Not a sunset!

[MitchP]

Not quite, anyway.

 

[ivanz]

Nice image. Looks like a good place for kids to play in the mud. Childhood memory's and my mothers nightmares.

 

[jeffashman9]

Nice shot! Looks like a nice place to walk. When are we going to see some houseboats from Saucelito?

 

[MitchP]

Thanks! LOTS of mud!

I'm experimenting with an old Lumix GF3 w/12-32mm lens. Neither handle direct Sun very well, so I think I'm still going to stick with my bulky Canon T7i for landscapes.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

There are adapters for most older lenses to Micro 4/3. Full frame lenses become great telephotos. I have a GF3, but oddly, I do not recall trying adapted lenses on it. I got into adapting lenses on my Yi M1 and Sony a5000. At that point, the GF3 became mainly a paperweight. I just started using it again this week.

 

[MitchP]

There are adapters for most older lenses to Micro 4/3. Full frame lenses become great telephotos. I have a GF3, but oddly, I do not recall trying adapted lenses on it. I got into adapting lenses on my Yi M1 and Sony a5000. At that point, the GF3 became mainly a paperweight. I just started using it again this week.

I invested in MFT for a little while, but ended up selling all the gear and going full frame. I kept the GF3 and the 12-32mm lens to keep in the glove box of my car. I tend to use my phone more for spontaneous shots, but the GF3 is there just in case. It definitely has better image quality than my phone.

I've adapted most of my Canon glass and "vintage" MF lenses to my Sony a6500.

 

[VidThreeNorth]

Actually, I have moved away from still photography and for 4K video I use a Lumix G85, a Sony a6400 and a Sony AX-53 (camcorder). My Xperia 10 iii also does very low quality 4K video, but I doubt that I would use it that way unless someone specifically wanted something done that way. I still use my GF3 as a knock-about camera, but it has been pushed low on my choice list.

I wondered why the GF3 did not make better pictures. I was especially disappointed with the results from raw files. I had heard that the GF5 made better pictures despite having essentially the same resolution. Eventually, I simply moved upward through various bodies. But I occasionally wondered why the GF3 was so disappointing.

Eventually it dawned on my what was probably happening. I believe that the GF3 is probably applying "chroma sub-sampling" and specifically YUV 4:2:0, just like most common video frames. I never did a formal analysis, but that is what the files look like. It must be happening very early in the imaging system. it might be right in the sensor's controller, so that there is no way to get around it. It should be possible to a check this by analyzing images pixel by pixel (seeing if groups of pixels have the same colour shading but differ in illumination), but at this point I am not that interested in doing the work. If I am right about this, then the GF5 might just be applying YUV 4:2:2 (which would be sort of "one step better") or it might be eliminating the chroma sub-sampling completely, which would be what most stills cameras would be doing. Also, if I am right about this, then pictures in "monochrome" should look as good as done on better cameras (at the same resolution, within 8-bit limits. But that does not really help me because after years of doing monochrome photography (real paper and chemicals), I just do not want to do monochrome anymore.