zhangyue Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
philip_pj wrote:
I know what you are saying here, zhangyue, and I think almost all agree that inherent image quality trumps mere technical expertise and presentation. Here is a different take on it: think of the image content and all its aspects such as lighting, composition, and content itself as *outside the technical sphere*...then consider the same image shot with a range of technologies or cameras and lenses.
Now some images are so strong they look good out of a phone camera, but not all images do so. As you have better tech MORE such images appear in the top echelon, these are the ones that would not make it until the technical ability (however defined remember) had arrived in your hands. [This is not to say that you can shoot a wall and make a masterpiece of course though sometimes with the RX1 I do wonder.]
...Show more →
99% and 1% is relative scale, maybe a little bit exaggerate. For me, The 1st rate pictures have to have great concept, design, story, composition, all of which has nothing to do with Bokeh, sharpness, DR etc..So when I see real good photographers use those P&S to make powerful pictures, I admire them can go beyond tech spec and touch the truth. The camera is just a tool, (fancy hammer is still a hammer) which contribute a very small portion of IQ, to represent their mind. Especially we are at age of no ‘dog’ tool.
I want re-quote
zhangyue wrote:
My opinion is 99% IQ from content, 1% from gear/tech for the stuff I enjoy to look.
For landscape, Ad industry, some type of Wedding picture, yeh, I can’t deny the importance of tech level. But they are not the the stuff I enjoy to look most.
And I really want say is: if the pictures rely on DR, sharpness to impress me, they are not good enough. Even though, I myself spend time to analysis sharpness cross frame, focus transition, Bokeh, mechanical design of lens etc… I understand that it is a different topic than “photography” but a ‘hobby’ I was keep saying. If the picture rely on Bokeh to touch you, either picture itself is not good enough, or you don’t have good enough taste.
“3D”, so what, a 3D garbage can is still a garbage can, and is it world of 3D in front you every sec still not enough
Sorry about off topic. It is a again, a very personal view of topic.
sebboh wrote:
now i've ordered the rx-1.
both cameras produce images i really like with different looks to the lenses, but i like the look of the zeiss more (rare for me, i generally like fuji lenses more than zeiss) and i liked the manual focus experience of the rx-1 one better.
Congr! Look forward to see your pictures. The lens of RX1 is the best 35mm lens, period, the sensor too. I am tempting to get one of these. Sony really knows how to keep their stuff on central stage with this RX1R introduction The level of interesting of this little camera doesn’t decay but pick up.
|