I've always been against buying new camera stuffs. The stuff that is 2+ years old is still pretty damn good compared to the latest and greatest. The average pro-sumer probably won't run into any limitations with a used model that the new model has a feature that solves that specific issue.
Who here has been shooting and thought "Man, at 3fps I just can't get /the/ shot but with 4.5 fps I totally would have it." or "If only my camera would go up to ISO 25600 instead of /only/ 12800 I would have been able to take a picture of a bat in that pitch dark cave" or "If the processor managed to save images to the card 50ms faster I would be so much better off!"
Am I the only person that doesn't take ten thousand photos in a row to try and get "the" shot? Maybe I don't shoot enough moving stuff, but I carefully plan and shoot and usually only take one shot, maybe two if the exposure sucked.
Yeah the only time I am making use of the FPS limit is if I'm taking a picture of someone running or something like that. Even when I was shooting the air show I was not machine gun shooting.
When I'm shooting people I've certainly gotten better at planning the shot and the lighting in my head and then taking less photos.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I've always been against buying new camera stuffs. The stuff that is 2+ years old is still pretty damn good compared to the latest and greatest. The average pro-sumer probably won't run into any limitations with a used model that the new model has a feature that solves that specific issue.
Who here has been shooting and thought "Man, at 3fps I just can't get /the/ shot but with 4.5 fps I totally would have it." or "If only my camera would go up to ISO 25600 instead of /only/ 12800 I would have been able to take a picture of a bat in that pitch dark cave" or "If the processor managed to save images to the card 50ms faster I would be so much better off!"
Am I the only person that doesn't take ten thousand photos in a row to try and get "the" shot? Maybe I don't shoot enough moving stuff, but I carefully plan and shoot and usually only take one shot, maybe two if the exposure sucked.
I pretty much leave my camera on continuous drive since I usually take 3-4 shots of any particular thing. I have fairly unsteady hands, so if I want pixel level sharpness, the first one usually isn't good enough. Specially at events with people which is where I do most of my shooting, since you never know if someone blinked or looked away or any manner of thing during the VF blackout.
If you're taking pictures of stuff in a studio or with carefully controlled conditions, then yea, probably don't need as many. But for what I do, basically everything is a multi-shot burst.
my camera is also on continuous burst, because 4/5 of my lenses are manual focus and manual aperture control. Basically if I ever get something completely in focus and properly exposed on try 1 it is a miracle.
Considering you don't lose anything by taking multiple pictures (yayayaya no more film) I don't feel bad about taking multiple pictures of everything. I can sort it out later no problemo.
Considering you don't lose anything by taking multiple pictures (yayayaya no more film) I don't feel bad about taking multiple pictures of everything. I can sort it out later no problemo.
If you are shooting a relatively static subject, I feel like shooting a ton is a bit of a crutch. You aren't really wasting anything other than culling time, but I feel like I've gotten a better eye by actively trying to shoot less. If you are shooting a ton and then picking out the best one that is just partially using luck. So when you try and take photos down the road you are continually relying on luck to get the best photo of a set instead of actively thinking more about composition, angles, DOF, etc.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Considering you don't lose anything by taking multiple pictures (yayayaya no more film) I don't feel bad about taking multiple pictures of everything. I can sort it out later no problemo.
If you are shooting a relatively static subject, I feel like shooting a ton is a bit of a crutch. You aren't really wasting anything other than culling time, but I feel like I've gotten a better eye by actively trying to shoot less. If you are shooting a ton and then picking out the best one that is just partially using luck. So when you try and take photos down the road you are continually relying on luck to get the best photo of a set instead of actively thinking more about composition, angles, DOF, etc.
That is true, which is why I am a newbie and you are miles ahead of me with regard to skill, technical knowledge and artistic vision. All I got is the realization that something is worthy of a picture and I am slowly learning about all the things that come naturally to you (and I often forget stuff I should have learned by now).
I don't mean to get down on you. All I'm trying to say is you should strive for shooting less and thinking more. Even if it does take you more shots to get something right, when you go through the photos in post you should look at the settings, angle, composition you used on your best photo of a set. Then try and think about why those worked well compared to the other photos and then store that info in your mental repertoire for later use.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
not filling up memory cards is what my film camera is for. When each shot costs me ~$1.00, I'm a little more careful about my metering.
My problem is that in order to have a second-nature understanding of what my manual settings need to be for a certain time of day / subject / etc. I need to have taken a whole lot of pictures.
I wish I could say I don't shoot a shitload of photos. Unfortunately that'd be a lie. I find myself tweaking the angle at which I shoot constantly to adjust the composition. In the photos below I shot half a dozen similar photos just trying to get the right mix of mountain, lake and rectangular rock.
This shot frustrated me to no end. I spent about 2 hours shooting either this shot or a couple others while reading/eating on the shore. I was able to get a good reflection, interesting light on the peak or interesting light on the clouds but never in the same photo.
Shot from around this time last year in Korea; I think this could probably be re-cropped to highlight some of the foreground detail, but I love the way the stack of buildings just goes up.. and up.. and up.
Clicking the "order now" button on this cart soon, hopefully by the end of the week.
Only things not listed here are the case that I mentioned in a previous post which should be arriving in a few days, and I'm undecided on a soft release and a thumb grip.
Is that a digital rangefinder? It doesn't look like the viewfinder is hooked up to anything and the amazon reviews seem to say that there is absolutely no information displayed there and you can't focus from there.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Is that a digital rangefinder? It doesn't look like the viewfinder is hooked up to anything and the amazon reviews seem to say that there is absolutely no information displayed there and you can't focus from there.
Is that a digital rangefinder? It doesn't look like the viewfinder is hooked up to anything and the amazon reviews seem to say that there is absolutely no information displayed there and you can't focus from there.
Nope, not digital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera IE the viewfinder is in no way attached to the lens so you can't see changes in focus or anything else. Even when you zoom in you don't see anything zoomed in the viewfinder.
It certainly looks like a digital camera. :P
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Is that a digital rangefinder? It doesn't look like the viewfinder is hooked up to anything and the amazon reviews seem to say that there is absolutely no information displayed there and you can't focus from there.
Nope, not digital.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera IE the viewfinder is in no way attached to the lens so you can't see changes in focus or anything else. Even when you zoom in you don't see anything zoomed in the viewfinder.
It certainly looks like a digital camera. :P
Right...you asked if it was a digital rangefinder and I said nope, not digital...
Sorry for the confusion, but in my mind "Nope, not digital" would imply that it is a film camera and not a digital camera. So your answer made no sense to me since it is obviously a digital camera. I'm guessing you thought I meant to use digital as a modifier describing the viewfinder, but in my mind that also makes no sense because rangefinder describes the type of viewfinder that is not getting an image through the lens.
Anyways moving on...
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Did a pretty awesome hat trick of backpacking over the last three weeks. The Narrows in Zion NP, Royce Lakes in the Sierra NF and now I spent a night up on the summit of Mount Whitney in Sequoia NP. Mount Whitney is the highest point in the lower 48. Here's sunrise from just below the summit:
My friend, who hauled up his 5D MKII, tripod and filters probably got a better shot but then again it almost totally gassed him.
Any recommendations on memory cards in brand or capacity?
I would just check amazon/newegg reviews. All I can say is I've had both Scandisk and Kingston cards and my Kingston card had lots of issues.
@Gafoto Unless you guys were shooting before sunrise why would your friend need a tripod? Or were you guys doing waterfall/stream pictures at some point?
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So I'm looking to get educated on a bunch of tech stuff, since I have a bottomless desire to be smarter than my gear.
IR lenses: what exactly do they do to an image?
I'm familiar with the idea of sensors modified to remove the IR filter, and typical screw-on type selective pass filters. I understand that IR and visible light move differently through lenses and prisms, so the focal plane may not be aligned as expected when you're shooting for IR. What I don't understand is what exactly an "IR" lens means. Is this lens coated to make the IR focus point the same as visible light? Can such a lens only be used with an IR-modded sensor?
Image Stabilization. My GF2 has no in-body stabilization, so I'd need to find to stabilized lenses to take advantage of it. My question is, why don't all lenses do this? It seems to only be common in zooms; is the OIS compensation for smaller apertures, which necessitate slower shutters?
Exposure compensation in video: How is this commonly handled in DSLRs?
@Gafoto Unless you guys were shooting before sunrise why would your friend need a tripod? Or were you guys doing waterfall/stream pictures at some point?
He shoots at a tiny aperture with GNDs. He's extremely anal about the sharpness of his photos too. I'm obviously a little more of a casual photographer. I IS.
So I'm looking to get educated on a bunch of tech stuff, since I have a bottomless desire to be smarter than my gear.
IR lenses: what exactly do they do to an image?
I'm familiar with the idea of sensors modified to remove the IR filter, and typical screw-on type selective pass filters. I understand that IR and visible light move differently through lenses and prisms, so the focal plane may not be aligned as expected when you're shooting for IR. What I don't understand is what exactly an "IR" lens means. Is this lens coated to make the IR focus point the same as visible light? Can such a lens only be used with an IR-modded sensor?
I've never heard of them until now and what I gather from a few seconds of googling is some lenses have hot spots in places when shooting IR and others don't. So I think it would be more accurate to say that all lenses work for IR, but some just work better than others. If you want to do IR photography you either need to have a camera that you've ripped the IR filter off the sensor or you need to shoot IR film.
Image Stabilization. My GF2 has no in-body stabilization, so I'd need to find to stabilized lenses to take advantage of it. My question is, why don't all lenses do this? It seems to only be common in zooms; is the OIS compensation for smaller apertures, which necessitate slower shutters?
IS/VR is just another feature and it adds to the cost of producing lenses. There are at least a few more IS/VR lenses on the cheaper side. So my guess is they want to make some lenses cheaper than others and thus no-IS/VR.
Exposure compensation in video: How is this commonly handled in DSLRs?
No idea on this one; I don't do video.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
@Gafoto Unless you guys were shooting before sunrise why would your friend need a tripod? Or were you guys doing waterfall/stream pictures at some point?
He shoots at a tiny aperture with GNDs. He's extremely anal about the sharpness of his photos too. I'm obviously a little more of a casual photographer. I IS.
I figure shooting at f/11 or so even with a GND would be sharp enough, but I'm not much of a nature photographer so I'm probably wrong. Have you really noticed any big differences between his photos and yours in terms of sharpness? Does he do anything with them like make super large prints where it would be noticeable?
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I don't have a high quality camera - though I do want one at some point - so instead I've been playing with my new iPhone and some of its photography apps. I just like going for walks and easily snapping pictures at anything that interests me. I'm having fun. I thought I'd share a few of the ones I took this morning.
First up is an early morning panorama. I was playing around with AutoStitch and a few filters and enjoyed the colors.
And then I took a picture of our little outside Fall figure.
Edit: I took some more pictures and uploaded them to Instagram, which I feel lowers the image quality a little bit but I think they still turned out okay.
And then I entered the leaf phase of photography:
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
Is it terrible that the only thing I got out of this article was that people banging silver-nitrate rocks together in the dark (that's how you took pictures in 1911 right) could take better pictures than me
Image Stabilization. My GF2 has no in-body stabilization, so I'd need to find to stabilized lenses to take advantage of it. My question is, why don't all lenses do this? It seems to only be common in zooms; is the OIS compensation for smaller apertures, which necessitate slower shutters?
IS/VR is just another feature and it adds to the cost of producing lenses. There are at least a few more IS/VR lenses on the cheaper side. So my guess is they want to make some lenses cheaper than others and thus no-IS/VR.
IIRC IS/VR also doesnt work too well on shorter focal lengths, so its mostly long-mid to tele lenses have it, where the system really shines.
In other news I finally figured out an easy way to quickly digitize my 35mm film. Now I gotta find one for my 120mm stuff.
@Gafoto Unless you guys were shooting before sunrise why would your friend need a tripod? Or were you guys doing waterfall/stream pictures at some point?
He shoots at a tiny aperture with GNDs. He's extremely anal about the sharpness of his photos too. I'm obviously a little more of a casual photographer. I IS.
I figure shooting at f/11 or so even with a GND would be sharp enough, but I'm not much of a nature photographer so I'm probably wrong. Have you really noticed any big differences between his photos and yours in terms of sharpness? Does he do anything with them like make super large prints where it would be noticeable?
He's printing up to 40x60. My camera is fairly decent in terms of how sharp it shoots but then again I'm not printing anything that size. I had a few 8x12s run off and they look fantastic though.
Image Stabilization. My GF2 has no in-body stabilization, so I'd need to find to stabilized lenses to take advantage of it. My question is, why don't all lenses do this? It seems to only be common in zooms; is the OIS compensation for smaller apertures, which necessitate slower shutters?
IS/VR is just another feature and it adds to the cost of producing lenses. There are at least a few more IS/VR lenses on the cheaper side. So my guess is they want to make some lenses cheaper than others and thus no-IS/VR.
IIRC IS/VR also doesnt work too well on shorter focal lengths, so its mostly long-mid to tele lenses have it, where the system really shines.
This too. I've heard that on things like the 70-200 IS you get about an extra 2 maybe 3 stops of focus ability with IS but on something like the 18-55 IS you get about 1 stop.
Is it terrible that the only thing I got out of this article was that people banging silver-nitrate rocks together in the dark (that's how you took pictures in 1911 right) could take better pictures than me
Those are some pretty good pictures. I think the other take away is kids are lazy these days and they should be contributing to household income. Their tiny hands are like unused gold mines!
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Found a set of photos I took about 3/4 years ago that I never processed. All from a concert and shot on a rebel. Pretty neat to go back and see what I did. It was like past me and future me working together. I like a bunch, but here is one I have hosted on tumblr.
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
PHOTODUMP!
Sorry if that was too many for one post. Let me know what you masters of photography think.
0
Options
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
Here are a few more for you....
Okay, I'm done fore now.
0
Options
ChimeraMonster girl with a snek tail and five eyesBad puns, that's how eye roll. Registered Userregular
Well I may have been drunk when I was trying to play photog at Oktoberfest but I still managed to get some so-so shots while there and here they are!
(Note: this post is best viewed while listening to this: http://youtu.be/kX1nJVvaSZ4 )
There we go! The day light pictures were taken with 1/2 of a pitcher of beer. The rest were with another half and some more of beer in me. So much so that I forgot to use my speed light and a lot of photos blurred as I got wobbly. I finally gave up and went on to party the last 4 hours I was there. The guys in the sombrero are from Munich. They said our Oktoberfest was the best they had ever been to outside of Munich and was better than many of the ones in Germany!
Posts
Yeah the only time I am making use of the FPS limit is if I'm taking a picture of someone running or something like that. Even when I was shooting the air show I was not machine gun shooting.
When I'm shooting people I've certainly gotten better at planning the shot and the lighting in my head and then taking less photos.
I pretty much leave my camera on continuous drive since I usually take 3-4 shots of any particular thing. I have fairly unsteady hands, so if I want pixel level sharpness, the first one usually isn't good enough. Specially at events with people which is where I do most of my shooting, since you never know if someone blinked or looked away or any manner of thing during the VF blackout.
If you're taking pictures of stuff in a studio or with carefully controlled conditions, then yea, probably don't need as many. But for what I do, basically everything is a multi-shot burst.
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
If you are shooting a relatively static subject, I feel like shooting a ton is a bit of a crutch. You aren't really wasting anything other than culling time, but I feel like I've gotten a better eye by actively trying to shoot less. If you are shooting a ton and then picking out the best one that is just partially using luck. So when you try and take photos down the road you are continually relying on luck to get the best photo of a set instead of actively thinking more about composition, angles, DOF, etc.
My problem is that in order to have a second-nature understanding of what my manual settings need to be for a certain time of day / subject / etc. I need to have taken a whole lot of pictures.
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
This shot frustrated me to no end. I spent about 2 hours shooting either this shot or a couple others while reading/eating on the shore. I was able to get a good reflection, interesting light on the peak or interesting light on the clouds but never in the same photo.
Urban Jumble by hazmato, on Flickr
Shot from around this time last year in Korea; I think this could probably be re-cropped to highlight some of the foreground detail, but I love the way the stack of buildings just goes up.. and up.. and up.
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
Only things not listed here are the case that I mentioned in a previous post which should be arriving in a few days, and I'm undecided on a soft release and a thumb grip.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Nope, not digital.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangefinder_camera IE the viewfinder is in no way attached to the lens so you can't see changes in focus or anything else. Even when you zoom in you don't see anything zoomed in the viewfinder.
It certainly looks like a digital camera. :P
Right...you asked if it was a digital rangefinder and I said nope, not digital...
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
You asked:
I answered:
There's no alterior motive here. I answered your question, but you continued explaining as if I hadn't.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
Anyways moving on...
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
My friend, who hauled up his 5D MKII, tripod and filters probably got a better shot but then again it almost totally gassed him.
I would just check amazon/newegg reviews. All I can say is I've had both Scandisk and Kingston cards and my Kingston card had lots of issues.
@Gafoto Unless you guys were shooting before sunrise why would your friend need a tripod? Or were you guys doing waterfall/stream pictures at some point?
Ordered.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
IR lenses: what exactly do they do to an image?
I'm familiar with the idea of sensors modified to remove the IR filter, and typical screw-on type selective pass filters. I understand that IR and visible light move differently through lenses and prisms, so the focal plane may not be aligned as expected when you're shooting for IR. What I don't understand is what exactly an "IR" lens means. Is this lens coated to make the IR focus point the same as visible light? Can such a lens only be used with an IR-modded sensor?
Image Stabilization. My GF2 has no in-body stabilization, so I'd need to find to stabilized lenses to take advantage of it. My question is, why don't all lenses do this? It seems to only be common in zooms; is the OIS compensation for smaller apertures, which necessitate slower shutters?
Exposure compensation in video: How is this commonly handled in DSLRs?
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
He shoots at a tiny aperture with GNDs. He's extremely anal about the sharpness of his photos too. I'm obviously a little more of a casual photographer. I
I've never heard of them until now and what I gather from a few seconds of googling is some lenses have hot spots in places when shooting IR and others don't. So I think it would be more accurate to say that all lenses work for IR, but some just work better than others. If you want to do IR photography you either need to have a camera that you've ripped the IR filter off the sensor or you need to shoot IR film.
IS/VR is just another feature and it adds to the cost of producing lenses. There are at least a few more IS/VR lenses on the cheaper side. So my guess is they want to make some lenses cheaper than others and thus no-IS/VR.
No idea on this one; I don't do video.
I figure shooting at f/11 or so even with a GND would be sharp enough, but I'm not much of a nature photographer so I'm probably wrong. Have you really noticed any big differences between his photos and yours in terms of sharpness? Does he do anything with them like make super large prints where it would be noticeable?
First up is an early morning panorama. I was playing around with AutoStitch and a few filters and enjoyed the colors.
And then I took a picture of our little outside Fall figure.
Edit: I took some more pictures and uploaded them to Instagram, which I feel lowers the image quality a little bit but I think they still turned out okay.
And then I entered the leaf phase of photography:
Is it terrible that the only thing I got out of this article was that people banging silver-nitrate rocks together in the dark (that's how you took pictures in 1911 right) could take better pictures than me
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
IIRC IS/VR also doesnt work too well on shorter focal lengths, so its mostly long-mid to tele lenses have it, where the system really shines.
In other news I finally figured out an easy way to quickly digitize my 35mm film. Now I gotta find one for my 120mm stuff.
Untitled by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
He's printing up to 40x60. My camera is fairly decent in terms of how sharp it shoots but then again I'm not printing anything that size. I had a few 8x12s run off and they look fantastic though.
This too. I've heard that on things like the 70-200 IS you get about an extra 2 maybe 3 stops of focus ability with IS but on something like the 18-55 IS you get about 1 stop.
Those are some pretty good pictures. I think the other take away is kids are lazy these days and they should be contributing to household income. Their tiny hands are like unused gold mines!
Sorry if that was too many for one post. Let me know what you masters of photography think.
Okay, I'm done fore now.
(Note: this post is best viewed while listening to this:
There we go! The day light pictures were taken with 1/2 of a pitcher of beer. The rest were with another half and some more of beer in me. So much so that I forgot to use my speed light and a lot of photos blurred as I got wobbly. I finally gave up and went on to party the last 4 hours I was there. The guys in the sombrero are from Munich. They said our Oktoberfest was the best they had ever been to outside of Munich and was better than many of the ones in Germany!
(Cross posted from the SE++ thread.)