It has to be a lens to compete with the 12-24mm Nikkor....it's tme.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
We've been here before, but I'll throw the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 into this discussion just for the hell of it. It is my quality 50mm, and it's nice that it shares the 77mm filter thread woth most of my other lenses. For travel I have a 50 mm f/1.8 Mk I. These are my workarounds considering the current offerings of Canon 50's.I am a fan and own the Sigma 50mm f/1.4....guess we got lucky and got good copies... Love this lens....BUT...it could be that with Sigma's new commitment to the craft we may see an Art series 50mm and if it is anything like the Art 35mm f/1.4...I think I would be all over that!!!!!!!
It would be foolish to look at the sales figures of the M and conclude the market isn't interested in this class of camera. Canon was the last one to market and introduced an inferior product with no lens selection.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the M takes bad photos. I'm saying it isn't competitive in terms of AF performance, features or lens selection with micro 4/3, NEX, or Fuji's new mirrorless system. Why would any informed person buy it at full price?
Well i hope it sucks. I´m too much attached to my Zeiss 21/2.8 and can´t justify having both
QuoteAs far as I am concerned, just give me a camera that can capture the same light my eyes can see. If I have a need to artificially boost shadows and color and can't do so by 3+ stops - so be it.
No dslr or film stock has ever come close to recording what the human eye is capable of seeing. We are capable of seeing 256 shades of grey total. In optimal conditions the average human eye can see up to 100 shades of grey at once with that number falling lower depending on lighting conditions. Every single variance of photographic format and technique is simply a representation of what we see as human beings.
The terms "accurate" and "realistic" are highly subjective when it comes to photography representing what we see.
I use 2 different techniques when I want to expand the range of tones in a scene in the digital format. The first being a manual merging of bracketed shots in photoshop (if I am going for the "realistic" look) and the second being the automated HDR technique via plugin software (when I want a more stylized look).
Both require a ton of effort in post to pull off successfully. Most "HDR" photos that I see suffer from 1 or 2 critical mistakes. Either mishandling of the technique (wether it be inappropriate lighting, insufficient bracketing, or straight up slider delirium ie overcooked file) or unfinished post-production after the file emerges from the HDR process (halos not corrected, noise not being corrected, localized color shifting not being addressed, etc )
The only attempts I find egregious are the files where the tonal range ends up getting anhialated and file photo looks like a chalky washed out mess. Whenever I use either method I try to protect and enhance my tones throughout the scene (zone 1 through 10) making sure that I still have rich shadows, rich highlights, and pure blacks and whites.
In the hands of a proficient photographer these techniques can be very useful and successful.
so just to /thread:
HDR is fine as long as it's made so realisticly than you can barely tell it's HDR. Artistic attemps of over cooking might have good intentions but, even well done, quite a few people hate them.
Can we all agree on that? Group hug!
I don't have a copy of this image on my ipad but this is a link to one I did in Yogyakarta while staying at a hotel. I bracketed a few very dark exposures to get the reflection and lights the right color.
I think there is a general misunderstanding regarding the term HDR. Most of the "HDR" images we see on the internet these days are not an example of basic HDR - they are an excellent example of tonemapping. Basically, simple HDR is just adding dynamic range to the image by merging several exposures. The "HDR" look that many complain about is not caused by extending the dynamic range but by the optional and additional tonemapping process which actually takes the extended range created by the HDR, and then compresses the number of tones and colours. This results in the image looking very overdone at times and to many - garish. I use HDR to overcome impossible exposure situations (much like dodging and burning) however, I am definitely not a fan of the overdone tonemapping that people have incorrectly assigned the general HDR term to. The unfortunate thing is that many of the HDR tools that are available, automatically add the tonemapping process as part of the default HDR process. This has added to the confusion between the two terms.
Don't get your bloomers in a twist!!
You're both wrong.
Company Name: Canon Inc.
Founded: August 10, 1937
Headquarters: 30-2, Shimomaruko 3-chome, Ohta-ku, Tokyo 146-8501, Japan
And it's not 'new'. Blooming Americans.