color science editionprevious: >>4466576
>sony/canon/fuji then cuts to 1/2/3 numbering>heh sony is 1; it looks the best>PSYCHE IT'S ACTUALLY FUJI>also #2 is actually Nikon, not Canon (???)devilish
>>4468046What is this schizoposting
>Bro I paid $2000 to shoot 8 bit 90% quality jpegs in auto white balance without changing a single settingPeople are right. You just don't know how to use a camera and you give off entitled boomer vibes.
>>4468046>and they all look like shit1, 2, and 3 are overexposed1 is too pink2 is too green3 is too yellowlessons learned:dont shoot jpeg without changing your settings for the photo first, or just shoot raw like a sane personanyone who thinks "color science" exists beyond jpeg presets doesn't know how to use a camera
bought a used Nikon Z7 and took it for a spin shooting landscapes, blown away by the quality. Also I thought 40+ megapixels was a meme for non-studio/pro use but now I don't want to go back to 20-24mp.
>>4468034Please respond
>>4468058boomers give print/viewing distance/mp guidelines based on a person with bad eyesight who cant move their head, in a curated gallery, and a retouched portrait or car/building photo where missing or mangled fine detail isnt even noticedbayer cameras dont have their stated resolution in real world photography, only on monochrome test charts. a 20-24mp camera is more like 14-16mp. 45mp is more like 31mp. some things like foliage confuse them so badly they perform like they have half the resolution in that spot.film does not have this problem.people who like posting 100% size digishit pics to /p/ could benefit from scaling them down to 75% to hide bayer issues. also because most web browsers emulate the dogshittiest monitor spec on earth - 72dpi. on most screens each individual pixel is actually being scaled to fit multiple pixels and this magnifies bayer issues on top of looking kind of shitty on its own. there's a few websites that are modernized but 4chan is not one of them.>>4468059keep it and just buy an even longer lens
>>4468061>keep it and just buy an even longer lensBut I already have the XF 50-200mm and XF 35mm f1.4
>>4468062keep it and buy a 16-80 instead
>>44680451 (Fuji) > 2 (Nikon) > 3 (Sony)
>>4468064>samefagging after you got btfo on fundamental terms
>>4468067Who are you arguing with?
>>4468045Fell for the pocketable everyday camera meme. But won't fall for 1 inch sensors (my phone is literally better). Every new m43/APS-C option is 1000 bucks or more. Every 15 year old camera is 600 or more. What are my options if I don't want to shell out 1000 bucks for the gr3x... My main is an xt3 but I rarely take it out anymore because it's too big for everyday use...
>>4468045Huh.. okay >#1 looks like magenta rainbow ass, and what the fuck is wrong with the bokeh having cat eyes center frame>#2 looks pretty clear and accurate. No big swings either side of M/G. Clean. Prefered.>#3 looks a bit scuffed. Somehow the white table looks green, but the wooden desk in the background looks both too magenta and too green>#2 is NikonYeah that makes sense>>4468055>2 is too greenEvery time I see comments like this I have to remind myself I have regular aviation-grade medical reports saying that I'm completely not colour blind lmao.
>>4468074essentially give up. i've given up on compact, cheap EDC cams I can throw into my car or backpack. everything is so fucking expensive. even used. it's just not worth the money.
>>4468058let me guess. you're a croptard too incompetent to get the composition right in camera and then you crop like the retard you are?
>>4468080>editing to crop: >=(>editing to fix bad color science: =DDD
Should I?This also good for video? 4:2:0 is probably not the golden standrad but hopefully good enough
>>4468086cropping changes the composition. adjusting colors just changes how data is interpreted by the display device. it's two different things entirely, idiot
>>4468102>videono one cares, idiot
>>4468086Unironically, yes. You buy a high res camera to print large and deliver large files to picky clients.Cleaning up the edge of a shot by a few pixels is whatever, but yeah if you're relying on significant crops to make a photo work, that just means you fucked up in the field and now have to butcher total IQ to save it. Bonus points: you need hi-res because your crops are so big you can't salvage even a FHD res shot after cropping.Resizing down is valid because bayer bullshit ruins colour accuracy, and results in artefacts and chrominance issues.
q(t)7
>>4468113cropping fucks your signal:noise ratio so you could just go out and shoot micro four thirds. congrats anon you turned your 60mpx leica into a micro four thirds toy camera
>>4468143https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4iQmjONCb8
Anybody ever look at fujirumors.com for new gear?I did for a while because I've been interested in buying a Fuji camera, but that site is just so obnoxiously pushing affiliate links it's crazy.I go between being completely disgusted by how unhinged the guy who runs it is and also find it funny that he's so blatant about it.But any comment making even so much as a slight mention of his tactics gets deleted almost instantly.And he of course uses lots of AI images, which I find pretty ironic coming from a photography site.Do I really have to resort to shitty facebook groups and this place if I want to keep an eye on new gear? Everything is just so fucking insufferable.Would be great to find an alternative to fujirumors that isn't 100% about affiliate links
https://www.colorfidelity.com/Are custom camera-specific color profiles worth buying for light room? Its only $25 and I'm thinking the Adobe ones for my Pentax K1ii aren't the best.
>>4468045
>>4468163Won't usual shills like Petapixel cover all new Fuji gear anyway? Not that you are going to actually miss any new $2000 camera release. Otherwise I find dpreview forums bearable, even though that place is even more toxic than /p.
>>4468164I saw them being shilled for Olympus cameras as well, but it really doesn't help that the website offers zero information on what's exactly being sold (a dcp profile I guess?) and why it is worth the money.
>>4468163>I go between being completely disgusted by how unhinged the guy who runs it is and also find it funny that he's so blatant about it.I think he's a snoy schizo, which would explain a lot.
>>4468061It's the other way around. Film hss that problem to a higher degree than digital. If you can read 80 lp/mm off a film and that's the limit, it's fuzzy, soft, very low contrast and barely visible. If you can get 80 lp/mm off a digital sensor then it is way clearer and easily visible. The film shot with the same level of visibility is more akin to 50 lp/mm. I know because I tested a lot of films years back. Even if you read them off a microscope and an Imacon 949 it's like that. Film gets super fuzzy and soft and low contrast at its limits with a couple of exceptions like CMS20. Those fuzzy barely readable limits are typically far below what datasheets state are the limits.
>>4468166dpreview forums is full of self important boomer gear collectors
>>4468186>ask for gear advice on dpreview forum>get detailed huge text block analysing the gear and explaining why I should / should not buy it>ask on /p/>get this reply: >>4468110
>>4468198That's because /p/ save for some threads is for seeking validation, heckling and baselessly accusing people of sexually molesting different beings, forums are for actual photography related discussion. Even if it's about the equipment. Ever notice how technique and subject suggestions get shot down while consumption and snapshittery get praise?
i've got zero knowledge on mounts and stuffare there glass/suction mounts for a full-size camera and lens, preferably with vibration dampening, that i can mount on my rear windshield and get le ebin tooj clips?>why not goprobecause i have a full size camera and lens and no gopro, and also, too wide
>>4468166All those youtube guys will post a billion videos when stuff releases, but I'd like to avoid the whole youtube shit.I'll check out dpreview. Photography is just a hobby for me, so I'm not really aware of photo forums.>>4468186So it's basically the gear page, but for cameras? I can live with that.>>4468198>>4468205That's why I want to find other places than here too. You get one or two genuine replies every 1000.
>>4468198dpreview is gearfag central. of course they're going to repeat all the marketing talking points to you. here you get the honest truth: no one fucking cares about video.
>>4468208>but I'd like to avoid the whole youtube shit.>I'll check out dpreview.so you just want to read the summary of youtube shits filtered through some boomer's lackluster understanding of technology?
>>4468211I don't know I've never had a look at dpreview. But this is also something that annoys me. One anon says: "maybe check out x place""Ok, I'll have a look""You're going to check that place out? What are you a fucking moron?"It's just so fucking tiring constantly getting that.
>>44682174chan is full of low IQ contrarians that think they know it all. Always has been. Don't take anything here seriously.
>>4468045Picked up a canon s100 for $3.Noticed people seem to be selling them for a few hundred dollars online.Is this some sort of hidden gem? What so specially about it when it's like a decade+ old? Is it worth messing around with and learning some photography on, or taking with me on my walks to take pics of stuff (I'm not a photographer at all btw)
>>4468198Just read the spec sheet then.It's just numbers that mean nothing.It's all about the feel of the camera, guarantee you a D750 takes better feeling pictures than that costcutting slop with no soul and maximum post processing where the sensor is gimped to have the camera output as fast as possible for crippled 4k video or whatever the fuck they are crippling sensors for these days.
>>4468221Youtuber talked about it so the price went up I guess.Anyway it's sorta the golden age of Canon before they became retarded, has the great looking colors of older Canon cameras without the post processing garbage, is modern enough to not be outclassed by newer cameras (without pixel peeping for "noise").It's also really small, so people use it as an alternative for their phone.
>>4468221Probably that psyop telling people to buy CCD cameras.
>>4468086There is no such thing as color science. Change your settings. Raws contain no color info >>4468164Cobalt image but it works better in capture one. Lightroon is bad at color. >>4468052>>4468055/thread
>>4468169Imacon scanners are garbage and 6x7 produces a very good 80mp
I did do an impulse buy today at my local auction. Bought 3 panasonic lumix dc fz83s for £130. Just seemed cheap. What am I in for?Planning to practice with them. I've got 3 Gemini GM500s and am trying to teach myself product photography for my antiques business. I'll eventually get a decent DSLR but what will these Lumix do shooting from tripod with remote trigger and good light?I can sell them for more than I paid so just for playing around/practice really. Getting used to how everything works. I'm a complete novice.
>>4468086>editing to cropNormal part of photography going back to eriwtt and adams>editing to fix bad color scienceHow can you fix something that isn't real? Color science is a term made up by fat, lifeless brand warriors (illustrated) because as camera brands got closer and closer in capability they started running out of things to argue about, and settled on arguing about default jpeg settings and lightroom defaults.Among "color science" types, simply using capture one can be called "cheating" and a "cope" because that is what color science actually means. "Lightroom defaults, <2 click edit" and "jpegs, no settings changed other than main profile". In fact a tripfag here (it was probably cinefag) has actually called capture one "cheating for snoys and fujislugs" because if that one shitty raw converter doesn't support a brand well that brand is supposed to be bad, or the brand war loses even more of its point and it finally becomes clearThe only thing left to brand war about is the autofocus to price ratio, and the only loser on that front is panasonic which is a completely irrelevant brand
I'm a poorfag. Should I buy a used DSLR (looking at 750D's and 5500's) or save my pennies for a bit longer until I can afford a used/refurbed mirrorless like the R10? Whatever I get will have to last me for 5 years if not longer, so I don't want to fuck up this decision. Is DSLR a waste of my time and money?
>>4468245>There is no such thing as color science. Change your settings. Raws contain no color infoThis is the cope of a Sony shooter for sure.Get a Canon 5D, shoot a raw side by side with your Sony and see if you can see any color difference at all.
>>4468250>looking at 750D's and 5500'sDo you mean Nikon D750? Cus Canon 750D is not it.If you want a used Canon get a 5D Mark III.If you want a used Nikon get a D750.Modern cameras are souless costcutting slop with smartphone tier postprocessing (even on raws).
>>4468250save and buy a used Nikon Z5. Yes there are some downsides to it (autofocus speed isn't as good as the most recent bodies) but it gets you into mirrorless at a good price. and there is a perfect lens available for cheap (Nikon Z 24-70mm F4) that together with that body will keep you going for a while.
>>4468166fujirumors pretty reliably has rumors out before other outlets from my experience, im sure he's a bit more cavalier with publishing leaked info moreso than a larger org like Petapixelit is an awful add-ridden site though and owner comes off narcissistic
>>4468249>Normal part of photography going back to eriwtt and adamssome examples herehttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56318241
>>4468250D800/D810 is better and cheaper than D750.
>>4468263holy boomer cope
>>4468272Cropping was never seen as bad until crop cope digital and shitty low res bayer sensors6x7 color film is *AT LEAST* 80mp - with old scanning tech. In B&W that's 100mp of cropping room. The GFX100S can produce good looking 400mp scans of 35mm.And then out came aps-c and m43 and <36mp FF sensors now cropping is bad and a cope because of the eternal digicopers defensiveness and insecurity:>"Anything that makes my camera look like a bad purchase is actually bad activity">-digislugs
>>4468276>>"Anything that makes my camera look like a bad purchase is actually bad activity"aka>DONT LOOK>STOP NOTICING THINGS
>>4468266Wtf, since when is a D810 cheaper than D750? (It's not)Also D750 is better than D800, especially in the eye test.
Has anyone used one of these chink shit USB cameras?I want to use one or two as cameras for a fire watch tower. It's important that they work as USB webcam for the software it uses, but beyond that I was also going to use them for long exposure night timelapses since the view is pretty good there.I guess some people use something similar for astrophotography but maybe with different sensors
>>4468281>chink shit>Firewatch tower.You trying to burn it down?
>>4468279It is here in Norway. Always has been.D800 and D810 are virtually identical, so your statement is retarded.
>>4468074Z30 was $400 refurb from Nikon a month ago, bookmark the link and wait for it to come back up again. Otherwise you can find a ZVE10/a6100 for $4-500. a6400 is still closer to $7-800.
>>4468285Why do you think that is retard?It's because the D750 is more desirable, the pictures look better.Also the D810 came out 2 years after the D800 and has slightly better dynamic range, color depth, ISO and processor.The problem with both the D800 and D810 is they are landscape photo cameras ONLY, they have a too high MP for the sensor so the images are kinda washed out and noisy because the pixel area is too small to gather enough light to give pleasing image.Exactly the same as with the Canon R5, looks like shit.
>>4468299Not an issue under iso 3400ish (2800 for true iso 50 cameras)High res low speed goes back to iso 50 film. It’s a physics problem.
>>4468281I had something similar and it got quite hot, I reckon they have terrible longevity and probably crap for noise
>>4468045>give nikon the most expensive lens>give fuji a mid lens>give sony a $100 dogshit lens with major bokeh fringing that turns oof areas wide open magenta in front and green in back>shoot wide open>awb unchanged jpeg settings which no actual photographer does>fuji STILL looks the worstWhen even a crooked test is not enough to make fuji look like its fairly priced for what it puts out
>>4468245>There is no such thing as color science. Change your settings. Raws contain no color infolol lmao even
>>4468300That's not how that works.The 1D X Mark III has 20mp for a good reason.
i listed this digishit for $100 + $10 shipping on ebay, fair? i figure every other listing was $120-140 and located in japan (tariffs)its pretty nice as far as digishits go but im pairing down my collection it was intended to be le gfs but she never used it
>>4468341>fair?I look at the sold prices on the same items in the same condition and slap the same number on mine. Just sold my Canon IXUS 170 for $220AU because I saw they were selling for around $180-$200. Demand for compacts is going up so you could inflate the numbers a little, and you should inflate the numbers anyway because eBay take 13.4% of the final sale price. If you want $100, sell it for $115, maybe even $118 to account for the cost of packaging.
>>4468343I listed it locally for $80. The 14% sales price thing is true. I actually paid next to nothing for it ($45 from yahoo auctions jp as "junk" but ended up being like-new...don't worry I got burned on 2 lenses that were actually hazed to shit and a F70EXR that came with lens fungus so really I'm breaking even)
>>4468334Sorry you dont know how cameras workMetameric error and lens color cast is all they have and its all over the place with no brand trends aside from the cooke looke, zeiss t* and leica colors
>>4468341Dude, who fucking cares. You've already done it so it means absolutely fucking nothing what we think. You just want validation for wasting your money on e-waste and then selling it in for a mediocre profit.
>>4468348You don't think different sensors render colors differently? are you retarded?
>>4468353its not wasting your money if you have a mediocre profit retard
>>4468367it's hours of work, a job would give you x10 for the same time
>>4468369i already work a 9-5 that makes me $150k usd a yearthis took me 30 minutes of my time (take photos, pack, list, if it sells slap a label on it and go) and i got some cool photos out of it you know how many hours people itt sink on videogames
>>4468139wait WHATplease tell me that's like an extra-large can or photoshopped or somethingthat's hilarious
>>4468287Z30 is not really pocketable though. The grip is too large. I don't necessarily want just a small camera. I want one that fits in my pocket at all times. But I'll probably just use my phones. The prices aren't worth it.
>>4468287>>4468377But ZVE 10 is a decent suggestion. I'll look into it. Maybe I can pair the viltrox pancake with it and make it pocketable.
>>4468355>You don't think different sensors render colors differently? are you retarded?You are retarded if you think this.
What are some cool little functional and useful gizmos for photography? like light meters, etc
>>4468307What I don’t get is why the Fuji looks so overexposed compared to the other two. Also can’t understand how/why the Nikon 50/1.2 is the size of fucking football. I get that everybody wants to ooh and ahh over muh edge to edge sharpness, but the reality is that for actual pictures of irl scenarios, lenses with “character” look better. And they’re smaller + lighter. Or look at Leica. Side by side, it just looks nicer, in part because the lenses aren’t so pristinely perfect and “digital looking”I wish I could tolerate how chunky old FF Nikon DSLRs are, I’d be more than happy to shoot with the old AF-D lenses from the ‘90s. Maybe I really should just buy a Df, although I’m sure it does lag behind mirrorless in some of the performance areas that actually matter - autofocus, size/weight, metering and WB accuracy, ISO performance, etc. And the flexible picture controls on the new Nikon cameras would be really nice to have as an option. I just can’t justify the ridiculous size and bulk of the Z mount system. Honestly thinking of going Fuji just to have something that’s a comparable size to the film cameras I learned on as a little kid. Too bad Leica costs $5k+ for a body and has no AF, I’ve really been loving the pics I see out of those, as long as they aren’t just of homeless guys lmao
Any options other than Fuji for actually halfway reasonable sized cameras? I’m not sure how to feel about micro 4/3, I get the idea, but aps-c is already pushing the limits of a tiny sensor. And is there much of any lens selection for fast portrait lenses, walk-around zooms that aren’t some f6.3 plastic crap, etc?I love the look of the new ZF, but the lenses are ridiculously huge, maybe the Chinese stuff like 7/TTartisan is a little more reasonable size but I haven’t looked. Even the mount is fucking dumb large though. So my options seem to be Fuji, m4/3, or sell someone’s kidney and buy Leica. Or suck up the bulk of the body and buy an old DSLR and old FF lenses that are somehow 20-50% smaller than the new stuff.
>>4468382Light meter that automatically triggers flash, spot meter + incident combo.Shutter release cableHot shoe levelSmall tripodFlash trigger + flashes or strobes + battery pack for faster rechargeUniversal viewfinder
>>4468390Just be like the vast majority of people, and buy a sony instead of a poorly made, overpriced worm camera or a phone sensor with an f11-16 zoomzeiss 35mm f2.8sigma 90mm f2.8Simple as
>>4468387>the reality is that for actual pictures of irl scenarios, lenses with “character” look betternot to normies
>>4468387Shitty lenses don't look good to people who aren't photography geeks who want to ape 50 year old photosIf you're considering something as stupid as spending $1500+ on fuji's poorly made junk why not just shoot real film instead of ass simulated filmFuji cameras aren't actually that small either
>>4468394Then the question becomes, do you take photos for yourself or so others can approve of you?
>>4468377Here's the thing though....as someone who bought a ZVE10 locally and 2 weeks later traded in to MPB as a profit ($400 -> $480).Pros:-Sensor has awesome dynamic range and the colors are excellent. pic related.-Software is great and idiot proof, gets it right 90% of the time on intelligent auto and the other 10% you can switch to the modes (night or action) and it'll be fine-Autofocus is as good as claimed -Size works great if you're gonna keep it around your neck. Can barely feel it.-USBC charging -Power Zoom means one handed operation and the zoom can be pretty snappy. I had it set to quick zoom using the zoom ring and slow zoom with the rocker. It pops out a extra inch when you use it Cons: -Small size means you don't have enough dials/controls. Just one scroll wheel, no PASM which you notice when you have to switch modes, and easy to accidentally record video when you meant to take a photo. The bigger grip on the Z30 is nice because you have a better hold on the camera and the Nikon has a PASM dial and 2 scroll wheels for a little larger size.-Small size also makes it awkward because the lens gets caught on everything as you pull it in and out of your pockets. -Dont like the power button location, it's a little difficult to get with a case.-Lack of weatherproofing is REALLY fucking obvious. Ports on the side are wide open other than a chintzy plastic latch. You're probably gonna be fucked if you get caught out in the rain with it. I was freaking out when I got caught in a torrential downpour with it and that's with me tucking it under my hoodie. Fortunately nothing happened.-Lens is old (2012, from the original NEX line) so expect some distortions and not the sharpest quality. More importantly Sony APSC lenses are kinda shitty even compared to Nikon Z DX imo, everyone immediately uses the FF E Mount lenses I noticed (which are often 2x the size of the camera lol)-Screen is just "okay" I found the Nikon to have the better screen.
>>4468396I derive enjoyment from entertaining others with my photos
>>4468393>Just be like the vast majority of people, and buy a sony instead
I'm looking to upgrade from an APS-C DSLR from yesteryear to a modern FF mirrorless but every brand seems shitty in some way or another. Do I just get a last-gen DSLR from Nikon or Canon and forget about gear? The D780 and D850 seem kinda cool. I genuinely hate all modern brands.
>>4468394>>4468395They definitely do look good to normies, every wannabe art chick on insta-tok is oohing and ahhing over filmic vibes, Fuji x100 meme, digicam meme, etc. besides, this is a hobby and an artsy thing for girls on IG, if I was shooting real stuff for real money I’d buy a medium format digital and write it off on my taxes. Would 100% shoot real film, but it’s a pain in the ass when traveling. Digital is nice to be able to send pics to people right away, post right away, etc. Surprised at how big the xt5 is compared to zf, but zf is one of the smaller Nikons. Biggest thing is that the Fuji lens is literally half the size, and that’s basically the smallest Nikon Z lens lol Agreed that Fuji was a way tf better investment a couple years ago, missed the bus there
>>4468414There's no perfect camerablah blah blahThe one you have with you, etc & what not
>>4468416All I want is a perfect camera...
>>4468393A7c variant is definitely on the radar, didn’t know they had nice compact 3rd party lenses like that. I’d miss the retro vibe, people respond really well to it, but it is what it is.
>>4468415The size comparison is a trick of perspectiveThe X-T5 is on-paper a little thicker but that's due to grip. Look how deep that grip is compared to the Zf, i.e. the main body is thinner than anon's pic looks
>>4468414You can find a D750 for $4-600, so yeah why the fuck not. I personally bought a $900 K-1 Mark II until A7IV prices drop or a FF camera I really like comes out that has adapters for both Pentax K and Minolta A comes out. If you like Nikons just shoot Nikon. D850 is still pricey imo and personally I disliked it when I used it, too complicated but I'm also retarded.
>>4468416Lol fuck off thirdie poorfag.>>4468414Every brand DOES suck in one way or another. I personally think smaller mirrorless is the way to go but a top-end DSLR will set you for many years, especially if you factor in that lenses will get cheaper with demand moving towards mirrorless.
>>4468421Good pointNgl, I wish I didn’t care this much about size/weight, I’d save a fuck load of money for stills shooting if I went with a d750 and some early AF lenses. But I want to take the thing around town, traveling, etc, and the number one reason the d90 I had back in the day missed photos was that I was never carrying it. Got spoiled learning on my dads ‘80s film SLRs, which were bafflingly light and compact. Yashica fx3 was a great little film body
>>4468378>ZVE 10 is a decent suggestion. I'll look into it. Maybe I can pair the viltrox pancake with it and make it pocketable.You will unironically get better pics with your phone
>>4468434Your phone doesn't have the glass or sensor. It's a stupid meme unless you have a $2000 1in sensor chinkphone won't apply 99% of the time. Cell phones have too many compromises to keep their form factor and get mogged to fuck if you need to zoom.
Is it worth it to go into videography? I'm a photographer for fun: family, cars, some nature, travel, my kids, .. Sometimes I regret not taking more videos because when watching them they feel more alive compared to stills. Sure with photos you start some brain processing, remembering what happened around the photo but it's not the same. With that ZR and its cheap price I was thinking of jumping to this camera and trying some video. Seems to be easy enoough to color grade and I can also do photos with it (though no mechanical shutter.. is it that much of a problem?). With the 40/2 it's quite compact to bring anytimes. I'm just worried that in the end I use it 99% for photography because I find making videos more boring than expected. Is this another world you can dive into like photography that is equally fun?
>>4468373nope, they are just that small
>>4468435>doesn't have the glass>mogged to fuck if you need to zoomlmao retard
>neck strap is bad for you and cumbersome>wrist strap has you dedicate an entire hand to the cameraSurely there's another way?
>>4468456
>>4468455Still more sensor and glass than a phone
>28-135mm/2.8well they made my(almost) perfect lenstime to start saving upI bet the day after I get it Sigma or Tamron will announce a 24-135mm/2.8
>>4468461why not a 10-1000mm f/1.4 pancake?
>>4468393No difference between a Samsung 24 and a sony A7
>>4468455>Thinks any mirrorless camera made after 2015 isn't just a glorified phone sensor.ngmi nigger
>>4468456shoulder strap
>>4468459literally any phone camera will mog your setup
>>4468478My phone camera was so bad it made me pursue photography though
>>4468299>It's because the D750 is more desirable, the pictures look betterLmao>D810 has better dynamic rangeA microscopic difference at the LOWEST end of the ISO scale. If you think your ISO 100 image looks bad, you are doing something very wrong.>better processorDoesn't translate into anything. The only significant upgrade from the D800 is the softer shutter, which is less noisy.>the D800 and D810 is they are landscape photo cameras ONLYThe dumbest shit anyone ever wrote on this mongolian basket weaving forum. Congratulations.
>>4468478So this is the power of Sony...
Gonna sell that digishit for $80 todayFigure eBay would only get me $85 after fees and still make me wait a week for the money
>>4468478> That uniform layer of haze over everythingI was editing a whole bunch of vacation photos taken on an iPhone, and I cannot stand this haze any more. Whether it's shit "glass" or postprocessing going mental, it just ruins photos.
>>4468512Plastic lenses aren't ideal for muted colours without looking like smeary shit. The processing tries to give them some life but it ends up looking like a sheet mask spread all over the sky and trees. Gooey imo.Also, a CPL would help cut through the hazy shit
>>4468512It's the atmosphere, also just run them through dehaze in darktable.
>>4468517Check your lens. You're going to randomly have this shit indoors and over building corners.
>>4468415Zf is one of the larger Nikon's and in-person, the X-T5 does feel noticeably smaller and lighter. X-T5 + grip is like my ideal size. It's not a huge difference, but noticeable, like a normal vs XL phone.There are a lot of things I actually prefer on the X-T5, but there are some things the Zf just does so well, and when push came to shove, I let my X-T5 go.old picrel
>>4468299>The problem with both the D800 and D810 is they are landscape photo cameras ONLYngl this got a big "huh?" from me dawg
>>4468521It's just a retard that thinks pixel density exists in a vaccuum and the only thing worth considering to IQ, pay them no mind
>>4468511I have a bidding war for this stupid thing lol are they really worth that much Already have someone offering me $100 and I'm noticing it's still pretty cheap I don't care because I paid $50 for it and just wanna sell it rather than let it sit in my apartmentAre people really asking this much for old point and shoots with baby dick sensors that are smaller than most $100 Android phones?
>>4468478I‘m a big big proponent of phone cameras. Phones made huge chunks of entry-level and mid-level dedicated cameras obsolete.BUT. The small sensor and wide lens makes everything look so flat. Literally every time I come back from vacation with friends that’s the first they say about my pics. They love that the portraits look so 3D. It’s more real.
>>4468521Like the meme with the cat?
>>4468532The zoomers are obsessed with "muh digicam" because they've been convinced shitty 4MP CCDs are basically the same as film, and it makes them look more serious about photos than just whipping out their phone.There is a whole market for digishits because yootoob told them buying one is how you get sovl.
>>4468540...this thing has a 16mp CMOS I do like the form factor but it's not that special. Phones give better image quality and I only use it when I wanna have a separate thing to take photos with or want a deep fried contrasty look.I mean I fell for the CCD meme that's why I have 4 20 year old DSLRs but I didn't pay more than $100 for any of them (closer to $50-80)....the MSRP for this thing was $280 in 2012.Realizing I could've had a nice little side biz buying "junk" dig cams from Japan and flipping them for 3-5x in America.
How did I do film bros?
>>4468434i had that lens on an a7c and it was still better than a phone. but it is basically a phone lens. it fucked colors sideways and was hazy as fuck but on a global level it was still obviously better so your instagram followers would notice the difference.that's the power of using a bigger sensor. maybe a $1500 CCPhone built around a 1" camera could AI generate more wormy, wobbly detail to pixel peep and people without souls would think it looked the same, but also xi would have access to your home network.>>4468413im sorry to say sony makes better cameras than leica, panasonic, olympus, and fujifilmye must buy a canon/hasselblad/nikon and forget ever having a compact kit, or go back in time and buy a real film camera, to do better than a sony. this is just a sad fact of life.
>>4468551>pentax>1985ishygddt
>>4468553Oh fuck are DJIblads backdoored too? Is there a hidden always on 4g radio in my x2dII?我特莫死定了
>>4468553>sony makes better cameras than (fashion accessory brands)That's not exactly a high bar
>>4468551I think I have the same lens (long one) I use on my 5D M3
Drunk purchased a second x100vi now what?
I use R7 + adapted sigma 150-600C (a leftover from my rebel-lious youth) for birding, Is it worth upgrading to RF 100-500 from said sigma, or will the difference in IQ be negligible on the aps-c sensor?
>>4468586Start selling them at a markup to Chinese people
>>4468587>RF 100-500 from said sigmaWhat even is this? I haven't heard of one or seen one.
>>4468387>Too bad Leica costs $5k+ for a body and has no AF, I’ve really been loving the pics I see out of those, as long as they aren’t just of homeless guys lmaoGet a mirrorless Nikon or a Leica SL (601, 2, or 2S), some rangefinder glass, and git gud with the focus peaking (not that it's hard to do so in the first place). That way you get the character, you get the compact glass, you get the fun, and still have the option to shoot AF glass if desired. This is the true autist's choice.>b-but what about snoy/canon/fuji/panasonicNot great for adapting lenses due to the sensor cover glass being way thicker on these than Leica and Nikon. Even normal SLR lenses suffer, not just fast wide angles.
>>4468478>here's your 60MP foolframe bro!Ahahahhahahahahahahahaha
>>4468512>it's shit "glass"that's exactly what it ishigh-quality glass is treated with proprietary coatings like SMC, T*, etc., which are designed to reduce haze in diffuse lighting and flare from direct light sources. the difference is night and day between uncoated and coated lenses. it seems Apple have developed their own coating called ALD but there's not much info on it online.
>>4468624>it seems Apple have developed their own coating called ALD but there's not much info on it online.If it were anything worth bragging about you know they would be. It's probably some basic coatings to stop the biggest flares when pointing into the sun and that's it.
>>4468520As somebody who’s kinda getting back into the swing of serious photography, x-t3/4/5 vs. zf? What about the zf tipped it over for you? The stuff I personally work on doesn’t need insane lens performance, so idk if the big ol’ Z lenses are worth it. I’d rather have lenses with some character than absolutely maxed out mtf charts Smallness and lightness of Fuji is a big selling point too. How do you like your x-pros? I’ve thought about it, but the price is so inflated that idk if it’s worth. I wish someone built cameras with more of a Leica mindset but not at the Leica cost is no object price point. Small camera, full frame for nice pop and 3d separation, small lenses, some with interesting “vintage character”, cute design rather than a robot blob, etc Quite frankly, I also wish I didn’t care as much about camera size haha. I’d be hella happy using retro Nikon AF lenses on a nicer FF DSLR, but the weight is just a bitch
>>4468611Zf, or a different Nikon body for this? Gotta say, I’m really tempted to do the ZF + adapted M-Mount old glass for peak retro, but if one of the cheaper modern style Nikons has the same performance, picture controls, etc, at a lower price point and weight, then I might just go with that.
>>4468648Z5IIThe Zf, Z8, Z6III, and Z5II are the only ones with subject detection in MF, which if you shoot people with MF glass, is pretty game changing.With a chipped adapter, any lens gets green focus confirmation too. Peaking or zoom for focus check are no longer necessary. It's the best digital MF system.
>>4468592https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf100-500mm-f4-5-7-1-l-is-usm?type=New
>>4468651NTA, the wording was a little muddy and I also assumed you meant a Sigma 100-500 that doesn't exist.Anyway, The 100-500 is rather decent, but what I would start thinking about in comparison is getting a 200-800 instead.The 200-800 is about 1/3rd cheaper than the 100-500 (and yes, there are reasons for that), but if you're birding the long end of the 800 is going to get you a significant reech advantage over the 500mm. Even if you went full frame and got the 200-800 it would still give you (a little) more reach and be far better for IQ. And yes that would be another $2000 for a body but consider it.Then you could even go extra autism and get the 1.4x adapter with the 200-800 and have 1120mm f/13 which yeah isn't going to be as good as a mythical 1200mm f/5.6 or anything but it'll do better than the 100-500 with a 2x and be a bit faster.If you'd rather save money or be lightweight, get the RF 100-400 and keep it with the R7. I was happy with its performance especially considering how cheap and light it was.
>>4468646>What about the zf tipped it over for you?Better functionality with adapted FF MF glass, some more sophisticated features, better AF tracking.>Smallness and lightness of Fuji is a big selling point too.I do love the Fujicrons.>How do you like your x-pros?I've had Pro2 since launch and it's definitely an all-time favorite camera. Pro3 had some practical improvements, but was also a letdown in a lot of ways.
>>4468646not that anon but i've shot some fuji kits. xpro+18/f2 is my preferred digital setup for street and events xpros are expensive because of the ovf. that's pretty much the biggest selling point. and i find the ovf to be quite nice for quick shooting. the ovf is not great for manual focus or critical focus tho imo so if you're a big portrait shooter, xpro might not have much for you. if you want to adapt rf lenses, nikon system is best due to crop factor of 1 and thinner sensor glass.picrel xpro2 with 18/f2
>>4468648I think except for the Z5II the Zf is the cheapest one that can do thisBoth are pretty much the same camera internally. You just need to decide what style of body you like more. I personally got the Zf and I'm glad I did. The """ergonomics""" aren't an issue at all - even without any grip. It's just a stupid youtube/forums talking point.And the dials make it actually great for switching modes without any user bank bullshit. I live in aperture priority with auto ISO. my speed dial is set to 1/250 so when I suddenly need faster shutter speed than what I usually rock in auto ISO I just switch the mode switch to shutter priority and bam. when I'm done I get back to aperture priority. need a specific ISO? just turn the ISO dial. no menu diving. no "hold button and turn command dial" shit. it's great.now if I were some dedicated birder boomer I'd get a modern style body like the Z5II but for small primes (even manual focus) I don't see the need.also the Zf looks sweet and I get pussy constantly because of it.
>>4468611>Get a mirrorless NikonWhat retard would ever pay more for a Nikon mirrorless than a D850?
>>4468651Oh, all RF lenses are crap as far as I know.In my experience they all further magnify the glaring problems with the R series cameras in that they all look over sharpened edges, flat and depthless.Just get old EF glass and adapt it, it helps a little but not enough for me to recommend buying EOS R cameras.
>>4468682yeah, when I compared RF glass to EF glass I was surprised how good the EF glass was and how well it held up.only when I get to compare Z glass to F glass I realized that RF glass is actually so shit that EF glass isn't much worse than it. the difference between Z and F is astronomical. and F and EF glass wasn't that much apart. so yeah RF glass is a joke designed to milk retards
>>4468686Nta. The only RF lenses worth buying imo are the ones with no EF counterpart or those that have a significant difference.The RF 14-35 comes to mind because 14mm is pretty sick to get in a rectilinear, or the RF100-400 because of how lightweight it is.Otherwise getting EF L lenses is very cost-effective and worth imo.
>retards arguing about color "science">they don't realize 4chan uploads can completely fuck up your jpeg colors if you're not using the right color profile during the export process, sucking up all the colors when viewed through your browser on 4chan
>>4468702>heh actually I don't understand how jpeg compression so nothing mattersHere's you (you) anon. Nice try, but no one is that retarded.
>>4468648Z7ii if you want to be absolutely sure about minimizing ray angle issues (lacks an AA filter, so it's the thinnest sensor stack in Nikon's lineup). Zf or Z5ii if you don't care about that and/or want a camera that isn't butt fucking ugly like the Z7ii. I'd personally go with the Z5ii if I didn't already have an SL.>>4468650>With a chipped adapter, any lens gets green focus confirmation too.Not exactly true. Nikon's FTZ is a fucking dud and does not provide any kind of focus confirmation with Ai-S lenses and earlier. You'd need to buy a Sony E->Nikon Z adapter and use Sony adapters instead. Thankfully there are good ones on the market like Voigtlander and Novoflex (properly infinity calibrated unlike cheaper ones that expect you to shim it yourself).
>>4468722>well actually...6-bit M-Z + any F to M adapter, there you goWorks for any lens that can adapted to M mount too
Why do you guys hate monopods?
>>4468727Don't. My $30 monopod was probably the most cost-effective pruchase I've made. I rather take it out than my several hundred dollar carbon tripod; it extends and collapses within a few seconds. More useful in windy conditions. Good for panning. And, best of all it has a pointy tip and you can whack people with it if they approach you.Travelling ultralight is a boon too easily overlooked.
I'm a sucker for M42 lenses but all of mine are prime so far, any recommended zoom ones to use on Fuji X-T5?
>>4468727tripods with detachable legs that turn into monopods are where it's at
>>4468739my monopod comes out of my tripod in the middle.
