Innovation is dead Part 2 editionPrevious: >>4526676
It's time for this you have to like snoy/you're not allowed to like snoy marketing campaign to end desuWho else agrees these threads are officially spam?
https://poal.me/xx58vc
>>4527556Yes absolutely.
>>4527556>ten copies of the same thread to keep whoevers mybrandyourbrand meme on the front pageDelete them all
>>4527556The first one was fun but everything that can be said has already been said. It's mostly trying to trick new users into falling for X brand.
Daily reminder.
>>4527556>>4527565>>4527566>>4527569>seething samefag
>>4527582>coping schizogearfagEnjoy the copium while it lasts.
>>4527555>Apparently, TTArtisan now makes autofocus lenses>AF 85mm f1.8 for both Z and E mounts>90 bucks brand newWhat the fuck.Would buy, if I didn't already have the AF-S (and the f1.4).Has anyone here tried it? Or the 50mm?
>>4527606>RF MOUNT LOCKED BEHIND JAPANIGGER POLICY>CANNOTS IN SHAMBLES
>>4527611What policy?
Hey autists, I need a semi-compact to capture day-to-day life. What's some good models?
>>4527614Canon hasn't given anyone license to make RF mount lenses with autofocus, and have clamped down on the one comapny (iirc Samyang) that did make a few so hard they actually got some random Chineseium factory to play ball.There's a small handful of AF 14mm f/2.8 lenses out there and they're 2x the price of a new manual focus version because of how few were made (and they're great for astro).
>>4527617Lol, what a bunch of greedy retards
>>4527606trash soft toy lenses lol
>>4527621Thanks for you input anon, really brightens up the board.
>noooo you cant make fun of my favorite brand mooooodddssss
shame how monochrome digital cameras are this niche and expensive product instead of being a cheaper alternative like you'd imaginewhat about those DIY projects where people physically scrape off the color filter array or dissolve it chemically? you wouldn't want to do this to your good camera yet the point of this is to improve image quality in some situations like in low light…and does it actually improve things? you also remove the microlenses in the process
>bunch of autistic babble of zero consequenceYeah these threads either need banned or limited to ONE ON THE CATALOG PERIOD
>>4527616are birds and other distant subjects a part of your day-to-day life?
>>4527621They're not though. You can look up the reviews yourself.The one big drawback is that they don't have manual focus. And that they're plastic builds, of course.
>>4527582>nooo my latest heccin epic gear wojak meme/chart screenshot needs to be on the front page at all times thats why we need 10+ duplicate /gear/ threads>plus if we use one thread forever how am i supposed to have the same argument over and over again?>>4527616Do your own research and ignore tiktok users who talk about soul/character/"the experience"/"film look" etc or say "pocketable" (because 9/10 are 1lb 5in and wont fit in any normal persons pocket).When you have some models you think might be good, ask someone who actually takes and posts photos instead of the shillbots in this spammy trash heap./gear/ threads on /p/ are not real threads, they are a handful of autistic retards spamming at each other, like /g/ users making successive mac vs windows vs troonix threads.
>>4527616Get a dust sucker Ricoh GR or a snoylet RX100.ORGet some relatively compact APS-C camera like an R50 and keep small lenses on it.
I have blocked almost all of camera shill youtube.
>>4527628yeah it really pisses me of how people are creating new threads at 301. on a slow board. let the thread reach page 8 at least before making a new one
>>4527643why?
First and foremost I understand that normally phones are dogshit and have dogshit sensors.However for casual photography, is something like the Vivo X300 with its funny photography kit "decent"?
>>4527647thanks I missed that onetotal shilltard death
>>4527652>spend $2000 on a disposable chinese tracking device>only way to take a photo without AI is to shoot raw>actually raw has AI in it suckerjfc just buy a fuji xe5/ricoh griiix by thent. been using the same iphone since 2022, used the same one for five years before that, fuck phones
>>4527654>iToddler
>>4527654> Don't believe chinks are charging $2000 for a phone camera.> Look it up.> It's $2000.Lol.
>>4527659It's just a phone. They get updates for 5-7 years and then the battery and glass are too fucked up anyways and you buy whatever is cheapest and compatible with what the majority of people use.
Is there any M43 bodies with an EVF that are still under $200?
>>4527670nothing worth using, just future ewaste. early, cheap, and panasonic m43s all have frequent build quality issues. save up a little for a decent aps-c.the only m43 bodies worth buying (for birds and bugs) are the e-m1 ii/iii and e-m5 iii (ii's power switch constantly breaks)
>>4527674I already have other bodies, I just would like a early magnesium Olympus body to put a pancake on and have something unobtrusive. I also just like how they look.But those have gone up so much I might as well just wait for R100 refurbs to go under $300 again and get a RF28mm to have a pancake.
kinda shouting into the void but does anyone have this one? im interested in carrying a body with a telephoto attached, and 1-2 other lenses. the page on the photo has fucked up dimensions because theres no way the nikon fits there. when i look at the measurements it might fit, but when i recreated every item in blender to put together it didnt. also from pros is that theres a lot of organization for my autistic ass but cons: i look like a military larper and also its one shouldered which i guess could be tiring after some time
>>4527638>/gear/ threads on /p/ are not real threads, they are a handful of autistic retards spamming at each other>literally describes every single thread on /p/
how is this camera still the same price it was 6 years ago
>>4527650Gee I wonder who killed it you piece of shit
>>4527646I bet youre that retard that said you shouldn't make new threads until the image limit has been reached
Any lens without an aperture ring belongs in a landfill and should be illegal to produce
> Visit in-laws> See "Something-something-Q3" in the list of wireless networks.Lol, I think my brother in law bought a Leica Q3.
>>4527701That's the gardener's Audi, Jack
>>4527556Protip: The trannitors have a public IRC channelhttps://www.4chan-x.net/4chan-irc.html
>>4527684Don't pay that much for a bag
>>4527711>mfw joining as cliveDiabolical I know
>>4527693Indians
>>4527684Just get a K&F or something, cheap camera bags are fine.>>4526521Thanks for this anon, my boomer dad shot a bunch of snaps in RAW-only mode on his 5D by accident, Canon RAWs look wack SOOC with messed up colours and shit so I've been trying to figure out how to make them look presentable, I have absolutely no idea how to edit a photo but DPP4 did the trick.
>ULTRA SUPER FAST F/1.0 FULL FRAME LENS REVIEW!!!>"professional gear reviewer" shooting in daylight with impossibly retarded shallow DoF, instead of shooting at night, or (most importantly) showing nighttime video performanceThe lens is called NOKTON you retards. It's meant for shooting at night. So stop fucking testing it in the daytime. You can't even nail focus at F/1 for close shots unless under studio circumstances.Fuck gear reviewers.
>>4527720>Hi here's [insert lens other than GP zoom]>I'm going to show you how it stacks up in [pre-determined, bland setting that doesn't suit [lens]]>So anyway, if [thing people might do but I don't do] is your style then idk I guess buy this lens whatever though>Me? I recommend this kit zoom sponsored by Ken's Rockin' Kockin' Perfectly Clear.
>>4527720>he watches camera shilltube instead of taking photosfuckin laughable m8
>>4527728>>4527720yeah why are low light tests sometimes skipped entirely on those videos and review blogs? it boggles the mind
>>4527720This guy is a fraud.The same level of sharpness on two different lenses may be called "excellent" or "just good" depending on his mood the day he shot the video. Inconsistency removes credibility to reviews.
>>4527647Based. I'm at the point I basically block anything with words on the thumbnail
>>4527716>Canon RAWs look wack SOOCYeah it sorta depends on what software you use to open them, since there's no objectively correct way to reassemble (demosaic) the data into an image. Obviously DPP4 does it in exactly the same way as Canon intended, and LRc is so close it makes no difference.
>>4527720It's for portraits, not night shoots, you amateur dingdong
>>4527741For Canon I find converting RAWs in DPP4 then exporting that as a TIFF to [insert software here] is best.
>>4527753So long as you're not doing much, or only light editing, yeah DPP4 usually produces the best results tonality and colour wise. LRc you can get a little bit more detail and dynamic range, and obviously it also is quite a bit more useful for editing. But personally I don't think i'd reccomend getting into LRc now since the pirating scene for it so dead, with GenP gone. I really wish C1 would just close the gap and add those camera profiles. Then there would be no reason to be stuck with fuckin adobe and I would be happy to pay for a permanent license.
>>4527754Which camera profiles are preventing you from just using C1?
>>4527755C1 has none of the Canon profiles, of which I regularly use about 60% of, and none of the Nikon profiles, of which I regularly use three.
>>4527756Do you just mean the presets like Landscape?Glad I spent my time just learning how to edit, instead of being locked in/out of programs for autistic reasons lol
>>4527756Guess I'm confused about which profiles you mean, which is why I asked for specifics ones initially
>>4527716>>4527712price is not really the issue, im looking for something that would fit my kit and also have a lot of ocd organization like picrel.
>>4527654when your frame of reference is AIphone there's nothing much to say
>>4527763It is your fault, especially the part where you went full dogfucker and all the times you spammed nazi nonsense, blaming jews for your complete failure as a photographer. A common combination, believe it or not.>>4527756C1 prostandard looks better than anything on a canon DSLR. Especially the older ones. But maybe it's like fuji, where wrong colors are why a lot of people like the brand.
^Everything you blame on jews is literally just American capitalism. Art became a consumer goods market after spending centuries being split between limited to religious devotion and sucking off royalty. There was a clear shift to pieces that were more versatile as home decor and styles tracked with interior design and architectural trends (that already existed). Modernist architecture trends themselves originated with the Scandinavians. And weren't too far off from Scandinavian tradition either.If anything Jews re-elevated photography by infusing art photography with activist journalism before it stagnated into abstracts and landscapes forever.
>>4527771
>>4527693The so called snoy tax.Meanwhile in the same time frame the R5 is now available for half of what it was in 2020.
>>4527693>>4527773
>>4527777>art photographyYou mean flickrslop to hang in your boring as fuck ikea home? Photography is reproduction. It can only do so much.God forbid a photo have deeper meaning than "looks cool, i mean, *tries to insert religion* am i based or what my fellow right wingers"
>>4527777>Jewish photography:>Activist journalism>Sociological contemplation>Cultural exploration>Emotional signification>Occult communication>European photography:>Looks cool.>Gonna go play with gears now. Might design a plane or an exploding rocket-pistol if I'm feeling cute.>Yeah art is just our secondary interest we just make it look cool or copy rome (that also just made it look cool) that's it really.>It's not an intellectual field in our culture.>We think artists should starve if they don't want to get a real job.
>>4527778>>4527779>the grandiosity of nature just "looks cool">dishonest fraud huckstery elevates photographylmao jewish hubris is something else
>>4527652a point and shoot from 2004 will beat any phone.just get something cheap used, anything.
>>4527670em10Lumix g3 g5 g6 gh1 gh2you can get a g3 for 50 bucks.
>>4527780>Stop combining art and intellectualism I don't like it>Reeeeee not social critique>Just take photos of flowers jfcIt's fine if you can admit you don't see art as an overtly intellectual field.But you should go into a productive intellectual field if you're going to be a bitch on 4chan 24/7. "Professional complainer" is the very position you bitch about. Bitch bitch bitch. All day long.And you fuck dogs. Hilarious.
>>4527783*hits joint*>woah photos of hobos and putting an image of christ in a bottle of piss is... le deep commentary, man
>>4527784>*hits joint*>woah photos of hobos and putting an image of christ in a bottle of piss is... le deep commentary, manYes. Problem?You didn't even capitalize Image of Christ and say Praise Be so I can't take you seriously from this point onwards. Sorry.
>>4527785I was paraphrasing a kike like you
>>4527786No excusesYou're going to hell for the sin of the absent shift key
>>4527787
>>4527788I see your unrelated twitter screenshot and raise you a semi-related 4chan screenshot
>>4527789>unrelatedIt's about photography unlike yours. And I stand by my words. You conveniently left the context out too, it was an argument about eugenics.
>4527791nazi dogfucker lmao
>>4527779“Looks cool” is consistently better for the world than “look how poor and ugly this guy is. SEE THE UNSEEN!” desuFuck the winogrand generation
>>4527791>leave your trip off for plausibly deniability>take credit anywaysCinefag confirmed zoophile
>>4527779What kind of photography is my egg still lifes? I am confident that the printed and framed egg still lifes are art, and that the average person would have no trouble agreeing with that.
>>4527555>The aperture ring on the Viltrox AF 26mm f/2.8 EVO rotates in the opposite direction of other lenses because of internal physical and size limitations in the pancake designkek Fuji chads stay winning
>be nikon>don't put aperture rings on your Brave New World lenses>but you want to release a retro camera>this necessitates a PASM dial on a camera that shouldn't need it (instead of the fuji which has auto mode on all 3 of the exposure triangle)>cope further by adding f-stop in a tiny window on top of the camera (because it's not on the lens)as an z-t3 enjoyer, I really want to enjoy this upgrade to ibis and full frame both, but my autistic criticism is killing it. What do? X-T5 or ZF? Yes, I know voigtlander exists.
>>4527803If you are considering Fuji, there's X-T6 that was supposed to release some time soon. It won't be FF of course, but maybe it will have something nice.
>>4527765>C1 prostandard looks better than anything on a canon DSLR. Especially the older ones. But maybe it's like fuji, where wrong colors are why a lot of people like the brand.No they look really bad. Colours aren't accurate at all. If you compare against DPP4 its obvious.>>4527760Hm, maybe its only for mirrorless then because they didn't come up for my camera.>>4527758Some advice since you don't know what you're doing: you need a good starting point, because you, a retard, can't colour correct. If you have to colour correct before you even start editing, it means your software sucks. Sorry. Just hard facts.
>>4527563I love democracy
>>4527808Sounds like cope. Are you sure you're not just taking a dishonest position because you can't afford something popular like every other repetitive gearfag here?>>4527799Eggs are deeply meaningful and feature heavily in Jewish cuisine folk art. You might be trans-Hebrew.
>>4527741Yeah we're both just using the Windows photo viewer. It's weird though, when you first open a CR2 it looks normal, like the JPEG of the same image if you had it set to save both formats (which he did for a while), but then after a second the colours shift and there's distortion and vignette. I think the CR2s have the JPEG parameters embedded in the file and Windows just doesn't really know what to do with that.We're both normies when it comes to editing and neither of us is gonna shell out for Lightroom or Capture One or whatever so DPP4 is gud enuff and I can actually make the pics look better than the in-camera JPEGs so HA.
>>4527815I think they're featured pretty heavily in many folk arts considering they have been such a staple in so many cultures diet for so long. Not quite the level of wheat, but pretty close. Im not technically jewish but I do have polish jew blood. I think my egg pics are pretty non subversive and maybe even resubversive in some respects. Some angry guy said my photographs were hitlerian in nature. Unsure if he finally turned around and was complimenting me or not...Is that your egg pic? It's really cool. Kinda reminds me of the moon and I like cheese and eggs together. The tonal range is also really nice.
>>4527813>butthurt samefag voting on his own poll >"democracy"?
>>4527813The people have spoken.
>>4527808Explains why no professionals use C1, they must all use DPP4 instead!
>>4527808>Some advice since you don't know what you're doingSays the guy that can't figure out C1 lol
>>4527823>It's weird though,What you describe is normal behavior, and should be obvious lolYou should view RAWs in the processor you want to use
>>4527808>they didn't come up for my camera.Which camera?
>>4527826Schizo melty
>>4527749I'm specifically referencing the Voigtlander 50mm f/1 nokton. Do you know what "nokton" could possibly refer to anon?
>>4527835A dumb trademark from back when 800 ISO was considered extreme.It's a portrait lens. No one is going to go snapshitting in the night with it for a review.
>>4527836>No! Things are manufactured for the reason I, and not the manufacturer, specify!Please note the low light photograph making up the banner of the product page on Voigtlander's website.>it's a portrait lensNo, the 75 f/1.8 is the portrait lens. It's even called "portrait heliar".>No one is going to go snapshitting in the night with it for a review.Yes. That's what I already said and therein lies the issue.
>>4527835>Do you know what "nokton" could possibly refer to anon?It's just the name they give for their lenses of a certain speed (mostly those faster than f2), same as Leica does with Summicron vs Summilux. Their most popular Nokton is probably the 35 f1.4 classic, and most people are using that for not night.>>4527803I prefer the X-T5 overall, but a lot of that comes down to usability, not performance.PASM can be handy as a quick override for the dials. Say you're shooting in M, and need to rapidly adjust exposure, just flip it to A, then back to M and you're back where you were at.Zf is much better for MF, especially with adapted lenses (for which Nikon is still best in class). The tracking AF is better too, and you only have subject detection on/off (as opposed to X-T5 needing to change subject detection based on the type of subject). Zf also offers much more comprehensive AF settings.You can set the control ring on Z lenses to aperture, but it is easier just to get used to the front dial again, or simply use lenses with aperture rings.
>>4527794See https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4220006/#4221733The whole thing was an argument about destroying nonwhite fertility rates.>>4527797More like avoiding the chance of a perma on my trip.>>4527799They are art, no doubt about it. The intent is undeniable.
>>4527837Awful lot of portrait talk (and lack of lowlight talk) for a "Nokton" from Voigtlander hereAlmost like maybe you're the one that's wrong?
