>astro tripod editionPrevious - >>4530983
there's literally a dozen of these and the last one is still on the front pagewhy
>>4531961Newfag retard lost too many arguments and wants to destroy /p/. it's entirely malicious.
>>4531961Bump limit. If mods didn't want this they'd make a cyclical but they know cyclicals are where boards go to die
>>4531964>newfag doesn't know how to pin threads
It's pretty cool that the NCIS bought Z6IIs when they could have used any other camera and the US government special ordered wifi-free Z6IIIsNikon Z = glowie approved
>>4531965>faggot wannabe janny will stay a faggot wannabe because he spammed his filters too many times
>>4531967Nice schizo cope newfag. Seethe more lil bitch boy. You're definitely in the right spot aka schizo cope newfag zone.Im just visiting to make sure everyone knows your intentions for spamming the catalog with gearthreads, newfag.
>>4531966I miss the Z6II. I complained when I had to use it, but looking back, it was a better camera (to use) than the sony a7v by a mile.
>>4531970You were warned and you dismissed it. The only reason to use a Sony is the only other choice being a Fuji.
>>4531972>implying I ever wanted to use an a7v for anything>implying i'd ever pay retail for an a7v>implying i'd handle an a7v that was my own personal propertyFuji makes the best travel and EDC camera, sony made the next best cope (a used a7c) but otherwise it's just megapixels: the brand
>>4531973>best travel cameraOlympus Stylus Zoom>b-but I'm an incorrigible digislug!!!TZ200>EDC cameraGay
>>4531976You wouldn't know. You don't take or post photos.
>>4531978publishlet
>>4531976>EDC cameraI am considering G100 for my EDC camera. It is so tiny but seems to not get hyped compared to similar size rangefinder models. Anyone tried/have one?
>>4531982For micro four thirds you're better off buying an older olympus. Panasonic cameras of any year are pretty bad.better yet, seek out an older canon eos m5. canon is worse in low light but doesn't have the green tinted colors of olympus.
>>4531982If I were going to do EDC, it'd be a press camera. Go big or go home.You have a phone.
>>4531982Lumix doesnt make good cameras
Got one of these today, really neat
>>4531982>Muh eee-dee-seeLooking forward to your snapshits of backs of heads and wallmart parking lots soon anon
>>4531996Who is the cute green leaf fellow?
>>4531986Is that the one with detachable remote trigger base? It's pretty cool but I have no idea how to use flash properly.
>>4532002It's not too difficult, and a really great skill to improce your photography. Shutter speed for ambient light, aperture for flash power. Take some pictures of something with a sunset in the background for practice.
>walk into local tavern near the bar & restaurant where I work>slam picrel on the table>"Whoa anon, that looks like a serious camera. I know of some local viewpoints you might be interested in.">"Dude... I remember dabbling in this in college before I ended up having to work for a living. I have a lot of respect for anyone that can make it big.">"My dad once had a REALLY nice Nikon - but he dropped it in the lake...">"Did you catch the exact moment that fucking asshole beat me at pool?!"Things I never heard even once:>"X brand will never bring you success.">"Digital isn't real photography.">"X brand is better at [poorly-cited niche use case] than Y. I'll follow you around and keep telling you this until you leave, then I'll call YOU the shill.">"Get away from me, you freak!'>"Let's have sex."I love taking photos, even if it's with a gay shitty Canon body.
>>4531986Is the silver dial on your unit also extremely crappy feeling?
Do you think we'll ever get a compact camera sensor with a dynamic range similar to human eye? For me it feels like we're already at a point where further improvements to resolution are not worth the effort, color accuracy is satisfactory and ISO performance is fine even for shooting at night. The only real limitation seems to be dynamic range of current sensor tech. Especially highlight retention.I'm sure medium format cameras are already getting close but those are not fun to carry around on a daily basis and are only reasonable for planned photo shoots.
>>4532005For real though, that lens can be your whole reason to buy Canon. Such a gem.
>>4532005>>"Digital isn't real photography."lmaoRENT FREEENTFREEIn all seriousness though, of course digital is not real photography.
>>4532002Yup, neat to have 1 flash I can TTL/HSS with all my brands of cameraYou should learn flash, photography is about light, and flash let's you control that>>4532022Nope, but I'm probably not as autistic as you to notice
>>4532035It's become a regular carry for me. It took a while to get used to, but I've come to like it a lot (used it for picrel and >>4529005). If I ever want to get away from Canon bodies, they make electronic EF adapters for mirrorless Nikon and Sony.
>>4532041>If I ever want to get away from Canon bodies, they make electronic EF adapters for mirrorless Nikon and Sony.Why not just get away from RF instead and even better, shoot film?
>>4531856It's not the security BS they told you, it's assumed that if you buy a professional camera you have a reader. It's faster so they don't have to add USB 3.0 to the body. It also prevents adding thermal wear to the body for no good reason. Shooting tethered is the only real reason to have an USB port on a camera. Everything else is a cope.
>>4532047Why not post some photos of your own and pretend like you actually belong here for once?
>>4532041These days it's this or my 70-200 f/4. GP zooms are gay, and I like being able to go super wide even if it means you actually need to be IN the moment instead of an idle observer.EF is the gift that keeps on giving.>>4532047>discussion is about an EF lens>Stray fires on RF for some reason despite there being lots of valid chances and reasons to shit on RF mount
>>4532055I've stuck with narrow focal lengths as almost a crutch for a long time, so I'm happy to finally break away from that particular comfort zone. I do still have an occasion for my 70-200mm though.
>>4532055Dishonest post, it's a RF scamera. >be IN the moment You're in whatever the camera's firmware claims to be the moment but you do you
>>4532071Holy shit cANON. At what point did you become more schizo than man?
>>4532084It's an ontological truth. The EVF shows a processed output. There's no optical paths between the scene and your eye.
>>4532084Dont replyuse the filterhttps://pastebin.com/diHque73some of the filtered posters have disappeared entirely since this list started going around and cANON has become increasingly unhinged. its working.dont forget, it gets updated when fags try to dodge it
>>4532064>I've stuck with narrow focal lengths as almost a crutch for a long timeSame here. I bought my first 28mm recently and I'm struggling with it a lot. Wide angle takes skill.
I feel digital camera ergonomics haven't been explored enough. What about a camera with a few sliders or physical switches, not just dials?
>>4532086>filters snoykek
>>4532089For you it may just be a departure from what you're used to. But yes, wide-angle is typically harder to do well with. Normal wides like 24-35mm aren't too bad. UWA is just nice to mess with because of perspective distortion. Idk how I'd do with a UWA prime like a 16mm because you don't really want every shot in an outing to look like that.
>>4532090Not enough space for that. Slider with short travel is useless. Toggles on cameras already exist see Fuji X100VI.
>>4532090For me, it's cinestill
>>4532095That's a switch that's meant to tell you it's a video camera with an optional still capture mode
>>4532110The healthy way to approach mirrorless. That's what they all are.
>>4532086These filters are based but people like >>4532055 replying to the retards makes using recursive untenable...
>>4532024The cameras we have rn already have too much DR
>>4532114Filters and its consequences have been a disaster for the feeble minded...I have over 350 tripcodes ready to go btw
>>4531957How about we actually talk about gear for once?>Tell us sonething you like and something you dislike about one of your cameras I'll go first:>Z6 (I)I love how much more ISO latitude it has compared to my old DSLR and that (being mirrorless) it can focus any lens perfectly without adjustment (my 85mm f1.4 needs a +9 AF fine tube on D800 and basically won't work on my F80, but on Z6 it nails the focus every time, wide open). I like its slow autofocus delay function for video. I also like that it looks like a little space station with the F to Z adapter.I absolutely detest that I have to click a function button to enter manual focus point selection. I hate that it takes a couple of seconds to start up (need to constantly "prefire" to be able to take quick shots in live settings), and I think that it's retarded it forces a 10MP crop if you attach a DX lens. I dislike that the EVF actually feels smaller than the D800 viewfinder, despite being physically larger(?). Might be because of the rectangular hole.And I dislike that it only has a single memory card slot. That's just a dick move, to force professionals onyo more expensive models.
>4532091>the fatass added the video to the filterLMAO nice oneIt's like watching Dorian Gray stabbing the portrait in anger
>>4532115Care to elaborate further? Shooting in a dark forest on a sunny day can be a nightmare. There is simply no way to not blow highlights and still be able to capture detail in shadows.
>>4532130We have a pet lolcow and you want to talk GEAR? Fine, I'll indulge you>Kodak Power FlashI love that it's cheap, not 28mm and comes loaded with 39 shots worth of UltramaxI don't like that it's not easy to reload
>>4532138>Kodak Power Flash>reloadWhat, you reload instant cameras?Why not just a get a point'n shoot?
>>4532134https://tiffen.com/products/tiffen-55mm-soft-contrast-4-filter
>>4532130Sony a6700.No joystickFor some fucking reason flashes, some accessories, and some lenses are more expensive than the other brand counter part. I m talking about 3rd party lenses and accesories for diferent mounts and syatems
>>4532148This has more to do with sony than my specific model
>>4532139I get disposables for the ultramax. Then I have essentially a free camera I can bring anywhere without fear of breaking it or dropping it. And it has an unique look too.What's not to love?Also disposable, not instant. Important distinction but I know you meant disposable.
>>4531984>You have a phone.phone's image quality is chopped and fake. I want physical controls + good zoom like pic related.
