>>4478830
bigger image sensor = better potential technical image quality. That's it. We can't really buy better composition, feelings, emotion, or subjects like we can a bigger sensor which is why we talk about it. Although there are cases where only a bigger sensor will get the job done.

Don't tell me actually go outside and take photos, what are you a faggot lmao
You should be on this board, posting esoteric charts

Tends to mean better resolution at higher megapixels. When you go from crop camera to full-frame camera, you notice the resolution difference. I will never go back to using a crop sensor camera. I would notice the soft edges. The lack of detail. I really want to get a Fuji medium format body next.

>>4478830
Sensor size literally doesnt matter now with computational photography and AI tech from phones that have cameras with smaller sensors.

>>4478830
Pretend you are using a lens with a FOV of 60° on a 1/2.3”-type sensor, a 1”-type sensor, MFT, APS-C, full frame and medium format. Imagine the pixel pitch is the same on all these sensors. With the same FOV and the same pixel pitch, the difference in sensor size leads to greater capacity to resolve details.

Practically speaking, larger sensors are less noisy at the same ISO than smaller sensors but I haven’t a clue how that works technically speaking.

>>4478830

Ask yourself one question, do I upload to Instagram?
If yes it doesn’t matter because you upload at 1 megapixel in which any sensor looks the same.
This makes sense, that app was built for mobile phone photos.
And if you upload your photo anywhere else nobody looks at it so again the resolution or sensor size doesn’t matter.

It is indisputable that increasing sensor size will generally increase image quality and that the newer the sensor, the better it'll be. It's also indisputable that you can make nice looking 12x18" prints using a 10mp crop sensor from 15 years ago.

So yes, sensor size matters but it also actually doesn't because all most people do is look at photos on Instagram @ 1080px wide

>>4478844
This. Just AI generate your photos instead of wasting time taking pictures. Lmao.

>>4478830
Larger sensors with larger pixels more accurately capture light and can use less corrected lenses so you’re getting a realer image instead of an estimation of sterile overcorrected snoyslop rendering.

There’s a reason hollywood will pay thousands to RENT a vintage medium format lens.

But if all you do is pixel peep you will never notice or care because everything looks bad pixel peeped.

>>4478857
>This. Just AI generate your photos instead of wasting time taking pictures. Lmao.
Never go full retard kids

>>4478858
using a modern phone is almost equal to ai generating pics rofl

>>4478857
Videographers: its about color gradation and the way focus falloff is rendered even at smaller apertures, mostly. Subtlety is beauty.

Photographers: I NEED MORE MEGAPIXELS OR IT MIGHT AS WELL BE CROP. IS THAT CHROMATIC ABERRATION IN THE FAR CORNER? EW! I NEED A BIGGER G MASTER LENS BECAUSE EQUIVALENCE. FULL FRAME IS POINTLESS SLOWER THAN F2!!! THATS IT I GIVE UP PHONES ARE BETTER. ONLY THE LOWEST IQ INSTAGRAM VIEWERS WITH LOW END ANDROID PHONES EVEN MATTER.

to no ones surprise photography died and video kept on trucking

>>4478859
Meds

>>4478860
That's not photographers it is /p/ gearfags.

>>4478830
I can post a bunch of examples of all sorts of different sensor/film sizes of the same subject, but the difference is very subtle when scaled to only 4mb or less.
It really depends on what you're doing and what your end goal is.

For leisurely snapshitting crop medium format and smaller is great. Once you get into real medium format sizes or larger it becomes much more difficult to extract 100% of what the camera can capture quality wise and it ends up limiting what the camera is really good for.

>>4478830
>sensor size doesn't matter
>it's all about feelings
>my snapshits look good to me
ok

>>4478867
>photography is science, not art!!!
ok

File: cropisjustasgoodbro.png (1.03 MB, 1025x472)

1.03 MB PNG

Sensor size matters, but not in these insignificant steps from 1/2.8" to 1/2.5" or from 1" to M43 for example. Sensor technology and SNR are normally more important than going from a smartphone to a 1" point and shoot. I will argue there are two things looked over things that make sensor size important though:
>Pixel density
Smaller sensors will have higher pixel density and lower aperture size, which means less light and more pixels to fill with light = a rough time for anything but good lighting conditions. However, this means you can get the same "zoom" with a smaller lens. This is why smartphone lenses are tiny but LARP as 24/28mm or even 50mm lenses. Extrapolate that to more aggressive focal lengths like 400mm and suddenly it's way cheaper and lighter and smaller to get a decent photo with APS-C versus a Full Frame kit.
>Lens pupil entrance size (aka aperture size not f/stop)
Bigger apertures let in more light. When photography is literally the capture of light, that makes aperture important. Now the fucked thing is, marketing for anything but full frame systems will cheat and slap "f/2.5" or something on their lenses or phones because obviously the lower the ratio the better! True, but overall diameter is still what actually matters.
An f/2 phone lens is about 2mm of aperture diameter. An f/2 FF lens is 25mm. But it's sexier to slap f/2 on the marketing page than "2mm wide aperture".
Anyway, think of it like a funnel. A bigger funnel lets in more water just like a bigger aperture lets in more light. The end result is a cleaner signal (to noise ratio, aka SNR).

