#full frame vs aps-c

[bulentfilms]

BRAWLER - Martial Arts Action Short Film (4k)

[rudyarias]

Sunday July 1, 2012 was a day filled with unexpected guests in my house. Egle arrived for her second test using the guest bedroom to change and get ready. She was one of eight faces I tested when home, living (2005-15) in Naples, Fl.

I felt DX (APS-C sensor) was appropriate pulling both my Nikon D2H (4.1 MP) and D2X (12.4 MP) vs my FX (full frame) bodies for this test. Before we headed out to Freedom Park this series of images were shot in my lanai with my Nikon D2H. Unlike pixel peepers today, who would look down on 4.1 MP images. It was not an issue when shooting head shots when no cropping is needed.

Model: Egle Beconyte

Stylist: Marina S Arias

Nikon D2H, AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200MM f2.8G IF-ED @ (DX 1.5) 300MM

ISO:200

[weirdlyfuturisticdreadnought]

How to Choose the Right Gear for Orlando Photography

To select the right gear for Orlando photography, first define your shooting goals and preferred style—whether capturing vibrant urban scenes, nightlife, or scenic landscapes. Choose a versatile camera body with good low-light performance, like a full-frame or APS-C sensor, paired with wide-angle lenses for cityscapes and telephotos for wildlife or distant details. Incorporate stabilizers, filters, and weather protection for varied conditions. Optimizing portability and future upgrades guarantees seamless captures. Moving forward, you’ll explore key gear options tailored for Orlando’s diverse environments.

Understand Your Photography Goals and Style

Before selecting your photography gear in Orlando, establishing your specific goals and stylistic preferences is essential. This clarity directs your choice of equipment and influences how you approach lighting techniques, which are critical for achieving your desired aesthetic.

Consider whether you prefer natural light, studio setups, or creative lighting effects, as this impacts your lens and flash selections. Additionally, think about your post-processing tools; your editing workflow will determine the compatibility of your gear with software like Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop.

Understanding whether you aim for vibrant landscapes, detailed portraits, or candid street shots guides your sensor choice and lens types. A focused approach ensures your gear aligns with your vision, streamlining your workflow from capture to final image.

Consider the Types of Scenes You'll Capture

Assess whether your scenes primarily involve urban landscapes or natural environments, as this influences lens choices and sensor considerations.

If capturing nighttime shots, prioritize gear with high ISO performance and fast apertures to manage low-light conditions effectively.

If capturing action or movement, opt for fast autofocus Orlando photographer systems and image stabilization features to guarantee sharp, dynamic images.

Urban vs. Nature Scenes

When choosing gear for Orlando photography, understanding the differences between capturing urban and nature scenes is essential. Urban settings demand equipment capable of handling variable street lighting, such https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/capra7/episodes/Discovering%20the%20Magic%20of%20Orlando%20Through%20the%20Lens-e31m4qh as fast lenses with wide apertures (f/1.4–2.8) for low-light conditions and stabilization features for handheld shots.

For wildlife preservation shots, a telephoto lens (200mm+) helps capture distant subjects without disturbance, while a sturdy tripod ensures stability. Consider weather-resistant gear for outdoor environments.

Use wide-angle lenses (16-35mm) for cityscape compositions and tight spaces.Opt for a telephoto lens to capture wildlife without intrusion.Incorporate filters (polarizers) to manage reflections and street lighting glare.

Balancing these gear choices guarantees clarity in diverse scenes, whether emphasizing urban street lighting or the quiet detail of wildlife preservation.

Nighttime Photography Needs

To effectively capture nighttime scenes in Orlando, you need to select gear that can handle low-light conditions with precision. Prioritize a sturdy tripod to ensure maximum tripod stability, minimizing camera shake during long exposures. Look for tripods with robust build quality

[alltrade]

How to Choose the Right Camera for Your Photography Needs

Finding the perfect camera can be overwhelming, especially with so many options available. Whether you’re a beginner, hobbyist, or professional, choosing the right camera involves assessing your photography needs and matching them with the right features. Here’s a guide to help you make the right decision.

1. Determine Your Photography Style

Your photography goals will greatly influence the type of camera you need. Ask yourself:

Are you shooting landscapes, portraits, sports, wildlife, or videos?

Do you need a camera for professional use or personal projects?

For instance, wildlife and sports photography require fast autofocus and high burst rates, while landscape photography benefits from high-resolution sensors and wide-angle lenses.

2. Types of Cameras to Consider

DSLRs: Known for their versatility, durability, and interchangeable lenses. Ideal for professionals and enthusiasts.

Mirrorless Cameras: Compact, lightweight, and offer advanced features. Perfect for travel or hybrid photo-video needs.

Point-and-Shoot Cameras: Affordable and user-friendly. Great for casual photographers.

Action Cameras: Rugged and portable. Best for adventure and vlogging.

Smartphone Cameras: A budget-friendly option for casual photography with advanced capabilities in newer models.

3. Essential Features to Look For

Megapixels: Higher resolution isn’t always better. A 16–24MP camera is ideal for most users.

Sensor Size: Full-frame sensors capture more detail and perform better in low light, while APS-C sensors offer good quality at a lower cost.

ISO Range: Important for low-light photography.

Autofocus System: Essential for fast-moving subjects.

Video Capabilities: If you plan to shoot videos, look for 4K resolution and stabilization features.

Connectivity: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or NFC for easy file transfers.

4. Budget Considerations

Entry-level cameras (under $500): Perfect for beginners.

Mid-range cameras ($500-$1,500): Great for hobbyists and semi-pros.

High-end cameras ($1,500+): Designed for professionals needing advanced features.

Set a realistic budget and include costs for accessories like lenses, tripods, memory cards, and camera bags.

5. Test Before You Buy

Visit a local camera store to:

Hold the camera and check its ergonomics.

Test key features like the autofocus system and viewfinder.

Compare image quality between models.

6. Research and Read Reviews

Search online for camera reviews and comparisons. Check out YouTube videos, blogs, and forums where photographers share their experiences. Websites like DPReview, CameraLabs, and trusted e-commerce platforms can provide in-depth insights.

7. Invest in Lenses

If you opt for a DSLR or mirrorless camera, remember that lenses matter as much as the camera body. Prime lenses, zoom lenses, and specialty lenses like macro or telephoto can expand your creative possibilities.

Popular Searches for Choosing the Right Camera

Best cameras for beginners in 2025

DSLR vs. mirrorless: Which is better?

Top budget-friendly cameras for photography

Best cameras for vlogging and YouTube

Cameras with best low-light performance

Choosing the right camera is an investment in your creative journey. By understanding your needs, researching options, and considering your budget, you can find a camera that perfectly aligns with your photography goals.

For more expert tips on photography and gear, stay tuned to our blog and start your journey towards capturing stunning images today!

[visual-saga-photography]

Unlocking the Secrets to Selecting the Ultimate Wedding Photography Camera

Capturing the magic of a wedding day relies heavily on the choice of camera wielded by the photographer. With countless options flooding the market, each boasting its own set of features and capabilities, the decision can be daunting. However, by understanding the crucial factors and options available, you can navigate this terrain with confidence and select the perfect tool to preserve those precious moments for a lifetime.

At the core of any camera lies its sensor, dictating the quality and clarity of the captured images. When it comes to wedding photography, opting for a camera with a larger sensor is paramount. Larger sensors excel in low light conditions, crucial for the dimly lit venues often encountered during weddings. Look for full-frame sensors or APS-C sensors for optimal image quality, ensuring every moment is captured in stunning detail.

Autofocus Performance: Seizing the Fleeting Moments

Weddings are filled with fleeting moments — a stolen glance, a joyous tear, a loving embrace. To immortalize these instances, fast and accurate autofocus is indispensable. A camera with reliable autofocus tracking ensures that no moment is missed, allowing the photographer to focus on capturing the emotion and essence of the day without hesitation.

Low Light Performance: Illuminating the Shadows

From candlelit ceremonies to starlit receptions, weddings often unfold in environments with challenging lighting conditions. Therefore, selecting a camera with exceptional low light performance is essential. Cameras with high ISO capabilities and efficient noise reduction algorithms excel in these settings, delivering crisp and vibrant images even in the darkest of venues.

Lens Selection: The Window to Creativity

A camera is only as good as the lenses paired with it. When choosing a camera system for wedding photography, consider the availability and quality of lenses offered. Look for a versatile range of lenses suited to various shooting scenarios, from wide-angle for capturing expansive scenes to telephoto for intimate portraits. Investing in a robust lens ecosystem ensures that you have the tools to unleash your creativity and capture every moment from every angle.

Click here for more information: https://www.parthaviyadav.com/amour-blog/2024/choosing-the-best-camera-for-wedding-photography

Ergonomics and Handling: Endurance for the Long Haul

Wedding days are marathon events, often stretching into the wee hours of the morning. A camera that feels comfortable and intuitive to use is essential for navigating these lengthy sessions with ease. Consider factors such as grip comfort, button placement, and overall ergonomics when selecting a camera, ensuring that you can focus on your craft without succumbing to fatigue.

Budget-Friendly Options: Quality Without Compromise

Contrary to popular belief, you don’t need to break the bank to capture stunning wedding photos. Several budget-friendly options offer excellent image quality and performance without sacrificing your savings. Cameras like the Canon EOS Rebel series and the Nikon D3500 deliver exceptional results at an accessible price point, proving that quality photography is within reach for every budget.

DSLR vs. Mirrorless: The Debate Unveiled

The debate between DSLR and mirrorless cameras rages on, each offering its own set of advantages and disadvantages for wedding photography. DSLRs boast longer battery life and a vast selection of lenses, making them a reliable choice for traditionalists. On the other hand, mirrorless cameras are more compact and feature advanced autofocus systems, catering to those who prioritize innovation and portability. Ultimately, the choice between the two boils down to personal preference and shooting style.

Conclusion: Capturing Forever in a Single Frame

Selecting the perfect camera for wedding photography is a deeply personal and consequential decision. By considering factors such as sensor size, autofocus performance, low light capabilities, lens selection, ergonomics, and budget, you can pinpoint the ideal tool to immortalize the love and joy of a couple’s special day. Whether you opt for a DSLR or mirrorless, invest in top-tier lenses or budget-friendly alternatives, the ultimate goal remains the same — to encapsulate the beauty and emotion of a wedding in timeless photographs that will be cherished for generations to come.

Contact Us:

Visual Saga Photography & Productions EMAIL: Info@visualsaga.in PHONE: +91 76764 28553

LOCATION: #701, 60 Feet Rd, BEML Layout, 4th Stage, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560098

[rodsager]

50mm vs. 35mm: Which is the Best All Rounder?

Well that’s been a question for a very long while in the world of 35mm photography. In today’s modern world of digital it still translates but depending on sensor size the focal lengths will be different. Obviously full frame is 50 v 35 but for APS-C Sony/Nikon it’s 34mm vs. 23mm for Canon APS-C it’s 32mm vs. 22mm. For M 4/3 it’s 25mm vs. 18mm. For the sake of discussion I’ll stick to full frame…

[picsera]

APS-C Vs Full Frame

Full frame has historically been considered the better format for professional photography. The reason for this is purely because of the physics and science behind a bigger sensor. Photographers, however, need to be mindful of the type of photographs they are taking, as well as the type of lenses and gear they already have, before making a decision analyse aps-c vs full frame camera sensor and then choose what is best for them.

[photosworthseeing]

It has been a bit, hasn’t it? But now it’s time for...

InConversation 27 // January 25th, 2020

… with Pete @tvoom admin of @photosworthseeing and Fern @allthingsfern admin of @luxlit  

In this episode we will talk about:

Photography burnout, creative blocks, and all that jazz. Nasty stuff, right? How to overcome? We might have some thoughts.

We also might talk about gear. Mirrrorless (because Fern shoots mirrorless) vs. DSLR (because Pete still shoots DSLR). And maybe even Full Frame (because that is what Fern fancies) vs. Crop-Sensor (because Pete is still going the APS-C route). We will not be talking about Sony vs Canon. Who are we kidding? Of course, we will. (Btw. this video is not sponsored by anyone)  

As usual: We plan to talk for about one hour but (also as usual) we will probably not manage to only talk for one hour.

During the stream, you can live-chat with us on YouTube.

WHEN will this be: Saturday, January 25th, 2020 at 19:00 UTC. For Pete in Germany this means 20:00 CET or 8pm (UTC+1), for Fern in California this means 11PST or 11am (UTC-8). If you don’t know WHEN this will be for you, please simply follow the link and let the site convert 19 UTC to your time zone:

https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20200125T190000&p1=1440

We’re excited!

[courtneyblight-cgcphotography]

capture and output task 1

1) What type of sensor does your camera have?

I have a Canon 750D and it has a 24.0MP APS-C (22.3 x 14.9 mm) sized CMOS sensor, sensor resolution is 6026 x 4017, 

2) is it a full-frame or cropped?

The Canon 750D is a cropped sensor, crop factor is 1.61.

3) Find out as much as information as you can about your DSLR camera:

Effective megapixels is 24.20, total megapixels is 24.70, maximum image resolution is 6000 x 4000, has multi, centre weighted, spot, and partial metering, screen resolution is 1,040,000 dots, exposure compensation is ±5 EV (in 1/3 EV, 1/2 EV steps).

4) Based on your research on sensors, what do you notice?

That they're all quite similar, showing peaks in performance in different places with versus each other.

Nikon Z50 incorporates an APS-C sensor vs the (then) flagship for the Canon DX series cameras with a 20.9-megapixel sensor and a 10 fps burst mode. Nikon offers solid image quality whilst Canon offers colour quality.

Sony has some of the best mirrorless cameras out there. The A99 II has a 42.4-megapixel sensor, 12 fps shooting, and a strong autofocus system.

Also, BSI sensors produce better results at the higher ISO sensitivities.

[laurafruitfairy]

MY CAMERAS I USE 📸⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ I get this question a lot so here's a quick camera guided based on my experience:⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ 📲 Start with what you have. Until I had ~6k followers here I always used my iPhone. A few of my recent posts are phone shots too.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ 📸 APS-C vs full frame: I started with a crop-sensor (APS-C) camera in 2016. Only about a year ago I invested in a full frame camera to be able to take smoother shots in low light. Inform yourself about the difference to full frame and whether you really need it before you make a purchase decision.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ I love my Sony a7iii (full frame) because the quality is insane. I use it with a 55mm 1.8 Zeiss lens. But I love my Sony a5100 just as much because it’s light and handy, and shoots amazing quality portraits (with a 30mm 1.4f lens).👌🏼 I have both cameras with me here in Bali.🌴 One for home/hotel shoots and one for hikes/trips/restaurant shoots. At home in Germany I always use my a7iii.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ 📸 LENSES - even more important than the camera body. I love fixed focal lengths as they absorb a lot of light and perform well in low-light situations (aka every day in winter). 💡 Plus you’ll get amazingly sharp images and a nice soft background blur. All of my food pictures are shot with a 55mm lens.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ ❓ Any questions left? Ask them below! ♥️⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ The recipe for this cherry smoothie bowl is on my blog! 🍒⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ (at Milky Way Galaxy) https://www.instagram.com/p/B5sEYb7pf1s/?igshid=12ecuwe41qsk9

[buzzdixonwriter]

Sci-Fi And The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

I know many of you prefer “science fiction” or “science fantasy” or “speculative fiction” or “sf” or even “stf” for short, but I ain’t that guy…

I’m a sci-fi kinda guy.

I prefer sci-fi because to me it evokes the nerdy playfulness the genre should embrace at some level (and, no we’re not gonna debate geek vs nerd as a descriptor; “geeky” implies biting heads off chickens no matter how benign and respectable the root has become).

. . .

A brief history of sci-fi films -- a very brief history.

Georges Melies’ 1898 short A Trip to The Moon is one of the earliest examples of the genre, and it arrived full blown at the dawn of cinema via its literary predecessors in Verne and Wells.

There were a lot of bona fide sci-fi films before WWII -- the Danes made a surprisingly large number in the silent era, Fritz Lang gave us Metropolis and Frau Im Mond, we saw the goofiness of Just Imagine and the spectacle of Things To Come and the space opera appeal of Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers.

And that’s not counting hundreds of other productions -- comedies and contemporary thrillers and westerns -- where a super-science mcguffin played a key part.

That came to a screeching halt in WWII primarily due to budget considerations and real world science easily overtaking screen fantasy.  Still, there were a few bona fide sci-fi films and serials during the war and immediately thereafter, but it wasn’t until the flying saucer scare of the late forties that sci-fi became a popular movie genre again (and on TV as well).

Ground zero for 1950s sci-fi was George Pal’s Destination Moon, which was an attempt to show a plausible flight to the moon (it was actually beaten to the screens by a couple of other low budget movies that rushed into production to catch Pal’s PR wave for his film).

This led to the first 1950s sci-fi boom that lasted from 1949 to 1954, followed by a brief fallow period, then a larger but far less innovative second boom in the late 1950s to early 1960s.

BTW, let me heartily recommend the late Bill Warren’s magnificent overview of sci-fi films of that era, Keep Watching The Skies, a must have in any sci-fi film fan’s library.

Seriously, go get it.

Bill and I frequently discussed films of that and subsequent eras, and Bill agreed with my assessment of the difference between 1950s sci-fi and 1960s sci-fi:  1950s sci-fi most typically ends with the old order restored, while 1960s sci-fi typically ends with the realization things have changed irrevocably.

In other words, “What now, puny human?”

I judge the 1960s sci-fi boom to have started in 1963 (at least for the US and western Europe; behind the Iron Curtain they were already ahead of us) with the Outer Limits TV show, followed in 1964 by the films The Last Man On Earth (based on Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend), Robinson Crusoe On Mars, and The Time Travelers.

But what really triggered the 1960s sci-fi boom was Planet Of The Apes and 2001: A Space Odyssey.  The former was shopped around every major Hollywood studio starting in 1963 until it finally found a home at 20th Century Fox (whose market research indicated there was an audience for well-made serious sci-fi film and hence put Fantastic Voyage into production).  Kubrick, fresh off Lolita and Dr. Srangelove (another sci-fi film tho not presented as such), carried an enormous cache in Hollywood of that era, and if MGM was going to bankroll his big budget space movie, hey, maybe there was something to this genre after all.

From 1965 forward, the cinematic space race was on, with 1968 being a banner year for groundbreaking sci-fi movies:  2001: A Space Odyssey, Barbarella, Charly, Planet Of The Apes, The Power, Project X, and Wild In The Streets.  (Star Trek premiering on TV in 1967 didn’t hurt, either.)

And, yeah, there were a number of duds and more than a few old school throwbacks during this era, but the point is the most interesting films were the most innovative ones.

Here’s a partial list of the most innovative sci-fi films from 1969 to 1977, nine-year period with some of the most original ideas ever presented in sci-fi films.  Not all of these were box office successes, but damn, they got people’s attention in both the film making and sci-fi fandom communities.

=1969=

The Bed Sitting Room

Doppelganger (US title:  Journey To The Far Side Of The Sun)

The Gladiators

The Monitors 

Stereo 

=1970=

Beneath The Planet Of The Apes [a]

Colossus: The Forbin Project 

Crimes Of The Future 

Gas-s-s-s

The Mind Of Mr. Soames 

No Blade Of Grass 

=1971= 

The Andromeda Strain 

A Clockwork Orange 

Glen And Randa 

The Hellstrom Chronicle 

THX 1138 

=1972=

Silent Running 

Slaughterhouse Five 

Solaris [b] 

Z.P.G.

=1973=

Day Of The Dolphin

Fantastic Planet 

The Final Programme (US title: The Last Days Of Man On Earth)

Idaho Transfer 

=1974=

Dark Star 

Phase IV 

Space Is The Place 

Zardoz 

=1975= 

A Boy And His Dog 

Black Moon 

Death Race 2000

Rollerball

Shivers (a.k.a. They Came From Within and The Parasite Murders)  [c]

The Stepford Wives 

=1976= 

God Told Me To [a.k.a. Demon]

The Man Who Fell To Earth 

=1977=

Wizards

[a]  I include Beneath The Planet Of The Apes because it is the single most nihilistic major studio film released, a movie that posits Charlton Heston blowing up the entire planet is A Damn Good Idea; follow up films in the series took a far more conventional approach to the material.  While successful, neither the studio nor mainstream audiences knew what to make of this film, so 20th Century Fox re-released it in a double bill with another problematic production, Russ Meyer’s Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls, and holy cow, if ever there was a more bugfuck double feature from a major studio I challenge you to name it.

[b]  Other than Karel Zemen’s delightful animated films, Iron Curtain sci-fi films rarely screened in the US, with the exception of special effects stock shots strip mined to add production values to cheapjack American productions (looking at you, Roger Corman).  Solaris is the exception.

[c]  David Cronenberg made several other films in this time frame, but most of them were variations on the themes he used in Shivers, including his big break out, Scanners.  Realizing he was repeating himself, Cronenberg reevaluated his goals and started making films with greater variety of theme and subject matter.

. . .

The astute reader will notice I bring my list to an end in 1977, a mere nine-year span instead of a full decade.

That’s because 1977 also saw the release of Close Encounters Of The Third Kind and Star Wars.

The effect was immediate, with knock-off films being released the same year.

1978 saw Dawn Of The Dead, a sequel to 1968’s Night Of The Living Dead, and Superman, the first non-campy superhero movie aimed at non-juvenile audiences.  

1979 gave us Alien, Mad Max, and Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

These films were not just successful, they were blockbusters.

And none of them were original.

Close Encounters served as an excuse to do a Kubrick-style light show; plot and theme are about as deep as a Dixie cup, and of all the blockbusters of that era, it’s the one with no legs.

Alien’s pedigree can be traced back to It! Terror From Beyond Space (and It’s pedigree goes back to A.E. van Vogt’s “Black Destroyer” and “Discord In Scarlet” in the old Astounding Stories) and Demon Planet (US title: Planet Of The Vampires) by way of Dark Star (Dan O’Bannon writing the original screenplays for that film and Alien as well).

Mad Max, like 1981’s Escape From New York, differs from earlier post-apocalypse movies only insofar as their apocalypses of a social / cultural / political nature, not nuclear or biological weapons.  Mad Max, in fact, can trace its lineage back to No Blade Of Grass, which featured it own caravan of refugees attacked by modern day visigoths on motorcycles, and the original Death Race 2000, as well as an odd little Australian non-sci-fi film, The Cars That Ate Paris.

Not only was Dawn Of The Dead a sequel, but it kickstarted a worldwide tsunami of zombie movies that continues to this day (no surprise as zombie films are easy to produce compared to other films listed here, and while there are a few big budget examples of the genre, the typical zombie movie is just actors in ragged clothes and crappy make-up).

Superman was…well…Superman.  And Star Trek was Star Trek.

And the granddaddy of them all, Star Wars, was a cinematic throwback that threw so far back it made the old seem new again.

Not begrudging any of those films their success: They were well made and entertaining.

But while there had been plenty of sequels and remakes and plain ol’ knockoffs of successful sci-fi movies in the past, after these seven there was precious little room for anything really different or innovative.

1982’s E.T. was Spielberg’s unofficial follow-up to Close Encounters.

1984’s Terminator consciously harkened back to Harlan Elison’s Outer Limits episodes “Demon With A Glass Hand” and “Soldier” (not to mention 1966’s Cyborg 2087 which looks like a first draft of Cameron’s film)

All innovative movies are risky, and the mammoth success of the films cited above did little to encourage new ideas in sci-fi films but rather attempts to shoehorn material into one of several pre-existing genres.

Star Wars = space opera of the splashy Flash Gordon variety

Star Trek = crew on a mission (Star Trek: The Next Generation [+ 5 other series], Andromeda, Battlestar: Galactica [4 series], Buck Rogers In The 25th Century, Farscape, Firefly [+ movie], The Orville, Space Academy, Space Rangers, Space: Above And Beyond, plus more anime and syndicated shows than you can shake a stick at)

Superman = superheroes (nuff’ sed!)

Close Encounters / E.T. = cute aliens

Alien = not-so-cute aliens

Terminator = robots vs humans (and, yes, The Matrix movies fall into this category)

Escape From New York = urban post-apocalypse

Mad Max = vehicular post-apocalypse 

Dawn Of The Dead = zombies

Mix and match ‘em and you’ve got a nearly limitless number of variations you know are based on proven popular concepts, none of that risky original stuff.

Small wonder that despite the huge number of new sci-fi films and programs available, little of it is memorable.

. . .

It shouldn’t be like this.

With ultra-cheap film making tools (there are theatrically released films shot on iPhones so there’s literally no barrier to entry) and copious venues for ultra-low / no-budget film makers to show their work (YouTube, Vimeo, Amazon Prime, etc.), there’s no excuse for there not to be a near limitless number of innovative films in all genres.

But there isn’t.

I watch a lot of independent features and short films on various channels and streaming services.

They’re either direct knock-offs of current big budget blockbusters (because often the film makers are hoping to impress the big studios into giving them lots of money to make one of their movies), or worse still, deliberately “bad” imitations of 1950s B-movies (and I get why there’s an appeal to do a bad version of a B-movie; if you screw up you can always say you did it deliberately).

Look, I understand the appeal of fan fic, written or filmed.

And I get it that sometimes it’s easier to do a knock-off where the conventions of the genre help with the final execution.

But let’s not make deliberate crap, okay?

Oscar Wilde is quoted as saying “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” but he was quoting somebody else, and that wasn’t the whole original quote.

Wilde was quoting Charles Caleb Colton, a dissolute English clergyman with a passion for gambling and a talent for bon mots.

Colton’s full quote:   “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”

Don’t be mediocre.

Be great.

   © Buzz Dixon

[digitalphotographyideas]

What is APS-c Cameras? Full Frame vs APS-C

What is APS-c Cameras? Full Frame vs APS-C #camera #photography

What is APS-c cameras, and crop and what do these terms mean? In this article we will try to explain the size of the crop sensors and the reasons why they are preferred.

You’ve heard the expression APS-c often. So what is this APS-c term? APS-C is a type of sensor used in digital SLR cameras. While processing what is a full frame sensor, story of the sensor started with the digital age and that…

[fahrhaus]

The Price of Performance:  Do You Really Get What You Pay For?

WARNING: EXTREMELY LONG POST AHEAD.  SKIP IF YOU DON'T HAVE ABOUT EIGHTEEN HOURS TO READ IT.  

:)

For those of you who shoot Fuji or Nikon in addition to your Leicas, you may find this very unscientific or unfair and very practical (some say amateurish) rendering comparison to be of interest.  

It just so happens that I ...umm, just happened...to find my old Nikon D80, with a Nikon 35/1.8 G lens.  With a crop sensor and a CCD chip, it's a pretty interesting camera.  I bought it new in 2008 and used it solidly for 5 years before getting my first digital M (rarely shot my M3s those days, and I regret it now that I can't get film easily).

I had been planning to compare the  Fuji X-E2 output with the Fujinon 35/1.4 vs. my Leica TL2 with Summilux-M 35/1.4.  When I found the Nikon, I figured I'd add it to the list for giggles.  I mean, what could a decade-old camera possibly do better than a current one?To make it all more confusing, I decided to try the Leica Summilux lens on the X-E2 (Fotodiox adapter) as a way to get some clue into the sensor and software differences between a (when new) $700 camera and a $3,250 camera.

The results may or may not speak for themselves, depending on your aesthetic senses or ocular abilities.

The full-res image files (or at least the maximum Facebook allows) are attached, with corresponding watermarks describing the lens manufacturer and body (Fuji Fuji = Fuji lens and Fuj body, Fuji 35 Lux = Leica M lens used with an adapter for X-to-M).  The Nikon was used only with the Nikkor lens because I didn't have an adapter for that camera.

Now this is by no means a scientific comparison. But I promise I tried.  I kept the environment the same, and the shots were taken within a span of about 10 minutes, so lighting is roughly the same.ISO ranged from 320 at the lowests (on the Leica) to 1600 at the highest (I set that as the max for all 3 cameras, set it at ISO Auto, and limited shutter speed to a max of 1/60th).  Funnily, the Nikon's highest setting IS 1600 - the CCD sensor, I'm guessing.I'm sure others would have used tripods, and perfected focus, and flash (I have no idea how, or why, to use those things) but I was shooting manual lenses on the Fuji and Leica.

