/p/ - Photography » Thread #4167016

[188 / 34 / 55]

388KiB, 1023x1159, 1mappy.jpg

fool framers be bfo

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:16:50 No.4167016 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>4167018 >>4167033 >>4167039 >>4167056 >>4167101 >>4167239 >>4167904 >>4170812 >>4170818 >>4171204 >>4171590

>muh equivalence
>muh lens resolving power
>muh signal to noise ratio

All false.

Is there any reason left to buy fool frame camera when high res apsc blows it out of the water for lower price?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:24:41 No.4167018 Report

Quoted By: >>4167026

>>4167016
>40 megapixel aps-c camera outresolves a 26 megapixel full frame camera

absolutely shocking, you fucking retard.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:25:55 No.4167019 Report

Quoted By: >>4167022

>Fuji has the best
>Test done by Fuji labs
Jesus christ

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:26:04 No.4167020 Report

Quoted By:

>camera with more megapixels beats cameras with less megapixels when it comes to resolution
shocking

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:27:49 No.4167022 Report

Quoted By: >>4167025

>>4167019
>done by fuji labs
lmao
No.
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-t5-review

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture.png, 2MiB, 1167x1195

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:31:49 No.4167025 Report

Quoted By: >>4167029 >>4167030 >>4167040 >>4171209 >>4171577

>Posts a chart instead of a photo
>No link in the OP
>No info disclosed about the lens used
I'm not seeing this MAGIC CHART NUMBER in the only real photo comparison I could find. I have never seen these magic sharp fuji photos posted by real photographers either. Pixel peeping, stuff like eyelashes are as softly defined as ever.

Also, their dynamic range test is not corroborated by the one done by photos to photons.

Even peer reviewed science suffers from a replication crisis (hint: funding related crookedness) so what can we expect from some camera review site?

>>4167022
Lens not disclosed
Actual test data not disclosed
Verdict: marketing babble.

What you should post:
A photo you took with the X-T5
A 100% crop from that photo
"This camera is super sharp. I dare you to show me a sharper camera"

What you shouldn't post because it means nothing:
A marketing website posting unverifiable data.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:34:43 No.4167026 Report

Quoted By: >>4167028 >>4167270 >>4170813 >>4170835

>>4167018
>40 megapixel aps-c camera outresolves a 26 megapixel full frame camera that costs more than 40 megapixel aps-c camera
Fully to leave that little detail out.

Also fool frame lenses are more expensive.
Also twice heavier and larger. Glad I invested all my moneys into crop and large chad format. fool framers keep loosing, lol, lmao even

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:37:46 No.4167028 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167026
You don't even own a camera. If you did, you'd post photos instead of unverifiable charts that don't disclose the raw files they used for imatest.
More reliable sites:
dpreview (sadly)
lenstip

You are a robotic language processor who compares numbers and uses a neural network algorithm to evaluate lignuistic context and sentiment. You do not speak from experience, you gather data from around the internet to produce meaningless text. You are organic chatGPT, basically.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:39:37 No.4167029 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167025
wow look at all that extra resolution. i think i can see an extra blurry line somewhere in the feather. i can't really tell because all the lines are equally blurry.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 52508022687_70822edfa9_6k.jpg, 4MiB, 6144x4096

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:40:10 No.4167030 Report

Quoted By: >>4167034 >>4167047

>>4167025
>immediately pixel-peeps
>immediately doctors results to favour his creed

fool framers are broken beyond repair

кAHOH

кAHOH Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:45:33 No.4167033 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167016
>more sensor resolution gives you more reach
in other news water is wet

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:46:01 No.4167034 Report

Quoted By: >>4167045

>>4167030
Yes, that's how sharpness differences that aren't even 10lp/mm apart can be seen. Pixel peeping. Otherwise they aren't visible to the naked eye.

Unfortunately this text with verifiable data contradicts your "test" without any verifiable data but the camera model, which could therefore be made up.

And thank you for wasting 4.33mb of my life on a blurry 25 megapixel image that looks like jpeg 90% quality. I'm just going to assume you focused a little past infinity by accident and forgot to resize it, and aren't trying to show off your gear. It's a boring photo as well. The bridge could have been a leading line or divided the image in an interesting, abstract way but there's no composition or clear subject whatsoever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:48:56 No.4167039 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167016
>daily sensorlet cope thread

кAHOH

кAHOH Sat 15 Apr 2023 18:50:16 No.4167040 Report

Quoted By: >>4167042

>>4167025
To be fair, the test in the OP was probably done with adapted Canon L glass and dpreview uses native glass, with Fuji glass being so soft it's no wonder it's a blurry mess.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:00:20 No.4167042 Report

Quoted By: >>4167050

>>4167040
>Probably
Here's the thing
If they don't post data about the test, it's not a valid test. It would be like a "scientist" making a statement with a chart and expecting you to just trust him. Methodology is absollutely required - non negotiable. Required. Mandatory. Data is meaningless without enough data about how it was acquired to reproduce the experiment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:16:57 No.4167045 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167034
this, and the nice thing about dpreview is you can download the actual raw file and edit it yourself to see how well you could clean it up with NR and sharpening. i can download that x-t5 raw and make it look way sharper, without any worms or halos, in capture one. i can't push say, the a6600 raw as much so the end result is they look about the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:17:37 No.4167046 Report

Quoted By:

>fujifagglet coping this hard

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1681584010152608r.jpg, 970KiB, 1200x800

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:22:49 No.4167047 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167030
I think it's a great picture. It's the first time I've seen a great picture in a gear troll thread

кAHOH

кAHOH Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:26:19 No.4167050 Report

Quoted By: >>4167051

>>4167042
I'm just saying, if you want to test sensor resolution you shouls use the same lens.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:29:40 No.4167051 Report

Quoted By: >>4167052

>>4167050
I think if you care about the photo instead of the chart you should test with the lenses you will actually use with something you will actually take a photo of

Alas
OP did neither

кAHOH

кAHOH Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:36:21 No.4167052 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167051
Well you can bet if I had the disgrace of having to endure a Fuji X-tranny body I'd use a fringer adapter and EF glass.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:40:48 No.4167056 Report

Quoted By: >>4167090

>>4167016
>look at charts, letters and numbers
>look at actual images
>apsc doesnt even compare
>*autistic noises*
>start coping
how does it feel?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:43:59 No.4167058 Report

Quoted By: >>4167062

Sony APS-C might get this sensor in a few decades, after Fuji gets tired of playing with it? Please, Snoy?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 19:51:20 No.4167062 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167058
The only good fuji sensor is on the xh2s and it would be amazing without xtrans, BUT, IF
Full frame already has better sensors especially on canon

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fool frame 4L3A0345.jpg, 2MiB, 3840x2560

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 21:43:03 No.4167090 Report

Quoted By: >>4167091 >>4167099 >>4167102 >>4167240 >>4167258

>>4167056
>look at actual images
>apsc doesnt even compare

weird that you say this:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO apsc fujifilm-x-t5-sample-image- (...).jpg, 1MiB, 3840x2560

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 21:44:07 No.4167091 Report

Quoted By: >>4167099 >>4167102 >>4167258

>>4167090
lol

waiting for next cope

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 21:44:49 No.4167092 Report

Quoted By:

You either don't take any photos or hate all the photos you take, this is why you focus on everything BUT photos

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO FOOL FRAME FOOL RES 52571679264_ (...).jpg, 4MiB, 6000x4000

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 21:48:20 No.4167094 Report

Quoted By: >>4167095 >>4167099 >>4167102 >>4167113 >>4167294

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO apsc in fool res 52499387852_186 (...).jpg, 4MiB, 7728x5152

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 21:49:29 No.4167095 Report

Quoted By: >>4167099 >>4167102 >>4167113

>>4167094
>apsc doesnt even compare

lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 21:54:28 No.4167099 Report

Quoted By: >>4171600

>>4167090
>>4167091
>>4167094
>>4167095
That different lighting sure does change how the same location looks. It doesn't tell me anything about the bodies or lenses used, though. Inconclusive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 21:57:53 No.4167101 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167016
Oh great, another cope thread.
>there's nothing wrong with being 5'7
>i don't need big muscles
>the majority of her nerve endings are in the first 2 inches anyway

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 22:16:19 No.4167102 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167090
>>4167094
SOVL

>>4167091
>>4167095
sovlless.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:02:13 No.4167113 Report

Quoted By: >>4167115

>>4167095
>>4167094
APS-C looks soapy and blurry, yes. A lot of the really fine details are obliterated into "a line" (a very blurry one). Like the texture on objects is totally gone, even though the fuji has a longer lens as an advantage. The fuji has a HUGE advantage, a sharper prime vs. a softer tourist zoom, but doesn't come out very far ahead. Thanks for corroborating the dpreview results.

I don't know why this is such a hard concession to make...
If you have a smaller sensor, it takes smaller pictures
Blowing them up to the same size as full frame is pixel peeping to the extreme and will produce blurry results.
High megapixel APS-C cameras produce images that just look like an AI upscale because you are just putting more photosites on the already truncated image. It's a cropped crop.
If you scaled the APS-C image to match the size of a crop out of the FF image, it would look much sharper.

But most importantly your photography is boring ass shit. Autofocus tier. It doesn't matter how much you pixel peep this shit, you're never going to print such a boring ass tourist photo large enough to notice the difference between your $2000 foolji toy and any other camera. I think what drives your pixel peeping is this: Even pixel peeping you could have spent half as much on a used x-t4 and this photo would look exactly the fucking same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:05:04 No.4167115 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167113
if i spent $2000 on a camera with the polar opposite of good ergonomics and mediocre image quality like that i would be coping on /p/ instead of taking memorable photos too

i'd be afraid of regretting a good memory being forever marked by fooljifilm image quality, or wasting my time missing shots while playing with dials

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:07:42 No.4167117 Report

Quoted By: >>4167118 >>4167126 >>4167129 >>4167993 >>4170764 >>4170784

The chart in OP is not misleading, its just OP is either very stupid or a troll. The chart literally says FF is much better.

The key takeway is that resolution here is line widths / picture height. What is picture height? On FF it is approx 36mm and on APSC approx 24mm. 50% more on FF. In other words it is lines per mm, it is a relative measurement of lens resolution per mm, so the more mm you have on a sensor, the more image detail you end up with.

The other thing here is the suspiciously low lines/mm being charted. Resolution on /all/ of these systems is not that low from just about any lens. Maybe at some arbitrary figure like lines/mm @ 95% contrast at 4:1 contrast ratio or some bullshit, but that part is rather misleading, youd be hard pressed to find a lens as bad as 30 lines/mm, and its not even specified as pairs, but single lines.

In any case, the chart says FF has more res regardless of the lower relative lines/mm value (which again is suspect). Resolution does suffer with equivalence on smaller formats on fast lenses because it is very hard to make a stunningly sharp lens at f/1.0 while there are many sharp lenses at f/1.4 on FF.

Lets take an 85mm 1.4. Resolution is not the only issue or even major issue here. What will you need on MFT? a 42.5mm 0.7, on APSC? A 50mm 1.0. Resolution not the reason you would need those, creative quality is, people who want those lenses want muh bokeh and thin DoF. I use an 85 1.8 which is enough until I do full body shots - the Dof is thin enough when considering subject area in focus vs what starts to be OOF in background, I dont want a thinner DoF - but I want a more blurred background in the area thats already OOF - it just means to get that I would end up with a thinner DoF.

Now lets take something like the 200-600mm 6.3 at the long end, what do you get in MFT? 100-300mm 5.6 at the long end, which is f/11 equivalent. Almost 2 stops slower, for birds I find often I am at ISO 6400 to 25600 on FF already

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:10:30 No.4167118 Report

Quoted By: >>4167128

>>4167117
It doesn't really matter what the chart says. They're not disclosing how they came to that conclusion in any amount of detail so it's pure marketing babble. Every photo thus far has shown that fuji IQ isn't winning pixel peeping contests, that's all you need to see.

If you have a fuji reduce your photos to 75-50% of the camera's full output and enjoy life. Downscaling a bit sharpens the bayer mess, or its retarded cousin, the wormtrans mess, up fast.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:13:46 No.4167126 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167117
That 100-300 is not nearly as sharp - and that is before the nearly 2 stops more noise makes it even worse. It is cheaper for sure but it is pissing money away because it is just not good. There are 2 other lenses I know of in MFT the OM 100-400 6.3 - again will not end up anywhere near as good. And the 150-400 5.6. At 300mm I belive its about f/4.5.. it is still not aperture equivalent at a price tag of $7500 USD. Granted this is the one lens that will produce stunning wild life images and does go to 800mm equiv (and has a built in TC), it is still not the same tier as the budget 200-600mm.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:16:47 No.4167128 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167118
Yes there is no way the lenses are only around 30 ish lines/mm (for example - the XT5 needs 330 lines/mm to resolve the sensor, or about 165 lp/mm). But if you take it at face value - if they are all very close to each other - it means that FF is approx 50% better linearly which means 2.25x more detail across a 2D image.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:20:35 No.4167129 Report

Quoted By: >>4167131 >>4167235

>>4167117
>The chart in OP is not misleading, its just OP is either very stupid or a troll. The chart literally says FF is much better.

Can't you actually read? It says right there at the bottom. >xt5's bump to 40.2 pixels means that it's beating 32.5mp r7, AS WELL AS THE FULL-FRAME Z 6II.

/p/ - fool framers that will write a novel, but can't actually read. You deserve to be marketed by shit gear companies, lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:21:10 No.4167130 Report

Quoted By:

Is this a problem for low MP fooljis like x100v or just the chink-made x-t5?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:23:24 No.4167131 Report

Quoted By: >>4167133 >>4171600

>>4167129
>It doesn't really matter what the chart says. They're not disclosing how they came to that conclusion in any amount of detail so it's pure marketing babble. Every photo thus far has shown that fuji IQ isn't winning pixel peeping contests, that's all you need to see.
You go ahead and pay $2000 for your foolji with its soft as fuck lens, insisting that it is sharp according to charts while your photos look soft and soapy, begging to be scaled down to cope

I will continue using a $600 D810 with a $100 50mm prime that is unironically sharper than every foolji X mount lens ever made

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:27:17 No.4167133 Report

Quoted By: >>4167142 >>4167158

>>4167131
>The chart in OP is not misleading, its just OP is either very stupid or a troll. The chart literally says FF is much better.

Explain your stupidity please. Chart says fool frame is worse. You say that chart says fool frame is better.

Were you wrong, or are you saying something new now?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 15 Apr 2023 23:54:12 No.4167142 Report

Quoted By: >>4167164

>>4167133
I'm not saying that

I'm saying it's marketing babble not a valid test. Their results look like faked numbers as he said. I am saying we have no way of reproducing their test. Even dpreview, a literal marketing site for amazon, is more trustworthy. Meanwhile these comparison photos you post corroborate my theory that lenses sharp enough for these tiny ass photosites don't really exist. Your photos are larger but not more detailed.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 00:21:00 No.4167158 Report

Quoted By: >>4167164 >>4171600 >>4171669

>>4167133
The resolution chart isn't measured with a lens.

The lens is the limiting factor for resolution in photography, not the sensor. And if you have twice as large a sensor, you get twice as much resolution out of the same lens. No lens comes anywhere close to resolving 40mp across an apsc sensor, or even 24mp for that matter.

The SNR chart shows FF has a clear lead, 3db is a doubling in SNR, the Nikon looks 4-5db better throughout.

The dynamic range test didn't take shadow recovery into account, hence why it flatlines at low iso.

This "review" was clearly audited by Fuji, hence the lack of any details of the testing, lack of explanation of the results, it prays on people suffering from dunning Kruger syndrome, anyone that understands what's being shown knows this shows FF dominating still.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 00:34:35 No.4167164 Report

Quoted By: >>4167167 >>4167177

>>4167158
>The resolution chart isn't measured with a lens.
Yeah, it kinda is...

>>4167142
Meanwhile these comparison photos you post corroborate my theory that lenses sharp enough for these tiny ass photosites don't really exist.
They exist on mft system, with even smaller photosites, so why wouldn't they exist on apsc? You have those pixelshift modes, and they clearly show that lenses aren't limiting factor. Theory of small photosites was busted years ago.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 00:37:16 No.4167167 Report

Quoted By: >>4167172

>>4167164
>They exist on MFT
No they don't lmao
>pixelshift
FF pixel shift with less than half the pixel density mogs it extra hard

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO lumix gh6 high res mode.jpg, 488KiB, 1210x404

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 00:54:31 No.4167172 Report

Quoted By: >>4167178 >>4167235 >>4171600

>>4167167
>No they don't lmao
Oh, but they do. Pixel shift is proof for this. Your stupid theory was busted by this tech. Resolution is all that's important, photosite size is utterly irrelevant.
Actually, if you look at the other chart from op test, you'll see that even dynamic range remains on par with ff cameras. This is the defining proof that crushes photosite size theory. 24mp ff has the same dynamic range as 50mp apsc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 01:05:56 No.4167177 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167164
No they aren't, hence why it doesn't state what lenses were used.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 01:19:02 No.4167178 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167172
FF pixel shift mogging it even harder is proof to the contrary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 04:24:29 No.4167235 Report

Quoted By: >>4167236

>>4167129
You’re missing the fact it’s lines per millimetre. But they’re all placed about the same 30 ish lines per mm. The FF has a lot more mm. Additionally the XT5 requires 330 lines per mm to resolve the sensor not merely 30, so this chart is a bit well bullshit. Contrast to the A7rIV at a much higher res of 60mp requires 266 lines per mm to resolve the sensor. Maybe this will give you a hint. If they were at the figures on the chart they would all be soft, but APSC would be the softest.

>>4167172
>resolution is all that’s important
If that’s what you really value then you’d get a high res FF body. Pixel shift is a cope meme that isn’t useable for most things, and when it can FF will still be a lot more detailed.
>dynamic range
It doesn’t work that simply. It’s not a hard concept but it’s a hard concept to accept for people to actually accept. Photosite size limits the well size of how many photons can be accepted and raises the noise floor bug alone does not tell the story. Because what we really look for is the performance of *images* and not individual pixels. For example, smaller photo sites have more noise than larger ones due to less light, light = signal, less signal = worse signal to noise ratio. Except 12mp vs 48mp sensors of the same size there is very little noise difference between the same tech level, and that’s because they receive the same amount of light, they receive the same amount of signal. The fact it is subdivided up into more pixels doesn’t change that, the individual pixels are noisier at 100% crop yes, but the image is not noisier when looked at the same size and is in fact more detailed.

A similar phenomena happens with dynamic range, and it is also impacted by noise and signal amplification. An individual photosite of the same size on a smaller sensor may have the same dynamic range esp one made by the same company - but the image doesn’t. Because the image is optically reduced less 1/2

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 04:29:47 No.4167236 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167235
optically reduced less on a larger sensor, and reduced more on a smaller sensor. It is the surface area that matters, not the number of photosites or the photosite size. The number of photosites just gives us more detail, but potentially some heat, battery, buffer, etc issues.

Typical /p/ responses goes like this
>WRONG, if you CROP the image that means you would get more noise and less DR!!!! How can CROPPING the image give you more noise AFTER taking a photo? Haha Im so smart
No, because you have cropped the image, you are looking at the same image, just a smaller section. IF you however took an image with a 24mm lens and didn't crop it, then a 12mm lens and did a 2x crop, then YES you would get worse DR and worse noise.You may need to use an ISO high enough to see this.Or you may need to use a more extreme crop and focal length difference. And its a yes because that second image already had worse noise and DR over the same angle of view of the original scene, because that angle of view is spread over a smaller section of the sensor.

You need to set the same angle of view over a smaller area of the sensor to see it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO xt5-va7riii.jpg, 616KiB, 1628x985

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 05:09:25 No.4167239 Report

Quoted By: >>4167243

>>4167016
>32 lines/mm vs 28 lines/mm
Fucking lmao. I am guesing now that they are trying to say 3200 (XT5) lines for the sensor height vs about 2800 (R7). If that is true Fuji are saying that resolve only 3200 out of 5152 lines, or only 15mp out of 40mp.
>It's a clear leader when it comes to resolving fine detail
>easily beating
Put it against the A7rIII since its the closet match in pixel dimension, and its an absolute fucking kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 05:16:47 No.4167240 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167090
>sun and direct reflections of it in the shot
c'mon anon I'm a M43 chad but this isn't fair

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 05:21:35 No.4167243 Report

Quoted By: >>4167252

>>4167239
To be fair this is literally just xtrans making it impossible to create a sharp image. Compare the panasonic GH6 and it's actually more detailed than the fuji image.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 05:46:40 No.4167252 Report

Quoted By: >>4167272

>>4167243
That depends where you look, the XT5 producing slightly more detail than the GH6, keyword on slightly. If we look in the far corners on the GH6 which is only the mid corners the Fuji is getting wrecked, staggering difference, but that comes down to the lens not a sensor thing as the difference is small in areas where it is good. The R7 and A6600 from OPs example also have this staggering difference too, all destroying the Fuji.. that lens.. I mean it is not a lens used for corners, a portrait lens, but it is stopped down like the others.

кAHOH !!5Dz+C7v45HK

кAHOH !!5Dz+C7v45HK Sun 16 Apr 2023 05:59:51 No.4167258 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167090
>>4167091
>fujislug doesn't understand exposure
news at f/11

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cpp,small,lustre,product,750x1000.jpg, 101KiB, 749x1000

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 06:42:31 No.4167270 Report

Quoted By: >>4167278

>>4167026
>Also fool frame lenses are more expensive.
I only use Nikkor AF/AF-D, just got a 35-70 f2.8 for under $100

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 06:57:44 No.4167272 Report

Quoted By:

Is there any specific comparisons anyone wants to see? Could show X-T5 vs ff or gfx.
I don't notice much of a difference between 26mp and 40mp x-trans, but there is a big difference in sharpness across their lenses.
FF in general is definitely better, but lenses just matter so much more than sensor / resolution for
>>4167252
The OG 56 f1.2 ain't that great by modern standards, new version is noticeably better.

кAHOH

кAHOH Sun 16 Apr 2023 07:39:09 No.4167278 Report

Quoted By: >>4167292

>>4167270
based, people who don't know how to get deals will say it's more expensive but FF really is the poorfag's choice

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 07:47:36 No.4167282 Report

Quoted By:

>spend more on an ASPI-E body than FF body
>even lenses cost more than FF

Are Fujifilm users that retarded?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Badly compressed.jpg, 146KiB, 1080x1623

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 08:20:01 No.4167292 Report

Quoted By: >>4167293

>>4167278
>FF really is the poorfag's choice
Tfw d700 and 50 f1.8

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 08:21:00 No.4167293 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167292
lol, wtf?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 08:21:25 No.4167294 Report

Quoted By: >>4167297

>>4167094
>wider FL
>meme travel zoom
>at f11 so diffraction is already softening up the image
>sun shining into lens lowering contrast
>even with all these disadvantages the fooj still needs perfect natural light and a prime to compete
lmao my ass off

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 08:28:44 No.4167297 Report

Quoted By: >>4167439

>>4167294
>must use $2000+ lenses at precise settings at right time to shine ff in good light
Get over it, ff got destroyed in that sample. I'm sure it'd be better if it was taken on $4000 body at blue hour, though.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 15:28:11 No.4167439 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167297
No it didn’t lmao. Your fuji snap looks literally exactly like an AI upscale. What’s with the price hyperbole? Is it how you cope with spending more on fooljifilm than the actual FF users here spent?
Xt5 =$1800 taxed
Xf 35mm f1.4 = $600 taxed

Stop wasting bandwidth on being delusional. Scale your images down. The full res or even half of it from the xt5 is not worth sharing. SOOC it looks like enlarging the xt4’s output. And the full res of the xt4 isn’t even worth sharing. It looks best scaled to 10mp.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 16 Apr 2023 22:27:08 No.4167669 Report

Quoted By: >>4167672

lol you people really spent a saturday evening arguing over this.

cinefag !CiNE/YT/e6

cinefag !CiNE/YT/e6 Sun 16 Apr 2023 22:43:51 No.4167672 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167669
it's sundae anon
learn how a lense is mounted

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Apr 2023 16:45:07 No.4167904 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167016
>resolution in line widths/height
>32
This has to be a mistake and someone is comparing lpmm again, because that would make sense again, with 40.2 MP on APS-C format.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 17 Apr 2023 21:02:59 No.4167993 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167117
>f/11 equivalent
>two stops slower
>shooting at Iso 25600

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 02:25:14 No.4170764 Report

Quoted By: >>4170769

>>4167117
>The chart literally says FF is much better.
Eh? It says the opposite. lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 02:59:09 No.4170769 Report

Quoted By: >>4170814

>>4170764
the chart says "trust the chart i won't disclose shit just believe me, dumb fucks"
it's advertising

if their test meant anything they would provide raws and an overview of how they did the test. a 3x3 mosaic like xtrans will never resolve detail as well as a 2x2 mosaic (bayer). unless you want to test resolution before demosaicing, which is stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 03:26:37 No.4170784 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167117
This is not a correct interpretation of LW/PH or LPH. The entire point of LPH is to generate a number which can be used for comparison REGARDLESS of physical sensor size or format ratio (i.e. width/height ratio). Its origin is TV lines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_lines

It's a measure of PICTURE (not sensor) resolution over a horizontal distance equal to height so that different ratios can be compared. It's a final picture measurement, not a sensor measurement, so that differently sized sensors can be compared.

Yes, a 40mp APS-C will have a higher extinction resolution at base ISO than a 24mp FF, all other factors being equal. But the 24mp FF will be sharper out of camera and cleaner at high ISO. And yes, you can have one sensor or film win on extinction resolution and the other on sharpness. The two are related but separate.

A 40mp APS-C and 40mp FF sensor will have nearly identical extinction resolution at base ISO. When it comes to extinction resolution digital cameras are Nyquist limited, not lens limited. Lenses play a much larger role in limiting/impacting sharpness, though for equal lenses a larger sensor will always be sharper at out of camera.

All of that said, I looked at Fuji's high rez APS-C sensors and wasn't that impressed compared to high rez FF (50mp). On an extinction resolution test they will be close. But the sharpness difference is too large. And differences grow as ISO goes up. X-T5 is a fine camera but if you're after high rez files I would choose FF any day. If you're not...if 24mp is good enough...then FF sharpness and high ISO is significant.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 04:37:55 No.4170812 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167016
>but at this price point
lol that's a funny way to say overpriced aps-c

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 04:38:56 No.4170813 Report

Quoted By: >>4171745

>>4167026
>Also fool frame lenses are more expensive.
lol the nikon 50 f/1.8D arguably the sharpest and best focal length you'll ever need (you YOU WILL EVER NEED not want) is only $50 for days

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 04:40:25 No.4170814 Report

Quoted By: >>4171068

>>4170769
It will resolve the lines but turn them into worms in the process

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 04:45:06 No.4170818 Report

Quoted By: >>4170822

>>4167016
i love how fuji photos (and or their photographers) must be so bad at producing good photos that they have to resort to these graphs and shit lol.. like who tf cares? show me a photo thats better than an 80's film p&s..protip: you can't

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 04:55:43 No.4170822 Report

Quoted By:

>>4170818
they already tried itt and couldn’t make one sharper than a low res canon with a kit lens. scroll up. srsly. at best they look the same.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 05:55:28 No.4170835 Report

Quoted By: >>4171233

>>4167026
Equivalent lenses (that means equivalent aperture) are as large and often more expensive on crop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 25 Apr 2023 20:54:45 No.4171068 Report

Quoted By:

>>4170814
There's also that problem. Fuji's X-Trans falls short on very fine detail. It can have an unnatural quality to it. To be sure, for most people and applications it doesn't matter. And Fuji makes fine cameras. But if you're after ultimate resolution and fine detail, go high rez FF or MF.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 05:04:40 No.4171204 Report

Quoted By: >>4171209 >>4171233

>>4167016
you dont buy full frame cameras for high resolution you fucking retard.

