Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Landscape Showcase => Topic started by: luxborealis on October 14, 2019, 08:21:28 pm
-
One from last week in one of my favourite autumn places.
C&C welcome, especially improvements within the realm of what is commonly known as 'straight' photography.
RX10iii 200mm (equiv) f/4 @ 1/30 ISO64
Processed in Lr 6.14 and LrM
-
Fine shot as-is, Terry.
-
That is a real beauty, Terry.
I will second Slobodan's suggestions for improvement. ;)
-
I'm a little confused by the ISO 64, any particular reason for it as opposed to the base ISO?
-
Super image
-
It's a fine image, Terry, but at the risk of incurring the Wrath of Russ, I'd suggest cropping a little off the bottom, removing the bushes. They don't seem to me to add anything.
Jeremy
-
As is is fine.
-
It's a fine image, Terry, but at the risk of incurring the Wrath of Russ, I'd suggest cropping a little off the bottom, removing the bushes. They don't seem to me to add anything.
Jeremy
+1
Either less bushes, or more bushes with more water to my taste.
Thierry
-
Thanks for the feedback and compliments. I was wondering about the bottom as well; it was niggling my brain as well. It’s a 16:9 crop - as I had envisioned it when shooting. More foreground detracts from the scene by making it messy, drawing the eye away from the main event. More sky unbalances the photograph. I think I’ll shave just a bit off the bottom. Thanks Jeremy and Thierry.
Armand: With many cameras, base ISO produces optimal (the greatest) dynamic range, but with the Sony RX10iii, ISO 64 provides just a tad more, so for me, ISO 64 is preferred whenever possible (see DR at this DXO Page (https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Sony/Cybershot-DSC-RX10-III---Measurements)).
-
Thanks, I didn’t know this. I always thought of the extended low ISO as a way to get lower shutter speeds but with the cost of decreasing the dynamic range. I guess I’ll use it much more on my RX10 iv for landscape, I would take any extra dynamic range that I can get.
-
Fine shot as-is, Terry.
+1
-
It's a fine image, Terry, but at the risk of incurring the Wrath of Russ, I'd suggest cropping a little off the bottom, removing the bushes. They don't seem to me to add anything.
Jeremy
Agreed. It would make a fine image into a very fine image.
-
Beautiful
-
A lovely image, but it seems to me the alternating blocks of shadow and midtone/highlight along the bottom of frame could use a little of what Charlie called "Border Patrol". They are ever-so-slightly distracting from the main act, which is for me, at least, the lovely foggy mid zone.
I'd try filling those highlight areas with shadow material and keep the overall band of darkness the same width.
Cloning Heresy, I know. But there it is.
-
A fine photo this is, no matter how it's cropped or not cropped.
But I'm most pleased with how Terry has a favorite locale close to home where the opportunities to make photos are rich and likely boundless.
Thank you Terry.
Richard
-
Since you are looking for feedback, here is my take. The image is evocative and natural. Wonderful composition with layered look, beginning with subtle yellow hues in the sky. I like how the vertical dead trees in the mist are distributed, which is good because they are dark and command attention. Their presence echoes the verticals of the tree line above. But in their own niche where together with the bog, they give rise to the mist. My one negative criticism is that the bottom water reflecting areas are very powerful and draw too much attention away from and at the expense of the overall scene. And although they are low key bright, they are are rectangular in shape and command too much attention, and lead the eye out of the image. So for that reason I would crop out the white reflecting areas.
JR
-
I like John R's suggestion, which keeps some of the dark area at the bottom as a good border to the central activity in the fog above, while removing those unnecessary whitish rectangles.
-
Hi Terry,
I am considering trading my Canon full frame for a Sony RX10IV. What are your thoughts on the pros and cons of the camera, especially as the one-and-only?
I tried briefly one in a store and was floored by a portrait shot at eq. 600mm indoor, hand-held, at a relatively high ISO (perhaps 1000), with eyelashes in perfect focus and tack sharp. Unfortunately, I could examine it only on the back screen.
I know you've been shooting with the big guns too (Nikon 800?), so how do you feel now about processing different files?
A bit of a background for my question: I used to do some architectural photography for a client, and also sell fine art prints in art fairs, and needed it big, up to 36" x 48", so I bought a Canon 5Ds. I won't be doing either in the future, so my needs would be mostly for social media, online use, and medium size prints (say up to 20x30).
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
-
Hi Slobodan,
For Sm, online and prints up to 16x20, I think the RX-10iii (and, my guess the iv, too) is ideal. I can confidently shoot most subjects and can carry the camera all day with no fatigue. The all-in-one 24-600mm f/2.8-4 Zeiss lens is really the ideal, in fact, perfect, walkabout lens. The stabilization makes the everything up to 600mm possible, even with ridiculously low shutter speeds at 600 (1/50th!)
Places you will notice a difference . . . Shooting:
- action: fewer keepers compared to a DSLR; that being said, still enough keepers to be productive
- birds on the wing: I find it almost impossible to track and shoot successfully compared to DSLR
- some edge distortion and softness, but no worse than many DSLR lenses
- close-up and macro: extra care must be taken to zoom and focus; not as intuitive as with a DSLR
In processing . . . note: I mostly shoot raw, especially for my personal work - and the files are excellent (even the jpegs are excellent and can withstand some processing)
- sharpness (or ability to be sharpened) is excellent, especially at ISO64 to 125; at 200 photos start to look a little grainy and by 400 they are grainy, but still, definitely printable and perfectly fine for the web/projection
- shadows do not recover as well as I would like them to; increasing “Shadow” adjustment on Lightroom tends to brighten mid-tones too much without doing as much to shadows as I am used to with Nikon NEFs
- you will not have as much highlight room as you’ve been used to
- smoothness: you may miss the smoothness of tones that FF produces; although I must admit, on web/projection the difference is virtually unnoticeable; on prints, it would take a side-by-side for a medium-sized print at normal viewing distance to really see a difference; larger prints, well you know what happens; 20x30 - I’ve not printed that large with the Sony, but with a good file and proper up sampling, I’m sure it would look great.
The Sony is the ideal travel camera as it’s the camera that can always be with me (Though the same can be said about my iPhone!). I still use my FF for fine (serious, aka 4x5-style) landscapes (when I’m not travelling overseas) and an APS DSLR for wildlife, birds and sports, again when I’m not travelling overseas. My travel photography is for a market that doesn’t usually require large prints, so the Sony is ideal. It’s also my go-to camera when I’m out hiking for a few hours, but even then, I’ll often use an iPhone and I know yoiu’ve had similar success with that, too.
I hope this helps,
Terry
-
Thanks, Terry, appreciated.
-
I have a Mark IV RX10. Everything Terry said. I recently returned from a two week trip to Bangkok and Bhutan and my client and I were delighted with the 100 plus page Blurb book and the ten minute video I created from the journey. Full bleed, double-page-spread images in a book that's nearly two feet wide when open look great. Not fine art, mind you. It is an HP Indigo printer, after all. But pleasing, nonetheless.
Especially true is the part about it being a good walk-around travel camera. It's compact, light and self contained. I took five batteries, never used more than one and a half in a day and I shot both stills and video. The entire trip used half of a 128GB SD card. Raw stills and 1080P 60 video. The camera mic is excellent, absent wind and background location noise.
The autofocus system is more difficult to use than my D800 and is far more complex to understand. I still struggle with it, especially when it says in the viewfinder "Focus Cancel". Thanks, Sony.
The Sony and my phone were the only cameras I took.
Also, the RX 10 would make a perfect air show camera. :)
-
I'll echo Terry's comments. The fairly low pixel count means I don't think it will replace a full-frame DSLR in my kit, but it's a small, light (though dense) camera with a good lens. FWIW, the three shots of the Harpa concert hall that I've posted recently in the User Critiques forum were all taken with an RX10iv.
