Antonio de Curtis: let's say that I compose the image and then the EVF gives me somehow the opportunity to zoom in, then it would impress me, otherwise I simply don't care, glass is sufficient
I didn't know such func is already there, I agree with both of you said
let's say that I compose the image and then the EVF gives me somehow the opportunity to zoom in, then it would impress me, otherwise I simply don't care, glass is sufficient
Sosua: This is ridiculous - every second chap has probably tried something similar in London.
They are both poor images as well, in terms or creative and technical execution.
in the 2nd statement you got the point
(even the fish looks nice)
nice, looks like a monk
madeinlisboa: Nice article. Whoever complains about the depth of field does not know jack about food photography and shouldn't be even reading this article.
good point, so ?
there's too much out of focus in the first 2 images, they make my eyes squint
I also notice no vapor from warm food ... but I can understand ...
the article in itself isn't bad
love it, very well done !
MysticX: The article is very good and it reveals the truth: the DSLR camera is not always the best tool when it comes to people spontaneous shooting.
There are 2 things that distracts the subject.Putting camera at your eye And autofocus
Ancient Rolleiflex was better just because you could frame with camera waist level
Maybe we'll see in the coming years a smaller mirrorless 35x24mm sensor camera with a 40mm pancake and a mobile digital screen. Hopefully this combo will allow waist level digital photos.
a rolleiflex isn't ancient, please ...
I like it, nice clouds
did you go to Montecchio ?