- Messages
- 4,728
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Vanguard are not at the show this year but are giving 20% off everything this weekend onlyThe photography show offers are up and running, nothing too exciting.
Vanguard are not at the show this year but are giving 20% off everything this weekend onlyThe photography show offers are up and running, nothing too exciting.
I've just logged on to watch some Demos, most that have been on already can't be viewed unfortunately and the ones that can are a bit mehThe photography show offers are up and running, nothing too exciting.
I’ve not been able watch this with sound yet but does he really think these specs are genuine?
View: https://youtu.be/RRrRtVtaPlI
With the little I could stand watching, he gives me the impression that its b******t.I’ve not been able watch this with sound yet but does he really think these specs are genuine?
View: https://youtu.be/RRrRtVtaPlI
All the Northrups are is click bait these days IMOIt'd mean canon has overtaken Sony in sensor tech. I somehow doubt that but possible I guess.
I didn't bother watching it because it seemed like obvious clickbait
Global shutters are very interesting and would mark the end of mechanical shutters, but I still think we’re some way off yet. I certainly don’t think the first global shutter will be 85mpWith the little I could stand watching, he gives me the impression that its b******t.
Even if it isnt, it wont make anyone a better photographer.
Global shutter on 85mp FF sensor sounds more like a £65k proposition than a £6.5k one.All the Northrups are is click bait these days IMO
Global shutters are very interesting and would mark the end of mechanical shutters, but I still think we’re some way off yet. I certainly don’t think the first global shutter will be 85mp
Yes, more than a stop depending how you bracket and filters also make a difference too. I will often take an exposure and hope to get everything in range and then take a couple of safety shots - one for highlights and one for shadows. Often the single file is enough but sometimes it is nice to have a couple of stops more latitude. I'll also often take a shot for most of the scene and then a higher iso shot at the same exposure so I can freeze movement in trees etc and blend them together so I get movement where I want it and frozen areas where I want detail. It is digital so why not take safety shots or blend exposures to create a scene
As above yes, and a lot of people do this. If I've got a high dynamic scene such as a sunset with the sun in the frame I'll use filters AND bracket. There's no right or wrong way to bracket but I tend to take 3 shots (some take 5 or more) standard exposure and then +/- 2 stops. I'm not sure how much difference being able to shoot at 20fps is going to make tbh, movement is more likely to come from the slower shutter speed taking the overexposed shot. I also wouldn't use 20fps on the A9/A9ii as you can only do this with compressed files, I will only use uncompressed (or lossless compressed if the camera has it) for landscapes.
As mentioned already though, on forums we're guilty of looking at specs and thinking we need this and we need that rather than just going out and taking photos. Based on specs alone the Canon 5DIII should be 'abysmal' at taking landscapes only have 11.7ev DR but clearly it's not, there's be many many thousands of wonderful landscapes taken with the 5DIII.
As for software I just used the HDR blending in lightroom but I do keep meaning to learn how to manually blend in photoshop. My issue with lightroom is that by default the HDR file tends to look a touch unnatural to my eyes and I have to 'faff about' to get it to look natural again.
Depends who you talk to. For a lot of things no, but when it comes to landscapes sometimes you want to eke out every last bit of detail from the shadows or highlights and why run the risk of compromising yourselfI forgot about the 20fps compression, I'll need to remember that as I've often got it on even when I don't need it that fast. Is the difference between compressed and uncompressed noticeable?
Imo just shoot uncompressed, then compress them on your pc. Why start with anything but the best file your can.Depends who you talk to. For a lot of things no, but when it comes to landscapes sometimes you want to eke out every last bit of detail from the shadows or highlights and why run the risk of compromising yourself
Imo just shoot uncompressed, then compress them on your pc. Why start with anything but the best file your can.
I forgot about the 20fps compression, I'll need to remember that as I've often got it on even when I don't need it that fast. Is the difference between compressed and uncompressed noticeable?
Very tidy shot Lee- I didn't know Carl Zeiss did an 80-200mm - Not that I want or need one as I have the Sony 70-200mm f2.8
Les
still waiting for mine... I wonder if 35GM will be out of stock for 6-9 months after initial pre-orders shipped like the 24GM.
Don't....... I'm losing a little interest already.... If I have to wait until the end of summer I'll just cancel.
Think we'll get ours, like I got my 24GM as soon as it was released. But after that it'll dried up for a good 6-9 months.
Want their an issue with the new 35mm. They had to recall them all and basically start again or something.
For my type of photography, I would expect a lens to be sharp across the frame by f5.6. At wide apertures edge sharpness could be an issue but not corners.Is sharpness the overriding factor for you at mid apertures or would you balance that against other qualities and issues?
Imo just shoot uncompressed, then compress them on your pc. Why start with anything but the best file your can.
The internet hyperbole will tell you all your shots will be ruined by compression.
There's a thought provoking thread about the sharpest Nikon lens at f5.6. There's no qualification about across the frame sharpness being required or not or of edge or corner performance but the op does go on to say they don't care about bokeh, vignetting, distortion, field curvature and ca and anything else aren't mentioned.
If looking at variable aperture zooms sharpness I suppose sharpness at f5.6 (wide open at the long end) could be an issue but for primes and f2.8 zooms I'd expect them to be well into their stride at f5.6 and perhaps sharpness wont be an issue for me at least in the central area but performance towards the edges and into the corners could be under question as could all the other things such as ca, distortion, field curvature etc. and bokeh. And of course if sharpness is the only criteria some lenses are at their peak before f5.6 but of course using them at wider apertures where they may be sharper could have implications for DoF or even across the frame performance.
I can't think of a lens I've had that caused me to worry about sharpness at f5.6. Maybe the Sigma 28-300mm I had but the main reason for owning that lens was the do it all zoom range so I never expected sharpness to be all that good and acceptable for whole image viewing would be fine These days I just can't think of a lens I'd criticise at f5.6 and even old film era primes such as that Nippon Kogaku 50mm f1.4 are IMO plenty sharp at f5.6.
Is sharpness the overriding factor for you at mid apertures or would you balance that against other qualities and issues?
If you want the 20fps on the A9's you have to shoot compressed. With uncompressed you 'only' get 12fpsImo just shoot uncompressed, then compress them on your pc. Why start with anything but the best file your can.
I did have a wee look online and it seems to be only the highest in contrast scenes where it can be an issue, such as around a bright light in a dark scene. There didn't seem to be very much on it with regard to the A9.
In the vintage lenses thread the Nikon 28-105 is mentioned as being sharp. IME it didn't start to sharpen until f8 and at the long end peaked at f11 to f13. This is not unusual behaviour for older 4X+ zoom lenses. I tend to stick to f5.6 for peak sharpness with primes.For my type of photography, I would expect a lens to be sharp across the frame by f5.6. At wide apertures edge sharpness could be an issue but not corners.
If you want the 20fps on the A9's you have to shoot compressed. With uncompressed you 'only' get 20fps
I tend to shoot a lot of landscape with the sun in view, and that's caused problems with compression. It certainly doesn't show up in every shot, but it was enough that I quickly stopped using it. Perhaps with the A7RIV it's less of a problem due to higher pixel count or better processing in camera? With the A7III it's definitely more of a problem for me than Anand's post suggests.I do agree, but I have found that sometimes 20fps has allowed me to catch the best facial expression (and without blinking) when it comes to the children moving about and such. Not often, but enough to make me want to stay at 20fps as even a noticeable reduction in quality I could deal with but a missed photo, well I guess there's not much anyone can do about that! lol But I'll keep this compression thing to mind, maybe I'll do some tests for myself to see how it may affect my types of photography.
I did have a wee look online and it seems to be only the highest in contrast scenes where it can be an issue, such as around a bright light in a dark scene. There didn't seem to be very much on it with regard to the A9.
I tend to shoot a lot of landscape with the sun in view, and that's caused problems with compression. It certainly doesn't show up in every shot, but it was enough that I quickly stopped using it. Perhaps with the A7RIV it's less of a problem due to higher pixel count or better processing in camera? With the A7III it's definitely more of a problem for me than Anand's post suggests.
Oops, fixed my original post
I think your looking at it wrong, it doesn't ruin your photo from what I've read. It's a bit like saying a shot that was taken at ISO 200 is ruined Vs one taken at ISO 100. It's just a little bit worse and nothing you can do to get it back after the fact so where possible use ISO 100 (Uncompressed).As I suggested before it could have been caused by other settings in your camera.
You said you didn't have the examples any more since you deleted them, so I can't suggest much.
So far I haven't seen a concrete example from anyone that shows how compression ruined their shot(s).
Been using Sony since back when with A99 and A77 etc when all they had was compressed RAW. I don't think it's anything to do with A7RIV being special.
Think we'll get ours, like I got my 24GM as soon as it was released. But after that it'll dried up for a good 6-9 months.
Sony are shipping this week I am reliably told.