>>4480592

There would be literally zero demand, something else has to go backwards for megapixels to go to 100.
I would love to see a survey response of every person who brought a camera over 40mp and what amount ended up regretting it.

>>4480599 #
Reminds me of 8k with the RED Weapon. To literally edit on a RED camera, takes a computer NASA would use.

>>4480592
I suspect it will be Sony for the a7R line
>>4480599
>something else has to go backwards
Processing speed that can only be replaced, market-wise, by bit depth

>>4480599
>I would love to see a survey response of every person who brought a camera over 40mp and what amount ended up regretting it.
I don't regret it, but it made me stop chasing the mp high
24mp is perfect for most everything
40-50mp is fine enough for when I want more

>>4480610
>I suspect it will be Sony for the a7R line
OP said affordable, not overpriced. Sony will probably try and charge $7k+ for it.

>>4480613

Same 36mp d800 made me realise how perfect my 24mp d700 is

>>4480599
>I would love to see a survey response of every person who brought a camera over 40mp and what amount ended up regretting it.

I suspect the vast majority of people buying those camera would say they were happy they did. You don't generally see people throwing around a few grand if they don't have the skill or hardware to use the camera.

It makes me laugh when people say "That will never happen. People don't need it. The hardware cant handle it. etc."

I'm old enough to remember people saying the exact same shit about 10mp cameras when they came out in 2002-2003. I used to sell them for a living. We were told that this is the most anyone will ever need. Now FF standard is around 45mp. As basic computer specs continue to improve, camera spec expectations will go up too. There's a lot more today pushing progress. You've got Hasselblad and Fuji pushing out 100mp+ cameras, you've got camera phone specs improving, amateur film makers are using digital cameras more and more. None of these were considerations in the early 2000s. Progress was glacial by comparison.
Cameras will go over 100mp. We just have to wait for that baseline PC spec to shift up a level.

>>4480619
>You don't generally see people throwing around a few grand if they don't have the skill or hardware to use the camera.
Counterpoint: Most people on this board with gear that expensive.

>>4480630
counter counter point: Do you hear them complaining that they don't like it.

>>4480624
Its boomers that think 100MP is unfathomable. Im surprised it hasnt happened already.

>>4480614
ok buddy you make your own affordable 100mp+ sensor camera

>>4480634
Not my problem

File: 1000003639.jpg (19.2 KB)

19.2 KB JPG

>>4480592
>moggs every camera discussed in this thread
Nothin' personal kiddos.

>>4480660
Its so light in the pocket.

Another snapshitter cares more about grams and millimeters than image quality. Sad, but totally on brand for /p/ gearfags.

the human eye can't see more than 3mp anyway

>>4480614
Then OP will be waiting a very long time because nikon is essentially a subsidiary of sony. They resell sony's old camera guts in a new body, turn up the saturation, and call it a different camera. Every time.

They bought RED and you know what sensor they used for their cinema camera? A modified a7iii sensor, again.
A7IIIs on the market:
Sony a7iii
Sony a7c
Nikon Z6
Nikon Z6II
Nikon Z5
Nikon Z5II
Nikon ZF
Nikon ZR
Panasonic S9
Panasonic S5
Panasonic S5II/X
These are all the sony a7iii. All of them. Same sony sensor. All of them have a minor edit made to the same shitty sony color science and at the most, a slightly modified AA filter or enhanced readout circuitry (sony still designs and manufactures the modification). Only fuji, canon, hassy, and p1 have their own color rendition. A7III, S5II, and Z6II raws can easily land on the same result!

Nikon also has tamron (which is majority owned by sony) manufacture a lot of their lenses (including rebrands). And Z mount's non-compete clause spills over to E mount and gives sony first party lenses an edge as well. Curious that nikon would have a policy that benefits sony's sales and makes Z mount less appealing.

>>4480660
Now this guy has a point. Digital cameras can only get so good before returns diminish sharply. A 100mp digital camera would only have about 75 "real" megapixels. Bayer is always 1.5x less resolution than mono unless shooting a mono target, then it's close but still has aliasing. Meanwhile measly 645 can be comfortably scanned beyond 100 real megapixels if you don't diffract your shit up at f11+ or lose detail to fucked up glass or mirror slap/hand shake.

ironically, using a digital camera, but dirt cheap m43 or pentax pixel shift+stitching does the job and no digital camera can do what film does in a single shot, let alone produce an unfakeable physical original that is compatible with real (darkroom) printing.

>>4480592
Making 100MP capable lenses is never going to get cheaper.

>>4480724
>100mp wide open in the corners at 300% zoom capable*
Double gauss lenses were fine for wall prints at f5.6, f8… retard.

Wide open corner IQ is for faggots. FAGGOTS.

>>4480727
>Seething gearfag makes shit up to get angry at.

Kek

>>4480730
The average lens has ballooned in size, weight, and cost because seething gearfags did in fact make up shit to be angry at

Coma and spherical aberration in the corners at f1.4 has never affected a photo. Ever. It is meaningless wank. It is no coincidence that significant photography simply stopped happening with the invention of the canon L, sigma ART, and nikon G lenses. photographers stopped taking photos and started shopping around for special gear that might be better for taking specific photos they havent taken and would probably be boring as fuck. Photographers today are so fucking stupid they sit in a chair being neurotic about "equivalence adjusted for IBIS" when the past century was shot on ISO 50 slide film at f8 and the results looked better than their equivalence DR chart corner pixel peeping faggotry.

>>4480737
And they get glorified phone cameras as a result with actual phone cameras being "peak" form for a camera.

>>4480746
It’s not even close to a phone camera unless you’re an even worse type of gearfag (hipster faggot). It’s just a pointless exercise in robbing people of their money, comfort, and the option to NOT have bad looking supersharp+shitty bokeh f1.2 snapshits.

>>4480765
The desired form and functionality that gearfags argue endlessly over is essentially what a phone camera already is. Actual good image quality is of no concern to the gearfag.

For 100mp to be practical for full frame they need to find some way to get a faster readout without a massive drop in dynamic range.

>>4480772
What if sony used a quantum computer so their images could be green and not green at the same time?

>>4480774
That would be a game changer.

File: 1000003649.jpg (39.1 KB)

39.1 KB JPG

>>4480737
True and again medium format lenses mogs absolutely everything new. They reach mongoloid levels of speed too, most RB lenses are 1.7f FF equivalent. The only thing they don't have is autofocus but it's lame and gay anyway + the focus knob is very easy to master
>>4480666
As if you were gonna fit any modern FF camera in your pocket, buy a bag and eat your vegetables

>>4480717
>the human eye can't see more than 3mp anyway

So I'm guessing your head never moves and you havent any memory with which to enjoy any visible image larger than 3mp?

>>4480870
correct

>>4480592
>affordable
the mainstream doesn't care about mp, they take pics on their phone. there's no reason to offer affordable prices to a niche market for any product

>>4480592
I doubt it.
I think Nikon took a huge hit economically from the AF kerfuffle, and I feel like they are struggling bit now.
And besides, the Z6 is still kept at a (very) conservative 24mp, just like its ancient predecessor the D600 and its contemporary APS-C brother.
Even the D800 from 2012 has 36MP.

>>4480616
Your D700 is a 12MP piece of junk, anon. Are you mixing it up with something else?

>>4480893
Nikon was sony before sony, complete with retarded fanboys recommending plastic junk. Then ask them why not canon… "DR charts and DXO scores" - snoy.

>>4480897
D700 is built very sturdy. That is not at all the issue with it. It's just too dated, so the tech doesn't hold up. 12MP is just not enough.

>>4480926
Most old nikons have 50 dead pixels, grips falling off, and at least one dodgy button or dial while 5dIIs are all still flawless if not macerated by a roll down a rocky cliffside or falling out of a car

Shutter failure is also more common on nikon

>>4480947
Sure, Anon. Sure.

>>4480926
>12MP is just not enough.

The Nikon D2x achieves a record 90lp/mm with just 12mpx, which exceeds the resolve of all other DX cameras that I have tested regardless of their megapixel count!

Stop buying into the megapixel lie.

>>4481318
Whenever someone brings up lp/mm it is assured to be a lie in practical use. Yeah nah a d2x isnt outresolving a 90d.

Remember "but this was scanned on a hasselblad flextight, lp/mm, 6x7 = 45mp!!!!" schizo, despite anons posting tests that showed double, doghairs 800mp 4x5 scan, and huskyfags 70mp 6x6 scan? Lol

>>4481325
>Whenever someone brings up lp/mm it is assured to be a lie in practical use.

If practical use = not shooting complex real world scenes in RAW with the finest prime lenses on a sturdy professional grade tripod in optimal light, then viewing a laboratory grade print with top grade optical aides, then yes.

>Yeah nah a d2x isnt outresolving a 90d.

I have yet to test the 90D.

>>4480592
Most platforms are too restrictive to post one so you're just going to scale it down.

>>4481327
You’re just delusional sorry m8. Clear case of doing something wrong, not knowing what, and thinking you did everything perfectly.

Just another example of how megapixel count fails to guarantee resolution, the 36mpx Nikon D800 achieves 120lp/mm, whereas the D800E achieves 140lp/mm. But the 24mpx Nikon D3x achieves a record setting 160lp/mm.

>>4481329
All of my tests are conducted under strict laboratory grade standards, and other test have confirmed these findings.

>>4481330
How tho?

>>4481330

Sorry. My notes say that the D800E achieved a consistent 130lp/mm.

>>4481334

To begin with, most digital cameras trade resolution for low noise and distortion. This is a largely unavoidable compromise.

Knowing how many resolution-axing design flaws DSLRs have these could very well be real but really accidental results. But they do not represent reality, only an error rate, calibration issues, and a bogus procedure mixed with ken rockwell’s even more bogus definition of a good lens.

>>4481338
You should read his d3x review. It's pretty funny how salty he is about it.

>>4481339

You should take anything Rockwell says with a healthy grain of salt!

>>4481337
Part of the physical sensor design, right?

>>4481341
No. This is handled in the processing stage. The sensor is just an optical antenna.

>>4481342
What this have to do with color stretching mayne?

>>4481346
Be careful. Color stretching is a dark art and you may not like the answers you receive.

>>4480592
>remebriating that consumer cameras are a small part of Nik’s actual company.
Nikon should fucking do it already. They already make more sophisticated sensors than that, they just don’t produce them in quantity & at a cost low enough to build a camera around that isn’t priced like a fucking Leica, so they keep using Sonys boring old sensors. It was like 5 years ago they came up with some extremely fast sensor for processing shitfucktons of video as well, but as long as there are cheaper alternatives that are good enough for the market, all that stuff sits in their industrial technology divisions in devices the size of houses. Youd’ think with buying Red they’d have a use to scale some of that mfg and start ramping up pressure in the sensor market.

>>4481706
Consumer cameras and lenses are the largest part of the company. What sensors are you talking about? RED outsourced its sensor manufacturing so there's no scale there and even if they picked up TowerJazz they could have Sony fab the same sensor for less.

>>4481330
You mean lines per mm? Lp/mm means line pairs per mm not lines per mm

>>4481706
Ho lee fuk son.

https://www.nikon.com/business/industry/electronics/#product-lineUp

so Nikon’s been busy making other shit huh. They make the machines that make processors??? The industrial measurement & inspection section under the litho machines is insane.

>>4481740
>>4481740
Cameras are an even smaller part of Canon, they do even more lithography than Nikon, and they have been making sensors in house forever unlike Nikon. So Canon or even Samsung are more likely candidates.

>>4480592
Canon. They just made the worlds most affordable f/1.2 FF lens. Next will be a 100mp body.

>>4482006
Canon has firmly been in the 24MP corner for years now and I don't see them mixing that up anytime soon. The R6III only has a 32.5MP sensor because it's borrowed from the C50. Most RF consoomer lenses have shit sharpness and contrast outside of the mid-frame @ 24MP and going higher would only exacerbate the lens deficiencies
>inb4 don't buy high res camera and bottom-shelf lenses
Well yeah but that really only excludes like 5 lenses.

>>4482015
Thats like saying Canon will never make a sub $500 f/1.2 lens because theyve never made a sub $500 f/1.2 lens... but they did

>>4482016
Well, no. I'm not saying they can't break the mould; they've made things no-one else has. I'm saying their sensor tech is not directed towards hi res. Look at the R5II. It's a fucking meme for more than one reason. 45MP and it has the SNR and DR of a late 2010s aps-c dslr. The RP was 26MP, the R was 30MP and they realised they weren't there yet. The R6 was 20MP because they knew they needed to backtrack to something their lenses could resolve properly on.

They have settled on 24MP (which is fine imo) and the majority of usecases are 100% fine with this. Their lenses aren't suited for smaller pixel pitches. Sure they could pull a 180 and this new 45mm lens *could* have insane resolving power but I don't see it happening any time soon. Honestly to answer the thread question I reckon Snoy is going to hit 100MP first but I still doubt it'll be good.

>>4482017
Sure Sony will hit 100MP, but its not going to be affordable like OP asked

File: IMG_6263.jpg (140.1 KB)

140.1 KB JPG

There is already 245mp in use

I used to believe the megapixels and full frame dont matter "they are only for photos you want to zoom in" which is every single thing that's worth taking a picture of with a real camera instead of your phone

>>4482021
Shit ergos

>>4482021
IMX811 has 10%(probably more) less light sensitivity than IMX411 due to smaller pixels

>>4482021
P1 makes a 280mp
https://www.phaseone.com/solutions/geospatial-solutions/aircraft-systems/pas-280/
>>4482030
mostly but still for wide angle you get better DR, tonal range ect,
>>4482021
nice troll, its obviously for telescopes

>>4482100
With a shutter it could be a camera but 2/3s of the market is vlogslop tryhards

>>4480599
>something else has to go backwards for megapixels to go to 100
signal to noise ratio

>>4482113
Nope.

FPS, electronic shutter, and video capability.

>>4482115
+mirrorless hybrid AF because on sensor hybrid AF depends on scan speed

with SLRs or ORFs the AF sensor could be separate and have a blazing fast scan and focus quickly with less processing power. this is why ancient DSLRs focus more confidently than half baked mirrorless

>>4482115
only retards want these features
videofags need to rope

>>4482117
Correct

>>4480624
8MP is all I need.

>>4480720
>645 can be comfortably scanned beyond 100 real megapixels if you don't diffract your shit up at f11+ or lose detail to fucked up glass or mirror slap/hand shake

this is utter bullshit, maybe one or two film stocks shot in a testing environment. 99% of 6x7 shooters probably aren't producing images which could even resolve 50mp of detail, nevermind 645 shooters.

https://www.mountainphotography.com/gallery/4x5-film-vs-digital-resolution-comparison/

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

>>4482701
6x7 is clearly 80mp there

sorry you shot everything at f32 and forgot to lock up the mirror. SLRs suck yeah.

>>4482701
Modern MILC scanning setups can easily outresolve drums by stitching pixel shifted shots.

>>4482116
>DSLRs focus more confidently than half baked mirrorless
Quicker, but less reliable and less functional

>>4482703
> 6x7 is clearly 80mp
>645 is 100+mp
Which one is true?

Yes, this guy in his clinical lab tests using extremely fine grain film stocks managed to get crazy resolution out of 6x7. Do you shoot 6x7? Can you provide me with a scan with 50mp of resolved detail? I doubt you can. I doubt anyone in this thread can, because as I said, those numbers are not attained by 99% of medium format shooters.

>>4482782
6x7 is 80mp on an old ass drum

645 exceeds 100mp with modern scanning equipment

>>4480592
>So, which of the big companies is going to be the first to offer an affordable 100mp camera?

if you want 100 mp you are retarded. learn what pixel pitch is.

>>4480592
Theres a bigger chance of the next iphone hitting 100MP than boomer mirrorless cameras

>>4485650
100 mega pixels of ai slop and other assorted computer gimmickery. No thanks, I'll stick with the "boomer" mirrorless, even though mirrorless cameras only came about after the boomers had already started to die off.

>>4480592
Why the question? Wanna fake foveon or smth?

>>4480772
>>4480774
The solution would be to pair it with a 16-bit analog to digital converter

Ah yes, just wait for Nikon to ‘democratize’ it — by selling you a $4k body, a $2k lens, and a firmware update that almost unlocks the feature. Totally affordable, bro

>>4480599
>>4480613
60MP is 24MP with APS-C crop.
You can carry a single tiny 35/1.4 lens and have it act as a ~50/2.1 at a moment's notice. Or 50/1.2 -> 75/1.8. Effectively double your focal range entirely for free. This is powerful.

>Over 100 megapickles will be a thing when the technology catches up!
Yeah, the Moore's law is dead, good luck with that. I bet we'll get the CSI enhance powered by generative AI instead of reinventing the computing or making picometer chips feasible. Not that the bird photographers or perverts taking photos at the beach really would care either way.

just get one of these
https://global.canon/en/news/2025/20250122.html

>>4493050E
You want to pay an insane premium on gear just to be able to crop down to a equivalent 24MP APS-C using a 50mm f/2? Eh, homie this is terrible thinking. With the same logic just crop your 40MP APS-C camera down and you can look like a phone with a worse rendering. Cropping will always be a cope.