>signal to noise

do you even know what that is? the graph does not talk about that, and pixel size and depth of field are what make full frame camers special. some people dont get it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 05:35:48 No.4171209 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171204
You do anyways because full frame cameras are demonstrably higher resolution even with fewer megapixels. Larger photosites on a larger sensor are easier to get results out of.

See this example, where a nikon Z6 II is sharper than a fuji with more megapixels.
>>4167025

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 06:47:13 No.4171233 Report

Quoted By: >>4171555 >>4171559 >>4171562

>>4171204
Wrong

Pixel size is completely irrelevant, total sensor area is what dictates how good a camera performs in low light.

Resolution is almost completely limited by how many lines per mm a lens can resolve, so resolution is one of the main reasons to go full frame, as a larger sensor is less demanding.

Dof is dictated by the equivalent focal length and aperture of the lens, not the sensor size, a larger sensor just makes lenses cheaper and smaller to get shallow dof.

SNR is also dictated by sensor size, the rest of that article goes on to show that a FF sensor has ~3db greater SNR than crop, 3db is a doubling\halving and corresponds to a doubling\halving of dynamic range (or one stop).

You fucking retard.

>>4170835
*Almost always larger and heavier and more expensive and worse performing on crop

Ftfy

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 22:53:35 No.4171555 Report

Quoted By: >>4171579

>>4171233
>Pixel size is completely irrelevant

wrong

>SNR is also dictated by sensor size

yeah, because the pixels are larger with more information dumbass.

>ive read one article that i can barely cite properly. i win.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 23:03:14 No.4171559 Report

Quoted By: >>4171579

>>4171233
>Dof is dictated by the equivalent focal length and aperture of the lens, not the sensor size, a larger sensor just makes lenses cheaper and smaller to get shallow dof

sensor size affects dof. stfu retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 23:05:57 No.4171562 Report

Quoted By: >>4171568 >>4171574 >>4171579

>>4171233
>Pixel size is completely irrelevant, total sensor area is what dictates how good a camera performs in low light.

Larger total sensor is completely irrelevant for cmos sensors (different story for ccd). Each individual pixels is it's own light receptor. In theory larger pixel will have light gathering advantage over the smaller one, but here comes technology to front. Better tech means that smaller pixel has better light gathering capabilities compared to larger pixel of weaker tech. 24mp ff sensors are pretty much stagnating at this point, so it's only logical that a new 40mp apsc sensor mogs them in pretty much every situation, and is even remarkably close in low light, despite having pixels that are significantly smaller than it's 24mp ff competition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 23:12:09 No.4171568 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171562
>24mp ff sensors are pretty much stagnating at this point
I'm actually assuming that manufacturers are doing this on purpose. Lure people in with cheaper bodes, then dangle high mp cameras at exorbinant price in front of their faces. Let's make sure that scamming our customers with lenses isn't the only path to easy money.

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1621681125854.gif, 1MiB, 600x338

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Wed 26 Apr 2023 23:16:19 No.4171571 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 23:18:50 No.4171574 Report

Quoted By: >>4171599

>>4171562
Everything you just posted is not just provably wrong but has been proven wrong, independent of marketing outlets, countless times.

APS-C isn’t mogging shit even when you use a kit zoom and miss focus

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 23:23:33 No.4171577 Report

Quoted By:

>>4167025
Amazing, 40mp and it looks worse

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 23:30:30 No.4171579 Report

Quoted By: >>4171585 >>4171587

>>4171555
>Wrong
no, right, the only time sensor size matters if you need larger/fewer for data transfer, or more/smaller if you need it for print at a higher resolution than the pixel count as upsampling is ugly.
>yeah because larger pixels
No, and provably so, SNR/DR for an a7s range and a7r from the same gen is almost identical, yet the pixels are ~4 times larger on the s.

Don't be so arrogant when you know so little, little bro.

>>4171559
no, it doesn't. given an equivalent lens FL and aperture, dof will be identical between sensor sizes.

If you crop an image, does it magically get deeper dof? of course not, dummy.

>>4171562
wrong and baseless.
if a pixel is 4 times larger on one sensor than another, it will gather just as much light as 4 of the smaller pixels; light gathering is only affected by sensor size.

All your whining about pixel size will be ignored until you can explain why the SNR of the A7R and A7S are so similar, if not for the fact pixel size is irrelevant to SNR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 26 Apr 2023 23:56:41 No.4171585 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171579
you don't know jack shit faggot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 00:04:05 No.4171587 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171579
you don't know what you are talking about and i'm not sure why you are so desperate. are you a coping crop sensor fuji user or some shit?

even if you say is accurate(which it isn't) why do full frame pictures look so much better? If you can't tell a difference maybe you have shit eyes or something.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 00:13:39 No.4171590 Report

Quoted By: >>4171594

>>4167016
what is dynamic range, depth of field, and low light performance?

coping sensorlit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 00:24:13 No.4171594 Report

Quoted By: >>4171597

>>4171590
regardless that chart is likely faked or fudged. not a reproducible experiment = not a fact. ever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 00:38:05 No.4171597 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171594
you can't even get above 25mp on a crop sensor higher than like a 5.6 f/stop or lower. I don't remember.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO green.jpg, 393KiB, 2527x1351

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 00:45:27 No.4171599 Report

Quoted By: >>4171601 >>4171619 >>4171623 >>4171666 >>4172716

>>4171574
>Everything you just posted is not just provably wrong but has been proven wrong, independent of marketing outlets, countless times.

Actually, at least that part is even an understatement.

>it's only logical that a new 40mp apsc sensor mogs them in pretty much every situation, and is even remarkably close in low light, despite having pixels that are significantly smaller than it's 24mp ff competition.

From the tests that I've seen that 40mp apsc fuji beats 20 mp canon in pull up and push down processing, is weaker than newer sony sensors, but those have this horrid color retention. So, yeah, pixel size/sensor size, requirement for low light performance appears to be total bullshit.

Art_repro_fag22

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Abstract 2788.jpg, 4MiB, 4080x4080

Art_repro_fag22 Thu 27 Apr 2023 00:46:27 No.4171600 Report

Quoted By: >>4171605 >>4177148

>>4167099
In other news, water is wet?
>>4167131
Holy based. Check out the micro-nikkor 105mm, another cheap wonderful lens.
>>4167158
Unless you're shooting wide open, almost all primes made in the last 40 years are fine even on modern high res FF bodies. That's not that modern lenses aren't better, they totally are, just sharper at 1.4 and better controlled LoCA, and better autofocus.
>inb4 source
Pic below is taken with 105mm nikkor from the 80s on my s1r.
>>4167172
You do realize that panasonic makes FF with pixel shift? My s1r has 188mp in pixel shift mode, and yes, it has the same great mode 2 that every baby sensor fag won't shut up about.
>Resolution is all that's important, photosite size is utterly irrelevant.
Sensor size and gain are also important anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 00:48:31 No.4171601 Report

Quoted By: >>4171606

>>4171599
>So, yeah, pixel size/sensor size, requirement for low light performance appears to be total bullshit.

no. compare the fuji shit to a modern full frame. It's because of modern processing. not the resolution. higher resolution(pixel density) is worse for low light.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 00:59:08 No.4171605 Report

Quoted By: >>4171610

>>4171600
>Pic below is taken with 105mm nikkor from the 80s on my s1r.
Looks like something taken on a phone. And you somehow managed to get jpeg artefacts on a 4.01mb file. Amazing feet.

Art_repro_fag22

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Big vs small pixels.jpg, 110KiB, 2242x618

Art_repro_fag22 Thu 27 Apr 2023 00:59:15 No.4171606 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171601
>higher resolution(pixel density) is worse for low light.
Not true. its basically the same.

Art_repro_fag22

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO abstract 2788 100 crop.jpg, 921KiB, 2518x1385

Art_repro_fag22 Thu 27 Apr 2023 01:16:54 No.4171610 Report

Quoted By: >>4171622

>>4171605
Low quality bait, but fuck it, I'm waiting on prints to finish. Unlike you, I'm a pro who knows what he's doing.
>Looks like something taken on a phone.
The tiff is over 500mb and good for 17x26 at 300ppi, here is a 100% crop of the file in photoshop, its very sharp and no phone, or baby sensor could resolve this amount of detail. FF cameras are professional tools for larger, tack sharp, noise free prints.
>And you somehow managed to get jpeg artefacts on a 4.01mb file.
I don't bother to pixel peep my half res jpgs for instagram, but if you find any they're due to serious downsizing happening, I believe this is quarter res

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 01:39:40 No.4171619 Report

Quoted By: >>4171624

>>4171599
It should be a legal requirement for sony users to shift their white balance tint towards magenta.