>>4532152An olympus would be better built and basically the same sizeolympus lenses are better as well. panasonic has poorer quality control, and panasonic lenses are the only ones that have ever caused a camera to glitch for me
>>4532151Yeah, sorry, meant disposable.I don't get it all though. Aren't disposables more expensive than buying a simple roll?And the optics are plastic, the flash is preconfigured, F11, etc.?And my F80 only cost me the equivalent of two disposables, while having full support for all my glass, with autofocus, VR and all.
>>4532158Kodak doesn't sell Ultramax 800 in boxes anymore. It's like drive shucking. >And the optics are plastic, the flash is preconfigured, F11, etc.?Part of the charm>And my F80 only cost me the equivalent of two disposables, while having full support for all my glass, with autofocus, VR and all.Yeah but would you take it in your pocket on a boat knowing it could be the victim of an unfortunate boating accident? The camera isn't just the body. If it falls it falls with lens which I'm sure cost more than the body. And you can't get the disposable aesthetics with a pro/enthusiast lens anyways.
>>4532159>Yeah but would you take it in your pocket on a boat knowing it could be the victim of an unfortunate boating accident?Absolutely. That's why I got F80 for 50 USD and not F100. It's more expensive to develop a couple of rolls, so I can treat the camera like a tool.
>>453216150USD, plus lens, plus the weird lithium batteries plus the film itself. And the setup ends up being cumbersome for the purpose. The disposable is phone-sized.
>>4532162>plus lensNo, I came from digital, so I have a lot of fully compatible lenses. Shooting modern glass on film is actually amazing.>plus the weird lithium batteriesJust bought rechargeable ones on aliexpress. 10 bucks, with charger.>plus the film itselfSure, but that's cheaper than buying a new camera for every roll.>ends up being cumbersomeThe camera itself is plastic and weighs basically nothing. If I slap an 50 f1.8 it is extremely small and light. I can also attach my all metal 1.5kg 70-200mm f2.8 VR if I like. Haven't done that yet, but using the 14-24mm f2.8 (1kg) on film is very fun.
>>4532164>Shooting modern glass on film is actually amazing.Are you willing to risk it though? I have an ILC myself but wouldn't bring it on the boat. >Just bought rechargeable ones on aliexpress. 10 bucks, with charger.That's actually very interesting, thanks for the tip. I was buying 3 packs of the regular ones on eBay. >Sure, but that's cheaper than buying a new camera for every roll. The disposable is basically a leftover from buying ultramax to me (which I shoot on the ILC)>The camera itself is plastic and weighs basically nothing. If I slap an 50 f1.8 it is extremely small and light. I can also attach my all metal 1.5kg 70-200mm f2.8 VR if I like. Haven't done that yet, but using the 14-24mm f2.8 (1kg) on film is very fun.For this application you need to have nothing heavy or sticking out.
>>4532167>Are you willing to risk it though?Already said yes. I'd bring my Z6 on a boat too without a second thought, for that matter. Cameras are meant to be used.>thanks for the tipNo problem - Those things are annoying and stupid expensive.>which I shoot on the ILCWhat's ILC?>For this application you need to have nothing heavy or sticking outHuh?
>>4532157I like that the Olympus cameras have 2 top dials and better build but the Olympus photos look overprocessed to me.
>>4532169>What's ILC?Interchangeable lens camera>Huh?It's a rowboat. I don't want it to alter my form or get hit with the handles when I'm rowing instead of taking pictures.
>>45321731: I wouldn't use dpreview for anything. Per their claims, everything on that page is just a raw processed in adobe camera raw (this alone makes sony and fuji look worse than they should and makes every camera look kind of bad really). They also do something weird with their lighting quality, use inconsistent lenses, have inconsistent exposure issues. Just don't use that site. It's useless. Flickr is more useful. Fredmiranda is more useful.2: Anything that is a SOOC jpeg issue is pretty configurable.
>>4531985thanks for the insightful input
>>4532180When it says JPEG it's SOOC JPEG.You want your fucking AI-reformed images, you can download the RAW and compare the output of your antichrist software of choice.You only shill against them as a way to shill C1.
>>4531982>It is so tiny but seems to not get hyped compared to similar size rangefinder models.
>>4532134Not everything needs to be seen, having an element of mystery in your shot is a good thing but you are trying to expose everything and show everything
>>4532115>>4532197that's copedigital doesn't have enough DR. linear sensors need more DR than the image actually uses for proper highlight rolloff and avoiding situations where just one channel clips and white turns purple. you're just used to digishit.
>Find good deal on a camera lot, included is a NFD 15mm F2.8 Fish-eye>Gets delivered>Inspect the lens>No scratches, minimal external wear.>Look closely at the rear>See tiny thingy>Turns out it's a small piece of metal shavings from when the lens was produced, placed dead center behind the second to last element.>No sign of anyone having been there before me, had to use acetone to separate retaining rings in order to remove debris.That's a first for me. Glad to put it into my collection though. One thing I don't like is how it forces you to use a built in filter. On the Minolta equivalent you can sort of put it in between them, but despite that it seems sharper than the Minolta. Thanks for reading my blog.
>>4532005I forgot to mention that I also have a 5DSR as a backup camera, but I leave it at home 90% of the time. I like my flip-out screen a little too much.
>>4532206Ever feel tempted by the 6D2?
>>4532208I used to have one of those too, along with a 5D4 and a T3i. I just use whatever works and whatever twerks.
>>4532211Fair is fair. I couldn't part with a 6D2 myself. Especially after ML support was added.
>>4532212I have a third camera that I keep exclusively for video, so that frees me to choose my stills cameras based entirely on their stills performance. I used ML for a stint in my T3i - it was the only thing that made it halfway usable for me, lel.
>>4532213Not just video, the interval shooting features and other stuff are amazing.And the snake, lol
Hmmm, think I might pick up a Zr soon.>>4532151>>4532158I went the Snapic A1 route for my film snappin
>>4530360D7500 arrived today, it's quite nice.
>>4532229based good camera purchaser
>>4532086>jayjaysilvermanI get the reference. JJ, you have the Millennium Falcon in your room. So you moved to America, got a transwolf dog and are a sequelfag. Pathetic, Tim. You really peaked with your jeetland trip.
If I buy a a6700 in japan as a tourist do I get 10% off
>>4532247it's a coinflip whether the shop does taxfree, so look around
>>4532251alright fuck em im buying from japanese jeff bezos then thx
>>4532252I mean all the big stores know how but ymmv at small shops.
>>4532253I send the store a message and they said yee, but I just did a double take on the camera, its rated as "A1: In excellent condition with minimal signs of use" but theres 22,000 shutter counts on it, should I be concerned?
>>4532260>A1Take any and every self proclaimed rating as here say and judge it yourself based on facts and presented evidence. 22k shutters on a rated 100,000 actuations would not be a top score for my own estimations.
>>4532261
>>4532261>100,000 actuationsWow that's a shitty shutter. Personally I'd pay a more for something better.
>a6700CheaperSmaller (mostly vertically)Better AF-C + subject detection>X-T5Beautiful 40MP sensorBetter colors and 80% of your shots need no editingMuch better EVFHigher res screenBetter IBISSmooth and quiet shutter rated for 300 000 actuationsBetter glass because for Fuji APS-C is first class citizen and not the poorfag optionDual card slotsMore expensive>X-H2All of the above + rugged build, more performant and even better EVF but even more expensive.>>4532260If I were you I'd be look for good deals on a used X-T5.Yes I'm a Fooji shill. How could you tell?
>>4532236schizobaited something fierce>its tom! its wallman! its cinefag! its cANON! its tim! its doghair! its ISIkek @ schizos
>>4532270also the moire+false colour isn't horrible on Fuji.
>>4532277what a pathetic life you lead
>fujisonymoire has been reposted 13 timesAutism alertSir, step out of the goon cave with your hands up and your pants on
>>4532279can't get your filters to work?
>>4532280Drop the dragon dildo! You’re under arrest!
>>4532270>Beautiful 40MP sensor25MP MFT equivalent because of Xtrans>need no editingThey need Capture One, even Fuji specialists ITT agree on this. It comes free with the camera.
>>4532200I missed the part where you said compact cameras, if you are talking about micro 4 sharts then you are correct, those things could use more dr, but my point still stands, i don't wanna see perfectly lit skies and hdr under the bushes where everything is perfectly exposed and visible like marvel movies where they completely eradicated black shadows everywhere, i need imperfections in my shots amigo
>>4532278It would be less pathetic if he and cANON weren't the same guy doing this autistic routine to wreck /p/. It's not about Fuji, Sony, Canon or moire. It's about making the board unusable with his autism, entirely malicious. The debate never ends because it's all in his head, he controls both sides of it. At this point the only sensible fix would be to ban camera mentions altogether.
>>4532287No, I'm talking about anything up to fool frame in size.
>>4532283>Adobe doesn't have good xtrans support>(Adobe: notoriously incompetent software company that shoved generative AI into lightroom)>Provide free capture one (which also doesn't use generative AI, but eventually added subject detection masks and intelligent denoise)>"This is proof xtrans is bad sirs. adobe has each and every more users this is proof capture one is bhenchod bitch you madarfucka"
>>4532289I've seen endless stream of pics on flickr made by Fujifilm, there is literally nothing wrong with them, they are perfectly fine, but his claims about sony are valid, they produce terrible sovless pictures, you literally can just feel it was made by a fucking sony.
>>4532270>>4532277>>4532283>>4532292All cANON btwNo I can't post the proof
>>4532290Ever tried film?
>>4532294I know you can instantly tell its a sony when it's sharp and cinematic like a hollywood blockbuster. Ugh. Sony reminds me of straight people, having kids, homogenous european countries, and christianity.
>>4532297This but unirobically, the much dreaded (by plebs) greens are just the grimdark aesthetic
>>4532297Sharper doesn't always mean better my dear sar
>>4532299And yet you agree the katana is the best sword ever made. omoshiro da zeeeee.
>>4532301>muh sharpnessYou are a cattle, your opinion is worthless
>>4532303>You are a cattleI'm Jewish. Sony is the best camera brand in all of Israel. Also, I just called the ADL.
>>4532304>a hezbo missile just flew over my house
>>4532292X-tranny is a walled garden, GFX is Bayer because pros wouldn't put up with that shit
>>4532295Huskyfag is moop
>>4532289>ruining /p/I have never created a gear thread so I don't see how I could be the problem. I merely come here to argue with you retards while taking a dump.Unlike you I also post actual photos in other threads so technically I'm contributing to the wellbeing of this board.
>>4532314What's that gross worm looking shit? Kaffir?
>>4532298Just watched that movie again a few days ago, nice synchronicity event. Is it the most kino Batman movie? I think it just might be. Even if it didn't give us Baneposting like the third one.
>>4532315YOU VILL EAT ZE BUGZ
>>4532296Yes. Film has way less dynamic range than modern digital.
>>4532315Kluski ziemniaczane.
>>4532320Film can have up to 20 stops of DR if you want.
You might remember my previous complaints of the Z5II. Well, I have a new one: the firmware will not update. The camera recognizes the firmware file but just fails back to the settings menu with no error message after about 30 seconds "updating..."Hey, fuck you Nikon. Why is you camera so shitty? You've been in business for how long? Absolutely fuck you.
>>4532314>it's the OPs not the content in the threads that ruin the boardYou'd be less of a problem if you didn't shit up every thread you come across and just made gear threads instead
>>4532327Do you have more than one firmware file on the memory card?
>>4532327>Hey, fuck you Nikon. Why is you camera so shitty? You've been in business for how long? Absolutely fuck you.They aim to be as good as Canon, which is a very low bar.Canon is able to make shitty cameras and get away with it because they are the most popular so NPCs just buy, assuming they are good and never even consider other brands. Nikon was number 2 for a long time but #2 does not have the same influence over NPC masses so we saw Nikon slip below Sony and now below Fujifilm.
>>4532327Skill issue
>>4532332>most of Fuji's 9% is instaxgrimdespite being 5% of buyers, they ruin 86% of discussions
>>4532335>most of Fuji's 9% is instaxdoes that mean Panasonic is actually 4th place?
>>4532335This chart won't include analog Instax. This year, when Nikon shills were doing damage control, they calculated that Fuji sells fewer ILCs than Nikon, but more digital bodies in total than Nikon if you include X100VI. Something like that.In any case, the seethe over Fuji is funny, because in the end they sell the same Snoy crop sensors as everyone else, just overall slightly higher specced than Nikon.
>>4532326Absolute bullshit. The best cinema stock has roughly 13 to 15 stops of usable dynamic range. APS-C cameras top out at 14 stops. Fool frame can do ~15 stops. Digital already has film beat and yet it's still not enough. You probably think film has more dynamic range because blown highlights look more pleasant on film than on digital.
>>4532341>what is digital instaxLiterally the best selling digital camera of B&H lolhttps://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Digital-Cameras/ci/9811/N/4288586282?sort=BEST_SELLERSAt $169, it's hard to beat.
>>4532327>didn't fall for fool frame marketing and bought a fooji instead.>just werks (excluding subject detection af)Feels good.
>>4532344>my scanner isn't bright enough to punch through my film's highlights!Depends on the developer you use filmlet. 20 stops on b&w is entirely achievable with low contrast developers.Nice job going from way more DR to the same btw lol.
>>4532346>downsized to hide the worms in the black surface
>>4532347>20 stops is totally achievable>under this one strict condition (bw only and with a special development process)Thanks for nothing bro.
>>4532349Absolutely and that is the beauty of film. Appreciate the concession.
>>4532344>The best cinema stock has roughly 13 to 15 stops of usable dynamic rangeSuper 35 is APS-C size so that stock used as full frame 35mm gets one more stop
>>4532349Here's an image I took that was developed, exposed, and scanned normally. The darkroom print took some significant burning in of the skies/sun, but you can clearly see just how much latitude film has.
>>4532351That's not true though. Size of the negative has no impact on dynamic range. It does increase the detail though.
I want to shoot primarily in low light but I'm just starting out and I have no idea how big my sensor and how bright the lens should be.And I probably won't find out unless I test it myself for a really long time
>>4532352What is this image supposed to prove? Shooting beach on a sunny day is easy even for smaller sensors. Try shooting up in a dark forest on a sunny day without blowing the sky between the branches or try to correctly expose a dimly lit room and what's outside the window at the same time.
>>4532353>That's not true though. Size of the negative has no impact on dynamic range. It does increase the detail though.Dynamic range is a function of SNR. "Black" is just how dark it gets before no detail can be extracted.
u jelly?
>>4532354Modern APS-C will do just fine. Full frame will do 1 stop better. Medium format might actually do worse because slow shutter speeds and shooting hand held will kill all detail.
>>4532357Unironically yes.
>>4532355>do the exact thing this scene is doing, but in the way I want you to!Lmao. I have a densitometer. Don't make me find the negative and truly btfo you.
>>4532354moving subjects? handheld? tripod?makes a big difference.
>>4532361handheld street cats at night
>>4532355But our eyes don't even have that much of DR, if you place your hand next to a bright light source you wouldn't be able to see the details of your hand and it will turn dark
>>4532361handheld street cats fights at night
>>4532366thought for a second that I was going demented because I didn't remember including the word "fights"
>>4532364You might want to have your eyes checked.
>>4532360Go ahead. Do it. Your previous example was bullshit anyway. Highlights in the water blown. Shadows completely crushed. It does look pleasant but I already mentioned that before: blown highlights look nicer on film but that doesn't mean film has more dynamic range. That detail is gone.
>>4532373>>4532360And on digital I can take a similar shot without grain the size of a fist.
>>4532366handheld, on one leg, streetbeefs + king of the streets (KOTS) cats fights at nights
>>4532219Got the Zr wooh>>4532327I would bet money some kind of user errorWould not even be the first time someone here couldn't do something similar because they don't know how to put a file in the right place on a cardNo issues on the Z5II's I've updated before lol
>>4532376>KOTS
>>4532354You want both. A faster lens lets more light in, and a better sensor handles receiving less light better. FF + f1.4, super marginal diminishing returns beyond thatIf you are taking photos of static stuff, a tripod with a basic camera and lens can do even better than that
>>4532373There's still detail/gradient in the edge of the sun, and only the deepest shadows are actually pure black. Editing decision so the scene doesn't look like flat shit or disgusting hdr. If you look carefully the highlights in the waves are not actually "blown out" there's subtle detail and the sun is a touch brighter. It's close, but only the center of the sun is actually blocked up.If I really wanted to I could probably push a print far enough to get more detail out of the highlights in the waves.I found the original .tiff file and compressed the scene for your viewing pleasure.Im going to make a 20 stop scene and see what I can get out of it. It will be a fun exercise. Looking forward to hearing your excuses once I complete it.
>>4532375Lets see it. No hdr. I was using a 400 speed 35mm film, kodak 5222, and most likely rodinal developer. A low speed film in a larger format would produce essentially no visible grain at standard viewing sizes, obviously. Personally, I think the grain looks really pleasing in the image.
>>4532385>>4532386It's a nice pic but it only proves my point. ~14 to 15 stops of dynamic range seems to be the limit of current camera technology. No matter if analog or digital. We probably need like 20 stops to match human eye.
>>4532366probably need a telephoto lens at least 300mm to get close enough views, with the biggest aperture you can afford and are willing to carry you will probably want at least 1/150 shutter time which will render blurry motion.you will need much shorter time to freeze action like 1/2000.the shorter the time, the higher the ISO must go to produce an acceptably bright result.Bigger sensor = higher possible ISO before noise levels become unacceptable.Dpreview has some great articles on noise with demos.https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noisehttps://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noiseIf you also want to record video clips, it's kind of cheating since you can get away with 1/60 exposures for 30fps video. Although there is a lot of blur, our visual system does not perceive it until you pause the video.High speed video is another story, but I think high speed cat fights would be cool content.
>>4532387No it actually shows the opposite of your point. A lower contrast edit reveals the entire DR of the scene where tasteful editing may have hidden it.
>>4532388AI tier confident bullshitting
>>4532389And that entire dr was not enough to not crush shadows and blow highlights. Cool.
>>4532387And I think the other thing the picture shows is that maximizing DR is a gearfag/fools errand in most cases. Slide film looks fantastic, often way way better than digital, with very limited DR. Even silver gelatin prints have somewhat limited DR and they can also look incredibly good.
>>4532391That's an editing decision. The information is recorded on the film.
>>4532390I gotta agree with you on this. I thought nobody would run bots on /p/ because it costs money and there is nothing to gain by doing it but that comment pretty much confirms it: clankers are amogus.This doesn't change the fact that you're retarded though.
