Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: SuperflyTNT
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 619 next>>
May 7, 2024 12:43:48   #
Rongnongno wrote:
https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/upload/nt/2024/5/7/384199-ezgif_1_fb87a5e229.webp


I don’t know what you’re trying to show. First of all the entire scene seems to have a green cast. Second, a screen shot will not show an issue that only occurs when viewing your screen at an angle. Third, it’s a non-issue.
Go to
May 7, 2024 11:51:11   #
If you’re shooting raw your image will appear flat. If you’re creating a JPEG from that unedited NEF file it will appear flat, just like the raw. If you change picture controls the image will look better through the viewfinder or back screen, but the uploaded raw file will appear flat. You’re shooting raw to edit. That’s where you get the pop you want.
Go to
May 7, 2024 11:28:57   #
I toyed with 3rd party ink for my 100 but decided that I know my profiles work for many papers and I know the longevity of my prints. Just not enough savings to make it worthwhile.
Go to
May 7, 2024 11:06:25   #
While shooting the 200-500 on the D7200 will give you additional “reach” I think there are more important reasons to use that lens on the D850, far better AF and frame rate.
Go to
May 6, 2024 21:17:05   #
markwilliam1 wrote:
Just as I thought. Reading reviews and actually using the camera are two completely different things!


Well, I can speak pretty authoritatively since I shoot a RX10MIV and an M4/3 system, (along with Nikon FF). He’s correct about the shortcomings. I much prefer the M4/3 system in just about every way. And he’s right that a nice M4/3 system can be had pretty reasonably. But to get that 24-600mm at f/4 coverage with comparable focus tracking and frame rate it would still be a much higher expense than the Sony.
Go to
May 5, 2024 23:45:52   #
ORpilot wrote:
Sorry, I don't volunteer information.


I didn’t ask you for any.
Go to
May 5, 2024 23:17:37   #
Flickwet wrote:
Sorry to have misconstrued, I did not know to whom it was attributed, nor did I know that he used stops other than f8, 4x5 is a much different creature than FF or 35mm, I’m so ignorant sorry.


No shame on not knowing. I suspect most people that use that quote don’t know. I like that as life goes by we’re always capable of learning new things. And I do think the idea behind the quote still applies to photojournalism and other realms of photography. Use the settings that will get the shot.
Go to
May 5, 2024 19:01:32   #
bsprague wrote:
Don't need more evidence than those two pictures!


I’m guessing they’re not as good in download.
Go to
May 5, 2024 17:40:01   #
ronpier wrote:
I think most of us saw it as a typo. Hope others will forgive you.


I thought it might be a typo, but there was no one obvious choice he might have meant. It could just as easily been 10-20.
Go to
May 5, 2024 17:14:06   #
Flickwet wrote:
I believe that 18-140 has VR, don’t worry about it too much, I believe in another famous statement: f8 and be there…


Another misconstrued statement. That comes from photojournalism when they were shooting 4x5 press cameras. Shooting at f/8 on a 4x5 is different than f/8 on a FF camera and even more so as sensor size decreases. And it appears that the photographer that statement is attributed to, Weegee, actually often shot at f/16 and f/22.
Go to
May 5, 2024 16:46:51   #
larryepage wrote:
Sebastian...I think I understand what you are intending to ask. If my answer is not to the question you intended to ask, please let me know, and we will figure it out.

A general rule for a long time has been to use a shutter speed no longer than 1 divided by the focal length of your lens. For a 50mm lens, the slowest shutter speed would be 1/50 second. This is a general rule, and is considered valid for all focal lengths.

Of course, some people can hold a camera more steadily than others, so some may meed to choose a faster speed, and some may be able to use longer exposures. And now that lenses and some camera bodies have image stabilization, it is very often to use longer exposures with equipment having that capability.

One caution...this is a general guideline, not a hard and fast rule. Some may try to complicate it in all sorts of ways, including your sensor size and all sorts of things. Ignore all that. It is a simple guideline based on the physical relationship between the lens and the sensor.

Enjoy shooting, and please stay safe.
Sebastian...I think I understand what you are inte... (show quote)


The focal length is a physical relationship between the sensor plane. The “rule” is influenced by sensor size because it should be applied based on effective focal length. Although it’s not as important with advances in lens VR and IBIS.
Go to
May 5, 2024 14:55:35   #
As one that actually shoots an RX10MIV I’ll chime in. It is easily the most capable superzoom bridge camera available and the only one I’d consider for birds in flight. The Zeiss lens that gets you a FF equivalent of 24-600mm at f/4 is great and the AF tracking is what really sets it apart. It does have limitations. As has been stated its 1” sensor, while larger than most P&S or bridge cameras, is much smaller than FF or even M4/3 sensors, and this limits how high I will push the ISO. I also don’t love the ergonomics, especially the electronic zoom. I really got it for one purpose, shooting from a kayak, and I really appreciate it for that. For everything else I prefer my OM Systems OM-1 or my Nikon Z9. For your purposes I think it’s a decent choice for birds but night skies it will be lacking.
Go to
May 5, 2024 13:35:49   #
theehmann wrote:
Its a DSLR, 18-20 mm.


18-20mm? I’m not aware of anyone making a zoom with so little range.
Go to
May 5, 2024 13:06:18   #
BigDaddy wrote:
If your jpg processing doesn't measure up, shoot RAW. JPG is not for everyone. When I say raw is not worth the effort, It should be understood I'm speaking for myself, not everyone. I've noted several times that for some, like billnikon, shooting RAW may be the only way to shoot. When I speak of raw zealots, I'm not necessarily talking about you just because you always shoot in raw. A raw zealot is one who constantly pontificates that RAW is for everyone, and exaggerates to the extreme the benefits of raw. There are a small handful of those, and when they show up, I enjoy the banter. BTW, I often shoot in RAW and never to my knowledge insinuated that no one should ever shoot in raw. It's benefits for most, imo, is the last thing most need.
If your jpg processing doesn't measure up, shoot R... (show quote)


You are completely disingenuous and I suspect you know it. Every time someone refutes you with facts you try to spin your previous statements. You’ve proven you know as little about editors as you do raw files, (PS is NOT a “JPEG editor”. While you can use it to edit JPEG’s, which you can also do in Lightroom, I have never edited a JPEG in PS). Now you say that you’re only speaking for yourself when you say raw isn’t worth it after calling those that shoot raw “anal retentive”. I never said you or anybody else should shoot raw. I just say that because you lack the editing skills to make the most of shooting raw that you shouldn’t denigrate the benefits. Who are you to determine what other people “need”?
Go to
May 5, 2024 00:51:22   #
BigDaddy wrote:
In your dreams. If "98% of the data" was gone, your pictures would be toast. Compression encodes most of the duplicate data, it's not "gone". That's why the world is polluted with billions of fantastic jpg images.

No need for jpg tools? You're joking, right?


Do you know binary math? File size and compression have nothing to do with resolution and bit depth. Each color channel for a pixel in an 8 bit filehas 256 possible values. With a 14 bit raw file it’s 16,384 possible values. 256 is a little over 1.5% of 16,384. And while this has nothing to do with compression. Depending on compression level a JPEG doesn’t just encode duplicate values, it encodes similar values in the same vicinity to a median value. Once that is done you can’t go back.
Now tell me why I need JPEG editing tools if I shoot raw?
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 619 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.