The files are colorless and presets don't work because it's Canon's dynamic range.
I have to edit from zero and I end up having the same picture just a bit more saturated.
I use Lightroom Classic on pc.

>>4450171 (OP)
post your raws. for all we know it's borked in the raw cause you shot it wrong or something.

>>4450172
Wait, I gotta transfer them to the phone.
It's a jpeg converted raw btw.

>>4450172

>>4450187

>>4450189

>>4450192

>>4450187
ooh that looks like a tough one to save it looks like the colour was sapped out lol, is this the power of canon full frame? i'd rather have sony shrek colours than no colours

>>4450220
To be fair, I didn't use a cpl filter

>>4450187
Camera failed to expose the full scene correctly thanks to a limit of DR. A bad start to any RAW. Buy a GND filter for shots like this and you'll regain some saturation and tone in the image. If this is a FF camera then lmao, but if it's a crop then I'm not surprised.
>I didn't use a cpl filter
Would also help, but beware stacking filters can introduce flares and ghosting.
>>4450192
This looks better, but a bit blown out. Camera is metering for the sky too much and the pavement and street are cooked.
I'd love to have a go at processing either of these files if you're willing to link a RAW I could download. RAW threads are fun.

>>4450264
Honestly that's how limited the camera is. And in real life usage, I rarely get a picture with the 100% balanced exposure, unless I use auto ISO.

>>4450175
>It's a jpeg converted raw btw.
You edit the raw not the jpeg. Once it becomes jpeg a lot of data is discarded.

>>4450171 (OP)
Probably the most impossible dynamic range shot you can get on any camera is a dark indoor area including a window and sky. No camera can expose it in one photo without fill flash or bracketing.
This is one photo that a pop up flash would have made 100 times better.

>>4450171 (OP)
Just post the raw file on catbox ill fix it for you

>>4450171 (OP)
If it's fucked it's fucked. You cannot magically color a RAW file, the color is either there or it isn't.
GNDs work but would be ass for this specific photo - you'd still lose detail in the upper portion of the gate.
If your camera's DR is notoriously shitty either use flash or HDR merge with a tripod.
Or learn to take photos within the limits of your camera.

>>4450334
I know, I can't send the RAWs through here. So those are the jpegs without edit.

>>4450339
I always try to balance it, to not get either grainy shadows or blown out skies.

>>4450341
But I want to learn how to do it myself, any tips?

>>4450348
So should I et a fuji or...
I currently use an RP and it's kinda outdated desu. I was looking to get an R6ii soon,

>>4450351
R6II has slightly higher DR than XT5. [spoiler]don't look only for DR in your next camera btw[/spoiler]
Problem is that even with DR boost your shot might still be impossible to expose correctly without external help of a flash or HDR merge.

>>4450220
Keep trying.

>>4450351
>>>4450334
>I know, I can't send the RAWs through here. So those are the jpegs without edit.
you can
>https://catbox.moe/

>>4450356
Let me know if you'd like to try editing it. But I think you got the idea of how limiting it is for color grading and exposure.

>>4450358
well, anytime. but - the picture in your op is obvious, you cant do much with blown skies/highlights. its better to go for grainy shadows, at least there is some information you can push.

>>4450351
The RP has a sensor that's got basically APS-C DR, so the R6 would improve that by a stop or two. Two stops might actually be enough to not blow the clouds out, but I don't advoacate for the first thing to solve it be to spend money. This in unabashedly the reason HDR bracketing exists. The RP is a decent camera but congrats you found its limitations.
If I were taking this photo with your camera (or mine, similar DR), I would be happy having the gate be underexposed or even crushed in order to get the sky better exposed; the gates are nice but they're really just a "frame" for the shot, and the sky is 1/2 the scene. Lowering exposure would also help with the contrast and washed-out colours in the rest of the scene.

>>4450359
>>4450365

Thank you for the tips, I'll start to prioritize the highlights more. The shadows can be easily recovered in post indeed, they just become a bit grainy depending of how dark the scene is.

>>4450171 (OP)
Why are you blaming the gear instead of your own lack of experience?

>>4450372
I'm obviously looking for directions here. I'm currently limited by gear and more experience is always welcomed.

>>4450376
When you are struggling with something from lack of experience, don't blame the gear
None of those shots look limited by gear, your experience shows the gear isn't the limiting factor
Stop blaming the gear and take accountability for your own lack of experience

>>4450264
Stop being a retard on the board

>>4450378
For background, I actually have some experience. Been photographing for around 1 and 1/2 year, mostly as a hobbyist and some semi-pro gigs, including off-camera flash and sports.
Well, ai know my gear, I use it pretty much often, and it shows it's limits as it's not perfect.
Regardless of my current skill level, I'm stagnated by those imperfections but I still make it work, just not the way I expected it to be.
I hunble myself even further by asking random people online to trach me the way, but blindly judging someone gets nowhere.
How about you give me some tips? It looks like you know a lot about photography and gear.

>>4450351
>But I want to learn how to do it myself, any tips?
I cant help you until I can actually see how much detail is captured in your raw. Taking a screencap of it and saving as jpeg doesnt mean anything

We're all retards anon. Could try offering your own advice desu?

>>4450389
ignore the right wing poverty cult. alec soth bought a nicer camera and bam, galleries. gear matters. "a photo with great vibes, stop noticing things gearfag" isnt actually the same thing as a great photo.

fuck its worth upgrading just to stay a photographer instead of becoming a sensor cope expert with a GND collection and a mandatory tripod. gear cope expertise is only valuable with film cameras. on digital its a bit pathetic.

>>4450411
Well, I've had many camera models from 4 different brands, including film. The RP is maybe the third best camera I ever had and yeah, you can't expect much from an entry-level nerfed piece. Still delivers with good glass, though.

>>4450389
If you want genuine advice, you should ideally be posting RAW files or at the very least relevant exposure information for the shots you took. Screencaps of jpgs don't really tell us anything. So far all I've seen is you aren't quite sure how to expose properly, and definitely aren't able to process.

All of these were taken with an RP as well. The show variety of skill levels and show a variety of both color and contrast within the scenes. There are absolutely better cameras than an RP, but if you cant reliably get shots like picrel, that is 100% on you and why I say you need to stop blaming the gear. Do you think your photos are in the same ballpark as all of these?

I know lol youtube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnwIPUI7GWM
But even she rates the RP relatively well in comparison.

>The files are colorless
Simply not true.
> presets don't work because it's Canon's dynamic range.
Simply not true.
>edit from zero and I end up having the same picture
Because you haven't practiced editing enough.
>I use Lightroom Classic on pc.
A very capable editing program than many professionals still use.

>>4450412
>you can't expect much from an entry-level nerfed piece
And you'll never achieve much with it so long as you have that mindset

>>4450411
>alec soth bought a nicer camera and bam, galleries. gear matters.
Is OP the next Alec Soth? Why aren't you as well known as Alec Soth?

>>4450417
moop already btfo you for me, demoralizing photography hater

good photos != guaranteed fame

real photographers do it because they want good photos instead of copes

>>4450420
>good photos != guaranteed fame
Sounds like copes to me
>real photographers do it because they want good photos instead of copes
And real photographers know you can get a good photo from an RP

>>4450421
>everyone who wants to take good photos needs to do it for fame and success otherwise it's a cope
I take it then that you're a renowned and high-income retard?

>>4450415
That's a good start anon. Mind sharing the original files from the camera as screenshots?
Is that style called fine art? I reckon it takes tons of editing and HDR/masks.

>>4450420
>demoralizing photography hater
I'm the one advocating to focus more on the photography and less on the gear. You're the one saying OP needs better gear because anything less is coping.
>>4450426
>everyone who wants to take good photos needs to do it for fame and success otherwise it's a cope
When have I said that? You made it sound like it's gear that really matters, and said Alec Soth was successful because he bought a nicer camera. Are you saying now Alec's success was not because he bought a nicer camera?

>>4450430
None are mine, they're from various galleries (Canon articles, 500px, flickr). All I did was filter by RP only shots.
Why would sharing a file from the camera as a screenshot help you?
It's a variety of styles and most of those are basic editing and probably no HDR for any of them.

This is why you need to focus on practice and learning. They all use the same camera you do.

>>4450433
>you cant want better gear and better image quality because
>you cant okay
>im a 4channer and having a job is reddit or something
>justify yourself to me before spending money
>muh need vs want i must hate anything i can associate with modernity durrr
No one should listen to your talentless ass. You are definitely a dog snapper.
OPs camera is noticeably shit and he doesn’t like it. Fuck off and molest your dog if you dont like employed people doing the obvious and buying better cameras.

>>4450434
>NEVER BUY ONLY LEARN! BUYING BAD!
What a shit camera user learns is to carry a tripod or stop shooting at 3:30pm lmao

If you dont like your camera buy one you do like. Gear objectively matters and changes what you can shoot, when, and how.
Ignore 4chans right wing poverty cult. They think not buying things owns the libs and is a retvrn to some made up trad christian nonsense from the middle ages.

>>4450434
Id would help me perceive how much the original photo changed, as they look like what you would see irl. Cameras naturally can't make photos loke that sooc, so you have to do a lot of adjustments.
I highly doubt there's only basic adjustments involved, they just don't look natural from a raw perspective.
I'm always learning, and now it seems I should invest in other types of editing.

>>4450435
>you cant want better gear and better image quality because
You absolutely can and I even said there are many better cameras than an RP.
Do you think OP has successfully mastered what the RP is capable of? I don't.
>justify yourself to me before spending money
If OP wants to spend more money on a better camera they should go for it. I just think OP could also benefit from more practice and experience, and I don't like upgrading gear as a substitute for that.
I spend more wastefully on gear hear than just about anyone else, but I recognize what the actual practical gains are, and can even acknowledge when gear is beyond my own needs.

>consume, consume, buy new camera, consume new camera, no you cannot get good pics with an RP ever
lol, which one of us is the photography hater again?

>>4450438
Most of those are so small you cant see what makes them look like shit. Most of them are also shot in bright light or with HDR edits. He’s being intellectually dishonest because hes a 4channer and the soiboy funko/consoom meme made these incels afraid of buying things.

What you want (handheld single shot quality with no accessories) requires a better camera like the nikon z6/z7. The RP is bad at this. Have a nice day.

>>4450435
>>4450436

I think both are right. Gear is really relevant.
I hate those people who like to point how skilled they are by purposely using outdated stuff.
The concept of photography is and should be easy to understand and learn.
And before you point out someone's momentary error or lack of knowledge, it's trial and error that gets you there.

>>4450439
>you can get good pics with a potato
>some
>stand further back
>stop noticing things
>i am afraid of purchases because im a neurotic dog molester

>>4450439
Sounds more like you have a shopping addiction and project your self hatred and frustration by trying to discourage other people from upgrading, like them switching an m43 tier camera for a real one will send them down the same leica fag path as you, corgi fondler.

Just know that it won’t and people who don’t sniff dog butts normally upgrade to a relatively affordable dated pro model once and are just glad they got rid of their last piece of shit for the next decade

>>4450436
>NEVER BUY ONLY LEARN! BUYING BAD!
And your counter to that is
>buy, buy consume, buying good, learning bad!

>>4450438
There are plenty of before/after editing tutorials on youtube where you can see how images change through the editing process, thousands you can watch.
>I highly doubt there's only basic adjustments involved, they just don't look natural from a raw perspective.
Most of these look like they could've just had a 1-click preset applied. If you think any of these are advanced editing, you really need to start practicing how to edit. All of these could be done in Lightroom Classic with the standard adjustments within like 15-30min tops.

>>4450440
>>4450442
>>4450444
>consume, buy new gear, consume, you can't make good photos with anything but the best, buy new cameras, consume
What a good opportunity for you guys to show OP the photos you take on better gear that are better than >>4450415

>>4450439
I think you misunderstood. What do you understand by mastered? Compared to who or what?
I'm very familiar with the camera and can take the best out of it given the circumstances and my experience. I have no issues at all using the camera even for paid gigs that I get to do once in a while.
But it has its limits to what it can do in canera and you just proved to me the photo is 60% and the other 40% is heavy HDR and selective masking edits. So, in other words, to get a result that satisfies you, personally, I should edit harder.

I prefer contrast, light and abscence of it and natural colors as much as possible. That's my style of editing, but I'm open to trying that fine-art category. It seems to impress more the non-photos.

>>4450442
Kek
>>4450445
>1 click rpeset

>>4450448
Dude do you even edit your photos?
Both you and me know that ain't happening from a Canon RAW.
Not the ones tou showed me. The are heavily edited, period.

>>4450445
Buying and learning are both good but you’re a neurotic bitch who thinks buying a cheap and noticeable improvement will end the world

The RP isn’t a great camera. It heavily limits what can be shot when and how. OPs issues
>>4450171 (OP)
>>4450187
are literally out of its capabilities unless he goes full base ISO tripod GND ETTR landscape autist. This is not a valuable skill to learn, it further limits composition because of the GND (or HDR stacking -oops wind blew!) or something worth doing. Everyone who was an expert on it stopped doing it as soon as dual gain full frame cameras came out because its not a photographic skill its a gear cope that makes taking a single photo a pain in the ass. And for what? Digital? It makes sense if you shoot big slide film, but for digital?

A nikon z6/z6ii is $500-800, have fun OP. And dont listen to this dog molester. He went consumer crazy and bought a leica, a fuji, a sony, and a ricoh GR because of the nitpick differences between them. The shit he projects on everyone else is just his problem. Upgrade your camera if you are unhappy with how your camera performs in real use.

>>4450433
>everyone who wants to take good photos needs to do it for fame and success otherwise it's a cope
When have I said that?
>>4450421
>good photos != guaranteed fame
>Sounds like copes to me

Gear and talent both matter to varying degrees depending on what your end goal is. I could be the most talented person on earth but I can't think an image into existence, I need some kind of gear. You can also be the biggest drop-dead retard and own a one-of-a-kind 100-stop DR camera that produce 10,000MP full res photos attatched to lenses that have functionally infinite resolution and perfect contrast, and still only take photos of your dog in bad lighting.

>>4450450
I think I'll get the RP so I don't need to sell my lenses. And maybe a fuji for street snapshits.

>>4450452
Not the RP, the R6 mark II.
Typing on the phone is ass when you got fat fingers.

>>4450452
You mean R8 right?
>and a fuji for street
Dont do this, you’ll end up as dumb as corgi fondler. You dont need a special camera for street. You’re a man. You can pull anything off as long as it doesnt have a giant creepy zoom lens.

>>4450171 (OP)
I had mine on some D+ highlight priority mode and everything looked like shit. It's probably just some metering issue.

>>4450447
>What do you understand by mastered? Compared to who or what?
As in actually hitting a wall from gear limitation that isn't coming from a lack of skill.
If OP was consistently putting out pics like >>4450415 and wanted something better, that makes sense. They clearly now how to use the gear and how to process.
When OP is putting out >>4450187 >>4450189 >>4450192 >>4450194 it just makes me think OP is a relative beginner that isn't happy with the results and thinks new gear is a good substitute for simply practicing and getting better.

> So, in other words, to get a result that satisfies you, personally, I should edit harder.
This thread was about Canon RAW processing, OP has room for improvement for like actual composition, but I thought this was about editing specifically.
It's not edit harder, it's edit better. Like this >>4450171 (OP) is more aggressively edited than some of the examples, but still looks worse.
>other 40% is heavy HDR and selective masking edits
Nope, and you're retarded if you think that's what those images imply.
>but I'm open to trying that fine-art category.
Why do you bring this up? Nothing posted is fine-art

>>4450452
The RP is a fine introduction to full frame cameras. The sensor is a bit old and it shows if you compare it to cameras like the R8 that is 2x the cost, but I'd rather people buy and R8 over a cope sensor or god forbid some micro four turd.

>>4450454
R8 might also be fine, but you know, the difference in price ain't that much.

>>4450453
Being a canon peep must be hard. Imagine having to spend $2k on a pseudo-flagship sports photography/video frame peeper camera just because you basically just need a nikon z6

>>4450454
Shit, women can pull off any camera too. If anything they’re better at pulling off the big ugly ones.

>>4450455
It looks good, actually.
From my experience, it's better to avoid anything automatic with entry level cameras.
I use full manual myself because it's more accurate, despite missing the exposure sometimes due to urgency.

>>4450456
And you are better? Whats this now where you have to think someones photos are great before they buy a new camera?
>i want to spend my money that i earned at my job. When i shoot in dim light handheld the quality is ass. New camera time.
>corgi rapist: STOP RIGHT THERE GEARFAG. UNTIL YOU HAVE BASE ISO GND ETTR AND HDR STACKED ON A TRIPOD TO MAKE BRIGHT VIBRANT MIDDAY LANDSCAPEA AND UNTIL YOU HAVE SHOT MODELS WITH FLASH YOU DONT DESERVE TO SPEND YOUR OWN MONEY
>sane person: Yeah spend it, if you want single shot handheld quality a z6 or r8 is like $800

>>4450449
You are simply too inexperienced and/or retarded if you genuinely think that.
>>4450450
And you think OP has absolutely no room to improve beyond getting a better camera body.
>are literally out of its capabilities
Or OP exposed and edited poorly. Is OP making shots the same caliber as the ones linked?
>>4450452
Please do and the come back and complain because you still didn't bother to learn anything
>>4450451
>Gear and talent both matter to varying degrees
Yes, and you think and RP is simply incapable of taking a good picture.

>>4450456
I'm not a complete beginner in the process of taking a photo. Editing is another story.
I've reached a point where the RP is actually holding me back in the creative process, but that DOESN'T limit me from taking photos. How difficult is it to understand, lol?

>>4450457
No! The RP is INCAPABLE of taking good pictures. It's garbage!

>>4450461
Manual plus auto ISO is a cheat code that canon makes a bitch to use even on the r6ii

>>4450463
Damn, talking to you is like talking to a wall. You are so close-minded.
I guess you are the type of people who is always right, even by discussing something without understanding the whole context of it. You are making suppositions in your head and trying to impose your ideology based on a few screenshots and paragraphs.

>>4450462
OP started a thread based on how to edit better, and people like you turned into
>just buy a better camera bro
I think if someone is unhappy with the images they are producing, they should consider what they are doing wrong first, before blaming gear.
I have fully supported multiple times now, that OP get a better camera if they want.
>>4450464
>Editing is another story.
Yes, where you are apparently a complete beginner with.
>I've reached a point where the RP is actually holding me back in the creative process
How is it holding you back though? What is an example of it holding you back? The OP pictures aren't the camera holding you back, that's all you.

>>4450464
Dont listen to that dog molester. Spend your own money for yourself. An insecure loser on 4chan is not the gatekeeper of gear upgrades and the last word on how good your photos have to be before you buy something.

You’re dealing with a neurotic retard who bought a leica. Yes, a digital leica. That is the position he is coming from. He went full $20k setup will make my photos better and now has PTSD whenever someome upgrades their micro four thirds/other ewaste

You want better single shot handheld quality buy anything full frame with a 24mp+ sony sensor or the r8/r6ii simple as

>>4450466
On the RP, at least, it's inaccurate. But it's very convenient.

>>4450467
>You are making suppositions in your head and trying to impose your ideology based on a few screenshots and paragraphs.
You made a whole thread asking for help on how to edit, and let people talk you into
>just get a better camera bro
>You are so close-minded.
Same to you mr "these are really sophisticated advanced edits, better get a new camera"

>>4450463
>Gear and talent both matter to varying degrees
>Yes, and you think and RP is simply incapable of taking a good picture
Don't think that at all. Either you're retarded, we're both retarded, or you're arguing with two seperate anons
>>4450464
Buy an R6 mark I over an R8 unless you really sneed that light weight.
>>4450465
I've seen 3MP digishits take decent photos on this god forsaken board. There was once a time where every wedding fag somehow took photos with shit other than an R3 and the largest most retarded zooms.
>>4450466
I'm curious to know what other cameras do to make this setting better versus an R6

>>4450469
I've said 4 times now OP should buy a better camera if they want

>>4450468
Im looking at his images with a partially blown sky and a mush foreground, and im seeing something that can only be improved two ways
HDR stacking, a tripod bound waste of time
Or a minor upgrade to a modern sensor to stay away from the tripod and filter set and spend 10x less time in editing

You are a neurotic dog molester who has PTSD episodes after trying to leica your way into success. People can in fact buy things without first catering to the photos you like and proving themselves. Its their money.

>itt
>FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
>YOU NEED MOAR GEAR
>NO YOU SNEED MORE TALENT
OP:
>Guys I'd like to know how to edit better and what I'm doing wrong in general

>>4450474
>Im looking at his images
You're looking at screenshots of a JPG
You don't see what's actually in the file
You don't see how OP actually exposed for the scene
You don't see what JPG/RAW adjustments OP made
You are just assuming the camera shot as optimally as possible, and it's entirely a gear issue.

>partially blown sky and a mush foreground
If I find examples like this with other better models, would you still feel the same way? Better cameras can't have partially blown sky or a mush foreground?

>>4450473
And then go "but but but gear baaaaaad" lol not everyone is dumb enough to buy a leica for this and a fuji for that. Normal people buy a better camera once and use it for everything.

>>4450472
On nikon hold the iso button and jog the front dial to turn auto iso on/off, the min max and shutter speed target for A mode are in the menu/i-menu

>>4450475
>OP:
>Guys I'd like to know how to edit better and what I'm doing wrong in general
No, OP already knows all about editing and what is or isn't possible with a RAW.

It's not talent, it's practice, and even they admit are inexperienced.

>>4450476
No matter what you’re going to say
>i dont like his photos so he shouldnt spend money
>you must use a tripod before you spend money
No. You are fucking neurotic. You act like upgrading a camera is the last resort and a horrible thing to do. Your shopping addiction traumatized you.

>>4450477
I've never gone gear bad, and have already stated I'm a huge gearfag.
I've gone
>upgrading a body so I don't have to bother learning how to edit better
is bad. Shame you disagree with that.
>Normal people buy a better camera once and use it for everything.
True, sure seems like a lot of people were enjoying the RP just fine from the photos I found.

>>4450475
bros editing is fine the camera is just making it look a bit ass

and now corgi molester is being almost as big of a bitch as when he simped for the z50s shitty autofocus because he traumatized himself by milling through over $20k of meme shit to take pictures lf his dog

>>4450468
Which I don't mind being labeled as beginner. As if it would offend me. Brother, you want me to draw or you can't understand or imagine a simple context of a camera limiting your creative process? Some examples are:
Inaccurate af tracking for fast apertures (f/1.6) for fast-paced portraits with limited time and difficult environments (aka crowded touristic spots) or action portraits with poor fps performance.
Lack of reliable weather sealing, which limits the process of taking pictures in the rain, for instance.
No manual mode electronic shutter for situations where noise is a big deal.
Low light capabilities are fair, but limits you to not increase ISO above ~5k for acceptable results.
Having one SD slot limits me from taking high-stake gigs.
The dynamic range of the sensor has to be balanced in a way, most of the time you lose details on shadows. I've lost countless photos due to extreme contrast between dark and light areas.
Portraits with off-camera flash are mandatory if I'm being paid, even if the light is good and I use an f/1.4 lens.
Among others.

Inb4 skill issue.

>>4450482
OP’s shooting in light the rp cant handle without a hugely inconvenient series of copes

I recommend op just buy a camera that isnt m43 tier and ignore you, the leica consooming dog molester. You are 100% the same idiot that spent hours defending the nikon z50’s broken autofocus. You are not reasonable you are a trauma victim after mental illness made you mill through over $20k of shit to take dog pictures and boring test collages.

>>4450485
Ignore that guy. Seriously. He went through over 20 grand with digital leica/digital mf etc to take pictures of his dog! He’s giving advice to his past self. Not you.

>>4450472
Where I live, the R6 is uncommon to find and you can get pretty good deals for second-hand R6 mark IIs or refurbished.

>>4450476
Brother, you can clearly see how the original file looks like, you don't need to pixel peep it like an autist. The EXIF doesn't matter bruh, what difference does it make if it's ISO 100 or 200, f/8 or f/9?

>>4450477
>On nikon hold the iso button and jog the front dial to turn auto iso on/off
I like it. Fucking Canon being backwards cripple fags. Still buying an R6II whenever wendy's pays me.

>>4450480
>you must use a tripod before you spend money
What does a tripod have to with editing?
>>4450483
You really think OP's image is in-line with all the others posted?
>>4450485
There are lots of limitations an RP has, would never deny that. Notice how few of those you listed have to do with IQ related to the images you posted?
If you want a thread to upgrade from an RP, great idea and you have lots of options.
Not sure why you'd make "how do I edit RAW better" if what you wanted is "I need to upgrade bodies based on these mostly non-IQ related specs"
>I've lost countless photos due to extreme contrast between dark and light areas.
Can you share an actual example for us? How do you know a specific upgrade would have been enough? How do you know you wouldn't have simply also lost the photo with even a better camera?
>>4450486
Or skill >>4450415

>>4450487
Imagine buying a digital leica lol
>buy it
>photos dont get better
>muh experience soul bs was marketing speak from paid brand ambassadors
>now have $10k camera
>cant sell locally no one else is dumb enough to buy a $10k larp box
>selling on ebay wipes out $2k and then you get return scammed and it wipes out the other $8k
>yer fucked
>spend years waiting for a buyer rhat wont rob you
lol

>>4450491
>or skill
According to a collage of postage stamp photos clearly shot earlier in the day? Fuck off dog rapist

This is more shameful than when you simped for the z50s broken autofocus you gearfag tard

>>4450487
I mostly do weddings, portraits, boudoir
Landscapes for fun, mostly just share the dog here
One of the few actual working pros left here, most recent job was branding for estheticians, next up is a wedding

>>4450488
> you can clearly see how the original file looks like
Well no, I see OP's shitty edit, and I see a screenshot from the JPG
Did they link the RAW somewhere that you saw it?
> The EXIF doesn't matter bruh
Of course, I forget it's impossible to expose something poorly or incorrectly, my bad

>>4450494
Why would anyone take advice from a youtube influencer personality
>overspending gearfag gigger
>lemme tell you to learn to live with micro four thirds. i use a hasselblad instead btw. avoid buying a better camera at all costs!

>>4450493
>According to a collage of postage stamp photos clearly shot earlier in the day?
Yes, the ones about as large as the pics OP posted where no one seems to have any issue coming to strong conclusions about
What size do you need to be able to see color and contrast adequately? How many pixels do you need?

>>4450491
IQ is based on the lens, retard.
I got plenty of L and Art glasses, so that's not an issue. You are focusing too much on the gear itself and helping too little with the editing process.

Brother you are an extreme visual learner or what? Talking to you benefits me nothing at this point, you are just making loops looking for gaps and things to criticize. You talking like I don't know what a photo is supposed to look like.
I own several film cameras and lenses and have books with the negatives and the vast najority lf them are good exposed considering the cmaera limitations. Go bother someone else.

>>4450495
Good job at addressing nothing I said

>>4450496
Lol you are autistic. Sit down and shut up. This is more shameful than when you spent hours simping for the z50s shitty autofocus.
>IT STILL WORKS EVENTUALLY SOMETIMES SKILL ISSUE

>>4450473
He's just a schizophrenic neurotic Jew camera salesman who posts here in between hassling customers at B&H, ignore him.

>>4450498
Why would anyone take being told to stick with a limiting camera from some autistic ideologue who has over $20k in shit and only takes his own advice for the purposes of perverse gearfag enjoyment?

>>4450500
>even when incels get btfo on /p/ they think its a jewish comspiracy
lol

>>4450497
>IQ is based on the lens, retard.
IQ is based on a number of things, lens is a big part of that. Sensor matters, lighting matters, shooting technique matters, post production matters.
Are you now saying a sensors dynamic range doesn't affect IQ at all?
>Brother you are an extreme visual learner or what?
Yes, it's nice when talking about photography, that we actually look at and reference photos. Crazy idea right?

Well you'd think with all that experience the OP pics would be better, no?

>>4450503
I can literally google that, your stupid nigger. I don't want you to teach me your shitty way. I don't want to have a pointless discussion with a primitive ape either. Go open a photography school or something smartass, ir become famous selling your art at the beach. Fuck off.

>>4450499
>no i cant answer easy direct questions
>AUTIST!
>>4450500
Did actually used to be camera shop guy, which is why I've used and owned all kinds of different gear
>>4450501
So far I'm the only one that's attempted to give actual advice for OP beyond, "get a better camera"

>>4450503
Trying to appear smart with chatgpt and
>Muh superior knowledge
Booga ooga

>>4450506
What part of this sounds like chatGPT? Why can't you guys answer simple questions when asked?

>>4450507
Go ahead and point out more issues where there's none. Your way of helping and solving problems is pathetic.
You are not perfect either, haven't even posted a single photo of your perfect art, and never will.
You ask too many redundant questions and fail to understand what a child would.
At this point just a troll or a trully retarded.

>OP: my handheld low light landscape is mushy and yes i know tripods exist
>non autistic people: yeah your camera sucks get a z6 its cheap
>autistic people: YOU MUST MASTER THE TRIPOD AND SHOOT EARLIER AND FLASH SEXY WOMEN AND NOT JUST WITH A TRENCHCOAT AND ONLY THEN MAY YOU BUY A NICER CAMERA

>>4450508
>Your way of helping and solving problems is pathetic.
My way of helping is trying to offer genuine advice to improve the quality of photos you take regardless of camera
Everyone else's advice is "just get a better camera" and I am pushing back on that. I thought this was a RAW editing thread, not a new camera purchase thread after all.
>You are not perfect either,
I am not, not at all.
>haven't even posted a single photo of your perfect art, and never will.
I post here all the time and always link when asked, so here you go for some old stuff >>4435895
Most of which were taken with cameras far worse than an RP

>>4450509
You'd make a stronger point if you tried to be honest with representing each side

>>4450510
We know you dont want people to end up like you, mr too many cameras, but you’re kind of a mental case to begin with so its a useless crusade

OP found the RPs limits
Now he can buy a good one

>>4450510
You are literally basing your opinion on insufficient information and not being helpful to the main issue. You must've realized you fucked up somewhere but don't have the humility to admit it.

>>4450512
>OP found the RPs limits
Absolutely sounds like it and I fully support an upgrade for OP's given reasons.
He still has lots of room for improvement based on what's been shown here.

>>4450513
>basing your opinion on insufficient information
What insufficient information?
What is the main issue?
Help me understand

>>4450514
>but i must still be right
Mental illness

You take photography too seriously as an extension of taking yourself too seriously. I personally would not take advice from anyone who owns a digital leica without being on leica’s payroll.

This entire thread is saturated with intensely useless arguing.
Each and every one of you should feel bad.

>>4450515
Just stfu and let it go.
You tried your best.

>>4450516
Are you saying OP has no room for improvement with their shooting & editing?
>I personally would not take advice from anyone who owns a digital leica without being on leica’s payroll.
Someone mentioned me being close-minded earlier, surely they'll call you out just the same.

>>4450518
Why can't you guys ever answer direct questions?

>>4450517
There is an attention whore who likes to "educate" people about uninteresting matters.

>>4450522
>How tf am I supposed to edit a Canon RAW?
>just buy a better camera
I miss when /p/ was like picrel

Nothing to add OP, but the corgi guy's constant anti-upgrade bitching inspired me to stop coping with my shit camera and just upgrade already. After all, he's always claiming to be a high flying pro photographer, but he's on 4chan, sneeding and seeding at hobbyists for upgrading their one and only camera for everything (they dare want good results more conveniently!?) while his vast collection of meme cameras collects dust except when used to shoot shitty bokeh comparisons. If that's how miserable being "anti-gear" makes people fuck that. Cool cameras are fun, and you only need one, so make it a good 'un.

Like, just imagine for a second, how miserable do you have to be to be like this
>Uhm, you suck, so you dont really need a nicer camera.
>You want better autofocus than the nikon z5? bulslhit. it will get something in focus eventually. skill issue. gearfag.
>Why yes I do own an m10 monochrom

Also something you need to know about 4chan hobby boards is some of the advice and "wisdom" posts here are not externally directed, they are internally directed. A lot of people use 4chan introspectively, to become the mask, and manipulate others into supporting a decision the poster is making. You could probably do a postdoc thesis in psychology studying 4channers disingenuous behavior because I suspect this behavior also extends to places like /pol/, /r9k/, and... /lgbt/.

>>4450523
Freq sep isnt the same thing as hitting a wall with the camera's technological limitations
>How do I see the birds feathers its mush
>uh get closer
>I want to see the stuff around the bird too
>uh brenizer?
>*bird flies away*

>>4450523
Neat.

>>4450523
once upon a time buy a better camera was an asshole move because nikon DSLRs were pretty shit and the other options were double shit (sony and pentax)

today its like, yeah, the better camera is $500 and the shit camera is $500, what are you doing

>>4450525
This.

>>4450525
For the 5th time, I'm very pro upgrade
I'm still here because this is where I started learning too
Gear and skill both matter, but too many people use the former as a substitute for the later

Again, you'd make a stronger point if you were honest in representation

>>4450525
>they dare want good results more conveniently!?
kek such a crab bucket attitude he has

>people giving fake advice to become the mask and generate consensus
hey, isnt corgifag reversing course and selling off a bunch of his gear? hmmm! maybe this shitty neurotic advice he gives is meant to encourage him to part with things he's attached to.

>>4450530
Gear and skill both matter, and sadly, some people are insecure/neurotic/idiotic and forget that photography only works in so many ways and the "skill" alternative to gear is often an inconvenient long, drawn out process that sucks the joy out of photography, or just not taking the picture you want then and there because the camera cant handle it. Which also sucks the joy out of photography.

Some people are "camera guys" and enjoy working around what a camera can and can't do then and there
Other people are... photographers, and want to make the picture they want to make.

>>4450526
No shit. That kind of post was common among old /p/ when people actually gave a shit about learning and processing.
>>4450531
I'm all for upgrading for convenience. I am selling like half of my gear but that still leaves with 5 bodies and like 14 lenses between them.

My OM5 takes better photos lmao

>>4450534
Did you forget to attach the examples?

