Previous >>4537280
>>4538143I suspect the professors in my uni used the reach during the pandemic or some similar camera
>>4538148Does anyone have the webm with CRP and the multiple Canons on mounts? His production value was insane.I'm still mad that the hoholkikes had him killed.
>>4538109>What are the shutter speeds you are metering at and what do you need them to be?As low as 1s. I would like around 1/125.>What is your actual use case?Photographing objects in high detail, wishing my shutter speed could be fast enough to not have to be so worried about vibrations blurring my captures, or, if it were viable, being able to handhold the camera and freehand shoot but I'm not getting my hopes up for that. I'm fine with a tripod.
>>4538183What aperture and ISO are you using?You are using your lights with a reflector right? The lights are as close as they physically can be right?If you're using a tripod correctly, you shouldn't have any movement to worry aboutYou should actually describe your use case, "high detail" doesn't actually explain what you're doingHow macro are you? How large are the objects? Etc
>>4538183Why aren't you using actual strobes instead of COB lights?
Low res cameras are better* More full well capacity (tonal rage/"tonality"/"color science")* Identical or better noise floor, "soft grain" noise effect over harsh static* Less noise per pixel (less aggressive/ugly chroma noise fucking up demosaicing)* Faster load, refresh and export times in raw processors* Less storage space* Higher framerates all things being equal* Enforces good photography practices (getting it right in camera/getting closer instead of cropping to compose)* Pisses off pixel peeping nocamera nophotos ( https://archive.palanq.win/p/search/tripcode/%21%21oKsYTZ4HHVE%20/filter/text/ )* Makes pixel peepers seethe* Creates anger among those who zoom in excessively* Malding gear queers* Did I mention they make gearfags seethe?For extra gearfag seethe, buy a canon RP>NOOO YOU CANT JUST ENJOY TONALTIY THE NOISE FLOOR IS TOO HIGH TO RECOVER PITCH BLACK EXPOSURES
>>4538192>canon RPbaseddeep shadow information is useless and a major contributor to the sterile/"frigital" look. fine gradation in well exposed areas is what matters. that's why film still looks better than digital - no shadow detail faggotry at all, but excellent rendering in well exposed areas.
>>4538192All of this is great for thinking about cameras in a hypothetical vacuumFalls apart once you look at / use actual cameras on the market
>>4538175The reason why a proper strength OLPF does not harm fine detail is because a Bayer system inherently destroys fine detail as soon as it interpolates between different photosites to construct the image.If you output your images at step 3, OLPF would reduce sharpness significantly, but otherwise it barely makes a difference in sharpness since the OLPF blur is within the interpolation radius.OLPF would harm fine detail with a monochrome or Foveon sensor, but an OLPF is not needed for those sensor types.
>>4538194Once you actually use cameras you realize more megapixels make high ISO images look worse (despite being "sharper" and therefore "better") and eat up storage space and processing time for a lot of extra money and no extra benefit besides crops looking marginally less bad>>4538195OLPFs significantly harm fine detail, technobabbler. All OLPFs are asymmetrical except for hilarious expensive ones like the old canon 16 point filter (out of production), and those are pointless because you can just not use an excessively sharp lens if you're photographing soulless things like brick walls and test charts.
>>4538195>could it be AA filters were bad and it was always a bad idea to force every camera to be soft even with a sharp lens just in case a retarded consumer or dpreview non-photographer on staff didn't know how to use a camera?>no, the rest of the world is wrong>i must repeat MY TRUTH on 4chan forever>>4538196yep the top selling cameras remain 24mp for a reasononly SNOY doesn't do this because SNOY is for bad photographers who need to pixel peep to forget about their boring photos and crop every photo to fix their bad composition
>>4538175https://www.maxmax.com/maincamerapage/monochrome-cameras/olpf-study>However, the fact that Nikon has chosen to sell a more expensive version D800e without the OLPF lends credence to our long standing opinion that the OLPF is, in general, an unwanted thing for most camera uses. No medium format back camera has one because those customers wouldn't buy it. We suspect that the use of the OLPF in consumer DLSR's is more of a marketing concern where they don't want someone posting a picture of a test chart online showing how a camera without an OLPF could exhibit moire. In most real life photographs, moire isn't an issue.
>The monochrome B&W image on the far right is sharper than the CFA camera because of the OLPF.Damn, you don't even have to pixel peep to see how OLPFs make cameras worse.
>>4538196Explains why no professionals use high mo cameras, oh waitExplains why a D850 has noiser high ISO than a D3, oh wait...
>>4538197>yep the top selling cameras remain 24mp for a reasonBut that used to be the case for 12mp, then 16-18mp, 24mp used to be high res
>>4538206The D850 is bad at high ISOs compared to the D750 and the Z7II is worse than the Z6II. Chroma noise looks worse. Noise looks more obvious. Only gearfags disagree. >uhm, when normalized, the SNR is better
>>4538206Professionals use high res cameras because high end clients demand larger prints out of the studio and wildlife journalism requires cropping over excuse making (and they'll use APS-C instead if they can get away with it). HR FFs are absolutely worse for everything else.>muh ancient DSLR comparison
>>4538211The ability to crop applies to any lens for various types of photography. If you shoot primes it means you can get more versatility, for example you could take just a 35mm with you and then crop down to a 50mm FOV or even tighter. Or if you use zooms you could get a 24-70mm f/2.8 and crop to 105mm instead of getting a slower 24-105mm. Also if you're not completely sure what final composition you would prefer you can shoot a bit wider and then try various crops.
>>4538213>pay $3000 for a full frame camera>crop to 16mp APS-C to save 100g>who needs to be a good photographer just crop to 16mp to composePosts like yours make me want to agree with democrats banning unlicensed non-professionals from buying anything with more than 24mp.
>>4538197>for a reasonPrice, it's the entry level FF res>inb4 a7S and similar modelsThat's video not entry level
>>4538218It's not just price used high res cameras are cheaper than new low res onesIt's HR FF being totally out of its element anywhere but a studio
>>4538143
>>4538197>yep the top selling cameras remain 24mp for a reasonThat reason is cost. Eventually those 24MP sensors will be replaced by ~40MP sensors.
>>4538223>used high res cameras are cheaper than new low res onesAnd used low res cameras are even cheaper than that... wtf are you even talking about retard.
This article made me think about /p/. I guess all forums are the same.
>>4538246
>>4538247
>>4538248Source: https://phillipreeve.net/blog/if-you-like-something-that-doesnt-necessarily-mean-it-is-good/
Let's just imagine that Japanese goverment forces all full frame and aps-c camera manufacturers to use one mirrorless lens mount in the mid 2010s.Which companies would struggle the most in this scenario? Would camera manufacturers actually make more innovative or better value products as they'd be forced to genuinely compete?Would some go out of their way to skirt around this restriction with some new sensor size or going back to the DSLR or reintroducing the Ricoh GXR?
>>4538251>genuinely competeAnd now they're not competing? Do separate mounts change anything?
>>4538251>genuinely competeSony competed so hard it overtook Canon and Nikon in technology and capabilities in ~5 years. Now Fujifilm is overtaking Nikon in market share because they're not afraid to try different things and actually offer what people want: good, affordable cameras of manageable size and weight. I don't think your post makes much sense.
>>4538214I only paid $1k and can crop to 18mp. If you have a list of 100g primes that are actually worth getting I'd love to see it though.
>>4538196>OLPFs significantly harm fine detailBayer interpolation significantly harms fine detail. Adding a good OLPF into the mix just gets rid of rainbows.
>>4538197>force every camera to be softEvery Bayer camera is already forced to be soft because it is interpolating for demosaicing.Every Bayer image needs sharpening during raw development for this reason.If you want actual fine detail rather than algorithmically generated detail you need a monochrome or foveon sensor.
>>4538265Dpreview isnt a source>>4538267You dont know shit and never post photos. You make this shit up and spam it. Idiot. >>4538200>>4538198Based real information poster
>>4538251How is having to develop your own lenses not competing? Lumix for example can not develop a worthwhile lens ecosystem on their own and leans on sigma and leica. They cant compete. Its good that companies that cant deal in the space where photos are actually rendered (optics) get fucked. All mounts should be proprietary. Computer nerds do not belong in the camera world. Optics are art and do belong in the camera world. 100 years and many snoys later: Serious artists STILL prefer stripped down cameras bereft of computer nerd “features” for pixel peepers and theorizing nitwits
>>4538253Sony isnt really competing. They depend on third parties to make lenses to add to their value proposition. Otherwise no one would buy an unreliable, breakage prone camera that forces 2-3 stop vignetting on every lens, cooks its raw files to fuck over astrophotographers, overheats easily, and has weird colors without heroic effort applied to raw files. Snoy with only first party lenses would just be shitty cameras that can only use shitty lenses and ridiculous g masters that only gear review bloggers like. Art photographers including cinematographers who rake in MILLIONS meanwhile are buying up canon FD glass.
cANON, do you even have a job? You're here all day.