>>4468727because spending thousands of dollars on IBIS bodies is more gearfag
>>4468655Ha.Yeah, I probably should have specified the manufacturer/model.It's just that after joining the Canon RF cult by getting an R7 I kinda got used to the fact that we get almost zero 3rd party options, so its usually enough to say "RF + <focal distance>" or "RF + <focal distance> + <aperture>" for every fellow cult member to understand what lens I mean. I'm considering 200-800, but my particular style of birding involves me running around forests/swamps and hand-holding most of my shots. To me, sigma's weight is "almost comfortable" for this task, but a lighter lens without an adapter would be appreciated, and 100-500 is lighter, unlike 200-800.As for reach, well, I do encounter situations where even 600mm isn't quite enough, but very rarely.And I'm not sure 200-800 would provide a decent result at such extremes. Sigma already kinda sucks at 600mm, its only real saving grace is the fact that it sharpens up at F8 and F8 is just before the diffraction kicks in on my cropped sensor.800mm + F9 starting (and ending, lol) + even higher ISO (to compensate for aperture and focal distance) together sound like a recipe for terrible IQ.100-500 is supposed to be very sharp even at 7.1 all throughout the zoom range, so at the very least I would get two usable apertures instead of one(zero).As for 100-400, well, its main advantage over everything else is it's weight, but as I've said - I'm almost comfortable hand-holding sigma for prolonged periods of time, so I'd rather just stick with it instead. Frankly, all options seem like sidegrades with many trade-offs, even the very expensive 100-500.The dream would be someone like Sigma (the only manufacturer that cares about RF-S mount, unlike fucking Canon) producing their own super telephoto lens designed for APS-C.Maybe I should just keep using my old sigma and praying for that.
>>4468741use both
>>4468741>people who are wealthier than me and buy better equipment are le gearfag = badGet a job.Got any other digislug cope that never occurred with film (because the standard for film was 36mp true color full frame), like "any activity that shows an insufficiency of my camera is a wrong activity because my precious digislug shit could not possibly be bad" aka "stop noticing things"?
>>4468741Thirdie? The cheapest camera with IBIS is $300.Anysortof-pods are massively inconvenient, disrespectful, disruptive, and commonly flat out banned.
>>4468727It's one of those things that seems like a new paradigm until you actually try it. Too cumbersome in practice, and if you need stability a tripod is much better
sonybros...........not like this........
>>4468753>The cheapest camera with IBIS is $300.which would that be? Some 12 y.o. model?
>>4468727It's only worth it in situations where you need the weight support for heavy shooting durations, but also need more mobility than a tripod.Basically just sports / wildlife with larger lenses where you need to remain mobile. Also maybe like wedding / event video stuff when using a longer lensLonger monopods are nice to get high up shots without the use of a drone, but everything else seems better served with different options. A tripod is just better if you're able to use one, and IBIS makes them much less necessary too.For travel, I just take picrel. Any pole, handrail, ledge, table, chair, etc, can become a tripod, and takes up less space than a tabletop tripod.
>>4468767You could get some MFT for sure, gh5 is a little more expensive but still a good camera. Nikon Z6 and lumix S5 are the cheapest full frame, around 550 euro.
>>4468722>>4468677Definitely prefer the retro look of the zf, and the legitimate functionality of having the real dials. Definitely believe that the ergonomics aren’t a big deal. ‘80s film SLRs were smooth rectangles, and I’ve never had an issue with one of those. Granted, some of these modern lenses are the size of a Big Gulp, so that might make a difference. I don’t shoot super telephoto wildlife stuff though, so whatever. Really just comes down to whether the vintage vibes I like actually require adapting old rangefinder glass, or if I could get away with slapping on a mist filter and turning down the clarity a bit. The latter is a lot less doinking around and also cheaper.The ZF isn’t unaffordable, but it’s definitely stretching my budget at 1.6-2k for just the body, and I don’t think I’m realistically skilled enough to “need” it. I’ve been out of the game for a minute; at this point, I could get a pretty cheap deal on a Fuji xt3 or xt30ii with a couple primes and probably be just fine. If I end up wanting to move up to FF, it’s not like the Fuji stuff isn’t pretty easy to flip second hand. >>4468671I do really like the idea of the real OVF. As for portraits, street, events, etc. it’s more of a case of wanting to shoot more portraits, rather than already being heavily invested into that style. I’ve been away from photography for a while, and idk where exactly I want to go now that I’m getting back into it. Agreed on the xpro2 vs. 3, I feel like that hidden rear screen would be such a pain in the ass. I pretty consistently end up showing pictures I’ve just taken to the person, and it’d be a real slowdown even if didn’t have those reliability issues. Too bad the 2 isn’t cheaper haha, I’d go straight for that just from how much I wanted one back in the day. As is, either springing all the way for the zf or going cheaper with one of the SLR Fujis makes the most sense. X-pro2 is as much or more than an x-t4 body
>>4468671Looks like micro four thirds
>>4468766based sony saving us from the trouble of overpaying for meme lenses
Do all the modern mirrorless cameras use AI to denoise and sharpen the images?
>>4468781only the canon r1 (canon makes very, very noisy sensors)
How do newer fujifilm cameras work with canon ef lenses? I want to use the viltrox speedbooster and fringer pro adapters
>>4468783I can definitely see it in all the EOS RF cameras, it's definitely not just limited to the R1.I was asking if any of them aren't, like do Nikon and Fuji also have it?I miss optical diffraction or refraction or a combination of them around the edges of objects from the older cameras that the new ones seem to have gotten rid of somehow, it just makes the images look so dead, help do I need to buy a old camera? If yes how old are we talking?
>>4468770>cheap deal on a Fuji xt3 or xt30ii
>>4468788NoAlso you're talking about chromatic aberration, the shitty tumblr hipster effect
>>4468788Could you share an example of what you mean?
>>4468790Not the inflated MPB prices lmao, I’ve got a buddy who shoots Fuji who’d sell it to me for closer actual value - little over 1k for body+a couple lenses>>4468766Holy shit that looks terrible, what causes this?
>>4468805>$1k for an xt3Should be <$500. Fujifags are retards. No wonder they’re so touchy.
>>4468806That includes the two lenses though, so it’s more like 700 for the camera and 500 for a couple nice primes. Still overpriced, but the next step up is going to Nikon and just the body is minimum 1800, let alone the glass, adapters, etc
>>4468797Not cromatic aberration.>>4468800Yeah, in this picture on the hands the light goes around the fingers and makes the edge softer.
>>4468800Forgot picture >>4468809
>>4468800Here in the newer camera it doesn't do that, the light should soften the edges but it doesn't so his ring finger looks entirely flat.
I think this picture is a good show of how even if the bird isn't in focus or is blurred the edges are unnaturally sharp and the blurring on the inside silhouette seems smudged instead of blurred.
>>4468810Looks like you're just using a soft lens wide open. I dont think the camera has anything to do with it.At most I'd say you've got some colour seperation with the purple fringing on the fingernails, but I can't tell if her nails are just faintly lilac to begin with.
>>4468702Well, it was supposed to work in a way that if you don't add a color profile, it's srgb with gamma, and you should be exporting in that profile for web in any case. The fact that various programs always try to break something is not anyone's fault here
>>4468766E-Mount was a mistake
>>4468805>Holy shit that looks terrible, what causes this?Film lenses were designed for a thin mediumSony (and most digital brands, but the shill here hyperfocuses on sony because he asked them to make his dream lens and they told him to fuck off) have thick sensors and correct their lenses for it. Lenses designed for film have induced field curvature from the thicker sensor.It's only "not a problem" on nikon but officially, it isn't a problem. Old film lenses offer nothing modern chinese lenses sdon't.
>>4468821Nothing to do with the mount, it's the cover glass over the sensor. Doesn't actually matter for non-rangefinder lenses.
>>4468809Lots of examples herehttps://phillipreeve.net/blog/different-filter-stacks-and-what-they-mean-for-us-sony-e-nikon-z-leica-m-kolari-ut/Mostly an issue with RF glass, usually on the wider end. Some lenses have no issue, some huge difference. The Z-bodies tend to be the best outside of Leica for this.
>>4468809>>4468810That's the lighting, not the camera, retart.
>>4468770>xt3do it. it's a fantastic system with fun small lenses. if I didn't need fast AF I would have gotten an xt3 or 4 myself. but with a small kid a fast and accurate AF-C is worth a lot. once my kid is older I'm going full sperg mode and will get a leica M or something as retarded. maybe even a slow """medium format""" like the hasselblyat x2d. or just some fuji where I can focus+recompose.
>>4468832Dadographers really do have the biggest skill issues...
>>4468770Fuji cameras are flat out junk. They basically invented the phrase "stop pixel peeping!" because people kept noticing that they had 1/3rd the color separation and resolution of real film without extensive digital gymnastics>dont look!basically you’re paying to have a dozen shitty lightroom presets on a sony a6400 but slightly worse, and you get to pretend to own a film camera if and only if you totally forget what film cameras are actually likeSony is their sensor supplier and the poor image quality of fujifilm is due to a yakuza conspiracy (a yakuza conspiracy also killed olympus)Kind of like how panasonic and sigma are not allowed to make a better camera than the leica q (that’s a triad conspiracy however)
>>4468836Photography is a gearfag hobby sir. Take your rationality and take a hike. We think magical purchases improve our work here and sony is literal satan for daring to be the same thing to people who can click 6 buttons in lightroom.
Take your meds, schizo
>>4468774crop sensors suck. news at 11
>>4468788take your meds, schizoalso turn off diffraction compensation
>>4468810those are man fingers, anon
>>4468833get kids, incel. then we talk :)
>>4468837>people enjoying their hobby>poor people: HALT ZIS IS ZE GEARFAGGEREIwhy are poors/germans so?
>>4468808Go on flickr and look at tons of X-T3 photos. Then look at Zf photos. That should give you a feel of how different the image quality is. Imo fuji apsc makes only sense for their small bodies (X-E) and small primes. That's their biggest advantage. Personally I would go Zf with that 40mmf2 and live with that for a while until you can afford a second lens (if even necessary).
