Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

havoc315

Members
  • Content Count

    1,243
  • Joined

About havoc315

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. If you look at the EXIF you can see the actual file size in pixels. With compression, it's impossible to say what your actual pixel resolution is. You don't have to print at 300dpi... larger prints can look fine at 240dpi, as you're less likely to get super close to the print. Even 200dpi is fine for a larger print. But you don't really want to go below 200dpi.. So you need 24 megapixels -- Basically 4000x6000 resolution, to get a 20X30 print at 200 dpi. Below that, you'll really start to notice lower image quality. Sounds like you might need to stick to 13X19 type or range.
  2. I agree with everything Justin and Dave said... Different shooters have different needs and priorities. The value of good reviewers (and I’m not sure I qualify), is they can provide perspective in comparison to other products. Most people only have experience over a narrow range of cameras, often only one. This and similar boards are much quieter than they were a few years ago. But I’ve often seen, “what camera would you recommend for...” and 20 useless answers of “I shoot with ____ and love it.” Not accusing Dave or Justin of this —- they are both knowledgeable photographers providing good advice. for me, 95% of my recent shooting is Sony... but I’ve used almost every Sony lens, I’ve used extensively almost every Sony ILC (a9, a9ii, a7riii, a7riv, a6000, a6300, a6400... and currently a6600). and I do have some experience outside of Sony, as well as following the industry closely. (Btw, Nikon is essentially lending a full z50 kit for free for a month... you buy it, but can return for any reason in 30 days, they even pay return shipping. A great chance for anyone to test Nikon’s camera). Now things like dual control dials, 1 front and 1 rear.. so they can both be manipulated simultaneously. This is a very standard feature on $1000+ cameras. for people who have never really used dual dials, they naturally don’t know what they are missing. For example, Justin made an interesting comment— that he doesn’t have time to make quick manual adjustments so he uses the memory functions anyway. But here is the thing: dual dials makes it much faster and easier to make those manual adjustments. like Dave... I used to shoot in A-priority when I owned cameras with single dials. But now that I’m spoiled by twin dials, i shoot in M very often. So there are different perspectives and different priorities. My complaints about the a6600 are not that it’s a bad camera or that it would be a mistake to buy it. Justin loves his a6600 for good reason. My complaints about the a6600 are that it is missing a lot of elements that are meaningful and pretty standard in $1000+ cameras. but for example... if battery life is a higher priority than IQ... or IBIS is more important that performance.. or the use of specific lenses are a priority... those questions become pretty subjective.
  3. With the collapse of the market.... values are plummeting of brand new... not just used values With 2-lens aps-c camera kits now starting at $399... With cameras that are barely a year old seeing 30% price reductions.. All I can say is narrow down the camera you want... and if "value" is meaningful to you, then compare within brand and across brands. I've just started my testing and review of the A6600... all I can say for now, it's a much more interesting camera at $1200 than $1400. I have a ton of complaints that would be applicable to more expensive cameras, that are less an issue with cheaper cameras. So I found $1400 offensively overpriced.. $1200 gets a bit more reasonable. Fact that they slashed the price so quickly suggests Sony came to the same conclusion. Though in comparison to other models across other brands, I still find it slightly high for what it's offering. It's a good camera that could have been so much more if it truly wanted to be a $1400 semi-pro camera. (It's time to upgrade sensor.. both Canon and Fuji are using a newer generation of aps-c sensor; a $1400 performance camera should have dual UHS-II slots at a minimum, instead it has only 1 slow slut, and dual control dials is a no-brainer for a semi-pro camera).
  4. Honestly, my feelings are mixed. There isn't a good user manual, it's impossible to figure out some of the features and controls. For some reason, I wasn't able to get cropping to work -- I don't know if it's a bug. I wasn't super impressed with the portrait enhancements. I don't like the implementation of their clone stamp or their content-aware eraser. You don't see the effect of the content-aware eraser in real time as you use it. But generally, for landscapes, I'm impressed. Beyond the sky replacement, the AI enhancements usually come out pretty well. And the detail enhancements are better than lightroom. My only frustration is that Luminar doesn't seem to have built-in lens corrections for raw files. I may have to do my lens corrections in Lightroom and then export to Luminar for everything else. (And for now, I need to do cropping in Lightroom). Sky removal.... I still think ideally, you want to capture REAL beautiful skies. Shadows, etc, in the rest of the image won't really play naturally with a fake sky. Not to mention, things like -- in my Eiffel tower photo, the sun is setting in the south! But when I get stuck with a totally overcast or a totally clear blue sky, I feel I'd want to use one of the more subtle fake skies. If it's a picture of Notre Dame for example, I still want someone to look at it and say "what a beautiful picture of Notre Dame" -- Not, "wow, what a gorgeous sky over Notre Dame." In other words, personally, I may use it to remove a boring element from a photo, but not to create a fake exciting element. I feel like I achieved that balance in these examples -- except the Eiffel tower which I think went over the top. Among the first 6 photos -- 3 have real skies, 3 have fake skies. The fact that you can't tell the difference is kudos to Luminar, but supports the way I hope to incorporate this tool into my workflow. I also will need to make a habit of shooting some custom skies of my own, so I'm not constantly using the same pre-set skies.
  5. You misunderstand me..... I don't feel like I'm cheating because I'm replacing the sky. I feel like it's cheating that it's SO EASY, compared to the difficult layers and masking of photoshop. Let's play a game, which are Luminar skies, which are real Paris skies? 1: untitled (22 of 1308).jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr 2: untitled (53 of 1308)_L by Adam Brown, on Flickr 3: untitled (102 of 1308)_L by Adam Brown, on Flickr 4: untitled (33 of 1308).jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr 5: untitled (192 of 1308)_L by Adam Brown, on Flickr 6: untitled (40 of 1308).jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr 7: untitled (243 of 1308)_L by Adam Brown, on Flickr
  6. Not a fan of Luminar 4 for portraits but it definitely has some value for landscapes. The sky replacement definitely feels like cheating: Sacre Coeur by Adam Brown, on Flickr untitled (919 of 1308).jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr
  7. Grand Central and Met Life Tower by Adam Brown, on Flickr
  8. Got to play with borrowed toys: Half moon by Adam Brown, on Flickr
  9. Where photography is art, the artist may use any tools at their disposal... including editing. So I see nothing "cheating" about using photoshop or Luminar to create art. But with a caveat: If you are using Luminar to put in custom skies that you photographed, no issue. But if you're using Luminar's built-in custom skies, you're combining their art with your art. I still see no problem, Luminar has clearly licensed you to use their art. But still, when showing off such photo, I'd want to give credit: "sky substituted by Skylum Luminar" Similarly, if I'm photographing to create a "record" of a location.... "the Eiffel Tower as seen in by summer 2019 trip".. for example.... I'd want to be clear that the sky is not the sky as it was seen on that trip. So, "Eiffel Tower photographed summer 2019, sky substitution to Luminar" Substituting the sky... it's no longer an accurate record. But it may be a better looking photograph. So I'd want to be clear as to what aspects are the actual record.
  10. untitled (29 of 266).jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr (Thanks to Sony Creative Space for the model and set-up)
  11. A $200-300 bridge camera is a point and shoot. And will be worse than the newest phones, in terms of image quality.
  12. Having spoken to an insider, I know you’re wrong. Sony Semiconductor takes in about 100 times the revenue of Sony imaging and separately reports their profits. They aren’t going to take dings in their profits to give tiny Sony imaging an advantage. And the proof is out there: the best aps-c sensor made by Sony Semiconductor currently is ..... the 26mp sensor being used by Fuji. Sony Imaging isn’t even using the best Sony Semiconductor. The reason Sony is still using a 4 year old aps-c sensor? Because they didn’t get special treatment— to get the a6300 copper wired sensors, they had to commit to a certain number of sensors. They still haven’t hit that minimum, so they need to keep using that old sensor until they hit their minimum and can get something new. Go back to the Sony 36mp sensor, that first appeared in the Nikon d800/d810 — Nikon got exclusive rights to that sensor locked up for a period before Sony Imaging was allowed to use it. Though it’s not really Sony and Nikon and Fuji competing against each other for sensors, that’s the issue. The issue is they are all competing with phones for sensors. Sony imaging says “we need 100,000 sensors”... Apple calls and says “we need 10 million sensors”... which order takes priority in the factory? So the camera companies are all competing with the phones to get fabrication time. Forcing the camera companies to make commitments to buy certain numbers of sensors. Forcing them to keep using the same sensor again and again, limiting their ability to update. same Song for Sony imaging as it is for everyone else.
  13. Not talking about doing extensive edits on the back of the camera -- but adjusting the exposure, maybe cropping, applying a filter -- good options. Pixel/iPhone night modes (and other modes) automatically take lots of exposures, then merge them to create a final image, nearly instantly. To do something like that with your camera, you better have a tripod, and then you better have good photoshop skills to do after the fact. Notice Sony has actually been removing features like auto-panorama, multi-frame NR, etc, from cameras.
  14. Sony making sensors isn't really a differentiator -- It's a separate business, Sony Semi conductor. Unless they want to run afoul of anti-trust laws, Sony Imaging has to operate with Sony Semiconductor just like anyone else. Nikon can order sensors from Sony Semi conductor, and Sony Semiconductor can't give an advantage to Sony imaging. Sony Semiconductor does some sensors "off the rack" but they also can do custom builds, where Nikon/Sony imaging, etc, requests a specific sensor design. In fact, Sony Semiconductor tried to get Nikon to use the A7r 42mp sensor in the Nikon D850, but Nikon decided to go with the custom 45mp sensor instead.
  15. Sony really isn't any better than the others when it comes to those consumer needs. THey are all supposed to be in the business of capturing memories and sharing them -- but none of them are any good at the sharing. In fact, Nikon is slightly better -- allowing for automatic image uploading to the phone, though it isn't very reliable. Only the Sony A9 allows for similar automatic uploading, and it really doesn't work well at all. Sony's wifi image sharing hasn't been improved over the last 5 years... it's a cumbersome unreliable process. Worse yet -- Sony doesn't even allow basic editing in-camera..... Where a phone's touch screen allows instant adjustment to the DOF, the simulated lighting, etc, etc. And truthfully... transfer to a phone is a half-baked solution. Who wants to overload a phone with 50 gb of photos? Ironically, Zeiss got this right with their designed camera, though it's not for low level consumers: automatic cloud uploading. When you taken your Nikon Z50/Canon M6, Sony A6xxx into a starbucks or home, it should automatically connect to a Nikon/Canon/Sony cloud, the images should be seamlessly uploaded into the cloud. From within the cloud, you should be able to order prints, share via social media, and perform AI-enhanced editing. All accessible from any tablet, phone or computer. It should be the Nikon/Canon/Sony photography experience -- not just a box that completes the first step. The camera makers failed to appreciate the threat of smart phones. And then when they did appreciate it, they decided to retreat to high end, instead of fighting for the lower end. (they had some feeble failed attempts at the lower end and then surrendered.... Sony hasn't updated the A5100, Nikon dropped the "1" series).
×
×
  • Create New...