These are SOOC w/ NO Noise-Reduction, (or other PP). But isn't photography supposed to be "fun"? he is totally correct since their speed-convenience & versatility w/ their additional options & featues can indeed be "fun". So I suggest it is all relative, and very disingenious to suggest it is only "acceptabe in good light".Īs for "FUN". To somewhat assist in lower light, I think both of the above camera have a built-in (NIGHT-shot) "stacking" mode for lower-light, (which I have never even needed to use).Īlso the FZ-1000 has a low-light AF capability to -4EV (lower than full-moon light). Thus only limited by which each person deems an acceptable ISO. There are also some 1/2.3" tele-zooms that would indeed be low-light limited w/ small lens apertures at their max-tele, (which is probably the specific reason they were bought).īut the RX10-IV has a f/2.4-4, the FZ-1000 a f/2.8-4, which is faster than most "kit" lenses.
#Serif photostack portable iso
There is no argument that larger (aka FF/MF) sensors are capable of higher ISO (lower-exposure) w/ lower noise. If you want to "play in Major League", it's another story. You are impressed and so am I but I wonder what the expert that posted this comment : Bridge cameras are basically for fun. Tell em to "Watch The Birdie" ? (just thought they were nice images he could consider w/ appropriate subjects - I suggest they are quite incredible images from such a low-priced camera that has options/features few others have) With in-camera focus stacking, it should be easy, if you had any reason to do it. I've done long exposures to even notice they were breathing. How do you photo stack images of live animals ?įrogs, toads and snakes can be motionless for minutes at a time. there are two different versions of "macro" lenses, some are called macro but simply focus "closer" (allowing a Field-Of-View (FOV) of around 4", but a TRUE "MACRO" lens can get close enough for a 1:1 image, (about 1" FOV). a "macro" lens can still focus at infinity (as any lens), but the added advantage that it can get much closer than ordinary lenses.īUT. You may find little need for a dedicated macro lens, unless your subjects are quite small. The 'Pro' level normal range zooms are not true 1:1 macro, but will focus quite closely. * Micro 4/3 body, 'pro' grade zoom, and macro lens Ī fancy kit might includeĬurrently, the Panasonic G9, Olympus OMD EM5 mark3 or EM1 mark 2 bodies are selling for about the same price. * A FZ1000 mark 2 bridge camera, supplemented by an add on close up lens Suitable 'full frame' lenses may not leave much in you budget for the camera body.Īpplying my research I would recommend one of two options: You should be able to do this kind of shooting with a bridge camera - I have done this with my ancient Panasonic FZ-50 bridge camera.įor interchangeable lens cameras, I would look at the available lenses, before selecting a system. (Panasonic bridge fz1000 for video is very good, though)įrom macro shots or there around to about 1 meter/ meter and a half away from the subject, since amphibians arent that big or to get a view of the terrarium/pond they are in. Is that clear now? You as well beginners within this site can go to camera feature search, you'll see the 2 typologies.īridge cameras are basically for fun. So the focus is on the body: layout and vf location. Since the beginning my underlying was on the style of body. It is pretty obvious that DSLRs have.DSLR body style. Rangefinder BODY STYLE is a typology of ML. Rangefinder is not a synonym of ML and I didn't not use it as synonym at all. Sorry but you are misleading other readers.
#Serif photostack portable series
It is possible that a 1" sensor type, like the Sony RX or Panasonic 1000 series could do the job easier that some DSLRs or Mirrorless so eliminating those may not be the best choice. ( I didn't.)Īnd, BTW, why does your choice exclude bridge cameras ? Rangefinder body style isn't exactly the most common way to refer to the mirrorless cameras and possibly not one a beginner would understand. Maybe you should be more careful about the terms you use. Those are mirrorless cameras, nothing to do with rangefinder. First I would advice to understand if you'd prefer rangefinder body style or DSLR style.
0 kommentar(er)
