Why can't Olympus make a camera this compact? Why can't Panasonic? Are they stupid? This is literally the only M43 camera with any raison d'être at all right now.
Anyone who releases lenses like this for quarter frame is stupidAnyone who makes cameras the size of FF DSLRs for quarter frame is stupidThey thought the mu-43 forum userbase was a legitimate source of market research or something and it totally sucked the joy out of the entire format
>>4528489>42.5mm lens>Actually 76.8mm long>f/1.2 (actual, not equivalent), 42.5 x 1.2 = ~51mm diameter>Actually 74mm wide>Weighs almost half a fucking kiloWhy?
>not an m43 sensor>no ibis>no mech shutter>even more cropped than m43 is>no viewfinderIt's inarguably closer to a toy camera than a mirrorless or slr.>>4528491what is this retarded bot even attempting to calculate
>>4528489>hurr let's not have any lens that provides equivalence to full frame>hurr let's not produce ergonomic bodiesEnjoy your crippled toy cameras I guess. Although MFT is admittedly crippled by virtue of not having a real viewfinder, shit mount. Drifting away from Four Thirds was a mistake, although it was the wrong aspect ratio from the get go. 110 film is unironically better at 5:4, infinitely more aesthetic than the in-between of 4:3.
>>4528493>hurr let's not have any lens that provides equivalence to full frameDoesn't fucking matter. Even if you somehow got an f0.9 lens that wasn't worse than an ef 50mm f1.8 stm a competent photographer would embarrass you with full frame in everything but shooting handheld in the basement, so, 99% of the time. And if they wanted to beat a realistic "fast" m43 lens (f2.4) all they have to do is buy a common f1.8 for half as much.>hurr let's not produce ergonomic bodiesYeah, let's not make giant bodies for the compact system. Arthritic people can buy an aftermarket grip. People like you should stay on the mu-43 forum lest om system mistake you for the actual market again.
>>4528494If you want shitty micro cameras full of menus out of a lack of space to put buttons, they make those too. Nothing wrong with having a choice.
>>4528495If you want a good camera buy an actual good camera instead of blowing $2500 on a g9ii and "noctitron" f2.whatevers to hopefully one day have someone on 4chan mistake your kit for a really poorly shot nikon z6ii+kit zoompeople who think quarter frame "can be just as good" actually killed quarter frame. killed it dead.
>>4528497Not just as good as FF, it can be better. As proven by indie filmmakers with the BMPCC. It has its advantages like the global shutter which is a challenge on bigger sensors. If I had to bite the mirrorless bullet, the BMPCC is heads and shoulders above other meme ewaste like the a7S or worse, some Fuji.
>>4528498>bla bla bla aimless copingYeah notice the bmpcc is literally just cheap and small. FF is better. But a good FF cinema sensor is $$$$, comes with strings attached to protect $$$$$ product lines, and nobody gives a fuck about image quality in video in the end because each frame is there for 1/24th, 6 feet away and motion blurred.There is a complete lack of m43 stills cameras in the same ethos beyond janky used market panashitnics that are on the verge of something no longer working.
>>4528499Holy cope, btw it's well known videofags care A LOT. One reason the BMPCC was so popular was the color, it mogged GH5S mercilessly.
>>4528500>every cinewanker gets btfo by a talented dp with a gh2 and samyang primes meant for ff>zero fucks given about "equivalence", "color science", and "codecs", just goes for the look and shootslast time i'll say itgo back to mu-43you really don't belong here. your mindset is wrong. your photos are absent. you lost a 'photobattle' to a literal dog.
>>4528501Mogged sonygger keeps coping lolhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_PCWcu3tjU
>>4528502>bunch of dogshit videos of nothingyeah no one cares
>>4528503>gear test videos have to do more than demonstrate the capabilities of the gear being testedjust take the L, malding sonygger gaylord
>>4528488That looks absolutely retarded and pointless
>>4528504>cant you see the... uh...differencesorry not pausing and zooming in on a youtube videoi dont think you understand. i see video gearfags as especially subhuman. and what a coincidence, the retarded nophoto neo-nazi is one.
