Thread 4441351

Why is every thread about sensor size being pruned? If it's against the rules, then make an announcement saying so
Because I've had every thread pruned for zero reason
>inb4 this one gets pruned
At least give us a reason, it makes no sense

okay here's all you need to know about sensor size

micro four thirds: good for doing macro and birding on the cheap, because no one with FF wants a f11-16 zoom or an f5.6 macro
aps-c: jacket pocket cameras for people who don't care about bugs and birds
full frame: real cameras
DX medium format: mogs full frame, frankly, but slow AF
"real" medium format: digicope, somehow worse than film, just buy a bronica gs1 or mamiya rb67 by this point

>>4441352
That doesn't explain why threads are getting pruned for no reason

>>4441357
silence sensorlet

>>4441361
>8x10 too big to fit in image

Many such cases

if you aren't printing at least this big you're pathetic

>>4441351 (OP)
>FF shooters: FF is better than M43 and APS-C because its bigger and size is all that matters!
>Also FF shooters: Aaahhhhh MF is too expensive and slow it's not even that much bigger size ackshually isnt everything reeeeeeee

>>4441364
I'd print a picture of my waifus feet in that size

>>4441361
Should I unironically just get the largest digital sensor I can afford?

>>4441372
Yes. Just remember bigger sensors need more light because they use longer lenses to cover the same FOV.

>>4441373
That's the other thing, I'm pretty poor so I want to make the most effective decision, and buying a quality body with quality lens is super expensive
But I also want to make just one purchase for a while so I can focus on the non-gear part

>>4441375
What's your budget?

>>4441375
If you're just trying to learn general photography your first camera doesn't matter as long as it has manual controls. Get a d200 or 5d/5dm2 and a 24-70 2.8 it doesn't really matter what you get a first, and who cares if you spend like 300-500 bucks on your first camera + lens and want to get something better later on?

Save up for a hasselblad x2d 100c if you never want to get a new camera

>>4441366
FF is well past the threshold of fast enough and shoots faster with better autofocus than any fool turds

Medium format does not

>>4441375
If it's your first camera, you can find used DSLRs for less than $50 on ebay, lenses for about the same price. It's basically free compared to anything you're going to buy new, an old D90 is fine for 90% of situations. You really don't need to frontload that hard.

>>4441381
I was looking at some phase one cameras and some of them have a base ISO of 32 lol.

>>4441379
This is a very 4chan-brained response.
>bruh, you can be a billionaire, or be a neet, choose one or be a cuck!

>>4441375
"Bigger sensors need more light" does not really apply to FF, it applies to MF because the lenses are all slow as balls (size constraints) and past DX MF the sensors have really poor high ISO performance (engineering constraints). FF is just strictly better than everything smaller.

Get a sony a7ii or a7iii and the viltrox 50mm f2. Easy to do for <$1000 in the US. You will be satisfied. Probably for the next 10 years unless you're a huge video/sports autist.

>>4441377
I was think 2500 AUD for both body and lens, because I want to buy quality but don't want to buy overpriced memes

>>4441375
the best camera is the one you have with you and you won't want to walk around with a dslr, i guarantee this

you also wont enjoy shooting with 20% autofocus coverage or enjoy learning about mirror slap, or dealing with how turbo shit SLR lenses are. SLR lenses having a divide between optical garbage and telescope sized shit is what kept leica in business. get a mirrorless and you can shoot with leica-quality lenses on the cheap. even a sony a6000 is going to produce better results in most hands than a DSLR.
>inb4 "skill issue, i shoot in Mup with a tripod and optimize this and that"

>>4441385
The Sony a7iii and a7c are generally the cheapest full frame cameras considered 100% up to date quality.

If you are lucky you might be able to find a nikon z6ii for cheaper (it's a bit less desirable), and if you are luckier, nikon might update its firmware in the future.

>>4441385
Oh hell yeah you can get an amazing camera for that much.

>>4441384
I see nothing wrong with my statement. If the lad is just starting off a solid 10 year old body with a decent lens he could still use on a body upgrade is not a bad way to start off.

>>4441389
The d200 is nowhere near solid and aint no one going to carry a boat anchor DSLR 24-70 f2.8 that's more like a 24-70 f4 because SLR zooms render simultaneously soft and sterile images wide open.

The other thing is I want them to be durable because I want to always carry it but I'm not sure if weather sealing is a meme

>look at aussie ebay
>a7iii is $1500+
>a7c is $1650-2000+
>zf is $2400+
>z6ii is $1750+
>r8 is $1880+
>every lens is at least $150 more than it is in the US
what the fuck is wrong with australia

>>4441392
You sound weak and unusual.

>>4441393
Weather sealing degrades over time. My friend's olympus survived hurricanes when it was new but 6 years later the seals gave out and it died in t

>>4441395
You smell like dog balls.

>>4441394
Mirrorless are all going to be expensive as fuck

>>4441394
Skill issue. I bought my a7cII 2 years ago for $2300 from JB and my Sony 35/1.4 GM was $550 from Sony.

>>4441396
You're just an obsessed gearfag chomping at the bit to argue about gear. Your true hobby.
My response was not telling him what camera to get it was saying how little it matters as a beginner. I bet you call other people gearfags LOL.

>>4441397
In the US it's all $500-$1000 less lmao

The majority DSLRs, save the last crop of professional models that landscape fags keep gobbling up and a few rare ones, are sub-$500 e waste garbage no one in the US wants. People think they take lower quality photos than phones, and between mirror slap, focus inaccuracy, how bad most lenses are, and how absurdly strong some of those AA filters are, they kind of are. DSLR lenses perform better on the crappiest mirrorless cameras than they do on the DLSRs themselves. They're pretty bad.

>>4441394
I do not like this emuland, I do not samiam

>>4441400
You know what does matter as a beginner? Having less to worry about.

Using a D200 and beating an iphone with it requires shooting raw, carefully chosen lenses, shot at ideal apertures, exposure delay mode, and spot metering stop counting fuckery. A crappy a6000 or canon EOS M blows that junk away.

>>4441404
Retard. I did not suggest the camera specifically. This is how much of a gearfag you are. It is ridiculous! You cannot help yourself.

>>4441406
You suggested the d200 or something like it

These old DSLRs are horrible cameras. Until the 5div and D810 came out, it was generally accepted that 35mm film was superior. Better to EDC, better image quality. It is way better to work with a small film camera than any of that digital junk.

>>4441408
Cope and still misunderstanding my point like the supreme gearfag you truly are.

They take way better pictures than phones do and they are very easy to use. My 2MP fuji digishitter takes better pics than my phone does. They just look better even if your charts tell you otherwise! Sorry!

>>4441404
If I've learned anything from being a Gaymer, it's that the guy who can rattle off model numbers and reviews, is the guy who gets all his opinions from youtube videos.

Funny how your threads keep disappearing when all you do is pick fights and play victim. Shouldn't you be used to it by now, you useless mental case?

>>4441408
pros were using digital way before that

>>4441351 (OP)
go take a picture you fucking faggot. god damn.

>>4441426
I use my macro lens to take pictures of my dick and balls every day. I have 20,000PB of pics so far.

>>4441427
>>4441414

>>4441427
So THATS what mft's 100fps is for!

>>4441414
What the fuck are you even talking about? My threads were neutral and just trying to get information but they got pruned

So what the hell should I get that's just a good solid "take literally anywhere" lens and camera that's good for travel, landscape, night sky and things like that? Sports don't matter and maybe light wildlife

>>4441411
I get all my opinions from dxomark charts, facts, logic, and over 200 hours of experience taking pictures of my cat.

>>4441445
depends on your budget
under $1000 just get an ASPC zoom lens
over $1000 get a full frame zoom lens

>>4441446
Well sir I have 2000 hours of experience taking pictures of random shrubbery and dirt
I am a master of /p/hotography

>>4441445
Sony a7c
Viltrox 50mm f2

This is the current meta.
>Can it go wider?
Handheld 3-4 shot stitch.

>>4441445
The best digital camera every made of course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zNF1aXdxYM
(Ignore all snoy meme and janny recommendations)

>>4441446
You don't have an opinion until you've taken 10k photos of your cat. Sorry!

>>4441445
Look at any lens that has food in the name. Pancake, biscuit, cans, wafer, banana, apple, etc. These are proper and good lenses useful for most situations.

>>4441464
With the giant $1000 cope lenses he uses to make it work, it might as well be an a7c with an unnoticeable weight penalty, then it would be even better especially above youtube player sizes

>>4441464
And what's the actual model? Not watching clickbait shit

>>4441464
>use shitty m43 camera
>slap on your $6000 lenses
>listen guys this camera is LE EPIIIIIIIIIIIIIC

>>4441464
>Micro four thirds is finally good if I buy a $1500 85mm f2.8 and a $1200 24mm f2.8
fucking lol, this is the peak of gearfaggotry. thinking you are no longer a gearfag when you are spending $2700 on f2.8 prime lenses and end up with a camera that's the same size and quality as everyone elses cheaper kit

>>4441469
Panasonic GM5.

>>4441469
panasonic gm5

>keep reading everywhere that what actually matters is size and ergonomics for cameras
>this mean sensor size is a non-factor
>say ok and get an m43 camera that has the durability, good image quality and nice features
>visit /p/
>all I hear is how gear matters and how m43 is bottom of the barrel shit
And thus my dilemma started

>>4441475
>>4441474
>1.5k on eBay
So they're shilling a camera they have stock of and need to sell, got it

>>4441474
my iphone is even smaller than that gm5 and takes better pictures so

>>4441481
and you'll post them any second now

>>4441476
>what actually matters is size and ergonomics
You know what camera has the best size and ergonomics? an iphone 16 pro
fits in your pocket, has dozens of hours of battery life, uploads your pics to the cloud so unlimited photo storage

>>4441485
>apple
Lol

>>4441474
>bro, if I use a lens that's ten times better!
Yes, this is the peak of gearfaggotry. What if each camera used reasonably priced effectively identical lenses? Is this cramped ergonomic shitshow somehow worth the worse everything of the m43 body, just to save less than 1/4lb?

there are far better lenses to compare than this to. this shitty website just doesn't have them.

>>4441476
They are correct, what matters is size... and usefulness. those extra two stops of ISO and aperture matter a lot for quality, the lenses are way better, and the minor difference in background blur is far from shot ruining or improving - it's a pretty neutral change, actually.
That's why sony is #1 in FF market share. Panasonic is less than 5%. Olympus went out of business. That is because almost no one bought that garbage.

The people shilling micro four thirds are camera nerds. They are pursuing them because they look more like classic film cameras. That's all there is to it. Then buy these, then buy $1500 f2.8 prime lenses because they say leica on them and have aperture rings like classic film lenses. Micro four thirds is leica faggotry for the working man. the working man that can't even afford fuji.

And you need to believe me about this, because I shoot micro four thirds. I just can't afford full frame. I've rented FFs for gigs before and it's just a straight upgrade except for a small handful of edge cases.

>>4441487
>hey are correct, what matters is size... and usefulness
weight is more important than size
Snoy may be bigger than a lot of other mirrorless cameras but they're lighter. When you're taking pictures without a gimbal the weight on your wrists is what matters.

>>4441487
>The Sony is still xbox huge in his comparison
lmao

>>4441487
I forgot to mention, fuji is also a straight upgrade from micro four thirds. autofocus/image quality/ergos/user experience. all better, xt5 vs om5. the xt5 is just expensive. technically bigger, but it's fucking nothing if you want to use good lenses on micro four thirds so it doesn't look 10x shittier.

>>4441489
>weight
bro it is 300g
it is literally fucking nothing man, you have to believe me, i have an om5 and it's not noticeable, they're equally convenient and inconvenient. step up to an m43 body that isn't as super shit as the gm5 and suddenly it's almost exactly the same size.

if 300g triggers you, you have issues. i feel sorry for you.

>>4441490
this website makes it look exaggerated, in real life it feels like nothing

>>4441492
>bro it is 300g
Yeah. And an a7rv is 700g. Which is also light enough to work with for hours. So why go for the m43 that's worse in every way? Poverty or being a hipster faggot. Nothing wrong with not being able to afford better cameras but it's cope to pretend there's a good reason to use m43

>>4441495
i'd notice m43 to a7rv, but the a7cr exists and does the exact same thing as the a7rv (mogs the a7c, and mogs mft even harder). it's joever for mft unless you're legit poor and the best ff gear you can afford is worse than mft in some ways (usually, way bigger).

>>4441472
People that spend money on m43 lenses trying to bridge the gap are fucking retarded.

If you put the same quality lens on ff, you get 4x the resolution, and diffraction sets in 2 stops later, and noise sets in 2 stops later.

>>4441499
And it just looks better period. There's more color resolution. The difference between each camera when shot in the same situation, to the best of a competent photographers ability, is major.

Usually with cheaper, slightly smaller glass on FF too.

>>4441502
>There's more color resolution.
I can just have my LLM make fake colors for me.

>>4441504
Just AI generate your whole photo, saar. AI is the future. No one needs no camera.

well fuck do I sell my mft and lose 2k?

>>4441505
What I do, as expert photographer, make many thousands of monies per month, is this.
I have fake camera that looks like real camera, I put my phone inside, everyone thinks it's expensive camera, I made fake camera with broken leica body. Then I take the pictures, very grainy, low resolution, bad colors. BUT, I put into photoshop, I tell it to make the colors and resolution good, get rid of the noise, and then use all the AI features make it look good. Then I use AI resolution tool to make the photos 60MP, sell for many monies.

>the sad shill is now just arguing with himself
Peak schizo thread

>>4441506
You paid how much for that shit?

>>4441506
Share one of the best pictures you've taken with it and I'll tell you if you should sell it.

>>4441511
$8,000 new

>>4441511
2k body 1k lens

>>4441515
>>4441514
hahahahahaha

unless you are a casual photographing animals on the run for fun, why? did a salesman talk you into this? did you believe youtube?

>>4441512
I will when I'm home if they haven't deleted this one
But I like the image quality from the camera

>>4441516
I quite literally did believe youtube and reddit saying it'd be fine
I used to have a 1kg dslr that I never took anywhere because of its weight so the small size of m43 appealed

>>4441519
>but sir, dont you dare buy an a7c, its worse because… it is! the gimmicks! actually you need to use this $4000 f1.2 for it to be better! think of the 100g! t. $8000 f16 zoom
Its a common joke to call M43 some sort of cult.

meanwhile what do you see among the highest paid and most artistically successful photographers? the largest possible frame sizes. usually film because digital cant go big enough. its about shading and color rendition, mostly.

M43 is a soulless snapshit system. It prioritizes zoom to fill photography and taking every generic photo possible. FF+ prioritizes creativity and giving a creative person more fundamental aesthetic options to work with and more beauty to appreciate.

In general, smaller cameras are more ideal for less serious photographers who just want a more detailed photo of ___ than their phone can take and do _____ effect their phone cant, and arent deep into visual expression

>>4441523
You can just say tonality. I won't judge you any differently bb.

>>4441474
/thread

So the things I wanted out of m43, the small size and durability, can I get in FF?

>>4441534
Sure. I still think you should lift some heavy things to get stronger.

>>4441534
Nope. You can't beat physics.

>>4441372
>>4441375
Photography is the wrong hobby if you can't afford literally every flagship camera spontaneously.

It's crazy to me. Literally even the last sucker in the end of the pecking order in a white collar jobs makes 50k. You're literally a loser is you only make 50k in US or EU. But that's still easily enough to buy a Hassy X2D + 90V lens and upgrade every 5 years.

>>4441539
then what the SHIT do I do

>>4441357
It seems like we have gotten a redditor-type mod who is eager to use his newfound powers and deletes everything that vaguely could be posted in a "general". I have seen less of those types of whine about not posting in the shitty general posts lately so he is proven to be gay in my opinion.

>>4441542
Bro I make $80k and I can't afford to just drop $20,000 on a flagship leica you're on crack

>>4441351 (OP)
>skims thread
yeah i wonder why anyone would want to prune a thread brimming with posts of earnest, impartial advice, and devoid weak, unfunny b8

>>4441512
Here's my favourite photo

and my second favourite

>>4441551
>>4441552
dawg no one can tell if format is holding you back when the file is compressed to hell. plus your composition cutting off the shrub near the base is questionable imo. these don't strike me as particularly expository in intent so if you like how the pictures look, i wouldn't bother with looking for a sharper system

>>4441553
Well yeah, I just started and I'm learning

>>4441551
>>4441554
the shrub should be inside the blue box
the middle of the shrub should be on the vertical red line
the top of the treeline should intersect the horizontal red line
at least use some basic composition

>>4441551
>>4441552
Looks better than a FF camera

The site says to reduce image sizex blame moot

>>4441560
no, that's just an especially shitty lens

>>4441557
>top of treeline should intersect horizon
lmao

>>4441561
Fuck that. 16MP Jpeg90 4:4:4 fits under 5MP easily. 4500:3000 is only 13.5MP.

>>4441564
literally just move the camera lower towards the ground

>>4441549
If you make 80k you should definitely be able to find 10k for a hobby. I'm not saying you should do that or that it would be a good decision.

But the answer to the question "could I afford it" should be "yes, easily"

>>4441551
>>4441552
>>4441560
they're all bland and boring.

Maybe if these specific places mean something to you on an emotional level. Otherwise: irrelevant.

>>4441551
>>4441552
They insist upon themselves

>>4441551
>>4441552
The hell is this composition

So after all that autism what's the consensus

>>4441596
Use whatever you enjoy because no matter what there's a chorus of anons saying you're wrong

>>4441596
Use your 1" sensor on your phone that can actually fit in your pocket or go medium format. Anything else is cope.

8x10 prints or don't even bother

>>4441602
What's the f4 equivalent of 8x10

>>4441596
Micro four thirds is a lot worse and all you get in return is it being more convenient to take pictures of animals, and slightly nicer screens because mft doesn't have real flagships to avoid outcompeting and is essentially a dead system that had its last hurrah in 2016.

>>4441560
Even with a literal toy lens meant for street photography at 2mp, FF has visibly better tonality

These photos are inexcusably small btw. The standard computer screen is 3840x2160. Get up to date.

>>4441534
>small size
Often bigger than FF
>And durability

Sony a7c
Viltrox 50mm f2
This is the current meta

>>4441637
>and durability
https://www.flickr.com/groups/1244767@N22/discuss/72157715626698947/
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/what-causes-you-this-failure-gx85.119333/
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/gx85-sensor-problem.88360/
https://www.mu-43.com/threads/gx85-rear-dial-failure.97376/

etc

its really easy to find stuff like this because olympus and panasonic have never been known for build quality.

>>4441638
>and durability
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cameras/comments/1jujbzi/lumix_g7g9_olympus_omd_em1_3_broken_cameras_with/
jesus you look around for 30 seconds and find 30 hilariously bad horror stories

keep in mind these brands barely sold any cameras, people

>>4441615
8x10 has a .13x crop factor compared to FF

>>4441544
Don't buy shitty snoy cameras and 3rd party chinkshit lenses.

>mft is shit
>Sony is shit
>fuji is shit for faggot hipsters and has worms
>Nikon is overpriced for boomers
>csnon is dead and shit
What the fuck do I buy then

>>4441728
>1 year ago, one dumb redditor broke his camera
#1 FF market share brand, so the few failures that occur, in addition to being user error, are statistically less significant than just one busted lolympus
>inb4 the same 10 photos of broken a7iiis

>>4441730
Sinar. :D

>>4441730
>mft is shit
Correct, only good for small zooms/macro
>Sony is shit
Incorrect. Sony is the best.
>Fuji is shit
Correct but at least it's not mft
>canon is dead and shit
outright lie

You buy a canon or sony like 80% of people. Cameras are tools. These nerds make tools part of their identity because the good tools are too mainstream. They also ride fixies and drive VW bugs.

>>4441730
It starts with L and ends with eica, of course.
>inb4 poorfag malding

>>4441745
Leica cameras are shit. They only exist because SLRs were ever shittier.

If you want a REAL camera, get a hasselblad.
>inb4 i can only afford 35mm
Lmao

>want camera expensive enough to be high quality
>but not so expensive I baby it and never take it outside

>>4441749
sony a7c
viltrox 50mm f2

the current meta.

>>4441730
Give up on buying shitty but relevant cameras and join the cult of Pentax.

>>4441730
This is the part where you realize everyone here is a retarded shill for their brands and you need to just make a decision on your own

personally I think m43 users trying to act like its more portable then a normal aps or ff dslr are effectively wrong even if technically correct

>>4441761
Yeah, unless you have a pancake on it, the size difference really isn't enough to actually matter. You're not fitting a 50mm in your pocket regardless.

>>4441766
Even the pancakes only make it uncomfortably pocketable if you buy some super-shit panasonic that's going to break down if it deals with the rigors of a pocket anyways

>>4441761
See >>4441474

>>4441772
See >>4441487
The actual size difference is irrelevant, even with a body as uselessly shit and hilariously unreliable as the gm5

>>4441775
>"my camera is better because its smaller!"
>literally gets proven not true
>"Size difference is irrelevant!"
???????

>>4441808
>uhm, micro four thirds is smaller if you use the shittiest, least reliable body and the shittiest lens
>AND FULL FRAME HAS TO USE THE BIGGEST SUPER SHARP F1.4
Might as well use your phone and compare it to a hasselblad lmao

m43 is a cult
>be m43 cultist
>spend $4700 on f2.8 primes for your shitty unreliable 16mp lumix
>realize you fucked up
>post bs and lies to recruit more cult members instead of admitting to your wife that you spent the kids college fund on slightly better than iphone quality pictures

If this is just for a personal project/fun/dog photos then get whatever camera and lens combo you enjoy using. Go to a camera store and feel how they are in your hand and what kind of lenses would best fit your needs. Sensor size does not really matter between MF, FF, ASPC, and MFT. The retards on this board can't tell the difference and nobody else in the real world can either. This whole board is just dweebs trying to recreate a console war on the playground. At the end of the day these are just toys and the pictures you make aren't going to change the world. You should just buy a toy you like rather than impressing your friends on the playground.

I'm simply too shit at this to justify buying anything better.

>>4441816
My egg pictures will change the world. It's already happening.
I like your advice tho. Anyone that is doing pro shit will know exactly the capabilities they need from a camera, so it is really pointless to claim any one camera is the best or worst.

>>4441819
I feel like I've seen this exact picture taken by the scanning autist in bw film... My advice? Use what you got and photograph eggs, or any one thing you like. Maybe you like newspapers, or lemons, or bricks. Stick with that one thing for a month and you will be suprised how creative you get!

>>4441809
Holy cope. The Panny 20mm is one of the best lenses ever. And that giant Snoy lens isnt even f/1.4, it's f/2 LOL

>>4441838
>Giant snoy lens
It's a tamron, actually.
>the panny 40mm f3.5 is the best
It renders very flat and the autofocus sucks. Its piss poor electronics and shitty coatings also cause high ISO banding and blue UV spots on the only m43 bodies worth using (olympus).

>>4441730
a7cii on sale at willoughby's for $1759

>>4441853
>not weather sealed

I also love taking photos like this, just vast landscape

>>4441854
Why does someone always lie when sony comes up?

It's not like you're getting weather sealing from micro four thirds or anything. All of the cameras are either too old for the seals to still work or so overpriced you might as well buy a sony.

>>4441868
Sonys are not weather sealed. Sony lies about their cameras being weather sealed. I bought a sony once and threw it in my pool to test if it was weather sealed, I got it out the next day and it was bricked.

>>4441840
Its a Zeiss lens. Have fun carrying that around because of your flawed mount.

>>4441887
Huh????

>>4441888
sony mounts frequently crack and break even straight out of the box
over 80% of of sony a7riv and sony a7rvs have defective mounts that will snap if the lens weighs more than 100g

>>4441893
That's nikon mounts actually

>>4441888
>Sony's pancake looks like a normal zoom lens and isn't even f/2
lol

This definitely happened

>>4441476
I'm afraid you got played for a fool.
Sensor/film size makes an enormous difference because all of your noise and optical aberrations, all else being equal, get smaller the larger your medium is. That's why studio professionals always shot medium format as a minimum (but ideally large format), with 35mm only for personal works or photojournalism where quickness was more important. You can see the difference very plainly in some collections - for example, Yoshihiko Ueda's works for Suntory, shot on 8x10 (on-site, posed) and 35mm (b-roll, personal snaps). Pic rel.
With digital sensors, the difference is somewhat less pronounced, because the size difference between M43 and FF is a lot smaller than the difference between FF and 8x10 and M43 sensor resolutions have reached full frame (25MP). Now the differences come in rendering style (for M43: flat, worse color gradation, subject separation) and technical quirks like pixel pitch, lower DR. As such the only benefit M43 ever had was compactness, which is now moot when APS-C bodies can be just as tiny.

>>4442200
35mm shot of the same scene. I think it's still the better photograph, but immediately:
>significantly reduced resolution
>worse color gradation (tones do not blend while retaining distinctness as beautifully as the 8x10 shot - see shadows on dresses, greater range of color in vegetation)
>complete lack of 'presence' (the 8x10 shot has it - hard to explain)
>subject separation completely reliant on color and movement, unenhanced by the characteristics of the larger format

>>4442202
>complete lack of 'presence' (the 8x10 shot has it - hard to explain)
it's literally just depth of field, but go off qween

>>4442203
No, shallow DoF does not produce the effect

>>4442205
whatever (You) say

>>4442200
Which 8x10 do you use?

>>4441476
Sensor size is the single most important aspect of photography. Size and ergonomics doesn't even change between m43 and FF if you use lenses and cameras that aren't shit.

Sensor size determines how good the camera is at recording the two most important aspects of an image: CONTRAST AND COLOR.
Smaller sensors record less. Period. That's why m43 people are such obnoxious, irritating, delusional shills. They are deeply insecure after spending $3000+ on meme gear for a strictly inferior format.

>>4442202
>>4442200
People who can't see the contrast/color difference here are complete visually illiterate retards

35mm film looks like micro four thirds (zero tonality) compared to 4x5. You call yourselves photographers but you cant see the obvious difference in the amount of color and shading the superior camera reproduces. Smaller formats are for high contrast, low tonality work where everything is harsher than it was in reality (shitty jewish street photography).

>>4442138
It does happen. It happens every day.

Over 80% of professional photography would collapse overnight if at least one or two people in every family invested in a nice FF camera and spent a week using it. Rules like these literally keep "professional photographers" in business.

The service they provide is objectively worthless. IT TAKES ABSOLUTELY ZERO ARTISTIC SKILL TO BE AN EVENT/SANTA/YEARBOOK/ETC PHOTOGRAPHER. They own equipment, that's it. I shot my first wedding 2 months after buying my first camera and then never shot a wedding again because I only did it to pay for the equipment.

If 1: everyone owned a nice FF 2: they were allowed to use it whenever and wherever the fuck they wanted, professional photography would completely and utterly collapse. That would be it.

>>4442235
>Sensor size determines how good the camera is at recording
*so long as the level of technology is equal
it is feasible and typical for modern full frame cameras to beat vintage medium format cameras. vintage medium format cameras didn't even have the SNR required for their 16 bit raws to be useful unless you shot with 1000w strobes at iso 32. hence everyone is dumping their ccd mf boxes on ebay for the price of a z7ii, when they paid $30k for them just 10 years ago.

>>4442236
It's so obvious how insanely amazing shot 1 looks too. Thanks for sharing.

>>4442200
Too bad he didn't have Sony autofocus for this shot
You'd think someone 8x10 would know how to focus right

>>4442275
It is focused right. Did you forget that larger formats have thinner focal planes?

>>4442275
I think his focus/oof choice was intentional.

>>4442277
Then he should have stopped down more obviously
The can is more in focus than any of the people
If we shoot 8x10 we can just lower our standards? Count me in

>>4442200
>backs of peoples heads
lol

>>4442290
It's meant to be the fever dream aesthetic, rich colors indistinct detail

>>4442290
It's a commercial shoot for Suntory oolong tea, so the can better be in focus.

>>4442294
moar

>>4442236
Your point continues to be proven. My guess? Sour grapes.

>>4442295
>>4442294
Keep posting them!

>>4442295
>fool framers can't do this

>>4442295
>>4442294
>>4442301
these genuinely just look like 5D classic shots. can you imagine the amount of shots you'd miss if you actually got trolled into using this system? "wait sorry can you do that again I was adjusting my bellows"

>>4442302
Can you post one of your 5d classic shots so we can compare?

>>4442302
>1995
>1999
>5D classic
Your comparison is completely irrelevant. No shit pros moved on to digital when it got as good or better than film, what a fucking revelation

>>4442305
No I said they look like Canon 5D shots. I did not say they should have been using a Canon 5D classic in 1995. You have the reading comprehension of a toddler or an adult american.

>>4442302
They don't look a fucking thing like that mft tier snapshit machines output. Are you blind? The skin, eyebrows, and lips alone instantly set it apart. You might actually be autistic because autists don't scan faces, their eyes wander but dont take in any information.

You'd be a lot closer if you said they looked like GFX100S shots

>>4442306
>they look like Canon 5D shots
Even if this were true, it still shows the superior quality (at the time, naturally) of 8x10 that it can compete with tech from a literal decade later.
Also >implying me posting 8x10 examples and using them to illustrate why film size matters means everyone should shoot 8x10 in 2025 when you can, rightfully as you pointed out, shoot digital and get nice images too
Perhaps work on your own reading comprehension brother

>>4442307
They obviously do, but sour grapes I guess.
In fact the 5D has better skin tones out of camera too. It's a fact that Canon colours are 4 stops more accurate than sheet film. I'll be shooting infinite Kodak gold, while you spend your monthly good-boy points on processing blank sheets because you forgot to put your lens cap back in your trench coat.

Explains why professionals always just shoot 8x10

>>4442310
I didn't imply any of that. Maybe instead of reading between the lines you should start with just reading. Or better yet go have a sit-down pee and aim your nullo up at the ceiling of your dethatched bathroom, you fucking animal.

8x10 is just the poor man's 16x20

>>4442314
Had a good kek, thanks

>>4442317
These would have been so good on a d200 or finepix pro

>>4442315
That is so true. 8x10 is the real full frame.
It's tempting to get an 11x14 camera, but everything gets so extreme with film that big. The 50mm equivalent for 11x14 is a 900mm lens!! Imagine the razor thin DoF if you're shooting at anything but infinity and then imagine lighting a scene to use f96 or higher with 100 speed film. Then imagine the giant trays you need to develop the film.

>>4442318
The D1 was coming out around the time pic rel was shot.

>>4442321
Magnificent colors.

>>4442321
That's all for now
My final message: take pictures

>>4442236
>35mm film looks like micro four thirds (zero tonality)
Could have ended the sentence there. The meme is that it's le 24mp FF digital equivalent quality, but I've never seen one that was scanned or enlarged to that level of detail.

Here is a 5d classic shot

Another one

>>4442325
>shitty "film sim"
>fake grain out the ass
>muh swirly bokeh
>flat as a fucking board despite the shallow dof crutch
>nasty fat smoking gook
yep, that's the canon look™

>>4442326
>just lift the shadows bro
>it's filmic bro please bro

>>4442327
>Take photo with Camera Brand camera
>Edit the SOOC photo so it no longer looks the same as it did in RAW
>This is the Camera Brand look
Fujislug mindset deadass

>>4442328
>>4442327
They look like utter shit compared to the 8x10. Why is bro saying they look the same?

Is this really 4x better skin tones????

>>4442325
Yeah, not even close

Are you viewing on a phone or do you have legit brain problems

>>4442331
We can only know by seeing how bad she looks on each format

This is why nocamera gearfags always cope. You can always find different scenarios where a shit camera might shine and a good camera might fail to add anything but people who have cameras know that in the same hands, same place, and same time, the better camera wins

>>4442332
You seriously think the 5d looks better?

>>4442333
True, but I think you can also see and understand the "look" of the images. Compare colors, depth rendition, etc. I mean the pics aren't too far off in terms of lighting, really..

>>4442334
The 5d looks worse

Digital's inability to render fine detail can not be hidden with a grain sim

>>4442335
Yeah no I was posting those examples because I knew for a fact the guy who said the 5d classic looks better would not post examples.

>>4442335
The other funny part about those 8x10s is that they're only being shown at roughly 20% of their potential quality.

5D classic btw

>>4442340
eugh

>>4442338
Are they? I can see grain on them. I've seen amazing large format photos but they don't seem that great to me. (5D classic looks awful in comparison, but modern FF is in the ballpark for most print sizes tbdesu)

>>4442345
Modern 40-60mp range FF mirrorless is honestly really, really close to 6x9. But not 4x5. Not even close.
And only rarely, because even at 45mp bayer generates weird artifacts with natural detail so if it comes close it's probably architecture.

