[genotypewriter]

[quote name='Alexander ' timestamp='1289731421' post='4159']

Reviewed by Nick Devlin.

[/quote]

Ugh... another lengthy LL knock-knock joke. I really have no sympathy towards people who think they can just make claims like in the pre-internet film days without properly conducted tests or showing of evidence. I lost the little respect I had when they last published their bogus ISO claims... now I see LL as being equal to KR.



Taste of subject matter aside, don't we just love to see shots of this type at ISO800?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/contributors/memorial_wall-0604.jpg







And why shoot a static subject like this at 1/320 and ISO 800 with a 37-70mm equivalent lens?

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/contributors/645_Article_1_-_Veggies_-0160.jpg





I understand that it's necessary to keep the shutter speeds a bit above what's typically necessary if viewing 100% crops (which they didn't show for the above shot) but 2 stops above what's necessary is just bad technique. Especially when considering this comment:



"I could detect no mirror-induced softness in images shot in the 1/15th danger zone."



Anyway, that's a lie (well plain stupidity, most probably). This is the sort of thing I was referring to by my pre-internet film-day comment earlier on.





"For myself, I have come to see using MF digital in the field as akin to the commitment involved in using 4x5 film cameras. Yes folks, it's that hard to make it work well. "



For a guy who shoots P&Ss mostly maybe. Good technique doesn't change whether it's APS-C, FF or DMF. You still need to do the basics: choose the best aperture for the scene, correct focus, stable tripod, dampen the wind, MLU/LV and after around 10 secs timed/remote release. To say it's difficult as using 4x5 is just moronic and shows his lack of good technique when shooting general things... wonder if he kept a loupe to the LCD and altered the exposure based on the distance scale on the 645D lol





And get this...



"The following aesthetic abomination is thus presented for your pixel-peeping pleasure..."

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/articleImages/contributors/Brick_wall_overall.jpg





Great... in addition to shooting something completely uninteresting, get the technique wrong in the process to make the shot completely worthless. He must live in a different universe where field curvatures and focus shifts don't exist.



And see this:



"I have now had a significant number of shots of static landscape subjects, focussed at 200-600' from the camera, optimally exposed on a stable tripod, at a prime working aperture, in which absolutely nothing is sharp - i.e. in focus."



Any person who uses the terms sharpness and focus interchangeably doesn't know what they're doing. It's the sort of thing you often hear at dpreview... e.g. HelP my cAmErA is sOfT. I mean, what kind of a person can't put a camera on a stable tripod, stop it down and still get "nothing in focus"? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> Sigh...



I wish they started having some respect for their readers...



GTW