This is me.yahoo.com/a/BpNafyNjzpPtO7Um4dE.LxxObL1NsA--'s Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following me.yahoo.com/a/BpNafyNjzpPtO7Um4dE.LxxObL1NsA--'s activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
me.yahoo.com/a/BpNafyNjzpPtO7Um4dE.LxxObL1NsA--
Recent Activity
I used to carry a Canon PowerShot S90 until the focusing stopped working, so I switched to a PowerShot S110 until I became dissatisfied with the noise levels at moderate ISOs. My current carry-around (in a National Geographic belt pouch) is a Panasonic TZ100 (ZS100 in the US). which gives me a 1" sensor, a handy 25-250 mm-e zoom, and a just-about-usable EVF; I'm very impressed with the image quality that I get out of it. Of course, it's no longer made, Panasonic having replaced it in their lineup with the TZ/ZS200, which has a longer zoom range (it's also available with a red dot on the front as the Leica C-Lux for those into Veblen goods).
Have you tried one of the best traditional interpolation programs, PhotoZoom Pro (currently at v8)? https://www.benvista.com It doesn't use any AI to paste in whatever fragment of image from its knowledge-base the software thinks is appropriate to bulk out an upscaled image. You always know what you're going to get, and the resulting image is based purely on the data in the image: no extra information is added. I regard resizing applications that add information over and above that found in the pixels of the original as being somehow fraudulent.
Most photographers would, in reality, be happy with an original Sony RX10, with its superlative 1" sensor and Sony/Zeiss 24-200 mm-e f/2.8 lens. See Ming Thein's review (he's a former Hasselblad ambassador). Here's his conclusion: And that’s the problem with the RX10: sufficiency. It is far more capable in every way than most people will ever need; to be honest, I could get away with using one of these for almost all of my professional work, and even the workshop videos. It will even do things that my other cameras will not – leaf shutter with full flash sync up to 1/1600s at f2.8, anybody? I wouldn’t need to carry 20kg of gear. I wouldn’t need to worry about lenses. I could have a few in case one broke, without breaking the bank. The RX10 is a camera that does many things very well, has some annoying niggles that you can probably overlook in light of the fact that none of them are really major. It is something that really makes you question the ‘more better’ philosophy being perpetuated elsewhere – in effect, an extremely refined Swiss Army Knife. An obsidian scalpel may be better for heart surgery, but let’s face it: how many really actually need that? In fact, I’m seriously considering buying one myself. Ironically, my biggest challenge in justifying it is also sufficiency: if I’m using this, what is all the other gear doing? MT If you want a better EVF and more video capabilities, there's the RX10ii, with the same, excellent, lens. If you want more reach, there's the RX10iii, with a Sony/Zeiss 24-600 mm-e f2.4-4 lens, and if you want to shoot sports or maybe fast-moving nature, the RX10iv adds phase-detect AF on top of the RX10iii's perfectly-adequate contrast detect AF. Sony have carefully positioned all four models at different price-points for a graded introduction to more and more capabilities. They have also painted themselves into a corner: they can't really increase the resolution of the sensor, since 20 MP is really pushing the limits at that sensor size; nobody realistically wants a lens greater than 600 mm-e (and it's a miracle that Sony and Zeiss have managed to produce such excellent image quality from such a wide range of focal lengths; the answer is probably that they've used an awful lot of very sophisticated glass). If you obsess about noise from the 1" sensor, I've had excellent results at ISO 3200, developing raw files in Capture One. Old photo hands from the days of silver halides will remember pushing Tri-X and HP4 from their native 400 ASA (= ISO 400) during development to 1250 ASA or even the insane 1600 ASA, the resulting negatives having grain like golf balls, but you got the photo, and that's what mattered. I had an original RX10, now owned by a friend, who's delighted with it (previously he was using an APS-C Nikon DSLR), and I currently have an RX10iii and a poor, neglected, Pentax K-5 with a bag of prime lenses. Note: My links to B&H are solely to show current prices; I receive no financial benefit from them.
Toggle Commented Aug 12, 2019 on Use What You Like at The Online Photographer
Most photographers would, in reality, be happy with an original Sony RX10, with its superlative 1" sensor and Sony/Zeiss 24-200 mm-e f/2.8 lens. See Ming Thein's review (he's a former Hasselblad ambassador). Here's his conclusion: And that’s the problem with the RX10: sufficiency. It is far more capable in every way than most people will ever need; to be honest, I could get away with using one of these for almost all of my professional work, and even the workshop videos. It will even do things that my other cameras will not – leaf shutter with full flash sync up to 1/1600s at f2.8, anybody? I wouldn’t need to carry 20kg of gear. I wouldn’t need to worry about lenses. I could have a few in case one broke, without breaking the bank. The RX10 is a camera that does many things very well, has some annoying niggles that you can probably overlook in light of the fact that none of them are really major. It is something that really makes you question the ‘more better’ philosophy being perpetuated elsewhere – in effect, an extremely refined Swiss Army Knife. An obsidian scalpel may be better for heart surgery, but let’s face it: how many really actually need that? In fact, I’m seriously considering buying one myself. Ironically, my biggest challenge in justifying it is also sufficiency: if I’m using this, what is all the other gear doing? MT If you want a better EVF and more video capabilities, there's the RX10ii, with the same, excellent, lens. If you want more reach, there's the RX10iii, with a Sony/Zeiss 24-600 mm-e f2.4-4 lens, and if you want to shoot sports or maybe fast-moving nature, the RX10iv adds phase-detect AF on top of the RX10iii's perfectly-adequate contrast detect AF. Sony have carefully positioned all four models at different price-points for a graded introduction to more and more capabilities. They have also painted themselves into a corner: they can't really increase the resolution of the sensor, since 20 MP is really pushing the limits at that sensor size; nobody realistically wants a lens greater than 600 mm-e (and it's a miracle that Sony and Zeiss have managed to produce such excellent image quality from such a wide range of focal lengths; the answer is probably that they've used an awful lot of very sophisticated glass). If you obsess about noise from the 1" sensor, I've had excellent results at ISO 3200, developing raw files in Capture One. Old photo hands from the days of silver halides will remember pushing Tri-X and HP4 from their native 400 ASA (= ISO 400) during development to 1250 ASA or even the insane 1600 ASA, the resulting negatives having grain like golf balls, but you got the photo, and that's what mattered. I had an original RX10, now owned by a friend, who's delighted with it (previously he was using an APS-C Nikon DSLR), and I currently have an RX10iii and a poor, neglected, Pentax K-5 with a bag of prime lenses. Note: My links to B&H are solely to show current prices; I receive no financial benefit from them.
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2019 on Use What You Like at The Online Photographer
Bill Brandt* Edward Weston Ansel Adams Henri Cartier-Bresson Don McCullin * Why has no-one else mentioned Brandt? He was a true artist and was held in high esteem by Ansel Adams among others. The Museum of Modern Art has 90 of his images online (click to see larger; click again to see even larger). Just look at the photos at Barbary Castle, or of the Policeman in Bermondsey (yes, I know that there are claims that it was a set-up, but the same has been said of HCB), or those at Top Withens with the grass flattened horizontal by the wind (the territory of Heathcliff's cottage, from Wuthering Heights, as this is the area where the Brontës grew up), or Stonehenge under snow, or Halifax, or the coal-searcher in Jarrow during the Great Depression, or the terrifying image of the Sitwells, or the portrait of Harold Pinter. There are very many missing from this collection, such as the portraits of Francis Bacon and of Robert Graves,and most especially René Magritte, together with photos of London taken by moonlight during the Blitz, when the blackout was in force; the advisability of a German scrambling over bomb-produced rubble in order to take photographs of the UK capital when no distractions were present was, well, questionable. I know that he considered himself to be British, but with these sort of activities, the authorities might question that. You might like Bill Brandt's work, or you might despise it, but please don't ignore it, and please express your views (after you have trawled the web for more of his photos)*. Thank you. *Mike: Sorry. I'm usurping your editorial role in requesting comments, and for that I apologise.
Toggle Commented Aug 1, 2019 on Dream Team at The Online Photographer
me.yahoo.com/a/BpNafyNjzpPtO7Um4dE.LxxObL1NsA-- is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 18, 2011