I'd rather a 24MP large format digital over a 200MP MF/FF camera.

>>4494744
>Insane premium
100mp shouldnt even cost that much and we should have already had it by now. Camera manufacturers are just being jews because they know their industry is almost up.

>>4494750
>100mp shouldnt even cost that much
are you mentally challenged?

Affordable is relative

>>4480660
It's ugly

>>4480592
I mean you can get a excellent condition fujifilm GFX 100s for like 3200$ used. For 100mp that's pretty affordable.

>>4480602
I edit 8K RAW footage daily with a r9 7900x, 64GB of RAM and a 5070 TI 16GB with atleast 4 nodes of grading in Resolve on Linux. RED has the most balanced RAW aside from lighter codecs like BRAW. Not everyone is broke bro.

>>4494786
/p/ is 3rd world tier poor and think anything over 4 figures is for rich people only

>>4494801
Digital cameras are essentially worthless. Spending 4 figures to shit out 1s and 0s is like lighting money on fire. The real poorfag tell is almost no one shooting hasselblads here and people not recognizing that the primary raisondeetre of a digishitter is scanning film. Even a 5dii can do 120mp+ stitch scans.

>>4494801
Yet they hate m43. Very weird place here.

>>4494809
facts. spending big on digital is like collecting new tissot watches. its spending a lot of money, but on nothing, literally nothing. wealthy people dont bother until real medium format sensors like a phaseone trichromatic back so it at least actually looks better than full frame. the fuji gfx is the tissot watch of digital. i think a tudor would also be apt, maybe for low end fake hasselblads like the x2d
>its medium format but not really
>its mechanical but its not real european horology

>>4494809
I mean I can take 36 pictures that out resolve everything besides large format for free. Film is fun but outside of large format landscape I don't see the point. It's not really for serious people anymore.

>>4494812
I mean a gfx costs basically the same as a full frame camera now. The lenses are pretty close too. I wouldn't suggest it to a normie but if you know what your doing it's basically full frame with like 20% more light and double the resolution. There's a reason why most professionals and magazines are shooting with gfx and most wedding photographers are using a canon or Sony.

>anons think a few grand is a lot of money
wtf it must suck being poor

>>4494813
Lol, 35mm film is at least 100mp as long as your lens, focus and shutter speed are good for 100mp.

>>4494819
Sure it is buddy. I'm sure the vintage 32mm lenses you use really have a 100 mp of resolving power and you definitely make full use of it in real world conditions. Do you exclusively shoot at 1/500th and use a tripod for anything slower?

>>4494801
It's not about the price you fucking retard. Even professionals who make plenty of money doing actual photography are pretty anal about upgrading and have to truly justify every new purchase.
If you have a serious full frame setup, with zoom and primes and accessories, not only is moving to Fuji's MF something expensive (at least $20-30k), but it might even be the case that the ecosystem is insufficient to your current needs.
OTOH, if you're a faggot who shoots snapshits with a 35mm or 50mm, then what even is the point of MF?
MF has some uses, but claiming that complaining about its price is for poorfags just begs the question: what's the color of your GFX100?

>>4494866
That's a lot of seething anon. 4k isn't really that much money and most people don't really need that many lenses unless they collect them like Funko pops.

>>4494965
>most people don't really need that many lenses
oh the irony of using "le muh most people" argument while unironically shilling for MF.
you know what most people don't really need? a camera

>>4494965
Everyone here is poor lmao

>>4494965
Most people use their phones anon.
If I'm going through the effort of using a proper camera I'm going to do more than the bare minimum of kit lens+aps-c.
And since I photo many types of things, I need different lenses for the task at hand.
Unless that is you've got some nice birb shots taken at 50mm because all you really sneed is two lenses max isn't that right?
>>4494975
There's a significant minority of 4chinners that made money on crypto autism. Not to mention you get the odd oldfag that stuck it out in a decent job and now get to piss their company pension into weird hobbies like this.
Idk... I mean I'm $5000 into camera gear, am genuinely mediocre at best, but regret nothing and don't make insane money. Is $5000 really that much making $40000-50000/y?

>>4494981
>Is $5000 really that much making $40000-50000/y?
I make over $200k a year doing a real job and $5000 is indeed a lot of money lol. I can afford much more at a drop of the hat without dipping into emergency funds but I'm not a child so I understand I should put that kind of money into an investment. It's just not worth the ROI as a for funsies camera.
If I'm making 50k a year I would never buy something like that, ever. That's genuinely retarded.

>>4494996
What do you spend your money on for fun? What cameras do you have now instead?

>>4494814
The gfx basically is a full frame camera. A shitty one with crappy autofocus and a slow as balls sync speed.
>0.8 crop factor
>smaller than 6poor5
Less significant than ff-apsc lol
You’re poor if you buy this because yeah, its a tissot
Mall watch camera
The one you know but still not good

>>4494814
most professionals are still using their 5dII or bought a hasselblad

fuji paid leibowitz to pretend to shoot gfx lol

>>4494996
Bro I'm not saying I go out and drop this kind of money without thinking or budgeting. Ofc that's retarded to just throw thousands of dollars away every couple weeks on random shit (hey look, it's my brother).
I mean more like, budgeting isn't hard, and saving for a few months while doing research really is a low bar yet many fail.

>>4495001
>if photography is your only hobby and you have no family not even a gf
Only autistic men spend like this.

cheap couch vintage plexi/8x10 view camwera/solgw ar shit, autism red flag

>>4495001
Your brother sounds like a chad

Of the YOLO cancer patient actively plotting suicide variety
>so after the ostomy your cancer will be…
>im buying a sports car?
>no we’re removing your colon
>porsche it is

>>4494996
What would you consider a reasonable hobby expense amount per year, for someone making $50k?

>>4495008
>truly creative hobbies, ie: music, painting, sculpture, creating functional inventions, darkroom craft, making cinema
$2-5k. have fun with your life!
>non-creative hobbies, ie: making a gaming PC, buying video games, digital cameras, funko pops, guns, knives
$500. save up bitch. you don't need a new ar15 or snoy every year.

File: G6MxpSUXIAA0cL6.jpg (106.5 KB)

106.5 KB JPG

>>4495017
Straight facts.

>>4495017
Oh so you're one of the low IQ posters, gotcha

>>4495017
Based

>>4495020
Seething consoomer. You give off “liberals are just people with critical thinking skills because we learned what to think in college” vibes desu.

>>4495021
What a very high IQ thing to say, you're so smart

>>4495022
Seething lmfao
>no you dont understand… i need the newer digital camera because *zooms in* see this? SEE THIS?
>see what
>you fucking idiot! WATCH THIS! *runs forward while doing af-c+burst shooting* LOOK, FIFTEEN MISSES
>what? idk man lots of good photos were taken on this old nikon here
>YOU FOOL!
Digital gearfaggotry isnt a creative hobby, its just a mix of entitlement and childish wanting

>>4495024
Kek. In the 10mp days this would sound absurd tho. Digital underperformed film. But these days, yeah, after the 5dIII/d750 what do you have to complain about, that isnt solved by an also cheap, r8/z5ii/a7iii or a7c
Yet niggas blow $2k on a fuji on5 that is worse and then are like “oh no, now i need to buy a dedicated high detail stills camera and a dedicated sports camera to match my EEDEESEE! guess i gotta have a RIG! each camera is the best for something else!”

Its consoomerism and it was not normal until recently, and despite reddit and insta socially normalizing it, it’s still not really normal, its still disordered behavior

I blame reddit and reddit alone. Seriously. Because people go there for recommendations, and the users compete for karma by giving the BEST recommendations, the most refined and well thought out minmaxed recommendations, the most perfect recommendations tailored for trump, leading to just one website encouraging gearfaggotry and slowly infecting all the tech mag rags with reddit users

The biggest pro-gearfaggotry poster on /p/ is corgifag, a pot smoking reddit user. Fucking upvote based social media destroyed common sense, singlehandedly.

>>4495025
u mad

>>4480592
in the future, a smart electronics company could create a computational photography system that would use pixel shift + gen ai to draw 100mp of a moving scene perfectly without resorting to hardware solutions. I mean, digital photos are already mostly fake with image processing anyway. Prob sony

>>4495024
Idk, kinda looks like you're the one that's seething

>>4495025
>The biggest pro-gearfaggotry poster on /p/ is corgifag, a pot smoking reddit user
I was on p before reddit lol, I came to 4chan through digg
It's also funny how I'm seen as a gearfag when I haven't bought a camera in 3 years, and my daily drivers are mostly 6-10 years old
Again for the record, I also worked at camera shops for over a decade, and chances are I have a better view of how modern cameras have changed over time, and the purchasing habits of normies, but go off sis

It's funny, but technically "worse", lower res, lower DR old DSLRs have visibly more pleasing image quality than their newer, improved mirrorless counterparts.

