+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Tips and Deals (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Talked to former colleagues this past week, day to day photojournalists opting for lighter cameras & lenses over speed/l (/showthread.php?tid=252905)
Re: Talked to former colleagues this past week, day to day photojournalists opting for lighter cameras & lenses over spe - pRICE cUBE - 02-14-2021
jonny wrote:
If I remember correctly, the camera takes 10’s of pictures in a few seconds and uses an algorithm to combine them to remove noise.
There are some software solutions but also in camera ISO 40,000 is crazy good. This thread about the Sony A1 out of the camera jpeg shows this https://forums.macresource.com/read.php?1,2598102,2598102#msg-2598102
Re: Talked to former colleagues this past week, day to day photojournalists opting for lighter cameras & lenses over spe - AllGold - 02-15-2021
pRICE cUBE wrote:
[quote=AllGold]
[quote=pRICE cUBE]
...a 400 mm 2.8 consumed much of my college days. There is just something so beautifully wonderful about optical glass as wide as your face.
And a 400/2.8 gives you a different look that you can't get with smaller aperture lenses.
MILC is changing the game is what you see in the viewfinder. A 2.8 optic in a low light situation means you can see more of what is going on (brightness) compared to a 4 or 5.6 because those lenses were showing less light in the viewfinder. There was less light physically entering your eye. MILC can take a 4 or 5.6 lens and brighten the electronic viewfinder to allow you to frame things in low light at optimal brightness to what the eye percieves.
Not what I was talking about. I meant the shallow depth of field you get with large aperture lenses. A football game shot with a 400/2.8 just looks different.
Re: Talked to former colleagues this past week, day to day photojournalists opting for lighter cameras & lenses over spe - pRICE cUBE - 02-15-2021
AllGold wrote:
[quote=pRICE cUBE]
[quote=AllGold]
[quote=pRICE cUBE]
...a 400 mm 2.8 consumed much of my college days. There is just something so beautifully wonderful about optical glass as wide as your face.
And a 400/2.8 gives you a different look that you can't get with smaller aperture lenses.
MILC is changing the game is what you see in the viewfinder. A 2.8 optic in a low light situation means you can see more of what is going on (brightness) compared to a 4 or 5.6 because those lenses were showing less light in the viewfinder. There was less light physically entering your eye. MILC can take a 4 or 5.6 lens and brighten the electronic viewfinder to allow you to frame things in low light at optimal brightness to what the eye percieves.
Not what I was talking about. I meant the shallow depth of field you get with large aperture lenses. A football game shot with a 400/2.8 just looks different.
Yeah, there is something beautiful about a 400mm 2.8 or 600mm f/4 that stirs the photographic soul.