Focus and recompose works fine, I do it all the time with my AF lenses since the D90's focus points are rarely where I want them to be, and it only has the one cross type.
The problem with focus and recompose comes up when you have a really shallow depth of field. The change in angle of your camera slightly changes the distance to the point where you previously focused.
for example:
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Oh, so why not just peer out of the corner from the frame if you are trying to focus on something that isn't directly in the center.
That worked on my Pentax film camera, despite shallow DoF.
Or you know, you could also roll it back/forward and bracket focus.
Because some of us have terrible eye sight. My eyes have a astigmatism which is just a little bit lower than the lowest astigmatism contacts so I just have to deal with things being slightly out of focus. It doesn't really bother me in day to day life but it means that I have trouble manual focusing properly when using reallllly shallow DOF.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
It kinda looks like those late 19th/early 20th century pictures of cityscapes, only yours lacks any kind of subject matter to make it interesting. If you're going for a "this is our cityscape" picture you should take a look at those old pictures and understand that they had a clear subject, focused on a particular square or street or made sure there was someone positioned for the viewer to identify with. There's a few of these kind of pictures in my wallpaper rotation and they are not "good" pictures in an artistic way, but they are so damned interesting. There's more stuff to look at than you can take in with one glance. Yours does not have that, there's just some cars, part of a building, no people, no interesting peeks inside a different cityscape from my own (=Holland).
Example of one I've looked at for a few minutes now and I still don't get tired of it: http://nik.bot.nu/i860869
I think these guys are being a little harsh. I think the main problem is that there's nothing interesting happening in the rightmost third of the shot, and having the dome and the decorative foreground building dead center catches your eye too much and doesn't encourage you to look at the rest.
With a crop like this
now you've got a combination of some interesting architecture and a bustling street scene.
So, I recently got a Holga 120n. It looks super classy. I loaded it up with the 120 format film (which I've never used) and ran into an unexpected issue.
How do I know how much I need to wind the camera before the film is in the right position to take a photo? In the back part with the little view area, after spinning for a while, the numbers start, followed immediately by circles than numbers (ie: 1 ooo 2 ooo 3 oo ). Only they're moving to the left rather than to the right.
So, I recently got a Holga 120n. It looks super classy. I loaded it up with the 120 format film (which I've never used) and ran into an unexpected issue.
How do I know how much I need to wind the camera before the film is in the right position to take a photo? In the back part with the little view area, after spinning for a while, the numbers start, followed immediately by circles than numbers (ie: 1 ooo 2 ooo 3 oo ). Only they're moving to the left rather than to the right.
Any advice? Thanks!
You stop when the number is in the center of the red window. Your first frame is in the proper position when the number 1 is in the window, the next frame is in the correct position when 2 is in the window and so on. Make sure that you're set up for 645 or 6x6 with both the internal mask and the switch on the back. Otherwise you might be shooting widely spaced 645 frames or overlapping 6x6 frames. Check your manual on the second point. Or, just roll with it. You'll know if it's right once you develop the roll.
Don't think I ever ended up posting this (it's been stuck in "draft") since near the forum software switchover.
Made a print of this last night for my in laws. The only thing I wish is that I had just that top chunk of the capitol building in it.
Count me in the opposition that digs this photo as is. The street itself is quite obviously the scene of the subject, which is the capitol building and its surrounding mates. Noone should be confused to what you are showcasing here - and it aint the ant like figures or the mini-cars.
The only change I would make is the one you suggested for yourself, and crop the top off the top of the capitol building.
This thread doesn't move much anymore so I am going to post that apparently the next Pentax DSLR is going to be a Mirrorless camera, actually. Nobody is sure on what kind of viewfinder it will have, if any. They also say it will have a similiar/same sensor as the current K-5 which DxO marks as one of the best APS-C sensors out on the market.
Not going to lie, eager to see what comes of this. Mind you, I know there are always a billion rumors- this just happens to be coming from the same source that told us about the 645D so I think its fairly credible.
This thread doesn't move much anymore so I am going to post that apparently the next Pentax DSLR is going to be a Mirrorless camera, actually. Nobody is sure on what kind of viewfinder it will have, if any. They also say it will have a similiar/same sensor as the current K-5 which DxO marks as one of the best APS-C sensors out on the market.
