NeilL
Loc: British-born Canadian
Beercat wrote:
I don't consider 'cloning' a big deal. In this case on the right side there was a telephone pole with a big transformer and then an electrical line going from the pole to the building in the background. It took away from the subjects so I got rid of it, took about 2 minutes.
So your point by scrutinizing the picture is what? Finding fault in my limited abilities in LR5 or? Fact is I didn't put up the picture to be scrutinized, rather to show the abilities of an RX10. I was at the wedding doing the video, at this point I was using the RX10 filming. After I got enough video in this setting for my edit I snapped a few stills, the video capabilities of the RX10 are just more gravy ...... beautiful video from this little gem.
I don't consider 'cloning' a big deal. In this cas... (
show quote)
The Nicanon users are embarrassed by the quality of a "mere" Sony.
Golan
Loc: Imsbach, Germany
imagemeister wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup:
If you get a chance, try the Sony RX-100iii. It seems like a great fit for a realtor. There's a 24mm-70mm zoom, with a 1.2-2.8 speed. White balance is awesome. It's small and will fit into a purse or pocket. The pop-up EVF is great. The LCD goes up to 180 degrees for easy selfies. The sensor is 1" and delivers a very clear 20MB picture. This camera isn't everything to everybody, but it's built to impress even pros.
Beercat
Loc: Central Coast of California
NeilL wrote:
The Nicanon users are embarrassed by the quality of a "mere" Sony.
I'm perplexed ......... I think the complainer also has a Sony RX100 ......
I'm also perplexed that so many give their opinion without giving any vantage point of their expertise. This is after all a photo site. would be nice if the 'experts' giving their opinion would place up a picture taken with the camera they are raving about, would make it very clear if someone should give weight to a particular opinion.
Words are cheap, photos give us a perspective to the persons expertise.
To critique someone's picture when not asked is wrong, maybe that is why so many do not upload pictures. Some have nothing more to do that to put down others, very sad world we live in now. I think I'll stop sharing pictures, just don't need the grief.
NeilL
Loc: British-born Canadian
Beercat wrote:
I'm perplexed ......... I think the complainer also has a Sony RX100 ......
I'm also perplexed that so many give their opinion without giving any vantage point of their expertise. This is after all a photo site. would be nice if the 'experts' giving their opinion would place up a picture taken with the camera they are raving about, would make it very clear if someone should give weight to a particular opinion.
Words are cheap, photos give us a perspective to the persons expertise.
To critique someone's picture when not asked is wrong, maybe that is why so many do not upload pictures. Some have nothing more to do that to put down others, very sad world we live in now. I think I'll stop sharing pictures, just don't need the grief.
I'm perplexed ......... I think the complainer als... (
show quote)
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Some of us appreciate your efforts, Beercat. Don't let them put you off.
Was that a handheld shot? I find the clarity of the RX 10 exceeds many more expensive camera systems. The image stabilization works very well.
Beercat wrote:
I don't consider 'cloning' a big deal. In this case on the right side there was a telephone pole with a big transformer and then an electrical line going from the pole to the building in the background. It took away from the subjects so I got rid of it, took about 2 minutes.
So your point by scrutinizing the picture is what? Finding fault in my limited abilities in LR5 or? Fact is I didn't put up the picture to be scrutinized, rather to show the abilities of an RX10. I was at the wedding doing the video, at this point I was using the RX10 filming. After I got enough video in this setting for my edit I snapped a few stills, the video capabilities of the RX10 are just more gravy ...... beautiful video from this little gem.
I don't consider 'cloning' a big deal. In this cas... (
show quote)
Actually, no. I'm just a fan of Sony RX's. I was just looking at the details when I happened to notice that. I was not attempting to pass judgment on the photo.
Beercat
Loc: Central Coast of California
NeilL wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Some of us appreciate your efforts, Beercat. Don't let them put you off.
Was that a handheld shot? I find the clarity of the RX 10 exceeds may more expensive camera systems. The image stabilization works very well.
Hand held indeed.
My only complaint on the RX10, and I've pointed it out many times, is doesn't focus/meter near as fast as my Canon 70D. But there are so many pluses ......... if I need fast focus I pull out the Canon. If I'm going on vacation I'll simply take the RX10 8-)
Beercat
Loc: Central Coast of California
mfeveland wrote:
Actually, no. I'm just a fan of Sony RX's. I was just looking at the details when I happened to notice that. I was not attempting to pass judgment on the photo.
Apology accepted, thank you.
BTW, I usually upload the large file so everyone can see the picture quality in detail if they so choose plus see the data. Like it or not PP is now part of the equation of photography. Actually seeing the picture was taken in jpeg there was PP before it even got downloaded to my computer. BTW, there was no 3rd party noise reduction used. Simply a 10 minute edit in LR5 which included:
Shadow/highlight correction
A bit of clarity/vibrancy
Cropping
cloning out the telephone pole/wire
Nothing more, as I said, took 10 minutes.
NeilL
Loc: British-born Canadian
Beercat wrote:
Hand held indeed.
My only complaint on the RX10, and I've pointed it out many times, is doesn't focus/meter near as fast as my Canon 70D. But there are so many pluses ......... if I need fast focus I pull out the Canon. If I'm going on vacation I'll simply take the RX10 8-)
This proves two points: i) The image stabilization works very well. ii) The person behind the lens is very important in getting the shot.
Beercat
Loc: Central Coast of California
NeilL wrote:
This proves two points: i) The image stabilization works very well. ii) The person behind the lens is very important in getting the shot.
The IS does work well on the RX10, however, this picture was taken at 16mm, cropped sensor made it about 28mm, at 1/200th so the IS wasn't part of the equation.
Technically I always try and get my exposure within a 1/2 stop. If I'm within that range I can clean it up quick and easy in PP.
Composition is where it's important who is behind the camera. That is something I'm still learning, I get lucky now and then with a great shot.
Golan wrote:
If you get a chance, try the Sony RX-100iii. It seems like a great fit for a realtor. There's a 24mm-70mm zoom, with a 1.2-2.8 speed. White balance is awesome. It's small and will fit into a purse or pocket. The pop-up EVF is great. The LCD goes up to 180 degrees for easy selfies. The sensor is 1" and delivers a very clear 20MB picture. This camera isn't everything to everybody, but it's built to impress even pros.
Yes it may have been a great fit for a realtor. But after spending $800 for the G1 X Mark II, it will be quite a while before I buy another camera :-)
My Canon has a 24 - 120. I often have to fiddle with the white balance in PP; so maybe the Sony is better for that. BTW my participation in this forum has taught me to use the eye dropper for white balance. I have greatly appreciated that tip. I don't have a purse :-) Yes, the Canon is huge and heavy for a point and shoot. But I don't mind and actually think that it makes a better impression for clients to see me with that big thing rather than a little thing. The Canon sensor is 1.5 so it dominates the Sony in that respect. I don't need anything near to 20MB. Reportedly, there are advantages to limiting to 10-12 as does the Canon; something about larger pixels gather more light.
But these Sony's get a lot of positive feedback and the first Canon G1 never did and my updated Canon hasn't either. I do know that I have a lot more ability to control light and shadow in difficult interior shots with bright open windows than I did with my previous camera, Samsung TL500, that has a sensor size of 1", as does the Sony.
Attached is an example. I let the camera expose for the windows and then lighted the dark room in PP. I don't think that my Samsung could have done this.
