|
I can't believe there's not a way to mark the mice with paint/hair dye/trimming so you can recognize them without having to jump through such crazy hoops.
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
Nomenclature posted:Thanks, I'll look into them. Yeah a regular 5D3 would have been better. How is she planning to trigger the camera? You can still autofocus with a remote, though it'll be a crapshoot what the camera locks onto. Depending on how the cage it set up, it sounds like you'd be better off with a blind and a telephoto lens.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Dren posted:Do lights affect mouse fight behavior? You can fix the 6400 ISO problem with some lights. timrenzi574 posted:Not sure how your friend plans to shoot , but once you're past 1600 or 3200 , turning it up in camera vs just pushing it in raw will result in the same noise anyway (with canon sensors. With sonys it starts at base ISO like that) BetterLekNextTime posted:I can't believe there's not a way to mark the mice with paint/hair dye/trimming so you can recognize them without having to jump through such crazy hoops. Bubbacub posted:Yeah a regular 5D3 would have been better. How is she planning to trigger the camera? You can still autofocus with a remote, though it'll be a crapshoot what the camera locks onto.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
the dynamic range gap is a low ISO thing. Sony sensors are 'iso less' from base (you will get same noise level shooting @ 100 and pushing 5 stops as 3200) , canon are isoless starting at 1600-3200 or so. There's a dynamic range gap at lower ISO, because that means you can preserve highlights by shooting low, then push up the shadows. That's non existent at those higher ISO's because both sensors will behave similarly as far as noise level whether you amplify the signal in camera or out (because shot noise has completely drowned out any read noise at that point, and canons weakness is read noise ). It would be a mess at those ISOs no matter what you use, unless it's like an A7S. But , downsizing the 5ds images to A7S resolution after the fact will give you close to the same performance anyway. Not quite as good, but she bought what she bought
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:
Ah, that makes a little more sense. I wonder if she could get one-way glass and put a go-pro behind it. Maybe they'd respond to their reflection in an aggressive/dominance way (add the relevant scent/urine to help sell it). If it is something that requires a 50mp camera and special set up to capture, it's probably not a very good assay regardless of what the facial expression actually relates to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:the dynamic range gap is a low ISO thing. Sony sensors are 'iso less' from base (you will get same noise level shooting @ 100 and pushing 5 stops as 3200) , canon are isoless starting at 1600-3200 or so. There's a dynamic range gap at lower ISO, because that means you can preserve highlights by shooting low, then push up the shadows. That's non existent at those higher ISO's because both sensors will behave similarly as far as noise level whether you amplify the signal in camera or out (because shot noise has completely drowned out any read noise at that point, and canons weakness is read noise ). But anyway, in my very limited time with the 5DSR, things didn't look good. Image quality was visibly breaking down at ISO 6,400, with definite color blotchy-ness that my 6D didn't have at that ISO, and I'm sure pushing the image in post would have just made it more obvious. And that was with properly exposed images - I can only imaging it would get worse from being under-exposed when the aperture gets stopped down and the shutter speeds get faster. I think this project will live or die based on lighting if she is going to work with this camera. Nomenclature fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Jan 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Any recommended reading on how to take long exposure shots? Do I need a remote shutter controller and a filter?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
im gay posted:Any recommended reading on how to take long exposure shots? Do I need a remote shutter controller and a filter? Subject? Tripod or sandbag or just a ledge, plus delayed shutter, that's all you HAVE to have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2016 05:23
|
|
|
Nomenclature posted:For these mice which have been raised in cages, light probably won't affect then too much as long as the lights aren't generating excessive heat, so I suggested she start looking into lighting options. The lab she is going to already does mouse video, so we will see what kind of lighting they have set up. let me guess, it's the face you can get a mouse to make that's most similar to a human "this hurts" face and someone got carried away? Anyway, the 5Ds/sr are studio cameras for perfectly lit photoshoots that go on magazine covers, not for getting action shots indoors/late. Do you think it's ok to have an additional photoshoot where you just take tele shots (possibly with good lighting/flash specifically for a nice photo) in addition to adequate recordings for the actual study?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2016 11:11
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:let me guess, it's the face you can get a mouse to make that's most similar to a human "this hurts" face and someone got carried away? As for what is in the third-world lab (including whether anyone there is a good action photographer), I have no idea. Apparently they already do mouse video, but I suspect that they are just using a security camera type setup to track mouse activity level via recording movement. It's not my field, so I don't know much about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Subject? Tripod or sandbag or just a ledge, plus delayed shutter, that's all you HAVE to have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