Not going to lie, eager to see what comes of this. Mind you, I know there are always a billion rumors- this just happens to be coming from the same source that told us about the 645D so I think its fairly credible.
An odd move, but Pentax can't compete with Canikon on the enthusias/pro anymore, so I guess it makes sense to pull the ripcord and try to make a splash with mirrorless. At least it'll probably come in about 45 shiny colors.
Also a minor quibble, it can't be an SLR if it's mirrorless, that's what the R is for!
An odd move, but Pentax can't compete with Canikon on the enthusias/pro anymore,
Sorry I always get sick of hearing this one. I spoilered my points on why I disagree.
The K-5 has the same Sony sensor as the D7000.
DP Review has test pictures comparing high ISO interpretation.
The sensor is stabilized with Pentax as well, so no more diffraction contributing VR/IS lens elements. This also means Pentax lenses are smaller, lighter and much less expensive. (In general. There aren't always 100% the same F/stop focal length lenses.)
If a "professional" is defined as being someone who can only shoot with full frame, then yes, Pentax doesn't have a "professional" camera, except they do have the 645D which yes, $10,000 but is about as large as a Nikon D3 and is medium-mother-fucking-format. The reason why I bring up the 645D is because it is more like a DSLR than any of the other medium format cameras. Having shot with both the 645D and a Hasselblad, I'd hesitate to call them family members.
Pentax has some really good shit and every time I get to borrow a 645D, or try out some legacy lenses, I do get giddy. Where I go to school though, I can check out a D3 with about half a dozen lenses someone checks out a book at a library. I rarely do.
Here are the specs on the supposed K-01 camera which is to debut on CP+ in Japan.
To be sure, DSLRs are tricky. The viewfinders are not always exactly 100 what you see is what you get. You also have issues with video and autofocus- but lets keep this photo oriented. A mirrorless camera can mean the lens can be closer to the sensor. Closer to the sensor can in turn mean smaller and lighter lenses. Simpler lenses with less lens elements, too. Sony too is also experimenting with how DSLRs are constructed and it has paid off for them well. The Fuji x10 has put them on the spot too. So making a full size APS-C mirrorless is the next logical step.
As for a naming mechanism, I believe the endearing term is "EVIL." Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens Camera. There's also MILC which I like less. Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera.
"921,000 dot" 3-inch, VGA LCD screen from the K-5
K-5 image processing and sensor (16.3 Mp)
1080p HD video at 30fps
1/4000s-30s shutter speed range
Contrast-detect autofocus (81 metering points)
Built-in flash
12.1cm wide x 7.9cm high x 5.9 cm deep (compare to Pentax Q at 9.8cm x 5.8cm x 3.1 cm)
560g loaded with battery (compare to 200 for the Q)
New DA 40mm kit lens
Available in 3 lens kits
3 different colors
Electronic viewfinder
An odd move, but Pentax can't compete with Canikon on the enthusias/pro anymore,
Sorry I always get sick of hearing this one. I spoilered my points on why I disagree.
The K-5 has the same Sony sensor as the D7000.
DP Review has test pictures comparing high ISO interpretation.
The sensor is stabilized with Pentax as well, so no more diffraction contributing VR/IS lens elements. This also means Pentax lenses are smaller, lighter and much less expensive. (In general. There aren't always 100% the same F/stop focal length lenses.)
If a "professional" is defined as being someone who can only shoot with full frame, then yes, Pentax doesn't have a "professional" camera, except they do have the 645D which yes, $10,000 but is about as large as a Nikon D3 and is medium-mother-fucking-format. The reason why I bring up the 645D is because it is more like a DSLR than any of the other medium format cameras. Having shot with both the 645D and a Hasselblad, I'd hesitate to call them family members.
Pentax has some really good shit and every time I get to borrow a 645D, or try out some legacy lenses, I do get giddy. Where I go to school though, I can check out a D3 with about half a dozen lenses someone checks out a book at a library. I rarely do.
Here are the specs on the supposed K-01 camera which is to debut on CP+ in Japan.
To be sure, DSLRs are tricky. The viewfinders are not always exactly 100 what you see is what you get. You also have issues with video and autofocus- but lets keep this photo oriented. A mirrorless camera can mean the lens can be closer to the sensor. Closer to the sensor can in turn mean smaller and lighter lenses. Simpler lenses with less lens elements, too. Sony too is also experimenting with how DSLRs are constructed and it has paid off for them well. The Fuji x10 has put them on the spot too. So making a full size APS-C mirrorless is the next logical step.
As for a naming mechanism, I believe the endearing term is "EVIL." Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens Camera. There's also MILC which I like less. Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera.
"921,000 dot" 3-inch, VGA LCD screen from the K-5
K-5 image processing and sensor (16.3 Mp)
1080p HD video at 30fps
1/4000s-30s shutter speed range
Contrast-detect autofocus (81 metering points)
Built-in flash
12.1cm wide x 7.9cm high x 5.9 cm deep (compare to Pentax Q at 9.8cm x 5.8cm x 3.1 cm)
560g loaded with battery (compare to 200 for the Q)
New DA 40mm kit lens
Available in 3 lens kits
3 different colors
Electronic viewfinder
Sensors are not what I'm talking about and the super quick link of a giant page of DPReview and DXOmark stuff is a bit lulzy. Everyone's sensors are good enough (because everyone uses the same Sony sensors but Canon). Pentax cannot compete with Canikon on lens variety and R&D on said lenses. It's not an indictment of any currently existing Pentax equipment, they've always made good, pretty cheap DSLRs with nice kit lens bundles, and they have very many shiny primes that cost way too much money, but at their current market share percentage it's just not feasible to spend millions of dollars to develop a 70-200 that won't be as good as Nikon's. Repeat across entire pro lens line.
Also, Sony and Samsung both already have APS-C mirrorless cameras. They're way too big unless you want an awkward focal length pancake imo (yay 16mm...?).
I'm not buying it that Pentax should just drop any professional cameras they have because they don't have the lenses to back it up. They can make new ones. There are old ones and being a Pentax shooter myself, I gotta say there are bigger complaints than there aren't enough lenses. Yeah, it's a tighter selection but it is far from 'slim pickings.'
You can do things differently and just because your marketshare is slimmer, doesn't mean you can't put out some serious gear. Leica never gave a shit. Fuji almost was on nobody's radar before they put out their mirrorless badasses.
This all being said, I do think mirrorless cameras provide some interesting technical advantages. They are supposedly cheaper to manufacture. They have less moving parts. Depending on how the viewfinder is handled, they can potentially be more battery efficient. If they do have an EVF, then what you see is what you get. Also could be much lighter and smaller- pretty much the reason why SLRs existed in the first place.
Leica doesn't give a shit because they charge people 15 grand for a body and multiple thousands for simple primes. Totally different market than Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Sony/Olympus/Panasonic are going for.
How again can a EVF or Live view display of any sort ever be more battery efficient than just running a meter and letting a mirror do the work for you? I'm curious.
If someone managed to figure out a good EVF I might reconsider a MILC, but to this point they're basically all just toy cameras since you either can't mount a viewfinder, or the one you can mount has terrible resolution. Also CMOS rolling shutter action makes me seasick through a viewfinder, but that's a personal problem.
Again, I'm not saying Pentax is bad or anything, I just think that with their market share as small as it is I wouldn't be surprised to see them bail from a shrinking DSLR market. Specially with Sony charging hard with it's DSLRs.
Started getting into photography pretty recently, with my little Sony Nex C3. There are some really good photographers here, and would like to get some critiques.
Also would really like some advice on buying lenses. Right now I'm looking for a fast 35mm prime for my C3. I have the kit lens are while it takes good shots, it's bulky and not great for low light. I also have a Nikon 50mm/1.8D and while it's pretty nice, working with a 75mm prime is not very flexible and with the adapter it is also ridiculously huge. While I kinda like the ridiculousness of a big lens on a small body, I would like something more compact. I don't mind non e-mount lenses because from what I've seen there's basically nothing for small and fast 35mm primes.
These are pretty much my best shots right now. Some are from my trip to malaysia/singapore.
@Antihippy: I think these are pretty neat, I enjoyed looking at them and they show you have an eye for framing and contrast. I would like to encourage you to pay closer attention to your lighting, though. Your outside shots are made on an overcast day and the sky is completely blown out. I suspect you were trying to compensate for grey skies in photoshop/comparable software, but I think a completely white sky just looks unnatural as opposed to a greyer sky. Your inside shots are kinda dark, although you probably did not have a chance to adjust lighting, you could compensate with your on-body flash, longer exposures or slightly higher ISO values. I rely a lot on my camera to help me with this. There are quite a few presets stashed away in your menus for overcast days, TL-light, shade, etc etc. Play around with these and you might get more vivid pictures.
Your vista of the lake with the mosque kinda falls flat because of the shrubbery on the lower right corner, I try to either get a lot of shrubbery in the foreground to provide the viewer with a sense of depth, or do away with anything obscuring the view so I don't distract the eye with uninteresting leaves and twigs. Also - and I might be wrong here - the horizon seems slightly tilted.
As an aside: don't put your photos in spoiler tags, this is a thread for photos, after all.
I haven't really done any photoshopping on these photos because so far I just want to learn how to take good photos with the camera and not relying on post-processing, though I'm experimenting with that as well. The white skies I think is mainly from overexposure and incorrect white balance? Still trying to learn how to judge proper ISO, shutter speed and aperture.
The mosque one was a bit of a hard one, because I think I had to stretch my hands up to take that shot, which isn't helped by my permanent caffeine hands. I have trouble keeping the horizon line straight for my landscape photos, though a little bit of that is because the kit lens have quite a bit of belly distortion. Don't have a tripod either.
Also can you point out which photos were too dark? I kinda like dark inside shots, but I'm still learning how to judge lighting in a scene.
I spoilered because I thought suddenly dumping a whole bunch of photos would be too much, but I won't next time.
I haven't really done any photoshopping on these photos because so far I just want to learn how to take good photos with the camera and not relying on post-processing, though I'm experimenting with that as well. The white skies I think is mainly from overexposure and incorrect white balance? Still trying to learn how to judge proper ISO, shutter speed and aperture.
The mosque one was a bit of a hard one, because I think I had to stretch my hands up to take that shot, which isn't helped by my permanent caffeine hands. I have trouble keeping the horizon line straight for my landscape photos, though a little bit of that is because the kit lens have quite a bit of belly distortion. Don't have a tripod either.
Also can you point out which photos were too dark? I kinda like dark inside shots, but I'm still learning how to judge lighting in a scene.
I spoilered because I thought suddenly dumping a whole bunch of photos would be too much, but I won't next time.
How again can a EVF or Live view display of any sort ever be more battery efficient than just running a meter and letting a mirror do the work for you? I'm curious.
Potentially speaking, you are cutting out a lot of tech and making for a more steamlined camera. No mirror means no reflex motor to power up, autofocus can be retooled, metering as well. If the camera is always in live view, yeah, battery is going to be shit. But if it is an EVF, well, now it might be on par this generation (which they are) and grow to be more efficient over time.
How again can a EVF or Live view display of any sort ever be more battery efficient than just running a meter and letting a mirror do the work for you? I'm curious.
Potentially speaking, you are cutting out a lot of tech and making for a more steamlined camera. No mirror means no reflex motor to power up, autofocus can be retooled, metering as well. If the camera is always in live view, yeah, battery is going to be shit. But if it is an EVF, well, now it might be on par this generation (which they are) and grow to be more efficient over time.
Right, but EVF also requires the sensor to be powered up and displaying video (aka live view). You cut out a bit of power drain because you're displaying it on a smaller screen, but the sensor and supporting equipment being powered on is most of the battery draw. There is no way to create a picture that you can see without a mirror unless you have the sensor on. Also again, contrast detect AF requires more power because the sensor is involved instead of a small phase detect AF chip. EVFs and anything that requires the sensor to be on murders batteries compared to an SLR. MILCs have many advantages, battery life is certainly not one of them.
I haven't really done any photoshopping on these photos because so far I just want to learn how to take good photos with the camera and not relying on post-processing, though I'm experimenting with that as well. The white skies I think is mainly from overexposure and incorrect white balance? Still trying to learn how to judge proper ISO, shutter speed and aperture.
The mosque one was a bit of a hard one, because I think I had to stretch my hands up to take that shot, which isn't helped by my permanent caffeine hands. I have trouble keeping the horizon line straight for my landscape photos, though a little bit of that is because the kit lens have quite a bit of belly distortion. Don't have a tripod either.
Also can you point out which photos were too dark? I kinda like dark inside shots, but I'm still learning how to judge lighting in a scene.
I spoilered because I thought suddenly dumping a whole bunch of photos would be too much, but I won't next time.
Antiwhippy:
It seems like most of your photos could use a bit more light.
As for metering, its basically the measurement of light that is hitting your film/sensor plane. Your camera takes a measurement of how much light is available and makes a calculation of what your shutter speed or aperture should be to make a good exposure. So in auto mode it will use that calculation to make an exposure, while in manual mode will just give you a suggestion (there is usually a row of bars in your viewfinder showing you how under or over exposed the scene is based on your settings.
There are more or less three popular metering modes in cameras. To use Nikon terms (these fluctuate between manufacturers):
- spot metering (measures light in the center of your frame)
- center weighted (measures whole frame but favors the light values of the center, usually around 80% to 20% split)
- matrix (averages whole frame)
So depending on your conditions and subject you might have to pick on over the other. And as advanced as camera light meters are they can still be fooled under certain conditions, such as snow covered landscapes and such.
Thats the gist of it.
And your blown skies might be due to the limited dynamic range of the sensor, depending on the weather that day.
Here is a photo of mine I took recently, which a really dig. I got an F3 and I love it to bits. Will have to get a real manual focus lens eventually...' Untitled by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
Thanks for the answer. Seems like I really need to work on my judgement of lighting though.
What is dynamic range? I always thought it was how a camera shows colours and highlights, which I thought it can do pretty decently. The skies in singapore are very cloudy though, in a very light grey colour.
Also anybody has any experiences with the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm/1.4?
Dynamic range is basically the width of brightness a camera can capture in a single frame. This is why you get blown out skies when you expose for the black car, because the correct exposure for the car means the sky is off the highlights end of your dynamic range, blowing the highlight.
You know, that one single statement made me understand what DR is more than any other camera review. Though I didn't really look too hard into it.
Is there anyway to compensate for it?
Use a tripod and bracket then merge the multiple exposures back into a single image. Or just make sure you focus on a point that is halfway in between. For example if you have a bright sky and a mountain try and focus / pick your exposure point right on the edge of the mountain and sky. If you focus on some cloud in the sky the mountain will be too dark. If you focus on some lower part of the mountain/foreground the sky will be too bright. Even doing things this way you will not get a perfect dynamic range. The human eye has WAY better dynamic range than a camera sensor.
Edit: I always use a single focus point to better control my focal point and exposure. Now I am not using spot metering but I can certainly see the difference in shutter speed from the camera meter when I focus on above, below or on the horizon.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Posts
for example:
You realize that we're discussing manual focus on a focusing screen that focuses on the center, correct?
That worked on my Pentax film camera, despite shallow DoF.
Or you know, you could also roll it back/forward and bracket focus.
Because some of us have terrible eye sight. My eyes have a astigmatism which is just a little bit lower than the lowest astigmatism contacts so I just have to deal with things being slightly out of focus. It doesn't really bother me in day to day life but it means that I have trouble manual focusing properly when using reallllly shallow DOF.
Made a print of this last night for my in laws. The only thing I wish is that I had just that top chunk of the capitol building in it.
Example of one I've looked at for a few minutes now and I still don't get tired of it: http://nik.bot.nu/i860869
With a crop like this
now you've got a combination of some interesting architecture and a bustling street scene.
How do I know how much I need to wind the camera before the film is in the right position to take a photo? In the back part with the little view area, after spinning for a while, the numbers start, followed immediately by circles than numbers (ie: 1 ooo 2 ooo 3 oo ). Only they're moving to the left rather than to the right.
Any advice? Thanks!
You stop when the number is in the center of the red window. Your first frame is in the proper position when the number 1 is in the window, the next frame is in the correct position when 2 is in the window and so on. Make sure that you're set up for 645 or 6x6 with both the internal mask and the switch on the back. Otherwise you might be shooting widely spaced 645 frames or overlapping 6x6 frames. Check your manual on the second point. Or, just roll with it. You'll know if it's right once you develop the roll.
Also, which film are you using?
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Another shot from Cuba from the top of a tour bus
Count me in the opposition that digs this photo as is. The street itself is quite obviously the scene of the subject, which is the capitol building and its surrounding mates. Noone should be confused to what you are showcasing here - and it aint the ant like figures or the mini-cars.
The only change I would make is the one you suggested for yourself, and crop the top off the top of the capitol building.
Not going to lie, eager to see what comes of this. Mind you, I know there are always a billion rumors- this just happens to be coming from the same source that told us about the 645D so I think its fairly credible.
An odd move, but Pentax can't compete with Canikon on the enthusias/pro anymore, so I guess it makes sense to pull the ripcord and try to make a splash with mirrorless. At least it'll probably come in about 45 shiny colors.
Also a minor quibble, it can't be an SLR if it's mirrorless, that's what the R is for!
Sorry I always get sick of hearing this one. I spoilered my points on why I disagree.
DP Review has test pictures comparing high ISO interpretation.
The sensor is stabilized with Pentax as well, so no more diffraction contributing VR/IS lens elements. This also means Pentax lenses are smaller, lighter and much less expensive. (In general. There aren't always 100% the same F/stop focal length lenses.)
If a "professional" is defined as being someone who can only shoot with full frame, then yes, Pentax doesn't have a "professional" camera, except they do have the 645D which yes, $10,000 but is about as large as a Nikon D3 and is medium-mother-fucking-format. The reason why I bring up the 645D is because it is more like a DSLR than any of the other medium format cameras. Having shot with both the 645D and a Hasselblad, I'd hesitate to call them family members.
Pentax has some really good shit and every time I get to borrow a 645D, or try out some legacy lenses, I do get giddy. Where I go to school though, I can check out a D3 with about half a dozen lenses someone checks out a book at a library. I rarely do.
Here are the specs on the supposed K-01 camera which is to debut on CP+ in Japan.
To be sure, DSLRs are tricky. The viewfinders are not always exactly 100 what you see is what you get. You also have issues with video and autofocus- but lets keep this photo oriented. A mirrorless camera can mean the lens can be closer to the sensor. Closer to the sensor can in turn mean smaller and lighter lenses. Simpler lenses with less lens elements, too. Sony too is also experimenting with how DSLRs are constructed and it has paid off for them well. The Fuji x10 has put them on the spot too. So making a full size APS-C mirrorless is the next logical step.
As for a naming mechanism, I believe the endearing term is "EVIL." Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens Camera. There's also MILC which I like less. Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera.
Sensors are not what I'm talking about and the super quick link of a giant page of DPReview and DXOmark stuff is a bit lulzy. Everyone's sensors are good enough (because everyone uses the same Sony sensors but Canon). Pentax cannot compete with Canikon on lens variety and R&D on said lenses. It's not an indictment of any currently existing Pentax equipment, they've always made good, pretty cheap DSLRs with nice kit lens bundles, and they have very many shiny primes that cost way too much money, but at their current market share percentage it's just not feasible to spend millions of dollars to develop a 70-200 that won't be as good as Nikon's. Repeat across entire pro lens line.
Also, Sony and Samsung both already have APS-C mirrorless cameras. They're way too big unless you want an awkward focal length pancake imo (yay 16mm...?).
You can do things differently and just because your marketshare is slimmer, doesn't mean you can't put out some serious gear. Leica never gave a shit. Fuji almost was on nobody's radar before they put out their mirrorless badasses.
This all being said, I do think mirrorless cameras provide some interesting technical advantages. They are supposedly cheaper to manufacture. They have less moving parts. Depending on how the viewfinder is handled, they can potentially be more battery efficient. If they do have an EVF, then what you see is what you get. Also could be much lighter and smaller- pretty much the reason why SLRs existed in the first place.
How again can a EVF or Live view display of any sort ever be more battery efficient than just running a meter and letting a mirror do the work for you? I'm curious.
If someone managed to figure out a good EVF I might reconsider a MILC, but to this point they're basically all just toy cameras since you either can't mount a viewfinder, or the one you can mount has terrible resolution. Also CMOS rolling shutter action makes me seasick through a viewfinder, but that's a personal problem.
Again, I'm not saying Pentax is bad or anything, I just think that with their market share as small as it is I wouldn't be surprised to see them bail from a shrinking DSLR market. Specially with Sony charging hard with it's DSLRs.
Also would really like some advice on buying lenses. Right now I'm looking for a fast 35mm prime for my C3. I have the kit lens are while it takes good shots, it's bulky and not great for low light. I also have a Nikon 50mm/1.8D and while it's pretty nice, working with a 75mm prime is not very flexible and with the adapter it is also ridiculously huge. While I kinda like the ridiculousness of a big lens on a small body, I would like something more compact. I don't mind non e-mount lenses because from what I've seen there's basically nothing for small and fast 35mm primes.
These are pretty much my best shots right now. Some are from my trip to malaysia/singapore.
Your vista of the lake with the mosque kinda falls flat because of the shrubbery on the lower right corner, I try to either get a lot of shrubbery in the foreground to provide the viewer with a sense of depth, or do away with anything obscuring the view so I don't distract the eye with uninteresting leaves and twigs. Also - and I might be wrong here - the horizon seems slightly tilted.
As an aside: don't put your photos in spoiler tags, this is a thread for photos, after all.
I haven't really done any photoshopping on these photos because so far I just want to learn how to take good photos with the camera and not relying on post-processing, though I'm experimenting with that as well. The white skies I think is mainly from overexposure and incorrect white balance? Still trying to learn how to judge proper ISO, shutter speed and aperture.
The mosque one was a bit of a hard one, because I think I had to stretch my hands up to take that shot, which isn't helped by my permanent caffeine hands.
Also can you point out which photos were too dark? I kinda like dark inside shots, but I'm still learning how to judge lighting in a scene.
I spoilered because I thought suddenly dumping a whole bunch of photos would be too much, but I won't next time.
I think this one http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w127/antiwhippy/DSC01318.jpg makes the most sense if it was brighter. That way the colours would pop a lot more. I would have bumped the brightness/contrast of all of these just a little bit, though.
--
Balsamic: I hope someone else can give you more substantial feedback, because I wouldn't know how to improve upon these.
Potentially speaking, you are cutting out a lot of tech and making for a more steamlined camera. No mirror means no reflex motor to power up, autofocus can be retooled, metering as well. If the camera is always in live view, yeah, battery is going to be shit. But if it is an EVF, well, now it might be on par this generation (which they are) and grow to be more efficient over time.
Right, but EVF also requires the sensor to be powered up and displaying video (aka live view). You cut out a bit of power drain because you're displaying it on a smaller screen, but the sensor and supporting equipment being powered on is most of the battery draw. There is no way to create a picture that you can see without a mirror unless you have the sensor on. Also again, contrast detect AF requires more power because the sensor is involved instead of a small phase detect AF chip. EVFs and anything that requires the sensor to be on murders batteries compared to an SLR. MILCs have many advantages, battery life is certainly not one of them.
Hmm, yeah, probably should have made it brighter so the colours pop more. Still trying to judge light properly.
BTW can someone explain metering to me?
It seems like most of your photos could use a bit more light.
As for metering, its basically the measurement of light that is hitting your film/sensor plane. Your camera takes a measurement of how much light is available and makes a calculation of what your shutter speed or aperture should be to make a good exposure. So in auto mode it will use that calculation to make an exposure, while in manual mode will just give you a suggestion (there is usually a row of bars in your viewfinder showing you how under or over exposed the scene is based on your settings.
There are more or less three popular metering modes in cameras. To use Nikon terms (these fluctuate between manufacturers):
- spot metering (measures light in the center of your frame)
- center weighted (measures whole frame but favors the light values of the center, usually around 80% to 20% split)
- matrix (averages whole frame)
So depending on your conditions and subject you might have to pick on over the other. And as advanced as camera light meters are they can still be fooled under certain conditions, such as snow covered landscapes and such.
Thats the gist of it.
And your blown skies might be due to the limited dynamic range of the sensor, depending on the weather that day.
Here is a photo of mine I took recently, which a really dig. I got an F3 and I love it to bits. Will have to get a real manual focus lens eventually...'
Untitled by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr
What is dynamic range? I always thought it was how a camera shows colours and highlights, which I thought it can do pretty decently. The skies in singapore are very cloudy though, in a very light grey colour.
Also anybody has any experiences with the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm/1.4?
Some more shots.
Is there anyway to compensate for it?
Use a tripod and bracket then merge the multiple exposures back into a single image. Or just make sure you focus on a point that is halfway in between. For example if you have a bright sky and a mountain try and focus / pick your exposure point right on the edge of the mountain and sky. If you focus on some cloud in the sky the mountain will be too dark. If you focus on some lower part of the mountain/foreground the sky will be too bright. Even doing things this way you will not get a perfect dynamic range. The human eye has WAY better dynamic range than a camera sensor.
Edit: I always use a single focus point to better control my focal point and exposure. Now I am not using spot metering but I can certainly see the difference in shutter speed from the camera meter when I focus on above, below or on the horizon.