Basically, if you have to rely on cropping AT ALL it's normally more effective to drop down a sensor size and get a smaller pixel pitch. It's why birders use APS-C and M43 cameras and not medium format or whatever.
But, if you can fill the frame the way you want it without cropping, and are willing to carry the gear and spend the money, bigger sensors produce better quality photos.

What I'm having reconciling is what you guys say matters about photography, the sensor sizes, the gear, all that stuff, with the reality of at least amateur photography where it's about memories, the journey and improving

>>4478876
Correct. But nobody on 4chan has feelings outside of rape fantasies and improving requires you to not be a failure at life.
Actual photography takes place outside this board.

>>4478876
It only matters if you need it to achieve your intended goal. 98% of all photographs posted on /p/ would be just as good shot on a 5d classic.
Arguing about 2% differences between noise at 12 million iso and the likes is just a way nerds avoid improving their photography.

>>4478879
People like you are the real "gear fags". You approach everything like an engineering problem. "How many nuts and bolts do we need to attach this and use it for xyz?"

>>4478876
It’s about feel and vibe. Ignore that engineering major brain. Just because using a leica is overshooting technical requirements doesn’t mean it doesn’t make a difference.

>>4478878
Uh, most decent artists are fueled by drugs and rape fantasies and are failures at life

>>4478878
Why does the average /p/cel project so hard?

>>4478880
Your reading comprehension needs work and probably your photography too lol

Just be normal

Use an a7c and a 35mm f2.8

>>4478884
>>4478880
Samefag

>>4478883
>uh this photo isnt important and instagram is only so and so and so to get enough resolution for sharpness at the pixels you only need a 5d classic
Virgin shit

You have never owned a nice camera and despise the idea of it because all you people do is hate yourselves and project your self hating, i-deserve-nothing incelism onto everyone else so you pretend it doesnt make a difference

Those of us who ball can tell out d200 4x6s from our leicas and have lives outside of instagram and /p/. DWI.

>>4478879
>just a way nerds avoid improving their photography.
I'd dispute this; this IS their way of improving their photography because abstract thought and communication of internal experience is completely a non-factor for them.

>>4478889
Projecting nerd

>uhm no thought only specs
>also according to my calculations you only need so and so
Fucking hypocrites. You dont understand feel and vibe. you don’t understand swag. you dont understand drip. you read this shit and you gag. go back to to the library, kid. you aint sailin, you missed the ship.

>>4478886
>My camera is my personality! This nice camera I have means I am a good photographer and everytime I press button I make incredible photos because camera is expensive. Don't you know how expensive my camera is? That makes the pictures better!!!

Lmao. You are an absolute joke. I have nicer and more expensive cameras than most of this board. I'm just being real with bro while you project your gay little insecurities all over my post.

>>4478892
Projecting your self hatred and trying to flex at once

Yeah my dad’s donald trump what now

Fuck off to /o/ and go tell everyone with nicer wheels their dick’s too small. I read you like a book. You’ll have more fun because no one gives a shit about cameras. You leica or you loosa.

>listening to specfags with no photos
That's like listening to some fatty sitting down about proper running technique

>>4478889
Yeah I guess you're correct in a way, but I still maintain that it is an avoidance strategy to real improvement. Just because a picture looks better(than your photos) does not mean it is a better photograph. A pro with a barbiecam would btfo most of this board.

>>4478894
Uhm according to my calculations your cameras spec is too nice for how little i like your photos! Everyone is autistic but me! *white person noises*

>>4478895
>how dare your photo look better than mine. I don’t even like it. It’s just your girlfriend. Ew. Gross. Boobs. Nyeh.

>>4478891
What?

>>4478895
Yeah, fair enough

>>4478897
...What?

>>4478893
>look at my fancy camera! It makes me a really really good photographer! I am SO cool because I bought this expensive camera! So many vibes from Leica! Don't you know the price of a Leica?
>*snaps back of stranger's head*
>Yeah this is real Leica branded art!

LOL.

File: Screenshot_20251030-140928.png (533 KB, 1070x1560)

533 KB PNG

>the leica subreddit literally bans photos

>>4478901
That is called the Leica vibe.

>>4478896
Is that autism or jealousy?

File: Rich-velvet-suit-gold-cuf(...).jpg (78 KB, 650x975)

78 KB JPG

>>4478899
you may seethe but our homie here has a point

people like him have sex with your mother, aunt, sister, and wife because women are attracted to wealth. it doesn't matter if "its a bad investment decision", women like it. have bling get pussy is the oldest trick in the book.
people like him get into galleries easy because having a nice camera gets you closer to the mark before you have enough connections.

people like you have sex with your dogs while philosophizing about how bestiality laws aren't ethically consistent and wealth and women are jewish schemes to force you to be a wagie.
people like you never get into galleries because galleries totally refuse to acknowledge the deep meaning in your photos of lint and definitely aren't ready to accept that photography is about creative intent. (that's sarcasm btw).

next time you go to a gallery (you won't) everyone but the token quirky street photographer you talk to will be using a leica, a hasseblad, LF film, or a high end japanese camera. and you will think their photos are absolute shit and it's not fair that they got to be exhibited, and probably a jewish plot. not shit enough to stop them from being more successful than you tho.

You people need to calm the fuck down. You whinge like toddlers. OP wanted to know about sensor size differences, he already knew gear doesn't matter. Read the last half of the first sentence.

File: DSC_1146.thumb.jpg (6 KB, 570x375)

6 KB JPG

>>4478830

more area better quality more size more weight

>>4478907
You sound autistic. I'm laughing at the guy that pretends a fancy looking camera makes him a better photographer. Maybe he can enlighten us with some of his pictures so we can see what the leica vibe is all about.(He won't)

>>4478911
If you have to ask to see the Leica vibe or any photos I've taken with my Leica then you simply don't get it

>>4478915
>I don't actually have a Leica.

Thanks for proving me right. :)

>>4478894
In a thread like this, whoever posts their photos first will be torn apart by all sides.
Both the gearfags and aurtists, (which is a word I just made up to describe those who dismiss technically well-made photos as non-artistic) will gank on them. Subconsciously everyone knows this, so nobody want to be the guy.
Only thumbnails with pretty much nothing on them >>4478910 are safe.
Or are they.

>>4478836
If that's the all of it, what is there to talk about then? Why don't we talk about composition/light/feelings when it's so much deeper and something we can fix today for $0 instead of in a week for $6000? This is a gearfag board and you are a gearfag.

>>4478923
Dangling the factual supremacy of a real camera in front of you is hilarious. We know and you know you could make the small amount of money needed to get it if you weren't such a lazy retard. Hence your hyperbole and whine thread.

Trying to teach you composition on the other hand is frustrating for both parties because you are wholly unable. Both at the photo thing and the travel that is required to do it. I mean, you can't even break minimum wage, you don't have the IQ score to take a decent photo. If you did you wouldn't be whining about how everyone made fun of your micro fool turds.

>>4478923
>Why don't we talk about composition/light/feelings when it's so much deeper and something we can fix today for $0
It's not something we can fix today. In theory the photo critique threads are supposed to help but those are always a mess.

>>4478924
That's quite a bit of projection. Did I perchance strike a chord? I noticed you have no photo as well. Very curious.

>>4478925
It is though. You can always get a little better at these things. You don't have to take the best photo every day, the secret is to focus on taking as good of a photo given the circumstances. The other side is seeing new opportunities for good photos. The rpt and other photo theads give me new ideas now and then.
Anyway, my point is just that trying to argue with nophotos about sensor sizes is an insane waste of time that does nothing for anyone. I have a feeling we most likely agree on this.

>>4478922
When I get home I shall post a real genuine pic I took and enjoyed

>>4478926
Composition is something we can work on today but not "fix" today was what I was getting at and I think we're in agreement there. For myself, I look at my bad photos and think about how I could have done it better and most of the time it's a compositional or skill issue. Most of the time I have the "skill" part down as to setting the correct shutter, aperture, flash settings although I still mess that up sometimes but it's the composition that I struggle with even after many years. Sure, sometimes the problem is gear and I don't think anyone has a problem with someone who is looking for an equipment based solution for a specific problem as long as the problem is real. But too often it's just chasing better specifications for the sake of better specifications and the voices of those people seem to be the loudest.

Gearfags are barely even human.

They obsess over gear because they claim it makes their phktis so much better and guess what?

They never post any LMAO

>>4478932
This isnt Reddit, kid

>>4478923
>what is there to talk about then?
Laughing at people who buy crop sensors.

The problem with art is that there's really not much you can talk about. If someone posts a photo you can tell them how they fucked it up as on objective third party, which is a great way to learn, but a lot of people are retarded and hate critique, they just want to take artsy pictures of stop signs for fun. You can't explain artistic sensibilities to someone, just look at how much AI slop there is around these days. There are a large number of people who are completely incapable of perception.

Beyond the basics of composition, there's nothing to teach. If it looks good, it is good. If it looks bad, it is bad. Can you take good photos on a meme format like m43 or APS-C? Sure, but why cripple yourself? If you want to make things harder, go back to film. Meme formats are delusion, it's the idea of spending less money (you aren't), for a product with more bullshit handholding, and weaker photos. Just use your phone.

File: P9110855_50.jpg (2.58 MB, 2592x1944)

2.58 MB JPG

>>4478922
As promised, here's a photo I took recently I really enjoyed

File: file.png (468 KB, 760x655)

468 KB PNG

>>4478901
This is their top post of all time, truly amazing

>>4478830
It's because most people take photos and display them, show them to others for one reason or another. If two photos from two different people have comparable composition feeling etc, then your photo taken with small sensor will automatically lose out. Another thing to consider is that there is no point in putting a small sensor in a normal sized dslr or mirrorless body.

>>4478948
>Top post
>7.8k updoots
>a generic for the time leather case with the word leica stenciled on the front
Huehuehuehuehuehuehue. Fucking miserable circlejerk of a subreddit.

>>4478942
>but a lot of people are retarded and hate critique
The ratio of actual critique to aimless shitting on otb is insane. Maybe a 1:15 ratio of posts that will point out ways to improve versus "shit photo faggot" but phrased differently depending on what gear you said you took it with.
If this board gave actual critique I would have a thread up of my shots every week, but the last time I did that most anons just fagged on about cope sensor or gave vague insults. So instead I post in rpt once or twice with the things I like and don't respond to anyone who replies to them.

>>4478966
People are calling your photos shit because they're probably shit, even if they can't explain why they're shit. If someone cared enough to reply, it's probably really garbage, unless all they're doing is whining about your sensor (which is probably also shit).

