|
Out of curiosity, why do they still do this? Back when we were all shooting film, the film might have been slightly out of alignment in the camera back, and if you were doing slides then that outer bit gets masked off in the mount anyway. But what is the reasoning these days? [e] Beastruction posted:Why not make SLRs with >100% viewfinder coverage and framelines? In the film days, ^^^^ was why. The only reason I can think of today is for that extra 5% magnification, but that seems pretty trivial.
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 05:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
I've had an opportunity come up out of the blue, and I'm kinda caught unprepared. I'm meeting with a prospective client on wednesday who's considering hiring me for a wedding, and I don't have a book. I don't have a book, an album, I don't even have a website. I need to put together a fast and easy photo portfolio in 48 hours, showcasing my best wedding work. Does anyone have any practical ideas for how to best go about this? I don't think I have any options for prints other than WalMart (this is a one-time thing; next week I'll order a real book so I'm not caught like this again), but I'm wondering what I should use to display them. A photo album, if I can find a classy one? That sounds tacky as hell, but I'm down to the wire here and don't have time to order anything nice.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 06:59
|
|
|
orange lime posted:Out of curiosity, why do they still do this? Back when we were all shooting film, the film might have been slightly out of alignment in the camera back, and if you were doing slides then that outer bit gets masked off in the mount anyway. But what is the reasoning these days? Smaller finders are cheaper.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 07:33
|
|
|
orange lime posted:In the film days, ^^^^ was why. The only reason I can think of today is for that extra 5% magnification, but that seems pretty trivial. My understanding was that there was a relationship, in terms of cost, between magnification, eyepoint, and coverage. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/viewfinders.shtml
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 12:34
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Why not make SLRs with >100% viewfinder coverage and framelines? Because this is impossible? You can't have an SLR see more than what's being projected through the lens onto the prism.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 12:46
|
|
|
You could build a >100% viewfinder, it's just useless since the periphery won't be lit by your lens. Any gain in magnification comes at the expense of brightness, obviously: there's a finite amount of light coming through your lens, and if you spread it around the light "density" goes down. So you can't make pro (100% coverage) finders with very high magnification: you'd need an enormous prism housing, and it'd be dimmer than the inside of my pants, especially if you need a matte screen good enough to manually focus with (those eat light).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 13:21
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:Because this is impossible? You can't have an SLR see more than what's being projected through the lens onto the prism. Except that's not how the lens works. The lens doesn't magically just display exactly what's going to be on the film. It gives an imaging circle that gets worse as things tail off towards the edges. You could likely squeeze an extra 1% or so out of even a FF lens if you were willing to suffer the consequences of falloff, but then how would >100% help. Especially when it would be at the expense of magnification. Crop sensor cameras however have less of an excuse. Even first party crop glass has a bit more fudge room on the APS-c/DX frame size. It's not a physics limitation as much as a price point limitation. There is a reason no camera less than $1500 has a big bright viewfinder. Compare a D3000 to a 7D or a D300s. Once you get to the expense of ~$2500 there is less correlation to the viewfinder and the price and it's more about the other technologies in the camera. The A900 has a .75/100% viewfinder where the much more expensive 1Ds3 has a .76/100% viewfinder. and the nikon is only listed at .7/100% but they may be math/sig figures.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 13:42
|
|
|
There are size considerations too, as the body would definitely have to be bigger. But I'm fairly certain that it's mostly cost (and lack of users who care enough).
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 13:49
|
|
|
FasterThanLight posted:There are size considerations too, as the body would definitely have to be bigger. But I'm fairly certain that it's mostly cost (and lack of users who care enough). Probably a big chunk of this. The bigger the viewfinder, the bigger (and heavier) the prism and I'm pretty sure good prisms aren't cheap otherwise Rebel bodies would have them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 15:06
|
|
|
HPL posted:Get a rangefinder. They have like 110% coverage or whatever. P-p-p-parallax 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:P-p-p-parallax Tops of heads are overrated.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 15:58
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I don't have a book, an album, I don't even have a website. Go ahead and get the prints from WalMart. Yeah, its Walmart but last time I looked they used the same process as most of the other digital to print people, so the quality is good enough. If you've got a photo store in your area, see what they have for albums. If that's a bust, hit up a craft store or scrap booking store. Be humble and kind of quiet. Tell the gaggle of old ladies near the front of the store your issue and ask them if they can offer you some advise. Dollars to donuts, they'll make you an album that screams "HIRE TEH gently caress OUT OF ME!" if you buy them the supplies. Should run you about 30-50 bucks. Barring that, see what sort of pre-printed or decoupage pages they have with photo sleeves. Not the crappy plastic kind, but the pages that are actually two layers card stock with slots to put the photos. It will look a bit cheezy, but better than handing your perspective client a stack of photos.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 16:24
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:Go ahead and get the prints from WalMart. Yeah, its Walmart but last time I looked they used the same process as most of the other digital to print people, so the quality is good enough. If you have a Costco nearby and a membership card, go there instead. They have fancy printers, keep them fairly well maintained, and (most importantly): there are color profiles available for nearly every individual printer at every store. http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/ Just find the one you're going to print at, save your photos with that profile, and make sure to tell the techs which printer to run.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
Those are good ideas, thanks. Next question: I've got a shoot on saturday that's going to involve candid shots and some formals against a backdrop. I thought I'd lined up a backdrop stand (not sure what the technical name is) to use, but that's just fallen through and I'm kinda hosed. I haven't seen the inside of this place yet, so I don't know if it's as easy as taping/clipping it to a wall somewhere. What can I use in a pinch to secure a cloth backdrop, that doesn't involve buying a new backdrop stand (that I'll likely never need again)? Maybe a couple hat-racks and a shower curtain rod? 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
Basic question: Is there some rule of thumb for what flash zoom to use for bounce flash ? My flash claims to have 25mm-85mm focal length, so what setting should it be on under what conditions ?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 18:38
|
|
|
Cross_ posted:Basic question: Most of the auto-TTL flashes will zoom out all the way when you angle them straight up. It makes sense since you want wide diffused light if you are bouncing. Obviously there may be times when you may want to zoom with a bounce flash depending on the look you want, but the general rule is: Zoom out.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 18:59
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Maybe a couple hat-racks and a shower curtain rod? Yeah, why not? Get some small clamps at the hardware store, maybe a dowel rod for the cross piece and something to hold it up. As long as it is covered with the backdrop it really doesn't matter what you use. Provided it is sturdy.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
How did I forget, that's what Nikon's full frame cameras do when you put a DX lens on them.KennyG posted:Crop sensor cameras however have less of an excuse. Even first party crop glass has a bit more fudge room on the APS-c/DX frame size. It's not a physics limitation as much as a price point limitation. There is a reason no camera less than $1500 has a big bright viewfinder. Compare a D3000 to a 7D or a D300s. What's the price range for digital rangefinders? Compared to a Leica M8 even a D700 looks affordable, let alone the savings from a crop sensor, and a >100% viewfinder would offer a unique function. Get it somewhere around/under $2,000 (halfway between a crop D90 and FF D700) it'll totally sell!
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 20:00
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:How did I forget, that's what Nikon's full frame cameras do when you put a DX lens on them. I'm fairly ignorant of the range finders, but alas it looks like the digital range finder is a bit of a niche that prevents the cameras from being reasonably priced. The EPSON R-D1 was a 6MP camera in 2004 that retailed for about $4k, in 2009 they released a R-D1x in japan only for as best I can tell, about the same price. The kicker, still a 6mp sensor. They are quirky and require a serious love for the unique characteristics of a range finder. Obviously then there's leica. It costs  just to say Leica in a camera shop. The camera market is as dumb as it has been at any point in history (as a global population). Most people aren't developing film (myself included) nor do they have any idea about dynamic range or why their 5mp cell phone camera takes 'blurry' pictures. Yes, there are still some very brilliant photographers who understand what's going on and how to make it work for them, but when there are pro's making a living just stalking celebs with a D3x and a 400mm F4 set to auto it makes me 
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 20:21
|
|
|
What the hell is Greasemonkey and how do I use it? I installed GM and the Flickr script listed in the PAD thread. I go to Flickr and.........nothing happens? Grabbing the link by clicking "Share This" looks the same as before. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
I stopped using Phorumr when I found this one: allSizes
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 22:08
|
|
|
thefreshmaker posted:What the hell is Greasemonkey and how do I use it? Are you sure you installed greasemonkey? If you are then you click "All Sizes" link above the picture, and when you get there the bottom item says: 3. Copy and paste this code into a Phorum post: and you copy from the text box. Each size uses a different link.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
pwn posted:I stopped using Phorumr when I found this one: allSizes
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
subx posted:Are you sure you installed greasemonkey? Got it now, thanks. I was clicking "Share This" and not "All Sizes" to get the links.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2010 23:46
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:What's the price range for digital rangefinders? Compared to a Leica M8 even a D700 looks affordable, let alone the savings from a crop sensor, and a >100% viewfinder would offer a unique function. Get it somewhere around/under $2,000 (halfway between a crop D90 and FF D700) it'll totally sell! You can get a used M8 for a little over $2k, but it's not really worth it IMO. RF shooters know they're a niche, and at this point are mostly hoping for a decent EVIL (electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens - basically those mirrorless D"SLR"'s that Panasonic, Olympus, and now Sony offer) camera that they can mount their lenses on. Somebody on RFF pointed out that the new Sony E-mount is far enough recessed that you could conceivably add a an M-mount adapter with a rangefinder/cam assembly, although that'd probably be even more niche than a dRF.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 03:35
|
|
|
KennyG posted:Most of the auto-TTL flashes will zoom out all the way when you angle them straight up. It makes sense since you want wide diffused light if you are bouncing. Obviously there may be times when you may want to zoom with a bounce flash depending on the look you want, but the general rule is: Zoom out. Apparently I am going blind and completely missed your reply.  Thanks for the answer.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 21:55
|
|
|
Whats the difference between circular and linear polarizers? Should I get one if I plan on taking lots of landscape shots?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 23:07
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Whats the difference between circular and linear polarizers? Should I get one if I plan on taking lots of landscape shots? Circular can be turned so the pertinent part of the filter is facing the light source and polarizes it...or not, as you want. Linear will have a line in the filter where above the line it's polarized, below it's not. Circular is generally more useful, but linear is great for some shots where you're just polarizing above or below the horizon line.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 23:13
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Whats the difference between circular and linear polarizers? Should I get one if I plan on taking lots of landscape shots? It has to do with the directionality of the polarized light. If you're using something made in the last 30 years, a circular polarizer is the option guaranteed to work while letting you continue to meter and autofocus. A linear polarizer causes issues with some metering and autofocus systems. When in doubt, buy a circular. Visually they're equivalent. Edit: If you want more detail, here's an "All About Polarizers" article. Molten Llama fucked around with this message at 23:28 on May 19, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2010 23:23
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:A linear polarizer causes issues with some metering and autofocus systems. I often wonder just how true this is. The theory behind it is admittedly sound, but I have a Hoya linear polariser and metering and AF behave like normal.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 02:38
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Circular can be turned so the pertinent part of the filter is facing the light source and polarizes it...or not, as you want. Linear will have a line in the filter where above the line it's polarized, below it's not. Circular is generally more useful, but linear is great for some shots where you're just polarizing above or below the horizon line. This isn't true. It refers to two different ways of polarizing the light -- one that deals with (for lack of a better word) vertical and horizontal polarization, and the other that deals with clockwise and counter-clockwise polarization. In theory a linear polarizer (the first kind) will disable modern AF systems, which rely on polarization to detect the phase difference of the incoming light, while a circular one won't. Both linear and circular polarizers can be rotated to any angle and will have the same visual effect on the scene. What you've described is more like a graduated split polarizer.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
I have a D40 with a dirty sensor, how much would it cost to ship it to Nikon to get it cleaned? I've got a filtered "rocket-air" blower, however there's no way in hell I'm touching that sensor.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 09:26
|
|
|
Miskatonic posted:I have a D40 with a dirty sensor, how much would it cost to ship it to Nikon to get it cleaned? First get a giottos rocket blower and use that. If that doesn't work, there are various products to safely clean your sensor (I've got some stuff from visible dust that does the trick well). You could get it cleaned by Nikon if you're uncomfortable with doing cleaning it manually (and they will probably do it for cheap) but considering shipping the cost will add up.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 10:18
|
|
|
Miskatonic posted:I have a D40 with a dirty sensor, how much would it cost to ship it to Nikon to get it cleaned? Graduated Response Level 1: Use a rocket blower like this one. Level 2: Use some sort of CIY Solution like this. 2x Level 3: Take to your local CAMERA shop and pay them. (They are just going to do either level 1 or level 2. The good news is, in the extremely unlikely event that they screw up they will replace your camera with their insurance, or more likely they'll just buy you a D60.) Depending on the shop, 10-20 bucks. Level 4: Ship it to Nikon, where they will likely do level 1 or level 2 and then put it back in a box where it may still be 'dusty' by the time you get it back. If they screw up they will have the tools to repair it, or more likely just give you a Refurb D60. (According to google, prices are $50-$100) Your sensor is not that fragile. It has several coatings above the actual layer that gathers light. Something to factor in too, your camera is worth, body only, about $150-$200. It's a 4 year old digital, 6MP DSLR. I don't want to sound condescending here, but the logic in spending $50-$100 to send your camera to Nikon to have it's sensor cleaned is a bit crazy for a D40. If you had a Phase1 or a Hassy or even a Leica or D3x it would be a different discussion but take the plunge and learn to clean your own camera.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 13:20
|
|
|
orange lime posted:This isn't true. It refers to two different ways of polarizing the light -- one that deals with (for lack of a better word) vertical and horizontal polarization, and the other that deals with clockwise and counter-clockwise polarization. In theory a linear polarizer (the first kind) will disable modern AF systems, which rely on polarization to detect the phase difference of the incoming light, while a circular one won't. Both linear and circular polarizers can be rotated to any angle and will have the same visual effect on the scene. Now that's good to know. I had assumed that the linear polarizer when rotated (I knew that part) would still have a sort of easily detectable delineation. I was clearly equating it too much with a graduated ND filter.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2010 13:49
|
|
|
I make it to the end of this thread, and there's a discussion about polarizers. Perfect! A couple of weeks ago I took a series of pictures using my 2 polarizers. When I recieved the third (of 3) lenses I bought through ebay, it had a Tiffen polarizer on it, that says "TIFFEN CIR POLARIZER 49mm JAPAN" on it. I already had a 49mm polarizer for my old Minolta X700, also at 49mm diameter - it says "TIFFEN 49mm POLARIZER U.S.A." Not realizing the significance of that "CIR", I thought perhaps I had the potential to assemble my own goofy infinitely-adjustable neutral density filter, by taking advantage of the straight darkening effect of two overlapping polarizers tilted to different angles. I was wrong. I found something that fucks with colours, instead. 1. filter, "49mm" facing up. 2. filter, "49mm" facing left. 3. Both filters, up, Japan up 4. Both filters, up, Japan left Is the circular polarizer from Tiffen Japan doing all the work here? Playing with it now, just holding it up to my eye and spinning it, it has no obvious effect on reflected light, such as my white walls or my neighbour's white car (or any of the various coloured things around me), but has that blueing / oranging effect on emitted light, especially from my computer monitor (a cheap Acer laptop), though little effect looking directly at my compact-flourescent lamp. What's going on here? And would a pair of linear polarizers actually function like a neutral density filter, or am I missing something? Also, this is the first discussion I've seen where the  seems to fit. And somebody needs to create a  smilie, too.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 04:15
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I thought perhaps I had the potential to assemble my own goofy infinitely-adjustable neutral density filter, That only works with linear polarisers. Clockwise-circular-polarised light will have little trouble going through additional clockwise-circular-polarised filters.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:What's going on here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarizer#Circular_Polarizers What you're doing with the two polarizers is narrowing the "window" that light can pass through precisely enough that you're cutting off certain wavelengths. Looking through the circular alone, you're seeing how non-uniform the emission spectrum of those sources is.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 15:01
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:Looking through the circular alone, you're seeing how non-uniform the emission spectrum of those sources is.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2010 00:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
So who's excited for canon and nikons eventual version of the nex? I'd be pretty amused if the nikon gets an internal af.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 15:34
|
|