/p/ - Photography » Thread #4497651

[81 / 10 / 1]

4MiB, 576x1024, fujifilm vs sony.webm

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

/Gear/ Discussion General

Anonymous Sun 15 Feb 2026 21:26:16 No.4497651 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4497839

>Color Science edition

Previously: >>4495130

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 01:28:05 No.4497780 Report

Quoted By: >>4497800 >>4497805 >>4497816 >>4497852

Do you guys not realise that shooting jpeg is just an in camera processed RAW? That's not automatically bad or any worse than shooting RAW and processing it later on another computer, it's not really taking a photo at a lower quality. As long as it's not some ancient piece of shit camera it's perfectly capable of processing the files at a decent quality. The parameters will also be adjustable. Most of you RAW shooters probably just apply a blanket preset to all your shots, the only time RAW is better is if you go ahead and alter the settings for every single shot and they're in challenging enough scenarios that the in camera processing wouldn't suffice (which with a decent modern camera doesn't happen all that often).

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 01:42:07 No.4497782 Report

Quoted By:

Do your cameras not have a raw + jpeg option? Mine does. I don't use it though I only use the mode that you hate, and the brand of camera I use is the brand that you hate.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 01:49:00 No.4497783 Report

Quoted By: >>4497789 >>4497791 >>4497799

>>4497757
>old (early 2000s) hyperzoom lenses tend to have boatloads of CA at the corners,
what site makes this chart? that seems useful.
>>4497757
>also why do you want rainbows everywhere CAnon ? you must tell me CArlos
For vibes mostly. I kinda want to see how much you make a a photo look blurry and full of chromatic abberation with out using editing software.
i am actually using a canon camera by the way.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 01:50:03 No.4497785 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497658
>>4497663
ive shot incredible photos on shitty mobile phones.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 01:54:02 No.4497787 Report

Quoted By:

>>4496857
>is it safe to recharge use old batteries that haven't been used and have just layed around for a very long time? like 5-10 years or so?
>i had a point & shoot camera lying around and i was wondering.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 01:56:08 No.4497788 Report

Quoted By: >>4497792

>>4497664
Browse ebay for cheap vintage lenses. If you snag one for less than 20 dollars and it doesn't have obvious defects like fungus or spots its going to have chromatic aberration. This is especially good if its a 3rd party lens for the old mount from a company that you don't recognize.

Then as someone else mentioned get a cheap 2x teleconverter for that lens. Just get whatever the one for that mount is. If you can find a 3rd party teleconverter for that mount it will probably introduce more of its own chromatic aberration. It is introducing a bit of its own, but the real quality you want from the teleconverter is that it is magnifying the existing chromatic aberration.

>If its a different mounting system, does the fact that you are using a lens adaptor help in getting that effect?
Only if there is glass in the adapter.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 5E7A9787.jpg, 4MiB, 3840x5760

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 02:01:38 No.4497789 Report

Quoted By: >>4497790 >>4497798 >>4497809

>>4497783
Peep this. I adapted a 300mm cooke soft portrait lens to a 5dm3 for fun. You can control the amount of spherical aberration the lens has by turning a ring on the lens. This one is wide open at the softest setting. On 8x10 the effect is extremely subtle compared to this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 02:02:57 No.4497790 Report

Quoted By: >>4497793 >>4497794

>>4497789
NTA but pretty cool anon. I think there is a soft focus lens for EF too, but its pretty old and they never made a second version.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 02:04:50 No.4497791 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497783
Oh yeah I did a little research. If you search up meniscus lens on ebay you can get a 120 format folder for like 30 bucks that you can rip the lens off and adapt to digital. Meniscus lenses are single element lenses and will be extremely poor performance.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cheap chromatic ab probably.png, 90KiB, 1206x354

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 02:06:08 No.4497792 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497788
>>4497664
Here I think I should include an example. A 5 dollar zoom lens from the 70s or 80s with an 8 dollar teleconverter from the same era. There is no way in hell there won't be a lot of chromatic aberration.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 02:19:23 No.4497793 Report

Quoted By: >>4497803

>>4497790
EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
Cheap as shit and rather decent, but shitty micromotor autofocus is a real drawback