>>4527839>It's just the name they give for their lenses of a certain speedWhat I am getting at is that the word "nokton" comes from the latin root "nox" referring to night. And Voigtlander themselves put nighttime shots on the product page. They do not put portrait shots or bird photography.It's a lens for low light and nighttime. I want reviews with low light. People here of all places know shilltubers are trash, so why are we even debating whether or not shilltubers test lenses properly?
>>4527842>He doesn't know about low-light portraiturengmi
>>4527842>literal low light shot is the product banner photoWhat are you even arguing, you retarded monkey? That it's OK for a shilltuber to not test an ultrafast lens in low light? Do we just forgive them and continue to fund their shilling whenever we purchase from camera companies who sponsor them?
>>4527843>"nokton" comes from the latin root "nox"So?>Voigtlander themselves put nighttime shots on the product pageIt's a generic photo they use on many lenses, do you think picrel is a night shot? Do you think a banner image is more relevant than actually talking about the common use case of a lens? >>4527846Good thing you can find examples of all the relavent lowlight performance stuff elsewhere. Why don't you get one and highlight that as part of your review?Do you think they should do it for all fast lenses or just ones named Nokton?
>4527841>nophoto>nazi>dogfuckersearch this man's computer
>>4527847No way, same image even for a non-nokton
>>4527849Looks like even the skopars are for night time too!
>>4527837>No, the 75 f/1.8 is the portrait lensNo, as per the banner rule, that is for product photos, notice how the banner lacks a portrait
>>4527850Speedfags don't want you to know you can use any lens for low light
>>4527850and even the macro
>>4527837What would you actually hope to gain from a "low light review"? I would think that testing the lens in decent light would be better for judging the quality of it as the results wouldn't be muddied by using a high ISO. I can't think of anything that would be more informational from a night shot compared to a daylight one.
>>4527869A rough idea of T stops comparing different lenses on the same camera and ISO?
>>4527879I wonder why t stop isn't advertised more than it is except when dealing with cine lenses as if this is only relevant for movie makers. Saw a youtube video where a Chinese ultra fast lens was tested and compared against a slightly slower more known brand where the slower one allowed for faster shutter speeds in the same lighting conditions.
>>4527904Because it's beneficial for marketing.F/stop is always bigger than T/stop. F/stops are easy to calculate (literally focal length/aperture diameter), while T/stops require extra labratory tests to figure out. F/stops are simple for the below average IQ consumer to understand.T/stops were almost exclusively intended for actual film makers (so, not you or me or anyone not using an Arri, and no the Aussienon who bought one doesn't count) who genuinely needed to keep exposure consistent across shots at all costs. Even hobbyist film makers with consumer gear are not greatly affected by light transmission loss because nobody sane shoots in LOG anyway.
>>4527904Ever see a micro four thirds user try to claim their "25mm f1.4 PRO" is a faster lens than a 50mm f1.8?
>>4527927>Be camera lens industry>Use T/stop for expensive cinema lenses and F/stop for regular photo lenses since the latter is easier and perfectly fine for photo use>This is the norm for literally over half a century with no issues because nobody would make a photo lens so shitty that the approximate nature of F/stop would lead to inaccuracy compared to other lenses, not even cheap entry-level consumer lenses.>The Chinese enter the international market and IMMEDIATELY fuck it up with glass and coatings so dogshit that the F/stop on their lenses isn't reliable.>T/stop is now a relevant metric for consumer lenses despite being more expensive and involved to rate purely because the Men of Yellow are incapable of making a quality product.Pottery.
>>4527833The only nikon I have to test was a d700. Not really a nikon shooter.
>>4527856Lmao
>>4527946They probably lie about the f number as well.
>>4527879That doesn't need to be done in low light
New zoomer camera> fixed F2.2> 1/3 inch sensor
How true is this?
>>4527927There's another thing: in still photography the aperture is used to control DoF more than to control exposure.
>>4527869For night stuff, things I care about:>coma>sunstars>accuracy of infinity hard stop>shape of spherical highlights as you stop downFortunately, I'm not retard and all of that is easily found in reviews, and none of it has to actually be done at night.>>4527961Even focal length is often just an approximation.
>>4527957>Not really a nikon shooter.You can also just say you're a beginner to photography too and don't know that much, makes your other comments more understandable
>>4527972 Not owning nikons is a sign of great intellegence. They're bad cameras.
>>4527973You spelled Sony wrong
>>4527957Seems like they do actually support most of the DSLRs too, at least ones released within the last 14 yearsBut again, this is a very retarded reason to not use C1
>>4527976>But again, this is a very retarded reason to not use C1Lightroom is industry standard. C1 has to be better, not the same but a little bit worse. It's also missing literally all of the auto-masking that makes lightroom so good. That's like 90% of the program for us professionals.
>>4527964>oh sweet a new toy camera>its from fuji, oh yeah these snapshits look pretty makes sense>180 usdSo what the fuck is their plan when nobody buys it?
>>4527946I don't know where I read it, but allegedly the Nikon 85mm F1.4 D has a t stop of around 2 whereas the Zeiss 85 1.4 is around 1.5 or so. Then you have more modern lenses such as the RF 85mm F1.2 which comes in two variations where the DS (defocus smoothing) is rated at a t stop of around 2, noticeably slower than the regular version and the only difference between the 2 from my understanding is coating on some internal elements.With the increased complexity in optics I think it is something that deserves more attention. I kinda want to do a layman's test on some vintage fast fifties I have. I wonder for instance if there is a noticeable light loss with the 55mm F1.2 FL compared to the later FD S.S.C. which is a more "well behaved" lens because they perform very different in terms of flare resistance and if that fix somehow made the lenses slower.
I want this form factor back.
>>4527976These camera profiles have always sucked. Why use them? Just shoot jpeg for shitty colors.>>4527981The AI masking works great.>>45279650%>Canon: Bought first dx/fx camera they saw at walmart, takes better photos than mots people, never mentions their first camera was a phaseone>Nikon: Spec sheet expert with iPhone like photos and strong opinions, insists you listen to them because the D850^W Z8 is the most advanced camera ever made. Ken would be proud.>Sony: Obnoxiously takes their camera everywhere and waves it around taking creepshots in silent shutter, becomes extremely insecure about it without anyone saying anything, eventually has a mental breakdown over pancake lenses and switches to fujifilm or grows up and gets a canon>Fujifilm: Wears hazin hotel merch and a skirt regardless of gender. Living meme. Takes cat photos for reddit. Owns a meme dog like husky/corgi/shiba/borzoi. Probably smokes too much weed and drives a subaru.>Panasonic: A/V club personified, doesn't actually know photography exists, homepage is cineD. Hero is zack snyder.>Olympus: Either japanese or a total tryhard who wont shut up about "weather sealing" and owns ultralight backpacking gear but hasn't walked more than 5 miles in over a year. No one can tell if he used his camera or his phone unless it was the big honking zoom lense. He mostly uses his phone and takes advantage of this frequently.
>>4527981>lightroom is industry standardlightroom is college standard because institutions partner with adobe for bulk licensing so it's also the weddingfag/gwac/mwac standardin "real industry" it's all capture one because the prostandard profiles are super accurate, the tethering is better, the program is faster and more stable in general, it's a one program workflow, and what quick tools they have are extremely relevant to portraiture and product photography
>>4527985>Fujifilm: Wears hazin hotel merch and a skirt regardless of gender. Living meme. Takes cat photos for reddit. Owns a meme dog like husky/corgi/shiba/borzoi. Probably smokes too much weed and drives a subaru.fuck you you dont know mealso its the amazing digital circus not hazbin hotel god
>>4527555>>Innovation is dead>come here after months away>clive is still schizoing out about Sony Superiority (SS)You'd think Sony killed his entire family or something. Meanwhile Sony kills Nikon, Fuji, and Sigma with both lower weight, and lower price.
Even though Clive can't afford any of these, he's still ripping his hair out over how good Sony is.
>>4527981C1 is actually the industry standard the higher up you go. LR is the most widely used, but that's for a variety of reasons. Crazy that if C1 is missing so much how widely used it still is, you kind of make it sound like C1 must be that much better one everything else!In either case, if you can't feel confident in using either, you need to learn and practice more.>>4527985Exactly, for anyone competent at using LR or C1, the profiles are pointless aside from trying out different starting points.
>>4527970lens reviewers always miss the important shit>bokeh cutoff (hard line like iphone blur, soft transition, or that grosser "glassy" soft transition with double images or pseudo-sharp details in the transition zone seen in some complicated lenses)>field curvature (if what's in focus is a flat plane or not, sets portrait/landscape lenses apart)>color and contrast rendition (especially important if a lens has bloomy highlights, low contrast, or a heavy green cast)they pixel peep CA, zoom in on bokeh balls, and throw up a sharpness chart along with test charts of a pier and call it good
>>4528003Well good news for Voigtlander fans, as FM is all you ever need
>>4527990They will sell boatloads of these, especially the 400.
