Previous - >>4528802>Lord of Rings editionMelty prone dogphiles need not apply
>>4529615It's "cynophiles" and "cynophilia"
>>4529615
>>4529615Stupid fucking retard quit spamming these threads you newfaggot. Wait until the previous one reaches page 5 or 6 or hits image limit.
>>4529625uh oh sperg melty
>>4529615THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN
>>4529625Fujifag totally btfo and humiliated all of the gearfags in the previous thread so he felt the need to create a new one to hide his shame. These people are sick in the head and are killing this already dead board.
What went so right?
Is this still the best camera?
>>4529670I looked up some images taken with that lens and it seems to have a pretty uninteresting look to it. It's hard to tell from a few random flickr samples but it seems to render colors poorly. Photos taken with it usually look cold and lifeless with a blueish hue. 20mm is a bit too wide for general everyday photography. You're gonna crop a lot with this focal length and that glass might not be sharp enough for your crops to look good. No portraits unless you want that stretched out wide angle look. Soft in the corners. No lens hood but prone to flaring. >What went so right?Idk, tell us. It certainly is not a bad lens but why do you think it's se special?
>>4529671Kids seem to enjoy the funky color rendering of these retro sensors. These old DSLRs are becoming quite popular with zoomers tired of overprocessed hyper realistic AI looking photographs. You might get a few bucks for it on ebay.
>>4529673You're probably thinking of the D700
>>4529615Sorry for the off-topic post but didn't /p/ use to show metadata on images? I don't see any metadata alongside posted images anymore. |What happened?
>>4529679>Sorry for the off-topic postYour post can't possibly be more inane and worthless than cUCKNON's most elaborate autism manifesto so don't worry about it. I assume it was removed because of a potential security risk. Parsing data from 4chan uploaders sounds pretty scary.
>>4529680He unironically thanked someone for calling him a nazi and bragged about his photos being published in some alt right book, it's probably safe to say the last gear thread was cANON's most despicable behavior so far.
>>4529684Tame for his standards, I've seen worsehttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/text/kys/username/canonhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/text/kill%20yourself/username/canon
>>4529690I take this back, his last post in the thread basically implies he would gas huskyanon if given the chance
>>4529691I said his SMO is the same as that of the jews as described in Mein Kampf: fallacious logic, denying basic facts and muddying the waters. The gas chambers are a lie BTW and aerial photos are doctored. Look at the alleged zyklon B vents. The shadows don't line up with those of the smoke stacks. To further illustrate my point, listen to this:https://youtube.com/watch?v=i4KCvXAEhl4
>>4529703Is that your youtube channel?OH NO NO NO SO MUCH FOR OPSECHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH
>>4529703> 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
> Someone who actually does photography would never, ever share your opinions. Ever. They're unrealistic. They're based on you ruminating on lots of factoids and theories you acquired from the internet and very little real world experience. The sum of your photographic experience is doing astrophotography very poorly and snapshitting a blurry leaf.>-huskyfag on cANON and why its important some people are unwilling to demonstrate their skill and what they’ve used/own
Back to regular gear talkPicked up the 422, really like it so far, super light, cold shoe is neat, love the lack of pan knob and the twist ring for going wide (as opposed to flips)
>>4529704Of course not, idiot. >>4529706You're failing to make the point you're attempting to make and huskyfag owned himself last thread on the pixel pitch thing. He tried some image scale diversion which in no way, shape of form contradicts my thesis that a denser sensor increases the reach of an optical system (until the sensor isn't outresolved by the lens). The whole Hubble red herring in particular was funny, because sensor density had a hard limit imposed by the lithography of the time. As the state of the art progressed, higher resolutions became possible. >>4529707The arguments I present are self contained and falsifiable. Again, an ad hominem fallacy is all that demanding photos I produced, unrelated to the argument, is. The Saturn images prove my point well. I also challenged /p/ to pick APS-C from full frame a while ago posting samples. No one took up the challenge. fe2fucker also proved you fucks can't even tell film from digital. And the guy trying to bait me last thread with the Fuji pics proved I know what I talk about ("he saw right through it" he said). An unrelated image posted next to a claim purporting to support it isn't an argument, it's a fallacy.
>>4529710>love the lack of pan knob How is that a good thing?
>>4529714I took that quote from your anti-fuji and anti-sony lying campaignYou knew that thats why you changed the subjectHe was fuckin right bro. You are the subversive boogeyman you’re afraid of. >every accusation is a confession with antisemites
>>4529707Extremely true quote about this extremely horrible tripfag
>>4529715I never use the panning function of any tripod I've owned and having a secondary knob has been an annoyance more often than notOne of the practical things you might learn if you actually took pictures
>>4529632Fujifag is just a different more retarded flavor of gearfag.
>>4529718>>4529719Hey samefag, name one (1) lie I've said about either Fuji or Sony.The baby mount thing is true by the way, no matter how much you post their damage control mental gymnastics the fact that the mount is smaller than the sensor AND extremely close it it remains. The thick glass on the sensor only worsens the situation.Even Fuji dunked on their baby mount, lolhttps://theoverratedphotographer.com/2019/07/16/fujifilm-ranks-sony-last-on-mounts/The only ones claiming it's fine (and cooking the RAWs to hide the flaws) are Sony themselves.The Fuji worms are well documented too.And the poor durability of both brands is well documented too.What I'm doing isn't some "lying campaign", it's a natural reaction to shilling.
>>4529720I even taped a custom angle gauge to the tripod head for panning precisely, you have no idea.
>>4529721I don't care what gear you have as long as you post some fucking photos. If you want to shit on other people's work or gear then show what you've got first. I think that's fair. Most of my earlier gear talk was only half serious. >>4529723Shut up retard. Adults are talking.
>>4529723>https://theoverratedphotographer.com/2019/07/16/fujifilm-ranks-sony-last-on-mounts/Canon did it too:https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/1158578.html>>4529727So you can't show one (1) lie I said. Almost like the claim was slander in itself.
>>4529718Yeah, I wrote that to him because he was posting the fuji worms lie again. He starts arguments he spins by extrapolating bullshit from limited facts and then repeats himself later if no one agreed.>>4528970https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4526676/#4527289>>4529723it's very clear now you made a duplicate gear thread so people couldn't just scroll up and see how dishonest you're being>>4529010There's no reason to make gear threads before the current one hits page nine. This is a spam thread. You spam these threads so you can keep lying on repeat, having the same arguments over and over again until everyone agrees or leaves.>>4529728You're literally just running a propaganda campaign now.
>>4529731>nowhe's been running a propaganda campaign ever since he came herereposting holocaust denialreposting moon landing denialreposting dpreview bullshitreposting false claims about brands he doesnt likereposting falsehoods about mirrorless cameraslow quality evidence, single source claims, huge leaps of logic, no real world photographic experience backing him up
When you have the mount so close to the sensor and its diameter is smaller than the sensor diagonal, the light has to enter the corners at a very steep angle. There's no way around it.When that steep angle meets a thick piece of glass you lose even more light. And then the nearly flat microlenses finish the job.Panasonic and Olympus lie in their marketing pictures of the cameras by photoshopping the sensor to make it look larger than it is. But at least the design of the mount is sound. It's better to have an oversized mount than an undersized one, and it allows the telecentric designs they use. If Sony attempted to have telecentric lenses, they would get mechanical vignetting in the corners. Pitch black. And it's a shame, because a thick glass works best when incident light is normal to it.>>4529731>fuji worms lieIt's a truth though.>There's no reason to make gear threads before the current one hits page nine. Do you even know how an imageboard works? >it's very clear now you made a duplicate gear thread so people couldn't just scroll up and see how dishonest you're being>You spam these threadsDo you fall for false flags this easily? Also all your link provided was some Sony executive trying to do some damage control knowing full well that easily swayed consumers are clueless.>propaganda campaignMore like divulging silenced facts>>4529732>false claimsThere he goes again. Where are these "false claims" you speak of? You don't believe my argument? Go ask some physics professor whether Sony's side or Leica/Canon/Nikon/Fuji's side of the argument makes physical sense.
>>4529726How neat, you should show us!
>>4529733Proof Z mount is best
>>4529733Silence, you inbred mongrel. Hitler wouldn't even spit on your gassed corpse.
>>4529733You keep repeating this babble, but it doesn't survive contact with facts. It's just shit that sounds right in your head.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 F2Lhttps://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.aspx>sony 85mm f1.4 - 2.07 stops of vignetting>canon rf 85mm f1.4 l vcm>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.Defeated you with ctrl+c ctrl+v
>>4529733>i know what sony's microlens design is and i know what sony's thick cover glass actually is and i know what their CFA dye spectra are>no i dont have a source i just assumed whatever was most convenient for my personal propaganda campaignits way more likely the thick covering is designed to bend the light straight down into the sensor in synergy with the lens so it works for full frame, and this is why it fucks up leica lenses that were actually designed to sit close to the sensor (thin film) and use steep incident angles. it's bending light that wasn't intended to be bent.
>>4529734>show us your 1 of 1 modification so that we can ID and v& youlol>>4529735It's the one that offers the most flexibility to lens designers by far>>4529737>f/1.4lol>>4529738>the thick covering is designed to bend the light straight down into the sensor Do you even know how refraction works dude? Kek>use steep incident anglesSteep incident angles are a natural consequence of having such a shallow mount with such a small diameter. There's a reason why Nikon being one of the smallest reflex mounts is also the deepest.
>>4529739>posting a photo of my tripod will dox myselfyou're funnyWhich model of legs and head are you using?
>>4529739You can keep babbling but unless you're doing math and have sony's exact optical formulas and proprietary knowledge of what that thick layer of ??? on the sensor actually does, you're not saying anything of value. You're rambling about what makes sense in your head and confirms your bias.What facts we do have:Sony lenses often vignette less - way less - than canon lenses despite using a smaller mount.The mount clearly isn't the problem. Light can be projected beyond the edges of the flange, and clearly, something is straightening it back out because sony lenses often vignette less than lenses for canon's slightly larger mount without telltale resolution loss or noise levels that would reveal secret vignetting correction.But you claimed a problem common to nikon DSLRs (and nikon Z mount as well) from scaling the red and blue channels was actually that. Which really tells me... you're not smart. You don't understand a single fucking thing you read. You just have a bias you want to push. You can be told off 20 times and you'll start a new thread and repeat yourself while pretending none of it ever happened and it was actually all about something else.
>>4529742speciifcally the a7s applied scaling to the red and blue channels and only shot in compressed 12 bit raw so it's a super shit camera for doing deep space astroearly sony was pretty badimho they didn't hit a stride until the a7c and a7iv/a7rivearly canon mirrorless also had dodgy reliability, and early nikon mirrorless had autofocus that was only good compared to panasonic (and still is)its understandable that some retards have PTSD from mirrorless but early DSLRs were worse (slower, lower resolution, less DR, worse autofocus) than their film counterparts so...
>>4529742>without telltale resolution loss or noise levels that would reveal secret vignetting correction.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/sony-a7xxx-posterization-and-colored-banding-part-2.4346624/#post-62021203Look at these tests, there's all kinds of weird shit going on and covering the electrical contacts of the lenses exposes the RAW cooking taking place.
>>4529745DSLR has its disadvantages compared to film but it's basically free shooting and has the instant access advantage. Mirrorless is like exchanging land for plastic beads.
>>4529746Why do Nikon Z cameras and the canon R8 do the same thing? Why do nikon DSLRs do the same thing? Why does the canon 5DIV do the same thing? Why do canon DSLRs do even worse shit?Why is this such a big deal when it doesn't affect normal photography at all and all of the tests are only pertinent to deep sky astro?Why do you care when you don't take or post photos?Isn't this just you hyperfocusing on something typical of consumer cameras because sony is in the title of the blog post/forum thread and that serves your agenda?>YESAre you going to repost this every single thread, in multiple threads, for as long as you can get away with it?>YESAre you a slimy snake, a habitual liar, who can be told the sky is blue and wake up the next day ready to once again claim it's red, that no one ever told you the sky is blue, and you were actually arguing about something else and won?>YESDo you have any real world photographic experience?>NODo you take or post photos?>NODo you even own a camera right now?>MAYBE YOU DID IN THE PASTDid you sell it for drug money once you had all 5 snapshits you needed to make claims on 4chan?>PROBABLY. MOST NAZIS ARE DRUG ADDICTS.
>>4529746Looks like it doesn't actually do anything (the photos look fine with the lens dismounted and corrections off) and is just an artefact of a poorly coded (all camera jpeg-centric processing is lower quality than a real raw processor) version of something more serious photographers than you use, because uneven images are typical of wider angle lenses:Lens cast corrections.https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002583678-The-LCC-toolThis being a WA thing and lens specific might have something to do with it occurring strongly with a lower quality 35mm pancake lens. I can't find anyone complaining about this happening with say, a 50mm f1.4 GM, a larger and longer lens capable of more even illumination. Which points to it being an in-camera LCC just like a capture one user might add when using wide angle lenses on an MFDB.Nikon and Canon cameras do similar things regardless of lens attachedI also never experienced this using the sony a7c or sony a7cii. Sony got their shit together in post-a7iii models. Even star eater (hot pixel filtering punching the centers out of stars) stopped being a complaint because it only occasionally dimmed very low magnitude stars. I can't find any complaints about the sony a7c or later models eating stars or having concentric bands at all.
>>4529749Stop entertaining him with a discussion and he'll leave eventually.
>>4529750*do anything *major*pancake -> muffinIt's lateTLDRIt's a fucking lens cast correction and hasn't happened since the a7iiihttps://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002583678-The-LCC-toolIt doesnt have shit to do with the fucking mount, its a wide angle lens thing
>>4529749>Why do Nikon Z cameras and the canon R8 do the same thing? Why do nikon DSLRs do the same thing? Why does the canon 5DIV do the same thing? Why do canon DSLRs do even worse shit?Feel free to post evidence. Some guy there posted both a7IV and EOS R and only the a7IV has a vignetting change when covering contacts. >Why is this such a big deal when it doesn't affect normal photography at all and all of the tests are only pertinent to deep sky astro?They're not only pertinent to that, and since you brought up astro let me remind you of the infamous Sony star eater. I'm sorry but the output from a camera that so blatantly alters what is supposed to be RAW data can't be trusted. The implicit photographic integrity has been violated. The EVF was the start of the slippery slope. >Why do you care when you don't takeSays you>or postI have seen the way you guys react to photos that you can't use to dox someone with>something typical of consumer cameras It's a Sony thing>Are you a slimy snake, a habitual liar, who can be told the sky is blue and wake up the next day ready to once again claim it's red, that no one ever told you the sky is blue, and you were actually arguing about something else and won?Every accusation a confession>junkie accusationlol, I'm not American>>4529750It cooks the raws not just the jpegs. >it only occasionally dimmed very low magnitude stars. >they're cooking the raws but just a little!lolLet me know when you get the picture of the Moon landing site only your Sony can "see" "a bit of".
>>4529752They got better at not getting caught is all
BTW I didn't forget how you tried to spin feds using Capture One as a positive thing
>>4529753Stop posting you imbecile.
>>4529758
>>4529732>reposting holocaust denial>reposting moon landing denialNext you're gonna tell me he denies man made climate change? What a terrible person.
>>4529763Good goy, I bet you even believe the Zapruder film and soap and lampshades made of jews. Americans are so psyopped it's incredible.
>>4529753Sony was known for applying corrections typically meant for jpegs to their raws, probably a holdover from when all of their cameras shot compressed 12 bit. This has been minimized to the point of irrelevancy and vanished in many cases.The shit you posted looks a lot lens cast corrections done to wide angle lenses (60mm and under even for reflex cameras), as shown when breaking the electrical contact doesn't darken the corners but causes a very very slight color shift similar to what's seen in wide angle lenses and technical cameras (which dont process their raws at all). Hint:>So what we see here is something that the a7, a7R2 and a7M3 all display - even though we are looking at very different sensors. It only happens with native lenses, and not all of them, and with some lenses only at certain f-stops.It only happens with native lenses, where sony would have the budget to determine lens cast, only at certain f stops, because stopping down changes lens cast. And it has only been shown on lenses <60mm. Which is the focal length zone where casts are most likely.Lookhttps://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002583678-The-LCC-toolRadial color shifts are a LENS thing. I've been looking for a7iv, a7c, a7cii etc "banding" but can't fine any meaning sony's either stopped applying LCCs to raws or improved their algorithm significantly, just like they improved hot pixel filtering so it only mildly annoys a grand total of 10 people.>I'm sorry but the output from a camera that so blatantly alters what is supposed to be RAW data can't be trustedUnfortunately for your little anti-sony propaganda campaign that's basically every consumer digital camera, cheap SLRslop or not.https://www.markshelley.co.uk/Astronomy/concentric_ring_diagnosis.html#TestProtocolhttps://www.cloudynights.com/forums/topic/746131-nikon-coloured-concentric-rings/page/1The D850 has the same astro banding as the a7riii -> https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/nikon-d850-ptcs/
ohhh noooo!https://www.cloudynights.com/forums/topic/855789-canon-banding/the implicit integrity of a fucking viewfinder... defeated by the implicit falsification of digital technology itself!The nazi was, in fact, RETARDED.Who would have fucking guessed the guy whose views reliably correlate with a double digit IQ was a confidently wrong, perpetually dishonest propagandist
>>4529768Did you even look at the test shots of a gray frame? The Sony one darkens on the periphery without the contacts.
>>4529769>The nazi was, in fact, RETARDED.What a surprise...
>>4529771BarelyIt's a lens cast correction. Applied only to some first party wider angle lenses. Not a mount thing. Mystery solved.
>>4529769That's the Burberry pattern I talked about, incidentally they mention the 6D as an exception (which I recommended instead of the 5D2). It's not about cooking raws, quite the contrary. It's fixed pattern noise on the sensor. Notice the complaint is horizontal banding, not concentric.
>>4529774And yet, on the Canon it stays the same and on the Sony the outer ring darkens... Strange...Sony scameras are fake, gay and cringe
If cameras gave us actual raw ADC output, autists would be able to analyze noise, see which sensor has crappier ADC, etc. Japs would never allow this. Honesty is not their thing.
>>4529776>turning off literally every lens correction possible when using an old wide angle lens darkens the edges ever so slightly and primitive lens corrections on older cameras might cause artefacts when missing exposure by five stops>this is proof every camera ever made by my least favorite brand is AI generating moon landings or something>sony is bad sony is bad sony is bad look at this 7 stop underexposed edge case>*other brands do similar things*>nuh uh thats just an edge case>+general indications you never read any of my links where canon and nikon cameras have concentric banding in their raw filestruth isn't your pursuitconsensus and vibe sarei can link you hard facts and explain them and you'll just repeat your positionif you are proven explicitly wrong you will try to say the same thing again shortly after, just like you did reusing that fuji "sand worms" image (ancient fuji with ancient version of lightroom, sourced from a blog that in context makes it clear its a lightroom bug)i also notice that the dpreview moire crops vanish when you're engaged in any other argumentyou are a snake, a worm, more like the slug you call everyone else than anyone elseday of the salt shaker soon
>>4529779>turning off literally every lens correction possible when using an old wide angle lens darkens the edges ever so slightlyIt's not that. It's that the camera without the lens corrections enabled is still applying some. It's a lying machine.
