Reach? More like cope, kys yourself

>>4179794
I'll shoot your crush on copex, incel

>>4179792
I don't need more than 24 mp

>>4179792
this is why I only shoot on 8x10 sheet film , 800 megapixels ez. only 10 dollars a shot.

>>4179792
sister, why are you so obsessed with 'reach'?

>>4179808
That doesn't really give you more reach though, unless you use a much longer lens

>>4179792
Which is entirely correct if you're resolution limited by your lens.

Which, if you're shooting on 20mp MFT, you need an mtf50 of 162 lp\mm, or 83 lp\mm on 24mp full frame.

The $2600 canon 70-200 RF peaks at 83 lp\mm in the centre and 72 lp\mm in the corners. The figures I gave above are a minimum though, ideally you want just over double to account for the Nyquist limit of a digital measurement.

In reality, the only way to get longer reach, is to use a longer focal length.

Smaller sensors also have the problem of being diffraction limited much sooner, it's around f5.6 on full frame 24mp, but f2.8 on MFT! Which means for especially long focal length, full frame tends to be much more affordable and compact, as f5.6 is a much easier lens to make than f2.8!

>>4179792
>tripfag
>mind numbingly stupid post
hah

>>4179866
Tell that to the microdots I harvested today, faggot.

>>4179792
>implying you can purchase microfilm without a licence

>>4179792
What is diffraction
What is demosaicing
What is optical resolution
What is ACTUALLY TAKING PHOTOS

At some point you are merely making the blurry lines less pixellated, smoothing out the bayer mess, and won’t see a hint of additional detail unless you buy a fantastic lens that doesn’t exist yet. At some aperture you continuously lose resolution. And to get to that point you need to USE YOUR CAMERA.

This is why dogbro was actually able to demonstrate the reach of his 42mp camera - and found out it falls flat at f8- and you haven’t been able to do the same for the canon 90d

>>4179894
how can he when he doesn’t own a 90d or take photos

File: saturn.jpg (1 KB, 51x47)

1 KB JPG

>>4179894
Nigger.

>>4179899
now post the whole photo you cropped that from

this looks like shit btw. surveillance cam tier, not photography tier. when we al ltalk about diffraction and optical limits we're concerned with making a good photo. not a blurry dot that we insist is saturn. adding mp just turns a colored block, into a colored polygon, into a series of blocks that implies the presence of a dot, into a blurry dot, nothing more. and then you stop down to an aperture people use like f/11 and the blurry dot loses any features it may have had or vanishes into the surrounding area. it's not relevant to photography.

notice no one of note is cropping lumix gh6 photos severely because it looks like shit even after they go ham with the AI upscaling, denoising, and sharpening

>>4179906
Some bird blogger does and after all his AI bullshit the photos still look like actual ass at full size, which isn’t much because they’re crops. Inch and a half wide magazine inset tier (and they still look oversharpened at that resolution).

File: Binoculars_25x100.jpg (564 KB, 1600x1200)

564 KB JPG

canon be like
wow this is the best camera i've ever used

>>4179792
Reach is a crutch for lack of courage to get closer

File: thots btfo.jpg (54 KB, 716x403)

54 KB JPG

>>4179937
>Get closer
And then get behind them, hide your camera in your hoodie pocket, and walk briskly to hide like it never happened.

Reach is for people who aren't afraid of confrontation. Reach is for people who aren't afraid to be seen with a camera. Reach is for people who stand twenty feet in front of you and take a full body portrait in stunning detail while you can't do anything about it. Your image is theirs now, and they are looking you right in the eye and laughing in your face. You didn't see that giant telephoto lens at first, but then you do, you go up and beg them to delete it, and they laugh.

Everyone else sees them too. And they aren't afraid of it. Reach is for the man who stands up for himself. The pocketable 28mm lens equipped rangefinder is for people who are afraid to admit that they are a photographer.

>>4179944
>doesn’t even have a strap
The nads on this lad. If someone tried to grab that camera he’d probably deck them.

>>4179906
>now post the whole photo you cropped that from
So that you can use steganography on my shit? That's a 100% crop off a full frame Canon. 800mm after conversion. 1Ds III, 6D, 5D2, 5D3, 1D X, 1D X II, 1D C? I'm not saying. All I'll say is the 90D would roughly be like stacking another 2X converter.
>>4179925
kek, this but unironically. I love binocs and I've done some digiscoping in my time.

>>4179937
Oh yeah I don't visit the gas giants not because I don't have the technology to get there, it's totally out of cowardice. Fucking tard.

