>>4537280
Can you stop spamming threads?
What the fuck is wrong with you?

>>4537287
He lost so many arguments that he wants to completely destroy /p/ now. It's kinda sad, but there's only 7 people posting here now and 3 of them are paid shills so it doesn't really matter.

>>4537288
Which arguments? Do you even know which anon you're referring to?

>>4537290
They spam the same pictures every thread. Are you stupid?

>>4537287
He is probably mad that both his sensors suffer from FPN, the Canon disease.

That said I like the 5DsR despite its flaws. It's interesting even if just for the quirkiness of having two processors. It's like owning one of those V16 cars that actually have two cojoined V8 engines.
It's cool at the raw engineering level, they're a madman's dream come true.

>>4537294
You are the only one here who cares about that - in fact, you have spammed the board for years about how much it personally bothers you and how you're supposedly "saving" people from it. It's too bad you couldn't be this obsessed over your own artistic output...

Just handled an old Sigma APS lens for Canon, a terrible defective lens with extremely flimsy build quality. It is remarkable how that company has turned around

Huskyfag is the only good photographer left here and cinefag is already trying to moop him

His advice? Buy an RP or a cheap FF nikon Z, and install capture one.

>>4537301
Corgifag mogs the cringe huskoid enjoyer. Considering you are a shit 'tog on your own admission I doubt you would understand.

Why don't you forum personality obsessors make your own damn thread where you can talk about the intricacies of faggotry and stroke each others shafts?

>>4537303
Nice projection.

>>4537304
Projection? I do not care about namefags or people who only want to talk about them. This is a gear thread. For you to call my comment projection means that you are indeed one of those faggots who are either a namefag or someone who's skull they live rent free in.

>>4537306
>no u
Nice projection.

>>4537303
This. The point of an anonymous forum is to discuss the content, not the poster.

>>4537297
I don't spam it at all, and in fact people sometimes call me a Canon fanboy. It's just something you have to be aware of to avoid nasty surprises. And it's the kind of thing that deserves to be discussed in a gear thread, what the strengths and weaknesses of different cameras are without sugarcoating it. For the FPN posting to reach something even close to equivalence of spam I'd have to post about it a lot more often.
>It's too bad you couldn't be this obsessed over your own artistic output...
It's too bad you're so obsessed about my artistic output in a gear thread. You don't care about the truth, you care about silencing anyone who reveals uncomfortable ones. Maybe you should obsess over your own. Even when it comes to gear pics in a gear I have already mogged you retroactively without even making the photo for you but for my own enjoyment.
>>4537308
That's why "nophoto" posting is cancer and reddit tier. What matters is what's being said, judged on its own.

Man this place is cooked.

>>4537314
Yep and the gear thread spamming is to blame, nophoto.

File: pen_pen-f.jpg (99 KB, 1280x721)

99 KB JPG

retrospective on PEN-F vs new PEN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBWY7QsZhwk

File: IMG_8088.jpg (237 KB, 1050x694)

237 KB JPG

>>4537316
>nophoto

>>4537318
>bad composition
>poor tonality
>cheap message
>ugly model
>cut your fingernails
You shoot m43 dont you?

>>4537302
Corgifag also recommends an RP or a cheap FF Z
(They’re the same poster retard)

>>4537309
What you say is meaningless because you dont know how cameras are actually used IRL

You’re a benchracer. You’re constantly wrong about real life because you misapply simplistic theories.

File: 9980762714-Product-Panaso(...).jpg (394 KB, 1919x1279)

394 KB JPG

Panasonic's quarter century of camera innovation
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/throwback-thursday-panasonics-quarter-century-of-camera-innovation/

>>4537322
Wrong, schizo retard. I am the only ken rockwell posting on this board.

File: benchh.jpg (2.9 MB, 3000x2000)

2.9 MB JPG

>>4537324
>bench

>>4537327
Terrible photo and a terrible benchy. You should be ashamed of yourself, printlet.

File: all.jpg (2.6 MB, 3000x2000)

2.6 MB JPG

>>4537328

>>4537330
Absolute printslop. If your printer is belt driven you really need to fix the tension on those belts. If it isn't belt driven idk wtf you're doing but it's truly unacceptable.

Nikon will save us

Got my scans back from my vacation and I had barely any out of focus shots
I am becoming powerful in the ways of 35mm-fu
Unfortunately I've just realized that all the scans' filenames have *my* name in them for some reason, so I can't post any until I get home and can download them on my PC and rename them

File: tests.jpg (2.91 MB, 6000x4000)

2.91 MB JPG

>>4537331
really its that that bad?

>>4537336
Yeah you have rigidity and flow problems. Those ones look a little better but you have major slop in your xy axis. The uneven/wobbly lines are from using the wrong temp/flow/speed parameters and the bulging on the corners is from slack in your xy travel. Do you have calipers? Lets see your print tolerances lil bro.

>>4537301
>cinefag is already trying to moop him
Am I trying to moop moop? Do you hear yourself, Tim?

>>4537338
Based, some proper advice on /p/ for once.

File: ghostie.jpg (2.56 MB, 6000x4000)

2.56 MB JPG

>>4537338
>your print tolerances
i dunno, sorry, hav a couple moar

File: group.jpg (3.81 MB, 6000x4000)

3.81 MB JPG

>>4537341

>>4537301
No, I'm way better than all of those retards.
Which is why I won't post my photos here.

>>4537346
Congrats you can do more than point a camera at a dog, nophoto.

>>4537302
Ty
>>4537322
Nope. I wouldn't generally recommend an RP and the cheapest FF Z I'd recommend is a Z5II. But I also think an RP is perfectly capable of great photos, and have shit on threads here where OP has one but also takes garbage photos then blames the camera.
If you want to know my actual opinion on any cameras, just ask. I work with all kinds all the time.

>>4537371
Corgichud confirmed ken rockwell.

>>4537371
Wow you're one snobby and spendy gearfag

I've noticed reddit users do this a lot desu
>only what reddit agrees is the best consoomer product is worth buying
>if you can't afford it, buy this cheap garbage and use it until you can
no. mid priced hobby items are fine. z5 is fine. z6ii is fine. z50 is fine. all are worth recommending.

>>4537376
You sure know a lot about reddit, kind sir.

>>4537376
>one snobby and spendy gearfag
If that's about what I own and use, I really don't spend that much, I've just been doing it a long time, slow accumulation of gear.
Do you think a Z5II is spendy? It's like entry level for serious enthusiasts, scaling up to early pro work. It's absolutely mid priced as far as new cameras go lol.
Again, you can make great images with those too, but if your that budget constrained I'd be looking D850 or similar instead.
Plenty of people, even just starting own, can afford a Z5II or similar. I guarantee I've meet more photographers at a beginner level than you have.

>>4537376
fucking exactly. just get a camera. you spergs, not you particularly, but the spergs here in general, believe if they review enough charts, read enough reviews, and research, research, research, they'll actually find the best camera. they won't. they can't, but they sure can make themselves fucking anxious to spend any money, because there is no such thing as a perfect camera. anyone telling you otherwise is delusional or paid off.

>>4537378
This is a very reddit attitude
>A $1599 camera is just entry level if you're SERIOUS
Literally all of reddit is like this
Stop acting exactly like a consoomer bugman
You might as well be calling everyone ya'll and asking for pronouns

No retard, a $1599 camera is professional equipment and very very few people need the extra it does over last year's professional camera and the year before that, besides "not be a huge DSLR blobmera"
Also no you're not rich you're probably a $25/hr amazon wagie

File: no i'm not religious i do(...).jpg (59 KB, 680x674)

59 KB JPG

>>4537378
>Do you think a Z5II is spendy? It's like entry level for serious enthusiasts, scaling up to early pro work. It's absolutely mid priced as far as new cameras go lol.
You said this about the Z5 before the Z5II was released.

>>4537379
>but they sure can make themselves fucking anxious to spend any money
many are better about making themselves spend anxiety inducing amounts of money desu

/p/ - buyers remorse

>>4537380
If it's not Leica it's not Likable.
>hasselblad gets a pass
Sorry

>>4537383
at least leicafags are good old school opulent euroluxury buyers

being a consoomer for plastic japanese prosumer junk is pathetic. its like paying $5000 for a casio g-shock.
>cant affod it huh
>its very entry level for people who are SERIOUS about it

>>4537384
I only use my 28mm Elmarit in lowish light because I fear people seeing me with anything that's not at least f/2.

>>4537371
>the cheapest FF Z I'd recommend is a Z5II
It was literally the cheapest FF Z until they launched the Z5 II C lmao
Probably still the cheapest used because there's more of them

File: 1697646170958.png (1.72 MB, 1101x1230)

1.72 MB PNG

>>4537380
>>4537376
They're called redditors with advanced taste

>>4537324
>benchracer
I know this must be some hilarious in your mother tongue, you really owned me with that one
Izzat +50 or whatever, pathetic

>>4537390
Holy newfag
https://archive.4plebs.org/o/search/text/benchracer/
First year on 4chan kid? Maybe when you finally turn 18 you can get your first camera

>>4537391
This isn't /o/ and you were trying to do some wordplay, Ranjeet

>doubling down
Newfags amirite

File: consooooooooooooom.png (41 KB, 650x509)

41 KB PNG

>>4537378
>Do you think a Z5II is spendy? It's like entry level for serious enthusiasts, scaling up to early pro work. It's absolutely mid priced as far as new cameras go lol.

>>4537394
>pretending you weren't resignifying the term
lmao your sister wishes a guy like me gave her a chance
Maybe you could get Vance to "do the needful"

>>4537395
Based, just like it never mattered how compact a camera is if you don't glow or need it to fit your pocket

>>4537380
The more I shoot, including for professional projects, the more I think this kind of "Reddit" thinking about these tools is missing the forest from the trees. You want a tactile user experience and ergonomics to create something good. Every system, even really poorly conceived and marketed systems like Ricoh's 35mm film X mount have enough lenses to do anything from macro, to telephoto to fast primes. If it's digital, especially mirrorless, where you adapt any lens, and ramp ISO, the camera does not matter at all beyond your preferred ergonomics and user experience. I've been using heavily "downgraded" tools personally just because I am more consistently creating something that moves me versus my expensive, clinically and technically perfect "pro" gear. We are in the age of auto-stack HDR multi-lensor smart phones with computational photography, and AI image enhancement (if not just generation). If you are not using a tool that makes you happy to use it, you are not going to be creating good photos with it. And if you only feel "good" because you have some Reddit approved "perfect camera" based on technical charts or some other faux-objective set of metrics, you are probably better off in a different hobby or at least just using your phone until you can start creating for yourself.

