Support NeoGAF

[mrkgoo]

Yeah, that was the IMG number I was referring to, my camera names them IMG_0001 and starts counting from there until it hits IMG_9999 and rolls over to IMG_0000. It doesn't matter if I switch memory cards, so the number must be stored internally.

BTW, I think the most shots I ever took in one day was at an airshow two years ago: 5GB in memory cards + 5fps burst mode = over 900 RAW images.

It does ...sort of. If you ever put a card with a higher number in it, it will then record that number in. I had a huge jump when I sent my camera in for service once. So unless it was on 0000 when you bought it, and it has never had another card in it, it may be close. Also won't count shutter actuations tethered.

I have a little app that counts shutter actuations from a number when tethered, supposedly the same number Canon techs use, but it's only for Digic 3 and 4 processors.

 

[Rentahamster]

FYI, to those who are looking for a cheap manual flash to fulfill your strobist desires, MPEX just made available the new flash they developed with strobists in mind.

http://www.mpex.com/browse.cfm/4,12311.html

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2009/03/manual-flashes-two-debuts-and-adoption.html

$120

I just bought one. Time to see if it does what MPEX claims it does. Specs look promising, though.

Anyone else keeping track of how many exposures they've shot on their DSLR?

Looking real quick at my Lightroom catalog that I use to organize my pics from my 2 5D bodies, there are currently 55,000 pics dating back to last June. Yikes.

This doesn't even count the shots I made with my Nikons. Those are in a different catalog.

 

[fart]

120 seems a bit pricey. i got my sb800 (albeit i got a great price on it) for slightly more than that, and i've seen many an sb600 go for around 140 as well

my d80 is about to hit 18k, and my lightroom catalog is at 26k

 

[Rentahamster]

120 seems a bit pricey. i got my sb800 (albeit i got a great price on it) for slightly more than that, and i've seen many an sb600 go for around 140 as well

I think the built in optical slave is worth it. SB600 doesn't have one, and it's the main reason why I never bought any.

 

[Memles]

Well that was karmic: the day I decide that I can't risk waiting to see if and when my old camera would be fixed and pick up an SLR (Canon XSi w/ 15-200mm all-purpose), my old camera returns, unfixable, and Future Shop's warranty policy means I get a "comparable" camera to my ol' S2 IS (I don't even want to know what they think is comparable).

I think I'm going to keep my SLR (It was a good deal with a good lens that I think will serve my purposes well, and is a deal that I couldn't try to get at Future Shop with the replacement camera's credit since it's not available), but now I'm trying to decide whether it's worth convincing them to give me store credit or taking a smaller point and shoot.

So, we kind of partially had this discussion earlier, but do new SLR users in particular find that having a small point and shoot around is helpful? I'm pretty certain that I'd find use for it, but just wanted to have some more feedback.

Also: any opinions on filter use? I'm new to this whole "lenses" side of the equation, and my father immediately suggested a filter and I wasn't sure how to really respond.

 

[mrkgoo]

Well that was karmic: the day I decide that I can't risk waiting to see if and when my old camera would be fixed and pick up an SLR (Canon XSi w/ 15-200mm all-purpose), my old camera returns, unfixable, and Future Shop's warranty policy means I get a "comparable" camera to my ol' S2 IS (I don't even want to know what they think is comparable).

I think I'm going to keep my SLR (It was a good deal with a good lens that I think will serve my purposes well, and is a deal that I couldn't try to get at Future Shop with the replacement camera's credit since it's not available), but now I'm trying to decide whether it's worth convincing them to give me store credit or taking a smaller point and shoot.

So, we kind of partially had this discussion earlier, but do new SLR users in particular find that having a small point and shoot around is helpful? I'm pretty certain that I'd find use for it, but just wanted to have some more feedback.

Also: any opinions on filter use? I'm new to this whole "lenses" side of the equation, and my father immediately suggested a filter and I wasn't sure how to really respond.

A small point and shoot is handy if you're a photo nut, but don't take your camera everywhere, or find it a bit annoying to pull out. I kind of want a point and shoot as well, but it's hard to justify for me. It really is a personal thing, but don't think it's weird or even uncommon.

As for filters, I only use a filter if there's a reason to use one optically, such as polarisers or neutral density. For protection - well there's two camps. One which believe that it's better to have a cheap filter break than your lens, like for scratches and stuff. The other side believe that the protection afforded is minimal, and not worth the 'optical degradation' (no point having good lenses just to cheap glass in front - the lens is as good as the worst piece of glass in it).

There's no right or wrong, I just happen to be in the latter camp. People can argue if you use a GOOD filter, it can negate most of the optical degradation issues, but then, GOOD filters are pretty expensive too (obviously, probably not as expensive as the lens). If I were to go shooting in a sandstorm or something, I'd probably consider a filter, or if I lent my lenses out (I can't trust anyone not to end up scratching a lens trying to clean it), but generally, I go naked, relying on hoods for protection. I can see the point of a filter though, like if you are in the rain and are wary of excess wipes on the front element.

In your case, unless you have really expensive lenses, I wouldn't bother.

 

[Memles]

A small point and shoot is handy if you're a photo nut, but don't take your camera everywhere, or find it a bit annoying to pull out. I kind of want a point and shoot as well, but it's hard to justify for me. It really is a personal thing, but don't think it's weird or even uncommon.

Yeah, the thing for me is that I currently DO take my camera everywhere - the main use of my camera over the years has been taking hundreds of shots a day during training, events, outings, gatherings, etc. And while I'm fine being in "photographer mode," sometimes where I choose to be in this mode isn't going to mesh with such a large (and expensive camera), and something smaller (but still versatile) might be an ideal alternative. So while I want to upgrade to an SLR because my camera use will be evolving after I leave my current most common shooting environment at the end of the summer, having a P&S (and, in this case, a FREE P&S) wouldn't be a bad option.

There's no right or wrong, I just happen to be in the latter camp. People can argue if you use a GOOD filter, it can negate most of the optical degradation issues, but then, GOOD filters are pretty expensive too (obviously, probably not as expensive as the lens). If I were to go shooting in a sandstorm or something, I'd probably consider a filter, or if I lent my lenses out (I can't trust anyone not to end up scratching a lens trying to clean it), but generally, I go naked, relying on hoods for protection. I can see the point of a filter though, like if you are in the rain and are wary of excess wipes on the front element.

In your case, unless you have really expensive lenses, I wouldn't bother.

My father actually quoted "If you were in a sandstorm!" to me, which I found kind of entertaining - I can't imagine being in that scenario, so I don't know if I'd sacrifice the quality issue. But thanks for the point of view - definitely something to consider, regardless.

 

[BlueTsunami]

If your into mainly Landscape Photography than a quality Point and Shoot should definitely be in your gear.

 

[fart]

nikon 35 1.8 has landed

 

[Memles]

Well, I've officially joined the world of the SLR owners (thanks for the help and patience in regards to earlier queries, all, really appreciate it) - picked up a Canon Rebel XSi this week, along with an 18-200 all around travel/walkaround lens that is a good starting point for my upcoming trip to California.

The best thing about it all, though, was that my old camera was deemed unfixable, but because it was under warranty and it was deemed to be mechanical as opposed to negligence, they ended giving me back the ENTIRE purchase value of the camera. So since I bought the camera elsewhere, I now have $575 Canadian of Future Shop credit to use.

While part of me is tempted to use it for unrelated purchases (a TV comes to mind), I feel as if I should be at least looking into lenses. I've been reading about 50mm Primes, which seem like a mid-level option in terms of cost. This lens is pretty hefty, so I think I'm looking for something a bit more compact and light as my other lens, something I could put on when zoom/wideangle wouldn't be an issue, such as indoor events.

So am I looking for a prime, or is there something else I should be considering?

 

[BlueTsunami]

So am I looking for a prime, or is there something else I should be considering?

Canons line of Primes are usually tiered, lowest costing having mediocre build quality, focusing, optics and not as fast (aperture wise), there are some exceptions though.

With that said, definitely figure out what focal length you want (you stated possibly 50mm?) and check them out. The cheapest prime you'll find is the 50mm f/1.8 for around $80. Just make sure you want to dabble with this focal length though, some people are bored by it since its not quite wide yet not long enough to give the DoF and compression a longer lens would give. The best thing to do is play with the lens you have now (messing with various focal lengths) and seeing what you gravitate too.