>>4527989Canon have to respond to this, but I guess they won't give us a prime L-series telephoto in that price bracket.
>>4528014canon will make it fixed aperture, sell it without a lens hood, and then it will break in half constantlycanon: "if you aren't decently wealthy or a professional, stay off full frame. fuck you peasant."
>>4527986Considering /p is primarily an amateur board, does it matter what is a standard in some industry?Otherwise, the issue is not about C1 or Lightroom being better at color science, but that different software has original color profiles for some cameras and some arbitrary crap for other ones. C1 has good Fuji film sims and is linked from Fuji website, apparently Lightroom has Canon colors, no one has Olympus colors, etc.
>>4528017It matters to remind people they're shitters complaining about a tool people in the least demanding "job" on earth have no problem usingthe average pro photographer is a 97 IQ midwit and probably high. if they can use a sony and c1, and you can't, you're retarded.
>>4527984people will think you're checking their temperature.
>>4528025That's a good thing.
>>4528019It's nice to see that shills (unpaid) are seething, how amateurs are free to choose software based on what matters to them (like built-in color profiles) and not what some "industry" tries to impose ("oh no, I have to sort through 2000 photos of fat Mexicans kissing, help me Capture One").$0 have been deposited in your account.
>>4528031>nooo i cant afford capture one i must spend hours on the computer making my raws look like sooc jpegskek
>clive convinced the jannies to delete cinefag's postslmao the redemption arc
>>4527936It is a faster lens. It isn't a faster lens+sensor combination.
>>4528040Plot twist: the image circle is the size of m43 and outside it's darkness.
>>4527555>It's been 17 years since the greatest pancake lens ever made was introduced to the worldWill it ever be dethroned?
>>4528045the buzzy POS with inaccurate autofocus, terrible coatings for flare/color until v2, and EMI issues on olympus bodies (aka the only good m43s)?
>>4528045Already has been, six times>rf 28mm f2.8 >z 26mm f2.8>viltrox 26mm f2.8 >xf 18mm f2>xf 27mm f2.8>xf 23mm f2.8The fuji xe5 is the best travel/EDC camera with the most pancake lenses. Simple as.
>>4528045Did someone say pancake lens? How about something made for Full Frame?
Newfag here. I want an instant photo camera just for fun. Not sure which Polaroid or Instax to get.
>>4528051Polaroid is chinese, get an Instax. If you really want a fun instant camera avoid the digital printer shit and buy the big ones that actually expose on the paper. And buy a bunch of refills.
>>4528017>some cameras and some arbitrary crap for other ones.Good thing none of that matters once you actually learn how to edit your images!
>>4528046>buzzy lenses >:(>buzzy lenses but snoy :D
>>4528025Need to know whether they're done or not
>>4528054No one is calling the buzzy lenses but snoy "the greatest pancake lens ever made", more like "streetfags get what they get".All of the FF pancakes are compromised quirk chungus lenses. >Canon's is sterile. >Nikon's has kind of shit rendering (3 stop vignette and permanently soft edges). >The viltrox one for snoy and others is a buzzy cheap POS and reminiscent of nikons with more even sharpness, but it's $300 new instead of $446.>L mount doesn't even have a real pancake, just manual focus and vintage crap that can go on any mount and some toy lenses like the viltrox chip and a literal f8 lens (even mft is better than that).Fuji's pancakes are undeniably superior. Sharp, soulful, small, fast to focus, and generally problem free. Fujifilm really makes the best travel and EDC cameras with the most and best pancake lenses. The XE-5 has better IQ than the lumix s9, sony a7c, and sony a7cii when downsampled to 24mp or processed in a competent program instead of adobe camera raw (adobe doesn't support fuji, and fuji cameras come with a free capture one license because of this)
>>4528052Thanks. I was looking at the Instax models more. Just not sure between the SQ40/SQ1, the just werks cheaper Mini 13, and the more expensive and cooler Mini 99. I wonder if the Mini 99 is worth the extra money.
>>4528045S O U L
>>4527606>90 bucks brand newDon't worry about that low price, gweilo. It's totally not us using sweatshop labor to undercut and bankrupt manufacturing in developed countries like we've been doing for decades. Please do NOT use vintage lenses and do NOT use manual focus because they suck and you suck.
>>4528061Saar pls do not say negative truths only positive goodvibes allowed very sharp lens and affordable like original buy new product everytime thanks to supporting
>>4528061That's hella based actually>ohhh noooo i have to be a disposable slave and live in abject suffering or i'll die and stop being a disposable slave that lives in abject sufferingfor real mate? no the chinese are pulling a fast one. they actually like doing this.why dont YOU get a sweatshop job assembling lenses? coward
>canon chads keep on winning
>>4528093cute, what's the cheapest good lens?
>>4528095Tree fiddy
>>4528093Uncanny valley look.
>>4528093>Looks like an OG EOS 630 but even blockier>IBIS>Side card slot (finally)>$800 more than R8>+100g (who cares but worth pointing out)>same cripplebatteryI'm torn. I can't say I like how they've gone about their "retro" look. It's almost like they tried too hard when they could have just taken a 650/630 or EOS-1 body and slimmed it down for mirrorless proportions.
if you were to only take one focal length lens on vacation for your apsc, would you take a viltrox 15mm f/1.7 or viltrox 25mm f/1.7?
>>4528093Sony won.
>>4528093are they retarded? they could smoke zf by making a retro camera in a size of an actual slr but no lets just throw in some edges here and there and call it a daywhy are they so afraid of making a retro camera? this just looks like sony a7xidiots
>>4528093>>4528102>s o u l l e s swhy would they do this?
>>4528101>17mm>For travelAre you retarded?
>>4528101I prefer 35mm. But theres nothing wrong with 24mm. Its literally just personal preference.>>4528109I think you're the retarded one. What the fuck are you on about?
>>4528107I think their marketing and research teams need to get some fresh blood. They've had the opportunity to milk the 50th anniversary of the best selling SLR of all time, but didn't. They've ignored the craze around compacts and only made half-assed products and also completely neglected the midrange for telephotos and instead only released lenses for either the professional type "the big media conglomerate pays for it" or the "I don't really understand photography and don't want to spend money" segment. The latest 400 4.5 from Sony only made it more apparent when e-mount users now have access to for instance the Sigma 500 5.6. Same with Nikon where they also have a good selection in that range. Heck, I'd even take a 400 5.6, but in order to get that on Canon I have to buy the 70-200 2.8 z and a 2x teleconverter and I am still running a slower setup that costs more. Or maybe buy a previous generations EF 500 F4 that weighs 3 times as much and costs twice as much used.
Thinking of speedboosting AI-S lenses to muh fuji. Has anyone done this?
>>4528107>You will never be a classic camera. You have no mirror, no viewfinder, no shutter curtains. You're a degenerated camcorder twisted by knobs and dials into a crude mockery of camera perfection. It's not an X-tranny
>>4528113I also suspect that the reasoning for not making like Sony a 400 4.5 they fear that it may affect sales of the 100-300 2.8 and the 400 2.8.
>>4528045>>4528048>>4528046>>4528047Who the fuck uses pancakes? Why?Gimping yourself for a 5cm shorter tube? What the actual fuck
>>4528061As I said, I already have both the AF-S 85mm f1.8 and the f1.4. I bought both used, but they were both several times more expensive than a brand new TTArtisan. Which seems insane to me.
>>4528121EF 40mm STM is superior to the 50mm STM. Likewise the with the EF-S 24mm. The only downside is cost and vignette.The RF 28mm STM is superior to both the 24mm STM and the 35mm STM, but lacks IS, the other two have faux macro modes, and dedicated control rings. It's superior to the 50mm STM but the focal length difference is big enough that you don't really compare those two. Unless you're on APS-C which in that case it wins again.The f/1.8-2.5 range that these 50mm lenses have are soft and have weak mid-frames and corners at these apertures.
>>4528093>gr8 R8 b8, m8>I r8 8/8this is itAI take over has begunit obviously controls Canon's business operations departments and automated production facilities
>>4528121>nooo you need to carry an inconvenient gigantic brick at all times so you look like a real prolol americans
>>4528093Plastic camera with a retro design, literally the worst of both worlds, how hard for them to make a camera for a man?
>>4528121Same as the Canon post >>4528124 the FA 43/1.9 (and DA 40/2.8 and other Limiteds) is optically a Tessar derivative, giving you the typical tessar optical properties, compact build, sharpness, very low chromatic aberrations but with some vignetting. The FA 43 specifically has very nice creamy bokeh, very good contrast and acutance and good microcontrast (tonal transition) which in some lighting conditions gives a very nice 3D pop effect.The lens itself features all the classical manual controls, aperture ring, smooth but not too loose focus ring, the markings feature focus distance and depth of field. The lens is metal build.
>>4528133They did it's called the 1DX>3D pop effectYour entire post was invalidated by using this fake buzzword nonshit. Nobody in the history of /p/ has been able to explain what "3D pop" using actual words and logical sentence structure.
>>4528135 (me)Sorry, second half meant for >>4528134
>>4528122>which seems insane to meIndeed, slavery, sweatshops and communism are quite insane
>>4528136>>4528135ok nophoto
>>4528138Dude dials lmao
>>4528138Honestly probably 5DSR or 5DIV with EF 50 1.2L or R5 II with RF 50 1.2
>>4528139>Can't explain 3d pop: Easy Edition.
>>4528140based, I just have AI generate all my photos so I'm not toiling and sweating at the camera dials all day, nor do I even need a camera at all.In 100 years we will all look back at camera dials and wonder why people suffered and labored so much for so little.
What is your subjective reaction to this pairing? Is it, as the kids say, based? If you could only use one mirrorless camera plus one manual focus prime lens for the rest of your life, would this pairing be high on your list?Serious replies only. Reposted this with further specification.
>>4528142You look at the photo. Don't you have eyes?It's like you want me to explain to you what an apple tastes like while you don't even know what an apple is.
>>4528144It's a 35mm lens on an APS-C which roughly makes it 50mm FF equivalent. Also f/1.2 equivalent which only means how much light it lets in. It might even have a soft image until you stop it down to f/1.4 or more. It should get you a couple stops ahead indoors or low light. If you don't know why it would be beneficial compared to a more normal 35mm then you don't need it.
I think I'm pulling the trigger on a Fujifilm Instax Square SQ40. I don't want a poolaroid. I want square film. This looks better than the SQ1 for almost the same price. I think this is the one.
>>4528144Subjectively, it's a lot of money and weight for what FF probably does better anyway.
>>4528051Get whichever one you have better access / pricing to the films. For me, and probably most people, that would be Instax.>>4528147SQ40 and SQ1 are basically the same, just different looking.>>4528144As the resident Fuji + Voigtlander guy here, it's interesting, but I wouldn't do it. I loved my X-T5, but would hold for X-T6 at this point.Getting past f1.4 always feels pretty unnecessary, and I would opt for either a smaller MF f1.4, or just use Fuji's 33/35 options and make use of AF. X-Pros (also hold for 4) are also worth considering for MF given the ERF. X-T's (and X-H's) can give you the dual display mode. The microprism is useless, the split image is accurate but slow, peaking is quick but often not precise, so you often have to focus check / zoom for critical MF.For non-electronic lenses, Nikon (Zf, Z5II, Z6III, Z8, Z9) is the best option given their system support for MF. They offer subject detection, so you zoom right to eyes, as well as green box confirmation, arrow indicators, and focus trapping with the right adapter. Going to FF also gives you more lens options, especially small + fast ones like Voigt 50 f1.5 II, which is a favorite of at least two people on board.I use a Zf + Voigt 35 f1.2 or M10-M + Voigt 50 f1.5II often as a daily carry.
>>4528144>>4528146I just don't see the big deal about these ultra-wide aperture lenses when they're normally soft, have strong aberrations, strong vignetting, weak corners, and low contrast until you stop up to normal apertures like f/2.8 and beyond. >Cool, now I can shoot in pitch black darkness thanks to my f/1~ lens>Huh nothing is in focus because it's f/1 @ 50mm>And uhh the vignetting in the corners is so strong it's as if I shot at f/4, hmm>Oh and the midframe and beyond is smeary soft nonsense...
>>4528150>normally soft, have strong aberrations, strong vignetting, weak corners, and low contrast These characteristics are all desirable in a world full of modern soulless oversharp autofocus slop. The most egregious example is Sigma who calls their most sterile lenses "art" lenses.
>>4528144I am 5DS R anon above. I was serious but you didn't previously specify mirrorless and manual focus.>reactionbugs make me feel: finewhen I see a bug I say: nothing>one mirrorless and one manual focus prime for rest of lifeCanon R5 II and Voigtlander 50 1.0>that pairingfine. I would still pick Canon thoughIf there was a manual focus 45 or 40 from Zeiss or something, too, that would possibly be high on my list. I know you are trying to move the goalposts so that Fuji seems like a more appealing option, but even then I would pick a Nikon Zf over any Fuji and still stick either a Voigtlander or Zeiss on it for a manual focus lens. Ideally between 35-50 focal length and 1.0-1.4 aperture. With criteria that specific there aren't a ton of options that actually make sense.
>>4528152Actually, can I change my answer? Still R5 II body, but I'll change the lens to the Canon TS-E 50mm 2.8L Macro Being able to do some movements and still getting a 2.8, plus optical perfection, is more valuable than a 1.0 aperture. Still portable enough for general use too.
>>4528093Holy shit canon made a sony
>>4528121You're not one of those "a larger sensor is wasted without a faster lens" retards are you
>>4528153I wish those TS-E lenses weren't so god damn expensive.
>>4528157That's true though. If we are talking equivalent>focal length>optics quality>aperture size>sensor pixel size>sensor tech>shutter speed>iso... then a f/2 m43 will necessarily produce superior image quality to an f/5.6 full frame. There's nothing inherent to having a larger sensor alone that means photos will be higher quality. You need more light to take advantage of that larger sensor.
>>4528151>well uh, expensive lens is uhhhh slop goyim buzzword soulless trumpmala skibidiThese huge heavy gimped "fast" lenses (f1.4 equiv lol) >>4528144 on a crop sensor are retarded and all the soulful pics you like were taken with generic sorta-sharp double gauss f1.8sHow far have we fallen if pic related is every bit as good as that "f0.9" and actually does the same thing?That thing is $1200, and once you put it on a $1600 camera it can finally pale in comparison to... a nikon d750 and a 50mm f1.4 D.What the fuck is the point?
>>4528160What cameras do you like to use?
>>4528159So... you need a Vogit 25mm f/0.95 lens to equal a $80 EF 50mm f/1.8 STM?A lens that costs 10x as much, is manual only, and has more distortion and aberrations?
>>4528159When you say more light do you mean a larger projection or higher intensity light?
>>4528163You're asking me how the exposure triangle works? If we assume identical sensor tech incl. ISO, you can either have the sensor exposed to light for longer (slower shutter speed) or have the aperture wider open (light intensity).
>>4528159You've had this explained to you.Please remember, first off, that the vast majority of good photographs were taken on ISO 50 film at f/8+ and all of the good "low light" photos you like were shot on ISO 400 film with lenses stopped down, and flash features heavily in quality photography. This trend has continued into the digital era even though digital photography sucks more. Everyone competent can live at ISO 100. The equivalence theorizing you literally autistic "people" love doesn't actually apply to real life 90% of the time. All the photos you think are shit are handheld high iso poorly lit photos of building corners and cats. So equivalence only applies to photos you think are shit anyways. Ouch.Second off, it's been demonstrated before that the hardware reality of sensor technology trumps equivalence theories that only cover bokeh and background noise. Equivalence is genuinely just a theory and it only works when pixel peeping the noise with equivalent quality lenses and sensors. Most micro four thirds lenses just aren't as good as their full frame and fuji X mount counterparts without being as large and expensive as their full frame and fuji X mount counterparts. Green casts, poorer color rendition, and slightly worse t-stops are common. The sensors are also dated except for a few newer models that never get better than 25mp and are the size and price of FF. Significantly larger pixels, dual gain and simultaneous dual gain sensors on FF factor into this further. So, even if you're a shitty photographer who takes poorly lit handheld photos of nothing, you'd just be spending thousands of dollars to have photos that sometimes look almost as to just as bad as poorly shot larger sensors. That's "equivalence". It's retarded.
>>4528161Canon 5DII + 50mm f1.8 STM>inb4 charts>inb4 pixel peeping noise>inb4 7 stop shadow pushes>inb4 zooming in on background noise
>>4528165*slightly worse than to just as badgot it backwards because bigger sensors always come first in my heart, lol!>buy good camera>u-u-u-u-u h-h-h-h-h-h-have 2 make it as bad as a pns and shoot at iso 12800 ok>-equvialense
>>4528165>You've had this explained to you.You seem to think I'm someone else when I'm not. I don't promote M43, and I admit full frame is better, if only because that's where all the tech goes and that's what all the vintage lenses are.That being said, equivalence (like the exposure triangle) is factual and cannot be argued against, even if it's true that "all else being equal" is rarely if ever the case.
>>4528164No. More light is an ambiguous term. Im asking you what you mean when you say more light.
