What do you think about this photo?Do you have questions or curiosities about this image? Do you want to ask something to the author, give him suggestions for improvement, or congratulate for a photo that you really like?
You can do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 242000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
| sent on November 22, 2016 (12:22) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Ruben, because you also have tripped "indoor sports" with 100 f / 2.8 I ask an opinion: do not find that, despite the relatively low ISO (I speak of my photo taken with 6D you see here http: // www. juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2096962&l=it) there is more "grain" of what for example I always with photos taken in gyms, always with the same 6D, but with different objectives (70-200 f / 4 100-400 and II)?
And 'my impression? it is not just me, how is it possible that, given the well known sharpness of 100 macro?
Thank you! Ruben, visto che anche tu hai scattato "sport indoor" con il 100 f/2.8 ti chiedo un parere: non trovi che, nonostante i relativamente bassi ISO (parlo della mia foto scattata con la 6D che vedi qua www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2096962&l=it) ci sia più "grana" di quella che per esempio ho con foto scattate sempre in palestre, sempre con la stessa 6D, ma con obiettivi diversi (70-200 f/4 e 100-400 II)?
E' un'impressione mia? se non è solo una mia impressione, com'è possibile ciò, vista la nitidezza risaputa del 100 macro?
Grazie! |
| sent on November 22, 2016 (12:57) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
In HD versions in fact it seems to be no more grain, MAYBE could be more obvious because of the crop more "invasive".
Certainly it happened sometimes note a more "defined noise" taking with quality optics than with optical kit, perhaps because the latter more knead the image and then "mushy" the noise. :-D Nelle versioni in HD in effetti sembra esserci più grana, FORSE potrebbe essere più evidente a causa del crop più "invasivo".
Di certo mi è capitato, a volte, di notare un rumore più "definito" scattando con ottiche di qualità piuttosto che con ottiche kit, forse perché quest'ultime impastano maggiormente l'immagine e quindi "spappolano" anche il rumore.  |
| sent on November 22, 2016 (13:07) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Right, though bianchino and c. They do not seem so little ... oh, well. Giusto, però bianchino e c. non mi sembrano tanto scarsi... mah. |
| sent on November 22, 2016 (13:29) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Little no, but the 100L has something more in pull out the flaws !!! Scarsi no, ma il 100L ha qualcosa in più nel tirare fuori delle magagne!!! |
| sent on November 22, 2016 (13:47) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
In these cases, however, in the "flaws" I think we just bring him ... as ignorant as I am, I was expecting to get photos comparable (indeed, better ...) than those obtained under similar environmental conditions with the 70-200 f / 4, on the other hand are not even comparable, moreover, with an ISO value by far less ... boh, photography mysteries ;-)
In questi casi però nelle "magagne" credo che ci porti proprio lui... da ignorante quale sono, mi aspettavo di ottenere foto paragonabili (anzi, migliori...) rispetto a quelle ottenute in analoghe condizioni ambientali con il 70-200 f/4, invece non sono nemmeno confrontabili, per di più, con un valore ISO di gran lunga inferiore... boh, misteri della fotografia 
|
| sent on November 22, 2016 (16:01) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Like I said, I have not found these differences, in addition to more stringent crop, you made the same noise of corrections / Brightness / other? : - / Come ti dicevo, io non ho riscontrato queste differenze, oltre al crop più spinto, hai fatto le stesse correzioni su rumore/luminosità/altro?  |
| sent on November 22, 2016 (18:11) | This comment has been automatically translated (show/hide original)
Initially because I have stored on a file corrections made in photographs taken with the 70-200 in that gym and I uploaded to those taken with the 100, then, given the results disappointing for me, I examined a few files without any correction and changed little.
Well, try again, it was just curious also because the 100 I have it for other purposes ;-) and in the gym the 70-200 suits me fine, light and crisp enough!
Thank you. Inizialmente si perchè ho memorizzato su un file le correzioni apportate nelle foto scattate con il 70-200 in quella palestra e le ho caricate su quelle scattate con il 100, poi, visti i risultati per me deludenti, ho preso in esame un paio di files senza alcuna correzione e cambiava poco.
Mah, riproverò, era solo per curiosità anche perchè il 100 ce l'ho per altri scopi ed in palestra il 70-200 mi va benissimo, leggero e nitido quanto basta!
Grazie. |
|
Publish your advertisement on JuzaPhoto (info) |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
Resize to fit window
