Which lenses have made you want to buy them? and why do you buy and still keep them? What makes it good for you? What are your personal criterias for a good lens?
Been hearing a ton about lenses with 3d pop , not having 3d pop, etc and I can't see it 99 percent of the time. There's only been in one instance that I have felt the difference clearly....
Is it only me that have a hard time distinguishing this?
Does 3d pop affect your lens choices?Why?
My friend said that "using a 50mm 1.5× anamorphic lens on an S35 sensor is the same as using a 33mm spherical lens on a full-frame camera and just cropping/exporting to the same anamorphic aspect ratio."
Ignoring anamorphic-specific characteristics like flares and oval bokeh, is this actually true in terms of field of view and depth of field?
My understanding is that a 50mm 1.5× anamorphic on S35 gives roughly the horizontal FOV of a 33mm lens, but I'm not sure whether the DOF equivalence also holds. Am I missing something?
Been seeing loads of posts saying 2022 was the best or something. I usually don't chip into these posts but I have to in those. Unless you were a fetus in 2010 you would have felt the craze. No other world cup song has had the craze 2010 world cup had . It's nowhere near close. If you are talking about finals though it might be there being an end of the era, but festivities and buzz??? Naah 2010 is always gonna beat 2022 on that. Sorry if you weren't there for it
At advanced levels , how do you guys accurately measure if something worked and produced you results ? It might not be apparent like newbies or intermediates, so how do you measure it accurately to see if something works or not?
If not failure, how do you guage your intensity?
I was reading Ben Pollack, and he says in one of his articles that bodybuilding is largely a product of what he describes as "effort" which is why all kinds of programs from high volume to mentzer style low volume all produce hypertrophy, while this doesn't seem to be the case with powerlifting where it's almost always guaranteed that more volume would make you lift more than a person who does less volume.
If this is the case,we should be seeing a great number of people running low volume programs and making gains on par with the high volume people. But I don't seem to find the case. Almost everyone is doing more volume to grow.
I am here, to basically find if there's evidence for my conjecture is wrong. Has anyone here exclusively trained with low volume and made gains? If so do you have something to show us? What your journey was like ?
Hello everyone, I know questions like this have been beaten to death here a thousand times, but I am here to ask your help as this is one of the most important trips of a lifetime for me.
I intend to travel most of next year between , Nepal , Italy and Brazil..mostly solo and hiking around in the nature. I plan to hike from kathmandu to annapurna and maybe hike through the italian dolomites too, based on how things go in nepal. I want to document most of what I can from this journey as I might never be free like this again in my life.
I have spent the last few months researching about cameras and I have narrowed it down into 3 choices so far in terms of system. I plan to buy a mirrorless hybrid camera as I want to take both photos and videos, with a slight more favorism towards video. Here are my final picks:
Nikon: The ZR, Z8 and Z6iii where considered. Nikon is alright, but I am kinda skittish about the ibis performance and the compressed codecs issues and also not having true 24p . I really would have loved to shoot raw, but I don't know how practical it would be on such a long trip. Maybe the less storage space might make me too careful? No idea
Lumix and Leica: I am very impressed by both Lumix s1rii and s1ii but I have always imagined them having less image quality than Nikon . But i have heard they have one of the best compressed codecs in mirrorless cameras. The IBIS heavily favors lumix though, but image quality is a real stickler. Also I am not sure how they would perform in brazil .
If it weren't for the fact that I wasn't sure about the video specs of Leica, I would have definitely gone for it despite the exorbitant price. It seems to have the best build quality and ux. and the best image quality bar none when it comes to photos. The video performance however i have seen are poor
I didn't choose canon because I just don't like canon for some reason and I don't want to use something i feel so poor about. Sony I felt like offers the least for the money so I stopped looking into it. Leica imho even though luxury felt offered more than sony for me.
so help me, what should i pick?
Just wanted to ask why do you prefer leica over other premium lenses like the Nikon's Plena, Fuji GFX or Zeiss Otus line
Undoubtedly all of these are fine lenses and cream of crop, just wanted to know why you guys prefer leica over these
Kettlebell training involves many explosive HIIT type movements which I think should improve the practitioners VO2 max over time in a pretty non negligible way. So I was wondering if anyone here has tested this over time or is doing kettlebells with the intention of this
Anyone here checked their V02 max over the years? How has it improved ?
Not sure but I have been thinking about this for a while and I believe that prolonging the window of time women can be fertile would solve many of the issues the world is currently facing as in:
Elon and the billionaires, make kids as much as possible proclamations sound daft and pathetic. They could spend that money on research towards this and make way more impact
These two often come in discussions as the endgame of premium photography lenses in full frame. What are your opinions on them? Which do you think deserves to be the king?
These two often come in discussions as the endgame of premium photography lenses in full frame. What are your opinions on them? Which do you think deserves to be the king?
Hi I have been using the Lumix GH series and the good ol canon C200 till now for my cinematography and I have finally decided to upgrade my gear to something more serious.
I am done with Canon atm and my decision has come down to basically RED and Blackmagic at this point. I think both are on par with image quality. The RED seems more "professional" and "reliable" but man I stoked by what BM is offering with the pyxis 12k and Ursa cine 12k LF. the only thing that's stopping me actually is how reliable they are on set and the support of the system.
I also don't know I have overlooked anything in this comparison.
So I welcome y'all to pitch in with any suggestions you guys might have