>>4529779>ancient fuji with ancient version of lightroomIt was a SOOC JPEG, there were also some light room processed images for comparison. And the dog pic posted here also had worms even though it was downscaled. The poster had to post another version with denoising through the roof to get rid of them.
>>4529780Never mind all the linked evidence of every other camera processing their "raws" in some way. All digital cameras "lie". Nobody in the consumer sphere actually wants their raw data to be truly raw ADC output like a high end technical cameras would be. These people can hardly handle processed raws properly.>i missed exposure 7 stops and it looks bad. should i buy a different camera?Would these people know what an LCC was?There's also no proof no one else applies LCCs to raws. Rather, the total absence of this issue with sony later on implies it's possible to apply LCCs without anyone noticing, other brands were better at it before sony, and radial casts are so common with wider angle lenses theres no reason to believe no one else does. There is, however, evidence of radial banding hidden deep inside the raws of many canon and nikon DSLRs.You're hyperfocusing on a common minor issue that annoys astrophotographers and doesn't affect anyone else, if and only if, "sony" is the topic because it serves your agenda.This is because you are a propagandist. if you are proven explicitly wrong you will try to say the same thing again shortly after.You made a whole new gear thread just so you could lie and pretend the last one didn't happen. You recontextualized people calling you out as part of an argument about something else >>4529714 you're a compulsive lying fuckTypical holocaust denying fucktard
>>4529779Don't listen to >>4529781 he's a pathological liar. These are the photos he's talking about. Judge with your own eyes:>>4528131>>4528910
>>4529781Your existence is a nuisance to everyone around you. Leave.
>>4529781>And the dog pic posted here also had worms even though it was downscaledbehold the nazi lies againwhat really happened>>4529037>i zoomed in on a film grain simulation laid on top of dog fur and said the blurry hairs were "fuji worms">then i got btfo>so i started this thread 9 pages early because i thought people not being able to easily scroll up would make it easier for me to lie>-cANON
Pretty much every post made by cUCKNON is in violation of global rule #3. Just saying.
>>4529785Not the blurry hairs, the texture on top of the blurry hairs themselves.
>>4529784he intends to post lies so often and so repetitively that we will eventually allow him to lie unopposed, such that someone might believe himhe sounds like an antisemitic stereotype, however, this description has only ever accurately applied to antisemites themselves... Jews are quite honest.
>>4529786>you're pointing out things I don't like therefore you're a troll!
>>4529788When did opposite thread start?
>>4529787You mean the film grain simulation you retard?Why are you trying to lie when I can just click that backlink and see the unprocessed image without grain
>>4529792Some weird grain simulation that goes for a reticulation look... And then you remove it and there's still worms on the wall.
>>4529791That's actually pretty honest, since iran has the capability to produce a primitive nuke alreadyTheir #1 challenge is building one that can be delivered via ICBM
>>4529793that's ISO noise retardo
>>4529786cANON is like someone who insist a dog is a cat and every time you point out a trait that clearly identifies it as a dog he insists that because it has teeth, pointy ears or a tail it is obviously a cat, and by the time you have convinced him that it is a dog (but he'll just say "okay, its not a cat, but you haven't proven what it is either"), he will take a nap, wake up, point at the dog, and yell>KITTY!
>>4529794He's been saying Iran was "working on a nuclear bomb and two weeks away from it" since the 90s. Almost 6 months into the war and there's no nuke. But now Iran sees it as necessary whereas before they had a fatwa banning the development of it.
>>4529793>retarded man who has attempted photography fewer than 10 times is confused and makes incorrect assumptions when seeing something everyone else is familiar withits like a medieval peasant asking what kind of cow an elephant isalso, whenever he drops his trip, he's ban evading
>>4529795Worm shaped ISO noise, interesting
