[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/p/ - Photography

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 89 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor applications are now being accepted for the next ~72 hours. Apply here.

New board added: /xs/ - Extreme Sports

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 70-Jahre.png (149 KB, 666x327)
149 KB
149 KB PNG
Novoflex edition

Old thread: >>3818642

>All discussion and questions related to gear should take place in this exact thread.
>Redirect other gear-related threads to this thread.
>Remember to be polite.
>This is the thread in which you can be a gearfag.
>>
>>3821876
I'd probably get a ME Super
>>
novopoasting

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeApple
Camera ModeliPhone XR
Camera Software14.2
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)26 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:02:13 12:44:21
Exposure Time1/57 sec
F-Numberf/1.8
Exposure ProgramNormal Program
ISO Speed Rating400
Lens Aperturef/1.8
Brightness1.1 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length4.25 mm
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width4032
Image Height3024
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>3821848
How are you going to operate the touchscreen without looking at it anon? Is this bait?
>>3822147
>K1 anon is here
based
>>
File: mtpixievo-bk.jpg (27 KB, 960x707)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
>>3822147
Also that looks like a damn transformer lmao.
When that guy sperged about "tabletop tripods" I thought of stuff like the Manfrotto mini tripods kek.
Pic related.
I'm now looking at what Novoflex specializes in and it's almost comically sophisticated.
>>
>>3822147
Wait a second, is that tripod leg on the right a Manfrotto like the one I just posted? lmao
>>
>>3822140
Look up before you start a new thread:
>>3821888
>>
File: ken's son novoflex.jpg (302 KB, 1000x1333)
302 KB
302 KB JPG
>>3822157
I searched /gear on the catalog, there was no link in the old thread either.
Too bad.
Besides, if the Magic Ball is good enough for Ken and his son, why wouldn't it be good enough for /p/?
>>
>>3822151
aye that's the little fellow; i tried him first, and he's not so bad when i was doing macro with my x100s and raynox, but this other project needed a little something extra; the novoflex's leg-holder-things have three angle notches which are handy, but you can basically dial in any angle configuration you want with the ball legs, so long as you can maintain access to the tightening knobs. i like their magic balls, but i have an $18 giottos coming today and i am going to see if that'll do for the time being. (i'd rather save for the arca c1.) the novoflex tripod can go very flat with a very small footprint in that triangle configuration in the photo, and i have been using it mostly like that. the rail is NOS that was like fifty bucks. it is fine for the moment but i can see adding a lateral one some day. good stuff so far.
>>
>>3822162
You know what little fellow is amazingly good for macro? Pic related.
Nowhere close to your setup I'm guessing but for a completely casual camera it's amazing. Putting it in microscope mode and looking at the filth in the grooves of my keyboard was quite the nasty experience kek.
>>
>>3822166
i used point and shoot macros for literally decades before "upgrading" lately and though i haven't used that olympus 1) i would like to play with it and 2) i have zero doubts; post a pic if you have one, i would like to see it. (i nearly bought an olympus on this recent outing.)
>>
>>3822170
I'll check if I have any saved, the camera is actually my friend's camera. I don't remember if you could use RAW in that mode though.
Here's a demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwqJ8FBCo5c
>>
>>3822170
A better demo with a beetle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANwScjtvpsM
>>
>>3822182
ok that is cool; officially keeping an eye out for one at the swap meet. thank you fren
>>
File: s-l1600.jpg (77 KB, 1600x1200)
77 KB
77 KB JPG
ps if anyone knows about one of picrels but more robust please tell me
>>
>>3822184
No problem. One thing: the newer models (TG-5 and TG-6) are lower resolution. I'm not sure how this affects macro because they're supposed to be less noisy too but I'm letting you know just in case.
>>3822185
That looks awful to use, reminds me of a cheap mini tripod I bought on Amazon a few years ago (it was like 7 bucks). The ball head sometimes refuses to stay tight and even though it's all metal, it's very cheaply made. Does its job reasonably well though.
>>
What's the best camera under $200 that can film good 1080@24p video and uses SD cards? T2i maybe? Or should I look at MFT?
>>
>>3822140
Those Noflexars were called "fast focus" lenses because you focus by squeezing the pistol grip. In the era before autofocus they were quite popular among sports photographers.
>>
File: keh.png (215 KB, 1178x569)
215 KB
215 KB PNG
Why are people already dropping the GFX50R like it's hot?
I wouldn't have expected to see a camera this new and this expensive stocked already, much less with different options to pick from. Is it the lack of lenses?
>>
>>3822393
Oh, by the way they have 5 in like new condition and one in excellent plus condition.
>>
>>3822393
they just announced the GFX100S and everybody now needs 102mp or else they are bad at photographing things
>>
>>3822330
I'd get a T3i over a T2i, swivel screen.
>>
If you could only take 1 camera on a trip wouldn't M43 be the best sensor size so that you can get more reach out of small lenses?
I mean you have 300mm equivalent in the size of a full frame standard prime.
>>
>>3822419
On a trip, my main lenses are a 35, 100 or 135 and maybe a 20mm. Is your goal to capture animals-birds?
>>
>>3822428
Is your goal to capture animals-birds?
Not explicitly, but if the opportunity should arise.
>>
>>3822140
>Novoflex edition
Oh is this the chinkshit thread? :^)
Posted from my Huawei next to a Miliboo tripod with a Xiaoyi camera mounted on it with a Nissin flash attahced.
>>
>>3822393
Better for me! I'm selling everything for one now, people really need to have the next best thing inmediatly!

On that account ... Is the 50mm f3.5 worth 500 bucks or should I adapt ef lenses?
>>
I'm looking for a camera monitor, stuck between Atomos Shinobi and Desview r7. Explain to me why one might be better then the other?
>>
>>3822157
I’m not posting in a wormji gear thread
>>
>>3822164
That’sa thinly veiled wormji thread
>>
>>3822166
True but you realise it’s just cropping right? You go from 16mp down to like 2.1
>>
>>3822564
I'm sure it crops a bit but keep in mind the lens goes up to about 100mm equivalent.
>>
>>3822563
non-Fuji gear talk should be banned
>>
>>3822579
Speaking of bans, the board quality would increase tenfold if mentioning Fuji were banned.
>>
>>3822581
Based and worm pilled.
>>
>>3822140
thought it wash a mchinegun fromtumbnaile
>>
>>3822395
>they have 5 in like new condition and one in excellent plus condition.
Hmmm, I wonder why GFX50 owners never used their cameras???
>>
>>3822592
probably scared of the worms
>>
>>3822593
>>
Is there such this as a wireless remote shutter that could work with film cameras. I have no idea what to Google, most the stuff that comes up are for digital bodies. I want to do some faggy self portraits.
>>
>>3822592
All the ones i see for sale have like 700 shutter actuations ... how the fuck do you buy a 4k camera and use it 700 times in a year???

>>3822593
It's bayer, same sensor the Hasselblad X1D and Pentax 645z have.
>>
Should I get a Canon EOS 5D Mark III or a Canon EOS 6D? Any reasons why? Sorry I'm kind of a newfag and that's why I'm asking
>>
>>3822393
It's weird, these are great cameras. Yea they are huge and lenses are expensive, but that sensor is larger than full frame, and it's mirrorless so lots of glass can be adapted.
>>
>>3822605
There's timed shutters and wire shutters...
>>
>>3822393
>>3822608
Buyer's remorse.
Imagine paying 4K and having no OVF...
>>
>>3822632
>but that sensor is larger than full frame
That's precisely why the rest of your sentence is misleading.
Yes, you can adapt. But you get vignetting or worse, partial covfefe.
>>
>>3822643
In the olde times there also used to be lenses that cover formats larger than 35mm.
>>
>>3822330
an MFT might give better rolling shutter performance and there are a lot of accessories for them
>>
>>3822647
They also tend to have leaf shutters, how are you going to work that one out?
>>
>>3822662
You don’t need to fire the shutter, you use the cameras shutter. Jesus zoomies these days. There’s also plenty of shutterless lenses, even large format ones called barrel lenses like some Russian lenses, lenses used on speed graphics that had a focal plane shutter. 645 lenses that had a focal plane shutter in camera, 35mm lenses with a larger image circle - including tilt shift lenses but not only tilt shift lenses.
>>
>>3822393
Do you really wanna spend that much on a camera and have lower functionality, and a very limited range of lenses that are very expensive? What if you want a tele or a nice zoom? Return on investment for what you get is low. In fact even if it was the same price then FF and APSC would still be a better choice due to lenses and functionality for most people, unless you solely wanted a bigger sensor and that’s it.
>>
>>3822647
There's a ton of lenses that cover the full circle, most sigma art, good amount of canon L lenses, even the 40mm f2.8 pancake covers it.

Also some Carl Zeiss and Minolta cover it too.
>>
>>3822762
The way I see it, the huge amount of pixels, dynamic range to work with, the look you can get with adapted lenses and overlap, the clarity and crispness your pictures will have makes me want to buy it.

Also the film sims.
>>
>>3822762
This
>>3822804
https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/23/18194148/fujifilm-gfx-50r-camera-medium-format-mirrorless-review-specs-price-features
>>
On a sony a7iii if I use 2 memory cards in backup mode (write both jpeg and raw files to both cards) will I get improved write speeds if I use a uhs-ii card in slot one but a uhs-i card in slot 2 or will the slower uhs-i card bottleneck the uhs-ii card?
>>
>>3822157
>>3822164
Maybe if you're too lazy to do a proper gear thread let someone else do it instead. But you probably hate these threads so you thought you were being clever.
>>
>>3822869
Probably, specially if you record Raws to the slower one
>>
>>3822443
If you're going to get EF lenses just get an R5. Or get a 5DsR and spend the cash saved on even more lenses.
>but muh bigger sensor!!!
The GFX50R is slightly sharper ooc, but nothing that would matter after post processing. At high ISO it's about the same as the R5 and about 1ev better than a 5DsR. There's not really that much difference between Fuji's sub-645 sensor and FF when the MP count is the same.

Now if you're going to invest in Fuji MF glass and plan on upgrading soon to the 100mp version, that's different. But if you're buying EF glass just get a 45mp or 50mp Canon.
>>
Bros, suggest me some Nikon F lenses that are world class.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width1080
Image Height1616
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:02:09 15:57:27
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width700
Image Height579
>>
>>3823010
14-24mm f/2.8
>>
File: 1613405868747.jpg (168 KB, 1280x960)
168 KB
168 KB JPG
I'm thinking of buying 1ds mk ii for around 250 euro. What am i in for?
>>
>>3823015
No live view most likely
>>
>>3823014
Looks like there is a smaller and cheaper E-mount version of that lens from Sigma. I guess that's a pass for me.
>>
do i need a handheld spotmeter for pic related / Landscape photography ?
i barely go out with my 4x5 but more often with the 6x6 rolleiflex so should i get a spotmeter or just use my handheld seconic for everything
>>
>>3822869
Image stays in buffer until both cards have it (it's slow)
>>
>>3823024
If you can avoid adapters, avoid adapters
>>
>>3823015
>very robust build, insane weather sealing
>will last forever assuming it wasn't beat to shit by a pro; might last forever even then
>fast, confident af
>16mp FF will be sharp but naturally no more detail than you would expect from any other 16mp sensor
>good color
>high iso no better than, even a touch worse than, crop today and capped to 3200
>poor base ISO DR by today's standards; probably about 2-2.5ev shadow push max
>4.5 fps
>tiny preview screen with antiquated ui
>great ovf
It's still a usable, productive camera if you want FF EF lens compatibility on the cheap. Basically a classic 5D with more fine detail and a far, far better (but also heavier) body and AF system.
>>
File: 81ygHp8ZZHL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (153 KB, 1500x1146)
153 KB
153 KB JPG
what are the chances i can get picrel through TSA and then into Iraq in a carry-on
>>
I currently have a camera with a 1/2.3 sensor.
I'm very seriously considering a mirrorless MFT as my next camera for whenever I decide to bite the bullet and upgrade.
Realistically, what advantages would I see with the MTF sensor over the 1/2.3 as far as image quality and such?
Would that be worth it as a hobbyist?
>>
hey /p/ what's the best 49mm and 52mm filter for protection/UV? it's for the EOS m50 and the two lens that come with that.
>>
>>3823258
Hoya S-HMC or HD3. Basically no flare or degradation. The only exception I've seen is HD3 on my 16-35 f/4L IS. For some reason that combo will sometimes flare. But the same filter brand on my old 17-40L had zero issues under identical conditions, just like all my other lenses. So I'm thinking it's an issue with the combo.
>>
>>3823267
it's so fucking complicated in Australia, I'm assuming you're in the US? digidirect sells them for a third of the price of the place that is listed on Hoya's website as basically the only distributor in Australia. camerahouse, ted cunt and all the other places have fucky images and listings, how do I know which one is the best one when they all have inconsistent names and images?????
>>
>>3823162
I suppose they wouldn't allow it on your hand bag but that they wouldn't have a problem if it went into the hold, but I'd be wary of using that thing near Saddam's palace.
>>
>>3823180
Honestly, where to start.
You'll get more DoF control, you'll get better low light performance, you'll get more detail, etc, etc.
Do you currently have a Pentax Q? Because if not, then another benefit will be the chance to swap lenses. Also if your current camera isn't a bridge camera then you'll probably get more reach.
>>
>>3823295
>better low light performance
Welp, I'm sold.
>>
>>3823289
I am in the U.S. I can get to Amazon Australia and if I search Hoya HD3 they pop up.

S-HMC may not even be available any more. It's the old designation for their top tier filters, but as far as I know those were basically replaced by HD3.
>>
I also have another question. Not really sure if this is technically a gear question but I'm not sure what other thread to put it in.
What's a good online place to order prints from?
The only local print services anywhere near me are Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, etc.
I wasn't at all happy with Walmart's handling of my dark photos. They printed that shit way too dark and I'm not interested in wasting a bunch of money trying to figure out how much to tell them to turn the brightness up.
>>
>>3823298
thank you
>>
>>3823299
My local Walmart has a Fuji Frontier (laser to photo paper) for prints up to 8x10, and a pro Epson ink jet for larger prints. You should be able to get the profiles for those machines and the papers they use, adjust your image at home (assuming you have a calibrated monitor), and tell the photo dept to print WITHOUT ADJUSTMENTS. There's always going to be some difference between screen (backlit) and print (reflective), but with the profiles for the machines and the papers they use you should get close in PS.

I've printed to both Walmart and Costco using their profiles and the "no adjustments" instruction and the results were good. I'm afraid I don't have a recommendation for an online service because I ended up getting my own Epson ink jet.
>>
>>3823297
You'll notice a huge jump, the sensor is about 8 times as big, but low light isn't THE reason to buy MFT. May I ask what your budget is? Nikon for example can be pushed a lot and still get a decent picture. That said, APS-C's edge over MFT is small, but if you're scraping the bottom of the barrel you can sometimes get a better value from APS-C. If you shoot from a distance then MFT is superior, more compact lenses. Also the glass is sharp as fuck.
Also avoid Fuji, it's a nightmare to work with.
>>
>>3823315
>Also avoid Fuji, it's a nightmare to work with
What is wrong with Fuji? I have several and been using them for years without any problems.
Seems like you are the Fuji hater aka worm guy. We busted you and your bullshit in your own smut thread.
>>
Probably a fucking stupid question
I was using a light meter calculator today while shooting film
3200 tmax, through a f3.5 205mm, with a 2x teleconverter, and was assuming f7, but my cameras inbuilt meter was coming out with a 1/8 exposure and the three calculators I used were spitting out about 1/600 or so
sunset over a hockey field, sun behind, with overhead lights that werent adding anything for most of it

was I wrong and underexposing my shit or was my camera getting incorrect info from the tele?
>>
which boards on 4chan have a higher concentration of autism than this one
>>
>>3823358
expose both and see?
i tend to trust my sekonic over anything else
>>
>>3823369
>higher concentration of autism
this is the slowest board on 4chan, so pretty much every other board
>>
I have a few projects coming up where I'll need a suction cup mount for my cameras, but I'm not sure what to get.
I'm likely to use:
>small actioncam
>DSLR with 35 mm f/2.0 (620g)
>DSLR with 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 (906g)
And mount it to a sportscar (windshield/front hood/roof/rear hood).
Budget is ~100€

Any suggestions?
>>
>>3823377
>this is the slowest board on 4chan
No, that's /n/.
There have been threads up for 2-3 years.
>>
>>3823377
that doesn't affect autism concentration at all that's autism throughput
>>
>>3823429
>analyzing autism dynamics on an autism website
Now that is peak autism
>>
>>3823450
get a prime you supremely cocked mouth hole
>>
File: images (73).jpg (27 KB, 500x416)
27 KB
27 KB JPG
Just got a practika ltl body. Please recommend me a lens. Does it have to be m42, or can I go m39 and adapt? I have a learning disability so please help me : (
>>
>>3823455
If ur replying to my deleted post, then I don’t know what focal length prime i want.
>>
>>3823478
Check and compare flange focal distances. Rangefinder lenses won't focus to infinity on an SLR.
>>
This seems like a good deal. Is this a good deal?
A full weather sealed dslr with a kit zoom lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width591
Image Height1280
>>
>>3823499
>full weather sealed
You mean the plastic wrap?
>>
>>3823499
I just purchased a K1 after almost-buying this. From what I could discern from my dozens of hours of research research, I believe the KP is a great camera at a very fine price and I would have bought it had I not gone for the full frame K1. Ricoh just postponed the new K3, so that might figure into your decision.
>>
>>3823499
I found the following video very comfy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tOfTmF7ahs
>>
>>3823499
Anon, there's 2 days left and that's an auction. It will likely rise in price in the last 10 minutes.
>>
File: kaypee.png (173 KB, 1474x514)
173 KB
173 KB PNG
>>3823515
... but they are on sale through the end of Feb ...
>>
>>3823499
Yes, it is a good combo, decent lens and excellent body packed full of features, of half you will not use much or at all.
>>
File: kp full mag chassis.jpg (81 KB, 448x282)
81 KB
81 KB JPG
>>3823507
>You mean the plastic wrap?
You mean the full magnesium chassis and sealing that puts pro Canikon bodies to shame?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwarePicasa
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width448
Image Height282
>>
>>3823480
what are you photographing? 50mm and 85mm are good lengths of you could only have one.
>>
>>3823523
Isn't Canon still using magnesium chassies for their pro bodies?
>>
>>3823530
Yes, but their weather sealing is below the level of Pentax. For example, the Canon L lens are only weather sealed if you put on a sealed filter on the front. Pentax lenses come fully sealed, no filter needed, plus the kit lens "WR" sealing is as good as the Canon L lens sealing apart from the filter thing. Pentax "AW" sealing is even more reinforced.

https://youtu.be/Eo61t5fH6Qw
>>
>>3823516
>>3823515
At one point they were £525 on amazon UK without a lens.
>>
>>3823525
I already have 50mm, ive got 50 and 70-200, but i need wide-ish angle. I’m on apsc. I haven’t used wide angles a lot and my kit lens broke down, so I don’t know what kind of prime I should get, maybe I should buy another kit lens and test some focal lengths and buy a prime for focal length I use the most and not spend money on a better zoom lens than the kit? I don’t know
>>
is canon going to make any more DSLRs?

i intend to buy a nice digital camera in the coming months, after having only used SLRs for years, but it seems the best DSLR canon has is still the 5d mk iv, which is kind of old by now (not interested in something like the 1dx). i'm still thinking about a DSLR because i'm not sure i'd like an EVF... But if that's the way things are going...

...should i just go mirrorless at this point? budget isn't a huge deal, and i was thinking about an r5. but if there's a possibility of another DSLR like a 5d on the way, I may wait. i just want an all-around great camera for a variety of situations, including professional portraits... or even weddings... (thinking about making photography a bigger part of my career, even if it's just a side gig)

of course, open to other brands as well. i'm just mostly familiar with canon products
>>
>>3823597
You're gonna miss the OVF, definitely.
I wouldn't hold my breath for Canon to launch another DSLR but who knows really.
>>
>>3823616
>>3823597
Canon won't let go of the 1DX line so easily, so I'm expecting at least one pro DSLR body in the works still
>>
>>3823597
There is still Pentax
see
>>3823512
>>
>>3823597
Just buy a used 5D lol there is no possible way you’ll need capabilities in excess of what it provides unless you’re trying to shoot cinema or sports or some shit.
>>
>>3823597
>budget isn't a huge deal, and i was thinking about an r5.
Budget is usually a big deal for people on this board. If money is no object, and the price of an R5 (as well as the also-not-cheap native lenses) doesn't put you off, then yes, you should get that. /p/ is full of people who view money as a limited resource, and this is implicit to most people's advice on here.

If you aren't even sure what you'd like, then there's no rule against trying out a couple different cameras or working up to something nicer. You can get a moderately used 5DII or 5DIII for a fraction of what an R5 will cost you, and experiment with digital on a budget. If you still feel like you need to upgrade to a state-of-the-art R5, then selling the DSLR won't be difficult, since the used market on ebay and elsewhere is very active.
>>
>>3823650
thanks

it's just that i've been saving for a while; i don't spend much money on frivolous things; and just got a new job. i also have never been able to get "the best" of anything in my life, so i figure i may treat myself this time. i've been doing things cheaply forever, hence my willingness to pay out for a good camera
>>
>>3823512
Holy shit I shoot Canon but Pentax is the brand that panders to me the most. The entire video about SLRs is basically a bunch of things I always say. There's nothing like looking through the lens. The mirrorless experience is an inherently detached one.
>>
>>3823653
Also forgot to quote one line
>To enjoy the entire process of taking a picture, you look through the viewfinder, focus on the subject and release the shutter. It's such a joy to use an SLR that there's simply no substitute for this style of shooting.
I never felt so pandered to by a company before, and in a good way rather than some politics bullshit way.
>>
>>3823597
The 5D4 is a great all around camera for a variety of situations. When you cut through all the hype and the faggots obsessed with specs, practically speaking...
* The R5 can make larger prints of demanding subject matter. But the 5D4 is solid to 20x30" and can go larger at a small IQ loss versus higher resolution bodies. So how big do you print?
* The R5's AI-AF is amazing to see in action, and does make shooting easier in some situations. But if you've practiced with DSLR AF you can nail the same shots all day long.
* The R5 is clearly better at video if that's your thing.

Frame rate is a meme. When I got a 5Ds I dumped all my faster shooting "sports" cameras because, for my needs, the IQ absolutely trumped faster fps and I was still nailing peak moments at 5 fps. All 12 (or 20) fps does is fill your memory card and hard drive. I'm at a pretty significant DR disadvantage versus the 5D4 or R5, yet I don't run into problems, so you are not going to notice the tiny DR improvements from 5D4 to R5. The R5 might be the best high ISO camera at the moment, but that still puts it only about 1ev better than a 5Ds or 5D4. High ISO is another meme as the needle has barely moved in 10 years of sensor development. All the easy gains were made in the 2000's.

So at the end of the day the practical differences between 5D4 and R5 are not that great. If they were the same price I would absolutely get an R5 for the 45mp with weaker AA filter. But they are not the same price, especially after you pay for CFE cards.

>>3823646
5D4 is great at sports. (I'm assuming when you said "cinema" you meant 4k video, which the 5D4 can competently do, it's just not great at it.)
>>
>>3823656
>>3823646
thanks for the additional perspective.

yeah, the R5 is probably overkill, but the 45mp does appeal to me. in fact, when i had to be more budget-conscious, i was thinking about a 5Ds(r) but missed out on the recent sale

FPS isn't too important to me, as I don't shoot sports or wildlife, but have been thinking about getting into the latter, as I do like to birdwatch. (while i can buy a 5D4 or an R5 with a good lens, i'm not looking at teles right now)

i think i'll probably get the 5D4 and a good lens or two
>>
>>3823673
Hate to hit you with this, but you should have jumped on that sale. You can sometimes still find 5Ds/sR bodies new gray market, but they've jumped back up to $2k. They were as low as $1,100. Used bodies are going $1,500-$2k.

I absolutely love the IQ off the 5Ds. I know I just said the 5D4 can hit 30" and that's true...it has solid IQ in its own right...but 5Ds/sR RAW files are amazing. They feel more like MF digital than 35mm digital, and easily match 6x9 film. The 5D4 definitely has feature improvements and better DR. But fuck...those 50mp files. What surprised me is that I thought I would hate 5 fps and it would limit my use of the 5Ds for wildlife and sports. Nope. It took over.

The R5 delivers the same rich, detailed IQ, and with class leading DR + fps if you need them. Problem is it's just north of $4k after you pay for cards.

If you do go 5D4, the 100-400L mark II is amazing, and will work just as well on a future R body.
>>
>>3823673
You can backorder 5DsR on BH for $1500
>>
>>3823689
What a steal. They still sell gray markets on eBay at this price (I think)
>>
>>3823689
I know, but I'm not sure they'll come out with more new ones. The price drop seemed like a way to liquidate what models were left as the company moves forward

When I signed up for 5dsr inventory alerts, the B&H site said they were expecting to get more in January, but January came and went and there were no new 5dsr's

Around the beginning of the year I called their customer service line about it and the rep didn't sound confident that they would get more either... but still tried to get me to order one. At this point, though, I can swing the 5D4
>>
>>3823695
They're probably not going to order new stock unless there's orders awaiting already, it's not a super easy sale
>>
>>3822934
I ma not a fan of DSLR's to be honest, I'm well aware the IQ difference is marginal, but I am very interested in the achievable medium format "look" (wide angle thin DoF), and I really like Fuji's stuff.

I don't think I'll buy more native glass after that the 50/3.5, probably adapt vintage lenses and use the metal ones speedbooster to get 6x9 look.
>>
>>3823695
>>3823698
Unless Canon has a few pallets still waiting to ship out...or they're willing to run the production line one more time...I think all the new bodies have been made.

5DsR new stock is back up to $3k on eBay. Cheapest new stock 5Ds is $2k. I wish I had bought a couple more bodies during the sale. I would have kept one as a 2nd body/backup and sold the other now to pay for both. I actually had a suspicion the price would jump after the sale ended. I also suspected bitcoin would do a run this winter.

Missed both...FML.
>>
File: 24mm.jpg (114 KB, 700x449)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
New Samyang 24mm F1,8 incoming.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution144 dpi
Vertical Resolution144 dpi
Image Created2021:02:18 14:29:52
CommentScreenshot
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width700
Image Height449
>>
>>3823583
you could get a 7artisans manual wide angle lens. you don't really need autofocus with those because the depth of field is pretty big
>>
Favorite SRL?
Favorite TRL?
Favorite Rangefinder?
>>
>>3823958
my fav SRL would be the second time bungie ran the event
no idea what a TRL is bud

I like the Pentax ME Super for SLRs
never used an SLR
same for rangefinders
>>
>>3823959
Meant SLR and TLR. My brain is botching hard today lads
>>
ok she is getting close

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width960
Image Height1280
>>
File: file.png (667 KB, 750x750)
667 KB
667 KB PNG
Thoughts on the a5000? It's fairly cheap to find, and I've been looking for a compact APS-C to take with me as every day carry. The a6000 is almost twice as expensive in listings I'm finding, and I'm not sure I'd be getting that much more worth out of it.
>>
>>3824003
>no EVF
>>
>>3824003
Pair it up with the Tamron 17-70 F2,8 and you have a really decent upgrade path with the bodies over time.

Even the A5100 along is a pretty big upgrade from the 5000 though. The 5000 is cheap because it's really ancient.
>>
>>3824023
Unfortunately I can only find the a5100 brand new for 450 euros, while a used a5000 is half that for me.
>>
Bros I'm broke and I can't stop spending all my money on gear I don't even take many pics /videos wtf is wrong with me
>>
>>3824055
better to have gear and no money than money and no gear, fren
go take some fucken pictures tho lol
>>
>>3824055
Just go take pics bruh
>>
>>3824055
Just tell yourself that you'll have money next month, which will make up for what you're spending right now. When the next stimulus hits your bank account, you'll be back to normal.
>>
>>3823999
You have no idea what you're doing with that, do you?
>>
>>3824071
What is so esoteric in that photo that it requires a great idea so as to ascertain to what to do with it? The fact that I have inadvertently created the perfect upskirt rig is rather beyond the point.
>>
>>3824074
Is that you, Chosis?
>>
what should my first efm lens be
>>
>>3824103
22mm f/2
>>
>>3824103
start with the basics and work your way up
>>
>>3824070
>When the next stimulus hits your bank account
I wouldn't count on that with Biden in power lol
>>
>>3824130
>$2,000?
>what do you need $1,400 for?
>i can't believe you would ask me for $600!
>you'll be hearing from the IRS about that $50 you owe me!
>>
Feels decadent to own so much gear.. what should i get rid of

>rollei 35
>fuji xt10 + 23mm 1.4 + helios 44-1
>hasselblad 501c + 80mm 2.8
>bessa r2 + 35mm 2.5 + 21mm f4

I think im going to sell the helios and give the rollei away to a friend
>>
>>3824103
15-45 kit or >>3824124
>>
>>3824055
Buy from eBay, take pictures of it, and sell it back to eBay
>>
>>3824140
kek
>>
>>3824170
>buy on ebay
>make youtube review saying how amazing it is
>wait for price spike
>sell on ebay
>>
File: untitled.jpg (790 KB, 1920x1080)
790 KB
790 KB JPG
Wow. The 7Artisans 35mm F0.95 is nearly Full Frame image circle.
Has many CA quirks, but distortion is well controlled.

This is huge value for 250 bucks especially for E-mount and Z-mount with FF.
And the result is still great with a little cropping.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
File: 1607561283764.png (33 KB, 640x591)
33 KB
33 KB PNG
>>3824235
WOOOOOOOOWWWWWWW, IT COVERS THE WHOLE ALMOST-FULL FRAMERINO, YOU SAY? WHAAAAAAA????? AND IT'S AVAILABLE FOR MY SONY TOO, YOU SAY????? AND IT COSTS THE SAME NUMBER OF BASEDBEAN DOLLARS AS A REAL LENS DOES?????
>>
File: 1586982999033.gif (509 KB, 479x497)
509 KB
509 KB GIF
>>3824278
Lmao at seething retard.
>>
>>3824168
ok
why is the EF-M 32mm so goddamn expensive?
>>
When Fujifilm announced the Fuji X-E4, I immediately went and preordered it. I loved the flip up screen as maybe like a hybrid option to do some street photography, but also to vlog for YouTube. It’s a beautiful X100 series style. But after shooting my other Fujifilm camera a bit more I realised I needed to cancel my preorder. I feel like the small camera line is becoming too consumerish instead of prosumerish.
>>
>>3824323
I had to look it up because I don't know what the fuck EF-M is lol. It isn't really that expensive honestly. It isn't a cheapo kitprime it's an enthusiast grade prime and is priced as such. Pic related, though I don't own the AF-S version but the old AF-D
>>
>>3824323
efm mount Sigma 30 1.4 dc dn is the good alternative, Canon 32 is just tad bit better.
>>
>>3824235
I wouldn't call that nearly. It is in fact very far from nearly covering FF.
>>
>>3824457
It could be mistaken for regular vignetting with just a 10% crap. Maybe less.
>>
>>3824323
you think that's expensive? Check the Nikon 1 32mm f/1.2 price...
>>
>>3824235
that is Bokehlicious
>>
>>3824235
i just watched this video earlier
I'm debating between this and the canon/sigma/viltrox alternatives
apparently there's sales on aliexpress sometimes. Know anything about them ??
>>
>>3822140
Just bought a used 1ds mk2. Will my vintage m42 Jupiter 11A 135/4 clear the mirror? It looks like it should, but i'm asking just in case. I have a dumb adapter and have used it on a crop EOS before.
>>
>>3824486
The other ones have autofocus, so I don't see how the decision is difficult to make. You know whether or not you can use the manual focusing one.
>>
File: 1613805537246.jpg (48 KB, 680x652)
48 KB
48 KB JPG
>X-E2 arrived in the mail
>check Amazon to see where my lens is
>"We may have lost your package"
>>
>>3824836
lol that's what you get for buying Fuji
>>
Is the Mitakon 85mm f1.2 on GF mount worth the money?

DoF gonna be real thin but when I nail focus it should look amazing.

That would be my only lens, other suggestions?
>>
>>3824864
>I bought a 4.5k camera to use with a $600 Chinese manual prime lens
Never heard about lenses mattering more than bodies?
>>
>>3824865
It is fairly unique in the rendering, much more so than the other native lenses.
I intended to adapt EF lenses or suck it up and buy one native.
>>
>>3824866
>That would be my only lens
>>
>>3824869
At least for a while. Yeah.
>>
>>3824836
>buying anything on amazon when there is bhphoto

enjoy your gamble on the memory card being a chinkshit knockoff
>>
>>3824875
what is the consensus about B&H vs. Adorama? i am 1/1 on both but i dunno
>>
>>3824893
B&H has much better customer service in my experience.
Adorama is unresponsive specially now that they replaced Helen Oster. If a package is lost and they tell you they'll request a reship, better go for the refund option.
>>
>>3824893
Oh and also B&H gives you faster shipping for free with a carrier that isn't USPS.
>>
Is the Olympus Air worth it? I find it tempting as an inexpensive way to get into MFT.
>>
>>3825030
This post was typed by Malaysian hands.
>>
>>3825035
wrong lol
I just want some uber cheap stuff because it'd be an add-on to my full frame stuff, for extra reach or easier portability.
>>
>>3825040
>add-on to my full frame stuff, for extra reac
Normally people just use and APS-C camera of the same mount as the full frame.
>>
File: OM.jpg (70 KB, 700x403)
70 KB
70 KB JPG
I hope it's a Pen-F mk ii

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 22.1 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2021:02:17 19:32:23
CommentScreenshot
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width700
Image Height403
>>
>>3824323
because it's a pretty darn good lens
>>
Theres a Leica Tri-Elmar-M 1:4/16-18-21 ASPH. at my local dealer for just a tad above 3k€ and I'd love to have it. I could sell my Canon L 300/2,8 IS USM because I rarely use it anymore but I'm hesitant since its the longest focal length I have above 200mm and I don't know if I'll need it again.
>>
>>3825159
I was looking to drop 1k€ anyway on a 18mm or 21mm and I'd have them both plus a 16mm with this.
>>
>>3822393
The bar went up
>>
>>3825054
What are the chances they have a new sensor?
>>
>>3825054
Some gossip says E-M1X II
>>
I'm a retard and I accidentally got some skin oil from my hands on my UV filter.
I tried cleaning solution and a microfibre cloth but that just smeared it around.
What do?
>>
>>3825581
You're probably mistaking "skin oil" with coating.

You can actually destroy the coating in your UV filter if you keep rubbing it and over polish it. Then your get a shitty filter with lots of sun glare.
>>
>>3825614
So if it is coating, then the thing is borked and I need a new one.
If it actually is oil, what do?
If the thing is fucked there's no harm in doing more to it.
>>
>>3825628
If it has the rainbow-like colour you see from oil poluting the water surface, then it's coating.
>>
>>3825649
Welp, it's borked.
RIP in piece filter.
>>
>>3825577
How much Sony cock do you think Olympus sucked to get the 50mp 8k sensor?
>>
>>3825759
Sucking cock is a dime a dozen, they'd have to do more than that
>>
>>3825759
How much is JIP willing to pay?

That's all it comes down to. The more technologies and patents you pour into a sensor, the more expensive it's going to get.
>>
>>3825785
I'm guessing enough to make the EM-1XII a worthy alternative to the GH6
>>
>>3825790
JIP is generally a graveyard corporation you sell your dying branch to in order to avoid long term salaries and pensions of employees.

So I wouldn't be surprised if it used the same sensor as the previous model.
>>
>>3825791
You also have to consider that this is a body aimed at the highest end of the market, they're going to expect it to have things like pro-level video features and a high-res sensor
>>
>>3825793
Have you seen the EM1X?
It didn't have any of that.
>>
>>3825796
Yet you're forgetting that JIP intend on grabbing a slice of the pro video pie, ergo it owuld stand to reason that the EM!XII would add more pro-level video features like 8k or DCI4k, O-Log, and an XLR mic input
>>
Anywhere I can trade crypto for gear? trying to avoid paying taxes on my gains
>>
>>3825867
Xrp?
>>
>>3825859
>you're forgetting that JIP intend on grabbing a slice of the pro video pie,
That's news to me. Graveyard corporations like them never have such ambitions. Be careful you don't mistake rhetoric for reality.
>>
>>3825910
You're acting like Ricoh is somehow not a Graveyard corporation as well
Ricoh is a Graveyard with a gift shop
>>
>>3826006
incorrect
ricoh will outlive nikon
screencap this
>>
>>3826006
??? Ricoh is a highly profitable printer company.
>>
File: 4797664636.jpg (71 KB, 600x450)
71 KB
71 KB JPG
I've been thinking a lot about how much it would cost to "upgrade" to a full frame system.
So I did the research and it doesn't seem too good.

Panasonic Lumix S5 - 1699
Sigma 35mm f/1.4 - 649
Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - 599
Sigma 105mm f/2.8 - 699
Sigma 135mm f/1.8 - 1149

These prices are in GBP.
Now... idk if I could find a satisfactory Sony body, since it's basically the same lenses for that system, but the more I look into prices and so on, just for an increase in image resolution and high ISO performance compared to Micro Four Thirds, all without any bodies that offer PDAF or rapid CDAF.
>>
>>3826051
>FF f/1.4
This means you're interested in bokeh. Otherwise you would have just gotten the zoom lenses.
For what it's worth, the bokeh on a F2,8 zoom on FF will give you the same bokeh as F1,4 on micro 4/3.

Also, Sigma kind of suck dicks on the bokeh side. You would normally stick to 1st party lenses from Panasonic or Sony.
>>
>>3826061
I'm actually not interested in bokeh.
It's just that Sigma don't make a darker 50mm prime, and the closest focal length from the Contemporary series is 56mm. It's also f/1.4 so there's no gain.

No... The reason I would be interested in such bright primes is for low light scenarios. An f/1.4 35mm would be good for city scapes at night.
I prefer primes probably because I'm used to them more, and probably because I also shoot film, so there's a sense of familiarity there. No one really makes a super-telephoto prime like they used to... except for maybe Canon and Olympus.
Panasonic's primes are limited in offerings anyway, plus they're more expensive than Sigma lenses.
Sony... they have issues, but they also have Zeiss lenses. Something that's ultimately fascinating, considering how Contax/Yashica/Kyocera just ceased making cameras. I do wish Zeiss made more than just E, M and X mount lenses.
>>
>>3826090
FF has a lot of headroom when it comes to ISO adjustment.
So even with slower lenses, you could get away with F2,8 what you previously had to use F1,4 for in micro 4/3.
Simply by increasing the ISO by 2 stops.
>>
>>3826099
Out of curiosity, I looked up pricing for a Sony alternative, as a kind of "benchmark".

Sony A7 III - 1749
Zeiss 35mm f/2 - 629
Zeiss 50mm f/2 - 629
Sony 90mm f/2.8 - 879
Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 1289

Prices again in GBP.
Now... I could have substituted all of those lenses for Sigmas, which are optically identical to those on the L Mount. But Zeiss is very nice.

With that all said, as soon as you look to super-telephoto on FF, the prices become almost obscene - almost as much as a new car (albeit, not a luxury car).
The thing is... Micro Four Thirds mightn't be dramatically cheaper for bright zooms and primes compared to competitors, but as soon as you start looking at lenses that can compete against the likes of the Olympus 300mm f/4, then you're paying five times the price. That's unjustifiable unless you're a company who can write the lens off as an expense.

But turning back to low light performance.
What FF can theoretically offer me that MFT can't, is shooting low light handheld... at least not without an f/0.95 Voigtländer lens. Going down to a shutter speed of 1/4 and letting the IBIS make the shot stable is desirable. Evening walks with an Olympus camera, doing this at ISO 320 or 400 is certainly doable. Long exposure shots need a tripod anyway, and MFT has no trouble at all with long exposure shots at ISO 200 and lower.
>>
File: 1 second handheld.jpg (184 KB, 1024x768)
184 KB
184 KB JPG
>>3826111
1/4 is not even a problem for the entry level em-10 II. one second handheld is super easy with a m1 II for example, see pic related.
the wider you go, the longer you can handheld of course but one second is something you can pull off with confidence.
>>
>>3826200
Oh, I have no doubts in terms of the abilities of Olympus' IBIS.
The thing is... I'm getting a lot of FUD in the future of Olympus/OMDS and MFT.
I have an Olympus Pen-F, and I certainly adore it, and I enjoy how light and capable the lenses are.

For low light photography, I can just get film that can be pushed to ISO 3200. But I do get FUD feelings over issues like... image resolution and obsolescence. Thing is... I don't have any desire to pick up a DSLR, Nikon seem in more overall trouble and Canon has next to no 3rd party support.
And Fuji don't really appeal to me, even if they feel nice to hold.
>>
>>3826111
>but as soon as you start looking at lenses that can compete against the likes of the Olympus 300mm f/4, then you're paying five times the price.
That's a 600mm f/8 in FF, for a lens that costs $2,750. You could put an RF 100-500 on an R body and have pretty much the same capability with a slight crop for roughly the same price. Or you could grab the Canon RF 600 f/11 and lose some capability (slower) but at a cost of only $700.

m43 fans always make the mistake of looking at the lens they think they have rather than the equivalent of what they have. You don't have a FF 600mm f/4, which is what costs as much as a car.
>>
>>3826228
>and Canon has next to no 3rd party support.
3rd party RF lenses are coming. More importantly: EF mount lenses work as well on RF as they do on EF. Some would argue better since RF AF on the R5/R6 is so damn good. It is literally the one example where you can mount DSLR glass with zero consequences. (In fairness, some of the EF adapters for Sony are 99% of the way there, i.e. with most EF glass there are no compromises.)
>>
>>3826245
To be honest... I'm not too persuaded by Canon.
And here's the thing. The R5/6 doesn't really have the same value propositions as Panasonic or even Sony offer. People keep going on about how the Rp sucks, and that's enough to make me stay away.

I have to ask why on earth makes you think the R5/6 is superior? The only reason I'd see as a better option would be for the 12 fps continuous shooting, but then if you went to Olympus, you'd get even faster continuous shooting.
>>
>>3826268
>People keep going on about how the Rp sucks, and that's enough to make me stay away.
The RP doesn't suck. Anyone who says that is a moron. It is definitely the "budget" FF in the RF lineup, just like the 6D mark II is for DSLRs. But it's a fine camera at its price point.

>I have to ask why on earth makes you think the R5/6 is superior?
Every last test and review that shows they're better. R5/6 AF is on par with, if not better than, Sony. IBIS is better than anyone but Olympus, and at this point is probably on par with them. IQ is excellent. Video quality is excellent. The only real complaint was the video overheating which is much closer to other hybrid cameras now with the newer firmware. That and the R6 only offers IPB and not ALL-I compression.

>The R5/6 doesn't really have the same value propositions as Panasonic or even Sony offer.
The R6 is better than the A73. In fairness the A73 has been out longer and is cheaper. I think the R6 would be an even stronger sale at $2k instead of $2.5k, but even at $2.5k it is competitive.

Versus Panasonic, Canon has better AF and a far, far better lens collection. That said, Panasonic bodies are nice, well spec'd, and well priced. Again I think the R6 would be a stronger sale at a lower price point, and I'm sure it will drop by next Christmas. But right now it's so well liked with so much pent up demand that it's steady at $2.5k.

The R5 is an absolute beast. Easily the strongest hybrid camera on the market today if you have the cash. The A1 beats it on some specs but at damn near twice the price. The A7r4, while a fine camera, cannot compete with the R5 as a hybrid camera. As a stills camera the A7r4 has a little bit more resolution, but Canon is doing much more interesting things with their RF glass, and they have better high ISO while still having a very high resolution sensor.

That said: at the end of the day all of these lineups are strong. We have a ton of good cameras to choose from.
>>
>>3826242
Another option: You can get a Canon EF 300mm f/4 for something like $600 used, then slap a 2X teleconverter on it for the same reach/DoF/low-light capability for under a grand.

(Plus an EF to RF adapter if we're looking at mirrorless bodies)
>>
Asking again...

Just bought a used 1ds mk2. Will my vintage m42 Jupiter 11A 135/4 clear the mirror? It looks like it should, but i'm asking just in case. I have a dumb adapter and have used it on a crop EOS before.
>>
>>3826329
It should, why do you think it wouldn't?
>>
>>3826346
Some people say some m42 mount lenses interfere with their 5dc, because of big mirror, and i imagine 1ds has similar size mirror if not bigger.
>>
>>3826111
I just realised that the 35 and 50mm lenses I listed there are "Loxia" manual lenses.
So... I guess if you want primes, go to Sigma...
>>
File: file.png (1005 KB, 1000x941)
1005 KB
1005 KB PNG
Casual here.
Been meaning to find a camera for when I'm traveling around,.
I've used an eos 1100d or something that I got at a flea market a while ago, and it's bulky, especially with carrying a bag with lenses and whatnot.
I'm thinking about getting the M100 and a 22mm f/2 lens to start with. I mostly take pictures of buildings, castles, groups of people etc.
I doubt I'll be taking much video.
Is this a shit idea or should I look into something else?
>>
>>3826359
M bodies are great for casual travel photography. Just don't expect to build a full kit on EF-M glass (though you can adapt EF/EF-S glass). For buildings/castles/groups also consider the 11-22mm IS so you can get ultra wide interiors and exterior landscapes.

I still have the original M, 22mm f/2, and 18-55 IS. Plus a tiny flash. It's the kit I grab when I want good photos but photography is not my main goal, and I want to travel light.

There are of course other options but it's hard to match the size/weight/IQ of an M and a 22mm f/2 or 11-22.
>>
>>3826366
I do have an EF 50mm f/1.8 lens which I really like, other 2 are zoom lenses that are pretty terrible, will need to think if getting an adapter will be worth it.
Thanks for the advice anon.
>>
>>3826371
FWIW the 18-55 kit lens is quite good. I haven't used the newer one that starts at 14mm. The 11-22 is legendary, as is the 22 f/2. Your 50mm f/1.8 might be worth adapting for portraits if you get a cheap 3rd party adapter. Canon adapter is a bit pricey for one lens.
>>
>>3826245
>3rd party RF lenses are coming
Just Samyang so far.

The ther lens makers are likely struggling with the video autofocus. So that's why RF users keeps being cuckolded from Sigma and Tamron support.
>>
>>3826413
>The ther lens makers are likely struggling with the video autofocus.
I kind of doubt that since third party EF lenses work fine.
>>
>>3826461
That doesn't mean third party RF works fine.
That's just a cope.
>>
>>3826464
You do realize that any 3rd party manufacturer could just use the EF protocol, do you not? There's probably some cool shit they can do by reverse engineering the RF protocol (more cooperative IS/IBIS? potentially even faster AF?) and they probably want to do that and do it in a way that's future proof. But if that proves too time consuming, they'll just use EF.
>>
i wonder if it's a good idea to wait for the a7iv to get released this year probably to grab a discounted a7iii or am I wasting my time?
>>
>>3826359
The M100 can be had for pretty inexpensive on ebay right now. Nothing wrong with it, but if you step up to an M6, M5 or M6II, you can have a bit better set of external controls and better ergonomics.
>>
>>3826539
>just use EF bruh
Yeah that's not going to work on RF mount without the official canon adapter.
>>
>>3826589
The EF to RF adapters just pass data through. There's no translation like on an EF adapter to a Sony or Fuji. That's why there are multiple 3rd party adapters already and they work the same as the Canon models.

A 3rd party lens could take advantage of the shorter flange distance but still present as an EF lens and work just fine. It just couldn't take advantage of new RF pins/features like closed loop IS (basically cooperation between lens IS and IBIS).
>>
>>3826589
>>3826595
Also: Samyang has two autofocus RF lenses. So either A) Samyang reversed engineered the full RF protocol before anyone else, or B) the Samyang lenses present as EF lenses.

Either way, we know there will be RF lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. Just a matter of when.
>>
>>3826595
>That's why there are multiple 3rd party adapters already and they work the same as the Canon models.
The reviewers say the Viltroc one isn't working on R5. Fake news?
Either way good luck with the waiting game.
>>
>>3826596
>amyang has two autofocus RF lenses.
Why only 2?
And Samyang doesn't mean you get full functionality of the camera. They certainly does not perform the same on the AF side as Tamron and Sigma on E-mount.
>>
>>3826596
The best regarded Samyang lenses so far are the F1,8 series at 75mm, 45mm, and 35mm.

Just outstanding balance of aperture, sharpness, size and pricing. Hopefully you guys can get them in the future. Not sure why they don't provide them to you at this point though.
>>
>>3826598
>Why only 2?
Who cares? The point is it's obviously doable.

The RF market is just now starting to take off. Existing EF lenses work just fine. And we still have supply chain issues from the pandemic. So it's little surprise to me that we haven't seen other 3rd party RF lenses yet. (Well...except the various manual focus niche ones.) That's going to change soon.

>And Samyang doesn't mean you get full functionality of the camera.
Yes, you do.
>>
>>3826603
>Yes, you do.
Well no, there could be all sorts of Eye AF issues or video AF issues like there are on the E-mount.

>Who cares?
Tamron and Sigma might care.
That's suspicious as hell.

Is the RF mount unprofitable or something?
>>
>>3826603
>Well...except the various manual focus niche ones.
Yes, that really is surprising, isn't it?

In theory Zeiss could have released the Loxia lenses on Rf years ago.
And Voigtlander could have released their APO-Lanther series on RF years ago.
But they just don't seem to bother with it, for some reason.
>>
The new Samyang 24mm F1,8 appears to be dodging the RF mount as well.

Hmmm.
>>
>>3826604
>>Yes, you do.
>Well no, there could be all sorts of Eye AF issues or video AF issues like there are on the E-mount.
Let me say it again for the kids on the short bus: adapted EF glass works great on RF. That's Eye AF, video AF, IBIS, everything. The only time you might have an issue is if you have an EF lens with a cranky old AF motor like the old EF 50mm f/1.8. In which case the problem is not the adapter or the EF-on-RF but the physical motor. And the "problem" will be that the motor is slow to focus, just like on EF.

>>Who cares?
>Tamron and Sigma might care.
>That's suspicious as hell.
>Is the RF mount unprofitable or something?
There's nothing suspicious. It takes time to design and produce new lenses. Hell, CANON is just now filling out their RF line with essential lenses. You expect Sigma to have already ported all their ART lenses or some shit? They're not losing any sales because EF adapts perfectly. In fact, just slapping an RF back on the lens is something of a losing strategy as the EF version would have greater resale value (more potential users). You have to improve the lens somehow to insure it's worth a separate production run. Notice that Canon RF lenses generally either improve on IQ (the fast primes which haven't been updated on EF in years), or improve on features (the pro zooms which can't really improve on IQ because the EF versions were recently updated).

>>3826605
Canon R was released in 2018 and didn't exactly sweep the Canon market. If you were a lens maker in 2018 you would target EF which adapts to RF any way. New bodies and higher market penetration changes that.
>>
>>3826622
>If you were a lens maker in 2018 you would target EF which adapts to RF any way. New bodies and higher market penetration changes that.
We are in 2021 now.

for better context, Loxia and and APO-Lanthar aew manual-only lenses. So no AF shenanigans at play.

I believe we had this discussion in the past where you didn't have any good argument so you dovelved the discussion into one about pogopins.

Anyway, they had many years to adapt these manual focusing lenses by now. You really have to wonder if the RF mount is even profitable for 3rd party lens maker.

>There's nothing suspicious.
Really? Samyang stuck their tail between the legs after the first two lenses and you don't find it suspicious?
I found this interesting piece of data
>Date First Available December 13, 2019
That was the introduction of Samyan AF into RF-mount.
And since then there has only been 1 more lens trickling into RF.

If you were a lens maker, you would definitely look into why Samyang stopped their RF project. You're a business who seeks profits after all.

>You expect Sigma to have already ported all their ART lenses or some shit?
Sigma is a really good baseline comparison.
Use the L-mount.
Note down the point in time Sigma got into L-mount alliance.
Calculate how many months it took before they re-published all of their Art primes onto L-mount.
And there you have the baseline.

>Let me say it again for the kids on the short bus: adapted EF glass works great on RF.
You should probably investigate if Samyang even have functional EF autofocus lens to begin with.
>>
>>3826635
>for better context, Loxia and and APO-Lanthar aew manual-only lenses. So no AF shenanigans at play.
Email them and ask them for RF mount versions.

>I believe we had this discussion in the past
No, I've never had this idiotic discussion with someone grasping for a conspiracy theory before.

>just over two years
>"many years"
OK kid.

>Really? Samyang stuck their tail between the legs after the first two lenses and you don't find it suspicious?
The 85mm just came out.

>If you were a lens maker, you would definitely look into why Samyang stopped their RF project.
They didn't stop anything. What do you expect? Samyang to introduce 100 RF AF lenses in a month?

>Calculate how many months it took before they re-published all of their Art primes onto L-mount.
They don't need to "re-publish" their existing ART primes into RF mount because the EF mount ones work perfectly. What they need to do is figure out how they can make improvements for RF versions, otherwise they're wasting money to sell a lens that someone would have bought in EF mount any way. How is this lost on you?

>You should probably investigate if Samyang even have functional EF autofocus lens to begin with.
"Just as it's EF counterpart, the RF lens is quick to autofocus with very good accuracy, even under dull, indoor lighting conditions."

"Overall focus speed in AF mode is actually pretty fast. Its focus speed is about on par with many of the 85 mm lenses that are out there in the market."

"What is outstanding is Eye AF. Samyang got a boost in that the release of the AF 85mm coincided with one of the most important highlights for the new Canon´s cameras. Samyang brought improved focus algorithms along with enhanced tracking in the form of Real-Time Eye AF and Real-Tracking, which makes it a perfect choice for portraitures."

https://www.diyphotography.net/my-review-of-the-samyang-af-85mm-f-1-4-rf-lens-for-canon-eos-r-mirrorless-cameras/
>>
>>3826009
>>3826007
Read: With a gift shop
>>
>>3826651
I'm curious, how many years to you think it takes to adapts a set of manual focus lenses into another mount?

