Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10]
 on: August 30, 2015, 04:54:49 PM 
Started by Guillermo Luijk - Last post by scooby70
Those results confirm the a7rII as a very talented all rounder.

This being said, the pace of improvement in sensors tech seems to be decreasing significantly even at Sony. The value over a one year old D810 in terms of image quality is questionable.

There are of course other aspects where the a7rII shines.


To me the point of A7 series cameras is not that they're significantly better than a DSLR but that they're this good in a small form CSC body.

Since going digital what I've wanted is a DSLR of about the same bulk and weight as my 35mm SLR's and a more compact digital to replace the RF's and compact 35mm cameras I used to own and with the A7 series and MFT I now have them bulk wise but weight wise the modern electronic kit is still heavier but they're much more acceptable to me than a heavier and bulkier Canon or Nikon DSLR and lens.  

So, my question isn't "is the A7rII better than a D810" it's "is there anything better in this small a form factor."

 on: August 30, 2015, 04:47:17 PM 
Started by The View - Last post by The View
I'm still on Mavericks - can I safely upgrade to Yosemite, or would it be better to wait?

PS: There is no urgent pressure for me to upgrade. So, waiting wouldn't be a problem.

 on: August 30, 2015, 04:46:17 PM 
Started by Petrus - Last post by David Eichler
Synn. Dunno why you waste time justifying your gear choices. Specially to some of the trolls that reside in this forum. I guess there are some folks here that are honestly asking for information. But the trolls pop out in no time to dissuade any PhaseOne interest or god forbid and actual purchase. It is their duty in life to take down PhaseOne. True haters. (Maybe I got it all wrong and they secretly work for other manufacturers? of 35mm gear? and are sabotaging PhaseOne on purpose, or maybe they just despise capitalism? Maybe they are just angry at everything. Only they know. Some of the haters have actually used PhaseOne gear, others, not even a lens cap. Oh well.

I do not hate Phase One or any other medium format gear. I think that medium format has its applications, and there may very well be some differences in color rendition that make medium format preferable for some people and some applications. All I am trying to say is that Synn's examples are not sufficiently convincing to me for the purposes of illustrating differences in color rendition between the two systems in question. I think that it would have been preferable to show a color chart and grey scale within the scenes (or perhaps several, in different parts of the scene), both for overall color reference and to use as a target for white balance.

 on: August 30, 2015, 04:42:56 PM 
Started by Bob_B - Last post by Bob_B
I wonder if this is a local phenomenon or more widespread? Specifically, in addition to much fewer butterflies, I haven't seen any Hentz orbweaver spiders (Neoscona crucifera) this year. In years past, I would always have 3 or 4 separate, large webs on my front porch, with good size spiders waiting for prey throughout the summer. This summer and last, I haven't seen one. Anyone else on the east coast (US) or mid-Atlantic notice a similar decline in these orb weavers?


 on: August 30, 2015, 04:35:40 PM 
Started by Petrus - Last post by David Eichler

I think you should re read the parts where I have mentioned that manual white balance for both images were done on the same spot and also that I have custom profiles for my cameras.
It is not fair for someone to write a detailed explanation when the other party ignores half of it.

Sorry, I missed the comment about manual white balance. However, I am not sure that picking a point within a scene like this for white balance is that precise and would prefer a sampling from a neutral grey card within the scene for maximum precision. In any case, I still think that the overall color balance of the small format shot is again warm, and that it is at least partly for this reason that the cooler tones are not looking as nice as one might prefer.

As for the redness of the skin tone in the portrait shot, I see a modest overall red bias, so I find it hard to evaluate any differences in color rendition between the two systems from this example.

I don't see any reference to custom camera profiles in your comments about either of the two scenes.

 on: August 30, 2015, 04:31:08 PM 
Started by John Camp - Last post by brandon
Interesting thread. On reflection (or maybe purchasing old gear second hand) I find we we often enjoy  the "hardware" for its quirks, its character, its "look", or for some ceremony or sense of place/ personal importance or even nostalgic feelings it gives us. Interchangability of old lenses must be the pinnacle of that: it wouldnt stand up to rational or logical analysis much of the time for pure image capture. The rub is that most gear is sold to us, I mean actively marketed to us, when new in a way to say it is better than this or that. Fundamentally that (marketing) is the art of making us feel insecure with what we have already got or what we are using. Advances are great of course (especially if you skip a generation or two) but much of what we are promised wasn't even on our "needs list", and while some of those advances may genuinely be a bonus many arent.
As said above this isn't unique to compact systems, or even photography (nice musical instrument analogies). It isn't even unique to hardware: Im not sure why I want to upgrade beyond PS5, but I ill embrace improved RAW conversion (ironically perhaps to improve the oldest of my files the most).
Rapid advances can be great to a user. The "insecurity" that is engendered around that to "move" the consumer on to more purchases just needs to be filtered out.
(Disclosure, I am guilty of collecting old stuff, not rationalising what I already have, and even purchasing equipment for its out and out finesse)

 on: August 30, 2015, 04:31:03 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by Telecaster
I'd definitely put Helen Levitt up among the best whether in color or b&w. IMO HCB's more spatially-oriented approach doesn't work as well (or at least isn't as easy to employ) in color…thus, likely, his dislike of color pic-taking.


 on: August 30, 2015, 04:30:16 PM 
Started by gdh - Last post by gdh
I was just looking this up on dBay

My prices is a steal!

 on: August 30, 2015, 04:27:09 PM 
Started by Hidden Grid - Last post by BradSmith
You need to be more specific and clear.  For example:
Do you want a printer that has a maximum print width of 13" or will you perhaps want larger (17")?
How much printing do you plan on doing?  Do you want pigment ink or is a dye ink printer OK?  If you don't know the difference, you need to do some research.
Regarding papers, most people here would say it depends on what paper whiteness and "feel" you are looking for and if you can live with OBA's.  If you don't know what OBA's are, do some research.  And then people will ultimately tell you to get a bunch of sample papers, print on the samples and see what YOU like.
Finally, regarding lenses, first, do you mean wide ANGLE lenses, ie, wide field of view, or do you mean best lenses at their widest aperture. or HuhHuh

Sorry, but your questions sound like they'll benefit from further knowledge, research and clarity on your part.

 on: August 30, 2015, 04:26:52 PM 
Started by gabehill - Last post by gabehill
Hi all
I just bought a Hasselblad H2F with a CF-II 39 back as a backup cam for my H3D-II 31 and I can't get it to connect with Phocus.
I tried everything...shorter Firewire cable..Firmware update to Version 270..even tried to connect it to Flexcolor on an older Mac but
still I can not get it to show up in Phocus. The digiback gets power from the firewire cable as its also working without battery..also I tried to clean the firewire port but still nothing.
Does anyone have an idea what I could try or had the same problem?
Thanks for your help

Pages: « 1 ... 8 9 [10]