>>4450532
And your position is extremely stupid nowadays because anyone can buy a better camera than the RP for peanuts (1st world wages)

Here's every camera thats better than an RP will leave basically no one wanting for specs unless they take hundreds of pictures of herons catching fish or are an extreme pixel peeper who can find the zoom tool but not any of lightrooms other functions, all of which are easy to find between $500 and $1250 in the US, and probably for japs and and aussies buying from japs too. Some of these are worse at some things and better at others, like worse at autofocus but better at getting wet. Some have good IBIS, ok IBIS, or no IBIS. Some are big, ugly, and a bit inconvenient. All are ok enough to take better quality pics than an RP without exploding. People can make up their own minds but you fucks are spoiled for choice.

Sony: a7ii, a7rii, a7iii, a7riii
Nikon: z6/ii z7/ii, d750 d810 d800/e
Canon: 5ds/R, 5div, R8
Panasonic: S1R, S5 (the autofocus is noticeably shit here)

>>4450533
Heavy processing like HDR and frequency separation fell out of fashion, except for fashion photography apparently they still make uncanny shit.

>133 replies
>still now link to RAW picture
some of the people ITT need to be executed publicly

>>4450533
>needs five bodies
No offense but this is the kind of shit one expects to hear from someone who is a brand ambassador, not an independent photographer.

Magnum photographers dumped their kit bags for a collaboration with a satchel maker and most of them had 2-3 cameras, in case one broke, and <6 lenses.
https://www.magnumphotos.com/theory-and-practice/whats-in-your-kit-bag/

Most wedding and portrait photographers I know have 2-3 cameras, all in the same mount, in case one breaks, and <6 lenses (and predictable ones at that - UWA zoom f2.8, standard zoom f2.8, telephoto zoom f2.8, 35 f1.x, 85 f1.x, wildcard). Wealthier sony people are down to 3 lenses (28-70 and 50-150 f2, f1.2 prime).

>>4450538
Blame OP or blame the people that don't care at all about editing

>>4450540
OP was basically asking if something could save his camera's limitations in post

The answer is, the RP has the DR of micro four thirds so no not in one exposure. Upgrades are cheap especially once the sale of the old camera is factored in.

>>4450540
Blame you for being so miserable

>Uhm, you suck, so you dont really need a nicer camera.
>You want better autofocus than the nikon z5? bulslhit. it will get something in focus eventually. skill issue. gearfag.
>~but also~
>Why yes I do own an m10 monochrom
>i only really need five bodies
>/p/ doesn't care about digislug trends in photoshopping out pores anymore... im gonna throw a fit because someone wanted to upgrade his shit camera

>>4450539
In practice I need 3 bodies but after this summer I could get by with just 1-2 perfectly fine
If you cared I could explain the 5, but I doubt it'd change anything, and I never bring or use all 5 together lol
Shame on me for having fun and enjoying a hobby / job I guess
And you're sure those photographers didn't own any other bodies at home? Only using 1-2 and owning 5 aren't exclusive
If I was minmaxing on gear and only shot weddings, you're right, I'd have 2 bodies and ~3-4 lenses

>>4450538
Still kind of want to take a shot at the RAW just because that's enjoyable.

>>4450543
>OP was basically asking if something could save his camera's limitations in post
We have very different reading comprehension

The problem with the consoomer religion is that it inevitably leads to disappointment. You can do some new things with almost 2 stops more DR, sure. When your scene is poorly exposed, those 2 stops won't save you. You spend money and remain in square one because you'd rather spend money than try to get better. Clean up your act, degenerates. If you upgrade and your results are identical then you just wasted money. If you suck at exposure, read "The Camera" and "The Negative" and it will help you more than the most expensive set of gear ever could.

>>4450545
Most normal photographers arent gearqueers of the "-and a fuji for street!" type. The average photographer really only needs what they need, basically. If they own more it's gear of days past and sits on a shelf in case everything else breaks, because if a photographer s selling their old 5diii for $350 aint worth it when the value it adds in being there if everything else breaks or gets stolen is worth far more than the $280 ebay would dispense from that transaction.

When you say "in practice I need 3 bodies" you need 3 bodies that's it. And that's standard. 2x work camera (never work without a backup) 1x personal. I doubt you need five bodies. That is brand ambassador shit, or autist minmaxing non-perceptible bullshit.

A non professional photographer only needs one-two bodies. Most people only need one, but for general photography but also bugs and birds (but not as passionately), it often ends up being cheaper and still lighter to buy a whole other (micro four thirds/aps-c) camera for the macro and telephoto lenses rather than buying the FF mirrorless equivalents.

>>4450548
Here's a great rule of thumb for the people observing this post: Anyone who says "consoomer" and "degenerate" is invariably a fucking idiot, and a incel to boot.

2 stops of DR is 4x more light. It's massive. What this guy is recommending is spot metering to exactly preserve the sky and crushing the shadows. You'll notice these "YOU HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING BUT BUY A BETTER CAMERA! BUYING THINGS IS EVIL AND REDDIT!" poverty cultists always only ever say one actual thing:
Take a different photo.

Know that they are a cult. They are a deeply psychologically fucked, insecure cult. Buying things brings up a whole drag net of baggage because they have some major complexes after being exposed to demoralization memes like reddit bugman consoomer soi, antisemitic idiocy, and "retvrn to ____" right wing idiocy. They are miserable fucks who sleep on the floor.

>>4450549
>Most people only need one, but for general photography but also bugs and birds (but not as passionately), it often ends up being cheaper and still lighter to buy a whole other (micro four thirds/aps-c) camera for the macro and telephoto lenses rather than buying the FF mirrorless equivalents.
Agreed, but the FF talibans will deny this and throw a tantrum because they hate the idea of a smaller sensor.
What is more, as mediocre as it is the RP is on par with pro cameras of yesteryear so it being not enough to capture a certain scene speaks more of an issue behind the camera than one with it.

>>4450551
>Agreed, but the FF talibans will deny this and throw a tantrum because they hate the idea of a smaller sensor.
God forbid someone who actually likes and cares about their bird photography spend an irrelevant amount of shekels to make it look nicer huh

>as mediocre as it is the RP is on par with pro cameras of yesteryear so it being not enough to capture a certain scene speaks more of an issue behind the camera than one with it.
It's a shit camera period. Yes, it is the camera. Accept this. It is not the photographer because "omg they could just take a different photo or lug a tripod and a GND set and HDR bracket and merge and...". The photographer's job is to enjoy themselves not do everything they possibly can to avoid spending money. That's just you and your poverty cult.

>>4450549
You're so right, I'm not most normal photographers.
I don't understand, needs and wants are the same to you? There's no benefit ever to having more than one needs? I do almost always shoot with a second as well, so that's 1x body for them.

Not ambassador but did work and manage camera shops, so got that good manufacturer employee discount on most. There is a difference between a camera enjoyer and photographer, and I do consider myself both.

Of the bodies I have now
>one is 8 years with me and super beater cam, and sentimental, probably never sell
>one is like above but will probably also get sold soon, but might be replaced for new version down the road
>one is video / hybrid workhorse
>one is my favorite contemporary body, solid workhorse and GOAT for adapted glass
>one is super niche and high IQ, but not always practical, also sentimental never sell

I started with shit cameras, is be 100% content with most anything on the market nowadays if I had to min/max performance per budget

This thread convince to finally pull the trigger on a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF

>>4450552
no, buying things is evil and reddit! if i buy things and 4chan finds out, they'll think i'm this! i have to be the trad based aryan man against jewish consumerism and never own anything nice

now if youll excuse me i have some furry porn to jack off to

>>4450552
>God forbid someone who actually likes and cares about their bird photography spend an irrelevant amount of shekels to make it look nicer huh
Problem is it doesn't look nicer. At best it looks just as good.
>It's a shit camera period. Yes, it is the camera. Accept this. It is not the photographer because "omg they could just take a different photo or lug a tripod and a GND set and HDR bracket and merge and...". The photographer's job is to enjoy themselves not do everything they possibly can to avoid spending money. That's just you and your poverty cult.
It's mirrorless so I too consider it shit, but I'm not talking about some complicated techniques here. Just learning to use evaluative metering or looking at the histogram could improve things a lot.

>>4450555
>Pfff, how can anyone be disappointed with a camera
>When I'm disappointed with a camera I just use my GFX100SII I bought with an employee discount instead
Ok but not everything is about you, op is a normal person who just uses one camera for everything

>>4450550
Do we know OP shot at the minimum ISO? OP could lose more than 2 stops of DR simply by shooting at a higher ISO than necessary
Why can't you be honest and also raise that consent?

>>4450558
You guys only help with the obvious or what?
The viewfinder had an lcd with real-time exposure change.

>>4450559
True, except I also use cameras much worse than an RP on the daily and started with cameras much worse
You kids just don't know how good you have it nowadays

>>4450558
>It doesn't look nicer! IT DOESNT!
And now you're into the cope.

Yes, full frame looks better. Don't bother arguing because you don't actually personally know if this is true or not. Your experience is limited to a canon rebel and a used 1DS II you stole from a thrift store. You are not qualified to speak. You substitute abstract values for lived experience. And you seem to be satisfied like that. Because pilpul ("muh equivalence in theory if this and that and if and only if and i think most of the time") is an unending debate and reality is short, to the point, and undeniable.

>>4450562
Idk man, just use the zebras set at 95% and bump the exposure until the point right before there's any if you prefer live view crutches.

>>4450563
I also own film cameras and know how to use all of them, with full manual settings and manual focus. You are not especial.

>>4450563
Every single one of you hobbyist/part time gig gearfags is the same I swear to god
>I use cameras much worse than-
>And when I'm not satisfied I use my 100mp 15 stop DR medium format camera with its 16 bit raws :3
Sell your ego and buy a bus ticket

>>4450560
As far as you know, he could not because his terms were "i work without a tripod or i'm not taking the picture".

>>4450564
400mm lens on a G9 and a a7RV give you the same picture of a bird, except with the a7RV you have to crop in post

>>4450415
Best post so far.

>>4450538
I think we can end this thread right now, nothing of value will be added.

>>4450552
>lug a tripod and a GND set and HDR bracket and merg
No one suggested these to OP, only as a strawman for suggesting better exposure and processing

>>4450566
PENTAX NUMBAH ONE

>>4450568
>Equivalently and if in theory you do this and this to be fair and ensure the cameras are taking the same-
Your experience is limited to a canon rebel and a used 1DS II you stole from a thrift store. You are not qualified to speak. You substitute abstract values for lived experience. And you seem to be satisfied like that. Because pilpul ("muh equivalence in theory if this and that and if and only if and i think most of the time") is an unending debate and reality is short, to the point, and undeniable.

Here's a theoretical scenario for you

Any actual photographer reads your posts and rolls their eyes. a 400mm lens on a G9 and a7rv take the same picture, but you have to position the pixels equivalently, frame equivalently, and crop? No, a 400mm lens on an a7rv takes an entirely different picture because they walk forwards and fill the frame. And lower the ISO. And open the aperture. And then you say "but it's not the same picture! ITS NOT FAIR! THIS IS NOT A VALID COMPARISON!"

And the actual photographer says

"That's the point, faggot."

>>4450566
Too bad that knowledge doesn't translate to digital for you
>>4450567
I literally sold my GFX because I didn't feel like I needed that much IQ lol
Well sure would be nice if OP posted the photos or exposure settings so we could know

>>4450570
>Best post so far.
Hadn't seen it but he's 100% on point.
OP's pic with the meme films tells me chances are he borked the exposure.

>>4450575
>>4450574
When cANON agrees with you, that's a red flag that you're an idiot

OP's skills are fine, he is probably a better photographer than you corgifuck, and definitely better than cANON (cANON has taken less than 12 photos in his entire life). Maybe he just couldn't shoot base ISO in that moment, but base ISO still would have looked kind of bad, and I know this because I have used cameras as shit as the RP and come sunset the sky is too bright and the land is too dark for how shit some cameras are.

>>4450573
If you're shooting at 400mm it's because getting closer isn't a viable option to you.

>>4450574
Actually it does and very well. Sadly my rp is limiting my more than enough skills.

>>4450576
Skill issue

>>4450578
are the skills in the room with us?

>>4450578
The soft rolloff of film is saving your ass

>>4450577
Just when you think cANON can't say something dumber, he finds a new way to reveal that he has never actually used a camera for photography.

Last time you were seen talking about the things *you* actually *do*, you were using a (stolen) zoom lens to take the worst ever photo of saturn, and saying you couldn't use a telescope because you needed variable focus to identify ukranian drones. You're not a photographer. You don't know what you're talking about. You see cameras as surveillance devices to be stuck to trees which is why you think a G9 and an a7rv are the same thing. Return to /k/ and /o/.

>>4450579
What skill does photographing an extreme contrasting scene take? Turning on the HDR function in post?
The camera can't take it by itself, despite photography being easy and you basically just dial and press a button.

>>4450581
What do you imply? That I have to showcase my knowledge and skills to gain sour criticism from someone who didn't even make his bed today?

>>4450582
What?

This is cANON's masterpiece

This is a teenager who bought his first telescope and used his iphone
https://www.reddit.com/r/astrophotography/comments/15yj74j/my_first_picture_of_saturn_first_real/
This is someone who has a job and did some research
https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/969076-first-try-at-saturn-062925/

Know who is giving you advice

>>4450588
btw i found it on the archive by searching "blurry dot".

Crab bucket gettin' BTFO ITT

Words to the wise, if you are unhappy with how your camera does in a scenario that you often encounter, don't ask /p/, live your own life. /p/ is a /p/inchy /p/ail of /p/issy arthro/p/ods. They don't want you to move on and have fun they want you to get stuck in a mire of passing up photo ops and nerding out minmaxing your gear like the rest of them. Buy a nice camera, if you are insecure about your finances rent a 24-70 f2.8 and shoot one wedding for 1/3 the going rate, now your camera was free or made you money and you might even do it again in the future. Have fun!

>>4450587
I just hadn't seen where your skills outdo an RP

>>4450592
>you can't get good pictures with an RP
>no, you are the crab bucket

>>4450588
>This is cANON's masterpiece
It's not "my masterpiece" it's how I proved the veracity of sensor reach to those who still deny it even though it's basic physics. As usual you lie and misrepresent everything because it's your nature. Now go on and lecture me on ether since that's what you antiscientific fucks believe in.

>>4450593
>I
You are blind and have a complex

>>4450171 (OP)
>>4450187
K, the RP doesnt have shit for DR. The R8, Z6, etc are huge upgrades.

>>4450595
>An RP is often insufficient in difficult lighting conditions
>SO YOU CANT TAKE GOOD PICTURES? HERES 10 GOOD PICTURES ALL TAKEN AT NOON, WITH FLASH, OR WITH HDR MERGES.
Crab bucket retard.

>>4450596
>uhhh muh science, a g9 and an a7rv are the same because if they aren't it's not a fair comparison!
>>4450573

>>4450597
>my exposure or editing couldn't possibly be better
>no I still won't post exif or a RAW despite making a thread about editing RAW

>>4450599
>His exposure could be better because he should have used a tripod, instead of buying a camera that doesn't need a tripod!
You want people to do anything but have fun and take photos we know

Something about how psychologically twisted up you are from exposure to /pol/ and your own lifelong gearfagging

>>4450600
When did I say tripod? He doesn't need a tripod, there
If you have to invent things I said to argue against, not a good look
I want people to get better at taking photos and editing
You want people to buy better gear so they don't have to get better

>>4450600
For all we know you might have used some of the settings that utterly obliterate your DR like intermediate ISOs. You refuse to do as much as post 3 things: aperture, shutter speed, sensitivity.

OP's problem is that he doesn't want better photos, he has GAS and wants his next purchase validated. Like a terrible guitarist who blames his guitar for how limited he sounds so goes and buys some fancier one just to remain at square one, this time with a fancy guitar.

>>4450606
I'm not him, I'm just pointing out the obvious.

You are desperate not to convince everyone, but to convince yourself, that there is nothing in buying a better camera.

I posit the most likely scenario because he clearly knows how a camera works: it's a handheld shot, and the RP literally can't handle the DR of the scene because it's kinda shit. A $350 sony a7ii or even a d750 would be a noticeable upgrade here.

>You want people to buy better gear so they don't have to get better
As far as I can tell OP is already better and knows how a camera works just fine. Any improvents to be had with the same camera are getting into specs minmaxing territory (tripods, gnds, ettr, uniwb, bracketing, checking channels in rawdigger, hdr merges, DIY pixel shift...) which quickly sucks the life and joy out of photography for the non-autstic. 4x5/120 effort for 35mm digital circa 2008 quality. Or maybe he could just stop shooting after 3pm?

You are a literal fucking autist and clearly coping with your own issues, simultaneously giving advice to some iteration of yourself and trying to manufacture the consensus you want to convince yourself of something. OP is a guy who ran into the limits of a shit camera with handheld casual shooting and could benefit from basically any upgrade.

>>4450611
Oh, but he wants better photos, and GAS is the logical option here to take bette rphotos.

Bro has the choice between crushing the blacks, blowing the skies, having mushy shadows, and tripodmaxxing. Or, just not taking photos past 3pm?

I know you can't have more than the rebel sl1 you stole from a tourist and the 1dsii you stole from a pawn shop but not everyone has to cope.

>>4450525
/thread
corgifag is miserable and stressed because he's realizing gearfagging was a mistake
cANON is miserable because he's a poor gypsy

neither is giving anyone real and relevant advice

>>4450617
For 6th time I support OP upgrading

>>4450613
>As far as I can tell OP
Based on what? That he doesn't know how to process or even what exposure settings are apparently

>>4450616
Or he could learn exposure and processing
Why do you keep bringing up tripods

>>4450618
But you also have to be right and there must be some way OP's skills are inferior to you, oh wise one...
perhaps knowing frequency separation exists will revealeth your superior knowledge (note: capture one added a retouch tool that does it automatically, its boss, hot tip it's probably going to be $180 for a perpetual license in <5 months)

surely op must have fucked up somehow and upgrading is supported but also unjustified for you are definitely better and you found some high noon/flash shots with the RP that look good when scaled way down for a collage

>>4450621
OP should upgrade
OP should also work on their skills
Sorry you disagree

>>4450620
>>4450619
Dude shoots film. I'm assuming he knows what an ISO is, and that his exposure settings were appropriate for the moment, and he could not shoot base ISO, and I know from shooting at sunset, that the DR of a shit camera like an RP is not even sufficient at base ISO.

But yes everyone has to be worse than you and upgrading is never justified. It's just GAS over skill. Buying new gear is always bad!

>>4450621
Frequency separation itself wasn't the point of posting that, as I already said

>>4450622
OP's skills seem fine to me, definitely superior to cANONs (cANON isnt even a photographer), arguably equal to yours.

>>4450623
That's a big assumption you are making
OP has yet to post RAW because he knows it will out him
7th time I'll say upgrading good

>>4450624
>/p/ used to be helpful
>now im going to insist this guy is just shit and i support upgrading but upgrading isnt justified because no way could anyone ever be unhappy with a shitty canon sensor
nikon is in business solely because its pretty fucking normal to be unhappy with a shitty canon sensor you mentally ill dogsnapper

shit camera hit the dr wall, if you dont like tripods try upgrading to literally anything (even a d750 or the much maligned nikon z5). case closed. why you even disagree, why you even search for a way to still be right, is beyond everyone because you primarily use really expensive gear and think you need five bodies.

>>4450613
Oh you're the guy who was suggesting the 5DsR as if it doesn't have the exact same limitations as the RP just with more megapixels kek
>You are desperate not to convince everyone, but to convince yourself, that there is nothing in buying a better camera.
There is, just not in this case.
>>4450616
Nice projections m80, why the fuck would I want a 1Ds2 btw? The part you fucks don't get from the "do you take a lot of pictures of herons catching fish" exchange is the implicit inferiority of the highly specialized 1D series when not shooting fast action. There is a tradeoff for speed and that is resolution. The best 1D X model maxes out at 20 something MP. So when you have no need for speed, you can and will do better with a "lesser" camera. Braindead consoomers don't know this so they lust after the flagship.

>>4450623
If anything shooting a lot of film may mess you up for when you're shooting digital, especially given OP's issue seems to be with highlights

>>4450626
>upgrading good but also OP must suck and I must be good and still right on at least one count
Yeah you got a complex bruv

take the L walk away. that's just "shitty canon sensor, handheld, low light" quality nothing more nothing else.

>>4450627
>shit camera hit the dr wall
And all we've been asking for is evidence it's not from improper exposure, especially given OP noted they manually expose

>>4450630
>skill never matter
>just consume and upgrade

>>4450631
inb4 it's like that fujislug who used 1/500s, ISO 1250 to shoot people walking in daylight jej

>>4450632
Retards would unironically be more satisfied with a phone making all the decisions for them and making stuff up with AI than with a manual camera.

>>4450628
>The 5dsr has the exact same limitations as the RP
Provably false even if you've never used one. You're wrong about a lot of things like this. The 5ds R is a very good camera for careful shooters, seeing as it's 50mp for <$800.
>I dont have a 1ds2!
My bad, you've lied about which cameras you actually own too many times to keep straight, nophoto notphotog.

>>4450631
The foreground is crushed, the shadow push looks flat and shitty even with his 1mp version, and the sky is still blown out. You are desperate to find a way to shit on this guy and want the raw so you can say "wow, ISO 400 1/30TH!? skill issue! how dare you not have zero essential tremor, gearfag cuck crutch consoomer". We can all see it coming. Even ISO 200 would trigger you. The RP isn't a great camera for anything with contrast, unless crushing blacks all day. That's it. Deal with it.

I don't see a single reason to shit on this guy, just a reason to shit on you and your collages of identical corgi pictures for dispensing shit advice you dont even follow yourself.

>>4450632
Your trauma from /pol/ exposure is showing
>b-buying something?
>ITS THE SOI WOJAK! STOP ASKING QUESTIONS JUST CONSOOM! ITS SOI WOJAK! *rocks back and forth*
Skill matters but cameras are hardware. hardware is hardware, and even mario andretti can't take a toyota corolla from 0-60 in 2s without an LS swap and a built front end no matter how good he is at carrying speed through corners.

>>4450636
Do you think a screenshot of a jpg and a beginner edited RAW can really rell you all that?
How do you know the lack of apparent DR did not come from poor exposure settings?

>>4450637
The only other board I visit is /fit/ lol

>>4450638
I'm not the kind of miserable, bitter fuck you are. That's how. I don't assume everyone is fucking up nonstop and a camera I personally know to quickly dive into insufficiency could never ever hold anyone back because of some neurotic /pol/ contaminated approach to buying cameras.

The RP isn't very good and it's very easy to hit it's limits. That's it.

>>4450636
>Provably false even if you've never used one. You're wrong about a lot of things like this. The 5ds R is a very good camera for careful shooters, seeing as it's 50mp for <$800.
Its dynamic range is identical to that of the RP.
>My bad, you've lied about which cameras you actually own too many times to keep straight, nophoto notphotog.
I never specified anything beyond "Canon full frame".
>The foreground is crushed, the shadow push looks flat and shitty even with his 1mp version, and the sky is still blown out. You are desperate to find a way to shit on this guy and want the raw so you can say "wow, ISO 400 1/30TH!? skill issue! how dare you not have zero essential tremor, gearfag cuck crutch consoomer". We can all see it coming. Even ISO 200 would trigger you. The RP isn't a great camera for anything with contrast, unless crushing blacks all day. That's it. Deal with it.
Selecting ISO 125 instead of 160 or 100 will do that on the RP, for example.
>>4450637
>Skill matters but cameras are hardware. hardware is hardware, and even mario andretti can't take a toyota corolla from 0-60 in 2s without an LS swap and a built front end no matter how good he is at carrying speed through corners.
False equivalence and not an argument.

>>4450640
>The RP isn't very good
For you

>>4450639
/fit/ is extremely /pol/ adjacent and actually feeds new memes into /pol/ culture.

>>4450641
>Its dynamic range is identical to that of the RP.
Sure, but, it looks better >>4450636 here wow who woulda guessed a 5ds r beats a 6dii with the mirror out. a 5ds has its own flaws to skirt, but come the fuck on.
You dont actually understand what dynamic range is because your photographic experience is extremely limited. You just grasp at vague ideas and charts. Again, you are not qualified to speak. You have no photographic experience. You have poorly understood theory based on theoretical cameras you have never held and will never use. All you know is the shit you stole from tourists and pawn shops, vodkalovich krokodilsky.
>Selecting ISO 125 instead of 160 or 100 will do that on the RP, for example.
Due to shooting handheld, for example? Solution: use a better camera than the RP (even a lowly D750)
>False equivalence and not an argument.
Quite a spot on... equivalence. Hardware is hardware. It can be coped with in increasingly inconvenient ways or the right tool can be used for the job.

>>4450642
W-was getting caught part of your plan?

>>4450642
>t-t-t-there cant be a such thing as a bad camera... every camera is good... its always a skill issue... a camera is never not good enough... you can still take good photos...
Keep repeating this false mantra as you sell off all your treasured purchases and resist buying more, shopping addiction bro.

A camera can be shit, skill still matters, and holy fuck you do not need five cameras.

>>4450644
>Not using ideal exposure settings?
>Solution: use a better camera than the RP
Like I said

>>4450646
Of course there are bad cameras
Are there bad or "room for improvement" photographers too?
Do you guys not know how to read? Already said I don't need 5

>>4450647
>YOU DIDNT SHOOT AT ISO 1? SKILL ISSUE CAMERA IS FINE. ALWAYS USE IDEAL SETTINGS FOR MAX IMAGE QUALITY!
>If i had to use a tripod I just wouldnt take the ph-
>SKILL ISSUE THERE IS NEVER A REASON TO BUY A NEW CAMERA ;_;
>Even base ISO isn't very go-
>SKILL ISSUES THERE IS ALWAYS A WAY TO AVOID BUYING A NEW CAMERA
Are you convincing others, or yourself

>>4450644
>Due to shooting handheld, for example? Solution: use a better camera than the RP (even a lowly D750)
Due to how its gain works, for example ISO 125 is actually ISO 100 with a digital boost and an useless clipping of highlights.

>>4450648
>But also, I must still be right, OP has to be bad, worse than me, yeah...
I think he's better than you

Those are some sick japan shots. The perspective on the asian temple arch thing is perfect. its just too bad the quality is ass

Definitely beats "corgi, over and over again"

>>4450650
You refuse to educate yourself. It's well known that generation of Canon sensors has DR loss at intermediate ISOs.
ISO 100 and 200 are real ISOs.
ISO 125 is ISO 100 with a digital boost, losing nearly one stop of light.
ISO 160 is ISO 200 pulled down, doesn't cause any loss against ISO 200 and is basically ETTR.
Same for each 1/3 stop and 2/3 stop increase.

>>4450651
You could have just agreed but you did that narcissistic autist thing where you spout factoids when threatened, but it still falls flat because you don't know the RP isn't a fully ISO invariant sensor, so ideal exposure settings actually often require raising the ISO, and I'm just assuming OP is at ISO 400+ and shooting handheld with a non-stabilized/insufficiently stabilized lens.

You aren't smart and you're rarely (if not never) right.

>>4450654
>shadow improvement
kek, keep dodging the DR question.
ISO 400 is fine, ISO 500 destroys DR, ISO 640 is 800 pulled down and is fine.

>>4450653
Or, instead of wasting time on this shit to still have ass quality (the base ISO of the RP is still insufficient, such that this sensor kept nikon in business), just upgrade to a camera that isn't as shit. Horses for courses.
And also, here's something only real photographic experience could teach...
ISO 125 to ISO 100 does not lose enough DR for anyone to give a shit.

you're just an insecure little autist

>>4450655
It doesn't fucking matter. You're coping. It's just not a great camera for doing contrasty scenes without tripodmaxxing autism.

You have never used a camera nicer than a rebel sl1 so what do you actually know?

>>4450657
>comparing noise reduced DR to actual DR
>ignoring the obvious dips between native ISOs
You're hopeless

>>4450652
Ty for saving my pictures
>>4450654
If OP is at 400 when they could've been at 100 with a still adequate shutter speed and chosen aperture, that is the issue
All it takes is a posting of the shooting information or RAW and this line of argument ends one way or the other

>>4450657
What a great example of how using a higher ISO can negatively impact dynamic range

>>4450658
>noise reduced DR
Bill claff is on the record saying the NR he detected is about 2/5 of a stop if not simply nothing IIRC. It is most likely eliminating fixed pattern noise or hot pixels in the deep shadows. If it bothers you, the sony sensor cameras are over there.
>obvious dips
Sub-stop dips. 9.09 to 8.74. 9.11 down to 8.49. 8.8 to 8.2. If you used a camera you'd know these don't really matter that much.

And I'm just assuming OP is at ISO 400+ due to the constraints of handheld shooting and knows what he's doing
Much like I assume any time you open your mouth, you dont know what you're doing, no, you dont know how anything works but want to sound smart anyways
>an a7rv and a lumix g9 take the same picture with a 400mm lens because not taking the same picture isn't a fair scientific comparison
>^a useless non-statement made by a mental masturbator with a tiny penis

>>4450660
I don't care if you think ~you~ could have shot at a lower shutter speed or he should have used a tripod I care that artistically OP is honestly a bit better than you and you're a bitter miserable fuck whose default is always
>NO! NO ONE CAN EVER BE UNHAPPY WITH A CAMERA!
You did this same thing to the guy who got sick of the z50's autofocus doing the ol hunt and miss or "confirm focus 2 feet away from the subject" thing and you know what? He left.

Are you trying to convince other people there are no bad cameras, or are you trying to ablate the regret you feel as you sell off your good cameras and try not to buy them back?

>>4450664
>I'm just assuming OP is at ISO 400+ due to the constraints of handheld shooting and knows what he's doing
>and knows what he's doing

>>4450664
>1 stop difference in DR doesn't really matter much
>>4450666
>You can never ever possibly use improper exposure settings that might lead to a degredation in IQ
>Are you trying to convince other people there are no bad camera operators

>>4450664
>If you used a camera you'd know these don't really matter that much.
Looking at the chart again, you are saying the different between an RP and R8 actually don't really matter at ISO 320 or 640
Good education for OP then, he can just use those and get the same DR as an R8!

>>4450668
Yep. I assume he knows what he's doing. Maybe he was hoping someone knew a secret trick or had a detail reconstruction program they preferred. Instead he got the miserable anti-gear queer actually trying to convince himself that selling his best camera was a good idea, or he shouldnt upgrade something, or something along those lines.

He definitely got google keywords for ways to cope with a bad camera in the meantime
>GNDs
>ETTR
>UniWB
>Bracketing
>HDR merges
>view the raw histogram check your channels for clipping
>Consult PDR charts and shadow improvement charts to determine ideal exposure settings and identify gain stage switches and determine when exposing correctly in camera would look better than pushing in post
>DIY pixel shift (which is actually more interesting and cool than HDR merges)
https://www.dpreview.com/articles/0727694641/here-s-how-to-pixel-shift-with-any-camera
But none of these are an actual replacement for just switching to a better camera than the RP. Which is not expensive, at all, and can even be cheaper.

>>4450669
>1 stop
0.6 stop
>You can never ever possibly use improper exposure settings that might lead to a degredation[sic] in IQ
It's called shooting handheld.

>>4450671
Alas charts aren't everything and it would still look slightly better, and look better in more scenarios as well. A straight upgrade. Don't you waste your time doing the "well sometimes it would be almost the same" cope. Better cameras look better more often even when you can shoot both poorly.

I'm also open to the possibility that base ISO on the RP is insufficient because I have that in my list of lived experiences.

>>4450672
>0.6 stop
You're forgetting to add some extra NR to RP

>>4450674
>I must cope because the chart actually makes me look silly
>Better cameras look better more often even when you can shoot both poorly.
Absolutely true! Better and worse cameras also look better when you get better at using them!
>I have that in my list of lived experiences.
True, and I'm operating off my lived experience too.

>should i buy a nicer camera and get better results more often, more conveniently?

>NO! GET BACK DOWN HERE! REBEL SL1 YOU DONT NEED MORE! *pinch pich*
>NOT WHILE IM TALKING MYSELF OUT OF ANOTHER PURCHASE YOU DONT *pinch pinch*
>IF I CAN LIVE WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD THAT SO CAN YOU! *pinch pinch*
>I JUST SOLD MY GFX100S TO PAY A BILL SO IMAGE QUALITY DOESNT MATTER ANY MORE! IM HAPPY WITH ANY CAMERA AND YOU WILL BE TOO! *pinch pinch*
>Yeah get out it's ni-*pinched* YOU FUCKER

the /p/ experience

>>4450449
I’m a certified canon boy and even I can admit that the raws I get on my R seem like canon went for some kind of desaturated/log type look with them, it’s odd not overly so, op’s image is more an exposure cockup, but still. And from what I’ve seen the newer ones aren’t any different. You can bring a lot of it back in editing, but it’s kind of a pain that pretty
Much every photo needs massaging.

>>4450676
>you're probably too bad to appreciate it! i'm better! *pinch pinch*

>>4450677
>should i buy a nicer camera and get better results more often, more conveniently?
Too bad OP didn't make a thread like that

>>4450680
he kinda did but you're a bitter, miserable crab in a bucket that misses its gfx100 already and is projecting its cope onto the other crabs

>>4450679
I suck at taking photos, I've just taken a lot of them for a long time
Plenty of people here are better than me
Sorry you think learning how to shoot and edit better is a bad thing

a bad artist blames his tools

>>4450682
>I suck but let me tell you what you should actually do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrdJOdn9XzM

>>4450681
He posted asking for help how to edit better
Everyone told him to buy a better camera instead, talk about crab bucket

I don't miss my GFX, seems like you do though since you bring it up?

>>4450684
>marketing victim posts marketing material to support his point

>>4450683
Unless it's a Canon RP then it's never a skill issue
>>4450684
>getting better is BAD

>>4450683
>michelangelo, why you nota using the messed up brush-a made with hair ofa dogo? a bad artists blames-a his tools
>and a good-a artist doesn't waste time on bad tools in the firsta place you gigantico moroni

>>4450688
>Unless it's a Canon RP then it's never a skill issue
Sounds like a good cope for the unskilled peasant, the GWC that sees himself as a photographer

>>4450689
>good artists never practice their craft or want to get better or learn more about colors or techniques

>its marketing its the jews its a jewish plot its the death of the west every camera is good no one can ever be unhappy with a digishit everything is a skill issue never buy a nicer camera here try this tripod out actually you're looking too closely you're not allowed to view off instagram
Why is /p/ dead?

because it's not about photography it's about being angry at people buying things

>>4450689
>with this brush I'll be just like michelangelo!

>>4450691
>You can't buy a nicer camera AND improve, you have to go full technie nerd and get into sensor analsysis before I will deem you worthy of an upgrade
Or, "get back down here where we belong"
Crab bucket

>>4450692
8th(?) time people should buy good cameras
>Why is /p/ dead?
Because you can't be honest

>>4450694
we're just saving you some disappointment and helping you address the actual problem

>>4450694
9th time saying OP should buy a better camera
How many times is this for you lying about my position?
Which posts here did you suggest OP can stand to improve from practice and learning? I must have missed it

Gotta love cargo cultists

>>4450693
>You aren't michelangelo you dont DESERVE a better paintbrush, FUCKING CONSUMERIST! ITS THE JEWS! GET BETTER FIRST! CONSOOM ONIONS NUMALE DEGENERATE...! YOU ARE SHOPPING FOR MEANING IN YOUR EMTPY LIFE!
The crabs, knowing nothing but pinching, have developed impressively sophisticated pinches.

>>4450698
Honestly, OP is better than you, and if he leaves this crab bucket he's going to have a much better life than the guy who is so miserable he once spent 4 hours defending the nikon z50's autofocus to someone who already sold it, and subsequently stopped contributing to /p/ due to his experiences with the dreaded corgifag and cANON.

>>4450699
>no no no no no the better tool is not more enjoyable to use well maybe it is but stop thats a cargo cult you think you're going to be famous but you're NOT! NO ONE WILL EVER CARE! Get back down here where we all belong!
Crab bucket

A lifetime of pinching behind them, they have mastered the pinch
cANON has not taken a photograph in over 2 years
But he has mastered the pinch
Corgifag's business collapsed
But he has mastered the pinch

Dear lord I pray OP just buys a better camera and fucks off, enjoying his improved IQ for years to come

>>4450700
>Which posts here did you suggest OP can stand to improve from practice and learning?
Again, why can't you ever answer simple questions directly?

>>4450701
>Dear lord I pray OP just buys a better camera and fucks off, enjoying his improved IQ for years to come
Same, I just also hope he takes a look at his shooting and editing too
It's a shame you don't care about that part at all

>>4450702
I'm assuming OP knows what he is doing and is putting in exactly as much effort as he will ever bother to before it starts interfering with his enjoyment of photography.

I pray he simply buys a better camera and fucks off instead of staying to get pinched by bucket crabs like you. He'll improve a lot faster that way, and his landscapes are already better than yours desu.

>>4450703
I care about it, and shooting and editing are the areas that benefit the most from better cameras. Especially when better cameras have so much latitude, there's very little left to worry about other than composition.

I can also just look and tell, yeah, he's shooting and editing more than correctly, the camera is just digital circa 2008.

>>4450700
The Z50 autofocus issue is a gear issue. This is most likely not.

>>4450704
>I'm assuming OP knows what he is doing
>I don't know how to edit RAW
That's a strong assumption, would've been really easy for OP to clear this up. If you really can't see any room for improvement at all with OP's editing or shooting, speaks more about you.

Sorry that wanting OP to get better results with what he has now is crab bucket

>>4450704
I hope buying that new camera solves his issues, but I know it won't.

>>4450707
The same photo taken on a better camera like a Z6II would look a bit better

Especially since the Z6II's 5 stop IBIS outdoes lens IS on non-IBIS canons <85mm

>>4450706
>I care about it
So where in the thread did you talk about OP working on shooting and editing?
>I can also just look and tell
Yes, it's all "feels" for you

>>4450710
>The same photo taken on a better camera like a Z6II would look a bit better
Could, not would. It could be the other way too.
This whole discussion goes on and on without a simple exposure triangle revealed to know if OP really did as well as he could have.

>>4450708
Looks fine to me. If the exposure settings are not ideal I would blame it on handheld casual shooting and someone putting as much effort as they will ever put in without it disrupting their fun.

>>4450709
How do you know it won't when you've taken less than 12 photos on a rebel sl1 and some 20 year old FF you stole? I've taken more than 5000 photos on things ranging from shit to great and a nice camera (film or modern FF digital) is much nicer especially when shooting casually.

>>4450712
Nah. Would.

>>4450711
The only feels here is you projecting your regret and frustration mr. $20k snapshit setup

>>4450713
If OP just started off with
>I'm lazy and need a better camera because I don't want to learn jack shit
I'd have no issue

>>4450713
If exposing right takes effort to you, you're simply not good enough at it yet. It's like Americans who think driving a manual is hard.
>How do you know it won't when you've taken less than 12 photos on a rebel sl1 and some 20 year old FF you stole? I've taken more than 5000 photos on things ranging from shit to great and a nice camera (film or modern FF digital) is much nicer especially when shooting casually.
I have taken more pictures than you and never stole any cameras, lol. All you have is some cartoonish headcanon you made up about me to feel better about your decadent self.

>>4450714
>So where in the thread did you talk about OP working on shooting and editing?
Is this like your 5th time not answering a question?
Telling OP they should upgrade their RP nine times is projecting my regret and frustration?

>>4450715
And you know what the funniest part about that is? A better camera would likely leave him stumped just like this one has. Because people who are new at editing struggle to get what is easy for them to get from a phone that bakes in a bunch of edits (notably contrast boosts).

>>4450704
>and his landscapes are already better than yours
I'd hope so given most of those were with cameras worse than an RP and that's what really matters
I guess I just need to get a better camera and then mine will be even better again

There are two words that hurt /p/ to its core:
>git gud

I must admit I misjudged corgifag because of his dog and insistence on focusing on minor grading variations so subtle they might as well be identical, he's alright thoughbeit.

>>4450721
The words don't hurt anyone.
It's the fucktard that says them that's the problem. Like, what the fuck do you know? Nothing. You say dumb shit like "a g9 and an a7rv with 400mm lens take the exact same pictures because the a7rv has to crop and stop down".

There is gitting gud and then there's notphotog spouting bullshit ignorant of real life, and corgifag spouting garbage because he's coping about his real life (this is the guy who fervently defended the z50s autofocus for some reason, later revealed to be the aberrant psychology of the kind of person that buys a leica m10 and does stuff like this >>4450652).

I think OP is gud enough. Shitty cameras can be coped with, in many ways. I can teach you any of them. The simplest is "ok, put the camera away" because they just can't handle certain lighting unless you want to crush the blacks or mush half the picture. Not even at base ISO. And shitty cameras really show their shittiness the most when you're just having fun instead of overanalyzing gear settings and tech specs, and you DONT want the contrasty look.

Shitty cameras are the most fun when you do.

It's not a hard concept but it offends you two because cANON, you're just a fucking idiot, you know nothing, your understanding of photography is based on 12 pictures and 2 shitty cameras that are older than you, and corgifag clearly has issues because he's the guy that fervently defended the z50's autofocus like fucking seriously, who would take that from someone with five bodies who can't seem to keep a camera for a full year. It's a small step up from taking advice from someone like huskyfag. Small.

>>4450736
huskyfag at least has a full understanding of the finer details of canine eyebrow rendering lmao

he was last seen using a nikon zf and em5-something. telling.

>>4450736
>the kind of person that buys a leica m10 and does stuff like this
Why didn't you link all the other photos I posted? Why do talk like thats the only kind of pictures I take?
Why do you have to be dishonest?
>who can't seem to keep a camera for a full year
I haven't bought or sold a camera on two years. I am selling 1-2 next week but wouldn't buy any until next year and that's doubtful.
Why do you have to be dishonest again?

>>4450736
You have this heeb habit of putting words in my mouth. In the example I gave the a7RV DOESN'T NEED TO STOP DOWN. The MFT will simply be a cropped version of the same picture taken from the same point.
You don't understand aperture, ISO, pixel pitch, equivalence and many other things. But instead of researching you go "cANON bad!!!".

>>4450738
You don't post many memorable photos. Sorry. You're not really in a position to tell OP his photo is bad. Looks like the limit of the camera to me. Put it away, HDR merge, or crush the blacks.

It's most fun to buy a nicer camera to increase the number of options.

>>4450739
You understand those things in the context of theoretical, idealized cameras. What you don't understand is the other two dozen things that contribute to how an image looks.

cANON bad. Yes. cANON very bad. When you give advice, everyone should turn to whoever else is available, even dog hair negatives. He would say "you should try 4x5 film" and it would be better advice.

>>4450738
>Why do you have to be dishonest?
It's just what his tribe is like.

>>4450742
>His tribe
The shawnee?

>>4450740
>You don't post many memorable photos
True, I don't post everything I take for obvious reasons.
>It's most fun to buy a nicer camera to increase the number of options.
Absolutely! Practicing your shooting and editing also can be fun too and also increase your options!

>>4450171 (OP)
Press the auto button you retard

>>4450748
Best advice so far jej

>>4450745
>my good photos go to another school
Ok huskyfag
>Absolutely! Practicing your shooting and editing also can be fun too and also increase your options!
Alas there are only so many worthwhile, enjoyable ways to deal with a pretty bad camera like the canon RP. Most of them amount to just shooting earlier in the day or with flash. OP pic is 10x better than anything anyone else here posts and is just held back by the camera. A switch to a better camera for landscape IQ, like a canon 5ds or nikon z7, would be preferable.

>>4450712
every single post you and corgifag have made have simply assumed op did not do the best given what the gear can achieve and his patience for dealing with a blasted computer

that is what miserable people like you assume about literally everybody

try being less miserable and assume that people are generally good

>>4450751
>simply assumed op did not do the best given what the gear can achieve
If only OP had simply posted the RAW and we could all actually see for ourselves

>>4450750
>A switch to a better camera for landscape IQ, like a canon 5ds or nikon z7, would be preferable.
If DR is the issue then a 5Ds leaves you in the same exact spot. Although maybe seeing the light of the scene through the viewfinder perhaps OP could realize how to make better use of it. But that's the OVF helping him make a better exposure choice, not a sensor thing. The DR of the RP and the 5Ds is virtually identical. At any given exposure settings if one is clipping the other will be too.

>>4450755
Why do you repeat things that were already proven wrong, to your face? Are you an NPC? >>4450636
Those shadows are a lot cleaner.

It's not even technically correct on bill claff's noise charts. Jesus.

>the light of the scene
Oh god, you are an NPC. You have pre-scripted lines and everything. Is this your arrow to the knee line?

>>4450750
>nikon z7
Is within 0.66 stops at ISO 320, 0.5 stops at ISO 640, and virtually the same from 1250 on up

>>4450757
>Those shadows are a lot cleaner.
Yes, from the built in forced NR not present in the RP

>>4450758
This is just more "in theory at 200% zoom a better camera could be the same as my worse camera in one way" cope. You're forgetting that photography isn't pure SNR analysis and sampling rate, especially with bayer in there fucking it up, does matter.

It's still better for the same reason the 5ds pulls further ahead than cANON expects. This is a reason people who actually take and make photos are familiar with without having to fully understand, and people who just pixel peep to ooh and awe and then ebay their shit never learn. But sure, an R5 is just a liiittle better than an RP too. Well, if you don't know how to use your eyeballs.

>>4450757
The difference in DR within the RP for selecting ISO 125 instead of ISO 100 is bigger than ISO 100 on the RP vs ISO 100 on the 5Ds. And after ISO 640 they might as well be the same camera. The point of the 5Ds is "muh megapickles" aka reach, nothing more nothing less.

>>4450764
...It's not. You are wrong from sentence one and that's a simple number you can look at on a chart.

And you just get wronger from there until you conclude that higher end cameras are just for cropping to fill the frame.

It is extremely apparent that you are not a photographer, period. You have never, EVER been a photographer, and you never will be. Return to /k/.

>>4450763
>But sure, an R5 is just a liiittle better than an RP too. Well, if you don't know how to use your eyeballs.
Even the R and the 5D IV are heaps and bounds superior to the RP. The 5Ds is simply not.

>>4450764
Are you even being helped by this or are you just stuck on repeat?
>megapixels? those are just for cropping
This is such a beginner retard take but you've been spouting it for 3 years

It's steamrolled by the shittiest processing built in to dpreviews website and proper, purposeful editing wrecks it harder. Git gud. When the "gearfag" knows more about getting the best out of a camera than you... well, "gearfag" was meant to refer to people like you, not people like me.

>>4450767
You're wrong even on PDR charts which need to be adjusted for a bunch of shit to make sense in pure nerd terms and you're wronger in real life. Just stop.

>megapixels are only good for cropping
>a bigger sensor cant be better unless it has a bigger aperture
>you could still take great photos (earlier in the day)
No fucking wonder you people are a camera shop employee and the gypsy that robbed the former

>>4450769
>>4450767
You fags just need to meet up and hatefuck already and stop polluting the board with this same tired retread bullshit in every fucking thread, s2g.

>>4450763
>picrel, let me use completely different ISO values to make another strawman
ISO 100 is the same as using ISO 320 or ISO 640? That's news to me.
I agree at ISO 100 the RP falls even more behind, not sure why you are bringing up 100 when I gave different specific ISO values.

Have we determined the exposure settings OP used yet?

>>4450771
cANON just posts flat out disinfo. That's all he does.

We can only hope that proving him wrong helps other people learn.

>Do you think your high resolution camera is "noisier"?
>33mp screens are around the corner and no one is going to look at that shit full screen
>turn off sharpening, leave NR on, push NR until it's almost too strong, and scale that shit down
>and then sharpen, if you want to
>the resulting image would rocket up a line on bill claff's charts because they're just SNR analysis

>>4450765
>You are wrong from sentence one
I am wrong in sentence one, right. Gave the numbers a quick look and didn't double-check. I can admit to a mistake unlike you.
RP PDR@ISO 100: 9.09
5Ds PDR@ISO 100: 9.75
RP PDR@ISO 125: 8.74
5Ds PDR@ISO 125: 9.72
Point remains, ISO 125 destroys your DR on the RP. Then you go to 160 and it's magically 9.11, against 9.64 on the 5Ds. What was once 2/3ds of a stop difference is barely above half a stop now.

>>4450772
>But ISO 320 or 640?
>And by 1250, they look the same bro
With the absolute weakest attempt at correctly processing these files (via dpreviews website) and less fine detail, the better camera unsurprisingly looks better. Zoom out 50% my mac's screenshots are a bit fucked when I run windows on it.

You just don't know what to do with your cameras output, and have a habit of assuming that people will shoot every camera the same. With a Z7II and the same genre, well, the IBIS is actually pretty good, and there are actually lower ISOs to use unlike the usual IBIS copes. 1/10th at 85mm is easy and the ISO can be kept pretty low. You'd know if you actually took photos.

>>4450774
>when its -0.3 its destroyed DR
>but when it's -0.5 its barely any difference
Sure. Idiot.

And then you scale the 5ds to 26.2mp, and the SNR which is what the PDR actually is, goes up because math, NR is perceptually less destructive even if more is applied (before downscale), follow up with sharpening, and wala, you used megapixels for something other than cropping like a talentless fuck.

Is telling you this a valuable use of time? Do you own a camera?

>>4450777
True, but it's not like a full stop better and we already determined anything less than 0.6 is "no difference", so thanks for proving the point
>and there are actually lower ISOs to use unlike the usual IBIS copes
True, if only we knew if it was relevant to OP's issues or not!
IBIS is awesome!

>>4450771
Who gets "top bunk"?

>>4450779
Looks better and it's not even 100% "doin it rite".
>True, if only we knew if it was relevant to OP's issues or not!
It helps to assume people other than tripfags are smart.

>>4450781
cANON would power bottom and say it wasn't gay because of directional equivalence.

>>4450770
>a bigger sensor cant be better unless it has a bigger aperture
The (BSI) sensor size, itself, doesn't make it better without a larger (equivalent) aperture.

>>4450782
A bottom is less gay than a top though because the top has the option of sodomizing a woman instead.

>>4450783
See, you said it again. You're an NPC. Now better get practicing on that dildo your time is coming (and so am i)

>>4450782
>Looks better
I agreed. As it should. Looks quite a bit less than the "2 stops better" people were talking about earlier.
If only OP had posted the RAW for the the RAW thread they created

>>4450786
Prove otherwise.

>>4450785
What is a woman these days, but a retarded man without a dick? Homosexuality: a solved problem.

>>4450788
The point of using a different camera is to take a better picture, not the same shitty one. Simply do not shoot "equivalently".

>>4450790
n-no i have to shoot equivalently because i have no skill, i cant figure out any other way to do it, and i'm autistic so i have to only do fair scientific comparisons!

>>4450790
What's the point of trying to learn and get better?

>>4450793
It depends, is it real learning or theoretical learning you think has to occur because you hate it when people buy cameras due to your neurosis, combined with dishonest posts like
>Uh, the camera is fine, because I found higher quality photos taken in brighter more even light!

A single stop of extra DR isn't going to save that shot.

>>4450797
What is real learning and what is theoretical?
Is learning how to expose better real? Is learning how to edit better real? Are OP's pics the same quality and caliber as what was posted?

Many of those shots were in darker situations and/or just as high contrast of a scene. You are being dishonest again. Was the issue brightness or DR? Why hasn't OP posted RAW or exposure info for their own RAW thread?

>>4450799
Shhh, this is no place for logic, you must consume

>>4450799
It would improve the
TONALITY

>>4450801
>What is real learning
Nothing you offer
>What is theoretical
All you offer

>>4450466
How so? Every Canon I've used, you just press the iso button and then spin the little wheel all the way down.

>>4450815
>Nothing you offer
I'm sorry you've been unable to get anything real from what I've shared
>>4450815
So would better exposure and processing

>>4450823
30 identical photos of your dog?

>>4450832
I've shared a lot more than that, even in this thread
They also aren't identical
More dishonesty from you

>>4450832
Lol trvke

>>4450839
i'm going to remember the op pic better than your disparate collages and 30 identical dog pics soz
sad it was shot with a kind of crappy camera

some people just dont benefit from better gear if they set out to impress others instead of just enjoying themselves truly, and others deserve a hasselblad and never get one

I have the canon r50 and it's a great camera, iso 800 is ok, but there is lots of noise even at lower isos. I made a nice profile and only shoot jpgs, tweaked it a lot. I can get almost contious shooting with the old 70-200, and the AF is amazing

>>4450550
((()))

>>4450702
He's a jew, or some mental case that's indistinguishable.

>>4450550
keep it i Av and control exposure with the compsure dial, look at the histogram but soon you won't need to. Clip hen you have to

Well, I'm currently carring a tripod around and using a CPL filter, to at least get a usable picture with my RP.
Then when I get home, I heavily edit my bracketed shots and use HDR to have a professional landscape result.
That's what I've learned from this thread so far.

Dear GOD. What the fuck is wrong with you people.
OP wanted to know more about post processing and instead the entire /thread is 6 anons having the largest back and forth bitch competition I've seen here in months.

Swap phone numbers and get the fuck off the board, christ.

>>4450901
Same camera anon. Baked in NR until ISO 800, which is kind of fucked and I agree the noise is a bit cooked at times. Funny, I bought the same lens and despite everyone saying these older EF lenses wont keep up with H+, it's almost max speed. Probably my favourite lens purchase so far.

>>4450930
This is the worst thread I've seen on /p/ in a while and that's saying something. OP wants to know how to edit RAWs and the mentally deranged shills are jumping over each other trying to sell him a camera. He could however have actually posted the RAW as some anons were willing to have a go at editing it and from there they could explain what/how they did it and he might actually learn but alas no, how could anything on this shitty gear shilling board not be about fucking sn0ykon vs canulpus?

>>4450929
>I heavily edit my bracketed shots and use HDR to have a professional landscape result.
Who suggested that? I've seen people saying explicitly not that
Is this more dishonesty
>>4450930
Too bad they just never posted the RAW for their RAW thread

>>4450974
Maybe you are just blind and could scroll up and see a couple of fake HDR photos stolen from some starving artist.

I don't think it's worth it to be helped by your kind of people. It was more of an organic discussion, but you need to see numbers and pixels to be able to discuss something as simple as a picture.

>>4450981
>a couple of fake HDR photos
Let me know which ones and I can try and post a bigger version.
None of them looked HDR to me, but I am open to learning from your perspective.
>It was more of an organic discussion
I wanted to talk pictures, everyone else wanted to talk camera.

>>4450981
Oh the 1 astro composite? Definitely.
Which other ones do you think required HDR?

>>4450983
Google HDR photos.
To discuss something, you must be flexible and listen. All you do is talk and give feedback to yourself. No one wants to talk to someone who behaves like that.

>>4450987
I know what HDR photos look like. I'll ask again, which photos posted in this thread do you think required HDR?
You obviously are referencing some of them, you just can't tell me?
More dishonesty

>>4450389
yer an autist, hairy!
Seriously, with this one comment and your examples you've proven you don't know shit other than spec fagging and can't apply personal experience in the learning process. You understanding of photography doesn't extend beyond "These conditions specify these settings, as evidenced by the maximum amount of detail captured," without being able to comprehend why this detail or that detail is going to result in a more desirable image.
And, thus, you reduce your failure of being unable to produce a decent image not as a failure of your own judgement, but a failure of the camera's dynamic range.
This is a high contrast scene. It's a challenging shot for any camera, but people have been doing this shit since CCD sensors and even consumer film with less than 10 stops of dynamic range. You have 12 stops on the RP, or 4-16x the amount of dynamic range as consumer film or CCD sensors.
A better camera with 14 stops of dynamic range isn't going to significantly help you here OP. It's still going to fuck the best of cameras. Sunlight is FUCKING BRIGHT. You need to learn how to handle high contrast scenes.

>>4451367
Some tips to handle high contrast scenes:
1. Let whites be white. Stop being afraid of clipping, instead worry about managing banding. But decide which parts of your image you don't mind being pure white, such as parts of clouds or the sky or specular highlights. You can add some tone back in in photoshop if need be.
2. Use a fill flash. This especially helps on backlit images like the first one in this thread.
3. Exposure bracketing -- classic HDR.
4. Zone system exposure helps a lot here. It's a good tool to prioritize what's important and make sure you're going to get a decent exposure of the details you care about. It's good to think about having about 9-11 zones anyway because that's what you can realistically expect your image to be viewed in in its final distribution form, if not fewer (a lot of prints are going to have basically 8 stops of dynamic range). With experience you can learn the ways you can push and pull parts of the image to fit into the zone system well. A spot meter will help you analyze different EV's of your scene (it's actually deceptively tricky to judge with the naked eye even with experience, although you'll memorize typical values of different objects).

If you look at tests done with equipment in all price ranges it seems to be marginal improvements when you fork over extra cashiola, even the highest high end still overexposes light from windows when used in an indoor setting.