Photography Thread

Ben6899

Thanks Pinno.

It was Open House weekend in London. We were queuing to visit the "Roman" bath on Strand Lane.
http://hidden-london.com/the-guide/roman-bath/

rolf_f

briantrumpet wrote:

Redjeep! wrote:

MMmm cake....or camera. Tricky one !

Thanks, that HX50 looks perfect. I'm really just looking for something to go on tour with me, in which case I'll also have panniers or maybe next year, some bike packs, so plenty of alternative (and bigger) spaces for cake.

It does fit easily in a jersey pocket, if I'm not loaded with cake and cheese-filled baguette, and takes incredible shots on auto settings. Go back a few posts and the butterfly was simple point and shoot, from about 4 metres. At the other end of the scale, here's Mont Ventoux from about 50 miles away, handheld...

I do love Photoshops Autocorrect function when I see images like this. Works a treat on photos from planes. May not be what is needed artistically but it is amazing what the technology can do in stripping away the haze.....
BriantrumpetVentoux by Rolf F, on Flickr

pinno

Did a post just magically disappear?!

pinno

Oh look, it's back. I quoted it and was going to delete the =url bit to see if I could get the image.

rolf_f

Pinno wrote:

Did a post just magically disappear?!

Via the magical delete button! I am having trouble with the post Photobucket world! I hate Flickr.....

(Patience dear!!)

briantrumpet

Rolf F wrote:

I do love Photoshops Autocorrect function when I see images like this. Works a treat on photos from planes. May not be what is needed artistically but it is amazing what the technology can do in stripping away the haze.....
BriantrumpetVentoux by Rolf F, on Flickr

Gosh. Thanks! I suspect that what I saw with my eyes was probably closer to the original photo (50 miles of atmoshere making its presence visible), but good to see without haze. Truly amazing what software can do these days. I have a friend who has much posher hardware, and has bought himself an expensive lens, and his father has been trying to persuade him to shoot in RAW, to leave many more options for later processing. I still think I'd be too lazy for that though.

rolf_f

I'm sure hazy was what you saw but it is cool - especially when you press the button in Photoshop and it magically transforms!

RAW is nice but unless you do process them they don't look as good as jpegs. So really you need to shoot RAW and jpg which just takes up huge amounts of space. I tend to minimise the jpeg processing in the camera to get something that looks pretty good as is but which still responds well to a bit of colour correcting and sharpening on the good stuff.

pinno

Flickr is now an 4rse. Photobucket is now charging for photo links. I use pinterest for sheer simplicity: right click on your image and copy/paste. Simples innit? Also very easy to upload your images.
Quite a bit of good photography on pinterest between the glossy, photoshopped junk.

pinno

Redjeep! wrote:

MMmm cake....or camera. Tricky one !

Bigger pockets?

briantrumpet

Pinno wrote:

Flickr is now an 4rse. Photobucket is now charging for photo links. I use pinterest for sheer simplicity: right click on your image and copy/paste. Simples innit? Also very easy to upload your images.
Quite a bit of good photography on pinterest between the glossy, photoshopped junk.

Haven't quite wrapped my head around Pinterest yet. I have a few Wordpress blogs I use for stuff, each one giving 3Gb of free storage, and a reasonable phone app for sharing. Not perfect (the app in particular is a bit idiosyncratic), but good enough for my needs.

courtmed

This seems like as good a place as any to ask about this - I'm toying with the idea of getting my first DSLR. I'd definitely class myself as a beginner so it's really to get to grips with everything & will probably be upgraded after a couple of years. I've had a look myself & it seems like it's between the Nikon D3400 or Canon EOS 750D - is this right?

Pictures will mostly be landscapes, dogs etc. Would love to try astrophotography & also want it to be handy for proper family pictures, pictures of my nephews & nieces playing & things like that. Cheers!

Wheelspinner

courtmed wrote:

This seems like as good a place as any to ask about this - I'm toying with the idea of getting my first DSLR. I'd definitely class myself as a beginner so it's really to get to grips with everything & will probably be upgraded after a couple of years. I've had a look myself & it seems like it's between the Nikon D3400 or Canon EOS 750D - is this right?

Pictures will mostly be landscapes, dogs etc. Would love to try astrophotography & also want it to be handy for proper family pictures, pictures of my nephews & nieces playing & things like that. Cheers!

Probably both pretty reasonable, similar spec sheet. Image quality will be more a result of what lenses you choose (or get with it). From your list above, you'll need a few different ones.

Try both and in particular have a good run through the menu systems, see if you prefer one over the other, and also check the physical handling, buttons and dials.

I use Sony mirrorless, mainly because they are smaller bodies than the DSLR, and quite like them, but YMMV.

narbs

courtmed wrote:

This seems like as good a place as any to ask about this - I'm toying with the idea of getting my first DSLR. I'd definitely class myself as a beginner so it's really to get to grips with everything & will probably be upgraded after a couple of years. I've had a look myself & it seems like it's between the Nikon D3400 or Canon EOS 750D - is this right?

Pictures will mostly be landscapes, dogs etc. Would love to try astrophotography & also want it to be handy for proper family pictures, pictures of my nephews & nieces playing & things like that. Cheers!

Is there any reason you are thinking of a DSLR? I got rid of mine a few years ago just because it became too bulky to carry around.

There's a great choice of mirrorless cameras and lenses now, image quality is at least equal and much more portable. I love my Fuji XE-2, the standard zoom lens (18-55) is optically streets ahead of the usual kit lenses and the prime lenses are amazing.

I'd go along to Jessops etc and just try holding a few - if it doesn't feel right in your hands you won't want to take it out and use it!

rolf_f

narbs wrote:

courtmed wrote:

This seems like as good a place as any to ask about this - I'm toying with the idea of getting my first DSLR. I'd definitely class myself as a beginner so it's really to get to grips with everything & will probably be upgraded after a couple of years. I've had a look myself & it seems like it's between the Nikon D3400 or Canon EOS 750D - is this right?

Pictures will mostly be landscapes, dogs etc. Would love to try astrophotography & also want it to be handy for proper family pictures, pictures of my nephews & nieces playing & things like that. Cheers!

Is there any reason you are thinking of a DSLR? I got rid of mine a few years ago just because it became too bulky to carry around.

There's a great choice of mirrorless cameras and lenses now, image quality is at least equal and much more portable. I love my Fuji XE-2, the standard zoom lens (18-55) is optically streets ahead of the usual kit lenses and the prime lenses are amazing.

I'd go along to Jessops etc and just try holding a few - if it doesn't feel right in your hands you won't want to take it out and use it!

Plus 1. In the old days, an SLR got you interchangeable lenses and a means of seeing through the viewfinder what the lens saw. In the digital world, neither of those benefits is restricted to DSLRs.

I also use Fuji kit - firstly a lovely little X30 premium compact and now a shiny new XT-2 system camera - with the above mentioned 18-55 and also with the terrific 55-200 (actually a 300mm equivalent in DSLR terms).

I love the Fujis - since I stopped using film I'd found photography just a means to an end with no real pleasure in the actual taking of the pictures. The Fujis with solid metal bodies and generous supplies of dials changed all that. Another nice thing is that mirrorless cameras allow you to use any old SLR lens you like with an adaptor. So rather than pay £750 for the Fuji 90mm, I bought a NOS Tamron 90 with extension tube for £150 boxed from the local second hand camera shop. And there are plenty of far cheaper deals than that.

Ben6899

Potentially stupid question - are these mirrorless cameras, example the Fuji XT-2, as manual as an SLR can be? Do you have full control over ISO, aperture and shutter speed?

Because I've seen some that appear to have "modes" for landscape, portrait which I guess effectively adjusts the exposure properties to achieve what's required for a landscape or a portrait...

narbs

Ben6899 wrote:

Potentially stupid question - are these mirrorless cameras, example the Fuji XT-2, as manual as an SLR can be? Do you have full control over ISO, aperture and shutter speed?

Because I've seen some that appear to have "modes" for landscape, portrait which I guess effectively adjusts the exposure properties to achieve what's required for a landscape or a portrait...

Definitely Ben. In fact I don’t think my X-E2 has any modes. The shutter speed is set from a top plate dial, aperture set on the lens, ISO is set via the menu but you can auto it and set min/max values.

You can set everything to A and let the camera decide if you want to but not sure why you would!

pblakeney

Well, I have a Panasonic LX100 for easy portability which offers full manual control over everything. The results are not as good as my Nikon D600 DSLR though.

briantrumpet

narbs wrote:

You can set everything to A and let the camera decide if you want to but not sure why you would!

Laziness. That's my mode.

briantrumpet

Rolf F wrote:

Plus 1. In the old days, an SLR got you interchangeable lenses and a means of seeing through the viewfinder what the lens saw. In the digital world, neither of those benefits is restricted to DSLRs.

I remember particularly liking the OM1's depth-of-focus preview ability - that's one thing I found it really hard to judge just from the settings.

Ben6899

Thanks chaps.

Urban Hillclimb this afternoon. I'm not competing so I'll try to get some good shots.

rolf_f

briantrumpet wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Plus 1. In the old days, an SLR got you interchangeable lenses and a means of seeing through the viewfinder what the lens saw. In the digital world, neither of those benefits is restricted to DSLRs.

I remember particularly liking the OM1's depth-of-focus preview ability - that's one thing I found it really hard to judge just from the settings.

