>Sony makes the worlds most used number 1 reliable professional camer-ACK!Last containment thread: >>4525985
Anyone want to talk about not consolewarsfaggotry gear?Scored this ad magic 14" fresnel for like 30 bucks recently. Anyone have experience using something like this? Pretty excited to start using this thing once it gets delivered.
>bought a m43 camera>go on yt for lens reviews>all the videos are from 7+ years agois it actually dead? will buying more lenses despite this fact help me cope?
Is it really just bots arguing with each other in the gear thread and the occasional human poster?
>>4526679the majority of internet traffic is bots. what do you think?
Micro four thirds is green tinted like snoy. buy a fuji.
>>4526680Yeah, I guess captchas are not really that hard to bypass and I know there are atleast a handful of people that are just trying to destroy this website.
>>4526679Just apply common senseIndians and bots shill sony, olympus, and panasonic. No humans use that stuff if they get a choice.Humans shoot pentax, nikon, canon, and fuji
>>4526687You sound like a bot as well, sorry.
>>4526679nah, its just a few trolls and one really upset snoy schizo. the snoy sucks meme is older than the internet.
>>4526693Even if by "the Internet" you just mean the World Wide Web, Mavicas are the only Sony cameras that predate it.
>>4526677Nobody talks about that stuff here because there aren't any youtube videos shilling it for us to regurgitate and fag over it.>>4526678Yes it's dead. Cope all you want it's still a dead useless mount system.>>4526679Yes. Which one am I?Actual question because someone from the other thread replied and said they own it;The RF 45mm f/1.2. Does the intense purple fringing under high contrast scenes just obliterate the image quality, or is it relatively solved with in-camera corrections? I already just adapt the EF 50mm STM but I got that for like $70 and it's mostly for my SLR. I'm still trying to work out if it's worth the $500~ diggery dollars.For that matter, I normally disable distortion correction but see that's not an option with this particular lens (fuck those caniggers btw). I normally square or 2:1 crop anyway. No question here, just mentioning because it's a gear thread after all.
>>4526678I guess new lenses for casual use in general don't get upgraded that often. Fujifags are still using a 35mm released 15 years ago.
>>4526678>is it actually dead?Nope. They are literally just about to announce the best travel/edc camera of all time.
>>4526710anon I really hope you are right, I don't want to shell out for a X100VI
>>4526710Too small
>>4526712
>>4526713I should recreate this with my gut and my zooka 100-400
>>4526710Sensor too small. That's the reason OM cannot sell a fixed wide lens camera - it will get compared to X100 or GR with predictable results.
>>4526719To add, if OM made a PEN-like camera with a fixed lens and APS-C size sensor (it can be 4:3 whatever), it won't be worse than X100 or GR. But they will rather crash the whole brand with no survivors than admit that m43 is not a good sensor size. You'd think that the company being sold twice in 5 years would imply some change in the mindset.
>>4526710Perfect sensor size and lenses that aren't enormous. M43 bros we are so back.
>>4526713Sorry for having adult size hands
>>4526719>>4526720They could simply put a f/1.4 lens and already collect more light than the X100VI let alone the Ricoh
>>4526710The fuji XE5 already exists and is already vastly superior in every single way that matters.
>>4526725>Actually, sensor size only matters if you shoot wide openYou are by far the least intelligent person on /p/. It's really apparent you belong in the low IQ /pol/ schizo clique you came from.Pic rel only photo you've ever taken
>>4526725>olympiss: f2.8 ISO 800>fuji: f3 ISO 200I'm not seeing the "equivalence" advantage here especially when literally every decent photo ever was taken at f16 ISO 50.A poor equivalent base ISO means it can not collect as much light no matter how much bokeh slop you mount to it. "Low light" looks bad no matter how big your sensor gets until the 100mp medium format zone and is a consumer gearfag myth. Low ISO is what is important. Light equals information equals tonality, rendering, and 3d pop.
>>4526728Speaking of the existing E-P7, it is lighter and much cheaper than X-E5. If only it wasn't m43.
>>4526725With a sharp f/1.4 it would no longer be a meme compact with a pancake lens.
>>4526733>much cheaperIt's worse all around and built like a canon powershot. why wouldn't it be cheaper? The whole e-p7 series is future ewaste. I know, I had two pen lites. Both failed. Any tangentially related google search turns up five dozen stories about spontaneous failure in the e-p7. They're basically a waste of money and for people who think $500+ is a fine amount of money to light on fire. Disposable cameras, made worse than a lumix.>lighterless than 100g doesn't matterless than 250g doesn't even matter
>>4526735The only f1.4s on olympus are much larger (and optically worse) than sony's compact f2.5s. Really, the rendering is bad. Sterile, test chart grade sharp with weird bokeh cutoffs and lots of fringing.All for f0.2 of effective aperture over fuji's f2s.Fuji is much better than m43 today. Micro four thirds today is so bad even sony is better, and if you can't tell by how active m43 fanboys are here, this is exactly why /p/ is full of forced sony and fuji hate memes.
>>4526710
>>4526730Base ISO means longer exposures, and because you're at a larger aperture on the Oly you'll be using in most cases a lower ISO setting than on the Fuji. For the same ISO the Only has an advantage already, for a lower ISO it's even better. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#FujiFilm%20X100VI,Olympus%20OM-D%20E-M1%20Mark%20II(EFCS)And this ignores how shit X-trans is, manages to look soft at 40MP. Cans of worm are no match for the mount.
Looks like I kicked fujislug damage control into overdrive
>>4526740>base ISO means longer exposuresI've used micro four shit. I did not appreciate ending up with settings like "f2" "ISO 200" 1/800 for shit that didn't not that fast of a shutter and required better quality than a PNS. As always your equivalence babble doesn't translate to reality just like your antisemitic third worldist babble doesn't either, /pol/tard. Not that you'd know. You've never taken a photo outside of your basement.>photons to photos chartOh yes, the one that retards say proves the nikon z50 has the same image quality as some shitty m43. because they don't know enough about how cameras work to be qualified to understand what that chart actually says>And this ignores how shit X-trans is, manages to look soft at 40MPThe micro four shits are in the 20mps. Xtrans is not actually soft at 40mp. it loses a little resolution on red/blue containing pairs but overall the luminance resolution is good. If you're having mushy red/blue issues it becomes a 20-24mp camera and, because downsampling always reduces noise and xtrans has inherently less offensive chroma noise to begin with (from having more luma resolution), surpasses the performance expected of the sensor size. While also being able to produce a sharp 40mp with images that aren't full of red/blue mush issues.
>>4526742>is wrong>gets proven wrong>HAHAHA DAMAGE CONTROLEvery time you post we're reminded you're only here because one night you were too drunk to finish typing 4chan.org/pol
>>4526744>>4526742You guys should have a photo battle to decide the winner of this argument.
>>4526736> I read about this camera onlineWe already had this discussion. You need to hold E-P7 and one of these Fujis side by side to see that E-P7 is smaller, lighter, and appears to be better built. The f/1.8 lenses are also I think a bit smaller and lighter than Fuji f/2s; ok, not "equivalent" in the meme sense, but what you'd reasonably put on.>>4526738>Fuji is much better than m43 today.Well, yes, when I got a Fuji, I immediately noticed a bump in IQ, although in part because I was no longer shooting any photos with the 14-42 kit zoom; in combination with the sensor, it's really a way to make you feel bad about yourself.
>>4526745It's been attempted, but cANON has no photos to post besides a blurry dot that's allegedly saturn and a blurry leaf. He's genuinely not into photography. He's a lost /pol/tard who had thrift store cameras laying around to pretend to be one and /p/ is just his current autistic obsession.
>>4526743Sounds like a skill issue, maybe stick to Professional Mode or Av if feeling "artistic" whatever that means to a fujislug pleb
>>4526746>although in part because I was no longer shooting any photos with the 14-42 kit zoomLenses impact the final result way beyond whatever the sensor is.
>>4526747Well then just post a photo and you win the argument. It's ashame everyone is so gay and retarded we can't have a more masculine board culture where photo battles decide the winner of arguments.
>>4526747Repent, dogsnapper. I already proved /pee/ can't even tell APS-C from FF
>>4526746>you need to hold itAfter all the failed olympus pocket cameras i've had, no. Not wasting the money. The cheaper olympus cameras are genuinely not well made. Saying any of them are better made than a fuji is absurd. I choose to believe the online failure report/dismal sales number ratio.
>>4526752>0.01 devalued JPY have been deposited in your account
>>4526750It doesn't work with cANON. Posting a photo doesn't register as a "win" for her. It registers as something to attack while remaining a nophoto. Sorry m8o. It's been done before.
Literally anything is better built than a Fuji, Fujis are basically props. Wish.com's idea of a Leica. Hopelessly aspirational.
>>4526754>herlol, lmao even. I'm gonna need a bigger shovel for your salt.
Enough of this dick-measurement contest, pull them out and get it done or shut the fuck up. You're acting like bunch of women with cocks for fuck sake
>>4526757Fag
>>4526754You'll never change an old dog's mind. Owning him is for everyone else to witness.
>>4526759Like a photo of a bird taken with a sony with broken IBIS and a shit ass minolta telephoto?
>>4526760Sure. Now he has 24 hours to post his own photo. If he fails to post one you win and the argument is decided in your favor.
>>4526759Kek cANON has no photos
>>4526758Figure you would be interested you fucking transvestise bordering on hermaphrodite since your micropenis might very well be mistaken for a clitoris
>>4526761Just one? But he has a portfolio of three. Four, even.Carpoolin' doggo on a 5DII
>>4526760>>4526762Hi Wallman, I actually enjoy your work. Sorry for calling you a fujislug, it doesn't apply to you despite being a Fuji user/shill. The fujislug is unable to understand the exposure triangle let alone use the zone system proficiently.
>>4526766>wallman5th /p/ name assignment just dropped
>>4526708I think glass manufacturing plateaued, honestly. How are you supposed to market a new product when it isn't really any better optically than its predecessor?
>>4526765You can post as many as you'd like! A welcome change for the gear threads.
>>4526743Good morning sir!
>>4526749The point stands though that the apparent lower price of m43 is a trap, if for a zoom you have to go for the f/4 "pro" that is not a cheap lens.I'm wondering how it goes with the other systems. Like, does the Lumix 18-40 that comes with S9 suck?
>Huskychad mogged a sensorlet into submissionThe wvlf of judah claims victory over the copelord of tarsus
>>4526774>cinematic recreation of /gear/ No. 4526676>>4526771it is optically and ergonomically the vlogger version of the sony 28-60 and nikon 24-50. all of these bonermatic kit lenses are pretty much the same.
There really should be a limit on how many times you can release the same camera
>>4526710back side
>>4526777Dead company
>>4526767Oh so you're a skinwalking plagiarist fraud, good to clear that up.
>>4526786>n-no way it's impossible>t-those aren't your photosthank you for the compliment nophoto
>cANON thinks everyone who takes better photos than him is the same guyits like when tribal people think every airplane is god tbqh
>>4526787No, I'm saying you're aping Wallman's style like a comptemptible chameleon
>>4526678m43 is where it is most visible how the camera industry is failing to innovate. The same can be said for the other sensor sizes, but it is more obscured on those.It is simply due to physics, we are at the limits of what it is possible to squeeze into a tiny camera body without it requiring bigger batteries etc.They have all become increasingly bigger. Smaller cameras which were the entire point of m43 are all discontinued, series of cameras spanning back over a decade. Now they only make aps-c and full frame sized cameras. What is the point then?
>>4526789thank you for the compliment nophoto
>>4526710I have a feeling we are looking at Emily's next "forever camera".
>>4526787Is husky doing well?
>>4526704>The RF 45mm f/1.2. Does the intense purple fringing under high contrast scenes just obliterate the image quality, or is it relatively solved with in-camera corrections? I already just adapt the EF 50mm STM but I got that for like $70 and it's mostly for my SLR. I'm still trying to work out if it's worth the $500~ diggery dollars.Easily worth the money. Fringing is mostly controlled and better than on the EF 50 1.2. It is better than any vintage SLR 1.2 which often costs way, way more. If you find a used copy for 100 bucks off you are essentially stealing.
>>4526768Reintroduce thorium.
>>4526768Not even close to plateauing. There's lots of material improvements at all levels but it's a feedback loop. Better optics go into making better lasers which in turn make better optics which make better lasers and so on. There are harder limits on the economic side than the materials side. We will get very close to optical perfection in my life but good enough will be the reason why nobody will sell it. Besides I'm pretty certain lenses are sharp enough for the world we live in sadly. I edit on a big 4k screen and my snapshits go to 6x4 or 12x8 prints to go on the wall or get viewd on a smartphone after all the compression Instagram and Whatsapp put on them. Whilst I'd like a better starting image quality I am not sure it would meaningfully affect the output. I'd love if the gen pop wanted better image experience but they want AI generated fruit soap operas.
>>4526804But how much better can glass really get? An extra 1%, maybe?
>>4526788>anon thinks that everyone that doesn't worship snoy is the same guy
>>4526812>snoybrainsad
>>4526812They are literally all posted by paid pajeets. Theres a reason why Sony is the number 1 camera brand in the world and why Sony is such a loved brand by many.
>>4526679yesas your regular mandated /p/ - pentax shill i have to link you my latest ebay dealshttps://www.ebay.com/itm/158268048697$60 + $12 shipping for a SF1 35mm SLR + 50mm f1.7 + 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 + 70-210mm f4-5.6 Pentax-F lenses. I paid $40 for just the first 2 and I got some great pics out of the 50mm f1.7-F and SF1 Personally though of all the 50mms I reach for my FA 50mm f1.4 or 55mm f1.4 DA* SDM lately. Sometimes the Super Takumars if I want a warm classic look. I have the -F 50mm f1.7, -A 50mm f1.7, and 50mm f1.8 DA too. https://www.ebay.com/itm/307168876744$200 for a 70-200mm f2.8 Tamron, unsure about condition.
What's currently the "best" (somewhat subjective, I know) 35mm FE lens in terms of cost:quality?
>>4526784yes, it's sad what has happened to Nikon. Fallen behind Fujifilm in sales and no camera releases this year.
Snoy releases fisheyeSigma releases 85mm f1.2 for l-mount and e-mountOlympus makes new "Pen F" that not shockingly is uglier and bigger than its predecessor.
>>4526839As you know, the fisheye is worth 15 points
12 hours and 15 minutes remain until cANON loses the photobattle
People wanted a new Pen F and a LX100 and instead they get clunkier pieces of doodoo. Yup, the golden era is over of m43.
>>4526845Are you trying to help him with his composition or something?
>>4526823Sell your Sony and get a Nikon and the smaller Nikon 35/1.4 Z while also saving yourself $800
>OM Pen comes with a dedicated CP buttonother camera companies, are you even trying?
>>4526809Hard to say, my experience in photonics is not in the optical design side. The manufacturing tolerances probably will improve a small amount but the surfaces of the glass will continue to get much better. I'm not even sure that complex meta surfaces are being used in camera optics but theres certainly scope for way better corner resolution using these sorts of material technologies. But ultimately does the average professional need that much more sharpeness? 10k on a new telephoto lens to get a slightly sharper wildlife photo or 10k for more days in the field to take photos, I'm sure most photographers want more time than more image quality. This is happening in lots of industries cheap and used good enough products in the market are making it less viable to release an incremental improvement
I just attempted to tackle the final boss of vintage lens adaptation to mirrorless. I just got a DKL adapter and for some reason I cant adjust the aperture on the Kodak lenses whereas on the Voigtländer it works without issue. Plz halp.
OK I figured it out, not that any of you faggots care anyway, but the problem is the aperture lever being about a millimeter shorter on Kodak than the Voigtländer so the screw for aperture adjustment does not reach it. I'll try to do some jerryrigging. Thanks for the help, gay homos.
>>4526870Proud of you, son.
>>4526870You only posted an hour prior - quit being a bitch.
>>4526854The nikon one is almost as soft as a vintage prime while being the size of a G master. Shit like this is why nikon doesn't sell as well.
>>4526762>eastern washingtoid thinks it's human
>>4526888even worse he's from idaho
Thoughts on the Voigtlander primes for M43?They have a 10.5, 17.5, 25, 42.5, and 60mm all in f/0.95, and a 29mm f/0.8 (not pictured) which according to them is the world's fastest production lens. Manual focus and aperture, no electronics, metal build, declickable aperture ring.I guess I'm just worried about them being heavy because I haven't bought a metal lens.
>>4526894>Manual focus and aperture, no electronics>big heavy>$1600>same light gathering as a 58mm f1.6>"worlds fastest"micro four thirds doesnt focus on making photography fun anymore its just about taking money from people who dont know what the f-ratio expresses and re-releasing last years camera again but larger with more software gimmicks so the mu-43 forum and youtube shill crowd can keep pretending it's just as good as full frame (terms and conditions apply)
>>4526892The first one MP(megapotato) camera. I bet that thing takes exceptional pictures.
>>4526787nice tongue
>>4526897The latest m43 cope is that a larger sensor needs more light to work. Yep.
Owari da. They made it almost the same size as S9, almost bigger than X-E5.
>Remains the best EDC/travel camera with the most and best small lenses
>>4526914i will buy into fuji immediately once they make a 100mm f/2.4 that is this size.
>>4526906This is true though. Unless you have the equivalently larger/faster lens to gather an equivalent amount of light more, your extra sensor size is essentially just wasted.
>>4526906>>4526919You're both wrong, it's pixel size that determines the sensor's light sensitivity, not the overall sensor size. So if you have a full frame sensor and an m43 sensor and the individual photosites are the same size, they'll have the same light sensitivity but the FF will have higher resolution (more megapixels) since there's more space for photosites. Conversely if they're the same resolution then the individual photosites on the FF sensor will (nominally) be larger to fill the same area, and thus more light-sensitive.t. astrophotographer
>>4526919>Larger sensors only work if you shoot wide open. if you stop down, you HAVE to raise your ISO!Even if you do go full terms and conditions (which in reality rarely happens), which requires you to finally accept f ratio is fake and apparent aperture in mm is the real one>It looks better anyways, superior photon well capacity and precision, pixels larger than aberrations, higher mp counts bring downsampling into the equation especially for 40mp xtrans, 40mp xtrans solves chroma noise issues and shifts aliasing to patterns that are easier to process out>the lenses on mft are often made with worse glass, worse coatings, which fucks with color and contrast further until retards spend $1000 on a snoy GM tier engineering marvel that's still basically an f2.8>lenses for larger sensors have more stops between wide open and diffraction limited for improving spherical aberration etc, making it a more useful lens rendering slider>you don't "have to" shoot "equivalent" to equalize background blur and background noise you fucking retardYou don't understand photography because you don't do itAnyone who does photography understands all of this intuitively through experiencecANON, the #1 proponent of this, just passed the 24 hour mark after being challenged to post even one photo to show up some amateur photos of dogs and cars ffs. You people are retarded clueless nophoto who took a snapshit with your dads old camera once and went back to reading dpreview.
>>4526919Well, yes the meme 25mm f/0.95 has the roughly same aperture opening as standard 35mm at f1.4 (classic Fuji lens, probably twice as small) or 50mm at f/2 (any FF lens).Now, the Fuji is kinda crappy at 1.4, but I doubt that the Voigtlander is better.
>>4526920sensor tech mattersthe a7rvi has 16mp m43 sized pixels but the dual simultaneous readout from each capacitor (simplified) gives it a huge advantage over dual sequential readout (g9ii) and separate gain stages (most modern sensors)EFCS only cameras introduce a bit of extra noisesensor quality also matters. not all sensors, or ADCs, are created equal. the entire imaging path matters.16mp m43s are all pretty old sensors and old chips so the basic theory is kind of useless, there's no true comparison anywhere
>>4526920If you have smaller photosites, but more of them, you also get a boost in apparent sensitiviy once you downscale to view on screen.
>>4526925That as well. I think OM has 12 bit RAWs still while everyone else has 14 at least with mechanical shutter, not sure about electronic.
>>4526927Raw bit depth doesn't even guarantee hardware precision, it just moves the cutoff so we can see more of the increasingly unreliable data before it's just darkness and random noise. Panasonic gave one m43 camera 16 bit raws and it didn't really matter.>>4526926The chroma noise ends up looking like shit though (z7ii, a7r, r5).
>>4526761>not even one photosad
>>4526921>if you stop down, you HAVE to raise your ISO!That's not what I said.
>>4526931>Unless you have the equivalently larger/faster lens to gather an equivalent amount of light more, your extra sensor size is essentially just wasted.today we learned that a larger sensor is wasted if you dont use a larger apertureit's not even a rule, and it's not even rightmicro four thirds is dead for a reason
>>4526930He ran like the scared dog he trulycis. Many such cases, but still quite sad.
>>4526933>today we learned that a larger sensor is wasted if you dont use a larger apertureA larger *equivalent* aperture, yes. That is correct. You could go the other direction and mount an m43 f/0.8 lens to your full frame, but then you waste sensor space to vignetting. So you really can't win here.Behold, micro four thirds' terrible dinky tiny sensor producing piss-poor detail and background blur even after jpg compression and a 50% crop. Yes, M43 truly is dead.
>>4526935So you genuinely think a larger aperture is the only way to gather more light and cameras stop being defined at the sensor dimensions, and that pixel capactity, quality, and pixel aperture don't exist? it seems there is also always very little light, we dare not use ISO 100, only aperture can save us... also you blew your highlights.>Behold, micro four thirds' terrible dinky tiny sensor producing piss-poor detailYes this photo is blurry as fuck with harsh clipped highlights everywhere. Is anything in focus? PNS quality. This is what micro four thirds is. Point and shoots. Ya'll need to return to reality because your entire system became a non starter when you started begging for more and more proof m43 is totally as good as le fool frame and less small, useful camera gearBecause now fuji is the EDC fun camera and m43 is for retards who are easy to separate from their money when an "f0.8" lens is waved in front of them
>>4526935mfw i took a sharper bugsnap with the same shitty cameradelusions are wasted on the delusional
>>4526936Kindly post your full frame spider or bug photo shot handheld in manual mode with manual focus and no edits other than crop/resize. I would like to see what I am missing out on by using the "dead" M43 system.>>4526937Cool photo anon. Lens?
>>4526938The lens (60mm macro at f11) doesn't matter. What matters is light. The correct way to get more light onto the sensor is to have more light to begin with. Not to use too much aperture. The more light there actually is, the better photos actually turn out.I don't think it looks that much better than this 42mp snoy with broken IBIS and a shitty minolta 100mm macro at f8 (autofocus not supported) cropped to death. It's not even using the full frame. It's actually cropped this much.Micro four thirds makes for an OK point and shoot that shits out more megapixels than it has real resolution. All the equivalence, justasgood, etc cope is pointless and killed what little utility the system ever had.
>>4526940If I was cropping that I would've done a square crop centered on the bee. Am I retarded?
>>4526943cropped for smartphone zoomers
>some retarded potato fucker posts his dog>gearfags btfosugar 2.0
>>4526940>what matters is light hitting sensor area (which can be achieved through many different ways, only one of which is sensor size>but having a small sensor is why m43 is deadThis seems mildly contradictory. Which is it?
>>4526946Another anon, but m43 is almost dead, because we are getting to the point where every APS-C sensor will also work as a 16-20 MP m43 sensor. If Nikon and Snoy bring out 40 MP APS-C bodies, it's over.
>>4526912PENbros...
>>4526951
>>4526946Full frame is higher quality when light is scarce, and can use more of all the light there is when it isn't.Micro four thirds can only use a fraction of the light that's available and when there's not as much light, it still gets a little less of it. People can equalize DOF and background noise but it still looks a little shittier without ludicrously expensive optics for what they are to do what some of the cheapest lenses for FF are capable of. Sometimes, FF at a higher ISO than equivalence still looks a bit better, just grainier, just because of glass quality.
>/p/ grapples with this fact:>cheaper (new) cameras aren’t as good
>>4526951>>4526952S9 has no EVF nor mechanical shutter.L10 is about the same size too and has those.
>>4526961It's appropriate that you mention L10; it was criticized as being not compact enough for an m43 sensor inside.
>>4526952>No viewfinderI'm not buying your Panashitnic Loosermix, sorry Rajesh.
>>4526963>It's appropriate that you mention L10; it was criticized as being not compact enough for an m43 sensor inside.yes and a lot of people are turned off by the non-interchangeable lens.will panasonic release anything for their big 25 year anniversary or will pic related be an accurate depiction?I think they planned to but considering their inability to meet L10 demand probably those plans are on hold.
>>4526934I refuse to entertain a serial impostor.It should surprise no one he shoots mirrorless, DSLR is the last stand of implicit photographic integrity.
>>4526983>I don't know how to use my camera, sorryYeah we know
>>4526979I've heard forums talking about a new S9-like body. Who knows.
>>4526983>I don't own a camera
>>4526710Anything can be a travel/edc if you're brave and not a bitch
>>4526983There's no excuses left. You lost the photobattle. The argument is officially decided in favor of huskyfag.
>>4526989Rare case of a tripfag saying something true
>>4526990/p/ is claimed doggo territory
How do you wear out the buttons so much at 40k shutter count?
>>4526998caustic skin rease>menu and play wornamateur camera used in single shot
Fuji x-e5 as a small, neat camera to take for walks?
>>4527003Walks with a dog of course.
>>4526983>but but butYou lost.
>>4527003Its the best travel and EDC camera
>>4526998>>4527001Considering how the buttons are worn on the edges and that wear on the bottom corner of the body it's not so much from use, it's from carrying it about.
>>4526918Just get a Viltrox 90mm f2.2 (or 75mm f1.8 and crop in)
Oh thank fuck om pen is big, or at least bigger than ep7. Got a good excuse for myself for being a retard buying that shit a few days ago.
>>4526951>camera is the perfect camera travel sizeAnd this is bad because?
>>4526953>Full frame is higher quality when light is scarceDubious claim at best. Case in point, toneh-free handheld night photography. Stabilization wins every time. What's more, a CFA-less camera like a K-3 III Monochrome will absolutely mog a color full frame both in noise levels and detail.
>>4526995>drooled on the elevator floor again awardFilthy animals
L10 looks like crap compared to the LX100 1 and 2.Pen looks like crap compared to Pen F and the later E-PL series.I think the used market for smaller cameras will remain strong.
>>4526995Husky dog did beat the other dog aka cAnon the cAnid.It was a totaly legitimate and fair photo battle with a clear winner.
>4527029>4527031nophoto yapping
>>4527039The old dog is all bark, no bite. Kek
>>4527040he lacks photos to post that aren't either blurry leaves or ruined by trash heaps in the background desu
>>4527031Surely you can post a photo (that you took) of this happening, right?
>>4527034Husky: actual dogcANON: self hating gay man that attends orgies in a shitty wolf costume
>cANON kills another threadHe's like a real life Colin Robinson, he feeds off this shit you fucking retards
>>4527040>>4527041>>4527042>>4527047All cANON btw.
Just impulse bought a 400mm f5.5 vintage german tank barrel for $140. What am I in for? Planning to shoot it first on m43 and also aps-c.Chatgpt says 4 elements in 2 groups and soft wide open.
>>4527014>Viltrox 90mm f2.2Well shit. This is basically identical to the olympus 75 1.8 for m43 which was the only lens keeping me on the system. No excuse I guess.
>>4527065Noooo we could have snoyposted instead of humiliating the tripfag again
>>4527065>>4527066>>4527092You fags are fucking insane>>4527084Beware of catching some crime with it, get a potent flash to blind the eventual aggressor.
4527094Nophoto
The nophoto thinks it made a witty remark to make people like it more, but it was just cringe
>>4527096>>4527097Brimmy coal
>4527099Sorry I don’t speak pedophile
can someone please recommend a small usable DSLR tripod for like 25 bucks? I only need it for a couple things and I don't want to spend a lotplease
>>4527131A bean bag, bunched up sweater etc...
>>4527084>ChatGPTSell it and pick a different hobby.
>>4527135I asked chatgpt because I was sure no one here had experience with this lens or would be able to tell me any relevant information.I was correct.
>>4527136I can tell you it is shit
>>4527138There's a good reason M.O.G. is in the hall of microtones
>>4527084>chatgpt says
>>4527136Meyer optik lenses are always super shit. Some of them have funky bokeh. They’re for the lomography/pseudopictorialist trend.
>>4527143Wrong. Some are super shit others high end.
Do not reply to me you nophoto nocamera shit. No one cares what you have to say. You dont even do the hobby.
If a dog destroyed me in a photo battle I would be too embarrassed to make another post on /p/ on god fr fr
Hi anonsI bought this little relic from a marketplace. I love it and it's really fun to use, but I realized that half-pressing the shutter button does literally nothing. As far as I know it's supposed to do AF when pressing it, and the display should change a little with the green indicator but it's just not happening. Pressing it fully makes it focus and then immediately take the shot. I checked the options but I don't think this is a software setting.I realized the other two buttons next to that (timer and a custom button) don't work either. Is the control board just dead for those or maybe some ribbon cable is loose? Everything else works, even the zoom lever that's next to them. Can't even fathom how to take this apart, is there even a point in trying to use contact cleaner, or I should just get used to it?
>>4527157>noooo you must be kind to frauds reeeee
>>4527157I cant believe we thought cANON was Luna’s ownerThe real one turned out to be far more based
>>4527162The only chance you were given was to win your argument against a dog and you LOST.>>4527163Who is Luna?
>>4527164The dog. Every husky is either named luna or balto. I dont make the rules.
>>4527165Oh duh. I thought her name was Loki.
>>4527160Try spraying deoxit into the buttons
>>4527160Unfortunately a common problem on these early digital Olympus behemoths even without having seen much usage.
>>4527168Alright, I'll try to get a hold of some and give it a shot.I feel like it's the problem of that board or something, because usually pressing the button in a certain angle would make it contact properly, but it's completely dead here.>>4527170Ah right, I see. Thing is built like a tank so I won't even try taking it apart, it hit me right in the tip of the elbow when I took it out to shoot with it yesterday and I thought my arm would fall off.I guess I'll just get used to MF and AF only working when I'm already shooting the image. (don't wanna use continuous AF since it would just stress the machine pointlessly)
>>4527031drooled on the camera
>smaller sensors gather less light>but it's physically easier to build faster lenses the smaller the sensor gets (like the f0.8 m43 voigtlander), that are basically unheard of on ffSo what the fuck are people even arguing about? Why is sensor size even relevant when the lenses can make up the difference?
>>4527202It's not about light gathering. You shoot full frame because you want to adapt vintage lenses that were all made for full frame and you want the "original" look, specifically vignetting which is lost on a crop.
>>4526951>>4526952micro 4/3 is small and comp-ACK!
>>4527205Now compare them with lenses with proportional light gathering potential.Your 4x larger sensor does not provide any better image quality without a lens that is 2 stops faster, all else equal.
>>4527202Because it's not that simple, there are physical limitations. These can be mechanical, such as the diameter of the mount and its distance from the sensor, the cost and complexity of making super fast lenses (that actually perform well), and they actually optical properties of light. It's generally accepted that there's about a 2 stop difference between 4/3s and FF, yet those ultra fast f/0.85 lenses are then only the equivalent of about f/1.8 so you're not matching the f/1.4 and faster FF lenses.
>>4527206>Now compare them with lenses with proportional light gathering potentialDo you mean the $2000 PRO f/5.6 zooms or the $1000 PRO f/2.5 primes?
>>4527202>when the lenses can make up the difference?Because they often can't. Consider too that Voigtlander has FF f1.2 lenses that are half the weight and nearly half the size, that perform better.Remember for light gathering transmission matters more than fstop, and that f0.8 is more like f1 (but same is true for FF f1.2 lenses to be fair)
anyone know anything about these?I'm leaning cambofoto cause legs can be put flat for astro and can be reversed for macroI don't think I need a tall tripod and I want it compactanything even more compact and cheaper I can get or diy?
>>4527213>anything even more compact and cheaper I can get or diy?I've used ultrapod for many years now to bring on camping/hiking trips. For size and weight I don't think it can be beat. It has a strap which allows it to securely lash around a tree/branch.
>>452721450 bucks and looks plastic... appreciate the suggestion though.not sure I could point it at the sky and my lenses can be pretty heavy
>>4527206>>4527202Fool turds shills lost this argument and photobattle to a dog literally in this thread>>4527212Fstop is a ratio. The FOV and aperture size in mm are light gathering. A fool turds 25mm f0.9 is the same as an FF 50mm f1.8 and optically inferior to the cheapest DSLR lenses. There is no advantage these fools are scamming themselves because they dont know what the numbers mean.
>>4526925>>4526922>>4526921>>4527216All correctAll said hundreds of timesThe sony/fuji haters and olympusonic shills (same people) never learn
>>4526920This too
>>4527217m4turd shills have been stuck on repeat ever since their general got deleted lol>n-no f-f-f-f-f-fuji and s-s-s-so....SNOY are not options no one is allowed to like them oh wow look micro four thirds has no alternative now listen bud an f0.8 is a fast lens you need and f0.4 for fool frame to have any image quality advantage. looks like you have to either choose micro four thirds or a big heavy canikon that costs $8000. checkmate.Literally all they say is this and they say it over and over and over again lol. One day /p/ will have just one poster left, and they'll be saying exactly that.
>>4527218Which is why high res cameras take a noise penalty and astro cameras are like 10MP APS-C sized.
Why does fuji xt5 (a $2000 camera) go up to 1/180,000 shutter, but the alpha 1 II (a $6700 camera) goes only to 1/32,000?
>>4527223>why can smaller sensors with less pixel well capacity have shorter e-shutter scansBut all it does is make the image darker, rolling shutter and banding aren't addressedThe fuji xt5 has 25ms readout, the a1ii has a 3.8ms readout. This is what actually affects how images look. The fuji isn't freezing motion in e-shutter better.When was he last time you needed a 1/180,000 exposure to control brightness?
>>4527222Oh cmon. You fags buy 1 inch sensors from Chinks (ZWO) for the price of a full frame camera.
>>4527217>>4527221Snoy and Foolji still suck ass thougheverbeit
>>4527216>There is no advantage these fools are scamming themselves because they dont know what the numbers mean.
>>4527227Yeah, planetary cameras for imaging really small and usually really bright things, though really small and relatively dim things can be imaged as well. The limitations of a small sensor size are tolerated because they only make Barlow lenses up to around 5x, maybe 6x, most telescopes are 1000mm, maybe 1500mm focal length tops, eyepiece projection kinda sucks, and you have to get your FOV small enough to actually resolve what you're imaging SOMEHOW. Adding a crop factor into the mix is a convenient solution. The loss of light can be compensated for with longer integration time.Besides, when you can do stuff like image stacking which is basically witchcraft, the actual image quality coming out of the sensor is kind of arbitrary. It still matters, but not as much as you might think. People have gotten usable astrophotos out of super shitty decade-old webcams just by using good processing technique.
What is the practical difference between shooting 50mm lens on full frame 40mp and cropping it to 100mm view, versus shooting 50mm on m43 20mp and not cropping the image? Will these two produce identical results if all other factors are equal?
>>4527229>multipling the M43 focal lengths by two to make it equivalent, but not also multiplying the apertureBait or stupidity? The lenses let in the same amount of light, but they don't let in the same amount of light relative to the sensor size (or focal length, but that doesn't really matter here)
>>4527230Oh yeah it was implied but I forgot to clarify, most telescopes aren't 1000mm, most telescopes that are that long aren't considered suitable for serious imaging, and most serious imaging telescopes are 500mm or shorter. So yeah getting enough power to actually see what you're trying to image can be a real challenge sometimes.
>>4527231Cropping the full frame pic will give you closer to 10MP, you need to square the crop ratio. The full frame sensor has bigger individual pixels so the signal will be cleaner at the expanse of resolution. DOF will be the same (shallower than the original FF pic since crop = smaller circle of confusion).
>>4527232because F-stop is a measure of light intensity per unit area.i.e. every square mm of the sensor at F2.8, whether a full frame, or MFT sensor, has the same light intensity.If you take the FF lens and adapt it to MFT you will get an image of exactly the same brightness.The difference is that the FF lens projects that brightness over a larger area - a larger image circle.Now if you were to adapt the FF lens to the MFT sensor using a speedbooster adapter, that adapter compresses the image circle to fit the smaller sensor, now the brightness actually increases.
>>4527232Came to post this. Equivalence includes aperture and ISO, otherwise it's pointless to bother with. Focal length equivalence only reflects framing, not actual performance. You don't get equivalent pictures from just applying equivalence to focal length. Dishonest equivalence posting is arguably as bad as denying equivalence altogether. One could even say it's nothing more than sensorlet cope.>>4527231They won't, because cropping 50mm to 100mm will give you 10MP. Pixels are area, you're cropping to 1/4 of the image. You'd need 80MP to match the reach of MFT. Or 40MP Bayer APS-C (X-tranny 40MP looks blurry at 100% compared to 20MP MFT).
>>4527234YES YES YESAt long last, someone knowledgeable posting on /p/.
>>4527235Total collected light is what determines the signal to noise ratio of the final picture, hence the advantage of a larger sensor when beyond what's within reach of the smaller one's equivalent settings.
>>4527229> StabilizedLol, OM just released a body that does not support stabilized lenses.
>>4527236Lol in reality the 10 year old 12 bit m43 sensor is far worse than the current Fuji (Snoy) one. It's just that m43 users crank sharpness and denoise in DxO (don't forget to add $200 to the price of m43 body) and pretend that their phone pics look "sharp".
>>4527239>Total collected light is what determines the signal to noise ratio of the final pictureI won't argue with that. My point is that F stop is a measure of light intensity per unit area, so it's valid to call either lens F2.8.We can reverse my previous example. Take the MFT lens and adapt to full frame using no optics. It is projecting a circle that's about a quarter of the frame, but the light intensity within that circle is still F2.8. If you cropped out the center and compared with the same crop using the FF F2.8 lens the brightness is the same.If we take four of the MFT lenses using a theoretical adapter that projects each lens's light into one quadrant of the FF sensor, you are getting F2.8 over the whole senseor, just as with the single FF F2.8 lens.If you take a single MFT lens and use an adapter with optics that enlarges the image circle to fit the FF sensor you get a darker image / higher F# since light intensity per unit area has gone down.
>>4527242But it's not equivalent when using the lenses on different sensor sizes. You're adjusting the focal length to compensate, why not the f/ stop? You might argue that the ISO will be the same but the sensor performance won't be (noise, dynamic range, etc.) and neither will the depth of field.
>>4527242>it's valid to call either lens f/2.8.Yes. Both lenses are f/2.8. However, both lenses are not 70-200 f/2.8. It still does not make sense to compare aperture and lens size without discussing focal length. Of course the full frame lenses are twice as large, they let in twice the light at equivalent focal length, or the same amount of light at twice the focal length.
>>4527242Dividing by sensor area is not very interesting if the two sensors have the same resolution. You'll eventually have to multiply by photosite area (how much light one pixel collects) and the the area cancels out.
>>4527216>A fool turds 25mm f0.9 is the same as an FF 50mm f1.8the same in DOF*light gathering is still better, and it's better usually by the exact amount that FF will need to increase the ISO to get the same exposure, negating the low light advantage since m43 is worse by slightly lens than x2 noise wise. so if you value wider DOF at low light, m43 has an advantage.
> Fuji hikes prices; body and lens I bought for 1600 Euro is now 2000.Haha what the fuck.
>>4527248No. Its not. Stop being a retard. This is a small board so you’ve probably said this bullshit and been corrected 20 times by now. CF 2x 25mm f0.9 = 27.7mm aperture, 47deg AOVCF 1x 50mm f1.8 = 27.7mm aperture, 47deg AOVThen stack on everything the astro nerds and doggo have reminded you of maybe 20 times now and fuck offNo your cheap shit camera doesn’t have an advantage besides being cheap. They don’t even make them smaller (lumix gm) anymore except for slow macros and slow teles. Its a nature photography brand for poors. Pipe down, peasant.
>>4527248>90% of photos taken at f16 ISO 50 forever>duhhh because ekwovelense… ff has to use a higher iso… duhhhhhhhShut up retard
Olympusbros, rate my compact street photography setup inspired by Pen F.
>>4527255Snoy could never compete with that 35mm f2.8 equivalents superior light gathering. Just look at how big it is. It definitely light gathers. G master, step aside. PRO has arrived.
Super Nokton 29mm f.8 = 58mm f0.95 noct ?not really:F0.5 - 2 = F1F0.7 - 2 = f1.4F0.8 - 2 = f1.7F1 - 2 = F2so, foolframer f1.4 is more powerful than anything mfturd has to offer
I like my fuji x-t5, what am I actually missing by not choosing other camera brands? No shills please
>>4527242>I won't argue with that. My point is that F stop is a measure of light intensity per unit area, so it's valid to call either lens F2.8.It is valid and true, but for comparing sizes you should compare equivalent lenses or keep focal length the same. Otherwise it's a moot point.>If we take four of the MFT lenses using a theoretical adapter that projects each lens's light into one quadrant of the FF sensor, you are getting F2.8 over the whole senseor, just as with the single FF F2.8 lens.In other words, the FF lens collects as much light as 4 of the MFT ones.>>4527248You're incorrect. Because even though FF needs to increase ISO more, the noise introduced by FF increasing ISO is less. Noise-wise, FF ISO 400 is as good as MFT ISO 100 for equivalent focal length and aperture. Hence why the FF has an advantage whenever it's able to drop ISO to 200 or 100, but is otherwise equivalent.
>>4527261Forgot trip>>4527258It'd have to be f/0.48 on MFT to be equivalent.
>>4527261>bla bla bla incorrect nonsense that was already cut down earlier ITTPipe down peasant.>>4527260Slightly more reliable autofocus and trustworthy weather sealingRugged manly aesthetics instead of alt girl/gay hipster aestheticsBigger sensors without compromisesNikon's stupid good price/perf on the z5ii/zfRaws that load faster and always look sharp af at 100%'ats it
>>4527262you forgot to post a photo toolikeevery single time you've ever postedphotoers 'graphgearfags If, in theory, according to their uh, "logic"
>>4527260Build quality, image quality, color accuracy, weather sealing, authenticity, intrinsic photographic integrity (mirrorless not brand thing, but there's no rangefinders or DSLRs made by Fuji), ergonomics, straighforwardness (Fuji pretends it can simulate films but their output shows it's a fraud when compared to actual film), the je ne sais quoi that comes with a Giugiaro design, the list goes on.
>>4527248But you're not considering that the 50mm f/1.8 will be cheaper, probably sharper (especially considering that the lower pixel density of the FF sensor is less demanding), and you'll have a higher res image from the FF body. Also if the lighting conditions are good enough that the FF setup can be at base ISO or a stop above (quite likely with fast primes) then there's no way of matching it with the 4/3s.
>>4527263>it's nonsense because it btfos my wrong opinions!You argue like a woman about the Clancy trial
>>4527265Nophoto>>4527267It's nonsense because photography and cameras themselves do not work like that the moment you stop trying to take poorly lit handheld pics of anime dolls with an ancient canon ff sensor.Equivalence is visibly (but not technically) broken extra hard by 40mp xtrans, which is why you hate it so much. It produces FF-clean images when scaled down to 24mp. As a nophoto, the idea of hasphotos genuinely enjoying one of the brands you autistically hate AND breaking the theoretical rules you made up must drive you nuts.>>4527250>>4527218>>4527217Yeah.
>>4527268Better than FF in terms of chroma noise (the most visibly obvious kind), actually.
>>4527268>Equivalence is visibly (but not technically) broken extra hard by 40mp xtrans, which is why you hate it so much.It gets mogged by a GH6 lol>to be a fujislug is to cope
>>4527272>can only use dpreviews shitty ACR generated previews because he has no raw editor of his own, due to not being a photographer>GH6 still way noisier looking at a lower ISOYou probably can't even figure out how to set up darktable to demosaic xtrans properlyWhy would you, you're not really a photographer, you're a /pol/ tourist who has a thrift store camera he used maybe five times for other hobbies and then left in a box.It's not even worth the effort to redo those raws myself you're a colossal idiot for trying to have this argument when a teenage girl with an iphone is more of a photographer than you have ever been
cANON losing the exact same debate again and it hasnt even been a whole thread
>>4527274>it's adobe's fault reeeethen explain the SOOC JPEG worms on pictures of the beach, sluganyone with a pair of working eyes can see there's higher detail on the GH6
>>4527276I've done this demo beforeOne of the homos with a corgi has done this demo beforeI think isi has done this beforeDealing with you is hopeless because you're really not into photography, you're into arguing about it for schizophrenic reasonsPost a photo or leave
>>4527277>it's an X-tranny thing, you wouldn't understand
Now the watercolor effect from Fuji having to blur everything to cope
>>4527278>ultra zoomed in sourceless oversharpened whatever from god knows where of god knows whatOk nophotohttps://files.catbox.moe/yxbsvp.jpgLooks detailed to me maybe spend more time appreciating photos and less time zooming in on grass and bricks
>nophoto has an endless treasure trove of dpreview screenshotsTruer words have never been spoken to the nophoto tripturd than>Dealing with you is hopeless because you're really not into photography, you're into arguing about it for schizophrenic reasons
>>4527280>sourceless oversharpened whatever from god knows where of god knows whathttps://brentbergherm.com/gear-review/shooting-xt3/
> Me and my nigga reading the thread
>>4527283>Sand “worms” with Sharpening Amount set to 40 in LightroomAdobe issue.>I then processed each image in Lightroom and then additionally, I processed the Fujifilm images in Capture One. So I had three prints to compare. In all of those images, the Canon won. Just barely, but it won. However, I determined that it?s just my processing technique that is to blame since I have 12 years of experience processing the Canon files. I decided to call it a draw since I?m sure I could modify my processing a bit further and I?d get equal quality out of the X-T3. So, an old canon sensor with a resolution and noise advantage, hurt by being an SLR with an OLPF, just barely won at his typical print sizes. I'm sure the canon looked a more better zooming way in. Xtrans does have a slight resolution disadvantage in some situations, especially these days when mirror shock, SLR lens design and strong AA filters aren't kneecapping FF. But it's not that big of a deal. FF is better but fuji is fine and their lens selection is good. Definitely better than m4turds.>I got some excellent results. Sometimes I needed the ?enhanced details? and sometimes not. But results were getting really good. I was super stoked. My prints were becoming very good and I knew I was going to be happy with my decision to switch to Fujifilm.All of his issues in this blog, past this point, pertain to using lightroom or pushing files from an old APS-C sensor too much.Countless people will tell you fuji especially 40mp fuji works fine in capture one or with very well set up darktable, edges ahead of canon/sony APS-C offerings and definitely surpasses DX nikon and blows micro four thirds out of the water. If only you read and comprehended your own sources.Or did photography.
>cANON got another intellectual ass pounding3rd itt. nophoto is a total slut for losing debates.
>>4527289>yep, that one is going into my shill compilationCapture One makes the Fuji worms less noticeable, doesn't eliminate the problem altogether. But you shills would rather ignore that.I'll never forget when you fags almost talked me into recommending a friend he wastes his money on an X-T30 over an a6400 to shoot long video, denying the overheating issues it has. Luckily I found out before he wasted the money. Wasn't much, but when someone asks you for a recommendation under a tight budget it ironically matters more than when you get asked to recommend something with price being no object. Fujislugs might as well be paid shills, but you're cultists doing it for free instead.
>4527291>yap yap yap yap one time someone had a wrong opinion andyou lost nophoto
>>4527290>fujislug intellectuals
>>4527293If I "lost", how come there's now anons who understand how equivalence works, on this knowledgephobic board of all places?
>>4527295Because your intellectual superiors (ie: huskyfag, astro nerds) explained it in clearer, more accurate, and grounded terms after you were aggressively wrong.Now everyone knows equivalence actually works against crop sensors and isn't even close to being the whole story.
i want /an/ to leave
>>4527297this but nophotos who can't out shoot a dog
>>4527291The least believable part is you having a friend kek
Newfag to /p/, can I get a QRD on who all the resident tripfags are, why they're hated, and what cameras they like/hate?
>>4527300If they can't post a good photo they actually took, don't listen to a word they have to say. It's that simple. See who's posting photos ITT? Not the tripfags.
>>4527297Challenge them to a photo battle and defeat them. It's the only way, nophoto.
Speaking of photobattles.. what if I made a photobattles thread? Any ideas for rules or how to structure it? Would you participate to settle a score or maybe just for fun? >>4526821I scored 6-7 grand worth of studio strobe equipment for 500 bucks + 1100 for shipping. Im going to make a gear post once the haul comes in.
>>4526994>>4526989fuck off retard
>>4527244This. It is well-known in the astro community that if you have two telescopes, say a 500mm and a 1000mm and both are f/5 - then the 500mm will have a 100mm aperture (the actual physical diameter of the working optical aperture, not "aperture" as in f/ratio as is common in photography), while the 1000mm will have a 200mm aperture and therefore collect more light. If you put the same eyepiece in both, they'll be the same brightness - but the 1000mm scope will have twice the power (magnification), so what you're looking at will look twice as big at the same brightness. Or, you can use an eyepiece with twice the focal length (power is inversely proportional to eyepiece focal length) and view at the same power but twice the brightness.And the photographic equivalent of eyepiece focal length is sensor size, and field of view is the equivalent of power.
>>4527320>Manlet melty
>>4527323this is the nth time this has been explained in detailthey will return to their script tomorrow>you aren't allowed to like sony or fuji. i found a photo of a broken camera. looks like its mft or a fat canikon!>actually, ff is useless unless the lens has a lower f number.>mft wins. logic.the micro four thirds general was banned and deleted for this.
>>4527331Maybe you should post some broken cameras instead anon or challenge them to a photobattle.
>>4527331If m34 is superior to ff then why are smaller sensors not better to m43? It's undeniable that at equivalent intensity of light more photons will hit a bigger sensor than a smaller one, thus taking in more optical information.Irrespective of all the chat about sensor size nobody is or isn't going to get a compelling photo because of the sensor. Obsessing about hypothetical scenarios and exposure theory won't make you a better photographer either. All it does is make you easier to sell products to
>>4527335moot point. /gear/ will eventually be banned and deleted. this is g9ii thread spam all over again.
>>4527331Snoy and Foolji are shit and it has nothing to do with mft somehow being better (it isn't, of course)>Shit build quality>JPEGs that suck way more than they have to for no reason>Xtranny is a meme that barely does anything and exists solely for marketing purposesYes, bigger sensor is more better. No, that doesn't mean the rest of the camera is better.
>foolji is shit>bigger sensor is more better>fooj makes medium format>fooj is more better
>>4527340That would be pretty dope if the gear thread went the way of the m43 gen.
>>4527326You forgot to put your trip back on fat retard. We can all see you samefagging.
>>4527340God I hope you're right, it would be so funny if that happened
>>4526787you just know
Hello guys I've been getting into wildlife photography using an EOS R50 with a 100-400mm lens and it just feels too restrictive on the distance, I was wondering if a 1.4x or 2.0x extender would be good enough to get pictures from far away without losing too much quality? I would love to buy the 200-800 lens but it's too expensive and I feel like the 800 only lens would be too annoying to use
>>4527354Meds.
>>4527370>EOS R50>RF 100-400mm>1.4x or 2.0x extenderYou will be seriously pushing the optical quality of that lens with a crop camera and an extender. It's a lens designed for a full frame camera which is budget oriented, and then you're using it on a crop camera that will exacerbate any deficencies or aberrations the lens has (which is indeed has). It's not bad per se, in fact is a very good cheap birding setup, but adding even a 1.4x teleconverter is going to be stretching that glass even more.Could do it. Not saying not to. But you will be losing quality. Birding is unfortunately one genre of photography where you're just plain fucked on a budget. But, if a teleconverter means you no longer have to further crop your photos then it'll still be a net win if you are indeed cropping them in post.
>>4527331If you're a gearfag, getting into m43 will just drive you crazy. Having to argue thay you gear is better because it has "weather sealing" (you are not sure what it is) really takes a toll on you.
>>4527344>the super popular brands are bad actually here zoom in on this blogs photo of a brick wallNophoto
>>4527340>mods delete all the /gear/ generals>half the catalog vanishes
>mods pls delete all the gear threads because they bully my favourite brand ;_;
>mods pls delete the gear threads because its five autists repeating their personal propaganda no matter what anyone says to them and regardless of the facts, and literally none of them are capable of posting even one single phototrue btw
Can anyone post a photo in this thread tho?>>4527394>>4527393>>4527344You three one, photo each
Need to buy a standard zoom finally. I wanna buy Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III VXD G2. Tell me why I shouldn't. Reasons I wanna go with this one:>small and light >cheap as dirt, like $700 new $500 used here, Sigma 24-70 is at least twice as expensive >better minimum focus distance than other cheap standard zooms(important for me) >I have a 24mm prime I can use use if I need anything widerwhat I don't like>no aperture ring
>>4527370I really dont like cropping my pictures it triggers my autism. For example in this one if I just had a bit more zoom I think it would have been much better looking. I might get the 1.4x then, I wish I was rich and could just buy the 800 one :((
>>4527416meant for>>4527387
>>4527240It does not do sync-IS which synchronizes the sensor and lens OIS for an extra stop or so. You still have the option to use the IBIS or lens OIS.
>>4527415The "rendering" is bad, low contrast, really bloomy highlights. It'll make you believe in 3d pop and no amount of overcooking your edits can save it. Also the plastic build feels like shit. All it is is sharp.Sigma's glass and build quality is generally > tamron's. t. had it, never buying a tamron zoom ever again
>>4527250>>4527261>>4527266there are 2 full stops between f0.9 to f1.8there are 1.7 stops between iso 800 and iso 2600m43 has a .3 stop advantage in low light iso, normalized by depth of field.I'm not arguing any opinions or other factors. this is math.
>>4527423A 25mm f0.9 and 50mm f1.8 have the same aperture size, therefore the same amount of light enters each lens. This is math. You have had this explained to you millions of times, along with sensor tech and optics minutae that clearly explain why even "equivalently" and beyond it, FF photos look better on a global level even if zooming on on bg noise looks the same. Unsurprisingly spending more on a camera does typically equate to enjoying better image quality.I and others have even posted example photos demonstrating this. And I am not going to do it every single fucking thread because you have the memory span of a fruit fly, or a retarded autistic shilling agenda, in opposition to people who have cameras from 4 different brands.it has also been explained to you many times that>normalized by depth of fieldHas never mattered either. You do not have to raise your ISO whenever you stop down. Real life just doesn't work like that.There is a clear and obvious reason the /m43/ general was wiped off this board and it's because you post what you just posted over and over again, then you post your shitty photos, and then we laugh so you stick to doing 11 consecutive threads of equivalence cope every 72 hours. The few photo posters from /m43/ went to /rpt/ and the general was gotten rid of just because of you. Really.
>>4527416>I really dont like cropping my pictures it triggers my autism.Same. I use a Lumix camera though which has 'hybrid zoom' and 'crop zoom' options for photo and video.I select the medium photo size and the camera crops to those actual pixels on the sensor, so I am "cropping" as I shoot, never in post.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm4uk76aTtEIf recording RAW the crop frame is saved in the RAW file which you can enable or disable depending on your RAW software.If I were you I would definitely sell the primitive Canon gear and get a Lumix, which on used market are surprisingly cheap.
>>4527425Wow thats impressive. I wish my Sony camera had that level of control when it comes to cropping. I always have to waste time cropping in Lightroom on a computer afterwards.
>>4527425>>4527426Hey shill, can you post a photo you actually took and not someone elses youtube video?Also can you explain why the entire panasonic lumix brand is outsold by canon's 50mm f1.8 STM if it's so advanced? Could it be most people actually prefer the more professional workflow that offers superior creative control to in-camera gimmicks, and most people who actually buy lumix do so to shoot video scheduled for heavy post production work?
>>4527424>>4527424the aperture on the m43 lens focuses the light onto a 4 times smaller area, therefore boosting the light gathering by 4 times, not unlike a speed booster.this gives the 4 times or 2 stop advantage in light gathering to the m43.to achieve same DOF, FF camera will have to stop down the aperture by 2 stops.between those two cameras, FF has a a sensor advantage of only 1.59 stops.because of this, normalizing by DOF m43 has a .41 stop advantage in noise profile. and if the sensors were the same quantum efficiency, the results would completely cancel each other light giving them parity normalized by DOF. (zero advantage to either one)
>>4527428cancel each other out*
>>4527428>idiot nophoto confuses itself25/0.9=50/1.8The apertures are the same size.The same amount of light enters each one.They do the same thing.>but the INTENSITYinverse square law. moron. it's the same amount of light. don't do advanced mathematics if you can't get the fundamentals right.You've also confused yourself by hyperfocusing on a specific dated, somewhat shitty high resolution sensor and generalizing that to a whole format. The D850 sensor sucks, and still sucks in the form of the Z7II and Z8. Sensor quality matters a lot, actually.You actual fucking moron. You broken fucking record. Post a photo or shut. the. fuck. up.
>>4527428>all that AI math>>4527430>25/0.9=50/1.8
>>4527430incorrect.focusing light into a smaller area gives it more intensity per area. it's why speed boosters boost speed and why teleconverters reduce it.I only said advantage because D850 is from 2017 and em10 is from 2014, 45mp vs 16mp, and 4.35µm vs 3.75µm which by all accounts should put olympus at a disadvantage but doesn't.I picked those two because they are seemingly the most popular cameras in those categories at first glance. I own neither FF nor m43 camera. I shoot APS-C.
>>452743325/0.9=50/1.8.>focusing light into a smaller area gives it more intensity per area.Oh man its too bad you don't know what the inverse square law actually does and why a 25mm and a 50mm with the same AOV and aperture size actually get the exact same amount of light.>4.35µm vs 3.75µm which by all accounts should put olympus at a disadvantageUnderlying sensor technology actually matters a lot. Does it matter if your bucket is bigger if it's a leaky POS full of gunk? No. That sensor is horrid even after the dual gain tech was tacked on. It really only works well at ISO 64 as a rough imitation of medium format. It's not as good as the a7riii sensor at all.
>>4527434>25/0.9=50/1.8.in terms of dof, not light gathering ability*light gathering stays 0.9 compared to FF 1.8. that's the point.
>>4527368That cANON has no photos?
>>4527435Yes nophoto, they have the same light gathering ability. A 27.7...mm hole is a 27.7...mm hole. A 47...* aov is what it is.
>>4527434inverse square law is why I'm right.
>>4527438It's why you're wrong, actually.Or telescopes would work differently than they actually do.
>>45274370.9>1.8
>>4527427>Also can you explain why the entire panasonic lumix brand is outsold by canon's 50mm f1.8 STM if it's so advanced?NPCs do not care about quality or features. NPCs care about popularity. They see Canon as being the most popular and assume it's good, but actually Canon has not been good for a very long time.>Could it be most people actually prefer the more professional workflowMost Canon sales are Powershot or APS-C to soccer moms who want better than phone photos for their vacation or kid's graduation. The professionals who use Canon do everything in third-party software.>superior creative controlLumix has superior creative control vs Canon. Canon does not even have a real time adjustable tone curve. No in-camera cropping either, just some joke digital zoom which shits on the quality.>most people who actually buy lumix do so to shoot video scheduled for heavy post production work?people who buy Lumix do so exactly because the feature set of Lumix eliminates post-production work, for example Real Time LUT which allows creators to apply the look they want during the shoot and deliver their product immediately without needing to post-process.
>>4527439inverse square law states that the intensity of a physical quantity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from its source. 50mm FF lens has to spread the light twice as far, over 4 times larger area, compared to a 25mm m43.
>>4527437hope this helps
>>4527427One thing I think Canikon does right is you have an upgrade path from cheaper gear to more expensive, so you can upgrade staying in the system. Even Fuji made it so more expensive cameras have visibly higher specs. OM has more or less the same shitty sensor in everything and then expects you invest in expensive bodies and glass, as if higher retail price can fix phone IQ.
>>4527434>a7riiiby the way, it still slightly loses to em10 in this scenario. (by 0.01ev)compared to em1ii it loses by 0.57ev.
>>4527423>>4527428>>4527433>He doesn't know what aperture is>He doesn't know that f/stop is a ratio>He doesn't know what light gathering isngmi
>>4527453all in all, disregarding other factors like price and weight, m43 has more light intensity per dof normalized by 4 times or 2 stops, and FF has more light ability normalized by light/noise 2 stops or 4 times, but loses significantly on dof (or wins if you want a super blurry background)if you want wider dof at low light, like in macro, m43 has mathematical advantage.and again, if given sensors had same efficiency, neither would have any advantage over the other, the noise profile would be the same. ff could of course get more open and blurrier which m43 can't, which was never in contention. >>4527454>no argument only ad hominem
>>4527455so FF can go down to f1.2 and that would require f0.6 on m43 to have dof parity, but m43 at f22 has effectively f44 dof but same diffraction as FF would have at f22. similarly f2 on m43 has f4 of FF equivalent sharpness but f2 light intensity due to focusing on the smaller area, giving you an advantage of light intensity per dof.it all depends on what you want from the tool qnd if it matters for you to offset the other factors.FF is not inherently better than m43 or APS-C. they just have different behaviours and limits on the extremes.if you take the usual landscape f8 on FF, m43 achieves it at f4 so it can get more light in comparitivelyaps-c would need f5.6medium format (digital) f10large format would need f28it all works out math wise to be equal with equal tradeoffs, of the sensors are the same efficiency. the only "better" is comparing specific sensor efficiencies.
>>4527456>sharpnessI mean dof.I'm done with this topic.
Was looking at a ZF for manual lenses but then found out there's a DSLR version from 2013. Is it any good? I am not sure if the $1000 price tag is because of nostalgia bait or because it's still a good camera.I never use autofocus, I hate plastic lenses, and I hate aperture-by-wire.
>>4527456>m43 achieves it at f4 so it can get more light in comparitively>more lightPlease stop. We already covered this. It gets the same amount of light relative to the sensor size.
>>4527498I'd say if you want a Zf, just get a Zf and don't spend money on things you don't want.
>>4527502I really care about lenses way more than the cameras. I don't want to pay for le space age autofocus and 240p slowmo video if 99% of my camera work is still photos of stationary subjects.
>>4527510Z5II then maybe? I thought it was exactly the same as Zf just in a different body and cheaper?
>>4527498>>4527510Just get an old mirrorless from the brand that has your preferred ergonomics. You will end up preferring the EVF for manual focus plus a lot of them have IBIS. All the dials of a ZF or DF are pointless, ISO dial will almost never be used because you should be using auto ISO 99% of the time, and the times when you'll want to use Tv over Av are rare.
>>4527501it's not, you dumbass.
>>4527456>>4527525Oh my fucking god. Please shut the fuck up.>INTENSITY?The 25mm gathers less overall light than the 50mm because it is effectively further away from the light. It evens out. Completely. The hole is the hole, they get the same amount of light. 25/0.9=50/1.8 period.Olympus is borderline out of business. That is for a reason. Micro four thirds has no relevant advantages. Not even lens size - it's set by aperture size, and anything m43 can do, APS-C can do, and FF can do, if the market is there for smaller aperture lenses.There is a reason you repeat this and repeat this and REPEAT THIS such that the only response is to repeat the correction you have received, and it's because people who are wrong never shut the fuck up. Your goal here is not truth, it's to lie until anyone who knows what the fuck they're talking about leaves so you can repeat the script >Sony is bad. Fuji is bad. No one is allowed to like it or i'll spam. M43 or fat canikon. M43 is actually better.Again this is literally why your general doesn't exist anymore, nophoto shillfag.
>>4527528there's also a reason the only source for this is one repetitive autist on /p/ and literally every other resource on the net (besides his blog maybe) follows>>4527250>>4527323it's the basics of how optics work.and surprise surprise light intensity autist started back up immediately after cANON got traumatically btfo. it is increasingly obvious the sony hate, fuji hate, and micro four thirds shilling are all one photoless asperger. eventually /gear/ will have to be no more and then jannies will have to work to keep him out of better threads.
>>4527528brother... I'm not even the imaginary autist you're fighting in your head.when you focus light at a smaller area you get more intensity, it's not complicated. you never fried ants with a magnifying glass?
>>4527339cause m43 is not superior, neither is FF, that's the point. everything is the same with advantages in certain areas.
>>4527531The intensity doesn't matter. You have the same amount of photons in both cases. You have the same amount of light, period.I repeat: light intensity has nothing to do with available light.And if you're samefagging: stop.
>>4527534>intensity doesn't matteralright, explain how speed boosters work with your logic
>>4527531It is the exact same amount of light. It doesn't matter. You're counting the number of photons, not trying to heat up the sensor.25/0.9 is equal to 50/1.8. Aperture size is the only thing that affects light gathering. The only.Lens aperture and pixel aperture, to be specific. Yes, pixels have apertures.It works exactly like the telescope analogy.Micro four thirds has no image quality advantage. No, a smaller sensor is not better in low light, and never will be. It only has a cost advantage and a scan speed advantage (which is falling behind APS-C quick desu). Until you chase equivalence because the life purpose of every m43 fanboy is to claim full frame is dead.Ironically this is exactly why m43 is dead.It takes a giant $1500 f2.8 equivalent for the glass not to suck.
>>4527534>>4527536it's exact same total light over a 4 times smaller area, dumbo
>>4527536>not trying to heat up the sensorit heats up because the same amount of light in a smaller area is more intense which is why you get the same noise profile as FF with 2 more stops of iso, it's literally the same. how do you explain that?what is your explanation that m43 sensor compared to ff is exactly 2 stops ahead in dof and 2 stops behind in noise? or that aps-c is 1.5 times ahead in dof and 1.5 behind in noise?
>>4527534>>4527536please just watch this https://youtu.be/Apum3Ezqo0U?t=118especially this part https://youtu.be/Apum3Ezqo0U?t=563
If anyone makes another fucking gear thread, please report it for spam. The gear threads from the past several months are still up and you “people” literally repeat the exact same thing over and over again.
>>4527541>how do you explain thatISO is an irrelevant number25/0.9=50/1.8No advantage, same in deal conditions,The funny part is... equivalence doesn't actually entirely work, it's just noise and DOF not other qualities, because ideal conditions don't realhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4454569/#4455121>loses to a technically worse sensorkek
>>4527538Yes, but that smaller area is a digital image sensor, which means one of three things:-The photosites must be smaller, and thus less sensitive to light-There must be fewer photosites, reducing resolution-Some combination thereofThis is on top of just not getting any more light to the sensor in any given exposure window, so actually, small sensors are even worse for light grasp than they first appear.The "Dumbo" moniker is fitting; I am the elephant in the room and you must address me.
>>4527544>>4527546>same in real conditionsthat's the fucking point, FF is not better than cropplease watch this if the previous ones didn't explain it to you https://youtu.be/6XMk9jFcnlA?t=1248you can also start from the beginning of something confused youyou can use dxomark and photonstopixels if you want to argue about snr
>>4527548How can you be this dense? The whole point is that a smaller sensor needs a faster lens to get the same amount of light at the same FOV-equivalent focal length. Because a shorter lens at the same f/ratio has smaller working aperture and thus lets less light in. And as a bonus, the smaller sensor is just worse at actually collecting that light than a bigger sensor would be. Any astrophotographer will tell you exactly the same thing.
>>4527548FF is better than crop. Much better. All the time. Sorry!And micro four thirds is very very bad
>>4527549the point is that you can use the tradeoffs as tools. you can have more dof at lower iso for low light on a crop, you can have blurrier background on ff, that's the point. not to mention differences in weight and cost. m43 f1.2 costs 50 bucks, f1.8 aps-c as well, FF lenses even vintage ones cost way more. so getting a faster lens on a crop is trivial compared to FF.>any astrophotographer must be why they're using larger sens- oh wait... they actually use active cooled sensors smaller than m43 connected to their telescopes...>>4527551when is your Hasselblad coming in
>>4527549so do you disagree with dxomark on their low light iso testing methodology then?
>>4527553>f2.4 equivalent>fastRetard alert.>must be why they're using larger sens- Yes.https://optcorp.com/collections/deep-space-cameras/products/qhy600-photographic-mono-camera-combo1Larger sensors are simply better at everything but being cheap and having faster e-shutter scan speeds w/o additional penalties.People like you ironically killed micro four thirds>pls btfo fool frame! more PRO f2.8 lenses pls>wait why is everyone preferring fool frame now
>>4527558In all honesty, m43 killed itself with making everything bad on purpose. They just had a chance to release a successor to a hyped older camera and they made a crappy plastic brick instead.
>>4527559natural result of poor prior salesfuji totally blew past them. they weren't willing to slot in under fuji's market position and still make quality equipment, so they pandered to equivalence theorizing spec sheet gearfags and died. the weather sealed "f1.8" re-releases were what everyone wanted them to do originally, but too little, too pricy, too late.
>>4527560OM Zuiko lenses were fuckin incredible back in the '70s/early '80s, if they would've kept the quality up to that standard and been careful to keep their flange distance longer than everyone else's, people would've kept buying them just to use on other cameras with chipped adapters. Missed opportunity.Honestly as someone that's historically liked Olympus, their recent history has just been sad to watch unfold. Mistake after mistake after mistake, all repeated over and over again.>Repeatedly failing to make a full-frame camera.>Repeatedly failing to make any M43 camera actually smaller than its APS-C competition.>Repeatedly failing to make M43 lenses actually smaller than APS-C, and in some cases not even smaller than full-frame.Infinite potential to make something great but they just cannot get their shit together to save their life. They could be the Japanese version of what people think Leica is, but they fuck it up every time.
>>4527553>must be why they're using larger sens- oh wait... they actually use active cooled sensors smaller than m43 connected to their telescopes...Not for the reasons you think. Using a longer scope and/or a stronger Barlow lens (essentially the astro equivalent of a teleconverter) is always better in principle, but in practice many stars deep-sky targets are so tiny that actually getting the FOV small enough to put enough pixels on it to resolve it with any detail can be extremely challenging with larger sensors - there's practical limitations, especially if you're using a relatively short telescope for imaging. Also, astrophotography just isn't as exposure-limited like regular photography is, with auto-guided setups you can spend literally the entire night from dusk till dawn imaging a single target if you want, so the limited light grasp of smaller sensors isn't as much of a concern. Even so, astro cameras with big sensors exist, and are expensive, and are used by guys with the cash to spare, especially for imaging larger targets.
>>4527573They're used because they're more sensitive, same reason NASA is using fuckhuge sensors
>>4527577Anon was talking about using smaller sensors, not larger ones. Of course larger sensors are better, that's what I've been talking about this whole time. Sometimes a smaller sensor is more practical for us amateurs in specific use cases but that's not the same thing as being better.
>>4527571>I want a system camera to use it like a worse compact with some itty bitty optically compromised pancake>no I won't buy a compact
>>4527558and how much does a f1.2 FF lens cost?
>>4527667Stop being poor.
>>4527667Why would I be wasting money on f/1.2 lenses when I can get more than shallow enough depth of field and light gathering with f/1.8s?
>>4527554>>4527535I like how these questions were ignored.
>>4527706They were ignored on the basis of being fucking retarded.
>>4527854whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>4527270After 2 years with Fuji I got hit by GAS and compared RAWs from more expensive Sony a7V and cheaper X-H2 and was pretty surprised by how terrible those Sony files were. Sharpness and detail were very close with image scaled to the same viewing size but Sony had terrible moire and disgusting rainbow noise. Human skin on Sony had yellow and green hue to it while on Fuji it looked natural. Overall detail when pixel peeping was slightly better on Sony but that camera had samples shot on a more expensive 2024 85 f/1.4 GM lens while Fuji samples were shot on last gen 56mm f/1.2 from 2014. If Fuji can make their AF-C work just as well as CANIKONY with their upcoming cameras then there will be absolutely no reason to go FF for non professional use.
Have some Fuji snaps and bask in the glory of those unedited straight out of the camera images. All images have been shot with weak grain effect, noise reduction set to lowest possible setting and sharpness set to -2 (on a scale from 0 to -4).
This one has strong grain effect added.
This one is backlit so you can see dynamic range a bit better. Subject detection AF hits right on the eye as long as subject is more or less stationary. It kinda falls apart with moving targets.I don't claim those images are any "good" they are just technically correct snaps with 0 editing so you can see what xtrans can do. I can't post my better pics because they usually have faces on them or could give out my location.
which one should i pick ?Just for little sessions in very small rooms for little portraits, nothing fancy
