QUOTE(nikosimone @ Oct 8 2015, 02:22 PM) 
The iPhone 6s Takes Better Video Than My Professional Nikon DSLR
Yesterday we released the iPhone Bikini Shoot, a video in which I do a professional quality photoshoot with minimal gear. The point of the video wasn't to say that the iPhone was a better camera than a professional DSLR, it was meant to inspire photographers to use the gear they currently own to create beautiful images. Obviously the iPhone is infinitely worse than any current DSLR for stills but surprisingly it appears to be a far better video camera than my $3000 DSLR when there is enough light present.
You may have seen my 4k comparison video released last week in which I put the Sony AR7II up against the iPhone 6s. Thankfully the $4500 Sony 4k system out performed the iPhone but the footage from the phone was still incredible. Someone suggested that I compare the iPhone's video footage to our go-to cameras (Nikon D810s and D750s). I used a Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 lens and locked it at around 35mm. I did some color/contrast tests and found that the footage out of both cameras looked about the same if I set the Nikon to "neutral." I then walked around a park near our office and grabbed a few shots. It was impossible to tell which footage looked best in the field but once we got back to the office the comparison was pretty shocking. The iPhone's 4k footage downscaled to 1080p was significantly better than the Nikon D750.
"You're an idiot, the iPhone sucks in low light and you can't capture shallow depth of field or easily add lenses."
Thanks for your brilliant observation, stereotypical internet commenter. Obviously image quality in bright light is only one of many details to consider when it comes to comparing video cameras but it's still pretty freakin' important.
I'm not mad that the iPhone can take amazing video, I'm totally impressed with it. I'm just mad that consumer level products are getting features that professionals have been wanting for quite some time. Sony has been taking over the market by adding the features that photographers and videographers really want while Canon has been putting 4k footage in their ultra expensive line of cameras and Nikon is leaving it out altogether.
Usually new features cost a premium at a professional level and overtime the technology trickles down to the affordable consumer level. Why is it that 4k and Raw video seems to be showing up in the ultra expensive and ultra cheap markets while completely skipping the mid level products? I just want my camera to shoot footage that is at least comparable to the world's most common smartphone. Is that too much to ask?
And let me remind you. I don't want 4k video so that I can export video in 4k. There are many other reasons to shoot 4k.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/iphone-6s-t...ikon-dslr-88627
6 Reasons To Shoot 4k Video Even If You Can't View It Yet
Last week I wrote a post about how Nikon really needs to jump on the 4k bandwagon. I got a few comments that basically said; "Why do you care about 4k? nobody even owns a 4k TV at this point." They were right, 4k TVs aren't very popular, but I have no interest in producing 4k videos right now. I want to shoot 4k footage to enhance my 1080p videos.
Sharper 1080P footage
You may think that HD footage is a universal standard and anything shot in "HD" will look ultra sharp but that isn't true. "High Definition" footage can mean 720i/p or 1080i/p footage. Most HD cameras today will shoot in 1080p (the highest level of HD footage) but there is no regulation at all on a camera's bit-rate.
To save money on processors and memory buffers, cheaper cameras typically output HD footage at a relatively low bit-rate (megabits per second). This causes your footage to look soft, pixelated, and muddy.
In the example below I've taken a Jpeg image using the Nikon D750 and have shrunk it down to 1080p and I've also taken a still from a video clip of the exact same scene. I've then cropped in so that you can see the pixels at 100%. The D750's video footage is actually quite good compared to other DSLRs but the image below shows you just how far 1080p video footage still has to improve.
4k footage, named because it has 4000 pixels horizontally (4096x2160), is approximately the size of 4 standard 1080p (1920x1080p) video files. Shrinking down 4k footage to be 1080p is a night and day difference in detail and quality. Down-sampling can also help cut down on noise and grain making the footage appear to be cleaner as well.
In theory it is possible for a high end 1080p camera to film higher quality footage than a cheap 4k camera, but in my experience most 4k cameras are significantly sharper than 1080p cameras.
Shooting 4k video footage to get a sharper 1080p final export is the ultimate reason to shoot 4k but I've got 5 other uses for 4k that make it even more useful.
Stabilizing Footage in Post
While Hollywood has a team of people and an unlimited budget to produce flawless camera moves, I don't have that luxury and sometimes I'm forced to shoot hand-held. Even if I am standing perfectly still with a optically stabilized lens on my camera, you're going to be able to see camera shake. If I have to start walking, the footage becomes unusable.
Video effects like Premiere's "Warp Stabilizer" can save shaky footage, but it requires that the footage be "zoomed in" to work. If your 1080p footage is already soft, cropping in another 20% will make it unusable.
Shooting in 4k will give you enough pixels to play with so that effects like video stabilization will have no discernible effect on your finished video.
Cropping Footage In Post
You've heard photographers say for the last 10 years: "I like having more megapixels because it gives me more cropping options." Now that same luxury is available for film makers. When we were filming our landscape photography tutorial we used a Dji Phantom 2 with a Gorpo 4 Silver at 2.7k (2.7k is larger than 1080p but smaller than 4k).
Since I didn't have a vision downlink system I had to fly the drone and guess what I was filming. Back in post I was able to crop the footage to be the best composition without losing any quality in the final 1080p export.
Chances are, you've never considered cropping your video footage because it wasn't an option. Once you've experienced the flexibility of recomposing a shot after you've shot it, you'll never want to go back.
Perfect Pans and Zooms
Have you ever tried to film a perfectly smooth pan with a video camera? It's almost impossible. Have you ever tried to film a perfectly smooth zoom with a manual lens? It's literally impossible.
If you shoot 4k, small pans and zooms have never been easier. Simply zoom out, grab a few seconds of your scene and then add a pan or a zoom once you get back to the computer.
Adding these movements to your video in post will actually look better than anything you can do in the field and because 4k gives you so many extra pixels to work with, your finished product will look flawless.
Shooting A and B Roll Shots At The Same Time
If you've ever filmed an interview with someone you know that you will need to run a minimum of 2 cameras. A 5 minute video might have around 20-100 cuts in it and to mask each of them, you will need to jump from camera to camera to avoid the dreaded "jump cut." Shooting 4k and exporting in 1080p gives you a lot of room to play and basically can give you 2 or even 3 different looking shots (wide, medium, and tight).
For many of our videos we end up setting 2 cameras in almost an identical position, one shooting wide and the other shooting tight. One 4k camera could easily replace this 2 camera setup.
4k Footage Is Good Enough To Pull Still Frames
Most 1080p video footage looks so low res that still frames really aren't even good enough for web use. If it's not good enough for a website, you certainly wouldn't consider printing a still frame from a standard HD video camera but 4k is changing that.
Not only is most 4k footage good enough to replace standard still images on the web, but many shooters are starting to realize that 4k still frames are actually good enough to print. To put this into perspective, a 1080 video contains 2 million pixels where a single frame of 4k video contains 8.8 million pixels.
Check out our video where we compare a Hasselblad file to a still frame pulled from a very outdated Red Epic. Back in 2012 when we filmed this we were all really impressed with the Epic but today the Red Dragon puts the Epic to shame.
Conclusion
4k is far from being a common household format. Even though it is easy to go out and buy a 4k TV, you will have a very hard time finding footage to play on it. Luckily 1080p footage has so much room to improve. You shouldn't run out and buy a 4k video camera because you want to see your footage in 4k but, you should consider filming in 4k simply to enhance your standard, HD footage. Unlike 3D, it's pretty obvious that 4k is the future and even if it never becomes universally adopted it will help improve your videos today no matter what format you are working in.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/6-reasons-s...ew-it-yet-77535
[attachment=190907:profic1.jpg]
[attachment=190908:profic2.jpg]
Yesterday we released the iPhone Bikini Shoot, a video in which I do a professional quality photoshoot with minimal gear. The point of the video wasn't to say that the iPhone was a better camera than a professional DSLR, it was meant to inspire photographers to use the gear they currently own to create beautiful images. Obviously the iPhone is infinitely worse than any current DSLR for stills but surprisingly it appears to be a far better video camera than my $3000 DSLR when there is enough light present.
You may have seen my 4k comparison video released last week in which I put the Sony AR7II up against the iPhone 6s. Thankfully the $4500 Sony 4k system out performed the iPhone but the footage from the phone was still incredible. Someone suggested that I compare the iPhone's video footage to our go-to cameras (Nikon D810s and D750s). I used a Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 lens and locked it at around 35mm. I did some color/contrast tests and found that the footage out of both cameras looked about the same if I set the Nikon to "neutral." I then walked around a park near our office and grabbed a few shots. It was impossible to tell which footage looked best in the field but once we got back to the office the comparison was pretty shocking. The iPhone's 4k footage downscaled to 1080p was significantly better than the Nikon D750.