>>4538269>All mounts should be proprietary.I strongly disagree. One open mount would be amazing for the consumers. The only reason why camera companies have their own mounts is because that way they can fleece their customers more.>>4538269>Optics are artOptics are math. They're designed by computers.>>4538270>Sony isnt really competinghahahahahahahah>>4538270>canon FD glassHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH
>>4538273>optics aren't art they're mathOptics really are art. Maybe telescopes are math but many camera optics actually strive to render photos with desired aesthetic qualities. Only these make a point of ignoring aesthetics to pursue mathematical perfection:>sony G and GM>Canon L series>Nikkor S line>Lumix S series>Leica SL>Olympis zuiko "pro"And pixel peeping fools pay a price and weight premium while throwing out money-tainted boomerisms like "i'm getting the most from of the camera i paid for. if you're using less you're wasting your AZ7R5II">>4538246>>4538247>photo quality = advice qualityMatt Osborne is a way better photographer than the sony version of /p/'s own burt i guess we're gonna go screenshot his blog insteadhttps://mrleica.com/print-store/
>>4538246>photo quality = advice qualitylisten to: https://yannickkhong.com/people-projecthttps://kasson.com/gallery/ignore: https://kenrockwell.com/cANON / cinefag
>>4538271At least I get paid to talk about camera stuffPosting on here is volunteering for me
>>4538282Yannick can't even get the framing right in his own comparisons, he's a lolcow
>>4538284>Annie Leibovitz cut off the feet. Again. Hack!Yannick is actually right scientifically glass to air surfaces have parasitic reflections, often affecting a limited range of colors and contrastsspecial elements often have a noticeable diffusing effect to compensate for CA at wider apertures, such that a modern canon 50mm and their shittiest vintage one will look softer and sharper at f8 respectively, ie: nikkor 50mm f1.4 D looks crisper at f8-f11 than nikkor 50mm f1.4 Glow megapixel cameras, given proper exposure, and actually having greater full well capacity to go with their pixel size, can record more/finer gradations between black and white for each pixel even if the noise floor below black as exposed is poor, so a d700 can have more "3d pop" (more natural shading) indeedmodern lenses look flat and weird for the exact same reasons>reflect a bunch of light out>diffuse and un-diffuse repeatedly to win on the black and white chart>photos look weirdGearfags then "educate themselves" and decide that the MTF chart and "dynamic range" (noise floor) chart determine camera quality objectively and ignore the glaring issue.Also compare phase one trichromatic CFA technology to literally every consumer camera and where consumer camera CFAs have been headed (higher native ISOs), keeping in mind a P1 TC is a low ISO camera that needs extra light at those low ISOs, and realize photo quality isn't actually the camera industry's pursuit. Fooling marketing victims (ie: average modern ff mirrorless fan on a forum) is priority #2. Selling to large photojournalist agencies (ie: associated press, gettyimages) is priority #1. Artists do not register. These two groups are basically 100% of camera sales.
>>4538290tldr superior performance at f/8 ISO 50 and superior performance at f1.2 ISO 6400 are mutually exclusive and MFDBs and medium format lenses (lots of big double gausses, in 2026) are still the way they are for a reason
>>4538269>Computer nerds do not belong in the camera world.What should computer nerds do for imaging? Sketching, painting?
>>4538290Too bad he can never demonstrate his claims lol>hypothetical vacuum is more important than realityStill sad
>>4538290>this is so obviously the case but I will never simply post a actual examples demonstrating it
>>4538290The scientifically right guy that chooses to use a D750 and "modern" f-mount glass? Interesting.The guy that hasn't been involved with photography for nearly a decade?
>>4538295>random people on the internet will not repurchase every piece of gear they have ever used to do scientific A:B comparisons so nothing is realscientism is a scourgetrust the anecdotes, liberal
>>4538284Seconding this, praising Yannick is akin to praising Kendra Wheelwright>>4538282Stop fighting and take the rockwellpill already maggot
Nikon Z70 leaked in drawing of remote control module.After the Z5iic flop they really need to release something good this year or they will be overtaken in sales by Panasonic.
>>4538326Anon, the z5ii outsold sony in japan and nikon consistently sells 14-20x more cameras than panashitnic. Panasonic doesnt even make good cameras they spend all their money on internet shills.
>>4538326the z5iiC was backordered after launch
>>4538330>z5iiCInsane that anyone would buy such a shitty camera. Made out of cheap plastic and without EVF. Cucked LCD. Reheated 10 yo sensor. If you don't mind buying into an ecosystem of a dying brand like Nikon then at least get the normal z5ii.
>>4538331Normies don't like having an EVF. It makes the camera look professional and thus people might get the impression that they know what they are doing.
>>4538329Panasonic cameras are actually excellent, nicely designed machines.Their sensors are shit though.If Panasonic could just get a good sensor they'd be able to make a good camera but they are targetting a budget "ai noise reduction is ok!" market segment so they're going to eternally be shit.Quit dreaming.In an alternate timelime we could have had Panasonic firmware and controls on Nikon/Canon bodies. They do AEB, focus stacking, and live view and autofocus nicely but none of that matters when your image output quality is trash.
>>4538333Panasonic uses sony sensors and their firmware, lenses, and hardware are the problem. Timeline status?
>>4538333>In an alternate timelime we could have had Panasonic firmware and controls on Nikon/Canon bodies. They do AEB, focus stacking, and live view and autofocus nicely but none of that matters when your image output quality is trash.Every day now AI assisted firmware hacking opens up new possibilities. This might in fact be the timeline where we can have it all.
>>4538326>or they will be overtaken in sales by Panasonic.Typical micro four turds hallucination.
>>4538331>Insane that anyone would buy such a shitty cameraBlame society, not the camera maker looking to make money
>>4538331How long have you worked at a camera store / done camera sales?
>>4538315>trust the anecdotesThat would be easier if they were accompanied by photo examplesYou don't need to purchase gear to find examples, there should be plenty online to link
>>4538333Which alternate reality are you from?>panasonic has shit sensors and great autofocusIt's the other way aroundPanasonic has the best sensors from a chart nerds perspective (really bad, sterile, soulless rendering otherwise), dogshit autofocus, gimmick laden buggy firmware, and unreliable heardware.
>>4538331>dying brand like nikonFrequently outsells sony in the asian market and is constantly giving fuji, panashit, and nonbrands like om and pentax an asspounding.
Poomix doesn’t even have OLPFs
>>4538355No modern cameras have effective OLPFs to save unit cost - a good OLPF is expensive.At least you can get a third party one from Kolari for Lumix, permanent install or clip-in. Expensive though.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9hvb4vKJnY
>>4538358>No modern cameras have effective OLPFs to save unit costThis is quite literally made up. You seem to have made it up based on dpreview pixel peeping as well.After the 5DII/5DIII OLPFs have been pretty mild because the absurd strength isn't that necessary for more than test charts and badly done dpreview sample photography, but they still have noticeable OLPFs on lower res FF cameras. It's about consumers - camera companies expect these lower res cameras to be bought by non-photographers so the OLPF is included to prevent them from accidentally running into moire and blaming the camera.As a photographer knowleadgable enough to know the word "OLPF" and engage in gear whining, you can get far more effective anti-aliasing from your lens (do not buy the sharpest lens if you do not understand that it's not meant for casual snapshits ala dpreview sample gallery - notice professionals dont have a problem) so it's ultimately better to not have artificial blur at all, even if you never intend to use a sharper lens. Removing the OLPF is actually one of the few good things lumix does.There is literally no reason to have an OLPF on any camera except as a crutch for new and clueless end users, to create one fewer reason for a retard to return their camera and switch brands.
>>4538343Spergs can't pick up sarcasm
If you're a video sperg, aliasing tolerance is so low (and the output format so low resolution) there are even add-on OLPFs for cameras that already have very strong OLPFs like old canon DLSRs. They block the mirror box and are intended exclusively for videography.Otherwise it's not really a big deal and cameras are better off without them.
>>4538332Normies simply don't realize the benefits of EVF because they've been shooting with their phones their entire lives.
My Sigma Art lens with no weather sealing just got wet in the rain. I dried it off constantly and now it's sitting on my shelf surrounded by packets of dessicants I've accumulated. How worried should I be?
>>4538374Not at all
The demographic shift in the west is sure to cause havoc in the used camera gear market.. for all those complaining about high prices and whatnot. Boomer deaths are escalating and those are the ones who primarily bought all the stuff lazy people who cant be bothered to hunt for good deals whine about. Gen X is also largely well off so when they inherit that "old crap that has been in the garage for decades" they sell it for next to nothing in order to clear space quickly. Another aspect to the whole equation is that the gearfags that were after these things have largely gotten their fill already. Combine all of this with a bad economy and you know what is coming next.
I want to see a manufacturer introduce fresnel microlenses to color filter arrays, to both improve light transmission and gain back the saturation levels of old sensorsJust imagine slide film levels of richness with the sensitivity to see in the dark
>>4538374Probably worth selling it just in case. Make sure you mention the problem in the listing to avoid refunds. Let me know when it's up on eBay just to check it's all good.
>>4538358Notice the Pentax pixel shift version is just as sharp as normal version. How can that be if the sensor is moving?Because the normal version had fine detail destroyed through Bayer interpolation. The pixel shift version is doing mechanical "interpolation" by physically moving the sensor - as with an OLPF the sampling data is better which is why the moiré is reduced.>>4538385It's time to advance beyond colour FILTER arrays into colour ROUTER arrays.Nanostructures direct light to photosites based on light's wavelength.No light loss due to filtering and no moiré / false colour problems since light reaching different colour photosites is sampled from the same spatial point.
>>4538402Nophoto ass puled technobabble. No one asked.
>>4538402>We should reduce resolution by 75% because I'm bad at using cameras, likely have never used a camera in real life at all, and was annoyed by a test chart I saw on dpreview>>4538198However, the fact that Nikon has chosen to sell a more expensive version D800e without the OLPF lends credence to our long standing opinion that the OLPF is, in general, an unwanted thing for most camera uses. No medium format back camera has one because those customers wouldn't buy it. We suspect that the use of the OLPF in consumer DLSR's is more of a marketing concern where they don't want someone posting a picture of a test chart online showing how a camera without an OLPF could exhibit moire. In most real life photographs, moire isn't an issue.>for the minority of photographs where it is, it is predictable and can be solved by using natural anti-aliasing from radial lens blur rather than artificial anti-aliasing from a geometric prism filter, as radial blur looks more natural and film-like>in other words, yes, the sony G master dpreview used for all their sample photos and test charts was a bad choice for snapshits of brick walls and test charts. sony G master lenses are intended almost exclusively for professional photoshoots. not snapshitting pissed-on brick walls in spokane like dpreview does.
>>4538408True. High end lenses are meant to be bought by professionals and no one else, not consumers "buying the best to get the most out of my camera" like paid-off review sites and other camera salesmen recommend they do.Professionals use cameras very purposefully and do not mind, and rather have always, shot high detail subjects at about f11 (typical cameras) or f8 (HR FF, 45mp+) to avoid moire, since OLPFs aren't 100% effective. Casual snapshitters, on the other hand, would freak if they were handed an a7iii and a GM prime or a z6iii and an S line zoom and start screeching about how the canon 5DIII is a better camera because of the OLPF and post dpreview screenshots showing really poorly processed fuji raws.
>>4538408Nice image showing sharpness of the projection before being destroyed by Bayer interpolation, i.e. step 1 in >>4538195 pic relatedAfter interpolation there is similar blurring, which is why the two examples in >>4538265 have nearly identical sharpness
>>4538412>look at this one section of dpreviews test chart please im begging you pixel peep it on dpreviewRead it againhttps://www.maxmax.com/maincamerapage/monochrome-cameras/olpf-study
the OLPF theory is "we have to force every lens to be artificially soft because i found a test chart and like five sample images from dpreview and all of them have aliasing. you HAVE to buy a lumix and pay kolari $500 or your camera is defective by design! PROOF? DPREVIEW. SAMPLE. IMAGES."The real life photography theory is "OLPFs are crutches for clueless consumers that worsen image quality globally to solve a rare and easily avoided issue, and serious photographers have specifically avoided them for decades without issue"
>>4538414> The real life photography theory is "OLPFs are crutches for clueless consumers that worsen image quality globally to solve a rare and easily avoided issue, and serious photographers have specifically avoided them for decades without issue"This should have been obvious since the strongest AA filters come on bodies with green box modes and the only truly high end bodies that use them lean strongly towards videography where they actually matter for once (see: VAF filters for canon DSLRs to make AA even stronger)
>>4538269>Serious artists STILL prefer stripped down cameras bereft of computer nerd “features” for pixel peepers and theorizing nitwitsSerious artists don't use glorified scanners called digital cameras.
>>4538416They do and have for longer than you’ve been alive. They just avoid consumer level cameras like the sony a7v if they can.
>>4538414Yep, diffraction and natural lens blur are absolutely superior to OLPFs for reducing moire. OLPFs are just a downgrade enforced on low end consumer gear to stop retards from complaining. It's like how cars are tuned poorly stock for fuel economy and safety because the real capability of the engine would prompt idiots to wrap the thing around a tree, even when regulations would allow a less fuel efficient car (and high end sports cars come tuned properly straight from the dealer).
my camera shipment arrived before the memory card packageso now I can't use it and have to wait.It's killing me.....
>>4538448The solution is simple anon, let me be "cryptic" )))Can you solve the riddle?
>>4538453>shove a T wrench up your assNo thanks.
>>4538467lmfao I hadn't even thought of that interpretationyou made me laugh so I'll provide the answer: tether the camera
>>4538408Also most old pro bodies used to have much weaker OLPFs than modern ones
>>4538398It's K mount. Will that be a problem?
>>4538472direction and displacement vary a lot camera to camera. there's really no making sweeping statements without real, physical sensor analysis to back them up. dpreview charts aren't even usable for this because it's just the horizontal section and uses varying versions of a shitty demosaicing program with varying lenses and notorious inconsistency.if any camera had a serious problem worth examining someone, somewhere, would peel the OLPF and CFA off it and actually examine it instead of making shit up, fr
This "debate" has been going on for months now.Kill yourselves, all three of you.
Magic Lantern put up a simulator on their sitehttps://www.magiclantern.fm/Some fool was saying in previous threads that Lumix is like A7 running magic lantern.He has clearly never used a Lumix. After trying ML it's clear that it's a small step up from the primitive Canon OEM workings. Sony firmware is only slightly better than Canon's. Lumix is far far far ahead of both.
This "debate" has only made me realize that the only really, truly good camera for image quality under $10k is an older larger (greater than 43mm) sensor MFDB like a phaseone p45+ with better lighting to go with it, and all full frame upgrades after the 5DIII are literally just a skill issueOf all the words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these... doghair was right again
>>4538489>the tone curve saaaaaaaaaaaaaar pls buy lumixNo way fagYou don't need more than a canon DSLR git gud
I don't need power windows in my car, but after driving a car with them I don't really want to go back to hand cranks.>"You're a bad driver"That's how stupid you sound.
>>4538492False equivalenceIt's more like "i don't need AI to write my posts for me, but after having AI post on 4chan for me I don't want to go back"
there is literally nothing that compares to the raw vs jpeg debate besides maybe, actual kiln fired clay vs childs putty "clay">fuck your glaze it changes colors and is too confusing and hard to use. my crayola clay lets me see what the piece will look like as i make it so its superior.
>>4538370EVF doesn't have 30+ stops of latitude like an OVF does. It's literally a screen you look at through a tiny window.The only benefit it gives is another point of contact for stability, nothing more, and way less vs optical.The ideal EVF would be a 1:1 sensor visualization without demosaicing and raw passthrough but nobody does that yet.
>>4538505You should vibe code that into some firmware package
>>4538490Large pixel pitch + relatively high MP is a very nice combo and unique to larger sensor formats. There's something to be said about the lenses, and how the physical size of the sensor influences the optics, but thats secondary to the actual sensor combo.
>>4538505>>ideal EVF would be a 1:1 sensor visualization without demosaicing:'D
>>4538479The weak OLPF was not a defect, anon. They were designed that way
>>4538492People who use gimmicks like power doors and windows are just bad drivers.Skilled drivers don't need these gimmicks.
>>4538522Hilarious, right? It's safe to assume those faggots never used a camera before.>OLPF>sensor size>SNR>megapickles>muh "3d pop" (lmao)>muh "soulful" (cheap and poorly corrected) glass>FF + plastic fantastic pancake lens>muh DSLRs>"mirrorless is for video only">muh brands>moire>Pentax DSLRs (the most neckbeard brand in existence, died for a reason)>bayer>fuji worms>false color>MFT bad because it's not FOOL FRAME>reach>crop>low res > high res (lmfao) or perhaps "older = gooder, newer worser" *caveman noises*>full well capacity>tonality>noise floorAnd not a single photo to post.You people don't even realize how pathetic you are. Leave your house and touch some grass. Pic related.
>>4538548>muh "3d pop" (lmao)>muh "soulful" (cheap and poorly corrected) glass>FF + plastic fantastic pancake lens>muh DSLRsThese are based>MFT bad because it's not FOOL FRAMEYes, micro four thirds is bad, child. >low res > high res (lmfao) or perhaps "older = gooder, newer worser" *caveman noises*Correct. >full well capacity>tonality>noise floorReal things that snoy brained pixel counters like you just dont know about sad. I sure hope that $4000 fuji was worth it to take a photo with no 3d pop. Imagine spending all that money just to get soulmogged by a 5d classic. Lel. inb4 chart/dpreview screenshot
>>4538554Retard autist spotted. Get the fuck out of this board.
>>4538548Micro four thirds is bad and spending thousands of dollars on a “40mp” fujifilm is bad. Deal with it. Every camera that isnt a snoy nikon or canon flagship is sold to the same idiot audience that buys mechanical watches and cheap “sports” cars. A lot of them are actually shit and worse than phones or overpriced for the image quality of a 15 year old DSLR because the idiot audience of feminine male tech nerds falls for the scam that easily. See: leica.
>nooooo stop liking 3d pop and soul i spent $gorillion based on sharpness and noise and dpreview pixel peeping charts you’re giving me buyers remorse nooooo
>>4538560>3d popCare to show us an example that you can explain using real words instead of instagram filters?
>>4538562>i cant google and look at photos 3d pop is older than you, snoybrain
>>4538548Truly a $6000 photo you could not have taken with a used canon 5d mk3 or 7d and pre-usm 100mm f2.8 macroWhy are gearfags so defensive of their gearfaggotry?
>>4538496You still think this is a RAW vs SOOC JPEG debate.It's actually a develop RAWs on site vs develop RAWs at home debate.Lumix and some other cameras have enough in-camera development controls that the RAW editor at home offers no significant advantage over it. I would not do anything differently on the RAW editor at home that I do in the camera on site. I don't need infinite adjustment possibilities because I am taking realistic photographs not doing weird art projects.I can develop RAWs at home or on site and I choose on site.As a DSLR user you are locked out of developing RAWs on site by your equipment, so you are just sour grapes coping not really debating pro/con.
>>4538548>MFT badUnironically, yes. The sole legitimate use case is bird photography yet I'd still take APS-C over this anyday.
>>4538565>use an inferior raw processor on a tiny inaccurate screen! its the future! its realistic not art! art is bad! you need to be a reality scanner!>no one bought that>lumix market share: 1%Every professional I work with wireless tethers to a macbook or iPad running capture one and literally no one uses lumix garbage except for the nonphotographers paid to review camerasAlso no one interested in scientific accuracy uses this shit either, they shoot raw and use calibration shots to ensure accuracy on their calibrated display. Cameras are not capable of accuracy. SOOC jpegs are like phone photos, and camera screens / EVFs cant be calibrated and are never color and contrast accurate.
>>4538559>>4538560>>4538563>>4538564>>4538566...and not a single photo posted.Comedy fucking gold.
>>4538565Paid shill at it againhttps://archive.palanq.win/p/search/image/AaMLM6Kz9lJm7dkfBEUvfQ/Get it through your skull. No one here is ever going to waste their money on a crippled scamera like the s9. You spend all day arguing and basically redefining photography so lumix sounds like the only option, even outright lying about superior competitors like fuji, canon and nikon, just to try and trick someone into buying a lumix.Has it worked?No, you've just made /p/ hate you and hate lumix. It is now the most hated brand here after sony. I will never buy a lumix product ever again.
>>4538570>mom i posted it again>>4538246lol>>4538281>>4538282kek mrleica is a better photographer than every review blogger kek lol
>when its gear i like: an out of focus photo of some grass makes me right>when people dont like my overpriced gear for talentless snapshitters: you haff to post a photo for every opinion >:(Yeah, we all saw how well that worked when huskyfag, doghair, and corgifag repeatedly blew cANON and cinefag out with facts, logic, and photographyAll they got was schizophrenic seething and a photo of a blurry flower shared between the two shills, not victory, not a concession, not a resolution. They won, but the war kept going. The axis of evil continues spamming /p/ with gear threads so it can repeat its lumix and aps-c canon dslr shilling until some poor new user falls for it.
>>4538548>I won because I posted a terrible photo in the gear thread and you didn't Your photo is extreme garbage, and your false sense of superiority is giving me second hand embarrassment. You've only ever posted 3/10 or lower photos, so what does it matter? That expensive toy camera doesnt make you a better photographer? Is that what you're trying ti prove? I can point my phone at some grass and take a similar picture without spending 6 grand. Lol
>>4538570I've never trusted fujispammer because his photos are so bad. This is true.
>>4538576Post yours retard.
>>4538575>Your photo is extreme garbage,Must be the lack of OLPF.>You've only ever posted 3/10 or lower photosThat's ok. You never posted a photo.>expensive toy cameraKeep seething poorfag lmao.>I can point my phone at some grass and take a similar pictureYou can't point anything at anything and take anything because you're too autistic to leave your home and too bitter to notice any beauty in the world that surrounds you. You're all about olpfmoirecropfullwellwhatever. Worthless little shit looping over the same topics over and over again. Actually now that I'm thinking about this you could be a bot. Pretty hard to tell these days. Leave.
>>4538579Even corgifag takes better photos than this
>>4538580Keep crying, bitch.I'm still waiting for your photos.
>>4538581$6000 camera10mp soft jpegof a treeshot wide open"no one needs FOOL frame"If you're trolling you're very much serving the 5D II agenda by making the opposite side look like colossal idiots
>>4538580>>4538583I mean it can't be that hard to produce a single 7/10 photo to post here. You do own a camera, right?
>>4538583I'm sure your OLPF must moire full well tonality, right? Full frame bayer demosaicing crop sensor camera can't be MFT tonality without Lumix noise floor capacity.
>>4538584Every time someone wastes a photo on you, cANON, or cinefag it's a genuine waste
>>4538586>>4538584>This is what $6000 gets you
>>4538586I bet that bird loves X-Trans worms.
>>4538589>>4538588ecks dee
>>4538592>photography forum>people get mad when someone posts picturesMust be mental illness of some kind.>>4538589Even cANON deserves more respect than you. He actually posted an image nice and it was nice, Soft, blurry, dreamy image of a flower. Just a snap but it was real. Unlike your photos that don't seem to exist.
>>4538593>niceonce
>>4538593Why would anyone waste photos on a gear troll? Do you think somehow nobody needs full frame after you blew your savings on an adult funko pop because you have less dignity than anyone else?I don't want to be the next huskyfag, and you're already the next huskyfag. A gear troll that only posts photos in gear threads to pretend their gear opinions are correct.
>>4538594>imagine shooting on a crop xtrans worms no OLPF $6000 toy cameraImpossible.>>4538595>waste photosThose are digital images, anon. They are copies... Maybe this is why you never post anything? You just don't know those can be used more than once? The only waste here is the air you're breathing.>>4538595>nobody needs full framekek I don't give a fuck nigga it's you who seem obsessed with sensor sizes not meSmall pp complex?
Ok fuck this I'm bored. Nophoto faggots keep seething but also consider ending your life in minecraft.
>>4538597Those really look like tasty bread rolls desu. Or maybe I'm just fat.
>His photos are so bad, he needs to post them in gear arguments to get attention>He might even have one that's above average, but it will never matter because he only used it to "win" a gear argument that was going in a direction that made him feel buyers remorse
>>4538599Some of the photos in the last few gears threads were actually cool. We need more of that.
>>4538596>makes dumb claim forever>realizes it was dumb>i dont care actuallyStill has to post his photos in a gear thread to argue about gear instead of posting them to post good photosYou will never post a good photo if all you do is dogfag it and post the same routine photos over and over again to supposedly claim your gear is good
>>4538601>We need more of that.Yes, we need more photos but OLPF is more important. You wouldn't get it.
>>4538601we need photos in photo threads. dogfagging it by using terrible snapshits to argue about gear (ironically proving that thousands of dollars might as well go to a d750 and a couple of plane tickets because the photos dont even look that good and are like 10mp) is what keeps these spam threads alive.>>4538603Literally what huscuck did in /mft/ and /mft/ wasnt even banned until the spam got really bad/gear/ is the new /mft/ and you are the new huscuck'grats
>>4538604What we really need is a moderator. It's the only true way to get rid of persistant shitposters.
