If you're willing to accept the limitations of battery life, I'd suggest the R8. Gearfagging is a waste of money ultimately. If you can take a good picture with an R6, then you can take it with an R8.

Soon I will purchase a d780 and be set for the next 6 years. Looking forward to f-mount glass devaluing even more as the years pass by.

>>4380502
>However the amount of faging people do about FF just being overall superior is causing me to be indecisive.
You shouldn't worry about it, you won't notice the difference. That being said, if you're asking the question you will worry about it, so I think you should try full frame for yourself so that way you don't have to worry anymore, after that you'll know how you feel about full frame and there won't be any more questions.

>I personally am about to drop $2k AUD on a new Canon and want people to tell me I'm retarded one way or the other
You're retarded, you should buy a 5diii save yourself a lot of money while losing nothing on image quality.

>>4380508
R10 uses the same battery and I'm not *super* dissapointed with it. I realise the bigger sensor will impact the life but it's honestly not a huge concern. People call the R8 the R6II lite and I get it; I'm just wondering if the slightly outdated sensor and bigger size/weight is worth going R6. Losing the joystick seems a bit gay, but IBIS sounds like a meme.

>>4380512
I'm still shooting with a D600 so I can share lenses with my F5. I have to clean the sensor more often than I wish, but other than that, I don't really miss anything that newer cameras offer. If film was cheap and plentiful again I'd probably go back to film-only.

>>4380514
IBIS can be useful in landscape shots, for example, if you don't have a tripod. But if the light is plentiful than it's not necessary, and a tripod is ideal anyways. not worth it, in my opinion. Glass is more important, ultimately.

>>4380513
>you should buy a 5diii save yourself a lot of money
I almost exclusively own RF lenses. The only thing I would get to keep is my EF 100mm Macro, and have to rebuild another $2k in lenses (yes EF will be cheaper)
I get your point but I've gone mirrorless and don't particularly want to relive my 70D days, even if I could.

>>4380518
You don't have to start over. Just pick up one or two EF lenses you find intersting, they can always be adapted to RF or if you don't like them you won't lose much selling them back once you've experienced full frame.

I'm not just saying it because mirrorless bad (it is, but that's not the point). You'd spend a lot less money than you would buying a new camera outright and then you can decide which new mirrorless canon to buy with an informed opinion on full frame.

>>4380518
This, I've had a 5DIV for like a 8 years now and I've never once figured of buying a new body. Buy once cry once.

Don't buy the R7. You might enjoy the FoV (just sell your 24mm and buy the 35mm etc.), but sensor size/tech will improve your image IQ and clarity. Not to mention the lower pixel pitch gives you a slight edge in astro. 24MP is basically a sweet spot. You won't miss IBIS as long as you're using IS lenses (and non-IS is perfectly fine as long as you're not retarded with the shutter speed). Small battery is just a slight inconvenience if you already have spares.

Maybe. MAYBE I could see buying the R7 if you're a birder or on a tighter budget, but if you already own full-sized RF glass, you've already paid the largest part of the cost. Why half-ass yourself now; if you bought the full sized lenses "in case of an upgrade later", this is that later.

>>4380515
Nice, the oil spot issue turned me off of getting one for a steal. Just got annoyed playing around with RAW sample photos and noticed it was an issue with the reviewer's camera.
One draw of the d780 for me is its acceptable auto focus for video, the video quality itself, and bsi sensor for high iso shots (birds).

File: Lightroom_1B7tLxEOkv.png (1.29 MB, 1946x1367)

1.29 MB PNG

whats a digital camera that doesn't do pic related?
also any way to fix this?

File: 1720945257391849.jpg (203 KB, 720x720)

203 KB JPG

>>4380593
>be bought a camera without an antialiasing filter
lol, dare I even say lmao

>>4380502
I'm not goign to tell ya to buy a full frame, but if you decide to go ff, pick either R8 (I have it and it's a great camera), or if you NEED (not nice to have, but need) IBIS and dual meme card slots, buy R6ii. In general, with R8 you can do anything and you won't need to upgrade ever. I shoot everything with mine, and it's truly a great camera. The only downside is kinda poor battery life, although it lasts for a full football game for me so that's ok.

>>4380593
No AA filter lmao. Did the previous owner say anything about it?
>>4380596
IBIS is a meme, and dual cards don't seem necessary for unpaid shoots. The gimped battery sucks but oh well. The only thing I can think is an issue is the lack of a joystick

File: IMG_7813.jpg (341 KB, 3590x3590)

341 KB JPG

Tried to clean and grease up an old manual Orestor 100mm f2.8 with a sticky focus ring. I also accidentally ended up de-clicking it, and the markings on the lens side are now just slightly off-center. Not sure if I should take this as a win or be the autist I am and try fixing it.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 200D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 24.0 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	718 dpi
Vertical Resolution	718 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:02 14:58:49
Exposure Time	1/80 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3590
Image Height	3590
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4380593
>>4380595
>>4380604
My D850 (which doesn't haven an AA filter) doesn't have this problem. Also, you can easily fix this in Light Room. Just look up tutorials on youtube.

>>4380644
oh yeah, the effect is called "moiree pattern"

>>4380644
You can absolutely have moire with a D850

>>4380628
I have autistically done the same a couple of times. Usually a small metal ball that lies in a slot.

>>4380515
>>4380512
D800 and F65 here.
Really love the Nikon lens compatability.

>>4380713
Thanks, you were right, it was a small spring that had come off its slot. Opening the casing and making the small adjustments was a lot quicker the second time around.

File: 1640573899788.jpg (78 KB, 1242x1230)

78 KB JPG

>buy my first big boy light, a GVM SD300D
>have some GVM light panels that work fine so assume this one will be great for $200
>finally arrived today and it has a weird pulsating with the power output
Guess I'm returning this shit immediately and getting a Nanlite like I originally wanted to. Just not sure if I should go with the FS300B which isn't much more expensive than this GVM or one of their Forza lights that someone is selling locally for $450 (it's an original 300B, not the 300B II which everone seems to think is considerably better). Anyone know enough about lights to tell me if it's worth the extra couple hundred bucks?

File: IMG_20241024_124335334~2.jpg (899 KB, 2296x2451)

899 KB JPG

Post gear, fags

My EDC is the ZV1 and once I get a bunch of big expenses out the way I'm probably gonna sell the Z50 for a A7C with a 28-200mm Lens. I kinda wanted a 5D Mk4 but the Snoys seem better to carry around.

>>4380928
I picked up a used a7c recently, just waiting on my tamron zoom to arrive

I played around with an a7iii before and the grip is much nicer but I know with lenses they're gonna be heavier and annoying to carry around for what I want to shoot (skateboarding)

File: P1010086_copy.jpg (166 KB, 1152x768)

166 KB JPG

>>4380928
okie doke. Macro gear.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL7
Camera Software	Version 1.4
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	0000:00:00 00:00:00
Exposure Time	1/25 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3072
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

Got a very good deal on R7 (not OP btw) which I pair with my old sugma 150-600 for wildlife.
Now I want something wide-angle I can take with me innawoods.
Turns out there is a huge market of cheap Chinese manuals nowadays with supposedly decent IQ and since my camera has both IBIS and focus peaking, I don't really see the downsides of getting something like TTArtisan 10mm f/2 and 23 mm f1.4 (And I can get them both together for about 220bux here) instead of coughing up 300+ for canon's rf 10-18, or two times that for sugma.
What do you guys think.

>>4381363
Adapt the superior ef-s 10-18

>>4381364
Don't have one
Everyone keeps saying R7 sensor is too much for older zooms, would ef-s 10-18 really work better than a faster chink prime IQ-wise?
F/2 would also be nice for some astro

I fucking hate dealing with Ukrainians and Russians.
Wish they didn't have all that old gear I'm interested in buying.

>>4381363
>i just need a smaller sensor for my smegma superzoooooooom!
>i just need more reeeeeeeeeeeeeeach!
>i need it for wildliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiife!
Great, even worse snapshits in the birb threads incoming

>>4381392
wildlife is only one step above street, so I'd be careful before you start getting up on your high horse there friendo.

>>4381392
Why are you mad.
Yeah, reach is great if you are exploring rough terrain.
Wetlands and swamps, mountains and hills, proper forests.
You know, all the places where you cannot move around easily and rarely have the option to just take 10 steps forward to get closer to your subject. Hence why all them super professionals with their 10k$+ in gear use coooonveeertooooors with their larger sensors.

Unless all you do is chasing squirrels at city parks or going to designated birdwatching spots where everything is prepared for you (so you can take the same ten photos of the same ten birds flying over/sitting on the same ten stumps as every other photographer in the area) you do need reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeach.

>>4381396
Is there an official ranking of genres of photography /p/eople here hate the most?
Asking so I can piss off as many snobs as possible.