>>4528506There's one point to it, dethroning the Q/Q7 as the queen of reach. It's not even a MFT sensor but a 1 inch one, and it's 50MP.
>>4528508>he needs to pixel peeplol you could watch it on a smartwatch and the difference would be noticeable alreadySony scameras are THAT bad
>>4528509>quad bayer>just think of the potential for cropping in on blurry shitthat must sound awesome to someone who has never used a camera
>>4528510it looked more like some clueless retard shooting with random and often wrong settingsim sure some retarded neo-nazi knows more than everyone else. after all he found a youtube video and imagines it must be correct because it agrees with the theories he developed reading blogs.i do not think you fully understandi don't have brand loyalty herei think you are fucking retarded and nothing you care about has anything to do with real life
>>4528512>quad bayerthanks for reading the specs for me, specshitter>>4528513>muh wrong settingsCope harder
>>4528514i dont think you understand you autistic fucking retardi said this piece of shit is a welcome change because it's actually small and not tryhard $2500 garbage for idiots like you to drool overi said no one gives a shit about quality in video or any of the nonsense you ramble about like the fate of the world depends on which brand has whati posted an example of a successful film shot on dogshit equipmentyou somehow think the appropriate response to this is a youtube video of some retard fucking with his gamma settings while filming nothing and you start going "sony BTFO!"do you understand how retarded you are? i literally do not see you as a full fledged human being.
>>4528515>gh2 and samyang (cine) primes>dogshit equipmentlol try phone films to make that point, my entire point has been MFT is perfectly adequate and often beats FF
>>4528516>*ignores context* NO NO NO my worse sensor size is better! look at this information sparse 720p youtube video! NO ONE NEEDS FULL FRAME! full frame is OVER! full frame LOSES!Yeah, as I was saying, "people" like you are precisely why micro four thirds went from filling a useful niche to bogged down by four figure cope that only serves to aid gearfags in theorizing about situations where whatever full frame camera reminds them of their dad might be "btfo" (ie: a terms and conditions apply test shot of an anime doll in their goon cave).Reminder: A literal dog challenged you to post one single photo and you cried and pussied out
>>4528518I don't take challenges from dogs. I also shoot full frame and have no MFT or FT cameras.
4528521>I also shootlol
>>4528492I'm a HUMAN, and I'm CUMMIN.It's a 1" sensor but it's got an M43 mount, close enough.Also I got my math wrong, my bad, that should've been <focal length> x (1/<focal ratio>) = aperture, which is 35.42mm, which means the physical body of the lens is even more needlessly massive than I thought. Thank you for catching that.>cANONRetard + nophoto + lost a photobattle to a dogsnapperIgnore cANON postsHide cANON postsDo not reply to cANON posts
>>4528524 #l>I know nothing about optics: the post
>>4528491>>4528524Yes, the focal length isn't the lens length, it's an expression of how strongly an optical system converges or diverges light. The lens is bigger than it should be because panasonic needed a more complex optical system to minimize aberration size relative to the teeny tiny pixels of a micro four turds and include an optical stabilizer.The idealized apparent aperture for this lens (which sets how much light it lets in) is ~35.4mm. This also isn't exactly how much light it lets in, it's slightly inaccurate because the focal length label is slightly inaccurate and the transmission % of the glass itself doesn't factor in like it does for t-stops. In complex optical systems a lot of light is lost or diffused by each glass to air surface. Dpreview tests a lot of mfturds with this lens and when they do they use slightly slower shutter speeds so I'm guessing it's closer to a t1.4.On a micro four thirds sensor it basically does the exact same thing as a shitty chinese made 85mm f2.4 (t2.8) does on FF, but with IS. The closest (but superior) FF lens is the canon RF 85mm f2 IS. Have a laugh at that.Good IQ and optics are never the reason to go with these baby sensors. They'll always be a bit worse than the idealized theoretical versions of themselves and way way way worse than budget friendly FF and APS-C gear.Micro four thirds is for cutting down size instead of chasing "equivalence" and getting faster e-shutter scan speeds and less heat generation for cheap. The same reason you use your phone camera but a bit better.
>boomers get manual film slrs>gen x got automatic film slrs>millenials got dslrs>zoomers got mirrorless>gen alpha gets... whatever the fuck this "camera" is supposed to begrim
>>4528579Mirrorless was the beginning of enshittification
>>4528579Gen alpha gets to buy old DSLRs off ebayEnjoy your nikon d200
>>4528638At least these tiny cameras serve a purpose. Mirrorless cameras delete the mirror and all the SOVL alongside it for... absolutely nothing. To be basically the same size and weight as before with worse image quality and shittier build quality.>>4528646>10MP CCDHell yeah brother
>>4528652FF mirrorless was a vast improvement. Just one people have to lie to themselves about because they're 2poor.The first party lenses were not except for the zooms. The prime lenses are a landscape photographer dick measuring contest so it is now more common for people to purposefully buy "worse" optics.
>>4528638I don't think mirrorless really counts, we already had pseudo-mirrorless with live view in dslrsIMO autofocus was the first sign of enshittification by catering to the lazy and retarded
>>4528669DSLR autofocus is objectively inferior compared to anything besides panasonic/early nikon/fuji, and I say that using DSLRs. If you want to purity spiral digital was the first sign, or actually, 1hr photos>Just one people have to lie to themselves about because they're 2poor.
>>4528669>we already had pseudo-mirrorless with live view in dslrsThat was an improvement. Cheapening it by removing the mirror and simultaneously increasing the price tag was akin to AI companies starting to charge by usage and calling it a better value when bills increased like 80x vs the previous billing model.
>>4528675>cheapening it by making the viewfinder more useful and significantly improving sensor tech and getting the flappy mirror out of the way of lens designers
>>4528676wtf I love big ass lenses, baby mounts and vignetting nowFor the most part the space taken by the mirror box moved to the lens itself, plenty start hollow from the back
>>4528689>only buys gay master lenses instead of leica-esque ones>blames camera companies for making the cameras better>fell for /p/'s forced memes ie "baby mount"
>>4528702>physical truths like Sony E being a baby mount are forced memes nowThe so-called Leica-esque lenses vignette even worse on Sony lol, let alone adapted Leica lenses. Sony cameras push exposure on the outer edges to compensate for the massive vignetting, sometimes 2 stops. The same short flange you brag about causes extreme incident angles that bring vignetting. The photons simply hit the array too obliquely to enter the photosites. That's why MFT uses a telecentric design and has a seemingly oversized mount. That's why Leicas have special microlenses too.
>>4528705Cool made up shit with a diagram. That sure sounded right in your head. Lets check some factshttps://petapixel.com/2019/03/06/sony-e-mount-lenses-could-be-as-fast-as-f-0-63-theoretically/Oh. How do you come up with these bullshit gearfag theories about microlenses and CFAs? Do you just talk out your ass and hope someone believes you’re a scientist? You’re an uneducated buffoon. You moron. https://dustinabbott.net/2024/11/sony-fe-28-70mm-f2-gm-review/> The vignette figures in particular are surprisingly low for a lens like this, running several stops less than what we see on the Canon RF 28-70mm F2L.Wow look a canon lens vignettes more than its sony equivalent. So much for your ass pulled theory about mount size. You uneducated buffoon. Stop talking. >CFA primary microlenses and phase disruptors bruh! Light intensity equivalence! -you
>>4528720Sony being baby mount is retarded, but differences in sensor design does matter, picrel
>>4528720>theoreticallylol, lmao eventhe fact you can make a f/0.63 lens doesn't mean it will project light corresponding to f/0.63 across the frame nor that it will impact the sensor at the needed angle>>4528722>Sony being baby mount is retardedIt's an APS-C mount basically, in fact what he posted was Sony desperately trying to put out a fire
>>4528705Are you the same technobabbling retard that was posting about CFA primaries?I agree with the other guy. Shut the fuck up.>>4528720Technobabbler BTFO in one post>>4528723>a sony lens is lighter, cheaper, and vignettes less than a lens made for a bigger mount>SAAR SONY IS TRYING TO OUT PUT THE FIREOr your technobabble theory was wrong?Can we see your degree in optical engineering? Which university did you go to? Name two textbooks you studied.