It sounds like you're looking for an audience rather than critique, so mistaking the occasional "I like this photo" for a fanbase is your real issue.

>>4478968
Nope. Don't want a fanbase, and I hate the "nice photo" comments just as much. Your reasoning is retarded because you're assuming the average /p/ poster is here to actually engage. I want feedback to improve and sadly most other places online are happy comfy circlejerks where people won't actually risk being mean to you for fear of being flagged for hatespeech.

You're just as much as fault too. You took this chance to whine about the sensor in my camera without even thinking about it. You are brainrotted and you deserve the gear board for what it is.

>>4478942
There's more to talk about with art than there is with gear. What the fuck are you on?

>>4478971
I mean, if you're saying you get ragged on for your sensor, it's probably some cropped junk.

>>4478973
Gear is objective, art is subjective. The problem is that after a point the diminishing returns with gear are absurd, and you're paying 10x the price for a 5% improvement, and the guys who pay 10x are very invested in justifying that.

>>4478975
>Gear is objective, art is subjective
Yeah, so there's more to talk about with art

i think full frame should be the onyl sensor
it gives you 11x more light than m43

I thought the main advantage of larger sensors was better low light performance.

>>4479878
that's the most obvious advantage but lower noise also translates into higher dynamic range and better color accuracy but it depends on the final output medium as to whether that will be visible. Not visible for social media but visible for large prints.

>>4479878
After more than a decade of /p/ existing, there have been ZERO cases of someone posting a very good photo that was clearly held back artistically by noise or sensor size or whatever

>>4478830
just shoot handheld 4x5 in every situation

>>4479885
When are we going to get a better digital sensor than medium format?

>>4479882
>the objects are still identifiable so you dont NEED more than a phone
Marxist wannabe camera comissar remains the end stage of soulless gearfaggotry.

>>4479889
>NO YOU CANT WANT A SHARPER CHISEL BECAUSE MODERN ART IS ABOUT EMBRACING SUBJECTIVITY. A FUCKED UP SCULPTURE ADDS MORE EMOTION AND SOUL!
It’s not even jewish. Worse. The french can be blamed for this.

I’d say may god wipe that worthless nation from the face of the earth, but, allah already has. That’s what they get for bringing us the american way and eating snails.

>>4479889
>>4479892
>making up shit nobody has said and getting angry at imaginary opinions and caricatures
Yep, gearfaggotry and schizophrenia go hand in hand. You are like sommeliers getting fooled by cheap wine that was bottled with a fancy label LMAO

>>4479915
>le poor man good, le rich man bad
Common fantasy but real statistics say the opposite

>>4479949
>making up shit nobody has said and getting angry at imaginary opinions and caricatures
Yep, gearfaggotry and schizophrenia go hand in hand.

>>4479949
>have money to spend on hobby
>buy a flash, so you can do new types of photography? noooo
>buy lights, modifiers, or a backdrop to do new types of photography? noooo
>buy a tripod, so you can do new types of photography? noooo
>buy a professional printer, so you can actually produce something tangible? nooooo
>buy a professional monitor, so you can finally see colors? noooo
>buy a course on equipment/software/photography to improve? noooo
>buy new scameraslop with slightly less noise to take the same dogshit photos as always but now they are 2% cleaner when pixel peeping at 400%. YASSSS

>>4480012
If you even think of learning different types of photography you are spreading yourself way too thin.

>>4480012
>AAAH YOUR SHEKELS WERENT UTILIZED EFFICIENTLY! YOU JUST BOUGHT WHAT YOU WANTED BUT SLIGHTLY NICER! HOW COULD YOU!?!?!? ONLY BUY THE BARE MINIMUM!
The synagogue is thattaway

>>4480016
The shekel hoarding NPC thinks hobbies are video games. You need all the gym badges before you can evolve your pokemon.

These manchildren never psychologically passed the point where their mother made them earn gifts by practicing and not breaking their toys lol

What in the schizo just happened here

>>4480021
Neurotic man gets angry at employed adults buying nicer things than they "should" (by his neurotic ashkenazim standards)

>>4480020
>ohhhhh you can't make it through the nurburgring in less than 10 minutes? Surely that fast car of yours is an absolute waste! My cheesewedge prius does just fine getting from Point A to point B. TYVM!

>>4480028
>circuitfag
The only interesting racing is Japanese highway racing or rally

>>4480029
I feel like a lot of people would like drag racing on /p/ actually. Considering how it's 98% about the gear you're using.

>>4478871
I should buy medium format

>>4480030
Fuckin hell you're right.

>>4480030
>YOU WANT TO DRIVE SOMETHING BETTER THAN A PRIUS HUH? YOU'D PROBABLY LIKE DRAG RACING BECAUSE YOU'RE A FUCKING GEARFAG AND ALL YOU DO IS BUY SHIT! MAYBE YOU SHOULD PAY FOR SOME RACING CLASSES, NEW TIRES, AND TAKE DRIVING *SHERIOUSHLY* BEFORE YOU UPGRADE YOUR CAR, IDIOT!
I know you thought you had this brilliant idea where you could somehow be better than other people by *not* succeeding at life and just talking down to anyone whose time is worth more than minimum wage, but it's not working, because you can't put your money where your mouth is. And never will because this bullshit is what you practiced instead of photography. Your entire life is analyzing what gear is "needed" for how "therioushly" something is taken, ie: "before you deserve a full frame, get good at ____ you fuckin gearfag" that is your area of expertise, not photography. You are not the master of the camera. You are the master of the crop sensor argument. Your insults are refined. Your artistic sense is not.

