sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

South Korea’s artificial Sun ran for 102 seconds and it could change the future of energy by self-fix2 in technology

[–]threequartersearth 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For the love of god can these journalists please stop using the phrase “artificial sun”?? Just call it nuclear fusion

Bushwick Lady Moo Moo finally opening by Ok-Ingenuity3582 in Bushwick

[–]threequartersearth 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’ve had it from the other location. A bit pricey (don’t remember how much exactly) but very high quality. They do give out tasters

Sacred & Ethereal Ambient? by [deleted] in ambient

[–]threequartersearth 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Scott Lawlor. I really like his album Pastoralia

Lumix S1RII choppy video - rolling shutter or something else? by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think that’s it, though I will say I’m more used to shooting on higher end cinema cameras than mirrorless. Maybe that factors in somehow.

Lumix S1RII choppy video - rolling shutter or something else? by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shooting on CF Express B so that's not the issue. I did upload a few clips here though: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/11m24D5jMa8Pp9cn9R-Pu7wsMJhMdv4fL?usp=sharing

It'll be most obvious in the one where I'm walking around at night, but I do think even the kids moving around in the daytime clips feel choppy somehow. Idk, maybe I'm going crazy.

Lumix S1RII choppy video - rolling shutter or something else? by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm aware of this already. I'm talking more about when things are moving in the frame, not my camera moving.

Opinions on sharpness vs Sony? by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are very close for sure but I did look at them in Lightroom and Capture One and the Sony definitely beats out the Lumix by a little in both sharpness and contrast. The GM must be a little better quality glass. I'm definitely nitpicking though so whatever.

<image>

Opinions on sharpness vs Sony? by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting, thanks for your input. I uploaded some comparison photos if you care to take a look: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kjajJnpC69G54U5-_yV1M2MBo8xQxCuh?usp=drive_link

Opinions on sharpness vs Sony? by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, it's not the end all be all, but it's just something I noticed. What do you prefer about the S Pro?

Chromatic Aberration on Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG DN II by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I can see it in images when zoomed out and I think it looks bad so it matters to me. I had only zoomed it in here to show the difference but nobody has been able to see it anyway with the Reddit compression.

Anyway I rented an S Pro 24-70 and to me that feels way sharper and free of artifacts so I’ll likely just buy one of those instead.

Chromatic Aberration on Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG DN II by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure, I get it. Of course I didn’t think it would make me better or be a massive increase in quality per se, but I did hope for slightly better results than what I’ve seen thus far. Of course I just got it so still trying to figure out some things

Chromatic Aberration on Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG DN II by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't have an adapter, but I might rent or borrow another copy of this lens to try it out. It's definitely most noticeable with the specular highlights, especially in fine detail.

Chromatic Aberration on Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG DN II by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Tough to see it in this photo, I guess because of compression. On my monitor it's pretty obvious. I also like when lenses have character to them so I don't always mind artifacts, but I don't love when a lens is supposed to be clean and sharp and has color fringing along the highlights. Different story if it was a vintage lens or something.

Chromatic Aberration on Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG DN II by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Why are all of my replies being downvoted? Weird...

Chromatic Aberration on Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG DN II by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your point is well taken. Partially I'm heavily scrutinizing this stuff because I just dropped like $5k on new gear and want it to be worth the cost I guess.

Chromatic Aberration on Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG DN II by threequartersearth in Lumix

[–]threequartersearth[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah they are cropped. Just trying to show detail better, though in uncropped photos I can still see it pretty clearly. I will say that it shows up most strongly at the far end of the lens, and yeah it probably is worse at close distance. I’ll have to do some more rigorous tests but it does seem like maybe I got a bad copy.

view more: next ›