Jump to content

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
  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
  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
  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
  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)_
  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
  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
  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
  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 all
×
×
  • Create New...