Looking at the pictures posted so far, it's really striking to see the difference of image quality, sharpness in particular, between the images captured by Georges/Lance and a few others vs some other posters.
It goes to show the difficulty of bird photography and the importance of skills however good the cameras are.
bernardl wrote:
Looking at the pictures posted so far, it's really striking to see the difference of image quality, sharpness in particular, between the images captured by Georges/Lance and a few others vs some other posters.
It goes to show the difficulty of bird photography and the importance of skills however good the cameras are.
bernardl wrote:
Looking at the pictures posted so far, it's really striking to see the difference of image quality, sharpness in particular, between the images captured by Georges/Lance and a few others vs some other posters.
It goes to show the difficulty of bird photography and the importance of skills however good the cameras are.
True, don't discount post processing as well . Some people are very skilled at bringing the most out of the NEFs , some go to far and make photos that look like cartoons IMO . Post processing is a skill in itself.
bernardl wrote:
Looking at the pictures posted so far, it's really striking to see the difference of image quality, sharpness in particular, between the images captured by Georges/Lance and a few others vs some other posters.
It goes to show the difficulty of bird photography and the importance of skills however good the cameras are.
Obviously skill behind the camera and with processing is a major factor, but another reason you might be seeing a difference is RAW converters (generally speaking). That is arguably the most important step in post processing, and there is now a massive variance that never existed in the past between RAW converters. Adobe/Topaz do a pretty bad job with the Z8/Z9 files in particular, and they are still by far the most popular as everyone has been using those for years on their DSLRs.