>>4532393Yeah sure buddy. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>4532394Well I didn't call him a clanker, I called him clanker tier
>>4532395Well.. thanks for the concession I guess...
Hello, I'm back with the Nikon Z5ii. Did you know that this camera (or Nikon cameras in general) doesn't support automatic mode when shooting with manual CPU-less lenses, even if you enter the lens data in the camera? Yet, my Panasonic handles auto mode just fine.Yes, I grow less impressed with this camera/brand by the minute. Oh, and the "no live view zebras" guy was actually not fucking kidding. What the shit? No overexposure warnings at all?I really want to like this thing, and I really wanted full frame to be le good, but it's damn difficult when Nikon seems devoted to not giving a fuck.>>4532330No.>>4532379I know how to copy a file to the root of an SD card. I have already updated firmware on Fuji, Canon, and Panasonic bodies. As I said, the camera detected the firmware file and began the update, so there was no issue on my end. Also, it worked after the 6th time trying.
>>4532345THIS is it? THIS is what counts as a camera these days? THIS piece of shit is what people actually want when they buy a camera? Is this really how far we've fallen? What the fuckI hate Fooji now for bringing this silver turd into the world and making it popular. Giving normies what they want is a mistake.
>>4532401>28mm f/2.2As usual Fujifilm is deceptive.It's 28mm-equivalent, f/2.2 actual. It's about 3.8mm length, so it's f/16 equivalent.
>>4532382>FF + f1.4, super marginal diminishing returns beyond thatI know but I really wonder if it's more worth to get APSC to save cost, size and weightOr should I get into a system that offers both to potentially upgrade to full frame later while keeping the same lenses
>>4532399>Did you know that this camera (or Nikon cameras in general) doesn't support automatic mode when shooting with manual CPU-less lenses, even if you enter the lens data in the camera? Yet, my Panasonic handles auto mode just fine.checked.Does not surprise me. Panasonic does so many nice quality of life things that are easy to take for granted until trying another brand.
>>4532399OH NO NO NOMaybe you should have listened to my advice and got a K-1 instead but nooooooooo, having a "non unc" camera whatever that means was more importantfashion victims and their money are soon parted
>>4532399>Also, it worked after the 6th time trying.Nice, I believed in you!>Auto modeThis explains a lot, welcome to photography! Eventually you'll learn how to use A and M, but I should be obvious why S and P will not work (and also wouldn't work on the Panasonic).Does your Panasonic support subject / eye detection with manual / CPU less lenses like your Nikon does? Nope, the more you know.>>4532406You can lowlight with both, but FF will give you that much extra for the harder scenes.
>>4532399>Did you know that this camera (or Nikon cameras in general) doesn't support automatic mode when shooting with manual CPU-less lenses, even if you enter the lens data in the camera?How is auto supposed to work with a manual lens? Just use aperture priority
What is the ultimate chud camera?
>>4532409>trying to keep people on the DSLR plantation
>>4532412>Nice, I believed in you!Yep, too bad for Nikon all the other brands got it first try.>Does your Panasonic support subject / eye detection with manual / CPU less lensesBecause I really need help telling me when I'm looking at a face or a bird. Thanks, Nikon, for going through all the trouble to put a box around the human eye, but you can't give an overexposure warning? Really?>>4532413It works the same. The point is I should be able to have the dial on either position.
>>4532414Any camera that looks like a gun i guess
>>4532415>trying to keep people on the mirrorless matrix
>>4532416Yes, a box that confirms focus so you can trap focus or punch to zoom directly to the eye!Once you move out of auto mode, you might understand
>>4532416>The point is I should be able to have the dial on either position.How would your camera change the aperture on a non CPU lens?
>>4532415>>4532418>if you have no job just get one at your dads business>if you're homeless just buy a house>if you are wireless buy a wire>if you are tubeless buy a tube>if you are mirroless, buy a mirror!
I'm planning to get back into photography again. I found a Nikon d200 for 100usd but with a 200k shutter count? Should I go for it? does shutter cpunt really matter?
>>4532461Unless you're getting it for the colors I'd get something newer for not much more.And shutter count kinda matters but on the other hand if it survived 200k it'll probably survive a lot more.https://www.olegkikin.com/shutterlife/nikon_d200.htm
>>4532461Yesremember not to listen to nophotos-sent from my D200
>>4532469I like how it looks flawless viewed at 100% while the Fujis need downsizing from 40MP and they still get worms and shitty colors.Imagine paying 2k for a mirrorless scamera and getting universally mogged by a DSLR from 2005. I can see why they get so heated up.
>>4532461Whatever you do, dont listen to nophotos
No photos, no fluff, no copes. Just mogging.You're going to give my posts to the clanker anyways so why not mock it while at it?
>>4532401>I hate Fooji now for bringing this silver turd into the world and making it popularKodak started it with their Charmera. Fuji is only trying to cash in on a trend. Still a terrible thing to produce but apparently that's what people want these days. More plastic crap for the landfill.
>>4532358It doesn't help that what I'm trying to do, take photos of cats at night seems to be a surprisingly niche genre so I cannot find good comparisonsat least I'm fairly sure that an 85 mm lens should be good for this
>>4532414used DSLR with a "walkaround" lens to bring on your incel walks
>>4532461>Should I go for it?nope, even for a D200 that's expensive >does shutter cpunt really matter?It doesGet a used Nikon D3300 or Canon Rebel t5, it's cheaper and you will practice just the same with the APSC sensor.
>>4532417No civilian should be able to buy that at WalmartGood luck being led filled by atf
>>4532497It's a free country, you can buy a fully automatic assault camera if you want, it's your constitutional right
>>4532417Is that a point and shoot?
>>453248885mm 1.4 + modern full frame sensor with ibis and you're golden. If you want to get something cheaper then APS-C would save you money and get you more reach but a camera with that kind of sensor would also generate noisier photos.
>>4532488>at least I'm fairly sure that an 85 mm lens should be good for this>>4532505>85mm 1.4 + modern full frame sensor with ibis and you're golden. With 85mm a cat will fill only the middle 9th of the frame while you stand 3 meters away. Do those cats allow you to get so close? Will they carry on with their normal behaviour when you are standing so close?
>>4532495>dont buy a professional grade ccd dslr with soul buy one of these crippled pieces of walmart grade consoomer cmos shitIf buying cmos shit at least buy a well made non crippled body. Even a 1st gen canon 7d is better. >BUT THE SENSOR DR? THE ISO NOISE? THE MEGAPIXELS?buy a snoy
>>4532495Nophoto + probably a filter dodging tripfag
>>4532488100-400 zoom plus a flash extender
>>4532513>flash
>>4532514>Assuming direct control
>>4532495D200 = soulD3300/Rebel = crippled soulless walmart camera for 50 year old boomers to leave in their closets
>>4532345This one just relases and doesn't appear on any charts. Anyway, the argument seems to be that Nikon, Panasonic, and OM sell less cameras because they make cameras for real photographers, while Fooji makes toys for unwashed masses. Which is a weird argument, because the 40MP lineup is very decent in terms of photo specs.
>>4532495Wow, literally *everything* you said was wrong.>>4532469>>4532471Too right.>Muh shutter countIt's a fuckin D200, 200k is nothing.
>>4532522>panasonic, OM>make cameras for real photographersPanasonic makes incredibly garbage cameras with good video specs crammed in, supposedly because there's some patent/licensing fees involved, otherwise I have no idea why nikon or someone can't just blanket enable literally every video feature a sensor is capable of and say "fuck you sony! looks like your FXwhatever is a shit value now!". L mount especially is a money sink full of mediocre, high priced, oversized glass, basically worse Z mount. They don't even have a pancake lens.>OMHas released the e-m5iii and e-m1ii basically 4 times each, sensors run dark, green tinted colors, m43 IQ is so bad the entire system is just pointless unless buying as cheap as possible (ie: getting body+lens for the price of a decent FF DSLR lens/body only) for the sole, one, and only purpose of wildlife/macro.Especially since equivalence works against crop sensors.
>>4532526>Especially since equivalence works against crop sensors.very true>shoot $1000 crop sensor camera>struggle with getting shutter speed high enough without digishit levels of iso noise>faster lens is 2x the price of the same thing on ff, seen as a premium option, DOF equalization doesnt even matter, blurry vs blurrier background>blow highlights and hit the upper shutter speed limit in daylight, end up using a CPL non-artistically to manage exposure and blown highlights on foliage>only consolation is that if an FF user is retarded they might have similar DOF and ISO noise>get FF camera>even "equivalently" colors and contrast always look better, even with way way more noise, despite dpreviews test scene not showing this (real life lighting conditions are "harder on the sensor" or something like that) and most people not realizing its going to happen to themBut... the FF camera wasn't a snoy. Snoy rendering looks crop-like even on full frame.
>>4532523Literally only one thing is wrong with the D200, and it's that it can't really shoot quality color over ISO 800 or quality B&W over ISO1600 and exposure pushing is as bad of an idea as it is on canon
>>4532528I find crop sensors to be sufficent in good light. They let you take something smaller with you when it allows. Kind of like a point and shit but much more capable.Any other situation benefits from having a normal sized sensor instead.>TOP MINT TIP: These "other" situations are very common.
>>4532526>They don't even have a pancake lens.
>>4532531It dependsFuji definitelyNikon D7X00/D500 sureCanon APS-C not unless under budget constraints (EOS M is the cheapest entry into a decent general use compact mirrorless system)Sony neverNikon DX mirrorless is a joke (no good dedicated lenses)Micro four thirds, wildlife/macro only>>4532532Even snoibois would be ashamed to call this "their" pancake. Anything L mount gets will inevitably come to FE and Z first. All it has is the new panasonic 100mm macro that sony and then nikon will probably release alternatives to.
>>4532532>fixed aperture toypanasonic has no real pancakes and no real compact cameras. the s9 doesnt have anything that makes a camera a camera>tracking autofocus worse than fuji>no shutter, with a slow sony sensor (major rolling shutter)>no hot shoe or sync port>literally only selling point is some niche video shit, but 4k60 is croppedeither leica and sony are extorting them behind closed doors or they have sold so poorly in the past that they don't have enough money to try to actually compete instead of releasing cut rate garbage for the brainless consoomers who buy new in box cameras
>>4532537>fixed focal length good :)))>fixed aperture bad :(((
>>4532538Exactly. If you can't adjust your aperture on a lens then it's a toy lens.
>>4532507above 85 mm the gear is not portable enough for me to bother carrying it at alland yes, 3–5 metres away seems right
>>4532538stop making excusessony is this bad:>light leaks through the lens mount on a7, a7r>no uncompressed 14 bit raw until a7ii, 12 bit only>no lossless compressed 14 bit raw until a1/a7iv>used lens harsh geometric lens color cast corrections coded by a 1st year CS student and applied them directly to raw data instead of as metadata for jpegs and editors, and did so with 0 transparency so no one had any idea what their camera was doing>applied vignetting corrections directly to the raw data (still does btw)>forced hot pixel filtering on the raw data, couldn't even get it to work right until the a7iv>released tens of thousands of a7iiis with defective shutters, denied it, refused to do a recall>bricked tens of thousands of a1s and a7rvs with bad firmware>a7c and a7cii didn't even get a whole shutter>green tinted skin>inconsistently useful weather sealing until the a7iv's generationsony fans will defend all this but they still wouldn't accept a fixed f4.5 pancake
>>4532538>This but unironicallyVariable focal length introduces aberrations, shading, coma, astigmatism, and field curvature.Variable aperture allows DoF adjustments, and balances improving lens sharpness & contrast against DoF being very high or very low.>>4532543An 85mm f/1.4 is bout the same size as a 135mm f/2 and would get you a 45% bigger subject, if that's of any interest to you. 100mm f/2 lenses are also pretty small if you wanted a happy medium ground.
>>4532537Their ibis is god tier too, light years ahead of any sony but i agree s9 is an inferior camera but their s5ii is pretty good for 1700$
>>4532551panasonic's ibis is very good for video, but for stills there's nothing to it that makes it better than a nikon or fuji let alone a canon. there's a reason every s9 demo and review focusing just on video. it is a video exclusive camera. it's not well marketed as such but it's actually not as much of an a7c/zf/r8 competitor as it is a low end alternative to the nikon zr and sony fx30. s9 shilling goes in /vid/.its too bad panasonic has no clue because the g9ii's sensor would have been ideal for a compact video-centric body instead of an FF sized blob. FF isn't really needed for video.
Why are Fujifilm cameras so incredibly good? It doesn't make any sense. Of course at higher shutter speeds some larger sensor cameras pull ahead by up to 0.8 stops but some only by up to 0.2 stops. ND filters can effectively remove that advantage.>inb4 fool frame has better noise or detailDownscale that beautiful 40MP image to 24MP and suddenly you have fool frame levels of detail and noise.
>>4532548With a wider and brighter lens I can always stop down and crop. Not the other way round.
>>4532558I doubt rtings tests are accurate and they contradict dxomark, photonstophotos, and full well capacity based DR measurements. It is literally physically impossible for the xh2's sensor to store a broader range of charges than a z6ii's sensor yet rtings gives them 11.5 and 11.1 stops of DR respectively.There's a reason dxomark doesn't rate xtransXtrans was designed to be processed, purpose engineered for a product line sold for jpeg shooters. A properly demosaiced xtrans image does not provide a raw, fair portrayal of what the sensor is doing. Xtrans gets multiple passes and smoothing (even in adobe, there's an obvious smoothing step that makes it blurrier) which averages out some noise as well.Thinking fuji has free DR is like thinking pentax "accelerator chip" equipped DSLRs have free DR. No extra info is recorded, it's just noise reduction ignored by the tester.
Did cANÎźN remove his trip?
>>4532566He's trying to filter-evade lmao
>>4532562Even when using Photons to Photos as source of measurements Nikon Zf has only 0.37 stops of extra dynamic range and Nikon Z9 has only 0.55 stops of extra dynamic range over an X-H2. Pretty nuts considering the size and cost of some of those FF cameras and things get even more interesting once you consider the price and size of premium glass. Xtrans V is a damn good sensor.
>>4532569>Even when using Photons to Photos as source of measurementsYou can't directly compare cameras. Fuji ISOs run dark.Shift the fuji line 2/3-1 stop to the leftOr enable the ideal line and remember it is impossible for a camera to exceed that unless the ISO labeling is off
>>4532570>no no the source of your measurements is wrong>oh no no it's actually because "fooji ISOs run dark"The fool frame cope is unreal. If my huge and very expensive camera couldn't even do live view blinkies I'd probably be this upset too.
>>4532569fuji (also olympus and many panasonics) purposefully runs darkhttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/raw-exposure-bias.3811975/basically the camera's listed ISO represents the jpeg you will get not the actual exposure, which will be darker to fool you into preserving your highlightsthe smoothing steps that pretty up xtrans eliminate some of the noiseeven dpreview often fails to catch this so raws downloaded from their studio scene will have bright nikons and dark fujisthe system is "lying" or "tricking you" but its also brilliantly designed for the sole purpose of shooting jpeg, rather than being designed for sensor nerds to accurately compare with other cameras or for experienced pros who only shoot raw to expose for that paradigm
>>4532574>no no no, i misunderstood a chart so my camera defies physicsMaybe you should leave the charts to people smart enough to know what they actually sayAdd in fuji's own underexposure bias for low ISOs, -0.72, and guess what, the zf has the expected 1.09 stop advantageIt turns out your brand name didn't defy physics, it just tricked you into thinking ISO 100 was ISO 200 so you wouldn't blow your highlights. A camera literally designed for clueless people.
what if sony made a camera that had the mount upside down? Would it matter in any way?this would allow them to put in multiple function buttons under one's fingertips instead of the fucking lens release button
>>4532548>Variable aperture allows DoF adjustments, and balances improving lens sharpness & contrast against DoF being very high or very low.It's good for beginners, but experienced photographers know the aperture they like to shoot at and develop a carefully curated work using that aperture.
>>4532580Aperture is nothing like focal length
>>4532576>>4532577I gave it some thought and I fail to understand why lowering the brightness of RAW files could have any effect on maximum measured dynamic range. If we wanted to compare the ISO/DR curves between different sensors then that would cause some problems but for total latitude of a sensor it makes no difference. Those P2P measurements stand correct and difference in total DR between a puny, casual APS-C and professional chad fool frame Nikon Z9 is a mere 0.55 stops of DR.
>>4532584The ISO label is wrong.You're basically comparing fuji ISO 100 to nikon ISO 200 when you use PTP charts without being aware that the chart wasn't made to compare camera brands. It was made to see where your particular cameras best settings are.The X axis is ISO label. Not measured ISO. Fuji communicates the difference between the actual ISO and the ISO label in metadata and presents the photographer with an ISO label that matches the final jpegs brightness instead of the raw exposure.
>>4532585its also really obvious why fuji has funky base ISO labels like 126 when you think about thisthe jpeg is processed 3/4 stops brighter than the raw is exposedalso, fuji has no second gain stage
>>4532585What the fuck are you talking about.Camera sensor's total dynamic range/sensor latitude is compared at camera sensor's base ISO. It measures how much dynamic range sensor can capture (data between 100% black and 100% white). It is directly comparable between cameras and fuji making their raws 0.7 EV darker simply shifts the curve a little bit but that does not affect the total latitude of the sensor. It's true that you can't compare dr per iso curves between different camera brands but base iso measurements are 100% directly comparable. 0.55 EV my guy.No live blinkies. More expensive. Nice primes the size of a champagne bottle.
when are you guys gonna admit that every major company makes great quality cameras and optics nowadays and the main point of consideration should be things like price or ergonomics
>>4532588>i swear guys, fuji breaks physics, despite having older sensor tech its DR breaks the rules! it isn't 1 stop behind it's behind by, curiously, one stop minus the amount fuji's ISO labels are off byOrYou misread the chart"ISO setting" does not mean the actual ISO.I think your IQ is legit too low to understand thisAnd you also spent an entire month of your third world salary on a camera you didn't need or fully understand the purpose of and are now desperate to justify it
>>4532590If the major companies are just canon, nikon, and fujifilm, surebecause sony, panasonic, and olympus make junkalso we need to be free of retards like this >>4532588 who gearfag without actual knowledge.the actual knowledge is pretty fair to fujiits aps-c, it's one stop behind ff, but everything about the way their pipeline works automates highlight preservation and smooths out aliasing and noise for retards who don't have the skills or the knowledge to work with raws
>>4532591Do you understand what sensor total dynamic range/latitude means?>breaking the laws of physicsNo, those sensors are simply excellent and are using much better tech than whatever Nikon is shoving into their "premium" cameras. If those Fuji sensors were the same size as Nikon sensors they would probably beat them by 1EV or more.
