matthiasbasler

matthiasbasler

Lives in Germany Germany
Works as a GIS developer, hobby photographer
Has a website at baslerphotos.de
Joined on Nov 25, 2012

Comments

Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

"... always push to learn more."
Does every photographer necessarily needs to strive to become better at all?

While the above said likely holds true for professional and ambitious photographers, hobby photographers may very well have a different attitude: A hobby is supposed to create joy and/or satisfaction (in my opinion at least.) So when you look at your photos of 5 years ago and you like them ... mission accomplished. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this!

I you photograph your children, pets, flowers and you and your friends like the results, there's no pressing need to become better. (Just the opposite: Show some award-winning abstract photos with perfect composition, sharpness and lighting to your friends, and some might react: Cannot they create "normal" photos?

Long story short: If photography is a hobby to you, you can do it a the level you want the way you want.

(P.S. I don't like people talking to selfie sticks. This looks sooo unprofessional.)

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2018 at 12:10 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies

This reminds me of a similar experience I had myself. Near my home town there was a large, majestic beech tree on a slope, not quite alone but set apart from other trees in the background of the meadow. Five years ago or so I went to this tree once a week and usually shot from the same position with similar settings. In the end I got a time lapse of the tree over the course of a bit more than a year. I did not post these images publicly (I am not the type of person for this) but it was part of a well-perceived slide show I held among fellow photographers.

Nobody hurt that tree on purpose, but about one year later one of its four main branches broke down for natural reasons. They cut it and had to cut the oposite one too. A year later the third branch had to be removed. The rest of the tree is still standing but it's merely a shadow of its former self.

Had I not photographed it in its beauty then I would have missed the chance forever.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2018 at 17:54 UTC as 19th comment

I have wondered quite some time what this move means.

Most likely it is a reaction to the fact that there is so less innovation in the field of entry level DSLRs in the last 5 years that more and more people (me included) consider bying a (possibly used) pre-predecessor of the currently offered cameras, like the D5300 or 750D. For several use cases, such as time lapse photography, it's better to have an inexpensive old camera than a new one which gets stolen or wet.
In order to compete with second hand camera prices canon had to respond with cheap cameras if they want to sell to amateurs today.

It might also be an attempt to bind first-time camera buyers already to their lens mount and brand, which would otherwise buy a compact camera.

And as several people here stated - these entry level DSLRs can get you good photos, once you master the art of photography. Certainly less smeared photos than smartphones in low light, even with a sensor from 2009. (Test it if you don't believe me.)

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2018 at 18:34 UTC as 4th comment

What a pity. Now I have to take down the no-longer-working interactive photos from my webseite.

Well, the technology might not have been the ideal one , and their closed ecosystem and their inability to comply with existing photographer's expectations and conventions were reasons for their failure imho.

However, even three years later I must say that there has never been another camera which looks as cool as this one and had such a really innovative touch interface again. And I am certain neither canon, nikon, or sony will have any cameras as revolutionary as this one in the near future. They know not changing too much at a time is the safer bet.

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2017 at 20:20 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (138 comments in total)
In reply to:

matthiasbasler: If this is the "cutting edge" of smartphone image quality, then I as an enthusiast photographer will happily continue shooting with my "real" dedicated cameras. Even my compact old Olympus XZ-2, easily beats the Pixel 2 in terms of image detail, and its images don't look half as "smeared" at low ISOs. NR effects are still much too strong for my liking on the Pixel 2. Just look at the black cat sample photo - no fur details at all ... the high resolution is wasted in most scenes.
But then, the phone seems to get useful and well-colored photos even at night, which is good to see.

That said, as an emergency camera or for people who just shoot images for social media, the quality is well enough for sure. I'm just not that person.

> Can you read your email on your Olympus?
I never had the desire to do so ... or play games on it. Really.
For this I could buy a 200€ smartphone + a premium compact and still have some money left for accessories compared to the Pixel 2.

