Zero One posted:

I had to post them here after he commented that the only way to make his photos look good was to over HDR them.

Zero One posted:

I had to post them here after he commented that the only way to make his photos look good was to over HDR them.

Zero One posted:

I had to post them here after he commented that the only way to make his photos look good was to over HDR them.

Zero One posted:

Thomamelas posted:

Her photos always feel like she finds a good center and then takes two steps to the left before taking the shot.

Yeast posted:

you're not wrong, I flicked through a few more images, and they're constantly taken 3 meters too far to the left.

Thom12255 posted:

President Trump Visits Alaska by The White House, on Flickr
President Trump Visits Alaska by The White House, on Flickr
President Trump Visits Alaska by The White House, on Flickr

Wafflecopper posted:

Autumn Pond by howard1916 - My Personal 'Explore', on Flickr

Holistic Detective posted:

Does the photographer have one leg shorter than the other? Or did they just watch Battlefield Earth and decided all Dutch angles all the time was the way to go?

Wafflecopper posted:

Autumn Pond by howard1916 - My Personal 'Explore', on Flickr

xzzy posted:

Yall are being too harsh, if Monet had the tools we have today that's what his art would have looked like!!

Uptime Sinclair posted:

Reminds me of:
https://twitter.com/mikefossey/status/481474617237045249?s=21

SMERSH Mouth posted:

