Sharp enough? Too sharp? Not sharp at all? Maybe it's all an illusion.
Another series of handheld shots with my current favorite point-n-shoot camera.
Of course we are limited in our photographic capabilities by the one inch sensor.......
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
KT, I don't know about the 1" sensor, I mean I can't read the writing on the side of the can of spray paint! Back to reality I think you are getting wonderful results from that camera/lens. For many folks hauling around dslr's and 5 lbs of gear, all to view results on a computer monitor or projected for the camera clubs monthly assignment- the Sony just works. Use what works for you and don't worry what people say to you about your using a simple point n' shoot. Little do they know of its potential.
Had you shot it with the Sony A7 or the 6300 would the paint can text have been legible?
I find it impossible to tell from most online jpeg images whether they're sharp or not. There are so many opportunities for degradation in the chain from in-camera original to edited file to whatever the upload the display process does to mangle things....
All of these looked soft on my iPad. Much better on the 27-inch iMac. But who knows what they really look like?
If I were to wander back through the various eras of theater photography you've shown, I'm pretty sure the images most satisfying to me would come from the Sony A900 (?) era. But is the difference found in the camera? Lens? Processing routine at the time? Maybe a particularly compatible lighting director at the Zach theater?
On my 27 inch screen all the visible lines of type on the can are not only legible they have no fringing or softness. The two shots of the painted wood fences are the sharpest I've ever seen from any of my cameras. The web must really mangle stuff for the perception of sharpness to be that different. Perhaps with the ever increasing web traffic web providers are using ever more radical levels of compression to deliver more content. I just don't know. I do know that the images are amazing to me. Much better than anything I got out of similar size sensor cameras. I'll send you a couple Jpegs if you want to see less compressed stuff.... Thanks, Kirk
Sensor, schmensor. Regardless of the sensor size it looks like that camera has a heck of a nice lens. Even compressed, the photos look crispy and contrasty with good color.
We Moderate Comments, Yours might not appear right after you hit return. Be patient; I'm usually pretty quick on getting comments up there. Try not to hit return again and again.... If you disagree with something I've written please do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog! I can't make you comment but I don't want to wade through spam!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
4 comments:
KT,
I don't know about the 1" sensor, I mean I can't read the writing on the side of the can of spray paint! Back to reality I think you are getting wonderful results from that camera/lens.
For many folks hauling around dslr's and 5 lbs of gear, all to view results on a computer monitor or projected for the camera clubs monthly assignment- the Sony just works.
Use what works for you and don't worry what people say to you about your using a simple point n' shoot. Little do they know of its potential.
Joe
Had you shot it with the Sony A7 or the 6300 would the paint can text have been legible?
I find it impossible to tell from most online jpeg images whether they're sharp or not. There are so many opportunities for degradation in the chain from in-camera original to edited file to whatever the upload the display process does to mangle things....
All of these looked soft on my iPad. Much better on the 27-inch iMac. But who knows what they really look like?
If I were to wander back through the various eras of theater photography you've shown, I'm pretty sure the images most satisfying to me would come from the Sony A900 (?) era. But is the difference found in the camera? Lens? Processing routine at the time? Maybe a particularly compatible lighting director at the Zach theater?
Maybe it is all an illusion.
On my 27 inch screen all the visible lines of type on the can are not only legible they have no fringing or softness. The two shots of the painted wood fences are the sharpest I've ever seen from any of my cameras. The web must really mangle stuff for the perception of sharpness to be that different. Perhaps with the ever increasing web traffic web providers are using ever more radical levels of compression to deliver more content. I just don't know. I do know that the images are amazing to me. Much better than anything I got out of similar size sensor cameras. I'll send you a couple Jpegs if you want to see less compressed stuff.... Thanks, Kirk
Sensor, schmensor. Regardless of the sensor size it looks like that camera has a heck of a nice lens. Even compressed, the photos look crispy and contrasty with good color.
Post a Comment
We Moderate Comments, Yours might not appear right after you hit return. Be patient; I'm usually pretty quick on getting comments up there. Try not to hit return again and again.... If you disagree with something I've written please do so civilly. Be nice or see your comments fly into the void. Anonymous posters are not given special privileges or dispensation. If technology alone requires you to be anonymous your comments will likely pass through moderation if you "sign" them. A new note: Don't tell me how to write or how to blog! I can't make you comment but I don't want to wade through spam!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.