GaryW

I have reached a critical mass.  I have lenses to cover just about everything, although I think 24mm would be my ideal FOV.  I'm not too excited about paying so much for the Sony 24mm lens, ...

It really isn't a great example, but as it turned out, I still had it set to too high of a shutter, so the aperture is a non-optimal f5.6. Still usable, as the corner softness just doesn't matter ...

His 10 year old DSLR probably lacked the image quality of today's "toy" cameras.  *shrug* Yeah, this was basically the attitude of many photographers online back then.  I was another one who got ...

I took this one yesterday.  I don't recall if I had the UWA on it or not, but probably?

Add in the fisheye adapter -- now how much would you pay?  ;-) Ok, maybe TODAY it isn't the best value, but what are you comparing this against?  Manual focus lenses?  Not quite the same.  Even ...

And it's larger and more expensive.  Trade-offs! I have both the 16mm prime and 16-50pz.  Seems like it would be hard to not have the 16-50? Anyway, in that case, both lenses are primes, and it's ...

That was my thought, exactly -- by shooting at high ISO in order to get a better DoF, you basically got rid of the need for medium format. It was kind of wasted, except maybe for the number of...

Also the cheapest Sony e-mount ever. "The performance ranges from average to very good. The lens reaches excellent values by f/5.6 but also in the range from f/4.0 to f/11 – it shouldn’t be ashamed ...

It doesn't look so bad to me, but yeah, noise is going to have an effect, particularly if noise-reduction kicks in.  (You might get an in-camera JPEG that looks nice but slightly soft, but that ...

Sometimes when people post things like this, it seems inconclusive, but this looks pretty conclusive.  Given that you'd want a lens like this to be for having higher quality, I'd probably want to ...

Another option would be the hated 16mm prime with UWA adapter. At least you get AF, and it's not so horrible. I think the below photos were taken with the 16 and UWA, but not sure....

Quite a lot! It's really amazing it came out as good as it did. I think if you wanted the people to come out with more detail, I would have allowed the highlights to be a bit more blown in the ...

Not sure if it's as noticeable in the other photos, but this one is kind of a mess.  It's at ISO 200, so it should be low noise, but the noise has been sharpened to such an extent that the ...

I hadn't thought about it like that, but you know, sometimes things are simply not reproduced.  Yeah, things progress -- more megapixels, automatic transmissions, etc., but sometimes you miss that ...

Weight and size were both factors for me moving away from DSLRs.  At one time, you had to have a DSLR for the highest quality.  But, why did the cameras have to be so large?  I used to use 35mm ...

The plastic slide copiers are so cheap that I wouldn't bother making something like this, but it's nice to see that it can be done so simply if needed. Years ago I photographed several slides, and ...

Probably not.  I got mostly through the first page, before I noticed!  But even so, you never know -- maybe the person being responded to is still on DPR.

I wonder if you had to underexpose quite so much?  I find that I hardly ever need to do multi-shot HDR — I almost always can just shoot to preserve highlights and pull up shadows in RAW. You might ...