While I was in the Northernmost of Japan, I realized that the real worst of worst issue of the Sony Alpha E mount and A too is the lens build quality without any proper weather sealing.
They are very fragile, their bodies are actually not as weak or fragile as many Nikon Canon fanboys think they are, they could take a lot of abuse, my A7R3 is actually quite tough, even my A7R2 is very tough-never had any issue even shooting in a minus 20c cold winter mountain. But their lenses even the expensive GMasters are very very weak. I realized I actually collected 3 dead GM lenses when I was leaving Hokkaido...
So I ma no longer buying any of their AF lenses any more especially these expensive ones. I am hundred percent Batis , Loxia and Voigtlander now(these are way more durable than the weak GMaster junks). It is really liberating to be Sony-lens-less now. Sony should sick with just the sensor and camera body part of this game and should buy lenses from Tamron , Zeiss and Km since they cannot make any lens properly sealed. Their weather sealing is a joke.
The near future state of the mirrorless market(updated 9):
Does the high end ILC market have enough rooms for all the current 6 FF players?
In last year 2017, I thought Fuji was really doomed , maybe even more doomed than m43, and now many people think Fuji is equally doomed as m43 or Pentax, but now I actually think we are all wrong on that.
I think Fuji will definitely survive and maybe if we have to pick the one will definitely survive as a camera maker besides Leica , I will have to pick Fuji or Canon. Why?
It's because Fuji is a distinct case. People will buy Fuji not because it's better than Nikon/Canon/Sony, but because it's more ritzy, or maybe more accurate to put it this way -it is more film-like or retro? We have many hipster old men that love Fuji , they do not care if Sony beats it in a specsheet war,or Canon has more lenses or Nikon betas all with the biggest future proven Z mount.......
You can see that in any camera forum, where people rave about Fuji's image quality, which, frankly, isn't really distinctively better for anyone other than a photophile pixel-peeper. Plus, anyone interested in making larger prints (which is really the only place a difference might appear) APS-C is basically as good as FF, and the differences will close as technology matures. I would suggest that Fuji is a special case, as Leica has been for a while. The images will be fine, but that's not really the reason to buy Fuji. But: fashion goes on forever -- see Leica. It's simply cooler to younger people than Sony, Nikon , Canon or especially Panasonic.
So Fuji is just fine although some Nikon Sony fanboys dismiss it just because it does not have FF or does not choose to go FF. As I said already, the 24, 26 or 30mp is more than enough of a high resolution sensor for most of screens and prints. And most of people cannot tell prints from a 24mp APS-C vs a 42 or 45mp FF apart in a smaller than a A2 print.
And with the XT3 , Fuji has just proved that they can do video as well as any one else, now at least spec and IQ wise they are one of the best hybrid video camera maker .
I am sure that has shocked quite a few of Sony Panasonic hybrid camera fanboys.
And for those people who think APS-C is not good enough for their needs, Fuji has the G mount system.
So I think Fuji seems to be the most logical guy in the FF obsessed film term loving crazy conservative camera industry. They will survive regardless of what Canon Nikon Sony Panasonic will do.
So the real competition for mainstream FF market share is Nikon/Canon/Sony/Panasonic Leica, and of the 4 , I now think the L mount is the most vulnerable one due to the very high initial entry cost of the system. We all know every thing Leica is very expensive , but as a boutique brand Leica will always be able to get away with it, but Pansonic? No. They are a huge home appliance maker and as such they have no brand power in this market although they've actually shown they have the best tech in this industry both in optics and electronics.
Besides the L mount consortium,I have the least faith that Sony cameras will be here in ten years. Because Sony is sorta..unfashionable. It's common. For the past few years, Sony's been doing well, because it's been innovative. But the products of the three main FF manufacturers are quickly converging, to the point where the only distinctive factor may be some subtle ergonomic preferences and cost effective mid range quality lens selection. Once the technology shakes out, and they're all selling the same thing, then fashion reasserts itself. Historically, Sony has not been willing to struggle for minor profits on what is to them, marginal products. See the various Vaio PC products, or the portable audio systems. If they dropped cameras entirely, it would make no visible difference in their profit as they are basically a insurance and entertainment business company.
IMHO, Sony just misjudged the Canon and the Nikon future mirrorless strategy, so they felt the E mount would be powerful enough to keep it going well for them.
But , any one old enough to remember Minolta A7000, it was a huge hit and because of its huge success Minolta dominated the 35mm AF camera world in the late 80's until Canon entered into that market with the revolutionary all electronics ILC system EOS.
I was a little kid when my father bought Minolta A7000 for my older sister, who just disliked the camera and gave it to me in 1989. I think it was 1987 or 88 when Minolta announced it and every body called the industry shakeup that occurred after the A7000 introduction as 'Alpha shock'.
Minolta suddenly became no1 35mm SLR maker. But its success did not continue long, Canon came up with the EOS that featured a completely new all electronically controlled wide mount system. I think this very brief history of the 35mm AF SLR tells us the history will repeat itself again, the Alpha shock was great for a couple of years and made Minolta the winner of the AF 35mm format for a couple of years or so, but it did not change anything in the long run. Canon took the back the lead very soon with much more efficient future proven mount system and extremely fast electronically controlled mount system.
Nikon decided to keep the old (already old in 1989)F mount even in the coming AF era, and that decision really hurt Nikon. They could not compete with Canon in super fast prime and TS lens design , and as a result Canon became the indisputable market leader since then.
So I think Nikon really knew and understood importance of the big enough core mount design, that's why they designed the widest 35mm FF mount for the Z.
Sony may have thought it would not chance much, but we all know it will in the long run , Sony will have to play a hard uphill battle, with the very restricted small E mount.
The wider mount allows Nikon to design smaller and bit better lenses cheaper.
We already see it in their new 35mm f2.8S and 50mm f1.8S, they are truly Otus class optics in a tiny plastic barrel that costs almost 1/5th of the Otus price.
But still Sony fanboys defy against it as 'big, heavy, fast lenses are facing an uncertain future anyway'. Many Sony diehards seem to believe the big mount advantage is that allows CN to design a line of super fast say f1 lenses, and that is all.
'If somebody actually makes outlandish f/1-ish lenses, and if people actually flock to pay big money for them, and if Sony's mount actually starts to impose limitations in that area, expect them to counter with alternative computational photography approaches that close the gap at lower cost, weight, and bulk. In other words - this is no big deal and never was.
Well what can we say about the claim? The above guy is really a moron, even with computational approach , a better lens is always better, he does not seem to understand that.
And Big fast lenses, as the main advantage of a wide lens mount, are actually a bit of a red herring.
As a marketing benefit they may indeed have some advantage but few actually buy them. Nice to have in the line up though, especially if it induces some to buy into the system, which I think there is no doubt it does, even if they never buy such lenses like the RF50mm f1.2L or the Z58mmf0.98S. The Nikon one may not be very practical, but the Canon RF50mm f1.2L is a very practical lens, which is a tiny bit bigger than the Sony FE50mm f1.4ZA ,which is already a superb lens , but the Canon is definitely a much sharper lens, there is no doubt about it.
But the real benefit the wider mount gives Canon and Nikon is the advantage in the flexibility of designing and manufacturing many mid level lenses, not just the exotic ones. That's not to say that very good lenses can not be designed for a narrow mount (witness Leica for example) but the complexity and cost of doing so in is increased. Thus, all Leicas are much more expensive than similar class CN optics.
When Canon introduced the wide EF Mount (compared to the relatively narrow Nikon F Mount) there was an immediate optical advantage for certain fast tele lenses. But although those might have captured some attention in the professional market relatively few of such lenses were ever sold compared with the vast numbers of more modest lenses that sold to the majority of the buying public. But what that wide lens throat did do was make many designs simpler and therefore cheaper. And that in turn increased Canon's margins compared with Nikon's, which enabled more to be spent on R&D and marketing, etc., etc and that partially accounts for the difference in market share we see today. Even 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma admitted that some of their lenses were more difficult to design for the F mount because of this.
So don't get too hung up on the likes of the RF50 f/1.2 and 28-7- f/2.0, these are interesting though, only to those who are interested in the Otus class optics at the big cost of size , price and weight. The real advantages the Z and the R mount give us are more modest lenses like the Z50mm f1.8S(sharper than the Otus 55mm f1.4 at 1/5th the Otus price and weight), the RF35mm f1.8Macro(a fantastically sharp lens, maybe as sharp as the Zeiss Batis 40mm f2CF in the E mount and the Canon is cheaper faster and more versatile with real 1 to 1 macro capability).
In other words, the real advantage of the wider mount may well be the cheaper or more cost effective middle class lens lineup that easily rivals the GM line of Sony.
Even the most aggressive Canon Nikon hating Sony fanboys will see this very fact and realize who wrong they are at it, but I doubt they will ever change their opinion on this issue even then, since they are simply haters , nothing else.
But for the majority of us, the Z and the R will be a much more cost-effective system , now it is not better yet, but give them a several or even a couple more years, the Z and the R will grow up to be a great system.
Since the sensor tech for sheer image quality is not getting any better since about 2012, it will be all about lens quality and how they each will deploy the computational part of image tech into their chosen system.
And even in the best possible scenario for them, Sony's unwillingness to develop a good lens lineup for the APS-C E mount system will eventually hurt them seriously.
The APS-C market is about 7 times bigger than the 35mm FF market now and many industry analysts think the FF is now at the peak of its life.
I agree the small FF mirorrless market will not have enough rooms for the current 6 players , and that means some guys will have to die soon.
Most analysts seem to think the market has 3 or 4 rooms for those players but not 6 rooms for all the 6.
I think Panasonic will be the first one to give up this game. The 4500 US S1 and S1R will not help them much, as I already pointed out , they have no brand power to ask that kind of money for their very first FF camera.
They may think their decision to teaming up with Leica allows them to price everything like Leica , but no.
They are not Leica , not even Nikon, not even Canon or Sony or Fuji.
They seem never understand why their great GH line failed,and before that,the technologically even more advanced Samsung NX line (the most technologically advanced camera system back then) also failed.
It's because of their weak brand name or brand recognition in this conservative market.
If GH or NX1 were a Canon or a Nikon , or even a Fuji or a Sony, then it would have become a big hit, for sure. The only one reason they did not do well was they were not from one of those more respected traditional photo brands.
Sony will do well in the short run, but in the long run ? I am not sure, as Canon R and Nikon Z get more lenses and adapter support, many of those actually concern about high quality optics at a decent price point , will move to CN or Fuji.
It is already occurring here , in Asia , I think the American market will follow that trend here.
Sony thinks most of us are rich enough to buy a 7k fullframe system every year, Panasonic thinks most of us easily afford a 4.5k 24mp camera, but that 'we do not care about the price but the innovation' kind of crazy gearhead market is not big enough to sustain their ILC business. And those really rich will always prefer Leica or MF systems over overpriced Sony or Panasonic FF system.
Many people do not just buy something they just slightly want , especially when the sensor tech is in total stagnation, no dramatic IQ difference between a few iterations of bodies......................................................

It goes on for 5300 more words.

SMERSH Mouth posted:

SMERSH Mouth posted:

While I was in the Northernmost of Japan, I realized that the real worst of worst issue of the Sony Alpha E mount and A too is the lens build quality without any proper weather sealing.
They are very fragile, their bodies are actually not as weak or fragile as many Nikon Canon fanboys think they are, they could take a lot of abuse, my A7R3 is actually quite tough, even my A7R2 is very tough-never had any issue even shooting in a minus 20c cold winter mountain. But their lenses even the expensive GMasters are very very weak. I realized I actually collected 3 dead GM lenses when I was leaving Hokkaido...
So I ma no longer buying any of their AF lenses any more especially these expensive ones. I am hundred percent Batis , Loxia and Voigtlander now(these are way more durable than the weak GMaster junks). It is really liberating to be Sony-lens-less now. Sony should sick with just the sensor and camera body part of this game and should buy lenses from Tamron , Zeiss and Km since they cannot make any lens properly sealed. Their weather sealing is a joke.
The near future state of the mirrorless market(updated 9):
Does the high end ILC market have enough rooms for all the current 6 FF players?
In last year 2017, I thought Fuji was really doomed , maybe even more doomed than m43, and now many people think Fuji is equally doomed as m43 or Pentax, but now I actually think we are all wrong on that.
I think Fuji will definitely survive and maybe if we have to pick the one will definitely survive as a camera maker besides Leica , I will have to pick Fuji or Canon. Why?
It's because Fuji is a distinct case. People will buy Fuji not because it's better than Nikon/Canon/Sony, but because it's more ritzy, or maybe more accurate to put it this way -it is more film-like or retro? We have many hipster old men that love Fuji , they do not care if Sony beats it in a specsheet war,or Canon has more lenses or Nikon betas all with the biggest future proven Z mount.......
You can see that in any camera forum, where people rave about Fuji's image quality, which, frankly, isn't really distinctively better for anyone other than a photophile pixel-peeper. Plus, anyone interested in making larger prints (which is really the only place a difference might appear) APS-C is basically as good as FF, and the differences will close as technology matures. I would suggest that Fuji is a special case, as Leica has been for a while. The images will be fine, but that's not really the reason to buy Fuji. But: fashion goes on forever -- see Leica. It's simply cooler to younger people than Sony, Nikon , Canon or especially Panasonic.
So Fuji is just fine although some Nikon Sony fanboys dismiss it just because it does not have FF or does not choose to go FF. As I said already, the 24, 26 or 30mp is more than enough of a high resolution sensor for most of screens and prints. And most of people cannot tell prints from a 24mp APS-C vs a 42 or 45mp FF apart in a smaller than a A2 print.
And with the XT3 , Fuji has just proved that they can do video as well as any one else, now at least spec and IQ wise they are one of the best hybrid video camera maker .
I am sure that has shocked quite a few of Sony Panasonic hybrid camera fanboys.
And for those people who think APS-C is not good enough for their needs, Fuji has the G mount system.
So I think Fuji seems to be the most logical guy in the FF obsessed film term loving crazy conservative camera industry. They will survive regardless of what Canon Nikon Sony Panasonic will do.
So the real competition for mainstream FF market share is Nikon/Canon/Sony/Panasonic Leica, and of the 4 , I now think the L mount is the most vulnerable one due to the very high initial entry cost of the system. We all know every thing Leica is very expensive , but as a boutique brand Leica will always be able to get away with it, but Pansonic? No. They are a huge home appliance maker and as such they have no brand power in this market although they've actually shown they have the best tech in this industry both in optics and electronics.
Besides the L mount consortium,I have the least faith that Sony cameras will be here in ten years. Because Sony is sorta..unfashionable. It's common. For the past few years, Sony's been doing well, because it's been innovative. But the products of the three main FF manufacturers are quickly converging, to the point where the only distinctive factor may be some subtle ergonomic preferences and cost effective mid range quality lens selection. Once the technology shakes out, and they're all selling the same thing, then fashion reasserts itself. Historically, Sony has not been willing to struggle for minor profits on what is to them, marginal products. See the various Vaio PC products, or the portable audio systems. If they dropped cameras entirely, it would make no visible difference in their profit as they are basically a insurance and entertainment business company.
