See gear list
Marcelobtp: Nice lens image quality. Surprised to see usable 1.4 aperture.
I have the Samyang and to me it's not usable at 1.4. Way too much PF.
armandino: I really think you guys need to start to put a break on your highlight and shadow recovery especially on your portrait shots. That makes really difficult to judge the lens characteristics. The pictures looks so nervous and unnatural, it does not go well with the softness of such a fast lens wide open.
If you check the RAWs they're that way out of camera. That lens seems to have very low contrast and tends to illumintate the dark OOF areas.
jdmeyer: Lovely -- but who took the photos they are both in?
Uh, it says the photos were taken by the poster's uncle.
Alpha Photo: Now if Sony could only get rid of the fake prism box on top of their cameras....
Why? It looks great and is very convenient...
Very good article series, thanks. One thing that I would have seen added is on the "effect of pixel count" page. The explanation and demonstration of how and why noise varies little depending on pixel count of a given size sensor "when viewed at a common output size" is perfectly valid, BUT this assumption is not really a realistic one to make as the very reason for using higher resolution cameras in practice is typically either to create a larger output or allowing to crop, and there while we'll get more detail on a higher pixel count camera the visible noise will also become greater.
It of course doesn't change anything of what you said, but would be a good explanation to add for a common scenario.
ekaton: Why f1.4 for a wide lens? For light gathering ability? But sensor sensitivities take sufficiently care of this these days, at much lower cost. For dof control? This is limited with a wide lens anyway - get a longer lens for real dof control. Just because they can? So it seems.
DOF control. On full frame with apertures larger than F2 you start getting some awesome looks even at 28mm.You can look at samples from the Sigma 28mm F1.8.
Kilrah: That article is vers interesting on 2 points:
- The intended one - know what you want and prepare acordingly, something I still really struggle with, but I try...
- The huge differences in perception between people. Reading the article, and discovering each image by scrolling down after reading the description and intentions was very interesting. By reading and seeing the first attempts I started making myself an image of the intended result - and the final image did not match it at all.I actually don't like it as it is presented here, I find it flat and dull... As they are again, I find the "Day 1: Second attempt" version much more interesting (slightly colder WB would be even better IMO).I've tried reprocessing both to my taste, and there the "final" version would indeed take the edge, but not by much, so that if they were mine I'd have to keep both.
Too long, continued below in reply...
Mixing both points leads to an interesting conclusion - From the photographer's point of view, it is a good thing to know what you want to do, and do what it takes to achieve it, no doubt about that. But on the other side, you can spend days creating an image YOU will be pleased with, but in the view of someone else it might not be worth it, on the opposite he might actually prefer the test shot...
That's what I find difficult about sharing photography. Personal taste has so much importance that sometimes it feels like spending hours on a shot might probably just be useless. I just say that I do it for myself so I'm happy, and at least what I show is consistent with my own feelings. If some others like it - well, that's even better! But I'm happy not to be a professional and thus have to deal with this everyday, in the form of customers who have a different vision from mine for example.
And yes, the very first shot is also my favourite of the lot.
That article is vers interesting on 2 points:
Sdaniella: i don't like the side box...
max size of 'low' resolution is 960 x 960 but now display scaled down.
max size of 'high' resolution was 2048 x 2048, but only the lower version is displayed and scaled down depending on browser view or any magnification set.
however, the higher resolution url-link 2048x2048 no longer is available separately (i cannot find it anywhere)... but then, it was noticeably compressed after it was uploaded, so the quality is iffy.
i do like the darker framing; earlier i had to 'black frame' my favorite scenic images to best see them, and at least now, it is default frame color instead of that bright white framing which i hated.
The "Download" link is now in the little "gear" menu at the top right of the viewer.
I always upload photos to Facebook in 1600px wide and tick the "high resolution" box, but still images turn out awful due to very excessive JPG recompression. Every picture ends up blurry/noisy. Hate it.For that reason I was always using Flickr and never uploading to Facebook. I recently changed my mind though, as uploading to flickr and posting the link on FB simply doesn't have the same impact. No tagging, bad visibility (a link on facebook gets lost in a few minutes, while an album stays easily accessible, and everytime you upload a shot to an existing one it brings it up and gives people an incentve to go and see the rest of the album and comment/like again).
Uwe Skrzypczak: Now it's zero o'clock in Germany! Thanks to all for the big interest on my book wildlife photography.
If anybody has post a link to share the book with others on sites like rapidshare, please accept the rights of the publisher and close or delete the link now.
If you have additional questions to the book, wildlife photography or safari tours, feel free and use the contact button on my website www.serengeti-wildlife.com.Except i'm not in the bush, you get a quick answer.
Thanks very much
Unfortunately the download / whole site was unreachable pretty much all day, didn't manage to get it.EDIT, links posted by others were the solution. Thanks!
It's not really a portfolio app, but I use Photo Manager Pro. It has the advantage of supporting folders more than one level deep. The photos app is unuseable for large sorted collections. Displays metadata, and scaling is also a bit better (less aliased) than the stock app.
Cy Cheze: "Improve picture quality"? Specifically what? Some may assume it pertains to high ISO JPEG results, but does Sony actually say this? Can owners say whether the downloads include a TXT file that elaborates?
Sony doesn't give any details.
joe6pack: Finally a wireless SD card that can receive. I always wonder what took Eye-Fi so long to come up with a card that receives data. Toshiba has the answer.
A Wi-Fi SD card that can receive can potential mean we can turn any digital photo frame into active photo album, even carry useful information like weather, tweets, etc (overlay text on photo) and this can even be provided as premium solution that requires paid subscription. A lot of people may be willing to buy it if it is done right.
Sadly, timing is everything. With cheap Android tablets going for $99 or less. I no longer see a lot of value.
You do realise that no device currently expects or supports contents of a memory card to "magically" change without it doing it an action? This would wreak havoc on any photo frame you can find today. Now maybe Toshiba have enough influence to create products that do support it and suggest that others do the same, but those will most of the time already have integrated Wi-Fi, so no need for the card. It would have been interesting to use on existing devices, but nobody would want to face the customer service issues that would cause...
HopeSpringsEternal: What about 24p? Sony, you listening?
"Really? That must be why almost all Blu-ray movies are also 24P too, right?"Legacy heritage. Blu-ray movies are still shown in theatres before being released to blu-ray. Many theatres aren't equipped with digital equipment and still depend on film. Thus, they need 24p. So, footage is shot at 24p. There is a debatable artistic element indeed, but it's kind of "forced" - if it really was a liberty, you'd find artists with different views and approaches who would probably shoot other framerates as that would be more appropriate to their project - but they don't do it because they don't really have choice.Properly shot, stable slow action cinema footage doesn't look stuttery in 24p, thus wouldn't look different in 60p. On faster scene there would be a real benefit. The main "artistic" elements are DoF like for photo, and the easily forgotten but very important slow shutter speed to give motion blur.
Some vapor can also appear at slow speeds indeed during high-g maneuvers, but that's not the same effect than on this photo. It's due to the lower pressure on the top of the wing causing water to condense, and will mostly appear on the top side. The cone like seen here will indeed only appear at high speeds as explained in the other comments.