File: 034.jpg (1.76 MB, 1818x1228)

1.76 MB JPG

>>4537333
imagine being a tardigrade and living here
you'd be king of the bugs

>>4537375
I'll never get Ken's hateboner for MFT and Olympus/OM. Regardless of crop, he seemed to hold a certain resentment or grudge towards them for failing to develop a pro-level autofocus film system. The E-1 is now considered groundbreaking, the E-5 is so durable that its value on the used market has held for close to a decade.

>>4537399
Kinda based.
When I was buying my camera I looked at the specs but finally decided on a model that looked good and felt right in my hand. Any ILC released in the last 10 years has good enough specs.

>>4537402
And the E-3/E-5 have great reach, just not on the sensor.

File: dream_camera4.png (646 KB, 1030x760)

646 KB PNG

>>4537280
How is your dream camera?

File: baseddep.png (1.32 MB, 1117x1301)

1.32 MB PNG

>>4537403
>Any ILC released in the last 10 years has good enough specs
Truth of Spades.

>>4537402
His review of OM-1 mark 2 is pretty positive and he praises their new menu system.
On the other hand it does not look like he has ever reviewed a Panasonic camera.

>>4537409
Fujifilm X-T5 but:
- Better build quality
- 16 stops of DR
- Fully stacked sensor for fast readout
- large, 3 million dot LCD
- 9.44 million dot, 240 fps EVF
- Canikon tier AF

>>4537409
I own my dream camera so my other dream would be a CFV-100 back for my Hasselblad 500CM

>>4537325
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE0ofdzBpL0

>>4537396
>saaar do not resignify the term do not resignify -cANON
What is this ESL gypsy nonsense? Can someone translate?

global shutter, one gorrilion megapickles, super dynamic range and a tiltable EVF is all I want, is that so much to ask?

My dream digital camera sacrifices "dynamic range" and megapixels for superior tonality.

645 sized, 33mp sensor, not ISO invariant, CCD. Simple as.

>this is what snoyfags took from you (including early DSLR specfags since nikon used sony sensors after the d700)

>>4537399
These pro cameras are designed specifically for news coverage and weddings

Everything they add to them is either for video, or a crutch so drunk/high weddingfags and panicy journalists don't have to make excuses for missing the shot. Nobody else needs or even wants 60fps e-shutter but if your job depends on not missing an 0.02s moment in a wedding ceremony it's understandable.

>>4537427
You can already have that if you embrace 50/100 iso.

>>4537429
First, boomers and japanese flipper scum have to be wiped off the face of the earth so they can be fairly priced again

>>4537430
How about getting a job and stop beeing poor?

File: Sony a7C II.jpg (153 KB, 1280x720)

153 KB JPG

>>4537409
It is fulfill my dream, sir.

>>4537430
2k for a 33ish MP mfdb isn't that terrible, really. Maybe in another decade they'll be cheaper.

>>4537433
My shekels will not be unjustly spent

>>4537435
They were $1k once but I was still in school and wasn't permitted to blow large amounts of shekelage

>>4537446
You can get them for basically "free" or very inexpensively if you wait and get one packaged with a body + lenses. That's how I did it.
The other thing to remember about mfdb is that they're good for like 1 million exposures because there are no moving parts.

File: 51829914274_89b29b7b55_b.jpg (207 KB, 1024x1015)

207 KB JPG

>>4537427
I went down the CCD digital back rabbit hole and found Kodak Professional DCS 645 Pro Back on flickr. It does have a beautiful look. Still, CCD died for a reason. It was an inferior technology.

>>4537452
Pretty cool gallery. Modern day russia reminds me of poland in the 90s.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsykhra/51830162226/in/album-72177720296063396/

>>4537452
Big ccd is terrible for walking around and taking snapshits. It is still awesome for studio work. You just need a shitload of light.

>>4537452
It's not an inferior imaging technology

it's an inconvient snapshitting technology that's expensive to develop and manufacture, and cameras two biggest buyers are news drones and weddingsloppers

>>4537455
CCD is power hungry so not suitable for battery powered devices and already outperformed by CMOS that replaced. It's true that first CMOS sensors were inferior to CCDs but technology advanced and now there is no reason to use CCD outside of specialized equipment.

>>4537457
I think I get like 150-200 shots on a full charge from a battery just powering the mfdb. They all use one battery for the body and one for the db.

there are many objects I have still wrapped in the corner of a room here because of drunk buying frenzy.
there are a couple boxes of girl themed toys and painting sets from this period I used to larp as a single dad to strike conversation with a cashier

>>4537463
>there are a couple boxes of girl themed toys and painting sets from this period I used to larp as a single dad to strike conversation with a cashier
What are you, George from Seinfeld?

>>4537464
It's called pickup artistry, Jerry.
I'm a pickup artist!

>>4537412
Why did he wait for Olympus to die before changing his mind?

>>4537457
And then mirrorless babbies hybrid snapshit machines end up draining their (considerably more advanced) batteries in 300 shots lol

>>4537450
"Very inexpensively" but people are asking $3-4k and that's just not justifiable for what is effectively ewaste. Collectors are a scourge.

