Can we agree that almost any modern digital camera takes "good" photos (with the obvious exception of Micro 4/3)?
>>4492256Nope. Sadly digital will always be catching up to and never quite reaching what film produces image quality-wise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kekAUeoSo8U
>>4492260This really drives home the point that nikon users have literally no tasteThe oversharpened, flat, supersaturated look is all they do and it transcends formats by making every photo equally eye burning. Like, holy fuck, those prints as he showed them look cel shaded. It's godawful dentists office photography. He's not shooting anything resembling art. It could not possibly matter to him if full frame could achieve finer shading and better texture rendition because he fucking obliterates it anyways. Since he's a Z9 user, he likely shoots at high ISOs most of the time and then applies AI NR which would further obliterate any difference between the two cameras as he uses them (while also obliterating any semblance of quality and taste)Quality standards differ between people... between social classes.If you only want to do photography to the standards of a dentists waiting room like ken rockwell be my guest. If you want to aim higher, do that instead.
>>4492256The Canon 5D mkii was the perfect balance between film-like attractive photos and modern convenience to use. Before the 5D mkii the image quality was poor and the cameras were slow and difficult to use. After the 5D mkii they started producing soulless spec-sheet focused sterile images that require significant editing to look aesthetic.
>>4492259Modern FF digital absolutely beats the shit out of film up to and including 35mm. It's only when you start dipping into moderate ISO territory (800-3200) that 35mm film barely looks better because the amount of noise is now about the same as the amount of grain, but grain looks far more pleasant.The entire pursuit of medium format and large format film shooters was to get rid of the grain that smaller formats couldn't avoid (except for shooting slow, ISO 50 film or such).Of course, different stocks and color renditions can absolutely look good but you can counter that by saying that a nicely edited RAW looks better than SOOC JPEG Snapshits.An ISO 100 digital shot with great lighting is far superior to any film up to about 6x6/6x7.>>4492267The entire board can be safely divided between those who love the 5D MkII and what it achieved, and those who think it's the worst way to take photographs.
>>4492267>>44922695DII and 5DIII raws are effectively identical except the II has a void of noise and the III has stripes if you miss exposure too badly5DII and 5DIII jpegs are also identical if white balance is set off a grey card.The important differences are:the 5DIII can use auto ISO in manual mode without running MLthe 5DII has a basic rectangle shape instead of a fluid transition from the lens mount to the edges and can be easier to manipulatethe autofocusa few buttonsall five standard canon ff dslrs are basically the same IQ wise>5D 5DII 5DIII 6D 6DIIit really shows how good they got it the first time. even as sony and nikon blew past canon tech-wise people kept buying basically the imaging capabilities of the original 5D because the photos just looked better and nobody pushes shadows anyways
>>4492269Exactly. Film still has a major upper hand in everything that really matters. Anything above 6x7 in great lighting absolutely destroys even the most expensive digital cameras.
>>4492260>it looks the same but everyone uses ff and fine art is still mostly filmits not a conspiracy or mass idiocy, this guy is literally ken rockwell so he makes every camera look as bad as his first dslra camera can not improve a photographer but a photographer can easily turn a $60,000 hasselblad into a $60 nikon d200
>>4492256Camera is just a tool. A good tool gives utility which a shitty tool does not have.It's the camera user who takes the good and bad photographs. One who can not take a good photo of a slow or static subject in good light with a shitty camera likely can not do it with a good camera.(A holiday snap from 2002)
>>4492282Oops, wrong snap.
>>4492274I'm fine with our main points being in agreeance, but is "everything that really matters" only like 0.5% of photographs taken after we exclude phone pics (which reduces that to like 0.005%)? Idk man, I've seen plenty of studio-tier and natgeo-tier stuff that's been taken with Cannikons and look great.One day I'll do some 6x7 stuff but honestly fuck me it feels like the pricing on those cameras is scuffed lately.
