Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 02:31:16 AM 
Started by John Camp - Last post by Audii-Dudii
I'm through buying photographic equipment for the forseeable future.

Same here.  The amount of money I have (foolishly? needlessly? recklessly?) squandered on camera equipment over the past four decades, endlessly chasing after minor improvements in image quality, is truly too scary to contemplate.  Mind you, all of these so-called improvements struck me as being huge improvements at the time: i.e., if I could see a difference, then by definition it had to be a significant one!  But history has since provided me with the perspective I clearly lacked in those days and I have (belatedly) come to realize the fundamental error inherent in my prior way of thinking.

Whenever I look at photographic forums these days - increasingly seldom - my heart sinks at the endless proliferation of hardware, much of which outperforms everything I own. There's a terrible futility to it all, this continual raising of the technical bar. Maybe one day there will be a 4/3 body that seems utterly compelling, but..

I've been photographing happily (and exclusively!) with a pair of used Sony RX1s that I bought in March and April of this year.  While they're not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, despite my decidedly outlier needs (I photograph mostly at night, among other things) they're not only getting the job done for me, but doing it quite well.  You regret buying your Nikon gear?  I'll see you that and raise you a medium-format digital outfit that I haven't used in nearly three years that is collecting dust almost as quickly as it depreciates, along with a pair of Fuji bodies and several lenses, a half-dozen m4/3 and 4/3 bodies and several lenses, and also a half-dozen medium- and large-format cameras that I never use but still own only because they're worth so little these days that selling them hasn't seemed worth the effort.

Well, I'm finally done: one camera, one lens (well, actually two lenses, because I also use a wide-angle converter with my RX1s occasionally) and for the next few years, at least, I plan to focus my attention on my compositions and technique instead of continuously researching my next upgrade and then working overtime to fund its purchase.

Unless Sony eventually releases an RX2, of course...    Cheesy

 on: Today at 02:20:28 AM 
Started by Quentin - Last post by uaiomex
Thank you much Edmund. Great links. I loved the simplicity and the objectivity of both tests.
Now I wish for long exposure tests at base iso. Something in the 4-6 minute long exps.

There's an A7R2 and 5DsR image quality and noise (second page) comparison that has just gone up..
It has some real world images.
The two cameras seem close.
Anyway, images are better than words.


 on: Today at 02:19:05 AM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by muntanela
You are not alone. These were shot last week.

It's one of the most generous plants, It offers abundant elegance and beauty  free of cost...

 on: Today at 01:59:02 AM 
Started by tom b - Last post by William Walker
Henry Rob!
I hope you are well? I am pleased you are back!

 on: Today at 01:45:57 AM 
Started by Guillermo Luijk - Last post by ErikKaffehr

It seems that Nikon (and Pentax) always make better use of Sony's sensors than Sony themselves. I actually suspect that 100 points are already, not only by RED One but also all Sony based MFD sensors, but DxO has not tested them, unfortunately.

On the other hand, it also shows how much development it takes to get a few DxO points more.

Now, the new Sony sensor was meant to work well with video, having high readout rates, on sensor PDAF and so on. It needed to meet many design targets.

Best regards

Looking at the scores, the two are pretty close, within 1 point, and on the individual testing only the low light sports seemed to score better for the Sony.  I had expected the Sony to break 100 or so. 


 on: Today at 01:42:28 AM 
Started by bcooter - Last post by Yelhsa
Any advise would be appreciated...
Start with this type of document...

.. and work backwards from there.

Anyway, one of the many images produced at The K Club in County Kildare last week...

.. and at the Breaffy House Resort in County Mayo this week...

.. where we tried to produce some images that they would both want to use a lot - because the more images they want to use and/or the more boxes on that document that they want me to tick, the more money they will be willing to pay me.

As it's as simply as that, when it comes to putting a price on our (commercial) work, as far as I'm concerned.

 on: Today at 01:32:19 AM 
Started by John Camp - Last post by adias

The Leitz photos' look is unique, no doubt. The MTF curves do not tell the full story.

To note that this 'look' clips the blacks for full effect. The opposite of the current 'trend' of 'recovering the shadows'. Smiley

Great photos by someone who understands the tool and uses it properly. Well done!

 on: Today at 12:47:03 AM 
Started by Chris Barrett - Last post by alatreille
Nice work Joe.

I like the cube as it tells you exactly what the drink is, thus adds a bit of romance to the image.
However, I`d vote for sans icecube as it is too dominating.  Perhaps a smaller one would have done the trick for me - or two or three pieces of crushed ice.

Great work though.


 on: Today at 12:44:11 AM 
Started by Hidden Grid - Last post by Hidden Grid
What are the best printer's for printing Landscape images?(Ink consumption, Speed, wide format limits[I'm looking for 13x19], durability)
What is the best gloss and luster photo printing paper for Landscape?

What lenses that have a Canon mount can be considered best for wide open landscape shooting?

 on: Today at 12:41:34 AM 
Started by Dave Gurtcheff - Last post by langier
Find a trade-show production company or a company that prints billboards. They have the grand-format printers and the special sauce to make things both large and nice quality.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »