Support NeoGAF

[opticalmace]

What program do y'all recommend for simple editing? I think most of the time I'll just be applying auto white balance and sometimes cropping. I know there's Lightroom, DxO (?) and other options.

I just want something that makes it relatively easy to say adjust the white balance of 50 or 100 photos. Should I just use LR maybe?

 

[Reckoner]

Rumors seem to indicate that we will see an A7 III before the end of this year and it will have a dramatically improved autofocus system. The weaker autofocus system is the one thing that would prevent me from recommending the mark II to people, honestly, and it's where the A6300 and A6500 truly excel.

Among those models, I would lean toward the X-T20 or consider the A6300 for around the same price point. Both are great APS-C cameras with fast and accurate auto-focus.

Of course, if you don't plan on shooting moving subjects and want a full frame camera, the A7 II is probably a great choice, but with a successor due soon, I would recommend waiting a bit.

The viewfinder alone would be worth it, IMO

It really depends on what you want to do with it. It's definitely not going to produce photos that are double the quality of the A6000, but the features and capabilities it has could be the difference between getting the shots you want to get and not.

Thank you guys.

I'm sold on the A6300.

 

[Thraktor]

What *I* ended up doing is going with A7II -- reason? Vintage ass glass. Full frame means that all the old glass that people sell for pennies on the dollar will work as it was designed, and you can save a lot. I would say the A7 series is *single handedly* the best lineup for vintage glass. And that's saying a lot, given that the Fuji series actually looks like they are old.

I mean, shit, my 50mm 1.4 costed me $60, and my macro lens costed me $80. Not every vintage glass is good, but when you find a good one at a good price, it can save a lot.

Will it save as much as going from an A7II to an A6000? Probably not, but it helps make it sting less.

That being said, A6000 is also a really, really good camera, though if I were buying now, I'd shoot for the A6300 if possible.

I think you forgot the hyphen.

Seriously, though, I agree with you in that the A7 series is best suited for vintage glass. That said, I'd only recommend the A7II+old lenses combo to a more experienced photographer who's comfortable with manual focus, certainly not a beginner. Plus, although vintage lenses tend to be cheap, if you're anything like me you'll take that as an excuse to go overboard and end up buying exotic lenses you don't really need. At least it's quite a bit less financially ruinous than buying exotic modern autofocus lenses, I suppose.

I've checked on the A6300 and A6500 and I found them to be really good, but there's something that doesn't make sense to me about the price. They both go for $1000 and $1500 respectively, which is A7 territory. I guess that money would be better spent on the full frame sensor, which would make it a no brainer to go for the A7. That also gives points to the A6000, which at $400 seems like a steal.

I think you're over-estimating the importance of a full-frame sensor. The main benefits of full-frame over APS-C will only come into play in relatively limited circumstances, and depend entirely on having wide-aperture lenses in front of the camera, which are often (but not always) pretty expensive. An APS-C camera with a wide-aperture lens (i.e. low f-stop) will actually perform better in low light, and give shallower depth-of-field, than a full-frame camera with a narrow-aperture lens (i.e. high f-stop).

A rough guide is to multiply the aperture of an APS-C lens by 1.5 to get the "equivalent" aperture (in terms of light-gathering) on a full-frame lens. So, an APS-C camera with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens will behave like an f/2.1 lens would on a full-frame camera. The lower the f-stop the more light is let into the lens, which both allows you to get better shots in lower light, and results in a shallower depth of field. Multiplying an f-stop by 1.4 means half as much light gets in, so f/1.4 lets in twice as much as f/2, which lets in twice as much as f/2.8, etc., etc.

Back to that Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The widest-aperture zoom lenses available for full-frame have an aperture of f/2.8, which means that the APS-C + relatively cheap prime lens is actually gathering more light (almost twice as much, in fact) as the best full-frame zoom combo. In fact, in general an APS-C camera with a prime lens (i.e. fixed focal length, doesn't zoom) will give better low light performance than a full-frame camera and zoom lens. Yes, a full-frame camera and prime lens will outperform the APS-C + prime combo in the low-light stakes, but you're generally going to have to pay quite a bit for that jump, both in money and size/weight.

In general I'd recommend beginners to buy a Micro Four Thirds or APS-C camera and just use the kit zoom lens to begin with while you get the hang of the camera and get an idea of what kind of photography you want to do. Then, if you feel you want better low-light capabilities and/or shallow depth of field, get one or two good prime lenses at the focal lengths you've found you like shooting with. Only then, if you still feel that's not fulfilling your desire for shooting in near-pitch-black and getting razor-thin depth of field, would I consider moving to full-frame.

