|
um excuse me posted:The Xtreme ones are supposedly built to meet a larger temperature range. Great for things like dash cams where they can range from 0F to 150F. Interesting, but the cynic in me felt that was dubious, given that microSD cards have always been designed to sit next to warm phone batteries so you inspired me to google a little: quote:Temperature proof: quote:When it comes to flash cards, Kingston Technology is one of the most renowned brands today. Kingston offers a wide array of flash products including a wide line of micro SDs. If you are looking for a tougher kind of micro SD that can withstand harder temperatures, Kingston also got an offering for you, the Kingston Industrial Temperature microSD UHS-1. Average microSDs has operating temperature range of only -25º C to 85º C. The Industrial Temperature microSD UHS-1 has operating temperature range of as low as -40º C to 85º C. Follow us today as we check out the Kingston 64GB Industrial Temperature UHS-I Micro SD. I mean, it's been a bit cold recently, but I think I'll be okay with the standard cards.
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2018 23:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
I've generally just looked at the read and write speeds of the cards, and then googled around to figure out what my camera body/bodies need in a card to burst in RAW without being slowed down, or record video at the highest bit rate / resolution / frame rate. Generally, it's not the ultra mega xxxtreme version.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
my photos are so lovely they need the xxxtreeme cards to contain them
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
dakana posted:I've generally just looked at the read and write speeds of the cards, and then googled around to figure out what my camera body/bodies need in a card to burst in RAW without being slowed down, or record video at the highest bit rate / resolution / frame rate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Well, guess I'm glad I asked. Obviously the feedback in this thread so far isn't on board with what the off-site posters were saying about those heads. I've only had a Pentax 6x7 since August but I took it with me on a trip to Singapore with the Mefoto Globetrotter tripod (someone mentioned it a few pages ago as well). I used the tripod a few times for some night shots and it felt sturdy enough for 16s exposures. I haven't gotten my stuff developed/scanned yet so I won't be able to tell how sharp everything is, but it didn't look wobbly at all when I was shooting. The ballhead was easy enough to use and it didn't feel like the camera would slip once I tightened it in place... the only issue I had was that when trying to shoot vertically, the camera would dip a little inward due to its weight so I would have to adjust it a little to line it all up. It's rated for 26 lbs which is 2x as much as your current tripod, which should be enough for the 6x7.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 08:03
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:Even if your camera can't make use of all the speed, it's nice to have a fast card for the quickest Lightroom import when you get home having filled a bunch of cards. The bottleneck for me isn't the import - though that does take considerable time - it's the transfer through a USB port. For me, it's 2 USB ports: one from the card reader to the computer, the second from the computer to the portable HDD where I dump all my photos so I can ignore them both at home and at work. Question for those running superfast solid-state drives for their photos: what's your speed bottleneck? Is it getting the photos on to that SSD, or bringing them in to work on in your software of choice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
If you're still using USB 2.0, you're realistically only going to see about 5.5MB/s transfer rate. "Hi speed" 2.0 could hit around 50MB/s I think. So yeah it's gonna be dismal. SSD won't help much with that. USB 3.0 or newer will be several times faster.. 3.0 tops out at 640MB/s and with an SSD you might actually get pretty close to that number.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
I store my photos on NAS (1 Gbps connection) and most of the time I let Lightroom import directly there, only when I'm importing shitload of photos I put them first to SSD, I find that the speed difference isn't really that big. What does drive me up the wall is Lightroom building previews, have to make them or working and moving between photos is painfully slow, and it takes AGES. This is one thing I miss about Capture One, it was so fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
ugh whatever jeez posted:I store my photos on NAS (1 Gbps connection) and most of the time I let Lightroom import directly there, only when I'm importing shitload of photos I put them first to SSD, I find that the speed difference isn't really that big. What does drive me up the wall is Lightroom building previews, have to make them or working and moving between photos is painfully slow, and it takes AGES. This is one thing I miss about Capture One, it was so fast. I import to the SSD, build the previews and then move them. I am sure that this is a faster method.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:23
|
|
|
There's no way to get away from generating previews hell, but importing to SSD, generating smart smart previews to an internal SSD then unplugging the originals is the least painful way to edit in LR. Wasn't my idea but someone posted it and I bought in and it's great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
xzzy posted:If you're still using USB 2.0, you're realistically only going to see about 5.5MB/s transfer rate. "Hi speed" 2.0 could hit around 50MB/s I think. So yeah it's gonna be dismal. SSD won't help much with that. I currently import to a mechanical drive but plan to add a second SSD to act a working area for my recent work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
spog posted:I import to the SSD, build the previews and then move them. For me the bottleneck seems to be my i5 CPU as LR hits 100% on all 4 cores. When I work with entire event library yeah I do that on SSD as it makes editing snappier but it does not help rendering previews much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Are we down to measuring depth of field in thousandths of an inch yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2018 14:28
|
|
|
