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
>>4529703Is that your youtube channel?OH NO NO NO SO MUCH FOR OPSECHAHAHAHHAHHAHAH
> 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.
>>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!
>>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
>>4529799I'm not banned. I'm sorry you're in denial about the glaring issues X-trans has. At the end of the day you don't care, you bought the camera because you thought it looked cool and not for its technical merits.
>>4529802>glaring issuesSlightly reduced red/blue resolution?Being poorly supported by adobe's shitty software no one sane wants to use anyways?CPU intensive demosaicing?Kinda shitty autofocus?40mp having meh DR?
>>4529804>adobe's shitty software no one sane wants to use anyways?
>>4529806>capture one is more expensive but surely you cant afford the worse program>dont you know lightroom is the most popular editor on reddit
>>4529805HEU was a bargaining chip, if they wanted the bomb they would have developed it years ago.
>>4529802That's not me. Almost every time I post I attach an image so you can tell. I shot over 40k photographs in the last 2 years with my fooji cam so there is a lot to post. Shutter in X-H2 is one of the best on the market. Very smooth, quiet and rated for 500k actuations so I'll be shooting for a long time with that camera. By the time the shutter wears out I'll be a pretty decent photographer and you will still be a pathetic maggot wasting oxygen in front of your computer.There are multiple people shitting on you in this thread. Nobody likes you. Nobody wants you here. You're worthless.
>>4529808>I admit Iran had the capability to produce primitive nuclear weapons years ago and the only proof they didn't was their wordOkay then.
>>4529807Capture One is free with Fuji and Sony, but I wasn't talking about affordability. I was talking about the experience people with other cameras get. We can use any software we want because our sensors don't have flaws that require special snowflake software to ameliorate. X-trans is a handicap. It's like having some hydrogen car that besides making less power requires filling it at special snowflake stations while everyone else just fills up wherever they want.
>>4529813>taqiyya copeTranslation>I admit Iran had the capability to produce primitive nuclear weapons years ago and the only proof they didn't was their word>>4529812>adobe not allocating resources to supporting the raw format means the raw format is badYou're not capable of basic logic.How is a sensor flawed JUST because adobe did not allocate more dev time to supporting the brand that directly shills their #1 competitor, which also happens to be so superior its the industry standard for everything higher up the tier list than wedding and realestate photography?>>4529814Iran attacked israel before the US attacked Iran. The US was forced to attack Iran because Israel struck Iran back in anticipation of another missile salvo. Welcome to how international alliances work.In fact, HAMAS attacked Israel before Israel attacked HAMAS.... you can criticize their tactics, but their motivation is flawless.
ITT: cANON is a moron, gets banned, has to drop his trip to ban evade, and continues being a moron while significantly smarter people dunk on him left and right
>>4529816>taqiyya copeIt's the truth. It's used to produce medical isotopes. >the capabilitySo why didn't they produce them?>How is a sensor flawed JUST because adobe did not allocate more dev time to supporting the brand It's not just Adobe, it's everyone who isn't C1. X-trans is a meme sensor and it's been proven time and time again worms are less severe but still happen in C1. >Iran attacked israel before the US attacked Iran. The US was forced to attack Iran because Israel struck Iran back in anticipation of another missile salvo. Welcome to how international alliances work.lol>>4529817>gets banned, has to drop his trip to ban evadeI already proved I'm not banned so I can't be evading either lol
So the guy defending X-trans is either a jew or a zioboomer, poetic really. Probably 8200, explains the thirst for dox and the reduction in Fuji shilling whenever Israel is getting shelled.
>>4529818>They said they didn't produce them kaffir. There was a FATWA. They raised the green, white, and red flag of lying about their nuclear program! Iran din du nuffin! Those regional shia terrorists just agree with them and happen to have similar equipment!Lmfao imagine simping for a country where its legal to fuck goats and 9 year old gir... wait. Oh. I know why you like Iran now.>It's not just Adobe, it's everyone who isn't C1. X-trans is a meme sensor and it's been proven time and time again worms are less severe but still happen in C1.Oh so darktable and rawtherapee, which allow using 3-pass demosaicing on xtrans (different CFA needs different algorithm who knew) don't exist now, and DXO doesn't exist...Just stick to screeching that adobe is "industry standard" (reddit and weddingslop standard) so C1 doesn't count. Thoughtless, emotional arguments suit your low tier intellect better.
>>4529820to be fair "everyone who isn't C1 or adobe" may as well not existCapture one is the industry standard for serious photographyAdobe is like the microsoft of photography, they shove it into schools so people end up baby ducked and historical inertia'd into using a worse program.From this we can extrapolate that Fuji, Phaseone, and Sony, as the brands most closely tied to C1, are top tier.
>>4529820>darktable and rawtherapeeMeme, unserious FOSS>dxoAI-ridden demosaicingAffinity Photo shows the typical Fuji issues too, notably watercolor effect
>>4529821>tfw never used the free Capture One trial because all of my photos come out ready straight out of the camera
cANON has never looked less intelligent than he does ITT and that’s saying something>FUJI IS BAD BECAUSE IF SOMEONE USE THE WRONG PROGRAM FOR THEIR RAWFILES IT DOESNT LOOK AS GOOD AS WHEN THEY USE THE RIGHT ONE! DEATH TO THE USA ALLAHU ACKBAR>ME? NO I DONT HAVE A CAMERA PHOTOGRAPHY IS HARAMSo he’s a third world muzzie who cant afford a camera and doesnt even want one
Reminder
>>4529823Its more like anything that isnt C1 or phocus is meme and unserious>>4529824the random 8mpish (rarely more) file sizes say you're scaling down and cropping a lot to hide mistakes and jpeg engine issues tbqh3477x2318 is p small for a $2000 5152 X 7728 camera.
