Is it really worth the price? [EXIF data available. Click here

>>3114305

>>3115811
>Is it really worth the price?
Depends how much you want it

>>3115811
Not really.
Who the hell needs 50 mpx and 24 bit

>>3115811
If you can't take decent pictures with an entry level camera, what makes you think spending 4 grand is going to change that?

>canon
Nooope

>>3115811
It excels for large prints which require very fine detail. Think 24x36" and larger landscape prints. Or very large advertising posters for display in locations where people can walk up to the ad.

Do you need that? If yes, buy it. If not, don't buy it.

Pro tip: the AA filter on the 5Ds is so weak that there's no real difference between them. It's hard to find extra detail or sharpness in the 5Dsr at 100% in PS. Impossible in print. Save the $200-$300 and get the 5Ds.

>>3115948
>hurr durr i won't use the highest resolution 35mm body because i'm an anti-brand fag

>>3115811
No camera body above the most entry level shit is ever worth the price.

When you buy lenses you make an investment.
When you buy a body you flush money down the toilet.

That said, if you have the money to waste on it it's really nice.

>>3115982
>entry level cameras can shoot 12-14 fps like a D5 or 1DX
>entry level cameras can make 60" landscape prints like the 5Ds or A7RII
>entry level cameras can survive a thunderstorm like pro weather sealed cameras

File: UglyGirl.jpg (33KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x449px

>>3115982
>tfw I invested all my money into glass but didnt buy a body to use them on

>>3115997
>implying 99.999% of people actually need those things

>Is it really worth the price?
If you need that resolution sure. You'll need higher end lenses to get everything out of that sensor though. I own one. You have any particular questions?

>>3115997
>>entry level cameras can make 60" landscape prints

yes, if you panorama stitch

>entry level cameras can survive a thunderstorm like pro weather sealed cameras
yes, Pentax

you got me on the third one, but all three of these are shit that most average users don't care about and shit that spergs who post 1000px wide pix of their cats only on a chinese anal bead making imageboard shouldn't care about yet they do

>>3116087
>t. No Fun Allowed

>>3115997
>entry level cameras can survive a thunderstorm like pro weather sealed cameras
This is actually true for a Pentax with kit lens.

>>3116087
Entry level cameras can (mostly) shoot 24 fps or at least 30, even 60 fps in 1080p.

>>3116064
Hey Naturo, I think you're the only one here that actually has one, correct?
And you actually use it for dank macro too.
I'm thinking of picking one up with my tax return cashola for film scanning.
My questions seems stupid, but would really make my workflow a lot easier.
How much can you set up the camera's JPG output? Can you make it output "raw" jpegs?
As in with all sharpening and NR gone?
Also, does it do on the fly lens corrections to jpeg outputs if you want?
The reason is because a) I think processing any amount of 50mp raws would brick my computer in no time, b) my raw edits before conversion are usually just that simple (ie turn everything off, apply WB and flat tone curve, desat for b&w), c) the non-L 100mm Macro has a teensy amount of lateral CA that I could see on my 550D, but is otherwise pretty fucking great, and I would prefer to be able to use that than have to adapt my FD 50mm Macro.

>>3116187
>I'm thinking of picking one up with my tax return cashola for film scanning.
For that money you could just buy an actual film scanner. You would get better results with a good scanner with a cleaner workflow. In terms of what you're describing yeah sure you could do it. The 5Ds has robust jpg controls which include in camera profiled lens distortion and aberration correction. That said it would still be stupid. Why 'scan' your film with a 50 mp camera just to toss away so much color data by converting it down to 8bit for jpg? If you have any intention of printing them you would still want to shoot in raw so you can print at 16bit.

>As in with all sharpening and NR gone?
You can manually control all the settings that are set by shooting in different modes. If that means it removes all sharpening and NR I have no idea. You can turn it off sure but camera makers have a habit of still doing some when you're not looking.

>a) I think processing any amount of 50mp raws would brick my computer in no time.
Storage is more of an issue desu. As long you have a newer computer it shouldn't be that much of issue. I can toss you a raw if you want to see if your computer is sluggish while editing one.

>b) my raw edits before conversion are usually just that simple (ie turn everything off, apply WB and flat tone curve, desat for b&w)
again dropping from 16 it 8 bits is pretty serious in terms of image quality when printing

>c) the non-L 100mm Macro has a teensy amount of lateral CA that I could see on my 550D, but is otherwise pretty fucking great, and I would prefer to be able to use that than have to adapt my FD 50mm Macro.
I loved the shit out of that lens before stepping up to the L version.

File: BinnaburraElanReala00001.jpg (428KB, 1080x848px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 1080x848px

>>3116296
I'm the DSLR scancuck, I've been on the koolaid so long that I could never be happy with the trash a """real""" scanner spits out.
50mp and never having to touch another sony "camera" or raw file again would be worth the 3 grand to me.
Storage isn't that big a deal, I literally only shoot film, so this year's scanning is currently sitting at 75GB. Admittedly, I did start a new job that's mostly killed my shooting for the last 3 months, but I'm not going to be going out filling cards on the regular like a digipleb. Even a big weekend shooting would result in absolute max 150 exposures.

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

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7
Camera Software	GIMP 2.8.14
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	0 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:24 10:41:18
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/0.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	-8.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Other
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	0.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1080
Image Height	848
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3116311
>never having to touch another raw file again

how is correcting a film shot any different than adjusting a raw file to have the colors you want?

>>3116127
he wasn't talking about video, dumbass

>>3116316
I meant touching a sony raw specifically. They're trash.

>>3116311
I dunno. For the handful of times I've goofed around with film scanning was clearly better. That said I was using a $26K scanner but only had a vague idea of what I was doing with it. If you literally only shoot film just buy a fucking scanner.

I just bought 16 terabyte storage system just for photographer. I have it configured raid 1 though so it's really only going to able store 8 terabytes.

>>3116431
>If you literally only shoot film just buy a fucking scanner.
The problem is there aren't any good choices left. So you have to take a chance on something used.

>>3115811
I just used one today for work.

My answer, if it's your money, is no. But I will make a case for my job to get me one.

>>3115893
tony northrub.

>>3115811
"LOOK PLEBS, IT HAS MORE MEGAPIXELS"
Canon's still stuck here

>>3115811
Yea, sure. But don't expect this place to like anything above $500 or a film camera.

Most people here can't seem to afford good gear, and use all sorts of insane rationalization why it's better to shoot with cheap used old gear anyhow.

>>3116350
What the fuck are you even talking about? Sony RAW files are nice.

>>3115898

this^. Also, please use gear thread next time.

>>3116472
>Most people here can't seem to afford good gear
most people in the majority of the world cannot afford "good" gear and the label "poorfag" is thrown around quicker here than "kys" in a c&c thread

>>3115893
anyone who wants to print really small
sort of

I am getting more and more work for LF film work and super high res stitched photos from artists who do public art for the city.
The city is not talking to the designers and the designers are not talking to the photographers who do not talk to the printers and so on. so the artists who hire people like me are asked for X x Y dimension image at 300dpi regardless8 feet by 12 feet.

everyone seems more than happy to charge the city exponentially more for dealing with a 2-400mp image

>>3116350
Please elaborate on how a sony raw is any different to any other raw, I'm game for a laugh.

>>3116498
Anyone that doesn't live in a 3rd world country should have no issue saving ~$2k for a hobby. I manage to have decent lenses and full frame bodies on ~$20k a year.

Poorfag is used as an insult to your lack of commitment, not financial status.

>>3116562
And yet your pictures suck.
Really makes you think.

>>3116562
A Sony raw is terminally affected by a Sony CFA. THERE IS FIXING THEM.

>>3116431
>If you literally only shoot film just buy a fucking scanner
M8, you don't understand. I'm doing batches of 10 rolls at a time, not scanning my 10 sheets of 4x5 from the last month.
I can scan, cut and sleeve the 10 rolls in an hour with my DSLR setup, and the IQ trounces any commercially available setup I've seen.
And then you've got the price of things like imacons, which is really just laughable.
My next steps will be to design and have made some CNC'd plates that will improve film handling and further remove opportunities for dust and light ingress and make stitching a bit faster and more repeatable...

>>3116572
So what's a better alternative to bayer filter for a cmos sensor?

Protip: it isn't xtrans.

>>3116566
Fabulous rebuttal.

>>3116600
No filter and shoot bw

>>3116600
full rgb and none of those quarter pixel shit.

>>3116658
So you're saying that the difference between foveon and bayer is worth the trade off of anything over iso 400 looking like ass shit and your raws being three times the size?

Lol.

>>3116600
>So what's a better alternative to bayer filter for a cmos sensor?
Sony CFA is not "all Bayer filters". Sony color sucks OOC. When it comes to OOC color: Canon > Nikon > Sony.

>>3116600
>xtrans
Not my point. The CFAs for the A7 and a7r (both generations) are tuned in a weird way that causes the yellow/green shifts people complain about. The a7s doesn't do this, possibly more by luck than judgement.

>>3116745
>spend hundreds of dollars on gear
>shooting jpeg
this is you

>>3116472
>>3116562
Just a whole bunch of pattern banding, esp in the red channel.
Pretty much exactly the same issue that people have been saying about the a9, however it runs in the opposite direction, across the frame.
Also posterisation in the highlights, also just ugly colours, brittle oversaturated reds, and shadows that are magenta slurry.

>>3116826
>he spends hours in lightroom to make his incorrectly exposed raws look like a correct jpeg

Oh, I am laffin

>>3116745
>When it comes to OOC color: Canon > Nikon > Sony.

You can program any to look like any other.
Or just dial up the saturation if you like "Canon colors".

>>3116693
(you) said what's a better filter alternative. not the downside.

>>3116931
don't you have a family to feed Ken? go back to shilling on your own website instead of shit posting on aboard about Chinese cartoon porn

>>3116932
See: >>3116927

>>3115969
Why do you pay more for not having an AA filter anyway?

>>3118737
Because the market perception is that it's "better" and therefore people will pay more. I doubt there's any difference in manufacturing costs for Canon.

In some other comparisons of AA/no AA there is a significant difference. But the 5Ds AA filter is weak to begin with. Honestly I hope Canon keeps AA filters but sets them all at the same "strength" as the 5Ds filter. It's perfect. Weak AA > No AA > Strong AA.

>>3116927
I see no such things in the images I saw.

Do you have examples or is this just some hearsay bullshit from the internet?