/p/ - Photography » Thread #4135746

[66 / 9 / 23]

Red pill me on this one

Anonymous Sat 04 Feb 2023 23:21:17 No.4135746 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4135747 >>4135783 >>4135826 >>4136201 >>4136345 >>4136456

> Computational photography (similar to what phones do)
> Upgradable
> 64-bit
> #1 ranked APS-C sensor of all time by DXO
> Fits Leica M-mount lenses

Just heard about this. Is it good? Will it blow traditional mirrorless cameras out of the water due to its "computational processing"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Feb 2023 23:28:01 No.4135747 Report

Quoted By: >>4135766

>>4135746
It will probably be a shitty gimmick in practice but I want it to succeed regardless so that there's more competition out there and maybe some of these boomer jap companies feel additional pressure towards augmenting their good hardware with more processing power and better software.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Feb 2023 23:39:56 No.4135754 Report

Quoted By: >>4135756

>too expensive
>fixed lens
leica for turbohipsters

but i'm just seething im too poor and hate the rangefinder thing

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Feb 2023 23:45:13 No.4135756 Report

Quoted By:

>>4135754
It doesnt have a fixed lens, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 00:06:10 No.4135765 Report

Quoted By: >>4135766

Needs IBIS/IS and internal gyros to even compete with a smartphone.

Would I like my camera to use IBIS/IS and internal gyros to compile a sharp image from blurry footage with AI like a smartphone does when I need it? Fuck yea.

I'd also like it to do the same thing in the daytime to give me ridiculously overboosted dynamic range RAWs to play with.

Something tells me this will fall way short of its promises, but basically the future of photography is more sensor data and more processing of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 00:11:38 No.4135766 Report

Quoted By: >>4135771 >>4135779 >>4135793 >>4136263

The worst of both worlds.

>>4135747
>>4135765
>augmenting their good hardware with more processing power and better software.
>the future of photography is more sensor data and more processing of it.
Do you people not like editing photos? I explicitly own a camera because I don't like the way phone pics come out a majority of the time, oversharpened HDR crap with limited color and tonal depth. I would prefer cameras take a picture of what I am looking at and not come out looking like AI generated nonsense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 00:30:49 No.4135771 Report

Quoted By:

>>4135766
>Do you people not like editing photos?
No.
I've shot and retained fine .jpeg and the RAW files since I started using my first DSLR 8 years ago.
I've since edited one RAW file, to see how the software works.
The only other editing I've done is cropping and exposure adjustment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 00:39:59 No.4135778 Report

Quoted By: >>4136265

>No way to review taken photos
>Internal storage only
>No wireless capability
>3,000 Europesos
I've seen some scams in my time, but this makes Leica look like a good deal.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 00:40:42 No.4135779 Report

Quoted By: >>4135781

>>4135766
What I'm saying here is that more editing is the future implication of more data. Not having the data crammed into a black box AI and getting an overbaked jpeg out of it, but getting all that data and being able to bake it yourself.

It's impossible to deny the power that information has. There's just no camera out there that is doing the same sort of night mode crap that all the major phones can do.

Also: you can get decent photos with a phone. They shoot RAW too. Just learn the limitations and act accordingly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 00:45:11 No.4135781 Report

Quoted By: >>4135789

>>4135779
>Computational photography is the future!
>Shoot RAW anyway
Anything your phone is doing can be done in Photoshop, and most of what computational photography corrects is user error anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 00:46:36 No.4135783 Report

Quoted By:

>>4135746
Computational photography is only done well by Google, not even apple or Samsung can get it right yet - what chance do you think some euro-hipsters have?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 00:52:01 No.4135784 Report

Quoted By:

Computational photography means that when you take a picture it uses computers and AI to enhance and alter the shot? Like auto edit stuff in?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 01:13:26 No.4135789 Report

Quoted By: >>4135790 >>4135791 >>4136300

>>4135781
No, actually my camera can't combine IS and 5-axis gryo data with multiple exposures to make a sensor only capable of decent DR at ~ISO 200 produce a decent looking image in near darkness. As far as I know, no proper camera yet does this.

I wish it could. Then I'd have the same fun with decent hardware and my choice of lenses. Yes, obviously, I can do better than my smartphone with a carefully contrived set of prepared conditions and equipment. But sometimes, it's less about 'user error' and more about opportunity. Try having fun with other humans sometime. Photography happens outside the purely contrived world of a photoshoot, and things that extend your ability to capture images and compositions are good.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 01:16:30 No.4135790 Report

Quoted By: >>4135796

>>4135789
You need a camera with 5 axis stabilization that can shoot multiple exposures with high dynamic range at ISO 200 in near darkness? I think you need to get a grip lmao.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 01:17:14 No.4135791 Report

Quoted By: >>4135796

>>4135789
>Photography happens outside the purely contrived world of a photoshoot
yeah, and great photos have been made for the past hundred years. sorry that you need and have to rely upon all this hyper advanced tech to take a good photo

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 01:29:44 No.4135793 Report

Quoted By: >>4135795 >>4135796

>>4135766
There's computational photography tricks beyond automated (shitty and tasteless) edits, e.g. stacking exposures in camera rapidly and automatically without wonky shit appearing if something slightly moves, both for more dynamic range and increased resolution among other things. Olympus for example got the high res mode down well enough in combo with industry-leading IBIS to make it possible to do handheld a while back. More shit like that is what I want, computational shit that lets you exceed a sensor's limits and other tricks we may not yet anticipate. I still want a raw file to edit stylistically myself once that part is done, as I too enjoy that aspect.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 01:37:10 No.4135795 Report

Quoted By: >>4135796

>>4135793
Oh, and the other thing along that axis is more robust interfaces and connectivity. I wouldn't care much for it myself but for some fraction of normies there'd be a sales opportunity in more user friendly smartphone-like LCD interfaces and the ability to publish shit directly to zoomer social media from the camera, etc. Make at least entry level models feel like e-polaroids, e.g. you can snap a dozen pictures of your retarded drunk friends, have them finished right away via decent jpeg processing (more fuji and less iphone like though), and immediately have them viewable online within 30 seconds. This would remove one advantage that may make said normies prefer their shitty phones. Convenience cannot be underrated.

It would also be a benefit for high speed bursts and video to be able to process information more effectively in camera, ofc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 01:46:11 No.4135796 Report

Quoted By:

>>4135791
>>4135790
Need is a strong word, friends. I learned how to shoot in near darkness before digital cameras were available. I just like having more power in my hands, more flexibility to shoot in any situation. Feel free to ignore reality and rely on ad-hominem and hubris, though.

>>4135793
>>4135795
Someone else with the right idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 02:29:56 No.4135802 Report

Quoted By:

Phone cameras already exist

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 04:08:24 No.4135826 Report

Quoted By:

>>4135746
>Upgradable
>Digital
Uh huh

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 19:37:46 No.4136201 Report

Quoted By: >>4136205

>>4135746
>fits M-mount lenses
>APS-C
>Is it good?
Do you really think it's fine to have cropped image out of $3000 body paired with $1000+ m-mount lens when you can just get used x-pro 2 with lens for less than $2000?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 19:41:31 No.4136203 Report

Quoted By: >>4136206

>crop sensor
into the fucking trash
the rangefinder meme ecosystem is based on FF lenses. these faggots should have made a fuji mount at least

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 19:44:29 No.4136205 Report

Quoted By: >>4136209

>>4136201
>comparing used to new prices
>pretending the experience of a pixii is anywhere close to the one with an X-Pro when it's a lot more like a Leica instead
>shilling X-tranny cameras with larp viewfinders

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 19:45:40 No.4136206 Report

Quoted By: >>4136208

>>4136203
>fuji mount
>rangefinder
kek, how are you going to couple it? also FF lenses work fine on APS-C, the other way round is the problem because of hard vignetting

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 19:50:41 No.4136208 Report

Quoted By: >>4136218

>>4136206
>bro want a 35mm equivalent field of view?
>better mount a fucking gigantic f/5,6 wide angle lens from 1947!
>bro, want to use all those iconic 50mm standard lenses?
>welp, they're telephoto now!
yeah, no

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 19:52:16 No.4136209 Report

Quoted By: >>4136218

>>4136205
>pretending the experience of a pixii is anywhere close to the one with an X-Pro when it's a lot more like a Leica instead
Lmao. You can't even use flash with Pixii because it has electronic shutter. X-pro maybe isn't a real rangefinder but at least it's a real camera.

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6 Sun 05 Feb 2023 20:24:14 No.4136218 Report

Quoted By: >>4136221 >>4136222

>>4136208
>>4136209
lol fujifags coping as usual

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 20:27:37 No.4136221 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136218
>unrelated cope
lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 20:28:38 No.4136222 Report

Quoted By: >>4136228

>>4136218
>Pentaxfag loves putting FF glass on APS-C cameras
expected

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6 Sun 05 Feb 2023 20:42:55 No.4136228 Report

Quoted By: >>4136230

>>4136222
Using the sharpest part of the image circle, besides you can later use the same lens on a R4M. As long as the resolving power is good enough who wants redundant lenses?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 20:47:16 No.4136230 Report

Quoted By: >>4136235

>>4136228
>yeah bro, just change the field of view of all your lenses, composition totally isn't the most important part of photography haha!

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6 Sun 05 Feb 2023 21:03:36 No.4136235 Report

Quoted By: >>4136236 >>4136239 >>4136240

>>4136230
>yeah bro, just change the field of view of all your lenses
What's the problem? Too stupid to get equivalence? It's 1.5x, not as easy as 2x but nearly as. Just use the 35mm as a normal and be done with it. 52.5, 50, who cares about that difference? It's the same as it was with the Epson R-D1, a camera that David Lynch himself enjoyed as you can see in this portrait of him and Bill Eggleston. But let me guess, something good enough for Lynch isn't good enough for you, you need more. Not even the first Leica M digital (M8) was full frame.

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO EIavXTNW4AAFJrw.jpg, 53KiB, 667x501

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6 Sun 05 Feb 2023 21:05:47 No.4136236 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136235
> a camera that David Lynch himself enjoyed as you can see in this portrait of him and Bill Eggleston

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 21:06:49 No.4136239 Report

Quoted By: >>4136538

>>4136235
>bro just use a bulkier and darker 35mm lens to get the same field of view as a more compact and brighter 50mm one!
LOL

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 21:07:17 No.4136240 Report

Quoted By: >>4136248

>>4136235
>before we could realistically make full frame sensors for a commercial product, we didn't use full frame sensors in commercial products

you are one of the stupidest fucks this board has ever endured, you make sugar seem like a scholar.

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6 Sun 05 Feb 2023 21:17:20 No.4136248 Report

Quoted By: >>4136253 >>4136259

>>4136240
Canon was selling full frame cameras back in 2002.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 21:26:27 No.4136253 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136248
Yeah and Canon designed both their sensors and their camera bodies.
What the fuck even is your argument? The 1Ds was a fucking monster, FF technology had to come a long way before being implemented properly on rangefinder body.
Just fuck off already, Leica dropped the crop meme as soon as they could, because their ecosystem is FF and they know it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 21:35:04 No.4136259 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136248
canon had their first full frame in 2002, it was $8000 ($13'000 in todays money), and canon don't sell their sensors to anyone else.

The epson was $3000. They'd have sold even less if it was priced the same as a new car.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 21:47:30 No.4136263 Report

Quoted By: >>4136368

>>4135766
>Do you people not like editing photos?
I don't even like taking photos, my dude.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 21:50:01 No.4136265 Report

Quoted By:

>>4135778
>No way to review taken photos
As in the film days, soul.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 23:02:09 No.4136300 Report

Quoted By:

>>4135789
>Photography happens outside the purely contrived world of a photoshoot
This is referred to as a snapshit and yes you are right to use your phone for these occasions, but let's be honest here, those photos will never be looked at again until maybe you run out of space on your phone and need to delete, I guess you'll get an emotional trigger looking at it before deleting it but all in all it will be deleted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Feb 2023 23:52:23 No.4136345 Report

Quoted By: >>4136365

>>4135746
If it was full frame for the same price it would be a compelling option, now its just for people who obsess about rangefinders and aren't rich enough for new leicas, and dont want older leicas.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 00:23:20 No.4136365 Report

Quoted By: >>4136384

>>4136345
Are new leica optical range finder or have they gone evf style now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 00:26:41 No.4136368 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136263
Then you're in good company here, my man.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO konica ar leica m.jpg, 399KiB, 1000x751

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 01:16:28 No.4136384 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136365
Theyre all EVF now, you can even adapt old SLR glass now

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO dxo scores.png, 14KiB, 866x300

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 06:00:23 No.4136456 Report

Quoted By: >>4136459 >>4136499

>>4135746
>> #1 ranked APS-C sensor of all time by DXO

Does that even mean anything?

According to DXO the M10 scores 86 and M240 84 with almost the same dynamic range scores but if you look at the RAW files the dynamic range improvement of the M10 is very noticable. Highlights that would be unrecoverable in the M240 are very recoverable in the M10. I don't get how they calculate these scores.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 06:03:49 No.4136459 Report

Quoted By: >>4136515

>>4136456
They shoot charts of shaded circles and colored squares and measure the signal/noise ratio.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 08:09:01 No.4136499 Report

Quoted By: >>4136510 >>4136515

>>4136456
>I don't understand how they get these scores
They're ranked on dynamic range, colour depth and low light performance, and they have a whole section on how they do their measurements and come up with a final score.

I love how everyone that tries to pick at dxo hasn't read their methodology, which was originally formulated and used by the French space agency for quantifying the quality of instrumentation for space photography.

Their data is about as good and objective as it gets, the two caveats it has is that it goes off labelled iso value, not equivalent brightness, and it doesn't account for baked in noise reduction. Photons to pixels dynamic range charts account for labelled iso and mark any measurements with noise reduction however, so it's quick to see if anyone has a bodged score for low light\dynamic range.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 08:50:47 No.4136510 Report

Quoted By: >>4136512

>>4136499
>Snoy marketer

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 08:56:44 No.4136512 Report

Quoted By: >>4136518

>>4136510
Yes, basically every sensor in commercial cameras save for Canon is made by "Snoy".

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 09:09:49 No.4136515 Report

Quoted By: >>4136525 >>4136526

>>4136459
>>4136499
but the M10 has clearly a higher DR than the M240. I dont get it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 09:13:19 No.4136518 Report

Quoted By: >>4136523 >>4136528

>>4136512
Then why are their cameras so much worse?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 09:26:53 No.4136523 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136518
the only things Sony lacks are construction quality and good user experience.
performance wise their cameras are the best on the market, with everyone else lagging more or less behind (depending on which sensor Sony allows Nikon, Panasonic, Olympus, etc. to buy)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20230206-093033.png, 124KiB, 1080x1007

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 09:31:20 No.4136525 Report

Quoted By: >>4136526

>>4136515
And that's what P2P reports, nearly twice as much DR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 09:33:08 No.4136526 Report

Quoted By: >>4136535

>>4136515
>>4136525
And also what dxo reports.

What's your issue?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 09:34:49 No.4136528 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136518
They're not, they have objectively the most accurate colour of any full frame digital camera.

The form factor is not suitable for "American hands", maybe that's your problem?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO comparison.jpg, 99KiB, 784x636

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 09:52:56 No.4136535 Report

Quoted By: >>4136539

>>4136526
>What's your issue?

well here its almost the same

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO summilux 35 1.4.jpg, 182KiB, 1400x933

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6 Mon 06 Feb 2023 10:00:01 No.4136538 Report

Quoted By: >>4136540

>>4136239
>bulkier and darker
Let me guess...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20230206-093202.png, 94KiB, 1080x1020

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 10:01:59 No.4136539 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136535
Look at the dxo based chart.
They do have almost the same max DR according to that, which then deviates, hence the better low light score dxo gave it.

The data is all there for you, stop being a thick cunt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 10:04:46 No.4136540 Report

Quoted By: >>4136542

>>4136538
now do the same with a 35mm equivalent lens lol

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO elmarit 24.jpg, 77KiB, 950x557

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6 Mon 06 Feb 2023 10:09:24 No.4136542 Report

Quoted By: >>4136543

>>4136540
SUCH BULK WOW

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 10:10:49 No.4136543 Report

Quoted By: >>4136545

>>4136542
>2.8
lol

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6

cinefag !CinE/QyYt6 Mon 06 Feb 2023 10:13:02 No.4136545 Report

Quoted By: >>4136549

>>4136543
You "need" more?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 10:18:49 No.4136549 Report

Quoted By: >>4136551

>>4136545
>bro just use an f/2.8 24mm lens with its abysmal DoF instead of the glorious f/1.4 35mm lens you spent 10k on
croptards never fail to amaze me

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 10:36:06 No.4136551 Report

Quoted By: >>4136552

>>4136549
>dof crutch
you just outed yourself

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Feb 2023 10:39:02 No.4136552 Report

Quoted By:

>>4136551
>brooooo you can just use your 35mm f/1.4 lens as a 50mm!
>whaaat???? you want to use it on a FF sensor at its native field of view and performance?????? fucking DoF crutch lol!
the absolute state of croptards.
just admit you have no native APS-C lenses and this is your coping mechanism

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

Red pill me on this one