I need to see flat earth.
>>4478233i also love how stoked this guy is on the p1100https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9lZCHwWC0E
>>4478233honestly it's an alluring camera simply for the gigazoom even if the iq is cellphone tier.
>>4478239>iq is cellphone tierFactually wrong
>>4478318I mean, it literally is using a cellphone sensor... so the IQ *is* cellphone-tier, not a problem though, this is the cheapest way to get yuuuge range other than Olympus DSLR + 500mm prime
>>4478319>it literally is using a cellphone sensorOn a DSLR processor with digital format optimizations from the Mirrorless era.IQ is not sensor only, you are black
>>4478319With that aperture size it mogs any phone, lens matters more than sensor because muh equivalence
>>4478318>>4478326>>4478338Retards. Just look at a photo taken with it and compare with the latest iPhone. It does not even reach phone tier.
>>4478338>equivalence>>4478342>reachCanon has raped the /p/ hivemind
>>4478338??? It's slow as fuck2.8 at the widest with an iPhone size sensorPhones do f1.8 on 1" lol
>>4478354Moron, you realise aperture ratio doesn't mean shit right? It's the iris opening diameter that matters. You can put f/1 on a phone sensor doesn't mean it's even remotely close to a 30 year old dslr f/2 lens
>>4478356Yes except equivalency is a thing and they're both identical size sensors
>>4478362>equivalency is a thing >applies this to f/ stop but not focal lengthcANON has infected your brain
>>4478233maybe shoot rawtinker with lensfun databasetype raw develop recipe for each pic
>>4478354What iPhone has a 1 inch sensorI think they're just reaching 2/3"
>>44783761/1.33" is common as fuck these days (3/4 of an inch). Pretty sure the 2021 Google Pixel had that so I'd be fuckin floored if the iPhone isn't doing better than it in 2025
>>4478382Only the Japanese (Sony, Sharp) and Chinese (Xiaomi, Ulefone, vivo, Huawei) do 1" and above in smartphones, American and Korean brands do not care.
