very good composition featuring high tension! could be more precise if perspective corrected...reminds me of stephen shore, which definitely is not a bad thing!
when will this corny HDR dilettantism ever come to an end?
Not a single word about the body materials. Not a good sign...
keeponkeepingon: "once you go below APS-C the next logical size is 1/2.3 inch'"
And this is reason #5 why I am dropping canon after 20 years and too many cameras to count. Idiotic management.
How can anyone in canon leadership make such an inane statement given the popularity of the S90/S95/S100/S110? All four cameras were certified hits, and all use a sensor bigger than 1/2.3 inch.
And if he would take his canon blinders off just for a second he might notice that M43 cameras have taken over nearly 20% of camera sales in his own country:
What an amazing statement. Right up there with you will never need more than 640mb of ram.....
640 KB, not MB!!!
rescuer: you can buy the 24 3.5 L I for 700-900 used, this better be 599 or less. or else !
Come on ! The 24 3.5 L I is a lousy lens, and does not allow for independent rotation of tilt and shift axes! I wouldn`t by it even if it was cheaper than the Samyang!
made by one of these du+bas+es who will never ever get to know what it`s all about
nonuniform: I studied with Stephen Shore at Bard College.
I'm not surprised that many of the comments here are negative reviews of the work. The one thing I learned from Stephen was how to pay attention to the world around me. I left school with a self-awareness about my work, that my stories relate to who I am, and how I see the world.
In the visual arts, one of the ways we learn is through looking. We look at the world, at the work created by others, and look inwards at our imaginations. Most of us start out by copying the work of someone famous. It's a natural way to learn, and then we move on. Or not.
Most of the images I see here, and elsewhere in popular culture, are mere copies of copies of copies of ideas. There's nothing new to learn from yet another snow-covered twilight scene of Half Dome in Yosemite. It's a pretty picture, and I'm happy that it's still there. The meaning of the image is proscribed by culture and most photographers have discovered nothing new to say about it.
Quote: " There's nothing new to learn from yet another snow-covered twilight scene of Half Dome in Yosemite."Well said! There´s a whole scene of copyists that claims for themselves they`d do "fine art". In reality these guys treat photography as if it was just another hobby like hand-washing their Harleys every sunday.
Much ado about nothing. HDR way overdone. People nowadays seem to forget what the canvas of photography is: it´s light! But there is no light left in this scene - as there is no shadow. In "Day 2" there is something like atmosphere retained, whereas in "Day 3" it´s successfully extinguished by PP.
Vitruvius: It looks like the studio scene from the 808 is lacking in contrast, saturation, and sharpness. It is also a bit off white. All of these could easily be enhanced in Photoshop without loss of detail. I know that a sample image is a sample image but it would also be nice to see the studio shot with Photoshop auto contrast, auto exposure, corrected WB, and improved saturation to see how that compares to other cameras. If you can see past the faded sample it looks like it has great potential. It has more detail than most cameras which is something that is most difficult to add later.
@Barney Britton:I must apologize - you are absolutely right!I just was about to take some shots to see what really is the case when I realized the point of my misconception: An aperture of say 4.0 on a 17mm lens does of course not have the same diameter as an aperture of 4.0 on a 500mm. Thus background blur MUST be different. I thought I was about to discover a common misconception concerning DOF whereas the mistake was on my side!Have a nice day and keep up the good work!
justyntime: Who the hell wrote that review?Quote:"What it can't do, of course, is provide one of the other benefits of zoom in a conventional optical system - background blur. Even on a cheap small-sensor compact, you can achieve a degree of subject and background separation by zooming in, and reducing depth of field."
Fundamental misunderstanding of optical principles here!Take a portrait with a given distance to a person with a 500mm lens.Take the same portrait from the same distance with a 17 mm lens.Then "digitally zoom into" the 17mm pic on your monitor so that the size of the face matches on both pics side by side. What you´ll find is that the amount of background blur is exactly the same on both pics! So digital zooming won`t be any different from optical zomming - concerning depth of field...
Reply Part 2:What`s the point of "just because"? (“O.k., these 2 guys are the same height, but that`s just because they are equally tall!!” ?) The “increase in background blurriness” is all that matters in that context! When you zoom in optically you do just that too: make the “blurry bits bigger”! And by zooming in optically the blur disc diameter increases by the same amount as it does by cropping and enlarging via digital zoom.
So against your initial statement (saying digital zoom won´t let you play with background blur) you won´t see any difference in the final image no matter zoomed digitally or optically (I`m not talking about picture quality – this is where the 40 mpx come in handy –I`m only addressing the amount of background blur!)
With the rest of the review you did a good job, no doubt about that!
Reply Part 1:Concerning the definition of DOF you are right of course. But that`s not the discussion here, because DOF definition does not deal with cropping/enlarging so a DOF calculator won`t help!
You say it for yourself: "If you crop from a 28mm shot on the 808, you may see an increase in background blurriness compared to the uncropped original at the same size and viewing distance but that's just because you're making the blurry bits bigger."- ctd. in Pt. 2 -
Who the hell wrote that review?Quote:"What it can't do, of course, is provide one of the other benefits of zoom in a conventional optical system - background blur. Even on a cheap small-sensor compact, you can achieve a degree of subject and background separation by zooming in, and reducing depth of field."
If this is meant surrealistic: cliché.If this is meant realistic: embarrassing.Bad composition too.This is the stuff children do when you give them the tools. How old are you?Nice color dialog - but MADE not FOUND - hence worthless in photographic context ...Stephen Shore once told me (in 1994): "Kurt, what I´m seing in your work is that you´re trying to MAKE a picture out of something" This opened my eyes and after that I changed my whole approach to photography. But you don´t know who Stephen Shore is, do you?