Tom hicks
Well-known
Tom hicks
Well-known
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Tom,
Apparently people at RFF are not used to see these beauties.
You should try "socially-oppressed" snakes
Apparently people at RFF are not used to see these beauties.
You should try "socially-oppressed" snakes
rbelyell
Well-known
hi tom
these look great, though they seem small samples from which to draw conclusions. i have the p10 and am pretty disappointed in it, though i havent done any macro. as opposed to the amazing clarity throughout the frame from the m mount module, i find the p10 pretty mushy throughout. now i dont shoot raw, so perhaps theres a big raw/jpeg difference, or perhaps its a macro vs normal thing, or perhaps i'm just out of my mind! any thoughts?
tony
these look great, though they seem small samples from which to draw conclusions. i have the p10 and am pretty disappointed in it, though i havent done any macro. as opposed to the amazing clarity throughout the frame from the m mount module, i find the p10 pretty mushy throughout. now i dont shoot raw, so perhaps theres a big raw/jpeg difference, or perhaps its a macro vs normal thing, or perhaps i'm just out of my mind! any thoughts?
tony
Tom hicks
Well-known
Tony I don't do much wide angle stuff such as landscapes ans such. most of my shots are rather close up but from what I have seen the little cameras do quite well .
here is a link to some more images from the GXR P10 and S10
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130083&page=5
Another thing, I got away from Pixel peeping back in 2003 there is a lot more to photos than edge to edge sharpness.
Kenj8246
Well-known
Aren't the pixel peepers over at FM?
rbelyell
Well-known
thanks tom. your work, here and in many other posts, looks very good to me. just trying to figure out why youre wrangling better IQ out of this tool than i seem to be capable of.
not that its happening here, but i do think folks tend to label things as a prelude to being dismissive of them. as opposed to 'pixel peeping' (whatever that is) i prefer to think of it as people having different aesthetics. certainly there is more to a photo than edge to edge sharpness, and many photographers may indeed strive against sharpness in some of their work. i appreciate and admire that as an artistic choice, one ive made myself countless times.
however i dont appreciate that choice being made for me by my equipment, and most especially when that equipment costs many hundreds of dollars. certainly, i think you posted these images to highlight the excellent IQ and sharpness. for me, most of the time, my aesthetic gravitates towards 'crisp' photos that render as my eye sees, and thankfully, my eye still sees clearly throughout the frame. ): if we didnt care about IQ we'd all be saving untold thousands of dollars on equipment, shooting plastic russian cameras with miniscus lenses and posting on the LomoForum! ):
tony
not that its happening here, but i do think folks tend to label things as a prelude to being dismissive of them. as opposed to 'pixel peeping' (whatever that is) i prefer to think of it as people having different aesthetics. certainly there is more to a photo than edge to edge sharpness, and many photographers may indeed strive against sharpness in some of their work. i appreciate and admire that as an artistic choice, one ive made myself countless times.
however i dont appreciate that choice being made for me by my equipment, and most especially when that equipment costs many hundreds of dollars. certainly, i think you posted these images to highlight the excellent IQ and sharpness. for me, most of the time, my aesthetic gravitates towards 'crisp' photos that render as my eye sees, and thankfully, my eye still sees clearly throughout the frame. ): if we didnt care about IQ we'd all be saving untold thousands of dollars on equipment, shooting plastic russian cameras with miniscus lenses and posting on the LomoForum! ):
tony
Tom hicks
Well-known
Tony thanks for your reply back. Yes I was just trying to show that in most cases we don't have to have the so called BEST to achieve very satisfactory results . Most people today are very spoiled and don't appreciate what they have because they never had it , or had to do it the hard way. Our equipment today is far more sophisticated that what we had in the past , and in in most cases far more capable than the person behind it . We all have more choices today than ever before yet we still complain about it . Most of this won't make any since but bare with me I'm venting. I used to shoot a lot more digital in the past, and was one of those that found it easy to so call master, that being said I started shooting with film about 5 years ago and have never looked back . I guess I'm just getting to the point in my life where any camera is better than no camera and any glass is better than no glass.I am a collector of film cameras and a shooter, but I try not to get hung up on all the over analyzing of products. Those people that know me know I like nice stuff and only buy nice stuff. What is nice stuff? anything that works as intended. I accept each camera for what it is and learn to work around it's little quirks. I also wish more people would stop asking so many of the HELP ME CHOICE type question . Make a decision on your own and live with it . With the overload of info out there know one should have to ask so many ? Well I think I have covered and confused enough people for one day. Sorry for my rant but it had to come out . Back to your ? Yes I was just tyring to show that the lesser so called camera could stand on it's own . Specially for the price Henry's was selling them for.
Tom
Tom
rbelyell
Well-known
amen tom to a lot of your 'rant'. hell, thats what these forums are for, no? and youre right also that i picked up the p10 module for practically nothing. but youre also right, i'm damned spoiled! i think every camera should give results like the x100 or gxr m mount! dont even ask how i feel about selling my fuji x10 and replacing it with the x20!!! this thread could not withstand that rant!
tony
tony