191–200 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turn off motion smoothing on your TV. It's also called the "Soap Opera Effect".
Or keep it turned on and get used to it so we can all finally start enjoying high frame rate video!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Have you ever watched an old TV show and despaired how unwatchable it is because of low quality of image? Yes, that's the same thing -- our tastes change. I've had the opposite reaction - I'd watch something I've seen before in 4k remastered or something and it would be a worse experience because the extra details reveal the low quality tricks you can get away with on lower reproduction quality. I've even noticed po…
The Thing is probably my favorite movie and the practical creature effects are still largely considered the gold standard of the craft. But in 2K the artificiality is getting a lot more noticeable and while I will certainly be getting it in 4K I'm starting to realize that maybe 720p is the best way to view it for the sake of full immersion. YMMV.
I have a bunch of full frame lenses. Recently I looked at some very old ones I haven't used in a long time. I thought they are faulty (soft). After some diagnosing I found that it is not the fault of lenses but rather in the meantime I have started looking at images at 1:1 in Lightroom and gotten used to ridiculously sharp images from new cameras. Have you ever watched an old TV show and despaired how unwatchable it…
>Have you ever watched an old TV show and despaired how unwatchable it is because of low quality of image? Yes, that's the same thing -- our tastes change. I've had the opposite reaction - I'd watch something I've seen before in 4k remastered or something and it would be a worse experience because the extra details reveal the low quality tricks you can get away with on lower reproduction quality. I've even noticed po…
I watched Gemini Man in 4k HDR and some of the scenes seemed a little like a video game. I think there was sort of an "uncanny valley" sort of thing where you could see detail into the deepest shadow and it looked fake.
On the other hand, 2001 in 4k was awesome.
I love 50mm lenses but a lot of this stuff is ridiculously academic since photography is artistic & creative in nature. DPreview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. These new 50mm lenses often defeat the point cause they're enormous, heavy, very expensive, and have little benefit over the slower versio…
> DPreview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. To be fair, the author of this article is Roger Cicala of LensRentals fame [1]; optical testing is his bread and butter. He's also the first to point out that optimal lens performance is neither necessary nor sufficient for good photography, and is famousl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The expensive lenses are usually big and heavy. If you don't need that degree of sharpness, then it's potentially a worse tool than a lighter (and cheaper) lens. >So why wouldn't they be called "hobbyist photographers" like the rest of us? I feel like I explained my thoughts on that in my previous comment. Basically if you're in it for the love of the gear rather than to make photographs that's fine, but your hobby i…
> I feel like I explained my thoughts on that in my previous comment. Yes, you did. Sorry, it shouldn't have sounded so personal. My real problem is with the community in general. > Basically if you're in it for the love of the gear rather than to make photographs that's fine, but your hobby is collecting rather than photography. The thing is, it is a spectrum between pinhole photographers and gear heads. There are d…
Yeah, for sure, I didn't intend to make it sound like as much of a clear cut dichotomy as I ended up doing.
>who is branded a legitimate photographer instead of some weirdo with too much money?
You ask the Internet Photography Police to render a verdict, of course! But yeah, it's not a clearcut distinction in most cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Second the recommendation for Tamron. I have their 70-200 f/2.8 with stabilization. It's amazing, especially for the price. I shoot concerts with it on an A7ii. The lens is great. The camera body however is showing its age which is unfortunate, but I'll upgrade in a generation or two.
Oh, you are talking about older version for cameras with mirror. I'm talking about newer one designed from scratch for mirror less cameras. They are even better and getting really close to Sony lenses (even better than some like new 70-180 f/2.8 is cheaper and better than Sony 70-200 f/4).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> DPReview largely seems to write for the crowd that doesn't even care about the art aspect and just wants validation that they have better photo gear than others. DPReview, FStoppers, PetaPixel, and back in before the web the Popular Photography and Modern Photography magazines. There's a big market for prosumer gear that costs a lot, has ideal technical specs, and hangs around the owner's neck like a prize. Of cour…
DPReview seems to have rather balanced reporting (I'm not a regular reader), so they do seem to be at least somewhat independent of being directly sponsored by whoever they're reviewing at the time. Compare this to pretty much every photo-vlogger/blogger/grammer out there, which have massive audiences while making unclear claims of independence and un-biasedness while shilling very hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Old lenses are generally fine when stopped down to sensible apertures in my experience. What’s new is the expectation that lenses should be ultra sharp wide open. Expensive lenses are a very niche enthusiast market now, so the design criteria aren’t especially rational. An exception would be old kit zooms from the film era, which really are awful, since they were designed for people who rarely even went up to 8x10 pr…
Half of reason I even bother with full frame is wide open. Any smartphone these days can give perfectly good sharp photos. I lug the beast around to get shots you can't get with a smartphone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turn off motion smoothing on your TV. It's also called the "Soap Opera Effect".
Or keep it turned on and get used to it so we can all finally start enjoying high frame rate video!
If the source happens to have more frames, then show them of course. But otherwise I'd prefer to see the same frame again for the extra 1/60th of a second.