[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 14 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]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: 912UOISQgGL._AC_SL1500_.jpg (209 KB, 1402x1500)
209 KB
209 KB JPG
what the fuck is this garbage? takes worse photos than my mi11
>>
all snoys are like this
>>
>>3967134
>takes worse photos than my mi11
no it doesn't
>>
>>3967134
Bridge superzoom for boomers & coomers
>>
The person operating a camera is the one taking photos, not the machine itself.
>>
>>3967134
>Doesn't shoot raw
Why did you even get it?
>>
>>3967159
what's that?
>>
File: 20210823_224222.jpg (3.78 MB, 8809x4955)
3.78 MB
3.78 MB JPG
Watch your fucking mouth. Cybershots have soul
>>
>>3967162
You're recording music in MP3 instead of WAV and have little ability to do post production.

Most of the reason phones take good pictures is that they're poured millions into digital processing to do the post/editing for you, so if you're shooting straight jpegs on a point-and-shoot it's probably not going to look as good.
>>
>>3967134
>>3967199

Also the DSC-HX300 came out in 2013. That camera is 8 years older than the mi11. A nearly decade old entry level camera is not going to produce amazing pictures.

Also, that camera has a 1/2.3" sensor while the mi11 has a 1/1.12" sensor. As it turns out, having more than double the sensor size will make better pictures.
>>
>>3967201
>A nearly decade old entry level camera is not going to produce amazing pictures.
Wrong.
>>
The jpegs on the old Sonys are really shit, softened so much they obliterate details.
>>
>>3967292
Not wrong when it's a 1/2.3" cmos sensor output to a shitty jpeg
>>
>>3967292
>>3967301

Not wrong when you're comparing it to a brand new mi11 which has a much newer and more developex digital processor, can shoot RAW, and has a sensor twice as big
>>
>>3967301
>Implying a 1/2.3" cmos sensor affects composition and lighting
Wrong.
>Not wrong when you're comparing it to a brand new mi11
That won't make you a better photographer all of a sudden, you are:
Wrong.
>>
>>3967159
I don't get why these bridge cameras that cost as much as good DSLR's can't take pictures in RAW. Is it that hard to implement or somenthing?
>>
>>3967309
Cut that bullshit. There are objective parameters like digital noise, dynamic range, light sensitivity etc. that can be inferior or superior from camera to camera. You can be Niccolo Paganini of photography but with a shitty camera you will get a perfectly composed but shitty picture.
>>
>>3967673
if you have manual or fixed controls and RAW files you can make a 1MP camera from 1995 take great photos
>>
File: OlySP350.jpg (73 KB, 450x600)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
>>3967673
>perfectly composed but shitty picture.
Examples?
Even with a 3 megapixel camera you can get mugged if the photographer knows what he's doing and he found/made a good environment. A perfectly composed picture that can be seen without problems is a good photography, you dumb bastard.
Blame yourself and the operators for shitty pics, not the cameras which are only tools. You are also not going to see prints at nose distance or have 11x17 books all around, you are absolutely retarded if you think that happens and that anything above 6mp is mandatory for normal use, for specialized use like big art print or cropping you don't need anything above 24mp or 16 even because some galleries exhibit those with no problems.
>>
>>3967704
>only tools
That's the damn point. You won't use a hollow plastic hammer to nail a wooden board, right? You won't use your grandpa's straight razor to perform a brain surgery?
Good tool won't make you a good photographer - I'm not saying that, but shitty tool can absolutely neuter your skill.
You seem to be that type, who are polar opposite to gear worshipper, they say that gear doesn't matter at all, which is equaly retarded.
>>
>>3967713
>You won't use a hollow plastic hammer to nail a wooden board, right?
Wrong, plastic/hard rubber hammers are used in carpentry detailing to avoid hits that damage the wood.
>You won't use your grandpa's straight razor to perform a brain surgery?
Wrong, you can use it to shave the head of the patient, when removing the scalp there needs to be not a single spec of hair to avoid contamination.
>but shitty tool can absolutely neuter your skill.
It can limit you but not "neuter" it unless you pick a non-functioning tool, OP's pic is perfectly usable and you can even slightly edit JPGs just fine unless you depend on adding weird shit like fog or massive midtone contrast bumps.
>they say that gear doesn't matter at all, which is equaly retarded.
I am saying any gear in the enthusiast range and many in the beginner one from the last decade or two (this exemplified by the bridge sub-set of cameras "between point'n'shoot and DSLR") can get you a decent technical result that won't limit your ability to showcase your vision and skills to find a decent scenario.
>>
>>3967669
I think OP just made a terrible decision buying that piece of crap.
An RX10 bridge can make way better pictures and does support RAW
>>
>>3967727
A RX10 costs more than double what the HX300 does.
>>
These things are for birds and creepshots. They’re not really worth debating over.
>>
>>3967292
Sony in-camera image processing was incredibly shit back then, especially the noise reduction.
>>
>>3967717
>Wrong
>Wrong
>Wrong
Are you retarded or something? When i said "Hollow plastic hammer" - I didn't mean SPECIALISED KINDS OF HAMMERS. I meant hammering a steel nail into a hard wooden plate - HOLLOW PLASTIC HAMMER won't do it, because of objective factor, which is PHYSICS.
When i said "BRAIN SURGERY" i meant surgery performed ON BRAIN, not some bullshit about shaving patient head.
You either absolutely stupid or pretending to be, in order to troll or some shit. In any case, I don't give a shit about opinion of some imbecile demagogue, so I won't continue this shit.
>>
>>3967795
>Are you retarded or something? When i said "Hollow plastic hammer" - I didn't mean SPECIALISED KINDS OF HAMMERS. I meant hammering a steel nail into a hard wooden plate - HOLLOW PLASTIC HAMMER won't do it, because of objective factor, which is PHYSICS.
>When i said "BRAIN SURGERY" i meant surgery performed ON BRAIN, not some bullshit about shaving patient head.
>You either absolutely stupid or pretending to be, in order to troll or some shit. In any case, I don't give a shit about opinion of some imbecile demagogue, so I won't continue this shit.
Wrong.
>>
>>3967795
>Lose
>Sperg one last time and ditch the thread
You were always wrong.





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.