>>4497140
Sinar is number one, obviously.

>OM System
The auto focus should be better for a system that has great tele options. They're small but at what cost. I kinda hate them. I feel like Panny understood the format better with more appealing small lenses.
>Snoy
Great IQ, great AF, ergos and build quality were a disappointment. Maybe just not my thing. I don't own them anymore.
>Nikon
I only used DSLRs back in the day. I remember liking how photos looked with less processing back in the day. I've looked at raws from mirrorless Nikons and they basically look like Snoys. Maybe I'm just old and grumpy.

Canon, Sony, and Nikon are basically the only ones worth a fuck

Everything else is FF nikon or sony aps-c money for a less reliable, less functional products

There is no validreason for panasonic, om system, or fuji to actually exist

>>4497144
I agree with you but post a photo

>>4497144
I don't see any point in not getting a full frame camera these days unless you absolutely absolutely need it as compact as possible.
Crop sensor cameras are barely cheaper than full frame cameras. I got an aps-c camera a few months ago and I just could never get it to look how I liked, so I quickly sold it and went back to full frame where I immediately felt back at home. I'm never going for smaller than full frame again.
Not saying you can't get a good photo out of an aps-c camera, I just don't see why anybody would spend money on one when the gap is basically non existent to a nice full frame one.

>>4497140
Canon- baby duck syndrome so it just feels right to me from the oldest Rebel to the newest mirrorless. the colors are just nice, the menus are sensible, even the plastic bodies can take a beating. RAWs are easy to push and pull, and oodles of lenses without having to shell out for the Fancy Red Line bragging rights on an L lens, but woe be it if you got a crop sensor body and your much recommended nifty fifty 1.8 becomes an unwieldy 80mm
Nikon- the lenses are backwards I hate it I hate it
Olympus- overbuilt little bricks meant for Arch Linux users and obsessive-compulsives up to the em5 mark 2, and plastic fashion accessories for everything newer. Disappointing when using the little sensors with kit lenses, and "why the fuck can't I get a lens this sharp and cheap in a non m43 system without going to pro lenses?" when you find out about stuff like the Oly 75mm or Samyang 7.5 fisheye
Panasonic- The lens controls are backwards again I hate it

>>4497149
Well I saw a noticeable difference when I got a new aps-c camera a few months ago, so I'm never going back down from full frame again myself. I don't care about social media and there's barely any price difference if money is tight.
Some people make it work, but I wasn't a good enough photographer to do that. It just wasn't for me.

>>4497155
The skill to use crop comes down to not taking photos. Thats it.

That, and using AI and going for a final output of 2mp, or doing such unnatural garish edits and shooting at high ISO so consistently the fine tonality of a larger sensor is lost

Stop gearfaggling. If you can't take a good picture with any of these brands your bad and you should sell your gear and do something else. They're all fine and have made some good and some bad cameras.

>>4497160
i can take "some" good pictures with a shitty camera but i'm not wasting two fucking thousand dollars on some unforgivably poorly made crop sensor trash with busted AF and a wormy sensor like a fujifilm or $3k on a panasonic with autofocus that makes the canon rp look like a class leading sports camera in the "actually focusing on things" department

people are allowed to hold things to standards
sorry your favorite brand is an irrelevant hair on the market share chart because they make incompetently put together garbage and sell it with gimmicks
but they're a japanese company, their society is collapsing, they do not have the excess intellectual capital to assign to such meaningless industries as cameras - a solved problem since the release of the d750 and 5div

the fact that there are two competent japanese camera companies and one barely lagging is a fucking miracle that mostly has to do with canon being a us/israel defense contractor, nikon making optics for medical/scientific/military use, and sony being a tech conglomerate

>>4497160
depends on the kind of photography you do.
If you are trying to catch fleeting wildlife moments the camera you choose can make the difference between having a great shot, a poor shot, or no shot, because a poorly designed camera puts extra time/steps between you and the photo you want.

I tried out a Sony a65 for example. The camera has a single control dial, making manual mode slow. OK so use P/A/S? Well if you want a decently exposed photo you will probably need to use exposure compensation. That single dial does nothing in P/A/S mode until you activate the exposure comp function. That kind of pants-on-head design is why I won't be using Sony again.

Even something so simple as a slow boot time can make you miss a shot.

>>4497140
Canon: Great ergonomics and useability. But a bit bland and not that fun to use.

Nikon: Same as above. Their bodies always have lower MP than the competition.

Fuji: Good UI and pleasing colors SOOC. Hate how their ISO is a misleadingly a few stop slower.

Panasonic: not bad but cant stand m43. Havent used any of their FF line.

Olympus: i always found their UI ugly

Sony: Only good on paper, generally unreliable and autistic menus. More of a computer than a photo tool.

File: Leica-sales-breakdown-by-camera-systems.png (252.8 KB)

252.8 KB PNG

>>4497140
Leica sales
40% M
40% Q
12% SL
rest is others
wdyt?

>>4497140
this is a bunch of nonsense, in current year you can take decent photos with all the systems. i've owned a camera or videocamera from most of these brands at one point or another. grass is always greener

>>4497140
what kind of faggot ranks camera by jpeg output
>fuj-
oh, no surprise

>>4497179
>t.salty green snoy shooter

>>4497175
Image quality does not matter on /p/ only compact cameras, great AF, and 25600000 iso performance.

>>4497164
>>4497165
This isn't a console war. Your fighting straw men

>>4497175
Based. The only one I haven't used is a phase one. I'm sure it's pictures turn out great too.

