I'm of the opinion, possibly inaccurate, that a lot of what is said
about cameras is based on ideas, prejudices and opinions, often at least
partly from others, and not too much on actual results.
So I'm posting two series of pictures without saying what camera made
the images. PS won't put EXIF data in the captions, but it is there in
the image files, but without the camera ID. So exposure data, etc. is
available.
I'm curious what you folks think of the images in two ways. First, I
really like some of the images, and would be interested in comments,
criticism, etc.of subject, composition, and so forth.
Second, what do you think about the quality of the camera that produced
them? There are some difficult subjects, particularly due to low light
levels. Any guesses on the camera? I purchased it without saying
anything on the list and gave it its first workout on my trip.
The first set is images shot at The Cloisters, a group of medieval
buildings and bits and pieces imported from Europe and assembled by the
Rockefellers into a museum at the North end of Manhatten. A lovely place
set in a park It houses the Met's medieval collection. Photography is
allowed, but no flash. When I saw the flash of another camera, I took a
chance and shot one myself, eliciting a thunderous response from a
guard. I like the non-flash pic better, I think
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Cloisters/>.
The first 14 images of the second set are random shots on the way from
Camden to and then in Fryeburg, ME. The rest were taken in the woods in
the White Mountain National Forest on a heavily overcast day with some
drizzle. Again, there is one example of a subject with and without
flash. Many of the other subjects would be equally ugly with flash
<http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/>.
I've included a few full pixel samples, too.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|