im gay posted:Any recommended reading on how to take long exposure shots? Do I need a remote shutter controller and a filter? You only need a filter if you're trying to work with weird light sources (sodium-vapour - like many streetlamps - springs to mind). For general goofing around - light painting (wave a flashlight around in-frame during the exposure), or car lights on a road, or moving water - you don't need anything special except a solid place to put the camera. A tripod is the obvious solution, or a bag of sand / beans on a rock / fencepost / whatever will work in a pinch. I like to use the 2-second delay on my camera, that allows the vibrations from me pushing the button and the mirror flipping up to die down before the shutter opens. For longer than 30 seconds, get a cheap wired remote ($20 or less on eBay / Amazon) and go hog wild.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Oly OMD cameras all have live-bulb which will show you the picture as it's exposing as well as a phone/wifi shutter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
A couple of days ago, I walked past a local pawnshop and saw a 650D (t4i) on sale with the 18-55mm kit lens for 375NZD. That seemed too cheap, so I went back today and said that I was looking to get into photography and what was included with the camera at sticker price. I walked out 5 minutes later with a 650D, both kit lens (18-55mm + 55-250mm), 8GB SD card, a circular polarising filter that was left on the lens and an extended warranty thrown in for free. I've had the camera checked over and it seems to be OK. Felt like daylight robbery, to be honest. The only con is that there's no battery charger, but I'm not going to bitch about that. Guess I've got a brand new hobby ahead of me. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
If there's no charger chances are it was stolen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 10:02
|
|
|
I'm looking into filters, two kinds I'm looking at are ND and polarizing. Is this recommended now that I'm comfortable shooting in manual? What size of filter would I need for a 18-55mm lens?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Whether or not you need ND or polarizing filters depends entirely on what you're shooting. It's neat to have them on you though. I've seen recommendations of getting a set of 3, 6, and 10 stop ND filters if you want to do daytime long exposures. What size you need to fit your lens has nothing to do with the focal length and everything to do with the lens's ring diameter. Usually this is printed on the front of the lens. Look for a number next to the symbol for phi.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
I've gotten a good bit of use out of ND filters. They'll allow you to get long exposures during the day so you can get shots like this: Greenville Visit June 2015-5 by Will King, on Flickr Downtown Charleston-59 by Will King, on FlickrI've only recently started experimenting with polarizing filters. They'll cut down on reflections allowing you to get deeper blue skies when normally they'd be washed out.  Thanksgiving in Charleston 2015-35 by Will King, on Flickr Christmas in Greenville 2015-40 by Will King, on FlickrThe usefulness of ND filters was immediately apparent to me, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly when and when not to use polarizing filters. For the size of the filters, your lens cap should have its size listed somewhere. That size is the size of filter that will fit on the lens. Not sure if it's different for other brands, but Nikon has the size imprinted on the underside of the caps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Of my three main lenses, I have 2x 77mm and 1x72mm. Bloody typical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Of my three main lenses, I have 2x 77mm and 1x72mm. Bloody typical. http://www.amazon.com/Goja-Accessor...77+step+up+ring http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Lens-Cap-E-77-II/dp/B00A2BWBNQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452550651&sr=8-1&keywords=77mm+canon+lens+cap
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Of my three main lenses, I have 2x 77mm and 1x72mm. Bloody typical. If you're lamenting having to buy multiple ND filters, they have cheap step up rings for this very purpose. Get the largest size filters you think you'll need and then the appropriate ring for your lenses. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Step-Up-Rings/ci/420/N/4026728361 e:fb
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
It's my 18-35 DX that has it and I'm sure I read that it's susceptible to vignetting with a step up ring. Maybe it was one of the others and I've gotten wire crossed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
The sigma? The front element is like 20mm smaller than the filter thread. I guess it's possible but I don't think it's hugely likely. Main thing you'll lose is the hood, but you can buy a screw in rubber one
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Ah good stuff. I know my 10-16 Tokina definitely has issues with some filters, so as long as I base the choice around that I should be golden then. Good to know, as much as a Lee system looks lovely, it's a lot of cash too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
Just checked TDP - he said that you get a small amount of vignetting with a regular thickness CP filter , only at 18mm wide open. So a step up ring + slim filter might get you a little bit in the same situation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Not sure how your friend plans to shoot , but once you're past 1600 or 3200 , turning it up in camera vs just pushing it in raw will result in the same noise anyway (with canon sensors. With sonys it starts at base ISO like that) I'm a bit curious about the difference in ISO settings on a Sony A6000 vs say a Canon T5i. It sounds like what your saying is that going from ISO 100-1600 on the Canon won't introduce any extra noise. But with the Sony, it will gradually increase in noise from 100-1600? Or am I getting this backwards? I did notice a sharp drop in quality past ISO 3200 on the ISO comparison shots for the sony.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 00:44
