A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » 35mm Photo Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sample images from the new Maxxum 7 Digital (DSLR)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 17th 04, 04:05 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ThomasH wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

warning: large files (4+ and 5+ MB resp.).
http://konicaminolta.com/products/co...eimage001.html



This AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens has a nice bokeh!



Not sure that that photo is a good bokeh test. Put some foliage
in the back under direct sunlight with the subject in shade and
then you'll have a good bokeh test.

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #22  
Old September 17th 04, 04:10 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

ThomasH wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

warning: large files (4+ and 5+ MB resp.).
http://konicaminolta.com/products/co...eimage001.html



This AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro lens has a nice bokeh!


Not bad. I'd like to see a shot with more sunlit folliage in the
BG to really see it ... OTOH not a lens I would buy...

Cheers,
Alan




--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #23  
Old September 17th 04, 04:14 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in
:


Magnus W wrote:

Judging from the only sample picture, which is half size, it's good.


Where did you see an ISO 1600 sample? Got a link?



It is on a japanese site, but the site is expecting high traffic and is
totally inaccessible right now. I managed to get 3/4 of the image down but
then my resuming program wouldn't resume anymore, overwriting the file :-P


Could I have the _link_, please.



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #24  
Old September 17th 04, 04:14 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in
:


Magnus W wrote:

Judging from the only sample picture, which is half size, it's good.


Where did you see an ISO 1600 sample? Got a link?



It is on a japanese site, but the site is expecting high traffic and is
totally inaccessible right now. I managed to get 3/4 of the image down but
then my resuming program wouldn't resume anymore, overwriting the file :-P


Could I have the _link_, please.



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #25  
Old September 17th 04, 05:12 PM
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

2. The shutter speed was 1/160 which is the max x-sync for the
camera. The camera would not know if a studio light was used
(triggered by PC sync, that is a shutter system dumb contact
which the s/w would not know about). EXIF records built-in flash
or mounted flash action.


Good points Alan. (You're smarter than I thought you were. ;-)

I wonder why the EXIF didn't state focus distance? It says unknown.
I'd assume this was taken by the 85/1.4 lens, and furthermore would
assume that Minolta has the D version available, which should have
reported distance to subject, eh?

3. It could have been diffused natural light ...
the shot is 2.3 stops open from sunny-16. The scene behind
the lady suggests outdoor siding so could have been a screened in
porch area or similar. Zoom in on her eye and it sure looks like
a softbox signature, however ... could be a window also.


I'd say window. The background looks like a curtain to me.

That pomegranate picture is a bad example if you ask me, as most
of the picture is out of focus. Canon had some similarly poor shots
when the EOS-1Ds first came out.

  #26  
Old September 17th 04, 05:12 PM
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote:

2. The shutter speed was 1/160 which is the max x-sync for the
camera. The camera would not know if a studio light was used
(triggered by PC sync, that is a shutter system dumb contact
which the s/w would not know about). EXIF records built-in flash
or mounted flash action.


Good points Alan. (You're smarter than I thought you were. ;-)

I wonder why the EXIF didn't state focus distance? It says unknown.
I'd assume this was taken by the 85/1.4 lens, and furthermore would
assume that Minolta has the D version available, which should have
reported distance to subject, eh?

3. It could have been diffused natural light ...
the shot is 2.3 stops open from sunny-16. The scene behind
the lady suggests outdoor siding so could have been a screened in
porch area or similar. Zoom in on her eye and it sure looks like
a softbox signature, however ... could be a window also.


I'd say window. The background looks like a curtain to me.

That pomegranate picture is a bad example if you ask me, as most
of the picture is out of focus. Canon had some similarly poor shots
when the EOS-1Ds first came out.

  #27  
Old September 17th 04, 05:19 PM
Magnus W
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Browne wrote in
:

Could I have the _link_, please.


http://article.pchome.net/2004/09/15/PICT0050.JPG
  #28  
Old September 17th 04, 06:06 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

2. The shutter speed was 1/160 which is the max x-sync for the
camera. The camera would not know if a studio light was used
(triggered by PC sync, that is a shutter system dumb contact
which the s/w would not know about). EXIF records built-in flash
or mounted flash action.



Good points Alan. (You're smarter than I thought you were. ;-)


You have no idea! ;-)


I wonder why the EXIF didn't state focus distance? It says unknown.
I'd assume this was taken by the 85/1.4 lens, and furthermore would
assume that Minolta has the D version available, which should have
reported distance to subject, eh?