>>4381402
We hate photos of huskies and german shepherds

>>4381363
I own the TTartisan 25mm f/2 and it's rather good especially considering it's $60. It sits on my M43 camera, but the RF mount one is basically the same. Wide open it has some strong purple haze when directed at a light source, but otherwise is solid. I'm quite confident that most TTartisan lenses are cost-effective.
>>4381383
The high MP count doesn't really gain anything over the 24MP sensors since you're asking way too much from your lens sharpness. Even the most optically superb 1st party lenses will only gain so much, and 3rd party bargain finds are only going to struggle further.
>f/2 would be nice for astro
I would personally suggest the RF 24mm f/1.8 but that's, well, $550? A better all-rounded lens, but considering you'll manual focus for astro anyway, $60-200 sounds smarter.

>>4381402
>ranking of generes
Yes it goes like this:
>Anything someone else took that isn't flawless
Bad photo

File: Orion Nebula EdgeHD 8s 25(...).jpg (706 KB, 2000x2000)

706 KB JPG

>>4380502
IMHO you should decide between the R6 and the R7.
>but R8
An extra 4mp and a faster e-shutter fps isn't worth giving up IBIS when the R6 can already do 12/20 fps. IMHO you also don't want to give up a full mech shutter. The appeal of the R8 is size (which isn't that much of a difference) and longer 4k recording time before thermal limit. The R6 is better built and sealed, with better ergonomics, a full mech shutter, a real battery, dual card slots, and oh yeah...industry leading IBIS. R6 is also a bit cleaner at the top ISOs (51k, 102k) which doesn't matter for most but is there.
>R7
Decent advantage for macro and a small advantage for landscapes (32mp compromised somewhat by being apsc). R6 will clobber it on astro or any lower light landscape. And unless you're printing your landscapes larger than 16x24, you've got plenty of megapickles already on the R6.

Having said that, the real difference in astro is having a mount that can handle multi-minute subs. A mount like that trumps your camera choice. I don't have one yet, I'm limited to 8-15s subs. But here's the thing: with the R6 I can produce in a single frame what used to take multiple subs, picrel. I've got another shot very much like this but it required several minutes worth of 8-10s subs. This is ONE 8s frame. It's not just how high you can push the ISO, it's how much you can do with the RAW file afterwards. So even if you get an expensive, pro astro mount capable of 10 minute subs, the R6 will do more with less total integration time.

IMHO the real deciding factor on R8 vs R6 is the 4k thermal limit. If you're primarily doing video on a gimbal or tripod, the R8 can record longer. But Canon's IBIS is huge for video so if you're doing hand held, you're back to the R6. R7 is a great camera but mainly for reach in birding and sports. And yes, that helps with macro too.

Personally, I would go R6. I can kind of understand if you go R7. But R8 doesn't make sense, go R6 if you want FF.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.12 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3648
Image Height	3648
Number of Bits Per Component	16, 16, 16
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2024:11:04 07:55:27
Exposure Time	8 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	25600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4381444
The R7 is slowly losing the fight in my mind; sure I get IBIS, dual cards, and better ergos... but that's it? Would also be better for macro, but worse for astro, so fuck me I guess.
It doesn't sound like it's worth the several thousand dollars to me. I'm just paranoid I will want to rebuild my lens selection with the new FoV granted by full frame.
The R8's smaller size and lower weight appeal to me. I don't have IBIS on my R10, and every lens I use except the 50mm f/1.8 has IS. The bigger battery of the R6 is a plus, but I can't say it's a dealbreaker. Having no joystick will suck though.

Honestly I'm swaying to the R8 as it seems friendlier for travel pictures thanks to the lower size/weight, and still provides a solid sensor for 4/5 of my photo generes. Macro will lose out on pixels-per-duck versus my R10 or R7, but I'm not even sure it'll be enough to notice since diffraction starts assfucking me.

>>4381454
I recommend a sony a7c

>>4381454
Having experienced R6 IBIS, I wouldn't choose to go without it. It boosts lenses with IS and opens up the field giving lenses without IS 4-6 stops of IS. It's killer for hand held video, even with non-IS lenses. To me the size difference vs the R8 (or RP) just isn't worth it. The R6 is about as small as I would want to go any way when using large lenses.

But if you have different priorities...everyone I've talked to who owns the R8 loves it, so I don't think it's a bad choice in any way.

>>4381458
>i recommend a camera that is worse in every way

File: snoy2.png (37 KB, 307x230)

37 KB PNG

>>4381458
Hahahahahahahaha. Snoy.
>>4381464
At this point I'm probably just going to flip a coin and be upset either way for one reason or another. Oh well, I'll report back when I bite the bullet.

>>4380502
>>4380518
>I do landscape, astro
buy a K-1
>I almost exclusively own RF lenses
never mind

>>4381464
A camera that is better in every way that matters to good photography? Yes. But enjoy your boomer-rific nose-smashing camcorder optimized for taking photos of pigeons and soccer. Art isn’t for everyone.

File: IMG_0706.jpg (100 KB, 680x1038)

100 KB JPG

>>4381486
but canon has the 4k 60 log gamma 10 bit vidyoh bro!!!!! with better ibis so i dont need a computer or that weird handle thing, and it makes the corners like trippy af fr no cap sick af bruh. no cap. finna make some sick as bluey fanvids where i marry chili (played by your mom). certified tiktok rizz W bruh. im gonna be famous.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	680
Image Height	1038
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: IMG_4128 Dumbbell Nebula M27.jpg (215 KB, 2400x1600)

215 KB JPG

>>4381486
>>4381488
>snoy samefag
>REEEEE HOW COULD YOU NOT RECOMMEND AN A7C FOR AN RF LENS OWNER!!!
Your shilling would be a little less obvious if you stuck to people who are actually interested in snoy. As for the camera comment, the R6 and R8 beat the A7C across the board. Which is why you can't list a single A7C feature that's better for 'good photography' despite making the accusation.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS R6
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop 25.12 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2400
Image Height	1600
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	216 dpi
Vertical Resolution	216 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:04 07:44:21
Exposure Time	8 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	25600
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2400
Image Height	1600
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4381554
Oh, and I forgot: another single frame 8s shot on the R6. Shouldn't even be able to see that nebula in a single 8s sub, but there it is. Pure high ISO performance. The R6 and R8 can do 4k60 by moonlight. With a fast prime (IS lens on the R8, any lens on R6) you can handhold moonlit shots. You don't even need a fucking tripod anymore to do night hiking shots, or something like a ghost town under full moon. ISO 12,800 is cleaner than ISO 100 35mm film straight out of camera RAW.

What can the A7C do again? I can't remember.

File: 20241104_162223.jpg (2.86 MB, 3794x2732)

2.86 MB JPG

Got these two bad boys in the mail today.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	samsung
Camera Model	Galaxy S24 Ultra
Camera Software	S928U1UES3AXI1
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	23 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Compression Scheme	JPEG Compression (Thumbnail)
Image Height	3000
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Image Created	2024:11:04 16:22:23
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	4000
Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Unique Image ID	HK0XLQE00SM
Image Height	3000
White Balance	Auto
Exposure Mode	Auto
Exposure Time	83/5000 sec
Flash	No Flash
F-Number	f/1.7
ISO Speed Rating	800
Image Width	4000
Focal Length	6.30 mm
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Light Source	Unknown

>>4381559
The same thing without gay gimmicks like 4k60. It also has normal full frame DR for its first gain stage instead of a missing stop hidden behind forced noise reduction.

In return for 4k60 (a useless gimmick) you get IBIS, better colors, better lenses, better battery life, and a better designed body that isn’t a blob. How better? Sony’s 28-70 f2 is half the size of canon’s. Their lenses are generally better.

>>4381572
>every feature advantage on the canon bodies is a "gay gimmick"
>still can't name one a7c advantage
LOL

>but muh ibis
R6 is far better
>but muh colors
LMFAO everyone hates Sony "color science."
>better lenses
Naked assertion.
>better body design that isn't a blob even though it's literally a blob with no grip
kek, enjoy your 1080p 8-bit cinematic slow downs, assuming there's enough light of course.

>>4381577
>r6
Blob
>everyone hates sony
Everyone prefers sony in blind tests.
>better lenses
Hows that larger 50mm f1.2 that vignettes more, mr superior mount? At least you got a buzzy pancake sony would be ashamed to release without labeling “tamron”.
>video specs babble
Photography? Buy an actual video camera. Video should be removed from all stills cameras.

>>4381483
Yeah I've made my bed now. Too bad since I actually really like the body and lens selection; I just can't be fucked investing in a whole new ecosystem. Was considering buying a D850 for a bit, but I have like $3k in canon lenses.
>>4381554
Thank you for being pragmatic about the lens:body situation. Snoygoy is a retard.
>>4381559
These astro frames are getting me hard. This might actually be the main reason I do end up just throwing the money down for foolframe.
>>4381571
Oh hohohoho, I spy some macro rails. Good man. Those look like they weight a tonne though; I just use this basic thing off amazon but I really wish it had the knob adjustments like picrel.
>>4381578
You're not winning this fight m8.
>ad hominem
>strawman
>singular cherrypicked example
Ah, the /pol/ sticky special.

>>4381599
Nah canuck lost as soon as he brought up niche video like slomo framerates

IRL i have a canon r6ii but its a single purpose camera that lives in a dry box with its gay zooms and makes money when it sees fresh air. sony is better for most people, but they cripple the cameras outside of the spurts models too hard for talentless low effort spray and pray to be used to shoot an event you don’t want to be at. If you used a canon at a fat bitches wedding set to shitty rap music 9 or 10 times you would be biased against the blob blasters too.

>>4381608
Alright, I'll bite. What exactly prevents you from taking the R6II out for personal shit? Or is it just the fact that it's your work tools and that's that? From what I've seen, heard, and reviewed personally, the R6II is king of mirrorless atm.

>>4381620
It’s just a fat piece of shit with a nice spec sheet. You do not need even half the features on it unless you are shooting events or sports. First dance video is a great phrase for talking about canon. Canon is first and foremost a professional brand, and if they could they would design every camera with a battery grip to hammer it home, in case smaller mirrorless being the exact same size as a 5d didn’t tip you off. The camera designer assumes the first lens you’ll put on it will be a 24-70 f2.8 and if you’re 99% of canon’s customers they’re right.

The sony alpha lineup was originally designed as a hobbyist system and released alongside f1.8 primes and f4 zooms. And it shows, in how good they are for personal use, and how hard sony has been buttfucking their own cameras out of stepping on a1 sales even a little while being afraid of blobbing out like professionals with professional lenses would really prefer.

They absolutely need to cut the crap and split their offerings like fuji if they want to be #1 but their MO is always fucking everyone just a little to keep them upgrading and buying upmarket models. Canon doesnt have to behave in such an insecure manner because they closed their mount and still have better support.

>>4381599
Very heavy because they are designed to hold a monorail camera! 20 inches of movement!!
I've been wanting one of these Sinar rails for a long time to improve stability in my set up, and got a reasonable deal on the two. The Sinar branded rails like these are actually quite rare. I've only seen one other show up on ebay.

>>4381624
>how hard does sony buttfuck their cameras then?
So hard the a6700 has a more pleasant EVF than the a7cii like they were afraid of people abandoning the a7iv en masse. Same panel different optics. Flawless example of sony behavior.

We can’t make it that good! What if no one buys the other one? Its bad enough that sigma is on our ass. Besides half the people buying are just vacationers. -Sony.
Just give the professionals aka paying customers exactly what they want, anyone who thinks its too much or not enough can cope. We already have them on 30 years of EF gear. Are they going to leave? Lol. -Canon

>>4381624
Sony is basically the pseudo-luxury segment under leica. In the same class as apple, really. They care a lot about having exclusivity be part of their brand so people can be cooler for owning the better ones, and they care a more about their styling than how comfortable the cameras are to use in a professional setting because their camera brand is built on vlogger normies who actually think undersized matte black bricks look cool.

If you're a reasonable sony enjoyer instead of a total consoomer you're like a leica Q user.
>It's not AS big as a scam, and it's small!
>Only $200 more to get 4k120, 60fps shooting, and a nicer grip from canon? How is that going to affect my photos of hobos with a 28mm? Do you work for football or something?

File: thisisokay.png (14 KB, 379x214)

14 KB PNG

>>4381624
Fair points. It's always been my understanding that Canon is a "Pro first" company, even before I knew anything about cameras, because every single model looks basically the same to eminante that "You too can look like a pro" styling. It's absolutely true and I wish it were different, because you end up having to spend a lot to get a "great" system. I do it enough and enjoy photography enough to spend for it, but yeah I see your point.

Thankfully the shit that does trickle down [economics] to the lower-grade models is enough for me to keep invested in the ecosystem, while being fully aware that they kneecap and cripplehammer anything lesser than the R6.

I really just can't justify buying into a new lens mount when the results I get out of my lowly R10 (and previous 70D) are great in my eyes.

>>4381626
I think I remember you posting your 'yuge camera a couple weeks back. Looking forward to your contributions to the dying /mage/ thread.

>>4381647
>Sony is basically the pseudo-luxury segment under leica
sony is nowhere near leica as a brand for any aspect whatsoever
>They care a lot about having exclusivity be part of their brand
different brands have different mounts and have been that way for 60+ years
please stop posting

>>4381647
snoyboys are now huffing weapons grade copium

>>4381651
tbf apple is nowhere near leica either but snoy definitely drops the cripple hammer on some very expensive cameras

>>4381651
If anything Panasonic is the pseudo-luxury Leica brand since Leica bases all their compacts on Panasonics.

:A)

>>4381624
What a pile of dog shit. Your opinion is rightly discarded with the daily trash.

>It’s just a fat piece of shit with a nice spec sheet.
I don't even begin to know what your complaint is, other than it's a way to shill and sound negative about the best mirrorless cameras available for most people. Canon bodies have excellent ergonomics and grips. It's Sony who has barely evolved from a blob of metal. Ever try supporting a big lens on a Sony mirrorless body? Pain...

>You do not need even half the features on it unless you are shooting events or sports, the two predominant things people photograph.
This amounts to admitting Canon features > Sony features but spinning it as a negative. You should consider writing for politicians. "Sure my opponent has a plan to end poverty, but who wants that?"

>Canon is first and foremost a professional brand
Oh holy shit, you just keep digging the hole deeper. Yeah, most people want to shoot like pros. Just because you will never marry or be on a sports team...

>in case smaller mirrorless being the exact same size as a 5d didn’t tip you off.
All the M bodies and the lower end apsc bodies are FAR smaller than a 5D. Hell, so is the R6 for that matter, but not to the extent that it compromises big glass in that particular case. And unlike snoy, Canon can make a pancake to fit the smaller bodies. My M+22mm is P&S size.

>99% of canon users love sharp fast pro glass
Yes, they have shit to shoot.

>ignores that canon also has f/1.8 primes and f/4 zooms; ignores shit like the smallest high IQ 16mm lens in existence
COPE

>And it shows, in how good they are for personal use
It shows how you cherry pick.

>and how hard sony has been buttfucking their own cameras out
Is that why Sony is a solid #2?

>They absolutely need to cut the crap and split their offerings like fuji if they want to be #1
But they are already #1, retard. They've been #1 since they kicked Nikon's ass in the 90s.

>>4381657
>noooo, wanting more than 10 fps compressed RAW or 4k30 is GAY
>t. snoy copium

>>4381737
Even the FF line, the SL is the S1 series.

>>4381624
>The camera designer assumes the first lens you’ll put on it will be a 24-70 f2.8
wait is this not just normal
>>4381599
>made my bed now
>have like $3k in canon lenses

>>4381620
>the R6II is king of mirrorless atm.
The a1 and the Z9 are, kiddo

>>4381764
>the avg person is going to drop the cash on an A1 or Z9
Besides, if they have that money they're buying an R5ii or R1, or maybe 100mp GFX.

File: Inferior.png (518 KB, 499x499)

518 KB PNG

>>4381761
EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM [used] $1100
EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM [used] $250 (gonna fuck this off soon)
RF 18-45mm f4.5-6.3 IS STM [kit lens] $100~
RF 50mm f/1.8 STM $320
RF 24 f/1.8 IS STM $850
>$2600 AUD
vs. RF 24-70 f/2.8 $4000
Highly prefer my primes for many reasons. Technically speaking I could just keep the 28mm and 100mm and I'd be basically set and I'm only at half the cost of the RF 28-70 f/2.8
>>4381764
Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Snoy.
>pic rel

>>4381647
"Muh grip"
"Muh Sony cameras are too small"

After market cages and grips are like $40 if it's that much of a problem for you

I would rather have a smaller+lighter Sony set up that I can make bigger than a hueg canon set up with their bazooka lenses that I can't make smaller because canon intentionally block third parties from making lenses so you have to buy heavy+expensive native shit

Not even a Sony fanboy but only being able to use native lenses is extremely gay and I will continue to shit on them until they open the mount up.

>>4381759
Not the very first one tho which makes it VERY interesting to me

>>4381772
>noooo canon cameras are YUUUUGE
Less than an inch separates the two in any dimension, and the R8 is actually lighter.
https://camerasize.com/compact/#903,858,ha,t

Oh, and there are actually pancakes for the R8.
https://camerasize.com/compact/#903.1101,858.507,ha,t

I think it's time you put down the estrogen and hit the gym.

assuming I want to insert something like a glass buttplug into an ass and photograph all the "walls" of the rectum are there any special devices that can do this?
Self illuminate the walls, and have all of them in focus? Like a contact image sensor but a fisheye? the glass being a lens that "focuses on what it touches" or something?

