Yup! In-camera FX like being posted here are kinda lame in that they're permanently applied and the user has little or no control over the extent it's applied!
Unless someone is trying to remake a cheap version of Waking Life I see no need to use them and have very little interest in the results they create.
The only upside that might exist is that ya don't have to worry about CA at all.
douglasf13 wrote:
I've said this before, but every picture that I'm in is usually taken by my wife with an iPhone, so I may buy one of these to give to my wife, so that I actually have some reasonably high quality pics...of myself!
That was one of the things that made me prefer this RX100 over the Fuji X100
I loved the X100 when I was the one behind the camera, but darn if at least 50% of the time when I handed it off to someone else I got pictures with the background in focus instead of me, or had bad framing, didn't have EC dialed in when needed etc. Not really the fault of anyone, its simply that the X100 is an enthusiast camera and requires a bit of knowledge, careful placement of the AF box etc
RX100 (though others cameras could apply as well) by contrast with its face detect AF, familiar P&S style interface and such makes it pretty fool proof to get a good picture, and the world is rather full of fools lol
Bifurcator wrote:
Yup! In-camera FX like being posted here are kinda lame in that they're permanently applied and the user has little or no control over the extent it's applied!
Unless someone is trying to remake a cheap version of Waking Life I see no need to use them and have very little interest in the results they create.
C'mon Bif.....we're just having some fun with a new toy. We'll get over it soon.
millsart wrote:
That was one of the things that made me prefer this RX100 over the Fuji X100
I loved the X100 when I was the one behind the camera, but darn if at least 50% of the time when I handed it off to someone else I got pictures with the background in focus instead of me, or had bad framing, didn't have EC dialed in when needed etc. Not really the fault of anyone, its simply that the X100 is an enthusiast camera and requires a bit of knowledge, careful placement of the AF box etc
RX100 (though others cameras could apply as well) by contrast with its face detect AF, familiar P&S style interface and such makes it pretty fool proof to get a good picture, and the world is rather full of fools lol
Yeah, the thing is that I'm not really interested in using the RX100 myself, so it may be kind of expensive for my wife's occasional purse camera. Hmmm....
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, the thing is that I'm not really interested in using the RX100 myself, so it may be kind of expensive for my wife's occasional purse camera. Hmmm....
You say that now, but I will bet you $10 that if you go ahead and buy the RX100 you will be using it a lot.
douglasf13 wrote:
Yeah, the thing is that I'm not really interested in using the RX100 myself, so it may be kind of expensive for my wife's occasional purse camera. Hmmm....
Then again I recall you weren't that interested in the X100 until you finally got that one either.....
Hey Bif - I am Guilty as charged - However, one still needs to point the camera in the right direction to get a nice image - I like the results - sorry that you don't!
millsart wrote:
Then again I recall you weren't that interested in the X100 until you finally got that one either.....
I was always interested in the X100, especially due to the hybrid viewfinder, and I nearly pre-ordered one initially. It was all of the negative reviews about camera speed and AF that scared me away for a long time.
The RX100 is getting nothing but great reviews, but, at the end of the day, I know exactly how such a camera handles, and I'm not interested in it. It would at least need a tilt LCD for me to be tempted, but, for my everyday camera, even my various NEX cameras never worked perfectly, thus the constant rotation of lenses and bodies, trying to find the right thing.
RickPerry wrote:
Hey Bif - I am Guilty as charged - However, one still needs to point the camera in the right direction to get a nice image - I like the results - sorry that you don't!
I think your results are good and it looks fun. Somewhere along the way it seems people forget about it. Frankly I'm surprised he would call anyone's pictures lame considering what he posts.
Decided to bite the bullet and put one on order. Till now, my "small" camera was a Lumix G2. It was perfect for vacationing, but I've since gotten my main kit nicely condense so it's not that much better around town, and the G2 isn't really pocketable. Managed to sell it and every lens but the 45-200, which put a nice dent in my out of pocket for the RX100.
Before the G2 I had a Canon G10, which never quite did what I wanted. It wasn't quite small enough, I found servo zoom annoying, and the poor high ISO performance really killed it for any indoor shooting. Video was pretty bad as well. I'm excited to see how the RX100 fares in comparison.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I think your results are good and it looks fun. Somewhere along the way it seems people forget about it. Frankly I'm surprised he would call anyone's pictures lame considering what he posts.
For the record, he called in camera FX lame because they are permanent. That said, some of the FX shown here are cool, and it's always fun to play around with a new camera.