quote:One can only imagine just how big and heavy a lens with an aperture of f0.7 would be, and how insanely difficult it would be to use given the extreme narrow depth of field. I can see a lens like this being attached to a camera that is planted firmly on a tripod. Whether this lens comes to fruition or not, it’s hard to deny that these are very exciting times for the world of photography. With technology being pushed to the limits, our options as creatives will just continue to grow. When someone asks if I’m a photographer I’m going to get offended and say “actually, I’m a creative?” I’m also going to put “creative” on my card. It might get confusing since the word is an adjective but it will be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 04:01
|
|
|
Sounds pointless on full frame, but a 25/.7 on m43 would be actually pretty sweet. I don't know enough about optical engineering, but there are 50/1.4's out there that are decently sharp wide open, so would it be that much of a stretch to imagine a 2X crop factor, <f/1 normal prime that's generally usable at max aperture?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Sounds pointless on full frame, but a 25/.7 on m43 would be actually pretty sweet. Currently there's only the Zeiss 50/0.7 but they could only make 10 of them. I suppose even a 25mm version would be pretty hard to make as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 11:31
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:Sounds pointless on full frame, but a 25/.7 on m43 would be actually pretty sweet. I haven't used the Oly 25mm f/1.2 very much wide open but it's been pretty sharp at almost any aperture that I've noticed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 16:22
|
|
|
Just got an oly 60mm f/2.8 macro for work 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
58mm kinda sucks for astrophotography but the 0.7 aperture would be pretty goddamn sweet. Buy 9 copies and mount the cameras in a grid then stitch them together later, hope you caught a meteor. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Cool. I’m leaning towards a Godox. Just something to cover as a light full flash. i used lemonaid for my renters insurance.. If your gear is worth more than a grand you list the price and they'll give you an update on their cost. It's like a buck or two a month extra I think.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
Are any of the multitude of Yashica Mat models to be generally avoided? It's my understanding that the 124(G) was the last iteration, so should that be the default choice?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
There's an "internet rumor" that the 124G is not made to the same standards as earlier models. I'm pretty sure that bullcrap, they're fine cameras once serviced. The Yashica Mat 24 was designed to use only 220 film so probably best to avoid that and the Yashica 44 uses 127 film. Otherwise any mat that isn't outright junked will be a fine camera if you get it serviced by a good shop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
Ooh. Yeah, the stuff about the 24 and the 44 are definitely good to keep in mind. Can't remember if I read it here or heard it somewhere else, but some claim that the 124G is overvalued, e.g. compared to the 124, because it has gold battery contacts (dunno if this is true or not). Regardless, I'd probably be using some kind of external meter, so I don't really care if what I end up with has one or not. If the Mats' core functionality are pretty consistent across the line, then all the better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 20:41
|
|
|
There's little to no practical difference in the guts of Yashica Mats. Even in the later cameras the light meter is just bolted on with no coupling between it and the shutter which is the same old Copal they'd been using for decades. The lenses are all the same aside from very early Mats that have Lumaxar instead of Yashinon lenses (don't know what the difference is). You'll see differences in trim and the odd extra feature (double exposures are possible on the 124G but not the OG Mat) but internally its the same parts. The most important thing is that it works and/or won't be prohibitively expensive to get into working order. They'll all take the same picture in the end. This site goes way down the rabbit hole if you're interested. Just an aside about minor differing features. My mat has a late serial number (1972'ish) but has an old style lens board cover plate with the Leica ring shutter button. Either it was replaced during servicing at some point in the past or the factory had a bunch of those plates still lying around. Pain in the rear end sometimes though since it doesn't take a standard cable release. Have to use an adapter that I always end up losing. Sauer fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jan 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Definitely gonna check out that link. How're you liking yours so far?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Its a good camera. Light but still built like a tank. Square composition is a lot of fun and probably my favorite thing about it. Waist level finder is a lie if you're wearing it on a strap around your neck, but on a tripod its very comfortable to be able to look down into the finder instead of squatting in front of it like an SLR. If I'll be shooting long exposures I grab the Mat just for that. The lens is very multi-functional. Happily ranges from soft and swirly wide open to sharp as a knife stopped down a bit. Does flare with any bright light in front of it but its a soft "vintage" looking flare not bright refractions. A good hood will knock that down a lot. Most folks have no idea what it is so its a good icebreaker if street portraiture is your thing. I do often get older folks coming up to me to talk about it. What I don't like is the finder is on the darker side. Its never stopped me from taking a photo but I have had moments with lower contrasts scenes wondering if what I'm looking at really is in focus or not. With higher contrast focus will just "pop" as you rack the knob. I have made numerous less than ideal shots because I forgot the viewing lens is two inches above the taking lens. Its easy to cut the tops of heads off if you're not careful.     tl;dr: Is good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 01:18
|
|
|
Oh, wow. You’re getting some really nice shots with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 02:03
|
|
|
Was that last shot handheld, or on a tripod? I'm just getting used to my 124 and trying to get a feel for what I can pull off handheld. The shutter doesn't move the camera an inch, which is nice, but I still don't trust my hands. I've heard letting the camera hang from your neck strap can be good for stabilizing, as the weight of it acts as a pseudo tripod. No clue how true that is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 11:39
|
|
|