>>4381993
don’t project your hrt fetish + weight means less than size and sony has better, smaller lenses in every category except super shit ff budget lenses

>>4382039
Ask your mom.

>>4382043
>noooo weight doesn't matter
>noooo sony has smaller lenses if i just exclude canon's smaller lenses
Holy cope.

>>4382039
Laowa make a probe macro lens, it even has a built in light

>>4382091
I'm looking more for something fish-eye and something to stretch the walls.
I saw that lens before I think the slow mo guys did a video on it or some other youtuber, not exactly what I'm looking for.

Give me one good reason to get a full frame system instead of shooting only crop.

>>4382180
Looks prettier desu

If I want to buy an older Sigma lens to adapt, does it matter if I go for Canon EF or Nikon F (and I'm not adapting to RF or Z respectively)? Is there an inherent advantage to either in terms of adapting or photo vs video use?

>>4382180
If you shoot at iso 6400+ you might see a small difference in the 100% crops

>>4382180
It might not make a difference even most of the time, but it gives you that little bit extra when you need it. Just think of it like crop+.
Sometimes it might not make a difference at all when you are already getting adequate performance for your needs.
Sometimes you might want just a little bit better high ISO performance, or a little better dynamic range, or a little better subject isolation. You can always do workarounds with crop too, or just get that little bit extra with full frame.
Can be a bit more convenient if adapting film era glass too.

I probably split my shooting 50/50 between crop and full frame.

Reminder: 24mp is a medium sized photo and just barely larger than a 4k display. 8k displays will be LARGER than 24mp photos. In the future all of your photos will be seen at 100% and you’ll wish you shot them on a better camera, like a $750 cannot 5ds, instead of a $2000 panasonic. This is the same experience boomers had as screen tech blew past the resolution of old DSLRs and puny film scans, and the zoom out level needed to fit the photo on the screen dwindled until they were seeing flaws that never existed on VGA and HD panels. These same people who were saying 8mp was good enough to print a 16x20 suddenly raised their standards and stopped coping about viewing distances because it became economical to begin approaching the detail of film (24 true color, non interpolated megapixels on good 35mm) again and they could stop pretending worse cameras were better. What a day it was when FF digital finally reached DR parity with negative film (14 stops).

Sadly this came with the death of medium format because most people were shooting it for grain reduction instead of crazy resolution figures that are difficult to shoot and scan for even today, and digital is grainless at base ISO. RIP hasselblad.

HR FF and fuji MF chads of the future will look at your puny pixellet camera like people look at the d200 today. Looks worse than a phone. A hipster cope gimmick. Style over substance. “Street photogaphy gear”. Be warned, gearfags.
>wow, is that a z6ii? Talk about retro! You must be a trevor wisecup fan to use a camera that old. Does it ever bother you that it looks so close to a phone with bokeh?

>>4382207
4k displays are 8.3mp, 8k displays are 33.2mp, no need to lie
more resolution better, so true, so insightful

now can we see some of your high res shots for inspo?

File: hdf.jpg (153 KB, 1050x650)

153 KB JPG

Is £850 a good price for a gr iiix hdf?

>>4382209
3000x2000 to 6000x4000 sounds massive at first but the visual impact is minimal and it’s barely enough resizing to hide bayer blur and noise. Toggle between full size and scaled to fit on a 4k screen and you can see how cameras are starting to fall into an awkward spot. Phones shoot with over 40mp now so when shown at 4k they look technically flawless. Oversampling is some shit and the japanese camera industry has barely improved sensor tech to cope. Of course all the pro models are over 40mp, they have to be. 24mp apsc/high iso ff on 4k is starting to look close to 40mp phones on 4k. The camera industry will shrink more and more every year because of this.

File: PA230457.jpg (665 KB, 2000x1500)

665 KB JPG

>>4382198
You have a good point here. I shoot APS-C and MFT and the noise performance on MFT is sometimes pretty bad, so I try to shoot it only in good light. Can't tell much difference then. Pic related.

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

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

>>4382213
this high noise low res stuff looks like an android phone camera

>>4382211
Sad but true. Cameras are meant to offer better IQ for most people, not just lists of copes about sports photography and studio portraits. And they are failing and slowly abandoning the market outside of sports and studio portraits.

When you guys sell gear do you go through the effort of selling it piece by piece or do you let the Boys in Brooklyn lowball you? Thinking about the effort needed for ebay or Craigslist for all of this stuff and I might just take the financial hit for the convenience.

>>4382215
Ebay for convenience, though they take a steep cut which you should factor in. Still better than MPB/Keh

File: 1728239293316250.png (349 KB, 3168x3080)

349 KB PNG

>>4382213
You're right mft and phones are indistinguishable

>>4382215
It really depends on what I'm selling. I will often check recent ebay sold prices and compare them to the offer I get. Pretty often it's around $100, if so, I'll just sell it to MPB/KEH. Imo, it's worth it up to ~$150 because after ebay takes it's 15% cut and shipping. The remainder deficit is worth it to not have to deal with scammers or other issues and the ability to sell the gear immediately.

Another instance I will take the offer is if I think the gear will sit on ebay for months.

>>4382220
>>4382214
Don't know which phone you have, but mine can't do that.

>>4382202
Adapting film glass is a good point though. I might get an older mirrorless body just for that.

>>4382222
aside from focal length there is no meaningful difference between a phone image and a mft image

>>4382224
>>4382202
why would you want a crop body for film lenses?

>>4382227
I was talking about an older FF body.

>>4382226
Yeah, maybe when you downsize to 2000px with screen sharpening

File: web_IMG_6499.jpg (844 KB, 3000x2000)

844 KB JPG

I have a Canon EOS-M with the kit lens (used, cheap). I bought some spacer rings for it, some lights and kind of enjoy macro photography.
Considering I don't really have a commitment to any brand, no other lenses, should I just buy a macro lens for the EF-M mount like the EF-M 28mm f/3.5 IS STM or I would be better of with a different camera and some better lens? Targeting really budget category, like < 700$.

>>4382232
I dont think you’ve seen what comes out of a 15 pro max’s wide camera recently

Even the low light mode holds up to FF ISO cranking. Phones have gotten very good if you buy the nicer ones. At this point in technology 24mp FF is FOR THA LOOOOOK! and if you pixel peep its just a little more lifelike, but not more detailed.

>>4382211
by the time 8k screens are common, ai upscaling will make resolution worries a thing of the past

>>4382233
If all you want is macro, just get a macro for the M. You can get the EF-M or any EF macro with an adapter. Hell, my first macro lens was a cheap as fuck Canon FL 50mm f/3.5 macro adapted with a FD-FL/EF-M adapter. Sharp as fuck, cost me less than a fast food meal (I already had the adapter, which is also cheap).

>>4382243
>just ai generate everything bro
By the time this cope is anywhere near almost-ok, 100mp dx medium format will be the standard for a “nice camera” and the whole industry will have long since finished scampering and panicing following fujis compact, low budget (think $3k new) fixed lens gfx and 645 sized studio camera line

FF will, like mft in its dying days, rely on sensor tech bumps to stay relevant until the last lens rusts together.

>>4382207
>Reminder: 24mp is a medium sized photo and just barely larger than a 4k display. 8k displays will be LARGER than 24mp photos.
24mp displays fine at 8k and easily handles 16x20. While I love high res FF, this is pure FUD.

>because it became economical to begin approaching the detail of film (24 true color, non interpolated megapixels on good 35mm)
This shit again? 35mm Velvia 50 is maybe 16mp of real world detail, at best. Lots of shadow detail or a low key scene and it's even worse. Most films struggled to hit 10mp equivalent real world. 6mp DSLRs were popular because while a lot of 35mm films could out resolve them, the sharpness and zero grain mattered more for the scene.

>What a day it was when FF digital finally reached DR parity with negative film (14 stops).
E6 films are 6-8 stops, most C41 films are ~10-11. Portra can hit 12 stops. If you specially develop some B&W films you can hit crazy numbers (~16-18 stops) but they're a bitch to scan or darkroom print.

>Sadly this came with the death of medium format because most people were shooting it for grain reduction instead of crazy resolution figures
Tonality and low grain were always more important to MF than sharpness or res, though those mattered too.

>>4382198
It's more than that. An R6 at ISO 12,800 is cleaner than 35mm ISO 100 films, before any NR is applied. The mid tier 20-24 MP FF sensors today really are incredible in low light.

>>4382243
You don't even need AI scaling, 24mp will scale to 8k just fine with any intelligent scaling algorithm. He's just pushing FUD, and that's coming from someone who gets off on big 50mp prints.

File: fc137b1534d9f16acd85edf40(...).jpg (19 KB, 428x368)

19 KB JPG

>>4382251
>An R6 at ISO 12,800 is cleaner than 35mm ISO 100 films, before any NR is applied

>>4382247
>t. noprints
45-61mp FF can already handle 60" prints which no one ever makes. (They're awesome if you do.) I seriously doubt 100mp will ever become the standard because nobody needs the res boost against things like low light performance (vs lower res in the same format) and reasonable data storage costs. FF probably will hit 100mp, but that will be the specialty high res sensors. Most people will still buy 24mp and 45mp sensors. IF 8k monitors ever become the norm, you might see the mid tier align at 33mp, but there's no rush for 8k.

>FF will, like mft in its dying days, rely on sensor tech bumps to stay relevant until the last lens rusts together.
FF will remain the #1 choice because of performance, cost, and weight. apsc will still be around for extremely small setups, MF for the people who feel they need 100-200mp, and mft is in trouble.

>>4382250
35mm film is ~24mp if you know what the fuck you’re doing. All the old resolution figures are from when only rich faggots could use drums and most of the time the drum scans would be fucked, so the average film scan sucked balls. Now everyone camera scans and we’re finding extra detail even at resolutions approaching a gigapixel on well shot MF.

We’re also not seeing many people succeed at that because diffraction at the finest detail level does still in fact hit at f5.6 no matter how big your film is, the ultra majority of film lenses are trash, SLRs shake too much to achieve it, peoples hands shake too much, and most cameras cant use a shutter speed high enough to freeze motion for such absurdly high res scans. Hence the death of MF and basically everything in LF being discontinued already. Can and does are different things on film.

Even your DR figures are schizo shit between old scanners and darkroom work. Slide is low DR yes, but in real use by real users with camera scanning portra has about 14 stops with a strong highlight bias that only MILC scanning can fully take advantage of. Old scanners would blow out and you’d go nuts trying to dodge and burn it all in on paper. Ken was right about RealRaw. But it calls into question the utility of film, when it only works that well with 10 times the light, if you use TOTL and impractical gear, for a photo of bricks, and film has fucked colors, and needs developed, cleaned, wet mounted, and scanned - with a whole extra camera that is perfectly capable of taking the exact same photo on its own.

Make no mistake. Huge nerds are squeezing gigapixels out of ektar. They only had to spend $20,000 and shoot nothing but rocks to get there.

>>4382254
Yes. Go compare an ISO 12,800 R6 RAW with a good histogram to a scan of ISO 100 35mm film. I just did this comparison off my P900. With NR there's not a hint of noise. Without NR it's still tighter than 35mm film grain.

>>4382256
film has 14 stops of photography dynamic range
not 14 stops of engineers measuring things dynamic range

ff only has 11.5 stops of engineers measuring shit dynamic range if you ask the right autist
>muh noise cutoff at 18% gray
also see: that schizo who said film didnt have fine detail despite it clearly having fine detail. you could see it but it wasn’t sharp enough for hkm.

>>4382257
>not a hint of noise
>iso 12800
Is this the blind fucker that posted the noisy as fuck shoe picture while shilling the r3

that is literally a phone tier ISO setting.

File: 7D Velvia 50 Imacon 8000 ppi.jpg (326 KB, 1978x1033)

326 KB JPG

>>4382256
>35mm film is ~24mp if you know what the fuck you’re do...
Dude, read a tech sheet sometime. Most films test to 50-60 lp/mm real world. At 60 that equates to 12.4mp. So Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford say you're full of shit. Even rated at 80 lp/mm Velvia 50 only equates to 22mp.

In the real world even 1.6:1 res tests overstate film's resolution. Which means in the real world most 35mm films struggled to hit 10mp, Velvia could hit about 15-16mp, but still much softer than digital and with more grain.

>muh drum scan is bad!
You have literally no clue what you're talking about. And lp/mm tests are not performed with scanners of any kind.

>Even your DR figures are schizo shit between old scanners and darkroom work.
Dumb ass, they come straight from Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford tech sheets. I know you can't read a characteristic curve to save your life, but the rest of us can. Characteristic curves are not plotted using scanners, and you do not know more than the manufacturers.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1978
Image Height	1033
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Compression Scheme	Uncompressed
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	8000 dpi
Vertical Resolution	8000 dpi
Image Data Arrangement	Chunky Format
Image Created	2010:04:18 14:59:36
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1978
Image Height	1033

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

2.6 MB JPG

>>4382256
>Now everyone camera scans and we’re finding extra detail even at resolutions approaching a gigapixel on well shot MF.
inb4 the crying starts.

[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

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

109 KB PNG

>>4382258
>film has 14 stops of photography dynamic ra...
Portra and it's 12ev at best, arguably a little less, according to Kodak themselves. From experience I'll be generous and say you can get 12ev out of Portra, but it's visibly less than a 5Ds which measures 12.5 in ACR. (DxO PL can squeeze out more.)

>>4382260
Blah blah blah. Its this delusional faggot spamming his invalid, thoroughly contradicted tests again. No one has time to explain how stupid you are, exactly how you fucked up every test, or try to get you to accept that other people got more out of film than you
While you make up shit to cope
AGAIN.
FOR THE 12TH TIME.

Ignored. You get a new hobby. The rest of us will continue seeing that 24mp MILC scans of vision 3 are as detailed as 24mp MILC photos. Or in one guys case, that his 400mp scans of 35mm fujikodak are close to a blurrier d850.

>map spammer is here to be wrong again
why even bother lol

people will see the facts eventually and you’re just one schizo on 4chan

File: Provia-100F-vs-R6-ISO-12800.jpg (356 KB, 2000x1000)

356 KB JPG

>>4382259
Here you go. Left is 35mm Provia 100F shot during the daytime, right is R6 at ISO 12800. R6 was down scaled to film scan size, then 1000px crops taken from the background of each.

In this case I might give it to Provia by a hair. But neg films definitely had worse grain than Provia 100F. (Except Kodak Supra 100, which was awesome while they made it and scanned very well. That could compete as well. I was pissed when Kodak discontinued Supra 100 and 400, Supra 400 was my favorite 400 film in 35mm.)

The RAW was processed with default (low) NR in ACR. If I turn it completely off it's a little worse. But then again, other RAW converters will show less, and the JPG is cleaner ooc.

So I'll be generous and modify my claim: ISO 12800 is a little bit worse than the best ISO 100 35mm films, equal to or better than many ISO 100 films. The break even point is actually ISO 6400. But at 16x20 there's nothing to choose between the two even at 12800, even against one of the best low grain films.

>>4382264
Blah blah blah it's this delusional faggot who thinks he knows more than Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford. Fuck off nophoto.

I think I'm gonna sell my Nikon Z50 setup. It has the 16-50 and 50-250mm Z Mount Lenses and like 2400 shutter counts, never dropped and in great shape. How much should I ask? I was gonna ask like $800 to get rid of it sooner

Z50 II coming out soon apparently and I wanna either get that (or at least sell before prices tank) or a Sony A7C/A6700. Never was happy with the AF performance + lens options this camera had

File: IMG_0723.jpg (339 KB, 750x504)

339 KB JPG

>>4382266
Dear god this man is lying and retarded.

Its the guy who downscaled a high res film scan to claim it was lower resolution, compared film and digital by cropping film twice as deep, and pretended fine detail wasn’t there because it wasnt sharp enough for him. He actually thinks 35mm film is 10mp when its actually too good for 4k video when ran vertically and shrank to fit audio tracks and every other retard is finding portra 400 compares well to a7iii 400. Yikes.

[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
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	504

>>4382269
>takes a 1:1 screen shot of the darkest, underexposed and pushed corner of a test scene, magnifying the R6 by about 2:1 vs the film scan and digging into shadow detail the film could NEVER capture
>"no ur lying"
What a pussy you are.

>>4382267
Ye olde data sheets never anticipated how film would be used today. other peoples scans are outdoing yours where you’d call it junk because of grain visibility and acutance loss. People are getting 14 stops out of heavily overexposed portra, where kodak would call it junk because of dramatic color shifts. The world changed. All the stuffy high standards shit is the domain of snoy and cannot, not film. On film if its there its there even if it’s not good enough for your chart. If you’re fine with your very fine detail being noticeably fuzzy albeit there, 35mm is almost 50mp!

>>4382270
Wheres the color fog bayer bro

File: 400mp C200 Scan vs 5Ds 1.jpg (945 KB, 3076x1994)

945 KB JPG

>>4382269
>Its the guy who downscaled a high res film scan to claim it was lower resolution
No, I posted 1:1 to show how badly film lost, and then down scaled the film to show it was only comparable on sharpness/noise at maybe 1/3rd the size. Here's a reminder, the 1:1 crop.

>He actually thinks 35mm film is 10mp when its actually too good for 4k video
Fuji tells you 35mm Provia 100F is, at best, 12.4mp in the real world. And 4k video clobbers cine35 (which is really apsc size), which you might know if you had ever worked with either.

Do you have any cameras? Any photos? Any experience at all? You never even proved that you owned a camera before. Can you now?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	3076
Image Height	1994

>>4382273
Hey its the one where you used dishonest editing and claimed a cobweb was film scratches to pretend film was worse

>film
i scan at 24mp, its nice
i scan at 50mp, more details, nice
>digital
AXTUALY U NEED TO RESCALE TO THIS AND RAISE THE STANDARD TO MTF 420 SNR 31DB AND AND AND…. AAAAH CIRCLE IT IN RED

File: Screen-Shot-2016-01-12-at(...).png (39 KB, 780x529)

39 KB PNG

>>4382271
>Ye olde data sheets never anticipated how film would be used today. other peoples scans
Dumb ass, lp/mm tests are performed with a USAF test chart and a guy studying the frame under a fucking microscope. No scanners are ever involved. You're just a nophoto spouting ignorance. You can capture all that data with a drum or, today, a high res camera scan. But you cannot exceed it because there's nothing more there. Kodak didn't miss a lp under a microscope.

>People are getting 14 stops out of heavily overexposed portra
That would be news to Kodak, who tests their films with a sensitometer. Again, no scanners involved. No, overexposure doesn't help you, it just compresses the highlights, trading a stop of highlight detail for a stop of shadow detail. Why in the fuck do you think Ansel Adam's zone system has 11 total zones, one of which is "pure black" and the other "pure white"? That's because most films are only 10-11 stops.

Oh, I forgot, you've never shot film, never read Adams, never used a scanner or a sensitometer, never posted a photo. But you now know more than Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, and fucking Ansel Adams.

>nooo it's still a stop even if the color is fucked!
Oh holy cope. That's not even what happens any way, you just compress the highlights into oblivion.

>>4382274
>but there's a branch or cobweb suspended in mid air
LMFAO multiple people told you that was a film scratch. But you can't learn. You're smarter than Ansel Adams, a true smart boy, a secret king.

There was no dishonest editing. That's the film scan you bragged about...which was not yours...with the 5Ds RAW scaled up to match the dimensions, then crops taken. No editing. Stop being a secret king and learn something for once in your life.

>>4382277
And yet 6x7 has ranged from 80mp to almost 800mp with more visible details at every step along the way.

You believe chart cope, everyone else will believe their eyes. You’re as bad as micro four thirds equivalence shills.
>the chart!

>>4382280
This.

>shoot 8x10 with a 600mm stopped down to f5.6
>4 blurry dog hair covered gigapixels with a small region of sharpness thats about 36mp in size
ITS JOEVER, DIGISLUGS
FILM WINS

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

800 KB JPG

>>4382280
>And yet 6x7 has ranged from 80mp to almost 800m...
OK smart boy

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4382284
left has sovl

>50mp (17mp) of Nervous Bayer squiggles

File: IMG_0724.jpg (103 KB, 442x883)

103 KB JPG

>>4382284
Yes. Just because you cant scan for shit doesnt mean it can’t be done. Some geek got 6x7 velvia and an 80mp mfdb to fall into moire (nyquist limit) and nada (lines to solid gray) at the same resolution. If you cant manage that on a map of all things, perhaps you cant shoot or perhaps you cant scan. People with better kit have distinguished 1px line pair details in 750mp scans. But it’s film, so acutance is almost nothing by then and you can see actual holes in the image.

Film has its flaws but lacking absolute detail is not one. Like in that tire test you fucked up. You cropped the film twice as much to get the test subject the same size, and it still had more fine detail. That was funny. Guess you were too mad at the grain to notice. Whats also funny is the impracticality involved in both shooting and scanning at that level. Using a 150mp phase one camera for a multi shot copy rig.

Just take the L. As it turns out the second worst high resolution DSLR is not a perfect replacement for a superior format. You really need a gfx100 for that. You should really stick to saying film is too impractical, light hungry, and hard to get modern quality equipment for. After all don’t you see the absurdity? Film beats digital cameras by being scanned with better digital cameras. A single shot 150mp scan of a MF negative is the most anyone wants because its more useful than discerning the faintest details hidden in grains. In that case why not take the photo with the same 150mp camera in the first place, right? Don’t you get it?

You were almost right, but consistently for the wrong reasons, by focusing on invalid resolution tests and pretending better scans never happened. Because how could anyone rake a photo of a document better than you did amirite
Don’t deny reality too hard now. Or bring up muh contrast, when this contrast is also on your gay map. Also you might be blind because you think scanner sharpening artefacts = resolving grain.

[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
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 4x5 vs iq180.jpg (261 KB, 640x832)

261 KB JPG

>>4382291
>writes a book about one fucked up test where 6x7 Provia still lost and you need 4x5 or Adox CMS 20 to win
At this point you're just boring.

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

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

>>4382291
And you still can't seem to learn that a high contrast B&W line chart test does not represent real world fine detail. It's literally beyond your IQ that film is chemistry and light (contrast) drives the chemistry harder, it's literally the energy for the chemical reaction. No, your 1000:1 line chart test doesn't mean shit, it's just a marketing gimmick.

File: Screenshot_20241106_14113(...).jpg (405 KB, 1080x1700)

405 KB JPG

>>4382282
>8x10
>600mm
>f5.6

I wish I had a lens like that. Shieeeeet. I don't think a 600mm f5.6 even exists! It would be incredibly large and absurdly expensive.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES3AXI1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1080
Image Height	1700

>>4382282
Eh, on second thought the DoF would be so small I would probably never use it at max aperture, so my f11ish apo-ronar is fine, albeit a little outdated optically.

>>4382292
>6x7 provia still lost
It literally achieved the same result. Draw a vertical line up from where the 80mp mfdb is generating moire. You know, that rainbow vomit. That is called the nyquist limit. It aligns with where the 80mp 6x7 provia scan ceases to render separate lines. If you want to cheat do it from the first pixel of that maze pattern instead, and dont forget film also gets to cheat and call it a wash closer to 6 than 5.
>but 4x5
Yes 4x5 is diffraction limited a f5.6 and he shot at f22. All film is diffraction limited at f5.6. Most people just never enlarged 4x5 enough to see. The airy disc’s size is what it is and portra 400’s grain structure doesnt get spread thin with bigger grains for 4x5 like pixels on digital.

>>4382293
There is more than enough contrast on your gay map and you lost the tire test despite cropping the film scan twice as deep and there being no contrast there.

So here we are, you are blind and have the memory of a goldfish. The angry guy who said you’re not smart enough for this debate may have been right all along.

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

1.22 MB JPG

>>4382298
>more words
>more clinging to a line chart which couldn't predict real world performance in the same blog post
OK nophoto

>>4382291
The numbers on provia are much clearer
The numbers on the iq180 look like pixellated phone detail. 8 turned into B. I’m sorry, but turning 8 into B does not indicate a superior camera.

Doesn’t this mean provia in 6x7 is actually more than 80mp? If film’s foveon, foveon is 50% higher resolution than bayer, therefore 6x7 provia is 120mp or more and 6x9 is probably like 150mp, and 35mm is around 36-37mp. Pretty much exactly what good MILC scans top out at before they look a bit shit.

File: 400mp C200 Scan vs 5Ds 2.jpg (818 KB, 3074x1996)

818 KB JPG

>>4382298
>Yes 4x5 is diffraction limited a f5.6
>FILM WOULD BE BETTER IF IT WASN'T FOR DIFFRACTION REEEEEE
Oh holy shit, I can't let this one go. You think the diffraction limits for mft apply to fucking 4x5. You don't understand shit about aperture or diffraction. Just more nophoto ignorance. Diffraction does not impact any format more than another for the same fov and dof.

Here's your magical floating cobweb.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	3074
Image Height	1996

>>4382299
One of these is a heavily posterized, low bit depth, low resolution image. You can’t seriously be trying to pull this absolute meme when everyone is scanning with an a7rii or gfx100 now. Its literally like ff iso 25600 vs mft iso 200 (adjusted for sleeping cat ibis and equivalence). Absolutely not equivalent. Buy a better scanner ffs.

File: 6x9-10,000-ppi-vs-5Ds-wit(...).jpg (2.18 MB, 5000x2500)

2.18 MB JPG

>>4382302
>noooo it's the scanner!!!
And more cope. Why are you even here? This is a forum for camera owners.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4382301
If you grain peep images get softer from
F5.6… the size of the airy disc is what it is. It doesn’t matter if your lens is big or your film is big. F5.6 is F5.6. The airy disc is the same. You can enlarge big film less to hide it. Also purposefully lowering the quality of a known good film scan is NOT a good look on you.

>>4382303
Oh wow look, super fine detail vs straight lines bayer has turned wavy. Amazing.

I refer you to this objective test where nada-resolution on an 80mp scan coincided with the nyquist limit on an 80mp mfdb
>>4382291
Where apparently there may have been resolution on tap because digit turned 8 into B and 6x7 provides the reference image.

>>4382304
>nooo muh stupid theory proves all film is diffraction limited!
To reach film scan dimensions digital files typically have to be enlarged, quite a bit sometimes because of extreme oversampling in high end scanners. No, diffraction is not impacting the film samples more than the digital samples. Stop with the copes.

>>4382305
>muh wavy line!
That's how the lens is cast. It has nothing to do with Bayer. I'm not surprised that you don't know that since you've never left your basement. An honest person could figure it out by looking at even smaller details that are perfect, but you've never been honest. Hence this boring fucking debate.

Come back when you buy a camera.

>>4382307
>boring debate
>repeats the same 5 things 1000x a month
>posts the same 8 photos 5000x a month

Still loses the debate each time. Lol

>>4382308
>repeats the same damn line chart test and blog every post
>"nooo you're repetitive"
Own a camera yet? Show us a screenshot of the Amazon order and delivery time.

>>4382309
>no u

Not him. I'm an outside observer of this goofy ass obsession you have.

>>4382307
You are genuinely blind and stupid if you cant understand why f22 4x5 portra 400 is not as sharp as f5.6 6x7 velvia 50, or clearly see how inferior digital is even to a mediocre 80mp drum scan.
>thats how the lens is cast
So it says 9LALLD BE/\N? I thought it was meant to be SEALED BEAM? And be the color of the composite, not random rainbow colors reserved for the finest of details. And he switched his chart for one that had a B instead of an 8 too? Fascinating. Why would he do that?

I think we’re done here. One day you will buy a gfx and not have to cope as hard! Or maybe an xt4 and give up on your failed career as mr. resolution. That would be extremely epic. Just don’t switch to 35mm, that shit goes toe to tor with a d810!

>Film 500% crop: HOLLYWOOD
>Digital 500% crop: HDLLUMOD
might as well use your phone

>>4382307
>to reach film scan dimensions, digital files need enlarged
retard accidentally admits film is higher resolution than digital

>>4382313
>scanner oversampling = true resolution
>YOU JUST CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE OF SCANNER/DIFFRACTION/CARS DRIVING BY DURING SCANNING
And stop samefagging. How's that camera order coming along?

>>4382313
You got him to accuse you of samefagging! Well done.

>still nocamera
>still nophoto
You know what would end the debate? You posting a personal 6x7 photo which clearly has 80/800/over 9,000mp making it impossible for me to pull a RAW from my own shots which has higher IQ.

You know what we will never see from you? You posting a personal 6x7 photo which clearly has 80/800/over 9,000mp.

>>42B231S
>the absolute state of the 9LALLD BE/\N digislug
(This post rendered on a digital camera)

>>4382318
The biggest lie I've ever heard in my life.

>>4382325
Then post a photo.
>crickets

>>4382327
What would be the point when all you have done is cope and seethe every other time someone has posted photos that 100% prove you wrong?

>>4382329
If you did they’d resize it to 1080p and say it was lower resolution than an AI upscaled crop of a blurry tire

>>4382307
literally all film is diffraction limited.

if you enlarge 4x5 and 35mm both to 8x10 4x5 will appear to soften at much smaller apertures than 35mm, but if you shoot them at the same aperture and enlarge 4x5 so a 35mm section of it becomes an 8x10, assuming the lens is even as sharp, the film was even flat there, and there isnt motion blur from the exposure time, they will look the same. get it? f22 4x5 at max grain peep will look worse than f8 6x9 at max grain peep.

>>4382329
>>4382331
>>4382333
>samefagging
>same bullshit all over again
>but nophoto
yawn

>>4382333
Dumb ass, the smaller format has to be enlarged more for the comparison. You truly are a nophoto, why are you even here?

so how much should i sell my z50 with 16-50 and 50-250 lenses for? $800?

>>4382333
>>4382331
How many times do you think we can get him to say samefag in the same thread? Last time he said it over 70 times. Lmfao.

>>4382336
yeah

>>4382213
I find M43 is best used in B&W to fuck off chrominance noise, since even at base ISO it's present.
>>4382233
EF-M Has macro lenses? Like true 1x mag lenses? Interesting. For minimum monies, I would buy an EF-EF-M adapter ring, and an EF 100mm f/2.8 USM. The non-IS version is just as optically superb as the IS version, but like half the price. IIRC they're about $350 USD. The IS version is more like $800 used. Don't get the non-USM version which is older and shittier than both of those.

Macro lenses are generally not cheap, but IS isn't super useful at macro distances, and you'll want either a tripod or a speedlite anyway, which reduces the need for IS.

>>4382337
How many times can I get you to post a photo?
>zero

File: PA301034.jpg (3.48 MB, 5184x3888)

3.48 MB JPG

>>4382383
Yeah, you get some noise in iso 200 even. It's not really visible without pixel peeping though. I tend to shoot a lot with the computational modes, which is why I even use the system anymore. Pic not related, iso 640 shadows recovered. It's pretty noisy, but you could smooth those details with AI denoising at this point. I don't think the image is all too special so I didn't bother.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OM Digital Solutions
Camera Model	OM-1
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.0.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/3.5
Color Filter Array Pattern	928
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	300 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2024:11:07 13:51:17
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	640
Lens Aperture	f/4.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	150.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	High Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4382210
No, because it lacks a viewfinder

Avoid the Ricoh or x100, they're overpriced tiktok cameras

>>4382461
Heres the problem. Noise is not color specs and luma specs. Noise is noise. Its not a true color camera so noise is just errors from reconstructing an image from low quality data, like a broadcast with tons of static. Even if you stand far away or put it on a tiny TV, its still going to look a bit lofi.

On cameras this makes color and contrast lofi even if you cant see the speckles when you zoom out. Then the computer or person editing adds a ton of fake looking contrast and vibrance to try and revive the image and pretend the “broadcast” was ultra 4k hdr and not a lofi tv signal, bringing us to your photo, and basically every crop cope and high ISO/shadow push snapshit ever. The contrast and vibrance are fake and look fake. Past ISO 400 (full sized sensor), what little actual photo the silicon demon picked up looks best as a lower contrast, less colorful edit, or preferably B&W. Nothing has actually changed since film.

Nice color photo ISO range: 25-400
Funky vibey colors ISO range: 400-6400
B&W ISO range: 25-25,600
Jpeg = slides and polaroids
Raw = negatives

Your photos will pull ahead of all the rockwells if you stop trying to make lofi lodr look as punchy as hifi hdr. It has nothing to do with whether or not you can see the speckles, the signal is lofi.

>>4382335
If you’re counting megapixels on film for purpose of determining the maximum print size/quality of a scan then everything is enlarged to the same grain density to reach the point where all details are visible, not the same print size. This is useful because no one cares about graininess anymore, but printing has gotten really fucking cheap and anyone can print a four by five foot photo now.

Originally film specs were all centered around grain. The more grain you could see the worse it was supposed to be.

Scanning 35mm with 400mp would be over-scanning. Scanning 4x5 with 30mp would be under-scanning. Simple? But in the old days, everyone would be baffled, one, because computers didnt exist, enlargers did, and two, because 4x5 was for making an 8x10 that didnt look grainy or soft, not for making a wall sized print at 300dpi. That would be grainy and soft. The old way was, so what if this size shows there was more detail, its not sharp, and its grainy, so its “bad!”. The new way is, grainy and soft look better than grainless images with crisp edges.

>>4382461
That's not bad. People obsess over noise while pixel peeping instead of looking at prints or normal screen views. They would cry if they could only shoot 35mm for a month.

>>4382534
>Its not a true color camera so noise is just errors from reconstructing an image from low quality data
This crap again. There is nothing wrong with Bayer. Your eyeball literally works the same way. You can get a small boost in resolution, on some targets, with 3 layer capture (Foveon). Ironically you end up sacrificing color accuracy though because Foveon sensor noise prevents the kind of color distinction available to the latest CMOS Bayer sensors. Bayer is excellent on modern cameras, with color resolution and tonality that easily exceeds 3-4 layer color film in the same format or even a much larger format. Today's cameras can accurately distinguish literally billions of colors.

It's not 2003 any more. We're not talking about the first 2-3mp cameras with early RAW processors.

>On cameras this makes color and contrast lofi even if you cant see the speckles when you zoom out.
Nothing currently shipping in the ILC market is "lofi", not even mft. We passed the point a while ago where you could randomly grab a Bayer digital ILC off the shelf and produce stunning 16x20 prints with immersive fine detail and no artifacts. Now the questions are just how much detail do you need (high res FF; MF) and how high do you want to push the ISO (also favors FF and MF). If you're never going above ISO 800 or printing larger than 16x20, anything will work.

>>4382538
>then everything is enlarged to the same grain density to reach the point where all details are visible
Over sampled film scans are passed the point of reasonable enlargement straight out of the scanner. No, diffraction is not impacting the Ektachrome 6x9 scan more than the 5Ds RAW when it's the RAW that has to be enlarged for a 1:1 comparison. It's the opposite. Diffraction is hitting the 5Ds harder, and yet it still wins.

>>4382540
>there is nothing wrong with bayer
Cope. Its shit technology. Gamut doesnt matter btw. Aesthetics do.
>mft is not lofi
Its literally worse than my phone. Stop adding fake vibrance and global contrast to try and make your interpolated satanic bayer scans look like higher quality data. Its gross.

>>4382542
>>there is nothing wrong with bayer
>Cope. Its shit technology.
"Shit technology" with the ability to distinguish billions of colors in a 35mm sized sensor. I'm not sure if even 4x5 can distinguish that many colors. Probably not because it still relies on the "shit technology" of dithering dyes that clump into grain.

>Gamut doesnt matter btw. Aesthetics do.
"I have no clue how to edit my photos, so I need a chemist in Rochester NY to do it for me."

>>mft is not lofi
>Its literally worse than my phone.
I would ask for you to post proof of that, but we both know you won't.

>>4382541
>its not reasonable enlargement
Because you can see grains? And its not “sharp”? No. We are past these soulless, shitty standards. Grain and distinct but soft detail are cool now. And incel adams was a talentless trust fund hack who didnt even deserve a footnote in the history books.
>the 5ds wins when i fuck everything up
But back in reality an 80mp mfdb is slightly behind a pedestrian drum scan of 6x7. You just suck shit at scanning.
>BUT THE 4X5
Is a different system, a less rigid and less precise one. Shooting at f22 and losing resolution to diffraction, film unflatness, and most likely motion blur. Focus on the 6x7 because roll cameras are closer to DSLRs. The 80mp MFDB turns 8 into B. 6x7 does not. The 80mp MFDB creates moire at the same point where the 80mp drum scam ceases to resolve distinct details.

Therefore, a well done scan of 6x7 is at least 80mp. Really simple stuff.

This is consistent with the 6x9 car scan significantly outdoing every 5ds raw you can put up. You lost. Shut up and go cry in private. Your fudged, low quality shot does not invalidate tests done by more competent people. Go now.

>>4382545
BUT MUH HECKIN' MAPERINO! PLEASE JUST POST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OR I CALL YOU A NOPHOTO! I BEEEEEG YOUUUU.

>>4382545
>Because you can see grains? And its not “sharp”?
Because out of the scanner, viewed 1:1, it's passed the point where the underlying image structure is visible, taking away from the immersive detail, the reality, of the subject.

>nooo we're passed that, soft and grainy are cool now
For hipsters playing with 35mm film cameras. Knock yourself out if that's your thing, but it's not the standard I would use to determine max print size.

>And incel adams was a talentless trust fund hack
LMFAO OK secret nophoto king

>high contrast black and white line charts are "reality"
You might actually have some photos if you open yourself up to subjects other than line charts.

>You just suck shit at scanning.
If you have to lie: I'm pulling scans from multiple sources, not my own collection (except for the ISO comparison above). If your argument rests on the lie that the company offering the world's highest resolution, highest quality scans actually "sucks shit at scanning" then you've lost hard.

>but muh 4x5 diffraction
4x5 is not limited to the apertures available to mft.

>99 excuses for why film loses every time, but film is really better!
As I've said before, if film is not better in the real world because of your excuses, then I guess it's not better at all.

>provia turned to mush at the same point the back aliased IT'S JUST AS GOOD!
It was soft as shit before, and we're talking about a line chart. For the 1,000th time: line charts do not represent reality.

>we should use 1000:1 tests to determine film's resolution at 1.6:1
>even though film's resolution depends on target contrast and is HALVED at the lower contrast
OK retard, go find me some real world fine detail that's 1000:1.

>This is consistent with the 6x9 car scan significantly outdoing every 5ds raw you can put up
Your crying, screaming, reeee'ing, and excuses every time I post them betrays your true feelings. Now fuck off nophoto.

>>4382547
>PLEASE JUST POST ONE MORE EXAMPLE OR I CALL YOU A NOPHOTO!
>ONE "MORE"
To post one more you would have to first post at least one, which you haven't done, nophoto.

>>4382548
>because its not grainless and crisp?
>Yes.
/your post.

You also lost the car scan. The rest is just you confirming your lack of intelligence.

>>4382552
>how could you expect a sharp, grain free photo?
I guess my standards are just higher than yours.

>noooo you really lost on the car scan
>even though i freaked the fuck out and offered 9,001 excuses for why film lost when you first posted it
True to form, film is really better but here's a hundred excuses for why it lost. Notice I don't qualify or make excuses, I just post the samples. I'm confident anyone but you can see which won.

>>4382552
Oh, and it also speaks VOLUMES that despite rehashing this debate a hundred times over a period of...months now?...you haven't posted a SINGLE real world comparison. Only a line chart which actually undermines your claim.

I'm sure it's not for lack of trying. You just can't find a real world comparison where film clearly won. Nothing that gives you confidence people will agree with you after looking at it. Your lack of confidence in your claims is obvious and staggering.

>>4382550
Like clockwork. Lmao.

>>4382557
Film won in all examples, and all you do is make excuses. Incredible lack of self awareness on display.

>>4382557
>>4382559
tldr
80mp digital turns 8 into B
80mp film scan leaves 8 as 8
6x7 = at least 80mp
but yeah probably more like 150-200

I’ve seen too many tack sharp, pixel peeping worthy 24mp and 36mp scans of consumer grade 35mm film to believe a 5dsr outdoes velvia for any reason but user error or grossly mismatched gear.

The grain laid down is the same. Its not fatter and lower resolution for the bigger fomats.

>>4382566
>scan film on lying device that bakes sharpening, saturation, and NR into raws
>all proprietary raw processors add a little extra sharpening and NR on top of the already cooked raw even with everything off
>wow, the grain is mostly gone and the edges are crispier than KFC!
yeah thats what happens when you compare digital vs digital instead of digital vs flatbed

>>4382561
>makes hundreds of excuses
>"no ur making excuses"
LMFAO! Remember when you said the map sample wasn't valid because somebody must have driven by in a car outside during the scan? That was peak COPE.

>>4382562
>6x7 at least 36mp
FIFY

>>4382566
>can't post a scan
>"i've seen too many scans"
Like clockwork.

>>4382569
>line chart bad
>only cuz it was a line chart
>a map is literally a line chart
you actually are low iq aren’t you

>>4382566
awesome, could you post some

>>4382575
Yeah go ask /fgt/ because i dont save every 6000x4000 image i come across

You already lost your whole argument when the onlandscape scans were pointed out. You actually thought film was blurry, when you just aren’t very good at using cameras. Ouchies.

>>4382578
this is my first reply to you bro
i just wanted to see an example since you seem so passionate about the issue
but i guess you are just an actual nophoto

>>4382579
I have nothing to prove, for it is already well proven

>>4382580
>I have nothing to prove
sorry, all the replies kinda made it seem like you were trying to prove something, my mistake
glad it's already well proven, no more reason to talk about it anymore then i suppose

>>4382569
When you are mad you become a schizophrenic that just repeats what you are truthfully and deservedly called. It is truly amusing nophoto behavior.

>>4382571
>"nooo film resolution doesn't depend on contrast, Kodak and Fuji are wrong! everything is a line chart!"
>t. low iq

>>4382580
>"x is true!"
>do you have evidence of that?
>"it's already well proven"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

The science is settled. Film is better than digital.

>>4382629
Awesome, could you post your scientific evidence?

>>4382632
I already did. Are you blind?

Hello,

I've been shooting since 2017 when I got a used Sony A6000. It served me well until I moved up to a Sony A7rii. I really love that camera but I fell for the Fuji film simulation meme and bought a Fuji X-E4 a few years ago as an every day camera.

The thing is I'm spoiled by Sony's autofocus. I really wanted to like the Fuji but I think it's just ok. The autofocus sucks especially for any type of video. I had the A600 and the X-E4 on a tripod and even an old antiquated A600 was blowing it away with autofocus. I just find myself not enjoying carrying the Fuji out with me.

I used to shoot film, so I guess I just have to treat the Fuji like it's a film camera and shoot everything in manual. It just never really grew on me. It the same exact form factor and film simulations existed with the Sony, I would have picked that up instead. I watched too many Fuji film sim videos on YouTube though.

File: niggon.jpg (148 KB, 1179x1165)

148 KB JPG

>>4382540
>There's nothing wrong with bayer
I mean, there is, but it can be mostly rectified by resizing images to half the native resolution. Which is bullshit because it means typical modern consoomer 24 megapickle cameras need to become 8 megapickles for maximum IQ. At least foveon marketed their 8.7 megapickle cameras as actual 8.7 megapickles.
HOWEVER, most of that issue gets tossed out the window when you print, since the printing paper also masks the bayer artefacts.

>>4382561
You're actually a photoless fag
>>4382579
You're a lazy fag
>>4382580
Burden of Proof fag

>>4382674
>nophoto
Opinion discarded