>>4532595Or, you misread the chart, and don't know how your own camera worksISO label is not actual ISO for any camera, but fuji pushes it the furthest from how you'd expect it to work even with DR400 off.All fuji ISO labels represent the brightness of the jpeg, not the raw. Fuji raws have a metadata field that tells whatever program that opens them to apply a *hidden* exposure correction, so the file is brightened by that value when the exposure slider is still centered at 0.0. This is to protect highlights and give you the impression that your camera has more dynamic range and a more "filmic" look with mushy shadow detail (on bayer it would be noisier shadows with processing, but demosaicing xtrans without producing a bunch of worms and false color spots gets rid of a lot of the noise even with noise reduction sliders left at defaults)
>>4532595And this is only proven by Sony A7R V. It has exactly 0.95 EV advantage over the Xtrans V sensor because it probably uses the same tech. >>4532596God damn it. Taking with some of you "people" is like trying to argue with my own ass. Same level of intelligence and equally as vocal.
>>4532601I'm sorry, but full frame is exactly one stop ahead of fuji. You can't the fucking chart. You don't know what it actually says or how your own camera works. That's it.There is an actual reason dxomark doesn't rate xtrans sensors and it's because they use an entirely different standard for ISO settings and processing xtrans in a way that resembles any way people might actually want to has inherent noise reduction, which throws off noise based DR measurements and any ratings based on ISO setting.I know you spent exactly one month's salary on a hopped up x-t5 and are desperate to justify itThat's why I'm here to remind you it's just like any other APS-C camera, and you will forever have worse real image quality than FF. Then again all your blurry as fuck 8mp jpegs with high noise at base ISO were already telling.
>the xh2 actually performs exactly like a 1.5x cropped sony from 2011 according to the guy who actually made the chart"No, it matches FF in crop mode not "beyond anything FF can achieve in crop mode". -bclaffkek
Apparently the xh2 does have dual conversion gain. It just doesn't do that much except to deep shadow noise.
>>4532526I don't even disagree with you, I'm just pointing out that every time the Japanese cartel brings out its sales chart, both paid and unpaid shills go into overdrive mode.
>>4532569Is there a clear explanation anywhere of this guys methodology? I recall seeing a page somewhere where he is shooting a white sheet of paper, but I cannot find it any more.
>>4532616It's solid magenta printed on photo paper and then an SNR measurement iircI don't know how exactly he demosaics xtrans, but if it's a method people use to produce pleasing photos it includes some non-optional noise reduction even with fuji's exposure adjustment metadata instruction removed
anyways with my desired 85mm or equivalent and f/1.4 for low light shooting does anyone have recommendations on a body and lens?
>>4532626Nikon z5ii (-10ev autofocus, superior high ISO performance)Sirui 85mm f1.4
>>4532626D600 with a Nikkor 85mm f1.4 is the absolute cheapest full frame option, and works really great.
>>4532626budget?If no budget then Sony a7RV and FE 85mm F1.4 GM>but high res sensors have more noiseDownscale it to the pathetic 24Mp of a Nikon camera and it will beat it at both noise and detail.
>>4532621Yeah, thanks, maybe it was that. I still cannot find a link, but whatever. I any case what I was trying to say, I don't think his "dynamic range" is the same as "highlight and shadow detail", but rather "signal to noise ratio, when signal is a solid magenta".
>>4532634Snoy colors
>>4532591>cANON still evading the filtersWhat a miserable life you have
>>4532634Sony cameras arent reliablehttps://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1837690/https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/sony-a7rv-bricked-boot-loop-potentially.4743968/https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/an-a7rv-with-only-13000-clicks-just-died-like-that.4831328/https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/here-is-the-sony-fx5-lcd-defect-and-why-this-might-be-good-news/amp/https://amateurphotographer.com/latest/photo-news/sony-a7-v-and-third-party-lenses/https://youtube.com/watch?v=MG2rBprWe8I
>>4532641>if fuji is only as good as other apsc cameras and not better than full frame its anti fuji shilling from cANONfoolji film
>>4532643>-and-why-this-might-be-good-news/holy fanboyism
>>4532634>Downscale it to the pathetic 24Mp of a Nikon camera and it will beat it at both noise and detail.It cannot be. Noise mainly comes from the randomness of light. Larger collection area = less randomness.https://www.dpreview.com/articles/8189925268/what-s-that-noise-shedding-some-light-on-the-sources-of-noise
>go away to do some water reservoir and sluice gate calculations>/p/ starts hallucinating my presenceTsundere faggots
>>4532645>saars! good news! sony is not out of memory chips! they are just very bad at making cameras!
>>4532430It wouldn't. It would know that I'm using a manual lens (as it does) and set itself to aperture-priority mode, even if the dial already has a separate spot for aperture priority.
>>4532523You're just fanboying. With digital cameras of the era, newer often meant better. Not an exception for the D200. It has a strong CFA which is really nice, but it's ancient.I guess the low resolution negates any use live view could have, but suffice to say I wouldn't get a D200 as my first pick.
>>4532461>D200Fuck no, are you retarded?Get a D600 or above.
>>4532666For $100? Good luckThere's some retard or scammer or thief selling a 7D for cheap on eBay though. And it has the 28-135, same as the one I use. Probably why he sells it, stupid choice of lens for APS-C.
>>4532687Also, he has zero ratings and that's why it's suspicious to me. If anyone wants to gamble that's a nice way to do it. Better odds than going all or nothing on snake eyes.
I feel bad for Amerifats and other thirdies who have to source gear from ebay.
>>4532698Honestly it used to beat Yahoo auctions in the last years. Sadly I can't buy from either anymore.
>>4532700I have access to an easy to use market where the sellers are usually the original owners or the inheritors so it is completely normie tier where they often have no clue or care about monetary value. Watching youtube videos from Amerilard land even the flea market sellers price things according to what they have seen as a suggested sale price on ebay.. such an insult, they don't even bother looking at completed auctions or if the gear works properly.
>>4532219Got the Zr all dialed in and set up, really neat cameraMost of my video stuff previously was with an X-H2s, which I plan to keep, but it's been interesting seeing the differences
Evening, ladies and germs. Can someone give me first hand recommendations on what camera I should look into? I do lots of gravel / road biking and use my phone (Pixel 10 Pro) but want to try a real camera. The AI shit my phone does bothers me, and I'd like more control. I've seen recommendations for the Ricoh IV, but that seems like the overpriced niche douche bag camera, unless it's based. I dont know shit about cameras.inside of an abandon cranberry production building I found while biking.
>>4532707And I'm sure this sounds stupid, but on my phone I find the 2x and x5 to be the most appealing image. I have no idea what that means in terms of lenses. Thanks for anyone that spoon feeds the baby
>>4532658>>4532666 (hi Satan)Don't make me tap the sign >>4532471
>>4532708>but on my phone I find the 2x and x5 to be the most appealing imageThat'd be the focal length of 50mm and 113mm full frame
>>4532725>His favourites are the most popular focal length ever and temu 135mm, also one of the most popular focal lengths everFancy that
>>4532626the song raw brand just came out with an 85 mm that isn't terribly expensive & happens to be a ginormous first lens at a f1.2 I think
>>4532629>>4532631>>4532634>>4532733Thanks. And the crop sensor alternatives? I imagine IBIS would be useful for handheld lowlight. The bodies seem to be similar in size but it would help if the lens was shorter and the weight made it an every day carry
>>4532634>budget?idk under $1500 if possible, if not then it's fine too
If you got some dated Sony camera like an A6000 or A6500 you can finally install some slopped application with a collection of recipes to set and forgethttps://github.com/voxivoid/recipe-lab-sony-pmca
>>4532732>popular thing is, surprisingly, popular
>>4532741Crazy
>>4532735If you want IBIS, you need to go mirrorless, but an 85mm for the Z mount is wildly more expensive than for the F mount. But there are offbrand alternatives, and on APS-C, you just need a basic 50mm to get (almost) the same framing as an 85mm on full frame.
>>4532709I'm not a nophoto, thoughever.D200 is a joke. Buy it as a toy, if you like, but it's a waste of money.
>>4532748Oh? You took your first photo? May we see it?
>>4532753Funny. I'm not seeing any shots tied to your posts, for some reason.Not buying a D200 is legit advice.If you want to gimp yourself down to a 10MP crop sensor, you can just put a DX lens on a 24MP fullframe.You can get a D600 for 200-300 usd, so there is no excuse.
>cANON hasn't used his tripcode since talking to another Canon shooter
>>4532739interestinghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FpsmLYZcF8>The A6000 has no Picture Profile menu and cannot store tone curves.kek, 2014 camera by the way.
>>4532747>If you want IBIS, you need to go mirrorlesslies.
After getting a supposedly good chink phone for photo shit I can appreciate 10 year old mirrorless cameras a lot more
>>4532735Micro 4/3 has the best IBIS. Olympus/OM System image processing is ass though, so I would only go that route if shooting RAW and you don't care about video.Panasonic's current 4/3 models are mostly huge. GX8 is 10 years old but is still unmatched for feature set and size. I thought I would upgrade by getting A7Cii - wrong! The GX8 is a better camera in all respects aside from high ISO noise and tracking autofocus.
>>4532732Are you presenting that like it's a bad thing?
>>4532735IBIS isn't helpful for 99% of low light at all, since even the trees will move, and olympus sensors in particular need more exposure at the same ISO. Their raws run dark in addition to having a pervasive green tint.>>4532765The a7cii has raw-accurate live view blinkies and a cinema-grade jpeg engine for honest photography. Panasonic can't compete. On the surface...But since good photographers dont need that and all shoot raw, sony is junk and canon and nikon are the clear winners.
>>4532747The sirui 85mm f1.4 is $400F mount has no cheaper 85mms than can be shot wide open. Literally every single 85mm lens on F mount except for the expensive tamron VR with VR that breaks on half the copies has a shitton of purple fringing.EF has a quality 85mm f1.4 and a good copy of their f1.8 can beat all the nikons, but canon sensors are garbage in low light.DSLRs weren't good for this shit at all and its why micro four thirds has any fanboys today. IBIS on an mfturd sucks in comparison to what you can do with a cheap nikon Z6 and a decent lens but the alternative did not exist.
>>4532005Can't believe someone here takes photos
>>4532768>The a7cii has raw-accurate live view blinkies and a cinema-grade jpeg engine for honest photography. Panasonic can't compete. On the surface...Let's unpack this.1. Sony does not do live view blinkies, they do zebras (like Panasonic)2. Sony has a convoluted picture profile system which is not meant for real-time adjustment while Lumix puts tone curve controls at your fingertips.3. Sony does have blinkies in playback but they are not accurate or configurable.>But since good photographers dont need that and all shoot raw, sony is junk and canon and nikon are the clear winners.Zebras are useful for RAW shooting as well. The fact that Canon and Nikon can't do it in 2026 is a testament to how backwards their systems are.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPhC0xr8-IA
>>4532772None of this matters because neither lumix nor sony make good photography cameras. All of these things you care about are features for videographers and crutches for unskilled people.>>4532754>no, no, I can't use 10mp, its impossibleSkill issue-Sent from my D200
>>4532772>Photo takerCanon & Nikon (whatever full frame was being sold at the time).>Photo talkerMuh blinkes EDC pocketable artisinally engineered AR7V-IGGR
>>4532767No.
>>4532777Lucky trips of unassailable truth + 10MP CCD enjoyer, you aight huskyfag.10MP really is all you need. Don't listen to nophotos.
>>4532777>10mp camera>sharper photo with better colors than anything ever posted from a lumix or a sonyoh no...
>>4531957
>>4532770>>4532768ASP-C would allow me to save like 4 cm off the barrel lengthBut I don't fully understand how to translate the f-number. Is a 56mm f/1.4 APSC lens on APSC body just 1.5x worse at collecting light than an 85mm f/1.4 ff lens on a ff body due to the cropped sensor or is there more at play?
>>4532788There's more to it but save yourself the technical circlejerk and generally assume whatever a full frame camera does, an APS-C camera does about 50-70% as well (depending on models being compared).
>>4532788The practical answer is that a 56mm f1.4 on aps-c will give you roughly the same look in terms of field of view, depth of field, and lowlight performance as a full frame using an 85 f2.IBIS is well worth it, consider that even if it only gives you an extra 2 stops (as opposed to the marketed +7), by going from 1/30 down to 1/8, well that's a bigger improvement than going from apsc to FF.Anything more than that is really going to depend on specific lenses and bodies in question. You want to consider things like the optical characteristics of a lens, how well a body can AF in dim light, etc.
>>4532791Just out of curiosity, not that I'll be doing thatWhat is the difference between putting an oversized full frame lens vs an otherwise equivalent native one on a crop sensor body? You'd think that all that extra wide glass makes a difference and collects more light even if it's not actually captured
>>4532788f/1.4 on APS-C will give you the same exposure as f/1.4 on a 35mm sensor because amount of light per area is the same for both but since the smaller sensor produces noisier image you will get slightly less detail and more noise from APS-C. Difference depends not only on the sensor size but also sensor technology. If exactly the same sensor tech is used for both the difference will be approximately 1 stop, so ISO 400 on APS-C will look like ISO 800 on FF noise wise. Real world difference can be less than that if you compare a good APS-C sensor to some garbage tier Nikon Z series FF sensor. So this topic is very fucking complicated. Modern top tier APS-C will be competitive against older FF sensors but modern FF top tier FF will outdo that APS-C sensor by approximately 1 stop.
>>4532791Cats are known for holding still for 1/8th yaknow>>4532792For living things dimly lit you need full frame or to accept lower quality with apscope
>>4532794You’re obfuscating the factsA smaller sensor gathers less lightThats itIts not the same. Its one stop worse. Saying anything else is obfuscation.WHEN PURSUING IMAGE QUALITY A SMALLER SENSOR IS ALWAYS WORSE
>>4532792FF glass projects a larger image circle so extra collected light is wasted as it does not cover the sensor area. There are things called speed boosters that do focus all of the light collected by FF glass on a smaller sensor. They can effectively turn a FF f/2 into an APS-C f/1.4 but they also compromise the image quality a bit.
>>4532794Lol a nikon d750 outdoes a canon r7 or any fuji and a z6ii shits all over literally all crop sensors get fucking realPeople here post iso12800 ff shots that look only as grainy as xh2fags base iso bugs
>>4532798Wtf are you talking about. Everything I said is true. Total collected light is less on a smaller sensor but light per area and exposure are the same. Smaller sensors have worse SNR so if same sensor tech is used on both, FF performs 1 stop better in ISO noise. But it's not always as easy as saying "FF is 1 stop better" because not every camera uses the same sensor technology.
surely someone must've made a low light video test to compare the difference
>>4532801A smaller sensor gathers less lightSimple as>its just noiseI have seen 5 digit ISO Z6 pics with nicer color and contrast than base ISO micro four thirds and fuji
>>4532804Thats because larger sensors can use good glass instead of overengineered plastic lenses and bigger pixels are more sensitive
>>4532795>Cats are known for holding still for 1/8th yaknowI mean they can sit still, but if not, it helps with more consistency at less slow shutter speeds, like 1/30th (picrel)
ISO performance has improved a bit since the DSLR era, or no?
>>4532792Light wise not much to consider, sensor is benefitting what it can't see. Better glass tends to be bigger. In smaller lenses, you can have a tendency for high vignetting (both in terms of luminance and bokeh), or other optical comprimises. If you're using a FF lens on a crop body, since you're only using the "center" portion of the lens, you might find better sharpness across the frame, less vignetting or distortion, etc.Here's an example of the opposite, putting a FF lens onto a GFX sensor. You can see that while most of the image circle is covered, there's an extreme degree of optical vignetting.Want to know why a lens vignettes like that, where it gets cateye shaped? Hold a lens with caps off and look through the circle, then slowly rotate it and you'll see the circle turn towards the cateye.
>>4532807If you don't mind the size and dorky look then last gen DSLRs are decent. Older DSLRs are not worth it.
>>4532809Cropping the sharpest center cuts both ways. The smaller pixel pitch can reveal new aberrations like CA that wasn't there before (using super high res bodies like the ANUS a7R cameras does this too) and also contribute to a more sterile rendering since the shading, field curvature, and optical vignetting are gone.Focus/OOF transitions can also look weirder when magnified by the sensor>>4532807Yes ISO 400+ or 800+ depending on model leaps ahead and when sony eventually lets everyone have dual gain readout FF will perform on par with DX medium format
>>4532811>FF will perform on par with DX medium formatBut then those medium format sensors will also get dual gain readout and the gap will stay the same...
>>4532532that's cute
>>4532804Thats me >>4531970z6ii 85mm f8 1/30 ISO12800now, z6II 85mm f5.6 1/60 ISO 6400Better glass, full frame, a bigger sensor, and capture one make equivalence theories an exercise in pixel peeping the bokeh/noise soup>>4532812Will they? The reject rate on larger chips scales exponentially so it takes a long, long time to add complications to medium format
>>4532814>Better glass, full frame, a bigger sensor, and capture one make equivalence theories an exercise in pixel peeping the bokeh/noise soupI just care about low light performancet. person who asked
>>4532815Then get the latest and greatest FF camera with IBIS that you can afford + a bright prime. Or use flash but that way you'll have only one chance to take a good photo.
>>4532815z6ii+sirui 85mm f1.4 thenthe larger aperture actually gathers more light (sees better subject detail) despite exposure calculations, so an 85mm f1.4 (60.7mm aperture) is getting more info in than a 50mm f1.4 (35.7mm) for exampleAstronomers are familiar with this, as well as larger pixels superior sensitivity. Photographers don't like to think about it.
>>4532814>Will they?Maybe. MF got BSI almost at the same time FF did. In resolution MF sensors can sometimes lead over FF sensors. But other advancements like stacked sensors are taking longer to trickle down to MF. So who knows. I guess we'll see.
>>4532814Was that photo taken with the Sony? Doesn't look very impressive.
>>4532816>>4532817what about the t-stop value and how some low quality lenses can apparently be worse than high quality lenses with lower f-number?it's hard to find that info anywhereand for some reason online reviews do all these scientific charts and shit but don't do any fucking low light tests, like a f/0.95 (btw why we doing fractions over fractions) lens and yet every shot is in broad daylight, how is this allowed?
>still page 1>far from image limitif any motherfucker makes a new thread spamming the board now I will fucking strangle them
>>4532821Cheap glass is cheap for a reason. if you want good bang for your buck then get Viltrox. It's the premium Chinese option. Their lenses can sometimes match first party quality at half the price. With aliexpress specials like 7artisans etc. you never know what you're getting.
wait it's even worse since you faggots can't agree how to name the thread
>>4532821Because photographers don't care how light gathering works (protip: it is literally JUST the actual aperture size and transmission %, which for modern glass is too high to bother noting, maybe worry if you bought a canon 28-70 f2 that vignettes enough to be a t3.2... a lot of canon RF glass vignettes almost 3 stops or more wide open)https://clarkvision.com/articles/exposure-f-ratio-aperture-and-light-collection/Dont let anyone tell you their mft 42mm f1.2 gathers more intense light or whatever than an 85mm f1.8. the aperture is smaller. end of. aperture size is all that matters in light gathering.putting the 85mm f1.8 on an mft would actually gather more light and the same amount as ff, but with more noise per pixel and less dynamic range. also when dealing with reach, you need a lens that resolves quality detail at that scale and you need technique and to pay attention so camera shake and atmospheric shimmer/subject motion don't exceed the pixel scale. high density crop also loses a lot of exposure latitude and "tonality" in bright light. it's not free lunch.but aperture is literally all that controls actual light gathered.>>4532820>nooo your iso 6400 photo you probably boosted shadows in doesn't look perfect when i pixel peep noooI know, especially since the Z6II has an OLPF that smears fine detail.
>>4532826tldrif you want to gather a lot of light, the actual aperture needs to be bigger. that's all that gets light into the camera.if you want to be able to measure wide variations in brightness, and have very little noise per pixel, you're going to want full frame with bigger pixels (ie: z6ii/z5ii)if you want finer detail resolution and don't care about measuring finer and wider variations in brightness or per-pixel noise buy a camera with a smaller sensor or just smaller pixels, but remember your lens has to be good and so do your skills, and you still need a big aperture
Currently watching a video from 2012 on the B&H Photo Video Pro Audio youtube channel called "The Art of the Fisheye" where a wedding photographer is rocking a dual Nikon D300s fisheye setup. Fisheyes are niche obviously, but it is really cool seeing people being creative with them. Doesn't seem to be much interest in them these days though with the only thing first parties make are expensive zooms. In the SLR era every brand had a 15 or 16mm 2.8, then with autofocus they sort of fizzled out. Canon hasn't made a prime fisheye since the start of the EF mount.
>>4532829laowa made an 8-15mm f2.8 (t2.9) fisheye zoom
>>4532826>iso 6400>boosted>cropped>chopped>cooked>dogmaxxed>snappilled
>>4532830Yes, plenty of manual Chinese lenses around.
>>4532814This is the same iq as the fujifags bug photos. Are you fucking with us? Are you the “fujifag”?>d200 5d mark 2 d750 z6ii sony fujiHow many cameras do you have dogsnapper
>>4532828Thanks. going with around 25 megapixels no matter what
>>4532833Baudrillard poster was right, they go through 14 cameras trying to improve their photography and at the end of the day they're still snapping the same dog. That's why the thread blew up.
>>4532835Some of them were for short term purposes, some of them were resold for a few extra hundredThere is no such thing as a perfect forever camera unless you're a larper, but a classic DSLR is the perfect shelf cameraPeople who don't do any photography at all and quit after failing to get a clear picture of saturn wouldn't understand
>>4532836>There is no such thing as a perfect forever camera unless you're a larperAll cameras break. If it's not broken and you want to change just for changing maybe you're the larper. >shelf cameraYeah, larper confirmed. You don't care about photography, all you care about is gear.
>>4532837All cameras are specialty tools. If I bought a specific camera for a trip or a job, why would I keep it around the house when it's overkill besides the trip, while it depreciates and my shekels slip away? Why would I risk losing thousands taking nicer money making gear hiking or to a crime-ridden area when shittier gear is more rugged and cheaper to replace, and there's no demand for the extra image quality?It's just a camera. You're not meant to marry it. Use it, pass it on to someone else who has a more immediate need for it, and reclaim your precious shekels.>Not getting shelf camerasThe shelf camera is the camera you'll always have even if you're not actively pursuing any projects or jobs, or if you're doing something that might result in the destruction or loss of the camera. It's a cheap, long lasting tool that is going to be good enough if you ever use a camera even if it might be more challenging or less than ideal, but if you have a shelf camera, you should know enough by now to circumvent its limitations. Basically the camera equivalent of having cheap shitty kitchen tools around even if you have nicer ones in the garage.
>not a gearfag>just so jewish that a $1000 camera doing nothing offends him
>>4532826>I know, especially since the Z6II has an OLPF that smears fine detail.wow so smeared.random rainbows are better.
>>4532687If you can't afford 300 usd, you should just save for a couple of weeks. Jesus christ.That will save you a lot more pain than buying e-waste just to upgrade later.
>>4532845>D200>E-wasteits too bad you're not allowed to see the people pictures from it because the skintones are perfectif anything everything nikon made between the D200 and the Z6II/Z7II is ewaste
>>4532835>they go through 14 cameras trying to improve their photographyYou're missing the point lol
>>4532821Because in practice, it's so marginal that it's not worth bringing up. Ensuring an optimal exposure, post processing, shooting technique, etc all matter so much more at that point. Unless you're shooting M, metering accuracy matters more too.Going beyond f1.4 has exceedingly low returns in terms of brightness.A chart of vignette and coma is far more relevant for lowlight shooting, and included with most reviews.
>>4532849tbf hes right that canon rf lenses say f2 but will be t2.8 or worse. RF might be too small for full frame.
>>4532822New threads would bump them off the board, but unfortunately there is this ever-present faggot who complains whenever anyone makes a new thread because he has a severe form of autism.
>>4532861>New threads would bump them off the boardliterally what is the point of making a new thread when there's like 5 people posting here, it's a slow board, it takes weeks to reach page 10, the image limit is never reached
>>4532862The image limit is a technical limitation from when 4chan didn't have enough computers to show more. Bump limit and image limit both indicate a thread's life is over.
>>4532864this only matters on fast boards when you need to make a new thread or else it will get archived in a matter of minutes or hours
>>4532861There are still gear threads on the catalog from two months ago
/p/'s queen reporting from Kyoto.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rlt7bWclQI
>>4532872>colors range from dull to piss filter to green tinted to all 3panasonyc
>>4532872Why are the colors so bad? It's like they're trying to be sony
>>4532875>>4532879For me the worst scene was in the wooded area with the deer. Pink/magenta glow very reminiscent of Sony cameras. This leads me to think that Lumix is now using the same weak CFA as Sony to maximize dynamic range at the expense of color accuracy :(
>>4532883>Pink/magenta glow very reminiscent of Sony cameraspic related
>>4532883You have literally never seen a sony CFA spec. Or any CFA spec for any contemporary ILC. You're not a colorist. You don't even know how they work. You just repeat a shop talk theory that goes around on forums. Quit it.Severe green tints usually come from the lens, as it is with a lot of olympus "glass", and severe magenta overcorrection in naturally green heavy scenes is from bad firmware programming (panasonic isn't good at making cameras, basically) necessitating manual white balancing.Magenta cast in shadows is usually from low dynamic range but can also be from skylight (the color of light the sky itself puts out) being too different from the dominant illuminant.Hope this helps
>>4532883educate yourselfhttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/optimal-cfa-spectral-response.4633418/https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/optimal-cfa-spectral-response/tldr, CFAs are actually not weak enough for accurate color
>>4532839The truth for 99% of people is, at least when it comes to ILCs, you only need two: a film camera, and a digital camera.It doesn't matter what the film camera is.It doesn't really matter what the digital camera is, either, as long as it's got enough MP for whatever size you want to print at. 10 is plenty for A4/US letter/8x10". There's some secondary things to consider e.g. will it work well with your film lenses, does the mount ecosystem have the type of lenses you want at the prices you want, if you shoot JPEG how's the JPEG engine, if you shoot RAWs does it cook RAWs (looking at you, Snoy), etc. But the actual spec sheet is almost irrelevant.
>>4532893that's mostly true if you just take photos of building corners, the plants in your backyard, and self directed projects but not if you ever do anything for other people or have personally higher standards than ken rockwell10mp digital still looks kind of bad as a 4x6 and is lower resolution than 35mm film
>>4532890Kasson's article has many caveats, including not simulating demosaicing. It's not real life, it's some math model simulations. For someone who regularly gets mad at equivalence being "theory" despite empirical demonstrations you surely love purely theoretical models. At the end of the day, cameras from the era when CFAs were stronger get better color than modern ones, just look at their output.
>>4532844He'll cope by blaming Adobe
>>4532837He's a hoarder and doesn't like being called out, even tried to do a no-u with the accusation on >>4532842
>>4532828anyway thinking more towards apsc canera because theyre more for amateurs and I am an amateur and will probably not take advantage of the full frame features as a complete noobplus its smaller and cheaper
>>4532883>This leads me to think that Lumix is now using the same weak CFA as Sony to maximize dynamic range at the expense of color accuracy :(First deletion of OLPF now using Sony CFA. Panasonic has fallen. It's basically a Sony with better firmware now.
>https://petapixel.com/2026/10/05/canon-nikon-sony-and-fujifilm-all-see-photographys-future-differently/>Canon/Nikon>Consumers are looking for a satisfying shooting experience. We’re developing our video lines and our next generation processors/sensors/etc>Fujifilm>We want to make taking photos fun!>Sony>WERE GOING TO JAM AI SO FAR UP YOUR ASS THAT YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY IS MEANINGLESSWhy is Sony like this?