So, to cut a long story short, unless you can find a good deal for the A6300/A6500, just grab the A6000 for $400. Having the extra money to spend on lenses will give you quite a bit more than any of the other camera bodies would. Don't buy any additional lenses right away, though, do quite a bit of shooting first to figure out what kind of lens you would want. At some point you may well start to feel limited by the A6000, and want to jump to the A6500 or even A7II, but by that point they will have come down in price and you can sell on your A6000, so you won't have lost anything in the deal (but will have learnt a lot about what you want out of a camera).

 

[mrklaw]

What program do y'all recommend for simple editing? I think most of the time I'll just be applying auto white balance and sometimes cropping. I know there's Lightroom, DxO (?) and other options.

I just want something that makes it relatively easy to say adjust the white balance of 50 or 100 photos. Should I just use LR maybe?

Lightroom. Try the trial. It’s pretty much designed for what you’re talking about

I've been looking into some cameras and it's really disappointing that both the Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark II and Sony A6000 don't have a mic port. I was looking for something primarily for photography, but with decent video capabilities. From what I gathered, the A6000 is noticeably better on the video front.

I've been debating on waiting and getting a A7s now that they are getting cheap with the MK2 release. Fujifilm X-T2 seems to take good quality image, but isn't it too expensive for an APS-C sensor? Do I have any other cheap options?

1. What is your budget budget? I prefer to go for the A6000 range as a beginner, but wouldn't mind waiting a bit to get a better $1000+ camera.
2. Main purpose of the camera? Photography and vlogging/short films
3. What form factor is most appealing to you? Compact mirrorless
4. Will you be investing in the camera? (buying more stuff for it later) Sure, but will start with some general purpose lens and will think about it later
5. Any cameras you've used before or liked? I've used a low end Canon and a DSLR 650D years ago.

Use an external sound recording device for better quality and better control. Sync it up in editing.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

A rough guide is to multiply the aperture of an APS-C lens by 1.5 to get the "equivalent" aperture (in terms of light-gathering) on a full-frame lens. So, an APS-C camera with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens will behave like an f/2.1 lens would on a full-frame camera. The lower the f-stop the more light is let into the lens, which both allows you to get better shots in lower light, and results in a shallower depth of field. Multiplying an f-stop by 1.4 means half as much light gets in, so f/1.4 lets in twice as much as f/2, which lets in twice as much as f/2.8, etc., etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the crop factor for aperture only apply to the depth of field and not the amount of light that the size of the hole allows in?

As in, F1.8 is generally letting in the same amount of light regardless of sensor size, but the actual depth of field effect will vary wildly depending on how big the sensor is.

 

[opticalmace]

Lightroom. Try the trial. It’s pretty much designed for what you’re talking about

Use an external sound recording device for better quality and better control. Sync it up in editing.

Thanks!

 

[mrklaw]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the crop factor for aperture only apply to the depth of field and not the amount of light that the size of the hole allows in?

As in, F1.8 is generally letting in the same amount of light regardless of sensor size, but the actual depth of field effect will vary wildly depending on how big the sensor is.

Potential can of worms..

I think (because it hurts my head), that crop factor literally only affects crop and therefore field of view. It doesn’t affect light coming in, and doesn’t affect depth of field. The reason people say it affect depth of field is because photos look to have less DoF. But that’s a by product of the field of view and the image (and therefore the background) being magnified.

Doesn’t really matter to me - it does look like the DoF is affected so it will affect your choice of lens/camera body/aperture

 

[Reckoner]

I think you forgot the hyphen.

Seriously, though, I agree with you in that the A7 series is best suited for vintage glass. That said, I'd only recommend the A7II+old lenses combo to a more experienced photographer who's comfortable with manual focus, certainly not a beginner. Plus, although vintage lenses tend to be cheap, if you're anything like me you'll take that as an excuse to go overboard and end up buying exotic lenses you don't really need. At least it's quite a bit less financially ruinous than buying exotic modern autofocus lenses, I suppose.



I think you're over-estimating the importance of a full-frame sensor. The main benefits of full-frame over APS-C will only come into play in relatively limited circumstances, and depend entirely on having wide-aperture lenses in front of the camera, which are often (but not always) pretty expensive. An APS-C camera with a wide-aperture lens (i.e. low f-stop) will actually perform better in low light, and give shallower depth-of-field, than a full-frame camera with a narrow-aperture lens (i.e. high f-stop).

A rough guide is to multiply the aperture of an APS-C lens by 1.5 to get the "equivalent" aperture (in terms of light-gathering) on a full-frame lens. So, an APS-C camera with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 lens will behave like an f/2.1 lens would on a full-frame camera. The lower the f-stop the more light is let into the lens, which both allows you to get better shots in lower light, and results in a shallower depth of field. Multiplying an f-stop by 1.4 means half as much light gets in, so f/1.4 lets in twice as much as f/2, which lets in twice as much as f/2.8, etc., etc.

Back to that Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The widest-aperture zoom lenses available for full-frame have an aperture of f/2.8, which means that the APS-C + relatively cheap prime lens is actually gathering more light (almost twice as much, in fact) as the best full-frame zoom combo. In fact, in general an APS-C camera with a prime lens (i.e. fixed focal length, doesn't zoom) will give better low light performance than a full-frame camera and zoom lens. Yes, a full-frame camera and prime lens will outperform the APS-C + prime combo in the low-light stakes, but you're generally going to have to pay quite a bit for that jump, both in money and size/weight.

In general I'd recommend beginners to buy a Micro Four Thirds or APS-C camera and just use the kit zoom lens to begin with while you get the hang of the camera and get an idea of what kind of photography you want to do. Then, if you feel you want better low-light capabilities and/or shallow depth of field, get one or two good prime lenses at the focal lengths you've found you like shooting with. Only then, if you still feel that's not fulfilling your desire for shooting in near-pitch-black and getting razor-thin depth of field, would I consider moving to full-frame.

So, to cut a long story short, unless you can find a good deal for the A6300/A6500, just grab the A6000 for $400. Having the extra money to spend on lenses will give you quite a bit more than any of the other camera bodies would. Don't buy any additional lenses right away, though, do quite a bit of shooting first to figure out what kind of lens you would want. At some point you may well start to feel limited by the A6000, and want to jump to the A6500 or even A7II, but by that point they will have come down in price and you can sell on your A6000, so you won't have lost anything in the deal (but will have learnt a lot about what you want out of a camera).

Thank you! This was really helpful. I'm actually now leaning towards the A6300, now that I found that deal on the kit for around $900. It seems a noticeable step up in IQ from the 6000. A big one, actually, from what I've seen.

 

[Thraktor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the crop factor for aperture only apply to the depth of field and not the amount of light that the size of the hole allows in?

As in, F1.8 is generally letting in the same amount of light regardless of sensor size, but the actual depth of field effect will vary wildly depending on how big the sensor is.

An f/1.8 lens will always let the same amount of light hit each cm² of the sensor, but as a full frame sensor is larger the amount of light hitting the entire sensor will depend on both the aperture and the size of the sensor. So, comparing an APS-C sensor with an f/2 lens to a FF sensor with an f/2.8 lens, the f/2 lens will give twice as much light per unit area of the sensor, but the FF sensor is (approximately) twice as large, so the total amount of light each sensor is able to gather is around the same.

In reality it will depend on the noise characteristics of the sensors, as you have to push up the FF camera's ISO by about a stop to get the same exposure, so you're comparing the higher-ISO FF to lower-ISO APS-C output, but for the same tech they should be roughly equivalent.

Potential can of worms..

I think (because it hurts my head), that crop factor literally only affects crop and therefore field of view. It doesn’t affect light coming in, and doesn’t affect depth of field. The reason people say it affect depth of field is because photos look to have less DoF. But that’s a by product of the field of view and the image (and therefore the background) being magnified.

Doesn’t really matter to me - it does look like the DoF is affected so it will affect your choice of lens/camera body/aperture

The issue is that depth of field depends on the circle of confusion relative to the size of the sensor or film format, along with pretty much every other variable that changes between an equivalently-framed shot at the same field of view on different sized sensors.

You can actually do the maths on this. From Wikipedia:

I don't have the time to derive the equivalence myself (or, more importantly, to properly format it), but putting in the numbers demonstrates that the ratio does hold. As an example, I compared a full-frame 75mm f/3 setup to an APS-C 50mm f/2 setup both at 2m focussing distance and with a Zeiss formula of d/4000 (to account for high res modern sensors, although the equivalence works regardless of what number you use here). The formula suggests that the full-frame setup will have a depth of field of 46.2mm, compared to 45.4mm on the APS-C configuration. The difference is trivial, and it turns out that there's only a difference to begin with due to the fact that the ratio of diagonals between full-frame and APS-C isn't precisely 1.5. Using the accurate ratio we actually get precisely the same depth of field for both.

 

[giga]

what the heck are you guys and that adobe forum post talking about. I've used lightroom on a Surface Pro 3 which had an i5 and 8gb of ram. Ran fine

Now i have a Dell XPS with an i7 and 32gb of RAM and it runs great. All my photos are stored on a NAS that I hit via 1gbit connection. I run stitched panos with nikon d800 files. Also run IQ180 files through it and scanned 6x17 files through it.

The only issues I have is clone and heal tool is crap compared to Photoshop proper and occasionally i need to close LR just to clear the RAM its using.