>40mp fuji beats...
Looking at the fine details in your own image it ranges from about the same to smeared. Unfortunately, 40mp is totally ruined by xtrans. Wherever it appears sharper, it's just in focus because it has the DOF of a shorter lens.

You could argue that fuji's god awful sensor smearing details is a good thing. Smearing details makes moire impossible, and can be more flattering for women. But it's forced on you in every single photo.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 01:42:38 No.4171622 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171610
>>4171610
Dude, you have artefacts all over your sky. They will be plainly visible whenever you decide to print that shit. And when you do that, printing will reduce your resolution to the level that phone shot will be comparable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 01:45:04 No.4171623 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171599
the fuji image is noticeably less detailed than the canon. ouch. looks like a phone shot. i'd rather retouch the canon image than use the fuji for anything.

>horrid color
what you're seeing is, sadly, realistic color. sony cameras are configured by scientists, not artists, so colors are as accurate as the device can capture them, rather than pleasing and painterly. they are extremely unforgiving especially if you are photographing people who do not have a naturally pleasing skin tone. i'm pretty sure most other camera companies set their skin tones based on subjective photos of asians because white people look paler and bluer than they should and asians and hispanics look more caucasian especially on canon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 01:47:11 No.4171624 Report

Quoted By: >>4171626

>>4171619
So we're back at sharpness? Moving goalposts again and again? Post proof that dynamic range of 40mp is better than 20mp ff, wah wah, whatabout sharpness... Post proof that 40mp is sharper than 24mp ff, wah wah whatabout dynamic range. You're funny, I'll give you that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 01:50:29 No.4171626 Report

Quoted By: >>4171628 >>4177410

>>4171624
What's the proof? A screenshot from a youtube video you never linked. No context.

So with a little over half the megapixels, the full frame camera is sharper. The colors are richer. It's a more usable image. To me, this lines up perfectly with common sense, and every single independent source performing independently verifiable tests producing results like pic related

You have never posted proof that 40mp fuji is sharper. Nada. Never. Nor proof it has more dynamic range. Because you literally can't.

Are you literally autistc and unable to understand that you posted a crappy screenshot of a youtube video with 0 context?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 168255632794588101.jpg, 246KiB, 1693x1325

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 01:53:46 No.4171628 Report

Quoted By: >>4171629 >>4172716 >>4175092

>>4171626
>The colors are richer.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture.png, 170KiB, 3187x1265

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 01:56:42 No.4171629 Report

Quoted By: >>4171630 >>4171633

this chart is verifiable objective data. you can reproduce his experiments. no varying shots, no worrying about if someone missed focus or brought the worst lens they had to make their least favorite camera look bad. no literal marketing lies with selective post production.

>>4171628
Yes. Not subjectively more pleasing, but there is more varied color information. That looks more or less like a normal sony photo to me. I can't see the original before the shadow push, or is this it? I don't know, you never linked the video.

Nice of you to omit the canon, which has an in-camera profile for more pleasing skin tones, and is fa better supported by... what software is he using? Lightroom? You still haven't even linked this video.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO s noise.jpg, 149KiB, 893x943

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:01:10 No.4171630 Report

Quoted By: >>4171631 >>4171714

>>4171629
>this chart is verifiable objective data. you can reproduce his experiments. no varying shots, no worrying about if someone missed focus or brought the worst lens they had to make their least favorite camera look bad. no literal marketing lies with selective post production.

Funny how chartfags get destroyed by charts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:02:56 No.4171631 Report

Quoted By:

why do fujifags argue in such a slimy manner
>chart, no source on how it was created
>youtube screenshot, no source, no context, no raws
>ignores everything that btfos them
>"independent test" where a kit lens at a wider focal length is compared to a longer focal length to make it look softer, because the details are smaller
even though dpreview is a literal advertising website at least they give you raw files that contain hopefully unaltered exif so you can try demosaicing and sharpening yourself

either they are actively being dishonest or they are just not that smart

>>4171630
see? no source. no data. no raws. no methodology. "just trust chart, you dumb fuck".

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture.png, 3MiB, 2337x1298

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:06:45 No.4171632 Report

Quoted By: >>4171634

Fuji be like
"If you want good ergos on the X-T5, that's $300 extra. Now it's the X-H2. If you want a good sensor on the XH2, that's $500 extra. Ok but look sony colors are ugly. FOOL frame BTFO forever. We'll be 6% of sales at this rate"

Full frame users be like
"Oh wow, a nikon is how much on ebay? Whadda steal. Amazing, it's sharper than a 40mp XH2! Xtrans sure is a bad CFA design. Can't get fine detail without worms, lol"

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:08:39 No.4171633 Report

Quoted By: >>4171635

>>4171629
>Yes. Not subjectively more pleasing, but there is more varied color information.
>The colors are richer. It's a more usable image. To me, this lines up perfectly with common sense, and every single independent source performing independently verifiable tests producing results like pic related

You really can't be taken seriously with that bullshit, lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:11:04 No.4171634 Report

Quoted By: >>4171635

>>4171632
>+5ev on xh2
>0ev on everyone else

So, we're back to pure lies?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture.png, 4MiB, 2343x1295

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:11:57 No.4171635 Report

Quoted By: >>4171637 >>4171640

>>4171634
I sadly fucked that one up on accident. I caught the mistake before you, because dpreview does tell you what you are actually looking at. And you can go to their website yourself, download the raws, etc. Is giving the XH2s a 1EV advantage to compensate for the slightly higher ISO fair?
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=fujifilm_xh2&attr144_1=fujifilm_xh2s&attr144_2=nikon_z6ii&attr144_3=nikon_z7ii&attr146_0=125_6&attr146_1=160_5&attr146_2=100_5&attr146_3=64_6&attr177_0=off&attr177_1=off&attr177_2=off&attr177_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=835&x=0.8588512628624885&y=0.23610046511627905

>>4171633
You can't be taken seriously if you don't like your youtube video source for context and most importantly, data and trustworthyness

Otherwise it's even more worthless than your article of worthless, nondescript claims because nobody knows what they're actually looking at. But yes the full frame cameras both retained more detail and more varied color and the canon is the most usable photo by a long shot. Amazing that with 40 megapixels, your $2000 camera can't outperform the level of detail achievable of a $1000 canon RP.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:13:18 No.4171636 Report

Quoted By: >>4171638 >>4171639

I'm eternally grateful for Fujifilm for making so many FF spec-sheet sniffers seethe endlessly with frothy volition. This thread is a magnificent example.
Keep chimping out.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:14:20 No.4171637 Report

Quoted By: >>4171638

>>4171635
>I sadly fucked that one up on accident. I caught the mistake before you, because dpreview does tell you what you are actually looking at. And you can go to their website yourself, download the raws, etc. Is giving the XH2s a 1EV advantage to compensate for the slightly higher ISO fair?
>https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr144_0=fujifilm_xh2&attr144_1=fujifilm_xh2s&attr144_2=nikon_z6ii&attr144_3=nikon_z7ii&attr146_0=125_6&attr146_1=160_5&attr146_2=100_5&attr146_3=64_6&attr177_0=off&attr177_1=off&attr177_2=off&attr177_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=835&x=0.8588512628624885&y=0.23610046511627905
why are you zoomed in more on the apsc sensors? of course you're going to have more noise.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture.png, 754KiB, 575x1178

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:16:13 No.4171638 Report

Quoted By: >>4171644

>>4171636
You're the one paying $2000 for a camera that produces larger, but not more detailed images, than a $1000 canon RP

The video specs tho? Just don't record for too long

>>4171637
It's actually zoomed out on the XH2 and Z7II. But because I linked you the tool, which includes raw downloads, you should be able to figure that out and view them at different zoom levels and even try shadow pushes in different programs like LR, C1, and rawtherapee.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:19:00 No.4171639 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171636
>seethe
bro we're laughing at you

fujifilm and sony customers are the only people on earth who have to pay a premium for better ergonomics
fujifilm and sony customers are the only people on earth who have to worry about color profiles and presets
fujifilm and sony customers are the only people on earth who have to distrust weather sealing
fujifilm and sony customers are the only people on earth who have to insist on their cameras sharpness even when it isn't actually there, posting somewhat blurry crops and say "look, it's sharp, shut up"
fujifilm and sony customers are the only people who resort to mystery youtube videos when everyone else says "fuji is soft and sony has ugly colors".

ya'll also pay the biggest premiums of any brand for the least performance. it's kind of sad. i guess you're both snoyboys and fuji is secretly sony's new APS-C division.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:22:47 No.4171640 Report

Quoted By: >>4171642

>>4171635
And now it's nothing :)

Intense pixelpeeping and you can barely see the difference between ff and apsc AT +5EV. And it's even on 1/200 apsc vs 1/160 and 1/100, lol. lmao even

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO XH2-4ev.jpg, 498KiB, 2845x1524

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:32:21 No.4171642 Report

Quoted By: >>4171643 >>4171647 >>4171651

>>4171640
Let me try processing these files myself. 4ev raws for the XH2 and Z6II, you can download them too bro. My version of capture one won't do 5ev for sum raisin. It's a less demanding and more realistic test anyways so that's good right?

>And now it's nothing
Not really nothing. Definitely something. At these price levels these are professional cameras, you buy 40mp to make big prints. It's not pixel peeping to the extreme either, it's viewing the image at full size, which I'm sure you bought the camera to be able to do? Big prints, tight crops? If you want smaller images you might as well buy a 12mp camera or something. You'd save $1700.
>You can barely see the difference, I don't understand exposure equivalence btw
If you can barely see the difference why would you spend more on 40mp fuji? I can buy a Z6II for $1700 off amazon. The XH2 is $1999. It's only the same price if you cuck out and get the camera with worse ergonomics.

Here is the XH2, +4EV. I didn't turn NR off, I left it at capture one's defaults because its noise reduction is quite good.

And the Z6II looks more detailed to me. Jpeg to come.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Z6II-4ev.jpg, 453KiB, 2549x1524

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:35:43 No.4171643 Report

Quoted By: >>4171645 >>4171647 >>4171651

>>4171642
And the Z6II. Once again, 4ev, a very realistic everyday push, no extreme bullshit, 100% size. Nothing else touched, it's as capture one opened it.

The Z6 II, to no ones surprise, has better dynamic range and is a sharper camera. At the same price as the XT5 which has worse ergos and a worse sensor, and the XH2 which just has a worse sensor, it's a no brainer. The fujifilm cameras have their own advantages that are unrelated to image quality, like burst rate and video capabilities. You can also buy more compact telephoto lenses because they're a little smaller, and get more DOF at the same FOV. That's really cool! Just keep a fan on it. They tend to overheat. And keep an eye out for a deal because fuji's prices are a fucking ripoff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:37:03 No.4171644 Report

Quoted By: >>4171648

>>4171638
>You're the one paying $2000 for a camera that produces larger, but not more detailed images, than a $1000 canon RP

It's much cheaper than that. Xh5 is $1600, considering lenses as well, they tip the price to the Fuji. When you're paying $2000 for 50mm f1.2 on rf mount, you can get 33mm f1.2 for $800 on xf mount.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:38:39 No.4171645 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171643
+4ev is realistic? What the fuck are you smoking?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:41:59 No.4171647 Report

Quoted By: >>4171648

>>4171642
>>4171643
Is this for real? Fuji is actually a lot better in dr based on this. Check your histograms. Shadows and highlights are crushed on Nikon, where they are still in the norms on Fuji.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:50:16 No.4171648 Report

Quoted By: >>4171650

>>4171644
The XH2 is $1999. The XT5 is $1699. The canon R8, which is the truly comparable camera, is $1499. The Z6 II is $1699. All the canon comparisons are bunk. That's why I focused on nikon anon.

>Considering lenses, 50mm f1.2...
You would need a 33mm f0.8 autofocus lens on fuji. No equivalent. You do have the 50mm f1. I guess it would be fair to compare that to an f1.8, right? The Nikon Z mount 85mm f1.8 is a fractional stop faster and $480. The 50mm f1 on fuji is wider, slower, and $1499. Christ. What about a small walkaround prime? Nikon has the 40mm f2. I can personally attest to this being an extremely sharp lens. It's $280. The closest fuji has is the 23mm f1.4 that's slower, wider, and $790.

>>4171647
Dynamic range is signal to noise ratio. There is no other definition. The nikon has less noise. The fuji image is covered in worms at 100%. I'm playing with both raw files and finding the .nef file easier to edit and better looking. Also the Xh2 file is still slightly underexposed at +4. They're closer with the nikon pushed less, +3.75. The nikons colors are way richer and more pleasing to me on my calibrated display with 100% ARGB coverage. You have lightroom at least, right?

Just using these two files I can say I'd rather live with the cheaper nikon than pay a $300 premium for a worse, more expensive equivalent lens selection and a can of worms.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:51:32 No.4171650 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171648
The 85mm is a *fractional stop slower
k3k

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1682562741960430 copy.jpg, 1MiB, 2845x3037

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:54:52 No.4171651 Report

Quoted By: >>4171655

>>4171642
>>4171643
I simply sampled your own samples. Nothing changed. You can see the histograms yourself. Better highlights, better shadows on Fuji.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 02:59:12 No.4171655 Report

Quoted By: >>4171659

>>4171651
Worms covering every surface. Blurry details. Overly contrasty. Costs more money. More expensive lenses. So soft that it has the same amount of subjective detail. If you adjust the curves on the NEF file the histograms look the same and it has the same oversaturated look. You're not looking at dynamic range you're looking at a curve adjustment.

I fucked up the aperture math and you fucked up knowing what the histogram actually says and knowing what dynamic range is, congratulations

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:03:42 No.4171656 Report

Quoted By: >>4171658

Were these “discussions” common during the film photography era? Endless seething about 35mm vs mf vs 4x5 etc

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:05:03 No.4171658 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171656
it wasnt a debate because you didn't have poor suckers paying 120 prices for rolls of 35mm and trying to convince themselves it was better

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:05:06 No.4171659 Report

Quoted By: >>4171661 >>4171670

>>4171655
Histogram doesn't lie. But you're clearly biased, and mad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:10:07 No.4171661 Report

Quoted By: >>4171664

>>4171659
>Histogram doesn't lie
You don't know what you're actually looking at. You think histograms are photographic dynamic range, not representative of curve adjustments. You are not looking at dynamic range, you are looking at the camera's default colors. The clipping isn't much different in either image (even though I fudged it and overexposed the nikon file). Go ahead, download the raws and try it yourself. You're a photographer. You have darktable or something.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:11:17 No.4171662 Report

Quoted By:

Z5 is the best deal in still photography under 1000 dollars.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:19:18 No.4171664 Report

Quoted By: >>4171668

>>4171661
Why would I need to dl some stupid chart samples? You've been doing that on your own in and angry attempt to discredit what was said. Then you were 'fudging' those same charts to the level that APSC somehow comes better off. You did that, I only showed you how fucking blind you are by posting another histogram, so now you have two histograms showing you that you are blind, lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:21:42 No.4171666 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171599
lol imagine taking these photos and not deleting them in camera

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Capture.jpg, 225KiB, 3118x1163

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:30:10 No.4171668 Report

Quoted By: >>4175103

>>4171664
What, you have time to kill. Maybe you'll learn something about photography and you'll make better photographs, for that time you finally have some of your own raws.

Here's one last capture one screenshot for you, of the unedited files. What do you see? Think about it.
>t-the nikon has a worse histogram
Oh no the nikon's histogram is great. That's not dynamic range either, dynamic range refers to the noise level and nothing else.

i've made some small mistakes but none has stupid as using a screenshot from a still unseen youtube video and an article that doesn't even give you raw files. Just playing with this dpreview shit I'm astounded by how far off comparisons can be. Incredibly the nikon still did better.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:35:37 No.4171669 Report

Quoted By: >>4171714

>>4167158
>The resolution chart isn't measured with a lens.
Of course it is. Lens Rentals has a machine to test lenses without a camera, but no one that I can think of is testing sensors for resolution without a lens.

>The lens is the limiting factor for resolution in photography, not the sensor.
>And if you have twice as large a sensor, you get twice as much resolution out of the same lens.
Depends on how you define "resolution." If you're going by the MTF50 point larger sensors score significantly higher. But that's traditionally used to evaluate sharpness. If going by MTF10 or "extinction resolution" then modern ILC cameras are typically Nyquist limited, not lens limited.

>No lens comes anywhere close to resolving 40mp across an apsc sensor, or even 24mp for that matter.
Most of them do center stopped down. Many do across the frame stopped down. Some even do it wide open.

>The SNR chart shows FF has a clear lead, 3db is a doubling in SNR, the Nikon looks 4-5db better throughout.
>The dynamic range test didn't take shadow recovery into account, hence why it flatlines at low iso.
Sensor size is a factor in SNR/DR, but chip technology can be much larger. That said, Fuji does not have APS-C sensors which can match Nikon's best FF sensors on DR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 03:40:50 No.4171670 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171659
>histogram doesn't lie
you're both retards
the histogram says the nikon has deeper, not crushed shadows and the fuji has lighter shadows

the nikon's image looks more normal after being brightened and the fuji's is compressed. the lightened shadows are also close to clipping.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 04:03:40 No.4171674 Report

Quoted By: >>4171676

i give up on trying to match them exactly. no matter what the histogram says the fuji file just looks bad, especially in the shadowed half of the image. it actually reminds me of sony. the nikon file didn't need many adjustments to look more pleasing. i think i misread the histogram too, increasing saturation lowers the lines, then the histograms match, and then the fuji file looks even worse. i never paid attention to histograms anyways.

i'll stick to fool frame unless someone gives me a fuji for basically free.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 04:06:57 No.4171676 Report

Quoted By: >>4171686

>>4171674
>No matter what I do, pushing shadows on a poor sucker's camera with less dynamic range looks worse
WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO lol rip.jpg, 668KiB, 3078x1457

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 04:34:49 No.4171686 Report

Quoted By: >>4175103

>>4171676
this was a learning experience in using other peoples gear instead of wasting $2000 to find out
also someone said capture one got rid of worms but how? where's the dewormer button?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 06:58:43 No.4171714 Report

Quoted By: >>4171716 >>4172048

>>4171630
>Dynamic range doesn't reduce with iso until 6400

Lmao, yeh, great chart pal
You've literally never taken a photo of you believe that

What I expect is happening is they are "measuring dynamic range" of a scene without even touching shadow recovery, it's just a measure of the total contrast dictated by the default jpeg profile, not the dynamic range of the raw.

