-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Official Camera Equipment Megathread
- Thread starter demon
- Start date
- Status
element
Member
I went out tonight and just used the Canon. It is pretty boss. It was much wider than I expected. Almost perfect for taking photos in a crowd.
I did take some quick compare shots with my dog. Put the camera on a tripod that was about 3 feet from the couch (distance is always my issue with lenses).
I was silly and had it on auto when I took the shot with the Canon, so that is why it is set to 1.6 and not 1.4.
I did take some quick compare shots with my dog. Put the camera on a tripod that was about 3 feet from the couch (distance is always my issue with lenses).
I was silly and had it on auto when I took the shot with the Canon, so that is why it is set to 1.6 and not 1.4.
POWERSPHERE
Member
Man, your dog is AMAZING!
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Its hard to test for color indoors due to the unnatural lighting but Canon has always had a warmer skew to their lenses. In that regard I definitely prefer the Sigma.
Mustaphadamus
Member
Nothing a 18% grey card or colorchecker passport (my personal favorite) wont fix.BlueTsunami said:
The best thing to do is to learn the zone system (the portion applicable to digital photography). You do that you wont have problems with under exposed photos and you can start to make intelligent decisions on exposing and being artistic with your choices. Also it will help to understand the histogram and what colors should fall where and why.BlueTsunami said:
Always-honest said:
I had 30mm f1.4 for a bit and it's a lovely lens.
Pro
- starburst (best I had with any lens)
Con
- the pearl coating used by old sigma lenses tend to wear out... I've seen pictures of newer ones that use better coating (same coating as the new 85mm...)
I had no issues with sharpness/focus/etc. Oh... and the backcap for sigma does not fit on a canon lens :S.. so I ended up buying a spare canon cap
http://www.flickr.com/photos/eventide/sets/72157626352437720/with/4312738361/
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Mustaphadamus said:
Definitely need distance myself from being so dependent on chimping (looking at the LCD constantly to guestimate the correct exposure). What I've been doing lately is exposing for an area in the scene I know isn't tough for the meter and dial my EV over or under depending on the scene. But even then its inexact.
Mustaphadamus
Member
Bro, do yourself a BIG BIG favor. You can thank me later when I drop this jewel on you. Spend 50 bucks and get this video http://www.photoshopcafe.com/video/products/zones.htmBlueTsunami said:
This system was created by Fred Archer and Ansel Adams. It will absolutely change your way of photography. Believe it (in Naruto voice)
*edit*
I am not a member of that website and have nothing to do with the production of that video nor do i see any money from the sale of those videos. My father was what I would call a SERIOUS amateur photographer. Entered contest, took classes with some very big named famous photographers etc. From him I was interested in it and learned here and there. i am semi pro now (not full time yet). This system has helped me out 100% in my business and my art. Trust me, it will help you.
BlueTsunami said:
I used to chimp a lot when I was shooting JPEG (not that long ago) on my 40D. Got real good at judging exposure from it. You probably recall my long hesitation in getting into RAW and post-processing, preferring minimal adjustments.
These days I can't chimp, because the 7D has an auto brightness LCD (I know I can turn it off), but that combined with RAW, I can feel I'm just lazy with exposure now.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Mustaphadamus said:
Thanks for the link, I think thats the next aspect of my skillset that I need to work on. Will definitely be looking into that.
Mustaphadamus said:
I do the same thing since I shoot RAW. I tend to try to overexpose my photo just a bit and drop the exposure in post to help give a cleaner image.
345triangle
Member
wait, i thought you were supposed to overexpose for film and underexpose RAW? i certainly find it a lot easier to draw detail out of shadows than highlights in the latter.
If you underexpose with digital RAW and try and pull detail from shadows, noise will be part of the result.345triangle said:
I don't pretend to understand all the technicalities of it, but digital RAW records more details in highlights than it does in the shadows. That means you'll find it easier to pull back the highlights than you will pushing the shadows.
Nope, overexpose for RAW. Here is an article that explains why. Essentially its because you get more image data for better detail. You have to be careful though because if you've overexposed enough to clip the histogram and blow out the highlights then the detail is lost.345triangle said:
345triangle
Member
well that's what i mean - blown highlights are completely unsalvageable, whereas your sensor's never going to record a shadow as solid black. that article's talking about adding subtle detail without ruining the image, which makes sense.
also, surely overexposure is less of a problem with negative film because the "information" likely all gets caught on the negative so you can bring it out in development, whereas there's nothing you can do to add detail to shadows in underexposed film?
obviously it's best to get it right in the camera but i think it's much easier to correct a digital image for severe underexposure than a negative, and vice versa. i don't develop my own film, though...
also i 95% shoot black and white, so noise in shadows doesn't bother me as much...i go for pretty aggressive, contrasty PP so highlights are the last thing i want from a starting point.
also, surely overexposure is less of a problem with negative film because the "information" likely all gets caught on the negative so you can bring it out in development, whereas there's nothing you can do to add detail to shadows in underexposed film?
obviously it's best to get it right in the camera but i think it's much easier to correct a digital image for severe underexposure than a negative, and vice versa. i don't develop my own film, though...
also i 95% shoot black and white, so noise in shadows doesn't bother me as much...i go for pretty aggressive, contrasty PP so highlights are the last thing i want from a starting point.
Film naturally has a higher dynamic range than digital does and it can often work well in both pull and push processing (overexposing and underexposing). When I took a B&W film class we were told to buy one of two different 400 ISO rated film and shoot with the camera set to an ISO of 125. So I guess we were overexposing and pulling in processing (unless I have the terminology backwards).
Mustaphadamus
Member
underexposing or overexposing without any intelligent thought behind it is something that should be avoided. Always approach it from a intelligent standpoint. We master the tools so that we can bring our artistic vision into creation. As someone said, the dynamic range on a digital camera is not as vast as it is on a film based camera, but that is ok. You do gain a stop with a full frame sensor as opposed to a crop sensor, however it still doesnt compare to a film camera.
Anyway, so what do I mean by the above. Well lets say you have someone on a bright sunny day and they have a white hat on and a dark navy blue coat on. Naturally, you will not be able to pull both into range, so one is either over exposed or under exposed. Well this is when we must learn to speak artistically. By this I mean, a photograph is a conversation without words. You have a subject and your attempting to convey something about that subject. So, in this case are you trying to convey something about the hat, jacket or the person wearing them? Which one is more important to you, maintaining detail in the jacket and the person or the hat and the person or can you do it in those combinations? Once you sort that out, then you expose for the subject and allow whatever in the scene that is not important to be over or under exposed. This is the science behind the zone system created by Ansel Adams and Fred Archer. It is very critical to understand how this works.
I should add this also depends on if the shooter is using natural light or studio lighting. Once you have artificial (off camera lighting) in the mix the dynamics change and you have more options. With off camera/studio lighting you now have control of the entire scene. However, understanding the zone system is important still when looking at the histogram, understanding what colors fall where on the histogram. This will tell you if your scene is over or under exposed or what colors are falling where. Also when post processing and adjusting brightness etc. Generally though, you are going to use a light meter in a studio situation. Well I should say most would. I see some people on the internet say they dont need one blah blah blah but generally speaking those are hobbyist not getting paid to do assignments. Nothing wrong with being a hobbyist but for serious work a light meter can make a huge difference. Some argue the light meter doesn't allow you to be artistic. I think that is total nonsense, I tis just like the camera, a tool used that allows us to create our vision. All that light meter does is tells us how much light is falling where. You can still dial in your exposure to over or under expose that area or to even boost the output from your lights for certain affects etc. (lets say your doing low key lighting for example). Anyway, if anyone is interested in learning the zone system, scroll up, I posted a amazing video on the subject. It will help you understand how your camera works and how the light meter in your camera works. Also will give you a TINY introduction into color theory.
Anyway, so what do I mean by the above. Well lets say you have someone on a bright sunny day and they have a white hat on and a dark navy blue coat on. Naturally, you will not be able to pull both into range, so one is either over exposed or under exposed. Well this is when we must learn to speak artistically. By this I mean, a photograph is a conversation without words. You have a subject and your attempting to convey something about that subject. So, in this case are you trying to convey something about the hat, jacket or the person wearing them? Which one is more important to you, maintaining detail in the jacket and the person or the hat and the person or can you do it in those combinations? Once you sort that out, then you expose for the subject and allow whatever in the scene that is not important to be over or under exposed. This is the science behind the zone system created by Ansel Adams and Fred Archer. It is very critical to understand how this works.
I should add this also depends on if the shooter is using natural light or studio lighting. Once you have artificial (off camera lighting) in the mix the dynamics change and you have more options. With off camera/studio lighting you now have control of the entire scene. However, understanding the zone system is important still when looking at the histogram, understanding what colors fall where on the histogram. This will tell you if your scene is over or under exposed or what colors are falling where. Also when post processing and adjusting brightness etc. Generally though, you are going to use a light meter in a studio situation. Well I should say most would. I see some people on the internet say they dont need one blah blah blah but generally speaking those are hobbyist not getting paid to do assignments. Nothing wrong with being a hobbyist but for serious work a light meter can make a huge difference. Some argue the light meter doesn't allow you to be artistic. I think that is total nonsense, I tis just like the camera, a tool used that allows us to create our vision. All that light meter does is tells us how much light is falling where. You can still dial in your exposure to over or under expose that area or to even boost the output from your lights for certain affects etc. (lets say your doing low key lighting for example). Anyway, if anyone is interested in learning the zone system, scroll up, I posted a amazing video on the subject. It will help you understand how your camera works and how the light meter in your camera works. Also will give you a TINY introduction into color theory.
I checked out that video you linked. I'm glad I did, it's a nicely presented adaptation of it for colour and digital. I had previously heard about the zone system, but hadn't read much on it. It's definitely something well worth knowing.Mustaphadamus said:
When he talks about the histogram though, it is pointed out that there is more detail stored in the highlights than there is in the shadows, by a considerable amount. If at all unsure, it is best to err to that side. It is no excuse for laziness of course, as it is always best to get as much correct before you press the shutter button.
Mustaphadamus
Member
Glad it helped man and yes indeed you can recover somewhat from blown highlight depending on how many stops over. But, as you said, laziness is never a good thing. BUT I should add it really depends on ones goal and aim for photography. I am what i would call semi pro now, I have clients and my work is published. I get paid to know what i am doing. So my goal and ultimate aim is geared toward a professional slant. However, if your goal is to post up on flickr and share some cool stuff with friends then maybe learning how to properly use a camera isn't a great concern. But if you want to take it to the next level then yeah, the zone system for digital photography is a absolute must. I should also add learning full stops for aperture and shutter speed also will come to be very important if you want to progress with the zone system. It helps when making artistic decisions.Danoss said:
Jtwo said:
It can be impractical and from depending on your worklfow it definitely could be. However the positives so far outweigh the negatives, for me at least, that shooting with my digital kit has been relegated to test shots. The difference in color (though you have to work for this one in the digitizing phase), resolution, dof, and just the way it renders an image, keep me from wanting to shoot digital unless I have to. It just a major major difference and to be honest all but the top end from Phase & Hasselblad can touch film (medium and up).
At this point my full nikon kit (24-70, 70-200 and all the rest) are functioning as a fancy polaroid. I think with the used market now if you want to get into film you have no excuses. Great prices, great systems. You can mail in your film if you want and wait it out.
Lucky Forward
Member
Thanks for the link, I just ordered my copy. I've been into photography off and on for many years and I'm used to thinking in stops as far as shutter speed, f/ stop, and ISO, and I'm also comfortable with using exposure compensation, but I've never felt like I understand exposure as well as I should, so this looks like a good place to learn from the ground up.Mustaphadamus said:
Mustaphadamus
Member
This is completely not true. When it comes to color, that is dependent upon many things. First are you viewing the images on a screen? If so, is your screen/monitor calibrated? What are you using for color correction? are you using 18% grey card for white balance? then what you using to get accurate colors? People do not realize but a photo out of your camera is not going to be 100% accurate. There then needs to be post processing. They did it during Ansel Adams time and they still need to do it now (via photoshop or whatever else post processing tool). Also if printing is your printer calibrated using the same profile you used on your monitor?zombi said:
Next, when it comes to resolution are we talking full frame or crop factor? Are we using higher end glass (lenses)? A tamaron lens is not going to have the resolution of a Carl Zeiss lens. Also how many mega pixels are we talking about? How many mega pixels on which format, crop or full-frame? There was a comparison between a Hassleblad and a Sony a900 not to long ago, you should do a google search to see the results. I defy anyone to look at a medium format, full-frame or film camera and compare the two and tell the distance. Anyone who says they can is lying. We must also remember, I am talking about these cameras in capable hands.
Google Matthew Jordan Smith and look at his portfolio, most if not all is shot with the Sony a900, Go look at Brian Smith he also shoots with the a900, also check out Melissa Rodwell and look for her portfolio. She shoots with a Nikon D2 and she shot ONE editorial not to long ago with a hasselblad. I forget the name of it but its on a beach in a bodville styled shoot. Again, try and tell the difference, you will not be able to. Chase Jarvis shoots with a Nikon D3, so does Scott Kelby and Joe Mcnally, now go compare them to Mario Testino, Nick Knight, patrick demarchelier, and giampaolo sgura who also shoot with medium formats. The difference is in photoshop, for instance they are using pixel level editing for the fashion guys I named which is why the quality is different, not the camera. Now go look at another fashion photographer named benjamin kanarek who is not only using a digital camera but a crop sensor Pentax to boot. Cameras are just tools, period and unless you are blowing them up to appear on a billboard you will NOT be able to know what came from what. I will say when you are editing you will notice high pixel count cameras capture more detail but that has nothing to do with anything other than again the pixels not a medium format versus a full frame or crop frame digital cameras issue. YOu have to edit a LOT more on a camera with higher mega pixels (if you are doing pixel level dodging and burning).
Mustaphadamus said:
I dont want to bullet point out my answers. Too much work. However, yep calibrated (to both the print lab and my printer epson 9800, but man printing is a crappy process). Color correction done depending on the situation, in Lightroom or in Photoshop or in the flex software when Im scanning (on an imacon 646). And blah blah.
Lenses are all nikons top end. When comparing images to medium format Im discussing of course my work and my equipment. With a mamiya rz67 or afd system I can scan to somewhere around 70-80 megapixels. Now I know these numbers are different than what youd find on a digital just due to the digitizing but just so you have a frame of reference.
I dont really want to get into an argument over something as trivial as tools. It is something that really brings down creativity. However, I wanted to throw my 2 cents in. I never said you cant take amazing photographs on anything. Ive taken some of my favorite photos on cropped sensors & my iphone. Like you said, they are tools. However in the studio I prefer film. Hell, even on location Ill use it if I can. Its just what works for my work as of now. When Im printing 40 or 60 inch prints there is a major difference. When Im shooting 1 foot from someone thats when bellows focusing comes in hand (something that just sucks to set up on a digital kit).
One thing to note is that yes if youre only viewing images on screen or at 8x10 then totally use whatever you want. Just about every format looks great at that point. And truth be told for the majority of my client work I do digital purely based on speed and efficiency. However, when it comes to shows or my own personal projects I love working with film. Its slower, more constraining, and again slower, but it fits my needs. Big prints, lot of detail in those big prints.
Bottom line, dont be afraid to shoot film folks. It can be fun and the rewards can definitely be worth it provided it fits in with your workflow.
Mustaphadamus
Member
zombi
.
how are you color correcting in photoshop? With what? What are you using as your base for what is accurate color?
Ok you are using nikkor, with which model Nikon body? Are your lenses fixed focal length? Also same question on the medium format body. This is not a cut and dry issue.
thats when a good macro comes in handy
. I am not knocking you if it works for you. But earlier you made it seem like film is better and its just not true. It does have a certain look to it that you would have to work in photoshop to recreate. As for Medium Format versus a D3, Mark IV or a900 the benefits are not so much. If we are talking crop sensor then thats another story. I will say though, film will force people to understand how to actually use a camera instead of just shooting off 500 frames and hoping they get something good.
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
For those who are curious...
350 vs 3500 50mm lens test (Canon 50/1.4 vs the Leica-M 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/995012/0#lastmessage
The wide open performance of the Summilux is absolutely amazing.
350 vs 3500 50mm lens test (Canon 50/1.4 vs the Leica-M 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH)
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/995012/0#lastmessage
The wide open performance of the Summilux is absolutely amazing.
http://www.gunleik.com/tests/alexmx/RED1_MX_and_Arri_Alexa/Introduction.html
Camera porn of the ultimate kind: $70,000 beast versus $42,000 beast. FIGHT!
Camera porn of the ultimate kind: $70,000 beast versus $42,000 beast. FIGHT!
I perfer film color over digital. Personally I just like fujifilm's "unrealitic" color better. But I havent shoot a roll in a while. Getting quality scan out of film still cost alot of money and at some point it was not worth it to me.
Dont want to sound like an old fart but the handling of a mechanically camera inject so much joy in the shooting experience. It make me feel like an "operator" just to shoot the film properly. When I shoot digital there is too much time I spend behind the computer. I am a competant photoshop user but the user experience of working on photoshop is nowhere as enjoyable as the user experience of operating a mechanical camera. I hope there is a happy medium I can find someahere.
Dont want to sound like an old fart but the handling of a mechanically camera inject so much joy in the shooting experience. It make me feel like an "operator" just to shoot the film properly. When I shoot digital there is too much time I spend behind the computer. I am a competant photoshop user but the user experience of working on photoshop is nowhere as enjoyable as the user experience of operating a mechanical camera. I hope there is a happy medium I can find someahere.
long shot... but can anyone recommend a tripod that is less than 0.3m when shrunk and extends to about 1.5m or am I just being unrealistic?
mostly want to fit in my bag, I've started to do long exposure's at nights, but hate the fact of carrying something quite bulky with me. Although I think a min tripod or a mono pod might be better suited to my needs :s at the moment I'm just resting my camera on ledges, bridges and posts to get my pictures with a remote.
what should I do gaf?
mostly want to fit in my bag, I've started to do long exposure's at nights, but hate the fact of carrying something quite bulky with me. Although I think a min tripod or a mono pod might be better suited to my needs :s at the moment I'm just resting my camera on ledges, bridges and posts to get my pictures with a remote.
what should I do gaf?
does it have to fit IN your bag? you can't secure it on the outside of the bag?MRORANGE said:
looks like B&H lists a few options when you select tripod legs and 10"-14" folded length.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ci=2636&N=4291756643+4291757679
Also remember that you can take the head off when not using it.
Considering selling my like-new (bought in February) Canon 135L.
I've been doing mainly video lately (just did my first TV commercial!) and haven't used the lens at all. I know it's an amazing lens but I probably shouldn't have bought it.
I'll let it go for $950 shipped if anyone is interested.
I've been doing mainly video lately (just did my first TV commercial!) and haven't used the lens at all. I know it's an amazing lens but I probably shouldn't have bought it.
I'll let it go for $950 shipped if anyone is interested.
NathanMcMahon
Banned
Alfarif said:
Is that Sofia Coppola's review?
edit:
I'm a bit confused as that appears to be her but maybe not?
Kamakazie!
Member
So I'm pretty much set on going for the Olympus E-PL2 for my new camera (though still thinking about the Nex hmmmm) and I was wondering if people think it is worth getting the bundle with the M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm as well as the standard lens?
It would cost roughly £100 more. I would like to get a larger zoom at some stage and for the amount I would use it, it wouldn't be worth me spending significant amount for one.
What do people think?
Also, does anyone know anywhere to get the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 anywhere that is not £300? If not I am gonna wait it out in the hope that somebody else brings a decently fast and compact pancake (this is what is putting me off the Nex at the moment.... no compact, fast lens available and the fast Zeiss announces is BIG).
Thanks
It would cost roughly £100 more. I would like to get a larger zoom at some stage and for the amount I would use it, it wouldn't be worth me spending significant amount for one.
What do people think?
Also, does anyone know anywhere to get the Panasonic 20mm F1.7 anywhere that is not £300? If not I am gonna wait it out in the hope that somebody else brings a decently fast and compact pancake (this is what is putting me off the Nex at the moment.... no compact, fast lens available and the fast Zeiss announces is BIG).
Thanks
Futureman said:
Always wanted a 135, but passed the opportunity to get it many times(and for cheaper).
Note, we dob't know what Canon is doing regards to the aftermath of the quake. Its's possible that lens prices will go up in the near future, thus pushing people to the secondary Market.
Always-honest
Banned
thanx. i think i'll order one soon.mrnorush said:
Alright guys, I need some help. A friend of mine is heading to Italy this summer for vacation and wants to get a good camera. Right now she is leaning towards this package here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0040YXI2Y/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Now what's everyone's opinion on it. I'm not too huge on cameras so I'm not the best to ask but I saw that reviews were good. Do you guys think the package is worth it?
Now what's everyone's opinion on it. I'm not too huge on cameras so I'm not the best to ask but I saw that reviews were good. Do you guys think the package is worth it?
Valkyr Junkie
Member
BLSwagger10 said:
Decent kit, but what's her aptitude level when it comes to photography? If she isn't too adept, she might get intimidated by the extra lenses and filters. She might be better off with a micro four thirds or NEX camera since they're smaller, easier to carry during travel, and quality wise will have no problems matching the camera body in that kit.
Valkyr Junkie said:
She's used cameras and kits like this before for awhile but has never had one of her own due to money being the main issue. She's been doing research for awhile and that Canon has been the one shes settled on, she just wanted to make sure her instinct was right.
reggieandTFE
Member
Kamakazie! said:
I have the 40-150mm and it's a great, light consumer zoom lens, but I'd put the money towards the Panny 20mm lens. It still goes for $300+ here in the US, but it's the best interchangeable lens on the market for any mirror-less system. I can't recommend it highly enough.
Kamakazie!
Member
reggieandTFE said:
What is the likelihood of a cheaper alternative coming out in the next 6 months?
Doesn't need to be quite as pin sharp but needs to go wide and have fast focusing (which I had read the Panasonic could be a bit slow with?!).
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Futureman said:
That's too bad. Long lenses like that definitely need a specific purpose or specific shot I would think when doing video. Great for compression and maybe head and shoulder shots but the distance from the subject must feel a bit awkward.
What's a recommendation for a decent $150-$200 thin profile digital camera? I already have two SLRs (one I use, one my wife uses), and my phone camera leaves a lot to be desired, so I just want something I can pocket and take out with me when I'm not headed to a shoot. Something with a great manual mode would be greatly preferred, but I'm up for anything.
Alfarif said:
digital compacts with manual modes at that price range are hard to find IIRC.
I particularly like the Canon SD1400 IS but I would look for a used/refurbished Canon S90 for a little bit more money, its such a nice compact and if you don't need HD recording its a much better value than the S95 since its the same sensor and I think it would be right up your alley.
reggieandTFE
Member
Panasonic is coming out with a 25mm/1.4 within the next couple of monthbitty it's expected to be pricy. It will likely push the 20mm's price down significantly.Kamakazie! said:
- Status