Maybe your definition of fine is different from the rest of us. Check the LR forums. Hell check the comments on that post. It's widespread.

It takes multiple seconds to load a 1:1, zoomed in RAW file on my 2016, 13" MBP even though it already has previews generated. There's noticeable lag when scrolling through photos with the arrow keys in the develop module. Applying adjustments with brushes is the same laggy experience. The only usable part of LR is the library module.

 

[Thraktor]

Maybe your definition of fine is different from the rest of us. Check the LR forums. Hell check the comments on that post. It's widespread.

It takes multiple seconds to load a 1:1, zoomed in RAW file on my 2016, 13" MBP even though it already has previews generated. There's noticeable lag when scrolling through photos with the arrow keys in the develop module. Applying adjustments with brushes is the same laggy experience. The only usable part of LR is the library module.

It seems like people are having bigger issues with the Mac version than Windows. Which makes me feel a lot better about clinging onto Aperture for dear life, as it still runs pretty smoothly on my old 2011 MBP.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

what the heck are you guys and that adobe forum post talking about. I've used lightroom on a Surface Pro 3 which had an i5 and 8gb of ram. Ran fine

Now i have a Dell XPS with an i7 and 32gb of RAM and it runs great. All my photos are stored on a NAS that I hit via 1gbit connection. I run stitched panos with nikon d800 files. Also run IQ180 files through it and scanned 6x17 files through it.

The only issues I have is clone and heal tool is crap compared to Photoshop proper and occasionally i need to close LR just to clear the RAM its using.

I think your definition/personal threshold for "fine" and "occasionally" just differ from many of us who are constantly annoyed by how sluggish Lightroom is.

 

[giga]

I'm in a folder with 80 photos. I just switched from the library to develop module and it beachballed for a few seconds despite me not doing anything but clicking "develop." 🙄

 

[Astral/H3X]

Re: Full Frame vs APSC:
To make this as short and sweet as possible, a given aperture and a given focal length at a given focused distance will create a given bokeh, and a given amount of light per cm^2. Because hey! Guess what! These are attributes of *the lens*, not the camera's sensor. And the lens doesn't give a flying shit.

Where the difference comes from, is that an APSC sensor essentially throws away a lot of the image produced by that lens. This means that if you want a mid portrait of a person, using an 85mm at f1.4, across a full frame and an APSC camera, you're going to need to step back when using the APSC camera. And, as mentioned earlier, bokeh is a factor of focused distance, meaning that by increasing the distance between you and your subject, you've lost bokeh.

Tl;Dr, if I take my tripod, my a6000, a7, and 85mm lens, and take the same shot focused at the same distance on both cameras with the same lens, I'll get the *exact same bokeh*. It's just that the A6000 will only have a photo of their face, where the a7 will get their shoulders and hair.

In regards to the light, imagine each Pixel is a bucket. It's raining, and you've got 24 buckets arranged in a square. Now, your buddy next to you, he also has a square, but it's smaller, and he has smaller buckets, but still 24 buckets. They are just smaller buckets. Now, if it rains, and there's 3 inches of rainfall, all 24 of your buckets are going to fill up to 3 inches. And your buddy? All 24 of his buckets will fill up to 3 inches. The difference is that your larger buckets still contain a larger *volume* of water, and thus even though both of you got 3" of rain, you have more total water.
So what does this all mean? With an APSC camera, even if by aperture you're getting the same amount of light per square cm, you have fewer square cm of which to father that light. That light then has to be "stretched" out, since both cameras will take a 24mp photo. It's sort of unintuitive to explain, since on your computer both cameras will produce the same "size" of photo (being the size of your monitor). But ultimately, the lens will always deliver the same light at the same aperture (well, technically, more accurate to say the same light at the same t stop, but fuck it).

Re: Light room performance: so uh, among those who are dissatisfied with LR, who is on a Mac?

 

[captive]

Maybe your definition of fine is different from the rest of us. Check the LR forums. Hell check the comments on that post. It's widespread.

It takes multiple seconds to load a 1:1, zoomed in RAW file on my 2016, 13" MBP even though it already has previews generated. There's noticeable lag when scrolling through photos with the arrow keys in the develop module. Applying adjustments with brushes is the same laggy experience. The only usable part of LR is the library module.

I think your definition/personal threshold for "fine" and "occasionally" just differ from many of us who are constantly annoyed by how sluggish Lightroom is.

check my answers to rentahamster. when i say it ran fine, thats me also acknowledging that my surface wasnt an ideal editing machine. It would lag a lot and i would just deal with it. However, opening a 20k pixel scanned image in Photoshop proper would also lag cause it would start to use the c drive drive as page file, is that photoshops fault for lagging or my fault for trying to edit a 200 megapixel image on a surface with no GPU and 8gb of ram?

firefox also ran pretty crappy on my surface cause im a tab whore.

on my dell both LR and Firefox run great, couldnt be happier.

I'm in a folder with 80 photos. I just switched from the library to develop module and it beachballed for a few seconds despite me not doing anything but clicking "develop." 🙄

yea just tried it, took a split second and it was fully loaded ready to edit.

maybe try buying a better computer than a mac
jk, im sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, and of course tolerance for these things varies drastically person to person.

 

[giga]

check my answers to rentahamster. when i say it ran fine, thats me also acknowledging that my surface wasnt an ideal editing machine. It would lag a lot and i would just deal with it. However, opening a 20k pixel scanned image in Photoshop proper would also lag cause it would start to use the c drive drive as page file, is that photoshops fault for lagging or my fault for trying to edit a 200 megapixel image on a surface with no GPU and 8gb of ram?

firefox also ran pretty crappy on my surface cause im a tab whore.

on my dell both LR and Firefox run great, couldnt be happier.

yea just tried it, took a split second and it was fully loaded ready to edit.

maybe try buying a better computer than a mac
jk, im sure the truth is somewhere in the middle, and of course tolerance for these things varies drastically person to person.

Most of us probably aren't loading 200mp shots here. At that size, lag is normal. But at 20mp on a modern day pro laptop? Nah, not acceptable. It's clearly an issue since they had to even make a blog post about it.

 

[captive]

Most of us probably aren't loading 200mp shots here. At that size, lag is normal. But at 20mp on a modern day pro laptop? Nah, not acceptable. It's clearly an issue since they had to even make a blog post about it.

are you using CC or LR6? Even with D500 or D800 files it runs fine, as in i have no issues with lag or anything, on my dell and thats from a NAS.

 

[nhlducks35]

I'm in a folder with 80 photos. I just switched from the library to develop module and it beachballed for a few seconds despite me not doing anything but clicking "develop." 🙄

Do you have smart previews turned on?

 

[Bob Dobalina]

The performance of LR recently was enough to make me toss CS in the recycle bin and finally install Linux and darktable. Wish I'd done this sooner, tbh.

 

[Astral/H3X]

The performance of LR recently was enough to make me toss CS in the recycle bin and finally install Linux and darktable. Wish I'd done this sooner, tbh.

Does Darktable run on "Ubuntu on Windows"? That might be worth looking at.

 

[JadedWriter]

Re: Full Frame vs APSC:
To make this as short and sweet as possible, a given aperture and a given focal length at a given focused distance will create a given bokeh, and a given amount of light per cm^2. Because hey! Guess what! These are attributes of *the lens*, not the camera's sensor. And the lens doesn't give a flying shit.

Where the difference comes from, is that an APSC sensor essentially throws away a lot of the image produced by that lens. This means that if you want a mid portrait of a person, using an 85mm at f1.4, across a full frame and an APSC camera, you're going to need to step back when using the APSC camera. And, as mentioned earlier, bokeh is a factor of focused distance, meaning that by increasing the distance between you and your subject, you've lost bokeh.

Tl;Dr, if I take my tripod, my a6000, a7, and 85mm lens, and take the same shot focused at the same distance on both cameras with the same lens, I'll get the *exact same bokeh*. It's just that the A6000 will only have a photo of their face, where the a7 will get their shoulders and hair.

In regards to the light, imagine each Pixel is a bucket. It's raining, and you've got 24 buckets arranged in a square. Now, your buddy next to you, he also has a square, but it's smaller, and he has smaller buckets, but still 24 buckets. They are just smaller buckets. Now, if it rains, and there's 3 inches of rainfall, all 24 of your buckets are going to fill up to 3 inches. And your buddy? All 24 of his buckets will fill up to 3 inches. The difference is that your larger buckets still contain a larger *volume* of water, and thus even though both of you got 3" of rain, you have more total water.
So what does this all mean? With an APSC camera, even if by aperture you're getting the same amount of light per square cm, you have fewer square cm of which to father that light. That light then has to be "stretched" out, since both cameras will take a 24mp photo. It's sort of unintuitive to explain, since on your computer both cameras will produce the same "size" of photo (being the size of your monitor). But ultimately, the lens will always deliver the same light at the same aperture (well, technically, more accurate to say the same light at the same t stop, but fuck it).

Re: Light room performance: so uh, among those who are dissatisfied with LR, who is on a Mac?

In all honesty I don't think anybody really needs FF unless they do a shit ton of portraits or low light events or landscapes like Captive. Granted I use a D810 for street photography of all things but still. I'm honestly trying to transition my XT2 into that role a little bit. Really just depends on what I want to shoot.