|
|
|
Golluk posted:I'm a bit curious about the difference in ISO settings on a Sony A6000 vs say a Canon T5i. It sounds like what your saying is that going from ISO 100-1600 on the Canon won't introduce any extra noise. But with the Sony, it will gradually increase in noise from 100-1600? Or am I getting this backwards? I did notice a sharp drop in quality past ISO 3200 on the ISO comparison shots for the sony. This is about when an in camera ISO setting is equivalent to an underexposed photo being raised the appropriate amount of stops in a RAW processor Pretty much everyone except Canon now, puts the analog digital converter on the actual sensor assembly - so the signal doesn't have to travel before being turned into a digital signal (and thus not being susceptible to alteration from outside interference) - Canon still uses an off chip ADC, which means the signal travels as an analogue signal over some electronics pathways before being converted. No matter how well shielded, this will pick up some noise from interference while traveling. Because of this, non-Canon sensors will show the same amount of noise in these two photos: One shot at ISO 100 and underexposed 4 stops, then lifted 4 stops in a RAW converter, and another shot taken at ISO 1600 with the proper exposure. The only noise you get is the noise which was introduced at the time of image capture, regardless of which way you do it. With a Canon sensor, the ISO 100 image lifted 4 stops will have significantly worse noise , than the image taken at ISO 1600. Because in addition to the shot noise introduced at the time of capture, you have now also taken the read noise (from the signal traveling to the ADC) and amplified it by brightening the photo in your raw converter. Once Canon sensors are past ISO 1600 or so, they behave more like the on-chip ADC ones. So an ISO 1600 , underexposed and pushed 2 stops, has equivalent noise to an ISO 6400 properly exposed in camera shot. This is because there is so much shot noise at that point, that it overwhelms the read noise and drowns it out. It becomes negligible. People who take a lot of landscape photos and print them large rag on Canon sensors because of this, because they want to be able to raise the dark shadow areas of their photos without making them noisy as hell. Taking the dark black area under a bush and making it so you can see what's there is basically taking an ISO 100 image that's been underexposed and pushing it up, as per my above example. But just in one specific tonal range of the photo, rather than across the board. People who post on dpreview a lot rag on Canon sensors because of this, because they have their entire sense of self worth wrapped up in what consumer purchases they have made, and they need to tell the world they have bought the biggest and baddest toy there is like a petulant kindergarten aged child.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Ah, I think I understand now. Thanks for the ISO lesson. What I take from that, is if I'm having to resort to ISO 3200 to get -0.5 exposure on the light meter, with the expectation of bumping up brightness/contrast in the RAW afterwards, I should expect noise levels as if I had taken it at higher ISO. Of course I could always shoot things other than dimly lit bars and not have to resort to 1/90th, F3.5, and ISO 3200.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If there's no charger chances are it was stolen. This is a possibility. Another possibility is that the charger was lost, the owner of the camera couldn't be arsed to find it (or has moved repeatedly / has sketchy friends / other weird factors) or replace it, and that person wasn't that into the camera anyway. The pawn shop was close & convenient (and/or a proper camera shop that sells used gear wouldn't take one without a charger), and that was that. Nicer to think about than that somebody in your area is pining the loss of a prized possession. Post a "found" ad to your local Gumtree or whatever if you're feeling guilty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:This is a possibility. Another possibility is that the charger was lost, the owner of the camera couldn't be arsed to find it (or has moved repeatedly / has sketchy friends / other weird factors) or replace it, and that person wasn't that into the camera anyway. The pawn shop was close & convenient (and/or a proper camera shop that sells used gear wouldn't take one without a charger), and that was that. I find it hard to believe that it could be stolen because this pawn-store chain has pretty strict requirements for sellers (must provide valid photo ID), as well as cross checking serial numbers via a national database (operated by the police) so thieves are more likely to try and flog stuff online than sell via pawn-stores. But hey, maybe I'm just naive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
timrenzi574 posted:Once Canon sensors are past ISO 1600 or so, they behave more like the on-chip ADC ones. So an ISO 1600 , underexposed and pushed 2 stops, has equivalent noise to an ISO 6400 properly exposed in camera shot. This is because there is so much shot noise at that point, that it overwhelms the read noise and drowns it out. It becomes negligible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Odette posted:I find it hard to believe that it could be stolen because this pawn-store chain has pretty strict requirements for sellers (must provide valid photo ID), as well as cross checking serial numbers via a national database (operated by the police) so thieves are more likely to try and flog stuff online than sell via pawn-stores. But hey, maybe I'm just naive. I like to be optimistic. I think you got a good deal on a legit camera. Now go out and shoot it until the battery dies. Most DSLR batteries last for thousands of shutter-actuations, so order a cheap eBay / Chinese battery charger (and some aftermarket batteries, why not) for your camera and it should arrive around the time your battery is getting flat. Seriously. Go shoot pictures. Now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Just be stupid careful when it comes to chargers from Chinese knockoffs. I have a $2 Nikon charger that's only used in emergencies, as this house doesn't need to be burnt down. Again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