"You're an idiot, the iPhone sucks in low light and you can't capture shallow depth of field or easily add lenses."
Thanks for your brilliant observation, stereotypical internet commenter. Obviously image quality in bright light is only one of many details to consider when it comes to comparing video cameras but it's still pretty freakin' important.
I'm not mad that the iPhone can take amazing video, I'm totally impressed with it. I'm just mad that consumer level products are getting features that professionals have been wanting for quite some time. Sony has been taking over the market by adding the features that photographers and videographers really want while Canon has been putting 4k footage in their ultra expensive line of cameras and Nikon is leaving it out altogether.
Usually new features cost a premium at a professional level and overtime the technology trickles down to the affordable consumer level. Why is it that 4k and Raw video seems to be showing up in the ultra expensive and ultra cheap markets while completely skipping the mid level products? I just want my camera to shoot footage that is at least comparable to the world's most common smartphone. Is that too much to ask?
And let me remind you. I don't want 4k video so that I can export video in 4k. There are many other reasons to shoot 4k.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/iphone-6s-t...ikon-dslr-88627
6 Reasons To Shoot 4k Video Even If You Can't View It Yet
Last week I wrote a post about how Nikon really needs to jump on the 4k bandwagon. I got a few comments that basically said; "Why do you care about 4k? nobody even owns a 4k TV at this point." They were right, 4k TVs aren't very popular, but I have no interest in producing 4k videos right now. I want to shoot 4k footage to enhance my 1080p videos.
Sharper 1080P footage
You may think that HD footage is a universal standard and anything shot in "HD" will look ultra sharp but that isn't true. "High Definition" footage can mean 720i/p or 1080i/p footage. Most HD cameras today will shoot in 1080p (the highest level of HD footage) but there is no regulation at all on a camera's bit-rate.
To save money on processors and memory buffers, cheaper cameras typically output HD footage at a relatively low bit-rate (megabits per second). This causes your footage to look soft, pixelated, and muddy.
In the example below I've taken a Jpeg image using the Nikon D750 and have shrunk it down to 1080p and I've also taken a still from a video clip of the exact same scene. I've then cropped in so that you can see the pixels at 100%. The D750's video footage is actually quite good compared to other DSLRs but the image below shows you just how far 1080p video footage still has to improve.
4k footage, named because it has 4000 pixels horizontally (4096x2160), is approximately the size of 4 standard 1080p (1920x1080p) video files. Shrinking down 4k footage to be 1080p is a night and day difference in detail and quality. Down-sampling can also help cut down on noise and grain making the footage appear to be cleaner as well.
In theory it is possible for a high end 1080p camera to film higher quality footage than a cheap 4k camera, but in my experience most 4k cameras are significantly sharper than 1080p cameras.
Shooting 4k video footage to get a sharper 1080p final export is the ultimate reason to shoot 4k but I've got 5 other uses for 4k that make it even more useful.
Stabilizing Footage in Post
While Hollywood has a team of people and an unlimited budget to produce flawless camera moves, I don't have that luxury and sometimes I'm forced to shoot hand-held. Even if I am standing perfectly still with a optically stabilized lens on my camera, you're going to be able to see camera shake. If I have to start walking, the footage becomes unusable.
Video effects like Premiere's "Warp Stabilizer" can save shaky footage, but it requires that the footage be "zoomed in" to work. If your 1080p footage is already soft, cropping in another 20% will make it unusable.
Shooting in 4k will give you enough pixels to play with so that effects like video stabilization will have no discernible effect on your finished video.
Cropping Footage In Post
You've heard photographers say for the last 10 years: "I like having more megapixels because it gives me more cropping options." Now that same luxury is available for film makers. When we were filming our landscape photography tutorial we used a Dji Phantom 2 with a Gorpo 4 Silver at 2.7k (2.7k is larger than 1080p but smaller than 4k).
Since I didn't have a vision downlink system I had to fly the drone and guess what I was filming. Back in post I was able to crop the footage to be the best composition without losing any quality in the final 1080p export.
Chances are, you've never considered cropping your video footage because it wasn't an option. Once you've experienced the flexibility of recomposing a shot after you've shot it, you'll never want to go back.
Perfect Pans and Zooms
Have you ever tried to film a perfectly smooth pan with a video camera? It's almost impossible. Have you ever tried to film a perfectly smooth zoom with a manual lens? It's literally impossible.
If you shoot 4k, small pans and zooms have never been easier. Simply zoom out, grab a few seconds of your scene and then add a pan or a zoom once you get back to the computer.
Adding these movements to your video in post will actually look better than anything you can do in the field and because 4k gives you so many extra pixels to work with, your finished product will look flawless.
Shooting A and B Roll Shots At The Same Time
If you've ever filmed an interview with someone you know that you will need to run a minimum of 2 cameras. A 5 minute video might have around 20-100 cuts in it and to mask each of them, you will need to jump from camera to camera to avoid the dreaded "jump cut." Shooting 4k and exporting in 1080p gives you a lot of room to play and basically can give you 2 or even 3 different looking shots (wide, medium, and tight).
For many of our videos we end up setting 2 cameras in almost an identical position, one shooting wide and the other shooting tight. One 4k camera could easily replace this 2 camera setup.
4k Footage Is Good Enough To Pull Still Frames
Most 1080p video footage looks so low res that still frames really aren't even good enough for web use. If it's not good enough for a website, you certainly wouldn't consider printing a still frame from a standard HD video camera but 4k is changing that.
Not only is most 4k footage good enough to replace standard still images on the web, but many shooters are starting to realize that 4k still frames are actually good enough to print. To put this into perspective, a 1080 video contains 2 million pixels where a single frame of 4k video contains 8.8 million pixels.
Check out our video where we compare a Hasselblad file to a still frame pulled from a very outdated Red Epic. Back in 2012 when we filmed this we were all really impressed with the Epic but today the Red Dragon puts the Epic to shame.
Conclusion
4k is far from being a common household format. Even though it is easy to go out and buy a 4k TV, you will have a very hard time finding footage to play on it. Luckily 1080p footage has so much room to improve. You shouldn't run out and buy a 4k video camera because you want to see your footage in 4k but, you should consider filming in 4k simply to enhance your standard, HD footage. Unlike 3D, it's pretty obvious that 4k is the future and even if it never becomes universally adopted it will help improve your videos today no matter what format you are working in.
https://fstoppers.com/originals/6-reasons-s...ew-it-yet-77535
[attachment=190907:profic1.jpg]
[attachment=190908:profic2.jpg]
Lo dicevo io che il ragù di mia suocera è imbattibile
QUOTE(tonight @ Oct 7 2015, 10:55 PM)
Quà invece leggermente elaborata:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4754589...15-_DSC0386.jpg
Nemmeno io vedo dominanti impostando il WB in luce diurna con Lightroom. Ma anche in automatico andava già bene. Non saprei che dirti, a questo punto, escludendo la macchina rimane solo il monitor o qualche impostazione sbagliata dei colori con Camera Raw.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4754589...15-_DSC0386.jpg
Nemmeno io vedo dominanti impostando il WB in luce diurna con Lightroom. Ma anche in automatico andava già bene. Non saprei che dirti, a questo punto, escludendo la macchina rimane solo il monitor o qualche impostazione sbagliata dei colori con Camera Raw.
Ok, allora partendo dal fatto che non ho mai usato i preset del wb ma vado sembre a mano, non e' che i preset cambino anche qualcosa sui colori oltre al wb? Le vostre foto poi le vedo bene con il mio monitor (giusto un po desaturate) ma senza dominanti quindi non e' il monitor. Con la d200 per 10 anni mai avuti problemi con i vari pc e programmi usati per questo la prima cosa che mi viene da dire e' la camera ma se a voi photoshop cc e lr li elaborano cosi non so proprio che pensare, io il lr salvo in profilo adobe rgb o con il profilo del monitor ma il discorso dominante non cambia, cambiano i colori. E come vi dicevo anche con capture nx-d stessa storia....non so che fare....ma almeno mi fa piaecre (e anche un po di rabbia
) vedere che a voi i colori sono ok....
QUOTE(jbiso @ Oct 8 2015, 04:39 PM)
Ok, allora partendo dal fatto che non ho mai usato i preset del wb ma vado sembre a mano, non e' che i preset cambino anche qualcosa sui colori oltre al wb? Le vostre foto poi le vedo bene con il mio monitor (giusto un po desaturate) ma senza dominanti quindi non e' il monitor. Con la d200 per 10 anni mai avuti problemi con i vari pc e programmi usati per questo la prima cosa che mi viene da dire e' la camera ma se a voi photoshop cc e lr li elaborano cosi non so proprio che pensare, io il lr salvo in profilo adobe rgb o con il profilo del monitor ma il discorso dominante non cambia, cambiano i colori. E come vi dicevo anche con capture nx-d stessa storia....non so che fare....ma almeno mi fa piaecre (e anche un po di rabbia ) vedere che a voi i colori sono ok....
) vedere che a voi i colori sono ok....Hai provsto con un'altro PC collegato allo stesso monitor?
QUOTE(tonight @ Oct 9 2015, 01:28 AM)
Hai provsto con un'altro PC collegato allo stesso monitor?
Grazie per l'interessamento......
Non ho provato su altri pc perche non ne ho modo per il momento, pero' ho fatto delle prove.
Se impostoil wb in preset luce diurna, mi da 5500 k e sparisce ogni dominante, se pero' imposto io manualmente la stessa temperatura senza il preset, riappare la dominante, perche' in Lighroom sotto la barra del wb c'e' anche quella della tinta che, con il wb preset in luce diurna scende a +10 mentre in wb "come scattato" e poi portato a 5500k a mano, resta a +28 che mi sembra assurdo. Pero sta cavolo di tinta mi sta sempre alta come valori quando importo i nef della 750 mentre con quella della d200 usa valori piu bassi (facendo una media) con foto all'aperto con cielo mai arriva a 28....
Non capisco pero' perche la stessa cosa me la fa anche capture nxd.....non con la tinta ma con i colori in generale. Prevedo maggior tempo da perdere dietro ogni importazione di nef.....
Messaggio modificato da jbiso il Oct 10 2015, 04:40 PM
Ciao a tutti. Volevo chiedere a chi fa macro come si trova con questa fotocamera, sono in procinto di acquistarla e affiancarla al sigma 150mm.
Grazie
Grazie
QUOTE(steinge @ Oct 10 2015, 10:11 PM)
Ciao a tutti. Volevo chiedere a chi fa macro come si trova con questa fotocamera, sono in procinto di acquistarla e affiancarla al sigma 150mm.
Grazie
Grazie
Ciao steinge, io ho l'accoppiata 750-150, non sono certo un missile nelle macro e nemmeno nella fotografia, ma nel mio piccolo quest'accoppiata mi soddisfa parecchio, nella mia gallery dovrebbero esserci degli scatti fatti con il 150.
Oggi sono uscito con il cane a farlo sgambare un pò e mi sono portato dietro anche il corredo.
E qui nell'uso ritratto, la modella è quella che è, ma la bontà della lente è indiscussa
QUOTE(jack-sparrow @ Oct 11 2015, 11:38 PM)
Ciao steinge, io ho l'accoppiata 750-150, non sono certo un missile nelle macro e nemmeno nella fotografia, ma nel mio piccolo quest'accoppiata mi soddisfa parecchio, nella mia gallery dovrebbero esserci degli scatti fatti con il 150.
Oggi sono uscito con il cane a farlo sgambare un pò e mi sono portato dietro anche il corredo.
........
E qui nell'uso ritratto, la modella è quella che è, ma la bontà della lente è indiscussa
.....
Oggi sono uscito con il cane a farlo sgambare un pò e mi sono portato dietro anche il corredo.
........
E qui nell'uso ritratto, la modella è quella che è, ma la bontà della lente è indiscussa
.....
Grazie mille! A breve dovrebbe arrivarmi, sono molto curioso di capire fino a dove ci si può spingere.
Le macro sono praticamente la parte preponderante della mia attività da fotoamatore, per questo ho fatto questa domanda,
Vado a vedermi la gallery. grazie
QUOTE(steinge @ Oct 12 2015, 10:36 PM)
Grazie mille! A breve dovrebbe arrivarmi, sono molto curioso di capire fino a dove ci si può spingere.
Le macro sono praticamente la parte preponderante della mia attività da fotoamatore, per questo ho fatto questa domanda,
Vado a vedermi la gallery. grazie
Le macro sono praticamente la parte preponderante della mia attività da fotoamatore, per questo ho fatto questa domanda,
Vado a vedermi la gallery. grazie
Te ne mostro altre, oggi caccia alle chiocciole sui colli euganei
e la formica sul bamboo
E giusto per farti capire cosa è in grado di fare quest'ottica...non solo macro
Ti presento Ray, un Australian shepherd
Ti presento Ray, un Australian shepherd
QUOTE(steinge @ Oct 12 2015, 10:36 PM)
Grazie mille! A breve dovrebbe arrivarmi, sono molto curioso di capire fino a dove ci si può spingere.
Le macro sono praticamente la parte preponderante della mia attività da fotoamatore, per questo ho fatto questa domanda,
Vado a vedermi la gallery. grazie
Le macro sono praticamente la parte preponderante della mia attività da fotoamatore, per questo ho fatto questa domanda,
Vado a vedermi la gallery. grazie
Ciao, Guarda anche la gallery di Alberto, un fotografo di Parma a mio giudizio tra i migliori al mondo oggi per la macro. Tra le altre usa molto la D750
Alessandro
Montmartre - Place du Tertre
_MAT7832 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr
_MAT7835 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr
_MAT7837 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr
Matteo
_MAT7832 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr_MAT7835 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr_MAT7837 by Matteo.Fini, su FlickrMatteo
Pubblico queste foto nella speranza di ricevere dei commenti ed eventuali consigli che mi aiutino a migliorarmi.
QUOTE(archisal @ Oct 13 2015, 06:54 PM)
Complimenti Salvatore, composizione a mio avviso bellissima.
_MAT7889 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr
_MAT7883 by Matteo.Fini, su FlickrMatteo
[quote name='matteo.f' date='Oct 14 2015, 01:27 PM' post='3990125']
Complimenti Salvatore, composizione a mio avviso bellissima.
Grazie Matteo!
Ciao, Salvatore
Complimenti Salvatore, composizione a mio avviso bellissima.
Grazie Matteo!
Ciao, Salvatore
QUOTE(matteo.f @ Oct 14 2015, 01:27 PM)
Complimenti Salvatore, composizione a mio avviso bellissima.
https://flic.kr/p/yPuyVD_MAT7889 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr
https://flic.kr/p/zLnQLx_MAT7883 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr
Matteo
https://flic.kr/p/yPuyVD_MAT7889 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr
https://flic.kr/p/zLnQLx_MAT7883 by Matteo.Fini, su Flickr
Matteo
Matteo, giusto per capire, sbaglio o vedo una forte dominante blu?
Magari potrei sbagliarmi o forse era intenzionale.
Dopo i due richiami (per il flare, e l'altro per l'otturatore), sono molto soddisfatto, ottima macchina...
QUOTE(tonight @ Oct 14 2015, 06:37 PM)
Matteo, giusto per capire, sbaglio o vedo una forte dominante blu?
Magari potrei sbagliarmi o forse era intenzionale.
Magari potrei sbagliarmi o forse era intenzionale.
Non sbagli, l'ho lasciata intenzionalmente! Mi piaceva molto così
Matteo
QUOTE(steinge @ Oct 12 2015, 10:36 PM)
Grazie mille! A breve dovrebbe arrivarmi, sono molto curioso di capire fino a dove ci si può spingere.
Le macro sono praticamente la parte preponderante della mia attività da fotoamatore, per questo ho fatto questa domanda,
Vado a vedermi la gallery. grazie
Le macro sono praticamente la parte preponderante della mia attività da fotoamatore, per questo ho fatto questa domanda,
Vado a vedermi la gallery. grazie
Ciao Steinge, non mi conosci ma io ho ammirato i tuoi scatti con la D90. Se passi alla 750 sono sicuro che continuerai a meravigliarmi con le tue macro. Ah spero che per il lavoro sia tutto ok.
Stefano
rimango sempre della mia idea, già espressa più volte: per questo tipo di foto le focali corte sono ben altra cosa, cosi mi sa di foto rubata, basta inquadrare da lontano (magari selezionando un po' cosa mettere e cosa non mettere nell'inquadratura) e il gioco è fatto, ma il risultato per me paga poco...