For reference 6x9 film is a theoretical ~150mp if you shoot slides, but at that level of grain peeping, it looks like shit, so the real advantage is using it for smaller enlargements to get dat absurd-dpi rendition that makes prints shimmer like a hologram. Only achievable with photopaper.

>>4442345
Absolutely. A 2400dpi scan of 8x10 is around 1GB. You miss out on a lot of the fineness of such a big image when you compress to 4mb jpg.

Theres a couple examples of 100% crops from an 8x10 in the fgt thread if you wanted to see.

>>4442200
>>4442205
>>4442294
>>4442317
>>4442321
WTF FF bros... its over

>>4442350
I'd still take an a7cii+50mm f2+90mm f2.8 setup over any micro four thirds or oversized ff panashit/canikon

>>4442351
>still using a tiny FF format in 2025

>>4442340
Wtf did you do. Did you shoot this at f22? If you can't get good results with a 5D I would recommend strongly against spending money on sheet film until you can master the exposure triangle.

>>4442356
What are you going to scan your film with? What are you going to use for the photos that aren't important enough for your 500cm and tachihara field camera?

>>4442340
Literally looks like a pic from an iphone

>>4442351
I bought an a7c 2 after seeing it on tiktok as it looked like a good alternative to the S9, but I ended up returning it basically unused after six months because it was so bad. I know consumer grade full frames like the a7 series aren't really going to have the best quality images or built but it was just so shit. There was so much play in the screen it constantly felt like it was going to fall off if it wasn't facing inward and it looked like the battery or something was pressing the two body plates apart, as the gap in between the body panels was much wider on that side.

>>4442361
what did you do to your iphone to turn off the AI noise reduction smears and AI HDR ugliness, and make the signal/noise ratio 10x better

iphones have reached a point where it is obvious that counting line pairs on a chart does not translate to good rendering

>>4442363
I also bought an a7c2 and sold it for a profit because I'm poor, and it really sounds like you're lying out your ass because it was better made than my shitlympus. That camera is universally praised except for like 20 people on dpreview who accidentally their SD card seal.

>>4442358
>implying the picture is mine

>>4442363
Sony practically nerfed the build quality of the a7c2. I wouldnt be surprised if even that new toy Fuji half frame digicam is made of more durable parts than it.

>>4442367
>n-no!! it's not mine, my pictures are actually super good
Why are you lying?

>>4442368
What do you mean? Was the original A7C better? I've never used one

>>4442369
Ok, here's the source, just a random shot I found filtering by 5D on Jap flickr. Accuse me of cherrypicking instead.
https://www.every-photo.com/photo/8765c450-6084-11ef-90c2-fb4ba3ef515d

>>4442366
You're free to believe whatever makes you sleep better, anon.

>>4442323
>My final message: take pictures
Which are your 8x10s?

>>4442372
>It can't be mine
>Because it's from
>An account
?
Retarded ?

>>4442376
Unless you want to bring up some evidence that it is indeed my photo, I recommend you go back to the Sony thread

>>4442377
>You're defending Canon
>That makes you...
>...a Sony user!
?

>>4442370
He's lying. Panasonic fanboys on /p/ like to lie and pretend sony isn't a real option.

Sony's #1 spot in FF market share and panasonic's slow death say otherwise. Furthermore... panasonic is known for green skin, and sony for too much red.

>>4442368
Is this true? Lol so it's not just Sony's sales are going to downhill...

>>4442384
This is FAKE FAKE FAKE!!!!
STOP POSTING IT!!!!
YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO!!!!
SONY HAS 18 STOPS BETTER COLOUR THAN C*NON
YOU'RE LYING!!!!

>>4442384
Memes aside, that lumix actually has really lovely tones, even on that chalked up hog.

>act stupid
>get called out for it
>start crying about sony.

Every time.

>>4442378
You are REALLY bad at this.

>>4442325
Only a retard would think or say these look better than 8x10.

>>4442384
>the image that singlehandedly killed an entire generation of snoys

>>4442384
Can you do this example with someone from a better race? Maybe an asian or a white? She is brown so I can't tell what you think she is "suppoased" to look like, I have never photographed a brown.

>>4442384
It actually is faked. Really obvious white balance shifting. Panasonic is known for paying off influencers (hence every video claims every lumix is better than canon and sony).

inb4 you report bomb this to try and get it deleted. Sorry chud, sony is good, people have options other than mft and blobs lol

>>4442449
>australians are brown
Nice try Ranjeet

>>4442466
>australians are brown
Yeah? Everyone in white countries thinks Aussies are subhuman, everyone is way more racist against you people than any other race.

>>4442464
this CANNOT be real
It SIMPLY IS IMPOSSIBLE
SONY TURNS YOU INTO SHREK I TELL YOU
INTO SHREK

>>4442464
>Panasonic is known for paying off influencers
Meds. Its well documented Sony has always had atrocious colour science.

>>4442470
this is the ABSOLUTE truth
sony turns you into shrek

>>4442470
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/tony-northrup-color-science-test-sony-beats-nikon-canon-and-fuji/amp/

Sony has good color, but older cameras struggled with AWB under extremely tinted artificial light sources especially if keep warm was enabled.

>>4442473
What kind of retard uses AWB

>>4442472
>sonyalpharumors
>tony northrup
kek

>>4442474
The kind of retard that thinks brands have color science and cant use a fuji without a film sim dial

>>4442474
Anyone doing real photography is shooting RAW anyway where it doesn't matter

>>4441373
Lmao, what?
A bigger sensor needs the same amount of light for the same exposure level at the same aperture.
They have the advantage of gathering more information with that same aperture.

Of course the downside is the lenses (generally) tend to be bigger and heavier.

