Subforums
-
-
- 28
- posts
17,110 topics in this forum
-
- 5.7k replies
- 1.4m views
-
- 525 replies
- 174.4k views
-
- 21 replies
- 5.7k views
-
- 1 reply
- 10.7k views
-
- 82 replies
- 8k views
-
- 27 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 22 replies
- 4k views
-
- 67 replies
- 15.3k views
-
- 33 replies
- 931 views
-
- 1 reply
- 119 views
-
- 234 replies
- 86.3k views
-
- 8 replies
- 3.7k views
-
- 8 replies
- 809 views
-
- 41 replies
- 5.4k views
-
- 429 replies
- 123.7k views
-
- 88 replies
- 8.6k views
-
- 723 replies
- 222.5k views
-
- 4 replies
- 377 views
-
- 23 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 343 views
-
- 12 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 11 replies
- 648 views
-
- 22 replies
- 1k views
-
- 61 replies
- 4.8k views
-
- 18 replies
- 753 views
-
- 12 replies
- 8.5k views
-
- 33 replies
- 4.7k views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 28 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 415 replies
- 66.6k views
-
- 18 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 32 replies
- 2.7k views
-
- 80 replies
- 13.1k views
-
- 3 replies
- 655 views
-
- 63 replies
- 19.1k views
-
- 6 replies
- 891 views
-
- 16 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 7 replies
- 4.9k views
-
- 17 replies
- 2.5k views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.1k
-
Total Posts348.3k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
I own and use both. The Oly 12-100mm F4 is a great lens, but it's much bigger and heavier than the Pana 14-140mm (560g versus 265g) - both on an OM-1: On an E-M1 ii/iii or OM-1 the 12-100mm supports Sync-IS which gives sublime video IS performance, but even with the relatively light (for that kind of camera) OM-1, the combo is 1.2 kg and somewhat front-heavy if you're using it handheld. A GH7 + 12-100mm would be nearly 1.4 kg. As a 'travel' lens, IMHO the combination of low weight and focal length range makes the 14-140mm almost perfect (other than in really low light, of course). -
But, imo, you/me/we are only capable of looking at this from our particular idea of art and what it means for art to have a soul. The next couple generations of kids will have different reference points for that same idea/measurement. This is why the big corps pushing AI don't care how we feel about it - bcuz they're looking at the long game. So they understand that we are not their target audience (bcuz we'll be dead, lol). Their target audiences are the generations coming up who will be born into a world where AI, etc is just the norm. So you're absolutely right that there will still be people who value art that has a soul - but again, what will prob be different is the criteria they use to decide what art with a soul looks/feels like. It will be different - but just as essential to their existence as it has always been throughout human history. There is no technological advancement that will ever result in humans losing their desire to make/consume art with soul. What can and is happening is that we are losing our ability to monetize/exploit/make a living off art with soul on a large commercial scale. But that really only matters bcuz we currently live/work/exist within a capitalist system that is exploitative by design. -
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
Today I stepped out to poke around a local park to look for a spot for the feature I'll be shooting soon. I took the chance to finally take out the Canon 35/1.4 and the Fujinon 500/5.6 to test them on the GFX, the latter especially because I'll be going to Namibia in a few months and will want/need something for wildlife in the distance, especially when driving around Etosha. The 35/1.4 on the GFX is totally fine, no complaints. The 500/5.6 is... astounding. I would usually say that sharpness isn't the most important thing for a lens, but with this sort of telephoto, I guess it kind of is - I'm going to care less about lens character when trying to photograph a giraffe in the distance eating the leaves from the top of a tree (I really hope I get to see a giraffe!!!) and I'm probably going to care a lot more about being able to crop in and discern the giraffe. I have a number of other fairly competent telephotos, but this one is just on another level. Here is a still photo of another park across the river with the 35/1.4. I saw a person by the storm drain and thought maybe I'd caught an urban explorer in the act... However, with the 500/5.6, I realized I couldn't have been more wrong. GF in 8k mode here and on a 4k scope timeline since that's what my scratch project is set to... And at 4x zoom in Resolve (for 1:1 from 8K): And his friend nearby, 8k and 1:1 punch in from 8K... The still photos had even a little more detail still - even though the light is imperfect, I can make out individual hairs of the hairs of the beard of the guy fishing by the drain. I also need to do a couple of tests with the Fuji 1.4x TC to push the lens out to around 700mm - it's a great TC and I barely notice any loss of detail with the 250/4 so I'm assuming that'll be true with the 500/5.6 as well. If so, I'll have some confidence that I can do alright with the wildlife of Etosha! -
By Clark Nikolai · Posted
I dunno. I think people have a good sense of when some art just doesn't have any soul. Many won't care but a lot will, enough to cause a reaction and a different direction. Look at other art movements in history, most of them were a reaction to a status quo establishment that was no longer interesting. -
You're absolutely right, but the creator of the future will likely be wired differently than us. Specifically when it comes to how we perceive/capture/synthesize/translate the real world into different visual/audio mediums for the purpose of telling/expressing a story/POV. So it is understandably hard for us to fathom how AI will change things. But that could be the "difference" you're sensing. But that doesn't mean the core thing(s) that drive humans to create will change. But I could also be completely wrong too, so there's that, lol.
-