Either they have bumped into a serious hindrance.
Or they don't give two flying fucks about the RF mount.
Which explanation is the simplest one?

>The 85mm just came out.
That's like over half a year ago at the beginning of last summer. Nothing since then.

>They didn't stop anything. What do you expect? Samyang to introduce 100 RF AF lenses in a month?
I expect something similar to the baseline adaptation speed performed by Sigma when they launched +9 Art lenses for L-mount at the same time.
Instead what you got is 1 lenses released here and there with some hesitation.
If Sigma could do it on a smaller and weaker mount, why couldn't Samyang?

>They don't need to "re-publish" their existing ART primes into RF
Your autism is headed into the wrong direction. Because that's not the point I made.
I suggested you to use Sigma as the baseline in order to compare whether or not Samyang is being slow or fast.

For your information I can reveal to you Samyang is being very slow and hesitant compared to Sigma who released nearly all of their lens catalog into L-mount at once.
So there is one more hint y´to you about RF lens profitability.

>Just as it's EF counterpart, the RF lens is quick to autofocus with very good accuracy,
That's really good news then.
Now you have your choices narrowed down.
Ask yourself why aren't Samyang in such a hurry to profit from RF anymore?
And that could explain to why why Tamron and Sigma aren't in such a hurry with RF either.
>>
> Started with Sony a6000. Good camera, used it for years.
> Saw prices for lenses and made the switch to the Fujifilm X-T20 instead.
> Didn't click with it, too small even with a grip.
> Upgrade to X-T3 for a steal just before the X-T4 came out. Realise I really hate the EVF being in the middle and it makes me not want to shoot.

What's the general consensus on the Fujifilm X-Pro3 vs X100V? I'm too far away from a decent shop to go look for myself and YouTube morons just blabber on about specs, which I can do myself.

While I shoot "documentary style" with the 23mm/F2 ~90% of the time I'm not sure if I'll miss my other lenses or not (10-24mm/F4, 18-55mm/F2.8-4, 50mm/F2)? The other part of me thinks the constraints may be good, and it might help with GAS?

I don't think the screen of the X-Pro3 will bother me too much so no problem there and X-E4 doesn't interest me. Overall I'd prefer to just have the 1 body, it's just a hobby.
>>
>>3826660
>I'm curious, how many years to you think it takes to adapts a set of manual focus lenses into another mount?
That depends entirely on when the manufacturer decides to enter the market. There are about 40 MF lenses in RF mount right now from 14 manufacturers.

>I expect something similar to the baseline adaptation speed performed by Sigma
Samyang is not Sigma. They have 16 AF lenses TOTAL across four mounts. That's not 16 available in every mount, that's 16 total. That means they can release about 4 AF lenses per year (I believe their first AF models came out in 2016). You want them to drop FE, F, and EF so they can release four RF lenses this year instead of 1 or 2?

>Your autism is headed into the wrong direction. Because that's not the point I made.
It is THE relevant point you shill.

>I suggested you to use Sigma as the baseline in order to compare whether or not Samyang is being slow or fast.
>Samyang is Sigma
>Samyang has Sigma's sales, profits, R&D budget, design teams, and manufacturing capacity
>Samyang has an existing AF lens library ready to adapt to the L mount alliance (said in Fro's voice)
No.

>And that could explain to why why Tamron and Sigma aren't in such a hurry with RF either.
They're not in a hurry because every EF lens they make works on RF. Again, re-releasing an existing lens with an RF connector is kind of pointless. You're just cannibalizing your own EF sales at that point. You want to do something new to try and entice people to choose the RF version at a bit of a higher price. Which is Canon's exact strategy. If you just slap an RF back on the lens everyone with both DSLRs and R bodies will get the EF version, as will everyone with an adapter. (Which is damn near everyone right now.) It's kind of pointless.

Now go start a flat Earth thread in /sci/.
>>
>>3826677
>That depends entirely on when the manufacturer decides to enter the market.
So Zeiss and Voigtlander simply don't giver a flying fuck about the RF mount them.
Because surely they don't lack the expertise of the other 14 manufacturer.

So now that you established that Zeiss and Voigtlander don't give a flying fuck, you can extend this to Tamron and Sigma.
And even Samyang is in no hurry to push their popular 75mm and 45mm lens into RF.

>Samyang is not Sigma.
The cost is the same. Lens housing is probably the lest expensive competent of the lens.
You have 14 lens manufacturers who are able to dump Manual lenses into RF, but you think Samyan somehow struggles with the lens farrel adaptation to RF?

It's obvious to anyone this isn't a matter of capability. They are threading carefully because they don't want to lose money on the RF.

>>Samyang has an existing AF lens library ready to adapt to the RF mount
>No.
Yes they do in fact.
They just aren't in a hurry, because your mount is not a priority.

Same reason why RF has no Zeiss Loxia. You're not a priority at all.
Same reason why RF has no Voigtlander APO-Lanthar, You're not even in their map.

>They're not in a hurry because every EF lens they make works on RF. Again
This is just cringe Canon cope.
Existing EF lenses from Tamron and Sigma are not competitive with their mirrorless lenses.
Their mirrorless RXD and DG DN lenses already are new leses that spank the older EF lenses.

There is another explanation as to why they are not in a hurry.
>>
>>3822398
kek, this.
>>
>>3822147
never been on this board before
>EXIF Data available

damn thats sick
>>
Am I cool now?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Color Space InformationUncalibrated
Image Width1280
Image Height960
>>
File: file.png (3.74 MB, 2000x2000)
3.74 MB
3.74 MB PNG
>>3826393
The Meike one seems quite good and cheap,I'll get that one. To be honest I only saw the canon one at first and it was really expensive.
I saw that there's a 15-45mm, i might get that one over the 18-55 for that wider field of view to start with, I can't really buy all the lenses I want straight away.

>>3826582
Yeah I looked into all the other compact mirrorless cameras that were newer/better, and in my local ebay-equivalent, there aren't any used ones, only brand new.

Anyways, what do you lads think about the silver version? Found a listing with the m100 and 15-45 for 280 euros, but I feel like the black looks more premium.
>>
File: 1606993545_1609642.jpg (201 KB, 2500x2500)
201 KB
201 KB JPG
>>3826878
>I can't really buy all the lenses I want straight away.
You only need one lens bruh.

Too bad it doesn't exist for Canon mount.
>>
>>3826910
To be fair that lens would cost 4x the camera itself, and would be too large for a travel camera, kind of overkill for me.
>>
>>3826911
>would be too large for a travel camera,
I generally found ther eins't such a thing.

For example when I'm on a vehicle and want to shoot out form it, whether it's a buss or a car, I have always found the 100mm to 120mm range on APS-C to be the most useful.
And that lens is too shart even for that.
>>
>>3826847
How do you like the xpro3? The back is so cool.
>>
>>3826926
For me it's the perfect camera. The photos don't need much editing, I love a nice big OVF but like my cameras small and weather sealed. This is all round the best camera for me and I plan to keep it a very long time.
>>
I need a tripod. I'd like one with a middle column that can become horizontal. Is there a reason not to buy this Manfrotto MT190XPRO4?
>>
>>3826933
No that's a great tripod. You won't regret it.
>>
>>3826940
Thanks anon! I wound up going for the MT055XPRO3, because it seems like the sturdier option and otherwise indistinguishable from the 190. Dunno, though!
>>
>>3826946
I have this one, a beast of a tripod. Keep in mind that it's possible a bit too heavy for travelling around.
>>
>>3826933
Q999H can do exactly that. And cost less than 100 bucks on aliexpress.
>>
>>3826950
I am a mule in these regards, and "beastly" is exactly the word I wanted to hear. Thank you again.

>>3826954
I try very hard to not buy chinkshit when at all possible. Thank you, though.
>>
>>3826955
Pan up left
Zoom in
Enhance
???
LeL at the world.
>>
>>3826956
I honestly couldn't find where the 055 specifically is manufactured, but it seems at least some of their tripods are in fact made in Italy. Dunno. I tried. /shrug
>>
>>3826956
... but I did find this, which, if I remember my Hangeul correctly, says: "Europe, Italy."
>Country of manufacture: 유럽 이탈리아
>>
Anyone have the xf 10-24mm f4? I'm looking for a hiking and walkabout lens, this seems like a good option. My camera body is WR, think it's worthwhile to pay more for the new WR version of the lens? Would it be decent for astrophotography? The OIS for the new version is 3.5 stops, what would this equate to in terms of aperature? Am I right in thinking that the OIS would make the lens useful for night time street photography with no tripod?
>>
>>3826966
Just checked mine, made in italy on both the legs and the head...having said that I bought it a fair few years ago.
>>
has any shill on youtube made a video on the nikon f4 or something? i remember checking thier price 3-4 months ago and found plenty at 150ish euros, now they seem to go for 300 quite often.
>>
>>3823055
no. just use sunny 16 like what everyone used to do for decades
>>
>>3826682
>So Zeiss and Voigtlander simply don't giver a flying fuck about the RF mount them.
I'm tired of trying to explain this to a drooling 80iq retard: every EF lens works on RF. If you sell EF lenses it is a waste of time and money to simply clone them for RF mount. Better to release improved lenses, which takes time/money.

>And even Samyang is in no hurry to push their popular 75mm and 45mm lens into RF.
WTF would those be popular on RF mount? Why would anyone get a 75mm f/1.8 over the Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS Macro, the Samyang RF 85 f/1.4, or the EF 85 f/1.8 which is cheap as fuck used? Why? Why get a 45mm f/1.8 over the cheaper Canon 50mm or the excellent Tamron 45mm f/1.8 VC? You think because something is popular in E-mount that anyone on RF would give a damn?

>>Samyang is not Sigma.
>The cost is the same.
Samyang does not have Sigma's resources. They have few existing AF lenses and can produce four new AF lenses a year. I'm sure if Sigma wanted to they could produce RF clones of every shipping EF lens this year. Yet that would be nothing but sunk cost to them. They are not losing any sales for being in EF right now.

>It's obvious to anyone this isn't a matter of capability. They are threading carefully because they don't want to lose money on the RF.
It's obvious you're obsessed with smelling your own ass.

>Existing EF lenses from Tamron and Sigma are not competitive with their mirrorless lenses.
They absolutely are.

>Their mirrorless RXD and DG DN lenses already are new leses that spank the older EF lenses.
Really? Then why is the Sigma 85mm DG DN slightly worse than the Sigma 85mm ART EF (look at the corners):
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1532&Camera=1175&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1085&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

You know jack shit about photography, cameras, lenses, and their respective markets. I doubt at this point that you even own a camera.
>>
>>3827026
So what you're telling me is that the Canon R5/6 are just EF cameras, but you just need an adaptor?

This feels like cope.
>>
>>3827028
You're stupid because you're trying to "score points" to "win" an argument instead of understanding the technology and the market implications.

Stop being stupid.
>>
>>3827033
TECHNOLOGY
AND
MARKET
IMPLICATIONS
HE SAYS
RUBBING HIS HANDS
GLINT IN HIS EYE
>>
>>3827033
Hmm...
The absolute state of CAnons.
They buy a system with barely any lenses, so they just tell people to buy EF lenses.
>>
>>3826668
Buy an X-E2. Unless you're shooting sports/wildlife slow AF is not a big deal and if you want to do street photography just get a manual lens and zone focus. Additionally the xtranny II sensor is widely believed to have the best colors so it might be nice to get one for that reason.
I have an X-E2 and two manual lenses and it is much more fun than my a6400 with fast sigma primes.
If you decide you like having that style of camera then you can get an Xpro 2 later for less than $1k
>>
What's a good portable tripod for an RX100 VII? Was thinking the gorillapod
>>
>>3827046
>having options is bad
>t. fujislug
>>
>>3826682
>It's obvious to anyone this isn't a matter of capability. They are threading carefully because they don't want to lose money on the RF.
Because people buying RF are buying Canon glass dingus. Third party glass on Canon has never been a smooth experience.
>>
>>3827133
Yeah, but I'm arguing with a QAnontard and his "just wait 2 more weeks" rhetoric, as if Tamron,Sigma, Zeiss, Voigtlander support is inevitable.
>>
>>3827136
>imagine believing a conspiracy theory
>yet accusing others of a conspiracy
Native RF Sigma and Tamron lenses are inevitable. Probably the same for the other two but nobody cares because they never made anything that spectacular in EF any way, they were always just trading on their names.
>>
>>3827026
>every EF lens works on RF.
Loxia, Batis and APO-Lanthar, Tamron RXD, Sigma DG DN doesn't exist on RF nor RF.

>WTF would those be popular on RF mount?
>You think because something is popular in E-mount that anyone on RF would give a damn?
That's a good question. So why have you been arguing for the past 36 hours that Tamron and Sigma will inevitable be on RF?
You think because something is popular in E-mount that anyone on RF would give a damn?
WTF would those Tamron and Sigma lenses even be popular on RF mount?

>They are not losing any sales for being in EF right now.
Actually Sigma is saying DSLR lens sales are a turd right now so they stopped caring and only develop mirrorless.
>Samyang does not have Sigma's resources.
Irrelevant. AF motors isn't something they can't handle, they more than have the means to re-fit the barrel of those E-mount lenses. They simply don't care aobut rushing into your market.

>They absolutely are.
Inferior in every way to the mirrorless versions.

>Really?
According to Sigma their DG DN indeed outperforms their old 2 kilogram EF lens.
>>
>>3827137
>Native RF Sigma and Tamron lenses are inevitable.
But native Zeiss and Voigtlanders are not?

Seems like cherrypicking how much you are coping.
>>
>>3827139
>Sigma DG DN
DN is their designation for mirrorless, of course they aren't EF. There's no DN lenses for Sony/Minolta A, Nikon F or Pentax K either.
>>
File: IMG_20200702_195758.jpg (1.46 MB, 2980x2169)
1.46 MB
1.46 MB JPG
https://youtu.be/Iki1DF_8NKY

I've started a fishing channel recently and suprised that people are actually watching the videos

I was wondering if anyone could help me out, and suggest a camera I could purchase that I could set up on a tripod and have zoomed in on a float to record fishing bites in 1080p 60fps


problem is, these fishing sessions are usually around 6 hours long, that means 6 hours of continuous filming. How could I approach this problem? With the gopro's 30 min long batteries, I have 3 batteries and cycle charging them on a power bank. know nothing about cameras or photography. I have about $100 to spend.

Thanks for the help, I'm pretty lost with this stuff

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera ModelONEPLUS A6003
Equipment MakeOnePlus
Camera SoftwarePixlr
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width2980
Image Height2169
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
White BalanceAuto
ISO Speed Rating100
Focal Length4.25 mm
Exposure Time3/500 sec
FlashNo Flash
F-Numberf/1.7
>>
>>3827147
>6 hours of continuous filming
>about $100 to spend
Try some smartphone.
Good luck with that.
>>
>>3827149
well not continuous, of course I could turn the cam off and on for whatever reason like changing battery or SD?
>>
>>3827147
craigslist gopro, my dude
>>
>>3827152
I'm asking for a camera that zooms in very, what's the way you would say it. Just a close up of the float in good quality. I already have the gopro
>>
>>3827154
you need another go-pro and stick it on a wee raft or learn how to crop cos aint no way you are going to get zoomed 1080@60fps for six hours with a ben franklin, unless you just buy a bunch of absolutely disposable $20 chinkshit dashcams or something.
>>
>>3827154
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Used-GoPro-HERO-waterproof-1080P-5MP-HD-Sport-Action-Camera-Camcorder-16GB-Card/333465204517?hash=item4da4133725:g:gqcAAOSwAcheEDnx

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1080P-Full-HD-Sports-Cam-Water-proof-30M-Pink-New-Box-has-Wear-FAST-SHIPPING/333798417897?hash=item4db7efa5e9%3Ag%3AbroAAOSw04dfe3jb&LH_BIN=1

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Waterproof-30m-Mini-Camera-Full-HD-1080P-DV-resistant-30fps/293805963118?hash=item446833376e%3Ag%3Ac-UAAOSwa9NfmujO&LH_BIN=1

you could just go shotgun style and have way too many cheap cam angles and hope one works
>>
>>3827157
Ah so I'd need to spend something like 500usd to get this footage, I see, thanks for the help
>>
>>3827160
it has been a while since i have been fishing but have you tried keeping a zoom on a bobber for 6 hours straight? how would that even work? why not get one of those waterproof chinkshits and put it on the line or something? it sounds like quite a challenging proposition all-way round is all. there are definitely cheap haxx, but it's going to really make it quite fussy, it seems. dunno. i wish you luck.
>>
>>3827139
>Loxia, Batis and APO-Lanthar, Tamron RXD, Sigma DG DN doesn't exist on RF nor RF.
Literally nobody cares.

>>They are not losing any sales for being in EF right now.
>Actually Sigma is saying DSLR lens sales are a turd right now so they stopped caring and only develop mirrorless.
[CITATION NEEDED]

>>Really?
>According to Sigma their DG DN indeed outperforms their old 2 kilogram EF lens.
Comparing the 85mm lenses the DG DN is clearly worse. Sorry faggot.

>>3827140
>>Native RF Sigma and Tamron lenses are inevitable.
>But native Zeiss and Voigtlanders are not?
>Probably the same for the other two
>Probably the same for the other two
>Probably the same for the other two
Idiot.
>>
>>3827170
>Probably the same for the other two
What's stopping those two manual focus lenses from being ported to RF?
Why is it taking them literally years when unkown upstarts have no problems creating RF lens barrels.

Perhaps those lens makers simply don't care about your mount as much as you would like to think.

>Comparing the 85mm lenses the DG DN is clearly worse.
Nah
https://youtu.be/m92pBHYENJc?t=313
Most people, including Sigma says their mirrorless lens half their weight is superior to their dslr lens.
They price them the same at 1200, so they have no incentive to lying.

>[CITATION NEEDED]
Sigma knows when to give up on old dead mounts. they saw the writing on the wall for A-mount and K-mount too back in the day and just dropped their support.

>Literally nobody cares.
You have literally been arguing about inevitable 3rd party support for RF.
Even if you were correct at some point in time due to some spokesperson, their plans can still change.
For example I bet they are having cold feet about Z-mount right now, evne though they have spoken enthusiastically about it in the the past.
>>
>>3827180
>comparing PR buzz when you could compare samples
lol
>>
>>3827213
The reviewer guy doesn't use pr samples I think. He uses retail samples.
>>
>>3827225
I'm talking about "Sigma says" when there's a comparison of sample pics in the link the other guy posted from the digital picture.
>>
>>3827237
You have 1 reviewer
I have 1 reviewer 0 Sigma.
Now what?
>>
>>3827239
What?
I didn't even look at reviews, I went to the link and looked at the pictures.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2015:03:09 14:31:18
>>
>>3827244
And the pictures in the youube didn't count because it's inconvenient to you?
>>
>>3827247
No, I assumed the video would be all talk and no action and I'm not invested enough to watch a video on the matter. Looking at anon's link took mere seconds. The DN has barrel distortion at the corners.
If you want me to care then spoon feed me with screencaps.
>>
>>3827250
>No, I assumed
Well you assumed wrong. That's all I need to point out how retarded you are and denounce your opinion.

At the end of the day your EF and RF mounts are still no longer supported.
>>
>>3827251
>your EF and RF mounts
lol as if I could care less about mirrorless mounts
to lose the OVF is to lose the motivation to take pictures for me, it's soulless.
The beauty of taking a picture is being able to recreate what your eyes saw through the lens, not what they saw on a screen.
Pentax is right.
>>
Are DSLR fags the most pretentious posters on this board?
>>
>>3827258
If you hate light so much, shouldn't you be taking a picture with your iPhone while literally sucking a phallus instead of trying to talk about photography?
>>
File: 7002958_0.jpg (42 KB, 630x630)
42 KB
42 KB JPG
>>3827258
Why yes, how could you tell?
>>
>>3827256
>lol as if I could care less about mirrorless mounts
Bro.... You have been in this argument for days. So you obviously care.

Anyway, you have everything reversed. It's you who want to prove to me that Sigma and Tamron are somehow desperate to expand into RF, yet all signs point to otherwise.
It's you who tried to prove the newer and tinier DG DN is worse, yet gave up as soon as evidence of the contrary poped up.
The default position isn't making you win. the default position simply says Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, Voigtlander are all taking their sweet time as more time will pass.

Are you sure you're not the Pogopin guy who had this chat with me in the past?
>>
NEW THREAD:
>>3827270
>>3827270
>>3827270
>>
>>3827268
>Bro.... You have been in this argument for days. So you obviously care.
>Anyway, you have everything reversed. It's you who want to prove to me that Sigma and Tamron are somehow desperate to expand into RF, yet all signs point to otherwise.
>everyone is the same person
lol
The guy vehemently arguing with you cares, I only cared enough to skim through posts and look at the comparison.
>The default position isn't making you win. the default position simply says Sigma, Tamron, Zeiss, Voigtlander are all taking their sweet time as more time will pass.
I already said it, third party glass has always been a pain in the ass on Canon. People go for Canon glass first and only go for others if they have no option. Usually the other lenses emulate some Canon lenses so you get the wrong EXIF, the wrong vignette correction and the wrong barrel correction. And then Canon decides to change a tiny part of the protocol and your lenses stop working with newer bodies.
I saw there was some autistic discussion about Samyang vs Sigma and whatnot too.
Keep going at it guys.
>Are you sure you're not the Pogopin guy who had this chat with me in the past?
Again not everyone you talk to is the same person.
>>
>>3827278
>The guy vehemently arguing with you cares, I only cared enough to skim through posts and look at the comparison.
Fair enough. But either way there were 2 links to 2 comparisons. And my argument is Sigma sided with one of them.
>>
>>3827247
>muh purple fringing!
Left was probably sightly out of focus.

>muh little more detail in duh corner!
Can't see it, and TDP shot of an actual resolution chart, instead of a god damn poster, says otherwise.

>>3827256
Based and OVF pilled.

>>3827268
>everyone on /p/ is one person
Do you even own a camera? Besides your cell phone I mean.
>>
>>3827280
>And my argument is Sigma sided with one of them.
Well that's not an argument, that's PR buzz. Of course they're going to say the DN lenses are better, otherwise it's a sunk cost. Imagine if people started adapting DG lenses instead of buying DN ones. Many do it, but if they believe there's an edge to the DN at least *some* will buy DN.
>>
>>3827284
>Based and OVF pilled.
If we were faggots we should get a room lmao
>>
>>3827284
>>Left was probably sightly out of focus.
I think the reviewer knows how to retest that type of thing.

If anything I suspect your link is handicapping the mirrorless lens, and disabling the correction profiles build into the lens.
>>
>>3827287
>If anything I suspect your link is handicapping the mirrorless lens, and disabling the correction profiles build into the lens.
Pretty sure their methodology involves disabling all corrections on all lenses to test the actual optics.
>>
>>3827285
>but if they believe there's an edge
There already was just from the get go.
DG DN = 625 gram
HSM = 1130 gram

Even if they were somehow merely equals, most people would still pick the lens half the weight, since the weight has been the number 1 complaint with that particular sigma lens.
>>
>>3827287
So you're saying the DG DN is only better with correction profiles enabled? That's your argument? Really?

>>3827292
Bro, do you even lift?
>>
>>3827289
So my suspicion was right after all.

The website is hiding the final end results the mirrorless lenses are capable of.
>>
>>3827293
>That's your argument?
Why wouldn't it be?

These lenses all have profiles which they have been designed in conjunction with.
The correction profiles are part of the lenses. And any practical person would understand it's the most fair to look at what the end result will look like.
>>
>>3827294
>The website is hiding the final end results the mirrorless lenses are capable of.
kek, that's postprocessing not what the lenses are capable of
it also "hides" what the SLR lenses are capable of going by that logic
>>
>>3827301
>>That's your argument?
>Why wouldn't it be?
Arguing that the DG DN needs software to look better is admitting it's not the better lens. It's also stupid because someone could just use software to make the EF ART version look better again.

>These lenses all have profiles which they have been designed in conjunction with.
Funny, the EF ART version doesn't seem to need a profile.

>The correction profiles are part of the lenses.
No, they're not. Profiles are not downloaded from lens to camera.
>>
>>3827293
>Bro, do you even lift?
mirrorlessfags have a problem with heavy glass (which is actually better if you need it to be stable) because mirrorless cameras are trash ergonomically
>>
>>3827306
>it also "hides" what the SLR lenses are capable
Well, there are some basic rules of dslr lenses, such as reduced distortion to the OVF doesn't get fucked up.

But if the lens was designed so it could only become sharp after correction, then the correction is part of the design.
Your side of the argument is afraid of going head to head after the correcting, and that's very telling to me.
>>
>>3827310
>Well, there are some basic rules of dslr lenses, such as reduced distortion to the OVF doesn't get fucked up.
kek
>But if the lens was designed so it could only become sharp after correction, then the correction is part of the design.
kek this is the dumbest shit I've ever heard
correction is stretching pixels, it's never sharper after correction.
>Your side of the argument is afraid of going head to head after the correcting, and that's very telling to me.
Your side of the argument is that you have no idea what you're talking about, all you know is you're on "team mirrorless".
Mirrorless is a fraud.
>>
>>3827310
Jesus, look at all this circular reasoning and COPE.
>>
>>3827307
>Profiles are not downloaded from lens to camera.
Yes they are. The camera applies the profiles set by the manufacturer inside the lens.
That's how E-mount works.
Otherwise Sony would need to issue firmware update for each E-mount lens that is published.

>It's also stupid because someone could just use software to make the EF ART version look better again.
No. Because I'm not talking about colour manipulaitons or sharpening with software.

I'm talking about applying profiles that was baked into the lens at its design phase.

¨>Funny, the EF ART version doesn't seem to need a profile.
Oh yes it does. It needs correction profile for CA as well.
That's its compromise, otherwise it would need to be even bigger and have more element inside it to corrects the CA and cause even smaller T-stop.
>>
>>3827311
>it's never sharper after correction.
How would you know?

You're too scared to compare them head to head, while I'm the one daring you.

>Mirrorless is a fraud.
Ultra copium.
>>
>>3827313
>No. Because I'm not talking about colour manipulaitons or sharpening with software.
What do you think correction profiles are?
>>
>>3827316
They alter the image, but only in the ways the manufacturer intended for the result to be all along.
>>
>>3827313
>Yes they are. The camera applies the profiles set by the manufacturer inside the lens.
Imagine shooting JPEG then arguing about image quality.

>>It's also stupid because someone could just use software to make the EF ART version look better again.
>No. Because I'm not talking about colour manipulaitons or sharpening with software.
Yes, because RAW converters can do everything Sony can do in camera and more.

>¨>Funny, the EF ART version doesn't seem to need a profile.
>Oh yes it does. It needs correction profile for CA as well.
Didn't see any in the TDP shot.
>>
>>3827315
Using software as a crutch is implicit admission that the EF ART is better in this case. There's no way around that. You assumed the DG DN had to be better because MUH FUCKIN' MIRRORLESS!!! but that's just you being stupid.
>>
>>3827315
>How would you know?
Because it's how it works. Corrections are always comprised of discarding data and interpolating where you discarded. It's not rocket science.
>You're too scared to compare them head to head, while I'm the one daring you.
I don't give enough of a fuck to compare them.
>Ultra copium
The lack of self-awareness you display is staggering. Ever heard of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)?
They design the lens the best they can before correction. Then they create the correction profiles after tests. It's not designed with a correction profile in mind, it's designed with acceptable tolerances in mind. The correction profiles are there to make the life of the user easier, but they can be created manually by the user.
>>3827319
And?
>>
>>3827320
This isn't about Jpeg or RAW.

Some RAW formats lack storage for a few of the correction profile types. While other support them all fully.

>Yes, because RAW converters
Irrelevant. Raw software can copy the profiles all they want, doens't change the fact that those profiles were designed along with the lens.

>Didn't see any in the TDP shot.
DXOmark managed to measure them.
>>
>>3827322
Incorrect. The developer of the lens literallly says the DGDN is the superior results after both have been corrected. That's they way they intentionally designed it
The correction is even baked in so it applies to the EVF of the camera, again, designed by manufacturer.

There is an objective path to the distortion correcting, and they have defined it. You're just too scared to compare against it.
>>
>>3827325
>this is years of cuckime addiction do to a man's brain
>>
>>3827324
>This isn't about Jpeg or RAW.
Built in corrections are not applied to RAWs.

>>Yes, because RAW converters
>Irrelevant.
Not irrelevant you stupid faggot. You said there could not be a "correction profile" for the EF ART. I'm certain there are in ACR and in fact someone could make their own if they were so inclined.

But then it doesn't desperately need one like the DG DN, does it?
>>
>>3827323
>Because it's how it works.
But now they can design the optics in such a way that it needs those corrections.
Just like in fisheye lenses.

You guys have always been wrong about this argument.

>I don't give enough of a fuck to compare them.
Because it's tough to see a lens half your weight blow you the fuck out.

>They design the lens the best they can before correction.
You're pretending you know their process better than them, but they managed to come up with a better lens that yours in the end.

End results is what matters

>And?
That's your question returned to you. Look up the internet if you don't know what lens profiels are.
>>
File: top scores.png (29 KB, 589x454)
29 KB
29 KB PNG
>>3827324
>DXOmark managed to measure them.
Funny, I went there to look at the scores and the DG DN wasn't even tested. Yet on their top scores, the 85mm HSM tops the charts, and for Nikon F-mount, the mount that's the most different from a mirrorless one with a long flange and a narrow throat. Even googling "85mm DG DN dxomark" produced nothing relevant.
You're spewing bullshit because you want team mirrorless to win because you were sold the idea that it was inherently superior.
>>
>>3827328
>>Built in corrections are not applied to RAWs.
Due to format issues. Just create a RAW that holds distortion data.

>You said there could not be a "correction profile" for the EF ART.
Never said that.

>But then it doesn't desperately need one like the DG DN, does it?
I'm not sure why you even think it's desperate?
It's properly probeammed into the lens. As intended by the manufacturer.
It's properly applied to EVF. As intended by the manufacturer.

It's just a few vengeful DSLR people who tries to sabotage the lenses to misrepresent them from the way they perform in the EVF.
>>
>>3827330
Nigger, you can make correction profiles if you care enough. The only reason someone could get away with making a shittier lens is that higher resolution sensors allow for more manipulation before quality loss is noticeable. Quit frying your brain with niptoons and grab a book.
>>
>>3827332
>Funny, I went there to look at the scores and the DG DN wasn't even tested.
They don't need to, they are a site that died when DSLR died, then they retreated to smartphone market.

But they still managed to measure the CA in the Sigma HSM lens, so that's all I need to counter argue your claim that the DSLR lens doesn't need correction.
>>
>>3827334
>It's just a few vengeful DSLR people who tries to sabotage the lenses to misrepresent them from the way they perform in the EVF.
kek seriously lay off the anime, it's affecting you.
This isn't some conspiracy and the supremacy of the DSLR experience has nothing to do with that lens having distortion issues.
Some lenses for mirrorless are better corrected than some lenses for reflex, the opposite is also true. It's not the case for the 85mm DG DN vs the HSM.
In-camera correction isn't a DSLR thing and the image on the viewfinder is not a reason that DSLR would need better correction. In fact, in many cases the coverage of the VF isn't even 100%.
>>
>>3827336
>>Nigger, you can make correction profiles if you care enough.
That' snot what I'm talking about though.

I'm talking about the official correction progile from the manufacturer.
the one that's applied into EVF.
The one the manufacturer intended the photoprapher to see.

Your TDP website is hiding that correction from the end user.
>>
>>3827340
>They don't need to, they are a site that died when DSLR died, then they retreated to smartphone market.
Why would they have died? It makes no difference to them if it's DSLR or mirrorless.
>But they still managed to measure the CA in the Sigma HSM lens, so that's all I need to counter argue your claim that the DSLR lens doesn't need correction.
First of all, it wasn't MY claim. But it wasn't the other guy's claim either.
Every lens needs correction pretty much, because even the most sophisticated lenses have compromises of some sort. It's how bending light works.
However, the HSM is less distorted than the DN. That's a fact.
>>
>>3827324
>>Didn't see any in the TDP shot.
>DXOmark managed to measure them.
2μm CA is about as low as a lens can physically get. There is only ONE lens in their database that's lower at 1μm. In fact, seeing that measurement now I know your reviewer had the EF ART lens slightly mis focused during his test. 2μm of CA will not show up at the plane of focus with a reflective target (i.e. resolution chart, photo print, etc).

So we can safely discard his opinions on CA, sharpness, and detail.

>>3827325
>Incorrect. The developer of the lens literallly says the DGDN is the superior results after both have been corrected.
Software cannot pull one lens ahead of another like that. If the EF ART is better before correction, it will be better after. And it is better as is obviously the case in the TDP shots.

>The correction is even baked in so it applies to the EVF of the camera
This I highly, highly doubt. I don't think Sony is wasting CPU power, battery life, or heat generation applying profile corrections at 60 fps.

>There is an objective path to the distortion correcting
The DG DN is softer in the corner to begin with. Correcting distortion only makes this worse.
>>
>>3827344
That's a ridiculous argument.
Stop getting angry about this nonsense, it's not healthy. Unless you were pretending to have problems typing for humor reasons, then it's fine. Or if you're sleepy.
The correction profiles of the manufacturer and the ones you can create yourself with proper software and shooting targets are no different.
>>
>>3827343
>This isn't some conspiracy
When you go out of your way to disable default setting s in the camera, then yes you are conspiring.

>Some lenses for mirrorless are better corrected than some lenses for reflex, the opposite is also true.
That's not what we are talking about. The EVF literally needs the correction profiles to work as intended.
>>
>>3827334
>>>Built in corrections are not applied to RAWs.
>Due to format issues. Just create a RAW that holds distortion data.
No, they're simply not applied. You apply them in post. People would rightfully bitch if some profile was auto applied to a fucking R A W file.

>>You said there could not be a "correction profile" for the EF ART.
>Never said that.
Right here you did:
>>3827313
>>It's also stupid because someone could just use software to make the EF ART version look better again.
>No. Because I'm not talking about colour manipulaitons or sharpening with software.

>>But then it doesn't desperately need one like the DG DN, does it?
>I'm not sure why you even think it's desperate?
Well you're desperate to apply it because if you don't, MUH MIRRORLESS LENS isn't as good in this case.
>>
>>3827346
>Why would they have died?
Getting butthurt? Losing interest in adding anymore future lenses to their database?
That's all qualified guesses.

>Every lens needs correction pretty much,
Apochromatcs don't need CA correction.

>However, the HSM is less distorted than the DN.
And the DG DN has better CA than the HSM. Tough luck.
>>
>>3827350
>When you go out of your way to disable default setting s in the camera, then yes you are conspiring.
Jesus Christ, his site compares LENS PERFORMANCE, not SOFTWARE PERFORMANCE.

>That's not what we are talking about. The EVF literally needs the correction profiles to work as intended.
So Sony EVFs don't work with old manual glass?
>>
>>3827348
>This I highly, highly doubt. I don't think Sony is wasting CPU power, battery life, or heat generation applying profile corrections at 60 fps.
I'm not the angsty mirrorlessfag but I believe he's not wrong about MILCs applying profile corrections in the EVF. Not that I have tested them myself or that I think they're relevant, mind you. But the entire appeal is that you basically get a preview of the JPEG. I think some get a more detailed preview when doing a half-press.
It wouldn't be unthinkable that they could do it, for example there's anamorphic conversion lenses for phones with apps that show you the stretched image in real time as you record.
>>
>>3827355
So now to support your personal delusion built on an observably false belief (muh mirrorless lenses always bettah!), you assert that fucking DxO is dying???

>>3827355
>Apochromatcs don't need CA correction.
Neither does the EF ART 85mm.

