Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Down

Author Topic: Cost vs Performance: IQ250 vs D800e  (Read 30008 times)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Cost vs Performance: IQ250 vs D800e
« Reply #100 on: February 10, 2014, 04:23:56 pm »

I haven't yet noticed (objectionable) aliasing in photos I've taken with the A7r, but then again I usually spend my dollar bills too fast to photograph them.   :D

Regarding earlier posts in this thread...I've been fond of "character" lenses ever since discovering the original Contax rangefinder cameras & their various lens options, particularly the 50/1.5. This led me to Nikon RF & the lovely original version of the 105/2.5. I'd throw the current Voigtländer 58/1.4 in the ring with the new Nikon too. In MF Pentax's 120/4 macro has a swirly Petzval-like OOF quality wide open.

-Dave-
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Re: Cost vs Performance: IQ250 vs D800e
« Reply #101 on: February 10, 2014, 04:29:33 pm »

Hi,

You ain't get an A7r for a 1$ bill, yet ;-)


The first image I have seen from the A7r were the standard image with the bottles at Imaging Resource. That image had objectionable aliasing.

Best regards
Erik





I haven't yet noticed (objectionable) aliasing in photos I've taken with the A7r, but then again I usually spend my dollar bills too fast to photograph them.   :D

Regarding earlier posts in this thread...I've been fond of "character" lenses ever since discovering the original Contax rangefinder cameras & their various lens options, particularly the 50/1.5. This led me to Nikon RF & the lovely original version of the 105/2.5. I'd throw the current Voigtländer 58/1.4 in the ring with the new Nikon too. In MF Pentax's 120/4 macro has a swirly Petzval-like OOF quality wide open.

-Dave-
« Last Edit: February 11, 2014, 01:55:02 am by ErikKaffehr »
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

Paqart

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: Cost vs Performance: IQ250 vs D800e
« Reply #102 on: March 05, 2015, 04:11:28 am »

Test and measure to your heart's content. For me, what I use isn't key to my work or my success, though at times, it does help. The most important aspect to me is the end product--web, print or publication.

If one is happy with the results and is successful, the method and the tools to get there are irrelevant. Few ever cared the brush used by Rembrant or the etching press used by Picasso. It's the final artwork that counts!

Fair enough, but many of the most expensive paintings made in the modern era have particularly well-controlled color, as opposed to earlier eras, where strong draftsmanship was a minimum requirement. MF cameras produce stronger color rendition than 35mm cameras, so this (I think) is not the same as a brush to a painter. It is more like the difference between the use of encaustic paint and oil paint. Color was revolutionized in the nineteenth century because of new methods of manufacturing oil paint and this radically altered the palettes used by artists from that date on. Before that, the range of colors available was considerably limited in comparison. Collectors might not care what paint was used, but they do care if they like the color in the image.

AP
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6]   Go Up