>>4179983
>glowies r gonna find my horse cock collection if i post a whole picture
>IF IF IF gearfag technobabble theorycrafting
>no photos
ok you made a blurry saturn image in gimp thanks dude not a photo

>>4179990
>totally out of cowardice
clearly you're afraid of posting a photo you're even more afraid of taking one

>>4180020
>ok you made a blurry saturn image in gimp thanks dude not a photo
cope, it's a 100% crop
>clearly you're afraid of posting a photo you're even more afraid of taking one
I'm not afraid of taking one, and I have nothing to win posting one. I'd rather post it elsewhere for clout :^)

>>4182044
>its a 100% crop
It looks like shit

>>4179866
>Which, if you're shooting on 20mp MFT, you need an mtf50
No. MTF50 is the point used to evaluate sharpness. Extinction resolution is counted at MTF10 (i.e. higher results).

>The figures I gave above are a minimum though, ideally you want just over double to account for the Nyquist limit of a digital measurement.
That's not how that works. Nyquist sets the limit on how many lp/mm you can record with a digital sensor. Your lens does not need double that limit for the total system to reach that limit.

>In reality, the only way to get longer reach, is to use a longer focal length.
This is observably false. Take the same shot with a 12mp 5D and a 50mp 5DsR. Now crop to the m43 center of the frame and make a 16x20 print. Take a guess which one looks good.

>Smaller sensors also have the problem of being diffraction limited much sooner, it's around f5.6 on full frame 24mp, but f2.8 on MFT!
Diffraction is not a hard and fast limit. The first couple stops past diffraction impact sharpness a bit but not resolution so much, at least not with the pixel density sensors we have today.

>>4182110
Good takedown, thanks for taking the time to educate the unwashed masses.
>>4182046
And yet it looks infinitely more detailed than anything you could get with a system with less reach.

File: muhreeeeach.png (6 KB, 431x78)

6 KB PNG

>>4182125

>>4182128
When someone is as interested in seeing the celestial bodies as I am it's hardly surprising I care about it.
I'm sorry you're so preoccupied with mundane matters like street "photography" that you can't appreciate the ethereal.

>>4182125
It's a blurry dot. In a 51x47 square. Try again with a real photo.

>>4182110
>Take the same shot with a 12mp 5D and a 50mp 5DsR. Now crop to the m43 center of the frame and make a 16x20 print. Take a guess which one looks good.
Do this again with realistic examples like 42mp vs 62mp sony. You can't tell. Maybe you would be able to tell with an 84mp camera. A little.

And then you hit the diffraction limiting aperture and go past it. At first they look the same. And then the higher MP camera looks worse much sooner. Unfortunately, this aperture is where photos are normally taken - f5.6 and smaller.

>>4182137
>It's a blurry dot. In a 51x47 square. Try again with a real photo.
You say it's a blurry dot, with lower pixel density it would be a couple of pixels at best.
>Do this again with realistic examples like 42mp vs 62mp sony. You can't tell. Maybe you would be able to tell with an 84mp camera. A little.
Crop and you can easily tell. When viewing at 100% it's very apparent.
>And then you hit the diffraction limiting aperture and go past it. At first they look the same. And then the higher MP camera looks worse much sooner. Unfortunately, this aperture is where photos are normally taken - f5.6 and smaller.
That is simply not true, lol.

Why are you so focused on this? How does it actually apply to real life and make your photos better?

>>4182151
It makes my life better, correcting people who are wrong about stuff.
There's multiple applications for reach. Astro is one. Bigger prints is another. Cropping tighter is another. It just makes the camera an even better extension of the eye. In the case of digital photography, reach is the proverbial free lunch, except it exists.

>>4182151
Look at the blurry dot in the 1/500th of a megapixel square lol it’s meaningless

It does not relate to real photography at all

>>4182169
But all of that is wrong. Apply this to real photos, and it’s not happenin’.

>>4182171
He doesn’t have real photos to apply it to.

File: saturn 400mm.jpg (3 KB, 145x97)

3 KB JPG

>>4182171
This was the 100% crop without the teleconverter.

>>4179866
dunno but the other shit you said but i've been saying the last paragraph for a while and micro 43 people just go "LALALALLAA I HAVE A SMALLER CAMERA"

>>4182235
The diffraction problem is greatly exaggerated

>>4182242
No, it's a harsh reality. Grab your sony A7RV and 35mm f1.4 GM. Take a picture of your cat at f4 and then at f8, crop both to 5312x2988 and post the crops here. Do one with near detail and one with far detail.

There's a reason the whole camera world is pursuing higher optical resolution at wider apertures at the same time megapixel counts are getting ridiculous, when a flawed lens that had to be stopped down to look nicer worked for film and earlier digitals. So people can pretend they actually got something for their $4000 upgrade. If your "muh heckin pixel pitch" theories were true micro four thirds and 1" sensors would not take relatively shitty looking photos a 12mp crop from a GH6 would look as good as a 12mp crop from a nikon Z7 II.

listen im not hating that people are out there shooting photos, I just hate going on the internet and seeing some m43 user going on and on thinking they cracked the code and your wasting money if you buy anything above m43 sensor.

>>4182246
You're mixing up a bunch of stuff there. The full frame from the GH6 will look more detailed than the MFT-sized crop from the Z7 II. And losses to diffraction are gradual.
Efucate yourself a bit, this has f/40 samples on a D850: https://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html

File: M.Zuiko-Digital-ED-45mm-f(...).png (158 KB, 600x700)

158 KB PNG

>>4182110
>If you compare a camera from 18 years ago to a top of the line modern camera, then I'm right!

Lmfao

And if you take that 5d and a good quality lens and compare it with the centre 1\4 of the 5dsr with an equal quality lens, the 5d would absolutely blow it away. If the lens managed mtf10 per line pair on the 5dsr shot, then it'd be getting over mtf50 on the full frame 12mp shot.

>Mtf10 because I don't want sharp images and refuse to correlate sharpness with resolution, I'll stick with my soft blurry undefined edges and low contrast, and that's why I'm telling myself every day that M43 is good enough!

Lol, and how close can say a $1200 prime get to that magic 162lp\mm figure you need, even at mtf10? Nowhere fucking near, in fact it's struggling to stay above just 50lp\mm! Pic related.

>>4182256
Gotta love seeing cinefag get obliterated like this

>>4182169
I think it might make your life better to look into yourself and ask why you feel such a need to prove other people other people wrong in the internet. You're dying on very strange hills and convincing yourself that it's what you're supposed to be doing

File: 800_diff.gif (1.33 MB, 613x599)

1.33 MB GIF

>>4182253
>LOOK AT THESE PHOTOS SOMEONE ELSE TOOK
Ok. They look like shit.
>The GH6 will look moar detailed!
It's a one of a kind camera and yet... it doesn't. It looks like shit.

The thing is, diffraction eats megapixel gains. Here you have 36. If you had 45 it would start increasingly earlier and very quickly make your 45mp and 36mp camera look the same. Have you used a 40mp fuji after using a 26mp fuji? Not only are 100% of the lenses incapable of having you say more than "well uh, it resolves the aberrations better!" (photos look like an AI software enlargement, but not more detailed) but as soon as you begin stopping down to realistic, non-bokehwhore apertures they look absolutely the fucking same.

On canon the situation is even worse. The lenses are double ass and inferior bayer resolves less microcontrast.

Do you want to prove me wrong? Instead of writing a single word, pick up a canon 90d and a sony A7RIV with the sharpest lenses that exist for either of those, and shoot the A7RIV in APS-C crop mode, and post the photos here.

>>4182256
You're changing not only the pixel size but the exposed area there, and I'm willing to bet it won't be that far behind. Going back to Saturn, the P1000 uses a 539mm lens and yet it achieves impressive detail that goes well above my puny 800mm combo on full frame: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a6VFFOnnZqk
Maybe I'll eventually get a Pentax Q10 and the required adapter at some point to prove that pixel density equals more reach.
>>4182261
Is cinefag in the room with us right now?
>>4182311
I don't need it, I enjoy it.
>>4182333
Nice trips but you're wrong. I've seen what the leicasonic 100-400 can do when mounted on it and the reach is just incredible. You can read a tiny sticker on a distant window as if you were standing there. You have all your fancy charts but in reality there's unbelievable levels of detail a sensor can extract if the photosite matrix is fine enough.

File: 68415315_2418475188266878(...).jpg (15 KB, 1852x1253)

15 KB JPG

>>4182256
80D at 560mm already captures more detail than my full frame at 800mm, and its pixels are almost the same size as the a7RIV. Pic related.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

File: TS1120x1120~4058376.jpg (14 KB, 280x200)

14 KB JPG

Olympus E-M1 III at 600mm, also gets more detail than my rig at 800mm

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	600 dpi
Vertical Resolution	600 dpi
Image Created	2020:06:01 12:00:03
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	280
Image Height	200

>>4179792
Why cope with Copex when the superior Adox CMS 20 II Pro exists and as a bonus it makes poop seethe?
>>4182261
Hi poop

>>4182358
>>4182355
Ooh exifless snapshots of unusable blurry dots. You could have made these in photoshop. And they all look equally bad and unusable as photos.

Show us real photos please.

>pooptax q10
These take blurry photos. Might as well use a phone.

>>4182372
he wont because his dumbass theory doesn’t work with real photos just this test chart tier nonsense.

>le dot is less pixelated
yes ai can make a pixellated dot smoother as well. how about a real photo?

>>4182361
$5.99 a roll vs $7.99 and CMS is NOT 1/3rd better so it's not justified.
>>4182372
>muh exif
>muh photoshop
>i'm too stupid to reverse search, spoon feed me please
https://m.faceberg.com/Lunar101MoonBook/photos/a.327924590655292/2418475181600212/ (fb link trips the filter)
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4492730
I could have faked the EXIF too, EXIF is meaningless unless you're stupid enough to blindly believe it. I bet you think photographs represent the truth too, I bet bet you fucking believe the Zapruder film is a faithful representation of reality.
>le q10 blurry
User error. Stop using toy lenses and shooting JPEG.
>>4182378
>test chart tier
cope
>nonsense
Seeing what's out there makes no sense to you? Enjoy your simple life, mundane.

>>4182343
>I don't need it, I enjoy it.
Still applies. Look into yourself and ask why you desire to be known as the guy who dies on weird hills online

>>4182394
It's like trolling but with the truth so it's fun. I watch people get mad because they're wrong about stuff they think they're right about and it's very entertaining to me.

>>4182409
>Everyone else is wrong and I'm right >:(
Lol

35mm Techpan would require a billboard sized print to see any grain.

File: Screen Shot 2023-05-26 at(...).jpg (274 KB, 1326x1370)

274 KB JPG

>>4182137
>Do this again with two cameras that have comparable pixel densities
And you believe this is a valid counter argument?

Sony's 61mp FF sensor has more reach than their 24mp sensors. And their 24mp sensors have more reach than their 12mp sensor. And why wouldn't that be the case? Look at the attached pic. Pretend it's a bird and you are focal length limited. Which body would you use?

>You can't tell.
Because you're purposely pitting a 42mp camera against a 61mp one. The 61mp one actually does still have more reach. It's just not much more. It doesn't stand out as much and isn't as useful as, say, 61mp vs 24mp.

>And then you hit the diffraction limiting aperture and go past it. At first they look the same. And then the higher MP camera looks worse much sooner.
Higher MP cameras never look worse. Diffraction at, say, f/22 just makes them all look the same. Higher MP bodies still deliver more detail 2-3 stops past the diffraction limit. And the most common reach limited scenarios...wildlife and sports...are often shot wide open any way.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Image Width	1326
Image Height	1370

>>4182256
>>If you compare a camera from 18 years ago to a top of the line modern camera, then I'm right!
>Lmfao
Pixel density is pixel density. And you know this. You're just trying to avoid losing the argument. But if you won't accept anything other than "muh modern sensors!", feel free to study the pic attached to: >>4183104

>And if you take that 5d and a good quality lens and compare it with the centre 1\4 of the 5dsr with an equal quality lens, the 5d would absolutely blow it away.
No it wouldn't. And I can say that from actual experience. I have no hesitation making 16x20 sports and wildlife prints from the m43 sized center of the 5Ds. And they match 16x20 prints of similar subject matter from the full sensor of a classic 5D.

>If the lens managed mtf10 per line pair on the 5dsr shot, then it'd be getting over mtf50 on the full frame 12mp shot.
Why? Because you don't know how to interpret MTF charts?

>>and refuse to correlate sharpness with resolution,
They are related but distinct. That you don't know this means you should probably stop posting.

>I'll stick with my soft blurry undefined edges
You do realize that if you take the m43 sized center from a high resolution FF body, you're using the sharpest part of the lens, do you not?

>muh line pairs! MUH LINE PAIRS! YOU HAVE TO REACH MUH MAGIC LINE PAIR NUMBER!
No idiot. The most important details occur at lower frequencies. I'm all about high rez FF and capturing high frequency detail for large prints. But that's mostly a big print landscape/fashion thing.

>>4183104
>>4183107
At long last someone with use of reason! Thank you for stopping by, anon. It's a pleasure to read such detailed mythbusting.

>>4183096
don't remind me, I still can't get over its discontinuation

>>4183107
>Reach limited example
Use a longer lens dumbass
>I don't understand mtf but I'm going to use a personal anecdote with no proof as my proof
Lol
>Why would a larger pixel density change mtf
Because the blur between hard edges has a greater distance to transition, you stupid fuck.
>They are correlated
Then why did you cry when I mentioned it
>sHaRpEsT PaRt Of ThE LeNs
It's not the 70's anymore, lenses are designed with corner to corner resolution instead of low vignette. a canon 70-200 RF at 200mm f8 gets 3500lw\ph in the extreme corner, 3700 in the centre. Even in the extreme corner that beats the lw\ph of every M43 lens tested.
>But I want low resolution, low contrast images
Then preface all your dumbass M43 posts with "I am actively looking for worse image quality, and that's why I choose M43"
>>4183113
>Someone (who's totally not me) finally has given me confirmation bias
If one downy turns to another and says they are smart and beautiful, does that change the objective truth?

>>4179861
Regular lenses are like 400mm on LF dumbo

>>4183234
>>Reach limited example
>Use a longer lens dumbass
Most people shooting wildlife and sports are already using the longest lens they can afford or carry. In many cases it's the longest lens available, period.

>>I don't understand mtf but I'm going to use a personal anecdote with no proof as my proof
Bitch, you were btfo'd by this pic >>4183104. Your prediction, based on your "understanding" of MTF, is that the higher resolution sensors would not have more reach. And yet they obviously do.

>>Why would a larger pixel density change mtf
Higher density sensors do impact system MTF. They improve it.

>Then why did you cry when I mentioned it
>>sHaRpEsT PaRt Of ThE LeNs
Nobody cried when you mentioned that, moron. You're just flailing your arms trying desperately to win a stupid debate because you care more about winning than about understanding.

>It's not the 70's anymore, lenses are designed with corner to corner resolution instead of low vignette.
What does this have to do with anything?

>>But I want low resolution, low contrast images
>Then preface all your dumbass M43 posts
Is the m43 camera in the room with you right now?

>>4183234
>Someone (who's totally not me) finally has given me confirmation bias
>confirmation bias
Images speak louder than words, in this case quite literally lol. It's you who are at odds with reason and facts. Why is that? Probably buyer's remorse from wasting money on a meme Fuji.

>>4183390
>images speak louder than words

Time for you to shout then eh, champ? You've posted more of my photos than your own, which is quite flattering I must say.

>>4183390
>images speak louder
So post a real life photo instead of a retarded test chart. Last person to do this was a fujislug claiming their 40mp camera was better than a 24mp canon. Even though they missed focus and used a kit lens at a wider focal length on the canon there was littlenoticeable difference besides those errors.

>BUT CHAAAAARTS

>>4183399
Who are you and when did I post any picture you've taken? Kek
>>4183402
Do you have an easy way of procuring side-by-side photos from a variety of interchangeable lens cameras with the same framing and different pixel densities? If there's one good use for that chart it's what anon just did with it. For most other uses, notably evaluating noise, it's sort of worthless.

>>4183408
Even similar subjects would work as long as they were real subjects instead of a tabletop at f5.6 with soft lenses

Maybe lympanon and huskylover could do it with their 20mm/40mm lens’ since both of those optics are among the sharpest for their systems

>>4183421
>a tabletop at f5.6 with soft lenses
If the reach is increased with "soft lenses", then you're pretty much conceding I'm right.
"Similar subjects" don't make any sense, it has to be the same distance.

>>4183402
The only person posting test charts is the one arguing against higher density sensors having more reach. The DPReview shot is not a test chart. You just need to label it as such to dismiss it because it very clearly shows that higher pixel density = more reach.

I can't even believe this is a debate. Fucking NoPhotos who have never even owned a camera are arguing against the obvious for what? To "score points" against crop formats that live rent free in their heads? I went high rez FF to be able to make large, detailed prints and to be able to crop like a mad man for common print sizes. If my target print size is 16x20 or smaller I have no hesitation using the APS-C or m43 center of the image.

>>4183421
>lenses are soft at f/5.6
Oh...now I get it. You think higher density sensors don't have more reach because you own shit glass.

>>4183425
>Oh...now I get it. You think higher density sensors don't have more reach because you own shit glass.
He's probably one of those guys who think they need the latest to get good results or that they need something made for their sensor size (you know, the type that claims EF-S and Nikon DX cameras "have no lenses" because they pretend full frame lenses don't exist).
They could get sharp lenses for chump change if they knew what to look for but they need shiny trinkets instead, and yet are too poor to afford quality ones so they buy a Chinese sweatshop special and then complain the quality isn't there.

>canon says something that is objectively true
>anons still screech autistically
/p/

>>4183444 (Checked)
I believe the root of that strange behavior is they think I'm an asshole because I ruthlessly criticize the glorified camcorders they like at a philosophical level so they try to go against everything I say. It's like they get off at being mad at my posts and they get so mad they refuse to let facts get in the way of trying to "pwn" me. Anger is one of the seven deadly sins for good reason. They wish I would shut up, but I didn't come to bring peace but a sword.

A lot of words but no REAL example photos

You talk about scanners not cameras

>>4183456
Whatever. Funny how the thread about my supposed "portfolio" got deleted after Moop started catching heat.

File: IMG_7802.jpg (1.04 MB, 1100x825)

1.04 MB JPG

>>4183456

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.2.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:05:28 12:27:17
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4183467
I like how she's taking a picture of you, says a lot about society

>>4183467
>I went for a walk in my local town with my new camera and kit lens tier photo
Omegafuckinglul, your posting privileges have been revoked.
>>4183462
It'll still be in the archive, post it, I think you're making up that you posted anything resembling a "portfolio" ;^)
>>4183468
Schizo self fellation is cringe

File: IMG_6826.jpg (36 KB, 241x181)

36 KB JPG

>>4183513
you're not a janny anon, you cannot revoke my posting privileges
also that would be an old camera and the kit lens it came with

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.2.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:05:28 18:37:02
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/7.1
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/7.1
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: 1d.gif (785 KB, 400x225)

785 KB GIF

>>4183513
>with my camera

>>4183515
>Still no portfolio
>Pretends that his shit camera gear is his old gear

File: IMG_6952.jpg (4.14 MB, 5359x3573)

4.14 MB JPG

>>4183703
silly anon i'm not the reachposting canon guy
i've posted my pictures a few times before

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 12.2.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:04:11 22:54:16
Exposure Time	1/40 sec
F-Number	f/4.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	160
Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Exposure Bias	-4 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto Bracket
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4183513
>omegafuckinglul
Not sure why, but I searched the archive for this and there was one result. How bizarre that it's also in a thread about film resolution...

https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4068748/#q4069228

>>4183711
Holy fuck I remember that bread. And the absolute retarded fuck who thinks you still have 20/20 vision under starlight. That thread made me lose hope for humanity.

>>4183711
lmao that was my thread

>>4183707
Is this even a photo? Looks like something my 6 year old nephew would take with his vtech kids camera.

>>4183814
>something my 6 year old nephew would take with his vtech kids camera
which would be... a photo.

>>4183848
In the same way the things pinned to their fridge are drawings and paintings.

>>4183852
correct. they're proper paintings and drawings ;) glad you're on board with me, anon

>>4183853
That hold absolutely zero worth or value except by the creator and maybe the parents, but even then the parents only "like" them because it makes the kid feel proud, they know it's worthless shit.

jesus christ i didn't know this board was so far up its own ass
i'm sorry you think that way anon
unfortunately, i take photos for myself, not to seek approval of self-fellating retards on the internet

>>4183858
>Wahhh I post photos online only because I like looking at them myself :'(
You're such a fucking retard.
And where's this portfolio you were talking about kek

>>4183859
anon i never said anything about a portfolio

>>4183859
cANON 6D isn't me, poopy

>>4183858
>unfortunately, i take photos for myself, not to seek approval of self-fellating retards on the internet
fucking based

>>4183858
>>4183907
You're both self-fellating retards on the internet, so you're back at square one with taking photos to seek the approval of self-fellating retards on the internet.

>>4184028
why, because you think my pic is shit even though i like it? that makes me have my cock yup my own throat? i’d like to see your thought patterns to gauge this board’s iq

Just wondering why it is that dslrs from several years ago have high megapickles count and newer mirrorless are gimped in that regard?
Like whats the deal with all those 24ish megapickles cameras when we had 50+ megapickles years ago.

>>4184698
Because the 50+ megapixel cameras were top of the line, and the 24 megapixel cameras are midrange/entry level (relative to what that is after the phonepocalypse). the canon 5ds r was $3899. the sony a7rv is $3899. surprise.

>>4184698
They're not the best suited for general photography, specially not for the budget people want to buy cameras for

>>4184698
Frame rates and video specs are what sell cameras now.