>>3827355
>And the DG DN has better CA than the HSM. Tough luck.
I seriously doubt that. Not when only one single lens in the DxO database drops below 2μm to register 1μm. 2μm of CA is pretty much no CA. Your boy just didn't achieve critical focus in his test, then assumed it was CA.
>>
>>3827348
>>2μm CA is about as low as a lens can physically get. There is only ONE lens in their database
It's an outdated database that stopped adding in lenses a long time ago.
It doesn't even include the APO-Lanthar lenses from the Voigtlander.

>it will be better after.
You wouldn't know because you're too scared to compared them after they applied official corrections.

>I don't think Sony is wasting CPU power, battery life, or heat generation applying profile corrections at 60 fps.
1. They can apply it at 240 FPS even.
2. They are the leading manufacturer in CPU power, battery life and heat generation, so they can pretty much do whatever they want.

>Correcting distortion only makes this worse.
We would need to test this in practice, but some people are too scared to take up the dare.
>>
>>3827358
>I'm not the angsty mirrorlessfag but I believe he's not wrong about MILCs applying profile corrections in the EVF. Not that I have tested them myself or that I think they're relevant, mind you. But the entire appeal is that you basically get a preview of the JPEG. I think some get a more detailed preview when doing a half-press.
It's the processing required at 60 Hz refresh that makes me think they most likely do not. Color correction might be applied because I imagine that has to happen any way as part of the Bayer processing. But distortion and vignetting correction would burn considerable power.

Maybe if there are essentially two profiles, one for full resolution and one for the image after scaling to EVF resolution.

>It wouldn't be unthinkable that they could do it, for example there's anamorphic conversion lenses for phones with apps that show you the stretched image in real time as you record.
Yeah, but they burn the cpu/battery. While recording video I'm sure correction is applied. Just not sure if I buy that the whole profile is applied to the EVF.
>>
>>3827349
>The correction profiles of the manufacturer and the ones you can create yourself with proper software and shooting targets are no different.
The difference is the one the manufacturer makes is the one the manufacturer intended for you to see through the viewfinder.

The rest is just you coping with this reality.
>>
>>3827362
>It's an outdated database that stopped adding in lenses a long time ago.
Retard, you do not understand: it physically doesn't get lower than that. There are no consumer, photographic, visible light lenses with absolutely 0μm of CA. And 2μm would not be human observable with a reflective target. Your boy fucked up.

>You wouldn't know because you're too scared to compared them after they applied official corrections.
I know because you cannot create information from nothing (Shannon entropy; it's a physical fucking law). If LensA > LensB before corrections, and corrections are applied to both, LensA will still be > LensB.
>>
>>3827353
>People would rightfully bitch if some profile was auto applied to a fucking R A W file.
Nah, you just make a reader that can opt to not apply the correction data.
Metadata is just meta data, they are an addendum to the image data.

>Right here you did:
Nah, that was just to imply that the DSLR lens already have good distortion, and further tampering will just make the result worse for the DSLR.
How is that difficult to get?

>because if you don't, MUH MIRRORLESS LENS isn't as good
No, if you don't, then you misrepresent the lens compared to how the manufacturer intended it to show up.
>>
>>3827357
>So Sony EVFs don't work with old manual glass?
They do. The manufacturer of the manual glass intended for your viewfinder to not apply correction.
Simple isn't it?

>his site compares LENS PERFORMANCE
But they refuse to present the mirrorless lenses as intended by the manufacturer.
>>
>>3827350
>When you go out of your way to disable default setting s in the camera, then yes you are conspiring.
No, it's called the scientific method. You discard the confounding variables.
>That's not what we are talking about. The EVF literally needs the correction profiles to work as intended.
Highly doubtful. Otherwise people couldn't use adapted vintage glass on them.
>>3827353
>No, they're simply not applied. You apply them in post. People would rightfully bitch if some profile was auto applied to a fucking R A W file.
this lol, it would cease to be a RAW. At best they add a sidecar file or embedded metadata, similar to the JPEG preview.
>Well you're desperate to apply it because if you don't, MUH MIRRORLESS LENS isn't as good in this case.
this lol
>>3827355
>Getting butthurt? Losing interest in adding anymore future lenses to their database?
Butthurt over what? They're a business. If they focus on phone cameras it's because the money is there. Also they have RF mount lenses in their database so I think your claim is dubious at best.
>Apochromatcs don't need CA correction.
Perfectly apochromatic lenses aren't the ones available to the public, and even those have some degree of aberration. It's physics, simple as that.
>And the DG DN has better CA than the HSM. Tough luck.
Even if you were right, which you're not, CA is a lesser problem than distortion which is present at a much higher level on the DN.
>>3827357
>>3827359
This, the guy has no idea what he's talking about.
>>3827362
>It doesn't even include the APO-Lanthar lenses from the Voigtlander.
Those are boutique lenses no one gives a shit about.
>We would need to test this in practice, but some people are too scared to take up the dare.
What do you expect us to do, buy them and test them so we can prove your ignorant gearfag ass wrong? You probably don't even own a camera.
I'm surprised you're shilling Sony, with your ignorance I'd have assumed you were a Fujifag. Not that Sony is much better.
>>
>>3827367
>Nah, you just make a reader that can opt to not apply the correction data.
If the correction data was "applied", i.e. pixels altered in the RAW file, then you would not be able to undo it without data loss. That's why it's not applied to the RAWs. Fuck you are stupid.

>>Right here you did:
>Nah, that was just to imply that the DSLR lens already have good distortion, and further tampering will just make the result worse for the DSLR.
WTF kind of reasoning is this? What are you even trying to argue retard?
>LensA is 96% perfect
>LensB is only 90% perfect
>WE APPLY PROFILE TO LENSB NOW 97%
>well let's apply profile to LensA it will be 99%
>NO PROFILE ONLY MAKE IT WORSE
You are a fucking idiot.

>No, if you don't, then you misrepresent the lens compared to how the manufacturer intended it to show up.
All this circular reasoning and cope rather than just admit you were wrong in this case. And idiots like you vote.
>>
>>3827368
>>So Sony EVFs don't work with old manual glass?
>They do. The manufacturer of the manual glass intended for your viewfinder to not apply correction.
No. You said the EVF wouldn't even work without correction. Old lenses have WORSE distortion and no correction. So clearly Sony EVFs do not work with adapted manual glass. People have to use the rear screen. Because you couldn't possibly be wrong.

>>his site compares LENS PERFORMANCE
>But they refuse to present the mirrorless lenses as intended by the manufacturer.
>i'm better because of a software crutch
>>
>>3827359
>you assert that fucking DxO is dying???
What do you call a camera website that has stopped adding lenses to it database, and diverted its resources to benchmark smartphones?

>Neither does the EF ART 85mm.
Yes it does, otherwise it would be an apochromat lens.

>I seriously doubt that.
Watch the youtube review I linked to earlier.
>>
>>3827363
>Maybe if there are essentially two profiles, one for full resolution and one for the image after scaling to EVF resolution.
Sounds smart.
>Yeah, but they burn the cpu/battery. While recording video I'm sure correction is applied. Just not sure if I buy that the whole profile is applied to the EVF.
The same signal is probably split or something, similar to having an external monitor through HDMI.
>>3827364
>The difference is the one the manufacturer makes is the one the manufacturer intended for you to see through the viewfinder.
Dude, it literally doesn't matter what you see on (not through, that's for OVFs) the viewfinder. If anything it'd make sense that they showed the raw picture you're going to get.
>The rest is just you coping with this reality.
You're the one coping with the laws of physics.
>>3827366
>Retard, you do not understand: it physically doesn't get lower than that. There are no consumer, photographic, visible light lenses with absolutely 0μm of CA. And 2μm would not be human observable with a reflective target. Your boy fucked up.
It's like he wants CA to be orders of magnitude lower than pixel pitch, kek.
>Shannon entropy
I'll look it up, I'm guessing the concept is similar to the one I had intuitively (you can't create information from nothing) but a formal definition may be interesting.
>>3827367
My IQ dropped after reading this post.
>>3827368
>They do. The manufacturer of the manual glass intended for your viewfinder to not apply correction.
>Simple isn't it?
kek, it's not simple, it's a retarded take
>But they refuse to present the mirrorless lenses as intended by the manufacturer.
Software corrections have nothing to do with optical performance.
>>3827370
>All this circular reasoning and cope rather than just admit you were wrong in this case. And idiots like you vote.
How do you figure we got Biden? lol, suckers are still coping with the fact they're not going to get their 2k check.
>>3827371
This.
>>
>>3827366
>it physically doesn't get lower than that
See the Sigma DG DN lens. Has better CA.

>If LensA > LensB before corrections
Wrong, you're not considering the design process. So you wouldn't know it if a Sigma lens was designed to be distortion corrected.
>>
>>3827372
>>you assert that fucking DxO is dying???
>What do you call a camera website that has stopped adding lenses to it database,
>most recent lens review on feb 16, 2021
>"stopped adding lenses"
kek

>>Neither does the EF ART 85mm.
>Yes it does, otherwise it would be an apochromat lens.
Any modern shipping lens is technically an apochromatic lens. How successful the designers were or were not at correcting all three colors determines the CA of the lens. But nobody is shipping a photographic lens that only tries to correct two colors (achromatic), or offers no correction at all.

>Watch the youtube review I linked to earlier.
The one that's mis focused?
>>
>>3827375
>designed to be distortion corrected.
That's a mere compromise you're talking about. Designed with a higher tolerance for CA to get lower weight or get away with using lower grade glass, maybe even avoid having to use fluorite.
Video related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA
>>
>>3827373
>>Shannon entropy
>I'll look it up, I'm guessing the concept is similar to the one I had intuitively (you can't create information from nothing) but a formal definition may be interesting.
That's basically it, formally stated and used across domains of information (communications, computing, data storage, etc).

>>3827373
>How do you figure we got Biden? lol, suckers are still coping with the fact they're not going to get their 2k check.
$2k? What do you want with $1,400? I can't believe you're asking me for $600! The IRS will contact you about that $50 you owe me!!!
>>
>>3827369
>You discard the manufacturer intended you to see though viewfinder
Yeah, that's not science, that's just bias.

>Otherwise people couldn't use adapted vintage glass
Vintage glass manufacturer intended you to see viewfinder without correction.

Are you guys literally too retarded to make this distinction?

>Also they have RF mount lenses in their database
I guess I was mistaken then.

See? That's all the proof you needed to prove me wrong. Instead the others kept screeching like they were insulted or something.

>I'm surprised you're shilling Sony,
I'm not shilling them, I will whoever poke and prod you if you claim the Tamron and Sigma is forced by some inevitable factor to expand into RF and Z.
>>
>>3827381
>testing the physical lens is NOT SCIENCE
>testing a "corrected" image the manufacturer wants you to test IS SCIENCE
The absolute fucking state of burger education.
>>
>>3827370
>If the correction data was "applied", i.e. pixels altered in the RAW file,
Metadata doesn't work like that.
It's stored inside a subcontainer, and the RAW reader can parse it optionally.

>WE APPLY PROFILE TO LENSB NOW 97%
>well let's apply profile to LensA it will be 99%
Manufacturer intended for Lens B to be like that.
Manufacturer intended for Lens A to be without distortion correction.

>All this circular reasoning
It's not circular.
The lens manufacturer have some intension ad to how their lens would be represented by the equipment it was made for.
>>
>>3827371
>No. You said the EVF wouldn't even work without correction.
No retard.
I said the lens manufacturers have intension.

Some don't want camera to apply correction to EVF.
Some do want the camera to apply them.
>>
>>3827378
>That's basically it, formally stated and used across domains of information (communications, computing, data storage, etc).
Just read a bit about it, the idea of measuring it as "surprise" was a surprising concept if you'll allow the pun. The pigeonhole implications are interesting.
>$2k? What do you want with $1,400? I can't believe you're asking me for $600! The IRS will contact you about that $50 you owe me!!!
Never gets old kek
>>3827381
>Yeah, that's not science, that's just bias.
Bias would be changing the protocol they have used for every single lens in their database to allow the mirrorless ones to get distortion/CA/SA correction. You seem to think lens profiles are an innovation of mirrrorless.
>Vintage glass manufacturer intended you to see viewfinder without correction.
This is just pure cope. Most vintage glass is more distorted than modern glass, simply because production and design technology got better.
>See? That's all the proof you needed to prove me wrong. Instead the others kept screeching like they were insulted or something.
lol, you're arguing for "team mirrorless" here disregarding everything else and making baseless assumptions about companies like DxO which are essentially testing labs. Your arrogant ignorance is the insulting thing about your posts.

>I'm not shilling them, I will whoever poke and prod you if you claim the Tamron and Sigma is forced by some inevitable factor to expand into RF and Z.
They probably will, it's a matter of when not if.
There's probably code to crack when it comes to the protocol and stuff to test. It's not like with open standards where they are spared the reverse engineering. They'll have to get into those because if they don't someone else will. I don't think you understand how corporations work, given your earlier comments about DxO "not testing mirrorless lenses because they were butthurt" as if they were some opinionated blogger and not there to make money.
>>
>>3827373
>Dude, it literally doesn't matter what you see on the viewfinder
EVF = what you see is what you get.

This mantra depends on lens profile correction.

>kek, it's not simple
No. They didn't integrate any lens profile into their lens because the lens already shows in the viewfinder what they intended.
>>
>>3827385
>>3827387
You are arguing about things you don't understand, but you're unaware that you don't understand them.
No manufacturer wants distortion, they accept it as a fact of life and do their best to mitigate it within the limitations they're working with, be them budgetary or purely physical. It has nothing to do with EVFs or OVFs. That's a red herring.
They offer the profiles so that users don't have to manually correct them, and so that the camera can bake the corrections into the JPEG if the user so desires, avoiding the larger quality loss from correcting a JPEG after it's been converted from RAW.
>>
>>3827392
>EVF = what you see is what you get.
>This mantra depends on lens profile correction.
In that case what you see isn't what you get because the RAW has all the data, even the data the correction threw out by stretching the image.
You're arguing nonsense for the sake of arguing.
>>
>>3827376
>>most recent lens review on feb 16, 2021
Lens reviews are not the same as adding lenses to the database.

The database thing is a convoluted POS which demand them to dest the lens on multiple legacy cameras that are out of production.
So it was an understandable thing that they din't add any new E-mount lenses there.
I was mistaken anyway as proved by another poster.

>How successful the designers were or were not at correcting all three colors determines the CA of the lens
Fair enough, So yeah, the HSM were less successful at it than the DGSN, so it could have used some better correction in the optics, or in the lens profiles.

>The one that's mis focused?
It was sharp and had focus.
>>
>>3827377
>>That's a mere compromise you're talking about.
But if the compromise ends up with the better image, then what?

Then we call it intentional design.
>>
>>3827396
>or in the lens profiles.
kek
>It was sharp and had focus.
sharp is relative to the resolution
>>3827398
>But if the compromise ends up with the better image, then what?
It doesn't, not in the CA sense at least. You don't get less CA by designing for more profile correction of CA.
>>
>>3827383
>testing a "corrected" image the manufacturer wants you to test IS SCIENCE
It gets you the complete picture.

The "science" you are advocating for is trying to hide an aspect of the lens, one it was born with that was programmed inside it.

Your science is only useful for OVF people.
>>
>>3827396
>So yeah, the HSM were less successful at it than the DGSN
That's false.

>>3827396
>It was sharp and had focus.
It observably is not.

>>3827399
>You don't get less CA by designing for more profile correction of CA.
This.
>>
>>3827400
This is what fucking common core gets us. Next this retard will insist 2+2=5 and photography must stop because it's imprisoning souls.
>>
>>3827400
Dude, what you're testing by discarding corrections is what the sensor sees. From there you work towards the desired result. The more corrections required from there, the worse the lens. It's not rocket science.
The DN lens is giving the sensor a more distorted image.
>>
>>3827388
>You seem to think lens profiles are an innovation of mirrrorless.
No. I'm implying lens profiles are mandatory for the EVF.

the EVF won't show you "what you see is what you get" if you disable the profile.

>This is just pure cope. Most vintage glass is more distorted than modern glass,
No this is your cope.

The manufacturers had limitations, so they built those limitations into their lens.
You can say their lenses sucked, but that's adifferent argument.
they never intended for their vintage lenses to be corrected inside viewfinder.

Sigma does.

>and making baseless assumptions about companies like DxO which are essentially testing labs.
They added 0 new sony lenses to their database, so my assumption was far from baseless.
Don't use baseless if you don't know what it implies.

>There's probably code to crack
Nah, I used Samyang as an example of someone who alreayd is capable of porting their catalog into RF.
And they they still thread carefully and have dripfed you 2 lenses so far.

It's not a matter of "when", it's a matter of profitability.
They will sink a mount a abandon them if they are not profitable. There is no law that states all lenses must come to RF.
>>
>>3827394
You don't understand what metadata is.

Correction profiles can be utilised as metadata. This is also how Gyroscopic stabilisation works.
>>
>>3827395
>In that case what you see isn't what you get because the RAW has all the data
Incorrect. You get the much more than what you saw. Simple as that.
>>
>>3827405
This boils down "muh dg dn lens must be better because sigma said so!!!!!" It observably is not in this example. End of discussion.

>There is no law that states all lenses must come to RF.
You are a stupid Sony shill if you think the RF market won't be profitable for third party lens manufacturers.
>>
File: Samyang 14mm F2.8.jpg (30 KB, 500x333)
30 KB
30 KB JPG
>>3827405
>the EVF won't show you "what you see is what you get" if you disable the profile.
It will, it will show you what you get in the RAW which is arguably the most accurate thing it can show.
>they never intended for their vintage lenses to be corrected inside viewfinder.
It has nothing to do with the viewfinder.
>They added 0 new sony lenses to their database, so my assumption was far from baseless.
It was baseless indeed.
>Nah, I used Samyang as an example of someone who alreayd is capable of porting their catalog into RF.
Most Samyang lenses aren't even chipped.
>They will sink a mount a abandon them if they are not profitable. There is no law that states all lenses must come to RF.
There's the law of the free market. And there's probably contracts we don't know about that can act as incentives for them to not get into the mount.
>>3827408
Correction profiles aren't used as metadata when it comes to the JPEG. The camera always shoots RAW, except that when you shoot in JPEG mode it applies whatever settings you have to the RAW data before converting to JPEG and storing it in the memory card.
>>3827409
So you agree that when shooting RAW if there's corrections in the viewfinder what you see ISN'T what you get?
>>
>>3827399
>>kek
I'm serious though.