I like facts. Let's check another lens pairhttps://www.lenstip.com/674.8-Lens_review-Sony_FE_85_mm_f_1.4_GM_II_Vignetting.htmlhttps://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-RF-85mm-F1-4-L-VCM-Lens.aspxsony 85mm f1.4 - 2.07 stops of vignettingcanon rf 85mm f1.4 l vcm >Canon RF 85mm F1.4 L VCM Lens ReviewCanon RF 85mm F1.4 L VCM Lens>When used on a camera that utilizes its full image circle, a lens is expected to exhibit peripheral shading at the widest aperture settings. At f/1.4, corners are shaded by over three stops, a usually noticeable amount.>>4528705Hey technobabbler, your theory isn't holding up.When can we see your optical engineering degree?
>>4528724>>4528725Seeing this >>4528722, do you still trust Sony enginiggers over Leica engineers?
>>4528725The mount size is a problem. A smaller mount means less room for the rear of the lens, which means the light has to come in at more extreme angles to reach the corners. Now add Sony’s famously chunky sensor cover glass to the equation. Then remember Sony’s long history of “helpfully” processing RAW files in ways that conveniently correct for the weird colored vignetting you can get when your mount is too small.This isn’t exactly a secret. Astrophotography forums have been talking about it for years:https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/sony_concentric_rings.htmlhttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/sony-a7s-concentric-banding-and-histogram-gaps.4139696/And yes, the problem carried over into later models. Serious astro shooters eventually got tired of dealing with it, so these days it mostly comes back to bite people who try putting old film-era lenses on Sony bodies. Every now and then some poor bastard gets a landscape that looked perfectly fine until they lift the shadows by more than a stop at base ISO, at which point the sky helpfully turns into a lovely mess of banding and colored shading.Sony cameras are kind of a comedy of errors in general:Oops, the weather sealing isn’t actually sealed.Oops, your A7 III/A7 IV shutter died at 20k.Oops, your A7C screen is purple now.Oops, the seal around the SD card slot fell apart.“But the APs use them!”Yeah, because apparently the solution is to bring an entire van full of Sony bodies so there’s always another one ready when the first one decides it has had enough.Imagine being a Sony fangirl and passionately defending the baby mount and Sony’s legendary quality control. Incredible stuff.
>>4528729Ancient sony raws were compressed, you fool. They didn't have uncompressed 14 bit raws until the a7ii and a7sii. They were basically fancy jpeg files.>Oops, the weather sealing isn’t actually sealed.I'm not posting six photos of sony cameras in the rain again.>Oops, your A7 III/A7 IV shutter died at 20k.The A7III was real (just like many other brands fuckups), but the a7iv was someone who poked the shutter because it added the dust cover feature. You've had broken R6IIs spammed at you before.>Oops, your A7C screen is purple now.Literally one youtube video.>Oops, the seal around the SD card slot fell apart.5 retards on a forumLet me guess, fujifilm also has worms and is unusably bad, and the only option for compacts is micro four thirds?You lie non-stop. You talk out your ass. You babble and shit out these "theories". And you've never posted a photo. You have a clear agenda here.>>4528728Someone adapted a lens to an optical system it wasn't designed for and it didn't work right? No way.
>>4528731Thanks for your contribution, AI.
>>4528729>edge case scenario with a camera from 2012>two forum posts>= you pull a theory out of your ass>random poorly supported claimsSo are you a compulsive liar or whatSee a shrink
>>4528731>fujifilm also has worms and is unusably badThis but unironically.>And you've never posted a photo.Do you really want your mom's nudes online for everyone to see?
>>4528733I'm flattered that you instantly realize I'm so much smarter than you I might as well be a machine.When can we see your degree in optical engineering? You've been making some serious claims about CFA primaries (without being able to show us data on actual sony CFA primaries) mount size and microlenses. Will you regale us with tales of pixel apertures next? You've been spinning some wild theories based on limited information. According to you, sony is plagued by world ending flaws and there is a literal conspiracy to make everyone think they're good. The AP is milling through $5000 camera bodies just as a sony marketing stunt and every photo ever taken with any sony is heavily doctored because... someone ran into issues with the a7s and compressed raws? Really? Source?I'm only aware of the A7III shutter non-recall, which really reminds me of the pentax KXX aperture block non-recall and all those olympus e-m5iis with prematurely failed power switches. The camera industry is, indeed, inappropriately averse to doing recalls. The rest is just shit you got from a single amateur source with limited data that contradicts everyone else. Thesis: "When you sell a million cameras, one person will get a broken one"
>>4528734
>>4528735I like the way you crumble when confronted.Sony is far from the best (not even close to Nikon, merely better than canon, lumix and micro four turds) but your lying is irritating.
>>4528737>yes i am a compulsive liar
>>4528736>You've been making some serious claims about CFA primaries Take your meds, schizo. Oh wait, software can't take meds. Hallucinations are just a feature.
>>4528743Oh so there's totally two different nophotos who make up technobabble theories "proving sony is bad" on a board with like 15 people on it?
>compulsive liar anon also thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a robotA compulsive liar and a delusional psychoticSony’s success must have broke his brain
Based Clive
>he gets paid to shill sony denying what's been proved time and time again on a dead boardWhere do I apply?
>>4528748I put >>4528731 through analysis and it's 99% sure it's AI
>its ai>its paid shills>its clive>other people are schizophrenic not me
>>4528762I thought Clive hated Sony?
>>4528765Please stop discussing the characters from your delusions. It's not good for your mental health.
>>4528768lmao you got btfo by the egg photography guy in the other thread so you're desperate to regain some izzat
>>4528770Who do you think you're talking to?
>>4528771You're this guy, it's obvious >>4528749,Coping because people mog your small format digital with large format film.
>>4528773take your meds
>>4528773>>4528770>>4528765>encyclopedic knowledge of hallucinated 4chan usersjfc you are pathetic. take a break.
>>4528731>fujifilm also has worms and is unusably badWell yeah, and waxy skin too! And severe highlight bloom in JPEGs. And kind of blurry JPEGs in general. And green. And moire. And, and, and...>and the only option for compacts is micro four thirds?None of these cameras are compact. And yes, Olympus > Snoy>Muh micro four turdsIt's a shit platform but at least the cameras fucking work.Ignore AI postsHide AI postsDo not reply to AI posts
>>4528731>You lie non-stop. You talk out your ass. You babble and shit out these "theories". And you've never posted a photo. You have a clear agenda here.>Statement. Statement. Statement. Conclusion.
>>4528807>when you're btfo so hard that you actually entertain the delusionHow long until /p/ turns into a blog detailing your descent into madness?
>>4528488Sure thing Markiplier
>>4528811I'm just pointing out the obvious AI structure. The other anons are right, that's some chatgpt bullshit.
>>4528814And on the off-chance it's not ai-generated then it's certain that anon has no friends in his life and sits talking to the AI for so long he has absorbed its mannerisms and turned himself into a flesh robot. /r9k/ has more humanity left than he does.
>>4528729>The mount size is a problem. A smaller mount means less room for the rear of the lens, which means the light has to come in at more extreme angles to reach the corners. Now add Sony’s famously chunky sensor cover glass to the equation.What could cause the green-purple striping? I know that lack of OLPF causes moire and false color effects, but the green purple striping seems unique to Sony.https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6700/sample_images/sony_a6700_45.jpg
>>4528814>>4528815>still goingA terse shotgunning of sentences is not an indicator of machine writing, nor is a sentence structure that is a common part of any English-speaking curriculum.You're quite desperate to prove this latest schizo theory - you've even forgotten what AI models have to be trained on in the first place!
>>4528817>I've been found outDead internet theory has never been more real. Go spam aislop somewhere else, sad cunt.
>>4528816Posted it again awardhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/5FoMtqg6oLHLtq9DH3AErQ/Got an answer and it wasnt “sony is bad” awardhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4527555/#4528425
>>4528821There you go, wise 4chan user — just put your head back into the sand.
>>4528825Why does Sony need special processing to fix this while others don't?
>>4528831https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/gMlimwHz7zaDJFeO1rPhoA/Posted it again awardDidnt take “ACR is bad, not sony” for an answer awardSinglehandedly killing the board awardNeeds medication award
>thinks everyone making obvious observations on Sony is the same person>tells others to take medsThe final stage of the sonygger is rough, don't kys over some insurance company from the Islamic Republic of Japan
>>4528836>multiple people repost the same files with the same filenames and same arguments
>>4528836>its not just me!Are you now going to start telling us not shooting jpeg is dishonest, only lumix and OM have the right features to shoot jpeg, nikon and canon has no live view blinkies, and sony’s blinkies are somehow wrong?
>>4528837>that guy being in the conversation means everyone in the conversation is himHonestly claiming that you're being gangstalked by some discord would be more believable than this shit
>>4528842Imagine having a melty on the behalf of a proven spammer
>>4528831>>4528816Spammer stop spamming>no no no i have to over and over again until you say sony is bad no one can like sony only olymshit and panashitNo.
>>4528845The only one having a melty across the board on every active thread is you. The jannies must be slacking on their tardwrangling duties.
>>4528859All he did was point out the autistic moron's reposted bait. Why would you have a problem with this if you weren't the autistic moron?Want to pass a test? Say "The sony a7c is a much better photography camera than the lumix S9".
>>4528859lmao poorn widdle babby doesnt like its reposted troll posts being labeled as such
>>4528832>ACR is bad, not sonywhy is ACR only bad with Sony?other camera don't do this lol
>>4528861>shill Sony ewaste on my behalfI can hardly imagine a NEX mount camera being better than an L-mount, sorry. A camera is essentially a black box for the light coming from the lens to be projected at the photosensitive medium, the sensor in this case. Anything NEX mount with a FF sensor is a terrible choice. Had you said the a6400 is better, I'd do my research and maybe even end up agreeing with you.
>>4528866Why does it matter? ACR is genuinely bad software. The single biggest user is dpreview otherwise everyone uses literally anything else. Very rarely do the "problems" you (re)post come from sources other than dpreview or one retarded youtuber.Adobe was never known for quality programs, and since sony and fuji historically partnered with phaseone/captureone, and drove capture one pro sales by being the only way to get a free capture one express license, adobe might have had some incentive to just not waste developer hours on giving them the best support after they partnered with their direct competition to basically keep new photographers away from adobe's ecosystem.
>>4528870>>4528866Samefag
>>4528875Schizo>>4528874Adobe absolutely dwarfs Capture One in market share
>>4528876Adobe contracts with every school they can to make sure everyone learns on adobe and only adobe, but the higher you go in the photography industry the fewer people use it.Dwarfing market share often means quality in the prole space, like when nikon rockets past sony's FF ILC market share and just one fuji outsells the entire micro four thirds system, but sometimes a clear pattern emerges where a superior product has less market share just because fewer people are superior people with superior standards. Like when phaseone sells almost no cameras, but the canon R100 is far from superior let alone sufficient compared to an IQ180. Or when "everyone uses windows 11", but any critical hardware is running a variant of UNIX and top minds tend towards using either linux or a personally customized instance of mac OS.
>>4528876>fewer people eat steak than lentils, therefore lentils are better than steak>after all, more people drink water than camel urine so water is a better beverage than camel urinebehold the average "modern humans" intellect
>>4528880Lightroom and Photoshop are the industry standards. Anything else is alternative software.
>>4528881>söyny shill melting down worse than number 4 in 86 lol
>>4528882If you're just going to repeat yourself again, read my post again. Lightroom is doubtlessly the standard for low end wedding photographers and community colleges and that's where adobes marketing and outreach money goes. C1 is the standard for all studio and commercial photography. Capture one is what they use when an editorial is shot for porsche. It's what they use for nearly every magazine you've seen. It's what they use for all of fashion photography, every hollywood shoot, every political portrait. Capture one is what they use on-site basically any time you see a camera and a laptop with a pro photography crew, unless that camera is a hasselblad, and then they use phocus. Adobe is what community college photography courses teach and what youtubers use for the color-murdering "cinematic presets". Capture one is so tied to commercial photography that their $50/mo version has additional security features like user whitelists so shoots can be kept confidential from other employees who aren't authorized. This program is above your social standing. The AGI has a federal contract for training people on how to use capture one.https://www.agitraining.com/capture-one/training/jersey-city-njPoint two, C1 doesn't harvest user data as part of their business model. Adobe doesn't just get your subscription, they spy on your machine to monetize anonymous metrics.https://www.thestack.technology/adobe-joins-microsoft-in-admitting-its-now-basically-spyware/When you use adobe you are constantly making them money on top of the subscription you pay, and when adobe loses a user, they don't lose a subscription check, they lose thousands of dollars of additional revenue from selling user data.https://www.thestack.technology/adobe-joins-microsoft-in-admitting-its-now-basically-spyware/I understand that I am significantly more intelligent than you and the way I communicate and think may be alien to you. Please try to understand and do not repeat yourself again.
>>4528883Speaking of unintelligent people, here's the local neo-nazi finally putting his tripcode on.
>>4528887also please poke around and notice there is a GSA# for their photoshop training but not their lightroom traininghopefully this clicks for you and you start to understand the difference between mass market and important market
>>4528887>C1 is the standard for all studio and commercial photography. Capture one is what they use when an editorial is shot for porscheYou misspelle DxO.
>>4528891>neo-naziI'm no neo>>4528898
>>4528899>if capture one is good why did i find this ad on facebook where dxo is clearly better because dxo has shadows +100 highlights -100 and capture one only has highlights -50
>>4528899I use dxo but c1 is better there unless you think the only important thing in photos are muh highlights
Both LR and C1 are industry standards Both are very competent programs for which anyone can get works class results.Always love for all the talk about programs on here, how dead the actual retouching / editing threads always are. If you guys spent half as much time learning how to edit as you do arguing on here, you'd have less to argue about.
>>4528825>>4528832>Process photo normally or use SOOC JPEG>Get moire and weird false colour>Process in special sauce $200 software that totally fixes Snoy snapshits, we swear>Everything is fucking purpleWowie zowie you can't win because Snoytech is fucking dogshit, amazing>4528830>em dashClankerIgnore AI postsHide AI postsDo not reply to AI postsIgnore cANON postsHide cANON postsDo not reply to cANON posts
>>4529084You're just mad that they accused you of being me lol, you're just saying what I said about software not solving the root issue and being a mere band aid cope. You should get a trip too and avoid it happening in the future.
They never replied to me. I have no (You)s since >>4528659You are delusional.
>>4529084About time you fell for the em dash trap! If you follow the conversation chain, you'll notice that I used a normal dash here >>4528817 (my first post was >>4528811, by the way).>t. Canon foolframe user
>>4529084He disabled the tint corrections — so the sony is purple and the olympus is green. Without knowing which lights dpreview used — this could be the light, the lens, or the camera. LED lights cause weird color casts. In a real professional photograph — either you would correct the tint (hurts overall color accuracy) or use a better light source — instead of amazon LEDs.>moire and false color is from jpegIts because every manufacturer removed mandatory blur filters — since the ILC market is now 90% professionals who can anticipate this — and voluntarily blur their images.Amateurs and test shooters for shitty review sites dont know their way around this. When you see pro photography with AA filterless cameras you see no moire — — but it's all over dpreview.You can totally avoid moire by anticipating it and blurring the image yourself by closing the aperture to f11+ (f8+ on 61mp), using a diffusing filter, using a less sharp lens, or raising the ISO — on top of standard professional raw processors being significantly less prone to aliasing than sooc jpeg and consumer grade raw processors — making it even less of an issue.
>>4529089Weak OLPF beats all those shitty options. There's a reason why the 5D4 is still popular in pro fashion.
>>4529089>consumer grade raw processorsThis is also funny. What did you prompt the AI for it to come up with this retarded shit? Consumers don't bother with RAW.