My Minolta X500 was the same. Lovely camera. Put new batteries in it this week and it still seems fine. The Fujis have nice focus peaking which does highlight the change in DOF resulting from different apertures in certain circumstances when manual focussing.

narbs wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Potentially stupid question - are these mirrorless cameras, example the Fuji XT-2, as manual as an SLR can be? Do you have full control over ISO, aperture and shutter speed?

Because I've seen some that appear to have "modes" for landscape, portrait which I guess effectively adjusts the exposure properties to achieve what's required for a landscape or a portrait...

Definitely Ben. In fact I don’t think my X-E2 has any modes. The shutter speed is set from a top plate dial, aperture set on the lens, ISO is set via the menu but you can auto it and set min/max values.

You can set everything to A and let the camera decide if you want to but not sure why you would!

The Fujis have options for different colour palettes to suit certain conditions but avoid the gimicky special mode settings. They have as much control as a DSLR though I would say that the design of the cameras makes the controls more accessible than most DSLRs. The XT-2 has three dials and two thumbwheels as well as various user definable function buttons. Also, the aperture is controlled by a lens ring which is the only good way to do it! (Though you can set the aperture to be controlled by the camera if you are silly enough!). There is an exposure compensation dial as well which is handier than you might think.

The EVF is also rather excellent and, of course, shows you what the picture will actually look like which optical viewfinders don't.

If the XT-2 is a bit steep, the smaller XT-20 is very similar in the hardware but much cheaper and it has touchscreen which the XT2 lacks though IMO no touchscreen is a big benefit! Also worth looking on the Fuji shop site. I got my X30s from there for £200 each refurbished. That was half retail. The newer stuff isn't so well discounted but the XT10 and XT1 prices are very good when available. Of what is available currently, the refurbished XE2 with 18-55mm lens looks good at £549; less than the retail price of the lens alone. My refurbished X30s showed no signs of use. https://shop.fujifilm.co.uk/fujifilm-x- ... ished.html

pinno

The one thing about an 'analogue' camera, is that compared to digital, it's almost instinctive and simple. Okay, you don't get the instant result and you have to wait for developing. Let's face it, how many people just put a digital camera to auto and muck around with the zoom, click and hope because you don't have to go through the menu and the sub menu's and read an instruction booklet as long as War and Peace?
I find myself reaching for the camera in a moment where you catch some light and it's transient, you have not got time, so I switch it on, keep it steady and click and hope for the best.
I could get my Minolta SRT 101 and get close to an optimum (or what I thought was optimum) with a twist of a dial and an adjustment very quickly instead of the compromise that is the digital camera unless you are totally adept with it.
Of course, the myriad of functions with a digital SLR is that there is almost too much choice whereas with an 'analogue' camera, you know the limit of the camera pretty quickly and work within that.

That bloke who takes pictures with a Box camera takes some amazing shots and that camera is about as simple as it gets.

briantrumpet

Rolf F wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Plus 1. In the old days, an SLR got you interchangeable lenses and a means of seeing through the viewfinder what the lens saw. In the digital world, neither of those benefits is restricted to DSLRs.

I remember particularly liking the OM1's depth-of-focus preview ability - that's one thing I found it really hard to judge just from the settings.

My Minolta X500 was the same. Lovely camera. Put new batteries in it this week and it still seems fine. The Fujis have nice focus peaking which does highlight the change in DOF resulting from different apertures in certain circumstances when manual focussing.

I liked the fact that the battery was only for the light meter (a mechanical device visible in the viewfinder) - everything else is entirely mechanical, and so the camera will work without a battery. On the other hand, when the winding mechanism failed, it cost £100 (about 20 years ago) to get it fixed at the only place in Exeter where they had the watchmaker's skills necessary.

I even played around with a large-format Rolleicord camera for a while, and though it took some cracking photos which had a 'timeless period' feel to them, the novelty wore off - only really practical if you've got your own darkroom to make full use of the format.



But memory of the primitiveness of both of those still makes me smile with delight at the processing that even 'simple' modern digital cameras do.

rolf_f

Pinno wrote:

I could get my Minolta SRT 101 and get close to an optimum (or what I thought was optimum) with a twist of a dial and an adjustment very quickly instead of the compromise that is the digital camera unless you are totally adept with it.
Of course, the myriad of functions with a digital SLR is that there is almost too much choice whereas with an 'analogue' camera, you know the limit of the camera pretty quickly and work within that.

You can do this though with the Fujis - and more so for me since I started dabbling with manual lenses. Move the shutter speed dial from A to your chosen shutter speed, set the ISO you want and then adjust the aperture. The display shows the exposure compensation so you can either match the aperture to get that to zero or adjust the exposure compensation dial. Or just use a traditional light meter. But, ultimately, you are controlling the camera through a wheel and lens ring just like on a manual film camera. The only thing making it more complicated than that is you!

But yes, if you want to get everything optimised there are a lot of pages to the instruction manual!

pinno

Rolf F wrote:

Pinno wrote:

I could get my Minolta SRT 101 and get close to an optimum (or what I thought was optimum) with a twist of a dial and an adjustment very quickly instead of the compromise that is the digital camera unless you are totally adept with it.
Of course, the myriad of functions with a digital SLR is that there is almost too much choice whereas with an 'analogue' camera, you know the limit of the camera pretty quickly and work within that.

You can do this though with the Fujis - and more so for me since I started dabbling with manual lenses. Move the shutter speed dial from A to your chosen shutter speed, set the ISO you want and then adjust the aperture. The display shows the exposure compensation so you can either match the aperture to get that to zero or adjust the exposure compensation dial. Or just use a traditional light meter. But, ultimately, you are controlling the camera through a wheel and lens ring just like on a manual film camera. The only thing making it more complicated than that is you!

But yes, if you want to get everything optimised there are a lot of pages to the instruction manual!

I have yet to take some time to see if I could fit a manual lens to my SLR but that seems like a good option.

I have a gorgeous large zoom for my Minolta but it's a screw mount. However, I have a Canon bayonet mount lens (not zoom) spare.
All the journo's used to use Canon lenses as the Canon wasn't the best but it was the most robust. John Voos (Independent newspaper photgrapher) gave me it. He was one of the select journo's that went to Iceland for the Reagan/Gorbachev summit.

Wheelspinner

I had two mirrorless bodies for a while, same basic camera, just different models. Used one exclusively with old manual lenses, no auto focus, no camera auto setting. The method was to pick either aperture priority and let cam decide shutter speed for fixed ISO, or zet an aperture on the lens, pick a shutter speed wanted as a minimum and let camera set ISO. Simple to use. Or full manual for all the settings.

Focus peaking is useful display for those of us with less than perfect eyesight.

I use some 30 year old manual Zeiss lenses which produce gorgeous images on the Sony.

rolf_f

Pinno wrote:

I have yet to take some time to see if I could fit a manual lens to my SLR but that seems like a good option.

I have a gorgeous large zoom for my Minolta but it's a screw mount. However, I have a Canon bayonet mount lens (not zoom) spare.
All the journo's used to use Canon lenses as the Canon wasn't the best but it was the most robust. John Voos (Independent newspaper photgrapher) gave me it. He was one of the select journo's that went to Iceland for the Reagan/Gorbachev summit.

It isn't so straightforward with SLRs. With Mirrorless, because the lenses are closer to the sensor anyway than with SLRs, there is enough space to take an SLR lens and add an adaptor and still have the lens the correct distance from the sensor. With an SLR lens, unless it is a Tamron Adaptall, the adaptor will move the lens further from the sensor so acting as an extension tube with all the consequences that means (ie you end up with a very nice Macro that can't focus to infinity).

Oddly enough, for all that the facts state DSLRs are bigger than Mirrorless, in oldy camera terms, my XT2 is almost exactly the same size and weight as the X500. I assume then that a modern DSLR must have evolved into a big old fat thing (a bit like what happened to cars!).

pblakeney

Interesting to read everyone’s favourite techniques.
Mine is to use the manual setting, choose the aperture and speed then let the camera choose the ISO. Exposure compensation is then applied as required.

courtmed

narbs wrote:

courtmed wrote:

This seems like as good a place as any to ask about this - I'm toying with the idea of getting my first DSLR. I'd definitely class myself as a beginner so it's really to get to grips with everything & will probably be upgraded after a couple of years. I've had a look myself & it seems like it's between the Nikon D3400 or Canon EOS 750D - is this right?

Pictures will mostly be landscapes, dogs etc. Would love to try astrophotography & also want it to be handy for proper family pictures, pictures of my nephews & nieces playing & things like that. Cheers!

Is there any reason you are thinking of a DSLR? I got rid of mine a few years ago just because it became too bulky to carry around.

There's a great choice of mirrorless cameras and lenses now, image quality is at least equal and much more portable. I love my Fuji XE-2, the standard zoom lens (18-55) is optically streets ahead of the usual kit lenses and the prime lenses are amazing.

I'd go along to Jessops etc and just try holding a few - if it doesn't feel right in your hands you won't want to take it out and use it!

Mostly because, after a fairly cursory research online, DSLR seems to be the best option for value for money. I will have a look in to mirrorless options though - the size isn't too big an issue but the fact that most of them seem to have touchscreens, Wi-Fi etc does appeal to me. Not against buying one from eBay or something so I'll keep an eye out. Cheers!

Ben6899

I'm on my phone and can't find how to embed from Flickr mobile... so you'll have to click the link. A quick one from today's Urban Hillclimb: https://flic.kr/p/XVopJq