That was on a tripod. The Mat is usable to pretty slow speeds if you brace yourself well. If my subject isn't going to be moving I almost always use the self timer even when hand holding it. My model has the older shutter button which has a pretty long throw and I find I tend to hook the camera to the right when trying to press it all the way down.  There's a ring that threads around the button which I leave off since there's a cable release attached half the time. Need to replace that leatherette one of these days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2019 12:32
|
|
|
Something about the rendering of artificial lights at night through certain vintage coated lenses onto 120 color negative film is truly beautiful and unique if shot and scanned properly. The Yashica evidently has that look.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 04:58
|
|
|
I forget if it was this thread or the Film thread (or maybe Street thread), but I recall someone mentioning how TLR cameras are nice in street photography because people don't recognize them as cameras and thus don't freak out around them; this has made me curious about getting one. Yashica Mats definitely seem to be common in my brief ebay search for "tlr camera", and the past few posts sound like a very good review so I'll definitely be paying attention to them. My main question is, are there any other TLR cameras that tend to be dirt cheap yet fairly decent nowadays?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 06:38
|
|
|
pseudorandom posted:I forget if it was this thread or the Film thread (or maybe Street thread), but I recall someone mentioning how TLR cameras are nice in street photography because people don't recognize them as cameras and thus don't freak out around them; this has made me curious about getting one. Most medium/large format cameras will accomplish this, although TLR's are probably the best. I've had a few Chinese TLR's (Seagull, Mudan) which were cheap and totally decent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
Minolta autocord is v good Rolleicords are good I had the ricohmatic 225 and it’s v good People like the Mamiya c series but they’re heavy. Old tlrs do not have good lens coatings so they suck at shooting towards the sun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 08:37
|
|
|
So I’m going to a dog event the rescue I’m involved in puts on each year... essentially lots of people hanging out with their hounds in a field, doing games, costume competitions etc. I always take my camera and a 50-150 and take as many photos as I can to share back to the group. They tend to do slideshows and the like at auctions and events and nice to see my stuff go up. The only other people doing proper photography are local press etc so I like to put the effort in as people always love seeing the photos of their dogs. Given the situation - Florida in the morning to early afternoon so likely to be pretty bright - is there any advantage to getting a light modifier and using my flash or am I likely to just find it frustrating as I’m not able to rattle off short bursts? I only have a basic Yongnuo manual flash and I’m looking at the on camera soft box style things. I mainly use the telephoto end of my 50-150. I have a really small diffuser thing I’ve used before but more when I’m in control of the situation rather than running around like a madman. Kind of thing I usually end up shooting from a Facebook album, nothing special but hey:  I’m siding with not bothering with light gear for this personally, although I’ll probably get one for future use.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
I always use the basic pop-up or included clip-on flash (the kind that doesn't have an independent power supply) for outdoor fill when doing events on sunny or slightly overcast days. But in your situation I'd have three concerns about doing that: 1.) Limited range. The basic flash might not have enough reach to significantly affect a subject shot from far away at 150mm. 2.) No high speed sync. If you can and do want to shoot at f/2.8, you might be limited by flash sync speed, depending on your camera and how sunny it is outside. 3.) Dog fur. If I catch a shiny human eye or tooth or whatever with the flash, it's easy to fix in Photoshop. Those lustrous coats might really look like they've been flashed, in a bad way, and you couldn't really fix it. But I don't know, I've never shot dogs like that before. SMERSH Mouth fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Jan 25, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 02:15
|
|
|
Yeah the range is definitely something I was considering even with the mounted flash. It’s a Nikon so max shutter is 1/250, I usually shoot faster than that in case of movements/my own shakiness, at around f4 for a bit more lens optimalness and to get those long snooters a bit more in focus. Maybe I’ll just take my flash and mess about with it on and off, then at least I can see what works best.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
Also might want to consider or ask some folks about whether or not it would be situationally appropriate. Dog moms get their children to sit for professional portraits with studio strobes all the time I'm sure, but that's a controlled situation. It's possible that in a stimulating environment around a bunch of other dogs, some might not respond well to a powerful flash. More likely they'll be too distracted to care but since it sounds like rescue/shelter dogs might be involved I'd probably at least consider the possibility.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 04:30
|
|
|
Yeah very true and definitely something I’ll consider. Never wanna upset anyone or anyhound. Maybe I’ll steal away a few (there’s an adoptables tent and the photos on the website are never great) and spend some time to do a few more set-up pics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
I've only realized this in the past couple months, even though I've been practicing photography as a hobby for more than 10 years, but my photos usually suck because I rarely use a flash and generally feel uncomfortable doing so. However, I'm trying to improve a bit so, how often do all of you use flash for sunny, outdoor shoots? I'd naively assume that a flash outside of macro distances would barely make a difference. Will a pop-up or cheap hot-shoe flash really make a difference for things more than 6ish feet away on a sunny day?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Using a flash in the sun usually means it'll have to have high-speed sync, so that you can use a faster shutter speed to overpower the ambient. But one thing I forgot about HSS until I tried to use it in a real-world setting for the first time is that it dramatically reduces the output of the flash. A regular hot shoe flash might not be enough, depending on how you're going to use it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2019 06:10
|
|
