>>4485653
what exactly is this supposed to be showcasing?
Half these photos look like wormy shit either RAW or edited.

>>4485653
What is the model of the camera in this advertisement? Is the x-half a good camera to get into Fuji? Will the colors be just as good as the ones from the camera in this advertisement?

>>4485653
But all of the colors look like shit? Why pay extra, give up image quality, build quality, and working autofocus, just to have mid tier contrast/saturation-boosted lightroom profiles baked into the camera

Ffs just use your phone. These photos look exactly like iPhone photos with filters enabled. No discernible difference at all.

>>4485660
>But all of the colors look like shit?
Le vintage and nostalgiac tho

>>4485660
>all of the colors look like shit?
nah they don’t, they actually look pretty good

>>4485653
>raw == edited
or am i color blind

>>4485653
>RAW/Edited
What did he mean by this? A RAW file doesn't even have colors

Is it true that Fuji kit lenses are better than the competition?

File: no.png (783 KB, 937x1190)

783 KB PNG

>>4485660
>noooooooooo you just have to waste countless hours sitting infront of your boomer pc editing your green images with your yearly adobe creative cloud™ subscription because... you just have to okay!!!

>>4485694
>developing your skill = wasting hours
Ok man

>>4485695
>developing your skill
>dragging sliders
L M A O

>>4485696
>would rather let the machine make the wrong choices for him
ngmi, sorry, its already over for you. its a given that a photographer should know how to edit and clean up photos.

>>4485696
Uh man, you sound like a hopeless faggot.

>>4485698
>own a shit car
>spend hours fixing it daily
>somehow thinks this is a good thing
>not owning a car that just works properly in the first place and spending more time enjoying driving

>>4485700
nah, it's like having a fine car, but someone else do the driving for you

>>4485700
>car analogy
Lmao.

Except it's more like
>Own a Tesla that only drives pre-programmed routes to certain destinations
>Not allowed to steer or operate pedals yourself
>Can't manually override the pre-selected options, only allowed to tell it where to park when it gets there
VS
>High power, carburetorred, manual transmission 4WD with no ABS or TCS that will allow you to completely fuck your day up if you don't know how to use it properly
>Actually allows you to drive wherever you want and in any way you want

RAW wins every time, chuddy.

>>4485692
The 18-55 f2.8-4 was great at the time, definitely the best of other 18-55/16-50 kit options
The new 13-33 is supposedly pretty decent
Pretty sure the others are just normal kit level

>>4485694
>le hyperbole
and you also waste hours at mcdonalds paying off your $3000 fuji kit, for photos that look exactly like your phones. Exactly.

Editing raws is easier and faster than shooting jpeg and an iPhone outperforms the fujifilm xe5 and x100vi

If you disagree you’re too dumb to use a computer. Simple as.

>>4485712
What if you shoot raw on fuji

>>4485713
It takes longer because xtrans raws are slow to load if you don’t spend thousands of dollars on a computer. Fujifilm makes bad kit that only impresses people used to other garbage cameras like SNOY.
>iPhone quality and iphone camera filter looks if you shoot jpeg
>Slow to work with, worms, and zombie colors if you shoot raw
>unreliable, rattly, short lived, bad ibis, worse autofocus, basically a snoy in a suit and a fedora
No wonder despite being 70% of the inorganic internet hype they sell 7% of the cameras

Just be normal and buy a canon or a nikon

>>4485700
Shooting raw with a normal camera like a canon is easier and faster than shooting jpeg. Just one click with fropak3, a little crop, and you’re good to go. Have fun playing white balance and film sim selections, pushing buttons all over your camera like its a nintendo lmao

>>4485700
>can't take an interesting picture without nuking it with le film simulation and colour grading
maybe you should work on your subjects and composition, and then u can learn how to edit after that. sounds like you're at the very start of your journey tbqhwyf

>>4485722
He doesnt have a canon. He doesnt know what its like for sooc jpegs to look good with a natural kook.

File: PGX90674.jpg (1.16 MB, 1944x2592)

1.16 MB JPG

>>4485653
is this real? I hate editing. should I get a tranny worm camera?

so tuff

File: Screenshot 2025-12-01 at (...).png (984 KB, 660x1164)

984 KB PNG

>>4485663
get they the flesh color right on the dildo cup, faggot?

>>4485695
lol, every real photographer has a dedicated editing slave. Sebastião Salgado never developed his files himself for example
editing is a monkey skill for the creatively impaired

>>4485729
Nope. As a professional with paid editors, I know better than you. Sorry, just hard facts. You don't just pay people to edit in their own style, you need to be able to edit yourself so you can have them edit the photos for you in your style. And it's only useful if you have heaps of photos to edit. Nice try, but you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

>>4485729
Can we see some of the photos your editors did?

>>4485723
unironically canon has always been the better choice for this reason. all throughout the digital era. even with their shit dynamic range it doesnt matter because literally no other brand can make images that look exactly like real life. only canon can. ive started buying up their old film cameras too and even the cheap entry level slrs are made better than n*kon. the metal so much thicker and they use so much less plastic.

Can someone explain worms to me

File: fujixtrans.png (4.57 MB, 1901x867)

4.57 MB PNG

>>4485745
Based on the sharpening algorithm used, sometimes X-Trans can have a "wormy" or "waxy" or "oil panting" or "smeary" look to some fine detail / texture. Compare these 100% crops from an otherwise unedited file. Notice the appearance of the wood and leaves on the right.

It's mostly apparent when using Adobe's default sharpening settings, and sometimes with Fuji's own JPG conversion. If you use LR's enhance feature, actually adjust your sharpening settings, or use other software for processing, it's a non-issue. It's also not really noticeable unless you're at least at 100%, and it's not necessarily a given depending on the texture / detail you are photographing.

File: 6136593908.jpg (3.85 MB, 7728x5152)

3.85 MB JPG

>>4485745
Here are two SOOC jpegs from the x100vi. The fine detail is wobbly and waxy like a phone because fuji uses a large color pixel pattern on a small sensor like a phone. Normal camera = 2x2 pattern, 35mm sensor. Fuji = 3x3, 23mm sensor. Phone = 4x4, 13mm sensor.

They are not at crazy high ISOs either. You can see more on dpreview.

Fuji requires 40mp (so a $$$$ ILC body) AND a $$$$ sharp, clinical lens (rendering like nikkor z s lenses) to equal a normal 24-ish megapixel camera like a $500 nikon d750 with a soulful nikkor af-s g lens.

File: 5315913484.jpg (3.82 MB, 7728x5152)

3.82 MB JPG

>>4485750
Fuji has other issues, like an equally bad weather sealing/build quality track record vs sony, slow and miss-prone autofocus, and IBIS that isnt very good (most people struggle to take the x100vi slower than 1/3rd. A camera with a 35mm lens and no IBIS can be shot handheld at 1/15 to 1/30. 2-3 stop IBIS, worse than a canon IS prime. Canon 35mm IS = 1s exposures handheld, 2s with skill. Modern canons do 8 stop stab with pro bodies, ie: multiple seconds with a 35mm lens)

You can see more wormy shit like this in the dpreview sample gallery from whence it came

Fuji’s biggest defender here is also one of the biggest spenders on /p/ and mostly shoots raw. Being five thou deep to start approaching an old canon 5div doesnt bother him. The fuji matches his fixie and french press coffee and works fine for when his leica is in the shop, like how BMW drivers often ride shitty harleys when their car is in for its bimonthly major service.

>>4485738
>my dad works at nintendo
sure anon

>>4485751
>>4485750
>someone mentioned Fuji?
>time for dishonesty

>>4485756
Nothing is dishonest there. Those are real x100vi SOOC jpegs from a reputable source. Everything I said can be verified. Fuji charges a lot of money to underperform an old canon DSLR, equal a new iphone, and include some crappy vsco filters.

The one technical inaccuracy is fuji xtrans being a 3x3 sensor. Technically, with the AF pixels, xtrans is 6x6.

>>4485751
Legit this looks exactly like a phone photo

>>4485757
The detail isn't due to xtrans, it's the sharpening used for it, which does include JPG
It doesn't require a clinical lens to hit basic DSLR tier
The weather sealing is more dishonesty from cherry picking and ignoring all positive weather sealing anecdotes
The AF is only behind for 3D tracking, still accurate and quick for everything else
The rest is you making stuff up in your head about me
2 random sample images alone is kind of dishonest, unless you agree that if I post samples with similar levels of detail also implies problems with whatever body, you could at the very least also include samples from Fuji where the issue is less apparent
The full image of this can also be currently seen elsewhere on board >>4485748, along with many other x-trans shots

Last time I posted a mix of x-trans and Zf shots together, people couldn't figure out which was which

>>4485760
>people couldnt tell my 300px thumbnails apart
>sure, fuji might be 7% of the camera and have infinitely more weather failure reports than canon (0 issues), but some people had good luck!
>despite what everyone else says fuji autofocus is TOTALLY GOOD! I set to af-s and it locked onto a posed model facing the camera in less than a whole second!
Lol this company is going to die. The x100vi literally can not compete with a phone. Their cameras aren’t up to the standard of an old a7iii let alone modern cameras like the canon r6ii. Its just a fact.
You’re the dishonest, misrepresenting one if you’d defend fuji’s shit autofocus. Whats next, u dun need moar because rpt is all trees? DISHONEST.

>>4485760
>dont waste time editing, buy a fuji, shoot jpeg
>uh, fuji only looks exactly like phone photos if you shoot jpeg, you need to shoot raw and run lightrooms enhance feature for every file
Vintage macfag grade cope

And calling the af quick and accurate… yeah compared to a nikon z6ii maybe. Even the fourth rate nikon zf can hit moving subjects better. Even the canon 5dII can hit moving subject better.

Fujifags are dishonest, which is why they call everyone else dishoenst

>>4485759
phones render skin tones way better. x-tranny makes skin look like waxy corpse skin. terrible

>A canon R8 with IS lenses has better everything than a fuji xt5
KEK

>>4485761
>let's reply with more dishonesty
I usually aim for 1000px at a minimum, and always ask when people cope like this, how many pixels they need to see the difference, but no one ever gives me answer, how many do you need?
>dishonest anecdotes beat your anecdotes
I've posted examples of the continuous autofocus here even, certainly still does work most of the time
They've had more growth in sales this past year than any other brand lol
Look forward to seeing you post a photo when you get a camera one day
>>4485759
If I find other samples like that from other bodies will you agree the same?

>>4485764
>>4485763
>>4485762
The nophoto anger, let it flow through you

>>4485766
With an honest comparison, same scene, non-equivalent settings (but the best each camera can do) fuji is noticeably worse than a proper camera even at 8mp (4k). You do not do honest comparisons. You put motion blurred, overexposed zf kit prime shots against competence with a fuji.

This does not excuse fujifilm’s objective, measurable shortcomings in light of their high prices. Your ability to twist comparisons does not change objective facts. Facts are facts. A sharp knife is sharper than a dull knife even if you put the sharp one against leather and the dull one against paper or only chop celery and say "you almost never cut tomatoes anyways"… and the dull knife is more expensive

>well OTHER cameras can look as bad as fuji
Yes with major fuckups, shitty lenses, and higher ISO settings. Wasnt the point of fuji to shoot jpeg? Why, if the jpegs literally look like a phone and you have to wait for lightroom to enhance each raw?

fujifilms price/performance isnt just inexcusable

fujifilms performance period is inexcusable. under no conditions should a properly exposed photo from an ILC look as bad as one from an iphone. ever. if an x100vi or xe5 can not turn its sensor data into a jpeg as well as an iphone its not a good product.

>>4485760
>anecdotes
I thought you were supposedly advocating for Fuji, what a self-btfo fujislug.
>>4485774
This tbhfam

Does Canon have anything that isn’t a big chunk?
Realistically, I do this as a hobby and prefer a smaller camera. I’d buy an m240, but $3k for a body and a 50mm prime is too much for a hobby.
I know I should just get an a7c, but I just don’t vibe with it, and the gigantic hyper-corrected lenses defeat the purpose of a compact body. Same issue I have with the Nikon Z mount, desu

>>4485778
pulling off a canon is a privilege reserved for people who have hit the gym and dont rely on a retro twee camera to further excuse their kitschy etsy fashion

>>4485653
Looks like the smartphone filters you used to get on VSCO back in 2016.

>>4485778
Get an R8 and dress better. Its light, which is what matters. The visibly larger aesthetics work if you’re not wearing wranglers and a baggy tee or bell bottoms and a vest or whatever trash /p/ dresses in. Look a little more upper class, get better fit clothes from this century, don’t be a shoulderlet caught without a coat. Sling it crossbody or straight up on one shoulder, never necklace style.

Cameras are to outfits as outfits are to people. The latter excuses the former. If you need a rangefinder style or faux-vintage snapshitter to not embarrass yourself you have a fundamental problem the camera cant fix.

>>4485786
As far the camera goes, while I do like the vintage look but it’s more about the size/weight. Even APS-c DSLRs were big to the point that I left it at home pretty often. So the R8 weighing as much as an xpro2 is pretty much perfect, even if it’s not my favorite form factor
For lenses it’s 100% a size issue, modern lenses are apparently all retrofocal and just stupidly large.

I do wear wranglers lmao, but I’m a 6’3 blue eyed white guy, so being slightly unfashionable in terms of camera+outfit match isn’t the end of the world.

>>4485786
Really I should just shoot film, it’s a much more straightforward way to get that classic look in the images. Only downside is having to fuck around with processing or labs

>>4485789
The lenses aren’t big. The 35, 50, and 85 are about the size of vintage SLR lenses from the really old days ala nikkor 85mm f2. The 24-50 is as short overall (maybe smaller) as a 70s film camera with a 35-70.

The pro lenses are definitely big but a 24mp camera doesn’t really benefit from them. It’ll still mog a phone or a fuji with the normal glass.

>>4485789
canon literally has the only "real" full frame, full features pancake lens
>nikon: cant use filters without doubling in length to same size as a sony 35mm f2.8
>lumix: fixed f8 manual focus only
>sony: fixed f4.5 third party phone quality lens
the rf 28mm is also the sharpest ff pancake

>>4485720
i never understood the fuji worms meme, just dont zoom all the way in and sharpen the fuck out of your pictures in post. i had to look up what they meant and ive seen worms in pics taken with nikons and sony going off that definition

fuji worms is only a issue if you shoot raw and sharpen the fuck out of your pics, even the newer photo editors don't have the worms anymore

https://nzdigital.blogspot.com/2019/10/beware-of-worms-sharpening-fuji-files.html

>>4485772
i dont get why "look like a iphone" is a insult either when iphones are literal super computers compared to your average 2010s dslr? i've never seen a older DSLR deliver the same look sooc jpeg as the fujis ive seen. you just cant add sensor or lens to the iphone like you could a camera

>>4485794
DSLRs deliver way better IQ than fuji. Lacking the corny +sat +vib +contrast +warmth vsco filters is a feature not a bug.

>>4485791
>>4485792
Oh, cool, I genuinely didn’t know that.
I just assume all modern lenses are huge for no reason the way Sony, Nikon, and most of the non-Chinese third party lenses are.
Just looked these up and Canon should really be leaning on this more in their marketing. That’s the only modern AF 50mm I’ve seen that’s a normal size or comparable to a film lens.
Will definitely consider this, there’s still something about the Fujis that I like, but I can see the value of getting real FF and semi-compact packaging on both body and lens, even at the cost of vintage-style ergo and controls.
I think I have weird hands, I learned on my dads film cameras, and the ergonomic blobs just feel off to me, no matter what the science says.
I will say this, looking at the R8, I like the look of the way Canon designed the blob-handle. Having the shutter button more on the front face makes way more sense if it’s gonna force your hand into that position. Shutter on top works great on vintage shape bodies, but always felt off with the Nikon ergo grips that I’ve used.
Also, on a silly level, I do have a positive image of Canon from all the sponsorship they had in National Geographic back in the day
Are people on more of a budget mostly adapting EF, or are the new RF lenses worth the money to avoid the adapters?

>>4485795

im tempted to switch only because im gonna edit the fuck out of my photos if i shoot raw, i'd rather have a fuji as a vacation camera and end up 90% there sooc jpeg than spend hours editing 1000+ photos to suit each situation.

either i shoot fuji or i shoot fuji 400, 35mm is tempting for that reason (i have the photos ready to share as soon as they're back from the lab)

i think fujislugs are aware their cameras arent the best for the money, that's why they're paying mirrorless ff prices for a apsc with crap gen 1 mirrorless af

>>4485722
>Cant take an interesting picture without spending hours fixing it up in Lightroom vs simply shooting SOOC to focus on the actual shooting experience
The irony of your post

File: etsuko_aimu_17_40_18_09.jpg (3.69 MB, 3840x2560)

3.69 MB JPG

>>4485692
I tried the new 16-50 on an X-T5 for a little while. This lens supposedly resolves 40MP, but all I got out of it was awfully mushy details, and yes, worms - even with low sharpening. I don't own any other APS-C kit zooms to compare it with, but it was truly awful in isolation. While you should take this with a grain of salt (I shoot primes on full frame so I'm used to much better), it's very clear that this system is designed for low-tier amateurs who only shoot JPG.
If I were in the market for APS-C zoom I would be very tempted by the Sigma 17-40mm F1.8 Art. The results from that lens look very nice indeed, pic rel

>>4485798
Yeah, I keep doing the math on analog as well
$25 a roll for dev+prints sucks, but the up front cost is miniscule, so it’d take a long time before mirrorless saved me money

File: 1756481875125159.png (89 KB, 1063x895)

89 KB PNG

>>4485799
>implying it takes hours to click on a preset and tweak a couple sliders to taste
Shooting JPG is a crutch for bad photographers. If you have to rely on your camera or someone else's "recipes" to do your job for you, you're just shit. If you had an ounce creative vision in your bones you'd appreciate the transparency of a raw file and the latitude it gives you.

>>4485804
Why not try the 26mp Fujis like the XT30, XT3/XT4, or XM5? Maybe its one of those cases where the "worms" get worse because its too many megapixels for the same size sensor

>>4485805
You can make a photobook with the prints while you rarely print digital pics imo unless its for a business/professional use.

>>4485806
>Im better than you because i wasted my time manually dragging some sliders to overcompensate for my cameras color science!
?

>>4485812
>spending thousands on measurably worse cameras than old dslrs to compensate for not being able to edit and still have to use a computer or phone to do final edits and upload: good!
>spending 5 min clicking 2 buttons: BAD BAD BAD MY CAMERA IS BETTER
And yet its a lie because every nikon and canon ever made has perfect colors in sooc jpeg and fuji colors look like shitty instagram filters (because they are), and fuji needs to shoot raw to look better than an iphone camera anyways lol

You dont have an argument my man. You have buyers remorse. You’re the one who keeps posting these shitty propaganda OPs after all. Everyone else is just debunking the lie before anyone else wastes their money on a shitty fuji. A $1000 canon will blow a $2000 fuji out of the water. A $2000 canon will fulfill your camera needs for the next 30 years and mog every fuji phone and snoy to come. Nikon hasn’t even 100% caught up to the r6ii yet, and the r6ii still mogs the a9ii while the r5(1!) still mogs the a1 and z8… lol.

Canon just makes the best cameras. Over one out of two cameras sold is a canon.

>>4485816
is canon paying you per post

i want a new r8 i want some canonbucks

Why does the mere mention of Fujifilm cause such a visceral reaction in /gear/fags?
>inb4 the same sperg out giving me (You)s

>>4485819
>fujislug words: i think having skill is a waste of time and cool people purchase their skill. being able to do things is for faggots. i am so bad at things applying a preset to a raw takes hours. all of your cameras have bad colors and you have to edit. my purchases make me better than you.
>fujislug reality: SOOC jpegs literally look exactly like phone photos. sooc colors look worse when not relying on a vsco filter. features and quality on 2026 gear costing thousands cant keep up with cameras from 2016.
that is why people are mad and believe it or not its not just /p/. everyone hates fujislugs.

you are proud of being stupid and wasting money. you think being more competent than you is bad. that’s it.

>>4485822
They’re emblematic off the app generation. Not only are they unable to use a raw file, they’re willfully ignorant of the great colors everyone besides sony, panasonic, and olympus already had straight out of camera. Fujislugs act like every cameras jpegs are as dull and lifeless as a fuji without sims or a snoy. Reality is their enemy because in reality fuji just charges a fat wad to whoever falls for the marketing rather than bothering to make a good camera for photographers.

>>4485700
Not even close, this is more like having a nice car and then detailing it to make it look even better.

File: 193820.gif (1.25 MB, 220x393)

1.25 MB GIF

>>4485819
>Why does the mere mention of Fujifilm cause such a visceral reaction in /gear/fags?
Its literally just one extremely autistic anon that keeps on having a complete meltdown and proceeds to write a schizo essay about worms

>>4485819
Fuji is fine, it's just when it's the one faggot that thinks it's the best camera on the market because it has built in filters like a phone.

>>4485825
>only one person thinks fuji sucks
>its muh cANON its ambush its m43!
93% of people who buy cameras think fuji sucks lol

fuji is every way mirrorless is worse than dslrs rolled into one brand where a basic kit costs $3000 and the only gimmick is instagram filters. also it looks like phone photos.

>>4485812
Im better than you because I have talent and you have toys
Simple as really :D

I’ve looked over probably hundreds of sample GFX produced images and they look remarkable, as good as anything I’ve seen apart from Hasselblad.

Images from the GF 110mm f/2 lens for example are stunning.

I have no idea what you people are on about.

File: fwupdate.jpg (51 KB, 1088x367)

51 KB JPG

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

>>4485833
Fuji gfx has a few problems to make up for undercutting hasselblad cfv/x2d cams (low sync speed, wires coming off in the camera, ibis failure) but it has nothing in common with fuji x besides dodgy weather sealing and chintsy vsco presets. generally its users are more level headed and less retarded.

>>4485819
they're upset someone didn't choose price/performance

again fujis are apsc mirrorless with gen 1 mirrorlews apsc af (think canon m50, nikon z30/z50) sold for the same price as a nikon z6ii/sony a7c/canon r8 (mirrorless ff)

>>4485823
the only colors i really liked were canon 5ds rest were okay or still needed work

if a camera company wanted to push fuji off they would've had improved their jpeg processing engines by now, you buy a fuji and pay a little more + take the iq drop strictly for that.

https://www.veresdenialex.com/post/best-digital-cameras-with-film-simulations-my-picks

im considering switching if the filters mean i'll like most of the photos out the box + the size of the kit is way smaller than the ff dslr i was carrying. probably gonna be either a xt30 or xt3/xt4, i don't see the point in 40mp out of a apsc sensor

>>4485839
Fuji jpeg processing is really poor. It LITERALLY looks like a phone.

Fuji has nothing but their bad ergonomics and their marketing. There is no tech angle to it. They name pretty shitty presets after film stocks but they don’t look a thing like film stocks. Nikon already has user picture controls that do the exact same thing, but that doesn’t matter because it’s not the technology. Fuji is so bad at in house technology and so good at bullshitting idiots they called a regular pattern of squares "more random like film".

The only thing they can actually do is make lenses and paper (they make hasselblad’s lenses). The cameras are junk. Its like buying a snoy but instead of chilling and fixing white balances and presets later the fuji experience is mashing through menus for the film sim, dr400 shit, and white balance AND mashing through menus to cope with their shitty AF system (it cant just be left on auto like a canon/nikon circa any year after 2010)

Oh, and there is no defending price/performance that bad. Money is real. It is a thing that can be wasted. And $2000 is a lot of it even if you’re a retarded childless pothead with a wall of funko pops, when the deal is basically a nikon z50 in terms of tech but with the picture controls already on the camera. You can just download them to the sd card it takes two minutes.

>>4485840
>Nikon already has user picture controls that do the exact same thing, but that doesn’t matter because it’s not the technology.

They don't work, I've actually tried it. You have to do it in post in nxstudio. It doesn't work in camera. It was with a Z50 too. Maybe the Z50II fixed it. I couldn't get colors I wanted out of it so I sold it.

I'm not claiming there's a tech angle. I'm saying if camera companies wanted to sell more cameras they'd work on the jpeg engine/processing because this is what sells cameras, your average normie does not care about IQ nearly as much as /p/ photography nerds. Most pics taken with ILCs aren't being used in prints, they're being shared on laptop and cell phone screens. I think the pictures look pretty good especially if they're SOOC.

Why can't Sony or Canon or Nikon do the same as Fuji and let you do in camera presets as good?

I don't see the point in spending $2000 for any APSC but the 26mp Fujis are usually $1000

>>4485841
>they didnt work
They do? You personally dont like them. Many personally dont like fuji film sins especially with artificial light.
>this is what sells cameras
Market trends say, it doesn’t. At all. People who cant pirate lightroom or configure camera settings dont buy these things. They are all inherently complex and that selects for a level of competence. If fuji had the magic bullet they’d be outselling nikon at least. They don’t. Their serious fanboys… are even shooting raw.

Shooting raw is actually most of what separates cameras from "picture taking devices". Its similar to shooting film in that it can be pushed or pulled and precise settings dont matter, only the exposure triangle affects anything and there’s multiple stops of fuckup room.

File: fuji neat.jpg (92 KB, 1000x759)

92 KB JPG

>casually gives you a mental breakdown

>>4485845
buy an ad raj

9/10 people pass over this overpriced junk

File: 1742558399795215.png (189 KB, 1198x450)

189 KB PNG

>>4485845
Unironically I just boughted an X-E5

File: 518092224_101633312130215(...).jpg (318 KB, 2048x1239)

318 KB JPG

>>4485844
No no, as in this was the message I got when I tried doing it. No matter where I put it on the SD Card. Tried a different SD card too. Had to resort to applying the picture control profiles in NXStudio in post. For what its worth my favorite two were Canon 5DMK2 and Fuji Provia. Maybe it was *MY* specific camera.

They're only 2% off Nikon which has a more diverse catalog.

I personally just want a camera I can simplify my workflow by not having to edit.

File: x100vi rx1riii.jpg (152 KB, 945x1059)

152 KB JPG

>>4485846
>overpriced

>>4485845
Why are there worms in the fucking meme as well. Did you film sim it too, Rajeshi?

>>4485849
>I personally just want a camera I can simplify my workflow by not having to edit.
no you have to spend hours infront of a computer screen editing like everyone else on /p/ anon!

>>4485854
Impressive. Very nice. Now do the Leica Q3.

>>4485841
You just sound like someone that doesn't know how to use a camera
If you couldn't figure >>4485849 this out, you should give up on cameras lol
>I personally just want a camera I can simplify my workflow by not having to edit.
That's any camera you want if your pictures are ever making it to a PC or Phone or tablet, importing is all it takes to have a preset applied
>>4485860
>find a preset you like
>set to auto-apply on import
>takes 0 extra time

File: 36571087762.jpg (4.85 MB, 9504x6336)

4.85 MB JPG

>>4485772
>more dishonesty
Good try

What do people think of the details on something like this?

File: authentic_m43.jpg (4.58 MB, 2600x3465)

4.58 MB JPG

>>4485864
What details?

File: 02116488332.jpg (4.33 MB, 7515x5010)

4.33 MB JPG

>>4485867
Does this one still look cell-phone tier?

>>4485854
I’ve been shitting on snoy. What does snoy being worse at overpricing meme cameras than fuji have to do with fuji selling shitty cameras for the price of an FF nikon?

Fujifilm simply does not make good cameras. Neither does sony, but that’s another story.

File: 86564526012.jpg (3.87 MB, 5155x7728)

3.87 MB JPG

>>4485867
Or this one, guess focus wasn't good enough here lol

>>4485860
You keep saying hours, but its false. It takes less time overall than shooting jpeg.

Why aren’t you mentioning spending thousands extra for worse everything? Sure with a $1600 x-t5 and another $1000 in glass, fujifilm can approximate the capability of a nikon z6ii with the cheapest kit lenses.

>Fuji autofocus is GOOD. See, AF-S hit the building corner every time! SHOW ME WHERE IN RPT SOMEONE SHOT SOMETHING OTHER THAN A BUILDING CO-
>canon autofocus on the fucking r50: birds in flight, no problem, athletes running towards the camera, kids, cats, dogs, nails it every time
such is the cope of people who overspent by thousands on phone tier jpegs and raws that take three times longer to load

File: 18316905932.jpg (3.03 MB, 4000x6000)

3.03 MB JPG

>R50 sample gallery
wow look at that detail

File: 1741591048865541.png (163 KB, 476x512)

163 KB PNG

>>4485848
Based in the moment enjoyer

>>4485877
How the hell is it sharper than the x100vi? With better colors?

>>4485881
In the moment:
Raw
Ec -1
Manual with auto ISO

Also in the moment:
Fixed ISO
Aperture priority
Send the film to a lab

Not in the moment:
Make sure the photo is fully exposed because you cant fix that in jpeg
Make sure the white balance is right because you cant fix that in jpeg
Are the shadows too dark? Dr400, whats this do? Is there a higher setting? Reality isnt this contrasty
This film sim doesnt look very good here. Maybe this one. No, this one
Now that its on my phone i notice a weird magenta tint… the white balance looked good on the screen… why…
I am buying a canon!

>>4485888
>Manual with auto ISO
This always gives me dunning-kruger tingles

File: 97220381382.jpg (4 MB, 7728x5152)

4 MB JPG

>>4485888
Better detail than this?

>>4485877
Idk what the problem is. Despite the creepshot and building corner, it's a clean, sharp image that the AF nailed with no wormy bullshit.
If this was a good photo, the R50 would do it justice.

>>4485890
Why though. I see no downside. Cap the top end of the ISO range to something non-retarded like 1600 or 3200 and it's literally the smartest way to deal with less than ideal light amounts. Use Av mode for good light where you can stick ISO to 100-400 safely (lots of modern cameras dual gain @ 400).

>>4485891
This looks like an upscale

File: 78920461142.jpg (3.33 MB, 6000x4000)

3.33 MB JPG

>>4485892
This is not a sharp image though, the detail is clearly lacking. Maybe you can see it better here?
Consider that you should be viewing the 40mp shots at 77% when comparing to 24mp too.

>>4485893
If you care enough to be shooting M + Auto ISO and using EC too, the next step is to switch from Auto ISO, in favor of your bodies optimal ISO settings
You shouldn't treat ISO as a control for exposure, and if you're going to be using EC and correcting exposure in post, might as well sit on on an ISO and reap the benefits from more consistent exposures
>>4485894
It's from the very same gallery as the other two
What do you think of >>4485864 and >>4485868 and >>4485870?

>>4485895
This looks alright. Not cuttingly sharp, but clear enough. Although this means fuck all without knowing how much post sharpening was applied.
Not being a dick but could you now show me what you'd consider to be better (and maybe tell us how much sharpening is applied)?

>>4485896
ISO invariance is actually a lie. Most cameras will show more deep shadow noise than they would if the raw were better exposed instead of excessively dark. The cameras chips actually have access to raw-er data that is not written to a raw file so the internal amplification is slightly better at high intended ISOs (3200, 12800). Less than that and it makes no difference, and good cameras wont blow any important highlights at -1 anyways.

>>4485888
>getting angry at made up scenarios
ngmi schizo

File: 49473431212.jpg (4.67 MB, 5152x7728)

4.67 MB JPG

>>4485897
This looks like APS-C (or maybe M43) with cheap kit lens quality to my eyes
> Although this means fuck all without knowing how much post sharpening was applied.
Good thing to acknowledge, hope you acknowledge it with every picture you see

Compare it to something like this, which is more what I would consider sharp. Compare the brick to >>4485895

>>4485896
>If you care enough to be shooting M + Auto ISO and using EC too, the next step is to switch from Auto ISO, in favor of your bodies optimal ISO settings
I read an anon was talking about just lifting massively underexposed shots in post to preserve highlights. I just havent experiemented with that myself. Going to give it a go. Looks like my camera really likes full stops from 100-1600 and then takes a bit of a constant nosedive from there on, so I'll give your method a go.

So, if ISO isn't supposed to be exposure control, then what purpose does it serve? Am I better off just sticking it to base ISO unless you're crushing/clipping?

>>4485902
I just only ever shoot at my base ISO's (100-160 and 400-640) or who care's at 6400, and then push in post as needed.
I was mostly A/M + auto ISO until I got tired of correcting for subtle variances between exposure. Much better to shoot at the same ISO and then I can correct all consistently with ease.

Say you're shooting with auto ISO and your framing has a tad bit more shadow, so it wants more brightness, and raises ISO accordingly. Well now that -1EV protection anon mentioned above becomes 0 and then your highlights potentially take a hit. Where as with manual ISO, I don't have to ever worry about that, and anything minor enough that Auto ISO would be adjusting for, I can just correct for in post.

Noise comes from exposure not ISO, so that should always be the priority.

File: sharpness.jpg (2.16 MB, 3000x1000)

2.16 MB JPG

>>4485900
Just to make it super clear
>100% crop R50
>100% crop
>100% crop after downsizing to match R50

>>4485862
Can we see picture control profiles working on your Nikon Z camera? Take a picture of the back screen. I wasn't the only one. I fully reset the camera several times and tried different SD cards. I had the profiles in every folder since they were only a few kb.

https://nikonpc.com/

I will gladly buy a Z30 or Z50II if I could get it to work. You can only apply the presets in NX Studio. If you can get it to work I'll stop shopping for a Fuji XT30 II.

Found a Canon 5D Mark IV in mint shape for $700 USD locally, worth jumping ship from a Pentax K1 Mark II? Not really happy with the AF performance and lens selection (kinda shit unless I want lenses from <1990, all screw drive stuff and the "good lenses" are 2-3x Canon equivalents)

>>4485748
That's AI denoising

>>4485751
>An actual ganguro
Seeing as it is at Asakusa, she's propably just a foreigner. Sad.

>>4485854
Funny strawman comparison. The RX1RIII is also a total fucking joke and anyone who buys it is a retard.
Few know this, but the RX1RIII was brought to market only because the RX1RII was still massively popular among drone videographers and Sony wanted to cash in on making these guys upgrade. So it's not even a camera intended for photographers, which you'd also see if you checked the specs.

>>4485948
>it's not even a camera intended for photographers
>https://youtu.be/erVGQhslgBA
holy cope

>>4485949
>minmaxing the market demographic by putting out a cheap ad disproves that the target audience are dronefags
Really, I'm the one coping? Coping about what, exactly? I'm not the one down $5k here, lmao

>f/8.0
Barely enough
>1/1000
Why? Waves would be just as good with a slower shutter
>ISO 400
Why?
>Overexposing one stop + no histogram
Why if you have no histogram?

Do fujiworms really?

>>4485694
>Applying a profile takes countless hours
Using a smartphone is faster than taking a fuji out.

>>4485912
Nope, LR default NR for both
>>4485908
Sure thing bud, I've used that utility for over a decade, all the way back to a D90, I'll share some LCD shots later, also worked at camera shops for a decade so walked many people through doing it too
Why would you buy gear based on what JPG preset you can use for it? If your using a PC, why not find a good preset you like and have it apply on import? Then you can use whatever camera you want

>>4485692
Yes, but fuji's lens ecosystem is starting to show its age. Most lenses are a decade old. AF is pretty slow. Most can barely resolve 40 MP, poor lens quality is saved by shitty interpolation making 40 MP xtranny look like 26 MP Bayer.

>>4485958
The older lenses do show their age, but they have plenty of modern options with better AF motors that can handle 40mp just fine

>Sony a7V specs
>Same 33MP
>Same EVF
>New tilting screen
>More 'AI powered features'
>$2899
What went wrong?

>>4485961
only Indians buy snoy

Looking at 135mm lenses for my old SLR. There are three versions available: f2.8, f3.5, and f4.5. What should be my deciding factor between these three options? How much I'm shooting at night? Sharpness at long distances?

File: picturecontrol.jpg (211 KB, 1000x910)

211 KB JPG

>>4485908
Are you sure your putting it in the right folder? It wont show up if it's not in the right folder, and you did mention "no matter where I put it on the card". This was from NikonPC.
>download
>put file in appropriate folder on card
>load to camera
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since NikonPC is 3rd party and doesn't technically list Z50 as supported, but you should still be able to import presets via NX Studio to the card / camera.

>>4485964
Honestly I sold that camera last year because I got frustrated at not being able to get the picture control profiles on top of never being happy with the colors. I'm guessing this is on a ZF? I was putting it in the right folder iirc + the main directory. It wasn't even showing up when I tried to load it to the camera.

If the Z30 lets me do that I'll pick it up since they're $380 refurb occasionally and a Fuji XM5 is 2x that with a bigger lens (16-50 Z DX Kit collapses into a pancake). Z50ii is still pricey maybe next year.

I think the Z50ii should since the reviews say it has a dedicated picture control profile button. Or it simply was not supported:

>Select models (ZR, Z6III, Z5II, Z50II and Zf) give you the option to create your own [Flexible Color] Custom Picture Controls and upload them to your camera via memory card—as well as download Imaging Recipes—also known as Cloud Picture Controls—which are Flexible Picture Controls you can download from the Nikon Imaging Cloud. This is a curated collection by a group of photographers and videographers from around the globe. With the Z8’s firmware version 3.0, Flexible Color Picture Controls are added to that camera

>>4485969
If you weren't able to figure something as simple as that out, you should take this as an opportunity to realize that maybe sometimes it's not the cameras giving you issues
>I was putting it in the right folder iirc + the main directory
Why would you do that when it only works from one specific folder? It even makes the folder for you if you want. It's also in the manual for the Z50so it's obviously possible. Did some more digging, seems NikonPC should work just fine with Z50.
>If the Z30 lets me do that
You mean if you can figure out how to download a file in the right folder
> [Flexible Color] Custom Picture Controls
Yes and? That's just new stuff on-top of what's been available.

File: 1748405548849476.png (200 KB, 700x389)

200 KB PNG

snoysisters... how do we recover from this...

>>4485963
Logistical choices: Cost, size/weight
vs
Functional capability: Resolution, Bokeh, low-light

Personally on an SLR I think bigger apertures are needed to offset the fact you're normally shooting at 100-800 ISO and you'll more often need it just to expose correctly. However, it depends a lot on what you shoot. Do you normally take a tripod? Are you travel snapshitting? Trying to keep bulk down? Do you shoot in broad daylight or indoors? etc.
I'd get the f/2.8 just because my SLR comes out when I can take my time and I'm not constrained by kit size or weight.

If it's your only camera and the f/4.5 lens is like half the size, I'd consider that instead but honestly you shoul just link the lenses.

>>4485971
>If you weren't able to figure something as simple as that out, you should take this as an opportunity to realize that maybe sometimes it's not the cameras giving you issues

I legitimately think it was the specific camera I owned. I did everything before giving up and just doing it in NX Studio. Alternatively it wasn't supported until recently which is why it doesn't mention the Z50 in that paragraph from Nikon's site, the oldest cameras being the Zf and Z8.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/nikon-z50-trouble-loading-custom-picture-profile.4575900/

Here, in case you think I can't load a file into a folder. Someone else who had the same exact issue.

>>4485974
Yes, and if you read that thread you could see they identified the issue (Mac specific) and that it worked just fine through other means

Flexible is a new and different thing that required the newer processors which is why it's limited in bodies, you could still use the other profiles as. E as before

File: Screenshot 2025-12-02 at (...).png (2.07 MB, 1264x904)

2.07 MB PNG

https://www.ebay.com/itm/336198754169

Someone buy this lot of ewaste before I do

Canon 5D Classic w/Battery Grip, 28-135mm USM IS Lens, Manfrotto 3221WN Tripod, and EOS RT 35mm Film Body for $258 + tax

I'm trying to buy a Pentax KS2 w/18-50mm Kit Lens + 50mm f2 Prime for $150 locally instead.

>>4485973
>Personally on an SLR I think bigger apertures are needed to offset the fact you're normally shooting at 100-800 ISO and you'll more often need it just to expose correctly.
This is usually what I go for, the widest aperture possible to take in as much light as I can since I am limited by the ISO of my film.

>However, it depends a lot on what you shoot.
I don't currently have a tripod. Mostly street shooting, some nature, occasional travel snapshitting. Bulk isn't really a concern, all old prime lenses are pretty small. I shoot at all light levels, indoor and outdoor but mostly outdoor.

>If it's your only camera and the f/4.5 lens is like half the size, I'd consider that instead but honestly you shoul just link the lenses.
https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=olympus+om+zuiko+135&_sacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2334524.m570.l1313&_odkw=Pentax+PC35AF-M&_osacat=0
This is my search. It seems like they're being categorized as portrait, standard, and macro depending on the aperture. Having macro capabilities is always appreciated and I'm wondering if I would even use it much for indoor shots or low light. It would mostly come out to capture landscapes or close-up street shots. The longer focal length bringing in more light in dim situations would be a plus and I would probably mess around with it at night butt hat wouldn't be the deciding factor.

>>4485972
They've blocked 3rd party lenses from functioning. Be careful about fw upgrades with other models too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGNrsy_XFAM&t=1058s

>>4485983
Confirmed:
Sony peaked, its all downhill, and they never even got that good.

So when are we gonna see some more global shutter cameras? Doesn't seem to be much going on on that front.

>>4485984
All manufacturers have peaked in that regard. It isn't any different with the other brands.

>>4485988
I thought there's been rumors about Canon working on this. idk if it's true but seems like the type or 'prosumer' feature evolution that is typically up their alley.

>>4485761
>Whats next, u dun need moar because rpt is all trees?
I mean, trees are one of the many reasons to NOT shoot Fuji so he still wouldn't have an argument. X-tranny blurs foliage creating a sort of watercolor effect.

File: IMG_0350.jpg (672 KB, 1536x1919)

672 KB JPG

I’ve been shooting and developing film for a few years since I had a nice place near home to develop and scan. Moved away and now I’m kinda stuck with digital. Problem is

Have a 60d with some basic lenses (50mm 1.8, 24mm 2.8, 70-300 kit zoom) and it’s really not inspiring me to shoot digital since the autofocus is ass and its low light performance is shit coming from film.

Should I just sell my digital setup and start over or buy a 18-55 2.8 and hope the glass saves me? Right now my iPhone blows it out of the water.

Pic because I love Canon color SOOC.

So the A7V sucks. What should anyone actually buy? A Z8?

>>4486034
if you mainly shoot inanimate objects (rocks and leaves) just use your phone

>>4485979
The f/4.5 lenses you linked aren't worse because they're f/4.5, they're Macro lenses which involve some special optical fuckery to achieve 1:1 ratio. If you want to do macro you buy this one, full stop. However, macro on film is going to be a cunt without a tripod and flash so beware. However, macro lenses are *normally* sharper than others of the same make and FL.

The f/3.5 lens looks like your basic consumer lens that would have been chucked in with a body kit or sold cheap as to pair with someone's 50mm. Perfectly good choice but probably the least optically impressive. Probably. I have no experience with these lenses myself.

The f/2.8 lens actually looks about the same in terms of its position in the market. May just be a more modern rehash of the f/3.5 lens which is only a half stop slower.

Anyway. I'd just buy the f/2.8 since they're all about the same price and size. It's film. You don't want to underexpose film.

If I were to get a camera for the sole purpose of taking pictures of paintings; should I try to get as many megapixels as possible or should I get something like a canon powershot g10 for the ccd sensor? I used to come here like 5-10 years ago and /p/ used to swear by the g10.
>Or they were memeing.
Are there cameras that have perfect color accuracy?

>>4486061
Hasselblad is supposedly respected for having realistic color science, as in, SOOC quality the more closely resembles what our eyes+brain perceive.

Is the Tamron 25-200 OK for close up shots? Technically it should have 0.5x magnification but I think that's only at 25mm (which means you have to be 2cm from your subject). Whats the mag ratio at say 100mm?

Otherwise I might just pick up the 90mm Tamron 2.8 Macro or the Laowa 180mm f4.5.

But if I can get decently close with a zoom, that'd be pretty neat too.

>>4486064
Modern Nikons are pretty decent too. Not as good as Hassy but way better than Canons or Sonys.

File: sony shill gerald.jpg (324 KB, 1024x1008)

324 KB JPG

>>4485972
>>4485983
Um... Sony sisters???

>>4485972
lol that kit lens. even nikon gives you a constant f4 one

File: rf24-105-lol.png (126 KB, 765x362)

126 KB PNG

>>4486109
>A New Challenger Approaches!

File: the_sony_28-70_lens_is_pl(...).jpg (677 KB, 1698x1273)

677 KB JPG

>>4485972
>>4486109
LOL, lmao even

>>4486049
Thank you for the well thought out reply

>>4486109
What a silly comment
Both Nikon and Sony have several kit lenses, some are f4 and some are not