Introducing Scott's Vintage Film, a flexible color profile for Nikon Z
https://redd.it/1pd8hpm
@NikonBackup
https://redd.it/1pd8hpm
@NikonBackup
Reddit
From the Nikon community on Reddit: Introducing Scott's Vintage Film, a flexible color profile for Nikon Z
Explore this post and more from the Nikon community
I bought Sony a7iv and kind of regretting it
So I bought A7IV and two tamron 2.8 lenses. Don’t get me wrong it works. My clients are happy. But for my creative side, it just doesn’t do it for me. It’s so boring to look at results and always needs edits. The rolling shutter is yuck as well. I owned Nikon, and Fujifilm and those never needed editing after photos were taken. Just beautiful out the camera. For example, images I’d hypothetically shoot on Sony 50mm 2.8 do NOT look the same as Nikon 50mm 2.8 from the same position. Not the color science, but the compression of the photos. Maybe because Sony a7iv pixel is about 7000x4000 images Nikon is around 6000x4000.
Am I crazy or can anyone else see the lack of magic Sony images have Sony looks flat.
https://redd.it/1pda53z
@NikonBackup
So I bought A7IV and two tamron 2.8 lenses. Don’t get me wrong it works. My clients are happy. But for my creative side, it just doesn’t do it for me. It’s so boring to look at results and always needs edits. The rolling shutter is yuck as well. I owned Nikon, and Fujifilm and those never needed editing after photos were taken. Just beautiful out the camera. For example, images I’d hypothetically shoot on Sony 50mm 2.8 do NOT look the same as Nikon 50mm 2.8 from the same position. Not the color science, but the compression of the photos. Maybe because Sony a7iv pixel is about 7000x4000 images Nikon is around 6000x4000.
Am I crazy or can anyone else see the lack of magic Sony images have Sony looks flat.
https://redd.it/1pda53z
@NikonBackup
Reddit
From the Nikon community on Reddit
Explore this post and more from the Nikon community
Considering the move from Fuji to Nikon as a pro photographer
Hey Nikon gang. First time posting here. I'm sure many similar posts have been made in the past, but I'd love to hear your thoughts, particularly from those who have experience on both the APS-C and Full Frame systems.
I have been a pro Fuji shooter for about six years, (X-T2 -> X-H1 -> X-T4 -> X-H2S) and my main professional work involves, event, portrait, editorial, concert and documentary photography. I also do video work - mostly promotional for small companies and schools. I'd say a fair share of the photography work involves low lighting where I often don't have lots of control over lighting sources. I primarily use the 16-55mm f2.8, 50-140mm f2.8, 16mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2.
I have been tempted by the full frame system (looking at the Z8 and Z6iii in particular) for quite some time, particularly when I shoot in low light scenarios. It baffles me when I see how high my fellow full frame shooter friends can bump their ISO in given situations, when I feel like I seldom want to push past 1600. Granted, there are the de-noising tools which are fabulous, but it also adds more time to the workflow, and if I could avoid it, I would.
The common fact shared is that full frame users get about a full stop of light in return, but from what I witness it feels more substantial than that. Granted, I can switch my zoom 2.8's to my primes which let in much more light, but in paid event-based scenarios I would appreciate the luxury of having zoom lenses always attached and not having to switch out of necessity.
As much as I harp on the low light factor (which is the biggest concern to note), I also can't help but feel full frame images have more dynamic range and depth that my X-H2S just can't quite meet, whether in low light or daylight.
I know full well that we can be our own worst critics, and that the clients rarely nitpick in the ways that we do, but I also still believe in leveling up when it comes to ones craft and tools. I'm certain I can keep things flowing business-wise with where I'm at currently, but I don't want to get caught in the same loop and never branch out.
Naturally, the price tag of switching systems has been a factor since I'd basically be starting from scratch and easing into it, but I'm all about the investment if it is indeed worth it.
I'd appreciate any thoughts or wisdom y'all have on the matter. Thanks for reading and responding!
EDIT: Can't believe I didn't mention autofocus! The X-H2S af is night and day better compared to any other Fuji I had prior, but it sounds like that still isn't saying much when compred to Nikon/Canon/Sony.
https://redd.it/1pdim44
@NikonBackup
Hey Nikon gang. First time posting here. I'm sure many similar posts have been made in the past, but I'd love to hear your thoughts, particularly from those who have experience on both the APS-C and Full Frame systems.
I have been a pro Fuji shooter for about six years, (X-T2 -> X-H1 -> X-T4 -> X-H2S) and my main professional work involves, event, portrait, editorial, concert and documentary photography. I also do video work - mostly promotional for small companies and schools. I'd say a fair share of the photography work involves low lighting where I often don't have lots of control over lighting sources. I primarily use the 16-55mm f2.8, 50-140mm f2.8, 16mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2.
I have been tempted by the full frame system (looking at the Z8 and Z6iii in particular) for quite some time, particularly when I shoot in low light scenarios. It baffles me when I see how high my fellow full frame shooter friends can bump their ISO in given situations, when I feel like I seldom want to push past 1600. Granted, there are the de-noising tools which are fabulous, but it also adds more time to the workflow, and if I could avoid it, I would.
The common fact shared is that full frame users get about a full stop of light in return, but from what I witness it feels more substantial than that. Granted, I can switch my zoom 2.8's to my primes which let in much more light, but in paid event-based scenarios I would appreciate the luxury of having zoom lenses always attached and not having to switch out of necessity.
As much as I harp on the low light factor (which is the biggest concern to note), I also can't help but feel full frame images have more dynamic range and depth that my X-H2S just can't quite meet, whether in low light or daylight.
I know full well that we can be our own worst critics, and that the clients rarely nitpick in the ways that we do, but I also still believe in leveling up when it comes to ones craft and tools. I'm certain I can keep things flowing business-wise with where I'm at currently, but I don't want to get caught in the same loop and never branch out.
Naturally, the price tag of switching systems has been a factor since I'd basically be starting from scratch and easing into it, but I'm all about the investment if it is indeed worth it.
I'd appreciate any thoughts or wisdom y'all have on the matter. Thanks for reading and responding!
EDIT: Can't believe I didn't mention autofocus! The X-H2S af is night and day better compared to any other Fuji I had prior, but it sounds like that still isn't saying much when compred to Nikon/Canon/Sony.
https://redd.it/1pdim44
@NikonBackup
Reddit
From the Nikon community on Reddit
Explore this post and more from the Nikon community