BrightWindows
texashill wrote:
Yes it may have been a great fit for a realtor. But after spending $800 for the G1 X Mark II, it will be quite a while before I buy another camera :-)
My Canon has a 24 - 120. I often have to fiddle with the white balance in PP; so maybe the Sony is better for that. BTW my participation in this forum has taught me to use the eye dropper for white balance. I have greatly appreciated that tip. I don't have a purse :-) Yes, the Canon is huge and heavy for a point and shoot. But I don't mind and actually think that it makes a better impression for clients to see me with that big thing rather than a little thing. I know that an EVF is important to a lot of people but I have no idea why. The Canon sensor is 1.5 so it dominates the Sony in that respect. I don't need anything near to 20MB. Reportedly, there are advantages to limiting to 10-12 as does the Canon; something about larger pixels gather more light.
But these Sony's get a lot of positive feedback and the first Canon G1 never did and my updated Canon hasn't either. I do know that I have a lot more ability to control light and shadow in difficult interior shots with bright open windows than I did with my previous camera, Samsung TL500, that has a sensor size of 1", as does the Sony.
Attached is an example. I let the camera expose for the windows and then lighted the dark room in PP. I don't think that my Samsung could have done this.
Yes it may have been a great fit for a realtor. B... (
show quote)
The EVF is optional on the Canon G1X II ....
Beercat
Loc: Central Coast of California
texashill wrote:
Yes it may have been a great fit for a realtor. But after spending $800 for the G1 X Mark II, it will be quite a while before I buy another camera :-)
My Canon has a 24 - 120. I often have to fiddle with the white balance in PP; so maybe the Sony is better for that. BTW my participation in this forum has taught me to use the eye dropper for white balance. I have greatly appreciated that tip. I don't have a purse :-) Yes, the Canon is huge and heavy for a point and shoot. But I don't mind and actually think that it makes a better impression for clients to see me with that big thing rather than a little thing. I know that an EVF is important to a lot of people but I have no idea why. The Canon sensor is 1.5 so it dominates the Sony in that respect. I don't need anything near to 20MB. Reportedly, there are advantages to limiting to 10-12 as does the Canon; something about larger pixels gather more light.
But these Sony's get a lot of positive feedback and the first Canon G1 never did and my updated Canon hasn't either. I do know that I have a lot more ability to control light and shadow in difficult interior shots with bright open windows than I did with my previous camera, Samsung TL500, that has a sensor size of 1", as does the Sony.
Attached is an example. I let the camera expose for the windows and then lighted the dark room in PP. I don't think that my Samsung could have done this.
Yes it may have been a great fit for a realtor. B... (
show quote)
BTW, I'm a real estate broker ......
I use both Canon & Sony for snapping pictures for listings. Sellers get impressed when I pull out 2 cameras, tripod and lighting. I'll snap 25-40 pictures and also a bit of video on a nice home. Makes for great presentation and mpore possible listings.
What I really like about the Sony RX10 from a realtor stand point is the EVF which is live view, it makes it easy to see the exposure/change exposure when your facing windows, a real difficult shoot for 95% of realtors.
Beercat wrote:
BTW, I'm a real estate broker ......
Sellers get impressed when I pull out 2 cameras, tripod and lighting.
Nicely exposed. Yes, auxiliary lighting would be impressive and would also be beneficial. I haven't taken that step yet. But I don't think that I would like a tripod. Attached shots are with arms extended up and down.
OverHead
AroundKnees
Beercat
Loc: Central Coast of California
texashill wrote:
Nicely exposed. Yes, auxiliary lighting would be impressive and would also be beneficial. I haven't taken that step yet. But I don't think that I would like a tripod. Attached shots are with arms extended up and down.
Very nice!
Only 'critique' and I'm saying this to my own pictures as well, both sets could of used a bit of lens correction to straighten out the picture.
The tri pod is for show as well as the LED lighting. I use the 2 cameras along with the speed light mounted on the Canon. People are impressed when you show up really prepared to take good photos to market their home correctly. I see so many listings with one photo or at best a half dozen. The movers and shakers typically always have good photos and a bunch of them :wink:
Delderby wrote:
Back lighting and shadows say otherwise?
It's hard for me to tell I dunno, aside from that....looks like a very sharp photo...I still like it. I thought it might be a little too good for the camera. Dang I might just get one :)
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.