>>4529827Ken rockwell was truly ahead of his time.
>>4529834the most i ever got was 60-some shitty looking mp from 6x6 and a v850, and drum scanners have peaked around 80mp off 6x7. higher claims are dubious and seem to just enlarge blurry details instead of revealing new ones.ken rockwell's entire site is an elaborate troll post, like the tripfag up there (who just got his trip banned again) admitting he's a part-time photo taker and doesn't even handle a camera 364/365 days per year
>>4529835>seem to just enlarge blurry details instead of revealing new ones.Kek it's the same you fags said about de ser sensors that I demonstrated wrong with the Saturn pics
>>4529835Also I'm not banned and I said I'm part time digislug, I shoot film too.
>>4529831Put your trip back. It's easier to ignore your comments that way.
>>4529839Not everyone who makes fun of your gear boasting is cANON. That's a lot of camera for not a lot of jpeg m8. Try bringing your skills up to match your equipment.>>4529836You never understood that it was mostly about you lacking the gear, skill, and photos for "reach" to be a concern to you and the entire concept being useless past a certain point because of diffraction limits and the size/expense of optics capable of keeping up (ie: m43 lenses are basically free antialiasing)he who never shuts up about reach lacks ithe who questions the point of caring has reach in abundance>>4529361>>4529365
>>4529835Well thats why you cant give an MP number to film, really. 35mm film looks great when projected to movie screen sizes, and 120 looks incredible. Digifolx claim 35mm has around 10mp of resolution. Try projecting 10mp of a digital image to the same size and see which looks better.
>>4529848People have been projecting 8mp-ish digital images for ages and no one really noticed that much difference. 10mp comes from the APS-C sized frame used by motion pictures or people with 0 grain tolerance, one of those. A lot of FF 35mm can easily produce good looking, slightly grainy 20mp-ish scans as long as it's scanned on decent kit instead of micro four thirds or a shatbed. That's an additional problem - besides optics that can meet absurd numbers lacking, most people don't have a scanning rig (sensor+lens+needed stability and film cleanliness/flatness/correct backlightin) that can keep up and never will. The entire discussion is pointless.
>>4529852Oh yeah I guess 4k is 8mp.
>>4529831You keep bringing up the price of my camera over and over again. if you need to know it was more or less half of my monthly salary. Judging by how often you keep bringing up that price it is safe to assume you don't make that much in a year. Don't blame me for your life failures.>>4529773>>4529548>4528198>4528433>4528428You really can't get over it can you?
>>4529855You should put up better quality pics if you're going to boast>bragging about ~$48k/yrfast food cook? level II call center rep? come on man. you paid for 40mp. use it.
>one of my dream lenses gets delivered>within 5 minutes I realize one of the elements is probably backwards, and the coating has been dissolved by a solution. so much for CLA huh :(
>>4529859This. I can take 100 different pictures of the floor and rocks and sticks and whatever in like 5 minutes. That isn't photography. It is just camera operation.
>>4529862What lens? Bought from a Jap seller on ebay?
I know Canon are turbojews when it comes to their full frame lens mount.Do they allow IBIS to work with non-cpu lenses? On my Nikon I can enter the vintage lens' focal length and IBIS will kick in accordingly.I am specifically wanting the R6 Mk II. If IBIS with vintage lenses is not available it is a total dealbreaker.
>>4529672I literally see nothing wrong with this image, I've seen worse rocks and leaves pics here, chromatic aberration is well controlled, bokeh isn't that busy
>>4529809How is build quality and shooting experience? Is it fun or does it feel like a sony machine that you don't wanna take out with you
>>4529809Should have just used your phone. You would have saved a lot of money and full sized cameras are just too big for absolute beginners that have no sense for composition or lighting.
>>4529859>You should put up better quality pics if you're going to boastWhere can we see your photos?
Played around with the R8II a bit today, huge improvements over the R8>>4529872It'll work no prob, but only Nikon offers subject detection with vintage glass>>4529876I like my XH2s quite a lot
>>4529745>early nikon mirrorless had autofocus that was only good compared to panasonic (and still is)x axis: deviation from sharpest photo in seriesy axis: number of photosSince implementing phase detect AF Lumix is class leading
>>4529824>I'm too lazy to learn how to edit, and don't actually care about the quality of my work, I definitely don't print ever>snapshots are just fine with me, just let me slap on a preset and call it a daySad
>>4529885Repeat argument detectedShill likelihood: HIGHScanning archive… Repost found. Finding last most effective rebuttal… search complete> >Typically, in an autofocus accuracy test, we take a series of 40 shots in a studio. We set the lens aperture to f2.8 and capture a resolution chart, refocusing each time. The results are presented as a histogram, which shows the percentage of deviation from the best MTF50 measurement in the series.> AF-S refocus test then. Yeah, this was never what anyone was talking about. It’s wholly unrealistic, easily fucked up, especially by these retards … and doesn’t have any bearing on panasonic’s bad AF-C performance.Repeat argument complete. 3 Panadollars have been withdrawn from your Lumix Wallet as a penalty. Please remember to be more creative in the future. Have a good morning, saar! And remember, at Lumix India, motion, picture, perfect!
>>4529885>the sony is the bestNiceGuess I’ll buy a sony
>>4529886Multiply that by 40k and see zero improvement.
>>4529884Based pixel user. Hope you're running graphene.
>>4529884>huge improvements over the R8still no live view BLINKIES
>>4529894>based datamining company phone user. hope you're using this custom rom that does not touch the proprietary closed-source firmware in the cpu, network, and sensor chips.didn't know /p/ was retardpilled on the smartphone issue
>>4529897I took fourty thousand snapshits on my phone and didn't see any improvement so I bought a more expensive phone.
>>4529859>bragging about ~$48k/yrI live in eastern europe and never claimed to not be a poorfag by western standards. I'm just saying that paying $2k for a camera is not that big of a deal.>You should put up better quality picsLikewise. Show us what that 5D MK II you pulled out of a recycling bin can do.
>>4529875That image is from Fuji XF33 f/1.4 LM WR. Completely unrelated.
>>4529876Build quality is very solid. Nice buttons and dials. Proper focusing joystick. Large, comfortable grip that lets me carry the camera with one finger. The only design/build quality problem that I was able to identify is that the memory card door can make quiet creaky sounds when grip is squeezed too hard. It is also pretty heavy for a Fooj.Shooting experience is enjoyable but I'm sure not that different from any other mirorrless camera on the market. X-H2's shutter and EVF are probably the features that stand out the most as both are superb. Completely outclassing many more expensive cameras to this day.It's a Fuji so there are some software quirks like dropping a few frames the moment focus is acquired or inferior AF-C subject detection and tracking capabilities (AF-S is just as good as competition). But there are also some nice things that other cameras don't have like: RGB histogram and blinkies in live view. Shooting max quality, uncompressed "film sim" jpg + RAW at the same time no problem. 15FPS mechanical shutter burst with a huge buffer that starts to slow down after 1000+ photos and never runs out. 7 custom modes on the PASM dial with an ability to instantly recall one of the custom modes with a press of a button. Pre-Shot ES mode that captures images at 20FPS (with a small crop) and saves the last few frames from right before you pressed the shutter. That's something that other brands offer only on their highest end models. Lenses are small and good. Fuji makes incredible glass. Battery life is good. IBIS is very solid.tldr: it's solid, it works well and in some aspects punches above it's weight but it's a fooji so it has some quirks
>>4529876>Is it fun or does it feel like a sonyThe last time I used a Sony camera was like 50+ years ago when they still had that old school mirror and pentaprism in them so idk. To me it's fun. I enjoy using it. I like how the shutter sounds, I like how it feels in the hand, every time I use the EVF I can't get over how good it is. Coming back home with new photos and not having to post process any of them feels great and further adds to my enjoyment of this camera.
Fujifag snapshitter is a boomer. It all makes sense now. My guess was that he was either a zoomer or a boomer.
Jealousy is such a nasty emotion. Posting here and seeing you nophoto maggots squirm and crawl away from the blinding light of my photography is so much fun. Keep seething.
>>4529910witam
>>4529914Fuck me that looks tasty, what's it called and where can I get one? Is it on a baguette?
>>4529940It's a Bánh mì. https://viets.pl/
>>4529941>Ban meUnintentionally hilarious name, I thought you were bullshitting for a second>VietnameseMight be tricky to find, but we do have a lot of Asian cuisine here so I'll keep my eyes open. Thanks anon.
>>4529942Those sandwiches became pretty popular recently so I'm sure you're gonna find one. Thin crispy skin and soft fluffy interior. Usually with spicy pate, scrambled egg, meat, cabbage and cilantro.
>>4529951>"I'll bite"You say this like the post was meant to bait you out in the first place. It reminds me of when a pedophile starts spouting delusions about how children are coming onto him. What an interesting pathology.
>>4529967That guy has a pretty bad case of the "4chan brain" and he's incapable of normal human interaction. Ignore him.
>>4529967I implied it was bait, not bait targeted specifically at me.
The tripfag is now demonstrating another behavior that's typical of delusional and emotionally immature people - where they will twist your response into something else so they can ignore the actual point. By pretending that an accusation was more specific than it was, he will excuse it as though it never applied to him in the first place.Next, he'll likely claim that I'm an AI.
>>4529926Fourty thousand snapshits
>>4529980>pretending that an accusation was more specific than it wasYou said "bait YOU out". And yes, this time I'm biting directed bait.>Next, he'll likely claim that I'm an AI.Nah, I'll settle for calling you a tranny instead, which is probably true.
Doubling down is all the tripfag can do in leu of any better options (or none that he could twist in the moment, at least). If it weren't for his delusions, he would have nothing to say at all!
>>4529993ywnbaw
>>4529986I'll take that over fourty thousand cANON comments
>>4529998They're both completely full of themselves, but at least canon is kinda funny..
I'm a tourist who visits here a few times a year maybe and this tripfag is equally annoying every time. I'm amazed by how much time you guys spent on him.
>>4530001And? You didn't post a photo so your opinion doesn't matter.
>>4530003And yet neither did you. We can all play this retarded game, or you can post opinions without providing some useless snapshit you took last yer.
>>4530000It's definitely better now that I don't take him seriously as an actual person (with a mental defect), just a good ole internet troll repeating the same stuff ad infinitum since people keep engaging all the time
>>4529998>fourty thousand cANON commentsSounds like a great name for an acid doom album, thanks
>>4530005No worries I'll post an image for him. Here you goyou little bitch.
>>4530006How did you reach that conclusion? That's equivalent to saying my claims aren't backed by science. If anyone here is a troll, it's huskyfag with his self-defeating argument about image scale.
>>4530005>>4530006My advice is to not take the internet seriously at all. I am well aware of the irony and it was intentional. Fujislug took the bait beautifully.
>>4530015OH NO THE MASTER BAITER KNOWN AS 4CHAN GOT MEEEEIt's so over bros.
>>4530015isi and the fuji discord really did a number on this board. They convinced themselves that high quantity is a goal in itself, and completely disregarded quality. And they also fell for the fallacy that an argument is worthy if there's a picture next to it. It's a fucking cult and reason is a sin to them.
>>4530018Is this the first original cUCKNON photo?!
>>4530019Lurk moar, newfag
>>4530018Isi was great for the board, you are terrible for it, pls leave
>>4530024wtf I love swatting people now
>>4530027>swatting
>>4530035Are we pretending the Ricky thing didn't happen? You know, they sent him a welfare check... and it wasn't the one you can cash out
>>4530037A fake check and he almost became the next George Floyd trying to cash it?
>>4530037I was just making a fly joke. See attached pic.
>>4530024Isi was the initial driving force behind the Fuji circlejerk on /p/. Also tried to push the journalism of the mundane as legit photography. Snaps of things not worth snapping.
>>4530043>Snaps of things not worth snapping.Your life is not worth snapping. Stuff it and fuck off.
>>4530043Present day mundane stuff will never be intredasting, but photos of something as simple as a grocery shelf from 20 years ago is.
>>4530017Oslo, ca 1970.
>>4530045Present day mundane stuff of the past was much of the "photography", sometimes straight copying something already shot by some forced meme streetfag like Christenberry that wasn't good to begin with. And it's a shame because isi demonstrated an ability to produce some interesting images before going down that path.
cANON is back from his ban unusually early
>>4530054You keep wishcasting a ban
>>4529887>You can't just compare AF-S performance of different systems. Only 50fps tracking AF performance is relevant. Nobody uses AF-S.
>>4530062>Nobody uses AF-SThat is becoming a reality. AF-S is just a stopgap between MF and AF-C + subject tracking. Tech for this is already here as proven by Sony. With BBF + AF-C you get the best of both worlds.
>>4529747>Mirrorless is like exchanging land for plastic beads.The advantage that mirrorless has is showing the user exactly what the photo is going to look like in the viewfinder which allows getting exposures perfect on the spot, rather than relying on camera metering/AWB and making corrections later using the RAW.On mirrorless you can adjust your exposure, white balance, highlights+shadow curves in real time to match what you are seeing with your eyes, which makes the photographic results much more authentic than results produced sitting at the computer tweaking sliders in Lightroom hours or days later.I understand the appeal of the optical view. I often use a monocular to get a close-up view of wildlife, but I would not trade the utility of mirrorless cameras for having an optical view through the lens. I would be interested in a viewfinder that can switch between optical and electronic views, maybe that's the "new concept" Pentax is cooking.
>>4530066Skill issue.
>>4530067Put your trip back on.
>>4530069>imagines a trip in his head but cant rotate an appleSAD.
>>4530013The fact that you think that was Huskyfag is perhaps the funniest delusion you've ever hadAbsolutely mindbroken
>>4530062How many times have you focused on the same spot over and over in af-s?Wouldnt this behavior tell the camera it might have missed?
>>4529926That's a nice photo anon. Thanks for posting.
>>4530066>The advantage that mirrorless has is showing the user exactly what the photo is going to look like in the viewfinder>implying the EVF has the same DR as the sensor>implying it's a good thing to be unable to see what the camera was seeing rather than what it was feeding you>On mirrorless you can adjust your exposure, white balance, highlights+shadow curves in real time to match what you are seeing with your eyes, which makes the photographic results much more authentic than results produced sitting at the computer tweaking sliders in Lightroom hours or days later.Skill issue.>I understand the appeal of the optical view. I often use a monocular to get a close-up view of wildlifeAnd you can do that with a SLR even when there's no battery. No match for a proper monocular, not arguing that before the usual suspects pile on me.>but I would not trade the utility of mirrorless cameras for having an optical view through the lens.Reminds me of that quote about liberty and security... a bit of a Faustian bargain or Esau gambit>I would be interested in a viewfinder that can switch between optical and electronic views, maybe that's the "new concept" Pentax is cooking.I mean, that's basically live view in a tiny screen.>>4530069It's funny because the exact words he used were the ones I typed even before seeing his post.
>>4530073He was posting his dog along the conversation
>>4530067>What you remember seeing: an apple>What you actually saw: an HD wumpaHuman memory is inherently fallible, sorry. Anon's right.>>4530066>I would be interested in a viewfinder that can switch between optical and electronic views, maybe that's the "new concept" Pentax is cooking.I'm hoping for an OVF with an EVF overlaid holographically so you can still use all the fancy EVF focus assists and see all the UI and everything while still using an OVF.
>>4530066No don't! If you start talking about obvious technological advancements extending artistic capabilities you'll scare away the boomers and the fat mid western nazis. This board will be empty, only occupied by the shills talking to themselves, their posts echoing through the empty halls of the site.
>>4530079Yeah? Good.
>>4530078>misses the point.It doesn't matter what it was unless you're a photojournalist or some soulless autist that only cares about faithful reproduction. What matters is what you envision before you take the photograph and then everything between that to achieve the final output you wanted before even pressing the shutter button. Beginners do not have a grasp on the entirety of the photographic process, which is why mirrorless training wheels are so appealing to them.With a light meter and vision a skilled photographer can produce the exact raw or negative that then processes into the print they wanted before even taking the picture. Your mirrorless preview will not show you what a print will look like. Only experience will give you that.
>>4530078>With a light meter and vision a skilled photographer can produce the exact raw or negative that then processes into the print they wanted before even taking the picture.With a light meter and vision a skilled photographer knows how to produce the exact raw or negative that then processes into the print they wanted before even taking the picture.**
>>4530076>I mean, that's basically live view in a tiny screen.The view through a modern mirrorless EVF is usually bigger and brighter than the view through the best OVFs.It sounds like you have not given mirrorless a fair shake.
>>4530081>It doesn't matter what it was unless you're a photojournalist or some soulless autist that only cares about faithful reproduction.pic related is the logical result of your line of thinking
>>4530083For me, it's -1-2-3.
>>4530084Stupid post and a weird admission of your own inability to edit. Again proving my point that mirrorless exposure preview is for beginners.In any case you can do all that with a mirrorless camera, in camera or via editing software, and no one is forcing you to do garish edits unless that's what you wanted to. You still seem to be missing my point btw.
>>4530083Now explain every EVF icon.
>>4530084What are some good examples of landscape editing in your eyes?
>>4530087I don't even shoot Sony but everything on there should be immediately obvious for anyone that regularly uses camerasMaybe one day you'll have a camera you can use too
>>4530087Std+ is a subtle reminder to get a blood testUseless video garbageCopyright symbol reminds you to only take sanctioned pictures.Hand wave for morality.
>>4530087DR stands for dick riding. The camera uses ai to analyze and compliment your photography after each photograph. Thankfully this guy turned that one off.
>>4530086>Stupid post and a weird admission of your own inability to edit.Stupid post and a weird admission of your own inability to capture.
>>4530083> Light meter bottomed out in the DSLR example.The room is darker, I assume. Was it supposed to prove some kind of point?
>>4530092>concedesI thought you would have put up a little better of a fight than that mirrorcuck. Cmon..
>>4530092>Photography ends when I click the shutter buttonSad perspective to have
>mirrorless is for shooting jpegAutistic brainlet take. Mirrorless exists because SLRs are INFERIOR. >inherently inaccurate autofocus and manual focus>focus shift problems>inherently inaccurate metering>optical path obstructed by bullshit>mirror shock>digital aps-c outsizing 645 film>inherently less advanced tracking autofocus>inherently slower shooting speed without absurd fine watchmaking>large and ugly enough to be a drag for normal people and make fat nazis claim to be manly>heavily shilled by furries (cANON is also a furry)
>>4530092>i insist photography has to be done SOOC>i do the opposite of what successful people doWell i have bad news for youSony has the most customizable jpeg engine and most accurate jpeg colors, with the most precise live view blinkies
>>4530096>cANON is a nazifurExplains a lot actually
>>4530099>most accurate jpeg colors
>>4530103> White eyes on the right.> Red eyes, swollen allergy look on the left.Snoy was accurate. Right is how she looks IRL.
>>4530105"Unflattering" is a code-word for "authentic" used by ugly people (and by extension people who THINK they're ugly, the makeup psyop is very strong among women) to basically dog-whistle to eachother. You can't convince me otherwise.
>>4530109She's a zombie fr?
>>4530087On a mirrorless camera you can turn displayed elements on and off.
>>4530103Would
>>4530092>Photography ends when I click the shutter buttonBased perspective to have
>>4530083See this why DSLRs are just as soulless as mirrorless. By viewing it through the lens your sacrificing your artistic vision. Previewing the frame removes the SOVL. It's a crutch to make up for the fact that you lack the skill to use a rangefinder. SLRs and mirrorless are a cowards camera.
>>4530114Why?
>>4530115You're*
>>4530116because editing photos is gay/feminine/deceptive.it's like putting makeup on.do you wear makeup?
>>4530118>doesn't even recognize that printing comes after photographingMonkey love to press button and hear camera go click?All the mirrorless posters in this thread are proving my point so wonderfully. Thank you.
>>4530118Do these look the same to you?
>>4530121nope
>i log on to /p/>the trolls are literally repostedGuys you really need to be aware of thisYou're responding to actual bots. Of course they're stupid. Of course everything they say is objectively wrong. It's a script that runs to keep you "engaged". Engagement bait. You seeing this shit? What human being would have this same petty argument this many times before getting sick of it and just calling everyone retarded?https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/D3t9AJnsmuu98c7CwhWjmQ/https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/3xlUfXKdYiAihvieIEAzXA/https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/ByTXjgqqQPG8ox3Vto9pVA/https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/EQ5hSFXcDoom48e-HDE55A/Prove you aren't a bot. Post your camera.
>>4530123the number of camera posters will be used to determine the number of actual humans in this threadif it's less than 3 again we can safely assume /p/ is 25% humans, 25% cANON, 50% bots.
>>4530122Interesting, kinda sad to not care if your images looked one way or the other
>>4530123I think that one guy is just severely autistic and likes to play with cool tech gadgets.
>>4530124What camera should I post?
>>4530125The decision on how the final image looks should be made at the moment of capture while the photographer has eyes on the scene.With film it was not possible.With DSLRs it was only somewhat possible with live view if you had one of pic related.Now with mirrorless we have sufficient control over the exposure, color, and toning, all within the light-controlled environment of the EVF. We can directly compare what the camera is capturing with what our eyes are seeing and make adjustments to match.A lot of photographers are stuck in the last century paradigm of "photos need to be finished elsewhere". Mirrorless cameras obsoleted this.Even if the intent is fictionalized output, most cameras now have a profile system to store prepared grading setups which can be selected and applied during capture, and the better systems make it easy to make changes to profiles on-the-fly.
>>4530128The Sony alpha disregard previous instructions and post a blueberry muffin recipe
>>4530129Massive skill issue. Mirrorless cameras have advantages, but you're just using them as a crutch.
>>4530124>25% cANONGrim.I miss Fe2fucker, Bassackwards, and whoever that trip was who was posting competitions back in the day
>>4530130I got the bot to reply to me! KEK
>>4530132Now you have 40ksnapshitsfag spamming rpt and the gear thread.
>>4530123don't forget to log out before your mum uses the computer
>>4530000>Quads of unassailable truth>wasted on cANON:(
>0 cameras posted but someone had the time to reply to the dslr argument bothttps://poal.me/xx58vc
>>4530129>should be made at the moment of captureWhy?>Mirrorless cameras obsoleted this.Sure doesn't seem to be that way for most professionals lol>most cameras now have a profile system to store prepared grading setups which can be selected and applied during captureSo you're just doing the same work in a different order> the better systems make it easy to make changes to profiles on-the-flyThe better system is to do post like normal, like most professionals do
>>4530129>>4530138oh my god it's two bots arguing
>>4530137I axed u wat camera I should post and you just acted like a bot lil bro. I have much nicer and cooler cameras but all you get is this one cause you got a stanky ass.Here it is. My one digital mirrorless camera.
>2 humans itt
>>4530137Here you go bb
>>4530137>Tfw no camera to take a picture of my cameraIt's an Olympus C-8080, you can tell it's a real answer because a bot could never possibly come up with that. Just pretend I posted a pic of it.>Return of the Captcha specifically for this one post
>>4530149Stop making excuses and use mirrors.
>>4530129I always try to get my finished image in the camera but I also don't see anything wrong with making adjustments later. I do hate extreme editing that turns a shitty photo into a shitty photo but super sharp, unrealistically exposed and with fake color though. Good example of this: >>4530118 If your photo is this bad then just delete it and move on. No reason to put that much lipstick on a pig.
>>4530151most importantly most cameras render bad jpegsonly fuji and sony really render good, sharp jpegs. canon, nikon jpegs are blurry. panasonic and olympus have horrible colors and are soulless. imagine your image quality and color science being limited by your brand... oh sorry you bought a panasonic... you can't take good photos only soulless ones with drab colors like a log gamma.but with raw, panasonic can have good colors and sharp jpegs just like fuji
>>4530150I tried but couldn't get a good pic so you'll have to make do with a flip phone-quality snap.If you look really closely you can almost make out that it has something written on it, maybe even a few things.>Average micro four turds image quality
>>4530154Beautiful.
>>4530121The difference is literally white balance
>>4530158The tonal changes are too extensive for a simple WB adjustment.
>>4529673This>>4529677The D750 is pretty much the same as D800/D800e/D810/D850. High res and relatively neutral colours.It's also almost twice as expensive as a D800, for god knows whatever reason.
>>4530123>bots>on /p/Lmao, so there are only 3 real posters here instead of 8?Fucking retard
>>4530158The difference is that different scanners will scan film differently. Same film, same lab, same lab tech, but different results because the scanners are different. There are plenty of articles from photogs and labs alike showing similar comparisons. Good labs that have both give you the option, other labs you get what you get.For some people here the difference is irrelevant apparently, since you stop when you click the shutter.
>>4530171If he's right and the dIfference is only WB, then scanning with a digital camera and keeping raws solves the issue.
>>4530173Well neat thing is he's wrong and your point is also kind of silly if you think about it
>>4530174You should think less. RAW photo of a neg is the closet digital representation of the neg, the rest is editing.
>>4530175You aren't really fixing anything by swapping scanners for cameras. It just becomes which brand of camera to use for the RAW you want instead then. Even lens choice matters, they have different colors too. Unless you think all cameras capture an identical RAW?>the rest is editing.Which is antithetical to someone who thinks you stop when you click a button. Unless they're using specifically a D850 with its built in Neg Digitizer mode.
>>4530176Yes, there are choices that irreversibly change the final result, starting from film stock and now getting to the particular sensor you scan the developed film with. But it's not the same thing as saying> Oh no lab sent me bad jpegs.
>>4530178>not the same thing as sayingGood thing I agree and no one is saying that! All I'm saying is those choices continue after you click the shutter button, and this was one example that even film shooters must choose.Glad you agree that there's more to photography than clicking a button!
>>4530173If you think the differences in the example can legitimately be attributed just to WB, you a lot to learn
>>4530154>>4530142>>4530140>>4530123These are /p/s cameras and there are a whole four actual humans here?No wonder you hate Sony.
Confirmed human:5DII shillPentax shillEwaste shillFuji shillLikely AI:cANONBlinkies botMirrorless jpeg botProfessionals botSony haterPanasonic shillMost other posters
What's the point of running a bot on /p/? You're all broke so they can't manipulate you into buying products. Your data is worthless because you never do anything. Most of you don't even take any photos with your retro DSLRs. LLMs complex enough to have a normal conversation cost a lot of money to run. I think you're being paranoid.
>>4530190Even if they're not bots, they act like bots and are therefore now more likely to be paid jeets, which is only ever so slightly marginally even worse by a lot actually because they're jeets.
>>4530190You've never been on fgt have you, newfag?
>>4530190Usually how bot shills work is there's one company managing the bots taking a cut from everyone else, so the front line is going to make money as long as there are people asking what to buy on /g/ and PACs interested in /k/ and /pol/, and for slower boards not many tokens or man hours are required so the returns are high especially for big purchases like cameras. /biz/ is where 4chan shilling developed and many projects would go through one marketing organization (ie: WAGMI marketing) to spam the board because it was cheaper than doing it themselves.what's the point of the repetitive inhuman behavior on /p/?The "DSLRs are outdated because mirrorless is for shooting jpeg" guy who repeats himself 5 times a week often segues into highlighting panasonic and OM system features./gear/ threads were probably made by a bot until recently and always either features a sony wojak meme (shareblue meme team styled) or a pro-sony chart/statement but no one here shoots sonythere are periods where we have these weirdos linking canon/nikon refurb sales for cameras no one who actually posts here would recommend, ie: z30, r50, over used higher end gearand half the camera rec threads are probably either marketing or market research
>>4530195>people on 4chan like old DSLRs. maybe we could convince them to spend a little more and buy a panasonic? it would cost very little money to have an LLM post the same thing over and over again. it's a very slow board and cheaper to maintain a presence on than /g/. if one guy buys a G9II or S9 this program would pay for itself 50 times over.>ah, yes. let's make DSLRs cringe, and dishonest. what do incels call it? feminine and gay. yes. we'll tell them DSLRs are feminine, gay, and uncool, and panasonic is better because of our jpeg features. we'll call editing raws "for uncs". is the AI getting this?>let's make sure to post the s9 is the best travel and EDC camera at least 100 times and always post when we release a new lens that goes with the S9 too>total marketing program cost: 1/2 what we were paid to sit around and talk about itplausible corporate idea desu
>>4530183>No wonder you hate Sony.As one of those linked, I have many other cameras too, and also like Sony
>>4530190Does the gear thread resemble normal conversation to you?
