This sounds promising?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
PhotoFactor Senior Member • Posts: 2,840
Re: This is rich

wb2trf wrote:

Regarding print size, I wouldn't print this because it is not my style, really, but I don't agree about needing more detail to print large. That's never true, essentially. Visible detail is constant as viewing distance varies, so it is pretty much true that any photo can print at any size. That's how Apple prints sides of buildings with iPhone shots that look good. If I wanted to print a four foot version of this I wouldn't hesitate. That said, as I said, I shoot with primes because, for me, I prefer the sharper results and I prefer composing with a fixed fov.

Of course there is always some lens that someone wants that isn't available at the price they want to pay. That truth does not extend to either that there is a general lack of APS-C lenses (only the 85 in my list is FE, but I don't care about that either as it is agreat $500 lens that happens to be FE), or that Sony would be better off by satisfying some person's particular wish.

You say you don't print, so your disagreement rests upon certain assumptions, which are only partially true.

I didn't say I don't print. I said I wouldn't print this particular photo because this isn't my preferred style of photo.

Prints of 12x18 to 16x24 or even larger can often be used effectively in hallways for example, where viewing distance is short.

Don't mount photos where viewing distance cannot be maintained. If you can't get back far enough, it's printed too large for that location.

Watch how people observe photographs in exhibitions or museums -- many will walk right up to the photograph to examine the detail and take pleasure from it.

So if people walk up to a photo and see pixels that's bad? What if they walk up to Van Gogh? Seurat? For photos, they can always get close enough to see photo elements if they want. This view reflects the aesthetic of equipment people.

As someone who doesn't print, I understand your lack of any need for optically better lenses,

Better than the Sigma 16 or Rok 21. These are excellent lenses..

but that is not the case for everyone who uses APSC, which does about as well as FF in good light and is only marginally inferior in lower light situations if used to best advantage. You are correct that zooms require compromises that generally make primes a better choice for IQ. However, zooms provide flexibility and can often make the difference between getting or losing a shot that is not static.

The Sony A6xxx bodies have a potential that has not yet been reached, although many are more than satisfied with the current lens selection. But, frankly, the newer and better cell phone cameras would also satisfy these users.

This is really rich. My favorite part. You're saying that if you don't want better lenses than the ones currently available you are someone who will be happy with a cell phone camera. Preciously absurd. Do your really think that a rhetorical ploy of this type will just slide?

Sort of like the rhetorical ploy to compare a photo with a Van Gogh painting?

 PhotoFactor's gear list:PhotoFactor's gear list
Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Sony a6000 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow