Discussion in 'Gadgets & Tech' started by Lady Grey, Feb 11, 2015.
Photoshop? Me? Don't know what your talking about....
@Teepee flatters me somewhat - major credit goes to the scenery itself, plus the fact that the photos are often taken in sunny conditions, which helps. Also, about half the photos are taken by Bozena. Which leads me to this:
That's the beauty of a camera like the RX100; you can set it on IA, use it as a point and shoot and still get great image quality, especially if you spend some time working on the RAW files when you get home. Bozena doesn't care to get into the inner workings of a camera but prefers something she can just point at the scenery and let the camera do the rest. Oh, and then leave me to work on the RAW files .
@gixer I can't emphasise how useful RAW is for photos in the strong light we get in this part of the world. I'm not talking about all sorts of trickery, but just bringing up the shadows, toning down highlights, getting rid of haze etc, though it does mean more work when you get home. I believe your s8+ will take photos in RAW; the small sensor means you won't be able to do as much as with the RX100 but you can do a fair bit (I have a Note FE which has a similar - the same? - camera. You can trial Photoshop for free for a week.
Here's me nodding sagely @Willum, whilst not having the foggiest what RAW is..
Not that I'm not interested, just currently ignorant.
It's one, on an ever expanding list of things I'd like to learn more about.
As ever, it's having the time, resources, and people on hand, to effect all of this.
I'm not in the slightest bit stupid, but just, like many of us, rather time poor...
First world problems. Sympathies though, it must be hard having to spend so much time on a trekking forum that you just cannot find time to read an article on image formats.
MASSIVE difference in the 2 pics, the tones, the colours
With most of my other hobbies, cars, bikes, cycling the difference between a bottom of the line version and the top of the line version is pretty dramatic
The difference between a medium range and the top of the line not so much
The bell curve between gains and price then starts to flatten out the higher up the range you get
If your competing (which would be like professionally selling or showing your photos in this case) then even a small difference can help.
For non competition (non pro for pics in this case) does investing 1000 quid+ extra on a medium to lower end of the top of the line give any value for that extra 5% improvement the top of the line gives you?
For non professionals, if the rest of you are like me, the only time you spend looking over pics of previous outings you'll be scrolling through them and smiling at the memories rather than analysing each pic to see where it could be better.
The other thing is
If you're taking pics of local wildlife, a long distance cropped pic from say a RX100 is going to be a lot more pixelated than say a zoomed pic from a Lumix DC-TZ90
I don't think my HX90v is anywhere near as good as say the RX100, plus i know nothing of photography so just point and shoot.
This Chamois was a a fair distance away, the zoom on the HX90 gives a pretty decent pic though (in my admittedly inexperienced eyes).
So would it be better to have a higher zoom on a slightly less quality camera or less zoom on a better camera for outdoors use?
My guess is it would depend on what you're taking pics of
It'd be interesting to see some comparisons on objects 100m and 200m away between mid-range high zoom and high range low-zoom
Well why would I bother searching, when I have such charming gents as yourself, to link to the details for me
What was it you wanted me to be modest about* in particular ??
Or were we just after some dainty morsels of 'false modesty' such as might be expected of a 'proper' layydeee?
Don't hold your breath mate
I'm just making the vegetabling day a little more varied, and instructive
Easy. A higher zoom on a better camera - hence my interest in the Panasonic ZS/TZ100 above
Indeed. Very few of my photos require a high zoom so the RX100 is better than the TZ90 for me the vast majority of the time. The Panasonic ZS/TZ100 though, should be able to give similar quality to the RX100 (I-V) while covering the higher zoom level without the cost of the RX100 VI.
Exactly. I got the RX100 because I primarily want to shoot landscapes, in Raw, wanted a fast lens for Aurora and Milky way pics with glowing tents, with the highest quality pocketable format that didn't add too many Kg to the tripod I need to carry to get the shots I like to take. I love editing too, and the RX100 takes a good sharp pic. Having a superzoom for wildlife came well down that list of priorities for me personally. I wouldn't have got your Chamois, unless I was shooting with bullets instead. I can however, take a mean picture of an animal that doesn't run away.....
If you want to shoot wildlife/sports, there are better compacts than the RX100.
I got the RX100 as it does super-well in reviews and does not disappoint in actuality.
I still prefer the handling of my old Ricoh GX200 though.....which leads to an occasional (resisted) rifle through reviews of other Ricoh models...
...most of my stuff ends up on the web/blog anyway.
Great responses, thanks guys
Sorry for the slight detour, if it helps i do have a better understanding now
Separate names with a comma.