>>4528173It's not even fully factual unless the only thing you do is pixel peep noise and measure bokeh balls, while blowing four figures on a larger body and $1k/lens to give up any size/cost advantage. When comparing disparate sizes like m43 and ff, FF keeps brighter/more vibrant colors, better tonal variation, a tad more sharpness, and better natural contrast a stop or two past "equivalence" because it's just more sensitive to light. Noise is just background grain, it doesn't matter as much as everything else.Anyone who gives a fuck about 'equivalence' is a sperg who misses the point of cheaper crop sensor cameras, which is taking good enough 4x6s and 1080p snapshits for the less discerning and getting better video options/rolling shutter for your dollar, not pixel peeping the background noise. Get a clue. It cuts the other way. A crop sensor without a tiny f3.5 equivalent lens is pointless. A cheap larger sensor camera with a compact f2.8 lens shot well will stomp all over a larger, more expensive crop kit while the gearfag-of-the-technicalities cries "cheater" and starts talking about how if it were cat photos in his basement and DOF were equalized his OM f1.2 PRO would have less noise.
>>4528175I already told you. The exposure triangle has only three points. Two of them do not relate to the sensor, which is what is being discussed here.
>>4528177The exposure triangle is an abstraction, and two of its points are imprecise.the real exposure triangle is>shutter speed>db of gain>t= (flen / aperture in mm) / sqrt transmittance %A lumix g9ii will take a photo almost as bright as a nikon z5ii using equivalent settings, an om5 will run noticeably darker, because the ISO label is arbitrary and the om5's sensor is less sensitive than the g9ii's.if the z5ii uses a standard nikon lens (so excellent) it will be 1/2 stop-ish ahead of a lower quality lens that makes m43 worth it and only go head to head with the g9ii if you blow $1200 on an f2.4 equiv primeit's a pointless exercise just to find out that crop sensors are generally worse and it takes a lot of money to make them just as good for the thousandth time, and you were a fool for doing that when using the slightly worse camera was already justified by it being smaller and cheaper
>>4528158Yeah... I'm saving up for the 24 II I just sold a lot of my beginner gear so I am close to being able to get one. After that I will probably look for the 50. Hoping Canon makes some RF ones so people dump their EF versions a bit and maybe prices will slightly go down for them.
>m4turdies: finally... the panasonic LEICA (HEAR THAT?) 42.5mm f1.2 is mounted to the om-1ii. this time fool frame AKA yesterday's format is no better than THE FUTURE. i cant wait to tell those fucking canon users on that forum over there they're MORONS. micro four thirds is finally just as good [terms and conditions apply]!>fujichads: haha moar pancake lenses it fits in my pocket haha lol look i adapted a leica lens ooooh $90 china prime soul hahahaha fun now add a film sim dial>panasonic and olympus: *innovation halts, sales crater, basically bankrupt*>fuji: *market share grows*
>>4528151Another anon. I don't have the Nokton, but I have the meme Fuji XF 35mm f1.4 and I don't actually like how it turns out at f1.4 most of the time compared to stopping down to f2. But then I suck at photography, so having a shitty photo where in addition everything is soft is a disadvantage.
>be ~50mm>the focal length which gives the smallest lenses at a given aperture>just so happens to be the approximate focal length of the human eye (in 35mm terms)What did Yahweh mean by this? Surely this is not a coincidence and was absolutely evidence of intelligent design, yes?
>>4528162FF is the poorfag's choice, I've been saying it for years.>>4528160There's some massive caveats to that. In the dark wide open, sure. If there's plenty of light the MFT clips first, but it's a one stop difference. The FF will likely have more reach for equivalent lengths though unless it's a low MP FF and a high MP MFT.
>>4528182It's dishonest bullshit, starting by the myth that the eye is 50mm equivalent.
>>4528180>>fuji: *market share grows*Their market share amounts to a rounding error in the grand scheme of thingies
>>4528182I guess your god can't into math since human eye is approximately 42 or 43mm FF equivalent.
>>4528183If you were rich and good at photography this wouldn't be a topic for youYou'd think the sony a7v was a fun disposable camera. You'd have GMs and pancakes lining shelves for whatever mood you were in. You'd have a leica for show. You'd have a hasselblad. You'd have a phaseone SLR with a trichromatic back or an IQ180 to dab on /p/. You'd keep the newest fuji to lend to friends. You'd shoot the most mundane shit on LF slide film. You'd walk the dog with a mamia 7ii and blow through a five pack of e100 a week."Equivalence" wouldn't register, your cheapest, most worthless snapshitter would totally trounce the very idea of it. It would look like squabbling between two retards who wasted their money on third rate trash.
>>4528185https://petapixel.com/2024/10/18/fujifilm-says-it-owns-40-of-the-non-full-frame-camera-market/
Man, you autistic "full frame" warriors sure are wasting a lot of time and effort trying to justify your needlessly expensive, heavy cameras with huge lenses that scream "creep" from a mile away. You got fooled by CANIKON marketing and overpaid for a camera you almost never take outside with you because it's too fucking big and unwieldy. You got your "full frame" sensor so you can snap pics of your walls and trees outside the window, zoom in to 100% and jerk off to pixels. Some of you eventually realize your mistake and purchase pancake lenses but those have to make serious compromises in image quality because they still need to project picture big enough to cover that larger sensor. So eventually you end up with a large camera and a shitty, plasticky, compact lens that produces image no better than what a "crop" camera can do. No wonder you're all so bitter.
>>4528196you cant read and just wrote out a bunch of buyers remorse>it's a pointless exercise just to find out that crop sensors are generally worse and it takes a lot of money to make them just as good for the thousandth time, and you were a fool for doing that when using the slightly worse camera was already justified by it being smaller and cheaper>Anyone who gives a fuck about 'equivalence' is a sperg who misses the point of cheaper crop sensor cameras, which is taking good enough 4x6s and 1080p snapshits for the less discerning and getting better video options/rolling shutter for your dollar, not pixel peeping the background noise. Get a clue. It cuts the other way. A crop sensor without a tiny f3.5 equivalent lens is pointless.>you'd just be spending thousands of dollars to have photos that sometimes look almost as to just as bad as poorly shot larger sensors. That's "equivalence". It's retarded.imagine getting one good chance to do photography cheaply and you blow it by tacking a $1200 voigtlander on to a $2000 xh2s to sometimes take the same photos as a $400 dslr and coming up with "equivalence theories" to explain why you're somehow not retarded
>ignoramus gearfag: A PANCAKE ON A FUJI? NO YOU NEED THE F0.7 ULTRA NOKTON TO BTFO FOOL FRAME>knowledgeable gearfag: full frame is always going to be better no matter what. the point of crop sensors is to have fun>ignoramus gearfag: NOOO FULL FRAME HAS TO LOOOOOSE *copes and seethes*Kek
>>4528198Only retards buy those Voigt lenses. They are soft as shit, heavy, MF only and cost as much as a premium first party prime. Any "equivalence" discussion is just pure autism. None of it matters for people that go outside and shoot. APS-C and even M43 cameras with good lenses take more than good enough pictures for anyone who doesn't use his camera to put bread on his table. Post your "full frame" pics that could not have been taken with a Fuji or stop posting.
>>4528167Nice, I'd rather have an XT5 than that, but to each their own!
>>4528196When are you doing good non-snapshitting photography where camera size matters? Models are totally used to big cameras. Street photography is just garbage, and the flower you photographed is definitely not bothered by a giant blobmera...
Fun fact: term "full frame" is a marketing slogan created by camera manufacturers to sell you cameras that are more expensive than what you actually need. It was carefully designed to imply some form of inadequacy in smaller sensor formats but the truth is that the 35mm analog film format this digital sensor size is based on was actually the cheap crop format for amateurs. If you want a "full" big boy sensor then buy medium format.
>>4528200Cute dog. :D
>>4528200>Prove you're worthy of owning a nicer camera than me reeeeeee mine is good enough how dare you you don't even need-Yeah I'm not even going to dignify that. Get a job. Oh, and don't forget to prove you need to own literally everything that sets you apart from the poorest retard in india (protip: you don't).I get it. You spent a lot of money on your fuji. You feel sad about it. You want to punch up or across or whatever, you just want to punch. But you're not going to hit anything. Sorry. Also, you blew your highlights and your dog smells.
>>4528202I go outside a lot and I carry my camera with me. I also earn money that I spend on my gear. It's only logical for me to want the best bang for my buck setup that is also easy to carry and fun to use. I don't shooting weddings where every pixel counts.I don't really do "street" photography. I capture moments that are important to me and things that catch my eye. For my personal enjoyment. I leave street hobography to art school graduates and edgy 4channers.
>>4528203It was because it was the largest normal aspect frame size on 35mm film but apparently it instilled a sense of inadequacy in you anyways
>>4528206Kek. Fuck off kid.But also enjoy my Straight Out of the Camera ™ Fuji colors. None of those pics were edited. I didn't have to waste a minute in front of my computer to make them look good. Just pure joy of shooting with occasional AF-C frustration.Weak grain enabled. Reala Ace color profile. Auto white balance.
>>4528209>>4528207>retard with a $2000 camera kit malding over anyone with a larger sensor on 4chan not "justifying" themselves>takes photos of flowers in his backyard>brags about not wasting time on a computer while doing exactly thathilarious but also not worth engaging withi havent taken a photo of a rock, leaf, or flower in years>>4528208trvth nvke
>>4528203Wrong lol, if anything calling 127 "medium format" is the marketing slogan. GFX is small format. APS-C was crop not only compared to the SLRs everyone was using, but particularly cropped the picture of the 35mm format lenses people already had. So a full frame camera captures the entire frame the lenses were created for. "Marketing slogan" implies dishonesty. If anything "APS-C" is more dishonest, as the APS-C negative is 24.89mm x 18.66mm and neither Canon nor the others quite fill that area with their sensors and the cameras aren't compatible with their APS lenses.
>>4528209>Straight Out of the Camera ™ Fuji colors. None of those pics were editedOh it shows
>>4528207But when has just walking around with a compact camera ever done more than make it easier to go around snapping pics of flowers? Your pics are nice in a snapshit kinda way, but they are also barely what I would consider photography. It just seems weird to hate on big ugly cameras when your entire use of a camera revolves around wandering about and taking pictures of flowers as conveniently as possible. If someone was extremely serious about sticks and rocks style photography they will lug around their 4x5 or 8x10 camera to take the best possible image they can.
Live a meaningful lifeTake photos of your dog napping with a 20 year old DSLR
>>4528144>ISO dial in auto>Shutter speed dial in autoAnd that's how they will stay 98% of the time. So pointless, just poser nonsense. Unless you're one of those that thinks you need to shoot in fully manual (chasing the meter lol) to be a photographer
>>4528216How dare you.
>>4528218lol to you if you think manual is for chasing the meter
>>4528216>dog rubbing on crotch
>>4528109APS cameras have a 1.5x focal length factor of a full frame bro>>4528112thanks bro, every opinion i looked seems to prefer the 25mm focal length as well
>>4528220/p/ fears the 20 year old DSLR
>>4528225Hold on let me turn on fujifilm mode
>>4528225Is the 20 year old mfdb their greatest fear?>>4528230Beautiful golden hour type deflated dog photography.
>>4528235Fix your curve pls
>>4528237No. I got a 645 back for the camera so the mfdbs sit in my lens cabinet now. Im going to use one to scan film because it is 50MP with a 4x multishot and natively works with c1.
>>4528237Natively tethers to c1*
>>4528093>2026>still no live view blinkies
>>4528230Wow. Filmic.
>>4528222It has its uses sure. I'm talking about the people that needlessly use it all the time because they think that's what they're supposed to do.
>>4528107>why are they so afraid of making a retro camera? >this just looks like sony a7xyou're so close to understanding
>>4528246
>>4528246Not the same brand and those don't look anything like it, no hard edges. It's actually supposed to be inspired by the T70 but it's such a weak attempt. It's funny that it gets compared to the Sonys because they actually look more like the T70. Why isn't the hump a pyramid, why are the lower corners cut off? Why didn't the enlarge the flat section at the front and put the red dot on the hump? Why does the body taper at the top? Why no toggle switch on the front? Why no buttons on the top left of the body? Why no gold text? It doesn't even have the model name on the front, it's on top where Sony puts it. Why not emulate the grip pattern?
>>4528248One of the best ever.
>>4528249you are dumb
>>4528251Is that supposed to be some sort of counter to what I said?
>>4528165
>>4528254>a zeiss made by tamronsadthe cosina zeiss 35mm f2 has much more 3d pophttps://www.professorhines.com/blog-post/zeiss-loxia-235mm-lens-review
>>4528093It looks like Canon outsourced the design to some Indian sweat shop.
>>4528224>1.5 x 15mm = 22.5mmThat is way too wide for a travel lens. A usable prime range for travel (for anything other than wide vistas) is 35-60mm, and it should be a zoom anyway.
Looks like we found out what huskyfag fears today. kek!
>>4528254
>>4528264Who? What?
>>4528270What's it to yah?
>>4528224there is 1.3 aps canon too
>>4528264What the fuck are you talking about
new small L-mount option with excellent tracking AF.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScAXXIxFhUE
>>4528275buy an ad
>>4528275>L-mount>excellent tracking AFspoken like a true panny shill
>>4528278panasonic autofocus is weird. in video it looks really good and smooth, in stills 2/3 photos are slightly out of focus.
>>4528273You know exactly what I'm talking about.
>they found the youtube channel
>>4528135>Massive square blobmeralol
>>4528293Only coping snapshitters have a problem with how a camera looks. Nice job outing yourself kek
>>4528275>small 40mm f/2>small 20mm f/2.5Impressive. Could they do an 80mm f/2.8 at the same size next?
>>4528275Looks cheap and it isn't even a pancake. Muffins suck compared to pancakes.
>>4528313The 40mm f2 is very soft, pretty much as bad as nikon's cheaper all plastic one.Sigma already did a 90mm f2.8 that's small for FE/L. It's also actually good.None of this shit is pocketable so they're making marginally smaller, optically worse lenses for no reason
>>4528315Is that really what progress looks like in 2026? Or are they simply giving the userbase what they really want?
>>4528144idc about it. i consider gear like that to be spec sheet optimizer bait. i have an xt3 and the xf 35/1.4 if i want to take quick portraits. if i want to bokehmaxx i have medium format cameras. if i want to shoot in the dark, i'll bring a flash or a tripod. my lifetime setup with that restriction would be a leica m with the voigt 35mm nokton classic
>>4528144I would buy it as a second, fun ~35mm lens. I wouldn't buy it as my only 35mm lens. It's too big, heavy and expensive but also soft, manual focus only and optically primitive. No weather sealing whatsoever so will get dust inside in a couple of years. Meh.
>>4528317trying to be snoy on 0 budget
Guess which one is 50% more expensive than the other not even counting glass.
>>4528322>Moire pixel peeper is backI wonder why pros keep buying cameras that are :bad: in one part of dpreviews ACR processed test chart shots and why one guy on 4chan keeps complaining
Weird green and yellow skin tones on the left. Pleasing natural skin tones on the right. Guess which one is Sony.
>he now crops out the camera names because the capture one users kept BTFOing him just by opening the same raws in "literally any program but adobe camera raw"fucking kek
Guess which one is the 50% more expensive "full frame" a7V with a 2024 G Master lens and which one is the cheaper X-H2 with a previous gen lens from 2014. Tell me if difference is worth the money and weight.
>>4528246close to understanding what? that they've released a minolta (???) for the 50th anniversary of AE-1?
>>4528211>>4528214Fuck off I'm not posting anything with people and landmarks in it. I'd rather not dox myself by accident.
>>4528324They both look terrible.
>>4528328You're a gay retard arguing on a basket weaving forum. You really think someone is going to dox you?
>>4528160>Dat shutter speed ringIt's so peak it hurts, they will never make cameras this good again
>>4528211Management needs pictures of rocks and stones, don't ask why. Use your cameras to log target ores as well as any unidentified minerals you come across, but avoid exposing it to radiation, it'll ruin the film. Get snapping, miners.
>>45282553D pop isn't real.>>4528275Not a pancake. Sorry!>>4528318The perspective on this makes the old guy look like he's smoking a massive cig and the guy in the grey shirt on the right is a tiny man either holding the cig up over his right shoulder to help or clinging onto it for dear life with his feet dangling above the ground
>>4528315>pretty much as bad as nikon's cheaper all plastic one.But that's not bad
>>4528314>>4528315>>4528349
>>4528349>3D pop isn't realJust because you have stunted neural functions doesn't mean we don't see it either, it is literally looking at an image and visualizing the 2D image spatially. It is instant, you look at it and it is there.Accept the fact you have no ability to spatially interpret an image, the visual, image version of functional analphabetism. I heard it is rampant among gen Z and Alpha with all the tikitoki rotting their brains.
>>4528363Not that anon, but 3D pop certainly isn't real, or it would be possible to measure.What people refer to as 3D pop is usually just barrel distortion, wide corner imperfections or truncated bokeh (swirly circular backgrounds).
>>4528366Of course it is possible to measure only for quantification you need a lightfield array. 3D pop is real because you have a 3D field of lightsource from the reflecting light off the subject and scenery, the projection is also 3D and you are moving the projection back and forth to find a focal plane.But we don't have to go as far as lightfield, think of the AF sensor that is working off the lens projection, either in a DSLR or integrated on the sensor in a mirrorless, it is quantizing the 3D phase of that segment of the projected image.Simply the existence of AF sensors in cameras completely obliterates your argument. Even the ground glass manual focus shits all over your argument.
>>4528349>>4528314>you need to shrink the lens and compromise the image quality so everything you shoot will turn out to be unusable dogshitNo.
>>4528357Why is the Sony one so big?
>>4528380Because you are a dishonest shill
>>4528386That’s not an honest comparison either. The loomix has no shutter hot shoe or viewfinder so it’s basically unusable for photography. Use the much larger S5II instead.
>>4528386>muh sharpnessYou are are cattle
>>4528392>bad optics>massive rolling shutter>lumix colorsJust use your phone
>>4528322why is the false colour so much worse on Snoy?OM-3 also does not have OLPF.
>>45283663d pop is real, but it requires more than just a "good" lens. Lighting, composition, editing, and the optics and camera all create the effect.
>>4528419Because adobe camera raw isn't very good and dpreview skews their tests by exposing cameras improperly and hiding color casts. Adobe software in general is known for poorly supporting sony and fuji's raw formats.This is what they look like in capture one with tint corrections turned off so you can see the true image each camera takesThey exposed the om-3 darker (even at 1/30s vs 1/40s) instead of adjusting for OM system using a different standard for ISO labeling and hid the slight magenta (sony) and heavy green (OM) tints so you wouldn't realize both cameras are struggling to render the correct colors under dpreview's shitty amazon LEDs.
>buy olympus for nature photography>every photo is green tintedjust like nature :')
>>4528131You scaled all of these to 13mp or less which objectively hides all of the problems with xtrans and crop sensors in general.Xtrans = 2/3 bayer resolution. 40mp -> 28mp.APS-C = 1.5x resolution penalty. 28mp -> 18.7mp.Basically you paid $2000 for a camera with about as much resolution as a canon 5d mark II. Who are you to talk about non-professional and professional use? It's a $2000 toy either way.Just grow up and use a canon 5d mark II.>>4528120Actual skill issue.
>>4528427The consequences of using Snoy sensors
Will Snoy make a body like the A7 series but with APS-C sensor? Asking for a friend.
>>4528425>moire fixed>$2000 phone camera is still soft and low contrastHAHAHAHAHA
>>4528357What point did you think you made with this? Posting it again doesn't make it a pancake. Very confusing behaviour.>>4528377Not what I said. I said it wasn't a pancake, which it isn't. Simple as.
>>4528435He has a shilling job and is required to post that and then reply to himself with this >>4528386Check the archive its all reposts
>>4528425but the weird green purple striping also shows up in SOOC photos from sony. Is Sony's JPEG engine also bad and Capture 1 is doing some tricks to erase the false colour?
>>4528437Every camera's jpeg engine is dogshit compared to what a real computer can do. The processors are genuinely too shit to do advanced multi-pass demosaicing etc, and if they were as good as running C1, each jpeg would take a second or more to be processed from the raw data and you'd kill the battery quick.You're not actually meant to use jpeg for quality critical work. You're meant to set it to jpeg M or jpeg S with NR and sharpening cranked up a bit if you're shooting on demand for the news or something.
>>4528167
unbox and fire up 2026 camera of the yearhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb9B_VdchFk
>>4528159>a f/2 m43 will necessarily produce superior image quality to an f/5.6 full frame.This HAS to be bait.
>>4528456oh wow that looks like total shitwhy even bother when a used sony a7c is under $1k and way better than anything olympus makes for double that
>>4528296If you don't care about your camera's aesthetics then you can't be trusted to care about your photo's aesthetics. Blobmera shooters will never be taken seriously, sorry!
>>4528458>usedew>sonyew
>>4528474Sorry, but /p/ is a sony and fuji board.
>>4528477Signs point to "no".
>>4528456Looks sleek. If Lumix made this with their 25MP sensor I would buy it.
>>4528480>t. the signs (often reposted and prone to spamming duplicate /gear/ threads)
newbro here, should I get a 25mm f1.7 or 35mm f1.7 as my first prime lens
>>4528517A 25 is closer to a 28 than a 35 so I'd go with the 25.But 28mm is the real answer. Goated focal length.
>>4528525>inb4 i buy both a 25mm f1.7 and a sigma 18-50mm f2.8
New Nikon Camera to compete with Sony A7C series! Full-frame 24 MP sensorBased on the existing Nikon Z5IINo viewfinder or no-viewfinder bump (built-in viewfinder)New video featuresOfficial announcement next week
>>4528540>No viewfinder or no-viewfinder bump (built-in viewfinder)if no EVF it competes with the S9 not A7C
>>4528544"S9" is a slur. Advertisers are not allowed to say it.
>>4528463Absolute cope. I'd destroy you in a photo battle.
>>4528540I have been waiting for a while. I want a slr-size mirrorless to put muh vintage lenses on.
>>4528540>no viewfinderFUCK YOU NIKON
>>4528540If they go for 4" / ZR, I'm all for no viewfinder
>>4528580Zf is SLR size alreadyYou must mean "small" slr size
So none of you are going to discuss the EOS R8 copying the A7 design language note for note?
>>4528540>No viewfinderDOA
>>4528636Have not looked at the previous posts in this thread?
Am I understanding this right? The most chinesium brand of all, with the worst colors, that isn't even a camera company, is the only one with a compact mirrorless full frame camera with evf?
>>4528636No, because it's about fucking time for blobmeras to die forever.>>4528642Nikon Zf
>>4528649>zfNot even close
>>4528651>Not even closeRetard, retard, retard
>>4528649>>4528641I saw it. None of the shades of grey they used even match
>>4528653Are you arguing that these two cameras are in any way competitive in terms of how compact they are?The Nikon might be "compact" in the sense that it's not a DSLR-style, but it's still not close to the Sony in size nor in weight.
>>4528642>I have small dainty handsNot all of us are so unfortunate
>>4528657>I don't know what I'm talking aboutParadoxically the A7CII has one of the better grips of all compact cameras. Much better than the Lumix S9 and on par with the X-T5. And it's also way better than all film SLRs that were used for decades.Would you kindly explain to me why Sony is seemingly the only brand that can do this?
>>4528581seriously,also, fuck Nikon for not allowing zebras in photo mode or any other live view clipping indication.
>>4528656Yes. The Nikon is a bit taller but aside from that they're basically the same, if one will fit then so will the other. The Sony is actually thicker with its fat fucking grip and asymmetrical things are always less comfortable in a pocket. And yes, I can pocket both of those, because I don't wear skinny jeans like a faggot.If you carry a camera bag then any size difference is completely and entirely moot.
>>4528664>I'm still learning how to exposeNeat, how's your first month with a camera?
>>4528477>Sorry, but /p/ is a sony and fuji board.lol stop pushing this. Nobody likes snoy here, its a meme.
just bought my first lens bros
>>4528712Scammed.
>>4528713wtffff
>>4528704When you shoot JPEG you can't depend on highlight recovery as you do with RAW.
>>4528802New thread
>>4528801>I shoot JPGYes, how's you're first month with a camera going?
>>4528803Newfaggot retard at least wait until you hit image cap or page 5-7 you stupid board ruining little cunt.
>>4528428100% crop. Keep in mind this is with film grain added and in camera sharpness set to -2 and noise reduction set to -4. Also shot at f/2.8, ISO 4000, handheld at 1/125s. There could definitely be more detail from the sensor if I actually planned this shot.>5d mark IIThat camera belongs in a museum.
>>4528910Reasoning to set sharpness and noise reduction to - values?
>>4528428Why would I ever want more detail from a camera? Zoomed to 100% on my 27" 1440p screen these are about the size of a poster. And why does a 100% crop fine detail matter at all? That shit is never going to be viewed on anything bigger than a PC monitor or a framed print.>>4528915Less detail and more organic, natural look. X-Trans with reduced in camera sharpening and noise reduction produces very pleasant, film like texture and look. Unlike that 5d mk II kid, I don't jerk it to pixels.
Actually I do jerk it to pixels sometimes. Everyone does cause it's fun.
Probably the best example of detail and sharpness on 40MP X-Trans. Still with film grain, sharpness @ -2 and noise reduction at -4. Last example. Modern sensors are so fucking good it really doesn't matter that much if you buy APS-C or M43. Just don't zoom to 100% and enjoy photography.
>>4528920I m this anon>>4528915I view the pics on my 4k 40" tv but send them to my friends on wa. I totally get you but also i like to zoom in at 300% and more and see details in pics. But is just for my amusement and satisfaction. Know moat of ppl don t give a shit or even zoom more that what is displayed on their phone screen. But i ve paid a lot of money for the camera and lenses so i want to see some good results. I know i should be more focused on getting good pictures but sharp pics are low hanging fruits
Unprocessed RAW at 100% so no film grain. Looks much sharper. >>4528930Yes, that's 100% me.
>>4528915NR negatively impacts color, and can lead to a muddier look in skin tones for example
