Posts for: ocbeyer
Nov 2, 2013 07:38:36 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
Loaded question...will a DSLR make you photos bett... (show quote)
Man, that constant 2.8 on that Oly bridge camera looks sweet. Don't know much about that sensor, would like to see some noise tests. Olympus is certainly on a roll. But that price...
Nov 2, 2013 07:07:27 #
Nov 2, 2013 07:05:30 #
Google X10/X20 vs X100. You might be surprised. A lot of folks, a few pros, who already shoot DSLR prefer the X10, especially for street work. Amazingly innovative EXR sensor and processor, IQ on par with larger sensors, and faster focus and faster captures than the X100. Wider focal range, just as solid build quality. The viewfinder is merely that, though, no shooting info. But that would've added another couple of hundred bucks to the price.
I bought an X10 used and absolutely love it, especially in low light. Always shoot JPEG on the Velvia setting or B&W. You won't regret it.
I bought an X10 used and absolutely love it, especially in low light. Always shoot JPEG on the Velvia setting or B&W. You won't regret it.
Oct 31, 2013 17:38:31 #
"This model has a true Focal Plane Shutter so the sound you are hearing is the actual sound of the shutter physically opening and closing. It is not possible to alter the volume of the shutter sound."
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_support_faqs.asp?id=1583#2
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_support_faqs.asp?id=1583#2
Oct 31, 2013 17:34:42 #
Yes, it has a focal plane shutter but no mirror. So, I real live honest to goodness shutter sound you can't turn off or down. But no mirror slap.
Oct 31, 2013 12:24:33 #
Wall-E wrote:
I was an OM shooter for over 20 years. br OM10's, ... (show quote)
Um..what lenses do you have?
Oct 31, 2013 11:22:34 #
One of the things I like about these shots is the shallow depth of field. Differentiates from the norm, makes the viewer focus on the subject itself, the real food that you are going to eat, and not the garnish. Maybe it's because the Food Network has made every cook into a chef and every customer into a critic, but I'm sick and tired of highly decorated food. I'm more interested in the center of the plate than the tomato rosette. I've spent too much money on too many mediocre meals that look so pretty, if only the kitchen had spent more time paying attention to the the ingredients and their preparation instead of flexing their artistic muscles...
Sorry, rant over. But I will agree that # 7 is a better presentation of the food that than #2 even though you can't really make out the sausage in the background. Perhaps in that case greater depth of field would have been better. And I like that you cannot make out the label on the wine bottle bottle but maybe not cutting off the very bottom of the dish would've been better.
Sorry, rant over. But I will agree that # 7 is a better presentation of the food that than #2 even though you can't really make out the sausage in the background. Perhaps in that case greater depth of field would have been better. And I like that you cannot make out the label on the wine bottle bottle but maybe not cutting off the very bottom of the dish would've been better.
Oct 31, 2013 07:19:27 #
I shoot with an "antique" E-3 as well as a newer Canon when I know lighting conditions will not serve the E-3 well. Why not just go with Canon? Because under most lighting conditions I much prefer the IQ of the Olympus body and lens combo. And it's a tank. If it were me, I'd get the EM-1 and keep the E-5 for those times I know the environment would make toast out of most cameras.
Oct 31, 2013 06:51:29 #
Well, as a culinary arts instructor with 30 years of experience in the restaurant field, I think these shots are very, very good. Color is natural, the depth of field works well, the angles and composition are spot on. Food looks very inviting. I particularly like the composition of the last shot.
First time? A charm, I guess.
First time? A charm, I guess.
Oct 30, 2013 06:05:37 #
Oct 27, 2013 08:02:34 #
I get some pretty decent super close-ups (don't want to start a word definintion debate) with my Fuji X10, probably the only time I use the LCD for composition and manual focus. I would imagine the X20 is just as good. Not my first choice for intentionally shooting macro type shots but in a pinch, surprisingly good.
Oct 24, 2013 14:00:13 #
philiprispin wrote:
I have to admit to some frustration with the topic because it's very hard to tack down. Many painters for instance ( I have a great aunt who feels like this) do not think that photography of any sort is art.
Check these out. The originals are NOT photographs. Amazing.
Oct 24, 2013 13:44:16 #
philiprispin wrote:
Do you mean Jackson Pollack? At this point in our lives my aunt and I agree to disagree about Art. As an example I really like Robert Bateman prints. He is so detailed it looks like stuff done with a large format camera. My aunt thinks he uses too much realism and it really isn't art. However Bateman made/makes a living with his art while my aunt tries but finds it difficult.
No, I meant Jackson Pollard. He paints on big canvasses using bright acrylics and live cats. :oops:
Oct 24, 2013 13:19:40 #
Hm. Painter superiority, huh? How does she feel about Jackson Pollard?
Oct 23, 2013 08:18:09 #
rpavich wrote:
One suggestion would be to convert your images to B&W.
Why?
As shown above in my super high iso images, turning images to black and white does several things:
1.) Eliminates color whackyness that your camera induces because of high ISO's.
2.) Masks the grain issue because it allows the "grain" to be acceptable because we expect it in black and white images.
3.) Makes you look very artistic :)
Why?
As shown above in my super high iso images, turning images to black and white does several things:
1.) Eliminates color whackyness that your camera induces because of high ISO's.
2.) Masks the grain issue because it allows the "grain" to be acceptable because we expect it in black and white images.
3.) Makes you look very artistic :)
:thumbup: :thumbup: