July 2024

[ColinM]

A bigger splash...

Nikon Zf, Nikkor Z 40mm

Lovely timing & synchronicity Jürgen

[ColinM]

more slow photography with the Zf and Voigt 1.0/50

You've captured a sense of timeless family warmth Frank here
I hope it was a relaxing break for you too

[kasperbergholt]

My third take on the two Kaktus Towers in Copenhagen.

D3 + Zeiss Milvus 50mm. Wonder how it would have turned out with a D4 or D5.

[golunvolo]

Incognito by the dark door.

  Z9, 50mm 1.8S

[Darkslide]

My third take on the two Kaktus Towers!.

D3 + Zeiss Milvus 50mm. Wonder how it would have turned out with a D4 or D5.

Very nice shot - however there seems to be a huge amount of dust on your sensor...

[Birna Rørslett]

Dust aside, this is a nice graphical shot that probably would be no differnet on most FX cameras.

[golunvolo]

Cat in danger 

 Z9, 50mm 1.8s

[Dogman]

Had an annual visit to my doctor yesterday.  Everything is okay for an old man with a bad back.  Had to go to the lab for blood work and to sit around for a while, watching other people.  People are interesting, aren't they?  Almost everyone was absorbed in their telephones.  Used a Fuji X-Pro2 with an adapted Carl Zeiss ZM 25/2.8 Biogon lens (equivalent to about a 35mm focal length on 135 format).  I believe that lens is magical in its rendering in B&W.

[Darkslide]

Dust aside, this is a nice graphical shot that probably would be no differnet on most FX cameras.

I'm sorry but I don't understand this comment?

[Luc]

Multiple dust spots on the sensor visible in the image.

[Darkslide]

Multiple dust spots on the sensor visible in the image.

Yes, I got that bit - I was the one who commented this to begin with.

The part I can't quite grasp is "...this is a nice graphical shot that probably would be no differnet on most FX cameras."

I can cope with the incorrect spelling etc. but I can't understand the point of mentioning it. This sort of comment can be applied to ANY image - why bother.

[Birna Rørslett]

I'm sorry but I don't understand this comment?

Meaning nearly any camera with FX format and a 50mm lens could deliver about the same result. The image is defined and rendered  by the photographer not the gear.

We should bother, because it runs opposite to what the industry wants to tell us - better photos come from better ameras/lenses (sic).

Incorrect spelling == dyslexia

[Jürgen Pfeiffer]

Yes, I got that bit - I was the one who commented this to begin with.

The part I can't quite grasp is "...this is a nice graphical shot that probably would be no differnet on most FX cameras."

I can cope with the incorrect spelling etc. but I can't understand the point of mentioning it. This sort of comment can be applied to ANY image - why bother.

I think Birna refers to Kasper‘s statement "Wonder how it would have turned out with a D4 or D5."

[ColinM]

Dust aside, this is a nice graphical shot that probably would be no differnet on most FX cameras.

Agreed, lovely capture Kasper and the dust didn't spoil my enjoyment of it.
Also makes me think of (golden) jaws closing

[Birna Rørslett]

I think Birna refers to Kasper‘s statement "Wonder how it would have turned out with a D4 or D5."

That's correct.