When testing a lens in a store to see if AF is slightly broken, is it fair to compare AF images to images that I took when focusing manually using live view? Or is some discrepancy expected?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 10:31
|
|
|
busfahrer posted:When testing a lens in a store to see if AF is slightly broken, is it fair to compare AF images to images that I took when focusing manually using live view? Or is some discrepancy expected?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
busfahrer posted:When testing a lens in a store to see if AF is slightly broken, is it fair to compare AF images to images that I took when focusing manually using live view? Or is some discrepancy expected? AF is often slightly inaccurate compared to liveview focusing, especially on all but the newest lenses. It's better to test against a different sample of the same lens, with AF microadjustment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
Speaking of AF and that sort of thing, I'm running into what I'll call.. 'unexpected performance levels' from my new-to-me (used) 7D and my trusty 400mm lens. I'm going to sit down with a focusing target, AF micro adjustment scale, tripod, tethered live view, etc. to see if I can work it out for myself, but I figured it wouldn't hurt to post this example of what I'm getting in the chance that someone here might spitball a few reasons I'm seeing this, or has seen it before. I'm really not sure if the problem lies in the camera, the lens, or me. I take a lot of pictures of birds. I usually check them at 100% because there's usually some cropping involved in producing a final image. Here's what I've noticed after reviewing 3 different sessions (follow the links and zoom in to get a better idea of the differences between the examples): About every 5th or so photo comes out looking like this. Passably sharp.  IMG_3235fp by S M, on FlickrWhile everything else comes out looking like this. Blurry. Not insanely blurry but much more than I'm used to seeing from my shots.  IMG_3236fp by S M, on FlickrOr just misses focus entirely and is also blurry.  IMG_3232fp by S M, on Flickr... And seemingly not just because the AF is locking on the wrong thing. I took 5 shots in a row of this guy (refocusing each time) and every single one is blurry. There's nothing in focus in any of them.  IMG_3072fp by S M, on FlickrThese are far from the results I get with the same lens and a 5D2, or adapted to an a6000. It generally looks to me like shake-induced blur rather than improper focus. Maybe I'm suddenly coming down with parkinsons, but I've also considered ... mirror slap? But that wouldn't cause issues at 1/800 - 1/1250 shutter speeds, would it? I don't think there's an optical problem with the lens, as I can still get it to produce sharp results from time to time. I wonder if maybe the shutter is running slow. I look at the metadata for these examples and the target shutter speed is something like 1/819. Can I trust that number to be the real measured speed of the shutter? It's not exactly 1/800 so that suggests to me that it really is accurate, which would mean the shutter is working fine. KRock says that soft photos are my fault because of my lovely technique. I don't doubt that, but I really feel like I'm holding everything about as well as I ever have. I had mixed results today, but yesterday I took 150 pictures that were all just as blurry as the second and third photos I posted above. (Sorry if this is kind of a big, whiny post to dump in this thread, but usually when I prepare something like this the process of writing it out will lead me to some realization of what the answer is, but not so this time.) SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 05:04 on Jan 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
I felt the same way about 300/4 shots on my 7D for a long time. I think it's a combination of the 1/focal rule really not leading to a 100% keeper rate, and the 7D focus system not being quite as pinpoint as it seems. Most of my examples would be small birds with nearby twigs too. It's like the focus system takes slightly closer branches into account even if they're nearby the selected single point. The kingfisher shot is just gnarly backlighting for the AF I think. It might be overwhelmed by the silhouette contrast compared to the relatively fine detail on the actual bird.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
The ones you're not happy with are fully open too, is that lens known to be particularly sharp at that aperture? The keeper is stopped down to 6.3 which might be partially affecting things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 08:56 |
|
|
looks like it's focusing in front of the bird to me (the bark there looks sharpest, although still not super great) Are you using spot focus? The 7D/70D focus points coverage area are huge, much larger than the square marks. This gives it better handoff point to point for tracking. You can see the coverage area mapped out here - http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/41174/if-the-focal-plane-is-curved-should-the-outer-af-points-work-correctly-or-front/41179#41179 Spot focus will narrow it down to just about the area marked by the square, which should help you prevent things like it picking up on a branch - Canon taking the spot focus mode out of the 70D was a terrible idea, and responsible for a good portion of the "my 70D can't focus" threads that pop up on forums constantly IMO. Try upping your shutter speed even higher too, when you have better light. I know you're already at 2x focal length , but with that high pixel density and magnification without IS you'd be surprised at the shutter speeds you really need to shoot handheld.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2016 15:28
|
|