>>4442468
You will never be white Ranjeet

>>4442574
If you want the same DoF as a smaller sensor you need to use a smaller aperture, which means you need more light.
Medium/large format uses longer focal length lenses to achieve equivalent FoV as smaller sensors, so you should also be using faster shutter speeds when shooting handheld.

If you shoot anything over 6x6 you would have immediately understood what I meant.

>>4442581
Or just use your feet to step a pace or two back.
>you should also be using faster shutter speeds when shooting handheld.
Why? Blur from camera shake is related to angle of view, not focal length.
Higher detail makes it more obvious, but once again, unrelated to focal length.

>>4442586
Lmao, what?

Go use a camera that has a larger than ff sensor and you'll understand.

>>4442588
Which MF/LF cameras do you use?

>>4442642
Mamiya 6, rb67, linhof super technika 3.

You?

>>4442586
>Blur from camera shake is related to angle of view, not focal length.
It's a micro four thirds user talking out their ass again

No it has to do with resolution and FOV, not just focal length. The minimum shutter speed to eliminate shake on a 45mp camera is higher than it is on a 24mp camera, and the shutter speed needed to eliminate shake on a Z6II is higher than the one on a lumix G9II because FF normally produces sharper output and slight blur is more noticeable, vs micro four thirds which even with 25mp doesn't actually get 25mp of resolution due to demanding such a high lp/mm resolution for its tiny, dense pixels

>>4442684
>No it has to do with resolution and FOV
He literally said
>Higher detail makes it more obvious

>>4442688
So in other words, you need a higher shutter speed to eliminate hand shake on a higher resolution camera

you should be using faster shutter speeds when shooting medium format handheld (6x7 = 80 non-bayer mp)

glad you agree

>>4442678
Oh I don't own a camera

>>4442696
I could tell...

>>4442698
Sorry I thought the same from the lack of pictures

>>4442696
>50% of board users

>>4442678
Only 4x5? Why haven't you stepped up to 8x10?

>>4442678
I challenge you to set aside $1000 of your dead uncles money and give m43 a chance

https://poal.me/jzoq0y

>>4442700
Shows how little you know. Real practical understanding of photography will always be more useful than you reiterating charts and wikipedia entries you have memorized. It's extremely obvious how you have zero practical knowledge or experience with photography.

>>4442709
I don't buy cameras shilled on /p/ by chart readers. Sorry!

>>4442713
>Says the guy with the 80mp medium format digital "chart king"

>>4442715
Huh? What are you talking about? My rb67? I think it's massively retarded to give film any sort of MP number. It doesn't work like that.

Where are all the great m43 pictures that get posted here btw?

>>4442716
You sold the meme format digital already?

>>4442690
>you need a higher shutter speed to eliminate hand shake on a higher resolution camera
Only if you are actually printing/cropping large enough to resolve that level of detail, otherwise it makes no difference.

>>4442722
>no one can tell i swear to god no one can tell!
Micro four cope.
Everyone can tell. Softness once resolved does not resize out.
>NO I MEANT ON INSTAGRAM! <1920x1080!
Ok so why do you even use a camera just use your phone

>>4442721
i don't think that guy you're talking to is doghair, he's usually a lot more obnoxious when he gets buttttblasted in threads like this

>>4442727
I have never owned a micro 4/3 camera.
And as long as your lens is capable of resolving detail at the given pixel density (or equivalent) of your camera, and you display both pictures at the same size and dpi, it makes no difference.

Besides, it doesn't really matter how much detail your meme film format can resolve if you can't get a single photo in focus.

>>4442728
He is 100% correct that larger formats need more light, practically speaking. The guy misunderstood what he meant because he doesn't own cameras.

>>4442731
Larger formats needing more light is an outdated truism. Modern medium format, HR FF, and dual gain low res FF, actually break "equivalence includes ISO" by varying degrees.

it applies to film and vintage medium format digitals, but a GFX100s doesn't need more light for instance, it soaks up more of the light full frame would basically throw away.

>>4442734
it doesn't even apply to MF film unless you insist on FOV matching. if the medium format look, to you, is a wider FOV with the same focal length, instead of a longer focal length for the same FOV, and you can never say no to more in the frame, you're a winner.

>>4442735
You usually want to shoot at a stop or two smaller aperture when shooting MF film, which means more light.

>>4442736
Unless you don't want to take the same photo you would on a crop sensor and would rather keep the same DOF with a wider FOV.

Hard for an aspie to understand I know

>>4442742
>bbbbbb but but but you could just take a different picture!!

Stupid cope.

>>4442745
>YOU BOUGHT A DIFFERENT CAMERA TO TAKE A DIFFERENT PICTURE INSTEAD OF THE SAME ONE? NOOOOOOOO
Are you one of those mft people who seethes when a ff chad uses iso 100 instead of raising it 2.5 stops to "be equivalent"

>>4442746
the nikon z5ii actually need to shoot at iso 1000 to be le equivalent with an om1's abse ISO

>>4442746
>I got this 67 camera so I can take nicer looking close up portraits. I need to close my aperture two stops more than 35mm so I can get the DoF I need. Looks like I'll be needing a little more light.
>NOOOOOOOO YOU CANT DO THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE A 35MM CAMERA ALREADY! ARE YOU STUPID. YOU CANT TAKE THE SAME PICTURE WITH TWO DIFFERENT CAMERAS! THATS NOT ALLOWED!

You are assblasted beyond belief and it is hilarious! My advice? Go outside and take some pics lol.

>>4442751
>buying a medium format camera to take dumb narrow fov snaps with ff bokeh
gearfag moment

>>4442755
LOL.