>>4468774>>4468842what about the pic sucks/looks like m43?>>4468770i rock an xt3 to complement my xpro2 when i want to use a larger lens, a tripod, or want to do critical focus manually. it's solid as an all-rounder body and i think it can make for a smaller setup than the zf. personally i loved the xpro3 in practice but they seem to have a propensity for glitches and hardware failure so i stuck with the 2. but yeah if you aren't planning to focus on quick street, travel, or close people pics, then you likely won't see much of the strengths of the xpros. speaking of skill, i personally think the crop system requires more skill to get a nice picture. there will be lighting that the ff excels in which will look drab on apsc. the weaker your sensor, the more attentive you need to be to the quality of your light to get anything that looks good. in a way, having the more beautiful sensor, and even glass too i suppose, teaches you less discipline and shot selection because you can point your camera anywhere and the quality of the system will simply make anything look great.honestly, if you are interested in adapting, zf is the clear winner. compare sample images, consider use case, consider cost and the mount system as a whole. but time wasted theorizing and researching is time you could have spent simply shooting and learning firsthand so i recommend just getting what looks good and going from there.
Subject: Pray, What Be the Most Economical Camera of the LTM Variety with a Shutter Most Swift?Dearest Gentlemen of /pee/,I beseech thee lend thine wisdom to a humble seeker of light and truth. I am in search of a photographic device, a camera of the Leica Thread Mount persuasion, most compact and mannerly, yet it must possess the swiftness of a 1/1000th of a second in its shuttering capabilities.My purse, alas, is not as flush as once it was (curse the Dutch for undercutting our exports), so I humbly inquire: what be the most affordable such contraption one might acquire without entirely disgracing oneself before polite society?I shan’t require meter nor motor, only that it bear the LTM mount, and the aforementioned shutter alacrity.Yours in curiosity and impecunity,Lord Thistlewick of the House of Budgetshire
>>4468821It only happens with Leica lenses used with an adapter, which is what you see on the right, but fo course shitposter-kun would leave that information out. Voiglander releases native E-mount versions that look as good as the Leica ones, and often a bit better for some.
>>4468853Ask again in a non reddit way and i'll tell you
>>4468851It's mostly poor detail, and the tonality in the small details that higher resolving power provides. Look at the foliage detail in this photo versus the one you posted as an example. This is from full frame camera (not a cutting edge one but full frame nonetheless), and I'm guessing yours is either m43 or a phone camera, its a lovely shot by the way. But to be honest, I would worry about it. A photo being more detailed or more resolving doesn't really make it a better photo unless you're documenting stuff for Wikipedia.
>>4468862>being this uppity about plebbitok niggertell me which ltm nigger camera with 1/1000 niggers per second shutter speed i can get for nigger amounts of money, extra goyim points if its small so i can hide it from niggers like yourself>69 get
>>4468869Nah sorry, you sound underage.
>>4468870no u
>>4468853ask in /fgt/
>>4468843>take your meds, schizoSorry not schizo just autism>also turn off diffraction compensationIf only that was possible in raws.Anyway after looking for a while it looks like the Sony A1 doesn't suffer from this or Fujifilm cameras.I assume Leica is just a Sony camera with a rebrand.Canon and their rebrand Nikon are the worst.I hate how Sony cameras look so I guess the only refuge left is Fujifilm, what the fuck...I really don't want to pay hipster tax...
>>4468875Don't worry he already made his own thread about a question you could just google / chatgpt. Some people are so helpless...
>>4468880sorry for not having autism i guess, all i can find on google AND chatgpt/grok are russian rangefinders (1/500) and leicas (2000 dollars for a used film camera) and i figured the despicable people of 4chong could perhaps have the answers that i seek (redditors parrots chatgpt)
>>4468875he’s asking about gear in the gear threadthat’s alright >>4468881keep asking this board is slow
>>4468851>noise>banding>no drbased
>>4468805Its a snoy toy
>>4468865thanks but i was asking about the portrait which had the initial m43 response.>>4468885where? i don't see any of that stuff>>4468853maybe canon p or vicamera-wiki has a list of ltm bodies btw and you could always adapt ltm lens to m body
>>4468891>thanks but i was asking about the portrait which had the initial m43 response.I know, what I said is applicable to that example too. It's just not foliage in that photo.
>>4468891>where? i don't see any of that stuffI guess that's why you posted that shit image then. get your eyes checked
>vast majority of comments on this camera shit on it>"nooo, it's stuck on f4 and you can't use it at night">all of the sample images from it in good and low light look amazingI feel like I'm being gas lit. Which is it?
What's the deal with that camera? You either shoot with that amazing Red Raw format and your 512gb cfexpress card is full in 12 minutes. OR you shoot the next best thing which is H265 and only 4:2:0 that is much much worse. Why not 4:2:2?
>>4468898You know you can use a f9000 lens as long as you have a tripod, right?
>>4468901The images look good handheld too
>>4468825>Doesn't actually matter for non-rangefinder lenses.O rly?The fact of the matter is that Sony is the absolute WORST system for adapting any kind of lens. The only reason it was popular for a few years was because they were the first to commit to mirrorless full frame. But now there are much better options.
>>4468851Great picture in every way except the camera used to take it. Many such cases!
>>4468904>the one snoy schizo on /p/ will continue to defend this and samefag agree with himselfGrim
>>4468908Is the snoy schizo in the thread with us right now?
>>4468905Do you think it's time for him to spend tends of thousands of dollars on cameras and lenses that would make the picture better?
>>4468865> Posts an inferior photo.> BUT IF YOU LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL PIXELS THEY ARE PRETTIERNever change /p.
>>4468914You misunderstand. The bottleneck here is not cash, it's X-Trans. A used Z30 is what, $500?
>>4468898>can't use it at nightpor que?>f4actually f/~2.8ish in amount of light gathered. I think it's just overpriced. But
visual literacy testwhich are x-transwhich are zfif anyone wants to cope with "too small", at least let me know how many pixels you need to see the difference
>>4468921Top left is X-Trans. It transitioned your dog into a cat.
>>4468921Which X-trans?
>>4468921Ok I baitZf are top left, 2nd row left and right, 3rd row center
>>4468921>If you pay $2000 for 40mp xtrans, and only use shitty lenses like me, it looks almost as good as a normal ass camera ie: $500 d750 (exact same thing as the zf), until it breaks, or if you look at a photo larger than 2mpCat: XtransRoadway dog: BayerMiddle row: Most likely all xtrans or just poor shootingTop right: XtransThe annoying part about defensive, catty brand fanboys doing these small comparisons is that it's hard to tell a good camera with poor shooting from a shit camera (which makes photos look poorly shot) and then crop copers say that's a win, as if their rigged and cherry picked game where they put 24mp FF ISO 1600 with motion blur against 40mp xtrans iso 400 invalidates everyones personal experience, which is shittier cameras being shittier in the same situations
>>4468929correct. its invalid>"Sony cameras are worse because they need more editing and i'm not paying $2500 for a fucking a7iv just to color correct fucking everything">NUH UH WATCH>take canon photo>only adjust white balance>take sony photo>adjust white balance, skin tones, greens, blues, browns, yellows, r and b channel curves, and levels>WHICH ONE IS SONY? DAS RIGHT U CANT TELL. THERE ARE NO BAD CAMERAS YOU JUST HAVE TO LEARN!
>>4468931>"I'm not too sure buying an $800 mirrorless with a sensor from 2009 was a good call bros. My camera doesn't have enough dynamic range or stabilization to shoot this scene handhe-">NUH UH LOOK AT THESE PHOTOS TAKEN WITH TRIPODS AND GNDS AND THESE TAKEN IN TOTALLY DIFFERENT LIGHT CAMERA IS FINE
>>4468929The elephant in the room is that people on /p who tell you how your photos are crap because of this or that (gear related or not) are themselves posting crap.There is now quite a few videos on Youtube actually comparing different cameras side by side, where you see that yes, FF cameras have better IQ, but the psychological effect is not nearly the same as listening to /p FF schisos.
>>4468921Now, in good faith I'm going to abstain from the test itself because that's decent bait but I'm not getting involved in a fag-off over sensor characteristics.But, fundementally these tests are forever undermined without some sort of proof that you're posting sooc jpegs, or keeping settings reasonably similar between bodies. I can take my shitty MFTurd and do my very best and post that, then set my R6 to self-sabotage and post both to bait the foolframers. In fact I've done that before because it's funny to stir the faggots from time to time.There's no guarantee you're not just trying to stir the same faggots on purpose.
>>4468929hey schizo>how many pixels you need to see the difference
>>4468935>sooc jpegsCopeI use the same sharpening / NR settings for all, color and contrast and stuff is different, but that would be true even between just Zf shots
>>4468935SOOC jpegs are also an invalid test because literally who the fuck pays $500, $1000, $1500 for a 12-14 stop DR, 14-16 bit digital camera, just to leave it all to a half-assed processing engine running off the equivalent of an intel core 2 duo from 2006? The consoomers who buy new fooljis for the official film sims?If SOOC jpegs only counted, the #1 brand in full frame (sony) would be shit, but as shown by the fact that sony is the #1 brand in full frame, the few people who unironically pay all this money to get jpegs like a phone, at least change their jpeg settings around.>>4468937All of them plus exif so we know you're not doing your usual and heavily editing to match iso 1600 24mp ff to iso 200 40mp aps-c
if you take the same photo in the same place at the same timea fuji camera will always be blurriera sigma lens will always be flatterand then the facts of ownership come inas you realize you paid more for lessor your camera starts falling apartetchere is the part where the photographers and the consumerists divergethe photographers go "fuck, why?" and go back to a well built, moderately priced camera if they dont have one alreadythe consumerists go "WELL, IT ISNT A LOT OF MONEY TO ME!" and buy another
>>4468946The facts gearfags dont like to hear>>4468945Sony is the #1 brand in full frame because the people who buy brand new cameras to make up those market share numbers are 30% money wasting idiots with no kids, 70% pros, and all of them buy a new camera yearly to biyearly so things like sony's weather sealing disintegrating don't affect themA lot of popular cameras are actually very bad because that market is the only one camera manufacturers pay attention to. As the sane people leave, mfgs don't even question why industry wide sales are down and release another video only camera with more build quality downgrades.