For $500 you can pretty much get any non "L" Prime from Canon (usually around $300). 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2. For around $100 more you can score a Canon 200mm f/2.8 "L" lens but making such an investment would probably require you to take some time with what you already have then decide if you need such a lens

Keep in mind that the biggest advantage of all these primes is speed (light gathering ability). Factor that into what you decide too.

 

[Memles]

Keep in mind that the biggest advantage of all these primes is speed (light gathering ability). Factor that into what you decide too.

Thanks a lot for your incredibly thorough analysis, and yeah - I just went out into a low-light environment with my big all-purpose lens, and I wanted it to do more with the low light that it just wasn't doing. I'm used to using my old camera in very casual settings, snapping quick candid shots, which is something that this lens isn't built for. The versatility of a point and shoot is something that can't really be entirely recreated, but the primes are the kind of area I'm definitely interested in.

 

[mrkgoo]

Canons line of Primes are usually tiered, lowest costing having mediocre build quality, focusing, optics and not as fast (aperture wise), there are some exceptions though.

With that said, definitely figure out what focal length you want (you stated possibly 50mm?) and check them out. The cheapest prime you'll find is the 50mm f/1.8 for around $80. Just make sure you want to dabble with this focal length though, some people are bored by it since its not quite wide yet not long enough to give the DoF and compression a longer lens would give. The best thing to do is play with the lens you have now (messing with various focal lengths) and seeing what you gravitate too.

For $500 you can pretty much get any non "L" Prime from Canon (usually around $300). 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 100mm f/2. For around $100 more you can score a Canon 200mm f/2.8 "L" lens but making such an investment would probably require you to take some time with what you already have then decide if you need such a lens

Keep in mind that the biggest advantage of all these primes is speed (light gathering ability). Factor that into what you decide too.

I say don't buy into lenses until you know what you want, with the exception of the 50mm f1.8, since it is so cheap and can help you to find out what you want. But BlueTsunami has you covered.

 

[mrklaw]

same. Buy a flexible cheap zoom that'll cover those ranges, and then maybe go out one day and shoot with it set to just 50, or just 85, and then review your work and see if you start to get a feel for certain lengths.

Bear in mind if you are using a crop camera, you'll get a 'closer' view than using a standard 35mm camera. So a 50mm lens which is usually considered standard, is actually quite long on a crop camera.

It used to be that the 'holy trifecta' of lenses was 50/85/135, but with the crop cameras, that becomes more like 35/50/85.

Personally I love my 85mm 1.8. Relatively cheap but a good quality lens, and it has nice compression on it. Can be a little difficult to use in small rooms though - more a headshot lens unless you can get some distance on your subject. Can't remember whether its mrkgoo or lucky forward (think lucky forward) that has the labrador and the 85mm 1.2. check out his photos to get a feel for what that can do (although bear in mind its the hugely expensive 1.2 version of the lens). I also liked my sigma 30mm when I had it

 

[mrkgoo]

same. Buy a flexible cheap zoom that'll cover those ranges, and then maybe go out one day and shoot with it set to just 50, or just 85, and then review your work and see if you start to get a feel for certain lengths.

Bear in mind if you are using a crop camera, you'll get a 'closer' view than using a standard 35mm camera. So a 50mm lens which is usually considered standard, is actually quite long on a crop camera.

It used to be that the 'holy trifecta' of lenses was 50/85/135, but with the crop cameras, that becomes more like 35/50/85.

Personally I love my 85mm 1.8. Relatively cheap but a good quality lens, and it has nice compression on it. Can be a little difficult to use in small rooms though - more a headshot lens unless you can get some distance on your subject. Can't remember whether its mrkgoo or lucky forward (think lucky forward) that has the labrador and the 85mm 1.2. check out his photos to get a feel for what that can do (although bear in mind its the hugely expensive 1.2 version of the lens). I also liked my sigma 30mm when I had it

I WISH I had an 85 f/1.2mm and a Duncan the dog (yes it is Lucky Forward). Instead, I have an 85mm f/1.8 and a stray cat called Tony.

You are right about the 85 - nifty little lens.

 

[Memles]

I WISH I had an 85 f/1.2mm and a Duncan the dog (yes it is Lucky Forward). Instead, I have an 85mm f/1.8 and a stray cat called Tony.

You are right about the 85 - nifty little lens.

I also covet both Duncan and that lens, just from the pictures earlier in the thread.

Personally I love my 85mm 1.8. Relatively cheap but a good quality lens, and it has nice compression on it. Can be a little difficult to use in small rooms though - more a headshot lens unless you can get some distance on your subject.

Umm, yeah, headshots sounds like something I will want to be using quite often: http://www.flickr.com/photos/41744612@N00/sets/72157601973070857/. It's kind of an obsession.

I shall, in my tests with the camera, set my lens to the numbers suggested and go from there. Thanks for the advice, all!

 

[Lucky Forward]

I also covet both Duncan and that lens, just from the pictures earlier in the thread.

Hands off, go get your own!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423691-USA/Canon_1056B002AA_EF_85mm_f_1_2L_II.html
http://www.belquest.com/

 

[captive]

So I bought the Olypmus Zuiko 12-60mm f2.8 swd with part of my tax return.

This lens is niiiiiice. I like that you can actually feel the manual focus stop on both ends. AF is quick and pretty much silent.

 

[Material541]

nikon 35 1.8 has landed

Do you have it?

I've been considering getting it. My current 18-135mm lens isn't that great in low light...so I am considering buying this or a SB-400.

Is the difference between an aperture of 1.8 and 3.5 major?

 

[Lucky Forward]

Is the difference between an aperture of 1.8 and 3.5 major?

Going from f/3.5 to f/1.8 gains you two full stops of light. This means that in a low-light situation where, for instance, you had to shoot f/3.5 at 1/15 of a second, you could open up to f/1.8 and halve the shutter speed twice (two full stops), going from1/15 to 1/30 and again to 1/60, which is likely to be a lot less shaky.

edit: Of course, opening up to f/1.8 will further blur the out-of-focus background and give you much nicer, softer bokeh.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Appearently Vivitar released a new 85mm f/1.4 for around $350 (Manual focus and Aperture for Pentax, Nikon and EOS bodies)?

http://kwigibocity.com/Vivitar8514.html

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=654126

I didn't know about it, not bad for the price (looks like it'll be more useful with the a Pentax or Nikon body, seeing as how Canon has the 85/1.8)

 

[starchild excalibur]

I've been out of commission for a while when it comes to photography. I sold my last camera - a 10D - last June to pay for a month of rent and just never got around to buying a new one. Visiting the buy/sell section on fredmiranda, I've realized that 1D cameras on the whole have gotten cheaper (of course) and that I'm actually in a position where I could afford a 1D or 1Ds. The thing is, I'm not sure which I prefer.

Obviously, the benefits of the 1D would be it being cheaper, having a higher burst rate, and a higher ISO. However, it's only 4 megapixels. I know, I know, don't be turned off by that/the 1D takes amazing photos for its sensor/etc - but the fact is it's still 4 megapixels and while the difference between 4 and 6 or 7 may not be big, it's noticeable when compared to a 11 megapixel 1Ds. And while the 1D has higher ISOs, from what I've seen there's too much noise and occasional banding at the higher ranges to really be usable for my tastes.

So then there's the 1Ds. I love that it's 11 megapixels, often gets compared to the 5D and has cleaner images at higher ISOs. The 3fps max speed isn't a big deal for me because I rarely use burst modes anyway and I'd love to have a full frame dSLR for once. Downside is that it's about $500 more than a 1D and the image buffer is kinda slow.

Long Story Short: for those who've used both cameras, which one have you preferred? Does anyone posting here have either of the cameras and would be so inclined as to share a few pics they've taken?

I'm simply not sure which camera I want to buy. As affordable as the 1D is, I'd like to not have to upgrade again soon and not have to worry about the megapixel limitation negatively affecting how much I can crop my photos. But as nice as the 1Ds is, it may just not be financially sound to invest so much in just a body.

 

[Benjamin_MFF]

I just checked the news sites because of all the news about this new canon model.

Well, it is offical

Canon Digital Rebel T1i (500D)

15.1 megapixles

1920x1080 hd video at 20 fps

1280x720 hd video at 30 fps

no microphone input

Body only - $799

Body with kit lens - $899

official canon press release

Amazon listing

Engadget news

 

[BlueTsunami]

HD Video on a entry level camera? The fuuuuggggggggg

 

[XMonkey]

HD Video on a entry level camera? The fuuuuggggggggg

It was only a matter of time.

 

[Rentahamster]

Those are some nice specs. I like.

@starchild excalibur:

Are you talking about the 1D Mark I? Kinda old, no? I guess for the right price it would be a decent grab. Don't have much experience with those models, but I do know that I love my 5D thiiiiiiis much.

 

[mrklaw]

I just checked the news sites because of all the news about this new canon model.

Well, it is offical

Canon Digital Rebel T1i (500D)

15.1 megapixles

1920x1080 hd video at 20 fps

1280x720 hd video at 30 fps

no microphone input

Body only - $799

Body with kit lens - $899

official canon press release

Amazon listing

Engadget news

fuuuck. How does that compare to my 50D? Looks like the same fucking sensor, 9 points AF (wonder about sensitivity).

quite expensive though for an xxxD model, which are usually entry level. Where do the xxD models fit now? (500D is £750 in the UK)

 

[Dazzla]

Where have you got £750 from? Everywhere I've looked it starts at £869.

Shame about the no autofocus during video, once that's cracked it'll actually be worth it.

 

[mrklaw]

Where have you got £750 from? Everywhere I've looked it starts at £869.

Shame about the no autofocus during video, once that's cracked it'll actually be worth it.

£869!? My 50D only cost me that. Feel a bit better now

 

[fart]

Do you have it?

I've been considering getting it. My current 18-135mm lens isn't that great in low light...so I am considering buying this or a SB-400.

Is the difference between an aperture of 1.8 and 3.5 major?

i have it. it's cheap but/and awesome. if you're interested in the kind of general photography we do here, it's the best 200$ a nikon crop user can spend. availability is tough right now; i think the easiest way to find a copy is going to be to call around to your local camera stores (which will just be getting the lens in) and putting your name on a call list

 

[captive]

I'm having a terrible time adjusting my monitors. I had some free test prints sent to me and they were a little on the dark side, obviously they looked fine to me on my monitors.
How did you guys adjust your monitors?

 

[Rentahamster]

I use the Spyder monitor calibrater.

There's a possibility it could be the printer's fault. More likely it's you, though. You could probably just lower the brightness on your monitor a bit and see if that helps.

 

[fart]

i use an i1 display 2. the spyder 3 is also supposed to be pretty good. there's a third party piece of software that is supposed to be quite nice (and will even tell you your \delta E afterwards!) but costs a bit more scratch. you have to shove the correct printer profile onto your images before sending them to printing even if you do calibrate your monitor

 

[Dazzla]

£869!? My 50D only cost me that. Feel a bit better now

It's quite shocking actually. I've not seen RRPs this bad for a while:

US - $799 (£545)
EU - €799 (£727)
UK - £869 (€954 / $1272)


It's fucking disgusting actually. $1 = £1 is bad enough and usually inexcusable but this is the wrong side of that!

Anyway, hands on preview here:

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos500d/

 

[bggrthnjsus]

i'm considering upgrading from a digital rebel xt to either a T1i or a 50d

...they seem mostly the same except for the better build quality of the 50d, and a few smaller features that i'm not sure i will care about.

i've never really used anything with a larger body than the xt, so can somebody tell me what they think are the advantages to the 50d body vs. the rebel series?

 

[Vox-Pop]

Since the T1i and 50D are almost the same does this mean a 60D is not far off?

 

[Rentahamster]

Since the T1i and 50D are almost the same does this mean a 60D is not far off?

The 50D isn't even a year old yet.

 

[mrkgoo]

The 50D isn't even a year old yet.

The 50D came out one year after the 40D if I remember correctly. If the 60D has decent video output, that would satiate my urge to get a 5DmkII somewhat.

 

[BlueTsunami]

i'm considering upgrading from a digital rebel xt to either a T1i or a 50d

...they seem mostly the same except for the better build quality of the 50d, and a few smaller features that i'm not sure i will care about.

i've never really used anything with a larger body than the xt, so can somebody tell me what they think are the advantages to the 50d body vs. the rebel series?

The 50D is a lateral movement from the 40D... so if you want to spend the same exact money on the T1i but get a 50D, get the 40D

 

[mrkgoo]

i'm considering upgrading from a digital rebel xt to either a T1i or a 50d

...they seem mostly the same except for the better build quality of the 50d, and a few smaller features that i'm not sure i will care about.

i've never really used anything with a larger body than the xt, so can somebody tell me what they think are the advantages to the 50d body vs. the rebel series?

I made the shift from the 350D (Xt) to a 40D when that came out. If you're ever looking to upgrade, I feel the next level in bodies is the smarter move. If you got to something like XT -Xti or Xsi or something, you're just getting an update in the same line. More MP, some more 'software' features.

The shift from 350D to 40D made sense because I got a LOT of additional features:

Improved viewfinder (uses a proper prism instead of a mirror, brighter, larger).
Magnesium alloy body (The XXXD series seriously feel like toys in comparison).
Rear dial (the best reason to switch. I shoot in M mode nearly all the time, and this makes it so much better to use).
Separate LCD for settings (ok, the 350D had it too, but the newer XXXD don't have this screen. It saves on power, and is better to use in the dark).
Better AF mechanism (all points cross point, with centre point additionally sensitive to f/2.8 or wider lenses).
Second motor in mirror flip-back mechanism (allows for quieter and faster shots per second).
Custom modes - you can setup the ENTIRE camera in a particular mode and save this as a mode on the dial.

Some other features I enjoyed were:
spot metering (although newer XXXD have this now too)
Live view (ditto)
Larger screen (ditto - note, the 50D screen is actually higher in resolution. It's gorgeous)
The menus were way better, including a user-editable menu for quick access of functions YOU use most (newer models all have the new menu system)

 

[bggrthnjsus]

The 50D is a lateral movement from the 40D... so if you want to spend the same exact money on the T1i but get a 50D, get the 40D

yeah a lot of people have told me that the 50d actually performs worse than the 40d in low light because of the increased pixel density

I made the shift from the 350D (Xt) to a 40D when that came out. If you're ever looking to upgrade, I feel the next level in bodies is the smarter move. If you got to something like XT -Xti or Xsi or something, you're just getting an update in the same line. More MP, some more 'software' features.

The shift from 350D to 40D made sense because I got a LOT of additional features:

Improved viewfinder (uses a proper prism instead of a mirror, brighter, larger).
Magnesium alloy body (The XXXD series seriously feel like toys in comparison).
Rear dial (the best reason to switch. I shoot in M mode nearly all the time, and this makes it so much better to use).
Separate LCD for settings (ok, the 350D had it too, but the newer XXXD don't have this screen. It saves on power, and is better to use in the dark).
Better AF mechanism (all points cross point, with centre point additionally sensitive to f/2.8 or wider lenses).
Second motor in mirror flip-back mechanism (allows for quieter and faster shots per second).
Custom modes - you can setup the ENTIRE camera in a particular mode and save this as a mode on the dial.

Some other features I enjoyed were:
spot metering (although newer XXXD have this now too)
Live view (ditto)
Larger screen (ditto - note, the 50D screen is actually higher in resolution. It's gorgeous)
The menus were way better, including a user-editable menu for quick access of functions YOU use most (newer models all have the new menu system)

the larger LCD is pretty important to me now, there are always times where something looks fine on the LCD but then when i look at it on my computer it's underexposed or not quite sharp enough. it looks like the 50d and the T1i have the same LCD screen though. same goes for the AF, but i would guess that the 50d's might work a little faster. i'm not sure about the differences between their viewfinders.

canon for some reason doesn't disclose the shutter life of the XS and T1i, but i assume they're around 50000. i think the 50d has a lifetime of 100k, and the body is probably a lot sturdier. hrm. i still only have about 20k used up on my XT though, so i'm not sure if shutter life will be an issue.

this is what i've been reading about the T1i:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T1I/T1IA.HTM

i guess i'd need to try out a 50d to get a feel for whether i like the body/scroll wheel/extra features more. (well, enough to justify the price difference) i tend to shoot mostly in M mode, so i think i would probably benefit from the scroll wheel. but so far, those seem like the main differences. it depends on whether or not i would try the scroll wheel and think 'god damn how did i never use this before?' or not haha

 

[Lucky Forward]

Rear dial (the best reason to switch. I shoot in M mode nearly all the time, and this makes it so much better to use).

Interesting! I did a lot of manual shooting back when I shot film, but now I shoot in Av mode 90 percent of the time, always being aware of the shutter speed the camera is choosing and adjusting accordingly.

bggrthnjsus, I have a 20D, and yes, using the scroll wheel is very intuitive and effortless.

 

[Rentahamster]

Interesting! I did a lot of manual shooting back when I shot film, but now I shoot in Av mode 90 percent of the time, always being aware of the shutter speed the camera is choosing and adjusting accordingly.

bggrthnjsus, I have a 20D, and yes, using the scroll wheel is very intuitive and effortless.

Shooting in manual is a really good way of forcing to understand the relationship between shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. Ever since I started shooting in manual, my ability to understand the nature of light and to adjust to different lighting scenarios has improved a lot.

Oh yeah, manual flash too.

 

[fart]

understanding the relationship? what is there to understand? smaller aperture = less light, slower shutter = less light, and everything's log_2. i think reliance on camera automation is solely a function of how quickly you want to keep yourself (from?) working. the most important variables are always composition and time, and the speed at which you're working has by far the largest impact on those.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I shoot mostly in Av since I'm constantly tweaking the DoF. I'll set the camera to Tv when I'm in a situation where I need a minimum speed met for the lens (semi-dark room, set to Tv 1/50th or better 1/60th with my 50mm).

I only use Manual when I'm purposefully going for a certain look with the lighting but the Ev control in Tv and Av is what I would use in place of it.

 

[mrkgoo]

understanding the relationship? what is there to understand? smaller aperture = less light, slower shutter = less light, and everything's log_2. i think reliance on camera automation is solely a function of how quickly you want to keep yourself (from?) working. the most important variables are always composition and time, and the speed at which you're working has by far the largest impact on those.

I think he's referring to learning. It's true, most of the time, people use 'M' as a slow av, by adjusting the needle to the middle. I just like it, and am getting ever so slightly better at just 'guessing' an exposure ("this will need +2/3 stop over the meter"). Furthermore, with a floating needle as opposed to floating shutterspeed during metering, you can see directly how lighting conditions change within a scene.

I'm not saying you can't do this in av, it's just a bit more 'in your face' with 'M'. I want to learn about lighting, so I want to be constantly aware of my settings.

 

[captive]

I shoot in manual as well.

My camera set to auto seems to want to use the flash on any shutter speed less than 100 or 125.


smaller or larger aperture also controls depth of field, not just more or less light.

 

[fart]

the relationship between shutter speed, aperture and ISO is that each of them control the mapping from intangible light to the amplitude of the sensor signal. if you're using manual all the time you should consider using the lightmeter to automagically set some of these variables (why are you trying to control all of these variables manually all the time?) and limit your degrees of freedom so that you can concentrate on your composition and timing and/or work faster.

for example, some street/pj shooters zone focus: they tape down focus to eg hyperfocal and then eye their compositions based on the fixed zone of focus. when they then shoot, either from the hip, or up from the hip only momentarily, they don't need to spend any time focusing.

 

[Tf53]

for example, some street/pj shooters zone focus: they tape down focus to eg hyperfocal and then eye their compositions based on the fixed zone of focus. when they then shoot, either from the hip, or up from the hip only momentarily, they don't need to spend any time focusing.

This sounds really cool. When Helsinki wakes up again after the winter, I think I'll try this.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I was reading about Hyperfocal focus on Fredmiranda last year and its definitely a neat technique. A very wide lens (24mm) plus this technique will put nearly everything in focus just a few feet out from you.

The only downside is you will be able to see softness if your print large with this technique.

Online Depth of Field Calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Put in the Lens (mm) and the desired F-Stop, the calculator will spit out the Hyperfocal distance.

35mm@f/11 = Hyperfocal Distance of 18.8ft
24mm@f/11 = Hyperfocal Distance of 8.87