>>4529091>mandatory blur at every aperture beats optional blur whenever you want it>that's why <shit I made up>Pro fashion is a fucktonne of sony and medium format bodies but enjoy your delusion
>>4529092Shooting raw — is the standard — for all experience levels — in this day and age — you absolute nimrodpoop
>>4529093The blur caused by a weak OLPF is only noticeable in the lack of moire. >>4529094How's life in delululand? The standard is shooting with a phone and then using Instagram filters or other phone editing.
>>4529095Sure, that's why everyone was clamoring to buy the D800 over the D800E and the 5DS over the 5DS R — and there's been non-stop bitching outside of one or two repetitive autistic retards on /p/ ever since AA filters went buhbye. Maybe go join those legions of dispossesed pros that totally hate the modern state of cameras sugartits. I'm sure they're very real and ready to welcome you since you're a famous published photographer. You can do it sister!
>>4529096FOMO is a bitch. Honestly the more I know photo NPCs the more I respect videofags even if a lot of their demands negatively affected cameras.
>>4529098hes right sis go find your peopleyou’re famous remember
>>4529096>Sure, that's why everyone was clamoring to buy the D800 over the D800E and the 5DS over the 5DS Ryes they definitely made the right decision, just look at the horrible blur the OLPF causes. The moire on the other hand is so minimal I can only see it at 800% zoom.
>>4529102But hey, don't panic. For the modest price of 400 American fiat currency you can get a clip-in filter from Kolari to make your moire resistance as good as one they came with it.
>>4529102You've had this explained to you 20+ times and you STILL post dpreview screenshits (f5.6, acr)Why isn't it a hot topic outside of a dpreview screenshit poster on /p/? You've had this question answered many times as well
>>4529104>why are normalfags whose only metrics for a digital camera are price and megapixels unaware of technical matters
>>4529108great description of >>4529103 and >>4529102 desuthe removal of aa filters marked the point where camera makers assumed a normalfag would never use an ILC again and they were exclusively for people who were serious about actually learning photography, just like it was in the 50s-70s. AA filters are invaluable for a P mode jpeg shooter who doesn't understand any of the theory behind digital camera operation. for knowledgeable folks it's a hindrance. and for indians, it's an izzat loss that shames the camera model on dpreview.
>>4528831Put an R6II in that chart boyo
>>4529118>the removal of aa filters marked the point where camera makers assumed a normalfag would never use an ILC again and they were exclusively for people who were serious about actually learning photographywhich is why all the cameras then and now ship with auto and JPEG modes.>for knowledgeable folks it's a hindrancewow the image is 0.5 pixels blurrier, such a hindrance! Meanwhile random rainbows that are visible at all normal viewing / print resolutions are just fine.
>>4529168Moire is a skill issue. You aren't a professional. All professional fashion and wedding photographers know to shoot at f22 to eliminate moire.You aren't a professional, stop buying professional equipment. Stick to taking pictures of your dog napping.
>>4529173>You aren't a professional, stop buying professional equipment. Uh oh, the anon having a melty got into the marxism literature agian.
>>4529168AI spambothttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/Qd3_W2K-taL5PfrIxtryCA/
>>4529168Canon exec here. We wanted to call auto mode girlfriend mode but the DEI squad from blackrock wouldnt let us. You’re not actually meant to use it if you have a functioning brain.
>>4529173Moire is actually a skill issue yeah>buy ultra high end camera for $1500 instead of $800 fuji xm5 that is literally made for your kind>buy ultra high end g master s line L prime lens for $2000 instead of the plastic kit zoom that is literally made for your kind>stand in front of a brick wall/woven fabric/whatever>shoot super sharp lens at sharpest aperture, carefully avoiding any softening effects from spherical aberration or diffraction because more sharp = more good>4chan will be btfo when i call them poorfags hahahaha>what's that? MOIRE?>OH NO>MY PHOTO IS TOO SHARP>CAMERA COMPANY PLEASE SAVE ME>SOMEONE PLEASE GLUE A TIFFEN GLIMMERGLASS 1 TO MY SENSOR>KOLARI PLEASE TAKE MY $400>No I won't use capture one to reduce this moire further I can't afford that shit. $250 for a perpetual license? and i have to pay $25 a month if I want to upgrade my camera as often as possible to btfo /p/? no thank you