I've paid zero attention to drones so far, but an acquaintance mentioned it would be great to have in my repertoire. Funny enough a day after talking with him, I saw some stuff about the new DJI Mini 5 Pro and it looks really cool. Cool features, nice quality and not really that expensive. Seems like a very cool piece of kit to have and like it's something that can help you get more jobs (kinda like being able to sing as a musician will open up a ton more doors for you in terms of "getting the gig") But it seems like a major fucking hassle needing to register drones and the rules regarding them. This one is in the 250g category, but it weighs more with the battery and then it becomes or problem or some shit because it's now in a new category.Anybody here have experience with in this field and seen this new model?I'm looking forward to seeing some real world videos and reviews come out. It's just the horde of social media shit right now that I can't stand a second of.
>>4468949>But it seems like a major fucking hassle needing to register drones and the rules regarding them.The secret ingredient is crime.Where I am the rules and regs are so strict and broad that you're better off shoving a cell phone up your ass and skydiving in regards to legality. Technically speaking because I life within 50km of a military base I'm not allowed to fly a drone at all if it's above 10m off the ground. You can get a permit if it's for a valid reason (and they're actually not *that* hard to get, but then you have to stay below 400ft (122m) to stay out of class-G airspace and only last limited amounts of time. So, I just say fuck it and do whatever I feel like and suffer no consequences, because our local aviation authority is so crtically underfunded they'd probably not notice a backyard gyrocopter ferrying drunk bogans down to the next pub.
>>4468946Unless you don't label which camera or lens was used and then no one knows>>4468945lol nothing will ever satisfy you, but I am one of the more honest ones on the boardDo you think those Zf were shot at 1600? That doesn't seem an honest point to try and make
>>4468958If you put the two together, people will say "yes that one looks better"And most importantly YOU know which one looks betterAnd you know you spent $1000, maybe $2000, or even $3000, just to meet the same quality standards of a cheaper camera (the x-t5 ranges from more than a zf to the same price, and the Z6II has the same AF chops as the x-t5 and costs half as much)And you know the build issues of the fuji are inevitable, which cues the biggest cope ever for people who overspent on their factory blemished gibson guitar, unreliable leicafuji, jammomatic military larp firearm, macbook with cable failure issues, any-other-bored-boomer-hobby-here: "uh, its not a lot of money - to me. poorfags!"So why does some normies inability to ID a camera from a 1.5mp preview matter more than all that again? Why?>honesty? honesty!?honesty is doing honest tests. 4k is the standard viewing size for most people and represents what cameras usually get busted out for. computer wallpapers, tv slideshows, and 8" to 10" prints. take the same photo in the same light. not using equivalent settings. using the best settings each camera can achieve. ie: equivalence says if comparing a d850 to an a6600, raise the iso to 400 and shutter speed to be "fair". reality says that if your iso 50 camera can still use 1/125 and its fast enough then use iso 50. that is being honest. an honest test is not comparing a high noon snapshit to a thought out sunset.
>>4468953Knowing my luck, I'll be getting fucked up by a full swat team the second I take a step outside of the store with a drone in my hand. So using the secret ingredient is off the table for me.Still, I don't think it should be that bad getting registered and all that shit, but it's still annoying with all those rules, permissions and certificates.
>>4468961You forgot the other cope"It has soul and mojo" (translation: i don't like the activity on its own, i like other people seeing me as serious about the activity and feeling like i am some cool guy from 30+ years ago)
>>4468958Even OPs test comparing $1500, $500, and $150 lenses with totally unchanged best buy demo mode settings is more honest than yours m8o
How do I make sure I never become anything like anyone in this thread?
>>4468893my eyes are indeed poor. therefore i need your help to highlight where in the image those issues appear. >>4468917that anon specifically mentioned that more detail does not correlate to better photo. but yes, that does seem to be the prevailing sentiment here>>4468933>are themselves posting crap.i wish that were the case. in reality, they post no photos at all
>>4468947Funny how no one can praise sony and curse vishnu in the same post. All sony users are indian. I literally have never seen a white person use a sony.
Wait, we can post photos?
>>4468974Transcend all digishit and shoot large format film.
>>4468974Ignore all advice from anyone on /p/ who owns expensive cameras or lenses
>>4468984>im so smart because im poor as shitok retard
>>4468984Yes, but only expensive mirrorless digital cameras or expensive cameras with sensors smaller than full frame.
>>4468979>I literally have never seen a white person use a sony.I have.
>>4468992Weird take from a nigga that loves vishnu
>>4468974Buy z6ii+24-120 f4+40mm f2For the price of a fuji (body only) you will never need more gear again and will never have to cope and make up fake tests to feel better about your wasted gear money because your camera can already do anythingThis is the 4 door v6 hatchback of photography. Nerds seethe but it does everything conveniently enough.
>>4468995whiter than you ahmed
>>4468995Sony (a7iii/a7c) is fine and hinduism is a satanic slave cultEvery other sony is too shit or a waste of money
>>4468974Buy the Leica M11 with a 35mm and 50mm summicron for amazing lens quality and fun shooting experience. For serious work buy the GFX100II with the GF45-100mm and GF55mm1.7. EDC could be the Ricoh GRIV that you can always bring in your pocket. It also gonna last you for at least 7-10 years until you reach a point where a newer better body makes sense. Then you can keep the great lenses and just update the bodies. That way you have the best of the best and whatever else you may wanna buy: It's gonna be a downgrade and pretty silly. So no need to come here again.
>>4469010Aren't you just paying extra for a Sony sensor lmao?
>>4469010>just buy $28,000 worth of equipmenthell yeah
>>4469011Yeah its basically an a7cr but optimized to use the more expensive but equally blurry versions of ttartisan manual focus lenses lolPeak gearfag camera. Can we get a gibson guitar/PRS private stock analogy? LOL
>>4469010and then you realize even digital leicas and medium format fooljis break as often as their older and lesser counterparts
>>4468974go out and take photos
>>4468904We've discussed this before, that has nothing to do with the body or sensor but is probably a shitty adapter.
>>4469012An IQ3 trichromatic would be a better purchase with 30k.
>>4468921Z, Z, XX, X, ZX, Z, Xgood try everyone
Where the fuck is it FFS. Viltrox released their own 40mm, then there's TT that just released their own 40mm f2.0, and then there's this one having an AF/MF switch. Found out that I use such a switch all the time on other lenses, so I'm leaning toward this one. But release it already, the competition didn't wait and is pulling the rug.
>>4469011>>4469013Good thing Leica is not wasting any ressources building sensors if they can just buy good ones from Snoy. They rather focus and amazing camera bodies and lenses with best craftmanship, quality and tactile premium feel. Also rangefinder. Poorfags are mad obviously because they have to stick with their ugly-design Sony. >>4469012Others paying 136.000€ for a Porsche that they only drive for fun on sunny weekends and that lose 80.000€ value in just a few years. >>4469014Yeah, products that you use often tend to break at some point if you are unlucky. At least I can send a Leica in and get parts for 10+ year old gear while a broken Sony is dead forever.
>>4469023>the blown out dogshit cat snap was ZYeah, point is, if you're not really testing, comparing poorly shot ff to well shot aps-c is entirely non-informative and all you're really showing is that with some effort the xt5/xh2 can perhaps keep up with a nikon z6ii or sony a7iii that costs 1/2 as much off ebay
>>4469027>They rather focus and amazing camera bodies and lenses with best craftmanship, quality and tactile premium feel. https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/382130-frameline-selector-almost-fell-off/https://prosophos.com/2023/10/30/leicas-m11-problems/https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1807261/3https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-ahqXTK3sULeica is like porsche. They say they make something amazing but after your cars 2nd year in the shop (measured in time spent on the hoist) it becomes clear you just got lied to by a german (many such cases - they are the russians of western europe)
>>4469019Pure cope. Sony is a fine system if you only use native lenses (of which there are a great variety to be sure, being the most catered-to mount in the industry). There's really no need to cope so hard about Sony bodies being pure horseshit with adapted lenses because you have no reason to have to adapt lenses in the first place.
>>4469031Asymmetrical vignetting is caused by an out of spec $12 chinese adapter sony hate schizo
>>4469032The lower corners have just as much optical vignetting as the upper corners. The upper corners appear to have more exposure falloff only because they contain sky. The same effect is visible in the SL sample on the left.
>>4468045discussion about coil motor af and eye pain as focus hits anyone
>>4468910Hes literally posted multiple times since i made that comment kek
>>4469010looks like a pain in the ass to hold
Any decent sony full frame wide lenses which are good in low light under $500 or should I save for Viltrox 16mm?
>>4469029Looking forward to you contributing to the board with your example comparisons
>>4469033No, completely wrong
>>4469049unlike you i have no intention to buy a camera to demonstrate what has already been proven 9001 times on dpreview etc your comparisons are simply dishonest. different scenes different light. it amounts to "if i fuck up shooting with the zf, and shoot well with the xt5, dey da same". really? no wai.
>>4468851god damn fuji is so ass with high frequency detailthat grass is a travesty at any zoom level and it's only 2k by 3ka sad reminder that digital completely destroyed quality standards>then: my $1500 camera? shit? only when i fuck up. here look i shot this on 35mm and it blew up to a clean 30x20>now: my $1500 camera? shit? you are looking too closely. dont look! stop looking! looking means you have no soul! STOP LOOKING YOU GEARFAG HYLIC SPEC OBSESSED SONY SHOOTING-
>>4469062I didn't buy a camera to demonstrate that, no need for dishonesty.I do post lots of honest comparisons too. Just thought this would be a fun exercise for the nophotos like you. Unfortunately, you're one of the nophotos that will always just find a problem with anything.Thank you for saying I shoot well with the X-T5, despite still not even knowing which were on an X-T5.