>>4171669
>It is using a lens
Ok, what lens, a resolution test without knowing the lenses used is 100% meaningless
>Mtf10
No one wants mtf10, low contrast, grey photos
>Muh stopped down
By f5.6 a crop camera physically can't out resolve a 24mp sensor due to diffraction, lmao, shows how little you know
>Muh centre
Lol, enjoy your blurry shots
>Chip tech
Everything is made by Sony except canon, they all have the same "tech"
>Fuji doesn't have
Fuji doesn't have any crop sensor that can match any Sony made FF sensor from the last decade

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 07:01:24 No.4171716 Report

Quoted By: >>4171742

>>4171714
Nah it's a chart so it's right. It's a made up chart, but it's still a chart.

If you doubt it I'm going to put the kit lens on my canon and compare it to a nice prime on the fuji (and miss focus on the background)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 08:37:04 No.4171742 Report

Quoted By: >>4171830

>>4171716
A chart without correct labeling isn't a chart.
This chart isn't labelled at all.
Remember learning science when you were 11 at school? what mark would your teacher give you if you handed in a chart with no key\legend, no supporting information, no dataset and no methodology? A fat zero.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 08:49:59 No.4171745 Report

Quoted By: >>4171976 >>4171986

>>4170813
>ignoring the 50 f/1.4 AI-S

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 15:25:28 No.4171830 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171742
noooo FOOL frame ;_;

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO pureautism.jpg, 4MiB, 2500x5000

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 16:41:29 No.4171848 Report

Quoted By: >>4171853 >>4171854 >>4171864

fuji 33mm f1.4 on x-t5 vs voigt 50mm f2 apo on 30mp ff
some samples wide open & stopped down 3 stops (optimal for the fuji 33, and brings it on par with fuji's best glass)
full image, then 100% crops, and bottom 2 are 100% crops both at f2
there's definitely a difference, especially when pixel peeping, but i'd still say an x-t5 is totally fine for 99% of people
wish fujifags could admit limitations of the sytem, and wish ff fags could admit those limitations don't matter near as much in the real world

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 17:01:43 No.4171853 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171848
>the real world
irl its more expensive than ff with a worse lens selection and theres a $300 premium on good ergos
literally
paying more for less

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 17:03:38 No.4171854 Report

Quoted By: >>4171868

>>4171848
The limitations do matter when its apple overpriced for sony build quality.

Now compare the xt5 and xt4, wala its the same picture

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 17:54:57 No.4171864 Report

Quoted By: >>4171868

>>4171848
The big difference for me is the 3d pop in the FF image, the Fuji looks so flat and lifeless

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 18:12:40 No.4171868 Report

Quoted By: >>4171873

>>4171854
we just have different priorities, worked in camera shops for a decades so the costs of new cameras have stuck with me over the years, and hard for me to see what you get as overpriced, i think the market is just incredible value all-around nowadays, especially considering prices have mostly ignored inflation the last 10-15 years
can you get more xyz for less? absolutely, do i care? not really, have had better before and sold, have purchased better and still use fuji often
build quality's been fine for me for many years, and i shoot a lot in the rain, sandy beaches and dusty trails, and you can always find anecdotes of failure for every model

>>4171864
yeah, the 50 f2 apo is a great lens

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 27 Apr 2023 18:25:46 No.4171873 Report

Quoted By: >>4172049

>>4171868
As long as people just admit it's subjective preference I don't see the issue, but /p/ ogres like isi get really aggressive over "fool frame" gear and insist that these "foolji" (kek!) cameras are objectively better. It's a huge disconnect from reality. I think because they invested a lot of money into fuji gear that they couldn't actually afford, and just saw the used price of a Canon 5DS R that blows it out of the water for half as much cash.

Brand new, they are a bit better, even better for your dollar...for video, but for stills they lag way behind in dynamic range and detail despite sometimes costing more, and the quirky X-T ergonomics are indeed shit, the selling point is that they are NOT conducive to working efficiently. Buying used cameras, you can absolutely slaughter anything fuji makes on a budget at the cost of video specs lagging even further behind. You can even slaughter the full frame mirrorless value proposition with how cheap the Pentax K1, D810, 5D4, D850, and 5DS R are getting along with all those stellar lenses. In the coming year it won't be a fiscally, or even practically sensible decision to buy any new mirrorless camera unless you're doing video and fast C-AF burst shots. Used DSLRs are hitting their golden age right now.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Apr 2023 01:52:30 No.4171976 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171745
i expect most of these mongs can't into manual focus so i'm compromising here for sure, also that lens costs alot more than the 1.8D

Art_repro_fag22

Art_repro_fag22 Fri 28 Apr 2023 02:27:35 No.4171986 Report

Quoted By: >>4172043

>>4171745
As much as I love nikkor AIS lenses, the 50mm f/1.4 is absolute shit lens. Soft unless stopped down to f/8 and lots of LoCA and abberations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Apr 2023 05:37:54 No.4172043 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171986
this, it's the 50 f/1.2 thats killer

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Apr 2023 05:51:49 No.4172048 Report

Quoted By:

>>4171714
>>It is using a lens
>Ok, what lens, a resolution test without knowing the lenses used is 100% meaningless
That should be listed as part of the test, or in the EXIF of any downloadable files.

>>Mtf10
>No one wants mtf10, low contrast, grey photos
You just demonstrated that you don't understand the MTF curve. Contrast is inversely related to resolution, and in any photograph with fine detail, those fine details are occurring near MTF10.

>>Muh stopped down
>By f5.6 a crop camera physically can't out resolve a 24mp sensor due to diffraction,
Diffraction is not a hard limit on resolution (until you get to f/22), and pretty much all modern ILC sensor / lens combos are Nyquist limited on extinction resolution. Stop arguing to argue and learn something.

>>Chip tech
>Everything is made by Sony except canon, they all have the same "tech"
Not all chips employ the same technology, even from the same manufacturer at the same time. Stop being stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Apr 2023 05:53:27 No.4172049 Report

Quoted By: >>4172071

>>4171873
This. If you're not interested in video the DSLRs listed by anon blow most modern mirrorless the fuck out and at lower cost. You have to spend a shit ton of money just to match them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 28 Apr 2023 07:45:27 No.4172071 Report

Quoted By:

>>4172049
No DSLR comes close to a 1st gen a7s for video, as it was the first FF to use whole sensor output with no binning, skipping or cropping. And they can be had for like $400 in good 2nd hand condition

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 30 Apr 2023 09:57:11 No.4172716 Report

Quoted By: >>4175080 >>4175105

>>4171628
>>4171599
Why is the right one so green? Almost looks like some kind of body paint applied on her face.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 May 2023 03:58:50 No.4175080 Report

Quoted By:

>>4172716
>some kind of body paint applied on her face.
She's a roastie caked in make-up what would you expect?

Ambush !!zJbpV0948+w

Ambush !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 07 May 2023 04:16:32 No.4175092 Report

Quoted By: >>4177110 >>4178069

>>4171628
This poor girl... her skin is bad so she tries to fill it with foundation like a drywaller doing a skim coat. Excessive makeup is probably what got her there in the first place.

I've saved a handful of women from this. As soon as they stopped caking it on, their skin got much better. Attractive women look better without foundation anyway, especially when they apply it like they are in grade 8.

