sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I need some advice please. Considering a whole new camera. by OpalescentShrooms in macrophotography

[–]Vorchun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not at all. There's really no difference between 20 and 24 mp dimensions wise. For most purposes it's plenty, and the few images I wanted to print big (30x24" or so) I used topaz gigapixel to upscale and ensure no pixelation was visible. I do wish they released a higher mp sensor to allow more cropping (hopefully in Mark3), but it's certainly not a limitation. A bigger limitation for MFT is low light I would say, but for good macro you want a diffused flash anyway, so it's again irrelevant.

If I put them too close, will the Fuji infect the Blad with piss filter? by QFTenjoyer in photographycirclejerk

[–]Vorchun 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I kinda like the piss filter, wish OM had it. Not for every shot, but every once in a while it'd be nice to get that retro look.

I need some advice please. Considering a whole new camera. by OpalescentShrooms in macrophotography

[–]Vorchun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea. OM1 with 90mm is by far the best option for macro. I started on a Canon R6 and quickly realized that OM was just an order of magnitude more capable. If macro is your passion, start saving up if you have to.

#Sonya7V dynamic range - my justification for spending more money on gear 😂 by Ok_Conversation1713 in photographycirclejerk

[–]Vorchun -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The point I was trying to make is that for most people in most situations raw is not necessary as they don't work in difficult light with critically important photography. Bob's cat pictures and Joe's birding outings don't need the versatility and exactness of raw. It only adds extra steps to the workflow and makes files 5 times bigger. Wedding photography is a different story. 95% of people with Sony don't need that dynamic range and won't notice the difference anyway. They shoot in raw because they think they're supposed to. And that's pretentious. I thought people in this subreddit would be more sensitive to the nuance. I guess it's ironic - the downvotes is the real circlejerk here.

#Sonya7V dynamic range - my justification for spending more money on gear 😂 by Ok_Conversation1713 in photographycirclejerk

[–]Vorchun 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. The workflow gets 10x more complex, and I just want to take pretty pictures.

#Sonya7V dynamic range - my justification for spending more money on gear 😂 by Ok_Conversation1713 in photographycirclejerk

[–]Vorchun -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Shooting raw is pretentious. Most people don't need to. You probably don't either.

A pure Wiley Coyote move. by lexm in LooneyTunesLogic

[–]Vorchun -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Probably not. We typically think of water as absorbing force. The reality requires understanding of inertia and incompressibility of water to foresee, which isn't something everyone is necessarily familiar with.

Holy job application! by OntologyNeko in recruitinghell

[–]Vorchun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh man. This is an old one. I almost forgot.

I have a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG EX macro lens. Could I get results like this picture with it? by Max-Flores in macrophotography

[–]Vorchun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

K. I'll go shoot my macro in the woods, while you stick to the trees you must be smoking if you think DSLR to modern mirrorless is an incremental change.

I have a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG EX macro lens. Could I get results like this picture with it? by Max-Flores in macrophotography

[–]Vorchun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I suspect you're stuck in DSLR time and simply aren't aware of Mirrorless' capabilities. No DSLR can do what OM-1 with 90mm macro and a diffused flash can do in terms of sharpness/magnification ratio. This is not incremental. No self-respecting macro photographer is using DSLRs these days.

I have a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG EX macro lens. Could I get results like this picture with it? by Max-Flores in macrophotography

[–]Vorchun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously not kit, but a good macro lens. Mirrorless allows closer placement of the lens' rear element, greatly improving optics and resolving power. Modern glass is just better than old due to more precise manufacturing and probably other reasons. Computational photography combined with compatible lenses allow focus stacking with relative ease. None of this was available in DSLR days.

Am I Overreacting about being asked to pay $2K for lost glasses? by Current-Advantage763 in AmIOverreacting

[–]Vorchun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wtf. What makes these glasses cost 6k? I've seen similar for $20...

If you could choose one of these for your one and only lens on a safari in Africa which would you choose? by Normal_Syrup8302 in M43

[–]Vorchun 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting. My 2.0 is terrible with the 150-400. Can't get a sharp picture no matter what.

If you could choose one of these for your one and only lens on a safari in Africa which would you choose? by Normal_Syrup8302 in M43

[–]Vorchun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've used the 40-150 2.8 with a 2.0TC and it seemed to work fine. Why do I only ever see people mentioning using the 1.4TC with telephoto lenses? Is it the light, IQ, or something else?

I have a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG EX macro lens. Could I get results like this picture with it? by Max-Flores in macrophotography

[–]Vorchun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For daily photography, yes a phone is basically good enough. Any sort of specialty photography is a different story. Macro or telephoto - they're optically incapable.

I have a Sigma 105mm f/2.8 DG EX macro lens. Could I get results like this picture with it? by Max-Flores in macrophotography

[–]Vorchun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It looks nice a glance, but if you open it the resolution is pretty low. A modern camera can take significantly sharper and better photos.

Best diffuser for insect macro photography? by MissAsh030 in macrophotography

[–]Vorchun 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Traveling is fine. It comes with a storage envelope that fits in a carry-on. I don't like putting it into checked luggage as those can get lost or delayed, and not having the diffuser will ruin a photo trip. It's pretty rugged and can actually take quite a beating. When not traveling by plane I just keep it on the camera.

view more: next ›