Overheating editionPrevious: >>4505369
>>4507402What an ugly church. Americans really have no class
>>4507402Ive never had even the most notorious snoys and cannot POS Rs overheat but then again I dont do unga bunga tier shit like use 4k60 as hand shake stablization or 4k120 as a photography replacement, and I fully believe video does not belong on a stills camera and stills cameras should never, ever be used for video or contain more than the bare minimum of OPTIONAL video features for emergency use (ie: you can turn them off entirely and use the freed memory for something else). Buy a video camera if you want to shoot video. The 30 minute recording limit should have been cut to 15 for anything with a mechanical shutter. Videofags are why the r5ii has the real DR of an APSC camera.
>>4507442>cameras badVery insightful commentary I've never seen here before
>f/1.8 ISO 1250 TTL-2.3 Bounce Flash at a wedding>what the fuck>Could literally just buy an actual diffuser and solve all the above issues>Oh wait he's fucking hybridvideofagging a weddingKeklmao. Chud can't handle the possibility of missing a shot so he uses military-grade cope features "just in case". Proceeds to get what he deserves and begins missing the second most important event of the night. Using a camera isn't even hard, but who the fuck is hiring these people?>>4507443The whole board's purpose is to rip on gear you don't like and post phone pics. Idk what kind of moral high ground you think you're taking but cool I guess.
>>4507444Real Talk.
>>4507444>The whole board's purpose is to rip on gear you don't like and post phone picsFor you sure, but that's why the board largely sucks nowNegative Nancy's are pathetic and sad
>>4507034I just got my Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D, its the magnum opus of my A-Mount collection. Its joining 3 KM 5Ds, 2 a100s, 1 a390, and a a58. Next is a Sony A99 or a A7IV with LA-EA4. Here it is next to the a58 I took on vacation. Absolute camera kino before Sony cannibalized whatever sovl Minolta had left. Fun fact, the first thing Sony did when they took the Konica Minolta designed a100 was give it a region lock. Was listed for $45 as junk/for parts, got a offer for $37 + $10 shipping a few days later. Left it on a AC1L 6v 2amp AC Adapter overnight, popped a battery in it, and other than underexposing pics sometimes and being completely filthy it seems great. It has the latest v1.10u firmware so it was definitely loved at some point. Also have my eye on a Konica Minolta 28-75mm f2.8-D Lens. Probably a rebadged Tamron but for $50-100 I can't lose. I want a fast zoom, I find myself constantly changing lenses or missing shots.
>>4507443Video in photo cameras is bad and is the source of everything making mirrorless progressively worse than DSLRs and eternally more expensive. Without videocucks we could have miniaturized DSLRs the size of film cameras with high speed, lightweight mirror mechanisms. Instead we have front heavy bricks with a ton of video-specific heat sinks behind the sensor. In a world without corporations forcing hybrid cameras harder than the US forces “crossovers” that heatsink bulk would be exclusive to professional sports cameras that almost no one needs or benefits from.
>>4507466>modern cameras be like>here's a 35mm f1.4>its twice the size of a normal 35mm f1.4 so we could fit in focus breathing correction>what? why? no one has ever given a single fuck about focus breathing. this is a photography lens isnt it. you make those right?>CINEMA BRO NETFLIX APPROVED BRO ITS CINEMA CINE CINE CINE MUH TIKTOKS *runs away to throw free cameras at "influencers"*
Recommend me a CPL filter bonus points for cheap price and utility so I can put it on every lense I have
>>4507442Not your personal blog
>>4507468Urth. Just go with something moderately large like 67 or 77mm and get a few step-down rings as needed.They're not super expensive but have such a nice fit to anything I've threaded them on to, and the risk of getting them stuck on are almost none.
>>4507470>Urthcan't find those in my countryonly K&F CONCEPT
>>4507442>the r5ii has the real DR of an APSC cameraMental illness
>>4507474I'm curious which APSC camera he means
>>4507477Also, if you're in a situation where you need to use the electronic shutter, all current APS-C drop to 12-bit RAWs and lose an additional stop while the R5II remains at 14-bit.>muh real DRIn the real world you won't notice the slight loss in dynamic range unless you push your shadows 5 stops on lightroom and pixel peep, which nobody in their right mind does.
>>4507464>the first thing Sony did when they took the Konica Minolta designed a100 was give it a region lock.What do you mean by this? I'm struggling to imagine how that would even work. The closest thing I can think of that's actually a thing is how some Asian products don't allow you to set them to English, don't know if they've ever done that with a camera though.>Next is a Sony A99 or a A7IV with LA-EA4If you do the latter I highly recommend doing the Monster Adapter conversion, the stock adapter focuses decently quick but it's so much better having the wide coverage of the on sensor focus points for tracking. Plus you don't ever have to worry about the adapter going out of calibration or lose any light from the mirror.
>noise reduction detected in raws at every ISOIf you see downwards triangles these charts are useless anonYou cant estimate noise=DR if there’s noise reduction. Bill Claff himself has said he believes canon’s forced NR throws measurements by 2/3 of a stop. He even misses some. Go on dpreviews shadow recovery tool and compare shadow pushes with the a6600 and a6700. The a6700 is visibly worse but better on charts because it has noise reduction applied to raws. Imagine paying canon $3000 for APS-C dynamic range FF and noise reduction cooked into the raws if you do not explicitly need their absurd framerates for your job.
>>4507402>cameras overheating in 2026How the fuck is this still a thing?
>>4507490they should overheat more oftenand be limited to 10 minutes of FHD
>>4507491>artificially cripple me harder daddy so i can consoooooom
>>4507409its ugly because its a black church.
I just noticed how both Panasonic and Sony has removed mid-range 4k video cameras with viewfinders from their lineups.
What filter should I buy first, which one do you use more often: CLP or Black Mist?
>>4507489>If you see downwards triangles these charts are useless anonAll mirrorless have denoise steps in their processing pipeline, even those without downward triangles because it's not something you can easily detect. At the very least spatial filtering (Sony having the harshest) and high ISO NR that you can't disable. This includes APS-C that also takes a hit in DR.
>>4507498well, ND is just a meme for faggots who can't lower the exposure Mist can be done later, only CPL you can't replicate
Okay, based on photo quality alone, why does my Canon Powershot v1 with an almost micro four thirds sensor literally produces the same photos as my shitty Samsung A34 5g? Can someone please explain?Left is powershot v1Right is the phone
>>4507518>623x913
>>4507518Both pics are shit.User error.
>We now have cameras with AF speed and accuracy and eye and tiddies recognition that boomers could only dream of>Turns out I only use manual lenses anyway>There are no AF-less modern cameras priced being AF-less other than overpriced memebrandsWhy must I suffer like this. Seriously, can't the chink make such a cheap camera already for fucks sake. How hard could it be.
>>4507522Literally just said that if we’re talking photo quality alone, a larger sensor camera should visibly outperform a midrange phone in the same scene, yet it doesn't. Lmao you are so fucking dumb and lacking on reading comprehension. Go to school, dumbass
>>4507518>literally produces the same photosNo they don't, right looks like ass. Full blown HDR that produces a flatter image. There's a disgusting glow present, the hallmark of smartphone photography. Textures are smoothed over, background blur is artificial, you can guess that from texture edges and the fact that the TV looks flatter.There's a reason you gave us low res pictures to claim they look the same.
>>4507471Gay. Urth is an Aussie company so for once it pays to be a bogan. Top-line K&F are actually made of decent glass but I hate their frame construction; feels cheap and locks on to the barrel far too easily. I use them for my cheapest lenses. Decent value in fairness.
Oh I see we're facing some bait here
>>4507489>You cant estimate noise=DR if there’s noise reduction. Bill Claff himself has said he believes canon’s forced NR throws measurements by 2/3 of a stop.Okay so then you be a not low IQ person and just take that into consideration when looking that the chart>>4507498CPL for product or landscape, black mist 1/8 for general shooting>>4507524Well if you want MF aids, that kind of requires a focus system, and if you have a focus system, might as well support AFThere are plenty of old cameras with bad AF that you can get cheaply and just use manually
>>4507444Are you gunna stop talking like a fluorided shitskin once you turn eighteen or nah?
>>4507481The a100 was almost entirely designed by Konica Minolta, it was released 9 months after the merger. The GUI is identical to the 5D/7D, but they added a region lock in the form of exclusive skus for certain regions that don't let you set it to English (IE the Japanese ones are Japan only unless you reflash it to the US sku's firmware...they got progressively more difficult to do so) And yeah I was thinking of the LA-EA5 for that reason since it ditches the SLT mirror. pic rel is sooc unedited from the 7d, this thing has a serious learning curve. it keeps underexposing the fuck out of my photos even with a minolta 3600hsd strobe on it; i have to run at least +1 exposure. i also got first black frame on it already :( for $50 it couldve been worse. i think i like my 5d more but the 7d controls are really nice, only menu diving i do is to format the card and change the jpeg output. i think the jpeg engine is really bad at exposure, worse than the 5d. going to the zoo and taking my a58 now
>>4507540Sony Minolta Merger - January 19, 2006Sony a100 release - June 5, 2006So all Sony did was give it a language lock, lol. another sooc jpeg
>>4507534>CPL for product or landscape, black mist 1/8 for general shootingwhat about portraits? I've heard glowing skin is bad
>>4507442>I fully believe video does not belong on a stills camera and stills cameras should never, ever be used for video or contain more than the bare minimum of OPTIONAL video features for emergency use (ie: you can turn them off entirely and use the freed memory for something else).I respectfully disagree.While I only shoot around 1 video clip for every 20-30 stills, I find video equally important when it's needed, which is to capture motion in the way that a "freeze frame" can't.Since it is for capturing motion, I don't find resolution/detail important in video, so I don't shoot above 1080p. It wouldn't bother me if 4k and Open Gate were excluded from stills focused cameras.
Best thing you see today https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufE3mhvVkjQ
>>4507545SEXO https://kenkoglobal.com/lp/pieniflex_m/
>>4507540I wasn't sure whether the A7 IV supported the LA-EA5, but as it does that could be a good choice. I'm not sure how the price compares to an LA-EA4 and the monster adapter conversion.I did find this though, however some of the replies to the OP don't share his same experience: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/la-ea5-la-ea4-and-la-ea4r-speed-comparison.4730101/
>>4507494Looks white to me
>>4507470>77mmso, my 55mm lense + 5 adapter rings and then the filter itselfisn't it stupid having 5 rings?
>>4507556looks unreliable
>>4507534Anon if you subtract 2/3 stop from the r5ii you do get aps-c drAnd yeah theres clearly some smoothing being applied to a6700 rawsThese things cost thousands. They are meant to be better at edge cases and extreme conditions. Or so you’d think. Apparently they’re actually meant to be better at posting good charts on CineD and being fashionable items for social media sluts to hype, and anyone who actually does photography stopped buying cameras in 2017.
>>4507574Doing a double take it really looks like snoy uses some processing on every cameras raws, changing it per generation to eek out fake spec improvements, and p2p literally never noticedNo wonder their raws are called brittle and hard to edit by end users. The early a7s did some weird shit (concentric color bands).
>>4507468>52mm>use Nikon AI and screw AF lensesWorks on everything up to 135 f/2.8 and 200 f/4.
>>4507574>1/80 vs 1/160>less exposure = more noiseno waycan you show me some images you push 5 stops? you must do it a lot if it's such a priority
>>4507586Equivalence includes aperture and ISOAPS-C ISO 100 always has the photon shot noise of FF ISO 200. Laws of physics. the d850 has roughly the same noise. This is expected. The r5ii has more. This means it has a lower dynamic range sensor and just cooks its raws to fool noise detection algorithms. >you have to show me your five stop shadow pushesIt is plain logic that paying canon $3k for FF with APS-C dynamic range is retarded. The R5II is clearly a specialized high speed camera and most people shouldn’t buy it. Don’t simp for a soulless capitalist tech company too hard now. You’re going to start sounding like one of those literal cucks that makes excuses for the R8 not having IBIS.You are only this dumb rn: >n-no blindly buying the latest model is not stupid all cameras are great the charts line is higher it doesnt matter i am not stupid for giving canon enough money to buy a used car for this if i am not an actual paid professional sports photographer
I notice photographers in general have a hard time accepting that the newest canikony product is almost never made for anyone who is not a paid mutlidisciplinary professional anymore and hobbyists/artists aren’t meant to buy any of itPhotography as art and hobby is as relevant to capitalist camera industry as gnosticism is relevant to catholic church
>>4507466>Without videocucks we could have miniaturized DSLRs the size of film cameras with high speed, lightweight mirror mechanisms.Why would you want an optical viewfinder mirrorslapper when you can have a high res OLED EVF that can show you exactly what your camera sees and all your settings in real time?
>>4507574>if you pixel peep on a photo with 45MP you'll "see" more noise than on a photo with 24MP!!!No fucking way. Is this really how "knowers" on /p/ee measure DR? Sounds like mental illness and trust-me-bro understanding of how DR is actually measured
>>4507574>>4507596DR is measured by SNR, not just "how much noise I see in a studio shot">inb4 "b-b-b-but noise reduction"Noise reduction is a destructive process. While it reduces noise, it smoothes details over, especially high frequency ones; resulting in blurrier images and color bleeding.In your comparison, the R5 II seems to have "more noise", but it also has visibly much more detail.>And yeah theres clearly some smoothing being applied to a6700 rawsThat's a bit of an understatement.The A6700 is a blur-fest, the A6600 is very closely behind. The D850 does seem to have less visible noise, but the R5II still remains a tad bit sharper. Perhaps it's down to the lens, but in this case they're very close.Ironically enough, by trying to prove that the R5 Mark II less dynamic range than an APS-C camera, you've just proven that Sony applies very aggressive noise reduction, far more than Canon, and the R5II does keep more detail despite a one stop difference and Sony's NR.Congrats, you have no idea what dynamic range is.
>>4507442what a very strange thing to be autistic about
Nice sharpening algorithm desu
>>4507597>NR is a destructive processNot if all they’re trying to do is cheat on cineD/dxo shit. They only have to fuck with the raws enough to fool gearfags who simp for canon like battered wives. The chroma noise ugliness in the shadows is a universal indicator of a camera running out of DR. Bill Claff checker canon’s sensors himself. He estimates triangle down = reading is 2/3stop higher than the real DR. The R5II effectively has the dynamic range of APS-C.
>Everywhere else: yeah the canon r5ii doesnt have as much dynamic range. i bought it for video. video doesnt even need 15 stops of DR like a D850 dude. like bro what else is this camera for? getting shots for ESPNs website dude. like dude who cares i need the FPS dude and i dont shoot weddings or landscapes. >/p/: NO ITS NO TRUE. ITS NOT POSSIBLE. I BOUGHT THE NEWEST CANON. IT CANT BE A DOWNGRADE! LOOK AT THIS CHART! WHAT? IT PROVES ME WRONG? ACTUALLY ITS ENOUGH DR. WHY DID I BUY FF THEN? UHHH MICRO FOUR THIRDS BTFO? *snapshits dog*Sad desu
>>4507601>reading is 2/3stop higher than the real DR.So it's still better than most every APSC camera, nice
>>4507602>real world: R5II is a great camera capable of great images and used by a variety of professionals across genres>p: modern cameras bad
>>4507605It’s a straight downgrade if you aren’t a specific kind of professional. Sorry your shopping addiction got the best of you but many modern cameras are tailored specifically to certain professional users and freely downgrade major features that artists and hobbyists expect, while charging astronomical prices because pros will just put it on a business card and deduct it from their taxes anyways. It is plainly not meant for anyone who posts here. This is why canon can downgrade DR or resolution or make giant blobs and still sell them. People like you are not meant to buy them. If canon execs had political power you wouldn’t even be allowed to. And I would agree.Notice brands that cater more to hobbyists keep cameras smaller and more angular and focus on dynamic range and resolution because these features are more useful to people like you. It’s really dumb of you to buy an r5ii for yourself and very dumb for you to recommend it to others with this gay “all cameras are good” shit that sounds as cucky as “someone stole my bike but that’s a good thing”. >>4507603>wow just $3k to beat aps-c by 1/3 stop!It’s not meant for people like you. Maybe one day you will be smart enough to stay in your lane and stick to prosumer/hobby gear like the fuji xe5 and sony a7cii. Then you wont have to stress out because 4chan pointed out that a specialized professional camera is compromised in order to excel at a specific job.
just bought a OM-1 because I was sick of my pentax dogshit autofocus for birds and motorsports and my 150-450mm weighing an absolute tonne. Just need to get a better lens but the 75-300 will do for nowwhat am i in for
is the r7 good? I want canon with IBIS but am too poor for ff.
>>4507607basically an ff camera that starts at iso 800 and always has double the aperture number it shows you (f4=f8)
>>4507518>Okay, based on photo quality alone, why does my Canon Powershot v1 with an almost micro four thirds sensor literally produces the same photos as my shitty Samsung A34 5g?Unless youre shooting medium format you arent going to notice much of a difference with any modern day phone and a dedicated camera (ignore the seething pixel peepers that spent $10k on their mirrorless setup that got mogged by an iphone).
>>4507610Guaranteed replies
>>4507610Sure, and your miata is actually faster than a BMW (ignore the trust fund speeders who wasted your entire net worth on a car they dont deserve)
>>4507615bmws are fucking gay and sovlless though just like phones
>>4507464please give some pictures, i want to see the pictures from that camera please, share some with us
>>4507624See >>4507541 >>4507540location was dezerland in orlando florida
>>4507625all sooc jpeg zero edits i will edit the raws later this week in some cases the raw looks better with zero edits just converting to jpeg in lightroom
>>4507626
>>4507627museum was mid as hell i paid $30/person to a israeli billionaire to show me his boomerslop (movie cars for normies, 1920s-1950s american cars, and a huge collection of microcars and vespas) 4/10 experiencedid enjoy the slavshit though he had 2 wartburgs, 4 ladas, a moskvitch, a volga, zaporozhets
>>4507628im sure its fun to go for a
>>4507629for a date the arcade was huge
>>4507630i think my settings were natural plus, +1 sharpness +1 saturation and +1 to +1.0 ev exposure
>>4507631"cars of israel"
>>4507633
>>4507634
>>4507635saw this on the way there
>>4507636
>>4507637ending this here, i'll try to take more pics with it tomorrow. goth expo was a bust + im too pussy to take pics of strangers but i have a bunch of pics from gatorland, gators are flipping basted
>>4507638thanks anon i like these photos, they have a unique look. what lens didyou use on it?
>>450763935-70mm f/4 af maxxum for most of them, basically a 1980s minolta kit lens, you can find them for $20-30 all day longi wish i brought my 35mm f1.8 sony prime since it was a bit faster and taking pics indoors is a challenge with a 6mp ccd from 2004personally keep a eye out for a konica 5d, here's one on ebay (you can find them as low as $40-60). same sensor, but more common/reliable. i love the look they give, i took this with my 5d. its a combo of the minolta lens coatings + lack of dynamic range from ccd (pleasing grain/lack of sharpness). i took this pic with a 5d + 50mm f1.7 prime (again, $20-30 all day long) https://bestlightphotoblog.wordpress.com/2025/06/30/konica-minolta-maxxum-5d-review/https://www.ebay.com/itm/306909005820
>>4507607the real-time clipping preview is a great feature.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWkYe_8b-8M&t=139
>>4507601>Not if all they’re trying to do is cheat on cineD/dxo shit.DR is a destructive process, no matter what you're trying to "cheat on", whether we're talking about images, sound, telecommunications, or just signal processing in general. That's why we have AI NR to try to "guess" high frequency detail.>They only have to fuck with the raws enough to fool gearfags who simp for canon like battered wives.Not a measurement of DR.>The chroma noise ugliness in the shadows is a universal indicator of a camera running out of DR.Yet it retains far more information than an APS-C with a one stop advantage, how do you explain that? You know what removes chroma noise in other cameras? Integrated denoise.>Bill Claff checker canon’s sensors himself. He estimates triangle down = reading is 2/3stop higher than the real DR.Bill Claff checks RAW images provided by third party individuals and tries to measure a standardized SNR, typically at a value of 1, he's not doing any hardware analysis, he's guessing based on the final result.This guy has been fooled by every single camera manufacturer since his website first came out. But if he were to admit that all manufacturers use denoise (which they all do), his work would fall apart. The R5 II does use denoise, but so do all other cameras.>The R5II effectively has the dynamic range of APS-C.You've just proven yourself wrong with your studio shots.>>4507606>It’s not meant for people like you. Maybe one day you will be smart enough to stay in your lane and stick to prosumer/hobby gear like the fuji xe5 and sony a7ciiLike x-tranny that has color bleeding and the A7CII that has even stronger noise reduction? Are you paid to say that by any chance?
>>4507606>It’s a straight downgradeNah, it's just another example of bean soup theory
>>4507464>S O U LI wish Snoy made a new model and gave it a proper big body and controls like that 7D.>>4507481Theres no need to bother with the Monster when you can just get an LA-EA5 on a newer body.
>>4507679Yeah I did a follow up post, I wasn't sure if the EA5 was fully functioning on the A7 IV. It started with the A7R IV (I have the R III and had an A7 before that hence the EA4) and was thinking the non-R IV came out before. In my other post though I did link a forum post from someone who found that their converted EA4 performed better (and even before the conversion), with some theorising it may be down to the newer adapter using a less powerful motor.
>>4507669To be cleae you are this dumb>The R5II has more pixels, so it retains more details, so its not noise reduction and actually everyone else is lying too, full frame NEVER had 14 stop DR!Everyone outside of /p/ agrees the R5II is a noisy camera with less DR. Like the Z6III. Like the A9III. Its a fact. Is universal NR what you tell yourself to pretend nikon and sony never blasted past canon and their 1.5 stop shadow recovery capability? Are you also the guy that says that doesnt matter and shills the 5dII ewaste? KekI get you wasted four fucking thousand dollars on kit that may as well say AUTHORIZED PROFESSIONALS ONLY NOT FOR HOBBYIST USE on a warning label and regret it, and if you’re one of the two r3/r5ii shmucks on /p/ i enjoyed looking at your exif when we had it and chuckling at how your ISO said 1600 but the noise looked literally twice as bad. It really bolstered morale in the micro four thirds community and kept them a little calmer, I think. Seeing a $4k FF setup look almost like a g9ii but sharper because muhpixels.
>>4507673>no, canon didnt downgrade a hobbyist feature for select professionals who dont care. you are the problem. this is bean soup. It’s not a what about me effect. The camera is objectively downgraded to make it better for professional sports photographers and videofags. Everyone outside of /p/ accepts that the R5II’s stills DR is lacking to make it a better sports cameraAnd then there’s the buyers remorse fag that thinks it actually has better DR because it cant have noise reduction if its sharper than a 26mp camera and actually DR doesnt matter anyways. I have repeatedly said that non professionals should not even consider buying full frame canon. Canon does literally everything they can to communicate that their full frame cameras are professionals only. PROFESSIONALS ONLYThey are the largest and ugliest mirrorless, because they are meant to be used all day at a job, not carried on vacation or for a hobby project. They disallow third party AF lenses to provide better support by restricting user liability and to protect their professional reputation from some tard using a crappy viltrox. They gladly downgrade features artists and hobbyists use because they are irrelevant to what basically all canons get used for - THE NEWS. The NFL. NASCAR. Press events. May as well say hobbyists are irrelevant but fuji, sony and nikon still cater to you. Oh they bake in NR? Yeah thats because professionals unlike you dont have time to shoot raw. The raw is for later. They put ethernet ports and FTP on pro cameras because they are sending jpegs back as they shoot. The more NR they cook in the better. Applying mandatory NR in hardware ala pentax k1ii is more power and time efficient than running a software NR pass over the raw. It doesnt increase dynamic range. It makes noise based DR tests inaccurate. If you are not a professional please stop wasting your money on FF canon mirrorless.
>>4507690Lol, there are no professionals here. Only professional hobbyists shooting a never-ending stream of 'benchmarks' and 'test shots'. Nikon indians are particularly guilty of this.
>>4507690>camera is objectively downgradedand upgraded, which your inability to grasp is the bean soup part
>>4507690>If you are not a professional please stop wasting your money on FF canon mirrorless.What are the top 5 FF bodies you would recommend?
>>4507690>If you are not a professional please stop wasting your money on FF canon mirrorless.Honestly camera manufacturers should ask customers to verify that they're working professionals before they can purchase full frame models. If you're not a professional:1) You don't need it, so you're a gearfag if you buy one2) You don't know how to use it, if you did, your shots would be making money. But they're not. So you don't.It's pretty simple really. Just the harsh truth.
>>4507695I like this sentiment that normie gear can produce great results too, and that it's almost like good photos have more to do with the photographer than gearI hope you keep that mindset up in future threads
>>4507696>normie gear can produce great results tooYes. And if you're not getting good results with cheap shit gear, you have not yet hit the ceiling of what that gear can do. Therefor, any upgrade makes you, objectively, a gearfaggot.
>>4507697>And if you're not getting good results with cheap shit gear, you have not yet hit the ceiling of what that gear can doBased and true takeToo bad there's so much push back here when someone tries to express that sentiment
>>4507687>Everyone outside of /p/ agrees the R5II is a noisy camera with less DR.Yes, and I did not deny this. Usually people with more than two functional brain cells understand that less DR than the predecessor =/= less DR than APS-C. Starting your post with a logical fallacy wasn't a bright idea.>Like the Z6III. Like the A9III. Its a fact.Perhaps you could have given sources to substantiate your claim, because even DXOMark disagrees with you. >B-B-B-BUT NOISE REDUCTIONIrrelevant, you've proven you have no idea what NR is.>Is universal NR what you tell yourself to pretend nikon and sony never blasted past canon and their 1.5 stop shadow recovery capability? Are you also the guy that says that doesnt matter and shills the 5dII ewaste? KekWhat is this supposed to mean in non-schizo speech?>The R5II has more pixels, so it retains more detailsYes, but this is not enough to explain your studio shot, and again this proves that your attempt at "measuring DR by counting noise" on a studio shot shows how much you lack on the comprehension of DR.You showed the A6600 has much more detail than the A6700 that has 2 megapixels more, which already contradicts your statement. Of course a 2 MP difference is absolutely insignificant in this setting, and P2P does show that the A6600 has a bit more dynamic range than the A6700 which is consistent with what we see.Just as a reminder, you're claiming that the R5II has less dynamic range than an APS-C camera, and this is all this debate has been about. Instead of proving it, you're entering your schizo mode and pulling the "everyone says" argument.Now to clarify your logical fallacy and your attempt to appeal to authority. People do acknowledge that the R5II has a bit less DR than the R5 and equivalent cameras (apart from the Z8/Z9 that have even less), but no one apart from you has ever claimed that the R5II has less DR than an APS-C camera, and so far you haven't proven it.You can now take your meds
>>4507695Half of your core sentiment is fine and encouraged, but the other half literally boils down to 'spending money bad' so I can't take you seriously. What, people aren't allowed to have nice things because they don't use them to make income?
>>4507690Damn the mindbreak is real.>better DR because it cant have noise reduction if its sharper than a 26mp camera and actually DR doesnt matter anyways.Reading comprehension of a Jeet.>It doesnt increase dynamic range. It makes noise based DR tests inaccurate.In other words "I'm not wrong, I just couldn't prove I'm right">They are the largest and ugliest mirrorless, because they are meant to be used all day at a job, not carried on vacation or for a hobby project.Oh no, how can I shoot actual pictures if my camera doesn't look like a fashion item???? OH THE TRAGEDY!!!/gear/ is peak entertainment
>>4507701I never said they weren't allowed to. I said manufacturers should require a certain condition. This actually helps them, they just don't understand it yet.
Friends my Fuji X-E1 has these red and green dead pixels. What do I do. Is this fixable or time buy a new camera? I really like the X-E1, what's my next step?
>>4507574This is a dishonest test. At similar exposure the R5m2 is still above.This kind of test is ok to test for the base read noise floor and what you can theoretically recover from a deep digital push but that's it. Dynamic range is the total range from the brightest highlight to the darkest shadow. A shadow push test tells you nothing about when the sensor "clips" white. Highlight recovery is not dependant on read noise and APS-C would fall apart in this kind of test.Pushing an image +5EV digitally is not identical to a proper exposure. It amplifies everything, including noise and heat, which can make a sensor look worse than it performs when used within its intended exposure range. This test is essentially a test of ISO Invariance, not a test for dynamic range.If you want a better test, do a step wedges test using a backlit chart with precise grayscale increments to find the exact point where signal becomes indistinguishable from noise.
finally found some heat at goodwill here in orlando florida i have 2 more of the same lens though i'll list the one i like the least for sale. some yellowing but i have a uv lamp at home...its m42 mount.thrift/goodwill places in my area (nyc) never have anything remotely good and when they do it immediately goes on ebay or gets listed for literal highest price on ebay...so $10 for a perfectly fine prime i can use is a nice breakcrossing my fingers i come across some maxxum lenses OR a 50mm f1.4 takumar; im going to a flea market in mt dora then gokarting at orlando kart center with my maxxum 7dforgot my pic lol.
>>4507704Looks like hot pixels. Are you shooting RAW? Does it happen on all ISO and shutter speed settings? Usually hot pixels clusters up like that are the result of laser, or some other kind of sensor damage. Its very unlikely for them to occur in close groupings like that without any outside influences.
>>4507693>no no no bro you see its BETTEROnly if you are a PAID sports photographer. You aren’t. You shouldn’t have bought it. You paid extra for a worse camera effectively because what canon improved is totally useless if your boss wont fire you for missing a shot like the staged trump assassination. >>4507695Full frame is the standard for cognizant individuals. Plenty of full frame cameras are made for hobbyists and have been since the 1950s. The majority of small sensor cameras are called “consumer” cameras, meaning nonperson basically (there are also “real” crop cameras like the om5ii, fuji, canon r7…). Less than an enthusiast. Less than a hobbyist. A consumer is, in marketing and product separation terms, basically a grazing animal that buys, breaks, loses, or feels left out and then buys again without ever actually thinking. A consumer just needs to eat and isn’t discerning about what they do, and may even forget that it tasted bad. To a corporation, enthusiast/hobbyist/artist/prosumer is the minimum for qualifying as human. Meaning self aware and possessing introspection, free will, delayed gratification, etc. The latter type, “true human” doesn’t consume like a consumer. If they don’t truly need something they don’t buy it and they also go to the used market because as cognizant individuals, they can tell if they are buying a working camera or not. It’s just that canon does not make that many worthwhile enthusiast FFs because they have to compete with the used DSLR market, and unlike nikon and sony who use cheap manufacturing, canon makes their stuff in japan. Maybe the R8II will finally cave and add IBIS but canon really doesn’t want pros slurping up worse built R8s, having them break sooner or fail to do the job, and embarrassing canon. Tainting their pro image further. the lower quality ff hobbyist lenses, like that 200-800 that snaps in half are bad enough. Canon does not need a reputation more like nikon’s.
>>4507700That’s a big wall of cope. The R5II has 2/3 less of a stop of DR than your gay chart says. This puts it within 1/3 of a stop of APS-C. It has APS-C tier DR. Not less. The same. This is a huge red flag that this $3-4000 camera is not for you. Canon did this purposefully because the R5II is explicitly for professional sports and journalist photographers and videographers. It is SO video oriented it has a cooling fan. They sacrificed other things for pros and pros only. Studio gods like me don’t buy R5IIs because the R5 isn’t just still good, it’s a better studio camera, and one day it will be cheap used and people like you will be able to consider buying one too If you’re posting here, and don’t work for elle like me, you shouldn’t even consider buying an r5ii, r3, r1, or r6ii, you shouldn’t be recommending any of it, especially not with this “all cameras are capable of GREAT images” shit that makes you sound like you just smoked something illegal and joined a hippie commune, kid. There are plenty of hobbyist full frame cameras that don’t make compromises on $4k equipment to cater to the pro you aren’t. Stay off the canons. Sony and Nikon for example make great hobbyist FF cameras (a7c, a7cii, a7cr, zf, z5ii) that don’t pile on features you dont need for the sports journalism/pro video job you don’t have at the cost of the image quality you might actually get some use out of. There’s also decades of pro cameras from the 5div and d750 to the a7iii and z7 that are now cheap enough for casuals. If you do not work for getty or something do not buy any canon FF mirrorless period. Not yet. Do not recommend them either. The old 5DIV is finally getting under $800 - if the OG EOS R and R6 did not have reliability issues (just new product things. the first DSLRs had issues too) maybe those would be fine. Canon RFs are not for /p/.
>>4507704>Is this fixableFixable by Fuji, but it's not worth sending it and I doubt they repair X-E1's anymore anywaysOther cameras, including other Fuji, have a pixel remapping setting that helps with this, but stuck pixels are kind of an inevitability for any digital camera long term.If you edit your photos, it's trivial to fix through single pixel NR setting, or individually masking each one.
>>4507714What are the top 5 FF bodies you would recommend?
>>4507714>Sony and Nikon for example make great hobbyist FF cameras (a7c, a7cii, a7cr, zf, z5ii) that don’t pile on features>Studio gods like me
>>4507714>The R5II has 2/3 less of a stop of DR>There’s also decades of pro cameras from the 5div So the DR is a dealbreaker issue worth foregoing all other benefits with an R5II, but DR is not an issue for a 5DIV? Interesting
>>4507714>5DIV good enough>R5II badInteresting perspective
>>4507716Current FF gear that’s appropriate for hobbyists tops out at the mentioned nikon/sony bodies. Panasonic s5 line cameras are also fine.Otherwise buy a used pro camera and do your research and carry a healthy helping of bias against the first two generations of any brands mirrorless technology so you don’t go into a cheap camera expecting more than it can deliver, or overpay for a beta test 2.0 model that barely changed anything. Anyone saying you don’t need FF if you aren’t a professional doesn’t even need a camera, by the way. Everyone can benefit from quality. 35mm has been the peoples format for longer some countries have existed and the laws or physics have not chanted. But if you aren’t a missed opportunity away from missing a paycheck you don’t need speed AND quality - sorry. That’s why when those meet the camera is larger, twice as expensive, and always compromises quality before speed. Below that there are absolutely crop sensor cameras made for people instead of consumers, like the canon 80D, 90D, R10, and R7, the sony a6600/a6700, most of fujifilms lineup, the -5 and -1 olympus/om models. These are all going to be faster machine guns than hobby grade FF and you won’t go broke buying the other FF thing that is implicitly exclusive to working professionals - quality zooms (notice canon allows third party on aps-c? they’re giving you another hint)
>>4507718You don't understand, noise reduction gives free DR and P2P admits that the R5II has less DR but actually P2P's test is wrong because Canon uses NR!!!!Everybody agrees with him outside of /p/ btw.Take a look at that digital +5EV shadow push vs a +4EV shadow push on APS-C proving the R5II has shit DR
>>4507718The canon 5D IV sells for as little as $500 on ebay. It shoots moderately quick. The canon R5II can go as high as $4k. It’s lightning fast, AI powered, and shoots 8k video. Do you see which one shouldn’t be in the conversation if you aren’t paid to shoot for FIFA?I now see that you are one of those consumers! You’re not very good at critical thought. You see grass, you munch…. Baaaaaaaa
>>4507714>D750With how you talk, I'd expecting R5II to be the worst, very interesting>>4507720Guarantee I've done more pro work than you have lol>don’t work for elle What's funny is I follow someone that shoots for Elle that uses APS-C, so seems like it's good enough for them
>>4507720>most of fujifilms lineupFujifilm's entire lineup apart from medium format is peak consumerslop for goycattle like you. Thanks for mentioning it, now we know where you stand, studio god.
>>4507721>noise reduction gives free DR and P2P admits that the R5II has less DRYes, you keep saying 2/3 stop, and if you look at the graph, it's a 2/3 stop difference>Everybody agrees with him outside of /p/ btw.Except for all the people that don't. If you want to go anecdote for anecdote, I'm happy to start linking. Most acknowledge a difference between R51, but also acknowledge how marginal the difference is, and how many benefits the R5II brings (even outside of video). I can link threads talking just like that from other photo boards.>Take a look at that digital +5EV shadow push vs a +4EVSo you still haven't learned that differences in exposure mean different noise? Must be just starting out.>>4507722Is it about cost or performance? You keep switching between the two.
>>4507723You’re not very smart are you?You didn’t understand anything I said. I said the R5II heavily compromises quality for speed and video at a high price, at a large and ugly size, on a mount with no third party FF lenses, therefore it is not appropriate for you or anyone who posts here. You would get the same or better quality if you 1: knew your place 2: spent 1/2 as much money or less. You don’t need the speed. You don’t benefit from it. You don’t need 8k raw video. >>4507724Fujifilm makes actual enthusiast cameras. They’re the optics manufacturer for HASSELBLAD (and it shows - they know how to make a GOOD lens to a look instead of just an MTF chart) and use sony’s next gen sensors before sony does. 40mp xtrans equals to beats the resolution of 24mp bayer on any combination of details and colors while being significantly more resistant to aliasing without requiring an expensive and advanced multidirectional AA filter. Consumer slop cameras start in the canon r50 and nikon DX tier. Some sony attempts at enthusiast cameras also fall in with that junk.
>>4507714>Sony and Nikon for example make great hobbyist FF cameras (a7c, a7cii, a7cr, zf, z5ii) that don’t pile on features you dont needHow so? Nikon is pushing for video features just as hard as Canon or Sony. In fact probably more as they're integrating RED technology more and more in their new cameras. The Z8 has even more video features than the R5II.Sony's shipping cameras with defective shutters and abandons firmware updates faster than any other manufacturer.
>>4507729Cost someone like you has no right to take on for performance that is totally irrelevant to you, at the cost of other performance that is. If the 5div is good enough for you, great. Do not buy the R5II. No one without a job in photography or videography should be touching any canon FF mirrorless unless you got an RP/R8 for cheap, your 5D broke, and you already had EF lenses that made it financially retarded to go with nikon.
>>4507730>I said the R5II heavily compromises qualityBut it doesn'tI agree people can get good results with lesser gear, I'm the one that usually advocates for that here.
>>4507729I'm not him, anon.
>>4507732>Cost someone like youWhat do you think I use my cameras for? What cameras do you think I have owned or used in the past?What cameras do you specifically use?
>>4507731When did I say the Z8, or even the ZR, were enthusiast grade? The Z5II is nikons enthusiast camera. I’m starting to think you’re either stupid or inebriated. Put down the bottle, joint, kratom, fent, and shrooms bro. I know this is a photography board and 9/10 photographers at least smoke some dope, but you peeps have to be sober some of the time or you’ll go broke buying pro cameras you do not benefit from in any way. All I see on /p/ is photos of pets, common birds, walls, and cars. Don’t buy an r5ii.
>>4507734>expensive things are bad valueGreat insight
>>4507730>They’re the optics manufacturer for HASSELBLADHow does it relate to making "actual enthusiast cameras"?>use sony’s next gen sensors before sony does.Again, point of the argument?>40mp xtrans equals to beats the resolution of 24mp bayerNo fucking shit.If you want to go off-topics I can also say that Canon makes SPAD sensors for military applications and most industrial and scientific imaging sensors. What's the point of this schizorambling?
>>4507736>All I see on /p/ is photos ofAnd which photos where yours again?
>>4507736This is your brain on being a nophoto.
>>4507733It does. Canon know this. Tony northrup knows this like he knows the z6iii and z8 did the same (and like me, he is comfortable with the why)You’re missing the point hereWhen you see image quality has been compromised for video and speed and the camera is well over $2000, it should be flat out illegal for someone like you (gig worker aka wedding snapper and prom photo creep at best) to buy one. You’re only hurting yourself. And I’m afraid that you might convince new people to hurt themselves too. Hurt their financial future buying a camera they don’t need when even canon themselves make hobby tier FFs (just not very competitive ones). >>4507735You use your cameras for saying you own them on /p/ and probably taking photos of your cat.
>>4507736>When did I say the Z8, or even the ZR, were enthusiast grade?If you're talking about the R5II at least try to compare it to equivalent cameras, retard.>Less advanced cameras have less advanced features and trade-offsNo way, can you tell us more about this Yakuza-tier conspiracy?
>>4507742You genuinely have clear problems with reading comprehension. Which drugs are you on? Morning beer? Don’t say none. This is a photography board.
>>4507743I accept your concession>This is a photography board.True, where are your photos?
>>4507730Fujifilm makes fashion items. The fact that you have to use the looks of a camera body as an argument and go off-topic to defend fuji proves you're a certified nophoto street shitter.Go jerk off to your deep shadow push test charts, Ranjeet.
>>4507744>This nophoto complainer is also a nophotoOpinion discarded. Bandwidth wasted.
almost forgot if i shared this but before i leave the house what lens is this /p/
>>4507744You need a 4chan gold pass and proof you don’t advocate for overspending on pro cameras “because they still take photos” (lol) to see themI’m also allergic to dogs and cats so if you do too much pet photography you can’t look at my photos because of psychic dander transferance. Sorry!>>4507746Fuji makes better DX cameras than nikon, sony, and every canon that isnt the R7. Their tech is genuinely good. Their autofocus was just unbelievably shit until recently and still is for video but IMO video autofocus isnt a hobby/art thing. Art cinema is manually focused… otherwise film on your phone. Its video. Raw quality doesnt matter for you. Sure stills do, you can zoom in and crop all you want and pick up a 40 incher from the print shop, have fun. But your cat vlogs aren’t making it to the silver screen. Don’t be a schmuck, buck.
>>4507748He cant post first his last 500 shots were all dogs and catsThat’s why he feels a need to justify his r5ii. It has husky detect autofocus and can track a cat doing a backflip. Priorities!
>>4507442Don't care, didn't ask. I'll keep taking pictures with my R5II.
A new R5 is almost twice as expensive as a used, mint copy on ebay in this part of the world.
>>4507766*mk2
>>4507752>Their autofocus was just unbelievably shit until recentlyWhat does recently mean? When I tried a Fuji it just randomly missed focus. AFS, single central point on the exact same clearly contrasting object, focus confirmed.
qrd on smartphone lens and filters? i want to take some pictures of the eclipse in august, what should I think about?
>>4507791All add on converters are trash. Do you even need them in 2026? All modern phones have uwa and tele lens/sensor modules now.
>>4507751Sugar on the right
>>4507791Are you going be in the path of totality? If not, don't bother, it's slightly more interesting than a cloud passing the sun, and it's easy to damage eyes/equipment focusing on the sun.If yes, learn to do night photography or videography because it gets about as dark as night under totality.
>>4507540>but they added a region lock in the form of exclusive skus for certain regions that don't let you set it to EnglishIsn't that pretty common of Japanese market cameras though? I remember reading some general tip guides about buying cheap used cameras in Japan as many don't have any other language on them but Japanese.
How good is this?
>>4507815I really think its just Sony and Panasonic. Every other brand lets you set it to English.
>>4507790He's a fujislug broken by Canon. No one's ever recommended fuji because their files are a pain to edit and their AF is the most unreliable ever seen on a modern camera, the X-H2 is no exception.As someone said previously, fuji makes fashion items, not enthusiast or even professional cameras. If you want to pose as a photographer on instagram, it's the brand for you.Shame, they do make good lenses, albeit most of their X-mount lenses are a bit old by now.
>>4507823Strange, I thought it was also the case with Canon and Nikon too. A few other bits of tech do the same thing to avoid grey market imports or to just save on wasted space of having more languages. Reminds me that PS1 and PS2 ISOs have massive PAL region versions as they needed multiple Euro languages while the US versions were tiny because they only had English and Spanish (or sometimes only English).
Honest question - is this "stacked CMOS" sensor really offering "much faster readout" compared to normal (BSI) CMOS or it's just either marketing or for some fast burst settings? In last thread some time ago I was asking you about Nikon mirrorless to serve as some sort of replacement for my D750 (which is still working, just at the verge of failing) and between Z5 II and Z6 III I'm almost convinced for the former but I keep running into this whole "AF is so much better on stacked Z6 III sensor!" talk elsewhere.
>>4507838It's mostly marketing but it's relevant for video and stills when using the electronic shutter
>>4507829>If you want to pose as a photographer on instagram, it's the brand for you.Or if you want to shoot for Elle
>>4507844So if I don't use or plan to use video, it's pretty much no improvement? Worst case scenario I can use camera for is idol cosplayers concert with 1/300 exposure at iso 3200-6400 and f/2.8.
>>4507854It makes the sensor readout faster, which can help for fast action AF tracking, but a Z5II will handle that EV just fineFor stills, it also lets you use the electronic shutter in scenes with a bit more movementMechanical shutter is still better in either case, but silent shooting is handy
>>4507845If you want to become a studio god
>>4507790Try an xe5>>4507829Lots of professionals use fuji. More than use sports crap, probably. Most of canons sales are consumer junk like the m43 vlogging camera and r100. For FF only nikon and sony are the most popular brands and if high end aps-c is included its like 1: nikon 2: sony 3: fuji 4: canon. Canucks btfo.
>>4507854Correct. Its all video. Everything else is either placebo or the dumbest shit on earth… birds in flight.In an ideal world cameras would explode if they detected BIF use.
>>4507856>>4507859Alright. So I guess I will got for that Z5 II then, upper screen is not worth it. Plus, there will be also cost of adapter and 2-3 batteries, I heard that mirrorless runs out of battery very fast, after 300 shoots or something.I was never using mirrorless before, however, only D5300 at first and later D750. Is there anything I have to keep in mind?
>>4507861>runs out of battery very fast, after 300 shoots or something.The battey life ends up being for basically screen on time (you'd have the same battery life on a D750 with live view on always). They're rated for 300-400, but that's based on the testing protocol. In real world usage, you can easily get 2-3x the estimated shots, sometimes +1k. Just depends on how often you leave it on idling and how much time you spend in image review.Also consider that you can charge through USBC now, so you have plenty of opportunities to top it off on the go.
>>4507858Feel free to provide anything to back your claims>inb4 it was revealed to me in a dream
Been thinking of consolidating my camera gear and was looking at a handful of mirrorless options. I have a Fuji XH1 which I like well enough, but outside of the 16/1.4 I only use adapted M42 and F lenses. A few that seem interesting atm are:- Lumix S1R- Nikon Z7ii- Sony A7R4- Fuji XH2A friend of mine is willing to sell me his A7R4 with a handful of spare batteries for $1450, but outside of sheer resolution the Z7ii also seems like a good buy, with the S1R close behind it. Fuji XH2 would allow me to keep my 16/1.4, but since I'm not super invested in the ecosystem it's not a dealbreaker. I primarily like to shoot wildlife and want to get more into birding, so a system with great teles/zooms is a must, since most of mine are Nikon AF-D screw-drive lenses that I use with a D810.
>>4507864>lumix s1rA lot of money spent on basically nothing. Worse autofocus than a DSLR. Pretty mediocre and pricey lens selection between panasonic leica and sigma. Also huge and heavy. Basically a meme for niche video pixel peeping that doesnt include any fast motion because of its codecs. May as well buy a D850 if you are not an a/v club geek. The only stills first people who get excited for this camera are kinda dumb and think leica SL lenses are magic because of the brand name and overuse photonstophotos charts. >nikon z7iiThe exact same camera as the nikon z7 with an extra card slot and nicer 5 stop shadow pushes. In either case its basically a d850 with a general autofocus downgrade and good enough IBIS for handheld bracketing (1s at the slowest w/ 50mm). Nikon’s IBIS is not the most impressive but it does bracketing really well instead of fucking it up with VR shift on the last shot. NO screw drive support, ever. Strongly consider a z5ii. >sony a7rivNasty looking high ISO noise, mandatory colorchecker usage due to the intersection of sony lens coatings, sony sensor stacks, and common icc profiles for the camera. colors should only need fixed once per light source. weird pre-processed raws. long exposure hot pixel reduction can not be disabled and erases stars. vignetting correction is optional but is poorly written to raws when on and creates concentric color banding when exposure is pushed at lower ISOs. Supports minolta/sony screw drive lenses well. Nikon and pentax adapters are janky. >fuji xh2Total meme camera, has a worse iteration of fuji’s current autofocus, more expensive than the z7 but plainly inferior, only really that good for fanboys of the brands jpeg presets. 40mp isn’t real 40mp, resolution drops dramatically on color combinations requiring accepting a smaller output size or coping with AI reconstruction. Save your sanity and treat it like a more refined version of 26mp. Liked by a lot of amateur cinematography people.
>>4507867>my favorite hobby is nitpicking cameras
>>4507869>ITTAI NANI WO ITTA ‘NDA!? Kiiiisama! leave the asian plastic consumer electronics alone, TEME!>*ptuh* baaaaka! any camera can take some great photos>kono gearfaggu… you should be glad m’brand sony lets you buy anything at all DA ZE…!>do notto test ore no patience further… i have 61 megapicksuru >if you insulto a sony camera again… let alone… fujifirumu…*draws katana*
>>4507872Actual quality post
>>4507872If only you put this level of effort into your actual posts
>>4507867Thanks anon. I did some reading and it seems there is a company that makes (somewhat expensive) AF-D adapters for Z and E mounts, but that might be further down the line. If I had twice my budget I probably would've just done the Z8, but I'll look into the Z5ii as well. The ultratele zooms for each system all sit in around the same price bracket (though the Fuji 100-400 is decently cheap), and it seems that the Nikkor 180-600 performs about as well as the Sony 200-600.
>>4507862Well, with Z5II at least I will have to check the settings since it lacks that small LCD on top but personally I was always looking through viewfinder. So in such scenario I guess single battery will last longer.
>>4507881Very true, that's why I went Zf, set my exposure without the camera even being on
>>4507872KEK
>pay 1500$ for sony a6700 camera>can't even get proper grammar in the UIAm I right to autistically rage over this? How much money do I have to spend to get proper translation?
>>4507912I'd be happy if Engrish were the worst thing to find in a Sony camera.Wait til you find out that the exposure preview is broken.
>>4507913You’ve been told this anonEvery camera stops delivering exposure preview in dark conditions to cut down on viewfinder lag and noise. Photographers dont notice because our brains are tuned to OVFs without preview. Only non-photographers actually use that shit lol
Yeah, so this happened. Real fucking cool. I am now not going to buy from your shitty site ever. You can't just accept my payment information (a process which is entirely automatic in year 2026) and have your wagie grab my order off the shelf the next day? Really? Am I not supposed to believe this isn't an intentional humiliation ritual? Does Yahweh forbid you from using an automatic payment processor one day of the week?
If travailing and shooting RAW would you feel comfortable with 64GB cards? Didn't realize the price of UHS-II were so expensive
>>4507926I usually have 128gb or 256gb as my main and the second slot has a 128gb. You might also want to go with Sony Tough or SanDisk Extreme Pro cards, ProGrade have been known to fuckup.
>>4507926I used up an entire 64gb card in one day, but that's with high speed shooting and 4k video.
>>4507791>>4507797>>4507807I'm going to be in the path of total eclipse, but won't at least some solar filter be handy?It's going to be in Iceland, so there may be opportunities to shoot some nature in general too
>>4507926if money is such an object i'd just get cheapo microsd cardsunless you're taking huge amounts of burst shoots, your camera buffer is likely to be more than enough for regular photo cadence
>>4507467TRVTH NVKE
>>4507595If you need exposure preview you’re not really a photographer simple as
>>4508011TruthGetting proper exposure is like 101 level of photography
>>4508011TRVTH NVKEretvrn to OVF>inb4 that nophoto fujislug with the dog
>>4508013You mean the one that enjoys OVFs with their Leica and XPros and film cameras?
>i inb4d it and it happened>xhe’s always online>xe always replies>with no photohory shet!
>>4508015>posted photos in last RPT>posted more non dog photos here than you haveWasn't the one that started nophoto slinging in this thread thoughIf you know me, you know I'm always happy to post or link photos, and I post tons of info pics too
>>4507916This seems like an overreaction.
>still replying>xher photos go to another schoolkek gearfaggies
>>4508018It's a shame that you enjoy making the board worseI still have hope one day it can return to something better
Nophoto here is literally compelled to reply to the vaguest provocation, and then asks why the board is le badNophoto here will spend 4 hours defending and justifying some shitty overpriced meme camera’s lack of competitive real world benefits and will never post a photo while doing it. Peakest gearfag.
>>4508020>NophotoYou mean the one you identify by some of the cameras he uses and the dog that he posts here?Go look in the last RPT if you want to see some photos, or browse any of the other old threads, bet you can find my giant collage that's been posted a few timesI also contribute by making effort posts like >>4503010 and in threads like the editing oneWhat do you contribute to the board besides misinformation? I don't attack honest gear takes, I just don't like dishonesty
>>4508020Its truly a shame how easily triggered she is. >literally anyone in tune with the facts: fujifilm autofocus isnt very good and the image quality is pretty mid. but the camera is $2000? dumb. cant recommend buying it. >REEE POST A PHOTO YOU NEEDED BETTER AUTOFOCUS FOR HOW DARE YOU ALL CAMERAD ARE GREAT WHY DOES EVERYONE HERE HATE CAMERAS NOPHOTOS [404 photo not found]Pointing out flaws in crappy fuji and nikon gear is not allowed! And god forbid anyone point out leica is a total scam
>>4508022This is an accurate representation of the points I articulateAre you the same poster I called as very sane and stable who then got banned after?
>>4508022I love that some Anon brought up working for Elle earlier because of all the photogs I follow, the only one that shoots for Elle regularly literally uses an XH2 lol
>>4508021>I must defend the camera brands honor>still, no photoyawn>>4508023Nophoto swinging at shadows but not posting a photo. Whats the term for these namefag/tripfag tier retards that dont use a name or a trip? Egofags?>>4508024Studios dont need good autofocus or even good photographers. Studio cameras can be clunky 0.5fps digital back monsters from the 80s. 9/10 people in fashion photography are there because of their connections and are helped at every step along the way. Have you seen fashion mag photography? Do you read elle? Have you checked the BTS? They give these people huge teams of assistants and all the high end studio gear they could ask for, teams of experts doing the photographers work for them, ample retakes included, and 9/10 of them are just the same exact photos over and over again. Shooting for a magazine isn’t impressive at all. Why would someone lie about that? Every elle cover is a posh passport photo. Most of it has the photographer as so irrelevant image credit should go to the model and the production team. I have no idea why this board (or just cinefag) idolizes fashion rags.
>>4508025I post often enough that I didn't need a trip because people just use the dogI have used a trip in the past, no point anymoreYou must be knew here if you don't know my photos, or don't recall from all the ones in other threads nowWhat do you shoot that need better autofocus? I don't see too much actions in the RPT or even bird threadsWhich photos were yours again? I always like to learn from those with more knowledge than me
>>4508024>fuji autofocus bas>well in controlled conditions, manually focused, someone uses it to take photos at f22 while a nepobaby poses for nepotism magazine to try and keep the dwindling hollywood gossip tabloid industry alive!ok? didnt someone use a 5d classic for a vogue cover in the past few years? a nepobaby who got a job contributing 0 to society because their dad knew a guy, and daily a ferrari, crash it, and scrap it and buy a new one yearly might be the kind to pay two thousand plus dollars for a crappy camera with bad/no autofocus but do we really have to like the crappy camera that costs as much as a really good camera because of that?
>>4508028>You dont need autofocus! Show me ALL your photos no not those ones>Shut up and pay fujifilm $2000 for shitty autofocus that randomly misses in one spot one shot AFFucking kek. Do you ever get sick of doing literally this every time someone points out a fact about an overpriced camera brand?>hey, this $10,000 piece of shit is worse at everything than this $1200 camer->PROVE YOU NEED MORE! IT WAS USED TO SHOOT A MAGAZINE COVER ONCE!
>>4508031>>4508030So sane and stable, and able to articulate and respond to what I've said, I'm very impressed
>>4508031>Do you ever get sick of doing literally thisDo you?
>>4508032Do you ever get tired of doing exactly this? >Anyone: very expensive camera has a flaw that better performing similarly and lower priced cameras do not. dont buy that friend. >you: prove you need better! that camera was used to take some good photos once! leave my brand alone! dont listen to this guy! buy my favorite brand!You dont even post photos. I mean, you allegedly used to but you repost collages from a long time ago. I think you’re not even *you* and stole all those from a poster who left ages ago. This greentext is all you do. As far as anyone knows you cant post until the instagrams you steal from update. When will you learn to simply not complain when facts are pointed out? Why can’t you sit still and stay quiet when people dare point out that $1500+ is a lot of money for a low res aps-c camera to still receive complaints like this >>4507790The brand fanboyism is getting old. Please learn to sit still and hold your tongue when people dare expect their $1500-2000-or more camera not to underperform a sony a7ii.
>>4508034Do you think that's another accurate representation of what I think?You should work on your communication skillsThose are all mine, since to remember, pick one and I can see about posting a larger or adjacent version or at least screenshot of LR/C1. I'm honest and always willing to provide evidence, like I have for shooting weddings, boudoir, and working at cameras shops in the past. You can also find me every now and then in cbt on /fit/ is you want to see me that badly (beyond the few selfies I've posted here).I agree XH2 is a lot of money for a camera and already beyond what most people need, and I've said dozens of times here before that Fuji is arguably worst perf/$, but it's not a bad camera and it doesn't have bad autofocus.I will take my many years of weddings and other work with my Fujis over random anecdotes. If you see enough anecdotes of AF performing well, would you change your mind? It seems to perform well enough for many other pros too.I still recommend most people go for other brands, and will again, but it is dishonest to say the AF is bad. Behind other brands yes, but still not bad.The brand anti-fanboyism is getting old.
>>4507751Fun
There really is a poster here who steals photos. They were active in the micro four thirds thread and try and steal photos from dog posters in particular - probs because dog posters are annoying fags and are probably easier to troll as. They try, and if the poster is still here they don’t keep trying. If the poster isnt here to say "youre not me" they continue stealing and stretch it out by reposting select content as rarely as they can make an excuse for. Even the really talentless photographers here have enough mid shots to include one with every post. Don’t believe anyone is a real person if it’s a struggle to get them to post even one image, and when they do, it’s not fresh. >>4508036Give it a rest, whatever you are (AI powered marketing troll or christ knows). Getting you to post a fresh photo is like pulling teeth and you read like an AI asking which photo the user wants upscaled. yes! fuji’s autofocus is bad! many people are saying this, and they are all correct. it really isn’t up to any standards and pales in comparison to the autofocus on really cheap old cameras.It is not unusual for a tech product to be backed by more marketing than R&D especially if its made in china like a fujifilm camera. Audio is super full of the same stuff, laptops and netbooks are full of this business strategy, smartphones do this. Low performance high price gear with familiar brand names and retro gimmicks, made in china, because making money is the point and if some retarded zoomer buys it and leaves it on a shelf mission accomplished. Stuff like this lives because non-discerning consumers exist and it’s not just cameras.
>>4508024Don't cream your pants because you know someone shooting JPEGs for a magazine. Studio shooting is the least demanding type of photography, there's nothing impressive about shooting a static subject indoors under controlled lighting. Micro four thirds would be more than enough.
>Users: Hey nikon, the z6ii autofocus is pretty bad. My canon R8 is better. >Nikon: I know! All the next models are getting the Z8’s chipset, and we’re revamping our product segmentation strategy! *Z5II for $1500*>Users: thanks this is grea…>The /p/ brand fanboy: EXCUSE ME! All cameras can take great photos. The Z6II does NOT have bad autofocus YOU are bad. Prove to me you even deserve better autofocus. I found this pictures on flickr that were taken with a Z6II. You do not need a better camera. You need to learn to use your camera. >Nikon: i made a better camera because the last one wasn’t that good>Users: my canon R8 is better
>>4508039>Getting you to post a fresh photo is like pulling teethI already said I posted in the last RPT and some of the older RPT too, go take a lookHow fresh is fresh to you? Will you post or link as well?Many people also say it's behind but still perfectly fine for most use cases and not anything to worry aboutFunny thing is, back in the day, I even went from D750 to A7II to XT2
>>4508040Glad you had this attitude at the poster initially trying to namedrop Elle, oh waitAlso glad you acknowledge how capable bad cameras really are in some situations>>4508041Z6II has worse autofocus, and possibly too bad depending on what you're doing, but also good enough for lots of use casesZ8 is better camera than Z6II, yesNow let's see if you can be honest next time you crash out
>>4508043>Glad you hadAlso stop pretending there's only one person in this thread.
>>4507978>but won't at least some solar filter be handy?If you want to catch the moon partially obscuring the sun, but there's a million photos of that, and better ones by observatories and so on.What I found most interesting with the eclipse is how the lighting on the landscape changes as totality approaches, which looks totally alien, and then how it becomes night for some minutes.
>>4508042>my photos go to another threadok nophoto AI chatbotnot even wasting another photo on youthe least anyone can say is i tried but you are 100% certified no-photo>>4508043>some photos can be taken with manual focus so shut up and consoom the thousand dollar camera with shitty autofocuskek you really are an AI powered marketing bot
>>4508044Do you have to be a certain person to respond to a comment? I didn't see anyone shitting on Elle until I brought it up as a positive, seems kind of reactionary and not actually a principal position
>>4508047Take a break
>>4508046>I know you post photos because of your nickname, and can easily see photos in other threads, but I'll stick with nophotoGood effort and honesty >some photos can be taken with manual focusWhat a good example of honestly characterizing what I've said
>>4508049No photo didnt read
>>4508050>This is the quality of engagement I want for the boardNice, I disagree, but hey
>they posted a photo>i didnt>and now they are calling me a nophoto>/p/ has fallen billions must be spentKekkeroni the state of gearfags and bots
>>4508050Since you don't know how to see other threads, hope this helps
>>4508052I posted now so we good
>>4508053Did you take that to text to your mom?>Awwww the dog is sleeping!That’s nice but it’s not really photography, you know. Its an, uh, "pet parent" doing the usual and shitting mundane photos of their dog doing nothing everywhere. I shot a mothers day memorial on a bronica sq-b and gave my mom the negative along with a few of local flowers set on each side in a panoramic frame, and it works because the flowers are leaning to each side in each square, but ffs if this is the standard of work we can expect from the fujifilm crusader I think it would degrade its meaning to share the other 2/3s with the annoying gearfag pet parents of /p/
>>4508055Thank you for your insight, I will use it to keep growing as a photographerIt's amazing how much you can know about me from looking at a single pictureYour image sounds great, I look forward to seeing it when you get around to posting it
>pull teeth to get a photo out of the defender of shit autofocus>its a snapshit of a sleeping doggearfags always disappont
>>4508057>you must post action photos onlyWell no one told me, I can try and take some in the next few days just for you bb, but I'll have to think about the last action shooting I did, probably too many months ago for you to countAny other goal posts you want to set so we don't have them change?
>>4508057Wait, so is >>4508039 photo a good example of needing good autofocus? Why not call them out too?
>>4508058A photo of your dog moving around wouldn’t exactly be an upgrade and there’s more wrong with that totally nonexistent composition than it being a sleeping dog on your moms porch. It looks like a phone photo, a careless phone photo taken one tap outta imessage, there is literally nothing to it. All the geometry in the world, all the perspective to play with, and you just stood there and snapped a snapshit like you were fucking around on your phone. Shamefur dispray. But also, its just a snapshot of your family’s pet yap machine sleeping on your moms porch Sebastio salgado took photos of dogs, joel meyerowitz took photos of dogs, lots of good photographers did, but they didnt just stand over their family pet while it was sleeping on the porch and snap. Get a clue, bruh.
>>4508060You sound like you take good photos, where can I see some of yours for more inspiration?How many dog photos of mine have you seen?
>>4508059>you took a photo with a manual focus camera. this is proof its okay to consoom the $2000 camera with bad autofocus!You must have waste many thousands of dollars to take boring snapshots of the family pet to defend fuji’s shitty autofocus this furiously
>>4508061You seem like a retarded and toxic individual and I have noticed that people you clash with get run off the board (by someone else surely) so no, I’m not sacrificing further photos to compete with this >>4508053 absent of composition and intent crap and collages of stuff you stole off flickr. Sorry.
>>4508060How impressive, what thoughtful composition and not phone like qualities>>4508062You must not take photos at all lol
>>4508063>I must run away and lieAs to be expected nophoto>stole off flickrYou mean the ones I asked you for an example so I can prove I took them? Boards better off without dishonest people like you
>>4508064It’s not always about the composition, it’s about the message, the content, the vision. It’s an expression of meyerowitz’s jewish cultural vision. Art 101. Is your culture about the family pet sleeping on the porch and you aimlessly taking photos of your parents dog?I would take >you dont need autofocus to make it into a galleryFrom meyerowitz before i’d take >autofocus isn’t always necessary so stop saying the $2000 made in china camera with bad autofocus and blurry images and unreliable weather sealing is an overpriced scamFrom youBecause shooting with intent on film is a lot more respectable than consooming marketing first quality last chinese made tech products to take photos of your moms fluffy chihuahua
>>4508060>>4508055Are any of these better in your eyes? Have more on film I can post later, those were with 50mm instead, but haven't developed the roll yet.
>>4508066Did you forget to attach some examples of you shooting with intent?
>>4508065>Which photo should I upscale with AI?Best case scenario you used to be a photographer but quit to defend fuji and nikon on /p/Mid case you stole raws off your dad’s SSD and play with his camera to catch the dog being cuteThe fresh stuff you have to show is always really poor quality sorry. The other annoying dog posters, the egg guy and the husky guy, were a wee bit better. I have a photo exercise for you! Every time you get mad because someone accurately made a statement fitting the generic >fujinikon somefeature is very bad for highprice, buy better highprice camera or equally bad lowprice camera< format that triggers you so badly, instead of replying, go find a photo by a well known photographer, ask why it’s considered good even if its not obvious, until you figure it out, and then go out with your dads camera and try and copy that why BUT not with your moms dogGood luck!
>>4508069>your photos are so good I can't believe you took themSeeing an image + adjacent images in LR/C1 would hopefully be enough, but I'll just take your skepticism as a complimentDepending on the image, I might be able to upload the raw>The fresh stuff you have to show is always really poor quality sorryOh, can you give me specific examples? Linking them is fine.I have a photo exercise for you! Save up money for a camera, and then try taking some pictures!
>>4508067>THE DOG… IS ON THE PORCH>DAD!!! I NEED TO BORROW THE CAMERAThis would make a good sweet bro and hella jeff comic tbqh but it hasn’t made good photos. Its just a dog on the porch. I really feel sorry for you if you expected anyone to be even a little impressed by this. You didn’t even try to move the dog to a better spot? to get more information in beyond the dog is on the porch? That’s sad
>>4508071Did you forget to attach your examples of good dog photos you've taken so I can learn?
>>4508070There’s a massive mismatch between the stolen and constantly reposted collages, and the awfully boring dog snapshits. It’s like if someone keeps showing a painting demonstrating the minimum of competence but every time they have to produce on the spot it looks like a kids finger painting. No offense. You’re clearly really new at this and regret buying a fujifilm, or are insulted because your dad bought a fujifilm, or bought you one, something like that.
Beginner here. Just dropped ~$1500 on a new Canon R50 and Sigma 23mm F/1.4.Did I fuck up? Will I be satisfied with this pairing?
>>4508073These are all me mateHappy to share which photos were made on Fuji (X or GFX) and which weren't tooDo consider the dogsnaps are probably 20-30% of what I poste here, and like 20% of what I actually take and are quite literally just that, snapshots when I'm walking the dog or just chilling
>>4508074see how experienced photographers shudder at the thought of spending more than $1500 on a camera if it isn’t the newest full frame wundertech? because their $350 nikon d750 is already better than everything else?yes you did fuck up>zoomers are the poorest generation and no one knows whyreturn it quick, get on ebay, check out>small camerasOlympus em1 mark IIOlympus em5 mark III>big camerasnikon d750canon 5d IV>fuck, you can afford it anywaysnikon zf or z5iisony a7ccanon r8
>>4508075>he reposted it again>meanwhile, the certified original work >>4508067Dont care buying an expensive camera that isn’t competent at standard features, or even up to decade old standards, is retarded and will always be retarded>>4508076Scratch the canon r8. Its kind of crappy on purpose. It makes sense if someone is poor and already has a lot of canon EF gear, and their DSLR broke.
>>4508075these look nothing like what you always post and sharing other peoples boudoir shots on 4chan is potentially career ending. other posters like you were more believable… it was clear the husky and egg posters did some portraiture and artwork because their style carried over into their dog photos, and a lot of their dog photos were lighting tests they said they used on people later. with you its totally disconnected. it looks like totally random shit you scraped off flickr, and then your actual photography. either you’re faking or you got fired and blacklisted from local pro photography for sharing clients asses on 4chan and dont even try anymore. i personally think you’re faking.
>>4508045>there's a million photos of that, and better onesyou could say that about virtually anything
>>4508077Here you goWhat's the next goalpost to shift
>>4508079>these look nothing like what you always postCan you please articulate in what ways?>sharing other peoples boudoir shotsWe used to have dedicated threads for it, and if that were true my career would've been dead by now right?
>>4508081>a cats ass at f1.8the mismatch continues
>>4508082Look like it already is or ever existed in the first place
>>4508083>the goalposts keep shifting>the nophotos keep nophotoing>>4508084>don't post these photos it will end your career>my career isn't ended>you never had a career to begin withSolid logic there bb
>>4508085I tried posting a photo, not a very important one on its own… i got a horrible snapshit of a dog sleeping on your moms porch in exchange. All of your work that is definitely original and not scraped off flickr looks the same, pretty sloppy dog and cat snapshits. None if it looks like or shows any visual influence from the flickr scrape collages you call your portfolio. Sorry. But I genuinely believe you are a fake photographer.
>>4508087>But I genuinely believe you are a fake photographer.>But I also wont ask for specific photos because then I know you can prove you took themThat's what I get for trying, and another good example of why the board sucks nowI look forward to you continuing to post so I can continue to learn from such a master as yourself
>>4508088>human, prompt me to upscale a photoIf you were for real you would have been posting proof of raws already. I’m done. The total evaporation of any signs of skill, effort, and knowledge between the oft reposted wall of instagram/discord/flickr theft and the mundane dog themed non-photography you can provide on demand is striking. It’s like if someone were posting terry richardson’s portfolio saying yeah i took these, and then when asked for a recent photo it was a motion blurred tree branch shot on auto mode. You could have filled this thread with photos already if you had any that wouldn’t embarrass you as badly as 15 different angles of your moms dog on the porch. There could have been some variety, some effort. You could have put me to shame, left me scrambling, phoning my girlfriend to open my laptop and put the photo folder on dropbox for me, tell her i have to post what i didnt upload to IG on 4chan or ill lose an internet argument (she understands). Alas. Please don’t waste time replying again, nophoto. I’m begging you. You’re doing yourself no favors with no photos.
>>4508089>If you were for real you would have been posting proof of raws already.Adjacent photos in C1I've asked for which specific photos you want, not my fault you haven't given me an answer, you just keep shifting the goalpost>evaporation of any signs of skill, effort, and knowledgeYou're just using buzz words without actual critiqueWhich photos of the "stolen" ones do you particularly like?>You could have filled this thread with photos already So could you? At least I am
>>4508089Inspired me to make a new collage of the doggo, can't wait to see your photos for inspo
>>4507915>Every camera stops delivering exposure preview in dark conditions to cut down on viewfinder lag and noiseWorks fine on Olympus/OMStages of Snoy cope (you forgot the first one this time)>no it doesn't happen>all cameras do it>I don't need it anyways
>>4508089Woah, are these? Do you think they are in that collage too?
>>4508093It happens and doesnt matter on canon and nikonThe only way to provide an accurate preview on mirrorless in the dark without lag/noise is to meter too dark and provide a dim preview, which is simply not how actual photographers have expected metering to behave for the past 80 yearsAlso, if you rely on exposure preview at all you’re basically not in possession of the right to have opinions about cameras. You’re like an entitled suburban consumer complaining that the honda fireblade he bought doesn't have a heated and cooled seat with automatic control like his audi. No shit. It’s professional tool vs. product for consumers. They behave differently because professionals think differently. If you rely on exposure preview then please stick to phones and olympus. It’s not how photographers expect their cameras to work.
I come back with more 7D picsall sooc unedited jpegs
>>4508097
>>4508098>>4508097these were with the 50mm f1.7 Maxxum AF prime, i actually got in the mail a 50mm f1.4 Sony AF I would've appreciated, paid $90 shipped after wrecking my Minolta 50mm f1.4 trying to do a CLA next set was with the 100-200mm f4.5 AF, gf took the pics im in the red garfield shirt
>>4508099
>>4508095>two starVery self aware
>>4508100this time for the jpegs i went-2 contrast+1 saturation+1 sharpness-2 huenatural plus color+1.0 ev
im so fucking sick of these shilltuber retards saying that nikon's dogshit eye detect af is anywhere near as good as canon or sony as well as all the fanboy retards online defending nikon's shit autofocus. Both ZF and Z8 have eye detect issues, either missing entirely or (especially in zf's case) fucking "locking on" to the eye and then actually focusing on something in front of the eye. It makes shooting events absolute hell where you get one shot at things and on paper it should be a hit, the camera thinks it's even a fucking hit, and when you get back and load up the raw loljk faggot it focused on the person's hand despite the software showing it's focused on the eye. Even the fuckin japs on twitter are realizing this shit and complaining but are getting drowned out by corporate cocksmokers saying "hurr durr user error" when providing evidence of the opposite. I'm so fucking sick of this shit but I'm already too deep in the z lens ecosystem to just jump ship to sony or canon
>>4508103made the slight mistake of going +1.5ev for these following pics since it got darker (was sundown 8pm) and remember its a 6mp ccd apsc from 2004 this thing struggles in low light with movement but i like how this came out
>>4508105last pic, everything else was horribly blurry after, wouldve had more keepers if i left it at +1.0ev imo
>>4508104What a good opportunity for you to share your examples where those cameras missed autofocus for you
>>4508104iktfI ditched my zf for an a7c. Ironically for /p/ both have equally bad color science compared to my DSLRs and my medium format.
>>4508107i'm not posting people's photos publicly without their permission m8 im not some streetshitter but otherwise i would love to>>4508108have you noticed an improvement overall? I hate the idea of moving to sony but they seem to have the best af, or at least that's what shilltubers try to make it seem like. Snoy shrek skintones dont matter to me when im editing them in c1 anyway
>>4508092Three of these are ALMOST okay enough that a better dogtographer could have helped you take them. A couple in the bottom rows, mayhaps. Keep learning and one day you’ll be as good as you told the internet you were!
>>4508108>DSLRs and my medium format.Neat, what do you use?
>>4508111Thank you, where can I see your photos again? Or are you just another nophoto too?
>>4508110>C1You should try your hand at an edit in the editing thread! What a good opportunity to share your knowledge since you understandably can't share photos of your own
>>4508110The improvement: with first party glass, the autofocus actually fucking works on people and cats. 7/10 to 9/10 hit rate on tough shit like people running directly at the camera. The downside: it doesn’t auto detect other shit and its not going to work with pro lenses. the ergos are pocket camera tier, and with the new 26mm pancake it is a pocket camera. its like an a7iii with very basic a7iv amenities. get the a7iv if people are counting on you. its autofocus is even better. The alternative: wait. half of nikons AF woes at present are quality control issues and dated tech in the lenses autofocus systems. Their v2 professional glass was a huge leap in manufacturing consistency, speed and precision - on par with the other two mfgs - and the z5ii+ tier autofocus is now working a lot more often for people who use them. But the v2 lenses are very expensive.
>>4508114>>4508113>>4508112Slow down pardner. If only you were excited to learn photography as you were to post!I hope this link helps you buddyhttps://inspawrationphotography.com/category/free/Improve those dog snaps!
>>4508117>I can't even name what cameras I use>I can't share any of my photos>I can't actually edit in C1Sad things to admit
>>4508117>Good pet photos is picrel and 135 f2 bokeh maxing
>>4508119Let’s see paul allens dog>>4508067
>>4508119but all of these are better than what you post, top left and bottom right are great, and middle right is a photo of the type that will never grace /p/ by the will of its creator because it is simply too based. You should try learning from better photographers instead of pretending they’re not good enough for youOr maybe you dont actually like dog photography and just want an excuse to post your dog everywhere?
>>4508122What do you like about them? What makes them good to you?
>>4508123Calm down there, chatGPT. This isn’t creative writing 101. We’re adults here. We can all tell those are better than uh, this >>4508053
I don't know anything about strobe lighting but I need one for product photography. I've been getting away with softboxes and lightboxes for too long. Where do I start? What is most versatile?
>>4508096First of all the exposure preview failing on Sony is is at some random/arbitrary points. Some other brands will limit it at +/- 5-10 stops from metered standard but it's not how Sony fails.Second of all, why are you even talking about mirrorless camera when you are some DSLR unc? Nobody under 30 is using optical viewfinders nor wants to, because there's no benefit to OVF vs a modern OLED EVF.You don't even get exposure correct in camera. You shoot RAW and then "fix" your bad exposure in Lightroom, or rely on bracketing.
>>4508125when in doubt buy two godox ad200s and go to strobist
>>4508124>There actually isn't any specific thing I don't like that I can identify Thank you
>>4508126>Thinks he’s young and hip for CONSOOMingKek nice try gramps. You suburban HOA uncs have always been buying the latest junk. Real artists ebay their shit. >protecting highlights is getting exposure wrongHmmmm I think a fujifilm would be more your speed
>>4508125Godox until you can afford ProfotoStart with 2x AD200s, can use them separately or combined, brand agnostic just a transmitter matching whatever camera brand, super portable and rechargeable battery is great
>>4508128>You have to write an essay to my heccin socratic question or there is NOTHING to say!Ok redditor but real life isn’t debate class, and you’re not so important people have to explain to you why you aren’t the best, or even above average. You just aren’t. That’s why you pretend to be hot shit on 4chan. If you can’t see how >>4508119 is vastly superior to mundane underexposed green tinted shots of your dog at the park and don’t even want try, you will never be as good at photography as you pretended to be when you stole all those photos off insta and flickr. Top right and middle left are a bit poor but they’re still exhibiting basic editing and composition skills you constantly flub. Middle right is godlike and if you can’t see how the presence of mood, storytelling, and composition makes it come to life in ways shit like your dog standing by a shipping container does not, well, try. Because you aren’t the best. Or even good. And you won’t even be good until you start learning from better photographers. You have that and the beach photo below it that aren’t total trash (a 4/10 and 6/10 respectively). You can get better. But first you have to stop pretending you’re already good.
>>4508129>Real artists ebay their shit.Anyone under 30 subjected to DSLR is using the rear screen live view.>he can't protect highlights in-camerawell, I would call it a skill issue but with OVF it's not.On a modern camera you have zebras, blinkies, or other real-time indication to show if and where on the image overexposure will happen.If you want to boost your shadows, you can do that in real time to suit your scene and have your photo completed. No need to get home to your iMac and fire up Lightroom to finish your photo.These features are so poorly implemented on Sony that I honestly can't blame Sony users for using their Sony mirrorless just like their DSLRs.With a good camera and learning how to use it, either result in pic related can be OOC.
>>4508136>i’m so young i cant see without a bright screen that lets me zoom in>my quick young mind needs exposure aids too>I’m so young using a computer is hard. I’m not no tech support patel i want my photos “ooc” like on my old kodak easyshare!>grrr i hate sony because all the kids like itkek uncs tryna look young
>>4508116yeah but if im gonna have to "upgrade" my 50mm 1.2 and 85 1.8, etc lenses to v2 which may or may not ever come out, at that point I may as well just leave nikon. And yeah I don't like the ergo much on the a7c but the a7v felt nice in hand at least. which is why I was lookin at maybe that. People and cats are some of my most shot subjects so that's a nice plus, but by "doesn't auto detect other shit" what do you mean? What kinds of things have you had issues with auto detecting?
>>4508127nta but also new to using flash in general, with the two ad200 setup am i correct in assuming you're using both in flash modes and not the modeling light modes?
>>4507858>Try an xe5Well maybe they fixed the autofocus, but they sure didn't fix the JPEG engine. Just terrible processing - looks like it was blurred and then edge enhanced.https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3690824164/fujifilm-x-e5-production-sample-gallery/1460141150
>>4508140Modeling light is just to show you where the light is pointing
>>4508141good thing anyone that cares shoots raw
>>4508011what happened to this thread after this post was made i cannot understand>>4508013>>4508014>>4508015everythign from here on down looks kinda crazy
>>4508139if you can afford an a7v, get that instead it also has as much dynamic range as a hasselblad x2d. the a7c has faster and more accurate autofocus compared to the nikon zf, but every other sony has better autofocus and everything than the a7c. it’s an outdated stripped down budget camera. >lol
>>4508141X-Trans is bad.No real world benefits, many downsides. If you buy X-Trans don't expect good photos.The only good thing Fuji makes is optics and their bayer bodies like the GFX cameras or regular APS-C or full frame bodies.Bayer sucks too but X-Trans just introduces new issues without actually solving anything. You still get moire on X-Trans, just from different patterns.Between X-Trans, Bayer, and Foveon(the meme), X-Trans is easily the worst of them all.
>>4508145It's just no photos taking their opportunity to be a negative Nancy about gear since they don't actually take any photos
>>4508183>le x trans badBut still good enough to use for Elle
>>4507402Aren't professionals supposed to have an identical backup at the ready?
Opinions on buying used on ebay? I want to get the Olympus 75-300 lens but I'm a brokie and they're like $300 used on Ebay
>>4508053this is a boring and pretentious photo, which is much, much worse than boring photo which isn't pretentious.
>>4508221Thank you nophotoYour comment is not pretentious at all, so I hope to learn from you
>>45082079/10 elle covers look the same and are of samey ghoulish nepotism girls. Who cares. Its basically posh passport photos. No one even reads that toilet paper rag. It’s a vanity project by and for the nepotism based leeches of society. So, lets check your logic real quickA 40mp xtrans camera has less resolving power than a bayer camera (it CAN have a real 40mp on black and white lines, but most natural details will be more smeared)Xtrans cameras are overpriced because of hipsters buying them to wear as jewelry. $1000 for an xt3. $2000 for anything newer. Xtrans cameras all have dogshit autofocus and finally caught up to the nikon z6 for their most expensive modelsBUT because someone used one for a tabloid cover (these are printed from 2400px files) by nepo babies for nepo babies we have to stop talking shit about the blurry camera with shit autofocus and chyna build quality that costs as much as a complete nikon z5ii kit?https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/anyone-else-had-problems-with-their-x-h2.4703814/Bruh, most pro work period was done on canon 5d series cameras. Time to sell all your mirrorless junk then. Also post a photo proving you need more than a 5d, and NOT of your moms dog. Ffs you are literally a kid (19 maybe) who rarely leaves his parents house and mostly borrows his dads camera while dicking around with the family dog. You’re here on 4chan 24/7 too. Moderate your ego. You are as far from an authority figure as it gets and appealing to tabloid covers aint helping your case.
>>4508141Yeah, xtrans is garbage. Film is kind of blurry so fuji was trying for that, but film isn’t color bleedy/smeary. It doesnt even stop moire it just moves it to another frequency range. If you bought an xe5 because you couldnt afford an a7cii and the a7c was too old and janky for you well sorry, but there’s a fixShoot raw, use capture one or darktable with markenstein 3 pass demosaicing, so not apply sharpening, export as a 16 bit tiff at 2/3s res and then apply post sharpening to the tiff (darktable) or export as 2/3s size jpeg with post sharpening (capture one)>fuji: living in the moment!If you cant use a computer set the xe5 to its lowest output size (instagram dimensions) and then realize how dumb you are being and switch to micro four thirds because by that point it looks the fucking same
Would you rather buy a visually clean and functioning used lens that's cloudy or a lens that looks like it was kept in a box of rocks for 20y with perfectly clean glass?
>>4508225>Also post a photo proving you need more than a 5d, and NOT of your moms dog.You first nophoto
>>4508230I take lots of photosYou live with your parents, steal photos for fake portfolio collages, and fanboy for fujifilm and nikon on 4chanAnd I suppose sometimes you shoot 15 different angles of your parents dog sitting on the porch, snap a few shits when your mom makes you walk the dog after you finish your homework (its important to have a fuji here so girls dont think you’re creeping) and once in a while you snapshit some of the messes of trees around the campsites and hiking trails your parents pick outkekKid, we get that your parents are rich and you make enough to buy pricy hobby items but not enough for a house, but please spare us from your brand fanboyism
>>4508225>Ffs you are literally a kid (19 maybe) who rarely leaves his parentsI've been on p for almost 19 years lolOwn my home thanks, paid for from working full time as a photog tooI did get discounts on some of my gear though, because I used to work at camera shops for like a decadeI look forward to seeing your work so I can continue learning
>>4508228the former for taking photos of american women (7/10 of them are fat with bad skin) the latter for taking photos of cats (10/10 are beautiful)
>>4508232>steal photos for fake portfolioYou mean all the photos I took and have shared and have offers to provide proof I took them? And did provide proof above for some.Where can we see your photos again?
>>4508233>Uhhhh no bro. I work for nintendo! I’ve been here since 2007! I’m a pro!Wow all that time and this is what you can produce on demand?>>4508091You’re at least 30 and still fanboy chinese made marketing-first fashion-tech brands to defend them from legitimate criticism?I’m not believing it. You’re a zoomer who lives with his mom and is relatively new to photography. A retarded one that stole a bunch of images for a portfolio collage to claim to be a pro on 4chan while defending the brand he fanboys and probably jannies the subreddits for. What you say you are does not match your behavior and the staggeringly low quality of your recent photography
>>4508236>Wow all that time and this is what you can produce on demand?Did you forget to share your photos too? >from legitimate criticism?Never have a problem with that and even in this thread above I've directly shit on FujiI just don't like exaggeration and dishonesty, which you seem to enjoyThink what you want, I'm the only one ITT that's ever bothered to offer proof to support my claims, and have even in this threadToo bad you don't take photos or we could analyze your work as well
>>4508143>you can't just expect a camera and lenses you paid thousands of £ for to produce good images without 3rd party software.Shut the fuck up normie bitch.
>>4508240>normieNormies are the one caring about JPGs
>>4508238I tried and quickly realized throwing my precious work at a manchild who takes photos of his moms dog at home and bokeh cat asses isn’t really worth itPlus you’re a photo thief. God knows my photos would end up in "your" portfolio collages once you noticed i wasn’t here anymore, as "proof" you shoot more than your moms dog and family hiking trips.
>>4508242>I ran awaySadA photo thief that offers to share proof for the photos he posts, hmmmm
>>4508240Thats the standard. Everyone shoots raw except for people pushing low res stuff ASAP. But fuji isnt even good in raw. You still have to cull all the focus misses and scale everything down to hide the worms.
>>4508244What camera models do you use?
>>4508243>i might steal photos but i also take photos of my parents pets. and trees!I know, and the gulf between the work you claim is yours and the "work" you freely prove is yours is so massive that if you really did both and were telling the truth about being a 30+ unc who cries in defense of fuji’s 2026 FF priced 2013 APS-C performance "because a tabloid photographer used one!" I’d assume you had a stroke/seizure/brain tumor or damaged your brain with drugs or alcoholism.
>>4508246> the gulf between the work you claim is yours I've asked a few times, so again, which specific photos are you talking about?This was a wedding last year, but remember this is one moment, from one camera, from one angle>"because a tabloid photographer used one!"I brought up Elle because a different anon used them to imply their own expertise. Glad we all agree that anon is stupid tooDoes drugs or alcoholism prevent you from answering simple questions like I've asked?
>>4508246Was it my landscapes you liked? Here's some with a bigger view, and you'll notice they dont match the order of the larger collage eitherAgain, always happy to prove ownership for these too
>>4508248I see you took some really amateurish spray and pray shots at the wedding or engagement of an acquaintanceCouldnt even get the perspective on the bridge right. Blew out the sky. Made ugly half bokeh trees the main subject. When /p/ users say >IM A WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER BROThis is 100% what I expect. Not good at all, just a kit zoom shot wide open job for a friend who didn’t want to pay a professional photographer several thousand to bring out the lighting and the full kit but was willing to shell out $200 for their friends son to bust out "the nice camera for his hobby"
>>4508250>I see you took some really amateurish spray and pray shots at the wedding or engagement of an acquaintanceInteresting perspective>remember this is one moment, from one camera, from one angle>Couldnt even get the perspective on the bridge right. Blew out the sky. Made ugly half bokeh trees the main subject.Did you forget how to read or? So when can we expect to see your wedding pics?>When /p/ users say...It's 100% always a nophotoSad, hopefully one day you can acquire a camera and start taking pictures too! I believe in you!
>>4508246>the gulf between the work you claim is yoursWhich ones are those?Why can't you answer such a simple question? Are you retarded?
>>4508249>i promise bro, I really took these while camping with my parents>i’ve had a whole day to make fake proof bro>i figured out how to export jpeg as dng, i still have the jpegs i stole, im ready to make fake screenshots hit me upYour photography today: >>4508091You had your chance to be the real photographer you claim to be, isolate what you recognized as your best, and provide irrefutable proof. But you needed to be prompted for which jpegs to upscale with AI and export as dng because you’re a confused faker. The poorly shot engagement, looking like a new photographer idea-guying it up with his t2i and 16-55 set to max bokeh, is believable though I’ll give you that
>>4508253So which photo do you want me to prove I took?Why can't you answer such a simple question? Are you retarded?
>>4508252Because I shouldn’t have to. If you were real you’d have been able to independently prove this yesterday, on demand, in less than 30 seconds, because you would already have 1: proof all over your computer 2: the experience to know which of your photos are your best. I think you mixed stolen photos with your own mid-beginner snapshots personally. Clever ruse. You clearly know its a clever ruse because you have been reposting these collages of photo theft for ages but have always been hesitant to post the originals (perhaps they need doctored first and you have to check if reverse image search brings them up). What you can always provide within the same hour, however, is pretty terrible shots of trees and your moms pets.
>>4508255>If you were real you’d have been able to independently prove this yesterday, on demand, in less than 30 secondsWell I asked people for specifics yesterday and no one gave me an answer.>proof all over your computerTrue, some are a few years old like that kitty, so I just went jumping into random old folders until I found stuff that matched from the collage.> the experience to know which of your photos are your best.This changes over time, but obviously it seems my preferences aren't in-tune with other users like you. Which do you think was best?>Because I shouldn’t have toThis is a good excuse to never do anything, nice cope nophoto. You can even suggest a photo because you know I'll prove you wrong.> but have always been hesitant to post the originalsI never have, and most of the collages are made from images I posted individually here > you have to check if reverse image search brings them upI have posted images of my own that linked back to my actual website before lol
>>4508255>I am indeed retardedSad
>>4508256>lots of words no rawsYou had your chance and now you have had ample time to prepare a convincing lieI’ve delt with enough pretenders to know what to expectSorry>but i asked you for which photos i need to carefully make fake proof for!i mistakenly accused a real photographer of stealing oncehe didnt have to ask me anythinghe didnt play gameshe said no i fuckin diint with proof of a new raw every time he repliedhe had endless proof of what was in and out of his portfolioand his apparent skill level was a lot more consistent than yours - two people thought he was fake because they recognized his photos from two different socials. both were his lol. i was glad he wasnt fake, and he understood, someone common to us had stolen photos from a photography discord earlier
>>4508258>I'm a schizo retard nophoto Even more sad
>>4508258His name? Ken Rockwell
Never forget. Guilty people delay and play games so they can construct better lies later. Guilty people ask their own questions and try and make it about their accuser. Innocent people don’t play games or deflect. They just get peeved and start putting the truth out there.
>>4508262I guess you guys are really guilty for taking so long to tell me which specific photos you want proof of>Innocent people don’t play games or deflectLike when someone asks you to identify a specific image and you deflect?>They just get peeved and start putting the truth out there.Like when I posted my photos in this thread> try and make it about their accuserYes, because no one is taking shots at me ITT right?Its interesting you haven't posted photos yet, must be really guilty
>>4508263Like I said if you were for real this post you just made wouldn’t be more games and deflection. You would have just started posting raws. Yesterday >i want to play a game. tell me which photos you think are fake now that i have had ample time to learn to fake apparent proof. Fakers also always want to take a dominant position and be the ones in control because there’s a streak of narcissism involved in photo theft. If you were real you would have started posting raws from accusation one. Now you don’t really get a chance. I hope your REAL photos improve in the future! Protip: when you shot your friends engagement, you should have stopped down, D&B’d subtly, and made slight local contrast adjustments for background separation instead of creating distracting half-bokeh trees. A lot of the photographers you stole from probably knew how to do this. Also, shooting centered on the bridge instead of across from the bridge would have probably worked better. Good luck next time!
>>4508264Okay nophoto>Protip: I still can't readMan, being retarded has got to suck
>>4508264Did you forget to attach your photos again? Seems kind of guilty, I want a raw in 30 seconds please, or you are a faker too!!
>>4508266>>4508264Well, it's been 5 minutes since the asking for the RAW, seems you are a faker too Mr Nophoto
>>4508266>>4508265>what about you?A classic but you had ample time YESTERDAY to simply prove you werent fake by opening folders and using the screenshot tool, and now you have had ample time to figure out how to turn stolen jpegs into dngs and even fake them as .NEFs. So to me only what you posted on demand, unprompted is what you are actually capable of, and you bolster your fake 4chan portfolio with shit you stole off instagram and discord. You wouldn’t be the first thief on /p/ or the last. That /m43/ poster who stole a bunch of ron brindley’s photos off flickr comes to mind. Or the one that tried stealing huskek and doghairs photos. Fuck, that might have even been you.
>>4508268>>4508268>I'm stills nophoto faker retardVery sad, hope you get some help for that>You wouldn’t be the first thief on /p/ or the lastTrue, does anyone remember that British guy Bobby? Had fake wedding portfolio, and he found his way onto the thread and started arguing then took his site down? ClassicIt's a shame you're one of the fakers you speak about
>>4508268>stolen jpegs into dngsAlso, DNG is just the default RAW for an M10, totally fine uploading that RAW if you want
>>4508270>no you>what about you>no you NO YOUYou were called a photo thiefGetting you to post proof was worse than pulling teethYou can cough up a snapshot of your moms dogBut you won’t commit anything else to the archives logs>Tell me which to fake, i dont have proof on handIf you expect us to believe that you done played your whole handYou’re a fake bitch, pretending to be proPathetic for a 4channer, on a board this slowDefending your favorite fashion brands like a mod on redditBut when you actually snap, you cant even save that trash with an edit*mic drop*
>>4508272>Still retarded nophotoStill sad
>>4508272>lots of words no raws
NEW LENS ALERT NEW LENS ALERT NEW LENS ALERTWas mad I lost the bid war on a $40 + $13 shipping one Sunday, found this, waited, got an offer for $60 + $10 shipping last night! Probably the least I've paid for a f2.8 zoom, but the 35-70mm f/4 is kind of restricting in range, these old CCDs NEED light and I lose a lot of shots from not having the right focal length or waste time swapping lenses. it was this or a KM 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 D for the same money! Also tried out the new Sony 50mm f1.4 ($75 + $15 ship) on my a58, its pretty damn good.
>>4508274>>4508273>nooooo yoooouuuu!Whatever photo thief. You’re probably going to be here five years later with excerpts from huskek’s deleted flickr nestled in your collages. >>4508275This poster is a real photographer
>>4508183>X-Trans is bad.>>4508227>xtrans is garbage.Both images are using the same X-trans data, so clearly X-trans is not the problem. Fuji's rubbish processing is the problem.
>>4508277That's too nuanced for them too understand
>>4508276Will you still be here not posting photos?
>>4508277Both the raw and the jpeg look really bad. Xtrans is the problem. It can’t be used as a full image with the promised number of megapixels because the sensor layout itself creates worms. You gotta shrink it and then sharpen even with a processor that is optimized for xtrans (C1) or one that can be (darktable, rawtherapee). DXO doesnt count because it’s AI garbage.
>>4508268Im honored that someone would steal my photos and post them unironically. They were posted without irony, correct?
>>4508276im not a photographer im a broke niggerjew hobbyist who likes seeing what he can get out of cameras old enough to vote and drink and lenses older than himthis is my second hobby (primary being cars) and the $300 or so i spend a month is a drop in the bucket vs what some people here spend i deliberately search everday for pentax/minolta stuff <$40 buckswhen i want to get good iq i break out the newer stuff ($140 sony a58 for good autofocus like pic rel w/100-200mm f4.5 maxxum i paid $20 for, pentax k1ii or k70 for best iq)
>>4508296>I’m not a photographer I’m a photographerkino shot needs more zoom
>>4508207That's fine.Magazines aren't quality content. They're doomed to be viewed as excessively compressed web JPEGs or in halftone print on cheap paper.>>4508277No, even the "good" one on the right sucks. X-Trans is bad. If you insist that it isn't then you are a fool. Accept it, and move on.The only questions remaining relate to how bad is it, and those answers vary.To mitigate weird patterns you can downsample images based on what is appropriate for the sensor.For Bayer, you merge each 2x2 group into 1 RGB and lose 75%. (leaving 25%)For X-Trans, you merge each 3x3 group into 1 RGB and lose 89% (leaving 11%)These values don't seem much different but they are extreme.24MP bayer downsampled will give 6MP40MP Trans will give ~4.4MP.That 4.4MP is still more than most people actually need since that's still higher than 2560x1600 pixels after downsampling.Neither sensor will ever produce an image that looks right at 100% but X-Trans is just so unpleasant to look at because the pattern is so distracting and can't be ignored.Trying to process X-Trans is extreme copium, but advanced algorithms can do it better than quick and dirty efficient ones that are used in-camera.Whatever beneficial effects X-Trans might bring to the table are in practice completely outweighed by the effects of the weird sensor design.When we have smartphones with 12MP (48MP binned) 1/2" sensors (~1/5 size of full frame), if we scaled that density up you would need a 330MP full frame body to compete. If we had this kind of photosite and color filter density then issues related to the hideous X-Trans pattern would be diminished, and it might in practice achieve what Fuji says it was supposed to (because we'd all be downsampling and removing the pattern). Until then you're stuck with clearly resolved images on a sensor with gigantic green 2x2 chunks baked in and that results in fucked images.https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-the-promise-and-the-problem-31407fa43452
>>4508296Are photos of crowds all recording their own version of the scene on their iphone going to be the future of all photography for all time?
>>4508310Attractions might end up designing places for better photography over time.If 300 retards want to record (vertically!) with their phones then a loop-around or circular viewing platform might have to go away in favor of creating something more aesthetic.Either way, yeah. What once would have been people with cameras in the background has absolutely changed to people just holding their phones (the wrong way!) and that is not going to change anytime soon.I wish Big Tech would use their leverage and force 1:1 sensors into everything so orientation no longer matters and force the masses to record and upload everything at a 1:1 ratio, and just have vertical phone faggot apps crop for their screens instead of tossing out everything destructively. All it would take is mildly different hardware and a chance in default settings.These ~4000x3000 at 12MP sensors can become 4000x4000 at 16MP and record to 3840x3840 instead of 3840x2160. Everything would be so much nicer.
>>4508296Gatorland? More OC for my fan club>>4508308>xtrans>he posts the ancient retard bait articleNice
>>4508308>For Bayer, you merge each 2x2 group into 1 RGB and lose 75%. (leaving 25%)>24MP bayer downsampled will give 6MPSo confident, and yet so wrong
>>4508310No because we can just ask AI to remove them. :D
>>4508325He’s right but only for totally eliminating all interference patternsThere’s still more useful resolution for things that don’t create interference patterns. fuji xtrans is technically garbage but still produces decent black and white photos of black and white subjects or nearly monochrome subjects. details the alternate red and blue suffer the most. they kind of designed a CFA around trying to photograph a test chart>bayer: worse on moire chart, better in nature/real world>xtranny: better on moire chart, worse/wormy in nature/real worldso ironic that wormtrans was basically designed to pixel peep photos of grids, brick walls, and resolution charts and ended up inspiring cope against “pixel peeping” (viewing larger than instagram on a phone) as an expression of buyers remorse/cognitive dissonance
>>4508218I've bought like 5 Pentax lens and 3 Pentax cameras off of ebay from Japan. Everything worked great except for the Pentax Q lens (the 8.5mm 01) I ordered which arrived with a focusing problem but that thing is so tiny and fragile that it might've somehow gotten fucked up in postage
>>4508314The front-facing camera on the new iPhone actually does that. But the question is if you want to record horizontally at this point? Everyone is watching this on their phones anyway, which they're also holding vertically. It was a complete failure, but Fuji was kind of going for this with their X Half.
>>4508331>He’s rightNope lolYou can find plenty of discussions of effective bayer resolution online I ohr communities with much smarter people than any of usThey seem to all come to these same ballpark for effective resolution, and it's not 1/4 lolIf you have actual sources to support your claim, I would love to see it, otherwise I can help educate you with links of my ownI would love to see an authorative sources calling xtrans garbage too
>>4508308So what non bayer cameras do you use? I have a monochrome and foveon, what about you? Or do you shoot just film? Or do you actually still use bayer?
>>4508350On CHARTS bayer can reach the nyquist limitIn REAL LIFE not so muchxtrans is noticeably worse. What detail there is - is useless - and you can see the worms from space. It takes more effort to process - into a smaller file. I’m sure you pixel peeped your dog with it tho gearfagGo cuck and pay fuji another $2k for the IQ of a rebel ti (and worse autofocus) kek
>>4508358>In REAL LIFE>proceeds to ignore real life shootingInteresting approachI liked my real life example collage a while back of xtrans and non xtrans photos where people couldn't tell which was which, that's real lifePixel peeping 400% on JPGs, is just as silly as chartmaxxing
>>4508358Oh also, I take it you have no sources to back up what your saying, that's a shame, I love to learn
>>4508323yes animal kingdom was bleh especially for the $175 now disney charges i went last yearbrevard zoo is unironically a must see too, i just missed out on the kangaroo exhibit. would recommend going if you have time, its a hour west of orlando in melbourne was stuck with the kitty in the rain
>>4508360nta but 9/10 times i resize my shit to 90% quality and 2048px in lightroom because most places (4chan, discord, facebook, instagram) have a file size limit of 5mb or compress the shit out of the file anyways so it butchers the image quality that and your parents/friends/family dont wanna go through 8mb jpegs of your vacation photos
>>4508373>>4508360Nta but in real life, not your furfag rights advocacy discord groups, people zoom in on photos to look at them, they want 16” wide prints of important group portraits, they want to crop their favorite part of a bigger photo out and have it look good, and unlike ~seriose fulosofically pure aescetic ArT photographers~ they make liberal use of cropping and rotatingOr do you think cameras getting better than the nikon d300 was a CONSOOMER GOYCATTLE BRAINWASHINT CONSPIRACY like you people so often say and in fact so was 35mm film being capable of soft and grainy but still very detailed wall sized prints? or mf film or lf film? were those le consoomer goycattle obsessing over things that dont matter too?or maybe photography in person, in real life, between real people, is often held to higher standards than your stoned gamer buddies hold things to while doomscrolling and hitting dabsjust sayingmaybe all these good cameras exist for a reason and it’s your use case that is irrelevant
>>4508381meds now
>>4508308>No, even the "good" one on the right sucks.There's nothing wrong with the one on the right.Feel free to point out the "worms" (there aren't any)The one on the left is an insult to the lens / sensor.
>sigma 12mm f1.4 for aps-c Do you consider this wide enough? Other wider options are the sigma 10-18 f/2.8, or the linglong 9mm f/2.8.
>>4508383Right sucks here too, anon.Stop trying to view x-trans at 1:1 it's not meant for it.
>>4508599the "worms" are caused by mental illness level overprocessing, not by the sensor.
>>4508601You can't post good 1:1 crops because they don't exist.I don't know why you're deliberately choosing to post awful ones though.Whether you process the sensor data into worms (an artificial creation) or some other ugly output is not the issue. The issue is that the sensor design itself is gross and bakes issues in no matter how it is processed. The huge 2x2 chunks of green taint the data in ways that just can't be fixed.
>>4508606This is from a Bayer sensor, which proves that the "issues" you see on the decently processed images on the right are in your imagination.https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3632672590/om-system-om-1-mark-ii-sample-gallery/3043540761
>>4508608>This is from a Bayer sensorThat just makes it even worse.>corner of four thirdsSo because you couldn't post good X-Trans you resort to shitty corners of micro four thirds?Hilarious.>which proves that the "issues" you see on the decently processed images on the right are in your imagination.Nope.That image quality was horrible. Notice how I just said that was awful and didn't claim there were worms.Sensor layout affects quality but the lens and rest matter too. If you post garbage it doesn't matter what sensor was used. Come back when you actually have what you consider to be a good candidate for high quality X-Trans.Also, there's a reason why any serious quality oriented systems either settle for bayer or pan/monochrome. There isn't a single valid use case for X-Trans in any high budget situation. You will never convince museums or archivists that x-trans is anything but inferior Not even Fuji themselves consider it worthy for use on their fancy cameras.You are arguing against reality.
>have OM-1>also have pentax, before I bought the OM-1 bought a lens for the Pentax from camera store, after buying the OM-1 I said fuck it and exchanged that lens for a 12-45mm F4>now bought the 12-100mm F4 because it was on specialI basically have no need for the 12-45mm now. I was thinking I'd keep it because it's smaller but now that I have the 12-100mm it really isn't that big, as I was expecting. So at this point I think I'll sell it, is it worth finding a second hand 12-40 F2.8 for lower light stuff or should I just keep the money?
>>4508621>There isn't a single valid use case for X-Trans in any high budget situation. You will never convince museums or archivists that x-trans is anything but inferior
>>4508720Haha, even cherry picking the meme spot in this scene you x-troons still get completely BTFO.Z6 III is the same megapixels and completely your resolves the X-H1 everywhere.GFX 100 downsampled leads to a much sharper image, with almost no moire.D850 is a meme here because it's perfectly positioned to be in the moire zone.High budget users would have access to better or more suitable equipment. For STARTERS they would fill the frame with the subject when possible or find a sweet spot specifically for avoiding moire (could be moving it slightly) or swap cameras entirely.
>>4508760With its more organic photosite layout which reduces interference patterns, it's easy to see why X-Trans is the choice of discerning archivists.
