[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

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 88 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 closed. Thank you to everyone who applied!




File: file.png (286 KB, 600x484)
286 KB
286 KB PNG
I recently bought an a6400 and sigma 18-50mm f2.4 as my first camera. I was looking for a somewhat compact camera that would give me better photos than my smartphone (2021 flagship phone).
I really like it because I am able to throw it in my regular day backpack and the photos are much higher quality (image quality wise) than my phone.
I knew that APS-C would perform worse in low light but I didn't think I needed to worry about that because I assumed low light meant nighttime... I didn't realize low light meant indoors...
I took some indoor photos today and a ton of my photos came out grainy or blurry. I shot in Aperture priority mode at f2.8 and limited ISO to 2000. The camera would usually max out ISO at 2000 and select a shutter speed of something like 1/80. Shutter speed was sometimes too slow for a sharp image so I went into manual to lower it and then the images came out too dark.
Is this a APS-C "limitation" or am I doing something wrong?

tl;dr - Bought APS-C camera, did not realize indoors was considered "low light", indoor photos come out blurry OR grainy. Am I a retard using the camera incorrectly or is this a APS-C limitation?
>>
>>4076098
3x focal length is a good rule of thumb for a hand held minimum shutter speed (ie 50x3 = 1/150). Shooting at slower speeds can be done with practice.
Does the camera/lens have any stabilisation?
>>
>>4076100
No stabilization
If I set shutter speed to 1/150 and aperture to f2.8 the camera will automatically select ISO right? I don't want grainy pictures either...
>>
>>4076101
shutter/aperture/iso is a trade off
If the image is too dark at 1/150,2.8,iso200 then you'll need to compromise
Out of interest at F2.8 iso 2000, what shutter speed, no matter how slow, gives you an acceptable exposure?
>>
>>4076103
By acceptable exposure do you mean what I like?
>>
>>4076098
lel full frame wouldn't help
my apsc can shoot at 10k iso without looking too bad
idk what the a6400 is like but it can't be that bad where it's grainy at 2k iso
>>
>>4076104
yes, sure
>>
>>4076106
I'd have to test tomorrow. One major problem (that I'm sure is my fault) is photos on my camera look different than when I move them to my desktop. Sometimes I see a photo that looks OK in terms of brightness but is much darker on my PC.
>>4076105
I like pixel peeping so I don't want to see grain/noise
>>
>>4076108
That might be down to the relative brightness of the screens, both the camera and pc monitor.
>>
>>4076108
>One major problem (that I'm sure is my fault) is photos on my camera look different than when I move them to my desktop. Sometimes I see a photo that looks OK in terms of brightness but is much darker on my PC
learn to use a histogram, that's what it's there for
>>
>>4076110
What's the fastest way to learn how to use/read a histogram
>>
File: DSCF5200.jpg (1.99 MB, 2160x1440)
1.99 MB
1.99 MB JPG
>>4076108
if you don't want to see any noise then you either need a faster lens or a tripod
pic related was taken at 10k iso on an apsc (I was using a long lens so I had to use a relatively fast shutter speed + widest aperture was f/6.8)

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image OrientationLeft-Hand, Bottom
>>
>>4076111
taking a bunch of pictures
>>
>>4076111
watch a 10 minute youtube video, it's pretty straightforward once you know what it represents
just have it on your camera screen and use it for exposure rather than trying to do it by eye
>>
>>4076100
THREE times?????
Last time i heard of this rule of thumb it was to match the shutter speed with your focal length.
>>
>>4076098
Full frame lets you shoot in half as much light as aps-c before noise becomes a problem.

If you had say a 35mm f1.4 on full frame, that would allow you to shoot in 1\8th as much light as your current setup. Yes, one eighth!

This is why the people that aren't butthurt povvo cunts always suggest starting with a full frame camera. Your images will also come out with 1\2 as much aberrations and nearly twice the actual resolution (the resolving power of the setup, not the megapixel count, the megapixel count is 99% meaningless for 99% of photographers)
>>
>>4076128
I made my choice based more on physical size & weight rather than price. My photos outdoors looked perfectly fine to me. Seeing my results for indoors is a bit disappointing but I'm hoping I can play around with some settings to make them better..
>>
>>4076098
You can try shooting B&W. Color noise is a lot more noticeable.
>>
>>4076135
B&W is gay I live in the year 2022 not the year 1900
>>
a speedbooster will help.
>>
>>4076098
your camera doesn't suck YOU suck.

post images and we can explain what went wrong
>>
>>4076098
The only mistake you made is buying Snoy, APS-C at that.
If you wanted APS-C there are much better options available and for cheaper as well.
>>
>>4076156
some photos are of people so I'd rather not post
if I were to crop the picture to something like their shirt would that help in receiving feedback?
I'm going to try again with a f1.4 lens and see if that helps indoors
>>
The light indoor is very low compared to the outside. You can try and catch whatever light available or be smart and create your own with a flash. You can still get a full frame, some f1.4 pricy toys and somehow cope your way into accepting noise.
>>
Inside, is like being in the shade; certain wavelngths of light just aren't there. Digital cameras try to create these non-present colors and it looks like shit.
>>
>>4076098
>is this a APS-C limitation?
APS-C is fine. FF would get you ~1 stop better ISO noise. So you could go to say ISO 4000 on an a7IV, and have it be just as noisy as going to ISO 2000 on your a6400, which means you could use a faster shutter speed.
Going from an f2.8 to f2 lens would give you similarly better results as going to FF with a similar lens, and going to to an f1.4 lens would be even more significant.
If you went to FF with an F4 lens, you'd be basically in the same situation you are now noise wise.
Just learn your camera and the limitations. Has nothing really to do with APS-C vs FF.
>>
>>4076098
That combo has no stabilization, that's where you fucked up. A 6500 or 6600 would save your ass, or an stabilized lens.
>>
>>4076128
Braindead take, sure he can shoot in 1/8 as much light but his current setup costs 1/8 as much
>>
>>4076216

Poverty brain take, op never mentioned budget originally and since clarified that cost isn't an issue.

Stop pretending the whole world is as impoverished as you and trying to drag people down to your limitations, you're never going to make it with that mindset (not that you were going to make it anyway).
>>
>>4076203
Stabilization won't help with subject movement. Would be cool if it did. Just flip a switch on your camera and two robot arms swing out, reaching out for your subject and hold it in place.
>>
>>4076166
were the people blurry, but the stationary objects ok?
>>
>>4076128
8 stops stabilization, Moop.
OP's problem is the lack of any stabilization at all, not the size of his sensor. When I had a crop Nikon I was able to shoot in darker settings than when I had my full frame Canon with no stabilized lenses. I later got a stabilized one and things evened out a bit but Nikon's stabilization was better.
>>
>>4076227
You're just a full frame fundie and will always be. The one thing you're right about is that Fuji sucks, but the size of the sensor has little to do with it.
>>
>>4076257
People were blurry, stationary objects kinda grainy.
>>4076203
>>4076258
The people were moving so stabilization wouldn't really help right?
>>
>>4076289
Well if the people moved then fair enough. I'm honestly surprised they moved too fast for 1/80s
>>
>>4076289
People were blurry because the shutter speed was too slow. Stationary objects were grainy because of the ISO. If you had stabilization of some sort, the pictures of the objects can improve because you could turn down ISO by slowing down the shutter speed.

For people, shoot at an appropriate shutter speed (1/125 to 1/250). Crank your ISO up as needed, it's better than having blurry pictures, in my opinion. Or just get a flash. Full-frame only helps you with about a stop of ISO performance... your call
>>
>>4076293
>>4076296
The lighting indoors was really shit now that I actually think about it.
I'm going to try again with a f1.4 lens and see what happens
Is there such a thing as a f1.4 zoom lens for APS-C?
>>
>>4076303
There is the Sigma 18-35mm / 50-100mm f1.8's and others like the Tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 (which is fullframe), but most zooms are f2.8 are slower. At a certain point, primes and/or lighting can become a necessity.
>I'm going to try again with a f1.4 lens and see what happens
You can get an idea with just the math. For the same shutter speed, you'd get a shot with less depth of field, but at ISO 500 (rather than 2000). Or you could've gone up to ISO 2000 but freeze the action better at 1/320th, or some other combination like ISO 1000 & 1/160th.
>>
ISO 6400, lens wide open, widest focal length, and 1/30 shutter speed. Brighten photos in Lightroom or whatever later. Shoot raw and correct for chroma noise only. This is my go-to when trying to get the most out of low light indoor situations. Your Sony cam should have a good enough sensor to get useful images out of these settings, you can even push ISO more if you want.
>>
>>4076303
>Is there such a thing as a f1.4 zoom lens for APS-C?
You could use a f/2.8 zoom lens with a .71x speedbooster I guess but that takes you just under f/2 (and is expensive as fuck, the Metabones speedbooster for Canon EF to Sony E for example is $699).
Honestly noise complaints are blown out of proportion with sensor size. The sanest path is what someone else told you, use a flash. Try using an off-camera one (or at least bounce the one on the camera on the ceiling or a wall). There's a reason they assemble mini-studios at the wedding receptions. It's how you get great pictures, throwing light at your subjects. The quality of light matters too. Unaltered on-camera flash looks pretty horrid unless you're trying to get a snapshot aesthetic (think Uncle T-Bone, here pictured with a Lumix).

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1024
Image Height1470
Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>
>>4076303
>for APS-C
you can use fullframe lenses on apsc. you'd better not be taking creepo pictures mr
>>
>>4076319
No I don't have the balls to take creepshots
I just want a lens that does EVERYTHING because I have autism and get super anxious when I have to swap lens because I'm worried dust will get into the sensor
>>
>>4076108
You wouldn't be happy with full frame at 2000 ISO if you like to see clean images at 100%. Remember that images you see online are scaled down so you never get the chance to peep at their pixels.
Are you shooting RAW? It would be good to get into doing that because the noise reduction available in photo editors is better than what the camera will do to a JPEG. Personally I use Darktable but I hear RawTherapee is good as well. You could pay for/pirate Lightroom if you must use Ad*be products.
>>
>>4076356
>Personally I use Darktable but I hear RawTherapee is good
Darktable has the shittiest noise reduction, basically nonexistent and RawTherapee noise reduction makes images look like plasticine
Get a proper photo editor like Lightroom (best NR), Camera One, Affinity Photo or Luminar
>>
>>4076356
I'm shooting RAW but only look at the jpegs cause I don't know how to edit.
I don't mind pirating LR and trying out the NR to compare to camera jpegs
>>
>>4076334
>I have autism
Maybe that's the issue here, not your gear.
>>
>>4076372
???
DT NR works perfectly fine maybe you forgot to turn it on?
>>
>>4076289
Correct, ibis won't help moving subjects.
And Sony full frame bodies all have ibis anyway, so you are going to get 2 more stops better performance regardless, and have the benefit of freezing motion.

It's just a butthurt kid that can't afford anything but the $80 kit lens and body mft setup he found on Craigslist.

1\200 is a good minimum to freeze the motion of people not doing anything particularly energetic.

Smaller sensors are objectively worse for low light performance, unquestionably, question the motives of anyone trying to tell you otherwise.
>>
>>4076108
Pixel peeping for noise is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, noise is going to be there, unavoidable, the larger the iso the more noise.

If you really want to take pictures with that setup you're going to need more light or a tripod. Also since you don't provide much context or even a picture it's hard to tell what you're talking about.