IMHO, Sony just misjudged the Canon and the Nikon future mirrorless strategy, so they felt the E mount would be powerful enough to keep it going well for them.
But , any one old enough to remember Minolta A7000, it was a huge hit and because of its huge success Minolta dominated the 35mm AF camera world in the late 80's until Canon entered into that market with the revolutionary all electronics ILC system EOS.
I was a little kid when my father bought Minolta A7000 for my older sister, who just disliked the camera and gave it to me in 1989. I think it was 1987 or 88 when Minolta announced it and every body called the industry shakeup that occurred after the A7000 introduction as 'Alpha shock'.
Minolta suddenly became no1 35mm SLR maker. But its success did not continue long, Canon came up with the EOS that featured a completely new all electronically controlled wide mount system. I think this very brief history of the 35mm AF SLR tells us the history will repeat itself again, the Alpha shock was great for a couple of years and made Minolta the winner of the AF 35mm format for a couple of years or so, but it did not change anything in the long run. Canon took the back the lead very soon with much more efficient future proven mount system and extremely fast electronically controlled mount system.
Nikon decided to keep the old (already old in 1989)F mount even in the coming AF era, and that decision really hurt Nikon. They could not compete with Canon in super fast prime and TS lens design , and as a result Canon became the indisputable market leader since then.
So I think Nikon really knew and understood importance of the big enough core mount design, that's why they designed the widest 35mm FF mount for the Z.
Sony may have thought it would not chance much, but we all know it will in the long run , Sony will have to play a hard uphill battle, with the very restricted small E mount.
The wider mount allows Nikon to design smaller and bit better lenses cheaper.
We already see it in their new 35mm f2.8S and 50mm f1.8S, they are truly Otus class optics in a tiny plastic barrel that costs almost 1/5th of the Otus price.
But still Sony fanboys defy against it as 'big, heavy, fast lenses are facing an uncertain future anyway'. Many Sony diehards seem to believe the big mount advantage is that allows CN to design a line of super fast say f1 lenses, and that is all.
'If somebody actually makes outlandish f/1-ish lenses, and if people actually flock to pay big money for them, and if Sony's mount actually starts to impose limitations in that area, expect them to counter with alternative computational photography approaches that close the gap at lower cost, weight, and bulk. In other words - this is no big deal and never was.
Well what can we say about the claim? The above guy is really a moron, even with computational approach , a better lens is always better, he does not seem to understand that.
And Big fast lenses, as the main advantage of a wide lens mount, are actually a bit of a red herring.
As a marketing benefit they may indeed have some advantage but few actually buy them. Nice to have in the line up though, especially if it induces some to buy into the system, which I think there is no doubt it does, even if they never buy such lenses like the RF50mm f1.2L or the Z58mmf0.98S. The Nikon one may not be very practical, but the Canon RF50mm f1.2L is a very practical lens, which is a tiny bit bigger than the Sony FE50mm f1.4ZA ,which is already a superb lens , but the Canon is definitely a much sharper lens, there is no doubt about it.
But the real benefit the wider mount gives Canon and Nikon is the advantage in the flexibility of designing and manufacturing many mid level lenses, not just the exotic ones. That's not to say that very good lenses can not be designed for a narrow mount (witness Leica for example) but the complexity and cost of doing so in is increased. Thus, all Leicas are much more expensive than similar class CN optics.
