with this electronic shutter does this mean the XT1 can flash sync at super high SS?
The fact that this conversation is taking place says a lot about how far m43 has come. I used it for a while. Great system but for skateboarding, which is what I primarily shoot these days, I will stick to the D3. For everything else I like use fuji x100 and x10. I used weddings and such to buy my gear. The occasional family shoot for friends and such too. I like m43a and find the primes superb. I used to have the gf1 20mm for a couple years and it was nice altho af was rubbish back then. I have some larger prints of my kids from that little camera 11x17. Look fine to most people I know. It's about pictures after all. Keep it simple. Dxo is the complete opposite of photography. It's pure lab BS. You will find many pros, commercial pros shooting m43 for their own personal uses. I know a few that are fine with much lesser alternatives. Just saying. Print it in a quality lab and then argue Print it. It changes everything. Get off the internet and keep shooting.
Tete: I like this, and am very interested. Yes you could do it for cheaper. You could use real film and develop it yourself as well. If thats your kick then do that. I say if you can take a good photo and this process / preset helps you accomplish your goal / end product, then sweet. All that matters is the end product, not how you got there. I don't see how someone can knock this and then use photo shop or any post production tool. A tool is a tool, use it or don't.
@plasnu what are talking about. Shooting color was once against all odds no? Think eggelston? I'm not really sure how to respond as your comment is so artsy. Or narrow or intelligent. Or some combination of the three. Regardless, my question is, will someone in commercial / commissioned or any field for that matter look at work with these techniques applied and find it unacceptable? If its not about the result then what the hell is it about. It's about what squares think about it. I'm obviously not on the same level of thinking as you, or hold traditions that close. The only tradition I really care about is wether it's a good photo or not. The rest is irrelevant to me. The yoda speak is kind of uppity as far as I'm concerned. I guess I'm the resident simpleton. Unless someone has a better interpretation / translation of what this guy is talking about to better enlighten me.
@plasnu. When I go to a gallery or am on these here internets, I see a photo I like then that's it. I like it. Then perhaps ill see what technique used or perhaps delv a bit deeper into the photographer. If I find out they used this product and not true film, my opinion does not change. I still like te photo. When I see a photo I don't like, I then ask myself, if I did like it, what would be my attraction to it. Why would I like this photo. Perhaps I'm in experienced, but I always try to think about the good of someone else's work and just look at it for what it is. These products are all tools. Tools to achieve a goal, perhaps stylistically or simply repair or cover up other short comings. Regardless, it's fun for me to investigate how they achieve an image but that, to me, has no consequence as to weather I like it or not. I'm no art student or have any real formal training. Just my perspective. Types via iPhone. 💩
I like this, and am very interested. Yes you could do it for cheaper. You could use real film and develop it yourself as well. If thats your kick then do that. I say if you can take a good photo and this process / preset helps you accomplish your goal / end product, then sweet. All that matters is the end product, not how you got there. I don't see how someone can knock this and then use photo shop or any post production tool. A tool is a tool, use it or don't.