>>4151707>what a great piece of advice buddy, animals really love flashes in their eyes.Who cares what a cat loves
>also it would have looked like dogshit, it's not a studio environment with nice diffusers.Chinese made flash - $30. Tape over the front - $5.
>yeah, just wait for the cat to hold still!You could also bait it with food.
>yes, by stopping down to f/8 those are the steps I would have taken to reach the correct exposure. unfortunately you are not telling me anything new since that's exactly what I told you in the previous reply.You didn't.
>Noise - nobody caresPeople care if you are presenting these images at over 2x the size of most peoples screens. Less noise from FF would make your insistence on posting giant images that almost look ok and then blow up to look like crap less annoying.
>missed focusYou can stop down more and raise the ISO more on full frame and still get better image quality.
>ExposureOh yes, the ISO flexibility and dynamic range would give you a lot more room with exposure.
>ColorsFull frame does in fact have better colors.
>unnoticeableIt's very, very noticeable. Even if your images were scaled down like they should be it would be noticeable, just less in your face. Even in print, this level of noise has a grainy appearance. And your highlights would still be blown sooner, your shadows would still be crushed sooner, your colors would be less rich, and you would still be afraid to raise the ISO to stop down and get shit in focus because lol sensorlet.
When gear gets shitty enough it begins to interfere with some kinds of photography and display. This is why your cat photos suck.
Terry richardson used a shitty MFT camera a few times and he did so by controlling his environment more, stopping way the fuck down, and using flash, FYI. The photos he took with it were printed very small.e.
A D800 is $500 and takes better photos than some $2000 mirrorless cameras. Which frame is really for fools?
