sebboh wrote:
that's quite the mount conversion, have you done it yet?
Well, the lens should arrive this week and I'll tell you later on when its done. I know a very skilled technician that could change C/Y, Minolta, FD and Pentax to F-mount. He says the only mount that he gives up is Olympus OM to F-mount.
frezeiss wrote:
wow.. excellent shots in the last page!
All with NEX 5 and ZM C Biogon. Funny that many people prefer the 16 MP sensor than 14 MP, I prefer the former, more crisp and easier on the eyes.
I dream of a 14 MP FF and no AA NEX 9
I don't think any of us notice much of a difference between 14 and 16mp. The difference is how much better the 5N behaves with rangefinder lenses at the corners, including that ZM 35/2.8.
frezeiss wrote:
Well, the lens should arrive this week and I'll tell you later on when its done. I know a very skilled technician that could change C/Y, Minolta, FD and Pentax to F-mount. He says the only mount that he gives up is Olympus OM to F-mount.
intriguing, i would say from experience that the OM is the easiest of those to convert. can you post a picture of the lens after it's converted (probably better on the rokkor thread)? that rokkor is one of my favorite lenses.
Beautiful pics. Has that whitish coloured dog got any Australian Cattle dog in him/her? Sure looks like it, our cattle dogs here in oz are usually not that colour.
Someone else gave me this tip: Flickr's sharpening algorithms are designed around the idea that photos will be uploaded at larger sizes. Any photos that are close to one of Flickr's standard sizes will have obvious processing since no resizing was involved. Thus, upload your photos larger than 1024 wide if you want them to look closer to your own processing after Flickr resizes them.
I don't know if any of that is true, but I started uploading them at 1600px wide and the results are a lot better (most of the time).
I'm not a pro member there but plan to be soon since I'm breaching 200 images any day. Anything uploaded in 1024 (or below - longest side) stays the way you did it, I have not noticed any alteration. And as been said, anything uploaded larger will be downsized (for non-pro members) to 1024.
Jacob D: My guess is that if you upload images of say 1600 and then post/share them here in that size they wont differ. But to be able to do that you need to be a pro member, right?
Or can you or anyone else confirm that even as a Pro you will still be restricted to share a maximum size of 1024?
wfrank wrote:
I'm not a pro member there but plan to be soon since I'm breaching 200 images any day. Anything uploaded in 1024 (or below - longest side) stays the way you did it, I have not noticed any alteration.
Does Flickr leave them alone if the photos are sized exactly at 1024 px wide? I think I've had the dreaded 'Flickr Oversharpening' occur at that size. I have definitely seen it when sizing them exactly at 800 wide, which is the next smaller display size, so no resizing would have occurred. Look at FLy Pen Fly's last post, which is 1024, of course I don't know what size he uploaded at.
I was told by some Flickr members not to do that (upload at any of Flickr's display sizes) to avoid the over sharpened look. I've also noticed the file size of uploaded images is somewhat smaller compared to the file size of the exported images. (I mean in situations where you wouldn't expect your image to be resized, i.e. 1024, 800, etc...)
With a free account, uploading larger images than 1024 wide results in them being downsampled to 1024. There is no option to share larger sizes. With a Pro account I believe there are some larger size options available, and of course you can share the 'original', at whatever size you uploaded it at. With the Pro account the original file is the only one completely untouched by Flickr (I confirmed this important point with a few Pro members).
