Tasty bits of photo art and writing from my creative kitchen
vielleicht, weil das Leben vor dieser strengen, toten Architektur blüht; weil die Aussicht, obwohl nicht weit reichend, doch Weite suggeriert, ins Lichtblaue geht, auch wenn oben leichter Schatten hängt.You are a fatherless child now. Hugging youMoni
Thanks, Moni. Ich glaubt du hast es genau erkannt.
I find a beauty in that fierce, straight, perfection though too - is that okay? And almost a lack of depth that makes it hard to tell which is column and which is behind it. But I'm only an amateur!
from analytical viewpoint you have almost perfect vertical thirds, jim + fantastic foreground adding tension, conflict and life to the geometric background.(i am new to photography, actually, and laughing my head off right now. i hope you find my comment not too pretentious, just passionate.)oh, well...great picture!
Christine, I think you are on to something there. The light fading in and out on the vertical lines creates something similar to that famous optical illusion where fore- and background come into our field of perception.The composition - divided into thirds - also seems appealing!
jim, i am not christine, whoever she is, god bless her name. i'm a guy. i stumbled upon your wonderful site while doing some research on the sony alpha a77 and the 16-50 2.8 lens. can i ask you some advice? if you had 2000 bucks to spend on a camera, would you still buy the a77, or you might consider something else? thanks.
HI "auslander" - I was referring to Christine (of Twintensity fame) and her comment directly above yours.To your question: What camera system are you using now? Have you considered the Nikon D7000 or the Canon 7D? The Sony A77 is certainly a very good camera, if not everything I had hoped for (I don't need 24MP - 18 would have been plenty; and a larger pixel pitch, thus less noise at 6400 ISO, would have been desirable). I enjoy using it very much. I've tried the 16-50 and think I would have bought it, too, had I not already had the Tamron 17-50. One advantage of using the Sony cameras is that you can also use the older Minolta lenses, which are cheap in comparison to other system's glass.To answer your question directly, I've invested so much time and money in the Sony system in the last four years that there is no turning back for me now.
thanks for your reply, jim, i appreciate it greatly. the camera i have now is a sony slt a55, accompanied by a tamron 10-24 . the original 18-55 kit lens is not worth the mention. it's possibly the worst sony lens ever made. so i don't have an awful lot of money invested in equipment and emotional attachment to any particular brand. i am just looking for what's best for the money. that said, i really do enjoy the a55. it has the same 16mp. sensor as the nikon d7000. the 7000 is a better camera, of course, much superior, but would not really be a great, vast, shocking improvement over the a55, if i were to buy it.it is a class higher than the a55, for sure, great camera, yes, great iso performer, but it's getting a bit old, and i don't really like it's hand grip. the canon d7 fits my hand like a glove and so does the a77. for 2000 dollars i want to buy the best aps-c sensor camera there is, or i might just as well start saving for a full sensor camera. (i often dream of that fantastic 14-24 nikon lens, but i also want a new korg ( a keyboard) , and so it goes, what can i tell you ... :)okay, what i like about a77 are it's excellent ergonomics and fantastic viewfinder. this in my opinion is the best crop sensor viewfinder there is, including optical viewfinders. they are almost twice as small. the a77's viewfinder is as big as the canon's 1ds mark3 and does not strain my eye. now, in your opinion, is the tamron 17-50 f2.8 non vc optically better than the sony 16-50 f2.8, which i know is mucho better mechanically? thank you and sorry about the off-topic which went quite beyond the original theme. don't think twice and delete it if you think this is not the right place for an off-topic discussion. i don't mean to intrude or to occupy your time and space. it would be quite alright.my brave little a55 with the tamron 10-24http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7199/6822417516_02c3bc070f_b.jpghttp://farm8.staticflickr.com/7039/6822440522_acee657880_b.jpghttp://farm8.staticflickr.com/7165/6706148533_11ebca4edc_b.jpg
I think the A55 is a good camera. We all want to upgrade, don't we? For me, it's about making the most of what I've got; getting to know it inside out (changing cameras every year works contrary to this); and pushing the limits of the camera. If I then see that I'm not able to capture my visions, then I think about what I need to do so. Your pictures are quite good. I can't judge the Tamron vs the Sony because I've had too little time with the Sony 16-50. From what I've read the Sony isn't so much better as to warrant double the price.