>>4497175
You can take some decent photos but in many cases you’re stuck paying a premium to never use quicker autofocus than a 5dII’s or be limited to 5diii at iso 1000 quality, or be unable to shoot good looking jpegs without defaulting to magenta tint and reduced saturation to downplay the ugly colors (it used to be nikon that was notorious for this and in my opinion nikon and sony are tied for most garish and ugly jpegs, and nikon has actually gotten worse)
>cope brands: the $2000 mirrorless rig is a little better than a 14 year old dslr for photography. it has also gotten more chic. stop complaining. also we enabled a niche video mode the competition did not. please forget dedicated camcorders exist. this totally matters.
>the one from a deservedly more popular brand: *blows it out of the water for less money*
Many such cases

It makes me sad that this hobby is now infested with people who would pee their pants at having to use a manual focus lens or actually any autofocus system made before the year 2005. It's gotten too easy and now we have a bunch of whiners who don't even take photos or enjoy photography. At least gearfags back in the day had a basic understanding of their gear and the principles of photography.

>>4497189
Manual focus is fine. On dirt cheap cameras with optical viewfinders. Sorry but I’m never going to cope and excuse paying thousands for shit autofocus or manual focus only on digital cameras. Money can be spent better no matter how rich or poor you are. Those companies can release better products or continue selling a dwindling number of cameras to a dwindling subculture of idiots. I’m not buying that shit. I am telling everyone else to stay away. How hard is it? Fucking canon had more accurate and faster autofocus in dslr live view compared to some high end mirrorless shit from fujifilm and panasonic.

It’s not a respectable business model to sell inferior products for more money, and simping for these scam artists is not a good way to demonstrate your skill. Compare the israeli camera industry. Leaf only existed to make the best possible cameras. Not to stick around, try their best, and make a lot of ads about their heritage. When they could no longer acquire and allocate enough fiscal and intellectual capital to compete, they merged with other companies to continue making the best possible cameras.

The market share is the truth here. The top 3 brands in the consumer ilc market are the top 3 for a very good reason. The slackers should just be ignored. Like you would ignore shitty no name laptops and android phones.

>>4497190
I imagine its so bad at low tier camera brands their executives see the abundance of used canikony stuff and third party lenses as their #1 competitor
>toppu fiveo turetso to fujifilm camera, genterman? ebay, craigslist, facebook, mbp, keh. we must make a better camera than this old pieco shitto and we will be fine. photographer dumb, would pay high end canon yens for camera from 1982.

>talk endlessly about camera brands and formats
>not one post of any photos detailing the need for the gear

>>4497140
I fix and flip cameras so I've used a lot of different stuff.
1) Pentax. Only ancient stuff available but the K1ii still gives amazing image quality. But the winner here are the lenses: they render like vintage lenses and provide a character that's absent on most modern glass. Another huge plus is they "get it". The cameras are super ergonomic. Never have to touch a menu. And the Pentax 17 is cool, too.
2) Sigma. They "get it" in camera design. The fp, fp L, and BF are all studies of human-camera interaction. And their lenses are top-notch, while being more affordable than first party.
3) Fujifilm. They "get it" too. Huge emphasis on providing an enjoyable experience.
4) OM System. They're like Fujifilm without R&D budget.

Yeah -- basically, I highly prize the usability and ergonomics of a camera. Nothing kills my creative flow or inspiration like having a useless camera for the scenario until I find the right autofocus setting in the menu system. The more immediate a camera is to use, the better.

5) Nikon and Canon are tied here. Generally good usability but they don't put an emphasis on that design aspect.
6) Sony. They don't give a fuck about usability. Like, as soon as you pick them up you know they're shit because the grip's too close to the lens and you're scraping your knuckle on the lens.
7) Panasonic. They used to be cool with the S1 -- an amazing camera. Then they decided to be a more affordable version of Sony with spec sheet fagging and caring more about shitty videographers with beans than photographers of any type.

I used a Leica X Vario for a little while. But too old to draw generalizations of the brand. I'd like to try newer Leica because it had some good things going for it.

>>4497193
This isnt reddit. You don't need to share pics of your cat for imaginary internet points.

>>4497157
What are you even on about? I went from a 21mp full frame sensor to a 40mp aps-c sensor. I found the extra mega pixels worthless because the image itself wasn't nice looking as a whole, but it got worse when you cropped in too. So what's the point in having an aps-c with so many megapixel when the pixels you get are a worse quality. I found it to be the exact opposite with full frame.
But it's always like this here. If somebody says they like full frame then full frame is the worst shit in the world and if somebody likes aps-c then you're a poor loser who can't afford shit. It's fucking tiresome.
I saw it with my own eyes and there's no going back for me.

File: fujisnoy.jpg (836.7 KB)

836.7 KB JPG

>>4497196
I agree with everything you say.
I own fujifilm and full frame sony and i still pick fuji 80% of the time due to enjoyment of using it.
Niggas here are overly attached to pixel peeping full frame shit.

>>4497140
>camera brands ranked
grim state of the board honestly
completely subjective thread that incites aimless shitflinging contests with a zero-sum-game

>>4497197
completely missing the point. At least reddit has people posting their shit for people to see how they actually use their much talked about gear.

>>4497209
Sounds you should fuck off to reddit then rofl

>>4497193
>but do you personally NEED the bad tech high price brand to be good tech?
If I didn’t I would save thousands, just buy a used nikon and it would still be better

>>4497196
You sound like you shoot benches for social media and your “get it” experience just means retro chic slop

Mechanical watch target market ass take

>>4497219
No dude stop buying cameras to accomplish things

Buy cameras to buy an like, experience, duuuuuude

I feel at peace knowing most of the gear talk on here is just bean soup theory at work

>>4497221
49% of photographers are 115-135 IQ jews who have made at least some money off this and put a lot of thought into the meaning of art, what makes a good photo, etc and completed their in depth analysis of what's worth what in less time than it takes them to make one post explaining a fraction of their outlook. The only way to get along with these people is to not be the other 51% of photographers because they have genuine disdain for them.

25% of photographers are loser stoners, drunks, and women who dont value their own time or money, but want to "like, feel something" as they take photos of public schools and office buildings corners whilst walking their dog, and "feel something" basically means pretend they aren't themselves and don't live in 2026.

