>>4266187you're thinking of the one with the panasonic gx69 or whatever it was. there's two of us. he hates micro four thirds, i like it for its valid use cases. casuals saving money because they aren't that interested in image quality, because they cant spend the extra $2k to get up to snoy's cinema line or whatever. mostly i wanted to know if the voigtlander 35mm f1.4 was good and if cool daylight+lamp looked bad because i kind of like it.
also this turns out to be the only thread on /p/ where actual critique exists
kek
initially the idea really was dumping snapshits that wouldnt have posted otherwise to derail your thread tho. because every thread of what, 6? 7? was about charts, and notphotog nocameras trying to defy reality and common sense. why do you post this cineD thing over and over again so people can tell you you're comparing different ISO settings over and over again, exactly? more obviously, if the ISO goes higher the cameras are equal at equivalence or 2 stops apart at the same sensitivity and not everyone shoots log at base ISO. DR charts are stupid and very unscientific because cameras are closed source mysteries. these DR charts are very stupid because it's just one among many video settings you could use. i'd like to see mtf charts made using a reference lens after standardized post processing to achieve a standard desired DR (SNR) across a range of ISOs and exposure times, in raw stills, encoded footage, and raw video if available, but cineDs, dpreviews, p2ps etc stuff is borderline worthless in reality, also tests to see if raws change if the camera recognizes the lens even with corrections off. sounds a bit too high effort for what are actually
advertising websites that are paid off every new camera release.
throwaway photo because having an opinion on /p/ should require that you have a photo