>>4538579>posts another 2/10>actually seething now>copes about the truthKek. I have photos posted in the photo threads, seething retard. The gear thread is for discussing gear. You spamming it with more and more 2/10 images does NOT make your point any more valid. It actually detracts because you continue to post worse and worse photos. You even posted your little meme about not trusting shitty photographers. All you do is walk around in the middle of the day and take snapshits. You're like a bio-cctv camera. Zero value photographs. All close ups are center framed and everything else is just a standing height snapshit of nothing interesting.>>4538579This scene had potential, but the light is utter shit and your composition is just bad. way too tight, which is a true gearfag mistake. 3/10 photo.>>4538581>extremely terrible light>badly spaced elements throughout this entire scene ruin the flow of the photograph>standing height composition >nothing picture2/10 photo.>>4538584Most boring and sloppy snapshit ever. Waste of time to even critique it. -10/10>>4538586>hideous, bland, uninsteresting light>basic bitch composition that adds nothing to the photograph>boring looking bird of common variety>busy background>2/10
>>4538602>same routine photos over and over againI'm not autistic enough to go through photos on my NAS just to entertain a handful of gear obsessed faggots on /p/. Contents of a desktop folder named "snaps" is all you'll get. The best of walk with my dog photography.
>>4538607>keeps a cope folder on his desktopLMAO
Feels like kicking an ants nest. The anger. The seething. Hilarious.
>>4538599>He might even have one that's above averageThanks for liking my photos. It means a lot.
>>4538609>posts another snapshit taken from standing heightEveryone is laughing at you and annoyed that you're spamming the gear thread with consistently terrible photographs.
>>4538608>folder with photographsSuch an alien concept. It's like a folder of moire charts but you took the photos yourself.
>>4538613>copes about his cope folderPottery
>>4538611>spamming the gear threadWas there any value to this thread in the first place? Other than keeping you rabid retards contained.
>>4538607>They're just disposables>This is all you get >It's a throwaway>My real photos go to another schoolyeah it's this again>>4538611He is a gear thread regular and his posts about gearfagging keep it alive. He even makes gear threads himself. This meltie isn't his usual routine it's just what he does when his buyers remorse hits a crescendo. The resident gear fags keep doing this exact same thing and then pretend that now, all of a sudden, they're the ones saving /p/But if they were they'd have made their own photo thread instead of having a "i have snapshits so I WIN THE GEAR ARGUMENT" meltdown in a gear threadThey never make their own threadsBecause their photos are dogshitI give this latest iteration of huskyfuck (who was an iteration of corgifuck, who was an iteration of tom, who was an iteration of moop) a year before he realizes he's talentless and downgrades to a non-professional kit like an old DSLR, sony a7ii or point and shoot just like the all of the prior gear thread photo meltie havers
>>4538615If there's no value in it you're denigrating your snapshits further. They don't even deserve /rpt/. Their only function is winning a gear argument on /p/.
>>4538617He calls his own photos snapshits and still spams rpt with them. I think he spent 6k just to be a better attention whore on baskets forums. Lol
>>4538616>My real photos go to another schoolMy real photos are of people I know and people I love. They are not "better" but vastly more valuable to me. There is no point in showing those. >>4538616>He even makes gear threads himselfNope. Not even once have I posted a gear thread. Never will.
>>4538621>My real photos are of people I know and people I loveHuskyfag and cinefag said this exact same thing.The pattern keeps repeating. At least huskyfag was just being an ebay scalper because he's a jew.
Remember to OLPF your moire so your 5D MK IIs won't exceed their full well noise floor capacities, friends. And under any circumstances don't leave your homes to take photos. That's not kosher.
>>4538623Post photos in a photo thread instead of degrading yourself as a snapshitter who only uses their camera to validate their opinions and purchases in gear threadsEveryone who did this before you has apparently left /p/ and stopped doing photography
>>4538623Exceptionally sloppy execution, boring lighting, and a cliche image.
>ANOTHER buyers remorse snapshit spammer that never leaves the gear thread he actually lives in to brag about his current $4000 snapshit machinehow long until this one quits and which ancient cheap camera will he end up with? another 5DII or maybe a D600?these people are just trolling right? they usually turn out to be ebay resellers with no intent of actually keeping their current camera or they actually borrowed it from their camera store job or rented it to shoot their friends wedding for $500
>>4538596>it's you who seem obsessed with sensor sizes not me>Small pp complex?nailed it.
>>4538628Lol he started his trolling career making it about sensor sizeThese neo-isis like huscuck and fujispammer are all the same fr
>>4538569>Every professional I work with wireless tethers to a macbook or iPad running capture one and literally no one uses lumix garbage except for the nonphotographers paid to review camerasSounds about right for 40+, but the younger crowd doesn't like post-processing so they gravitate to cameras with extensive in-camera processing controls.
>>4538631>making it about sensor sizeIf I recall correctly his point always was that sensor size is much less important than corporate marketing and gear trolls would like everyone to believe.
>>4538632Literally noone buys lumix. Everyone is buying the fuji xhalf. That crowd is mostly just consumerists who follow fashion trends and dont even know how to use lumix’a linux tier firmware gimmicks. They arent tech autists with “philosophical” opinions like you, loser nerd. you are a nerd3/5s of a human beingnothing you think matters in reality or reflects realityyou are just like linux fanboys who talk about their “better way of doing things” that requires a bunch of autist logic spammed to cope but lacks practical adoptionyou are less than the experienced people and the apple babiesnerds are worthless individuals who need to spam their opinions on the internet to livesales and market share do not lie. if your nerd opinions were right the world would follow. >uhm im a superior being not a normiethen why are you a poor ugly loser on 4chan
>>4538633Sensor size importance would have saved him from spending $6000 on gear just to make 10mp jpegs of leaveshow long until this latest gearfag snapshit coper quits photography or downgrades to old shit? 6 months?
>>4538635>quits photography or downgrades to old shit? 6 months?Is that what happened to you? Sad.
what do you mean an artificially lit room is considered low-light? My sensor size and aperture maximizing ambitions turn out to be more practical that I thought.
>>4538636its what happens to all the gearfags who only post photos to gear copedoghair doesnt use his mfdb anymore and probably sold the whole $20000 kithuskek has a 5d2 and said he’d never actually buy a nice camera to keep itcorgi fag sold almost everythingmoop downgraded his sony and now his new (old) one collects dustrentalfag never even owned his nice canon rf gear and vanished when he sent it backthe nikon shill llm is using a used om5 instead of a zf nowtom just quitcANON quit so hard he doesnt even have his thrift store digitals anymore and uses a $10 film SLR once or twice a yearthese are your people and this is your fatethe fate of the gearfag
>>4538639Pentax ewaste guy used to be a bigger spender tooMaybe they’re all just playing around with deals they got on fb marketplace before reselling for beer money and the gearfaggotry was just transient larpingNo one here is rich. They have jobs like building PLC cabinets and driving buses.
>>4538639I got my mfdb with the camera body and 5 lenses as a lot so I could eventually adapt it to film. The hy6 is the most advanced medium format film camera ever made. The kit is worth around or over 20k to the right buyer, but I only initially paid like 4k for mfdb + body + 5 lenses. The film back and adapter were an additional 1.5kish. Totally worth it. The camera is amazing to use with film and I still use it just about every week.The problem with the mfdb is that it is obnoxiously slow to shoot with, and suffers from like a quarter/half second shutter lag, which makes handheld shooting really difficult. With the film back the camera is snappy for medium format and really fun to use.The only time I really use digital is my 5dm3 to test flash setups for 8x10 portraiture and my phone for everyday snapshits. I would definitely use the mfdb if I wanted to do a digital + 8x10 studio session because it excels in that realm. Skin tones, colors, tonality, focus falloff, etc are all incredibly amazing with lots of good light.
>>4538639>What, you guys dont ACTUALLY like $9001 fujifilm gear?Its almost like expensive cameras are only good for trolling, competitive professional work, and unrealistic chart autism, all anyone needs to take good photos is old junk, and all that money provides significantly greater gains in other hobbies while photography hits the point of sharply diminishing returns around the price of a used D810 or 5DS R.
>>4538639Also the semi ironic thing is that my main cameras are a 1v/5dm3 with a 24-70 f2.8, and a 70-200 f2.8, the Sinar hy6 for 120 film with 3-4 primes, and a monster zoom lens, and a sinar 8x10 for studio with about 5 or 6 lenses I mainly use. Convenience, speed, and ease of use win out in handheld formats, and for slower studio work the autism camera wins, and I use them all pretty consistently over all my handheld manual focus film cameras because they just get the job done better and easier for me.
>>4538604>>4538606cANON or cinefag seething and lashing outMaybe get a nice camera and stop making yourself miserable with shitty gear
>>4538648>schizo cope
>>4538639>cANON quit so hard he doesnt even have his thrift store digitals anymore and uses a $10 film SLR once or twice a yearThis is fanfic. It's not a $10 film SLR, and I didn't stop digislugging. In fact I shot a session on Friday. >>4538640Some don't even own their gear, their handlers do. That's why they cope about how EVFs are supposedly fine and trustworthy, they don't have a choice.
>>4538642>Skin tones, colors, tonality, focus falloff, etc are all incredibly amazing with lots of good light.That is true for every format though
>>4538648Cope plebEveryone sees you're deep in consoomer hell
>>4538652>my sessions go to an underground school in ukraineKek>glowies are defending EVFsYou don't even verify your subject with canon 12x50 IS binoculars, scrub. You just pixel peep and trust your DIGITAL sensor's built in AI.
>>4538653I mean yeah, but it goes from like a 7 to a 8.5 or 9 in terms of goodness.
>>4538655"It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.""Do not give to dogs anything that is holy. And do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and then proceed to tear you to pieces."
>>4538661For being an antisemite, you sure like to quote Rabbi yeshua bar yosef calling non-Kews dogs and swineHere's another one from your hero>5 These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them, “Go nowhere among the Goyim and enter no town of the Samaritans
>>4538663Acts 1:8 you pilpuling faggot. After the resurrection that restriction is lifted. Christ came to the Earth because Jews turned their back on God. Reminder that they tried to trick him asking him what the most important commandment was. They had this corrupted version based on derivatives the Pharisees came up with where there was no scale of importance, every rule had the same weight. It's what you see in the Talmud. They often contradict each other so they resort to doublethink and copes like the Eruvs around cities.
>>4538667>romans adopt weird jewish cult>realize it's not about them>oh shit oh shit>write a bunch of bs (acts, paul) retconning out most of the religion>god changed his mind you can eat pork too>fixed! phew. we almost converted to judaism for as econd!>now here's the mother goddess, the saint of the harvest, the saint of winter, the saint of war, the saint of alcohol... pray to them tooChristians are literal larpagans. Pagans larping as jews.
>>4538668>*tips kippah*
>>4538668It's not too late for you to abandon your deicidal cult and welcome Christ into your life. The first covenant was replaced.
>>4538634>sales and market share do not lie. if your nerd opinions were right the world would follow.95% of Canon cameras sold have never and will never save a RAW file.Canon NPCs run everything on default, not even touching the limited JPEG settings.I am talking about people who actually exert creative control on their photos not auto mode shutter button pressers. Creative people, especially the younger generation, are not interested in the Canikony workflow that requires a separate computer + lightroom to finish the photos. Zoomers hardly own/use computers and use phones for everything. Now Canikony are playing catch-up by incorporating film-sim / LUT like capabilities to try and capture the young generation.
>inb4 retards call Jesus a Muslim because of what he had to say about their drooling pets
>>4538672Anon, Nikons have featured in-camera filters and editing since the 00s. They basically invented it. The D5300 I often praise has it, in fact.
>>4538673Jesus on dogs>these things are exactly like non jewsk so dogs actually invented civilization, cars, the internet, etc and einstein stole relativity from a poodle and a terriernot a good look for dog haters
>>4538675Nice try yid
>>4538672But fujispammer is a boomer.
>>4538677ok katzberg meowstein
>cANON hates jews, but worships a jew, and follows judaism for dummies, which had all the hard parts retconned out by a jewYou can't be a christian and an anti-semite. It is impossible.
>>4538680The only retcon is modern so-called Christian teachings that pretend the synagogue of Satan is respectable and Israel from the Bible is the Zionist entity. I blame the Scofield bible.
>>4538674Filters are on every 00's digicam. I'm talking about editing parameters like tone curves. Nikon still does not have in-camera tone curves, neither does Canon. Sony has some convoluted implementation in picture profiles not suited for real-time edits.It's basically only Canikony that can't do this and it's fundamental.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xti6t0zgemo
>>4538692Its not fundamental no one even wants to do this shit. Raw is the standard, editing on inaccurate shitty 3” screens is a waste of time and no one buys lumix shit. Fuck off with your shill campaign notphotog.
>>4538692>I'm talking about editing parameters like tone curves.True, but if you care that much you can use curves in their preset tool and just load it onto cameraOr just do the simple answer of shoot RAW and decide on edit later
>>4538692>every thread every day until you buy a lumix saaaaarIf panasonic is desperate enough to pay a 4chan shill I am NEVER wasting my time on a lumix. They must be exactly as shit as everyone says they are and the sales numbers implyinb4 copeinb4 same thing next thread
>>4538692My favorite part about the lumix shill is that he's a true nophoto.
>>4538698>Its not fundamental no one even wants to do this shit.lmao he doesn't edit highlight/shadow curves. I think this is the auto-levels everything guy.
>>4538703AutoexposureCapture One auto-levelsyou don't need more, nerd.
>>4538703Not on camera because it would never be accurateCamera screens are just composition aids with marketing slogans attached
>>4538708Most commonly, camera screens are brighter, more saturated, and more contrasty than the images they display actually are. In 2008, this made normies feel like the camera takes better photos when they try it out at best buy. Japan never stopped doing it, especially for low end budget brands like lumix (because japanese never stopped buying cameras at big box stores)
>>4538709>(because japanese never stopped buying cameras at big box stores)I think no one did other than americans and some rootless cosmopolitans in Europe
>>4538506The thing is, the sensor readout isn't fast enough for even a pathetic 60Hz. You can't vibe code a hardware limitation. They skip lines and columns to give to an approximation of what the final image looks like but it's never accurate.>>4538548Nobody is saying you can't use an EFV, but at bare minimum it shouldn't be an interpretation of algorithms and a more direct feed would be superior.One situation where it would stand to be superior would be low light, on a tripod, letting you see in the dark with basically long-exposure night vision. So many cameras force the OVF or LCD screen view to refresh at a certain rate (not on demand) so you're not getting any benefit over an OVF at that point, and when it comes to tricky lighting situations, you're getting seriously gimped performance vs what an OVF used to give you.Flashing lights in otherwise dark lighting situation? OVF reigns supreme, OVF causes issues.The only tangible benefit that EVFs give people is a fixed focus meaning if you wear glasses, what you see is what you get. No more mismatch from bad eyes fucking your focus up. If it's sharp on the EVF it's sharp from the sensor, something OVFs had issues with.
EVF can be put anywhere but they still put them right above the lens because that's how it physically required on SLRswhat are some other legacy camera quirks that persist just because japanese makers refuse to innovate?
>>4538736I feel like a lot of it has to do with boomers. For instance the Canon R7 has a very ergonomic layout with a control wheel around the joystick located exactly where the thumb rests making changing settings and adjusting focus points a 2in1 feature instead of having to change your grip like on the other models, but this was something they complained about a lot to the point that I am sure Canon will revert to the blobmera layout from the DSLR days meaning you have to move your thumb instead of having it available where it rests naturally.So in terms of layout changes it is because boomers are autistic. The younger generation is much quicker to adapt new things and seeing how boomers are still their main source of income for professional gear it is unlikely that we will see a departure from old design philosophy.
>>4538737If the R7's body was bigger I'm sure the wheel placement wouldn't be such an issue.
>>4538736Some have it on the left. Have you never shot a camera with off-centre view finder? It's not better, it's different. In a way it's faster and more comfortable, but it feels less precise due to not being on axis with the lens, and it's less stable to hold.
>>4538742One day mirrorlessfags will try a camcorder and realize it's the void they tried to fill with chimeras from day one.
>>4538737Right thumb is for back button focusing, not your game boy shit pal
>>4538737Young people are literally 60x more autistic than boomers (due to anime, vaccines, and asian food). Consider canon blobs are just better and its just foids and troons that dislike the big manly blobmera.
Mirrorless mostly exists because japanese camera engineers aren't talented enough to miniaturize DSLRs down to the size of a film SLR and it was cheaper for them to ape leica's lens design practices instead of developing actual new technology.They were damned if they did (EVFs do kind of suck), and damned if they didn't (FF DSLRs had already spent TEN years being overdue for a design overhaul, and sales were dropping because people no longer wanted to carry a plastic chunk of shit that's the size of a hasselblad 500cm+80mm f2.8. bonus, hasselblad 500cms were <$500 at the time the first mirrorless came out)
>>4538767It just couldn't be because people actually prefer them. No way.
It appears that a brand-new, unused Sony A7 III can now be purchased for as little as €999. Would it be a good camera to buy if I wanted to get into wildlife and nature photography? I know it's not the best lens, but I could pair it with a used 100–400mm f/5.6-8 lens to start with and perhaps upgrade the lens later on. I just want to get something cheap to start with.
>>4538771>supertele wildlife>24mp full frameDo yourself a favor and get a crop camera instead, it'll be like having a 150-600 if it's 24mp too
>>4538771>>4538773I forgot to mention that I already own a really beatup D800 with a manual 35mm lens from the times when I still shot weddings and stuff. But honestly, it is in such bad condition that I am afraid it will just break on me whenever I take it out for casual shooting. The D-pad is already broken, so I can not really use any AF lenses with that camera.At this point, I might as well just get a new mirrorless body, but I am struggling to find one that I really would like for wildlife and nature photography.
>>4538773I do apologize for flooding the thread with so many posts.I do not have a powerful enough computer to edit photos taken with a camera that has a sensor larger than 24MP. That was one of the reasons I thought the Sony A7 III would be a good option. I still think it has better low-light performance than any APS-C camera, right?
>>4538771Sony build quality consistency is as the made in china label implies, and the a7iii in particular is prone to shutter failure and LCD screen fuckups.There's a reason similarly specced cameras like the R6II and Z5II are more expensive
>>4538776Low-light performance is mostly about the lens and distance to subjectBigger aperture (focal length divied by f number) means better low lightCloser to subject means more light gatheredSensor size determines noise per pixel, shadow recovery, the visual impact of photon shot noise, and how finely gradations are recorded, while making less complex lenses seem sharper because the spatial resolution of the sensor is typically greater vs the lens image circle
>>4538777Yeah, I remember seeing a video where Sony A7RIII was tested for weather sealing against the Nikon D850 and Canon 5D Mark IV and the Sony performed the worst of the three cameras.But the R6II and Z5II are also newer cameras so comparing them would not really be fair.Sorry for being autistic fuck
>>4538776It's a gear thread and you're asking a genuine question, don't be sorry. Low light performance isn't just camera but lens dependent, and if you'll be cropping anyways then you'll lose it. >>4538774The D800 unironically mogs the a7iii for wildlife. The a6500 and a6700 do too. Literally any 24MP APS-C body does. You could get almost the same performance with a 1.5 teleconverter on the a7iii but it'll be still worse than just using an APS-C body. Now if "and nature" meant landscapes then disregard all this and go with full frame for the extra versatility (more, better wide angle lenses for cheaper). As for low light, MFT with speedbooster adapter is competitive with the low light specialist a7S (and I'm sure GH5S beats it)https://youtube.com/watch?v=RPLgVj2PLjoSo it's all relative. A dim lens on FF is worse than a bright one on APS-C.
>>4538777>is as the made in china label impliesThat's a meme, there's good stuff made in China. Its quality is as the Sony label implies, aka garbage outside of Venice and Burano.
>>4538782I would like to shoot both animals and landscape. >The D800 unironically mogs the a7iii for wildlife. That would be fantastic, if it were true. However I do believe the A7III does have better AF than the D800. >Literally any 24MP APS-C body does.Since you guys are pulling me that way, how dumb it would be to go for a used D500? It is an APS-C and the AF must be better than D800. Also, the price of F-mount lenses is very low right now. Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 seems like a good lens.
>>4538787Or I don't know, maybe I just get 200-500mm f5.6 and use it on my D800. If the D800 brakes I could just get a mirrorless Nikon to replace that camera.
What are some good tilt shift lenses for m4/3?>>4538169what? who?
>>4538787>Since you guys are pulling me that way, how dumb it would be to go for a used D500?Not dumb at all. >>4538788That'd be great too if the Nikon weren't already half broken.
>>4538787>>4538797WRONG.pngD500 is an extremely overpriced APS-C.It was expensive back in the day for ONE reason: Fast FPS.Today, that FPS is laughably low.If you like the build quality and professional control layout (two wheels etc.), you get a D7200 (or higher).
>>4538787>>4538805Also pretty dumb to assume the AF is any different from the D800 (which is very good, by the way).The AF on the D7200 is slightly worse, because it is more centered and has fewer focus points, but it still works well (and because APS-C lets in less light than a FF D800).
>>4538806Actually, I take that back. The D7200 also has a large amount of focus points and they are not that centered.I got it mixed up with the D600, which uses an APS-C AF sustem on FF, which ends up being more concentrated in the middle of the viewfinder.
>>4538771A73/4 shutter is ngmi
what the fuck am I looking at here
>>4538806>muh D7200cANON pls>or higherthat's the D500
free shipping too?
>>4538782>a6700pick this one if you like your animals glowing magenta.
>>4538808Ah yes the Sony quality we all know and love
>>4538812>fuji looks even worseidk why you were trying to prove here kiddo but cameras have color adjustments for a reason, also chink glass probably taints color and the Sony a7 iii would have the same colors as the 6700.
>>4538811>>4538812Reverse Wayfair?I'm more curious about this one desu
I wish I had friends who'd show me their photographic gear
>>4538814a6700's color is fundamentally botched. There is no easy way to correct for this.
>>4538816
Do you really need APS-C in the era of the A7R VI?That's 29.7MP in crop mode, while retaining full frame FOV and IQ to compose your final image.
>>4538821What if I am too poor
>>4538823Don't be poor :)
>>4538821Well it depends. Do you have $4500 to spend on a Sony body with a mount designed for APS-C?You could get a PYXIS 12K for just $1300 more. That's 80MP. And it's available in ARRI PL, Leica L or Canon EF. All respectable mounts.
>>4538812>>4538817Reposted notphotog spam>>4538825Nophoto dogfuckerImagine listening to a word said in this thread, between the dogfucker, the conspiracy theorist belarussian furfag, and the indian neverphoto that makes up shit based on dpreview screenshots
>>4538829fuck off slanderous pedophile
>>4538830>pedoWhat, is it cANON without his trip?
>>4538831Clearly not cANON because he also slandered him. This guy is desperate to make up shit about people on the board because he has something to hide, and what he's hiding is his condition of being a pedo.
Where is the Z-series firmware projects happening? I can only find old DSLR stuff with search engines.
>>4538807I remember going to my local D500/D5 launch event back in the dayD500 uses the same AF system as the D5, which was great for the era
Is the D700 still a good camera?
(repost from dead thread did not see this one) hello /p/, I am a photography noob. I have an old EOS 1000D (rebel XS in the US I think) and the classic 50mm 1.8 + 24mm 2.8 combo. I'm going on a longer trip soon and would like to make an upgrade before to take some cool photos, but I'm not sure what to focus. I'd like a zoom lens for wildlife and more spontaneous shots, but I also feel like a newer body might be nice. would be willing to spend about 1000€. would appreciate opinions and recs (even just for resources to find more info)
>>4538834I'm also curious about this.I would love to use DX lenses on my Z6 without forced crop.
>>4538839Nope, it's 12MP e-waste
>>4538841Definitely get a zoom. Primes are nice, but awful for travel snapping. You want to be able to reframe any scene on the go.
>>4538810>that's the D500No it isn't, and cANON is a gigafag
>>4538848let's recap on what the 7500 vs 7200 thing is>7500less MPone less card slotlower res screenno official battery gripno OVF DOF previewno aperture feelerthe only thing that went up was price
>>4538850>7500What the fuck are you talking about?
>>4538851"D7200 or higher" and then denying the D500 was higher... implies D7500
>>4538852No, it implies it doesn't matter what number above D7100 you choose because they're all virtually the same.D500 is a definitive downgrade with a boomer price tag.
what settings and quick controls do you recommend for a 1/2.3" superzoom?
>>4538853D7500 is a crippled version of D500 and no one said D7100, they said D7200 or higher
>>4538855No, D500 is just an insanely overpriced chunky blob version of a D7500.Yes, ABOVE D7100 means D7200 or higher, you fucking imbecile.To actually get anything better, you need to go full frame, which starts at D600, which is about half the price of a D500.
>>4538839Depends on what good meansit can certainly produce great photos with proper lighting and is very good at color discrimination
>>4538856>No, D500 is just an insanely overpriced chunky blob version of a D7500.Wrong, the D7500 is a D7200 with a D500 sensor and none of the pro features. Nobody mentioned the D7100 until you did in >>4538853See >>4538805, he said D7200 or higher. D600 isn't an upgrade for a guy who has a D800 and wants to do wildlife. Stop being dishonest.
>>4538809A fake website made to scam gullible westerners? I've seen the same for other stuff as well, even used gear. It is probably an automated script somebody is selling to other thieves.
>>4538862Of course a D800 is better than a D600.The point is there's no point at all in buying a D500, when a D7200 exists at a fraction of the cost, if APS-C reach is what you want.
>>4538841EF-S 55-250 IS STM, the last and best version they made of that lens.
>>4538864Maybe he wants the FPSSure the D500 has a little less reach but it makes up with other upgrades. Not everyone has to minmax price, it's not all that much more expensive. MSRP was scammy but we're talking used gear here.
>>4538864If it weren't so late in Minsk I'd be convinced I'm talking to cANON fwiw
>>4538866The D500 is more expensive than a D800, man
>>4538868Well it's much newer and didn't get its price slashed by a faulty shutter design. It's about the same price as the D810 which is a D800 with a fixed shutter.
>>4538869The D7200 doesn't have a shutter problem.The D600 did, but it is easily fixed (if it has any oil splatter, you just clean it off and it will never return).The D800 shutter problem is overblown, but it is very loud.
>>4538870>The D600 did, but it is easily fixed (if it has any oil splatter, you just clean it off and it will never return).>The D800 shutter problem is overblown, but it is very loud.You're right I got D800 and 600 mixed up. D810 fixed AF problems. The Dx10 models indicate minor revisions.
>>4538834>>4538844there is wonderlanternhttps://github.com/WonderLantern
>>4538856>>4538864Dude, don't even waste your time replying to cinefag unless it's to call him a dogfucker (he is).>>4538830You gladly admit you fantasize about women fucking dogs. You even defend this. You call it "just eugenics". You're a dogfucker. Go away.>>4538787Protip: cANON and cinefag do NOT do photography, they make shit up based on dpreview screenshots and various gearfag blogs they read.Have you considered snagging a used z5ii and adapting your F mount shit? Mirrorless is expensive. $1000 doesn't come without compromises. Just save up more instead of getting a sony with notorious reliability issues.
>>4538877Huh, interesting. Never heard of that.It seems pretty fucking useless though...Just lets you play shutter custom shutter sounds (who in their right mind would want that?) and add custom composition overlays.
>>4538879>"cinefag and cANON ruined the board">parrots cinefag and cANON's takes
One thing I've discovered after cleaning the elements in a couple dozen old lenses is that mild liquid dishwasher soap is the best thing you can use. I see all these disassembly guides where people use one solvent after the other, but in my case it would always result in oily, visible residue no matter what I used and how thorough I was.. well just the tiniest drop of regular mild dishwasher soap followed by some water does the trick and now it is a mainstay in my operation. Just a tip for my fellow /p/hags.
>>4538879This pedophile is on a libel campaign because he got exposed. So he makes up shit and distorts the facts.It's not hard to check that all the things he said are false other than the recommendation to avoid a Sony.
>>4538877nice, they enabled zebras for still photo mode, at least on the Z30.>>4538880the hard part is getting past the encryption, which it looks like they've done. Now you can go to town on the code with the AI agent of your choice and do what you want.
>>4538883>pedophile! see! i did it to youYeah except you're an actual dogfucker, and a nophoto that posts AI slopGo away
cinefag was fucking cANON while huskyfag was watching through an OLPF and now they are all pregnant? That is wildly fascinating, anon..There is this one fag that ALWAYS complains whenever somebody starts a thread outside of the generals, when this is what newfags have to deal with. Somehow I feel like this goblin is the same guy who have these tripfags living rent free in his head.>Nooo you can't make a dedicated thread asking a question about some specific gear nooo that just can't be done noooo, please MODS! MOOOODS!>Thread gets deleted, poster ask question in general only to have his question drowned by overly autistic behavior, pissing contests and faggots who just can't ignore other faggots who loves getting attention.We need fresh blood here. I am willing to welcome Indian street photographers at this point.
Why are you like this?
>>4538887You keep posting this as some epic own but fail to understand what I said in those posts. It's well known pedos aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. You'll get caught one day and eventually flayed alive in a prison cell. It's just a matter of time.
>>4538885>the hard part is getting past the encryption, which it looks like they've done. Now you can go to town on the code with the AI agent of your choice and do what you want.I doubt it's that simple, or we would be seeing a lot more changes than just adding shutter sounds...
>>4538905Dogfucker nophoto
>>4538913See >>4538403You're the actual nophoto and worse, a pedo
>nophoto dogfucker uses AI to draw over cropped stock photoraphy>claims to be a photographer[Not to avoid taking responsibility] "More like avoiding the chance of a perma on my trip."-CinefagDude knows he doesn't even belong here and the mods are itching to steal his trip
>>4538899cANON (russia supporter, neo-nazi, non-photographer) and cinefag (zoophile, neo-nazi, non-photographer) are universally despised here not just for how repugnant they are, not just because they literally never post photos and show no indication of doing photography, but because they have a tendency to pile on to any new person who asks a question and try and overwhelm them with their outright lies.Their fear of posting photos reeks of someone who only steals photos from sites that aren't indexed by reverse image search (ie: photography discords) and doesn't actually own a camera, because they're not a photographer, they're a political propaganda sperg larping as one to try and infect a captive audience with their extremism.
This is a photo.It's not obfuscated. It's not doxxable. It's not stolen.>my REAL photos are all too important!But if you don't take at least one photo like this a week you shouldn't be here, nothing you say is valid advice, your "gear discussion" is irrelevant babble, and you probably have another agenda that's hostile and harmful overall.
>>4538919>>4538922>>4538923Or maybe I don't want my photos associated with slanderous pedos like you. Also I don't post people's faces to 4chan. A crop of a photo is still a photo. And an AI image based on a photo accompanied by a crop proves the photo existed. If it were stolen from some discord like you said, those people would recognize the AI version of their photo, call me out and post the original. But they won't, because the photo is mine.What has your unoriginal snapshit of a bee proven? Should I suddenly respect your wrong ideas born out of a diseased mind because you posted a photo next to them? You keep accusing me of zoophilia because of something that's a philosophical argument at its root. You seem to think I fantasize about some latrina getting fucked by a dog. I don't think much of it, but know it happens. You realize that in Tijuana dog shows mean something very different than in the rest of the world right? Degeneracy goes up a notch with browns.
>>4538925>big wall of copePls go
>>4538919>cropped stock photoraphy (sic)I don't know hat's so unbelievable about my photo anyways k3kI suggest you pick one of your copes and stick to it instead of just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks.Either it's the alleged section 8 housing or the alleged discord channel or the alleged stock photography. All three can't be true at the same time.The only thing you've proven is that streetfags are easily impressed.
>>4538926You're like the fujifag, denigrating your own output by attaching it arguments in gear threads. It's pathetic and it would also be sad if it were any good, but luckily it isn't. "Mediocre" is the closest honest thing to a compliment it could receive.
>>4538927There's only one way to clear that up - can you guess what it is?
>>4538929It's already clear as the day that you just make up different claims that contradict each other making them all invalid.The only thing that could possibly clear things up for you is medication.
>>4538864 This>>4538866 >a little less reachIt's quite a bit less, D7200 is the best of the bunch.>>4538867 >Minsk>he fell for the psyopRent free too>>4538879Are you done crying about me bitch?>shitThe only shit there is your bad faith discourse and mirrorless cameras.>>4538922How do you reconcile simultaneously denouncing Russia and "neo-nazis" when Azov batallion exists, nafotroon?
>>4538925You are a dog fucker>>4538919>>4538887
>>4538923>dsc (domini satanas christus)>616 (mark of the beast / 13)>33 (:0)>bee(lzebub)>five petal flowersCheeky cunt
>>4538927Dont conflate people using mocking reasons to call you a nophoto with the core point that you’re a nophoto, moop 2.0
>>4538911>>4538885>>4538880>>4538877>>4538834I asked Claude to go through the repository and see if a toggle for auto DX crop is viable.It used the official firmware for Z50, Z6(I), Z7II and Z8 (Z_8_0312.bin instead of the requested Z_8_0311.bin, because it is no longer available on Nikon's webpage) to verify the open source Z6 patch and found some references to the menu features that are not present in the actual Z6 menu (such as Auto DX mode settings), and resolution settings which were obviously not for the Z6, which seems to indicate that all the cameras have the same core software, but certain features are toggled on/off for each model.It looks like it may be possible to toggle some of those features on for the Z6, but that demands a deeper dive with Ghidra or something similar. Craft Anything is probably the next step, but requires Claude Code integration, which is only available to pro paypigs.Anyway, here's what free Claude was able to get out of the open source firmware and the offical firmware tested against the build instructions:https://notesh.ink/sh/bzL82l If any anon would like to seriously attempt to do something I hope you'll share what you find.
If I use a DX lens on a Z7 ii will I be able to shoot full frame with the vignetting or does it force a crop?Thought about getting a DX lens and shooting 1:1 shots, crop is fine but getting taller squarer images seemed cool.
>>4538947>you are just like me, and if you're not then you should be!!!!Whatever floats your boat Tim