Another 25% of photographers are clueless tech dudes who just buy whatever dpreview is calling good and then tell everyone they have the best camera at the moment while repeating whatever camera reviewers said verbatim.

The last 1% of photographers are like that first 49% but they're so wealthy they gave up on pretending money is real and use a leica or some other value for money tragedy just to spite anyone poorer than them and will gladly get a bit catty because the only reason they have it is to eventually use it as leverage to try and hurt someones feelings by claiming the big spender is just smarter and better. And everyone goes into interactions with big spenders knowing that this is basically 100% of big spenders because it is. If a big spender isn't like this they're going to eventually sell their luxury trinket and use something more reasonable, although probably still a bad value.

This is literally the entire photography market and always has been.

>>4497221
bean soup is about egocentrism over valueless preferences

/p/ is plagued with people who sound, talk, and act like capital Jeffrey "Jews" accusing the predominantly white, pot smoking, dog owning caste of being idiots with their money to the end of no photographic benefit and noticeable photographic impairment, because they can not imagine buying a camera to create a personal experience. they can only imagine buying a camera to create photos. if you blow $1.59k on a fujifilm they genuinely think you are a stupid, like you just spent snap-on money on a chinese pot metal wrench because it says "HERITAGE" on the side and was vaguely modeled after a vintage tool.

this is ultimately why successful photographers are predominantly jewish or jewish-coded, and youtube photographers who are mostly about the aesthetic of their activity and what kind of photographer others perceive them as being are predominantly whites and mutts

>>4497225
biggest midwit post ive ever seen like holy shit

>>4497225
>>4497224
Triggered af
>fucking jews. only a jew could spend responsibly and approach inanimate objects as tools for accomplish real world tasks. the aryan chud buys a camera to have fun having a camera.
No holding gear to standards and buying an older used one rather than a new underperforming overpriced one is just called sanity, good sense, responsibility, etc. save the feeling for the actual photos. some of the best art photography out of australia’s done on a guy’s plastic canon 35mm film blob.
Buying aspirational luxury purchases to feel is called being a redditor due to their culture of competing for upvotes by owning and recommending products intersecting with the 90s kid urge to buy more obscure things to impress their flannel and beanie wearing friends

>>4497226
>>4497227
samefag retard

File: R0009206.jpg (2.8 MB)

2.8 MB JPG

>>4497140
1. Ricoh GR - know what a photographer needs, super sharp lenses, good color science with RAWs looking nice out of cam, made me take many more pictures because I can take the camera anywhere and people don't care since it looks like digishit
3. Canon - Only have a 2011 DSLR but the image quality is great, the menus intuitive
2. Sony - My workhorse, best AF, cheap lenses with the 85mm. f1.8 being too good for the money
3. Fujifilm - My x-T20 was a real upgrade since Fuji used to be well priced. Very nice vintage design with essential settings being controlled mechanically, fantastic first party lenses
4. Samsung - Have a 2011 premium compact from them and realized how low the standard has become, the amount of features is insane for the time, would have loved to see where they would be now

>>4497228
>noooo its just one guy and probably a jew! only le bad money people hold tools to standards!
you replied to two people for calling one schizo tard a schizo tard

>>4497225
funny how you think denigrating both parties makes you look right

gearfags will never not be triggered when their mid fashion accessories are called what they are

File: pentax_green_button.jpg (149.9 KB)

149.9 KB JPG

>>4497196
>Pentax
my man

>>4497227
>some of the best art photography out of australia’s done on a guy’s plastic canon 35mm film blob
What’s the guy’s name? I’d like to see some of that stuff.

>Leica #1
SORRY. can't speak to digital, film experience only, my camera is 70 years old and weighs 2 lb
>Canon
the 1dx line is bonkers and I love shooting blobs, I shit on mirrorless
>Sony
for small point & shoot only they made a great little compact 10 years ago, good for events with friends or family where you don't wanna sperg out completely
>Kodak
the 3MP easyshare blew my mind back in the day
>Minolta
felt shabby but great student camera in retrospect

>>4497247
Those 3mp kodak easyshares still take great images. I use them all the time for liminal pictures

>>4497225
>>4497224
do you have any hobbies you actually enjoy doing

>>4497227
That guy with the home made camera is Australian? I'd figured he was from some central Euro country, his whole idea and style was like something I'd see from Belgium or Netherlands.

If the camera has good AF and you shoot RAW, brand doesn't matter. Almost every sensor is made by Sony anyway and camera makers just add their own settings for those sensors. Literally just buy whatever camera feels best for you.

>>4497289
Don't some sensors have thicker filters over them or whatever?

>>4497290
Yeah and different sized mounts. The differences are noticeable but only really of your looking for them.

1. Pentax
cheap second hand. does the job for scanning film

>>4497289
most of /p/ is cat pics and street shooting, it barely needs AF at all, stop down faggot

>>4497224
>>4497225
Whenever i feel down i think about the weird schizos ranting essays to nobody on dead 4chan boards (like /p/) and im grateful i wasnt born with such autism and suddenly dont feel so down anymore :)

>>4497310
Most of the photos are posted by antisemitic shut in losers like >>4497225 who think they're TRVD ARYVN CHVDS because they don't take photography seriously and purposefully pursuing art is for le jews

Merely taking a photo of your friends doing a stunt or your dog doing literally anything demands 10x more camera than anyone that isn't canon, nikon, or sony can offer. Or just slap the 28mm on, stop down, and zone focus your aps-c so.... it looks like a phone. Most digital cameras are shit, end up taking the same photos as phones, and their shittiness is why barely anyone buys them.

>>4497203
>40 MP aps-c
Oh I see.
>I went from a real camera to the XT-5 and it was shit
Fuji was the problem, not aps-c.
Xtranny looks blury with worms

File: Kolari-OLPF-Lumix-moire.jpg (1000.8 KB)

1000.8 KB JPG

>>4497290
these days more and more cameras have no low-pass filter in front of the sensor which makes moire patterns and false colors appear everywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjNrchLhlw

>>4497340
>Xtranny looks blury with worms
It's not the fault of the sensor which can produce great results in RAW. The wormy look is Fuji's stupid detail processing which seems to blur and then sharpen the image into worm shapes.

X-trans has no OLPF but is inherently more resistant to moire due to the less grid RGB layout.

>>4497357
>more resistant to moire
This was only true at lower resolution 10 years ago when the X-T1 came out with 16MP. In 2026 fuji is sacrificing chroma resolution for something that's not really a problem anymore. X-trans is purely a marketing gimmick.

File: fuji-sony-moire.jpg (67.8 KB)

67.8 KB JPG

>>4497360
>not really a problem anymore
I wish.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=fujifilm_xs20&attr13_1=sony_a6700&attr13_2=fujifilm_xh2&attr13_3=sony_a7v&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=200&attr16_1=200&attr16_2=125&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.31037331758431863&y=-0.07213352959877546

where on the scene do you see loss of chroma resolution degrading the image?

>>4497363
Oh wow. Genuinely not trolling. I wonder how much "bad color science" is actually just moire and corrections trying to hide it.

1. Pentax: I love the ergos, I love the cheap lenses, I hate the autofocus. Its just fun to use. I'm not a fan of their CCD cameras (K200D/K10D) but the K-70 and K1ii are permanent fixtures in my collection. Those two are iso-invariant where I can take shots at 3200/6400 ISO and it still comes out pretty damn good. My second ILC was a KF and it was what made me want to get a camera, it felt great in hand.

2. Konica Minolta: I love the images my Dynaxx/Maxxum 5D/aSweet Digital (all the same shit) make to the point that I have 3 of them. 6 megapixes IS enough. Again, just a fun camera to use. The shutter sound is great. Punches above its weight. The OG Snoycam.

3. Sony A-Mount: Underrated but held back by poor build quality. My a390 is a great camera, my a58 is a great camera, but they don't have any micro-adjustments for the lenses unless you step to a a99/a77/a68 which cost the same as a better camera. The raws on the a390 are pretty good once converted to jpeg. a58 you can tell the menus/software/programming Sony kept building on.

4. Sony E-Mount (ZVE-10): Great form factor, can make very pretty pictures, but why only one scroll wheel? Its okay, I didn't fall in love with it though and it felt cheap. Bought for $400 sold for $500.

5. Sony 1in (ZV-1): Again, great form factor and got me some nice pics on a CDMX trip. First one I had had a bad aperture solenoid or something where every pic came out way overexposed. Actually had great colors and jpegs SOOC. Fun little travel camera. Sold it at a profit (bought for $400 sold for $450)

6. Olympus (E500 4/3rds): Fun camera to use, excellent colors, looks great. Focus is snappier than expected for 3 (THREE!!!!) autofocus points and 8mp. Just lenses are expensive and falls on its face when the sun goes out. Not worth selling for me because it sells for <$100.

7. Nikon (Z50). I just didn't like the pictures it made and I always found myself editing them hard. It was also my first camera.

>>4497363
>>4497357
>The tranny propagandist is at it again
"A regular, repeating pattern is moire resistant"
No, it just changes the spatial frequency at which it occurs. A regularly repeating pattern can not be moire resistant. Moire is caused by overlapping patterns. Fuji took you for fools because xtrans was developed on test charts, but still has issues with real world objects.
https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-the-promise-and-the-problem-31407fa43452
https://medium.com/@nevermindhim/x-trans-vs-bayer-fantastic-claims-and-how-to-test-them-475b4f1b7fae
>inb4 the pothead dogfaggots usual copes
>THE ARTICLES ARE LE OLD!
Still valid theory.
>BUT THEY...
Nope, sorry. These articles have never been debunked. They're pretty cut and dry. It's not like fuji is a top selling brand lol. Numerically they're irrelevant. That's for a reason.

An anon here even had moire issues on fuji.
https://archive.palanq.win/p/thread/4261297/#4263286

>>4497386
I'm not saying x-trans is perfect, but it does produce better results in a lot of conditions compared to no OLPF bayer.

Bayer with OLPF is preferable to both, The marginal sharpness gain from ditching OLPF is not worth the false color / moire issues.

>>4497386
That's why the best solution is honestly just more megapixels.

>>4497397
Or film

>>4497399
or foveon

>>4497391
Isn't that the difference between the 5DS and the 5DSR? Idk man I thought the 5DSR looked better all around but it could be personal preference.

>>4497391
>>4497420

Pentaxes don't have AA filters on most of their cameras. KF/K-70, K1, K-5II, K3 Mark 1 to Mark 3, Ricoh GR III and IV. Their colors come out fine, I personally shoot the first 2 without the AA filter simulator on all the time.

>>4497310
I like having good AF for run and gun situations like when I'm in a new city and I'm trying to take a bunch of photos within a certain timeframe. Pentaxes really make you appreciate decent AF. You trade IQ, cheap lenses, and low light performance for the worst AF in the industry.

I also forgot to add here: >>4497385 I feel like my Pentaxes forced me to learn the exposure triangle. They love jacking up the ISO for some reason vs my Sonys.

File: sony_a6700_45_crop.jpg (68.3 KB)

68.3 KB JPG

>>4497420
Apparently, but looking at samples the 5DS must have had a very weak AA filter since the false color/moire effects are very close to the 5DS R and I don't see a difference in detail.

>>4497421
>Their colors come out fine,
The issue isn't colors in general but at specific conditions.
Most obvious where there are patterns like the grilles / brick in pic related, you can see diagonal false color striping.

https://img.photographyblog.com/reviews/sony_a6700/sample_images/sony_a6700_45.jpg

>>4497399
Yeah if you got the money and like the process

>>4497140
fuji. autofocus sucked, resulted in lots of time lost and missed opportunities. worse dof flexibility, lowlight performance, and plenty of soft xf brand lenses that are $1k+ now about 1/3 the full price used though. still use fuji for play but never when reliability calls.

>>4497204
also have both and I do the opposite. there is so much creative freedom outside using the camera.

>>4497508
Fuji AF misses slightly every few shots. I've found that increasing the number of focus points to maximum and selecting a single small focus point increases the reliability significantly.

File: imgonline-com-ua-twotoone-QelvAFJXR2RRUMwB.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

>>4497424
Yeah those conditions are really rare. I tried reproducing them earlier on my K-70 w/35-105mm f3.5 Pentax-A Lens and no AA filter. Pics are sooc jpegs with just a resize to fit + straightened a little but otherwise unedited.

File: k-70_6016007077_crop.jpg (68.5 KB)

68.5 KB JPG

>>4497529
You would need to photograph the brick from much further away to see the issue. The interference happens when the projection of the brick/mortar joints or other pattern are nearly the same size as the sensor's subpixel rows.

Here's an example with the K-70
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/4821736717/pentax-k-70-real-world-samples/6016007077

I'm not photographing cityscapes so that doesn't bother me too much. What does bother me is that with no AA filter fine points of white light can become multicolor. A common example, bright sky through the sharply focused leaves of a tree produces the appearance of stained glass

File: file.png (360 KB)

360 KB PNG

>>4497363
No it's not a problem anymore, and yes, high resolution/high density bayer fix this problem without the downsides of xtranny.

You could have tested with the R7 to see for yourself, but obviously you did not.
>b-b-b-but it has the edge against a 26 MP snoy
Yes, as I said, xtranny was a solution for lower res sensors, but it's not needed anymore.

>where on the scene do you see loss of chroma resolution degrading the image?
Nowhere because you're showing a black and white chart, retard. You're just being dishonest at this point. 2x2 green pixels mean a bigger distance between red and blue pixels, meaning lower chroma resolution. You don't "see" chroma resolution, only its consequences: false colors and color bleeding, which are well documented on xtranny.

>>4497554
>You could have tested with the R7 to see for yourself, but obviously you did not.
R7 has a low-pass filter.

https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/eos-r7/specifications/
>Low-Pass Filter Built-in/Fixed

>Nowhere because you're showing a black and white chart, retard. You're just being dishonest at this point. 2x2 green pixels mean a bigger distance between red and blue pixels, meaning lower chroma resolution. You don't "see" chroma resolution, only its consequences: false colors and color bleeding, which are well documented on xtranny.

What I meant is anywhere on that entire studio scene. You can drag the little box around to magnify that particular area under the camera selection to show us "false colors and color bleeding".

>>4497602
>R7 has a low-pass filter.
So does the Sony A7V. Again, you're missing the point and you don't even understand what you're talking about.
https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras/ilce-7m5/specifications
>OPTICAL LOW PASS FILTER: Yes

LP filtering does not eliminate moiré, it tries to reduce it. Higher resolution/higher density sensors are a more radical solution to this, as the R7 shows. That + higher processing power required for xtranny demosaicing is the reason why fuji brought Bayer back for its high-res medium format.

Actual competent people have been testing and analyzing x-tranny for a decade now. Send them an e-mail if you disagree with your dpreview studio shot. You probably don't even know how to spot color bleed and false colors. Good thing they have examples to show you

https://petapixel.com/2017/01/27/x-trans-promise-problem/
https://www.dxo.com/fr/news/fuji-xtrans/

>However, there is no such thing as a free lunch and the advantages of X-Trans bring with them certain disadvantages. Across its six-by-six base, only 8 pixels are red and only 8 are blue, while the same sized area of a Bayer sensor would have 9 of each. As a result, the X-Trans sensor is about 11% less sensitive to both red and blue. More of a factor, however, is that pixels of the same color can be further apart on the X-Trans filter compared to Bayer. On a Bayer filter, a red pixel is never more than one pixel’s width away from another red pixel. By contrast, on an X-Trans filter, it can be twice that.
>On irregular textures and details as they typically occur in nature (foliage, flowers, faces, etc), the regular grid of the Bayer pattern does no harm, and X-Trans brings no benefits. By contrast, an X-Trans sensor’s lower density of red and blue pixels means that it will observe slightly less color detail. If a small color spot happens to fall in that fairly huge block of four green pixels, it is simply not observed at all.

The only thing gayer than zooming in enough to see individual pixels is spending thousands of dollars on xtranny shit that performs about like a canon eos m
>2026
>most expensive, over-$2k fujifilm has more autofocus detection options, but the actual focusing part is slow and inaccurate
>still dulls and mushes mostly red/mostly blue textures
>stills yields roughly the same iq as a canon rp
Literally just buy a canon RP and a bag of batteries. It blows the X-T5 out of the water for photography.
>VIDEO!?!?!?
Get a real camcorder. Sony makes good ones. Too bad they can't make a reliable shutter mechanism or they could make good cameras as well!

>>4497140
1) Canon - Best colour, best AF, best build quality.
Trash) Everything else.

Sorry, just hard facts. Pretty simple.

File: bayer_no_OLPF_striping.jpg (115.2 KB)

115.2 KB JPG

>>4497630
>So does the Sony A7V. Again, you're missing the point and you don't even understand what you're talking about.
So X-trans w/o OLPF deals with moire/false color better than Sony with OLPF...
You're not helping your case.

>Higher resolution/higher density sensors are a more radical solution to this
Higher resolution is not a solution. Moire is an interference pattern between the object's pattern frequency and the sensor pattern frequency. Moire will still be a problem for a patterned sensor at 1000 megapixels.

>You probably don't even know how to spot color bleed and false colors.
I asked you to point it out on the studio scene, but apparently you can't spot it either.

>On irregular textures and details as they typically occur in nature (foliage, flowers, faces, etc), the regular grid of the Bayer pattern does no harm
That's not true at all. Bayer without a decent OLPF creates striping on fine details like pic related.
https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/1472824674/panasonic-s9-sample-gallery-production/0216095083

>>4497650
>Higher resolution is not a solution. Moire is an interference pattern between the object's pattern frequency and the sensor pattern frequency. Moire will still be a problem for a patterned sensor at 1000 megapixels.
Actually, this is only true if the lens resolution is matching the sensor resolution. The real world limits of glass would prevent this kind of sharpness, so a 1000 MP sensor would not capture any patterns sharp enough to interfere with the sensor's photosite grid. The same principle why optical low-pass filters work - spreading the light across different photosites.

File: canon.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

>>4497646
>they hated him because he spoke the truth

>>4497675
>bastards use the shittily sized 55mm filter thread instead of 52mm like the other RF primes or 67mm like their zooms.
I'll keep my RF 50mm unfortunately. I just set min aperture to f/2.8 and you get slightly better optics in exchange for a tighter FoV and an extra 20g.

>>4497675
Why don't you use Fv mode?

>>4497140
1. Pentax
2. I did not use anything else

/p/ - pentax

File: 1455936572140.png (797.8 KB)

797.8 KB PNG

>>4497140
>his ranking is based on SOOC JPG

>>4498310
Absolutely. Otherwise there's little point in comparing image quality since most modern cameras are using very similar Sony CMOS sensors.

>>4498315
You can compare them in other domains than just image quality.
But if you leave your camera on auto to shoot jpeg, then yeah there's probably zero difference in your case.

>>4498315
>using very similar Sony CMOS sensors
This means nothing. It's just hardware. There wouldn't be much substantial difference between a Sony and non-Sony CMOS sensor with the same specifications. The differences in image come from:
>the in-camera RAW pre-processing
>the out-of-camera RAW decoding
>the thickness of the sensor cover glass and whether the lens you're using is made for it
>the lens ecosystem and the priorities of the optical engineers who designed the lens you're using at a given moment
Ranking based on SOOC JPG is retarded because SOOC JPG is a gimmick toy feature for kids and beginners and whether one brand's JPG engine is better than another's is completely dependent on your subjective taste and therefore holds no value as a metric of comparison.

>>4498381
Calm down Shrek. Not everybody universally likes green.

>>4498381
>whether one brand's JPG engine is better than another's is completely dependent on your subjective taste

Color accuracy isn't subjective. Some brands exaggerate certain colors or mute colors more than others.

Sharpness isn't subjective. Some brands have a habit of blurring and adding fake edge enhancement to the image.resulting in actual detail loss.

Dynamic range isn't subjective.Some brands provide inadequate controls while others leave nothing to be desired.

It comes down to the quantity of options that the JPG engine provides, and the quality of their implementation. With a good JPG engine there's no need to shoot RAW since you get the results you want at the moment of capture.

File: king.png (253.9 KB)

253.9 KB PNG

>>4498387
dangerous trvke nvke

>>4498387
>I shoot raw. *snap*
>Just live in the moment brah *spends 30 minutes setting up jpeg engine options before taking a picture* raw is pointless. you just consoomed a shit brand and lack the skill to open the menu. my brand is bette- where did you go? Hey, why are you walking away? How did you get all the way over there? Come back

>>4498387
All jpeg engines produce inferior results vs a real computer and take more interaction with the menu system because of the sheer amount of things that cant be changed later. Things are basically always faster to change (and more accurately changed) on a real computer.

Vidfags know this from shooting 8 bit footage which is why everyone hates 8 bit video now. Its a massive load of digital bullshit tacked on to the workflow.

Proponents of jpeg: ken rockwell, coping brand fanboys trying to win internet arguments (and yet dont know sony has the best jpeg engine), news photographers who do 0% art 100% snapshit pushing shit live
Proponents of raw: Every other photographer, everyone who shot negative film ever

File: 1486247670937.jpg (74.4 KB)

74.4 KB JPG

>>4498384
Can you point out exactly what part of my post indicates that I shoot Sony or like Sony colors?
>>4498387
>Color accuracy isn't subjective. Some brands exaggerate certain colors or mute colors more than others.
That's right, and there's an objective metric for that called the sensitivity metamerism index. If you want to rank cameras based on that, be my guest. But it has nothing to do with SOOC JPG, where you instantly ruin whatever color accuracy you might have had the moment you install a 'vintage Kodachrome recipe'. Or are you suggesting that JPGfags shoot JPG for color accuracy? LMAO
>Sharpness isn't subjective. Some brands have a habit of blurring and adding fake edge enhancement to the image.resulting in actual detail loss.
Okay? Just shoot raw then. Are you starting to see where your premise falls apart?
>Dynamic range isn't subjective.Some brands provide inadequate controls while others leave nothing to be desired.
Your dynamic range as a SOOC JPG shooter is always going to be compressed dogshit by definition. Just embrace creative control and shoot raw. Don't be afraid of sliders, it's really not that hard to process a picture properly.
>It comes down to the quantity of options that the JPG engine provides, and the quality of their implementation. With a good JPG engine there's no need to shoot RAW since you get the results you want at the moment of capture.
You are basing your entire value system on how well a camera performs a gimmick toy function for kids and beginners. I can therefore only assume you are a kid or a beginner or both, which tracks given your posts in this thread. Refer to global rule 2.

>>4498391
He’s an unemployed anime fan and can only afford darktable on a $50 thinkpad

To him, people with macbooks and capture one are the 1% and could only possibly be boomers
>or… people his age who went to college for employable skills or went into the trades if unable, both mog
t. 23, proud owner of an a7cii, macbook air, and capture one perpetual license

>>4498393
I haven't paid a single cent for Lightroom in over 10 years. It's not about money, but being too low IQ to use a computer.

File: cat-meme-laughing-gif.gif (84.3 KB)

84.3 KB GIF

>all these rawtrannies seething and writing essays

>>4498403
>he can't defend a position
>resorts to jestermaxxing
many such cases!

>>4498390
>(and more accurately changed)
You're not going to get a more accurate representation of the scene based on your memory of the scene hours or days later sitting at the computer vs matching the capture to your perception of the scene while you are there.

>>4498391
>But it has nothing to do with SOOC JPG, where you instantly ruin whatever color accuracy you might have had the moment you install a 'vintage Kodachrome recipe'. Or are you suggesting that JPGfags shoot JPG for color accuracy? LMAO
RAW development "to taste", which is what most RAW shooters are doing, isn't any better in terms of accuracy than using JPG recipes.
I shoot JPG exactly because it enables me to get the nearest representation of the scene. I don't post-process because I know that my judgement now isn't better than my judgement at the moment of capture.

>>4498408
JPG is compression. You are throwing away information from the scene. That is the opposite of wanting the nearest representation of the scene.
Stop coping.

>>4498412
You don't export your RAW to JPG?

>>4498414
I do, but I never claimed that I want the "nearest representation of the scene". I'm not a reality scanner. We're talking about you, remember?
Even then, you'll still have a more "faithful" reproduction of the scene if you shoot RAW with camera standard profile and immediately export after making any necessary exposure adjustments. Not that I personally do this.
Honestly I don't know why I'm still debating this with you. You clearly have weird priorities and an eccentric understanding of photography if you unironically shoot JPG because you think it's the most 'accurate to reality'. Just do whatever you want, I don't care anymore.

>>4498418
>>4498390

Its not a debate except to gearfags, the op just ranked the camera brands he personally liked. If he doesn't have to edit his pictures because he likes the jpeg engine of his favorite camera brands then more power to him.

I wish I could be a jpegtard, I still have 1000+ raws to edit from my trip to Europe in November. I personally like shooting jpegs for snapshits + portraits.

>>4498390
if you are an wedding/event/sports shooter it is absolutely worth it to build a custom jpeg color profile so you can upload to social media as the event is happening. you can put that father-son or mother-daughter dance on social media as it's happening. of course raw is fucking raw and i use it on all my personal photos, there are still some scenarios where jpeg can help you which is why i still run jpeg + raw on my cards

>>4498414
DELETE THIS RIGHT NOW

>>4498430
>>4498414
The problem isn't with pictures being JPG at some stage, it's skipping the post processing step. If you don't mind then whatever, but it's simply a fact that shooting raw gives you proper latitude for processing and more creative control over your final results, than relinquishing the option to process by shooting with baked-in settings off jump

>>4498412
I assume he wants to say his camera jpeg settings are optimized for his photos looking good on screen (or in print, whatever, on one medium). I really doubt it's possible to nail highlights and shadows 100% of the time, but okay, who's going to go out on /p and tell lies? No one.

File: raw-vs-jpeg-900x600.jpg (92.5 KB)

92.5 KB JPG

>>4498472
>but it's simply a fact that shooting raw gives you proper latitude for processing and more creative control over your final results, than relinquishing the option to process by shooting with baked-in settings off jump
Certainly in a RAW processing software there are infinite possibilities with how to develop the image.
I don't need infinite possibilities, I just need a reasonably good range, which some cameras provide, and some don't.

I can get either result in pic related SOOC with my Lumix.

To get the result on the left I would set:
- WB a bit towards blue/magenta
- iDynamic:High
if needed, highlight -5, shadow +5
if needed, contrast -5

I rarely need the latter two since iDynamic usually gives sufficient control of dynamic range compression.

>>4498502
>live in the moment bro. just shoot jpeg. *starts fiddling with menu options if the shadows get darker or brighter* its called idynamic range bro dont use hdr bro its different. change it, take a test shot, and change it again bro. dont forget your gray card for white balance bro. memorize these kelvin values bro. learn to load a lut bro. you have to only consoom these camera brands bro you cant use a nikon or an old sony or a dslr, you can only use a full frame mirrorless canon, the newest sony, or an unreliable panasonic with shitty autofocus.
Or i plug my sd card in, spend one minute moving self explanatory sliders, and use any camera i want because raw means every camera has the same image quality.

Jpeg is mostly espoused by tech nerd consumerists. Usually in tandem with brand wars. Its a tool. It has its place. But its not relevant to most people buying cameras.

>>4498504
>one minute moving sliders
>implies theres a universal setting that works for all photos

it takes me a minute to decide my crop and straighten the photo never mind add stuff like lens corrections, denoise, etc. i spend closer to 10 mins per photo when i shoot raw.

now multiply that by 500 photos. i wish i could shoot jpeg 9/10 times and like the photo.

>>4498505
Sounds like you use darktable or some gay AI shit

Capture one does the essentials like lens correction automatically. Sharpening and NR defaults were set once by me ages ago and i copy and paste a lot of stuff per scene or after grouping by ISO setting. Minor adjustments are all that are needed. The same ones you’d pre-set for jpeg, but shooting raw lets me live in the moment and not worry about what camera i have or what some arcane, buried menu option is currently set to. Just the six settings every camera has had for like, 40 years, and had accessible 24/7 without needing to press a menu button… shutter aperture ISO, focus mode, drive mode, metering mose.

I can clear 100 raws out in <10 min, but usually take less than 40 photos every few days and finish them off quick while drinking wine and chilling. Just like film, but with fewer accidental developer ingestions.

>>4498507
i use adobe lightroom + auto edit, then play with the color profiles to suit (going between adobe color, adobe vivid, or adobe landscape usually), then play with the sliders a little to make sure i'm not giving anything up to improve the photo, then check my awb (as shot vs auto), add denoise + raw details if its grainy or a little soft, then hit lens corrections and crop/straighten.

im serious if there's a way to speed up my workflow i'd love to do it, because i have a backlog of 1000+ photos to go through from vacations. i want to do what the lumix user is doing and just be happy with most of my jpegs.

>>4498508
Use capture one, dont use profiles, leave it on your favorite (use any camera’s), use the curves and the advanced color editor if the main sliders arent enough (which is rare). Simple as.

Sometimes if i wank hard enough to rocks and leaves i need to use the AI masks to manage a merged hdr bracket (better than jpeg shit ever would) or split white balances

>jpegfags: oh no i need a lens with smoother bokeh or to cope about how anything bigger than IG is le bad pixel peeping
>rawchads: makes a background mask with one click and drops structure, clarity, and contrast for smooth bokeh, takes 5 seconds

>>4498507
Jpegfag is right in that camera firmware already provides good demosaic, denoise, color profile, lens correction, and other stuff that in 3rd party raw editors ranges from trash to okay. It wouldn't be wrong to shoot in 16-bit tiff (or someting equivalent), so it would remain for you to adjust curves. Fuji cameras can actually produce tiff in camera, just not at the time of shooting.

>>4498509
i'll have to redownload the capture one trial, i actually thought it was better i just didn't like the cost. i also like the ai delete feature lightroom had.

side note....the jpeg engine of some cameras works better. my pentaxes actually don't have good jpeg engines but my a-mount cameras (minolta 5d, snoy a390, snoy a58) are 90% closer to giving me what i want without editing. often i'll shoot a raw image with them and immediately convert it without edits to jpeg to get the picture i want...sometimes the jpeg is fine as is.

>>4498512
I dont care about brands. They’re all the same camera with different autofocus systems. I just live in the moment and worry about the “idynamic white balance range optimizer user profile mode” later.

>>4498504
>*starts fiddling with menu options if the shadows get darker or brighter* its called idynamic range bro dont use hdr bro its different
My dynamic range controls are at my fingertips, just like ISO, shutter speed, and aperture.

>change it, take a test shot, and change it again bro.
Mirrorless cameras provide a preview, so no need for test shots.
(some brands have more accurate preview than others)

>dont forget your gray card for white balance bro. memorize these kelvin values bro.
When you have a decently calibrated EVF you can match WB in the preview by eye no problem.

>or an unreliable panasonic with shitty autofocus.
My Panasonic has been very reliable. The autofocus is on target 99% of shots and basically instant when selecting a single small AF box, and this was before Panasonic had PDAF.

>>4498514
Take a photo of something worthwhile like a cat running around and get back to me

Previous camera: canon 450D
ok baby's first camera. what I remember the most was the kind of ugly sound from the mirror or shutter.

Current camera: Panasonic G80
Ergonimically it's a little bit on the small side. In terms of image quality it has real trouble focusing in dark areas like in a forest with thick foliage, and also gives grainy pictures in such locations. But otherwise I like it quite a lot and want to stay with panasonic, getting something like a G9ii or S5ii in the future.

>>4498533
i kind of regret selling my ancient aps-c camera back in the day, they are so tiny and light compared to the full frame bricks, you just have to use a flash a lot indoors

>>4498533
sony a7c better

>>4498547
I would love an A7C with firmware by Panasonic.
Unfortunately Sony's firmware is janky AF.

>>4497140
I sold my company & bought a Leica S2 & 3 lenses. I could have bought a medium sized house in my town for the same money, but i just had to feel the Leica “thing” for once in my life. So i jizzed all over my own face with that fucking thing and you know what, a year or so later I got Nikons new Z7, and after poring over all tge fucking charts & doing test shots to confirm, I swear the Nik took exactly as sharp & clean of an image as the Leica system. So I sold it, and it depreciated so badly it effectively *just* paid for my Z7 & Lenses. And thats how I paid as much as a house for this 8 year old Nikon Z7 that you can now buy for about $900 on ebay. So I’m done.

>>4498692
Idiot tax: paid. Thank you for participating in social eugenics.

>>4498692
Sucks man but it helps cure GAS

>>4498695
Eh, it was a fun way to lose a little money. …peanuts compared to what i lost going into business with what turned out to be a very wrong partner before that, so, nowhere near the worst idiot tax I’ve paid. …& then there was getting married, holy fuck, compared to that the camera experiment was a bargain.

>>4498692
Where on earth do you live that a house is so cheap?

>>4498915
St. Louis. You can find a lot of old stuff, esp historic brick stuff for under 70k. You can buy em, for $65k, put a quick 50k into renovations & then relist, but they’ll just sit there & rot again bc they're still only worth $65k, surrounded by all the other other $65k rotting carcasses. I last looked at a 3 story brick & stone victorian, beautiful woodwork, fireplaces on ea floor fir $27k. …lol bc it also has an old pool, wind whistling through the uninsulated walls, cloth-wrapped wiring throughout, & is teetering on crumbling masonry+fieldstone foundation walls lol. It’ll cost more to demo that thing than its worth to take on the job.

File: blinkies.webm (369.6 KB)

369.6 KB WEBM

TIL Canon can't do blinkies or zebras during still photo composition.
Canon bros, explain yourselves.

>>4498961
Any house in any first world city that costs less than $500k is in a violent ghetto. Guaranteed.

>>4497675
SOVL

>>4499100
Nikon also doesn't do blinkies when stills shooting, only during image review

File: file.png (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB PNG

>>4497140
1. Pentax
2.whatever, I don't care about anything else

>>4498692
I'm not as knowledgeable about cameras and the brands as most people here but from what I understand Leica is just the BMW/Mercedes/Audi of cameras

>>4499376
there's a workaround for Nikon by using a picture profile which converts pure white to black (or colour of your choice), but it will also be saved in the JPG so you need to shoot RAW + JPG.

I find it amazing that in 2026 only a few camera makers have figured out that Zebras are useful in stills mode as well as video mode.