Maybe it's the lenses, and lower res making simpler designs look better so the designers worked on characteristics that are hard to achieve when also correcting every other aberration like DOF transitions and color transmission

Maybe it's that when a camera doesn't shit out files with infinite editing latitude, there's an onus on the firmware programmer to write good data that doesn't need reinterpreted even in a "raw" while the newer, near maximum achievable quantum efficiency dual gain shit uses the full 14-16 bits of precision so they just write a totally flat file with everything available, half ass the jpeg engine, and say "hey, if you bought this, you should be able to figure it the fuck out. problem? buy an iphone and fuck off you undeserving peasant gaijin." which is an actual attitude that the japanese cop

In any case, it takes significantly less effort in capture one to get very good, artistic looking photographs out of a 5dII or 5dIII than it does out of an EOS R5's raws, and fuji GFX basically shoots in log and requires thorough editing for every single photo. Even the film sims are dull. Of the achievable brandsm only hasselblad is really writing both good and plentiful data these days with their natural color solution, and it's only 100% there when using phocus.
>inb4 phase one trichromatic backs

>>4495065
>the new, predominantly liberal (aka detached from reality) crop of techfags sucked the soul out of everything and their less intelligent but equally foolish consumerist counterparts threw money at enshittification with astounding consistency
many such cases

>>4480592
Its going to be in some kind of action camera with a teeny tiny sensor and the worst colors and sharpness of any camera you've ever seen.

>>4495021
>>4495024
>>4495025
You sound extremely butthurt kek
Just get a better paying job bro

>>4480592
>>4480599
The real answer will be when a company is the first to mass-market a new sensor technology, like the first camera with a Quantum Dot sensor

>>4495080
digital cameras have no soul. the more advanced they get the gayer everything gets. photography has never been worse. people even brought back film and digishits.

>>4495065
I think it's the lens design more than anything. EF lenses weren't over corrected to shoot wide as possible and sharp as possible. RF lenses are sharp and flat perfect for the normmies who have started to expect "professional photos" to look like a cellphone photo with more bokeh and megapickles. I suspect this is because modern camera and lenses are being designed to be viewed on a small phone screen. Tonality, micro contrast, even out of focus rendering all get squashed down to fit in that tiny rectangle. The nice medium ground is probably just adapting lenses and buying cheap Chinese knock offs of old designs.

>>4480774

they call it quantum well for what reason ad per well

>>4495065
>all that text and I still don't know how to upload an example image

>>4495429
Asking a /p/haggot to post a photo is basically an anathema

>>4495065
As usual with this argument, there's a shitload of hot air but no actual proof whatsoever.

>>4495001
>saving for a few months
Why do people always bring up "saving", is it some amerimutt living paycheck to paycheck thing?
If you need to save then you can't afford it, the ONLY exception is a house.

>>4495530
>If you need to save then you can't afford it

This guy believes that those who have lower end jobs should be denied pleasant things in life.

>>4495532
>I have a right to everything
You can literally buy a used canon 40d with the kit zoom for like $50 and it will take you years of use before your photo skills outgrow your hardware

>>4495582
Looks like a phone photo

>>4495532
Living paycheck to paycheck has very little to do with how much money you make, more with how much you spend.
But either way, if you don't have enough money to just buy some camera shit, then you certainly don't have enough money to replace a car/heater/washing machine/etc, so you should save more.

If you don't have a few months' salary in the bank then you are just irresponsible.

>>4495592
>you dont have the right, you fucking peasant. leave professional cameras to PROFESSIONALS. keep your fucking head down. KNOW YOUR FUCKING PLACE. YOU HAVEN'T EARNED THE RIGHT TO OWN A SINGLE FUCKING NICE THING UNLESS YOU ARE MAKING MONEY OFF IT.
Orrrrrr
*buys z7ii*
lmao my photos look better than a phones now
Suck it, boomer
>IF YOU HAVE TO SAVE YOU CANT AFFORD IT KNOW YOUR PLACE KNOW YOUR PLACE KNOW YOUR PLACE >:(
Or if you're not saving, you're buying larger amounts of junk.
>BUT YOUR SKILLS DONT JUSTIFY OWNING A NICE CAMERA! I DONT LIKE YOUR PHOTOS SO YOU SHOULDN'T USE WHAT YOU LIKE!
Don't give a fuck. Oh no, someone took a high quality photo of their cat. How dare they. They need to be given the right to take high quality photos by the art jews first.

Its amazing how much your attitude makes sense when one realizes it comes directly from boomers. The first generation in history to actively fuck over their sons because "you need to earn everything from the bottom to prove you're truly worthy of even existing" (only white boomers did this and only to their white sons - their daughters got the world, while asians and jews passed on wealth and were happy for their kids when they dared to own nice things as usual)

Of course it's also the generation that gives the most support to israel.

>>4495633
>Have savings
>Save for large purchases anyways instead of suddenly draining savings
Is this too much for you to understand
"If you have to save up for it, you shouldn't have it"
It's just another boomer truism that boils down to how much they typically hate their sons and everyone elses, passed on to perhaps their favorites and a few neocon right fools who listened to boomers and took them seriously

Don't buy that nice camera son, your photos might turn out better with less effort and success will be more within your reach! you have to grind from the bottom with a dogshit canon rebel that cant even focus on someone walking towards it!
orrrr
*buys a7iv and 24-70 f2.8*
*shoots wedding with 0 experience beyond using cat photos to figure out camera settings*
*gets paid while boomers REEEE about how photography isnt like their playboy studio shoots anymore*
Seethe more.

>>4495634
The 40d is a professional camera you fucking incel sperg schizo. I'm not replying further, it's clear you have some sort of severe mental problem

>>4495635
You clearly have some money related mental health issues that can't be resolved in a 4chan thread.
But I'll just say; saving and buying nice, expensive even, things are not mutually exclusive.
I'm also not a boomer, being financially responsible is not just an old person thing.
And you can buy an expensive camera, but you shouldn't buy an expensive X every month, have some self control.

>>4495636
He’s right. The 40d is garbage. Cameras have to outdo phones now. And boomers purchasing advice has been horrible. Everyone who says to start with garbage is a boomer, fr. Boomers get nauseous when younger people have it easier than them.

See: pointless return to the office policies

>>4495639
No one said anything about buying monthly cameras so you’re just conceding and bringing up some random shit to still pretend you were right.

>>4495641
Learn to read nigger, I'm saying don't buy expensive shit every time you get a paycheck, and save some fucking money. I don't imagine that expensive thing will be a camera every month, but if you don't have savings, then it is something.

>>4495641
>The 40d is garbage
The 40d was successfully used by professionals to take all sorts of beautiful images. Please list in detail all the kinds of photography you need to take that weren't available in 2007.

>>4495652
>generic bullshit
yep, as expected.
The 40D has better autofocus than phones, better colors, and much more detail and latitude.

>>4480592
Doesn't matter since realistically NO ONE but actual pros need 100 damn MPs, especially on a MF sensor. If you need 100MP for work, your jobs start in 5 figures that easily afford you the GFX.

>>4480624
Realistically, 12MP is what 90% of population ever need or won't even use properly. 45MP now, isn't the standard, 24 is. 45MP now is still for upper leagues of pros who need to print billboards.

>>4495669
I need a 100mp for my large scale close up gallery prints. Also let's you downscale your image for better noise control. The price difference between 45mp/60mp and 100 is not really that big either. The 24mp thing is mostly cope from 3rd worlders and southern red necks

>>4495679
How does that contradict the post you're replying to? Apparently you're such a pro you get to show your work in big prints in galleries

>>4495679
But of course there's just no way you could say, idk, share one of these large-scale gallery prints could you? I mean, that shouldn't be difficult right anon?

>>4495723
No you see, his entire carreer would be immediately over because he pisted on 4channel and he would be doxxed withing 5 minutes

>>4495679
Did you forget to attach your example images to share?

>>4495681
>>4495723
>>4495736
I've posted hundreds of pictures on this board over the years and a couple have been in small galleries. I don't care about getting doxxed or anything just not really interested in sacrificing something I made and care about for an argument. Just saying a used GFX 100s is only like 3k, about the same price as a used Z8. If you don't need the AF or the video might as well get the GFX 100s for the resolution and the dynamic range.

>>4495765
It's useless to shoot MF at 100MP without the most excellent lenses.

It's useless to shoot MF at 100MP if you don't have an appropriate workflow.

It's useless to shoot MF at 100MP if your editing program and monitor can't keep up with the nuance of the files.

It's useless to shoot MF at 100MP if your archival and processing power capacities aren't adequate.

It's useless to shoot MF at 100MP if all you will do is deliver at 8MP for a client.

Even for people who don't need AF, floating the idea that the GFX system has comparable costs and can be a drop in replacement for a Z8 seriously makes me think you're just LARPing.

>>4495766
This post is a whole lot of clownish nothing. What year are you from, 2012? Whats next, no one is pro enough to shoot raw?

Some of it is mathematically, technically wrong too (needing uber lenses for many pixels) thats just idiotic snoy shit, dumg edge contrast chasing. You probably dont even know 35mm film is 400mp if edge contrast standards are tossed and only detail perceived is accounted for.

GFX photos look better even at 8mp. Less noise. Less aliasing and bayer garble. Better color and gradients. Finer detail, yes, even when downscaled. Cry moar. Nicer cameras are nicer and no amount of your mobile goalposts will ever change it. Just get to the “PHOTOS ARE ONLY FOR DA HUSTLE AND INSTAGRAM!” part so we can laugh at you.

>did you just buy something nice!? BUT ARE YOU HECCIN PRODUCTIVE WITH IT!? IS IT A SENSIBLE BUSINESS EXPENSE!?
Hustle incels need to die off already

>>4495778
>did you buy
nobody in this thread has shown their gear, it's all empty words sucking the cocks of multinationals.

>>4495780
>noooo dont spend money! businesses BAD! fight da system!
Stop being gay.

>>4495777
>strawman
>lie
>lie
>strawman
>strawman
You are just fuming because I utterly destroyed your little LARP. Any person who has actually moved to the GFX system for serious work can confirm what I said is true.
But a faggot like you who probably doesn't even have a camera? You think it's as easy as going to Amazon and clicking "buy"

>>4495781
The amount of stuff you are hallucinating makes me wonder what rock would squash your head the best in front of your parents

>>4495784
>>4495782
Nice impotent rage but your little crab bucket episode amounted to boomer “u o ly need 10 mpoxels for a shaaarp sharp print” autism and thinking everyone still uses a thinkpad t200. You may as well be cockwell insisting only the proest of pros need and are equipped to *gasp* shoot raw.

Better cameras are better. No matter what you think, people can buy them if they can afford them and want to enjoy nicer looking photos.

>>4495785
>“u o ly need 10 mpoxels for a shaaarp sharp print”
never said it, you should be killed
>Better cameras are better
never said the GFX system was inferior, you should be killed

>>4495782
>for serious work! DA HUSTLE!
Cameras are for personal enjoyment first, family and friends second, and optionally beer money third. No one cares if your 8x10 magazine covers and photoshoots for socials dont sneed more and its a bad business expense. Life is not a side gig.

People like you seethe if someone buys a car that wouldnt be an economical fleet car for the insurance sales biz. And you always want to tear other people down like they all live off profit margins.

Can’t smell miserable without miser.

Fuck off back to your hustle, incel. We live life here. Come back when you can conceive of clocking out.

>>4495786
Nice impotent rage. You wouldn’t be screeching about death if I weren’t dead on. People who are right don’t need to wish for death. They just defend themselves when the people in the wrong get pissy and start shit - first the wrong complain, then they chant, then they provoke and impede, then they fight, then they lose. It’s the way of the world.

>>4495787
>Cameras are for personal enjoyment first, family and friends second, and optionally beer money third.
thanks Jesus H. Christ for imparting the objective truth upon the Earth
>We live life here
So that's you post zero photos and can only gloat about imaginary gear you probably only have seen in magazines, got it

>>4495788
You're so dead on that you have to make up stuff nobody has said. That is the hallmark of the humiliated faggot grasping at straws

>>4495789
Shhhh little crab, stay in your bucket. The others climbing out doesn’t affect you. They will buy nice cameras because they like the way the photos look. They will spend some money inefficiently. And you will be unhappy either way.

>>4495791
Shhhhh

You lost. It’s okay. You were going to be mad about hobbyists buying nice sony full frames even if you “won” the argument anyways.

>>4495793
>>4495792
Thanks for conceding, it was nice exposing liar faggots who talk about gear they don't own. I give zero fucks about dumb retards dropping 10k on a camera of which they will use 1% of its functionality, espexially since you are not one of them but only a LARPer LMAO!

>>4495794
See? You’re mad anyways.

Anon is going to buy a nicer camera and enjoy the nicer photos
And you will be bitter like those people who are perpetually fuming because successful men and women can enjoy nicer cars than them
>YOU DONT EVEN RACE PROFESSIONALLY! ITS WASTED ON YOU! -those people (probably you too lol)

>>4495766
Yeah most of that is true. If you shoot weddings get a Z8 or something similar. If you are not willing to put enough effort into your images to edit them in Capture One and print the ones that are actually important you probably should get something cheaper and smaller. Your really just in it to buy another gadget. Go pick something sold in Best buy.

>>4495777
They're too poor to have tried digital medium format and the are seething about it. It's not like it's better at everything. Full frame is still good too. The whole point is to have 100mp and then just downscale on export to whatever you need.

File: gfx100quality.jpg (3.4 MB)

3.4 MB JPG

>>4495818
>wedding snapshits? oh yeah get a Z8
>but dont you dare buy a gfx100s if you arent going to...
What kind of cope is this? Just you telling yourself the nicer toy you can afford is worth it (plus you can hustle!) but the one you can't afford isn't even worth considering. Holy cope.

You know the GFX100S just takes better photos right? At every ISO, at every print size larger than 4x6, viewing on a macbook pro or a decent flatscreen TV, it just looks better than any r5 or z7ii, and definitely better than any sony. That's it. That's what it does. The photos look better no matter what you're doing, as long as what you're doing is even slightly beyond the reach of what an iphone can do. Exquisite rendering, so photos of the fur on your dogs balls finally look like they do in real life, instead of like digital bayer mush or xtranny worms.

Don't be a coping poorfag. Get real, and get a job. Medium format mogs your baby full frame sensor. End of story, bitch. And this isn't even as good as it gets. A REAL medium format sensor would have twice as much tonality as this, and three times more than your faggy SNOY.

Just wait until you see my 8x10 technical camera.

>>4495821
It was nice to post a phone picture of your dog

>>4495819
>a camera is just its megapixels

>>4495821
Another based gsd owner with 8x10 camera? Very cool.
What brand ball is that btw? Looks like a good one.

>>4495765
And yet it's a problem to post some more when relevant and directly asked?

>>4495821
This looks like a phone photo

>>4495821
Please dont post dogs deepthroating balls

>medium format sensor
>medium format… señior
Fujipacos will never recover from this hot tamale. Now round up your dogs and go home before I call ICE.

>>4495821
Lmao I was agreeing with you anon. I was saying get a Z8 if you need the better autofocus or burst.

>>4495836
Yep pretty much. It's about getting pixels in focus, exposed, and colors you want. The rest is determined by the lens. All of it is determined by the photographer.

>>4495907
dude, nobody here is forcing you to reiterate on your cluelessness. you can stop posting, you know?

>>4495908
Are you saying megapixels don't matter?

>>4495913
Am I?

>>4495836
But what about my 200MP phone camera?

File: 200microbenis.jpg (381.3 KB)

381.3 KB JPG

>>4495919
200 boohoo
res =/= image size

phones only have like 5mp of true res, those huge image sizes are to scam you and fill your storage fast, so many retards go for the bigger storage models, paying like 1-2€ per gb

>>4495920
So it isn't just about megapickles after all?

>>4495918
Lmao get a job anon. Stop arguing and save up for a better camera pal.

>>4495932
Lol you got her ass. She's going to have to type out like two paragraphs of undiagnosed camera based schizophrenia

>>4495920
>>4495919

I asked Grok cause its been decades since I've done this kind of calculations. Feel free to check it by yourself. Here's relevant bits.

"how big in mm dimensions a 100 megapixel 3:2 sensor had to be assuming diffraction limited f1.2 lens of focal length same as sensor diagonal in mm"

Horizontal width = 12,909 × 0.00066 mm ≈ 8.52 mm
Vertical height = 8,606 × 0.00066 mm ≈ 5.68 mm
Diagonal = √(8.522 + 5.682) ≈ 10.25 mm
"what would be the practical ISO of sensor with such small pixel size and Bayer filter?"

