 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 367 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2613462 Today 5 Topics 127501 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I bought a , it's pretty cool. Does more than my DSLR can, and it fits in my pocket. Also cost me about 90% less... Taking pictures is fun again. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sexy looking camera right there, but not the cheapest. I couldn't justify spending that much on a camera personally, unless of course it sucked me off every time I took a picture. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I was gonna have a go at you for being lazy and not using film, but these pics are pretty bad ass, especially the first! :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the s90 looks fun indeed. how do you like the control ring around the lens? nice pics. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Great pics, your photographic vision is really great. Is that bridge with the lock on it in Bolzano?? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i think it would improve them if you ran them through some filters on photoshop. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wat you mean it can "do more" |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
lol... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
wow, those are really some very good pictures. im surprised at the depth of color you can get with a point-n-shoot vs a dslr nowadays. and i like your composition. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
let's not kid ourselves here. had these photos been taken with a full frame dslr there would've been a world of difference, most notably in noise handling, depth of field and resolution. an ultracompact can never ever replace a big sensor camera. I think mr chaosmachine knows this very well but is just tired of hauling around the heavy gear. the two complement eachother nicely. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"an ultracompact can never ever replace a big sensor camera." Unless the compact has a large sensor! My next camera is a Sigma DP2s. Yah, the lack of zoom, etc., but to me, that's conceptually nice-- to capture in a manner that my eyes capture (i.e. no 900x zoom). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm mostly comparing it to my experience with the 20D: a 6-year-old, mid-range DSLR. Obviously, it can't compete with something like the 7D. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
all depends on the design requirements of the user. my 20d is still going strong |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the sony NEX system has aps-c sensors in tiny bodies, but big sensors require big lenses for technical reasons. this is pure physics: you can't make everything smaller without compromising image quality. there are optical limits. micro four thirds currently offers the best size/perfornance compromise imo. if you insist on a fixed lens camera then yeah, the sigma looks decent. the foveon sensor is really good. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
of course it's not gonna fully replace a dslr, i'm just quite impressed with what a compact camera can do now. five years ago you couldn't take anything halfway decent like this on a point-n-shoot. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
like what? there's nothing technically challenging in the original post's pictures that a standard point and shoot couldnt do. am i missing something? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dare say all of these photos were possible five years ago with point n shoot cams. noise would've been more visible most likely. only now you can do it with a camera as small as a cellphone. chaosmachine knows how to use cameras so these pics turned out well. you can get horriible pics out of an s90 and out of a 20d if you don't know what you're doing. elusive, lit's hard to say without the exif info. the photo of the locks for example has the exposure nailed, excellent detail and contrast to name a few things that stand out. the noise in the low light pics is certainly tolerable. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
huh? the images are scaled down so much i wouldn't expect to see much noise regardless... none of the images are terribly difficult re: exposure. and why are you so obsessed with noise. you're only going to see noise at higher iso (and that's dependent upon sensor) --- how do you know the first wasn't taken at iso100 on a tripod? all of these photos were possible 5 years ago. are we looking at the same set? (conversation has nothing to do with chaos' photos / perspective) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like these. thanks for sharing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