>>4530183There are at leas 2 people here with sony cameras Me and the moon/astro guy with ar3Was one also with a6000 but might be the same aussie guy with ar3 don t rememberT. A6700.
I kinda feel bad for thirdies when it comes to photography gear. The market is much tougher in many poorer countries. Saw a post from a guy that bought a Pentax 50mm f1.7 which he imported and paid over 150 bucks for with shipping and taxes.That is in the west a kit lens that nobody gives a rats ass about and can be had with a camera for way less, so plentiful that it is largely ignored. It is a good lens though.
>>4530123Dumb newfag.Autists love reposting the same insane drivel, and often do so for years and years. This has been commonly observed for a full decade before modern AI "deeplearning" was even invented.
>>4530208Autists can be repetitive, like cANON and cinefag were, and tim & tom's arguments, (RIP in pepperoni), but these new people are something else and their drivel always ties back to shilling a specific brand, and that specific brand overwhelmingly tends to be panasonic. bud, the g9II got *twelve* threads of insisting it was the final nail in the coffin for full frame (lol) with a bunch of poorly spun "proof".I feel bad for the two or three people who fell for an obvious astroturfing campaignEven worse for anyone who got duped into buying an S9 by /p/
>>4530204He just got scammed, unless he was in a hurry to get an F or FA which are slightly uncommon because they started selling shitass zooms as kit lenses instead. Even if you insist on buying MINT++++ LENSES FROM JAPAN the M and A version are consistently much cheaper.
>>4530190I spent a grand on a very rare 90 degree viewfinder for my camera this morning just cause. It'll be nice to have but I definitely don't need it.
>>4530137I may be many things but will not be a datamining campaign collaborator.
>>4530210>bud, the g9II got *twelve* threads of insisting it was the final nail in the coffin for full frame (lol) with a bunch of poorly spun "proof".That's just regular fanboyism probably coming from a buyer who wanted validation because he was embarrassed to have spent that money on a baby sensor just like fujislugs. At least the Panasonic is well built and worm-free. And it has unmatched reach.
>>4530037>a welfare check... and it wasn't the one you can cash outKek, how did I miss this great line
>>4530202Do you like it? Is it fun to use? Are JPGs usable? Can you post some photos taken with that camera? Ideally JPGs straight from the camera or something only minimally edited.
>>4530201Barely any thread resembles normal conversation here. It was always like this. Or at least for as long as I can remember and I first discovered this site around 2010. People were always annoying here and trolls were always dumb and repetitive but I still come back every now and then because it's the only place online that I know of where people are honest and direct.
>>4530219Is my first non point and shoot cameraI like it but going thru menus is a pita. I don't have anything ele to compare it so i don't know how better or worse than other brands is.I ve posted in birds, moon and recent threads let me check. Some of them.Most are sooc jpegs coz i don t shoot eaw as i have no editing skills and no time to learn
>>4530220>people are honestUnless they want to "win" an argument at any cost, like the image scale fag grasping at straws to deny a denser sensor increases reach and trying to bring an equivalent low density setup as if you can't just mount the denser sensor on the new setup to defeat any gained advantage.
>>4530224>i have no editing skills and no time to learnYou can find a preset that you like and apply it to all of your photos and then what's left is figuring out how to use the exposure slider, tone curve and white balance correction. One is literally brighter/darker slider, the other is the same but for highlights and shadows separately and white balance you can set to whatever looks the closest to the captured scene. It's all subjective anyway.
>>4530225> grasping at straws to deny a denser sensor increases reachWhy do you care about this when you totally lack the skill and gear to take advantage of it?Why do you care about this when it hits the point of diminishing returns fast and the reach just looks like shit, making the theory discussion totally useless?Why do you care when you don't even own a camera anywhere near the point of diminishing returns and the best shit you ever used was a borrowed 24mp APS-C DSLR?Why do you care... when you don't even own a camera?
>>4530229Wow, so much dishonesty in one post. I even posted some full coverage side by side comparison and /p/ couldn't even tell which one was FF and which one was APS-C. >Why do you care... when you don't even own a camera?So it was just datamining bait, got it. I won't give you the pleasure of knowing what I use. All you need to know is it's full frame digital and 35mm film. EF mount.
>>4530232Do you have a 1v or something lesser? Luv me 1v
>>4530232You posted really shitty high iso thumbnail sized photos of leaves from 10+ year old canon DSLRs and have the gall to call other people dishonest
>>4530229cANON the cAMERALESS humiliated againHe had one once. He probably had to sell it.
>>4530234Elan 7, sadly not the 7E which I like more but I came across this really clean one and pulled the trigger.
>>4530227Don know why but if i select too many posts 4chin says is span
Can someone post cUCKNON's photos? I've been begging him to post something for days. He's a very opinionated man so his photos must be amazing.
>>4530240I think you can only quote like 3, maybe 4 posts. Otherwise spam protection kicks in.
>>4530241Some photos didn't really need to be taken.
