p.3 #1 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
sum1sgrampa wrote:
I just looked at block of sample images from the new 50-200. Every one was a delete. I'm not saying it's a reflection on the lens because nobody puts out crap lenses anymore but I don't understand this. Why wouldn't you be putting your best foot forward if you're trying to promote new equipment.
That seems to be the case with most new lenses from every brand. Makes you wonder if some of those marketing people need new glasses...
p.3 #3 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
There are images on this forum taken with Oly/OM gear that look like crap, and images taken with exactly the same gear that look spectacular. It is the same on other forums with different gear and different photographers. In almost all cases, the crappy images are the fault of the photographers, not the gear.
Post-processing software and techniques are incredible today, compared with what you could do with negatives and transparencies a number of years ago.
I don't understand why many photographers that spend tens of thousands of dollars on gear in an effort to produce the best image quality are not willing to spend the time and a lot less money to learn post-processing skills. Trying to dodge or burn a print in a darkroom was like working in the dark.
p.3 #4 · Micro Four Thirds article on fstoppers…
Paul_100A wrote:
I hope there is no misunderstanding from my statement Gary.
My intention was to say that I like both images (captured and presented very nicely) equally well. Credit due to the camera operator.
the fact that the two similar images came from different formats doesn’t affect my enjoyment or judgement of either…based on the application of equivalence theory (tongue in cheek).
No, no, not at all. After I posted it I realized it really served no purpose so I went back and thought I deleted it. It's all good.