Jeremy
-
...FWIW, the three shots of the Harpa concert hall that I've posted recently in the User Critiques forum were all taken with an RX10iv.
Jeremy
There are days when I feel like Slobodan - just chuck it all in and buy a simple all in one camera like the RX10iv. I responded because what Jeremy described in taking photos at the Harpa concert, is how I want to photograph. See something in your mind's eye that you like, point, compose and shoot, because you have the range, from 24-600 equivalent. But in Canada this is $2100 camera, plus 13 % tax! For that, I may as well get the Z6 Nikon and live with less range per lens. Everything seems to be compromise.
JR
-
Thanks again all who commented, and apologies to Terry for sidetracking the thread (though it is still about the OP camera).
As I said, I've been thinking about that Sony RX10 IV. Something that bothered me is the 1" sensor (noise) and not-so-shallow depth-of-field. Also, the idea that I would be carrying at least three or four less-often used focal lengths (300mm to 600mm) all the time. I am sure those super telephotos would open new possibilities, but still... not something used most of the time. And the price, of course, even if in the States it is "only" about $1600.
I am currently leaning toward a somewhat surprising choice: a quirky little Canon M6 Mark II. On the plus side: 32.5 Mpx APS-C sensor, native miniaturized lenses (especially the high-speed pancake 22/2 - eqv. 35mm). I am also going to get a kit lens, 18-150 (eqv. 28-240) that should be my standard walk-around lens. As I like a shallow-depth of field, in particular for portraits, Sigma is about to ship its 56/1.4 (eqv. 90mm). All three lenses, body, plus that quirky viewfinder, would be about $2,000. Weight? 1093 grams (2.4 lbs).
-
Sounds like a respectable option, Slobodan. It certainly comes in at a manageable weight.
Since purchasing a D7200 APS Nikon this summer (originally for the 200-500), I have considered using it as my travel/walk around camera, especially with the larger sensor, but I would prefer to stick to one lens. The 16-80 just isn’t long enough and anything longer doesn’t meet the speed and quality of the Sony. This is a long-winded way of saying I’m envious of the ‘kit’ lens you describe and hope it meets the speed/quality standard you’re looking for.
-
... All three lenses, body, plus that quirky viewfinder, would be about $2,000. Weight? 1093 grams (2.4 lbs).
I just checked the specs for Sony RX10 IV and the weight is exactly the same: 1095 grams or 2.4 lbs :)
-
Thanks again all who commented, and apologies to Terry for sidetracking the thread (though it is still about the OP camera).
As I said, I've been thinking about that Sony RX10 IV. Something that bothered me is the 1" sensor (noise) and not-so-shallow depth-of-field. Also, the idea that I would be carrying at least three or four less-often used focal lengths (300mm to 600mm) all the time. I am sure those super telephotos would open new possibilities, but still... not something used most of the time. And the price, of course, even if in the States it is "only" about $1600.
I am currently leaning toward a somewhat surprising choice: a quirky little Canon M6 Mark II. On the plus side: 32.5 Mpx APS-C sensor, native miniaturized lenses (especially the high-speed pancake 22/2 - eqv. 35mm). I am also going to get a kit lens, 18-150 (eqv. 28-240) that should be my standard walk-around lens. As I like a shallow-depth of field, in particular for portraits, Sigma is about to ship its 56/1.4 (eqv. 90mm). All three lenses, body, plus that quirky viewfinder, would be about $2,000. Weight? 1093 grams (2.4 lbs).
If you use the long focal lengths on the RX10iv the DOF can be quite limited. On the 24-85 range, less so. It’s workable for a travel camera most of the times.
-
If you use the long focal lengths on the RX10iv the DOF can be quite limited. On the 24-85 range, less so. It’s workable for a travel camera most of the times.
Agree. But even at the longer focal lengths, say 300-600mm, the shallow DOF, though better than at the 24-85 range, is still a far cry from a full frame super telephotos. I was shooting last year with a Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6 and the bokeh at the end range is really creamy. I also tried a Leica 25-400 in a shop this year (another 1" camera) and wasn't impressed with the bokeh and shallow (or not) DOF at 400mm.
