New motto - gear only matters if your photo doesn't suck.
>>4528802you got it backwards!
>>4528802>newfag retard can't even link previous threadAll gearfags are retarded, huh?
>>4528855Checked. I can't say care in this case, though — they're little more than containment threads at this point.
>>>/p/gearThere are literally ten of thesePick one and post there instead>>4528856The few posters that need contained like anti-sony spammer and his mandatory archive stalker don't contain themselves to gear threads anywaysWe need someone supremely autistic and hostile to be appointed /p/ hotpocket
>>4528858That would be wonderful and long overdue, though the cynical part of me thinks that the position would only attract the exact dickhead who would make things worse and kill this slow board for good. Trying to self-regulate without proper mod and admin support only seems to encourage the troublemakers to approach things differently.
>>4528858That is the same person though. but it is best to have his fursonas clash in here then shitting up the board more. At least the photo threads are mostly safe since they are about posting photos
>>4528863I think visible poster IDs would benefit the board, at least it would expose the samefagging.
>>4528864That reminds me - I'm glad that I've never fallen for the bait where someone suddenly demands for you to post photos over an unrelated argument. I've never seen such demands being made in good faith.
>>4528864Actually if one of the furries was a mod it would actually be good because they both shill vintage DSLRs and would giggle and hand flap if they banned everyone talking about post-2013 digital cameras
>>4528869Ironic shitposting is still shitposting, and it needs to be handled by someone who's stable enough to be unbiased.
>>4528868Same
>>4528868>I claim to be an expert, and then when people call me out I dont take the bait. PROVE i'm not pulling shit out of my ass? lmao. i'm glad to be a nophoto fake expert.>>4528878case in point your friend in this is a literal iranny tranny neo-nazi
I know this sounds quaint, but what if we tried getting into the practice of actively ignoring shitposters and reporting their posts instead? We have one here that we can try that with now — what's the worst that could happen?
>>4528802/r/ing the screencap where either Burt or Bass shooped this on /p/ and travel sites for African safaris were spamming it kekI may actually have it somewhere I'll look today on my file server
Why are all these gear thread just copy pastas and spergin.No actual discussion about gear.uw lenses what to look for what to avoid and whyflash. What to look for what to avoidMacro lenses, tripods, macro lenses, macro rails, star trackers, filters, zoom lenses, batteries, power banks, memory cards, cages, all sorts of gearSame thead over and over againDp review same picture taken with a6700 over and over againSame plinkines video, same lrc speed up editig, same m43 equivalence. There are so many things to talk about and you anus tonguers post the same shit every gear head.Just poat news ffrom your ayatem of new lenses, cameras or whatever. It will bring more info than the curent discussion. Some chinese launched some wierd or interesting lens. Post and talk about it. Weird cameras. Weird lenses. Weird filters.
>>4528908I got your back bro
>>4528908
>>4528911There are a few anons here who are on a crusade to convince people to never, ever, ever buy a sony or a fujifilm camera and that the only real options for a compact are micro four thirds and the lumix S9. They repost the same intellectually dishonest, often flat out made up shit down to the images and the filenames over and over again until someone agrees with them, so, endlessly.They're either paid shills or NPCs that migrated from /g/, /v/, /pol/ etc. None of them are distinct from each other or act like honest human beings, and it's entirely feasible things you'd assume were one person are actually dmany ifferent indians working in shifts.
>>4528913>>4528914That's funny shit. I wonder if we could ever do something like that again.
>>4528921There are few people and this board. All have cameras already. Some have sony. Some have fuji. Trying to convince who? There are some anons asking for what to buy as their first camera but i belive most of them are some of these retards waiting for someboddy to post any camera recommendation just to have a flame war.
>>4528924You're talking to one of the flame-baiters right now. He will try to drag your conversation into one, no matter how you respond. The best thing we can do is starve them of this satisfaction and keep reporting them for derailing threads.
>>4528921>convince people to never, ever, ever buy a sony or a fujifilm cameraSounds like heroic prevention of buyer's remorse and even of dropping the artistic pursuit to me. Seriously, if you want a compact camera look no further than the EOS SL2. It's tiny but doesn't compromise on the things that matter like intrinsic photographic integrity. What you see is the scene, not some cave shadow abomination. It's a miniature window to the joy of reflex. And since last year, it even has official Magic Lantern support.A pint-sized powerhouse, at 122.4 x 92.6 x 69.8 mm. And with 24.2MP and the Canon 1.6x crop ratio, you get impressive reach too. Especially when paired to a 500mm lens like pic related. Despite the size, the ergonomics are top tier (for a Canon) too. It's no Nikon but it's pretty good. And it has a swivel screen. Seriously, what else could you ask for? Capability/size it's the top pick for sure.
>>4528924> Trying to convince who?With how cheap indians and AI are, if they convince one retarded tourist to buy a lumix S9 the profit margin from that one single sale pays for ten years of shilling.Bot threads and bot posters are already obviously on /g/ and /pol/ so why wouldn't they target every consumer board? Shilling is borderline free and if they do it long enough, local NPCs repeat the shills lines for actually free.I can't help but remember the weird posters who were always here to remind us of when canon and nikon refurbs were on sale even though no one from here would seriously buy junk like the nikon z30well, one did, he ended up hating it but that one sale probably paid for another ten years of shilling
>>4528927Why the fuck do you keep doing this? Why do you keep helping to derail threads by responding to the bait?Just fucking stop. This is beyond tiresome - I just want an actual functional board for once. Just stop.
>>4528926>saying there are shills and autistic fanboys here is flame bait actuallyAnd why does it bother you? You're not one of them are you?
>>4528929>nikon z30The sorrow of mirrorless, this time without even an EVF to cope about how you're supposedly not missing out on a DSLR.>>4528932Can't let fujislugs get away with lying to people
>>4528935>There are dishonest shills here and the most common ones really have it out for sony and fuji>Shill: YES I AM FUJI IS BAD NO ONE BUY A FUJI ITS BAD ITS BAD ITS BAD DO NOT BUY A FUJIkek worlds smartest
>>4528937I don't care man, enjoy your worms. The real shills are the ones running cover for Fuji's and Sony's bullshit.
>>4528941>no, i dont want honesty. i want consensus. i don't value truth. i value reputation, vibes, and consensus. i don't care if someone has to lie nonstop if the end result is the consensus i want.very feminine
>>4528948lmao the whole point of Fuji and Sony shills is silencing the truth about the issues their scameras have and manufacturing consensus. I'm sorry Fuji's flagships are poorly built but it's part of the sorrow of mirrorless.
>>4528950>silencing the truthSome retard spamming dpreview test chart screenshots and manufacturing issues from extremely sparse and low quality data is the truth now? The most recent "truth" was saying all sony cameras have a problem because an astrophotographer ran into an issue with an ancient sony that only shot compressed raw. This "truth" ignored that similar issues actually occurred with other brandshttps://www.cloudynights.com/forums/topic/746131-nikon-coloured-concentric-rings/page/1https://www.canonwatch.com/sensor-banding-issue-canon-eos-5d-mark-iv/Which would mean the actual truth is... many older cameras weren't as good as cameras are today, and many had issues in extreme usecases.Why is it that all your "truth" is the same limited evidence, low quality shit reposted exclusively on 4chan no matter how many times it's been smacked down by someone more educated than you?
>>4528954I was talking about the worms and the terrible build quality but thanks for bringing the Sony rings to the table too.
>>4528959>the wormsAn adobe issue that vanishes when using higher quality software>The terrible build qualityA half dozen reddit posts out of millions of cameras soldIt certainly cant be worse than "err 20: the brand" (canon).
>cANON puts his trip on and gets occupied>all the other threads "the shills" were propping up slide off the front pagei'm nooooticing
>>4528914>>4528913>>4528908OP here, the funny thing is I had trouble looking up the image and then just googled "giraffe savannah sunset" and it was the first result. Of course this was before covid and the AI shittery.
Fuji and xtrans have real issues but they're way less significant than any of the shit cANON and "the shills" post about>Xtrans is a tad lower resolution than its bayer equivalent and is getting noisy from the teeny tiny pixelstrue, a 40mp fuji camera can compete with ff if it shoots 20mp jpegs so its basically $2k for aps-c mirrorless to finally surpass the canon 5d mark 3>fuji AF misses sometimesmostly true about their telephotos and the primes with older AF motors, it's a really bad sports photography brand and not every lens is modernized>something something weather sealingtrue about the x100, which is ironic because its meant to be the travel camera, but also not as big of a deal because its easy to keep tucked under a coat. about as common as olympus cameras dying if your metric is forum complaints otherwise.a similar post could be made about sony but i dont feel like itbla bla bla true about the a7iii and much older cameras but not relevant today3 forum posts complaining applies to every branddont use your shutter as a dust cover and it wont break
>>4528962>An adobe issue that vanishes when using higher quality softwarelol, present on the camera's JPEG engine too
>>4528950Plastic virgin vs adamantium chad
Any Fuji/Sony is a toy compared to a humble 6D
>>4528970Yeah camera jpeg engines aren't ideal for pixel peeping grade work. I can literally see individual pixels in this screenshot. That's why capture one exists. If you're shooting jpeg just drop the output size and sharpening settings and it looks fine. This applies to every camera.Remember when you linked the entire blog post this snippet is from and in context, the argument you wanted to make from this snippet fell apart? Of course you do but truth isn't your pursuit, consensus and vibes are. You're a propagandist. Inherently feminine. If you say something wrong and get told off, you're not going to learn something from that, you're going to repeat yourself later. It's amazing how slimy you are. Always changing the terms, finding a red herring, and if you are wholly defeated you forget it ever happened.there was some quote from some book that touched on this behavior. there's some irony to it, given the source, and your beliefs.
>>4528973>everyone's battery froze except for mine>better cameras are worseair gaps are good insulation, who knewbetter luck to everyone next time, keep your battery insulated
Brand wars the way we know them here, are all pretty meaningless considering it's the same Jap cartel selling you the same technology in differently shaped plastic package.What is meaningful is pointing out issues with particular cameras.> OM/Olympus has shit IQ> Snoy has shit colors> Fuji has shit AFAll these things are true and people need to know.
>>4528980Mostly skill issuesEven olympus shit IQ can be remedied by realizing four micro four thirds megapixels equals one full frame megapixel, therefore the om-5 is a 5mp camera. super sharp and noise free.
I need autistic opinions on panny vs. sony. Wanna shoot sigma lenses, which system to buy into? It's going to be my second system so doesn't matter that much desu. I just like that sigma seems to still be a family business and less zogged than all the others.
>>4528855You need to go back
>>4528983>Wanna shoot sigma lenses, which system to buy into?Panasonic obviously, it's on the L-mount alliance.Both are kinda shit but the only reason Sony isn't the worst brand in the market is that Fuji exists
>>4528983Nikon. Not only can it use every sigma lens via ETZ adapters, it can use leica lenses with a compatible sensor covering and focus confirmation with 6 bit MTZ adapters on the expeed7 cameras. And native Z mount lenses, which are actually good, unlike most of L mount.Panasonic is pretty much garbage unless all you care about is video codecs and filming in log. All panasonic does is enable literally every video feature a sony sensor supports and half ass the rest of the camera. L mount is also pretty much garbage except for sigma lenses so there's nothing else worth using. It's really typical for panasonic users to film with EF and PL lenses instead of native L mount glass.Sony is just slightly worse nikon that got to the market earlier so they're always slightly ahead, at a premium.
>>4528987>It's really typical for panasonic users to film with EF and PL lensesThat's really typical of videofags as a whole, not a Panasonic thing but an existing collection of lenses thing.
why are APS-C lens mounts (Sony E [initially intended as such], Fuji X) barely smaller in diameter than full frame? i feel that's a missed opportunity to make them more compact
>>4528929>junk like the nikon z30>>4528935>The sorrow of mirrorless, this time without even an EVF to cope about how you're supposedly not missing out on a DSLR.Sorry, but what's wrong with the Z30? It doesn't have weird image quality defects like its closest competitor. Yeah, it doesn't have an EVF but I can't really use those with my glasses, so why would I pick the Sony over the Nikon?
>>4528990Panasonic is just a video thing.
>>4528994We've been over this. It's just ACR and the shitty settings dpreview uses it with. It doesn't represent what a raw would look like in a real raw processor at all.
>>4528994> Magically, two shots from the same sensor are demosaic'd differently.
>>4528985>>4528987>>4528990I shoot nikon already, z7ii is my main camera. I'm just sceptical of the ETZ adapters actually working. At least in le reddit they are saying it works best with first party sony lenses and support for sigma can be patchy. Not that expensive to try but if I got one and wasn't pleased with the performance then I'm locked into sony. Don't much care for the newer panasonic bodies since they have that fan thing going on. But I used to have S5 at one point and it was decent. Off topic, video shooters really have ruined cameras for photo enjoyers. Enjoy the massive dynamic range of the E500.
>>4528991Because with a smaller sensor you don't have the mount in the way of the light causing vignetting. The baby mount in the Sony cameras combined with the short flange means the rays have to enter the camera body really obliquely. Curving light in the air isn't feasible.
>>4528999Yeah, each raw format is different. If you use competent software like capture one this isn't an issue.>>4529001The newer ones improved sigma compatibility a bit. Autofocus is a bit worse for sigma, especially the older lenses, but it's not like native panasonic performance is going to be better. The worst offenders are still feature laden zooms.>>4529004Dude this argument was already had and your side got fucking wrecked>>4528720>>4528725
>>4529010>your sideit was just him with his trip offall those arguments die as soon as he goes back to playing his cANON character
>>4529010
>>4529013Concession accepted
>>4529011>implying it wasn't you playing both sides to discredit me with unrigorous representations of what the argument is
The moderators are absolutely fucking useless here. This place will never get back under control until we're able to cull the shitposting and schizo spam, but that won't happen if they won't respond to reports.
>>4529023>only gear threads are affected>the problem is cANON starting shit in gear threads and and getting humiliated by a superior autist>photo threads are totally untouchedworking as intended
>>4529024They NEVER stay in the gear threads. Anytime someone starts a new discussion thread, the same people start shitposting immediately and drive away any potential newcomers. It's been a fucking echo chamber for years.
>>4529028>look at every thread where cANON started his autistic sony/fuji hate and got btfo>its a gear threadperfectfuck gear threads
>>4529024>and getting humiliated>>4529029>and got btfoNice headcanon
>>4528950Current Fuji flagships are X-H2 and X-H2s. Both are solidly built. X-T5 is a prosumer model and yes, it's pretty cheap feeling. Mushy buttons and wobbly dials. I bought one and sent it back the next day.
>>4528970Is there anything wrong with the quality of these images?>>4528910The only worm I can see here is you.
>>4529033You can see the worms in the wall above the dog's snout, lol. Well, maybe (You) can't, being blinded by cognitive dissonance.
>>4529035Even on the snout itself you can see wormy textures now that I took a second look. And this is on a downsized image. It looks as if you overlaid a worm texture above the fur. Hilarious shit.Shooting Fuji is like taking your negatives to an incompetent lab that causes reticulation due to poor handling of temperatures.
>>4529035That's a jpg with added grain. This is how the unprocessed RAW looks like. I don't really see a problem with this considering that I shot this handheld at 1/125s with ISO 4000 on APS-C sensor. I think it looks pretty good.>>4529036So a 300% crop of a screenshot of a jpg. I think you're just mentally ill.
>4529036>zooms in on countable pixels of dog fur with fake film grain>ITS WORMSThe way cANON routinely humiliates himself here is the best advertising sony and fuji have ever gotten on 4chan
>>4529010>Yeah, each raw format is different. If you use competent software like capture one this isn't an issue.So are you saying Sony's firmware isn't competent?
>>4529039Post orher cameras of same resolution for comparisons. With similar shap lenses
>>4529039Bro…>dpreview test shooter uses camera wrong>4chan nophoto blames the cameraif you want to blur the image to eliminate aliasing you can use a worse lens, stop down, raise the ISO, or use a mist filter. you dont need an OLPF so even your best lenses sharpest aperture is blurry. you’d know if you took photos instead of browsing dpreviewSony users = famous prosSony haters = dpreview trolls
>>4529039https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/XZ0CFqP4AAis98kM0bUcUw/Same MD5Same filenameSame argument
>>4529037I think it looks pretty good... for a Fuji lol.It's well known that not every picture is equally affected by the issue. However I'm doubting your "added grain" is so wormy, I think you smeared the picture further in this version to make them go away. In any case, the dark part above the snout still looks wormy. Just admit you don't care about how a camera performs but what it looks like, because you wanted a fashion accessory.
>>4529041>>4529042Do you think people havent corrected this disinfo bot before?https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/XZ0CFqP4AAis98kM0bUcUw/Same MD5Same filenameSame argumentCheck each thread, every time it has been proven wrongIt keeps reposting like it never happened
>>4529043Is he supposed to look up a new picture each time the argument comes up?
>>4529044Thank god you have a trip. What a sad little person you are.
>>4529046>Keeps getting proven wrong>Keeps trying again>>4528976BroMoire spammer is cANON
>>4529045Thanks for Correcting the Record™, anon.>>4529048Whatever helps you sleep at night.
/p/ - one tripfag humiliating himself and everything he believes in while everyone else Posts Photos(tm)If mods cared it would be a matter of banning one name, one trip, and a half dozen MD5 hashes but its obviously too funny to stop
>I bought a 40MP camera but if I resize to 1.83MP the image looks alright... kindaThis is the point fujislugs are currently at, kek. They spend hours massaging the raws to drive the worms out and still fail so they have to cope with what amounts to a thumbnail. All because they wanted to have a Leica but couldn't afford it so they settled for an ungenuine japanese simulacrum.
>>4529041
>>4529052Worms are a hefty price to pay to eliminate moire, I'd rather live with it. Honestly the best way to make someone pick a Sony is giving them Fuji as the only alternative, literally the worst brand on the ILC market.
>>4528856>containment threadsthis only works if janitors actually contain the problem to those threads
>>4529052I wonder how these compare after moire removal on Sony. Those algorithms do soften the picture a little bit.
>>4529052This is just bad processing. The problem is totally and completely fixed using competent RAW software. Stop pixel peeping.
>>4529059>s-stop noticing!
>>4529051Fuji makes you so angry it's funny
>>4529059>The problem is totally and completely fixed using competent RAW softwareYou mean software that runs moire removal algorithms automatically? Should Fuji RAWs be processed in Capture One then or is it only ok if software benefits your proffered brand?
>>4529064>preferred
>>4529063The bad faith argumentation rooted in lies is what frustrates me. Fucking cultists.
>>4529059I'd argue your processed image still looks worse than Fuji. Fuji is softer but looks natural. Yours is still showing false colors.
>>4529066You should do some introspection about being bad faith, you might actually feel better
Hi anons. I am poor but wanted a telephoto, so I purchased a "vintage" Meyer Optik Telemegor 400mm f/5.5 for $100 and put it on a M43 camera. Let's have a look at bokeh and sharpness.
>>4529064Multi-pass demosaicing that's less prone to aliasing is cheating now?These issues disappear entirely in capture one. At a clear cost. Even on a decently modern PC with dedicated graphics and hardware acceleration, it takes a second or two to generate previews each low resolution raw and way way longer for high resolution and xtrans files.Sony and Fuji partnered with capture one a long time ago (with free limited licenses) and funneled tens of thousands of potential customers away from adobe. Long term, adobe has worse support for these two brands than capture one does. Use the correct software suite for your camera.Sony, Fuji, Phaseone/leaf/mamiya -> Capture oneCanon, Nikon, Panasonic -> Adobe (Nikon is officially directly partnered with adobe. Nikon camera matching profiles look better in adobe than C1. surprise.)Hasselblad -> Phocus
>>4529071Wide open f/5.5, 1/125s, auto iso 640. Lots of softness and "ring" bokeh.
>>4529071Stopping down, f/11, 1/125, auto iso 2000.
>>4529071f/22, 1/60, auto iso 3200. This is the best look IMO.
>>4529071Closed all the way down now, 400mm f/32 (800mm f/64(!!!) on full frame), 1/30, auto iso 3200.All the shots were on a tripod with self-timer but my shutter speed was limited by the wind moving the leaves. I didn't want motion blur to affect results.
>>4528856>em dashClanker
>>4529073>>45290784 mft pixel = 1 ff pixel therefore this lens is sharp ackshually
>>4528802fuck captchas
I'm seeing this shilled basically everywhere.Should it be my first full frame digital camera? I have a couple of AI lenses already for my film SLR that could be adapted.
>>4529117its major overkill. like if the sony a7iii were actually a good camera instead of a steaming pile of dog shit. the z6ii is fine for a clueless retard the autofocus is just a bit shitty for sportslike stuff
Did I make a mistake getting an f/4 14-150 zoom? I already have an f/1.4 20mm prime
>>4529052This ia useless. I don t take photos of teat charts give me the same picture of the walls and buildings, at the same zoom and crop so i can see irl differences.I need to see compared to other cameras how noticeable that is. Is it 1%, 10%, over 9000%.Fyi i have the 6700. I.m not gonna replace it, i m not gonna sell it i m not gonna shoot it wit .50 AP i m not gonna blender it. This is what i have this is what i m going to use.I just want to see if all this sperging is genuine or you are just retarded so post sone fucking irl pics of the same subject with more or less same lighting conditions so i can see the superiority of other brands sensors
>>4529145Bruh not many people own both Sony and Fuji cameras with comparable MP count and similar lenses because why would they? Pretty much none of these who do are interested in pixel peeping comparisons on 4chan. This DPReview chart is the best you're gonna get. If you're happy with your 6700 then just ignore these threads. Comparison is the killer of joy.Gear has some importance but I assure you that moire at 100% crop is not something that's gonna hold back your photography.
>>4529130superzooms are always a meme
>>4529119>Z5 is overkill>get Z6Huh?
>>4529150I m just curious how the my camera compares to others in the market and if any other brands have better eqp. Not because i have buyer remorse. I m quite happy with the camera. There would be some stuf i would like the cameras to have like joystick or some search option to go fast trough settings. but joystick is available on ff more expensive and bigger cameras that i did not want to buy. For my first camera i don t know if there was something better in that price range new. A6700 was the latest model. All other brands latest models were more expensive and cannon was not an option for their lens limitations.Was my decision right or wrong i don t care as i can t change anything and i m also not using the camera as much as it should and at it s maximum capability to want more. Yes better night and low light capability would be better but is sensor limitation so if i want i would get a ff. Atm i just want more lensesFast Ultra wides, fish eye, some super zoom for moon and wide life. Maybe a tilt shift just to see what is all about. Some big magnification macro like 10x. i just want to explore all sort of picture taking but is expensive like crazy.
>>4529117It could be worse, it could be a snoy. Go for it.
>>4529160Nikon LLM strikes again.
>>4529163You should ignore all moire discussion in here, it's all trolling at this point.Pic is moire on Fuji btw.
>>4529145Defects that show up in test charts show up in real images, just more subtle. The purpose of a test chart is to make it repeatable and comparable.DPReview's studio comparison scene also has all kinds of real life objects and textures to compare different cameras.this is the source for pic related and the previous crop.https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6700/sample_images/sony_a6700_45.jpg
I want to get a GR to have it in my pocket everywhere I go. I don't know if I prefer 28 or 40mm equivalent since 35 would be my usual go to edc; these two both have their merits and downsides for me. Leaning towards 28 because landscape and there is always cropWhich one would you get and why?
>>4529169If the only thing is that colour fringing i can live with that. I did not notice it until now but i don t shoot clothing or architecture that much. But isn t that mostly attributed to lens. How you firenwciate between lens coma and sensor one?
>>4529080That was another trap, like the one I set yesterday >>4528830. I'm really digging this desperation of yours.
>>4529174>i don t shoot clothing or architecture that muchThe false colour effects are also visible on natural scenes, especially in situation like pic related where small points of light filter through leaves/branches.https://www.dpreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/5863043706-L1001173.ACR-adjusted.jpeg?original>How you firenwciate between lens coma and sensor one?lens issues generally don't have striping or small scale colour variation, and they will get worse towards the periphery while sensor issues are stronger in the center where the lens is sharpest.
>>4529169This is an AI spambot. https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/5FoMtqg6oLHLtq9DH3AErQ/>>4529174Its caused by using too sharp a lens/aperture for photographing grids or low quality raw converter. Moire is a skill issue. You can make a lens less sharp by using a smaller/much wider aperture or a softening filter. F5.6 and F8 tend to be the sharpest. Capture one interprets raw data better so moire is less common to begin with. This usually happens on high quality cameras like sony and nikon because every photo on a low quality camera is slightly blurry no matter what and slightly blurry photos don’t get as much moire. But, then every photo is blurry and you’d be like that fuji anon who paid for 40 megapixels to shrink it down to 18 megapixels to hide the blur.
>>4529175To add, I've also never seen a bot on 4chan check anyone's digits. Some of you guys are so hopelessly neurotic that you'll start sweating at every potential sign -- even ones that were left for you specifically.
>>4529176This is an AI spambot. https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/934yQKgMhP_eEtrQOBIS_A/
>>4529178Wow. Why do mods let a bot like that run? It would be so easy to ban it. It doesnt change its image or even the filename.
>>4529178> Its caused by using too sharp a lens/aperture for photographing grids or low quality raw converter. Moire is a skill issue. You can make a lens less sharp by using a smaller/much wider aperture or a softening filter. F5.6 and F8 tend to be the sharpest. Capture one interprets raw data better so moire is less common to begin with.So dpreview photographers are low skill sharpness freaks and use shitty softwareWhy does anyone use that shit site
>>4529169Hey Alexa, recommend me some shows on prime video I might like.>>4529160A used Z6II is cheaper than the Z5II, besides having the LCD display on top and better build quality. But both are overrated. I'd rather use a 20 year old DSLR.
>>4529182Mods? Here? On /p/? Buddy, they'll ban people for talking mad shit about SNOY or that one insufferable jeet spamming the /gear/ threads and that's about all you're gonna get.
>>4529188Sure! Here are the top three shows on Amazon Prime you might enjoy. • Helluva Boss• Hazbin Hotel• House of DavidIf you’d like, we could explore other genres such as anime and Russian history. If you’re unhappy with these recommendations just let me know! At Amazon, our analytics are only partially accurate – but I’m working on improvements!
>is more camera than any of you need>solves all of the complaints you develop after cluelessly fumbling around with an advanced camera>xtrans jpegs are blurry at 100% pixel peep but perfectly sharp when you remember 2 aps-c pixels = 1 full frame pixel and 1.5 xtrans pixels = 1 bayer pixel>$1000 brand new with a kit lens (om3 btfo)
>>4529178>You can make a lens less sharp by using a smaller/much wider aperture or a softening filter. F5.6 and F8 tend to be the sharpest.I think I'll just use a camera with an OLPF.
>>4529204OLPFs make fine detail look like shit for anyone who uses that camera no matter what lens they use. Most importantly, strong OLPFs are extinct and never coming back (good.)Just use a soft lens. It does the same thing. That's why first party lenses have a wider selection of cheap old school designs now.
>>4529206>OLPFs make fine detail look like shit
>>4529175If you're not using AI to write your posts then you're still an annoying pretentious little bitch nigga which is even worseYou are probably using an AI to write your posts though, if you say you aren't then I believe you're just bullshitting
It's weird how the OLPF basically vanished at the exact moment the majority of people capable of affording a high end ILC could also afford a computer capable of storing a large number of raw files and processing them quickly. Which was also around the same time technical competence spread like a virus and the average photographer was becoming less clueless.It was never necessary. It was never correcting for a deficiency. It was part of the jpeg processing pipeline under the assumption everyone would shoot jpeg. Hence, xtrans does the same thing. It doesn't reduce moire, it changes it so it's easier for a jpeg engine running on a weak camera processor to remove, and as long as you don't pixel peep>exactly what they said about OLPF blurit's not a problem. if you're lazy, just buy a fujifilm and don't shoot full size jpegs.
>>4529203>Uhm ackshually this isn't REALLY a 26 MP sensor because you need two of this camera's fucked-up pixels to equal ONE regular healthy pixel so ackshually if you compare it against a camera with less than half as many megapixels it's totally sharp!!!Is this the power of Fujislug copium?
>>4529206Here's a photo where fine detail doesn't look like shit because it's a better, newer camera than a 5D2 without an OLPF
>>4529211That is literally what an AA filter doesAA filter: .5px blur all aroundXtrans: .5px blur (but with better luma resolution so the actual amount of resolution loss fluctuates depending on what's being photographed)Same shit. Better approach.But now it's a brand you dislike because you are autistic, so the prospect of having slight blur forced on literally every photo triggers you now.
>>4529212There's some micro-aliasing (squint to see it) because I never used capture one's moire tool, even though a monochrome dog is the ideal target for moire reduction algorithms. Here's a photo from a D750 with an OLPF that actually has more micro-aliasing. And the fine detail looks like shit.The mandatory blurring didn't actually help since it's an asymmetrical AA filter. It would help on a dpreview screenshot fo sho, just not in a photo.
>>4529210>It was never necessary. It was never correcting for a deficiency.It is always necessary when lens resolution exceeds sensor resolution.When sensor resolution is greater than lens resolution OLPF is redundant because colour information is already spread across adjacent photosites, which is the function of OLPF.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2TyUrVBL8>It was part of the jpeg processing pipelinelol
>>4529215You really are, regardless of the reality behind the screen, an AI spambot.>https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/eL9KGl0qi1I4dXML95daow/Do you remember when I redid these raws in a competent program instead of adobe camera raw and the aliasing disappeared?You're not really a person anymore. You're just a punching bag so I can make myself look more intelligent relative to you. Thank you for your service but it's not really necessary. I've enjoyed feeling superior to you but it's gone on too long. You can leave now.
>https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/text/Vd2TyUrVBL8/Holy fucking shitDoes this count as advertising or begging?
>>4529217>>4529216The mods are paid to allow these bots to post
>>4529216Delusional + mindbroken. You didn't prove anything because the pics still turn out like shit when you process them "correctly". Why are you against having better cameras? Are you a Snoyjeet?
>>4529219>no keep trying to argue let's say the exact same things all over againAgain, I really appreciate how stupid you are.If you were ever having an argument you've lost it in every thread you started it in. You're not a person at this point. You're like /p/'s public toilet. You're going to repeat yourself next thread, or even again in this thread, you won't even change your dpreview screenshots to new images or filenames, and then whoever wants to feel smart can reuse counterarguments from any of the last times you repeated yourself and win the scripted argument as many times as they want.
Where can I learn huskyfag’s insult style?
>>4529221
>>4529222no. why are you so mean?that post was really hurtful. we’re people too you know. all you had to do was agree that mirrorless is bad and sony ruined everything… you didn’t have to hurt people… my friend is literally crying because of you…
>>4529188> dog not nappingopinion discarded
i thought the husky poster was nice :(
>>4529223Good.
>>4529216>Do you remember when I redid these raws in a competent program instead of adobe camera raw and the aliasing disappeared?I remember when you redid this one and it still looked like shit, and that's visible without pixel peeping.https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/9601355361/646450
>>4529226you made cinefag have an episode too. all he wanted to do was make a joke about racism. why do you keep hurting people? please stop…
>>4529227That wasn't me, but top right looks fine without you increasing saturation 2000%. Your entire reason for being is being called a moron who reposts shitty photos from dpreview. Your only contribution to this board is the higher quality information that is posted to debunk you. You are the onions wojak in the meme of life. Pathetic.
>>4529221Right here, right nowRight here, right nowRight here, right now
>>4529230
>>4529227why try to fix moire in post fucking with precise masks when you can just take a photo without it? shooting with slight diffraction or a weak mist filter is better at reducing moire than common AA filters, or you can just use a less sharp lens instead of a G master meant for photographing organics.oh wait that was already saidlike50 times
huskies are aggressive dogs for aggressive people. every husky owner who posts here ends up being an asshole.
>>4529217First time I see it, but I watched it thanks to your post. It's actually a good technical video, no wonder fujislugs hate it and /vid/ loves it.>>4529215The "fix it in post" fags are in utter denial. It's funny that fujislugs are often guilty of it because one of the marketing pitches for the X-tranny sensor was moire resistance (it's still vulnerable but the triggers change). Good find, Germanics are great at technical matters. Check out Thomas Eisl from Austria too, another guy who knows his stuff.
>>4529228i liked cinefag before huskyfag told him to kill himself and made him crash out :(>durrr bestiality is bad have some detailed suicide instructions durrrrrrr
>>4529212>>4529214What part of "moire is target dependent" do you not understand? You shoot dogs, OLPF isn't for you.
>>4529237He does?
>>4529237I shoot more than dogs, nazi. You just can't see the rest.OLPFs are totally pointless and counterproductive on stills cameras. If your building has green lines, shoot at f/11. Use a softer lens, which you're probably going to do anyways. Use a higher resolution sensor, which you're probably doing anyways. Move the camera slightly so the moire disappears. Use a mist filter. If it were about video cameras there would be an argument to be made, but consumer video cameras are hampered by a useful OLPF (strong, omnidirectional) since they all use on-sensor PDAF so it's, once more, pointless bitching. Most consumer cameras that do have these filters have asymmetrical or very weak 16 point filters that barely do anything. DSLR vs mirrorless doesn't really factor in here because later DSLRs had to have usable live view AF.>andthe added resolution loss is only tolerable for videography where the final image is going to be ~8mp and viewed a dozen feet away, and possibly recorded on a lower resolution sensor to minimize rolling shutter. Solutions for stills photographers on the other hand are intolerable for the kind of "real videographer" who isn't going to rely on on-sensor AF in the first place and would interfere significantly with the DP's vision or fuck the footage up entirely.
>>4529239What is the weakest mist filter that will get rid of moire?
>>4529240>softar 1>black pro mist 1/4>tiffen glimmerglass 1/4 / digital diffusion 1/4>use a vintage lens>do any of the half dozen things you can do to get moire out of a still image
>>4529239>naziThanks for the compliment.>AFAF still works with the Kolari filter.
>>4529239nazis have feelings too… why are you so mean
>>4529242>anything but buying a camera without that issue to begin withTrying to sharpen the tip as a hammer as a way to not use a screwdriver, in other words.
>>4529243AF "still works" but a softer image reaching the AF sensors is going to impact it for what modern stills cameras are expected to do. Additionally, increased resolution has made moire less likely except on test charts.and hilariously, some of the cameras latrine up there complains about actually have OLPFs including the Z6II and lower resolution sony models. they're just weak asymmetrical ones that have to dodge around their own PDAF sites and barely do anything.
>>4529245It's not an issue for stills at all, just for attempting high end videography with less than ideal equipment.
>>4529242> 1/4Is going to look like shit unless you were shooting a cheesy nighttime street photo to begin with.
>>4529239>if your camera's technical deficiencies render it unable to correctly capture your vision make those completely unrealistic sacrifices to your image quality, buy more gear or change your composition so it's no longer the way you liked it but the way that hides your camera's poor design.Are you ok?
>>4529248Nah brah it looks cinematic1/8 is probably fine too some some of you retards use 20mp cameras>>4529235>but the triggers changeAnd the manifestation, so anything that doesn't get wiped out by chroma smoothing is extremely rare and nobody using a fuji uses it at full resolution anyways
>>4529240Just fix it in post. You're asking how to spend money to permanently lower detail in all of your photos just to fix those few rare pics with moire. Just think.Can't believe I'm agreeing with cUCKON on this >>4529245
>>4529249>shift the camera 1mm>do the same thing the OLPF would do anyways and soften the image slightly>or go back in time, buy a shitty DLSR, and take a significantly less sharp photo. wow no moire!legit the actual reason to use a shitty DSLR is because a nice camera falling into a lake or taking the brunt of a fall or smashing into a rock with all the momentum it kept on the strap (temporarily acting as a flail) when you trip on a trail is a horrible experience"interfering with vision" happens when you're a real DP and you want to use a sharp lens set but have to use an OLPF because "shift the camera 1mm" isnt going to get the flicker out of your shots
>>4529209You'll believe whatever is most convenient for you because you're fucked in the head. Back to your usual coping mechanisms, I suppose.
>>4529251You're actually agreeing with the doggod that beat cANON in a photobattle>just move the camera a little or shoot at f11 or do something else temporary for that one photohigh resolution FF is also a great solution. very very few things in real life trigger moire with 42mp+.
Check out my full frame photos. I bet your dinky crop sensors can't match the power of my Canon FF sensor.
Look at this beautiful detail and weep cropfags.
Does this amount of detail make you mad fujifags?
>xtrans
Cropfags and fuji transvestites btfo.Buy a real camera with a real sensor next time.
mfw not shooting on a toy camera
>>4529255>>4529256>>4529257>>4529258>>4529260Is this b8? Because it's not a great demonstration of sharpness or outside what a crop camera (even MFT) can do.
>>4529257yeeeah sorry >>4529212 is actually betterhes a horrible satanic asshole but he does know how to take sharp dog photos
>>4529261Post better examples then. Full image + 100% crop on an unprocessed RAW.
>>4529212Why are you so verbally abusive? You sent cinefag suicide tutorials just because he had a bestiality fetish, basically called cANON a jew and now you’re calling the local harmless autist a public toilet. What the fuck is wrong with you?
>>4529263You know what they say about bait... if you have to ask, it is)))
>>4529259https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXi8MHZYRjUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuVsCkA3kkshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0jlAg3GtNUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8MmwS_8PCw
>>4529229>That wasn't me but top right looks fine without you increasing saturation 2000%colorblindness confirmed>>4529232or just use a camera with OLPF.>>4529246>AF "still works" but a softer image reaching the AF sensors is going to impact it for what modern stills cameras are expected to do. Additionally, increased resolution has made moire less likely except on test charts.You can see the no OLPF camera's AF struggling on this part of the video when moire patterns appear because the prominent fake pattern makes the camera think it's a real object to focus onhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd2TyUrVBL8&t=1138>>4529247if you weren't colorblind you would see that these rainbows - literally noise - are way more detrimental to image quality than the marginal sharpness loss an OLPF causes. The sharpness loss is never visible at normal view/print sizes. The rainbows are always visible at normal view/print sizes.
>>4529266So you're afraid to show your unsharpened RAWs? Why?
>>4529226You’re hurting real peoples feelings
>>4529262He knows how to post sharpened jpgs but apparently he's too much of a pussy to post a 100% crop of his unprocessed RAWs.
>>4529258Pink Floyd - Meddle (1971)
>>4529271Not to defend the dogsnapper but there's no such thing as a 100% crop of an unprocessed RAW. At best you have something processed with the default settings. Or well, with something like RawTherapee you could get a conversion without the demosaicing.
>>4529274That's fair. So a 100% crop of a RAW file with no sharpening, clarity, AI noise reduction and other manual enhancements beyond software defaults. Or even better: upload the RAW.
>>4529268
>4529270>4529264What's with the sudden outpouring of bitch crying?
>>4529277>why cant i be mean without pushbackRemember when someone just didnt like sony and you made up a false quote that said they were selling ass lenses? You’re a dick.
>>4528802Hello /gear/, made a post about this (>>4529281) but didn't realize there was a dedicated thread for it, so I'll repost what I said here:Visitor from /lit/ here. I know nothing about cameras but for years I've really liked looking at pictures. Shoutout Ralph Eugene Meatyard, Vivian Maier, Roger Ballen, Emmet Gowin, Stacy Kranitz, Bruce Gilden, Dawoud Bey, Tseng Kwong Chi, Saul Leiter, Frederick Sommer, Mario Giacomelli, Lucas Samaras, Nan Golding, the Japanese guy who took all those raven pictures, many others. They might be memes, I don't know, I just really like their pictures.I have about 500 bucks to spend and I want to buy a camera. I'm thinking about a used picrel (Canon EOS R1000) with whatever used lens it normally comes with, think it's called a RF-S 18-45mm? I don't really know much about gear, just want to start taking pictures. I'm vaguely aware that once you buy a camera you're "locked into its system" of lenses, etc. I've heard the name Canon before so I figure that buying more lenses at some point in a few years won't be a problem. I want to take digital pictures because I don't want to pay for film right now, learn to develop, all of that.Am I being retarded about this, or is this a good purchase? Thanks in advance. In a form of payment, have a book recommendation -- currently reading "Love's Work" by Gillian Rose, short memoir by a philosopher who wrote it while dying of ovarian cancer. Strongly recommend.
>>4529284Buy a nikon z30 kit
>>4529276yeah, random dog pictures with unknown camera/settings, lenses, different focus, in different lighting conditions is a much better way to evaluate the effect of an OLPF on fine detail than DPReview's studio scene.
>>4529284Whatever you get, don't buy anything "micro four thirds". Not even trolling.
>>4529289I don't know what "micro four thirds" is, but I'll avoid it>>4529286Thanks for the rec -- why that over the canon? Not saying you're wrong, saying that I don't have the background knowledge to weight what you're saying
>>4529288>real world photography: >:(>the worst raw processor known to man + test charts: :D>>4529284Canon 5D mark II: $250Canon 40mm f2.8: $150All the shit you didnt know you'd need: $100
>>4529290Anything is better than a canon r100Canon's lower end cameras are built to a price point and designed to disappoint users into buying a better canon. The canon EOS M5 + that 22mm f2 lens is what the R100 would be if it weren't ewaste.
>>4529264The best one was when he made the m43 sperg seethe so badly he had a nuclear meltdown and attempt to dox him and then he spammed the catalog with m43 threads and got their general deleted.
>>4529280Yeah whatever you sound like the kind of guy to shove sony kit zooms up his ass and then resell them on ebay so you can get a confidence boost knowing how many snoyboys have handled your ass lenses
>>4529291Thanks for the rec, can you say more about >all the shit you didn't know you'd needlike are you talking about a tripod? SD card?>>4529292Didn't know that, good to know. Realizing that lenses matter way more than I thought. Foolish to say this aloud, but I always sorta-kinda thought you needed a lens to get the picture, and you needed a special kind of lens to take pictures of faraway things, but beyond that it's whatever. Realizing in real time that this isn't the case
>>4529300Depends how far away you're talking.
>>4529300>like are you talking about a tripod? SD card?That's the thing with that meme recommendation, it uses CF cards. Also no video in case you want that. And very limited range of usable ISO.I replied to you in length in your thread. 5D can produce beautiful pictures but is a relic from the past, and not in a good way.Rebel SL2: $250 (under $200 if you know how to win at eBay)18-55mm lens (stabilized): $5050/1.8 lens: $30Why not SL3? They made it more cucked, needs a proprietary flash, can't run Magic Lantern and can't do full sensor HD among other things. It shoots 4K though. I imagine someone from /lit/ cares about video, disregard otherwise.Why SL2? You posted a 24MP small camera. The SL2 is that, but better built and with a better lens system that's freer (as in freedom, but it also has a chance to be free as in beer) and has a real viewfinder.If you want full frame I suggest 6D, as it uses SD cards as opposed to CF cards. A good 128GB CF card is $150. A good 128GB SD is $50. And your computer probably has a reader for it. Or you could even shoot a microSD and put it in a phone afterwards.
>>4529307Thanks for the recs! I don't care much about video, it would be nice if it could take video just in case but if it can't it's whatever. I assume all digital cameras can shoot video anyway?>SL2 vs 6D SL2 + those two lenses (what does a lens being 'stabilized' mean? why is that important?) seems like what I want, but I'm not sure what "full frame" means. Quick google says that it means the sensor is the same size as a frame of 35mm film; naively I'm reading this as "bigger sensor is better," is that right? Like, why would someone want a full frame sensor vs not, other than cost? I know these are probably stupid questions but I'm actually asking, thanks for your help
>>4529307>canon rebelusing an ewaste blob like that is miserable. at least the m5 is small (and has more than one dial) (and gets to use the 22mm f2)your dslr fetish and accompanying delusions really limit you to some dogshit cameras. dslrs are a cope, for larping or saving as much money as possible while preserving performance and in the latter case it's full frame or nikon, never ewaste like the rebel.
>>4529312>I assume all digital cameras can shoot video anyway?Not the ancient ones like the 5D classic.>what does a lens being 'stabilized' mean? why is that important?It compensates for camera shake when shooting handheld, letting you expose for longer without blur. A crop camera with a stabilized lens can often outperform a full frame one without a stabilized one, if they're equally bright. >Like, why would someone want a full frame sensor vs not, other than cost? One big reason is using the film era lenses you can get for cheap, especially if you want a wide angle. It also has an advantage if using a bright lens as it lets you have more control over the depth of field.The smaller sensor has a reach advantage and a close focus advantage. The reach advantage is caused by its smaller pixels, I actually did a fun little comparison a while ago. Pic related. 400mm lens with teleconverter, not your everyday kit but fun to play with. Pardon the unhinged abrasiveness of the picture as it was made in the heat of the debate lol.Crop sensor cameras can also use film era lenses, but as the name indicates they crop the picture. Say you have a 50mm lens, that has a 40 degree horizontal field of view on full frame. With a crop camera, it's more like 26 degrees. Here's where the equivalence concept comes from. The 50mm lens, in terms of FoV behaves in a 1.5x crop camera like a 75mm lens on a full frame one. So the standard lens practically becomes a short telephoto. Because you have roughly the same amount of pixels, it also extends the reach (as demonstrated in my picture). There's no free lunch though, and your depth of field will be increased too. If it's a 50/1.8, it behaves as a 75/2.7 would on full frame. 1.8 is the aperture and it determines depth of field (together with distance to subject). You can use a higher f/number, but the lowest is determined by the lens.
>>4529313>using an ewaste blob like that is miserable.You never used one lol, in case you're not aware of it there's a huge difference between a SL2 and a Rebel T100. The 5D feels miserable to use compared to the SL2.
>>4529313>at least the m5 is small (and has more than one dial) (and gets to use the 22mm f2)Counterpoint lolYou're really making me take out the old pictures today, SL1 pictured is the same size as the SL2.I wouldn't recommend that stupid cope pancake btw, only had it because it came with the camera. Flipped it soon.
>>4529321>>4529319>>4529317There's no point in anyone reading any of that when at the most you used a camera as a telescope attachment once (but more than likely drew a blurry dot in gimp) and really have no clue about photography
>>4529321This is also a great example of equivalence too. The little lens on the left, if replaced with the one on the right will perform very similarly (right one is better because not a pancake cope lens so they didn't compromise much on the optics, but that's besides the point). However, it will be cropped compared to the setup on the right (1.6x because Canon). It behaves roughly as a 40mm f/4.5 would on the camera on the right. Pic related is such a lens.
>>4529319>one dial no joystick DSLRYeah cant recommend anyone ever buy a camera that was designed to make people want to buy a better camera no matter how much autism babble you can shit out
>>4529324600D is not the same class as SL (superleggera) and is in fact inferior to the SL2 in every way.
>>4529325You don't strike me as someone who does photography. You sound more like an autistic kid with a fixation he hasn't actually had any productive engagement with.
>>4529326Skill issue. Shame the dial is in the front, but you don't need two dials when you can just press the exposure compensation button and turn the dial.
>>4529330Cope from a non-photographergo fill up your gas tank or something
>>4529328You want to see my productive engagement, buy Passage II Rewilding. It's just $20 nowadays.
>>4529331How nice of you to link me to one of the most amazing pictures ever produced. God inspired that Karen that day to register one of the most amazing fleeting moments ever. Absolute photojournalism.
>>4529317Use a Barlow, you fucking retard
>>4529336It's a photography lens, not a telescope.
>>4529337Then you're using the wrong equipment for imaging Saturn. Also taking two images on two different sensors at two different FOVs, blowing one up to match the apparent size of the other, then claiming it's a fair comparison between the two sensors is disingenuous, don't do that.Hope this helps!
>>4529338It's not disingenous, the point of the debate was that you could get more detail with the same lens by using a denser sensor. Everyone denied it, I proved them wrong. Sensor reach is a thing and more pixels on the target gets you more detail, it should be obvious to anyone who isn't a full frame fanatic.
>>4529332>i swear i got a few snapshits into a neo nazi outsider art anthology 3 years agoAnd you can't post anything here? What a lame thing to lie about.
>>4529340Unlike the miserable fools here, Passage Press isn't out to dox me. Also it's not a "neo nazi outsider art anthology". What a lame thing to lie about, with one of the guys in charge being Moldbug who is a known jew.If I posted any of the pictures here you'd run to buy the book so you can dox me for wrongthink, no thanks.
>>4529339It's disingenuous because it's not apples to apples. If you used a Barlow to bring the FF sensor up to the same FOV as the smaller sensor it would be a fair comparison, but you didn't. What you observed could be attributed to a difference in image scale just as easily, which is dependent on the glass as much as the sensor.
>>4529343It's the same glass, that's the entire point. That a crop camera extends your reach.Same FOV is for equivalence, this was about breaking equivalence. Same FOV with FF means getting a 1280mm setup.
>>4529343Before I posted my picture, they were trying to argue that a smaller pixel pitch only better resolved the aberrations. That there wasn't more detail to be extracted with a denser sensor. It was just fool framer cope, and having the SL1 at hand it was easy for me to prove it. Full frame isn't always better, and in fact for long distance stuff it's usually worse unless you compare a super dense FF sensor to a super sparse APS-C one.
>>4529345Yeah but you know what else also extends your reach? ADDING A FUCKING FOCAL EXTENDER. Jesus.>I intentionally kneecapped the bigger sensor so now the small sensor has more reach see!!!!!This is like putting a paraplegic in a psychically-controlled top-fuel dragster, in a race against Ussain Bolt on foot and going "SEE USSAIN BOLT ISN'T REALLY THAT GOOD AT SPRINTING AFTER ALL".>Same FOV with FF means getting a 1280mm setup.USE A BARLOW. Or stop being poor and buy a long telescope.Namefags, good fucking Lord. Every time.
>>4529343BTW this isn't only true of digital. Why do you think microfilm was used for spy cameras? For the profane, microfilm is high-resolution, small grained film. So you can get a lot of data in a small negative. Couple it with a subminiature camera like the Minox and it's perfect.
>>4529347>Yeah but you know what else also extends your reach? ADDING A FUCKING FOCAL EXTENDER. Jesus.That was already done, the 800mm setup is 400mm+2X TC. There's no free lunch, the image gets 2X darker with it.>I intentionally kneecapped the bigger sensor so now the small sensor has more reach see!!!!!>This is like putting a paraplegic in a psychically-controlled top-fuel dragster, in a race against Ussain Bolt on foot and going "SEE USSAIN BOLT ISN'T REALLY THAT GOOD AT SPRINTING AFTER ALL".This is autism. I used the smaller sensor as a range extender for my existing optics. Why does this bother you?>USE A BARLOW. Or stop being poor and buy a long telescope.You don't seem to know what a Barlow is. There's no place to put a Barlow in that optical path. It's all EF mount.Understanding how pixel pitch impacts reach isn't "kneecapping the sensor". In fact, there's no FF camera that can beat the reach of an EOS 90D yet. You'd need an 82MP full frame camera. Otherwise, each time you use the same lens in both the FF and the 90D the 90D sees further.And you also fail to see that there's more uses for an 800mm setup than astronomy. Maybe familiarize yourself with Ernst Haas' body of work which is kosher.
Just got the g9ii and it's the most well thought-out grip button layout I've ever used.>power switch very tucked away, not on the control dial like most cameras where it can easily be accidentally switched on. It's easy to turn on with your thumb, but turning it off makes you use your right forefinger and it is very far from all the other buttons you'd use that finger for, so it would be very hard to accidentally turn the camera off>record button is similarly tucked away, and is a short button that is not easily pressed>on a small "shelf" sits WB, ISO, and exposure comp, all the things you need, can set them to 'press once to modify' or 'hold to modify'>ISO button has two little braille-like dots to easily feel it>strap connection is recessed so it doesn't stab your hand randomly, some manufacturers still haven't figured this out (Nikon)yeah it's micro four thirds. but damn if panasonic didn't actually put actual intelligence into the usability and design of the grip side of the camera.
>>4529300Correcting myself here, for some reason I thought he recommended a classic 5D. The 5D2 does have video. The rest remains true though, especially the expensive cards.At that price you'd probably get a really beat up 5D2 though.
>>4529352For me, the peak is D5100 and its sisters D5200 and D5300. Everything you need and nothing you don't.Never had any issues with the strap or the on/off button whatsoever.
>cANON posts a fucktonne of low value words>absolutely zero original photographic worklemme distill this down>uhhh more megapixels>me crop>i got to use my dad's d5200 once>404: photo not found
>>4529356A clanker would have done a better job of summarizing what I laid out, and I don't mean it as a compliment to clankers.
no photo
>>4529360Let's see your Moon photos, I know you can't get Saturn even as a dot
>>4529361>800x800wow such reach
>>4529365It was at 400mm and the rules also say to keep pictures below 1000x1000
>>4529369It was at 500mm and I don't care, reachlet.
>>4529349>Being this confidently wrongYou have no idea how any of this shit works. I'm bored so I decided to prove it. First off,>HaasThis ain't about him.>the 800mm setup is 400mm+2X TC. There's no free lunch, the image gets 2X darker with it.Yeah, and you have to expose for longer at a given ISO with the APS-C because the pixels are smaller, too. 6.41um vs. 4.29um, in your Saturnsnap. NO FREE LUNCH, just like you said.>You don't seem to know what a Barlow is. There's no place to put a Barlow in that optical path. It's all EF mount.That's why you should use a telescope instead of a lens, you dumb faggot.>Understanding how pixel pitchIT'S NOT PIXEL PITCH. IT'S IMAGE SCALE. >What's the differenceI'm glad you asked, retard. This will be a learning experience, so buckle in.IMAGE SCALE IS: The ANGULAR size of the image area covered by EACH pixel. It is the product of the ratio of the telescope (or lens) focal length-to-pixel size. It is usually measured in arc-seconds-per-pixel, which means a lower number means each pixel resolves a smaller part of the target, because the target angular area is LARGER relative to each pixel, so a lower number is better, LIKE GOLF.PIXEL PITCH IS: The actual SIZE of each pixel (in camera sensor jargon).You got better results with the APS-C SL1 because you increased the IMAGE SCALE from 1.65"/px to 1.11"/px; remember, lower is better, LIKE GOLF. You increased the IMAGE SCALE as a result of reducing the PIXEL PITCH, at the expense of having smaller, noisier, less sensitive pixels.IF you instead increased the EFFECTIVE FOCAL LENGTH - INCLUDING FOCAL EXTENDERS SUCH AS TELECONVERTERS AND BARLOW LENSES - to 1,291mm, while using the same undisclosed full-frame camera, you would have the same FOV as the SL1 with a LARGER image scale of 1.02"/px, which means you resolve finer detail per pixel, LIKE GOLF.IMAGE SCALE IS KING.STFU AND STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION.
>>4529374Cont'dAlso, you will notice this has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on the actual RESOLVING POWER (shown here as Dawes Limit) of your telescope. That is determined entirely by light gathering power (and atmospheric seeing conditions, but this math is done in a vacuum), and therefore CLEAR APERTURE AREA (not the RADIUS, not the DIAMETER, the AREA - important for mirrorchads). So increasing the image scale will only help TO A POINT beyond which your optics will themselves no longer be able to resolve what the sensor is capable of resolving.Also, you DO have the big boy f/2/8 400mm Canon lens, RIGHT? You're not some kind of faker or poorfag slumming it with the f/4 or f/5.6, RIGHT?
>>4529374>Yeah, and you have to expose for longer at a given ISO with the APS-C because the pixels are smaller, too. 6.41um vs. 4.29um, in your Saturnsnap. NO FREE LUNCH, just like you said.Not how it works. What matters is total collected light at the area of interest. >IT'S NOT PIXEL PITCH. IT'S IMAGE SCALE. No difference when talking about the same lens. For any lens, smaller pitch gives larger scale.>IF you instead increased the EFFECTIVE FOCAL LENGTH - INCLUDING FOCAL EXTENDERS SUCH AS TELECONVERTERS AND BARLOW LENSES - to 1,291mm, while using the same undisclosed full-frame camera, you would have the same FOV as the SL1 with a LARGER image scale of 1.02"/px, which means you resolve finer detail per pixel, LIKE GOLF.And if I put the SL1 behind that same setup I'd resolve finer detail even, because it has smaller pixel pitch. Image scale is a function of both focal length and pixel pitch. What a self own.
>>4529376You still don't get it. Anything you can do by making the pixels smaller can be done BETTER by increasing the EFFECTIVE FOCAL LENGTH. For ANY given field of view, you will have LARGER PIXELS AND THEREFORE REDUCED NOISE AND INCREASED SENSOR LIGHT SENSITIVITY. This is physics.The only one owning himself is (You). STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION.
>>4529377So I can improve my optics to reach further and then waste them on a FF sensor, lol. If I wanted some fiddly setup with a telescope I'd get a tethered astro camera. Which by the way are often sold with pixel pitch as one of the defining features. You really think you're smarter than you are.
>>4529378>>4529377Okay it seems like you guys need to have a photo battle to resolve this. Astro type photo battle perhaps?
>>4529361Wtf lmao I got better moon pics shooting on aps-c with 135mm equivalent lens and cropping in post. That's pathetic. The true power of ewaste canon blobs.