At my age, I probably missed tack-focus a few times, but it doesn't really matter - something, somewhere in each image is in focus.  I was most interested in the color rendering, bokeh, clipping, and flaring.

ALL PICTURES were shot in their RAW equivalents, and converted to JPG via Exposure 3.5 with NO ADJUSTMENTS made to any of the sliders other than White Balance because the Fuji was rendering very dark blue.  The Leica was perfect, and the Nikon a tad too warm.  I left everything else, including exposure and contrast, alone, as I really wanted to see what out-of-camera RAW looks like.

My thoughts:

The CCD sensor, as dated as it is (2007ish) has spectacular color rendering and pop.  To me, it's arguably better than the CMOS sensors on the Leica or the Fuji, but the Leica does come pretty close.  I saw similar differences in the M9 vs M 240, but some post production sorts it all out.

The dynamic range of the Leica is significantly better than the Nikon (14 stops vs 10 stops), and somewhat better than the Fuji (12 stops).  This is clearly seen when you examine the images in Lightroom or Exposure.  The TL2 uses almost the entire Histogram range, whereas the Nikon skews to the right-side highlights and the Fuji skews to the left (heavily)

The Fujinon glass is spectacular, and is noticeably sharper than the Leica but nowhere near as creamy.  Lovely bokeh, but not Leica boke.  I prefer the Leica by a large margin, because for street photography sharpness is meaningless (at least to me) and "attitude" is more important.

The Leica Summilux still holds its own against the Fuji and Nikon in terms of light gathering and overall rendering/color.  The lens I use is  47 years old (!) and is neither aspherical nor apochromatically corrected.  It has some haze and scratches, and its coating is probably deteriorated. The Nikon lens is 11 years old, and the Fuji lens is 4 years old.  And yet the Summilux kills it every time.  It was also once the smallest fast lens made by anyone.  

The X-E2 is a damn good clicker, even though mine is 5 years old and there's newer tech.  I'm pleasantly surprised by that.  This is a camera I bought as a stop gap whilst waiting for my M-P 240 to arrive, and I've rarely shot it since.  Given its light weight, good autofocus, and great X Trans sensor, I may start taking it out again.

The combination of the Fuji sensor and Fujinon lens is more pleasing to me than the Fuji with the adapted Leica lens.  The Nikon with Nikon lens is similarly great.  But the Leica with Leica lens is certainly more interesting and more "3D" than the others.  Seems like the OEM lenses work best on the respective bodies.  That makes sense, given that the sensors/software are optimized to OEM lenses rather than 3rd party ones.

Conclusions?  Very few, actually.  As I said, OEM Bodies with OEM Lenses seem to work best and/or make the best out-of-camera images.   I'm guessing this has something to do with tweaking sensors and software to maximize the strengths and minimize the weaknesses of the related glass.  The TL2 is spectacularly good.  High ISO performance is better than my M.  The Fuji is a great buy for the money.  The X-E3 and 35/1.4 Fujinon lens will set you back about 1400 bucks.  The TL2 with the equivalent Leica lens would be about 7500.  

The Nikon D80 has no skin in this game.  Firstly, it's out of production, as is pretty much anything with a CCD sensor.  That's a shame, because studio work with decent lighting where you don't need to go above 1000 or so ISO is a great place to take advantage of a CCD's incredible depth and vibrance of color.  Secondly, I used it simply because I was curious about how it looked next to [the CMOS] Fuji and Leica images.  I am so pleasantly surprised that I think i may start carrying it around (in the daytime, of course) once in a while.

And so the chapter ends.  Next time I want to throw my M-P into the mix to see how the APS-C and Full Frame compete.

Hope this will be of interest to a few folks.  As I said, not a scientific comparison by any means, but rather, a real-world side-by-side that the pixel-peeper types will probably hate.  In which case, please keep scrolling

:)

[mycompactclick-blog]

Understanding DSLR vs. Mirrorless Cameras

Mirrorless cameras are the new wave of photography. Mirrorless cameras are smaller than DSLRs because, as the name suggests, there’s no mirror inside. Mirrorless cameras and DSLRs are both several notches above point-and-shoot cameras. Professional photographers have long opted for DSLRs, but entry level mirrorless cameras are making it easier than ever to experiment with photography, novice or not.

Learn more about the key differences between mirrorless cameras and DSLRs, as well as the pros and cons of using both.

A mirrorless camera, or compact system camera (CSC), is a high-end camera with a removable, interchangeable lens. Mirrorless cameras lack a reflex mirror (hence the name); light passes through the camera directly to the sensor. The camera body is slim and lightweight, and feature a digital display instead of a traditional optical viewfinder.

The components of a mirrorless camera include:

The lens

The shutter

The image sensor

The digital display

A shot from above a mirrorless camera

What Is a DSLR?

