buybuybuy: Just about anybody with a decent camera could pull of shots like these. The problem is that, for most people stuck in a 9-5 M-F job, these trips are few and far between--if ever!
1,2,3 (guessing),4 and 6 are roadside photos, but 5 requires an ice climb. So yes, with a good camera and tripod these shots are all technically fairly easy once in the right place, but the hard work is getting into the right spot at the right time for the right light to make it worthwhile. I've been to Jokulsarlon several times and never seen the aurora there, and I've climbed through an ice cave but not like that one with such nice light. The technical ability and kit gap between good pros and good amateurs is rapidly vanishing, but the shooting effort and business effort is much much more important.
Really like number 7. Not a huge fan of sharpened clouds but compositions good throughout.
mononk: Interesting indeed. But may I suggest you post an identical article with examples from places not so exotic as Iceland and Africa? I.e. NY City, Paris, London, Rio... The average Jo will more likely visit these places a few times in his life and will try his luck in finding a new point of view. Many thsnks.
Have to agree with davidrm, they are nice shots but this is not the first or second time DRP have used this guy's work, the article isn't saying that much, at least the photos don't back up the text content that much, and seems more like an ad for the workshops linked at the bottom.
If the location was some popular city, the style would be much more separable from the environment, and I wonder if this technique would stand out that well..
G3User: Finally, landscape images that aren't post processed to death to make them interesting. I cant believe I'm going to write this but I have nothing to criticize about this article or the associated photos. I agree, most places have been shot to death. To take photos of changing landscapes is a really good idea.
The whole paid photography business is going away. Taking landscape photos for fun is about all that one can do these days.
I would say that probably every one is significantly post processed, lots of shadow raising, plenty of targeted saturation increase. Done well, much better than ones with +20 saturation applied globally and auto HDR.. but still there is a load of PP in these. But if you DON'T PP a photo from Iceland these days then it really won't stand out from 1000 others taken from the same location with the same long exposure settings. Excluding the lava shots, the first image is the one that genuinely relies on the light being just right to make a nice capture, the others are more independent of the light, and are simple nice shots of nice places with good processing.
AlanG: Keep in mind that Canon and Nikon started out copying Leica and Zeiss cameras and lenses. Maybe some of these Chinese companies will be the major innovators in the future. DJI is certainly doing that with multirotors.
Many lenses use fairly well established traditional designs.
Indeed! Plenty of complete crap made here, plenty of hi tech factories churning out top quality stuff too - but generally the hi quality stuff is foreign companies producing here, home grown innovation is not as profitable yet as making stuff that sells across the globe
Edgar_in_Indy: Hmm...$115 AND it has autofocus?
In the past when I've wondered-out-loud why Zeiss doesn't broaden their appeal and usefulness by adding AF into their great lenses, people on here have claimed that adding AF would be too expensive, because of having to reverse engineer the AF system and/or license AF technology. So much for that argument...
True. But I think it is much easier to objectively judge quality when it comes to cameras and lenses than general electronics, where you honestly don't really know if one product is 'better' or 'worse' than others. You can see the quality, measure it if you want, the build quality is also usually fairly obvious too. And in the modern world, having a luxury branding is just begging for bigger sales as the vast wealth of Asia starts to get spent more and more. I've seen people go into a camera shop and ask for the best camera, walk out with a D810 and an Otus, and probably no clue how to use them.
I don't expect them to be innovators. I work in China, here's the thing over here (electronics in general): output is really cheap with tiny profit margins, labour is cheap but quality of output is very low so the more automated the better the results for most industries. So they spend as little as possible on R&D in general - often $0, and spend much more time trying to copy something with 70+% of the quality at 40% of the price, which they are really really good at. So you want a tripod that can nearly compete with Gitzo at half the price, you can have it. Lenses, well theres one where quality differences are much more measurable and its a tougher sell.
They have a market and they have a loyal fanbase who pay big for their products. Why should they change that? I'm sure there are some real life compromises involved with that change in design, for the moment they get their sales because their best products are better than the competition. And much as people are keen to dismiss expensive manual focus lenses, have a look around at the top quality photographers posting on the internet, a remarkable number of them are loaded up with Zeiss, manual focus and all. I'll take AF when I can get it, but I want image quality more. This story is a bit different, cloning something - we can't see if they have duplicated the quality or the build yet - is vastly easier and cheaper than designing.
Other uses: buy usb3 otg for a couple of dollars.Plug in your dslr to your note 3 or 4Download one of the many good free tethering apps on androidcontrol your camera on tripod with an ultra hd touch screen, live view focusing etcInstantly have your jpegs on your phone even as your camera captures the RAW
Nice work, not overcooked, look natural and real.
Lovely to see a well composed set of images featured here that aren't hugely post processed. Thanks DPReview, appreciate for once not being punched in the face by hugely oversaturated images and mega-HDR, and being able to appreciate a good eye executing well.
To the photographer, thank you, a pleasure to look at.
Sail Mhor with An Teallach looming behind, looks like the road near Durnamuck.. nice light!
RichyjV: Looking through some of these I am seeing very sharp in the middle on the faces (same sort of level as my Sigma 35 Art), and pretty sharp in the corners on the stopped down shots (not the level of my Sigma 35, more like a zeiss 21 2.8).
No doubt it will be optimised for testing distance and get very good sharpness scores from the usual range of websites, hopefully it will make a good landscape lens as well, should be a very interesting option, but not expecting it to 'blow out of the water' the competition.
Not sure what 35 Art you have, would hardly call it a terribly vignetted lens. 'Way sharper' is a heck of a statement to make on these samples, maybe you have a bad 35 Art, because all my lenses are amongst the sharpest available at their focal lengths, and none is sharper than the 35 Art, let alone 'way' sharper. I doubt a zeiss 85 otus is way sharper (I do have a zeiss but not this one), a tiny bit sharper probably.
Looking through some of these I am seeing very sharp in the middle on the faces (same sort of level as my Sigma 35 Art), and pretty sharp in the corners on the stopped down shots (not the level of my Sigma 35, more like a zeiss 21 2.8).
This. Excellent portrait.
Coliban: Hmm, when i consult the studio scene, the IQ of the D800E is better than that of the D810. I would expect the IQ of the D810 should be better. It is clear when you compare the test charts at the left and bottom corners. Is this a result of this special setup, I can't imagine that the D810 performance is below the D800E.
Or do I misinterpret something
The raw processing software manufacturers take some time to really get the most out of the conversion, so while it is supported now it should get better over time. I'm a D800E owner and I would expect to see a very small difference in favour of the D810 after a few months.
Chris Yates: And whoever thought the MP war was over is sadly mistaken.It's just that Canon can't keep up.
The MP war should have been over a while back as new higher limits no longer have a visible effect on the huge majority of photography.. but how else will they sell us new cameras? They have MP, ISO performance as the key drivers, far fewer people really care about focus performance, controls etc, although many of us would like to see really useable wifi in cameras that didnt feel like it was 5 year old technology.
JKP: I have been looking for an affordable WA lens for Canon EOS 6D, and it looks like Samyang 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC Aspherical would be a good deal. At about 250€ (inc VAT) the sharpness/price ratio is excellent, as again shown also with Nikon D800E body by DxO.
Just be warned that they have to test at close range for charts, and especially for wide angle you are more likely to shoot longer range, where performance can differ quite a lot. That's why it is good to mix up chart data with reviews from pros who use the lenses as well to get an opinion.
Greg VdB: So DxO are still performing usefull technical testing but presenting it in an almost useless fashion...
Determining sample variation (average sharpness + standard deviation) like Roger Cicela does from time to time is much more interesting. Doing this on different bodies would be very interesting, but the former really should be the priority. The lens review site that would establish a cooparation with a service like LensRentals to do rigorous testing would get my eternal gratitude.
I would love to see multiple sample results, generating headline conclusions from a sample size of 1 is just horrible. I remember DxO delayed the Nikon 70-200 2.8 II review because they said the sample they got had a low score and they were waiting to get one with a high score so it would fit with what users already knew about it. There's testing methodology for you.