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Untitled120leo11 (5).jpg, 3MiB, 2870x2276

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 02:25:30 No.4497794 Report

Quoted By: >>4497802 >>4497809

>>4497790
Definitely recommend a soft focus lens if you ever just want a fun lens. They're really great for portraits and can be pretty nice for other genres as well if you get creative with the effect.
Here is what the cooke looks like on 8x10, wide open and full softness just like the previous picture. Kind of an interesting comparison.
On portraits the combination of ultra shallow DoF and the softening effect doesn't quite remove skin pores, but it kinda rounds everything out in a subtle way. The effect is more pronounced the closer your subject is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 02:46:18 No.4497798 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497789
>Peep this. I adapted a 300mm cooke soft portrait lens to a 5dm3 for fun. You can control the amount of spherical aberration the lens has by turning a ring on the lens. This one is wide open at the softest setting. On 8x10 the effect is extremely subtle compared to this.
This photo looks like those flashback or dream scenes from movies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 02:47:48 No.4497799 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497757
>>4497783
>what site makes this chart? that seems useful.
Nvm managed to find the site myself:
https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 03:01:37 No.4497800 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497780
>Do you guys not realise that shooting jpeg is just an in camera processed RAW?
/p/ contrarians are actually very low IQ individuals. They think the more time you invest in something, the better it will be. The equivalent of thinking that if you manually focus every shot instead of just using autofocus, your photos will be better. lol nobody cares. They are also the ultimate consoomers that blindly buy more computers upgrades, RAM and yearly software subscriptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 03:46:38 No.4497802 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497794
what are those large white spots? Dust?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 03:56:17 No.4497803 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497793
>micromotor autofocus is a real drawback
Yeah it's not great but still better than AFD

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 03:59:13 No.4497805 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497780
It is a lower quality. Camera noise reduction and sharpening settings suck even on the newest fucking z8 its dogshit and barely any better than iphone, and fuji jpegs are just bad and iphone-like for more than a 4x6, which isn't exactly why anyone buys a $2000 camera, but PCs (especially with capture one) can process even xtrans raws well enough that it's closer to bayer results

Cameras have to balance battery life and speed when processing data into jpegs. The jpeg feature isn't actually meant to be used anymore unless you work for the news and are delivering via wireless transmitter as you shoot. For anyone else, not shooting raw means you basically wasted your money on a fancy camera and high ISO photos easily look worse than phones.

Also, there's the big clusterfuck of settings
>DRO/HDR/WB/etc
And let's not pretend that spending $1000+ on a photography setup to get an up to date jpeg converter is sensible. You're not rich. If you were rich, you wouldn't post here. You're a single autist who might work part time and live with his mom, or work a full time blue collar job with OT pay and live in a shitty part of town.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 04:19:15 No.4497809 Report

Quoted By: >>4497815

>>4497789
>Peep this. I adapted a 300mm cooke soft portrait lens to a 5dm3 for fun. You can control the amount of spherical aberration the lens has by turning a ring on the lens. This one is wide open at the softest setting. On 8x10 the effect is extremely subtle compared to this.
>>4497794
I do have to say those taylor cooke brand lens are pretty expensive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 05:03:52 No.4497815 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497809
Once you get into lenses that need the projection for 8x10 almost all the lenses are kind of expensive simply because they usually need to be so big. Vintage cooke lenses are also super highly regarded to this day, and that drives the price up. Funnily enough even in 1920 they were super expensive, around 5k in todays money.
There are cheaper and more expensive options for soft focus lenses that will get you there. Wollensak verito/veritar is a more affordable soft focus option if you wanted a barrel lens, but if you aren't shooting LF just get one of the FF specific ones. It's going to be a pain to adapt 150mm+ lenses to a handheld camera.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 05:55:20 No.4497816 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497780
>Most of you RAW shooters probably just apply a blanket preset to all your shots
I never use presets and individually edit each photo I take. The closest I come to using a preset is when I copy settings from one photo in that set and apply them to others in that same set for consistency.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 06:19:52 No.4497818 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497744
Yeah I agree that's what I was saying. It's basically just differences in auto white balance settings and maybe default curves. Most actual differences come from the lens. The only sensor specific differences is potentially from false colors and any baked in raw denoising. Although that's so miniscule you really have to be autistic to care.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 06:24:58 No.4497819 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497744
This. Sony makes the vast majority of camera sensors for various brands but everyone seems to willfully ignore that fact. Change the ICC profile and you instantly have whatever cameras color science you want and even I do that from time to time.

I also used to edit EXIF data on my photos to show as other cameras back when /p/ had EXIF just to mess with people. That's probably what makes me miss the EXIF feature the most since it could be used to have some fun with gearfags.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 06:39:02 No.4497820 Report

Quoted By: >>4497821 >>4497822 >>4497835

>Buy sony
>set to raw
>import into capture one
>set canon profile as default
>editing done!
>NOOOO YOU CANT DO THAT SHOOT JPEG LIVE IN THE MOMENT COMPUTERS ARE BOOMER! YOU CANT USE A SONY! -the broken record paid shill that starts every gear thread with anti-sony propaganda, like purposeful white balance fuckups
Who pays him, bros?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 06:41:17 No.4497821 Report

Quoted By: >>4497835

>>4497820
Multiple companies contract with his employer. Its some social media firm in india. Its not even one guy. Its many different indians supervising an AI chatbot and a few uber indians (iq: 90!) tweaking it as they go along.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 06:41:51 No.4497822 Report

Quoted By: >>4497835

>>4497820
I saw someone saying he's some autist from a camera forum and got banned for being a sperg, so now he comes here to sperg out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 11:54:18 No.4497835 Report

Quoted By: >>4497851 >>4497852

>>4497820
>>4497821
>>4497822
aannndd the snoy schizo is back from his 3 day ban! saaar!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 14:30:50 No.4497838 Report

Quoted By: >>4497849

What's the best of the 50-58mm fast primes of the film era that's actually attainable? noct is obviously not

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 14:42:44 No.4497839 Report

Quoted By: >>4497851

>>4497651
>color science doesnt exi-

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO PXL_20260211_113856661.jpg, 717KiB, 3024x4032

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 16:19:35 No.4497845 Report

Quoted By:

got this meme cam for £70

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 17:00:32 No.4497848 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497773
>using third person for yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 17:01:11 No.4497849 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497838
EF 50mm f/1

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 17:15:50 No.4497851 Report

Quoted By: >>4497853

>>4497839
>>4497835
Pathetic samefag schizo

Yes, color science doesn't exist. The shill vid in the OP is obviously a guy fucking with the white balance settings. I have never used a sony that made outdoor scenes that aggressively green.

Lie/10. You are a liar. That's all you are.

And if you have to lie
1: What you are arguing for is awful
2: What you are arguing against is ridiculously superior
Ergo by lying, and posting lies, and being so desperate to lie that you stalk /p/ to make sure every single /gear/ thread starts with these lying asian shill vids that always purposefully make sony look bad, it's safe to assume you are a paid shill. Like those losers on /pol/ that make the exact same agitprop thread over and over again for weeks on end and make the entire board unusable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 17:21:52 No.4497852 Report

Quoted By: >>4497860

>>4497835
I was never banned. Take your meds. Most posts that disappear are people like cinefag, ambush, moop and cANON using VPNs getting auto-banned btw. Try not to hallucinate janny conspiracy theories. The VPN detection systems are automated.

>>4497744
Fax

>>4497762
Trufax

>>4497780
Every camera i have ever owned produced either softer or more poorly sharpened images with more chroma noise than capture one. Jpeg isn’t good. Fuji jpegs are so bad the x100vi sooc jpegs literally look exactly like the newest iphone because cameras cant house good enough processors to properly demosaic xtrans.

No one actually shoots jpeg. Its just a theoretical argument for brand fanboys to have because the jpeg capabilities, which no one uses, differ from camera to camera and let them pretend their brand or their newest mirrorless waste of money is totally worth it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 17:25:56 No.4497853 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497851
It doesnt matter if you’re smart and experienced enough to tell that video is obviously faked. Real sony camera defaults add so much magenta tint in AWB trees turn yellowish sometimes and the sky is always a bit pink. The point of shilling is to keep a lie up for so long that casual users see it and don’t investigate further.

That’s why the anti-sony shill samefags himself also. If he gets btfo he needs to get that BTFOing off the front page ASAP and make sure that casual users scrolling past will just see the lying shill vid and posts he made/approved of confirming it. Smart people aren’t his target. He’s after people that have never owned a camera before and his goal is to make it look like all of /p/ and photographers in general agree sony isn’t good and fujifilm is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 18:50:16 No.4497858 Report

Quoted By: >>4497859 >>4497869 >>4497870

> itt multiple brand shills having a meltdown at the same time

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 19:02:18 No.4497859 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497858
Or maybe multiple people are sick of the sony hate schizo trying to hijack the board 24/7

Nikon, Canon, and Sony are all equally good.
Fujifilm, Panasonic, OM System, and Pentax are all equally worse than Canikony.
Sigma is wasted potential, they won’t be great until they stop reboxing panasonics and make a true foveon lineup again.
Film is always dramatically better than digital and any way digital approximates film makes it better, including raw (digital negatives). Digital can not approximate slide film (yet) due to its inferior handling of white balance and color reproduction but old CCD SLRs came close.

Accept the natural order.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 19:06:37 No.4497860 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497852
My posts only get deleted when they make the joids too triggered to not delete them, faggot. /qa/ won btw

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 19:44:08 No.4497866 Report

Quoted By: >>4497867

>leica then:
>unique sensors
>sovl
>looks like film
>full frame ccd
>partial IR sensitivity

>leica now:
>sony sensors
>guess what the new leica is going to be? another a7rv without autofocus, or another a7rv with worse autofocus? exciting!

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 20:03:36 No.4497867 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497866
Only two more weeks until leica has their own in-house sensor on a camera.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO consoomer.jpg, 26KiB, 680x432

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 20:40:12 No.4497869 Report

Quoted By: >>4497882

>>4497858
>> itt multiple brand shills having a meltdown at the same time
obligatory

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 20:46:44 No.4497870 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497858
I don't even care about brands since they all use the same sensor anyway and RAW makes it all utterly pointless. I use whatever brands I want. All that really matters at this point is the lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 21:58:18 No.4497879 Report

Quoted By: >>4497880

Why are so few photo's on the Leica subreddit good? (Why do I still want one?)

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 22:02:31 No.4497880 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497879
Leicas are pretty much exclusive to people that have never worked a day in their life (whether as a photographer or as something else) and buy them because they're really expensive. Leica is like the Gucci or other basic bitch luxury of the camera world where it's all name and the people that have them are retards with more money than skill.

>Why do I still want one?
Because of the brand name, you want to be part of a club of the cool rich kids.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 22:02:43 No.4497882 Report

Quoted By: >>4497883 >>4497896

>>4497869
Its genuinely important that people dont fall for the lied and pick fuji trash over a quality canon/sony. More fujifags? More people switching back to their phone because it can actually get shit in focus and has fewer worms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 22:06:53 No.4497883 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497882
Looking shitty is part of the Fuji appeal, so I doubt they'd go back to phones.
>"Out of focus? No! It's soft focus, just like film cameras!"
>"Weird colors? No! It's just like film!"
Though maybe people will just start uploading their phone photos to ChatGPT and prompting "make it look like a Fuji film photo" kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 23:24:13 No.4497896 Report

Quoted By: >>4497901

>>4497882
GFX is fine. The 40mp aspc sensor has some real smoothness issues though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 17 Feb 2026 23:45:21 No.4497901 Report

Quoted By: >>4497909 >>4497910

>>4497896
gfx files always somehow look closer to full frame than hasselblad x files if not identical to full frame unless its something that fucks cameras up at any size like distant trees. Some gearfag expert somewhere said the gfx actually gets less exposure per the same shutter and aperture setting vs the x2d and ends up having a bit more noise as typically used. Or maybe it’s just fuji getting worse lenses, despite making hasselblad’s for them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Feb 2026 00:43:05 No.4497909 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497901
Wrong. It's not a huge difference but competently shot GFX ALWAYS beats competently shot FF.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 18 Feb 2026 01:02:19 No.4497910 Report

Quoted By:

>>4497901
Eh they both make good cameras. GFX and hasselblad are capable systems for what they are.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

/Gear/ Discussion General