In camera FX are an option, and one that the end user can choose to use, or not use.
9 times out of 10 I'm not a big fan of them but darn if I haven't sometimes enjoyed using things like Oly's "grainy b/w" filter mode.
Can I do the same, and in fact better with Silver EFX 2 on my PC ?? Of course I can, but it means I've got to sit down and edit. Also means I've spent $150 on software.
Not everyone has the desire, time or plugin's needed to achieve these looks. Some users simply have fun shooting and using in camera FX and having their friends go "wow, thats cool"
For 99% of people who buy a given camera, isn't simply having fun the point ?
In camera watercolor and HDR painting mode can do some decent results and enhance a users enjoyment of the camera.
Buddy of mine who also bought the RX100 has been having a blast with its pretty good macro ability and watercolor mode shooting flowers in the local conservatory.
Sure they are just another processed looking shot of flowers, dime a dozen, just like shots of birds flying or any other subject hobbyist like to shoot, but the point is they enjoy it and thats what they spent their money on their camera for, to have fun.
So be it a cheesy shot of a person turned into a comic, or a watercolor landscape, or some common yard bird snapped while on a walk, what right does anyone else have to tell another photographer what or how to shoot ?
Jeff Kott wrote:
C'mon Bif.....we're just having some fun with a new toy. We'll get over it soon.
Hehehe...
RickPerry wrote:
Hey Bif - I am Guilty as charged - However, one still needs to point the camera in the right direction to get a nice image - I like the results - sorry that you don't!
FlyPenFly wrote:
I think your results are good and it looks fun. Somewhere along the way it seems people forget about it. Frankly I'm surprised he would call anyone's pictures lame considering what he posts.
Oooo, cheap (and unsubstantiatable) shot! I wonder if I should return volley with one of those "and speaking of low blows..." jokes?
briantho wrote:
For the record, he called in camera FX lame because they are permanent. That said, some of the FX shown here are cool, and it's always fun to play around with a new camera.
Yup, that's right. I didn't say I didn't like it. Nor did I say any specific image was lame - as those who can read will have noticed. My reply was mainly in support of the notion that software FX are about a gazillion times more fun, creative, and dynamic.
rscheffler wrote:
Do the art filters work in video mode? Could be a cheap rotoscoping alternative. If not in video, then at 10fps as stop motion!
Again, super easy to apply in software, and lots more creative and dynamic. Even something like VLC can do these and more in real-time. There are hundreds of free apps that do this kinda stuff and lots more with complete control over the results while keeping the original file's image integrity. These days, needing a computer even to play back video or view stills, I can't see any purpose beyond a marketing gimmick, why a camera manufacturer would put those in. <shrug>
Works fine indoors, assuming you've got the typical home ceiling height of 8-10 feet and its painted white.
Your obviously not going to be doing f8 group portraits in a 18 foot high reception hall with such a little flash but with the f1.8 lens its pretty useful even at base ISO indoors.
Given the ISO400 is easily as good as any other compact I've owned at base ISO you can think of the flash being a bit more powerful as well.
Don't expect miracles but for general indoor snapshots it works great and avoids the harsh shadows and redeye etc from direct flash
I really like this place. You get to learn new things every day.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim - You are a funny man -
I was alluding to the thought that - using this in-camera-effect in no way is "cheating" or not "Real photography'. This, I assume, is the crux of the contention. It reminds me of the early days of photography - Painters claimed Photography was not "Art" - 'after all -photographers just push a button'.
Sony put this and other effects in Camera because - they are fun, and the results can be "Artful" and entertaining. In my initial reference to them, I stated the watercolor effect has potential - I believe that is true.
I think the money spent on Photoshop will just about cover the cost of a brand new RX 100 - (in this particular case the results are arguably just as interesting, as far as I am concerned, with the added bonus of a fantastic camera thrown in for zip! All you Photo Geeks may scoff at CA, soft corners, lack of control etc. But, I for one, am taking photos, enjoying the feature and seeing just where it may lead my photographic craft.
All photoghraphy is "Painting with Light" this is no different! There are many different Brushes available.
Not a video guy by any stretch of the imagination, but just started playing with it, and its captures are very smooth with full manual controls, and take stills at the same time. With larger sensor and f1.8 it's possible to take some decent video depending on subject. Certainly good enough for occational footage. I'm impressed.
I'm liking this thing more and more. Did not expect this from Sony.
If not in video, then at 10fps as stop motion!
