I swear this isn't a troll postIf Sony makes everybodys' sensors why bother buying a non Sony camera if you're still going to get a Sony sensor?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution100 dpiVertical Resolution100 dpiImage Width827Image Height1169
There is more to a camera than a sensor
for the """soul"""
>>4082504Wouldn't the same sensor effectively take the same pictures?
>>4082515theres more to a camera than just the sensor
>>4082500The same piece of silicon can perform very differently depending on what you put around it. This is very true for computers and it's true for cameras too.
>>4082516>>4082504Lol, mad guy mad, take a chill pill Colin and hold this L >>4082500Absolutely correct, but with one provision, you need to make neutral colour profiles using an xrite color passport or similar calibration tool. The different brands put their own spin on colour (even in the raw output), with Sony being the most true to life but still not great.
>>4082519>sony being true to lifelmao
>>4082523Yes, that's why most people hate their colors. Because reality is always disappointing.
>>4082515The sensor itself captures photons and collects them. How it is read out and how it is converted into a digital signal then assembled into an image depends on electronics outside of the sensor.Ever heard of an "image processor"?
>>4082519>with Sony being the most true to lifeThis is true but not how you think. For example you have no idea what "true to life" means, to understand it you need higher education.
>>4082519>>4082543>You don't understand, Sony's colours are bad on purpose!This is beyond cope. This is advanced cope.
>>4082500Lenses. What lens do you want? Is it available on x platform? How does it compare to lenses on other platforms? Pricing of said lenses? Features and performance - AF in certain situations, tracking, do you care about video features? Do you want third party lens makers on your platform (lel canon). >sony colour badMeme’s
>>4082546>>4082523>>4082558Sorry, I should have said, Sony are objectively the most accurate for colour when measured
>>4082565This meme has to stop.
>>4082545Still, wouldn't the sensor be the single most important part? You can only process data in so many different ways before your image becomes "artificial" like how phones do it>>4082563Do lenses across platforms differ that much?
>>4082568>I hate objective data >:(
>>4082563Meme's feme and seme
>>4082500Because a camera is more than a sensor you shitposting weebcuck. Also ILC Canons don't use Sony sensors. Sony cameras are some of the most poorly designed in terms of UX and ergonomics, second only to Fuji.>>4082515No, you can even see differences in RAW files from the K-1 and K-1 II. Even the noise changes.>>4082519Not everyone is colorblind like you Moop. It's true that Sony is the most accurate but that's not a good thing outside of the laboratory.>>4082523He's right. Which is why it's so dull. There's a reason Velvia is so beloved, and it's not accuracy. It's the punchy color.>>4082543Bingo.>>4082546No, to understand it he'd need trichromatic vision. The dude can't tell fresh meat from spoiled using his eyes, give him a break.>>4082558They are accurate, that's all.>>4082568it's the truth though >>4082570because there's more to it than the sensor. The sensor itself is colorblind, what you see is a chroma demosaicing (or stacking if 3CCD/3MOS/Foveon).>>4082587you're a terrible troll Moop
>>4082600Just because your sensor is single use doesn't make it special
>>4082601You're missing the point, my dude. Even with film there was a variety of camera makers, despite them all using the same film.
>>4082500They only manufacture sensors FOR OTHERS, it’s not actually Sony designed and engineered sensors that are used in other manufacturers cameras - it’s called outsourcing and everyone does it, from Coca Cola, Gucci, Ralph Lauren, Mercedes, BMW, Samsung and Goodyear, all the way to Okuma, Bosch, IBM, GM and everyone else - it’s not just camera manufacturers - everyone outsources XYZ parts or pieces of products to other factories, it’s way more cost effective, especially the more you produce/sell.E.GYou invent, engineer and design a graphics card but you don’t want to spend dozens of millions on buying specific CNC machines, on tooling and materials, so you make a contract with Nvidia, give them “blueprints” and have NVidia manufacture the GPUs for you. That’s called Outsourcing. Those GPUs are still made by your quality standards, your materials of choice, your design, your everything but they are manufactured in Nvidia factories.Same goes for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Panasonic, Leica… Whoever… It’s not actually Sonys own sensor in your Nikon Z6ll or Canon R6 or whatever, it’s a Nikon/Canon sensor that has been only manufactured by Sony, not made and engineered by Sony.
>>4082500itt: retards unable to differentiate between sony semiconductor and sony consumer electronics
>>4082608Canon system cameras have Canon manufactured sensors. Plenty of the other brands just buy Sony-specced sensors.>>4082609This is also true.
>>4082608Also, to add to the retarded sensor vs image quality comment above, your lens has more impact on image quality than your cameras image sensor. How ypur lens renders light onto the sensor matters WAY more than what sensor the light is being projected on. Most if not all 2015, 2016 and younger lenses can’t even project dimensionality, tonality or micro contrast right, let alone anything else. We’re basically living in an era where the only quality lens/camera manufacturers left are Voigtlander, Zeiss, Hasselblad, PhaseOne and retardedly overpriced Leica.That’s basically it… So if you want your portraits to have character, to have dimensionality and life to them, you basically have to go with either shitty Sony E cameras or pull a mortgage off just to afford a MF Hassie/PhaseOne set pf gear, just so you can natively have access to lenses that render light normally…
>>4082612>where the only quality lens/camera manufacturers left are VoigtlanderVoigtlander is only a brand name these days, those lenses are made by Cosina
>>4082617Cope how exactly?! Wtf did I say thats not accurate?!>>4082618They just outsource manufacturing because it’s cheaper. Their lenses are still engineered and designed by themselves. The “new” 35mm f2 APO ASPH for the E mount, renders better than any of the Leicas $10,000-15,000 Sumilux lenses or the legendary Hasselblad-Zeiss 80mm CF.
>>4082626>Cope how exactly?! Wtf did I say thats not accurate?!>dimensionality, tonality or micro contrast It's all pseudoscience shit, you're basically the audiophile of photography. Meaningless mumbo-jumbo.
>>4082626>They wrote the specs on a paper, that means they made itLmao
>>4082599>No you don't want accurate colour >:(This hit of copium is insane colin
>>4082612>Zeiss, voigtlander, p1, habbelsadYou mean cosina, cosina, mamiya, nittohLmfao, dumbass
>>4082670It's not copium, I'll take a camera with punchy colors over a dull one any day. I currently shoot with an accurate one and miss my old one with its higher saturation.
>>4082683>I use jpegLolDid you mean to infantilize yourself?
>>4082898>implyingDifferent cameras have different color responses even applying the same calibration and color profile to their RAWs. Go look at some imatest results some time.
>>4082909Of course different cameras have different raw colour, that's the only thing that separates all the Sony sensor cameras you daft cunt.Hence why it's important to calibrate your colour using a colour chart.Stay in your lane lad, that's jpeg sooc shots with your camera on green mode.
>>4082918>he still doesn't understand>decides to be cocky instead
>>4082921>How dare you make me look stupid at my new hobby >:(Lmao, dumbass.
Kinda related question: are Sony and Canon only companies manufacturing sensors for digital cameras? And by digital cameras I mean DSLRs and mirrorless, I assume there's a plenty of companies capable of making smaller sensors that are found in phones, surveilance cams, etc.
>>4082936Pretty much yep.Sigma flirt with their foveon sensors from time to time, but still use Sony sensors.Sony absolutely dominate the mobile phone sensor market too, at least in the mid\high through to flagship phones, cheapie handsets use other brands alongside Sony.The reality of chip fabrication is that there's a serious issue with monopolies, but at the same time no one is prepared to invest the insane amounts of money required to actually be a competitor.Look at the cpu\gpu market, intel, apple, amd, Nvidia all actually use TSMC's services for making their chips. Samsung try to muscle in, but they lose money doing so as they don't have high enough pass rates on their wafers and can only get contracts by massively undercutting tsmc, but the only way they can improve their production is if they can keep running the machines all day long and improving them where problems arise.Sony will dominate the camera market until another chip manufacturer can make better products, in larger quantities, at lower cost. Which is nigh on impossible.
>>4082940Samsung uses their own image sensors right?
>>4082969Various phones use Samsung sensors too. Sony, Samsung and Omnivision (shit)
>>4082980Do you know if there are any websites that compare smartphone sensors?
Being the most capable of manufacturing sensors doesn't make them the best at making good cameras
Sony have no idea how to colour science. Other phone company can write their software and they are doing just fine. Sony's pro camera body have terrible colour/colour temperature consistency when compared across their own line-up. It's laughter material for anyone who doesn't use sony camera and have any kind of basic understanding with digital photography.
>>4082543Eh in anything but perfect lighting I've found Sony's colors underperform in some situations. Reality has had more preferable colors to me than what smartphone filtering does. I don't want DSLRs/MSLRS doing the same thing.
>>4082668>cosina does the manufacturing for XYZ companies so its cosina lensesNo you degenerate Rimac outsources his bodywork and CNC machining of his cars and batteries to a factory where my brother works, does that mean my brother made Nevera?!? No you fucking degenerate, just because someone outsources something doesn’t mean the company that did the manufacturing engineered the product and made it by their own standards with their own materials… Besides, both Zeiss and Voigtlander make their own glass for the lenses, cosina just does the metalwork and CNC machining for the lens frame, if youre gonna be arrogant at least do your research properly. Same goes for Hasselblad, Leica and PhaseOne..And same applies to “Sony sensors” in other cameras, which are not actually Sony sensors… Sony just provides manufacturing for other companies at a cheaper price than other factories plus they probably give some a nice business deal under the contract to everyone, which is why most end up choosing Sony to manufacture sensors for them.
>>4084373>Cosina only make the body, the glass is still made by zeiss/voigt>do your research >:(Gonna need a citation on that one champ.>Sony only manufacture themAnd you know what guidelines those companies use to design sensors for Sony to manufacture? that's right, Sony's. BSI doesn't exist because pentax came up with the idea and asked sony to do it, the important/difficult part was Sony creating the manufacturing equipment that can incorporate BSI.Saying "Sony didn't make it" is like saying Subway didn't make your sandwich because you asked them to put olives and sweetcorn in it. You're still limited to the ingredients that subway offer and prepare.
>>4082675>I don’t know how outsourcing worksLMFAO dumbassdo some more research degenerate. literally every big name company in the world, no exceptions, outsources manufacturing to either Japan, China, Taiwan, Germany or Thailand. Even Apple, Coca Cola, Walmart, Ford, Volkswagen, IBM, Nike, Gucci and a bunch of other big names, outsource manufacturing to China, Japan, Taiwan or wherever else - because it’s cheaper and more profitable! Look around your room, house or apartment, everything you see was probably outsourced to a 3rd party factory.That doesn’t mean it wasn’t manufactured, designed and engineered by the parent companies quality standards… >Sony used their CNC machines to grind, drill and shape plastic, glass and metal to make 5,000 camera sensors for the contracted order from Nikon, THAT MEANS NIKON USES SONY SENSORS!!!!!1!111!!!you absolute idiot
>>4084379the part numbers of the chips are the same bro
>>4082658Ah yes… of course, dimensional rendering of light onto the camera sensor is pseudo science…. How did i not know that… Sheesh, wish you told me that sooner… oh snap! Apochromatic glass elements and aspherical lens designs are also pseudoscience… they don’t actually do anything for the light rendering or image quality… daaaamn… i am sooooo dumb… damnnn, i should have asked you about that 15 years ago instead of learning directly from the sourceOh fuck!!! micro/macro contrast aka. Saturation aka. Tonality is also pseudoscience!!! Fucccckkk i wish I knew before that there are no tones to colors in the image, its just one single tone of a color per each object and shadow in the image!!!! Damn son wish you told me that years ago, before i started doing all that work with my Zeiss, Leica and Voigtlander glass after selling away all the shitty Sigma and Tamron glass I had… Damn!!!!! I FUCKED UP!!!degenerate…
>>4084379>i think camera sensors are made with CNC routersAh, you're thick, good job.
>>4084384It doesn't matterHis position is dumb as shitThe word itself says it Out-SourcingA source outside of the companyAnd yes, if the factory your brother works at made some parts for the nevera your brother made some parts for the nevera.
>>4084386I wasn't going to touch the "Just because my brother made X doesn't mean he made X"Lads off the perc
>>4084383You don't even know what you mean by microcontrast, I was obviously right. Enjoy your mumbo jumbo I guess.>all that work with my Zeiss, Leica and Voigtlander glass after selling away all the shitty Sigma and Tamron glass I had… Damn!!!!! I FUCKED UP!!!So you like the defects ("character") of those lenses but you need to come up with some bullshit justification, gotcha.
>>4084376My brother literally works in a well known CNC machine factory in Austria, they use only OKUMA machines and they manufacture shit for other companies via contract orders. They literally had contracts from companies like Rimac, Shimano, BMW, Leica and even government contracts from other countries for medical tools and equipment for hospitals! They literally send them blueprints and all the engineering and manufacturing details, everything from types of materials, dimensions, names and types of CNC tools that they should use to grind/drill/shape the individual part and so on… they literally have no guidelines and do everything by the legally classified standards, patents or whatever else of whichever company they have the contract order with and have received the order from. E.G my brother just did 640 pieces of lens mount framing knives for a CNC machine that cuts plastic Leica dental microscope lens frames and every worker there received 3 A4 papers with blueprints and written details of exactly how they should do whatever each worker was doing, all sent directly from Leica company themselves with an official stamp and they all had to follow Leica guidelines, Leica standards, use Leica approved materials, use Leica approved tools and whatever else was written on those papers, when manufacturing their product for them>pic related - from my brothers phoneSo don’t teach me about guidelines and manufacturing and outsourcingAnd the subway analogy is fucking inaccurate as hell… the accurate analogy would be YOU buying all the ingredients and then having subway assemble the sandwich for you — or YOU giving the exact ingredients list to subway and giving them instructions and explanations of which tools they are allowed to use and how they are allowed to use them, while making YOUR sandwich, using ingredients YOU allowed them to useThats a more accurate analogy[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width640Image Height480
>>4084391>my brother is a blue collar worker in some factorycutemy brother is a director at one of the worlds most prestigious prototyping companies, who often work as middlemen between european private companies and chinese manufacturing, foxconn have invited him over on extravagant business trips frequently.I know more than you.
>>4084390>APO glass that removes aberrations, defects and improves micro contrast is a defect!!!!!1!111!>Aspherical lens design that improves how distance of different objects in the image is rendered and helps render the same in a round and smooth manner aka. in a natural three dimensional manner instead of a flat and linear manner -yeah bro thats a defect!!!!>micro contrast that i can literally see with my own eyes, that gives colors that gradual, smooth and natural transition between the different tones of the same color or shadow or between transitions from one color into another, yeeeeeah that also doesn’t exist and is a defect if one lens does have it
>>4084394>an engineer and a programmer with 3 degrees in different physics fields, in charge of leading the factory, employed as a lead engineer and head of the entire manufacturing section of the building >blue collar workerDoubt your brother goes to business meetings and dinners with representatives of BMW, Leica, Rimac, Shimano, Essilor, Abott, J&J, Schmidt and others. Im not 100% sure but im pretty damn sure you have no fucking idea what youre talking about. Judging from the fact that youre arguing with me about something i have first hand experience in
>>4084391Literally "my uncle works at nintendo"-tier answer
>>4084376Even a broken clock is right twice a day and here we have moop being correct about something for once, wow. Must be that Jupiter is closer than it will be in a century.
>>4084395Sigma and Tamron are both infamous for being "clinical" with how corrected they are, precisely with APO and ASPH elements.
All of you faggots are missing the point that even if it was a "Sony(tm) sensor which gave you the same image, Sony knows jack shit how to use it properly.You as the end user also depend on the surrounding electronics, ergonomics, UX/UI, and choice of lenses.Acting like sensor is the only what matters is something a snoylet who looks at specs does.
>>4084431And that's why I always point out that fpL>a7RIV
>>4084407yeah no... as someone who is lucky enough to be good friends with a camera store owner im siding with the my brother works for rimac guy. i think i might be wrong by +/-20 but i believe that so far i have worked/shot with somewhere around 650 lenses, again, i may be wrong by +/-20 lenses but yeah, as well as with somewhere around 80 different camera bodies, all from Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji, Panasonic, Pentax, Olympus, Leica, Hasselblad, Minolta, Contax... You name it... and by far the best quality of an image, like actually drastically visible difference in image quality, i saw from using Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica and Hasselblad lenses over every other piece of glass i have ever used... ESPECIALLY Zeiss and Voigtlander! when he says sigma, tamron and others render flat images and with no micro contrast, i believe he refers to the way the lenses render separation, distance and shape of different things of different colors at different distances in the image. they render them flat as if they were layed out on a piece of paper, instead of separately and naturally as you would see them with your eyes or as if for example a Zeiss, a Leica or a Voigtlander lens would render it! that's what he probably means and i agree because the difference is just absolutely huge and its such an improvement over modern lenses that as he says render flat images (which by the way, micro contrast is indeed very, very real and very very noticeable, especially in images shot in sunrise/sunset or studio flash lighting AND even more so when you shoot B&W) and all of that, all of those characteristics are just as he said, thanks to apo glass, aspherical lens design, micro contrast and the way the glass reads light bouncing of differently spaced things and sends it to the cameras sensor. i've shot on hundreds of lenses and dozens of bodies and you only see such immense quality in the images shot on Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica or Hasselblad lenses.
>>4084439repostin thisI'm in the same camp, definitely notice a difference between my voigtlander glass and more typical modern lenses in rendering. See >>4081456 and >>4081514.Sometimes the "soul" of a lens, like Fuji's 35 f1.4, is just poor optical quality though (imo).
>>4084407bruh lmfao! clinical how?! sharpness, color and pixel peeping lens charts? sure! but none of that shit matters in an image. id take a sharp zeiss or leica image over shitma any day
>>4084407>with APO and ASPH elements.Uh... Wrong... While were at trash talking of Sigma and Tamron, I have something to add:Not a single Sigma or Tamron lens in existence, in both of their entire manufacturing history, has ever had an APO glass element or a real aspherical lens design. Not one lens. In addition to that, neither company makes decent aberration control coatings for their glass, let alone having actual apochromatic glass elements. To top that off, Sigma was always known for having absolutely terrible, flat rendering, regardless of the lens being ''clinically perfect'' or not, not a single lens they have ever made, displayed even the tiniest bit of proper color saturation - micro contrast rendition or dimensional rendering of objects. Not one, single lens.Speaking of Sigma, I still remember when my friend, who is a Leica dicksucker, thought that my lens was a defect lens when I borrowed him my 5DmkIV and my brand new Sigma 1.4/105. Took me 10 minutes of back and forth messaging, trying to figure out what he's talking about, before I realized, started laughing and told him that's just a Sigma lens. Yes, Sigma lenses are so bad that a person who shoots Leica thought I got a defect lens... Let that sink in.Tamron does not have dimensional rendering either but at least some of their lenses manage to render in SOME micro contrast onto the image sensor, whereas Sigma lenses are just optically garbage all around, which is ironic, because their tip-top lens lineup is called; ''Art.''>pic not related - just a bonus eye candy of proper dimensional rendering (shot with Leica M11 + Summilux 35mm APO ASPH)[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4084518>adding just one more eye candy example of proper dimensional rendering (and micro contrast) shot with Leica SL2 + Summilux 50mm APO ASPH[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4084518>>4084519>leica user>pictures of peoples backs>actually bought an SL2>shits on other brandssounds about right
>>4084527Not even a Leica user. I shoot with H5D (and an a7IV) thanks for asking.Images are just example snapshots of how a good lens renders dimensionality and tonality.I don't own an SL2.I shit on terrible products, yes, whoever they might be made by.
>>4084535>I shoot with H5D (and an a7IV)proof?
>>4084518dude the fucking onion rings are a result of ASPH elements
>>4084580You will never be a real APO lens
>>4084580I shot with a Nikon version of this lens. It's an awful lens and the three supposed APO (or in Sigmas terms; SLD) glass elements are not actual APO elements, it's just normal glass coated with their atrocious excuse of an APO coating just so they can have that ''APO'' marketing.And then there's that one single glass element which I believe is the first mount side element that is supposed to be the aspherical one but is actually just a terrible mimic of the real thing that distorts out of focus objects like there's no tomorrow. They had two more lenses like that, which were even worse... Typical Sigma false-advertising. Not a single Sigma lens has actual APO glass or aspherical lens design, still to this date.(Which can be seen from the images taken with their lenses aka. disgusting flat rendering and tonality.)>>4084576False. That depends on how the aspherical element was manufactured, most newer lenses with aspherical elements have that effect reduced by 80-90% - if not entirely. Plus, who even cares about onion rings?! I do portraiture, editorials, glam and boudoir for over a decade now, both studio work and out in the wild and I have yet to experience a composition where I have to worry about onion rings... 12-13 years now and going strong, still didn't have to worry about that nonsense once.
>>4084594>I do portraiture, editorials, glam and boudoir for over a decade now, both studio work and out in the wildand yet you had to post someone else's mediocre photos to make your pointworst kind of nophoto
>>4084595>just dox urself to make a point broweak b8
>>4084595>because i 100% want to have my work exposed and associated with 4chan, risking my entire social status and career just to prove a point to a basement dweller on an internet image board
>>4084597>>4084598you have 0 pictures that prove your points without identifying info? sounds a lot like bullshit to mei've posted here for nearly 15 years, trip occasionally, met up irl through here, posted client work, posted personal work, posted obvious locations of where i shoot, even posted stuff that could be reversed to my main site, no one's doxxed meguess nophotos gotta nophoto
>>4084601Yeah you're larping
>>4084604not at all, could probably link at least 2 dozen of my images on the board now if you want to give it a shotany working photog absolutely has shots that wouldn't be do anything dox-wiseonly thing i've had come of /p/ irl is meeting 5hoe about a decade agoit's just a convenient excuse for people like >>4084594 to larp and be a nophoto
>>4084518Dude's not wrong about Sigmas. Rendering is atrocious. I still own my f1.4 for two reasons, it is f1.4, and as a reminder of how flat it is. It really is uncanny.
>>4084609To add to that, I'm certain that low contrast look of their lenses is completely intentional, it is their 'look', and it's not necessary bad for every situation.
>>4084606You started posting in May this year, larping faggot.
>>4084634started this trip in may, had another trip ~10 years ago, mostly post without tripmay be a faggot, but not larping
>>4084601Do you honestly expect someone like me, to upload own work on a website that can ruin names just by some rando using it irl in the same sentence as ''4chan.'' Yeah I don't think so buddy... Not only that but all of my work is client related, I shoot people, it would probably take a 5 year old child less than 2 minutes to link these people to me, then find my online profiles, my instagram and whatever else... Then it's just a matter of time until someone comments or in any way, shape or form mentions 4chan... Yeah, no thanks.If you don't get that... Then it's like >>4084604 said; Keep larping.
>muh cancel cultureYou don't even own a camera
>>4084609The only time you might actually prefer the disgusting flat rendering is if you are one of the 0.001% of photographers who for whatever reason do commercial abstract work (e.g what Paloma Rincon does) for everything else and especially for portraiture, editorials or just about any kind of environmental shots, landscapes or anything else that has a lot of detail, a lens that has heavenly dimensional rendering and smooth as butter micro contrast will always produce way more pleasing and way more natural looking images that don't just look like flat, 2D cut outs of objects thrown onto a piece of cardboard to form an image.>pic related - shot on SL2 and 100mm Elmarit APO Macro[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4084771Bruh just shoot Nikon Z-mount and you can get better results and have auto focus.
>>4084772Bread on camera with a timestamp or shut the fuck up forever
>>4084773im not the anon you responded to but i switched to sony from having z6ii and z7ii just because of native ZA, zeiss and voigtlander lensesgetting 10000 times better images now straight out of camera, like, im talking such better image quality that i can't even replicate the amazing rendering in post (CO, LRC, PS)pic related is a snapshot i took of my brother to test micro contrast/saturation and zeiss rendering taken with an a7IV and 55mm 1.8 ZA - just look at that god damn zeiss rendering... so good...[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4084784Yes[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelE-M10MarkIVCamera SoftwareVersion 1.1Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2022:09:13 18:53:20Exposure Time5 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1536RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoDigital Zoom Ratio2Scene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4084784>i dont know what saturation is
>>4084794how is that bait? the fuck? go learn what saturation is>pic related[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4084798 that's intensity, dipshit saturation is how much a color deviates from neutral
>>4084765keep coping nophotodozen of my images on the board now, including some client workpretty crazy you have 0 non-client photos either after 12-13 years shooting, but makes sense for the larping
>>4084801>being this uneducatedok let me step into this conversation, you can shut the fuck up, the guy is right.ok so you have:1. HUE, 2. SATURATION, 3. TONAL VALUE.in photography, saturation refers to intensity of gradual shading of one hue aka. it quite literally refers to the level of intensity white light is mixed with a certain hue. when you have a black and white image, in other words, when you convert an image to black and white or when you shoot in black and white, ALL of those values increase and the intensity or ''quality'' of saturation becomes even more easily visible, which we call that TONALITY. saturation and tonality go hand in hand as you can see from the image here.TLDR: The quality/intensity of saturation is even more visible in B&W than it is in color. The less shades there are between black and white, the shittier the saturation.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
>>4084825B&W is luma, saturation is chroma.
>>4084825Also it's just "value" not "tonal value". Which is the same as "intensity" or "lightness". Saturation doesn't matter there.
>>4084801Wrong. looks like anon saved me some time and headache from having to explain something that can be googled by anyone in less than 10 seconds.>>4084825that's pretty much the definition of micro contrast. that's how micro contrast can be measured as either being amazing or close to non existent.''micro contrast'' is basically just a retarded way of saying ''tonality and saturation are amazing''>>4084809lmfao dude are you actually for real or are you baiting? why the fuck are you so interested in his work? desu i wouldn't post my work on 4ch either if i was a known photographer in my country. relax, touch some grass, breathe some fresh air, holy damn...>pic not related, just found the non edited SOC image, taken with an a7IV and 55mm 1.8 ZAman... i just love zeiss glass...[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4084828tonal value is just the old school way of saying it stuck around with me
>>4084828First time I have seen value being called ''lightness.'' lol
>>4084830I understand why you had to edit it to be B&WThe colors are dogshit
>>4084830oh no, you gonna get doxxed now>>4084835facts
>>4084835>>4084836>looks at colors>doesn't look at how the lens rendered dimensionality>doesn't look at saturation>doesn't look at tonalitycope harder then... move on and go back to watching your pixel peeping lens review youtube channels>>4084836i don't even care about getting doxxed im not nearly famous enough to care about that shitcolors can be fixed in post, dimensional rendering and tonality can't
>>4084830same lens, taken from flickrwhat you had was good lighting[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4084801Desaturating and b&w conversion are very different.Saturation is critical even with images not in colour.Thicko.
>>4084830Another one[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4084838>>4084840dude what are you even looking at in the image? what lighting? colors? what?! who cares about colors and lighting, that can literally be fixed in LRC in less than two minutes.1. the images you linked are just a result of a combination of bad composition, bad lighting and terrible editing2. colors and lighting aside, do you not see how the lens perfectly renders distance between different objects in the scene? or the perfect saturation and tonality between differently colored objects and differently distanced objects in the image? or the perfect micro contrast in color transitions, shadows, their hair, their teeth, on their bodies, clothes, grass. branches, hell the lens is so good that you can even tell dimensionality of objects in out of focus, blurred to hell parts of the image. first image, look at her eyes, her hair, her body, even the fucking branches on both the left and right bushes are rendered three dimensionaly perfect, you can tell each stick, leaf and branch apart and their distance from each other, the lens doesn't render light onto the image sensor of the camera disgustingly flat, like it would with a sigma, tamron, canon, nikon or whatever other lens, creating a flat mess of an image where everything is just rendered dead flat with no dimensionality, just slapped together... that woman and those bushes would be rendered in the same field and this image would look even worse than it does
>>4084841and whats wrong with that image? i mean i have more actual images i can post, shot with zeiss and voigtlander lenses, that are not on flickr. billion times better than every single other lens I have ever used, i literally switched to sony even though i absolutely hate their cameras, just because of this reason alone
Jesus all this shitposting just because you are lazy to get out of your room and practice photography Absolutely nothing in this thread matters to a photographer
>>4084841I mean, that's a nice image, ngl...
>>4084845obviously to some photographers it does. i'm in the same boat and have been since the start of the thread. (i'm the >>4084439 guy) i'm just reading their back and forth i also do portraiture and i've shot on hundreds of lenses and you only see such immense quality in the images shot on Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica or Hasselblad lenses. so much so that even my clients can tell the difference and they always prefer the zeiss, hassie or voigt shots when we go through the images.no point in going into science, using fancy words or explaining this any further, that's just how it is, simply said: Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica and Hasselblad lenses just create better looking images. Simple as that.
>>4084851post a side-by-side for example
>>4084837>myh tonality>myh saturation>ignore the fact that my brother looks like an alcoholic!jesus the snoy cope
>>4084853>my brother looks like an alcoholichow does he look like an alcoholic? Tonality nonsense aside I mean.He could have taken that shot on a 50mm Canon and it'd look the same.
>muh zeiss microcontrast[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
haha[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerNicographyImage-Specific Properties:
>muh zeiss rendering[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:PhotographerAlex BarlowImage-Specific Properties:
>>4084830Looks way better in B&W
now for more superior leica renderingsee how the lens perfectly renders distance between different objects in the scenesee the perfect saturation and tonality between differently colored objects and differently distanced objects in the imagesee the perfect micro contrast in color transitions, shadows, their hair, their teeth, on their bodies, clothes, grass. branchesremember, no other lens brand can make images like these
>>4084870only voigtlander, hasselblad, and zeiss can even come close to the quality that is leicadon't even bother trying with your shit-tier nikon, canon, sigma, tamron, pentax, or sony lenses
>>4084870wow the power of a stopped-down lens, truly unique
>>4084871cardboard cutout effect is there
>>4082500I hate sony's user interface. The haptics suck. The menus suck. It's just disgusting. I know their cams are top notch when it comes to tech. But the usability is for stockholm syndrome abuse victims[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON Z 6_2Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 11.5 (Macintosh)PhotographerJAROSLAW SZPILEWSKISensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)70 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2022:09:29 17:22:27Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating360Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceShadeFlashNo FlashFocal Length70.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
I feel like these all do a good job, if not better than the other examples of showing dimensionality. Except that none were with a Zeiss, Leica, Voigtlander, or Hasselblad. Would love to see side-by-side example of the same scene and processing if someone is capable.As far as I can tell, it isn't that far off from how people sometimes refer to the "MF look". Something like wide to normal shots, at relatively fast apertures, with great resolution and detail, and smooth falloff, good lighting, basically what the text here >>4084444
>>4084882What lenses were these with anon?
>>4084884Not mine, but a variety for sure. Most are a mix of canon 24 f1.1, 35 f1.4, 50 f1.4 (naked man is email@example.com, bot right is 35mm@f2 for example) on 5D'sSoccer kid is on 6x7, and pretty sure the 3 other standing shots are too.I just want to see side-by-sides of the same scene, lighting, and processing of one of the fancy lenses and one of the shit-tier sigmas, so we can all see the difference everyone keeps talking about, but can't seem to show a clear example of.
>>4084871not the guy you responded to, it's me again but how the hell do any of the images you posted, even remotely compare to the rendering in the images in >>4084518 and >>4084519 and >>4084771 and even in the other dudes >>4084779??? i mean surely you're not this blind? surely you can tell the difference between e.g >>4084518 and absolutely dogshit flat rendering in >>4084856 and >>4084858 and >>4084862 right???surely you can tell how terrible your image examples are? like... there's no way you think that the rendering here >>4084518 is the same quality as this dogshit here >>4084856 or here >>4084866 right? there's no way you think thati still own my old sigmas art 105mm 1.4, sigmas art 35mm 1.4 and Tamrons new 35-150mm but there's no fucking way i would ever compare the absolute flat rendering of these lenses to my 35 and 50 voigt or 135 zeiss. the upgrade image quality is so god damn obvious and so drastic that you would have to be an idiot to deny it>pic relatedshow me a sigma, tamron or samyang lens that renders like this. protip; you can't. if you shot this same shot with a sigma lens, these branches, leaves and grass would look fucking 2 dimensional and flat and you wouldn't be able to tell which leaf is from which branch and you wouldn't be able to tell branches from one another because they would all be slapped into a flat rendered mess>video below relatedthis guy explains this shit with side to side exampleshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ArcZd9FBQA[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Photographer34boyImage-Specific Properties:
>>4084890>it's me again but how the hell do any of the images you postedfor the record, more than just me posting, i only did the leica glass>even remotely compare to the rendering in the imagesi agree, almost like there's more to it than just the lens having a magical renderingglad you agree they don't compare, despite being the same lens> protip; you can'tif i had a sigma, tamron, or samyang, i would do a side by side myself and show youi've seen and enough examples out of sigma glass (and others) to know that i could get a very similar image>i won't show you either, just have to trust me bro>this guy explains this shit with side to side examplesi don't see any side by sides there, it's just a slideshow of different pictures of different subjects with different lightingdo you have side by sides?
>>4084892skip to minute 6 of the video and then listen and watch to the end. guy literally explains rendering of depth and dimensionality with the help of imageswhich better than reading text on 4chan and trying to understand what is being saidalso no i don't have side by side examples but i believe peter coulson has a ''studio portrait tutorial'' video in which at some point he switches from his hasselblad to his sony and shoots the model with 8-9 different lenses and then goes through the images in lightroom or capture one and there you can see the difference in rendering
>>4084893So it's completely subjective.
>>4084892>glad you agree they don't compare, despite being the same lensHe was probably talking about the images you posted vs the:>>4084518>>4084519>>4084771and>>4084779Which makes sense because even I see the difference. You really can't deny that rendition of these images is incomparably better than those images you and whoever else posted.
>>4084893>guy literally explains rendering of depth and dimensionality with the help of imageshe just waxes poetic, there are thousands of posts and threads about this phenomenahis example to compare depth, even at the time you stated, is with the zeiss 85 f1.4 and a nikon 18-55 kit lenshe has to use completely different quality lenses, with a different scene, different lighting, and different focal length to make that point>which better than reading text on 4chan and trying to understand what is being saidyou know what's even better, pictures! good thing we're a photo board>more nophoto
>>4084895what's subjective about one lens rendering shit in flat, strenuous to look at 2D and one lens rendering shit with depth, in a natural three dimensional way?? that's literally the opposite of subjective, that's an objective difference/improvementalso look at the flat rendered tree and branches and grass in this image >>4084870then look at the perfectly and naturally rendered leaves and tree in this image >>4084518do you really not see the fucking difference in dimensional rendering?in >>4084870 you can't even tell which leaf is from which brand, which branch is closer to use which further, you can't tell shit, the pole looks like it's a paper cut out glued on top of those houses behind, same story with that stone, it's a flat and dead 2D rendered mess... just looking at those branches makes me want to gauge my eyes out.
>>4084897>more nophotoim not even the guy you were/are calling a nophoto lmfao
>>4084900>do you really not see the fucking difference in dimensional rendering?I see a huge difference, for sure.So is it only that certain specific Leica lenses do dimensional rendering and others don't?Or is there more to it?
>>4084901>also no i don't have side by side examplesyou are a nophoto tho
>>4084897>he has to use completely different quality lenses, with a different scene, different lighting, and different focal length to make that pointhow expensive or ''category of a lens, has literally nothing to do with its physical properties or how it renders an image... and dimensional rendering has nothing to do with focal length or lighting either.see >>4084900 for exampleand for example, the 200 EUR Sony 50mm 1.8 has top notch dimensional rendering on par with Zeiss and Voigt or Leica. Same with some of the older, cheap Nikkor or Fuji glass.
>>4084906BRUH! You're literally arguing with a person who thinks the difference in dimensionality and tonality comes from:>different quality lenses, with a different scene, different lighting, and different focal lengthChillax and move on... I would have stopped replying 10 hours ago.
>>4084906>how expensive or ''category of a lens, has literally nothing to do with its physical properties or how it renders an imageFair, but I would figure expense has at least some relation to optical characteristics. Just found it interesting the go to example comparison for that video was a "$100" 18-55 kit lens vs a Zeiss 85mm f1.4. Doesn't seem quite like the most honest comparison.>and dimensional rendering has nothing to do with focal length or lighting eitherThis post >>4084900 says some Leica lenses in some situations do, and others don't. So brand can't be it either, but seems you already agree to that.>and for example, the 200 EUR Sony 50mm 1.8 has top notch dimensional rendering on par with Zeiss and Voigt or Leica. Same with some of the older, cheap Nikkor or Fuji glass.Totally agree that that there are definitely alternatives to Zeiss / Voigt / Leica, and it's more of a lens-by-lens basis more-so than whole brands. either having the magic or being flat shit.
>>4084903not even all Leica, Zeiss, Hasselblad or Voigtlander lenses have good dimensional rendering. a good majority of their lenses do have it, but not all. probably like 90-95% of their lenses do. for example Zeiss's Otus lenses, only the 100mm 1.4 renders amazing, other otus lenses render as flat as sigma lenses.
>>4084908No one has yet to show otherwise. I've given examples of many images I would consider with a similar dimensionality, and none were with Zeiss / Leica / Hasselbad / Voigtlander. There have been examples of shots from those same dimensional lenses lacking dimensionality too.Better than being on the side that thinks comparing an 18-55 kit lens to Zeiss 85mm f1.4 and looking at optical characteristics proves a point. Better than the side that thinks entire brands either have 0 dimensionality or always has all the dimensionalities.
>>4084906is that the 2016 50mm? the 1.8 one? because i had that one and it was fucking amazing i agree i always liked images from that 1.8 than i did from my GM, i always thought there was something about that lens but never knew what it was WELL NOW I DO
>>4084910Couldn't have said it any better. I agree.Also, do you people have lives or are you just on 4chan all day, because damn...
>>40849101000% agree!>other otus lenses render as flat as sigma lensesBetter tell that to the guy in video linked here >>4084890I would disagree too on that point though, but I guess this is not dimensional enough for your taste.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>>4084909>Totally agree that that there are definitely alternatives to Zeiss / Voigt / Leica, and it's more of a lens-by-lens basis more-so than whole brands. either having the magic or being flat shit.Well as far as Sigma goes... I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that they don't have a single lens that renders like a Leica, Voigt or Zeiss would.
>>4084918>but I guess this is not dimensional enough for your taste.it is but its nowhere near the Zeiss standard rendering. all zeiss lenses render better than 99% of all other lenses ever made but otus lenses are not made by zeiss standards and even zeiss states that on their official web page description for otus lenses. they were engineering the rendering of otus lenses more for sharpness, to have more of a medium format look, they still render amazing but nowhere near what is the zeiss standard... although, somehow, the 100mm 1.4 renders top notch, while other otus lenses don't
>>4084918Thats more of a depth of field play than it is dimensionality
>>4084924Actually I change my mind, that rendition on that pine tree or whatever the fuck it is, that's dimensionality although just as anon in >>4084921said, not as good as other zeiss or leica images ive seen from other zeiss and leica lenses
>>4084910Ok I too agree with this.>>4084919And this too.Can we /thread now?
>>4084927Yes, let's go back to taking pictures.
>>4084809>pretty crazy you have 0 non-client photos either after 12-13 years shootingnon-client and unfindable are different things
>>4084957pretty crazy you have 0 unfindable photos either after 12-13 years shooting
>>4084964I'm not even that poster. But it's not crazy at all, if they're unfindable they're probably throwaways or meant for future display.
Because Nikon glass is leagues ahead of Sony and their camera layout is better.
>>4084974thought they meant 0 photos they could post here that couldn't be "found" elsewhere online and get them doxxedshoulda said unpublished maybe
>>4084977So they post a picture that didn't make it to the cut and then you rake them over the coals for how shit it is when it wasn't posted elsewhere precisely because it was shit.
>>4084978M8 at this point we're looking for proof that he even owns a camera.Even a shitty phone pic of Konstructor photo would do it.
>>4084957bruh you're still going at it 2 days later, are you really that dense? i don't even have that big of a following and even i don't post neither my work nor any images i take on 4chan you have to be retarded to think that someone who makes a living and has established a name for himself in whatever shithole they might live in, will expose themselves and have their name relatable to 4chan aka. a website that is notoriously famous for being the spawn of all evil on this planet.you have to be trolling asking anyone like that to post his images here lmao>image is not mine
>>4085083dude you're a nobody why would someone even remotely care about what some basement dwelling retard on 4chan thinks? why should he prove anything to you lmao i wouldn't either
>>4085112Keep larping then, nophoto.
>>4085083>weNot your personal army. Speak for yourself.
>>4085157I'm not that anon, but I want the same question answered so he was 100% correct in his usage of "we".Nice try at deflection to a strawman argument though because you don't even own a camera.
>>4085164then you're as retarded as he is
>>4085117dude i can guarantee you that none of us here who refuse to post our images even remotely care about being called a nophotoyou post your shit on 4chan, i make a living with my shitliterally no one here cares except you and that retard
>>4085181>i make a living with my shitKeep LARPing boy
>>4085181okay, but then accept the fact that nobody cares about your opinions if you refuse to post photos on a fucking photography board
>>4085187>says while not posting anyhypocriteI'm not the pro photographer guy but I've had the same thing done to me on this board. You're just mad at his opinions and if he were to post his photos you'd dismiss them. Same as with the guy who posted the picture of his brother. Suddenly, the entire argument switches from demanding photos to say the brother looks like an alcoholic. If it had any trackable EXIF or if it was findable, you'd be trying to dox the guy right now. Even if he managed to not get doxed so far I think what he did was stupid. Volunteering a lot of unneeded information on a place like this. I guess people would assume it was him if he didn't say it was his brother, but in any case it was a bad move. And if he posted something from flickr but claimed it was his, amd then you found the flickr profile, you'd do two things: use whatever information you got there as leverage, and also go after the guy's other pictures. There's nothing to win here by posting a photo.
>>4085189Nice retelling of all your excusesStill not buying the larp
>>4085180>still makes every attempt to swerve answering a completely harmless questionLMAO, you do realise that if you refuse to answer people will just (rightly) assume the worst?You fucking hobo.
>>4085193I'm just asking for proof he owns a cameraAt this point even if he just goes to the photo shop and buys some shitty disposable will be accepted as camera ownership
>>4085189The idea isn't to convince me, it's to convey the amount of knowledge you have about the subject."Post body" is the same concept on /fit/, its so people aside from people arguing can see themselves if they would listen to a retard who can't even focus right.>Suddenly, the entire argument switches from demanding photos to say the brother looks like an alcoholic.Meds now, it was just how sony colors are shit, a completely irrelevant topic and had nothing to do with him.Keep making excuses why you totally are a pro, trust me bro, and not post photos to a photography board.Here you go faggot, with EXIF data too, remember, i'm not the one claiming im the expert, so criticize all you want :)[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSAMSUNGCamera ModelNX30Camera Software1.20Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationLeft-Hand, BottomHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2022:08:30 15:56:17Exposure Time1/1250 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5472Image Height3648Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4085200>Meds now, it was just how sony colors are shit, a completely irrelevant topic and had nothing to do with him.>Keep making excuses why you totally are a pro, trust me bro, and not post photos to a photography board.I'm not the guy and certainly not a pro, but you're a fag of the highest order.>Here you go faggot, with EXIF data too, remember, i'm not the one claiming im the expert, so criticize all you want :)Easy when the only place you post your tourist snapshits to is /p/. Even easier when your bridge camera doesn't store a serial number there.>>4085196Here you go, faggot. For the record I don't agree with the Zeiss guy, but I find your entire "argument" laughable. Nobody owes you anything. If you really didn't care about his opinions you'd ignore his posts instead of demanding dox.
>>4085210>nobody owes you anything, just listen and believe meHow about no.Finally some proof that you own at least one body and one lens, go get that paranoia checked Anon, it's not healthy.
>>4085212It's always healthy to be paranoid on an anonymous imageboard. I've seen doxings happen to people I care about for the dumbest of reasons.
>>4085210>no arguments>if i call him a fag of the highest order that means somethingokay bro>nx30 >bridge cameralol
>>4085214Nigga I participated in IRC secret Santas.
>>4085216>that means somethingI'm calling it as I see it. Clean up your act.I don't see how "Sony colors" made the guy "look like an alcoholic" but whatever.>lolWell excuse me for mistaking a DSLR-style EVF camera for a bridge one.>>4085217You were lucky, played stupid games but didn't win the stupid prizes.
>>4085193>double spacing bongHi Moop, sad you couldn't gather any dox today (again)?
>>4085218NoI simply wasn't a retard that didn't know when to disengage
>>4085218wow tough guy telling me to clean up my act.i'm totally gonna listen to him.He looks like an alcoholic because the sony colors add redness to his face that isn't there in real life, look around the nose.>excuse me for being a retard and assuming everything.
>>4085224>He looks like an alcoholic because the sony colors add redness to his face that isn't there in real life, look around the nose.Honestly I thought you were talking about the eyes. I'm pretty sure Sony colors tend to be dull.>excuse me for being a retard and assuming everything.Well the picture looked like it was taken with a bridge camera, in my defense. In any case the point stays, it doesn't embed a serial number.
>>4085227First you claim you don't wanna post EXIF because some hackers will somehow dox you out of any kind of EXIFNow you need a serial code embedded in the EXIF, which even if you camera did, you could strip that part of it.If you wanted to dox me, the picture would give you enough info to get the city.
>>4085228That's assuming the picture is yours and not taken from elsewhere.
>>4085210I think there was 4 or 5 of them, the zeiss guys i mean, plus the one guy that posted his brother. And this cringe dude over here was baiting every single one of them into posting their images/work just so he can boost his ego or shit on their work when he's proven wrong. Only one the dudes kept replying to that retard kek i replied once to him ONCE and he called me a nophoto too lmfao, stopped replying to him after that, dude doesnt even deserve attention being this retarded
>>4085224>muh colorshe posted a SOOC picture of his brother, ITS AN OUT OF CAMERA IMAGE, COLORS LITERALLY DON'T MATTER, EVERYBODY EDITS COLORS ANYWAYS you absolute dog, you orangutanthat SOOC image DOES look amazing and if you edited the colors, the image would look even better, which i believe he did because he made that black and white version too, can't get that zeiss look with a sigma lens even if you spent 10 days editing in LRC, so shut the fuck up already
>>4085227>Honestly I thought you were talking about the eyes. I'm pretty sure Sony colors tend to be dull.yeah he's a retard that doesn't know what he's talking about. sony colors are usually more on the green side, literally infamous for making peoples skin look like they have food poisoning aka. salmonella, that redness was probably just coming from the reddish sunset sunlighteither way, whatever the fuck the reason is, colors can be edited in post and dont matter a single bit in this day and age
>>4085265>sony colors are usually more on the green side, literally infamous for making peoples skin look like they have food poisoning aka. salmonellaAs a former a7lll owner I can confirm this. I now have the a7iv as well, which is still a tiny, itty bit greenish but it's very, very close to Canons R5 color science and that dude shot his brother on an a7IV and he also used a Zeiss lens, which has amazing contrast and micro contrast, as well as spectacular aberration control, especially that narrow little 55mm lens, so that tiny amount of greenish tones that was still there from the a7IV, was probably eliminated altogether. Which means that you can probably say that OOC image looks even close to something that you would get if you shot on Canons R5 and their RF 50mm 1.2
>>4085264>>4085265>colors dont matter because i edit them!okay bro, maybe i just dont want to color correct every single picture i take afterwards and let the camera do it itself.Not everybody wants to spend their entire life in front of a computer editing photos.
>>4085273>Not everybody wants to spend their entire life in front of a computer editing photos.literally "apply this preset on import" checkbox in light room
>>4085276and yet sony cant do itcurious...
>>4085273>hi, im a snapshot fag who doesnt make a living with photography so i dont realize how important editing is or that it is a must, so i dont edit myself and i think nobody else should or wants to eitherthats all i heard while reading your degenerate reply
>>4085273You're like those snapshits who do weddings, who don't edit their work in post and then complain how nobody calls them, how they only booked 3 and a half weddings this year.
>>4085285>>4085292did you guys forget the entire question in the OP?
>>4085294no, we didn't forgetcolors dont mattersensors dont matterlenses matterand they matter more so than anything elsescroll up to those zeiss, leica and voigtlander fags and youll see why/thread
>>4082500Sony only manufactures the sensors, because the machines and factories are insanely expensive to build, they don't design them.So the sensor is not actually a Sony sensor, it's just built in a Sony factory.It like saying there is no difference between AMD and nVidia because they are both made by TSMC.Or that most ICs (GPU, CPU, etc.) are Nikon ICs because they make the laser lithography machines.
>>4085312>they don't design them.you're wrong though, for instance the Nikon Z9 uses an off-the-shelf Sony IMX609AQJ
>>4085307dont care, id rather not bother with the colors or the UIthats why i dont buy sony, its the price i pay for it, and i value it way more than some "dimensionality"
>>4085313Yeah, sometimes other manufacturers just straight up buy a Sony sensor but 99% of the time they just act as a 3rd party factory for other manufacturers, they just manufacture sensors for others under contract deals.
>>4085307Literally the best post in this shitty thread.
>>4085315Look at Peter Coulson, Yulia Gorbachenko or quite literally any other big name, actual artist, actual photographer and you will see that when they are not using their twenty trillion dollar Hasselblads and Phase Ones, 90% of them use Sony cameras because on Sony they have easy access to both old and newer Zeiss, Voigtlander, Hasselblad, Leica or whatever other glass, because Sony cameras have best compatibility with adapters and manual focus lenses. Peter Coulson despises Sony and yet he has 3 Sony cameras on top of his Hasselblad, all because his entire lens collection consists of Zeiss, Hasselblad, Voigt, Leica and other ancient manual focus lenses. Everyone and anyone who is not artistically blind, will prefer Zeiss, Leica, Voigtlander and similar glass, over flattened horseshit that are sigma, tamron and similar lenses.
>>4085324wrong, they might mostly manufacture semiconductors for others but most of the sensors they make are Sony sensors. They have the best tech and the patents that matter, their designs work well for most others too. Nikon stopped designing their own sensors a long time ago, focusing instead on the image processors and everything else on the camera.
>>4085328>Everyone and anyone who is not artistically blindyou dont even have to be ''artistically blind'' even a down syndrome person can see the difference, im looking at the posts way up there, when you guys and these zeiss guys were arguing and i agreethis post sums it up >>4084890
>>4085329whatever it is that they manufacture for other, you will still have retards saying CANON/NIKON/FUJI/PANASONIC USES SONY SENSORS!!!!11111!1!!
>>4085328I literally do. not. care.I am telling you the reason people would not want to buy a sony even if it was the same sensor and you refuse to accept it.
>>4085313>off-the-shelf Sony IMX609AQJYou mean the sensor that is made exclusively for Nikon and the z9, and is not used or even available to anyone else? Definitely sounds like an off-the-shelf mass produced solution to me.An actual off-the-shelf sensor would be something like the 108mp ISOCELL HM1/HM2 used in the S22 Ultra, Mi 11, LG G60, etc.Or the IMX335 used in essentially every dashcam.
>>4085331But anon, that's my entire point, those (except for Canon) all use Sony sensors. Panasonic might be an exception too, not sure what their deal is but they're avoiding on-sensor PDAF. Nikon uses off-the-shelf Sony sensors. Fuji uses off-the-shelf Sony sensors. Pentax too. Canon doesn't just not use Sony sensors, they even do the sensor manufacture themselves. That's why their sensors were lagging behind the rest for years until they overhauled their fabbing facilities. They still manufacture some old tech ones like the one in the RP though. Brands that make cameras without Sony sensors include Sigma (Foveon, the fpL for example uses the same sensor as the a7RIV), Arri, RED, apparently the Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 12K.>>4085338>You mean the sensor that is made exclusively for Nikon and the z9, and is not used or even available to anyone else?>Definitely sounds like an off-the-shelf mass produced solution to me.Designed by Sony. What do you base your claims that it's not available to anyone else on?
>>4082500Oh and by the way OP, take this example:Blackmagic Pocket 4K uses a Sony sensor.Blackmagic URSA Mini Pro 4.6 K G2 uses a Fairchild sensor.The output is pretty identical between the two. There's more to a camera than a sensor. The sensor is just counting photons. How you filter those before they hit it and how you process the signal afterwards matters a lot more.
>>4085342>What do you base your claims that it's not available to anyone else on?Not listed on sony semiconductor website.>Designed by SonyHow do you know this? The name on the sensor means almost nothing. We don't know how much input Nikon had. It could be as little as a minor tweak of an existing design, or as much as an entirely new design based on a Sony process.Pic related are 3 transmissions, 2 are made by Aisin for Ford but are called Aisin transmissions, 1 is made by Ford and is called a Ford transmission. Yet they are all almost identical, both physically and functionally, except for minor generational tweaks and adjustments.Can you call the transmissions made by Aisin to Ford specs an Aisin transmissions and not Ford? At the same time can you call a transmission made by Ford, that is nearly identical to an Aisin design a Ford transmission?The answer is, if we don't know how much input each company had, and the transmission is made exclusively for Ford, to their specs, then it is a Ford transmission.
>>4085346>How you filter those before they hit it and how you process the signal afterwards matters a lot more.Exactly. Lens and image processor do 90% of the work. Well, mostly lens but yeah.
>>4085338>>4085342You can literally stop arguing. Why? Because of the fact that if it's a Z9 exclusive sensor manufactured by Sony and whether it was designed and engineered by Sony or Nikon is not worth debating about because if that's the case than it's only logical to conclude that Nikon made a contracted deal with Sony to make that sensor for the Z9... It's simple outsourcing... It's a Nikon sensor, made by Sony - but that's only if we know for a fact that it's a Z9 exclusive sensor patented by Nikon and not Sony. Whoever owns the patent and all the paperwork related to the sensor, is the one who designed and engineered it.
>>4085352It's a fucking Aisin transmission and you can get it for a fraction of the price with the logos grinded off. OE parts.
>>4085389Not just that but also the color filter array, the antialiasing filter and the microlenses which all rest atop of the sensor.>>4085393Have a read: https://www.bythom.com/newsviews/the-image-sensor-industry.htmlNikon may tweak the design a little bit but it's Sony tech essentially. Made with machines manufactured and installed by Nikon, lol.It's in Sony's best interest that Nikon stays afloat.
>>4082500This might be true but different manufacturers might want different "color science" -> different CFA filters.Nikon tends to do tricky readout in 2 phases with dual gain (using Sony senzors).