When Canon introduced the wide EF Mount (compared to the relatively narrow Nikon F Mount) there was an immediate optical advantage for certain fast tele lenses. But although those might have captured some attention in the professional market relatively few of such lenses were ever sold compared with the vast numbers of more modest lenses that sold to the majority of the buying public. But what that wide lens throat did do was make many designs simpler and therefore cheaper. And that in turn increased Canon's margins compared with Nikon's, which enabled more to be spent on R&D and marketing, etc., etc and that partially accounts for the difference in market share we see today. Even 3rd party manufacturers like Sigma admitted that some of their lenses were more difficult to design for the F mount because of this.
So don't get too hung up on the likes of the RF50 f/1.2 and 28-7- f/2.0, these are interesting though, only to those who are interested in the Otus class optics at the big cost of size , price and weight. The real advantages the Z and the R mount give us are more modest lenses like the Z50mm f1.8S(sharper than the Otus 55mm f1.4 at 1/5th the Otus price and weight), the RF35mm f1.8Macro(a fantastically sharp lens, maybe as sharp as the Zeiss Batis 40mm f2CF in the E mount and the Canon is cheaper faster and more versatile with real 1 to 1 macro capability).
In other words, the real advantage of the wider mount may well be the cheaper or more cost effective middle class lens lineup that easily rivals the GM line of Sony.
Even the most aggressive Canon Nikon hating Sony fanboys will see this very fact and realize who wrong they are at it, but I doubt they will ever change their opinion on this issue even then, since they are simply haters , nothing else.
But for the majority of us, the Z and the R will be a much more cost-effective system , now it is not better yet, but give them a several or even a couple more years, the Z and the R will grow up to be a great system.
Since the sensor tech for sheer image quality is not getting any better since about 2012, it will be all about lens quality and how they each will deploy the computational part of image tech into their chosen system.
And even in the best possible scenario for them, Sony's unwillingness to develop a good lens lineup for the APS-C E mount system will eventually hurt them seriously.
The APS-C market is about 7 times bigger than the 35mm FF market now and many industry analysts think the FF is now at the peak of its life.
I agree the small FF mirorrless market will not have enough rooms for the current 6 players , and that means some guys will have to die soon.
Most analysts seem to think the market has 3 or 4 rooms for those players but not 6 rooms for all the 6.
I think Panasonic will be the first one to give up this game. The 4500 US S1 and S1R will not help them much, as I already pointed out , they have no brand power to ask that kind of money for their very first FF camera.
They may think their decision to teaming up with Leica allows them to price everything like Leica , but no.
They are not Leica , not even Nikon, not even Canon or Sony or Fuji.
They seem never understand why their great GH line failed,and before that,the technologically even more advanced Samsung NX line (the most technologically advanced camera system back then) also failed.
It's because of their weak brand name or brand recognition in this conservative market.
If GH or NX1 were a Canon or a Nikon , or even a Fuji or a Sony, then it would have become a big hit, for sure. The only one reason they did not do well was they were not from one of those more respected traditional photo brands.
Sony will do well in the short run, but in the long run ? I am not sure, as Canon R and Nikon Z get more lenses and adapter support, many of those actually concern about high quality optics at a decent price point , will move to CN or Fuji.
It is already occurring here , in Asia , I think the American market will follow that trend here.
Sony thinks most of us are rich enough to buy a 7k fullframe system every year, Panasonic thinks most of us easily afford a 4.5k 24mp camera, but that 'we do not care about the price but the innovation' kind of crazy gearhead market is not big enough to sustain their ILC business. And those really rich will always prefer Leica or MF systems over overpriced Sony or Panasonic FF system.
Many people do not just buy something they just slightly want , especially when the sensor tech is in total stagnation, no dramatic IQ difference between a few iterations of bodies......................................................

It goes on for 5300 more words.

Wafflecopper posted:

Autumn Pond by howard1916 - My Personal 'Explore', on Flickr

Helen Highwater posted:

I too set my black point in the middle of the histogram.

torgeaux posted:

New forum title?

Sauer posted:

Are there enough drugs in the world to make things look like that?