> NATIVE 35mm f1.7 main lens with 1 inch sensor> Dedicated two-step shutter button> Co-developed with Zeiss using Zeiss lens coatings. > Global releaseAnyone else going to buy this beast? This phone will replace an X100V.
>>4495591Phone cameras have mogged bulky overpriced mirrorless cameras for a few years now.
>>4495593I just can't stand the pleb 23mm main cameras that every phone has.
>>4495596Its ironic in the 2000s every digital camera was 35mm and people wanted 28mm and then eventually 24mm and now people want 35mm again
>>4495591>NATIVE 35mm f1.7 main lens with 1 inch sensorSo you mean a 10mm f/5 lens?
>>4495591Xiaomi has been doing this with Leica for years.
Zeiss lenses are awesome. Something to do with darker colours and how they turn to black
>>4495605>hel fell for the NPC zeiss pop meme
>>4495600Only at 23mm. Native 35mm is so much better.
>>4495623nubia has had native 35mm for years too
PLEASE come to T-Mobile I'll buy one.I have a Pixel 7 Pro that has a fairly decent camera but 1" sensor on something like that, with Zeiss lenses? I'm absolutely there, ultimate travel setup.
>>4495626True but the image samples I've seen are pretty poor. The rest of the phone is kinda buggy too apparently. >>4495628You'll probably have to buy one SIM-free. I know USA has retarded cellular bands as well so double check before buying. I think T-Mobile is actually one of the better ones to use.
so apparently they're available for purchase and DxO already reviewed it.https://www.dxomark.com/vivo-x300-pro-camera-test/HOLY SHIT, iToddler's BTFO with no recovery
>>4495630That is the Pro not the ultra. The Ultra has the 35mm lens and (I think) a bigger sensor?
>>4495591Too thick for comfortable pocket storage. Without a lens cap(EVEN THICKER) or the lenses being set back in a phone case those bitches will constantly be dirty take shitty pictures.Maybe one day they'll have a non gay or retarded "good camera" in a cellphone design. Sigh.
>>4495632holy cope
>>4495664>not an argumentStating facts is not cope. I bet you'll keep your blobmera tier phone in your purse lol
>>4495667>Ahhhhhhh its so big and bulky i better being my entire mirrorless setup over this instead i am literally going insane!!!!
>>4495591Good to know this exists because I too hate the 23mm main cameras. No phone fully replaces a digicam for people like me who dislike touch interfaces but it does mean I won't use my RX100 as much. The digicams have physical stabilization which makes a difference in low light and real flashes but I definitely prefer the in camera HDR on smartphones versus messing around with raw files. If they have a 23 or thereabout also with a 1" sensor as part of the camera stack, that is very compelling. >>4495628Also on Pixel 7 Pro which I don't like all that much so this new phone is looking like a good replacement candidate.>>4495599wrong equivalency. 10mm f/1.7 is equivalent to FF 35mm f/5. Definitely not a replacement for the X100V's 35mm f/2.8 equivalent. Not far from the GR's 28 or 40mm f/4 though.
>>4495591No example images?
>>4495686literally a few posts down in the link, brainlet
>>4495685>I hate 23mm cameras>if they also have a 23mm with a 1" sensorYou are stupid as fuck. They cannot have multiple 1" sensors on a single phone. you are a retarded gear queer with no idea about photography in the slightest
>>4495683Yeah I'm calling that a purse phone for sure. Looks nigh unpocketable tbqhwy.
>>4495702Not an issue for me because unlike you I dont wear XXXS skinny jeans
>>4495702its like the same size as an iphone pro max... dumb cunt lol
>>4495700This place were at is called an "imageboard". I come here to look at images, not go to random other websites.
>>4495710Pull up the side by side, bitch. It isn't about the overall size anyways. It's about the little biscuit sticking out the back. You are a fool if you think that's a good thing to have in a pocket, especially with exposed optics. A FOOL. It would need a lens cap of some sort or at least a phone case that either made it flush with the back or recessed slightly which would make it a THICK BITCH just like you and your mother.>>4495709The purse wearer also wears ultra tight skinny jeans. KEK
>>4495591>is that an accessory zoom lens in your pocket or are you just excited to see me?What the hell is this shit bros? A phone for purse wearers. Truly.
>>4495713are you stupid? the iphone also has a lensor bump...
>>4495718hes coping and seething that another phone mogs his mirrorless camera
>>4495591No. It's the same shit over and over.They will never be "good" because:1. you will never be able to put great lenses on it due to hard physical limitations.2. normies don't give a shit about quality. They are happy with overprocessed hdr shit so they can upload to instagram, so why would they carry a bulky phone with a bigass protrusion to do the exact same thing.
>>4495718>>4495719>still needs to strawman.>still can't refute crux of my argument You must be an Indian Vivo shill. I was doing research on the brand and it is extremely popular in India as you already know.Only a shill would assume I think the iphone camera bump is a good thing as their gotcha argument. The x300 pro camera bump is also thicker than the iphone. KEK. >>4495720NOOOOO STOP! IT IS AN IPHONE PRO SIZED PROTRUSION! STUPID!
nobody:anon out of nowhere: indians!Meds
>Indian shills on damage controlKEK
>>4495769He's probably a jeet himself
>>4495630These photos look like hdr oversharpened dogshit. Like a canon 5dii with sharpening turned off is less visually offensive. No wonder zoomers are going for digishits and vintage SLRs.
>>4495701>They cannot have multiple 1" sensors on a single phonemust be nice living your life!
>>4495749dumb
>>4495591Yeah but can I turn the AI shit off?I want to actually capture what's there without the phone making shit up.
>>4495824I used to do that on my Ultra 14 but honestly I don't need to fucking edit snapshits. The auto hdr and denoise gets great detail and clarity for sending crap on social media. And I use film cameras for nice photos anyway. Digital never looks good even with a proper MILC.
>>4495811Yeah you are lol
>>4495749>Le Iphone has it, so that means it's acceptableAlso if you think that piece of shit comes even close to a full frame 35mm lens you are a delusional retard
>>4495825How reliable is the Xiaomi 14u as a phone in your experience? Everyone talks about the crapware and terrible battery life.
>>4496037No issues in 2 years. Global version, never updated it. Installed FOSS versions of most of the Xiaomi apps except for Gallery and Camera, which both work great. Dropped many times, no hardware issues, screen still flawless. I played with the 15 and 17 Ultras but they didn't seem any better to me. I probably could have gotten a 13 Ultra, apparently they are quite good too for a lot less money.
>>4496038Is the battery life good though?
>>4496039About 1.5 days between charges when I first got it and it has maybe 10-15% left on it by the time I go to sleep now, two years on. I never felt bothered with it's battery life. I'm not playing games on it 4 hours a day though.
>>4495591Hopefully the global version is good. Might finally replace my 4 year old Nokia x100
>>4495591Smartphones are getting some pretty baller features
>>4495593Not the cameras but the software and processing. Traditional camera makers are lightyears behind.
>>4495593
>>4496984>Not the cameras but the software and processing. Traditional camera makers are lightyears behind.Lightyears behind of what? Ugly deepfried mush? If so, I'm glad, and I hope they never ever "catch up".We use dedicated cameras to retain the characteristics of the optical system, not to airbrush them away with cope NR algorithms.
>>4495591Why do you even want a phone that is a 1inch sensor camera? Phone cameras are only useful for scanning QR codes and sending nudes. Your not going to use it to make any sort of important art or photos. It's just another gadget to trick you out of your money.
>>4497017>We use dedicated cameras to retain the characteristics of the optical system>"Many of today's camera lenses now rely heavily on digital, in-camera, or software profile corrections to produce straight lines"ohnononono
>>4497037Correct, and it's a plague. As for me, I only shoot with adapted lenses right now (and if I were to buy a native lens, it would most likely be a third party one where such baked in auto-corrections typically do not apply), so my practicing is perfectly consistent with my preaching. Better luck next time.
>>4497017The photo is fine, Paris actually looks like this.> t. Live here.
>>4497020To always have a camera with you? For example, I don't take my camera to work to avoid having it stolen. Although if the phone is not pocketable, it's back to square 1.
>>4495664Well well well.
>>4498867>That lens cap means its now as big as a bulky mirrorless camera body + lens!????
>>4498872>cannot contextualize postsWork on that one champ
>>4495591That things cool. Also phones suck and anyone taking cellphone pics seriously better be a fucking teenage girl or your /p/pass is revoked back to the stupid ages, otherwise tits or gtfo and this ain’t an nsfw bored so don’t do that either. Cool cameraphone though, for fuckin idiots, but it is pretty nice, goddamn instashit culture, would try it, but fucking hate it, thx for sharing, u fucking cuuunts
>>4498873Yeah i dont get what youre trying to say. Are you saying its unusable because it has a lens cap? Just dont use the lens cap? Its optional anyway
>>4498882See>>4495713My whole point is that a phone with an obnoxious camera is bad design becauss it makes it much more prone to getting dirty and damaged in a standard pocket. Dirty lens = shitty picture.
>>4498884>a phone with an obnoxious camera is bad designSo you dont use modern phones?
>>4495591I fully plan on getting a galaxy 26 again for the sole purpose of the camera. call phone photography is good already. but this new thing looks decent too.
>>4497037>compares some simple and toggleable geometry corrections and brightening at the borders with the insane shittery phone DSPs dodo they pay you?
>>4499196>simple and toggleable geometry corrections and brightening at the borders
>>4499246>oh no, moire on a test chartFuji also has moire, false colors, color bleed, and wormshttps://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-the-promise-and-the-problem-31407fa43452https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-vs-bayer-fantastic-claims-and-how-to-test-them-475b4f1b7faealso worst in class AF, shit weather sealing, chinky build quality, all for nikon FF moneyand their jpegs look like iphone photosxtrans is a regular pattern and is therefore not immune to moire. it just generates different moire with different patterns and everything else is blurry mush, grey lips, and beige eyes in group photos.
>>4499196wdym DSPs ? you mean the ultraprocessing ?
>>4499183S26 Ultra? Samsung phone cameras suck. Any comparison videos will show this.
>>4495593what about DSLR?
>>4495714The bummer thing is that lens will be great.
It s over broshttps://youtu.be/uNT8GJCmbZ0Voice is ai caz this zigger or hohol does not speak English.
>>4501305>tfw you lived long enough to see FF and MF get mogged by a camera phone What a time to be alive
>>4499248>xtrans is a regular pattern and is therefore not immune to moire. it just generates different moire with different patternsCan you post an example photo showing X-Trans moire?
>>4501565>UM ACTUALLY I NEED A SOURCE GUYSHoly fuck there's this thing called Google you low-tier bait spitter
>>4501565Can you remember all the links posted showing it and anons shoebox demo?Is this the corgi cuck that gets all “show le it matters” any time someone says nikon, fuji, leica, or capture one arent the best? That fags buyers remorse cope is so pervasive and jewy he even went off on huscuck when he demonstrated how capture one’s noise reduction sucks
>>4501305>a phone is good enough>you have to only use these focal lengths and apertures>you have to stop being a whiny goyim and accept that AI is fine and wont hurt you>and you cant zo->DID YOU JUST FUCKING ZOOM IN>YOU CAN NOT FUCKING ZOOM IN>AND SHOOT RAW? NO. NO. WE DO NOT DO THIS SHIT HERE. NO ZOOMING IN. NO SHOOTING RAW. WHAT FUCKING YEAR IS IT? YOU LOSER. STOOOOOOOP! FUCKING PIXEL PEEPING GEARFAG. NO SOUL. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY. YOU CAN NOT. FUCKING. ZOOM IN. IT DOES NOT MATTER. STOP DOING IT. STOP SHOOTING RAW. UNC. BOOMER. VIRGIN!Protip: anti-raw and anti-zooming propaganda is astroturfed by AI and phone companies and is entirely irrational and shame based. Why?AI can not generate coherent 24mp+ imagesAI can not generate coherent 10 bit HEIC or 14-16 bit RAWIf you save full res photos and the original raws, you have proof your photos are not AI and those police crimes you documented really happened.
>>4501571If it is, they also have an army of impoverished bucket crabs that are glad to subscribe to the requisite delusions because real cameras are expensive (as much as one month of smoking pot) and a capture one permanent license costs as much as 30 chai tea lattes. A zoomer yelled at me for driving a car yesterday. Communist propaganda in schools is real now
>>4501571>>4501571>guys stop zooming in the obvious random pixel-level bullshit that becomes obvious when you do>guys really stop, it makes the AIgo-goyrithim look less appealing to users>more importantly the LINE MIGHT GO DOWN if someone makes our AI implementation look useless so PLEASE DONT ZOOM IN>dear god if you zoom in again I'm going to AI generate you as the basedjack and I as the chad
>>4501566>>4501568it's an image board. Can you post an image?
>>4501568Did you forget to attach your example links and/or image again?
>>4501305wow
>>4501599>>4501584People are tired of dealing with you
>>4501625hes right though
>>4501571The other day I documented a cat.
>>4501643In the past I asked him to point out on the DPreview studio scene examples of X-trans moire.He never did.Probably because pic related is X-trans moire at its worst.I think removing the AA filter / OLPF is bad for image quality, but if I had to pick between filterless X-trans and filterless bayer, X-trans is obviously the better choice for avoiding false color effects..
>>4501584>doesn't post an image>still complains about lack of image posting>in a world where google takes 10 seconds and could provide you with imagesDid your wife's boyfriend blacklist the rest of the internet or something for you? >>4501646I'm proud of you anon.
>>4501625Sorry for trying to promote honesty, good faith engagement, and image posting on the photo board I've been a part of a lot longer than you have
>>4501689Oh but people are sick of dealing with you. The buyers remorse cope you bring up any time nikon, fuji, or leica are rightfully shit on makes huskycuck’s micro four thirds bitching look almost not intolerable. /p/ can shit on canon, sony, and panasonic daily but whenever its your brands you’re here to bitch. Dont forget your catchphrase, “dishonest”. >>4501683Xtrans moire usually manifests as blobs of false color and monochrome stripe patterns. https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-the-promise-and-the-problem-31407fa43452https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-vs-bayer-fantastic-claims-and-how-to-test-them-475b4f1b7fae> An anon here even had moire issues on fuji.https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4261297/#4263286>the articles are old!Yes and xtrans got lower resolution since then by replacing even more pixels with pdaf sensors>th-they didnt use fuji’s noise reduction inclusive demosaicing for some demos!Yes because its about the CFA. The color smearing of fujis jpeg engine was already demonstrated. There is a reason fuji never used xtrans on the gfx50. Its a marketing blunder they cant stop using without saving face. Xtrans’ absolute inferiority might even be why sony allows fujifilm to use their next gen DX sensors. Because having color bleed, color blobs, and worms in every image after paying ff nikon money for a shitty aps-c with awful autofocus and a plasticky build is a lot worse than occasionally having to mask out and edit a little bater moire. Fuji monochrome stripe moire and color bleed cant even be corrected without AI. Its extremely destructive.
Most cameras are a bad value. Many are simply inferior versions of products that already dominated. The high end ILC market is in constant decline. Tech began stagnating with the canon 5div and nikon d750. There are fewer customers each year. Increasingly it is a smaller minority spending more money. Sadly the remaining people on gear forums like /p/, mu-43, fredmiranda and other brand specific forums are basically just the people who haven’t realized the camera industry is in its death throes and is dying faster than the office PC so basically every thread devolves into some idiot fanboy defending inferior or stagnated tech that delusional nip businessmen charge a huge premium forEveryone else quit following gear ages ago or quit digital photography entirely.
>>4501718this. so much this. the latest canon and nikon releases should have made all the hobbyists itt realize it. dynamic range downgrades, resolution stagnation, price hikes, more video codecs, more video centric lenses, more video centric features. same old battery cells you had in your dslrs - because videographers who need more use externals. x100vi is the og x100 with a new number. for you, the photographer, nothing is changing. for all you stillsfags your photos have largely looked the same since your old d750 with some more stupid moving animal photos (that literally no one cares about) taken by the time you got idiot proofed autofocus on the a7iii and eos r. cameras are no longer made for you. camera companies are no longer trying to make new cameras to improve over your old ones and they cant and dont want to.if you are a photographer they dont care. go buy a used d850. go buy a film camera. they dont fucking care about you. the masses that take photos just use their phones because yes they are better compared to an aps-c and kit zoom. cameras are now made for professional photo/video hybrid agencies to replace their dead equipment with new equipment and to replace their aging skilled employees with cheaper, younger unskilled employees who fully rely on absurd framerates, higher bitrates, and AI powered autofocus and most of what they do now is film continuously on auto everything modes good-enough settings and let an AI or higher level employee grade and cut the footage later. move on to your phones or stick with your old shit. you have been deprioritized. all thats left is fanboys of lesser brands like fuji and nikon waiting for these small companies to finally catch up to what sony and canon had literally ten years ago and coping along the way.
>>4501716People are more sick of your postingIf you were honest when you posted, I'd have nothing to comment about
>>4501725If you were honest you’d just admit it. Micro four thirds won. APS-C lost. Phones won. Nikon lost. Sony and canon won. Fujifilm is not a camera company. They are a lifestyle company. Their products are hot garbage. They are all marketing no camera. The OM-5 and OM-1 are generally superior to everything they make. Better autofocus. MUCH better weather sealing. Smaller. Lighter. More affordable. Same IQ under the same conditions - dont zoom in. Fujifilm is so bad OM doesnt have to do any R&D to do better than wormtrans and rattly plastic fuji crap and fuji’s literal lies about weather sealing. Buy a pro camera (sony or canon) or buy a hobby camera (OM system or lumix m 4/3). Nikon? Six nikon cameras were literally the sony a7iii. Z5, Z6, Z6II, a7iii with worse autofocus and fewer lenses. ZF, Z5II, Z6III, a7iii with worse autofocus, fewer lenses, and more video niceties. Same a7iii sensor. Buy a pro camera (canon for richfags, or second rate sony for poorfags) or buy the superior hobby camera (OM System or lumix m4/3). You lose. Bye now.
>>4501727I don't see cameras as win / losing like team sports, I see them as tools to use for a hobby and job to enjoyMaybe one day you'll get some joy out of photography too
>>4501728For half the price or less of an x100vi xt5 xe5 etc the om5 offers the same or better iq, handheld pixel shift, more and better and smaller lenses, better autofocus, better weather sealing… and if you need more to shoot professionally sony is second rate (less well made and worse colors, but still better than nikon) and canon is the industry standard. All fuji can do is zoom in on more worms and color bleeding blurriness. the om-5 has handheld pixel shift. And die in the rain. And empty your wallet and leave you coping. At least your jpeg presets have film stock names on them. Phones won the general snapshit audienceMicro four thirds won the specialized purposeful photography hobbySony and canon are the industry standard for professionalsDeal with it
>>4501729>cordless power drills did not “win”. I like tools and my corded drill is fun. maybe one day you’ll have fun too. Please all you do is snapshit your dog
>>4501731You sound like a very stable and happy personI can really hear the joy you have for photography from your posts
>>4501732If you know enough to know about my dog, you know he's the extreme minority of what I take photos of, and still even like under 20% or what I post hereThis was a good example of the dishonesty I mean
>>4501733Lol all you do is snapshit your dog and cope with the thousands of dollars you spent on subpar gearMeanwhile no one can tell if a photo was taken with an om5 your man purse full of $4000 of fuji branded junk or a phone so you cope about how you’re enjoying photography. But you’re here at all hours of the day ready to respond any time someone criticizes the fuji, nikon, and leica junk you know you wasted your money on. I’m in a different time zone and i only post a few times but you’re always here to defend your buyers remorse because all you do is snapshit your dog. Maybe you’d enjoy photography for real if you sold your giant liability on ebay, got an om5 so rain wouldnt make you several thousand poorer, and finally take photos of things other than your dog
Why do dog snapshitters always pretend they take other and better photos?>I promise I’m an awesome event photographer even though all i do on /p/ is post my dog and shill nikon>i posted great non dog photos yesterday trust me
>>4501736>Lol all you do is snapshit your dogWhy be dishonest? I only respond when people are being dishonest, I have shit on Fuji plenty of times, and posted plenty of my own examples showing their limitations, and even recommend better articles that articulate the problem with xtransIf you were honest in your criticisms, I wouldn't bother, but other anons shouldn't be repeatedly misinformedI take plenty of photos in the rain with all my gear lol
>>4501738Ok dog snapper
>>4501740Ok nophoto
>>4501742>The dog snapper cries out “nophoto” as it posts no photoI’ll give you a few hours to find a non-dog photo that isnt a collage from 5 years ago dogsnapper
>>4501727> Snoy fren and m43 fren have fused into one.I don't have an OM-5, but I have both E-P7 and Fuji X-T50. X-T50 has better IQ at 40MP and more or less the same IQ at 20MP crop. Between X-T50 and OM-5, I would go for OM-5 only if I needed weather sealing or I had thousands spent on m43 glass (I don't). E-P7 is harder to compare with, because it has IBIS in a cheaper, lighter and more ergonomic body, while Fuji's counterpart X-M5 has no IBIS.
>>4501744>if i zoom in until i can see the worms its better until pixel shift and superior ibis btfo it
>>4501727>Micro four thirds won. APS-C lost.There's something like 8 aps-c mirrorless units sold for every MFT.I like Olympus and Panasonic cameras for their good firmware/features, but MFT can't compete anymore. The mount is obsolete and requires more optically complex lens designs = expensive lenses.
>>4501716I have no problems with my fuji
>>4495591So should I get this vivo ultra or the new xiaomi leica if I want a flagship snapshit phone?
>>4501732Bad example. Hard to replace a corded power tool in many situations especially in a professional environment
>>4501754If M43 was like 1/2 the cost that they actually sell for, it would make sense. But at that point they dont make money so no reason to operate.It doesn't matter how well featured they are if the core reason for buying the product doesn't perform well. It's like buying a Mustang for the same money as a C8 Z06 Corvette but then going "But it has really nice seats, and power dick stroker, and a coffee machine built into the glovebox!". It just doesn't matter what additions M43 can slap on, they're not good cameras.
>>4495591another thread devolving in gearfag clitties leaking geggy
>>4501862It would help it they put a bigger sensor in. Nikon F uses basically 100% of the mount (given rectangular 3:2 sensor), M43 sensor could be 2/3 wider and still not be obstructed by the mount edges.
>>4501870I guess it will turn out that most lenses don't quite work for a larger sensor, won't it? Maybe they could start a new mount that fits m43 lenses with an adaptor, but imagine the meltdoen of their user base, when every $4000 lens becomes obsolete overnight.
>>4501862Except that they refuse to sell even extra features. OM-5 has only two control dials because "lol poorfags upgrade to OM-1". They'd rather run the company into the ground than break market segmentation.
>>4501872Many lenses would just have a bit of vignetting. It's not like M43 is getting anything new these days, this would just add a new option.
>>4501875Well, on top of that they have electrical contacts just below the sensor, so maybe a bigger sensor cannot be centered.
>>4501565https://www.captureone.com/blog/fuji-x-trans-sensor-excels-in-capture-one-7>Although X-Trans color filter sensors promise moiré-free images, the reality is something else.>When using a sensor with a color filter array, moiré will occur when patterns in the image interfere with the pixel resolution. This is also the case when using an X-Trans sensor.>This is also the case when using an X-Trans sensor.Pic provided by capture one themselves.
>>4501872>Maybe they could start a new mount that fits m43 lenses with an adaptorFor the 4/3 sensor to be viable in future consumer cameras I think they absolutely need to do that.Currently the flange distance is around the same as the newer full frame mirrorless mounts at 19.25 mm.BUT the MFT crop factor is 2x.So if I am understanding correctly, a full frame mirrorless can do, say a 24 mm focal length as a simple standard lensMeanwhile MFT needs to have a more complex retrofocus design since 12 mm focal length is somewhere between the rear element and sensor.https://exclusivearchitecture.com/03-technical-articles-CLT-09-focal-length.html
200MP is kind of a gimmick, no? I had an S23U with the new big number camera and it was always a bit underwhelming, even in RAW.
Hi, we dont know but thank you for letting us know!
>>4501893Based example poster
