>>4252291it reminds me of that redditor who showed us the front page of every brands subreddit…nikon: photossony: photosfuji: photosolympus: photosleica: nophoto gear threadspanasonic: nophoto gear threadscanon: nophoto gear threads…it was basically exactly like /p/. Just look this nophoto kpoop fag is literally making threads begging people to mock his shilling. He’s an unemployed pajeet. The only way he can make money is by shilling panasoi cameras. I think most panasonic users on the internet are actually shills. >s5ii has a feature olympus had first its over for sony!>g9ii has a feature olympus had first thats it sony is going out of business!Every fucking time. M43 is useful but panasonic is a joke and its users are all paid off ‘jeets
>>4252293How do you say “im a paid shill not a /p/ user” better than running out of test shots from panasonics twitter and resorting to reaction images of the underage koreans you jerk off too?
>it reminds me of my nophoto redditor buddy
>>4252299Who are you quoting
>>4252295[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width1740Image Height2100
>>4252303Reality>canon: nophoto>olympus: nophoto>nikon: 1/3rd gearthreads>sony: all gear thread except one>panasonic: more video and a few photo threads>fuji: all photo threads
>>4252303KEK, Snoy and Cannot equally shit at opposite ends. Nophotos vs gearfaggotry.
>>4252303Something seemed sus so I checked.https://www.reddit.com/r/SonyAlpha/new/https://www.reddit.com/r/Lumix/new/https://www.reddit.com/r/fujifilm/new/ETC.IF YOU SORT BY NEW which is how 4chan works, and how reddit should be viewed because of the shillbots that run the upvote thing, they are, in fact, all the same, except for canon's which explicitly disallows photo posting. That said OP is definitely a shill. I would argue that between him and that angry canon faggot who replies to the whole thread across 3 posts 1 minute apart, that's 100% of the reason /p/ is a bit shit right there.It literally is THIS every time...>Olympus gets PDAF, handheld pixel shift almost a decade ago>no one notices or cares>panasonic finally catches up with everyone else>ITS OVER FOR *EVERYTHING THAT ISNT THIS NEW PANASONIC CAMERA* - some samefag that will never buy itLiterally every panasonic release on /p/. Either paid shill or more pathetically he does it for free.
>>4252225>muh wide open f/2.8!Which is actually f/5.6 eq and the problem is not DoF. It's just a mess of processed pixels, hence the comparison to phones.>>4252227>I see where the confusion is. You're saying the whole cropped area would be 5 inches on a 50 inch print and he said the clock-face would be an inch across. Both statements are roughly true.LOL no they are not, the clock face occupies most of the crop width wise. Shall we say the clock face is 4.5" and the sky 0.5"? Still dog shit.>I've seen wall sized prints that had less detail than thisWorse dog shit doesn't change the fact that it's dog shit.>don't shoot subjects a quarter of a mile away, handheld, wide open on mft and you'll be fine.You would be fine with any high resolution FF, quarter of a mile away, wide open (i.e. true f/2.8) with pro glass. Hell I bet 24mp FF scaled up would be better.>>~10% of the image is not "a pretty intense crop.">Come on now.Again, we're talking about 5" of width on the print. So the pixel barf seen in that crop would be seen on the print. It doesn't even look good at 2.5" eq. If that's the hand held pixel shift mode, best to leave it off and use a regular shot.>>4252237>horse laugher hasn't even tried to measure it>>4252238>idiot thinks the crop is only 1px high
>>4252285>For anyone not shooting stills2print for a livingI don't understand: are you admitting that the G9ii is a web site toy?
>>4252295>>4252306>Olympus did it all firstKek yeah there's a reason when new people ask for good cheap camera recs the list I give starts out with "Oly OM-D E-M5 III, E-M1 II, E-M1 III" and then a couple cheaper fujis, nikon DSLRs, and older used MILCs. Olympus just made a bunch of good, cheap cameras for hobbyists that want photos that their phone can't take. Take it from someone who actually takes photos to take photos and not test camera settings.The G9II seems to be a continuation of the trend of panasonic releasing mediocre cameras too late and chartposting shills having a field day based on wrong math based on wrong statistics + imagining what it would be like to actually own a camera (someday little shill man) + generic shitposting. If this is a paid advertising campaign I feel bad for panasonic. Why would anyone buy something shilled by a schizophrenic kpop fan who is so desperate for attention he makes 6 different threads just to post 0 photos and a bunch of charts?Posting a photo in ur'e photoless gear thread. I bet you can't measure up to this glorious feat of "picking up your camera once in a while".[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON Z 6_2Camera SoftwareCapture One 23 WindowsSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)85 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Width3000Image Height1996Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/4.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating6400Lens Aperturef/4.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length85.00 mmImage Width4058Image Height2700RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>4252310>the clock face occupies most of the cropWhat does "clock face" mean to you? There are two in that crop.
>>4252316Sorry this is a micro four thirds thread you are not allowed to post photos or be a full frame chad who acknowledges that miniature cameras have a use. One has to be the best, one has to be useless, and we don’t post photos here. Only charts, screenshots of reviews, and pixel peeping crops of denoised snapshits.
>>4252310>idiot thinks the crop is only 1px highHow much area would a crop take up that was roughly one tenth of the width and one tenth of the height?
>>4252310I can't tell if you're actually retarded or if you're spending you're time typing these retarded paragraphs to troll the 5 m43 users in here.
>it's dogfucker again
>>4252324>someone posted photos in my nophoto gear thread so I’m going to accuse them of reprehensible felony animal abuse for no reasonthe nophoto shrieks and shrinks back when confronted with literally ANY photo posting like a vampire before sunlight
>>4252325dogfucker, you can literally see the disappointmnt +fear in that poor animal's eyes. seek help.
>>4252326>someone posted a photo in the gear thread>schizo: and i took that personallyYou are literally writhing and fuming over this. Give it another 30 seconds and you’ll be weeping, gnashing your teeth even.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-G9M2Camera SoftwareSILKYPIX Developer Studio 8 SEMaximum Lens Aperturef/6.3Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)831 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2023:11:10 22:17:20Exposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1600Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length400.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5776Image Height3848RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4252331So much for IBIS. You totally botched this one. You could use a shutter speed of 1/250 or even 1/125 and significantly lower your ISO and get a sharper image after silkypix’s raw rape. At 400mm even without sync IS you should be able to do 1/125.
>>4252333>hey bro lower your iso and don’t overrate your shutter>REEEEEEEEE
> nophoto opinions
>>4252331This is a disgrace to the entire 4/3 format
Olympus: 20mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.8 macro, 300mm f/4or: 12-40mm f/2.8, 40-150mm f/2.8, 60mm macro, 300mm f/4?Or something else? Macro, landscape, and wildlife are important to me, and having everything weather sealed and small (where possible). I'd lean towards the first kit for being lighter and a little less redundant, but swapping lenses more might be hindrance when it rains. Maybe 12-100mm f/4 for landscape and some wildlife with a raynox in the rain?
>>4252306>if you sort by new>they are, in fact, all the same[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution144 dpiVertical Resolution144 dpiImage Width1740Image Height2100
>>4252349second one, ditch the macro, use the 40-150 for macro, and also ditch the 300mm
Micro fool turds have stooped so low as to base their egos on the opinions of redditors and make collages monitoring their behavior. Even baselessly accusing a better photographer than them of felony animal abuse was a little less cringe than putting this much effort into caring what reddit thinks. Maybe people would think more highly of your shitty budget cameras if you used them for great photography instead of just to have the appropriate camera exir for your sony northrup tier test shots.
>>4252349Olympus pro primes are scam lenses. Get two small zooms and the macro. Take advantage of what m43 does best.
>>4252349If i were you, but still the full frameGOD i am, I would keep the 12-50 and 60 macro on the list but get a much longer fast lens as long as the little oly did sync IS with it. Like a close equivalent to a full frame 100-400.
Thanks for the perspectives everyone.>>4252352That's definitely tempting, but is the 40-150mm any good for macro? It only goes to 0.3x and that's with the 1.4x TC. I really like my 60mm and would rather swap to it than pop on a TC (I think). For a "walk around in the rain and don't worry about swapping lenses" the 40-150 definitely is a strong contender.>>4252354I like shooting with my 60mm macro desu, I find primes kind of satisfying to use. I don't really need more than 2.8 I think, it's mostly just a size thing, so I can be convinced to use the 12-40.>>4252359Hmm there's not a ton of options there I think for faster than the 300mm f4. There's a Panasonic 200mm f2.8 that might fit the bill but it wouldn't have dual IS with my Oly body. There's a rumor OM systems is coming out with a 2.8 zoom that goes to 250mm but I have no idea how reputable that is.
>>4252375>2.8 zoom that goes to 250mmMy bad, the rumor is for a 50-250 f/4 and a 50-200 f/2.8. I'd go for the f/2.8 still.
>>4252375Relying on TCs with lower density full frame sensors, to say nothing over the higher density ones, is already known for getting really shaky and soft results across the whole 35mm sensor. It's not going to be any less bad on a permanently cropped one. That puts you in "but I just have to spend 4 hours running every single image through a pipeline of AI cope programs before editing the raw normally and its jussasgud!" and "ssstop pixel peeping staaahp" COPE sensor territory that should be reserved for focus stacks, pro work, and HDR, when you should just be having fun.Also noisy images is a nothingburger so there's nothing wrong with getting a zoom for your very long lens. You will probably be shooting all the stuff that's far away outdoors anyways.>>4252377And waiting for a 100-400 f5.6 constant equivalent is a wiser idea than going for a 600 f8 equivalent prime. Most wildlife photographers who got gud can do all their work on just a 100-400, and shorter lenses. Full frame users would clamor for a fastish constant aperture 100-400. That's a good (sounding) lens. I just hope it's not another $2000+ tragedy.
>>4252310So much wrong here.>Thinks a lens being softer wide open is a DoF issue>Thinks a clockface is a clock tower>Thinks 10x10 is something other than 100So much being a dumb fucking spaz in a single post.
>>4252383>his lens is soft at f5.6lol
>>4252384Post your work
>>4252310Wow what a retarded nophoto.
>>4252385This isn't a response to criticism because it's been explicitly laid out how it goes now.>If you criticize me, post your work.>And if I was planning to call it bad no matter what, you should have been nicer.>And if I harass you in later threads, you shouldn't have made me so mad.>And if I doxxed you, maybe you shouldn't have been so toxic that you deserved it.Someone laughed at you because you were trying to gear flex with a test shot with crappy gear? You're just going to have to deal with it, and maybe not try to gear flex with test shots done with crappy gear. You have no recourse, no power, no revenge. Such is the life of a gearfag doing tests shots from the sidewalk across from his flat.
>>4252384But the lens wasn't shot at f/5.6, it was shot at f2.8. The fact that you think think FF f/2.8 == MFT f/5.6 in all respects shows that you really don't understand what people refer to by 'equivalence', and neither do you understand lens performance. Go read a book haha...
>>4252390You misunderstand. Posting an image isn't a flex. That's just showing people who are curious what it does. So anyone can judge for themselves if they like it or not. Stills aren't my thing so the G9ii is more than enough for me in normal shooting modes.You can post the most hurtful words you can think of along with your name and place of business. None of it would concern me.These are my photos in the other thread. These aren't the best photos I've ever taken but you can see roughly what level I'm at.You can keep posting but everyone is just going to assume you don't know what you're talking about until you post some photos.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid DN2103_11_F.48Image-Specific Properties:Image Width443Image Height1646Unique Image ID112a374d-6745-4936-8171-71f2740e2b9c
>>4252390do you even own a camera?
>>4252393>its not f5.6 it just has the dof of the equivalent standard format length at f5.6>iso 100 is not iso 400 it just has the same snr as a standard format sensor at iso 400>and other such copesOne thing about lens performance is… with 20 very small pixels on a very small area, all but the sharpest 4 figure european glass will kind of suck lol
>>4252403>One thing about lens performance is… with 20 very small pixels on a very small area, all but the sharpest 4 figure european glass will kind of suck lolExactly. Thinking pixel shift is mainly a camera benchmark instead of a lens benchmark is so retarded
>>4252378>I just hope it's not another $2000+ tragedy.I'm with you there. There's a (not micro) four thirds Olympus 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5 lens that seems similar and went for a little under 1k, hopefully what we'll get is only a bit more expensive for the extra brightness at 200mm. Right now that lens is pretty cheap, I'm tempted to nab one with the MMF-3 adapter but have heard mixed things about AF performance.
>>4252405Does that apply to pixel shifting though? Premerge the images wouldn't have diffraction due to pixel density, so why would the diffraction show up when combined?
>>4252405Side by side against the R7 the g9ii handheld pixel shift still gives noticably more detailed results so it's not just the glass.
>>4252407>>4252410Diffraction is always there, no matter the aperture. The so called diffraction limit was chosen as a standard definition of some proportion between the airy disks and pixel pitch, indicating when a particular sensor would be DETAILED ENOUGH to resolve the diffraction softening. Pixel shifting effectively emulates a smaller pixel pitch. This is also why the so called diffraction limit (it's not a hard limit) is dependent not just on sensor size, but also on pixel count, since that is used to calculate pitch.It's not just about diffraction though. Lenses generally perform better stopped down, counterbalanced by diffraction softening. Hence why the best performance is obtained somewhere BETWEEN wide open and minimum aperture, at the best compromise between diffraction and lens performance. You can now see why complaining about detail on a pixel shifted wide open shot is...
>>4252410It also depends on how pixel shift works on the cameraI prefer 4 shot debayering, with up to 4 more shots for motion compensation averaging, to 16+ shot super resolution because super resolution usually looks worse than the usual image at 100% despite being technically more detailed because putting a virtual smaller pixel pitch on the lens you have is just wanking over the lens's resolution, even though line counting is one thing and human perceived sharpness is another - like how the a7rv and r6ii have virtually the same SNR but no amount of downsampling will ever make the a7rv chroma noise free at iso 6400 and above, and the r6ii doesn't even need AI copes, just your usual standard raw processor, to eliminate pretty much all chroma noise well past iso 25600. i'm sure a computer would measure the same amount of noise with the same edits applied but your eyes would not.
>>4252413Yes, exactly. I too prefer 4-shot pixel shift for accurate colors and I think that it should be a bog standard feature on anything with a bayer CFA. Maybe x-trans can pixel shift away its CFA too, albeit with a much more robust IBIS lol...
>>4252317>nooooo let's keep arguing about the sizeffs the original crop he posted would be 5x5 on a 50" wide print. It looks fucking awful, which means the entire print would look fucking awful. It even looks fucking awful at 25" scale. Continuing to argue about the size is just a cope. If that's representative of the pixel shift mode, and not a bug or some form of user fuck up, then the mode is useless at 50", useless at 25"...you're better off shooting a regular frame in all scenarios.>>4252320>How much area would a crop take up that was roughly one tenth of the width and one tenth of the height?His original crop was square, so 5x5 or 25 sq in on a 50" wide print. Try and argue that it's invisible or not representative of detail across the entire thing. Go ahead and cope.>>4252383m43 fans when arguing about sharpness>NOOOO MY LENS IS MOAR THAN TWICE AS SHARP WIDE OPEN THAT'S HOW IT BEATS FOOL FRAME!m43 fans when their pixel shift mode looks like an over scaled iPhone 3GS image>i mean come on he shot it wide open you can't shoot a m43 lens wide openThat's hilarious. But the problem isn't actually that it's soft. The problem is that it looks like an early generation iPhone shot scaled using the worst algorithm in PS. Oh, and it's noisy at ISO 100. But then again that's pretty normal for m43, isn't it?>>4252321>>4252388>butthurt pannyfags
>>4252393I thought that m43 lenses were so much easier to make that they beat fool frame lenses wide open. I thought they were the sharpest lenses ever made! What happened?
>>4252410>Side by side against the R7 the g9ii handheld pixel shift still gives noticably more detailed resultsNot based on the crops in the last m43 cope thread.
>>4252420Heh they’re only easier to make because they can design an apsc lens and crop out the hardest part to design for (so most m43 lenses are apsc sized)
nophoto fooltarders still in the m43 thread seething with impotent rage
>>4252423>fooltardersThe m43 users? Yeah they are lol but everyone is mad for no reason
>>4252316The E-M5 III is a bad camera because of the tripod mount that breaks. Completely flawed design which is too bad. I’d love an updated E-M5 with a metal body.
>>4252427The tripod mount only breaks from abuse like capture clips and people who refuse to use tripod collars. They should fix it, but it’s fine for the travel camera niche they went for and there are no perfect alternatives.
>>4252420? what are you even on about
>>4252428I guess. The OM-5 should be a great hiking camera but not being usable with a capture clip is a huge downside. Are there other plastic cameras that suffer from this or is it just a problem with the E-M5.3/OM-5? I feel like sturdier plastic or a metal mount with a plastic body would fix this.
I want to buy an e-pl9, what should I know before buying? Can you please recommend lenses under $100?
Can't wait to try this[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3075Image Height4096Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4252439>e-pl9A body from 5y ago with $100 lenses ain't gonna make your photos much better than an iPhone with a pro camera app.
>>4252484It's still cheaper than a gayphone so...
as previously stated, 2 stops more of workable ISO compared to the G9.
Birb[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-G9M2Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.0.1 (Android)Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3Focal Length (35mm Equiv)800 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Created2023:11:11 15:52:25Exposure Time1/2500 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating250Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length400.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGB
I caught some hand shake in this one.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-G9M2Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.0.1 (Android)Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3Focal Length (35mm Equiv)800 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Created2023:11:11 15:48:04Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length400.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGB
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-G9M2Camera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 9.0.1 (Android)Maximum Lens Aperturef/6.3Focal Length (35mm Equiv)800 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image Created2023:11:11 15:47:56Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length400.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGB
>>42525271/800 is borderline too slow for that scene. Set everythign to manual.As a curiosity, if you turn IBIS off, what's the lowest SS you can personally go on a handheld shot without blur?On the G9 I could go down to1/3 - 10% success1/5 - 50/501/10 - 75%over that practically allYou seem to have issues with keeping a steady shot. No offense.
>>4252530I was shooting 1 sec exposures no problem at 12mm.800 was fine for what I was shooting right up until these birds started fighting. A combination of their erratic movement and evf blackout in burst most and I just fucked it up.This is literally day 1 of birb photography for me.
>>4252531>800 was fine for what I was shooting right up until these birds started fightingYeah, that's why I suggested not leaving it to SP and instead going full manual all the time.otherwise OK, hope you enjoyed birbing.
>>4252532That's why the first birb was at 2500 in SP lol. I shot that one after the fight.
>>4252524>t. Pajeet posting noise reduced shit ala snoy northrup[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1536Image Height864Scene Capture TypeStandard
>>4252524mislabeled themsamples form here for the seething foolframershttps://phototrend.fr/2023/10/test-panasonic-lumix-g9-ii/
>>4252545Lovely brown eyes on the OM1
>>4252553Third worlders are easy to buy offI’ll wait for dpreview to add it to the studio shot tool since exposure normalization defeats panasonic’s ISO lying and reveals sony’s dirty secrets>>4252555Less chroma noise normally means less color accuracy under differing illuminants from a weaker CFA. Contrast noise reduction to get rid of it that can preserve (but desaturate) colors.
>>4252553we went over this with the g9 releasethe samples are jpegs with heavy NR applied, and the iso is labeled one stop higher than what the sensor is actually working at, just like the g9mk1, which has had 5 years of “better noise than apsc (but not)” to go nowhere except filming YT vids
>>4252427>>4252428The E-M5III and OM-5 are badFor one, you can buy an EM1.3 for the same price as an OM-5, it's not much bigger but it is much better.- OM5 Face Detect is less responsive than EM1.3 somehow- Terrible shutter feel and more shutter shock- Tripod Mount Issues- Thumb Grip Issues- No USB-C charging on OM-5- Inability to use EM5.3 as a webcam, even though EM1.3,1.2 and EM5.2 are supported- No subject recognition capabilities and poor C-AF Tracking performanceJust get an EM1.3, it's everything the OM-5 should be, and the only downside is that the TFT display has worse blacks than the OLED in the OM5.
didn't read lol.
Yass I can't wait for more noise charts.Imagine if someone told you at the start of your photography journey how much time you'd waste debating noise charts. Would you have stayed away?You could get hit by a bus tomorrow. Do something you can be proud of.
>>4252575>i-its not much biggerits so fucking big it defeats the entire point of using these shitty baby sensors with 4x more noise at every ISO unless your primary lens is so telephoto you cant take a full body portrait of a human being without half a football field of working roomits like buying the fattest full frame canon just to use a 28mm f2.8 pancake that basically exists on aps-c only worse because people actually notice a +1 crop factor difference
Can someone cure my GAS for an Olympus body w/ HHHR (Hand Held Hi-Res)? I mostly shoot macro and landscapes on an E-M5 MK II. Will my shots be that much better on an E-M1?
>>4252588I should mention I want to avoid a tripod. I take macro while foraging and landscapes while hiking; photography isn't my primary goal while foraging, so I don't want the weight and fuss of a tripod, and while hiking I definitely don't want the extra weight.
>>4252565>I’ll wait for dpreview to add it to the studio shot tool since exposure normalization defeats panasonic’s ISO lyingThe noise comparison posting will be hilarious and glorious. But also, a total repeat of what we've already seen with literally every new m43 release. Shills say it has no noise, then, it turns out, they were basically lying about the ISO setting.>THE NOISE CHART SAID... LOOK AT THE CHART>https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20Z%2050,Panasonic%20Lumix%20DC-G9>IT BTFO APSC! MICRO FOUR THIRDS IS THE GOD SENSOR>Dpreview, after increasing exposure and therefore noise 1 stop because the camera took a photo that is 1 full stop darker with the same EV according to the camera settings:and i know what you guys are thinking, the g9 here looks a lot like the g9ii here >>4252545Well I have a surprise for you...
>>4252428>>4252436I won't buy a camera that won't work with the capture clip. The OM-5 indeed should've been the best hiking camera on the market, but they dropped the ball. If the mount was attached to the metal interior chasis it'd be fine, it's an easy fix which has me worried about the future under OM.
>>4252588>>4252591I don't use hi res mode at all but basically have the same use case as you. What do you need the extra MPs for?
>>4252595I've only had a capture clip for a few months but there's no going back now.
>See a noisepost>Hide a noisepost[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid DN2103_11_F.48Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height1270Unique Image ID8e6dc44f-5da8-42ff-bbff-be6318730b7d
>>4252596I don't really need the extra MP's, just HHHR for better shots without a tripod. (Note: Hand-Held Hi-Res, not just Hi-Res mode - there's a difference. My E-M5.2 has Hi-Res mode, but not HHHR). Also, can the E-M1.3 transfer images to a phone via Bluetooth or something? It'd be great to shoot SOOC jpegs and xfer them to my phone once I'm back to the car. I would use this for all kinds of things really.
>>4252593...Tada!The G9II didn't save micro four thirds any more than the G9I did. Nothing changed. It is still worse in low light than OM system>>4252588No. As long as you stick to small lenses like the 60mm macro and panasonic 12-35 nothing is smaller without also being worse. If you aren't a photographer first it's fine.>>4252595The capture clip is a meme fashion accessory that doesn't do anything a well designed zip/snap closure holster doesn't, and doesn't protect your camera half as well.>>4252598>STOP SHOWING ME INCONVENIENT TRUTHS! THIS IS A PANASONIC MARKETING THREAD!No.
>>4252527>>4252529>i just need more reeeeeeeach!Kek.>>4252530>thinks shutter speed is the main issue hereKek.MTF users really are clueless snapshitters. Even their advice to one another is trash.
>see nophoto post>hide nophoto postsimple as
You can improve the signal to noise ratio of any thread but simply hiding the noisea202a[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1075Image Height1444Image OrientationUnknownImage Created2023:11:11 20:09:03Time (UTC)20:09:03Date (UTC)2023:11:11
>>4252601>No. As long as you stick to small lenses like the 60mm macro and panasonic 12-35 nothing is smaller without also being worse. If you aren't a photographer first it's fine.I use the 60mm exclusively for macro and the 12-40mm for landscapes. You're saying HHHR won't improve IQ? >The capture clip is a meme fashion accessory that doesn't do anything a well designed zip/snap closure holster doesn't, and doesn't protect your camera half as well.Could you post an example?
>>4252607>You're saying HHHR won't improve IQ?If you're shooting landscape it absolutely will.
>>4252608What about macro? I'll keep my eye open for a decent priced E-M1.3 or OM-1 in that case.
>>4252606>>4252605Panasonic shills when the noise posts are ff: *lies about FF having 10 stops more noise*Panasonic shills when the noise posts show panashit losing to GODlympus: NO NO NO SHUT THE FUCK UP SHUTBTHEIFHR NO NO NO NO ONE LOOK HIDE THE POSTS HIDE THEM IM NOT LISTENING SHUT UP SHUT UP >:’0Lol. >>4252607He’s saying the only better cameras are huge. >camera holstersAye these are better than clip memes. But most are large because expensive cameras people don’t want to fall and crush directly against rocks are also large[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width193Image Height350
>>4252610I don't shoot macro but I don't see why not as long as the subject is still.
>>4252611Not only that they noise post themselves showing g9 iso 100 vs r3 iso 56000 because “muh ibis and dof must be consider saars do not redeem the bokey”Its fucking hilarious that they chart and dpreview post to no end but when it turns against them its their least favorite thing. Micro FOOL turds earned its name.
We could do with a noisepost general so the noise fans can talk about noise.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height1383Image OrientationUnknownImage Created2023:11:11 20:23:10Time (UTC)20:23:10Date (UTC)2023:11:11
>>4252615>Panashills unironically plugging their ears and screaming Does the truth hurt that much? (You) were posting noise comparisons and charts a few days ago.
Mft shill here.NOISE IS INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO SENSOR SIZE AND ALWAYS WILL BE.See. Nobody cares.
>>4252613Sweet, yeah I only shoot static subjects really. I want to upgrade for power over USB too so I'll definately keep my eyes open and might just spring for the OM-1. Seems like a considerable upgrade over the E-M1.3
>meltdown mode engaged>g9 and g9ii have the same (worse) iso noise vs the om1another L for panashit shills. post processed twitter reposts won’t save your lies now. do video capabilities inherently come with worse noise? canon has a similar problem (forced nr in raws to keep up with sonikon DR)
>>4252620>do video capabilities inherently come with worse noise?That's a possibility. Video shooters have probably got better things to do that pixel peep noise patterns.
>>4252621Video shooters spend a half hour staring at davinci while NR runs on any footage with a four digit ISO setting or just buy a full frame camera. Stills aren’t really worth money unless printed big so noise mattersAnd video is tiktok/vlog slop unless it’s destined for such a large screen that noise still mattersWhy do you think topaz labs sells so well
>>4252622I can’t imagine being such an emotionally fragile bitch that you need to hide posts of inconvenient truths. Everyone already saw panasonic’s IQ is so shit even other m43 cameras are better. It’s too late. You lost. The g9ii is shit. The g9 is shit. This is an olympus thread now.
>>4252585You really need to hold them in person. the size and weight difference isn't properly shown on pxlmag. Neither goes in the pocket, so what does it matter? It's going on a strap or in a bag either way.
>>4252624It's not inconvenient.Noise performance is, and will always be, worse on smaller sensors. That is, and always will be, a fact.I learned all about this around a decade ago and have seen all these discussions go around and around enough times without the facts changing.In 99% of the photos and videos I take, it doesn't matter and it'd be nice to have a board where the four people who give a fuck about noise charts weren't shitting up every thread.
>>4252626check the apertures
>>4252627Noise ESPECIALLY chroma noise is the single most important aspect of IQ. Lens sharpness and aberrations are a “look” but digital chroma noise is universally disliked. Luma noise is more tolerable. OM system clearly wins here, SNR be damned panasonic is the snoy of four thirds. The point made was clearly a response to the retarded panasonic shill from india constantly claiming “the g9ii has no chroma noise” and then calling direct evidence to the contrary or people pointing out the obvious OM system endorsed hit pieces. I think his BTFOing was well earned.
>>4252629>om system having the money to pay shillsthat’s hilarious. they aren’t developing anything new, just letting prior almost finished developments from olympus trickle out to milk their purchase for someprofit. its pentax 2.0.
>>4252623>Why do you think topaz labs sells so wellI'd like to see the breakdown of why people buy topaz for video but I suspect it's mainly as a resolution upscaler.People buying it for stills are probably doing it because it gives smaller sensors the same noise results they'd get of full frame.
>>4252632Because it gives full frame and medium format literally 0 noise, actually.
>>4252629>chroma noise is the single most important aspect of IQ.Right, and it still makes zero difference to 99% of my shots and video.
>>4252633Which looks weird and synthetic, so they have a noise slider to add some back in.
>>4252622Hey you mostly screenshotted my posts, what's up?
>>4252637just a shot with low thread noise.
>>4252637Auto hiding the nophoto bickering
>>4252601>a well designed zip/snap closure holsterDo you have any examples? I'm looking for better options than the strap my camera came with.
>>4252600>Also, can the E-M1.3 transfer images to a phone via Bluetooth or something? It'd be great to shoot SOOC jpegs and xfer them to my phone once I'm back to the car. I would use this for all kinds of things really.My OM-5 can do this but it fucking sucks so bad in my experience. Bluetooth is just awful technology. I have low patience for these things though.
>>4252635>it makes 0 difference to the 4chan and youtube dwelling troglodytes who see my shots and videoyeah noise doesnt matterthats why the entire industry went to weaker CFAs and worse color accuracy to reduce chroma noise because color accuracy is meaningless without low noise (except high end medium format cameras that aren't expected to be used above base ISO apparently), manufacturers have started forcing noise reduction in raws, some of them lie about their real ISOs so it looks like they have less noise according to charts, denoise is forced in video modes across the board, 99/100 technological improvements are focused on getting more signal and less noise, AI denoise features are more popular among photographers than candy, the standard format against which all are measured is 35mm (4x larger and 1/4 the noise vs. m43) and it's on the cusp of being displaced by 44x33mm sensors, the entire reason anyone ever used larger film sizes was to make the same sized prints with less visible grain (noise, and color tonality)...the only two parts of image quality that matter in photography and videography are noise and color. the only time either of these takes a backseat is when it's revolutionary "impossible tech" like global shutter and then guess what people notice sucks first? noise and color. that's enough for people to say "i dont care, keep your gear, this camera sucks".why do fuji cameras have such a premium?1: they have less aggravating (luma dominated) noise2: color.you can have the nicest composition and most interesting subject on earth and bad noise and ugly colors will force you to shoot b&w. nothing else matters.>>4252650either your camera supports usb c to your phone or you can buy a card reader that works with your phone. wireless is slow/unstable on every brand.>>4252649manfrotto or shimoda holsters.
>>4252657>and it's on the cusp of being displaced by 44x33mm sensors, the entire reason anyone ever used larger film sizes was to make the same sized prints with less visible grain (noise, and color tonality)...lol, the delusion is palpable
>>4252659Lol.The GFX100II has made buying a full frame camera for anything but m43 tier reasons ("i cant afford that" "my arms hurt" "framerate pls" "super long focal length!?") totally pointless.8 stop IBIS, 8 FPS, 8k30 and 4k60 10 but video, 16 bit raws, an 0.5 stop noise advantage *over LOW megapixel cameras* (leaps and bounds over the GARBAGE high ISO quality of 62mp sony), 10 bit HEIF SOOC - basically every full frame setup that isn't a specialized sports and nat geo bird snapshit machine is now a budget decision. Anyone who does photography that really pays (portraiture and fashion, commercial realestate, product photography) has no reason to use FF but poverty, framerates, telephoto, and video. Hey does that sound familiar?FF is now M43 for rich people.Fuji won.
>>4252661How the fuck does MF do 4k60 full width no binning no lineskipping but no FF does it under $6k? Also what's the rolling shutter on that?
>>4252661>FF is for rich peopleKekMFT lenses are worse and more expensive than their closest FF counterparts. MFT is a false economy.
>>4252661There's this thing called equivalence which means your precious 44x33 sensor is actually noisier unless you are shining a sun on the subject, because the GFX glass turds are slow.
Is this really you?
>>4252679The fastest gf lenses are all f1.3 equivalents. >EQUIVALENCE ONE: no. Equivalence is for web sized IG posts. How are you going to get equivalence with 100mp PER SHOT? You can’t. End of story. At every ISO, equivalence is bunk. Down sampling 50 % size reduces noise one stop. Downsampling 25% reduces noise two stops. What’s 25% of 100mp? Oh yes. Higher resolution than the nicest camera you own lmfao. TWO: ALL of “real” professional photography (ie no wedding snappers) is done with CHOSEN light not AVAILABLE light so yes, you do shine a sun on the subject. Are you some snapshitter? If it is not scheduled or flashed and your model is a dog or a cat, you are not a photographer. PERIOD.
>>4252679>mfw watching weak shit poorfag fool frame babbies try to claim 100mp medium format is pointless because muh equivalence, when in real life equivalence doesn’t even apply to full frame unless shit is pitch black and you have exacting DOF and shutter requirements with no room to move the camera and no ability to increase the amount of light… which never happens unless you’re a creatively incompetent winogrand tier snapshitter[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width558Image Height464
>>4252657>Types all this and doesn't shoot medium formatCurious
>>4252687He shoots fuji so it’s okay. Xtrans mostly has luma noise so the photos still look good, like film, and fuji’s color science is the best in the industry. Fuji > phase one > hasselblad > nikon > olympus > canon > panasonic > sony
>>4252667FF does full width oversampled 4k60 on the r6ii. The gfx… it’s a beast. https://www.cined.com/fujifilm-gfx100-ii-review-8k-internal-anamorphic-recording-external-ssd-recording-and-more/>gfx rolling shutter 13ms in dci 4k60. The r6ii’s is 18ms.Gfx100ii + panasonic g9ii = cinema hybrid dream team and the g9ii could cover sports and wildlife photography the gfx would struggle with (and so would FF really, lmao 4lb lenses)
>>4252691>r6ii>no codecsno thanks, I'm white.
>>4252699>sooc codecsIf you need anything but h264 you need timecode or you don’t know what you’re doing. Not just that, if you have such quality concerns, micro four thirds isn’t even acceptable in ANY codec. You’re just an enthusiast who wants numbers but doesn’t know what they mean. No one cares about your youtube videos. The r6ii needs a recorder for timecode, which also records raw, solving the problem for people who need quality video destined for screen sizes where it matters. The gfx100ii has sooc codecs and doesn’t need a recorder for timecode. Hence, it’s a beast.
>>4252702I wish /p/ was sane enough to slam stillsfags with this kind of rhetoric>whine whine whine YOU LITERALLY DO NOT NEED THAT FOR PHOTOS OF YOUR DOG enjoy your sony a6000 consoomwr.
>>4252703The stills version is someone whining that a lens mount doesn’t have a cheap version of a fast prime. So like snoys complaining that rf lacks their cheap sigma arts. If you need a fast prime that’s sharp wide open you need a better camera than sony and a better lens than a sigma or you’re basically jacking off in your bedroom. Problem solved.
>camera system that includes pro grade optics to cheap little pancakes that can fit big comfy cameras or picrel>two different brands fulfilling different nichesYeah, I'm thinking based[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid TP1A.220624.014.G991USQS9EWI2Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height746
>>4252706micro four thirds has no pro grade optics lol
>>4252708It has an EF adapter. Close enough.
>>4252657>yeah noise doesnt matter>thats why the entire industry went to weaker CFAs..That's not what I'm getting at. Here's a 100% crop from the last thread, shot on mft. If it was shot on FF or MF it would have less noise. Would it make a worthwhile difference to the image? To me the downsides are not worth the improved noise performance.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAndroid DN2103_11_F.48Image-Specific Properties:Image Width1080Image Height2292Unique Image ID27446995-9633-4eee-848d-e993d04923fa
>>4252802>If it was shot on FF or MF it would have less noise.And it would actually be sharp.
>>4252667There are at least three FF cameras which do that (R6, R6ii, R8).
>>4252685>thinks MP has anything to do with equivalenceOpinion discarded. Also...>"the largest group of paid professional photographers are not professional photographers">t. Unemployed
>>4252657>thats why the entire industry went to weaker CFAs and worse color accuracy Moving to weaker CFAs improved color accuracy. Color accuracy is limited by noise, not "muh color separation." CFAs always had overlap between RGB as do your cone cells.>and it's on the cusp of being displaced by 44x33mm sensors,LOL no. None of the major manufacturers are looking to ship 44x33, and 44x33 sales are a tiny drop in the bucket.>the entire reason anyone ever used larger film sizes was to make the same sized prints with less visible grain (noise, and color tonality)...Also LOL no. People also shot larger film to make larger prints.>the only two parts of image quality that matter in photography and videography are noise and color. >t. DxOSharpness and resolution are also important. If they weren't sensors would have stopped at around 16mp and no one would need anything above mid tier consumer glass.I do agree with you that noise and color are important, but they are not the only important things.
>>4252821weve been thru thisr8 no ibisthe others, no codecs lol
>>4252830>Sharpness and resolution are also importantThey're also the same thingthe more you resolve the sharper it gets
>>4252685>muh megapickles (while ignoring the useful area aka 3:2 is 88MP not 100)>muh downsampling to reduce noise>muh equivalence isn't real because I say soWide open GFX collects less light because the lenses for it are much slower. As it is right now all it's good for is bragging about sensor size. Right now outside of the MP it can do nothing that FF can't, but FF can do things it can't.
>>4252830 there's overlap and there's too much overlap. See the cones of protanomalous colorblind people for example. They're better at seeing some microtonal variations and therefore invaluable in breaking camo in combat but can't tell green from red reliably. Modern cameras suffer from a mild form of this, hence their weird behavior under certain lighting. It's also why cameras like the D200 can pick colors many newer ones seem unable to.
https://ceraphic-ec.kyocera.co.jp/collections/wholesalenew almost like the sun lighting just dropped
>>4252325>my name is David Hogg and I fuck dogs
>>4252906you seem preoccupied with this. does it turn you on?
>>4252835>i need applel prores!>even if raw footage looks like upscaled 1080plol
>>4252685lmao, wedding and sports snappers are the entire reason the camera industry still exists
>>4252838They’re related and influence each other but they are not the same thing.
>>4252849> there's overlap and there's too much overlap.You can’t argue there is too much overlap when accuracy has gone up. And claiming the D200 can see more colors is laughable, it falls short of modern sensors by literally orders of magnitude.
>>4252940You know you have buyers remorse when you cant bear to see the inconvenient truthsImagine a snoy filtering the words “color” and “vignetting” kek
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-G9M2Camera SoftwareSILKYPIX Developer Studio 8 SEMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)46 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2023:11:12 20:21:49Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length23.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5776Image Height4336RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4252952>get 3 inches away from a flower>shoot base iso>still noisy, soft, and barely any bokehthanks your test shot just sold me on a gfx50r. fool framers be btfo.
>>4252940>filters every valid critique of format>"fool framers btfo'd"The absolute state of the m43 user.
>>4252978>Thread after thread after thread filled with people who think noise is very important but don't shoot medium format
>>4252995Full frame: sub $2000APS-C: sub $2000Micro four thirds: sub $2000Crop medium format: $4000 minimum for a model that doesn’t have worse SNR than FFREAL medium format: $15,000 startingUSED. Indeed. Quality isn’t THE only reason but cost certainly isn’t a question when FF meets fool turds. They cost the same from garbage 5d classics and em-10s to g9iis and a used EOS R 6 mk 2. But the based EOS R shoots higher quality video, so high quality its 1080p 120fps looks like the g9ii’s 4k120. The quality on panashit is so low that no codec can save it.
>>4253020Okay so you're poor. Got it.
>>4253020>1080 looks as good as 4kCOPE
>>4253020>Price is also important. Look at the price of flagship mft bodies next to the price of entry level FF.Holy cherry picking batman.>$4000 MF doesn't have better snrLies but okay>REAL mfNo true Scotsman but okayDo you want to rewrite that? There are a couple of lines that don't contain a blatant lie or logical fallacy.
>>4253023Whatever you need to say to COPE. Lmao imagine buying a worse camera for the same amount of money. You think you can call me poor? Show us your new GFX100II. >>4253024It does. Cope if you will. A cropped sensor is always lower quality.
>>4253027>EOS R six mark two>entry levelLmfao.>medium format doesn’t have better SNRNot if you buy an ancient crop MF one with a CCD sensor or gapped microlenses, no.
>>4253027flagship mft bodies are worse than entry level ff? okay then. i agree. its not fair to compare them to anything but the most expensive cameras because they deserve more brutal moggings than that.
>>4253020>Mention price>Don't mention lensesOh so that's why you're nophoto
>>4253031We already proved micro four thirds lenses cost more for worse optics. The sharpest prime olympus ever made for four thirds takes blurry as fuck photos compared to a cheaper, lighter, f0.03 faster sony lens. Kek.>inb4 “leica glass”It’s panasonic lenses with a licensing deal. Real leica lenses are L and M mount and cost as much to 10x more than your camera.
>>4253020>no codec can save it.Only people who don't color grade say shit like this.
>>4253034>color grading a soft snowstorm instead of full frame oversampled rawLmao let me guess you learned video from youtube snoys who actually use log gammas and are doing this for vlogs and kpoop fan videos
>>4253035fool turds like to focus on the specs of video rather than what their footage looks like or is about they dont care if it looks like a walmart direct to dvd film from 2001, if it says 4k prores full width (despite being cropped 2x) they literally have an orgasm.
>>4253033There are some very expensive lenses, but you can't bring cost up as a factor without mentioning lenses unless you're up to something.The equivalent of a nifty fifty and standard zoom cost buttons of mft.Here's the thing. I know everything that you know about cameras. Ive owned full frame for years. I now shoot mft.
>>4253035Are you the guy who thinks there's no reason for anything between 8bit 4.2.0 and raw with timecode? Everyone else knows this isn't true.
>>4253036>fool turds like to focus on the specs of videoI LIKE to focus on shooting and grading. I honestly thought this place would be somewhere to discuss that. I'm not the one posting test charts and equations in a thread for a system you apparently do t have any interest in.
>>4252995>IF YOU'RE NOT SHOOTING MF THEN YOUR 4X SUPERIOR SNR JUST DOESN'T MATTERlol wut? is this a new m43 cope or something?
>>4253040Better buy a canon then
>>4253044>newfoolturds copers have been crying about that forever. they think its an own to basically call themselves poor at the same time. its like when a bullied kid says “I AM fat and ugly where’s your six pack tough guy” and then cries later. Their mind has been damaged.
>>4253045I have zero brand loyalty. The moment Canon brings a camera out that has all the features I like, I'll buy a canon.
>>4253039>MUH CODECS!!!The only reason to want a codec on the R6/R6ii is for easier editing out of camera. If you don't mind transcoding then IPB, and actually even IPB Lite, capture the same IQ as anything else. You have to jump to RAW to gain an IQ edge, which you can with the R6ii.If your needs are so specific that you have to have prores, for example, then you're probably shooting an ext recorder any way which gives you your codec.This entire line of debate started many threads ago with a m43 user thinking he had a "gotcha" on FF users.>well show me a FF body that does full width oversampled 4k60 CAN'T SHOW ME ONE CAN YOUThen he got butthurt when the answer came back that multiple FF bodies could do it, including three affordable ones. So he moved the goalposts.>what about muh full width 4k120???>what about muh codecs???>WHAT ABOUT THE CODECS????Never mind that m43 fails one of his conditions since it's always 2x cropped.
>>4253044>I can't argue with what it says so I'll pretend it says something elseYou're wasting your own time more than anyone else's.
>>4253051>you're probably shooting an ext recorderStopped reading.
>>4253051You forgot the other fool turds cope. It usually goes like this. >IT IS full width because FOOL frame 35mm IS NOT THE F F F FUCKING STANDARD ITS ANRITR… ANROTJRN… ARBITRARY *wipes foam from mouth* FULL FAGGOTS *cries*>rest of world: but, no.
>>4253051>Never mind that m43 fails one of his conditions since it's always 2x cropped.This is an incredibly dumb statement. Cropped from what? Certainly not cropped compared to any of the other modes I'm shooting in.
>>425305535mm 3:2 going sideways they the camera was never a cinema standard. There are more movies shot on vertical 16mm than anything resembling current 35mm sensors.
>engaging the retard instead of filtering it out.couldn't be me
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-G9M2Camera SoftwareSILKYPIX Developer Studio 8 SEMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)40 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2023:11:12 20:10:38Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length20.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width5776Image Height4336RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4253052LOL that's literally what he said.
>>4253056Cropped compared to FF and apsc cameras.>noooo it doesn't matter it's full width on my baby sensor!It does matter for sharpness and SNR which means the challenge is inverted: show me a m43 camera with a 4k60 mode that's as sharp and clean as on an R6, R6ii, R8, or R3.
>>4253070What does the word "literally" mean in this sentence?
>>4253071>Show me IQ IQ IQNo. If you want IQ shoot mf or fuck off.I want a balance of features that I can only get on mft, so I bought mft.>But the balance of features and IQ is better on FFFor you? Sure. For me? No.
>>4252937>You can’t argue there is too much overlap when accuracy has gone upUnder one illuminant, maybe. Pictures tell a different story.
>>4252937A D700 from 2008 scores a Sensitivity Metamerism Index of 83 under both CIE-D50 andCIE-A. A7RV launched last year scores 81 on both. 13 years apart, yet it's worse telling colors apart. Really activates your almonds doesn't it?
>>4253091Weaker CFAs cause this but also cause the a7rv, the FF with the worst noise period, to be usable above ISO 1600. Or be stuck with a camera that gets phone tier results (actually worse) anywhere ISO 800 is sufficient that’s fine lmao. >>4253087The balance is better on FF and every year more people realize it. That’s why olympus sold their camera division and the g9ii is just a firmware update so panasonic can get some more money for L mount lenses and S models. The only place it tilts in m43s favor anymore is supertelephoto snapshitting and being a delusional video hobbyist>it says 4k prores ok!>looks like 1080p lol
>>4253093>Weaker CFAs cause this but also cause the a7rv, the FF with the worst noise period, to be usable above ISO 1600. Or be stuck with a camera that gets phone tier results (actually worse) anywhere ISO 800 is sufficient that’s fine lmao.The thing is, R6 and R5 are even worse. Worse than a D300 even. And Z6/Z7 II is just as bad. Now enter the joy of reflex, 1D X III mogs every one of them. 86 under CIE-D50, a rather mediocre 80 under CIE-A. Z8 is decent, Z9 an utter disgrace specially given the price.
>>4253093>The balance is better on FF and every year more people realize it.Jesus Christ. For who? For those people buying one? Sure. For me? NOPE.*I'M* *NOT* *BUYING* *A* *CAMERA* *FOR* *THE* *CROWD*I've had a full frame camera for years. What are you going to tell me about the benefits of full frame?
>>4253093>more peopleAlso, camera sales are down year on year. What more people are actually realizing is the camera they have with them (their phone) is more than adequate for most people, most of the time.
>>4253097>the joy of inferior technology>number go up by 3>you only have to use this giant piece of shit from back when companies were actively trying to prevent people without press passes from buying their best cameras so no one would see a bad photo taken with oneAh yes, back before the only reason to buy an actual camera was "look better than phone photo".In practicality small differences in the SMI have no application. The DXOmark pages you are parroting say that an SMI of 50 is "a moderate error" and they don't even consider the range between 75 and 85 to be meaningful enough to integrate into sensor rankings. Sorry.>>4253104You are not special. You are part of the crowd. You do not have special DNA that makes you different from other people. You were not touched in the head by god, just alcohol. Material truths will worm their way through your delusions eventually. I can already smell it on you...>Also, camera sales are down year on year. What more people are actually realizing is the camera they have with them (their phone) is more than adequate for most people, most of the time.You don't know it yet, but you're also more people. Before long you'll realize most "serious photographers" are full of shit and the only thing that makes professional photography professional is bokeh, IQ, and lots of strobes and modifiers and you need at least 2/3 before no one can tell it from their phone. Full frame is, sadly, the minimum needed for a professional camera otherwise your s23 ultra takes some nice pictures and if you don't have enough zoom buy a nikon coolpix p1000.And you'll most likely realize this when you pause for a second when you realize you thought a video in 1080p was 4k, and the only way you can spot a real camera being used is bokeh kek.
>>4253113in theory its possible to look professional on micro four thirds but you're basically limited to base ISO flash photography and you'd have really tough competition for actually being professional because everyone else is shooting MF at base ISO and offers A0 prints that look flawless from a foot away. which doesn't matter for street photography in a gallery but does matter for a makeup ad.
>>4253113>You are not special. You are part of the crowdThe guy who needs a truck for work is part of the crowd, the woman who wants a tiny fuel-efficient run about is part of the crowd, the family with the seven-seat minivan are part of the crowd, but they all buy what is right for them, not what is best for most people.I was gonna say it's a pretty deranged way to start your post but it only gets worse from there.
>>4253113So I'm sat here with my strobes, modifiers, cob video lights, gimbal, follow focus, full frame camera and lenses. Loving my G9ii.What is it that I don't know that led me to buy mft?
>>4253117Cars are still old tech, they're a shitty analogy. Cameras have a two item solution. So if tech caught up your car analogy would be shit - the solution would be a work truck and self driving taxis. Two options.Also none of that post is deranged. It's 100% true. >Most photographers are full of shitThey are.>The only thing that makes professional photography is bokeh, IQ, and strobes.True. Fuck, even realestate photography uses strobes almost all the time.>You need 2/3Correct, because phones and pocket cameras have never been able to do two of those. It's just physics.>A phone works for you tooThis is true. A phone shoots normal and slow motion video and has wide and telephoto lenses. Anything you ever took within the focal range of a half decent smartphone could have been taken on that smartphone.>if you need more zoom buy a coolpixThis is also true. The same people who dont care about MFT's ass quality don't care if it's a smaller sensor either. Bridge cameras blow normies minds>>4253119Consumerism and spec sheets that throw out numbers and names that have no relevance to the final result.
>>4253097>Now enter the joy of reflex, 1D X III mogs every one of them. 86 under CIE-D50, a rather mediocre 80 under CIE-A. Z8 is decent, Z9 an utter disgrace specially given the price.https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Sony/A7R-II---MeasurementsCIE-D50: SMI 85CIE-A: SMI 80.A7RII confirmed jussasgud as the 1D X III for color science and better than the Z6 II! Its true! The numbers say so! In fact, it's better than the A7RIII (84/79) which is still better than the Z6. *gasp*Sony has the best color science :o even better than leicahttps://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Leica/M11---Measurements>84/77:o gassssp>cANON logic proves sony made the best camera ever in 2017
>>4253120>if you need more zoom buy a coolpixI would if it recorded high framerate 10bit video.I don't disagree about the strobes, I mean all the "worm their way through your delusions" " "smell it on you" " "not touched by God" bits that sound plain weird.
>spec sheets that throw out numbers and names that have no relevance to the final result.>>4253121>CIE-D50: SMI 85>CIE-A: SMI 80.Is this the same guy?
>>4253120>if tech caught up your car analogy would be shit - the solution would be a work truck and self driving taxis. Two options.Your autism is getting the better of you. The point of the analogy wasn't the particular vehicles, or how that compares to a future world with different tech, but that people have different wants and needs and buy things to serve those individual needs, not to suit an average need of a group.
>>4253127This is my last stab at explaining this shit. If a simple analogy gets past you, you're just too autistic for online discussion.
>>4253091You don't understand what SMI is trying to convey or the relative meaning of score differences. SMI is relative to a model of the human eye, which no sensor ever made perfectly matches. And which itself does not perfectly match real human beings because real human beings have fairly large variances in color perception, person to person. As for score differences, cell phones score in the 40s and people find them perfectly acceptable. No, you cannot detect an 83 or 86 camera vs. an 81 camera. Your retinas may be further off the SMI model than the 5 point difference.But what you can do is see a larger number, tell yourself it's better, and then be subject to both placebo effect (you'll call any photo labeled "D700" better) and confirmation bias (if you notice a D700 photo that's impressive for any number of reasons, you'll believe it's better due to SMI). The irony is that between WB variations, RAW converter settings, and post processing, almost no photo is ever remotely as color accurate as it could be. You could fall in love with a D700 landscape photo with worse accuracy than underexposed Velvia 50, but rather than recognize that fact you'll tell a friend "it's so good because of the SMI score."The reason DxO lists a color depth score and NOT a SMI score for every camera is because SMI score differences are almost completely irrelevant. And on that note...>>4253097DxO Color Depth ScoresD300: 22.1 bitsR6: 24.2 bitsR5: 25.3 bits>>4253113Exactly.
>>4253126>irony is lost on himdoes sony have the best color science out of all mirrorless cameras on the a7rii and a7riii? do they?>>4253127individual needs are a spook. people want to do things that aren't always as efficient or useful to other people as they should be for the group to outcompete others. the average needs of the group tend to be more correct. this is how most governments, militaries, and companies are run. individuality is not wanted because individuality is just all the wrong answers surrounding the right one. to counter your own analogy, trucks for work and self driving taxis for everyone else would cause the traffic death rate to plummet and significantly reduce congestion, no matter what people thought they needed. i suppose they also need to run from the police, as if the laws are not good for them? an end to runaway felons, no more getting away with buying and selling drugs, no more human trafficking, they need private vehicles for that.you are the luddite clinging to the sedan-jeep-minivan-crossover mumbo jumbo because you think your "individual needs" (likely flaws) trump statistics.>>4253122you don't need 10 bit color as much as you think you do, unless you also need something far beyond what the g9ii does. sooner or later you will realize that what you've been doing was just one of the wrong answers.don't jump to calling it insane. don't call it evil either. free will was lucifer's idea.t. fashion photographer for 15 years.
>>4253142>fashion photographersThis is the polar opposite of being an edgy teenThis is an entry from klaus schwab’s diary
>>4253113>Dunning-Kruger: the post
>>4253142Holy shit he's still completely lost in the simple car analogy.>you think your "individual needs" (likely flaws) trump statistics.You've fallen for one of the classic blunders.You think you need a camera with a strobe but 99% of the world is actually fine with a phone. Follow the statistics retard.>But nooooooo 99% of the people who shoot fashion actually need strobes and modifiersRight. It's all in how you slice the numbers.100% of the people who do what I do need the equipment I have.>you don't need 10 bit color as much as you think you doOh really? That's weird cos whenever I do my grades on 8bit video it completely comes to pieces. I'm matching it to timelapse video taken from raw photos, and that would be impossible otherwise, but please tell me what I need for what I'm doing t. Someone who actually knows what I'm doing and what I need to achieve it and has been doing it for two decades
>>4253142>you don't need 10 bit color as much as you think you do,Is this one of those "tell me you don't grade video with telling me" posts?
>>4253141And yet the colors from the D300 look better. DxO scores are very questionable, but their measurements aren't. That's why photonstophotos exists, to make good use of the good data that DxO doesn't seem to be able to interpret in a meaningful way.
>>4253142 if you're willing to give away your liberty for a little security you deserve neither go suck schwab off, faggot
>>4253142I have a full frame camera, and mft, and strobes, and 8 bit and 10 bit video you dumb mook. I know what they do, not in theory, but with real-world every day experience.I don't know if I was talking to you in the other thread but what said there apples perfectly. I feels like I'm arguing with someone about my shoe size.>Don't get size 13, they'll rub and chafe, believe me. You'll be better off with size 11, I know. I've been wearing shoes for years. Most people go with size 11.You're too autistic to accurately model minds outside of your own.
>>4253155You’re talking to someone who doesn’t believe in wearing sized shoes unless you are a professional athlete or putin, and giving everyone else stretchy slippers. Autistic but also based. You must be autistic too if you can’t realize your shoe analogy isn’t going to get through to someone that calls for an end to private vehicles.
>>4253142>individual needs are a spookthis has to be one of the most braindead paragraphs ever. good lord.
>>4253158It’s offensive but not necessarily wrong in this case. Not for cars, cameras, or shoes. Maybe for medicine.
>>4253159It's completely wrong for all of those things. Tell me, do you live in a city?
>>4253162It’s not wrong at all. Personal needs… lol you really don’t need these things you want them. We want them because they make us happy but we don’t need them and a gram of weed and 30 minutes watching SNL is probably as good.
>>4253164I'm not playing this word definition game.>You don't NEED a hot shoe, you could live in the woods eating turnipsWhen someone on here says they need something, they need it to do what they do in photo/video.I need timecode.>You don't NEED timecode, you could live in the w...Fuck off. I need timecode to shoot commercials with multiple cameras and separate audio etc..
>>4253164 not even the communists went this far in their delusion
>>4253152>And yet the colors from the D300 look better. I didn't think they looked better than contemporary Canon bodies at the time the D300 was current, and I certainly don't think they look better than today's bodies, Canon or otherwise.And thank you for confirming my points about placebo and confirmation bias. "Look better" is not a statement of color accuracy. It's a statement of personal preference driven by any number of factors, including placebo and confirmation bias. You haven't even proven that you can pick D300 RAWs from other cameras in a double blind test. And if you could pass such a test, you would then have to prove that you did so because the D300 rendered colors closer to how your eye sees color and not some other factor. And then prove that your eyes are worth a damn in terms of distinguishing colors (there are online tests for this).Truth is you would never get past the first test. You wouldn't be able to distinguish between the highest and lowest SMI Nikons from the past 15 years, if ever. And if you could distinguish the D300 from Canon or Fuji bodies, the test results would almost certainly show you picking RAWs based on manufacturer and not SMI.>muh dxo measurementsDxO doesn't even incorporate SMI into the Portrait or final sensor scores. SMI is a mere curiosity for all the reasons I listed. The ability to distinguish tones for a smooth gradient is far more important because when that fails it's actually visible. Our brains aren't tuned to hone in on the tiny variations represented by SMI because we experience larger variations in our day to day life. A camera not rendering X exactly the way our eyes see X under sunlight is nothing compared to the huge change in X between sunlight, clouds, fog, night, artificial lights, etc.
>>4253097I forgot to note earlier that the 1DX III was made long after Canon started using weaker CFAs. Which blows the "weaker CFA bad" theory right out of the water.
>>4253216poor SMI is why pics from newer cameras require boosting saturation and vibrance when processing the RAWs. And it looks unnatural because it's an extrapolation of scarce data. So when you do that you end up with pictures that are overrated across the board and have to make manual adjustments for it to resemble reality. Meanwhile you take a photo of people next to a sunset with a proper CFA and you get natural looking people without making the sunset dull. You don't need to pick between oversaturated skin or undersaturated sky, it saves time in post. The obsession with more photons at any price to reduce noise at any price is the cheddar goblin of camera design.
>>4253224>poor SMI is why pics from newer cameras require boosting saturation and vibrance Have you ever even tried comparing old and new cameras within a brand, or comparing a sooc RAW to the subject photographed at the time it was photographed? I have, using a calibrated monitor, and insuring that histograms were equal across cameras. That last part is critical because sensors vary from their stated ISO sensitivity, and exposure affects contrast and saturation. I've carefully done those tests and there is no truth to your statement.People bump saturation and vibrance because they like the results. Bumping those parameters decreases accuracy, but people like it, which tells you all you need to know about the importance of 5 point variations in SMI. In 20 years of shooting I have not found a need to use more saturation or vibrance as I've upgraded cameras. How much I use varies with subject, sometimes adding a little, sometimes a lot, and sometimes taking it away.>And it looks unnatural because it's an extrapolation of scarce data. Modern cameras provably have greater color depth, more data, and can handle larger RAW manipulations.>Meanwhile you take a photo of people next to a sunset with a proper CFA and you get natural looking people without making the sunset dull. Old cameras struggled to do this without fill flash or reflectors because they didn't have the DR for it. New cameras do, but you're still better off using some fill flash or reflectors, and you definitely want to ETTR. Then you have a conflict between the people and the sunset because we tend to like saturated sunsets, but not saturated people (Velvia vs Portra). You can mask off areas but you don't want to go crazy or it will look like they stood in front of a painting. This dilemma has nothing to do with the CFA, nor can it be solved by the CFA. And it varies sunset to sunset. If the sky is right (clouds, fog, etc.) the foreground and background will balance. But that's luck, not the CFA.
>>4253230Your calibration chart shots don't reflect the differences in illumination that one sees when shooting in real life
>>4253244messed the trip but it's me
>>4253244>implying i haven't tested under various forms of illuminationYour tiny variations in accuracy relative to the model human eye, under different forms of illumination, pale in comparison to all other variables, and are not noticed by viewers. And, again, you could not pick a "low" SMI camera from a "high" SMI camera as you've defined them (i.e. 81 vs 86) in a double blind test to save your life. You *might* be able to pick them if it was, say, 40 vs 86.Once again: there's a reason DxO doesn't even show this number or incorporate it into the Portrait and final scores.
>>4253224You are essentially saying the sony a7rii and a7rii are the best cameras ever made, FYI. Better overall performance than the 1dxiii. Even their color science is better. cANON confirmed sony shill.
>>4253269but she thinks these have something to do with moon hoaxes even though the most powerful lens on earth can’t resolve lunar details that smallshe’s uneducated and just thinks every fact she hasn’t been indoctrinated about is a conspiracy theory
>m43 thread>FF nophotos arguing about Cannot and other things they don't have
>>4253322>and other things that are real in your mind
>>4253270>sheexcuse me, cANON might be a bestiality enthusiast but he is not, and I repeat HE is not a tranny.
>>4253247 except I've done it before. The fantastic qualities of strong CFAs is what the unwashed masses call ""CCD colors", it's not hard to spot.
>>4253326Shush lady. You just admitted that the sony a7riii and a7rii have 1dx-iii level color science. Lmao.
>>4253335SMI is just part of the whole thing and I have good reasons to suspect their metamerism happens at the wrong part of the spectrum
>>4253338>actually the SMI measurements mean nothing (I didn’t know what they meant to begin with)Kek goalposts moved. You lose. Go home.
>>4253340SMI is a measurement of how accurately the camera captures standard samples under a standard illuminant. It's a hit or miss ratio. That's why where it misses is important.
>>4253341>real color science hasn’t been measured yetKek backpedal harder!
>>4253326>unwashed masses call ""CCD colors"I FEEL ATTACKED
>>4253322I'm not even mad tho. It's a real discussion instead of noise-posting.
>>4253359BTWUnless you're going for a tripod like shot, aka almost static with little to no up down/left right Boost IS should be off - it's useful for HHHR mode.In 5.7k or open-gate there is no lateral room (in pixels) for eIS, so it crops into a smaller area and then upscales, losing you quality; so leave eIS off in 5.7/5.8k (that's why retards report "worse IS") only IBIS and lens IS.And lastly, if you're going to pan (which most people do) turn off horizontal IS, and leave it only to vertical.In 4k there shouldn't be any issues.
>>4253326NTA what is a strong CFA? I read the wikipedia article on CFAs and am confused about what is considered good or bad and strong or weak here.
>>4253371It's the filter strength, just like with filters you put in front of the lens. Strong filters let less light through but are better at filtering. There's a mosaic of red, green and blue filters on top of the sensor. When designing it you can either make the filters strong but rob you of more stops of light, or weak but let more light through (at the expense of being worse at filtering out the non-matching colors). See pic related as an example.
>>4253375Photosites are made to have very purposeful inaccuracies ie: blue sensitivity for reds because that’s how the human eye works so no it’s not like that
>>4253379 there's more crosstalk than between cones, also the brain has a better image processor than any camera
>>4253326>muh 1DX III has best color evah>you need a strong CFA for best color evahThe fact that you've made these contradictory claims means that you haven't done it before. You're just the victim of placebo effect and confirmation bias.
>>4253371It's a myth put forth by people who don't understand how we see color or Bayer demosaicing. These people believe that the best color comes with sharp cutoffs between R, G, and B in the color filter array. And that digital cameras suffered when CFAs were changed to allow more light...and more RGB overlap...for better high ISO performance. (This happened around 2010 with different times for different model lines.)The truth is that CFAs always had overlap, as do your cone cells, and the increased light transmission with "weak" CFAs resulted in a better ability to distinguish colors and tones than in prior "strong" CFAs.>>4253381>there's more crosstalk than between conesI know you've never even bothered checking on this, so here is a graph of wavelength overlap in human cone cells. I can't say that I've seen graphs for every sensor ever made, but there's more overlap here than in any Bayer sensor for which I have seen a graph.
>>4253388We already established the sony a7rii and a7riii have the best color science.
>>4253390No, we've merely caught cANON in a number of contradictions. He will now move the goal posts around trying to resolve them.
>>4253393Yes, but he has admitted that sony actually made the best FF stills cameras in history.
>https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?doi=bae1e3b15cee0c8dc3e5f4864656173e7f0df48d>Decreasing pixel size increases the likelihood that photon noise will become visibleNoise/image area is a function of pixel/photosite area.
>>4253702so crop sensors lose, and using high res ff as a can’t afford mf cope also loses (already proven by how poorly FF performs over 50mp - not even up to a 20mp mft crop)
>>4253702noise adds character. actual artists and normies don't care.
>>4253702Pixel size is observably irrelevant until extreme ISOs, and even there is counter intuitive (i.e. 20mp R6 cleaner than 12mp A7s III).>>4253704>ff performs poorly above 61mpLOL wut?
>>4252295Almost correct, but canon isn't gear threads because canon people are obsessed with gear, it's just all gear threads because almost every post is >it's broken agaaaain how do i fix it waaaaa do i need to buy a new one waaaa[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelE-M1MarkIICamera SoftwareOM Workspace 2.2.1WMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Color Filter Array Pattern17660Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution350 dpiVertical Resolution350 dpiImage Created2023:11:03 17:47:55Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length4.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3888Image Height3888RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
g9 ii chads report in
>>4254182how does this works? its only for those meme 3d televisions that no one had?
>>4254181The p in panasonic stands for paid shill
>>4254182It will make a nice addition to my olympus camera>>4254181>ff sized junk
>>4253810R6 has hardcoded noise reduction in rawsA7S is a pixel binned 48mp cameraI can’t think of a worse comparison
>>4254181Still no stock, first 6, then 15, now 22nov....Capture One is blazing fast with RAWs, but only Silky Pix has the inbuilt Lumix photo styles.
>>4254184https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pp9LKQBk-Ms>>4254191>ff sizeddo your hands grow bigger when you use FF bodies?
>>4254199Neither of those programs is very good. Silkypix reduces noise too much (rook rike iphone) and noise is uglier on capture one. MFT is noisy as fuck so use lightroom and AI plugins. >>4254202No but my dick does. Panasonic’s cameras are unreasonably huge and ugly ala canikon. Just another great example of the death and putrefaction of japanese design. The sensor is small. Why can’t the body be the size of an om-5, or a pen? “Ergos” yes when you have carpal tunnel or arthritis you need more surface to use less strength but what if you’re not a cripple? I want my camera on a SMALL gimbal too because I hate IBIS wobbles. Where is my SMALL camera that records everything oversampled with the same crop factor, panasonic? Should i abandon this shit for BMD that cant into stills or just buy a a9iii?[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width720Image Height310
>>4254224>a9iiicant into astro because it still eats stars + needs stacking or downsampling or else it has the ISO range of aps-cYou’re fucked. Panasonics decision to make the g9ii the size of an a7iv basically single handedly ruined your photographic career. This world is full of weak handed geriatric zoomfags and it’s making it hard on us prime lens GODS who just want more room in their camera bag. Blame wildlife photographers thinking they’re doing anything interesting when someone with a better camera was already paid to take everything on google images when you search for “cheetah”.
>>4252529Birb shootingDay 2[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:Image Created2023:11:16 19:08:41Color Space InformationsRGB
>>4254224>"I'm a midget subhuman the camera is too big" takevirgin a7 vs CHAD G9>unreasonably hugeJust say you're a manlet faggot>The sensor is small. Why can’t the body be the size of an om-5, or a pen?because you're retarded, that's why>Should i abandon this shit for BMD that cant into stills or just buy a a9iii?you should abandon life, lmao. nobody caters to manlets
Size is one of the reasons I'm on mft and, while it would be nice to have a smaller body, it's not a deal breaker. The lens size is the main saving.
>>4254276Looking great! Love Euro robins, yours is looking particularly orbular. I like the light here, is that natural or with some flash?
>>4254294Well since I’m an alpha male like you I guess I’m going to buy a canon r5. Thanks panabro.
>>4254313It's natural over cast, under trees, at 3200 with another stop added in post.
>>4252304>fuji: all photo threadsFuji still struggle with video and AF relative to their competitors. Only things that pop out are their “retro” controls and their jpeg film recipes for quick camera to sharing flow.
>>4254323Actually, the funniest thing about Fuji is that Canon and Nikon both have PC/Mac utilities that let you do the same things Fuji film-sims do in terms of setting levels, curves, HSL, etc and then transferring those to your camera for use.The average Fuji buyer is too retarded to know about this apparently, and buys an inferior camera to replicate what can be done in Nikon or Canon with a bit of patience.
>>4254276did you take this with a smart phone?
Does anyone adapt FT lenses to MFT? Do you use one of the official adapters? I'm super temped by a few lenses.
>>4254312if only olycuck and panacuck wouldn't artificially limit their smaller bodies in features because "lol it's small so it's the entry model". m43 has ONE thing going for it: size - or better: the possibility of size. because while the lenses are smoll and cute the smaller bodies all get limited by marketing department in some retarded fashion.fuji is for faggots but they do it right: all of their bodies are essentially the same tech - only differing in size/buttans[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelE-P7Camera SoftwareCapture One 23 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1250Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance0.25 mMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmImage Width1536Image Height2048RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4254430Everything the OM-5 can't do that the OM-1 can is just a result of having a cheaper processor. They'd be too close in price if they managed to stuff the same electronics in the smaller body, in fact I'd be surprised if that were any cheaper at all.
>>4254424someone should turn this shit site into a "nikon recipes" app[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D780Camera SoftwareCapture One 23 MacintoshSensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaFocal Length (35mm Equiv)120 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/400 secF-Numberf/4.0Exposure ProgramShutter PriorityISO Speed Rating4000Lens Aperturef/4.0Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance12.50 mMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length120.00 mmImage Width2048Image Height1363RenderingCustomExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastHardSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>>4254431>stockholm syndrome level copeyeah, whatever, buddy[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelE-P7Camera SoftwareCapture One 23 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/640 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVSubject DistanceInfinityMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length14.00 mmImage Width3888Image Height5184RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHard
>>4254436What features are missing that you'd like in smaller bodies?
>>4254430>the smaller bodies all get limited by marketing departmentthey get limited by heat, processing power, development costs for new board layouts and power draw, you DUMB RETARDED BABBOON NIGGERA body will handle the same in your hand regardless of the sensor inside it. Your fucking hands don't magically shift dimensions if you switch to a different mount
>>4254431Miniaturization at the same specs would make those bodies far more expensive than the regular sized versions.
>>4254451let's take the ep-7 for example. and the zuiko 17mm 1.8. the lens has a manual focus clutch which you can toggle manual focus with. but guess what? it won't activate all that nice manual focussing help shit (magnification, peaking) when you toggle that clutch. because olympus in their wisdom decided the clutch should only work with their top end bodies and not their "800 euro entry bodies". so if I want to manually focus I have to toggle the menu item and that cool clutch on that 400 euro lens is fucking useless because I just got oly's poor people 800 euro camera lolalso the functions I can map to the buttons are limited because "it's just a poor people 800 euro entry level body"the fun part is that there's no better "small range finder style" body. the ep-7 is currently the best you can get if you go for that form factorm43 manufacturers are jewish niggers and I'm glad that olympus is dying a slow agonizing death[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS CORPORATIONCamera ModelE-P7Camera SoftwareCapture One 23 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating3200Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias-1 EVSubject Distance13.61 mMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmImage Width3888Image Height5184RenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlHigh Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>>4254463>stockholm syndrome level cope MK IIget fucked. I'm not talking about video spec bullshit because video is for gay zoomies only. I'm talking about software limited features like "oh no goy you paid only 800 euros so you don't get to remap that function that this button"on the other hand - it could be certainly possible that olympus trash could overheat from that lol[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePanasonicCamera ModelDC-GX9Camera SoftwareCapture One 23 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiExposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/1.8Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/1.8Exposure Bias-1 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length17.00 mmImage Width1536Image Height2048Exposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAuto
>>4254494Where do you live? That looks really familiar.But yeah, you're both right. There are themal and processing limitations on cheaper bodies, but when you look at Oly only letting their pro lenses use the fastest burst rate when their cheaper lenses get fast bursts on Panny, you know something's up.The real redpill is magic lantern. Entry-level cameras from a decade ago can shoot 14bit raw video. But who would buy their cine cameras if cheap cameras could do that?
them colors though
>>4254521Superior iso performance than 20mp camera. Another proof that photosite size theories are dead and buried.
Olympus users be posting photos and then>>4254520>enhanced marketing test shot from twitter>>4254521>panasonic paid off a literally who nip blog>>4254537>marketing materialAnd now, behold, reality. Oh wait we already saw it which caused the nophoto panasonic shill to have a meltdown.>>4252601>>4252593
>>4254537>>4254521>sirs panasonic is mooning!Yeah yeah. Dpreview will upload raws and then we'll all laugh that the g9 and g9ii don't do anything differently and japan was lying (surprise).You type like an ESL from mumbai. Piss off shill.
>>4254549Cool it with the anti-Indian remarks.
>>4254537om1 has a stacked sensor, hence shit color rendition and noise performance due to heat.
>>4254556>stacked sensors are worseand other ancient new delhi wisdom from the local shill
>>4254554GOOD MORNING SAR
roll for more tears >>4254655