People who ACTUALLY succeed in photography don't act a thing like you. Not at all. If they see someone who prefers full frame but just does it for a hobby they're glad they're having fun and recognize that they make enough money to afford nicer things. That's it.

4chan and reddit in particular are chock full of little gear gatekeepers who act exactly like you. You're hard to find anywhere else. People who "dare" to simply prefer nice things on the other hand are everywhere. I wonder why that is?

>>4480050
Come on man, can't you just give people who can't afford Leicas, Sonys, Hassleblads, and Fujifilms a chance?

The reason why I act all like this is because I want to take photos and enjoy life, not spend hours going through catalogs and spending most of my money for rent on this McCorporate crap. Most people just want to get through their life enjoying the little things.

Shit do you walk up to a Dad trying to photograph his son on his first bike ride with no training wheels to get a Leica M3 and berate him for hours on end?

The fuck man? It's just a camera...

>>4480052
Literally nothing you wrote is a response to a single word in that post unless (you) already believe that not being able to afford nice things is necessarily connected to seething about how people who are better off than you somehow don't deserve nice things.

That entire post was a response to people like this
>durrr i dont like ur photos anyways so you should shoot micro four thirds u fucking gearfag
>how dare you buy a full frame camera without being a professional studio photographer you dont fucking deserve it
>is that a camera that costs more than $500? you'd like drag racing because you're no skill all wallet, loser.
Is this behavior necessarily connected to not being able to afford nice things?

Maybe if you didn't succeed at life, don't desperately grasp at reasons to be better than other people. Because the moment you do, you automatically become worse than the poorest, dumbest gorilla nigger on earth.

>>4480050
Bro chill you can still run your prius on the strip. No one is stopping you.

>>4480058
>poorfag gets btfo, stays in his own little world
there is no reality where you are a better person for not being able to afford cheap shit like full frame cameras sorry

poor people are poor because they are stupid and lazy, no exceptions. factories and construction cos will hire anybody for over $20/hr with lots of overtime and anyone can live in a trailer park for <$800 a month. get a life dude. poor people are poor because they are stupid and lazy no exceptions. so stupid you cant do mexican’t work.

to people who are not stupid and lazy, full frame cameras are dirt cheap.

>>4480059
I think you're the one who is confused, bud. And honestly your seething has me a little confused as well. Are you asking me to post my expensive cameras and lenses?

>>4480059
Wanna go band for band on camera gear?

>>4480059
That doesn't mean poor people shouldn't try? Shit I think it'd be kinda cool to see a homeless man record a sock puppet show on cardboard with a camcorder, but you all are too damn snobbish with things. The law needs to stop benefiting you and those who need it.

>>4480062
OK me first, my first band is Mineral, beat that

>>4480059
Starter jobs and starter homes are poison to the kind of guy who thinks about who deserves what camera. Ironically the guy who advocates working until one can deserve a nice camera by arbitrary measures cant stomach working hard and living cheap until he can afford to do more than complain. He won’t be shamed by living as a working class man. He’s an artist! Once he finally takes a photo it will be the best and nikon himself will award him the camera he should have. One day!

>>4480058
Its not too late to start :)

>>4480063
*and benefit those who need it.

>>4480064
That's a rock not an expensive camera!

>>4480066
Zach. Can you be the judge of a photo battle and an expensive camera battle? We need a trustworthy and knowledgeable trip to declare the winner.

>>4480069
Look. Here is something better. How about all that time on your computer you instead grab your SUV and go to the woods and use that gear you have on some wildlife instead of letting it collect dust. Your instagram account is probably collecting dust too needing some new photos apart from those figurine photos you took of legos, shit build a fucking lego city and take a photo of it. Do something. Stop feeding lifeless AI driven corporations that talk souless crap with robotic salesmen only giving technical information.

>>4480070
Damn you're a tripfag now and you won't even be a judge for a photo battle? That's like the only thing a trip is useful for! You've had your trip for less than a day and you've already let it get to your head. How sad. I had hope for you lil bro.

I spend time doing photography almost everyday, usually an hour or two. Instagram is gay, and I'm not a dollfag.

>>4480072
I bet you're in like Toronto Canada right? Okay, show the Trump riot in the streets and post it.

>>4480076
You've insulted me more than any other person on this website has before. I would swear to be your enemy from now on until forever, but I fear you may cut even deeper next time.

Watch your back next time you post a photo, zachary... You may be hearing from me.

Also the photo battle would never happen. Pretty sure it's the gay brazilian larper who was seething at me in this thread. We all know he is a massive nophoto.

>>4480080
He probably cant afford a working camera. The typical wage in a brazilian favela is less than $1 a day.

File: funny-happy-happy-happy-cat.gif (319 KB, 220x220)

319 KB GIF

>>4480080
>Tries to show what things to take a photo of
>Neurotypical who takes things out of context
>Neurotypical puts on this overly dramatic show on things
>Me wishing he'd just see things for what they are instead of acting like he is some detective from Law and Order.

>>4480081
He claims to have an 18MP canon.

>>4480082
You are for sure the fake zach, but you're pretty funny so whatever.

What the fuck

>>4480085
Are you new here or something?

>>4480086
Are you?

>>4480098
No. I understand entirely what is going on here. You seem confused and or suprised, which is why I ask.

>>4480100
Nta. Nah you sound like a nigger anon.

>>4480101
>t. Newfag

>>4478830
The truth is a lot of what people put down to sensor size is really about the size of the lens. The amount of light gathered and the depth of field of the projected image are technically only determined by the size of the apparent entrance pupil of the lens, which is usually limited by the font element diameter. If a phone camera size sensor had a lens as big as a full frame camera, it would in theory look identical.

When comparing results from different sensor sizes the standard thing to do is to set both cameras at the same aperture, but this kind of sets up the smaller sensor to fail as F no. is based on the focal length, which will produce different field of views on each camera. If we instead gave both cameras lenses with the same field of view and entrance pupil size, they would in theory be identical

There are some caveats to this around ideal pixel pitches and diffraction limits, but in theory sensor size doesn't make a difference to the image.

That's why the best image and shallowest depth of field right now is on full frame cameras, simply because lens manufactures are making larger and more expensive lenses for full frame cameras over other systems

>>4484581
I think this idea is more easily seen in film, where many cameras and lenses can use the same "sensor". A $20 35mm pns (which you can buy today, new) can directly complete with a pro model SLR in terms of the captured image, and discounting features like ergos and controls which don't influence the image, the 35mm SLR will kick the shit out of the pns because the SLR gets a full sized lens with a proper amount of light, even with identical settings as the pns.

>>4478904
The unprompted mention of race points to "retarded".

>>4478901
Only that one specific Leica sub, which is also run by a single MAGA mod and also bans all talking about anything political
When the tarrifs hit, there was a mass purge from the mod, and most of the actual posters went to the new Leica sub

>>4478830
Anything under medium format and you might as well use a phone

>>4485630
Phones don't have the correct ergos and functions for even maximoom snapshitting potential let alone good photography.
Even 645 and 6x6 are memes in terms of image quality where you should have saved yourself the hassle(blyat) and shot 35mm instead. 6x7 is the point of no return and there's nothing wrong with shooting 35mm/FF or APS-C digital if you don't want to go full 'tism on 6x7 or LF.

Mid bait at best though.

>>4478830
>So what's the deal with sensor sizes

go look at images on flickr, and talk to chat gpt.

it's about dynamic range, pixel pitch, and field of view. if you have shit eyes, than don't worry about it. smaller sensors can still produce great images.

>>4478859
>using a modern phone is almost equal to ai generating pics rofl

literally true. phone images are not real.

>>4485675
> if you have shit eyes, than don't worry about it. smaller sensors can still produce great images.

Also, depending on the final use of the images, a small sensor might be more than necessary. If you’re not going to print large prints or a photo book and all your images are just going to be posted online to the difference between a 24 megapixel sensor and 48 megapixel sensor is moot because you’re just going to downsize everything to a sub 1 megapixel final image anyway.

>>4485716
24MP is enough to print A2 at 300 DPI
150 DPI is enough for viewing from 1 meter distance
so everything above 24mp is just marketing or playing to incompetent boomers who cant get the photo right in the camera and have to crop like the idiots they are

>>4485737
>oversampling isn't real

>>4485737
Eh. Not really mang. Things still look better with higher resolution. Yeah the billboard sized print you're viewing from 50m away ofc isn't going to improve with 600DPI but handheld prints and home furnish prints certainly will.
>inb4 pixel peeping
There is nothing wrong with getting up close and appreciating the finer details in a photo, so long as there are any to appreciate.
Printing at the Ren Kockwell approved 100-200 DPI will fall apart and look like ass, and 300 is the safe minimum.

>>4485859
>handheld prints
you are dumb. 24mpx at 4x6" gives you 1015 DPI

>>4485936
Who the fuck said 6x4 you ESL nig nog.

>>4485937
yeah, those handy A2 prints you pass around on christmas

>>4478975
>Gear is objective, art is subjective

Christ, photofags really are the AIfags of a bygone era. I swear, I every time I stop to actually read a thread instead of just browse images I'm reminded that this place is like those PC builder forums populated by people with $10,000 computers who don't even play video games.

Anyway, gear isn't even objective, really. The only objective thing you can say about gear is what it IS. But what it IS says basically nothing about what it can DO. This camera has 5 bagillion zetapixels? Wowee, who gives a shit? I'm sure all them pixels will make your photos real good.

>>4485953
Just use a phone

Gear matters. Fact. Stephen Shore was and still is an awful snapshitter with no talent. He’s in galleries. Know why? He had more megapixels than everyone else. Simple as.

>>4485936
And just what the fuck are you going to do with a 4x6 print?

Printing is a terrible way to look at an image to begin with, the fucking print is only as good as the paper its printed on and the colors are only as right as the light in whatever fucking room some dillhole looks at it in. You print shit BIG to frame and sell as prints, or you print that shit in a BIG book to sell to new yorkers bc theyr'e the only fucktards on earth who still buy books bc they're the only people who still have the ability to read and comprehend something longer than an internet post. Yah I don't know why either but there they are doin it. I see you fuckers.

What kind of pathetic god-forsaken chode smoking chicken choking walking talking incomplete abortion prints out fucking 4x6 prints and HANDS THEM OUT AT CHRISTMAS. Straight in the trash mafucka, people have phones for small ass images, there is no fucking point to printing an image as small as a phone screen, no go sit in the corner and feel as stupid as you should. I swear man, one of these days alice, zoom, pow straight to the moon.

>>4486097
>Im angry about something I don't understand!

Cringe autism

>>4485981
I think the reason building corners are such a popular subject is because it's a thing simple enough to actually hold a coherent composition in ultra high res HDR. If the composition gets too muddy it loses it's sense of artistic intent and becomes snapslop and newer cameras excel at creating snapslop.

>>4486097
Tone it down, chuddy.
Your main message might be right but your seethe is insufferable.
Handing around 5x7 is the bare minimum and 6x10/8x10/6x6 is also acceptable.
8x8 and 8x12 are good starts for wall prints.
11x14 and 12x18 are great mainstays.

>>4486097
>the fucking print is only as good as the paper its printed on and the colors are only as right as the light in whatever fucking room some dillhole looks at it in
correct. and that's why megapixels are pure marketing to make you pay more for shit you dont need
a photograph that isn't printed doesn't exist

>>4478922
>In a thread like this, whoever posts their photos first will be torn apart by all sides.
i'm not part of this discussion, and not to single you out, but this is a sad cop out. obviously trolls are going to troll. if you are more afraid of what shitposters wills say about your photo than what an earnest viewer will feel/learn, then you've already failed whatever your goal was in posting here. of course you won't win a concession by proving your point with a picture. the value is in demonstrating for the lurkers who like photography and who actually matter. shitposters will shitpost, and users with a brain will see this and learn to filter out the shitposts. if you allow this to dissuade you from posting a photo, then we end up in the wasteland where /p/ is now where 2 people ever post photos outside rpt and you have threads with less images than the threads on non-photography boards

File: _DSC0450.jpg (4.7 MB, 2000x1600)

4.7 MB JPG

>>4486106
As someone from /ic/ where this also happens a lot: don't be a little bitch, post your work. If it's good even the trolls will shut the fuck up. If it's not, who gives a shit, at least you're not a bitch. I know this is an anonymous forum, but even so, if you conduct yourself with no sense of notoriety, you will never be taken seriously. Regardless of whether it's bait or not, a challenge to post your work should be a moment of pride that you get an opportunity to show what you can do. If you refuse to show your photos you're no better than the shitposters and deserve to be regarded as one.

File: R1-07740-0019.jpg (700 KB, 1800x1200)

700 KB JPG

>>4486107
real and true!
i'd go a step further and say that you don't even need to post your own work to make a positive mark on the board. attaching a photo doesn't have to be a declaration of your own skill. post photos taken by literally anyone. there truly is no excuse for being a nophoto. if you fear doxxing, simply pull a photo from the world wide web.

>>4486106
It's 100% a cop out for nophotos
I post photos here all the time, even in vitriolic threads
It takes more ego to not post than it does to post
>>4486110
Also this, I post lots of "okay" photos because they can be relevant to a given thread, and I've ones from elsewhere online all the time when relevant too

>>4486122
Sticky Says:
>/p/ is for photos: so feel free to post them as often as possible, even if "image unrelated" to your text.
Anons Do:
>Whine and fag on about the people who post photos and immediately fling shit about anything they don't like, while also not posting their own photos.

File: IMG2902_bwicon2.jpg (227 KB, 1000x1000)

227 KB JPG

>>4486123
I used to not respond to the random vitriolic comments, but now I've lost my patience and started picking at them to force them to either elaborate or fuck off. No one is going to engage here if the only feedback they expect is some miserable autist who couldn't even explain himself at the other end of a gun.

Let's start making serious efforts to discourage this. If you push back, they'll have to either shut the fuck up, or be forced to invalidate themselves with a melty. Either way, it seems like 4chan users have to self-govern now if they want any semblance of usability or even community.

>>4486126
Half the people here are either maliciously dishonest or plain retarded, and most don't even own a camera to begin with
Once you realize that, all their ranting just becomes silly, posting a single photo is all it takes to contribute more to the board than they ever do
It's okay to talk down to them for being retarded or dishonest, they ruin the board for everyone else

>>4486101
eh dude, I was drinking mead all evening and feeling great, like I am now, having fun tearing anons a new cornhole about their dumbassery. Just because you want to imagine someone is all hot & bothered doesn't mean they are. Ridiculing dumb people for being dumb is fun.

>>4486107
most of us already posted our work ages ago & are over that, it's pointless. Newfags can come here to get eval'd if they're so desperate for approval of mostly unqualified teenagers, idgaf about your "work" or your opinions of others work, which lets be honest, is 99% not work at all, it's "HOW DO I ACHEIVE THIS LOOK" monkey see monkey do bullshit. No one owes you fucks dick, this is a discussion board, you can discuss with words. If you monkeys want to see a million random ass images just do a fucking googly image search and save us all some space in the tread.

>>4486163
>I don't own a camera either
Awful lot of nophotos today

>>4486163
It sounds like you're still drunk and upset.

>>4478830
A $200 canon 5d classic takes nicer looking photos than a $2000 fujifilm xh2s and much much better than a nearly-$2000 om-3.

Nuff said.

File: OB301770.jpg (1003 KB, 2592x1944)

1003 KB JPG

>post photo
this board is a fucking joke and I treat it as such. it's no better than any other photo boomer forums. it's funny because when I post my snapshits they tend to blow away all the serious "deep and artistic" effort all the mongoloid kids here put into their shit which then they proudly post in /rpt/
if anyone takes this board seriously they need to get checked by their local psychiatrist

>>4486252
Nice self portrait unc

>>4486163
>Just because you want to imagine someone is all hot & bothered doesn't mean they are.
Alright. Fair. I will consneed that I figured you were chimping, and if it wasnt the case then I'm a bit of a cunt. Accepted.
Ridiculing dumb people for being dumb is fun.
Double fair.

>>4486205
Most anons don't like this one simple fact.
Good photos can be had cheap and cheery but they have to get over their purse-tier egos and buy a blobmera.

>>4478830
It only really matters if the sensor+optics combo allow you to shoot with more total light collected or with more megapixels for the same framing (increasing reach). For example one of the best reaching sensors out there is the one in the 90D. Put a 800mm f/5.6 lens on that and you're shooting at 1280mm f/9 equivalent, 32.5MP. If you take a 5Ds and shoot a 1200mm stopped down to f/8 and crop a bit to 1280mm FoV then you'll get the same image but a bit cleaner with some luck, might not even be discernible. When you shoot wide open (f/5.6) on the 5Ds you'll get an image the 90D can't really match. You have more light and a thinner DoF, but do you really want a DoF that thin? Now, if you're using the full 1200mm image then the 5Ds is the right tool. If what you want is a crop of it because the scene you want doesn't fill the frame, then 90D with that same lens will give you more resolution on the area of interest. More pixels on the subject, more reach. It's a matter of whether or not the sensor is the right tool for the job.

>>4486274
cANON, brother, use a better example not some 17 units sold ultratele.
Whatever, your point is valid though.

>>4486275
I get what you're saying but it highlights how far you need to go to get a real FF advantage on the far end. On the near end it's the opposite, to get a measly 24mm equivalent on APS-C you need to spend a lot more than a 24mm on FF costs. And that's one of the reasons I shoot full frame))

>>4486276
Idk I feel like the "cheat" of going crop sensor with a supertele is outweighted by that extra stop and a chunk of light you lose.
Seriously, whats your subject with a 800mm focal length? Birds and wildlife? Most likely, right? So your shutter speed is capped at something like 1/500th or whatever, and the difference between 6400 ISO and 2500 is way way cleaner.
Double agree on the wide comment though.

>>4486252
>I'm embarrassed because I don't actually take photos
Why are you even here?
>when I post my snapshits they tend to blow away all the serious
Sounds awesome, you should post some!
>>4486277
cANON is a nophoto, thats why he comments so much, overcompensating

>>4486252
I don't like this comment

File: 1764183908880.jpg (3.91 MB, 3000x2250)

3.91 MB JPG

>this board is a fucking joke and I treat it as such. it's no better than any other photo boomer forums. it's funny because when I post my snapshits they tend to blow away all the serious "deep and artistic" effort all the mongoloid kids here put into their shit which then they proudly post in /rpt/

>>4486363
Thank you for sharing a sharing my photo, I love to see it happen
Maybe one day you can post photos of your own so I don't have to anymore

>>4486363
Best shot ITT

File: 1752362120979.jpg (3.93 MB, 6429x4813)

3.93 MB JPG

>>4486363
Yeah, I'm a pro too... i do really good portraits but *adjusts fedora* you perverted anklebiters are too low class to share them with. pssssft. nophotos.

File: 1709054412836.jpg (2.07 MB, 3000x2000)

2.07 MB JPG

>>4486367
>>4486363
nice work, gentledogs. i see you are real artists. I am a real artist as well. like you, i shoot way cooler photos at another school. /p/ just gets the throwaways.

>>4486368
>>4486367
These two mog the corgi ngl

>>4478884
this guy is in literally every thread, no matter what the topic is, posting literally the same thing. Is this what Sony's marketing department has come up with now? Just be normal?

>>4486374
Just be normal. Buy a 5dIII and a 50mm f1.8.

>>4486375
I did one better, I have a d700 and a 50mm 1.8 D

>>4478944
I actually really like the composition on this one, fren

File: Untitled (16).jpg (3.58 MB, 7155x9001)

3.58 MB JPG

>>4486368
>>4486367
>>4486363
Wow! Splendid shots. We love people contributing awesome photographs to /p/! Is that german shepherd being photographed with a 3 strobe setup on a medium format digital camera? So cool!

>>4486277
Shutter speed is nice, but I'm not sure low ISO really matters that much anymore. Clean photos are out, we want the grain anyway.

>>4486390
agree, you're going to put fake grain on your pic regardless, just reduce the chroma noise leave the luma and voila you saved a step processing

>>4486385
I don't like this it's bad

>>4486371
Nice shit post lol

File: 1760586154278169.jpg (29 KB, 626x682)

29 KB JPG

>>4486368
>>4486367
>>4486363
>>4486385
Cute doggies. May the children of heaven be blessed at heaven's gate when they all pass into the after life.

>>4486110
this is HYPERKINO