|
Beeftweeter posted:lol, on a lark tried looking for olympus bundles — don't bother. horrible value
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
qirex posted:yeah I've been keeping my eye on ebay for an em1 or em5 with the 14-150 and they're still over a grand used go for a g85/g95 imo olympus has excellent design (and i know that is important to you lol), but it's not like the g85 is homely or anything, it looks like a pro camera. the only thing you'd be missing out on is the 50 MP interpolation mode, and honestly? gently caress that, lol feature-wise it goes toe to toe with the e-m5 and beats the em-1 in some areas. there are a lot of bundles with a crapload of accessories and lenses that range from $600-800 depending on what comes with it the om-ds are very unfortunately overpriced
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:15
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
if your sensor is so big why do you shoot everything at 128000 iso
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:38
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:yeah it sucks. some of the sigma and tamron lenses are at least as good as the canon equivalents for a much lower price and I was looking forward to getting them in rf mount. the ef mount ones work fine with the adapter but still. honestly wondering if i should swap over to nikon before my next nice lens. could get a couple tamron g2 lenses and buy a z7 with the money I'd save over the first party versions yeah I’d probably have gone sony except sony has reputation for gross skin tones. technically superior cameras with weird menus and gross skin tones
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
qirex posted:if your sensor is so big why do you shoot everything at 128000 iso what are you talking about lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
what did canon do with respect to lenses for RF?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:42
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:what are you talking about lol your photos noisy as poo poo bro
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:47
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:yeah I’d probably have gone sony lmao  looks fine to me man. stop reading photography blogs e: better shot Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Feb 2, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:49
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:what did canon do with respect to lenses for RF? they're preventing third party manufacturers from making AF lenses for the mount.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:50
|
|
|
also, if you care about this: lol, lmao. you are a bad photographer not you, echi, that is a generalization
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
also here is one my wife took of me shooting with the g85 it is a smol camera, but the g100 is even tinier
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
the e-m10 is small too, here i am using a big honking 85 mm rokinon with it what i'm saying is, MFT hits the sweet spot between portability and capability
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:your photos noisy as poo poo bro it’s aesthetic my man
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 01:09
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:what did canon do with respect to lenses for RF? something to do with licenses and going after companies for reverse engineering something basically making it so some companies had to take their lenses off the market and pay a license fee making the lenses untenable or something bullshit. moronic business practice imo
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 01:13
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:your photos noisy as poo poo bro unfortunately it ain’t no sony. it’s glorious when there is plenty of light but when it’s dark I do need to up the ISO. hosed up but true. it’s miles better than my old camera, and I would be intrigued to see it compared to other sensors, no reason to believe it would be particularly worse than anything else unless you’re judging how I add noise to almost every photo lol. regardless.. it’s my baby and I love her.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
no, i think most people itt that know about sensor noise vs. added noise realize that's added in post. they are genuinely pretty noisy as-is which makes any complaint about sensor size pretty ridiculous honestly. like, i could frame it this way guy that intentionally obliterates detail and adds noise: haha, i scoff at your tiny sensors  obviously i'm joking a bit but, you know, it's kinda true. lol MFT sensors are not bad by any means. like, is there literally anything i've posted itt from a MFT cam that is unacceptable because of sensor limitations? i seriously doubt you'd be able to find even one example. i mean, i also shoot full frame with an objectively better camera by your own admission — the difference is not as vast as you'd been led to believe. photo blogs generally have an agenda because of sponsors
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 02:02
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:what did canon do with respect to lenses for RF? jacked the prices way the hell up
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
wow, your(?) dog's teeth are remarkably clean lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:wow, your(?) dog's teeth are remarkably clean lol they had better be, I just paid a bunch of money to the vet to clean them!! (and they had to extract one of her little top front teeth that was broken)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 02:27
|
|
|
Important question: would an MFT camera be satisfactory for astrophotography stuff and bugpics?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Important question: would an MFT camera be satisfactory for astrophotography stuff and bugpics? do they make wide angle and macro lenses? then sure
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 04:10
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:Important question: would an MFT camera be satisfactory for astrophotography stuff and bugpics? bugpics: yeah absolutely. anything will work so long as you use the right lens astrophotography: a lot of people will tell you "no, the sensor is too small to be useful", and that is complete horseshit. as long as you always shoot raw and use manual settings, it is absolutely definitely possible and you would get satisfactory results however: for astrophotography i would have to recommend a higher end body unfortunately, i know you're trying to keep things cheap. in this context that means a panasonic g7 at the least, g85 recommended, and g95 as the pro choice. if you prefer rangefinders instead the series sequence applies for those too. for olympus, any mark e-m5 or e-m1 will be able to pull it off with ease. they are comparatively ridiculously expensive though, but that's because they are really good. i have not read any reviews of the most recent e-m10, but if you want, i can look at a few and give an opinion. i have a mk1, thats admittedly pretty old i've never used the leica MFT cams, but they are manufactured by panasonic anyway. beyond body styling i have no idea what the difference is, maybe software
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 04:18
|
|
|
what are some snow shooting tips? higher f-stop slower shutter speed if i have a tripod? i want to be able to capture the horizon sharply.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 05:29
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:no, i think most people itt that know about sensor noise vs. added noise realize that's added in post. they are genuinely pretty noisy as-is idk spose I disagree in the sense that I don’t really look at very many of the photos I post and think they’re noisy and maybe some MFT sensors are gonna blow me away and surprise me that they can do this, but this is close to 1:1 .. it’s not really noisy but it is totally usable. idk if MFT sensors are good at this but being able to do this  that’s a crop that I’ve used as an instagram post and I got it from this  like imo that’s pretty decent, and was kind of surprised at how well it came out this thread has basically be an exercise in me saying “I think this is good” and other people coming in and saying “actually it’s poo poo”, so I half expect to get shot down and told that that’s nothing special, but never could have used a crop like that from my old system, so at the very least I am happy with my one camera one lens system
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 06:06
|
|
|
Beeftweeter posted:
nah i’m mostly just giving poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 06:08
|
|
|
sensors with bigger photosites are objectively better at noise rejection than ones with smaller photosites, so if you have two 20mp sensors designed at about the same time and one is a crop and the other is full frame, the full frame sensor will be less noisy. however, if the sensors were made in the last 5 years or so, the difference between them will be marginal, and there will be no detectable difference if you're shooting in good light. sensors have gotten very good at low-iso performance, and the internal noise reduction algorithms go even further. echinopsis posted:unfortunately it ain’t no sony. it’s glorious when there is plenty of light but when it’s dark I do need to up the ISO. hosed up but true. it’s miles better than my old camera, and I would be intrigued to see it compared to other sensors, no reason to believe it would be particularly worse than anything else you used to have a 7d, right? your new camera takes less noisy photos not because the sensor is physically larger, but because it's like 5 generations newer. the noise levels of your eos R and an aps-c eos R7 will be essentially identical. Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 06:18 on Feb 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 06:15
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:
righto. that’s interesting and not surprising. was really just responding to the claim that my photos noisy
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 06:24
|
|
|
larger photosites can also give you have a higher dynamic range but idk how much value you're getting out of that
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 07:21
|
|
|
KidDynamite posted:what are some snow shooting tips? higher f-stop slower shutter speed if i have a tripod? i want to be able to capture the horizon sharply. Generally shoot snow how you would shoot everything else, but if it's sunny out you may need to take add a stop of exposure compensation to make up for how bright snow is. Getting your horizon sharp is just a matter of where you're focusing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 10:10
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:larger photosites can also give you have a higher dynamic range but idk how much value you're getting out of that that’s counterproductive really
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
higher dynamic range can be great if you know how to use it the first time i was playing with raws from my a7iii i was genuinely amazed. it's crazy how you can lift the shadows, highlights, whatever without really any loss of quality at all, it doesn't even look unnatural. imo that adds a lot of utility and flexibility but that's not necessary. raws from my other camera systems do that too, just not as well. it's only really useful if you are doing heavy post processing or really whiffed it hard on the exposure or something, which is a mistake i really really really rarely make there are obviously benefits to using larger sensors but for most people smaller ones would be fine. MFT is great and the smaller and lighter bodies are a joy to use. i use them professionally all the time i can honestly say "smaller sensors suck" is a myth
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
Well to a point. Cell phone sensors genuinely do suck balls
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 18:24
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Well to a point. Cell phone sensors genuinely do suck balls my iphone's cameras are okay. but my canon r5 blows it out of the water in every way when I'm not feeling too lazy to take it out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 18:27
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Well to a point. Cell phone sensors genuinely do suck balls i have a huawei mate 10 pro with a 1" sensor (iirc, it's larger than typical at any rate) and leica lenses it's pretty good imo. loads of manual controls, excellent macro performance, stops up to f/1.9, surprisingly good dof you just gotta know what to look for i guess and don't limit yourself to apple. the sony phones also have good cams iirc e: the low-light performance is predictably subpar though
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Well to a point. Cell phone sensors genuinely do suck balls lol, i was thinking about this, and well fair, most of them do but for ILCs i think that's true. i have a pentax q7 (the q system is the smallest digital interchangeable lens system) and i love that thing. knowing its limitations, it's never a disappointment
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 18:51
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Well to a point. Cell phone sensors genuinely do suck balls that's true, but you can really pull out great RAW files out of them. Of course model dependent. My old Nexus 6P had an amazing camera, have printed from it and you cannot tell it was from a phone. Here's a scan of a print from it.  My current phone is a pixel 6 or something and the lens is noticeably worse - distortion and blurryness around the corners. I've still printed from it and it's still serviceable. Moral of the story is print your photos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 19:02
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:Moral of the story is not to buy android. iphones have consistently good cameras, op
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
fyi dpreview has an interface where you can compare raw shots from their camera reviews at full res side by side. one of them is a lens resolution check board, one is a white balance card, color balance boards, etc. if you are shopping for a camera or just interested, it's honestly a pretty good resource just keep in mind the site is owned by amazon. they're trying to sell the cameras too. lol Beeftweeter fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Feb 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2023 19:11
|
|