>>4307996
Canon also seem to use those type 1 Sony sensors.

>>4307994
The sensor is a monochrome photon counter, nothing more, and sony builds them to client specs under sony's rules. It's often not the same sensors they use in their own cameras, which is why you dont see nikon using the a7riv or a7iv sensor ever and they've been using revisions of the d750 and d850 sensors instead.

CFA specs and signal processing, which actually matter for more than signal to noise ratio and readout speed, vary by brand, and its been theorized that sony draws up contracts affecting these that cripple their competition if they buy a sony sensor, ie:
>fuji can only have sony's next gen 40mp APS-C sensors if fuji does not make an APS-C camera with a bayer array, as the resolution increase from switching back to the superior CFA would BTFO the entire a6 line and sony would lose their entire APS-C customer base (and probably some FF users) to fuji.
>nikon receives semi-crippled sensors for fps/video simply because they are significantly better at making cameras and lenses than sony, resulting in nikon to struggle to support competitive sports/video features - hence nikon's recent purchase of RED - and therefore RED's contracts with non-sony sensor suppliers. sony probably straight up told them that they would never provide nikon with global shutter technology and that was it.
>LEGALLY POSSIBLE WITH LOTS OF NDAS: Sony can theoretically say "we will give you this sensor, but this list of features must not be supported until X amount of time has passed" in a contract, making them an unseen hand in controlling the entire camera market and maintaining their #2 position

Selling out to snoy was a mistake

>>4307996
None.
Panasonic sold off their fabs several years ago and Kodak did well before that.
Supposedly, Nikon sourced one or more sensors from TowerJazz for the D700/800 line.
Sigma had Foveon manufactured by Dongbu, but, reportedly, that ended as a result of them fucking up the full frame design.
Phase One might still get theirs from Dalsa. Though, I'm not sure who the supplier is after they transitioned to CMOS.
I also haven't heard who Leica gets their 30x45mm stuff from.

>>4309550
Canon's used Sony for many of their compacts.

>>4309372
>Like going from a d810 to a d850
It's less than that even.
20% more instead of 25%.

>APS-H never mattered
It did when the largest sensor made in F mount was produced by a soon to be bankrupt third party.

>>4309365
because bitching about what happened to other brands in <2007 is how pentax fanboys cope with whats ongoing 2016-current

the fact is pentax is dead - killed. innovation halted. they dumped unfinished garbage on the market. their great leap forward was forcing noise reduction to game their DXO score and then... quit.

who's ready for the pentax K-1 II diary edition?

>>4309363
It doesn't matter, what matters is that Pentax did it 10 years later than the competition

File: PICT2195.jpg (516 KB, 1728x1152)

516 KB JPG

It surprised me that this exposure was spot on without any positive EV compensation

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-7
Camera Software	K-7 Ver 1.13
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	72 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:01 21:27:31
Exposure Time	1/180 sec
F-Number	f/11.0
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	100
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	48.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1728
Image Height	1152
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

File: PICT2199.jpg (505 KB, 1728x1152)

505 KB JPG

I used a polarizing filter here, too bad I didn't notice the camera used the widest available aperture so the edges are not very detailed

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	PENTAX
Camera Model	PENTAX K-7
Camera Software	K-7 Ver 1.13
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	79 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2024:05:01 21:30:06
Exposure Time	1/90 sec
F-Number	f/4.5
Exposure Program	Creative
ISO Speed Rating	140
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	53.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1728
Image Height	1152
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Close View

File: file.png (828 KB, 1148x590)

828 KB PNG

>>4309265
Xtrans has lower color resolution than bayer for the same reason bayer has lower color resolution than foveon. Because photographers universally test gear on black and white charts, they never noticed this. Fuji really loses color accuracy and detail on objects with a lot of red or blue and false color artifacts are common before additional post-prcoessing if you don't use the corpsifying SOOC jpeg engine and opt for FOSS software that gives you unnecessary amounts of control (or, unnecessary for normal cameras).

It was never that xtrans prevented moire, it moves it to a different frequency and below that it just gets lost.

To be a fujifag, and expect a photo to look detailed above IG resolutions, is to spend way too much time in an editor. I think they're also where the anti-pixel-peeping culture comes from because there's no logical reason to be against enjoying a larger photo. Not everything is about "the vibe".

File: file.png (877 KB, 1158x604)

877 KB PNG

>>4309299
Interesting line artifacts

There's probably a reason unrelated to processing that kept xtrans off GFX cameras. GFX cameras are big, they could shove two flagship smartphones and a huge battery in there.

>>4309265
>Curious. There must be something wrong with fuji.
There's something wrong with their users too, you can spot the fuji stan and the photographs molested by Xtrans 2 seconds after the sighting of either

>>4309176
You’re old *and* a nophoto?

>>4309316
we're all hasphotos here but this is a fuji gear thread, made by an angry fuji user, and we all know how foolish it is to post photos for angry fuji users unless you enjoy negative attention

How much better is a full frame camera than an APS-C

>>4309093
1.5x better

>>4308806
Nikon made a nifty fifty sized 40mm f2
Sony made "film sized" 24, 35, 40, and 50s (but slower, f2.5-f2.8)
Sigma made a "film sized" 90mm f2.8

Small lenses are possible, but unwanted because most customers are pros or larpers that want f1.2 for the brides bokeh fetish

How reliable are these fucking things? I really, really want one but I don't want to spend 300 bucks only to have it die after a couple of rolls

>>4309168
Super reliable, because simple design, it just werx. Specially those that are obvious barely used. Ill sell you mine for $350, zero scratches, no dirt, immaculate glass, snappy buttons, bet has 5 rolls history MAX.

>>4309178
no you're gonna scam me otherwise I would

>>4309172
>My point is that most cameras from the 00s were kinda sexless
Pentax has carried that feature over into the present day

>>4309227

Well late Gen Z and then Gen Alpha (generation following zoomers).

Stuff like they can't type on a keyboard, they don't know what local files on a computer are, they don't know what folders on a computer are, they don't know how to save files on a computer, they can't do proper Google searches with specific keywords, can't connect to Wi-fi etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Professors/comments/1av6d6r/gen_z_are_computer_illiterate/


https://www.reddit.com/r/TeachingUK/comments/ulxosl/is_computer_literacy_at_an_all_time_low/

https://www.theverge.com/22684730/students-file-folder-directory-structure-education-gen-z

>>4309172
>le real tools for real pros
It was because these pieces of shit were either glued to a tripod or glued to a 24-70 and never used for real photography, just clothing ads and weddings. Hence leica stayed in business and fuji managed to capture a market selling otherwise defective garbage.

>>4309266
the early dslr era was bad enough for cameras like the fm3a to sell to a significant number of people

and it continues! look at canon and nikon - canon is still the worst (at least nikon is slightly less blobby now and has uh, 3 small lenses)

Age has nothing to do with it, that's just the standard selling-shit-to-strangers-in-person experience.

>>4309119
>Seems strange that nobody has bothered making these ultra compact mirror lenses in the modern age up until NISI's recent announcement.
because they're all objectively terrible, and a 70-300 will beat them, and be desired by far more people

>>4309142
These things cost $1000+ so i wouldn't say they are undesirable. The main point is having long reach in a small package.. Regular telephotos from the era usually suck ass and has to be stopped down to f11 to not have an image that is 50% green and purple anyways.

You have 250mm in a lens that is no more than 6cm long, looks like a regular lens. The stealthy nature of it is also something to consider. Just think of how you could put it to use in streetfaggotry for instance where having a large lens attracts attention.

>>4309149
Mirror lenses are the opposite of stealthy since you have a big bright fucking mirror attached to the front of your camera. They are objectively dogshit lenses and there’s a reason they’ve basically disappeared from any manufacturer’s line up. They’re soft, shitty lenses with horrible bokeh.

File: Canon_EF_70-300mm_DO_IS.jpg (74 KB, 600x600)

74 KB JPG

>>4309119
>Seems strange that nobody has bothered making these ultra compact mirror lenses in the modern age
Because better things exist.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2016-05-08T17:50:16+02:00
Flash	No Flash Function
Image Width	600
Image Height	600

>>4307344
>they're lucky if they have a pot a piss in
At least they have a street to shit on.

>>4308661
ogei, tard :DDD

>>4307416
>I'm too autistic to negotiate
What does this even mean?

>>4308665
Means i pay whatever the seller wants. I look for underpriced items.

Sold 3 digishitters to zoomer girls this week. Made a whooping $250.

File: 30897d9920e6df64249dbd148(...).jpg (893 KB, 2048x1365)

893 KB JPG

old but good

>>4307829
fucking sherlock ova here

File: 1714237114296.png (397 KB, 1080x719)

397 KB PNG

what is this

please let this thread be bait. these shots are horrible

>>4308813
Instagram “photography” scene would make your head explode if you think this sample is bad lmao.

>>4308848
>open insta to dump some recent pics
>loads of "sponsored" (i.e. people paid for it) photography profiles pop up in my feed that are some of the lamest boring bullshit to ever grace my eyeballs
Pain

>>4308716
Nobody in cinema cares about FF because video frames are seen for ~1/30s from a consistent distance or limited to a consumer display, and photos can be admired up close at arbitrary sizes and printing methods ala paintings

You can even shoot 16mm film (worse than micro four thirds) and show it in theatres without people noticing because the successive frames allow the human brain to see through the noise

>>4308996
>The full frame camera experience:
>Stills: ISO 800 already? Bust out the AI NR. Uh oh, I can see 1/1000th of a cm of motion blur, shit, it's so obvious, i cant show this without a fucking rope 2 meters in front of it so people cant notice
>Video: *sets to DX mode, auto ISO 100-25600* footage looks great. damn.

>The crop sensor camera experience:
>Stills: *furious, literally angry coping*
>Video: *auto ISO 100-25,600* footage looks great. damn.

>The crop medium format and up experience:
>Stills: not today, i am broke
>Video: first, how much are you paying me

File: .jpg (524 KB, 2100x2100)

524 KB JPG

>>4308996
>Nobody in cinema cares about FF
lmao

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2100
Image Height	2100

>>4308998
>ISO 25600 on video
you're talking out of your ass, unless that camera is recording in any kind of lossless or I-frame only lossy video, the DCT quantization during compression will eat away every detail possible and leave only raped macroblocks. ISO 1600 is already enough to start getting blocking with a camera recording in H.264 at a substantial 80Mbps. This is over twice the bitrate of a normal Blu-Ray, or about the same as an UHD BD

Can't you just buy a ZV-E10 and put a PC closed loop water cooler on it and achieve the same shit?

>>4308160
Apparently he has an extensive collection of firearms.

>>4308169
you have to live deep in a suburban shithole like he does

>>4308169
Go to small town thrift stores in the midwest and semi-rural areas. They still believe digishits are worth $5. Then start a youtube channel to drive up prices after you've accumulated at least 50 of them so you can sell them for $100 each.

Boom, now you have a nikon Z8 and an S lense

>>4308160
I bought one of the "top-end" mavica floppy disk camera after watching his video about the mavica. Thankfully i found in on thriftstore for around 30 bucks or so.

It's one of the reason why I'm into "older" digital camera rn though I'm specifically more into mid to late 2000s camera phones like SE K800 or Nokia N95. My first camera phone is an iphone 3g so it's interesting to use what is pretty much superior camera that came years before

>>4308224
I hate his new obsession with garbo quickstart PCs, buy more obsolete broadcast equipment!

>>4308914
Not him, but yes.

>>4308923
Based. I was thinking of using some/all of my 65mm 250D to take pics of my dog as well!!!

>>4308858
>that should be enough, right anon?
It is, but it's still 8 hours too much of monotony.

>>4308967
Farm. Some days are long, some days are short.

>>4307062
New bread
>>4309008
>>4309008

File: NITRO.png (482 KB, 834x958)

482 KB PNG

>>4307062
How do I know what kind of film camera will shoot the sprocket holes other than the sprocket rocket?

>>4308718
Thanks

>>4308694
Ok I'll play around with it some more. Doesn't seem like with this model it will vary much but I'll just do the zoom/distance trick for now.

>>4308738
The P1000 focal length vs f-stop table can be found here: https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-p1000/nikon-p1000A4.HTM

If you want the bokeh equivalent of a full frame 50mm 1.4, you will need to zoom in to 1116mm. Not sure what the mimimum focusing distances but you pretty much have to be a block away. Also for more bokeh, try to keep the subject as far from the background as possible. There are bokeh simulators you can play with.

If you are photographing really small subjects, bokeh is pretty easy but you need to look out for minimum focus distance. Usually you get highest magnification at the widest angle and telephoto closest focus distance is pretty long. From a forum post at dpreview: 3000mm= 21'8", 2400mm=19'5", 1500mm=12'11", 1000mm=6'1" and 500mm=5'.

All in all it looks like the P1000 would have some good close up photography potential.

Artistic bokeh portraits is just not what a superzoom bridge camera like the P1000 is for. This is a camera for taking adequate pics of birds, animals, planespotting, trainspotting, creepshots, sports, creepshots.. just about anything but how you're using it.

Spend $500. Get a D600 ($400) and a 50mm prime lens ($100). More bokeh than your ass can handle.

File: frog1.jpg (555 KB, 1600x1200)

555 KB JPG

>>4308765
I got it because it was highly recommended for birdwatching, and for that it really is amazing. I can get an ID off a sparrow at 250 feet. It's like a handheld spotting scope that can do pics/video too. Really love it for that, I was just curious about other stuff since I was trying to photograph my feeder and one thing lead to another and I was on a baking page showing pics of cupcakes with blurry backgrounds and got curious how to do it too.

>>4308760
>All in all it looks like the P1000 would have some good close up photography potential.
Not sure how close you mean but I got this tiny tree frog last fall with it.

>>4308781
nice frog

File: DSCF8777.jpg (433 KB, 2048x1365)

433 KB JPG

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365

File: DSCF8571.jpg (895 KB, 2048x1365)

895 KB JPG

>>4304671

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365

File: DSCF8578 1.jpg (664 KB, 2048x1365)

664 KB JPG

>>4304672

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Capture One 22 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Width	2048
Image Height	1365

>>4288586
Recognised it as norway instantly, really is something about them street lights

>>4286913
Love the Pleiades, very nice

>>4308188
yeah that was a cool video, I thought I bookmarked it but I guess not. very impressive how thorough those nips were, polishing the lenses and everything.
In my family we always pulled the cameras apart to fish the film out and sent it to a lab like normal film because the processing was cheaper that way for some reason. So we sent a lot of those cameras straight to the landfill.

OP here thanks for the info. I’m going to shelve this one. That $20 can be better spent on more 35 or 120 film instead that actually looks good

>>4308282
Save it for when your dumb zoomer girlfriend wants "hella retro photos like scott pilgrim you know bro like we're gonna be playstation one today"

File: image_123650291.jpg (635 KB, 2372x1683)

635 KB JPG

Old here. I think this is one of the pics I took with the camera like OP. It and the others that I suspect of being from that camera are prints 3.5 x 4.375 inches in size.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2372
Image Height	1683

>>4308045
I mean...if you want to play with it just because, go ahead. But 110 and Kodak Disc were dog shit. They looked bad at 3x5.