Jump to content

zlatkob

Members
  • Posts

    2,252
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Member Title
    Erfahrener Benutzer
  • Location
    New Jersey, USA
  • Country
    USA

Converted

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It seems he used the Canon 28mm f/2.8 LTM lens. I remember reading somewhere that he had two of them. See also:
  2. The next version is very unlikely to have a tilt screen.
  3. Any idea what the "Average" column represents on that page? For example, the first card has 98.5% in the Average column.
  4. The jpgs look OK in Google Drive. They don't look blue like in the example you posted.
  5. How is this? Just going by what looks about right ... Temp 3250 Tint +38 Exposure +0.20 Tone Curve Linear (default) Red Hue +68 Orange Hue +40 Blue Hue +11 Red Saturation +33 Orange Saturation +30 Blue Saturation +9 Red Luminance -9 Orange Luminance -4 Camera Profile: Adobe Standard
  6. A few people back then argued vigorously against Leica making an autofocus camera system with autofocus lenses. The arguments against were something like: too big & heavy, too inconsistent with the Leica philosophy, or too much like a Canon/Nikon. Also: it would surely kill the M system, either because almost no one would buy a manual focus Leica when they could buy an autofocus Leica, or because Leica was too small a company to support more than one system and so would surely stop production of the M system if the new system outsold it.
  7. Try the Correct Volume Deformation feature of DxO Viewpoint software. Lense profiles only make the problem worse, not better. That's why embedded lens profiles should always be optional. To make the "fat face" syndrome go away, you actually need to increase the distortion, not decrease it. This will fix the faces, but make straight lines in the room appear curved, thus trading one problem for another. But in a portrait it is best to prefer the faces to the lines in the room.
  8. Has the seller erased the camera's serial number in the photo of the top of the camera? Shouldn't it be right on the metal of the hot shoe?
  9. It depends on the aperture and the subject matter, of course. At widest aperture I'm seeing a mostly busy and distracting bokeh, sometimes with double lines. Sometimes with a radiating-from-center "exploding" look. It's an unrefined look that we're not used to seeing with quality lenses. When bokeh really calls attention to itself like this, it takes something away from the subject in focus. I generally dislike it, but I'm sure it could have fun uses anyway. Stopped down it's likely very good, as most lenses are when stopped down.
  10. Summicron and done. How can it not sing?
  11. Judging from samples online, the optics do no look impressive. It really has the cheap lens look. But might be fun anyway.
  12. Canon buyers? Not for cameras, I can assure you. Canon cameras have been getting modest DxO scores for years. DxO favors the Sony sensors that are used in Sony & Nikon cameras. Canon gets no love from DxO. The highest rated Canon only gets a 91 score, behind about twenty cameras from other brands. Of course, that doesn't stop Canon users from making great photos in all sorts of situations. The Canons that I personally use only get DxO scores of 82 or worse, and they are excellent cameras.
  13. Of course. But that the question was whether a higher res camera shows more apparent motion blur in hand-held pictures. My answer is yes, but only if you are viewing the higher res image at a correspondingly higher enlargement.
  14. I think it is true but in very limited circumstances. Think about it this way: when a camera shakes, it doesn't know how many megapixels its sensor has. The amount of blur is exactly the same whether the camera has 10, 24 or 50 megapixels. So the question is whether you can better see the blur with more megapixels. That is, whether the motion blur is more "apparent". I think the answer depends on how much you enlarge the resulting picture. Generally, the greater the enlargement, the more the blur becomes apparent. Conversely, the lesser the enlargement, the less the blur becomes apparent. A larger version of an image will tend to show more blur, while a smaller version of the same image will tend to look sharper. At typical print sizes and screen sizes of, say, 10 to 30 inches, I suspect that the degree of apparent motion blur between a 24mp camera and a 50mp camera is pretty much the same. For each camera at those print/screen sizes, the image is showing more pixels than our eyes can resolve anyway. In order to see a difference, you have to get to larger print sizes, or greater enlargements on screen. So the question is really how large will the viewer be viewing the final image? Greater megapixel images tend to get viewed at a greater enlargement, on screen at least, in which case we tend to see more apparent motion blur. But if our prints don't get any larger, and if we view them on the same size screens (without going to 100%), then it doesn't really matter. At normal viewing sizes, we don't see an individual pixel or even two or three. So whether a motion blur falls within one pixel or within two or three pixels (because of greater pixel density) makes no difference by itself. The point at which it makes a difference is if the image with greater pixel density is enlarged to a correspondingly greater degree. In other words, if both images are viewed at 100% pixels, then, yes, you will see more apparent motion blur in the higher megapixel image, but only because you are viewing a larger image (not because there is more motion blur). In normal viewing of finished photographs, we see an image, not individual pixels. So motion blur described by one pixel or by two or three (because of greater pixel density) will look exactly the same, and will literally be the same size if both images are viewed at the same output size (e.g. a 30-inch print).
×
×
  • Create New...