>>4405341 (OP)
>capturing a random building pic
>5000 dorrar

You could buy a 100 bucks dslr with kit lens and capture the same pic (or even better) and it's still much cheaper than even the mid range phone in the market

>>4405341 (OP)
But Anon, this photo is shit?

>>4405341 (OP)
this photo would have been shit if you had used a real camera

OPs shitty photo aside, I bought a Sony nex 5 to have a compact digital but i upgraded to a pixel 9 and it's so good i dont see the point in traveling with a digital (i shoot film mainly)

the telephoto is real nice to have. here's a photo i edited quickly on my phone but you could get even better editing the RAW s in a computer

for me the phone is enough

>>4405363
shooting film is actually just shooting digital with extra steps

you cant zoom in far enough
thats literally it

File: ResizedImage_2025-02-11_1(...).jpg (3.01 MB, 4300x5374)

3.01 MB JPG

>>4405363
I swear I attached the image

>>4405373
yea that smeary background and chromatic aberration look great

>>4405375
>chromatic aberration
fixed with a RAW processor
>smeary background
don't pixelpeep

>>4405369
i have an enlarger though

>>4405377
>noooooo don't look closely at the photo, that defeats the point!
Could just, idk, get a decent camera. Ever wonder why actual photographers who get paid don't just use their phone?

>>4405341 (OP)
What settings should I use on my mft camera to get this quality???? Someone on here promised me that my pics would be really good if I got an mft camera.

File: ResizedImage_2025-02-11_1(...).jpg (2.81 MB, 4080x3072)

2.81 MB JPG

>>4405380
i already have a decent camera but it's not worth lugging around both a digital and an analog camera when my phone is already in my pocket and you can't even shit on it without zooming 300%

>>4405377
>NOOO DONT PIXEL PEEP ITS A PIXEL PEEP NOOOO
It's not pixel peeping
it's called "a screen larger than a phones"

And who says people cant zoom in on photos if they want? Why are people not allowed to do that - enjoy the smaller details? Just because it shows your camera sucks?
>NOOOO LET ME TELL U WAHT MATTERS: INSTAGRAM. PHOTOS CANT BE ENJOYED ANOTHER WAY OR BY OTHER PEOPLE THEY CANT OK THEY CANT ITS WRONG THEY CANT.
It just looks like shit on an actual adult computer. Sorry kid. Maybe when you have a job and a nice macbook you'll realize your were being dumb. And god forbid someone want to crop all your empty space out of the photo
>YOU CANT CROP MY INTENT AWAY NOOO THATS PIXEL PEEPING NOOOO ITS SHOWING MY CAMERA IS SHIT SO YOU CANT DO THAT
Sell preframed prints
Oh wait they'd look too bad

Or maybe you're indian and will never have an adult job and a nice macbook.

>>4405391
Not even 10% larger than my screen and you think this needs zoomed in 300%. It looks like crap.

Answer this question... are you really so poor, your monitor is still 1920x1080?

>>4405388
> Someone on here promised me that my pics would be really good if I got an mft camera
You were lied to.
>What settings should I use on my mft camera to get this quality????
ISO 6400, wipe open aperture, smear milk on the sensor.

File: 1739283336059607.jpg (327 KB, 1075x1344)

327 KB JPG

>i posted full resolution photos while claiming my camera is good and now people are viewing them at the full resolution and saying my camera sucks
>how could gearfags do this to me
>stop looking at the picture i gave you, zoom out for me
>stop i said you cant view the whole picture i sent you need to zoom out and stand really far away
>what your screen is bigger than 1024x768 wtf fucking consoomerist i hate people with money
every one phone megapixel is 1/4th of a real camera megapixel

try posting 1000x750 lmao. it still looks bad but maybe you could pass it off as suitable for an ok (but hazy and flatly rendered) 4x6 print. like walmart 1 hour photo lab material. lmao.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

it literally looks fine but how can i argue with a gearfag

File: OH NO NO NO.jpg (90 KB, 1391x766)

90 KB JPG

>>4405391
OH NO NO NO NO

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Photographer	Jinrai
Image-Specific Properties:

>>4405400
It looks like shit and how can you argue when you think anyone who wants to look at details in a photo, or has a screen bigger than your third worlder computer, is a "gearfag". A $100 micro four thirds off ebay is better than this.
>Rajesh comes to the US to start a taxi service, swears he is as good as any other taxi service
>with his moped tied to a horse cart
>stop ride peeping gearfags its not the vehicle its how you use it. stop looking too closely. stop thinking about how bumpy it is. it's not about that its about the journey, saar. that sounds poetic yes? you are gearfags and consumerists saars!
If rajesh does not want people to complain he should provide a better service or market it as what it is instead of "just as good as a rolls royce just stop noticing things". In this scenario, you are rajesh.

If you don't think people should view your "4k sensor" at 4k, then don't post 4k. In other words, it's not actually 4k. It's 1k.

OP btfo
Phones confirmed for 1mp

>>4405341 (OP)
Why would you spend $500 on a fancy phone when you can draw what you saw with a $5 colored pencil set and a notebook

Soulless consoomer bugman you just want to pixel peep you dumb gearfag

>>4405406
>drawing
Gearfag. Oral tradition is all you need.

File: file.jpg (3.57 MB, 4916x3276)

3.57 MB JPG

>>4405402
>pixel peeping
>hyperfocused on IQ
>calling people poor
>brings out macbooks and indians out of nowhere
>no photos
textboook gearfag
i never said my phone was as good as a real camera but you're only here to seethe about gear
>>4405402
>pixel peeping
>hyperfocused on IQ
>calling people poor
>brings out macbooks and indians out of nowhere
>no photos
textboook gearfag
i never said my phone was as good as a real camera but you're only here to seethe about gear so you ignore the actual point

>>4405395
I think I put too much milk on my camera.

>>4405409
>STOP NOTICING THINGS
>STOP CARING ABOUT THINGS
>NOTICING AND CARING ARE BAD AND MAKE YOU A "BAD WORD"!
Stop posting 4916x3276 of blurry shit if you don't want people to point out that they are blurry.
>I-I never said...
>why would you spend 5000$ on a fancy camera if cheap phones have 4k sensors that can take pictures like this?
>-noooooooo

Your pictures are blurry. Unblur them and stop bitching about "gearfags" aka first worlders with higher standards and screens larger than a 1024x768 favela machine's.

Why are poorfags unable to simply present a smaller photo? Why do they always have to insist that wanting a large, non blurry photo is "pixel peeping = gearfag = bad"? Imagine a fat slob walks into a five star michelin restaurant, yelling
>SNOBS SNOBS SNOBS YOU DONT NEED MORE IF YOUD STOP PAYING ATTENTION TO "PRESENTATION" AND "TASTE" YOU'D STILL GET ALL THE CALORIES YOU NEED SNOBS SNOBS SNOBS!
They'd think he was a pseudo-intellectual communist kid living off a trust fund/his parents income, actually...

>>4405411
because photography is grouped with modern art and therefore overlaps with leftism aka bitter failures with a narcissistic streak

>>4405411
>your photos are not good enogh you need to buy better gear!!
>me? a gearfag?? no way
who do you think you're fooling
that last picture is sony apsc btw it does seem that my phone might be better than "A $100 micro four thirds off ebay"

>>4405411
Cope, cognitive dissonance, fox and grapes. It is not enough for op to post a 1000 pixel photo that still has what little detail a phone captured. He must say that having more detail is bad because he is secretly unhappy with his life choices and is angry that other people get to have and enjoy things he can’t and post a 4000 pixel blurry mess to tell people to stop zooming in because noticing his camera is bad is not allowed

When he sees a guy walking around with a sony he probably gets physically angry irl

>>4405413
Did I tell you to buy better gear

No

I told you to stop posting 4000 pixel images if they are all blurry, and to STOP COPING. Every hobby board on 4chan is infested with copers like you. "Stop noticing things, you cant notice things if more expensive things do stuff better".
>i posted a full resolution file and people are viewing it at full resolution how could this happen
Retard. Don't post a large file if there's nothing to show for it. that is it. is it blurry? shrink it. no one wants to hear more poorfag cope insisting that no one is allowed to notice things to have higher standards than your gear can meet. it's infuriating because of how often virgin neets, brazilians and pajeets spout that nonsense.

>but its snoy aps-c i swear
Still looks like shit. Garbage lens, operator error, too much jpeg compression to fit a large file on 4chan, etc. There are a lot of ways someone dumb enough to be poor in 2025 can fuck up a photo. I've seen crisper shit more worthy of that file size from the ricoh GR.

It's not your gear that sucks. It's you. You suck. Get a new personality before you get a new camera. Go look at /rpt/ and notice how many small photos taken with meh cameras dont get shit on, and how chill the digishit thread is - that's because they didnt post giant blurry photos and say "why would anyone buy a nicer camera than me".

File: ResizedImage_2025-02-11_1(...).jpg (3.45 MB, 6144x8160)

3.45 MB JPG

>>4405416
>grrrrr your gear is trash it needs MORE PIXELS
is this better gearfag-sama
i wish one day my snapshits can look half as good as yours

>>4405419
He literally said it needs less pixels but you are blinded by your sour grapes syndrome and poorfag cope

>>4405419
You've got some growing up to do.

>>4405341 (OP)
its all in the lens. obvs false dichotomy, buy a cheap dslr or mirrorless and buy a few prime lenses. i dont gaf what an iphone can take, the lens that it uses is boring, small, and fake. also dont buy a camera if you're just going to take shitty pictures of buildings. buy a camera if you want to a) use different lenses, b) be creative with shutter speed, aperture, and focal length at the very least.

>>4405427
Yeah.... my phone does all that and then some. You sound like a gearfag.

>>4405429
You're repeating yourself like some ESL. Keep playing with your cheap toys, and definitely don't stop coping anytime soon.

>>4405341 (OP)
That tinderbox would burn real nice, and make a great photo!

>>4405431
He’s a south american so probably just standard cope. They’re all like this. Its not enough to use what they have, they must claim anything better is pointless and caring is wrong.

>>4405431
Let me guess... You shoot mft? Don't try to lie to me. You're all the same.

>>4405434
I just said my phone was good enough... The esl can comprehend English better than the chud?

>>4405369
Yes and no. That's like saying recording an album on analogue tape is the same as recording an album digitally, but with extra steps. When you record analogue, you're left with a physical medium, tape in this case. Same with when shooting film, you're left with a negative. There's something to be said for that, especially with AI being able to manipulate photos. If a scan of a negative gets altered by AI, at least you have the negative to go back to. But you are more or less right in what you're saying.

>>4405434
im not that guy, and i'm europoor. i took what's called a "vacation" to brazil

>>4405434
the lifestyle of america’s poorest is as good as argentina’s richest. bro literally cant understand that we have 3840x2160 screens on $500 poorfag dells.

>>4405436
no its not good enough for a 4k screen
post 1k and simply admit that better cameras are better and thats ok
admit that people can zoom in and explore a photo if they want
simply admit that there are good reasons to have nicer things and higher standards than you and there is nothing wrong with the people who do

>>4405438
>i’m not a brazilian I’m an original flavor brazilian

File: M1500008.jpg (3.36 MB, 4608x3072)

3.36 MB JPG

>>4405435
Well, the only digital camera I have right now is a camcorder, an old Panasonic TM-700.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Panasonic
Camera Model	HDC-TM700
Camera Software	NX Studio 1.7 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.5
Sensing Method	Three-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	42 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2025:02:11 14:05:15
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/1.5
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.07 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	4608
Image Height	3072
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4405443
no i'm not portuguese either mutt, keep trying

>>4405444
Besides my phone, that is. What is the sensor size on the TM-700 anyway?

>>4405442
See
>>4405434

Get with it, chud. I doubt you've even taken a nice picture.

>>4405446
>I’m not poor I’m another kind of ooor
k

>>4405373
That is blurry as fuck. How the fuck did you even make a phone take a pic with chromatic aberration worse than 00s digishit?
>>4405416
Don't fucking resize photos goddamit. You won't hide shitty optics, noise or AI processing with resizing anyway.

>>4405657
Resizing literally provably scientifically hides problems

1 phone mp = 1/4 real camera mp
1 real camera mp = 2/3 glorious film mp

>>4405664
if you shrink photo to 1x1 px it removes all issues.

>>4405665
ken rockwell has printed billboards with just 0.5x0.5px. megapixels are a myth. you only need 6 to make a 30x20 that looks super sharp up close. that’s what adobe made the sharpening tool for.

>>4405657

in the near vicinity of beginning this page reads as follows

Please post images that are JPG format and ideally smaller than 1 MB, and/or about 1000 pixels on the longest side

>>4405676
Eggy wrote that seething that he couldn't see photos over his shitty Australian dial-up internet connection.

>>4405677
Eggy is just poor. We get gigabit these days unless you somehow can't afford it (he's poor).

>>4405377
>t-that's fixable with a raw processor!
but you didn't.
>d-d-don't pixelpeep
i viewed the image at it's full size on a 15" laptop, you seething faggot.

>>4405409
>>4405419
and xier is still coping

>>4405664
film has no megapixel. Just grain size and grains per line or whatever

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

94 KB JPG

>>4405760
>film has no megapixel
https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2020/02/8x10-film-vs-iq4-150mp/
Not so fast, digislug. If you scan film, the details are converted to megapixels and it mogs soulless digisnappers.

[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

>>4405341 (OP)
that photo looks like ass though

File: R0000076.jpg (3.56 MB, 4000x5333)

3.56 MB JPG

>>4405341 (OP)
Your phone can't take a picture like this

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD.
Camera Model	RICOH GR III
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	28 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	200
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	18.30 mm
White Balance	Manual
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	High
Sharpness	Hard

>>4405761
I scan my 35mm usung a D800, and you barely get like 12MP out of it. Medium/large format may potentially have more detail, but that's hardly comparable.

>>4406702
Skill issue

>>4406702
>D800
>not d800e
and then lose some more resolution for everything else that gets fucked up. mirror slap. focus shift. the fact the old nikkor macros are not up to the task.

i have seen great scans done with the a7rii and a good copy of the sigma 70mm art or sony 90mm macro, but dslr nikkor lenses are not as sharp as these and never will be.

>>4405369
making a film image look good on a computer is easier and faster to do than to try to do that with digishit
>>4405388
>false flagging purse owning snoy boi still seething about having to wear a purse

>>4406742
I wish you could just help a fellow mft user out without screaming snoy and talking about how much you love men wearing purses.

>>4406947
because we both know you are a false flagging snoy

>>4407642
Prove it. You've already proven your weird obsession with men wearing purses and Sony cameras.

>>4407644
all snoy bois wear purses and seethe over m43

video bitrate
low light
high dynamic range scenes

>>4405341 (OP)
Exactly, people here dont seem to understand that all that fancy equipment is not needed

>>4405341 (OP)
>why would you spend 5000$ on a fancy computer if cheap phones have powerful hardware that can play games?
Phones can do many things, just not particularly well. A phone can take a photo, but your options are very limited.

File: Oregon_Coast_Highway.jpg (1.48 MB, 2560x1706)

1.48 MB JPG

>>4410119
>Exactly, people here dont seem to understand that all that fancy equipment is not needed
Sony sisters... not like this...

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

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>4410333
Nice picture.

>>4410333
Beautiful photograph. You can tell it was taken by a high quality professional camera. You definitely won't get that with a smartphone.

>>4405341 (OP)
i don't spend 5000$USD on a camera. I spend 250 on a camera and 4750 on film/chems

>>4410333
>>4410339
Schizophrenic samefagging snoy goy, the anon who originally posted that edited it on a crappy android phone and it saved as a 2mp 70% quality jpeg

But he's still a retard. 61mp has no advantage over 24mp in the real world. Unless literally anyone here would like to tell us about five times they had to share an image larger than 6000x4000, no one needs an a7cr.

>>4410435
Sounds like you have blinded yourself from a severe and incurable screen addiction.
Less charts and screens, more going out and taking pictures, my boy. It will be good for you.

>>4410437
Gearfag cope.

Five times you needed more than 6000x4000. List them.

>>4410438
When I'm printing film, dumbass zoomer screen addict...

>>4410435
> I'm poor so you suck
Ok then

>>4410433
Stunning and brave

>>4410440
Post your film prints. Let me guess, they're 8x10?

Humans, when leaning forward and squinting, can discern computer display improvements up to 600 pixels per inch. To fill an 8"x10" 600ppi display, you would need... 6000x4800. This is so close to 6000x4000 as to be imperceptible.
Although this is expressed in computer terms it does still refer to a level of detail beyond which there is no benefit. You can simply convert pixels to line pairs if digital terms trigger your gender dysphoria/knot cravings/etc.

It is also completely pointless because nobody is going to lean forward and squint at an 8x10. Under normal photographic enjoyment, it is biologically, physically impossible to tell an 8x10 made from 3000x2400 from one made from 6000x4800 (simply convert these statements to line pairs yourself if pixels trigger your gender dysphoria) without extremely careful inspection. Even in terms of "tonality", because the "tonality" is smaller than human vision can actually perceive. People would rather zoom in on a display for shits and giggles, somewhat enjoyable but also not needed.