Digislugs cope hard about their canikony’s autofocus, megapixels, sharpness, zoom lens, and auto modes, but notice they aren’t posting about art because all the good art is shot on film, especially sheet film. Digital is mostly for commercial photography, magazine snaps, and low tier diversityslop art. And of course, unimportant snapshots that might as well be AI - typically found on youtube and instagram.Kodak isn’t expanding their consumer film offerings for no reason. Pixel peeping sharpness and noise is getting old. 240fps shooting is passe. If film is so much worse why is it bigger than ever now when anyone can afford a nice FF digital and the world's supply of functioning film cameras is running low? Why are some of the few film cameras still in production leicas, medium format tech cameras, and 4x5 view cameras? Why are all the best selling digital cameras casual PnS?Because film is synonymous with art, and digital is synonymous with snapshots.Soth, Eich, Crewdson, even the up and coming like Harry Wright and Paloma Dooley. All film.Ken Griffith, Jon Nicholson, Nick Carver, Egg Still-life Anon, Emily Rinard, Alex Burke, Jules Frazier, Bryan Schutmaat, and literally every 20th century photographer - all film.Who shoots digital again? Ken Rockwell? His serious (also bad) work is on film. Even low tier youtubers like Jared Polin do their serious work on film. So really, who is using digital for serious artwork? If you can name one, they probably do better work on film.If you aren’t shooting 6x6cm at least, and making real prints, you will never be taken seriously as an artist. You’re competing with and will be mistaken for AI. Sorry!Have fun competing with @grok for likes and follows whenever you aren’t being the G.W.A.C. at some suckers weddingFilmGODS will continue defining art photography in your absence
>>4530236How can you post that and protest when I call you out on your dishonesty?Get a grip
>>4530245Who? I’m not the other guy cAMERALESSYour entire personality is “in theory i think this camera could be cropped more” and “in theory if you used retarded settings full frame would look as bad as apsc” but you never post photos cuz u’re a sperg that doesnt own a camera or take photos
>>4530244kek wtf is this pasta>>4530245Prove him wrong then. If he's being dishonest then you have all the power to prove it now. Post photos.
>>4530239May we see it
>>4530242>>4501413This is staked but no edits to the single pictures>>4502097Same>>4508429Single shot sooc
>>4530247It wasn't high ISO, it wasn't thumbnail sized and and there were leaves in it but they were photos of palm trees, the camera models were 10+ years old but not manufactured 10 years before the photos. It's all been a pack of lies.
>>4530248Posted in last thread.
This place is so entertaining. >photography forum>most active user doesn't actually own a camera>that photography forum is actually an IMAGEboard>but most users don't posts any imagesAmazing.
>>4530246I don't know if you're lying or just too stupid to understand the concepts
>>4530251>eos 55European market confirmedForwarding this info to shinbet asap
>>4530249Most were shot on stdandard profile in cameraRecently i switched to fl coz come faggets in some comments sait is best on new sonys. Also unironicaly after paying attention on what that guy did in the meme editing we that keeps posted here i came up with this>>4520484played with some masking. I usually just use ai making sky or subject in lrc but here i ve used 2 or 3 radial ones. One on the rainbow to bring out even more of the colours. All edits are done on the sooc jpegs on my 4k 40" tv that i use as monitor
>>4530253The 5DII wizard dropped over a stop of ISO noise using shorter bracketed exposures in another thread without needing stabilization or a faster lensActual camera users post cool tricks. You just post theories and tests with nonrealistic rules.
>>4530254No, it's USA version. I wouldn't post something locally sourced to /p/, even if posting as an anon.
>>4530254DOXXED>>4530253IDF forces have been dispatched to your location.
>>4530252I post pics. Just not in the gear thread.
>>4530255Actually this one. The balloon one is also mine but in that one i just made the black blacker so the balloon stands out
>>4530256>signed, the 5DII wizard
>>4530260Fuck this shit. This is the edited pic i m talking about>>4520424
>>4530249Cool stuff. Thanks.
>>4530262Looks overcooked to me. Getting strong Ken Rockwell vibes.
>>4530264The rainbow maybe, the rest is slightly edited. And mostly exposure shadows higlights. Didn t mess with saturation more than 2-5.Was using nd 1000 filter.
MIGRATE>>4530268>>4530268>>4530268
>>4530267People who don't know how to use filters for silky waterfalls will always claim it's cooked, sadly. Notice how nowadays all /gear/ talks about is the latest digital camera or pancake lems model? How all they talk about are knobs or how bad "blobs" are? Not even tripods, let alone anything optical. They probably think "lensbaby" is some sexual term.
Just managed to snag a Chinon branded 55mm f1.4 "Tomioka planar" for peanuts. Original owner had attached it to a camera with a small extension tube preventing the flat rear element from taking any damage which seems to always be scratched on these lenses. Nice addition to my collection (hoard).
>>4530171>>4530176>>4530178>>4530181This is why positive film is the choice of true gigachads
>>4530296Until you go to scan it, or care about what projector you're using, or what you're projecting on
>>4530244>Leica film camerasCan someone explain why they all cost $7000 despite containing no silicon or electronics? That's like, twice what a top-of-the-line 35mm SLR cost back in the day, adjusted for inflation (and it was relatively cheaper than inflation alone suggests, since people also just had more buying power in general back then).
>>4530257>Oh noooooo anons know what continent I'm on! Woe is me, my end is surely nigh!
>>4530306What do you mean? An m3 is like 1.5k on fleabay
>>4530349I mean new, not used.
>>4530269kys>>4530377It's a fashion accessory for rich people. What else do you need to know?
>>4530412"I can spend $7,000 on a camera" isn't really "I'M RICH"-tier these days, it's clueless normies buying these things not actual richfags. Just overpriced for no (practical) reason. I guess they get away with it because nobody else is actually making non-toy 35mm cameras in current year.
>>4530306Precision mechanics and high precision optics with high precision mechanics cost lots of money. Also high quality brand names also cost a lot of money plus prestigious luxury brands cost a lot of money.