I remember seeing full h3d kits for $1000-1500 a few years ago

>>4537470
Isnt selling that shit for $5k the equivalent of selling a 5d classic for $1000?
>ITS 75% OFF AND I AINT EVEN ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION KID I KNOWS WUT I GOTS THIS STILL HOLDS ITS OWN AGAINST YER NEWFANGLED 5D850 DARNIT -boomers

>>4537470
Stupid to call them ewaste when they produce better looking pictures than modern cameras and the databacks basically last forever.

File: images.jpg (28 KB, 447x447)

28 KB JPG

>>4537472
The same could be said of a lot of ewaste

>>4537474
>mfw i have an s5pro and and a couple mfdbs
Ewaste is as arbitrary of a term as snapshit on /p/.
In my superior and absolute opinion essentially all digital mirrorless cameras are the precise definition of ewaste, so take that and smoke it.

>>4537475
Ewaste is not long for this world

Capacitors age out and blow. Shutter and aperture mechanisms fail entirely.
20 year old cameras might die in the same year the newest snoy does
But they will still die

>>4537474
I flipped one of those. Took a chance on an "untested" unit, got a battery and charger for it, worked perfectly. It had just over 10k clicks. Made about 300 bucks on that transaction. Thanks e-waste enjoyers!

>>4537479
Yeah guy, every electronic camera is ewaste and every mechanical camera is mwaste and you are just bwaste. Ashes to ashes dust to dust. Use the cameras you want to take the pictures you want.

>>4537485
Not paying $5k for a meme that'll take a shit and die in five years tho

>>4537491
5k would get you something around a phase one IQ180. Not a meme, unless youre a visually illiterate retard, and that back would last you well over a decade and hundreds of thousands of exposures.
You think they're using cheap components in a 45k new dollar digital back?

>>4537491
There's an IQ250 on ebay with an 800k shutter count for 4k lmao

>>4537492
Now add the body and just one 80mm lense for an extra $2k
>not a meme
Yeah any photographic image quality improvement is a meme

The museums are full of cropped 35mm film shots

>>4537494
You are one goofy guy. You know that?

>>4537496
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUBBgc6k2Sw

>>4537497
>you after you sold your objectively superior blobmera for a fujifilm.

>>4537498
You don't know me

>>4537500
Sounds like I know you a little too well...

>>4537501
Really? Then who's my waifu?

>>4537502
Probably one of the umamusume horse girls.

>>4537502
The goth bird chick from helluva boss

>>4537424
I'm pretty sure it's cANON /pol/itisperging and schizoing out, if I got it right he's thinking of "benchod" (sisterfucker)

>>4537502
Charlie Morningstar obviously
Freak

>>4537502
Reimu hakurei!

File: 1373224605241.png (495 KB, 720x540)

495 KB PNG

>Uma musume
>Vivzieslop
>2hu
Are you really the people I've been spending time with? Saddening.

>>4537491
No one is forcing you to

>>4537317
I liked the review, I got to the point of it being only a thousand dollars & I feel like its a great thing. Its a brutal time right now for people & buying anything is hard.

It looks nice, but yeah its more premium the old one. The photos that were taken look great & clearly came from someone who knows what they are doing, that autofocus tracking was rough though.

I think its going to be a type of camera that is mostly for those who aren't looking for the faster side of things then. which means catching something when you can, or having fun with more still based subjects, its not for nothing but he couldn't really state there was much of a leap forward.

I want to say this in a nice way but... It lost the dial & it lost a few more things that some might not like it losing. I don't think it matter, however, for most people to use those. Its like learning piano & saying you'll use the foot pedals immediately, its fun, but you're likely buying this to get in a maybe learn & then have fun with later after you already have learned.

It really does hurt the performance for moving targets in many different styles of shots to not have the ability to track subjects well enough. It can be leaned into however & made something that is an style that used to be more popular back with film & fashion style portraits. & its affordable, which is big.

>>4537516
2hu is a legit option.
Don't you scoff at 2hu.

>>4537543
>>4537317
Samefag retard shill. No one cares about your queer little toy scameras

>>4537543
>"only" a thousand dollars
kek and no mirror and the wrong aspect ratio

File: highres-Olympus-PEN-F-Bla(...).jpg (851 KB, 3097x2088)

851 KB JPG

>>4537551
>Samefag retard shill.
wrong as usual

>queer little toy scameras
a good photographer takes good photos with any format.

>>4537543
The main thing I don't like about the new PEN is the loss of custom modes on the mode dial. PEN-F has 4 while new pen has 2

I set up preset modes that I use for landscape, moving subject bright, moving subject dark, etc. so more on mode dial is better.

Though with the new PEN's stills/video switch it makes for 2 stills and 2 video custom modes which is not such a loss.

I actually like that they cheapened the camera/build. For EDC I'd rather be less concerned about preserving the camera.

>>4537553
>>4537543
>>4537317
Off tone and out of character for /p/ with a reposted image from guess who (moire spammer/lumix shill)
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/EQZwJwUA6b7zgFRO5bKY-Q/
Yep its more paid shilling

>>4537516
>t. secretly has the hots for loona

>>4537555
More zoomer projection.
>loona
>charlie
men of culture prefer bee and lute but alas those shows are unwatchable levels of bad

>>4537554
This. 100%.

>>4537554
>Rajesh, your moire and jpeg adjustment approach has failed. No more negative on each and every post. I have new task for you. Do the needful. Make positive posts about sentiment for new olympus pen. Tell them you like it. Go now, rajesh. Make a new kind of poast on the /p/.
>Saar yes saar!

File: custom-firmware-for-the-p(...).jpg (84 KB, 1080x809)

84 KB JPG

>>4537317
>>4537543
>>4537553
there is now a custom firmware for the PEN-F which give full HSL control for in-camera colour profiles.

https://github.com/fishcu/oly_fw_analysis

>>4537582
>olympussies are now installing vibe coded AI malware with obfuscated skynet directives inserted by the secret AGI
>all they had to do was shoot raw and have 9000x the control in a pre-AI version of capture one
16.5 was the last version before they added real AI, instead of just edge detection algorithms called AI for marketing hype

I hope you got in on time

File: 240523a-768x432.jpg (37 KB, 768x432)

37 KB JPG

>>4537583
The point of in-camera controls is to avoid the computer editing process.

Fuji cameras became popular exactly because people could produce a look that they want at the moment of capture and results can be shared immediately. Nobody wants to go back to editing RAWs on a computer.

>>4537474
Imagine a dog licking this camera.

>>4537584
>fuji became popular
Fuji is outsold by canon alone 5:1

>>4537574
Huscuck? how could you

>>4537584
Fuji is popular through tiktok ads and retro-style look. End of it.

>>4537584
>saaaar please buy lumix its just like fuji saaaar
Fuji actually has shutters hot shoes viewfinders OLPF equivalents and good lenses

File: fuji-sony-moire.jpg (68 KB, 737x743)

68 KB JPG

>>4537616
>OLPF equivalents
yes x-trans is better than weak OLPF or no OLPF.

>>4537626
All of these look like absolute shit.

File: 1776613236025.png (1.81 MB, 3006x1336)

1.81 MB PNG

>>4537626
If this weren't debunked you wouldn't have had to try making the claim
https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/lRlWMfJOjjLd9QkGp1D4ew/
Sixteen times

lumix shill directives:
sony is not an option
if they agree, nikon is not an option
if they agree, canon is not an option
if they wont buy lumix they need to buy olympus so they can still use lumix lenses

>>4537582
this is cool I like it

Poomix shilljeet is a worse poster than any of the namefags.

File: XEO05805.jpg (3.09 MB, 9568x6376)

3.09 MB JPG

>>4537553
I mostly only alter my colors for shade, clouds, & indoors.

I only use the function button on my camera so I don't know how much of a difference for me that this would make.

The other user here showed off a firmware >>4537582
that allows for custom colors which is really cool I think.

& yeah, EDC sounds like a wouldn't want to lose that thing at all if it was a top of the line flagship model like a 6k camera or something. If it bends but works then that's not so bad.

>>4537616
If Lumix released a model with shutter, hot shoe, viewfinder, OLPF and good lenses it would be a good camera?

>>4537627
So does your mom's brown starfish but I still slide in when she asks me.

Sometimes you need to compromise, anon.

>>4537642
This looks worse than 200 speed color film. Why is that?

>>4537629
why do sony's lines look lumpy?

>>4537650
The xh2 has chunks missing from its lines

Test charts are literally designed to make sensors and demosaicing algorithms fuck up

>>4537650
Sony cameras utilize color lumping to improve low light performance at the cost of overall image quality. The consumer wants better numbers and test charts not better looking images.

>>4537651
>Test charts are literally designed to make sensors and demosaicing algorithms fuck up
If it was something that actually mattered for actual photos, they would just post those instead lol

File: onion.png (241 KB, 348x257)

241 KB PNG

>>4537653
Ken Rockwell is based because at least he will post photos of his fireplace and grandfather clock at every ISO (all shot hand-held as NORMAL ( stairstep icon) JPGs; no tripods, FINE (Fine quarter-circle icon) JPGs or RAW CR3 files were used or needed!) so you can directly compare your shadow and highlight detail, as well as image quality when using the camera at its worst (OOC JPEG). Everything is up from there.

He might be a colourblind, lead-addled boomer, but he does one thing no chart review site ever does: take actual photos that are of passing quality and interest which illustrate the camera's ability. Based.

>>4537646
>Why is that?
Probably shot at ISO 12800.

>>4537651
My dream sensor would have modern noise performance combined with the color algorithms of early CMOS chips that preserved microcontrast over smoothness

>>4537682
>CMOS chips that preserved microcontrast over smoothness
Can you show any examples of this? Sounds like some audiophile tier bullshit desu. Tape some minerals to your lens bruh I heard it improves tonality.

>>4537686
He's technobabbling
>"color algorithms"
But early cameras did use different dyes in their CFA just because it was the state of manufacturing that resulted in different looking photos, with $39k (inflation adjusted: $150k) MFDBs actually being designed for color reproduction (at ISO 50-100)

File: 40keks.jpg (57 KB, 742x655)

57 KB JPG

>>4537686
>Tape some minerals to your lens bruh I heard it improves tonality.
Canon unironically does this with fluorite elements in some lenses.
The positive chakra improves bokeh.

what are some nice apsc lenses that have an oversized image circle and no major distortions beyond the frame so I can mount them to a full frame body with no open gate video and record somenice 4:3 footage?

>>4537702
Why? Get a vintage manual focus lens like a normal person.

>>4537706
such
as
…

>>4537702
You’re asking for full frame lensesses

>>4537710
No I'm not. Full frame lenses are a waste if you have to first crop a 3:2 sensor to 16:9 then to 4:3. might as well use a cheaper lens

>>4537708
Anything Pentax/Nikon/Canon/Minolta/Olympus etc. that can be easily adapted to your camera and is cheap.

File: PEN-F_firmware_mod.jpg (353 KB, 700x658)

353 KB JPG

>>4537582
impressive. very nice.

>>4537712
Retard

>>4537738
disprove my point smartass

>>4537712
Crop sensor lenses aren't that smaller and more compact than FF lenses, doughbeit. If you want to make a lense, why having multiple, slightly different, versions of it, instead of one all systems can use?

>>4537686
Ever notice how in old digital pictures the transition from light to dark in skin was more gradual, while in newer sensors the skin appears flatter in both shadows and highlights

>>4537744
No

>>4537744
You're asking visually illiterate chartfags if they think something old still looks good.

>>4537744
Its not a universal rule and it really has more to do with the lens

File: apsc-vs-ff-lens-size-r50-r8.png (465 KB, 1513x797)

465 KB PNG

>>4537742
>Crop sensor lenses aren't that smaller and more compact than FF lenses
Uh, yeah sure anon.

>>4537744
What a great opportunity for you to post examples of what you mean

>>4537753
Not for the same aperture size +/- size from less advanced design

An olympus "20mm f1.4" is larger than a sony 40mm f2.5 for example, and sony recently made a 600mm f6.3 that's smaller than olympussies 300mm f4 (same FOV and aperture size as a 600mm f8)

And not for video geek shit, because they all use relatively compact primes for max cinema larp

>>4537760
Oh. Point agreed. Just kind of took that other statement as standalone and was sure a brain injury was involved.
Yeah some MFTurd 25mm f/0.95 Vottsjoppr is like $1000 and 2.5x the size of basic 50mm f/1.8's. Smaller formats do not win.

>>4537760
Not this shit again.
f/1.4 is f/1.4 no matter the sensor size. Differences in depth of field are caused by different focal lengths. Sensor size affects signal to noise ratio only.
So yeah a M43 20mm f/1.4 lens is much smaller than a FF 20mm f/1.4.

>>4537744
Old digital photos look like shit. Especially early CMOS ones.
If you're talking about pictures like this one >>4537452 then you're simply retarded since that photo was captured on a sensor the size of a dinner plate. No wonder it still looks good 20 years later.

>>4537686
>Sounds like some audiophile tier bullshit desu
Early digital stuff had stronger CFAs and had a different way of processing such info, Canon 5D and the Nikon D2X along with the D700 were known for this.
The technical term is color discrimination but you might guess why it isn't mentioned as often.

>>4537777
>color discrimination
kek
Nice digits btw.

I hate being in the market for a slightly faster prime telephoto on the RF mount since I am not made of money. Sony and Nikon has many options, but Canon not so much except if adapting EF mount which I prefer not to and of those that are in my opinion acceptable are either almost unobtainable on the used market or massively overpriced. I am leaning towards a 500 f4 II, but I am hesitant on throwing that much money towards what is now considered old tech.

>>4537785
On what planet are there "many options" for a 500mm f4?

>>4537785
>buys a camera with a closed mount
>cries because lenses are expensive and choices limited

>>4537785
>slightly faster telelhpto prime
Telling us what you're using now would be a good start to that topic. Beyond 400mm is the first struggle most camera mounts experience unless you're going to do something like slap a 1.4x teleconverter on a 100-400. And f/4 is only one step away from literally dropping 20k on a 500mm f/2.8. So it really does sound like you're asking for a bit much while not being made of money.
What on god's green earth do you need such a fast super telephoto for? Birding? Boomers sink $30,000 into their birding rigs just to get something marginally more impressive than some $1000 70D+100-400 f/4.5-5.6 combo.

>>4537771
>its the same fov and light gathering as a 40mm f2.8 and actually larger than one but F ONE FOUR IS EFF WAN FERRRRR
Olympus went out of business over lies like this

>>4537771
“This shit again” is provably correct
Actual aperture size is all that matters

I don't have much available light and 400mm always seemed to be a touch too short. Usecase is varied, wildlife, boats and such.
Been looking at the Sigma 500 f4 sports of whatever, but I see some reports on autofocus being bugged when adapting to mirrorless, then some claiming it was fixed via firmware and whatnot. Seems to be a about the best bang per buck option.

>>4537771
>Differences in depth of field are caused by different focal lengths.
This is half-true and misleading. Depth of field depends on focal length, f-number, subject distance and the acceptable circle of confusion. That last one scales with sensor size, because a smaller sensor’s image has to be enlarged more to reach the same print or screen size. In practice, people compare formats at the same framing. A smaller sensor then needs a shorter focal length, which gives more depth of field. So sensor size is the root cause, even if focal length is the mechanism. The simplest way to say it is that at equal field of view, entrance pupil diameter determines depth of field. A 20mm f/1.4 and a 40mm f/2.8 both have a 14 mm pupil, and both give the same depth of field.

>Sensor size affects signal to noise ratio only.
Wrong. Sensor size also affects field of view for a given focal length, depth of field through the circle of confusion, and where diffraction starts to bite. Noise, meanwhile, comes mostly from total light, which is light per unit area * sensor area. That’s exactly why f/1.4 on M43 behaves like f/2.8 on full frame for noise. Admitting that sensor size changes SNR concedes that “f/1.4 is f/1.4” doesn’t hold for image quality. It's only true for the physical characteristics of the lens, not the kit's behavior.

>So yeah a M43 20mm f/1.4 lens is much smaller than a FF 20mm f/1.4.
No shit. Nobody claimed otherwise. The previous anon compared lenses with the same view and pupil size, which is the only meaningful comparison. 20mm 1.4 on MFT creates completely different images compared to FF. You're pairing your camera with a specific lens to achieve a specific framing and look, not to say "I shot this with the same lens !" like an Instagram poser, so of course it matters. This reply knocks down an argument nobody made.

Imagine paying a premium for a 20mm f/1.4 on MFT and ending with the equivalent of a cheap 40mm f/2.8 on FF.
NO REFUNDS.

>>4537802
Dear lord you faggots are insufferable. None of this shit matters in the slightest. You keep obsessing over sensor formats you don't even use. There are obvious benefits to all sensor sizes and that's the reason they exist. If peak performance at 200% magnification and ISO 12800 was all that matters then everyone would be using medium format cameras exclusively. Shut the fuck up and stop being a toxic little shit for a moment. I don't even own MFT cameras I'm just fed up with your bullshit.
>>4537803
There is much more to a lens than it's maximum aperture and DoF. Premium MFT lens will produce a nicer image than a cheap FF 40mm. You'd know if you spent half as much time on photography as you spend on trolling on /p/.

>>4537806
> Premium MFT lens will produce a nicer image than a cheap FF 40mm
Its softer and has more CA than the cheaper sony lens.

Nikons literally all plastic 40mm f2 ($150 used) is as sharp stopped down (… to f2.8) and has less CA and better rendering.

Micro four thirds is garbage if you’re looking for performance, professional quality, etc. it would be a good system if they stuck to toy sized gear instead of pretending a small sensor was usable for real work.

>>4537807
>bla bla bla bla bla
Get a life.

File: HAHAHAHAHA.jpg (19 KB, 551x556)

19 KB JPG

>>4537807
>it would be a good system if they stuck to toy sized gear instead of pretending a small sensor was usable for real work.
They tried
>Be olympus
>Delusional CEO runs the brand into the ground heavily investing in small sensor cope instead of actual small sensor advantages
>bigger, overdesigned pro lenses that still aren't as good as standard FF gear
>cope firmware features meant to compensate for lacking sensor size, ie: pixel shift and hope the wind doens't blow (note: fixing inevitable PSMS image artefacts is literal hours in photoshop blending the PSMS layer with an upscaled and sharpened single shot layer)
>overpowered IBIS because "who needs to gather more light with a bigger sensor when all anyone would ever photograph is rocks and trees?"
>No one bought that
>Failing brand can't keep itself afloat
>Unsurprisingly company is also corrupt
>Camera division sold to investment firm
>"oh yeah these are small sensor cameras they're meant to be small"
>promptly dumps remaining unreleased olympus R&D on the market
>investment firm changes course to releasing compact retro travel cameras
>re-releases small lenses with weather sealing finally added
>$500 for a 50mm f3.6 equivalent
>$1500-2000 quarter frame bodies
>firm did not have the resources to do more than parts bin cameras and firmware updates
>no one bought that
>renamed, disgraced "OM system" fails so hard
>that the CEO, a retired man, the same one that originally ran the brand and company into the ground
>can buy it back from the investment firm
>with his own money
>for less than the investment firm originally paid
>"OM system" (he never got the naming rights back) STILL does not have the resources to do anything good with it
And to think, if only lumix had better QC and could make a reliable and durable compact, micro four thirds might have actually outcompeted canon APS-C, and initially it showed how reflex gimped cameras and motivated real brands to ditch DSLRs.

>>4537806
I accept your concession
>None of this shit matters in the slightest.
I understand that for you, there's no difference between 20mm 1.4 and 40mm 2.8, after all that's why you're a malding nophoto on the gear thread.

>>4537806
Except with micro four thirds its not peak performance at 200% magnification the image as a whole looks flat out less appealing at a distance and the best it can manage is looking almost as bad as FF shot with retarded settings

When no one fucking buys something, especially in a market like cameras where it's enthusiasts who don't need marketing to know stuff exists and have more objective standards, it's either because the product is incredibly shit or the price is too high for how shitty the product is

Micro four thirds somehow landed in both categories and the only good product they actually kept selling was the olympus e-p7 (an interchangeable lens point and shoot)
ALL because they felt the need to pretend m43 wasn't just interchangeable lens point and shoots

No dude, micro four thirds will never, ever, ever be as good as full frame in real use. Just 400x300 thumbnail jpegs with the disclaimer: "if you used better settings on FF you're cheating, you have to raise your ISO if you stop down ok". ILC PNS does not equal real camera.

>>4537802
>Wrong. Sensor size also affects field of view for a given focal length, depth of field through the circle of confusion, and where diffraction starts to bite
It also affects noise per pixel and the tonal range of each individual pixel, until crop-like pixel pitches are achieved

This is forgotten by chartcucks because they only care about "photographic dynamic range" (noise floor) despite tonal range mattering for the actual photo and noise floor only mattering for pushing six stops of shadows for one shot HDR that looks 6x worse than 3 shot HDR and 12x worse than fill flash

>>4537803
Imagine giving the tiniest of shits about what other people buy with their own fucking money.

>>4537816
We do give a shit when you recommend that trash to others and lie about what it actually is (factual equivalent to a sort of soft, CA ridden 40mm f2.8 on an FF camera that bottoms out at ISO 800 and has snoy-like color rendition)

>>4537816
Imagine caring enough to tell people what you bought in the first place.

...see how easy it is to dismiss?

Its another micro four turds btfo episode

>>4537811
The new pen is a move in the ILC PNS direction, except they dont have the tech/budget to keep it small anymore

I finally got my 6D with 50mm f1.4. This firmware is actually pretty cool except for the LARPing of having 36 shots and then having to "reload". Also has a Marioo rip-off.

File: IMG_20261030_171354.jpg (757 KB, 2000x1500)

757 KB JPG

>>4537823
Whoops

File: IMG_20261030_171405.jpg (843 KB, 2000x1500)

843 KB JPG

>>4537824
Is this SOVL?

File: IMG_20261103_151729.jpg (556 KB, 2000x1500)

556 KB JPG

>>4537825
Not gonna lie, this is comfy AF. Not had a DSLR for years.

>>4537825
Post some photos woth the filmsims. Sooc jpg is for gay retards but you might as well share some of the instagram slop tier soocs the goofy ai tech produces. I saw a video and each image takes like 10 seconds to process? Sounds horrible.

>>4537830
Yea the processing time is shit although nowhere near 10 seconds, more like 5. I shan't be using it for that reason.
SOOC jpegs are vital for me. Editing is boring so I don't do it.

>>4537822
>>4537811
Current OM execs blame the 4/3 DSLR system for the poor sales of new MFT cameras

>>4537830
You talk like a retard I couldn't even finish reading that sentence. You're so miserable you might as well give up on living.

>>4537837
>not an argument
>average tech illiterate cope
>felt personally attacked by the truth
Nicely done, soocker.

>>4537826
I hope you [spoiler]have fun[/spoiler] with it, anon!

>>4537843
how did you fuck up the spoiler tag?
[spoiler]i blame LaTeX[/spoliler]

>>4537850
ok now i blame Indians

>>4537851
Spoilers are not available on every board.
I blame newfags.

File: 025.jpg (1.66 MB, 1818x1228)

1.66 MB JPG

>>4537855
i'm new to /p/ and i had forgotten that not every board has them (:
should have guessed by the inability to spoiler images i suppose
in penance i will poste 1 (one) photograph

>>4537861
>rotated 90 degrees
kek

>>4537863
Just blow my shit smoov off at this point
The developers rotated the scans for me but this is like the 2nd or 3rd one that posted sideways

>>4537850
I already knew they were disabled, I just thought it would still be funny.

>>4537877
._.

Telephoto nigger here. I am tempted to go for a Sigma 500 F4 Sports and adapt it. Thoughts? 2.6k.

>>4537813
>the best it can manage is looking almost as bad as FF shot with retarded settings
is a 1/4 crop of a full frame image always bad?

>>4537806
>Premium MFT lens will produce a nicer image than a cheap FF 40mm
That's not what I meant.
20mm f/1.4 is 20mm f/1.4. At least optically. Which means you will necessarily pay for the R&D and the higher manufacturing cost of a fast prime. Except your crop sensor will only exploit a small portion of the image circle, giving you the equivalent framing and DoF of a 40mm f/2.8, which would be much cheaper to produce. No matter how much copium you're putting into it.

>>4537880
How many people say “i crop out 75% of my photo every time and it looks great”?
And why are all of them tasteless, colorblind snoyim?

>>4537817
I haven't recommended shit, my dude.
>>4537820
Not who you think I am anon

>>4537884
>im not that guy but ill gladly defend him
how gay

File: Panasonic Lumix GX7 Shado(...).jpg (77 KB, 1280x720)

77 KB JPG

>>4537831
>SOOC jpegs are vital for me. Editing is boring so I don't do it.
This is why I love Lumix. Everything I need at my fingertips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xti6t0zgemo

>>4537897
You get your panties in a wad over what other people do with their money - you're gayer than cum on a mustache.

>>4537897
He's got the aura of another MFT remorse buyer. He'll contrast nicely with the recently happy 6D buyer, lel.

File: Dr.Chaddington.jpg (93 KB, 1080x1330)

93 KB JPG

>>4537826
>Blobmera
>50mm prime
As god intended.

>>4537902
No one cares if you wasted your money on garbage

People care when you claim a 20mm f1.4 on mft isn't equivalent to a 40mm f2.8 on FF and "is fast and produces a higher quality image because it's a premium lens". That could mislead people into buying garbage.