If Lens A showed less CA than Lens B before lens profile correction, but Lens A had a worse CA type which the profile couldn't correct, then I would want to know that info.¨

In fact that is the only usable info you can provide to me as a reviewer.
the rest is just manipulation and hiding facts.

>sharp is relative to the resolution
You plan on using that argument each time your favourite lens loses a head to head?

>not in the CA sense at least.
It most certainly cam. Longitudinal CA for example is tough for the profile to correct.
So if you could get less LoCA bu accepting some other form of CA which can be corrected, then some lens manufacturer might be tempted to do that.
>>
>>3827401
>That's false.
According to the test on youtube it's not.

>It observably is not.
How can you tell?
>>
>>3827404
Lens design is a navigation of compromises.

If I could design a lens with less LoCA by adding more Lateral CA and let the lens profile correct the other one, then I would.
>>
>>3827414
>If Lens A showed less CA than Lens B before lens profile correction, but Lens A had a worse CA type which the profile couldn't correct, then I would want to know that info.¨
Dude, this is getting pathetic.
>You plan on using that argument each time your favourite lens loses a head to head?
The point is that a youtube video is 8mp (4K) equivalent at best. What looks sharp at 8mp may be out of focus at full res.
It has nothing to do with which lens "won".
>>3827415
>According to the test on youtube it's not.
According to the guy doing the test. Guess what, less people have the newer lens so there's more potential sales there and more money to be made from referral clicks.
>How can you tell?
He probably noticed some dead giveaways of a misplaced focal plane. I haven't bothered to watch it myself yet.
>>3827416
Well that's what we have been telling you, yet you claimed that APO lenses needed no correction. The DN lens has something much worse than CA, it has distortion. Correcting distortion always results in loss of sharpness.
>>
>>3827410
>This boils down "muh dg dn lens must be better because sigma said so!!!!!
Well, no.
I suspect they worked on creating the DG DN lens elements smaller.
It's a different approach that allowed them to manufacture the smaller options with better consistency and quality control which ended up with sharper optics which stayed sharper even after the lens profile corrections.

There is a rational explanation to it, which you are just too arrogant to consider, because you are so used to this DSLR dogma.

>You are a stupid Sony shill if you think the RF market won't be profitable for third party lens manufacturers.
What?
I already made the other guy admit that Loxia and Voigtlanders woldn't be profitable on RF.
That's not shilling, that's just being realistic.

They had over 2 years now to port those manual lenses to the RF.
>>
>>3827415
>>It observably is not.
>How can you tell?
TDP shot showed no CA. Now either TDP got a magically CA free version of the lens, or YT guy was slightly out of focus. (Out of focus detail fringes purple or green on fast primes, depending on which direction the detail is out of focus. On a fast prime you see the fringing before anything is visibly soft. When shooting astro you don't try and make a bright star "sharp" in LiveView, you try to center focus between purple and green fringing.)

DxO's measurement of 2μm CA only confirms YT guy was out of focus. 2μm would never be visible on a reflective test chart at the plane of focus.
>>
>>3827411
>It will, it will show you what you get in the RAW which is arguably the most accurate thing it can show.
No. RAW is not meant to be accurate, just meant to give you as many options and leeway as possible.

>It has nothing to do with the viewfinder.
Viewfinder is important aspect of photography though.
There are certain "vision" the lens maker wanted you to see. And they designed those lenses that way.

>It was baseless indeed.
Nah, not adding new lenses to the best selling FF manufacturer can indeed trick people to think your website is dead and moved on to smartphones.

>Most Samyang lenses aren't even chipped.
Doesn't matter.
It's very fast for them to design new lens barrels for RF and port everything over to RF.
They don't do it because its risky and they risk lose money if they are not careful.

>There's the law of the free market. And there's probably contracts we don't know about that can act as incentives for them to not get into the mount.
Possibly. But Samyang usually bypass signing up for such agreements.
So they are not bound by anyone.
In return they lose out on perks such as lens firmware update through the body.

>Correction profiles aren't used as metadata when it comes to
When it comes to the RAW, it simply depends on the Reader. The reader and read the metadata and ask the user if he wants to view the RAw with it or without it.

>shooting RAW if there's corrections in the viewfinder what you see ISN'T what you get?
Incorrect. You get Everything you see in the viewfinde.r But also much more than that.
>>
>>3827419
>I suspect
I don't give a god damn what you "suspect." I'm sick of you huffing your own farts and writing grandiose theories with zero evidence, then pointing to your own theories as proof of something else in your mind. Reality exists when you close your eyes and doesn't bend to your sand castle theories.

In this case the EF ART is visibly superior to the DG DN. They are both good lenses, but there is zero question as to which is better here. I'm sorry that stabs at your pre-conceived notion that a mirrorless lens must be better every time.

>It's a different approach that allowed them to manufacture the smaller options with better consistency and quality control which ended up with sharper optics which stayed sharper even after the lens profile corrections.
The DG DN is not sharper in this case. Period.

>I already made the other guy admit that Loxia and Voigtlanders woldn't be profitable on RF.
Nobody in this entire shit thread ever said that because nobody can know if or when RF will be profitable for two niche players in the lens market.

>They had over 2 years now to port those manual lenses to the RF.
And there's no pressure to do so as they work fine on RF. Everyone right now has an EF adapter. Canon can't even keep the things in stock which is why there's like a half dozen 3rd party variants.
>>
>>3827427
>No. RAW is not meant to be accurate, just meant to give you as many options and leeway as possible.
Oh holy fuck...

>There are certain "vision" the lens maker wanted you to see. And they designed those lenses that way.
Stop being a child. You do not get to post process LensB then claim it beat LensA with no processing.

>>Most Samyang lenses aren't even chipped.
>Doesn't matter.
>It's very fast for them to design new lens barrels for RF and port everything over to RF.
How the fuck do you know what it took? And how the fuck do you know what the manufacturing difficulties are/are not...especially during COOF...that you can confidently say what their release schedule should/should not be? Just you huffing your own farts again.
>>
>>3827417
>Dude, this is getting pathetic.
What, did I catch you on a technicality you didn't think through?

>What looks sharp at 8mp may be out of focus at full res.
And you think an experienced reviewer wouldn't go back to take re-tests?
You should probably ask the guy before assuming the lens is out of focus.

>so there's more potential sales there and more money to be made from referral clicks.
Fair enough, there is indeed a referral link in his video. But this doesn't prove anything. It's just paranoia.

>He probably noticed some dead giveaways of a misplaced focal plane.
No, there was only 1 plane of surface and it was sharp.

>I haven't bothered to watch it myself yet.
And yet you're alreayd picking sides, interesting.

>Well that's what we have been telling you
So, you're trying to sell me 1 specific old school way to design the lenses.
Reduce as much in optics as possible.

Well Sigma said fuck that and tried to think outsode the box>>3827419
>>
>>3827426
>TDP shot showed no CA. Now either TDP got a magically CA free version of the lens, or YT guy was slightly out of focus.
I'm not so sure any more Anon.

The TDP website actually does show the HSM verison have a magenta-ish tint around the black lines.
Which is consistent with the youtube guy, his test chart probably used different lighting that provoked the CA is a different way, but both sources shows this magenta tint around the black lines.
>>
>>3827428
>grandiose theories with zero evidence
It's a fact that the DG DN optics are smaller and easier to manufacture.
I don't need evidence to state this. I can just point at the lens.

From there it's simply a matter of making the smaller glass shaper than the bigger glass, which sigma claims they have done via their MTF chart.
Again, that's evidence for you.

And that's likely what has happened.

>but there is zero question as to which is better here
The review I linked to put you to question.
Sigma put you to question.
There are probably other reviewers who found the same thing.

the odd one standing out is the old DSLR guy who reviews mirrorless lenses by crippling their build-in functionality.

>Nobody in this entire shit thread ever said that
See>>3827026
"WTF would those be popular on RF mount? Why would anyone get a 75mm f/1.8 over the Canon RF 85mm f/2 IS Macro, the Samyang RF 85 f/1.4,"
>>
>>3827429
>Oh holy fuck...
What the sensor sees, isn't what your eye sees.
Thats just the basics of digital photography and why RAW exist.

>You do not get to post process LensB then claim it beat LensA with no processing.
If one of the lenses don't inlcude a correction profile, then the manufacturer didn't intend for you to have a correction profile.

I'm sorry, bu enabling the in-lens correction for both lenses if the only thing you can do in this instance.
And if one of your lenses don't have it, then it's tough luck.

>How the fuck do you know what it took?
It doesn't take 2 years to design lens barrels. Don't be a retarded child.
there is a different reason behind this.
>>
>>3827431
>The TDP website actually does show the HSM verison have a magenta-ish tint around the black lines.
No, it doesn't. Not even at 800% in PS. If we're going to confuse overall tint in the image with "CA" then I guess the DG DN has green CA, right?

>>3827433
>It's a fact that the DG DN optics are smaller
In this case.

>and easier to manufacture.
[CITATION NEEDED]

>From there it's simply a matter of making the smaller glass shaper
But it's not sharper. It's about even except in the corners, where it's worse.

>The review I linked to put you to question.
No, I do not have to consider a review that was mis focused.

>>Nobody in this entire shit thread ever said that
>See>>3827026
English isn't your first language, is it?
>>
>>3827434
>What the sensor sees, isn't what your eye sees.
Who told you the eye was the benchmark for accuracy?

>>You do not get to post process LensB then claim it beat LensA with no processing.
>If one of the lenses don't inlcude a correction profile,
But there is a profile for the EF ART.

>>How the fuck do you know what it took?
>It doesn't take 2 years to design lens barrels.
>a metal can is all there is to building a lens
Don't be a retarded child.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (311 KB, 1448x627)
311 KB
311 KB JPG
>>3827440
>No, it doesn't. Not even at 800% in PS.
Pic related. CA? or not CA?

>In this case.
Usually the case when you forgo an opticla correction, for a greater benefit elsewhere.

>[CITATION NEEDED]
If you specify them to the same resolution, then yes, a smaller element will be cheaper to manufacture, all else being equal.

>But it's not sharper. It's about even except in the corners, where it's worse.
Only in the test where you denied it its distortion correction.

>No, I do not have to consider a review that was mis focused.
There was no midfocus, only upset DSLR fans.

>English isn't your first language
You claimed the Samyang lenses will be unprofitable due to nobody wanting them.
And at the same time you claim it's inevitable they will be ported to RF.
You're just being retarded at that point.

>>3827442
>Who told you the eye was the benchmark for accuracy?
I never said the eye was bench mark for accuracy, Are you getting desperate?

>But there is a profile for the EF ART.
If it's inside the lens and applied by the camera, then apply it, sure.
But one of you faggots tried to argue you could use the entire lightroom suite to post rocess it as you wished.

>>a metal can is all there is to building a lens
A metal barrel is all there is to porting a lens.
You already have the optics.
You already have the electronics and AF motor from the first 2 AF RF lenses.
Are you a retarded 5 year old or something?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>3827447
>Pic related. CA? or not CA?
Looking at the corners are we? Well the DG DN is worse. Pic related.

>Usually the case when you forgo an opticla correction, for a greater benefit elsewhere.
>make a lens worse and correct in software
Fine, but the lens is still worse.

>If you specify them to the same resolution, then yes, a smaller element will be cheaper to manufacture,
Depends entirely on element material and shape.

>Only in the test where you denied it its distortion correction.
>distortion correction can produce information where there was none
LOL

>There was no midfocus
Idk about "midfocus" but it was mis focused.

>>English isn't your first language
>You claimed the Samyang lenses will be unprofitable due to nobody wanting them.
English isn't your first language

>I never said the eye was bench mark for accuracy
You just implied it.

>>But there is a profile for the EF ART.
>If it's inside the lens and applied by the camera, then apply it, sure.
>IT HAS TO BE INSIDE MUH LENZ!!!
Idiot.

>>>a metal can is all there is to building a lens
>A metal barrel is all there is to porting a lens.
>not electronics
>not testing
>not marketing
>not support training
>not supplies
>not manufacturing lines
kek

>You already have the electronics and AF motor from the first 2 AF RF lenses.
>motors are identical in every lens
KEK

>Are you a retarded 5 year old or something?
I'll ask you again: do you even own a camera?
>>
>>3827470
>Looking at the corners are we? Well the DG DN is worse. Pic related.
But apparently all of that is fixed if you don't sabotage the camera and turn off the profile in the lens. Apply the lens correction in both and the DG DN jumps ahead.

>Fine, but the lens is still worse.
Only if you sabotage it, and ruin the way the EVF is supposed to work.

>Depends entirely on element material and shape.
No. All things being equal means you must apply the same curves and shapes to the larger element, it will get more expensive.

>distortion correction can produce information
They don't need to produce information, the smaller optics can simply be made better more easily and be sharper by default.

>but it was mis focused.
Clearly not. We already established the HSM has CA by default. So it was just a matter of manipulating lighting and contrasting edges to make them show up.

>English isn't your first language
Irelevant. You did claim the Samyang lenses will be unprofitable due to nobody wanting them.

>You just implied it.
No that's all inside your head. Or perhaps English isn't your first language?

>IT HAS TO BE INSIDE MUH LENZ!!!
Yes retard. Otherwise it isn't what was intended by the lens maker, you can't apply just about any correction to it and still pretend to be objective.
It has to be form the lens manufacturer to count.

>muh electronics
Reuse the other lens' electronics retard.
>muh testing
And? You think Samwang is incapable of testing?
>muh support training
>muh supplies
>muh manufacturing lines
How retarded do you think Samyang is? Clearly you're projecting some of your own retardation into them.

>motors are identical in every lens
Yes retard. Their motor for their E-mount 45mm can be reused on RF mount.
This one is your dumbest point yet.

No really, are you 5 years old?
>>
>>3827430
No dude, I picked a side because your arguments have been reliably moronic for the extent of the thread. Even without pictures I could tell you have zero idea of what you're talking about.
>>3827427
>No. RAW is not meant to be accurate, just meant to give you as many options and leeway as possible.
RAW is the only way to measure things accurately, JPEG is a lossy format and the camera applies sharpening and noise reduction automatically. It's not a clean sample, it's tainted and useless.
>>
>>3827548
>RAW is the only way to measure things accurately,
It's meant to contain everything from inaccurate focusing to redundancy data for shifting the focus.
This type of file was never meant to be accurates.

That's why you could even eembed distortion metadata inside them and have the raw reader toggle between the modes.

Fully encompassing everything is the opposite of accuracy.
>>
The absolute state of /p/. Imagine wasting so much time fighting over nothing.
>>
>>3827550
The RAW is what the sensor gets. What you're arguing is insanely moronic, fujislug tier.
>>3827447
Of course it's been applied "inside the camera". It has been the case for over a decade. But it's irrelevant unless you shoot JPEG like a boomer, because the correction applied when processing the RAW file is done using lens profiles in embedded in the processing software.
>Lr suite
No, I didn't mean Lr. I meant the software used to create lens profiles. Could be Adobe Lens Profile Creator, could be PTLens, could be DxO, could be Kekus, could be any other. It's irrelevant. The corrections in-camera aren't some super special thing that's somehow more powerful than what you could achieve externally. But with recent lenses, your bases are covered in any case. Using special software is needed for older glass.
>>3827434
>If one of the lenses don't inlcude a correction profile, then the manufacturer didn't intend for you to have a correction profile
Is this why you have official correction profiles for both Nikon and Canon lenses that predate the digital era and profiles themselves?
A lens isn't made with a correction profile in mind. A cheap lens can be made with lousy tolerances because "we'll correct them digitally and it'll look good enough for the price". Distortion is much worse than CA because it needs stretching pixels so you lose resolution. And like the other guy said, your eye and the EVF aren't where you'd notice those distortions and aberrations anyways (unless they were so bad you could see them on an OVF too, but I haven't encountered a lens that terrible yet and I've used some CHEAP glass).
What you see isn't what the sensor sees and what's acceptable for the EVF may not be acceptable as the output. The EVF resolution is about 3MP at best. And then comes your eye, that's probably being outresolved by the EVF and couldn't make out any CA unless it was bad enough to be seen in an OVF as I said above. CA is noticed when looking at the full size picture
>>
>>3827478
>sabotage the camera
kek
What is it that you don't understand about testing the LENS? What's so hard about the "garbage in, garbage out" concept? Forget about DSLR vs mirrorless and other distractions for a moment.
This has been understood since the times of the Difference Engine, the first mechanical computer.
In his 1864 book "Passages from the Life of a Philosopher", Charles Babbage said this:
>On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
If you project an image with aberrations on a sensor and an image with less aberrations on the same sensor, the image with less aberrations will look better after applying whatever corrections you want to apply. It's a basic principle of signal processing, the camera can't do magic. It's using what you give it (the projected image on the sensor) to give you the digital image. If the former is worse, the latter will be, too, provided the same type of processing is done. Now, if you for example disable the corrections in the EF lens but leave them enabled on the E lens as you were suggesting, it's possible that the corrected image on the E lens looks better than the uncorrected image on the EF lens. But that's not an apples to apples comparison anymore. If one lens is better before correction, it will be after correction too.
>>
>>3827585
>>The RAW is what the sensor gets.
And the camera can make it contain metadata as an optional thing inside the RAW, which the RAW reader can optionally read.
Why do you retards not understand such simply concepts?

Media files can have several compartments inside them to storage different things.

>the correction applied when processing the RAW file is done using lens profiles in embedded in the processing software.
That's a choice of architecture. It doesn't have to be that way you know?
RAM files CAN contain more than just image data, get it through your thick skull.

>The corrections in-camera aren't some super special thing that's somehow more powerful than what you could achieve externally.
It's more objective than whatever correction you are cooking up inside your head. There are 7 billion of you and you each have a different opinion on how the image should be corrected.
Therefore the lens maker is the final arbiter of how they wanted the lens to behave and how it should be presented inside the EVF.
What part of this is difficult to get?

>Is this why you have official correction profiles for both Nikon and Canon lenses that predate the digital era and profiles themselves?
If they exist then it's fair to apply then into the comparison. I didn't know because I didn't think Cankikon where too retarded to implement the correction data inside the lens electronics. But there you go I guess.

>A lens isn't made with a correction profile in mind
The 85 DG DN is.
Why? Because Sigma said it was. That's the end of the story. You don't get to put your opinion into the lens maker's mouth, if they say they designed the lens with software correction in mind then it is designed that way.

>A cheap lens can be made with lousy tolerances because "we'll correct them digitally
This topic was never about correcting individual tolerances.
It was about applying a a general set of corrections to the lens electronics, because the lens developers made the lens that way.
>>
>>3827585
>What you see isn't what the sensor see
Irrelevant.
What I see through the EVF with that lens is what Sigma wanted me to see.
The intension of the lens designer.
I don't give a fuck about what whether or not you can see the CA in the EVF, or wether or not you can see the distortion in the EVF, that's all irrelevant.

The designer of the lens put the lens correction data inside the lens electronics because they wanted my EVF to show me a certain vision. And your opinion on the abberations don't matter.

>>3827593
>What is it that you don't understand about testing the LENS?
I understand it as something Samyan is capable of. But you're implying lens testing is an insurmountable task for them, hence they are so slow at adapting lenses to your RF mount.

Do you see how retarded you are?

>If you project an image with aberrations on a sensor and an image with less aberrations on the same sensor
Actually, it's standard practice for the lens makers to project aerations from one element into another element to counter and correct that aberration before it.
This is basic bitch of designing. Some of these individual elements do infact create aberrations on purpose, with the intension of having it corrected later.

The reasoning behind creating the aberration with those individual elements can be all sorts of reasons.
Perhaps it helps reduce an entirely different type of aberration.
Perhaps it enables cheaper material.
Perhaps it enables lower weight and smaller size.

Lens designing is about thinking out of the box and experimenting with compromises, and that's a place where your rigid thinking don't belong.
>>
>>3827648
I'm not even going to waste my time debunking your retarded ideas about "intension" (sic) but when I say lens testing it has nothing to do with Samyang. I'm talking about lab tests, the ones done to compare lenses.
> with the intension of having it corrected later.
Corrected later in the optical path.
>Perhaps it enables cheaper material.
>Perhaps it enables lower weight and smaller size.
Bingo. And those reasons are why the DN is an objectively worse lens.
>Lens designing is about thinking out of the box and experimenting with compromises, and that's a place where your rigid thinking don't belong.
And yet here you are, claiming the DN is better than the HSM when it showcases those exact compromises and gives a distorted image as a result.
Barrel, pincushion and mustache distortion are all resolution-reducing distortions if you correct them digitally. There's no way around it. Spherochromatism is less of an issue.
>>
Good price or nah?

https://offerup.co/I4fsHi7R8db
>>
>>3827658
>but when I say lens testing it has nothing to do with Samyang.
The discussion got muddled when you quote just 3 words and make it unclear which part of the post you were referring to. My bad.

>Corrected later in the optical path.
Or even left alone on purpose to correct it later via metadata in lens electronics.

>And those reasons are why the DN is an objectively worse lens.
Nope, it's a higher specced lens than the DSLR lens, and its price reflects this.

>Barrel, pincushion and mustache distortion are all resolution-reducing distortions if you correct them digitally
This is just irrelevant whinging if the software corrected lens is still sharper than the optical corrected lens.
>>
>>3827664
>The discussion got muddled when you quote just 3 words and make it unclear which part of the post you were referring to. My bad.
Well, the 2k character limit makes things complicated. But I quoted you saying "sabotage the camera" that you had only say about the test from thedigitalpicture.
>Or even left alone on purpose to correct it later via metadata in lens electronics.
Left alone on purpose to reduce costs.
>Nope, it's a higher specced lens than the DSLR lens, and its price reflects this.
lol, that's just what they claim
>This is just irrelevant whinging if the software corrected lens is still sharper than the optical corrected lens.
That's a big "if" and is not the case here. The slightly worse CA on the HSM doesn't ruin resolution but the distortion on the DN does.
>>
File: 1599215966214.jpg (213 KB, 1920x1080)
213 KB
213 KB JPG
>>3827700
>lol, that's just what they claim
Comparison at F2:
https://youtu.be/m92pBHYENJc?t=370

No more purple fringing, so no more accusations of misfocusing.
>>
>>3827716
When you stop down CA goes down.
Seriously, do you own a camera?
>>
>>3827721
Yeah, but the other guy claims the CA was proof the shot was out of focus. So he used that excuse to disregard the test.
>>
>>3827723
Well and it is. Your depth of field increases when you stop down so more things appear in focus.
>>
>>3827478
>Apply the lens correction in both and the DG DN jumps ahead.
>add 20 mph to the top speed of both cars and the slower car will now be the faster one!
Common core math.

>No. All things being equal
Who the hell told you all things are equal between the lens elements of these different lenses? I guarantee you they are not because shorter flange distance alone would not make much if any difference in the size/weight of an 85mm lens.

>the smaller optics can simply be made better more easily and be sharper by default.
>distorted is sharper
LOL that's not how it works.

>>but it was mis focused.
>Clearly not. We already established the HSM has CA by default.
>very slight CA at 1,000% magnification is visible in a YouTube video of a 100% view
No. The fringing he saw was there because of mis focus.

>>English isn't your first language
>Irelevant.
Very relevant because you keep claiming people have said X when they said Y, Z, or A.

>Yes retard. Otherwise it isn't what was intended by the lens maker,
>MUH LENS MAKER INTENTIONS!
I don't give a flying rat's ass what they "intend", I care what their product can do.

>you can't apply just about any correction to it and still pretend to be objective.
True. Being objective means zero corrections. Science bitch.

>>muh electronics
>Reuse the other lens' electronics retard.
>af algorithms and circuitry are the same for a 14mm lens as they are for a 600mm lens
Retard.

>>motors are identical in every lens
>Yes retard.
No retard.
>>
>>3827593
His entire bullshit line of argument exists because if we look at the lenses themselves the EF ART is better and that just shatters his precious world view that 'muh mirrorless lens must ALWAYS be better.' So we get him arguing like a child...
>no MY toy wins because the manufacturer intended it to have kung fu power!
>no you can't have kung fu power because they didn't intend for YOUR toy to have kung fu power!
>>
>>3827637
>It's more objective than whatever correction you are cooking up inside your head. There are 7 billion of you and you each have a different opinion on how the image should be corrected.
>Therefore the lens maker is the final arbiter of how they wanted the lens to behave and how it should be presented inside the EVF.
What the fuck is this shit? Fuck the lens maker. If someone makes a better profile, I'll use it. But none of this is remotely relevant to how the lenses PHYSICALLY perform. You're just dancing around this fact because your ego is so inflated you can't admit:
>well, i was wrong to say mirrorless is always better
>sometimes an slr lens might be better
So fucking easy to say "hey I was wrong on this point." Nobody is forcing you to sell your camera (if you own one). Nobody is going to make you shoot a DSLR for the rest of your life. Just your fucking pride in the way.

>>A lens isn't made with a correction profile in mind
>The 85 DG DN is.
>Why? Because Sigma said it was.
No one cares. In this case the SLR lens is better (slightly, but better) than the mirrorless version. Better corner distortion and resolution. And as you revealed by forcing us to look at 1,000% magnifications, better corner CA as well. (Even though you would never see such CA in any kind of print or even while pixel peeping, only while pixel peeping x10.) And while you can fix CA and distortion, fixing them comes at a cost of resolution. It's typically a cost worth paying, but this means even with corrections the lesser lens can never out perform the better lens.
>>
>>3827648
>>What you see isn't what the sensor see
>Irrelevant.
Everything you bring up is irrelevant, meant to distract from the obvious truth: in this case the SLR lens is actually better.

>>What is it that you don't understand about testing the LENS?
>I understand it as something Samyan is capable of.
That's not what he was talking about at all. His point was: YOU TEST THE LENSES, NOT THE LENSES + MUH CORRECTIONS.

>But you're implying lens testing is an insurmountable task for them,
To that point: no fucktard. The point is that there is a lot of planning and effort involved in releasing an AF lens, even if it's an existing lens adapted to a new mount. You've never built anything in your fucking life so you wouldn't understand that.

>Actually, it's standard practice for the lens makers to project aerations from one element into another element to counter and correct that aberration before it.
True but irrelevant to his point. Software can't magically make the worst lens better because the same software will improve the lens that was better to begin with.
>>
File: 1614167372303.jpg (119 KB, 1832x818)
119 KB
119 KB JPG
>>3827716
>No more purple fringing, so no more accusations of misfocusing.
LOL WUT? We've gut multi-color fringing on the DG DN version. But with both lenses...what CA is there...IS SO SMALL YOU NEED TO ZOOM IN 10X TO SEE IT.

So if you see purple fringing in a YouTube video, then yes, the 'tuber mis focused.
>>
>>3827759
Sounds like a more cope. Any results that gets you butthurt, just call it out of focus.
>>
File: untitled.jpg (2.74 MB, 1920x2160)
2.74 MB
2.74 MB JPG
>>3827884
>add 20 mph to the top speed of both
Lens correction doesn't fix all aberrations equally. You are being a deceptive twat for trying to imply do.
That's why you play with the compromises so you end up with the least compromises towards the end.

>Who the hell told you all things are equal between the lens elements of these different lenses?
That's the objective argument you're going to have to make when claiming size of optics doesn't impact cost.
The size of the optics DOES impact cost, which is why medium format optics and 600mm optics are co costly, you're the retard trying to imply otherwise.

>distorted is sharper
>LOL that's not how it works.
That can be how it works.you simply have fewer elements in there since you're not correcting distortions, and now that you have fewer elements, you can divert resources into making the other elements better or give them better quality control.

>No. The fringing he saw was there because of mis focus.
Clearly not, This is something you reshoot again and again just to make sure the results are right.
Here is a 2nd review who confirms with Sigma and the other review.
https://youtu.be/2MJPgDAV0H8?t=584
He tested without correction, and with correction. And concluded the new version is sharper than the old version.

>Very relevant because you keep claiming people have said X when they said Y, Z, or A.
No, you did in fact try to argue Samyang was hesitant with sorting their 75, 45, and 35 into RF because the people there wouldn't buy them over the Canon lenses.

>I don't give a flying rat's ass what they "intend"
Well you should, because that impact how the lens presents itself inside the EVF. The way the lens maker represents the lenses to the EVF is how we should be comparing them.
Because that's ultimately at they point you make the critical decisions when taking the shot.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.2.7
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
>>3827884
>True. Being objective means zero corrections
Not. Being objective is to follow the guideline set by the manufacturer.
You're unable to do this because you understand this will put all of your DSLR lenses at a disadvantage against the other optics which now have more tools in their boxes when they were designed.

>af algorithms and circuitry are the same for a 14mm lens as they are for a 600mm lens
We are talking about porting to another mount, not creating a new lens.
On your old mount, you already have data over how far the focus groups should move, you already know how much the focus groups should move in order to reach certain distances to the subject.
That's the data you can recycle.

>motors are identical in every lens
When your AF motor is good enough for your 14mm lens on mount A, then it's good for your 14mm lens on mount B.
You don't need to invert new AF motors just because you port it to RF mount you retard.

>>3827885
>because if we look at the lenses themselves the EF ART is better
Literally everybody disagree with you. All you have is that one salty DSLR website doing some irrelevant comparisons.
>>
>>3827891
>What the fuck is this shit? Fuck the lens maker. If someone makes a better profile,
It's an attempt at being objective.
There is using the lens correction as the lens maker recommended, and which is the camera's default setting.
And then there is post possessing where you can choose billions of correction profiles that have nothing to do with the lens maker. those are all subjective and shouldn't be part of the comparison.

>well, i was wrong to say mirrorless is always better
>sometimes an slr lens might be better
Nobody ever said this.
I said THIS particular mirrorles lens sis better than THAT particula dslr lens.

>>Why? Because Sigma said it was.
>No one cares.
You argued you had the one true way to design a lens. Sigma disagrees and told you straight out of their own mouth they designed the lens with the electronic correction in mind.
They told you what their design process was, so you don't get to override them with your autism.
>>
>>3827898
>Everything you bring up is irrelevant, meant to distract from the obvious truth
The reason why we are branding into this RAW discussion is because you were trying to distract to begin with.
Nobody cares how the camera packs the RAW, and it's not relevant how the hundreds of RAW editors handles the RAW. They all have their subjective take on it.

The only objective point of comparison you have is at the EVF stage where you make the critical decision to take the shot at that time.

>YOU TEST THE LENSES, NOT THE LENSES + MUH CORRECTIONS.
You already went though this. The lens maker says directly it was designed to be paired with the electronic correction. So that's how you have to test the lens.

>The point is that there is a lot of planning and effort involved in releasing an AF lens, even if it's an existing lens adapted to a new mount.
But you guys are clearly being deceptive about this and tried to imply that porting to a different mount required brand new AF motors.
Retarded shit like that doesn't fly over here. I will call you out every time you say bullshit like this.

>True but irrelevant to his point.
No. If you can reduce LoCA by introducting a little bit of LaCA, then that's a valid option to take.
Even if it means the LaCA is uncorrected and has to get help with the correction electronics.
>>
>>3827902
>So if you see purple fringing in a YouTube video, then yes, the 'tuber mis focused.
No it could just mean his lighting setup was different from yours.

We have multiple reviewers + Sigma arguing against you now.
>>
>>3828020
What a wall of excuses.
>>
>>3828377
Look up the definition of excuses.

You're literally implying the Samyang 14mm RFmount needs a different AF motor than the 14mm E-mount.
How desperate did you have to be to make this suggestion?
>>
>>3828379
You are projecting. All I said is “a wall of excuses” which only implies I saw post containing a wall of excuses.
If the glove doesn’t fit...
>>
>>3828394
>>>>Why can't Samyang port over the 75mm
"B-Beucase think about the AF Motor!"
>>>>What? They don't need new AF motor
"Y-you're nothing but a wall of excuses"
>>
>>3827989
>>add 20 mph to the top speed of both
>Lens correction doesn't fix all aberrations equally.
It can't fix soft corners at all, and the DG DN has corner softness relative to the HSM. And IF the CA was visible at human views, the DG DN has more complicated, multi type/color CA that would be harder or impossible to correct.

You're right for once, but it doesn't help your argument.

>That's the objective argument you're going to have to make when claiming size of optics doesn't impact cost.
These are FF lenses. The individual elements aren't smaller. The DG DN lens is smaller by taking advantage of shorter flange distance. But that could involve more or less elements of more or less complexity. I would have to look at the lens formulas to know.

>>distorted is sharper
>>LOL that's not how it works.
>That can be how it works.
It can never be how it works. Software cannot replace missing information.

>>No. The fringing he saw was there because of mis focus.
>Clearly not,
Clearly so you retard. What CA exists...on either lens...is not large enough to be visible at those magnifications.

>And concluded the new version is sharper than the old version.
TDP got the focus right and concluded the opposite, and his evidence is available for all to review.

>>Very relevant because you keep claiming people have said X when they said Y, Z, or A.
>No, you did in fact try to argue Samyang was hesitant with sorting their 75, 45, and 35 into RF because the people there wouldn't buy them over the Canon lenses.
Those SPECIFIC lenses, yes. Not all of their lenses. They clearly think there's a market in Canon RF land for the 85 f/1.4.
>>
>>3827992
>>True. Being objective means zero corrections
>Not. Being objective is to follow the guideline set by the manufacturer.
Let's stop comparing sensor RAW noise at high ISO because the manufacturers use NR in JPEG. Fucking idiot.

>You're unable to do this because you understand this will put all of your DSLR lenses at a disadvantage against the other optics which now have more tools in their boxes when they were designed.
>lens corrections don't exist for slr lenses
Fucking idiot.

>>af algorithms and circuitry are the same for a 14mm lens as they are for a 600mm lens
>We are talking about porting to another mount, not creating a new lens.
The algorithms would still be different. And depending on how the lens chipset is designed, that might imply a new chipset.

>>>3827885
>>because if we look at the lenses themselves the EF ART is better
>Literally everybody disagree with you.
Not in this thread. And not if they've visited TDP.
>>
>>3828010
>It's an attempt at being objective.
Here's how you be objective: you test the lens absent any software manipulation.

>>well, i was wrong to say mirrorless is always better
>>sometimes an slr lens might be better
>Nobody ever said this.
You should admit this.

>I said THIS particular mirrorles lens sis better than THAT particula dslr lens.
No, you've implied repeatedly that mirrorless is always better. When proven wrong, you backed up to
>because muh corrections!

>You argued you had the one true way to design a lens.
No one has made any such argument in this entire stupid thread.
>>
>>3828020
>The only objective point of comparison you have is at the EVF stage where you make the critical decision to take the shot at that time.
>muh corrections are made for muh evf so we must use them!
Aside from being a stupid argument, you haven't even established this is true. Again: applying lens profile corrections to every frame of a 60-120 Hz EVF would be prohibitively expensive in terms of processor time and therefore energy. It also would make little to no difference at EVF resolutions. I sincerely doubt they are doing this shit except when shooting video since the correction would be applied to the 4k stream before every taking frames for the EVF.

>>YOU TEST THE LENSES, NOT THE LENSES + MUH CORRECTIONS.
>You already went though this. The lens maker says directly it was designed to be paired with the electronic correction.
So they made a worse lens figuring you would pay for it if they had "corrections" in software. So the lens is worse than the HSM version. Got it.

>So that's how you have to test the lens.
OH...are the Sigma police going to arrest the staff at TDP?

>>The point is that there is a lot of planning and effort involved in releasing an AF lens, even if it's an existing lens adapted to a new mount.
>But you guys are clearly being deceptive about this and tried to imply that porting to a different mount required brand new AF motors.
You made a statement that implied all lenses used a single AF motor. I keep forgetting that English is not your first language.
>>
>>3828022
>lighting setup will magically make CA 100x worse on a reflective target
LOL no.





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.