A DSLR, or Digital Single Lens Reflex camera, is a digital camera with a removable lens and a reflex mirror. Light filters through the reflex mirror to either the sensor or the optical viewfinder (which displays your image). A DSLR camera body is bulky and heavy, due to the complicated internal mechanics.

The components of a DSLR camera include:

The lens

The reflex mirror

The shutter

The image sensor

A focusing screen

The condenser lens

The pentaprism

The optical viewfinder

The additional components, like the condenser lens and pentaprism, direct light through the camera and help reflect the image. These components are necessary for DSLRs to capture a complete image.

What Are the Similarities Between Mirrorless vs. DSLR Cameras?

Both mirrorless and DSLRs are interchangeable-lens cameras. An interchangeable-lens camera is a camera body that features a removable lens. Lenses come in a variety of focal lengths that allow a photographer flexibility in capturing shots both near and far.

A picture of a Fujifilm camera

What Are the Pros and Cons of Mirrorless vs. DSLR Cameras? There are many factors to consider when investing in a high-end camera. Both mirrorless cameras and DSLRs come with their own sets of benefits and drawbacks.

Learn more about the seven most common differences in mirrorless cameras and DSLRs.

Cost DSLR Well established, wide support by third-party vendors, which can result in more choices and lower prices. DSLRs can start in the low hundreds.

Mirrorless Newer technology; less common, with fewer choices of lenses and accessories. Mirrorless cameras start in the mid to high hundreds, but costs are driving down as the technology rapidly catches up to DSLRs.

Size DSLR Needs to be quite large because of mirror system, which makes it somewhat heavy.

Mirrorless Can be much smaller since there is no mirror, allowing it to be much lighter.

Image Quality

Image quality varies with DSLRs, depending on camera formats. DSLRs come in many formats, but most use top-of-the-line APS-C or full-frame sensors. The larger the sensor, the better the resolution and image quality.

The more common formats include:

APS-C: A sensor that renders at about 40% of the full frame. Sony, Pentax, and Samsung all offer APS-C cameras.Full-frame: Full frame refers to the standard 35mm film format. Canon EOS and Nikon D-series are full-frame cameras. Four-thirds system: Smaller system that displays 26% of full frame. (Even smaller? Micro four thirds.) Created by Olympus and Eastman Kodak. Mirrorless Both full-frame sensors and compact sensors are available in mirrorless cameras, but the larger sensors cost more. Opt for a compact or crop-quality sensor and you’ll end up sacrificing quality (especially in low light) for cost.

Autofocus

DSLR

Blazing fast autofocus, which is essential for sports and events.

Optical viewfinder: you are literally seeing through the lens, meaning you have to take a photo and then look at it to make sure your exposure is correct.

Both mirrorless systems and DSLRs provide optimum quality—at a cost. Which you choose will come down to personal preference on a variety of factors, including weight, video, and pricetag, but either type should work well enough to inspire your creativity. Visit http://www.compactclick.com/, if you are looking for more Information.

[mirrorlessinformation]

Mirrorless Camera

There are lots of things to think about when choosing a mirrorless camera. Do you want to shoot stills or video or both? Almost all the cameras in our list can shoot 4K video, but some have in-body stabilization for smoother footage, professional 'log' modes for color grading and higher frame rates or capture quality. 

  • Micro Four Thirds is the smallest sensor format, but the image quality is surprisingly close to that of larger APS-C cameras. The Panasonic Lumix G100 is designed specifically for novice vloggers but is also a great stills camera, while the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark IV is one of our favorite small cameras. 

•  Medium format cameras have sensors even larger than full frame. They're generally for slightly more specialist applications where you really need the pixels, and while they were once prohibitively expensive,

How mirrorless body work?

 As the name suggests, mirrorless cameras capture images without the use of a mirror in the camera body. This is different from DSLR cameras, which reflect images into viewfinders via mirrors. Instead, mirrorless cameras often use electronic viewfinders (EVF) to display images digitally

    Touchscreen live view

The ability to switch seamlessly from viewfinder to live view on the OLED or LCD screen is a draw for many photographers. Some models even allow you to autofocus by simply touching the screen. Continuous live view is perfect for shooting at tricky angles without needing to raise the camera to your eye, and it’s great for shooting video. Many creatives choose to use their mirrorless as a video camera for this reason.

Mirrorless Vs Dslar

·        DSLR cameras have a reflex mirror inside them, which bounces light up into the optical viewfinder.

·        In mirrorless cameras, light goes directly into the image sensor. Viewfinders on mirrorless cameras are electronic and show the same preview of the image that you'd see on the LCD screen. 

·        Also, mirrorless cameras are lightened in weight as compared to dslar because as the name suggests there is no prism in it.

·        And, if we see there’s a huge price difference between Mirrorless and Dslar. As, mirrorless are do more cost then Dslar.