- Messages
- 5,501
- Name
- Lee
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Never seen this post trolled with so much absolute ignorance in years.
Didn't used to be like it before.
Never seen this post trolled with so much absolute ignorance in years.
Bugger. It looks very very capable….bugger..petapixel have something say about shooting a dog similar to yours with A9III
View: https://youtu.be/swc8TZylUP8?si=YXFB7M1pXeLkZrDc&t=396
not the most scientific of reviews or tests but its something....
I don't think it notices too much Alan
It's amazing what you can get away with if you look at a whole picture and resist pixel peeping.
I have an A4 print of something else which is OOF if you look very closely but as a framed A4 on the wall only people like us would ever notice. No normal person has spotted it.
Firstly I’m assuming you’re talking mb and not kbRegarding the RAW files, I have tried the small lossless compression files, & they look OK once opened, but they won't open in some programmes. They are 4 times smaller. Example. Normal file around 125kb, Small Lossless 35kb. In fact they are a little smaller than the Jpegs. I have processed a couple and they look good to me.
If I go down the conversion route, what is the best programme to convert RAW files to smaller files, and what type of files do you recommend?
Firstly I’m assuming you’re talking mb and not kb
Which camera are we talking, the A7cR? Why are you using small lossless, there’s no point having a high res camera if you’re not going to use the full resolution? I use lossless but use large so that I have full resolution.
AFAIK you can’t get smaller file sizes than lossless compressed without sacrificing image quality/file data, that being said you might not see much difference in the IQ using compressed files barring the most demanding scenes.
Regarding the RAW files, I have tried the small lossless compression files, & they look OK once opened, but they won't open in some programmes. They are 4 times smaller. Example. Normal file around 125kb, Small Lossless 35kb. In fact they are a little smaller than the Jpegs. I have processed a couple and they look good to me.
If I go down the conversion route, what is the best programme to convert RAW files to smaller files, and what type of files do you recommend?
People have been shooting compressed RAW on Sony for a long time with almost no issues. Your A7 for example only has compressed RAW option.When I got the A7Riii I shot in both compressed & uncompressed to compare. Even really pulling them about for highlights & shadows I couldn't get any differences. I've even shot my last few night skies compressed with no issues. That is still full resolution though.
I couldn't agree with you more here and have been thinking with regret recently that I take a lot less photos these days as I'm concerned they're not going to be good enough whereas before I just took loads of photos and didn't care so much.It's amazing what you can get away with if you look at a whole picture and resist pixel peeping.
I have an A4 print of something else which is OOF if you look very closely but as a framed A4 on the wall only people like us would ever notice. No normal person has spotted it.
I do this a lot. I'll take the camera out, go for a walk and come back to process the photos and there'll be one. Don't take the photo and it won't be bad in some way.I couldn't agree with you more here and have been thinking with regret recently that I take a lot less photos these days as I'm concerned they're not going to be good enough whereas before I just took loads of photos and didn't care so much.
I couldn't agree with you more here and have been thinking with regret recently that I take a lot less photos these days as I'm concerned they're not going to be good enough whereas before I just took loads of photos and didn't care so much.
This is the information. The top three are uncompressed. The bottom three are Lossless Comp (S). I tried three photo's and didn't notice any difference. I will try again, hopefully tomorrow, with full and compressed RAW files.
Uncompressed and compressed Raw files. by Andy Williams, on Flickr
I made a big step a few months ago and that was to strap keeping all RAWs. I review them on import, delete ones I don't want, process the rest and export to jpeg on my server. Then delete the RAWs.
I did that right at the beginning, but when I wanted to reprocess some early images there was no recovery and I couldn't use the pictures in the way I wanted.
As above 125,000 kb is 125mb.This is the information. The top three are uncompressed. The bottom three are Lossless Comp (S). I tried three photo's and didn't notice any difference. I will try again, hopefully tomorrow, with full and compressed RAW files.
Uncompressed and compressed Raw files. by Andy Williams, on Flickr
I don't need to use mine. Just look at them from time to time.I did that right at the beginning, but when I wanted to reprocess some early images there was no recovery and I couldn't use the pictures in the way I wanted.
Exactly....... The owners should be responsible not the dogs.
Finally, I have come across someone else that calls them AlsatiansExactly.
Two of the dogs I regularly meet while walking our Cockerpoo are an Alsation and a Rotweiler - both are really nice, friendly sociable dogs - because their owners have taken the time to properly train and socialise them.
My reason for the 61MP was to take a smaller lens (Sony 70-350) on planes, so the camera/lenses are lighter to carry abroad, and from photo's I've posted, it is perfect for my needs. When I take landscape, Steam trains, and RIAT etc I will use the 61MP. But most of the rest of the time 24MP, or thereabouts, will do me fine, otherwise the RAW files will fill up a HD in no time.As above 125,000 kb is 125mb.
As I said already I wouldn't shoot in lossless (s) as it's only 15mp, in fact I wouldn't shoot in lossless (m) either as it's only 26mp, if you're going to use those you may as well send it back and get a 24mp camera
CoolMy reason for the 61MP was to take a smaller lens (Sony 70-350) on planes, so the camera/lenses are lighter to carry abroad, and from photo's I've posted, it is perfect for my needs. When I take landscape, Steam trains, and RIAT etc I will use the 61MP. But most of the rest of the time 24MP, or thereabouts, will do me fine, otherwise the RAW files will fill up a HD in no time.
I'm not convinced it would be a worthwhile market for Sony to go into as there's a lot of badge snobbery against Sony who are perceived as a new company focused more on technology rather than imaging, it's not something I agree with but that seems to be the way it is. It's not a full on retro camera but I think the Sony RX1 does feel quite a retro little camera and similar to the Fuji X100 and Leica Q cameras, when you see the size of the RX1 alongside the Leica Q it makes the Sony quite a remarkable little camera yet I think it's fair to say the RX1 series was a flop compared to the Fuji and Leica cameras part of which I think comes down to the brand. I also think companies need to be cautious about chasing down what's working for other companies already since a good chunk of the potential is already gone,I don't know if I'd buy one of these although I did try the Fuji X100s/f and there's no doubt that these retro style cameras do seem to have their fans and a niche market...
It’s time for Sony to make Minolta SR-T inspired E-mount vintage cameras! – sonyalpharumors
www.sonyalpharumors.com
I hope Sony do make one.
Your new version of 20-70
very nice.
Sure isYour new version of 20-70
Thanks, I thought there was a tilt but LR says not Which perspective correction are you referring to?very nice.
I did notice a very small overall tilt left and probably another 1-2 degrees further perspective correction needed. I am very particular about my geometry.
While I am at it I would throw the kitchen sink and AI at removing the construction on the left
Rotated and crane removedvery nice.
I did notice a very small overall tilt left and probably another 1-2 degrees further perspective correction needed. I am very particular about my geometry.
While I am at it I would throw the kitchen sink and AI at removing the construction on the left
I'm not convinced it would be a worthwhile market for Sony to go into as there's a lot of badge snobbery against Sony who are perceived as a new company focused more on technology rather than imaging, it's not something I agree with but that seems to be the way it is. It's not a full on retro camera but I think the Sony RX1 does feel quite a retro little camera and similar to the Fuji X100 and Leica Q cameras, when you see the size of the RX1 alongside the Leica Q it makes the Sony quite a remarkable little camera yet I think it's fair to say the RX1 series was a flop compared to the Fuji and Leica cameras part of which I think comes down to the brand. I also think companies need to be cautious about chasing down what's working for other companies already since a good chunk of the potential is already gone,
That said I don't really get the buzz around the Nikon Zf as it's a lot bigger than I initially thought and I find the lack of grip on the RX1 and RX100 cameras a bit of an annoyance so I really can't imagine using a camera the size of a Zf without one.
LR auto correct usually makes things much worse. I never ever use it.Sure is
Thanks, I thought there was a tilt but LR says not Which perspective correction are you referring to?
I'm not convinced it would be a worthwhile market for Sony to go into as there's a lot of badge snobbery against Sony who are perceived as a new company focused more on technology rather than imaging, it's not something I agree with but that seems to be the way it is. It's not a full on retro camera but I think the Sony RX1 does feel quite a retro little camera and similar to the Fuji X100 and Leica Q cameras, when you see the size of the RX1 alongside the Leica Q it makes the Sony quite a remarkable little camera yet I think it's fair to say the RX1 series was a flop compared to the Fuji and Leica cameras part of which I think comes down to the brand. I also think companies need to be cautious about chasing down what's working for other companies already since a good chunk of the potential is already gone,
That said I don't really get the buzz around the Nikon Zf as it's a lot bigger than I initially thought and I find the lack of grip on the RX1 and RX100 cameras a bit of an annoyance so I really can't imagine using a camera the size of a Zf without one.
I think you could have a point about snobbery but younger people may not have the same anti Sony prejudices as people invested in the more legacy camera marques having possibly had Sony tech in other forms. I actually hope they do make one, more choice and all that, and especially as it may take minimal effort.
Thanks. I couldn’t use a tripod as this was taken through the window of our hotels room and I had all on trying not to get reflections, much easier said than done.LR auto correct usually makes things much worse. I never ever use it.
It is best to start with correcting the central lines (ie. tilt) and then move on to perspective, i.e. both sides perfectly vertical. Use gridlines to help you see
There is a reason I never leave house without 410 head
Things change. Some companies improve and can really rebuild reputation in just a decade or less. I can't think of a better example than Sigma. It was like the worst of the worst, and then the more recent ARTs are probably better than Zeiss particularly when you account for autofocus vs lack of it.I think you could have a point about snobbery but younger people may not have the same anti Sony prejudices as people invested in the more legacy camera marques having possibly had Sony tech in other forms. I actually hope they do make one, more choice and all that, and especially as it may take minimal effort.
removing the construction on the left
Ordered!Your new version of 20-70
I would at least make it dark grey then. Bright areas tend to really distract.Then no one will believe its London
too unnatural for London
The Nikon Zf looks very similar to my OM1 which is one of my favourite looking cameras, however it's not nice to handle due to the lack of grip.I'm not convinced it would be a worthwhile market for Sony to go into as there's a lot of badge snobbery against Sony who are perceived as a new company focused more on technology rather than imaging, it's not something I agree with but that seems to be the way it is. It's not a full on retro camera but I think the Sony RX1 does feel quite a retro little camera and similar to the Fuji X100 and Leica Q cameras, when you see the size of the RX1 alongside the Leica Q it makes the Sony quite a remarkable little camera yet I think it's fair to say the RX1 series was a flop compared to the Fuji and Leica cameras part of which I think comes down to the brand. I also think companies need to be cautious about chasing down what's working for other companies already since a good chunk of the potential is already gone,
That said I don't really get the buzz around the Nikon Zf as it's a lot bigger than I initially thought and I find the lack of grip on the RX1 and RX100 cameras a bit of an annoyance so I really can't imagine using a camera the size of a Zf without one.
I often get asked what camera I use, Canon or Nikon, I don't think a lot of the general public realise that Sony are a serious camera brand.I think you could have a point about snobbery but younger people may not have the same anti Sony prejudices as people invested in the more legacy camera marques having possibly had Sony tech in other forms. I actually hope they do make one, more choice and all that, and especially as it may take minimal effort.
I don't mind the pop up EVF on the compact cameras. Most of the time I think you'd tend to use the LCD with these cameras but the EVF is a nice addition for the times the LCD isn't suitable.I think the lack of an dercent inbuilt EVF didn't help the first generation, and lots of people (including me) don't like pop-up EVFs on teh later generations, but the package size and quality ofo theh glass was spot on
I can't fault mine, it's very sharp edge to edge. Obviously there's not a great deal of 'character' but for this type of lens it's a great performer IMO and I think it's going to make a great travel lens. There was only a couple of occasions I missed not having 16mmOrdered!
Can't fight the appeal any longer