 

[Astral/H3X]

In all honesty I don't think anybody really needs FF unless they do a shit ton of portraits or low light events or landscapes like Captive. Granted I use a D810 for street photography of all things but still. I'm honestly trying to transition my XT2 into that role a little bit. Really just depends on what I want to shoot.

I can definitely agree with that - - but honestly, sometimes I wish I'd found the budget for A7s2 because that'd be great for ASTRO photos

You know what fuck Android keyboards all of them are shit.

 

[Thraktor]

Re: Full Frame vs APSC:
To make this as short and sweet as possible, a given aperture and a given focal length at a given focused distance will create a given bokeh, and a given amount of light per cm^2. Because hey! Guess what! These are attributes of *the lens*, not the camera's sensor. And the lens doesn't give a flying shit.

Where the difference comes from, is that an APSC sensor essentially throws away a lot of the image produced by that lens. This means that if you want a mid portrait of a person, using an 85mm at f1.4, across a full frame and an APSC camera, you're going to need to step back when using the APSC camera. And, as mentioned earlier, bokeh is a factor of focused distance, meaning that by increasing the distance between you and your subject, you've lost bokeh.

Tl;Dr, if I take my tripod, my a6000, a7, and 85mm lens, and take the same shot focused at the same distance on both cameras with the same lens, I'll get the *exact same bokeh*. It's just that the A6000 will only have a photo of their face, where the a7 will get their shoulders and hair.

In regards to the light, imagine each Pixel is a bucket. It's raining, and you've got 24 buckets arranged in a square. Now, your buddy next to you, he also has a square, but it's smaller, and he has smaller buckets, but still 24 buckets. They are just smaller buckets. Now, if it rains, and there's 3 inches of rainfall, all 24 of your buckets are going to fill up to 3 inches. And your buddy? All 24 of his buckets will fill up to 3 inches. The difference is that your larger buckets still contain a larger *volume* of water, and thus even though both of you got 3" of rain, you have more total water.
So what does this all mean? With an APSC camera, even if by aperture you're getting the same amount of light per square cm, you have fewer square cm of which to father that light. That light then has to be "stretched" out, since both cameras will take a 24mp photo. It's sort of unintuitive to explain, since on your computer both cameras will produce the same "size" of photo (being the size of your monitor). But ultimately, the lens will always deliver the same light at the same aperture (well, technically, more accurate to say the same light at the same t stop, but fuck it).

Re: Light room performance: so uh, among those who are dissatisfied with LR, who is on a Mac?

I should clarify that when I'm talking about depth-of-field equivalence between sensor sizes, I'm comparing lenses with the same field of view, not the same focal length. That is, comparing a 30mm APS-C lens to a 45mm FF lens, or a 60mm APS-C lens to a 90mm FF lens. I'm doing that because, for someone who's choosing between an APS-C camera or a FF camera, or a MFT camera for that matter, it gives a useful way to compare possible camera & lens combinations between different sensor formats. And from that point, it works. A 30mm f/1.4 lens on an APS-C camera will give similar low-light and depth of field to a 45mm f/2.1 lens on a full frame camera, all other things being equal.

Comparing how a given focal length behaves on FF vs APS-C is only relevant to someone who already owns the lens and wants to decide what camera to attach it to. For someone buying a new camera and lenses (or buying a camera with the intent of buying lenses for it in the future) they should be thinking in terms of field of view, not focal length. For the most part they are, even though most of us couldn't tell you the field of view of our most used camera & lens combos. We'll use terms like "wide-angle" or "telephoto" to talk about field of view in a vague term, or "35mm equivalent" to be more precise (and also somewhat confusing to new photographers).

 

[giga]

are you using CC or LR6? Even with D500 or D800 files it runs fine, as in i have no issues with lag or anything, on my dell and thats from a NAS.

CC

Do you have smart previews turned on?

Yes because I work offline sometimes.

 

[captive]

CC



Yes because I work offline sometimes.

im getting a sense, albeit completely anecdotal, that everyone with performance issues are on CC.
Microsoft has recently done a constant update cycle for one of the products i deploy for work. Everyone was excited saying "Yes we're going to get new features faster" and i said "yea, you're also going to get new bugs faster."

I just don't really care for the lets get new features out the door as fast as we can model.

 

[Rentahamster]

im getting a sense, albeit completely anecdotal, that everyone with performance issues are on CC.

I had similar thoughts as well, but I don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

 

[JadedWriter]

im getting a sense, albeit completely anecdotal, that everyone with performance issues are on CC.
Microsoft has recently done a constant update cycle for one of the products i deploy for work. Everyone was excited saying "Yes we're going to get new features faster" and i said "yea, you're also going to get new bugs faster."

I just don't really care for the lets get new features out the door as fast as we can model.

Yes. A glitch in Premiere Pro CC fucked me and another coworker because we update regularly. We had to use another coworkers computer and connect that computer to ours and export the footage. We were getting fucking Predator vision.

 

[Astral/H3X]

I should clarify that when I'm talking about depth-of-field equivalence between sensor sizes, I'm comparing lenses with the same field of view, not the same focal length. That is, comparing a 30mm APS-C lens to a 45mm FF lens, or a 60mm APS-C lens to a 90mm FF lens. I'm doing that because, for someone who's choosing between an APS-C camera or a FF camera, or a MFT camera for that matter, it gives a useful way to compare possible camera & lens combinations between different sensor formats. And from that point, it works. A 30mm f/1.4 lens on an APS-C camera will give similar low-light and depth of field to a 45mm f/2.1 lens on a full frame camera, all other things being equal.

Comparing how a given focal length behaves on FF vs APS-C is only relevant to someone who already owns the lens and wants to decide what camera to attach it to. For someone buying a new camera and lenses (or buying a camera with the intent of buying lenses for it in the future) they should be thinking in terms of field of view, not focal length. For the most part they are, even though most of us couldn't tell you the field of view of our most used camera & lens combos. We'll use terms like "wide-angle" or "telephoto" to talk about field of view in a vague term, or "35mm equivalent" to be more precise (and also somewhat confusing to new photographers).

Correct, but I think it's important to understand the "why" of how this works, in addition to how it ultimately plays out (being conversion of equivalence and such). It took me a good while to understand why the conversion was needed for bokeh and light levels, since I understood that the lens was utterly unnaffected by the sensor, but most online discussions are worded in a way that implies they are.

 

[RuGalz]

I'm in a folder with 80 photos. I just switched from the library to develop module and it beachballed for a few seconds despite me not doing anything but clicking "develop." 🙄

I usually see that after the cache has built up too much. Have you disabled gpu accel, clear the LR cache, turn off facial recognition and LR mobile link, and I'm assuming your macbook has ssd?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Had a chance to play around with a Sony A9 display unit in a store earlier today. Jesus Christ, that thing is an absolute beast at focusing and actually taking photos at 20 fps silently is just as insane as it looks. Too bad it's just so damn expensive.

I hope some of that autofocus technology makes its way into the A7 III.

 

[mrklaw]

while people are getting heated up about LR - any opinions on LR mobile? Curious to try it mainly after an initial import on my computer to do basic tweaks on my ipad pro. Mainly so I'm not stuck in my spare room for ages doing it. Already used the free period so would need to get a CC subscription.

Had considered doing it on my surface pro 4, but Adobe doesn't think people have more than one computer. Don't fancy the idea of dropboxing the catalogue as wouldn't it need to sync the entire thing if I make one change?

 

[JadedWriter]

Had a chance to play around with a Sony A9 display unit in a store earlier today. Jesus Christ, that thing is an absolute beast at focusing and actually taking photos at 20 fps silently is just as insane as it looks. Too bad it's just so damn expensive.

I hope some of that autofocus technology makes its way into the A7 III.

I'd really have to get used to the lack of shutter feedback to even contemplate it. I think I'd have to get used to Sony ergonomics and go to town customizing the function buttons as well. I really just don't seem to enjoy using Sony bodies.

 

[RuGalz]

Had considered doing it on my surface pro 4, but Adobe doesn't think people have more than one computer. Don't fancy the idea of dropboxing the catalogue as wouldn't it need to sync the entire thing if I make one change?

The workflow they want people to use is via mobile sync, which doesn't have access to the full category just the collections you setup to sync. Everything else just seems like a hassle imo.

 

[RS4-]

Best mirrorless for $500 usd, give or take? I missed out on a5000 deals when I think they were going for 200 or 300 CAD a few weeks back lol.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Best mirrorless for $500 usd, give or take? I missed out on a5000 deals when I think they were going for 200 or 300 CAD a few weeks back lol.

I believe the a6000, a much better camera, should be available around that price with some searching.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

What is the consensus on the d3300? Seeing it bundled with two VR II lenses (18-55 and 55-200) for about $500. Seems like the perfect entry point for an amateur wanting to get back into photography. Would probably add a prime lens next. I had an OG Canon Rebel back in the day. I imagine things have improved quite a bit.

 

[JadedWriter]

What is the consensus on the d3300? Seeing it bundled with two VR II lenses (18-55 and 55-200) for about $500. Seems like the perfect entry point for an amateur wanting to get back into photography. Would probably add a prime lens next. I had an OG Canon Rebel back in the day. I imagine things have improved quite a bit.

It's an adequate cheap DSLR with good picture quality, but very poor ergonomics and on camera options. I never chase after entry point cameras cause they feel horrible, but they work if that's the only thing in your budget. I also really don't even like the D5xxx series. Pretty much once I got used to the twin dial system on the upper end cameras I'm not going back, period. I have called them "soccer mom" cameras.

 

[Ty4on]

The Sigma 14mm f1.8 is scary sharp. Like holy shit, this is vs the Canon 14mm f2.8L II at f2.8:

It's not that much worse wide open either.
Usually "slow" and expensive lenses tend to be the sharpest because they can focus on optimizing for that aperture. It seems counter intuitive because usually slower lenses are cheaper and softer, but if you look at high end f4 zooms, f2.8~ macros and some slow primes like Leica's 50mm f2 Summicron you can see them beating out faster lenses at the same aperture.

 

[nhlducks35]

I'm getting rid of it for a A7R ii, but the 6D sensor is still amazing in low light IMO

Spoiler

6400 ISO

Spoiler

12800 ISO

 

[Miniature Kaiju]

It's an adequate cheap DSLR with good picture quality, but very poor ergonomics and on camera options.

Agreed. Had one (borrowed) as a backup body for a while. Image quality is pretty good, ergonomics are pretty crummy. That missing front dial is a pain.

 

[JadedWriter]

Agreed. Had one (borrowed) as a backup body for a while. Image quality is pretty good, ergonomics are pretty crummy. That missing front dial is a pain.

Yeah when it comes to most cameras I don't touch shit without an iso button and separate dials for shutter and aperture. I strayed...slightly with that on the XT2, but changing settings isn't that cumbersome. I don't want to use anything that reliant on menus.

 

[Widdle Puppy]

I got an x100f.

This camera is so dope.

 

[Ty4on]

Yeah when it comes to most cameras I don't touch shit without an iso button and separate dials for shutter and aperture. I strayed...slightly with that on the XT2, but changing settings isn't that cumbersome. I don't want to use anything that reliant on menus.

You can get away with it if you get used to it once you learn where the ISO and aperture buttons are. On the D5200 I hit the flash button every now and then trying to hit the fn (ISO) button and while trying some night photography I kept missing the drive mode button which I used a lot to turn on the self timer.

I try to stay in manual ISO with it because it is a pain to go to the menu to switch it on and off. Using one finger to move the mode dial over to A or S is much easier.

The menus are really crap tho. I always forgot where settings were located because the groupings made no sense and had to use them a fair bit to turn useful features like delayed shutter on and off.

 

[JadedWriter]

You can get away with it if you get used to it once you learn where the ISO and aperture buttons are. On the D5200 I hit the flash button every now and then trying to hit the fn (ISO) button and while trying some night photography I kept missing the drive mode button which I used a lot to turn on the self timer.

I try to stay in manual ISO with it because it is a pain to go to the menu to switch it on and off. Using one finger to move the mode dial over to A or S is much easier.

The menus are really crap tho. I always forgot where settings were located because the groupings made no sense and had to use them a fair bit to turn useful features like delayed shutter on and off.

Yeah this is why I like having as many on camera buttons as possible. I don't even think the lower tier stuff has CH or CL settings...like seriously? Do they even have 3D mode?

I got an x100f.

This camera is so dope.

Congrats!!

 

[Astral/H3X]

Yeah this is why I like having as many on camera buttons as possible. I don't even think the lower tier stuff has CH or CL settings...like seriously? Do they even have 3D mode?

Congrats!!

The fuck are ch and cl settings, or 3d mode?

 

[Miniature Kaiju]

The fuck are ch and cl settings, or 3d mode?

Continuous High, Continuous Low and 3D Matrix Metering.

AFAIK, the 3xxx and 5xxx have no CL and CH, but do have 3D Matrix.

EDIT: or 3D-tracking, that they also have, I believe.

 

[Flo_Evans]

The fuck are ch and cl settings, or 3d mode?

continuous high / low burst mode

3d is autofocus tracking. Supposed to lock on to a subject and track it.

edit: could mean 3d matrix metering, but I am pretty sure every nikon has that. Pretty sure all of them have a selectable burst speed too, I honestly can't remember a camera that didn't.

 

[Reckoner]

I got an x100f.

This camera is so dope.

Absolutely love the colors that camera can produce. Congrats on the purchase!

 

[JadedWriter]

The fuck are ch and cl settings, or 3d mode?

How have you never used these? Pretty much CH and 3D tracking go hand in hand.

 

[Astral/H3X]

Oh, I just think of them as burst modes, never heard of CH/CL before.

Also manual lenses don't have tracking.