I'm pretty sure the use of "outperforms" in the thread title was tongue in cheek.
For family vacation type shots, jpegs can be fine. The Fuji seems to do pretty well. Don't worry, you can shoot raw with it as well.
What boggles my mind is why anyone would tote over ten pounds of DSLR gear, and the finest quality Zeiss lenses, to photograph something as mundane as a drink or meal consumed while on vacation? Those kinds of images are all over the Zeiss thread, and I never understood why anyone would do that to themselves. Are those photos being blown up for display on the side of a bus, or published in National Geographic? They're just fun photographs for the sake of capturing your vacation experience, you don't have to be able to eke out every detail in your mojito's mint leaves to enjoy them.
I enjoy using the high end gear for certain work, no question. I don't always, or even usually, need it though. I'd rather capture a great photograph with my phone, and live with its limitations, than a bunch of technically perfect but lifeless images with my DSLR. Admittedly, I've done a lot more of the latter than the former.
allstarimaging wrote: rattymouse wrote: Yep. Buying a Nikon D800 and a $2000 lens just to leave at home is not smart shopping. Not at all.
Another example of petty comments launched into the abyss of the internet. I have a D800 and 14-24 combo because I used to shoot professionally and have covered major professional sports here in the US including major league baseball, the PGA, NCAA, and the NHL. My images have appeared in Sprots Illustrated and ESPN the magazine. (see my web site) Until a few years ago there was nothing on the market that came close to the image quality delivered by DSLR's. Now that Fuji and others have entered the market the consumer has more choices and as a result can get their desired image qulity from a much smaller package.
Lugging around 15 pounds of gear when I'm on vacation is not something I want to do. I don't need a brick tied around my neck when I'm hanging on the beach. So it might be a good idea to think before you press the send button when you want to pass judgement on others.
phillip_pj wrote: Me, I'd feel physically sick if I came back from a trip with a bunch of jpegs.
JPEGS have gotten a bad rap. They serve their purpose in the vast majority of situations. As I said I really don't have the time or the desire to go through hours of editing and processing of these types of images. They are "snapshots" from a vacation. Also, I've always tried to get the best image possible straight out of the camera so I don't have to spend time sitting in front of my computer. When I covered the PGA, NHL, MLB, etc I never shot RAW always JPEGS and somehow managed to have my images appear in major publications. JPEGS have always worked for me. I only shoot RAW when I see something that I know is special and may go on my wall at home. Otherwise, I shoot it, one click edit, and move on...
rattymouse wrote: A Nikon D800E and a 14-24mm lens does not weigh 15 pounds.
Throw it in a backpack with a filter kit and another lens and it's probably pretty close. It's also about 14 pounds more than I feel like carrying when I'm on vacation. Your missing the point. For a vacation and my personal preference I'm not interested in having huge gear with me otherwise I would have rented a Nikon 600 VR and ripped off 10 frames a second on a D3s. Not really how I want to spend a vacation with my wife.
ital195 wrote: I'm pretty sure the use of "outperforms" in the thread title was tongue in cheek.
Yes you are correct and we think along the same lines on this. Not every image gets blown up to a 20x40 print and hung on the wall. Sometimes just capturing a moment in time, with good light, and composition is good enough.
allstarimaging wrote:
ital195 wrote: I'm pretty sure the use of "outperforms" in the thread title was tongue in cheek.
Yes you are correct and we think along the same lines on this. Not every image gets blown up to a 20x40 print and hung on the wall. Sometimes just capturing a moment in time, with good light, and composition is good enough.
The great thing about modern equipment is that it's no longer an either/ or proposition between quality and speed, capturing the moment versus the technically superior/ more versatile file. As a professional and photo instructor, it's disheartening to read others basically advocating mediocrity.
itai195 wrote:
I'm pretty sure the use of "outperforms" in the thread title was tongue in cheek.
For family vacation type shots, jpegs can be fine. The Fuji seems to do pretty well. Don't worry, you can shoot raw with it as well.
What boggles my mind is why anyone would tote over ten pounds of DSLR gear, and the finest quality Zeiss lenses, to photograph something as mundane as a drink or meal consumed while on vacation? Those kinds of images are all over the Zeiss thread, and I never understood why anyone would do that to themselves. Are those photos being blown up for display on the side of a bus, or published in National Geographic? They're just fun photographs for the sake of capturing your vacation experience, you don't have to be able to eke out every detail in your mojito's mint leaves to enjoy them.
I enjoy using the high end gear for certain work, no question. I don't always, or even usually, need it though. I'd rather capture a great photograph with my phone, and live with its limitations, than a bunch of technically perfect but lifeless images with my DSLR. Admittedly, I've done a lot more of the latter than the former....Show more →
What boggles my mind even more, and I am sure I'll get flack for this, is why even take photos of a drink or your meal?
I am going to Kauai for 3 weeks in May and you bet I am taking my 5d2 with my assortment of lens. My goal with photography is to realize the vision in my head of the scene in front of me and my DSLR outfit does a much better job at this, especially when printing large.
I do have a X100 and really like it, but I would never solely use the x100 for my trips around the world. It takes fabulous photos, but when printed to wall sized prints, the DSLR outperforms my compact in ever way...and thst is what I stride for.
allstarimaging wrote:
rattymouse wrote: A Nikon D800E and a 14-24mm lens does not weigh 15 pounds.
Throw it in a backpack with a filter kit and another lens and it's probably pretty close. It's also about 14 pounds more than I feel like carrying when I'm on vacation. Your missing the point. For a vacation and my personal preference I'm not interested in having huge gear with me otherwise I would have rented a Nikon 600 VR and ripped off 10 frames a second on a D3s. Not really how I want to spend a vacation with my wife.
I guess the point is everyone approaches travel photography differently. For you a carry everywhere snap shot type of camera is great, for others they carry around "15 lbs" of gear to be able to have flexibility with the images when they get home...and others beat everyone in compactness and just use their phones. Everyone is different, no one way is right for everyone.
I personally really like the OP's "drink shot"; I looked at it on a cold, wintery morning here in Canada, and it transported me to another place and made me smile with some great memories of my own.
chez wrote:
What boggles my mind even more, and I am sure I'll get flack for this, is why even take photos of a drink or your meal?
Because it makes you feel something later on, it brings back memories. I can ask this - why take photos of scenery there are already 1000s of photos of? What's the point? I've been here too? See, this is the core of why we photograph. It's different for everyone.
bmwrider75 wrote:
I personally really like the OP's "drink shot"; I looked at it on a cold, wintery morning here in Canada, and it transported me to another place and made me smile with some great memories of my own.
philip_pj wrote:
jpeg being a miserable 8 bit reduced gamut format, actually need WB, etc. to be very good OOC - because there is no fallback option whatsoever.
I never understood why people suggest that there is no WB fallback option for JPG.
As to the "drink shot" ... part of being on vacation (imo) is doing what we enjoy doing. Shooting (darn near anything) can be as enjoyable as sitting on a beach and reading a book. There is a relaxed mental engagement with no real purpose to be achieved in reading a novel ... it is a diversion that gently tickles the brain.
As a seasoned shooter, the vacation "drink shot" can be just a relaxing way of doing what we enjoy ... which is not the same stress (good or bad) inducing as shooting for the perfection of a client. How hard you want to push yourself mentally is variable. The first time we ever took a picture, there was a thrill associated with process of creation ... for the fortunate ones, we still know how to invoke this joyful emotive, in the simplest of manner/subject without any apparent intent or purpose ... i.e. it's just plain fun and we're on vacation.
mortyb wrote:
Because it makes you feel something later on, it brings back memories. I can ask this - why take photos of scenery there are already 1000s of photos of? What's the point? I've been here too? See, this is the core of why we photograph. It's different for everyone.
Ummm....maybe because scenery is what my customers buy....not a photo of a drink or meal.
AhamB wrote:
Only with destructive processing, which is very limited compared to white-balancing in RAW.
I still don't understand this ... I correct WB on jpgs for others (i.e. no raw available) all the time. I just use layers so that nothing destructive is involved.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
The great thing about modern equipment is that it's no longer an either/ or proposition between quality and speed, capturing the moment versus the technically superior/ more versatile file. As a professional and photo instructor, it's disheartening to read others basically advocating mediocrity.
No the either/or now is in terms of size/weight of gear. Aside from those few willing to go Leica with the associated compromises in capability, your choice is to haul a large & heavy DSLR setup, or give up a small amount of IQ and go to a compact mirrorless system like the X, NEX or m43. The latter option makes getting the shot easier as well (easier to get the gear to the site, more accurate AF, if slower in some cases, much easier to carry all necessary lenses)
At my print sizes, the IQ difference between a NEX-7 or OM-D and a D800E are small, and often invisible. On screen, the differences are invisible when viewing the full image. And of course there's far less difference between an OM-D and a 5DIII, A99 or D600 in IQ terms than there is between those mirrorless cameras and a D800E.
Small format (which 35mm traditionally is) has always been about giving up some IQ to get a massive increase in portability. That's why Oskar Barnack invented the Ur-Leica. Modern Mirrorless cameras are solidly in that tradition, while modern FF DSLR's are Medium Format equivalents in terms of size, weight and portability. Yeah, use the DSLR when you have to. But you are giving up nearly nothing by going to Mirrorless outside of edge cases where the DSLR has a big advantage (generally these come down to long lens work, continuous AF, shallow DoF and high ISO, also very large prints in the case of the D800's, but not the other current FF bodies)
mawz wrote:
No the either/or now is in terms of size/weight of gear. Aside from those few willing to go Leica with the associated compromises in capability, your choice is to haul a large & heavy DSLR setup, or give up a small amount of IQ and go to a compact mirrorless system like the X, NEX or m43. The latter option makes getting the shot easier as well (easier to get the gear to the site, more accurate AF, if slower in some cases, much easier to carry all necessary lenses)
At my print sizes, the IQ difference between a NEX-7 or OM-D and a D800E are small, and often invisible. On screen, the differences are invisible when viewing the full image. And of course there's far less difference between an OM-D and a 5DIII, A99 or D600 in IQ terms than there is between those mirrorless cameras and a D800E.
Small format (which 35mm traditionally is) has always been about giving up some IQ to get a massive increase in portability. That's why Oskar Barnack invented the Ur-Leica. Modern Mirrorless cameras are solidly in that tradition, while modern FF DSLR's are Medium Format equivalents in terms of size, weight and portability. Yeah, use the DSLR when you have to. But you are giving up nearly nothing by going to Mirrorless outside of edge cases where the DSLR has a big advantage (generally these come down to long lens work, continuous AF, shallow DoF and high ISO, also very large prints in the case of the D800's, but not the other current FF bodies)...Show more →
This remark was about jpeg vs raw. In any case, the equipment in question (Fuji XE-1), as well as everything you have mentioned, is obviously very capable when not crippled by the user.
Not really how I want to spend a vacation with my wife.