Base / native ISO — roughly ISO 25–50 (very low to keep read noise from dominating tiny signals).
Practical clean daylight ISO — up to ISO 100–200 at best (still noisy at 100% view).
Usable low-light ISO — ISO 400–800 would already look quite bad (heavy chroma noise, loss of color accuracy, posterization in shadows).
...
In short: Without aggressive binning + computational tricks, this sensor would feel like using a ~2012–2015 compact camera at high megapixel modes — base ISO ~50–100, really struggling above ISO 400. With all modern phone-style processing turned on, it could deliver surprisingly usable results up to ~ISO 3200–6400 in brightened low-light scenes, but only at heavily binned resolutions (6–25 MP) and with typical AI-smoothed look (reduced fine detail and texture).This is exactly why no one builds 100 MP sensors this small for "photography-first" cameras — the pixel-level performance would be too compromised without relying on smartphone-style heavy processing.

>>4495943
I already own the best camera for my needs. Why would I waste money on an inferior product for what I have to do?

File: disapointed.jpg (32.4 KB)

32.4 KB JPG

>>4495951
>I asked Grok ca-ACK

>>4495953
Good for you anon! I'm happy for you.

File: modernity.jpg (3.5 MB)

3.5 MB JPG

>>4495785
>thinking everyone still uses a thinkpad t200
Reject modernity, embrace your inheritance from grandpa

>>4495996
>>4495953
I have lost track which of you is arguing for what, but post pics of you expensive gear pussies.

>>4496044
>pic
c r i n g e
r
i
n
g
e

>>4495654
>Its pig fat, almost 1kg kek.
>Has no wireless conectivity.
>No smartphone app.
And most important, it uses some old ass mini usb standard so I could not use it in my prestine european (usb type-c only, babe) union.

>>4496044
>guys let me stage a sick shot of me shitposting in terminal gotta make sure my based as fuck camera is in frame otherwise they won't know how kewl I am
Lmao how cringe indeed.
>>4496107
>1kg, too much for meeeeee reeeeee
>muh smartphone integration
>doesn't have a drawer full of RS232 and IEEE 1394 cables just in case
Sorry, I think what you want is a "Content" ""Creation"" tool

>>4496104
Lmao. Thinkpad autism with film fetishism. You just know the pictures are really distant cosplayers outside an anime convention

>>4496104
>>4496137
>>4496139
I guess you guys didn't get anything nice from grandpa, that's too bad.

But I'm sorry, I'm just a humble /g/entooman, I didn't know that /p/ was a strictly no fun allowed zone.
I'll let you get back to gear sperging and calling everybody a poser.

>>4496137
I know EU is a joke for you guys. But you have no idea how convinient it is to have one cable for everything.

File: Grok lulz.jpg (181 KB)

181 KB JPG

>>4495961
Have fun not using a tool which makes some previously tedious tasks trivial.

>>4496151
Nobody cares. There are containment threads for your e-slop faggot.

>>4496107
>1kg
it's not 1kg + any camera is infinitely heavier than a phone
>wireless connectivity
you can only send jpegs through wireless, what even is the point of a dedicated camera? sounds like snapshitter mentality
>no app
all photo apps suck shit and are slow as fuck

>>4496144
>thinkpad
>untouched tea
>film camera perfectly placed on digital autism vehicle
>unintentionally makes still life better than most of the other people here

If you weren't a poser you would be using the suspiciously unweathered praktica and thinkpad instead creating a still life to honor your place on the spectrum. You belong on instagram more than you do this horrible website. I'm glad your able to socialize with LLMs though. I don't think loneliness is good for anyone as high functioning as you.

>>4496249
I appreciate that I am a sped, but where did the socializing with LLMs come from?

this thread really set /p/ the fuck off. why? there's even a follow up thread to this one right now in the catalog where the seething continues.

did fuji buck break the field of photography?

>>4496330
what do you think Grok is? The world's most autistic man made it cause he had no friends.

>>4496341
Everyone here is on welfare and get triggered by someone having more than them. That's why there is so much DSLR posting too

>>4496343
I never said anything about grok,
that's different people having a different conversation

>574616 MEGAPICKLES
Most of your photos are not going to be seen on anything bigger than an iPad you fags.

>>4498515
everyone who matters sees them on an 8k screen or in 8x10+ 300dpi prints where 100mp has a definite advantage in grain and being immune to aliasing and color weirdness.

fyi 35mm film has been scanned at 400mp and shown pixel sized details. its just kind of blurry at scans over 24mp. you have no idea how far digital is behind because the sharpening slider fools you.

>>4482801
I dont know about all the technobabble in this thread but I can see the grain in my 645 scans shot with a 18mp canon rebel. Ive been thinking about getting a modern digital camera with like 24mp so I can get completely sharp grain like I get with my 35mm scans. All the numbers quoted in this thread are just fever dreams. Not disparaging mf here I love it but boomers photographing test charts and ranting about made up theoretical units are all delusional

>>4498561
>if i can see large scale clumps of grain so no smaller details exist
Grains are less than 1nm. You need a camera with pixels smaller than 1nm to resolve them (because lolbayer).

The confounding issue is film has poor sharpness at small scales, but not poor resolving power. digital has 100% sharpness but dogshit resolving power. A lot of people only care about sharpness and most of the debates online hit the limits of inferior old scanning systems.

>>4498565
All that stuff is just theoreticql. It may be interesting to reason about but you cant just apply it to real life. Thats just like trying to walk through a wall because you read about quantum tunneling. 645 when digitized does not benefit from files larger than 24~ mp. In the real world

File: 100S9561.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

i don't care about the resolution at all. but big sensor is cool.
anyway here's some more leaves and dirt

>>4498576
>big sensor is cool
explain how in an objective way

>>4498568
>all that stuff is just theoretical
Equates MP to film.

File: 35mm 400mp.jpg (295.8 KB)

295.8 KB JPG

>>4498568
>645 doesn't benefit from larger than 24mp because
>it doesn't
>sure, tim parkin scanned 6x7 at 80mp on a shitty old drum
>and a dogfag here on /p/ scanned his consumer 6x6 at 50 or 60mp
>and another dogfag here on /p/ scanned his pro b&w 4x5 at 800mp or 1000mp even with diffraction pushing airy disks past the grain size at f64
>and a redditor scanned his consumer 35mm at 400mp with a gfx100s, pushing the resolution limit of film to the absolute max (pic)
>but it doesnt benefit bcuz visible grain!
Just say you think there's no benefit to a photo larger than 24mp. Let me guess, you think if the ISO goes over 400, it's a bad photo until it gets downsized because you can see grain? I've noticed a lot of boomers say things like this when reviewing digital cameras: "Good full sized prints up to ISO 400, 8x10 at ISO 800, 4x6 at ISO 1600". It's the same standard they held film to, and they only used larger film to hide grain. 35mm film can be printed wall sized and still show small scale details that wouldn't be visible below wall sized. But they would be soft details, and grain would be visible. This aversion to grain doesn't make sense unless it's an artefact of old kodak marketing material. "Buy our bigger film goy, grain makes photos worse"

There was a boomer who came to /p/ and ended up absolutely livid because younger users said film had more resolution. He posted really blurry, missed focus looking scans of 645 and insisted 645 was significantly less than 50mp because 1: he could see grain, therefore there was no point going further (wut?) and 2: back in his day the hasselblad flextight was the best scanner ever and it was rated for so and so lp/mm so that's definitely the resolution it extracted from film (it didn't).

File: daffy.gif (38 KB)

38 KB GIF

>>4498597
I just don't know why people equate grain to pixels.
That's like me saying there's 10 BHP per 5V 2A DC.

Even if you printed a 1000x1000 digital photo on 24x36 photo paper, you're not looking at pixels, you're looking at ink.
Hyperbolic example I know, but your concept that grain is not le bad as some anons would posit is a healthier approach I wish more /p/eople would adopt.

>>4498597
That image looks like a digital photo upscaled by AI. Seems like the biggest benefit of film is avoiding moire at the cost of clarity. Might as well use an AA filter and save the cost at that point.

>>4498597
This isnt coherent enough. Please explain concisely in a sentence or two whether you agree or disagree and why

>>4498631
>t. one of the 6/10 americans that read below a high school level

>>4498597
wew, some of the moss fuzzies and paint chips are separated by one pixel. 35mm confirmed for 275.26 megapixels.

therefore 645 is 428mp, 6x9 is 1000mp

>>4498611
>film records 275mp of real detail, light to paper
>it looks like ai!
Are you stupid or just used to fake sharpness from your digishitter applying an unsharp mask to everything?

Guys maybe you can help me figure this out
>have a 7mp digital image I want to print
>snap a 35mm of it and enlarge the neg
>pixels barely visible
>blow up the 7mp image on a large 4k retina monitor and take a 645 snap of it using a locked up mirror, cable release and all
>panf 50 developed to my best efforts to reduce grain
> enlarge the neg and pixels are still not 100% square, I can see some film grain even when the pixels are like half a centimeter long
>4x5 shot of a 8k projected image on a neutral gray cinema screen
>when enlarging, the pixels are now about 2cm
>still not perfectly sharp pixel edges, can see the grain and corners are not pointy
Conclusion: a 7mp digital image has at least more detail than a 4x5 film negative, its insane

>>4498642
Repeat the same experiment but only use your 7MP camera and reproduce the image 3 times. Post results.

