>buy a full meme frame >lower fps shooting >no 1.5x

File: IMG_0288.jpg (47KB, 370x257px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 370x257px

Muh meme frame. Meme frame muhfucka.

/p/ talks about meme frame like niggers talk about their dicks. Hurrr hurr muh BBC camera. Fucking cucks

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	370
Image Height	257
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3074254
>being this pathetic

>>3074254
have you tried using it?

Really my dude?
>>3074011

>>3074254
>buy full frame camera
>36 megapixels
>great dynamic range
>no crop sensor camera can match it for DR or resolution
>much better weather sealing and build quality
>larger, brighter viewfinder
>better low light sensitivity of at least one stop compared to same-gen crop cameras
>feels good man

File: 1493611814352.gif (2MB, 273x253px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 273x253px

>>3074254
>buy a full meme frame
>enjoy shooting photos

>>3074299

D810 is nice, huh?

>>3074312
Lol you guessed right. But yeah, at least when it came out, there was pretty much nothing else like it, the A7R2 didn't exist and even today there is no 30+ MP crop camera. So if you want a high res D-SLR you pretty much have to go full frame. inb4 someone brings up medium format, it's simply not viable for everyone, just like FF isn't viable for everyone (people who don't need higher res or are on a budget etc.)

File: 18199231_1467240006652664_8246950180623038611_n.jpg (25KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 480x720px

>>3074299
>buy full meme camera
>only 36 megapickles, less than a apsc or apsh sigma sd quattro
>mediocre dynamic range
>out resolved by a sigma sd quattro h in dr, resolution, and color accuracy
>worse weather sealing than a pentax k3
>viewfinder is the same as a pentax midrange camera
>blame lower ISO performance than d500 on "muh sensor generations"
>try to justify your existence by shitposting on /p/

did you shoot pic related?

>>3074393
>inb4 someone brings up medium format
Funny you say that, because I own a 645Z, which brings all that D810 greatness up a notch.
But you are right, the bigger you go, the more you have to work within certain limitations, which of course shouldn't be an issue if you're not an idiot and bought the camera with a specific purpose in mind.
Even so, I appreciate that it's more like a "normal" camera than MF has ever been in years past with those awkward digital backs.

>>3074403
>SD quattro
>greater resolution
Got me there, I forgot about this one entirely. But to be clear, I was looking at D-SLR systems with versatility on both the body and the line of lenses itself. The sigma does indeed take fantastic photographs with high resolution and detail, but it's been proven unusable in virtually every situation not involving a completely static subject. It also has nowhere near the lens lineup of Canon, Nikon or even Pentax, so it's really hard to consider it as a primary camera and not just a toy/niche use one.

>color accuracy
The sigma is no better than any other camera when it comes to nailing white balance, though I guess you're referring to its unique sensor and how it renders colors.

>mediocre dynamic range
No, it's not mediocre, stop shitposting. Also,
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sigma-dp2-quattro/sigma-dp2-quattroA5.HTM#
>The Sigma dp2 Quattro's RAW file produced the same total dynamic range as the JPEG (12.8 f-stops) however the score at the Low quality level increased 1.36 f-stops from 9.34 to 10.7, and the High quality level score increased about 1.6 f-stops from 4.67 to 6.25.
>While better than the in-camera JPEG results, these are still below average scores when compared to state-of-the-art Bayer-filtered APS-C or Four Thirds sensors.

>pentax k3
You know that camera also "only" has 36 megapixels, same sensor, with better sealing. Nikon actually optimized the sensor a bit better than Pentax did, but the difference is negligible. What's not negligible about Pentax is it's lack of lenses and support.

>blame ISO performance
Nobody blamed anything. Just saying that FF always has an advantage in higher ISO, so if you're buying a camera today, a current FF camera will always perform better at higher ISO's than crop sensored ones. Hell, even today, cameras like that D500 (which wasn't out when the D810 launched and was not an option) either barely edge out older FF or just come close to matching it.

>>3074404
Honestly I debated buying a Mamiya MF camera since I already had decent knowledge of the darkroom and printing. I decided not to, of course. It wasn't a quality thing, so much as it was a convenience thing. At this point, MF film is not that much better or even at all better than modern high res digital stuff, but the process itself is of course where the allure is.

>>3074312
a7r

>>3074425
>A7R
>>much better weather sealing and build quality
wew

>buy full frame meme camera
>16 megapixels
>fucking astronomical dynamic range
>no crop sensor camera can match it for DR or resolution
>most FF sensor cameras can't match it for DR or resolution
>flagship FF sensor makes ISO 6400 look like 800 on my D7000
>weighs as much as a cannon rabble
>larger, brighter viewfinder
>better low light sensitivity
>eyes bleed every time I shoot with it from razor sharp IQ
>feels good man

>buy full frame meme camera
>2009 camera
>12 memepixels
>1.5x crop mode
>feels comfy
>5 to 8 memes per second
>DR is just better than some of the most recent cameras
>ISO is pretty decent and clean
>I'm loving it

>>3074453
D700?

>>3074425
Murder urself my man

>>3074299
shitthatdidnthappen.txt

>buy 4x5 camera in 2004
>haven't thought about gear since then

:^)

>>3074254
>lower fps
For all that action sports photography you do?
>no 1.5 multiplier
Doesn't exist in the first place, that new 20.1mp sensor in high end crop bodies? That's just the centre from sonys 42mp sensor, without the bsi.
>bigger lenses
You can still use crop lenses, as explained above, it makes no difference.
>worse is
You got any citation for that? Yeah it's worse than olympus' but who wants m43, it dead.
>low light is barely better
It's over a stop better snr, a stop may just not be relevant to you.
>I don't even want uwa
Nice to have the choice though eh.
>bokeh bonus
It's more about the quality than the quantity.
>only marginally higher res
Res is irrelevant, unless you're printing a0 or larger 12mp is plenty.
>could have got crop babby instead

What and have none of the above, plus;
A much smaller viewfinder
A need for lenses that resolve 140% more detail than their ff equivalents
Less versatility
Less commercial appeal (gear & shots)

>>3074442
>>3074453
ITT: triptards that can't take a single good photo to save their lives, talk about their inferior digishit

File: 2218f6de782d91d137894a4bf8045f37.jpg (72KB, 620x465px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 620x465px

People need to stop worrying about cameras being better or worse than each other and get back to fucking photography before it was a dick measurement competition of equipment specs.

>>3075384
>people shouldn't care about the advantages or disadvantages with each piece of gear

I wish I could be as un-caring about gear as some people, but I can't. I like my sharpness and detail. I like my dynamic range. I'm too spoiled to go back now.

File: UHD-DSC05164.jpg (2MB, 3240x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3240x2160px

>>3074442
Too bad your camera is owned by a monkey.

>eyes bleed every time I shoot with it from razor sharp IQ
I don't recall you having a more-than-decent lens. Nor having any photographing skills than might require "razor sharp IQ".

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	282 dpi
Vertical Resolution	282 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 5942522803.jpg (141KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1200x800px

>>3075394
Are you doing photography or are you trying to just make a technically perfect picture? It's not that you can't strive for both at the same time but you'll be searching and regretting every decision forever because nothing will ever be perfect enough.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-9
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
ISO Speed Rating	1250
Exposure Bias	1 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	173.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto

>>3074442
yeah, but your pictures are shit so who cares?

File: 17458347_445023962504955_2522009461381899871_n.jpg (57KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 960x540px

>>3075395

u w0t m80

>>3075444
A 35/2D isn't "more than decent". It wasn't even that when it was new because the 35/2 AIS was better.

>>3075415
>are you doing photography
>or are you just trying to make a technically perfect picture

Both, I'm doing both. I can ignore softness or grain here and there, and I haven't bought a new camera or lens in a few years. But when I did buy my last camera, I made sure it was one I was perfectly happy with that I could see myself using for years and years, rather than just cheaping out. If I cheaped out I'd always wish I had bought the thing I really wanted, within reason (I didn't go crazy and buy MFD or something)

>>3074407
>Pentax
>it's lack of lenses
that's a very old meme

File: 13882353_322364518104234_1654232198673040621_n.jpg (86KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 960x540px

>>3075456

wrong pic whoops

File: 17522925_446501365690548_2054772814548149414_n.jpg (84KB, 533x960px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 533x960px

>>3075639

also have a Tokina 11-16 2.8 that apparently covers FF from 16 to 14.5mm and at 16 can mount one filter, and that thing is pretty god damn sharp

>>3074254
>No 1.5x multiplier on focal length

You're saying that like it's a bad thing.
If I go full frame it's because I want my 50 to be a 50 and my 200 to be a 200. If I absolutely need a focal multiplier I get a small four thirds for that next to my FF for my serious shots.

If a smaller sensor does the job for you then please feel free to sell your current gear and buy something with a crop sensor. There's loads of inexpensive options for you to check out and selling your FF should give you enough money to make the switch.

>>3075849
>If I absolutely need a focal multiplier I get a small four thirds for that next to my FF for my serious shots.

yeah because two diff lens mounts is really going to spice things up

>>3075999
Alternatively.

>If a smaller sensor does the job for you then please feel free to sell your current gear and buy something with a crop sensor.

As I had already said.

>>3076007
I'm poor and own only aps-c pentax, so your post wasn't meant for me anyway