Dedicated cameras and phones with camera simply aren't competitors. I just made my remark because dpreview always touts how good the smartphone images are from the new XYZ model ... and yet they aren't good in absolute terms imho.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 20:26 UTC
On article Google Pixel 2 sample gallery (138 comments in total)

If this is the "cutting edge" of smartphone image quality, then I as an enthusiast photographer will happily continue shooting with my "real" dedicated cameras. Even my compact old Olympus XZ-2, easily beats the Pixel 2 in terms of image detail, and its images don't look half as "smeared" at low ISOs. NR effects are still much too strong for my liking on the Pixel 2. Just look at the black cat sample photo - no fur details at all ... the high resolution is wasted in most scenes.
But then, the phone seems to get useful and well-colored photos even at night, which is good to see.

That said, as an emergency camera or for people who just shoot images for social media, the quality is well enough for sure. I'm just not that person.

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2017 at 17:29 UTC as 34th comment | 7 replies

I bought the previous 2017 PSE+PE bundle. Here are my thoughts:

- Everytime i use an "automatic" function, such as "AutoContrast", "AutoColor" or even "Intelligent Correction", when I see the result I go "Ouch" and undo it quicky. Usually AutoContrast produces over-contrasty scenes, AutoColor unnatural colors and so on (with few coincidal exceptions). And in the end I do it manually ... better.

- Yes, with the "Elements" applications you get a "buy once, use forever" license, but there's a catch: Adobe sees no point in fixing bugs in these programs - unless severe ones possibly. I took the time to report quite a few and my messages were ignored. Obviously you have to buy the next version in order to (maybe) get a bug fix. I wonder if they still have the absurd mis-translations to German language in PE2018 ...

- On the positive side, those functions I use work well, and raw conversion with the included CameraRaw can recover highlights and shadows well, it only lacks CA removal.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 20:39 UTC as 19th comment
In reply to:

Dheorl: I can see this being used a lot in high end 360 rigs.

Mobile, light-weight 3D movie sets come to my mind, e.g. on paragliders or used by divers for documentary 3D underwater scenes. I've recently watched "African Safari 3D" and they used small 3D cameras for such purposes.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

LP0WELL: Pretty typical of a DPReview article, starts out with factual information, but drops the ball at the end. The final conclusion, "If your camera doesn’t capture more than 12 stops of DR, you probably shouldn’t clamor for 14-bit Raw" is myopic and misleading.

When the camera encodes a 12-stop DR in a 12-bit RAW file, just as the article states, the brightest stop of highlights is encoded using half the steps of the 4096-step 12-bit range. But take a look at that darkest 12th stop of shadow detail (first diagram) - it's encoded with just 2 steps of detail, which makes it nothing more than a dark silhouette. With a 14-bit RAW image, that 12th stop of DR would be encoded with 8 levels of precision, preserving four times as much shadow detail as a 12-bit RAW image.

> preserving four times as much shadow detail as a 12-bit RAW image.

Except, that if "the camera encodes a 12-stop DR" there would be no further shadow detail to be preserved in the first place, because the sensor cannot capture the differences between dark and a bit darker. You'd only get noise. That's what this article correctly says.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

Photography Matters: A wonderful way to turn a nice DSLR with a quality sensor into a good P&S. Don't get me wrong, these gallery shots are quite good, but as CCD FTW observes, "the Sigma 100-400mm...is in a whole other league." I went to a baseball game with the Sigma lens attached to a Nikon D500. I missed a lot of shots that could have used a sub-100mm focal length. With this lens, I would have gotten those shots, but my long shots would have been inferior.

So, I'm conflicted. Sacrifice IQ and have a "good enough" one-lens solution, or look like a geek and endure the hassle of carrying 2 camera bodies to cover the entire focal range with no compromise lenses.

Sorry for my ignorance, but who or what is "CCD FTW"?

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 15:17 UTC

I'm sorry but the one think that struck me most about the samples was not about the lens.
It was the the amount of noise which imho makes it hard to judge anything like lens sharpness. But it was especially the fact that images at ISO100 to 800 were already *that* noisy. Why do these photos, shot in bright sunlight show more noise at ISO100 than the ISO200 RAW images I process from my G81 m43(!) camera in Camera Raw 9.10 with noise reduction OFF? (I did a direct comparison.)

What went wrong? The 80D can do better according to your test chart RAW images.

Two suggestions for the next sample gallery:
1. Use lower ISO settings at least for a part of the images (across the zoom range). The third image with the bee was shot at ISO800 + 1/2000s. That image would very likely be sharper at ISO200 and +1/500. After all this lens has image stabilization.

2. Find out how to process the images so they do not look that grainy.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply

Wow! No more to say.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 18:28 UTC as 36th comment
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Really loved the flying scenes. But please, cut away the rest. Flowers, kids, people jumping and swimming elephants. Unnecessary fillers. IMHO. More fast flying over interesting areas though.

BTW - the stars? Where they for real? Did the drone really stop and take a long super stabilized exposure at every image?

The helicopter doesn't have to stop - and better should not stop in order to get a fluent linear movement through the time-lapse. All that is important is that the camera faces exactly into the same direction during any whole exposure. This can be achieved with a very good gimbal (or alternatively by aligning and stacking many subsequent short exposure shots the way astrophotographers often do). The foreground becomes somewhat unsharp then, but the stars remain sharp.

P.S. I believe a full-size movie with just time-lapses would be boring as well, so I like that it has other scenes inbetween.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2017 at 18:28 UTC

Honestly I have no idea why some people consider this a joke. Some decades ago so called "fix focus" compact cameras were widely spread among beginners, so the concept is not exactly out of this world.

This is clearly not the lens for studio photographers who desire optimum image quality and control over DOF.

But for street photographers it can be interesting. How often did I already miss a good shot because the camera didn't focus correctly (or at all) when I pressed the shutter button in a hurry in order to catch a fleeting moment? These were the occasions where such a lens could have helped.

Over 500$ sounds a bit expensive for such lens. But real prices may be lower after a while.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 17:18 UTC as 66th comment | 7 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta's prosumer DiMAGE 7 (215 comments in total)

This camera is 6 years old, and still...
... it could be used in science fiction movie today and most people would think: Wow, this looks futuristic. (Just don't tell the audience its a normal camera. Pretend it to be an medical scanning device, a teleportation device or something along this line.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 19:25 UTC as 8th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: The Canon PowerShot G3 (101 comments in total)

I also switched to digital with this camera in 2003. It was a revelation for me. Suddenly I was able to get sharp 4MP images in contrast to the soft prints from my negative still camera (an enthusiast Canon Super 135 compact).
With these clean 4MP images I could create 30x45cm posters which looked fine for me.
The low-light-capabilities were much better, and I could switch ISO for every scene!
I could immediately see if I got a flower sharp or not. No paying for prints and no more growing photo folders.
I never ever had the desire to use a classical camera again.

Indeed, now that someone mentioned: Yes, it had an "intervalometer", and this is when my love for timelapses was born. I believe I shot my first one down from Grouse Mountain overlooking Vancouver City during dusk. It was limited to 100 images unfortunately.
For some reason Canon failed to add a built-in intervalometer to its consumer DSLRs, so nowadays I use Nikon and Panasonic for time lapses.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 17:17 UTC as 18th comment

Strange: Again and again I have been told here on dpreview how much better smartphone cameras have become.
And now I read that it takes a Google engineer the effort to create a custom app and quite a bit of Photoshop magic in order to get images I can easily get from one shot with probably any recent APSC or full frame camera (for well below 1000US$).

This explains why most smartphone photos created by "normal people" which I have seen in the past years still looked poor in my opinion. (Details smeared away by noise reduction, greyish colors, often underexposed.) The typical John Doe will not set up a tripod, create multiple exposures, dark frames and likely has no idea what a DNG file is.

So this article mainly shows the obvious:
You have to know about photography in order to create high-quality images.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 17:32 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
On article Sphere of frustration: Nikon KeyMission 360 review (202 comments in total)

Throwaway thursday? ;-)

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 17:13 UTC as 37th comment
On article NAB 2017: Hot products and trends (50 comments in total)

> I'm not convinced that consumers are quite ready to begin moving to 8K TVs yet, especially since most of them haven't even gone 4K.

You got it.
How much is a 4K beamer for home cinema currently? 4000€ and upwards.
But this will of course not be a showstopper for industry to promote 8K anyway.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 17:01 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
On article Lomography launches Simple Use Film Camera (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

kpaddler: BTW, this disposable junk is a lot easier to recycle than your electronic junk...come off your high horse

This is most likely true for the camera alone, but take the films, development chemicals and photo paper into account, and compare the overall ecological footprint of this camera and a digital camera after one year of typical use (assuming you are reusing this camera).

Things will look different then.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 06:03 UTC
Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »