4376588
Not me, I would have just called you a tranny again.

>>4376588
im not even the same poster, i just saw your asinine post thats completely out of touch with reality. truth is people arent judgemental of others irl as they are on a anonymous website because they can get punched in the face for stating their opinion.

and this is a camera autism board, your average person's photography experience is likely either a smartphone or a 10 year old entry level dslr they got at best buy for $3-500 dollars with the kit lens. having anything more than that = no one gives a fuck unless they have some ridiculous riced out beast of a camera setup then they chalk them up to "professional photographer"

File: fat.jpg (275 KB, 1584x937)

275 KB JPG

You can't argue that DSLRs aren't fat. The size difference isn't quite so significant with a lens attached (I could cherry pick some setups with bigger differences) but it's still there, and it's not all about length. Also the Nikon setup is 550g heavier.

>>4376609
I won't argue they're not. It's a feature. I had a Sony a7r3, it was awful to hold. The grip wasn't big enough, so I had to squeeze it tighter to get a good grip, but the body is so squashed that my knuckles rubbed against the lens. It's not well suited to a hand, it's like trying to grip a rubics cube. It's awful. The egonomics are trash, the color is garbage, the lenses are overpriced.

3/10, at least it's not m43

>>4376614
Sony has terrible ergonomics. Try holding a Nikon or Canon smaller body mirrorless.

>>4376621
Canon looks okay. If I ever went mirrorless, I'd probably get a Panasonic S1 because it's basically a DSLR body (and that's a good thing)

>>4376614
Works fine for me, but I don't have particularly chunky hands.

>>4376614
>the lenses are overpriced

Sony gives you the most choice of third party lenses unlike canon

You could also use vintage glass

>>4376626
>Third party
Nobody wants to use poorly designed chinkshit because theres no first party options

File: sigma.jpg (362 KB, 2048x1152)

362 KB JPG

>>4376630
>blocks your path

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.2 (Windows)
Photographer	Dustin Abbott
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:03:23 16:28:39
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Exposure Bias	-1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

people that whine about sony color science have never learned to edit beyond slapping on some garbage influence preset on a subject in shitty light because they also only shoot NaTurAl LiGht

stop being a momtographer and learn2PP

>>4376642
>He wastes time editing his pics because his camera sucks
Get a better camera

>>4376414
>>4376518
Not in my country, the price of an A7CII body is less than the price of a used A7C with a kit lens in some cases. The pricing here is extremely negligible.

>>4376642
>NaTurAl LiGht
aka Best Light... also the cheapest

File: Screenshot_20241021-224934.png (1.03 MB, 1080x2027)

1.03 MB PNG

>>4376648
Here a A7C II is $1800-2300 vs the $1000-1400 a A7C costs. I prefer the A7C over the A7III because the autofocus is more finely polished somewhere between the 3 and 4, and the smaller form factor means you're more likely to slap a 24-70, 16-50, or prime on it and go take it places.

>>4376645
My thoughts on xtrans exactly!

Sony color science is good except for auto white balance in video on the v2 and v3 models. /p/ - photography has been unknowingly parroting a skill issue vlogtard gripe. The v1 models actually have the best color science in FF mirrorless period and make canon RF colors look sickly and drab. .

>>4376614
Great camera if you’re sane and use f1.8 lenses instead of f1.2 lenses and gigazooms like a jared polin tier photographer

>>4376580
No its something everyone says. DSLRs are inconvenient and hideous regardless of the dicklets claiming to be more masculine for “muscling around” 2 whole extra pounds. Its not muscle burning weight, but it is inconvenient and obnoxious size. Japans inability to miniaturize DSLRs is what drove the switch to mirrorless which was rapid and thorough enough to literally kill nikon, keep panasonic on life support, elevate fuji and make the x100 series the best selling cameras short of sony.

To the contrary its only predominantly nerdy male websites and vlogs that recommend DSLRs and call them fun, better, good enough, etc. like snappiness shit. mildly autistic man cameras 100%.

>>4376609
Now show the 40mm f2.5, the 20-70 f4, 24-50 f2.8, the 70-200 f4 macro, the 90mm f2.8 dg dn, the zeiss loxias, tamron 28-75 and 70-180 etc.

Mirrorless is small excludes the holy trinity of professional journalism lenses and extreme cinema prime level glass marketed to prosumers like the ultrasharp f1.2s and f1.4s. If you shoot with a 35mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8, f2.8 primes, and middle tier zooms mirrorless is tiny. Show me a DSLR that can equal an a7c+samyang 75mm f1.8. Optically too. Compared to SLR compact glass that “ok” lens is tack sharp.

You would have to compare to a rangefinder mount instead because thats what mirrorless is. Rangefinderless rangefinders.

>>4376810
sony DSLRs were literally called unusable junk that real photographers didnt touch

and then mirrorless happened and every real photographer bought a sony. and people say its a meaningless switch because the sharpest f2.8 zoom on earth is almost as big as their much worse F mount one? only in autism hangouts like 4chan, where so called normies dont know what was shrigma males do

>>4376810
Again I know more normies than you. 60% of their experience with actual motherfucking nigger ass cameras is confined to what they got as a gift from their significant other from Best Buy. Usually a entry level Canon Rebel or Nikon D3500. And that's IF they even got that far. Most of them are perfectly satisfied with the photos off their iPhone and fell for the marketing of megapixel counts.

The other 35% had hopes of being the next vlogger so they picked up a newer APSC meant for video. And 5% are photography nerds.

Literally no one gives a fuck about this hobby and the market for it gets smaller every year as phones get better. Again, I had to explain to MULTIPLE normies their iPhone could never get the photos I can take with even a entry level camera because it doesn't have the glass or sensor to do it. They don't even know what the fuck a camera sensor even does half the time and you have to explain to them why a bigger one is better. You overestimate normie opinions and underestimate their ignorance of basic facts.

>>4376817
Sorry you live in fucking alabama but here in seattle aka civilization its fuji sony leica olympus and sometimes a film camera all day long on the streets and when I visit NY its not much different. People dont use DSLRs. Dunno about the scene in places where no one besides conservative and uncreative factory and farm workers break the median income ie: spokane, walla walla, where you live but used entry level e waste sounds about right for places where its hard to find a tesla driver under 40.

>visit my mom on vancouver island
>only cameras i see are leicas, x100vis, and snoys
>think i saw an older white guy with a canon RF body and white bazooka but it could have been another sony
Remember the pricetags on these cameras, folx. And what social class up to date photo tech has always been sold to. The cheap 35mm SLRs you use in /fgt/ were the economic equivalent of a canon r5ii in their day.

Its not a normie hobby. The fact that its been around long enough for normies to afford yesterdays high end cameras if they’re a little dedicated is a testament to capitalisms effectiveness. If you’re not speaking to people who make over six figures or photograph for a living you’re not speaking to canikony-systemsonic wetzlar’s primary customer base. They are $2000+ toys, before lenses.

>>4376820
I'm in NYC lol.

Trust me again, you're overestimating normie opinions. Maybe in your Capitol Hill hipster circlejerk of photography major dropouts, but I work with a bunch of 40-55 year olds at a state job. Out of 34 people we have like 6 with actual cameras and 3 of them are genuinely camera enthusiasts. One has been shooting since he was 16 (he's a old Chinese guy in his late 40s...he has ridiculously good pictures that make anyones jaws drop even pics of 9/11, he mostly shoots Nikon with a Z30/Z7II now), another has a beat to fuck D810 he takes everywhere that the shutter started malfunctioning on, and I have a Z50.

You're missing the point. Most people do not care about cameras. Peak camera sales was right before iPhones got decent with photos probably around 2014-15. And even then most of the shooters I see are using some pos entry level DSLR they bought years ago. But I'm not a yuppie or hipster fag.

>>4376827
>gen X fags in a government job
Tracks. People are buying ILCs and large sensor point and shoots. You’re just not anywhere near those people.

For starters most of us are asian and have attended college or are attending college.

Photography has always been like this. When the OM-1n was brand new it was for us and the yous of the time had kodak brownies.

>>4376832
Not only is this true, china and HK (note: taiwan is part of china) bought fuji’s entire stock of x100vis. For themselves. Not to scalp.

>>4376820
>here in seattle aka civilization
Is it mandatory that civilization have feces on its paved surfaces?

>>4376840
>taiwan is part of china
t. asleep since 1949

>>4376812
>Mirrorless is small excludes all the best lenses
kek, might as well shoot m43 since you won't go to the gym.

>>4376810
>>4376812
>>4376815
samefagging schizo. One post is enough, we don't want to read your essays.

>>4376909
drink some coffee slowtalker

if you cant bang out 300wpm in the morning you’re living your life incorrectly

>>4376911
>banging out 300 wpm about some autistic preference that has nothing to do with photography

>>4376913
drink more coffee.

>>4376917
I would recommend having something of substance to say first, then you don't have to spend multiple posts trying to get one coherent point across while pretending that your stream-of-consciousness rambling (or stimulant addiction) is enviable.

>>4376924
>t. cant afford coffee
just made another espresso

>>4376926
>t. can't function without stimulants
Just had another coherent thought myself.

>>4374760
Why does this "bad color science" only manifest in youtube reviews and only as an obvious white balance error (look at her shirt) and usually when being compared by someone who shills panasonic/fuji?

Why do people have to photoshop it in to memes?

"Snoy green tint" was an auto white balance bug on the a7iii under certain kinds of artificial light. It only applied to vloggoids using AWB under cheap fluorescents and LEDs. I heard there were also a few bad adobe lightroom profiles that looked 10x worse than the jpegs, but I've always used capture one because adobe has always made junk.

>>4376953
Found the newfag. Shitty snoy color science has always been a thing since the first a100 DSLR 20 years ago.

>>4376956
Early sony DSLRs were praised for their excellent color. It was the only thing they had going for them.

The same A mount lenses get a7s most of the way there. Try one like the 50mm f1.7 or that funky 100mm portrait lens.

>>4376961
No, Sony has always had the worst color science.

>>4376982
No. Sony had always had the best.

>>4376961
>Early sony DSLRs were praised for their excellent color. It was the only thing they had going for them.
You are literally the only person I have ever come across that has said this lmao
You must be from the rare mandela timeline where Sony didnt have bad color science

>>4377009
>there's a timeline where sony had good color
I don't believe it.

>>4377017
Maybe the minolta dimage cameras had good colors????

File: _AAK4972.jpg (3.57 MB, 6000x4000)

3.57 MB JPG

>>4376640

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	DC-S5M2
Camera Software	Adobe Lightroom 9.5.0 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:10:18 12:48:51
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
F-Number	f/1.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/1.2
Exposure Bias	0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>ugly green skin tones
>cameras and lenses break easily
>overpriced
why do people buy Sony again?

>>4377358
Because what you are posting is not actually true. You have to rely on faked and misrepresented info and 24/7 spamming on /p/ to feel like it is.

And the you touch grass and it isn’t anymore.

Yes, it is that simple.

Did you accomplish anything? Are ya winning son?

>>4377359
>open /p/
>sony is the worst! the s5ii nailed the coffin shut! its over! this is what happens when a SNOY sees rain!
>leave /p/
>some idiot threw his sony in the ocean, and panasonics eat their batteries when turned off

File: Class-action-lawsuit-file(...).jpg (132 KB, 1200x1093)

132 KB JPG

>>4377359
>class action lawsuit
>"nooo it's not true it's some dude who threw his sony in the ocean"
Sony is #1 in cope.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Comment	Screenshot
Image Width	1200
Image Height	1093

>>4377393
pentax, nikon, and canon have all had bad batches like these. big deal. ancient history.

>>4377393
>water destroys camera
>"just dont use it near water!"
>color science makes everything green
>"just dont shoot in jpeg!"
>firmware update bricks camera
>"just dont update!"
>camera part falls apart
>"just don't touch it!"
>shutter mechanism gets bent
>"just dont take photos!"
>proceeds to write an essay blog on other brands rent free
Sony cope will never not be funny

>>4377445
strawman. sad. you are so obsessed. sony has moved their hq to your head to save on rent.

>>4377413
Which one of them faced a class action?
>sony

>>4377661
>Pentax
https://www.classaction.org/news/ricoh-usas-pentax-cameras-plagued-by-picture-ruining-exposure-defect-class-action-alleges
>Nikon
https://www.slrlounge.com/settlement-reached-nikon-d600-class-action-lawsuit-offers-new-d610/

Canon also faced a class action for the 5D but it didn't seem to go anywhere.

>>4377708
>nikon fucked up so bad they had to replace the cameras
And still you dont hear of their other problems like consistent, dslr and mirrorless, tendency to have tilted viewfinders until you leave the snoy hate, pentaxnikonpanalympus shilling circlejerk of /p/

Anons I'm going to do it and fall for the a7c meme

I can get one used for $800, any recommendations for lenses?

>>4377734
40mm f2.5 (it was made for that camera)

>>4377734
>>4377735
Get the viltrox version for 1/4th the price if you decide to go with a 40/2.5. No need to buy overpriced snoy.

>>4377708
So what you’re telling me is that Sony, Nikon, and Pentax have had failure rates so high that they triggered/supported class actions? And only with Canon can it truly be said any reports of failure are “just a few bad examples like in any production line”? In other words out of the four only Canon knows how to build cameras?

Awesome, glad I chose the right brand and didn’t get cucked. Explains why Sony is stuck at #2 despite going FF mirrorless years before Canon.

>>4378496
or canon cucks just lap up the issues and cope with "guess i got a bad batch" and let it continue happening

>>4380128
Weird roundabout projection. Those are Sony fanboy qualities.

>>4378496
Canon should have been sued 4 times so far but hasn’t been because instead they fixed the individual cameras.
>ONE: 5d mirror fiasco
>TWO: 5div green lining from miscalibrated sensors. If you were insistemt enough CPS would fix it. NOT a design flaw or the limits of their tech. Manufacturing flaw. Many people ignored this and coped.
>THREE: R6-1 firmware fiasco
>FOUR: the r5ii, enough said
All they did different was fix cameras eventually.

Sony, nikon, pentax, etc got sued because they denied responsibility. Canon’s tech support has always been top notch if you actually used it.

>>4378496
hey canuck, when are you going to sue canon for cheating their DXO scores with raw noise reduction?

>>4381614
So... you're telling me that issues can occur regardless of the maker, and it's more about how they respond to the issues than if issues every arise.
Congrautlations, a rational statement on 4chan. Too bad it'll be ignored by the snoygoys

>>4381614
Did not realize canon was so BASED.

>>4381618
Because sony still makes better cameras for most people, with better colors. So much better that shills gotta lie to cope.

File: sony_color_science_lol.jpg (114 KB, 600x900)

114 KB JPG

>>4381623
>with better colors
lmao

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand

>>4381659
Yes. This looks like nikon despite the non gelled direct flash. Sony is the best. Deal w it.

>>4381563
Considering Sony users and Nikon users actually filed class action to hold manufacturers responsible and Canon users didn't, no, it really doesn't sound like projection at all.