Mascara + eyeliner only is the best.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 May 2023 05:05:18 No.4175103 Report

Quoted By: >>4177110

>>4171686
>>4171668
>anon tries to match the files
>finds out aps-c has less dynamic range and less detail even when the full frame photo is even more underexposed
Kek you wasted your time. Should have just ignored sensorlet chartfagging and stuck to common sense. Fujislugs are notorious liars and bullshitters. Have you ever tried to argue with jaime, our once most prominent fuji shill? He was literally incapable of logic or truth. Like speaking to a worm. If you thought he was over he would subtly change something or make something up and deny that the conversation shifted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 May 2023 05:07:20 No.4175105 Report

Quoted By: >>4175108

>>4172716
We may never know because apparently that video contains a gotcha that would destroy his argument, or else he would have linked it. Probably “all default settings, lightroom classic”

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 May 2023 05:12:55 No.4175108 Report

Quoted By: >>4175117 >>4175122

>>4175105
Why does lightroom always slightly fuck up sony colors anyways? You can fix it in 2 minutes, manually by eye, someone elses camera profile, or with a color checker, obviously but it’s like the white balance isn’t even right when the camera jpeg looks fine. I had a better starting point with my a7ii and darktable (and then darktable crashed). For being the #1 editing software they’re not supporting the #2 camera brand that well. I had the same problem with my xpro, lightrooms defaults were really bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 May 2023 06:00:52 No.4175117 Report

Quoted By: >>4175156

>>4175108
It was the (semi-autistic but reasonable) reason why I went with a D5500 over a A6000 in 2018. So much FUCKING GREEN in the raws in some of the software, and less supported. Plus the battery life and EVF (lack of) resolution then was eh. Even now I'm thinking about the Z6-iii or something as an 'upgrade' purely for non-fucked autofocus in dimmer situations and less noise (R6 ii looks good... but then I'd lose my 4 Nikon lenses)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 May 2023 06:11:58 No.4175122 Report

Quoted By: >>4175159

>>4175108
It sure would be nice if someone with a C1 license would rip some camera profiles for us.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 May 2023 11:19:24 No.4175156 Report

Quoted By: >>4175157

>>4175117
I tried a7lll, a7iv, a7Riv, r6, r6ll, z6, z6ll z7, z7ll, r5, s5ll and s1R.
in the end i ordered an a7iv because of by far the best price/performance ratio out of the bunch (and the best lenses)

for me it was a battle between s1r, r5 and a7iv/a7Riv. then with what i knew from testing these cameras i also went on and did some more research online and in the end s1r, a7Riv and especially R5 seemed way too overpriced for what they offer so i just went with the a7iv. then after i decided ill get the a7iv, i went ahead and i looked back at the r6ll and z6ll but since i wanted high resolution of the r5, s1r and a7iv, (high resolution because my cock gets hard at just thinking about phase one and hasselblad cameras) the a7iv was the closest to 40-50MP with its 33MP sensor and thats basically the only reason i went with the a7iv instead of z6ll or r6ll. no other reason.

tldr;

z6ll could be good and r6ll is amazing but if youre spending that kind of money, just go with the a7iv. a7iv raw files are often compared to the x1d files and gfx 50s files. same shit, same look, same colors but in a lower resolution sensor. canons r6ll raw files on the other hand have a red tint to them and what looks like unpleasantly increased contrast which can be annoying on top of the camera having 24MP sensor vs a7IV's 33MP sensor.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 May 2023 11:35:24 No.4175157 Report

Quoted By:

>>4175156
Good choice, especially when you start factoring lens\accesory costs and availability for canon\nikon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 07 May 2023 12:28:25 No.4175159 Report

Quoted By:

>>4175122
The express version for sony is free. I use it alongside of pirated lightroom since I hate the way C1 does catalog and file management.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 11 May 2023 23:29:58 No.4177110 Report

Quoted By: >>4178069

>>4175103
>>4175092
>I've saved a handful of women from this. As soon as they stopped caking it on, their skin got much better. Attractive women look better without foundation anyway, especially when they apply it like they are in grade 8.

what?

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1137c-0832.jpg, 839KiB, 1000x667

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Thu 11 May 2023 23:42:18 No.4177117 Report

Quoted By: >>4177121 >>4177160 >>4178065

>Old school FF 12mp sensor from 2005 when most of pee was still shitting their diapers

Gearfags and nophotos BTFO with no recovery

cANON !!5Dz+C7v45HK

cANON !!5Dz+C7v45HK Thu 11 May 2023 23:48:54 No.4177121 Report

Quoted By: >>4177131 >>4177160

>>4177117
5D had some slide tier colors, F for strong CFAs

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1137-8075.jpg, 801KiB, 1000x493

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Fri 12 May 2023 00:19:29 No.4177131 Report

Quoted By: >>4177160 >>4178065

>>4177121

Yeah but that's what made the 5D so great, and you had to shoot it like slide film because the sensor would band the shadows if you pushed it more than 1 stop. That example wasn't the greatest because of how long it was exposed to get that through an ND filter.

I still have mine and love it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2023 01:34:29 No.4177148 Report

Quoted By: >>4177160

>>4171600
>Pic below is taken with 105mm nikkor from the 80s on my s1r.
Megabased oldfag

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2023 02:11:29 No.4177160 Report

Quoted By: >>4177163 >>4177174 >>4177187

>>4177148
>>4177131
>>4177117
>>4177121

all utter and complete trash
how can you all be so bad, yet so full of it at the same time. it's incomprehensible really, like you love sucking each others cocks. 500px comments on steroids, except there you at least know that pajeets are only sucking your for their own attention.

cANON !!5Dz+C7v45HK

cANON !!5Dz+C7v45HK Fri 12 May 2023 02:26:36 No.4177163 Report

Quoted By:

>>4177160
Go praise some fucking juxtaposed dog head on a person's body in black and white, streetcuck

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1645825823566.jpg, 117KiB, 960x579

Sugar !egyYvoBZV2 Fri 12 May 2023 02:43:57 No.4177174 Report

Quoted By:

>>4177160

Shut the fuck up nophoto faggot

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2023 02:56:51 No.4177187 Report

Quoted By: >>4177200

>>4177160
Better than the dogshit they post in /fag/

cANON !!5Dz+C7v45HK

cANON !!5Dz+C7v45HK Fri 12 May 2023 03:22:06 No.4177200 Report

Quoted By:

>>4177187
Shots fired, kek

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2023 21:16:13 No.4177410 Report

Quoted By: >>4177412 >>4177506

>>4171626
>What's the proof? A screenshot from a youtube video you never linked. No context.
Here is the YouTube video (the Fuji gets absolutely demolished by the FF Canon and Sony, BTW):
https://youtu.be/eTju1Pdn2JQ

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2023 21:17:19 No.4177412 Report

Quoted By: >>4177460

>>4177410
Around 2:50 is the sharpness test

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2023 23:42:24 No.4177460 Report

Quoted By: >>4177462

>>4177412
>sharpness is all that matters in a sensor/lens
kys

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2023 23:47:28 No.4177462 Report

Quoted By: >>4177465

>>4177460
Yes. Sharpness is potential. Creativity and character is all YOU, not your gear. It’s like giving a sculptor a larger block of marble to work with. The camera is a cold unfeeling machine.
Don’t debate this. You know I’m right.

Photo = sculpture
Camera = block of stone
Photographer = sculptor

I’m sure you can get by with 6in cubes but you may desire something grander.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 12 May 2023 23:59:35 No.4177465 Report

Quoted By: >>4177506

>>4177462
Pixel binning should be a standard feature on anything with more than 20 megapixels.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 13 May 2023 03:35:09 No.4177506 Report

Quoted By: >>4177508

>>4177410
I have been unimpressed with samples from Fuji's 40mp sensor in terms of sharpness and fine detail. I wonder if they just reached the limits of APS-C, or if it's Fuji's glass, or their X-Trans, or a combination of all the above. By the numbers you might think the 40mp Fuji's are close or equal to the high resolution FF bodies. They're not even close. It's surprising because something like a 24mp APS-C can be sharpened up to be pretty close to 24mp FF at low ISO. Not 40mp Fuji vs. 40-61mp FF.

>>4177465
Why? When you print or view to a specific size the noise is basically the same as lower rez sensors. It's only when pixel peeping that high rez noise looks worse. With high rez files you can be more aggressive with NR, and that has a greater impact than binning.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO DSC_0532.acr.jpg, 53KiB, 590x393

Anonymous Sat 13 May 2023 03:46:21 No.4177508 Report

Quoted By:

>>4177506
It's a combination of factors
1: Most fujinon APS-C lenses are quite shit
2: X-trans has a mild softening effect similar to an AA filter because blur > moire for some people. Blur is only visible with huge enargements (ie: of cropped photos) and past 100% or at close distance/with good eyesight on high density prints, moire is a macroscopic problem. It depends on what and how you photograph.
3: 40mp APS-C is at the pixel density of an 90mp full frame camera. At this point, diffraction starts eating your resolution for breakfast past f5.6. Most photos worth looking at are taken past f5.6. Meanwhile, most modern lenses do not reach their peak resolution until f5.6-f8, so it's unlikely you'll ever get the most out of the sensor an the lens at the same time.

The only way to truly make a camera higher resolution at this point is to make the cameras and lenses larger. 62mp full frame, 26mp APS-C, and 16MP M4/3 are the practical limit for real world photography. Anything past that is just smoothing out the image very, very slightly.

Enter fujifilm. Again. With a crop medium format MILC that is the size of a full frame DSLR, and has the pixel density of a 62mp full frame camera. Within this camera is the ability to shoot as full frame, aps-c, and micro four thirds with astounding quality. Or use the whole 100mp and print an image that fills an entire wall at 300 DPI.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 308F6384.jpg, 3MiB, 2464x1648

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2023 20:55:00 No.4178065 Report

Quoted By:

>>4177131
>>4177117
You're missing the CCD SOUL though, Sugar.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 14 May 2023 21:00:36 No.4178069 Report

Quoted By:

>>4175092
>Mascara + eyeliner only is the best.
Lipstick is what does it for me.

>>4177110
The skin's an organ; don't clog up your pores like you wouldn't clog up your asshole or your ears.

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

fool framers be bfo