Activity

I like these alternatives to the usual smiling and "engaged" models, these are girls with attitude!

Whilst apparently relying heavily on post processing , my feeling is that skilful lighting is a factor too.

Remember the comment by Ansell Adams in the film days to the effect that for him, the negative was merely a starting point in producing the image he wanted. It's become a bit of a cliche, but still valid.
Presumably Mr. McGillicuddy has adopted a similar view in this instance, rather than going for "accurate renditions",which I have to say I usually prefer.

Quote:At the end of the day what matters most is the photographer, not the camera. Far too much emphasis nowadays especially, is placed on equipment. Time and again technique and originality is what counts, not camera brand or pixels, or even digital.


I agree, but the equipment does have to be fit for the intended purpose... and in the current discussion that might include lighting and props,as well as the camera.

Nice to see such a case again, wonder if it might help with gripping the camera?

The review seems fair enough, but I am intrigued by the emphasis, in many recent reviews on various sites, on "slipping a camera into a pocket".. I'm wondering if we need some definition of a " standard pocket size" to enable comparisons! In general it seems that manufacturers are competing to bring out the tiniest possible cameras,at the cost in some cases, of ease of handling. I noticed Kirk Tuck refused to test the Olympus xz1 because he found it too small and fiddly. Good for him, I say. Admittedly my hands are on the large size which might bias my view.