>>4468865the cool thing is that resolved blades of grass would do NOTHING to make that photo better and might be making your bad photo even worse. gearfags btfo
>>4469067Actually, it would. For a literal cenutry, film resolved blades of grass far more authentically than this overpriced digital crap and if someone's lens was kind of soft or the film was too grainy they didn't have to cope like this because rather than being $1500 in the hole for the body and in $500 per a blurry ass lens it was all cheap.And because grass was resolved properly, instead of being a muddy orange blob with worm-like white specs on top of it, it was a shimmering sea whether zoomed in or not.Again, this cope is unique to digital faggots and it only exists because they spent thousands of dollars to take a worse looking photo than would come out of a $10 roll of 120 and a bronica s2 borrowed from their dad for free. Digital gets kneecapped by this CFA bullshit and the end result is everyone either goes for 100mp to approximate common film stocks, or they cope>MY FOUR FIGURE PURCHASE, FLAWED? NO, YOU ARE FLAWED FOR NOTICING! >>4469064I'm sorry you're literally more than $2000 in the hole on fuji gear, but your comparisons are not valid and don't say anything but "i'm a bad photographer even when i'm snapshitting my pets and can fuck up using a $1699 nikon ZF so badly it looks as bad as a measurably worse fuji xt5 that's a week away from losing its viewfinder coating". Soz bro. Soz.
>>4469069kek we really have gone backwards>digital: pay thousands of dollars so you can spam awful looking snapshits every single day until you get something good, and then beg people to stop looking at it too closely and to stand far away enough that they dont have to move their eyeballs to see the whole print at once or else they're a "soulless gearfag consumer hylic snoy">film: if you're going on a trip or have a family get together coming up, buy 2-3 rolls and borrow a camera so you can get good pictures
>>4469069>your comparisons are not validStill more valid than yours nophoto lol
>>4469069Wrong, it looks nice. Get your eyes checked.
>>4469074Looks like a flecked orange blob. This is a low res preview of a full scan but because even 35mm film is good for over 100mp, this 6x7 shot is basically a gigapixel and has no CFA (making it a real gigapixel), so even at this low resolution, zoomed way out, with a touch of motion blur, you can still see individual blades of grass in the distance.This is what we lost and this is why digislugs cope whenever people notice things.35mm film = Resolution even of a scan is true color megapixels like foveonXtrans = 1/2 stated megapixel number and artefacts/loss of color separation still presents at sizes as paltry as 3000x2400Bayer = 2/3 stated megapixel number, same problem as xtransDigital cameras simply are not good, and the more a digislug spends, the more a digislug copes.
>>4469078It’s really too bad that shooting film is such a pain in the ass as far as development turnaround times, keeping track of rolls of film, etc. I don’t even mind manual focus since I don’t take pictures of kids or animals. I was going to go Fuji, because realistically I don’t print past 8x10 and 99% of the time stuff just goes on IG, but I think I’m leaning Nikon ZF now that it’s got the same customizable jpg profiles for lazy fuckers that Fuji does, and isn’t wildly inflated on used market. I know a guy who’s trying to sell a Leica M240 and some kind of fast 50mm lens for like $2.4k bundled and it’s so tempting, but it’s also stupid as fuck to spend that on a body from 2013. ZF plus Voigt or chinese manual lenses is probably as good or better, other than having to use a gay little screen as a viewfinder. Tbh, I’d buy a d750 instead and use cheap ass screw-AF lenses, but I’m sick of hauling around a big heavy blob camera. Ditching the heavy blobs was what sent me to Fuji in the first place lol, wanted an X-pro since they were new, just never had the $$ until after they blew up. But let’s be real, all I want to do is take travel photos, hiking photos, and get into portraits as a sideline because I know chicks who want aesthetic portraits for their IG pages and gym people who need a camera guy. Other than the gym stuff where higher iso is nice, everything I actually envision doing would work just well with an old SLR or 35mm rangefinder and some Kodak Gold. Especially since I’m not actually a pro in any sense. Just seems like such a headache, although saving the $1500 up front would be nice, you can grab a whole 35mm kit for like $400 these days I swear
>>4469078>Xtrans = 1/2 stated megapixel number and artefacts/loss of color separation still presents at sizes as paltry as 3000x2400>Bayer = 2/3 stated megapixel number, same problem as xtransHow does this make any sense lol, what MP are you using?
>>4469085CFAs are awful for detail rendering. they basically get confused because each pixel only contains partial information (even film scans have full info for each pixel). this is a small part of why film managed to render detail better for nature and portraits. the other part is the finer the detail on film, the lower the contrast. on digital contrast is constant down to the nyquist limit (aka where the camera spits out rainbow garbage for the noise reduction algorithm to attempt to fix) which makes things look flat and textures look harsh. notably film is nearly immune to the "sub pixel detail" problem of digital where subtle textures totally disappear. on film the grains can be six times smaller than a pixel on the nikon ZF, so it's effectively 6x the resolution with a contrast falloff effect.back to the xtrans problem. the bigger the CFA's pattern, the greater the resolution loss because the less information from adjacent pixels can be used to infer the real color and luminance of each individual digibox. bayer 2x2 is already pretty bad. xtrans is a larger pattern and slightly blurrier, most noticeably on red textures. being aps-c also hurts it because digital cameras with smaller pixels need sharper and sharper lenses to render smaller and smaller details, contributing to the shittiness. on film most people shoot at least full frame but go for 6x6.this size advantage adds even more goodness because using a less corrected lens with a larger format renders a smoother but still looking image with better bokeh and more graceful in focus/out of focus transitions than using a highly corrected "clinical" lens like an XF 23mm f/1.4 WR or literally anything for micro four thirds.
>>4469089Can you show me one (1) scan of 35mm film that retains more detail than a 35mm digital?
>>4468917>>4469067Americans best attempt at reading, everyone.
>>4469090The classic 400mp 35mm film scan. It's low contrast, but the smallest visible details are 1 pixel in size. I think ~150mp would look the best.In an optical print, this would manifest as a shimmery, 3d, very textured lifelike sort of effect because the resolution of photopaper is greater than the resolution of any digital printer.Digital was a straight downgrade, and the worse digital gets the worse it gets even if someone is so bad at photography they can shoot a ZF worse than an x-t5 (both have about the same resolution despite a 16mp difference lmao).
yeah i'm thinking film wonhttps://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/real-raw.htm
>>4468817could be a soft lens, hard to tell from an image of that qualitybut even perfect lenses diffract, it's just physics, and it's most noticeable with strong light behind stuff with hard edges"diffraction limit" is just when the diffraction in other situations becomes apparentaperture changes the shape of the diffraction spread, light intensity changes its scaleit's always there, but its contribution may be below the signal-to-noise ratio
>>4468919>actually f/~2.8ish in amount of light gatheredwhatare you talking about aperture equivalency?because that's only about DoF, aperture is aperture as far as exposure is concerned>>4469092even in the reddit thread that's from, the OP admitted they only did it for fun because they could and weren't actually getting 400MP of information out of the film
Digislug sisters…
>>4469095>it wasn't up to a digislug redditor's pixel peeping standardsAnd yet the detail is there and the grain structure is only beginning to be apparent. 800mp might reveal a few more hairs.
>>4468102DECB10-6G3N-N7S9 - 10% offFor my fellow Kraut anon, if you didn't order yet.
>>4469092There is just no detail in this, its all just mush. You can scan a 35mm frame on a 20mp full frame digital and the film will already be out-resolved. Maybe if the guy that scanned this uploaded the full image somewhere it would show something but as-is that's a 1080x1080 image that already isn't resolving per pixel.
What's the best bang for your buck in the 2000€ range and why is it the Leica Q-P?>best 28mm lens you can find, similar ones are priced at 6000€+>28mm focal length very useful for travel, indoor and general purpose>beautiful rendering, 3d pop thanks to the 1.7>compact enough to not be a burden the whole day>beautiful design, very high quality>best colors, even better than Q2 and Q3>Leica tax gone because the used prices went downhill
>>4469063Better to be ass at high frequency detail rather than have AI algorithms sharpen it and smooth it out so the image becomes totally flat and soulless IE most modern cameras.
>>4468980Only when mods are asleep and thread is approaching bump limit.Otherwise posting your photos is strictly forbidden on /p/ (read teh rules).Normally you can only post other(preferably famous) people's works, and only to tell everyone how much they actually suck.
>>4469059>n-no, you're wrong, b-because I said so ok!!!Again, it's totally fine to shoot Sony, I'm not a hater. Just pointing out to prospective buyers that Sony should be avoided in the NICHE case of adapting vintage lenses with as much performance as possible on digital. If this is too much for you to bear, it might be time to get off the internet.
>>4469117If only it had an interchangeable mount.
>>4469122If the vignette is off centre, which it is, then it's not the cover glass/sensor/mount that is to blame. It's just a shitty adapter. This is how optical vignetting should actually look, f/1.2, f/2, and f/2.8 iirc, on a Sony body with a manual Pentax 50mm.
>>4469092>they can shoot a ZF worse than an x-t5Which shots were X-T5 again? Seems like you're being dishonest
>>4469117>28mmfaggot kike focal length. the 40mm of wide angle. boring. uninspiring. used by cattle.
R7ii when
Rate the Craigslist haul /p/Velbon VGB-32B for $10New Manfrotto MT055XPRO3 for $50
>>4469063what a strange post. i guess these are the kinds of things you say when you measure photos by sharpness and detail... that shot was on a voigt lens which i specifically use when i want digital pics that more closely resemble the texture of complementary film shots than when i use the regular fuji lenses. therefore it is extremely soft.picrel is 120 film on the same hike. if there's more detail here, it's because of direct sunlight as opposed to the half light of dusk in the xpro shot. even so, the grass all blends together and it doesn't even matter.
>>4469264Man, had to do a double take because it looks like a hike spot real close to me, but don't think it is