No existing film format can reproduce the subpixel micropointiness of a 20 year old digicam. Its fine though cos a real workflow doesnt involve any analog steps. If you dont develop your digital images on the computer and look at them exclusively on a digital screen, youre really not doing digital anyway

>>4498644
Is micropointiness the new 3dpop? I'd be interested to see some example images illustrating this.

>>4498642
maybe you’re just bad at using cameras

remember the homo who bought an a7cr and had nothing but blurry photos?

>>4498642
How big of a print did you want? Usually people will use special printing sheets + their printer to make a negative and use that to contact print on photographic paper. Your method is ridiculously lossy.

>>4494812

tissot and spending lot of money.. hey anon you might enjoy citizen

>>4498641
I'm Just saying it's not pixelated but it's not really anymore detail. Look s like the overly smooth but same level of detail that ai upscaling puts out. Might as well shoot a 24mp camera and then upscale it. I bet it would look indistinguishable from the film scan

>>4498644
Is micropointiness just another word for microcontrast

>>4498688
>its not any more detail
Its a 100% crop of a 275mp image
It shows details that are one pixel in size or separation
Just because it isn’t “sharp” doesn’t mean it isn’t 275mp of real life detail
>oh no, the consumer color film shot with a russian lens is slightly blurry! My d200 is much better than film because its SHARP at 10mp whole film is blurry at 275mp!
Digislugs are actually stupid

>>4498688
It is more detail. Detail doesn't need to have digital levels of micropointiness to be considered detail. Film is not made up of pixels. It is made up of dye clouds.

>>4498697
Digislugs would lose it if they saw how bad raws look at even 50% zoom after turning off sharpening
>wait, this is meant to be 45mp? its so blurry? where are the hard edges and micro pointies?
and then turn off noise reduction and the newest ff milc looks way worse than film

>>4498698

I believe the real problem is fighting with noise at any cost. Get old camera (pre 2008), shoot RAW, disable noise reduction and look at image.

For example Snoy A900 was named noisy 24mpix but in fact image was great, awesome colour separation and "a little bit of noise".

>>4495001
you remind me of this filipino bald midget at my work in an accounting firm. he wears this really cringe brand called acronym that makes him look even shorter and fatter than he is and carries a fucking pelican case with his leica in it hahaha wish i could take a pic of the little retard

>>4480592
It could be, Nik already makes their own extremely high precision optical & sensor equipment but it’s not in cameras, it’s in the giant machines that make silicon wafers for the big chip makers including Sony. They just haven’t spent the effort and $ to scale it down to a marketable (cheap) product that could be put in consumer products like cameras. In the early days of mirrorless they made an odd effort to make a high performance sensor but it was for extremely high frame rate video and after building it they didn’t really think there was a market for it & spec’d Sony sensors in everything instead.

Nikon makes enough money selling “good enough” Sony sensors, they’ll have to see those numbers slump pretty hard before spending a hundred million more to produce a Sony killer and bite their golden goose’s head off

>>4498697
That's probably why film is soft and blurry then. Can't get good resolution out of a cloud.

File: bw-and-color-film-under-a-microscope-v0-t8m87fwj2w751.png (1 MB)

1 MB PNG

>>4498901
Dont get lost in the clouds bro. Resolution and sharpness are two different things.

>>4498903
Why are you posting pink floyd album art

I want a medium format camera to work in conjunction with my Nikon zf. Fuji 50r or 50s? using it for landscape work with old 645 lenses.
>neither of those are over 100!!!
its fine, you'll be fine.

>>4499201
not only are they not over 100 they perform identically to full frame unless you’re jim kasson and zoom in on oversharpened tree leaves

ok not identically
more firmware bugs and build issues, and unusable autofocus

>>4499201
I have used the 50s, 100s, and gfx100rf. Besides megapixels they all look essentially the same as image quality goes. I would say just get a Nikon z7ii. Otherwise go for a 100s. The 50mp medium format cameras are obsolete and perform worse than a Nikon z7ii

>>4480592
the GFX100s is already very affordable on the used market

>>4480660
A 6x6 medium format is outresolved by the 100mp sensor in the Hassy and the Fuji.

The only analog format which still has the upper hand is 8x10 and 4x5 large format

>>4499211
Dude no. You are fucking retarded. 35mm film is good for up to 275mp. Only edge contrast (sharpness) suffers but the resolution is there.

100mp fat full frame would definitely be SHARPER, but 6x6 is well over 400mp of actual resolved details while digital is just max sharpness down to the smallest scale it can resolve before it hits the nyquist limit and computer generates squiggly lines and rainbows (because digital idiots thought removing strong OLPFs while moving to overcorrected lenses was a good idea - MUH SHARPNESS)

and now all your sharpnessmaxxed f1.2 photos look like AI lmao

>>4499212
>Dude no. You are fucking retarded. 35mm film is good for up to 275mp. Only edge contrast (sharpness) suffers but the resolution is there.

I have scanned portra160 myself with pixel-shift and from Silbersalz at 120MP. I know that the resolution of 35mm film ends somewhere around the equivalent of 30MP. You're coping, 275MP is utter bullshit.

>>4499213
100% crop of a 275mp scan (downscaled from 400mp by the guy who did it). Anons keep calling it 400mp but the crop is of a 275mp image.

>>4498597

Pixel sized details and detail separations
Only lacking sharpness
And this isnt the peak, its a soviet 50mm lens and consumer grade color film
Cope about it

Even doghair can get gigapixels out of 4x5 that he doesnt even shoot for max resolution

This micro detail is why film always looks better and black and white film looks 3d/holographic in well executed proper prints. Fine textures and shading differences are preserved in some form while digital is incapable of recording coherent information past the nyquist limit. Even when files are downsampled at scan or digitally, starting with more information creates a superior result. The way digital works, everything below the nyquist limit, which is effectively 7/10s of the stated mp figure unless you only photograph straight monochrome lines, is garbled and flattened. Everything above the nyquist limit is sharpness enhanced and more contrasty and defined than it would be in real life, unless its a test chart. On film its just not sharp (very little is) but its still there like the human eye would see it.

This superiority is not free. Even on medium format and large format f/11 is the last aperture before shit gets too blurry, focus has to be perfect, hand shake and subject motion needs to be sub-nanometer, and the lens and film stock need to be great to truly reach the potential of film. In other words, buy a canon eos 1v, an IS lens, and some good 100 speed shit, and keep that shit over 1/500th

>>4499212
Lol film definitely doesn't resolve that much detail. It's mostly from the older lenses but still. Stop it with the schizo grain resolution nonsense

>>4499228
4x5 Wetplate = 1000MP

https://billrolph.com/wet-plate-resolution-1

>>4499228
>>4499228
>The film achieves grain free enlargements of up to 2,5 meters diagonally. This equals mathematical about 500 Megapixels.
>36 Megapixel, which is today’s standard in high end digital cameras equals 7,2% of 500 Megapixel.
Brutal.
https://www.adox.de/Photo/films/cms20ii-en/

>>4499230
>>4499234
Lol those pictures are shit. Also if that's true then why can't you print something massive like 40 by 50 inches from 35mm film and have all the details resolved? Alex Burke gives a guideline of 10 by 15 which is less than 24mp at 300 dpi.

https://www.alexburkephoto.com/blog/2024/11/12/maximum-print-size-for-film-scans

>>4499280
I guess if the manufacturer is lying you could always speak to ze German Government about false advertising.

35mm film resolution depends on physical grain size, you can only make generalised claims about resolution for film, it's media dependent.

But since you went after the other guy for "shit" pictures I'm guessing all you've got is cope rather than factual evidence.

>>4499280
>Also if that's true then why can't you print something massive like 40 by 50 inches from 35mm film and have all the details resolved?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr--_i0JZbs

>thing from last century is actually vastly superior to modern cutting age tech
>only I know this, no one else checked carefully or else theyd all be using old tech
>>>x

File: DSC_0236load.jpg (977.8 KB)

977.8 KB JPG

>>4499201
i vote 50s, or 50s ii for a bit more money.
i had the 50r for around a year. it was a nonsensical body because the rangefinder body layout only works for compact lenses, of which there is only the 50mm 3.5, if you even count that one. for any other lenses, let alone adapted 645 lenses, the grip and viewfinder placement go a long way in managing the front weight. i have the 100s now, and it's fine. i'm not attached to it, but there are just no exciting cameras in the digital ff and mf brackets

>>4499292
No you mong, it's not that it's vastly superior in general, it's that when it comes to resolving power it has the proven technical capability to be.
Nobody here is arguing that film isn't a pain in the arse, but it is capable of higher resolution.

Nobody uses old tech because it's unreliable, slow, expensive to use and technically finnicky. But since this board primarily is a circle jerk over raw tech specs that's not the discussion at hand.

File: Screenshot_20260302_131812_Brave.jpg (179 KB)

179 KB JPG

>>4499301
Lmao turns out you were flat wrong

File: file.png (140.5 KB)

140.5 KB PNG

>>4499305
>I asked the word generator for the truth
do you even know what a LLM is you brainlet?

>>4499308
Wow, when is the next vaguely feminist movie with a long music scene in the last act coming out, Seethfia Copeola?

>>4499305
Resorting to trolling is pathetic even by geartard standards.

>>4499305
>the clippy chatbot with petabytes of RAM agrees with me
Holy shit go make a friend anon.

>film is better guys trust me just trust OK idk why no one uses it they are just wrong. Everyone in the world is wrong, especially professional photographers they dont know anything about rrsolving power dont troll me bro I know what Im talking about

>>4499305
ChatGPT just repeats the average forumtard post back to you. And its dataset is boomers who never got more than 50mp out of their shirty hasselblad flextight and considered visible grain = excessively large, unacceptable.

>>4499222
This post cant be /thread’ed enough.

All lower figures are artificial and arbitrary - “but i can see grain and thats unacceptable, the max enlargement size is always grain free!”

>>4499324
Professional photographers use snoy colors and AI sharpening and noise reduction if their clientele is cattle

When their clientele is human the overwhelmingly use film, usually 6x7 or larger, or 645 sized digital of they’re just shabbos goyim

>>4499201
lol I sold my 50R and swapped to Zf and haven't missed it one bit
Go 100mp or don't bother

>>4499210
The GFX100S is a deal. The Hassy X2D mk 1 too.
The 50MP versions on the other hand are RIDICULOUS. Worthless pieces of shit and sellers want 75% of new price for them. Uncomprehensable to me why.

>>4499328
With a straight face you tell me the majority of portrait work is shot on film in 2026? ...you already lost this argument, no need to make yourself seem even sillier lol

>>4499341
>bro, a majority of soulless business photographers compromise ultimate quality for turnaround time, reliability, cost effectiveness, ease of use, and failure proofing
>this is proof 6x9 is like 24mp because grain free enlargements only
Logical equivalent of “most people eat processed grain, therefore meats and vegetables are not nutritious, and meat is actually worse if not bad for you because my dataset is biased towards fried and charred sugar glazed beef”
In other words, you’re as dumb as the WHO

>>4499343
>unhinged claims immediately followed by glazed beefposting.
I enjoyed our chat glazed beef anon, I wish you well exposed and developed negatives in the future

>>4499345
>oh shit i cant refute it
>unhinged!
Digital is and always will be a quality compromise for cost and ease

Properly used 35mm film outresolves the a7rv significantly, only with less sharpness and noticeable grain (which most people outside of camera review sites and gear argument forums prefer). It also has no exposure preview, chimping, or accurate autofocus, and only has 35 safety shots on tap, costing up to several dollars each, all contained in a single easily lost or damaged canister of funny plastic that still needs processed.

Gee I wonder why only things like ultra high end private photoshoots with tim walker and hollywood productions are a significant use of film
The only reason film is still being made is for the motion picture industry especially imax. Guess why? Building sized enlargements.

>>4499347
Youre just making a new wrong statement in each post without gracefully admitting you were wrong about the last one first. You are getting ahead of yourself beef, lets first hear those apologies before we talk about the film industry. You know that all "building sized enlargements" (we call it projections) are of a digital image right? There are no rolls of film distributed to cinemas. And then once you are caught up with your apologies we can talk about viewing distances too, and what they mean with respect to enlargement. Soon you will have the basics down glazed beef anon

>>4499351
NTA but when you've got multiple people mocking your stupid ass for shartGPT use it should be telling you you're not smart enough to be making assertions.
Digital beats film in most categories but not resolution lmao.

>>4499351
You seem extremely retarded. Like “per capita aint real because there more of the other one” levels of dumb

>>4499354
Dynamic range, resolution, and being based beyond belief are the three things film has over digital. You can get 20 stops of DR with the right film + dev combo.

>>4499358
What on earth are you on about? You were wrong about film being the most common medium for portrait photography and then you self owned by saying the only reason film is still around is because of retrophiles like Tarantino (I agree). The stuff about glazed beef and per capita I wont try to decode

>>4499354
Try positing a level headed argument if you want to join the discussion

>>4499361
>lose argument
>move goalposts several times
>lose argument with moved goalposts
>I DONT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING YOURE ALL CRAZY
You’re a retard who lost several variations of the same argument and got insulted with esoteric references by people smarter than you. You can’t decode them because your intellectual superiors are speaking, and they are poking fun at you.

There is hard evidence itt 35mm film is at least 275mp. And its kodak 200 shot with a russian 50mm lens. It should have ended there.

Digital photography is strictly lower resolution than film photography. That’s it. Digital is always going to be much sharper and have less grain, but until cameras come out with 1nm and smaller pixels without dropping several stops of DR (35mm digital still has less DR than pulled 35mm color negs), on foveon sensors rather than CFAs, digital is the inferior photographic medium for anything but cost saving, retardproofing, and fake sharpness.
>w-well most photography is digital now!
And not only are most restaurants are fast food, most “real” restaurants are also using pre-processed ingredients.

>>4499362
I recommend you google "largest recommended print size for 35mm film", you are insane

>>4499363
>Hey listen bud. There are tons of boomers out there who say that if the enlargement shows grain or isnt super sharp, you went too far. That means the hard evidence that 35mm film is 275mp is magically wrong!
Thats like saying most people agree that theres no point in being taller than 6’0”, therefore i am not 6’4”

Whats next, dated scanning tech couldnt pull that resolution out of 35mm so scanning technology has never improved? Again, there is hard, proven evidence in this thread that a 275mp scan of consumer 35mm color neg shows single pixel sized details and 1px spaces between details. It’s just grainy and lacks edge contrast.

Boomers can have their PREFERENCE, but it is an undeniable and proven fact that even consumer 35mm color negs with mediocre glass can record at least 275mp worth of distinct, pixel-sized detail in real world conditions.

It follows then that 100mp digital is only for cost saving high volume work and quality addicted amateurs who can’t even begin to shoot, process, and scan film competently enough to get 275mp out of 35mm so basically almost no one needs it when they can just git gud and stitch some scanned shots with a 24mp DSLR and 2x macro. In fact, a cheapo 120 camera scanned as stitched shots with a cheap digital would stomp all over fake medium format and piss on its face.

TLDR digislugs btfo

File: did-i-fail-at-jenga.gif (18.3 KB)

18.3 KB GIF

>>4499364
Again you are back at the
>everyone is wrong, boomers aah boomers everywhere, only I know the truth about the superior ancient tech
>100mp is for high volume work
Man do you even take pictures

>>4499365
Its amazing how many of your posts are just you not understanding something

Yeah the arbitrary aesthetic standards are not actually resolution figures
And yes the point of 100mp fat full frame is saving money and effort when taking many high res photos, otherwise even measly 645 offers more resolution with pleasing grain and softness granted you do everything right. If most people dont need more than an 8x10 that often then film is more economical and higher quality. Digital is potentially more economical and more reliable (by the time you’ve shot devved and scanned your way to the $8k mark that is a decent 100mp dx medium format kit), but lower quality with eye-rending fake edge contrast and weird shit like aliasing and worse tonality.

Thus film still dominates art photography and is the strictly superior medium.

>>4499366
So analog has more grain, less edge contrast, is softer, more expensive, more time consuming and only Tarantino and Tim Walker use it (all things you said, not me) and this makes it the strictly superior medium? Wht did they stop making film cameras anon? Is it because of esoteric glazed beef and boomers?

>>4499369
>goalposts changed
Is this the true power of digislops?

>>4499370
>literally gets quoted
>ahh the boomers are moving my goalposts

>>4499391
>still cant read
Zoomers proven illiterate and lower IQ than boomers. Kek

>>4499369
Yes, with all that and 35mm film being 275mp and completely immune to aliasing.

Less grain and more edge definition does not make for a good looking photo. Real life doesn’t have max edge definition. Digital either looks unnatural or blocky and low resolution. Film produces better photographs - if you do everything right.

Digislugs fear the skill issue so badly the digital camera market is stuck on adding more crutches to 24mp cameras