No one needs more than 6000x4000. This is almost 1.5x the resolution of 35mm film. Larger film formats are for sampling out grain and lens blur. On digital cameras, higher megapixel numbers negligibly benefit sharpness when viewing very large prints very close and are essentially useless unless accompanied by a larger sensor size to better sample out lens blur and reduce quantum photon noise.

Sadly it takes a few college level courses to tell CONSOOMERS that companies lied to them and they're placebo effect victims!

File: aesop-fox-rhyme.jpg (776 KB, 1335x1316)

776 KB JPG

>>4410445

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 3.0 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2007:01:21 02:13:16
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1335
Image Height	1316

>>4410448
>Get BTFO
>Have no response
>Seethe and strawman
So, you have no legitimate real world use for more than 6000x4000

Perhaps if you make very large prints (more than 16x20) that people, for some reason, look at from <6 inches away while expecting flawless quality, you "need" more resolution? I'd love to see proof anyone fits this description. So far, no one has been able to actually prove they needed more than 6000x4000 at least five times. They've only been able to mistakenly claim they needed more than 6000x4000 when they didn't, and seethe because they spent a lot of money on cameras (still less than a free credit card's max so we're not believing you're "rich" lol)

>>4410445
Digicuck screen addict thinks that resolution is all there is to the look of a final print. Post your prints first, bud.

>>4410449
No one needs to prove shit to you. If you need this experiment done, you must have the means to go buy the camera yourself, evaluate against whatever arbitrary criteria you deem necessary, them come back and report your findings to us so we can tear you a new one. Everyone here can see that your "no one needs more than 2mb" is pure unadultered cope. Your pharma juice pimp billy the gates of hell is proud of you.

>>4410455
>>4410453
Ok but you didnt prove him wrong, you’re just seething. He has logic and math, you have seethe.

>>4410456
I don't need charts because my one sentence defeats your giant essays of cope. It's embarrassing how out of touch you are with real photography.

>>4410458
>no proof, just narcissism and schizophrenia
Gearfags, its over. We cant use resolution claims to replace our tiny penises anymore. We’ve lost.

>>4410461
This is actually such a high level of cope I will consider it a concession. It has been accepted.

File: smugfolderimage1070.jpg (82 KB, 375x365)

82 KB JPG

I merely asked if anyone could tell me about five times they actually needed more 6000x4000. For an actual photographer, this would be a trivial question with a trivial answer, especially if they were willing to lie.
>Yes, I was on a photoshoot for a louis vuitton ad campaign, and they specifically requested I use a GFX100 at the time because they wanted their B1 and A0 prints to look more detailed up close to better show customers what their brand stood for. I did photoshoots with them five times.

But look at them. They're literally crying and posting vague nonsense. Not a single example, not even a made up one, because they don't even know what a legitimate example would sound like.

How pathetic are gearfags?

The zoomer is having a lil melty. Cute.

>>4410470
But you still haven’t proven him wrong

Isnt this the human vision is a gorillion mp argument that the other filmfag lost?
>i swaer to god bruh, the tonanality… i can see the difference in teh microscopic grains with my 1600mp eyeball dood

>>4410477
No it isn't and the digital guy failed to understand an extremely simple concept because it proved his entire point wrong. If that's winning an argument to you I have very bad news for you.

>>4410479
You haven’t proven him wrong

Megapixels and sensor size directly state the lp/mm resolution (1 line pair = 2 pixels) so you can compare film and digital all day long. It’s just that very few people did the math because they used their eyed and saw it only takes a little more than 8mp to equal an 8x10 contact print. And that was that.

>>4410483
So you're saying that no human can reliably differentiate between a roughly 8-10MP equivalent 35mm negative enlarged to 8x10 and an 8x10 contact print?

>>4410485
Only by the grain, because film sucks. Digital is grainless at base ISO.

Film is de

SNIPER
GET D

>>4410488
So I was correct. Gotcha. Don't you need more MP to get correct color resolution as well?

>>4410490
You only need 8mp to get full color resolution for an 8x10 print, but digital 8mp, which is as grainless as 8x10 film and has more color resolution than film.

Maybe we should say it takes 4 filmegapixels to equal a digital megapixel.

>>4410491
yeah film is really bad. the colors are always inaccurate and its always grainy. only good for moody lofi street photography.

>>4410491
So if I got an 8MP digital camera and printed at 300dpi I wouldn't be able to tell any difference between an 8x10 contact print and the the digital print? Not in any single way?

>>4410491
Can I just buy any old 20-40 dollar digital camera off ebay to test this?

>>4410493
Only if you looked at it too closely… then you would need 24mp, a very high end printer, and to get laid with something other than your dog.

>>4410494
Needs to be full frame, so you’re getting a 5d classic and cropping horizontally

Full frame pixels are better

>>4410496
>>4410495
So what Im hearing is that it doesn't really work in the real world, like I have been saying the entire time...

80 dollars is my budget. Pick an 8MP camera for me and I'll buy it off ebay and go to my local photo shop, upload the files to catbox for you to edit to your liking you reupload the edits and Ill get the pictures professionally printed and do a real AB test with 8x10 contact prints made with silver chloride paper and amidol developer.

>>4410497
You only need 8 of the 5d classic’s superior full frame megapixels and to not loupe peep a print like some kind of zoophile hermit.

>>4410497
You own a 5diii furfag. Just scale it to 3000x2400 and order a fine art quality 8x10 instead of looking for excuses to buy more ewaste.

>>4410498
Can I set my 5dm3 to a lower MP and use that, or crop an image?
What would be a reasonable viewing distance to compare them at?

>>4410499
I want every parameter to be set by the other guy so there are absolutely zero excuses.

>>4410498
You can even choose a fine art printing website for me to order the print from if that will reduce your ability to make excuses after the fact.

>do everything for me
Dog people never change

>>4410503
I know film and chemical printing much much better than I know digital printing I wouldn't want any stupid thing I did to invalidate the test. "Oooooohhh you didn't sharpen it enough for printing, ooooohhhhh you sharpened it too much for printing."
It seems like the guy writing essays about this stuff doesn't want me to actually do a proper test of it. Expected, but I was hoping for better from him.

>furry that cant google sets out to prove that 8x10 film is 24mp instead of 8mp
>cant figure out how to print off a soccer mom camera like a 5diii
Funny stuff

>>4410506
The hilarious part is that you folded like a sack of potatoes after I said I would do a real world test of this to your exacting parameters.

I could do it myself perfectly well. Like I said I don't want any excuses after I go through the effort of producing these prints to compare. I'll be honest about it too. Maybe at 1 foot the difference is huge, but at 4 or 5 feet it is hard to tell between the two. I use the cameras I use for more than just the extreme image quality I get from big film, so it really does not make a difference at the end of the day.

>>4410507
>i swaer to god, u cant troll me, in gonna prove 8x10 film is 24mp not 8
But olym puss remains undefeated and LF film remains, at best, a more cost effective way to do low volume high-ish resolution enlargements, which fucking no one here does. The largest claimed print on /p/ is a 30x20 made with a d750. Claimed.

Order a lightjet print with res16 quality at least and ensure your digital input file is not using a needlessly small color space (lightjets can handle 36 bit color) or too small resolution for the 400dpi (that looks like 400ppi because its a true tone system, not a half tone inkjet)

Film cameras themselves are pointless. All the benefits of the printing process have been digital for over 20 years.

>>4410512
Okay thanks. Finally a real answer instead of excuses and insults.

Does it make a difference if I set the 8MP scale in my camera or lightroom? Do you think it would still be fair if I just make the digital B&W so it more closely matches the contact print?

>>4410513
If you want to replicate a contact print at an unrealistic viewing distance, you need more than 8mp, and to do something other than your dog. 1 foot? Really? Against your face? 400dpi = 4000x3200

If you want the same quality at a realistic viewing distance you only need 3000x2400 at 300dpi.

>>4410514
Lightjet prints at 4000dpi on silver gelatine paper according to the websites selling the service.

Part of the pleasure of viewing high quality contact prints is that there is detail resolved beyond what you can see with the naked eye. It adds something to the look of the print.

>>4410517
>invisible detail adds to the print
You have absorbed too much canine DNA. It’s making you retarded.

>>4410518
It is not invisible you moron. The level of detail draws you into the print and does not dissapoint as you get closer to it and absorb all the details. This is the exact opposite experience of lower resolution prints that do not have the same level of detail. You need to move away to view all the details.

Why is this so very difficult to understand??? Oh yeah, you have only read a few things on the internet, made that your entire personality, while having zero real world experience with this stuff.

^Imagine this guy taking his fursuit head off to hold an 8x10 6 inches from his face lol
Gearfags never disappoint

>>4410522
A gearfags pictures are so boring that looking very closely at individual dog hairs is more fun than seeing the entire print at once

>>4410522
People use a loupe to view large format slides all the time. You continue to show your lack of real world experience, and legitimate hatred for photography. Embarassing.

>>4410523
I'm not going to take a picture of my dog for this test, btw. I need to think of a decent scene that will provide a fair test to both formats.

>>4410525
>dont pixel peep? you hate photography
fucking lol.

>>4410529
Pixel peep a physical print?

Continue embarassing yourself, screen addict. It's really funny.

>>4410532
Literal interpretation of a shitpost? I diagnose you with aspergers syndrome. That explains the zoophilia, narcissism, and lack of self awareness pretty well.

>>4410533
You ignore and purposefully misunderstand many of my posts. You seem to be projecting. Anyone can see this.
Go on and keep embarrassing yourself in front of everyone. I'm going to work on figuring out those prints to compare 8MP digital to an 8x10 contact print. I look forward to your cope and excuses.

>>4410523
>A gearfags pictures are so boring that looking very closely at individual dog hairs is more fun than seeing the entire print at once
Correct. Case in point, this fag is going to print with less information density so he can tell us it doesn't look as good from a few inches away, completely missing the point, which was about what looks the same when you look at the whole picture at once. He avoids facing the relevant fact to sperg out over ultra fine detail that is only visible from a few inches away.

The essence of gearfaggotry is NO interesting photos, NO artistic improvement, YES to increasingly complex and expensive equipment and refined processes to derive enjoyment from looking at sharper and sharper details. All gearfags do exactly this. In audio it's even worse. After a point they stop playing music, they start playing test tones to check what their gear does (and possibly hallucinate the results).

>>4410537
If making things up and misunderstanding very clear points I have made helps you cope with reality then so be it. Nothing I can do at that point.

>even film prints cant escape pixel peeper gearfags

As expected the poor fella is absolutely seething at this point.
I will state more of the obvious now. There is no wrong or right viewing distance for a print and both close up and far away should be enjoyed and appreciated if possible. This is not a difficult concept for anyone who enjoys viewing and producing physical prints.

For example one of my boring, terrible, and artistically devoid dead bug pictures looks like a really pretty and slightly curious leaf from a distance, but when you get close you see that it is a butterfly and when you look even closer you can see every little detail has been sharply captured on it. It's an enjoyable viewing experience and it looks great on the wall with my other butterfly pictures.
Good for a 1 second look on Instagram? Nope. Good for real life viewing and enjoying? Absolutely.

>>4410545
>my photos are good because you can zoom in on them. stand closer! use this loupe!
Its been decades and pixel peepers have yet to realize this isn’t true for other people. Its just autofellatio.

No one wants to zoom in on your photos or look at them under a microscope. No one has ever cared what they look like at a viewing distance of a foot or less. It’s never been true in all the history of art.

The term for boring things that can be inspected closely is "a curiosity" or "a trinket". They are only interesting if they’re actually handiwork and not the result of a button press and a chemical bath.

>>4410550
You misunderstand me again, but that's okay. I'm glad you were able to tell me your opinion.

>>4410559
Everyone understands you. You think other people enjoy grain peeping your snapshits and marveling at your gear obsession.

It doesn’t result in good photographs. It’s like saying "but look at how neatly my legos are stacked".

>>4410561
But they do. Even people on here enjoyed them a lot. Some people are even curious and impressed at the lengths I went to produce such brilliant looking images. It wasn't easy to shoot ~5x magnification images that are perfectly sharp and in focus on an 8x10 camera. I was working with like a 2mm or smaller focal plane. There was a lot that went into those pictures and I had fun making them.

They're fun to look at. Only a weird angry guy would get upset at someone if they offered you a loupe to look at an 8x10 color positive. Could you imagine how awkward and weird that would be in real life? "Hey I took this cool 8x10 slide film picture. It has really beautiful detail if you use this loupe to look at it. Wanna try?" "Ohhhh no I'm not a grainpeeper. Only gearfags grainpeep their pics!"

>>4410566
I've seen so many B movies, focusing on how great the story I see unfolds on camera, that I put what the image is above the noise. Search up the film Raggedy Ann and Andy, and you'll see a film so destroyed and grainy that you'd think my images are far cleaner by comparison.

>>4410570
Not really my point, but I fully agree that there is not really a wrong/right better/worse if it's the look you're going for. I don't think you intend to produce ultra noisy and soft images and I do not think the look adds to your images either. If you're trying something crazy with all that more power to you, bro.

File: 1000014447.jpg (1.99 MB, 2910x3639)

1.99 MB JPG

>>4410445
This board needs to make captchas easier / not required for posts with images, and more difficult for text only posts. Walls of text should auto redirected to /b/. Sock puppet "sisters, our response" accounts need to be banned.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7CR
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Photographer	Jen Dockwell
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	525 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2025:02:28 16:57:20
Exposure Time	1/400 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	9.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	350.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2910
Image Height	3639
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft

>>4410576
>guy with the $3000 61mp camera doesn't like the post that proves, with irrefutable logic, that no one needs more than 24mp
the department of gearfag efficiency finna make some cuts. i hope you're still in the return period.

automatically resize all photos to 1000 pixels on the longest side and change all exif to FUJIFILM X100V. gearfags btfo.

>>4410582
I'm been refraining from engaging with a midwit like yourself, as have the other intelligent beings on this board. But for everyone else's sake, I'll take one for the team here and lay out the childishness of your "irrefutable logic and proof".

> I hereby declare the only useful purpose of high res cameras is printing large posters
> I demand all owners of high res cameras to provide proof of 5 or more times when they have printed their photos in 6000x4000 or higher
> no one bothered to acquiescence to my childish demands, therefore, I have now irrefutably proven no one needs a high res camera. Everyone should shoot with micro 43 penis gear like me. My 3 sock puppet accounts will now back me up. I win!

Kys

>>4410445
>Let me guess, they're 8x10?
This poor fellow is so destitute he can't even imagine that other people would want to print bigger than US letter, and do so on a regular basis. Probably had a few 4x6 prints made at CVS and filled the walls of the bedroom he sublets with 4 roommates. Imagine the opulence of having more than a dozen square feet of wall space!
It's tragic honestly, how did we get here?

>>4410576
I think your rabbit pic is well framed and very cute. Thanks for posting.

Ken Rockwell once said resolution is a bourgeoisie concept
I find myself reflecting on that quite often

>sony sisters on stills resolution: actually 61MP is essential to have as you can easily crop and it has better tonality and dynamic range and im not poor haha
>sony sisters on video resolution: wtf nononoooo 8k on panasonic is completely overkill there is no usecase for that reeeee

>>4410591
Ken would know. He's a fucking californian suburbanite. jfc I have no reason to care what other boring fuckers think about anything. All these fucks are a bunch of cunts. If you want more resolution, get it, if not, don't. Otherfags don't matter. Get a grip.

File: 1000014449.jpg (897 KB, 1806x2713)

897 KB JPG

>>4410606
This. But also - don't assume everyone's needs are the same as yours and preach to them about their gear that you do not, have not, and will not ever own.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7CR
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Photographer	Jen Dockwell
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	525 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2025:02:28 14:58:01
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	9.5 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	350.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1806
Image Height	2713
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft

>>4410617
Based and sanity pilled.

>>4410596
It’s not a hivemind, schizo

>>4410617
Very nice bird shot.

>>4410333
this photo is ass. the composition is ass, the colors look like you didn't edit the flat raw file and it looks underexposed
>>4410337
>>4410339
literally samefag shills

>>4410437
that photo is ass though
>>4410442
>spend a ton on a camera
>take ass photos
many such cases

>>4410809
>>4410808
Did you have a nice vacation?

>>4410811
wasn't related to this board

>>4410815
Shame it wasn't permanent. This place was a lot better without you here.

>>4410817
you sure are on angry tranny. did someone make fun of your purse or your bad photos?

>>4410488
digishit looks ugly. see the snoy pic that guy posted, it looks like ass and that's the greatest digital camera ever created

>>4410492
>the colors are always inaccurate
accurate colors doesn't mean good. inaccurate colors doesn't mean bad

>>4410523
top fucking kek

>>4410545
>I SNEED to look at photos at 900% crop with a loupe

>>4410576
/gif/ lowers post time from 60 seconds to 30 seconds for posts with a gif or webm attached

>>4410588
kek, why is purse boi seething about m43 so bad?

Extreme melty

Inb4 cope reply

Wow, are there really many seething poorfags photographers that cant afford a 60MP camera? Embarassing.

File: RIGHT_NOW.jpg (186 KB, 2280x1080)

186 KB JPG

>>4410959
It's because they're spending too much on alcohol.

>>4410596
no you don't understand, snoy is always the best. my livelihood requires it

>>4410617
god what terrible colors

>>4410958
yeah, the snoy bois in this thread do be having a melty and reddit spacing
>>4410959
what cameras have good color science and 60mp?

>>4410973
Sony A7rIV, Sony a7rV and Sony a7cR. Sony has the best color science and SOOC jpegs.

File: 1000014441.jpg (630 KB, 2437x2437)

630 KB JPG

>>4410959
These poorfags are embarrassed to post the pictures from their cereal box cope cams, so they seethe and attack those that actually own decent gear and post pictures. The wall of text faggot has one **black and white** picture of a whore with her tits out that it has posted 20 times when asked to show their work, yet complains about color. The irony.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7CR
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Photographer	Jen Dockwell
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	525 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2025:02:28 14:58:29
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	10.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	350.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2437
Image Height	2437
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Soft
Saturation	Low
Sharpness	Soft

>>4410974
hahahhhhahahahahahahaha
>>4410979
flat light, bad colors. you should get a better program because your editing unironically makes it look like sooc jpgs from a point and shoot from 20 years ago. its like the photos that goat guy with the medium format back posts

>>4410980
You need to post your pics or stfu

>>4410982
This.

>>4410982
This. So much this.

>>4410982
This x100

>>4410982
I have and it made you seethe
also nice samefagitos

>>4411012
Everyone just laughed at your snapshit.

>>4411013
lol no, it was just you and you fucking seethed over it. even zach said it was a great pic

>>4411019
Handsome fella.

>>4410672 appreciates

>>4411019
Beautiful colors.

>>4411019
Proof Sony has the best SOOC color science

>>4411019
How's that MF slr and epson flatbed scanner been treating you btw?

>>4411019
cute pupper, but why is he green?

>>4411024
>>4411025
lmao

>>4411019
>4:3
>olympus filename
We have been played

>>4411019
wow. this is the single best snoy photo I've ever seen, why is it 4:3?

>>4411035
You understand estimate a mossad agent's tomfoolery.

>>4411035
Underestimate* goddamned phone autocorrect.

>>4411024
>>4411025
snoysisters... no... not like this...

>>4411028
Foolturders... not like this!

>>4411019
>>4411028
>>4411058
nice try samefag

>>4411019
this is the single best sony photo I've ever in my life seen. how did you get these great colors?

File: 1000012381.jpg (1.92 MB, 1333x2000)

1.92 MB JPG

>>4411058
Kek!

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7CR
Camera Software	Snapseed 2.0
Photographer	JD
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2025:01:04 16:16:02
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Brightness	2.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1333
Image Height	2000
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>4411063
Just curious. What's stopping you from getting a really nice color checker and profiling the cameras output to get accurate colors???

>>4411067
accurate and good colors aren't always the same thing

>>4411070
It seems like the main problem is inaccurate colors. Green cast.

>>4411067
Better solution would be to just get a proper camera without bad color science instead of color checking every single photo and editing every single photo

>>4411076
You could just make a good ICC profile like I was talking about in the beginning then have it automatically apply to all your pics? Your pics would have accurate colors to start with then you can edit the good ones like you would have in the first place.

>>4411075
maybe its just the one retard, but the snoy pics I've seen often have very ugly and bad colors and look muddy. film makers made a lot of nice looking contrasty films but then had to make portra because pros wanted accurate colors even though normal people preferred the more vibrant colors portra 160 and 400 are very accurate, but not very contrasty or vibrant. ektar has nice colors but it also fucks up the skin of anyone you would want to take a photo of

File: Screenshot_20250301_23244(...).jpg (477 KB, 1079x656)

477 KB JPG

>>4411079
Maybe I am the retard here, but wouldn't correct use of an ICC profile fix that because it translates the output of the camera, or is the problem actually with the sensor and how it records color information?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android UP1A.231005.007.S928U1UES4AYA1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1079
Image Height	656

>>4411080
I'm pretty sure one of the biggest issues is that the one snoy poster spent all that money on a camera and then edits her photos on snapseed on her phone and that's part of why they look like shit, along with the fact she thinks doing a good composition is dumb because muh expensive camera

>>4411081
Oh, well that makes sense. Pretty common issue regardless of the brand we choose to swear fealty to.

>>4411081
>more money than sense
Sad. Many such cases.

File: Sifl_and_olly.jpg (14 KB, 387x257)

14 KB JPG

>>4411081
>>4411082
>>4411092

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	387
Image Height	257

>>4411075
There has never been a green cast

>>4411079
Placebo effect

File: metamerism.png (87 KB, 1898x731)

87 KB PNG

>>4411080
There are legitimate differences between different sensors, which can't be corrected by any kind of profile, because it is baked into the RAWs when the picture is taken. As an extreme example imagine trying to correct a full spectrum image to normal colors, it just can't be done. Thankfully people have recently started to recognize this and there have been attempts to quantify and compare those differences.

Here is an example Dxo test, interesting that with presumably the same sensor, the Sony gets worse results. But there is not a consistent pattern, some of the Snoys outperform similar Nikons and Canons too. I'm not sure the specifics of how this is tested so I don't know how well it captures the nuance.

>>4411132
>There has never been a green cast
yes there is. it's present on all digital cameras due to the way the sensors work, even in Foveons you still get overly green images. I didn't notice this either until I stopped using digital and used film elusively for a year. Now I can't help but notice how green everything is. Sony's green is just extra noticable

>>4411138
Quite wrong

>>4411134
SMI +/- 10 is measurement error.

>recently started
No, they stopped caring over 10 years ago because every camera is accurate enough. Ironically worse SMIs sometimes come with cameras you noskill gearfags think are magic.

>>4411111
Holy rekt by the digits revealing the truth

>>4411111
nah
>>4411149
samefagito

>>4411161
Child.

>>4411132
there is a green cast and it isn't a placebo. that snapsneed snoy poster posts the most ass photos with shitty colors that look under exposed and have boring subjects and bad composition. there is a reason landscape photographers use very vivid and contrasty films, where as his photos just look muddy

>>4411163
Wrong. Dont you have some motion blurred b&w snapshitting to prove on? Touch grass instead of posting disingenuous "opinions" and samefagging the thread to death to try and make your side in a childish brand war look like the "winner”

>>4411134
snoy shill bros don't look, don't look

>>4411169
>samefagging a post about a minor measured difference between two decade old cameras because muhbrands
Grow up child

>>4411162
nah, that's you, purse bro
>>4411164
samefagging is replying to yourself and pretending to be multiple posters. I never ever do that, unlike you snoys. and that photo has no motion blur and looks fine when you views it at normal size and don't pixel peep, but we both know you snoys only like to pixel peep and don't like to look at normal images because normal snoy images are ugly
>muh res
probably due to the shitty scanner more than anything else

>>4411172
I'm not samefagging, purse shill. I was replying to a post that wasn't mine. every poster on this board who isn't a paid snoy shill doesn't like snoys because they are green and produce bad images

>>4411173
>oh no you looked at my picture on a screen bigger than my curry machines
You have shaky hands, its soft at every size, and its a tilted snapshot non-composition with muddy tones because you’re yet another lazy gearfag amateur that thinks bw film was ever meant to be used without color filters and bright light

>>4411175
You sound underage

Read your post out loud in the mood you were in when you wrote it… in front of your mother. You will see what I mean son.

>>4411177
how many INR did you make selling purses today? going to take more shitty photos of the ocean that look like shit? on my 17 inch laptop screen the image looks fine, you just like to pixel peep because its the only way you can fool yourself into thinking you have a good image. you are literally seething because that photo was better than anything youve ever posted
>>4411178
nah, you are projecting and writing that gay retard trash because you got called on on being a snoy shill for INR

>>4411193
You really are a child huh

>>4411196
kek, is this what they tell you to write in the call center after you get btfo'd and humiliated? also fun time seeing you call some random guy me in the gear thread and then seethe about him

>>4411196
This.

>>4411200
samefagito

File: ZVE02139~2.jpg (1.33 MB, 2283x3424)

1.33 MB JPG

>>4411196
More likely a neckbeard with the mental capacity of a child.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ZV-E10
Camera Software	ZV-E10 v2.01
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	525 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2283
Image Height	3424
Image Created	2025:03:02 12:16:41
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
ISO Speed Rating	250
Exposure Program	Manual
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Time	1/1250 sec
Sharpness	Normal
Focal Length	350.00 mm
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Saturation	Low
Light Source	Unknown
Contrast	Soft
Metering Mode	Pattern
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Image Height	4000
White Balance	Auto
Brightness	9.9 EV
Image Width	6000
Exposure Mode	Manual
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal

>>4411205
Copefag.

>>4411207
why is the duck and ice green, samefag?
>>4411209
nah, that's you, purse boi

>>4411207
Beautiful colors.

>>4411210
Because you are blinded by your Sony seething?

>>4411213
lol no. I do find it funny how every thread you fags go into it and are like
>m43 sucks
>big sensor stronk
>snoy better than canon or nikon
and then the slightest bit of pushback against your shilling brings you to tears

File: pepe-with-screaming-and-c(...).jpg (60 KB, 1200x1200)

60 KB JPG

>come back to this board after 9 months
>it's being completely ruined by 2 schizophrenics
I didn't think it was possible for this board to get worse, but here we are

>>4411216
if snoy fags didn't spend every thread shilling their snoys and shitting on other cameras I wouldn't be making fun of them

File: ZVE02020~2.jpg (1.95 MB, 3439x2292)

1.95 MB JPG

>>4411216
Kek why is the frog green tho? Was this taken on a Sony?

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ZV-E10
Camera Software	ZV-E10 v2.01
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	525 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3439
Image Height	2292
Image Created	2025:03:02 12:34:18
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Program	Manual
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
Sharpness	Normal
Focal Length	350.00 mm
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Saturation	Low
Light Source	Unknown
Contrast	Soft
Metering Mode	Pattern
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Image Height	4000
White Balance	Auto
Brightness	7.8 EV
Image Width	6000
Exposure Mode	Manual
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal

File: ZVE02077~2.jpg (972 KB, 2238x1491)

972 KB JPG

>>4411218
> Sony users post pictures taken on Sony cameras, so I'll seethe because I'm a poorfag that can never afford one.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ZV-E10
Camera Software	ZV-E10 v2.01
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	525 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	2238
Image Height	1491
Image Created	2025:03:02 12:40:04
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Program	Manual
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Time	1/800 sec
Sharpness	Normal
Focal Length	350.00 mm
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Saturation	Low
Light Source	Unknown
Contrast	Soft
Metering Mode	Pattern
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Image Height	4000
White Balance	Auto
Brightness	8.2 EV
Image Width	6000
Exposure Mode	Manual
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal

>>4411222
I can go buy a snoy if I wanted to. I don't because I don't want to carry around a purse for a camera that makes everyone look like shrek. see once again the snoy fags show why anti snoying is needed and the
>any snoying is ruining the board
is just gay retards

>>4411222
>>4411219
All you need is 8MP, idiot. Quit wasting your stupid money on stupid things.

File: ZVE02014~2.jpg (2.63 MB, 3395x3393)

2.63 MB JPG

>>4411228
> I can go buy a snoy if I wanted to.
We all know you can't because your Mon already said no.
> I'm ruining the board because I'm a shill
No its because you post walls of text and no pics

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ZV-E10
Camera Software	ZV-E10 v2.01
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	525 mm
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3395
Image Height	3393
Image Created	2025:03:02 12:46:36
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
ISO Speed Rating	320
Exposure Program	Manual
F-Number	f/6.3
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
Sharpness	Normal
Focal Length	350.00 mm
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Saturation	Low
Light Source	Unknown
Contrast	Soft
Metering Mode	Pattern
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Image Height	4000
White Balance	Auto
Brightness	8.1 EV
Image Width	6000
Exposure Mode	Manual
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal