Innovation is dead editionPrevious: >>4520738
The snoyim aren't gonna like this
>>4521485What, no control ring?Anyway, innovation happens when there is a demand for it. What did you want from Sony? They copied the R&D off Cannot and got to save a buck while selling a lens that ended up being reasonably popular. $800~ for a 100-400 first party lens is quite nice, especially considering the bulk. Yeah I prefer my 70-200 f4, but it was 2.2x the price.
>>4521491>$100 extra for more vignetting on you're full frame micro four thirds lensehaha snoy
I'm angry at all the Youtube influencer that manipulate, lie and brainwash me into buying shitty products. I wish I could sue them.>*New gear arrives* we need to talk>Don't forget to like, comment and subscribe
>>4521485>snoys making fun of Canon for having a slow budget telephoto lens for years>5 years later Sony make the exact same thing for $100 more>OKAY NOW THIS IS LE EPIC HOW HAS NOBODY DONE THIS BEFORE MUST HAVE SO CHEAP AND LIGHT NOBODY NEEDS 2.8 THIS IS PERFECT GOOD JOB SONY I GOTTA CONSUME THANKS SONY
So, where are the Sony users actually praising this lens? Because I'm one and I couldn't give a shit, it's a turd and I'd rather just get one of the Sigmas or Tamrons that are faster with more reach.
The price of new glass is a scam anyway. Same glass goes for 20-50% less used.
>>4521492Lmao. Snoy. Why the fuck did they do that with their mount? They don't make anything tangibly smaller than the competitors.
>>4521492That shouldn't really be that bad, though? Like, ye olde M42 was only 42mm inner diameter and to my knowledge didn't vignette.t. never owned a Snoy or an M42
Picked one of these up to use as a basic meter, works surprisingly wellFinally have something for the digishit threads too
>>4521510Ye olde M42 had a thread diameter of 42 mm, so the maximum inner diameter is a lot smaller. But that's not really a problem for the optix, because the flange distance is x box huge. Sony's design decision is insanely flawed, I don't know if anyone even how they could they did.
>>4521514Perfect travel cameraJust look through it, experience the moment, and remember the imagery
>>4521514I will never not laugh at how western zoomers are traumatized by screens but also afraid of DSLRs and breaking their carefully crafted skinny jeans femboy "fit">that camera looks like, masculine bruh. toxic. no cap.
>>4521510M42 was a film mount. Films layers are way, way thinner than any digital sensor covering so steep incident angles don't really matter (this actually poses a challenge in using M mount lenses on digital - google "sony leica M corner issues"). M42 was also longer to reduce the angle and make it even more of a nothingburger.Sony has a small mount crammed up against the sensor, and one of the thickest sensor covering stacks alongside micro four thirds. Even some adapted DSLR lenses have corner IQ issues on sony.RF, L, and Z mount all have their problems (too little flange distance to design good pancakes, thicker sensor stacks on RF and L than Z, excepting leica bodies, panasonic making crippled junk to avoid angering their leica gods) but holy shit is E mount a dumpster fire. Sony is good at making lenses and correcting them specifically for their mount, but it will never make it good and the limitations show. A lot of lenses still vignette 1+ stops at f8, and sony cameras write a weird correction to raw files that corrects something to do with color shifts towards the edges/corners. On their old cameras, pushing exposure a ton would reveal a concentric pattern in the raw data. They've smoothed it out with the newest models, but if you ever analyze an uncompressed sony raw file, there are gaps in the histogram indicating a lot of processing (to hide the lens mounts issues from camera reviews, just like canon's forced raw noise reduction protects them from being called shit by all the photo review sites that exclusively focus on sharpness and noise).
>>4521525The mount size really isn't an issue. Find me a lens where the rear element goes all the way up to the edge of the mount, like the old Canon 50mm f/1.0 or 85mm f/1.2, where the electrical contacts would actually impact the shape of the bokeh.
>>4521531The mount size is an issue. It limits rear element size and therefore requires steeper incident angles to hit the edges/corners. Consider this, and sony's hilariously thick sensor coverings. And now consider's sony's history of raw cooking that matches a correction for colored vignetting from... using too small of a mount. Info on this is all over astrophotography forums. Concentric banding is specific to sony cameras.https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/sony_concentric_rings.htmlhttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/sony-a7s-concentric-banding-and-histogram-gaps.4139696/It continues into later models. But people stopped using sony for serious astro so now it just affects fools who try to use film era lenses on sony occasional poor saps losing their underexposed landscapes if the sky needs brightened more than a stop from base ISO (=banding/colored vignette).Sony cameras are kind of poor in general. >oops no weather sealing>oops your a7iii/a7iv's shutter failed at 20k>oops your a7c's screen is purple>oops the weather sealing around the sd card fell apartbut the ap uses them! they have whole vans full of snoys in case one breaks :^)Imagine being a snoyim and defending the baby mount and snoy quality kek
>huskyfaggot comes back>non stop niggon shilling>non stop slandering sony faster than anyone can debunk his lies>a nikon shill is slandering om system>i wonder whoboard ruined by the dog fucker yet againsony is the choice of most professionals and people who have never diddled their dog. there is nothing wrong with sony. its the top selling brand. stop fucking lying nikon is shit nobody uses it.
>>4521538https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/comments/18g7yoi/a7_iv_broken_shutter_rant/
I've asked before but is anything retarded about this setup I'm considering renting?>Sigma 18-50mm>Canon 100-400mm>R7I currently use a 60D with the 18-200mm kit, and:>I typically shoot at 18mm only, or 150-200mm.>I wish I had more reach for birds.>I wish I had better low light performance at 18mm, when taking pictures at dusk or indoors.Other than that I'm happy with the 60D and am taking photos I enjoy. Not sure if I an ~18mm prime makes more sense than the 18-50mm, I think I would get annoyed not having any zoom even if I usually don't use it.
>>4521534Again, show me a lens where the baby mount actually limits the rear element size. The 50mm f/1.2 is the only thing that comes close. Take a look at the 24/35mm f/1.4, they actually added plastic between the mount and rear element. Same thing goes for the mount on the body, the plastic inside slightly goes over the corners of the sensor. You really think they'd pointlessly do that if it caused vignetting?
>>4521543Good lenses, R7 is a questionable camera though, it's outright worse than competing M4/3 options in most ways (funky high ISO noise pattern weirdness and lacklustre EVF) and none of the RF lenses are small enough to justify Canon's weird 1.6x APS-C anymore.Honestly? if you want RF, the R8 is the king of value right now, it's actually good full-frame for little money unlike the shitfuck that was the RP which came before it, I think its by far Canon's most attractive offering right now.But overall my general recommendation is to buy and not rent, there's hardly any real purpose in renting a modern camera unless you were specifically getting the best of the best, because if you break that shit you'll end up paying more money and it's not worth it for an R7 and a Sigma APS-C lens, consider just getting the EOS 7D used. It holds up great in the modern day.
>>4521566>R8Thanks, I had considered this too. How do I decide between APS-C and full frame, though?I currently use APS-C (a 60D) and I like the photos I'm taking, I just wanted more reach for birds and better low-light performance.If I'm understanding it right, a 400mm focal length on the R8 isn't that different than the my current 200mm with a 1.6x crop factor. But I may be misunderstanding
new small boi for L-mount.
>>4521543>>4521570Are you renting to try stuff out before you buy it? I'm going to assume for your birding you'll only be needing the gear for a day or two, I'd just pay a bit more for a high res full frame body and a longer lens, maybe even a prime.
>>4521572Yeah I was planning to rent before I buy. I get occasional birds on my property I like to photograph and 200mm hasn't been quite long enough. And then when I was photographing 18mm (cropped) for travel / family / friends, I wish I had better low-light performance
Sorry for getting back to question about camera for mother but we came to some conclusion. I see two options from certain trusted second hand store I usually buy in - Sony (and yes, she insist for Sony) A6300 + 16-70 f/4 OSS lens set (30k shutter count) or A7 III (also around 30k). Both cost the same. Now, I would opt for A7 III as generally better gear but mother is somehow pretty much set at that A6300, despite admitting she would miss touch screen and in-body stabilisation. Her other argument is that it comes with lens already. A7 surely WILL be heavier, too, not to mention having to attach that lens. I offered to pay for some "universal" lens myself but she didn't want to accept that.I don't want her to buy bad stuff but she will be the user, not me. The best scenario would be having her come with me personally and actually hold these cameras in hand to find out if they fits but can't do that. I would hate to bring her stuff she would try and find unfitting.What would you say?
>>4521573If you're shooting at higher ISOs, say 800 and above, then you're not going to see that much improvement going to the R7, maybe a stop. Considering the 100-400mm starts off at f/5.6 it's going to be slower than that beyond 200mm and eat into that advantage. I'd say you'd be better off with the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 or a 300mm f/2.8 and a monopod, or Canon's EF 100-400mm if you want to go hand held or feel like you'll need the extra reach. The latter would get you back that stop compared to the RF 100-400mm.For the wide angle side of things there's not really a way to make up that stop disadvantage from the body, unless you weren't benefitting from the IS (so choosing a high enough shutter speed you could handhold it anyway) and were okay with a not so wide prime in which case there's the EF 24mm f/1.4. There might be some fast wider options from third parties but I didn't look.
>>4521574The a7iii is infinitely more likely to spontaneously fail than the a6300
>>4521574For the cost of a lens for the A7 you should be able to upgrade to an A6X00 that has IBIS. The touch screen is nearly useless on the older models, it's not like a phone where you can swipe about, pinch to zoom, and tap to change settings. Pretty much the only use for it is the change the focus point but you're better off disabling it so you don't change it accidentally and then just use the joystick.
>>4521580Why?>>4521582There is A6600 that however cost more than both these models AND would still require to pay for lens. Mom argument is that for the price she already will have a lens and given her habits, she is unlikely actually change it.
>>4521591The A6500 has IBIS and is about $150 more than the A6300, you'd be lucky to get the kit lens for the A7 for that much.
>>4521596I'm referring to what I see at my trusted store. It's Polish, by the way, not US. No second hand A6500, only that A6600 at slightly higher price than either of A3300 + lens and A7III.
>>4521523Fox news psychosis, everyone. Point and laugh.
>>4521574>>4521591Do not get it. The snoy zeiss 16-70 is literally worse than a kit lens.
>>4521598Do they not have Ebay in Poland?
>>4521601>its uh, fox newsWhat year is it?Viewfinder hump = alpha maleBrickmera = femboySimple as.
>>4521605>duhhhh i-i may be poor buts its only because im so smart and tough..!!!lmfaoing at your life lil bro
There are advantages to crop sensors compared to full frame.
>>4521608Even L mount agrees, viewfinder hump = alpha male
>>4521617You are right. Viewfinder hump gives me confidence like stuffing a sock in my underwear.
>>4521624*mogs you*
5600 on the ‘log
Planning on getting a Nikon Z8 at some point soon-ish. Likely going to get a bundle with the 24-120 mm f4 lens, but at some point I'll probably want a prime lens with a wider aperture. I think I'll prefer a 35mm focal length over the 50mm, but I also saw Nikon has a 40mm f2 lens, which is close to 35mm and has the f2 vs the f1.8. For anyone that has used both of these lenses, is the 35mm 1.8 worth the extra price tag? I've seen some reviews of the 40mm that say it has "soul", though the 35mm lens is apparently sharper. With how cheap the 40mm is though I might pick it up at the same time as the camera, but then I may be wondering if it'd be worth getting the 35mm later.
>>4521496>>5 years later Sony make the exact same thing for $100 moreLooks like a Tamron.
>>4521633In practice, the 40mm is really more like your typical budget nifty fifty, just a little wider. It's pretty compact, and weighs next to nothing. A weakness often pointed out is the plastic build and lack of weather sealing.The 35 1.8 S is just a solid modern 35mm.I would also consider the 35 1.4 too, cheaper and a bit more character.Example of the 40 wide open with 1/8 filter
>>4521636I'll have to look at some comparisons between all three. The 35 mm f1.4 I've seen criticized but the same for the 40 mm f2. I really don't want to get into the habit of buying tons of lenses, and especially in this case there's several in the same area that seem to have their pros and cons. And I imagine any of them will be much better than the cheap point and shoot digital cameras I've used in the past.
I want to get into wildlife videography. I want a mirrorless camera with good in body image stabilization, ability to record 10 bit 4k 60 fps video, decent ruggedness and at the cheapest price possible. Anything better than a used Panasonic GH5?
>Sony NEX-3NIs it gud enuff?
>>4521646Depends, what are you shooting? It has terrible build quality and really weird colours, but it is also tiny>>4521573Yeah, I think buying a 7D Mark I or Mark II would sincerely be better value than renting an R7, if it's just the high ISO performance you're looking for - if you just really still want a mirrorless though, look at the Canon EOS R8 or something like an OM System OM-5, those are my two cents. I do really like the R8 though. Of course, this all depends on whether you want to stomach the price of a new lens mount or getting a good adapter for EF->RF, so this is an extra point for just getting better Canon EF instead, the 7D Mark II is very good value for you
>>4521570I own an R8 and used to own an R50 (so a worse R7). I also used the RF 100-400 on both.For birding 400mm on full frame is bare minimum. Crop would make more sense for birding alone. Full frame cameras get real fucking big and expensive if you want to do birding properly. You could also get a 100-500 if you were willing to spend the money on it.Do not listen to the M43 shill, the R7 single-handedly made M43 obsolete except for EDC purse cameras.The R8 is actually quite good except for the crippled battery. I have to carry spares. Not a big deal but the R7 will last longer on a single battery. Your current 60D+200mm is about the same as an R8 using a 320mm lens, so using a 400mm will be closer but not by a huge margin. Using a 400mm lens is literally twice the focal zoom as your current lens though and will be a great improvement for birding.Low light is going to suffer a bit compared to full frame (+ other considerations), but I reckon the R7 makes more sense for your use case.
>>4521651 (me)Sorry. Using a 400mm lens on a crop camera like the R7 would be a big improvement. That being said you could also just buy a 400mm EF lens and use your current body.
>>4521604Nobody uses eBay. Local equivalent have offers for second hands at the price of new ones without actual guarantee of quality since people are perfectly willing to slap generic images from official sites. With said shop, I can actually come in and check myself. Plus, I trust these guys, they never sold me a crap.>>4521603That's very unfortunate. What other lens could be good candidate for "universal", so to speak, variable length one? I opt for these since I assume mom will want some kind of zoom and will be unwilling to change lenses so any prime is out of equation.Funny, she used to shoot with Zenit cameras in her youth so no idea why she act like that now.
>>4521653There are some sigma and tamron ones 16-300 18-300 50-300 that are relativelty cheap now and good iq. Not very good but good. But don t know what limitation they have on cannon niggers cameras
>>4521651>Do not listen to the M43 shill, the R7 single-handedly made M43 obsolete except for EDC purse cameras.Elaborate? Although I do concede the R7 has a much nicer resolution, you're getting worse high ISO DR than the OM-1, practically no weather sealing, a worse EVF, 1/3 the FPS, and significantly worse IBISThis is not including the fact that the small-size telephoto lenses on RF are significantly worse than the ones on the M4/3 mount, you need to go for the big L-series boys to get the image quality that annihilates M4/3.I know M4/3 is a controversial platform, but don't let gearfaggotry get in the way of the fact that sometimes companies make questionable cameras that may offer less value than their competition.Again, in my opinion, the R7 is to be skipped because the Canon R8 is the same price and basically a better camera for basically the same price.
>>4521682Not to mention that OM's feature set is way more advanced than Canon's boomerware.Canon can't even do real-time clipping indication (except in video mode with zebras)
do u think i will be able to sell my camera for a good price
>>4521682First, your picrel is not a good comparison. The OM lens is like 2.5x the cost of the RF 100-400, and that RF lens is not known for its high sharpness. You'd be better off comparing the OM lens against an EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM II. I only used the RF 100-400 in my example because I own it and the total resolution on crop was not great. It's a cheap way to get 400mm focal length. M43 had two uses back when they were popular round 2010-2015.1) Be better than a digishit while still being more compact than the blobmera DSLRs of the time (a 5DIV is like 4x the size of an EP-5), and give good AF because of the mirrorless design.2) Offer decent "zoom" with reasonably small lensesWhen Canon came out with the EF-M line in 2012 they stole a bunch of that market with a bigger sensor, mirrorless design, a large lens selection etc. etc. The only bastion of defence that M43 retained was weather sealing because Canon's cuck salarymen only let you have that if you buy their "pro-feshon-al" bodies.When RF mount was released it further hammered home that you can have good IQ and a reasonably small camera. Canon isn't even the best with this as Snoy and Nikon have even smaller mirrorless bodies>the small-size telephoto lenses on RF are significantly worse than the ones on the M4/3 mountKeep the price of gear comparable and see how it goes. If you're actually willing to spend way more in order to keep the gear size down I think you might actually be better off (barely) with an OM-1. But in the end, better photo IQ is directly correlated with lens iris opening size>the R7 is to be skipped because the Canon R8 is the same price and basically a better camera for basically the same priceWhich is what I did. The R7 still has better controls, ergos, battery, weather sealing, and IBISThe R8 is just big sensor in small body. There's some sacrifices there which I was fine with. Pretty sure you could score an R6II for not much more and literally have the best of both
>>4521684Why the fuck are you going into every thread and talking about this completely unneccessary feature that nobody gives a damn about?It really isn't hard to work that out with other means you shill.
>>4521682Stop being a wimpy fag and get a z8. Nikon is better weather sealed than olympus. >>4521684No one uses this. Its for people who dont know how to use cameras, much like mft in general.
>>4521688"Gear hobbies" like photography, watch collecting, electric guitar, PC tweaking, cars and motorcycles, etc attract unironic autistic people who only live to obsess over and regurgitate factoids in a way that only someone who doesnt actually do the hobby canEventually they discover magic the gathering and get stuck there.
Digislugs cope hard about their canikony’s autofocus, megapixels, sharpness, zoom lens, and auto modes, but notice they aren’t posting about art because all the good art is shot on film, especially sheet film. Digital is mostly for commercial photography, magazine snaps, and low tier diversityslop art. And of course, unimportant snapshots that might as well be AI - typically found on youtube and instagram.Kodak isn’t expanding their consumer film offerings for no reason. Pixel peeping sharpness and noise is getting old. 240fps shooting is passe. If film is so much worse why is it bigger than ever now when anyone can afford a nice FF digital and the world's supply of functioning film cameras is running low? Why are some of the few film cameras still in production leicas, medium format tech cameras, and 4x5 view cameras? Why are all the best selling digital cameras casual PnS?Because film is synonymous with art, and digital is synonymous with snapshots.Soth, Eich, Crewdson, even the up and coming like Harry Wright and Paloma Dooley. All film.Ken Griffith, Jon Nicholson, Nick Carver, Egg Still-life Anon, Emily Rinard, Alex Burke, Jules Frazier, Bryan Schutmaat, and literally every 20th century photographer - all film.Who shoots digital again? Ken Rockwell? His serious (also bad) work is on film. Even low tier youtubers like Jared Polin do their serious work on film. So really, who is using digital for serious artwork? If you can name one, they probably do better work on film.If you aren’t shooting 6x6cm at least, and making real prints, you will never be taken seriously as an artist. You’re competing with and will be mistaken for AI. Sorry!Have fun competing with @grok for likes and follows whenever you aren’t being the G.W.A.C. at some suckers weddingFilmGODS will continue defining art photography in your absence
>>4521684>Canon can't even do real-time clipping indicationlmao even pentax has this
>>4521692Notice the brands with this are the shittiest. Its a beginner feature for clueless idiots. Sony, olympus, pentax, panasonic - junk, shit, garbage, and ewaste. You need all the aids you can get if you buy one of those LOL.
>>4521690This. The entire world moved on from a lot of the shit /p/ says is the best like sony, mfturds, and clipping indicators. This board is mostly literally autistic failures reading spec sheets and claiming that according to their logic and reason, a camera they have never even held is the best because of some shit their ill informed ~logic~ dictates is important. Most of them don’t own cameras.
>>4521688>>4521694>brand X doesn't have a feature>hurr that's only for newb faggots anyway hurrBoy, I hope you don't use crutches like AF and AE. Unless you're shooting a fully manual film camera with a handheld meter you have no place to talk.
>>4521699Nice heccin logic and reason autist. How’s this for logic? Canon and Nikon are used by top professionals. Therefore anything less is for retarded 92 IQ normies. Prove you own a camera
I just called NASA and they confirmed that not only is the Z8 better weather sealed than the om1II, but a 2x cropped z8 is higher resolution because 1 full frame pixel has the same mathematical value as 4 olympus pixels. That’s why Nikon is in space and lolympus is on instagram. Clipping indicators status?
>>4521485no it is not german tank chose trioplan and software correction for geometric distortion anon are you a buy dxo
>>4521687>The OM lens is like 2.5x the cost of the RF 100-400, and that RF lens is not known for its high sharpness.I concede, but, here I am comparing size vs. size, that's the whole point of APS-C anyways, full-frame is just so much more accessible and cheaper these days that there's no other point.>Which is what I did. The R7 still has better controls, ergos, battery, weather sealing, and IBISI think the R8's significantly better dynamic range (since the R7 is weak in that department) should let you tank the shutter speed by raising ISO, ergos and controls are not too different imho (I held both) but I do give you the battery, R8 could definitely have used a bigger battery
>>4521702no anon f lenses are out there ftz and ftz2 only differ that one has tread mount
>>4521705>spend $6000 on a slower lens and worse sensor so your big camera can be marginally smaller than another big cameraRetarded or disabled? Micro fool turds is the mark of the dunceF10-12.6 lens lmfaoFull frame btfos both of you
>>4521699>Unless you're shooting a fully manual film camera with a handheld meter you have no place to talk.If you think that's something worth bragging about, you also have no place to talk lol
>>4521688>completely unneccessary feature>>4521689>No one uses this.>>4521697You need all the aids you can get if you buy one of thoseClueless boomers who buy Canon think this way because they use mirrorless exactly the same way as they used DSLRauto exposureauto white balanceauto levels in Lightroombasically as a big heavy point-and-shootMirrorless with exposure simulation obsoleted auto exposure. The light meter can and should be ignored. The only exposure aid needed is a clipping warning because in the viewfinder it's not really possible to tell the difference between very bright and clipped highlights.Canon has overexposure indication blinkies in review, but checking review is way slower than just seeing it in real time as good brands can do.
>>4521712anon there were stories from africa claiming nigger complain photo capture hurt and take your soul maybe f/2.8 is two stops less than 1.4
>>4521716Thats a lot of aspergers ranting to say you don’t own a camera>>4521690> "Gear hobbies" like photography, watch collecting, electric guitar, PC tweaking, cars and motorcycles, etc attract unironic autistic people who only live to obsess over and regurgitate factoids in a way that only someone who doesnt actually do the hobby canTrvke.
>>4521716>because in the viewfinder it's not really possible to tell the difference between very bright and clipped highlightsOf course it is, it just takes a basic amount of experience with a given camera.I can look at clouds or a white dress through my cameras and tell by how they look if they'll be clipped or not, regardless of the camera showing a "accurate" display or not, and regardless of highlight warning or zebras.Doesn't apply if you're constantly tweaking JPG settings I guess, but all it takes is getting used to how a given camera portrays highlights.
>>4521715anon in feature film cast might include hand held light meter
>>4521721What does this mean
>>4521720Dont give a serious reply to the aspie. Its just arguing for the sake of arguing. Its being doing this for months straight like a bot. I think it flaps its hands and giggles every time it posts desu>UH HUAH HUH HAUH BLINKIES CANOM BTFO HUAAAA *flap flap flap*
>>4521724This. It has literally been trying to have this exact same argument ALMOST EVERY DAY since FEBRUARYSay whatever you want to it. It will repeat its live view blinkies rants verbatim the next like nothing happened. It doesnt even address points or change its mind within the span of a day. It is stuck on repeat. It is either non-human or sub-human
>>4521705>I concede, but, here I am comparing size vs. size, that's the whole point of APS-C anywaysFair counterpoint. If size and weight are your only concerns then put $3200 down on the OM 150-600mm lens and strap it to your body of choice. You'll have insane zoom, but at that point I'm concerned about performance outside of ISO 100-800.>I think the R8's significantly better dynamic range (since the R7 is weak in that department) should let you tank the shutter speed by raising ISOI can recover shadows from like 3 full stops of underexposure and not have any noise complaints. I can shoot ISO 12800 at night time car events and it's still clean enough. Pretty sure with my R50 even ISO 3200 was getting a bit rough. I'd like if the R8 had a joystick, or if the touch screen could be disabled + ONLY enable the screen AF scroll, but other than that it's been a good purchase. It's only because you want to go birding that Full Frame becomes less of a slam-dunk.>>4521716Please show me one (1) photo where clipping warnings were paramount to you landing the photo.
Lots of good info here, thanks. What's a comparable lens to the Sigma 18-50mm if I went full frame with the R8? I see there's the 28-70mm f/2.8, but it's a ton more money and that retractable design is odd.I still think the R7 may be a better choice because I do a decent chunk of birds and want the 100-400mm, still thinking about it though. Not sure if images like this are a fair comparison.things like battery, ibis, build quality, controls I can always live with. I'm mainly concerned with lens selection and cost to meet my needs
>>4521720You are right, blinkies are a useless feature that only gear autists need. Canon and Nikon should delete it from review as well since nobody uses it.
>>4521733>What's a comparable lens to the Sigma 18-50mm if I went full frame with the R8Prolly the RF 24-105mm f/4L. When you go from crop to ff your effective aperture gains about a stop and a third. Don't worry too much about the f/number printed on the lens. You could get one cheaper than the 28-70mm f/2.8 but it'll still be a few hundred more than the Sigma. Full frame is just more expensive, unfortunately.I was quite unhappy with the 24-105 f/4-7.1 STM so would steer clear entirely. The 28-70mm f/2.8 also has some strong peripheral shading.>I do a decent chunk of birds and want the 100-400mm, still thinking about it thoughThe RF 100-500 f/5-7.1 would cost a pretty penny but you could consider it as a big optical upgrade over the RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8. Same goes for the RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 which apparently is a big hit with the birder crowd despite being pretty big. Big reach with full frame gets you big lenses.
>>4521735>5th time the autist has posted this>120th time it has repeated its blinkies rant verbatimhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/XpsE3uA7KHqX8mXYO7v57Q/Post your camera or shut the fuck up, you mentally disabled creature.
>>4521735That's the JPEG preview. The RAW is not clipped lol, your preview is.Waow. What useful info to know if you processed that RAW exactly as shot with no editing of your own input that you'd clip that tiny bit of a white bird. Also how dare that white bird be pure white on its brightest parts, that's not allowed how will we ever be able to appreciate the photo that way.
>>4521739Stop trying to attack the autist with reasonIt has been repeating this whole rant verbatim almost every fucking day since februaryIt is a mentally disabled, developmentally delayed subhuman living off welfare and does not have the full intellectual and emotional intelligence expected of a below average human being. Although it appears to use words, it does not understand them. It’s closer to a dog barking non-stop.
>>4521523>>4521605fake news.I strap my DSLR and wear a thigh bag on top of my skinny jeans/shortsOVF>screen old slrs have a way better aesthetic with the polygonal look though.more a millennial tho. rangefinders are cool too but those don't exist in digital?
>>4521741thereforefemboys ARE alpha males
>>4521653Do you have MPB? You don't see the flaws of the gear immediately, but my experience with lenses is they let you exchange if you are not satisfied with the condition.
>>4521741Average m43 shooter. That bag holds OM-1 and a birding lens.
>>4521699> His camera does not have "sunny", "overcast", and "cloudy" shutter speed settings.And you call yourself a gearfag.
>>4521739Exactly! Canon and Nikon should remove the ability to record JPEGs as well because only JPEG shooters need proper exposure. We RAW shooters just fix it in Lightroom.
>>4521739Daily reminder that it's okay to be white.
>>4521749You an an odd and off-putting individual.
>LIVE VEEEW BLINKERS *flap flap* CANNON NO HAVE LIVE VOO BLANKIES *flap flap* DSLR BOOMER EXPOSURE PREVIEW LOOK OLYMPUSS *flap flap* PANASONIC LI VIEW BLINKY *flap flap* NIKON LIIIVIEW BLINKIEEEEE *flap* MIRRORWESS BOOMER DSLAH *flap flap flap flap* FIX IN LIGHTROOM DSLAH BLINKIE *extreme flapping*When will it stop, bros?
>>4521741anyone wearing that walk around smelling of bussy juice
>>4521749Nobody wants you around, you are actively making this board worse. Get some fucking help.
>>4521751Take your racist ass back to /pol/.Canon is fully commited to diversity.
>>4521741>most masculine snoy shooter
>>4521691>but notice they aren’t posting about art because all the good art is shot on film, especially sheet filmAm I the only one who doesn't want to create art? Pretty pictures sure but I just want to document things, as life-like and in as high quality as feasible. The type of photos you see on wikimedia commons are my inspiration.
>>4521757> Canon has special modes to shoot niggers
>>4521745I don't have that one it's not my pic. mine is 30x25I could fit my DSLR if I disconnect the lens, easier to just crossbody strap the cam though. when you don't also have a camera bag nothing interferes. and I can fit multiple lenses in the thigh bag.and if I need more space then backpack+one of those metal clips to hang the cam.>>4521758nikon and there's nothing unmasculine about those things.>>4521755my shower gel is peach flavored if that helps.
>>4521737>Prolly the RF 24-105mm f/4L. When you go from crop to ff your effective aperture gains about a stop and a third.Does that mean the R8 + f/4L is kind of equivalent to the R7 + f/2.8, but a lot more expensive? I get there's ISO improvements, dynamic range, and all the other good things about FF besides "stops of light"But I feel like instead of spending more on FF, I may be better off saving the difference and eventually applying it towards an 100-500mm L upgrade which would rape birds
>>4521735Nigger listen here. that webm is not a good exampleWhat is clipped? 2 fuking fethears? Who cares? Pixel peepers? Some other autist is gonna call you out after spending 1 hrs looking at your photo at 800% zoom?Yea you are able to to see the clipped 2 feathers after you take the photo. tell that bird to fly again so you can underexpose and get everything 100 % non clipped.Also fuck your weak trolling. Unles you are blindd anybody can see on the histogram that something is touching the extreme left in real time while shooting the pic. Yes. Not exactly what part of the photo bit if you are such an autist it doesn't matter because you will kys anyway out od ahame. just underexpose more and fuck off
are k&f and b+w filters on AliExpress legit? I can see how k&f can go from 10€ to 5$ but b+w are like 7 and don't they normally cost 50?
>>4521761The art photographers are a small but vocal minority. I do documentary type photography as well.
>>4521761I guess I'm somewhere in the middleI just want to take cool pictures of cool things
>>4521803His point is being able to see the clipping before you take the photo, and what part of the image it is so you can decide whether it matters or not. A blown highlight in the background? Who gives a shit. However blown feathers on a bird is a pretty big deal when that's the main subject. You might not give a shit but birders do.
>>4521847you're gonna change your settings while trying to maintain focus on a flying bird?..just set your settings right according to the weather. or leave things in auto if you can't.
>>4521794The one stop advantage basically means that 800 on crop is going to look about the same as 1600 on full frame, in terms of stuff like noise, dynamic range, tonal range, colour sensitivity. It won't always be the same amount of difference in all of those areas but it's a good rough generalisation. So yeah, as long as you're above the base ISO and you can get a lens that's a stop faster then you can make up the difference. However getting that faster lens does negate some of the size and cost advantage of having a smaller sensor. And if you can afford full frame and the fastest lens then there's no beating that.
>>4521854You're focussing on one specific scenario and trying to strawman
>>4521691>copypastaWould be nice if you could stop spamming threads with this, the newbies don't know any better to see how silly and incorrect the post is
>>4521794In practice yes. FF is better, but lens matters just as much depending on what you care about.
>>4521691>Muh Leica film cameras>Oops all rangefindersProof that Leica has no idea what they're doing, do not buy Leica.
>>4521859I'm not the same guy.but like, why not set the settings properly according to the light?you learn what you need with experience, and you don't need to be perfect cause digital has a bunch of free stops in post anyway.
Should I buy a brand new silver Leica M-A for $1000 off the $7000 retail? I was eventually going to get a new black one anyway but found one for this steep discount.I've been kind of GASing for a week. Convinced my parents to get me a GR IV for my birthday, and have been doing my yearly "I NEED TO BUY A O-MD E-M5.2!" which never actually happens because fuck old equipment shilled by YouTubers.
>>4521884>I NEED TO BUY A O-MD E-M5.2No one needs an m43, but the EM5.2 is probably the pick of the bunch. Its the last of the 5 series cameras that isnt plastic fantastic, and doesnt suffer from the plastic bottom plate issues that cause the tripod sockets to get ripped out on the later ones. Sensor is straight ass compared to full frame tho. Still better than any phone.
>>4521886>No one needs an m43, but the EM5.2 is probably the pick of the bunch.Yeah. I have the tiny lil GM1 and the 15mm Pana-Leica lens, but they don't really go together well. Hence yearly wanting to get an EM5.2. But every time I take the dive into finding one, I just go "oh hey I can spend my money better than getting another old used piece of shit that costs $200 more than it should just because I like this lens."
>>4521803This. Also, taking pictures of birds is stupid. You have a telephoto setup and you're taking pics of flying feathered beasts? You're not at the park or beach taking artistic pictures of kids? What's the matter with you?
>>4521880>but like, why not set the settings properly according to the light?Because light changes and different materials reflect light differently. Let's say you are doing some birding because they do have a lot of variation. Even assuming the lighting doesn't change, because clouds are a thing, you're not going to use the same exposure value for a crow as you would a swan.>you learn what you need with experience, and you don't need to be perfect cause digital has a bunch of free stops in post anyway.People always resort to this whole "git gud" thing as if they're some sort of human light meter. I don't care how good you think you are, you're not, you rely on the meter built into your camera just like everyone else. If you've never blown a highlight you're bullshitting. And to address your last point, a blown highlight is unrecoverable. It's literally an absence of data.
>>4521890Found the nonce
>>4521884>steep discount.Sorry honey, but that isn't a steep discount for a niche camera that very few buys.
>>4521895>"Steep discount! BIG savings!">Look inside>Less than 15% off>Still $6000Every time. What are the odds he's not actually genuine and is just soft-shilling?>Convinced my parents to get me a GR IV for my birthdayBro is (allegedly) old enough and rich enough to drop thousands of dollars on a camera and still mooching off his parents lmao, what a sad and pathetic little man
>>4521896I'm 38 and my family still gets me gifts for my birthday and Christmas :)
>>4521896>Every time. What are the odds he's not actually genuine and is just soft-shilling?At this point I assume almost everyone to have some ulterior motive on the internet. All I know is that new cameras these days once they are taken out of the package is instantly 20% off on the private market, sometimes even more unless there is some sold out everywhere giga-normie hype around the camera.
>>4521691Would be nice if you could keep blessing threads with this, the newbies don't know any better to see how based and correct the post is
>>4521896My fellow 4channers, refurbished canikons are for sale now! direct from the manufacturer! You definitely want an R8! You definitely want a Z30! In fact, I’m buying one right now!
>>4521691>>4521761"""Art""" photographers rely on film's grain and colour grading to make boring photos feel more interesting. A good photo looks like real life, is taken well and has an interesting subject. Film photogs post about this shit then go and take the most boring pictures of bushes and sticks only to lean on le whacky colours as crutch. Typical cope from people who can't afford digital cameras, so they have to settle for photography as a subscription service. If film came out today it would be more universally mocked than the Xhalf or a juicero. Pretty simple.
>>4521907Art photographers are the ones in galleries. Where are you?The only pros who typically use digital and stand side by side with art photographers are famous studio photographers who use slow, feature-poor medium format systems that /p/ would call unusable or dated if they were full frame. Many of the best studio cameras are still DSLRs.
>>4521909>the best photographers use digital camerasGlad we agree
>>4521910The best studio photohraphers only produce pop art. They’re inherently a lower tier of culture. I meant they’re peers in peak income.Fine art will always be inherently superior to pop art and the majority is film. Cope. Seethe if you must. Philosophize about journalistic integrity down to the color all you want but a jpeg file is inherently worth less than a real photograph.
>>4521920nta but honestly there is no photography "fine art." Every time I see supposedly artistic photos, they always have this depressed loner film noir vibe totally incomparable with true artistic sophistication.
>>4521924>i don’t like photographydigislug self report
>>4521928Post what you consider photographic fine art. It'll be dogshit and incomparable to a painting or sculpture. On a lower spiritual tier of creation.
>digislug doubles down on not liking photographyOf all the words of tongue and pen…Digislugs have btfo themselves once again
>>4521907>film as crutch>photography as a subscription serviceWhy can't film cucks address these issues? Is it over for filmcucks? All they can do is bitch and moan and accuse you of hating photography when you BTFO them. Just throwing wild accusations around like a polictician in scandal. How pathetic.
>>4521943>nooo film cant be good it costs money and the photos look too good cuckscuckscucks reeeeeeLol you’re fumingSorry about your buyers remorse digislug
digislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslop
>>4521907Lmao, I thought this too. If 5D2 colours were replicable by a film stock (they're not) it would be the best selling film of all time and put all other stocks out of sale.
>>4521954>the digislug had a strokeKek
>>4521957Delusional
>anon posts a copypasta>it is immediately called out for being pasta>a random retard STILL seethes so hard at films existence he has a stroke
>>4521958nah i was just memeing the way you write lool, i'm just a random person not part of the previous conversation ssssssSSSSSNNOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
>>4521961>digislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslopdigislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslop>>4521961>digislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslopdigislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslop>>4521961>digislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslopdigislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslop>>4521961>digislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslopdigislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslop>>4521961>digislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslopdigislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslop>>4521961>digislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslopdigislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslop
>>4521962Butthurt
hahahahaha sssssssssssnnnnnnnNNNNNNNNNNOYYYYYYYYYYYYDIGISLUGHOMOKEKAUTISMO BAITHYPERSLOPssssssssssSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNOYYYYYYYYYYYY
>>4521963Cortisol status?
>>4521691>singlehandedly drives some loser gearfag insane
ahahahahaha i jsut think it is funny!!DIGISLUGHOMOKEKAUTISMO BAITHYPERSLOPssssssssssSSSSSSSSNNNNNNNNOYYYYYYYYYYYYTOP KEKAROO!!!hahahahahait is so funnylook>digislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslopdigislug homocuck nikonerd eating canonoob from the snoy to the phonefag blown the fuck out by hurr durr autismo bait hyperslop
me?i only shoot feelmI am a feelm onlymy photography? feelm
>>4521967Films superiority is an incomprehensible lovecraftian horror to digishitters. It literally drives them mad. Just look at how hot and bothered they get over that anon who shot his dogs balls on 4x5
you shouold shoot someone taking a dump using 6x6 feelm photography and it would be amazing because it is feelm feelm shooters can literally just eat shit and photograph that on feelm and they will be photographyGODS
Today will be the day that the phrase>photography as a subscription servicesent filmcucks everywhere into permanent psychosis. Lol.
>>4521967Kek they’re seething uncontrollably
why is it called film photography when it's people shooting stills?
oh my days i just had a little feelm photography moment My feelm puberty has begun and I can feel my budding and flowering feelm prowess emerging as I fondle the various feelm canistersoh my days someone please bring me my smelling salts i think i have a bout of the vapours
>>4521975As a film shooter, this made me switch to digital. Relying on a lab for shitty scans and costantly having to find good prices on film, only to get a medium thats equivalent in resolution to 12mp... it's over for film cucks like us... im joining the digibros!
>>4521979I have a Nikon CoolScan. The good one. Still get shitty lab scans because lmao my time is worth the money.
>>4521981not the anon you respondedtoo, butthe cool scan is cool, post some of your shots ?
>>4521983I posted some a while ago but apparently they're too big to post here now? 5mb for a photo board what is this shit?Anyway. Shrinking the 5959x3946 to shitty little 4x6 300dpi seems to the only way to get it under 5mb so here are a few. I'm not a great photographer I just take pics.
>>4521984>I'm not a great photographer I just take pics.i prefer photos from ppl who are like you desu i like the photo looks like ti could fit nicely into a travel journal or a personal blogalso that is a tiki bar right? they're pretty cool
>>4521985Yeah it’s a tiki bar. My IP got range banned for abuse after posting my pic tho, which is the only content I’ve posted here in months, so this is all I’m going to go through the effort of posting.
>>4521986>ip got range banned for posting a pic of a tiki barhow the fuck and why? that has to be some auto mod bullshit. That is another nice shot that would work well in a personal blog or article about travelling somewhere or some such
>>4521985Yeah they’re just straight coolscan scans, which were better than the scans I got at the local lab (“best” in the country that people send from all over to use). Better colors and some of the lab scans were literally blurry. I’d show a comparison between my coolscan of a dragonfly in a creek vs the lab scan. Coolscan is almost macro detail, the lab scan is blurry as fuck. But yeah not going through the effort of editing the file size down then sending to my phone just to show you guys because some schizo janny IP banned me for being a filmcuck.
>>4521988that coolscan does sound good and you're cool bro, thanks for sharing
>>4521743Unfortunately no. I wouldn't buy that stuff online anyway since with actual store I can come in and check myself. I already had situation where I wanted to buy a lens but turned out it refused to "talk" with my camera, as in - AF was not working. With online it would be a mess, especially with individual instead of a shop.
Help me pick a compact my dudes. Currently I'm looking at a Sony RX100VII or a Canon G7X III, but I'm also considering a used Sony A6400 and putting a pancake on it (cheapest option by far). How is the G7X? I've heard it's extremely popular on TikTok and the current model might be geared more towards vlogging rather than stills, so I'm apprehensive, but it is a lot cheaper brand new than the Sony RX100.The main goal here is to have something I can either stuff in my pocket or at the very least stuff in the small side pocket of a backpack.
What is considered an entry level price range for a camera + super telephoto lens for shooting 4k wildlife video? Used.
>>4521995In general ILC cameras are much more serviceable and long-lasting than compacts. If something happens with the lens, you can change it, and if you need to clean the sensor you can. They also pretty much always have better image quality due to larger sensors, but there are some compacts like the Ricoh GR that have big sensors. The prior point still remains true of these. There are a great many small ILC cameras that would work well for your usecase. The first few that come to mind are:>Sony A7C>Sony A6000 series (such as a6300)>Olympus EM5/OM5>Canon M6 Mark II or EOS M>Nikon Z30There are many more but these are probably where I'd start looking.
Is this board just /v/ but for slightly older manchildren? This thread really reminds me of a typical console war thread
>>4521999I'm also trying to keep a pretty tight budget, with the Sony RX100VII being pretty much the max I'm looking at spending. I can get a used A6400 for about $650USD and a brand new one for about $900USD, with both those prices being about what I'm looking for. I already have a DSLR and full frame, so this smaller camera is pretty much my travel/loan to family camera.
>>4521682You do realize the problem in your picture is the lens, right?The RF 100-400 is a cheap entry level super-telephoto, it lacks most coatings of the olympus lens and has less low-dispersion elements.The same thing happens when you use the RF 200-800. The lack of high end coatings makes highlights blow much more easily. Used side by side with the RF 100-500 in that scene, you'd conclude that your R5II has lost a full stop of dynamic range because of that. But it hasn't, it's just coatings. Same for contrast and colors.The different background is the proof of that.Also at 400mm on the MFT you're at 800 equivalent on a very solid lens, on the R7 you're at 640 at the weakest end of a cheap telephoto. Comparing apples and oranges here.>practically no weather sealing, a worse EVF, 1/3 the FPS, and significantly worse IBISNo shit, the OM-1 is Olympus' high end offering, the R7 is not. The former was released at $2200, the latter at $1500If you want high end APS-C go with fuji, it's their specialty.Ironically you're not addressing the fact that the R7 has a much better AF for bird tracking. "worse EVF, less FPS" doesn't really matter if you can't even focus on your target. 120 FPS bursts are very rarely used on any camera if ever. No one's willing to ruin their buffer to fill their card with 50 times the same picture. >Canon R8 is the same price and basically a better camera for basically the same price.For wildlife? Says who? I've seen a lot of pros use the R7 on the field, but I can't say the same for the R8. You're complaining about the weather sealing, EVF and the worse IBIS, yet you're recommending a camera with NO IBIS, the same EVF, worse sealing, lower resolution and pixel density. Make up your mind.
>>4521995Why not a used RX100 V? That's the model that's more comparable to the G7X when it comes to the lens.
>>4522006Nearly impossible to find a used one, I've been searching all over in person/in-stores and I don't really trust buying shit on ebay since I've had some bad times with it. The A6400 is pretty much everywhere so that is my fallback if the G7X isn't very good or I can't find another good equivalent.
>>4521705>I think the R8's significantly better dynamic rangeAny full frame has better DR because of the larger surface area. Which one do you think matters more for wildlife?A sensor with one stop more but 24MPOr a sensor with one stop less but an 83.2 MP equivalent pixel density?That's the entire point of APS-C for wildlife. No one's expecting equivalent DR because it's physically impossible. If you want even more DR why not going medium format for birds on branches?
>>4522004>If you want high end APS-C go with fuji, it's their specialty.>pic relNo trolling outside of /b/ please.
>>4522011The X-H2S is a decent camera
>>4522003>I'm also trying to keep a pretty tight budgeYeah so just get something a bit older and used. If you already have a pro camera you could get anything really. Just get something you like thats fun to shoot with, Fuji or Olympus maybe?
>>4522015>X-H2S>$3700 DollarydoosHoly fucking shit you could get an R6III for less than that. Or an R6 II and have $1000-1500 left for a lens as well.
>>4521906Isn't it odd that a manufacturer directly makes refurbished cameras instead of making new first.
>>4522015At missing focus and still having morehttps://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-the-promise-and-the-problem-31407fa43452https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-vs-bayer-fantastic-claims-and-how-to-test-them-475b4f1b7fae
>>4522019I didn't say it was a good deal, doughbeit
>>4522023blue shirt photo was not taken with x-trans.
>>4522028>NOOO ITS NOT TRUE FUJIS MARKETING MATERIAL WOULD NEVER LIEThey used an x100s for that photo. Here’s another!Xtrans is a literal scam. They crank chroma denoise and a moire reduction algorithm for sooc jpegs and hope all the aliasing gets smeared away. The only difference is the shape of 70% of xtrans moire is closer to severe chroma noise, but its still missing information so all xtrans is… is smeared color sooc jpegs, and lower res raws than a bayer sensor. Xtrans also turns dots and grids into diagonal lines sometimes.
Ohnononohttps://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4261297/#4263286>fujifags: uh, if you zoom out and only view on a phone its nothing! thats right i paid $2500 for an xh2+lens to view postage stamps. Dajooz are why i cant afford rent btw.
>colour moire>live zebras>india>photography as a subscription service>OLPF voidposting>"should I buy a rebel T7i for $1700 dollars from walmart??"The absolute state of this thread
>>4522028It's just engagement bait, anyone that still links those medium articles is legitimately retarded
>>4522035>no no its not true its bait fuji would never lie to meTheir autofocus is so bad our resident fujifail shill fervently defends other cameras with bad autofocus like the nikon z5 just because he feels that anyone saying good af-c should be standard is automatically discrediting fujifail>NOOO YOU CANT EXPECT GOOD AUTOFOCUS PROVE YOU NEED MORE PROVE I THINK YOUR PHOTOS ARE GOOD ENOUGH TO NEED MORE YOU DONT NEED AUTOFOCUS TO TAKE GOOD PHOTOS REEEEE -resident fuji shill that snapshits his dog and lies about being a professional
>>4522035>when you can't refute the argument, attack the source
>>4521514Following up, for metering it's limited to>100-800 ISO>f1 to f64>1" to 1/8000Been surprisingly pleased with the images as a digishitterVideo is all jello, and rough audio, but makes neat lofi bts type footage
>>4522038>>4522037It's been refuted many times before lol
>>4522040>trust me bro
>>4522032>>4522033can you post a link to an actually verifiable photo on dpreview showing Fuji moire?
Confession:I hate nikon cameras but i copied a nikon shills posts to rustle all 3 olympus users jimmiesRemember this when you think a specific person is complainingIt helps if the posts you copy are true facts instead of cope. Its easy to punch down on olympus since their cameras arent any good.
>>4522042As the resident Fuji shooter that the anon is obsessed with, I will absolutely vouch that XTrans can exhibit moireIt's fairly rare, and I've never really had an issue with on clothing, but it can happen, never been a practical issue worth any consideration though
>>4522040>i said the articles were old and then fondled my dog>>4522042>you have to use dpreview!Fujifags seething. Xtrans doesnt get rid of moire. It changes moires shape so its easier for smeary post processing to hide it. Fuji is just scamming you with 40mp cameras that produce jpegs thats are practically 16mp
>>4522037Autofocus copers are all boomers who got used to one spot focus and recompose on DSLRs and cant imagine expecting better. Brands with bad autofocus like fuji and panasonic are basically just ripping off elderly uncs who dont know any better.
>>4522045>i said the articles were oldYou know what's the funniest part about this? Aside from the actual relevant criticisms made, that you are ommiting, the articles being old is actually a super relevant point, that you also choose to ignore
>>4522046>Brands with bad autofocus like fuji and panasonicAre also living rent free in your head lol
>>4522048mention pentax and he blows a gasket.
>>4522047>xtrans stopped being 6x6 with giant green blocksRight! It actually got worse. Now it has more dead pixels. It is therefore slightly lower resolution at full megapixel size than it was before. You overpaid for a worse camera. Oh no! That means the camera cant be worse or your feelings would be hurt! Just let people dislike fuji. We do not need corgimolester and huskyrapist to bark and beg for everyone else to make their mistakes and buy shit ass third rate fuji nikons. Ya’ll spent a ton of money on 2025 cameras that go like 2015 cameras and now you get to sit in the cuck chair and watch /p/ laugh about how the gay fashion/heritage brand you blew your savings on is worse than an old sony or a baby sensor lumix G9II.
>>4522049Pentax is actually based because they dont pretend to be something they arent. Fuji lies about xtrans being immune to moire and higher resolution. When did pentax ever lie? Never. Pentax just refuses to innovate and tells you exactly that. Pentax rejects modernity. Fujifilm is the camera version of a self improooover like andrew tate. All talk, no cock (besides his girlfriends)
>>4522050Man, if you were just a little bit more honest, you'd get a better engagement out of meYou've become a parody of yourself at this point lol
>>4522046correct in ways you cant fathomcamera companies factor in the cognitive decline and out of date knowledge of old ass 30+ boomers when they make marketing and design decisionsleica is basically just this. all their customers are 55+ and barely use their cameras so leica pumps profits by neglecting innovation, cutting quality, outsourcing to china, and laying on the marketing and boosting brand ambassadors. if people werent allowed to buy cameras after age 28 the overall quality of cameras would go way up
>>4522052This furfag thinks he talkin to the same guy every timeWatch disBut Nikon doesn’t have clipping indicators in live view so theres no reason to use their mirrorless over DSLR besides to use exposure preview. A nikon can take an accurate photo instead of coping in post but cant tell you if you clipped a highlight before taking the photo. Nikons audience is obviously DSLR boomers who shoot raw. This isnt acceptable in 2026. Making up photos in post is no different from using AI.
>Muh clipping>Muh fooji>Muh OVF>Muh XTRANNY>Muh crop sensor>Muh reech>Muh Snoygron>Muh MFTurds>Muh film 265MP>Muh Niggon autofocus>Muh Cannot POS RIt's all so tiresome.
>>4522056Gearfags are being punished by the shitpost gods for their bad dog photos, kosher ways, and insistence on talking innocent anons into overpaying for shitty old nikons
I missed the Canon refurb sale, when do they do another? is it usually once a month?
>>4522051>Pentax just refuses to innovate and tells you exactly that. Pentax rejects modernity.What a bullshit! Pentax stays with OVF, but their features blows away Canon, Nikon, Sony.So many features Pentax exclusive.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKbnO8rlg44
>>4522059Pentax has had this feature since 2016. Snoys mount is too small to copy it, nikon is too retarded, canon is too greedy, fuji is too busy scamming children and boomers, panasonic is too busy trying to figure out camera-toaster integration, and olympus was sold for $5 so they haven’t had to change in ten years.
>>4522023>>4521691>>4521684Drove money wasting gearfags insane award
To add to the discussion, moire can appear and disappear based on which exactly digital transformations are applied. You can have a clean image at 100% that gets moire when scaled or when printed.
>>4522042I am actually curious if anyone has found an X-trans photo on DPReview showing moire. It does not show up in the studio scene
>>4522059i just wish pentax had better autofocus and pricingricoh is too small of a company to compete for what its worth im slowly getting to hate their programming more, my pentax cameras always run wider apertures/higher isos than my a-mount sonys despite having better/newer sensors with more DR. its frustrating because if its not clear daylight you have to shoot manually or give it *help* with setting your own aperture/shutter/iso
Why does fooj make gearfags seethe so much?
I'm considering trading in my 2X flat teleconverter to a 1.4X protruded. I've rarely needed that much extra magnification for telephoto shots, and the hit in image quality made me never want to pair it with my macro lens either.
>>4522076Studio scene got btfo last thread>>4522080Fuji is gearfaggotry Leica is gearfaggotryMedium format film is gearfaggotryNewest canikony is gearfaggotryUse a 5DII+50mm f1.8 or forever be an unc
If your camera body (body only) was more than $1000 and your yearly net income is less than $100,000 you are objectively a gearfag who wasted their money. You should have your gear forcibly liquidated and you should be forced to re-purchase a more financially responsible setup.
>>4522092>Studio scene got btfo last threadyou claimed that the studio scene is poorly processed, that's why moire shows up.So why doesn't it show up on Fuji?
>>4522080They secretly hate how unenjoyable and clunky their blobmera is to actually use and take it out on anything that's actually fun to shoot photos with (Fuji is not unique in this regard, just a common fixation since lots of people like Fujis)
Does anyone outside of /p/ gearfags even care about moire? "No OLPF/AA filter" is a selling point for cameras now. Does it actually matter?
>>4521892oh no I'm complete dogshit and I'm just learning.I just feel like it's better to get the feel for it yourself than rely on these things. especially since light meters don't really know what your intent is with the photo. they just let you take usable things that can be saved in post. unless you have a specific shot and you can do a more thorough setup...maybe it gets better with more modern cameras but often when I leave autoiso on I get a bit frustrated cause it blows things up. I just do ev-1.. maybe there's a place for full auto till I learn how to shoot properly.
>>4522094>fuji: nearsighted editionI'd rather have moire.
>>4522023I love my OLPF.never buying a camera without it.diffraction is nice too. fuck oversharpness.
>>4522076I can see about posting some crops from my own examples later>>4522103Most people don't care or even know what it is>>4522080It's because they're popular with normies, they used to be well liked here
>>4522104>since light meters don't really know what your intent is with the photoYou're already thinking smarter about your photos than most here, congrats
>>4522109what do you mean?
>>4522110That you're aware of the limitations of metering systems, and aware that many times you don't actually want capture a "properly" metered photo
>>4522103Do you find this acceptable?https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6700/sample_images/sony_a6700_45.jpg
Do you find this acceptable?
>>4522111I mean I'm sure everyone gets that 10 minutes into messing around with the camera too.I still dont know how to reliably set settings after two weeks, so I get some blow outs still sometimes. only "advanced" thing I know is spot metering into places that can somewhat be placed on the exposure chart thing. not good at it so I end up just taking a shot and seeing if it's fucked which is faster. but thinking about light consciously is probably a better excersize to build intuition about exposure...
>>4522113Now do an example where you sharpen x trans correctly without the worms
>>4522116Yes we know you need smoothing to remove the worms. This is why fooji is blurry.
>bro I'm telling you it's user error
>>4522117Man, if you spent this much effort into actually learning how to process and how to take pictures, you'd probably take some great ones Too bad you can only work with random images you find from other people and still be wrong
>olpf>sharpness: set to 0>aperture: closed>mist filter: installed aw yeah, it's cozy time
>>4522119True, fujislugs need to spends dozens of hours learning how to unfuck their wormy, waxy images before starting the development process when I can just point and shoot with my canonikon and reuse my existing presets.
>>4522112Do you?
>>4522016>Yeah so just get something a bit older and usedI'm trying but finding something that is compact and has RAW capability is a seemingly impossible task. I'd consider pretty much anything made in the last decade at this point but every result I get is just the Ricoh GR (overpriced even used) and the Sony RX100 (surprisingly rare and also overpriced).
>>4522094You got btfo by husky molesterScreenshot source: husky molesterHusky molester told you to post a photo and you didntYou got showed up by a jewish furfagAnd now you’re right back at it, screeching, flapping your hands, reposting the same images and words you have reposted 50 times already on repeatEvery single day until no one disagrees with you…Every single day until no one disagrees with you…Every single day until no one disagrees with you…And again until no one disagrees with you…And again because someone disagreed with you…Now post it again because someone disagreed with youJust don’t even post a photo
>>4522122is that the worms?looks like pic from my phone but worse
>>4522113Nope.>>4522123Nope. This building's horizontal window bars are in fact, not painted purple and lime.
>>4522126to be fair husky molester has goetic demons backing him up. bro has barnabas shopping at b&h for him.
>>4522124can't you get an older m4/3 with some small pancake lens?
>>4521737Would the quality of an rf100-500 with a 1.4x teleconverter be worth the price over an rf200-800?
>>4522130Any reccs? I'll see what I can find. I also don't really care about brand all that much so recc whatever.
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/eL9KGl0qi1I4dXML95daow/https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/5FoMtqg6oLHLtq9DH3AErQ/https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/XZ0CFqP4AAis98kM0bUcUw/https://sparkforautism.org/discover_article/repetitive-behaviors-autism/
>>4522118>good faith crop>>4522122How nice for you, care to share some examples of your work you've posted in the RPTs? You could really show us Fujislugs up with your superior sharpening
>>4522136>u-u-uhh ok fuji has WORMS, but what about XI accept your concession
>buy “fun” camera to shoot jpeg>its not fun>autofocus keeps fucking up>viewfinder is a 1000px lcd>jpegs look like phoneNo wonder apple is taking over
>>4522127Fuji is paying $3k for smartphone quality.
>>4522134Wow. What a pathetic fucking nerd. Absolutely sexless behavior. This guy has never ever gotten laid like… ever.
>>4522137I accept your concession of being an actual nophoto
I'm going to batch-convert about 2300 raws to get rid of them. I don't want to keep them forever. Should I convert them into JPEG or JXL?
>>4522148Why not lossy DNGs? They'll still be RAW, much smaller in size and have a decent amount of editing capability.
>>4522128And what is your proposed solution?
>>4522104>maybe it gets better with more modern camerasYes, that's exactly what's great about modern cameras with Zebras/Blinkies.Shows you exactly where clipping would occur in the live view before taking the photo so you can adjust accordingly.
>>4522155But don't you get it, it's just a skill issue. You're supposed to have the superhuman ability to perfectly judge exposure by eye (ignoring the fact that cameras aren't perfectly accurate when it comes to ISO and the actual light transmission of lenses varies greatly). Or at the very least you should be able to tell the difference between a blown highlight and white level of 255. Of course that only applies to using an EVF or the screen, if you're using a DSLR then you're back to being a human light meter.
>>4522153Camera manufacturers should install good quality OLPFs on the sensor glass.Unfortunately cutting OLPFs out was a significant cost savings for manufacturers, so it ends up being a ratchet-tick in our race-to-the-bottom economy. Unlikely we will see them come back.If my camera didn't have an OLPF I would get a third party one installed.As far as I know Kolari is the only company that has market-ready product right now.They offer a permanent in-camera install service as well as a removable clip-in option.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_76_7XbvXj4
>>4522157>>4522155>live view blinkies! kolari olpf! live view blinkies! kolari OLPF!>(((FLAPPING INTENSIFIES)))When will their handlers come and get them bros?
>>4522158Why don't you want better cameras?
>>4522133not sure honestly. need to find something good price to performance. and if compact is the goal you'd have to forgo viewfinder too probably.I was only looking at them for myself, to get the cheap one for maybe carrying when I don't want to carry a DSLR, but feels like the trade off is a bit much and if I get the features I want it's expensive and larger.I think I saw something like used Lumix GF7 for like 150 bucks or something, a lot of old used Olympuses have busted stabilisation in their discretion.
>>4522155yeah but I want OVF. screen shooting is really annoying other than some ridiculous low angles. most of the time I'd rather just kneel
>>4522157>350$god damn.
>>4522159Shut up and post a photo of your camera
>>4522160>if compact is the goal you'd have to forgo viewfinder too probably.Yeah I don't care about EVF honestly, I got a full frame mirrorless and made sure it had an EVF since I figured I'd miss not having one, but I barely ever use it.>if compact is the goal you'd have to forgo viewfinder too probably.I've seen a few around and even new ones are pretty cheap, but I've read varying bad reviews about build quality and autofocus issues. I'm pretty stunned at just how small the compact market is if you want something that is affordable, small and does RAW. I even had a digishit Canon for a bit that was hacked to do RAW images and I only spent $50 buying that thing before it crapped out a few months later but it did exactly what I wanted. There are so many little digishit cameras getting around and yet none of them do RAW.
>>4522166I mean if your goal is maximum cheap just get a very old very used m4/3 for real cheap, as long as it's not completely fucked. would be better than point and shoots I bet.people sometimes get them to mod them into IR cameras too. which is pretty cool.you can get really early m4/3 cams for like 50-70$ in used condition if you don't mind them being rough. just look at what's there on the used markets and make a spreadsheet or feed it into ai for comparison of features and common issues.
any opinions on Olympus e-m10 and e-m5? I already have a APS-C DSLR
>>4522158
>>4521995Go to a store and test an A6400 with a kit lens to check if the size is acceptable for your needs. Better If you can also test an RX100 variant and a G7X III or a G5X II (with popup EVF).
>>4522187I did manage to see the RX100 in store and that thing was tiny, it was smaller than a wallet. I've seen the A6400 before but it's hard to remember how small it was, but it would be a good choice if it's at least smaller than the A7C.I also have a 28-60mm kit lens already and I've heard it's pretty decent, or at least probably more so than the kit lens that comes with a new A6400.
>>4522157Do they make one for Fuji Troons-X?
>>4522192If A6400 is a bit smaller and around 100g lighter than an A7C. I'd still go to a store and hold one if I'm fine with the size or not.The 100g pancake 16-50 kit lens is ok for general snapshots, or use a photo or AI software to bring the details out a bit.https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/Sony%20E%20PZ%2016-50mm%20F3.5-5.6%20OSS/
>>4522199I don't know if X-trans could benefit from OLPF. I have yet to see a verifiable sample photo of moire on X-trans.I do see false colour effects in the form of green/purple mottling but it's relatively faint.
>>4522225I wonder if combining the X-Trans and Bayer grids, in whole or in part, in a tessellated or maybe irregular pattern across the sensor could clean up that false colour without introducing moire.Actually in theory, shouldn't the best sensor pattern for preventing pattern-related artifacts just be random (or in this case, pseudo-random since the R:G:B ratio is fixed) noise?
>>4522228>Actually in theory, shouldn't the best sensor pattern for preventing pattern-related artifacts just be random (or in this case, pseudo-random since the R:G:B ratio is fixed) noise?Randomness is how our eyes and film avoid interference patterns, but it's not compatible with electronics/digitization.The ideal is something like Foveon where each sensor pixel captures red green and blue information.Bayer's (and X-trans') problem is the space between colours. This was understood early-on in the digital camera world so OLPF became universal. They started deleting OLPF once the sensor resolution exceeded the glass resolution - OLPF was redundant since the lens was not sharp enough to falsely trigger single colour photosites.In the last 10-15 years the glass resolution has improved significantly while sensor resolution has not, and manufacturers don't want to reintroduce OLPF because good ones are expensive so we are stuck in false colour hell.A few sensors now are quite high res like Sony's a7R VI at 66 MP.What they could do with that sensor is treat each Bayer cluster as a single pixel which returns RGB information.No demosaicing required (less processing, less overheating) and no OLPF required.But that would reduce the megapixel count to 16.6 MP which would not sell well because small number bad.
>>4522225Why do you never fucking shut up when you have been proven wrong repeatedly by different people >>4522126 are fucking despised here >>4522134 AND HAVE NEVER EVER POSTED A PHOTO OR ANY INDICATION YOU OWN A CAMERA AND HAVE PHOTOGRAPHIC EXPERIENCE?MOIRE VARIES BY LENS AND RAW PROCESSINGEVERY BRAND HAS ITIT IS TRIVIAL TO CORRECTYOU ARE AN INSUFFERABLE AUTISTIC ABOMINATION THAT REPEATS ITSELF FUCKING CONSTANTLY LIKE THE NEGLECTED SPECIAL ED FREAK YOU AREPOST PROOF YOU OWN A CAMERA OR SHUT UP YOU FREAKISH FUCKING NERD. THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPHY BOARD. NOT A BOARD FOR AUTISTIC FREAKS TO OBSESS OVER CAMERA SPECS BASED ON THEIR PIXEL PEEPING ADVENTURES ON DPREVIEW. YOU FUCKING DISABLED CHILD. THATS ALL YOU DO. YOU ZOOM IN ON DPREVIEW AND TAKE SCREENSHOTS. AND YOU NEVER SHUT THE FUCK UP OR LEARN ANYTHINGEVERY FUCKING DAY FOR MONTHS YOU HAVE GONE INTO EVERY CAMERA RELATED THREAD TO REPEAT THIS SHIT VERBATIMGO FLAP YOUR HANDS AND SELF STIM SOMEWHERE ELSE YOU DISGUSTING DEFORMED VIRGIN
>Kolari OLPF fuji moire! Kolari OLPF fuji moire! Kolari OLPF fuji moire! Kolari OLPF fuji moire!
I zoomed in on a photo of black and white lines on dpreviewDespite all evidence to the contrary I will now spend all of every thread about cameras rambling about how what i saw zooming in on lines is proof 90% of the most commonly used cameras are le bad*flaps hands* duuuhuaaaaaaaa
>>4522243This has been fact checked as correct.
>>4522241I mean if that's the worst false colour/moire you can find you are kind of demonstrating X-Trans' value vs no OLPF bayer cameras.>IT IS TRIVIAL TO CORRECTNot really, while the false colour can be mostly eliminated, it leaves luminance striping.Were you able to find a real-world sample photo on DPReview showing X-Trans moire?>>4522243>the most commonly used cameras are le badYes, for example almost all use linear increments to set Kelvin for white balance which is retarded since the colour difference does not change linearly.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WADuXiMZxq4
The absolute state of /p/
>>4522247Autistic retard talksNo one listens
>>4522247Were you able to find your camera? Try looking under the cum towel
>>4522248can you find the meme compilation that had the "why i cant hold all these primes" ?
>>4522252No :( just the one starring "everything wrong with the board"
Can anyone recommend a monitor for editing photos under 700$?
This is it. This fully encapsulates what it’s like to post on /p/ in 2026. >>4522255Just get a viewsonic or asus proart.
>>4522249Why don't you want better cameras?
>>4522257>anklebitersqrd?
>>4522261if you or any of these pixel peeping gearfags were ever right about anything the market would be completely differentbasically every ILC is purchased almost exclusively for professional use. people make money off them. they have to be as good as they can be for the job. even the maligned panasonic is a professional (videography) brand. nothing you believe is an issue exists outside of 300% zoom crops of test charts, “theoretical” bullshitting, and misapplications ie: using a panasonic for sports photography, a sony for warzones, a nikon for video, an olympus for weddings, a hasselblad for wildlife, and a canon for a hobby.most cameras are professional tools and are only good at a few jobs. because they are only meant for professionals. not you. of course you will complain. you dont know how to use them. youve never even used one.
>>4522262Horrendous gearfag posted spam amounts of terrible low effort photography (very dirty badly shot film) and schizophrenic gear theories, everyone hated him and wanted him to go back to /an/, but he had a narcissistic streak and called them anklebitersThis story with minor modifications describes several dozen /p/ users over the past 10 years
>>4522263>basically every ILC is purchased almost exclusively for professional use. people make money off them.false.>they have to be as good as they can be for the jobno, they have to be "good enough" for the job, "as good as they can be" is a different world.>nothing you believe is an issue exists outside of 300% zoom crops of test charts,I've only posted 100% crops, like pic related. The fact that a so-called photographer can look at this and not see a serious problem is mind blowing.Your posts just seem like damage control shilling. A normal human reaction would be "wow that sucks, would be good if they fixed it".
>>4522266Posted it again awardMemory span of a fruit fly awardFlappy hands awardStars in his own meme award
>>4522266> A normal human reaction would beWow why is this retard zooming in on poorly processed tree branches from a 3rd rate camera review site i have never seen this on instagram or in any real photography
>>4522044Here is an example of some 200% xtrans with as minmal (no) corrections as possible.It can be corrected for with the moire tool, but that will also lead to a general "muddiness" to the the colors throughout, so you need to restrict it only to the relevant areas (which will still look "muddy").
>>4522272Damn that must be one hot dog
>>4522272what was the ISO?
>>4522282That is not ISO noiseBut only someone with photography, raw demosaicing, and capture one experience would have a fucking clueMany have tried to explain to >>4522266 that he’s just pointing out dpreviews bad processingHe is literally too fucking stupid to get it and yet thinks himself an expert because he read cameras for dummies and browsed dpreview
>>4522241>>4522242>>4522243>>4522263>>4522267>Tags: mindbreak
>>4522285Thats a w to score with a copypasta or one liner, not months of unique (other than reposted images) low IQ high effort posts about pixel peeping bullshit you dont understand.Congratulations on spending months repeating the same nonsense and filling out all of those captchas to eventually get people to agree that you are actually mentally disabled. The amount of time you have spent being a mad autist about pixel peeping exceeds the catharsis of anons just calling you a mentally disabled adult child. You are one btw.
>>4522288nta, retardI'll gladly take the moire autist over any of you sperglords lmao, God bless him for sticking it out this long, I hope you all ragequit,
>>4522023>x-trans rights are human rights
>>4522289His mom called 4chan to complain saying he’s crying and threatening to stop taking his estrogen, actually
>>4522270kek
>>4522225>I have yet to see a verifiable sample photo of moire on x-transOkay, what is your opinion on these two Medium articles?>https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-the-promise-and-the-problem-31407fa43452In this one you can see moire on the guy's tie in the second photo. It was shot using an X-T2.>https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-vs-bayer-fantastic-claims-and-how-to-test-them-475b4f1b7faeScroll down to the "Moiré and False Color" section and you can see several examples of X-Trans showing moire.Is this not a sufficient demonstration?
>>4522294lol the 2nd article has zero actual x trans images. It is a simulated exercise meant to show the difficulty in x trans demosaicing, which was pretty relevant at the time. Not so much 9 years later...>these comparisons are performed with synthesized raw images.
>>4522296How about the first one? That's a real image taken with an X-T2.
>>4522294Or this >>4522272Or this >>4522241Cant wait til this idiot and blinkies get taken back to the halfway house
Just bought this e-pl8 bundle for $300ish. Bless the yen being weak as fuck right now.
>>4522294It seems like the author has an axe to grind with Fujifilm.I'm not a fan of Fuji either because their JPEG processing is terribly blurry, whether on X-Trans or Bayer.I'm just interested to see if/how X-Trans creates moire patterns - by that I mean large scale interference patterns as can be seen in >>4522112 and >>4522157>>4522272 shows false colour mottling green/purple which is common to Fuji, but it's not exactly the large-scale wave pattern I'm looking for. Maybe the X-Trans pixel layout disrupts such large scale patterns? If someone can find from a verifiable source like DPReview a large scale moire pattern on X-trans I would be interested to see.
>>4522300Posted it again awardMemory span of a goldfish awardFlapped hands award
>>4522300PSA: The poster I am linking is intellectually disabled. They have had and lost this argument repeatedly over the months they have been spamming /p/ with it. Please bear in mind that if you reply to this poster, they will likely forget your post a day later and repeat themselves, and they may not even understand it in the first place. Possible disorders:DementiaSevere autismSchizoaffective disorder
>>4522033He pretty much lost for the nth time by here and malds because its not ~on dpreview~ Dpreview uses adobe camera raw and fuji jpegs, which demosaic xtrans with a blurring effect to hide fuji’s worms, large scale stripe patterns and severe color blobs The downside is it makes 40mp xtrans effectively 20mp. $2000 cameras folks!
>>4522304Most of the sample gallery photos are SOOC JPEG.Shouldn't be hard to find one (1) with large scale moire.
Fujislug thought process:Make false claimReject evidence to the contraryDemand evidence under specific conditions you know are less likelyRepeat self multiple timesForgetMake false claimRepeat until everyone leaves and you have /p/ to yourself so no one ever doubts fuji again
>>4522305See, /p/? Intellectual disability. He has the reading comprehension of a 4th grader. Addressing him is a waste of time. He can’t even understand the replies he gets.
>>4522300Can you read???>https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-vs-bayer-fantastic-claims-and-how-to-test-them-475b4f1b7faeJesus fucking christ>>4522303You’re right. He’s genuinely fucking stupid. Typical fujifag intellect.
i'm a random user who just found the thread.I'm thinking about buying a fujifilm xpro 1 or a fujifilm xe 1Just want a camera that takes film-like photos SOOC that I can use to take photos of my surroundings, just things i seei dislike editing after shooting
>>4522308Can you? The "moire" in that article is generated using simulations, not an actual Fuji camera. It's not representative of real-world results.>>4522304>>4522306He's an autist not a Fujifag. He straight-up said he doesn't like Fuji.From what I've seen so far X-Trans doesn't reduce moire at the hardware level but makes it easier to remove in processing, at the expense of introducing other artifacts like colour bleeding, false colour, waxification, and worms. How bad that is also seems highly variable depending on what software was used and with what settings.>>4522301>>4522303You must be at least 18 years old to use this website.
>>4522310> i dislike editing after shootingCanon or NikonFuji is phonelike w/o capture one>>4522312CFAs are math. They work or they dont by the same rules as math. Most fuji lenses are soft which prevents aliasing in itself - on bayer as well
>>4522312fuji either loses a significant amount of fine detail and cant be sharpened (sooc jpeg, acr/lr) without additional enhancements before editing, or has false color and moire just like bayer (capture one)It turns out xtrans doesnt actually DO anything besides trade red/blue resolution for green/luma resolution
>>4522313Yes but simulating the CFA doesn't account for anything else that's going on inside the camera. From what I gather Fuji does the moire removal in-camera for both jpegs and raws so in reality you won't see moire like that in any image file a Fuji camera will actually give you. This is important because it's not something (You) can control.
>>4522299Nice I have one of those too. The folding zoom kit lens is pretty nice.
>>4522315Its already been saidSOOC jpegs include a blurring effect, similar to the global use of capture one’s moire sliders. That’s not the CFA. That’s coping in software because fuji marketing lied.
>>4522317You are illiterate.
>>4522313i'm not sure i want to get a canon or nikon as they seem to be heavily focussed on post-processing and editing raws. Kinda literally just wanted to be quite lazy and buy a fuji xe1 or x pro 1 and just rely on that particular sensor and the sooc jpegs lol.But i know some people really enjoy the post-processing editing work on the computer after they've taken the photos. but for me it honestly makes me feel like I go cross eyed.
>>4522318No. I ignored non sense (fuji running moire reduction on a raw)Moire is a demosaicing artifact. It can’t be reduced in a non-demosaicked image.I know significantly more about this subject than you. Fuji blurs their sooc jpegs and lays on the chroma NR. Adobe mimics this closely to meet user expectations. Capture one processes xtrans and bayer for peak resolution. The xtrans CFA does not confer any real advantages or disadvantages besides a little extra green/mono resolving power and slower processing. Even the worms and color bleed are demosaicing issues.
>>4522319> i'm not sure i want to get a canon or nikon as they seem to be heavily focussed on post-processing and editing raws.Then you’re wrong about canon and nikon. Their jpegs are great. You’ve been lied to by camera bloggers. You know whatever they write about, they bought 3 more to put on ebay right?
>>4522321you're right that they're in it for the money. i guess i thought the x trans sensor of xe 1 and x pro 1 actually had technical reasons for generating a certain kind of look. thank you for you responses they have been helpful
>>4522319Most cameras are going to be able to take raws. But at least with Nikon (though I'm sure it's the same with everyone else) they also have various ways to output JPEGs, like different color profiles. And Fuji is also known for these kinds of profiles to give a feel to their JPEGs. The Fuji ones are supposed to be better at mimicking film. But you can just set it to a natural profile and be done with it.
>>4522322Any time a camera has a particular look in jpeg its the built in presets. You can tweak any camera’s jpeg settings to get them to where you like. Nikon even lets you mess with the curve (picture control utility, nikonpc.com)You cant buy gear to cop someone elses lighting and secret sauce tweaks
>>4522323>>4522324thanks guys i appreciate the responses, will keep all this in mind
>>4522319>i'm not sure i want to get a canon or nikon as they seem to be heavily focussed on post-processing and editing raws.That's correct. Neither have in-camera highlight/shadow curves as Fuji does.Fuji also has live view blinkies which neither Canon nor Nikon have, which is a very helpful tool especially for JPEG recording where tolerance for blown highlights is much lower.
>>4522326Shut up sped
>>45223261: lie 2: this has never mattered which is exactly why you have been posting about it every day for several monthsfucking leave. everyone is sick of you.
>>4522310you'll have to be more specific about what qualities of film you want to mimc, because film can look a dozen different ways. but also imho no digital camera makes film-like pictures sooc. most digital pics that look like film have been made so through software editing. those fujis you mentioned are fine, but you should probably just shoot film for real. also, if you're a beginner, you likely won't even know your own preferences until dozens of hours shooting, so i say just get whatever looks cool to you and start
>>4522329>Everyone>Look inside>A few spergs that just can't resist sperging out and having melties whenever the resident autist points out that actually, moire is a bad thing
>>4522341Resident cameraless sped says moire is a camera brand thing and proper exposure was impossible before snoy mirrorless*
>>4522342Literally nobody said that ever
>>4522272Source in the RAW? I want to compare demosaic modes.
>>4522319I have a Fuji X-T50 and the jpegs are nothing special. The camera does have some jpeg autism like automatically boosting shadows ("DR" settings) or "film similation bracketing", which I never use.
Which cheap fool frame camera should I get? 5DII? 6D? Something else?
>>45223625D2 is nice. Skip the 6D, the shutters in them are pretty crap. They only go to 1/4000th of a second and wear out much faster than 5D2's, which comparitively are some of the longest lived DSLRs. As someone who owns all of them, I would skip the 5D3 too. The sensor is not really any better than the 5D2's sensor, and actually has worse dynamic range. The only advantage of the 5D3 is the autofocus.
>>4522362>>4522364>The only advantage of the 5D3 is the autofocus.It's quite a significant upgrade though>The sensor is not really any better than the 5D2's sensor, and actually has worse dynamic rangeWhere are you getting that from? It's the same up to 1600 and then the 5D III pulls ahead, although you wouldn't often go as high as 12800 by then it's a full stop aheadAlthough this will get a lot of hate Sony's early A7's are also really good bang for the buck. Not quite as cheap, a 5D II is around $260, but if you can increase your budget to $400 then you get significantly better dynamic range at 800 and lower. If you could step up to $500 for an A7 II then that also gets you IBIS, which in some situations will allow you to use lower ISOs and get even more benefit from that increased dynamic range. It would also have better ergos and controls than the mark I. It also opens you up to a massive lens selection, mirrorless lenses have significantly improved compared to DSLR ones.
>>45223845DIII cant recover shadows. Fixed pattern noise at +2.
>>4522384>snoy: muh dr muh sterile lenses>receive bad colors and broken cameraD750 >>> A7IIIDont buy a snoy worse than an a7iv
>>4522384>It's quite a significant upgrade thoughIt is, especially on the outer points. I shouldn't say its the only benefit, as it's not. The mark 3 has a better build quality (aside from the mode dial), weather sealing, dual card slots... It also has manual with auto ISO, which the 2 won't do with stills. I don't think this is really worth it to justify the price difference unless you get a really good deal on a mark 3.>Where are you getting that from?DXO mark have tested it and in my own experience who has used and still owns both, I believe it to be true. Its not a large difference. It's around 0.2EV worse at or near base ISO on the mark III.>>4522389>5DIII cant recover shadows5D2 is also worse at this than the 3. Shadow pulls are fairly bad on both. Expose your photos correctly and you will be fine, issues only occure when you're trying to argue with the camera's meter.
>>4522392Here a 5D III is about the equivalent of about $400, I'd say that extra $140 is well worth it for all those features and performance, plus just being a newer camera with hopefully less abuse.
>>45223925D2 shadows hit a grainy void. Per test chart fags who forgot that astro isnt art, this is>LE BAD SNR LOG2EV Artistically it is superior. Grainy void shadows look like film. HDR shadows look like AI!5DIII shadows have digital striping. Worst of both worlds.
>>4522396>5DIII shadows have digital striping. Worst of both worlds.They both have striping when you lift the shadows, the 5D2 has it worse and theres more colour in it, where as the 5D3 its more monochrome.>>4522395Here you can easily find a mark 2 for 200-250$, and its at the absolute price floor for FF digital. A mark 3 is typically $550-600 and still depreciating.
>>4521824>The art photographers are a small but vocal minority.I was figuring out what lens aperture I really need for low light situations and it seems everyone wants to talk about is the ugly blurry images that bigger apertures produce
>>4522412>I was figuring out what lens aperture I really need for low light situations and it seems everyone wants to talk about is the ugly blurry images that bigger apertures produceSounds like what you actually want is literally any lens and a flash
>>4522300>If someone can find from a verifiable source like DPReview a large scale moire pattern on X-trans I would be interested to see.Here is an example of large scale moire on X-Trans. Much less common than with no-OLPF Bayer, but still possible:https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1220132460/659804
>>4522421Its not even less common because or xtrans. Fuji and adobe just blur the shit out of the raw data to hide the lies in fujis marketing material. Add on most fuji lenses being dogshit. With proper demosaicing xtrans actually has a ton of moire and rainbow speckles. You can blur the shit out of bayer too. Its called a shitty lens. User replaceable AA filter!
>>4522437>Foveon sensor>"It uses an array of photosites that consist of three vertically stacked photodiodes. Each of the three stacked photodiodes has a different spectral sensitivity, allowing it to respond differently to different wavelengths.[2] The signals from the three photodiodes are then processed as additive color data that are transformed to a standard RGB color space." -from Wikipedia the free encyclopedia at en dot wikipedia dot orgWhy is this not standard? Why doesn't literally every camera company just use this? It seems obviously better. What's the catch?
>>4522439Significantly reduced color accuracyEach layer receives less information than the one above itPoor pixel separation
>>4522439R&D is hard and since sigma (the subpanasonic incompetent retards who inadvertently created the flat rendering meme with their low quality glass and released useless dumpster fires like the fp and bf) bought all the patents and took over development it will never go anywhere ever
This should show XTrans moire on a veil curtain. Jpeg produced with the free C1.
>>4522443And here's full 4chan-grade snap. When I scale the whole thing it down to my screen height, it doesn't look bad, unlike at 100%.
>>4522439>Why is this not standard? Why doesn't literally every camera company just use this? It seems obviously better. What's the catch?High ISO performance is quite poor in comparison to a Bayer sensor of the same size.As >>4522240 noted, with very high MP sensors there is now the opportunity to use 4 colour photosites as one logical pixel, doing away with demosaicing and moire issues. Probably Sigma sees this coming sooner than Foveon advances, so not much point in developing Foveon further.
>>4522445Fuji be like$2000 to be 4chan grade
>>4522446I wonder if something like a reverse DLP projector could work, where instead of a fixed colour grid you use a rotating tricolour filter and take three images in red, green, and blue, then recombine them. Obviously the principle works since that's how the first colour photos were taken before colour film was invented, and people still use the monochrome + filters method even today sometimes, but I wonder if it could be practical to automate. I guess it'd be kind of bulky and your practical shutter speed is 3x longer as a consequence of taking three images. But at least you also get 3x the light to balance it out a bit, just means the fastest (effective) shutter speed is constrained to like 1/1000s or something similar.
>>4522448As with DLP it will have the rainbow effect problem. Because there is a time difference between the red green and blue exposure, fast moving things will have colour fringes/trails.Basically it trades spatial colour problems that Bayer has for temporal ones.
>>4522449That is true. I kind of hope someone makes one at some point though, it'd be fun to play with and probably give good results in static photography.Maybe use an LCD for colour filtering instead of a rotating wheel? I know some projectors work that way. Although there's probably a better method than either by now I guess. It's been a while since I last educated myself on these systems.
>>4522418>Sounds like what you actually want is literally any lens and a flashI'm getting me a flash for the unsalvageable situations of course. But I want a bright lens anyway because not everything can be flashed
>>4522448Many cameras already do effectively that with Pixel Shift
why can't they just make sensors with pixels that read RGB?..
>>4522527Current photodiodes can only measure and store (as charge) quantity, not quality, of the light that they receive, so filters are needed to differentiate colour.There is ongoing research for using nanostructures to sort light by wavelength to different photodiodes. This would improve sensor performance by a stop or two since filters waste light while "routers" don't.
>>4522527"they" can and do, you just aren't allowed access to that technology. they also have curved sensors (like animal retinas), and sensors that can switch between visible light, UV, infrared, thermal etc.
>>4522527you mean like each pixel being a nano antenna that only resonates at a certain frequency? it's very hard to mass produce and has terrible efficiency, the bayer filter is the right way to do it right now