That said, I was aware of those limitations when considering RX10 IV and would work with what I would have (i.e., try to find images that would work with the camera/lens limitations).
Also, the kit zoom I mentioned, 18-150 APS-C format, is a rather slow one: f/3.5-6.3. Those f/stops roughly translate to the same DOF for the same focal lengths when compared to RX10 IV. However, I would have two high-speed lenses for the times when I need more light or more shallow DOF (22/2 and 56/1.4).
-
... This is a long-winded way of saying I’m envious of the ‘kit’ lens you describe and hope it meets the speed/quality standard you’re looking for.
I thought this deserves an update. I did order the M6m2. It is a nice little camera, very enjoyable in use (ergonomics-wise). Quality surprisingly good. Then something unexpected happened. B&H had a promotion combo, Canon RP with a 24-240 new Canon superzoom, plus an adapter for Canon EF lenses, for less than the M6m2 combo. I thought, surely a full-frame mirrorless would be a better deal, quality-wise. So I ordered that too. Long story short, after several days of comparing the two kits, I returned both and ordered a Canon R body, to go with my old lenses (at this point, it is 16-35/4, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 70-200/4, plus a 1.4x extender).
The reason?
Although my reasoning still stands that no one will notice the difference in social media and online postings (that seems to be in my future, as opposed to large format prints for sale at art fairs), I forgot about one guy who would notice and know it is there: myself. I got spoiled by better quality over the years.
If anyone is interested, I could post example comparisons between the RP kit and M6m2 kit (here or in any other thread).
-
Hi Slobodan,
For Sm, online and prints up to 16x20, I think the RX-10iii (and, my guess the iv, too) is ideal. I can confidently shoot most subjects and can carry the camera all day with no fatigue. The all-in-one 24-600mm f/2.8-4 Zeiss lens is really the ideal, in fact, perfect, walkabout lens. The stabilization makes the everything up to 600mm possible, even with ridiculously low shutter speeds at 600 (1/50th!)
Places you will notice a difference . . . Shooting:
- action: fewer keepers compared to a DSLR; that being said, still enough keepers to be productive
- birds on the wing: I find it almost impossible to track and shoot successfully compared to DSLR
- some edge distortion and softness, but no worse than many DSLR lenses
- close-up and macro: extra care must be taken to zoom and focus; not as intuitive as with a DSLR
In processing . . . note: I mostly shoot raw, especially for my personal work - and the files are excellent (even the jpegs are excellent and can withstand some processing)
- sharpness (or ability to be sharpened) is excellent, especially at ISO64 to 125; at 200 photos start to look a little grainy and by 400 they are grainy, but still, definitely printable and perfectly fine for the web/projection
- shadows do not recover as well as I would like them to; increasing “Shadow” adjustment on Lightroom tends to brighten mid-tones too much without doing as much to shadows as I am used to with Nikon NEFs
- you will not have as much highlight room as you’ve been used to
- smoothness: you may miss the smoothness of tones that FF produces; although I must admit, on web/projection the difference is virtually unnoticeable; on prints, it would take a side-by-side for a medium-sized print at normal viewing distance to really see a difference; larger prints, well you know what happens; 20x30 - I’ve not printed that large with the Sony, but with a good file and proper up sampling, I’m sure it would look great.
The Sony is the ideal travel camera as it’s the camera that can always be with me (Though the same can be said about my iPhone!). I still use my FF for fine (serious, aka 4x5-style) landscapes (when I’m not travelling overseas) and an APS DSLR for wildlife, birds and sports, again when I’m not travelling overseas. My travel photography is for a market that doesn’t usually require large prints, so the Sony is ideal. It’s also my go-to camera when I’m out hiking for a few hours, but even then, I’ll often use an iPhone and I know yoiu’ve had similar success with that, too.
I hope this helps,
Terry
That's one of the best camera reviews I've ever read.