Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 06 Oct 2018 (Saturday) 10:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

“The full frame look”

 
this thread is locked
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 2 months ago by BellPhoto.
     
Dec 18, 2018 19:08 |  #121

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18773649 (external link)
What bugs me is the chip many have on their shoulders about whatever gear they have and for some reason feeling inferior. They can't embrace the difference and exploit those differences but instead spend way to much time trying to prove how alike they are instead of going out doing what is important. Making photographs. The most important part of it all is finding equipment that best works for each individual. Full frame and crop are different. What makes one better than the other is personal. What works best for each individual is all that matters. I've already explained what I think the FF look is. One thing that FF is better at is wide and super wide lenses. If you shot in that world then the choice should be FF. Maybe you don't so the difference is not that relevant. These camera's are all tools. Clearly the tool Tom needs is not the tool I need. Doesn't make my tool better or inferior to his tool, just different. And my tool is clearly better for me as his is for him. So instead of trying to make everything the same, figure out what best captures your vision. All of these cameras are fully capable of capturing ones vision the real key is one has to see.

Agreed. My whole point was that there is no such thing as a "full frame look" IMO. Most people incorrectly think of that as background blur, bokeh etc...which can all be done easily on smaller sensor cameras as well. Ive shot many portraits with MFT and APS-C sensor cameras over the years and have never found them incapable of producing the same look I can get on a FF sensor camera. In fact, most of my published work for magazines and in-store displays have been shot on APS-C cameras. Anyhow, just for fun, that first image I posted was the 6D with the Canon 135 f/2 and the 2nd was the Panasonic GX8 with the Olympus f/1.8

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18773488




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
airfrogusmc
I'm a chimper. There I said it...
35,895 posts
Gallery: 141 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 4765
Joined May 2007
Location: Oak Park, Illinois
     
Dec 18, 2018 19:14 |  #122

The two are different period. They are just different tools and that is a good thing. Choice is a good thing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
35,357 posts
Gallery: 98 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4886
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited 2 months ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Dec 18, 2018 19:38 |  #123

This feels like a previous member that made a new account, This all sounds very familiar to a previous discourse here on POTN. I wonder if the mods should check the logs, etc to see if this is a 2nd account or not.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,996 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 895
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Dec 18, 2018 19:39 |  #124

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773682 (external link)
Agreed. My whole point was that there is no such thing as a "full frame look" IMO. Most people incorrectly think of that as background blur, bokeh etc...which can all be done easily on smaller sensor cameras as well. Ive shot many portraits with MFT and APS-C sensor cameras over the years and have never found them incapable of producing the same look I can get on a FF sensor camera. In fact, most of my published work for magazines and in-store displays have been shot on APS-C cameras. Anyhow, just for fun, that first image I posted was the 6D with the Canon 135 f/2 and the 2nd was the Panasonic GX8 with the Olympus f/1.8

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18773488


Attractive woman look great regardless of camera format :)

The FF advantage for me is using f/2.8 zooms allow very good pop factor shooting events. Another is the potentially cleaner images at high iso.

This is where my m43 failed and was eliminated from my gear bag. I'm enjoying the IQ from my Fuji aps-c gear but it's still a love/hate relationship.

I've really had struggles with Sony FF but now I'm quite pleased with the files and I still thoroughly enjoy my Canon gear as usual.

If you're using prime lens on a regular basis you may not miss the shallow dof achieved by larger sensors. I will say the I have a much stronger preference using my FF 70-200 f/2.8 glass over my aps-c Fuji 50-140mm.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,279 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited 2 months ago by bobbyz.
     
Dec 18, 2018 20:10 |  #125

You can fake the DoF. Software is getting really good. Give it couple of yrs and nobody will be able to tell. Wish camera mfg would put some of the tech that phone folks are coming up with.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Dec 18, 2018 20:57 as a reply to  @ bobbyz's post |  #126

With Photoshop, it's been pretty easy to faux shallow DOF for quite some time (much easier to fake shallow DOF vs trying to recover OOF). At least from what I've seen of smartphones' algorithms for faux DOF, it seems pretty natural. But then I'm surprised by the number of folks enamored with cartoon overlays from Snapchat:-)


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 2 months ago by BellPhoto.
     
Dec 18, 2018 22:08 |  #127

AlanU wrote in post #18773702 (external link)
Attractive woman look great regardless of camera format :)

The FF advantage for me is using f/2.8 zooms allow very good pop factor shooting events. Another is the potentially cleaner images at high iso.

This is where my m43 failed and was eliminated from my gear bag. I'm enjoying the IQ from my Fuji aps-c gear but it's still a love/hate relationship.

I've really had struggles with Sony FF but now I'm quite pleased with the files and I still thoroughly enjoy my Canon gear as usual.

If you're using prime lens on a regular basis you may not miss the shallow dof achieved by larger sensors. I will say the I have a much stronger preference using my FF 70-200 f/2.8 glass over my aps-c Fuji 50-140mm.

Thanks and yes, I shoot nothing but primes and f/1.8 or faster and Ive never missed DOF from a larger sensor when using a smaller one. Sometimes I preferred the look of the MFT for headshots over any other camera I had because the Olympus 75 f/1.8 is excellent and one of my favorite lenses on any system.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,243 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 481
Joined Aug 2009
     
Dec 18, 2018 22:18 |  #128

AlanU wrote in post #18773702 (external link)
Attractive woman look great regardless of camera format :)

The FF advantage for me is using f/2.8 zooms allow very good pop factor shooting events. Another is the potentially cleaner images at high iso.

This is where my m43 failed and was eliminated from my gear bag. I'm enjoying the IQ from my Fuji aps-c gear but it's still a love/hate relationship.

I've really had struggles with Sony FF but now I'm quite pleased with the files and I still thoroughly enjoy my Canon gear as usual.

If you're using prime lens on a regular basis you may not miss the shallow dof achieved by larger sensors. I will say the I have a much stronger preference using my FF 70-200 f/2.8 glass over my aps-c Fuji 50-140mm.

I'm in a similar boat. My shooting is usually more "run and gun" than not. I only carry one body and don't want to spend all day changing lenses and missing shots. I prefer a shallower DOF. That's why I use 2.8 zooms on my 5D3. I've never used a Fuji 50-140 but my Canon 70-200 is my favorite lens. That alone is probably enough to keep me in the Canon camp. I'm always window shopping at other systems like u4/3 but can't really warm up to what are effectively f/5.6 zooms even if they're small. If Olysonic made a 35-100 f/1.4 or even f/2 it would even things out, but who wants an 8lb brick on the front of their tiny camera?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BellPhoto
Member
39 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2018
Post edited 2 months ago by BellPhoto. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 18, 2018 23:38 |  #129

mike_d wrote in post #18773789 (external link)
I'm in a similar boat. My shooting is usually more "run and gun" than not. I only carry one body and don't want to spend all day changing lenses and missing shots. I prefer a shallower DOF. That's why I use 2.8 zooms on my 5D3. I've never used a Fuji 50-140 but my Canon 70-200 is my favorite lens. That alone is probably enough to keep me in the Canon camp. I'm always window shopping at other systems like u4/3 but can't really warm up to what are effectively f/5.6 zooms even if they're small. If Olysonic made a 35-100 f/1.4 or even f/2 it would even things out, but who wants an 8lb brick on the front of their tiny camera?

The Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 Pro is a fantastic lens, its $500 cheaper, smaller and its half the weight of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii. Have you ever shot with one? Yes, its not the same f/2.8 of a FF system but how many people are going to look at your photo and go "hey! that's not really f/2.8 because its a MFT shot and we all know its really more like f/5.6!"? Pretty much no one ever. This is the game too many photographers play. They pay premiums prices and lug around 50 pounds of gear so they can justify in their minds that they have superior gear because of the numbers on the lens or having the biggest sensor when 99.9% of the people looking at their photos would never know the difference, or care. Don't overthink things so much...

https://www.flickr.com …oly_40-150mm_28_pro/pool/ (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_d
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,243 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 481
Joined Aug 2009
     
Dec 19, 2018 00:11 |  #130

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773821 (external link)
The Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 Pro is a fantastic lens, its $500 cheaper, smaller and its half the weight of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii. Have you ever shot with one? Yes, its not the same f/2.8 of a FF system but how many people are going to look at your photo and go "hey! that's not really f/2.8 because its a MFT shot and we all know its really more like f/5.6!"? Pretty much no one ever. This is the game too many photographers play. They pay premiums prices and lug around 50 pounds of gear so they can justify in their minds that they have superior gear because of the numbers on the lens or having the biggest sensor when 99.9% of the people looking at their photos would never know the difference, or care. Don't overthink things so much...

https://www.flickr.com …oly_40-150mm_28_pro/pool/ (external link)

Well I know the difference when I'm shooting. Too much DOF and it starts to look like a shot from a P&S or phone. I like shallow-ish DOF. I've watched/read reviews of u4/3 lenses where the author gave up on zooms because they couldn't get the DOF they wanted from them so I'm not making this up.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,801 posts
Gallery: 142 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 3294
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Dec 19, 2018 01:01 |  #131

.
I am often shooting at very long focal lengths, so I don't have to try to achieve shallow depth of field for most of my work. . The long focal lengths yield very shallow depth of field.

Often times, my challenge is the opposite - I am trying to get more depth of field .... I really hate the look of a deer photo where the deer's eye is tack sharp, but the antler tines are a bit soft .... that is ugly and undesirable to me. . This was one advantage that my 50D provided; being a 1.6 crop factor body, I got about 1 1/3 stops more DOF than I did with my full frame 5D, for images framed the same way. . This really helped with getting enough DOF in frame-filling portraits at focal lengths of 600mm and 800mm.


.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aezoss
Senior Member
433 posts
Gallery: 67 photos
Likes: 850
Joined Nov 2013
     
Dec 19, 2018 01:02 |  #132

BellPhoto wrote in post #18773821 (external link)
The Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 Pro is a fantastic lens, its $500 cheaper, smaller and its half the weight of the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS ii. Have you ever shot with one? Yes, its not the same f/2.8 of a FF system but how many people are going to look at your photo and go "hey! that's not really f/2.8 because its a MFT shot and we all know its really more like f/5.6!"? Pretty much no one ever. This is the game too many photographers play. They pay premiums prices and lug around 50 pounds of gear so they can justify in their minds that they have superior gear because of the numbers on the lens or having the biggest sensor when 99.9% of the people looking at their photos would never know the difference, or care. Don't overthink things so much...

https://www.flickr.com …oly_40-150mm_28_pro/pool/ (external link)

Pretty much every Holloway fan ever. If it's not FF and 85 1.2 @ 1.2 or 200 2 @ 2 it's a crime against humanity. Those folks can detect 5.6 a mile away. I strongly suspect they can sniff out an APS-C sensor blindfolded.

Actually that whole portrait paradigm is dependent on full frame, fast primes and PS out the wazoo. Nice stuff but holy bokeh fatigue.

I've changed things up a bit. Canon plus zooms for events, sports, stuff that flies, floats, has fur or an engine. Fuji plus primes for every day, family PJ and fashion accessory.

5D3 + 24-70 2.8 & 70-200 2.8
7D2 + 100-400 & 100 2.8 macro
XT3 + 23 1.4 & 56 1.2

XT3 is my main squeeze. It's liberating to have something compact yet powerful. It's comfortable to hang around my neck with the stock strap. I've matured to the point where I relish looking like an incompetent tourist. No oversized camera bag. No lens hoods. Superfluous UV filters just to be cheeky. Shoot jpg 98% of the time. Use the LCD at arms length. Get sneered at by "photographers". It's hilarious. If the shot isn't useable out of camera it's deleted. The 56 1.2 is a bokeh machine. Love it.

I have no idea if sensors have a look. I can tell you unequviocably camera systems (body/lens/software) have a look. The XT3 renders its own reality. It's not transparent and doesn't pretend to be. The 5D3 esp w/ 24-70 generates a more accurate interpretation of reality. It's clean, almost sterile in comparison.

I think I've found my holy grail. Complementary systems that cover everything I could possibly take photos of.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
6,996 posts
Gallery: 69 photos
Likes: 895
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Dec 19, 2018 01:54 |  #133

aezoss wrote in post #18773845 (external link)
Pretty much every Holloway fan ever. If it's not FF and 85 1.2 @ 1.2 or 200 2 @ 2 it's a crime against humanity. Those folks can detect 5.6 a mile away. I strongly suspect they can sniff out an APS-C sensor blindfolded.

Actually that whole portrait paradigm is dependent on full frame, fast primes and PS out the wazoo. Nice stuff but holy bokeh fatigue.

I've changed things up a bit. Canon plus zooms for events, sports, stuff that flies, floats, has fur or an engine. Fuji plus primes for every day, family PJ and fashion accessory.

5D3 + 24-70 2.8 & 70-200 2.8
7D2 + 100-400 & 100 2.8 macro
XT3 + 23 1.4 & 56 1.2

XT3 is my main squeeze. It's liberating to have something compact yet powerful. It's comfortable to hang around my neck with the stock strap. I've matured to the point where I relish looking like an incompetent tourist. No oversized camera bag. No lens hoods. Superfluous UV filters just to be cheeky. Shoot jpg 98% of the time. Use the LCD at arms length. Get sneered at by "photographers". It's hilarious. If the shot isn't useable out of camera it's deleted. The 56 1.2 is a bokeh machine. Love it.

I have no idea if sensors have a look. I can tell you unequviocably camera systems (body/lens/software) have a look. The XT3 renders its own reality. It's not transparent and doesn't pretend to be. The 5D3 esp w/ 24-70 generates a more accurate interpretation of reality. It's clean, almost sterile in comparison.

I think I've found my holy grail. Complementary systems that cover everything I could possibly take photos of.

If you think Canon generates a more "accurate interpretation of reality" you should test Sony. Fuji tends to sprinkle some pixie dust on their files and it's more apparent with ever so slight post processing. It's a good thing as it strikes the average joe as a commonly seen image they see on magazines in the grocery isle. Low light performance just doesn't even give me the confidence I get with my 5dmk4 or A7iii......however this is where I have a choice in the matter in grabbing hardware. Sony has true to life render compared to Fuji in my opinion. It all depends on how you can make a RAW file look in post. Post processing a Sony image to look like it's been sprinkled with processed pixie dust is a lot more difficult than simple talk over the internet. In my LR work flow Canon is relatively decent to process but Fuji is almost childs play easy to get stunning eye candy with softer easy on the eyes. Sony has a real to life render that is just a characteristic it has.

My X-t2 cannot even come close in the body performance of my A7iii or 5dmk4. I also use Fuji for different purposes. I could easily dump my Fuji 50-140mm and not miss it at all. I cannot say the same for the GM 70-200 f/2.8 or Canon 70-200 f/2.8mk2. The only real thing keeping my Fuji gear is the 16mm f/1.4 and 56 f/1.2......otherwise f/2.8 zooms on aps-c just doesn't meet my needs in many cases. This is preference and performance in low light. If all is good in easy peasy good light conditions the Fuji has really provided great files for me.

An aps-c shooter can happily use fast primes and be baffled with this "full frame LOOK" conversation.

Throwing on an f/2.8 zoom with a FF sensor just has a different feel to an image compared to using the same lens on an aps-c in the Canon world. Some say it's negligible but as I swap from an aps-c to FF using f/2.8 zooms this is very apparent to my eyes if I look at hundreds of images in a file folder as I process images.

In the end it's the photogs decision and none of my business :) we all like what we like :) I use what delivers for me. The full frame beast bodies available these days covers from portraits to fast action effortlessly. 1 stop shop with insane high iso capabilities and great dynamic range. My Canon 80D was great but it does not deliver in all of the criteria I demand. Fuji is another system that just doesn't match the full frame beasts in performance. I'm not talking about form factor either since the Fuji 50-140mm , 8-16mm f/2.8, 16-55 f/2.8 and soon to hit the market 33 f/1.0 are heavy bulky chunks of glass on small bodies.

For prime shooters in the aps-c realm Fuji has it in a large selection of glass compared to Canon and Nikon aps-c. This is where you hear praise in small primes on small bodies. aps-c f/2.8 zooms providing f/4 full frame dof equiv just misses the mark for me.

Lots to think about if your a zoom/prime shooter in lens selection. I can see in the distant future many EOS R mk2,3,4 events/wedding shooters rocking their Canon FF mirrorless with the bulky 28-70mm f/2 zoom getting prime lens images or stopped down images. Still a fair share of photographers NOT complaining about small form factor systems/ lenses as many still shoot mirrored bodies professionally.

People can use whatever tools they like.....


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 35mm f/2 IS | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji X-T2 w/battery booster | 16mm f/1.4 | 56 f/1.2 | 50-140 | TT685
Sony A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,279 posts
Likes: 1333
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 19, 2018 08:26 |  #134

AlanU wrote in post #18773855 (external link)
For prime shooters in the aps-c realm Fuji has it in a large selection of glass compared to Canon and Nikon aps-c. This is where you hear praise in small primes on small bodies. aps-c f/2.8 zooms providing f/4 full frame dof equiv just misses the mark for me.

Personally I never liked what Canon 24-70m f2.8 looks. It is boring. DoF is not that shallow. I was using mainly 35L, 85L combo. Canon 70-200mm f2.8 is nice but if folks hell bent on shallow DoF, they should be shooting 105mm f1.4 or better yet 200mm f2 or the original f1.8 version. :)


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Two ­ Hot ­ Shoes
Goldmember
Avatar
2,928 posts
Gallery: 319 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 2963
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ireland
     
Dec 19, 2018 09:07 |  #135

bobbyz wrote in post #18773974 (external link)
Personally I never liked what Canon 24-70m f2.8 looks. It is boring. DoF is not that shallow. I was using mainly 35L, 85L combo. Canon 70-200mm f2.8 is nice but if folks hell bent on shallow DoF, they should be shooting 105mm f1.4 or better yet 200mm f2 or the original f1.8 version. :)

Or the f/0.95 50mm, really if it's all that then a f/2.8 is not that special on a 135mm camera. I was at f/2 for a headshot yesterday (with the X-T3) and f/8 on Monday with another camera. Tiny DOF is a look at times but with the tiny differences between 135mm and APS-c it's hard to really notice the difference.


Fuji: X-PRO2, X-T3. 16/1.4, 18/2, 23/1.4, 35/1.4, 56/1.2, 90/2, 16-55/2.8, 50-140/2.8.
Pelican, Ona, ThinkTank, Matthews Grip, Elinchrom

Gear & Discounts (external link)Instagram (external link)Blog (external link)
Coffee & Fujis (external link)YouTube (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,148 views & 138 likes for this thread
“The full frame look”
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is kotsyphotography
415 guests, 298 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.