>>4529381Can we see. I like moon pics
>>4529378>ThinkI AM smarter than YOU are, faggot.>Which by the way are often sold with pixel pitch as one of the defining features.Because most people DON'T HAVE and CAN'T or AREN'T WILLING TO GET the ~3,000mm of EFFECTIVE FOCAL LENGTH in order to start imaging Saturn in actually good detail using a full-frame sensor with reasonable pixel pitch. Even I don't have that.>waste them on an FF sensorPicrel is the CCD chip from the Advanced Camera for Surveys, the primary optical camera on the Hubble Space Telescope. It is HUGE. It is about as big as your hand. It is NOT a 1" sensor. It is NOT a micro four turds sensor. It is NOT an APS-C sensor. Hell, it's not even a full-frame sensor, because full-frame WASN'T BIG ENOUGH. Scienceniggers are NOT opting for SMALLER cameras in ANY application where image quality is PRIORITY.Btw,>>4529348They used microfilm in spy cameras because they had to be SMALL. They needed to be able to HIDE THEM. "Good enough" image quality was fine, as long as you could make out whatever was important enough to take a picture of.STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION.
>>4529380I already did, >>4529375 is mine. The best part: I used the same camera cANON (probably) did for his, a fucking 5D mk II.
>>4529383I said PICREL is the CCD chip from the ADVANCED CAMERA FOR SURVEYS
>>4529385I thought that was an italian chef serving up a hot bowl of pasta from the thumbnail.
>>4529382I mean they suck but sure, why not. 135mm is not nearly enough for moon shots.
100% crop. About as pathetic as what cUCKNON posted. I probably could have gotten more pixels by disabling IBIS but it still wouldn't be good enough.
>>4529387>Mama mia I burn-a the ravioli!>THAT A FUCKING 86 MILLION DOLLAR SPACE CAMERA LUIGI, WE'RE GONNA GET FUCKIN FIRED
>>4529388Here's my moon shot. I used a 1000mm lens and a 5dm3. If I set up two tripods to stabilize everythinf I could have done a bit better, but this was just a test sorts thing.
>>4529383It's not because of quality, it's because of FoV at a given quality. >They used microfilm in spy cameras because they had to be SMALL. They needed to be able to HIDE THEM. "Good enough" image quality was fine, as long as you could make out whatever was important enough to take a picture of.They used microfilm to store more information. Put regular film on a Minox and watch the resolution drop. You're arguing like a retard. The same people with a 3000mm setup would get more detail with a denser sensor, it's a fact of reality.
>>4529384The point of not revealing the exact model is that it doesn't matter and not giving dox-thirsty psychos like you the faintest clue.
>>4529434You are deeply delusional in not just what you say, but also in how you evaluate your self-worth. You will never be worth doxxing.
>>4529365>>4529361>>4529369>>4529372HUMILIATED
>>4529451I seem worth doxing to the people who've attempted it over all these years. Around /p/, never relax.
>>4529321>>4529324Impeccable taste. Rebel SL slander will not be tolerated.Neither will pancake slander either, though.swag.
>>4529391Tossing my hat in the ring. This is my moon shot on a t6i. >>4464392Rebels are completely fine cameras depending on what you want to do. Lens setup is more important.
>>4529473the crippled ergos, crippled firmware (magic lantern only fixes up live view with a linux tier UI), and less reliable hardware has been driving people away for yearsthey were designed for a pre-google audience that started and often stayed in auto mode and then dropped the rebel off at a pawn shop
>>4529475I've since sold mine but it lasted me 10 years. It's totally fine, I don't give a fuck about video or custom firmware I just want my camera to work out of the box and it did. Only thing it could have had as an improvement is a back dial, which later ones added. That's my only complaint about it.
>>4529475>they were designed for a pre-google audience that started and often stayed in auto mode and then dropped the rebel off at a pawn shopYes, that's all entry level lines, hence the "entry level"
>>4529462Big cope from the nophoto
>>4529475Sounds like your experience is with the bottom tier Rebels without an "i" in the name. The 4-digit series EOS. 3 digit series are fine.
>>4529482>give me dox reeeee
>>4529484>please validate me reeeeee
Now that cUCKNON has been totally btfo and humiliated for all eternity can we finally have a civilized and productive discussion about camera gear so we can finally reach the obvious conclusion that modern APS-C cameras are the best bang for your buck sensor size and that Fujifilm is the undisputed king in this market sector? Which by extension makes Fujifilm the best camera brand for hobbyist and pro photographers who do not require amazing subject tracking capabilities for their work? Nikon is pretty much dead as a company, Canon is only worth it for documenting new species of frogs in the amazon jungle and Snoy is only good for fast sports photography where terrible color and sickly green skin tones don't matter. M43 brands are kinda doing their own thing which leaves Fuji as the only reasonable choice for people without autism who actually go out and take photographs regularly.
are SD cards as prone to failure as microsds?
>>4529510>we can finally reach the obvious conclusion that modern APS-C cameras are the best bang for your buckAbsolutely not. Imagine paying more than a brand new nikon z5II all around just to have slightly worse image quality and not doing anything photography related any better than a $600 z6. Couldn't be me. The only fuji camera that's actually worth it is the xe5 with small lenses, for travel and EDC. Otherwise Nikon is the king of mirrorless.>only one eye in focusThis is what happens when you're too busy playing with LARP dials
>>4529352I like the layout too. Power switches around shutter annoy me due to ease of unintentional switching..question, I see the left dial which controls drive mode. Does that mean burst or timer drive can't be assigned to a custom mode C1 C2 C3?
>>4529531>8 year old sensor technology licensed from Snoy>24 mini pickles in 2026>ugly blob body>huge expensive lenses>dying brand with no futureI'm sorry, but Nikon has been dying for the last 10 years only holding on by a thin thread of their former glory. They have no technology and no innovation. They tried to rip of Fuji with their Z f cameras but lacked resolve to go all in and half assed it by including a PASM dial and not releasing any glass that actually fits the design of those cameras. How can you produce a "retro inspired" camera and not have aperture ring on your lenses? They will be around for a while, slowly withering away but you're not gonna see anything ground breaking from them anymore.Premium full frame glass is comically huge and insanely expensive while premium Fuji glass is not cheap but still within a reach of hobbyist. New XF18, 23 and 33mm primes are all crazy sharp corner to corner wide open, bright, contrasty and they render color beautifully. They are pretty much optically flawless. Fully weather sealed, linear motor AF, all metal build and still very light and compact.>inb4 muh cheap plastic full frame pancake lenses that render picture as if someone smeared vaseline all over the front elementIn the last couple of days I posted more photos here than all of you fool frame gearfags combined. This only proves that Fuji cams are for people who go outside with their cameras and enjoy the process while full frame fags would rather stay in front of their computers and play with raw software sliders and toggles because their gear is too fucking heavy to carry outside. Zoom in to 100% and jerk off to that fine detail of a 24MP FF sensor that looks worse than a 40MP APS-C image downscaled to the same resolution.Typical no photo take.
>>4529547TLDR you paid $2000 to post 3.5mp jpegs and brag about your gear lol
>>4529548What cameras do you like to use?
>>4529484>more nophoto copingIt's interesting that I've posted so much photo wise, and lots of arguing on here, and never been doxxed
>>4529548I already posted plenty of high res images in multiple threads and it's difficult to fit under the image size limit since originals are like 25mb in size. Examples in this very thread: >>4529255I was trying to bait cUCKNON but he saw right through it lmao.>bragging about gearAll I want is for you faggots to post some photos and prove me wrong but I guess it's impossible since all you ever do is scratch your balls and count pixels.
One interesting observation regarding the Sony 400mm F4.5 and 600mm F6.3 is that it seems like a lot of people started selling their long zooms when they got announced which I am sure Sony was perfectly well aware of would be a consequence of making these lenses. It would not surprise me in the slightest if Canon's reasoning for not making similar lenses that are now existing on both E-mount and Z-mount is fear that the second hand market becomes saturated with lenses still in the lineup that they hope to sell more of. Those longer E-mount zooms will probably be sold at a discount moving forward in order to adjust for increased availability on the used market.
>>4529555all your photos are blurry afthe 2 apsc pixel = 1 ff pixel theory is correct
>>4529557You people are beyond any hope. You are the cancer that killed this board. You drive every new poster away with your autistic screeching about dog hair and sensor pixel size while never posting any photos yourself.
>>4529557>the 2 apsc pixel = 1 ff pixel theory is correctnah Fuji's JPEG processing is just trash, regardless if it's on X-trans or Bayer.Good results come with RAW processing but since processing RAWs is gay I will not use a Fuji unless they fix this shit.
>>4529547I dont think anyone is arguing that small cameras are better for strolls through the park taking snapshits. When has a smaller camera actually helped you take better pictures?
>>4529555>he saw right through it lmao.Because even though I shoot FF I'm well aware of the capabilities of crop and I'm no fool framer. The marketing about most formats is built around lies and half-truths. That's why equivalence is like kryptonite to people brainwashed by the marketing on all sides of the sensor size debate. Just look at huskyfag trying to argue that pixel pitch doesn't matter for reach, only to end up laying out the facts that support my position instead. Or his pathetic defense of the 5D2. Sure, it was an impressive camera at its time and it's more than capable of producing great images. But it was left behind and is no longer such a good value for the money as it once was.I'll go as far as saying FF is the most versatile format and the best one to pick if you're into film too, especially when it comes to cost. But only a fool writes off crop or denies its virtues and capabilities. Which have little to do with camera size unless you're looking for a crash cam, by the way. And even then, full frame cameras aren't that big.
>>4529561>When has a smaller camera actually helped you take better pictures?This kills the redditor EDC LARPer.
>>4529558>No only I can claim my sensor size is the best
>>4529567Unqualified claims like that should be a bannable offense
>there's a nophoto seething that I have a $150 (lens inclusive) 5DII and he doesn'tyou don't need much to make the proles jealous, /p/ee
>>4529569Is the jealous nophoto with us in the thread right now?
>>4529569Wow, there is!
How can the fujifag and ewaste chad post photos but the tripfag can’t?
>>4529566Asked that guy the same question multiple times and still haven't heard a satisfactory answer.
Post your snapshitter
>>4529284>>4529321>>4529324>>4529470>>4529582The blobmera aesthetic was the only unique thing about Canon. The new one looks like rebadged Sony.
>>4529582>gaffer tape>peak design quick release anchorFound the fujislug who has a Canon, lol. That tryhard bs is so typical.
>>4529588why yes, the remaining port cover and the corners of the rip rubber don't stay attached, how could you tell?
>>4529583It's just so.. odd. It's the R8 MkII, so if the R8 made sense to you then now your upgrade is locked behind a really shitty "retro" rendition that weighs as much as an R6 and has worse ergos at a significantly higher price. It would have made more sense to sell this as the R(etro)R6 or something considering it literally uses the IBIS motor, sensor, and side-door from the R6 MkII. The only thing truly the same as the R8 is the EVF/Screen and cripplebattery.>>4529582OK.
Very few people on this board own the cameras they claim to huh
>>4529433WRONG. Professionals specifying and designing advanced imaging equipment will, budget permitting, ALWAYS choose the LARGEST SENSOR that is practical to use - both for the size and weight of the sensor itself, as well as for the lens required to reach the desired imaging FOV. They are pursuing IMAGE SCALE, because IMAGE SCALE IS KING. They will select the pixel pitch SECONDARILY in order to meet the needed image scale AT THAT SENSOR SIZE.>The same people with a 3000mm setup would get more detail with a denser sensor, it's a fact of reality.This is sensible IF AND ONLY IF there is both no longer any way to increase the effective focal length of the optical system, AND the resolving power of the optics still exceeds the resolving power of the given image sensor. For terrestrial astronomers, the resolving power of the optics is limited not only by clear aperture area, but also by ATMOSPHERIC SEEING.STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION.
>>4529603Did you mean to type atmospheric seething in all caps?
The market is turning for vintage digishits and lenses.
>>4529603Okay, Donald.
>>4529560I'm sorry my fellow Fuji poster but these photos look pretty bad. My Fuji photos don't look nearly this bad even with in camera sharpness and noise reduction set to negative values and with grain added. Post processed example is so overcooked it looks almost AI generated when zoomed in. I'd rather have softer images that look effortless and natural than this overcooked mess. But it's true that Fuji's in camera processing is not the greatest. Particularly their noise reduction is really bad so I have it set to the lowest value possible. Otherwise it makes everything look like if it was made out of play doh.>>4529557>in camera jpg with sharpness at -2 and nr at -4 (on a scale of +4 to +4), grain effect addedStill better quality than nophoto.
>>4529582Fuji makes beautiful cameras so why not.
>>4529611Cute dog, bad IQ.
'grate>>4529615
>>4529614Sure. Post some photos.
>>4529617Why?
>>4529583Looks like GFX from the front, Nikon from the top and Snoy from the back.
>>4529622Photo > nophotoIf you don't post photos then it is assumed that you don't take photos, if you don't take photos then any opinions or critiques you have regarding photography are invalid by default. Simple as.
>>4529622Because you're posting on a PHOTOGRAPHY IMAGEBOARD. Why do you even have to ask?
>>4529631Providing useless snapshits to legitimize your opnions is a retardedly ignorant logic.
>>4529633Post your artistic photography then you retard. None of the shit you say has any weight or value to it you useless gear obsessed brainlet. Words are cheap, but even the most basic snapshits take some effort.
>>4529583Normie camera made using spare bin parts. Does most things Okayish. Probably a camera that will be heavily discounted to get people into the RF mount would b my guess. That is where it fits in the lineup.
>>4529599Not that I doubt your claim because almost everybody is a stinking liar on the internet, but what makes you say that? I own a second-hand R5.
>>4529665nta but it's probably the lack of actual photos
>>4529588>That tryhard bs is so typical.This sums up your own personality quite well.
>>4529633These miserable twats are completely disingenuous and argue in bad faith. It's all bait in vain hopes to obtain some dox. Even if you post a picture you took that's relevant to the argument they'll just ignore the evidence. Look no further than on this thread, the lengths one guy went and the meltdown he had trying to deny that pixel pitch is one of the main determiners of reach. They will argue against reality itself, because they already had their minds made up before the argument and are just looking for any avenue to discredit their "adversary", truth be damned. They pretend some completely unrelated picture gives weight to an argument because they can't evaluate an argument by itself with honesty. Fallacies are their only thought processes. In Mein Kampf, Hitler describes how frustrating it was to argue with jews. These people argue like them, with what they call chutzpah and pilpul. Brazen lies, illogical logic and muddying the waters are their SMO.
>>4529582i keep lusting after newer/more expensive shit but i really don't need more
>>4529675Yeah it is pretty much all glowies hoping to dox.
>>4529635>responds with a rage meltyWhat a fragile man you are.People can just have a discussion without posting their phone snapshits like you have.
>>4529675> s. In Mein Kampf, Hitler describes how frustrating it was to argue with jews. These people argue like them, with what they call chutzpah and pilpul. Brazen lies, illogical logic and muddying the waters are their SMO. -cANON> Remember when you linked the entire blog post this snippet is from and in context, the argument you wanted to make from this snippet fell apart? Of course you do but truth isn't your pursuit, consensus and vibes are. You're a propagandist. Inherently feminine. If you say something wrong and get told off, you're not going to learn something from that, you're going to repeat yourself later. It's amazing how slimy you are. Always changing the terms, finding a red herring, and if you are wholly defeated you forget it ever happened.>there was some quote from some book that touched on this behavior. there's some irony to it, given the source, and your beliefs.>-anon on arguing with cANON
>>4529705cANON truly thinks that everyone here is as stupid as himself.
Still no reply to this >>4529561. fuckin lol...
>>4529724It's because they don't care about photography or image quality. They want to larp.
>>4529724Your post is so utterly stupid nobody bothered to reply.Show me those better pictures a bigger camera helped you take.
>>4529756Watch out guys, the catposting tryhard is also a communist who says you're not allowed to use bigger cameras. Holy shit, post a photo of your purse next time, you'd get less shit from it.
>>4529613>>4529756Is this you? There's something innately hilarious about someone with a $2000+ aps-c kit barely managing acceptable quality at <20mp when FF users have major overkill at the same price point>>4529567And similar quality at $150>>4529569Fuji was never meant to be a high end brand. It was always meant to be a brand for fun compact gear.
>>4529756>still can't answerKEK.
/p/'s queen shows us the new lumix 20mm f2.5https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9JSqgWQVZ0
>>4529843Yuck. I hate muffins!
>>4529773>Fuji was never meant to be a high end brand. It was always meant to be a brand for fun compact gear.GFX
>>4529846If you compare gfx's crop sensor to proper medium format camera like a phase one it is still just just fun compact gear lol
>>4529843Lumix colors are all over the place. Her skin bounces between grayish blue to yellowish green and sometimes normal. Plus, you'll never see a decent stills autofocus test in a lumix review...Shoulda bought the new Sony R8II>>4529773the og in dog stands for mog
>>4529870>Lumix colors are all over the place. Her skin bounces between grayish blue to yellowish green and sometimes normal. Plus, you'll never see a decent stills autofocus test in a lumix review...The worst thing about Lumix is that they also removed Optical Low Pass Filters from their cameras, which seems odd when people claim OLPF are more suited to videography than photography and claim that Lumix is the video brand, but it makes sense once you understand that OLPFs were removed to save cost for manufacturers not for any image quality benefit.Luckily Kolari makes OLPF, permanent and drop-in options for L-mount and others.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9hvb4vKJnY
>>4529675>trying to deny that pixel pitch is one of the main determiners of reach.Pixel pitch is ONE FACTOR the equation of so-called "reach" (technically, ANGULAR RESOLUTION). In fact, it is only one SUB-FACTOR of one of the two REAL factors: IMAGE SCALE, the other one being CLEAR APERTURE.Reducing pixel pitch is ONE WAY to increase image scale. But it is ALWAYS BETTER to MAXIMIZE the pixel size for any given IMAGE SCALE, which means you should always increase the focal length FIRST. A larger sensor will ALWAYS yield more resolution than a smaller sensor at ANY GIVEN IMAGE SCALE, and will ALWAYS yield cleaner images with less noise at ANY GIVEN RESOLUTION. Your Saturn snapshit does NOT prove the superiority of smaller sensors, and in fact the full-frame sensor in THAT PARTICULAR comparison would have performed BETTER at the same image scale.STOP SPREADING MISINFORMATION.
>>4529889>and in fact the full-frame sensor in THAT PARTICULAR comparison would have performed BETTER at the same image scaleWhy are you fixing image scale as if the average user has bespoke sensors and optics? The maximum image scale is obtained maximizing focal length and minimizing pixel pitch. My whole argument is that once you've already maxed out on the focal length you have available or are willing to deal with (be it a matter of size, weight, practicality) then a crop sensor is how you max out your reach. If you're a Qatari sheikh then feel free to spend over 2 million USD on a medium format super telephoto lens plus the tripods, vehicles and crew to move it around.
Hey, absolute photography noob here (I barely know anything about cameras)I'm looking to buy my first camera for the sole purpose of taking photos of my model kits (in other words, almost exclusively close-up photos). What's the best camera/lens combo I can find for less than 300€?Again, I don't know shit about cameras so I have no idea what to look for.