Yes that's the lens per the page (85mm f/1.4 D)
http://konicaminolta.com/products/co...mpleimage.html

There are a few EXIF tags there with numbers, I suspect one of
them is the distance ... hang on a minute ...

37396 = 0x9214 value = 1504 (milimeters from subject?)
or 1504/256 = 5.875 ... feet?

tag 41989 = 0xA405 value = 127 (no idea)


The EXIF def (
http://it.jeita.or.jp/document/publi...lish/Exife.pdf
)

shows subject distance as being in tag 37382 (0x9206)... which
does not appear in the EXIF with the image that I can see. The
two tags above are not defined.

So ... not sure at all...





3. It could have been diffused natural light ...
the shot is 2.3 stops open from sunny-16. The scene behind
the lady suggests outdoor siding so could have been a screened in
porch area or similar. Zoom in on her eye and it sure looks like
a softbox signature, however ... could be a window also.



I'd say window. The background looks like a curtain to me.


with those perfect horizontal lines ... don't think so ...
wallpaper maybe.


That pomegranate picture is a bad example if you ask me, as most
of the picture is out of focus. Canon had some similarly poor shots
when the EOS-1Ds first came out.


It also has blown out highlights on the second piece of fruit
suggesting that to get that lovely color and texture they over
expd slightly ... not much margin on the high end with digital.

I've noticed that the full DOF photos at dpreview are usually a
bit dull to look at. The marketing photos with narrower DOF
usually have a prominent colorful (or lovely) subject with oof bg
to emphasize the subject.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #29  
Old September 17th 04, 06:06 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Bill Tuthill wrote:

Alan Browne wrote:

2. The shutter speed was 1/160 which is the max x-sync for the
camera. The camera would not know if a studio light was used
(triggered by PC sync, that is a shutter system dumb contact
which the s/w would not know about). EXIF records built-in flash
or mounted flash action.



Good points Alan. (You're smarter than I thought you were. ;-)


You have no idea! ;-)


I wonder why the EXIF didn't state focus distance? It says unknown.
I'd assume this was taken by the 85/1.4 lens, and furthermore would
assume that Minolta has the D version available, which should have
reported distance to subject, eh?


Yes that's the lens per the page (85mm f/1.4 D)
http://konicaminolta.com/products/co...mpleimage.html

There are a few EXIF tags there with numbers, I suspect one of
them is the distance ... hang on a minute ...

37396 = 0x9214 value = 1504 (milimeters from subject?)
or 1504/256 = 5.875 ... feet?

tag 41989 = 0xA405 value = 127 (no idea)


The EXIF def (
http://it.jeita.or.jp/document/publi...lish/Exife.pdf
)

shows subject distance as being in tag 37382 (0x9206)... which
does not appear in the EXIF with the image that I can see. The
two tags above are not defined.

So ... not sure at all...





3. It could have been diffused natural light ...
the shot is 2.3 stops open from sunny-16. The scene behind
the lady suggests outdoor siding so could have been a screened in
porch area or similar. Zoom in on her eye and it sure looks like
a softbox signature, however ... could be a window also.



I'd say window. The background looks like a curtain to me.


with those perfect horizontal lines ... don't think so ...
wallpaper maybe.


That pomegranate picture is a bad example if you ask me, as most
of the picture is out of focus. Canon had some similarly poor shots
when the EOS-1Ds first came out.


It also has blown out highlights on the second piece of fruit
suggesting that to get that lovely color and texture they over
expd slightly ... not much margin on the high end with digital.

I've noticed that the full DOF photos at dpreview are usually a
bit dull to look at. The marketing photos with narrower DOF
usually have a prominent colorful (or lovely) subject with oof bg
to emphasize the subject.

Cheers,
Alan



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
  #30  
Old September 17th 04, 06:09 PM
Alan Browne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Magnus W wrote:

Alan Browne wrote in
:


Could I have the _link_, please.



http://article.pchome.net/2004/09/15/PICT0050.JPG



Thanks ... you're right it is slow.. I'll keep plugging at it.



--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr Thad 35mm Photo Equipment 31 December 14th 04 05:45 AM
RFD: rec.photo.dslr Thad Digital Photography 21 September 5th 04 02:22 AM
Submitting Digital images dperez@juno_nospam.com Digital Photography 27 September 1st 04 02:32 PM
Make Professional Quality Posters from Your Digital Images gerry4La Other Photographic Equipment 0 June 22nd 04 05:03 AM
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? Michael Weinstein, M.D. In The Darkroom 13 January 24th 04 10:51 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.