I've shot indoors with aperture f/1.8 shutter speed of 1/80 and ISO usually gets bumped up to 800 or so, you must've been in a really dark place to need 2000 ISO.
>>
>>4076404
Actually the higher the pixel density the worse the noise is on a per pixel basis.

Another reason to never look at apsc or mft cameras
>>
>>4076377
That'll be where half your solution is
>>
>>4076395
Since you never used a proper software you don't know what "working NR" means
>>
>>4076399
What exactly does 2 more stops of performance mean? Remember that I am new to photography.
I will strongly consider an "upgrade" to FF but I love the form factor of my current setup. I can throw it into my backpack after I'm done shooting and it'd almost feel like I didn't bring out my camera.
The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG DN Art is twice the weight and almost 60% bigger than the 56mm f1.4 APS-C lens. (The weight is the smaller issue here).
>>4076404
The grain from the f2.8 lens was visible when I was scrolling through the images in the camera
I don't know much about lighting but I'm pretty sure it was objectively bad.
I used my 56mm f1.4 lens today. Lighting situation was similar to yesterday and the camera determined 1/100 shutter speed and 200-800 ISO.
The pictures I got today with my f1.4 were objectively better. It made me regret not trying this lens earlier. The fixed focal length was annoying to deal with as it was hard to get subjects into the frame the way I wanted sometimes.
When I said pixel peeping I sorta meant that I like high resolution stuff. I took a photo yesterday where I could zoom in and see armpit hair stubbles. I like that sorta thing.
>>
>>4076445
"2 more stops"

One stop is a halving or doubling in light.

In terms of iso and shutter speed, these halve or double accordingly, for example 1\50s is one stop brighter than 1\100s, and iso 1600 is one stop brighter than iso 800.

In terms of aperture, the "stops" go; 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22. With each of those jumps being equal to 1 whole stop. This may look complex to remember but it's just 2 sequences of numbers doubling and mixed together starting at f1 and f1.4 (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, etc and 1.4, 2.8, 5.6, 11, 22, etc)

So if you have a setup that has 2 stops extra performance, you have options, you can increase the shutter speed to reduce motion blur, decrease the iso to reduce noise, or increase the aperture to deepen the depth of field. A larger sensor and faster lenses give you more versatility.

As far as size and weight goes, you can go MUCH smaller if you're happy to use vintage or manual focus lenses, for example the voigtlander 35mm f1.4 for Sony is just 4cm long and 250g in weight.

As for changing lenses when you're out and about, you'll probably quickly find that you know what lens you will want to use most before you leave the house, there is not and never will be a lens that can do everything and be small\light. I'd say the closest would be something like the tamron 28-75 2.8, which is exceptionally small and light for an f2.8 standard zoom, and has great image quality.

Also, if size is a priority over speed, then you can always use your 56mm 1.4 on full frame, the camera will automatically crop the image down to aps-c sensor size.
>>
File: infoGraphic1.jpg (43 KB, 593x364)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>4076399
>It's just a butthurt kid that can't afford anything but the $80 kit lens and body mft setup he found on Craigslist.
kek moop, point me to that setup because it unironically sounds like a great way to get into MFT. I shoot fool frame.

>Smaller sensors are objectively worse for low light performance, unquestionably, question the motives of anyone trying to tell you otherwise.
The difference is negligible. A flash is a MUCH better solution, poorly lit photos always look like shit. Controlling the lighting is part of what makes photography an art.

>>4076445
>What exactly does 2 more stops of performance mean? Remember that I am new to photography.
It means that you could handhold the lens twice as long, or use a lens at twice the f-number and get no camera shake from doing it. This helps you go easier on the ISO. Still, the biggest performance increase you could get is using proper lighting. This means use a flash. And for fuck's sake, bounce it.
>>
>>4076462
No matter what lighting you use that bitch is still ugly as sin
>>
>>4076455
>vintage or manual focus lenses
No
>As for changing lenses when you're out and about, you'll probably quickly find that you know what lens you will want to use most before you leave the house
The problem isn't changing lenses when I'm out and about - it's changing lenses at all
I have some sort of autism and am paranoid about dust getting into the sensor when I change my lens.
>then you can always use your 56mm 1.4 on full frame, the camera will automatically crop the image down to aps-c sensor size.
Would the image quality suffer? I wouldn't mind selling my a6400 and buying a FF Sony if I can use my APS-C lenses on it until I feel more comfortable buying 4 figure lenses...
>>
>>4076462
Flash is simply not usable in some places. I don't really care about the artistic portion of photography I just want to capture pixels
>>
>>4076425
Doesn't make pixel peeping any less dumb.

"Sir this isn't himalayan salt, this is just regular sodium chloride"

That's how you perfectionists sound like, arguing about shit that doesn't matter in the real world.
>>
>>4076467
>Would the image quality suffer? I wouldn't mind selling my a6400 and buying a FF Sony if I can use my APS-C lenses on it until I feel more comfortable buying 4 figure lenses...
It would, it'd probably give you worse quality than shooting on a proper APS-C because of pixel density (unless it's an A7R IV). People here want you to spend money on the wrong stuff. Your camera is more than capable of taking the pics you're trying to take, for years pros relied on Nikon D300 cameras which are APS-C DSLRs with half the resolution you have. Sensor size is a non-issue here, it's the amount of light. I was dismayed when I first got my full frame camera and found that indoors I got noisier pics than with my stabilized APS-C. Of course, doing exteme closeups wasn't the brightest idea for full frame with poor lighting, but it illustrates the point. It forced me to stop down to f/8 and crank the ISO like crazy to get the shot I wanted, with the quality being terrible as a result.
>>4076465
Not nice anon. Regardless of that, at least bounced flash isn't making her look unnaturally ugly. This applies to everything. There was this car with pics that made the interior look like it was a mess, but I knew I had a good opportunity there because I could tell it was the flash causing that effect. Direct flash is almost always awful.
>>
>>4076468
>Flash is simply not usable in some places
Fair enough, but shit lighting will look like shit.
>>4076469
And deep down theyr'e still coping with the fact that no matter how high the pixel count and how big the sensor it will never look as good as film as long as it has to endure demosaicing.
>>
Op here's something nobody has mentioned yet, when shooting handheld and at low ss, shoot in burst mode, take three pictures and at least one should look fine.
Going full frame would be a solution but: 1 both cameras and lenses are more expensive and 2 they are bulkier and might make you feel like leaving your camera at home.
The combo you got is actually very good, you just have to learn how to get the most out of it.
>>
>>4076467
>I'm an autist
Then buy a sensor loupe cleaning kit.
The sensor itself isn't that fragile, it has a sheet of glass In front of it.

>Image quality if I crop to crop size
Yes it will suffer, but only to the level of a crop camera. And sure if you use a 24mp FF body like the a7c or a7iv then you'll get "only" 12mp after crop, but this is completely irrelevant as that's still larger than 4k resolution and enough to print A3 with no noticeable drop in quality next to the 24mp crop camera. If you get something like an a7riv then after crop you'll still have 30mp and have potentially better quality than your current camera.
>>
>>4076470
IF I do end up going FF I'm going for the R's. I don't see why I should spend 3 or 4k to get 10 more megapixels. My indoor shooting will minimal. For outdoors, is cloudy weather considered OK lighting?
>>4076474
I'm too paranoid to clean the sensor, which is why I don't want it to get dirty in the first place.
>>4076473
I am doing bursts, but at the "lo" setting.
Yeah I don't want to lug a huge camera around. I don't want a dedicated camera bag.
>>
>>4076478
>IF I do end up going FF I'm going for the R's. I don't see why I should spend 3 or 4k to get 10 more megapixels. My indoor shooting will minimal. For outdoors, is cloudy weather considered OK lighting?
It's not just any R that guarantees the same resolution when cropped, just the R IV. If you get a R III your resolution cropped will be lower than shooting native APS-C.
>I don't see why I should spend 3 or 4k to get 10 more megapixels. My indoor shooting will minimal. For outdoors, is cloudy weather considered OK lighting?
The FF advantage isn't really about the megapixels, it makes using wider lenses a bit easier, allows for slightly better control of depth of field (nothing extreme though) and makes suboptimal glass a bit more palatable (although APS-C uses the best portion of the lens so there's that too). FF is largely a meme.
>>
>>4076491
>FF is a meme
>It just lets you shoot in lower light and with faster shutter speeds, gives you more versatility in dof, gives higher resolution images, reduces the effects of aberrations and full frame systems are much better supported with larger ecosystems.

Lmao.

>An a7riii cropped down to aps-c is only 22.5mp, not 24mp >:(

Lmfao. You're so desperate
>>
>>4076156
>your camera doesn't suck YOU suck.
I could go out with the camera you have and get 3 National Geographic winning images tonight!
>>
>>4076684
Nearly all the advantages you cited are lost the moment you crop to APS-C, Moop. FF lenses work on APS-C cameras, by the way. APS-C might well be the ideal format, it's essentially Super 35mm.

>>An a7riii cropped down to aps-c is only 22.5mp, not 24mp >:(
>pay 3k dollars to get less!
And I'm the desperate one?
>>
>>4076684
FF has more options and versatility, for sure, but that still doesn't matter for most people in most situations.
>lower light and with faster shutter speeds, gives you more versatility in dof,
For the same field of view, and depth of field, aps-c can get you essentially the same results as FF. I hardly ever shoot FF faster than f2, which means I can get nearly identical results with an APS-C setup.
>gives higher resolution images
Resolution is entirely model dependent, and not stuck to sensor size. My 24mp APS-C images blow away my 12-16mp FF images in terms of detail. APS-C just doesn't currently have many higher res options and essentially tops out at 40mp.
> full frame systems are much better supported with larger ecosystems.
In a vacuum, yes, but APS-C has broader adaptability.
If someone is struggling to get a shot with APS-C, upping to FF alone won't make the difference in most cases. If you think APS-C is too limiting nowadays for someone to get world class photos, that just speaks to your inadequacies.
The only dumb take is thinking 1 sensor size is the be-all-end-all.
>>
>>4076108
>I like pixel peeping
you deserve everything bad that will happen in your photography
>>
>>4076707
and i'd just take pictures of you, you beautiful person
>>
>>4076732
>implying that people with full frame cameras crop 55% off all their photos

???

Do you have a carer?

>if I arbitrarily limit my aperture then they're the same

??????

>resolution is bound by the sensor mp count, not the lens and sensors ability to resolve an image

?????????

Can you explain why photos from a 12mp A7S and 61mp A7Riv look 99% identical on a 4k screen with the same lens, yet the difference between an OK and a good lens is immediately apparent on both bodies?

Can you even give any example of when you needed more than 12mp from your final image?

>Swapping to ff doesn't mean you have more versatility

Apart from of course, being able to shoot with the same level of noise in HALF as much light.

>1 sensor size isn't the be all of photography

full frame is better in every way than crop, unless you're doing greater than 1:1 macro. It can do everything a crop camera can do, and twice as much more.

At the end of the day, all you've written in your replies are desperate half truths to try and justify owning a crop camera when objectively better is available and affordable to OP.
>>
>>4076763
>???
>Do you have a carer?
You were shilling a full frame camera for a guy who has APS-C lenses with the excuse that it automatically crops. The other parts you quoted from >>4076738 who isn't me, but I'll own you anyways.

>Can you explain why photos from a 12mp A7S and 61mp A7Riv look 99% identical on a 4k screen with the same lens, yet the difference between an OK and a good lens is immediately apparent on both bodies?
4K is roughly 8MP. It gets outresolved by the A7S. It also gets outresolved by the Olympus E-30, that has a Four Thirds sensor (roughly 1/4 the size of full frame) and lenses that perform well on digital BY DESIGN because they were designed from the ground up taking the peculiarities of digital and its consequences on the optical path into account.

>Can you even give any example of when you needed more than 12mp from your final image?
Printing, cropping.

>Apart from of course, being able to shoot with the same level of noise in HALF as much light.
There's less than half as much light indoors than in broad daylight, several EVs less. Half as much light is one stop, it means jackshit.

>full frame is better in every way than crop, unless you're doing greater than 1:1 macro. It can do everything a crop camera can do, and twice as much more.
False.

>At the end of the day, all you've written in your replies are desperate half truths to try and justify owning a crop camera when objectively better is available and affordable to OP.
The pot calling the kettle black. A full frame camera wouldn't be better or affordable to OP, OP has APS-C lenses and doesn't want to spend money on lenses for now.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4076862
Oh by the way did I mention that Olympus is from 2009?
>>
>>4076862
>How dare you mention that crop lenses can still be used on full frame to someone with crop gear considering going full frame

?

>You don't need more than 8mp to fill anyone's screen pixel perfect

Yet you're whining that half of a 24mp FF camera is somehow insufficient?

>Implying every lens isn't designed for digital for at least the last 20 years

???

>Printing

12mp is plenty for A3, do you have any larger prints?

>Half as much light doesn't mean shit

??? Then why does an f1.4 lens cost so much more than an f2 lens? And why are faster lenses so popular?

>False but I refuse to elaborate because I can't

Omegalul

>It's not affordable for op

Lol, there it is, you're just mad that someone else is buying nicer things than you, yet again

>My Olympus is from 2009

We know, you povvo retard
>>
>>4076866
>if I arbitrarily limit my aperture then they're the same
You know how sometimes, you can have too much DoF for an image? I am a firm believer you can have too shallow of DoF. For me, with most focal lengths, f2 on FF gets me shallow enough DoF, and going more open can often run into the "too shallow" territory for me. So for the same DoF, I get similar enough results out of APS-C and FF. All that is to say, I never really feel like I need less DoF than f2 on FF (or f1.4 on APS-C). If I was someone that just shoot wide open 90% of the time, I might care more, but I'm well past that stage now.
> identical on a 4k screen
On my 4k screen, it can be hard to distinguish my 24mp APS-C, 40mp FF, and 50mp GFX from a normal viewing distance, so I guess that means they're all good? I can definitely tell a difference up close / pixel peeping, but for most outputs, and especially for most clients, it's just not a difference that comes up. I print 13x19 often (Pro 9000 II) and do occasionally print larger up to 24x36, and can certainly see a difference up close, but I still attribute that more to resolution / glass / processing that I would sensor size, and am glad APS-C is finally starting to get up there in mp.
>>4076866
>??? Then why does an f1.4 lens cost so much more than an f2 lens? And why are faster lenses so popular?
I still buy and use FF f1.4 lenses, even if I mostly shoot them at f2-f2.8. They are generally better made, and are often better optically than the slower counterpart at the same aperture value. They also get more light into the viewfinder / cameras AF, so are better for lowlight shooting even if you don't just only shoot them wide open. I have a decent photo budget though, so I end up having a lot of lenses that overlap on focal lengths, just with different apertures or optical qualities, so I pick based on my size and performance needs.
If you need FF because you only shoot f1.4 primes or f2.8 zooms wide open, more power to you!
>>
>>4076888
>too shallow of Dof
literally 1billion years watching jewtube and reading dpreview and you'll never learn this.
>>
>>4076890
Stop being mad that he can take pictures and you can't.
>>
File: olhq7wCtTN1vio48bo1_1280.jpg (182 KB, 1080x1349)
182 KB
182 KB JPG
>>4076866
>How dare you mention that crop lenses can still be used on full frame to someone with crop gear considering going full frame
It was dishonest shilling on your part, specially considering that as long as he stayed on APS-C glass anything but a a7RIV or a fpL would be a downgrade.
>>You don't need more than 8mp to fill anyone's screen pixel perfect
Yet you were arguing for resolution just a few posts up
>Yet you're whining that half of a 24mp FF camera is somehow insufficient?
I'm arguing it's a downgrade compared to all of a 24MP APS-C camera.
>>Implying every lens isn't designed for digital for at least the last 20 years
lel, if that were the case vignetting wouldn't be so horrid. FT and MFT specify the design must be telecentric.
>??? Then why does an f1.4 lens cost so much more than an f2 lens? And why are faster lenses so popular?
Because the glass elements are larger, correcting aberrations is more challenging, there's a demand for the thinner DoF and last but not least you're full of shit.
You can get a f/0.95 50mm for Nikon Z for $689. Meanwhile the 1.2S costs $2096.
>False but I refuse to elaborate because I can't
No, because it's self-evident. Only now the latest and most expensive Canons can match Micro Four Thirds in terms of IBIS, for example. For years MFT was the only game in town for as many stops as they had. Now they're tied at 8 stops. Everyone other than Canon and Olympus is inferior in this aspect.
>Lol, there it is, you're just mad that someone else is buying nicer things than you, yet again
OP said he doesn't want to spend money getting new glass.
>>My Olympus is from 2009
lol, I shoot full frame, both digital and film. I posted that example to illustrate how ridiculous you're being.
>>
>>4076893
learn how into reading
>>
>>4076888
>much DoF for an image
lol indeed, says a lot about the quality of photographer when the most important part of their photos is the out-of-focus backgrounds
>>
>>4076888
>F2 is the right amount of bokeh for me

??? You know bokeh is predominantly determined by focal length, not aperture, right? How can f2 be "right" for every aperture? And what's worse, slightly too thin dof for your personal liking, or too much noise?

Stop projecting your poverty cope.

>I can't tell the difference between these 3 on screen

Well you could do easily if the crop camera was too noisy and the ff one wasn't, which is op's issue. You're projecting again, and ignoring op's problem.

>Fast lenses have other benefits like better af, and better performance stopped down to the same as slower lenses

So now you're u-turning and saying benefits to performance are worthwhile? You know you get better af and image quality on a larger sensor too, right?

>>4076901
>Even though op bought a new lens at the drop of a hat, I have to imagine he'd never buy new lenses if he went full frame

?

>It would be a downgrade

We've gone over this, 24mp Vs 12mp makes practically zero difference. But when op uses FF there's a colossal difference

>You were arguing for resolution

Only to prove that it makes no difference, and prove that you were lying about crop having greater pixel density, not that it matters

>Back to 12mp bad >:(

If you say that, you also have to admit that 24mp FF is far superior to 24mp crop, and no, 12mp is perfectly adequate for any screen or print, oh and the much larger pixels on a 24mp full frame gather more light too, so are less noisy ;)

>If they were designed for digital they wouldn't vignette

Wrong, vignette corners are fixed automatically in camera or in lightroom, soft corners are unfixable, when designing a lens these are the tradeoffs you have to do. It was opposite on film as fixing vignette sucked and the emulsion was low resolution anyway

>You can get a cheap chink manual focus CCTV lens for $700

Is this comparable?

>Ibis

Lol, doesn't help op

>>4076907

Subject isolation has always been a photographers goal
>>
File: crop vs fool frame.jpg (69 KB, 293x750)
69 KB
69 KB JPG
Never change /p/
>>
>>4076982
I don't mind it, it's funny watching the insecure povvo cunts lose their mind over people having nicer things than them.
>>
iso noise is probably preferable to having motion blur so I tend to crank up the ISO and use the fastest shutter speed allowed by a given aperture
>such quality

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.3.11
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution96 dpi
Vertical Resolution96 dpi
>>
File: test.jpg (2.74 MB, 2301x2386)
2.74 MB
2.74 MB JPG
OP here
I went through the pictures I took and picked out 4 pictures:
1 picture I thought was sharp at 50mm f2.8
1 picture I thought was grainy at 50mm f2.8
1 picture I thought was sharp at 56mm f1.4
1 picture I thought was grainy at 56mm f1.4

Can you guys help me confirm is they are actually considered sharp or grainy or if I'm just being too picky? These are all cropped from the full resolution, no post processing, straight jpeg from the camera.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Softwarepaint.net 4.2.16
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution37 dpcm
Vertical Resolution37 dpcm
>>
>>4076974
>??? You know bokeh is predominantly determined by focal length, not aperture, right? How can f2 be "right" for every aperture?
Not that guy but he's snapping portraits indoors. Focal length to be used is more or less determined by distance to subject and sensor size. Safe to assume he's shooting from 6 feet away tops. Distance to subject impacts bokeh too, it's a triangle of aperture, distance to subject and focal length. That's why even yourself admitted FF isn't ideal for macro.
>And what's worse, slightly too thin dof for your personal liking, or too much noise?
When you have a DoF so thin your subject is only partially in focus and it's not something carefully done as in a posed portrait, it's a problem.
>Well you could do easily if the crop camera was too noisy and the ff one wasn't, which is op's issue. You're projecting again, and ignoring op's problem.
The OP would have to stop the full frame camera down to achieve the same DoF.
>So now you're u-turning and saying benefits to performance are worthwhile? You know you get better af and image quality on a larger sensor too, right?
How is he doing an U-turn? The benefits he's naming explain the difference in cost and why they're preferred even if not to take photos at those apertures.
>>
>>4076994
The teddy bear wasn't the focus point so that was probably a bad one to pick
>>
>>4076974
Now I'll reply the ones where you addressed my post:
>Even though op bought a new lens at the drop of a hat, I have to imagine he'd never buy new lenses if he went full frame
I'll quote OP:
>Would the image quality suffer? I wouldn't mind selling my a6400 and buying a FF Sony if I can use my APS-C lenses on it until I feel more comfortable buying 4 figure lenses...
Cost IS AN ISSUE HERE. And you're steering OP down a path that won't solve his problem.

>We've gone over this, 24mp Vs 12mp makes practically zero difference. But when op uses FF there's a colossal difference
Only if you're downsampling so much you could use a phone and get nearly identical results.

>it makes no difference
>you were lying about crop having greater pixel density
It does for reach, it does for cropping, and I wasn't lying. OP wants to go from 24MP APS-C and you're suggesting a downgrade for as long as he uses APS-C lenses unless he gets a a7RIV or fpL.

>If you say that, you also have to admit that 24mp FF is far superior to 24mp crop, and no, 12mp is perfectly adequate for any screen or print, oh and the much larger pixels on a 24mp full frame gather more light too, so are less noisy ;)
If using lenses that capture the same FoV on each system, then FF is marginally superior assuming the FF lens is as well corrected as the APS-C one.

>Wrong, vignette corners are fixed automatically in camera or in lightroom, soft corners are unfixable, when designing a lens these are the tradeoffs you have to do. It was opposite on film as fixing vignette sucked and the emulsion was low resolution anyway
Film vignetted less because it has no stack like the sensor does. You can hit film rather obliquely with next to no penalty. With Sony's sensor, you're gathering less light on the sides, less information. Specially with the way their mount was designed, Sony E is an APS-C mount that was later forced to house full frame. Your "fix" is a bandaid.
>>
>>4076974
>>You can get a cheap chink manual focus CCTV lens for $700
>Is this comparable?
It's not a CCTV lens. Is it comparable? In terms of results yes. Chink vs Thai, pick your poison. Point is, aperture isn't even close to being everything.

>Subject isolation has always been a photographers goal
Again not the guy you replied to there, but you can have such a thing as a DoF so thin you can't get your entire subject in focus.
Why do you do this to yourself, Moop? Do you get off on being humiliated?
>>
>>4076994
>>4076996
Grain is a function not only of ISO but actual exposure. Did you lift shadows in post for any of these? Are we seeing 100% crops? That said I'm not seeing a troublesome amount of grain there.
Sorry to have gone after Moop's nonsense before looking at your stuff, but I had already started my post when yours showed up lol.
>>
>>4076999
There was no editing involved for any of these. I cropped directly from the full resolution (6000x4000) camera JPEG.
>>
>>4076998
>Aperture isn't everything
Whilst you try and simp for a lens that doesn't even have auto focus or auto aperture, sad.

>You can have as dof so thin your subject doesn't fit in it

Ahhh, imaginary scenarios, my favourite.
How deep is a human? About 1'? So if we take our 24mm f1.4 lens on full frame (18mm F1 crop equivalent, but nothing like that comes close to existing) then we get sharp focus 1 foot deep at f1.4 from just over 1m away.

See, when we imagine this as a real scenario, then you see that in reality it's a complete non issue.

Not that you would know, as you've never been able to afford anything other than a 12 year old mft camera with a slow ass kit lens.

Maybe, if you're talking to someone that's having noise\blur issues due to their sensor size and aperture combination, you should be talking from a point of knowing about equipment that can fix the issue, not cope posting about your shitty gear.

See you around Colin, can't wait for you to get mad again about people having nicer things than you.
>>
>>4077001
>Whilst you try and simp for a lens that doesn't even have auto focus or auto aperture, sad.
Not simping for it. I'd rather simp for a vintage Tessar or a modern Nocticron (f/2.4 equivalent). I'm merely making a point that it's not just aperture that makes those expensive.

>Ahhh, imaginary scenarios, my favourite.
>How deep is a human? About 1'? So if we take our 24mm f1.4 lens on full frame (18mm F1 crop equivalent, but nothing like that comes close to existing) then we get sharp focus 1 foot deep at f1.4 from just over 1m away.

>24mm
>just over 1m away
just lol Moop, 28mm as used on phones is already ugly as is. Step the fuck back. It's the COVID era so you can use that as an excuse for the 6 feet aesthetically superior distance (just under 2 meters for you redcoat fuck).

Also with higher sensor resolution "sharp focus" becomes shallower. Circles of confusion start playing.

>See, when we imagine this as a real scenario, then you see that in reality it's a complete non issue.
Your real scenario provides distorted pictures because your perspective is shit. OP is wisely shooting a 50mm, 75mm equivalent. That gives good portraits.

>Not that you would know, as you've never been able to afford anything other than a 12 year old mft camera with a slow ass kit lens.
kek, I've never shot a MFT camera in my life. I own a full frame DSLR. Closest I got was an Olympus point and shoot which was honestly awesome for what it was.

>Maybe, if you're talking to someone that's having noise\blur issues due to their sensor size and aperture combination, you should be talking from a point of knowing about equipment that can fix the issue, not cope posting about your shitty gear.
>o-one more stop!!!
The equipment you're suggesting fixes nothing.

>See you around Colin, can't wait for you to get mad again about people having nicer things than you.
lol who the fuck is Colin? Is he in the thread with us now? First you called me Anthony, then Andrew, now Colin. Pathetic.
>>
>>4077000
I'd say it's a non-issue if that's the worst you're getting, specially from JPEGs. The detail is there. You could maybe shoot RAW and fine-tune the result. There's different pieces of software that allow one to clean up a picture rather nicely. In the end it depends on how badly you want them perfect.
This guy does a nice demonstration of three pieces of software here, he's shooting a MFT camera at 25k ISO so you can see how powerful that is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MahQ3e5hwuY
But if I were you I wouldn't worry too much about the grain you're mostly seeing it because you're pixel peeping. If you're not heavily cropping you won't have problems.
>>
File: 50066772537_7124492962_5k.jpg (3.72 MB, 5120x3381)
3.72 MB
3.72 MB JPG
>>4077001
>nooooooooooooooooooooooooo MFT isn't enough subject separation!!!!!! You need under f/2 equivalent!!!!!!!!

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4077008
>>4077010
>Desperate Colin posting
Full frame is always going to be the best option for low light or faster shutter speeds guys.

To prove you're not Colin posting you will have to submit a timestamped photo of your mft and full frame gear with "cummygobbler" written next to it.

>>4077013
>Making the oof area of an image the focal point to prove that you shouldn't make the oof area the most important part of an image

Lol, colin
>>
All digital cameras are "good enough" when used properly and toned properly in post.

Pixel peeping is some real nerdy stuff, my friends. Ultimately none of it matters when it comes to making an image that moves someone. No one will ever know or care what ISO you made a photo at -- unless of course you're posting to an image board that shows this EXIF info. Focus instead of your vision, getting out of the way of your ego, being interested in topics in the world and using your camera as a tool for exploring your own curiosity.
>>
File: ultrasonic.jpg (1.5 MB, 4000x3000)
1.5 MB
1.5 MB JPG
>>4077014
I have no MFT gear, but here's a pic of my full frame lens. Disregard the background. You see, the problem with phones is they don't provide much subject separation even when doing macro so I couldn't blur it more.
>>Making the oof area of an image the focal point to prove that you shouldn't make the oof area the most important part of an image
The focal point is her face, dipshit.
>>
>>4077019
>I do have good gear, I promise
>Posts photo just showing a lens hood from a $100 super zoom from 1998
Lmao, nice one colin

Why are you looking at an Instagram account that's not been used in over a year and a half? Are you that in love with moop?
>>
>>4076974
>??? You know bokeh is predominantly determined by focal length, not aperture, right?
There are a lot of factors that contribute to the amount of blur, yes. I'm saying f2 on FF at most focal lengths that I use gives me a subjectively "adequate" amount of subject separation. If you want me to be super specific, the max I typically go for: 24-28mm f1.4, 35 f1.4-f2, 50-85 f2, +135 f2.8.
>what's worse, slightly too thin dof for your personal liking, or too much noise?
If it's the difference between getting 1 eye in focus, or both, I'm taking more noise 100% of the time. I know I've had more shots "ruined" by shooting at f1.4 (or faster) and not getting enough DoF, than I do by having to shoot 1 stop higher ISO.
This all in the hypothetical scenario of lowlight shooting (needing ISO +3200) without using flash either. In different situations, the disadvantages of APS-C become much less apparent.
>Well you could do easily if the crop camera was too noisy and the ff one wasn't
That's the thing, the noise is approximately the same, because I wouldn't be using the same ISO for the same exposure for the same DoF.
>You're projecting again, and ignoring op's problem.
I'm being realistic with OP. Look at their example even >>4076994, would going to FF + f1.4 actually fix any of this? Even with less noise, they'd still think everything too noisy, and be even more prone to shallower DoF.
>Stop projecting your poverty cope.
Irony is, I almost certainly have more gear than 99% of people on this board.
>So now you're u-turning and saying benefits to performance are worthwhile?
I'm saying often times, if you get an f1.4 lens often has benefits over an f2 lens, even if you only ever shoot it at f2 or slower. Not sure why that's hard to grasp. I'm all for fast lenses, just think shooting at f1.4 all the time is pretty meme tier.
>>
>>4077021
>I.DO. HAVE. GEAR

then post it, or are you going to be posting your lens hood from an entry level superzoom designed for film cameras in 1998 again Colin?
>>
File: July051.jpg (512 KB, 1500x1500)
512 KB
512 KB JPG
>>4077024
Older family pic, just what I use on a monthly basis. Have lots more I don't really use anymore, and have since picked up another lens. I can probably link about 2 dozen images currently on the board if it helps too.
M11 + GFX100s + X-H2 next year.
I'm this idiot >>4077021

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 23.4 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width987
Image Height987
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2022:07:18 11:02:08
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width1500
Image Height1500
>>
>>4077026
>No full frame and no mft and no timestamp

Good job colin
>>
>>4077020
The hood comes for many zooms, the one posted isn't a super zoom but it is a full frame Ultrasonic. Does its job well, which is to not get in the way.
>colin
lol
>>4077021
>I'm being realistic with OP. Look at their example even >>4076994, would going to FF + f1.4 actually fix any of this? Even with less noise, they'd still think everything too noisy, and be even more prone to shallower DoF.
Nailed it.
>>4077024
kek, take your meds Moop. Not everyone is the same person.
>>4077026
>taped fuji
Cringe
I can at least respect the Leica though
>>4077034
Who the fuck is Colin and when did anyone ITT claim to have MFT gear? I don't know who this Colin guy is, but there's only one obvious dickwad from Bristol ITT.
>>
File: cameras.jpg (610 KB, 1944x1734)
610 KB
610 KB JPG
>>4077034
M10 isn't FF? News to me.
Not Colin, and haven't owned m43 in close to 10 years (briefly had an E-P1).
If my gear no longer disqualifies my opinion, do you need me to link all my posted pics to justify disqualifying thoughts that way?
>>
File: iso.png (583 KB, 575x598)
583 KB
583 KB PNG
>>4076994
If those are too grainy for you, how's this comparison to FF look? Better for sure, but probably not as much as you're expecting.
>no post processing, straight jpeg from the camera.
Software noise reduction tends to be a lot better than in camera JPG processing. You can also get much better sharpening results through software.
You're just being too picky / inexperienced.
>>
>>4077034
>he thought the leica was a fuji

How embarrassing
>>
>>4077044
Par for the course for a dickwad from Bristol
>>
File: KEN_0030-1200.jpg (359 KB, 1200x1698)
359 KB
359 KB JPG
>>4077020
>>4077024
>an entry level superzoom designed for film cameras in 1998
Let me guess... you need more?
>>
File: Untitled.png (28 KB, 1082x746)
28 KB
28 KB PNG
>>4077041
oh, you were being serious about the leica?
It's got aps-c levels of performance, at some isos even worse. and therefore is a completely useless indicator of full frame quality.

Should have got a normal camera you retard, instead you chose the 2 most gimped brands that exist purely off of marketing to rich dumb asians. lmao.
>>
>>4077056
Yes I do colin, as does OP.

Once you get a bit of practise in, i'm sure you will see the benefits to better equipment too, I don't expect someone brand new to cooking to be able to feel a difference between a $30 knife and a $300 knife, and that's ok :)
>>
File: a3qB5Kv_700b.jpg (114 KB, 700x906)
114 KB
114 KB JPG
>>4077057
>It's got aps-c levels of performance, at some isos even worse. and therefore is a completely useless indicator of full frame quality.
>>
>>4077057
Dynamic range is important, sure, but it's not everything that goes into an image. If I actually need more in a scene (rarely an issue), I have the 50r don't I? When I get around to M11 / 100s, those also outperform FF too.
I like being able to shoot like this >>4067447 at ISO 25,000 sometimes too, which is much better than any other camera currently.
>Should have got a normal camera you retard,
I have, and still do have some, they're just more boring to use. If I can get the results I want / need out of most cameras nowadays, why not just use the ones I like using the most?
>>
>>4077065
>how dare you point out that my full frame camera has crop levels of noise in a thread about crop having too much noise >:(

lmao, go to bed colin, or take more blurry photos of people that look like they don't want their photo taken by some fat neek. lmao.
>>
File: cantevenholditstraight.jpg (575 KB, 2000x1333)
575 KB
575 KB JPG
>>4077066
>>4077065
>>4077041
>>4077026
This is the level of photo that this guy is proud enough to post, lmfao. no wonder you're a colin.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeLeica Camera AG
Camera ModelLEICA M10
Camera SoftwareCapture One 22 Macintosh
Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Image Created2022:09:05 17:29:12
Exposure Time1/125 sec
F-Numberf/4.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/4.0
Exposure Bias0.3 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length35.00 mm
Image Width2000
Image Height1333
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
ContrastHard
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Unique Image ID0000000000502A774636E2612342FA59
>>
File: you.png (40 KB, 612x123)
40 KB
40 KB PNG
>>4077068
Did you not notice my M10 is a monochrom either? Those are not my images, and I agree they are pretty meh. It's almost like I knew this would happen.
>If my gear no longer disqualifies my opinion, do you need me to link all my posted pics to justify disqualifying thoughts that way?
>>
>>4077067
>muh colin
cry more about that juicy leica poorboi
>>
>>4077070
>that's not me, that's another guy with an m10 and 35mm f2.0

lmao, colin going into full backpedal.
>>
>>4077086
I agreed they're not good photos, and I wouldn't have posted them. I've offered to link mine, but you don't seem interested. Is it really that unbelievable that two people here have M10's?
Cope more.
>>
>>4076994
Are you fucking kidding me. These look fine
>>
>>4076115
Half the focal length in seconds works for me on unstabilised APS-C
>>
>>4077070
Moop is colorblind, he probably didn't realize he posted a color pic lmfao
>>
>>4077182
Try some shoots on 1/60 and 1/30 exclusively. Motion blur can be used artistically.
>>
>>4077170
really? they look grainy to me... Am I just retarded or autistic?
>>4077043
All 4 of these are too grainy in my eyes... Again am I just being autistic or retarded?
>>
OP,
You are using the camera incorrectly. Try using base ISO, with a tripod, and/or strobes to light your scene.
Sincerely, Faggot.
>>
>>4077231
>am I just being autistic or retarded?
Probably both
>All 4 of these are too grainy in my eyes
Honestly, nothing on the market would satisfy you, you have unrealistic expectations
>>
>>4077234
>you have unrealistic expectations
Are my expectations really that high?
>>
>>4077235
You can absolutely just stick to base ISO and just get as grain fee as possible, but that has limitations.
You saw yourself what an a7IV is capable of at higher ISO's, and yeah there are some that would be a tad better still, but you'd still be disappointed with everything on the market. You just obviously had unrealistic expectations of modern camera performance.
I bet a decent chunk of great images you see are just as noisy if you were to pixel peep, and you don't even realize.
You're also relying JPG's from the camera. If you want better results, which you can get, you need to be taking control of the post processing. If it's too much noise for you, that's what NR is for. If it's not sharp enough, sharpening can help.
>>
Not OP but same boat so have a bump

>>4076473
interesting
>>
>>4077239
>I bet a decent chunk of great images you see are just as noisy if you were to pixel peep, and you don't even realize.
That's something I realized a couple of days ago. I've seen an image on /p/ and thought to myself fuck that looks clear and sharp as fuck but then zoomed in a bit and saw it wasn't as perfect as I though. Pixel peeping is a disease and I need to cure myself
>>
Get a tripod, deal with motion blur in moving subjects or boost ISO and deal with noise
Shoot handheld in low light and realize you’re a moron
>>
>>4077306
Link post
>>
>>4077306
you are diseased
>>
>>4077239
If high iso performance is his thing, he should get...
a gfx 100 (way too expensive)
or a panasonic s1 or s3 (if you dig low quality chinese poo construction & design and lame autofocus)
or a d780 (expensive)
or a z6 ii (kinda expensive)
or a z6 (first version, about $1,100 used in good shape, autofocus had some issues)
>>
>>4077488
You forgot to mention the Pentax K-1
>>
>>4077488
>Gfx for low light
Wrong, it doesn't have fast enough lenses, FF has the advantage over it still.
>S1 or s3
Wrong, shit af, no lenses, just look at the retention value of the S1, £2k new, £1k for a 2nd hand one in like new condition, it's DOA. And the s3 is a pocket camera from 2011.
>D780
Another dead mount and absolutely huge, op likes the smaller form factor
>Z6
Why? It's a Sony sensor in an oversized body with rebranded tamron lenses, all at a big price premium, with worse af and features and lens lineup and market share and battery than Sony?
>>4077514
Another giant camera on a dead mount

Guys, you can be mad about daddy not buying you a PS5 for Christmas all you want, doesn't change the fact that Sony are by far the best choice for op, especially as he already owns some Sony lenses. Your suggestions are just throwing money away for a worse system.
>>
>>4077517
>it doesn't have fast enough lenses
GF 80mm f/1.7 R WR

maybe not enough fast lenses? gfx has obly a small selection. but at really wide apertures the focal plane is too tiny to do street. like f 0.9 is sort of just a fun thing
>>
>>4077517
>>S1 or s3
>Wrong, shit af, no lenses
i literally just said that. learn to read sheesh

>z6
best performance in low light, save those I mentioned
>>
File: iso2.png (675 KB, 575x579)
675 KB
675 KB PNG
>>4077488
Visual improvements over the a7IV example above.

>>4077517
>FF has the advantage over it still.
For sure, there's a couple options at f1.2-f1.4, but all are manual focus and not at the same level as the slower (f1.7-f2.8) lenses. FF definitely has better camera + lens combos for extreme lowlight.

>>4077587
Been waiting a long time for the 55 f1.7, hopefully get a sneak peak from the event today.
>>
File: Untitled.png (83 KB, 1200x801)
83 KB
83 KB PNG
>>4077587
>the gfx has one f1.4 equivalent lens!
exactly. it's got advantages in other ways over full frame, but low light is not one of them.

>>4077589
>I already knew the s1 had shit af
Then why are you recommending it? There's plenty of great full frame bodies that don't have that issue, or any of the other issues brought up, like the A7SIII, A7III, A7IV, A7RIII, A7RIV, A9, A9II, A1, etc.

>z6 best in low light

Not by a HUGE margin, under iso 800 the A7IV is up to a whole stop better, and over iso 800 the sony is a touch better all the way to the end of the iso range. pic related.

And that's before we get onto the lens selection and AF performance, Sony has FAR more f1.4 or faster lenses AND much better AF.

>>4077603
Be cautious with comparing "RAW" files like that, RAW files can still have pre-baked noise reduction built in, and if you look at the crispness of the text and the hashed pattern around the edge of the note on the S1 and Z6, there is noticeable softness, particularly on the hashed area the Z6 is too soft and the S1 has started doing weird shit that's left a couple of lighter patches. This is a good example of how resolution is limited by sensor size, not MP count though, with the GFX being the only one that managed to keep the pattern recognisable.
>>
File: sgz3.png (1.02 MB, 800x1000)
1.02 MB
1.02 MB PNG
>>4077517
lol moop, you're really desperate to shill Sony
>>
>>4077630
Well, as long as you're happy to admit that the only reason you have not to recommend Sony is because "X user likes them" then I've got no arguments, you've thrown your credibility in the trash with this comment and exposed yourself as a triggered little snowflake.
>>
File: iso3.png (683 KB, 570x570)
683 KB
683 KB PNG
>>4077620
>RAW files can still have pre-baked noise reduction built in
isn't the point of a comparison to compare things that are different? how else would you compare them then?
>how would you compare them then?
i like how you're so critical of the differences of the RAW, and then speak about differences in sharpness without the obvious disclaimer that they are taken with different lenses
that tool is good for seeing practical noise differences, and not much else
>This is a good example of how resolution is limited by sensor size, not MP count though
so what does it mean when higher res FF yields more details?
>>
>>4077638
>but it could be the lens causing the softness
There's not just softness, there's less noise, despite being on sensors that all came from the same factory made on the same machinery.

Check out the z6 and z6 ii, almost identical softness, different lenses that are both reviewed as being excellend across the frame.

Check out the canon R7 for an even more extreme example of RAW noise reduction, and that's on a $2k lens.

Then compare the GFX to the X1D, pretty much identical, and better than the best FF resolution.
>>
File: details.png (528 KB, 570x572)
528 KB
528 KB PNG
>>4077641
>despite being on sensors that all came from the same factory made on the same machinery.
what does this have to do anything? if the noise reduction applies to raw why is it not fair to compare them? i dont understand
>different lenses that are both reviewed as being excellend across the frame.
if we're being this pixel peeping, even 2 excellent lenses can look a bit different
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1458&Camera=1210&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1216&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
i see as much a difference in softness just between the lenses as i do based on the iso sample
>Then compare the GFX to the X1D, pretty much identical, and better than the best FF resolution.
the 100mp, sure, but resolution is much greater
how come these high res FF models show more detail than the 50mp gfx?
i thought you said resolution was limited by the sensor size?
>>
File: iso4.png (675 KB, 563x575)
675 KB
675 KB PNG
>>4077645
and at 3200
more noise, sure
but also more detail
>>
>>4077620
>the gfx has one f1.4 equivalent lens!
>exactly. it's got advantages in other ways over full frame, but low light is not one of them.
low light isn't what you think. shin fov means f1.2 is boutique wide open. the gfx 100 is a low light BEAST. the new hasselblad will likely be also
>>
File: g.png (671 KB, 1001x458)
671 KB
671 KB PNG
>>4077645
>if the noise reduction applies to raw why is it not fair to compare them?
You can add NR to RAWs in post, you can't remove baked in noise reduction in post, so seeing this in RAW files is bad.
>i see a bigger difference in lens resolution
wide open, definitely, but stopped down (and if the images were scaled and aligned correctly) the differences become much smaller, and the Sony lens is definitely not noticeably better when stopped down.
>the sony outresolves the gfx here, why
I'd guess that's down to fuji using old optical designs for film, with less vignette but more resolution falloff. If we compare the centre of the image, the larger sensor clearly takes the lead. pic related.
>>4077646
again, these high iso images are meaningless for noise comparison due to varying amounts of noise reduction. If you want to know the "real" amount of noise then just look at dynamic range charts.
>>
>>4077648
>low light isn't what you think
Low light merely comes down to how much light the sensor can gather with a lens attached.

Fuji has a larger sensor, but slower lenses, and slower lenses by a bigger ratio than the difference in sensor size.

Learn about aperture equivalence.
>>
File: details2.png (536 KB, 574x579)
536 KB
536 KB PNG
>>4077654
>so seeing this in RAW files is bad.
yes! which is why it is important to compare them. because again, different cameras are different, if one has more baked in NR, that makes comparisons even more important does it not?
>but stopped down
i linked just the 50 f1.8 and 85 1.8 which were on the Z6 and Z6II you talked about, even at the shot f5.6, i see a clear difference in sharpness
>again, these high iso images are meaningless for noise comparison due to varying amounts of noise reduction
if the noise reduction is unavoidable, why can't we compare them? you're literally saying we can't compare pictures from different cameras because the are processed internally differently
>I'd guess that's down to fuji using old optical designs for film
so you now agree that lenses are different and can contribute to the differences seen? you're just in denial that resolution matters too
>If we compare the centre of the image, the larger sensor clearly takes the lead. pic related.
or maybe it's a combination of things more than just sensor size? how come A1 and Z7II look better?
> If you want to know the "real" amount of noise then just look at dynamic range charts.
ah, so charts are a better indicator of real world performance than actual pictures, got it!
>>
>>4077620
>Then why are you recommending it?
i called it poo
>>
>>4077673
>It's important to compare them
Kind of, if you have dynamic range charts for those models available at the same time is the only way they will give you meaningful information, and it won't be about how much noise they have, but how much NR is baked into the raw.

For noise comparisons, then dynamic range charts are all you need.

>I see a clear difference in sharpness
The fact the images aren't even aligned make these kinds of comparisons very difficult, mtf graphs are much more useful. And if you compare both of these lenses on optical limits, then you can see the resolution at f5.6 is functionally identical, 5040 Vs 5048 lw\ph in the centre 4645 Vs 4739 lw\ph at the border. The Sony does 5038 in the centre 4400 on the border, it's actually slightly worse in the area you've compared, so the difference must come down to the processing

>Why can't we compare them
You can, but assuming they are equal performance in regards to dynamic range at reference gain (iso that gives equal brightness when aperture and shutter speed are identical), the "better" image is the one with MORE visible noise. Which is the exact opposite of how these comparisons are typically used

>So lenses can cause a difference in resolution

Of course they do, but these comparisons are typically shot with the best and latest lenses available. The gfx probably does not have any lens with the super uniform resolution that modern high end lens designs use

>The A1 and z1 look better

That's a subjective opinion, they clearly don't come close to outresolving the gfx in the centre

>Charts are a better indicator of real world performance

Correct, because these charts are generated by real world photos, do you think a camera magically changes its performance if it's been setup in front of a test chart or scene? If you want to force a narrative that only subjective opinions matter when comparing products that can unquestionably be measured objectively, I'm gon call you out for wilful ignorance
>>
>>4077637
Actually I recommended the A6600 in this same thread. Then I learned OP was getting blur on the subjects so it wasn't shake. It also became clear the kind of grain he worries about isn't solved by a full frame setup either. He's simply asking too much.
>>
>>4077687
>if you have dynamic range charts for those models available at the same time is the only way they will give you meaningful informatio
charts > pictures
all i need to know
>>
>>4077655
>Low light merely comes down to how much light the sensor can gather with a lens attached.
low light is short for low light photography, of which you are inexperienced!!! that's okay, but f1.2 is marketing, except for boutique uses, plus the lenses mqy be better otherwise. a 1.7 lens is as fas as you can use at 50mm, with most subjects, dof is wayyyy too narrow otherwise.

the only use case for NIGHT wide apertures is videography. wide apertures aren't great for portraits well lot imo but they have a place
>>
>>4077687
>do you think a camera magically changes its performance if it's been setup in front of a test chart or scene
in military imaging human raters are used. there are many many many kinds of tests for resolving power. they can be objective or subjective. eg type the random letters as best you can, or a/b, which looks more natural?, or rank several.

But what photogrophers do is look with expert eyes at images and determine the bettwr or worse for their needs.

The Z6 (and Z6 II) outrank all the others, except those I listed. Realize I am emphasizing the underexposed areas, we are talking about forensic and artistic value in the darks. In the real world, everything interesting will be mislit.

The R6 has color noise you don't see woth the Z6. The R3 doesn't keep up, the R5 lmaooo. the 1dx iii and the d5 re bested as well by the Z6. again, in the deep underexposed areas of high isos.

the d780 is bested too, actually, maybe Nikon will release a d790?

The Z6 beats the Z7 and the Z9 and the Pentax K1 II. The Snoy a1 is a cool camera, but that high mp count keeps it behind the Z6.

The a7 IV suffers from high mp. HOWEVER the a7 III is impressively close. The Z6 is better.

For lowlight. For seeing what's in the shadows. In the deepest areas, Nikon's formulas actually best the gfx 100 and S1/S5, but they beat the Z6 in middleish darks. In the deep darks, the Z6 ii is beaten by the Z6, not by much.

The Z6 is pretty special. I hope to get one when they drop some in price. But I'll have to get lenses too, or adapt.
>>
>>4077802
What about the first K1? it's notorious Pentax gimped the II by baking in noise reduction
>>
>>4077823
the ii is better, but still not great at lowlight. or what I call lowlight. ultralow, I guess.
>>
File: 09-02-2022-0023.jpg (621 KB, 1331x2000)
621 KB
621 KB JPG
>>4077802
I haven’t shot any of the compared cameras, but I have a Z6 first gen and those files are the cleanest and deepest I’ve worked with, esp at high ISO, like 8000 is totally usable.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATION
Camera ModelNIKON Z 6
Camera SoftwareCapture One 22 Macintosh
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)57 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution300 dpi
Vertical Resolution300 dpi
Exposure Time1/800 sec
F-Numberf/8.0
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/8.0
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length57.00 mm
Image Width1331
Image Height2000
RenderingCustom
Exposure ModeManual
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Gain ControlNone
ContrastNormal
SaturationNormal
SharpnessNormal
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4077850
8/10
do you have a landscape version???
>>
>>4077850
>esp at high ISO, like 8000 is totally usable.
>posts iso 200 with gazillion noise artifacts
what did fool frame advertiser mean by this?
>>
>>4077895
I could use iso 8000 on your mom
>>
Dear full frame elitist:
Let's say I want to upgrade to full frame. Should I get the A7IV (newer) or A7RIV (more megapixels) if I'm looking for maximum image quality?
I feel like for my current shooting, 18-56mm would cover the majority of my shots (APS-C). Which FF lens should I get for maximum image quality?
How big (physically) and heavy would this setup be?
>>
>>4078236
>A7iv or a7riv
No difference in image quality for 99% of people, and no difference once you go past f5.6 regardless due to diffraction. You could even go for the a7c and not see a drop in image quality.

>I think a 28-80mm f4 equivalent works for me, what lens could I get on full frame Sony to give the same

Yes I'm assuming you don't want some pleb tier slow or variable aperture lens.

There is the Zeiss 24-70 f4, but that was rushed out when the a7 range first dropped and is pretty much just an old DSLR design, it still outresolves your crop lens, but there's better choices as poor boy f4 lenses just aren't desirable so no effort is made into making new f4 standard zoom lenses.

Tamron 28-75 2.8 and Sony 24-70 f2.8 trade blows for image quality, but it's an unfair comparison as they're effectively a stop faster than your crop system.

>Weight and size
24-70 f4 is 430g
28-75 f2.8 is 540g
24-70 2.8 is 890g
A7c is 509g
A7riv is 665g

So your system could weigh as little as 939g or as much as 1.5kg

The Fuji xh2 is 660g
Fuji 16-55 2.8 is 655g
Total of 1.3kg

Sony 15-55 f2.8 is 494g
Sony a6600 is 505g
Total of 1kg

Pentax 16-50 f2.8 is 712g
Pentax k3 iii is 820g
Total 1.5kg

Full frame Sony is the lightest choice, hell you can even get a whole stop faster system for less weight :)
>>
>>4078242
>No difference in image quality for 99% of people, and no difference once you go past f5.6 regardless due to diffraction. You could even go for the a7c and not see a drop in image quality.
Can you explain this to someone who knows nothing about photography?
So for lens, I'd be looking for a 2xmm to 7xmm range? I obviously want a f2.8 (as there's nothing lower for zoom?). Which one would give the best image quality? Is sigma worth looking at here?
I care more about physical size - weight is a non issue for a difference of <1kg.
>>
>>4078255
>Diffraction
This is a thing light does when it passes through a small hole (the aperture in your lens), it is unavoidable and causes a fixed amount of blur. That fixed amount of blur appears larger in the final image if the sensor is smaller.

>Image quality
There's pretty much nothing in it between the sigma, tamron and Sony f2.8 standard zooms (2x to 7x range is a "standard" zoom, as opposed to wide or telephoto)

>Size
Tamron is the smallest out of the 3 by quite a considerable amount, fwiw, the 28-75 f2.8 available on Nikon z mount under the Nikon brand is just a rebrand of the older version of the tamron, just because it's smaller, lighter and more affordable than the others does not mean it's a worse performer.

And compared to crop, the tamron is 1cm longer than the Fuji lens, but 1cm skinnier, so actually has a smaller total volume.
>>
>>4078263
So if my desired focal length is ~18-56mm APS-C, a 2x to 7x mm on FF would effectively be the same?
I see that there's A7, A7R, A7S.
Which one "focuses" on photography? I'm not that into video.
>>
>>4078268
A7 range is affordable jack of all trades
A7s range is aimed at 4k video
A7r range is aimed at high resolution photography
A7c range is affordable and smaller jack of all trades
A1 range is high end, high resolution photography
A9 range is high end, sports\action photography

Image quality amongst ALL of them is functionally the same, as the biggest factor for image quality in a body is sensor size, it dictates the dynamic range and signal to noise ratio the system is capable of, and the resolution that is obtainable with camera lenses.
>>
>>4078268
You'd lose a bit of reach on the long end actually, 18-56mm is 27-84mm equivalent.
>>
>>4078277
There isn't an 18-55 f2.8 lens.

There's the f2.8-f4 from Fuji if you want some gak quality kit lens.
>>
>>4078273
The A7R IV is double the megapixels of the A7 IV, but 2 years older.
Is the image quality really comparable?
>>
>>4078280
I didn't mean that I had an 18-56mm lens. I meant that from my current experience with an APS-C camera, 18-50mm + 56mm covers most of what I want to shoot.
>>
>>4078281
Functionally identical, as I already said, pic related. Dynamic range is just the signal to noise ratio at max exposure, so dynamic range is an objective measure of quality of any digital signal, be it cameras, audio equipment or whatever.

>>4078283
A good quality standard zoom will be fine for your needs
>>
>>4078284
>pic
No idea what I'm looking at
>functionality identical
OK what about real life situations? If I were to take a picture of somebody's face at 2 meters would both cameras (A7IV and A7RIV) allow me to see the same amount of detail on say the pores (something small) on their face?
>A good quality standard zoom will be fine for your needs
And you say the Tamron and Sigma are both equivalent in image quality?
>>
>>4078285
>No idea what I'm looking at
An objective measure of image quality, the axes represent iso and how many stops of dynamic range can be identified.

>Which is best for seeing pores

If you have a good enough, and a fast enough lens, then the R might have slightly better fine detail at 100% crop. But the best image quality comes from cropping as little as possible, if you want a photo of pores use a macro lens that allows you to fill the frame with these pores, instead of throwing away 95% of your image to digitally zoom in on an image.

Even a 4k screen is only 8mp, so both cameras are going to be downsampled to 8mp MAX when viewed by others.
>>
>>4078289
Are there any websites other than DPReview's studio comparison tool that would let me see the difference between the A7IV's 33MP and A7RIV's 61MP?
>>
>>4078285
>No idea what I'm looking at
he's posting some dynamic range autism, but those graphs are highly deceiving because of the noise floor they use to define SNR. That's why he avoids the studio shot comparisons from DPReview. He's trying to get you to buy a Sony because he's a massive fanboy, that's all there's to it. It's a guy who's been posting here since at least 2015. If you say something he doesn't like (for example that the Lumix S5 destroys every Sony offering out there in low light for less money with better ergo) and then you post a pic he thinks you took he'll try to dox you, it's what he does.
>OK what about real life situations? If I were to take a picture of somebody's face at 2 meters would both cameras (A7IV and A7RIV) allow me to see the same amount of detail on say the pores (something small) on their face?
You'd see a bit less detail but the difference isn't that big. 34MP vs 60MP is area resolution. 9504 x 6336 px vs 7008 x 4672 px isn't anything to lose sleep over.
>And you say the Tamron and Sigma are both equivalent in image quality?
Pretty much all f/2.8 zooms in the market are comparable.

Realistically if you move to full frame you'll just be a few thousand bucks poorer and about as dissatisfied, what you need to upgrade is your technique at the moment. To combat the grain, try shooting RAW and then processing with some suitable software. DxO DeepPrime is the best I've witnessed.

I'm not saying "gear doesn't matter" but in this case gear won't make the difference you're trying to get. And if you want FF low light performance on APS-C, you can simply use an adapted lens with a speedbooster.
Look at this, from GH5S with its tiny sensor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8provfEzs8
Video is usually shot at 1/50s for 24fps because going lower means getting blurry footage and going higher makes it choppy, so for video low light is critical.
>>
>>4078284
>Functionally identical
lolno
>>4078285
>If I were to take a picture of somebody's face at 2 meters would both cameras (A7IV and A7RIV) allow me to see the same amount of detail on say the pores (something small) on their face?
a7rIV 100%
for "detail" there's a lot of factors that come into play, and resolution is a pretty major one
>>4078289 is right in that output matters greatly (the detail difference is more for large prints / pixel peeping and not as noticeable at typical output sizes), but if we're factoring in output, the advantages of FF as a whole are less noticeable too, see >>4078025 and tell me which was 36mp FF and which is 24mp APS-C
>>
>>4078292
>>4078309
Well the studio shot comparisons on DPReview show a lot more fine detail in the R IV vs the regular IV. But I don't like how the A7R IV is 3 years old at this point... Is 60MP practical? Would I really need it?
>see >>4078025
The ones on the right look kinda sharper to me?
>>
>>4078309
>Lol no
Explain why they aren't equal for image quality, when they're signal to noise is practically identical. Also explain how SNR isn't a measure of quality.

>>4078292
>Just use a speedbooster
Ahh yes, spend $650 on a 200g chunk of metal that makes your body larger than any full frame mirrorless so you can use EF mount lenses that are outdated and shit with extra aberrations and worse autofocus.

Lmao, you give yourself away too easily Colin.
>>
>>4078313
>Do I need 60mp
Not at all, as already explained you probably won't ever need more than 8mp. Even just 12mp is plenty for a super high quality A3 print.
Hell, even the a7III has functionally identical image quality to the a7iv or a7riv for you. Sony have been scraping the ceiling of the theoretical limit of CMOS camera sensor image quality since like 2012, since then it's mainly been improvements in autofocus quality and burst speed.
>>
File: file.png (17 KB, 759x486)
17 KB
17 KB PNG
Also this probably sounds like autism but
If I were to get a A7 IV and shoot in crop mode using my current APS-C lenses, that means the light will only be focused on PART of the sensor right?
Would this result in more wear and tear on the center part of the image sensor in the sense that if I were to shoot crop only for 1 year and switch to FF lenses my pictures would come out "worse" in the center?
>>4078318
I can notice a difference in image quality between A6400 JPEGs at full res and JPEGs shrunken by 50% via Irfanview to save space.
>>
File: PSX_20220617_204532.jpg (1.08 MB, 1500x1001)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB JPG
Why did you buy an f2.4 lens for shooting in low light?

An F1.4 prime would give you nearly two more stops.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeFUJIFILM
Camera ModelX-Pro3
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Express (Android)
Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)60 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2022:06:17 20:45:40
Exposure Time1/120 sec
F-Numberf/1.0
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating12800
Lens Aperturef/1.0
Brightness-4.2 EV
Exposure Bias0.7 EV
Metering ModeCenter Weighted Average
Light SourceDaylight
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length40.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
RenderingNormal
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceManual
Scene Capture TypeStandard
SharpnessSoft
Subject Distance RangeUnknown
>>
>>4078321
Nah, your sensor doesn't degrade like that, you're all good dude
>I can see a difference
At a resolution scaled to your screen, or at 100% crop?
Remember when displaying photos you want to resample them to the size you expect them to be viewed at. That means just 1000px on the vertical edge so it can be seen in full on a 1080p screen. People want to view photography, not do a pixel inspection. And if you leave it to in browser resizing, they will look very shit.
>>
>>4078313
according to the other guy, real pictures don't count, only test charts
>The ones on the right look kinda sharper to me?
depends which reference, not all on the same side, but thank you for proving the point
i have aps-c + ff + gfx, can do lots more similar comparisons if you want
>>4078314
is SNR 100% the only thing that matters for "image quality"?

>>4078321
no more wear and tear on camera or lens for doing that
if you're getting an a7IV and shooting in crop, you'll get worse IQ than your a6400
you'd be upgrading for all the other stuff (better body, dual slots, larger viewfinder), etc
>>
File: identical.png (518 KB, 568x562)
518 KB
518 KB PNG
>>4078321
i'd be weary of taking advice from someone that thinks these are "functionally identical"
to the extent that they are "identical", APS-C would similarly look identical
>>
File: oops.png (470 KB, 575x556)
470 KB
470 KB PNG
>>4078337
oops
>>
>>4078336
Top right looks better to me
Middle left
Bottom right
As someone who owns both FF and APS-C, how do you decide on when to use which? I really don't want to sell my APS-C setup as I'd feel salty for losing money on the sale, but I wouldn't want to keep it in my closet for the rest of my life either. It's impractical for me to carry both as I fly frequently.
>>4078338
I can't tell a difference between RIV/IV/A1, but the 7C looks more blurry
>>
>>4078340
FF I honestly mostly use when I want more bokeh than f1.4 + APS-C can provide. Anything short of that, it's easy enough to get the same look out of APS-C (those samples were FF@f2-2.8 and APS-C @f1.4-f2. for reference). It's not a big deal for me, my clients, or lots of working pro's I'd be happy to link. The whole FF vs APS-C is like arguing over a car that goes 100mph vs 130mph, when 99% of the time, I just need something to drive 30-60mph. So I opt for the "cars" I like driving most, which just happens to be APS-C.
When I care a lot about resolution (I do make large prints), I bring out the GFX (but the X-H2 will probably make that less often now). I basically default to X and go to GFX for resolution, or FF for f1.2-f1.4 bokeh.
>>
How does the Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0 - f/2.8 compare to the standard zoom f2.8s (in terms of image quality)?
>>4078346
So which ones were FF and which ones were APSC?
>>
>>4076098
>>4076101
If you're shooting indoors, what would you ever want a sharp shutter speed for? set it to 1/60, that's quite tolerable for poses and stills unless you're taking candid pictures, blow the aperture to maximum, ISO should get 400 tops and your picture will be fine.
>>
>>4078314
>Ahh yes, spend $650 on a 200g chunk of metal that makes your body larger than any full frame mirrorless so you can use EF mount lenses that are outdated and shit with extra aberrations and worse autofocus.
If he later wants to get a full frame camera he can get a Canon and call it a day :^)
>>
>>4078559
He had subject blur at 1/80s
>>
File: file.png (222 KB, 647x516)
222 KB
222 KB PNG
OP here
I've thought about it over the weekend and I am strongly considering an "upgrade" to full frame
It's not for my low light problems - that was largely "fixed" by using a f1.4 lens and you guys telling me my expectations were simply impossible.
My original reason for going APS-C was due to the physical size, but if this picture is to scale, I think the larger setup is still practical for me as it should fit in my current bag. 900g of weight difference isn't a huge deal to me and if it does become an issue I'll spend more time at the gym.
If both APS-C and FF work for me from a physical size perspective, I see no reason to not go FF.
An A7IV + Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art will cost me $3100 USD (new, after taxes/fees) in my country. With this budget should I consider any other lenses? I really want to stick to Sony
>>
>>4078698
I'd take the tamron 28-75 G2 over the sigma 24-70 all day every day.
>>
>>4078722
any reason why?
>>
>>4078698
Sounds super reasonable! It's a "better" camera in a lot of other ways too. I prefer primes in general for smaller size, larger aperture aperture, etc, but they lack that same level of versatility, and I'd be a lot less keen if I was only working with camera.
>>
>>4078698
just lol, the A7 setup is about twice as big
>>
>>4078849
nearly twice the length, and over twice the weight (1.5lb to over 3.3 lb)
>>
File: lmap.png (147 KB, 366x516)
147 KB
147 KB PNG
>>4078852
Also in terms of footprint
>>
>>4078698
your gearlust has made you dizzy, and you're going to leave it at home, just like you're leaving your apsc at home
>>
>>4078849
>>4078852
The A7IV setup SHOULD fit in my current camera bag, which fits into my current backpack. I don't think the extra weight will be an issue.
>>
>>4078897
Famous last words
>>
>>4078912
Do you really think it's that bad of an idea?
I look back on my previous travels and feel regret that I didn't have a camera to take pictures.
I don't want to look back on my future travels and feel regret that I only had an APS-C.
If it fits into my bag, the physical size is not an issue. The extra 900g of weight is essentially two water bottles and I've traveled with this weight before
>>
File: Primer.png (903 KB, 2574x1730)
903 KB
903 KB PNG
Repeat this line in your head or out loud while visualising it

"My aura is altering all aspects of my being to emit Infinity to the power of Infinity repeated forever -% (negative percent) energies into the world, the nature of these energies is opposed to globohomo/new world order/anti-white agendas and passive toward pure evil and it's agents."

Alternatively, for the brave:

"My aura is altering all aspects of my being to emit Infinity to the power of Infinity repeated forever -% (negative percent) energies into the world, the nature of these energies is anti-pure evil."

Expect the worst and hope for the best if you choose the second line. The purely evil are indeed purely evil (and almost always racially demonic), and death is apparently an illusion.

If it doesn't work, try using just Infinite -% energies instead of the exponent thing.

If you are affiliated with globohomo or any anti-white or even an anti-jewish (I am a jew) agenda you are choosing to put yourself at risk of hell by using this against us or me.

Repeat this mantra:
"Empower me.
I am becoming more powerful.
The rate that I passively gain Bio-Electricity is improving."

Imagine Bio-Electricity as a vitalizing force coursing through your body. This will make you immortal.

We would also appreciate the following alternative wording(s):
"The nature of these energies is in/to support (of) the forces of Good on Earth in a general sense."
"The nature of these energies is to assist the forces of Good on Earth in the recruitment of key demographics."
"The nature of these energies is to procure a paranormal escape route for the originator of this information." (I am extremely powerful, I need to survive)
"The nature of these energies is to twist time to favour our/my cause."

If you took the jab, at the first sign of trouble, change the nature of the energies to heal you and protect you from any dangerous biological or robotic elements in the vaccine and focus on obtaining more bioelectricity.
>>
File: GettyImages-182644006.jpg (133 KB, 1100x650)
133 KB
133 KB JPG
>>4078918
>I don't want to look back on my future travels and feel regret that I only had an APS-C.
kek, you need more?
some of the best pictures in the story of digital photography were taken on APS-C cameras

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
>>
>>4078931
Yeah I probably have autism or some mental illness but after seeing a ton of image quality comparisons I can't shake the idea that FF has better quality than APS-C
I'm not throwing out or selling my APS-C gear so I'll still have that if FF doesn't work out.
Is there any other reason not to "upgrade"?
>>
>>4078934
The difference is not only negligible but also means you'll be spending your photo budget on the wrong pieces of kit to take your photos to the next level. Right now your camera isn't limiting you.
Lenses>bodies. Dropping 3k on glass would make a lot more difference to you than 3k on a body. And even then it wouldn't be the smartest choice still. Refine your technique and incorporate off-camera stuff. A wireless flash system, for example, would make a huge difference to your output. It opens up so many possibilities. Filters too.
You'll find yourself stopping down your FF camera to get all you want in focus. It gets pretty annoying.
>>
>>4078939
no plans to buy things like flash/gimbals because I hate vloggers/influencers with a passion and having those things makes you look like one
at most I'll get a tripod but that's it
Let me put it this way. Would the A7 IV + Sigma 24-70 be a good buy if I didn't already have APS-C gear (assuming I rented or borrowed a friend's gear)?
I don't mind having my APS-C purchase server as a moderately priced lesson of "do more research before you buy" but in the end I can still use it if I want or even give it to my mom or sister
>>
>>4078950
>flash
>vlogging
lol dude are you for real? flashes are only good for stills
>tripod
that's good, very good
> Would the A7 IV + Sigma 24-70 be a good buy if I didn't already have APS-C gear (assuming I rented or borrowed a friend's gear)?
You could get the S5 and the same lens for $800 less and get better low light performance, better colors, better ergonomics and a bunch of stuff but the Sony wouldn't be intrinsically bad. It's just that L-mount is superior in every way.
>>
>>4078931
Oh come on, if you compare Cunningham's film (full frame) work to his much later digital APS-C work there is a distinct drop in quality.
>>
>>4078950
>Would the A7 IV + Sigma 24-70 be a good buy if I didn't already have APS-C gear (assuming I rented or borrowed a friend's gear)?
It's a solid setup, but not quite how I would spend that kind of budget, even if I had to stick with Sony.
Since you're being so autistic about IQ, I would consider the a7rIII which would offer you similar noise gains, but also give you more detail and/or cropping capability with 42mp, and happens to also be $300 cheaper.
I would also consider the a7III, which is very similar in IQ to the IV, and use the $700 savings towards another lens. Lenses are way more important than cameras. Going even further, a $900 a7II is still a hell of a deal, and I'd take that + $1.6k towards lenses 100% of the time.
I loathe midrange zooms, so would always pick a pair or trio of primes over something like a 24-70.

>I don't mind having my APS-C purchase server as a moderately priced lesson of "do more research before you buy"
Keep in mind, your using the 56 f1.4 on APS-C is already better in terms of noise and shallow DoF, than you'll be getting with the a7IV + 24-70. It's an upgrade over a6400 + f2.8 zoom for sure, but still less than the difference you got switching to that f1.4. For what it's worth, there are plenty of working professionals, that still use APS-C.
>>
>>4078967
>A7RIII
in my country a new A7RIII is about $100 more expensive than the A7IV
I'm also not a fan of paying so much for tech that is 5 years old....
A7IV is only $260 more than the A7III here.
>>
>>4078972
>in my country a new A7rIII is about $100 more expensive than the A7IV
That's odd, I see listings for the older a7r III at higher pricing, but the updated a7r IIIA is $300 cheaper than a7IV in my region (US).
>I'm also not a fan of paying so much for tech that is 5 years old....
Wow, you're even more retarded than I thought based on everything else. If you're that averse to spending money (on "old" gear), you should be equally averse to spending $3500k on a setup that will only yield slightly better images in very specific circumstances, and virtually indistinguishable in most other situations. Best of luck taking shitty photos, done with advice
>>
>>4078967
Adding onto this guy's last point, people pay for photos I took with a micro four thirds cam, so don't be an autistic little bitch about image quality
>>
>>4076372
>Lightroom (best NR)
Dxo.
>>
>>4076135
Yeah, or he can make pixel art by resizing his pictures to 15x10. Noise would be non existent.
Retard.
>>
>>4076166
>some photos are of people so I'd rather not post
t. a full frame user making a thread to shit on small dick sensors.
How pathetic.
>>
>>4078986
I posted pictures here: >>4076994
>>
test test
>>
File: file.png (146 KB, 400x388)
146 KB
146 KB PNG
OK I'm just going to come clean
One of the reasons I want to upgrade is because I rarely see people out in the "real world" with APS-C cameras (in my country at least). The people I've seen that take photos in public, in touristy areas, at museums, events, etc either use their phone or some FF setup (I've seen both small and extremely large FF setups). Literally a third of the people I see WITH APS-C cameras just bought their camera to have it on them (as if it were some fashion accessory), they all take photos with their phones.
Obviously my main reason to go FF is image quality and future-proofing but I'd be lying if I said this wasn't a very motivating factor.
You can go ahead and call me a retard or whatever but if you guys have any other purchase advice that pertains to the A7IV and a standard zoom lens (that isn't hurr durr no need to upgrade) I'd greatly appreciate it.
>>
>>4079611
investments are futureproof. go invest
>>
>>4079611
at least you're honest
i would work on your insecurity though
>>
>>4079611
That's pathetic, OP.
I say this as someone who "upgraded" to full frame from APS-C because I needed it (much cheaper to go wide).
>>
>>4079611
Fool frame wont solve any of your problems, it will just make your pics more wide (and less high res in the center if you go with the same megapixel number), and full frame will also expose blurry edges of crappy lenses a lot more
>>
>>4079621
>>4079707
>>4079718
>>4079735
My A7IV and 24-70 art arrived.
This setup fits in my current bag, but I need to take off the strap and reverse the lens hood. Minor inconvenience but manageable.
It is noticeably heavier when I hold it by hand but in the bag or over my shoulder seems manageable. I will most likely need to go to the gym more.
I will try to take photos sometime this week
If I still don't like my photos I will just come to the conclusion that I am a retard when it comes to photography
Thank you all for putting up with me for the past 2 weeks.
>>
>>4080350
>If I still don't like my photos I will just come to the conclusion that I am a retard when it comes to photography
lol
they will probably suck if the APS-C ones already sucked
image quality matters but not at the APS-C vs full frame level, it's more about not getting something distractingly bad
>>
>>4080350
Wait, do you think that the quality/popularity of your photos comes down to the gear used?

lmfao.

you absolute fucking clown.

Absolutely everyone has a perfectly competent camera on them at all times, they use them to take photos all day, every day, there has probably never, ever been any creative endeavor that has had such widespread popularity as photography during the smartphone era and because of this there has never been a creative pursuit so reliant on practice as opposed to relying on gear.

Do you think the photos that had too much noise before would actually be good photos with less noise? would YOU look at them twice on instagram if someone else had posted them?

And I'm very surprised you went with the sigma, it's a giant ass piece of shit, I think I saw multiple people encouraging you to get the tamron and no-one suggesting the sigma, yet here you are with the sigma. lmfao, i can't.
>>
>>4080368
If an APS-C 30mm f1.4 and FF 45mm (1.5x?) f1.4 shot the same picture in the same lighting condition wouldn't the FF in theory be better in every way? (assuming you didn't care about price/weight/size)
>>4080383
>popularity
When did I ever bring up sharing my photos? I only care about what I think of my photos.
>Do you think the photos that had too much noise before would actually be good photos with less noise?
Yes.
>instagram
I'm biologically male, I don't use Instagram to post photos.
>>4080383
Nobody ever said WHY the Tamron was better. I did a bunch of Googling and from what I saw the general consensus was the Sigma is sharper and has a more useful focal range.
>>
>>4080350
>need to go to the gym more.
jesus christ
>>
>>4080401
That was a joke.
Like I said this FF setup is a lot heavier in the hand but in my bag or over my shoulder honestly feels fine. I obviously haven't gone outside to actually shoot with it yet but I think it'll be fine in terms of weight.
>>
>>4080399
For the same ISO, APS-C would look a little nosier, but at lower ISO's it may not even be noticeably different.
Contrary to popular belief, you sometimes can have too shallow of a depth of field. If f1.4 is too shallow on FF, then stopping down to f2 makes them essentially the same (in field of view, DoF, and apparent noise). See >>4078025
Depending on the models compared, the APS-C could even offer greater dynamic range / greater ability to push shadows cleanly in post (usually doesn't though). Resolution and lens impact detail more-so than sensor size, so fine detail could go either way.
For the actual aesthetic of the photo, the lens is far more important. I could give you sample of a dozen ~50mm equiv lenses and they'd all give a very different look.
If you like f1.4 primes and f2.8 zooms wide open, then FF is a bit easier to get that look. Anything short of that, you can easily do with APS-C.
>>
>>4079611
>I rarely see people out in the "real world" with APS-C cameras ... the people I've seen that take photos in public use some FF setup
>I'd be lying if I said this wasn't a very motivating factor
>>4080399
>I'm biologically male
>>
>>4080399
>If an APS-C 30mm f1.4 and FF 45mm (1.5x?) f1.4 shot the same picture in the same lighting condition wouldn't the FF in theory be better in every way? (assuming you didn't care about price/weight/size)
Depends. If you were aiming to get the DoF of a 45mm f/1.4 lens it would be better, as the other would be like shooting at f/2. But if your desired DoF is f/2 or lower, the advantage of FF is gone. Because when you stop down the lens to f/2, you also have to raise the ISO by one stop (tecnically by a 2.25x factor, but let's not split hairs here). You'll be collecting the same amount of light in both. Depending on how good the lens on each is, you may well get a better image on the APS-C camera. I was really pissed off with my full frame when I first got it and realized I needed to do some shots at f/8 indoors to get everything I wanted in focus. The closer you are to the subject the worse this becomes. I'm talking 2-3 feet distances and the like. In the end, getting more light is the key to everything.
>>
>>4080446
Did you seriously realized photography works with light? Holy shit, you might be a genius!
>>
>>4080350
fake and gay fuck off
>>
>>4080516
Nice strawman faglord
>>
>>4076136
just try it, you might like it
>>
File: DSC02292 (1).jpg (2.3 MB, 1366x2048)
2.3 MB
2.3 MB JPG
idk bro just embrace the grain when it's unavoidable, 99% people aren't gonna be pixel peeping your shit and it's not like your gonna be selling prints anyway.

pic rel

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeSONY
Camera ModelILCE-6000
Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 7.5.1 (Android)
Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)525 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created2022:09:17 07:53:03
Exposure Time1/800 sec
F-Numberf/6.3
Exposure ProgramManual
ISO Speed Rating4000
Lens Aperturef/6.3
Brightness2.3 EV
Exposure Bias0 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash
Focal Length350.00 mm
>>
If you have led lighting indoors that’s why. Traditional incandescent lighting just emits light, similar to the sun where led lighting pulses so many times a second. Your eyes don’t see it, but for a camera that can shoot at a 1000th of a second it makes a difference. I had the same problem trying to take pictures of pets indoors and in our brightly lit living room they looked grainy and blurry. When I swapped out the lights inside everything was fine.
>>
Have you try to shoot in raw, you can fix them in postproduction but if they are too dark, there's almos nothing to do but rise the dark accepting the digital noise that brings within



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.